Head in the clouds

As an adjunct to my previous post - there are many fewer people interested in building planes than there were in the 1970s/80s, but there are still some that are, and one of the things I hear quite frequently is the question "what can I build". Certainly there are plenty of kits out there for two seat aircraft but none of them are what youngsters, or young families where Dad wants to build something as a father & son project perhaps, or maybe a Dad just wants to get out of the house and into the shed/garage in the evenings instead of watching TV, would call affordable in the way that building a small sailing dinghy is, for instance. The point is, as I hinted in an earlier post, that RAAus is not doing anything to actively promote homebuilding (or kit assembling) in the most affordable category that we have, which is 95.10. It seems to be totally forgotten just how hard some of us toiled to get 95.10 revised (it's Issue 5 now, in case anyone thought nothing had changed ...) so that it became a useful category under which you could build safe aircraft which could be operationally useful in that they could go reasonable distances at reasonable speeds and heights. Originally we were stuck with unworkable and unsafe restrictions on height, MTOW, wing-loading and operational areas (flight below 500ft only, MTOW of 400lbs/254kg, wing-loading of 4lbs/sqft (18kg/sqm) and couldn't cross any gazetted roads which pretty much meant only flying around a farmer's paddock. Now we have a very exciting and workable category. We can fly to 5000ft without any radio requirement (or higher with a radio), we have a MTOW of 660lbs/300kg (or 737lb/335kg for seaplanes/floatplanes or amphibs, or 704lb/320kg if BRS equipped, or 781lb/335kg for waterborne + BRS equipped planes), max wing-loading of 6.7lb/sqft (30kg/sqm) and no restrictions about where to fly except what you'd expect regarding CTA and Restricted areas etc. This category is for single seaters only of course, and with those weight and loading freedoms you can have a really nice and low cost aircraft - for a start you don't need a $25K plus engine, $2-5K will get you all you need for exhilarating performance - so why aren't there thousands of them buzzing around everywhere? Two reasons why (all extracts come from CAO 95.10 2011 Instrument - all bold/underline is added by me) - © if the aeroplane first became registered with the RAA or the HGFA on, or after, 1 March 1990: (i) the aeroplane was privately built; (Note that this means you cannot buy a factory-built 95.10 - they're effectively prohibited in Australia by this clause) Privately built means - 2.2 Subject to paragraph 2.3, for this Order an aeroplane is privately built only if: (a) the aeroplane was built by a person, or was jointly built by not more than 4 persons, with a view to the aeroplane being owned by the person, or by 1 or more of the persons, who built it; and (b) the person, or each of the persons, who built the aeroplane was, at the time of completion of the aeroplane, an eligible private builder; and © the aeroplane: (i) was designed by its builder, or by 1 or more of its builders; or (ii) was built in accordance with a set of drawings or a data package, or a set of drawings and a data package, approved, in writing, by the RAA or the HGFA; or (iii) was built from a kit approved by the RAA or the HGFA; and (d) except in a case to which sub-subparagraph © (iii) applies — the parts from which the aeroplane was built (other than any recognised standard parts) were made by, or at the direction of, the person, or 1 or more of the persons, who built the aeroplane. AND the CASA definition of an Approved Kit in this regard (as stated in 95.10 itself) is - approved kit means a kit for the assembly of an aeroplane, being a kit: (a) that was manufactured by the holder of a certificate of approval in relation to the manufacture of kits of that kind; or (b) that was manufactured in accordance with an approval given by CASA; or © if the kit was exported to Australia — in relation to which there has been issued, by the appropriate authority of the country from which the kit was exported, a certificate that is acceptable to CASA and that relates to the airworthiness of the aeroplane that can be assembled from the kit; or (d) in relation to which the RAA or the HGFA has issued a certificate stating that the kit meets the standards set out in the RAA Technical Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be. And this brings us to the second part of the reason why we don't have any of these potentially excellent aircraft buzzing around our skies sipping a meagre 6l/hr and living in backyard trailers instead of mega-dollar hangars - Because despite repeated requests RAAus has done SFA about making the process easier (read "at all possible") of getting Plans and Kits approved. There is no facility in place to do this. This is just another perfectly blatant example of how the RAAus has deliberately moved into being a replacement for failed GA folk rather than a specifically sports/recreational flying organisation. Not only should RAAus have been working on establishing the facility to get kits and Plans approved, they should have been actively working on getting interested people developing these Plans, at the least, and critical components as sub-kits, for people who can build most of the plane from plans but don't have the expertice or machinery for the major structural items like strut attachments, engine mounts and similar. ALTERNATIVELY - instead of having to jump through all these stupid hoops, RAAus could have been actively (anytime now - or in the last 25 years would have done ...) working to just get rid of those totally nonsense restrictions in the CAO itself. We've had the thing (95.10) written ourselves (1976 - Ron Wheeler of Wheeler Scout Aircraft fame) and then we changed it four times, so why not just make the last minor change that makes the thing useful, instead of it just sitting there with no-one able to benefit from it. AFTER ALL - we don't need any stupid Approvals for Plans to build 2 seaters under 95.55, NOR do any of the kits offered in 95.55 have any approvals whatsoever (did you all know that?), so you can assemble a totally unapproved/untested 95.55 kit and take some unsuspecting person as a passenger, but you can't buy a single seat 95.10 Plans or kit from the same kit manufacturer - how dumb is that? EDIT - I forgot to mention that there's probably no-one in CASA or RAAus that's actually suitably capable or qualified to provide the required Approvals anyway, the producers of those plans and kits would know more about them than anyone, and be the best to provide the 'self-approval', as is used for the 95.55 kits/plans. Further, it divides the whole category in two, that anyone can design and build their own 95.10 from their own back of napkin sketch, and self-approve it, but someone else who would rather use the Plans from someone more design-orientated, cannot do so unless those plans have been approved by a body not qualified to do so - total madness ... Just to show what other countries are doing - these are the type of planes that you could be building for just a few thousand dollars materials cost and powering with a $5000 half VW or MZ, or even a $2000 Briggs and Stratton or MotoGuzzi conversion, they only need 25- 30hp to cruise around 80kts! -

