pylon500

There have been various attempts to modernise the AN-2 over the years; Watch the video here;

Just as a point of interest, the only strut here that is really going to do anything is the vertical one, during (heavy?) landings. As such, it should be up against the riveted tang, and then the horizontal strut. As shown above, the vertical strut has a bit of leverage at bending/breaking the bolt. I also think that only a thin, if any, washer should be put between the tang and the eye fitting, keeping the shear as close as possible. Just my 2¢ as an L2...

Who were you asking?

As mentioned by TEX, the (broken) part you have, was the single eye end of a stainless steel boating turnbuckle, typical hardware for early ultralights. What you should be replacing with is a cad plated steel turnbuckle pin eye, as opposed to a cable eye, which has a bigger hole. If you have a 10/32 (3/16th) thread, and a 3/16th hole for the joining bolt, you would be looking for an AN165-16RL. If you enter this number into the Aircraft Spruce website, the image you get looks like the stainless steel version. If ordering, try by phone, and just check you are getting the cad plated version. Have a look here; http://spenceraircraft.com/ms21254-3rl-turnbuckle-eye-end-for-pin-clip-locking-10-32-right-long-alt-an165-16rl.html Not cheap unfortunately. There is a shorter version, which would be an, AN165-16RS.

If you're thinking of Ollie's Hornets, he's actually in the silver hangar next door, followed by a parachute operation, then Gary Morgans hangar (yellow doors). There used to be a Harvard living in the blue hangar, but haven't seen it for a while, just an almost finished Esqual/Lightning and one of Ollie's customer Hornets awaiting delivery. In front of those hangars is the new space for more hangars (if you've got the money....)

Not trying to gloat (especially for people with long trips just to get to a strip), but I just walk out the back door, up to my hangar, and when ready just taxi out onto Taree Airport and go. Compared to others, I guess I can't complain about the grass runway next to my hangar continually being closed... My place is the blue roofed house and hangar in foreground.

Can't find any photos of the Cri-Cri being towed aloft. Bit disappointed to learn that, but as I've noted in other posts, all the Hoo-Har is a bit moot when Maccready did it without batteries back in 1981! Stumbled upon the MW-8 the other day by accident, and was intrigued. It's now hanging up in a museum somewhere, and looked good till I found some close-ups (glasswork is a bit ratty). Don't know about the power/drivetrain problems?, just looked like a Rotax 503 to me. It also only looked like a single seater, not a lot different to our Sapphire. MW-8, and a bit of story; http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/soaring/16667-practicality-ultralight-glider-6.html Winton Sapphire. There's even a bit of resemblance to the Sapphire follow-on, the Ultrabat. The MW-8 may have been a bit more stable with a higher, or T tail. OK, back to thread...

Single piston with a head at each end seems the way to go. What I don't understand is why the animation only shows generating a current in one direction? Shouldn't it be generating an AC current with a changing polarity in each direction?

To hell with diesels, I just want one of these 140hp 912UL motors!!!

I've always used that technique for that reason, and another; A prop is not just a disc, it has depth, so when flicking from the front (even as he says with your fingers not hanging past the trailing edge), your fingers are still as far into the disc depth as they can get. If flicking from behind, your fingers are minimally into the disc depth, and if you're very slow, you will only be hit by the back of the blade, not the leading edge. You also possibly have better access to throttle and mag switches.

Yep, hand start two strokes?, no problem. But a 912 , no way. Not even with a big ol' wooden prop, let alone one of them multi blade composite things.

Actually there are numerous disadvantages to using these type of cable. First off yes, they are technically a cable, so work best in tension. This is where they work well in being able to go around corners simply without pulleys, guides and fairleads, and pull on a control surface. However, ALL control systems work on the concept of moving something at one point relative to a fixed point (usually the airframe), to transmit motion to another point (a moving surface) relative to a second FIXED point. The fixed points on a Flexdrive control system, are the ends of the outer housing. The outer housing needs to be firmly attached to the primary structure without any body flex, although this could also be said for all other control systems Another problem is that the cable within is not under tension at a neutral position, and must change from a tension load to a compressive load in use. The clearances allowing the cable to move within the outer housing must be taken up, before any continuation of movement between tension and compression can begin. This 'taken up' is called hysteresis, which is a technical term for 'slop'. The minimum slop occurs when the cable is dead straight (sort of, *explained later), every bend added after that induces a small amount of slop, the more bends, the more slop. Some designers try to get around this problem by pushing the neutral point away from the centre of travel. How? Usually by fitting a fixed trim tab to over apply a load in one direction at one end, then a counter spring/bungee to pull the control system the other way at the other end. Example; Jabiru use small fixed tabs on the elevator that try to hold the elevator in an upward position, then when in cruising flight the trim system needs to be pushed slightly further forward, thus supposedly applying a counter load to the control system. Unfortunately, the trim system is on the elevator horn at the back, thereby applying a preload to the elevator, and dampening most flutter tendencies, but not doing a lot to remove the slop from the stick, although it is not very noticeable due to the clunking play in the springs in the trim mechanics. *The slop mentioned earlier, even in straight cables, comes from the tendency of the inner cable (which is often just a single heavy wire!), to coil down it's length inside the outer housing. This has two effects; as the control system is made longer, there is more cable length to coil thus showing more slop between tension and compression, and having the full length of the internal wire in contact with the entire internal length of the outer, is creating more drag on the system. Sure, they advertise that the system runs stainless steel cable/wire (smooth?) in teflon liners (low friction), but the fact of the matter is, if you want to move the top of the stick a quarter of an inch, the stick is six inches long, and the flex cable is attached one and a half inches from the pivot point, you can find yourself moving the stick a quarter of an inch, just to take up the slop, before getting to move the stick the quarter of an inch you wanted Many years back, I was involved with building the Sadler Vampires. The Vampire uses all Flexdrive cables, and the slop problem was known back then. Having a nearly twelve inch stick, the free-play was alleviated in the elevator system by having two parallel cables which, when installed were adjusted to have one cable slightly longer than the other (one ball joint was turned half a turn in, the other half a turn out) to create a preload in the system. It added a small bit of drag to the system, but removed nearly all the free-play. The ailerons, unfortunately, were (like the Jabiru) driven to a horn on the top, so felt reasonably free sitting on the ground, but once in flight gained a little drag, and had a bit of slop Some of the control drag was negated by the two stroke engine vibrating everything, making the cables 'float' in their outer housings, giving the impression of reasonably light controls. One of our test Vampires was modified to have belcranks fitted in the wings to drive pushrods to the ailerons such that, the cable was now connected in tension. This aircraft had much more precise roll control, and a bit lighter. Bottom line, I'm not a fan of Flex cables, and think they're best left on agricultural machinery and/or small outboard runabouts. OK, flame suit on, AGAIN

