Ian

I'm not really sure what you mean by this? They fly at about 30m max along set corridors and it's not a particular busy piece of airspace. Even if two of them crashed above you and the debris rained down on you it would be in the same order of magnitude as a magpie attack unless they were carry hot food ;-).

Yes however as costs change sometimes business models do as well. Fuel is between 22-35% of an airlines operating costs. It's not a small part of their costs, if there was a requirement to be carbon neutral it would make this an even larger factor. https://gprivate.com/6ccs0

Possibly the Klöckner-Humboldt-Deutz DZ 710 In wikipedia it has a claimed SFC of 201 g/kWh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-specific_fuel_consumption However another source puts it as equivalent to the Napier. https://oldmachinepress.com/2013/08/17/klockner-humboldt-deutz-khd-dz-700-dz-710-and-dz-720/ It's taken a long time for turbine engines to approach the efficiency of diesel engines, if the commercial aircraft industry is forced to pay to capture it's CO2 emissions higher efficiency engines might find a niche. However "adding lightness" was always the hardest design step.

The double sleeve was actually an earlier development and used on some European cars. If you look closely you can examine the pictures of the cutaways on the wiki page and see that it's a single sleeve. The design of the dual sleeve was very different at a fundamental level so I'm not sure how you'd go from one to the other. It doesn't really make sense to change the design from a single to a dual sleve especially given the fact the single sleeve was a later development. Not sure about the failure rates, however they were a complex engines compared to poppet valve.

I think that the Bristol and all of there aircraft engines were a single sleeve arrangement. From the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Hercules#Design_and_development "The rationale behind the single sleeve valve design was two-fold" Some earlier British cars used a dual sleeve arrangement and there was a patent fight at some point from memory. The lower noise might relate more to the rate of the valve opening as it would be sinusoidal openings to a cross section rather than rapid release of a poppet. I'm not sure if I've even seen one in practice. The oil drag at low temperatures is an interesting point. I wonder whether modern oil chemistry solved this to any extent. Another engine design that is mind boggling is the Deltic which was derived from the aircraft engine the Junkers Jumo 204 which even today remains more efficient than even modern Lycoming diesels. The deltic was both light and powerful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Deltic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_204 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-specific_fuel_consumption

The drones were available at one point in the ACT on the southside. Old nudist wacko's killed the program off because apparently they were flying overhead and spying on them. They actually sound much lounder in this video than they actually are, listen for the alarm calls of the local magpies, they were about 50m away They were brilliant for fast deliveries of small items, coffee, lunches, stuff from a chemist and bunnings when you needed a packet of screws etc. I could buy things online and have them dropped on my front lawn within 5 minutes. They travelled significantly faster than 100km/h, and reduce traffic on the local streets. The process for registering was download and app, identify a spot to deliver and do a 360 spin with the camera. Once it was approved, bingo. Not sure of the payload however it did manager to deliver lunch for 4 people with drinks at one point. I originally though it was a bit stupid and my son downloaded the app and did the registration. But once we used it a few times I completely changed my mind. It was just so dam quick. My favourite delivery was when my entire family was ill and we'd run out of panadol and ibuprofen. It was literally there 3m later. Apologies for the camera work 😉

The gears are for supporting the sleave valve engine design rather than the current poppet valve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Hercules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeve_valve They have better volumetic efficiency and because you can have better combustion area design and no hot valve you can run them at higher compression rations on the same octane rating. The main drawbacks were the complex drive mechanisms, cooling the junk head and the tolerances required between the sleve and cylinder block. Modern machining techniques solved the latter and I've always thought that modern electronics and active cooling could solve the former points pretty simply. Does anyone a few million to waste on developing a new IC engine? They're quiet because the valves motion is radial not slamming shut and opening like poppets.

I might be a bit naive, however I'm not sure on how the seller would separate the leases from the sale of the property unless you go through a number of awkward processes especially give n the various rights of way required.

