Do vortex generators really work.

[David Isaac]

Dafydd and HITC,

 

Is not Ole Hartmanns AAK Hornet the ideal aircraft that fits the rough short field farm style. Readily available with a quality strong design?

 

P.S.

 

Ole is not paying me to ask this question. I genuinely believe it to be a very capable and versatile aircraft.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Dafydd and HITC,Is not Ole Hartmanns AAK Hornet the ideal aircraft that fits the rough short field farm style aircraft. Readily available with a quality strong design?

P.S.

 

Ole is not paying me to ask this question. I genuinely believe it to be a very capable and versatile aircraft.

I think it is I do I do:happy:. And as a side note my VGs stop about two or so feet from the fuse.

 

 

[dazza 38]

There isn't much detail on the Hornet STOL on the AAK website . So I wonder if a Hornet Stol aircraft owner can give a ball park figure on what would one cost completed with a Rotax 912 installed with basic instruments ?

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Dafydd and HITC,Is not Ole Hartmanns AAK Hornet the ideal aircraft that fits the rough short field farm style aircraft. Readily available with a quality strong design?

P.S.

 

Ole is not paying me to ask this question. I genuinely believe it to be a very capable and versatile aircraft.

I like the Hornet very much and it's one way of addressing the need for a pretty tough utility STOL aircraft for the land but I suspect it's not as light as a bushplane could be for the same toughness, and probably it's more expensive too.

 

At the moment I'm working on an alternate way of approaching the matter using a welded steel structure, and I think it's a less costly and labour-intensive method than the Hornet. After conducting a few tests over the last couple of weeks I've also moved away from the trailing link suspension. I can't get enough motion without the weight building up, and the restricted motion as it is, is a problem as shown by the one that put down in a paddock at Taree last August and sheared one of the gear legs off which then resulted in quite major damage to the rest of the airframe.

 

I found two problems with the trailing link, firstly, when the suspension travel bottoms out, if the ground is soft then the 'knee' will dig in and either break the leg or flip the plane, or both. Secondly the loads on the knee and trailing arm are very high during ground drift in a crosswind and especially in event of a groundloop. Both need to be expected as regular events in the bush and so trailing link gear is either heavier than the gear needs to be or it's a bit fragile ...

 

And a big thing about a bushplane is that it has to be assumed that it will suffer 'incidents' from time to time so repairability (as with any bush vehicle) is a very major consideration, if it can be repaired in the station workshop that's better still.

 

Don't get me wrong - I like the Hornet!

 

I'm not too far off showing some CAD images of my fuselage structure and am dusting off my TIG - watch my avatar ...

 

 

[David Isaac]

They are 19 kit aircraft only Dazz. The cost varies with the options. Ole now has several different models including a low cost tandem version. Occasionally you will see them second hand and quite good value.

 

 

[David Isaac]

HITC,

 

I believe the Hornet is still available with the original high tensile single piece sprung suspension

 

 

[SDQDI]

My info was correct a year or so ago dazza, (I rang Ole out of the blue had never met him before he talked to me on the phone for 3/4 of an hour and posted me out a heap of info part of which was a price list.) I don't really want to post all the prices but for the 912 hornet stol (white) basic instruments is listed as $115 000 plus gst.

 

It doesn't take much effort to find a few options that increase that price:wink: but that is basic price. Most people I've seen over there opt for the 914 which I think is roughly 10k on top of 912 and I think the trailing link is a little extra but well worth it.

 

For the 912 hornet cub (tandem) $85 800 plus gst

 

Like I say that was a year or so ago and things could have changed for better or worse but I will say that the customer service from Ole and his team is second to none and for anyone interested it is well worth the trip to taree for a 'talk and walk' with Ole.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

HITC,I believe the Hornet is still available with the original high tensile single piece sprung suspension

Yes, but a bush plane taildragger needs highly damped suspension to prevent the bounce on landing, especially on rough ground. I've toyed with damping methods for steel springing as I described earlier this thread but again the weight goes up.

 

For strength/weight and variable damping characteristics I suspect you can't beat long travel oil damped pneumatic struts i.e. oleos, that's the way I'm headed anyway.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I know what you mean by bounce ... I own an Auster, LOL. I have frequently wondered if there was anyway the Auster bungees could be replaced by oil dampened shocks / oleos.

