poteroo

This actually has nothing to do with the taildragger variant of the Brumby highwing 610, but everything to do with the pics of our tricycle model in Sport Pilot, July issue. I've never seen the 610T, much less flown it, and have absolutely no comment to make about it's abilities. I'd like forum members to know that we never thought that providing the editor with some action pics of our aircraft would result in them being used, in what could only be considered a promotional article for the taildragger variant. It was never our intent that they be used in this way. At the very least, we would expect the common courtesy of asking first. Failing that - at least provide the RAAus readers with real details, (not facile comments), of the aircraft which appeared in 3 positions, quite dominating the article. An unhappy poteroo.

Until CASA accept that the air in Australia isn't any different, and the laws of aerodynamics hold just as true as overseas - then they will continue their ridiculuous stance that we need uniquely Australian regulations. Until the left leaning bureaucracy can accept that the USA is not only the largest aviation nation, by a country mile, and that it not only sensibly regulates its' industry, but promotes it by order of Congress - then Australian aviation is in trouble. Part 61 is an obstacle course for flying schools - creating loads more paperwork for instructors. But the resultant 28 page 'licence' is truly a creation of the highest merit - who would ever want a credit card licence after this? unhappy days!

Where on earth does this fit into a normal BFR? You won't be doing this unless you are renewing a LL Rating in GA, and that means your testing instructor must be a Flight Examiner (ATO) for this rating. And, if you were to do your RAAus BFR at LL - it won't substitute for the GA LL Rating renewal, whereas the other way, it will. Perhaps some of the flying schools are exceeding their capabilities? happy days,

Sorry, but I don't know the details. All I can assume is that he was pinged because it was not considered to be consistent with an approach to inspect, or to land, ie, just plain old low flying. happy days,

The use of an 'inspection' run over an intended landing area should be made upwind, and in a low speed airframe configuration, so as to allow maximum time to evaluate the surface condition. The height above surface that is used will depend on the weather, and the obstacle heights in the area. Over smooth water, you'd think that 200 ft might be prudent, and where there are trees and powerlines present on land - not below the level of the highest of these - higher if windy. Pilots can't carry out a high speed x downwind run and then claim, (rather disingenuously), that it was an 'inspection' run. happy days,

Real safety improvement begins, and ends, with the 180 or so CFI's in Australia. A CFI can only impart the safety message when it's part & parcel of airmanship. Airmanship can only be taught on the job, and mostly in the cockpit. It just won't happen when 'safety' is presented as some hairy fairy subject by a professional 'trainer'. I say no more on this subject. happy days,

SAAA chapter 13 organised fly-in to the Lily, on 14th June, saw 36 aircraft arrive. It was an eclectic mix of types, with aircraft from Jandakot, Serpentine, Bunbury, Busselton, Albany and Esperance. The usual majority of VANS RV's were there - with a very swish RV-10 an outstanding unit. As well, we had several each of RV6, 6A, 7, 7A, 8, and 9A. 'poteroo' was there in 'Kermie' the British Racing Green RV6. RAAus was well represented with 2 Sportstars, a Morgan Sierra, a J160, a FS-CT, and a Foxbat. The BBQ lunch went off well - luckily there's good protection from our usual cold winds. Weather prevented several aircraft reaching there, and it also prompted a rapid departure mid afternoon. The availability of 2 strips has made the Lily a much safer proposition in windy weather - the norm here near the Stirling Ranges, (50nm NE of Albany). All in all - a very successful day. We can definitely recommend The Lily as a fly-in destination - Google for details. The Dutch Mill and the 'guestroom' DC3 are features worth seeing. Pleun and Hennie are the consummate hosts.

UAVs/Drones is the great new 'frontier' in transport/aviation. My grandchildren should be clamouring to get into the industry. Anyone under 30 with an interest in electronics/aviation should be looking to get into them on the 'ground floor'. The general public will get used to them.... it didn't take long for everyone,(in the early 1900's), to see that automobiles didn't need a little man waving a red flag ahead of them. happy days,

Just a PS to my post above. If I was building again I'd still go for the 9A, but I'd look carefully at a low compression engine that would handle premium ULP. I believe there's one which gives about 165-170 HP....which would be perfect. happy days,

Actually takes a little longer to build the wings because they are longer and have 12% more surface area, larger flaps too. Rest is the same as a 7A. Longer wings = more hangar space needed too. IMHO, the 9A is nicer to fly than any of the short-wings. It has a lower Vs and Vso - so you could say it's safer. However, it is slower than the 7A because of the increased drag - not that you'd really notice it with an RV....they are plenty fast enough anyway. happy days,

