SDQDI

What do you mean saying that I don't fill them up all the time 'may not work'. Each flight you (me) are either under MTOW or you are over, it is as simple as that there is no maybe about it. On flights 2 up with large people I can't legally fly with full tanks so I don't, quite simple really. When flying by myself on a longer trip I use full fuel well within the MTOW and reap the benifits thereof.

It's great and a bonus that your wife flies with you. Last year, I made a mistake and took mine on a flight around the islands on the eastern side of Brisbane, around midday on a warmish day. Well it was a bit thermally and bumpy up there. Needless to say, she doesn't fly much with me these days. My crampy two seater has become my roomy single seater lately I was flying in that area on Friday, there was a big fire, or group of fires burning about 5nm west of Toogoolawah.

Not Ridiculous. I said it was a good place to start.............. I'm not sure what wing chord or profile thickness you're going to use, but 2 x 35 ltrs is quite a bag (wing) full ............Don't forget it's an alloy wing, not a glass wet one. AND you're going to go overweight, of that I'm certain.ie: 140 kilos of fuel, tanks, pumps and taps.

 

200 kgs of people

 

100 kgs of engine and ancillaries.

 

25 kgs of baggage.

 

That's 465.

 

so, 135kgs for airframe, u/c, wheels and instruments?

 

Good luck.

 

( This is, of course an exageration, but you can see what I mean. What you want is not the same as what you need)

It costs hardly any weight to have the capacity sitting there empty until you need it. A much better alternative to carting around jerrycans

I think basing fuel tank size on bladder capacity is rediculous. I certainly don't want to be seeking fuel at every place I stop at, it might be ok on the coast but sourcing fuel at out of the way places is a nuisance. I say make the fuel tanks as big as practical I think 100-140 litres is the range to look at. That is enough to fly till the bladder is full and then fly home again without worrying about refilling.

Maybe two tanks of 25-35 litres in each wing would be ideal so it is easier to manage accurate part fills.

Seriously?Every RA VFR flight IS DR....

 

Also wasn't even till last year that GNSS was a primary IFR navaid.

Thinking that most people are using DR as a primary source is just kidding yourself even though legally that is what is supposed to be happening.

Imo it should be taught in the syllabus how to properly use these devices and their limitations rather than just a blanket statement saying 'don't use them as your primary source of navigation' because clearly that isn't working and seems a bit draconian.

Consider a medical student. At what point should they be permitted to conduct a vasectomy?

M6 while I agree that the limits in some areas (for example western NSW) could be further I think the 25nm is adequate especially if you consider some coastal or hilly areas.

On a different subject the whole Nav by DR only is a bit of a joke to me especially considering the majority of rec pilots are only flying occasionally and nowhere near enough to keep DR skills up to scratch and a lot of us are using ozrunways or similar so DR skills are definitely not practiced sufficiently to be competent in them. Imo electronic Nav aids should be part of the syllabus.

Yes yes of course the satellites can be switched off and all our batteries could die but seriously the odds of that are much less than miscalculating wind drift and ending up miles off course anyway and if we can't find a strip or do a precautionary landing safely then we shouldn't be flying.

Does anyone read posts with factual information?

I don't know Bex but I do partially remember a comment he made yonks ago in regards to engines going into his airframe. I can't remember the exact wording but it was something along the lines of not wanting to use an unreliable engine in his airframe lest his airframe got a dodgy rep due to the faults of an engine'.

That may be paraphrasing what he said totally out of context but I would guess that Bex won't commit wholeheartedly to a new engine until he is sure it is fairly reliable.

Just go and get it isn't a crap answer at all. I think 25nm is reasonable, any further than that and you should have cross country knowledge, 50-100nm and you should have an alternate and a reasonable understanding of navs.

As for flying to a new strip, I think that the pilots intent would be important so flying 24nm to a new home strip and then operating from it should be looked on a lot more favourably than someone who flew the 24nm and then landed and flew on so they could get further from their operating field.

Well seriously we moan and groan about regs being overly complicated as it is so why not show we have the common sense to interpret this one as it was intended!

To travel further than 25nm you need a cross country endorsement, consecutive flights DO NOT comply with this requirement.

I am not a legal guru (I am a farmer!) but even I am smart enough to read the intent of this one. I would hate to have that feller who interpreted it any differently represent me in this matter.

I mean how hard is it to understand the phrase 'do not comply'?!

As for over nighters I would be talking to the RAA ops team before I went on a weeklong trip of 25nm per day, I think a decent casa lawyer would say that your week long foray was one trip and I think you could still be in murky water.

At the end of the day just get the cross country endo, like has been said there is more to it than just navigation.

