flyvulcan

How's about the "GAFA"? I reckon it has a nice ring to it. For the overseas market, you could always claim that it stands for the Great Australian Flying Aircraft but us Aussies will know what it truly stands for.

 

 

Yes, certainly a nice aircraft. I didn't have time to write about it when I responded, hence my very short answer. There is a mob that have been looking at resurrecting the Swift, from memory incorporating some Roy LoPresti go faster mods. For an older aircraft, its looks and performance are still nice.

 

 

Swift

 

 

There must be something about Wagga and wake turbulence. In the early '90s, I flew out to Wagga to collect an Air Force mate who the day before had taken off in a Mooney 201 two minutes behind a C130 that was doing circuits. He found himself at 100', totally inverted. He lost all 100' during the roll up the right way and pancaked in almost wings level but with some nose down. The engine telescoped into the cockpit. His survival was somewhat miraculous and could be attributed to his training in recovery from unusual attitudes and the design of the 201. When I collected him the next day, I was shocked at his face which was almost unrecognisable. He had two black eyes and his face was all puffed up from where he hit the dash (with seat belts on). He showed me his body and legs which were all just black and blue. I remember that he was still shaking like a leaf a month after the event. Scary stuff but a brilliant job done by him to survive.

 

It doesn't matter whether its a Herc or a trike in front, with the aircraft we fly, wake turbulence is a consideration.

 

 

I was working at Russell Offices at the time of the B707 accident. I had flown with the engineer while at 37 Sqn and with the operating pilot who was in the next cubicle to me when I instructed at Pearce on Macchis.

 

I heard the CVR and read the accident report.

 

IIRC, the initial Vmca demo was briefed and conducted with the rudder boost off. The next and fatal Vmca demo was to be done with rudder boost on where Vmca was expected to be slower. It was fully briefed by the instructor. However, during the setup for the sequence, the rudder boost was inadvertently left off. During the subsequent sequence, IAS was reduced below rudder boost off Vmca and the aircraft departed controlled flight. It essentially flick rolled. The aircraft descended from its starting altitude of 5000' and 37 seconds later hit the water. From memory, the aircraft stabilised in a spin with the pitch attitude oscillating between around 10 degrees nose up and 30 degrees nose down, IAS fluctuating between around 90-130kias, with a high yaw rate.

 

While the double engine failure had been simulated by retarding both throttles on one side to idle, when the aircraft first departed controlled flight, the inboard engine failed (possibly due to separation from the pylon IIRC), so there was no option to bring the power up on that engine to help in the recovery.

 

I do not recall any adverse comments being made on the CVR. The instructor who was not the pilot flying at the time was advising what to do as the aircraft went down. The less experienced captain who was flying the sequence eventually handed control to the more experienced captain, but the aircraft was simply not recoverable with the limited altitude that it had. It was a little distressing hearing a couple of good mates going to their deaths. Within a few months, I was listening to another of my Academy course mates going down in a USAF C130 after the USAF pilots he was instructing mishandled a practise engine failure and spun into a lake from 1000'.

 

 

In my opinion, a Board is in place to develop strategies, define policies and provide governance to ensure the organisation meets its operational, administrative and financial objectives.

 

It is then up to the organisations management and its relevant committees and working groups to implement the strategies and policies handed down by the Board. As usual, the actual legwork of drafting proposed organisational strategies and policies may be delegated to management by the Board, but approval will come from the Board.

 

The Board requires members with specialised knowledge. At the least, there should be someone with an intricate knowledge of the regulatory framework within which we operate with experience in the ways and means of compliance. There should also be someone with exceptional knowledge of administering such an organisation. Also, someone with exceptional knowledge of financial control of such an organisation as well as someone with substantial experience in promoting such an organisation. Also, there should be someone on the Board with vast experience of managing change within a large organisation. Finally, there should be someone on the Board with an intricate knowledge of Recreational Aviation.

 

Armed with these attributes, we should end up with a Board that has the skills and experience to provide the organisation with the direction we need to recover the situation and get the organisation to where it should be.

 

With a suitable organisational structure having been determined by the Board, along with the strategies and policies that need to be implemented, the management and committees can then get on with the hard work of implementing the Boards strategies and policies.

 

The regional reps discussed here are not Board level, they are committee level. The Board needs specialist skills. The skills may not be aviation related. We don't need pilots on the Board, we need specialists in the required fields.

 

 

In my opinion, a comprehensive analysis and overhaul of the entire organisation is required in order to address the current issues.

 

This needs to start by having a complete and clear set of objectives for the organisation. Yes, RAAus currently has a set of objectives. However, I believe that the current list should be reviewed and overhauled.

 

As I see it, RAAus has 2 roles; that of promoting Recreational Aviation in Australia, and that of carrying out the CASA delegated functions assigned to it. I shall coin the terms "Promotional" and "Regulatory" when referring to these functions.

 

Consequently, I believe that RAAus should have 2 Divisions; Promotional and Regulatory (or whatever names are decided upon).

