dark light

malcom

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 60 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Aviation Fuel Robbed.? #1125528
    malcom
    Participant

    :

    Unless they nicked it for use in a drag racer!

    But the security at the MOD must be a joke.

    Suprised no-one noticed -the dragster must have made quite a racket on its way back home. A pretty thorough risk assessment for the next run down the “track” though. :p

    in reply to: A Cold Saturday Morning at Duxford – 13Feb09 #1106977
    malcom
    Participant

    Any CAA Inspector would throw a `wobbly` and the book as well !!!

    Its nothing to do with him, and he wouldnt know what they are anyway. In fact it would be better for him if it did crush the machine then he wouldnt have to worry about it flying ever again.

    I would therefore expect him to be asking for a modification to fit and to paint them trip & crushing hazard yellow.

    in reply to: BAC 1-11 is history. #1106744
    malcom
    Participant

    Why :(? Several types dont have TCs but are still flying.

    in reply to: Shuttleworth wildcat #871158
    malcom
    Participant

    Fair point, but it must not be forgotten that:

    [Source: http://www.shuttleworth.org/%5D

    and so I don’t think that it’s entirely:

    If its that important, just ask them directly and perhaps let us know the reply.

    in reply to: Landing in low-light conditions #409175
    malcom
    Participant

    Landing without lights in the dark – object lesson in how to draw attention to yourself!

    But, you are required to have a landing light when flying at night in a private aircraft, and a torch. You can always turn it off if you dont like what you see in the beam.

    in reply to: PA38 parts help please #409179
    malcom
    Participant

    Searching the net with part numbers will help greatly. 500×5 & 600×6 shown in the IPC so no faffing with mods & stcs.

    N reg or G reg?

    in reply to: Accident at Reno… P51 Galloping Ghost. #1076063
    malcom
    Participant

    try an experiment. Hold a tray of water, balanced on your hand (this represents the fuel tank and a load of fuel. Accelerate your hand away from you, and see where the water ends up. I bet that the acceleration you impart on the tray does not match the acceleration you impart on the water, with the result that the tray tilts backwards, and you get wet. A further result is that I laugh. Of course, this will only happen during an acceleration, and not in straight and level flight.

    Interesting theory, but back to reality – try it again with a lid on the tray – after all, a fuel tank isnt an open vessel, is it. Try it again with some baffles or sponge in the tray to discourage water movement and you might suprise yourself. In each case you will find the water is confined and therefore any CofG change due to movement of the water will be quite small and can be accounted for in any mass & balance calculations by the confines of the trays dimensions.

    You will also find you wont get wet and have no cause to laugh at anyone.

    in reply to: Accident at Reno… P51 Galloping Ghost. #1076288
    malcom
    Participant

    Perhaps she had partaken of an aerodynamics lesson, and had got cause & affect mixed up.

    in reply to: Light plane in emergency landing at Gatwick Airport #412079
    malcom
    Participant

    600 yards or 322 Smoots (approx).

    in reply to: Duxford, Again…. #1086772
    malcom
    Participant

    Both now at work on the B-24

    Breaking news: IWM have started the AAM aircraft and all other exhibits dusting project. :diablo:

    in reply to: Duxford, Again…. #1087334
    malcom
    Participant

    I can’t believe that we are really nitpicking over dust on the aircraft?

    In a world class museum – I should say so, even if its just to show a little respect. Isn’t that the whole point of the place?

    in reply to: EASA Doom and Gloom – Annex II Engineers Please Read!!!! #1113137
    malcom
    Participant

    Simply put this is a CAA proposal to have Annex II types looked after the same way as Part M. Nothing to do with EASA, who are too busy trying to re-invent & regulate everything and anything else they can think of, having already dis-owned these types. This just means yet another approval to to the CAAs job for them, and pay them for doing it (just like Part M) but nothing to do with LAA/CAA Permit to Fly stuff.

    Latest EASA proposals suggest FAA licenced pilots are downright dangerous & must be re-tested in full before they can fly in Europe.

    By Erradicating All Silly Aeroplanes, we will have a 100% safety record.

    in reply to: Cotton or Linen #1116786
    malcom
    Participant

    …. should be listed! 😉

    in reply to: Cotton or Linen #1117169
    malcom
    Participant

    Ceconite 102 on a P-51 just wont do it but 101 will do

    One it’s all painted etc just how is the CAA drone going to know the difference?

    The “drone” wont, but the pilot will when he goes faster than 102 can cope with, & the AAIB may or may not be able to tell him about it afterwards.

    in reply to: Cotton or Linen #1117896
    malcom
    Participant

    Thats not clamping down, thats reminding people of the process that already exists, and has done for many years. Clamping down happens when the process is not followed.

    Bit like speeding really – the rules exist for the benefit & safety of all (like it or not), some people choose to break them and then whinge when they get caught out.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 60 total)