[jhb_airlines] Re: 4Gals

  • From: "bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:15:26 +0100

Typical. In my last years of flying I couldn't fly singles because I hadn't
touched one for years - I could only fly twins. Common sense dictates that I
wouldn't have jumped into a single without some sort of refresher but that
obviously isn't good enough.

bones

-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 18 August 2007 19:10
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: 4Gals


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: