Powerin

It was too high for a photo and with low morning sun all I saw was a dark silhouette. Could have been a C-130 with drop tanks, but I'm pretty sure the "engines" were all of equal size. Then again it could have been the angle I was looking made drop tanks look like engine nacelles. Cficare: I found all those photos too and it wasn't any of them :big_grin:. Love that C-206 though EDIT: finally found a photo of a C-130 at the angle I saw this from...and the drop tanks do look like another set of engines. Must have been it... http://s3.amazonaws.com/estock/fspid3/55400/c130-aircraft-iraq-55463-l.jpg

Heard the loud and low pitched drone of a large turboprop flying over this morning and went out to look with binoculars. Saw a large transport aircraft with six engines (I think), flying the Melbourne-Brisbane RPT track probably at 20 something thousand ft. It was leaving vapour trails as wide as the six engines so don't think they were drop tanks. Anyone know what it was? Do we have six engined turboprops operating in Oz or is it just a visitor? Peter

Hey Adrian, Congrats on the new addition to the family! You have two babies now (Mason and the 601). Both will be fighting for attention... :-) Peter

I think it doesn't matter. Politicians need to be seen to be addressing a problem. Whether the law actually achieves anything is irrevelant....as long as it looks like it does. Reminds me of the time a number of years back when Victoria had a spate of car accidents only one of which was on the Hume Highway (a dual lane freeway). There was no evidence at all that the one on the Hume was caused by speed. There was an announcement that the govt was fighting the Victorian road toll and the nonsensical solution was to immediately drop the speed limit on the Hume from 110km/h to 100! Who knows how much it cost to change all the signage etc on 300km of road. It was quietly changed back to 110 a year (?) or so later. The point is...they just wanted to be seen to do something. I think it's the same with airport/aircraft security etc. How do you fight that sort of mentality??

For what it's worth Pud, and it doesn't help you much....looking at publicly available records the domain name "thrustersupport.org" is still active and registered to Bob Llewellyn until the end of 2010. But the name does not point to any website or webserver anymore that I can find. So it's probably not just a case of the server being temporarily down. It might be that a web hosting bill was not paid or was discontinued. Contact details for the domain name are available here: Whois Lookup - Domain Names Search, Registration, & Availability | Whois.net but Ian could probably tell you more. Peter

"Hmmm....but what sort of bait to use?" "Perhaps some type of fruit product....I hear city folk line up for apples....." :stirring pot: ================== Farming type = complains all the time....Smiley = ???

....meanwhile singedLocks :bmwrider: (smelling sweetly of an alluring combination of Avgas, Jet A1, Old Spice and a hint of Mildura's finest ) had been left alone. Looking down he noticed his slightly pink but now hairless body and couldn't help thinking how nice those legs would look in fishnets. "Now I can go in the Dark One's calendar!!", he cried. So slipping into his best Victoria's Secret and donning his firey's helmet he wheeled the beercan out of the hangar. With a little tee hee he set up the camera, hit the timer button and raced back to jump on to the cowl of the Sporty:DevilDog: Suddenly.....

AFAIK there are a lot of Govt Officials who have a lot more power to enter private property than the police do. Various inspectors (Workcover, livestock, wildlife and fishing, meter readers etc) can enter your land without permission and do what they like as long as it is part of their job and they show identification. Now whether CASA inspectors can enter a private premises and conduct tests on people just because they happen to possess a pilots licence or cert is another thing. What happens if you live in an airpark with your hanger attached to your house? No drinking in your own house?

And that theoretical 100% would only be at full open throttle wouldn't it? You are sucking in a lot less air at half or closed throttle aren't you? (unless it is a diesel of course)

That's a shame Temora was a good show. However it earned you the pity vote :big_grin:...surely far more valuable and more fun in the long run. Wish I'd have thought of it.... i_dunno Peter

I too only knew Decca through these forums and the chatroom. But I regarded him as a friend. I remember waiting for a delayed flight at Tullamarine a few months ago and logging onto the chatroom to pass the time. The only one there was Decca and we had a great chat for an hour or so. A true gentleman and I regret never meeting him in person. Rest easy Decca and enjoy your new wings. May God's peace be with Sue and family in their time of sorrow. Peter

Quick off topic comment - Nev, you should write a book! Thick or otherwise I bet there's a lot of us here that would buy it, read it and benefit from it. Peter

Sorry...a bit off topic...but after reading CFI's excellent letter and some of the other responses I got to wondering if RAA pilots are actually more experienced (in hours) and more current than their PPL counterparts on average. I'm willing to bet, because RAA is cheaper, more accessible and more fun, that most RAA pilots fly a lot more often than most PPLs do. I wonder if RAA pilots fly more hrs/year and if any stats exist to prove it?

