skippydiesel

So what additional capability does Out confer to an ADS -B , S transponder? It already gives - location, ID, altitude

Thanks RossK, "1090ES ADS-B Out capable" - so the word "capable" does not mean that Out is activated? From the pdf you kindly supplied- "The 1090MHz system is a simple one-way transmission of data from the aircraft (ADS-B OUT) to ground stations, which simply listen to transmissions and forward them to ATC systems." My understanding - My Trig is broadcasting Out?

I am hoping that a knowledgeable person can explain to me the following (in simple terms): I have a Trig TT22 transponder - in my ignorance I understood it to be ADS -B Out. Seems I am mistaken about the Out part. The specifications for my Trig say "1090ES ADS-B Out capable" - does this mean that something need to be added/enabled, to have Out?

Great flight - The Oaks to Cowra yesterday. A little choppy /turbulent on the way there at 4500 ft but tolerable. Cowra extraordinarily busy with training, Ag & helicopter movements. Despite highlighting right circuit for runway 15 on my ERSA printout, I managed to do a left - apologies to all. Return flight via Lithgow & Warragamba was spectacular - smooth as silk at 9500 ft for a ground speed 168 knots (indicated 124 Kn) My thanks to Stuart for a friendly welcome & chat.

Sorry about the mussels (muzzles😁) - the combination of dyslexia/auto spell and passion sometimes gets the better of me. Still mussels are full of all sorts of good nutrition with which to build the energy to fight the good fight

It disturbs me to think that democracy/the will of the people, has sunk to the point where we say "c'est la vie" or worst still, believe in some special power/knowledge of the "authorities" that must be accepted without question. The likes of the SP Editor, spouting the party line/propaganda is an insult to journalism and the readers intelligence AND effectively mussels the potential for airing dissenting opinions.

This letter was nether published in Sport Pilot or responded to by the Editor : Re: Your response to my letter on “All The Way Up” & “Across The Guts” (SP 108) Dear Editor, ...................................................................................................................... On ASIC: Your statement; “……. we are part of a global aviation network that starts in our small airfields and we must meet the necessary requirements.” You have made a linkage, in this statement that, does not exist. ASIC, as it applies to Australian private pilots, wishing to access small RPT/Security Controlled fields, is an anomaly, who’s like does not exist anywhere in the “global aviation network”. Further; A network implies an interconnected system, working to some common goal. This is clearly not the case. ASIC is a stand-alone charge/restriction on private pilots, wishing access to certain fields, that has no benefit (goal). True! we must “…meet the necessary requirements” however there is no practical rationale for being obliged to do so. 23 years ago, when ASIC was first implemented, I like so many other pilots applied for & received their card. 9/11 Twin Towers attack (the motive behind ASIC) had us all worried. ASIC seemed reasonable at the time; its continued existence no longer does. The decades since have clearly demonstrated that Australia is not a prime target for terrorist attack on/by aviation. Even if it were, technological developments have provided much more cost effective and easier methods of attack, that ASIC will not, in any way, deter ie ASIC is redundant and has been for the best part of 23 years. From faulty memory, SP has had two articles on ASIC – neither was convincing. Probably because both authors (expert authorities?) failed utterly, to demonstrate their own support for the program. The continued application of ASIC, as it applies to Australian private pilots, wishing to access small RPT/Security Controlled fields, is an abuse of power (I note, that failure to comply, may attract a $5,000 fine – insult to injury!). You, as Editor of SP, should be taking every opportunity, to voice what the majority of RAA pilots believe – ASIC should be abolished. Regards ...........

No experince using "slime" in anything larger/faster turning than a mower tyre - it worked well. I share your out of balance concern BUT am more concerned that the temporary fix would get me off the ground, only to later land with a flat- could be nasty/expensive!😈

Was in my favorite mower/chainsaw shop the other day. They sell & use the slime type products. Topic of slime/pressure packs came up - they said it does not work very well on inner tubes (as opposed to tubeless). They didnt know why but speculated that it somehow does not adhere as well to the tube material. My aircraft tyres are tubed - I carry both green slime, pressure pack and a motorcycle patch repair kit. Contemplating ditching the slime/pressure pack and carrying a spare tube instead. What thinks the Forum???

