flyvulcan

Colour scheme will be as for Josef Jacobs aircraft which is predominantly black. Jacobs obtained the most victories in the Dr1, 32 out of his total 48. He survived the war and did not participate at all in WW2. He lived to the ripe old age of around 78. I have his original signature in a book about fighter pilots that he autographed at an Aces get together in Germany in around 1975. Engine is likely to be the VW based engine that Baslee recommends. I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head (oh dear, my senility is showing). Great Plains, Aerovee....

Robert's high speed approach to building does concern me a bit. At least I will have peace of mind that issues such as fatigue induced by poorly drilled, deburred and riveted holes won't be a problem. We plan to keep weight to a minimum on the Fokker so lightweight replica guns it will be. When Flyerme with his Nieuport and I meet for our dogfights, we shall have to yell out "Ratatatat" as loud as we can to simulate the machine guns firing. I'm looking forward one day to actually have one of the three projects in my stable flying. When all three are, I shall be a happy man... Looking for my next project! Komet, Lightning Bug and Fokker. The next one might have to be something with more seats...

Thanks Phil. The back seat of my Komet is still waiting for your backside to fill it. Steady progress is now being made on that project with my build partner working on it full time now. Hopefully, it will be completed later this year. I'll make sure I rack up a few hours in it before I put another live weight in the back seat. Cheers, Dave

FT and Bex, I hear ya! A pneumatic riveter will be coming before the rest of the kit arrives! For the tailplane kit that only has a few rivets, we held off on the expense of a pneumatic riveter, but the time for getting one is fast approaching.

We've been getting on with the horizontal stab lately. On our last session, we jigged the stab and trimmed, bent, and shaped the tubing, cut and shaped the gussets from sheet, and drilled and clecoed half the stab together. Today, we disassembled all that we had done, deburred all the holes, ensured all edges of gussets and tubing were smooth, then prepped and primed the joints. After the primer dried, we reassembled and riveted the half that we had done. After riveting one side, we trimmed all tubing for the other side. That's as far as we got today. We should finish it up at the next session.

I'm sorry Bex but I'm going to spill the beans. Bex has a new wife, that's her in the middle of the photo. Congratulations Bex!

Welcome back Ian. Glad to hear that you are now settled. I lived in Canberra for 6 years and actually really enjoyed being there. There are definitely some good things about the city and its surrounding countryside. Cheers, Dave

Or is it "Mumsy"?

From memory (it as a long time ago now for me...), the mil spec F34 was Jet A1 with FSII and F35 was Jet A1 with FSII and Biobor. The FSII was simply an icing inhibitor and the Biobor was the anti-fungal.

I visited her about a month ago in Washington. She is a beautiful machine!

And I'm going to be there to watch it!

Thanks for the suggestion. Besides the price (gulp!), we have a maximum prop diameter of 62" with preferably 60" as optimum. Unfortunately, a lot of these IFA prop makers only have their system available with specific blades and diameters. To get a custom blade/diameter arranged is either very difficult or very expensive. It's a pity Bolly aren't making their IFA system any more. I'd like to give a local brand name some support... It looks like it may end up being an Airmaster hub with a custom set of blades, or the Varia system.

Thanks for that feedback Downunder. I shall look into that prop some more. One problem that we are running into with the IFA props is that there aren't many that will allow us to reach the 93" pitch that we will likely need to get our top end speed. Airmaster and Varia systems look good and I shall add Neuform to that shortlist. We shall have to make the decision soon as we really need to get the optimisation offered by the IFA prop as soon as possible. Man, I can't wait to see it fly and see how it performs. When it does, I shall report here accordingly.

The Caesarian was successful and there is a bouncy little baby Lightning Bug in the hangar, waiting to grow up and spread its wings! The plastic surgeon will be on to the scar shortly and you won't even notice that her belly has been operated on.

Yes, the left hand gear leg fairing and wheel pant will be going on during the week. She will then be balanced (unlike her owners who are clearly unbalanced to be undertaking this project!)

Yes, it is an odd figure. The prop is VERY coarse at 93" of pitch. The prop makers we consulted indicated that this would be needed to achieve above 180 knots top end speed, but also indicated that to get this top end speed, we would be down on rpm quite a bit during the climb (possibly up to 3-400 prop rpm) which would put us in the engine rpm range of around 4800-5200. We shall just have to wait and see what we get. It might be more, time will tell. If we can get 5200+ rpm in the climb, then we will be doing better on power and hence achieve a better rate of climb. Alternatively, we might climb at a higher speed than 120 knots to get the rpm. Flight testing will determine what is optimum for our current configuration. The bottom line is that we will likely be switching soon to an IFA prop. We have a couple under consideration at the moment and low rpm issues will go away. Takeoff and climb performance will then be significantly enhanced over that of our current fixed pitch high speed cruise prop. However, we will need to be able to offer a lower cost fixed pitch prop option for the aircraft which is why we have started with this prop. The biggest selling point for this kit will likely be its top end and cruise speeds. Pretty well everything on the aircraft is tailored to that end. Takeoff and climb will not be optimised when using a fixed pitch prop. It's one of the trade offs where we will need to reach a compromise between top end speed and low end performance (read safety).

