galdriTIGHAR strikes again:rolleyes:
galdriHehehehe reminds me of an old guy I used to fly quite a lot with.
We had loaded the Cherokee to the brim with grub for a long day out flying. When we arrived at our first stop, I put a bit too much fuel in the tanks, so ended up overweight. The old guy had the answer! He maintained that if the four of us ate all the sandwiches and drank all the coffee we would no longer be overweight:eek::D
Seems like ANA is useing similar reasoning, only the other way around:D
galdriC-6
I do not know the LAA maintanence schedules, as I live in a different country and we might have different rules here. However, these are my observations.
Regarding the overhaul of the engine. I would have thought that as the aircraft (and engine) is on a permit to fly, you would be allowed to do the overhaul yourself under the supervision of an inspector. That is at least how it works here out in the sticks. An overhaul to serviceable limits is just about getting the book out and measuring components, looking for corrosion etc. As you are already an aircraft engineer (albeit without CAA endorsment), I think you should not find this too complicated. Hey, even I did an overhaul on a Continental A-65 a few years ago under the watchful eye of my inspector! If the UK rules are different, I appologize for the red herring 😉
Regarding the engine in the aircraft you are thinking about buying. I think you should not worry too much, the Continental is a tough little engine. It does have weaknesses, but they are GENERALLY less expensive than the known weaknesses on a Lycoming. When you inspect the aircraft (assuming you have not done so already), you have to look for oil leaks. Typical weak spot the crank shaft seal at the front of the engine and the O-rings in the valve train. Nothing expensive and (relatively) easily rectified.
The engine as you describe it has only run about one third of it´s live, the recommanded TBO for the small Continentals typically being 1800 hours. When you inspect the aircraft check if the aircraft has been flown regulary. If it has not, you can expect to have to do a top overhaul on the engine soon-ish. It might be ok for a year, or maybe longer, but on the Continental USUALLY the first item to go after a long time of inactiveness are the cylender (or rather the piston rings) giving you zero compression. If you are lucky, you might be able to salvage the rings and hone the cylenders but you should give a thought about replacing them all when the first one fails as the other ones will probably fail shortly.
You have a few possibilities to renew the cylenders. You could find old jugs and pistons that are within serviceable limits and buy a new ring kits for them.
If you feel posh, you could by a complete new cylender assembly (jug, piston rings etc.) and be set back about 1000 dollars for each jug.
If you are operating on a shoe string, take the old ones (all of them when the first one fails), and salvage what you can and by new rings for the rest.
If I was in your shoes, I would go with option one. As soon as you buy the aircraft, get the overhaul manual for the engine. Start looking for Jugs and pistons that are within serviceable limits. When it starts going pear shaped, by new rings for and exchange all at once. As a permit to fly aircraft and engine I THINK you can do all the work yourself with an inspector looking over your shoulder.
When you inspect the aircraft, find someone familiar with the type. If such a guy is not available, go for someone that knows similar aircraft types or the type of construction. Have him/her look the aircraft over to see if there is something obviously wrong. He/she might not be able to find everything that is wrong, but it would at least give you an idea of whether or not you are buying a turkey or an aeroplane.
galdriWe are opening a whole can of worms here:eek: A can of worms, that I think the NRA will not be overly comfortable with:eek:
The flight crew is, today, sitting behind an armoured door, which we are told will withstand the blast of a handgrenade (what happens to the rest of the aircraft is anybodies guess!). That door is not to be opened unless the correct code word is given over the interphone (at least it is in my airline). Most of the airliners flying today have cameras that are trained on the forward galley area and door, and the pilots have real time images of what is going on in these area.
If a terrorist is banging on my door, do I let him in just so I can use my gun?
Do I go into the back letting the gun doing the talking??
Or do I just sit down like a scared little boy, sitting safe behind my little armoured door, and land this aircraft at the nearest airport?
Given the possibilities above, what would you do? Leave your seat in the cockpit, open an armoured door to start a western style gunfight with a terrorist (you do not even know how many they are!), or just sit tight? Sure, an F/A or two will get killed. Even some of the passengers get killed while the terrorist are trying to get you. But at the end of the day you just have to sit tight and land the bloody thing, behind your armoured door. A shoot out between the captain and terrorists in the cabin is a forgone conclusion! GROW UP people! What an absolute stupid idea! But then again, all of the pilots applying for the carrige of gun on the flight deck were NRA members! It is too stupid to even comprehend to the rest of the world.
I´m flying into Afganistan on regular basis now. Does that entitle me to a pistol by my side? How much is that pistol going to be worth when I get a SAM up my A*rse? It is the same analogy. Try to do something with a pistol that a cannon can not take out!
