Yenn

If there is something blocking the vent to the brake fluid reservoir, it is possible for the brakes to stick on when you try them in the air. The blockage can act as a one way valve, allowing air in when the pedal goas down, but restricting its venting out. Don't ask me how I know this.

I have no opinion about water bombers, but I did fight fires many years ago when I was young and fitter than I am now. What I see now is the media making big noises about how wonderful our firies are and how wonderful the government is in looking after people. There is very little mention of where the fires start and how they are handled, nor about back burning or other methods of fighting the blaze. Government loves the publicity as do the senior pencil pushers in the fire fighting organisations. The media love it because they don't have to think, just keep asking the same questions and getting the same answers. The firies are working their butts off in dangerous situations, but we seldom hear from them.

Sounds good, but don't forget that it will not allow for fatigue, which is one of the expected fail points of a welded joint. Somebody else mentioned glued joints. Not easy with aluminium, but I did one years ago and it knocked around for ages, never did give way, but I don't know where it is now. I cleaned all the faying surfaces, then used a scotch brite pad, coated with epoxy glue, to give a final cleaning and spread glue to stop oxidisation.

I must admit that I didn't look at all the info from OME, but I think what I said still stands. Their welding looks to me to be more like soldering, in one of the videos they got a blob, than a run of matal, but had to weld the other side. They made the molten rod run between the two pieces, in just the same way as solder is wicked in. I certainly would not fancy being the test pilot of a plane with a fuselage frame built using this method. Aluminium is way beyond my ability to weld and I have seen expert welders have failures. When I was in the business of designing things, we used to make the design to suit the method of onstruction. Ladders used to have holes in the styles for the rungs to go through and then be welded on both sides of the style. We learnt that lesson from the failure of rungs to be welded to the style with no locating support. I hope you can find out a way to make this feasible for aircraft manufacture OME

I would disagree with OME. The drug problem is of no real consequence, let those who want to kill themselves, do so. If drugs were not illegit, there would be no incentive for criminals to push them, the resulting overdoses would lower the population. Not a bad thing, it would also lower the percentage of no hopers. The importation of organic matter has been allowed by AQIS and we have seen the resulting problems. I vote for 100% to organics.

You did check your brakes before you took off, didn't you when you did a run up perhaps. So you know they are working. If they have no pressure when you check, pre landing, they have just failed, because they worked last time. That means it is possible for them to work OK when testing, but fail next time around, so I really cannot see what good a brake check is as part of pre landing. It can pass and still not work when you need them.

I have done a few, but learnt more from watching others. Now I have trouble landing nose wheel aircraft, when I bring them in with the nose in the air which is how I land my planes, it seems to un nerve the instructors. Trouble is I get un nerved by sitting beside a nose wheel pilot coming in to land at a high speed and with no nose up attitude.

This seems to be the behaviour we can expect from big business nowadays. Just look at the banks, Telstra and mining to see what the trend is. Pay the top dogs more, pay the workers less and just hope that all goes well. Whatever happens don't take responsibility and if necessary denigrate anyone who gets between you and your money.

Welding can result in damage to the metal structure just alongside the weld, which leads to cracking and worse. If I remember correctly Murphy made at least one airframe out of tube and special extruded joiners that were rivetted. Even steel fuselages need heat treatment sometimes to get rid of stresses built into the welded frame.

Checking your brakes as part of the pre landing checks, only tells you they are working then. They probably worked last time they were used, so what is the likelihood of them showing failure and isn't it the same as the chance of them failing even if they checked OK on downwind. I wouldn't know if my brakes are working or not, until I have used quite a bit of runway. I am not too keen to apply them at high speed and risk the tail coming up.

I heard yesterday that a whistleblower has come forward. He was a production line manager for a few years at the Boeing plant, He says that there was a big push to increase production and it led to a lack of safety. After the first Max crash he talked to Boeings CEO, but nothing was done, after the second crash he talked to the FAA and again little was done. Now it seems he is talking to congress.

