Litespeed

The idea of chimera vehicles ie has the design DNA of two species is always problematic. The successful designs are absolute rarities. Even big flying boats had limited boat ability, a lack of water props been a big limitation. Chimeras tend to be niche machines of limited success. It's a tough ask to make one good at either task when lugged with additional weight, and very hard to do both jobs well. I can think of one machine that fills a small niche. The Caraboat is a caravan that slides off the trailer to become a usable sheltered waters and fair weather outside houseboat. For some it makes great sense at a price point matching similar size caravans and cheaper than any similar specced boat. Lighter than a real van to tow as well. Aussie design

Given we give $11 billion in direct subsidies to burn fossil fuels and promote monster utes for any business, I think it's a tiny investment in the future.

I won't really comment in aircraft bar lack of current proficiency, lack of caution and failure to keep well ahead of the aircraft. I agree to many overconfidence issues are probably the root cause. As far as motorbikes are concerned, the old rider jumping on a modern high powered bike with zero recent experience is a recipe for disaster. Far more traffic and far more capable cars means the performance gap of bikes to cars has narrowed greatly. No longer can a quick takeoff blast everyone at the lights and provide a safety gap. Even massive utes can give older supercar performance, it is a real issue. That safety margin disappears very quickly today, massively fast and heavy vehicles are common and often driven by drivers that don't look and don't care. A lot of crashes on country roads are riders wiped out as a big ute takes up more than its lane in corners or alternatively too much speed then incorrect line through the corner by the biker. Just like flying, riding has very low margins of error, but it has no ongoing training requirements. Courses need to be provided to update skills for the modern world and it's far faster machines. The attitude and aptitude of returning riders also tends to be a killer issue, they aren't the young athletes they think they are. Just like pilots, riders are either old or bold, sadly the newly cashed up oldies are old and bold, that can kill really fast. I have met lots of returned riders who think it's just like their carefree youth, their days are numbered. I have ridden for the last 38 years but rarely since COVID and am very aware of my current limitations. I have noticed the polarisation of society over COVID had lead to some who don't care for rules or being responsible for their actions or effects on others. Lockdowns have made some very rebellious against authority and social responsibility. .Maybe this attitude has crept into riding and flying.

I accept they had the Philippines QB kits and they were no problem. Cost effective and good quality 👍. But getting a new unproven contractor to do it negates all that hard built relationship and quality control of your partner in business. Years of goodwill blown away. If you need far more built then invest in your Phillipines partner to increase productivity, ie more machines and well trained staff. Even if you need a bigger building to do it. Scaling the Philippines side should have been easy and relatively cheap. The cost of the machinery including water jets that also can laser etch has dropped year by year for the throughput. A few million investment and the problem would have been solved long term and increased profits per kit. And dropped the big wait for a kit set making customers happy and far larger cashflow for a minor investment. All whilst reducing costs per kit and further improving quality. Instead they have thrown away millions, trashed their relationship with customers and probably screwed their Philippine partner that made them successful. You know you have screwd the pooch when you close shop to sort it out. Saying they should have been covered by the dodgy contractors misses the point entirely, even if they would replace the kits which couldn't be trusted anyway. Also waiting for them to pay potentially millions in US dollars compensation is very wishful thinking. Laser should never be used for any aircraft parts without expensive post machining and heat treatment. No iffs or butts, it is a recipe for disastrous stress crack formation under far lower than designed loads and cycles. If it was designed to 6G it becomes a 3G airframe at best and will almost certainly fail if flown as originally designed. No different from building a SF Falco from cheap Bunnings wood and PVA glue. Up close laser work looks like cuts by a plasma or gas axe, very ugly and ready to crack even just by the riveting process. Aircraft need every bit of strength as designed esp. given the skin thickness used. The margin of error becomes vital, Russian roulette and aircraft parts don't mix. You invest in CNC punches and water jets which make beautiful parts to aircraft standard. The latest can even laser etc all the bits before it water jets to label pieces. Simple, fast cheap and high quality. Also that Vans refuses to replace what they consider non structural parts is disgraceful. A dodgy part is still dodgy even if it's a seat bracket etc and prone to premature failure. Any part breakage in a aircraft is a safety issue. What do they consider non structural? Such an attitude says volumes about their management style and quality control. "Whoops,we shot ourselves in the foot so decided to buckshot the customer to spread the pain around" Just like " if it's a Boeing, I ain't going" Welcome to "Vans Air Farce". If I was a current or future kit buyer, I just wouldn't trust them at least until a few years of new kits are built, flying and thoroughly checked. Remember if your kit has structural failure Vans will blame the builder. I value my meatbag body too much to trust them.

