flyvulcan

Kasper, I like your temptations! Go for it! I would prefer at least 300lbf thrust minimum. The BD5J with the 220lbf engine was a very different beast than the one with the 300lbf engine. I want real performance for my Komet, not just mediocre performance. I had tossed around the idea of fitting 4 X 90/100lbf (cheap) engines (so 2 per pylon) to the Komet, but the sfc of the smaller engines is 10-15% worse than the larger engines which would decrease my endurance from 20 minutes to 17 minutes . I know that one day, I would need those extra 3 minutes...

Hi Doug, I was in touch with PBS-Velka well before this engine hit the public domain. While the engine is nice, the price tag is not so appealing. Although the Jetbeetle H160s that I have always planned to use on my Komet are somewhat more basic than the TJ100, I can get 2 x 160lbf (total 320lbf thrust) H160's for US$30k versus 1 x 247LBF thrust TJ100 for $60K+. So more thrust for 1/2 the price and I get two engines with the ability to climb following an engine failure. There are similar engines such as the AMT Nike engine but again, they are significantly more expensive than the Jetbeetles. Perhaps next year I may have my own engine development.

I flew the Rouseabout at Hervey Bay airstrip when the Company "Seabird" was already established. The one that I flew was composite so clearly was not the prototype. I can remember admiring the little Koenig engine in it and marvelling that such a small engine could make the aircraft climb and perform so well. The Company that I conducted the check flight on behalf of were in the process of gaining the rights to sell the Gluhareff range of pressure jet engines in Australia (I had 2 x Gluhareff G8-2-130s which I had been converting lpg to noise with out at RAAF Richmond and also Schofields airfield). This company wanted an aircraft to put the jets on and considered the Rouseabout as a potential airframe recipient. I flew with the company executives to Hervey Bay to fly the Rouseabout and report on its suitability to use the jet engines. I didn't know what aircraft I was to fly until I got to Hervey Bay. On the flight back to Sydney, I listened to these company executives being really excited about putting bombs and missiles on the Rouseabout and offering it as a counter-insurgency aircraft! I nearly peed myself inwardly laughing listening to their dreams. The report that I wrote about the Rouseabouts suitability to have a 50 gallon lpg tank installed and to have hard points installed brought them down to earth very quickly! If they had told me what aircraft I was going to fly before we left Sydney, I could have saved them the trip. However, if I'd done that, my first flight in an ultralight would not have been in the Rouseabout.

I am pleased to say that I flew the Rouseabout. In fact, it was the first ultralight that I flew. I did a "check" flight on it for a company that was interested in investing in it at the time. I can recall that there was another experienced ag pilot there to fly it on the day. Since I was the junior guy (300 hours total, having just graduated from RAAF pilot training and with 50 hours C130 under my belt), I flew it second. I watched the ag guy jump into it without a preflight, fire it up, taxi out and takeoff. The PIOs after takeoff were interesting to watch (note to self, don't overcontrol after takeoff). He flung it around for about 10 minutes, and brought it in for a decent landing. I did a thorough preflight inspection which seemed to surprise those in attendance. After starting, I did one run down the runway to check directional control, braking authority and how much stick was needed to lift the nose. I went back and took off. I had a small PIO initially then took my fist off the stick and just used 2 fingers. It went well after that. It performed quite well but I recall a real buzz through the stick at a certain power setting. Other than that, it was nice to fly. I even managed a decent landing. It was a memorable first flight in an ultralight. I appreciated that Don Adams trusted me with his baby.

Hi Mark, Thanks for your feedback. The return line from the header tank is at the (normally) top of the tank. Once the transfer pump starts running on the ground, the header tank will fill completely with fuel, and all air should be displaced through the return line. The output of the transfer pump is about 150% of the maximum engine usage so the header tank should remain full of fuel at all times while the transfer pump is operating. With the transfer lines (main and emergency) supplying fuel into the top of the header tank, and with the return line being at the highest point of the header tank (when the aircraft is sitting on the ground), should the transfer pump fail, fuel will not be siphoned out of the header tank if the transfer pump fails and all the content of the header tank will be available to keep the engines running (for a minimum 30 seconds at full power) while the pilot switches to the emergency transfer pump. I think this system should keep fuel, rather than air in the header tank and minimise the risk of fuel line air bubble flameouts. If you have any alternative suggestions, I'd welcome them. Cheers, Dave

