Jump to content

Phil Perry

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Phil Perry last won the day on September 21

Phil Perry had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,329 Excellent

About Phil Perry

  • Rank
    Well-Known Member
  • Birthday 06/02/1950

More Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Cannock, Staffordshire, England
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I will re-check the current regs Turbo, lots of confusion and misinformation going on at the moment with all this EU transition stuff; some of it clearly at odds with itself. AFAIK at the moment, without sorting through reams of reg updates, is that a Recreational pilot, on passing a GST ( General Skills Test) applies for a National PPL ( NPPL ) which applies only in the UK, but is recognised on the European mainland for visiting pilots. The qualification allows flight in a Single Engine Piston ( NPPL/SEP ) type. The Medical requirement for the issue of this licence is a SELF DECLARATION of fitness to fly, issued online with NO requirement for any countersignature by the Pilots own medical practitioner, which Was THE CASE A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK. It was originally intended for MICROLIGHT owners, with an MTOW of 450 Kgs. This is where it all gets complicated. A pilot could train for a further 20 hours, in a heavier aircraft, such as a C-152 or similar, and achieve the 'SEP' Endorsement. We have a Piper L-16 military spotter aircraft at our site, and the owner is allowed to fly it on this NPPL/SEP, and has done for a year or so. . .with his old Aeronca 7AC Champ for many years prior to that, He has never held a GA PPL, nor ever completed a Class 2 Medical, but is deemed legal. He uses the Online self Declaration system to renew his annual Medical. PRIOR to this, he got hs GP to endorse his medical application by simply stating that he had no precondition which might cause loss of consiousness whilst flying ( Epilpsy, etc ) This, IMHO was a more sensible system, since your own doctor has access to your personal medical records. Pilots having Type One Diabetes are 'SUPPOSED' to take a checkride with an examiner to demonstrate that they can Inject themselves whilst acting as P1 without detriment to the operation of the aircraft. There is also a 'Body Mass Index' assessment, which is carried out on the ground without energizing the aircraft. This is to insure that FAT Buggers do not impede full rearwards travel of the pitch control with their beer bellies, AND can bend forwards to reach various controls such as sidewall mounted fuel taps and rudder trim etc. . . ( Introduced following an incident, I forget where or why ) The NPPL/SEP enables a pilot to fly types with an MTOW of 2,000 kgs, but without complex systems ( CS Prop / Retracts ) That's quite a big slice of the GA single fleet. I'll do some reading and report back if I find anything of note.
  2. Where do you rate the Brit Government at the moment Phil???? ( Nev ) Lower than Whale $hit Nev,. . . .but not for reasons of Aviation Safety. I won't start on Democracy here, wrong place. As I've mentioned before on this subject, the Long time Regulations are being seriously relaxed with regard to Private Aviation. Medicals especially, allowing Type 1 diabetics to fly as P1, after completing a short flight with an examiner to show that they can self inject safely whilst flying the aeroplane,. and allowing pilots with other ailments such as Angina to fly. ( Under certain circumstances) 'Permits to Fly' being abrogated to 'User certification' with no oversight for Single seat types. . .ie, No Roadworthy at all, responsibility for safe operation being delegated to the aircraft owner. Anyone can see that this cannot be regarded as sensible, knowing the varied spectrum of the various characters we have all known and met in this regard. . . OK, there's no passenger risk, but how 'bout the poor innocents on the ground if someone gets it wrong whilst flying a poorly maintained crapheap ? At our airfield, we have already had to expell at least seven owners for 1) flying like Twots and 2) Flying aircraft out of permit with Obvious problems, either mechanical or paperwork / license related. The insurance industry has already kicked back over this, unsurprisingly. We shall see how it develops. It's hard not to be pessimistic though.
  3. We in the UK do not really have a problem with this as there is virtually Zero Ag-flying left,. . .But I DO recall that my instructors in Australia, in the 1970s Bemoaned the attitude of the then DCA about Low Level Training. They reckoned that DCA seemed to be stuffed full of Beaurocrats who had never flown at ANY level. . .so they simply did not understand the industry. Our CAA, I think is the only DECENT Quango ( Quasi-Autonomous Non - Governmental Authority ) worth it's salt in the UK,. .. it seems to be populated by Pilots of all kinds, who REALLY DO understand what is required, and are quick to react to trends and situations in what they re regulating upon. . . . ( This is Serious Praise from Me, a large critic of MOST UK Government departments ! ) CAA has Spawned the Ubiquitous Air Accident Investigation Bureau ( A.A.I. B. ) which is world famous for it's forensic dissection of Air Accidents of all kinds . . .but that is just an offshoot of a group which employs SPECIALISTS IN THE FIELD, Rather than bog standard civil servants. . . . ( No disrespect to Civil Servants generally BTW. . . ) Best of luck with your efforts Guys. . . . . I always found that the Aussie Government Generally made the Spanish and Greeks look really Helpful. . . .
  4. Phil Perry

