Yenn

Be careful looking at RV flight manuals or POH. Who wrote them? For my RV4 I wrote the POH and I am no expert on doing that. I used what others have done before as a guide and put in the numbers which came from my test flying. Would you really accept a POH written by an amateur as being the last word in how to handle the plane?

By what I have seen those that import planes or other aviation equipment are enthusiasts. The sad thing is that they seldom make any real money out of the business, but their enthusiasm keeps them going. I know one person who imported one plane and was the Aussie agent for the brand. he didn't make one other sale, and that was not because it was a poor quality plane. Just too much competition and the big companies can make advertising work better for them.

I just googled FAA medical and it is quite clear what they require and I must say much better laid out than our Australian CASA requirements.

Have a look at the FAA web site. That is the Federal Aviation Authority in USA. You will get better info there than from recreational pilots in Australia. This site seems to have been recently discovered by USA, or maybe it has become more international. All welcome anyway.

Do you really need approval for a 25 reg aircraft? I would doubt it. I have always considered the Aera to be overpriced, which is typical of modern Garmin.

Did Vertical say he was after thrills. What I read was that he appreciated fine machinery. I doubt that even Clyde Cessna himself would call an aerobat "fine machinery" As far as fine machinery goes didn't Mooney have a Porsche engined version for that and it was not a success. When we think of fine machinery, we think beautifully built, smooth engines which tick over silently and also accelerate at explosive rates. Not what we are looking for in an aeroplane. To us what we need is an engine that produces a lot of power, continuously at low RPM. That is not like a Ferrari or Porsche in my opinion.

There is no need to fly to any speed in the annual inspection. That is done in the test flying stage. It would be possible to get a TAS higher than 15 kts above IAS in a lot of places in Australia. Older Vans designs pre RV6a use TAS for Vne. For example the RV4.

They were not shot at often because the intention was to get a plane from A to B without losing it and they were flying low down.

Somebody suggested an RV4. A great plane to learn in and I assume that in USA you may be able to do that without actually owning one. As far as an RV4 being anything like a Porsche, I would assume some may be and some may not as they are all homebuilt.

I think Vertical made his wanting a twin clear. He equates a twin with a Porsche, or an M/C whatever that is. Looks like a lover of fine machinery and in flying that can include all sorts of planes. Think Mooney or Stearman as varying examples. Somehow this didn't get posted yesterday. I would add that learning to fly in a high performance plane does not necessarily make you a good pilot. At one stage after I had my PPL I started flying a glider. The original Kookaburra. That plane taught me a lot in practice that I had only learnt in theory, because it was not tweaked to stop all the further effects of controls happening. I reckon learn in something that is not super efficient and safe and you will end up a safer pilot. Even better a taildragger, which will teach you how to preserve the nose wheel of a tricycle plane.

See if you can find "Flying wartime aircraft" David & Charles :Newton Abbot. isbn 0 7153 5550 3 This is the ATA Ferry pilots notes for Hurricane, Bell Airacobra, Hawker typhoon, DH Mosquito, Bristol Beaufighter, Vickers Wellington and Liberator. The ATA started with 29 pilots all of whom had to be unfit or over age for operational flying. This requirement was dropped later, due to lack of people who complied. The fatality rate of the pilots was about 12.5% and mostly due to having to fly in bad weather without rasdio or navigation aids and also at below 5000'. Not an easy task in Britain.

A lot of excellent pilots were in ATA. I have some of the handling notes for the planes they flew, as they were given to the pilots. One that stands out was the Consolidated liberator. The notes state that it flies with a rather nose up attitude and forward view is very poor. It should not be ferried in adverse weather conditions. The controls are heavy and sluggish in effect. The aircraft is unstable and requires to be "flown" continuously in order to steer an accurate course. I believe ferry pilots were not allowed to use the auto pilot, which made the plane a completely different beast. They certainly did a fantastic job in terrible conditions.

I think Vertical made his wanting a twin clear. He equates a twin with a Porsche, or an M/C whatever that is. Looks like a lover of fine machinery and in flying that can include all sorts of planes. Think Mooney or Stearman as varying examples.

I echo what Nev has said above. If you did try to learn to fly from day one in a twin I doubt you would succeed. Most pilots find times when they are severely frustrated at the progress of learning and by doing it in a twin it will be several times as hard. Singles are safer than twins in most cases and especially in the hands of the inexperienced. That is born out by the number of fatalities in twin training, even where the student pilot was an experienced pilot in a different aircraft. Flying one tin will not always prepare you for a different one, due to the many systems that the pilot has to understand. By that I mean the gear extension methods and the fuel switching requirements. One of the things that training stresses is what to do in an engine failure. relatively easy in single engine, all you really need to do is get it gliding, but in a twin it is very complex. Give it a try, get a flight with an instructor in a twin and see how you go, then let us know.

