turboplanner

"....bottle of gin and remember old times<" he continued. "This was before be built the 404. We haven't told people about it because it was designated Top Secret by His Majesty's army. We'd managed to scrounge bits frow war wreckage, old gin crates and tent canvas which our soldiers didn't need after they'd been shot. We constructed a small aircrtaft. We couldn't make an engine on the steep slopes of the Himalayas of course, so we employed Dak Runners to haul it up the Pass and Turbo or I or a former member of this site who declared "I tort meself to fly" would fly it off the clif and bring back vital intelligence to the General.Many decades later the aircraft was copied and given the name Drifter." Turbo nodded at the memory and ..........................

....shot a couple of Drifter Pilots from Warracknabeal, then curried them in front of our eyes." "Remember how I sneaked across the line when they were sound asleep and poured six bottles of gin into the pot, and we were able to shoot thirty two of them because none of them could shoot straight?" mused Cappy. "We gained sixty three feet territory that day." replied Turbo "Our bet day in six weeks." Cappy swatted a big scorpion and said "Pity about Jack and Arthur, but at least the British gave the buggers some curry!" "We .....................

We.....RecreationalFlying.....had about 8 members. Hopefully the ones who used to fly there will make the effort and follow the sale process and get involved up front in ensuring it stays.

The engine part a couple of weeks ago certainly was. I started to research for it and found a can of worms that was not comparing apples with apples. Some people were including prop specifications, but that needs to be extracted. Some people were including airframes, but the airframe component needs to be broken into frontal area and coefficient of drag and more. What you are discussing it true, but you can break it up to get a comparison (which will still pretty much come out the same as your comments, i.e. the longer the trip leg the quicker the fast aircraft does it.) One of the pre-flight Performance & Operations calculations for a cross-country trip is fuel burn. This diagramme shows the components of a flight; knowing your aircraft fuel burn per hour, cruise speed, climb rate you can calcuate his in a couple of minutes. The time starts when you start the engine and the take off time at a busy city airport can take 20 minutes or at a farm strip just the #1 time. You can see in this example that you only have an advantage in fast cruise for 90% of the time, and each trip and different aircraft calculation will make the result different. The disadvantage of the faster aircraft is that it's harder for the average person to keep ahead of the aircraft, and plenty of accidets have come out of that. The disadvantage of the slower aircraft is that headwinds are a much bigger percentage of cruise speed. plenty of rage and tubes cruising to a fly in at 65 kts in an unexpected 30 kt headwind have had to turn back and abandon the flight whereas 130 kt, less 30 kt still leaves 100 kt TAS.

"Stick with me and you'll wear diamonds; XXXX with me and you'll have dirt for dessert!!" His mining sites were a model of production, all worked by temp. visa Indians, and soon .............

Take it up with Airservices then.

.......upset the followers of High Chairman Markey who had moved into a Retirement home in Mangey, but still thought he was in charge of WA. It also upset Twiggy sand, the Al Bond sand and Lang sand (who used to broadcast "Handcock's half-hour". Robert Holmes per Court of course was born an Africanner and had engineered WA's immigration laws with a clause giving the Orange Free Staters preference over the Sudanese for entry to Australia. This was the sceanrio that OEHOR was facing and no one quite knew how he would act. He was a lab most of the time, but put a scratch on one of his bulldozers and he turned into a ...................................

Do some research on similar applications if you can find them. We have a good thread on here where we discussed it extending to ways of incorporating roll cages. Most race car designs are not quite right for aircraft because they are based on front end collisions, and roll overs/end over ends at several times per second, whereas the aircraft can hit a tree head on and a helmet helps there, but the aircraft's wings slow rotation in two planes. The most common flip over of a Jab is loss of control when landing nose down or flat and running off the runway where the resul can be a nose dig on and graceful tip over the nose where that cap may well help with knocks. The other factor in an aircraft is the need for rapid head movements to full neck capacity, where that cap would work but an open-face or full helmet wouldn't. The cap helmet makes radio a non-issue where a full helmet needs to be extende to avoid punching a cigarette pack size hole in your skull. All in all a lot of pluses there. Horse riders have pretty much the same needs, so a comparison between performances might show up something to work on.

