Oscar

Kurt Tank was the designer If I recall correctly. Apparently he test flew it without armament. In that condition it was supposed to be able to outrun anything else around. Very clean design (unlike the Bf 109) Nev

Saw both a standard FW190 (immaculately restored, better than out-of-the-factory which tends to be a feature of NASM restorations) and an unrestored H model in storage, the H is seriously longer and sleeker. Unfortunately it was very tightly packed in with a vast number of other aircraft and the wings were off it, but it has a presence all of its own, very elegant.

 

 

The 'cost' of an aircraft is not a simple matter of the $$ out of the wallet. You have to consider - if you are being realistic - a whole lot more factors.

 

Just for a start, what do you require of your aircraft? Load capacity? Cruise performance? STOL capability? Access to airspace and airfields? $$ out of the pocket vs time invested? Operational cost factors (insurance, storage, engine life, consumables/hour, self-maintenance vs paid professional maintenance etc?) Primary /secondary safety? Resale value? The ability to use for training / put on the hire line vs. personal use only?

 

A quick look at the ads. in any Sport Pilot will show you that there are things that can get you into the air from probably around $10k to upwards of $120k (or $180K for a Carbon Cub!..) For, let us say, $35K, which is sort of around the median price of a useful, reasonable new family car you can buy a half-decent older small Jab., or build a Sonex if you're prepared to spend the 700 - 900 or so hours working on it, or get a fairly beaten-up C15x or Piper high-wing if you don't mind flying just solo, or probably a very schmick Drifter.. there's plenty of choice, they all offer a different equation for the $$ and many of them are really quite good aircraft.

 

Then look through the magazine at the new aircraft ads. For somewhere in the $100 - $130 or so bracket there is a very considerable choice; if the market were not there for these aircraft, they wouldn't exist. If there were a simple way to make a comparable aircraft and sell it profitably for say $75k - someone would have done that and cornered the market.

 

It's ever-so-easy to look at an LSA aircraft and say: 'I can't see why it costs so much, it should be cheaper'. Perhaps that is so, but what you are looking at on the airfield isn't by any stretch of the imagination the sum of all the cost parts that have gone into it being there in the flesh. Every manufactured aircraft has in-built costs that are not represented by the metal / fibreglass / fabric etc. that sits there to be inspected.

 

If there is a silver bullet for costs for a comparable aircraft that allows it to be profitably manufactured and sold at a price that way undercuts everything currently available off the shelf - great: the world is waiting. However, I suspect that it's going to be a way longer row to hoe than just looking at the cost of the 'raw materials' - all those things that are necessary to make the airframe and the engine and put them all together into something that can fly - and actually having a marketable aircraft that meets the regulations etc.

 

 

the more I look at the fw190 the more I like it.

Saw the just completed restored one for the NASM; bloody impressive, superb workmanship everywhere. Then if you see an ME 262 close-up, it's rough as guts everywhere, but...it's the next step. The Me 163 is the roughest aircraft I've ever seen in terms of build, I think, but they worked (sort of).

 

 

As some have stated this technology was aimed at being better at killing your enemies than they were at doing it to you. Companies made profit out of this stuff, and still do. Armament manufacturers who sell cluster bombs napalm etc should have a special place reserved for them in hell. Going to war is the ultimate madness of the human condition, especially when atomic weapons are in the equation. Mutually Assured destruction, is out there. The hatred aspect of war lingers on for centuries, ready to spring up and set another conflict in action anytime Nev

Nev, I studied the whole nuclear warfare thing at University, and the MAD syndrome is almost beyond comprehension. The USA had (from memory) the estimated capability to destroy 50% of the USSR population and 75% of its industrial capability 4.1 times over just with Minuteman missiles alone, with an additional 1.5 times with SAC (B52) delivered bombs PLUS around 1.5 times with Trident submarine-launched missiles. How many times do you NEED to kill 50% of the population, FFS? The USA was devoting its strategy to MIRVs; the USSR in response, to multiple megatonne warhead delivery that would basically turn vast areas to fused glass...

 

Madness, on a scale that is unimaginable to the rest of us. To try to get a handle on all of this, watch 'Dr. Strangelove'....who was modelled on Kissenger, according to Kubrick.

 

 

Well, I guess if you'd been a part of the SR71 design team, it's not impossible that Jesus was part of the management support staff..

