M61A1

talk to kimberly and mark http://motionaero.com/Products-DualHeat.html

Sounds good until you read the disclaimer on page 3 of the installation."Warning:

I. The

 

Dual Heat will not prevent carburetor ice or icing

 

of the induction pipes."

 

 

I'd hate to be maintaining those........salt walter.......corrosion. Looks fairly brutal type of flying, hard work.

 

 

Looks like a army helcopter, Bell206.

Yep, the reason I was interested in the tail number, is because it is possible that that aircraft may well be in our hangar.

I had a photo taken by my old man at an airshow I attended in the 70's ( I was around 8yo) of A17-001 doing a routine, then I got to work on the same aircraft(001) just last year.

 

 

Can anyone read a tail number? It would be on the top of the vertical stab, if it's there I can't read it.

 

 

Mine took in the mid 30's, in a Drifter, over about 6 years and 5 different instructors, with about 5 of those hours in a Skyfox. I've never been comfortable in the Skyfox.

 

 

The thing that surprised me was how the wings didnt detach from the fuselage after the 17.3 G deviation.I guess the clipped wings helped abit, but that was unbeleivable.I being a warbird lover, would rather rare WW2 aircraft never be modified for racing and be restored to look and fly like their original designers envisaged.

Yes an F4U Corsair just doesn't look right with a tiny bubble canopy and half the rear fuse missing, it's awful. Not that P51's look any better with the same mods.

The trim range called for is miles outside being capable of doing the job. A moving horizontal stabiliser is required, to have the authority going from high angle of attack in corners to overspeed on the straights. The planes are too ancient in design concept to do those speeds. While it may be hair on the back of the neck stuff to watch, it's a rich man's indulgence and not the right thing to do with a rare warplane. They should be built to new specifications specially for the sport. Too many spectators paid the price here. Nev

One of the tricks for these racers is to get your CoG as far aft as you can without becoming unstable, the reason for that is so that they can unload the horizontal stab ( with the stab providing down force this adds to the wing loading). That done, they usually change the angle of incidence on the horizontal stab ( to align with the airflow, creating less downforce)), they do all this to reduce the drag involved. The fastest racers use the smallest necessary control inputs and the lowest ( but usually the most prolonged) G forces, as anything that increases AoA and G will cause drag and that is what they are avoiding.Information from a 2007 issue of Air & Space........possible techniques have changed since then.

 

 

you don't read the local rag? I was going to go but the wind in town was 15-20knots I decided to give it a misshttp://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2012/09/08/close-call-crash-landed-pilot/

I went fer a look anyway.........on my old gixxer, for most of the ride I was banked right to keep it straight with the wind.

 

 

I wonder if the parts were 70 years old?The BIG ramifications... it says the mods to Galloping Ghost were not documented and OKed. I believe she like many of the other Unlimited Racers was modified over the last 40 or so years... I imagine getting the paperwork in order will be a big cost and headache if the governing body requests it...

Working on military aircraft, we tend to change our hardware frequently, in the civvie world, hardware is expensive, so people try to get the most out of it. Regardless of the mods, I think one of the lessons here is that if you can screw a locknut on with your fingers, replace it, if it's still loose, change the bolt/stud too.

Try asking yourself, "what is the worst possible outcome if this bit fails?"

 

 

I'm no chopper pilot but isn't it to do with the direction of rotation of the main rotor? and subsequently which way the heli tilts to stay in a stable hover ie. left seat high or right seat high?

If you search the net, there a few theories as to why helicopters are flown from the right seat. One of them is that the original test pilots flew from the left, so when teach a new pilot they put them in the right seat so that they could remain instinctive with a student.

Some heli-loggers fly from the left, so they can lean out the door to see and still use the collective.

 

 

Throttle relates to restricting or not restricting the flow of fuel/air in the intake of a conventional engine which produces horsepower. SHP. Shaft Horse Power.Jet engines produce thrust, so thrust lever(s) is more appropriate. Auto throttle can be set up to give you a "power" ( in a jet perhaps derated). If you use it after landing to slow you up, it is called Reverse THRUST. Sometimes the auto throttle lever is called a "GO" lever. You will get the terminology from the manual when you are endorsed. Nev

Yeah, I think it all depends on what the manufacturer wants to call it. I've seen throttles, thrust levers, power levers and PCL (power control lever).

Andys@coffs' date=' post: 238659, member: 94[/email']]So, lets try again, what are the things that the LP crowd want removed, or added to what RAA do today? Please make sure that what ever it is that you ask for is truely a LP/HP point of differntiation and not something that could apply equally to both?

 

If I was your RAA rep, what message would you convey to me with a view to change. Try and convince me that its in our best interests?

 

Andy

 

(PS,here is the required smilley! . )

 

Just joking Im really

I've given it some further thought. I think,(for myself) that perhaps the HP/LP differentiation need not exist, if all the training requirements were soley competency based rather than time plus competancy (Based on the concept that the training requirents were changed because of the introduction of HP aircraft).

