Flyingphot

Hey Maj I have a 3 acre block and have main and cross stip on it - I do fly a Savannah so that might be considered cheating. Cheers Bill

1988 means 21years and just 20 hours short of the 1000. Went flying yesterday and learnt something new - as I do nearly every flight. That's what keeps it so interesting.

Well said Captain - the organisers must take note of the comments and not be too upset. To get the best out of their show they must be aware of the worst, and often they are too close and involved to see the problems as the public see them. Having read all the posts I would get the overall feeling that people enjoyed the show but would want the negatives addressed if they were to attend another. I generally enjoyed the show but thought it was no where near as good as 2007. Will have to think hard about 2011. Cheers Bill

My understanding is that all beaches are controled by Dept of Natural Resources and as we all know, you cannot land anywhere, or go below 500 feet, without land owner's permission. DNR don't give permission except in very rare circumstances so I think it is a no-no. That said.....................................;);) Cheers Bill

Lots of interesting views on this thread - I have just gone back to my original post and then followed the thread thru - seems that CASA is very sure, Air Services are very sure, and many of the respondents are very sure about which is correct - pity they are not all sure of the same thing. After all this I am sure of a few things - 1) it doesn't matter which is used if the message gets out - 2) it's good stuff to think about - 3) I probably am just a deaf old fart. Main thing - communicate, communicate, communicate. Cheers Bill

After the Today Tonight program last night I just have to air my favourite gripe. I know the book says to start all transmissions with the words " xxxx traffic" and then proceed with your call, and I find most schools instruct students in this manner but I maintain it is wrong, wrong, wrong. I strongly believe the transmission should start "traffic xxxx". The reason for this is the same as the leading word, or attention getter, in a military command, ie (in the airforce) "Flight, Quick March". The leading word gains the attention of the intended audience and then the command, or information, is given. I fly a lot around the Sunshine Coast where we have Caloundra, Caboolture and Redcliffe airfields sharing the same CTAF. On a fine weekend morning it is very hard to get a word in and listening to calls often leaves you wondering which airfield the last caller was heading to. ( YCDR and YCAB both have 12/30 strips to add to the confusion) It is also a requirement to end a transmission with "traffic xxx" but I notice many pilots don't and I get the feeling some schools don't require their students to do this. This problem is exacerbated by the tendency for modern radios with vox mikes to clip the first word. If the word "traffic" is clipped it does not matter as it has still gain attention and the next word "xxxx" is the important one. I know many pilots already use the "traffic xxxx" method but I wish everyone would as it is a real problem at times. (Or maybe I'm just a deaf old fart) What do others think? Cheers, Bill

I think I know Ron - ex airline pilot - no idea of real country flying:laugh:

Don't just agree - send a complaint to the Age and SMH. I have.

Hi Ron Congrats on buying a Savannah - I understand your excitement - it still gets me like that and I have built 2 and had a large input to two others. I hope soon to sell my VG and build an XL. Having had 4 built in my shed and also getting another couple of builders started, the best piece of advice I could give you is to spend some serious time sorting things out when your kit arrives. ICP have been known to leave a few critical bits out and you can spend many hours looking for a part that is just not there, so an early sort out will save time later. Also note that ther is no rhyme or reason to their numbering. First put your manual in another folder with tagged and titled interleaves separating each chapter. Then get a heap of fairly large plastic bags (bin liner size). The next step is to lay everything out and then go through the first chapter (chapter 2 - right wing assy) and locate and cross off every piece and put in the bag. If you are spending too much time looking for one piece write down the piece number and the chapter on a list so when you find it later you know where it goes. When you have finished a chapter tie the bag and label in with chapter and assy name and proceed to the next chapter. After a while you will get to know the remaining pieces and it will get a lot quicker. If you make sure you are careful here to cross of every piece you will know at the end what you are missing and can get from the agent. Some missing bits can take 6 - 8 weeks to get and can hold you up if you don't know they are missing till you need them. If you ever need advice I am happy to talk on phone, email or pm me here. I am in queensland so not much help with hands on, but I have been able to help many builders over the phone. My other advice is to build a bench of the right size before the kit arrives. PM me for details if you are interested. Mostly - have fun building -- I always do. Cheers Bill