There was an explanation at the time of the Metric Conversion Board, and it was logical (can remember where it would be filed today. I think the distance may relate to ICAO, and it may be that's where we are going, but I haven's looked for anything on that.

Here is the diagramme I posted earlier with the distances shown by the figures in the red rectangles.

We had about 8 RA owners using Goulburn while it was owned by the local Council. I've seen a lot of country airstrips in Victoria and South Australia with single aircraft sheds, sometimes with concrete floors, sometimes dirt. (It needs a concrete floor to avoid surface rust). The airstrips are usually in a farm paddock, often in its natural state, just mown. In Queensland I've been at one near Mackay which was a graded strip in a cane farm with the farm sheds providing the storage. Numbers of Hangars varies from about 4 to about 20. For an approximate market for Canberra RA, I'd suggest a target of 10 to 20. So far the discusion has centred around ACT and the shortage of suitable land. If you take a look at the green swathe from Canberra to Goulburn on Google earth, there's a lot of farmland on the northern side of the direct line from centre of Canberra to centre of Goulburn. Within that area there may be farmers who are not making money with their current operations. Within those there maybe suitable paddocks for strips. Within those there may be a potential strip with access to a road without disturbing the farmer and away from the house. From there it would be a matter of whether, say the building of 10 low cost hangars and 10 lessees could afford to generate enought income for the farmer to seriously consider it. If that looked good then before anything was done, the Planning phase needs to take place with a DA plus getting support from surrounding property owners, bearing in mind that Planning can be as complicated out in the country as it is in the city with plenty of farm house DAs rejected because the house is on a ridge line and would be interfering with sightlines from the next valley. I would start a different thread for it rather than tying it to Goulburn Airport, which under new ownership could possibly offer cheap deals and better facilities to win back former clients. And the people involved in that project would need to be people from the area who had RA aircraft or wanted to hire and train on RA aircraft.

Yes I do.

I posted the VFRG distance diagramme on the previous page. Note that based on altitude the visibility requirement extends to 8 km.

Referring to the OP comments: "There's been a fair bit of backlash regarding the 178 seconds video over the years, mostly along the lines expressed in this PoA [Pilots of America] forum" Garfly. How hard is it to understand that in Australia, if you have the situational awareness that some people have referred to, and you are flying legally, the cloud you see will be at least 5 kilometres away, so none of the 178 seconds video will apply and none of the comments will apply. If you choose to break that rule and go up closer to "have a look" you've crossed over into IMC which is prohibited area. The 178 seconds story was originally introduced in written form when the VRF rules specified only 500 ft clearance below cloud; you could legally fly at 1,000 ft cloud base - 500 ft below the cloud and 500 ft above ground. The 178 seconds was never intended as a specific doomsday event; it was just a sample of one incident and used as a catchy headline. It was published in Aviation Safety Digest in Australia. Subsequently, in Australia, PPL training introduced a model of two hours flying blind where the pilot was trained to scan the key instruments over and over again while flying blind. It was not designed to teach a pilot how to fly in IMC, it was to teach him how easy it was, even with no stress, and no bad weather, for the aircraft to get away from him. We still lost a crop of pilots every year, and the ATSB reports usually showed they were pilots who practised scud running, and some had even flown for short distances in IMC. The split was roughly 5 total loss of controls to 1 collision with a hill or trees. Over the years I've tried to start about four "Weather" threads to show people the importance of understanding Meteorology, and the NAIPS system which provides flying-based forecasts. Each one has petered out after the few Met experienced pilots had had their say. We've never managed to come up with a clear assistance to show which clouds or weather pattern is going to close in on you and which is going to open up, or how you navigate through multiple weather patterns. Sometimes the discussions drift along with references to a favourite weathers ource, ignorant that those sources are not providing aviation support, just what the general population and farmers need. A good example of the shortcoming of the supposed "Modern" system was the death of an RA pilot who took off into what was forecast by NAIPS as Severe Turbulence - a warning to stay on the ground. Sure enough within minutes of taking off his aircraft broke up. NAIPS (National Aeronautical Information Processing System) is part of Airservices Australia. Perhaps there should be a Met Module in RA Training. Perhaps RA pilots need to step in and focus on this aspect of flying. The 5 km visibility rule in Australia was introduced and provided a much better guide to the pilot of the No Go point, giving him plenty of time to turn around and go home, or at least make a Precautionary Landing in a calm manner.