 

Given the legal obligations and responsibilities associated with the Regulatory Division, I believe that this Division should be manned with permanent salaried staff, with an appropriate structure relevant to the role. This would include but is not limited to Operational, Airworthiness, Administrative, Quality Assurance and Safety staff, who are all appropriately qualified and experienced and who are paid accordingly, perhaps using the CASA pay scales as a basis. If CASA want to delegate responsibilities to RAAus without providing any cost benefit to RAAus members, then perhaps RAAus could make a case for being granted an amount from the CASA budget, equivalent to the cost of CASA maintaining responsibility for those functions.

 

A lot of what is done now by RAAus would come under the banner of Promotion. As we have now, many of the positions in the Promotion Division would be voluntary. We would still have regional reps etc., but the aim of the Promotional Division would be exactly that, promotion. This would include the role of representation of initiatives to CASA.

 

A complete business plan for the future of RAAus needs to be drafted, and a skilled Project Manager needs to be available to implement the required change. Without a defined plan and a clear strategy for moving ahead, we will continue to struggle. Lets not keep sticking our fingers in the dyke, lets determine how to fix it once and for all. Lets use some of those cash reserves to do it properly.

 

Personally, I would appreciate seeing the current plan and strategy for achieving a mature and successful organisation. Can we get the Board to make their strategy available to members? If after these last few months of heartache there is no long term plan for the future of our organisation or any processes identified to manage change, we are simply sticking our fingers in the dyke, waiting for the whole thing to collapse.

 

I know we have new management who are doing their utmost to address the problems. I am sure they will have everyone's support in their endeavours. However, the survivability of our organisation will be determined by those at the top. We need them to step up and drive the required change.

 

 

Hi Bluey,

 

As well as reading this forum, there is also another forum www.homebuiltairplanes.com where design and construction of experimental aircraft are discussed.

 

If you can subscribe to aviation mags such as Kitplanes and the EAAs Sport Aviation, it will help maintain the enthusiasm reading those.

 

Also, look at getting a Flight Simulator program such as X-plane, see www.x-plane.com. I spent many hours designing and flying aircraft using that program.

 

These are all portable options that you can take on the road with you.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

 

Thanks again Maj.

 

Yes, we anticipate that the performance of the Bug should still be good with the 912 installed. We will need to modify the cowls slightly to incorporate some cheeks to facilitate the wider 912 (the original AMW was inline) but we anticipate with small cheeks but an honest 90+ hp that we should get performance similar to the original so 180kias+ top speed. With a more optimum prop than the original, we actually are quietly hoping for around the 200kias mark. We are looking into using an IFA prop to allow optimisation for all phases of flight. Time will tell...

 

We aim to have this aircraft at Oshkosh to gauge the interest in a new production Bug using the 912 as its standard power plant. The original Bug was let down by the unreliable AMW. We hope that the 912/Bug engine/airframe combo will be appealing enough to warrant putting it into production. We have the molds etc. ready to go, as well as a good stock of hardware for the kits.

 

If enough people genuinely want one, we would be ready to ship kits later this year.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

PS We hope to have the first Aussie Bug flying later this year, all going well. It's wings should be closed out in the next month, the fuse is close to being on its wheels so progress is good.

 

 

Thanks Maj,

 

Also a great help.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

 

I visited Casey Field a few times in 1979 when I was at the RAAF Academy at Point Cook. I had bought a KR2 that was half built and I was out at Casey to talk to a guy that had experience building wooden aircraft with a view to getting some help to learn how to build with wood.

 

As well as speaking with the bloke I was there to see, I can recall having some long chats with someone called "the Colonel" I think it was. He may have been the airport manager?

 

As a 17yo homebuilt aircraft nut, I remember it was always fascinating visiting Casey to see the aircraft there and soak up the ambience of the place.

 

 

We are on our way to an All-Australian rib. I'm in!

 

 

Thanks very much Alan. That's a great help.

 

I also found a very good reference document on the Zenith Aircraft website. The document can be seen at http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/data/r912s-s1.pdf.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

 

Hi fellow forumites,

 

We are looking to install a Rotax 912ULS into our Lightning Bug aircraft and are seeking photos of Rotax 912 bed mount installations.

 

If any of you have a Rotax 912 that uses a bed mount, could you please post a photo here or alternatively pm me so I can pass my email address to you so you can email me some photos? Close up shots of the bed mounts would be appreciated.

 

Details of any rubber isolators used would also be appreciated.

 

Photo of Lightning Bug and its current engine bay attached.

 

Thanks guys and gals.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

I was based at RAF Scampton in 1988 when XH558 was based there. During the summer air show season, it would generally practise once a week and disappear on the weekends for the air shows. It was an amazing display to watch. The first time I saw it practising was when I was having a hit of tennis at the O's mess. There was a roar, the earth started shaking and 20 seconds later, the Vulcan appeared out from behind the hangars at an attitude of around 30 degrees nose up. It was just huge. At around 1500', it rolled into a reversal turn and then came down low along the runway. Absolutely amazing to watch!

