M61A1

1 minute ago, Thruster88 said:

I feel you are suggesting there has been a slight loss of power, does the aircraft have a Constant Speed propeller to complicate the diagnosis 🤔😂🙄

I got the impression that he was looking at the greater than expected difference between the ASI and groundspeed.

Could be a leak in your static system making your ASI overread. (If the leak in inside the aircraft and cabin pressure is lower than actual static pressure, perhaps even a leaking ASI case) Or a poorly located static port.

32 minutes ago, Kiwi said:

My wife took her handbag and am way over MTOW cause of it. 

Yes, I can sympathise....

I want to know why it took half an hour to realise there's an issue.

Generally I'd say the wind is the cause, remember they are "light and variable", or do you want us to tell you why the wind is variable?

8 hours ago, NT5224 said:

But Id go an old certified GA everytime over a slightly newer but owner maintained RAA as a first purchase.

That would have to depend a lot on the skills of the person buying. GA's requirement for LAME maintenance and the requirement for factory made parts for LSA, I'd opt for a 19 rego anytime.

So much more option to maintain and modify and usually cheaper to purchase.

3 hours ago, RFguy said:

The choke is working its way out !!!! about 2mm per minute and gets quite active !!   

push it back in, power increases.

Normally Rotax 912 Bing carbs have a return spring that prevents this from occurring.

I have seen some that didn't return fully due to poor design, but never ones that creep out.

You may not notice the difference much at high power settings, but it will idle poorly, foul plugs, and use significantly more fuel.

Unless it was excessively lean in the top end to begin with, it will also be down on power.

It should be rectified immediately.

2 hours ago, Mike Gearon said:

Not enjoying the idea of zero forward velocity/ kinetic energy and the wind just disappears as RF discussed. That dropping sensation would be annoying.

Warwick airfield in SEQ has a notorious gradient if you have an easterly and are landing on 09. I have seen quite a few caught out by it. When I first found out about it I was carrying a little extra speed as it's quite a long runway.

The arxe really falls out the airspeed around 20 ft. If you aren't carrying the extra speed or do not add power immediately, pulling back still results in that "annoying" sensation, and for some, bent landing gear.

3 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

3 is wrong. 

As are points 1 and 2....It's about AoA, not speed. The speed will vary depending on certain factors, the stall angle remains constant for configuration.

1 hour ago, RFguy said:

What's the spread of pilots , lets call it the 'yield' that can cope with maximum crosswind for their aircraft under ideal (steady wind and minimal fatigue) condix ?

The strip I fly from is north/south our prevailing winds are easterly or westerly. It has necessitated learning to deal with crosswind if I want to fly.

It has taken some time and I have got reasonably proficient at it. There was a time when I wouldn't fly at all with wind over 5kts.

Now I choose not to if it's much over 20kts. The Drifter POH says 15kts, but 22kts is quite manageable, even when gusty. The 601 about the same, but I don't know what it's limits are supposed to be. The POH is made up by the builder, not the kit manufacturer.

Last weekend the sock was out straight and the ASI was reading a solid 20 gusting to 25 sitting on the ground.

1 hour ago, RFguy said:

OK. OME now I know what your are getting it. 

The other thing is.... the aircraft VELOCITY - the aircraft will be carrying more stored energy at a higher speed. This is an interesting conundrum. If the headwind down the runway, (zero Xwind)  was blowing at your stall speed ,  and your IAS was == (fractionally above) stall speed, IE the aircraft is flying, but only just, it would be sitting there in mid air....

 

...then you would have zero velocity and zero kinetic energy (putting aside you have some potential energy because there is gravity and you have height) . If the wind suddenly died you would drop vertically  because you have no energy, no forward velocity. 

 

When headwind < IAS , in a steady state,  you have forward velocity and energy.  So if the wind suddenly disappears, and IAS = velocity  you have energy that keeps you going forward and maintains some lift until the energy runs out.

 

Conversely , if headwind > IAS , and IAS > stall speed, and you are steady state , you are going backwards. not sure where to go with that one. 

 

I have had a nice headwind on the nose in the roundout, 5 feet AGL,  and then got a big gust on the nose and gone 30 feet up in the air while at idle power. I triggered an immediate go around.  That was an eye opening. 

 

BTW how well do ASIs read with aircraft at high yaw to forward motion ?

-glen

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Let a glider pilot tell us. Is their approach speed increased for crosswind landings?

