pylon500

So, what was it?

Remember that the original prototype Jabiru flew with a Rotax two stroke......

Regarding rough running with 912's, you'll probably find it occurs as you throttle down through the 'zero thrust' rpm. At this point there is no load through the gearbox and the crankshaft impulses will excite the backlash in the box. Below that, the aircraft is pushing the prop.

Hey, I resemble that remark, well, sort of... This is from a Simpson's 'create a likeness' page that I can't find anymore. Megh...

This idea has been touted about for many years, especially after the debacle of storing the C130A's at Point Cook, and having them corrode away in the sea air. However, I have heard from a reliable source, that storage at many central Australian locations turns out to be just as bad due to the number of (sometimes) dry salt lakes around.

Yeah, looked like you were about to suffer a birdstrike from BEHIND

Things are definitely looking on the up..... Had a registration that was a bit of a doozy; change of ownership (from deceased estate), back into the 'fold' (unregistered for a few years) and change of designation (95:10 to 19-xxxx). Filled out reams of paperwork, stat. dec. for ownership, numerous photos and weight & balance sheet. Scanned the whole lot, forwarded by email (about 7.3MB); TWENTY DAYS !!!! Now if the weather could just clear I can do a bit of re-test flying....

All the Lightwings use heel brakes, following on from Piper Cubs and Austers before them. Doesn't take too much practice to get a 'feel' for heel brakes. If you look at a Lightwing set-up, you can see that it is possible to vary the leverage/load on the cables depending on the distance from the pivot.

If you're using a split/twin rudder airbrake system, you might as well hook the wheel brakes straight to the rudder pedals, no toe brakes hinging required. Ground wheel braking/steering will occur the same as air rudder braking/steering. Then just use a castoring nosewheel/tailwheel. The only downside is the return spring pressure required to keep the rudders straight in flight. To that end, if you pivot the rudder pedals 'above' the floor (say about 2") then the weight of your feet/legs will hold the pedals 'closed' (back) requiring you to push with your toes for activation. And put the return springs at the rudders, not the pedals.

I think I've heard that if you send your expired 300 hour engine to them for a 'zero' time rebuild, it costs around $3500, then you add postage.... If you are starting from scratch, meaning you also need a radiator, oil tank, gear box, air filter and starter, the price comes to about $8000? Depending if you are building something new (kit or plan), then the list goes on into hoses, engine mount, starter relay, regulator/rectifier, EGT, CHT/water temp probes and gauges. And don't forget the prop!

'Burping' is also dependant on the position of the oil tank relative to the height of the engine. Gazelle and Skyfox tanks tend to be higher and drain oil back into the engine. Foxbat tanks tend to be lower, so most of the oil stays in the tank. A cold engine will 'bleed' compression faster than a hot engine, so 'cold' turning will burp the tank quicker.

Got a new replacement 582 last year from Flood's for $5500. Came with new carbs, new exhaust (cylinder to tailpipe and springs!), new plugs and even a bottle of the new AeroShell two stroke aviation oil (sounds like a contradiction in terms I know?), should point out the oil had an expired shelf life, but.....? Engine pre-fitted with oil injection and pull start, just add your own starter and gearbox, and your off with a NEW motor. AND, I still have the old motor (which was running well) for an uncertified project, or sale to others for same (I'm keeping it at the moment).

I can't remember when I weighed either of those weights!

The opposite to this was happening 20 years back when some of the two stroke pilots began raving about a new super synthetic oil they were using, claiming it lowered EGT's. Claimed it was so good, it could be run at 100:1 as opposed to the usual 40~50:1! Turns out that at 100:1, the viscosity dropped enough that it made their mixtures richer thereby dropping the EGT's. Didn't do their fuel consumption much good though....

As you're up in Rylstone, if you go past Bankstown, you can get alloy sheet, both 2024-T3 or 6061-T6 from Paul Macquire of Aviation Parts & Equipment. 02 9796 2733.

While I'm hopeful for an electric future, the thing no-one is talking about is battery life cycle.... How many battery packs (and cost) will this go through in 2000 hours? Just doing a quick calculation here (read; guess..); $20k for a 912 (approx price when supplied with an aircraft), $56k for fuel (14 lph @ $2.00 per lt x 2000 hrs), $ 2k for 100hrly's (probably a lot more than that, and this is without labour). So, hoping that the electric motor will almost last forever (?), and be priced in hundreds of dollars (unless you count the speed controller), we have to beat about $75~80k in batteries to pass the efficiency of a 912. Maybe there's hope after all.

Surprised he didn't fit some sort of stability system...

