Litespeed

As a aside from dumb colours and cooling costs I was in the previous century, a chimney sweep in the blue mountains and all the post war houses had the fireplace/slow combustion on the perimeter wall. Absolutely stupid, a massive heat loss, lots more wood used and the bedrooms would be cold. Also a huge fire risk if not properly cleaned, which given a tall chimney or pipe at the edge of the building rather than on the ridge, meant most were never properly cleaned. And it was bloody dangerous for me the sweep. Brainless bloody builders and developers.

The ego is not his biggest problem, the madman fails to realize he has no spine.

It is a hard one with the truck. The driver is a complete idiot, but the truck seemed to bash the horn rather than emergency brake. I would fine both if it was me. The driver of the car should get negligent driving charge. You do not have the right to brake anywhere you like in the traffic- unless it is a emergency. You must take care that your actions do not endanger others- even if you are in front. Just like it you have no right to go into a intersection when the light is green- you must do so safely and only when it is safe to do so. The vehicle in front does not have carte blanche to do anything they like, nor can they just decide to brake and stop in a lane unless it is for emergency reasons or because the traffic ahead has stopped. Just like you can't just decide to enter a intersection and then stop and read a map etc. If it went to court esp. if someone is injured and compensation was sought, then I would expect both drivers would be found to have contributed to the accident. Some states may see it different but that is the general principle. As far as multiple rear end crashes- in NSW the last car to hit only pays for the car they hit and so on down the line. I know because this happened to me 20yrs ago. The police that arrived were fortunately- the accident investigation team, lucky us. The fool at front slammed on the brakes on a major road for no reason and we all barreled in. The cop stated that as no one was injured and cars were movable (to a side st) she would not charge anyone. But the first driver- the idiot, wanted everyone fined- the nice officer obliged. The idiot was charged with negligent driving - they had no lawful reason to emergency brake, and by the very nature of it been a arterial road, the whole road is a NO stopping zone. Just like you can't park your car on a freeway lane and have a picnic. A similar situation is when swerving to avoid wildlife, if you cause a accident- you are at fault. You can not drive in a manner that endangers others- no matter what signs, lights, wildlife etc. I agree though that many cops have very little law knowledge and just rely on us copping it. Or they pick the easiest target and don't want to get involved.

Welcome aboard the good flying ship Lollypop. Great to have a new member, esp. a female- we need more females in our sport- adds a perspective we sadly often lack. Also we need more jokes that take the mickey out of the mainly male members. There is no "stupid" question except the one we fail to ask. So feel free, we are a friendly bunch and generally we all get along great. We may stir eachother but all in good fun. We all have a love of flying and find it is a great way to make friends, have adventures and learn from eachother. Congratulations- you have just joined the best site on the planet for rec flying. The combined knowledge of forumites is immense and always to be shared. Some are even designers and builders of their own aircraft. No issue to small or too big, you only have to ask. Please tell us a little about you. Enjoy Phil aka Litespeed

I will thrown in my 2 cents worth- It was a great project and some very talented people were involved including the pilot. As a highly specialised aircraft- yes it would be difficult to fly. Hence a proper test pilot, just like anything that fast running props it would not treat fools lightly. But the pilot was no fool and mechanical failure sealed his fate- Not his ego. It is very unfortunate but a calculated risk was taken, any test flying a new machine carries risk. Sadly Scott did not survive- I do not blame the pilot anymore than I would blame Gravity. It is a tragedy for all involved especially his family. His legacy should be applauded for having a go in as safe a way as was possible. If not for the clutch failure we would probably all be singing his praises. History is full of great pilots whose demise was not pilot error but the machine itself failing in a critical way. Test flying is dangerous and the safety we all enjoy today was built on the blood, sweat and tragically bodies of brave test pilots. May they all rest in peace and get the respect deserved, whilst we reap the rewards of their efforts. As a side note: it was not a cartoon aircraft just a very special machine for a specific purpose. Cartoon aircraft are the stupid "worlds smallest aircraft" competitors like below. I also include the Gee Bee - never happy unless it was on its nose. Compared to the above the Bugatti was relatively a sensible design, just a real hot one. Litespeed.

