All Activity

I don’t see lots of holes in the cheese. I only see the incredibly poor decision the pilot made by attempting the flight. Fatigue, lack of proficiency, get-there-itis, inadequate understanding of the weather conditions, improper equipment, and inadequate equipment for the conditions were the Swiss cheese holes created by the pilot himself. Ultimately, legal currency does not equal proficiency.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/AUTOKONTOR+BAYERN+GmbH/@48.2093695,10.2422981,624m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x479bfccc28d7597f:0xab777d33c65ae655!8m2!3d48.2096824!4d10.2412281!16s%2Fg%2F1vn_xynh?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDkwMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D Autokontor Bayern - just a trader & storage of used cars (somewhere in the middle of nowhere ;-), street address: Autokontor Bayern An der Lehmgrube 1 D- 89290 Buch The address translates to something like "By the clay pit", so obviously the terrain of some ancient pit. That might be the reason why they are allowed to have such a business right within a forest (in Germany). And maybe they also store some new cars, where production was higher than demand ;-) Best, Matthias

Autocorrect got me. His name is Owen

You know we are just having a pissing contest. There is no way to prove this. If I had my current bike 40 years ago, I would challenge you to a race through a city. But I'm too old and wise for that foolishness these days.

Well 11.1gph is only ~69% power, not 75%. It was about 35lop, so not much different than the 20 i use at 65%. for reference, on the 220 hp (sb) engine when lop: 10.4gph = 65% 11.2gph = 70% 12.0gph = 75%

I think it depends on the road. Cars can corner in ways not possible for a bike.

I would love get a Garmin product that would just slide in without having to redo the panel. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be an option at this time.

I don't think there is any car that can outrun a skilled rider on a fast bike.

I agree, but I have this mantra that subordinates those calculations, and plays on repeat with the volume turned up to 11: "DON'T STALL".

But, as a trooper once taught me, "You can't outrun a Motorola".

I have no doubt that they intentionally waited until loaded up. "Unrelated" was my word and I used it in the same real-world sense as the court: "a warrant that had been issued in connection with another investigation."

There is an altitude where you can't turn back, one where my level of skill won't allow me to turn back but the airplane could make it, and one where I can turn back and land. Knowing those is useful. Even if the maneuver turns out poorly, and one ends up into the fence trying to make the airport, that may be a better outcome than crashing elsewhere. At least, you decrease the odds of putting others are risk and search and rescue should be able to get to you more easily. My take is use the information at which to turn back to brief what you'll do prior to takeoff. That's the point of this exercise and I see very few people briefing takeoffs. You want to know where turning back is an option but the reality is that most of the time we have better options, I tend to favor crosswind runways.

No. For the price, getting a Garmin radio makes much more sense.

Good question, I have on on the wheel for over 10 years. If it is out of the sun and not exposed to anything that will degrade it, it should last a long time.

I think home airfields, one can have few places to "put it" or "cut the loss", also, one would have sampled all low level pattern and all runways under different winds. However, the two absolute height limits will apply everywhere: one height to "turn back" and one height to "level wing" before crash... Not long time ago, a Mooney M20F tried return from under 300ft agl, https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/520704 With partial power, the decision of making "land ahead" or "turn back" is even more complex but one has to adjust the "two decision altitudes"

Unrelated for jury/appeal purposes is not always unrelated in the real world. Why watch the defendant load up the airplane instead of serving the warrant immediately... I suspect that law enforcement intentionally waited for the airplane to be loaded up. My take is that there is a LOT more to that story; it seems like a lot of effort for a misdemeanor.

A question related to the OP: How long can you 'store' a new tube? Have had one on the shelf for over 3 years...

I put two desser retreads and two desser tubes on our plane a few years ago, one was flat when we let it off the jacks the next day, we took it off, and I was seeping out of one of those mold line seams. They sent me another one, I put that in. The other one, a year later, failed when I took a customer over to Dugosh to pick up his plane. I literally landed, after a half hour, I taxied over to the fuel pump, and it was flat when I got out of the plane. I haven't used one since.

A quick google search on 6041H53 shows it to be a Cutler Hammer which was bought by Eaton. This looks like a pretty good fact sheet. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Misc_Pdf/6041SeriesPowerRelays.pdf 28V 2PDT Has an MS number MS25031-D1B I found the F model flap relay NOS at like Relays.com or something. I should probably sell it.

In a straight line.

Porsches had a bad rep way before the turbos. Trailing throttle oversteer. The turbo just gave you the additional option of spinning the car using power.

I'm in the same camp as you. I still have my original KX155's from 1991. They are bulletproof, and cheap to repair or replace if needed.

Different HP ratings. In the 60s up to 1972, HP was SAE Gross HP. That is without an exhaust system, headers, not driving any accessories (including not running the water pump), no air filter. Then they changed to SAE Net HP. Which was the engine as installed in the car. With full exhaust system and air intake with air filter and all accessories. In the late 70s and through the 80s, the HP numbers fell even more due to meeting emissions targets with the technology at the time. There is also the factor that most companies report the highest HP they recorded for any engine they tested. And they did not test most of the production engines. And, in some cases, the changed the specs in a way that lowered the HP without changing the reported output. My 85 Dodge Daytona Turbo Z was reported at 148 HP. But talking to the engine shop that did mine (and specialized in Chrysler engines) stated that every engine they had seen, the compression was about 1/2 point lower than what Dodge said it was. So it seems they lowered the CR for engine safety, but did not change the specs.

In what way? All an ASTM standard means is that you got a bunch of people to agree to make a standard for THAT mix. It does not address the suitability of THAT mix to the desired use. Swift still has not changed their stance that the fuel is NOT suitable for a good proportion of the piston fleet.