Soleair

Thanks Bernie.

I guess a lot depends on where you fly. I will be operating in fairly uncluttered airspace, and nowhere near CTA. The Icom is powered by the aircraft power system, with a half wave dipole antenna. I will be very surprised if it is not equal to my needs (& those of the very few others I am likely to meet). My preferred alternative is to fly non radio, as I did in the UK's much more crowded home counties airspace, with no problems regarding airmisses. But I'm prepared to do my best within my very limited budget. Bruce

FIGJAM moment?

Thanks again to all for your kind words To answer specifics: Winsor, although I bought a 'kit' it would be fair to say that I built it from plans using materials supplied. The only preformed items were the welded main gear & the GRP cowling (nosebowl only shown in pix). The 'kit' has the advantage that the wood is supplied planed to finished cross sectional dimensions, and all the fasteners & the few bits of metal required are supplied as raw material So the hassle of sourcing 200mm of 1" x 1/2" 10swg channel (how's that for mixed units?) is avoided, or of having to buy a 4 metre length of 1/2" dia 0.056" 6061 tubing when all you want is 12". Or 300mm if you don't believe in building an imperial plane. The major elements are built over a pattern drawn full size in felt tip on the work bench, and I made the rib jig. Cscott, the reason I went for the small handheld radio is twofold. Firstly, there simply is not sufficient space in the panel for a full size radio - see pic. Secondly, I can't afford one: I spent all my money on bits of wood, a new engine, and all the misc items that constantly need buying. I will see how this setup works after initial flight trials, but see HIC's comment. OME, that looks a very useful article. I will read it in greater depth & come back with some annoying questions later - thanks. HIC, good to know I'm not alone in my build philosophy! Re the antenna, I have built a half wave dipole (with a Pawsey stub) into the fin. You can't really see it in the photos, but I will take a closeup shot & post it later. Haven't field tested it yet. Next thing I need is a headset. Again, my finances don't permit top of the range equipment - I was considering Ian's 250 series Recreational headset, here:http://www.clearprop.com.au/headsets/passive-headsets/250-series-recreational-flying-headset/ Anyone have a view on this? Thanks once again to all for your encouragement. Bruce

That ain't natural. . . but great flying.

Thanks guys! I'm almost reluctant to cover all the wood - it looks so nice naked! And if I used Mylar I would improve downward visibility with see-through wings. . . Bruce

I've finally got to the pre-covering assembly/inspection stage. I put it all together under some trees to hide from the sun yesterday. Next - covering: another new eperience

Rodr, that is a beautiful aeroplane. I gather you built it - which kit was it? Or did you build from plans? Well done! Nick, great tip for spinner balance. I'm going to grab the wife's laundry bucket tomorrow. . . Bruce

Thankyou. Though I'm not clear why flaperons necessarily introduce more adverse yaw, if the control geometry is the same as for ailerons. Which it will be, as the flaperons are simply extended ailerons. Thus although more area, there is the same differential as the flaperons move. Or am I missing something? (I usually do). Bruce

Would you mind elaborating on that Nev? My MiniMax has flaperons but I have never flown with them. The wings are very stiff, if that helps? Thanks Bruce

Poor fellow. . . But come on, Phil. you're not so long in the mother country that you've forgotten that 'flip flops', rather than describing this guy's landing technique, are referred to over here as 'thongs'. Whereas in UK, an Aussie wanting new footwear would look askance at what he got if he asked for some thongs Bruce

Yes, before you criticise a man, you should walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you criticise him, you're a mile away and you've got his shoes. Bruce

"In F1 and CART racing some years ago a couple of clever fellows decided to simulate the car moving through the air rather than vice versa. . ." It's a bit different when wind tunnelling road going vehicles. The errors arose because in a wind tunnel the airflow was moving relative to the road surface, as well as the body of the car. In real life (nil wind), there is no relative movement between the air & the road. Hence no boundary layer drag, etc. This situation does not apply in testing airborne bodies. Bruce

But both theories ignore the self evident fact that an aeroplane has to generate its own weight in paperwork before it can fly. Bruce

In a Good way?

Middle East President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning ( Hurrah!). But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.) So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good. By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter. Getting back to Syria. So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing? But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good). Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria. So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad. Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad). So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group). To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.) Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad. So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started? So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered!!!! (from a flying friend in Thailand)

When I was studying Engineering at college, we used units like slugs and poundals. Just so much more interesting than boring old kilograms and joules.

It's nought to do with flying. It's to do with who is running the show. You can get it when two check Captains fly together. Someone has to say "I have control" and the other says "YOU have control." Surely cockpit procedures & discipline are everything to do with flying? I'm sorry if I come across as an armchair critic. But it seems to me that there is evidence of some basic errors occurring in a profession which demands high standards of both training & discipline. Some would say pilots are paid well, not for what they do, but for what they know, & need to do, on the rare occasion that things start to go wrong. Or is this an unreasonable viewpoint? Bruce

So........you're going to tar all professional pilots with exactly the same brush now? No, of course not. My mistake - I should have written . . . 'some professional pilots'. Because, with all due respect for your profession, it is clear that some fundamental mistakes ARE being made in the cockpit, when to we humble private pilots, things like stall recognition is drummed into us early in our training.

According to the BBC news this morning, the Air Asia accident occurred, as was said, following the autopilot circuit breaker being pulled. But apparently the less experienced co-pilot did not recognize the stall, & the senior pilot was late in attempting to take control. As a result, the co-pilot was pulling back on the stick, while the captain was pushing, without either being aware of what the other was doing. Does not give one confidence for the basic (non computer aided) flight skills of these professional pilots - again. Bruce

Why does aviation still use the Imperial system? For the same reason English is used as the lingua franca of the air - uniformity. And it has to be accepted that America does account for a sizeable proportion of aeroplanes in the sky - even if they can't spell the word properly. Bruce

I finally reached the stage of being able to test run the engine. I wheeled the fuselage out of my shed, tied it to a handy gum tree, and chocked & lashed it to a couple of giant batteries. I rigged up a temporary fuel system (can with tube in it), checked everything again, & hit the go button. And it went! Ran really well - very smooth, even at tickover. I only took it up to 5000 rpm, but all went very well indeed. My prop seemed to be generating a pretty impressive amount of thrust too. This was really only to prove the systems & installation. I will do the run in & more extensive running when I get to the airfield - still a while to go yet, sadly. But the engine is most impressive thus far. Shaky video of an early run here: I would attach some installation pics but I can't find how to resize pics on this MacPro. . . Bruce

Nev, the dry adiabatic lapse rate is 3 degrees C per 1000 feet. Bruce

Don't get me started on apostrophes. . . (I resisted the temptation to poke the bear by adding one before the final 's'!) Bruce

Debra, you have a private message :) Bruce