I'm not not a moment suggesting that I am any more or less competent than others. It does provide an avenue for those who are motivated, to educate themselves, without parting with hard earned cash unnecessarily, while still providing the necessary training for those who are happy to fork over wads of cash and be spoon fed. As an example, I have the opportunity to learn my Nav ground school and part of the flight training with Test Pilot who has flown Mirages, Hornets, Huey's and is still current on Blackhawk and Kiowa, but because 1. His instructor rating is no longer current (not a test pilot requirement) and 2.RAAus says I must do X number of school hours, It won't happen.

 

I will still learn what I can from him, but I will have to go and pay for training that I would consider less comprehensive. I think that If you cab get yourself as near as possible to the required standard, then the only requirement need be that you demonstrate that.

 

As for the them & us thing between LP & HP, I can see that it does exist on both sides of the fence, I do know that I have been made to feel like some kind of aerial hillbilly, and I know that some consider the HP folk to be well heeled and snobbish. I don't know how to fix it.

 

 

I ran an Incorporated Association with 30 different types of vehicle, with substantial operating differences , so this is just a matter of administration.

Exactly...........so why are they struggling?

 

 

Sorry but perhaps you could explain "and more stringent regulation" what exactly does that mean? At present we have a set of RAA rules for all RAA fleet and some similar but with slight differences, rules depending on the CAO that applies to the aircraft (CAO's being CASA impossed not RAA obviously). Who said those in HP aircraft need more stringent rules?You also suggested "with higher fees for the extra admin necessary to provide the level of "safety" expected" who said we expected anything extra?

 

What I expect is that the incorporated association I belong to, in order to legally fly my aircraft uses the money it extracts from me as efficiently as possible, always furthering the stated purpose and mission of the organisation. Nothing more, and nothing less.

 

Last I checked LP aircraft could just as easily kill the pilot and passenger as a HP aircraft. In fact I seem to recall that many years ago when an aviation reporter( Ithink?) was reviewing the cub and extolling the virtues of this low and slow aircraft that it could only just kill you...or words to that effect. So, what of the existing safety regeme would you ditch for LP aircraft, and what additional would you add for HP aircraft. My 230 is kit built so do I get into the pay more or payless gang?

 

Andy

All fair questions- perhaps I should shut my face, I'm not really adept at getting my point accross with a keyboard.A few of the rules have been changed since the introduction of the higher performance aircraft, I am of the understanding that this is because they are more difficult/present more challenges. Apparently RAAus thought more stringent regs were necessary. So it would be reasonable to expect that if you only flew the lower performance stuff that these competancies/regs would be unnecessary. I haven't done any maths, but I haven't seen any real changes in that statistics that would suggest any real improvement.

I seen people on this site also, that expect that because they've handed over a certain amount of money for an aeroplane and a pilot certificate, that someone else will provide them with some safety. To be honest, I cant really see a correlation between paying the regulator money, and personal safety.( I'm not talking GA & RPT, navaids etc).

 

My point was that if you feel that paying they regulator more, to buy more safety, then feel free, but I don't want to. I personally think that things went pretty well, with LP aircraft and a few endorsements, apparently, this all changed with HP aircraft, so now we have extra training requirements and a truckload of endorsments (which require more training), most of which, if you learned in a LP aircraft you were doing anyway. As an example- some years ago I saw a 95-10 that was twin engined, amphibious, with retracts. These days( newer regs)with that machine, you would be expected to hand over large sums of money (over and above your pilot cert) just to learn to fly the machine that you designed and built yourself.

 

I don't think HP aircraft need more regulation, but I do think that the current training requirements for LP aircraft are excessive ( an opinion only), I am well aware that both can be deadly. The regulator has claimed that the changes were necessary because of HP aircraft, so if the HP aircraft are in a different organisation/category, surely we could remove the changes.

 

I wasn't trying to offend anyone, but I guess I put my view accross poorly, and maybe still have.

 

 

Having said that, it is obvious that as RAA operations have moved toward GA type aircraft with similar ranges and speeds, some RAA rules could do with updating.

With that in mind, perhaps two entities, might work (or different categories within one organisation). One for the GA type aircraft with their high speeds long ranges, similarly high maintenance costs and more stringent regulation, with higher fees for the extra admin necessary to provide the level of "safety" expected by those who happily afford $100k+ aircraft from a manufacturer, and another no frills organisation for those of us like pottering around close to home, with our handbuilt or low cost machine, and happy to accept responsibility for our own construction and maintenance, with lower admin costs. As the "where" an "how" one is allowed to fly rules are already in place, the admin is essentially registration and competency assessment.

Maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture, but in the words of Jeremy Clarkson,"the whole place appears to be run by someone whose sole job is to make sure his boss won't get sued". Very unproductive.

 

 

That "admin" also controls things like all the training and certification of pilots and instructors, all the certification of aircraft, maintenance and L2's, and AD's of aircraft and manufacturers, etc.To me that equals buying "safety", or at least safe systems of operation.

 

The fact that RA-Aus is a social recreational activity group is secondary to it's primary function as an oversight of safety for the group. If you want "social" join a flying club, the RA-Aus lists them on their site, but AFAIK does not control them or take money from them.