The comments are being made in Australia where legal pilots will be 5 km away from this. I wonder what Dick would think about some of these comments.

This reminds me of the person who told us that on the way home from Natfly the weather was so bad he had to fly his Jab on instruments. This is not the US.

Part 2 of the problem is if you switch to autopilot you will smack into a granite cliff, because IFR requires flight planning to avoid this possibility. There's no easy way out without the training and currency requited.

By all means feel free to ignore what I said.

Strongly agreed, and that was my reaction the first time I saw it. The last thing we should be doing is inducing panic. Yes, 178 seconds was the average time that a pilot was able to fly blind without instruments. But what they didn't tell you is that this group was the control group...pilots with zero training, zero instruments and zero visibility. Even an IFR trained pilot is likely to crash in that situation. In fact, the study was actually to test whether or not a VFR pilot could be trained to use instruments to make a 180 turn. After "crashing", they taught each pilot the techniques to execute a 180 with reference to instruments and tested them again - every single pilot was able to learn to reverse course and get out of the clouds again. Then someone came up with a scare video based on the control group and how clouds were a deathtrap waiting to snare VFR pilots and lure them to their doom. Now, that is all anyone know of the study and the real lesson has been lost to the drama. Sigh.... And this discussion where the original experiment was returned to its context: 178 seconds -- the facts about the experiment GROUPS.GOOGLE.COM The following is a summary of some key points of the paper itself, entitled "180-degree turn experiment" and in UI's Aeronautics Bulletin 11. I have no axe to grind, and I think the "178 seconds" article does a good job of communicating the hazards of spatial disorientation. However, some issues have become clouded by the "chinese whisper" effect, so this is to set the record straight. * The research was conducted at University of Illinois Institute of Aviation in 1954, principally by Jesse Stonecipher, the CFI. * It was a response to the challenge from AOPA to devise a technique for non-instrument rated pilots who had flown inadvertently into IMC * The tests were conducted on a Beech Bonanza C-35 in flight (not a "ground trainer" as cited in the 178 Seconds article) * The 20 subjects for the experiment were chosen for being representative of those pilots who had *no* simulated or actual instrument experience (not "none since primary training", none at all) * The Bonanza was chosen specifically *because* it would be difficult to fly, as the most complex single that a non-IR pilot was likely to fly. * None of the subjects had soloed a Bonanza. As far as I can tell, only 3 of the subjects had any complex experience at all, with most of them recording time on Aeronca 7AC, Cessna 140 and Tri-Pacers. * Most of the subjects had only about 20 hours dual time, presumably the PPL syllabus in those days. 7 of them had less than 40 hours total. * The aircraft was made to simulate basic VFR instruments, plus a turn indicator. The AI, DG and rate of climb indicators were covered for the entire experiment. * The first period of the experiment was the famed '178 seconds' test, aimed at assessing the students' baseline instrument aptitude. The time was measured between the googles being placed over the students' eyes and an 'incipient dangerous flight condition'. For most cases this was deemed to be an airspeed of 185 mph or an incipient stall. * 19 of the 20 went into a 'graveyard spiral'. One pulled the aircraft into a whip-stall. * Times ranged from 20 seconds to 480 seconds. The average was indeed 178 seconds * There then followed 4 periods of instruction in the 180 degree turn technique (see below) that was the actual subject of the study * By the end of this training, the subjects had between 1.5 and 3 hours (mean 2 hours) simulated IF, practising the technique. * The subjects were again tested by simulating instrument conditions, and asked to transition from cruise to slow flight, make a 180 degree turn, and establish a controlled descent. Each subject was tested 3 times. * Of the 60 trials, 59 were successfully completed. The unsuccessful one involved the failure to set power to maintain altitude and continued the descent in a way that violated the success definition. It was considered that control was not lost, and that if the aircraft had not become visual below cloud, the impact would have been survivable. The technique: Throughout, center the turn needle using the rudder. 1) Hands off the control column 2) Lower the landing gear 3) Reduce power 4) Set trim to a predetermined position for slow flight (95 mph) 5) Adjust prop and power for approx level flight at 95 mph 6) Note the compass heading 7) Turn using the rudder 😎 Roll out with appropriate lead or lag 9) Center the turn needle 10) Reduce power for a controlled descent It was noticed that step 1 was both the most important and the most difficult psychologically! The usual deduction from the 178 Seconds article is the rather negative one that pilots without instrument training are in big trouble if they enter IMC. I think the message that Stonecipher was trying to convey (and the result speak for itself!) is much more positive, that a little instument training can go a long way, even if faced with a partial panel and a complex aircraft. Julian Scarfe Over the years, we've actually lost a few from this site after the discussions were hijacked by people criticising this video. Of course you might be able to keep going for more than 178 seconds; of course you may only last 20 seconds, of course you don't have magic ears; "The sensory areas of the inner ear cannot detect slight changes in angular acceleration, nor can they accurately sense changes that occur at a uniform rate over a period. On the other hand, false sensations are often generated due simply to movements of the head and may lead the pilot to believe the attitude of the airplane has changed when, in fact, it has not. " What usually happens is the ones that get killed play around with flying near cloud and through light cloud with clear patches, and becomes more and more confident, oten loudly condemning the 178 seonc video. Then we see the photos of a squashed pilot. RA pilots will not be flying into IFR; if you break the rules you will be flying into IMC. IFR stands for Instrument Flight Rules and you need to qualify in GA and have a suitable GA aircraft for IMC. RA Pilots have to do a lot wrong to get into the above predicament: The diagramme below is from page 205 of the Visual Flight Rules Guide 2024. You are required to have 5 kilometres clear vision in front of you at all times. When the cloud gets that close you turn around and get out.