Going by their reputation, they would be very impressed. Quickly followed by the rubbing of hands with glee as they ring their lawyers and claim only they have the right to make aircraft.

I bet. They got ideas from Goldeneye, James Bond.

. Try a quote on a CNC and printed water pump or similar and sit down first. What is possible and what's economic as a finished ready to use part are very different.

Exception to the rule is BMW, they guarantee a part will be available even a 1960 model. But you will pay for it.

Nukes have only been used twice and only a tiny percent of population were effected. So by that argument everyone should be allowed them, to play with. Some things are fundamentally dangerous and should be restricted by law. Guns are one of these- there purpose is killing period. Target shooting is a straw man argument- it is practice at killing.

Then the guzzi had the wrong pipes on it. Have owned guzzi lemans with open staintunes and 40 delortos- brilliant. But with open reverse cones from Gianelli was like Thor had come to visit. Sorry the Ducati did not wake the dead- only stirred them. Oh yes car alarms of the 80-90's were great fun. And new ones will still go off when visited by Thor.

Or Gianelli or reverse trumpets - always nice sounding on a Guzzi

Ah classic American engineering has many names "Ford Exploder" is just a memorable one. And it is not the willingness to self flaggelate while driving on rough roads nor its ability to stop working when tuned to communist ABC radio. It is because it is famous for actually self immolation- ie bursting in flames from a poor fuel tank and tyres that as oem would disintegrate cause a accident or puncture the tank and WOOF! This is documented but no as common as the cruise control that has a mind of its own. And yes, it amazes me that peeps can not recognise turning of the engine can save the day. One famous incident was a cop- hwy patrol in a toyota with family onboard, smart enough to call for help but too dumb to turn off the ignition. All onboard died.

The Hummelbird is a excellent little machine- but is not a novice aircraft. But having accumulated your cert. hours and xc endorsement you should be well on track to flying one. It will be faster to respond and float longer you then expect. A sporty little number. I would forget the 1/2 VW and go a new or rebuilt two stoke- lots more power-plenty in reserve and easy to buy/maintain. Or use a converted V twin or even a pegasus twin. If you can- electric start is very helpful and much, much safer. I would recommend getting air time first and then try as many different types as possible to get used to each type and work out what really suits your needs, abilities and finances. Some love low wing, some love high wing- until you fly them you will not know. Then decide on buy or build and which type. Cheers and good luck. Oh and tell mum and dad to keep you home and spend the holiday money on flying and then a aircraft. USA holidays cost a lot.

1 in 5 risk, that is just plain bullshit. At that rate we would be dropping like flies. Everyone would be dead before getting many hrs up. Sure 5 hrs a year is low but not deadly. Have you not noticed some of our dear friends with bulk hrs are no longer with us? You seem to be making up facts to suit your argument.

Ah the good old days. Still have a few engines, cox- slow and AMA - absolutely ballistic and the sound,.............

Yes, but a bit short on details to make any real fair guess. As you have said, nothing with that big a difference in power density is yet on the horizon. So I take it with a large dose of salt

I say the young law student might be big on marketing and low on actual results. So far it's just claims

It would seem the coil might be breaking down, somehow. Can you swap them for another and check? Somehow the electrics are not doing the job below 5000. Maybe a problem with advance in lower revs? Good luck

Or having seen your video....................... Might be the rear seat belt

Not so fast fellas- There is a machine that looks just like that here in Sydney and has been doing the new overhead rail project at Rouse Hill. I do not now who owns or built it but its a Italian company doing the contract. I was amazed when I saw the big beast. Back to regular transmission.

For once - the change in weather is not related to global warming. Simply a manifestation of new politics locally, the sky fairy has made good on his promise- if his mate is not returned to the top job within 12 mths of the election................ Then hell will freeze over.

MBA masters of bugger everyone Masters of Bull Artists

Poor pooch, obviously the only smart one onboard. Owner must be a candidate for a Darwin award.

He loved the killing but would never eat one , he left that to dumb animals - like the neighbour's Jack Russell, who would eat them but couldn't manage to catch one.