Hi Marty, The fine details of each system are still to be determined but the general arrangements have been finalised. Engine mounts: There will be three hard-points on the fuselage to which the engine mount will attach. There will be a hard-point attached to each fuselage side longeron where the fuselage bulkhead, longeron and rear shelf meet. There will also be a hard-point attached to the bottom fuselage keel/longerons, making overall a triangulated set of hard-points. A chromolly tube "V" frame will be attached to these hard-points with rubber isolators being used. The top end of these tubes will exit the fuselage sidewall and stop flush with the fuselage side. The engine itself will be mounted on another tube (which will be the pylon) using a cradle to hold the engine, and that pylon will simply be slotted into the fuselage mounted V frame tubes and secured with bolts. This arrangement will facilitate easy removal of the entire engine pylon. The pylon tube will receive a streamlined fairing and fuel/electrical lines will run inside the pylon and its fairing. Fuel system: There will be 3 fuel tanks in the aircraft: the main fuselage tank which is incorporated into the centre structural keel; the wing leading edge tank; and a small approx. 1 gallon header tank which will be mounted on the rear shelf (as shown in the photo above). The wing tank feeds by gravity into the main tank and fuel is pumped from the main tank to the header tank using an electric transfer pump. There is a second transfer pump fitted for redundancy. The transfer pump will run continuously, ensuring that the header tank remains full at all times. There is a return line from the header tank to the main tank for the overflow. The header tank will be fitted with two flop tubes that will feed each individual engine. Refuelling will be into the centre tank which will fill the wings through gravity flow. There is a simple breather system from the wings that allows air to vent into and out of the wing tank but prevents fuel from overflowing when the tanks are full.

With the tailplane all taped up to facilitate layups of BID against it to form the intersection between the turtledeck/fuselage and the tailplane surfaces, micro was put into the intersections to allow a radius to be formed. The micro was then radiused and BIDs were applied to form the skin. Some work was required to tidy up the rear fuselage to blend the rear fuselage shape into the rudder. To do this, a mold was formed out of cardboard and BIDs were laid up over the mold to form the rear fuselage shape. Once all the BIDs were cured, the new rear fuselage shape was trimmed to match the deflected rudder and the fairings were all trimmed to correct size. Fasteners will now be installed on the new fairings and they will be done. The tailplane will now have very neat intersections between all surfaces. Next, we are on to the canopy hinges and latching mechanisms. I am very pleased with the progress on the aircraft. It is really taking shape now and progress is tangible after every build session.

It certainly is! Sometimes, I find I stop work on it and just drool over its looks for a few minutes. The photos don't really do its looks justice. In the flesh, it is long and slim and it just looks fast. The canopies will be done soon and once the front one is on as well, the looks will be significantly enhanced. I've got my paint scheme already planned. I'm sure people will be impressed when they see it and I think it will help give the impression of speed. For that matter, with a projected top speed of over 200 knots, it will be fast (for the whole 20 minutes that I can fly it with a passenger, or 75 minutes with the ferry tank in place of the passenger...). Bex, I'm sorry I didn't get the chance to show it to you when we met up but I enjoyed our morning tea!

Over the last 2 weeks, I spent 4 days with my build partner Henry, working mainly on the flight control system and to a lesser extent, preparing the tailplane fairings for finishing. We started by checking the rigging of the ailerons and flaps which have now been attached to the wing. We had to first check the alignment, followed by the range of movement of each of the four surfaces (2 x ailerons, 2 x flaps). We found that the stops had been set correctly on the ailerons allowing the full range of up/down movement. The flaps were also able to move between the fully retracted and 40 degree landing position. The issue that we did find was that with the flaps fully retracted, the movement of the ailerons was ok. However, with the flaps at 40 degrees, because they pivot slightly outwards due to the geometry of the flap hinges when extended, there was rubbing of the inboard edge of the ailerons against the outboard edge of the flaps. Consequently, we had to increase the clearance between the ailerons and flaps to not only give clearance under static conditions, but also to take into consideration deformation under air loads. This meant that we needed around a 5mm gap between the aileron and flap. This is noticeable right now, but we intend to add a fence to the outboard end of the flap and the gap will then not really be noticeable. We had previously made a cutout in the front seat to allow an aileron torque tube and elevator pushrod to pass through it from front seat control stick to rear seat control stick. The front seat will have a central control column with aileron pushrod and elevator torque tube running to the right hand side fuselage wall. At the right side fuselage wall, there is a long elevator pushrod and aileron torque tube that runs along the right side fuselage wall into the rear cockpit which has a right side control column that is connected directly to the aileron torque tube and elevator pushrod from the front cockpit. Here is a photo of the front cockpit which shows the temporary installation of the aileron torque tube which runs through into the rear cockpit. The photo also shows the cutout in the seat and seatback to allow the torque tube to pass through: The rear seat control column is attached on a pivot directly to the aileron torque tube from the front seat. The elevator pushrod from the front seat will be attached directly to the rear seat control column approximately 3" above the stick pivot point. Another elevator pushrod will also be attached at that point and this pushrod will run to the rear where it will be connected to an idler arm/other pushrod which will then run back to the elevator bellcrank. Approximately 2.5" forward of the rear stick pivot point is mounted an aileron bellcrank to which is attached a short (approximately 12" long) pushrod which runs down to the aileron actuator which is mounted to the central structural keel. The aileron pushrods are connected directly to this centrally mounted aileron actuator. Here is a photo of the rear stick setup: After temporarily mocking all this up, we used the rear stick to check for aileron movement and found that the stick actually moved the surfaces in the correct sense and with the correct range of movement. Phew, what a relief! The tailplane fairings came next. When the Vans RV8 tailplane was installed onto the aircraft, the rear turtledeck had to be cut to facilitate the mounting of the tailplane. The two parts of the turtledeck that fit between the vertical and horizontal stabs need to be both faired nicely to each of the stabs and also tidied up to fit nicely around the whole structure. We located exactly where we needed to mount these two fairings and then taped up the metal tailplane surfaces to allow glass to be laid up against the surface. There will be a radius fabricated onto the fairing to make the fairings fit snugly against the stabs. Here's a general shot of the aircraft.

