SDQDI

It would be interesting to test it. I certainly feel hotter standing on tar than I do standing on grass, maybe a white fused plane would be better on the grass. Wouldn't a plane that is as close to the ground as we are heat up more from that heat rising off of the tar? After all it is sitting in the sun in both spots so is getting direct sunlight but I don't think the extra light bouncing off the grass would make as big of a difference as sitting on a hot plate.

Yeah if that was legit and not faked that is way to close, bit like that video of the glider being winched up with a small fixed wing passing under him very very close to the cable

Why would anyone ask anything on a forum! The main reason is IMHO if you go to the source and get the proper info the conversation is over in a matter of minutes whereas on a forum we can have a variety of facts and drag it out for much longer and we all enjoy interaction so that is obviously the way to do it! (Not meaning this thread in particular but speaking generally)

That 3 knots above stall was for short field so not something to do all the time. Also that was with 2 stages of flap so probably still works out to 1.3 times stall speed. I don't know much about the foxbat but I do find the 99 knots rough air speed to sound a bit high?

Well technically you can run out of fuel without taking off.................. But as for fly straight on takeoff and landing, I think that no matter how careful you fly there will always be a potential for having to turn even a little at low level.

So never take off? You can avoid the low level flight after takeoff by not taking off but once you have taken off and got up to altitude you WILL be forced to do some more low level flight eventually. Just saying don't fly low is simplistic and totally misses the point.

Well the RAA specifics probably don’t have anything to do with but at the same time they might have everything to do with it. The dangers of LL have similar results for a RAA or ga pilot and if (obviously I don’t know about this particular crash so am speaking generally) it is something that can kill experienced pilots then I think us recreational pilots should be even more aware of it. If talking about it causes one more person to do a little low level instructed flying then I am all for talking about it in every thread.

Very well written. We all can understand how our body can trick us when in imc but it never ceases to amaze me just how much our eyes can trick us in those low level situations. It is well worth doing some low level training, bit of a broken record but it is true.

He has moved up to near YQDI but has been overseas with a sick relative for a while now.

I disagree with your first sentence here. Your second sentence is more on the money, yes if the wind is gusting ect that can and will change your airspeed BUT doing a nice balanced turn in a stable wind won’t have a different result going upwind or downwind. The only difference is in your ground speed. Flying downwind in no way whatsoever affects your stall speed, bank angle does increase stall speed but exceeding 30degrees doesn’t magically induce a stall.

Sorry for the funny Skippy. I guess it was my pessimistic side laughing at the thought of anything being manufactured here.

Is that really how it works? Maybe I need to refresh my understanding of physics but I would have thought if a plane is flying balanced and turned downwind it would NOT change airspeed any more than turning upwind. Unless this comment relates to specifics of this particular plane i have trouble understanding it. I am guessing you mean 30degrees angle of bank rather than just turning 30 degrees left or right, but I don't understand how passing the 30 degree mark somehow induces a stall? Again assuming a balanced turn I would say it would increase your stall speed but to say that would induce a stall i find a bit simplistic.

Getting google results in no way indicates a sure thing. The tech for electric planes for the masses is already there, the tech for multi rotor electric aircraft is also already there BUT I don’t see it becoming overly affordable in the near future. As for new battery tech, even if a miracle battery was invented tomorrow it would be at least a decade before it became cheap enough to be competitive. That is without talking about certifying/certificating and any nescesary regulations (mainly thinking about fairly automated multi rotors)

Have you listened to any of our pollies lately? (Like in the last decade or ten!) They are always taking credit for their predecessors good outcomes and always blaming their predecessors for things that are going wrong. It is so childish that it is depressing.

Well firstly the falling assets. I would not expect the building/land to fall (for us on the farm the land is the only asset that does not fall in value) and that is curious that it is. I am not sure of the reason for that as I would doubt real estate would be falling in the ACT so could it be that it was over valued previously? Or is it a case of conservative accounting? (Which should be a good thing) or is it something untoward? (I doubt it as what benefit would there be in that?) I don't know enough about it though to say either way. Obviously the assets like computers and equipment are going to fall in value and that is something every good business owner would expect. So is falling asset prices good? Obviously it would be better if they didn't but in the real world assets other than land/water generally fall so it may not be good but it is reality. (I forgot about the cash savings which obviously should grow except when using them in a deficit year, I am far from an accountant!) As for the deficits that is similar to robinsm's post I agree that deficits as a "normal" thing is not sustainable BUT I don't think deficits are always a bad thing if done for good reasons over a reasonable timeframe. For example our farm last year had a large loss which was the first loss that we have had for many years but the improvements made have set us up to do much better in the future. Now as we know with RAA they have updated the system so that we can do a lot more online and so that in the long run we can run a lot more efficiently. Now we can all argue how this could have been done better or cheaper but only a fool would say it didn't need doing. This has put a huge dint in our profit loss sheets but I would certainly expect that in this financial year or the next those setup costs will be gone which will go a long way to helping the long term viability. I am even less knowledgable on the magazine so I had better leave that for someone who knows more about it. In summary I would expect the RAA to be breaking even this or next financial year and then I would be expecting to see only black ink and would have questions to ask if that didn't eventuate.

Steep mountainside or not that is still an unbelievable outcome. It is hard to see too much detail in the pictures but I can’t really see a long impact area down the hillside which you would think would be needed to slow the fall slowly enough.

Bull I think if you have a full read of the financial report that a lot of your questions would be answered, pay special attention to the explanatory notes that are throughout it as they do explain a lot of the why’s.

Reading a financial report is a little more than looking at the profit loss page. It is an interesting report with a lot of explanatory notes which are worth reading. Imo it is a well set out report and again imo seems to be a lot easier to access now than in the "good old days"

Well that is a fairly harsh "I told you so" nobody. I don't mean any criticism to you nobody but it does come across a tad harsh.

Paint job looks the same but that could be a coincidence. Having said that surviving a wing fold is amazing. (Was trying to think of something else to say but amazing just about covers it)

Now where is the optimistic like:wink:

Aparrently it is because of some social media posts by recreational pilots saying they are going to boycott asic, they are increasing policing. This post is not to be taken seriously, anyone taking this post seriously doesn't know me very well. To put it plainly this post is a joke! (Well it is meant to be one, take it as you may)

We are hoping to do some house extensions in the next year or two and I have been seriously considering taking our home off the grid altogether. It is costing us over 2000$ a quarter now with 600 odd dollars just going to gaurentee of supply. I looked into going solar and connect it to the grid but a few things are pushing me away from that. Firstly our planned extension will be directly underneath the power line that supplies our house so I will have to have that removed, I had planned on putting it underground but the cost of that goes a long way to setting up the solar. Secondly, I discovered the tesla powerwall, a battery setup which has a 10year warranty. 10 years of paying over 2000 a quarter is over 80000$ Which more than pays for itself. Thirdly if setup correctly you don't have the power outage problems that are grid related.

A minimal thin tech approach would probably have CASA grounding us all these days......... déjà vu?

So nothing else has affected the cost rise? You are dreaming if you believe that Bull. Convenient though it may be I still think it isn't that simple.