pylon500

I can see some currency problems looming after the virus problem ebbs.

Let's hope the gestapo authorities don't get too knee jerk about solo flying, and that plenty of instructors are carrying out 'self proficiency' flying in the interim (in their personal aircraft hopefully).

I see no reason to extend the clauses of 'Single seat BFR' checks

OK, just realised I've gone and Ozzie Englished that and technically said the opposite to what I meant.

That should have been;

I see no reason to NOT extend the clauses of 'Single seat BFR checks to owner pilots, or in other words yes, allow owner pilots of 2 seaters to do a BFR solo while observed and listened to by an instructor on the ground.

I spend a lot of time getting students to appreciate that 'flying' an aeroplane is only half of what it takes to 'pilot' an aircraft.

It's trained into muscle memory leaving more concentration time for navigating, communicating and fitting in with other users of the skies.

Pop questions about how aircraft fly, what are the air rules, how do you create a flight plan, can all be asked on the ground (from at least 2 metres away) instead of while burning dollars in the sky.

That said, thanks to kasper and Blueadventures for understanding what I was trying to say, that is if you did agree to what I meant to say...

Too many schools and authorities have taken the BFR as another form of income generator, instead of the flying capability assessment that it really is.

I see no reason to extend the clauses of 'Single seat BFR' checks to anyone that at least owns their own aircraft (1 or 2 seat) or is a regular flyer of the club or school aircraft that would normally be used for the test.

I always do BFR's for owner pilots in their own aircraft because 1) they are used to that aircraft and are less stressed when just taking a 'passenger' (the checking instructor) and. 2) I get to fly in a variety of aircraft (I have around 92 types in my log book).

That said, I do fly for fun and don't rely on it as an income stream.

Remember, to make a small fortune in aviation, start with a large one!

Is the strut all you need?

I cant attach images also

G'Day Richard, haven't been in the forums for a while and missed your response.

From what I can see, the only thing I can't fabricate is the strut.

What do you have?

Difficult (but not impossible) to spin a Cessna with full flap..

No prop damage so dead engine, services appear to be parked on well tended lawns (golf course?), possibly over/undershot a forced landing?

Good all survived.

Sad news inbound from Foxbat Australia...

https://www.facebook.com/foxbataustralia/

Yeah, managed to rebuild one of the Foxbats in my hangar, will take a little longer to rebuild the second.

Was looking at a white write-off up in Queensland for bits (need a R/H strut), but someone beat me to it.

Have a lot of projects running at the moment, so the second 'Bat is a bit of 'back-burner'.

OK, for some reason I can't attach images?

how glossy it is depends on you ipad condition

 

Stares at 'non reflective' iPad screen, "bugger!"

 

 

I do wonder though, with out limited member numbers, do we really need a Playboy quality glossy mag, which in real terms is only supposed to fulfil the role of a newsletter?

 

 

The other half objects to me taking my computer into the bog. What am I to do if nothing is printed anymore?

 

I feel you do my trick as in, when things get a little 'blocked' down there, I only need to read some of the 'latest directions' columns, and things are moving again.

 

Jokes aside, I've been getting the hard copy since the eighties, and opted to still get it so my students can have a look.

 

But now that it's basically mandatory to have a computer (and probably a little better than the 15 year old G3 iMac currently there), in my briefing room, so you can check on students endorsement and membership status, as this is no longer on their cards, plus the fact you need a computer to submit online said endorsements, BFR's, etc (oh but you also need a printer/scanner for these forms because you can't sign them on line, meaning you have to print the filled form, scrawl on the signatures, re-scan the forms and then submit them as emails), so I may as well just get the digital copy of the magazine.

 

My library shelves are pretty full anyway.

 

I don't suppose the membership fees will go down, there'll be something else to spend the money I'm sure...

 

 

A Panther with an 0-320!

 

Well I guess there's no substitute for horsepower

 

As for building, with the way RAA is heading, you're probably better building it VH experimental.

 

No annual membership fees

 

No annual rego fees

 

The test flying hoops are about the same

 

SAAA is orientated towards builders

 

You can do your own maintenance (yes I know, same either way)

 

You can do your own mods (to the best of my knowledge)

 

You could probably fly it on an RPL?

 

 

I hear a lot of smaller AD's are fitting cameras and doing their own collecting as Avdata take a pretty big lump of the money they collect.

 

I hear rumours in the 70% range !

 

 

I have heard stories that the Liberty's are known to 'bite', and looking at the thin, almost laminar wing, I would tend to agree.

 

That said, I've never flown one so who knows, could well be a pussycat.

 

 

Not going to get very good height with the tow hook in the wrong place for a winch.

 

 

G'Day All,

 

Had a little drama last week, effin great storm came through Taree (you may have heard of the local rowing club losing it's roof), which also hit the airport.

 

 

Wind got to around 64kts, which was just too much for my hangar doors, and bits of the roof and gutter.

 

 

Had two Foxbats in the hangar, one complete, one getting some maintenance.

 

Both insured,but need to look around to see what parts I can get hold of, basically anything

 

Wings,

 

Ailerons,

 

Tails,

 

Elevators,

 

Struts,

 

Rudder,

 

Fuselage shell.

