nong

The ratio of momentum to drag is the thing. The traditional ultralight with a sailing boat structure typically suffers a massive drag rise as its speed through the air increases.

Hey Rory....Is'nt that 80 PSI multiplied by the number of square inches of the cylinder bore ? Have you seen what 80 PSI can do to human flesh and bone. Respect....

I was wondering if any of you spotted our Tech Managers absurd claim that Houdinis Voisin weighed 3,129.8 kg (6,900 lbs)!!! This is one of those times where history that is wrong gets repeated and becomes accepted truth. For example, this 'fact' is repeated on Wikipedia. I was, however, a bit stunned that this was published as truth by our TECHNICAL Manager. Anyway, we are then told that these early machines, judging by the Voisin, would be too heavy for RAAus. This is not correct. If the thing weighed 3,129.8 kg then its power loading with the 60 hp E.N.V. would be 52.16 kg/hp (115lbs/hp).!!!! Magic would be needed to make it fly...........or it didn't. Without belaboring the point, a little research shows that Houdinis machine weighed around 550 to 580 kgs (1212 to 1279 lbs) and had about 431 square feet of wing area. The power loading therefore was a much more reasonable 21 lbs/hp with a gossamer wing loading of say 2.9 lbs/sq. foot. These figures are not very different to a Wheeler Scout and the performance would have been similar. Too heavy for 95.10 but definately one of ours!

Re. page 13 of our August RAAus mag..... Either Houdini had magic powers OR ....Gabriel Voisin new something about aircraft design that needs to be re-discovered! or... Oops.!

Any work pilot would recognise that the Ruskis technique was correct. It is one thing to pilot an aircraft, but quite another to handle an overloaded work-horse in hot thin air. Speed is mandatory...... Climb is optional !

Weight limits are an outdated concept. Once upon a time, PPL and CPL holders were limited to 12,500 lbs. This later became 5,700 kg. At the time these limits served a purpose. CASA has recognised that this purpose no longer exists, so neither do the limits. I dare to think that so called 'recreational aviation' can be similarly set free. I must confess that I am perplexed that any of you would want ANY weight restriction. Would it not be reasonable to go to UNLIMITED weight, whilst, for good safety and political reasons, retaining the two person limit and the 45 kt stall thing. This would put a stop to the endless push for the next weight limit. As I see it, it would, of course, continue to be OK to operate to an agreed reduced max AUW, as is often done now, if that was needed so as to meet the stall speed limit with any particular type. The Antonov AN2 would probably be the biggest ultralight (!) under that scenario. There is no reason that this type of machine ( being the probable extreme example ) could not be owner maintained. As with any owner maintenance on ANY aircraft, additional help and resources would be brought in as and when necessary. So it's no problem then, Right?

Hey Phil If you run out of ideas, try closing up the spark plug gaps. I think the book figure is 24 thou / .6mm. Bringing the gaps down to 20 thou / .5mm made all the difference. Cheers

The long established 5700 kg limit has indeed been ditched as it is no longer needed. The limits of each licence type are now defined by other means such as whether the aircraft is multi-crew.

Phil. The actual factory stuff is WOTAN brand Cloth Tape. I bought some at the local newsagent and the familiar OLYMPIC stationery brand is also marked, together with WOTAN, inside the cardboard inner roll. I use metho, a rag and a little elbow grease but some other solvent may well work better for all I know. You will need to unscrew the hinge retention pieces for a quality job. Prior to applying tape the elevator should be trimmed full NOSE DOWN. You can apply the tape TAUGHT with the elevator in this position and you will find that the tape slackens as the elevator is raised. When applying tape you will find that the hinge wire that sticks up will fairly easily pearce the tape as needed. Do each side, leaving the section behind the fuselage until last. Use three short lengths of tape to cover this section because of the curvature you are working with. Replace the hinge retention pieces, double checking that the retaining screws are firm. Cheers

Hullo Shags. After looking at your posts........... Do you want this so much that you are prepared to vomit blood? Are you swatting Commercial subjects NOW, at home, so that you can knock the exams over BEFORE you spend dough on flying? Are you holding down three jobs to raise the dough? Are you sweeping hangar floors and cleaning aircraft for free, to ensure that, when the time comes, YOU will be "Johnny on the spot"? Does flying come before eating? If so............you are making your own luck.........more power to ya. If not...........stick to accounting. Cheers

