Jethro Belle

Yes I did not think of the twin strut arrangement, but that was not on the C182 or pre1961 C210.

Good morning Nev, I have been pondering and researching what actually happens in various engine out scenarios, and conclude your statement that at first seemed correct to me is in fact incorrect. I don't want to cause any flame wars like appear on other forums. Please correct my humble input if it is wrong. The following diagram indicates why a freewheeling (zero or very little resisting torque on the prop) would not reach sonic tip velocity. Note: In the drag creating condition shown at the bottom the propeller foil is generating lift inefficiently 'inverted', and would stall early. source:Drag from a windmilling vs stationary prop - Page 3 - FLYER Forums post The bottom diagram shows the negative lift (drag, hereafter denoted 'lift') condition of an auto-rotating propeller I referred to in my post #99. A supersonic tip velocity would be the top diagram and that would require power input. Thus a freewheeling propeller will actually auto-rotate slower than with power applied in excess to that required to overcome all mechanical friction (an idling engine may not provide excess power for a given airspeed, and posts indicating an idling engine on approach may actually contribute drag confirm this). As suggested in # 99 a freewheeling propeller will auto-rotate itself up to the optimal 'lift' speed (worst drag) and stay at that speed. To auto-rotate with 'lift' generating consequences requires the blade set at a small beta as the RecreationalFlying diagram shows. Feathered propellers or coarse pitch like boat propellers will not generate significant 'lift'. If what I state above is correct it is the lack of drag that a turbine creates (based on posts I read and not what I thought which inline with what Nev stated) that allows the propeller to spin up to its "barn door" drag rotational speed. It is the drag that is directly consuming most energy, not mechanical friction in the propulsion system. This friction only consumes the component of 'lift' at right angles to the the aerodynamic drag it generates, and if it is excessive it will actually reduce the propeller drag down towards locked propeller drag magnitude as the rotational speed is reduced. I think it is the belief that a freewheeling propeller spins up to ridiculously high speeds that muddies understanding. Also a Windmilling propeller is not the same as a freewheeling propeller. I found the Canadians to be well informed and less argumentative in their forum (than others, not this forum) Windmilling or non-feathered propellers in flight. - AVCANADA. The papers I have read tend to confuse the basic idea with complexity, but do not contradict it. I had read about turbo-prop pilots 'zeroing' their props to generate high drag. At zero beta the vector diagrams above don't hold (actually it would be the bottom one with the foil cord aligned with rotational direction and a high AoA). My understanding is that the turbines are still rotating the propellers. A zeroed prop would be fully stalled creating its stopped area drag, however the influence (the pressure field around a foil extends many cord lengths) is extended to the complete propeller disk area by rotating it at sufficiently high velocity. Since a auto-rotating foil operating inverted would have a coefficient of 'lift' little greater than one, the drag would be similar to that of an auto-rotating freewheeling propeller.

The original pre 1961 model was effectively a retractable undercarriage variant of the Cessna 182B. The wing was completely redesigned in 1961, so it wasn't simply a strengthened 182 wing with the strut removed. My understanding is that struts provide little stiffening against twist.

Yes indeed. Of those in your linked video the D-Motors are the standout interest (IMHO and on several other forums). Based on American prices they cost a 60% premium over the roughly comparable 4 and 6 cylinder Jabiru motors. For that you get 92Vs80 and 130Vs120 horses with the more powerful D-Motor producing power at 10% lower revs and a few kg less weight (including radiator)!! The D-Motors only come with electronic controlled fuel injection and ignition, but you can get dual ECUs. As Stol1 questions D-Motor promotes that Germans are developing helicopters using it, and flygfabriken in Sweden are impressed (they considered the Jab motor). I also note somewhat ironically the the D-Motor Australian agent is fitting it to a Jabiru!!! With Jabiru addressing its reliability issues and the D-Motor coming online, Rotax petrol/avgas supremacy is being challenged (IMHO and I put Rotax at least the equal of Lycomtinental quality/reliability from an engineering perspective).

Hi Yenn, Would you elaborate on what makes you happy about the Jab 2200? How many hours do you have on yours? What generation is is? Any hint on how you have avoided some of the reported problems? Pro Jabiru postings are about, but not elaborated except the capital/parts cost.

Yes I am sure you have known what I posted all along SSCBD. I wanted to correct the record to avoid perpetuating an error for others reading the thread. It will be quite a while before I get any aeroplane. Getting an inexpensive local plane to build some hours and fun is the way to go for me (hiring until then). For regular Bass Straight Crossing I may wait until I can afford flying a twin.