    Tell us about your last flight

    Lovely story Bruce. . . On the whole, I think that we developed a pretty good set of Regs and Guidelines to make our hobby a safe one, and it is interesting to see that many of these are being relaxed to some degree, with the 'Single Seat Deregulation' ( SSDR ) path which is now available for some of the earlier types, with little modification required, Although I'm not 'Overly' happy with the fact that NO Permit to Fly inspection is required following first acceptance of a type into this regime. . . .I HOPE that owners won't take this as carte blanche to operate deathtraps, or generally not maintain their machines to a safe standard. If there are any serious incidents in this regard, I can foresee Airfields refusing Landing permission across the board for All SSDR operators. We will have to see how this all works out.
  5. Phil Perry

    Tell us about your last flight

    Late reply Scott, sorry about that. . . . 'Other Pressures and stuff' LOL When I discovered 'Microlight Aircraft after returning to the UK in 1983,. .. it wasn't long before I started a 'Long Range desert Group' of Lunatic fliers who went on safaris around the UK. Now the UK is pretty Tiny, versus the Barren Badlands of OZ, but when you consider that our cruising speeds were of the 50-60 MPH variety, this made the scale a little greater in reality. We were regarded as 'Outlaws' by every major and even medium airfield in the UK, which made our options for landing / refuelling etc, very SPARSE. Very Few licensed Airfields would accept microlights, which were mainly, though not all Flexwing Trike types.. . .even though I insisted that they all carried VHF radio, which caused some astonishment at the odd field where we were actually ALLOWED to land and refuel,. . .usually because the controller on the radio did not know what our Aircraft types were when we requested permisison to land by radio. . . . . Airfields with fuel only served up AVGAS which we 'COULD' use, but it was horrendously expensive when compared to the Mogas we all operated with. . . ie, we all used 80/87 octane Pink Four Star Petrol. . . mixed with Two Stroke Oil . . . . .. Unleaded petrol (Also 100LL Avgas )not being around at the time. . . Avgas was great, but it seriously dented the wallets of those on a budget at around Double the cost. . . We used to have to plan these Safaris well in advance, locating Farmers with flat bits of land for fuel / camping stops but it worked out very well for a few years,. . .until the mainstream airfields gradually awoke to this new Fuel / Cafe revenue stream and I am glad to have taken a part of this evolution. Several of the farmers who helped us set up proper strips and facilities for this burgeoning Flying pastime, ad benefitted greatly from diversifying their farms. . . We now have 'Microlight' / SLA machines which are faster and less costly than G.A machines. . .and there are vanishingly few sites which refuse to accept low energy aircraft at all. . . You can now land your Sportstar or Jabiru at Brmingham, Manchester, or Gatwick International nowadays, IF you are transponder equipped, and can afford the landing and Handling fees ( ? ) Not surprisingly,. . .not many folks actually DO that. . . .
  6. CESSNA? ? ? ? ? Looks a bit like a Rans S6 to me. . . . ,and Anyone could fly one of those. . . ( ! )
  7. Phil Perry

    Sideslipping again. . .