Just as a matter of interest - 2 pics of the Marsden matting (steel planks) which were laid onto smoothed off soil/sand/coral/whatever to create instant roads,strips,taxiways etc in the pacific WW2. The 2nd pic is a really rare historic one of S/Ldr Bluey Truscott parking a Kittyhawk at Gurney during 1942. Pic #3 is of Tadji, (nr Aitape in the Sepik district of PNG, showing what a dangerous practice they had of landing between the parked aircraft because of the lack of hardstand. If not for the ingenuity of Mr Marsden - everyone would have been bogged up to the eyeballs because it can really rain at Milne Bay and Tadji. The reason for the other pic of Kikori is that Kikori, ( a patrol post in the Gulf District), receives more than 7500mm, (300 inches) rain per year and was so soft that it was decided to collect Marsden matting to use on it - and this was in the 60's ! Living in the Gulf District was like being in a continuous sauna!happy days,

Reference the Milne Bay/WW2 discussions above. I flew C185's and Piper Aztecs into there between 1966 and 1970. The strip was not much improved from pics I've seen at end of WW2. There was no 'terminal', other than a grass roofed shack. The few coconut palms all had shell holes and scars on their trunks The Marsden matting had sunken into quite alarming wide holes and when you rolled the wheels on there was the most frightening clatter of the steel sheets trying to pull apart. Patair operated DC-3's there during those years and it was rock-&-roll for them. What was obvious at Gurney, was just how close the water was off the strip end. The many books written about the MB campaign note that the Kittyhawks were strafing soon after their wheels retracted - and you can believe that. Gurney is now a sealed strip with a modern terminal. had the Japs gained a foothold here it would have been all over-red rover for Oz. Luckily for us - they lost their 1st battle of WW2. happy days

Congratulations from all of the RV owners in Albany. You've just added a rare RV to the herd. I reckon we can slow down a bit to fit you into a formation once you are out of Phase I and can do your ff endo. Haven't seen JB since 2012 - wondered where he'd moved. cheers,

Correct, and that's as it should be - because it's Vs = 45, so 45 x 2 = 90. The POH that I've seen says Vno = 120 and Vne = 135, so not a big range of yellow arc there. However, Va of 90 is well under Vno, and it's pretty close to the quoted cruise performances in the high 90's for 5000 rpm, (75%). The POH for this aircraft shows there is only pitot error at 40KIAS, ie below the quoted Vs of 45.

Different numbers to our C172N (1980 model with 160HP) - which are Vne=158, Vno = 126, Vfe = 86. The given Va is for a range 97 - 80 kts depending on gross wt. Now it's instructive to note that Vs is 42 (KIAS) but this equals 50 (KCAS). Using the rule of thumb that Va = 2x the stall speed, (just under), then 50 x 2 = 100, which is very close to the given Va of 97 for gross weight. The 172 cruises around 105 TAS, so at lower levels, it's IAS is up around the 100-105 mark - which is higher than Va, so we are careful about operating it in rough air at power settings giving over 100KIAS. Given that mostly these C172's are often operated at much lower than max gross weight, (with a correspondingly lower Va than 97), you can see why an eye needs to be kept on IAS in rougher air. Now I'm unfamiliar with the Sling, but if it has a positive load factor of 3.8 at gross weight, then you can calculate Va by multiplying Vs by 2. With a Vno of 110, I'd be wondering just how high its' Va has been stated? A few manufacturers seem to be using Vno as Va - which is incorrect. cheers,

Nev, Are you coming from the fact that when flaps are extended - the max +ve load factor (3.8) is halved to 1.9? So once you extend flaps, the 'turbulence' speed is going to be considerably lower. In fact much so. Calculation sq rt of 1.9 x Vso = ? It looks like these LSA's with 85 KIAS Vfe numbers could do themselves some injury if they strike severe turbulence while manoeuvring with flap extended. The rougher it gets on approach, or flying at low levels - the less inclined I am to extend any flap at all....much prefer to know that my +ve LF is 3.8 Comment?

