peejman

    Exactly.  It'll take some nitwit doing something really stupid to create some case law to determine how exactly the law will be interpreted. 

I felt sure the FAA's restriction on commercial operation of drones would be challenged in court.  The lines between a "drone" and a "toy" are quite blurry.  The only distinction appears to be commercial use.              The 400 ft ceiling is intended to keep drones/toys away from other aircraft which typically shouldn't be below 500 ft. 

    The world is a big place.  It's easy to lose small things like airplanes.   Best I can tell, the current search area looks to be roughly 250,000 square miles.   Given the size of the pieces of stuff that have been found via satellite images (25-30ft) ... that's like looking for something that's 0.000027" in diameter on the floor in your 2000 sqft house.  The fact that they find anything is pretty astounding to me. 

Welcome!

My great uncle had one that he used for a long time.  I recall trying it when I was a teenager and thinking, "wow, what a work out.  this old guy does this all the time!" 

    You forget who would be doing the work...             Ding!  $38k is chump change, and as OS said, even if allocated it likely wouldn't be spent for that.  It's an excuse. 

    News this morning said flyovers of the area were unable to confirm the satellite images.  The search continues.

    Agreed on the FAA stuff, experimental would be the only way.  I find it absurd that you can pay $350k+ or more for a brand new airplane, glass cockpit, GPS satnav, etc. ... with an engine designed 70+ years ago. 

Looks like Edward Norton in American History X.

  Easy... Run some 1/4" lag screws into one of the legs... 2-3 screws a few inches apart.  Don't run them all the way in, leave about 1" between the underside of the head and the leg.  Upsize the prop to something about 1/2" thick with a hole drilled just big enough to clear the bolt head.  The prop should be flexible enough to slide over the head of the bolt.  Add a couple tent stakes to secure it to the ground.  Cool idea. 

    Even the newer Wankels (RX8) would burn an astonishing amount of oil when new.  Some never stopped consuming it.  Sealing the rotor isn't easy.    As for increasing efficiency, adding a turbo is a quick way to do that.  Looks like that would be a plumbing nightmare with this design since it has 3 separate throttle bodies.   The basic shape of it and reported weight savings makes me think light aircraft would be a good application.            Torque will feel like torque. Its still a moment applied around the crankshaft axis, that part is the same regardless of configuration. 

Interesting.  I wonder how the lubrication and cooling systems work. 

    The wire from a twist-tie works as well.  But be careful as some jets are quite delicate and simply passing a wire through the hole can change their size enough to affect performance. 

    Can you point me toward some credible sources?  As TMF says, the inflammatory tone of many articles gives me a "self fulfilling prophesy" vibe.  I'm a natural born cynic, but if there's data to support the conclusions then I'll believe it. 

It's a pic I of the sun experiencing a huge coronal mass ejection... which is a fancy term for a solar storm.  The circle in the middle is just blocking out the sun itself so the ejection is more visible.  I'm nerdy like that and thought it looked cool. 

    Party pooper.  :yuck:

    If you're ever on a plane that loses an engine on take-off, you won't think that other one is grossly over-powered.    "Rotate" means the nose wheel leaves the ground and the plane begins to take off.  That's generally the point of no return unless the plane is on an exceptionally long runway.    Yes, flying at low altitude burns through fuel at an astounding rate. 

Welcome!  Nice toys.

Hope it goes well.  My wife's grandfather had his hip replaced several years ago.  Other than getting pretty loopy on the meds (which was hilarious   :rofl:   ), he did fine.  He's in his mid 80's and remains very active. 

        Any objective proof?  Scientific studies or other data that reaches such conclusions?   I'm not trying to be an arse, I'd just like to see some data that amounts to more than hand waving followed by unsupported conclusions.  I'm nerdy like that. 

This looks like a pretty good reason to me...

    Given that there has been no claim of responsibility, I think this was practice.  Whoever did it is simply practicing for something bigger to come later.  They found a relatively low security airline and tried their plan to see if it would work.  So far, it would appear it has.              A 777 is a big airplane, but Earth is a pretty big place.  It could be anywhere by now. 

I heard an interested idea today....   Seems there are controls for the cabin oxygen system in the cockpit.  The conspirators could have put on masks, turned the O2 system off, depressurized the cabin, and killed everyone on board quickly and painlessly.    It becomes a flying hearse in less than 5 minutes. 

Welcome!

    I generally do the same thing.  And a big +1 to the safety glasses....  You never know where that jet of carb cleaner might come squirting out from, and a face full of carb cleaner sucks.  AMHIK....