Oscar

The bevel-head Ducs were, ahem, 'personalities'. I used to ride a Darmah a bit, and lusted to ride a mate's 900SS - but his test was, if you could start it, and even though I had plenty of practice with my XL350, I jumped on the starter crank on the 900 and it elevated me... His point was: if you take it and stop and can't start it, it's going to be a bastard situation (no mobile phones in those days..) The 900 SS with Conti cans was such a delicious noise (only bettered, in my opinion, to a Vincent Rapide or Black Shadow). The Sydney Duc brigade used to love the run through the National Park up from Scotland Island - and they would trigger every BMW car alarm along the way.. The bevel-head Ducs were extremely critical on oil quality; about the only reliable oil was BP Corse+ I used to use that in my XW Falcom GT and it was good for 15 lbs extra pressure when hot and, er, 'pressing on' in twisties (which you COULD do in one with almost full-spec HO suspension, though it took a fair amount of throttle-steering to keep it pointed. It had an ex Paul Gulson racing Windsor engine so was pretty much a Phase 1 HO but without the Shaker; a magnificent PTP vehicle if you worked at it a bit). My '86 Viffer 750 - just brilliant. The 'two Ducs flying in formation' burble below about 5k revs, was tonic to the soul, and then it changed to a howl if you got into 'fun' mode. Choose your entertainment. But, as a basis for an aero engine, I think just a bit too heavy and not really good packaging; realistically, you'd need a PSRU to move the prop up sufficiently to be viable, and that adds weight and potentially unreliability to what is a brilliant, delightful engine.

With due respect to all points of view - the veiled comments here relate to the contention between Don Ramsay and Rod Birrell. I have no position on, nor knowledge of, the veracity of the statements of either party - but it is in NO way a proven case that one or the other has produced the truth. The assertion that ' Rod made those comments on good grounds with his personal knowledge and good information so how can they be called lies' has - in reality - no greater validity than the opposite view. What is needed, is independent verification of statements, supported by incontrovertible evidence - for both protagonists. Any assumption that the statements of one vs. the other, in the absence of such evidence, has more veracity is entirely subjective. Personally, I do not have the background knowledge to assess the claims of either Rod or Don. I have seen nothing on here that makes me assured that either of them is 'right'. Unsupported assertions of opinion do not make one case or the other as 'right'. I have - as any person has - my 'feelings' as to what is 'right' - but that is IN NO WAY proof. Until I see irrefutable proof, I withhold judgement. KP, you have been promising us a grand denoument for some months now - but that continues to remain a promise rather than a fact. KP, find the time to present your facts. I am quite prepared to listen and if appropriate, debate them.

Keith - absolutely I have a vested interest!. When I have completed the rebuild on my aircraft I will be returning to RAA, and I certainly don't want to return to the sort of mess it was in when I left!.

Well, FT, I have no real idea how old Trevor is - but he is still training pilots, maintaining RAA aircraft, and providing a fine facility on his property that supports the operation of what I believe is the largest recreational flying Club in Australia. One that, every year, turns on one of the most successful fly-ins in the country. And he is a member of the RAA Board, which is hardly cost-free to those on that, at the very least in direct time. He's been a serious contributor to 'amateur' aviation on a volunteer basis for yonks, with the GFA and the AUF/RAA., for maybe fifty years. So: what have YOU contributed to the RAA general community? Here's your chance, FT, to acquaint us with your beneficence. Don't be shy - let us know. It's the unsung heroes, such as (presumably) yourself, that have made RAA what it is. Share your achievements.

This is a serious issue, but I have to say that a few of the recent posts have had me in stitches.. (though I do worry that some of the posters may be at risk of getting their underpants tangled in their headset). I only have ever met one of the 'ferocious five': Trevor Bange. I am afraid that he would be a terrible disappointment to those who would cast him in the role of an evil schemer.. I just can't see him sitting in a chair in some dark, secret cavern under RAA HQ, stroking a white cat and gloating at the bound form of a supplicant RAA member seeking, let's say, an MTOW increase... 'I suppose you expect me to beg for MTOW, Mr. Bange?" 'No, I expect you to fly'.

