turboplanner

Poor old Facthunter, one day labelled as a red ragger, and now he can't even have a joke.

Arguing about nothing = arguing about a zero

....quoit........

.............you do look a bit like Royalty (Turbo was in a sucking up phase)

Madge preened himself in delight and said (and please don't repeat this) "Would you call me Madgesty Turbo, please, please"

And Turbo called him Madgesty

From then he sat on the throne each morning, and of course named his airfield "Heathrow" which for once nearly squeezed a laugh out of the poms.

The history of the airfield is interesting; it started out as an old cane cutters walking track between the mess tent and Sh$tters Ditch

It got plenty of use, because Franco Fairy was the cook, and his mediteranian specialties cooked in six kerosene tins were hard on stomachs used to steak and eggs three times a day.

Some wag said the tent had been placed at the top of the hill to give the cutters a good downhill speed when they knew Franco was coming.

It was wide too because often eight guys took off at once and were all of equal fitness.

So when they built Heathrow the runway required virtually no grading and was wide enough to take a DC3

On particular morning Madge was walking around the wrong side of Townsville, where the five dollar Hookers parade, dressed in his Town Crier suit which Harry the Hirer had hired out as a Governor General uniform, and he was frustrated. He was looking for someone to Knight, but...........

The clock is ticking on that one, and we are waaay past the law of averages

Probably right Steve; also if someone has flown their training off on bitumen, and ignored the performance and operations theory they may not be aware of the vast difference in sand, and that's assuming the fuel transfer was successful and didn't leave an air lock for just the wrong part of the flight.

We've been discussing some of those issues in a road safety group Andy, ans I'd love the statistics to be analysed today to see if we could get some figures on just what the ADR's mean in saving Australian lives. I think it will be providing quite a large underpinning of the good results, but we don't know how much of the population who drinks and drives has been captured, and we don't have behavioural figures and we also don't have the figures relating to the billions of dollars spent on road design over the last four decades.

To give you an idea of road design in that periods, in the beginning we had to make around 50 changes to cab joints and reinforcements to get a US truck cab to live out a full life in Australia. Today we can put them straight into service in US specification - a significant saving for Australians.

A lot of RAA-class aircraft are required to carry a permanent and prominent reminder of the emphasis on reducing liability, in the form of the placard that stares one in the face saying:WARNING

 

PERSONS FLY IN THIS AIRCRAFT AT THEIR OWN RISK

 

THIS AIRCRAFT IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FLIGHT

 

CASA DOES NOT SET AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS FOR EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.

 

While this is informative - it provides a warning to any occupant who may not be aware of the standards under which the aircraft operates and thereby make an 'informed' decision about flying in that aircraft, it is per se NOT in any way effective in improving the actual safety of the aircraft concerned. It may be useful in reducing the incidence of injury or worse to 'innocent bystanders' but it has precisely zero effect on the aerodynamic, structural, equipment reliability or maintenance standard of the aircraft.

 

If you are required to have this placard displayed, failure to do so incurs the same penalty as failure to maintain the aircraft properly.

 

If that doesn't tell you where CASA's priorities lie, I can't think of a better example.

It is there for financial protection reasons.

I've posted my own experience with this previously so I'll just keep it abbreviated.

1. One of our speedway clubs organised a "family night", a spectator was injured, and successfully sued us on the grounds that he wasn't told a family night could be dangerous for his child. We immediately recommended Motor Racing disclaimers at all 105 racetracks around the Country.

2. Sometime later a person was injured, and didn't claim because of the disclaimer clause on the programme. A relative or friend got Four Corners involved a couple of years later, and we had to pay out because we had not advised the injured person that he had the right to sue if we were negligent. The last time I checked the programmes then spelled this out.

So the RAA plaque is currently the rough equivalent of stage 1, and warns someone they are not necessarily going to get airline safety, so it gives them an option of walking away.

In general terms this is likely to reduce the payout by CASA, RAA, the Pilot, the owner of the aircraft, and the owner of the land in a public liability case, but probably not by a lot.

There is a case in NSW which runs contrary to this, but this would have an effect only in NSW if it ever reaches full maturity.