It had its first high speed taxi run today. Lanny reported extremely good acceleration to around 70mph with the acceleration getting better as speed built up. The Rotax was only turning around 3700 rpm at 70mph so still way down on the "power band" for the engine. In spite of the low power being delivered, acceleration was still exceptional. Calculated best climb speed is estimated to be around 120 knots where the engine should be turning at around 4800 rpm so turning 3700 rpm at around 60 knots would be about right to achieve the anticipated 4800rpm/120knot climb parameters. Here are a few pics of the Bug after it was dragged out of the hangar for the taxi trials. It's been washed so it looks better, but tidying the paint job will have it looking downright fantastic!

It's certainly something to be considered (RAAus suitable that is). With some wing extensions, we could probably bring the stall speed into the LSA regime. Given LSA in Oz does not have any top speed limit, we could potentially get an Aussie LSA that was "fast". We will likely need to focus on experimental kits to start with, but will look at all options to make the aircraft successful. This will include looking at SLSA (ready to fly) and ELSA (kit) options that will qualify it for RAAus rego.

Only half on at the moment so don't peek! Should be fully dressed later this week though. She might even have a shower to freshen up a bit and maybe in a few weeks, she might put the makeup on so she can be seen in public.

Thanks Speeddog, I woke up this morning to find the photos of your weekend work from Lanny. Great progress! You've done an outstanding job on the cowl cheeks and gear fairings. That Bug looks so good! I really hope I get to see it in 4 weeks. If you can't make Sun'n'fun, I shall do my best to visit the Bug at home. I drop the family at Orlando Airport at lunchtime on the 23rd but have to leave from Miami on the 27th, so am tossing up the (very) long drive versus the not much different fly/drive option. Regardless, I hope I get the chance to meet you while I'm in the US. Cheers, Dave

From the looks perspective I'd go with the fastback but from a pilots perspective, I have voted coupe because the field of vision is much better with the rear windshield.

I shall be using two of the H160s that are shown on this page http://jetbeetleusa.com/?page_id=121 to power my Komet. USD30k for the pair which will give me 320lbf thrust versus only 240lbf for the SubSonexes engine and I should still be able to have climb performance if one of mine fails. SFC is about the same (really bad!) so endurance is measured in minutes, not hours. Why spend this money on such an impractical aircraft? As Bex and Howie said, it's a jet! Since I had my first flight in a Macchi while on pilots course, I vowed to own my own jet. The most fun flying I've had so far is my Macchi time. 20 minutes of aeros, followed by 20 minutes of low flying then 20 minutes of circuits was a fun way to spend an hour. Throw in some formation... The aim of my Komet is to do just that sort of flying again. It ain't practical, but it's fun. The silky smooth ride of a jet on a cold, crisp morning is something that has to be experienced. I also get the attraction of open air flying, flying behind big radials etc., but my favourite is the silky smooth ride in a jet... While the SubSonex doesn't have scintillating performance, it will still give that smooth ride and probably comfortable aeros. I get the attraction of it. One of the beauties of my Komet is that I will get what I want for less than the cost of most new LSAs and around $50k less than the cost of the SubSonex. Indeed, it will probably end up being Jabiru type cost. The fuel costs on the other hand.... Gulp!

Bear in mind that (in approximate terms) the pure jet retains its thrust throughout the entire speed range of an aircraft whereas the prop will generally reduce thrust as speed increases. Hence the advantage of a jet at higher speeds.

The SAAA has a Safety Managment System which includes a reporting system for such events. However, participation in the system is voluntary, not mandatory so if the owner/pilot is an SAAA member, he would be encouraged to report the incident, but is not obligated to do so. The SAAA has no authority whatsoever to investigate any accident or incident. It is purely a support organisation. Agreed, it would be good if the SAAA could determine the circumstances and causes of this incident and promulgate that information to its members. However, they would need to establish that information from external sources if the incident was not reported under their voluntary reporting scheme. I think that perhaps some clarification is in order about the role and authorities of the SAAA which I will do so by addressing some quotes from above posts. For clarification, experimental CofA aircraft are built in accordance with CASA regulations. Their certification and operation are in no way administered by the SAAA. The SAAA does however offer its members the ability to voluntarily participate in their Builders Assist Program which offers their members stage inspections of their project by experienced Technical Councillors who can provide advice about the progress of their project. This is advice only and the builder is under no compulsion to heed the TCs advice. Participation by SAAA members in the BAP is not mandatory and is solely at the discretion of the member. All APs are CASA APs, not SAAA APs. Some APs just happen to be SAAA members but the SAAA currently has no responsibilities associated with APs. No aircraft are maintained under the SAAA MPC "program". Aircraft are maintained in accordance with CASA regulations. The MPC is simply a CASA approved training course that qualifies the person who successfully completes the course to sign off the annual inspection. The MPC is not a maintenance system, nor is it a program. It is simply a training course. While Poteroos post is not having a dig at the SAAA, and I agree with his sentiment that it would be good for the SAAA to be able to determine what has happened in relation to this incident because it is likely that the ATSB will not do so, I felt that it would be appropriate to clarify some of the roles and responsibilities of the SAAA to give a better understanding of their involvement in these sorts of processes.

Specific fuel consumption for this engine is reportedly around 1.2lb/lbf/hr so at takeoff thrust (240lbf), fuel flow is probably around 290 lbs/hr which for JetA1 is 165 litres per hour. A high altitude cruise may reduce that to about half...