What an interesting set of responses.. with (of course), the 'Usual Suspects' chipping in their standard carping against any sort of change. Some can be dismissed as trolls, fighting against their increasingly evident irrelevance, some are expressing viable concerns. Those with an appreciation of history, will recognise the term 'pan-xxx-ism' - an entirely spurious harkening back to some mythical time when 'things were better'. In this specific case, the 'case' expounded by those who are now posting (unsupported by fact or reasoning,)a time when the 'democratic' nature of RAA was a 'golden past' which has been lost but needs to be reclaimed. To use a phrase well-understood by those of Anglo-Saxon descent: 'BOLLOCKS'. The transformation of the AUF into the RAA, saw the ascent of a very few Board members into a cabal or clique - or frankly, a one-person ( and we know who that was) fiefdom that produced at its zenith the CASA audit, a dire financial situation and the granting of very considerable financial reward for a small number of individuals favoured by the Prince(s) of the RAA - who produced NOTHING but negative outcomes. The mythical 'democratic' election of Board members based on geographical (regional) representation was a monumental cluster-fark. That boil was finally lanced with the Queanbeyan 'Emergency' meeting, but to my mind, it remained as an open wound at least until the passing of the 'new arrangements' and constitution. That change was a result of a 'democratic' process -open voting by eligible Members - and was by so far the decision of the majority who voted as to be utterly beyond question. Other, than of course, those on here who did not get their hoped-for result and who continue to snipe, alluding to conspiracies that they are unable to even reasonably enunciate, let alone 'prove'. For them the Earth remains flat, humanity was designed and created in six days and NASA faked the Moon Landings. And there IS a Santa Claus, Virginia. In various posts above, the results of RAA having to put Board members into responsible positions for areas well outside their level of competency has been expressed. It is unfair to attribute 'failure' to someone who has been pressed by necessity (i.e a paucity of better-equipped candidates) into a position of responsibility for which they did not have suitable expertise. The failure was NOT on the part of the individual but on the part of the process that failed to generate the membership in its governance group of people with appropriate expertise. The Board does NOT have to be comprised of people who DO the work - but it most certainly DOES need to be comprised of people who have the competence to set the policies for and judge the effectiveness of the work being done, to advance the RAA. The fact that a group of people have recognised that they would be suited to working together for RAA objectives and have combined to utilise a common communication medium, is to me highly encouraging. That these individuals have been able to work together to utilise current information-disseminating techniques, suggests that they are well grounded in the business milieu of the times - something that RAA most certainly needs. Those who yearn for a pan-RAA past, where 'democracy' ,'regional representation' and possibly meat platter raffles on Friday nights down at the Clubhouse reigned supreme, ought to look at the results of the Constitutional vote. I think that more than 90% of your fellow RAA members - extrapolating from the voting numbers - don't agree. They want an effective and competent RAA.

Caveat - I am NOT currently a member of RAA; I was so dissatisfied with the performance of the previous 'Runciman Board' that I left in disgust. However, a mate alerted me to the changes, and passed on a link to 'Five for the Fiuture' 'poster,'-style web page. I was then (and remain) a firm believer that the previous system of regional representation was entirely useless to produce a Board with the requisite spread of professional and management skills to run a complex organisation. I have been very encouraged by the changes to 'skills-based' Board member election; the 'election' CV's presented in the 'Five' document seem to me to be a good spread of expertise in areas that RAA NEEDS on the Board. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that this information indicates the existence of a 'clique' or 'faction' - is it, realistically, likely that this group has any sort of personal connection, given the geographical distribution and disparate backgrounds indicated? The common factor here appears to be mutual recognition that the skills and background of each, individually, are likely to contribute to the forward progress of RAA towards being capable of responding to the necessities of managing the affairs of nearly 10K members to continue to operate in a technologically-challenging and increasingly 'business-oriented' environment. If RAA cannot adequately meet the technical demands - as it obviously did NOT in the past, resulting in the CASA audit debacle - and do more than merely survive, it will fail. The suggestion, frequently repeated, that there are deep, dark political machinations within the present Board, are in the absence of any promised denouement, no more than tin-foil-hat fulminations. Personally, I think RAA members would do well to look at the CV's of the 'Five' with an approach of 'do they present potentially good Board members?' - rather than ' why would we trust some 'ticket' faction'? The latter approach smacks to me of unrequited nostalgia for an RAA Board aligned to the old 'it should be run as a local Cricket Club' mentality that led the RAA into such dire straits. I haven't seen other statements from other candidates for the Board, and it may well be that there are equally good prospects available for selection. Given that a remarkable small proportion of RAA members are, quite evidently from their disinclination to engage in voting for the Board, not in the least concerned with notions of 'cliques', cabals', 'oligarchies' or hegemonies, but simply want to be able to continue flying supported by an effective administration, just perhaps it is aimed at ensuring that the Board comprises 'effective' members - and the supposed 'political' machinations are completely irrelevant? If it is, in fact, a better outcome that the Board ends up being comprised of members with appropriate skills to further RAA, then these candidates appear to me to be worthy of consideration. However: judge for yourselves: Five for the future

