wags

On Sunday 31st August a Czech Airworks "Sportcruiser" was conducting circuits at Gympie Airfield with the aircraft's new owner and an instructor onboard. Slight vibration was felt throughout the aircraft during initial climbout and x-wind legs of a circuit. The instructor reduced power somewhat but approx 30 secs later a very loud "explosion" occurred and the engine came to an abrupt stop. A short stub of one blade of the 2 blade Woodcomp inflight adjustable propeller was visible protruding over the cowling. The aircraft subsequently carried out an emergency landing back onto the airfield without further incident. The occupants suffered no injury other than to their nerves. The aircraft was virtually new (50 hrs or less?) and had not exhibited any previous propeller problems that I am aware of. What remains of the prop stub displays what looks like water seepage (or similar) has occurred between the wood laminations of the blade, but this fact will need to be confirmed by investigators. The engine has obviously "twisted" on its mounts with at least two mounts showing indications of significant distortion. The engine exhaust stub had moved approx 100 mm or more and impacted the nose wheel mount with sufficient force to dent the exhaust pipe itself. Both carbies of the Rotax 912 had disconnected themselves from the intake manifold and no doubt aided in stopping the engine before further damage occurred. The strength of the airframe no doubt contributed to a safe outcome for the occupants of the aircraft. The outcome of an investigation into this incident will be interesting to read as this would appear to be a catastrophic failure of what could be considered as a brand new propeller. It will almost certainly require replacement of everything from and including the firewall forward. I for one will take more than a precursory look at the blades of my prop during any preflight from now on looking for signs of any tell-tale hairline cracks or indications of delamination starting to occur, especially around the hub area.

Water Licences IanR - we initially picked up the Maule M7's we imported from Bankstown and eventually used them only in Tasmania. While operating in NSW we had to have them registered as boats, plus the pilots needed NSW Recreational Boating Licences. The NSW Maritime Authorities initially required Coxon Certificates, but after considerable persuasion eventually saw reason and allowed a normal Recreation Boating Licence to be used. Anyone operating in NSW now will probably be able to answer what the Authorities there currently require, but doubt if requirements have changed. Interestingly our insurance Company insisted on the all these Licences until we started our operations in Tasmania, then (presumably) because Tasmanian Authorities didn't press for Boat Rego or Boat Licences that requirement was dropped. Carrying of life jackets, flares, an anchor, paddles etc are required by Authorities everywhere and this subtracts markedly from useful load. I repeat what I said earlier - float flying is fun, real fun; but you can't go too far at any great speed or carry too much gear without range penalty. Techman - I would of thought if landing gear wasn't "down & locked" it was in an unsafe condition and could be considered in a state of retraction... but I get your point about "repositioning".

Getting Wet All those things you mention facthunter are true, but with good operating techniques you can reduce your risks and wet appendages! One of the reasons floating hulls are better than float aircraft in our domain (LSA), is that you don't have to carry the extra weight of floats even with the allowed increase in Max TOW... your hull will support you OK. RAAus regs already allow for retracts in that scenario. This little number comes as close as any I have come across (as yet) ... www.aeroprakt.kiev.ua/eng_html/crafts/A-24.htm Haven't seen one in the flesh and other than visiting the website I can't offer good critique on it, but going by the specs it's as good a number as anything currently offered; or for that matter in the planning stages (from the little I know - and my wife reminds me everyday that I know f*#k all anyway). If you have a desire to fly off water, spend a few bucks and take an hour with a Company offering float endorsements - guarantee you'll be hooked! Then you can go catch the ones you really want to hook. Wags.

