Jump to content

kasper

First Class Member
  • Content Count

    2,335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

About kasper

  • Rank
    Well-known member
  • Birthday 15/04/1969

Information

  • Aircraft
    Homebuilt weightshift
  • Location
    Armidale
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Those straps would propably hold back the middle aged spread as well as the seatbelt does
  2. In the Walcha folk museum there is what is claimed to be the prototype 82 duster. whilst it’s the only aircraft item in the museum it’s worth a visit to the museum if your up the New England way. Open weekends and staffed by the expected pensioner volunteers 😛
  3. Well done. Yes. The short seamew. A plane design hit repeatedly with the ugly stick and then given half the power it needed. Whack a double mamba in the front and I think it would have had half a chance in its role
  4. Not only 10. Over 20 of them. The 10 was the modified ju87 with jettisoning fixed gear. to help - 26 in total built. next clue tomorrow
  5. Ok I’ll give a second hint. And the answer on Wednesday if unsolved. Designed and manufactured in the UK.
  6. I remember flying him the bugger brother the 360 from Launceston to Essendon back in 1990 with Air Tasmania. May be a flying box but it was a comfy flying box.
  7. But lets not forget - the plane came in at 114kg with a generac big twin fourstroke engine ... that airframe while looking chunk is actually very light. And for cover on the fusealge they are limited to 115kg empty in the USA so who is volunteering they can cover that for less than 1kg ... Plus the USA is limited to speed - must stall below 24knt and full throttle must not exceed 55knt ... cruise at 48knt is pretty much what is requried. The backyard flyer is a not designed to the Australian limits for ultralights so its pretty pointless comparing it to the Australian lim
  8. Woo Hoo - the Lysander you have when you have been rear ended by what looks like a bomber tail group
  9. Ok - I will half pay that one - there were apparently a few JU87C modified with explosive bolt undercarriage ... but the only reference i find for them is that 10 were allocated and modified ... not all JU87C's The one I am looking for had 20+ and it was not a modification but on all the airframes as standard. Hint - post WWII, not German
  10. But unfortunately the company - Pacific Aerospace - was declared insolvent on Friday.
  11. Ok thry this one - again name the aicraft by the design 'feature' What aircraft that was not ever intended to land on water had a design that included the ability to jettison the fixed undercarriage in an emergency to aid your chances of surviving a ditching in water? 20+ built so not even a one off 😀
  12. Bing bad! it was the picture of the 3yo crash that was posted last week as the Amberly one .. I'll delete my post as its very misleading
  13. The one in the video would be fine to register in OZ under RAAus in the 95.10 category. It clearly has more than enough wing areas to cover its MTOW and 95.10 allows multi engine and/or multi props so 👍 Same would apply to anything like the the Woopy inflated wing ULM ...
  14. Microsoft Bing will allow you to find it in images searching for Amberley tigermoth crash and limit it to the last month ... appears to be VH-UZB My bad - this is a crash from 3 years ago that came up on Bing for last week
  15. If you are factory built (whatever the design standard) RAAus cannot override maintnenace set out by the manufacturer UNLESS they chose to under MARAP. With the engine, prop and the instruments within a factory build the manufacturer generally simply calls out the maintenance as per the component manufacturers schedule. If the aircraft manufacturer calls out or replicates the component manufacturers maintenance schedule then there is no wriggle room under RAAus if there is no allowance within those called out schedules. I can only think of a couple of cases
×
×
  • Create New...