Here's a metric to pounds goof. Flying 14 tons overweight. https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/4510.pdf Also summary of annex 5 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. So metric is coming 😉 #### Many attempts to improve the level of standardization were made in the following years and a number of amendments to Annex 5 were introduced. By 1961 the number of tables of units in the Annex had been reduced to two, which remained until Amendment 13 was adopted in March 1979. Amendment 13 extended considerably the scope of ICAO's role in standardizing units of measurements to cover all aspects of air and ground operations and not just air-ground communications. It also introduced the International System of Units, known as SI from the "Système International d’Unités", as the basic standardized system to be used in civil aviation. In addition to the SI units the amendment recognized a number of non-SI units which may be used permanently in conjunction with SI units in aviation. These include the litre, the degree Celsius, the degree for measuring plane angle, etc. The amendment also recognized, as do the relevant ICAO Assembly Resolutions, that there are some non-SI units which have a special place in aviation and which will have to be retained, at least temporarily. These are the nautical mile and the knot, as well as the foot when it is used in the measurement of altitude, elevation or height only. Some practical problems arise in the termination of the use of these units and it has not yet been possible to fix a termination date. ####

I think that you probably mean KWh per kilo. Breakthroughs are required, sometimes they come, sometimes they don't. Fuel cells and fusion have been waiting for a breakthrough for almost 100 years and it hasn't come.

But kgs to kgs it easier, just multiply by 1

Firstly let me be clear, I'd love electric planes being a reality, however I don't have high hopes, and I hope I'm wrong. It breaks down to 3 factors Range, weight and recharge time. As a private pilot I could cope with a long recharge time however commercial vehicles don't have this luxury. A breakthrough in low cost batteries is essential to make flying EVs a possibility, and it remains a toy technology. The only cost effective technology I can see is to use aluminium air batteries to provide an energy density near that of liquid fuels. However they're not reachargable. The fuel cycle would be a bit of a logistics nightmare and to complete the cycle would require a lot more aluminium smelters which require 24x7 power not intermittent solar/wind. Hydrogen is unlikely, it's difficult, dangerous and expensive. Most planes want to burn it in a turbine. If it's cryogenic you won't ever leave any in the tank and less frequently used airports would need to be closed. Look at the picture in the following link. Most of the passenger section is now devoted to fuel, directly behind the passengers. Doesn't look particularly safe. https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-05-innovative-aviation-liquid-hydrogen-project-launched

Hi All, I'd like to understand how many people in and around the Canberra region would use a facilities in Canberra Airport, Williamsdale or other site if hangars were available at low cost? Or would people prefer to travel further afield to fly. Also does anyone know anything about this https://maps.app.goo.gl/9PkhZNeSs1H5Bq5h7

Does anyone know the current status and any mechanisms for ensuring that it stays within the usage required by the original deed? Did the current owner buy the property on the basis that the rights associated with the covenant would be extinguished at some point. Is there a risk to those who currently hangar their planes at Goulburn that they might be evicted at some point.

Back to the topic at hand. Not everyone is as perfect as they might want to be in assessing their ability to assess risk and mistakes will continue to be made across the aviation industry. So we can assume that despite the best possible advice people will continue to fly into IFR conditions. I was told a story by a pilot who was far more experienced that me who flew into a situation of low cloud and icing weather. He was a qualified IFR pilot however familiarity with the route made him make a couple of dumb decisions. Does anyone know of a resource which points out the pros and cons of the 180 back out of the cloud or straight and level increasing altitude. VFR flight above the cloud also poses risks in this area as it's often easier to see breaks in the cloud to climb through rather than finding holes to descend through. It's always nice to see your destination cloud free when choosing this route.