Tasmanian Lakes Blackhawk, what you say is what makes water flying so much fun, in fact it's the most fun you can have with your pants on (hope that doesn't get censored)! You wrote... I would like to have an amphibian aircraft in the next 2 years and do a lot of sight seeing/camping trips around Aus and in particular the lakes in the mountains of Tasmania and throw a line for some trout. Great idea, but as one who was involved heavily in float operations over quite a long time (10 yrs+) in Tasmania the idea of flying into a lake in Tassie and dropping a line isn't as easy as it seems. All lakes in Tassie belong to the Hydro Electric Authority and they restrict float ops to the larger more exposed lakes. With the strength of wind that blows in those Latitudes it really restricts water operations approx 90% of the time. The smaller lakes are OK but don't get caught landing on one without a permit. Just when you think there is nobody around - there always is! Permits can be arranged but they take a long time to organise and you have to have really good reasons - fishing is a good reason in my mind, but not to an office bound bureaucrat! Then of course there is always the time your engine begins to run rough and as a precaution you need to land and check it out! Good luck with your plans. You can rest assured as soon as there is an LSA type a/c produced that allows approx 500 nmls range and payload sufficient for 2 folks plus camping gear... I'll be the first in line. The chances of that happening in our realm is small, so we really are stuck with GA type a/c (such as the Murphy range from Canada etc). Wags.

An interesting thread this one. Having experienced what can best be described as a "major medical event" many years ago and then overcome the ongoing health related problems, I now submit myself to rigorous medical monitoring on a six monthly basis so that I know for sure where my health is at. I want to save me first and if that leads to better safety for others, so be it. To those of us that believe compulsory medicals are an answer I can offer details of a number of occassions whereby pilots underwent CASA Class 1 Medicals (stress test and all) only to fall over with a massive heart attack within 36 hours of being given a clean bill of health. Why are people hell-bent on following the CASA path? No Medico can tell you how you are going to be, they can only tell you how you are at that moment in time and by reviewing your particular risk factors make an assessment of your ongoing prospects. They cannot prevent that ultimate event taking place, but they can offer advice as to how to lower your risk. I personally want to lower my own risk factors and that's why I take health monitoring seriously. As to spouse flying - my wife is currently undergoing flying training to RAAus standards so that I always have that "safety pilot" along for the ride. At first it was daunting for her but now she is more enthusiastic than I can ever remember being! If Murphy strikes she wants to know she can confidentally handle the aircraft and not only save herself, she can also prevent others becoming involved because of an impending accident and she might just help me get somewhere to save my life. That makes the decision for your spouse learning to fly a "no brainer" in my mind. Let me add one last point - there is a huge difference in training and flying from the LHS. Flying from the RHS is a whole new ball game if you haven't done it before, let alone cope with the anxiety and stress of a loved one turning purple or whatever in the LHS if they are the one flying at the time. If you want a true "safety pilot" along for the ride get them time in the RHS - flying with a qualified instructor. It will not only give them great confidence but it will also lessen your concerns immensely. RAAus has the right recipe with our operations, but no matter what they put in place how do they ensure pilots approach the game with respect and the correct attitude? There will always be a cowboy or two out there unfortunately.

Stand-by air pump for tyres Has anyone had experience with the Cyclaire pump? http://www.just4oz.com/ It's certainly small and light enough, but can it handle the job? Wags.

No one in their right mind would consider full IFR autopilot capability in a Jab - or maybe some would? Perhaps I should have been more specific. This thread started with J430 asking about Autopilot Servo's etc - assume he was thinking 2 axis only. One assumes quite a few Jabs (and other types) have Dynon EFIS equipment fitted and therefore aircraft so equipped for the expenditure of US$1500, plus another US$450 for independant A/P control (if you want that as JetJr so rightly pointed out), can fit a unit which more than compares in functionality with a similar product from Tru-Trak. At least there is a choice of product. Don't want to knock anyones product, but the fact is the Tru-Trak has been around for awhile and the Dynon A/P is a new kid on the block at a somewhat reduced expense if you already have Dynon gear - might add it's unproven as yet by anyone I know, but it promises to deliver the functions I wouldn't mind having in an A/P.