 

 

[SDQDI]

The weight/strength thing is a fine line and I think it comes down to what/where you want to operate I think the suspension on those smack down highlanders does a good job but do I need that much? Hopefully not. The trailing link has its shortfalls but put some big 26ers on it and that solves/helps with most of those. (I have landed in 8 to 10 inch tractor ruts that zig zagged across the track with a pax and didn't feel uncomfortable at all, actually didn't even feel them.) You could cut down on weight compared to the hornet but I think that would come with either a strength, performance or cost sacrifice. If you wanted a pure scrub plane the hornet cub (tandem) with 26 inch tundras would be close to perfect at a fairly reasonable price for a quality Aussie built machine although you wouldn't want to fly two up all the time.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I know what you mean by bounce ... I own an Auster, LOL. I have frequently wondered if there was anyway the Auster bungees could be replaced by oil dampened shocks / oleos.

Unfortunately the tie - rods on the Auster are in tension not compression, like the Cub, which makes it difficult - though not impossible - to use an oleo.

However there is a better method for that kind of suspension, it's like the one on the Skyfox and consists of 20mm Sq rubber vulcanised onto the sides of interlocked steel tie rods.

 

Bill Whitney gave me a set of drawings of the gear a while ago, I think there may be an existing engineering order to fit them to Cubs, Austers, Taylor craft etc. Pm me your email address if you like and I'll send you more info tomorrow.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I'm not too far off showing some CAD images of my fuselage structure and am dusting off my TIG - watch my avatar ...

It's a biplane!

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I can't comment on the Hornet; I've no real knowledge of it. It looks like an honest attempt to produce a workhorse style of aircraft; but how good it is depends very much on the detail - and that's not something one can pick up from a website.

 

A serious main undercarriage generally weighs at least 5% of the aircraft MTOW, and that's for one designed for FAR 23 type loads (around 10 ft/sec limit impact velocity). Most of the spring-legs on recreational-type aeroplanes try to keep the weight down by setting the main legs at a fairly steep angle; but that makes them very vulnerable to side-drift landings, because if the resultant of the vertical and the side load passes close to the outer clamp of the undercarriage, it has very little "give" and the consequent loading generally snaps the leg (or damages it so it snaps one or two landings later). It's very difficult to beat a properly-designed steel spring-leg for durability and cost, but there's no getting away from the weight of it; and yes, damping is a problem for which there is no really satisfactory answer. Almost all recreational aircraft undercarriages are really under-designed in one way or another, in order to meet the category weight limits.

 

It's an eye-opener to look at the structure of a Beech Skipper, especially the main gear. That aircraft is essentially an undercarriage with not much aeroplane wrapped around it. It contrasts hugely with a typical LSA aircraft; and to my mind this says the very tight weight limits on recreational aircraft are the result of unsound thinking. I was under the impression that Ole originally made the Hornet an experimental VH kit because he realised that making it sufficiently frail to stay within the CAO 95.55 limits was self-defeating - but perhaps I am wrong in that notion.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I can't comment on the Hornet; I've no real knowledge of it. It looks like an honest attempt to produce a workhorse style of aircraft; but how good it is depends very much on the detail - and that's not something one can pick up from a website.A serious main undercarriage generally weighs at least 5% of the aircraft MTOW, and that's for one designed for FAR 23 type loads (around 10 ft/sec limit impact velocity). Most of the spring-legs on recreational-type aeroplanes try to keep the weight down by setting the main legs at a fairly steep angle; but that makes them very vulnerable to side-drift landings, because if the resultant of the vertical and the side load passes close to the outer clamp of the undercarriage, it has very little "give" and the consequent loading generally snaps the leg (or damages it so it snaps one or two landings later). It's very difficult to beat a properly-designed steel spring-leg for durability and cost, but there's no getting away from the weight of it; and yes, damping is a problem for which there is no really satisfactory answer. Almost all recreational aircraft undercarriages are really under-designed in one way or another, in order to meet the category weight limits.

 

It's an eye-opener to look at the structure of a Beech Skipper, especially the main gear. That aircraft is essentially an undercarriage with not much aeroplane wrapped around it. It contrasts hugely with a typical LSA aircraft; and to my mind this says the very tight weight limits on recreational aircraft are the result of unsound thinking. I was under the impression that Ole originally made the Hornet an experimental VH kit because he realised that making it sufficiently frail to stay within the CAO 95.55 limits was self-defeating - but perhaps I am wrong in that notion.