I'm in full agreement with Roundsounds about the name of the RAAus. Juliet said "what's in a name" and history has shown that the answer, where business is concerned, is often "a lot of the difference between success and failure". In my mind 'Recreational Aviation Australia' doesn't conjure up romantic ideas of building or buying your own private 'aerial sports-car' and flying off into the blue yonder. I've actually asked quite a few of the great un-washed what they thought the association was about and most thought it was probably a ballooning organisation, none had an idea it was the old AUF, and all of them knew what the AUF was. I've also surveyed a few folk with a new name or two to test their reaction to it. Flying for Fun is one I favour but many thought it was a bit naff, though they did like Fun Flyer's Association and Sport Flyer's Association. Another part of this is - do we want to be thought of as the Flyers or the Aircraft? The SAAA is/was very appropriate because when it was formed it was the Aussie version of the USA's Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) - it isn't the Experimental Flyer's Association, similarly the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA), is an Aircraft association rather than a pilot's or flyer's association, because the emphasis of each of those organisations is on the building of aircraft rather than the flying of them, since they both do the flying part under the auspices of their GA licencing regulators. However, AUF/RAA has never been an aircraft association in the sense of a homebuilder's association. Certainly there is the facility for us to build our own planes within the organisational framework, but those of us who do so are in a very small minority, and decreasing. So I think being a Recreational/Sport/Fun Flyer's Association would be a more representative name as far as helping with the public's understanding is concerned ... Any thoughts?

Quite so, I'll consider myself reprimanded, thanks for the good advice. Stupidly I just thought that you meant what you wrote ...

5kg???? the PC680 is 7kg, 17Ah and only 220CCA - my Shorai LifePO4 battery is less than 1kg (996g), 18Ah and 270CCA - are you sure you're comparing apples with apples in regard of the Earth-X battery? What you're suggesting is that the Earth-X only gives you a weight reduction of 2kg ... the Shorai saves you 6kg.

