JG3

I think it should open just when you click on the link. Have you tried it recently?? I can't test it because it recognizes my computer automatically....

Oops, forgot to allow share. Fixed now.

The map is looking useful already. Airfields with Accommodation But surely there must be plenty more........

Thank you. That can be a savior for fliers who run into weather, better than trying to push thro.....

Rylstone is a residential airpark, any more details?? I'm familiar with Boonah but don't know of any accommodation other than the hangar floor....

Birdsville Pub $100+, not suitable for this list........

With increasing age, setting up camp and sleeping on the ground isn't as easy as it used to be, and in the vent of wet weather it sucks.... There are several airfields that have basic accommodation on site. Coonamble, has a donga, South Grafton has a couple of bunks in the clubhouse, Broken Hill has similar, Yarram has similar very convenient for trips across the water. That's all I can think of right now but hopefully there are more. I reckon more airfields should make the effort to provide such a service. A disused donga is great, but even easier would be an old unregistered caravan. Nothing fancy, just a couple of dry bunks at the right price. Please add others that you know about. If there are enough I will draw up a Google Map to make flight planning and sleeping comfort easier.

Yes that's a lot of fuel over a lot of flight time on long trips. Don't use a MrFunnel and never had dirty fuel from anywhere....

Oops, hit the wrong button. Don't know how to change that....

The scene today with Kilcoy airfield thro the smoke. All under control. From circuit height I could count 10 other fires all round. Lots of smoke.....

I thought straight in approach is required to not conflict with aircraft already established on base or final....

I just got curious and added up all the fuel that I've burned in 30 yrs flying. 1000hrs with a 447 @ 11L/hr, 400hrs with a 503 @ 15L/hr, and 1800hrs with an 912s @ 17 L/hr, totals 47,600 litres!

Not sure these laws apply here, but the old common law probably does.

<< I'll pay more attention next time I'm changing altitude to see if there is a ground speed difference. >> Be sure to do a 4-way GPS at each altitude to get a true comparison allowing for changes in wind. I had heard many theories that the speed would be faster in the thinner air at higher altitude. I'm quite skeptical of theories without solid evidence, especially amateur theories that have been repeated for generations. So I go and do testing to find the evidence. I've done that in the past with props comparisons and VGs, with revealing evidence in each case. The evidence in this altitude comparison testing was surprising, but satisfying because I now know the real world results. I have no doubts about the consistent results. The real airspeed is not faster up higher but in fact 3-4 kts less. So no speed advantage unless more favourable wind effect. On x-country flights I seldom fly a straight line direct course. I'm forever watching the ground, and if I spot something interesting off-course I head over to have a closer look. I don't fly my aircraft just to get up in the air or just to get point to point; I use it more as a 'high clearance' vehicle for exploring the countryside. Of course this is more effective at lower altitudes. My Savannah handles turbulence pretty well, mostly just lively 'whoop-de-do' which I call 'rock and roll'. Not violent enough to cause structural overload in this well-braced high wing machine. A low wing cantilever design flying faster and thus hitting the bumps more abruptly is a whole different case. Yes the rock and roll is tiring, but I don't suffer motion sickness so just carry on, slowing down if need be. When it gets too annoying I either go high or call it a day and land at the next convenient airfield or off-field if suitable. Shouldn't plan on still being airborne that time of day anyhow..... Each to their own, but I've really enjoyed flying like this for 3000 hrs and seen so much interesting countryside and activities all over the place...... Windy.com is a real boon for chasing wind at different levels. I have found it very reliable and useful so many times.

