Zibi

I would imagine it to be pretty similar to landing a normal hang glider, but I've never tried them so can't say.

With minimum speed of 30 kph (I imagine they call stall speed the minimum speed) I'm sure you would be able to land it, and worst case scenario - if you don't like the chances with the undercarriage, you can drop your legs and land on them

I went a bought the PD and actually got the ultra edition instead of deluxe, as it was on sale with some extra add ons and was only $80 US. Now just to download the damn thing, as it keeps on mucking up during the download (might be my internet) so it's like the 3rd time I'm trying it now. I've had a look at the processor and memory load on mine, was about 1.2 GB memory and 25% processor (I think), but it was only an 3 minute clip. I also had a problem with it where it didn't encode one fragment of the video - it was just a green background on the outcome. Re-running the process has fixed it, and luckily it only takes about 3-4 minutes instead of half an hour on MS Video editor.

You may have problems with achieving that. I would propose first try exceeding the speed of sound and then look back to hear yourself coming

I've tried the demo version of that power director and I'm coming to a conclusion that there may be something wrong with my PC. Most of the video formats I've tried to save the video as wouldn't work coming up with an error about either outdated video drivers or outdated Windows Media player or quicktime. It would never work if I tried hardware acceleration. But I may have discovered why I've had problems with my 16:9 videos in Windows Movie maker - when I've tried to save the movie (in Power Director) as .WMV it came up with a warning that this format doesn't support 16:9. Well looks like it will be a new graphic card and Power Director for me... My PC is a Intel i5 with 4GB of ram and Radeon 4800 graphic card with windows 7 64 bit, should be well within the requirements for video processing.

I've had some problems recently with my GoPro HD (the first HD series). Well it's not the camera itself, but editing the video coming from it. First problem is that the CineForm software from GoPro crashes whenever I try to convert any of the movies from my camera. Second problem is with the Microsoft Movie editor - when I have used 1280x960 resolution it has worked fine, but recently I've switched to recording at 1280x720 and when I try to edit any videos it saves them with a quite wide black border around the picture. It doesn't matter what output resolution I select it does it even if the output resolution is the same as input. has anyone had similar problems? And do you know any quick fix (apart from going back to 1280x960 or changing the editing software) that could fix it?

If I was to guess I'd probably say it's split between banks, lawyers, accountants, etc. Because if it costs me about $100 per hour to fly my trike (and that's just fuel, hangar and spare parts) with a 2 stroke rotax, I can't imagine an airline making a lot of money if they can get me from Brisbane to Sydney for sometimes less than that. If the airline can't make much money, they can't pay well either. And since most things today are bought for bank's money, that's why I say they must be making the money.

I sometimes wonder how would a war of that scale look like today, with all of today's equipment that can hardly roll out of the hangar if it doesn't have a full maintenance team supporting it. Imagine having to take a F35 out of a crate and assemble it, or maintain a modern tank when your supply lines are flaky at best. I guess it would end pretty quickly or we'd revert to WW2 tech or worse shortly after.

It's pretty simple really, and boils down to 3 points: 1) I've never heard of a situation when liking something on Facebook, would have any impact apart from giving my personal details to the owners of whatever I'm about to like. Especially it having any impact in a court case. (If I did, there should be world peace, no more hungry or sick kids in the world, and I should have a shed full of different free gadgets) 2) aircraft are noisy and annoy most people not involved with them, so I need to know that what I'm about to support or not is right 3) if you want me to support your case it's on you to convince me, not for me to have to dig through couple threads, google searches, just to know what you're talking about. If the first post was more like the one Ignition has posted and included the info about the need of this for the court case I would be more inclined to support it, but again, see point 1). And as to sticking together - I won't support someone just because he or she also likes to fly. If you're so willing - I'm a pilot, give me all your money... Rest of the posts were pretty much me doing my research by listening what others have to say about this, and pointing holes in their reasoning. As for support for the opposing group, at no point did I support them, but it doesn't meant that every idea that increases air traffic or expands an airfield is a good one, as it may be the difference between people being annoyed with a field but not doing anything about it, to people starting to behave like that group from Jaspers Bush.

Well, I either wouldn't or look for a place further away from a city...although the way big cities are developing right now if it's within a reasonable driving distance from a big city, there will be housing development in there soon. Just to put everyone at ease - I did like the FB page now, it's just that the first post in this thread, sounded to me like - they've got a "burn the witch mob", we need a "don't burn the witch mob", get on board people. After it was explained that it actually has a proper purpose and it's not a "don't burn the witch mob" I can get behind it.

