KRviator

There's actually a really interesting discussion going on over at PPRune at the moment regarding alternates and the question "Do you need an alternate if your destination does not have a TAF?" My reading of the AIP is "yes, you do", but it's a ridiculous proposition - how many of us fly to airfields that no longer - or have never had - a TAF service? CAVU weather and you need an alternate - and that alternate cannot be an airport that itself requires an alternate, so you need to plan to somewhere that does have a TAF. WTF?!? The kicker is the word "aerodrome" forecast. A GAF is not an aerodrome forecast, so we would, appear, to not be able to rely on the visibility or weather in the GAF when it comes to considering whether or not our destination is above the VFR Alternate Minima.

I've either misinterpreted that bit, or completely forgotten it. The only 60 minute "requirement" for departure I can recall is if you do not hold a current forecast for your destination and you intend to obtain that in flight, which you can do for upto 30 minutes after departure. So takeoff, fly 30 min out, get forecast - it's crap - return to origin = need 60 mins good weather. But if you have a known-good forecast for your destination, you can depart if you can maintain VMC and your departure point can immediately go IMC, with not a care in the world. What's the reference in the VFRG? I might need to hit the books again!

Centaurus over at PPrune mentioned a similar accident at Camden around a decade earlier. A MECIR checkride was underway and as part of the briefing, the checkee, a current airline pilot, refused to accept an EFATO below 500AGL at night. The ATO agreed to this. They flew Bankstown-Wollongong-Camden and almost immediately on rotation at Camden - at night, remember - what does the ATO do? Fail an engine, with predictable results. The ATO received serious, ultimately fatal, injuries and the checkee serious injuries.

That AirNorth one was downright stupid - and almost a carbon copy of a B1900 that lost control at Williamtown a year or so earlier doing the exact same thing! If you go to Flight Idle on your typical auto-feather equipped engine, you are no longer simulating "just" an engine failure. You are simulating an engine failure and the failure of the autofeather system. And as has been found many times over, almost all light piston and an awful lot of turbine twins will not accelerate yet alone climb away like that. We will continue to have accidents until people want to learn from the mistakes of others.

I remember reading an article maaaany years (10 or so) ago about some Uni rocket testing out that way. They used a Jab to search for the first stages after they had come back down. Whether you would be able to get in without some kind of legitimate excuse though I can't answer...ERSA suggests it's not available, "MIL exclusive AD - no public access"

Well that's one way to log multi-engine turbine time. Remines me of the Cri-Cri with two AMT jet's instead of the JPX engines. Reckon an SAAA AP would sign off on it? Or could you try to get it in RAAus under CAO 95.10?

IT's an F-Model, so that'd be the early hydraulic flap system I suspect.

For me, the big issue is size, even for the J-models. I had seriously looked at one until I found out how small they are. They're economical, certainly, but there's an annual AD for structural corrosion, and from memory, you can't install an EI on the IO-360 as it has that funny dual-magneto setup on it. There's a nice J-model for sale in WA for $132K that would be good, but it wouldn't be my first choice unless I could find a CAR35 engineer to work with to install an EFI system on it... A MooneySpace member posted this video showing the comparatively small cockpit and it was enough to put me off one unless it was the best of the bad options. Kinda like politicians that way, I guess...

I have been thinking a little about the R182. A bit faster than your typical 182, but it has that gear...Still, I haven't specifically ruled it out either. There's two for sale in Oz I've found, $115K + GST and a 5SOH for $185K w/o GST. If I did have to go the Cessna route, I would probably settle for the fixed-gear version, if only to simplify maintenance. Still not as good a useful load as a Comanche and bit slower for the same fuel, so you need more fuel to actually get anywhere, but arguably much better parts availability and LAME knowledge. SIDS isn't a deal-breaker but certainly something to be considerate of unfortunately. One potential benefit to a 182 is the Dynon SkyView package is available (as it is for the Comanche) but the autopilot is also available. In saying that, Horsham Avionics I have since found, is able to do a full install in the Comanche. $$$ though, but worth it if the base airframe is priced right...

Yes. That is precisely what I did. I held the bare RPL, and was tooling about locally in the RV while I waited to get the RPC Nav endo done. I then submitted (I think) a 61-1RE originally and was told by a particularly helpful CLARC rep that it was incorrect (as I wasn't adding an RPL Endo, but porting an RPC one), and to use a 61-1RTX, even though I already held an RPL. Filled that out and uploaded it through CAsA Self-Service and a week later, the new RPL with Nav & TW arrived in the mail.