Based on my research I must moderate/correct my earlier statement. The above applied to early post WW2 twins and pilots/pilot training at that time. After reading up, my conclusion is that: current well designed twins with competent well trained pilots will be safer on equivalent risk missions, and much safer for night-IFR, mountain and water crossings. Their high risk statistics are heavily biased by the higher risk missions they attempt, that average statistics fail to factor (the same applies to the C182 and more high performance aircraft). Since Richard Collins is widely recognized as the origin of the belief that I posted, I include links to his 'perception corrections': 50 years ago in Air Facts and What’s wrong with piston twin pilots? This thread Can we put to bed the single vs twin argument now? provides some risk statistics. It seems my original post was an old pilots' tale. Twins are back on my list of Bass Straight Crossing contenders, if I can afford one. My apologies to twin owners for their good judgement. footnote: From my reading the main safety risk counting against all higher performance aircraft, excluding tackling higher risk missions, is the higher kinetic energy that you possess when you crash (Fights home on one engine do not appear in standard statistics), making the outcomes more severe. I hope I've got it right this time

Did you ever go ahead with the Simonini Victor 2 Motor ? Their website now gives the standard 764cc engine output at 102 and the 800cc 110hp. That is more than the Jab2200 and into Rotax914 teritory! They also claim - No carbon residues- consumption lower than 4 stroke engines- 450hrs with no maintenance! Fuel consumption looks very good. How are they doing it with Bing carburetors? Simonini has been officially active in the USA since 2005, so they must be doing something right. It appears they have had some engine failures, but I haven't found any statistics. Has anyone? GGenghis the Engineer throws doubt on the claimed horsepower figures. Anyone know if the he is right? Is anyone running the bigger Simonini two strokes? I believe the smaller engines are commonly used on paragliders and the Victor 2 on the X-Air ultralight.

I did not realize how close until I read this: "As a Visual Flight Rules (VFR) pilot, I wasn't meant to fly through cloud." ... "A minute later the Sun broke free of the cloud. The ground was only a few hundred feet below. At the speed I was descending, that would have been roughly 10 more seconds." Source:Seaplane pilot Michael Smith: the moment an Aussie driving habit nearly killed me I have his contact details, but he is VFR and bought his plane, so I may not bother him. He gives keynote speeches about his flight and has written a book about it in addition to the video, so he must be pretty busy doing that while running his theatres!

I couldn't find his number anywhere. Maybe he will post himself as he has a lot of insight to offer us. Does anyone know him? His trip blog has gone down so it is hard to assess how risky the trip was. Like around the worlds yachts people who are greeted as heros, if they are the lucky ones who survive. With his 21 hours full fuel load on board it must have been marginal flying. He is clearly a very competent pilot and did enough risk mitigation and flight logistics support, but is sounds like he was lucky from his own comments. Michael Smith was approaching the broken western coast of Canada when he figured his long and solitary adventure — and probably his life - was ending. Thick fog lay beneath his little plane, Southern Sun, and heavy cloud sat above. The two systems were closing fast. Suddenly, he lost visibility. He didn't know which way was up or which was down. His plane spun out of control and reached such velocity his speedo rocketed into the red, way over its maximum reading of 120 knots (222km an hour). His perspex windscreen began caving in. "I thought it was all over," Smith remembers. .... .... "I wouldn't do it again," Smith says. source: Flying solo around the world in sea plane lands Melbourne pilot Adventurer of the Year Sounds similar to a flight across Bass Straight into bad weather! It would be very interesting to find out his assessment of the Sea-ray ditch worthiness and advantages it provided, apart from landing on calm water. It certainly provides another data point in what can physically be done (When 100 more have done it we will know the actual statistical probability). I suspect he was so busy just getting everything together logistically he didn't have much time for risk assessments other than what good pilots all know. Now he has experienced all the risks I suspect he would not advise others to copy the flight. It reminds me about Revisiting the 1988 ultralight flight from England to Australia. This CFM Shadow ultralight flight distorted my understanding of what to expect from aircraft, and this thread has helped me correct misconceptions. To me these 'adventures' are increasingly cases off "Why do it - All been done before (including deaths trying)- lucky to walk away from". If I have to eat my words, I will be happier than anyone because the Searey is a plane I considered. I did look at a nice Osprey years ago in Bairnsdale and when I mentioned Bass Straight the seller was not keen. When I mentioned flights to Tasmanian highland trout lakes he suggested performance limited getting off lakes at altitude. I am not comparing these modern amphibians to older home-builts, just that there are limitations with them. Off course others are addicted to adrenaline and view death more lightly than I do, which is their right. Many doctors climb and some die proving themselves on Everest!

