I was thinking of the building far left by the yellow crane, not the white building by the track… but looking again with my good glasses on I’m not so sure…However, that 2400ft long grass strip (visible on Google Earth, but the bottom of this pic) immediately to the North does look like a runway.

The top/right corner looked like it’s missing a chunk (or bent backwards) which would explain the hinge bracket doodad appearing to be AWOL. It also looks like the bottom has been sliced off.

Link says “Aircraft engine BMW 801A after crash for sale”

Fuck it, I’m done. This is beyond a goddamn joke.

Baz62: Except he doesn’t maintain the ones that are/were already airworthy. He buys aircraft that are perfectly capable of flight.. & grounds them. I heard he’s also given up on the Vega resto & is now going to build a seaplane base…. which will no doubt be too small for the Sunderland

I’m on 3 other forums that use the exact same software, none of them have these issues.

Pilot was dressed for a BBQ at the beach, next day the crash report on the Yak 11 incident last year is released which states:

Use of Flight Suits

According to Transport Canada (“Flight Suits-Functional Protection,” May 20, 2010), one manufacturer of fire-resistant clothing carried out a burn test in order to rate the clothing materials that provided the most fire protection. Layering fire-resistant garments on top of each was determined to offer the best protection; with the results of the tests indicating that, when a Nomex 27/P flight suit was worn directly against the body, burns totaled nearly 52% body surface area (BSA). When a Nomex 27/P flight suit was worn with short cotton underwear, burns totaled about 34% BSA. When a Nomex 27/P flight suit was worn in conjunction with Nomex long underwear, burns were reduced significantly, to about 9% BSA.

These numbers included unprotected head, hands, and feet, which could be protected by the use of fire-resistant boots and gloves, and a flight helmet worn with the visor down