Thanks DWW.
Oz was hot - +43C on the day I left. I am still very upset about MF but this isn't the place for me to tell you about my reasons for that. MF is still alive and well and having its annual done at the moment.
The DA40 is OK. I finished my conversion before I set off for Oz but as I hadn't flown it for over six weeks I have booked a couple of lesssons with the vict ....er FI who did the flying part of my conversion. It's OK in that it flies like MF but takes far longer to get airborne and I'm sure won't have the great short-field landing capability of MF. It may look very pretty but it is uncomfortable to fly - the seats are probably the most stupid design I can think of as is the seatbelt and I feel quite stiff when I get out. Because the rake cannot be adjusted I can just reach some things which I would be able to reach easily if I were able to sit more upright. The only advantages I can see are that it has two radios both with standby frequency, (you will understand why I find that a distinct improvement) and the possibility to take more than one friend flying at a time. The weight and balance calculations can be a nightmare and as someone remarked, it seems very odd that it wasn't possible in this day and age to design an aircraft which didn't require the placing of half a house worth of bricks in the back when there is more than one person in the aircraft. Apart from that, having been told by some of those who learned on the PA28s that it was very twitchy and floated for ever, I haven't found this to be so - maybe because I am used to the 152 which is nice and light and responsive as opposed to the PA28s which seem slow to respond and heavy to manoeuvre. Just my humble feelings about it. I shall still be flying a 152 as, now that I have retired, I can't afford to fly the DA40 very often. When are you going to call in and see us again?