pylon500

Being part of the 'Irrelevant' traffic at Taree, I usually find I can't get a word in edgeways with all the traffic wandering and yakking around Port, what with the QantasLink and Virgin RPT's going into panic mode wondering where the IFR Barons, the huge circuit ultralights, the jump plane, the jet fighter doing aero's, the seaplane coming and going, the private planes doing circuits calling every turn and change of power setting, and soon more trainees using English as a second language.... I think I might have to start using Very Lights to announce my circuits. Often works well at Taree when tracking back in from Old Bar, pretty much straight on to base for 22. Obviously better if I can track straight in onto 30 grass, pull up in front of my place and taxi up to the hangar:cheezy grin: Unfortunately the grass seems to be closed more than it's open (four months so far this year, two more to go due to works elsewhere on the field )

Probably got that sorted now.....

Interesting to note the section dealing with reporting to RAPAC (section 7.3.2) about congested radio areas. Here in Taree, we are on the same frequency as Port Macquarie (118.1), and sometimes it's hard to get a word in edgeways. But it turns out the alternative is to have two different frequencies, and then have Northbound traffic (usually heading for Port, and beyond) blindly fly through Taree's area, busily announcing their imminent arrival to the Port CTAF. We just learn to live with it.... We did get a small break recently with a Port school about to take on a stack of Chinese students but then decided to do most of their work out of Kempsy, which changed from our frequency a couple of years back (118.9) Anyway, reading through the CAAP, I spotted the bit about 'go-rounds', and have to question the safety of pulling to the 'inside' of the circuit (towards oncoming traffic) when confronted with an aircraft taking off during your approach...? Doing this, the overtaking pilot loses sight of the aircraft taking off, and is counter to the normal rules of overtaking? Having said that, I have always had a concern with the diagram in the VFG, having a similar concept of avoidance, where the aircraft with a pilot in a poor position to observe another aircraft (on his right) is supposed to be the one to maintain separation? As a side point to the above diagram, it could be concluded that the black aircraft is navigating by road (IFR:duck for cover:)? I've never found anything relevant, but the 'unwritten' rule is to track to the right of navigation features, thereby avoiding people navigating the same feature in the opposite direction... Comments?

Re; difference between LW1 and GR582's (I doubt your LW1 still has a 532 SI up front?), both aircraft have the same wing, therefore lifting ability (both are readily capable of taking off at 600kg, but remember kiddies, that's not allowed:no no no:). The LW1 is actually MORE aerodynamically streamline than ALL the 'Low Back' Lightwings, especially if you fit a spinner, and the fairing kit to the round tube struts. Bolly might certify their props for Lightwings, but it's not up to them, it's in the certification that says we must use Howie's/Heard's/Allsize's pieces of wood (I refuse to call them propellors). The GR582 I currently fly, flew for years with a three blade Warp, but after everything went pear shaped, I'm now struggling around with a Heard cruise prop while I wait for some sanity to evolve from the last three years of chaos. At your weights, I can't see too many problems training from that strip, just keep an eye on your student weights....

Maybe your question should have read more like; "I have a grass strip 320 metres long, would this be safe for instructing?" To which I think most would reply, "Probably not" People with experience in LW1's/GR582's could get in and out of 320m two up, but would be a bit short to train a student into..... I'm getting students in an LW1, in and out of a couple of 500+m, sea level grass strips with room to spare, even with a crappy wooden prop.

No problems with forced induction (turbocharge or supercharge) engines, it's Turbine engines that the authorities seem to have some sort of problem with:freaked:. Although not practical in our size range from a fuel efficiency point of view, as most of our flying is for FUN?, I can't see what the problem is ? Turbine engines are no more temperamental than two strokes, have even more power to weight (than two strokes) and accordingly an even higher fuel burn. Granted, to get the best effectiveness from one, it is better to be a turboprop, which can add some complexity to the mix, but the jet engine itself is pretty simple with basically only one moving part!!

