Jump to content

kasper

Members
  • Content Count

    2,042
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

kasper last won the day on July 9

kasper had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,821 Excellent

About kasper

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

More 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. I do not like to speculate - my comments are on the pics and video only. 1. the size of the piece puled from the water is approx the size of the wing outboard of the lift strut attach 2. the video (while blurry) shows to my eye two stub wings of approx same size but not full correct wingspan and not much at the rear for horizontal stab. My interpretation of the final point of crash is that the two outboard wings are missing from the strut outward and that the horizontal stab (both sides) are not there. How it got into that situation is conjecture and as a former jumper and current pilot I can see in theory how this may have occured. The only comment I will make is that if the aircraft is that out of control before the door is open its entirely possible to have it come from 12,000+ feet without the jumpers being able to get out. Very sad incident and hopefully the sequence of events that resulted in the deaths will become clear to the investigators.
  2. kasper

    kasper

  3. I’m sure we’ve had the humbert before ...
  4. Well the dash 8 coming back from Sydney this week was not it. If I’m not flying then pretty much anything from airbus wins. I love the A380 and A350. Better than anything from Boeing for me.
  5. Just a dash 8 that’s been on the rack ?
  6. And the cdi boxes have a long history of vibration cracking the wires as they enter the box ... not able to repair so it’s replace as they fail. Expensive but hey you can run an ic engine without that ignition element.
  7. The aerofoil on the nearly all the thrusters is pretty high lift so unless you are looking at an early T83/84 single seater without any lower battons you are better off just checking your battons agains the correct profile and then reducing drag as much as you are allowed. In 'as much as you are allowed' I am really pointing out that if a two seater and its got 25- reg then you cannot legally change the aerofoil nor add much in the way of drag reduction unless thats already been CAR35 or equivalent approved unless you are prepared to wage war and spend money on the RAAus MARAP process. If its single seat 10- reg then I'd still just focus on checking profile against the original and living with it. Edit - ok - checked your posts and pics of your restoration you seem to have a nice looking T83 single seater. Without opening up the wing skins and sewing in new batton pockets you are going to be limited to the flat bottom section you have ... the T85 changed the wing to have more battons closer together and full lower battons so the section holds much better. Without doing a lot of redesign work to effectively put a new wing on the airframe you will be limited on what you can do. The T83 will not climb really well at high weights because the lower surface of the wing will press up into the wing with the airpressure - you end up with an undercambered wing section thats lower lift than you would like - but it still climbs well enough - mine did and that was with my fat bum and a tired Robin 440 spinning an original plastic ultraprop
  8. Very sad outcome. Reporting steadfastly has it as a fixed wing but it clearly isn’t. It’s HGFA registered so over to the coroner and police with assistance from HGFA. And frankly that’s a very low speed impact from the looks of the ‘wreckage’. The spat’s are not even off the wheels and compared to the Qantum 912 that came out of the English Channel about 10 years ago from a full stall entry to the water after fuel exhaustion that airborne airframe is in remarkably intact condition. It will be interesting to watch for the reports on cause.
  9. Turbo. Outlanding was and in my opinion should still be considered with RAAus aircraft. I’ve been flying from rag n tube stall close to 20knts through to jabirus. All are RAAus eligible and whilst I do not look forward to it I have by what you might consider 1 crash - airframe failed on landing off airfield after engine and airframe in air failure 3 forced - airframe fine after landing but engine/fuel issues meant I was coming down without a choice or power 2 outlanding - I chose to land off airfield with power due to unexpected met. And dozens of off airfield landings where I decided the paddock looked good and generally I wanted to take a break. All of these I was trained for in my initial training in RAAus in jabirus. I was retained/tested in the Uk for my NPPL(m). The reason / justification for the RAAus aircraft outside GA is the low energy low stall. Keep that and demand to keep the distinction. And an area you touch on that boils me every time is what I would call levelling up. If RAAus don’t have something - medical - extensive training to be allowed to use a spammer in an engine - and another area doesn’t that is not a justification to introduce the higher level to RAAus to level the operations. The logic as I see it is that unless there is demonstrable evidence based need to change the OTHER area of aviation should be using the RAAus evidence of safe ops to reduce and remove their requirements !
  10. I will contact you and start the ball rolling regarding your nomination for the board. Start the process tomorrow.. Keith Page.
  11. Only if you want to be regulated and GA. Where is the evidence that in practice the owners out there are getting it so wrong that they are dangerous to themselves or others ? Adults will tend to self select - I’m not comfortable with doing this/I have no interest = engaging an L2 or LAME or a trusted friend. And a point that keeps coming up is engine failing and not being cars able to coast to a roadside. The reason RAAus reg aircraft exist seperate fro GA regulation was that they are low energy and are expected to be able to Outland at lower risk to people that are in a recreational aviation that is NOT supposed to be as controlled as GA. Do not get me wrong. I think offering practical L1 courses is a very good benefit to members who want it. But requiring it to exist to do your own maintenance is not on my opinion alighting with the fundamental reason RAAus exists seperate from GA
  12. If you had ever seen a gyro thrown around you would understand how effective they can be in mustering. They are very loud can out perform a fixed wing
  13. I'll bet on Mong Sport ... there are so many variations on that one with wings and cabanes
  14. So no motorist should be allowed to touch their cars? All mechanics must prove full training in using any tool they might use to work on your car? Consider the risk difference ... a ton of steel and fury 1m from another ton of steel and fury at a speed difference greater than many light aircraft ... and all with innocent non participating public standing and walking around without so much as a guard rail. Would you advocate for something similar and cars nowhere near people ?
×
×
  • Create New...