pylon500

Can confirm that 19-4507 is still for sale, presently de-rigged, and hiding in my hangar. Arthur.

Interesting that someone would discuss with owners, read the pilot handbook, be aware of the aircraft's habits, then buy one and complain about it. Anyway, of the six Sapphires I've flown, I've always known of this handling characteristic and flown accordingly. There have been a few Sapphires modified by adding an anti-servo tab system to them. Not a problem on a 10 or 19, I just guess owners of 25's have to decide for themselves. :csm: Should be interesting to see another Opal flying again. ps; Titan Tornados have an anti-servo tab system.

Our club had a policy of exchanging our 582 at 500 hours (before the 300 TBO intro). Most were changed still running, but we did get the odd one that died before 500... We then went to 912's because of the following comparisons; 582:- $5000 replacement, 300 TBO, 17Lts per hour training (Lightwing). 912:-$17000 replacement, now 2000 TBO at 14Lts per hour. The net result is that in 2000 hours of operation, you will buy 6x 582's ($30K) and use more fuel and oil or just one 912. (These are quick rough figures..) Arthur.

Two things, the interference between the wing and fuselage would cause a fair bit of drag, and if you study the 'Custer Channel Wing' you will see he derived extra lift not so much from the airflow through the channel, but the pressure difference outside the curved surface trying to get to the low pressure area within, thus causing lift. Your inverted channel will do just that, lift inverted! (downwards that is). Now, if you put the wing on the bottom......... Arthur.

This reminds me of a glider checkride I had many years back that included spin recovery. With the instructor in the back of the Blanik, we had released tow, flown straight and level while varying speed, then flown varying bank turns at a common speed followed by a common bank and varying speeds. We then slowed to a stall, recovered into a turn to stall into an incipient spin/wing drop to the right, whereupon the instructor called for a full one turn spin and recovery to the left. As the speed was washing off I looked for a reference point to recover and pulled the stick back and applied full left rudder. The wing and nose began to drop, the canopy view filled with ground as the Blanik rolled over on it's back to begin spinning. Quickly, there was an odd 'Woosh' as the nose rotated at the ground then suddenly pitched up to the horizon? A glance at the ASI showed about 20kts (normal) when the glider rolled over on it's back again. At this point the instructor yelled "Hold it IN", which I did as the windscreen filled with ground again, but within two seconds the nose was on the horizon again. As the Blanik rolled over for a third time I initiated recovery imputs just as the instructor was calling for same from the back seat. The recovery went up near 90kts just as I was considering reaching for the brakes, but all returned to normal and we both just sat there asking each other, "What the hell was THAT?" Later on the ground after discussing with those watching from below, and piecing it all together, it was determined that in the entry to the spin, although the aircraft was decelerating rapidly, was still at around 40kts (stall is around 32kts) when I applied full spin controls, and that we had 'Snap Rolled'. As the aircraft stalled inverted and fell through, still with full back stick, this initiated another snap roll which pulled the nose up the horizon thence repeated until recovered. As per the original story, when suddenly everything was different, there was that hesitation and W.T.H. moment before getting back under positive control...... Arthur.

This is an interesting comment?! Having done about 15 years in a GR582 before going to a GR912, I found the performances to be as different as they are the same. The GR582 is lighter but with less power, so it notices changes of weight more. ie; One up, a great climb, two up, a noticeable drop in climb. A GR912 has more 'grunt' and the one up-two up climb is more similar. Having more grunt, the GR912 can drive a coarser prop and get a better cruise speed. Some other GR582 'pros' would be, very docile ground handling due to the undercarriage dynamics and a much lighter 'feel' overall. The 'cons' to a GR582 would be, the noise, the vibration and the fuel consumption. The 'pros' to the GR912 would be the smoother ride, better fuel economy and better TBO time. The 'cons' to the GR912 would be the poor glide and noticeable stall (due to weight and balance problems) and the nasty ground handling due to the undercarriage layout (it's a long story). If wanting to buy a Lightwing, one needs to decide what you want to do with it. If you want to weigh up the dollars to performance to resale ideals, then the GR912 is the better plane. But if you just want something that is a lot of fun to throw around the place, cant get in and out of smaller spaces, handle rough terrain and is generally easy to fly and land, then you want a GR582. As for the motors themselves, a 912UL is a good motor as is (but a 912ULS is better) but if going for a Rotax 582, make sure it is oil injected and avoid running Avgas. Arthur.

My only concern with full covering would be the possibility of hiding 'damage' on the airframe, more so on a composite structure. Arthur.

Finally a Government with insight. Just reading via the EAA website, of battles for airports going on in Canada. Finally a Government has sat up and helped to protect the existence of airports both major and regional, and overturned attempts to close some... Read here. How do we bring this sort of policy to the attention of our so called government for the people? Arthur.

I guess I'd be willing to go back to staying below 5000ft if the regs could be amended to only having all this electronic gear fitted if flying above. Maybe we could get VTC's drawn up with dedicated climb/decent lanes to all RPT airports, and all of us RAAus and GA just keep out of the lanes except while in circuit? There must be some way of introducing a form of sanity to all our combined operation? Arthur.

UM, did you happen to have a look at the attachment? The aircraft is so basic, it's not likely to have flaps, possibly doesn't even have ailerons (uses secondary rudder) Remember, on most aircraft, FULL flap is more for drag than low speed lift. As for the SportStar, you need to remember it doesn't have flaps, just a big split airbrake, probably a good idea to close that if the motor stops! Arthur.

I have this set up where I am, and I'm trying to keep it quiet so as not to screw up my half million investment. The local council is currently upgrading the surrounding security fencing in line with the knee jerk security being imposed by the government. Geez, life's hard enough just trying to keep regional airports open without the likes of DOTARS and other self interest groups scaremongering us into buying ASIC cards and the like just to keep flying. Arthur.

