Wilfred

I would think that there are two issues here As there is really there is no such thing as cheque book building i would think that you are hiring someone to assist you in the work you are doing ie building the aircraft. as you have signed it off and approved the parts , materials engines etc as you went along you surely would only have yourself to blame. if however you contracted someone to do some of the work as their individual expertise was required for that part of the project i would think that if any work was substandard or defective that you would have some comeback on that person and if they were contracted to do the work because of their RAA qualifications then in that instance i would think RAA would need to look at that contractor. However you would have to think that any defective work would be picked up as you go along and sign off the work completed. as far as engine choice i guess you would only have yourself to blame.

Jabiru specifically advise not to use resistor plugs with their ignition coils. I recently wrote to them on this subject and had this re-confirmed. I was also told that there have been quite a number of coil failures in the states and ST aviation also advises not to use them. if you have any correspondance from Jabiru that is different please post it.

I have an Icom IC A23 absolutely excellent It is PC programmable but i have not used that function . Its pretty straight forward from the keypad.

I would not think so for most aircraft. Jab constuction seems just like building a fibreglass boat.

This is a bit of a problem both here and overseas and is not confined to the comms but seems to be more related to composite aircraft and the lack of a ground plane. Looking at US web sites there are a lot of tips as to things that have been tried with most effective seems to be as detailed below The only radio frequency interference (RFI) problem unique to the Jabiru engines is the result of their choice of a single phase permanent magnet (PM) alternator. It's a good alternator, but three phase is better. When they had trouble with the original system they chucked the better (IMHO) three phase PM ALT and derated to a single phase system. The result is that instead of <1.5 volts DC peak-to-peak ripple current (as dictated by RTCA DO-160) it has a whopping 14 volt ripple! This generates lots of RFI for us Jab drivers to deal with. Fortunately, the fix is simple and cheap. Simply install a computer-grade electrolytic capacitor in thesystem just downstream of the voltage regulator (VR) and you now have a 1.5 VDC or less pk-pk ripple and lots of noises go away! My VR output leads both go to the (+) terminal of the capacitor (filter, suppressor, whatever you want to call it) and then on to the the BAT via an overvoltage protection relay. You can go directly to the battery if you don't have OV protection. It doesn't matter. The (-) post of the capacitor goes to ground. "Computer Grade" capacitors are used because they have machine screw posts to which a ring terminal connection can easily and reliably be secured. They are polar, ie they have a (+) and (-) side, and you don't want to cross them up or you make get a gooey mess where the Capacitor used to be :o) Boyd May wrote: I am a Jabiru J200-400 builder in Australia and have found that a ferrit rings fitted on the kill switch wires and to the main power cable to the Bus Bar are of a help. Some owners have used the NGK DR9EIX Iridium plugs but the factory says not to as they can cause the coils to fail over time We have not done any of the above mods but have gone over all the earths, and, when using the radio when you know you need good power, turn the strobe off. We took our Jab to a guy at Archerfield who also recommended checking the earths very carefully especially the choke , carby heat and throttle cable outers as if they are not earthed they can act as an aerial for the RFI . This made a slight difference. Ii would be interested to hear what any other owners have to say. By the way we use microair comms.

Aero-Tips 09.14.06 Different airplanes handle differently. That should be pretty obvious, but why is this so? There are many factors that affect an airplane's handling -- one of them is wing loading. Wing loading describes the amount of aircraft weight carried by the wing. It's usually calculated as the airplane's maximum takeoff weight divided by the wing area, and measured in pounds per square foot. (Note: the units are arbitrary; it could just as easily be expressed in fanegas per hectare. Okay, maybe not as easily). An airplane with a lower wing loading (more wing for the weight) can takeoff off in a shorter distance and outclimb a similar-weight airplane with less wing (higher wing loading). They can also carry more aircraft weight for the same engine power…more wing is pulled (or pushed) through the air by the engine, so more lift is generated to counter weight. The downside is that lower wing-loading airplanes are more affected by turbulence. With less directional inertia (per unit of wing area) and more wing area on which a gust can act, the lightly-loaded wing will bounce around a lot more than an airplane with higher wing loading. It's not the only factor, but wing loading determines in large part how a particular airplane will ride in turbulent conditions. In general, if you want a good ride you want higher wing loading, but if short-field performance and maneuverability are important to you, low wing loading is superior. For comparison purposes let's look at the wing loading of a few personal aircraft, to gauge (at least initially) how they might takeoff, climb, turn and ride compared to others: You can divide your airplane's maximum takeoff weight by the wing area to see how it stacks up.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cols=1 cellPadding=3 width="98%"> <T> <TR> <TD> <CENTER></CENTER></TD></TR> <TR> <TD> <CENTER></CENTER></TD></TR> <TR> <TD> <CENTER></CENTER></TD></TR> <TR> <TD> <CENTER></CENTER></TD></TR> <TR> <TD> <CENTER></CENTER></TD></TR> <TR> <TD> <CENTER></CENTER></TD></TR> <TR> <TD vAlign=center align=middle> Noted French pilot Nicolas Charmont has installed 2 AMT Olympus turbines in his Cri Cri together with AMT on-board automatic start-up units and individual EDT's. The Cri Cri weighs 170 Kg, and should have enhanced performance withover 36 Kg of thrust available. The Cri Cri has made his maiden flight in the weekeind of 7-8 March. Top speed at this flight was 240 km/hour (150 mph). Flying with only one engine the speed is still 160 km/hour (100mph).</TD></TR></T></TABLE>

