M61A1

Was wondering if you were going to post that one.....Banks have just been raked over the coals for fees for no service and TRC wants to charge millions for infrastructure that it had no intention of providing. Wasting your money and mine to fight the indefensible act of trying to rip off others. It's fraud. Their residential application fees are no better, they charge extortionate fees for minor issues, so they can support their habit of spending other peoples money on feel good crap.

I love watching the Red Bull air races, but for the most part I never know when they're on, so I would imagine they could use better publicity and screening on free to air. I would pay to go and watch, but they only seem to be in out of the way places. Perth had a good turn out, but that was years ago, somewhere on the east coast would bring more spectators. Racing in places like Abu Dhabi probably bring wealthy spectators, but would have to limit numbers. I think a little differently to Onetrack, I ride road bikes so don't care about the GP, I drive a car so don't care about F1, I can kick a ball if I want so don't care about footy, but I can't get to fly like that so I love watching the Red Bull air races. Maybe we need the ultralight air races. Drifter pylon racing would be fun and they would have to be fairly closely matched. You could have different categories for 503, 582 and 912 powered Drifters.

Perhaps just a slip of the tongue. Maybe a quick call asking them to confirm their choice of runway would have resolved the runway direction issue. I have heard inbound calls to Warwick on 126.7 and also heard someone else advise that they were calling on the wrong frequency, to which, the pilot responded with a “thank you”. A few times I have heard professionals make basic position mistakes on the radio, someone queries them, they correct themselves and keep flying.

On my 601, the small diameter rod that runs through the torque tube is 0.5" hydraulic tube with 4140 plugs welded in each end and tapped 1/4-28. My aileron bellcrank to aileron (short) pushrods are 6061-T6 0.5" round stock, both are drilled and tapped 1/4-28. My longer pushrods are 1.0" 6061-T6 with machined tapered ends that are also drilled and tapped 1/4-28. These are riveted to the tube, but I have seen many designs that are bolted. I had designed them to be used with a jam nut and "chicken head " washers, but didn't end up using the washers as most other designs didn't bother. For the record all my rod ends were male, but the original design used 5/16 female rod ends with 5/16 threaded rod. I would reasonable assume the only reason they used 5/16 rod ends was to ensure the threaded rod pushrods had sufficient diameter not to bend under compression.

I'm with Derek on this one. I'm thinking the mug may be a very useful tool.....if I walk into a flight school and the instructor has one, it's clear that I need to turn 180 and walk out the door.

Is there another reason for wanting to fly?

Sometimes "fixer uppers" can come along at the right price to make it worthwhile. A bit of halfway between building and buying, but you do need to know what you're looking at and what you are doing. Some can work out really well if the original build quality is good, others can be harder than starting from scratch. Definitely a good idea to go and do some flying first to see what it is you want.

They are just standard 1/4-28 rod ends from a local bearing supplier with bronze inserts, the specs tell me they are way over rated for the job they have. The bronze insert ones are very free, but not sloppy and are lubricatable. I'm quite happy with the setup. I have near 200 hours on it now and have virtually zero freeplay in the aileron and elevator control runs. Control forces are light and precise. I kept the ratios the same as the original design, but added extra holes in the bellcranks to allow for adjustment. I'm glad I did as I ended up using them to get better aileron deflection. It's not bad now. I really felt aileron authority was rather poor initially, and could still be better.

I did this on a 601, different layout but same principle.

Looks like Amberley to me.

I can think of two possible considerations for the Jab. 1. If the boost pump is in series with the EDFP then you may provide too much pressure to the carb, overriding the needle and seat because the way the EDFP usually regulates is a differential pressure, ie: maintains 4 psi difference between input and output. 2. If you have a leak in your fuel system, with the boost pump off, the EDFP will suck air, and possibly cause the engine to starve, alternatively, with the boost pump on, your engine probably wont starve but a leak under pressure risks a fire.

From CAO 95.55 stall speed Vso is the stalling speed, or minimum steady flight speed, at which an aeroplane is controllable with: (a) wing flaps in the landing position; and (b) landing gear extended; and © engine idling with the throttle closed; and (d) centre of gravity in the most forward position; and (e) maximum take-off weight.

From memory CAO 95.55 requires the aircraft to stall at 45kts CAS or less in the landing configuration at MTOW

It is my understanding that outcome RAA is trying to get is similar to the current maintenance arrangement. That is, it requires professional maintenance if used for hire or reward (perhaps CTA), and owner maintained if used for private ops. They did acknowledge that CASA may not come to that party. If they can't get this arrangement, there's not much advantage in getting the weight increase.

You should be more concerned with getting your Tornados registered.

How did you go Bruce?

I think that the poster may have been referring to the "Contract" part. RAA aircraft may be used for private operations, which includes working and carrying out inspections on your own property, but does not include using them for hire or reward, which would mean "contract" mustering (or other people's stock) wouldn't be permitted. Quoted from CAO99.55 6 General conditions 6.1 The following general conditions apply in relation to a relevant aeroplane: (a) a person must not use the aeroplane other than for: (i) private operations, including glider towing, but not an aerial application operation; or (ii) if the aeroplane has been wholly built and assembled by a commercial manufacturer — flying training, to enable the person to obtain a RAA pilot certificate; or (iii) if the person has wholly built or assembled the aeroplane, whether individually or with other persons — the person’s personal flying training;

Yeah , out here we send them (the cattle) a written notice 28 days in advance to comply all the govt directives and present for slaughter on the proper date. Hasn't been as effective as we might like, but we'll have to wait until they've responded to the "Final Notice", before we can send them "notice of Enforcement".

Below are two parts of this document that I think are likely to be true, but I think the author needs to do more research, as there a appears to be a few errors in his understanding of how the flight control system works. I do not know of a single aviation accident involving the 737 that was the result of an inadvertent stall by its pilots. I can only speculate, but I speculate that – even without MCAS – that would have continued to be true of the 737 MAX. It is likely that MCAS, originally added in the spirit of increasing safety, has now killed more people than it could have ever saved. It doesn’t need to be “fixed” with more complexity, more software. It needs to be removed, altogether.

Only if you don't plan. If you are planning to not stop anywhere, you best plan an alternative means as you say, and clearly there is a market for such items, but it won't stretch you legs or back. In my limited experience, if I have an uncomfortably full bladder, I am probably also uncomfortable and need a stretch as well. My aircraft is roomy and comfy, but you are still forced to remain in one position. I can go for the full endurance of my fuel tank, but the last hour is willing my destination to hurry up. I like the flying too much to taint it with discomfort and I enjoy stopping in new places, so I usually plan a stop anyway.

I should add that researchers have also found that the Pareto distribution also applies in this case. Meaning that about 80% of the work is done by about 20% of the employees.

My thoughts are that if your aircraft isn't large enough to get up and walk down to the lav, as a rec flyer you could probably use a stretch as well as a slash, and might as well stop for a few minutes for both.

Try ASAP at Caboolture if you're northside. Any aviation maintenance workshop should have some. It comes in 1 quart cans and isn't expensive.

SOME employees are assets, many are liabilities, telling the difference as an employer may be difficult and liabilities can be costly to get rid of. I have seen positive changes when some liabilities depart the company, morale and production improve, then when their new job doesn't work out (I wonder why), the company for some reason (usually to make up contractually obligated numbers) both morale and production decrease. I can see how the process may be beneficial to the company. I have seen several times where companies grow and increase the number employees excessively (often middle management) and then stagnate, and it takes such an approach as you mention to clear some deadwood, but inevitably the cycle repeats. There is a book about Boeing that describes this in detail since around the 1930's, but surprisingly they never seem aware of it happening.