Jump to content

Downunder

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,170

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Downunder

    CASA in Crisis

    in Governing Bodies

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Yenn said:

    All the self righteous rage about the Qatar airport episode. Nobody has come out and saud what the Qatari authorities should have done

    Yes, what about the duty of care the airline has to the baby and the responsibility the mother has to the child.... 

    Airframe insurance

    in AUS/NZ General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Downunder

    5 hours ago, Roscoe said:

    and added a bit more 3rd party to the RAA coverage as well, but will really give it serious thought next renewa

    Does it need to be topped up?

    Does the RAA 3rd party really fall short of what's required?

     

    From the RAA site....

     

    The cover has an indemnity limit of up to $10,000,000 for liability arising from third party property damage or bodily injury including a sub-limit of up to $250,000 for liability arising from injuries to passengers (including student pilots). Depending on individual circumstances, you may require more than the limits described above, so you may need to maintain additional individual insurance.

    CASA in Crisis

    in Governing Bodies

    Posted

    10 hours ago, jackc said:

    For what it’s worth, the SAFETY  buck stops with me......doing a preflight with a CASA guy and his book of rules looking  over my shoulder  will do nothing, because he probably does not have clue on the aircraft I am preflighting.

    When I am flying, am I gonna consult the rule book before I do something at 4000ft?  No, I am flying the plane the best way I know I have been taught.  I will fly as safe as I can, and nothing CASA ever does can save me from a disaster if I get it wrong.

    Like everything in this life, I just do my best......

    CASA will never save my sorry arse......

    A phrase l like to use which sums it up, "CASA won't be at your funeral".

    • Like 1
    • Agree 1

    Airframe insurance

    in AUS/NZ General Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

    Here's my rationale for not paying for hull insurance:

    Firstly, the plane is really just a toy and life would go on without it.

    Secondly, the cost of insurance is too much. In 20 accident-free years I would easily have paid for a replacement plane if I had only banked the premiums.

    Thirdly, a handy-person can fix a lot of stuff for only the price of the inputs and this is cheap compared to the commercial quotes that insurance uses.

    As a generalization, it is bad economics to pay insurance for a loss you can afford. If you have ordinary luck, you will only recoup a third of your premiums with claims.

    I hasten to say that I am referring to hull insurance, not third party injuries.

    100% agree. I'm up to a new engine from the premiums I've saved.

     

    15 minutes ago, Kenlsa said:

    We have had 3 tin planes come to grief in recent times. one touched a wing due to a stationary undercarriage collapse and I mean hardly a touch, $26k and six months to fix. You couldn’t even see the damage.

    A local aircraft had some insurance repairs. Lots of rumours about the repair facility making more damage to milk the payout.

    Such as cutting engine cables with snips to remove the engine, therefore requiring new cables and labour to fix.

    • Like 2
    • Informative 1

    Airframe insurance

    in AUS/NZ General Discussion

    Posted

    6 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

    In my , limited to one aircraft over about 11-12 years, the hull insurance (bit like automotive comprehensive) reduces annually with "no claims" and is not related directly to hours flown. Make a claim, after 11-12 years without, be ready to need heart start stimulation for how much your premium jumps up.

    Local bloke's premium jumped 50% the following year, after a claim...

    Rotax engines banned from use in military drones

    in US/Canada General Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, cscotthendry said:

    If you truly believe that is how UAVs are used, you need to do some reading.

     

    ”drones” are piloted by professional fighter pilots and targets are studied for months before a strike. Even then, a strike is only authorized at the highest level. After a strike, the pilot and/or weapons officer are counselled and debriefed for the psychological impacts of carrying out an assassination.

    Your characterization of computer geeks running rampant and frivolously firing off Hellfire missles at people who've annoyed them is as ignorant as it is offensive.

    Do you really think the Libyan's, Turk's, Azeri's and various terrorist organisations roll like that?

    These are tactical drones, loitering over the combat zone taking out targets of opportunity. 

    The Azeri's are also using Israeli suicide drones. One can be seen early in the video. 

     

    We've past the point of "strategic" strikes and assasinations by drones by cashed up western democracies. 