    HAHA. . . Love the 'Biggles' reference PM. . . . but he was good enough to sideslip with the stick between his knees, whilst smoothing some Brylcreem into his hair, in case there were any Ladies about on the ground ! Most GA pilots visiting our field seem to use the 'Crabby' technique. . . then struggle to stop on our short strips. . .I've often wondered why they do that. . . Yet One of the lads at Otherton owns a PA28-140, which he Slips onto the numbers and easily turns off the strips at the middle intersection in nil wind condx. . .All down to proper training and Knowing your aeroplane. . . Ditto with the Airfield Manager and his Vans RV4. . .( Rich Git ! )
  8. Phil Perry

    Sideslipping again. . .

    I recall ONE particular aircraft where I never found the need to use sideslipping, and that was the lovely old C-172. . . why would you need to SS with those huge barn door fowler flaps deployed to the full 40 Deg ? ? I remember the Hoo Har about the 172 having it's max flap reduced to 30 Deg Max years ago following ONE accident in the USA where the pilot blamed a sudden Pitch down when slipping with full flap, but we discussed that at length on Rec Flying back in 2013 think it was . . .The pilot said that the huge flaps shielded the Elevator and caused the Pitch own. . . Can't remember if it was proven aerodynamically that this could FEASIBLY occur . . . but the US being very afraid of Litigation, put out a mandatory AD. Shame really . . darned lovely Well Sorted airframe. . Just because some wanker got too slow on the approach. . . WE call that 'Stalling' usually. . . ( apologies for the /sarc )
  9. Phil Perry

    Sideslipping again. . .

