Yenn

Why would anyone use other than a transponder to be compliant. From what I see above a transponder would be cheaper. If this airspace grab goes ahead I will be very surprised, it is poorly thought out and with a bit of luck even CASA will see it as a rubbish claim. I really cannot see that any RPT or IFR flight would want to be travelling at 2000' above GL. Too much turbulence and also high fuel burn. I have had my say with Airservices and will shortly be contacting CASA with my thoughts on this and other matters of stupidity with Airservices. If you want an example of Airservices stupidity, look up the airport Facing Island in Qld YFCI from memory and then look at Airservices policy on naming of airports.

I would have thought that if anything stopped the exhaust valve from closing there would have been visible damage, either to the seat or the valve.

I have never flown a rotating wing aircraft, but I have heard that it is esy to kill yourself in a gyro, by doing what we do by instinct in a fixed wing. If they lose rotor sped and begin a rapid descent, then pushing the stick forward will not be the life saver that it is in fixed wing. It will stall the blades and result in no lift at all. Pulling back will cause the blades to increase their rotation.

The weight change for a new weight and balance is not 5kg, it is a percentage of max weight. 5kg on my plane would have a much greater effect than 5kg on a C172.

In the photos above showing the area where the hot air exits the cowl, it may look good and it may also work, but what do you think the passing air is doing behind the lip on the lower cowl. I reckon there would be very turbulent air there. It could probably work better with a smaller exhaust area and better shaping to supply smooth airflow. The whole aim is to get the air into the cowl, duct it around so that it goes between the fins on the head and cylinders and then get it out with the least drag.

It may be OK to get or change instructors around the big citys, but where i fly there are no instructors. There was one at the nearest city, but I wouldn't go to him for a BFR. I have already related how he passed a pilot, only to have RAAus rescind his passing weeks later. Even if I do find an instructor I either have to fly in their plane or they watch me from the ground. I have done GA BFRs for the last 4 times, in an aero club plane at great expence, but a good experience mostly. There is one excellent instructor about 80 miles away, so I may have to go to him. He does at least know how to fly, but my experience with RAAus instructors is that they vary from excellent to apalling.

You will not have forced airflow around the fins if you put something between them to stop the flow. I still cannot understand the question. I have done some work on air cooling, but am not aware of what FR guy is trying to do. How anout a real explanation of what the problem is.

I did PPL theory many years ago, but I was still well away from formal education age. Because I was interested in the theory I found it easy and did Commercial. It probably took me about six months of part time evening study. Cost wise it may be cheaper to go the RAAus way, but you have to join and pay a yearly fee, whereas with GA you only have a one off fee for the issue of a licence. RAAus does have insurance for its aircraft as a standard. GA requires a Class 2 or basic Class 2 medical and I forget how long it lasts, but over 75 I think it is only one year. Not a particularly hard standard to attain. RAAus requires a drivers licence medical standard. Buying a GA plane such as a Cessna 172 is not all that expensive, but the low price could be offset by buying a plane which needed a lot of maintenance, which has to be done by a Licenced Aviation mechanic (LAME). Ease of travelling to and from airports, I assume you mean by air. GA is easy, although you are not going to want to go into the major airports such as Melbourne international. Landing and handling fees are monstrous for them. many other airports have landing fees and some even add them up for every landing even if you are training. One thing you may not be aware of is that a lot of airports are way out of town, with poor public transport. Just great to turn up at say Thangool and have to wait about an hour for a taxi to get to you. That in my opinion is the worst thing about flying. Renting a plane used to be easy, but I haven't needed to rent for over twenty years, so am well out of touch as I am with hangar costs etc. One thing about the difference between RAAus and GA is that I find GA planes to be ponderous and sluggish, compared with RAAus planes, but that is because I fly my own planes. You as a beginner would not have high expectations. Whatever you decide, flying is just about one of the greatest things you can do. It will tax you during the learning phase and keep you interested for the rest of your life. It will be expensive, but so is smoking or going to the cinema or a cafe for what has become a very expensive coffee. If you do fly you will always feel better about yourself and have self confidence, although it may ebb slightly with age, it started with me at 80 years old, but that is way back now. Just go for it.

What Airservices are doing could well be what the Unions do with wages. Put in a claim that is ridiculous and everyone gives a gasp of relief when only half of what they wanted is allowed. Maybe they really want to reduce class E to 5000', but if they had proposed that we would all have objected. Now they expect to get it and we are all happy. Standard procedure for anyone in control. The real reason they want it is because they have seen what happens in the UK.

Two things. Updraught cooling of any aero engine looks attractive as hot air rises, but you have to be aware that the heated air has to exit somewhere. If it is at the top there is a good chance that any oil blowby or worse leaking oil, will end up on the screen. The problem you are having seems to be that the air goes down through the fins until it gets to the centre of the cylinder and then it can get away from the fins beneath the cylinder. As someone earlier suggested the answer to that is gullwing ducts beneath the cylinder to keep the air flowing between the fins.

Could you explain what you are trying to achieve. Is this a Jab engine? Are you using the Jab Plenum or making your own? Are you trying to seal the gap between cylinders? For cooling efficiency you need the air to be going between the fins, from the top, high pressure side to the bottom, low pressure side and not getting through without close contact with the fins.

