Oscar

Thanks, DI, I must have blinked.. So scratch one of my objections. I would really like it if the rest of them could be also proven wrong.

IF that video was taken on one flight, then the rh front pax and the lh rear pax exchanged places in flight (or so it appears to me.). Possibly, they landed and exchanged places, and I missed it? I admit to being almost instantly turned off watching closely from the 'does anyone like roller-coasters?' comment: I am of the opinion that a responsible pilot does NOT scare the sh*te out of the pax. unless they have specifically signed up for aerobatics and therefore unusual attitudes. IF that flight was specifically advertised as a 'thrill-a-minute' experience, then maybe fair enough. However, I don't think the choice of aircraft for such a flight was appropriate and the amount of unrestrained objects in the cabin is evidence of inadequate attention to safety. Light aviation does not need and should come down heavily on 'cowboys'. We - as a group - absolutely will be affected by society's reaction to a perceived high accident rate. A few cowboys making a few $$ from dodgy practices will result in more restrictive legislation, higher insurance premiums and lost respect from the general community. Lost respect can mean the loss of useful airfields, airspace restrictions etc. I make no judgment on the specifics of this incident from that video - it may well be that it is totally unrepresentative of the operation of this company. However, if the PIC in that video is still operating in that manner, then he needs to be taken out behind the shed and given a real, thorough, kicking.

Yep, it was a new tuggie - a croppie who'd been roped in as one of the usual guys was off sick. And I think I was about his third customer ever! Nice bloke; I went over and asked him if the tug was having problems ( I had though it must have, flying so slowly, which is why when what looked like a wing-waggle happened, I bunged-off instantly. He said 'No, I thought you guys didn't like to go fast?' It was a Pawnee 235 and had been bloody hanging on the prop, going up like a kite with me behind like a paper-bag on a string. And the Hornet felt like I was trying to tap-dance on top of a ball-bearing, very not nice at all. Yep, I knew my chaotic check, and thought I'd done it properly, but I wasn't aware of the peculiarities of the Glasfugel set-up. And, once strapped-in properly with no chute behind me, I couldn't actually reach the pull-handle for the pedals in the air, being somewhat of a short-ar$e in the arms department as well as the legs.. Fortunately , I had had some really GREAT instructors who had taken safety very seriously and put me (and every pilot in the Club) through the hoops!

I have to say that I've not heard of using water ballast in the tail, but I'm not across all the latest developments. I do know that some competition pilots used to (carefully) ballast for the max. possible aft. c/g for themselves; John Rowe had done so for his Hornet, and I'm rather smaller than him. My check flight in his Hornet was one of the more 'interesting' flights I've ever had; the tug pilot climbed out at 50 kts and the Hornet wallowed along behind him like a drunken sailor, I had to pedal like buggery to keep it shiny-side up, didn't dare use ailerons.. Then at 800 feet, I thought the tug waggled its wings and bunged off somewhat gratefully. Since I didn't have any height and was not feeling all that comfortable about how it was flying anyway, I decided to see how well the brakes worked in case I had to outland the next day. Turned to line up with the cross-strip, pulled the brakes - they were excellent, my water bottle shot over my shoulder and down into the footwell. Then, as my weight came onto the straps, the in-flight adjustable rudder pedals decided to go forward for a look-see - I hadn't locked them properly in place. I had to swap from using secondary effect of rudder to using secondary effect of ailerons for directional control (evening up the wear, I suppose..) Got it all nicely lined up and then a guy on the strip, right where I had planned to touch-down, started to pull his glider across the strip in front of me without having looked back.. Brakes away again ( fortunately, Narromine has HUGE long strips..) Got it parked; John Rowe came over STEAMING from the ears ( I assume he'd watched the whole messy flight). 'What the hell were you doing there?" I apologised and told him that I'd lost the rudder pedals. He calmed down a bit, and then looked at me (sans a 'chute'), and said something on the lines of: 'Ah, bugger, what do you weigh?" I told him, and he went quiet, then said: 'Tomorrow, you fly with a chute, this thing is ballasted for me'. Then he went to have a chat with the guy who'd pulled his glider over the strip; I suspect it was a somewhat terse conversation.

