IBob

Thanks Andy, all good input.

Hi Perry, I certainly take your point that we need to be able to neutral trim for cruise. I'm a bit surprised that you are almost full down when 2 up, if that's the case then it sounds as though you are to the limit of practical adjustment. That would be at approx 5000RPM? Maybe your seats are set further back than mine? I haven't been out so much for the first half of the year, but hoping to get back into it: will sharpen myself up on a couple of easy strips, then drop on you before too long, I hope. How is your strip in the rainy part of the year? Bob

With the (antibalance) trim tab position adjusted as per the manual (top of Page11/12 of appendix Chapter 1, Rev00 12Jan 2010): The aircraft at full flaps with the trim set full up (10/10 on the bargraph) flies approach with a pronounced nose down trim. The aircraft trimmed at cruise has approx 3/10 on the bargraph. I saw a reference somewhere about altering the tab adjustment to give greater nose up trim. Two questions: 1. Are there any aviation or engineering reasons not to do this? 2. How do other XL or S owners have theirs set? (I've left the VG out at this point as it has a smaller (non-antibalance) trim tab setup). Thanks.

But, hey....thread drift.......( Hangin' out for more Backcountry 182 stuff here.

You think I'm kidding? The More Is Better Kenwood 9000......pity the poor audiophile trying to work this thing with just one pair of hands...........

Kenwood stereo, C1980

Garfly, thanks for the post. I really enjoy this guy's stuff...and it always leaves me with plenty to think about.

One wonders just what it is OME is needin' to say to them up there............😬

Probably a good idea to watch it, I found it useful and informative: It's not a video about how best to ditch, it's a video that presents stats on survival from ditching, which indicate the chances are very good. And it starts with an incident where a pilot chose a bridge landing, with resultant fatalities, when there were adjacent beaches and water, both inland and and offshore, at either side of the bridge. In other words, it suggests not dismissing ditching as a viable option, on the basis that the survival rate is very high.

Putting aside, for the moment, questions of quality and quality assurance. And as one who has done a bit of reverse engineering in my time: A major problem with reverse engineering (copying someone else's design) is that however accurately you copy, you do not get the thinking behind the design and refinement of the original. Or as an engineer I did a lot of work for liked to say: you only get what you can see. So it can be hard to judge what are the critical parts of the design. Which is how we end up with stuff like this:

I hadn't been following this thread, so only just came across this, and it really made me sit up: the reason being that I had a very near miss on takeoff last year with an aircraft making an overhead rejoin. The swiss cheese evolved as follows: We had both made radio calls, but were (evidently) not specifically looking out for each other. I was on takeoff, solo, and climbing steadily, was 700' AGL at the threshold. He crossed approx 200M beyond the threshold at approx 900', at which point I was between 770' and 879', closer to the latter as it appeared to me. It spoiled my day, and I'm sure it spoiled his. We were both very fortunate that is all it did. CAA here have since published a tutorial on overhead rejoins, designed evidently to educate, but containing no new information. It has the joining aircraft crossing the strip over the threshold at 1000' AGL. Had the other pilot done that in our event, we would have been fine BUT Note he was only a bit offset from the threshold...can easily happen Note, he was only a bit low...can easily happen. Note, I wasn't looking for him, or he for me: poor airmanship...but can happen. And there is your swiss cheese. Since that event, I am more attentive to radio calls from joining traffic, also careful to climb with good forward vision after takeoff, while looking out very carefully. And when rejoining myself, I do not aim to cross at the threshold: I aim to cross approx 1/3 back from there, as in the above diagram. I should very much like to see this last item introduced here NZ. But that seems very unlikely under the current administration, who have simply doubled down on a very old tradition.

Thinks: I could overtake one of those........)

Are you saying we're backward??????????????

I don't have the prop...or the manufacturer's spec. Presumably this is further in from the tip than the traditional 1/3 radius in?

How far in from the tip are you gauging the pitch? In my view, if setting pitch with a laser, you also need to be checking the (static) blade tracking, since any difference in blade tracking will (also) shift the laser dot on the floor.

Blueadventures, did you also check blade tracking?

Maybe take up skeet shooting????

Hi Dan, a minor disambiguation of model types, which may help with your enquiries. And put me straight by all means if I have this wrong: My understanding is that the Savannah models, chronologically, are: VG = the original, but with VGs, not slats. XL = ICP reworked the VG fuselage shape at the front, from the seatback forward. The cockpit is wider and roomier, the windscreen has more rake etc. S = ICP completed the fuselage rework by rounding the rear of the fuselage, from seatbacks back. I would have said your aircraft was an XL. However, in searching for a pattern for a cockpit cover you may (also) want to enquire about the S, as your cockpit area is identical to the S, apart from some very minor rounding of the fuselage above the seatback.

Great stuff, Marty. Is the cowl going inside or outside of the metalwork?

Astonishing arc as they leave at the end! I watched it several times, kept thinking I'd be really nervous that the red ground clamp he had on the cable could be knocked/pulled off during the procedure. Was the wrap he was putting on to stop the yoke thing from working it's way down the cables? If so, I'd say they are very much in need of some simpler quicker attachment.

You're way ahead of me there, Marty...........)

Belated thought: On the suggestion of another builder, I drilled holes for 4 clekos to hold the upper and lower cowl together while fitting and adjusting the Dzus fasteners. I believe this was to hold the two cowls in exactly the same position while drilling and fitting, so that all the fasteners were identically centered (since individual Dzus fasteners do allow some movement). This is the only time I have ever fitted them, so I have no feel for what difference that may have made.

By that, I meant initially mount the blades that way, then use your clinometer/laser/whatever to pitch them all the same before flying. I use a length of wood with a clamp on it to ensure each blade is brought round to exactly the same distance above the floor. And I use masking tape on the floor, and also on each blade where the laser is to be mounted: I measure in 222mm from each blade tip, using a sliding square set to that length, and mark that point with masking tape. Finally, a pleasing check that you have all the blades pitched the same: at certain lower sun angles and directions of flight, the sun reflects off the back of the blades. With all the blades pitched the same, there will be little or no shimmy in that reflection.

Marty, on the Bolly blades you will see a line left by the join in the molds. If you initially mount the blades with this line visible in the join between the front and back mounting plates, you will be very close and certainly close enough for test flights. Static WOT RPM is not the most helpful measure, but FWIW mine is approx 5200RPM.