kgwilson

A bloke down the road built a combobulator that would fit that. This is a later development of his earlier thingamebob but with reverse thrust and twin overhead carbuncles.

Very few products are pure aluminium. It is too soft. Most are aluminium alloys with varying degrees of corrosion resistance. As soon as aluminium is created and cools a cost of aluminium oxide forms on the surface creating a barrier to corrosion. Introduction of other corrosive elements such as salt will begin the corrosive process. If you wash un-anodised or unpainted aluminium regularly it will last for a very long time. After WW2 most pots & pans were made from scrapped aluminium from aircraft. They didn't corrode though some got pitting due to introduced corrosive elements. Most got scrapped again when stainless steel came in to vogue. The grade I built my aircraft is called 6061-T6. It has magnesium, silicon, copper, & chromium, in it & the T6 is the tempering number. It has high corrosion resistance excellent welding capacity & high strength which is why it is great for aircraft. Back in the 70s I built my hang glider out of the same spec & other than new carbon fibre stuff that is what they are still made from.

HV transmission lines are usually aluminium. Copper is just too heavy and expensive. I have aluminium jumper cables, about 40 years old & have lived at the back of my workshop without any cover for that time except while being used and still work as good as when i got them.

What a fantastic effort. The only down side is that it won't have that famous Merlin V12 sound.

4 pages of debate on aero or land internal combustion engines is interesting except they are all crap compared to the reliability and simplicity of an electric motor. One major moving part that doesn't touch anything other than the bearings at each end. EVs have proven their superiority once on board energy storage became a viable option. The latest can be charged in 5 minutes to provide over 500km of range. Aviation batteries now exist providing over 450 Wh/Kg where most EVs have batteries between 160 & 200 Wh/Kg. They will be mainstream in a few years though not cheap.

When i began flying recreational aircraft after many years of GA singles, I couldn't land them well either. Bouncing was common so there were plenty of go-arounds. My thoughts are that 1. There is much less inertia with a Jabiru or any recreation aircraft than with a C172, PA28 etc so airspeed will bleed much quicker leading to rapid altitude loss even in ground effect. 2. Fly the aircraft all the way to the ground. This takes practice, Flare at only a few feet from the runway. With the high wing ground effect is less noticeable that in my low wing Sierra. Don't try to recover from a bounce until you are much more proficient. Always go around. YouCanAlwaysGoAround11.mp4

An engine failure or significant power loss at only 30-50 feet in the air and nowhere but tree stumps and scrub ahead of you to land in gives you no time at all to make any decisions other than to flare as best you can & fly as far in to the crash as possible. Low wing, high wing, bubble canopy, isn't going to make much difference at all. In theory if you can see 2 tree stumps the fuselage may fit between that would be the best option to absorb energy with both wings being ripped off. The problem is lack of altitude and time to make decisions. A planned long distance flight means a lot of fuel is on board along with 2 occupants plus any baggage so the all up weight is substantial. Luck or the lack of it plays the biggest part. If there had been no fuel leak and no fire the occupants may well have survived and possibly without significant injuries. However this was not the case. The ATSB investigation should get to the bottom of all the issues given the speed at which assistance arrived plus witness and video evidence of the incident.

According to the ABC report a Flight Plan was lodged to "a small town outside of Tamworth". Possibly an EFATO. Terrible tragedy. Condolences to the occupants family and friends.

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.