1: when you don't need it any more. On a strong day, you'll often see racers dumping water after they have crossed the finish line, using the mass to help them climb back to circuit height after rocketing across the finish line at Warp 5.. You can easily gain 1,000 feet from a 130-knot finish at 100 feet, as the water drains out. You don't want to land with full ballast. 2: when you absolutely have to, to stay in the air. When the day dies beneath you, and it's better to get home than 'die fighting'. I am not sufficiently experienced with water-ballasted gliders to be authoritative, but I suspect that for most, it's a 'all or nothing' situation. I guess people with the skill of a Hans-Werrner Grosse or an Ingo Renner could judge, as the day is dying, to dump just enough to make THIS climb work.. Edit: see Exadios's post above, he has better information!..

Blue thermals are certainly different...My only real attempt at an x-c out of Tocumwal was in an IS29D2; in company with a mate in a 29D. Never flown blue thermal skies before, and there's lots of good-looking areas that are not so good because of the irrigation - as I found out. Outlanded in a small paddock, between the irrigation ditches. My mate watched me fail to get lift and went elsewhere, and scraped home - bastard... Ingo was NOT impressed, as he'd said 'have plenty of height before you head off', but didn't mention how much and we'd thought 3,500 was quite reasonable - it wasn't, not for me. I thought I'd cracked it lucky when a Valiant Ute ( yep, there's a hint as to how long ago..) pulled up beside the fence and a VERY attractive young lady got out, wearing a pair of tight stubbies, a halter top, Blundstones and lots and lots ( and lots more) of real tanned skin. Then her two youngsters climbed out of the ute... The D2 was very nice to fly, but my absolute favourite is the 201B; that thermal experience I recounted above was my very first climb in one, ever, and that feeling of having the wings attached to your shoulders was magical. I took it right up into the 'saucer' underneath the cloud until it was skimming the canopy (about 9,000'), and then rolled out on heading, trimmed and locked the stick in my hand until I popped out the side of the cloud. Hit the outflow sink and pushed the nose down and ran for Coonamble. I have never felt so strongly that any other aircraft was doing everything I wanted, before I knew I wanted it done.

Water ballast gives you penetration, and being (at least mostly) in the wings, better gust speed capability. You could think of it - as a rough analogy - as being like loading up a ute and having more kinetic energy at the bottom of a hill to keep you rolling up the other side, and also getting a better ride over rough road. You lose on the climb, but in a good day, there's enough oomph in a thermal ( or ridge lift) to compensate. The forward lever that the pilot plays, will be the flaps, which in the higher-performance gliders have reflex capability that unloads the wing drag by effectively removing a bit of the wing lifting area, and lowering the force required from the elevator as well to counter the 'tipping' force of a standard wing by moving the C/P slightly forward on the wing. That allows you to fly at higher speed with less drag through sink or still air because the fuselage doesn't have to be nosed-down to get the speed up - from inside the cockpit, it's a bit like putting your foot on the accelerator of a quite powerful car - you don't get the 'nose-down, higher speed' feeling, the horizon remains basically where it was but the ASI winds around quite convincingly. Conversely, when you hit lift, you can use positive flap to slow you down and increase the wing area to maximise an area of lift. If you look at the video on: Flying Tiger Country, you'll see the pilot playing the flaps to cross areas of sink, but you will also see that the aircraft doesn't pitch down.

My most treasured memory of a thermal, was in a Standard Libelle, trying for a 300k task - along with a whole gaggle of others who had selected the same task. First turning point out of Narromine was Coonamble. I'd booked a Hornet for the task, and been checked out by John Rowe ( his current WC-record holding Hornet, a real honour for me!), but there'd been a double-booking, so John asked me to use the H201B Libelle. My 'check' with John was: 'Here's the water-dump, fill it up before you go'. I'd never flown a Std Libelle, but had some time in a Club Libelle, so that's not as cavalier as it sounds. Around that area, thermals are usually marked by Cu-Nim at the top (unlike Tocumwal, where blue thermals are the general rule, and MUCH harder to find), and the day was just starting to bubble. This was the only marked thermal in sight between Narromine and Coonamble, and everybody headed for it. I was a relative latecomer, but on the upside, it was really starting to get into stride by then and I got a really great ride, climbing through four (from memory) others, including a Std. Cirrus which was supposed to have better performance. I suppose I SHOULD have called the Std. Cirrus up and told him that his wheel was still down BEFORE I climbed through him... He thanked me for the message, in a voice that took some heat out of my water-bottle for sure..