I do quite a few long x-country flights in my Savannah, usually below 3000 QNH because I enjoy the perspective and the action I can see on the ground from that height. But often it gets fairly bumpy at that altitude by midday, and sometimes really rough in later afternoon. Going up to 6500 or 7500 ft usually finds smoother air, but I don’t enjoy it so much up there because the progress over the ground feels really slow and tedious, and the perspective flattens the terrain and I can’t sticky-beak the same detail on the ground. Of course indicated airspeed goes way down and that is expected, but I had thought that TAS made up for that and maybe some extra speed due to thinner air, etc. But measurements have shown that isn’t the case at 6500 ft, and actually lost 3-4 kts running at the same RPM by going higher. First results surprised me, so I repeated the tests five times on four different days, and the results repeated consistently. It’s very satisfying when such testing is so repeatable; shows that the procedure and controls are valid. Testing 4-way GPS at 2000 and 6500 QNH, several times. From many 4-way GPS runs, I know my ASI is spot on at 2000, so the change in altitude from that base to 6500 is 4500. Calculated TAS = IAS + (IAS x 2% x altitude in thousands). In this case IAS is 80 kts and difference in altitude is 4500, so the correction in brackets would be 7.2, rounded to 7 kts. With prop pitched to 5800 rpm WOT at 2000 ft, found the same WOT of 5800 rpm at 6500 ft. RPM IAS kts Calculated TAS kts 4-way GPS kts Fuel burn L/hr 2000 / 6500 6500 +7 2000 / 6500 2000 / 6500 5500 90 -10 80 87 90 -4 86 20 19 5200 84 -9 75 82 84 -3 81 17 17 5000 79 -8 72 79 80 -3 77 15 15 Observations from the results: - IAS reads 8–10 kts less than at 2000 ft. To be expected. - Calculated TAS is 1 kt higher than actual speed measured. (Maybe the correction factor should be 1.8% instead of 2%.) - Speed at 6500 ft measured 3–4 kts less than at 2000 ft, when running at the same RPM. - Fuel burn was essentially the same at both altitudes for the same RPMs…. The results for actual airspeed are consistently 3-4 kts slower at 6500 as compared to 2000. So to fly at the same RPM at 6500 actually lose 3-4 kts….. We know that the engine produces less power in thinner air with increasing altitude, so that would account for the reduction in speed when running at the same RPM. But that reduction in power means that 5500 is no longer max continuous, so there’s still a good margin to safely run continuously at 5500 rpm when at 6500 ft. Running at 5500 rpm at 6500 ft gives an actual speed of 86 kts at 19 L/hr fuel burn. Running at 5300 rpm at 2000 ft also gives a speed of 86 kts but at 18L/hr fuel burn. So, higher fuel burn for the same speed at 6500 ft. Would that higher fuel burn for the same airspeed be due to the basic carburetors not being fully compensated for altitude and thus running richer?? Comparing fuel efficiencies (mileage): Flying at 86 kts at 6500 ft and 19 L/hr = mileage of 4.5 nm/L. Flying at 86 kts at 2000 ft and 18 L/hr = mileage of 4.8 nm/L. That works out to 18 nm more range from a 60 L tank of fuel to fly same speed but lower. Flying at 5500 rpm at 6500 ft gives 86 kts at 19 L/hr = 4.5 nm/L Flying at 5200 rpm at 2000 ft gives 84 kts at 17 L/hr, = 4.9 nm/L. That works out to 24 nm more range from a 60 L tank of fuel to fly slower and lower. The difference of 2 kts in speed makes for a time saving of only 1.4 minutes per hour of flight time…. Is it worth it?? So it looks like no speed or fuel advantage to going high, in fact advantages to stay low. I usually cruise between 1500–2500 ft AGL at 5200 rpm, making 84 kts, so I guess I’ll continue doing the same unless seeking a more favourable wind, or of course a smoother ride…..

The results quoted in the testimonial by the Foxbat owner at https://www.stolspeed.com/a22-fox-bat are pretty much what I would predict for that wing. If the factory got bad stall effects then what did they do wrong in the installation to generate that effect? Most likely placing the VGs too far back on the airfoil.... Also it's typical for manufacturers to not want to recognize that such simple mods can improve their products.

Good question. I started out many years ago hoping to discover the very best prop. Was surprised to find initial testing showed all props tested were pretty much equal. Eventually tested 11 different props and same results. I'm annoyed by hearing claims that I can tell aren't based on credible testing. Then it became an obsession as more and more repeat testing proved results over and over again. Fascinating results from an engineering aspect, but I'm sick of bolting and unbolting props! One more report to come from testing already done regarding the difference between pitching to 5800 or 5500 rpm WOT, but then I'm absolutely done with prop testing...... After all that, I'm still flying the same prop that I started with 11 years ago, and wouldn't change for anything.......