Whoa - just you hang on a cotton-pickin' minute here - what's this 'exempt from radio' claptrap? There's no radio requirement at present so how can you say there needs to be an exemption from something that's not required anyway? And - while you're at your 'below 500ft' thing, why not make it only for planes of 115kg empty weight, max wing loading 4lbs/sqft, mustn't cross roads, no flight above 500ft ... nah, we've done that - before the plastic wannabe fantastic pseudo GA aircraft mob came along and usurped our playground. ON THE OTHER HAND - I'm sure a lot of folk wouldn't mind going back to 95.10 Issue 1 if it properly emulated the Pt103 in USA which has some of the above and no requirement for a pilot certificate or membership of an association like RAAus. These days you could build a much better plane than we could in the late 70s/early 80s with better availability of superior materials and engines, AND kits are allowed, which they aren't here, unless they're 'approved' by RAAus, and guess how many kits have been approved in the last 25 years ...

Huh? I don't quite get what you're saying here ...

I'd agree that all of the OP assumes the machine is in balance, and the numbers will change for the worse if it isn't - BUT in practical terms and given those numbers and that situation I'd say you could induce the worst-case for possible stall/spin, and still not stall either wing, though at that worst-case position it might be close. The worst-case would be a full control-deflection skid which in many aircraft would, in a left turn, be full left rudder and sufficient right aileron to prevent rolling beyond the 48 degrees bank angle. The above is a bit similar to the classic stall/spin killer on the base/final turn we hear so much about, with the main differences being that the killer turn has the pilot resisting bank, so is rarely at anywhere near 48 degrees, and generally nowhere near a 1500ft/min descent rate. Given both of those the wing is considerably unloaded which makes it quite stall resistant. The OP provided the numbers and my description above is the non-scientific way of considering it i.e. comparing it with real-life things you've tried when 'experimenting' up high - we used to be encouraged to try things out years ago, these days it's all considered stupid or it's illegal - anyway, in real life you have to work pretty hard to stall in a descending situation such as that described, but it's quite do-able if you try hard enough ... the OP suggests, though, that the flying wasn't intended to be greatly unbalanced, so without further information I would think we'd only have to factor in a small amount of imbalance.

Good post UF, full of precise and detailed information, thanks. Just one caveat though. I agree that most manufacturers of Life (and Lipo, but we're not talking about them) batteries recommend the use of cell balancing chargers but for the ones I'm familiar with it's a recommendation not an absolute. In post #65 above Horsefeathers describes how he just fitted a Life battery replacing his previous one with no other changes to the system, presumably, and with no problems. In practice that scenario is the norm according to my battery supplier. My Life battery is a Shorai and before buying it (it was $250, so I gave it more than passing consideration before forking out ..., ) I had a lengthy discussion with the importer who was very forthcoming with information and candid advice. The short version was that Shorai recommend that for best performance and greatest longevity of the battery then a cell balancing charger is the best way to go BUT in real life most of their customers just bought the battery and installed it in place of the existing battery which was usually a gel cell, and he had not heard of any problems. The majority of their customers were motorsport users, motorcycles, offroad buggies, karts and the like. Motorcyclists were by far the highest users of them as the light weight contributed to lowering the CG for their bikes. The importer/distributor's main concern was that the Life batteries should not be charged at higher than their specified charge rate, as that would shorten the battery life more than most other factors - but it won't make it catch fire!! Our Rotax 912 charge rate is just a little high for my Shorai battery, and the charge rate from many sport bikes is a bit high too. The distributor's recommendation is that some load be kept on the electrical circuit to keep the charge rate down a little. In motorcycles this happens almost automatically because most of them ride with headlights on at all times, so he suggested we do something similar with the planes. Since we often don't have any specific load on the electric circuit it's probably a good idea to add a bit of electronitrickery to keep the charge rate down, in my case it needs to stay below 20A, and the R912 charge rate is 25A if not loaded. (Perhaps Kylecommunications might consider making up a 'magic box' current limiting device we could install to keep the charge rate below 20A? I'll buy one ...) The distributor went on to say that he would recommend having the cells balanced once a year at a minimum, if we didn't want to buy our own suitable charger they would do it free and with a one day turnaround, we could Express Post satchel the battery each way by airmail so in most cases it would only be away for three days. Below is a picture of my battery, the case is CF re-inforced and built to a milspec and there is nothing in the case material or its content which can catch fire or sustain fire, or is toxic in any way. The disposal instructions are to just chuck it in the garbage ... The whole thing weighs just under 1kg (it's so light you'd really think it's just an empty casing) and it's an 18Ah with 270CCA which cranks the 912 noticeably more energetically than a similar capacity gel cell battery. One of the really great benefits of the Life battery that hasn't been mentioned is that it maintains its charge for long periods. In 'normal' temperatures it will drop only approx 0.1V per month so after sitting idle for 4 months it'll still be at 14V or so (fully charged they're 14.4V), and even after a year they'll still start your engine easily. More astounding is that they're the opposite of a gel or lead/acid cell as far as cold is concerned. Gel and lead/acid will go flat quite quickly in cold temperatures but if you really want to keep your Life battery fully charged for years - keep it in the fridge. For a size comparison, notice the 'Bic' lighter standing next to the battery -