Right at the start of this thread, that's exactly what was being asked. The nub of the problem is that neither the Pollies nor the CASA management recognise that what aviation in this country needs, is the recognition that the functions set out in S9 of the Civil Aviation Act,

We are talking along similar lines, I'm in favour of dismantling CASA and ATSB and reconstituting a Department of Civil Aviation with its own Minister separate from the cars, motor bikes, trucks, ships, shopping centres and councils.

Unless you do that you can't get on top of misuse of separate powers usually in the name of "safety"

Your idea of splitting up CASA isi problematical - you can see what has happened when ATSB got angry enough to start trying to pull CASA in line - they don't have the powers, and now many people simply see ATSB and CASA "at each others throats" as if they were equally guilty.

I've previously given the Victorian TRB example as a precedent, and this has worked well, eliminating two multi-story towers of coffee drinkers to be offloaded from our tax burden with no loss of safety, in fact a big improvement (lowest road toll in 90 years).

A by-product of directly working to an Act, directly under the control of a Department is that any bright ideas for change have to go out to the public for consultation, come back to the department direct, rather than in sanitised form, and have to go through both Houses of Parliament in open debate, and that's a great safety valve.

I agree with Oscar's recommendation that if you have a sound idea you should make contact directly with the Minister because although at Federal level you may get an indirect reply, the Minister will see it.

Notwithstanding the postage sized picture painted of Ministerial Advisers, it's well worth taking them seriously, and if they engage in discussion, providing hard evidence for them to work with rather than just a whine about what the world is coming to - they get that every day in the newspapers.

I would prefer to have a face to face discussion with a Minister every day, but with time I have become wiser, and leant that one of the roles of the Ministerial Advisor is that he/she can say what the Minister thinks and wants without some prick walking out of the Minister's office and going to the newspapers with a private conversation. So you can put your cards on the table with a Ministerial Adviser much more comprehensively, and discuss what ifs, and "if we did this, how would you feels" without exposing the Minister.

A great story all round, amend the plan slightly to experience something new, handle bitumen OK (it does grab the wheels more than grass or gravel), and then find you technically made a forced landing before the boom, and country where it may not have worked out so well.

Someone sure was watching over you.

I hadn't noticed anyone asking for de-regulation - they'd be nuts if they did.

A parallel to some of the deregulation we are stuck with today is another branch of the same Department - the road transport industry where negative aspects of the deregulation which occurred were not fixed by going back to prescriptive regulation, but by making additional laws and penalties which are confusing most of the participants, so you have maybe 40% of new trucks going into the market in an illegal condition primed to provide a perfect case is something goes wrong.

........................... bring on 2 yearly rego (twice as much fun and half as much bother .................. should be even < than twice as much cost)

".......the special endless rods for welding Ratext exhausts" he said with a straight face, but

...red stripes, and a Union Jack, and Christopher Robin's teddy bear, and hung a monocle from the magneto switches which he'd obtained from an antique shop, and......

This is getting interesting; weren't CASA supervising last year?

.....asked that the optional fragrant happiness fox gut sausages be fitted on top of........

Right on all counts Chocolate.

The quaint, inappropriate and extremely confusing and frustrating language would never get past the drafting people if there was a Department of Civil Aviation rather than this body which can make up its own rules and is only as good as its Minister who these days has to manage road, rail and shipping transport as well, and in these three modes freight, passenger and service, bringing in buses and coaches which are just as complicated as aircraft in administration.

That's an unworkable workload for a Minister, but wait there's more:

He also has Infrastructure, and that opens up an equally big can of worms, and many would say, a more important role.

And we're still not there:

He is also responsible for Regional Development which has him administering Australia's 565 local governing bodies, our local councils.

So is it any surprise that this Minister, regardless of Party will never be able to speak with any detailed authority, achieve any forward motion, or control the czars doing their own individual thing.

And not only that, but use "rights" and "freedoms" as an excuse to take the risk.

can of "Startyabastard", and a..................

.................fluttered on the wind down to the Antarctic and assisted in the rescue of scientists tourists and bs artists caught when an icebreaker ship wasn't able to break the ice, and couldn't be rescued because another ice breaker couldn't break ice, so was used as a glider (they had to wait for a wind change each end to offload them out onto the deck of a tanker).

Without the boat anchor of a Ratex they were able to carry eight people per trip in the now much lighterwing each trip. It had been flown by one of the passengers, who tort himself to fly, because anyone can fly a lightwing, even madgesty's dog. Admittedly the dog tend to do a lot of circles in the circuit due to scratching himself.

