cooperplace

well, don't keep us in suspense: did she accept?

I think it's a good idea to try to be reasonable first. I agree it might not, probably won't work. But if you've tried, it always helps in court later.

excellent advice. If ever there's a fly-in or BBQ, invite him along. If he can chat with pilots and discover we're real people, not cowboys, it will help. The safety culture of flying, once he's aware of it, should impress him. Even if the planning process is well advanced, one strongly opposed individual can do a lot to make life difficult. Winning him over with reason, courtesy and education has got to be a great way to go.

they must have gone like stink.

compulsion, as an eyewitness, do you have any comment re the "wing failure" theory?

they seem to have based that on an eyewitness statement. The post-crash photos aren't clear, and there is a tree on the right side of the plane, and the stub of the wing is there, up the point where that tree is. So it seems, from the photos in the newspaper, that the right wing sheared maybe a foot or two from the fuselage on impact with a tree on the ground. Can't tell from the photo if the remainder of the wing is where this scenario would place it: on the other side of the tree. I suggest that there isn't good evidence for the wing failure theory, at least from the publicly available pics.

a spectator is quoted in the newspaper as saying that a wing gave way........ anyone know anything about this?

also, how noisy is it? thanks

very interesting, thank you. The side valve certainly has advantages, and the ability to keep running on 3 is intriguing. How long could it safely keep this up? I would be grateful if you could comment on: (i) actual improvement in fuel economy, as a number, and (ii) all-up cost difference vs Jab 2200

yes, agreed

pm me too if you like for the same reason, thanks

I can relate to that.

stop detonation? you have a few options: higher octane fuel (people already use 110, can't go much higher); lower compression ratio, but this will cause a drop in power and/or an increase in fule consumption, but having said that, maybe only 0.2 is enough; cooler heads, ie, water cooling, been discussed a lot already, and lastly, different design heads, which is well beyond us average engine users. Thoughts?

the other thing is to ask them to advise which section of the Local Government Act 9or equivalent) empowers them to make this request. There won't be any section allowing them to regulate aviation. So theyr'e ultra vires.

does local government regulate aviation? I would tell them to go jump as well

sounds reasonable

what I'm getting: Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /home/content/25/8339025/html/brief.php on line 53 same as you

main thing is they're OK; bummer about the trimotor Cessna, it was certainly one of a kind............

yeah, but everyone is different, so just because someone got their licence for $2500-3000 doesn't mean that everyone, or even most people, should expect to.

if it's done a million hours, catching the bus might be a lot safer; sometimes you get what you pay for.

this reminds me of a lot of discussion in the 70s about the "good oil" for Ducati v-twin motors, said to be sensitive to the correct oil. As someone said at the time "I put any old oil in my Honda four and it just runs fine". The problem wasn't the oil, it was design deficiencies in the Duke engine.

thanks for recommending this, just finished it; an interesting read. you're right about not wanting to be his friend, and his wives got an even worse deal. But there's some great aviation history there.

actually everyone on this forum _claims_ to be heterosexual...............................

pm sent, thank you.

I drove in there yesterday but couldn't see anyone or any signs. Quite a few hangers, or big sheds at any rate. Council says it's not theirs. Any ideas, anyone?