Oscar

I don't want to hi-jack this thread further, but FWIW, the Sword I mentioned was also a Japanese National Treasure ( which is why we spent rather a lot of money on its restoration, and negotiated at the highest levels with the Japanese Government about it before sending it back for the work). Suffice it to say, I did raise that point with the Customs people, as well as raising the contention that the Customs officer(s) involved were of dubious married status parentage, questionable intelligence, and involved in procreational activities in their pursuit of detailed knowledge of the contents of the package. Though, I used more direct terminology in making those observations.

Yep ( and sorry for the thread drift here) - but the wanton nature of the bashing just was both astonishing and distressing. It wasn't our only 'run-in' with Customs: we had had (with the FULL approval of the Japanese Government, who were both extremely helpful and extremely appreciative of our respectful treatment of our collection of very fine Samurai Swords, which are a Japanese iconic item, of course) a particularly historic one from one of their revered master craftsmen and well over 300 YO, from memory, sent back to Japan for refurbishment, which has religious implications and involved, amongst other things, polishing with rice paper for nearly a year!. The procedure for that -for museum display purposes - included the making of a faithful 'dummy' blade in a fine spruce (or something akin to that), and the re-creation of the handle binding and refurbishment of the metal parts of the handle. It had taken well over two years for the restoration work.. It had been packed and sealed for return with export declarations and seals from Japanese Customs and Police - prominently displayed on the packaging, and that included a description of the contents.. When released to us, the packaging had been opened by Customs - and on the blade, was corrosion in identifiable marks of thumb, palm and finger-prints: some toad in Customs had sampled the blade for sharpness, you could see the way in which it had been held! Caused by the salt on the skin of the moron who wanted to see what a real Samurai Sword was like, without any doubt. We had to return it to Japan for that damage to be rectified. As the Memorial's officer responsible for transport, I had a meeting with (very) senior Customs staff about it ( which could be described as 'tense', as I tend to be somewhat forthright at times) - and was informed that it had been opened as it was addressed to a person 'in a known drug-selling area - Paddington in Sydney'. Yeah, right. The addressee - who was operating as our 'agent' with the Japanese Government, as he was a world-recognised - and especially by the Japanese Government - expert on Samurai Swords: an Australian Army Major, stationed at Victoria Barracks. Suffice it to say that a certain amount of intemperate language, mostly mine, was exchanged at that meeting. Customs admitted no fault, but did promise ( and it was honoured), that there would be 'procedural' review of the exchange of war memorabilia between official agencies.. Sometimes, going thermo-nuclear with government officials does actually work!

The Australian War Memorial had (possibly still has) an Oscar, (from memory) that had been 'recovered' from PNG in somewhat dubious circumstances. It was fairly complete, though of course not in exactly great shape, but a viable restoration project. When it reached Australia, Customs people put an axe through every single panel in the wings, often chopping through ribs in the process, so they could be fumigated. While I respect the need for bio-security, the AWM had all the necessary facilities and knowledge to do that work without the wholesale destruction of the thing, which was the realistic result of what looked like an almost frenzied 'attack' by someone with a deep and abiding grudge, not any sort of professional and careful operation that would have achieved the same result with negligible damage.

Once, we manufactured aero engines and exported them to the world. Not so long ago...

A great part of Australia. I spent over 10 years (on and off) restoring an old trawler at Paynesville Slipyard, made many wonderful friends. Most vivid aviation-related memory of there: late one afternoon, enjoying an after-work vino rosso on my boat moored beside the main slipway: heard what I instantly recognised as a Merlin on full throttle incoming. Raced outside and saw a dot approaching up the channel between Paynesville and Raymond Island, watched it fly under the power cable to Raymond Island and then turn right behind my boat - about 50 metres away at best - to run for Bairnsdale airport in practice for the next day's airshow. Its rh wing tip would not have been 5 metres above the water, and it was pulling nearly max. airspeed - just a blast of sound and fury - stunning. I reckon you'd need to be stationed in a Reno Turning Tower to witness a P51D at full noise in a 90-degree turn at 50 metres. But - that wasn't the highlight!. It was a delightful summer evening, and maybe five or six of us who were on our boats there that evening, gathered on my boat to chat and consume beverages (as did tend to happen..) As the dusk closed in, there was aviation related banter.. One of the guys said: 'There's an old bloke I know from near here, who reckons he shot down a Zero in PNG, when flying a Wirraway. Is that true?' Cue, amazed reactions. Since I had been at the Australian War Memorial and took a great interest in our aircraft, I was able to tell him that it was in fact an Oscar ( bit of irony there..) - but the Oscar was so similar to the Zero, that the confusion was understandable. A remarkable vignette of Australian wartime history... shared on the back of a boat in a delightful Victorian evening.