Vne is nearly always TAS, You can change that if the designer of the plane says it is not TAS. Vans aircraft which form a large part of the homebuilt fleet use TAS. You need to compute the TAS for the flight, because it is very easy to go past Vne if you are using Indicated air speed.

Ignition, I think you have a load of valid points. When I started flying I was lucky to have a load of enthusiastic flyers around me at the several clubs I was involved with. That was due to my job taking me all around the country. I had a break from flying at one stage and when I returned the instructor who was checking me out was trying to milk me for money. That resulted in him getting sacked and another instructor immediately OKayed me after less than an hour. Sadly that sort of behaviour is too common. I would also agree about the old blokes being less than enthusiastic, something I have tried to avoid becoming myself, in fact now when I say I am thinking of giving up flying, the youngsters are straight away trying to dissuade me. The problem is we old blokes know it all and it has to be done our way, If we didn't think of it, then it is no good. Is that how we come across, Ignition? I hope you consider there are a few who try to help you.

How long have we been told that automation is going to do everything we now do for ourselves. I am pretty sure it will not be in my lifetime and I doubt it will be in my childrens lifetime.

A big difference between a personal chute and one for the whole aircraft. The personal chute does nothing for a passenger, except maybe lessen his confidence in the pilot. A BRS will supposedly save all the people on board and maybe the aircraft. The personal chute can fail you for several reasons such as inability to get out of the plane, or entanglement with the plane. Personally I have never used a chute except for skydiving and never needed one for an emergency. I know several BRS uses have been in areas where a safe forced landing was possible and not used.

Was the original question about people using forums. That was what I thought it was and it immediately went off track into aviation in general. I think the participation in forums is getting less and probably because the subject seems to be distorted immediately as per this case.

I was in the Warrambungles some time ago and up near one of the peaks several of us sat on a bit of a lookout to have lunch. We then noticed a group of crows who had been perched on a tree branch. They left together and flew up a few hundred feet, then closed their wings and tumbled through the sky, opening and closing their wings to make a loud noise, all followed by them back to their perch and a chorus of cawing. They did this another time, obviously an encore. Many birds do play, especially Babblers, who are amazing to watch, but that is always while they are non flying.

There is a specified method of checking for correct fuel flow on a new aircraft. Briefly is needs to have the aircraft in the steepest position it is likely to ever reach and measuring the fuel flow at near empty tanks. You should get at least 150% of the fuel flow needed at Takeoff. I use a figure of 0.5lb of fuel per hour per horsepower. ie 80 hp engine needs 40lbs of fuel or about 39l per hour or 0.64 l per minute.

It is a good idea to limit door size. that is what decides if it is too windy to fly for me. If I cannot control the doors I can't fly, even though the plane would be able to handle the wind.

I suggested 6m square, not 6sq. metres. A big difference. The actual size would depend upon the total area to be poured. For example my 12 by 9 hangar would be poured in 4 by 3 sections. I don't know what they tought in the nineties, but some engineers had no idea of what was what and others where good. I even came across a bloke with a masters degree from I think it was Stalingrad, who didn't even know which side of a retaining wall was in tension and which was in compression.

I think the biggest water bomber that was used in the Frazer Island fires had to return to somewhere near Sydney to take on more water. That as a fire that should never have started as the National Parks found the fire which was started by campers and didn't put it out themselves.

If we want to fly without coming into the GA arena, then RAAus is the way to go. If we need to be trained and I assume that anyone who cannot fly will need to be trained, then we need an instructor. To be an instructor and train RAAus pilots you have to be a member of RAAus and comply with all their regulations. Why would you be a member and not have the right to vote as someone here has suggested. I would have thought that instructors would have a highly defined interest in keeping RAAus going and expanding. If you fly a Drifter or a Thruster or another similar plane and want RAAus to only look after your interests, then you have missed the boat. We gave up control of RAAus when we voted for it to become a company, rather than an association. RAAus is not going to look after any one sort of pilot ahead of another unless it suits the aims of RAAus and having read the aims of RAAus I wonder who came up with them originally. It seems to be a catchall aim. Anything that flies is ours! Just try to vote in the best person to suit your aims and if you don't see anyone who does that standing for the position, you can stand next time around.