The tailplane is mounted very close to the ground and you're at the other end. Easily damaged against obstacles if you forget. Saphires are sometimes divergent in pitch.....mildly pitch unstable. No big deal, slow divergence, but P500,s advice to keep a relaxed hand on the stick is good. The flat efficient glide means that you will be lower for a given distance from your touch down point than you might be used to. Look out for obstructions! Take plenty of juice so that you can go around as often as necessary without worrying about your fuel state. Take note of the pilot weight limits....you may need ballast or a crash diet. Relax and take your time. Let the plane do the work. Enjoy! Nong

Lets cut to the chase. Engineering calculations and ground based tests must ultimately be put to the acid test. This takes place IN THE AIR. Reputable firms conduct these tests PRIOR to releasing aircraft for public consumption. Why are we not seeing a member of the Heintz family donning a chute and then diving one of these crates to at least VD (with slack cables for good measure)? At speed the pilot could wiggle the stick with vigour.....trepidation?....to see what happens. On the next dive ( if he gets that far ) some stick force per G testing could take place. If the crate folded up we would surely toast the bloke for his courage. If it stayed together we would admire him for taking decisive action to prove his case.

Hey Driz Its looks like fun to land a cub in the rocks at nil ground speed and to take off at Valdez in 79 feet.......yes, great sport. You are looking at a lot of wing area lifting a bare bones airframe and sometimes with a big engine to add to the thrill. Hang on. Big wing? No weight? Isn't that just like a real ultralight and with the SAME RESULT in terms of field length required? Theres no magic here, only the usual realities. Big flap deflections will shift a lot of air downward and make a lot of lift for a given airspeed. This can only work when you have spare grunt to drag that exposed flap area through the air. Guess what? Old "Got Rocks" is a pretty light, stripped out Cub carrying no payload. The only flab on that Cub is the heavy bushwheel set up and "borer prop". He probably suffers fuselage cracking and has been pretty smart in running an uncovered structure. So, what about professional Cub drivers carrying a real payload? It would be hard to go past the hard working agricultural pilots who inhabited Aus. and NZ in earlier times. Those PA-18A 135s and 150s were typically taking off at all up weights around 1000 to 1100 kg vs my quick estimate of 570 kg for " Got Rocks". Ag pilots never used full flap for take-off because there was barely enough thrust to fly, let alone drag flaps through the air. "Got Rocks" has the spare thrust to drag the flaps because less power is needed to accellerate the lighter weight. I should also mention that the flap drag for a given setting is a lot lower at the slow lift-off speed of the lighter aircraft. Cheers Nong

Of course Walter is right. Porsche were in the thick of EVO development. Bale out CreZ...you're going down in flames !!

I'm sure Ben would like a VC! "Councillor Ben Buckley VC" has a certain ring.

Speaking of Tasman crossings.......Ben Buckley went from the bottom corner of our mainland, non-stop to Haast ( NZ West coast, South Island ) in a lightwing. That was hard core because at 65-70 kts any unplanned for headwind is a disaster. I think Ben's machine was 582 powered. Am I right? Makes an island hop in a J230 a relative doddle, but still adventurous.

Hullo fellas I started this thread to express an opinion that maybe "no passengers" until resolved might be a good idea. Its great to know that the designers sons (?) say that they are "on the job" or something similar. "they would say that, wouldnt they" comes to mind. But hey its fun to speculate....after all Mr Heintz has, as I understand it, speculated that there is no problem. He is obviously a god.....and does seem to have picked up a good few deciples. Therefore, he is obviously right. ! As a relative lowlife I can but review the evidence and come out with what I reckon. I judge these accidents to be the result of an airframe that is likely understrength for its operating limits ( weight/speeds ) combined with a pitch control system that needs redesign in relation to its human interface characteristics. In other words I suspect that the pitch control system, as is, makes it too easy to load up the structure. Stiffening the wings is surely good. Lets see if they go the full job and revise the pitch system and longitudinal characteristics next?