 

If you look at the front cockpit panel, I reckon that a souvenir trophy that would go 'straight to the trophy room' would be an ASI that reads to Mach 4....

 

I had the incredible opportunity to spend several weeks in the USA visiting many aircraft museums, with more than a week spent at the NASM restoration facility at Sliver Hill, just near Washington DC. I got to crawl down the aft fuselage of Enola Gay; wander through the NASM storage facility and see things like the pressurised FW190 for high altitude work, an Arado bomber under restoration, the Hughes Racer under restoration, the spare 'Fat Man' Nagasaki bomb (wild story behind THAT!), the US Navy Air Museum at Pensacola. I had a carte blanche entry to the Planes of Fame airfield, to crawl all over the Imperial War museum facility at Duxford, the Cardington R101 hangar with all that was going on there, the Mosquito Museum, to kick the tyres on an F117 Stealth fighter at the USAF museum - but of everything I saw in the US and the UK, the SR71 left the most indelible memory.

 

The SR71 is, quite simply, in another dimension. It's the aeronautical equivalent of the Bugatti Veyron vs. anything else you can actually buy and run on the street, even a Ferrari F40. No photo can do any sort of justice to seeing one in the flesh.

 

 

Amazing aircraft- developed in the 50s and still hasn't been beaten for speed.

Just to remind one of how old they really are - here are shots of the front and rear cockpits:

 

http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/068/SR-71A%20Front%20Cockpit.html

 

http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/068/SR-71A%20Rear%20Cockpit.html

 

There's a (probably urban legend) story that one of the early ones flying in to Middenhall landed; about 30 minutes later, the CO of the Lightning squadron based somewhere nerby called in to Middenhall and walked up to the SR71 driver and made the right appreciative noises about it, and was told 'Yep, nothing can get near us'. The CO then handed him a photo of himself, in the cockpit, taken at somewhere around 70,000 feet. Apparently, so the story goes, the Lightning had managed to do a ballistic climb and flamed out with just enough speed left to get alongside and take the snap before heading down and re-lighting. That panel suggests that there was enough going on for the pilot to, just possibly, be so preoccupied with the dials, knobs and switches to not notice anything else around him (nor expect anything to even BE there!)

 

 

The Phantom is capability arrogance personified, I admit; but for sheer, bowel-knotting fear, being near even a dead and de-comissioned on of these cannot be matched. I've been up close and personal with two - one at the San Diego Museum of Aerospace and the other at the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson, and you can't really look at them - your eyes seem to slide off the paintwork. Even just sitting still on the ground they look like the personification of evil. And they could outrun most bullets.

 

 

 

Trivia question....do you know what the two circular brown spots are either side of the intake splitter, on the Mig 15 or 17 ??.........

It's the signature deposit of Rotax-powered Lightwing drivers when being passed by things... Jabirus, pelicans, Thrusters, weather balloons...

 

 

When Rod Stiff and Phil Ainsworth set up Jabiru, they developed a manufacturing business model that was, in retrospect, rather brilliant, based on a 'cottage industry' model. The fact that Cessna could go Chinese production and not even sell 200 aircraft (or thereabouts), for nearly three times the cost each of a comparable Jab (the 120) while Jab have sold, what - 7 or 8 times that number in total?, with even the 'top of the line' 2x /4x machines being substantially cheaper than the c162 and a way, way more competent aircraft, says that their business model was pretty damn smart.

 

Part of the whole Jab. 'smarts' has been keeping the basic aircraft simple enough to remain manufacturable by their original idea. The more 'sophistication' you have in an aircraft, the more complex and expensive it becomes to have processes that can maintain the required build standard. Sophisticaed aircraft become less and less cheap and easy to maintain and repair, insurance costs go up, operating costs go up... you end up paying a lot of money for not a lot more performance etc.

 

 

Seen two of these (Tigercat) in the flesh (both flying examples), and they make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up just to look at on the ground:

 

 

 

Kev, I'll be as annoyed as you and anybody else if we aren't informed once decisions are taken, and I still find the RAA website to be disappointingly devoid of ongoing information. However, I do think it needs to be recognised that many serious issues have to be thrashed out by the Board before the decisions are made, and these guys have had little time to repair the damage that's been done over a considerable number of years.

