Vev

In my view, ethanol and aviation do not mix well and should be avoided. Ethanol in aviation fuels can create numerous problems that will jump up and bite you without warning. As with all fuels, stability through oxidation will produce various residues that will leave stubborn deposits throughout the fuel system and more so with ethanol blends. Ethanol is hydroscopic and will absorb water from the atmosphere that will cause corrosion and accelerate oxidation which will leave horrible deposits if left long enough. Additionally, Ethanol will damage many plastics and soften fibregalss and turn clear screens foggy. Whilst ethanol will bump up octane, it does have a lower energy value and will require a higher volume (approx. 5% more for E10) to deliver the same calorific value… this can lead to lean burning and cause serious engine damage. It also has a high latent heat of evaporation and can act like a refrigerant and will increase the risk of carb icing… not a good look when on final. It is also heavier than Avgas or 95/98 Mogas and will reduce you load carrying of you ac … I agree not much in terms of an E10 although those 100% variants in Brazil can be 30 kg heavier per 100lt of fuel. Personally I don’t use E10 in any of my toys. Cheers Vev

What a fantastic story ... Thanks for posting. Cheers Vev

Well done rhysmcc, I guess the issue now is to get this recognised by the folks at CASA .... as Dr Zoos says, that dispite the number of contracts he has made with CASA they don't seem to understand the details of this issue behind the flt review process in the transition from RAA to an RPL. It would be great to get these reviews done on one ac instead of jumping out of one RAA reg into a VH reg aircraft of the same make and model. Cheers Vev

The reason I asked the question in the first place, was when I read the application form to apply for an RPL (61-1RA sec E) ... It talked about a flt test (not review) being conducted in a suitable aircraft that meets CASR 61.245 and Part 61 MOS. I looked this up but wasn't clear where it said anything other than category (fix wing etc) with no reference to registration, be it RAA or otherwise. Forgive the logic, but accepting that CASA were about to hand over an RPL and endorsement based on the recognition that people holding RAA Pilot Certs had mostly accumulated their hours in RAA aircraft, then why wouldn't an RAA aircraft be acceptable to undertake a flt review? However, I was not clear after reading the Regs and thought I would ask if anyone one actually knew the answer, as from my point of view, it would be good not to have to do multipul flt reviews to maintain both licences or certificates. Cheers Vev

May be a dumb question, but can the flight review be completed in a RAA aircraft of the right category? Cheers Vev

Are you saying this relates to Australian Mogas profiles as a good descriptor? Cheers Vev

Hi Mike, There's a very good chance it will be ok... However there is a chance it won't be. Stored in a sealed container in correct conditions 10 months won't be a problem, but when it's exposed to the atmospher many things can (and do) go wrong. Personally I would find another use for it and buy some new fuel.... This will be a lot cheaper than testing or doing some damage to an engine or possibly worse! Fresh is always best. Cheers Vev

It makes one wonder how and why these MTOW were decided. Notwithstanding structural limitation of a particular ac, weight capping within the scope of RAA limits is hard to rationalise in my mind. I completely get max stall of 45knts ... lower stall has an impact on safety over many levels and is also consistent with observing overall crash survivabilty ie seats, cabin integrity etc. higher stall will require greater consideration for strength to protect occupants. Come Sept we will have access to VH aircraft with a switch over to RPL that will allow lawful flight of >1500kg aircraft, that is, following a flight review etc. This suggest to me a vote of confidence in our training and abilities to safely use heavier aircraft. RAA provides us many wonderful privlages, one of which is self maintenance, which I personally enjoy and learn from. Additional the medical requirement help many that would otherwise be grounded. RPL will not allow owner maintenance (save owner built experimental) and drivers lic med will also lock out many too. If we can now lawfully fly a RAA ac at 650kg, just because it has floats or a hull, why shouldn't we allow 650kg Aircraft across the board. I would argue that an additional increase in weight would provide more safety (greater strength and durability) ... Indeed why isn't RAA & CASA revisiting MTOW for RAA ac, in light of RPL caps, and consider higher weights that still observe 45 knot stall. I know these consideration have been out there for a number of years, but surely the argument is become more irrational as time passes not to revisit this again in light of the RPL impacts. Just my opinion .. Looking forward to hearing your views? Cheers Vev