 

Non-existent? You don't seem to understand vectors as they apply to a Force. Every Force can be represented by the sum of its vectors. 

 

 

The triangle of vectors for a landing is represented by this diagram

 

Where the line AC, is the runway heading and the line AB is the wind direction at an angle to runway of BAC. The line BC is the crosswind component.

The magnitude of the wind speed is "c" and the magnitude of the headwind is "b". The magnitude of the crosswind is "a"

 

If the the angle BAC is zero, then b = c and a=0. No crosswind, and headwind = wind speed.

 

As the angle BAC increases, and the value of "c" remains constant, the length of "a" (representing the strength of the crosswind component) increases, and the length of "b" (the headwind component) decreases. Try this by drawing a line "b" from Point A. Then draw lines of constant length "c" at various angles between 0 and 90 from Point A. Then draw lines at right angles to line "b" to meet the various end points of line "c". 

 

The diagram is a simplification. In the real world, the length of "b" would be (airspeed - headwind speed), which if represented to scale would be longer than length "c" representing wind speed. Consequently. the angle BCA would not be a right angle. The diagram would look like half a diamond, not half a square.

I understand what's going on, I was just being a pedant ( a pedant on an internet forum.... Who would've thought?).

 While your track on the ground may be straight with a 90° crosswind, the act of crabbing into wind (whether it's wing down or with rudder) introduces a headwind component requiring you to either need more power or have a steeper approach angle than zero wind.

13 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Ground speed will be (35 - 5 =30) kts, so you have to add power to get the airframe moving faster.

The only thing that matter here is airspeed. If Landing, you will need to add power or begin your descent later to make the runway. You don't have to go faster.

10 hours ago, old man emu said:

It was meant to be simplistic.

 

I wanted to get people to think of the reasons of why you approach at a higher speed, which you do by using higher RPM than for a still wind landing. We  tend to concentrate on the ability of the plane to handle the crosswind component, but forget how the crosswind component erodes the headwind component, leading to an higher ground speed at touchdown.

OMG!......How do gliders manage without an engine?

Higher speed for a crosswind landing than still wind because it erodes the (non existent) headwind component?

The only reason I add airspeed on an approach is to compensate for wind gradient and gusts.

As far as I know, this is a new AFJ blog by John Zimmerman. The subject itself, though, for sure, is old. As Zimmerman himself puts it: "some topics seem to come in and out of fashion like bell bottoms." When we're on about this we give AoA and BRS a rest. ;-)

To clarify....The Carbon Cub link has been posted before...I posted it. But yes, "The impossible turn" has been done before, even by the Late Maj Millard who was taken by it. Just not this article which seems quite sensible, but no doubt will be ridiculed by some as "irresponsible".

Your avenge GA "spam can" is unlikely to make such a turn/landing safely.

Below is cut and paste from the comments to the article in the OP's link. Note that he's driving a Mooney.

Bank angle and TAS are the drivers re how long it takes to complete a 180. The formula for rate of turn is 1,091 x (tangent of the bank angle)/TAS. Because the tangent goes up with angle of bank any increase in bank will increase rate of turn and any increase in speed will reduce it. And since the distance between a dead-stick airplane and the ground can be measured in precious seconds, an expeditious rate of turn is desirable. To point out the obvious, more bank and lower TAS are what you want (with an eye on best glide speed and stalling speed as g’s increase). To illustrate: a 180° turn at 30° of bank at 85 KTAS takes 24 seconds to complete; a 180 at 45° takes 14 seconds; and a 180 at 60° can be completed in only 8.1 seconds. Double the bank from 30 to 60 and cut the time needed to head back to the field from 24 to 8 seconds. The steeper bank has the added advantage that the offset from the runway is less on rollout.

Yes, we are all aware that steep-banked turns near the ground invite a stall. A 2 g tug on the yoke will stall my 20E at 90 KIAS; coincidentally, 2 gs are required to hold a plane in a stable 60° bank turn. Not much room for error when you slip below Vy and crank it over to 60° of bank.

Practice

Several iterations (at altitude) in a Mooney 20E yielded average altitude losses in a 180° turn of:

360′ lost at 30° bank,

270′ lost at 45° bank, and

200′ lost at 60° bank.

This has been posted before with much discussion about various things, but it comes down to the words at the start....Know your airplane and know your own limits.