Yes! I was there around 5 years ago and there is a fair bit of pre-1949 stuff. There's a Spitfire, P51, Lavochkin La9, P40 and a fair bit more in the long underground tunnel. There are a few nice B29skis (Tu4 I think). The museum is well worth the taxi ride out of central Beijing.

If my grandfather reads this from beyond the grave, I apologise most profusely. It was only a joke!

Phil, that's not the same bird. It's my grandfather...

With the flaps and ailerons now being fully mounted, we needed to locate the wing into its final position in order to determine the location of the fuselage mounted bellcrank that connects the aileron pushrods as well as the short pushrod from the control column. We also needed to adjust the aileron rod ends so all pushrods were the correct length. The wing will be located so that it's vertical and horizontal locations, as well as the angle of incidence are correct. So here's a couple of shots of the fuselage with the wing in place. We will be jigging the wing so that once it is removed to continue the build, we will be able to reinstall it in the exact same location such that its location, angle of incidence etc. are all correct. That wing is small! 40 square feet and 17'10" span.

Another option, the wife holds the camera upside down and you fly down the coastline inverted?

Actually, I was referring to Sydney as the major centre (perhaps I should have put major city). If Dubbo is considered to be a major centre, since Bathurst and Dubbo have pretty close to the same populations and levels of services/facilities, Bathurst can be considered a major centre and it's not 40 minutes away from the airfield, it's only 5. Perhaps this is one aspect that makes Bathurst more desirable than Narromine. However, there are many more criteria to consider when comparing the two. The colder weather as it affects camping is one drawback for Bathurst that has been raised. One of the aims of suggestions is to stimulate discussion and pros and cons will be raised for each suggestion. The bigger an audience that participates will help determine the viability of suggestions so keep the suggestions/feedback coming.

You are likely correct. There are some terrific upsides but the downsides are probably not acceptable. Moving right along...

Coincidentally, when exploring options, Bathurst popped onto my radar. A long sealed runway, a parallel unsealed and cross runways. Space for aircraft parking, close to a decent sized town with good infrastructure, decent airspace, closer to a major centre than Narromine... If AusFly coincided with the Bathurst 1000 to offer a wings and wheels spectacular in Bathurst, while getting accommodation may be somewhat problematical, when the cars weren't racing the petrol head fans could visit the fly-in and the aviation enthusiasts could sample some Motorsport activity. There's a ready made visitor base for the air show portion of the flyin. While AusFly would be held primarily for the benefit of the recreational aviation fraternity, I suspect that a Motorsport revhead (and junior revheads) who were there for the races could be tempted to check out those pesky aircraft and might even grab their attention as an alternative to cars. Food for thought...

Good suggestions Downunder and will be passed on to the planners.

Alright, we have the suggestion for an Alternative to Aviation series of activities for attendees whose interest may not lie in aviation, regardless of their gender, religion, race etc.. Again, this is a reasonable suggestion that has proven popular at air shows/conventions/fly-ins such as Oshkosh. Could we please cease the sexism angst and focus on constructive suggestions for future AusFlys?