I could do a mobile home conversion on it While the Lycoming and Continental motors are so simple (relatively unstressed, low reving ...) they can hardly fail, general agreement posted seems to be that a turbo-prop is the gold standard single engine aircraft for a Bass Straight crossing, suggesting most still have engine failure in the back of their minds. I have looked at APUs used in homebuilts, but don't think they are a safety match for a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A

Thanks Mike, I have spend an odd hour looking at the BD5 with a combination of admiration and fear. It amazed me the same designer produced pretty standard boxy looking high wing aircraft! I guess I passed them by as they appeared to me home built versions of commercial aircraft and to me home-building is about doing something you can't get. They are well priced (I checked) and have better performance that I would expect from the fuselage. Is that because it has a 160 hp motor hanging off the front? You have convinced me to add one to my consideration given their safety record. Given many have been built for so long safety statistics are meaningful. Although unique special builds excite me, the first few 'test pilot' flights have extreme crash statics and you are the test dummy for every failure there-after. Many aircraft of type shares that risk around. source: The famous BD-4 Kit Plane | Bedecorp The fuselage looks solid around the pilot (with a big pipe to hit your head on ). I will check it in detail, if I decide to go that way and one is available.

The FAA agree about the risk and need for pilots determining it themselves https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2016/media/SE_Topic_16-01.pdf Also where to aim on the landing space... then more flaps or slipping to drop in earlier. No doubt you all know this.

I can see why you "hoped" this was the case, based on aircraft ditching videos I have seen. It supposes the aircraft hits waves level and with both wheels together so no cartwheeling initiates. It also supposes it executes just a single nice flip (a neck wrenching rotation) onto its back without the tail feathers submerging while still moving. Disoriented, you would have to exit hanging upside-down as you indicate. Just considering ditching I would want ultralight speeds to really get out without injury. Perhaps manufactures need to define Vsnf for water crossings I recall one story coming out of Queensland in ANO95.10 days of a ditched Scout fully submerging, as it would, being dried out and back in the air within half an hour !!! This an example of others taking risks that allow me to evaluate aircraft safety/limitations, and I was horrified back then when I heard. In defense 95.10 were flown expecting an engine out immediately so having one to start with was just a bonus. LOL. Also I have been musing over turboplanner's observation: With the helmet and racing leathers that I wore in my scout I could have flown into a tree and avoiding any large branch probably walked away unharmed. I never attempted such foolery, didn't recommend it, don't recommend it (Youth don't process risk the same. See my earlier posts), however the point is crashing into tiger country in those aircraft was not the death sentence it is in GA. Also the strips (if you could call them that) that we could use were often surrounded by trees that could not always be totally avoided, but were as much as possible. With the 500ft height restriction, engine out over Tiger Country meant you couldn't glide clear and would trash your plane and get ripped to shreds, as if attacked by a tiger. Tiger country was a risk assessment level marked on terrain surrounding strips. I suspect flying over tiger country, or at least the terminology, has carried across into the new high performance RA flying. Anyone else know the origins? Was it your Eurofox 3k you used? That was the sort of aircraft I thought could fly Bass Straight as I wanted (a little slower than the Sonerai), but feedback here suggests good reasons it is otherwise. In such aircraft it seems to be the once off challenge mission requiring special risk mitigation, rather than a “don’t think about it too much more than normal” flight. Is that your take? How risky did it you end up thinking it was? When I get a round tuit I may investigate if 'middle range' aircraft (above ultralights but still with a highish ditching risk) are the worst. Too low a capability to always avoid ditching, too fast to survive it.

An Interesting observation Bruce. Don't windmilling propellers go 'flat out' without any retarding torque so they approach solid disk level drag (operating like an inefficient auto-gyro rotor because the camber is the wrong way). You are not replicating this freewheeling condition as I read it. If you are controlling speed from power on to power off (always power in, not resisting torque) the propeller (viewed as a lifting foil) will rotate through the air transitioning from thrust to zero lift (no-thrust) to negative lift (drag). The low speed negative lift (drag) will be less than for the equivalent thrust generated at those low revs with the aircraft stationary. If this is the case you would not see anything near disc equivalent drag levels, just a slightly worse than a stationary propeller drag. Because the design prop-wash velocity is a multiple of forward velocity, the zero lift transition will occurs at quite low revs. Also, a foil with a concave lift surface (if your propeller has both surfaces cambered) will fully separate from near the leading edge creating the same drag it would stopped. Purely theoretical speculation. I think you are demostrating that all but a freewheeling propeller generates drag similar to a locked unfeathered prop on aircraft.