Hullo Captain! At the CASA site you could read CAAP No.Airways -3(2) Standards and practices for Certified Air/Ground Radio Services. "6.1 The decision to use, or not to use, information provided by a CA/GRO rests with the pilot in command. So it's CTAF ® procedures with no denial of access, if that was your thought. Cheers Fred

Just want to draw your attentions to the reality that another 601XL folded up on November the 6th, killing the sole occupant during a cross country flight during which visual met. conditions prevailed. NTSB Ident. CEN10FA042. ON BEHALF OF PASSENGERS In light of the ongoing carnage..... Please be fair by not flying with passengers. You know it would be wrong..............

Hullo Ian I think you would be crossing the line in trying to involve RAAus in what is a private commercial venture. RAAus has published a syllabus for would be authors to follow and that must be the limit of its involvement. When ever RAAus starts picking favourites to support, it heads down that slippery slope of poor business ethics. It could be justly accused of nepotism by competing text authors and suppliers. You would need to resign your post with RAAus, but even then, surely your desire to add yet another text to the marketplace does not mean that RAAus should use scarce resources to help you. Please don't view my comments here as an attack. I just don't want you to get into sticky mud. Regards Fred

What a great thread! Come on you blokes, let's hear your Bill Morris stories.....we know you want to...... My experience was that he was a fine and charming host............. Bill is certainly a 'goer'. Did anyone ever actually buy a 'TOW-MOW'? Does anyone know why he was piloting an aircraft across the Timor Sea with a gun to his head? What about the tourist vessel twenty kliks out to sea off Queensland? A Thruster approached. Then the engine spluttered and quit...... Confession. I once bought a plane off Bill..........and.........truthfully........was happy enough with what I got.

Er, Ahlocks. The babes in the woods might also be worth a mention. PS I no longer operate a 'recreational' flying school. After all, what clout would that have in the Wagga environment? No, these days I run a School of Piloting, specializing in the core primary skills and disciplines required of the twenty first century aviation professional. See. Much better.

Good conclusions Captain. What a glorious event it was....thanks to the WIRADJURI PEOPLE apparently. Hmmm....just looking at my invite. It says "showcase of the Wagga Wagga Airport Master Plan". Huh? Its OK though because it says that something is "bigger than the bottom line". That must be good, would'nt you think? After five networking ( with canapes and drinks ) looks like the real solution and if we all don our dayglo vests that should take care of any safety issues. And what WERE those girls talking about?

Some rules in aviation, as in other fields, make sense when first promulgated but over time become outmoded. The ban on aerobatics is one such rule. At the time these ANOs were written, many ultralights had weak structures, floppy aerofoils, flutter issues and insufficient dynamic characteristics to enable aerobatics. Also, our first rule set prohibited flight above 300 feet AGL. So in that environment OF COURSE aerobatics were outlawed....it was sensible and reasonable. We have moved along. As a body charged with regulating so called 'recreational' flying it is well past the time when RAA should have had a go at getting the ban lifted. Aerobatics are a core activity of recreational flying E.G. Mucking about with and getting a few thrills from aeroplanes. History shows that rules sometimes get steam-rolled by what is actually practised. An example was the rule that VFR pilots couldn't fly at night. This rule was widely ignored by a fair cross section of 'bush bandits' as it unduly restricted operations. The rule-makers gave up and made night VFR legal under a simple rule set. PROHIBITION invites disobedience. DISOBEDIENCE is often the opening move to bring about BENEFICIAL CHANGE. Legalities aside, the line between an aerobatic and a non-aerobatic aircraft is not clear in a technical sense. What can be worked out is that different aircraft have different aerobatic capabilities ranging from none to highly capable. In the absence of an enabling set of rules, the flyer works it out himself...best he/she can. A set of rules would lead to aircraft labelled as 'aerobatic' and supplied with pilots notes advising on entry speeds, limit loads, loading information, etc. The message is: WE NEED A RULE SET. Don't shoot the messenger! P.S. It is incorrect to claim that looping or rolling a Jabiru will cause overstress. You can loop a Jab whilst keeping speed within the green arc and not getting within a bulls roar of the published (modest) limit load. Structural damage? No chance! HOWEVER......any plane, AEROBATIC OR NOT, will break if you go too fast and maybe throw in some control movements to twist the structure. But hey, we aren't allowed to provide training for our aerobatic pilots, are we. Better to bury our heads in the sand and berate them as 'fools'. Who remembers those 'fools' who flew the early ultralights. Well those 'fools' are now revered as our 'pioneers'. How the wheel turns!

Humble apologies to your instructor, Darky. Cheers Nong