A friend of mine (I´ll not mention any names) was in the French Foreigin Legion, anti-terrorist squad, and I can tell you, the terrorists are ahead in the game! He quit and went home to his mother (and remember when you sign for the Legion you disappear!), and with in 12 hours his mothers phone was ringing off the hook offering him jobs TRAINING terrorists in various parts of the world (I know which ones!) or offering him jobs doing gun runnings. He is now a lowly security officer in Private Jet company because he knew the stakes, but a lot of his mates have taken up such deal never to be heard of again! If you start down the slippery slop (of training, gun running etc.), you know too much and will be found dead in a hotel room one morning!:eek:
So, the bad guys will alway know what to expect, and how to deal with it. They are trained by the best people money can buy. Do you really thing a classic western shoot out on board an airliner is the solution? I don´t think so. I´ll be the little boy hiding behind my armoured door anytime!
galdriI am sure you will find that although refined for air racing the aircraft they use are very capable of any aerobatic schedule you could throw at them..
Like I said, I´ve never flown any of the Red Bull air racers. But, and it is a big but, at least some of them have special race wings. Race wings do not go hand in hand with good aerobatic capability. A good aerobatic wing is totally symmetrical, but that is way to draggy for an all out air race. The SU-26 (or -31 can´t at the mo remember which it was) was totally outclassed because of it´s draggy symmetrical wing. So the Hungarian pilot (forgot his name), had to change to a western design with a race wing to have a chance.
I might be talking out of my a*se here, but this is how I remember it.
True, all of these machines will be capable of more aerobatics with their race wings on, than I´ll ever be capable of, but in the hands of a world class pilots, I think the wings might become the limiting factor.
I for example know of a Starduster Too pilot who does very graceful slow aerobatics far superior to any full aerobatic machine. So shall we say there are a lot of factors to consider.
I totally agree. It is all down to the pilot, not the machine! The most beautiful aerobatic display I´ve ever watched was not even at an airshow. It was at Headcorn aerodrome in early spring 1998 when I watched a Bucher Jungman doing a practice run over the aerodrome. Such class, such style! I can never hope to replicate it! I´ve since learned that the pilot was most probably one Peter Kinsley (Spelling??). I´ve watched a lot of displays since then, all the big names in high powered dynamic aeros, but nothing will ever touch this non-display for style and elegance!
galdriEK764,
My thoughts exactly! It all depends on what you are going to use it for! Learning basic aeros on an MX-2 is maybe possible, but it is certainly not the best tool for the job.
And please do not confuse Red Bull racers and pure aerobatic aircraft. Yes, all of the are derived from aerobatic aircraft, but they are a breed apart. They are highly modified as racers, some of them even have special race wings. Most of them would probably do poorly in an all out aerobatic unlimited competition, but I´ve never flown any of them, so I could not possibly comment ;):D
For the job in hand:
Training: CAP-10 (I´m biased :eek:), Decathlon
Advanced: SU-26 / Extra 300 / MX-2
Unlimited competition: Extra 330SC
Airshow work: Pitts S-12 Monster (for share presence!)
galdriI think you’ve misunderstood.
Goes to show the quality of my english:eek:
Your post actually makes a lot more sence if you are talking about PEOPLE blacking out.
I took it to mean a disruption of Electricity. Ohh well 😀
galdriThere seem to have been, in this show, a exhorbitant number of crashes during a 2 minute blackout of almost all humans on the planet simultaneously.
There are too many “unknown unknowns” in that statement. How is the weather where there is high density traffic etc. For a power outage of only 2 min, I guess there would not be too many mid-airs, even if the weather was solid IFR. If the power outage would last for hours, then something might happen, but even then it all depends on too many “unknown unknowns”
Can they avoid each other in the event of a loss of ATC information for a couple of minutes?
They certain can. If the weather is good, pilots will use the Mk.I Eyeball with assistance from TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System). In bad weather they would have to relay enterly on TCAS to give collision avoidance. And it works!
What would be the most likely cause of the majority of airliners simply “falling out of the sky” or otherwise coming to an unfortunate end if their crew loose consciousness for such a short period of time.
If we assume the aircraft is on autopilot at the time, nothing will happen if the loss of consciousness is only for a short time. Even if the aircraft is being manually flown at the time, if it is properly trimmed, it will continue to fly where it´s nose was pointed at the time of incapacitation (assuming of course the pilots do not fall onto the control column). If crew incapacitation lasts for longer periods, you have the scenario of the Helios crash in Greece. The aircraft will fly it´s route on autopilot until it reaches the end of it´s programmed route, and then fly it´s last heading until it runs out of fuel, or is shot down.