    Some interesting responses there gents. . . I was wondering if this technique had bee quietly deleted from the training syllabus along with the seemingly decreasing popularity of tailwheel U/C configuration. My very earliest instructional flights were in a DH82A. tail skid and long nose, so that every landing required some sideslip, so it was ingrained into my psyche from an early age. I've also heard the 'Forward Slip' term too, but mainly when reading American publications, or speaking to U.S. trained pilots. Some airframes are better than others at sideslipping of course, 'Slab' sided fuselage types seem to do it better than those with 'Stick Insect' tailbooms unless the latter are fitted with a Huge rudder surface area . I agree with Nev entirely RE the forced landing situation, especially due to this steeper angle of descent produced, ( Obstacle Clearance potential ) along with NO appreciable increase in forward speed, DOES help a lot when landing into a restricted space.
  10. WHY OH WHY is is that some Flying instructors seem averse to teaching this useful tool, which should always be towards the top of the stuff in the toolbox of Most three axis pilots ? I was flying ( by personal invitation ) today with a friend who purchased a Evektor 'Eurostar' ( Sport Star lookalike ) He gave up three approaches and went around three times. . .on a Runway which could comfortably accommodate a B-737 or similar Jet RPT. I had taken this friend to the Isle of Man TT races in a borrowed Piper Arrow on Three occasions, some years ago. . .and allowed him to 'Play' with flying ( At a safe altitude ) ) it which sparked his interest in our rather esoteric hobby. . .( ? ) (He had bought the Eurostar, along with his Brother, who was still in basic training ) We flew to an airfield that he had never been to during his training, The enormous runways seemed to Phase him a little, and he seemed to lose all scale and appreciation of circuit height versus what height you need to be to pull off a half decent approach and touchdown. ( ? ) He had been instructed at a very small airfield in the North of England ( Not Ours ) where the circuit height was 600 feet. . .he had difficulty organising a 1,000 ft circuit and the Flight Service guys were getting a little pi$$ed off and tetchy with his missed approaches, on a Busy day. .. ( Yes, I KNOW they shouldn't do this ) I asked if he needed some advice and he readily agreed. I refused to fly it for him, but showed him how to rescue his'way too high' way too Close final turn using sideslip. He seemed quite surprised as he said that his Mentor had Never show him this technique. ( What ? ) I removed my hands and feet from the controls, which he had been 'Following Through' before the landing and said "Your Turn" I am Gobsmacked that this man had passed a GST with no knowledge of Sideslipping. . .is it just the odd few Instructors / students with a very bad memory. . . ., or is the standard of instruction slipping. . ? ( No Pun intended ) Either way, I was Fecking appallled. ( At least HE paid for the Breakfasts )
  11. Search for: The Peenemünde Raid 17-18 August 1943 Air Chief-Marshal Harris (seated) and his Senior Air Staff Officers Part Two – Planning Operation Hydra Air Chief Marshall Harris and his Senior Air Staff Officers (SASOs) had almost two months to plan the attack on Peenemünde. Normally Bomber Command worked out the details of the targeting, but in this instance the targets right down to individual buildings were given. All that needed to be decided were the routes and tactics as the targets and priorities were provided by the War Cabinet: 1. The destruction of the experimental establishment to impede research work and the development of rocket apparatus. 2. The two large factory buildings where the rockets were being constructed and assembled. 3. The living and sleeping quarters to kill as many scientists and research staff as possible. The target maps that were issued to the bomb aimers showed that the army barracks and the foreign workers were within the priority three target area. To put it brutally, the aim was to end the ability of the Germans to produce rockets and to kill all of those involved in their construction and development. There was nothing that could be done regarding the location of the labour camp. The airfield and V1 facilities were outwith the targeting and their significance would only be known after the raid. Peenemünde was the only instance of Bomber Command’s main force being directed against a small, precision target and the bomber crews had received no specialist training. What is remarkable is that a weapon such as Bomber Command, regarded by many as a powerful but blunt object, was able to shift from area bombing of cities to such a small but vitally important target. This flexibility of air power was the harbinger of specialist targets, the bomber force would be called on to attack throughout 1944 and 1945. Bombing map issued to the bomb aimers On the 7th July 1943 Harris met with his Group Commanders to brief them and there were very few SASOs in attendance, none from the Groups. The nature of the target was kept under tight security at this stage as well as the imperative of attacking it. Normally bombing raids were planned in eighteen hours, while in this instance the Command had weeks. The coastal location of Peenemünde meant that if approached from the north, the bombers could avoid the heavily defended German cities and night fighter assembly areas. Additionally, the peninsular with the islands to the north and the River Peene would give good returns with recognisable features on the H2S bombing radars. But it would be a daunting task for the bomber crews to identify the three, small targets and for the Pathfinders to keep them marked with pyrotechnics. The target could be obscured with smoke and subsequent attacks to finish it off would result in high losses, so all the planning was to deliver a knock-out blow on the first attempt. Number 5 Group based in Lincolnshire led the planning, because its crews had previous experience in attacking precision targets, such as