Don't like the roof edge on the house or hangar, but don't mind a cliff edge PROVIDED I'm tied into my hang glider at the time!!! Did get up to 7,000ft in my kite once and started to get the Heebie Jeebies looking down thinking I'm only being held up here by a bit of rope But I convinced myself that if it broke at 100ft or 7,000ft, I'd be just as dead, would just have a bit more time to contemplate the folly of it all before I hit. Had a student once that had done nearly forty hours learning and solo locally around the field, then we head off on his first cross country and climbed to 5,000ft, and he got very quiet for a long time

I'll add one I deal with to the list, stock standard Foxbat, filled out everything in duplicate last year, and took around six weeks. This year, got the usual four weeks notice, update the numbers, send in the paperwork and then get told turnaround is six weeks still . The six weeks has past and still no rego!!? . Wouldn't have minded if winter had set in as expected, but after all the howling gales the last two months, now the weather is great, and I can't instruct.. (Can't find head banging on wall smiley )

No one mentioned the old Catto Goldwing.... Or the XTC; There was at least one of these in Australia once..?

While I agree with you on most of what you say, basically too many 'boy' instructors trying to build hours while teaching (with how much real knowledge of their own??) others. But looking at your aircraft bio, if someone wanted you to teach them in say an Erocoupe; Or Wasp; Or a Drifter; Do you think YOU would need 25 hours in it before you started teaching? I have no problems with making lessor experienced pilots/instructors (sub ~500hrs/10 types) jump through the experience hoops for their own good, but I think we need to be able to draw the line somewhere to avoid more and more onerous rules being thrown at us... Me, I have around 3000+hrs, have flown around 85+ types, and am quite happy to fly something for a couple of hours, then grab the owner/student and get on with it. I've done the 25 hour TEST flying of something new, and that's usually a worthwhile exercise before training a new owner/builder, but for common, proven aircraft, 25 hours familiarisation seems a bit excessive.......

Wonder how long it would take to convince CASA of the reliability of electric engines to get a dispensation to run multiple engines? Having said that, the Airbus machine is nice, but at the speeds we fly ducted fans are not that efficient, and having two of them...? Electrics are mostly going to try to run bigger diameter props than we do now so typically, the effective electric planes are going to look more like this; Or this; Gliding knowledge will be a benefit, and solar equipment wont hurt either...

Well, there you go..... After spending an hour or so composing and uploading files for my first here, I realise I forgot to add the whole reason I replied ! While I love the Tucano, many in Australia may not know what it was, and would undoubtedly call it a PC-9 or a Roulette... So, fired up the computer again (a few years back) and; Also had silly thoughts like a cardboard head profile sitting on the instrument panel, to look like a two seater. I guess a 8/9ths with a 912s/914 could be a two seater.

Yeah, the W.A.R. range were all around the 50% scale, which actually made them fairly small. Interesting range; FW190, P-47 Thunderbolt, F4u Corsair, Hawker Sea fury, Mustang (killed one of the team?) and possibly a Zero. They were then based somewhat on KR-1's structurally and aimed at being powered by VW or 0200, which made them a bit heavy. Net result, they tended to be nasty little things! Most are finding that the 70~80% range makes things a little thicker, which means can be built a bit lighter (trust me...). There was a 70% Hurricane designed in America by a guy named Sindlinger, all wood, fairly light, retracts and around 100hp, better with about 150hp. There have been a couple in Australia, there is one flying around in NZ with a small V-6 in the front....