Of course, when you have a sky full of gliders and the lift stops... Many years ago, my brother, flying a Blanik (then about the hottest 2-seater, that's how long ago!) in the NSW State championships, was leading the Class when the ar$e dropped out of the day. Selected a paddock, landed. The farmer drove across and did the usual: 'what happened mate, did the wind stop?' bit. His neighbour also drove over, having seen the landing, to join in the chat.. Shortly after that, about the following five competitors, having hit the same sink, decided that that must be a good paddock, and fairly much one after another, joined in the sewing circle on the ground - misery loves company.. It was around the third or fourth to come trundling in, when one of the farmers turned to the other and said: 'Bloody Hell, Fred, we're probably going to have to spray for these things next'....

For a more typical 'Aussie' tight thermal, watch the same guy from last year, from about 2:44 through to 3:15 or so: scratching to make it home (final glide), gets a 7-knot lift ( 700 fpm). Can only afford to stay in it for as short as possible, is being caught by other competitors. (Is worth watching to the end for those who have never experienced just how far a high-performance glider can go for not much height loss, while steaming along..)

That thermal in the video appears to be a fair bit wider, and somewhat more gentle, than a typical Aussie summer thermal: the bank angle is only around 15 degrees or so. If you get an Aussie screamer, it's tighter and I've seen over 1,000 fpm climbs while typically banking at around 45 degrees and flying at around 55 kts, maybe a bit less.. You ABSOLUTELY fly on 'seat of the pants' - you do NOT look inside, when in company - and you listen to the vario for centreing adjustment. It becomes a freight train with more than a few gliders in the one patch; to climb through another glider, you try to settle for being well around the circle from him (or her) and then try to fly steadily up, maintaining the separation. And that, in a rough thermal, can be quite hard work.. Glad to hear the Salto DID have more life; I didn't know the pilot well, he was a very quiet, reserved guy and the accident happened after I had rather left gliding due to kids arriving on the family scene. The B4 ended up under another family member's home for years (in fact, I think one wing is still there!) but I think the rest went for repair bits to various others over the years. I did fly that particular B4 several times, as the third solo aircraft in my experience, after starting on an Arrow and then graduating to the B4 via a Boomerang. I didn't much like the B4, it climbed well but was unbalanced; elevator was twitchy and roll was slow and the Boomer would cream it on a decent x-country day.

Had two club members, and one a fairly close mate, involved in a mid-air at a State Comps, around 5,000'. Pilatus B4 hit a Salto, took the tail off the B4 and mangled the wing of the Salto. The B4 instantly flipped inverted; the pilot pulled the canopy release and his belt buckle as it went over, was spat out like a piece of old chewing gum - he doesn't remember actually leaving the thing, just being in it and then in mid-air. He'd never jumped, but instinct made him wait until he could see he was clear of the aircraft and then pulled the chute. The Salto was in a terminal spin, somewhat below him, and he recounted to me watching it descend and shouting to the Salto pilot to 'get out, get out'. Finally, at about 2,500', the Salto canopy was discarded and the pilot was out and under the silk. They landed a few hundred metres apart; my mate (from the B4) rushed over to see if the Salto pilot was ok. The Salto pilot's first words were: 'did you keep your D-handle?' Turned out - previously unbeknown - the Salto pilot was an ex-Army Parachute Instructor with somewhere over 1900 jumps to his experience. Following the collision, he had stowed his maps, removed his pencils from his top pocket for safety when rolling after landing, tucked his watch in his pants pocket and grabbed his water bottle and put it in his trouser-leg side pocket, since it was a hot day and he knew they might be out there for hours until someone turned up. Then he had left the building... I believe the Salto was repaired; the B4 was not.

They weren't ALL bad... My first street bike was a Honda 400/4, huge fun. The Duc Darmah was quite reasonable, and the 900SS was quite a machine. Then there were the dead-set killers like the Kwacka Mach III...

The Blue/white scheme was on the second iteration; I used to ride the first one, in silver. Being a 65kg, 5'7" guy with a touch of Duck's Disease, with the flat seat and hugely wide tank with no grip pads, I had to roll off for each downchange, grab the grips again with both hands, and then open it out to WOT, otherwise ended up with rubber arms... but yep, did it howl! A rubber-band stretched to the horizon, really tightly.. It's acceleration saved my life twice on the one ride: the first time, when taking off across a wide intersection and some noddy in a spam-can ran the red from the other direction REALLY badly, and I managed to get across his bows with maybe a metre to spare; then later, when it tucked the front end and tried to smear me all over the southern half of the ACT and only every bit of power held it up. Those stainless discs were nothing more than a vague indication of a desire in the wet, however. It was a fabulous tourer but not something for the twisties. For real riding, give me my first-model Viffer 750 - and when it changes from pulse to shriek (at about 5,500), it'll raise the hairs on the back of the neck pretty well.

