Jump to content

Garfly

First Class Member
  • Posts

    3,047
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    67

Everything posted by Garfly

  1. It seems this is the fuel consumption range Turbotech claims: 109hp/140hp/160hp 19l/h / 20l/h / 21l/h eco cruise 24l/h / 32l/h / 35l/h 75% power
  2. I'm pretty sure I have been awake. Unless ... Anyway, I'm not the only one: "The FAA has a voluntary pilot safety program, Operation Lights OnPilots ... pilots are further encouraged to turn on their landing lights when operating below 10,000 feet, day or night, especially when operating within 10 miles of any airport, or in conditions of reduced visibility and in areas where flocks of birds may be expected, i.e., coastal areas, lake areas, around refuse dumps, etc." airplaneacademy.com | AIRPLANEACADEMY.COM
  3. Theatrics aside, Skippy, landing lights on final are very often visible before the airframe that they're stuck to. This is a big help for anyone about to enter who might have missed the call. Not to mention, for tower controllers everywhere.
  4. I think the guy in the video is, temperamentally, a bit beyond the usual trainee pilot profile. Still, his extreme example can still be a lesson to us all. Anyway, their survival probably says something for the Tecnam P92's crash cage.
  5. Yes, although they say it can also run on many types of fuel. (Presumably not mixed at will, though.) And I think there are parts of the world where Avgas is much harder to find than Jet A1 is. But hey, those are first world problems we won't have to face. ;- )
  6. Yeah, one Gogetair dealer in Europe (A4 Aviation) claim to be looking at a cruise efficiency for the G750TP between 15 and 18 LPH - of cheaper Jet A1. (see YT vid below at 01:30) And with a 3,000 hr TBO they hope to whittle down the ICE price advantage over the service life. Although some argue that in typical GA use a turbine could run out of cycles well before TBO hours. Others reckon that in its 2+2 Mosaic config it could give Cirrus a run for its money in the US market. In any case, it seems Gogetair don't envisage their G750TP operating above 20,000' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7My16WEnaPY "... the G750TP combines the advantages of a gas turbine engine – smooth, vibration-free flight, and reliability – with impressively low fuel consumption and a long 3,000-hour TBO." A4Aviation News - A4 Aviation WWW.A4AVIATION.COM Latest news articles and updates from A4Aviation
  7. I was interested to read that RAAus was positioning itself as the masters of Mosaic in Oz (Australian Flying Mag article in the OP) They're definitely going for the top end of town. Anyway, I'm pretty impressed by the pluck and audacity of Mr Gogetair. He surely wouldn't risk the turbine project if he wasn't an incurable aviation addict. After all, he was doing fine with Rotax for his G750 aircraft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzO62xyjepg
  8. Yes, different ... however, the idea of trying out turbines in recreational aircraft has been a recurring topic over the years. I'm a bit fascinated that folks are still determined to give it a go despite the many obstacles. As red750 posted recently, even the Wilson Explorer II homebuilt from 25 years ago flirted with PT6 power.
  9. That's exactly what I mean.
  10. Who is the "you" you're addressing here? This "you", for one, WANTS or needs neither WARBIRDS nor TURBINES; just happens to be interested in most things aviation. No need to go aggressive.
  11. Might even become RAAus ready one day. RAAus to go the Full MOSAIC - Australian Flying WWW.AUSTRALIANFLYING.COM.AU RAAus is aiming to be allowed to administer aircraft that comply fully with the new MOSAIC regulations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzO62xyjepg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7My16WEnaPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS9K1QO2Ekg
  12. Yes, I think everyone agrees that the SE2/ADSB should be always on ... I'd say it can even have uses in the circuit (for reasons like the ones given by Neil, above).
  13. Ah, okay, so that's what you meant?! Yes, it probably could have/should have been attached to the original post. (Maybe still can be?) On the other hand there might be some value in starting the discussion over since so much of the early info was wrong.
  14. Yes, fair enough Neil, I cited the original video so that the presenters would speak for themselves and listener-readers interpret likewise. [Ref. the minute 1:01:45 to 1:02:45 in this RAAus video from last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuW5yzC-j5M&t=3724s ] Anyway that difference of approach on the issue between some of us and the RAAus published position goes back a ways:
  15. Yeah, you won't be contradicted on that, preliminary means preliminary. BTW, 'someone just plugged this prelim report here' following the ATSB's making it and 'plugging it into' the World Wide Web, presumably so that all concerned might benefit from what's been established so far (as opposed to some of what's been bandied about so far). Your problem with the 'plugging' is?
  16. Yeah, I agree! For what it's worth, I don't hold to the official RAAus line - that is, generally to diss ADSB-IN devices. They seem very determined to stick to the "See and Avoid" doctrine (that's how I read that minute of their video [above].) But do you accept that the Jab would not/could not have electronically "seen" the Cessna's (non-ADSB) transponder (even if he hadn't been looking outside)? That's the only point of difference, I think.
  17. By the way, for what it's worth, even if the Cessna did have ADSB-OUT, it'd have been against official RAAus advice to use an SE2/iPad in the circuit, anyway. [The ATSB, on the other hand, seems keen for electronic conspicuity to be used to the fullest; way more trustworthy than our lyin' eyes.] Ref. the minute 1:01:45 to 1:02:45 in this RAAus video from last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuW5yzC-j5M&t=3724s
  18. Skippy, I think that is one of issues being argued. ADSB-IN devices, like the SE2, can't "see" old style transponders. In any case, for what it's worth, the ATSB report says that on-board video shows the Jab pilot looking outside on downwind, just prior to impact.
  19. He did!! (To fly another day ;- ) CLICK FOR FULL REZ.
  20. Rokket, in practice, the aircraft ID part of VHF comms doesn't take up that much airtime. In talking to ATC, it's the reading back of all crucial bits of clearances/ instructions that takes time. And in the case of CTAF (pilot to pilot) chat, it's trying to clarify position and intentions - generally self separating - that fills up the frequency. And actually, in CTAFs, I reckon it can be useful for the ID to be said again at the end, along with the location. (It can obviate a heap of "Say again call sign" type calls.) Also, at ATC's discretion, call signs can be shortened to handles that take a second to say. For example, in this short vid, soon after "Sportstar 9696" has established contact with Tamworth tower his call sign is cut to "ninety-six, ninety-six". But yeah it's a long-in-the-tooth, legacy system which will, I reckon, be overhauled by new ways and means before it's seen as practical to reform it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXukpQlRhnM&t=31s
  21. Have we at least made peace with GPS technology yet; you know, the GOTO BUTTON RATING (wink, nudge) of the 1990's.
  22. Ha, ha ... it's Thruster we have to feel for. I only took the shots of his fields that'd sprung a leak.
×
×
  • Create New...