skybum

Whilst I wonder why some churches try to convert ancient races and all that. They still do a neccessary task of providing a basic service. It just irks me a bit when you get quotes like- It's a thin line between a business and religious fellowship. My dad copped a certain church operating a tour company that was funded by that church in direct competition to him. My judgements of MAF may well be clouded by this issue. Good work but when it borders on a commercial business then you have to ask the question. Sorry for the sidetrack. I think MAF and other low paid outfits always suffer from an exodus to better paying jobs. However, those pilots will never forget what they have done for the MAF and will remember it and retell the stories for the rest of their lives. PNG flying is little different from the years of George Cannon and...Errol Flynn. It is still a frontier.

what book u using, R461?

Aha, the area report is not written- it is written- RMK is exactly that, remarks.In this case there are none. FORMAT never changes. It's part of the dance;-)

Home page, check the news and then hit the forum button.

In one, Rocko!

Moy71, yep the forward slip is a sideslip. Your technique should change from crab to forward slip just before you flare. With forward slip technique you are aligning the nose wheel with the runway and using the ailerons to stear to keep aligned with the centreline. The kick works as well but why bother, you haven't the need to keep engine pods clear of the black top.

Maybe, the neighbours think Tipplers is too much competition.

No arguments from me. I have direct evidence that DSE have changed their approach with property owners.....for the better....hope it continues. Would be great to have good neighbours again. As for waterbombers, history will show that the only demo was set to fail in comparison to the helitaks. If the Aus feds bought CL for the fire season they could also be operated by SAR authorities for maritime rescue in fairer wx when the fires aren't burning. It still makes me sad that Col Pay died trying to get a croppie to do what a CL does better, pick up from a lake quickly. EDIT Further, the Wandong fire was a killer as soon as it took off. No amount of warning or resources would have saved anyone within 30km of where it started. It moved THAT FAST! My dad sweated bricks when he heard about it. Low humidity, high winds and very high temps is the worst combination, add fuel load to become hell on earth! Media is also reporting one fire was from a known fault, didn't say which one yet..

True, true. Melbourne Water have a particular problem with that. Yet, they have no problem in using our water in environmental flows. (A total waste during a drought!)

My two cents worth. Yan Yean Reservour was within minutes of the Disapointment Fire complex. A team of CLs could have dumped a huge amount of water in a very short time. What it will take is a quantum change of thinking by the command and control people in the upper echelons. They just like helicopters.

Yenn...my type of guy! I am shuddering to think what breed I belong to, mungrel bred mountain cur of dog that won't come when called;-)

UltraNav is hard to beat! Interfaces well with my GPS and OziExplorer. I still have Command, PocketFMS and a good ability of reading a map, keeping a heading and watching the time.

It's painfully obvious you guys all resemble whippets! Ever care to think about anyone that weighs more than 90kg and wants to fly RAA with an instructor or passenger? Fuel range, the ability to carry some basic tools as well as safety gear and a bit more than a change of underpants is a good operational goal. Every RAA type I want to fly I have to break the law if I carry another body. There is more to this argument than just politics of allowing GA types on the register.

My two cents worth, matching torque to a prop design in a diesel is easier than the same application for a similar displacment petrol motor.

Gosh, there's a town from my past. Rapville Pub.....

Do a Google on MEMS accelerometer design and take your pick. I found this one to have a pretty good explanation of how the mechanics work...including pages of calculus proofs...and a couple of simple diagrams that show how it works. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sjmoura/files/ME128_2.pdf Basic premise is Hookes Law linked to Newtons Law. The force required to extend a spring of known mass= mass x acceleration. On a nanometer scale! and cheap as chips. ENJOY:thumb_up:

Engine was over stressed by previous owner, either unknowing or worse? No MP gauge fitted so no true indication of how much power was being produced. Big difference from adjustable to constant speed. A contributing factor. The cause of death was the aircraft breaking up during the forced landing and not protecting the occupants. We will all have to wait for the full report to discover if the field was suitable for a forced landing....something we are all trained for....indeed, something the PF of fifty years experience should have an understanding about the basics. I would like to know the mechanics behind the crash. Did the fuse break up after hitting a solid object or, started breaking up after an undercarriage collapse? As pointed out previously, the pilots believed they were under control of the situation by not deploying the BRS. It appears the aircraft broke up very early in the event. Considerable energy required to cause death instantly. Unexpected result for sure. Should it be a recommendation that rather than attempting a landing on anything other than flat terrain it should be mandated that the BRS be deployed. Should BRS be a standard fitment on Sting aircraft? How strong in impact are our aircraft? That's the reason for the mandated stall speeds. Slower crash, better survivability. Why did these guys die? It matters not why the engine stopped, it matters heaps that the aircraft didn't do it's job. It matters heaps to us and our training system if the landing was botched. We learn on the blood of other's mistakes. That's just the way it is in aviation. I hope there is a very clear reason why these guys didn't walk away from the wreck.

