Methusala

Years ago my plane, a VP-2, came with a de-Havilland 60"x30" prop. Its performance was so poor (produced max. 2850 rpm) it was dangerous. I went to Mangalore airshow and measured every prop attached to a VW there. They were about 56" max dia with far less chord and a flatter airfoil with max thickness about 1/4 of the chord. My prop had a Clark-Y type section with max thickness about 1/5 and a blunt leading edge. I attacked, taking 4" off the diameter, removing the brass L/E and savagely reducing the bulk. I placed an epoxy L/E and then had it sprayed white and with red tips and balanced it. When I ran it, tied to a tree with a spring balance, I found the static thrust had reduced from about 150lb to around 120! Well, time to run it along the strip to explore the result. I was shocked to find that the revs had increased to 3600 and it accelerated like a racehorse. I then committed to the air and found that the miserable climb performance had improved to 500fpm. It cruised at 3200 /60kts. I believe that the old prop was acting similar to a fan. It moved more air at zero airspeed giving a thrust figure of about 160. However, the purpose of a propeller is to accelerate the air to a high velocity. It therefore produces more reaction force to the airplane and an increase in performance. The engine was obviously producing more hp and the prop converted this to a more energetic airflow. I'm not trained in physics so am unable to explain in more technically precise language. Simply my experience. (Don't be afraid to experiment, most satisfaction comes from positive experience {or, as Facthunter explains,"Never stop learning."}) Don

Far too adventurous for the management I'm thinking.

A much better plane than the unfortunate Hughes Pocket Rocket I think.

Did my (delayed) BFR last week in a Jabiru. 2 landings and the CFI said that for someone who doesn't fly a Jab they were pretty good .

Wouldn't suit a Cessna driver!! I'd give it a crack 'though.

My mistake...can't tell a bear from a gull:oh yeah: The Rutan SkiGull is an amphibious aircraft designed by Burt Rutan

At around 1230 today we saw a very quiet twin with apparently a T-tail heading S-W over Canberra. This turned out to be a Chaika LLC L65 Seabear. I think that this was designed by Burt Rutan as his ultimate global retirement project. Any comments? Don

Frank, it's horses for courses. If I lived in shorts & t-shirt country it has to be a Drifter. Down here with the white stuff, protection from the elements is king. The T500 has a bag on the rear end that adds weight and hides the fuel and controls. My plane is in good nick with a new wing and 100hr engine. Its about 10 years younger than a Gemini. Don

Don't want a T500 anymore... my T300 is the best!!!

Yeah, and the POS is re-advertised with a POS Verner boat anchor. Caveat emptor!!!

Here's me helping Frank with mowing at Lake Tinaroo on the Tablelands a few weeks ago. Fun when you get the hang of steering.[ATTACH=full]55782[/ATTAC[/ATTACH]

Took this from Mt Taylor behind my house on my walk yesterday. Bet you're jealous eh Frank?

So... does anyone have information about Tony Hayes sourced components? Particularly his pods? Don

I think that the late Tony Hayes was responsible for these but I haven't heard anything since he passed away.

Wow! I'd give (almost) anything for a pod like that.

And my point is that you could have given the link. I apologise for being blunt. Gets me into much trouble. Will try to improve my behavior. Don

Thanks (but NO thanks) for wasting a bucket full of bandwidth. And your point is exactly?

My EIS digital display engine information system has programmable limits and a flashing alarm light. The light continues to flash until you acknowledge it and then remains steadily illuminated until readings return to below set limit.

Exhaust failure can happen suddenly and severely. I was once flying from Tumut to home base when the dot went black. Opened the fresh air vents and did mental arithmetic and touching finger tips, nose and other extremities (NO! Not that one!) and landed to find a large chunk of exhaust pipe had detached on a sharp bend. This was the $5 detector and about 18 months old so they do work.

Hey Frank, look at your phone messages to see what I've been up to. Rhonda and I will see you 2 soon. Don

Sq/Ldr Mick Parer also was a victim of MND. Flew as leader of Black Diamonds display team. RIP both.

See ya later...Elvis is leaving you all to it.

Have heard it postulated that the buildings were designed with eventual demolition in mind. Israeli firm had the security contract over the centre. Sounds crazy, I know, but lifespan of buildings is not now unlimited. If there is any truth in this then it could be a plus to a future buyer. As stated, WTC 7 came down with no aircraft collision and the owner deciding to "pull it " 30 mins before it collapsed in a controlled demolition. Pools of molten steel were found in the rubble of the 2 towers. Molten steel!

This is where a conclusion is arrived at via false logic or evidence. Meaning - Doesn't follow. Cognitive dissonance - The belief in a principle when all evidence is to the contrary. To my knowledge, the only conclusion that I have drawn is that the official explanation for the 9/11 disaster is nonsense ie. It stinks! Fact: The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C. Fact: There has been no known collapse of steel framed high rise buildings due to fire damage before or following the WTC debacle. The 3rd building to be destroyed (WTC 7) on that day was not even hit by anything except (possibly) some debris from the twin towers' collapse hours beforehand. It suffered some localised fire damage to a few floors. That these buildings collapsed at free fall velocity on their own footprint is ONLY possible if they had been demolished by controlled explosive demolition charges. Fact; Silverstein leased the center some 6 months before the event. He had insured it against terrorist attack for $3.2bn. On the afternoon of 9/11 he is on public record as saying,"We decided to pull it". About 30 mins later it collapsed (guess what?), on its own footprint as had towers 1 & 2 earlier that day. How can a decision signaled by the phrase,"pull it" be followed by its total demolition 30 minutes later if it had not had the means for destruction already installed. I may not be a genius but if you can't give meaningful answers to these questions please don't label me with pathetic phrases.

The concocted 'cover story' is truly cognative dissonance.