Outsourcing constantly proves a deal with the devil esp if out of your quality control. So by outsourcing OS when surely local could have been done, to save pennies they lose millions and wreck their reputation. Customers peeved, products thrown away and confidence destroyed. Now anyone with a Vans built aircraft using subcontractors parts may be considered suspect fairly or not. I know many companies do this but it rarely fails to bite back and remove large amounts of flesh. 7/10 for admitting the issue but 1/10 for doing it to start with. If they couldn't make em fast enough,get more machines and more staff you control. Covid meant people had patience and understood costs increases and delays. It also meant employees became very loyal to good employers. Instead it appears they did a Boeing and ignored the downsides. Given the raw materials involved and the machinery used it cannot have been much cheaper esp with freight. Great example of a USA company shooting itself in the foot then saying management took some economic acid, freaked, shot themselves but blamed the cheap shotgun shells on the injury. Short sighted fools

Nor right wing rants with dinosaurs

It's not off topic If it saves the pale blue dot we live on. Would a pilot accept "the earth is flat"? It is only political because some have vested interests or it offends their world view. Science and earth don't give a damn for opinions. Keep going Phil

I accept it could be a wind blown accident, but that's a lot of damage. Though at final stage of travel the door force is considerable. I thought it was a motor driven one that's been shut. So you think it was been moved from the hangar and the wind slammed down the door? At the exact moment? Or did the pilot? Leave it below the door in the danger zone? Given the design of bifold, how does a wind force bar a vertical download make such a door slam when they act as wings into the approaching wind, thus wanting to stay in the folding position? Bar the resistance of springs etc detaching due to sudden mechanical failure, I don't get it. I admit my hangar door knowledge is limited.

No, a big minus for the idiot parking there and a huge kick into orbit for the numbnuts that closed the door. Nothing wrong with the door, just f..kwits who used it. Shows what happens when you stick your bum where it shouldn't be. Called ,"shit happens"

Agreed, unsprung weight is the big issue as far as handling and suppleness. Much smaller axial flux designs with huge power are available and the development race will lead to ever smaller and lighter for every market segment. Much smaller and lower power ones will also become normal, not everyone needs 480 hp through 4 wheels. Redundancy also becomes a issue as any of four can get you home. The disadvantages of unsprung weight are relevant but will be mitigated by improved design and the eventual adoption of full electric braking. Modern cars use big heavy discs on big heavy wheels and tyres and SUVs and utes are everywhere. Not candidates to worry too much about handling. Watch the video, with full torque vectoring to all 4 wheels the handling is wonderful. Plus it does 1000 km from the ability to have a huge 165kwh battery at reasonable weight and size. That's a very big deal at any range scale. Consumers will happily jump in bar sporty drivers but eventually them as well. The designs will, I expect change over time but the potential is there.

A better video and a lovely SAAB concept This shows the motor idea, naturally a Aero version would be lighter and not need actual braking. Note the power of 120 HP but a massive 1200 Nm plus of torque boggles the mind and could lead to fun with adjustable in flight props and wild climb rates but efficient cruise speeds. The available working effort of the engine at any power setting is a step change potentially. HP means nothing without torque and that's a lot of Clydesdales.

As a test bed, it's not too bad even if it's a flying wall. Prove the system on a proven airframe always is cheaper and safer. The range sucks and seems way to low. The CH should have plenty of space and weight allowed for a much better battery setup. To be able to easily maintain and charge via solar on a property can provide huge cost savings given the cost of fuel and spares to a remote property. Esp. if floods wreck roads. Batteries and power systems are leaping ahead and in 5 years we should expect double the current range as a minimum. Then it's about optimised airframes to suit the mission roles, slippery is much better but the penalty of draggy airframes will eventually be offset by development of clever solutions to low speed control versus a speedy airframe. I can certainly envisage a future where even a farmers first choice will be his electric STOL charged by solar and topped up by solar cells integrated into the wing surface. Another area of development that will bring big benefits in power density and packing is engine systems. Currently the motor is just a small weight in the overall package including wiring and controller. Now small powerful motors are been developed for cars as in wheel power systems-. Everything bar the battery is in the wheel hub, a huge weight and complexity saving. Any vehicle with a wheel hub can be easily converted to electric. The potential for aircraft is a fundamental change in packaging ability. Anywhere on a airframe becomes possible and hybrid generation is much easier. This design should bring down costs for engine systems and weight substantially. As the in wheel design is relatively heavy even though it does include braking, the penalty is unsprung weight for handling. This will drive development for even smaller, lighter and cheaper between car makers. From this we can only win with billions spent yearly on electric stuff relevant to aircraft. No need for hundreds of kilos of heavy motors, gearbox,drive shafts, mounts, controllers, heavy loom and big cooling needs. Just four wheels, a skateboard style chassis battery pack and add body of choice. The design choices open up like never before as do the potential cost, efficiency and weight reductions. Currently cars, trucks,buses and aircraft are built on the old paradigms just electric motored, this is the next step. It's a crap yankee video and sounds AI. I will find a better one that doesn't induce vomiting

