djpacro

On 19/01/2023 at 4:23 PM, RocketShip said:

VH-ECI looks very nice. I see it was upgraded with a 160hp engine.

They would go well with that engine. 

I would imagine fuel would become a problem though.

Burning lot more fuel.

I've done quite a bit in ECI but far from my favourite Airtourer model. Even the factory built Airtourer Super 150 had a miserable useful load for aerobatics. Add engine oil to the empty weight here then the amended unusable fuel allowance. ECI's empty weight is higher as I recall.

3 hours ago, Roundsounds said:

VH-RSJ had some pieces of curved painted Perspex that fitted into tracks and slid forward when needed. Looked like a factory fitment. 

I had forgotten about that - forward of the painted section. Sun protection must’ve been an option.

https://images.app.goo.gl/rfyc7GUkzBAPhBK79

1. Very informative free handbooks from the FAA at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation especially the Airplane Flying Handbook, Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge and Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators.

2. Try the online courses at USA’s AOPA - register for free and take the free course e.g. https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/online-learning/online-courses/essential-aerodynamics

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

If high +ve drains the blood from your head, do high -ve Gs flood it?

Details here on page 12 https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/1970s/media/am72-28.pdf

My friend fitted these. Airtourer Association is the best place to ask.

On 07/01/2023 at 11:44 AM, pmccarthy said:

... it was full left rudder, full left aileron, and full nose down. Described as everything in the corner. .... Either way, it was a minus 5 g manoeuvre. 

I'm certainly not knowledgeable on WW2 fighters however I know that -5G would be beyond their limit load factor.

I also know how an aircraft responds to control inputs and I've been to -5G many times. Response depends on the rate of control application with airspeed also a big factor. Flying along upright and suddenly hit full forward stick, full left rudder with full left aileron lagging a tad results in an outside snap roll. Easy to calculate the G based on entry speed and the stall speed at -1G.

Slower control movements - obviously forward stick into a dive results in a speed increase. WW2 fighters have similar flight load limitations as current GA airplanes. Rolling G limitations and Va, maneuvering speed. Something will break doing that.

4 hours ago, Garfly said:

 

Low level circuits are part of the RAAus (and CASA) training syllabus so they should be trained for, and practised, at airports, as they are, in fact, every day.

Yep, Part 91.267 with MOS 13.02 specifically addresses this.

Two hours after sunset. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/302136

USA PPL includes night VFR training and the permission for night VFR flights. I wonder if the training included taking off over the water with no lights ahead. When I did my night VFR rating we did circuits at Philip Island out over the water on a dark night. https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/dark-and-deadly-nights/

5 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Thanks.

I'll also have to check on the requirements for operating a radio ground to air for when we are moving about on the aerodrome.

61.435 and my earlier link refer.

20 hours ago, djpacro said:

..

13 hours ago, old man emu said:

You failed!

lannguage proficency

Sometimes I fail.

For pilot licences ... regs 61.120 & 61.435 refer to authorisations to use radio.

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

Is a radio operator's licence a lifetime thing? I'm mean, apart from brushing up on mandatory transmissions while returning to currency with my pilot's licence, I wouldn't have to sit the exam again, would I?

Seems like you might be transitioning to the new-fangled Part 61 licence from an old CAR 5 licence? You'll need a GELP, general english lannguage proficency, assessment as a prerequisite for using a radio. https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certificates/pilots/pilot-licences/getting-recreational-pilot-licence-rpl#

Quite a contrast to https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/event_details.aspx?eid=117601&fbclid=IwAR1g8RGw7wUDd8X3RJw9FnNBqFAS3-BDh-dAkgNphv3V8kKzw60g1w-CBB0

"Teaching Control In The Pattern - Topic: Discussion With In-Flight Videos Covering: Pilot-Induced Oscillations, Wake Turbulence Upsets, And Stalls At Low Altitudes." I saw it live today - video will be in the archives.

(I even got credit for my flight review).

