Litespeed

I am not offended at all but you seem to be. A stormsail is not something you set and forget, it can be had in many sizes and be reefed as needed. My advocacy was always to get away from the storm and follow good practice of the ages. The photos and comments of others are a fair judge of my level of understanding, stupidity or nonsense. I am surprised if you took the time to read my long post, that you still appear to misunderstand my words. And my name is not champ- it is Litespeed or Phil.

Mmmmmmm- If you had actually read my posts and those I later did, then you sure have a strange interpretation. I said the best option when given a long notice of several days, in this case it was quite a big amount of notice. Was get the hell out of dodge can be the best bet on a quality sailboat. I never said go splash about heading into a CAT 4 or any other such nonsense. Not everyone has the luxury of just damning the boat to almost certain destruction, insurance will rarely cover the full losses and for some it is also their home and/or livelyhood and they have their entire lifes savings invested in it. And insurance can deem you carelessly left it to the storm and not pay a cent- it has happened. Leaving to head to a better safe harbour that is far more protected/lower tidal variation/ or a substantial distance inland if a river system is available is a NO Brainer. However unless you are lucky- mangroves will not be bugger all help with any substantial tidal zone and the risk of a large storm surge- many a boat has found itself picked up and perched high and dry after the event and damaged or destroyed. Or stuck fast in the mangroves far from the anchor point and virtually a total loss-because to remove it would cause huge damage to the mangroves- which has happened a lot. The same enhanced safety can be had by heading in the opposite direction of the cyclones track Ie in this case it was go North or head South Easterly with all available speed. Any yacht with adequate power often a mere 20-36hp can do a easy 6knots and a great deal more with sails 24hrs a day and can cover a great distance in the 5-7 days it was obvious what was coming to the general area. That is 720 nautical miles in 5 days or 1008 nautical miles in the week preceding landfall. Under sail with the weather of the last week or so a better estimate with sail can be a easy 1600 nautical miles in 7 days. Once you are away from the expected landfall of the cyclone you can chose to ride it out or go to a more sheltered anchorage. Ships and sailboats have done this for thousands of years and a well designed and sailed sailboat can take the punishment the sea can through at it far more than it can survive been driven onto the rocks. Bar none been driven onto the rocks/shore etc has always been the greatest killer of the seas and storms. If getting easily away from the cyclone track by 720- 1600 nautical miles at least from the main danger is your idea of stupidity then maybe flying is not for you or sailing. That is a very long way from the main thrust of the cyclones power and even down the coast that far it its merely a big storm- just ride it out in the safety of your yacht. How "stupid" do you think the people who just left their boats to fend for themselves feel? Or the unlucky plane owners who figured the tie downs would work rather than fly it a far safer spot far inland? The news is full of pictures of boats and some planes destroyed all by "smart" owners. Bet they are feeling real smug about now. Probably about as smug as those that chose to leave their caravans rather than drive it inland for protection. Ever seen what a cyclone does to a caravan? But what would I know I am "stupid" as must many a salty sailor over thousands of years. So "stupid" that it is a complete dereliction of duty and court martial capital crime in navies around the world not to head for safer waters or a more sheltered bay far away. Bet the "smart" ones felt real smug when hung for the offence in colonial days- assuming they lived after trashing the ship and its crew. I am happy to stay "stupid". It is not like yachts have never been at sea and encountered a cyclone/storm tsunami - happens all the time and well sailed and safe design rarely make it deadly encounter. Some may even be shocked to learn the advice for boats when a tsunami is possible- head to sea will all speed. It is literally the only safe place to be- any ship/boat at anchor near shore will next be inland a far way.

Yes agreed, that is why boaties should get the hell away from Dodge as soon as the bureau confirms it is coming- in this case it has been noted with many days to sail away and head North or south east with all speed. A slow yacht will do 140 nm a day under power, a lot more under sail. That really adds up quickly with many days of notice.

Some would say its is crazy at sea- Yes it is like been stuck inside a washing machine. But I would rather be out there then in a mangrove with a 8-10m surge- most would be ripped clean of the anchor points and may end up, who knows where. A quality yacht can batten down , set small storm sails and ride it out. Been done that way for centuries. Naturally it would be best to head away from the area well before the storm approaches. Each to their own- stay safe and yes boats an planes can be replaced.

Good luck guys, I hope those that can have flown the coop to safety- anywhere two hundred miles west or more sounds a better idea than battening down and hoping. I also hope all the guys with boats-sailing have gone to sea for safety- nothing more dangerous than a boat at anchor in a cyclone. Best to head out to deep water and ride it out- far safer than in port. Good luck guys and keep your head down.

That sure is lust

Bicarb soda blasting is the answer. Gentle and just washes away. Safe and alloy friendly

Multiplex Germany is still going strong and with the money of Hitec. But they are a very premium product make a JR seem little a paupers option. Want 16 channels ? Check Want great ergonomics? Check Massive range? Check 1200 euros just the radio. Ouch

deleted...off topic have some respect guys...(mod)

Nah- That Tel Aviv mod sold theirs with rocket launchers

That is a beautiful example- Great red. Another of Scottys little angels

I knew it had to be from a different millennium.

I would expect it would if sealed and bonded correctly- and using the correct glues in manufacture. It should not be a issue unless it is a very highly loaded part and under a lot of high load cycles.

