boingk

Flying for me is generally pretty basic. I don't like flying when its especially windy or in large crosswinds - I've taken both a Gazelle and a C150 to their manufacturers rated crosswind component of 20 and 15kt respectively, and can tell you I have no special desire to do so again unless absolutely necessary. My checklist is something like this: Airservices.com, log on and get area report. Interpret weather at location and destination. Print it out, go inspect aircraft, add any items needed (fuel, ELT, water, etc). Taxi, takeoff, go fly. Encountering any bad weather I'll either turn back or fly above/around it. You generally want to stay out from directly under large cloud layers of any sort as they produce turbulence. It may help to think not of what clouds are (water vapor condensing in the cool air) but what puts them there - rising warm air from below. This rising air is generally surrounded by cold, sinking air. As you fly under a cloud you'll hit the sink and then the rising air... then the sinking again, giving turbulence. I stay away from directly underneath large clouds for this reason. Thats my weather tutorial in a basket, with one exception; where you can, fly higher than 3,000ft AGL. You'll get a smoother ride, better safety margin and, more often than not, simply be able to fly above any troublesome cumulus cloud formations (they're generally 1000~3000ft AGL). As an added bonus you'll get a kick-ass view, feel like a champ and get an increased TAS due to the altitude. Don't try flying over a fully developed cloud layer for navigation reasons, but you can certainly fly above a broken one very safely. Cheers - boingk

Predictable human wankerism... er... I mean ineptness. The AirServies site is great and no lag whatsoever. Cheers - boingk

Great to hear Bigfella, its a total hoot to be up there on your own and even more when you're loving it. I recently got back from a flight at 8,000ft, over a broken layer of cloud sitting at 6,500ft or so. Loved every minute of it and highly recommend to others if you've never gone that high... although watch out for controlled airspace etc. Keep up the good work, and remember to challenge yourself every flight as well as have fun. Be it nav accuracy, sideslipping, lookout for suitable forced landing spots or even just converting your IAS to TAS; keep yourself current, challenged and cheerful! Cheers - boingk

Dunno mate. Awful lot being written off lately, or so it seems. - boingk

Yeah the Goulburn strip has crazy conditions at times as well. Hell, flew into Bathurst the other day and had an AWIS reading within 5 minutes of nil wind, variable 9kt 180' / 90' magnetic and 4kt 90' magnetic! Felt it, to, as I was departing downwind. As for altitude, things definitely smooth out. Try drawing an erratic zigzag at the bottom straight edge of a piece of paper, with a big bump every now and then. Now draw a line above it a bit that is the wind, following the contours of the zigzag. It'll likely smooth them out a bit. Draw another, and another, and another... and eventually you'll have a smooth, straight line. Low level and high level flying are a lot like that - the higher you go the smoother it often gets. I like high cruises around 3,000ft over terrain and have often cruised at 6,000~8,000ft where possible. Great views, smooth air, increased TAS and the feeling of flying over layers of broken cloud is just magic. Cheers - boingk

Why not just run a lead from the PTT button hookup to an LED mounted on the dash? Eash, cheap and very accessible. By the by, the 'have done and have yet to do' type comments really grind my gears. I'm also a motorcyclist and sometimes hear it from people about coming off; otherwise known as crashing your motorcycle off the road. Planes are the same with missed checks, gear up, comm left on whatever. If you f*** up then you are doing it wrong. Plain and simple. Learn well in the first place then back that up with frequent and meaningful flight experiences and you shouldn't make severe errors. As for akoustic sterile cockpit... well... I don't think its a bad idea. I like to do it in my plane and the few times I've taken somone up with me (apart from initial instructors etc) I have enforced it - Matt/Emma/Whoever, we'll be landing soon and I'll have to concentrate a bit and make some radio calls so its best to be quiet till we're back on the ground, okay? Cool, enjoy the ride! - boingk

As I said before - if someone can make an 18hp Briggs & Stratton airplane cruise at 100mph *reliably* then I'm sure that a HD can be made to work *reliably*. Its just a matter of engineering prowess and, as they say, we have the technology. - boingk