So aircraft configuration for the best ditching survivability is the complete opposite of rough terrain forced landing . Is that right? Amphibians are high wing. Supports putting up with airlines and hiring the appropriate plane at destination! Any links or references so I can read up on it?

Re-reading your post, I probably kneejerk over-responded. I agree some RAA engines are questionable. I recall one study of EAA engines that concluded they were overall less reliable than Continental and Lycoming, but the interesting number was the chance of internal engine failure was significantly less on automotive derivatives!!!! It is in line with opinions I have heard about the agricultural build (loose tolerances) that the GA engines had back then, making ultralight engines seem modern. I can't comment on the current engines. It may have simply been lower TBOs. If I re-find it, I will upload the link. I am not confident in VW engine derivatives myself, for no reason other than it was not reliable in my Kombi It is for that reason the Sonerai example I posted is a top example fitted with a Rotax engine and easily capable of crossing Bass Straight (oxygen fitted and everything). There are quality build VWs so owners please don't flame me. If I go that way for a local plane, I will check any VW build reliability statistics I can find, and the engine itself before proceeding. I suspect the risk may not low enough for me. Thanks for your posts which cover that data point I requested :-).

Point taken on-board regarding the engine and aircraft reliability, and thanks for the post. My reply is so that know-one starts flame wars taking it that you are proposing to do it. It represents zero (other ultralights are negative) on "suitability for mission" for what I have in mind. It gets zero only because it is physically possible on a good day with all going right. It has all been done anyway (and so has my reply). The problem is the logistics to get all the required support together to cover higher risk of ending in the drink. I agree that crashing into Bass Straight in a correctly prepared Thruster would be safer than in a C182 (IMHO). The point is it is Bass Straight that will kill, not the crash. Any injuries incurred would make your drowning even more awful. If pilots take the risk knowing other have to come and fish them out there is negative press like the recent event generated. Such actions are selfish at best on behalf of those who undertake them. It is like the single around the world yachtsmen/girls who cost us tax payers $100 000s to fish out of the oceans when their number comes up. Bushwalkers are regularly having to be saved by helicopter from the SW Wilderness for the same reason (totally unable and/or unprepared, but do it because they know they will be airlifted out: until it doesn't happen). If such actions didn't spoil it for everyone else, I doubt few would care. My risk assessments are so I am not the one applying Darwinian theory to empty the shallow end. I have flown in Thrusters and think they are safe for what they were designed. It is the mission (and pilots), not the aircraft that makes it unsafe.

Yes for this particular mission, but I dream of flying across land more than water and water is conrete hit at speed so they may keep you alive and able to exit the cockpit:thumb up: It clarified the reason for their game changingly good crash statistic. Jaba-who takes credit for 'clearing the waters' not me. Thanks Jaba Maybe the excellent in-house safety is because Cirrus use the chutes correctly? I assume that incorrect parachute deployment at the wrong time is a factor in crash outcomes. Are Cirrus pilots pulling their chutes when they should be emergency landing their planes? Anyone know a good ballistics chute assessment. I will read through the Crash north of Dubbo thread.

