Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/12/18 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I worked for several years as a radio operator in a Fire Control Centre for NSW Rural Fire Service. We were the conduit for all radiotelephony between FCC & the fireground. Since all rural fireys are volunteers, with varying experience, standards of radio calls differed greatly. The old Standard Operating Procedure for radio terminology called for "affirmative". I have personal experience of the difficulties this causes, when the operator is not speaking clearly (raging bushfire outside the cab), when terrain degrades the signal, and when the first couple of seconds is not transmitted after the ptt button is pressed due to the system itself. Even asking for a repeat still often results in multiple "##@%&*<%#..ative" Only the last syllables come through. It is clearly unwise to use two words sharing much of their sound when their meanings are opposites. So eventually the SOP's were changed and "Affirm" became the required word, with the emphasis on the first syllable. This mostly worked, except for a few older hands. These guys complained that they'd been trained to use affirmative, they'd always used it, & didn't see the point of changing. Had they heard what we heard, with scratchy radio transmissions sometimes conveying urgent and important information, they may have appreciated the need for change. Bruce
  2. 2 points
    It's a s simple as this- If a tree falls in the forrest and no one was there to hear it, did it fall? It's the same of all things, if no one witnessed it, how can you say it happened? The Wrights were happy to have people see what they were doing, Maybe Pearse and the others flew, but if no one saw it...
  3. 2 points
    We in the UK do not really have a problem with this as there is virtually Zero Ag-flying left,. . .But I DO recall that my instructors in Australia, in the 1970s Bemoaned the attitude of the then DCA about Low Level Training. They reckoned that DCA seemed to be stuffed full of Beaurocrats who had never flown at ANY level. . .so they simply did not understand the industry. Our CAA, I think is the only DECENT Quango ( Quasi-Autonomous Non - Governmental Authority ) worth it's salt in the UK,. .. it seems to be populated by Pilots of all kinds, who REALLY DO understand what is required, and are quick to react to trends and situations in what they re regulating upon. . . . ( This is Serious Praise from Me, a large critic of MOST UK Government departments ! ) CAA has Spawned the Ubiquitous Air Accident Investigation Bureau ( A.A.I. B. ) which is world famous for it's forensic dissection of Air Accidents of all kinds . . .but that is just an offshoot of a group which employs SPECIALISTS IN THE FIELD, Rather than bog standard civil servants. . . . ( No disrespect to Civil Servants generally BTW. . . ) Best of luck with your efforts Guys. . . . . I always found that the Aussie Government Generally made the Spanish and Greeks look really Helpful. . . .
  4. 1 point
    The Szorenyi rotary engine is the latest development in rotary design. However, it appears to be likely to suffer from the same problem as all rotaries - trying to ensure a durable and reliable seal between rotor and stator. This niggling problem is likely to be worsened if the Szorenyi rotary engine reaches much higher revolutions than the Wankel. New 4 chamber rotary engine
  5. 1 point
    I have great difficulty" admiring" anything that is stupidly unsafe just to make a style statement as happens a lot in Europe with some U/L planes design.. Might be a selling point with some, but not for me.. As for generql good style The ME 262 ,Mitsubishi zero, FM 190 and a Lockheed 1049 C Constellation and quite a few flying boats look OK to me Catalina and Short Sunderland for example. If been up close and personal with Concords but they look better from a distance and without the cockpit drooped. Close up they are all ripples and dents but it's a n iconic shape. The Ryan STM looks cute. and some of Howard Hughes racers too. Some aero engines look good and some look fugly .Radials where you can see the cylinders etc the fins on some of the heads are a work of art.. But I can't separate what engineering goes into them from the shape. If the fins are in a useless place, it looks crook.. A plane has to fly as well as it can be made to. that's it's prime aim .The way it flys is what makes it beautiful.. They belong to the air Not the ground.. Nev
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
    I don't think the Wright Bros would have got off the ground if it were not for the generously unpatented work of a lot of other aerial experimenters - including in particular, the austere bearded gent who graces our $20 note. But the device that really ensured the Wrights got airborne, was the wizard of a little lightweight engine, produced by the equally brilliant Charlie Taylor. Charlie not only built the Flyer engine from scratch, to the Wright Bros sketches and specifications - he also built the wind tunnel that Orville and Wilbur used extensively to prove up their theories. Perhaps if Lawrence Hargrave had succeeded in producing a workable lightweight engine, he would be the recognised pioneer of aviation, rather than the Wright Bros. Charlie Taylor - The man aviation almost forgot Biography - Lawrence Hargrave
  8. 1 point
    The Comet was leaps and bounds ahead in terms of performance at the time, but like most things, it is not always wise to invest in the Mk1 version of what is on offer. However, iv'e flown in Comet 4C many times, and i'm still around to haunt you. I recon it looked pretty slick in it's BEA livery.
  9. 1 point
    They had to brace the wings with the steel cables anyway why not have them pilot adjustable, no extra weight or drag, brilliant engineering.
  10. 1 point
    Thanks Facthunter - Mostly well above my pay grade however the intermediate design must be the Wankle. Such a sham that it did not attract more investment/research. If it had had a nats nuts of the piston engines R&D it would be a ripper small aircraft engine by now.
  11. 1 point
    So lets see.... it wasn't a military secret or classified by the government, various experimenters around the world were working on the problem and a bloke in the USA succeeds and NOTHING more comes of it even though he didn't kill himself. No Whitehead Aircraft Company, no passing on of how he did it, no plans sold, etc etc. Yeah, right. As for " The Wright Brothers' method was empirical. They theorised; tested their theories by experimentation and utilised the best results of those experiments" is a good description of the scientific method. Not only that the Wrights tested the older theories from other people and concluded that they were wrong, hence their own experimentation and theorising. Engineering education is interesting. It helps to know enough to figure out what you need to learn to do the job at hand. Some of the better engineers didn't have a formal engineering education. Irv Culver of Lockheed was one (he gave the Skunk Works its name). It was reckoned he simply figured out what he needed to learn and did so to solve the problem. I met him once. One thing is for sure and that is that our aeronautical pioneers were very fortunate indeed that they didn't have CASA, RAAus, GFA etc "helping" them. Imagine the Internet if CASA had been in charge of its oversight.
  12. 1 point
  13. 1 point
    Roger is alive and kicking, but note that these days it only means you have received the last message, not that you have understood it! Affirmative is abbreviated to 'Affirm' to avoid confusion with negative in the case of clipped transmissions.
  14. 1 point
  • Create New...