How about a modern adaptation of the 1935 design, the Fiesler Storch?

 

 

 

[AVOCET]

I tried som v/g on ,in from the l/edge in front of the ailerons and took it for a fly hoping to improve the slow end roll . they didn't feel right

 

I've now tried winglets on the 250 j wings and feels a lot better ,

 

also seemed to improve the cruise .

 

I was wondering about trying wool tufts around a few areas ,Dafydd, can you put tufts all over the plane at once , or is it better to do a section at a time ??

 

cheers Mike

 

 

[eightyknots]

I tried som v/g on ,in from the l/edge in front of the ailerons and took it for a fly hoping to improve the slow end roll . they didn't feel rightI've now tried winglets on the 250 j wings and feels a lot better ,

also seemed to improve the cruise .

 

I was wondering about trying wool tufts around a few areas ,Dafydd, can you put tufts all over the plane at once , or is it better to do a section at a time ??

 

cheers Mike

Here is an interesting tuft test of VGs:

 

 

For further information try stolspeed.com (a site owned and run by Forum member JG3)

 

 

[AVOCET]

I can't comment on the Hornet; I've no real knowledge of it. It looks like an honest attempt to produce a workhorse style of aircraft; but how good it is depends very much on the detail - and that's not something one can pick up from a website.A serious main undercarriage generally weighs at least 5% of the aircraft MTOW, and that's for one designed for FAR 23 type loads (around 10 ft/sec limit impact velocity). Most of the spring-legs on recreational-type aeroplanes try to keep the weight down by setting the main legs at a fairly steep angle; but that makes them very vulnerable to side-drift landings, because if the resultant of the vertical and the side load passes close to the outer clamp of the undercarriage, it has very little "give" and the consequent loading generally snaps the leg (or damages it so it snaps one or two landings later). It's very difficult to beat a properly-designed steel spring-leg for durability and cost, but there's no getting away from the weight of it; and yes, damping is a problem for which there is no really satisfactory answer. Almost all recreational aircraft undercarriages are really under-designed in one way or another, in order to meet the category weight limits.

 

It's an eye-opener to look at the structure of a Beech Skipper, especially the main gear. That aircraft is essentially an undercarriage with not much aeroplane wrapped around it. It contrasts hugely with a typical LSA aircraft; and to my mind this says the very tight weight limits on recreational aircraft are the result of unsound thinking. I was under the impression that Ole originally made the Hornet an experimental VH kit because he realised that making it sufficiently frail to stay within the CAO 95.55 limits was self-defeating - but perhaps I am wrong in that notion.

He probably got the same advice as I got at the time :,

quote : design it for the new 750 kg MTOW it's definitely going to happen !!

 

we'll we all know now ,

 

mike .

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

How about a modern adaptation of the 1935 design, the Fiesler Storch?

I guess it depends upon how highly you rate low stall speed in your criteria. There are a damn sight more Cessna 180 / 185 in use for rural operations, than ultra-STOL devices. I suspect that's because they are more useful, all round. They carry a decent load out of a short strip, and they are not slow by comparison with other aircraft of generally comparable format. I've had a Cessna 180 operating out of my 350 metre strip. I rather suspect super-STOL is more a gimmick than a practical general workhorse type characteristic. I'd put more emphasis on taming the stall handling so one could make full use of the available speed range, rather than adding acres of wing area and fragile high-lift systems. The Storch had quite a powerful engine for its size and weight; but it was a reliable engine, which is very critical for a rural workhorse type aeroplane.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I guess it depends upon how highly you rate low stall speed in your criteria. There are a damn sight more Cessna 180 / 185 in use for rural operations, than ultra-STOL devices. I suspect that's because they are more useful, all round. They carry a decent load out of a short strip, and they are not slow by comparison with other aircraft of generally comparable format. I've had a Cessna 180 operating out of my 350 metre strip. I rather suspect super-STOL is more a gimmick than a practical general workhorse type characteristic. I'd put more emphasis on taming the stall handling so one could make full use of the available speed range, rather than adding acres of wing area and fragile high-lift systems. The Storch had quite a powerful engine for its size and weight; but it was a reliable engine, which is very critical for a rural workhorse type aeroplane.

Everything you've said here was quite correct Dafydd, but with respect, we have to remember that times are constantly a-changing.