If you haven't spent a substantial amount of time at an airfield, you may imagine a small recreational airfield as a place where a plane or 2 land and take off a day, not a place where you have planes doing circuits from 6 am on a weekend with up to 5 planes in a circuit (just an observation from the airfield I fly out of, as I've mentioned earlier, I have no knowledge about Jaspres Bush). Now that makes the story much clearer and I guess those are just people with nothing better to do.

No, I'm not, I just try to get my facts straight before I get involved in someone else's battle. Now I'm no sound expert, but quick google shows me that 86dB measured at 1m from the source equals to about 68.5 dB at 7.5 m and now you can see that the aircraft noise can be a bit higher than that of a truck. Nong, the things I've listed were just examples, and up to personal preference, you may not mind having a school, but there sure will be something you can apply. David and Nong I guess the fault can be spread between the people that have bought the houses, the developer and real estate agents. It may have been that those people weren't aware how much noise comes out of an airfield, it may have been that they were only shown the houses at times when there was little activity at the field or maybe they're just a kind of people, that like to ruin someone else's day. I know I've been in a similar boat, when I bought my first car - it has had a modified exhaust, and since it's been my first car and I haven't been driving for quite a while before I've bought it I didn't really notice it at first, I even thought it sounded nice, especially when just driving around the town. But take it on a motorway for an hour or 2 at constant revs, and it gets unbearable, suffice to say, the exhaust got changed to a standard exhaust and now it's nice and quiet. The problem is when you invest a substantial amount of money into something it's hard to accept, that you've just been, I'd say conned, but that may be a too strong word, but at least stuck in a bad situation.

Just to make it really fair comparison (and again I'm risking as to appear on the opposite side of the fence) those noise levels for a car are recorded at under 1 meter from the exhaust pipe, whereas the plane noise level is probably some 1000', at least that's what I would class as a fly over. And while a noise level may be legal for a single car if you try putting couple of those trucks on some previously quiet suburban street, you'll have way more complaints than this airfield is getting. Again, I'm not supporting those protesters, but we have to accept that an airfield is one of those places that most people would like to have one close by, just not too close, just like a highway, school, shopping center, stadium, etc.

To be honest I'm not sure. I know there were people complaining about the noise, and now there are some no fly zones declared around the airfield, but I can't honestly say how much pressure there is. I know there were some new houses built around the airfield, and those people are not particularly happy about us buzzing above them, but I have no idea how far they take it. Obviously nothing as serious as at Jaspers Bush.

It's not about not intending to fly there, but more about not knowing anything about the airfield. All I know is there are always 2 sides to each story. Your opponents are presenting your airfield as a danger and nuisance to society, you say that's all great, and no reasons for a change. As always, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, although with what I've seen so far from the other group, probably closer to your version. There's that and also I'm not a believer in Facebook activism, seen too many of different groups presenting great ideas, begging for likes, just to turn out something cheap and awful.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and it's been a while since I've done any serious physics calculations, but: - a fixed pitch prop will always generate more thrust when it's spinning at 6800 RPM than at 6200 RPM - assuming a fixed prop again, the engine will use less fuel at 5000 RPM than at 6000 RPM, after all you need to open the throttle wider. At the same time the engine will give you max torque or power at lower RPM, so if you can adjust your prop, so that at full throttle it spins at 6200 RPM, you'll have the best take off performance. At the same time you want it to spin at 6000 RPM in cruise, and that's going to be a different pitch setting on the prop than the one for best take off. So with a fixed pitch prop, you'll have to find a sweet spot that gives you a reasonable take off performance, low cruise fuel use at designated speed, etc. With an inflight adjustable prop, you can tweak it as you fly, and that's the main benefit of a adjustable prop. Oh, in that all you'll also have to take into account prop limitations and prop performance at different speeds (like tips going supersonic or something).

Don't get me wrong Motz, I'm not trying to support the opposing group, but I can't say that I don't understand them. As to the legal limits - I don't know how much noise the jets above my place make, and whether it's the loudness or type of noise they make, but you sure can't make out what people are saying on TV when one passes, and it can still be legal, but annoying. On that note I also would not buy a house near any airfield that has a flying school. I wouldn't mind living closer to a small airfield, than I do, but not if you'll have people doing circuits every weekend morning from 6 am. I don't know how much support from someone from the other side of the country, who's never been to Jaspers Bush, and has no plans to visit any time soon will count, so I'll hold on for a while.