 

I still have nightmares about potentially bringing it down one weekend. On the weekends, we were allowed to conduct model aircraft flying on the airfield. With the Red Arrows, the Vulcan and the Bulldog display aircraft all being based at Scampton, it could be busy on the weekends. Anyway, the protocol for flying models was to first contact the duty ATC officer who would clear you to fly on the airfield. If there were any planned arrivals or departures, the ATCO would come down onto the field and let you know about 15 minutes before the movement to get you out of the way. On this occasion, I was anticipating the return of the Vulcan while I was flying my models. I had my aircraft up at around 500' doing some aeros when I heard the approaching roar of the Vulcan. I glanced over my shoulder to see the Vulcan around half a mile out coming across the airfield at 200' and at breakneck speed! I promptly dived my model to the deck and had the Vulcan fly over the top of me around 5 seconds later... Needless to say, I hightailed it to the airfield perimeter. The ATCO turned up around 15 minutes later and rather sheepishly apologised for forgetting that I was flying my models on the airfield.

 

I for one would like to see this aircraft continue to be flown. It is an awesome aircraft and is a great advertisement for the RAF. It certainly left an impression on me.

 

Anyway, without it, my username wouldn't be Flyvulcan...

 

 

G'day Bull,

 

Having 55 orders successfully filled over 4 years is a good record. Well done for finding a reliable supplier.

 

Bex, we shall look forward to your announcements in due course.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

 

Hi-all,just-thought-i,d-say,i,m-model-mad-and-can-buy-a-complete-scale-2-meter-wingspan-b17-bomber-ready-to-fly-[and-they-fly-well-too]from-china-delivered-for-half-the-cost-of-just-a-radio-from-AUSTRALIAN[get-as-much-as-we-can]hobby-shops...............

Hi Bull,

 

Just be careful to fully check the credentials of your supplier by an independent verifiable source.

 

If you have bought just the one so far, be careful about the scam where you buy one at a very reduced price (subsidised by the scammers own money) then send money for a subsequent large order which the scammers then pocket...

 

Hopefully, your supplier is legit and all will be ok but be careful.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

 

PS Bexrbetter is doing something we have all been hoping for, ie to provide an affordable and reliable aero engine for our projects. He certainly has my encouragement because if he is successful, it is for the benefit of many. Go Bex!

 

 

Congrats Duncan, and as HITC has suggested, now get back to the building!

 

 

At or below 3000' AMSL or 1000' AGL whichever is the higher the rule is 5000m visibility, clear of cloud and in sight of ground or water so that little cloud doesn't matter, you just fly around it.

Exactly, whether you miss it by a foot or a mile is irrelevant from the legality perspective. You are still operating within the scope of the VFR.

 

However, the airmanship perspective may be totally different and as an IFR aircraft exiting that cloud to find Bloggsy filling my windscreen, I'd be pretty pee'd off.

 

 

Yes, we are using the same correct reference but we have a different interpretation of the information in that reference.

 

By way of an example, if an aircraft is lined up for takeoff at an airfield where the met report indicates CAVOK, but there is that small fluffy Cu with a base of 500'agl, tops at 3000' but it is sitting 4000m away, directly on centreline. There are no other clouds in the sky anywhere. Can we not takeoff and legally operate VFR because as soon as we get airborne, we will be within 5000m of that little cloud?

 

The term CAVOK indicates a visibility greater than 10km, so VMC must prevail. An airfield can be CAVOK with scattered cloud being present, but with the visibility being greater than 10km. So the presence of cloud within 5000m does not necessarily reflect in the visibility measurement. Therefore, when CAVOK is reported, flight under the VFR is legal, as long as you remain "clear of cloud" while operating in those VMC conditions. "Clear of cloud" means exactly that.

 

 

Turbo, I think you will find that the visibility requirement is along your "intended flight path". So if I am cruising along at say 2000' amsl and I see two small fluffy Cu clouds ahead, separated by say 1000m, but my intended flight path is straight up the middle of them, and I have 10km visibility straight between them along my intended flight path, then I can legally pass between those clouds with only 500m horizontal separation from each. I am complying with my minimum visibility along my intended flight path of 5000m, and I am also complying with the VFR separation minima applicable below 3000'amsl to be "clear of cloud" (note that no distances are stipulated in the regs, only the requirement to be "clear of cloud").

 

 

Yes, sorry, it's 5 kilometres, not 5 nm - still plenty of time.

Actually, the 5km is the visibility criteria for VMC, not the separation requirement from cloud while flying in VMC. Below 3000' you only need to be "clear of cloud", but above 3000' you need to be 1500m horizontally clear of cloud plus have the required vertical separation. (Reference Page 221 of the Visual Flight Rules Guide)

 

 

Sadly, no. Went back to the desert on the 18th.

 

 

Larry's status has not been confirmed by me. I'm only going on what the owner of his turboprop ultralight told me yesterday, so don't write Larry off until there is some other confirmation. I'm sincerely hoping the owner got it wrong!

 

 

Just checked 95.10. Turboprops are not excluded.