Oscar

CAR 239 could be a bit of a problem for glider pilots...... I vaguely remember Ingo Renner indicating ( though, I think not actually submitting a flight plan) his ETA when leaving Tocumwal in the Caproni A21 for Queensland, to attend the Australian Gliding Championships... and I think also, being pretty damn close to his ETA... and Ingo held the world's distance record for a while in that plane (970.4 kms, for a straight-line flight). Would have been interesting if there'd been a ramp check of his fuel reserves at the end. OK, that's tongue-in-cheek - but I wonder how CASA deals with motor-gliders that are of the 'sustainer' engine class? And then, there's this one: As often happens with new aircraft designs, there were several operational accidents. One occurred during these test flights, when a U-2 suffered a flameout over Tennessee; the pilot calculated that he could reach New Mexico. Every air base in the continental United States had sealed orders on what to do if a U-2 landed. The commander of Kirtland Air Force Base near Albuquerque, New Mexico was told to open his orders, prepare for the arrival of an unusual aircraft making a deadstick landing, and get it inside a hangar as soon as possible. The U-2 successfully landed after having glided more than 300 miles, and its strange, glider-like appearance and the space-suited pilot startled the base commander and other witnesses.[

UPPER wing drops? Surely, you mean in-turn wing drops?

Well, I watched that video again, carefully - and I am complete pants at estimating angles!. From the one I was talking about, I measured the 'developed' nose-down angle just prior to the spin 'chute deployment by reference to the stripe on the fuselage and the 'lines' in the cloud band when spinning fast, and the nose-down attitude is about 22 degrees. So, the initial spin nose-down attitude must have been around 55 - 60 degrees!. At around 20:05, the in-cockpit camera shows the horizon when in the developed flat spin, and it very much re-inforces the 'flat' aspect - worth a look. That whole video sequence is fairly amazing, and if nothing else, it shows just what real 'test pilots' do for a living.... and I guess they go home to their family at the end of the day and when the missus asks 'how was your day, dear?', they probably respond: 'oh, took a new plane out for a bit of a spin'.

Completely co-incidental: ( and I am in NO WAY suggesting that this accident was the result of pilot error in not knowing how to handle spins): the Darling Downs Soaring Club has set up a 'Spin Awareness Clinic for Power Pilots' scheme: http://www.ddsc.org.au/spin-clinics The brochure looks as if it's a pretty good programme.

Yep, taught me a lot. At about 9 mins in, Tail 4, you see it flatten from about maybe 30 degrees or more nose down to less than half that, at a guess.

My apologies, Ma'am, if so your are, but Sir does me for males who I respect..

DJP and Jake: Sirs, I bow to your knowledge. Probably, I am using old references from gliding, where a normal spin is not (normally) very nose-down.

With respect, I don't think that WAS a fully-developed flat spin. And, an Extra 300 is hardly your average LSA...

Bex: I'm sure you know that 6061 is not a silver bullet for every situation... but I'll be looking forward with extreme interest to the 'system' explanation.

I am NOT an experienced power-plane pilot, though I've done plenty of conventional spins in gliders - but I have been taught about the aerodynamic details fairly thoroughly, and I believe that any 'generic' advice is quite possibly potentialy dangerous. What causes a spin to flatten, is basically centrifugal force (many here will have seen Facthunter's frequent references to the fact that adding ballast may keep an aircraft within its CoG limits but may also add inertia to the spin which could have bad / disastrous effects). If the rear effective area is insufficient to keep the speed of rotation down, an unrecoverable flat spin may develop. Effective rear area is why you see large dorsal and ventral fins on some aircraft. Blanking of the fin area from a 'conventional' fin and elevators arrangement, is a feature of many designs ( it's why the Jabiru, for instance, has the elevators set very well back relative to the fin). Even the big boys get this wrong sometimes: if you look at the evolution of the Cessna 162 design, (which had I think two cases of unrecoverable spins in its early days)? - you'll see how much change there was to the tail-feather configuration. Those sexy thin rounded tailcone designs exacerbate the lack of effective tail area: the older, 'slab-sided, with square edges' designs were FAR more effective in anti-spin aerodynamics. Some swept-back fins just place almost all of the fin and rudder in the blanked area. This is why all proper spin testing is done with a spin-chute (or other recovery devices, but the chutes have proven to be the most reliable WHEN they are properly designed). The FTSA paper I referenced above, may be published soon on the FTSA site which is currently being upgraded; it's a rather good read. Amongst other things, it explains the problems for the Whitney Boomerang gaining full acceptance as a Utility Category aircraft - and if you look at the Boomerang, it seemed to have everything going for it (and Bill Whitney is a very, very experienced designer). Having satisfactorily completed the spin matrix for Normal Category (one turn only) the next phase was to investigate Utility Category spins. On the first 2 turn spin the aircraft entered an un-recoverable mode. Application of various control and power combinations had no influence on aircraft motion and the chute was deployed at the soft floor. The chute was felt and seen to deploy, but had no influence on aircraft motion. The only influence the test pilot was able to achieve was small pitch attitude changes with fore and aft stick inputs. Recovery was achieved just before the hard floor by out of phase pitch inputs which eventually un-stalled the wing and allowed a conventional recovery from the resultant spiral dive mode. At this stage all attempts at investigating potential for Utility Category certification were terminated. So: I believe that it is very, very dangerous to assume that a recovery technique that may work with a particular aircraft, should be assumed to work for even something that appears to be similar. Again, I suggest, that if someone with Keith Engelsman's experience, can find himself with no other option than to pull the spin-chute, he's tried everything he knows - and that is likely to be more than just about anybody else in the game. Extrapolating an Instructor's advice that may well be entirely correct for a specific aircraft, to be correct for every aircraft, may well got you killed. And, if you are flying an aircraft that is materially different in weight distribution to that tested in certification/certifying, even the certificated/certified results, may not be applicable.

