Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Right about now, considering the Lake Hume accident, apart from there being no injuries in this accident, the best thing about this accident is that it was NOT an Ultralight with RAA rego.

 

 

Posted

Looked mighty like a Cessna on the news, but bit hard to tell as it was covered with tarps

 

 

Posted

Jeez Tommo,

 

When i first heard about it i thought it may have been you, but at 22 the pilot was a oldie compared to you.

 

Alf

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Thanks Alf!

 

But certainly not me as someone has to work!! ahaha!

 

 

Posted
Looked mighty like a Cessna on the news, but bit hard to tell as it was covered with tarps

I dunno about that, the shape of the tarp looked more like a Decathlon to me.022_wink.gif.2137519eeebfc3acb3315da062b6b1c1.gif

 

Posted
I dunno about that, the shape of the tarp looked more like a Decathlon to me.022_wink.gif.2137519eeebfc3acb3315da062b6b1c1.gif

With a noswheel...? Pull the other leg it plays jingle bells....

 

 

Posted

The website for Air Fraser Island, the company involved, says it operates GA8 Airvans. So I suspect it was an Airvan.

 

 

Posted

It's nice to know I can still tell a Cessna from a Cessna! Lol

 

 

Posted
Yeah but you didn't tell us what model it was.

Indian maybe?...but then what would I know...114_ban_me_please.gif.0d7635a5d304fa7bdaef6367a02d1a75.gif

 

 

Posted
,,, hehehe and DP you silly bugger,,,,who would ruin a Decathlon by putting a training wheel on it!!!

No accounting for tastes, I saw a taildragger classic with a nose-wheel today - not a problem, there can be very good reasons for choosing one. In fact, if some-one threw a tarp over it would look just like a 172.And .... Tomo is right as usual. I see now, my mistake, it has a rear window so couldn't have been a Decathlon.

 

 

  • Like 2
Posted
No accounting for tastes, I saw a taildragger classic with a nose-wheel today - not a problem, there can be very good reasons for choosing one. In fact, if some-one threw a tarp over it would look just like a 172.And .... Tomo is right as usual. I see now, my mistake, it has a rear window so couldn't have been a Decathlon.

You're too kind DJ 003_cheezy_grin.gif.c5a94fc2937f61b556d8146a1bc97ef8.gif

 

 

Posted

Tomo, No he isn't too kind. You make very reasoned and carefully researched responses, which stand on their own merit. I can understand your modesty, but their are times when you should accept acknowledgement of how well you do things. You are a bit of a success story you know . Nev

 

 

  • Like 2
Guest Maj Millard
Posted

I've yet to see a four seat decathlon ! Putting a C172 on a beach in the best of conditions would be a bit risky anyway, they are just not well suited, as they tend to come down a bit hard on the nose wheel on occasions. The 206 however which generally are fitted with a bigger (fatter ) tyre, have more effective flap, and can and are operated off sand more succesfully on regular occasions..If this was an after take-off engine failure as suggested, then I think the pilot may be excused by the fact that he may not have had a lot of time available to either set up for a slow sand landing, and/or to'pick his sand'..............................................Maj...024_cool.gif.7a88a3168ebd868f5549631161e2b369.gif

 

 

Posted

I have just got home from Fraser, the pilot landed at Orchard Beach airstip at about 7.45 that morning while I was waiting for the shop to open, I talked to him for about 1/4 hour & checked out the plane. He was picking up three passengers to go back to Hervey Bay & then heading back to the beach for joy flights. Thats all I have.

 

Pete

 

 

Posted
Tomo, No he isn't too kind. You make very reasoned and carefully researched responses, which stand on their own merit. I can understand your modesty, but their are times when you should accept acknowledgement of how well you do things. You are a bit of a success story you know . Nev

Thanks Nev, very encouraging that you say that, sometimes you do wonder if it's worth the effort.

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
I've yet to see a four seat decathlon ! Putting a C172 on a beach in the best of conditions would be a bit risky anyway, they are just not well suited, as they tend to come down a bit hard on the nose wheel on occasions. The 206 however which generally are fitted with a bigger (fatter ) tyre, have more effective flap, and can and are operated off sand more succesfully on regular occasions..If this was an after take-off engine failure as suggested, then I think the pilot may be excused by the fact that he may not have had a lot of time available to either set up for a slow sand landing, and/or to'pick his sand'..............................................Maj...024_cool.gif.7a88a3168ebd868f5549631161e2b369.gif

Yes, that 172 appears to have the standard 6.00 x 6 mainwheel tyres, and these don't give you much floatation at 'normal' pressures. Now if the aircraft had been configured with 8.00 tyres, run at much lower pressures, plus a larger nosewheel size, eg 6.00 x - it might not have dug in. For soft surface ops, it helps to have 180HP in a 172 as well. A STOL modification,(eg, Horton), to the wings also helps no end, and it's not that expensive to fit.

 

Maj is right about the time available to do the FL. It seems to take you ages as the pilot, because everything seems surreal - but it's often so fast the pax don't know what's happened. Ideally you'd want more weight in the rear baggage area.....but I guess the front pax wasn't keen to shift over there during the flare!!

 

happy days,

 

 

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
×
×
  • Create New...