From CASA stats (only from 2006) and RAAus stats (2009) at least 20% of all Australian registered aircraft and pilots are RAAus and growing fast. I think that's a pretty big chunk of the magazine's potential market that they have just offended. Might be worth quietly pointing that out to them.

Good story, but apparently the physics doesn't stand up for this to be true. A one metre length of brass would need a 100 deg C temperature change for about a 1mm change in length....not enough to topple any putative canon balls sitting on top.

Whoa...them's fightin' words Tomo :black_eye: :) Nahh...easy to build, easy to fly (so I've heard), get in and out nearly anywhere, slow enough to enjoy the view when you want to but fast enough to get places when you need to. Don't need to make a fashion statement with a machine like that.

Hmmm...might have to find an excuse to come over to Kyabram now :big_grin: Peter

...do wonders for your lady killa reputation...

Looks like some good fodder for the NES to me :devil:

Hmmm...just what went on after I dropped you off at the club Tomo?? ;)

I'm sure RAAus will be telling Temora Council how successful NatFly was. But if we think Temora was a good location (I did), how about we fire off a few supportive emails to the Temora Council telling them how good we thought the town and the airport was. Here we have a small country town Council who have stuck their neck out, saw a future for their town in aviation, and invested heavily in it. Now they have a world class aviation museum and the national RAAus flyin. Many 1000's of people come to see both. The risk they took is starting to pay dividends. Lot's of people know where Temora is now! Encouraging Temora Council with emails or letters of support gives them something they can point to and justify to themselves and the ratepayers that it's money well spent. And when your own Council starts rumblings about closing or downgrading airports maybe you can show them what Temora has done. Here's their contact page Peter

Hi Mark, Was really looking forward to that coldie with you...but then I got another offer I just couldn't refuse - flying with Tomo! Great to meet you and I'll catch up with you next time! Peter

Well it was my first Natfly. I drove in for Saturday and I was pretty impressed. Don't know that I've ever seen that many aircraft in one place before! Like a kid in a candy shop was I. Dick Smith was a highight (sorry burbles1) and it was great to meet a few forumites. And I also got to have a fly with one of the best known aviators in Australia....Tomo of course! :big_grin: Thanks again Tomo! A big thank you to the organisers who worked so hard behind the scenes. It takes a lot of work to put together an event like Natfly. I had a bit to do with Carol (Cazza) who was always on the move doing several things at once. At midday on Saturday she was driving me in her golf cart, steering with one hand, trying to eat lunch (balanced on her knee) with the other, and explaining to me how to do a Mogas run at the same time. But she always had a smile on her face and a nice thing to say. Well done guys and girls! It was pretty late before I remembered to take a few photos (the non-RAA a/c is Dick Smith departing in his Caravan)... Peter

...restock the RAAus shelves with regulatory paperwork. The PA came to life again...."Team Member Lochs to aisle 42, rubber hoses....customer needs...."

Not sure how to work that out Tomo...I think once the full weight of the a/c is down on the tyres the friction would be the same. But I reckon there's a few factors in play with tyre wear. Firstly (using 48 and 53kts as the example) when you hit the tarmac you have to spin up the tyre 5kts faster...which *should* also require 22% more energy in this case. As you touch down there would be a short transition period as the friction went from 0-100%. During this time the energy required to spin the tyre overcomes friction and it skids...which melts a thin layer of tyre. If you need more energy to spin up the tyre I would guess you would melt more off. Secondly there's the extra tyre wear just from the extra landing roll. And don't forget your brake pads...they have to absorb that 22% extra energy. More wear there too. Remember those percentages only apply to that set of speeds. If, say, you increase you speed by 5 from 5kts up to 10kts you are increasing your energy by 400%. Double the speed = 4 times the damage (as David says above). Peter PS...Ahhh those Johnny's...always in the shop :devil: