rgmwa

Makes me think back to a takeoff I once did in a C152 as a solo student doing circuits. I had just started my takeoff run when a yellow rescue helicopter on an emergency call lifted off and crossed the runway climbing left to right about two thirds of the way down the strip, cutting across other aircraft in the circuit as it left the area.  I continued my takeoff not even thinking about wake turbulence and fortunately without incident, other than being surprised by the sudden appearance of the helicopter crossing my path. Must have been lucky enough to have either passed under or climbed over the wake by the time I reached the spot. We have Ericson Aircranes and other fire fighting helicopters based at out airfield every summer, and we're repeatedly warned about wake turbulence when they are operating. 

20 minutes ago, Student Pilot said:

Yes, usually the only occupant. Flights destination is fluid at times, dependant on a few things.

What aircraft do you fly?

8 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

Renewed my class2 medical today. Learned a little bit about the current process. I am now confident self declared medicals will come for PPL license holders.

Good, but when?

OME, the wings don’t know which way the wind is blowing when the plane is in the air. It does when the plane is stationary on the ground. Thats why you take off into the wind - to take advantage of the air flowing over the wings in order to reduce the length of your ground run. Same with landing. But once you’re off the ground the airspeed is the the speed of the plane through the air, or the speed of the air over the wings if you prefer. Your example of a glider being stationary while flying into the wind just illustrates the difference between ground speed and airspeed. As far as the glider is concerned it is flying at a speed that happens to match the wind speed over the ground.

2 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

…BUT if you want to maximise the distance you can glide, you will turn so you have a tail wind… .

Except that you will lose height making the turn so you need to factor that in.

Good video but the narrator's style and background sound is pretty woeful.

It depends. You should know if there are suitable places to put down in the country you’ve just flown over. If so and they are within gliding distance that may be the better option especially if yo can turn back into wind on final. On the other hand if you’re over tiger country your best bet may be  to continue and find the most survivable spot you can.

4 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

 I bought pants and shirt to avoid looking like a wanker. I wear my helmet in spite of it making me look like a wanker. 

Matching colours?

Mine cost $6500 by an auto shop with previous aircraft painting experience in 2014. Three colours, no heavy coats. That included all prep including finishing all the fibreglass. I thought it was good value. Another builder just had his RV12 painted by a well known local aircraft painter - also three colours and I think he paid $16,000. 

If you landed with propellant on board there was a good chance of a fire or explosion. 

Bang!

It's based at Serpentine, and the guys who own it know their stuff when it comes to building and flying.

They've got the jet powered Cri Cri among other things, and Dawie Botes is the author of Kwik EFIS, the Android app.

Apart from seeing it flying, I don't know much about the plane.

In summary, the air moving over the wing mostly holds it up, but sometimes it doesn't. 

Wonder if he ever made it. He didn't seem very confident and certainly wasn't well prepared

They must have developed a very good feel for handling the plane in unusual attitudes and flying on the edge of a stall in tight turns. Being young, fit and a risk taker probably helped. Flying a fighter in combat must have been a very uncomfortable ride, and the stress of constant flying must have been debilitating, although the time they actually spent in dogfights probably only accounted for small portion of the time they spent in the air. The ones I really admire were the PR pilots who had to be both pilots and navigators flying unarmed on long missions with no guns and no support. That would have been a tough job.

I have an ACR ResQlink, available from BCF for about $350. Similar to the GME.

In another video he obviously knew where to look for his descent rate and talked about the nav screen, so he had either spent some time around aircraft, or was good at flight sim.

He didn't panic, which was impressive in itself, and saved both of them.

Good effort!

FWIW, the RV-12 has a ground adjustable prop and Vans suggest a WOT of around 5650 is a good number.

2 hours ago, KRviator said:

Buy a second-hand VH-Experimental = Must use LAME (Or original builder UNLESS you have previously built a "similar" aircraft - ie I built my RV-9A. I can sell it, and buy a second-hand RV-10, Sonex, or other metal Experimental and maintain it myself. 

You can work on a VH-Experimental, but need a LAME to sign it off unless, as KR says, you have built a similar aircraft.

This might be useful as a guide to what's involved in building. It's for RV's but would generally apply to other kit-built aircraft as well. https://www.vansaircraft.com/building-an-rv/.  Their quoted hours to build are on the optimistic side, unless you've got some previous experience.

Building is a lot cheaper than buying a new aircraft of similar performance, but you need the time and interest to spend the 3-5 years it typically takes. Hard to do for most people bringing up a family as time and cash are in usually short supply, and if your wife/partner is not on board with the idea, probably best to forget it. 

As for buying, it comes down to paying more (unless buying used), paying for someone else to maintain it, but flying as soon as it's yours.

You could also pick up some copies of Kitplanes magazine to get a better idea of the ins and outs of building.

Even the ABC newsreaders say airplane. It's only semantics, but still grates. On the other hand `aerocraft' would sound a bit odd. 

On the other hand if more people respond we might see some progress. At least they're making the right noises.

1 hour ago, planedriver said:

And if the wife suddenly finds you constantly under her feet after your completion, rather than you being in the shed, they may even suggest a new build for you 😄

More likely to remind you of all the household maintenance jobs still not done because you’ve been too busy in the shed.

I think the real builders are the scratch builders who start with a few drawings and sheets of aluminium or a load of timber. They're the ones I really admire! 

Kit builders are essentially aircraft assemblers rather than builders. Putting a kit together is certainly a big project that requires a fair degree of determination and some skill, but it's not particularly difficult if you choose a high quality kit, like a Vans. Good kits are certainly not cheap, but the saving in time is very substantial. We have one builder at Serpentine who fairly recently completed a superb scratch-built Piel Super Diamant, but it took him 38 years!

One of the main reasons I chose the RV-12 was that it came complete with engine, prop, avionics, wiring, hardware etc. I also knew up-front what it was going to cost, which was another big advantage. A further consideration was that it could be registered either VH or RAA, so if I couldn't maintain a CASA medical, there was still an opportunity to keep flying it. Also a bigger market if I ever sold it.

Building taught me a lot about aircraft, and I also made new friends along the way which was a bonus. I was also fortunate to buy when the dollar was high. Now it would cost me at least another $30-$40k to finish one.

Consequently I consider myself lucky to have a relatively high performance, relatively cheap and very economical aircraft that looks good and flies superbly. Vans like to claim their planes have `total performance', but however you do it, building and flying your own aircraft gives you a `total experience'.