Always used float bowl cork gaskets in the past (as shown in Moneybox photo above) - think Rotax supplied ones are now "Viton" or similar material. The Viton ones are a lot less pron to installation damage and seal better as well.

That's a shame - without a test pilot it's quite a gamble. Any chance you can contact the "guy" and get further details ie first hand account of fitting & using???😈

Moneybox - Have you actually fitted the BMW/Bing carburettor parts to your Rotax /Bing??

Onetrack Considering the number of vehicles stolen, robberies etc (not getting int assaults) and allowing for the likelihood that your list of stolen aircraft is a small sample, you are talking about 6 aircraft stolen over 51 years. In the scheme of things, to me, thats a rare /infrequent (call it what you will) occurrence.

I hope, whoever gets it, knows that they will be up for at least $10k in covering/painting costs (without labour) - my experince is now quite old, so could be a lot more certainly not less. Then there is the engine and any airframe/instrument/etc fix/replace. Even if free, won't be a gift.

Scaled Composites Model 81 Catbird Powered by 210 hp - I would expect it to be fast - 181 knots not bad for a 4 seater. I wonder what its stall speed is ? - with all those lifting surfaces I would hope low.

Otto Celera 500L If its performance claims are even close to being true, this is one extraordinary aircraft. A perfect demonstration of what not being wedded to traditional designs, airframe materials and engine can achieve.

Until I saw the last photo (above) I did not appreciate how tiny the Ligeti Stratos was. What; Were the engine options? Was the performance?

So often the response is a knee jerk overreaction. The vested interests (politicians/security organisations/etc) are likely to will blow it up, to be somehow showing our vulnerability to a Sept 11 event. The reality this is a very rare event - an idiot steels an aircraft once in "a blue moon". This is a spontaneous , probably alcohol fueled stupid decision by a young male, nothing like the detailed, extended planning and considered terrorist attack on the Twin Towers/USA

Bit cynical - so many promising engines have come & then gone. I have always been a small bore/high compression/ revving supporter. Seems to me that despite the added complexity & weight of the necessary gear system, to keep the prop within its most efficient and low noise speed - the the potential for fuel efficiency & lower pollution seems to lie in this direction, at least for the sub 300 hp engines.

To me it's the post WW2 dominance of Uncle Sam, in the aircraft world, that has suppressed cost effective alternatives to the big bore, slow revving, air cooled engine. Rotax being the exception.

Wow!!!!!

Wow! Do you really only need to have 100 hrs PIC, to start an instructor rating??

Hi Garfly, Some years back, I saw the Victa Aircruiser, when I landed at Merimbula, NSW. Just happened to park close to the hanger it was in. Had a chaste about it , with a very friendly LAIM working in the hanger. Impressive/nice looking aircraft (could do with wheel fairings). A great pity it didnt go into production.

Hi Garfly, Had a quick look at the start of this video, where the commentator lists the weight of Rotax 912 ULS fluids/components - To say the list is odd, would be an understatement; Items such as engine mounting, throttle cables are not part of any engines/weight - these are airframe components and common to all engines. Coolant & heater hose??? are these not one in the same? What are water cooling components? (hoses again?) The above are part of the single heaviest contributor (not counting the engine itself) / Oil quantity /weight is close to double what it should be. Could be a mistakes , could be intentional, either way it makes any claims/comparisons suspect. Seems to me that the only way to compare engine weights,is to take the engines, all their operating bits (including liquids) out of flying aircraft - weigh the lot and then publish the findings - anyone done that?

Neil - I don't much like the serrated push fit connectors - check out the one that I illustrated. This sort of connecter is almost bound to leak over time. When you match the hose ID, with the fitting OD, the clamp is just there for security (not leak prevention). The best fittings, have one raised ring, slightly larger than the ID of the pipe and a plain shaft the same OD as the ID as the hose. the clamp should be fitted close to the raised ring to prevent slippage. The aviation non return valve has a very low opening pressure -what do your new units open at? Test your new units at almost empty tank - remember the pressure will drop as the tank level gets lower.