spenaroo

so have to renew my membership and it gives 3 options.

12 months, 2 years, 3 years.

all fairly standard but gets interesting when you look at the cost breakdown.

12 months $285

2 years $559 ($11 saving)
3 years $840 ($15 saving)

doesn't seem to be much incentive to go for the 3 years....

Ive been taught all of it at different points.
the use ground effect and zoom climb over the obstacle for the end of the runway at hot days.

rolling entry into the runway... watching the speed not to tip or slide.
full brakes, full throttle release and go.

never been taught that one is always better then the other.
like a slip or flaps to adjust height on final. its multiple tools to use as comfortable

14 hours ago, CT9000 said:

Just heard on the news that there was nothing in the tanks but air. Also a pilot witness said they heard it surging before it stopped. It was reported that when it left YBDG it was low on fuel.

im wondering if everything is partially right.
and a fuel selector was the issue. happened to pilots before.
gives both fuel in one tank to drain, but run dry in the other with nothing but air.
pilot too low to run through the full checks and committed to the landing instead of trouble shooting

16 hours ago, RFguy said:

I would add my 2c in that the 1000 hour is a crankcase split  is alot more involved that just pulling the heads off and cleaning up heads, guides, pistons which 'any mug can do '.

IMO the level of experience and competence is an order of magnitude for a full overhaul compared to the top end overhaul or refresh. 

Saying all that, people dont seem to report too much difficulty with reassembling the crankcase and not having a crankshaft and camshaft (which runs in the aluminium casing )  bind. 

 

Jabiru's price for doing a overhaul I think is reasonable.  Parts are not priced like Rotax- Rotax wants you to buy a new engine and that's why a ring set is $270 for a single piston for a rotax and $35 for a jabiru. Although rotax will go reliably 2000 hours without blinking ..but then u have to chuck it out. 

So- you might consider taking it to your favourite mechanic, removing the engine and sending to Jabiru.  Or flying it to Bundaberg is I think much easier unless you are in WA....

-glen

 

...... Have you bought parts to rebuild a car or motorcycle recently?
that's a pretty reasonable cost for OEM piston rings.

So basically its wing warping without the actual wing changing shape.
using the same idea as blown flaps

21 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Some oil  friction additives react badly to moisture. The stripping and cleaning has to be done as quickly as possible down to  each individual thread and hose  to metal surface . The labour costs are  high and make most attempts uneconomic. IF your time doesn't mean much and you know what you are doing then go ahead . Nev

and that's why insurance basically writes off any boat or ski that is sunk instantly.
they have to guarantee for the life of the repair

all of this stuff is only really as good as the access available.
seen plenty of spark plugs corroded into the heads of ski's because the boot/cap in the well prevents it from properly getting treated when cleaned.
same with the pulleys on supercharger belts - hard to get to so commonly corrode and seize. despite owners using all the correct products and washings.

by the same token I know of sunk ski's that have been revived. but they are usually 2 stroke stand-ups. so I believe engines were stripped down and soaked.

yeah there is a few products I remember from the jet-skis
lanolin spray before use, and salt-away after use

oh and if you see a custom bike for sale - just needs registering.....
chances are that it cant be registered, plenty of people buying wrecks as a starting point, because they are changing everything anyway....
only to find out that it has to be original parts to go through the inspection report, same with repairs that "just needs inspection" i.e. I don't have the paper trail for every part - a requirement to be passed off.

I have heard of people getting around it with having the VIN crossed out and registering it as an ICV. but thats a whole different ballgame

(edit to above repairable write off, is uneconomical - just noticed it and cant edit as timed out. stat write-off is dead, end of story)

Oh man, used to deal with this quite a bit with my old job as a parts interpreter/workshop adviser for Harley/Ducati.
did all the quotes and dealing with the insurance assessors
 

so many people buying wrecks at auctions and not knowing what was required - the days of the cheap repair and re-register are long gone.
Stat write-off is better termed as Un-economical write off. usually with parts and the price of the auction  value of the vehicle…. its worth more then a new one.
their whole business is minimizing loss, no idea why people still have the mentality of it being cheaper to repair a car then buy one in good condition.

used to have it about once a month where someone would come in wanting a new frame for the Harley...
"cool, what's your VIN number. ill need the neck of the frame where its stamped cut out and brought in - so we can get a replacement with the same details."
only to be told that its a wreck they bought at auction - and needs a new VIN. which they fail to understand that we cant just get a new frame with a different VIN...

Ducati was an interesting case because the bikes are special.
numbered bikes (normally 500 to 1000 built worldwide) could get up to 3/4 of the value before being written off by insurance (and then the wrecks would usually go overseas to be rebuilt and registered).
new models were in such high demand that minor damage (literally a drop needing side fairings) would write it off, as they got such high amounts at auction for the bikes.
(literally had people come in puffed up as they bought a wreck for 20k in the auction, buy 6k in parts to get it ready for inspection.... and then see the demo we have on the floor is being sold for 25k)
 

21 hours ago, facthunter said:

What's so good about T tails. The B 727 when first test flown had 3 times the anticipated load in the  vertical stabiliser and it transfers to the rear pressurised bulk head that had to be replaced in some DC-9 because of cracking. A T tail is also inclined to have tail strikes with early or excessive rate of rotation as there's no ground effect to speak of at that point. It will possibly require some tail (rear fuselage) bump protection . What will be the Mmo M crit of this plane?  Sub sonic cruise speeds haven't gone any where for about 50years  Where's the fuel going to be stored? There's not much volume in those wings and a very high stress concentration where the strut attaches to the Mainplanes.  Nev

rule of cool, like the Mooney

also it struts..... or an unconventional Bi-plane, as I assume they would produce lift too

just nice to see the T tails make a comeback

They build awesome trucks. at one stage they dominated the Dakar rally before the Kamaz took over

21 minutes ago, Yenn said:

Others may have a good record, but compare it with Qantas and what is your answer. A few years ago I googled safest airline and the answer was KLM. It seems they started record keeping after the big KLM crash.