Now, Ultralights, you are being contentious! However, that's nowhere near as facetious a comment as some might think.. The standing wave pattern that develops in an exhaust system - particularly one with a combination of straight runs and fairly sharp bends as the Jab. has - not only can be quite sharp in its definition, but will change in position with revs and load. If one were to put a stripe of temperature-indicating paint on each exhaust tube, I will bet $10 that nobody ( me included) has managed to get all their probes accurately centred on the highest EGT position for any particular flight. Exhaust design is well into the realms of the arcane; only those with incredibly sophisticated facilities can get within a bull's roar of 'best'. Anybody remember the Honda v12 F1 engine exhaust system: Honda F1 engine exhaust - Google Search Or: here's what Honda did, to tune its exhausts to the different rider requirements for engine performance characteristics between its two factory team racers in 2013: Honda motogp exhaust - Google Search BTW: those exhausts are fabricated from welded titanium segments. OK, the motoGp engines produce around 260 hp/litre, Jab engines produce less than 45 hp/litre. But: dead set: why would we think we can get it absolutely right for shoving on our EGT probes? We are not trying to extract the last few hp from our engines - we are looking for reliability. That comes from keeping CHT (and also the top few inches of the barrels) within limits. The actual numbers being reported by the EGT probes is fairly irrelevant - particularly since we don't have mixture control requiring EGTs that indicate ROP /LOP necessary for mixture control. What full EGT monitoring DOES offer, is a very quick alert to a sudden change in engine operation - such as detonation, or a dropped plug lowering effective combustion. The CHT reporting is far more useful to us as an indication of engine performance. Provided you have a set of calibrated probes (and that is fairly easy to do for the temp. range for CHT), and you have validated your CHT reporting all the way through ( i.e. the instrument reporting, IS reporting accurately ) then you have the basis for good engine management. Get THAT part right, and the EGT reporting is a supplementary 'check' factor about instant engine performance condition - but EGT reporting on any engine other than a certificated engine running certificated installation and TSO'd probes and instruments, is no more than 'indicative'.

Ah, my apologies Bruce - that is a rubber coupling bonded to a steel (or alloy) flange? (Maybe Rod nicked them off BMW bikes..) Jab changed to a flange and dual hose-clamp arrangement with the CNC plenum ( and four cap heads to retain the flange to the plenum).

Bloody hell, Bruce: there should be TWO hose-clamps there, one holding the rubber sleeve onto the carby and one holding it onto the plenum chamber. You are one VASTLY lucky person if you flew with that set-up and the damn carby didn't come loose, it would have been only the cobra-head holding it in place.

Pete: the 'metallurgical issue' was a complete load of nonsense put around by someone who had no idea of what he was talking about, seized upon by several others with equal expertise as just another reason to throw mud at Jabiru. Logical thought would deduce that if there were a fundamental metallurgical fault, ALL Jab. engines would in time have the same problems - and they don't; as OK says above, there are plenty even in FTF use that happily putter along to over 1,000 hours. Jabiru engines certainly require careful attention to installation - cooling and fuel flow being two areas that you must ensure you get right. They also require intelligent (and mechanically sympathetic) engine management practices, and full attention to maintenance. I would never recommend a Jab. engine to someone who is a 'turn the key and push the throttle and she'll be right' type person - and there are plenty of those around. I don't think that even the most 'rabid' Jab fan would argue that a Rotax 4-stroke is not more tolerant of careless use, nor of the sort of hard life that an FTF has to endure in training use. Can I recommend a study of the Jabiru Installation Manual? Grab a copy from the Jabiru web-site; it will give you a very good idea of what you need to do. Then, a really good discussion with OK will add greatly to your appreciation of how to apply that information to a Jodel build.