Hi Skip ""As a safety precaution, make sure that you do mag grounding checks regularly"" This mag grounding check is (or should be) done when carrying out a mag drop check prior to take off at every flight. If you don't get a drop in one mag it could be one of two things - 1. that circuit not working, or 2. mag switch not grounding. In either case you would not fly until the cause is located. Happy flying Bill:wave:

Hi again Savannahs number over 100 sold in Australia in the last 5 or so years and I believe well over half are up and flying. The reason for less 'nits' etc posted could be the quality of the kit and the fact that they make no bones about the fact that they have copied the 701 but have included improvements and learnt for the said nits. Do I sound like a salesman - I just love the Savannah. Cheers Bill

Hi Pitfield and David I disagree with you David, re the 80 HP. I would always recomend the 100 hp 912-ULS for a number of reasons. The extra power will give a cruise of 90 knots at 16.5 lt/hr. Therefore it is more economical over a given distance. The 100 hp also comes standard with a slipper clutch in the gearbox which the 80 hp does not have. (this means in the event of a prop strike - and they can happen - you do not have to strip down the 100hp) The 100hp comes with carb heat but I believe the 80hp does not. To fit out an 80 with carb heat and slipper clutch will make it cost more than a 100. All that said, I believe you can run the 80 on ULP which some prefer over PULP that the 100 must use (or Avgas). All this to make your decision a bit harder - really I hope it all helps. Cheers Bill

Hi Pitfield I fly a Savannah VG and previously had a Savannah Clasic (ie. with slats). I have only been a passenger in a 701 once and am not about to rag it. I will try to give a comparrison from my viewpoint. The Savannah VG is faster (90Kn as opposed to 70 - 75) The Savannah has more head room (significantly) The Savannah has longer wings which assist with the landings - especially STOL. I think the rudder authority is better on the Savannah. I believe the 701 does not offer a VG wing so if one has VGs the are an unauthorised mod. (this may not worry you and is possibly not an issue - but would be a big chance to take) The Savannah Kit is very complete (everything but radio, prop, and paint) and all parts fully formed and drilled. This means that they will all go together the same. I have built 2 for myself and have had a hand in 2 others, all 4 of which I carried out the test flight on, and they all flew true from the start. (I take no credit for this - it is just the quality of the kit). On the other hand I have seen a few 701s which have been built to plans or "kit" built and which have been very badly done. That said I don't want to imply that all 701's are badly built as I know of some great examples - but if I was buying a plane built by someone else I would go for the Savannah every time. When reading this remember I may have a slight bias (unlikely) towards one type - I'll let you guess which. Cheers Bill

Ginger While you certainly make some good points I must disagree. "The statement that no medical is required provided you can be legally licenced to drive a car has got to be simple minded. The requirements of a pilot are much greater." Why are the requirements of a pilot so much greater?? Everyday we hurtle down the road at 100 kph, often only 2 - 3 metres from another vehicle doing 100kph in the opposite direction, quite possibly driven by someone who has minimal training and experience, or in keeping with this thread, any kind of medical or other conditions, and we think nothing of it. Then we get out of our car, if we have survived, and into our plane. Now most of us are in an enviornment where we have been very well trained and tested, where we can control our seperation from other planes, the ground and other hard things, and where we would not be if we thought we had a condition that was likely to cause us compromise. I believe I am a lot safer in my plane than I am in my car. (I would also question how many single vehicle fatal accidents and head on collisions occur because a driver has been medically compromised - I think it would be a lot more than known) If a medical was ever to be introduced to RAA I would hope it would have to be by the pilot's regular family GP who has a working history of the patient's health. To be required to go to an "aviation doctor" who can really only make many of the required calls based on the info given by the pilot, (who wants to retain his licence), is to me patently rediculous. They can tell me how I am now and how I was yesterday, but they don't have a clue how I will be tomorrow. The pilot who flies when he knows he has a medical condition is not the pilot who is going to tell a doctor seeing him for the first time that he has the problem, knowing that he won't be allowed to fly. Ginger, you are the responsible person who wants to know that you are safe to dive, drive, or fly, and so you choose to give the doctor all the relevant info a then listen to the results. The person who flies knowing he is crook is a very different person. It all comes back to personal responsibility. It cannot be mandated. (it may also include a little responsibility by the said pilot's mates, if they know he has a problem - but that's a dilema for another thread). Thanks for your interesting comments which get me thinking. Cheers Bill