The video at the attached link below shows that perhaps a lot of us are looking at aircraft design the wrong way Sometimes the answer is right there in front of you Click here

With the microair transponder if you leave a mobile switched on in the door pocket the transponder can be up to 400 feet out. it is more prevelant with Nokia & sony phones, and the motorola seem to have no effect

you could allways register it GA and have the full MTOW now. as experimental you still have the option to perform your own maintenance.

I guess it comes down to the fact that the present ultralight registration of these aircraft does not allow for the carrying of a passenger & fuel. However with the increase in MTOW hopefully early next year you will have the full 600kg MTOW that the aircraft is designed for. It still seems that the more practical approach is to get the chute now that will cater to the MTOW of your aircraft as i imagine it would be more expensive to change it at a later date.

Iwould think that if you are going to have a chute you should have one that will do the job.Most times you fly you probably have a passanger and probably spouse or kids. There is allways the chance that the smaller chute will not take the weight and collapse or the impact speedwill be such as to cause severe injuries. Tthe extra expense will i am sure be well warranted if ever you have to use it

Your Flying Car Awaits...Virtually Mon, 11 Sep '06 You Can Fly It Now! On Your Computer It's not ready yet, but if you really want to know what it will look like to fly a car or drive a plane, the Transition has a flight simulator you can fire up right now. Terrafugia has designed a "roadable aircraft" that it claims is finally a practical solution fifty years after Molt Taylor unveiled his flying car. If you have the "X-Plane" flight simulator (by Laminar Research) loaded into your computer, you can download the Transition module directly from their website which will allow pilots and drivers to pretend. A 1/5 scale model was recently on view at Airventure Oshkosh and the booth had a steady stream of visitors, most skeptical but some placing deposits of $7,400, or 5 percent of the expected $148,000 final price. Co-founder and CEO Paul Dietrich came up with the idea as a student at MIT. Enrolled in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, he became fascinated with the concept of the flying car and the earlier failed attempts to produce an economically practical model. Dietrich recently won the Lemelson-MIT Student Prize, which recognizes invention and innovation. Anna Mracek, COO of Terrafugia and also an MIT graduate, wrote in an email to CNET News "A few of the older gentlemen I talked to told me that they had been waiting for something like this their whole lives and were so excited that we were making it real while they were still able to fly it...there was naturally some healthy skepticism as well, but even the skeptics were looking forward to us bringing a flying prototype to Oshkosh one of these years." While dozens of inventors have been working on this concept for decades, Dietrich believes that with the advent of new lighter materials and high-powered computers, the flying car may soon be seen on a highway and runway near you. And as of now, you can simulate it.

As you should know if you dont have a current medical your PPL is not valid and you do not have any of the priveledges that go with the PPL.

I have sent the operating manual for the J200 and a check sheet that i leave in the aircraft to your private email address. lets know if you need anything else GoodLuck Peter

Using ethanol added fuel in an effort to "be green" has cost me a fortune in repairs as the vehicles i am using are not suited, Talk to your exhaust shop . They love ethanol and the repairs it brings them. It would appear that the main push for ethanol is political and an effort to appease the treehuggers rather than any real decrease in exhaust emissions or oil usage . The cost to consumers of using ethanol appears to be far greater than any "green "advantages. . Maybe biodiesel could be different but at a glance it seems to be a political rather than practical decision. Perhaps in tractors or stationery engines but vehicles???? Australia has some of the worst fuel in the world why would we want to reduce the efficency further with these additives. Thats my thoughts and experience and i will continue to go to any lengths to avoid any ethanol products

I run a magna and a Pajero. The ethanol mix costs more to use due to the decreased fuel efficency, also the ethanol fuel caused the catalytic converter to burn out on the magna. Another friends vehicle had the fuel pump collapse due to the ethanol on a late model fairlane. Apparantly these are common problems as reported by the mechanic i use. i now am very careful not to use any ethanol mix in my vehicles.