However, having arrived at Turbo's place without an engine, Turbo looked around and found a spare 15 litre twin turbo Cat engine.

"The through bolts are 50 mm diameter, and it will be lighter than the Ratex, and should perform better than a Caron Cub" Turbo told the assembled journalists. "Of course it's only in the concept stage right now, so we do expect a few minor teething issues" he continued and then...............

"....sivin" said bull who was catching on fast.

A quizzical look came over the ranga's face and she said "....."

.....looks from the gold toothed pilot, his sidekick Skinnylegs, and little Madge."

"That's three people in a Jab" said bull who was one of the three Queenslanders who can count.

"We counted Madge as luggage" said Ratso, "and he's been a @#&* about it all the way over"

"But how did you manage such a long trip with it?" asked bull

"Brought it over on a ship" said Ratso "Madge is just in there touching...er chatting up the Budget chick to see if we can get a trailer to tow it around New Zealand"

"Why would you want to tow it around such small islands?" asked bull, who was widely read.

"Have you ever flown on one?" asked Ratso

An understanding smile came over bull's face..............

......icy poles.

Turbo respectfully advises the Rat that HIS wickiwockiwoowoo might be put through a wringer (now there's a term we don't see much of today), if he does not relate the story to:

(a) How good Julia Gillard was

(b) How bad Tony Abbott is

© How George Bush is out there causing major destruction by storms, earthquakes and Tsunamis (produced by CIA secret weapons) when he is not out there murdering children or keeping wages low.

Also, aviation references have fallen off to the point where any time there could be a post from Planey.

So to return the thread to decorum we take up the story on the South Island of New Zealand near the town of Ykickamudspat. (avref)

Surrill was slowly strolling near the cillery in the vigitable garden with the love of his life, Selly.

"I hope you're not to chully" he said and Sally resonded "Baaaaa..................................."

Till you use the choke the enlarged choke jet will not affect it.Just a comment on air leaks in the manifold. These will be more noticed at almost closed throttle and idle as this is when airflow is lowest and manifold pressure lowest.

AT WOT there is the least difference between ambient and Manifold pressure so the leak will be less because of the lack of pressure diff and also because of the higher overall flow of air through the carburetter. Nev

I agree with FH above at full throttle the engine will suck just about anything in up to the size of small sparrows.

My definition of a surge is a rapid increase in engine rpm.

There can be an increase in rpm due to rapid leaning - as you see if you turn the tap off on a lawn mower just before it stops; but that is associated with an almost simultaneous loss of rpm and power, since there is less fuel to make power.

An intermittant surge can also occur when there is a sudden increase in mixture supply caused mechanically, perhaps by a linkage hang up, and also by restricted lines or blocked air vents which release a gulp of full fuel every now and again.

I'm not saying you aren't on the right trail, just worthwhile checking these things as well.

A country town I know well has lots of aged farmers and lots of young men on the dole. There is not enough money in sheep to pay the minimum wage and anyway the cost of Occupational Health and Safety regulation compliance adds a lot to the cost of the already too-expensive employee. So the poor old 70-year old farmers struggle on without help and the young men vegetate on the dole. The minimum wage is about 3 sheep a day.This is how it works when there is too much regulation and too much "welfare".

I can recommend the book "Kidman, the forgotten king" by Jill Bowen

When sheep farmers were going broke, Sid Kidman bought their land, laid off the 20 or 30 employees and kep the two or three best, rolled up the fence wire and carted it to Adelaide to sell for scrap metal, and ran cattle.

He became one of the world's top five land holders, and at his 70th birthday celebrations in Adelaide almost half the City came to the party.

The people in the town you know are no different to the few in the Cities still trying to run video shops and photo stores - if there's no market there's no point.

Having said that, there is good money in Prime Lambs but you have to farm very scientifically. In the last week I was stunned to see British stud rams selling for more than $3000.00, so clearly there are viable niches there.

Multiple year budgeting was around in the 19th Century; you're always going to get dry/wet/insect plague, so if you don't allow for it you pay big time.

Being successful at farming starts with not being undercapitalised.

Then you have to be a clever marketer.

Like all markets and industries, a substantial number fail because they didn't have an edge, not necessarily because they didn't work hard.