the Ruhr dams, and had pioneering the “Master Bomber” function. The Master Bomber would be one of the most experienced crews, who would remain circling over the target, acting as a “Master of Ceremonies.” He would watched the raid unfold and redirect the crews’ aiming points if their bombing was going awry, or the Germans were using spoof marking flares. Also vital would be accurate time and distance bombing, identifying a point on the ground that was visible and in direct line to the target. As the aircraft crossed the first point, the run-in to the target would be timed by the navigator until the aircraft reached the second visible reference point. The bomb aimer would tell the pilot to make corrections to determine the accurate compass heading to steer for the third reference point. This was checked on the last reference point and the final run to the target known and timed. The technique required absolute cooperation between bomb aimer, navigator and pilot, the holy trinity of a bomber crew and no distractions from enemy flak and fighters. It also required excellent visibility. Because of its perceived elite status, No 5 Group’s Air Vice-Marshal (AVM) Cochrane wanted to bomb the target alone, using borrowed Pathfinder crews. Harris vetoed this idea because even using the exhausted and depleted 617 Squadron, the Group could only muster 160 Lancasters. There was a degree of rivalry between Cochrane and AVM Bennet of the Pathfinder Force and Harris wanted to avoid this becoming toxic. While he had vetoed the 5 Group only plan, Harris kept some of the ideas worked on by Cochrane’s staff in the Main Force attack. Weather was always a problem with shifting winds and while cloud provided cover for the bomber crews, it could easily obscure the target, so the raid had to be mounted on a night with clear skies under a full moon. The Master Bomber was provided by Number 8 Pathfinder Group, Group Captain Searby, an ex-Halton apprentice who had started the war as a sergeant pilot and had flown fifty operations before joining the Pathfinders. He was regarded as “very experienced, very calm, sound and steady.” Group Captain J H Searby, (on the left) and Air Vice-Marsal D C T Bennett, Air Officer Commanding No. 8 (PFF) Group, leave the Headquarters of Air Defence of Great Britain, Bentley Priory, Middlesex, after a conference Harris and the planning staff in Bomber Command Headquarters at High Wycombe anxiously watched the weather. Three essential conditions were required: As near as a full moon as possible, clear weather with no cloud over the target and clear weather at the airfields for take-off and landing the bombers. And the landing aspect was of secondary importance, as returning aircraft could divert to other airfields. A low pressure weather area with clouds had affected the Baltic area during the beginning of August’s full moon period. Then on the 17th August the weather changed with high strato-cumulous cloud forecast for north Germany and the Baltic coast. Harris had already decided that the attack would take place at medium altitude, so the high altitude clouds wouldn’t be a factor over the target. Harris ordered a Mosquito weather flight to the Baltic that day, with the main attack going in that night. One of the reasons for launching the raid on the 17th was that it was a Tuesday/Wednesday night and as one of the priorities was to kill as many of the scientists as possible, most would be on the base. Another major air operation planned on the 17th August was an American 8th Air Force daylight raid to the Messerschmitt works at Regensburg and the ball bearing factories at Schweinfurt. The aircraft attacking Schweinfurt would return to Britain while the Regensburg force would fly on to North Africa. Such a deep penetration into southern Germany would involve every B17 based in Britain and the 376 bombers would not have a fighter escort. Ever the pragmatist, Harris reasoned that such a large, daylight raid would tie up most of the German fighter defences and he hoped a significant number of the night fighter force as well. His crews needed all the advantages they could get. The Schweinfurt and Regensburg raids need their own piece to do them justice, but the failure of the US raid had an important effect on US air doctrine in the longer term and the Peenemünde raid in the shorter term. After being postponed several times by unfavourable weather, the operation, known within the Eighth Air Force as “Mission No. 84”, was flown on the anniversary of the first daylight raid by the Eighth Air Force. Mission No. 84 was a strike by 376 bombers of sixteen bomb groups against German heavy industry well beyond the range of escorting fighters. The mission inflicted heavy damage on the Regensburg target, but at catastrophic loss to the force, with 60 bombers lost and many more damaged beyond economical repair. As a result, the Eighth Air Force was unable to follow up immediately with a second attack that might have seriously crippled German industry. Even this assessment is somewhat optimistic, given the German capacity to repair vital strategic industrial assets. However, crucially for the RAF crews who would take off that evening, the German fighter defences coped easily with the two US strike groups, due to their scattered timing and the later take-off times of the Regensburg group. The German fighters were able to attack the Schweinfurt group, land, refuel, re-arm and be in the air to intercept the Regensburg group. Crucially, none of the twin-engine night fighter groups were drawn south from their bases in Northern Germany and Denmark. Harris ended his 09:00 hour conference and the orders for Operation Hydra went out to the Group Headquarters. The initial signals only detailed bomb loads and fuel, not the actual target itself. The bombers would be routed across Denmark before turning south to Peenemünde; the return flight would also be across Denmark. The crews preferred flying across the sea and other countries rather than Germany and the close proximity to neutral Sweden was a small comfort. There would be a diversionary raid by Mosquitos to