The temptation is to make a simple square tank with square corners. Most of the weldable alloys are not too strong (without increasing thickness), and the flat surfaces are subject to oil canning, which will work on the welds. Tank needs to be well supported to avoid cracking in the corners, even the top surface will flex and encourage cracks along the welds. Don't forget baffles.. And a dedicated low point with sump to collect the water that occurs in metal tanks.

And to add; I used to use the stuff in the RAAF, and at Bankstown. Used to be some referred to as PR 1422, or 'Goop', and was available with the suffix of A or B, plus, 1/2 or 2. The suffixes refer to viscosity and cure time; A= runny, B= thick, 1/2= half hour cure, 2= two hour cure. As Maj says, best to leave overnight for a full cure before adding fuel. This stuff is SERIOUSLY expensive, and over the years we've been getting less and less in the standard size tubes. I think there is a generic version (or two) available on the market, probably from the likes of Aviall. I can't guarantee that it wont be affected by ethanol fuels or two stroke oils, and if the tank has had fuel in it previously, it must be perfectly clean before repairs/re-seals. By the way it's too thick to slosh. Some names would be; PRC, Pro-seal, Courtaulds (CS3204?) 3M, and I think CRC. Have a look at the spruce catalogue, and try various local outlets; http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/cs/fueltanksealants.html?pageno=1

From the way I've always read it, it is the ratio of MAC (Mean Average Chord), divided into span, and expressed at a ratio (X:1), as opposed to a percentage (as section depth is). My thought is the required answer is C? I thought they may have been setting up a 'trick' question, where you had to look for the term MAC as part of the answer... Looks like all GA beginners had better stick to flying early Cherokees.

Prolific designer and controversial builder James Bede has died at age 82. http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/July/10/James-Bede-noted-aircraft-designer I actually spoke to Jim at Oshkosh in '13, and got him to sign a T-shirt while there. R.I.P. Jim.

Airbus wants the fame, not realising the channel has already been crossed by an electric plane 35 years ago; <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Challenger> May not have been a production plane, but then I don't think the E-Fan is either? I think Pipistrel should have called Siemens bluff, after all, most of the production electronics will probably end up coming out of China anyway...

One thing about the concept of 'regenerative' flying means people will have to go back to learning how to do glide approaches, no more drive 'em back onto the ground.

I guess owning a plane tends to give us this feeling; But I don't know if this helps the cause....... Yep, stole it from Uberhumor.com, don't know where they stole it from.......

You guys should both go back and have a look at Lightwings. The one I learnt to fly in (around 30 odd years ago) is still going strong, and was sold to one of the club students at around 4500hrs, about 7 years ago. It's supposed to be a 480kg model, but I know it'll fly much heavier than that. I guess we're all being led astray now that we don't call ourselves ultralights, but while we keep pushing for more weight, we're just re-inventing GA again... 600kg is plenty, learn to live with it, or go GA. Either that or we have to reinvent the ultralight.

When 750kg arrives, you'll be flying GA! Build smart, not heavy, the Europeans have been doing it at 450kg for quite a while now.

OK, not directly related to the thread, but does this mean you guys have to pay an annual tax, just for owning something expensive?

If it's anything like the Gazelle or Kitfox 5 I've flown in, it would be the awkwardness of getting in and out, as well as the feeling of flying around in a birdcage with all the struts and braces around the place.

The camera work and positioning is probably more impressive than the demonstration itself. They must have done a LOT of simulator practice to get the formation positioning right but safe..

Remember, when you look through the Rotax manuals for fuel type, it says 95 Minimum octane. Higher is better, and as aimed at the performance car group, is less likely to be blended with ethanols etc. But always ask at the counter, or read the bowser, they MUST state if any ethanol in the fuel.