I'll type this slowly so that you can keep up.In an airplane, the control column controls it, just as the steering wheel controls a car. If you want, you can say that the control column controls the airplane and that the wheel controls a car. It would be reasonable to say that it is the angle of attack of the wheels that turns the car.

 

Regarding the offensive comment. As I made clear in my post: advising people to bank at 60 degrees turning onto final is a worse thing to do that calling someone a dribbler. Saying that it okay to bank at 60 degrees is dangerously stupid, should anyone be stupid enough to take the advice. Calling someone a dribbler is not dangerous, it is being unnecessarily polite when said about someone who says that it is okay to bank at 60 degrees turning onto final.

 

Think about it, please. Calling someone a dribbler is bad, but saying that it is okay bank at 60 degrees is far worse. You failed to grasp that. You criticised me. You didn't criticise dribbles.

 

That's the quality of discussion by the great and good of this forum: bank at 60 degrees turning onto final.

 

If you're dribbling on your crotch, give yourself a pat on the back. Your turns are co-ordinated. Well done, you.

Personally I think it would be silly and unnescesary to do it frequently however I do think it is something we should all be capable of.

It would be a pity to try it (or more likely avoid it by skidding around sharper!) for the first time on your first engine out trying to line up away from that clump of trees.

Anyway that is just my take on it and I am by no means an expert!!!!!!!!!!!!! I fly for fun and don't even have 500 hrs up yet so my advice should be taken with a huge grain of salt. I do like to consider what those with knowledge of a subject have to say though.

So in a car the steering wheel doesn't turn it, it is the angle of attack that the wheels have nothing to do with the steering wheel?!

That last post that is aimed at DJ is downright offensive and doesn't help add any legitimacy to anything you say.

That is nice and quick! You wouldn't want to do too many laps or you would be properly dizzy!

SQDI - Sorry about the thread drift

I remember going to a local aero club meeting a couple of years ago and arriving a little late, getting out of the car I could hear muffled screaming and yelling coming from inside and thought 'oh dear what on earth has happened!' Running inside in a panic I found the whole room at each other arguing over politics. People who were good friends were yelling themselves hoarse to get their point across (this may be a slight exaggeration but isn't too far off the mark.)

Anyway my point is politics and religion are two subjects that we all hold strong opinions about and there isn't any other subjects that will divide groups quicker so we do need to be careful otherwise we will have people get upset and this could lead to people leaving this site.

I know sometimes that some politics can be relevant to flying but we need to be careful when that happens and keep it respectful and to a minimum.

This is of course just my opinion!

Just thought I would put a flying related post in here to keep it all relevant:whistling:

Anyway continue on all

Is there any truth to the rumour that it will be required at all "cert" airfields in the not too distant future?

Man if that thing could do 110 knots I am in. May need to supply some reasonable goggles though:helmet:

Everyone seems to want something that flys at 25kts stall. 110knts cruise. Can lift 250kg. Fly for 5 hours on tanks and be built in 200 hours. Oh and option of tri or tail wheel. Not much of an ask is it

Sheldon Jones has done this sort of thing before, give him a tryContact us and learn to fly

Actually anyone who is remote in GA or RAA should save his number and keep him as an option.

Now I understand the need to always have a diversion ready.

As much as I dislike this off topic political stuff your post had me rolling around laughing @Happyflyer i had trouble choosing between the funny and winner likes:thumb up:

Keith's post was spot on in regards to FT but a tad more than slightly hypocritical if his entire history of posts is taken into account:roflmao:

So I am guessing there are a few rec flyers grounded due to dodgy weather today?

Reading through this thread has been in the most part a big disappointment. Originally I was disappointed when Ian sent off topic discussions elsewhere but reading through this thread I am now more appreciative that most of this crap has gone elsewhere.

Please people stick to talking about flying so we can all be friends.

LOL! Pilots must be rich.... ;) :PI'll give that a go. Thanks again.

 

Baz.

Starting this thread here will be a good start, this site reaches a wide audience of interesting folks who have interesting nicknacks stashed away. Patience is the key, it can take a while but at least you have set the ball rolling. Good luck with your search.

Physics say there is a limit on the angle of turns turning onto base. If you routinely do steep turns turning onto final, you will die. To clarify: you will die by stalling in said steep turn and crashing.If don't skid and don't do steep turns is a difficult message, don't blame me.

Doing a steep or skidding turn is in no way a prerequisite for stalling and crashing on a turn to base or final.

We (5or so aircraft) went for a little flight down to Cessnock today, absolutely beautiful weather and an awesome turnout down there. I didn't count the aircraft that turned up but would guess it was around 30 odd. Took us a good few hours to have a good squiz at them all:what the:

Again I didn't take any photos but did have one taken of me on the way down:thumb up: