pylon500

I know that when I purchased my GR912 from Lee Ungerman (previously a senior RAA official, and who was using it on line), it was fitted with a Bolly two blade prop.

That's it, I wash my hands of you guys...

This is possibly some form of repercussion towards Turnbull for lampooning Trump that time.

It's obviously discriminately aimed at the Australian boomerang, as there is no mention of having to register 'Frisbees'.

Makes you think...

start coming the wreckers for a crashed prius

The real question is;

Why did this take so long to happen?

<Electro.Aero completes first flight of Pipistrel-made electric light sport aircraft in Australia | Australian Aviation>

And after all the development, it still only gets a 'special' certificate of Airworthiness, admittedly, similar to most of the RAAus fleet.

Next question will be, can the Pipistrel powertrain be retro fitted to other airframes?

I wonder what they will charge per hour? (slight pun intended)

It's probably going to go, 'bring your own entertainment and headphones', then just have a couple of USB ports on every seat.

Would actually be a lot lighter, and probably easier on the electrical system.

Any flights I do, I take my Aldi noise cancelling headphones, and plug my MP3 player into it.

Will probably start taking my tablet on future flights.

Need to take my mind off the cramped £µ©{¡~§ seating pitch!

Steep mountainside or not that is still an unbelievable outcome.It is hard to see too much detail in the pictures but I can’t really see a long impact area down the hillside which you would think would be needed to slow the fall slowly enough.

Have to wait till we hear from Gary.

Just an update;

Miracle escape for pair after glider crash

They had this video from Sun-n-fun '17;

Wasn't sure where to put this one...

"So you think you've got parking problems?"

Makes it seem as if it was a "straight in" but no time stated for when radar was lost. That would tell if he did a low pass and come around again or lost it coming straight in.Lost the left engine on late final in the end?

I'd only met the pilot, and flown into his strip a few times.

Runway preference was usually 34, as approaching 16 tended to be down the face of the local hills.

Circuit direction onto 34 was usually right hand, once again due to close proximity of the local hills.

The approach profile could be interpreted as joining a R/H circuit for 34.

Fuel mismanagement would seem unlikely for a pilot that made a hobby of international ferry flying, but...

*No mention in the report of the presence of the windsock at the crash site.

Hopefully his GPS systems may shed more light on what happened.

*

Will have to keep following the investigation.

Front view

As a side by side stagger, it's going to be a bit wider, and have struts.

Initial X-plane creation before colouring.

I hope not as well.

pushers have problems with falling on their tail when occupants get out

Fuel location is the worst if it's not near the C of G

It may not be painted gold?

It will also have folding wings.

Side by side makes a fat plane sometimes but does simplify C of G issues.

Staggered gives you a few benefits;

Narrower than full side by side,

Usually no 1-up/2-up CofG problems,

One instrument panel,

Good pilot visibility,

Plenty of shoulder room,

Can still relate to your passenger.

But,

It looks a little weird, so people tend to shy away from it?

Convention can be so hard to break away from.

Just a bit of technical cleaning up;

Float plane, Sea plane?

OK, a float plane is an aeroplane fitted with floats, allowing it to land on water.

A Seaplane is a broad (american?) term that can cover anything that lands on water regardless of layout.

The Catalina at the top has a 'Floating hull/fuselage', more usually referred to as a 'Flying Boat'.

Early seaplanes (hull or floats) were typically only capable of landing on water, until the idea of retracting undercarriage was introduced, whereupon they were then regarded as amphibious.

As for the first video, yep, totally staged with stuntmen, but also shot with a strong telephoto lens, making the plane appear closer than it was.

However, if you watch for the shadow, it wasn't THAT far away

With you dual controls and pedals spaced that way in the picture are you seating in tandem offset to the side? Just curiouscheers clint

Not very common, but quite logical for a 'forward seated' aircraft.

Mainly done for simplified CofG situations, shouldn't need to carry adjustment ballast.

You probably know more about it than I do...

Roy Fox may be interested in these to go with his planes...

The aeroplanes and what's it all about! - The Missions 1937

SV-200?

I'm assuming you are talking about the two seater?

I think the single seaters were serial numbered SV-2, being the 447 powered version with turned down tips, as opposed to the SV-1 with a KFM-107 and flat end tips.

The first two seater (pictured behind the red one above) was just a wider pod on a standard airframe, but with the wing extended an extra four feet.

There was some embarrassment when CASA was invited to watch the testing of the first extended wing, only to have the dummy centre section collapse, which then damaged the test wing.

A new engineer was taken on and the two seat program was basically redesigned from the ground up, having virtually no commonality with the single seater.

I had moved on by this point and didn't get to see most of the lead up to a standing airframe before the company closed down.

Last I heard the two seat airframe had been sold to someone who then decidied to redesign it again, but got it up to taxi stage, maybe even a test flight?

All the tooling (for the single seater) has changed hands a few times, and is now with Ray Tolhurst, as above.

Interesting note, I discussed l this a few years ago here; Sadler make Vampire two seater

Hi Pylon 500,Working on the Sadler Vampires in the 80's, were you working for Skywise Ultralights at Bankstown ?

After that fell through, I worked in the hangar next door for the next 17 years.

That's not me (I took the shot), I think it was the bosses son.

Actually, 30ish years ago, a mate and I bought a Dick Smith FM radio 'bug' kit, little microphone with a weak FM transmitter.

We used Carl Goldberg Nyrods to the rudder and elevator in a Bridi 'SoarBirdi', so we could seal the whole rear fuselage.

We then stuck a capillary tube into the rear section and placed the bug microphone in front of the tube.

The plan was to have a small transistor radio in our pocket and listen to the sound of the air coming out of the rear fuse 'capacitance', blowing on the mike.

If we could hear it roaring, we were in lift.

Problem was, the overall wind noise around the aircraft, the twangy noises from the rubber bands and the buzzing noise of the servos made it near impossible to tell what was going on.

We did hear a magpie attack and peck the nose on one flight though.

Also the other glider pilots were not real happy with our arrangement.

Hi HITC.

Yeah, don't know how much things have changed from my days, but most gliders have 'auto couple' controls, which anyone could rig, the usual thing was to then have someone double check before signing the DI sheet.

I can't remember if that was our club policy or GFA policy?

Probably more complex today...

As for the Trail, I thought it looked the part (mainly because it looked like my Stollite), and even managed to have a look at it at Oshkosh back around 2013.

Even showed the designer photos of my Stollite!

The only thing that concerned me a little (and I can't remember if I mentioned this before, or just refrained), but I was a little worried about the top end wing/strut attach point..

Most aircraft set the attach systems up to use bolts in shear, as does the Trail for most of the wing, except the top of the strut.

To facilitate the folding system, a bolt is used in tension, and it is used through two diaphragms (technically).

It's OK if this is done with a complete 'overkill' of materials and hardware, but from memory, it just looked like a 3/8th bolt through two pieces of 1/8th plate just under an inch square, welded to support brackets.

Probably well strong enough, just left me a little concerned.

Tell us more. I'm drooling!

The Dreamer- Ассоциация Экспериментальной Авиации - Заглянул случайно в один ангарчик.

The UL39- Gonzo - Kategória UL / LSA

And figured a bigger fan would be better, which dictated something powered by centrifugal style jet.

I had also worked building Sadler Vampires back in the 80's.

Basically, was going to make a fan, mould an intake, expansion plenum, and jet-pipe, then build the aircraft around it.

Airframe would be all metal.

Toying with the idea of a single (maybe retracting) wheel ala glider to save weight.

Only drawings...

Very old photo.

A scale D.H. Vampire would be nice.