DeskPilot, I think I shouldn't have posted that line. It wasn't a very good example. Seriously, I do know how to wreck a thread...sorry.

Just to add. A C150 has an empty weight of 500kg. If the Gross goes to 760kg a 150 is a worse choice than just about any RAA type flying for putting fuel and bums on board and trying to get out of the circuit area. Why would you bother?

If we go to 760kg. restrict engine output to a maximum of 150hp design limit. An Empty weight of no more than 390kg 2POB and a stall speed of 45kts. Thats a pretty tight regime and cuts out a lot of ideas of bringing GA types into RAA. Stops bloated designs to creep onto the market and promotes good aerodynamic design. Straight up, I could build a Cobra Arrow with a 100l fuel capacity myself and missus, a Rotax 914 turbo CS prop and happily beattle around the country side at 120kts with decent range to get around some remote areas and do it safely. hehehehehe. It would also allow me to build a Jab better than the manufacturer with a couple of little additions like toe brakes and side sticks ala Cirrus. Then that confounded centre brake lever would work properly. A proper trim system that actualy works and we would have a world beater of an aircraft.

My post45 My argument for a weight increase still stands! A J430 CAN lift the weight but a J230 RAA rego CAN'T???? I hate breaking the law and have decided to await the outcome before I waste my time with RAA politics. If no weight increase I stay within GA and struggle for the dollars or just give up. There are more arguments for the weight increase than just allowing GA types to escape the CASA regulations.

Bigglesworth, remember the PPPPPP bit and you should never come to grief. As for your flight, good read! I do hope you learnt from your experience and plan accordingly next time. WX, routing, maps, a plan AND the most important of all to ensure your girl is there at the end of the trip:laugh::thumb_up: not to mention that some one knows where you are going and when you expect to get there. You have actually drawn a very serious issue regarding the equipage of RAA aircraft that have any capability of cross country for any serious distance and that is the fitment of ANY compass as mandatory. You know the bit from your PPL...minimum instruments? ASI, Altimeter, Compass and Clock? Should be the minimum for all powered aircraft. Going by your photo, I think you have planned Shep to Heyfield area. You are a long way east of Baw Baw not west of it. Also you are getting close to the ESL airspace restrictions so one hopes you took that into your consideration as well. Going around that way you would have struck more tiger country going back up through the East Gippsland state forest area which is far more vast than what you flew over around Baw Baw. Good story though:thumb_up: Interesting trip as well:thumb_up: If you have access to Google Earth you can use the flight sim function to fly over your intended route. That will show up pretty quickly how much tiger country is under your wings. If you have a copy of MicroSoft FlightSim you can also fly the route and check out what landmarks will be visible for your trip. The terrain mesh is pretty good. As for just blasting off? Just remember what happened to a certain millionaire pilot out for a short jaunt in a Decathelon few years ago. EDIT- just to add, you would have also flown very close to the other "Frogs Hollow" near Mt Skene. Which would have put you close to farms down through Licola and out to Heyfield. This is LJR country if ESL is active so do take care to ensure that particular R zone doesn't appear in the NOTAMS

motzartmerv, then you can demonstrate saving a too low too slow by increasing power and pushing nose down and go UP. I prefer pull back and houses get smaller, pull back some more and houses get bigger again:laugh: Coanda effect- the spoon in water flow trick, And deflection of air mass. When you look at some airline wings there is more curvature under the wing than on top. Adding curvature or shape to the wing gives it more useful range of lift than a flat piece of plate. My understanding of how lift is produced has been stood on its ear. I still believe the formula still works because the coefficient part incorporates all the unknowns of my limited knowledge. Reading an article about an old Loadmaster that the CAF were using for photo ops. They used to fly with the emergency door above the wing open for photo ops. People standing in the door during landing would get themselves blown off their feet as a pressure wave would pass them as the aircraft stalled on landing. The RedBull aircraft have been modified back to a conventional wing shape rather than the symetrical aerobat wing. Gives them more performance in high g high angle of attack positive G racing. At times I still marvel at what I achieve when just sitting at cruise with not much else to do and just thinking about what i am doing.

haven't played around with printing maps from PocketFMS too much. What struck me as a very strange outcome, no scale nor latlong lines to work out direction.

G'Day and good post. What will determine the end cost is actually a combination of how good your instructor is and how quickly you pick up on the concept. In this regard there is no difference between the two aircraft as long as you do not change horses. From my other posts on the subject I could be said to be biased against the layout of the Jab adding an extra few hours to master a terrible control system. however, the aeroplane flies very well and would instill all the right techniques that is the concept. Jab is definitely cheaper than the cessna. You must be truthful to yourself in what type of flying you intend to do. Part103 and RAA in CTA negates a lot of differences between GA and RAA.