sheep farmers could step in four emigrants who'd sailed in on a typical Joburgh dingy had landed bringing four or their larns which immediately started to mate and produce young which systematically moved through the paddocks eatig sheep.Binnie, Winie Jannie and Bronte graded an airstrip, unpacked their Thrusters and toured around taking video shots of the endless velde and before long there was an infestation of Afrikaaners who brought along their Zulu cattle minders, the Zulu saw the sand hills and immediately claimed 45,000 square kilometres on the ground that this was the land of their ancestors, the Giant Sand Serpents and were given the land by Jack Kelly a tyical public servant who never checked anything. Tis was used by the Khosa contingent who's rafte across and claimed the Kimberley, and no one knew their orse frum their ulbow. Eventually ..........................

...time off for church on Sundays, and mutton & pickles sandwiches, and Phenyl to cleam our homes, and ............................

This is a flying site and the thread is about Goulburn Airport and we're seeing some of the silliest posts I've seen on the site. People who believe in X? What on earth do you think these schools teach? Certainly not endless lessons on X.

Have the mice got to the cornflakes?; that's not research. You could equally argue that taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bil for any schools; that's the parents' jobs but they spend all their money on lattes, Kias, and the evil Monster trucks, Rav 4s.

.....would be a part of the great peoples of the West, even if only an irrelevant swill of swishing ..........

How about you do the research, find out what the government gives each private school every year what it's for, and what the school has to do for it in return. Anything else is blowing bubbles at the sky.