danny_galaga

Early days. Who can say what happened.  Right now think of it as a Doolittle raid. 

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Your no fun!!😈

Something like 1200km from the Ukrainian border.

3 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

 

Jesus, this stupid 15 minute no edit thing on this site...

Obviously should say WAGE 🤪 

Jokes aside, you may have seen that the Ukrainians converted an Aeroprakt Foxbat into a giant suicide drone and attacked a drone (😂) factory deep into Russian territory. Bombardier have said not too long ago they don't want their Rotax engines in military aircraft. The ZD would be a brilliant alternative if they are going to make more drones out of Foxbats. And cheaper too. If it's going to be blown up anyway, why pay more than you have to?

On 08/04/2024 at 10:10 AM, Garfly said:

This is the vid about the Zenith 701 guy in Canada who's first to fly behind a ZD in North America.

 

(Engine discussion starts in earnest at 09:23 and goes for about 4 mins)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EviMc7UtueY

 

 

 

 

 

I quite often don't have the time to look at long videos, but I watched the whole thing. Really nice to see those sorts of videos. I enjoyed every minute 🙂

1 hour ago, Reynard said:

An archive website suggests the list price of a C172 in 1956 was ~US$9,000.

Apparently the average age of men in the US was $3600 in 1956.

Seems a new c172 is about $400000, and the average US wage is about 64000. So definitely more expensive now by roughly a factor of two.

I suppose it's not surprising for us since one of the attractions of ultralights etc is a lower entry price.

2 hours ago, Marty_d said:

I can do the math, but the bit about HOW it costs 1.23m to build is beyond me.

Maybe they've adopted the automotive (or Boeing 😄) model- send it out with design faults, and then endlessly keep paying to modify/fix the problems 😂

2 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Hold on, $400k plus for a Rotax 912 powered amphibian and they're making a loss of $830k per aircraft?  How does that work?

Simple, it costs them $1230000 to make.

1 hour ago, Area-51 said:

This is clearly not Boeing's fault; cut them some slack. Ground engineer obviously screwed up or got a ping on iphone to check latest 2.5 second  tiktok feature blockbuster film. 
 

All things being equal Boeing supplied aircraft; ground engineer received training with Boeing supplied content; ground engineer failed to implement Boeing approved method. So Boeing is accountable; it is Boeing's fault...

 

🤔... yeah that is a solid argument..

Well, if he is trained by them it sort of is. You have to keep up with the times. Young people becoming engineers have grown up with smart phones etc. so that has to be part of the training. Train them to make the first step to switch off your phone and put it in your locker. Or whatever the problem is- why isn't he following the protocols? What is it in the training that isn't sticking? Are they lowering standards for recruiting? And etc.

I'm normally wary of saying what's happening to so and so, they are turning to shit. It's the logical fallacy of selected instance. 

But what's happening to Boeing? They're turning to shit 😄

Probably what I can more accurately say is- what's happening to maintenance standards, they're turning to shit.

Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-800 engine cover falls off plane, strikes wing during take-off on flight from Denver - ABC News https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103680234#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=17125608534479&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

forgot to add

10 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

They may be,as in L/hr divided by number seats and trip/sector time. I have heard/read that some commercial level (very many seats) can be quite fuel efficient however as Nev said above - "As a hobby it HAS to be about what YOU like a plane to be and COST"

 

Not many people on this Forum are into commercial aircraft (as a hobby/personal transporter) or for that matter aircraft like the Cirrus range - big purchase and running dollars and if you can't fill the seats on a regular basis - may be hard to justify (assuming that justification might be on the owners radar😁).

OBJECTION!

(Am I doing it right? ) 😄 

I hear Cirrus make fuel efficient planes.

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Due to insufficient information  - had to Google  - "Resterant" "Cloud" "Aircraft with missile coming out of top of fuselage"😈

 

Come on Danny, you can "stir the pot", way better than a single name - give us a good argument.😎

Cirrus is the safest aircraft on the market.

If you can't get rid of it, put it all in a box with a 'free' sign on it and put it out on the nature strip in front of your house.

After two days when it's still there, swap the sign for one that says '$50 for the lot'. It should disappear in a few hours...

Cirrus 😈 

3 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

A loss of $831,000 per aircraft produced. Dont think that is sustainable.  

That business model works with games consoles because you make your money selling software. Suspect it doesn't work so well in this scenario 😄

I agree with a lot of what you say there. To the question " are planes with parachutes really safer?" One would have to say yes, at least in the case of Cirrus. 

Will I fit a chute to my plane? No.

Is that the plane some famous baseball player crashed?

1 hour ago, kgwilson said:

Chutes to bring aircraft and pilot down have been around for a long time. I wore a chute for 20 years when I was Hang Gliding. It was never used in anger but it was used to test if it worked given I was the one who repacked it every 6 months. It was manually deployed but there were ballistic options around since the 80s. Most Hang Glider pilots have them. The chute is part of the harness and a pull handle on your chest. Pull the handle and throw in to clear air. The bridle cord is attached to the CofG (heartbolt) & you come down about the same speed as a normal round chute. Only used if the glider has a structural failure.

See my magazine photo above. Ballistic in 1983. That guy has big balls cutting the rigging to prove his chutes work 😲. He's standing, err hanging by his product 😄

From my August 1983 National Geographic, the issue that fired my imagination about ultralights when I was a teenager 

That's really interesting garfly. I had actually imagined that the force needed was a deliberate safety feature, instead it turns out it's mostly because you are tensioning the firing pin mechanism. In the video he says that Cirrus now train owners on using it, which is good. I imagine they also get to pull on mock up one so they know what sort of strength is required.

I think when they say the expectation is the airframe is destroyed, they mean exactly that. EXPECT it to be destroyed. The saying is HOPE for the best, EXPECT the worst 

So if your airframe survives the crash, then YAY! But destroyed or not, YOU will survive.