HEON

As I said most of my Jab time is in 160 (and the 430kg MTOW LSA) which schools here like as although easy to fly they are hard to fly well, thus teach aircraft control (You must use hands and feet!) In my short time in 230, and what I'm told it, is more placid. The 2000 is very placid and its large tail is very useful for control as my home strip is known for its unpredictable cross winds. I also like the low wing for its ground effect on landing and take off. Sink on removal of flap, common in 160, is non event. In other words relaxing to fly. HEON=HeO2N2=trimix chemical compersition (I used to dive a lot!)

GA has more detail than RAA and thus could be considered better HOWEVER most RAA fly more due to cost and thus become more practiced. As for "obstruction" on landing...Drifters obstruct my LSA. You say he was obstructed by RAA. What do you think the jets think of his twin? Thats life. As for GA being "better"...the nearest I ever came to a mid air crash was a couple of years ago at a CTAF® at Toowoomba in poor conditions with the cloud base at 1000ft AGL, when a 172 came out of the clouds directly in front of me on base leg and landed. My following radio call was enough for an instructor to come out of the local school, which I was going to see by concidence to enquire about a PPL. When I had "a word" with the 172 pilot on the ground...He said he did not know it was a CTAF®, did not have a radio on, and gave the impression he did not know what a CTAF® was! At which point the instructor shook his head and returned to the school! (I must add the 172 pilot was not connected to the school...he wanted fuel co-located next to the school)

Markfnkl (Love to know the background to that!) I think you are on the right track. The Lightwing is listed at around 40kg heavier than 230. You said you wished to carry 2 PAX, golf bags and luggage and I assume fuel. I know the Lightwing flys well with 270kg of total load but I will leave you to do the maths both for yourself and my MTOW when so loaded. Axcess for golf bags in Lightwing would need a folding seat back and probably a relocated or hole in the rear bulkhead; neither of these would be a problem to obtain. I have said, in my opinion, the large tail should prevent any major C of G problems (within reasion). A friend has a Jab 430 (rearly a 4 seat 230 with a MTOW of 700kg) and says it flys better with some weight in the rear as it is a bit nose heavy without. At 700kg I think it stalls at 48kt which is above LSA rules here and I think in USA. With the load I spoke of in Lightwing it probably is also above 45kt, but not after 3-4hr flying! I personally prefer how a Speed/Outback flys to a Jab but in reality it is only one (although important) aspect to take into account. Happy hunting!

Surercharged 912? Do not know of it. The 914 is a turbo and different capacity (smaller) to 912. As for O-200D: very hard to get it's actual weight of the net. In Lightwing 2000/Outback it would make it a single seater if you wished to have fuel in it also. In Jab 230 it would also reduce load as both are limited to 600kg while making it a performance dog (100 v 120hp).

Lightwing Speed 2000SP is called Outback in USA. Checked Lightwing website (www.lightwing.com.au) and it has photo of 4 seater being constructed showing new bulkhead location 18in (not 12 as thought) rearwards. Unlike Jab's, Lightwing is willing to custom build requirements

First off, the Lightwing 2000 has only been made as a nose wheel aircraft dispite what Donkey said. Prior Lightwings (high wing) were mainly tail wheel. The two aircraft are very different. I own a 2000 and although I have time in Jab 160's (around 100hr), have only flown Jab 230 once. Space: 230 has more behind seats and is more accessable due to third door. The 2000 could be made as long if rear bulkhead was moved back to where I beleave the 4 seater one will be (approx 1ft back). Also the 2000 has high backed seats (which I think are much better than the Jab's) which restrict axcess to the rear for large items however the factory has to develop folding backs for 4 seater thus they will be available. Although I saw the first 2000 before it was sent to USA I cannot remember if fixed backs or not. Flying: they will do the same job with the normal high wing/low wing differences. The Jab would be a few knots faster (?5kt) than my Rotax 914, holds a bit more fuel (?15L) but uses a bit more (2-5L/hr). I find the large tail on 2000 gives very good control on landing and should assist in C of G flexability. I have only taken Jab 160 on max of about 900nm flight while I have taken 2000 around most of Australia (similar to doing mainland USA). On that it was faster than Cesna 172 to give comparison. Although one knows you will never crash!, both aircraft have a good record of being able to walk away if you do. This has been proved here with Jab's doing it, and although no 2000's have done it (yet!)...(there are many more Jab's than 2000's here)...the older Lightwings which are constructed in like maner to the 2000 have done it (dont know if WELL is the right word...but people walk away!). I think you would be happy with either aircraft.

Some who did not go from south of the border seem to have made a wise move. Myself left early Fri from SE Qld to beat the bounces and only got two patches of sink crossing the ranges (plus 25kt tail wind). An aquaitance left a day or so before from Southern NSW and split his head open after hitting the roof!

Without going into detail, arriving around 0900 on Fri gave the impression that arriving the same time Sat MAY have allowed systems to work better after they worked out what to do. Would also help if Bundy Ground did not stand out in 20kt odd wind trying to be understood using a hand held radio.