If I owned one of these - and I wouldn't - this would be a very, very worrying announcement.

Now THERE's a story that begs more information. I'm betting : a US aircraft graveyard?

Oh, alright, in the 'yours is bigger than mine' stakes: I've moved the Japanese midget Submarine from Sydney to Canberra.. And an Me262, Melbourne-Canberra., several Sea Furies, a Canberra bomber, a Meteor, a Centurion tank, an Me109, a Kittihawk, a Zero. A Victa from East Sale to Brisbane ( and most of it back again on the same trailer, through this time without me driving..), a Jab. (Sydney-Caloundra and most of it returned to Sydney), the Ultrabat (Toowoomba-Bundaberg). The last three, as retiree projects, but the rest ( and there were some more - try moving a 52-tonne Destroyer gun Director!) when I worked for the Australian War Memorial.

I have (framed, I must add!) a Wide Load Permit for a B-25 bomber...

Are you just confining that comment to this thread, or to all comments from that poster? Most of us would not be able to make that distinction.

I will be looking forward to any feedback we get about this initiative. As a glider pilot, we were required to be competent in spin recovery - because every time you thermal, you are operating on the edge of an incipient spin. I freely admit that I don't ENJOY spinning - I'm not at all aerobatically inclined - and I regard dropping into an incipient spin and recovering from it as a waste of height and time across the ground. However - due to my training and frequent checks - I don't FEAR spinning, so I was always happy to claw my way up in a thermal and take those 'doughey' moments as the pressure on the stick from ailerons goes unfeeling and your backside tells you the aircraft is falling into a spin, as a) something to be dealt with, and b) inaccurate flying on my part. What I hope to hear as feedback, is not that people have suddenly been thrown out of their comfort zone into the world of 'aerobatics', but that they have gained understanding of: a) the transitional phase, and b) THAT IT CAN BE DEALT WITH. Now, fairly obviously, if you fly an aircraft that has sudden transition from controlled to uncontrolled flight, your instinctive reactions training is going to need to be damn good. Gliders are fairly benign aircraft; something like a Lancair 320 /360 that flicks from the stall into a 70-degree or so wing drop is anything BUT benign. It would scare the cr#p out of me. And Lancair 3X series aircraft have killed WAY too many people in stall/spin accidents; if you are Keith Englesman, it's all in a day's work, but I am no K.E. To me, the ultimate benefit of spin training is an understanding - and the 'feeling' - of when it is about to happen, and what to do about that. However - I believe that you can't get the full understanding and feeling, unless you have actually progressed beyond the transitional phase - because what you are 'feeling' - in particular - doesn't make sense until you know where that goes. Plus - you need the confidence of knowing that the remedial action WILL WORK. It's not a lot different to the training you would get - if we had decent driving test standards - on a skid-pan. Handling either understeer or oversteer in a low--grip situation is a necessary skill for driving, and it is NOT taught at all as routine. Jumping on the brakes in either case is usually the worst possible reaction, but about 98%+ of all drivers do not ever understand that and end up crashing as a result. THIS: is how a (superlatively skilled) operator can recover safely from what seems an impossible situation. If the rest of us can get training to evade bad consequences from a situation about 5% as bad as that - then that training has been absolutely worth it!

Somewhat like the weather - everybody talks about it.. Well, the DDSAA (Darling Downs Sport Aircraft Association), based at Clifton, IS doing something! They have engaged a GA aero instructor with a suitable aircraft, to conduct spin training for all members who wish to attend, this weekend. At the recent Safety Seminar held at Clifton it was suggested that we offer to members the opportunity to experience flight in an aircraft capable of doing spin training exercises. Some twenty plus members indicated an interest in undergoing this specialist training experience to better equip themselves for a situation if it should develop at some time through their flying career. This is a lead up to the RAAus Safety month later this year. RAAus is promoting safety in aviation through the Clear Mind, Clear Prop slogan and spin training is one aspect to improving your safety awareness and being prepared for the unexpected. We have secured Don Mitchell to do this training for us ( he is a GA aerobatics instructor) and it will occur this coming weekend on Friday, Saturday and some of Sunday. Costs are not yet confirmed for it will depend on how many avail themselves of this unique opportunity to better their training and to acquire this specialist skill and understanding, but please bring along folding paper for payment. Don will appropriately endorse your log books indicating that you have done this training. Trevor urgently needs to know if you are available over a part of these three days this weekend and on what day you would like to do your training. First in first served. To optimise time available, we may well aim for a spin briefing session in the early am, followed by the flight sequences throughout the day. Let's hope we get some feedback on this from attendees, and that it encourages other Clubs, FTFs etc. to do the same!