I don't get it either Nick. Do our aircraft become more dangerous or we become less competent with 50kg more, the rules says not, that is, so long as these are floats or a hull. I'm not getting the point here ... Really I'm not! Cheers Vev

Thanks JR .... You make sense about the structural strength. However I'm still unclear why we can have a 50kg increase just because these are floats? What's the rationale behind this MTOW increase? Cheers Vev

Why is it, if one fits floats to an RAA ac we are allowed an extra 50kg in MTOW? Are the floats considered lifting bodies? Doesn't this compromise the airframe structure strength? Cheers Vev

http://www.bp.com/retail/liveassets/bp_internet/retail_new/retail_new_australia/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/0_999/Microbes_in_Fuel.pdf You can get microbes in petrol but this is very infrequent ... it happens often with diesel and kero/Jet under the right conditions. Fuels are much more stable these days, however the volatility varies (deliberately) by region and time of year ... buying fuel in one season i.e. winter and holding it over into summer can see the light ends flash off more quickly as the temperature increases ... opposite when you buy in summer and it goes into cooler months the lighter ends remain liquid for much longer. Avgas is far more less volatile as it is 100% isooctane with virtually no aromatics to flash off ... not very popular in the sniffing fraternities. As I said before, fresh is best Cheers Vev

I would still be mindful of oxidation degradation ... Fresh is always best! Cheers Vev

It was a fantastic day and we all had a ball ... Thanks to everyone that came along and supported the show. I'm looking fwd to having a year off until the next one. Love the pics as always Neil Cheers Vev

No mate ... We have way too many other lovely aircraft to put in the sky and I have a job on the day. Although I'll have my old girl out and on static display. Cheers Vev

The Tyabb Airshow theme this year is "A Salute to Veterans" as we commemorate the centennial of the beginning of WW1 and recognise the contribution of all service men and women throughout all of the conflicts that Australia has participated. Each period of conflict will have flying examples used throughout the 20th century until present day. There will be plenty see and do, including what is said to be, one of the largest ground theatre reenactments of battles supported by air attack undertaken in Australia. http://www.tyabbairshow.com Come along and see some of best examples of warbirds anywhere in the country on one day..... From Sopwith to FA18 and everything in between. The weather is looking perfect and flyin is very welcome .. Read your ERSA and Notams for details. This is a charity event and the main beneficiary is Legacy

Can you actually buy aircraft plugs for a Jab engine? I might be wrong, but I dont think there are aircraft plugs that size? Cheers Vev

Mick, Thanks again. Found it ... Under Special Instruction in section 2, 4.18 page 49 ... Would have been easier to find if it had of been included in the undercarriage section and not a separate Special Instruction! Turbo got it spot on with his suggested method Thanks for the help guys ... I'll have play and see how I go. Cheers Vev

Hi Mick, That was the forst place I looked but couldn't find what I was looking for … may be I'm looking in the wrong place? Cheers Vev

Hi Nev, It's a jab160 U/C Cheers Vev

How do you do a wheel alignment on the main landing gear? Cheers Vev

Thanks for the feedback... however I need to deal with the wording of AUW as this is the term used in the piece I'm working on. Additionally the AIP does makes mention of AUW a couple of times which, to some extent, locks it into aviation terminology, albeit without a definition. Regards Vev

I didn't even go near roadbikes such as and especially the Suzuki GSX-R range that blew everything watercooled away for many years and gave huge bulletproof service life to everyone that owned them. Alas, for emissions control they had to go to water cooling for tighter bore clearances to comply with exhaust emissions at cold start up - and they got heavier and slower while doing it and took years to get back to the same weigh and power levels, it's well documented. Hi Bex.. Wasn't the GSX-R oil/air cooled? The earlier GSX were 100% air cooled if I recall correctly? Cheers Vev

Very cool Nev .. Nothing is new is it.. as you said the metallurgy was more the issue of the day. I seem to recall some backyard motorcycle engine builder developing variable valve timing back in the 50's for their IOM "specials". All great fun!

Do any of you guys remember the 4 cyl, 32 valve, oval piston, duel conrod Honda NR500 GP bike back in the late 70's... Complexity at its worst but you couldn't help but admire the engineering at the time.