Methusala

Ross did a UACR on a Kitfox for us that we picked up from Monto in 2013. Honest , knowledgeable and all 'round nice bloke. Often takes the best before time!

Oh T88, are you becoming the new Tony Hayes?? Cowra to be Thruster Central, Yay!

My understanding is that no Thrusters came from the factory with doors fitted. All were manufactured so retro-fitting doors would be problematical. Of course many owners took an alternative view.

Thrusters have never had doors.

I like Jabiru idea... hinged cover with magnet to keep it shut. Oil dipstick cover on top cowl.

Best colours EVA!!!

Nat Puffer Cosy?

To my knowledge, no T300 had rear cockpit bulkhead installed when constructed. It is a positive mod but, due to the restrictions placed by regulators, not approved.

Organo-phosphates are bad news but so is the thinking that 400hp to propel 1 fun lover through the sky is alright. Hang gliding or paragliding is more conscionable these days

More problems for the Boeing 'team'. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/13/business/boeing-787-dreamliner-faa/index.html

Speaking of Macchis...We had a young RAAF visitor to Holbrook one day. He was speaking to Mick Parer telling the tale of punching out at Sale. As Mick questioned him he stated that he followed the procedure, waiting for the rudder pedals to become slack before pulling the exit handle. (The rationale behind this, apparently, was that a fire in the tail tube would burn its way out, then melt the rudder cables. Directional control being lost, any attempt to steer away from impacting people/structures on the ground became no longer possible.) I won't forget the bemused expression on Mick's face as he said, "Be stuffed if I'd wait that long!" This is as I recall it. Don't shoot me - I'm only the messenger, Don.

I Iike that,Nev. Landing is about holding off, letting the airspeed dwindle as you maintain a slightly nose high attitude. A good landing in the Kitfox and VP always had the rear wheel touch slightly before the mains. Thrusters are a little different because the wing is still in flying attitude when the tail wheel touches. Hence the need for a positive back stick just as it settles. (Precludes an unwelcome bounce back into the air at V/s.)

Castrol 2t is "the good oil". Mineral based so it sticks to the bores over time, synths tend not to.

Ian, I doubt that CASA would have the least interest in using innovative means to observe our actions. As a recluse of public service mandarins, they see their role being exerting conyrol of we untermenschen. My humble opinion.

I heard a rumour, (I heard it on the grapevine...) that my aircraft was effectively demolished when the storage shed collapsed due storm damage. Cannot personally verify this - has anyone heard anything?

Mick Parer used to fly Mirages. Agree that it may be a bit of a tall story 'though Nev.😀

'Day Brendan, I sold the Thruster because I wasn't confident of access to airfield in the future. Yes, I miss it but have access to a club Jabby when not locked in. Have flown Thrusters for 30 odd years, think they are a mighty trainer (tailwheel, of course). Our CFI said that if you could fly one well you could fly anything.

This proposal was the subject of a serious case of NIMBY syndrome. Powerful local grazing interests opposed it. The current Fed govt is so opposed to spending on infrastructure they won't even consider purchase of heavy fire fighting tankers to safeguard us from northern hemisphere demands coinciding with our lengthened fire danger periods.

I think that heavy wake turbulence is particularly evil because it revolves continually in a spiral. Recall that a RAAF pilot crashed a Mooney due heavy wake turbulence taking off at Wagga years ago.

I'd come down to give you helpful advice but I'm in 'lockdown'. (Sounds like we are a mob of Ned Kelly's doesn't it?)

How boring it all was 'till we had Thrusters!😃

Pictures of my 25-393. Lovely safe ultralight.

TROLL!

Only time I recall having problems was when I ran out of fuel! (Only happened once)

Very easy to take exception to this type of statement (which implies that "All labor govt's are economically ignorant"). I read the story of this from Wikipedia. Seems that it sought to utilise untried technology and failed to be economic. No mention of "meddlesome govt fiddling". The late Turnbull govt embarked, with great ballyhoo, into Snowy 2.0. This was a boondoggle from the get go designed to show a competence in energy industry management that was simply not there. The lies began immediately. Promised a $2b price tag, completion within 4 yrs and a cheap solution to provision of back-up power to Sydney and Melbourne. There was scant mention that very expensive new transmission lines would be necessary, nor that transmission losses would equal roughly 50% of the output. It was claimed that no public money would be required. I read an earlier engineering report stating that the projected operating head of around 850m put it into an almost experimental (perhaps even dangerous) category of technological effort. The Feds used public money to make a generous offer to NSW and Victoria, buying out their remaining interest in the Snowy. Cynically, this could be seen as a move to prevent the States questioning the wisdom of this investment somewhere down the track. There is also the question marks over the business case of the feds plan to finance a $600m gas plant in the contested Hunter electorate. Energy companies have vigorously denied that this is needed but the govt will press on regardless (and use Snowy Hydro, fully owned, to build it). I am not qualified professionally in these areas, but, as a concerned citizen, wonder why it is always Labor administrations that wear the blame for poor economic decisions. I place on record that the only reason I have to vote against Liberal administrations is that the alternative is almost always a slightly better bet.