Aldo - I can check the GA requirements if you like, but 85dB seems very reasonable - seems like you have really done a top job there. There's a Pawnee tug working out of Camden that flies over populated areas and it absolutely cracks; if they don't quieten it down, I can foresee glider operations being shut down there (ironic, or what?).

And his readers know that his contributions are worth exactly what they paid for them. As - unless you provide better information - do yours appear, Keith. Surely, you can do better than the lowest common denominator? There are things that grow under rocks alongside sullage ponds with more reliability.

Don't need a novel, Keith, just the facts.

Specifics please, Keith. What do you specifically see as 'having come to fruition? You fly an aircraft under regulations (and at a cost) that required an organisation capable of providing a professional level of administration to its activities - that was the genesis of the AUF. CASA ( in its various previous incarnations) was NOT interested in 'recreational aviation'. Without the development of the RAA via the AUF, you would be restricted to a bloody plastic chair suspended on strings under a pair of cotton-clad wings with a Victa lawnmower engine spinning a pair of paddlepop sticks. Or you would be paying for a C150 at the minimum, LAME-maintained.. Had a look at the minimum cost of any new GA aircraft lately? RAA ran for WAY too long under the dictatorship of a disgruntled ex-CASA employee who espoused the ideals of a 'cricket-club' management style that happened to appeal. Instead of evolving to meet the requirements of the modern age, it stumbled along until the CASA audit exposed the manifold faults. PUT UP, Keith, the things to which you allude. Let's have it out in the open for all to discuss.

Aldo - just some further thought - and this is absolutely NOT criticisms, just thought of a more general nature. Straight-through exhaust systems, if well-designed (and having done a few, that includes, if possible, getting the individual stacks length-tuned so there is a constant low-pressure in the joiner collector for the next exhaust impulse), are very beneficial to performance. For car engines, we used to use a pyrometer (nowadays, an IR temp. sensor would do the same thing) to determine where the exhaust pulses were slowest ( i.e. the heat spots on the exhaust stack) and cut each pipe where they were coolest. However, there is a downside to a straight-through system: the noise. It looks as if your situation is one where noise would not be a problem, but for those flying out of airfields surrounded by urban development, excessive noise will be a real problem for continued use of that facility. Noise generation is a serious problem for GA certification, because GA has recognised the 'social consequences' of noisy aircraft. In the certification tests for the Sunbird Seeker, for instance, it was the noise profile ( more prop noise than engine noise!) that determined the climb-out allowable maximum revs. Personally, I find the whine of leaf-blowers in the early morning in a city suburb far more irritating than a group of 50+ Harley's riding past my place, as happens every weekend. But we - as a minority sport - attract ridiculous amount of attention. People want to shut down airfields close to their homes - and local Councils eager to sell off more land and generate more rates income are only too happy to use noise as an excuse to shut down airfields. Modern high-performance motorcycles - in response to 'community' complaints about noise - are so damn quite that you can't hear them coming in a still day. And they deliver of the order of 180+ horsepower from a one-litre motor - serious performance. motoGp bikes with no silencers that have something of the order of 280 hp from one litre., IDLE at around 130dB and peak at 138 dB) I used to ride a Ducati with Conti cans - 900cc's, around 100 hp, noisy enough to trigger car alarms as you rode past. Do that today and you could get arrested by the cops.. As a group, we need to be conscious of noise; it would be great if you could extend your research into adding some sort of silencers. Motorcycle technology - where weight is a real concern - MAY provide some answers. Carbon-fibre cans, perhaps?

Pete: Old Koreelah is your go-to guy here!

Aldo - that sound like very good engine management to me, and no wonder you are happy with the temps generally. I believe that excess ground running time is a real killer for Jab engines and your regime and mods certainly seem to be doing a great job. Is that an 11-row cooler?