APenNameAndThatA

No. Way. You have to carry around two power sources. And regenerative braking is not a thing for airplanes. Actually, on reflection, you could have an electric airplane and add a petrol-driven generator for longer trips. The generator would only need to produce, say, 50% of takeoff power to maintain the battery charge in cruise.

There was no straw man argument here. It was plain from the post that they were talking hypothetically, and not saying that anyone was arguing for a complete stop to carbon production. It is a central paradox of climate change that none of us can achieve anything individually but the same people can achieve things as a group. With Trump in power, China and India are not going to do massively heavy lifting for the environment. To answer the original question, I think light aircraft are fine. Stopping flying would be a disproportionate impact on lifestyle compared to how much carbon it would save. *If* you are really bothered, you could plant trees, or whatever, to draw the same amount of carbon out of the atmosphere. Qantas lets you do that when you fly. I expect that there are organisations who you can pay to offset your carbon production. It might be possible for you to decrease your carbon production by flying and doing aerial tree planting - but I doubt it. Maybe someone has a more creative idea.

True, that.

I find the grid point wind forecasts to often be complete fiction. Apparently that is because Archerfield is at the intersection of continental weather and maritime weather.

While I have been practicing for my nav test, I have learnt to either fly a heading OR proceed visually. I am tempted to half fly a heading and twist it a bit to make up for unexpected winds. the advantage of flying a heading and then correcting it is that you can fly a/the second more difficult half of your trip with more accuracy.

Well, well, well. I based my assessment of the 1 in 60 rule on the assumption that you would measure how far you had actually flown, not how far you had hypothetically gone down the original track. The video uses the example of the intended track. That version of the 1:60 rule will be accurate up to about 10 degrees off track, as others have said. Bob Tait, in his RA-Aus cross country endorsement seems to switch between methods. Using the original track is easier because you don’t have to measure the hypotenuse. The hypotenuse is the better method for navigation because, for example that is the only method that tells you your ground speed and allows you to determine what the winds actually are - not that I would attempt to do that alone in flight.

Yes. As I was destroying my brain doing the maths. BUT, now that the maths is done, it turns out that you have to think less, not more. The 1 in 60 rule is accurate up to being *really* off course. You don't have to think about it just being a rule of thumb.

My understanding is that you are supposed to use the hypotenuse for the distance that you have flown, not the distance of the original, intended track. So, if you have flown 60 miles and are off course by 40 miles, you are off course by 42 degrees. (If the original distance that you were supposed to fly was 60 miles and you are off track by 40 miles, then you are off track by 33.7 degrees.) As you say, plotting it on a map is just as effective as using maths.

Except if the fuel-return line sends fuel to a different tank to the one that was being used. With non-fuel injected Foxbats, you are supposed to only use one tank at a time because you can end up losing fuel as it is pumped to a tank that is already full.

I got a foxbat. I don’t fit in a Sav.

What amazes me is that if you are off track by 40 degrees, the one in 60 rule is still less than one degree inaccurate. 40 degrees off course is a lot.

The graphic came from an iPhone app called Desmos. It is a cropped screenshot from my iPhone.

As you know, the one in 60 rule is that you are off course one degree for every nautical mile you would BE off course if you had travelled 60 miles. So, for example, if you are off course one MILE after flying 10 miles, you are off course six degrees (6 x 10 = 60). I wondered how accurate the rule is. As far as I can tell, very accurate up until you are 40 degrees off course. Below is what I hope is the graph of the error of the one in sixty rule. The y-axis (up and down axis) is is error. There is no error at zero and thirty degrees. The x-axis is the course. The black line what the one in 60 rule says is how far off course you ARE. The blue line is how far off course you actually are. As you can see, when you are 90 degrees off course, the one in 60 rule says that you are only 60 degrees off course. At about 17 degrees off course, the rule overestimates by about 0.5 degrees. At 40 degrees, it underestimates by only one degree. Amazingly accurate for something that is supposed to be a rule of thumb.