Wow, This is an active group who never sleeps, Thanks to for very good recent posts firming up my perceptions. The C172 comes up with lower crash statistics and if flown within its limits may be safer due to lower performance meaning lower impact kinetic energy equating to greater survivabilty. My reading is that the higher performance (and usual avionics) of the C182 will give a performance edge over RA and C150 level aircraft to deal with the Bass Straight flight mission, not that it is the lowest specification plane that can safely cross. The C182 offers top fifth percentile safety capability (that no-one has challenged this leads me to think there is general agreement) for the Bass Straight flight mission as Turboplanner succinctly puts it. The worse crash statistics for the C182 is due to higher average cruise velocities (flight hours need factoring for touring aircraft) and the more hazardous missions pilots attempt with them (My opinion about the situation and why I sought your input and how to meaningfully factor risk data). I was always thinking the turbocharged Rotax was an engine contender for a safe crossing (I think Jabiru are getting there too and would snap up a J400 at the price second hand ones are available, but ). I had not factored in the scary wing icing issue as low as 5000 ft I originate from mid-WA where higher = more comfortable. I need to look up some Canadian websites as they must routinely fly in icing conditions. IMHO aircraft not in the upper 5th percentile can safety fly Bass Straight, provided correct risk mitigation (as covered in several flights posted) are followed. These measures however mean the flights become an increasingly complicated logisitics exercise. 'Safe' crossing by a Thruster requires shadowing by a rescue helicopter capable of crossing in its own right, so it isn't an option for anything other than a one off challenge (IMHO) and not something I would ever do. IMHO Identifying a top 5th percentile capable aircraft for a given mission is a practicable way to quantify the amount or risk mitigation you will have to apply with any less capable aircraft (that is physically able) to bring the risk down to that level. Arguing about safe planes without defining a mission is meaningless, as the average crash rates show. The Sonerai World Record Plane - Robin Austin can do it, but the Sonerai option for me has been relegated to being a cost effective local flier (I like the Sonerai configuration, performance for the $ and strength, not for pushing the aerobatic limits and pylon racing (70% sure) which have created it). I was not planning bush strip flying, but bush landing ability is a clear safety advantage (as many have said), and I think some rollover protection (as several have said) and crashworthiness enhancementsto the Sonerai would be needed to achieve my risk level. Low wing aircraft haven't been given any 'airspace' in safety discussions that focus on crash worthiness (A position supported by first figure), but those who love them claim better primary safety in the form of better handling and ability to see other aircraft in turns (you fly away from aircraft below). The second figure shows how important seeing through your high wing is (more sun on the head ). In risk mitigation primary safety (avoiding the hazard) is the first step if reasonably practicable. Source: EAA forums ] source: ASTB Review of Midair Collisions Yes the specifics and options you provided me have saved me hours and boosted my confidence about the way forward. In the first instance hiring GA is the best option for me due to Launceston controlled airspace, and being able to hire aircraft anywhere. Not my dream, I love browsing "aircraft for sale", but high level safety is my prerequisite, so I have to walk the walk. The other posts and conversations about the J430, diesel aero-engine in RA etc are fascinating studies for me in their own right. I have learn't the real reasons for their not being release and problems only insiders are privy too. You can't get that from web surfing I am taking a break to get myself some health, like Bruce has advised.

Hi Bruce Any spare houses, hangers and planes in Gawler for me to come and enjoy the safe flying and warmth? :cheezy grin:Is your Jab one of those in-house Cirrus A models? Just kidding. You must have your risk mitigation well sorted up there. Can you share how you manage such an enviable safety record? That ultimately is what I am want to achieve. Source: Why Cirrus - Operating Safely Sorry I included (Injury and Dying) in my welcome post heading. I was trying to qualify what type of safety! My introduction to flying (Early ultralights) was a baptism of injuries and death and a lot of questionable flying, plus my understanding is that aircraft like the Sonerai sit towards the top end of accident statistics so it is high on my priorities. Add to that my friend ditched in his VH registered amphibian off Flinders Island, broke his back and nearly lost his wife, so Bass Straight concerns me. The boat across the weekend before last felt like we were hitting submerged containers the weather was so bad. I have been looking at crash statistics and it convinces me the GA flight risks crossing Bass Straight are greater than the domestic airlines:doh:. If you mean't safe aircraft piloted correctly over safe terrain are much safer than riding a motorbike the above graphic confirms it. You are spot on about keeping fit and all the other risks. We can get preoccupied and lose sight of the game. PS: The crash statistics for Cirrus that I have seen rate them as typical for GA. Cirrus seem to imply that In-house is properly maintained and operated which is a faceslap for Cirrus owners IMHO.