Hi Doug, The design Vmo is 225 knots and it has been dive tested to 250kias so we are ok for now. We have a new 300 knot wing ready to be built in anticipation of a more powerful engine for the Bug, and also to allow the use of the higher speed wing on the Jet Bug (my Komet), should we put that into production once I have got it flown, analysed and tested. Cheers, Dave

That's a very good suggestion Oscar and is a viable and workable solution to one of the issues! I shall pass it on (credited to you) to the SAAA CEO as a potential solution to participants "fear of a ramp check", not only at AusFly but in general.

So we need the SASAOs to get together before next years AusFly and lobby CASA to publish a Ramp Check guide that complies with their own regulations, that clarifies each point on the guide and is unambiguous and easy to read. I will email the SAAA National Council and suggest this initiative for the benefit of its members and for the benefit of next years AusFly. The cooperation between the recreational aviation bodies is improving significantly and indications that I have from the current SAAA National Councillors is that CASA have not only been receptive to dialogue but also proactive in addressing issues. So through our organisations, let's determine what issues needs lobbying and get started on it (and yes, the Forsyth report will be part of that). The published Ramp Check guide and the conduct of ramp checks could be one of the first issues that could potentially be quite easily resolved through lobbying. Perhaps for the benefit of the AusFly event organisers and SAAA National Councillors who will read this thread in order to get feedback to improve next years event for everyone, when an observation is made about what could be improved, a suggestion about how to improve it would be welcomed. E.g. What - I didn't attend because of the fear of a ramp check, even though I am confident that I am complying with the regulations (but I'm not sure that the CASA inspector interprets the regulations in the same way as me) Why - The Ramp Check guide doesn't appear to be in line with the regulations, is open to interpretation or misunderstanding, and I cannot understand it Solution - Lobby CASA to rewrite the Ramp Check guide so that it is in line with regulations and so that it is comprehensive, clear, concise and unambiguous about what documents, material or actions are acceptable to comply with and pass the ramp check

Great post Metalman and one which has struck a chord with many, based on the number of Agrees and Likes that your post received. There appears to be a strong feeling that an event such as AusFly should be for the benefit of members/participants/enthusiasts, with a very low priority being for the promotion of our past-time with the general public. This is important for the "where" aspect because accessibility/suitability for the participants has an overwhelmingly greater importance than accessibility/suitability for the general public. Narromine ticks this box because it is close to no single major city but is central to all and the infrastructure and facilities that it offers suits what the participants want and need (of course we can continue to improve facilities and services to provide an enhanced experience for the participants). The terrific support of the local council and the local community are also very positive factors for Narromine. So what can be done to enhance the members experiences at AusFly, given that Metalmans idea of a great flyin have struck a chord with many? Perhaps more permanent good quality onsite shower/toilet facilities would be beneficial? Additional catering facilities has already been mentioned. Perhaps a temporary bar facility to cater for the campers (if allowed)? Perhaps hold a spot landing competition one morning? (They are always entertaining and fun!) Perhaps hold a barn dance in one of the hangars on the Saturday night where the drinkers can drink and the John Travolta wannabes can dance and the SAAA members can adjourn to after their dinner/AGM for some general festivities? What initiatives can be introduced to AusFly to enhance the experience and the memories? Let's have some suggestions. Let's consider them constructive criticisms rather than complaints. Constructive input and suggestions should be welcomed in order to improve the future experience for everyone. Again, the general consensus was that AusFly 2015 was a terrific experience for the participants and full credit must go to everyone for making it so.

I think it a general consensus that AusFly 2015 was a success and that the organisers, hosts, volunteers, supporters and participants should be congratulated for contributing to making the event such a success. Now that it has wound down, we can look at ways to make it better and I guess constructive feedback and suggestions are what will help guide the organisers for next years event preparation. I posed the "where" aspect earlier and it looks like Narromine has a good measure of support as a venue. With concern being raised about the time available to depart the venue and make it home before dark, perhaps the "when" aspect could be tossed around. It seems that a regular weekend means a lot of participants cannot arrive until Saturday morning and are committed to departing Sunday to get home. It also seems that such a tight schedule turned off a number of potential participants who wanted to attend but either could not or chose not to. Is a long weekend a better option? Is a longer weekend such as the Easter break an even better option? Let's assume that the venue remains as Narromine. What would people's preference be for dates for AusFly 2016? What weekend would you really be able to make an effort to bring your aircraft and/or yourself to AusFly. PS. I am asking these questions because I know that some members of the SAAA National Council will read this thread and will consider people's suggestions and opinions that are expressed here.

Yes, very important. I meant that to be covered by Criteria 5 so I've edited it to clarify that.