 

Further than that, we need to remember that RAA isn't just bound by the democratic will of its members - it must also act as the delegated authority for the rules and regulations that are imposed by CASA and quite often, a flow on from ICAO determinations and standards. That's one hell of a juggling act for the Board, don't underestimate the complexity. The Board members are - let's not forget - volunteers who are adding to their workload in life, the responsibility for keeping us flying legally and safely.

 

The alternative to having RAA continue to operate effectively, is to go GA Experimental on an RPL under the control of CASA - which is NOT a representative body subject the the democratic will of its 'members'. If you are not happy with the way the RAA board is operating - you do have an alternative (sort of). I'm arguing for giving the 'new' Board time and space to get things sorted to our best benefit, not that there should be acceptance of restricted information to RAA members when the right time for dissemination of that has come.

 

 

Tina's Pilot Shop in Texas used to sell a hybrid built by Lightspeed (with the Lightspeed warranty and service back-up!) that had the earlier Lightspeed - pre-Zulu - hardware with Zulu 1 electronics. I'm not sure whether this one is the same deal: https://ssl.perfora.net/www.tinaspilotshop.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=154fb467b4992b2/shopdata/index.shopscript I bought a set for just over $300 posted here, when the exchange rate was better; very comfortable and great electronics ( my brother has used it and reckons it's as good in comfort and noise reduction as the Bose's he usually flies with, and it doesn't set his hearing-aid buzzing as most ANR headsets do) with BUT: it doesn't like the Microair intercom! (or vice-versa). The Coms function was great but the intercom was really difficult to handle.

 

You may be wise to check your potential choice in your aircraft before laying down the $$ to ensure there are no incompatibility problems.

 

 

Give the Board members a break!. We have a Board that was, mostly, elected for the current term of office in the last six months, a new CEO, Tech Manager and Ops Manager (though Jill has great Corporate memory, obviously).

 

The situation that the current Board and Executive inherited was an almighty clusterfrack with the future existence of RAA fairly precariously balanced. I, for one, wish to see then Board 'get it right' rather than rush into trying to change things with too little consideration of the matters that need to be addressed. Too hasty decision-making on important matters has a ridiculously high probability of the emergence of unintended consequences and RAA can NOT afford to blunder forwards as if with its head in a bag, it needs to address the serious issues facing the organisation and develop effective strategies and policies for its future. Precipitate release of information that is not in a final form as a decision of the Board is a decidedly BAD idea; release of a proposed position for member comment at the appropriate time is what is needed.

 

Ironically, the term 'tow the line' would perhaps refer to pulling a barge along a narrow waterway - which some Board members may feel is all too appropriate for the situation, when the current requiring such 'towing' is against you... The term 'toe the line' means to conform to a standard.

 

 

Don, there's a long and informative thread on the CAMit engine mods at: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/major-weaknesses-addressed.110861/ I understand that since then, CAMit have progressed both their development and their flying time experience to the point where the 'final' spec for documentation has been reached (or are certainly very close to that state). Fairly much the next step for them is talking to CASA....

 

 

We like the MGL Extreme EMS for legibility for its size (we're actually building a brand new panel for the ST that incorporates it and an iPad as standard, but that's some way off, though the trial mould looks encouraging ). The MGL Extreme handbook is worth downloading and having a read through, if only to give you a bit of a 'baseline' for capability; it pretty much ticked all our boxes for the combination of size, price, capability and readability. I'd not be surprised in the Dynon doesn't have even more capability. One thing we really like about the Extreme is the external connection of a 'something's happening' light we're going to sit between the ASI and Altimeter right at the top of the panel so it's in the line of peripheral vision (of my damn bifocals..) in normal flight - and since it's programmable for every condition, it's just a 'look at the damn Extreme and see what's happening' instant reminder.

 

 

Absolutely right - and very important. Jab. kicked a monumental own goal, I believe, by not mandating at least CHT reporting for ALL cylinders, on an engine that undeniably requires careful attention to operation. I'll bet London to a brick that there are a considerable number of owners who have been very careful, done all the right things as far as they could tell - and not been rewarded with the engine life they had every right to expect. And they have every right to be angry and feel that the engine has simply let them down, when better information about what was really happening could have made a vast difference to the life they got. Jabiru make strong recommendation about having probes on all cylinders for any non-factory installation, yet they skimped on the factory installs. They make a damn competitive airframe with most things costing way more to buy, yet they don't give it the chance to deliver its best by skimping on instrumentation.