Thank you to all for your helpful guidance:cheers:. I will respond to others later as I am busy in Canberra and did not expect such a response to my Just Landed post. It is great members take risk mitigation this seriously. Being an Engineering I know you can not totally "eliminate" risk. I like the expression 'reasonably practicable' that will be familiar to anone expossed to OH&S Risk assessments (No I do not like Safety Officers who do not really understand risks, but go about making everyones life more difficult, and yes: what is 'reasonably practicable' is a cause of argument.). My budget is modest, so I will only be able to eliminate risk to a given level, and if that risk will override the enjoyment of flying: I will look at hiring aircraft, buy an aircraft share, or fly my simulator. Eliminating injury and death is a Goal (priority), not an expectation. The risk I can tolerate (still trying to get a handle on how to quantify it) will constitute a prerequisite in aircraft selection and flight mission assement. I am currently constructing my framework for processing the vast amount of disparate risk information that needs interpretive aggregation to make any sense of it (IMHO). What I have researched so far (even research papers) do not provide correct impressions (IMHO). 100 000 hr NTSB crash statistics for the humble old (by old I meant old that I could afford, not unairworthy) C150 indicate it is safer than the C182 that I will use as a baseline risk aircraft for a 'safe' Bass Straight crossing. I am in no rush to purchase/build any aeroplane, as rushing is a slippery slope to compromising safety. My search so far revealed Diamond aircraft (evolved from LSA) have very impressive crash statistic relative to the C182 and I believe several RA piloted and maintained to GA standards could also. The risk they represent for a Bass Straight crossing mission is something different, which is what I understand Turboplanner is telling me. I appreciate input from all because, although I may be hyper-adverse to a dip in the briney, all data points on a risk map are useful. My interest in mitigating aviation risk is broader than my own personal aeroplane and flying. I would not like anyone to not post because they think their 'risky' aircraft or flight may not be viewed as safe enough. What I am identifying from the postings are what people include in their aircraft and mission risk assessments and all postings have helped me get a feel for current practice. Exactly. I will let members judge if I am the second . I very happily learn from others' mistakes. They have taken risks and done things wrong so I don't have to . I am privileged they share. I also understand the posts slamming stupid risk taking because everyone is subject to the additional regulations, costs, insurance difficulties and seeing another preson we care about die or worse. Differences is what we think is a stupid risk level and naivity about the risk level involved generates the heat, which is why I am seeking ways to systematically quantify it

I really must be careful with my post construction. I was in no way meaning to imply twin engine failure control difficulty was on the P68 or the Jab twin. I read the J432 is benign also. I raised it as something to factor into a risk assesment for people who think a twin solves the safety issue (like I used to, but probably no-one else on this site). The Cessna Skymaster configuration solves thrust assymetry, but puts all weight on the fuselage and places the aft prop in 'dirty' air which has noise, fatigue and efficiency... issues.

Sorry if it read like that Nev. I thought my post suggested doing nothing wasn't as attractive as real flying ! Must be more careful with posts, and including humour in serious posts:sorry: I am genuinely trying to establish some objective risk measures and data. Yes TP, from the replies it seems GA and a GA aircraft is better for me. I was thinking some of the new LSA were higher performance and possibly safer than and an old Cessna 150. A lot of places I want to go include controlled airspace and Launceston is surrounded by controlled airspace. Thanks to all, I will still pursue my risk assessing as it applies equally to GA. This has been a very useful exercise for me. I am as interested in aircraft as I am in flying so I will probably keep looking up false leads too

I was thinking there were Long-Ez aircraft RAA registered (a check only revealed several VariEze) and the new crop of carbon fibre aircraft have ranges qualifying them as touring aircraft. I didn't assess the other equipment like avionics, but expected their relentless miniturisation may have made it possible for small aircraft to be fully kitted. Thankyou for adding these to my list to incude in a rigorous assessment . I guess my candidate aircraft have been those previously limited to GA registration. I view the Sonerai as more of a local hard strip aerobat, but Rob Austin's ex-soneri seems capable of touring (and did it)! No, I have no intention of performing intentional aerobatics, just like strong aircraft with Gs up my sleeve. I am aware aircraft I view as closer ANO-95.10 ultralights have made it across Bass Straight, though it is not something I would consider or recommend unless accompanied by a rescue helicopter. I concluded (falsely it seems) a Dyn'Aéro MCR01, or similar (Pipistrel, TL 2000 Sting ...), would easily do it. Clearly the risk assessment task I have set myself needs much more hard information and be based upon a specific aircraft with all installed equipment specified. Physically being easily able to fly the distance at altitude is not the limiting risk anymore. WOW. Motorcycle rider deaths were nearly 30 times more than drivers of other vehicles Do you have any refernces/links supporting the Harley risk assesment? Are the deaths from collision or noise LOL. That give >600 times greater risk of dying in the average RA flight than picking up milk and bread:drive:. What risk does that make crossing Bass Straight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I worry about someone in an SUV taking me out!!!!! Helicopters are only 85 times more dangerous than driving and I fear them too! . I will reconsider based on GA only, or maybe stay on my flight sim where heart attack or dying of old age are the main risks