djpacro

I guess that the description is correct, doesn’t say they are DC so I wouldn’t expect them to be. I have a local store so I generally stop in to buy http://www.skylines.com.au/products/378/david-clark-gel-undercut-ear-seals

Cleaning out my office and found this article on the subject

Depends on the cause of the fouling - see https://m.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pdf/tempestplugmaint.pdf My IO-360 has the fine-wire electrodes on the bottom of the cylinders so the only type of fouling that I'd experience is the "bridged electrode" and cycling the prop pitch generally knocks the deposit off.

Not to mention high wing aircraft without laminar-flow aerofoils ..... I’ve experienced much less tendency for an uncommanded wing drop in low wings with laminar-flow aerofoils (but there are many types that I have not flown). Perhaps something to do with the wing taper, washout ...

and one effect of skidding is to effectively add sweepback on one wing, sweepforward on the other

Lots of other factors in a descending, skidded turn.

I’m out, I thought at first it might’ve been something by Gordon Bedson or Graham Percy but seems not.

I remember that

Some general comments from https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-221613.html here: "As for toe-in/out; a small amount of toe-in will cause the drag to be reduced slightly on the inside wheel if a swing starts, and the yaw moment that this creates is stabilising i.e. it wants to swing you back straight again. For toe-out the converse is true, and any deviation from straight ahead is exaggerated. The elasticity of spring-bar type undercarriages means that drag on the wheel wants to turn the wheels outwards towards a toe-out configuration ..." A Pitts can be decidedly ornery with too much of either, especially with the bungee gear - you can see the effect just pushing it backwards and forwards on the ground.. The 8KCAB Service Manual specified nil toe-in/out and rectified by shims (which can also be used to fix the camber). You can buy shims at https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/tapershim.php with this advice: "For wheel alignment. Ideal setting is zero toe-in and zero camber at normal operating weight. shims may be rotated to any one of four positions to obtain desired result."

I hadn’t seen a single seater E-3 before (I lead a sheltered life).

Can we rule out the Su26, 29, 31 and Juka.

All good questions but not all of the questions ... and doesn’t answer the original question of what CASA’s position is.

My guess is that their position is identical to an internal installation of an EFB - from an engineering point of view they have similar considerations. The law is identical. I suggest that you read the CAAP in EFBs, just the short text on airworthiness engineering approval.

Cygnet

Yep, I can wait for the investigation and in the meantime I'll quietly note the words from the witnesses with my observations of the accident site.

I flew the turboprop version of the CT4 nearly 30 years ago. A fun aeroplane.

A bit of light reading (a lot of good research since the Aircruiser was designed) and the solution depends on the problem you want to fix: https://www.flyingmag.com/how-wing-cuffs-work http://phil.zatetic.com/school/AAE_415_Presentation.pdf http://www.airspeedalive.com/writings/improving-airplane-stall-characteristics-with-fixed-devices/ then into some detail like https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780005068.pdf and https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710021678.pdf

Henry used to tell us that the whole wind/tunnel shook when the model stalled! The prototype had a violent uncommanded roll which was fixed by the wing fences. Seems to me that those cuffs were too large. I have a copy of the Aircruiser W/T test report. I’ve used smaller wing root cuffs successfully. As an example take a look at the T-34C.

From my contact at RAPAC: “..... The bigger issue is that CASA changed the direction of travel after the RAPAC presentation and other consultation. There was no consultation whatsoever about the change of flight direction at 1500 ft. The first RAPAC knew about it is when we saw the new charts along with everyone else. It also appears as if CASA sidestepped the OAR as well. ....” CASA did it all by themselves.

Rich Stowell’s book on Stall/Spin Awareness has information quoted from a Cessna test pilot - yep, it will happen, different behaviour in different models .... from memory rectified in later models however the warning in the AFM may have been retained. Sideslipping turn was in CASA’s Day VFR Syllabus and is still in the Part 61 MOS.

Not many. The most exciting part was when CASA went to investigate the sausages with the onion on top.

Some years ago a well known aerobatic instructor around Melbourne told a young lady that she would need an approved aerobatic bra. Before the internet and unable to find a shop which knew about them she rang CASA (its predecessor actually) to ask for the list of approved aerobatic bras. Sometime later the FOI was talking to Dick: “It was you wasn’t it?”?

how could I miss it

Aquila A210