Looks like we'll all have to move to central Australia and just do 500 ft circuits around our own privately owned paddock :baldy: :kboom: Arthur.

Thanks for the audio upload/download, had a listen on media player. The controller sounded more annoyed than concerned. Found a picture of said Lightwing here (Going off topic here...) Looked at photo's of Bindoon growth, doesn't really show that what used to be about three sheds in amongst the trees is now about fifteen or so? The photo link earlier is of a thing called a Eurowing, basically a copy of a Catto Goldwing. I think it was owned by a guy named Ian Beatle or Beadle. Very easy to fly, had a real good glide. Arthur.

...with the golden locks, hidden under the cake tin along with....

That would be great. I've installed RealPlayer on a previous Mac, and when it came time to update it, I then found out how big it is and how it spreads though your computer taking up space and trying to dial out all the time. I know, I can switch off some of this in the preferences file, but I'm happy with just QuickTime and iTunes. Hey, I see your at Bindoon(link), flew there about 20 years back, I hear it's getting bigger now. Arthur.

Wish I could find an mp3 version of it as I wont allow 'Real player' near my computer! As for Basair having/using the audio, it could be for radio training purposes, or maybe they no longer like anything that could be perceived as an ultralight after their fleet of Technams fell to bits... Arthur.

In the beginning of registering ultralights (it was the AUF then), there were only two classes, 95:10 (single seat homebuilt)and 95:25 (single and two seat production ultralights). Their rego's started with '10' and '25' and each had it's own 'sequence' of numbers starting from 0001. It was therefore possible to have two aircraft on a field with the same sequence number but a different class number, ie; I had a single seater rego'ed 10-0159 and one of our instructors had a Sapphire rego'ed 25-0159. To ease radio callsigns, an alphabetic was assigned to the various classes, and you only needed to call the last three digits of your number. The 95-10's used callsign 'Alpha' (I was 'Alpha 159') and the 95-25's started at 'Papa' (the Sapphire was 'Papa 159'). Once the numbers got beyond 1000, each class moved to the next alphabetic, ie; 'Bravo' and 'Quebec'. This system was eventually abandoned and subsequent registrations all came from a single list regardless of the class. With the changes to our radio procedures, that Lightwing would now be called 'Lightwing zero six niner two' As for the recording, I vaguely remember this as a combined GA/AUF instructor (?) flying South past Warnervale without refueling hoping to make it to The Oaks before it got 'too' dark, but then running low on fuel and landing on a golf course somewhere. Fingers were smacked ! No, it wasn't me.. Arthur.

You don't really need a newer plane, you just need a lighter instructor, then try something like a Foxbat or if you want to learn to fly a real aeroplane, try a Lightwing. These modern 'thingeys' are too easy to fly..... Arthur.

While RAAus instructing in Sydney, I had a young guy come out that was thinking of joining the RAAF as a pilot and wanted a bit of a 'heads up' on what to expect. He couldn't afford to do much with GA so gave ultralights a go. Being ex RAAF (only ground work) I had an idea of what was coming, so after some theory we headed off in the Lightwing and I gave him a serious TIF. He understood what was going on and enjoyed it enough to come back and really put in some hours. I cant remember if he went solo before going up to Tamworth for the tryout, but off he went. The training and evaluation done at Tamworth (then) was around 14 hours in CT-4's, and if you picked up quick enough, you could get an hour or so in a Cap-10 (taildragger) and some aero's. My student did ten hours in the CT-4 and was the only one to get another four hours in the Cap-10 But alas youth, although he came back to the club, continued to full certification in the Lightwing and our Foxbat, he decided there was more money in computers and went off to Uni..... Arthur.

Not to appear to 'kick him while down', but I saw a lot of things that made me wonder a bit; •Flying at around 2500 feet he loses oil pressure, but according to the time frame doesn't land for nearly another eight minutes? •At one stage he actually climbs? •He starts off near a small town with reasonable fields around it, but heads off around a range of hills? •Although the captions mention an oil film on the windscreen (not really noticed), he then degrades his glide performance by opening his canopy? •The helmet cam appeared to be well orientated to where ever he looked, as such, he spent a lot of time in the last minute looking at a large field which he then glided over the full length of before hitting the wall into the next (and smaller) field? True enough, he walked away from it, and you usually only get one go at these things. But the engine was probably totally destroyed before he got to the ground, he wrecked the aircraft on landing, he then casually climbed out and walked away leaving all the electrics on. Sorry, but I don't always credit survivors as hero's, just lucky. Arthur. (Puts on fireproof suit) :Annie:

Listening to the video a couple of times, and allowing for sound/distance time, it seems more likely the prop disintegrated (the initial bang) followed by the engine winding up to around probably 10,000rpm whereupon it also disintegrated (my opinion). The story here at the EAA website with some good photo's of the engine. Arthur.

While the engine may be similar in dimension to the Jab, it's hard to believe that it is also close to the same weight? Even if the basic engine is similar, you need to add the weight of the cooling system when doing your CofG calcs.... I'm pretty sure Gary will advise on changing the firewall position to suit the new weight, and there's plenty of nose to shorten on the Cougar. Arthur.

G'Day Maj, you're the first person to question the C177 taildragger (which to the best of my knowledge, doesn't exist :ah_oh:), it's just me playing with photoshop again. By the way, a C188 is an AgWagon....;) Doin' well, busy flying and fixin' planes.... Arthur.

OK, Here's another,

OK, The coloured fish I refer to would be the RED HERRING! If you Google B-17 Single Engine (can't get a URL link to take?), there is much discussion if the aircraft ever existed in the above format, most tend to believe it is photoshopped. Has there ever been a thread here before showcasing aircraft photoshop? Arthur.