I’m somewhat dubious that so many actual air accidents could have happened to airliners – unless they’re sitting on the runway post arrival, and something coming up and landing behind them. Even so, wouldn’t anti-collision radar cause an auto go-around.
I´m not sure I understand the first part of your sentence. Most accidents to airliners today, happen because of some sort of human failure, be it pilots, ATC, mechanics etc. Regarding the latter part of the sentence, there is no anti-collision radar on board airliners. What we have, is call TCAS see above. It basically gives oral warnings and gives you visual representation of the where aircraft is on Nav display. The warnings come in two categories. One is called TA or traffic advisory: the TCAS has found a possible conflicting traffic and will alert the pilots by the oral warning: TRAFFIC TRAFFIC and will paint a yellow dot on the NAV display. This is to enable the pilots to get a possible visual on the traffic.
The other warning is a lot more serious. It is the Resolution Advisory or RA. Then the TCAS has detected a positive threat and issues the warning CLIMB CLIMB, or DESCENT DESCENT (other variations available!), a red dot will appear on the Nav display and a require rate of vertical change will appear on the vertical speed indicator (or a command bar will appear on the artifical horizon, depending on system installed.) The pilot must disconnect the autopilot and manually execute the required action.
The TCAS is a system, based on the transponder in each aircraft. The transponders “talk” to each other, so if one aircraft is ordered to climb, the other will be ordered to descent. Not following an RA WILL resault in an accident as seen when the TU-154 and B757 had a mid-air over southern Germany a few years ago.
The RA function of the TCAS is inhibited during the final approach, typically below 1000 feet. So in case of an aircraft on the runway, the pilot would only get a TA.
Oh, and there is no auto-go around. ALL go-arounds are initiated manually. There is no function in any of the auto pilots I know, that makes auto-go around.
I’m asking, because I’m aware that airliners have the ability to take-off – fly to destination – and land completely automatically. They’ve been auto-landing since the ’70’s as far as I know, certainly that’s the impression I’ve go over the last few years.
Thanks.
No aircraft has the ability to take off on auto pilot. It must ALWAYS be a manual thing, but auto-pilot can be engaged soon after take off on most types.
galdriSorry Peter,
I was not having a go at you or any of the other moderators.
It is a case of a lost in translation. English is not my native speak:D By your post, high lighted by me, I took it to mean that you (the mods) didn´t really like what you saw behind the scenes
Sorry for the misunderstanding
galdriSorry Peter,
I was not having a go at you or any of the other moderators.
It is a case of a lost in translation. English is not my native speak:D By your post, high lighted by me, I took it to mean that you (the mods) didn´t really like what you saw behind the scenes
Sorry for the misunderstanding
galdriWe have been left completely out of the loop on this. although some of us are piecing the bits together and hope we are wrong.Peter ,
Moderator
This is something I find quite worrying! Someone must step up and explain!
galdriWe have been left completely out of the loop on this. although some of us are piecing the bits together and hope we are wrong.Peter ,
Moderator
This is something I find quite worrying! Someone must step up and explain!
galdriThe price for the tubes is probably ok-ish as it stands at this moment. There is a lot missing to make it an aircraft again, not least of which is the wings:eek:
Nine years ago, I was touring the UK with my partner in the restoration of J1 TF-ACC (ex-G-AIGV) and we did some serious searching for just seven wingribs to make a complete set of ribs for both our wings. When we asked around, some people would actually just laugh when we asked about the availability of J1 wingribs, let alone whole wings:eek: Others were more polite and just wished us good luck, as said item was made from a material called unobtainium:D
A year later, we managed to find the ribs we needed, but we had to buy a whole inventory of Auster parts to get them, the majority of the parts were not needed for our project or from other marks of Austers. The price for the seven ribs ended at 650 Pounds Sterling:eek: That is the ribs worth of about half a wing, so going by that, you would have to pay about 2600 pounds for all the ribs for both wings. Problem is though, you might never find all of them. Then it is all the small fittings that goes into the wings. Some is available form the Carr farm, but not all.
galdrinow I am having difficulity in coming up with reasons why I should like them.
You should read the latest issue of Flyer magazine then. Brian Lecomber has some not so nice thing to say about the Auster:D In short he thinks it is similar to the Morris Minor Post Office van a lot of people are restoring these days. They were crap to drive when new, and are still crap to drive now, with the historical significance of a lump of chewing gum. Yet the owners love them………….:D:D:D:D
galdriFantastic pictures Peter:D
Sign In
