ExJourno

Fellow Forumites... After a decently long discussion with two of the Morgan clan, hours of procrastinatory time at work spent "researching" and frustratingly-endless discoveries of likeable single-seaters that prove too damned narrow, I am about to arrange a visit to Taree to take the third last last step towards beginning a build - taking a look at a built one at the kit factory (the second last is making a final decision, the last is putting money down). However... before arranging that trip down and back, I want to talk to anyone who has any experience (even if just sitting in one or watching one fly while you gaze jealously) with any of the Diamond aircraft (I, II or III Twister). While I'd welcome the usual subjective conjecture this site is excellent for and any fact-based detail anyone wishes to send my way, what I really want is a direct contact so I can probe your brain and (probably confuse mine in the process of) get(ting) the final bits of info together that will help me make a final decision when I go down to the MA shop. I know there are not many out there. I know at least one is no-longer flying. Yes I can ask Gary Morgan for contact with the few builders who have made one... I've sent that email (today) and will speak to them too. Cheers in advance. And for those who enjoy the banter this will cause... if I do this,(IF... it is never "will" until it is started) it will be a slow process, but my thinking is upgrade the coverings to all metal and, seperately, stick a Camit 120hp up the front. Yeah. How ridiculous - but why not, right? Anyway... come at me. I wanna know everything.

Nev.... maaaaaate.... I'll answer your question with another. What plane doesn't need more power, always? In fact, why wouldn't the Skyranger *need* a 114 or even 120hp donk? It would push it through VNE in cruise, you say? Nah... .they can set it up for climb and add blades commensurate with power until it is optional whether it gets registered as a chopper or a plane.

Define "Cheaper than you think"?

I cancelled a planned flight yesterday morning, down the road from Toowoomba, when wind picked up while mid-daily... 15 to 20kt gusting winds at near 90deg to the runway do not indicate conditions suitable to taking a Lightwing and a 7yo up for joy flights. Miss 7 chucked a mad little sook about not getting to go for a fly... the conditions were nasty. Toowoomba's gusts were far worse in the afternoon when I came back. I am somewhat surprised that plane was even taken out. But hey... each to their own.

Nev, Can't disagree. Contrary to the detail in the RAAus report, this bloke reckons there was sufficient charge to (probably) start it but he opted for the hand start given his engine is so easy to do that with and this would leave the battery power available for exactly what you talk about whilst it charged back up - plenty of power for avionics etc... didn't quite go the way he thought, obviously. I'd challenge anyone to fully detach themselves from their existing knowledge and consider what they'd have done in the exact same situation and with the specific knowledge this guy had. For a short local flight, not knowing the battery was only compatible with the system whilst fully charged, I would think a great many people would have thought nothing of letting the onboard system charge the battery back up to full. I may be wrong. One of the great benefits of globalised information and fast, wide-reaching communications systems (hooray for the Internet) is that a mishap can happen and the same day, people all over the place can know many details about it (admittedly, having to decipher what parts are credible). Anyone readying this thread, for example, will likely go away and do additional reading etc and avoid learning the same lesson for themselves... this particular incident, perhaps because it involved a friend, has cause me to go away and read quite a bit of detail for my own general knowledge and various comments have sparked me to go and search even more. 2Tonne, I'll ask... you've piqued my curiosity (and others', by the look of it) - and now I have a bit more to go and read about to aid me with future decisions.

Does "everyone"?

Mate, RAAus has determined the battery failed due to the charging system in the plane not being compatible with the battery in a deep charge situation - bearing in mind the owner did query prior to fitment, whether the charging system in his plane was suited to the G9 battery and was told it was "compatible". The bump start isn't the issue and hasn't been suggested to be. The issue is, apparently, damage to the battery causing it to fail due to being charged by the system in the plane whilst it was less than ideally charged... or in other words, whilst it was somewhat depleted. This may help: [GALLERY=media, 3272]Screen Shot 2014-07-07 At 2.32.09 Am by Adam Byatt posted Jul 7, 2014 at 2:34 AM[/GALLERY]

It was a Lithium Ion battery (not Iron, people). The Brallie G9. Can't find anywhere that says it must be charged differently if the thing gets depleted... I wonder about this as a depleted battery being recharged within a car or motorcycle application after a bump/clutch start, would conceivably result in a vehicle fire, it would seem.

This is a rather flippant comment, it would appear. Care to explain how the pilot in this case was an idiot? Or how he was being an idiot with flat lipo? I'm somewhat at a loss to comprehend your statement, here, given the facts presented.