 

Although I'm not the definitive authority on the subject I have spent quite a lot years flying on the stations and even more years around the stations in remote areas so let me just chuck in a bit of background about aviation on the land and it may clear up some misunderstanding about the current state-of-play.

 

Unless this post were to run to several pages you'll appreciate that I have to limit it to generalisations and examples, so they aren't typical of every part of the country but they'll give the general idea.

 

The first parts of bush aviation to become firmly established was the provision of quicker mail and medical services and of course they have become the best known. For the most part the mail service was contracted out to private sector commercial operators who expanded their businesses into general aircargo and passenger carrying. The Flying Doctor Service quickly formed to provide the essential medical services of course. Vets frequently operated their own private aircraft in the heyday of the BTEC program (I'll come to that later) and some mechanics and salesmen flew to provide their services on essential machinery and selling their wares to the nouveau riche cattle cockies. A reasonable percentage of those cattle cockies bought planes themselves for trips to town, the salesyards and the seasonal rodeos. Even the 'movies' and some rental books were brought by the flying 'bioscope man' once a month or so, and projected onto a limewashed wall in the open air. BUT, for the majority of today's cattlemen those days are but a distant fond memory from their childhood.

 

And as Dafydd said above the C180 and 185 was the mainstay of those days, later the C182 and C206 becoming more prevalent.

 

In those days of real and foreseeably ongoing wealth people made increasingly expansive use of aviation and in general, the remoter the location, the bigger the operation. A good example is the Glenroy meatworks. Established right in the heart of the Kimberley region, in its least accessible location, and all the way back in 1949! The Blythe brothers owned several pastoral leases in the Kimberley and wanted to expand their market so they built an abattoir, a long airstrip and installed chillers at Glenroy Station. The 'Air Beef Scheme' was underway and for the next fifteen years cattle were slaughtered and quartered then chilled overnight and flown in DC3s and Bristol freighters to Wyndham port where they were deep frozen and shipped to UK. BUT - as with all things times change and the roads were eventually built, so by 1965 the scheme was closed down and cattle were being trucked live to meatworks at Broome and Wydham.

 

Hence the development of better roads ended the first big era of aviation in the interior, and that wasn't just in the remotest parts, the same happened on a smaller scale all over WA, the NT, Western and Far North Qld.

 

Stations that had the best grazing continued to be profitable and that allowed the owners to buy other stations with conditions specifically suited to breeding and then transfer the issue to fattening stations usually on the edges of deserts. The long distance travel involved with managing stock so far apart provided a new but much smaller purpose for aircraft and this is where the C180/C206 thrived.

 

Then came aviation's biggest heyday on the land and is the one where most city folk became aware of bush aviation and believe is typical of the way of the land, and they imagine is still the way of things. But, gladly for the cattle, that too is now fading into distant history.

 

It began with live cattle export and then with under-the-table agreements between certain slightly 'loose' but powerful politicians and wealthy Oriental gentlemen ... and Australia came to supply increasing amounts of the best quality beef to a certain Asian land. Handshake contracts took place and vast fortunes were made by some, including many beef farmers, but you can imagine who made the most of all.

 

As it happened all was very well for quite some time and all of Australia benefitted from this new source of wealth, beef had never been sold for the kind of money that these exports were producing. Feedlots sprang up everywhere for grain feeding cattle for a period before slaughter, and 'marbled' beef was the byword of the day.

 

Then - disaster - a meat inspector yelled "Tuberculosis". Well the fact is that TB had always been in the Australian stock and there's no problem with that as far as human health is concerned provided that the butchering is properly managed and no glands end up in the meat going for sale. But, of course, the very presence of TB was too much for our Asian friends and they promptly refused to buy any more Australian beef until Australian stock was declared clear of TB - "and Brucellosis while you're about it!"

 

And so began the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign - BTEC. Brucellosis affects sheep and TB affects cattle. The campaign began in 1970 and ran for the next 27 years, until 1997, at which time OIE declared that Australia was clear. I don't have the figures to hand of the numbers of cattle that were shot from helicopters where they stood and left strewn over miles and miles of paddocks, month after month and year after year, but it ran into many millions and often only because one or two head had reacted to the veterinary test in the yards.

