marshallarts

[ refers to the J430 ] Yes! And even in that capacity, it would be so good to be able to get one, factory-built.

Yes I get that. 760kg is a squeeze for 4 people of almost any size plus fuel plus stuff, and 120hp is about the minimum you would want up front, especially if it's driving a fixed pitch propeller. But as an "occasional" 2+1 or 2+2 kids I think it could still have some appeal. Probably should be in a separate thread, but has anyone ever put a bigger non-Jabiru engine in a Jabiru? How about a Jabiru 430 with a Rotax 915iS and in-flight adjustable prop? Might go quite nicely. But probably fraught with all sorts of regulatory problems.

Is that an earlier iteration of the J430?

My understanding is that there is not, because the factory-built J230Ds are only certified as LSA, and are therefore stuck with a MTOW of 600kg. The only way to get a Jabiru 4-seater is to build it yourself (the J430 kit) AND register it VH, and you will then get an MTOW of 760kg. Seems to me that a factory J230D is somewhat crippled by the 600kg MTOW - it's clearly structurally capable of much higher, but it's limited by the regulations. I'm guessing it would be very expensive for Jabiru to certify a VH-registered factory-built 4-seat aircraft, and that's why they don't do it - it would necessarily make the aircraft expensive to buy. But it seems a lost opportunity to me, I think it might be attractive to quite a lot of people. If I was in the market for an aircraft, I'd very much like to be able to look at an Australian light 4-seater that I didn't have to build myself. I'd love to be corrected, but I don't think such a thing exists.

I like your line of thinking. I owned an aircraft (built in 1967) back in the 1990s and was quite taken aback by the instrumentation - it looked more like plumbing! If it ever happened that I owned an aircraft again (extremely unlikely), I'd want electronic instrumentation in it for sure. For a start I assume it is lighter than all those big mechanical things, but I'm happy to be corrected if that's a wrong perception. And I'd rather have the engine concentrating on driving the propeller, not a vacuum pump for some of the instruments - one more spinning/wearing thing to go wrong. As far as aviation engines themselves are concerned, it seems to me that they have stayed as they are mainly because they WORK, and perform the required task quite well. But adding a layer of instrumentation to monitor an engine in all sorts of ways doesn't change that (or shouldn't), so could be quite interesting. I will watch progress with interest.

Old news I know, but we had a visit here in Perth by the mind-boggling AN-225 back in March 2016 (is there only one of them?). It was carrying some heavy component which was part of a power station or something like that. The load was actually quite small in terms of size, must have been very dense and heavy. I grabbed this pic as it was trucked away. It caused quite a bit of interest here at the time.

Thanks Onetrack. I didn't try Hesperian, don't think I came across them when I was looking. I did try Fremantle Press, because they also do a lot of WA history - it took them about 8 months to get around to saying no! Anyway, I didn't even try publishers with the new edition - I have now self-published this one, so it does exist! I hope I'm not contravening any rules of this forum by saying that if anyone would like to purchase a copy they can of of course contact me. The book is also on sale at the small heritage centre/museum next to the cathedral in Geraldton. I should also have mentioned that the Geraldton Cathedral has recently undergone a huge restoration, which took about 4 years and over $9 million. It has repaired the inevitable wear and tear of just over a century of use, and brought some aspects of it more into line with Hawes' original specification. Its construction was fraught with all sorts of financial and political issues and took a very long time, and when it was first opened many things had been skimped on or omitted because of cost and to just get the thing finished. It has always been a wonderful building, in a quaint sort of way. But since the restoration it is a wonderful building in a quite magnificent way. It is a reason to visit Geraldton, if it wasn't before. So if anyone is going through Geraldton, I urge you to go and have a look over the cathedral - even do a guided tour, which will help them a bit with the upkeep. The last major component of the restoration was a new carillon of bells, one of the biggest and most sophisticated in the southern hemisphere. The technicalities of this will probably appeal to some on here: there are 27 bells, so about two and a half octaves, tuned to modern concert pitch. The bells can be played from the organ consoles inside the cathedral, or via a wireless keyboard more or less anywhere in the vicinity. They can also be played via the internet - I hope they have good passwords on that! And the ring patterns can be pre-programmed for anything up to a year ahead of time. There are no bell-ropes, they are all sounded by electro-mechanical clappers. Several of the larger bells came from a deconsecrated church in England, and some of those bells were originally cast in the 12th century. The rest were newly cast especially for Geraldton, and we actually saw them in the bell foundry in Loughborough in England during the 2018 tour - one of the highlights of the trip, for me anyway. The bells were financed by the community of Geraldton - people were invited to "buy a bell", then they could specify a name to be engraved on it. And in a really nice touch, the biggest bell in the set was paid for out of the restoration fund and dedicated to John Hawes himself, as if he had donated it. It has "Monsignor J C Hawes" engraved on it. The installation and commissioning of the system was delayed many times, and ended up being completed in November last year, about a year later than originally planned/hoped. You can't hurry bell-makers! Cheers, Steve.