Thanks FT. My point is proven. I have personally witnessed an aircraft running into a large runway light and then getting airborne with similar damage. As you can see, having sustained that damage the rudder cables are now slack and the steering pushrods are bent. Both of those factors separately mean that the rudder cannot now be controlled by the pedals. Conclusion - bad design ... > > > This thread is intended as the Australian location of the build log for the DooMaw and as such is something of an 'official document'. Most build logs don't permit comment except by the builder but I'm quite happy to have input on the thread that discusses good design and workmanship principles and I'm grateful that there has been some very useful contribution to the DooMaw design by others as a result of the thread being open for comment. However I'd really rather that folks don't use this thread to discuss the relative merits (or otherwise) of material that isn't of specific relevance or benefit to the DooMaw design and construction. I've already given my opinion of the Tornado rudder control design and it's not a positive one, since flexible cables can't be pushed. I will never be convinced that a design like that is appropriate in an aircraft. If you want further discussion of the Tornado design please by all means start a thread of your own about it and I, and others I'm sure, will be happy to contribute there. Thanks.

It doesn't seem to matter how many threads there are on this subject, and how many times people explain it, some people probably won't ever understand the difference between Lipos and LifePO4s. So - just one more time - Lipos (Lithium Ion batteries) catch fire, but LifePO4s (Lithium Ferro-Phosphate batteries - the Ferro is IRON (not Ion) so LifePO4s are sometimes called Lithium Iron batteries - which sounds like Lithium Ion hence the confusion) - they CANNOT catch fire. As far as aviation is concerned Lipos are Dangerous Goods but LifePO4s are not, and provided they're not very large batteries, LifePO4s are usually delivered to you by Airmail because they're totally safe, non-hazardous, can't catch fire, can't sustain fire. The only potential danger from LifePO4s, hence the restriction on size that can be carried by air, is the possibility of something external shorting the contacts of the battery and setting fire to something else on the plane - that's something else, not the battery itself. Lipos can never be delivered by airmail .... In the opinions of many of those who use them LifePO4s are better than sliced bread because they're 1/8 the weight of a similar capacity Lead/Acid or Gel cell. LifePO4s are only about 10% heavier than Lipos for similar power/energy density batteries. LifePO4s offer a huge advantage to some aircraft where their low weight can mean a significant weight saving. Some aircraft can't benefit from the low battery weight because they need the battery weight where the manufacturer installed it, to keep the CoG right. LifePO4s cost about 4x the cost of a similar capacity Lead/Acid or Gel cell battery.

You're a worry FT ... Try removing one of the steering pushrods and see if you still have any rudder control. You won't have, because you'll no longer have a closed loop which is required for that (very poor) rudder control design. To activate left rudder you push left pedal, it moves the left steering pushrod, which moves the right steering pushrod which pulls the right rudder cable, which crosses over to pull the left rudder control horn. Remove/break/damage either of the nosewheel steering pushrods and you have no rudder control. Do you think that's a smart design? And - if you re-read my post #92 you'll see that it's the simple pedal adjustment systems that I criticise because their pedal geometry for anyone who isn't average height is invariably hopeless. I didn't suggest that the Tornado had a system that wasn't simple, I said it had one where the pedal geometry is poor for anyone who isn't about 5ft 9in.

Yes, it's an example of one of the 'simple' ones I described in para 3 post #92, and only has nice pedal geometry if you're 5ft 9in - but if you're shorter or taller the pedals move up and down instead of just back and forth. It's also got another very questionable aspect because it relies on the nosewheel steering linkages to operate the rudder cables. So if you break, bend, disconnect or generally damage your nosewheel steering on takeoff you lose your rudder control as well.