I have too much excess power with a 2200 Jab in the Corby. I could easily exceed Max speed, straight and level. But it is nice to have on a hot day with a short strip.

As I stated before you don't have to have a clearance and of course if you are IFR or special IFR you will need a clearance. We need to state the obvious and prepare an argument to stop this. What is the need for a lowering of the E class level? Have there been any accidents caused by E class not being low enough? If I remember correctly, the last mid air collision involved two aircraft on IFR flights. That means that Airservices were monitoring them. How could Airservices do a better job when they have more airspace to oversee? Airservices mention that they want to be ICAO compliant, but from what I see of Airservices that is only just talk. After they make amendments there will be a statement that it is not ICAO compliant. It has a precedent, so can be expected. The selection of 1500' is not sensible because that is the top of circuit height for airstrips. There is no ability to overfly without coming int conflict with traffic in the circuit. 1500' is also not sensible, because most of the East coast has hills and ridges rising 3000' from the surrounding country. For example, my home strip at 100', which would give an E level of 1600' has 2500' hills within a few miles. How would a 1500' limit be policed? I would expect that it would be impossible for Airservices to police a 1500' limit, unless the plane was using a transponder, in which case it would be legal in Class E. Is Airservices doing this because similar things have been done in the UK, with massive areas of airspace denied to GA traffic. I reckon I can come up with more reasons that it is a stupid idea, but if you are going to put in your thoughts, go ahead and add mine if you think they are valid and also post here any extras you can think of. At the moment I am having trouble getting to Airservices site as they won't accept my password, although I cann still get NAIPS service.

Its a very challenging thing to do in daylight. That was the comment by an aviation expert and I assume he was talking about landing on the mains in a nosewheel aircraft. As far as I can see all pilots should be able to land on the mains and there is nothing heroic about it. Failing to land on the mains is what causes nosewheels to fail. The small amount of night flying i did years ago taught me that it is no harder landing correctly at night, than it is in the day.

I wonder how many pilots buy a plane with the intention of using it for hire or training. Does it really add much to the value?

You don\'t have to have a clearance to fly in class E airspace. I think it is a stupid proposal and cannot see why it is necessary. Have there been any accidents which could have been avoided by having this change. In my opinion it is just the bureaucrats at Airservices trying to spread their wings after seeing what has happened in the UK. Their comment about making it ICAO compliant is farcical. I have seen them use this argument on other occasions and then at the end of their argument they will say it is not ACAO compliant. It is just something they use to prop up an argument that it doesn't apply to.

I also have lost more friends to aircraft crashes than car crashes, but there is little similarity between them. The aviation accidents have been mainly poor judgment problems. The car crashes have been poor judgment by others in many cases. We are exposed to danger on the roads for longer than we are in the air, unless we are a professional pilot, but we are mixing with people who who vary in ability from excellent to appalling.

Laminar or non laminar depends upon the design of the wing. Some wings are designed as laminar flow and they work well, but bugs on the wing will reduce lift by breaking up the laminar flow and ice will do a really good job of it. MTOW is a figure produced by the designer of the plane, but we have to comply with the legal MTOW as set by CASA. It would be possible to have a plane with a 600kg MTOW, but for it to be only flown at 544kg max.

I never did tufting tests but they have been done in the USA by Ron Brierley I think his name is. He runs a business selling top quality injectors among other things. He found on a C182 that standing tail to wind on run up was no worse for airflow than head to wind. If you increase the cooling area covered by the Jab plenums to include more of the cylinder lower areas, you will be reducing the cooling effect on the cylinder head. You have a finite amount of cooling air and spreading it over a bigger area decreases its effectiveness. You could look for any places where air flows out of the plenum and isn't in direct contact with the fins. That could include a gap between adjacent cylinders, which may need a V shaped duct to get the air between the fins.

Where did you hear that proposal? I keep a fairly close ear to what goes on and I haven't seen it.

What you are looking at is the 90 deg heading and is the same as you would see on a panel mounted compass. Look closer and you will see 90 right at the top ad that is what you would see if you were looking down on the compass. The odd part is that the bearings are different each side of the lubber line.

Go back to basic theory and use the density calculated for temp, pressure and humidity. By the time you have done it, it will have changed.

My secret is to get an aiming point and make sure it is not going up on the screen, preferably to have it going down, so that I have plenty of height in hand.

We used the old Diamond T with the Hercules diesel. For tank transporting they had a hand clutch, mounted up on the rear body. Pull the clutch lever in. Put it in first or revers gear, climb back on the rear and release the hand lever, the clutch was released nice and slow and away you went. Good for coupling up. The bonnet was rather long. Never did a pre flight on a Cent, but i have quite a few hours driving them. I notice when I see a magazine article about someone driving a Cent or any C class tank, that they never try to reverse them and don't know what a neutral turn is.

So what happened to crack testing the pistons? You say the low pressures were due to blow by, rather than leaking valves, but this all started about oveheating, which would make valve problems more likely. How did you do the leak down test? Did you have the correct gear for the Jab engine?