And another thing, way out of left field for this forum: way back in 2004 I stumbled by chance across the story of a bloke named John Cyril Hawes, an English Catholic priest who lived and worked in the midwest region of WA from 1915 to 1939. Before entering the church he had qualified as an architect, and the bishop of the time tempted him here with a promise that he could design a cathedral for the town of Geraldton. This he did, along with many other buildings thoughout the region - mostly churches but also a farm homestead at Melangata (75km north of Yalgoo), and a cottage in Geraldton. There are about 25 buildings or bits of buildings left in WA, ranging geographically from Carnarvon in the north to Bindoon in the south. I'm not a Catholic, not even a church-goer, but the more I learned about this guy, the more captivated I was by the remarkable life he led. He was brought up an Anglican, and was initially ordained into the Anglican church in 1903, very soon after being accepted into the architectural profession. He had already built his first design, a quirky little house in Bognor Regis, for himself and his two brothers to use as a holiday house. His first church commission was in the village of Gunnerton, way up in Northumberland. In 1909-10 he was sent to The Bahamas, to help with recovery from a massive hurricane they had in 1908. So there are many buildings, renovations and extensions designed by him in those distant islands. He left The Bahamas after struggling for many years with his beliefs, and deciding that he had to convert to Catholicism. He did this at a place called Graymoor just outside New York City, and several years of personal and spiritual upheaval followed. Finally he entered Beda College in Rome to study for the priesthood again, and was ordained a Catholic priest in 1915. It was there and then that he was recruited by the Bishop Of Geraldton, who was there to try and find priests to help him run his huge diocese in Western Australia. There are several books about John Hawes - two biographies, and an in-depth study of his architecture by Perth heritage architect John Taylor. Soon after becoming aware of all this, I decided to start building a portfolio of photographs of the WA buildings, with a view to producing a pictorial book, something that seemed to me to be conspicuously missing. I did that in 2012, and sumbitted it to several publishers. All of them said thanks but no thanks. I couldn't afford to finance a print run myself, so I laid out the book myself and made it available through one of the online photobook services. Although that was OK, it made the book way too expensive, so it didn't really go anywhere much. And I thought that was that. Since the beginning the idea was always in the back of my mind that it would be great to go the UK and The Bahamas to photograph the buildings Hawes left in those countries, and then produce a more complete book. But as my age increased and my income did the opposite, I had pretty much given up on the idea. Then in late 2017, I heard (again by chance) that a group of Geraldton people were putting together a tour that would do exactly that - it was even called In the Footsteps of John Hawes. We signed up and headed off in May-June 2018, and what an amazing experience it was! The group of 17 "pilgrims" were treated almost like celebrities nearly everywhere we went, especially The Bahamas. We still didn't visit absolutely every building John Hawes left, but I had no control over the itinerary so we had to take it as it was. There are 3 or 4 in The Bahamas that we didn't get to. The tour allowed me to build a new edition of the book, and this time I have bitten the bullet and done a print run, and the new book is only about 25% of the price of the first one. Sorry to be a bit long-winded, but you did ask.... This has kept me fascinated for over 15 years now, and the main purpose of my book is to raise awareness of this remarkable man, the life he led and the architectural legacy he has left us. In my view this is a significant and colourful strand in the history and heritage of WA.

Well I like working with wood. I love making things out of wood, all sorts of things. A particular interest for quite a while was musical instruments, especially ancient ones. So I've built a harpsichord and a clavichord (antique keyboard instruments, both from kits believe it or not), a replica baroque lute, a couple of more modern-design classical guitars, and a violin (also from a kit). I tend to be much more of a builder than a player, so all of these instruments have been sold except for the first classical guitar and the lute. Other non-musical things include a cedar-strip sea kayak (sold only a few months ago because I wasn't using it enough), a pair of jarrah glass doors in my house between the entry and the lounge (plus the frame), some custom modular furniture to fit into a corner in the lounge, and a window seat in a bay window. In line with this same theme, when I was able to consider aircraft ownership way back around 1990, I was quite keen to build my own. And the one that really appealed was - some of you will have guessed it - the Falco, because it's made largely of wood. And it's a very pretty and fast design too. As it happened I didn't build my own, because I decided I'd rather be out flying than building for the next X years, where X is unknown but probably greater than 3! I think it was the right decision, borne out by things I've read since about the Falco being a very complex aircraft to build. Nowadays I salivate over the Falcomposite Furio from NZ, a sort of 21st-century composite take on the Falco. But alas, my financial position now does not even allow flying, let alone ownership.

