Thalass

Yeah that concerns me quite a bit, too.

Hello from northern Ontario!

It was in the US. He was ground staff for the airline, though I don't know if he was an engineer or not. But he definitely knew how to start the q400. From the audio he knew what the consequences would be, and decided to crash rather than be arrested or shot down. And from the audio he was completely done with life, so it was suicide. I feel for the guy and his family.

Ottawa pilot dies in North Bay plane crash I work at the North Bay airport these days, and live near the Trout Lake seaplane base. It's terrible to hear such news. Obviously the Canadian TSB investigators haven't released any findings yet, but I've heard from my colleagues that this aircraft had a heavy landing on a lake the day before the crash. It was parked overnight at the main airport (presumably for inspections) before the fateful flight. This is all hearsay of course, but it gets my engineer's sphincter all bunched up to hear of something that might have been prevented if this alleged heavy landing contributed to "the wing fell off" as I heard. (and I don't know any more details so I could be full of it - you'd think the wing would come adrift on takeoff, not approach to landing) I guess my point is to be diligent with these kinds of things.

Damnit. Because of this thread I've been eyeballing the Fisher Flying Products range, and several of their planes can fly with a Hirth F-33 engine - Motenergy produce electric motors with similar weight and power outputs. Urge to build... rising...

There is one disadvantage of electric aircraft: In a conventional aircraft the MTOW is normally higher than the max landing weight. The designers save weight by reducing the strength of the airframe - safe in the knowledge that 99% of the time the aircraft will land after burning many tons of fuel. An electric aircraft will weigh the same on landing as it did on takeoff. With a stronger airframe this wouldn't be a problem, but that means a heavier airframe and so less payload.

As an airline guy I would be happy with a Metroliner replacement with battery packs in the nacelles that can be swapped out in 20 minutes. But for a private operator going cross country that's hardly practical. You'd need a Tesla style Supercharger, and the willingness to accept the possible (?) reduced cycle life it might bring.

They've got a lower power density, but LiFePO4 cells are much more stable, even in a crash, and last 5000+ cycles instead of 500ish for lipo (or whatever it is) But for future-tech I'm really excited about these cells: https://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/march/aluminum-ion-battery-033115.html

http://www.wired.com/2014/03/boeing-bird-of-prey/ An interesting design. The CoG must be way aft to have the wings that far back, and this kind of tailless configuration needs computer mediated fly-by-wire controls, I think (I am biased, of course, but y'know). It'd be neat to see something similar as a homebuilt aircraft. I suppose Airservices Australia might object to the stealth aspects of the design :P

The only thing i see wrong with that video is that they've got a couple of guys in the tray of the ute filming. One slip and you're not only tumbling down the runway on your arse, but you're doing it in pieces since you went through the prop on the way down. hahaha

I'm an avionics LAME so this is really my kind of aircraft:

That twin is pretty strange looking. Good access to the donks, though, i would guess.

There are plenty of threads about home-made LiFePO4 chargers on http://www.diyelectriccar.com/ With plenty of far more knowledgeable people than me to answer questions. :P

The batteries in the 787 are lithium-cobalt-oxide, which apparently at the time were the best available. LiPos have more energy, and can handle more cranking power, but have a fairly short life (~500 cycles?). Electric cars nowdays have lithuim-iron-phosphate (LiFePO4) batteries, which have less energy than LiPo but a much longer life (~5000 cycles). I suppose for an aircraft it's a matter of trading off more power for the weight, or longer life. Still waiting for lithium-air cells!

Wow it looks great! The Pietenpol is a really nice aircraft.

My condolences for the family of the pilot. It's a sad day. :( And, of course, the news ended their report with "It is believed the man had built the replica... himself" with an ominous pause. Typical.

Everything i've been told, right from being a wee little apprentice, is that CASA will only protect you in cases like your employer trying to coerce you into releasing an aircraft into service that should be grounded. Things like that. Not the other way around. I don't know how it is in bugsmasher land, mind you, and if someone is doing that sort of thing then everyone should know so they can be avoided in future. Or something. The S word is your weapon as well as ours.

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! :(

Indeed. When i started my apprenticeship in 2000 an avionics LAME was getting over 100k with two a/c types and three categories each (EIR). Now when i get my licence i'll be in the 90k range. 100k with two types. We've stayed still for 12 years while the cost of everything has gone up! (As an AME i'm on 60k) Also, i should say that i did not mean Ultralights should be maintained by LAMEs with part 145 costs and all that. The whole point of RAA is to get away from that red tape, at the cost of being unable to fly in controlled airspace and such - a fair trade i think for the fun of buzzing about. However what should be the same whether you're flying a UAV, an ultralight, an airliner or a 1000 passenger space shuttle is the quality of work from the guy doing the maintenance. Doubly so for a trained LAME with the apprenticeship, 25+ exams, and hundreds of hours of exp in the SOE book. If it's broken, and it can't safely fly in that condition (a light bulb is no big deal, a broken axel or corroded spar is) then it doesn't fly. Simple.

That's funny, every engineer i know who has worked GA speaks of owner/pilots who bring their machine in for a 100 hourly, only to get mad when the engineer informs them of a major (or any) problem. They just wanted the check signed off, so they can keep flying. But guess who gets to spend time with big bad bubba in a jail cell when the poor innocent pilot makes a crater? We are not protected by CASA, we put our arse on the line with every signature. While obviously we aren't putting our own lives on the line, they are still lives and any LAME that fobs stuff off to go down the pub should be shot. Two of my cousins FIFO on planes i maintain, not to mention the hundreds of other people. As far as i'm concerned an aircraft should be as close to new condition as possible when it leaves the hangar. Which is probably why it's good i don't run a business - i'd go bust. :p

What you describe here is pretty much exactly how it's done in the airline game. As an AME all my work can be double checked before the LAME signs off on it. After a while a certain amount of trust is earned bit even them critical things like flight controls and engines are dual certified. Even something as simple as a ceiling panel needs extra checks if the panel could potentially interfere with throttle or flight control cables. And everything is tested after it has been put back together, even engine runs if required. Of course i don't have to pay for the parts i change, so think nothing of swapping out a $10,000 computer or something. Aviation aint cheap.

As an avionics AME i'm all for shiny technology. But i still check the route my gps has picked for me, and memorise the street latouts so i have sone situational awareness. I don't like just blindly following instructions from a machine. The same would apply in the air. Note that a particular hill should appear at a particular time or distance, etc, so i have some idea what to expect. The same that you would do with a dead tree format map. Of course my flying experience is minimal so i can't talk much.

Thanks guys. I can't seem to find anything on this Bush Cocky. It definitely looks fun.

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. :)

When i first read the article i pictured an aircraft with two mainplanes, both mounted high, with conventional controls mixed for the flapailervators - that is pull back on the stick and the forward flapailervons would drop while the aft ones rose. With a standard flap position input causing both to droop. Much like flaperons. And like that i thought it was ok, though there is quite a bit of hippy artist dribble in the description. Reading again i come to the same conclusion as Head In The Clouds did. Assuming nothing goes wrong0 and you only want to fly in a straight line, it should work. Bit if you need a major change in pitch like recovering from a stall, you're out of luck. And while you may be able to change heading with rudder, the flapevons seem to be a single peice across the whole span - so no roll control. (i could be reading the diagram wrong again, i'm on my phone.) An aircraft that swaps a horizontal stab for second mainplane should work fine - i've seen a picture of a larger version of the Osprey that was like this. But in the real world you need control of all three axis.