 

But it was this tragedy that really brought the money for aviation to the land, from two fronts. Firstly, thousands of helicopters were needed for the twice-per-year musters of every station within TB declared areas and initially that was most of Australia. So literally fleets of helicopters sprang up and they were used for the musters and then used again to sweep the paddocks with shooters on board to cull any beast that hadn't been brought in to the yards. Then they were used again to move the cattle back out into the paddocks after the muster, the times were so busy there simply wasn't time for the gentler handling provided by horsemen.

 

It was the dead cattle that really brought the money to the farmers though. A price of compensation from the government was agreed for every beast that had to be culled. And it was a good price too, the government paid the average price being paid for a beast at the meatworks, and the government paid for the helicopters for the mustering, and paid for the vets, and for the culling, so the farmer saved on paying for the mustering, the vets, and the transport to the meatyards, these were good times indeed!

 

And then some of the less scrupulous farmers found yet another well of money. There are always areas of Australia that are in drought and the cattle on those stations are virtually worthless until they fatten up again, but then you could always sell them to someone in a TB area for half price and the new owner would get full price when they were culled. It took many years before some Stock Inspectors twigged that they were preventing the spread of TB by prohibiting the movement of stock out of TB areas but no-one was preventing them being moved in ... And of course those stations selling their poor stock had to muster them which meant more helicopters and more planes, it was all good for aviation.

 

And then BTEC was over - no more government money, hardly any stock left on the land, constant drought to follow, believe me the day of the C180 and C206 on the stations is old history. And helicopters are few and far between but there's a greater need than ever before for one or two people, which is many stations' sum total of workers these days, to be able to get to the distant corners of the property quickly and fix a trough, a fence, a mill or a pump. The vast majority can't afford a small helicopter and have absolutely no use for a C180 or similar, regardless that it can carry a useful load - there aren't any loads needed to be carried, loads are carried in trucks on the roads - in the absence of a helicopter a trail-bike does the job mostly. So anyone that doesn't see the magnificence of the SuperSTOL concept hasn't got their eye on the present state-of-play on the land.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

You may be getting a kind of "falling leaf" effect, in which first one wing root separates and then the other - and it sets up a rythmic oscillation. I did warn that this might happen with a low-wing machine; with high wings, the initial stall spreads instantly from one wing fence to the other, so the whole centre-section stalls symmetrically, and there is no "tailwagging" effect.You may or may not be able to improve matters by adjusting the stall strips.

Thanks for that Dafydd. I'll do some more testing.

My fences seem to be doing a great job of preventing a wing drop- but at the expense of about 4kt extra minimum speed.

 

In trying to understand why, I am questioning one interesting source:

 

"The short fence (skewed in) does not increase CLmax, but makes the stall behavior more gradual. The short fence (skewed out) actually worsens stall performance." (http://gtae6343.wikia.com/wiki/Stall_Fences)

 

I could not find more detail on what they mean by skewed in. I installed my fences on the second rib out, the rear of the fence is closer to the fuselage than the front- ie paralleling the airflow

 

Could they have meant the opposite?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Everything you've said here was quite correct Dafydd, but with respect, we have to remember that times are constantly a-changing.Although I'm not the definitive authority on the subject I have spent quite a lot years flying on the stations and even more years around the stations in remote areas so let me just chuck in a bit of background about aviation on the land and it may clear up some misunderstanding about the current state-of-play.

 

Unless this post were to run to several pages you'll appreciate that I have to limit it to generalisations and examples, so they aren't typical of every part of the country but they'll give the general idea.

 

The first parts of bush aviation to become firmly established was the provision of quicker mail and medical services and of course they have become the best known. For the most part the mail service was contracted out to private sector commercial operators who expanded their businesses into general aircargo and passenger carrying. The Flying Doctor Service quickly formed to provide the essential medical services of course. Vets frequently operated their own private aircraft in the heyday of the BTEC program (I'll come to that later) and some mechanics and salesmen flew to provide their services on essential machinery and selling their wares to the nouveau riche cattle cockies. A reasonable percentage of those cattle cockies bought planes themselves for trips to town, the salesyards and the seasonal rodeos. Even the 'movies' and some rental books were brought by the flying 'bioscope man' once a month or so, and projected onto a limewashed wall in the open air. BUT, for the majority of today's cattlemen those days are but a distant fond memory from their childhood.

 

And as Dafydd said above the C180 and 185 was the mainstay of those days, later the C182 and C206 becoming more prevalent.

