Mike,
My comment was tounge in cheek. I´ve flown a few aircraft types, and all of them have their faults. There is nothing like the perfect aircraft.

However, the Jodel owners and flyers club is a strange bunch. They all seem to have been brainwashed to believe the Jodel is the best thing since sliced bread:eek: It is NOT. It is an aircraft and as such has faults, as well as it´s good points. The good points are relatively good performance on low horse power and the smaller Jodels are relatively cheap to buy, own and operate. The JOAFC (Jodels owners and flyers club) often claim good handling as one of their strong points. Sadly, that is not the case. Of course, coming off something like a Cessna C-172 it will feel a lot better, but in the bigger picture, it is just about average.
The bad points for the would be a cramped cockpit (for the smaller Jodels) and strange position of the stick making anywhere near full deflections impossible for men of normal build. The above is written after having flown the Jodel 1050 and the later Robin DR220

I´ve only once flown a “big” Jodel. It was a D-140. It was a good flight, and highlighted the improvements made. The cockpit was not as cramped as before. The stick was still awful, even if it was a big longer, but not as awful as on the small Jodels. However, Jodel had gone downhill a bit regarding performance. The 180 hp in the D-140 was not delivering a better performance (generally speaking) than the 100 horses were doing in the 1050.

Regarding crosswind landings and the use of legs, I know a bit about that. I´ve got about 200 hrs. as an instructor on a C-140. Some of those pilots trained on nosedraggers have really left their feet at home.

Regarding Jodels being character building, each to their own I guess. Like I said before, Jodels are an accuired taste, and I´ve flown aircraft that are a lot more character building types.

If you want to fly the BEST general all around GA aircraft, you need a CAP-10. It is the best thing since sliced bread. It can do a bit of everything, including aerobatics. But then I´m biased.

proper aeroplane

I was with you all the way until “proper aeroplane”!;) Jodels are accuired taste, and I do not like them! Cramped to hell, you can not move the stick due to your thighs. Before anyone chimes in, I´m a bit normal. Crosswinds are “interesting” as well when it gets to 15 kts.

Occationally it happens with my (still functioning, but only just) airline that two Captains fly together. In case both Captains are either seat qulified, there is a silent “rule” that you are PF from the left seat only. In case you are flying with another Captain that is not R/H seat qulified, you can fly both (all) sectors as PNF in the right hand seat. That will reduce the changes of something like this happening.

On the other hand, to get the R/H seat qulification as Captains, we do need to do a training in the simulator to accepted standards. If this person had done so, and was passed, someone will be having tea and biscuits in the training manager´s office:rolleyes: The report above also begs the question, what was the guy in the left seat doing while all of this was going on?

Does the red dots in the stars on the wings mean it is a USAAC plane?

Work on B.W.-1 started in july 1941, and as I understand USAAC only existed until june 1941, this presents another puzzle to me. Was the plane lost before work on B.W.-1 started? Too much of a coincidence….or is the crash of a much newer date, a museum plane going down in transit to or from Europe?
Jon Petersen

Do not read too much into the red dot when it comes to dating the crash. This is certainly a wartime crash, and the red dot most likely came to light when the white paint painted over it wheathered away. So to me, this aircraft was delivered to the Air Force before june 1941, the red got painted over, but the overpaint has faded away.

Powder coating and related issues.

Powder coating is a really good way of applying colour/protection to a tubular aircraft frame but a couple of things must be kept in mind.

1. Powder coating will allow maximum protection to those places that are really hard to get at with a normal spry gun. I´ve seen places impossible to get at with a spry gun being very well covered with colour in powder coating. Be aware. Powder coating will be heavier than a normal paint job done with a spry gun, but keep in mind that it will protect areas you didn´t know existed with a spry gun.

2. Never, ever, use Powder coating on anything likely to crack like engine mounts. Powder coating will easily hide cracks. Powder coating on engine mounts is a big NO NO.

On the whole, I´d say, use it on your frame. It will be a bit heavier, but a lot better. If you have some cracking issues ( normally not the case with something like an Auster or a Cub), take care. Never use it on your engine mount. So, basically, powder coat it all (if you are prepare for a pound to disappear of your emty weight), but never powder coat the engine mount.

My ten pEEEEEEEEEEEE´sssssssssss worth.

And they are not worth much,

All the best,
Sigurjon

And the million dollar question must be……………

How did he fit into a Spitfire??

In particular since Iceland was part of the Danish Kingdom, when these planes were made and first operated.

In that case, the list is going to be very short:eek: In case you didn´t know, Iceland got it´s independence from the Danish Crown in 1944:D:D

You get around quite alot don’t you 😎

Yes a little bit;)

In February last year, I took this photo in N´Djamena, Chad. Two DC-6´s and two C-47´s. Only one of the C-47 is visible from this angle.