boingk

Stall training should be viewed both as training too recover a stall, but more importantly as recognition and avoidance training - a competant pilot should never stall a flying aircraft. Don't stall the thing, learn the signs, don't spin it. Learn spin training in an appropriate aircraft, as I did in a C150 Aerobat. Get a grip, stop keyboard flying. - boingk Edit: tafisima, I've reported your post as it contains dangerous and ambiguous advice. Don't advise on flying our recovery techniques if you are not well trained in them, especially such dangerous things as spins. All the best in your flying, no offence meant toward you.

Nice one M61A1. - boingk

Cooler burning and slower flamefront equals less power per unit energy and a total consumption rate higher than standard for same performance. E10 will give a shorter range and less performance. Cooler burns will also have a tendacy to promote residue buildup and/or plug fouling. On 2T oils, I'm particularly fond of Castrol 2T 'Race', specced to JASO-FC and about $10/L from Supercheap. Used it for over 12,000km in my Aprilia RS125 which put out 33hp from a tiny 124cc engine - that's 240hp/litre! On teardown saw no excess wear or residue buildup and in fact made it past the maximum recommended replacement interval with no problems whatsoever. Cheers - boingk

Don't use E10 in an aero engine. The stuff promotes residue buildup, burns colder and has a slower flamefront than petroluem... it is not a good fuel for engines that aren't specifically designed for it. Keep in mind that 'tolerate' and 'designed for' are two different things, too. Use no other fuel than the one recommended by your engine manufacturer or the experienced shop which has built your engine for you. If they say use Avgas exclusively, use that. If they say use 95RON mogas, use that. I find it hard to fathom that ANY manufacturer or LAME would actively recommend E10 for ANY engine. On oil soaked plywood and fuel dripping onto it, I think the petroleum would simply have evaporated and left the water behind to mix with the oil. Especially if you use mineral oil which will readily take on water; hence why it is good practice to regularly run engines to full operating temperature, to evaporate and get rid of any excess moisture accumulated. Cheers - boingk

Tragic, but predictable. There is a reason we are not approved for aerobatics, and especially at low level. People need to stop doing stupid things if they want to be safe while flying. If you are set on aerobatics then do them properly - with an approved instructor and in an approved aircraft. - boingk

Bingo. This type of optioning for the wing is also what prevents us from cruising around in 200kt wonders - their stall speed would be very high by our current standards and not offer a lot of room for error. Look at the Formula One type aircraft (eg Cassutt Racer) in the US; they all use very small wing areas and thin aerofoils to give maximum speed, but tend to come in to land at frighteningly high speeds (90kt/100mph+) for such small aircraft. We on the other hand have safety regs mandating a maximum stall speed, therefore we must have the wing area to make that possible. Although it makes our craft safer and easier to fly, it does hinder our top speed. Cheers - boingk

It baffles me that we are using nautical arguments, and I'm not referring to 80kt here but more the Rec Pilot community at large. The discrepancy and misuse of such terms is alarming. Boats use a displacement method of buoyancy. Moving through the water when displacing a large volume of water is inefficient in general at speed, and is avoided by using a hull design that allows a craft to skip, or plane, over the water once at speed. Like boiling water, a relatively large amount of energy is expended reaching plane speed, and therafter a relatively small amount of energy is expended maintaining it. Aircraft, on the other hand, move through the air in a relatively linear (energy expenditurely talking) way for a given attitude. Attitudes outside normal cruise are inefficient only because you will be increasing the angle of attack and approaching stall. Often it is more efficient to cruise at a slower speed then you may otherwise, or than the craft is capable of. Consult your POH for figures on cruise speed, fuel burn, and max range speed. Please, everyone, stop using boats as an analogy. They are not aircraft and do not behave like them. - boingk

Bingo. No point in rushing a call or making it unintelligible. Personally I like rocking my smooth 'radio voice'... you've been listening to one-oh-two point five... boingk eff-em... :D - boingk

At least he had the ballistic recovery system - he'd most likely be dead without it, especially the way de describes his descent. - boingk

Bottom line... don't do aerobatics (which we aren't certified for) in a light aircraft (which isn't certified for them). - boingk