Hi If the engine has not been run for some years and was not properly prepared for long term storage when decommissioned you may well find corrosion in the bearings. When left standing the remaining oil runs down to near the bottom of each curved surface. At the border of this oil moisture is attracted and can cause a spot of corrosion. I had this problem years ago on an old Robin 440 and when it was fired up again I could only get limited power from it. After much work and investigation the corrosion was found, new bearings fitted and full power was regained. My advice - check it out well - even to splitting the crank case and inspecting - may be cheaper in the long run. Of course this is all only if the engine hasn't been stored correctly and regularly turned over. Best of luck with it. Cheers, Bill

I fly Savannah - the 100th kit in Aust has recently been delivered. Don't know how many are flying but as they are a very quick and easy build probably a good majority are flying. Obviously they are such a great A/C to fly that the owners don't have time to join a forum like this. Pity - Savannah flyers have such a lot to offer. Cheers Bill

I have had the Savvy in the air for 15 months and am completing the 200 hourly this weekend. This equates to 160 hrs per year, my busiest so far but not by much. I am fortunate to have a strip on my property which enables lots of after work quick flights - just because I can. :big_grin::big_grin::big_grin::big_grin: Cheers Bill

Hi Milton Welcome to the land of Savannah owners. I have built two, a classic and a VG, and have helped to build two others. Really enjoy building them and even more so flying them. Hope you get as much enjoyment out of yours as I have. Cheers Bill

Hi Pete I have some insight into your problem. I trained on, in order, Thruster, Lightwing, and Drifter and then flew Tyro and Skydart - all tail draggers. A few years ago I purchased a Flightstar II, my first Nose wheel aircraft, in which I did some 300hrs, and a lot of dirt track and beach operations. Never had a problem. Since then I have built and operated a classic Savannah and currently own my second Savvy - the VG model. They are designed and built for off tarmac operations and I can assure you I would much rather go into a short STOL landing area in a Savannah than in any of the much slower taildraggers I have flown. I'm not saying the nosewheel aircraft lands shorter or better but if I don't have the numbers precisely right the taidragger will bite much harder than the nosewheel job. If you are going to Goodwin in June I should be there in the Savannah with the big yellow tick (19-4854) and would be happy to talk and take you for a ride. Cheers Bill

I'll be there too. I've just bought a block of land at the airpark for my retirement from the daily grind (still a couple of years away) so am looking forward to meeting the Gatton locals. I'll be in the blue and white Savannah with the big yellow tick. See you all there Bill:keen:

Wow! This thread certainly produced some differing ideas. I have done a lot of testing since I first asked the question and find that the most consistent result comes from slipping into the wind- ie. into-wind-wing down. I use sideslip more for steep approaches over obstacles into a mates short down hill strip and hold the slip almost to the ground - at which time I would not like my into-wind-wing to be high. That said I have gained a lot of insight out of th responses to date and will, as far as safety permits, try out most variations in various conditions to see if there is a right way. Some one in an earlier said all aircraft slip differently. I think so far I am finding the same aicraft will slip differently for each set of conditions. The one thing that should never slip is the enjoyment of flying. Bill.

I'm sure there is a right and wrong answer to this. Scenerio Dead stick and approaching your selected field with a 15K wind from 45 degrees to your right front and you are too high and going to overshoot. So you need to sideslip to get down quickly without building too much speed. The question is do you point your nose to the right, into the wind, and slip down your left wing (which will leave you with your right into wind wing up as you straighten up for the flare and have you drift to the left) or do you point your nose to the left, away from the wind and slip down the right wing and hope you don't get blown too far off course. The reason for the question is I have tried both with power coming into my short strip and I'm still not sure which I would use if the above scenerio occurred.i_dunnoi_dunno:help: Slipsliding away Bill

As ar as I can work out VGs are not supposed to change the stall speed. (this can be demonstrated by flying a Savannah without them as a mate of mine did for some time). What they do is clean up the stall characteristics. Without them the stall can be vicious with severe wing drop. With the VGs she becomes the pussycat we all love. Bill

Nice pics dave I know my speeds are right but I'm not so sure about the taco. At 5100rpm indicated Ionly burn about 15 lt/hr which I think should be higher. Maybe my 5100 is really less. Don't care though as I fly a great machine.:big_grin::big_grin::big_grin: (can't seem to get the grin off)

Don't know if this is the right place to ask - or the right question to ask. Probably a stupid question. What's all the "Pilot Officer ... Wing Comander" stuff about?????