rgmwa

You wouldn't want to outland in this.

Outer SE suburb of Alice Springs,I think.

Do pilot and passenger headsets both do the same thing? If only one, then maybe start with checking the headset jack connections. Just a guess.

I agree, and the plane on the blurb is another giveaway. It's nothing like a P47. More like a collection of spare parts. As far as I know, only the Russians had female fighter pilots.

That was one of the issues that contributed to Van’s recent problems, although management, cost control and supply chain and increasing costs combined with a flood of orders (paradoxically) during Covid were the major factors.

Haven’t seen that type of lock before but as long as it works and doesn’t damage the rudder. I assume the ailerons have locks or the control stick is secured in some way too.

Have you got control locks?

I think the technical term is scud running. Good to know you made it OK but it’s risky when you’re dodging low cloud, rain showers and strong winds. I got caught once going the other way along your route. Never again if I can avoid it.

I reckon he’s still in Northam.

Didn't see it. How did it go?

Yes, I thought I'd lost my plane tied down at Meekatharra overnight in a really bad storm one year. It survived apparently undamaged, but it clearly had moved around.

Here's one for Nev...

I think he means that the canard is designed to stall before the main wing does which drops the nose so it starts flying properly again. Hence the safety feature label.

It would still be interesting to know what they spent on it. Also how they designed it. It’s big enough to have needed some serious engineering.

I wonder what it cost. It weighs as much as my plane and is bigger as well. My plane’s wingspan is 27’. This model is about as big as a C152.

I built mine and I’m confident it was done to a high standard and with care and attention to detail. It was also inspected several times during the build by my SAAA tech counsellor and obviously again by the CASA Approved Person before it was given its special certificate of airworthiness. It’s as airworthy as any commercial aircraft despite the warning sticker on the instrument panel and the ‘experimental’ banner on the rear bulkhead.

RV-12 school builds are well-established in the US. Some in NZ as well that I'm aware of. I was one of about 15 or more mentors on the SAAA's build a few years ago that involved about 5 schools across Australia. In Perth, they ran two build sessions per week. I only helped out once a fortnight but one or two dedicated mentors were there for virtually every session and really made the project happen. The students were 15/16 year old's divided into about half a dozen teams. Our build started half way though the year and went into the next year with a new lot of students so they had to start from scratch to learn the basic skills. I was surprised by how awkward and uncoordinated some of the boys were in handling basic tools. They could barely use a screwdriver and we had a pretty high attrition rate as they soon realised that building a plane was essentially a slow and boring process with lots of repetitive tasks. A few were interested enough to see it though, and one young kid in particular was very keen and capable and was still there at the end. In the first year we had two girls in the group and they ran rings around most of the boys. They listened, read the plans, followed instructions and were careful and precise in their workmanship. The same could not be said for some of the boys who were careless and disinterested and didn't take it seriously, but they didn't last long. We built the main fuselage and firewall forward while other schools did the tail cone, empennage, and wings. Some SAAA Chpt 24 members at Jandakot jumped in at the end to finish off the engine, avionics and fibreglass work. The students weren't allowed to do fibreglassing or priming due to the hazardous materials issues. Overall I'd say the quality of workmanship was probably no better or worse than many other homebuilt aircraft. It was obviously assessed as being airworthy anyway. These were just my observations and I don't know how the other schools went. It eventually all came together thanks to the hard work of a small core group of mentors. The plane was/is called `Miss Tori". I don't know who owns it now but it was a very well equipped aircraft with dual Garmin G3 screens, autopilot, lights etc.

Finding it might answer the question of what happened to it, but not why it happened.

Thanks for the explanation. I see what you're getting at now. Service ceiling is the maximum density altitude at which an aircraft can maintain a minimum practical rate of climb which might be 100 ft/min for a typical GA aircraft.

Perhaps `better' needs to be better defined.

Flying faster also increases form drag and the most efficient speed will be the speed at which the combined parasitic and form drag is lowest. I wasn't sure that you can say that flying faster will always be more efficient except that flying faster will get you to where you're going quicker and that's probably more efficient (especially if you can go `downhill' all the way and use gravity instead of engine power).

Flying faster will create the required lift at a reduced angle of attack and reduce the associated drag on the wing.

... and more power required to overcome drag so more fuel used.

Hey Max, this series is a pretty monumental effort on your part. It must be a full time job to research and put it all together.

Agreed. We could do without all the tit for tat bickering that goes on here at times. It’s supposed to be about aviation not recrimination.