No need, hirsute would be a understatement. Head like a werewolf's. Shearing rather than hair cutting is the norm. A furr suit seems redundant in a aircraft a Bird suit is much more appropriate. The use of a wing suit is not cricket so a bright yellow big bird comes to mind. Looks like a suitable co pilot

Given we know little, bar the impact it could have been a fire but a big maybe. The dire need to get to ground and out of the aircraft means a pilot can easily exceed vne and jam / wreck controls. Can easily lead to airframe failure or even just loss of control. Given the destruction it could have been burning in flight but post crash is more likely. Weather or health related or pilot error or any combination are possible, as is mechanical failure. Sadly a tragedy we may never truly understand.

https://youtu.be/vmh9c5Z1xSE?si=fIYX_6tnS1tuW7EN Fun furr all

Ok, strange is it seems... His name is Mike Kelly and it was on the International Space Station. He had his twin, Scott also a astronaut hide the suit in cargo and send it up. He wore the Gorilla suit to scare the hell out of the station commander for a joke. Officially the world's highest practical joke. World's most famous cover of Bowie also done on the ISS by Chris Hadfield "space oddity". Nothing odd about seeing a gorilla in space..🤣

Ok, trivia? Who has worn a fur suit at the highest altitude ever? What was the suit? Hint- think David Bowie...and a famous song.

Proud as punch you must be. I am on the water at Port Stephens and most days see the F-35 and lessor gods flying from Williamtown airbase. I must say the F-35 is loud, hearing the trainer's bore holes in the sky is fun. For some dreams do come true

Looks like a absolutely brilliant way to separate potentially billions from the gullible but rich. Fools are money are easily separated 🤑

I bet a lot cheaper than a aero version by miles. Naturally a Drifter with even the 125hp would be a real hoot on floats.

Yes , it's a optimised for speed and light. It really would be a superbike weight and faster than a hypercar in the air. It is a not meant for a luxury ride as a record breaker but could be throttled back for a smoother ride as a sport flyer. It would be a burn holes through the sky machine. A more sane version at 240 mph would still be awesome 😎. No it won't be a low speed pussycat but that's the trade-off. As a mini rocketship. No need to chase records, then build to 350 kg or more depending on range required. You travel a lot of ground at those speeds. Why build a jet sonex when you could blow it away with a stroker far cheaper.

I think you fellas have the wrong airframe in mind, but all's fair when "in thrust we trust". My devious mind immediately jumps to a new FAI 300 kg record breaker.. High G, high Vne to take full advantage of such a powerful light engine. The Arnold Ar5 did 213mph on 65hp what could a 165hp more advanced design do?🤔 I am confident such a beast could blow the record easily. Anyone for 280mph? Naughty thoughts I know, but damn that would be awesome.

Weather they add a Rotax or not, the Jabiru motors are a hit even in military drones. That alone is a huge emerging market far exceeding any meat bag carriers. I love the Jabawocky and it's near refusal to let pilots kill themselves. History proves they are amazing in a crash. And are easily repaired. Compare that to other plastics and crushable tin cans on sale- no contest. Can they be improved? Sure but don't make it overpriced. Anything a 152 or 172 Cessna can do a Jabawocky can do at a fraction of the price and will keep you alive far more often. The old cesspools just have lots of weight to crush like a lead coke can. New wings and nicer insides would be great but not if the price explodes.

Hope they are capitalised and smart enough to lead the Jabawocky crew

Actually so far from a BMW it could be a pile of toymotors. That Fwd package is not BMW just by the non all alloy suspension. But yes the big power V8 twin turbos are heat stressed, but often abused and this shows the weaker bits. Mercedes are also guilty will the 6.3 breaking cranks when driven by young rich blokes( dealers?). Same with newer turbo models. If you expect race engine power expect to break stuff. 500hp means a 600hp plus heat generator plus friction, loads etc and more torque makes twisty cranks etc. No free lunch. But I agree the cost of replacement for all those hoses, o-rings, gaskets etc can be heart breaking. For a well serviced non abused engine they will determine engine life. Head gaskets rarely go without a simple hose or radiator/ pump belt failure. Give me a simple Alfa Romeo atmo engine any day.