[jhb_airlines] Re: 4Gals

  • From: Gerry Winskill <gwinsk@xxxxxxx>
  • To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:09:34 +0100

A good link!

The Czecs are producing some great designs and so are the Italians.

I shouldn't crow too much about the Americans. At least their FAA doesn't have the same design stiffling effect as the CAA. As Europe starts to look like trying to be a bit more liberal, the CAA starts to brief against them.

My mate, currently over from their 6 monthly escape top Oz, is a multi hour ex Logan, BOAC, BUA, BEA, BA capt. He has a glider outside Perth and flies the Pawnee tow aircraft. He was recenly contacted by the CAA to say he wasn't current, in the UK, so his PPL, CPL weren't valid, so he was flying illegally in Australia, because their licence was based on his CAA licence, which they now were suspended, pending his completion of a Skills test. He told them he'd see them in court, since there was nothing in his licences that indicated the Validity was time related. They started to get stroppy and he was told, by some young "director" that they had to look critically to see if he could be "upgraded". His reply that a CAA PPL, or CPL, should be considered as a downgrade from his commercial licences etc struck a nerve. He'd just gone to see Ashley Garner about a skills test, when they emailed him; "under the circumstances etc etc". He keeps his PPL and they retire slightly abashed. Most cases don't seem to have this sort of happy ending. Perhaps the thought of the potential publicity had a slight effect.

Gerry Winskill


bones wrote:

Sadly I think you are right. The future of GA is going to swing into more
innovative companies as customers seek to keep their flying affordable. The
demand is there - just take a look at
http://www.lightaircrafts.com/fixed-wing-manuf.htm to see how the market is
responding. It's the "traditional" designs that are suffering.

I'd far rather climb into a Europa than a C162!

bones

-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 18 August 2007 18:28
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: 4Gals



I've just read it. I like a laugh!
They must have a collection of tame launch attendees, I think I 've
missed the bit where the CEO says they are all ver excited.
The quote from the alleged response doesn't ie in too well with some of
the GA observations.


        This is good news for all aspiring new pilots. It's great to see
Cessna
continuing to lead GA in equiping and training new pilots. Kudos to
Cessna management for being willing to take a calculated risk. I, for
one, think it's a great decision. Congratulations Cessna!


Obviously likes airborne tractor engines. They've apparently moved away
from the original intention of having a composite and gone back to
aluminum; sorry, aluminium.
It't really looks ground breaking, like a slightly shrunken C152.

"It's great to see Cessna continuing to lead GA in equiping and training
new pilots"...how do you spell Cirrus in morse?

The French re launch of the VLA Lionceau, and the uprated Lion, look far
more modern and were designed in the 1990s.

Gerry Winskill


bones wrote:

Oddly enough this debate is going on in Prune right now.

Cessna have just launched a new aircraft  - the C162 Skycatcher - and
nice looking it is too. Basically a C150 on diet pills. See
http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/ for piccies - especially the cockpit
shots.

It looks a nice modern aircraft, but Cessna have decided that the
engine to go in it is the venerable O-200-A, built in 1948 and about
as basic as a mangle. The Prune debate is hotting up with most of the
battle raging around Cessna's concern for public liability being the
reason why they shied away from new, fuel efficient designs - old
engines predate the laws and are exempt.

I tend to agree in that GA design has evolved very slowly in the last
30 years whereas any other form of transport hasn't allowed PL to
significantly affect development. The engine in your car is so much
more advanced than a basic aero engine - the O-200A still has a carb
and magnetos instead of fuel injection and electric ignition. This
makes it liable to carb icing and magneto failure with both being
mechanical devices with wear and tear being additional problems.

If they had banged an O-200-A in with electric ignition and fuel
injection I would have considered it a step forward..

bones

   -----Original Message-----
   *From:* jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
   [mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Alex Barrett
   *Sent:* 18 August 2007 14:23
   *To:* jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
   *Subject:* [jhb_airlines] Re: 4Gals

   The local flying club issued planning tables for their C-152 fleet
   Gives:

   Full power climb = 8.7 GPH
   Cruise = 4.2GPH

   So if we take a typical VFR flight from Shoreham to Lydd on a
   sunny summer day =

   10 minutes at full power =1.45 Gallons
   30 mins in the cruise and decending = 2.34 Gallons
   Plus a bit for farting about = 1.00 Gallon

   Gives 3.791 Gallons all used.

   Perhaps an email suggestion to IVAO to bring the minimum down? or
   I guess they just don't have many VA's on VFR ops!

   All the best,

   Alex



   Assuming a quick 5 minute climb

   franklyn fisher wrote:

   As a matter of interest.

   I was flying a C172SP cruising 100 (cannot get the damn thing up
   to the rated 120).

   Departure X2BS to FSWB (Binstead-Swanborough)= 44nm.

   Recorded fuel in tank, before departure and at arrival, 19L used
   =4 Gallons rough translation.

   Could not get Pirep to accept L or less than 6G

   Next flight from FSWB to Clipgate.

   A slip of the keys. I think I uprated Chris from C2 to C3. hit
   the send button too soon.

   FF









Other related posts: