mnewbery

I agree with post #2. For mine, a relaxed trip is to go whatever is a comfortable distance before 11am then plan to be a tourist on the ground for lunch up to 4pm or later. If it's possible to do another leg after 4pm, giddy up! I think the trick is to plan the midday stop somewhere it's worth stopping. For me that means fuel accomodation and shelter. Something touristy and phone coverage could be good too. If the weather looks suspicious I am already parked up and looking at a restaurant menu.

Wow that was too easy. Someone by the name of "ignored member" keeps coming up in the responses just after I write a reply in a lot of these threads. No idea who it is or what they are saying. Probably drivel. Any who, I am trying to track down a NSW pilot who was using a G13B or something like it in a Moyes Dragonfly to tow hang gliders. If I can find out anything I will post pictures

Who is "we" ?

https://www.mackayregion.com/events/event/104605-mechanos-mackay

Yes it does conflict. My bad. Such an easy mistake to make which is why I'd rather not have gone there

One thing I was planning to avoid mentioning is that Vx is the indicated air speed that maximises vertical force and Vy is the indicated air speed that maximises the difference between propeller generated thrust and total drag. As mass increases to MTOW, the total drag is increased by the required increase in angle of attack to generate the lift. This doesn't means the aircraft nose pitches up, it means the path through the air is less steep and the nose pitch relative to the earth stays the same. Depending on the wing that could be anywhere between 9 and 14 degrees typically. The description of Vy here and its relationship to power is in agreement with post #8. The POH only sees noticeable large differences between Vx and Vy speeds when there is a lot of thrust and big differences between the lowest and highest all-up weights (like the Boeing 757). One Cessna 172G I fly has no measurable difference between Vx and Vy with two people in it. Its rather old and slow. From this, there are two things robbing the systemof rate-of-climb: 1. The power available from the propeller is constant and can't be increased, at 650 fpm its only about 17-18 Kw devoted to lift and the rest is drag 2. As mass increases, more drag is induced due to a higher angle of attack pointing the lift vector backwards The coefficient of lift is not normally a straight line change but it can be

Regarding post #2 Nev, I agree with all of the post. Leigh Clifford was brought on to the QANTAS board in 2008 (AGM was November 2007) after a successful run of union busting at Patrick Stevedores and Rio Tinto among others. Tony Sheldon of the TWU and Steve Purvinas of the ALEA were in the sights of the QANTAS board pretty much from then on. During late 2010 to mid 2012 some really dumb stuff got done and said. Nobody looked good. The unions got the Labour government involved (Sheldon was a mate of Gillard's). Fair Work used the 2009 Act to end the QANTAS Lockout which started 2 days after the 2012 AGM. Sound familiar? Good. Moving on... In May 2012, QANTAS announced it would close Tullamarine workshops in favour of moving heavy maintenance to Brisbane and Avalon. 500 people lost their jobs in that decision which at the time represented 10% of the total QANTAS Engineering head count. Some of these people were apprentices. The engine shop that closed was the one I believe taught Rolls Royce how to suck eggs by designing and implementing a life extension program for the RB-211 which Rolls then took up. For the record neither QANTAS NOR THE ALEA ever mentioned 457 visas as a solution to anything (that's for me yobbo loud mouth mate north of the Tweed). I have to say though that if someone did come to Australia on a skilled visa the local union representatives tend to check their particulars and clue them up on wages and conditions pretty quickly. Yes QANTAS management have a poor relationship with unions. Not with the engineers. More specifically, the apprenticeships are still ticking along in 2018. I am deeply troubled by the treatment the apprentices appear to have received. I also suggest that not everything Steve Purvinas said about it is factually correct. The truth does not matter in this case, it's what people now think about the job. Specifically that career. Unbeknown to the public and the government, QANTAS had suffered badly from a fuel hedge that went the wrong way for them, was deeply in debt, losing money and they needed to get their costs under control. This doesn't excuse management behaviour nor does it explain how QANTAS spent 30% more than Virgin for the same heavy maintenance. QANTAS were angling for a bail out or a buy out. Either way in 2012 they were close to broke. What does this have to do with a broken Pawnee used for glider towing or a Grumman Tiger waiting for an annual? On the surface not much. Unfortunately the bank of mum and dad only hear about "light plane crash this", "union action that", 4 year apprenticeships, getting sued and death ... and crappy wages and conditions. Purvinas may have actually kicked an own goal by making some of this stuff public and because CASA insists on foreigners sitting CASA exams before they can do independent work, they aren't exactly knocking the doors down to work in 'Straya. Nobody hears the good stories. Nobody is celebrating the GA maintenance apprentice of the year. Nobody is glamourising what it's like to "keep em flying". Nobody cares until it's their plane that's busted. Then it's too late.

You might like to contact Pat Macha 514 Aircraft Crash Sites - Airplane Geeks Podcast - The weekly audio podcast that explores and expands your passion for aviation.

The rough number I came up with was 595fpm which only takes into account the relationship between the power available for increasing altitude and the change in mass. Any PPL or CPL level aerodynamics book can give the details about changes in TODR, LDR, Vx and Vy as mass changes that I am neglecting here.

I agree with Post #3. Won't help if the plane is an experimental or heavily modified

I can do an energy calculation if you want. PM me if this is of interest

In the 1980s Kyocera Ceramics rocked up at a trade show with a 50cc all ceramic engine. They claimed the only parts that were metal were in the ignition ... Ironically one metal part was the spark plug thread which they also made. They claimed the engine never needed lubrication and would happily run on regular unleaded petrol. A similar story with a model based on the Yamaha XJ600 engine in 1992 but this one only used ceramic main bearings and soot from the engine as a lubricant. The issue I documented in my university assignment was that the tiny voids created in the ceramic during the large scale manufacturing process couldn't be economically got rid off. These voids are a result of using a pug mill originally designed for making plastic parts. The voids were causes by gas bubbles in the mix. Placing the ceramic mix under vacuum for a few weeks might have helped. One microscopic void in the wrong place stuffed the whole part. Another issue was that the ceramic parts weren't elastic like metal until at operating temperature so they were easy to damage if mishandled. Looking back, if Kyocera had been successful it would have been an environmental disaster because the parts could not be recycled. Ceramic coated piston crowns and 3D printed parts (blisks and blings for example) have mostly obviated the advantage of large individual ceramic components.

My point exactly. Apparently its ok for you to bring it up. When I do it some tosser starts calling me names

I heard an interesting story from an avionics technician sent to fix some cow cocky's C210 in the middle of a paddock. His issue in general was that he was working outside in the weather, on call and basically treated like a TV repair man. Now he does the same work but on simulators for about twice the money. I listened carefully to other stories which made things sound a bit like a cross between the blues brothers and a travelling circus. Except there were no drugs, no groupies and a lot more deaths. The issue that has been continuously highlighted to me and the issue that may go to explain why nobody is hanging around to sign off on work is one of strict liability. Between that, the average pay, grumpy customers and a crushing amount of paperwork not to mention the apprenticeship and exams I think young people listened and voted with their feet. Yes. It would. Young people can make more money in easier ways

More verifiably incorrect information from @fly_tornado. Suspended does not equal abandoned. Shame on you. Are We Gonna Get A 100LL Replacement Or Not? - AVweb Insider Article

This could be worth a read. It appears directly relevant to the thread. Alternative Engines Volume 4 preview (Opens in ISSUU reader)

Racing Secrets On the same website is @fly_tornado 's favourite engine with a turbo on it. The website also has a tab waaaaaay off to the right just for @fly_tornado. It could be turned into a book. Or not. While on the subject of the Takeoff-ul (modification of the R1100) TBM11 as noted in post #47, the editor stated he thought the cruise demand was around 38hp at 70KIAS given the 2.6 GPH fuel consumption. I think this amount of cruise demand even at 5500 RPM would contribute a lot to overall longevity.

Subaru owner joke: Knock knock? Who's there? conrod three!

Yass airfield. Talk to Tony Smart at Canberra Aeroclub for details. Welcome!

I had a bike like this (non-turbo) in after-market black. I really wanted the turbo kit but at the time I didn't have the shed or the money. Now I don't care anymore and I certainly don't need to go this fast. I still have the bike trailer.

