Litespeed

Yep.......................................a complete utter balls up. And the cameraman, appears to like filming too much...........close call for a Darwin award I say. He could have easily have been part of it had the pilot continued on one of his many paths.

Still the same Ian

Thanks Alan- you can steer a computer unlike me- I make Luddites seem tech savvy

Sorry does not do it just opens a new browser box.. Must be my old machine has a ghost or ten.

Congraulations. Me I would have this track- beware strange coffee. Learn To Fly - Foo Fighters

Must be a glitch related to my browser or system as they do not show for me. I am using ancient XP windows I would send a screen shot but do not know how

Yes they are a beautiful device- and damn expensive for a quality one. They are available in many profiles just like spokeshaves and sizes for that matter. Same as planes- they are not all the same and can have many different blade profiles and lengths. In my collection I have planes from smaller than palm size (razor plane) to 24 inch long and six inch wide and varying profiles. Even have some rebate planes- took me a while to work those ones out. Oh a a dozen or so Swedish saws- beautiful things. I love old school wood working tools. But sadly all dads drawknives are missing. Some say that spokeshaves are no good for really knotty wood- yes but do we really want to make a prop from knotty knarly hardwood?

Yeah I like the jailhouse idea. I do think the 'abuse of caution' fine of losing all likes is a bit heavy handed though. Yes, we have some that can stretch the rules a bit and can be less than credible but the caution can be used subjectively and not just in relation to air matters. Also they may be very likeable, but just have a bee in the bonnet over a particular issue. A total loss of likes would make them seem completely unlikable, or that their views should totally be disregarded but they may normally be a great and helpful contributor. Can we also have a "batshit crazy idea" one? Or maybe "caveat emptor"

Is seems one fix creates another problem........ Now my membership box no longer shows the likes number or mine nor anyone else. I can understand mine, as at times I can be less than likeable - being a cranky bugger. But everyone else is generally very likeable.

Yes the Adze comes in all shapes and angles to attack the unsuspecting user. They are a fiendishly clever flesh removing device. Apparently also capable of removing wood as well.

For below stall speed- black would be appropriate if you could see the damn colour. Lets face it fly below stall speed and things can get very dark indeed

You mean like this little scratch..........

there is also a more delicate weapon of choice- a draw knife

Ah- that would be great but I do not see such a thing hence the problem.

I can not see the search area on any page. I am using Google chrome and old Windows

here is another one aerobactic display and 293km/h

love it- worlds smallest twin jet aircraft. Now once Vulcan gets his one up he will have the worlds smallest twin jet two seater. Just add some mini rockets and could have a airforce to protect New Zealand

Welcome to the forum Mate. Please make a builders log on here covering your whole build process, we would love to follow your progress. Feel free to ask anything- there is no such thing as a stupid question, only the one not asked. Also we love a bit of comedy as well. And remember without pictures it did not happen

I am with Ben, I assumed that the OP was talking about a part 103 aircraft and that he would naturally account for the weight and balance implications and the overall design loads of the aircraft. A part 103 has a very restricted minimum weight hence the inquiry. I disagree that fuel and battery should be different neither of them if removed would allow flight- remove the battery- no electric engine will work . Same for a fueled engine- remove the petrol it will not work. So are they are the energy source for the engine they should be treated the same. The idea that the petrol is consumed and the electric battery is not is incorrect- the energy available is most definitely consumed and a tiny amount of mass is lost. If it were the case that a part 103 could not safely land with its tank of petrol still full- then this argument may hold- but that is obviously not true. Any aircraft will have a MTOW and this also includes a part 103. I did not imply that should ever be exceeded at any point, nor that any normal rules of airmanship or design loads should be exceeded. The design for placement of the battery powersource is in fact more simple as it does not significantly change during flight. This is unlike petrol which gets its mass consumed during flight and thus effecting weight and balance. IF we are ever going to see the intergration of electric flight systems into our sport, then these are the issues we need to consider. Just like the change from metal structures to composites, it is most successful when we stop thinking in the metal box but with the ability of composite in mind. The same applies for electric.

I would have thought that logic dictates it is a fuel source- as it powers the engine. So should be allowable to the same weight of the allowable gasoline limit. Some will say- but it is a battery and is not consumed- bulldust the energy is consumed and must be refilled after flight just as gasoline does. The only difference is the battery will weigh only very slightly less after discharge. It meets the spirit and intent of the part 103 rules- however the FAA seem to yet to decide.IF you had a parachute then the allowable weight limit goes up as well, assuming the chute is less than the extra allowable limit then that could also be counted for extra battery. The same applies for floats- that adds a lot more allowable weight, make some very light floats and take up the rest of the allowance with batteries stored in the floats- to assist with C of G and stability. And you can always have some luggage that just happens to have batteries in it.

So no.3 is still waiting to be finished then?

Ian, Keep up the good work mate- bugger the naysayers. I have always been a round peg in a square hole anyway. I like the Gif idea....................................but you appear to be doing a severe PIO- Pilot induced oscillation. Or is it shaken baby syndrome?

Or use a spokeshave - a lovely hand held plane for exactly this type of work.I have a few as my dear old dad was a cabinet maker who only used hand tools for the first 15 years of work. I still have his first electric hand tool a Lightburn goldie hand held drill- cost many weeks wages at the time. Still works a treat And follow up with a airdriven/electric random orbit sander - for use non luddites

As per always credit goes to the top and blame will too when its a cockpit. This offcourse is a unnatural system as we all know generally blame gravitates downwards

ABC site has a article by local academics on "Sully" a good read, fair and to the point. Will see the movie when I can. Why Sully's 'Miracle on the Hudson' was no crash landing