 

In those days of real and foreseeably ongoing wealth people made increasingly expansive use of aviation and in general, the remoter the location, the bigger the operation. A good example is the Glenroy meatworks. Established right in the heart of the Kimberley region, in its least accessible location, and all the way back in 1949! The Blythe brothers owned several pastoral leases in the Kimberley and wanted to expand their market so they built an abattoir, a long airstrip and installed chillers at Glenroy Station. The 'Air Beef Scheme' was underway and for the next fifteen years cattle were slaughtered and quartered then chilled overnight and flown in DC3s and Bristol freighters to Wyndham port where they were deep frozen and shipped to UK. BUT - as with all things times change and the roads were eventually built, so by 1965 the scheme was closed down and cattle were being trucked live to meatworks at Broome and Wydham.

 

Hence the development of better roads ended the first big era of aviation in the interior, and that wasn't just in the remotest parts, the same happened on a smaller scale all over WA, the NT, Western and Far North Qld.

 

Stations that had the best grazing continued to be profitable and that allowed the owners to buy other stations with conditions specifically suited to breeding and then transfer the issue to fattening stations usually on the edges of deserts. The long distance travel involved with managing stock so far apart provided a new but much smaller purpose for aircraft and this is where the C180/C206 thrived.

 

Then came aviation's biggest heyday on the land and is the one where most city folk became aware of bush aviation and believe is typical of the way of the land, and they imagine is still the way of things. But, gladly for the cattle, that too is now fading into distant history.

 

It began with live cattle export and then with under-the-table agreements between certain slightly 'loose' but powerful politicians and wealthy Oriental gentlemen ... and Australia came to supply increasing amounts of the best quality beef to a certain Asian land. Handshake contracts took place and vast fortunes were made by some, including many beef farmers, but you can imagine who made the most of all.

 

As it happened all was very well for quite some time and all of Australia benefitted from this new source of wealth, beef had never been sold for the kind of money that these exports were producing. Feedlots sprang up everywhere for grain feeding cattle for a period before slaughter, and 'marbled' beef was the byword of the day.

 

Then - disaster - a meat inspector yelled "Tuberculosis". Well the fact is that TB had always been in the Australian stock and there's no problem with that as far as human health is concerned provided that the butchering is properly managed and no glands end up in the meat going for sale. But, of course, the very presence of TB was too much for our Asian friends and they promptly refused to buy any more Australian beef until Australian stock was declared clear of TB - "and Brucellosis while you're about it!"

 

And so began the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign - BTEC. Brucellosis affects sheep and TB affects cattle. The campaign began in 1970 and ran for the next 27 years, until 1997, at which time OIE declared that Australia was clear. I don't have the figures to hand of the numbers of cattle that were shot from helicopters where they stood and left strewn over miles and miles of paddocks, month after month and year after year, but it ran into many millions and often only because one or two head had reacted to the veterinary test in the yards.

 

But it was this tragedy that really brought the money for aviation to the land, from two fronts. Firstly, thousands of helicopters were needed for the twice-per-year musters of every station within TB declared areas and initially that was most of Australia. So literally fleets of helicopters sprang up and they were used for the musters and then used again to sweep the paddocks with shooters on board to cull any beast that hadn't been brought in to the yards. Then they were used again to move the cattle back out into the paddocks after the muster, the times were so busy there simply wasn't time for the gentler handling provided by horsemen.

 

It was the dead cattle that really brought the money to the farmers though. A price of compensation from the government was agreed for every beast that had to be culled. And it was a good price too, the government paid the average price being paid for a beast at the meatworks, and the government paid for the helicopters for the mustering, and paid for the vets, and for the culling, so the farmer saved on paying for the mustering, the vets, and the transport to the meatyards, these were good times indeed!

 

And then some of the less scrupulous farmers found yet another well of money. There are always areas of Australia that are in drought and the cattle on those stations are virtually worthless until they fatten up again, but then you could always sell them to someone in a TB area for half price and the new owner would get full price when they were culled. It took many years before some Stock Inspectors twigged that they were preventing the spread of TB by prohibiting the movement of stock out of TB areas but no-one was preventing them being moved in ... And of course those stations selling their poor stock had to muster them which meant more helicopters and more planes, it was all good for aviation.