When did Qantas last have a fatal accident? When will they have another? Going on their current record it could be any day soon. It looks as if maintenance is not being done properly.

the answer is that Qantas had good PR, but the record isn't exactly matching.
 

Virgin Atlantic have had 2 major incidents but both aircraft are still flying and haven't had a fatality.

Hawaiian airlines has been flying since 1929 with no hull losses.

QANTAS has never had a fatal jet accident, But they were crashing seaplanes and DH. 84's into the 50's

they just happen to have built this reputation thanks to a movie line a few decades ago.

in fact of the list of Airlines that have never had a fatal accident.... QANTAS doesn't appear (except as JetStar)
 

1. Air Berlin
2. Air Europa
3. AirTran Airways
4. Allegiant Airways
5. Cape Air
6. Chautauqua Airlines
7. CommutAir
8. DragonAir
9. Easyjet
10. Emirates
11. Era Alaska
12. Expressjet Airlines
13. Frontier Airlines
14. GoJet Airlines
15. Hainan Group
16. Hawaiian Airlines
17. Horizon Air
18. Jazz air
19. Jet airways
20. JetBlue
21. Jetstar
22. Lion Airlines
23. Mesa Airlines
24. Olympic Airways
25. Oman Airways
26. Pinnacle Airlines
27. Qatar Airways
28. Republic Airlines
29. Ryanair
30. Shenzhen Airlines
31. Shuttle America
32. Southwest Airlines
33. Spirit Airlines
34. Swiss
35. Trans State Airlines
36. Transaero Airlines
37. Ukraine International Airlines
38. Vietnam Airlines
39. Virgin Atlantic
40. Virgin America
41. Virgin Australia
42. Vueling
43. Westjet

One of the most amusing things for me is Qantas has been known as the preferred option for safety....

When Virgin (both the English and the Australian company) have such a clean record, and are arguably the biggest competitor

leaving out the best part, from Wikipedia:

Noise

The XF-84H was almost certainly the loudest aircraft ever built, earning the nickname "Thunderscreech" as well as the "Mighty Ear Banger". On the ground "run ups", the prototypes could reportedly be heard 25 miles (40 km) away.^[17] Unlike standard propellers that turn at subsonic speeds, the outer 24–30 inches (61–76 cm) of the blades on the XF-84H's propeller traveled faster than the speed of sound even at idle thrust, producing a continuous visible sonic boom that radiated laterally from the propellers for hundreds of yards. The shock wave was actually powerful enough to knock a man down; an unfortunate crew chief who was inside a nearby C-47 was severely incapacitated during a 30-minute ground run. Coupled with the already considerable noise from the subsonic aspect of the propeller and the T40's dual turbine sections, the aircraft was notorious for inducing severe nausea and headaches among ground crews. In one report, a Republic engineer suffered a seizure after close range exposure to the shock waves emanating from a powered-up XF-84H.

I feel like this is the same debate as is going on in the USA with classified documents....
 

If its classified, and it doesn't need to be there is no repercussion's.
if its not classified, and it should be its a career ender with possible jail time.

feel like if this pilot had called Pan, and something went wrong in landing, they would be crucified.
where as right now its just a "better safe then sorry" plus we have all done the exam questions and know it can be fairly vague and up to the pilots interpretation of risk.

had a guy cut across the circuit at circuit height on the weekend at Aldinga.
took off from a private strip the other side of the main road that's normally used as a landmark for circuits.
turn across the front of me as I was crosswind - I busted altitude before turning downwind to avoid him.
then he flew right over the airfield. at circuit height, all with zero radio calls @2pm ish on a Saturday.

to make it better, there was 3 helicopters less then a 1km away over the town/beach that had cleared the airspace for a life saving exercise (500ft, 2000ft, 4000ft from memory).

the guy did it again crossing over the field and doing a steep just past it while I was taxiing after landing
 

9 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

I thought turning final was a standard call. Last chance to avoid a conflict.

....... "standard call"
in my limited experience there is no such thing.

don't crash

but on a more serious note,
dont be afraid of being a nervous fool. we all were
I was talking to myself out loud all flight and did a go around or two because I wasn't comfortable.
don't be focused on getting it perfect mistakes happen, fix it and move on. dont try to fix a bad landing set-up.
make your judgment point and stick to it, if its floating down the runway go-around

Caproni Campini N.1

yeah... but there is also the whole rule of, straight in approaches give way to aircraft in the circuit.
 

I have zero helicopter experience, but seems like there was no circuit.
I feel like time will be a factor, trying to get the quickest turnaround.

oh, and just for good measure there is a third pad, that is just above where the image in my previous post is cut off.

interesting to look at the location of the landing pads in that article,
looks like the one climbing was from the water pad (inside the park gates), and the one landing heading to the pad marked in the car park (outside the park gates)?
wonder if its possible there was confusion and the pilot on climb was expecting the one on descent to use the now vacated pad.



I think we have all been on final and expected an aircraft to vacate or taxi across the runway before we land. or vice versa