Thalass Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Hey guys. I saw this video just now, but was wondering about the two aircraft that aren't Drifters. What are they? The little single seater looks kinda neat. I even tried looking up the rego on the register search here, but it's tricky to read with such a low resolution video. And it's been long enough that it may not be registered any more. Here it is: Looks like a lot of fun. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 The blue high wing looks like Dave Donahue's Rotec Panther . The other silver looking one -Looks like a Tyro or something similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 If its a TYRO its highly modified. Totaly different under carriage. No bungie. Different tail to. I like it though. Clean and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 If its a TYRO its highly modified. Totaly different under carriage. No bungie. Different tail to. I like it though. Clean and simple. It could also be a one off design I guess. The other aircraft is definitely a Rotec Panther Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Yep. Panther for sure. The other is what i would like to do to a Tyro. Add Drifter under carriage. Also add Drifter ailerion control rods instead cables and pullies.Would clean up aerodynamics greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Yes, Dave's Panther. The silver one is John McCarron's Bush Cocky. It's a derivative of Col Winton's Cricket/Jackeroo as are many others like the Tyro, Blue Max Sabre etc. John took the basic Winton design, added his ideas and got Bill Whitney to crunch the numbers. He powered it with the twin Zenoah, about 35hp with belt redrive. Very nice aircraft. John was going to manufacture them but then the regs got in the way. Last time I looked there were still a half dozen half assembled at his factory at Archerfield, untouched for 15 yrs or more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Would be a great little plane with a new 503 in it. Will have to look it up in the history chronicals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thalass Posted January 1, 2013 Author Share Posted January 1, 2013 Thanks guys. I can't seem to find anything on this Bush Cocky. It definitely looks fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I don't think you'll find anything published about the Bush Cocky, John hadn't got into production with them when the regs started to be enforced (it was overweight for 95:10) so they stagnated from around 1987 ish. He stopped flying his around 1990 and pulled it apart to inspect the internals after 1000hrs (or maybe more) as recommended by Bill Whitney. He never re-assembled it as he also had a Cessna and Spitfire (he's got 3 Spits now) and he was MD/CEO of one of the larger Australian Companies and didn't feel he should be flying an illegal plane, not good policy and all that. John's a good friend of mine and those planes would now be legal in 95:10 with the increased weight limit, I don't know if he still has them but if anyone wants to re-vamp the project he might well be willing to part with them. Let me know and I'll ask if you like. And yes - they'd be quite something with a 503. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 [quote= John's a good friend of mine and those planes would now be legal in 95:10 with the increased weight limit, I don't know if he still has them but if anyone wants to re-vamp the project he might well be willing to part with them. Let me know and I'll ask if you like. And yes - they'd be quite something with a 503. Which weight increase is that H. I thought it was still 300kgs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Which weight increase is that H. I thought it was still 300kgs. You're lucky you're so young wee Dougie... We're on Issue 5 of 95:10 now, back in the 1980s when Bushy Cocky and similar were having their heyday it used to be 254lb/115kg empty weight with a minimum of 100 sqft wing area and a max take-off wing loading of 4lb/sq ft, pretty similar to the existing FAR Pt103 in the US although Pt 103 is still harder with their auto-compliance clause if you don't want to actually demonstrate compliance with stall speed and max level speed requirements. So - we had to have at least 100 sq ft of main wing area (unless a canard) but with the 4lb/sqft condition that only allowed a 400lb/182kg take-off weight, however if you wanted to take-off at the present 300kg/660lb you would have to have 660/4 = 165 sqft of wing area. Under the present regs of 30kg/sqm you can have just 10 sqm of area = 108 sqft. Easy by comparison with back then. The Bush Cocky has about 120sqft of area and so could nowadays quite happily fly at 300kg MTOW whereas before it was limited to 115kg empty plus about 20kg fuel plus say 90kg pilot = 225kg, so these days it has 75kg extra to play with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 10-0522 early days of the AUF. All down hill for these types from then on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Quote from Alan (HITC) "You're lucky you're so young wee Dougie..." Not so young Alan. Will be 71 in 6 days time. Young by some standards, but bloody old by others. Decrepit comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Quote from Alan (HITC) "You're lucky you're so young wee Dougie..." Not so young Alan. Will be 71 in 6 days time. Young by some standards, but bloody old by others. Decrepit comes to mind. Ah, well you're just at the perfect age to stop dithering about what design to build and get on with building something simple - why not the ultralight 'Fighter'? I downloaded the free plans some while ago and was just looking through them a couple of hours ago. Nice and simple and would be a great little plane - or the Himax, both free plansets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Money, my boy, Money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Money, my boy, Money. Mmmm, bugger, it always rears its ugly head doesn't it? It's not easy but how about an advert at the local flying club, local newspaper, local high school etc, if you could get a small syndicate together, or head up a high school project you might be able to get it paid for... especially if you were building a cheap and recognised design. Just thoughts, there's always a way... I reckon it would be possible to put a Himax together for around $12k using local timbers (or the factory kit) and a Generac or similar like rtfm is using for the Razorback. Complete it would be worth double that or more, so you could have a second one free..? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thalass Posted January 2, 2013 Author Share Posted January 2, 2013 That's not a bad idea. Kent St high school in Perth built an aircraft on the last couple of years. Never did that at Melville! :( 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Yep, already thought about the school thing but who takes responsibility if something goes wrong and there's a kids on board? When I was at school many, many years ago, we had a wood-work teacher interested in sailing. He got us to build 8ft dinghies and then went on to start the schools sailing club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Yep, already thought about the school thing but who takes responsibility if something goes wrong and there's a kids on board?When I was at school many, many years ago, we had a wood-work teacher interested in sailing. He got us to build 8ft dinghies and then went on to start the schools sailing club. Not your responsibility, it would be the instructors, that's assuming you built a two seater. If a single seater the student would have to learn to fly and then it'd be his/her own responsibility. In any case I would suggest that the school sell it, pay you and then you get to be able to pay for your own build. That way the school gets to do good projects that pay for themselves and the kids learn about something a bit more advanced and interesting than making the usual picture frame or toilet roll holder. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Uni., in Sydney has been building Jabiru,s for a long time now, and sells them without paint or Rego spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raytol Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Hello Head in the Clouds, Could you put me in contact with John McCarron, please. We need a simple ultralight aircraft made in Australia to help reduce the price of flying. Raytol at tpgdotcom dotau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now