Berlin (codenamed Whitebait) to hopefully confuse the German defences that the target for the main force was the Big City. Route to Peenemünde and the Mosquito diversion to Berlin The actual targets, the attacking Groups and the order of bombing was as follows: Aiming Point Target Bombers: Aiming Point Targets Bombers 1st Housing Estate Nos 3 and 4 Groups 2nd Production Works No 1 Group 3rd Experimental Works Nos 5 and 6 Groups Unusually for them, the Short Stirlings from No 3 Group with their lower ceiling and lighter bomb loads would be in the vanguard of the attack. On typical raids, they would be wallowing on slowly behind the Lancasters and Halifaxes, at a lower altitude and over a thoroughly alerted target. Little wonder that losses among Stirling crews were proportionally so high. The differing nature of the targets would require different bomb loads. For the housing Estates the load was: Bomber Command Executive Codeword: “COOKIE/PLUMDUFF” Target Type: Heavily Industrialised Cities 1 x 4,000 lb Amatol, Minol or Tritonal filled, impact-fused High Capacity (HC) bomb. 3 x 1,000 lb short-finned, short-delay, tail-armed HE bombs, and up to 6 SBC’s with 4 lb or 30 lb incendiary bombs. For the production and experimental works the bombload was: Bomber Command Executive Codeword: “ABNORMAL” Target Type: Factories, Rail yards, Dockyards 14 x 1,000 lb Medium Case (MC), General Purpose (GP) RDX or US short-finned High Explosive (HE) bombs. With mix of instantaneous (nose-armed) and long-delay (up to 144 hours, tail-armed) fusing. The Pathfinders would be carrying their normal load of marker flares and pyrotechnics and two standby Master Bombers were selected should Group, Group Captain Searby’s aircraft be lost en-route to the target. The bombers would fly a mean total of 1,250 miles, depending of where the home airfields were located. The Pathfinders from No 8 Group and the Stirlings of No 3 Group operating from Norfolk and Cambridgeshire had the longest flights, the Stirlings setting off up to an hour before the main force, because of their slower speeds. The night before the Peenemünde raid, 154 aircraft from the main force had raided Turin, a long haul and on their return, fog had shrouded the East Anglian airfields. Many aircraft, particularly the Stirling force had to divert to other airfields and remained fogged in, unable to return to their home bases. At least sixty Stirling bombers were removed from the battle order. Additionally so were five Wellington squadrons, flown mainly by Polish crews. There were two reasons for this: the twin-engine aircraft were often mistaken for German night fighters and fired at by the bomber gunners and Mosquito night fighters. But primarily, it was known that the labour camp at Peenemünde consisted of Polish workers and it was deemed unacceptable for Polish aircrew to be asked to murder their own countrymen. The final order of battle for the Peenemünde raid was as follows: Target Lancaster Halifax Stirling Mosquito Beaufighter Total Peenemünde 324 218 54 596 Berlin Diversion 8 8 Intruders 28 10 38 Resistance Drop 8 8 Total 324 226 54 36 10 650 The rest of the day the Flight and Squadron commanders posted the battle orders, and decided which crews to rest. This was made difficult because of the diverted aircraft and those stood down, so there was significant number of inexperienced crews on the battle order and for some it was their first operation. Then the aircrews would conduct an air test, so that last-minute problems on the aircraft could be rectified. In the late afternoon of 17th August 1943, the crews began to assemble in the briefing rooms on thirty-eight airfields. The crews were still unaware of the target, but many, friendly with the ground crews who knew the bomb and petrol loads, realised that the target was some distance away. They also noticed that security at the briefing rooms was much tighter and there was a large number of very senior officers present. When the curtains were removed from the map, the crews saw the ribbons across Denmark and the Baltic, they thought, Oh Christ, it’s Berlin. But when they were told the target was Peenemünde, none of them had ever heard of it. None of them were told the true nature of their targets, the cover story being that it was a plant producing the latest anti-bomber radar for night fighters. They were told that if they were unsuccessful that night, they would be going back the following night and the nights after that and in daylight if necessary, until the target was destroyed. All of the crews realised that they were doing something of vital importance. None of the men of Bomber Command were ever so naïve as to think that dropping tons of medium capacity blast bombs and incendiaries on German cities, would not result in casualties to the civilian population. The targets were usually indicated as marshalling yards, factories and plants within the city, but the Peenemünde briefing specifically indicated that one of the targets was a housing estate for the scientists. The crews were left in no doubt, their job was to kill German scientists and by virtue of their location, in all likelihood their families as well. From the briefing, the various disciplines went to sub-briefings, navigators for the routes, turning points and time and distance markings, bomb aimers for the type of markers, radio operators for call signs and windage reports, gunners, the types of aircraft on the raid and what not to shoot at. Then it was off to the various messes for a final meal, invariably known as the last supper, and then kill time and get kitted up. Lorries mainly driven by WAAFs would take the aircrew out to their widely dispersed aircraft. Many of these women would recall those moments until they died many years later. Impossibly young, schoolboy faces that would never come back. The clumsy passes. The smell of oil, petrol and damp kapok. And the smell of fear. Many would wait in the cold by the side of the runway to wave them off and many would wait for a lover who might never return. It would be a very long night. Blown Pwrphery November 2018
  12. Phil Perry