Aaah, yes definitely. I really enjoy design work and I usually try and design things using original concepts but there really isn't much out there that hasn't been done before, and mostly has been done numerous times. Consequently a lot of my 'original design' is very much influenced by what I've seen when my natural inquisitiveness has had me delving head-down into the 'workings' of things. Naturally, after a while you start to recognise good practice and bad practice and I just try and copy the good stuff and stay aware and wary of the bad stuff. I also seem to have a natural tendency to foresee things that might go wrong I'm also paranoid ... But, most of all I had the benefit of years working with the truly amazing engineer and my late great mate Barry Hughes, who taught me so much about what works and what doesn't - if you ever doubt your design just ask yourself "would the Germans do it that way?"

Nice story, Oscar, highlighting exactly the way things go progressively pear-shaped, if just a couple more 'factors' had come into play the outcome might not have been so good. Nicely done keeping the main occupation (flying the plane) a priority! That scenario is rather too similar for comfort to the one where the pilot seat in Cessna singles doesn't latch in place properly and the seat slides back on 'rotate', tempting the pilot to use the yoke to haul himself forward again ... it happened to me in my own C172 even though I used to wriggle and bump myself around in the seat to check the latching. Gladly I had been made so aware of the danger that when it slid back I just let go the yoke and then used the edge of the top of the panel to pull myself forward again - and in a climb even that's no easy feat. Yes, I'd had a good look at the latching arrangement for the pedals for DooMaw and I will use a similar detente pin but it has deep engagement into holes in the guide tube. It will be lifted by a push-pull lever (rather than a pull-only cable). The lever will be lifted to disengage the pin and then pulled or pushed to move the pedals. Once the pedals are adjusted the lever will be locked down again under a spring latch so it (and the detente pin) can't be accidentally disengaged. Also, my pedal balance springs will resolve to the sliding mechanism itself (they'll be recoil/clock-spring style wound around the pedal pivot tube) rather than to the fixed part of the airframe, so they won't tend to pull the pedals forward while they are unlatched. So many traps for the wary, let alone the unwary, aren't there?

I've had to spend a fair while back on the CAD work again, this time designing the adjustable pedals system and modelling all the components for it. I need to have adjustable pedals because the seat can't move due to its being a part of the progressive collapsible structure which is part of the crashworthiness design. Also, since the whole seating area is part of the ergonomic design for crashworthiness and flail clearances, it's desirable to not use much in the way of seat cushions to adjust the body position, so the pedals really must have quite a lot of movement available to accommodate as large and as small crew as possible. As far as adjustable pedals go, there aren't many good ones unless they're quite complicated. Simple ones either just move the pedal bar back and forth leaving the cable/pushrod connection and hinge point unchanged, or they rotate the pedal forward and backward around the hinge point, also leaving the cable/pushrod connection unchanged, or they rotate the pedal forwards and back and have a series of connection points for the cable to the pedal. None of these methods is very attractive because they all only have one position where the pedal geometry is ideal. In all other positions as you press it the pedal either moves up from the neutral position, or down from the neutral position, instead of just moving forwards and backwards. And - the further you adjust the pedal fore or aft, the worse that geometry becomes. Given that DooMaw's pedals must have a large adjustment range it meant that I have to use a rather more complex pedals arrangement to achieve that while also having good geometry at all pedal positions. The system that I most favour for its relative simplicity and reasonable lightness is the static cable and 'S' tube adjustment as used in many gliders. For DooMaw the cable connection method from each crew position has to be somewhat modified to suit the side-by-side seating compared with the usual tandem seating arrangement of gliders. A further modification is the addition of toe brakes and brake cylinders, whereas gliders usually have a single handbrake lever. This pedal arrangement has been adapted for use in various powered homebuilt aircraft, for those not familiar with it here is an image showing the method - Back on the geometry bandwagon - DooMaw being a STOL where use of brakes plays a large part in managing the aircraft in ground handling, I want the brakes to be very user-friendly. On the ground when a pedal is fully depressed is the time when you are most likely to be either needing to use the brakes differentially, maybe to help prevent a groundloop, or perhaps just wanting to do so to turn around in a tight space. Similarly you don't want to be pressing on the opposite brake at such a time. Consequently I spent a lot of time playing around with the geometry of the brake pedal (the small pedal hinged on top of the rudder pedal) and it's connection position in relation to the position of the brake cylinder, adjusting them until the brake pedal stays upright or actually moves forward a little when that rudder pedal was fully depressed, and the brake pedal moves away when the rudder pedal is fully back. That way there will be a tendency for the foot to come onto the brake pedal automatically as the rudder pedal is pressed further, and on the other side the brake pedal has moved out of the way to reduce the likelihood of touching that brake when it definitely wouldn't be wanted. The image below might be easier to follow than the description - Having got the geometry right I could set about making all the parts - who would think there are so many parts in just the pedals ... and that's not all of them, I still have to model and make the release mechanisms, the handles that you use to pull and push the pedal sets, the cable attachments to the firewall, quite a number of pulley mounts and cable guides and the underfloor stiffener plates, since the pedal sets are bolted direct to the plywood floors, not to the steel airframe. Anyway, I'm tired of making parts for now so I'll get back to welding and assemble this lot first, and make the rest of the parts later. 51 hours in that lot, making a total of 652 hours so far - CAD time not counted ...