As always, this comes down to 'interpretation' of vague rules trying to put everything into neat (simple) boxes, then being held fast, to the perceived meaning of the rules. If what you have matches this perception, you're OK, if not, well............. OK, the paper you found is aimed at people that, seeing a Lightwing could fly with a 912, arrange to put one in their aircraft, on their own. This is technically not allowed. To fly with the heavier 912, structural modifications need to be carried out to the airframe, usually to be done by Howard. A current grey area would be if the aircraft is still certified, if you have Howard's (approved) mods carried out and signed off by a Level 2? What NONE of the rules have, (or at least the people enforcing the rules) is the ability to interpret things like engines being made obsolete and/or superseded. In your case, your old LW1 was built around a single ignition, pull start, 'B' box, Rotax 532. Even before the 532 was replaced by the 582, most people had gone to at least electric start, often composite props and sometimes a locally produced dual ignition heads. Back then everyone looked at it and said, "it's still a Lightwing, just a bit safer, easier to manage and performs a bit better. So now the grey area is, "is replacing Rotax's 65hp two stroke with another Rotax 65hp two stroke", an act requiring an engineering order? I think the age of your Lightwing would probably suggest it was originally registered at 400kg, which I think was the 95:25 MTOW at the time. As the rules grew, you could have got in touch with Howard to get official manufacturers approval to up the weight, for a GR582 to 480kg (?) assuming the 582 would now have dual ignition, electric start, a 'C' box and oil injection. Their are others having the same problems having 582's (the ONLY two stroke left) fitted to their LW1's Hopefully, moves are afoot to be able to get special approvals (and maintain certification) to sort these sort of problems, BUT, be prepared to hold your breath a while......

Like so many of the 'deep in the fine print' rules from CASA, this is probably just one of many that had slipped through, only to be conveniently discovered during audits. This time however, instead of trying to retrospectively jump up and down on us, saying 'ignorance is not an excuse', it looks like CASA has admitted there was an oversight, released an update clarification, and we all carry on as before. No groundings and no complete ground up re-registrations. Just hope no-one at CASA decides to request ALL pax temp member forms to use as a basis for applying the 25 points to all pax pilots over the last, (how many?), years!

Being part of the 'Irrelevant' traffic at Taree, I usually find I can't get a word in edgeways with all the traffic wandering and yakking around Port, what with the QantasLink and Virgin RPT's going into panic mode wondering where the IFR Barons, the huge circuit ultralights, the jump plane, the jet fighter doing aero's, the seaplane coming and going, the private planes doing circuits calling every turn and change of power setting, and soon more trainees using English as a second language.... I think I might have to start using Very Lights to announce my circuits. Often works well at Taree when tracking back in from Old Bar, pretty much straight on to base for 22. Obviously better if I can track straight in onto 30 grass, pull up in front of my place and taxi up to the hangar:cheezy grin: Unfortunately the grass seems to be closed more than it's open (four months so far this year, two more to go due to works elsewhere on the field )

Probably got that sorted now.....

Interesting to note the section dealing with reporting to RAPAC (section 7.3.2) about congested radio areas. Here in Taree, we are on the same frequency as Port Macquarie (118.1), and sometimes it's hard to get a word in edgeways. But it turns out the alternative is to have two different frequencies, and then have Northbound traffic (usually heading for Port, and beyond) blindly fly through Taree's area, busily announcing their imminent arrival to the Port CTAF. We just learn to live with it.... We did get a small break recently with a Port school about to take on a stack of Chinese students but then decided to do most of their work out of Kempsy, which changed from our frequency a couple of years back (118.9) Anyway, reading through the CAAP, I spotted the bit about 'go-rounds', and have to question the safety of pulling to the 'inside' of the circuit (towards oncoming traffic) when confronted with an aircraft taking off during your approach...? Doing this, the overtaking pilot loses sight of the aircraft taking off, and is counter to the normal rules of overtaking? Having said that, I have always had a concern with the diagram in the VFG, having a similar concept of avoidance, where the aircraft with a pilot in a poor position to observe another aircraft (on his right) is supposed to be the one to maintain separation? As a side point to the above diagram, it could be concluded that the black aircraft is navigating by road (IFR:duck for cover:)? I've never found anything relevant, but the 'unwritten' rule is to track to the right of navigation features, thereby avoiding people navigating the same feature in the opposite direction... Comments?

Re; difference between LW1 and GR582's (I doubt your LW1 still has a 532 SI up front?), both aircraft have the same wing, therefore lifting ability (both are readily capable of taking off at 600kg, but remember kiddies, that's not allowed:no no no:). The LW1 is actually MORE aerodynamically streamline than ALL the 'Low Back' Lightwings, especially if you fit a spinner, and the fairing kit to the round tube struts. Bolly might certify their props for Lightwings, but it's not up to them, it's in the certification that says we must use Howie's/Heard's/Allsize's pieces of wood (I refuse to call them propellors). The GR582 I currently fly, flew for years with a three blade Warp, but after everything went pear shaped, I'm now struggling around with a Heard cruise prop while I wait for some sanity to evolve from the last three years of chaos. At your weights, I can't see too many problems training from that strip, just keep an eye on your student weights....

Maybe your question should have read more like; "I have a grass strip 320 metres long, would this be safe for instructing?" To which I think most would reply, "Probably not" People with experience in LW1's/GR582's could get in and out of 320m two up, but would be a bit short to train a student into..... I'm getting students in an LW1, in and out of a couple of 500+m, sea level grass strips with room to spare, even with a crappy wooden prop.

No problems with forced induction (turbocharge or supercharge) engines, it's Turbine engines that the authorities seem to have some sort of problem with:freaked:. Although not practical in our size range from a fuel efficiency point of view, as most of our flying is for FUN?, I can't see what the problem is ? Turbine engines are no more temperamental than two strokes, have even more power to weight (than two strokes) and accordingly an even higher fuel burn. Granted, to get the best effectiveness from one, it is better to be a turboprop, which can add some complexity to the mix, but the jet engine itself is pretty simple with basically only one moving part!!