Litespeed

I hope you fellas are putting down a deposit any time soon. But it is feasible compared to Mollers skycar. I fear it is just vapourware

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh..... might be onto something there. That must be why Tony Abbott runs around in budgie smugglers, he wants the rest of us men to feel well endowed

A leadwing is very smooth- but I would think quite heavy. Geoff has one I think. Maybe he can volunteer his motor for weigh in.

Yes apparently it is a myth- but a good one and well deserved. They are a aircraft engine maker and have a long history building them. As do Mercedes, Volvo, SAAB and even Alfa Romeo.

Did I read correctly they had some inflatable mattresses in thw ings but not inflated? And had no life jackets?

Here is a ABC report on Japans Cabal- http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-02/lifting-the-lid-on-one-of-the-most-influential,/6996204 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-02/nippon-kaigi-and-the-rise-of-nationalism-in-japan/6994560

Unfortunately for the Japanese people, there is a tiny group who deny anything wrong happened and wish to return to the ways of the old Japan. They also happen to be the ones in power and totally disregard the wishes of the people. The grouping is a few thousand people and could only be described as a cabal hell bent of making Japan a militarist power. Shinzo Abe is one and prime minister.

Solicitors and and prostitutes in the same street- how could you tell the difference?

A Tucano and a beautiful female pilot, much more fun than tweeking some computer.

Why would be done by CASA be double jeopardy? I don't see the relevance, as RAAus can not send you to court or fine/goal you?

Obviously for a man to fly is against God, and he has been smitted

But what if you don't want sex with a Queen?

I could hardly call it cowardice to attack military sites nor immoral on japans side. They did declare war but the timing was stuffed up. And anyway slamming the enemy as or before you declare is common practice. What was immoral for me was bombing with Nukes when it was civilians that died, Japan was already toast power wise and could have been starved out quickly at that stage. Just because the soldiers kept fighting does not justify mass murder of ordinary people. That is a war crime. The same can be said of the fire bombing of cities in Germany especially Dresden- of no strategic importance but the mass murder of people. To purposely kill civilians is evil and a war crime. It was completely different to the bombing of London which was small scale in comparison and designed to damage morale. Not complete death for all- even the bomb shelters in Germany were no refuge as the fire bombing removed all oxygen from the city. And that was by design- not a accident. Bomber Harris was very keen to kill as many as civilians as possible. This does not excuse the war crimes by the Japanese or Germans, but must be put into perspective. The US, British and Russians were guilty of many war crimes as well. They all had a lot of civilian blood on there hands and with full knowledge- not by some accident. If we look at the pacific war in context- Pearl harbour was possibly the most morally carried out battle. But the outrage and vengeance is all out of proportion.

I have no experience with them, but it should be fine for parts and service. They are made here in Australia, and given the price of a rotax rebuild, I would be surprised if they were anything as expensive to fix or rebuild.

Yes, The useful bomb load was similar to the B17 which did half the speed, had a big crew for the pitiful amount of bombs it carried. Was heavily armed and armoured and basically a sitting duck. The "flying fortress" and just like any castle, very hard to move away from the enemy. If you survived a mission you were charmed. Pity the poor rear gunner- always the first to cop it, very much disposable airmen. And a huge cost per aircraft and crew. Often known as the meat wagon For a Mozzie, getting shot down was the exception, not the rule. Hard to be shot down when as a bomber you were faster than any fighter. Biggest risk was low operations and hitting a tree. Or the radar guided flak guns, but a quick bit or aero solved that. The cannons were great for blowing up trains and the big cannon and rocket equipped versions could fire a salvo the equivalent of a battle ship. Ships and subs were sitting ducks and had no chance if seen. Also been wooden they were very smooth and had very little nasty vibration in the airframe, something the tin cans could never match. For a true combat aircraft or bomber they had the highest strike- mission rate per loss of anything in the war. Its spiritual successor the Canberra had the same honor in Vietnam, (a friend flew them).