Fantastic Cape Moreton in sunny Queensland

Since you first mentioned this topic I have been taking more notice and in our aircraft it seems more of a problem with certain pilots. This leads me to go more for the flying out of balance as the cause. The pilot that has the least noticble difference is a high hour senior instuctor who i would have to think would be more in tune with the aircraft. PS I checked the O Rings and they are like new.

Probably easiest to just stick a scale under it On the J200 last time i seem to recall around 120Kg but fuel and passengers are going to have a bearing. The J200 has wing tanks so a bit different w&B I believe the nose wheel assembly is the same though. i dont know of any discarded or spare ones Its generally something that you would repair if damaged.

What Model Jab

If someone takes the time to pen a letter and put it here so it can be "cut & paste"I am sure that more members will then forward it to the council

you would have to think that Turtle Wax would be the best

Aircraft have different reputations because they are different; when we choose to fly them, we must be familiar with their individual traits. <?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /> According to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Air Safety Foundation, which published a Safety Highlight report on the Piper Tomahawk, the Piper Tomahawk has a one-third lower accident rate per flying hour than the comparable Cessna 150/152 series of two-place benchmark trainers. However, the Tomahawk has a higher rate of fatal spin accidents per flying hour. With proper training and an understanding of the aircraft's more advanced flying characteristics, these problems can easily be avoided.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> An early Airworthiness Directive which added an additional pair of stall strips to the wing's inboard leading edge improved the stall/spin characteristics and there has been a dramatic reduction in spin-related accidents throughout the entire fleet as a result.Allthough this could be due to greater awareness of the aircraft characteristics Because of its originally aggressive 'wing drop' spin entry and spinning characteristics, the PA-38 earned the nickname "Traumahawk" from some pilots and instructors. The Tomahawk has a reputation for being "aggressive" in a stall and for spinning readily if yaw is introduced at the right time. It also has a tendency to drop a wing in the stall -- and if the pilot mishandles the rudder, elevator, or ailerons, a spin may rapidly develop. None of this is news. When the PA-38 was introduced, it was clear that this aircraft required a different approach from that applied to the relatively docile Cessnas. Pilots who fail to understand that the PA-38 handles much differently in the stall and spin regime may be surprised by the aircraft's response. There were a few instances in which the aircraft may have been mishandled, and we believe that the solution is in understanding the Tomahawk's characteristics clearly and providing ample altitude. The Tomahawk typically may take longer to recover from a developed spin than would a Cessna. The basic spin recovery method of opposite rudder, nosedown elevator, and neutral ailerons is recommended, but there was a revision to the pilot's operating handbook that is important to note. According to the POH, "The immediate effect of applying normal recovery controls may be an appreciable steepening of the nosedown attitude and an increase in the rate of spin rotation. This characteristic indicates that the aircraft is recovering from the spin, and it is essential to maintain full antispin rudder and to continue to move the control wheel forward and maintain it fully forward until the spin stops." Some Tomahawk critics contend that the aircraft should not be stalled or spun. After looking at hundreds of accidents involving both the PA-38 and comparable aircraft, we note that some caveats are in order. No aircraft should be stalled or spun at low altitude, but we would extend the margins a bit in a PA-38. Before going solo, pilots should check out with an instructor who has considerable spin experience in the PA-38 and should have spins demonstrated to them, if circumstances permit, in strict accordance with the POH. In conducting our review, we spoke to several Tomahawk instructors and a large flight school that had years of PA-38 experience. They had conducted literally thousands of successful spin entries and recoveries. The key point is that pilots must not expect this aircraft to behave similarly to other trainers. It has its own personality and procedures to follow; ignore them at your risk. Aircraft have different reputations because they are different; when we choose to fly them, we must be familiar with their traits.

New listings of personnel associated with flight training facilities plus regional technical officers. August 29, 2006  Access is via the site map & search page, look under the 'Flight schools and training personnel' and the 'Technical, aircraft purchase & construction' headings.