alf jessup Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 Sounds like it should have been roaring like a lion, and getting the hell out of there!!!...:) Valid point Motz, very valid point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggles Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Yes I agree with Motz & Alf . If all the holes in the cheese hadn't lined up things could have ended up very differently . Maybe a bit of " tough love " needed , in the way of retraining . Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Hard to hang him in the strength of the article, we don't have the full story. But for the rest of us it's a stark reminder of what energy absorbtion looks like when you don't pay it back to the the energy bank slowly. Pay it all back in one lump sum and you get heavily panelized. One of the big dangers with short field ops is coming in short and being behind the drag curve. Hitting things at flying speed is always gunna cost ya. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 I disagree on the re training bit, he may have had a slight lapse or more so windshear and just wasn't ready for it. Only the pilot knows and I am sure if he thinks he needs some training after busting his plane up I am sure he will get some if he decides to take to the air again. Alf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Depending how long it takes to make his plane right, if at all, recency will be hard on him if he doesn't get some flying in the meantime. The months add up fast when you are not getting any! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 . The months add up fast when you are not getting any! True for many of life's pursuits 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 True for many of life's pursuits That's the one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 True for many of life's pursuits Some are more overrated than others, flying then again is not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 No judgements on the pilot ... And we dont knwo the circumstances of maint either. But it sure annoys me to see another one down. Thats by my count 3, maybe 4 for the year so far.. RAAus needs to do us all a favour as it annoys me that my fellow aviatiors face this risk and we all pay the premiums associated with this accident. That just added $100K plus a profit margin to next years premiums for all. Up to $14 each thanks to this next year assuming we all fly equal hours. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 From the article detailing the pilot's story, he says that if he gets another plane “It certainly won’t be a fast plane like this one.” I think it's great that the pilot has made a responsible and gently self-effacing assessment of his ability to stay ahead of something of Jabiru speed, given the kind of 'mission' he wants to use it for. And perhaps there's a poignant message there for others of us. It's a shame that this particular pilot didn't give earlier serious consideration to trading his Jab for a plane more suited to the kind of flying he does. An observation I have often made at flying clubs is that some clubs seem to have a large majority of fast LSAs whereas other clubs have far more 'low and slow' types. The 'fast' types of clubs tend to have rows of small private hangars and the 'slow' clubs have one or two larger hangars, in general. The fast club hangars generally stay shut with the planes locked inside but when they do go for an occasional fly their intrepid crew returns drenched in sweat and attired with 'when suddenly' stories. The slow club hangars seldom close their doors and the aircraft get flown on any possible occasion and when their relaxed flyers return they chat about what a great flying day it was, even if it was freezing and blowing a gale. So what do you folks think it is that generates this diametrically opposed thinking about what kind of aircraft to own? It's noticeable that the hordes of more expensive 'fasts' are congregated at clubs where wealthier people live and the 'slows' are certainly where less wealthy people are. So is it just a matter of the fasts being more expensive and the wealthier folks can afford them and must keep up appearances with their peers? And others, who can't afford them, buy the slows and its only by lucky co-incidence that they actually have more fun? And then - I've certainly also seen many a perfectly happy slow flyer feeling 'left out' and hankering after a plastic fantastic "if only he could afford it". Does this mean that in general we give little thought to owning the kind of plane that would best suit the kind of flying that we will be doing, and simply aim for the flashiest plane for which we can rake up sufficient shekels? 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I think, its the other way round. The Drifter/Thruster/Quicksilver sits waiting for the right weather (too windy/cold/gusty/wet) whilst the Jabirus gets hammered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I think, its the other way round. The Drifter/Thruster/Quicksilver sits waiting for the right weather (too windy/cold/gusty/wet) whilst the Jabirus gets hammered. You miss the point completely f_t. Most experienced Drifter flyers will/can be up and flying when almost anything else wouldn't be. I certainly flew mine in just about any conditions except heavy rain. However, the 'slows' I referred to aren't limited to the relatively few open-cockpit ragwings. Include the Savannahs, 701s, X-Airs, Skyrangers and all that ilk in your thinking, to see what I mean ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Open cockpit is definitely the way to go, feel/smell/taste the wind. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 As a lover of the low n slow flying( yeh I also have an RV 6 on the go) I find nothing more enjoyable than waffleling along looking out the windows, I know I can get my plane into just about any paddock below me, and when we're all swapping tales after most of the faster fliers haven't seen anything, I understand the desire to get there fast ,hence the RV , but just enjoying the trip is pretty good too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 RV6's are known to fold the tail up behind the cockpit, can cause the top of the fuse to hit the pilots head from behind, otherwise you are pretty safe in an accident. Jabs have survived many a crash, but some of the other plastic fantastics may not be so lucky. Even the old Supercats used to hang together pretty well, the plywood and timber longerons and bracing cruples and peels away absorbing a lot of impact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howe Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Spot on HIC. Now I wonder if Jab will be checking the A pillar for tensile loads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Maybe a lesson in transfering load and weak point, used to be the nose leg would come off firewall, this has been strengthened over time, now it can tear the firewall out if hit hard enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted March 2, 2014 Author Share Posted March 2, 2014 The only thing that needs changing on a Jabiru has nothing to do with the airframe, I would not touch it as not many people have lost their lives in these fine airframes, they have proven themselves time & time again to be very capable of providing excellent protection in the event of a forced landing. Once the thing up front that drives the spinny thing becomes somewhat more reliable you will have the best aircraft available in the world at an unbeatable price. Alf 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Not an issue here though Alf. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted March 2, 2014 Author Share Posted March 2, 2014 Not an issue here though Alf. Nev Understand that Nev that this incident had nothing to do with the engine. I was just passing comment on the brilliant survival chances inside one of these airframes and the only thing needing addressing is the engine to have an unbeatable combination. Alf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Maybe a lesson in transfering load and weak point, used to be the nose leg would come off firewall, this has been strengthened over time, now it can tear the firewall out if hit hard enough JJ - it could be a factor of how high up the actual leg the force was applied i.e. if right near the bottom of the firewall, the leverage that would take the leg out wasn't there. We have the wings from an ST1 (factory-build LSA55 that was VH-reg initially) that put the nose into a deep rut on a forced landing and tore out the complete firewall in almost the exact same way. Our own aircraft needs those wings because ours did a classic Jab.'dead ants' forward roll over the prop - which dissipated the force almost entirely as it progressively broke, with no damage FWF other than a slightly bent nosewheel fork and a bent prop flange! Even the crank was fine. The thing that I think this particular accident shows, is that the eventual failure of the firewall at the 'a-pillar' point absorbed sufficient of the energy in yeilding and then failing, to shield the pilot from serious head and neck injury. If you have a look at this shot, (from the somewhat infamous 'down into the trees at Wedderburn' in 2001 accident), you can see partial failure of the firewall as well as a massive amount of airframe damage - and both occupants were able to get out and walk away, somewhat banged-up but not seriously injured.: http://www.jabirucrash.com/images-crash-site/DSCN1887.JPG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Calculating the tension capability of the windscreen and pillars is a relatively simple thing. Nosewheels are never really strong enough to stay there with much load on them. Door cutouts weaken the structure, but to fail the way it did seems a good outcome to me.. You would need to view the impact and analyse how it hit the ground as there will always be a lot of variation in what loads in what direction, applied. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 True for many of life's pursuits Only months , Matty.....? You want to try years!!! Kaz 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