On 05/11/2022 at 9:54 AM, hkaneshiro said:

.... 3. Then add the RAA/RPC taildragger+X-country Navs to my RPL ... can I add some of the RPC endorsements added to my RPL later? I could not find a special form.

 

 

 

Yep, just fill in the form. Ask CASA to be sure to be sure, they are quite helpful at https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/contact-us/flight-crew-licensing-enquiries

8 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Stuck controls after they have checked free and full movement though?

I agree, not as common as control locks left in, but FOD moving during flight and jamming controls in aerobatic airplanes is a well known hazard. It has happened to myself and several others that I know over the years.

Good discussion. Great work APenNameAndThatA

Quote

17T. Stuck controls are not a leading cause of crashing on takeoff.

It is a fairly common cause, however.

Quote

"Handing over" and "taking over" are not standard phrases.

They are. Refer CASA's Flight Instructor Manual.

On 29/09/2022 at 3:09 PM, kasper said:

There are NO RAAus planes certified to spin.  Full stop no quibble.

I think you'll find the rule is operational not aircraft certification.

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

... I don't like aerobating planes that aren't well above 5G  safe. NO RAA planes are certified to spin, ... Nev

Hi Nev, is that a new philosophy, as your Citabria was a 5G airplane? And - there are quite a few RAA planes certified for intentional spinning.

6 hours ago, Bosi72 said:

Hi DJP 

Are you referring to flat spins?

Thanks 

Yes, that is the placard (although not actually required for all flat spins, testing revealed specific control actions to get it there).

Interesting that the general spin placard there is not quite correct per the AFM.

1 hour ago, Area-51 said:Regardless of any 16 spin variations - Ailerons centralised …

The factory test pilot found some modes which were not recoverable with that method. Amendment to the AFM and cockpit placard refers.

4 hours ago, RFguy said:

Excellent stuff DJP. thanks for clarifying

 

 

I get a steady stream of curious flight instructors asking about it when they can't get numbers to tie up when they do the  arithmetic. Of course, they must use CAS - are those stall speeds in CAS or IAS? When the manufacturer does the calculations do they use the stall speed at the same CG published in the POH or not - some manufacturers publish stall speeds for both fore and aft CG positions.

There are several reasons why a manufacturer may state a higher Va than Vs.sqrt(n). One is that they are allowing for future growth of that model so just do the certification once at the anticipated higher weight - as you saw, Va is only used to get control surface and tail loads, nothing to do with stresses in the wing. When an engineer first specifies Va it is before the prototype has flown so the stall speed is only estimated and perhaps the engineer builds in a buffer. Perhaps the actual stall speed is less than originally estimated. The structural engineering certification paperwork is largely done, they're not going to revise Va and delay the FAA's review if they don't have to.

5 hours ago, RFguy said:

…..based on the muls, i'd say the Muskateer Va is for about half way between max and min weight. 

I’d say it would be exactly as required by the design airworthiness regulations as explained succinctly by FAA AC 23-19. Vs below is at maximum weight.

36 minutes ago, aro said:

According to the report,

"The instructor’s initial and ongoing aerobatics training was conducted in the Pitts Special aircraft. ...."

 

I would have no problem doing aerobatics training in a 150, BUT I would want the instructor to have extensive aerobatics experience in that type. To me, it sounds like the instructor underestimated the skills required for the 150 compared to the Pitts.

 

Yep, I did state "almost any instructor". Aerobatic customers often consider different schools and sometimes specific instructors before deciding but often don't bother asking about the instructor's experience. I think an instructor like that would've been fine for the general aerobatic training - I would expect some solo aerobatic practice (normal with others I know who transition to other types) rather than pick it up with a student on board paying for it as the report indicates.

10 hours ago, aro said:

The report does prompt a few thoughts -

• Generally, a Pitts would be considered a more advanced aircraft than a C150. But maybe when it comes to aerobatics that isn't the case. I can see it might take more skill to fly the C150, with the less purpose built design requiring larger control movements, and slower responses requiring you to be further ahead of the aircraft. I don't see any problem teaching in it, but perhaps someone stepping out of a Pitts might underestimate the difficulty.
• Following from that, what qualifications are required to teach aerobatics? An instructor teaching a student in an aircraft that they themselves had little experience on seems sub-optimal.