 

 

So, just putting the feelers out there...

 

 

Yeah, the old adage, 'If it looks right, it should fly right...'

 

This thing looks like a flying death trap!

 

Two big engines and barely enough of anything else to aim them in the right direction.

 

I didn't follow the build, so I can assume those that did, possibly saw a lot of high tech effort go into the construction and therefore think the same effort went into the aerodynamic design...?

 

I'm not saying this is incapable of flight, far from it, but as Marty said, I think the cockpit needs to be bigger fit the required 'stones' need to fly this.

 

Basic upfront design problems at first sight....

 

Totally useless rudder, will barely keep plane straight with both engines perfectly matched.

 

Will also have very limited effectiveness where needed (at low speed) because of the sweep angle, it'll basically be an elevator by then.

 

Short span, short couple, and both engines turn the same way!?

 

And why are they spaced so far out along the wing?

 

This was supposed to be for racing, racing engines fail, single engine opps in this thing will be;

 

Critical engine and fatal engine.

 

Sorry if sounds down on someone who appears to have been well involved, but this just looks like one of those, 'Nope!' type aircraft.

 

You want two engine, one pilot, go fast?, look at the Pond Racer, It ticked all the boxes, then read what Dick Rutan said about flying it.

 

Admittedly, he said it was better than the Voyager.

 

Gee, not here for ages, then come here and rants!

 

Sorry folks.

 

 

Engine issues?

 

Looks like the engine almost fell out

 

 

If you think it is an odd design, it's conception is even crazier.

 

The whole thing was a design exercise to see if they could replicate, and make fly, an imaginary flying machine from a Japanese animated movie!

 

The movie is 'Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind'.

 

Flown around the place by a young princess, with some cat like creature standing on her shoulder.

 

Actually a good little movie.

 

 

 

This thread was closed off and restarted under the title 'A Riveting Weekend'

 

A riveting weekend

 

 

It annoy's the heck out of me when pilots call "joining cross-wind" when they are actually joining "midfield crosswind"

I can agree with experienced pilots getting annoyed with what happens around the circuit, and my observations are that some pilots partially miss the point of circuit area calls.

Many pilots think that the call is to state intent, and that the other words thrown in are just part of the 'jargon', not realising that part of the call is also to state location.

 

There are then parts of the 'jargon' that tend to be defined by accepted norms rather than hard definition on paper.

 

Trying to fix that situation runs into a double edge sword which has us adding more words to the call, which at a busy airfield (or in my situation of two airfields in reasonable proximity, on the same frequency), can quickly fill up the airwaves with constant chatter.

 

Case in point, the word 'downwind' can be used on it's own, or prefixed by a choice of four other words; Joining, turning, mid or late.

 

The 'unwritten' rule has the singular word on it's own, is used in between turning and mid.

 

All four variants state the same intent, but individually, they all propose a fairly specific location except 'joining', which can be a red herring.

 

So, if you say;

 

Turning down wind, you're at that point (already in a circuit) going from crosswind to downwind, supposedly out roughly at a forty five degree angle from the end of the strip you took off from (angles may vary...)

 

Downwind, on it's own, suggests (colloquially) that you are between turning and mid downwind, which leads to;

 

Mid downwind, which has you halfway along the strip.

 

Late downwind, means you either forgot to call downwind or couldn't get a call in due to radio traffic, but you're about to turn Base anyway.

 

The tricky one is;

 

Joining downwind, with no other locative word, implies you are new to the circuit at roughly the 'turning downwind' point.

 

If you want to 'join' the circuit at any other point, that position needs to be stated, to give a position to your intention.

 

So, 'joining mid downwind' and 'joining late downwind' define an intent and a location.

 

Some slightly confusing prefixes are 'long' and 'early' downwind.

 

Joining long downwind implies you are actually further upwind in the circuit than the crosswind position, and intending to fly into the circuit for the first time.

 

If for some reason you had to extend your upwind after takeoff, and want to let others in the circuit know that you're still technically in circuit (but breaking out the VTC), then you can call;

 

Turning wide crosswind when you change from runway heading, or just;

 

Turning long downwind as you pick up the downwind leg direction.

 

Saying Early downwind is just confusing, but is really the word to use between 'turning' and 'mid' if you don't want to use the statement 'downwind' on it's own.

 

See, clear as mud!

 

I blame all errors on it being late, and that I should be in bed![/i]

 

 

I wonder who will pick up the bill for any loss?

I guess we'll see in our membership fees next year?

 

 

Some one was having fun tying a Fuji up in knots.

 

 

Possibly this one?

 

 

As long ashe has something that goes beep-beep-beep, I can't see a problem

 

 

Knew one of the previous owners, and flew it testing a prop.

 

Sweetest drifter I've ever flown.

 

Said owner would almost be tempted to buy it back, he had the Fisher and an RV4 and had to sell one of them.

 

I think he was hoping the Rv would go first.

 

 

You're forgetting a very important point;

 

The other 99.8% of the common population think we're rich, and deserve to be screwed for all we're worth