Jump to content

pylon500

Members
  • Content Count

    1,310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

pylon500 last won the day on December 12 2017

pylon500 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

904 Excellent

About pylon500

  • Rank
    Well-Known Member
  • Birthday 11/15/1958

More Information

  • Gender
    male
  • Location
    Taree NSW
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. We have one in much the same condition contact me for more info and pics thanks

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Barcy

      Barcy

      Email or phone which ever suites you thanks

    3. pylon500

      pylon500

      interested in ailerons and tail groups.

    4. Barcy

      Barcy

      My Ph 0427 512433 

      [email protected]

  2. 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...
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. This thread was closed off and restarted under the title 'A Riveting Weekend' A riveting weekend
  6. 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]
  7. Some one was having fun tying a Fuji up in knots. Possibly this one?
  8. As long ashe has something that goes beep-beep-beep, I can't see a problem
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. On the youtube thread, so many people were saying he should put on a tailwheel, but he was sticking to a skid for weight(?), I think he needs a longer skid as sitting on the ground, it is well above stalling angle and affecting his acceleration. To say nothing of being tail heavy (he admits he left the seat too far back) and the possibility of the tail/elevator remaining stalled for a lot of the ground roll. Without a prop on the front, there is no real reason to have a long U/C set-up. Most modellers will see that the thing barely flying, and just at the edge of stall.
  12. Must admit, I only watched the first video, and even then I suspected it was going to be slightly on the heavy. Now watching this video, and seeing some of the materials used, I'm only slightly surprised it could barely get off the ground. At least he's starting to come to grips with some of the stuff he's been overlooking.
  13. No, the drive has actually seized. It needs a platter transplant, maybe... What's really annoying was the little Toshiba 1TB pocket drive that I managed to salvage some info with, died a week later. I think I can save that one, although it's mainly movies and photos.
×