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

aro

Members
  • Content Count

    405
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

aro last won the day on December 18 2017

aro had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

346 Excellent

About aro

  • Rank
    Well-known member

More Information

  • Aircraft
    C172
  • Location
    Melbourne
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If those numbers are correct I'm not surprised they were audited for quality
  2. Responding to several posts... 1 in 60 corrections assume you can hold a heading, so a primary reason is to correct for wind. Wind has more effect on a slower aircraft. A 10 knot crosswind will probably be insignificant for a 150 knot aircraft over 100 miles. It is much more significant for a 50 knot aircraft. How do you figure out how much you need to adjust your heading? That is where the 1 in 60 rule comes in. The idea of the 1 in 60 rule is that if you are flying e.g. 100 miles and are 5 miles off track after 40 miles, you can make a correction that will put you back on track at the 100 mile point so you fly the shortest distance - or at an earlier point if you prefer. When people track visually to something they can see, they often track in a curve if there is a crosswind because they don't apply enough wind correction. It is better to calculate a heading and fly it. Making adjustments to your heading to follow ground features makes it impossible to use the 1 in 60 rule. It relies on accurately flying a constant heading. If you use a wind correction you don't know whether it is too much or too little, so you do not know which side of the planned track you will be. It is possible if you are navigating to a linear feature (river, road etc.) crossing your track to deliberately track slightly left or right so you know which way to turn when you reach the feature. The deliberate left or right angle needs to be larger than other possible errors. When navigating visually the tolerance is 1 mile left or right of track.
  3. What does a RA pilot need to do to access CTA? Isn't it as simple as: Fill in a form applying for a RPL Do a RPL flight review, which can incorporate the CTA endorsement and double as a RAA flight review As a bonus you get to fly heavier aircraft. It's not good for RAA as an organization, but for pilots wanting CTA and heavier aircraft I don't understand what more that they want. What are you asking for on top of that?
  4. Someone, earlier in the thread started talking about vehicles climbing hills... Tell that to the people running aircraft with Wankel engines e.g. https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/soundings-1-180969512/ On the subject of props, they had to limit the power because their prop was only good for 500HP: https://woelfle-engineering.com/we/Wankel_Rotary_Time_to_Climb_World_Record_Presentation_Paul_Lamar.pdf If you have a gearbox, you can have whatever torque you like. But you only have a set amount of power. A gearbox is never 100% efficient, it can only reduce the power available...
  5. Whether the units are derived is irrelevant. Energy is one of the fundamental building blocks of physics, but the units are derived. Are you proposing the laws of thermodynamics should be rewritten in reference to kg, m and s because they are SI units?
  6. No, power is a fundamental concept in physics: the rate at which work is done. A rocket engine produces power (but no torque), a jet engine produces power, a man walking up stairs produces power. Your calculations are just specialized examples to calculate the power of an internal combustion engine. It takes power for a vehicle to climb a hill. You can calculate the power required, and it doesn't matter whether it comes from an internal combustion engine, a rocket engine, or 4 guys pushing the car. 1 horsepower = the power required to raise 75kg 1 metre in 1 second. or if you prefer imperial 1 horsepower = the power required to raise 550lb 1 foot in 1 second.
  7. Take RPM out and you also get zero. You need non zero values for both torque and rpm, i.e. power.
  8. Only because at the same RPM it has higher power. In other words, it is power that determines how fast you climb the hill, not torque.
  9. "Equal gearing" - referring to gearing shows you are talking about power. Equal gearing means equal RPM, and at equal RPM power scales linearly with torque. A Rotax 912S is quoted at 128NM of torque. On a bicycle, I can produce approximately 140NM of torque. RPM and therefore power are ridiculously low of course - there's no prospect of me powering a pedal powered aircraft. A GSXR600 motorbike has only 70NM of torque. I can guarantee it will climb a hill better than me on a bicycle, despite having only 1/2 the torque. Torque alone tells you nothing, torque and RPM together give you power. Power is in fact defined by how fast you can raise a weight e.g. climb a hill. 1 (metric) horsepower is the power required to raise 75 kg 1 metre in 1 second. So climbing a hill faster requires more power, by definition.
  10. Rotax allow 100 hours between oil changes. If you do 1.0 VDO flights including 0.1 on the ground at both the start and end (which seems to be fairly common flight school pattern) your 100 hours airswitch is 125 hours engine running time. Is 25 hours on the ground "hours on end"? Lots of people I suspect, because as I understand it, the rules say that is what you must do. No, the engine isn't going to become a block of molten metal. But you need to decide how much you care about following the maintenance schedule. If you want to follow it, it makes sense to use the method it specifies to record time.
  11. I would have thought that whoever developed the maintenance schedule should define how the intervals are measured. Rotax definitely specify their engine hours include any time the engine is running - not just flying time. It looks like Lycoming specify "engine operating hours" which to me also suggests any time the engine is running. Are you suggesting that an engine that spends lengthy times idling on the ground should have less frequent oil changes? Most people would say the opposite. Rotax engines probably have most stress on the gearbox at idle. Time spent in cruise should be when the engine is at its optimum temperature, oil pressure etc. and experiencing least wear. CASA in their infinite wisdom might have their own definition of time, but that is not necessarily a good idea.
  12. The problem with the strength argument is designers don't use the extra weight to add strength, they use extra weight to go faster and carry more. The AUF/RAA went from 450kg to 500kg to 600kg. 150kg would add a lot of strength, but I bet most of it has been used for extra speed (thinner wings, no struts etc. mean the structure must be heavier for the same strength) and more payload. That pic looks like a RV-7 which is approximately 815kg. If you're saying it too needs more weight, how much do you want? Would you rather crash a 600kg Jabiru or a 815kg RV-7? I would certainly choose to crash in my 544kg aircraft with its steel tube cockpit rather than the 815kg RV-7. The RV-7 has many advantages over my aircraft, I don't think a more crashworthy structure is one of them.
  13. How much VFR flying have you done in CTA? It's not as hard as you make out. I suspect most of your CTA work might have been IFR? I was a passenger in a balloon that landed at Essendon. It was interesting to see the process - transponder, airways clearance etc. No NOTAM as fas as I am aware - I don't think they could predict where they were going to go far enough in advance.
  14. aro

    Stalls

    I did. Some people believe that with enough training we can all improve our skills enough to eliminate accidents. That approach regularly fails. Yesterday we had Australia's most skilled footballers playing in the Grand Final. No-one doubts their skill, they do plenty of practice, but still their skills occasionally let them down and they miss easy kicks etc. No matter how skilled you are, the risk of a skill error is always there. There are areas of aviation where they refuse to rely solely on skill to avoid accidents. They have rules and procedures to keep away from the areas where skill becomes critical. Those areas of aviation tend to be the safest areas by far. I have no objection to stalling an aircraft, but I only want to do it when I have planned it. The idea of a defined minimum maneuvering speed, to stay away from the area where skill becomes important is interesting.
  15. aro

    Stalls

    Va is a maximum maneuvering speed not minimum. You didn't watch the video - the difference between maneuvering speed as used by GA (Va) and maneuvering speed used by airlines is the first thing they discuss. The point of the video is that in GA we can calculate a minimum maneuvering speed, and make sure we do not go below that speed except in very specific circumstances e.g. final approach. Then whether or not you "know" when you are about to stall becomes irrelevant because you do not fly close to the stall.
×
×
  • Create New...