I had a chat with the pilot. He said this, regarding the battery failure in this incident: The battery was run down due to the maintenance works carried out while master switch was on. Prior to the flight, the aircraft was prop started due to the battery have low charge, although not flat. No due or additional care was taken regarding charging of the battery at that time as the supplier had informed the pilot that the manufacturer had stated the specific model battery was "compatible" to the B&C SD-8 charging system utilised in that plane. He assumed the alternator would safely charge the battery in flight given the advise re compatibility. If anyone wants further details, PM me and I'll put you in contact with the pilot directly - he says he is willing to have a discussion with anyone with a genuine interest about what went wrong etc with the Litho battery used (if you are thinking about using one, wondering now if you should get rid of the one you are using etc, and might like in depth details about this instance to aid your decision making). He is not a member of this forum.

Not always. I printed an apology and correction on the same page, same size headline and same amount of space when a journo mistakenly wrote a bloke had assaulted police (he had obstructed only, but court lists list as "assault or obstruct"). I also met with the guy in person the day it printed AND arranged a meeti. With his boss to explain our @#$!up - to discover had I not, he'd have been fired as his employment was a feature of the article, brief though it was. Note: I am no longer in journalism. Go figure. Meanwhile, nick, I spoke to the big fella this morning. We had a chuckle about the various "news"... Well, I chuckled. He oh-welled. At least CFT got an underhanded wrap for training him so well for an emergency, eh? All very lol-worthy... but not something I'd like to experience.

It is a zenith. It was the battery. It will likely be flown off the paddock by tomorrow. The Chronicle has updated its story, no more mention of a crash. By "taxied" the witness was referring to the landing roll. What I consider a pathetic failure to properly fact check, by too many journalists, generally, shits me. The utterly irrelevant reference to the change in engine "pitch" is quite amusing. Has there been any reportage of aviation related matters that were actually reported correctly in the first instance? Like, even one?

I stand corrected. Pilot in question just informed me there was leaping, Still wasn't any crash or any fire.

And it also didn't catch fire. No leaping.

I'm commenting so I see the outcome of this... Oh and, uh, airfreight? As in, courier? If so, it may, only may, be handled for you by the courier company... as per my experiences getting DHL deliveries from Pakistan (leather products). When I imported a heap of Roof Top tents I had manufactured for me in China, then sea freighted, it was a little more tedious. I used an agent for that one.

There's two GR912T light wings at YBCM. One is 24 and the other 55 rego... one is 600kg MTOW the other 544... both with the 912ULS engine.

Hmmmm left drift, a little right rudder, nope... more... more... crap, the nose is shuddering, straighten it NOW! Sh*t why is it still turning into the fence? Power? NO! You'll hit the fence before you get up again. BRAKE BRAKE, a little more right brake... that's better... ...such was my thought process as my soft-as-silk landing tried to become a side-fence incident. I'd taken a friend up with me for a mid-morning joy flight and it had all gone well... until just now. With the right main down, we were still pointed exactly where I wanted to be. The drama started when the left main touched down and immediately the nose started pulling to the left. It didn't occur to me, immediately, a brake might be sticking. I will admit to a split second of confusion that while the push was in the right direction for crosswind, it didn't feel like cross wind effect. The nose was turning left. There isn't a huge explanation... but I've added checking and rechecking my pax's feet position to my checklist and ensuring I physically look on late final, just to be sure. Anyway, sufficiently slowed and about to clear 12 at YBCM I commented to he who shall not be named that "Well, I have certainly done better... we either had a sticky brake or"... I glanced at his left leg and followed it to the floor... "Mate, can you do me a favour and slowly pull your left foot back for me". And with it came the left heel brake... "Keep clear of the controls please, cheers" isn't sufficient. Actually checking, might be. A narrower runway and we'd have been off it. Actually, if I am honest, a stronger brake (disc setup maybe?) and we'd have hit the fence regardless. Lessons... I just learned one.

Cool. A C172/182 or C206 REALLY depends on how many kidlets Mrs Thommo wants, yeah?

How is that not a bargain? Seriously?

That accounts for the unsold ones... but what of the ones people already have and want rid of?

So what I am reading, is a 162 could probably be bought, near new, for a total bargain about now?

This morning... (Thursday)... went for a short fly around Coominya area over Atkinson then west past Mt Halen and Mt Mulgowie... Climbed to 3500 only to discover it wasn't as blue up there as it looked. Got bored of avoiding cloud. Went back. Air was smooooooooooooooooooth this morning there, though.

And you have a reply!

I know where there is one that has been dismantled. The frame needs to be straightened (or it may have already been) and one wing needs a little work. Went through a fence one time and while insurance paid out, it was never repaired. Just dismantled... it would be a GR912T.

Is this the one near gatton that hadn't flown for 5 years?