Take up gliding

I refer you to post #25

Successive Western military interventions in the East have done little or nothing to improve the various situations there, and in some cases have arguably worsened them. Furthermore, the reasons and motivations for those interventions often don't stand the light of day.... and I think we can agree all that is an understatement.

Has the West aspired to live in harmony with the rest of the world as a principal goal, and is it open to reason?

Or to turn it round the other way, if a succession of armed foreigners periodically rampaged through your country, popping off your family and friends because they didn't like your foreign policy or what passes for your politics, or the way you looked, would you be aspiring to live in harmony and reason with them?

 

You seem to use the word 'eradicate' without any sense of irony, and certainly without any sense of the successive attempts by various groups to eradicate other groups over the last century or so. What makes you think the current example is so different?

And now that we find ourselves locally and universally facing challenges that don't respond to the same old ********, bullets or dollars, isn't it time we stopped ramping those things up and started looking for better ways?

It is clear that we hold very different views on certain issues and I will leave it at that.

There were no regulations for drones in 2013. The regulations were introduced because of concerns about uncontrolled drone use near flight paths and airfields.

I'm fairly sure that there were rules governing flight of remote controlled aircraft prior to then, but not sure who managed them. Something about not above 300 feet AGL and not with 3 NM of an aerodrome come to mind.

Must be the season for it! Our Club has been offered several neglected aircraft, from a kit still in its crates to half built, to built and not flown for years. All from $Free to $Make Me An Offer. No one here has been keen to take on the challenge.

A ProTech PT2, bought 20 years ago, still in boxes, engine turned over regularly. A Pulsar, repaired after a prang, but off the RAA register and not flown for 15+yrs. A Sapphire, not flown for years, off the RAA register, owner pulls it out regularly, turns the engine, cleans and services. Many more not flying, or partly built, never on the register, or taken off when the owner's health deteriorated. Ahh! to be young again with time on my hands to do them justice! Instead we are looking to reduce our fleet to give us more time to work on what we have.

What happened to the pulsar?

WOW! This video now would be a clear beach of CASR Part 101.075. (3)

 

I seriously doubt there would be any approvals in place, as CASA are the only ones that can approve. Not only is it dangerous, it's blood stupid. There is also no mention of this in the ERSA, so again, I doubt approvals are in place, or it would be mentioned.

 

I own and operate an CASA certified drone school (in fact stated the first) and the material is very clear - NEVER over an AD without approval!

 

 

 

 

 

 

101.075 Operation near aerodromes

 

(1) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft at an altitude above 400 feet AGL within 3 nautical miles of an aerodrome only if:

 

(a) the operation is permitted by another provision of this Part; or

 

(b) permission has been given for the operation under regulation 101.080.

 

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

 

(2) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft over an area mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) or (b) only if:

 

(a) the operation is permitted by another provision of this Part; or

 

(b) permission has been given for the operation under regulation 101.080.

 

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

 

(3) The areas for subregulation (2) are:

 

(a) a movement area or runway of an aerodrome; and

 

(b) the approach or departure path of a runway of an aerodrome.

 

(4) A person must not operate an unmanned aircraft in such a manner as to create an obstruction to an aircraft taking off from, or approaching for landing at, a landing area or a runway of an aerodrome.

 

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

 

(5) An offence against subregulation (1), (2) or (4) is an offence of strict liability.

 

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

I am in no way defending their actions, but what were the regs in 2013, when the footage was shot?

There quoted reg appears to have come into force in 2019 and doesn't seem to have a history before that as most of their regs do.

I can understand that.

However it may be that ISIS and it's associates cannot be conveniently 'eradicated' by simply inventing new methods of killing people. It hasn't worked to date. And neither has curing chicken pox by cutting off the spots.

 

I'm a boomer, son of a WW2 airforce man who lived through Malta. I was peripherally involved with NATO during the Vietnam war.

I'll tell you what worries me:

The men who survived WW1 then WW2, were immersed in it and saw how it actually was, came home with an abiding sense of the futility and waste of it all.

But now they take some kid, tell him he's a pilot and hero, sit him in a flight suit in some nondescript outbuilding in Wyoming, and direct him to 'eradicate' targets selected by others in some other part of the world, with the drone he and his buddy are operating.

Then he goes off for happy hour.

Then he goes home for dinner.