We seem to be hearing about quite a few Bristell accidents. Does anyone know what the figures are?

Originally I asked was the engine running? If you bounce a taildragger you usually hit the prop at the third bounce, sometimes the second. The prop looks as if it is undamaged, so I doubt it was turning. Maybe the landing was misjudged due to the engine stopping. It certainly wasn't turning when the lower cowl was damaged.

Pauls remark about air getting past the rocker covers is a good point, it could be an idea to try to restrict any air going down the face of the rocker covers, but that would depend upon what type of plenum you have. My J220 doesn't pass air down there, it is all via the cylinder head fins.

OME. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Sad to see a C185 like this, they are a very capable plane. The witness said it was very nose low and bounced, but the prop appears to be relatively unscathed. It should have been in a nose high attitude for landing. Was the engine running?

I would try putting an aluminium deflector under cylinders 2 and 4. Shaped to follow the contours of the fins and ending just ahead of No2 lowest point and just astern of No4 lowest point. The shape would be like W with the two outer legs cut short and the central apex up between the two cylinders at their closest point. A piece of wire would hold it in place easily. That is going to get air round the lower part of each cylinder. Don't let air go down between the cylinders without it being inside the duct. You could also do a similar thing above the cylinders, but only cover 15 degrees of the curve, so that air can get between the deflector and the barrel, via the fins.

I frequent another site about flying called Boldmethod. It has questions and articles about flying safely. The latest question is about brake failure. If you are landing and you apply the brakes only to find they have failed, do you go around? Or words to that effect. One of the answers on the site made me wonder what the capabilities of the pilot were.

If you really want to find out what is happening or to announce your intentions, you could call airservices on area frequency. They are using that for aircraft around and above you who are not on your CTAF frequency. If there is any restriction in place they should be able to advise you.

I have always found the best way to spot a wire is by looking for what supports it. The shadows cast by poles stand out as straight lines where you would not expect to see them. large spans usually run from hilltop to hilltop, or between two ridges. If you are flying down a valley and below the high ground beside you, then you are really playing with fire. If you have to be below where you could expect to find wires, it would be best to keep low, so that you will see them against the sky. Most of the big wires are shown on the charts and will be obviously between town or cities and power stations. Otherwise you need to keep away from roads and buildings at some distance from roads, that is where the wires will be. Don't forget there is a bureaucrat sitting in an office in Canberra with a map and pondering where he can put a line in.

I think with a 60 knot wind I wouldn't be worrying too much about an engine out landing, but more concerned about getting out of the pane when it is on the ground.

The control of fires has been taken over by the bureaucrats and since then there have been more and more fires. Ten years ago it was unheard of for a house to be lost to a grass fire in Central Qld. Last year the government evacuated Gracemere which has several thousand residents. It used to be all grazing paddocks, which used to get up to a metre of dry grass, but back burning controlled the fire risk. It is good for governments to be doing something drastic to supposedly save life and property, but not when they cause to original problem.

Keenaviator. What you have done seems to me to be a lowering of pressure beneath the engine, combined with ducting air around the sump for an oil cooling effect. Would that be correct? If so the lowering of the CHTs would be due to greater cooling air from top to bottom of the heads.

Todays news is that FAA have fined Boeing $3.9 million for fitting faulty tracks to 737s including the Max. What will they do for money?

I had thought of replacing the bing with the aeroinjector, as used in the sonex. Cost US$499, plus I would need a pressure reducer and new throttle control. Probably also need to fit EGT gauges,so not a cheap alternative. Regarding fuel injection, the poms had it in the fifties. The Conquerer tank was fuel injected with a mechanical set up. I was a mechanic and one came in running rough. Having no experience I went to the office to find a maintenance manual, only to be told it was secret and I didn't have clearance to see it. I had to fix it and I did, but I cannot for the life of me remember how I did it. The poms also had a lot of other things and I doubt that any of them were as good as the German or US stuff.