 

The cost of three, or even five extra probes and a suitable instrument (e.g. the MGL Extreme EMS in a package deal with six CHT and 6 EGT probes), is about A$2k. That's a bit more than pocket change, for sure, but if you get just 400 extra hours to first overhaul as a result, it's paid for itself, what - about 4 times?

 

 

Don't kid yourself that these will necessarily meet the required FAA standard (which is quite difficult to actually interpret, btw.) Some of the claims for lamps in the eBay link are ridiculous; the CREE XML-T6 Cool white is currently the brightest single led (other than some el monstro Cree ones like the CXA2520, which none of the things advertised on that page use) and the XML2-T6 - the latest CREE model of the XML range - puts out 679 lumens @ 2000mA - the highest driver current CREE recommends. The FAA standard requires a spread of light from a strobe, and it will take an array of six of the XMLs to get to comfortably meet the brightness/spread ratio.

 

Almost any half-decent led pack light will meet the visibility distance figure in very low ambient light conditions - exactly when a day-VFR restricted aircraft should NOT be flying. If you put these low-cost devices on your plane and believe that in bright sunlight you'll be seen at a respectable distance - you won't, except perhaps over a very small cone of visibility when accurately aligned to the centre of the lamp propagation pattern, and provided the observing aircraft has you against a dark background.

 

 

You'd be buying an LSA-class aircraft with, at best, minimal manufacturer support. Given the restrictions on modifications, even minor changes in components, repairs etc. that are allowable under LSA rules, the chances of you finding yourself in a situation of needing support that you can't get for something that you need to keep flying, is rather large. If, for example, further airframe problems start to appear, is Cessna likely to tool-up to produce a fix-kit? A bargain flying machine you can't actually fly, is no more than an expensive garden-gnome..

 

 

Setting up a Dynon to record all engine data is pretty easy yet few do it.Just download after disaster to get an insight into the real cause.

JJ - recording everything is a great idea (we plan to use an MGL Extreme EMIS for the same purpose, it fits the panel) but it's important to realise this is only one part of what needs to be a two-part exercise.

 

EMIS recording shows the conditions; what needs to be added is analysis of the causes of the conditions. This isn't just semantics, because a condition may be the result of several causes. - which is why I have been arguing that just 'failure' doesn't present the whole picture.

 

Can we examine a completely hypothetical case? Let's say, a through-bolt failure. You have a log of cht's, egt's and revs over time; the MGL Extreme also allows recording of a number of other parameters, including (if a GPS is attached, a flight track, OAT, and fuel flow) These can be downloaded into an Excel spreadsheet for historical record-keeping - I assume a Dynon has a similar capability.

 

Now, if, let's say, your records show conservative use of the engine over a long period of time, plus entirely normal cht's and egt's immediately prior to the failure, the 'cause' is almost certainly a material failure of the through-bolt/ bad machining.

 

If the pot with the bolt failure shows a marked rise in CHT but a normal -ish EGT immediately prior to the failure and the other pots are all in the greens for CHT and egt, then it's likely to be some sort of cooling malfunction for that cylinder head leading to detonation. It may be (and a careful trawl through the historical data may show this), that for some reason, at a particular airspeed maintained over enough time, you get a weird cooling airflow distribution.

 

If the pot with the failure shows abnormal CHT and EGT prior to failure, then the cause is likely to be adverse mixture distribution - leading to detonation. Jabs have inlet manifold quirks at certain fuel mixture flow rates.

 

If ALL pots show abnormal CHTs and EGTs, with that pot being slightly worse, then fuel quality is probably a prime suspect with the pot with the least cooling being the first to reach detonation and let go.

 

All of the above is a pretty crude description but if armed with the information, experienced people can very likely pinpoint a 'most likely' cause from the data - and it's not always the most obvious one.

 

 

I flew Mike Valentine's ES 52 a few times. He loved it but I found it a poor performer compared to the mighty Blanik You could lay off a mighty yaw into wind on final in the. Blanik and it remained beautifully stable. It was very kind to stall and spin and recovery was easy. I got my Asst Instructor's rating after a check out in a Bocian by John Viney. This graceful old plywood bird had a wingspan as long as your average backyard and the stalled wing would give an audible sigh as you entered a spin. Sitting high in the back seat, you had an exceptionally good view of the world rotating over your head.