My opinion is that the Cessna Aerobat is a great little aerobatic trainer. I've done quite a bit of instruction in them. Yep, so easy to do a roll in a Pitts or Extra. Students in a Cessna, with its much lower roll rate, must learn more skills in rolling it as well as energy management overall. The Decathlon is an excellent aerobatic trainer. Very few in Australia learn basic aerobatics in a Pitts or Extra - they could learn those correct basic skills to do a roll at low roll rates but won't iniitially. Techniques for hammerheads are quite a bit different in high performance aircraft.

I don't see a problem with teaching aerobatics on different types in general as almost any instructor would've started on a low performance type. Courses for an instructor doing an aerobatic training endorsement should include some little classroom techniques in different types per the MOS. Manuals give good guidance on how to do stuff and most of the skills are transferable. I do enjoy seeing a Pitts pilot try to do a hammerhead (stall turn) in an Airtourer though!

The real issue is spinning. The MOS only requires knowledge of the type which is being used for training.

10 hours ago, aro said:

The report does prompt a few thoughts -

• I wonder about the usefulness of unusual attitude recovery training in aircraft like the Pitts i.e. dedicated aerobatic aircraft. Certainly, it is useful to get experience so you can maintain your composure in unusual attitudes, but advanced aerobatic aircraft are probably much easier to recover than standard aircraft. .... There's probably a catch 22 here - you could train in aircraft that reflect the real world, but you would then have more training accidents.

Unusual attitudes - a good point for more discussion at that other thread on UPRT, perhaps.

When I do a spin endorsement for someone there is classroom work which includes:

• all the aggravated spin modes and how to avoid them
• some characteristics of other types so the recovery method is likely to be different than the type we are using
• the limitations of Beggs-Mueller
• what to do if you apply the correct (or you think it was correct) recovery method and it doesn't work - what do you do?
• especially for flight instructors, what aircraft will they be instructing in, as if not approved for spins they must know the control actions specified in the POH - probably totally different than what I've taught them - and apply them as soon as it starts to spin - certainly before one turn. eg this Diamond
• 

Quote

If an aerobatics instructor couldn't recover a C150 Aerobat from an intentional spin, how useful is the training?

Indeed. I expect (hope) there will be changes to the spin training MOS and instructor training.

1 hour ago, aro said:

... The ATSB report says the method "has proven to be a very effective method of spin recovery in most aircraft types." Is that "most types" that are approved for spinning, within aerobatic CG etc. or is it "most types" in the spin testing conditions required for certification?

Here is the list from Gene Beggs, October 1985 magazine article, which he claims to have thoroughly tested.

Of these, he states that it doesn't work (at least for some spin modes) for the Beech T-34C, North American AT-6 and that Cessna 150. Bill Kershner confirmed that every Cessna Aerobat behaves the same when trying to recover using Beggs-Mueller - even the 152 will not recover.

They weren't certification standard tests, for example, he did not rig the control surfaces to the extremes of the tolerances most adverse for spin recovery. What CG range did he test for each aircraft? How can he guarantee it? 

His book, Spins in the Pitts Special, was published later and it had another statement: "Another aircraft that will not always recover is the 180 Decathlon. This occurs in the inverted left rudder spin. I have not flown the 180 Decathlon extensively. I do not know if the 150 Decathlon also exhibits the same behaviour." Hang on, in that earlier magazine article he stated that he had thoroughly tested it? He goes on "If we could spin-test every aircraft, I am sure we would find others that will lock-in and continue spinning on their own."

An instructor and student were conducting inverted spins in a Decathlon and the Beggs-Mueller technique was being demonstrated. The student was told to bail out and survived. The instructor was killed as he didn't have enough time to get out.

Eric Mueller is quite vague - I have only seen him state that it works for all those aircraft which have a conventional (according to Eric) tail design like that of the Pitts Special. Tell that to Paul Bennet - it doesn't work for his Wolf Pitts.