derekliston

Thankyou, that reinforces perfectly my point.

Mate, that is exactly my point. I do all of those things, slowly and clearly but no more than necessary information. However, as I said, an awful lot of others have literally appalling radio procedures!

3,500ft, hearing calls from as far away as Tara (one of the ones that I did understand!)

I went for a little bit of a fly around today in the first really good weather we have had in a while. Warwick to Clifton to Pittsworth and back to Warwick, just a fly around, no landings apart from back at Warwick. Just need to say that CTAF frequency 126.7 is a pain in the posterior. A multitude of radio calls, mostly not very clear about where they are, some who must think it professional to talk at a million miles an hour which really only means you have no idea what the hell they are on about. A lot of them don’t define the field they are talking to, either switching on half way through or not speaking clearly and mostly not repeating the airfield name at the end of the transmission. Not good in my view!

I always pull the propeller through 8 compressions and always do a mag drop check and a full power run up. I’d always prefer to find problems on the ground rather than half way through my climb out!

Always good advice Nev and always noted, but with 1.7kms of runway at Warwick and off the ground in about 150metres there was never a real problem. Also the instructor who does my BFR is a highly experienced examiner of airmen and is unlikely to let me do anything stupid (I hope!)

Absolutely Nev, point is that it is partly tongue in cheek. Even with degraded performance I am still off the ground shorter than just about anything else at Warwick and definitely anything else on 15 litres per hour! Solo, half tanks and a bit cooler, different aeroplane. D7242CC8-482D-4D82-928A-099F8F081AA0.MOV D7242CC8-482D-4D82-928A-099F8F081AA0.MOV

No idea what this is, but I like it!

Did my biennial flight review in my CH701 last Monday 18th February and it was the first time ever that I was disappointed with my 80hp Jabiru power. Having said that, it was a hot day, Density Altitude was 3,900ft, I had full tanks because I didn’t know what I was going to be asked to do and two up with the instructor 77kgs and me currently around 80kgs. Must have taken a whole 400ft to get off the ground and only made 500ft by the runways end !

Talk to Tim Howes on Bush Flyers Downunder, he has a fantastic example of the Storch!

Where are you based?

Onetrack! I don’t know about people who fly generally being ‘high flyers in society’ Speaking for myself as a 71 year old retiree I am constantly wondering how much longer I can afford this ‘sport.’ I no longer try to justify it because that is impossible. Point is that most fliers that I know certainly are not ‘High Flyers’ in society. I have in the past (In England) met some wealthy prats who fly because they are rich and not because they love it! but all whom I know in Australia are in it for love.

Only videos, see what I can do tomorrow!

Just a quick, very lumpy and bumpy circuit at Warwick this morning and looking at the scenery it occurred to me to wonder why all the fuss about crop circles in England when we have them all over the place in Queensland, only difference is that over there the crops within the circle are squashed flat and here they are the green bit in the middle of the field!

There is a posted radio conversation on BFDU between ATC and pilot, so not jumping to any conclusions. Pilot quite calmly states his engine problem and that he can’t make it back to the airport!

Just to stress that you should always fly as if the engine might fail regardless of the make you fly behind. Not super familiar with Beechcraft but don’t they have a 6 cylinder Continental?

Just for the Jabiru naysayers. See, any make of engine can stop in flight!

Incidentally, if you go the ‘divorced’ route you will need rod end ball joints on the ends of the elevator push/pull tube. Question, in the photo, what aeroplane is that? I ask because the torque tube is different to my CH701.

The other thing that I changed, again on advice from others, was the rubber blocks on the u/c spring which will extrude out. I was advised to use ‘virgin teflon’ which thus far has worked well.

Depends how you look at it Nev. Take driving for example, would you rather drive a modern vehicle with gadgetry, decent brakes, heater/air conditioner that actually works, GPS to tell you where to go rather than a navigator (read wife!) who can’t read a map or (and you don’t have to go back too many years) a car with a heater that is only for show, brakes that fade if you use them too much and the aforesaid navigator. I’m thinking my 1960ish mini. I know which I prefer! Likewise with my Skyview panel, I have the ability to use the map and whiz wheel but I still love that GPS.

Sometimes, although mostly not, it is a good thing to second guess the designer. I read what I could and spoke to whom I could while building. I found Hans who flies at Kilcoy incredibly helpful. Net result was I changed a few things whilst building. I have the divorced brackets for the elevator. I also used streamlined tube for the struts, a Savannah style tailplane/elevator instead of the inverted aero foil one and I have bolted rather than riveted the bracket for the cables on the rudder and the bottom plate to fuselage on the nose leg. Hans told me, from experience, that those rivets will work loose. It is a known problem with the standard 701 tail that the nose can drop in the flare. Everyone, including Zenith recommend fitting vortex generators on the elevator to solve this. With the Savannah style tail this is not a problem. Again, Hans has this style of tail. I really don’t know what I would have thought of the aeroplane built 100% by the book as it were, but I was interested in building and flying, not stuffing around changing things afterwards. I am very happy with the aeroplane as it now is. I think listening to people who have built and flown for a lot of hours ( not me, I only have about 100hrs on mine!) is well worth while and certainly worked for me. The 701 was the very first all metal two seat ultralight design and was originally powered with two cylinder Rotax two stroke and hence was designed as light as physically possible. Things have evolved a lot since then and some things are worth changing. I also have additional L angle diagonals on the fuselage sides to cut down oil-canning (also a known problem) and wish I had put them on the top and bottom also since it still rattles like an old tin can when I get down to 50kts on approach. Sorry for the verbosity but hope this is helpful!

Interesting how glider and power pilots priorities vary. In my little CH701 the sort of lift that you guys love makes it bloody near impossible to maintain straight and level. Gain 200ft in the blink of an eye!

Interesting reading though this is, when I actually think about it, I couldn’t tell you which, if any technique I use. I make sure my turns aren’t too tight and keep my speed where I want it. I tend to fly pretty much glide approaches and keep my circuits close ‘just in case’ that means my downwind to final tends more to the circular than the square. I keep the speed where I want it and keep the ‘picture’ right, I fly at idle down to the runway and only put in a bit of power when I encounter sink. Don’t know if right or wrong, but works for me!

Just went for one circuit today, a bit hot and bumpy for my likes. 31C OAT, Aerodrome elevation 1530ft Density altitude according to my Skyview 4000ft, barely noticeable difference in take-off distance in my 2200 Jab powered CH701

Quite right mate. CAP series not too bad either and quite liked the Robin Regent!