Dynon Auto-Pilots The Dynon A/P's will be well worth the wait as their functions far outweigh the Tru-Trak units. Why install all the platforms at extra cost when the Dynon EFIS already contains them? J430 I understood that you must have the AP74 interface to control the Pilot... it can't be controlled from the EFIS - only programmed from the EFIS. Might be wrong there but it would be worth checking before counting your cost of installation.

Flying the CTLS... Had the pleasure of flying CTLS 24-5262 last week. I cannot compare to the CT2K or CTSW as I have not flown those particular versions. Anyone familiar with a C182 will find the flight controls much lighter but ever so much more responsive. The ailerons on the CTLS are decidedly "heavy"... but it is something one can live with and will no doubt get used to in time. No doubt it satisfies a particular niche in the US market; but personally it would be nice if they were a whole lot lighter because the ailerons are very effective right down to, and through, the stall. I would best call them "lazy" ailerons as they are set up so as you hardly need to touch them in straight and level flight. Stalling is a non-event... just add power and fly away. The wings remain level throughout the stall and the nose drop can best be considered as "mushy" or "mild". Performance - stooge around all day with Flap 30 at 40 kts, add power and accellerate to over 120 kts. I calculated 127 kts TAS with 80% power at 2000ft and a fuel flow around the 20 ltr/hr mark. Didn't get a chance to land the new "kid on the block" as the new kid is being protected from any bruising; but what I experienced was very impressive. The main u/cart absorbs shocks beautifully with little or no re-bound. I came away with the impression that this aircraft is going to make huge in-roads into the touring aircraft market as it is very comfortable and roomy, performance is right "up there", it is extremely economical and the standard of build and finish is nothing short of first class. Going by the reactions of others who flew 24-5262 that same day it will become one hugely popular and sort after Light Sport Aircraft.

I have just ordered what will probably be the first "privately owned" CTLS in Ozz - as against dealer demo aircraft. I can reply to some of the questions raised in this forum. I admit to being somewhat biased in favour of the CTLS however, especially after having looked closely at the competition. Aircraft cost? A shade in excess of A$150,000 all expenses paid, but the aircraft has "everything" for that. My aircraft will be registered as 24-5445 with a max AUW of 544 kgs. Extras include an inflight adjustable prop which can easily and relatively cheaply be converted to constant speed if that is your fancy. I purposely did not order a 2 axis Autopilot as Dynon have just announced a new Autopilot (AP-74) that feeds directly from the D-100 EFIS. Dynon will have retro fit kits tailored specifically for the CTLS before too long. The capabilities of this pilot are way ahead of the current Tru-Trak units at less cost. Why didn't I go LSA? Because I have had a gutful of CASA bull**** after 40+ years of aviating. I want to fly "for fun" again and I don't see the LSA Regs fitting in with that concept. You can't even fit a bit of carpet in LSA without factory authorisation = more cost and paperwork than you can imagine. For the sake of 56 kgs extra capability it is not worth the hassle that comes with that extra 56 kgs. By eliminating the BRS it saves you 20 kgs and A$1,700. That recovers part of the 56 kgs difference lost by not going LSA. My particular aircraft specs show an Empty Weight of 313 kgs. When you compare the CTLS with other "new" LSA's available (Skylark, Sportcruiser etc) there is simply no comparison when considering standard of finish and equipment offered as standard. When you look deeper - at baggage capacity for instance, the competition doesn't even make it to the starting grid. I can remove the pax seat and carry a 2.7 mtr beach fishing rod, or if going x-country put in 25 kgs per side behind the seats (with a small endurance penalty) without getting the CofG out of limits. Many small things, like a -12 deg Flap setting available in Ozz, return approx 5 kts in cruise speed over the US Spec aircraft. Marry this with the inflight adjustable prop and that should return a 75% cruise figure of approx 125 kts - but time will tell if that is correct. The Sportcruiser at full power cruise is flat out achieving 117 kts in cruise from what I saw, and that aircraft was fitted with an electric constant speed prop.