I perceive thread drift, Ceaser and desist...

The Tailwind is one of the best small/light aircraft ever designed, albeit needing decent pilots. Barry Bishton ( the wooden prop maker) had a W8, loved it. Would like to see photo/s.

Absolutely we are all entitled to an opinion. I happen to have an opinion, that I do not trust the Rotax crankshaft manufacture methodology. However, I recognise that many, many motor-mowers have pressed crankshafts and almost none of them end up in flaming crashes from on high. Call me a worrier. But, I wonder in the light of you comment quoted above, how you would be able to 'fly in one' Jabiru engine. You must be a very compact person with amazing physical characteristics to be able to fit into a Jabiru engine. Perhaps, I suspect, you actually mean 'fly in a Jabiru aircraft'? If that is the subtext of your post, you might like to examine the statistics - in which you place great faith, evidently - for fatalities/injury in Jabiru aircraft. I frankly could not be arsed to reproduce those for your edification because I have no faith that it would in any way modify your expressed opinion. I think we all get the intent of your post, which is: 'I don't trust Jabirus.' As a supporter of Jabiru, I frankly could not give a flying intercontinental fur-lined f$ck if you refuse to set your gluteous maximus in any Jabiru. One dissenter from a sample of over 1500 owners world-wide is so insignificant as to be of the same importance as a wart on the backside of an elephant.

The only good thing - realistically - that comes out from a forum discussion on a serious accident, is information that may help others to make better-informed decisions about their flying situation and responses if they are faced with emergency situations - or possibly preventing situations where they (consciously or inadvertently) place themselves in a dangerous situation. I find it difficult to excuse rants against opinions expressed in the forum derived from empirical evidence ( the various Youtube videos of apparently 'standard' practices of this organisation) or other well-reasoned commentary. And, I find it completely unacceptable that someone who has - apparently - a rating to conduct BFR's, should threaten people with requiring a PSAL check in their BFR with him while defending a PSAL that went fatally wrong with 'facts' that have been shown to be incorrect. The final report from ATSB will provide the answers.

The flight path information generated from the GPS onboard and displayed in the ATSB report contradicts your description of the overflight heights by a significant margin. Perhaps you might like to comment on why this is so?

Gosh, I never realised that. How many 912-engined aircraft are on the RAA register vs Jabiru-engined aircraft?

That's an interesting point. In the case of the 162, as I understand it, Cessna have 'scrapped-out' the parts from the unsold ones to use as spares and don't intend (also supposition on my part, based on a lack of other information from Cessna) to be manufacturing new replacement parts. Common sense suggests two things: a) the most in-demand parts will be those that regularly fail, so owners are likely to find themselves in need of parts in scarce supply; and b) the very low number of 162s sold suggests that there is a very limited market for certified/certificated replacements which is unlikely to be an attractive proposition for any potential supplier. The 162 was an expensive LSA by comparison with most on the market, and there are many candidates with equal or better performance/cost out there. Without wishing to beat a drum here, it's a fact that Jabiru have sold more than 15 times the number of 162s reported as sold. That provides Jabiru with a base market for spares that the 162 simply does not have. IF you are a 162 owner and an OEM part becomes unobtainable, you'll need engineering work to design, have manufactured, and justify compliance to get the thing back in the air - and you may be reduced to e-LSA status. That, I would think, would cut the beejesus out of the aircraft's re-sale value. I, for one, would not like to be in the position of a 162 owner.

According to the believers in at least one popular deity, it was an Apple that bought the very first man down... so there's history there...

Perhaps I missed something, but what information supports the idea that it was a CAMit engine? However, in the case it WAS a CAMit engine, in response to the query about repairs, anybody with knowledge of CAMit engines as distinct from Jabiru engines should know that the CAMit engine was specifically and deliberately produced to be 'backwards-compatible' with Jabiru engines, so that spares back-up was available. This was a decision by Ian Bent, to provide a level of back-up for his customers just in case CAMit had future problems with maintaining its support. 'Backwards-compatibility' is not a silly concept: those who understand the development of Microsoft OS will know what it means. Owners of Apple products will also know what it means when 'backwards-compatibility' is ignored: throwing away your hardware. That decision constrained CAMit from producing the engine it really wanted to make - and had already manufactured for test purposes - a far superior engine, in fact. Ian Bent's ethics are such that he would not put out on the market an engine that did not have: a) undergone a certified test regime, and b) for which he could not guarantee a level of manufacturer support commensurate with the investment that his customers would have to make. You might like to contrast that with the situation that the buyers of Diamond aircraft with the experimental diesel engine have had to face... grounded with no way forward in sight. The demise of CAMit from the Australian aircraft manufacturing scene is a loss that only those with the full knowledge will understand. Snide and carping comments do not help this country to progress in its development of a Recreational aircraft manufacturing capability.