Hopefully, the investigating authorities ( ATSB / RAA + Police, for the Coroner) will examine very closely whether there are any circumstances particular to that specific aircraft, before rushing to any more general application of 'revisions'. For LSA certified aircraft, the ASTM standard lays out the requirements and AFAIK other Brumbies have not proven to be problematical. If you look at Keith Engelsman's spin testing in the Jabiru videos, he doesn't muck around, he TESTS - and if he signed the Brumby off as meeting the required standard, it would be hard to believe that he didn't do the testing properly.

Garfly - all of that re Dick Kingsland is amazingly true - and the finale to the Sunderland trip with Gort was, he radioed ahead to Malta that they had a float missing, so they organised a PT Boat with some mattresses stuck on top of the cabin, which came up under his wing as he landed it and kept the thing from tripping on the wing when it slowed. Amazing stuff, and he and Ki were the most wonderful people to know. Also, his brother ( I think it was) was sent to Rabaul after the war, to repair the wharf he 'mined' by dive-bombing it, and wrote back to tell him that the rumours (there were a few) that he'd missed the wharf were completely wrong, he'd blown it to buggery!.

Jeez, Bex, you seem to pick up enemies like dogs pick up fleas!. But, seriously, here's a great chance to prove the naysayers wrong - get it done and flying! Heck, you can use it to tow a banner around with the universal single digit hand emblazoned on it - he who laughs last etc... That's a mighty chunky-looking Clubman; personally, I'd not have tried to put a v-configuration engine in it, because I reckon your feet will get fried from the exhausts - there's sod-all room for your feet in any Clubman. And you'd need more rear rubber - we could drift them quite successfully with just a 110-hp engine on 10" rear slicks, because there's almost no weight back there... in the racing ones, anyway.

From a report to the Flight Test Society of Australia Symposium, 2009: on flight testing of the initial Brumby LSA: During one spin sortie, when the CG was too far aft, the aircraft entered a stabilised spin, which could not be corrected by application of various combinations of flight and power controls. The chute was deployed at the soft floor and this provided an immediate positive influence on yaw and roll motion. The influence was progressive and within less that 180 [degrees] of rotation the aircraft had adopted a straight flight path in a steep nose down attitude. Following release of the chute, recovery was very simple. The test pilot concerned was Keith Engelsman, co-author of the paper presented, and quite possibly Australia's top test pilot for many years. If Keith Engelsman cannot recover an aircraft from a spin, it is a pretty good bet that it simply cannot be done. I am not aware of what action Brumby may have taken as a result, since it did pass the ASTM 'one turn' requirement when within c/g range. This particular aircraft was originally delivered with a Rotax 914, and was later changed to a 912s, which is something like 12 kgs lighter installed weight. Presumably, any additional ballast that may have been added over the original 912-engined design, was removed and a full W&B carried out.

You'll need to hurry, to get a good-looking one.

If you are thinking of the Chris Conroy Sparrowhawk, it never left Australia. But one of Gary Morgan's, I don't know. The Terrier, is of course, high-wing and composite, so not a candidate..

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/victoria/lancefield-plane-crash-two-people-dead-after-light-plane-disaster-in-macedon-ranges-20160409-go2eeg.html

FFS, READ the reference quoted in Post #38.

CASA has been known to apply severe penalty points for what are technical breaches of regs. that had no realistic adverse safety implications, and yet fail to act on others that had major potential. In this case, I think that flagrant and repeated breaches of basic observance of airspace reporting and use requirements - particularly where the safety of RPT flights was possible - is a case where serious repercussions are warranted. I've been present at one strip 'beat-up' - by an F111 through the middle of winch-launch glider operation - where two deaths were absolutely likely, if not for some extremely fortunate action on the part of someone not actually flying at that moment. You don't 'laugh that one off', believe me.

Bruce, there's a whole lot of interacting factors here, and there's no 'silver bullet'. It took the guys who adapted the Jab 2200 to a Motor-Falke more than a year of careful experimentation to get everything to work to their satisfaction, and it was a case of tweak, test fly, tweak again.. Swirl coming from the airbox and the intake turns is a serious issue and when it's good for one particular situation, it can change with different revs, quite dramatically. Long ago, when we were building extractors for our racing cars ( before egt's were really known for automobile use), we'd use a pyrometer to determine the pulse points along each pipe to find a low-pressure area at a suitable length for cutting and joining, to make four into two or one exhaust pipe set-ups, at the revs best suited to the specific cam we were using. It was quite easy, because the heat changes along the length of the pipe are really noticeable.

Well, yes, on a bicycle, you'd have to pedal pretty damn hard. Not beyond the realms of possibility, if the Cat was flying into a decent headwind, though. A Cat is my ultimate 'escape machine' - if I had the resources to set up and run a Cat. as my floating motel room and tour the world's fabulous places, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Kasper - chasing a PBY isn't THAT hard. I caught up to the AHRS one returning from the Canberra air show day several years ago, while maintaining legal speed on the Hume Highway!. When Dick ( Sir Richard, later) Kingsland took 53 people out of Dutch New Guinea on board his Cat. as the Japanese advanced, he had to fly in ground effect all the way back to Australia, and it took him nearly 5 NM to get off the water. He reckoned he was most worried about bird-strike on the rudder... Was that the Cat with the geomag set-up strung around it? I remember crawling through it at Essendon, years ago..

Without wanting to be a kill-joy here - and I DO consider this to be pretty good effort - if there isn't a production company, then it can only ever be a research exercise. IF the plans etc. were made public, it'd be Experimental - and very, very few Experimental builders have access to c/f manufacturing technology. It's a student research project, and those who have worked on it will have learned lots of good stuff. Perhaps, some entrepreneur will pick up the best of them and turn it into a production aircraft - but as it stands, this is a 'what is possible', not a 'what is available' aircraft. If I were a very, very rich aviator, I think I'd like one, as I'd like a Lotus Exige or an Irving Vincent Aussie Flag 1600 motorcycle, for a Saturday afternoon blast. But, I'm not that rich!.

SD - it does have about 2700 hours - mostly flight training hours - in its log books... and it was fairly bent - and I'm doing it up as a hobby, not as a business venture... And, I didn't say - nor, I think, will Bex take it that way, because he's quite obviously aware that 'events, dear boy, events..' happen - that what he has outlined won't or can't happen.. But he's set his own benchmarks, - none of us gave him his targets - and here's his chance to show us all that he can bring it off. And by doing that, he'll have proven his dreams and plans are realistic. Some might think, in the light of the hiatus to his engine project, that he's being perhaps a little crazy-brave to turn the spotlight back on himself as he has done. If you've been following HITC's build project reports, you'll see very clearly explained, just how much of a hard slog it is to work through all the details. And when you're not just cutting tubes and pulling rivets but also making the production jigging and tooling, it adds a great deal to the time factor. How long does it take Ole to go from concept to a full kit, for a new design?

Guys, the Chinese 'new technology' investment situation is far more complex than just people asking for investors and promising the earth ( aka Raptor, Coaxe engines, Terrafugia etc.). Let's be realistic - and Bex is very aware of this - he does need to make up some ground in his credibility rating for the hiatus in delivering the new aussie engine.. From what I've heard, those who have had dealings with Bex have no questions needing to be answered about his honesty or trustworthiness. But, I also think it is fair, that when someone pushes out the boat that promises a WAY cheaper / better product that raises questions about 'why is what we have now, so expensive'?, there is something tangible and believable that one can base those questions upon. So it's over to Bex, to prove Russ wrong - in my book.