 

Two or more organisations with differing codes/standards of operation is a recipe for disaster. Anyone care to shop for the lowest common denominator/dodgy deals to get your membership buck? By having one set of standards by which everyone lives by, and administered by one organisation you are pretty much guaranteed a better result safety wise than having multiple standards governed by multiple organisations, especially if you re expecting "churn" between the organisations.

 

Has anyone looked at the safety record of the NZ twin organisations compared with RA-Aus? (curious...)

I may well be completely wrong, but it is my understanding that the majority of system in which we operate is already laid down by CASA, and that RAAus are there to ensure that we follow those rules and the few exemptions for rec flying.

I believe that you are responsible for your own safety, and the regulators are there to make sure you don't hurt anyone else.

 

 

Which to me suggests that the NZ government is topping up the bucket at a much higher rate that here in Australia. I cant see that its possible to pay for the admin staff costs for that price let alone building and evolving an appropriate system to manage and lift the knowledge of the member base. It could be done like that in Australia, but for that to occur the Australian government would need to lift its part of the funding and to be honest there are otherthings more needing those tax $ than rec flying operations in my opinion.Andy

That could also mean that RAAus does a whole lot that it doesn't need to.

I work for a company that does business like that, put in tenders offering unnecessary services, claiming that it makes them "better", or the usual catchphrase of "safety". The reality is that it means they need to more employ more people to do unnecessary tasks, whichs makes them really uncompetitive agains most of the opposition, then everyone loses because they have no work.

 

I would completey agree though, that our tax dollars shouldn't be paying for any recreational activities.

 

 

We're buying safety, not toasters.Safety should be about not scrimping on money, or competition for money. It should be about making the best use of the money raised with the least amount of wastage on redundant administration costs.

I'm not so sure I agree, in regard to the safety. I see the concept of recreational aviation as a means to "do it yourself". I see the safety as your own responsibility, whether it's the flying or the maintenance. Which would make what we're "buying" is, in my opinion, soley the admin. So perhaps the competion should be about best service for cost.

 

 

I recently read this joke on another site:

 

My gold plated buttplug business is being sued by Apple, apparently they have patents on expensive stuff for a**eholes.

 

 

16. "Ground tested, servicable" (We couldn't be arsed finding the problem)

"Ground test serv", the polite way of say the pilot has fat fingers (finger trouble).

 

 

As a result of the above "discussion" we can conclude there are three ways of checking your ASI preflight. First is to check it on the ground run, second is the rolled up rubber tube method, and third is to wrap your lips around the pitot tube "using the pressure of your mouth". That requires some precautions as listed above, including anyone around intent on photographing it [for educational purposes of course]

It has always been my understanding, that ,IF, you are going to blow into a pitot, the you do it gently from a distance, like gently blowing on your cuppa. Still, this is of little use unless you have an assistant to check for asi indication. Although I know this is more of a maintenance process,I have seen a test kit made up using a water manometer calibrated and a large syringe. I have attached it below, note that at low speeds not much pressure require, you could set up with your tube at a calibrated incline for greater accuracy .

Manometer.pdf

 

Manometer.pdf

 

Manometer.pdf

That's not practicing, that's quite normal for a taildragger.Alan.

While driven by a tricycle driver

 

 

When you are stuck at work and you check the weather at your local airfield cavok, wind 1-3 knots, and some inconsiderate person keeps circling overhead as if to taunt me....

I've had it all pan out nicely before...........Wake up feeling great, perfect day....not too hot/cold, go to work......Hmmm, not much on, ring Drifter owner.....a/c is in the hangar, no bookings. Tell the owner I'll be there in an hour, give the boss my leave app, and even enjoy the 45 minute ride on my Gixxer to get there. Have a good fang...stalls,steep turns, ccts, few greasers etc, then home in time for lunch.

 

 

Do the RAA schools face any sort of auditing?

It is my understanding that they do. The first school that I trained at had people (AUF at the time) that came around at intervals and checked their record keeping and training facilities to make sure the used the appropriate syllabus and and aids in an appropriate environment.

I'm certain also that I have heard comment made by another more recent instructor regarding those that audit their facilities.

 

I suspect though, that the worst ( and not that bad really) instructor I've trained with, would have passed an audit with flying colours. He was meticulous, but I was basically paying him to take me flying, and the only learning I got was from watching him.

 

 

I noticed around the world there are a few private car clubs, where the focus is on acquiring a lot of cars, most of the cars are usually all too expensive to justify buying but as a club they can afford several, for members the clubs aren't exactly cheap but they put a bunch of exotics into the hands of average folks. I am always curious to hear why pilots aren't interested in getting involved in this sort of endeavour.

A workmate of mine got involved with a certain car club back in the eighties. He put a lot of time and effort in his restoration, but did it all himself. The very first thing out of the club presidents mouth......."Oh, it'll be a nice car when it's restored". These were all the sort of people who did chequebook restorations. They were ridiculous to listen to......."I should have my engine back from the shop later this week"........" my painter should be finished with the body on Friday, I hope he hasn't screwed it up like last time"....."So I should be able to get my mechanic to put it all together by next week".

Then finally......."look at this car that I built".

 

Syndicates can work, but more often they don't.