Definitely an individual thing. I learnt on a Cessna 150 and converted to GA with a Skyfox Gazelle, and now own a Minicab! All different, all unique in their manners. I think I like the manners of my low wing tail dragger the best, though. Be familiar with your critical speeds (takeoff safety speed, climb, cruise, turbulence, VNE) and the mannerisms of the aircraft - listen to what it is saying to you. THe principle of flight is exactly the same, just the implementation a little different. Cheers - boingk

Thanks K, really good history and something I've always been interested in. I really hope the buildings are still in some kind of repair, it'd be terrible to lose even more of our heritage. I must try and get out there and see if they are still there, perhaps a good excuse for a flying holiday through wine county? - boingk

That is freaking awesome Old K, bet it was a very unique and enjoyable experience. What were you doing there for work, if you don't mind me asking? Its just blowing my mind that all that was still there. - boingk

I believe it is the latter, each letter and/or numeral pronounced separately. We have a great local toungtwister - 5155! - boingk

Given that you are possibly going to reach 500ft by the end (or just past) of any reasonable length runway in such a slow aircraft, I'd say keep on with 500ft as your turning point. - boingk

I like to build/repair/fly model aircraft and also enjoy simulators - I would particularly recommend 'Rise of Flight' and 'Aces High II', both free download simulators for WWI and WWII aircraft respectively. Heres an ingame video from Rise of Flight that I'm fond of. Its got a good backing track and great flying by both of the combatants. If you're after a reasonably priced joystick that will actually fit on a desk check out the Logitech 'Extreme 3D Pro' as they retail for about $50 online via ebay and so far its the best sub $300 joystick I've used. Congrats on the wedding, too! Cheers - boingk

I get that its a cockpit and they are supposed to (nominally) be flying the aircraft... but who really cares? - boingk

Hi mate, a good run to Bathurst and back is nice and takes you over some good country. I'd recommend heading via Taralga and then checking out the old mines to the Northeast of Taralga before continuing on to Bathurst and Oberon. Mount Panorama looks great from the air and Bathurst welcome light aircraft with no landing fees attached, if you feel like stretching your legs. There is fantastic scenery north of Bathurst as it gets mountainous West of Sydney and really is great to look at on a clear, sunny day. Cheers - boingk

Taken from a table here: Deaths per billion kilometres: Bus 0.6, Rail 0.4, Air 0.05 Deaths per billion hours: Air 30.8, Bus 30, Rail 11.1 Deaths per billion journeys: Motorcycle 1640, Bicycle 170, Air 117 So per billion kilometres air travel is by far the safest, although most air journeys worldwide are relatively much longer than most other journeys anyway so that in itself isn't a good indicator. By travel hours it is the 3rd safest (marginally) after rail and bus, and then it plummets to 3rd most dangerous per journey after bicycle and motorcycle. So, while airlines and private pilots usually tout the 'per kilometres' statistic... reality suggests that we aren't actually as safe as we think. - boingk

Big difference between perception and reality. Just because something is perceived as dangerous doesn't mean it is. Interestingly, aircraft are the most dangerous vehicles (fatalities per trip taken) after bicycles and motorcycles. - boingk

I take every day as it comes and generally am pretty cautious with my undertakings... despite the fact that these include motorcycling and flying. I try and minimise risk where possible, while maximising the enjoyment I get out of my pastimes. If you really are thinking about people getting litigious with you then you are in the wrong mindset. I would more be thinking along the lines of what happens to my personal possessions - in todays world almost anything can be waived of voided by an attorney if you have enough dosh. Part of my insurance plan involves a rather large credit card limit... to hire said attorney. It really is amazing how much the banks will give you if you keep it clean and pay it off fast. Third party insurance is enough for me in most cases. Dangerous activities? Insurance bills? What are those? I just do stuff I enjoy and am cautious while doing so. - boingk

Filled it out, seems fairly straightforward. Be interested if you could post back the results of your study when you complete it. Cheers - boingk

Good work mate, you've certainly got my vote. - boingk

That looks good! I just think that otherwise there could be confusion of what topics are relevant to a said area or not - we have different homebuilt and instructing standards, for example. Cheers - boingk

I like the sentiment but I think it is going to make the forum a very messy affair. Why not have an 'International' forum group with the countries under it and then subforums under that? Perhaps I'm being too narrow sighted? - boingk