I think he has chosen this because it alloys a much larger gluing surface which is not just on a single side- a fair trade as bonding is the important thing. And also as I said above, he has kept to the design he has developed in many other aircraft- simple to jig up, align and rivet/bond. Everything needed is made, just needs core sealing with light epoxy and flox for bonds. I think James is onto a winner

I understand were James is design wise- he is trying to do the strongest and lightest at a budget, so compromises are made. I am sure he has considered a normal spar but came back to just a newer development of his existing wing designs. Tube spars are fine for this weight and do not rely on any construction from the builder, a bunch of rivets and epoxy is all that is needed. Strength wise I would be pretty confident in the abilities of the Alloy honeycomb- the stuff is amazingly strong and light. I do not know what skins he is going with for the outside but the ones he mentioned where for the honeycomb itself. And would be very resistant to damage. It may be a slightly heavier skin would be good outside for toughness- hate oilcanning. Its abilities are similar to honeycomb carbon sandwich just a hell of a lot cheaper, a sheet of 8' x 4' is $50 locally for construction grade. Aifrcraft grade skins would be more but would have to check its specs- their may not be a big difference as they are both a high end app for alloy. They can also be done locally in any specs required in Brisbane, any facings wanted. And in the stuff can be made into 2 d curves and then made. It is also possible to do things like a elevator shape- the core is shaped first by cnc into a airfoil and then the skins attached. But that is getting into a more expensive end of things. Remember a lot of really fast aircraft and racing cars- like F1 used this stuff with great success, and it is still used in some.

That is a great shame, they have always been high end gear. They were not able to compete with the internet sales model against the chinese when most of the JR sales were through the model shops which most have disappeared. The cost was too high but the quality was worth it. I have them in large scale aircraft and a ballistic 1/5 scale Baja and love them. But I must admit to a real affection for my ancient Multiplex gear, great servos and radios for the crystal set. My aerial is about 6ft long range is far further then eyesight. At least JR are doing UAV, so all is not lost.

You sir get a Gold star. That is exactly what a four seater is really for, the rear seats are for the little ones not big burly blokes. A well setup J430 would be a excellent touring aircraft for the wide brown land and should be able to go almost any place a 172 could. And lets face it a usable ancient 172 versus a new or low hour J430 for the same price? Not a question which I would take.

If it means the J430, the AAK Hornet etc can go to 750kg then I am all for it. That extra 50kg can make a big difference.

The figures I used are a bit rubbery and depends on the source and how/where the J430 is registered and at what weight. But the basic point is the same the 172 can be replaced by a J430 in many cases and will be a far more efficient machine and chew far less dollars to own and service. Addittionally the 172 will come down much harder in any hard landing/crash due to a much higher weight. The crash of a J430 is a relatively low energy event and far more suvivable and in a extremely strong airframe. With the exception of a bit more weight carrying, the only main advantage of a 172 is a better penetration in crap weather. Oh and if anything ever goes wrong in the cessna-the reporter might get the name correct.

I reckon about 1269 should do it. A lot of earlier posts were experimental and it is maturing well.

Alan- it is a rare aircraft with 4 seats that can take four fat buggers and be full of fuel. That is really reserved for a 6 seater plane, most aircraft including the 172 will be limited in that way- if you can get it full of fat buggers, full fuel and not be overweight I would be extremely surprised. And performance would really suck.. According to wiki- could be wrong, the J430 has a 370 kg payload including fuel. cruise is 120knts approx at 25lts/hr . Substantially less than a 172 fuel burn. The 172 can only take 30kg more max total and a lot more of its payload will be fuel to go the same distance.

For the cost of a 172 you could get a good used J430 Jabiru and have room for 4, great range, and far far cheaper to run. The service costs would be a fraction, as would the annual. A alternative if you must stick with GA.

Great to hear, I hope the fire foam -which looked unnecessary did not do too much damage. For absolute thrills on a big toy budget A L39 must be a lot of fun

I am lucky at 172 cm and normally 73kg dripping wet, so I get to enjoy the benefits of a healthy weight and size. I admit to trying all means possible to sabotage my weight and it has been fun trying. I agree the BMI is just stupid, I am at the high margins and skinny by most standards My son has just turned 21 and is skinny with wide shoulders, size 15 feet and 6''4 ish and still seems to grow. His career as a jockey- horse or jet is looking in doubt. When he fills out, which he will, many a aircraft is out of the question. I have recommended he seek a diminutive partner for flying and bike riding- say 50 kgs max. Just like in race cars or fast bikes, every kilo counts and needs more power to move. Our little aircraft really benefit from a diet from the pilot for many of us. Every kilo lost is performance gained and it costs nothing, a 10 or 20kg drop in pilot weight is hard to replicate and often very expensive for a airframe. Depending on the aircraft every kilo costs a lot more to save than the last one. I know with a fast bike every extra hp over the stock can cost $300/hp in general- real power not bull. Any bloke or blokette at 120kgs is working everything real hard to keep up with a 75kg rider cruising and might need 15-30 more hp just to match. That costs bucks and dynamically still behind the curve. Losing weight can make huge performance change for the laaaaaarger amongst us, especially in the really light airframes. "Mark Webber is a huge driver at Webber is 183 centimetres (six feet) tall, yet he tips the scales at just 75 kilograms. But he is still nine kilograms heavier than his diminutive four-time world champion Red Bull Racing teammate Sebastian Vettel and has to carry the extra weight higher in the car.Nov 24, 2013". It cost him O.3 seconds a lap just by been bigger- It might be said had he been a jockey weight he would have won 4 championships. Weight matters. You wouldn't carry a bag of lead around in your aircraft, why carry it on your body if you can get rid of it. I know for some it is not a simple thing- but it is really worth doing- if just for the flying

Alclad is awesome-it is the reason a beautiful polished aircraft can exist. It does not easily corrode and keeps its surface finish protected with a micro layer of Aluminium oxide. It can be polished beautifully and keeps its shine. Don't polish too hard though or you go through the pure metal on top. When I finally build if the design is alloy- it will be skinned with the modern version and polished. Much lower cost than painting, weighs nothing. The ultimate finish, polished au naturale. Naturally it is a hanger job, not left to bird bomber runs acid etching the finish.