The real difference that I was wanting to test this time was the static thrust. Previous testing had found that static thrust gives no real indication of cruise or climb performance. But of course it does make a difference in short takeoff performance. That initial thrust makes a big difference in how quickly the aircraft gets rolling and up to flying speed. With the popularity these days of seeking impressive STOL performance that could be significant. So I purchased a digital load cell and set up a ‘stump pull’ arrangement to give all props equal conditions. The differences in ‘grunt’ are significant, as detailed in the full test results at https://www.stolspeed.com/nid/46 This time also testing a couple of new scimitar-shaped props from Meglin, being imported from the Ukraine by https://www.bushaero.com.au

That's completely normal. Mag checks should always be done at 3000rpm or higher.

Noticed this neat tank vent mod on Charles Mollison's Savannah. Those original dangling tubes from the tank vents are a problem sometimes. If one gets facing forward and the other to the rear and tanks are full, the rear facing tube can start pissing fuel and keep pissing. This neat cable clamp pins the tube down and keeps it facing forward. Just be VERY careful drilling that rivet hole, all too easy to drill into the tank....

Back in about 1997 I was flying my ultralight in the Northern Territory and accidentally triggered the PLB while in the air. It was a surplus RAAF 121.5 unit with no GPS, but had a test switch with no cover so was easy to bump on. I didn't realize it was transmitting for about half an hour until I noticed static on the VHF, switched to 121.5 and the signal blasted in, so switched off right away. An hour later landed at Brunette Downs Station. An hour later the station got a call asking if anyone there could have accidentally actuated a PLB. Now that's very impressive, seeing as how they first contacted locals in the area who could be the most useful if assistance was required, rather than sending the cavalry. A couple of years later the big rescue chopper was hovering over my workshop at Maleny and landed in the paddock. They were looking for a PLB signal. This had taken them a couple of hours because first they had found a PLB triggered by a lame at Caloundra airfield and had parked the chopper thinking their job was done. But Canberra called them to go again because it seems that both PLBs had triggered at the same time. I my case it was that mongrel exposed switch on that PLB had bumped while removing it from the aircraft. This time I rigged a cover for the switch that had to be pushed aside before it could be triggered. But the real lesson is that PLBs mostly work really well, given a chance, and the monitors in Canberra were right on the ball. I want to have one in current condition and registered, and stored right handy so I can snatch it easily if leaving the aircraft in a difficult situation.

Has anyone here tried this plastic bag over a gum tree to see how much water you can actually catch? Not much I'm guessing, probably not worth the effort...... Always carry at least 5 litres of water in a hydration pack that can survive impact, and of course a good EPIRB. Trigger the EPIRB and shelter in the shade of the aircraft and stay there and move as little as possible. Keep a small fire going, with a bundle of grass and green leaves handy that can be dumped on the fire to make smoke when a search aircraft is heard. If the radio is still working call on 121.5 and 126.7 and area frequency. In my experience, an EPIRB signal will get response overhead in just a few hours if not sooner, anywhere.

First of all I'm not an expert painter by any standard. Painted several cars and several aircraft, with variable results but mostly very satisfactory. Not trying to make 'show pony' standard, just good utility finish. Minimum weight and reasonable cost. If you want porcelain gloss finish then use 2-pack, with the down-side of more weight, higher cost, and difficult to touch-up in future. This is the paint that the local auto paint store carries, and I found it excellent. Painting aluminium. Over etch primer. Spray gun is an old, much-used Devilbis. Don't know the nozzle size. At about 40psi. I just fill the pot to about half then add some hardener, not measured, but not the full 4:1 ratio. Plenty hard enough with less chance of cracking. Then add enamel thinners to suit. That's hard to explain but dip a stirrer and watch the paint flow off it. Steady stream slows to drip fairly soon after lifting out of the paint. If the steady stream persists then it needs more thinner; if it drips almost straight away then it's too thin.... Try it on the shed wall and set up to a good pattern spread and good paint flow. It's not all as critical as many instructions imply, just experiment a bit and then start on out of the way areas to get the hang of it. Multi-coloured tests on the shed wall leave memories of previous paint jobs. First one light coat, not necessarily just a mist coat, 10 minutes, then a good wet coat, 10 minutes, and then a final wet coat should be enough. No need for more than necessary. Wishing you good luck with your efforts. Just the lower portion of the cowling new paint.

Just finished some painting with Protek Polyurethane 4:1. Excellent results and easy to spray, good finish. Costs $160 - $200 for 5 litre kit of paint and hardener depending upon colour.