kasper

Skippy - Except that plastic fantastics have three issues that going forward will become more of an issue: 1. issues on the material istelf - many of the simpler constructions can absorb moisture and are subject to weight variations over time and despite anything you do UV is a concern that has to be managed 2. issues on repair - harder to spot some damage in a composite constrcution and can be very complex to repair - the repairs often add weight as well 3. environmental - as younger people who on average are more concerned with environmental issues move into the rec aviation owning group do not overlook the fact that he core materials in many composites are not environmentally friendly and the manufacturing processes go create unrecyclable waste. Aluminium airframes and wooden airframes do not share all of these or to the same extent ... and there are current ways to address some of the environmental impacts of metal/wooden airframes that plastic fantastics just cannot currently address. Wood metal and fabric are still attractive materials and can produce an airframe at lower cost than plastics

Those straps would propably hold back the middle aged spread as well as the seatbelt does

In the Walcha folk museum there is what is claimed to be the prototype 82 duster. whilst it’s the only aircraft item in the museum it’s worth a visit to the museum if your up the New England way. Open weekends and staffed by the expected pensioner volunteers 😛

Well done. Yes. The short seamew. A plane design hit repeatedly with the ugly stick and then given half the power it needed. Whack a double mamba in the front and I think it would have had half a chance in its role

Not only 10. Over 20 of them. The 10 was the modified ju87 with jettisoning fixed gear. to help - 26 in total built. next clue tomorrow

Ok I’ll give a second hint. And the answer on Wednesday if unsolved. Designed and manufactured in the UK.

I remember flying him the bugger brother the 360 from Launceston to Essendon back in 1990 with Air Tasmania. May be a flying box but it was a comfy flying box.

But lets not forget - the plane came in at 114kg with a generac big twin fourstroke engine ... that airframe while looking chunk is actually very light. And for cover on the fusealge they are limited to 115kg empty in the USA so who is volunteering they can cover that for less than 1kg ... Plus the USA is limited to speed - must stall below 24knt and full throttle must not exceed 55knt ... cruise at 48knt is pretty much what is requried. The backyard flyer is a not designed to the Australian limits for ultralights so its pretty pointless comparing it to the Australian limits and pilot expectations because it will come up short. Its like complaining that a 95.10 sapphire is not as good as a 95.25 sapphire or that the 95.25 sapphire is not as good as the 95.55 sapphire. They all had different legal envelopes they had to fit within and the different airframes fit their envelopes in different ways.

Woo Hoo - the Lysander you have when you have been rear ended by what looks like a bomber tail group

Ok - I will half pay that one - there were apparently a few JU87C modified with explosive bolt undercarriage ... but the only reference i find for them is that 10 were allocated and modified ... not all JU87C's The one I am looking for had 20+ and it was not a modification but on all the airframes as standard. Hint - post WWII, not German

But unfortunately the company - Pacific Aerospace - was declared insolvent on Friday.

Ok thry this one - again name the aicraft by the design 'feature' What aircraft that was not ever intended to land on water had a design that included the ability to jettison the fixed undercarriage in an emergency to aid your chances of surviving a ditching in water? 20+ built so not even a one off 😀

Bing bad! it was the picture of the 3yo crash that was posted last week as the Amberly one .. I'll delete my post as its very misleading

The one in the video would be fine to register in OZ under RAAus in the 95.10 category. It clearly has more than enough wing areas to cover its MTOW and 95.10 allows multi engine and/or multi props so 👍 Same would apply to anything like the the Woopy inflated wing ULM ...

Microsoft Bing will allow you to find it in images searching for Amberley tigermoth crash and limit it to the last month ... appears to be VH-UZB My bad - this is a crash from 3 years ago that came up on Bing for last week

If you are factory built (whatever the design standard) RAAus cannot override maintnenace set out by the manufacturer UNLESS they chose to under MARAP. With the engine, prop and the instruments within a factory build the manufacturer generally simply calls out the maintenance as per the component manufacturers schedule. If the aircraft manufacturer calls out or replicates the component manufacturers maintenance schedule then there is no wriggle room under RAAus if there is no allowance within those called out schedules. I can only think of a couple of cases where an airframe manufacturer specifically excluded the engine manufacturers maintenance/overhaul schedule and replaced it with their own so basically you are left to the maintenance lists fo trhe airframe/engine manufacturer. The only area where RAAus does/has effectively used MARAP to replace the requirements of a manufacturer is on-condition running of engines. This allowance is in effect a form of MARAP where RAAus takes on the airworthiness of a component in an airframe BUT that is limited in operations - use an airframe for training and reward through a school and it's by the book all the way, no on condition running. Practically what you are up against when you have exceeded a maintenance period or overhaul life that applies to your airframe or a component within that airframe is: 1. you have a technical breach of the tech manual - that is an administrative action for RAAus to enforce under the RAAus structure and they have no history of enforcement 2. you have a technical breach of the tech manual - that is a breach of the CAO that the aircraft is registered and operates under (we are reuqired to maintain it in accordance with the Tech Manual) and that is an enforcement action by CASA and they have no hidtory of enforcement for minor/inadvertant contracventions 3. you have a technical breach of the tech manual - that is a risk for insurance coverage (either under RAAus group policy or any individual policy you may have) and I cannot comment on enforecement of insurance companies against owners/pilots ... but these are the ones that have the interest in not providing coverage or seeking recovery of cover from individuals and the resources and mind set to turn on you. So your risk is breaching/non-complicance with the RAAus tech manual and that breach/non-compliance leaves you open to three general areas of action as outlines above.

Sneaky. I recognise the rear half but the front was not what I remember the Hs124 looking like. Bit of digging and it appears I recalled the v2 prototype and your pic is of the Henschel Hs124 v1 prototype.

Per se you say ... just ask autocorrect 😁 Im paenitet, sed mortuus linguarum modern vita opiniones illae haud desinunt. And yes, only half of that came from my rather poor education in latin - bare minimum required to be a solicitor - and the rest from google translate

And just to note - 4 of 6 pics in the initial posting have the modified tailplane which is both lower on the fin and larger to address instability issues that did exist in the original express. Grom Google image search is appears the Wheeler expresses in OZ are the original high position tail and would be expected to have some potentially unpleasant behaviour around the edges of the flight envelope in some conditions.

Agree for the most part but there are always exceptions where unintended operation of some controls is unavoidable because you cannot design it out of the aircraft. For example the hand throttle for a two seat weightshift trike is near impossible to design as a single throttle for both front/rear seat access and you have to make a decision on which of the two throttles overrides foot or hand. Most have a reasonable compromise of either being able to override to open throttle but not close and the single hand throttle is at risk of inadvertant knocks just because it has to be in the at risk location to be effective for access to both.

https://www.flyer.co.uk/hay-bales-1-aeroplane-0/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=news&utm_content=&fbclid=IwAR1p-shUf69mGII5QcIUe81uu1wLwAs2ZKlyaTk6sAiVRhRpOHOnzEFIubk

Graham Swannell AEA explorer had cross over main legs retracting across the bottom of the fuselage

And discuss ... no plb or elt is legally required regardless of distance if it’s a single seat aircraft under 95.10 or 95.32 or 95.55 ops. If you are a two seat aircraft then 50nm is the legal limit to fly without a plb/elt. And that’s disregarding people on board - two seats = requirements for carriage. Single seat = no requirements. I’m not advocating not using one but you said discuss what you probably learned - requirements apply to only two seat aircraft and that’s regardless of them being flown solo.

Can't seem to find the date of that video ... but as bombardier completed sale of their rail business recently and that video is talking about it still having a rail business I am guessing out of date info. In addition the plane making division where airbus already has over 50% ownership will likely be snapped by them if/when debt becomes an actual problem ... plus of course the bits of bombardier we are interested in is a small sub limb on the recreational vehicle area ... not much to worry about in the next few years I suspect.

Monday 1 August 2016