I've always thought the next direction for our recreational weight ultralights was scaled warbirds. Many years back I noticed that if you plan to build a scale warbird, the first thing people ask is, 'Can you make it two seat?" After resisting the temptation to beat these people with their own ignorance (it's a WAR BIRD, a single seater, live with it!!) I then figured, well, why not build warbird trainers??!! Really, the possibilities are endless; I was actually working on full size Harvards at Bankstown, and looking at the maintenance manual, realised that it could actually be a simple aircraft. Here are some of the results; But I didn't have a Rotec (AT THE TIME !) Followed by a little photoshop; That was going to be a fair project, and I wanted something a bit easier and thought, Mustang? (done to death), Spitfire? (wood, metal, glass?, and what scale would you like?), F4U Corsair? (ARE YOU MAD?), Messerschmitt 109? (already small, and available in glass), FW190? nice aircraft, would prefer a Ta152, but again a bit complex, Mitsubishi Zero? (aerodynamically a very nice plane, simple lines, but is the Australian flying community ready for it yet?), the Kittyhawk was very tempting, but eventually I settled on the Hurricane. Structurally very simple, thick, lightweight and forgiving wing, light fabric covering, seemed like a good idea; Then, just as I was getting these drawings underway I saw the Italian version OK, so I need something different, something that has a bit of uniqueness to it, and trolling through Hawker information for the Hurricane, really started to like the Typhoon / Tempest lines. Back to the computer; And a little photoshop to help visualise; Too many projects, not enough time or money... Oh, and my Rotec?, a couple of years back I picked up the remains of a damaged Murphy Renegade, and was going to rebuild it with a 912, just as a Rotec became avaiable. So with the extra weight up from I needed to do a bit of modifying, and ended up working towards building a scaled down Boeing Stearman. Work was underway until my Lightwing got damaged.. Link to Stearman here; https://plus.google.com/photos/113292981019876413104/albums/5517491041560340721?banner=pwa

Many interesting (and odd?) comments here... I think we should all agree that part of the LEFT (PORT) wing is missing. The flaps appear to be missing. People are talking about 'struts'? The reports are calling the aircraft a Technam P-96, the rego on the RAAs site calls it a P-96... A Technam P-96 is a non strutted, LOW wing aircraft; Without knowing the distance the tip was found from the main wreckage, it is only speculation that there was a wirestrike. The weather reports tend to aim the cause more in the, loss of control / overspeed / flutter direction, as does the clean break of the outer panel. A sad and concerning thought. Those operating P-96's (and other Technams) might just have a closer look at aileron hinges, mass balance attachments, flap hinges, flap 'up' stops and general control system tightness at their next Daily Inspection, as I'm sure they do....

OK, finally found a decent photo; A group of us in Sydney bought -33 (as we called it) from Wagga, it was still powered by a 532 and fairly 'stock'. I flew it back to the Oaks with a stop at Goulburn, and was surprised by how fast it was, I then noticed the ASI was in MPH... 33 flew for the rest of that summer, but during winter, we needed to build a shelter for it and then decided to do some work on it, instrument upgrades etc. About that time, I was moving up to Taree and swapped my share for an aircraft trailer. I think it still flies now and then? The other number we were looking for was the follow on from 25-0080, which would be 20-0081; This is 'Ol -81', circa 1987 at the Oaks. This is the ultralight I got my certificate in and then instructed in for nearly 20 years. This machine has had a great history, had nearly 4000 hours on it when I left Sydney, has been rebuilt at least four times (twice by me), and I've lost track of how many engines have been through it. '81 started life as a square back LW-1 with a pull start 532, no doors and sling seats; After one of the total rebuilds, I added a new colour scheme, which caused much discussion within the club. After the last rebuild, it was painted all-over yellow again before being sold and replaced by a Foxbat; 81 now resides somewhere near Bathurst. Another Lightwing history, but a bit sadder. After moving to Taree, I started instructing again using a local Gazelle, but I always wanted to get a Lightwing. After chasing up a couple of really neglected examples I eventually bought Lee Ungerman's from Cowra; Unfortunately, within three months, fate dealt a bad hand and -437 was damaged while training; This was bad timing as I had just taken on restoration work on another aircraft (a Petrel) and it was to take me nearly twelve months before I realised it was going to be a waste of time, (this was just as the CASA/RAAs fiasco exploded). I then went back to my Lightwing and proceeded to rebuild it, only to find that, just as I had finished all the structural work, CASA/RAAs had moved the goal posts again and there was some doubt as to what MTOW I was going to be allowed, and I started wondering if it was worth finishing the repairs as a 'Lightwing', or as a modified 19 'Superwing'? It would be nice to have it back for training use as taildraggers are becoming increasingly rare, and I had gotten one of those 'update' pilot notes from Howie saying I could fly my GR912 at 600kg, but if it has to go back to 450kg or even 480kg to be legal, one has to wonder if it's worth doing..? Sob story over, lets see more Lightwings.......