It's hard to tell from his video and very calm, low-adrenalin manner, but I can only guess that he had his bug-out plan pretty well established. It's interesting the way he uses the flaps constantly to keep his speed energy maximised, going from (at a guess,) maybe around + 10 / - 5 or so; I've only flown any distance in an IS 29D2 with reflex capability, and in thermal conditions only used reflex to scoot between thermals - but I'm not in his class of pilot. Many years ago, a US pilot -maybe Karl Striedeck - set an out and return record flying up and down the Appalachian ridge ( I THINK it was, but that was a long time ago, maybe early '70's) of 1,000 km. I do remember a comment about the flight, that he was auto-tow launched, and reckoned he got off using about 1/4 gallon of petrol, so got something like 2,000 mpg fuel economy. Just about all that flight he was at around 100 feet AGL, and ( I think it was on that flight) at one point, some miners set off an explosion in a quarry just ahead of him and he had to do a very, very sudden jink to avoid flying through the rocks in the air....

Looks like a tri-gear Savannah to me....

Never entered my considerations as a glider pilot.! Several times, I abandoned the day's task at 1,000' AGL in zero lift, from caution: one of those, I would have easily squeezed through the gap in the hill well above the fence - by 20 - 30 feet, maybe a bit less- and made the airfield and my 300K goal - but I didn't know the local terrain. I landed, and when tugged out, swore mightily for having lost a Gold Badge flight at around 285k.. But would you fly your Savvy through that country at height getting down to 'count the squirrels' AGL, even with the mighty Rotax purring along? Even at a steady cruise of 110 kts with the energy quotient? ( ER, maybe 110 kts is a bit enthusiastic for a Savvy, or a Jab., or a Lightwing..?) At first look, that flight is lunatic. But listen to the commentary, when the PIC says: 'I could probably make that gap, but I have a wife and kids: a 99% chance is not good enough'. How many RAA pilots do NOT make that sort of calculation and decision, because the noise out the front is going OK.? In a glider (other than an engine-equipped glider, becoming more common these days), you have three things separating you from a potential landing site: height ( in terms of L/D), speed that can be converted into height, and possibly lift between you and the landing site. Lift is an unknown until you get it.. My sister-in-law recently spent a week at Mt. Beauty, mountain flying. One flight, back to base, she travelled 20 ks for a height loss of 2k feet ( and buzzed some hikers at about 50 feet AGL- naughty but fun.) Reckon you could make the field in ANY RAA aircraft from 20ks out and 2k feet? I am damn sure my Jab. wouldn't.

Only a very, very silly pilot would fly very low over tiger country, right? Unless that pilot was 100% assured that there could be no possibility of engine failure? Which is why we don't get too many videos of prolonged flight low over tiger country... This guy is obviously certain that there is no possibility of engine failure (though THIS tiger country would have the tigers giving up, exhausted..)

Ltf: suggest you look at this article: SDS EM-4: Aircraft. Para 6 is a simplistic explanation of the elevator authority problem: his comment about 'not enough energy to flare' actually refers to elevator authority: without the prop wash, at 'normal' final approach speed, there is not enough airflow over the elevator to pull the nose up and slow the descent rate. I cannot find the accident report on a fatal RV6 crash in Australia, though I know the investigator well and remember it. It was an engine-out forced landing into a clear, long, smooth and flat paddock; the evidence showed that it had flown into the ground at a normal approach speed. indicating a failure to be able to flare to arrest the descent. The fatal result was a structural problem; early RV6's without strengthening of the cockpit side members will in such a crash fold back and crush the occupant's heads: this was verified by the autopsy. I would like to stress that VANS has rectified this problem on later models, you should NOT take it that I have a vendetta on VANS aircraft. However, pursuit of the accident reports does show that the RV6 has a noted high accident rate. They are aircraft to be respected and flown accordingly - and absolutely, by no means, unique in that!. May I respectfully suggest that you investigate this characteristic - but at a very safe height. Give yourself a lot of room, cut the engine, and then try a 'normal' final to flare profile. (by 'normal, I mean, maintaining the speed you would use in 'normal' condition). If the reports are correct, you will find that when you simulate the flare, your aircraft will not respond to the elevator movement by an attitude change, a reduction in speed and a reduction in vertical descent speed. IF none of the above conditions happens, then the 'conventional wisdom' is wrong.

