pylon500

Have seen wake vortices sit in the same place for at least 30 seconds to almost a minute, but usually from a LARGE aircraft, and generally in fairly still conditions. Watching the dust movement after the crash, I feel most of the vortex would have dissipated by the time the Cirrus arrived. Would tend to lean more towards the pilot attempting a go-round and getting caught in the pitch-up and torque roll couple. Damn lucky to get out of it...

Welcome to Hollywood:roflmao:

Watching the longer video, gives one a different appreciation of the aircraft's movements. Whether single or both engines failed is hard to tell, but the pilot was doing his best to stretch his glide, he just didn't quite make it.....

Sorry about the slow reply (forgot which post this was in..) Finally found a picture of my father in his 'Hey Day', as Western Australian 'Champion of champions' circa 1963? At the time he held WA control line speed records in class B (5.0cc), and class C (10.0cc), as well as state champ for control line stunt, and I think A2 free flight glider. Was flying models into the '90s, but was also getting back into full size gliding and setting state and national records there. Held Australian height gain record of 25,462ft (remember, that is gain, not absolute) around 1987, off the Stirling Ranges. Sadly, he passed away back in 1994.

No idea why the above video disappeared? So I'll try again for those that missed it;

I had been digging through old youtube clips of the Convair Pogo, and got to thinking the amount of power required for vertical lift, if converted fully to thrust by becoming wing-born, should come back with a fairly high speed (as with the Pogo) Although I never did any structural layouts, I did a lot of thinking on the control layout and modes of flight. Basic structure was a large glass/epoxy covered polystyrene delta, powered by a Rotax 503 driving contra-rotating lift blades, that employed 'floating, self pitching blades', all sitting atop a universal mount with a T bar control arm with throttle grip and a brake lever used to de-pitch the blades for power-up/decent/auto-rotation. The T bar could be twisted like a pushbike handlebar, and was connected to the ailerons (elevons actually) giving roll in normal (horizontal) flight, or yawing motion when hovering. The T bar was moved laterally, and for and aft (similar to a hang glider A frame) which while hovering gave translation control and in level flight would couple to the elevons for pitch and roll as described above. Sidewards movement of the T bar in level flight would give yaw control, but not really needed and would possibly be locked out until hovering again. Some people would take a bit of getting used to being strapped up what would be 'underneath' while in level flight, but most hang glider pilots would take to it. Cant find any of my drawings just now, but did make a little animation some years back, but only have one frame. This is very rough, but gives the idea... Flying techniques needed a bit more study, but hovering would be fairly intuitive, level flight is fairly straight forward, but decent and transition to hover would be a bit 'trick' There are a few choices with engine failures, all dependant on height, usually ending up under a ballistic chute. Don't know how it would be registered and dare say no-one would want to be first to accept it...

Have seen the photo before, and while appears legit, one wonders how the pilot becomes to be lower than the plunging aircraft? There are some wild gyrations possible to explain all relevant positions, so who knows. Another example of seemingly unrelated angles would this Andover crash, which looks to be going straight in, but is actually stalling and cartwheeling down the runway, most of the crew got out!

Very sad news. Knew Sy well while working at AirAg. Helped in the rebuilding/restoring of his beaver and Twin Pin. Went to the first Tassie air races with him back god knows when.....? Really nice bloke, will be missed.

I would have thought it would then be like a Pitts Special !!!

Thread-drift The early Beavers had alloy strut fittings that would hold up to original maximum design weights, (there's a photo somewhere of a float Beaver that went IFR and looped out the bottom of a cloud and bent a wing about 30°, but landed safely). But when they came to Australia and started Ag work in our rough conditions, a couple managed to pull the wings off (not sure if it was a new aircraft that failed). All beavers now have steel strut fittings and doubler plates on the wings for Ag and sea-plane work. There may have been a few extra mods around the tail as well, I know the tailwheel fittings were beefed up.

Despite the stories, as far as 'Looking good (or right), the BD-5 still has to be the sexiest looking thing ever built....

I often wonder about the ability of 98 to hold it's octane rating, but fortunately, I tend to have a fairly high turnover, so it's rarely more than two weeks old (from the servo anyway). Usually around four days from the servo to use.

I keep wondering why people will go from 100LL Avgas to 95 Mogas? Just because engine manufacturers say you can use a minimum of 95 Ron fuels, doesn't mean this is the best fuel to use. 98 Mogas is still a lot cheaper than 100LL (if that's the reason to use Mogas). A lot of the Avgas fuels, specifically in aero engines, often caused run-on, this being the reason most aircraft engines use an idle cutoff, rather than just killing the mags. But more to the point, run-on is more likely to be caused by engines being run hotter than they should, in conjunction with carbi's set up a bit lean at idle?

From what I can see, it is usually LESS of the tail wheel type, that end up on their back.

I would have thought the easiest way to solve the problem was, learn to fly a tail dragger, build a taildragger (as Vans envisioned them), and only worry about breaking propellors if you get carried away with the brakes. Flame suit on, ready for the 'training wheel' set

This AD was probably brought about by this report; http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2005/aair/aair200501905.aspx Which includes this photo; So the text is referring to swaged terminals, and possibly any of the 'thin' looking terminals typical to control systems. or, And so on......

With regards the Kooka', is actually ALL wood, fuselage included. where my flying all started:chuffed:

One see's a lot of PT-6's doing the vertical descent thing, and usually getting away with it. I, and probably ozzie are aware that some Garrets don't take kindly to sort this treatment, maybe there is a possible problem with the PT-6 under these conditions?

My feeling as well...? An empty Pac 750 would glide pretty well, but if it's caught fire, might be better to get out.

My fathers name was Len if you're asking me... I've done some modelling in the past as well. Yes, I'm an ex-Sandgroper. Some of my modelling stuff in the google link below.

They don't always work...;

Talking rocket powered, check this out !! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL8Pv2J4HbE

Love the little twin Cox, how did it run?

The Solar T-62 core , typically uses between 60 and 80 litres an hour.

Many have suggested this, and I half agree, but your point fell over when you mentioned two 90kg pilots. This means I'm limited to 80kg passenger/students. I was happy enough with 544kg when we had it. We also needed to tie in with a stall speed, thereby giving us the low inertia thing we are were supposed to hold to... Bring on RPL, then all the old GA pilots can go back to their Cessnas, and leave us to fly recreationally.