I my mind- the Mossie is the best aircraft of WW2, bar none. It could fight, bomb and ground attack, kill ships and subs, place a bomb through a doorway and still be faster than anything else with a prop. All from a bunch of wood, made in lots of little workshops by wood craftsman and women. It was fast to design, build and took a hell of a lot of abuse. Could play silly buggers with only one engine, needed only two crew and was damn fast. Was far more streamlined than any metal beast- composites at its best. And best of all made Hitler and Goering very angry the poms could make such a beast from sticks of wood.

I agree- A waste of lives for a simple solution. A friend is one of the those avionics guys who can do the seats. He is still with RAAF but made redundant and now transferred to being a contractor and looks after batteries all bloody day. A waste of talent and money. He could do the seats and as a contractor would not fall foul of RAAF. Typical privatisation crap. Spend a bomb training him, spend a pile making him redundant, and spend a lot more than his wage as a contractor for a foreign firm. All so he can babysit batteries and waste his skills whilst millions are burnt for profit. Economic irrationalism at work

yep what a complete tosser. Even if he did fly straight and level- he is wearing a wankers shirt. Maybe called captain cockup

Dutch, I can see how better training systems can be a great benefit, especially in adverse event and unusual attitude recovery training. I would definitely feel safer knowing my pilots had great training and were encouraged to fly the pants off the simulator etc. I would also like those pilots in a well a maintained aircraft and that is a given. But no matter the training I can't help feel a necessity for the bus driver to regularly be a small aircraft pilot. A currency in small aircraft should be a necessary part of currency and training for the big stuff. No amount of simulator and book time can substitute a small aircraft in keeping the basic skills always at the forefront of the mind. Not somewhere in a check list on page 235. It needs to be instinctive what to do for the most basic aviation needs. Aviate, Aviate................ So I reckon a best practice might be to have a minimum amount of hrs currency in small stuff. How much ? A minimum of 100 hrs a year including advanced stuff like basic aero, stalls, spins. And make it available at no cost from the airline, as a mandatory requirement of continued certification. Yes it would cost a bit on the ticket but really maybe a dollar a seat. A small price to save a incident of mass death.

Would it not be fair to say They did not continue to aviate, when a problem arose. Sure there was a problem and they did pull the circuit- but they failed to recognise a stall and then did the exact opposite of what is required to safely correct the planes attitude. The PIC and 2nd officer where both non english speakers (first language) and had trouble communicating in a emergency. Apparently the PIC said "Pull down" not push down, so they ended up doing opposites of eachother. And fought the controls all the way to the ocean. So a PIC giving the wrong word combination, the 2 nd officer carrys out a illogical command for both the language and flight needs. The PIC then tries to push down but does not take control from the 2nd officer. What a screw up. These seem like rooky mistakes and hard to imagine possible for two well trained pilots. A good crew of actual pilots rather than drivers of a flying computer bus- is the answer. You should not in my opinion be able to get to fly such airlines without lots of air time in small aircraft- starting with gliders. Then move up the ranks. And you should have to remain current in light aircraft- all at the airlines expense. The physics of flight do not care- stalling a aircraft and not correcting it is always fatal. Aircraft may differ but fundamentals do not. A tragedy that should never have occurred.

I think the aircraft you are after is the Mosquito. Accept no substitutes.

Good on the old fella. Not many of us have the foresight to prepare for latter. But he still needs the bodywork. Then he will have the means of his death and the coffin.

The only possible legal out for our dear friend is relying on the medical condition she gave him, which forced him to marry her. STD- Primary infection-Sexually Transmitted Delusion, which we all know is a short term psychosis. It is then followed by the secondary manifestation of the disease STD- Sexually Transmitted Debt:contract: Any attempt to sleep with the sister will probably lead to the tertiary stage of the disease. STD- Sexual Transgression Death:stretcher:

Just add a made in USA sticker, triple the price and the RAAF will buy a hundred. That is if Qantas doesn't order the lot.

If your toilet roll is sticking to your aircraft, maybe.................... You should not use the bog roll first. Just like the chicken cannon problem- thaw out the chicken.