As much as I am nowadays loathe to engage with those who do not wish -or have the understanding - to engage with basic physics and aerodynamics, this is just an offensive post. The idea that 'gravity ONLY causes the nosewheel to touchdown, then there is NOT enough inertia to flip an aircraft on its back', is almost complete nonsense. I would agree, that on a bitumen/concrete strip, the c/f of a noseleg failure would PROBABLY be sufficient to NOT cause an overturn - but that is absolutely invalid for a soft-surface strip / paddock. IF the noseleg folds back, then the force vector of the main drag point is vertically very much closer to the c/g - but horizontally, still well below it. In simple terms: imagine that the overturn moment of the c/g, the main wheels and the noseleg, is a triangle - then if the noseleg has folded back, that triangle is almost inverted. And now, the drag component of the nosewheel has transformed onto a something resembling a plough. In addition - and contrary to the assertion that it is all the PIC's fault rather than design - you have the question of elevator authority to control the attitude of arrival. The RV6 has a known and well-documented lack of elevator authority at low speed/power conditions. In the case of engine-out, it cannot flare at less than about 65 kts. - it flies straight into the ground, and if not the modified version, then folds up around the cockpit and crushes the occupant/s' skulls Look at the fatality statistics. Later VANS aircraft do not have this problem. And, absolutely, VANS aircraft do not unilaterally have elevator authority problems. As for the 'wouldn't have a bubble-canopy low wing aircraft - are you serious??' insult: this is a macabre (and in very bad taste) joke, surely? Who are you channeling? Ettore Bugatti's famous statement that 'brakes are only there to slow you down', or Enzo Ferrari's comment that he didn't fit seatbelts to his cars because a real Ferrari driver would prefer to be killed outright than maimed for life? .

Here's a small tip from an experienced aero-engineer: for a low-wing aircraft that does NOT have a proper turtle-deck with a decent 'hoop' behind your head, draw a line from the base of the spinner to the top of the tailplane. If you head in normal sitting position is close to - or worse, above - that line, then you have a very severe risk of spinal compression in an overturn - even a gentle one.

Maie Casey ( she did NOT like being referred to by her friends as 'Lady Casey'), was a very, very keen aviator. Both she and Richard ( also not in the slightest stuffy amongst friends) were two of the nicest, most genuine people I have had the pleasure of knowing reasonably well. Richard, when G.G., had a Porsche 912, which he used to take out for a blast around Canberra backroads when he was bored, much to the consternation of his bodyguards who could not keep him anywhere in sight in their Ford Fairlane.. Maie drove a bog-standard Mini, and liked to go places anonymously with Ruth Dobson as her consort. The obligatory guards in the Fairlane looked like an elephant following an echidna.. Legend has it, that Maie Casey's very clear diction and somewhat 'English' accent, was instantly recognised by controllers around Victoria, and when she was in the circuit, controllers sometimes responded to her calls with: 'Lady Casey' rather than her rego letters. I don't know it that is true, but if so, then it is a lovely tale of a time when there was just a bit of latitude in flying, for personalities. From what I have heard, she was a damn good pilot; she certainly knew her stuff in conversation..

Bex, I give you all credit for not solicitng any punter's money. That's a heap in front of too many out there..

jj: surely you don't believe that this absolute WANK will ever come to fruition? I guess if Bex can produce kits for a two-place aircraft for $10k, then a five-place, pressurised, composite 300 kts master-blaster for $130k is as likely. Also, Santa Claus has got a bar of gold for your sock this Christmas and the theory that the Earth is a globe is comprehensively incorrect.

You want to see welding?? Look at the exhaust pipe on this: Soup :: Images of Casey Stoner's Honda RC213V MotoGP Racer That's titanium tube, in segments. It's also on a motorcycle that cost probably in excess of $2m to MAKE - not buy.... that accelerates faster than any F1 car. About 270 hp from a naturally-aspirated 1000 cc. Top speed in excess of 350 kph. Honda made around four per year.