I may be strange like that, but how does liking a Facebook page help you with your court case? Especially when all could see on that page were posts from the other group with description how they delete your comments. I get that you're trying to get your local people support, but having too many posts from other aviators will only defeat your goal - when someone interested in the problem will come to your page will only see posts from pilots, he will disregard them, as being one of those crazies that make noise every weekend morning (and yes, that's how we're viewed by many). What you'd need is posts from someone who lives near an airfield and is happy about it, but I guess most of us live quite a bit away (there was a poll some time ago, and from memory average was something like 30min-1h from field), so we don't get the usual problems associated with it. And there are plenty of problems, even if your noise levels fall within the regulated levels. I for example leave under the Brisbane International approach path, and every evening it get's really annoying when there's a plane every 5 minutes, and you can't even hear the TV (and it most likely also falls within the regulated noise levels). I would change it if I could, but I understand that it was my choice to live there, and those planes have to go through somewhere. I also don't feel I have a right to complain as I do cause similar problems to people with my little 2 stroke almost every weekend morning.

It's not mine, you'll have to ask Ultralights in the other thread: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/video-sydney-victor-1-flight.29759/

I was flying that morning around Caboolture and I don't remember seeing any clouds. Although I was about 5-10 NM east from where this has happened and finished just before that aircraft has departed. One thing that could have a factor in choosing altitude was a bit (I'd say 15-20 knots, no GPS and I wasn't doing any ground speed calculations, so take that more as a feeling) of westerly or south westerly wind above 2000', below 2000 it was much calmer and a bit colder.

I may be digging myself into some problems with my instructor here, but one other thing to take into account is how much difference the wind makes and sometimes it can be hard to judge the wind down below from 2 or 3000'. We are all taught to land into the wind, that it makes safer, shorter landings, etc, etc. But I don't think there's any practical demonstration of how much difference a little wind can make. Before I've experienced it I thought, that it should be pretty much the same, you just touch down a bit faster and all is good, after all what difference would another couple knots of ground speed make. Until one day I had to land with the wind... (and before anyone starts having a go at me, note this: - the wind sock was barely lifted from vertical - from memory it was also changing directions slightly, so there was no clear wind direction - there were several aircraft doing circuits on that runway. now with that out of the way) well, when I've turned on final the aircraft just would not descend, I think I overshot my landing point by a good 300m or more. It just kept going and going.

I don't remember now, but roughly it would have been 3 or 4 hours dedicated to PFLs and couple more PFL while practicing something else .

I guess I just use it as a way to develop that judgement, or rather reassure myself that my judgement is ok. As with any judgement it's not something that you can just learn - it comes with experience, and the thing with PFLs is that you hardly ever take it all the way down to the ground, so you need some feedback as to how you're doing. Obviously your instructor is your first feedback, but then you start flying and practicing solo. You can get down to that 500' (provided your landing area is not near build up area) and you should know from there. I usually end my practice approaches at about 1000' as that's the height of my usual circuit and I can judge it better from there.

We're talking here about flights in a designated training area, so you should know the average ground elevation. But my point was not as much about height above terrain but more about height loss. Say I start at 2000' AMSL, then as I start gliding it feels as if I lost 1000' but when I check it it only 400-500'. I agree that it may not be a good action in an unknown terrain, but that's something I, as a fairly new pilot, caught myself doing and often I would end up way too high above my picked landing site (luckily those were all practice approaches and no real emergency yet).

Apart from the 5, 6 or 7 S' (depending how you've been taught: Size, Shape, Slope, Surface, Surrounds, some also include (S)Civilization, Sun, Stock, etc) one thing I can add is not to be afraid to change your mind as you approach it. If you notice a better area within your range, or your approach isn't going as you'd expect it to (for example stronger wind than you previously though), provided you have enough height it's better to change your mind than to keep on going into a crash. Other thing I keep on catching myself on is that I pick my "base turn" point and start approaching it, and then half way through there comes a doubt whether or not I'll make it there. Usually a quick glance at the altimeter confirms that I was right in the first place and it's just my mind telling me that I've lost more height than I actually did.