skippydiesel

On 22/12/2019 at 5:10 PM, perrynz said:

What about this one. Clue: it’s not international.

 

NSW Southern Highlands ????

OME - The speaker contradicts himself on the range question - the Hornet having considerably greater range than the early jets.

I also think he was incorrect on the speed -  the Hornet being equal if not better than the early jets at low altitudes.

The Hornet lost  to the jets when it came to higher altitudes.

I have never quite understood why low level fighter bombers need to be jet powered (I accept turbo props) - the Hornet may have excelled as a low level aircraft fitted with turbo props (may have spilt its good looks)

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

 

 

On rules around RAA, from reading this forum, it seems a little too restrictive in Aus... and when I finally get back, I may be tempted to stay with GA.

 

 

Maaaaaaaat! - RAA is cool man. RAA has just the nicest handling aircraft and the best econamy too boot. Want the best of GA/RAA - maintain your GA fly RAA 

1 hour ago, jackc said:

They probably should be cheap......after a possible Flying School flogging......?

Couldn't agree more - Aircraft "on line" with flying schools get worked hard.

For the hours recorded, they do incredible number of start, take-off & landing cycles - think of all that wear and tear on almost every little bit - even things like switches - yep! replaceable but all those "little" items add up to a potentially expensive acquisition.

If you dont buy cheap, your an auctioneers fantasy and of questionable sense.

9 hours ago, spacesailor said:

" 

Out of interest I made an enquiry with pickles regarding price guide:

Tecnam P2008 120-140k

Bristel                90- 130k

Foxbat                60-70k

Vixen                  80k  "

Usual second hand price, without their interest or GST.

spacesailor

 

"In their dreams" - just check out the current/recent offerings in the variose on line market places

2 minutes ago, Mike Gearon said:

.......................

 

Interesting question asked above about home built in CTA. I did a brief Google and haven't found answer yet.

 

Hi Mike -

I believe this idea that home builds can not enter CTA (at all) to be one of  the famous Urban Myth's.

For sure they will face greater scrutiny than a Certified Aircraft, with much reflection on aircraft/engine model/make history but to say no homebuilt can enter CTA seems to be a tad irrational.

Jerry_Atrick - LOVE IT !! MORE

On 18/02/2021 at 11:58 AM, skippydiesel said:

I noticed with great interest that many of the DH  Mosquito shots were in fact DH Hornets - for my money one of the most beautiful piston twins ever built

Wow ! not a single challenger to my statement be found. perhaps a little addition or two:

Probably the ultimate development of the piston twin. The DH Hornet saw active service during WW2. Greater range & pay load, faster & more maneuverable (at low altitude), than the "jets" of the time. Unlike the Mosquito it had  "Handed"  engines  supposed to be better for carrier operations. Saw "action" in Asia (Malaya ?). Even had some at Bankstown. Supposed to be a pilot's aircraft. Not a flying example remains of this wonderful  creation.

Rudder has minimal/ nil influence, until sufficient air speed gives in authority - my "problems" are all below rudder effectiveness - the B------ tail wheel!!!

Naaah! - there is no steering feel at all. You stab/stomp a peddle to initiate a turn - at some indeterminate stage/time the aircraft begins a turn - you then stomp the other peddle to arrest the turn. Too much stomp & you risk a sudden departure in that direction, too little and nothing happens and the first turn continues and may tighten.

The skill is not in the reaction per say but in the timing & degree of stomp - very crude!

Anticipation is everything, because the beast has a mind of its own & does not communicate with the pilot in any shape or form. The only clue to a turn commencing, is either a gradual change of horizon OR a sudden change - its up to the beast not the pilot.

I have now flown 6 different iterations of the same aircraft - all have no steering feel/feedback to the pilot, other than the aforementioned  unpredictable movement on the horizon.

Some are worse than others, requiring considerable leg muscles, other not so much.

A touch of brake can assist but great care must be taken, else this system bite you mightily.

Verily this is a BLACK ART I may not master.

And these are Certified Aircraft - go figure!

Do all (RAA & lighter GA) tail draggers have vague, slightly unpredictable steering ??

or is it just Decathlon's

A wonderful story & an amazing man - thanks for posting it Garfly

I noticed with great interest that many of the DH  Mosquito shots were in fact DH Hornets - for my money one of the most beautiful piston twins ever built

Just thinking ahead:

If we are forced into "Transit Lanes" we need to fight very hard for:

Left/right lanes with plenty of space for passing  slower traffic (not one narrow lane with two way traffic)

Each lane must have significant/safe horizontal separation between apposing traffic lane.

Hight above terrain must allow for engine out, glide to open space, with no terrain generated turbulence/rotors (eg Maitland/Gloucester/ Wirradgurine - Williamtown NSW absolutely HORRIBLE!)

23 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Commenting about the vendor’s *motives* is going way beyond the data. And the statement “can also be flown in controlled airspace on its current TAAus registration” is probably totally true. Here, you need to distinguish between what the vendor actually said and what happened in your imagination when you read it. 

Is not "motive"  and suggestion at the core of this conversation ?

Training has always been viewed as under the control of the instructor - doesnt matter where you are or how far - the instructor is responsible.

For my information perhaps you could expand on "........need a Class 2 medical. "  eg why not a Class 2 Basic?

Always liked the P2006T - lovely lines. I wonder if there is a reserve ???

39 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

.............................................
 

Furthermore, you can fly an RA-Aus plane in controlled airspace without an RA-Aus certificate; you just need to be learning to fly and have a Class 2 medical. Also, you don’t need a PPL, you just need an RPL. And you can only do it during daylight hours, where daylight is defined as...

 

..................................................................
 

 

APNATA - I have already acknowledged the exception of, RAA of training schools based within CTA, which makes absolutely no sense to me if the rest of the RAA pilots can not seek similar privileges. I understand that to further confuse the matter, once qualified the RAA pilot can no longer fly from that location - is this true??

On the PPL/RPL matter; to be honest I still cant quit get my head around this.As a PPL currently undergoing a tail wheel endorsement training, at a controlled airfield, I briefly looked at down grading my medical to a "Class 2 Basic" (sufficient for an RPL). I didn't get far, as vague suggestions (from CASA) that my variose endorsements  (described as privileges)  may be withdrawn - so I have opted to down grade to a regular Class 2 and retain my "privilege's" whatever they may be.

I will repeat an erlier point - a pilot in command of an RAA registered aircraft must have an RAA Certificate - at least this is clear. If the same pilot has a GA License WITH endorsements that allow entry to  CTA he/she may do so, subject to the aircraft meeting the standards required for entry - this bit seems a bit muddy -  see Aro's contribution erlier in the conversation.

Back to the advertisement: I will  quote a little more "Can be converted to VH registration and can also be flown in controlled airspace on its current RAAus registration" - seems to me the vendor is trying to make this aircraft all things to all pilots Fair Enough however the last part "can also be flown in controlled airspace on its current RAAus registration" I believe to be misleading best - that's how I started this conversation and where I still stand. There is no attempt to qualify or contextualise this statement - it is designed to mislead.

Great videos!

OME we have crossed again !

Technology!! Do'nt know what happened above.

"Market Overt" would seem to be an obsolete, in Au,  hang over from British Law 

The parra that starts "Subject to the provisions of this Act....." would seem to saying you can not sell what is not yours and the purchaser can not own the item sold ("......buyer acquires no better title to the goods....)"

1 hour ago, Tasmag said:

You will probably find that you dont have a claim of ownership anyway.

 

Whilst I know you are not interested in reclaiming the model it might be of some interest to have a look at the doctrine of 'Market Overt'

 

Mike

Lovely spot - had series concerns regarding CO levels in an aircraft based/maintained there

Can you contact the Museum, their lawyers, accounts ??

You may not want it back  but if you did it would appear you have a strong claim - the Australian Aviation Museum Bankstown had a responsibility to return the model on loan to you or ask that you allow them to sell.

By selling without your permission/knowledge they have, in effect, stolen the model.

The ball is in your court.

3 minutes ago, aro said:

I'm pretty sure the responsibility is 100% on the car driver to make sure they have the appropriate license for what they are driving. But I don't see any claim like that in the ad anyway.

 

What if a vendor claimed a 28 knot stall speed and it turned out that was IAS and the real stall speed was higher, also the claimed stall speed was at 450kg not the higher MTOW allowed in Australia?

The cop would see it that way however the court would likely see that the driver would have had a reasonable expectation, that the salesperson would know the the vehicle required a truck license to operate.  The micro truck being in that "grey area" I referred to,  may have been car license  legal by just a change of body (unladen weight). In the, admittedly unlikely, event that the driver had a written/witnessed statement from the salesperson/car yard , backing his claim that he had been miss informed, he would probably get off with a caution and the sales persons/yard referred to Fair Trading (or similar) for investigation & possible prosecution.

I say again the vendor that makes misleading and or false claims, about the good/services they are selling, is (if it can be proven) culpable. In the event of these false/misleading claims leading to a greater crime/incident they may continue to be culpable.

For sure the customer/purchaser must also bear some responsibility - the degree will be determined by the court.

Back to aviation - 28 knot stall - if true, a fair claim. That it is indicated, rather than true, is neither here nor there (the purchaser/pilot is obliged/responsible to read & understand the POH befor flight). That the stall was established at the aircrafts Max take off weight of 450 kg (as determined by the manufacturer/EU regulations) rather than the Australian Max permissibly weight of 600 kg is also irrelevant, as long as the vendor does not claim the Au 600 kg. Again the POH will specify the Max TO weight and the pilot should fly accordingly.

It is well known/understood in the flying community, that aircraft coming from another aviation jurisdiction, may have been subject to different testing and fit out standards (in the US, LSA can not have CS props, retractable undercarriage and must not exceed 120 knots not absolutely sure of my facts here)