I worked with a guy in Bundaberg who built his own drag racing engines. He showed me a lot about the relationship between ignition timing, BMEP and torque over the operating range. He showed me clearly why some 1970s two-stroke engines start with a relatively advanced spark that retarded back to zero degrees near the redline. It was very simple but it worked to keep things safe. His "small" drag bike was a 2000cc turbo monster that produced 400bhp at 14,000 rpm using one rotary valve instead of camshafts. His big issue was that the class didn't allow electronic aids which meant no boost referenced advance and the turbo took ages to pick up off the line. Totally the opposite of an aero engine!

Blame @M61A1 for that, he started it . Even the electrical load robs the engine of some power but try going anywhere without it. During my engineering classes (yes @fly_tornado I did engineering) the lecturers were at pains to discuss the trap of adding more pistons, valves and other gubbins in the pursuit of more specific power. It might work for a while but useful stuff gets optimised away like being able to idle the engine or having acceptable oil consumption or manageable complexity ... or mass. I do like how designers have cottoned on to intercoolers in an effort to increase turbo engine TBO back to something like the naturally aspirated aero engine times.

This one is for @fly_tornado. Reverse tricycle? Tick! Engine based on Snow Mobile? Probably Found all over Europe? Tick! Trailerable? Tick! Can-Am Spyder F3-P 3-Wheel Police Motorcycle

@Thruster88 theoretically *wink wink* the R1100 90Hp engine would propel the R1100RS to 215 Km/h before hitting the redline and it really is struggling to accelerate past 205 Km/h. Using the square/square root for the power demand against drag, this suggest 75% power would be around 186Km/h and 6200rpm. Those numbers agree with my dimly remembered experience. Something else to consider is that the R1150 engine was routinely called out for not putting much beyond 77Hp to the ground even when in the best state of tune. In the case of the R1150 I have no idea other than "more than 186 Km/h" because it was a 6 speed. One case in point is the Takeoff-ul TBM12 which is based on (their own modification of) the BMW R1200 motorcycle engine. The engine configuration first appeared on the Merlin weight shift microlight in 1998 with the R1100 based modification. One modification was three spark plugs per cylinder (why? why?) The TBM12 unit is claimed to produce 75Kw at 7200 RPM and weighs a claimed 58Kg. I'm not going to speculate how long that output can be sustained for because I don't care and the original thread was for a CH-701 not a microlight. The $10,500 Euro (~$17k in Australian zloty) purchase price plus the delivery fee could be a bit more off putting than other features. The R1100 version (TBM11) requires a new centrifugal clutch every 400 hours (won't wear out if you never fly it @fly_tornado, I want your personal experience not some Euro fleet numbers). As far as the claim that "hundreds of BMW powered microlights are running around Europe" well maybe they are, in the back of trailers. Takeoff-ul have been going since the mid 1970's so hundreds of engines since 1998 is ... laudable? This document in English from 2003 shows a number of equipment failures and concerns that occurred in a single example of the TBM11 over 1000 hours of operation. It makes for exciting reading and puts a definite qualification to the statement that your BMW R1150 will provide reliable thrust.

Excellent point @M61A1. I was going to mention the shear gradient in the lubricating film that depends on the bearing surface speed but I stopped. For those interested there are some really easy-to-read articles that show the effect of (bearing or piston) surface speed on oil film shear and how the speed gradient contributes to friction, heat and wear. Just google this for one example. Then I thought of the audience Bottom line, the surface speed of a bunch of tiny things rotating very quickly might be less than one big thing rotating slowly and doing the same job. Or it might not. Maths, its hard to argue with but I am sure some will still try. Remember, a room full of mathematicians made nuclear bombs possible. Everyone else just tested the results. I went googling for the number of R1150 engines made. Its less than 99,999 because that's how many digits there are in the engine number sequence. The highest number I can find is ~52,000 for a 2004 model so a good guess would be ~60,000 examples by the end of 2006 of which a very tiny number would have ever been documented for overall condition prior to being scrapped because nobody cares. I am sure for $10,000 you can still get one with 500 hours (40,000 kms) on it and a free motorcycle! Another fun math fact, Rotax made and sold 50,000 "912" engines in 25 years to 2014. By 2020 if Rotax keep going at the same rate that number will be 62,000 new 912 engines. It reminds me of the joke conversation between God and Arthur Davidson about God's design of "Woman".