    This is new warfare. The wholesale deployment of combat drones 24/7 over the tactical battlefield.

    Alot of governments should be shitting their collective pants about how easy and cheap it is to get hold of these drones and the success they acheive.

    The last few weeks have shown total battlefield domination by the Azeri's flying these Israeli and Turkish drones.

     

     

     

    Rotax engines banned from use in military drones

    in US/Canada General Discussion

    Posted

    6 hours ago, M61A1 said:

    I am fairly sure that I read somewhere a few years ago that Rotax 9 series engines were being used in some American UAVs. The commentary was that some people were very annoyed because in the UAVs they were given a very short service life and were required to be destroyed on removal so that no civvies could use the parts.

    The US made Predator drone uses the Rotax 914. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator

     

    Fig.4.jpg

    Summer Outback Flying

    in AUS/NZ General Discussion

    Posted

    I'm fairly experienced in WA outback flying in a light aircraft.

    I was in Newman in beginning of July which was pleasant flying.

    For me, the turbulence is the biggest problem to summer flying.

    Flying high gets you into cooler air but at some point during late morning the thermals eventually get you.

    As the morning starts to heat up, the thermals reach higher and higher. So try and stay above them.

     

    The biggest tip is to be prepared and ready to go at the VERY crack of dawn.

    As soon as it's light enough, start that take off roll and go, even warm up in the dark.

    Waste a half or full hour of light, then get punished later in the heat and turbulence. 

    You may get 5, even 6 hours of relatively ok flying.... in the morning.

     

    • Like 2
    • Informative 2

    Effect of fuel burn on a trimmed aircraft

    in Student Pilot & Further Learning

    Posted · Edited by Downunder

    27 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

    Suppose you are trimmed and flying along. Eventually, your aircraft will become lighter. Does the aircraft maintain the speed it is trimmed for and gain height? 

    My opinion.....

    In theory yes. In practical life, no.

    There are many other changing factors like wind and barometric pressure, temperature. All changing, all the time.  

    The most obvious need to retrim is from fuel usage. 

    Even tanks nominally over the cofg tend to need a retrim......

    My fuel use tends to drop the nose after a while.

    As my trim adjustment is quite course, I trim for a slight climb at a high throttle setting,  then throttle back for level flight. Then as fuel burns and the nose dips, I just add a bit of throttle....works well, without constantly playing with the trim.

     

    Edit. I'm talking very light/ultralight aircraft....

     

    Prop Selection

    in Engines and Props

    Posted

    4 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

    So is my ATEC Zephyr in the "more slippery, faster cruising aircraft" category or is it more akin to the Foxbat ????

    Your aircraft is the fast slippery one, far more able to use the benefits of an inflight adjustable prop.

    The Foxbat hits an aerodynamic brick wall at about 90 kts or so.

    The effort to get much more speed is beyond an adjustable prop and the power supplied.

    I think you would need a very specific reason to fit one to a Foxbat/stol aircraft with the limited overall benefits given.

    But bad stuff happens to good pilots too: Jonas bends Capella.

    in Aircraft Incidents and Accidents

    Posted

    For these young kitfox flyers and youtube "stars", it seems a right of passage to smash up a few aircraft.

    It gives them "street cred" and clicks on their videos boosting their popularity and bank accounts.

    Turning rather safe flying into an "extreme sport" .

    There is a theme happening here and It won't be untill a couple are killed that they back off pushing the limits.

    Then again, if your livelihood relys on getting those views, then the limits need to be constantly pushed.

     

     

    Airmaster prop and light speed

    in AUS/NZ General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Downunder

    1 hour ago, walrus said:

    I don’t think Airmaster has any props for Lycoming or Continentals. They design for rotax engines and one or two others. 

    https://www.propellor.com/o-235

     

    A local RV owner had nothing but problems with his Lightspeed's. They would last a couple of years then fail.

    He has now gone to Surefly and is extremely happy. Especially with the purchase price.

    And zero maintenance after fitment.

    https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/surefly_08-17074.php

×
×
  • Create New...