 

And then BTEC was over - no more government money, hardly any stock left on the land, constant drought to follow, believe me the day of the C180 and C206 on the stations is old history. And helicopters are few and far between but there's a greater need than ever before for one or two people, which is many stations' sum total of workers these days, to be able to get to the distant corners of the property quickly and fix a trough, a fence, a mill or a pump. The vast majority can't afford a small helicopter and have absolutely no use for a C180 or similar, regardless that it can carry a useful load - there aren't any loads needed to be carried, loads are carried in trucks on the roads - in the absence of a helicopter a trail-bike does the job mostly. So anyone that doesn't see the magnificence of the SuperSTOL concept hasn't got their eye on the present state-of-play on the land.

Thanks for that - it puts it all into perspective. Very useful.

I have been thinking, for quite a while, that there might be a niche for an aircraft that one might describe as "half a Cessna 180" - i.e. a two-seater, built to be durable, with sufficient power to be able to take off in less distance than it lands, with a full-flap stall speed just under 45 KCAS, and the docile sort of handling exhibited by the Seabird Seeker - but with a cruise speed around 130 KCAS. It needs to be readily adaptable to whatever use its operator desires, which means it has to have versatility designed into it. It needs to be certificated in a category that allows aerial work in VMC by day.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Thanks for that - it puts it all into perspective. Very useful.I have been thinking, for quite a while, that there might be a niche for an aircraft that one might describe as "half a Cessna 180" - i.e. a two-seater, built to be durable, with sufficient power to be able to take off in less distance than it lands, with a full-flap stall speed just under 45 KCAS, and the docile sort of handling exhibited by the Seabird Seeker - but with a cruise speed around 130 KCAS. It needs to be readily adaptable to whatever use its operator desires, which means it has to have versatility designed into it. It needs to be certificated in a category that allows aerial work in VMC by day.

Yes, I think you'd be onto a winner there. It probably wouldn't be the main station workhorse but on wealthier stations would be the scaled-down Cockies transport of yesteryear perhaps. The high cruise speed would be the big drawcard that would make yours more desirable than the rest. You'd need enough baggage space for a swag and bag for when he goes to the outstations, or two bags for when he's takin' tha missus ta town ta cut tha rug. You'd be getting pretty close to a Tailwind I'd guess.

 

Whether you'd need it to be certificated for aerial work, or at all, is moot because virtually no cockies would ever have a commercial licence (or a licence at all in some cases) and all operations would be unpaid on their own land so deemed to be private ops whatever they're doing. However certification can't hurt and would pick up extra sales of course because, among their wild nature in many respects, the average cocky is pretty conservative where technology is concerned and where they can't assess the safety of something themselves they'll opt for, and pay extra for, the 'certified' one every time.

 

 

[AVOCET]

Thanks for that - it puts it all into perspective. Very useful.I have been thinking, for quite a while, that there might be a niche for an aircraft that one might describe as "half a Cessna 180" - i.e. a two-seater, built to be durable, with sufficient power to be able to take off in less distance than it lands, with a full-flap stall speed just under 45 KCAS, and the docile sort of handling exhibited by the Seabird Seeker - but with a cruise speed around 130 KCAS. It needs to be readily adaptable to whatever use its operator desires, which means it has to have versatility designed into it. It needs to be certificated in a category that allows aerial work in VMC by day.

that's an attractive brief Dafydd, i guess that would only be vh , as I would imagine that 44 knot stall to 130 kt would require 150 plus HP

IDE be interested in building a prototype to your specs .

 

mike.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

that's an attractive brief Dafydd, i guess that would only be vh , as I would imagine that 44 knot stall to 130 kt would require 150 plus HPIDE be interested in building a prototype to your specs .

mike.

The prototype is roughly half built; the problem is getting the right engine for it. Essentially, the CAMit equivalent to the Jab 3300. I have a quite extensive workshop, and enjoy working with my hands.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Thanks for that - it puts it all into perspective. Very useful.I have been thinking, for quite a while, that there might be a niche for an aircraft that one might describe as "half a Cessna 180" - i.e. a two-seater, built to be durable, with sufficient power to be able to take off in less distance than it lands, with a full-flap stall speed just under 45 KCAS, and the docile sort of handling exhibited by the Seabird Seeker - but with a cruise speed around 130 KCAS...

Sounds like an interesting exercise fellas, but the small market may not warrant the development cost. Are Jabiru's days of innovation behind them? In recent years they seem to have concentrated on refining a few models with similar performance. Their 230 airframe could surely be adapted to suit.