kgwilson

That should be standard practice. If there is a carb heat device fitted, it is there for a reason and that is to help avoid carburetor icing. By just dismissing it as not necessary is poor judgement and passing this on to students is poor management. Carburetor icing can occur at ambient temperatures up to 35 degrees under the right conditions.

When I was a student over 40 years ago there were heaps of touch & goes with full 40 deg down to none & in a 172 the controls are quite heavy compared to many other training aircraft like a 150 or 152 & pretty much all recreational aircraft. The method drummed in to me was always carb heat cold, full power, yoke forward to counteract pitch while the electric flaps retracted & airspeed built up. There is quite a bit of pressure required to keep the nose angle down for speed to build while the flaps retract. Every now & then my instructor would yell something like "sheep on the runway go round" when on short/late final & the method was always the same. Like most students I got it wrong in the early stages sometimes forgetting the carb heat off on short final & retracting flaps before full power. What happened here seems obvious to me but I have no knowledge of the training methods, the instructors assessment of the students readiness, the students attitude, understanding, ability to react to change, etc.

A bit blurry but the rounded wing tips look like a cub though the tail after the fire is Cessna.

I assume he had flaps deployed when landing. If full that would be 40 degrees. If it was a T&G it should have been full power, yoke forward to keep the nose down, raise flaps & as speed builds, bring the yoke back to climb pitch. Simple enough but with other things like turbulence and the fact that this was an inexperienced pilot things get mixed up or forgotten & then the excretia hits the fan

I went for a Gyro flight a year or 2 back. It was a tandem seat open cockpit modern one (Don't know make or model) with a Rotax 912. Not sure of the model but it looked like the ULS one. Flying up the Clarence River and through the gorge plus some very narrow ravines etc was quite exhilarating & felt quite safe as you can put one down virtually anywhere. Not so with takeoff though. What I didn't like was the shuddering and shaking when in many different manoeuvres. It felt like it was going to shake itself to bits. Didn't worry the pilot though.

Better to deal with the problem head on and suffer any consequences than do a Boeing & not tell anyone.

Many EVs use heat pumps. Mine does. Some call them reverse cycle air conditioners. They are greater than 100% efficient. An internal combustion engine is about 30% efficient. Most of the energy from the fuel is converted to heat. Use that heat as best you can & an exhaust shroud is by far the most simple and effective way to do it.

An electric resistive heater is very power hungry although 100% efficient. A standard 1 bar household heater consumes 1 kilowatt of electricity at 230 volts or just over 4.4 amps. At 12 volts that would be over 80 amps. You would need 20 amps minimum and that wouldn't be that effective with OAT below zero. A simple exhaust shroud is the most effective IMO. The Jabiru one fits around the straight exhaust pipe and not the muffler which is similar to T88s RV on one exhaust pipe and much reduced risk of CO poisoning.

The video shows what appears to be the wing and a small piece of the fuselage with another piece separated from it & smoke coming from both wing tips. It doesn't look real or anything like a C130 to me. There are other reports showing the burnt out remains & Al Jazeera also shows the large ball of smoke presumably just after the fireball when the aircraft hit the ground. https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360883218/turkish-military-plane-20-board-crashes-georgia

I'll fly her in and Europa on touchdown.

Wouldn't bother a Kiwi Ag pilot. Obviously a one way landing personal strip & the concrete is really only needed for reducing rolling drag for takeoff especially is the grass was wet & soft.

This is the beginning of the end for aerial crop spraying and top dressing by manned aircraft & the main reasons are cost and accuracy. My neighbour in NZ had an airstrip on his farm where the Crescoes had to takeoff & land on a hill under some 22kVA power lines. I went up with the pilot once and was blown away by his skills. I'd sit on my veranda and watch him dropping load after load of super phosphate. Each trip was only about 3 minutes. It is a shame that we will see the end of this but technology & electrification will see its demise.

Just like the Mini in 1959. Engine gearbox & diff lubricant was shared.

No it was designed and built by North American Aviation to the original specification provided by the RAF to the British Purchasing Commission. The commission was established in November 1939 to co-ordinate the purchase of war supplies in the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Purchasing_Commission

It's been called "The engine that won WW2" which is rubbish of course but it does say a lot about the fact that it was used in many different aircraft and other vehicles and had a legendary service life. The Mustang which was originally built to a British RAF specification performed poorly with its original Allison engine, but once powered by the RR Merlin became legendary itself. It began producing around 1000 HP & was steadily improved during the war outputting 2000 HP by the end of the war.