Jump to content

ian00798

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    420

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ian00798

  1. ian00798
    Now if only people on here would listen to your good advice instead of arguing every little point
  2. ian00798
    It's your terminology that is the issue. Picking up the wing with rudder implies that not only have you prevented the wing from dropping, but you are actually using the rudder to return to wings level which is a tremendously bad idea. What you said earlier in the post was correct, where you used the rudder to prevent further wing drop. Then once you have unstalled the aircraft you use aileron to roll to wings level.
  3. ian00798
    War is a messy business, and unfortunately sometimes staying ready for war you lose good people keeping your forces prepared. It's not a pleasant fact of life, however in combat these machines are a godsend. The military has come a long way as far as safety goes, however ultimately mission comes before safety, and demanding the same level of safety we take for granted with airliners just won't work. After all, for these people getting shot at is considered a normal fact of life.
  4. ian00798
    It's a machine of war, and the safety standards we expect from commercial aviation don't apply. Plenty of other military aircraft have earned the widowmaker title so that's nothing new.
  5. ian00798
    Whenever you work on the cutting edge there will be crashes. In combat an extra 100 knots could easily be life and death, and it has twice the combat radius of the chinook as well which is a huge difference.
  6. ian00798
    It has a power transfer shaft so in hover mode if you lose an engine the remaining engine keeps turning both props. Obviously there is going to be a significant power loss and fully loaded I suspect your still going down, but then how is that any different to a piston twin really. That seems somewhat misinformed to say the least. There is a huge tactical advantage from the added combat radius and lift capability. The added combat radius means you can park the ship carrying it much further offshore, and the ability to drop 30 combat equipped marines nearly anywhere isn't something to be sneezed at.
  7. ian00798
    I would much prefer to see someone in aviation in something they can afford rather than not fly at all, however the solo rate on a sling is $195 per hour, compared to the $165 on a drifter. The sling is a good 30 knots or maybe more faster than a drifter for a similar fuel burn, which means if you wanted to travel somewhere it would actually end up cheaper.
  8. ian00798
    In my experience the sling is an exceptionally good initial training aircraft. It has the benefit of being very easy to fly, but quite tricky to fly well. It's fast enough that you don't waste excessive time getting to the training area, and it can take quite a beating. The handling qualities on it are just beautiful. Have you taken the opportunity to fly the sling yet? If you haven't I strongly recommend having a go at it.
  9. ian00798
    Instructors are generally very hesitant to exceed 2 flights per day initially, especially for the basic sequences. You will be totally drained after an hour initially, and it's that day of rest which gives you the ability to absorb the new learnings. Keep in mind for every initial lesson there is a corresponding 1 hour briefing, and in my experience by the time you go for a third lesson it is pointless due to fatigue. The rapid training used in the war was done more out of necessity than anything, and your final exam was eye opening to say the least, and most didn't pass it.
  10. ian00798
    Last time I checked most of the guys flying the RPT started down the little end of town. Let that pipeline dry up and next thing all we are left with is captains flying with very low time first officers in the right seat. Don't know about you, but that's not what I want becoming the norm. I shudder to think how QF32 might have ended if it was just the captain then two very low time pilots "helping" him.
  11. ian00798
    Well that will fix australias love of flying, with our xenophobia when all the flying is done by Muslims and Asians no Australian will ever fly
  12. ian00798
    People might consider it less of a hobby when there is no one left to fly them to Bali for their annual piss up
  13. ian00798
    Most tradesmen charge around 80-100 per hour, so why is it not reasonable for an instructor to get similar? And for the record, while the dual rate may be $100 per hour more, the instructor is lucky to get half of that. Perhaps we should do some maths? Most instructors only get paid while they fly, and are realistically limited to 900 hours per year. $45 per hour is about what the instructor gets, which equates to an annual income of $40 500. That is not much above the Australian minimum wage which is about $36 000 per year. For someone who has invested at least $50-60k for their qualification.
  14. ian00798
    Anybody that has sold a half decent house in Sydney could probably spring for something even more fun like a PC12 or TBM850
  15. ian00798
    I would argue a smart RA instructor would abide by these limitations too, if something went wrong a lawyer will absolutely tear you apart in court if they could argue that fatigue could have been a contributing factor
  16. ian00798
    Yep. How dare somebody that has spent upwards of $60k actually want a return on their investment. That's pretty damn arrogant of them.
  17. ian00798
    It is definitely the grid lowest safe altitude. The grid lowest safe altitude that Cessnock is in is definitely that height and that's because it has to take into account the highest terrain in that entire grid. If you went and calculated a route lowest safe you would quite likely end up with a lower figure unless your route actually took you near that high point. The grid lowest safe also takes into account high structures as well, the same way any other LSALT calculation does, so if you are at the grid lowest safe altitude with the correct QNH set you are guaranteed 1000ft of obstacle clearance.
  18. ian00798
    There is a massive difference between running an aircraft at YMYB and running one at YBAF.
  19. ian00798
    Luckily the airframe on a jabiru is actually quite good and capable of handling a rough landing better than an Abrams tank
  20. ian00798
    Sure. We will just blindly pretend the jabiru engine doesn't actually have a reliability issue then it might just disappear. Put it this way, if even my non aviation friends know jabiru have an issue then it's probably an actual problem, not an imaginary issue.
  21. ian00798
    Seriously that post got a caution? Damn the truth being inconvenient
  22. ian00798
    Yeah. Turns out if you want an engine that actually is sought of reliable you might have to pay a bit of cash.
  23. ian00798
    Does everybody realise that there isn't anything horrible about flying GA? A 40 year old Cessna actually can be a lot of fun despite what a lot of people on here think with their GA allergy. As for the cheaper rates that supposedly exist, perhaps post them on here as per what the original poster requested rather than say you don't have to look too far?
  24. ian00798
    Well since we don't all have a wife that can pay for it some people have to pay the real world costs to people who actually want to make some money from aviation, and I can't think of many places that are much cheaper than either of those places in the Brisbane area.
  25. ian00798
    I would support the weight increase. A lot of RA aircraft are operating on an artificially reduced MTOW, ie sling 2, I think a 750kg MTOW would allow a much better utility of RA aircraft with no reduction in safety
×
×
  • Create New...