Our good forum member Kyle Communications could tell you, I am sure, but I suspect that a piezo tweeter could be hooked up to the warning light circuit. FWIW, (even for a noisy cockpit), there are certain circumstances where an audio warning is (almost) mandatory. One ( and this may be the ONLY one, I am not all that familiar with the FAA requirements) is the FAA requirement for stall warning devices to have a 'warning signal) that does not require the pilot's eyes to be on the panel (which could be a stick-shaker..). We intend putting an AoA indicator on our Jabiru, (as our replacement wings for the Jab. we are re-building didn't have the standard Jab. stall warning horn take-off, long story) and ordered a nifty kit from the USA: AOA_kit We contacted the manufacturer and asked if it was possible to add an audio output: he sent us the kit complete with a piezo tweeter and the leads for same soldered onto the circuit board - for no extra charge! ( which is what I consider exemplary Customer Service!) Since the kit only drives leds, as you can see, I assume, from my very slight knowledge of electronics, that the piezo tweeter requires bugger-all current. The kit itself is very small and tidy and will be placed on the top of the panel well in eye-line, but since I have a deeply (and it seems, irreversible..) ingrained habit of side-slipping my final approach due to my gliding experience, the audio addition is very welcomed by me. As mentioned by Roscoe, above, the MGL instruments (well, certainly the Extreme Mini MGL EFIS/EMIS we intend to install) has a general warning light function for 'out-of-limits' conditions, that we intend to put between the ASI and the A/H on the panel (we will be using the FAA required 'eye-sight' instrument line-up of ASI, AH, and Altimeter in front of the PIC and top line position. That serves as a warning to look at the MGL display, to see what is out-of-limits, when doing a normal scan of the horizon through the primary flight instruments regime. I do not have power flying experience sufficient to make informed comment, but in gliding, one looks out the front ALL the time. Hence, the ubiquitous audio output from the Vario ( the sensitive climb/descent instrument). Gliders- even the most sophisticated, hugely-expensive ones - have a HUD instrument to tell you if you are flying coordinated for turn and slip: it's a small length of wool attached to the canopy right in the middle of your eye-line outside. For how well it works - and it is incredibly sensitive- watch: Flying like an eagle In that video ,you will hear the audio/Vario output as well. Such a pity it won't work on any aircraft with a tractor engine. Not only is it cost-effective - you can replace it with a few cents worth of new wool string - but you can choose your colour, and it's Safe for the Kiddies as well!.

I did a few intercontinental trips on the RAAF 707's. Returning from Stanstead ( UK) to Dulles (Washington, DC), flying the Great Circle route, we overflew a 747 about two flight levels higher and doing maybe 100 kts faster. Up there, the air is ice-blue and almost blindingly bright, and as we blitzed the 747, the con-trails from the 747 were like pure-white slashes across an azure skin, as if cut with a scalpel. You could actually see the curvature of the horizon.

My sister-in-law - in her mid 70's - returning to gliding after a long absence - took part in the Women in Gliding' week at Mt. Beauty late last year. Flying in the front seat of a Ventus along the ridge where the walking track is from ( I think) Mt. Hotham?? and buzzing the bushwalkers at about 20 feet AGL... she said to the owner and Instructor for the flight: " Aren't we a bit close to the ground? - I can see the leaves on the trees'. His response: 'Can you count the caterpillars on the leaves? When you can, we are too close'. Sounds like bravado. But... they ran a 1K final glide along the ridge and lost 100 feet - when they weren't scratching for height. Not being a slope-soaring experienced person, I like about 5k feet AGL to become adventurous between likely thermals; I've clawed out from less than 800 feet turning onto base and hitting decent lift at Narromine, but in general, I regard 1k feet AGL as the 'put it down' marker. I know Ingo Renner has worked lift from 300 feet - but I am NOT Ingo, and I know it. I guess the point is: guys like Bruno Vassal know the limits, and can exploit them. Most of us - especially me - just aren't that good. But it is inspiring to see what a man-machine interface used to its ultimate capacity, can do.

Bruno Vassal is a slope-soaring expert. I reckon I can fly gliders sort of OK, but flights like this would leave me with needing a proctologist with a jack-hammer to unweld my sphincter. His judgement is impeccable - and he is no lunatic: in one of his videos, he states "I could probably get through there, but I have a wife and kids and I'm not taking chances." No engine, just energy management and experienced judgement of likely wind. And probably, a familiarity with the local squirrels..

