gandalph

?

Hells bells! Whatever you do, don't type Rotax into the search field. If CASA gets to see those stats we'll all be doomed! Doomed I say!

For the sake of clarity I have done what AMSOL suggested looked up the NTSB database and READ the summaries. I thought it might help to append the NTSB summaries of probable cause for those fatal accidents he listed. It is interesting to note that although the aircraft listed in these incidents were all fitted with Jabiru engines only two airframes were Jabirus. EDIT N.B I've attached the summaries inside Amsol's quoted post so you'll need to expand his quote to see them. Probably a messy way to do it but... couldn't figure out an easier method. Sorry. To summarise the incidents that AMSOL posted: 1. Failed to maintain airspeed during a go around. Non Jab Airframe 2. Ejected from aircraft after canopy opened in flight. Non Jab airframe 3. Collided with a Turkey Vulture in flight. Non Jab airframe. 4. Stall& spin from low altitude. Jab airframe. 5. Rapid descent and impact with terrain following undetermined engine failure. Non Jab airframe. 6. Low altitude aerodynamic stall. Non Jab Airframe. 7. Low altitude stall following cardiac event. Non Jab Airframe. 8. Engine failure - Cause undetermined. Non Jab airframe. 9. Carb Icing - Failure to apply carb heat. JAB airframe. 10. Aerodynamic stall while maneuvering at low altitude. Non Jab airframe. 11. Aerodynamic stall. Contributing to the accident was the loss of engine power due to a clogged fuel screen. Non Jab airframe. 12. In-flight separation of both wings due to aileron flutter. Non Jab airframe. 13. Failure to maintain aircraft control during initial climb following a loss of engine power. The reason for the power loss was not determined. Non Jab airframe. 14. In-flight failure of both wings due to aileron flutter. Non Jab airframe. 15. Pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control while maneuvering. Non Jab airframe. 16. Both pilots failure to maintain adequate airspeed while maneuvering after a loss of engine power for undetermined reasons, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall. Non Jab airframe. 17. Structural failure of the wings for undetermined reasons. Non Jab airframe. With respect Amsol, the devil is often in the detail. Simply searching "Jabiru" in the database and then cutting and pasting the results that show fatalities caused you to be misled and to then mislead readers here. It happens sometimes.

If you're going to fly over tiger country, don't. If you're going to crash in tiger country, do it in a Jab.

Thanks Red.

Ricky, there's an interesting thread on liquid cooled heads. Seems that there may be some problems there too. Not everyone is happy with them. See link below: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/liquid-cooled-heads.61013/

Recession proof industries: Funerals Add to that: Funerals and Corrective Services (prisons). The beauty of the last two is that they are recession proof as well.

Who says the guy that wrote the program for George isn't crazy? Reminds me of that scene from 2001 a space oddessy: Dave: " open the pod bay door HAL." HAL: "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that." Then there's the question that passengers might ask: If the pilot and his buddy go tripping off to the loo together, what do they get upto behind that locked door up front when they're all alone? Sorry Dutchy, not being serious.

Nope: Bah! Humbug!

The "Llewellyn mod" can fix the Blanik, don't know what to do to fix the seniors though.

No. It was Lee Havey Oswald. FFS!

Bryant was using a rifle not a pistol. Big difference in the accuracy quotient of those two types of weapon.

Alf, it might've looked that way from the TV coverage, but those guys are very well trained. A lot of what we heard and saw were Flash- Bang grenades and stun grenades. Despite the tragedy of a hostage being killed by a ricocheted "friendly" bullet (a misnomer if there ever was one), the reports coming out of the inquiry seem to indicated that the assault team were very fucussed with their firing when they breached the cafe. I haven't seen figures on the number of rounds fired by the assault team or the number that found the target but I would surprised if there was a vast difference between the two figures.

Phil, I agree entirely with your sentiments re firearms on civilian aircraft. However, the projectile can be modified to cause maximum damage and be contained within the body of the target. Getting gruesome here but... That's why the centre of body mass is the primary target zone, maximum primary damage with maximum containment of fragments. In the recent hostage incident in Sydney, reports suggest that one of the hostages was killed by police bullet fragments from a ricochet off a hard surface within the cafe, not by fragments exiting the body of the hostage taker. In any case, those were not the type of bullets that would/should be used if governments are knee jerked into allowing arm on civilian aircraft. One further point, I believe I have seen research somewhere ( please don't ask me for a reference or citation, it would take me ages to dig it up) on the effects of multiple small penetrations of a pressurised aircraft hull. I believe the results, while dramatic were not catastrophic. That doesn't in any way change my opposition to armed enforcers on civvy planes.

Crickey Phill! If that doesn't get the flame throwers going........ And you seemed like such a nice guy

Re tasers: they have a pretty limited range, you need to be reasonably close to the intended target. No point standing up in row 34 and trying to taser the guy battering at the cockpit door. Good for taking down one person, but you need a second taser and a second set of hands for an accomplice and a third taser........etc etc. Tasers are not always effective on all people, some have a lessened response to tasers and some drugs seem to render the target immune to their effect. Re marshals with firearms. A 9mm automtic pistol with a 10 round magazine gives a Marshal a chance of managing a multi-perpetrator attack. Quick headshots are the stuff of Movies and T V programs. Centre body mass is the preferred and safer target (for the good guys not the perpetrators) Not saying there aren't people who can manage a 20 metre headshot Daz, but that's not how enforcement officers are trained.

AJ Richo could answer that authoratively. He's built one.

I don't see that FT. Kev has been given lots of good choices to consider. Now he has a lot of research to do before he decides which way to go. I don't see that couple of posts challenging some opinions offered have destroyed his thread or damaged his quest for information. My opinion, yours may differ.

Bex for sure. He knows his stuff. When it comes to baiting, he is the master.

1. I did, and I still think your comment re Sonex spar caps is wrong. My comment was not directed at Morgan's. 2. Why else would you have your hand on it? I see the concept of a grammarian has excited you, does that mean we will have Bex fulfilling that role in lieu of , or in addition to Daz? p.s. Did you notice, while researching the meaning of words, that dictionary in not spelled with a K?

Oops. That should read Bex, Bex, Bex!....... Bed was NOT on my mind.

Bed, Bex, Bex! Best make sure you wipe your feet if you're going to keep stepping in cow pats like that. Take a closer look at the Sonex spar caps and reconsider.

you should have a look into either scratch building or buying a Sonex kit. Not high wing though, but it's strong and fast(ish) and Sonex builders report that they enjoy great support from the Sonex factory and Sonex builders & flyers groups. If you can get a copy of Sport Pilot Magazine there's plenty to consider in the members market.

Ho hum

It sure does, or at least it will if the damn thing ever gets finished!