I agree. I've spent over 50 years working with computers, but still reckon that for things like speed etc a needle on a dial is better. As you say, it's a PICTURE, and that seems to be what most human brains like to work with. The brain can perceive a few degrees of difference in the angle of a needle (and the significance thereof) without even thinking, but to work that out from a number is quite a different exercise, requiring a bit more processing time. Changing the colour of the number would definitely improve that - it sort of turns the number into a picture too, to some degree. But having said that, if I were ever to own an aircraft again and I had the choice, I'd probably go for a digital EFIS, maybe one that could represent things as dials. Just simpler (and lighter?) without all the plumbing that goes with mechanical gauges, I think. But I'd probably also have backup airspeed and altimeter.

My last flight at the controls was in 1994 - when (and why) did we change from callsign first to callsign last when responding to ATC? I've always thought callsign first makes much more sense. But what would I know?

Mind-boggling. At no stage is she tied on anywhere! That is one gutsy lady.

Wow that's very impressive. Makes me wonder why all aircraft don't have VGs.

TurbAero thanks for the very comprehensive update. I really hope you can get this done - this is the sort of thing Australia SHOULD be doing. Just imagine a light turboprop twin, with two of these bolted to the wings - fantastic!

Aaah, nearly always a dangerous thing to do - especially for a pilot!

Are you sure about that? I have just looked at a page on Wikipedia about the PT6 and right up front is a big gearbox with planetary gears. The power turbine apparently turns at 30,000rpm, so not much hope of driving a propeller off that without a gearbox. What is quite amazing is that the PT6 design process started in 1958. The first ones entered service in about 1964 and they (Pratt & Whitney Canada) have been building and developing them ever since - almost 60 years! Their reliability is just about off the scale - one in-flight shutdown per 651,000 hours. Phenomenal.

Just heard a while ago that the pilot (one of the deceased) was Troy Thomas, the guy who started up the fantastic Horizontal Falls tourist operation quite a few years ago now. It was sold to Journey Beyond a year or so ago but he was still working for them. He was obviously a guy who made things happen, so will be a big loss to Broome and the Kimberley.

It raises the eyebrows slightly that the last post from flyvulcan is dated December 2017, that's quite a long time ago. And also that the website is still saying that the full new website is "coming soon". Yes I know a website doesn't build engines, but it IS the public face of the enterprise. I too hope they can produce something that meets their expectations, and they sell a heap of them, but I suspect it's a hard road they have chosen.

I tend to agree. For a start, the mission of car engines is so different from that of aircraft engines. Most cars spend most of their life loafing around at (I'm guessing) less than 50% power. Aircraft engines spend a lot of theirs at 75% or greater. I don't even really like the look of Rotaxes - don't like reduction drives much. Yes I know there are tens of thousands of them out there, but it seems to me that the main reason "mainstream" aircraft engines still look the same as they did about 50 years ago is because they WORK.

Of course. Those are Peter's ideas, not mine. And although I respect his persistence with this project, I think the chance of him ever getting it into production is probably about 5% or thereabouts. But I'd be quite happy if he proves me wrong on that.

Agree completely. Anyone can build a snazzy-looking website in about 10 minutes.

If you are interested in this topic, you might like to check out Raptor Aircraft on Youtube if you haven't already. Raptor Aircraft is a guy named Peter Muller, an Aussie living in the USA. He has designed a high-performance and very spacious 4/5 place canard pusher aircraft pretty much from scratch (although it looks a lot like the Velocity), and its power is provided by the Audi 3 litre twin-turbo diesel V6. With a reduction drive of course - pretty much essential for any car engine to drive a propeller. He has been working on this for 4 years or so and is on the brink of first flight - I think the test pilots are booked for the end of July. It's an interesting story. Peter had no background in aircraft design (he's a computer nerd like me), but when he did his training for his pilot licence some years ago he was taken aback by how cramped and uncomfortable small aircraft were (are), and how expensive. He reckoned that if he could buy a high-end car like an Audi for (say) $60K or so, why was a decent aircraft 4 times that price, or more? After looking around he decided the Velocity was the closest to what he was looking for, but it still didn't tick all the boxes. So he decided he would design and build his own. He has made a lot of mistakes, but has been completely open about all the failures as well as the successes, with 2 videos per week almost every week since the project started. He does intend the Raptor to go into production, and has hinted at some negotiations which have taken place, but I'm guessing nothing will be revealed until it has flown. I stumbled across the channel about 18 months ago and have been following the ups and downs ever since - I find it quite compelling, and I certainly admire Peter's persistence and tenacity.

The incompetence is quite breathtaking. I wouldn't let those guys ride my bike!

Yes, we see uncountable videos of hairy crosswind landings on Youtube. I'm sure all pilots here will have been taught the "classical" crosswind landing technique - ailerons into wind, opposite rudder. I get that the big jets with engines slung under the wings can't do that because the engines would hit the ground, but I would have thought the aircraft in this video could have done that quite safely with no risk of prop strike. There didn't seem to be any attempt to do so, wonder why not?

Sounds fabulous. What are you flying? I haven't been in this forum long, or I'd probably know that.