Thanks fellas, I stand corrected, I'd never seen that early version BD4 construction.

Below is an image of Jim Bede's BD wing construction method. It is nothing like the method used by CC, with the exception that things (in Bede's case just the ribs) are slipped onto a tubular spar and bonded to it. Following the rib bonding the rear spar is bonded to the ribs and then the wing skins bonded to the skeleton. Bede's method is similar to the one adopted by Sander Veenstra for his SV series of motorgliders/fat ultralights in the 1980s. CC's wing was built up of complete sections of wing about 400mm long, each molded section had one rib, a length of rear spar, the D nose and the wing skins. The skins had a joggle at one end to allow the next section to lap over and be bonded to it. Though I couldn't personally muster the patience to make all the sections one by one in the molds, I've never seen a quicker way to assemble a complete wing. Unfortunately I don't have a photo of CC's wings during assembly, I should have taken one when I was looking at the molds just a few weeks ago.

The Victoria Highway is fully fenced all the way from Kununurra to Katherine. Using the co-ordinates on the dash-cam you can see on Google earth exactly where they were and without further information it looks pretty clear what happened. It seems they were pushing what look like some weaners across the road from a close-in paddock to the yards at the homestead, using their main driveway - so they had let them through a gate on the south side to cross the road and should have had warning signs and/or people up the road each way warning traffic. I wouldn't be blaming the traffic at all, the mustering looks like the culprit IMHO - running too late but trying to yard and water them before dark for an early start on the yard-work and with a quieter mob in the morning. But - it's quite possible I have it completely wrong and a mob had got onto the road through a damaged fence and they were trying to get them off the road and back into a paddock before dark ...

Yes, characters they were, there seem to be much fewer of them these days ... Even though I'm not really a fan of tubular wing spars that modular wing of CC's is a brilliant concept and so quick to build and assemble. It's actually surprisingly light, the heavy part of the SBS Sparrowhawk is the fuselage, it's way overbuilt. Even so, it was only the prototype and there was plenty of opportunity to build production versions much lighter. The S'hawk certainly has an interesting look, apparently intended to have a nostalgic 1930s feel about it. To get the steel-tube-and-fabric look for its fuselage CC actually took the molds off the fuselage sides of a fabric covered single seat Sparrow, without harming the 'donor' aircraft! For the last couple of years CC had been working on a derivative of it, adapted from the SH molds and to be powered by a Rotec Radial. It's a stand-off replica of a Stinson Reliant. It may not get completed now, which would be unfortunate.

Yes, the rules are the same as GA, they're required to be overhauled at 15yrs. This can be ignored and they can be run 'on condition' if the aircraft is not a factory-built and is not being used for 'commercial purposes' i.e. flying training (commercial purposes probably includes glider towing but I'm not sure). Most aircraft that are being used for flight training burn up their TBO hours prior to the 15yrs but occasionally an engine comes on the market with good hours left, where they have become time-expired before hours-expired. A couple of engines like that were advertised/sold from Tasmania about a year ago. If you intend to use timex engines 'on-condition' it needs to be carefully considered as some insurance policies are invalidated by doing so, even for private use.