I could be wrong, but I think if you build an LSA kit (which you can't change), when finished, it is registered as an ELSA and given an E24-xxxx number? The problem with 95:55 is that when LSA came along, instead of writing a new ANO, a modified version of 95:55 was written and confusion followed.

They are maintaining the requirement for prior training, which puts them ahead of the American free-for-all of FAR103, and also means we have dropped a bit further back from the lead of ultralight aviation in the world

I'm just worried the long nose is to help with a weight problem down the back? It is starting to grow on me....

From what I've seen in the adds, prices generally seem to be; Expired 912A (80hp) 1200hr (some 1500hr) basic motor =$3~4K Expired 912UL (80hp) 1500hr (pre 2000hr extended) basic motor =$4K Expired 912UL (80hp) current 2000hr model, basic engine =$4~5K Expired 912ULS (100hp) mostly 2000hr, basic engine =$5~6K These are generally run out engines from schools and depending on how they operate, either pulling just the basic core and replacing it (about $15K I think?), or doing a firewall forward change ($LOTS), the buyer of the old engine will then need to chase up all the extras. I read 'Basic' engine to be engine with ignition packs, inlet manifolds, carbi's, coolant hoses with pressure cap tank, starter motor and maybe the old exhaust system? To get a running engine into your 'non-certifed' aircraft, you will also need the following; Exhaust (you may need to mod to suit your application...) Oil tank, Oil cooler, Radiator, Coolant expansion chamber. If the above bits are included, you could ad at least $1K to the above figures. Have a good read of the log books to be sure, general feeling is that most 912's will run at least another 50% of their TBO time...

Just your typical weekend; An hour banging circuits with a student in the Foxbat (Landing 30 grass YTRE, my place on the right of the strip) Steer my resident builder in the right direction with her project. (she's nearly finished her second wing, and about to start the second flaperon) Jump back in the 'Bat and fly over to a mates place and spend an hour or so assisting the re-assembly of his recently purchased, fully restored Drifter. (virtually brand new!) Fly back home and pull a few more bits off the two stroke Lightwing that I'm trying to finish an engine change on Knock off for the day and walk back to the house for tea, and read the latest at Recreational Flying....

"Push the stick forward, the houses get bigger," "Pull the stick back, the houses get smaller," "Pull the stick back further and the houses get bigger again!" Somewhere else in the flying commandments...

I feel a more relevant, if slightly modified expression, hits closer to home than many will admit.... A fool and his money, is soon flying more aeroplane, than he can handle.... I have also always liked; Mechanical Engineers build weapons systems, Civil Engineers built targets!

Back in the 95:10 days, after I built my first U/L, I created my own flight and maintenance log to keep in the plane. Above is the log sheet part (didn't bother with landings then), the interesting bit is the last column where if anything went wrong, I marked a number (followed on from the previous number) that led me to; A maintenance log sheet (hopefully self explanatory). I printed about 4 log sheet pages to every 1 maintenance log. With the dodgy old 95:10's, I seem to make an entry every other flight, but eventually the flight times build up and the work load drops off. Naturally I keep a pilot log book as well..

Pretty much how it went David, although I should point out that it is only proposed to close Old Bar strip during future festivals (should they be able to run any more), the strip will be open the rest of the time. As the new secretary of the 'Old Bar Heritage Airstrip Management Committee', I was hoping that after the interest died down, we would go back to opening the strip to allow visitors to fly into the 'Festival', but in hindsight, it's probably better left closed for just that weekend. Aircraft that get in early can be parked there, but wont be able to leave till the 'show's' over. Remember, if flying into Old Bar, you should contact someone (me) just to check what's going on, we usually let people in, but if the strip's closed from rain or something, calling will avoid embarrassment.