Transponders? I personally think a good idea. Leaving the requirement for controlled airspace out of it, they do make you visable. Only have to see a couple of F111's at around 500ft and 500 odd knots to think what a LSA would be like as a nose extention! Last week returning from South Australia had a radio failure(no transmit/receaving OK). Transponder to 7600. Airfield in SE Qld I was heading to had been notified I was inbound well before arrivial by Air Svc. When I spoke to them they said they had notified other aircraft of my location, track and probable desternation. The weather was not too flash and in conversation with them I said another RAA aircraft with me had been helping me to avoid the storms as he had the weather radar on his phone. They did not know he was there...no transponder!

Beleave Fly Synthesis. When i spoke to them they were talking of putting a set on the Wallaby!

Just been on a long trip (2250nm) in company with J160. When cool in morning it would not start, requiring entra battery assistance (a bit of a problem in the outback without jumpers etc). After a bit of a warm up no further problems during the day. Is this a common problem? (about 600hr, and no the battery tested OK)

Yenn has touched on a point all should remember regarding the two wing types on final. Went to a fly in recently which had a lot of arriving traffic comming from all directions even though a RH/LH strip. I turned base and final after hearing other calls and slotted into final after the aircraft I thought I was hearing (fitted aircraft called). I was flying a low wing. When on final and the aircraft I was following was on very short final there was a call from an aircraft on final that did not fit into what the aircraft I was following would have transmitted. I questioned the transmitter on his location. He was following the same aircraft! In a high wing! Quick conversation in which we came to conclusion I was above him heading for the same spot! Resulted in quick relocation. The probable cause? I was flying the a faster aircraft and in a faster/steeper approach as I was flying a tight circuit to slot into the traffic. He was on a long final due to the amount of traffic. Being a RH circuit when turning base my low wing would have covered long final, and being a tight circuit he would have remained hidden under the wing as one naturally is concentrating on the aircraft in front of you after looking left. He was in a high wing with reduced visability above to where I was, and would have concentrating on the aircraft infront of him. Proves the value of radio AND the old saving that it don't sound right question it!

Agree with Ultralights basicly. My background in Jab's and Lightwing Speed indercate seperate issues with both for visibility. I do feel ground effect (the difference) is quite noticeable in the two aircraft I know. I prefer the low wing especially on landing as it has a steading effect just prior to touch down when compared to Jab LSA (430kg MTOW one) and J160. In Qld high wing or low wing with a "roof" is a great advantage in stopping one's brains (or what remains!) from frying in summer.

It's like sheep jokes...we rearly love you lot over the pond:laugh:

My post was a little lighthearted and was not intended to raise that old chestnut of GA verses RAA as to who is the better! From what I have noted BOTH have considerable room for inprovement.

I fly out of Warwick (127.85). Although this is in the ERSA and on approperate charts it is very frequent not to hear or be able to talk to other aircraft as they are most likely on the incorrect frequency. There is a good case to have only one frequency Australia wide and put up with the overlapping calls....or teach all pilots how to read to find the correct frequency:laugh: I wonder if "they" ever switch over to FIS frequency in flight:ah_oh:

Aerogard and match stops them flying but still the problem of the bodies! Good idea the pipe. Previous method of slowing them down has some problems in aircraft.

I know a lot has been said about some of the stupid flying that was displayed over Easter but if the pilots (and I use the word with some reservations) consider it satisfactory something HAS to be done to stop such stupidy. I personally beleave in the Darwin theory of evolution but they may kill someone elce as well. I probably missed some displays but I saw enough, especially as the storm approached on Friday evening!

Turtle Pac has 40L (and bigger) fabric tank c/w electric pump and filter etc which straps into second seat (or other locations MTOW/w&b permitting) @ $1258. Not cheap but then neither is purchase of a 44/205L when you can use well under half of it! Ordered one today thus have voted with my $'s on what I think is best solution.

Saw again over Easter after the Friday storm the interesting feature of cheap tents: why do they let water in through poor tent material, yet will not let it drain out through what one would think to be equally cheap floor material resulting in a "lovely" pool that is deep enough to wet everything that should be dry?

The 230 should cost more per hour. You have to do a min number of hours, thus use the one that costs less if able. Point that what you plan to buy, or is available to hire, is important. Train on that one. What you save (in time/cost) by training on "easier" aircraft now is rearly not that important as you will learn more on "harder"aircraft now, and will only spend it later when undergowing conversion to other aircraft later(probably more as you will have to "unlearn" slackness).

As I said I am out of date and was not aware of "quicky" pilot course (we used to call them Special Service Officer's). If you enter as a "quicky" pilot you will probably limit yourself to the rank of captain as command positions (major and up) will more likely go to "career" officers. Them's the breaks! Thus little life after flying.

To be an Army Pilot you have to be an Officer. While I am not current in present rules (like is there direct entry?), I would think firstly have to be selected as an officer and do 18 months at RMC. In my time you Graduated, did a period with an Arm, then transfered to Avn. Thus not only pilot attitude, but Officer aptudide required. Peter, RMC Class of '71

In a word: NO. I also do not want a T Model Ford!

Look at the date; Sep08! Not worth commenting on.