He never told me of this incident with the Sparrow but then CC did some adventurous things at times, so it's quite likely ... do you know what happened? In Post#9 above WayneL describes CC's landing his float-equipped Jackaroo on the grass at Jacobs Well. Having discovered how short he could land on grass with floats, on occasions after that he also used to fly off the water on the Broadwater and land on the lawn back at his house then winch it back onto the trailer. I have a video of that somewhere, and I recall he used the footage on his Chris Conroy's World of Boats TV show. I think he did crack and have to reinforce the step of the floats on one occasion but that was no biggie for a clever composite wallah, as he was. WayneL's mentioning Barry Hughes brought back memories of those heady days too, Bazza's numerous stories of his excursions on floats on the Broadwater would make you laugh till the tears ran. Particularly the one where he was trying to take off in the Rotec Rally and a big cruiser came close to have a look and the wake flipped him - Bazza's description of nearly drowning while trying to untangle the harness and headset, though rather chilling was hilarious and Bazza's 'compliments' to the water police towing the inverted plane to shore too fast were the stuff of legend. There's a Conroy Sparrow here that has about 500hrs on it IIRC which was bent in a bad landing but I have seen lots of video of it flying before that and it seemed to perform well. It had a DCDI Rotax 503 in it. After the Sparrow CC concentrated on the two seat Sparrowhawks, one tandem and one SBS. I'm not sure what stage the tandem one got to but I've seen video of the testing of the SBS version. The prototype was much heavier than intended - it is all composite compared with the fabric-covered tubular aluminium structure of the Sparrow - but still appeared to fly well. It was/is powered by a Jabiru 6cyl. I know of at least one SBS Sparrowhawk kit that was sold and there may have been one or two others, but I'm not aware of any that have been completed and flown.

Yarding up at Newry Station on the Victoria Highway in the East Kimberley. Sad outcome, quite a few head killed and/or would have to be put down. They'll be eating their own beef on Newry for a while (on some stations when it's time to get a 'killer' for meat for the kitchen coldroom you try and get one of the neighbours that's strayed ... ). When pushing a mob across a highway like that they usually have someone on a trailbike 500m or so each way up the road to warn traffic, the plane would have seen the approaching headlights and should have had comms to those on the ground. Monumental stuff-up all round.

Yes, CC has been a good friend for the last thirty years and I spent many happy times with him both building and flying ultralights going right back to the days of Chris Conroy's World of Boats. He's always been an entertaining guest at our family BBQs, we'll miss him dearly. RIP Chris and sincerest condolences to Ben, Lachlan, Moni and his extended family and many friends.

Well, at that point you've run out of stage one perhaps, but you've still got engine torque, P factor, gyroscopic precession forces and differential braking available, to add to the above. Working as a flying instructor was invaluable for getting lots of crosswind practice, particularly because you get to do more than just the crosswind landings, but have to save the situation when the landing has already gone wrong. As far as the question of how much practice should you do, I'd say you do as much as it takes until you enjoy crosswind landings rather than contemplating them with trepidation.

As others have mentioned it may well vary according to the type you are flying - and the advisories in the POH. There is a 'standard' procedure for a smoke filled cockpit and/or engine bay fire - you haven't said which it is. You suggested promptly switching off your engine when in fact it may well have been an electrical short and the wiring was causing the smoke while nothing was wrong with your powerplant, so you might put yourself in some additional jeopardy, for the landing perhaps, by turning off a perfectly functional engine ... probably best to be sure it's a fuel/oil fire before killing the engine and/or turning off the fuel. After, or even during the Mayday, pax briefing etc, the standard procedure calls for opening all cockpit vents and slipping the aircraft in the direction which keeps the smoke at the very least away from the pilot, and hopefully improves his/her visibility as well. It's one of the few times when you must consider your welfare well before that of anyone else's, an incapacitated pilot can't save the others on board of course ... As far as the quickest descent and one which satisfies the slipped aspect to keep the cockpit clear of smoke (and flames perhaps) - it might depend on pilot ability, and IBob's comment about currency in the manoeuvre is absolutely on the mark (maybe we should all practice more ...). My preference would always be for a very high rate of turning slip (not skid!) because I've shown that on the types I have flown I can get the best rate of descent that way, stay over or look for a good outlanding, and keep the airspeed stable and well below anything that would overstress the airframe. I've regularly achieved 4000ft/min+ descent rate in several types using that method.