I had - briefly - considered a Tobago or derivative but didn't konw about the TB21 turbo, J_A but I don't really want to have to have the hassle of importing one. I can't even get to Victoria to inspect a Comanche at the moment, yet alone buying one from overseas at the moment! 😛 The one I did see for sale was advertised for $240K on Controller, with another two on TAP for $165 & $179. That's too expensive for my liking, and add GST & a bunch of fees on top of that, and it isn't good value I feel.

Yep. I had my AUF PC from waaay back when and was working on the Nav component but bad weather kept stepping in. I claimed the credit for the basic RPL and when I finished off the RAAus Nav's, submitted the form (Think it was the same form, 61-1RTX) claiming credit for the Nav and also the Tailwheel endo that RAAus had left off my RPC and I'd never noticed till then. Paid the $50 or so and a week later, viola! An updated RPL with Nav + Tailwheel endorsements turned up in the mail. Remember you cannot fly VH- on the basis of your newly-issued RPL until you've done a GA flight review though. A GA review (typically) covers the RAAus review, but not the other way around. EDIT: Just checked CAsA Self-Service, yep, form 61-1RTX to add the additional endorsements and you can lodge it online.

I'm breaking out in a rash just thinking about fiberglass! 😛 A 4 seat experimental wouldn't worry me at all, for I fly in my RV-9, but realistically, there is the Sling 4 TSi and the RV-10 and not much else that would compare to an RV. The problem with the White Lightning would be I likely wouldn't qualify to maintain it, it being 1: Fiberglass and 2: Retractable, which leads to 3: they are comparatively rare and finding a suitable LAME might be a problem. Were it a FG and metal bird I would qualify under the "substantially similar" provisions relating to experimental maintenance.

It is indeed. But you can also do your RPC, use your RPC to get your RPL and then go do your RPC (RAAus) Nav endorsement and following the addition of your Nav endo to your RPC, then add it to your RPL, it just costs you another $50 or so for CAsA to process the form. Still cheaper than doing it in a GA aircraft though! You don't have to have all your RPC endorsements you want to get before you apply for your RPL, you can add them over time.

Indeed there are, but I don't want to go backwards in performance. The RV gets along at 143-145KTAS at 2400RPM at 55%, a 182Q will just do the same at 75%...maybe...and the climb rate isn't anything to write home about. I had given the 182 much thought when it looked like I'd be staying at Somersby, with the short strip there, but we're in the process of buying a new house that backs onto Scone airport, so the STOL requirement isn't as important as it was previously. If I could get CAsA to give me a CASR 42ZC authorisation to maintain it myself, on the basis of building and maintaining my RV-9, then that would almost tip the scales in its' favour, but the chance of that is remote. A major benefit to the 182 though, is Dynon is expecting their EFIS to include autopilot approvals next year. The Comanche won't even rate a mention for that for years to come, if it ever does. This was another thing that swung me away from the Cardinal too. Garmin is planning Comanche approval for their G3X-based autopilots "in the next 12 months" and while I have the idea of supporting Big G, an EFIS + AP is going in whatever I get, sooner rather than later...

A Comanche 400 would be a blast, but it's too much airplane for me unfortunately, TurbAero.

IIRC, the LSE ignition uses magnets in the flywheel - same as the SDSEFI - as a timing reference. The pickup for those magnets sounds like it conflicts with the slip ring brush mounting for the Airmaster prop, and the prop slip rings in turn blocking the magnets from being detected by their sensor. Steveron you could try asking on Vans forum, but the Air Master prop is pretty slim pickings on the big Lycomings AIUI.

Not that much to do. Send the form off to CAsA (61-1RTX), pay your 4 bits, and wait. Once that is done, you'll need a GA flight review to 'activate' your RPL. CAsA will issue it on the basis of your RPC, but you can't use it as you won't have done an AFR within the previous 2 years.. Hopefully the school at which you did your RPC has GA aircraft available, or you might find whatever school you pick for your flight review wanting to 'train' you in GA aircraft handling. I avoided that by pointing out that yes, I did have the RPC, but it wasn't a bare-bones issue, I had been flying RAAus for many years beforehand and had an RV-9 that I flew but if you don't have that, you might need to bite the bullet and do a few hours in a C150 or something.

Thanks for that! I've put in to join. I have indeed considered the A36. Gympie had one for sale recently fairly cheap ($125K IIRC) and there's a couple others listed recently but much higher $$, but I don't really need 6 seats, though the old adage "if you need 4 buy a 6 seater" typically applies. If I can get by with 4 in the Comanche it seems prudent to do so. That being said, the sheer volume of A36's produced means parts availability will never be the issue it may become for the Comanche.