 

Kaz

Yep, I agree with that. I'm in the process of getting my RAA pilot certificate, and my instructor (who was also a gliding Instructor in his past life) asked me - after my first five or so circuits - if I was making a conscious decision to roll out of the turn onto final into a sideslip approach, because I did it consistently, or was it just old habits? I hadn't realised that I'm used to lining up the threshold off to one side.... and doing a lot of my initial training in Blaniks is probably why.

 

I did my first check-flight at Narromine with John Rowe in a Blanik. As far as I can remember, the voice from the back said: ' You're way high' as we turned final, followed by 'I'd like you to end up somewhere near the flight line' as we rounded out, followed by 'you're a bloody Cooma pilot, right?' as we taxied up and stopped behind the last glider on the line. In the CGC flying at Polo Flat, you were expected to do the last flight of the day ending up at the hangar door; the Libelle syndicate members used to stand out the front of the hangar and put their foot out and require their flying member to drop the tip onto their boot. Failure to so do was punished by having to buy the rounds for the evening.

 

 

And, speaking as a very low-time power pilot, in general flight it's just a delightful thing to fly with nicely-balanced controls; as an ex-glider pilot I'm not used to being able to see the ground past my feet but it just wants to oblige by staying delightfully co-ordinated in a turn without any apparent effort on the part of the pilot. Absolutely the nicest way to look at Fraser Island when the real pilot says: 'here, you take the damn thing, I have stuff to do'.

 

 

Yup, and it isn't a problem for the rural's to drive pass a property and look at the assets and the fuel load surrounding those assets and say, hmmm not defendable and move on the next property that is defendable.

Not just the observable fuel load: access tracks usable by a Cat 9 / 7/ 1/ tanker; unmarked: propane tanks, oxy-acetelyne gear, petrol / diesel tanks, noxious chemical storage in sheds... We are strictly forbidden to access any vehicle that MAY have unexploded airbags via a window, and must use extreme caution for any hybrid vehicle. All due to accidents involving decent people trying to help.

 

 

Yes oscar, the Same aircraft that had the slipping annomoly. I can't shift the sensors around as its type certified and also it's been relocated to tamworth.I must say I've never been too concerned about it, it's a high wing loaded little plane and must be flown accordingly. I've always carried an extra 5 kts on the poh numbers Because it jus feels much more happy there. And it won't float like the other models will if your a bit quicker.

Te only time it feels nasty is when it's slow, the lift doesn't drop away all friendly like under 60 kts it goes Into express elevator mode.

 

But it's a much easier problem to manage then the floating issue the bigger wing models seem to give.

 

Thanks for the references daffyd, I'll look into that. Very interesting stuff.

Was the Dynon factory installed? because if so, then (for once!) you and I are in agreement, Jab. should have modified the POH to reflect the Dynon installation KIAS. And I agree ALSO (this is 'Dear Diary stuff!) that the 160 dumps lift rather suddenly; I've been training on one and my landings are fine down to the last 20 feet, when my bi-focals plus a distortion in the bottom of the screen plus too many ingrained gliding habits that I need to revise of stopping as soon as possible after the threshold has been reached mean that the last round-out bit is frustrating me - the thing isn't ending up where I think I am commanding it. Still only a few hours up, I'll beat the little bugger yet. Oh, and a thicker cushion so I can see forwards in the round-out is on my list.

 

 

. However my original question was about steering with the rudder 'only' when too fast, which Oscar later corrected and said he was too slow.Cheers

Merv - not only too slow, but aft of the rear c/g. limit. Not by enough to cause it to be totally uncontrollable, but it felt like standing on top of a ball-bearing in a gusty breeze. Same damn flight I lost the rudder pedals on final and had to avoid some stupid bugger pulling his glider across the field exactly where I was aiming for touch down. Since it was John Rowe's personal aircraft that he'd set a world speed record for a task in a few weeks previously and tuned to perfection, he was NOT amused by my landing, until I told him about the rudder pedals and he realised I wasn't wearing a parachute and so was below minimum pilot weight. I got an 'oh, well, ok then', which was I think John's 9/10 rating.

 

 

Well, damn! So below 19 kts, that thing wouldn't self-align? Going to be pretty useless for Thruster VNE checking, then...