 

In the ideal world, I think the men who promote the wars should be out there leading the charge: it would provide a very neat natural corrective to a great deal of murderously bad behaviour. But that's not going to happen. And now the footsoldiers don't have to see the true consequences of their actions either?

Surely we are headed in exactly the wrong direction here?

While I agree with what you say, I'm not sure how it relates to mercenaries being hired to supply equipment and fight.

None of the methods of killing in this article were new. In fact with problems like ISIS (and the like) we may actually be better off returning to earlier ways of eradication. Living in harmony with the rest of the world is not their goal. Reasoning with them is out of the question.

but "the enemy of my enemy may be my friend" is surely closer to the mark?

You may be correct there....

I am also of the opinion that anyone willing to help eradicate ISIS and it's associates should be given any assistance possible.

Before you get excited about the cheapness, read the article. The aircraft cost them the better part of a million each, they spent god knows how much modifying them, and in the end they're stuck in hangars in Africa somewhere and the company has written off the cost.

 

As a slow-ish attack aircraft it's not bad, but I can't see it being able able to outrun or outmaneuver anti-aircraft fire, SAM's, fighters or anything else advanced militaries use.

 

When you see what these blokes were up to, it's obvious the intended use was for tinpot despots and warlords to fight off poorly armed and organised rebellions.

Compared to the usual hardware they are cheap. They were never a replacement for jet fighters either, but a similar concept to the AT-802 as shown above posts.

I did read the article and the engineering feat is quite impressive. They may not have been acting within the law, but what they achieved on the minimal budget is brilliant. With the weapons system they had, they are something between and Apache helicopter and an A10 Warthog, very useful.

They were built to fight against ISIS, so I'll look at it with the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" slant. ISIS are fairly well armed btw.

I know where there are a couple of Thrushes sitting on the tarmac right now just down the road, but they'll need the turbine conversion first though, still got radials hanging off the front.

Just this morning a saw some interesting potential firewall insulation in SCA Aerospace

 

Aluminized Cool It Mat 24"X48" Noise & Heat Insulator

Details

https://www.supercheapauto.com.au/p/thermotec-aluminized-cool-it-mat-24x48-noise-and-heat-insulator/SPO5044178.html

$117.99

 

Aeroflow Heat Barrier - 20" X 12" Sheet, AF91-6000

Details

https://www.supercheapauto.com.au/p/aeroflow-20-x-12-aluminised-heat-barr/SPO3822703.html

$64.99

Car Builders Heat Shield - Light Face, Thermal Insulation, PS_HSL_L_x1

Details

https://www.supercheapauto.com.au/p/car-builders-peel-and-stick-heat-shield-light-face-600-x-1060mm/SPO7481118.html

$122.00

 

Most seem to be available in different sizes

In the aft fuselage I have used something similar. It's a very lightweight stickyback aluminium coated foam to help reduce drumming on the flat panels. i have used a lightweight fibreglass stuff quilted between some other stuff to do the cockpit as it's more flame resistant. It has made significant improvement.

I still get drumming from the horizontal stab and wings because I'm not de-riveting to install insulation and wind noise is still the loudest thing. I'd have to build a less draggy airframe to fix that.

Hmmm...Gonna grasp the nettle here. Its hard to generalise about who is and isnt interested in flying. These days the right seat (and left seat) of many Airlines have female aircrew. My wife also flies and I reckon we make a great team in the cockpit with complementary qualities...

 

Lots of female instructors around too. Im inclined to think increasing opportunity and encouragement has led to the growing proportion of female aviators. I for one would like to encourage many more to join our ranks. Im sure they make really good pilots and their presence in the community makes Fly-ins and other events more enjoyable when its not just us crusty old blokes...!

 

A whole different perspective.

 

Alan

One can only generalise, of course there are always exceptions.

I'm happy for them to do it if that's what they want to do, but in the most egalitarian countries where there are no boundaries and all the choices, 80% of women still choose jobs that involve people and 80% of men still choose jobs working with things.

What I don't want is someone who really didn't want to be there but was pushed, or chosen to be there because of their genitalia.

Anyone younger makes a pleasant change at most fly-ins, it bothers me a lot that at most fly-ins that I'm amongst the younger ones and I'm in my 50s.

All without permission, certification, or even a full testing regime...

Now that I've had time to read the articles, I think it's a very good demonstration of what you can achieve when you keep the regulators out of things. The main thing is that it was properly engineered and not just thrown together. We could learn a lot from this, but we won't.