M61A1

I got the impression that he was looking at the greater than expected difference between the ASI and groundspeed.

Could be a leak in your static system making your ASI overread. (If the leak in inside the aircraft and cabin pressure is lower than actual static pressure, perhaps even a leaking ASI case) Or a poorly located static port.

Yes, I can sympathise....

I want to know why it took half an hour to realise there's an issue. Generally I'd say the wind is the cause, remember they are "light and variable", or do you want us to tell you why the wind is variable?

That would have to depend a lot on the skills of the person buying. GA's requirement for LAME maintenance and the requirement for factory made parts for LSA, I'd opt for a 19 rego anytime. So much more option to maintain and modify and usually cheaper to purchase.

Normally Rotax 912 Bing carbs have a return spring that prevents this from occurring. I have seen some that didn't return fully due to poor design, but never ones that creep out. You may not notice the difference much at high power settings, but it will idle poorly, foul plugs, and use significantly more fuel. Unless it was excessively lean in the top end to begin with, it will also be down on power. It should be rectified immediately.

Warwick airfield in SEQ has a notorious gradient if you have an easterly and are landing on 09. I have seen quite a few caught out by it. When I first found out about it I was carrying a little extra speed as it's quite a long runway. The arxe really falls out the airspeed around 20 ft. If you aren't carrying the extra speed or do not add power immediately, pulling back still results in that "annoying" sensation, and for some, bent landing gear. As are points 1 and 2....It's about AoA, not speed. The speed will vary depending on certain factors, the stall angle remains constant for configuration.

The strip I fly from is north/south our prevailing winds are easterly or westerly. It has necessitated learning to deal with crosswind if I want to fly. It has taken some time and I have got reasonably proficient at it. There was a time when I wouldn't fly at all with wind over 5kts. Now I choose not to if it's much over 20kts. The Drifter POH says 15kts, but 22kts is quite manageable, even when gusty. The 601 about the same, but I don't know what it's limits are supposed to be. The POH is made up by the builder, not the kit manufacturer. Last weekend the sock was out straight and the ASI was reading a solid 20 gusting to 25 sitting on the ground.

I understand what's going on, I was just being a pedant ( a pedant on an internet forum.... Who would've thought?). While your track on the ground may be straight with a 90° crosswind, the act of crabbing into wind (whether it's wing down or with rudder) introduces a headwind component requiring you to either need more power or have a steeper approach angle than zero wind. The only thing that matter here is airspeed. If Landing, you will need to add power or begin your descent later to make the runway. You don't have to go faster.

OMG!......How do gliders manage without an engine? Higher speed for a crosswind landing than still wind because it erodes the (non existent) headwind component? The only reason I add airspeed on an approach is to compensate for wind gradient and gusts.

To clarify....The Carbon Cub link has been posted before...I posted it. But yes, "The impossible turn" has been done before, even by the Late Maj Millard who was taken by it. Just not this article which seems quite sensible, but no doubt will be ridiculed by some as "irresponsible".

Below is cut and paste from the comments to the article in the OP's link. Note that he's driving a Mooney. Bank angle and TAS are the drivers re how long it takes to complete a 180. The formula for rate of turn is 1,091 x (tangent of the bank angle)/TAS. Because the tangent goes up with angle of bank any increase in bank will increase rate of turn and any increase in speed will reduce it. And since the distance between a dead-stick airplane and the ground can be measured in precious seconds, an expeditious rate of turn is desirable. To point out the obvious, more bank and lower TAS are what you want (with an eye on best glide speed and stalling speed as g’s increase). To illustrate: a 180° turn at 30° of bank at 85 KTAS takes 24 seconds to complete; a 180 at 45° takes 14 seconds; and a 180 at 60° can be completed in only 8.1 seconds. Double the bank from 30 to 60 and cut the time needed to head back to the field from 24 to 8 seconds. The steeper bank has the added advantage that the offset from the runway is less on rollout. Yes, we are all aware that steep-banked turns near the ground invite a stall. A 2 g tug on the yoke will stall my 20E at 90 KIAS; coincidentally, 2 gs are required to hold a plane in a stable 60° bank turn. Not much room for error when you slip below Vy and crank it over to 60° of bank. Practice Several iterations (at altitude) in a Mooney 20E yielded average altitude losses in a 180° turn of: 360′ lost at 30° bank, 270′ lost at 45° bank, and 200′ lost at 60° bank.

This has been posted before with much discussion about various things, but it comes down to the words at the start....Know your airplane and know your own limits.

I refer you to post #25

It is clear that we hold very different views on certain issues and I will leave it at that.

I'm fairly sure that there were rules governing flight of remote controlled aircraft prior to then, but not sure who managed them. Something about not above 300 feet AGL and not with 3 NM of an aerodrome come to mind.

What happened to the pulsar?

I am in no way defending their actions, but what were the regs in 2013, when the footage was shot? There quoted reg appears to have come into force in 2019 and doesn't seem to have a history before that as most of their regs do.

While I agree with what you say, I'm not sure how it relates to mercenaries being hired to supply equipment and fight. None of the methods of killing in this article were new. In fact with problems like ISIS (and the like) we may actually be better off returning to earlier ways of eradication. Living in harmony with the rest of the world is not their goal. Reasoning with them is out of the question.

You may be correct there.... I am also of the opinion that anyone willing to help eradicate ISIS and it's associates should be given any assistance possible.

Compared to the usual hardware they are cheap. They were never a replacement for jet fighters either, but a similar concept to the AT-802 as shown above posts. I did read the article and the engineering feat is quite impressive. They may not have been acting within the law, but what they achieved on the minimal budget is brilliant. With the weapons system they had, they are something between and Apache helicopter and an A10 Warthog, very useful. They were built to fight against ISIS, so I'll look at it with the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" slant. ISIS are fairly well armed btw. I know where there are a couple of Thrushes sitting on the tarmac right now just down the road, but they'll need the turbine conversion first though, still got radials hanging off the front.

In the aft fuselage I have used something similar. It's a very lightweight stickyback aluminium coated foam to help reduce drumming on the flat panels. i have used a lightweight fibreglass stuff quilted between some other stuff to do the cockpit as it's more flame resistant. It has made significant improvement. I still get drumming from the horizontal stab and wings because I'm not de-riveting to install insulation and wind noise is still the loudest thing. I'd have to build a less draggy airframe to fix that.

One can only generalise, of course there are always exceptions. I'm happy for them to do it if that's what they want to do, but in the most egalitarian countries where there are no boundaries and all the choices, 80% of women still choose jobs that involve people and 80% of men still choose jobs working with things. What I don't want is someone who really didn't want to be there but was pushed, or chosen to be there because of their genitalia. Anyone younger makes a pleasant change at most fly-ins, it bothers me a lot that at most fly-ins that I'm amongst the younger ones and I'm in my 50s.

Now that I've had time to read the articles, I think it's a very good demonstration of what you can achieve when you keep the regulators out of things. The main thing is that it was properly engineered and not just thrown together. We could learn a lot from this, but we won't.