Actually, our Brumby is a beige basic colour with a major proportion of 'Indian Ocean blue' on the tail and underside, plus a small maroon stripe. (see pic). I was looking for something different from the traditional 'white with a red and blue stripe' scheme. I think the painting quality has improved out-of-sight since that blue aircraft was done too - and that makes a huge difference. Now 'cruising speed' is a variable number. It's a little bit akin to when I'm asked 'what speed does it fly at?' Answer - it all depends..................! We have the propeller blades set @13 degrees, and on cruise at 2500 ft, and 20 oat, with 5000 rpm it's giving us around 98-102 KTAS. That's for a MTOW of around 550kg. For circuit work we're using 4800 rpm and that's giving around 90-93 KTAS - plenty fast enough for student activity! I know that the magic number of 110 kts cruise is bandied about - but, in my experience to date, this is only going to happen @ 5200 rpm or maybe even 5300 rpm. Your fuel consumption rises sharply from 20lph @ 5000 rpm. For a cruising only tourer Brumby, it might be best to coarsen the pitch a little more, while we may yet fine ours back a degree or two so as to maximise climb rates for circuit training. As I said, above, it all depends..... happy days, IMHO, pilots can gain more by using the most wind-friendly altitudes, and becoming efficient in their circuit procedures than they can by flogging the Rotax as their initial approach.

With my limited experience of this Brumby, I'd be fairly confident of working off 350-400m provided you were not coming in over a high treeline. The aircraft will climb at a good 600fpm at close to 600kgs, and it will really make a steeper climb with half flap. More numbers when we get better organised to take them. I think the major 'limiting' factor with paddock strips might be the floatation of your u/c. My 5.00 tyres are great on most firm surfaces, but I have noticed a bit of 'cutting in' on a softer strip. 6.00's will probably reduce this effect and will certainly give you lower drag on rolling. But then you'll have a higher BEW. In your case, the 6.00's are probably going to improve your t/o distance, but maybe your climb won't be any better. cheers, The major limitation is probably in landing distance because you only have 30 deg full flap and to increase the r-o-d you need to slow down to 50 +/- KIAS and get it on the 'back' side of the curve. It's not possible to do the 40 deg 'Cessna' steep descent as your IAS increases with increased nose down. Again, we need more experience with the slower IAS x higher r-o-d technique and this aircraft.

Actually, the -10 is recommended with either a 210 HP IO-360, or the 260 HP version of the IO-540 Lycoming. Both the -10s built here have IO-540 installed. The main limitation that comes up on the VANS info is the HP for an RV9 or RV9A. VANS say max 160HP, but many builders have used 180HP. In the US, everyone based in the 'high' states uses 180HP. You just need to remember that the Va for an RV9/9A is much lower than for other RV's - around 110 is what they say, but my calculations say it's closer to 98-100....based on the calculation of 2V3.8 x Vs (50). I take a lot of care when negotiating around wx as it's just so easy to allow your speed to increase in an RV. (whoops, sorry - didn't see the last post re HP & 9's) happy days,

The original RV-10 built here went to Kununurra, was onsold to another Ord resident, and is still there. An RV-10 has just been completed here by an ex Cathay Captain, and is currently in Jandakot. Another RV-10 is under way here in Albany by one of our local RV6 owner/builders....he's a glutton for punishment! I did some of the test flying on the first RV-10 and it was a rocket! 175KTAS no worries! 260HP + CSU = action! happy days,

Do you mean an RV-10? Or, can't you locate 10 RV's in the initial post?

Better resale value for 1. Better crosswind ability for 2. easier to fly for 3.

Actually, this one was a 'glider with an engine'. Investigative reporting!

And another 4 that I can find.

Learning More About the Brumby Have had -8554 out on a number of local grass strips to try techniques for short-field take-off and landings, and also how best to handle it with crosswinds. This info just doesn't arrive with the manufacturers' POH - it has to be derived from experience with the aircraft. In time, I hope that Brumby develop a set of 'handling' notes which will prove instructive to new owners and school pilots too. My intention is to contribute to this as best I can. Half flap, (15 deg = full down aileron deflection - but it's also installed in the Dynon D-180 EFIS), looks to be desirable for takeoff on softer surface strips. However, it will actually levitate with full flap, and I'm thinking this might be an approach on a really soft surface. (You are probably tempting fate if you need to go this far!). This aircraft has really good short take-off capability. In the 15 deg flap config, I'm probably only taking 80-120m to be off and climbing. I'm flying by the time 30-35 ias shows. Sure, there's a squeak from the sw, but that's what you need to hear for short field work. Full flap + 50 ias on short final results in a rapid deceleration in an abbreviated roundout. Rudder is far more powerful than aileron in this aircraft - just take a look at its' size. In crosswinds above 12-15 kts, aileron feels a bit limiting on landing if the speed is allowed to decay below 50 kts. It seems that nil flap might be better in crosswinds over 15-18 kts - but I've yet to really explore this. (POH says 12 max). What I've longsince found is that you can accept more 'crosswind' if you are prepared to takeoff or land more 'into wind' by taking a diagonal line. This is true for any aircraft - but with those having vg short field qualities - it's possible to employ in most locations. Solves many x/w situations. happy days,