octave

good question, I would like to know also

The Skyfox stands condemned by statistics.

The body count is running at about ten to one or worse. Moreover, the only Lightwing fatality known...was not airframe failure related. However, some of the Skyfox deaths were.

The Skyfox stands condemned by statistics.The Lightwing and Skyfox were produced in fairly similar numbers for the same market and were being manufactured and marketed simultaniously for some years.

 

Both have a steel tube fuselage and strut braced high wing. However the wing designs are very different and one of them is better than the other.

 

I don't doubt that corrosion was involved in the cross member failures, but what about the identified bending loads on this member caused by the design compromise of the lower strut attach point, to enable the wings to fold?

 

Statistics? The body count is running at about ten to one or worse. Moreover, the only Lightwing fatality known...was not airframe failure related. However, some of the Skyfox deaths were.

 

I think it is fair to assume that some Lightwings also live by the sea and yes, some of them also receive less than optimum maintenance. Therefore these excuses for the Skyfox are invalid.

 

It was not only dumb to mount the ailerons on plywood, but it was double-dumb to deprive them of the physical protection that is, in most aircraft, afforded by the wing structure. Sometimes aircraft run into birds....

 

AND

 

Stall/spin accidents have claimed some lives in Skyfox ops. Statistics again favour the Lightwing by a wide margin.

are particularly fond of this boyfriend?

but seriously the only thing I can think of is very short flights in perfect weather and then gradually increasing the duration. I went through a stage during nav lessons where I would start to feel a bit off, I think due to looking down at maps, I found that ginger tablets provided some relief without side effects.

yep very cool, wont get to see that again, end of an era!

Took my 7" flying yesterday, it performed very well. Thanks Ian

I spent 12 years in the RAAF as a musician, now a musician and music teacher

done

the flying account will have to recover before I go to far but I am looking forward to some long trips, maybe not tassie but we could compromise CFI , how about Flinders island?

Thanks all, very glad to finally get it done!

And other people booking the Gazelle out every weekend for the next month and abit.......

Hi all,

got my x country endorsement today. :clap2:

I have a Nav Aid, I don't really use it in flight, although I did find it useful as a learning tool. It would be fine to use in flight although space is a little tight in the Gazelle and I don't like to have too many bits and pieces rattling around. I did make a table of distances and correction angles which seems to work ok

I would rather be roughly right than PRECISELY wrong.

Little degrees now make big degrees (and Nm) later

That's why instead of using the whole 90nm to get back on track I would use a checkpoint 10,12 or maybe 15 nm down the track, that way once back on track I would still have my original checkpoints to monitor my progress

I didn't round the .66 until I added it to the 2 degrees to parallel, that's how I got 3 and not 2.66. I would neither try nor recommend reading .66 of the sort of compasses we use.

looks right to me, -2 degrees to parallel and -.66 degrees to converge with destination. Rounds up to -3 degrees therefore 007. If you did not apply a correction (and if nothing else changes) you would miss your destination by 4nm.

My understanding of using the rudder to make a minor change of heading is this, I notice that I am flying 185 instead of 180, I briefly apply a small amount of left rudder, right wing lifts due to secondary effects, aircraft gently rolls left. We are still using roll to turn but as a secondary effect of yaw.

OMG motzartmerv your a trekkie

I was taught by this CFI and earlier this year I did my BFR with him, I have always found him thorough and fair. It is a great responsibility for a CFI to sign off on the BFR, it would not be good for a CFI to sign off a pilot who went on to be involved in incidents or poor behaviour or worse still a serious accident due to lack of skills or attitude. Perhaps this CFI would be much tougher the next time this pilot presented himself for a BFR.

I agree with Ingnition, also our CFI with over 19500 hours also taught aviation at the university of NSW and prefers 6 minute markers, good enough for me

Last fortnight - forced landing practise, stall and a couple of steep turns

Today circuits.

To me practising these skill is a big part of the joy of flying. After I got my pilot cert I think I probably did not practise these things as much, just happy to get up fly around and get back safely but as my confidence grew I started to practise these skills more often. Of course during my first BFR I had to demonstrate these skills to the CFI so it would seem foolish not to keep these skills up to date .

My advice is Give it away old man

actually Lloyd is my brother in law and I guess it is my fault he wants to learn to fly, it was the couple of hours in the Gazelle that did it!

well done!