Jump to content

Natfly 2012


metalman
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm heading for Natfly this year, I went to the first one but missed last year, interested to hear of who else is going .

 

I'm not sure what I'll be in ,I was hoping to have mine going but I think I'll be pushing it a bit, I have a couple of choices, the favorite is a Eurofox ,but I think the owner is going in that , there's also a Savannah down here, and there's a couple of Decathalons around the place as well,

 

cheers Mat

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Darren Masters

What dates are these guys and the second question is anyone want to take me? Obviously I would be arriving in Sydney :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over Easter, 5, 6, 7, 8th April. Friday & Saturday are the big days. Dinner on Sat night good too. Don't forget to come & say hi at the ATEC stand, site 22.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Just thought I'd bump Mat's thread again. Are there not many TAA members going? Maybe we could find somewhere to meet up &/or arrange social activities etc. I'll be there from Wed - Sun hopefully, with the usual constraints.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest avi8tr

I'll leave Friday arvo and arrive there on Sat morning hopefully. Haven't confirmed the stopover as yet as I don't know what it's STOL capabilities are.

 

I'm taking up something that is almost brand new, built for the LSA market, is GA registered and the type is very well known. Those are my clues!

 

MM - haven't seen the Fox boys since last year - hope I catch them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope it is not a C162 GroundStriker! That thing got laughed off the field last year. People were highly critical and dealer left early. (Not sure if they are related, but it was notable.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peninsula Aero Club at Tyabb have 2 C162's, one reg'd RAAus, one GA. See the link on my signature for photos of these aircraft.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haven't heard the" ground striker" name before this, always hard to lose a name like that once it gets started! Just thinking of the "traumahawk" and the "forktailed doctor killer", mud sticks, still Cessna hasn't had to many dogs over the years ,this one's just off to a bad start.

 

Thinking about it the 177 got a bad wrap but it's not a bad aircraft at all!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Michael Coates

There is lots of negative press including us flying schools who have sold them off just to get rid of them. Sorry to be negative but they don't have the payload to carry much legally and being made in china didn't help them with more than 1000 cancelled orders in the us when they let people know the country of manufacture. Now I have heard from a very prominent person that Cessna will probably drop all piston singles by the end of next year saying there just isn't the profits in them anymore compared to VLJ aircraft. I have a feeling he is correct looking at the recent job changes and losses at Cessna

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest avi8tr

I flew it today for a check-flight and the instructor frantically pushed forward on the controls thinking that I was flaring it after landing. Pretty sure I was nowhere near it, but yes, that appears to be an issue with it.

 

Payload is 222.2 kg's. The aircraft I took to Temora last year had a payload of only 200 kg's, so it's an improvement! 2 people, full fuel and no bags - not too bad really.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Michael Coates
I flew it today for a check-flight and the instructor frantically pushed forward on the controls thinking that I was flaring it after landing. Pretty sure I was nowhere near it, but yes, that appears to be an issue with it.Payload is 222.2 kg's. The aircraft I took to Temora last year had a payload of only 200 kg's, so it's an improvement! 2 people, full fuel and no bags - not too bad really.

222 kgs payload less 72 kgs for fuel leaves 150 kgs for baggage and 2 people.... Legally in the raa formula it's probably not even legally register able with full fuel... I will check the formula tomorrow. There are multiple reports of tail strikes on landing according to the eaa

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shows how hopeless it would be when you weigh 140 kg! Always have to fly alone. However most RA aircraft are a bit the same I guess. One reason I no longer fly!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Michael Coates

For the purposes of sub-subparagraph 1.2 (f) (iv), the minimum useful load for an aeroplane is:

 

(a) if the aeroplane’s engine power is rated in kilowatts — the amount in kilograms worked out in accordance with the formula:

 

(80 x S) + 0.3P; or

 

(b) if the aeroplane’s engine power is rated in brake horse power — the amount in pounds worked out in accordance with the formula:

 

(175 x S) + 0.5P

 

where:

 

S is the number of seats in the aeroplane; and

 

P is the aeroplane’s rated engine power.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Michael Coates

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L00617

 

OK, lets look at the aircraft in question in detail...

 

using the formula referred to in the above standards we know that 100 horsepower is 74.59 kw

 

(80 x 2) + (0.3 x 74.59) = 182.38 kgs

 

according to my calculations and my understanding of the ruling which may be completely wrong the aircraft is required to have 182.38 kilograms payload to legally fly. What I am not sure about is whether they refer to payload as pilots plus fuel for just pilots assuming the fuel tanks are full and all liquids are at normal capacity....

 

I am not meaning to target any aircraft in particular it is just to try and work out what aircraft actually have useful payloads, if the payload includes operational fuel then it is really a single seat aircraft and this is what a lot of the overseas websites refer to when they say they can't legally train students without flying overweight. There is also a formula somewhere which allows for the "average" weight of a normal pilot. I thought somewhere this was quoted at 85 kilograms but I can't find it this morning during my search. If this is the case with two ordinary pilots of average weight at 170 kilograms it only legally leaves 12.38 kilograms for fuel which works out to be around 17 litres, allow for 30 minutes reserve which is approximately 9 litres at normal cruise consumption with this aircraft and its configuration you are left with 8 litres to go flying. Hopefully somebody can find a fault in my calculations but it only seems to be echoing the information on overseas websites about the lack of useful load

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...