As you know, the one in 60 rule is that you are off course one degree for every nautical mile you would by off course if you had travelled 60 miles. So, for example, if you are off course one mine after flying 10 miles, you are off course six degrees (6 x 10 = 60). I wondered how accurate the rule is. As far as I can tell, very accurate up until you are 40 degrees off course. Below is what I hope is the graph of the error of the one in sixty rule. The y-axis (up and down axis) is is error. There is no error at zero and thirty degrees. The x-axis is the course. The black line what the one in 60 rule says is how far off course you. The blue line is how far off course you actually are. As you can see, when you are 90 degrees off course, the one in 60 rule says that you are only 60 degrees off course. At about 17 degrees off course, the rule overestimates by about 0.5 degrees. At 40 degrees, it underestimates by only one degree. Amazingly accurate for something that is supposed to be a rule of thumb.

So, they sold the old plane months before the new one was due to arrive? And they only had one plane to begin with? Wow. It would be nice if they could borrow a local Vixxen/Foxbat for a while. Maybe you could travel to a different club for a while. I assume that you don't feel like flying GA in Rocky for a while? If you want to fly out of Rockhampton itself, you will need a GA licence?

Well, they are probably glad they didn't bother. They were probably under the impression that chatting was okay...

You sure the stall if 54 kts and the best glide speed is 60 kts. Those numbers seem too close together to me. In the Foxbat, IIRC, they are 42 and 54 respectively. Disclaimer: I have about 50 hrs.

What is IPS? What difference did it make? Scuse my ignorance.

The F.u.n.k.e. if my Foxbat feels beautifully made and has not broken down yet. Thank you for the heads-up about Microair.

I bought a second hand Foxbat about 12 months ago, which has the same manufacturer and distributor. They have provided excellent support, both with getting things and giving me information. For example, they got me a bit of the firewall that cracked (but had not cracked on anyone else's plane apparently), pretty quickly. They sent me a ballistic parachute quickly, even though they are a pain to get from the factory because they contain a rocket. And you pay after your stuff arrives, at least for smallish things. They way I see it, there are so many airplanes to choose from that it is sensible to get a plane with good support, not just a good plane. They have sold hundreds of Foxbats in Australia and quite a few Vixxens, so if you get a Vixxen it won't be an orphan. Peter said online that he sold two Foxbats and two Vixxen at whatever the recent flying event was that had the high winds. I have never heard the slightest suggestion that the Vixxen's claimed slow stall and fast cruise are exaggerated. I have minimal skills as a pilot and, IF I remember correctly, I was flying along in a Foxbat at 22 kt indicated on the Dynon with power but no flaps. The Vixxen is supposed to stall a knot slower than the Foxbat. One thing about the Vixxen, if you want to fit 8.00 X 6 tyres (like on a Foxbat Kelpie) you will be doing something that the factory has not approved and loses you all the speed gains over a Foxbat - at least that was the case a year ago. I am not sure about more normal 6 x 6.00 tyres, which are (in my opinion) probs just as good on rough surfaces so long as they are only four ply.

I just listened to "Why Planes Crash" by David Soucie, on Audible. The book claims to be the true of David Soucie, an FAA investigator who made air travel safer. Mr Soucie has gone on to be an aviation expert repeatedly interviewed by CNN and others.To say the least, the book said a lot of things that I just did not understand. I emailed the publisher (Skyhorse Publishing) and they said that mine was the first such message that they had received and that the book was published in 2011. That is to say, they did not believe me and/or care. So, I thought I would crowd source it. Happy listening.

I like the idea of an airplane with no fabric. I probably would have got one instead of a Foxbat except that I did not fit. The seat is not really lowerable. The flap controls were the least of my problems. I have to console myself with an aluminium airplane with fabric control surfaces, just like a Spitfire or P-51 Mustang. (Actually, the underneath of the wings is fabric, too, on a Foxbat).

Good point. The wing with the higher AoA slows down with adverse yaw. I fly a foxbat, which has both flaperons and adverse yaw.

How do you mean "rudder lead"? Do you mean that to start a turn, you use rudder a moment before you start using aileron?

TBH, if I was the instructor, being kept circling for an hour during my medical emergency would have seemed a bit unfair.