pylon500

Cant understand the use of bladder tanks? No-one's going to be shooting at it (we hope), which is the prime reason for bladder tanks. I know many Cessna's use them, but just as many Cessna's don't, having sealed wet wings. All the Cherokees have wet wings, and Mooneys. Typical users of bladders are Beechcraft, and they're a pain in the a$$e. That would be nice, but I suspect the nose gear 'hole' is actually the outlet for the cowling. I see your comments about ducting out via the dummy exhausts, but I'm explaining to those that missed the point.. Still love the look of it, and would also like to win lotto to get one and add the T-51 and Hurricane (also on the wish list).

I could be wrong, but if an engine in a 25-, 55-, 24- aircraft is at TBO (either calendar or hours), and NOT being used for hire and reward, the engine can be run 'on condition'?

Some what reminiscent of the Millenium Master; Looking for the same aerodynamics and performance tends to lead to a similar appearance.

It's time for the Newspapers to die, who wants to read week old news? Anyway, sent my bit to both the herald editorial and binns himself; Dear Sirs, I feel I need to bring to your attention the grossly incompetent and inflammatory journalism being foisted upon you, and thereby your dwindling readership, by one Matthew Binns. While trying to find more fuel to add to the Germanwings saga, and thereby doing the bidding of the copilot by furthering his wanted fame, this 'journalist(?)' has been granted a sizeable column in which to beat up public fear (already created by the media) about the private end of aviation within Australia. The 'PILOT TESTS CREATE FEAR' article spread across Australia by the Herald Sun, and other peddlers of week old news, is completely out of context, and inferring by default that ALL cars drivers in Australia are borderline psychopaths and incompetents. The private sector of Australian aviation is already under enough pressure from the empire building bureaucrats at CASA, striving for an un-obtainable one hundred percent safety factor. The last thing aviation needs is the uninformed public jumping up and down to politicians about a perceived lack of study or testing of private and recreational pilots in Australia, while we still have the thousand plus a year carnage on Australian roads. I know that the most dangerous part of going flying in Australia, is driving to the airport! Regards, Arthur Armour, Senior Flying Instructor, for the last 28 years.

I would follow the above trim system (added to trailing edge) instead of cutting it into the elevator. A tab mounted to the trailing edge has a better leverage to work as a trim, which means it can be smaller. Cutting into the elevator will mean adding a sub-spar for it to hinge on, adding weight aft of the elevator hinge, and the tab itself would then have thickness (to match the elevator) which will also add weight. This will then require more counter balance weight to balance the elevator, adding more weight to the rear of the aircraft. Although the Jab has a tail and elevator, it doesn't hurt to maybe incorporate a 'anti servo' system into the trim for feel and damping at speed.

So you're going to try and carry four people on an RPL?

Just trolled this one; Makes you wonder about composite blades....

I've been dealing with RAAus electronically for the last two years doing Rego's, ACR's, Pilot Endorsements, License Renewals etc, with no problems.... What have YOU actually done in the last two years? Are those Tornados flying yet? Is your Drifter back in the air yet? Sorry, but I'm busy DOING stuff.......

Looks good on paper, but it's not just Lightwings. The reality is, 3500 assorted aircraft from 220 various types, each with at least one, maybe two option choices for mods, updates, etc. As for factories, a third of the aircraft above no longer have manufacturer support, hence the reason to legitimise repairs, mods, etc via a central authority. I have had a response from Darren showing interest in my proposal, but as you can imagine, this is like opening Pandora's Box, so Barren will be flat out for a while 'till this is under control. His response included getting talks started between Bolly and Rotax, re some form of bulk approvals. I did receive some paperwork from Warp Drive last year describing their work towards (self?) certification, to comply with supplying props to the LSA manufacturers. This paperwork was forwarded to Darren, but it may need an initiative by Wade(?) or whoever now supplies Warps, for a similar bulk approvals. No noises regarding costs yet, but then it is a bit like asking 'How long is a piece of string?'

OK, Now that I've got your attention...., I've been sifting through the MARAP info and, not worrying about the 19-XXXX ambiguity for now, I am beginning to get a feel for it. To that end, it looks like any applications to RAAus, for various mods or changes, could incur individual billing for those mod approvals. I propose that we as a group (Lightwing owners/operators) should pool our requests together where possible, and try to get them approved as block instead of individually. Some changes I would like to request are as follows; • 3 blade Warp Drive props for LW-1's, GR532/582, GR912/912s. • 3 blade Kiev Prop for GR912/912s. • GR912(s) to 600kg. Comment here if you would be interested in any particular request, and/or put up any other mods that could be beneficial in a group application... I have earlier sent an email to Darren, asking to clarify some of the aspects of MARAP, and don't expect a reply till after the weekend, but just thought it might be a good idea to start organising something like the above before we all get too splintered. Arthur.

Now if they had all been fitted with some form of simple harness, they could have been clipped up to the bomb racks, and have the bombardier 'pickle' them over the DZ......

Many things have happened since moving to Taree. I still have the Stollite, which was powered by a 582, when I left. Once here I flew it for a while but one day accidentally blew it up (got too hot during a decent while trying to sort out an airspace clearance problem) I re-engined it with a worn out 912 I got from Howie, still had plenty of power, and flew it like that until I decided I needed that engine for another project. Removed the 912 and am in the middle of installing a BMW R-100, but have been sidetracked by even more other projects.. I'll get back to it one day, but I also have to finish rebuilding my Lightwing (GR-912)

Still happens today, just look at our steel industry. Not sure about Aluminium, but I know we don't produce any aircraft grade alloy here, but we mine lots of bauxite.

Hardley Davison left the bottom pot off a three cylinder radial back in the dark ages, and people have been enjoying the vibrations ever since..

Thread drift; As a Cadet, I used the Lee-Enfield .303, kicked like a mule (to a cadet) but was accurate. Once in the RAAF, I was handed the SLR which seemed to jump all over the place, but was a bit more accurate, than a shotgun. Left the PAF, but stayed with Reserves and was given the Tupper-Ware gun, about as accurate as the SLR, but I jammed that thing more than any other weapon, AND had a UID with it. Just as well they were blanks. Piece of rubbish.

Virtually from the outset, Australia led the world with ultralights, mainly because we evolved faster than CASA could write rules to stop us. Nev's right, ten years ago, we still led the world. Our ultralights could be two seat, travel in excess of 100kts, be designed and built by amateurs, have retractable undercarriage and variable pitch props. Then CASA listened to a small vocal section of our (?) group, and adopted the American LSA system, at which point I think we went backwards about twenty years..... As for the survival of Australian GA and the aero-maintainance arena, this morning I read the proposed CASA cost recovery draft and, as mentioned far above by chocolate, I think the last nail is sitting on the coffin just waiting for the hammer. Just think, soon all the RPT's you fly on in Australia, will be worked on overseas, and flown by pilots with English as a second language.....

"Sit down big nose!!" On a slightly off thread note, I've been thinking about what's going on with these ISIS retards. The problem is, we've sent some mega million dollars fighters, armed with multi thousand dollar missiles, being guided by mega dollar AWAC's, so they can find-track-arm and destroy --------- a stolen five thousand Toyota Hilux (the ute of war) and a couple of goat f****rs. I reckon the military should ask all serving members that fly R/C models, if they would like to do their bit for humanity and go to wherever the problem is, be issued with half a dozen mass produced medium sized foamies fitted with FPV gear and half a kilo of C4, and have at it !! Even if these things cost 4~5 thousand dollars each, the kill/cost ratio has got to be in our favour, instead of straining the taxpayers budget. As for fighter pilots, there will always be a need for knuckleheads in real wars, even if they are really only being directed from the ground (or AWACs), and even their comms could be compromised.... OK, sorry about some of the language, rant over, putting on my flame suit and retiring to my bunker for the night.

Sounds more like the battery dying, not holding it's charge. Check terminals for tightness and/or corrosion, determine if the battery requires electrolyte, or has been venting off it's acid/gel/mysterious internal fluid..... Check the terminals on the regulator/rectifier, but more likely, get a new battery.

Have seen wake vortices sit in the same place for at least 30 seconds to almost a minute, but usually from a LARGE aircraft, and generally in fairly still conditions. Watching the dust movement after the crash, I feel most of the vortex would have dissipated by the time the Cirrus arrived. Would tend to lean more towards the pilot attempting a go-round and getting caught in the pitch-up and torque roll couple. Damn lucky to get out of it...

Welcome to Hollywood:roflmao:

Watching the longer video, gives one a different appreciation of the aircraft's movements. Whether single or both engines failed is hard to tell, but the pilot was doing his best to stretch his glide, he just didn't quite make it.....

Sorry about the slow reply (forgot which post this was in..) Finally found a picture of my father in his 'Hey Day', as Western Australian 'Champion of champions' circa 1963? At the time he held WA control line speed records in class B (5.0cc), and class C (10.0cc), as well as state champ for control line stunt, and I think A2 free flight glider. Was flying models into the '90s, but was also getting back into full size gliding and setting state and national records there. Held Australian height gain record of 25,462ft (remember, that is gain, not absolute) around 1987, off the Stirling Ranges. Sadly, he passed away back in 1994.

No idea why the above video disappeared? So I'll try again for those that missed it;

I had been digging through old youtube clips of the Convair Pogo, and got to thinking the amount of power required for vertical lift, if converted fully to thrust by becoming wing-born, should come back with a fairly high speed (as with the Pogo) Although I never did any structural layouts, I did a lot of thinking on the control layout and modes of flight. Basic structure was a large glass/epoxy covered polystyrene delta, powered by a Rotax 503 driving contra-rotating lift blades, that employed 'floating, self pitching blades', all sitting atop a universal mount with a T bar control arm with throttle grip and a brake lever used to de-pitch the blades for power-up/decent/auto-rotation. The T bar could be twisted like a pushbike handlebar, and was connected to the ailerons (elevons actually) giving roll in normal (horizontal) flight, or yawing motion when hovering. The T bar was moved laterally, and for and aft (similar to a hang glider A frame) which while hovering gave translation control and in level flight would couple to the elevons for pitch and roll as described above. Sidewards movement of the T bar in level flight would give yaw control, but not really needed and would possibly be locked out until hovering again. Some people would take a bit of getting used to being strapped up what would be 'underneath' while in level flight, but most hang glider pilots would take to it. Cant find any of my drawings just now, but did make a little animation some years back, but only have one frame. This is very rough, but gives the idea... Flying techniques needed a bit more study, but hovering would be fairly intuitive, level flight is fairly straight forward, but decent and transition to hover would be a bit 'trick' There are a few choices with engine failures, all dependant on height, usually ending up under a ballistic chute. Don't know how it would be registered and dare say no-one would want to be first to accept it...

Have seen the photo before, and while appears legit, one wonders how the pilot becomes to be lower than the plunging aircraft? There are some wild gyrations possible to explain all relevant positions, so who knows. Another example of seemingly unrelated angles would this Andover crash, which looks to be going straight in, but is actually stalling and cartwheeling down the runway, most of the crew got out!