From memory, if it can't operate out of ground effect, it's an ICAO 'Class A', and it's a boat. If it exceeds the 'low-speed' limit for watercraft licences, then you would need a 'speedboat' ( or whatever that may be) licence in your State or Territory. If it normally operates in ground effect but can 'Jump' - but not above 500 feet AGL ( or AWL, I guess), then by ICAO terms it is 'Class B' and remains a 'boat'. I don't believe this has been 'tested' in any Australian jurisdiction. As far as I know, CASA doesn't have any interest in things that can only 'fly' below 500 feet, (particularly over water.) With all due respect, unless you restricted your flying to places like the Simpson Desert or Lake Eyre, a WIG is not a safe option. If it can sustain operation above 500 feet AGL/AWL, then it is an ICAO 'Class 'C', and an aircraft. Technically, then you require VH-reg. and I would guess, at least an RPL. I don't believe there is any ASTM classification for this, so LSA and a Recreational Pilot's Certificate probably would not cut it.

Probably 1968, Nev - that was the worst year for fires here, we were all but wiped off the face of the earth, then the wind changed.

'Classified' information is a national security rating. To use the term in this context means you have no idea of what that term actually means.

The pistons, gudgeon pins and circlips (originally, ACL-produced Commodore V6 pistons, but for years now, Jab. have sourced theirs from China - not without problems) and the main bearings - ironically, Subaru spec. The oil-pump is a Borg-Warner 35 (I think) auto gear-box gear-pump pair, in a bespoke housing. I'm not sure of the valves and springs origin, but probably - knowing Rod - also originally auto-parts sourced. VDO senders and (mostly) gauges with hand-painted limits on the faces; the engine mount rubbers are Falcon XM-XP tie-rod ends. Standard auto oil filter, get them from Supercheap. The starter motor is a Toyota Corolla Nippondenso body with a bespoke nose. The Bing carby is basically a motorcycle part - not car part - used by BMW on their boxer twins. Though, of course, Rotax also use them.. Rod used OTS parts where they were the best choice available and manufactured - via CAMit - the remainder of the engine to optimise weight/performance. He didn't get ALL the bits completely right, which compromised CAMit in their 'upgraded' version to be 'backwards-compatible', but the Jab. engine remains a remarkably successful small-volume production aero-engine in terms of its weight/performance.

CORRECTION!. The 2200 J model was Certificated. 2200J TCDS.pdf 2200J TCDS.pdf 2200J TCDS.pdf

CASA plays no part in this matter. Since the advent of the ASTM 'self-certified' regime for LSA-class aircraft, it is up to the manufacturer to Certify that the aircraft and its components meet the appropriate ASTM standards. The last Jab. engine (as far as I am aware) to be 'Certificated' was the Jab 2200C; no Jab. 3300 engine and all later 2200 engines are self-certified by Jabiru. That does not mean that the ASTM certifying regime is in any way deficient vs. a 'Certificated' engine - in fact, the ASTM tests are extremely similar and in some regards slightly more demanding than those for 'Certificating'. However, for an engine to be 'Certificated' by an ICAO-recognised national Airworthiness Authority to an international standard, requires that the testing be observed (and signed-off) by the national Airworthiness Authority. To be 'Certificated' means that the engine (in this case) is issued a 'Certificate' by the national Airworthiness Authority. By comparison, to be 'Certified' means that the manufacturer declares the engine to comply with the ASTM standard - and no manufacturer of decent repute would do that without having the testing regime results fully documented. So in short: for any J160 other than a 'C' model, any J170 ( I think), any J120, any J230x, used for training or hire, 'a Certificated' engine is not required - they are 'Certified' aircraft and a 'Certified' engine is what is required.

(Thread Drift Alert!!) Aah, David, some of the old lags here haven't forgotten you, and some have even forgiven you! No, more honestly, you mentioned it in a thread maybe a couple of years ago and I filed it away in my usually unreliable memory. When we built that hangar, was I think 1967; YMIG hadn't been used for years and we negotiated with the bloke who owned it for access. His condition was, that no movements were ok when he was running his trotters on the small oval track at the South end.. We trundled the MF35 with the post-hole digger down from near Hill Top where we lived (and I still do) and dug the holes for the uprights in one of the old Mustang ( P51 variety) bays, then cut the timber for the hangar from our place and hauled it there on top of the Chevvy '52 ute! All el-primo Stringybark, dropped and stripped for the job. I flew out of / into YMIG quite a few times in 1968-69 in the Auster (as a passenger). Learned to swing a Gypsy Major into life.. Have flown up the channels from Bargo looking up at the edges when the cloud base was sod-all.. or slightly less than that. In winter, the runway lights for an after-dark arrival at YMIG were the twin Cibie Super Oscar spotlights on the Peugeot driven by my sister-in-law behind the Auster as it landed. Not that any of us would ever admit to that.