I've had to deal with far too many types of legacy units during my working life. Chains, links, yards, feets, inches, decimal inches, knots, furlongs, miles, gallons, pounds, quarts, pints, stones, ounces, troy ounces, cooling tons and while there is a bit of a sting initially everyone breaths a sign of relief when SI units are in common use. Aviation and the associated industry has just been a bit of a retard with respect to this. Everyone knows that a single system used on a universal basis would produce fewer errors and reduce human factors. Instead we persist with system that no-one uses in their education or in industry. I know that lots of people will make light of this however every time we fill planes we need to deal with converting quantities which are no longer acceptable in any other industry. Every time we do weight and balance we need to know how many pounds a person weighs. Does anyone under 80 know what their weight is in stones and pounds? And should they? Otherwise intelligent people froth and scoff simply because they don't want change rather than accepting a common good. But you know I'm right. 😉

Personally I'd like to see all units and airspace management changed to metric however that process has been put on the back burner. If Europe ever has a crack at this I'd love Australia to follow.

There are two issues which are summarised by the below. All people make poor decisions at times. Yes try to do better. I'm very interested in the best recovery technique and the pros and cons of the two mentioned below.

Trying to bring this vaguely back in the direction of a flying forum rather than the relative merits of subsidies to support a education system for the wealthy. As I see it. Canberra has no GA hangars available at a reasonable so unless you want to keep your plane exposed to the elements its not an option Goulburn's ownership is under a bit of a cloud at the moment. Currandooley airstrip near lake George is going to be covered by solar panels. The ACT Government doesn't see opening a second airport at Williamsdale as a public good and there's a dearth of alternative options in the ACT. The Federal Government doesn't see any strategic imperative to open a second airport. The Kennedy airstrip in Adaminaby appears to be a nice group, however it's a bit of a hike along a goat track to get there, or longer on bitumen. Tumut also seems like a nice place but the comments about goat tracks and distance also apply. There appears to be a short private strip between Lanyon Homesteam and Tharwa. If there are people who have their own airstrips, there doesn't appear to be a great incentive or appetite to encourage their use by the public.

While it's a long way off topic I tend to support skippy in relation to the funding of education to an extent. Education is a common good which should be accessible to all and funded by Government on that basis. Merit is only visible when the playing field is level, and we should want to be able to discriminate merit rather than some other process. While I understand some that people want to sent their children to be taught by people who believe in X, however this shouldn't be on taxpayers dime as it's not a common good.

4k might be reasonable if hangars were available. I haven't seen any become available for decades. This is the reason so many planes are parked on the grass. There are virtually zero GA businesses left at the airport. If a hangar was available for $10000 per year plus another $4000 per year you're looking at about $270/week which is a bit of a joke for GA. Canberra airport has been treated as a real estate asset, and it has monopoly power. It is exempt from the majority of ACT Government's planning allowing the rapid development of non-aviation infrastructure. It is too late to fix this mess, however a secondary airport would at least provide some competition. Not really, it's simply too far away. Canberra is the centre of economic activity with associated remuneration, Goulburn unfortunately isn't. Government is a business like any other and it has an epicentre. Reading through the proposal it appears a thorough analysis was done in the case of the 2nd Canberra airport including an analysis from Deloitte Access Economics. https://www.cmd.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/420625/Released_Documents_-_Williamsdale_GA_Airfield_-_DRAFT_Brief.pdf The ACT is limited in actual areas where aircraft can operate due to terrain and the controlled airspace.

Actually the main issue is the inability for a relatively affluent slice of Australia's population to access an airport. Goulburn being about an hour away is the closest facility. Given that aviation policy is formulated in an area without access to General Aviation facilities it seems that GA in Australia is pretty much doomed. MPs only have the choice of flying in the RPT. Imagine the increase in traction for GA if your local member used GA resources to commute to Canberra and back. Does anyone want to give their local member a lift?

I might be a bit dim but I don't really understand this. You might have to spell is out. I'm also not naive, having worked in and around Government for a few decades and now own a business which primarily deals with Government.

Are any of these people still around, one thing that I have learnt from Government is that nothing happens quickly. Tying it around some Governments head like a bag of dead fish is often the best approach. I'd very much be interested on how much the ACT Government has spent with Terry Snow to house their Aviation fire fighting infrastructure there. This probably would have paid for the Airstrip 10x over.