    Svetlana Kapanini Aerobatics

    Serious question for the Lady Pilots here, . . .would you need a 'Sport Bra' to maintain security of the upper frontal body whilst pulling 6 Gs in rapid;y changing multiple directions I wonder ? ( asking for a weird friend )
  13. Phil Perry

    Tell us about your last flight

    The group photos of you all enjoying the evenings was Excellent Scott. . .you being in a similar age group to me ( ! ) the enjoyment was Obvious Sir. My flying club also engage in such activities, , ,although we here in the UK do not have such a wonderful country to explore, with controlled airspace everywhere ! Not only this, those beginners without the funds to buy a transponder are often left out of the group flyouts, which is a shame, but in the Buzzzzzy airspace in the UK, it really IS becoming a sensible requirement nowadays. . . A Basic transponder here in the UK, ( Mode S ) costs more than I paid for my first aircraft when I came back to the UK in 1983 ! Due to retirement, I have had to drop my Instructor. I'R, Twin and light Helicopter ratings as my pensions couldn't finance all the Revals. .. so what I do now is 'Blag' flights with those who are still working commercially as 'Experienced Ballast' which I find is loads of fun, but without the Cost responsibility, ie, I pay half the fuel bill / Landing fee, and occasionally pay for a breakfast for the Victi,. . .er,. . Owner/ Pilot friend . . . Add to this the odd 'Ferry' job ( cough cough ) and I still get m share of Flying. . . I hope that , in my advancing years ( 68 now ) that I may continue to fool the Avmed bloke as to my fitness to lift into the luft as Pee One. Question,. . .may I post a link to your videos for my Internet friends in the UK Please ? Kind regards,. .. Phil.
  14. Phil Perry

    Painting or Wrapping?

    Wrap vinyl requires a gloss surface for maximum adhesion.. . . . for some reason, they won't guarantee full adhesion to a bare metal surface. Contact a Spandex representatiive ( USA ) or one form HEXIS ( France ) for technical spec on wrapping materials. Car wraps are based upon a Gloss substrate in all cases that I have encountered. So I would assume that the same applies to ANY surface. . . There may be problems with bare metals, perhaps due to possible adhesive reaction between the bare metal and the Adhesive used on the vinyl material. I am not in any way a specialist in this regard, . . .I just FIT the stuff. . . If you have to coat the airframe with a Gloss Primer first, then wrapping it afterwards will create additional weight. This is why all Evektor Eurostar U/L aircraft in the UK ( Sport Star Lookalike ) cannot be fully painted, as this would take the critical weight over the 450 Kg limit for Microlight aircraft.