Is that due to your height? I'm 6'5 but fairly slim. I have had a good look through the ICS and ComancheFlyer sites, yep. They're a wonderful trove of info, but will always be biased by the very fact they're made up of Comanche owners! In some ways people with no affiliation can provide better insight than the type clubs. Is that for sale in a closed group? Can't find it in my FB search, is there a chance you could post a link please?

In my ongoing quest for a 4-seater that will at least keep up with my RV-9, I keep coming back to the Piper Comanche... I've looked at the Cardinal and it has several, well, issues that concern me, being the funky Cessna gear, SIDS and the major one, the spar carry-through structure, which if it fails the NDI, basically writes off the aircraft as replacements are essentially, unavailable. If you have an old Cardinal in your barn and the carry through spar tests good, it is almost worth its' weight in gold... I've thought long and hard about the Bonanza series, but again, they aren't perfect. There's a nice-ish N35 Bonanza for sale down Victoria way but I'm wary of the V-tails, not because of tail itself, but because of the balancing issue I've heard about. I got the W&B data sent up to see if it would work, but with 4 x 80Kg people & only a few KG of bags, you're outside the aft CG limit at ZFW - and as your CG moves aft as fuel is consumed, that's not ideal in any way. So that rules that out. I've emailed another broker - Ian Baillie Aircraft - about a long-advertised S35 and been ignored twice (great service if you're into selling things, ignoring a potential customer, but meh 😖) I had heard many a good thing about the -250 and -260 Comanches, but they don't seem to pop up for sale very often. I did see a -260B advertised briefly a couple months ago, spoke to the broker at the time and the seller pulled it from sale. It's now re-advertised (and from memory $10K higher than originally) and after a few emails back and forth with the broker who didn't seem to twig I needed the weight and balance data, not just BEW & MTOW we got there in the end and it checks out good, with a claimed 1250Lb payload & 90 gallons of fuel, or 710lbs in the cabin with full tanks. The seller brought it for $92.5 a year ago and has it listed at $105K and all he has done in that time, from what I can see, is install a GTX-327 and GNC300XL, both of which would need to come out anyway as they aren't suitable for ADS-B, so I'm yet to be convinced the asking price is reasonable. It also desperately needs a new panel - though this is based on my flying behind an EFIS for the last several years and not wanting to downgrade to a horrendously-installed 6-pack... After many an hour on Google, the following seem to be the cautionary issues about the Comanche singles: The landing gear Bungees especially, but also the bungee rollers. A very quick & cheap item to replace at each 100 hourly (bungees, not rollers) , but not always done The landing gear has an obscure 1000-hr AD requirement that is often overlooked. The landing gear 'conduits' have often never been replaced and are expensive when they need to be. The stabilator horn has a recurring AD unless replaced by an Australian-designed version The Laminar-flow wing needs very precise speed control on landing if you are to achieve anything resembling book figures. And it is a 60-year-old design with little parts support from Piper, though aftermarket suppliers have stepped up to bridge the gap. Visibility isn't as good as say a Bonanza, or particularly a 2 seat RV From what I can find, both the -250's and -260's will haul 1100-1300lbs at 150-165KTAS burning around 15GPH to do so, dependant on altitude. Tip tanks are available as are a few other speed mods and they are reported to be quite a comfortable touring aircraft, though the aforementioned visibility is off-putting to some. So, my questions to the knowledge bank here is: "What else is there to know about the Comanche?" and "What don't you like about the Comanche singles?"

FWIW, I pay $300/Month at Somersby NSW and that includes usage rights. I did pay $135/month at Cessnock for 6 months or so but that was a gentleman's agreement just to cover the (then plane-less) lease-holders costs until he sold that spot.

Almost exactly the same as the Canadian RV-7 accident in 2010. Proof some people do not want to learn.

True that. We (His wife and I) transshipped a pilot mates ashes from the crematoriums container to my home-built "pod" for dispersal and I can see how you could achieve an unintended sand-blasting of your horizontal stab. Don't try bolting something like this on the club's 172, but in an aircraft you've built, or have authority to modify, then something like this pod can work well.

A Seppo asking for directions in London. Pom: Take the lift to the 3rd floor. Yank: You mean the Elevator. Pom: No no, it's a lift. Yank: No, it's an ELEVATOR. Pom: I beg to differ, it is called a lift. Yank: It is an ELEVATOR. I should know, it was invented in America. Pom: Perhaps, but the language was invented here....