Might be cheap but also may not be viable due to weight and subsquent further weight with redrive etc. - boingk

Why? More cylinder equals higher revving, more weight and a larger engine. Water cooling often makes a heavier engine and requires placement of radiators, which in turn give drag to the airframe. Again, why a watercooled four? - boingk

Why don't we all stop knocking it? Sounds awesome in the video above and I'm sure is a very good design. As for belt primaries... pretty sure HD's have been running those since the land before time. Very popular 'badass' modification to new bikes as well. Their rear belt drive is also remarkable and outlasts chains on even high-end sportsbikes, getting something like 100,000km before standard service (replacement). If an SD-1 Minisport can fly along well on a Briggs and Stratton engine with a prop attached, I'm damn well sure that a HD engine would be good in the air too. - boingk

Spotwelding. - boingk

VNE can be used to express many conditions which will make an aircraft unsafe or unflyable at a given speed. Commonly used ones are: Control flutter Control reversal Excess control loads Excess structural loads More rarely they will include limits for sonic buffering or intake velocity for trans sonic craft that cannot breach the sound barrier. The craft we fly are generally limited structurally and by control flutter, which can occur at higher speeds without proper ajustments and weighting of controls surfaces. There is, for example, a Hummel Bird that is regularly flown at 160mph - 20mph more than stated redline. The owner has extensively modified it. The link is here and is an interesting read: http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2010-02_hummel_bird.asp Cheers - boingk

I believe you can buy various Hummel airframes precut/completed etc and by all accounts they seem to fly nicely once completed. I think this includes their new somewhat larger offering, as the original Hummel Bird is somewhat restrictive on pilot size/weight. Cheers - boingk

Cheers guys, and yeah I didn't want to sell her to start with! The trip was great, even though I didn't make Walcha. I hit turbulence over the Blue Mountains and it didn't seem like it wanted to go away. Coupled with smoke from bushfires I thought it a wise idea to turn back to Bathurst, refuel, and head for home. A great trip nonetheless, only regret is not being able to find my camera. - boingk

You trollin', bro? - boingk

Reading the actual technical report and summary investigation, they show in detail the failure of a crank journal within the engine that supported the crank. One conrod is damaged and there is galling (frictional welding for want of a better term) on many crank journal areas. It appears that this failure happened inflight and prior to contact with the ground. In essence, the Rotax 912 underwent a catastrophic and unrecoverable failure inflight, over terrain unsuited for an emergency landing. The report does not state the planes altitude at the time of the crash, which I would deem as critical for survival in the area. Personally I do not like to navigate through bad country at any less than 3,000ft AGL. - boingk

Hey there everyone probably a bit late notice but thought I'd give a heads up of my trip tomorrow. If you'd like to fly along then I'll be leaving Goulburn Sunday morning around 10am for arrival at Bathurst around 11am. Quick refuel/coffee/watch check and off to Walcha - somewhat past Tamworth. Plan is to return before last light, or stay overnight if there is not enough time or conditions change from predicted. Cheers all - boingk

Sorry everyone, didn't mean to get any knickersin a knot - merely stating an opinion. If you want to fly low, are legally allowed to do so and are awar eof the dangers then by all means enjoy it. Personally I like my altitude and airspeed - when you run out of both you start having problems around here as the terrain is somewhat unforgiving. I'm probably also showing my GA trained [read 'cautious'] backgound here. Now, lets get back to planning our weekend flights - be they low, high, fast, slow or otherwise!

250ft demarkation? Surely if you need that minimum clearance you'd be better off maintaining a hawk-like watch out the windows and a rock-steady handle on the flight controls, rather than dropping your gaze to try and read a map? - boingk

Flight procedures as I understand them: 1: Takeoff checklist, checks, calls and taxi to runway. 2: Takeoff and CLIMB IMMEDIATELY TO 1000ft AGL. 3: Declare intentions (local area flight, heading to etc) and CLIMB TO CRUISE ALTITUDE ENROUTE. What you would want to be doing below 1000ft I have no idea... I once saw some skylark in a drifterish kind of aircraft hooning around maybe a few hundred feet above ground level maximum as I was heading to Yass. That scared the hell out of me, as the craft was clearly being controlled in a dangerous fashion and was not in an emergency. Anyway, hope everyone turns out okay from the accident and can give us the full story. - boingk

Case as I see it (university level legal experience): Guy dies in accident as a passenger. Wife is left with no income and/or minimal estate to support her. Wife decides to sue RAA/pilots estate for damages in hope of financial settlement. Full sympathy to the widow, but things happen and some of them are bad. If the pilot was negligent then, sure, damages are appropriate, but if the craft went down due to unforseen and unpreventable circumstances (eg engine failure over rough country resulting in fatal crash) then there shouldn't be any damages awarded as the pilot had the best interested of both himself and his passenger at heart. After writing the above I got curious and searched for "6th January 2007 ultralight aircraft accident". The following link describes the accident: http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/aair/aair200700054.aspx It is in an area I am familiar with, and know well both from ground and air experience. I would rate an engine failure in the area as an extremely dangerous event, due to the fact that it is mostly rough country and has very view suitable areas for a forced landing. Depending on their altitude they may have been even more limited - one reason I am not in favor of low cruise altitudes. As it turned out the accident was fatal due to collision with terrain, after an unpredictable failure of the crankshaft in their Rotax 912 series engine. I am saddened, but unfortunately not surprised, by the outcome of that incident. Anyway... onwards and upwards gentlemen. - boingk

Hi there mate I'm hangered out there with Tony Lamara - also runs the antique/secondhand store in town across from Woolies and owns a C172. He charges $50 week for hangerage and it has basic utilities; water, mains power and a sideroom for having a cuppa etc. No idea on price stability. Bingo. I'm currently flying my little Minicab and am in the process of sending off my Level 2 application - til now its being done by the hangar boys with me guiding them through anything they're unfamiliar with (not much!). I figure its a somewhat higher-level craft than I can reasonably afford so am selling and 'tactically reapproaching the situation'.... otherwise known as downgrading. My up-and-coming ride will most likely be similar to yours in that it'll use not much Mogas or oil, and should be trailerable. Otherwise I can always make a 300m strip out at the local farm and bang together something out there to keep her in... even an old shipping container would do. Cheers - boingk

I generally find that I'm a keyboard and mouse kind of guy when it comes to aircraft simulators, using the keyboard for functions such as rudder, throttle position and flap / gear / weapon settings. Unless you're getting feedback from a stick its really hard to see why you'd want one in the virtual world. Keep it simple. Now, back to my 1500hp Yakovlev over the skies of Europe... - boingk

You are definitely best to be trained to look for the most appropriate field at any given time. I remember my GFPT and the takeoff engine-out test. I was at 500ft and dropping, with two hills covered with trees dead ahead. I went through the motions of full flap to bring her up short dead ahead in the area that was clear - the instructor approved. At low level (under 1000ft or so) you've only got about a 45 degree arc dead ahead to play with. I would definitely say that making the strip with a failure on downwind is doable, though, if you are at circuit height and... of course... depending on the aircraft and conditions. I've done it a stack in a venerable (and overweight) C150 Aerobat and also a Skyfox Gazelle. Both seemed fine through mid downwind with an engine out to land back on the takeoff runway with a sweeping, smooth turn through 'base' and 'final'. Had to slip the bejeezus out of the Gazelle, actually, was a hoot! Jabiru Phil - I was actually trained in the aircraft mentioned above (C150, Gazelle) and only recently bought my own low wing. The strut reference is most appropriate to high wingers, of course, thanks for the correction. EDIT: Surely everyone knows this saying: "Out of altitude, out of airspeed, out of options."

Yeah gotta admit I love the Mittagong route through all the raised highlands and so on. Great flying country - especially when you negotiate the dropoff into Wollongong! 10 mile call whilst on rapid descent over a cliff? Sure, why not!? Just checked out a PFD online that complies with the new regulations and is affordable and compact. This is the one for anyone interested: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/310340495727?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649 Cheers again everyone.