kaz3g

Yes, only discussing the Western front and focussed on the war in the air. A proper analysis has to take into account the respective losses suffered by each protagonist and the reasons for them. Of the estimated 70 million total deaths in WWII, 30 million died on the Eastern Front, but these battles were largely ground-based as the Russians had manpower but not a lot of skilled air power. They also had the vastness of the terrain and the climate - factors that brought Napolean undone, too. JJ made some interesting observations about the Russians undisciplined gaggles of aircraft and their willingness to sustain huge losses. Kaz

The Germans were actually building advanced aircraft in very large numbers towards the end and it was probably more the shortage of fuel than manufacturing materials that finished them....that and the Americans. They had several designs flying that had extreme performance for the time as well as the 262, and pilots like Johnny Johnson and Jacques Costerman both write about the great difficulty of stopping these jet and rocket propelled aircraft using the Allies' prop types available at the time. Probably the fastest Allied aircraft on line was the Tempest which was a pretty terrifying aircraft because it's weight coupled with nearly 2500 HP and eventually 3000 HP meant it's acceleration downhill was phenomenal. The Sabre IIB engine in the Tempest produced 2,420 bhp at SL using +11 lbs 3,850 rpm. Maximum speed of a Tempest V equipped with the Sabre IIB engine was 435 mph at 19,000 feet. Note that later trials using 150 octane petrol and +13 lbs got nearly 3000hp out of the H- pattern engine The Napier Sabre By comparison, the 262 achieved 560 mph top speed at optimum altitude with 4 x 30 mm cannon and an arsenal of rockets to do damage with apart from bombs. It was in service in July 1942 whereas the English Meteor got going in March 1943 and the first American jet in the war was the Shooting Star in January 1944. By comparison, Germany also had the Arado 234 going in June 1943 and the Heinkel 162 in December 1944. There really is little doubt there technological development was well in front of ours, but they also were fighting at home by that time and took the most amazing risks to get these aircraft flying. Do a search for the Heinkel and its fuel...terrifying! Kaz

Hitler saved us by insisting it be configured as a bomber. If it had been a fighter as the designed envisioned it, we would have been in enormous trundle. Actually, the Fuerher saved us a few times...he stopped the bombing of British airfields and directed his phlegm at London. This allowed the RAAF a bit of respite so they could re-gather and reform. Kaz

The aircraft that nearly defeated the Allies. Kaz

Too late...Dick's been nominated for Australian of the Year by the Oz and will undoubtedly now suck up all the oxygen. Kaz

I don't employ scare tactics . I just try to make sense of what is being put forward. Following Dick's statements and trying to give some cohesion to them is not easy, at least I haven't found it so, At no point does he provide a clear, articulate and complete proposal; it comes out in disjointed bits. If you have been following the discussion on the other site, you will have seen one contributor doing his best to nail Dick down to the details. Despite his affection for the US and Canadian systems (which are different) Dick also seems to favour Australian variations. It was under Dick's management that Tx were introduced to E originally and he seems to be arguing for more E on the basis of IFR receiving all traffic details. To me, that means Tx's. Personally, I can't see any chance of the Tx requirement in E being lifted but can envisage ADSB becoming mandated for all aircraft using that airspace if it is expanded as proposed. That's how I see it. Kaz

Yes, I should have said until the VFR reporting points. Sorry. But the fact remains that, under Dick's proposals (as best as anyone can pin him down to detail) a move to E would not impact on controlled tower operations in C. What you might see is E coming down to a lower level than 1200 beneath the C rather than the current G. One of the problems is pinning him down to provide detail rather than self-serving statements derogatory of anyone with a contrary opinion. Another is that all aircraft will need to be fitted with Tx for the system to have a chance of working and my bet is that this would be ADSB. That's an expense I would not want to face. Kaz

Not sure what part of the Adelaide Hills you refer to Bruce, but you have 4500 until entering the Class D into Parafield. The overlaying C for Adelaide won't change as best I can see, even if Dick's desires re E come into effect so I don't see his plan helping there, either. It will have an effect at CTAFs outside of controlled airspace but at a cost. Kaz

Australia's first electric plane takes to the skies

Pilots in small aircraft in the US have access to much less expensive options than CASA has given us here. They also have radar and ATC coverage that we can only dream of. They enjoy a regulatory system that is light touch, easily read and understood, and encourages aviation rather than punishing those that pursue it. The cost of flying there is consequently significantly lower. Mandating radio and transponders will drive more of us away. Kaz

And the Flying School at LIL has a scholarship open..don't know details. Kaz

Dick has made no mention of any variation of E limits from the 1200' level and transponders (ADSB?) will be mandatory. A lot of gliders, antique aeroplanes and ultralights don't have the power source to run a Tx so they will have not much sky to fly in as best as I can figure it. Kaz

You will need a transponder. It was in his last incarnation that Dick brought in transponders in E (another push for ADSB, perhaps?) Kaz

Dick wants the US model which has class E from 18000 down to 1200 or lower and G beneath that. It is a no radio E for VFR, and IFR rely on much better radar and communications coverage at low,levels than we have here for separation. So no 126.7 and no Area, just 4 NM CTAF's. Makes me even keener to keep what we have with some common sense to ensure those "busy, unmarked airstrips" are marked. Kaz

Going back to the topic. It is becoming clear that Dick's agenda is a substantial reduction In G and major increase in E emulating his favoured FAA scenario. I wonder what RAPAC and RAAus think about that? Mandatory radio and transponders of course. And perhaps he believes in reincarnation? Kaz

What he says here is fine, but beware someone who thinks he is our born again saviour amd wants us all to bow down before him Kaz

Then you clearly won't have problems with VFR traffic and you will be talking to Area/Radar or on the CTAF...or both. Kaz

1. Then safety considerations ought demand those country town strips be marked...fixed. 2. Use the appropriate chart for your location as per the rules...fixed 3. Follow the rules and use the allocated frequency or Multicom where relevant for marked strips...fixed (4) Use the CTAF frequency as per the rules...why would you call on Area? And while you are waiting for RAAus, the RAPACs and Dick Smith to create the ultimate confusion by changing everything again,purchase a subscription to the AOPA Country Airport Guide with OzRunways and you will know where most of those unmarked strips are located. Kaz

They come in both TSO and non-TSO versions. Kaz

The transition from low tow in a glider at takeoff to high tow for the climb puts the,glider right in the wake,turbulence and gives a,first,time towee a bit of a,thrill! If the towee messes it,up,a,bit, the thrill extends along the,tow,rope,to,the,tower! Kaz

Merry Christmas and a VERY happy NY to you and family, Al

Ben...RPT or Charter? Yenn If your fellow pilot is confused now, how will he be with more changes and. 20 NM radius CTAF? Kaz

Yes Ben...the thin edge of the wedge. Lower Class E and mandate ADSB for VFR using it. Have a look at the discussion paper out now and consider the exclusions already decided regarding equipment options. Remember right back,at the beginning how the extraordinary savings to ASA were to be used to subsidise the cost of implementation. Think about the political clout of "safety" no matter how irrational and you might then understand why those of us who fly for fun might be worried. Kaz

RPT have two pilots...one to twiddle knobs...so I doubt it causes great difficulty for them. Having the gliders and lighties operating outside the current AFRU, and the RPT and military and all the other traffic within it on one frequency seems to me to compounding a problem, not resolving it. Kaz