djpacro
-
Posts
2,897 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Store
Aircraft
Resources
Tutorials
Articles
Classifieds
Movies
Books
Community Map
Quizzes
Videos Directory
Everything posted by djpacro
-
Sorry, but I couldn't see how the statement "For myself OzRunways works out less expensive than buying ERSA and Maps, also you don't need mobile coverage once you have downloaded required data." I see now that you also use OzRunways for tracking which others have noted uses mobile phone signals for that function.
-
Irrelevant to tracking discussion.
-
I use Spot Tracker because I get outside mobile phone coverage (not just flying) enough to justify the cost to my family and myself.
-
That was all per my instructor rating course of 20 years ago. and yet an engine failure should never have such a tragic ending. Now we have this in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for required stall training. We also have a new, unique to Australia, definition of aerobatics which would most likely encompass that exercise. So, only those taught by instructors with spin/aerobatic training endorsements are likely to get the mandated training.
-
Entertaining for you.
-
I spoke to a CFI today from a school which has revised its syllabus to conform to Part 61 - yep, he said that probably quite a few instructors don't do it ....
-
And that's why circuits at MB get so big.
-
Best way is to NOT suddenly apply full forward stick, full rudder and full aileron with full throttle at the same time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomcovak
-
I have seen many instructors interpret words like that to mean recover at first stall warning in the turn. The new Part 61 MOS doesn't allow any wriggle room - it states "stall under the following conditions ... " with the recovery action specified in a separate paragraph then it goes further with the execution of incipient spins from S&L, climbing and turning. I have spoken to CASA FOI's who haven't yet read the MOS and I know that many instructors haven't either so my guess is that it will take many years for this to sink in. I'll also hazard a guess that a lot of schools/instructors will never do it - too scary etc.
-
International Civil Aviation Organization defines aerobatics as "maneuvers intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal variation in speed." EASA has: “Aerobatic flight means an intentional manoeuvre involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.” I didn't see CASA's new definition included in any draft for public comment nor have I seen their reason given for the change. I definitely wonder why they made the change and I also wonder how a Grade 3 instructor can teach the advanced stalling exercises per CASA's Part 61 without also having a spin and/or aerobatic training endorsement.
-
I would never go on the Big Dipper at Lunar Park.
-
Which Bellanca?
-
Training in stalls in turns etc is required per CASA's new Part 61 MOS. Beware of breaking the law wrt aerobatics as CASA has redefined it. Not on the RPL test however.
-
Reed clipped wing Piper J-3 Cub.
-
No adverse yaw with the Airtourer and its flaperons. I haven't flown a Callair - I bet that Herb Andersen would appreciate Contact Flying's feedback. My last Pitts was an early model S-2A with differential frise ailerons - "spades" added more recently and it feels and rolls as good as many Pitts.
-
Aeronautical engineer (aerodynamics, flight test, aircraft design & FAR 23 certification) and aerobatic flight instructor/examiner.
-
Aeronautical engineer (aerodynamics, flight test, aircraft design & FAR 23 certification) and aerobatic flight instructor/examiner.
-
These notes about Spillman's work may help explain the thrust extracted from some surfaces. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=X4pkFU-iRD0C&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=spillman+sails&source=bl&ots=t63ZlVF0Ol&sig=kB8NZL9whQgRIXIs6qqRpZo1wr4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp_8mrzMvJAhUDiKYKHSRaCpcQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=spillman%20sails&f=false Like many things we can change the datum and it is actually quite useful to talk about negative pressure wrt aeroplanes because the static pressure on the upper surface of the wing (in normal flight) will be less than the static pressure inside the cabin of the aeroplane. Static pressure under the wing will likewise be higher than pressure inside the cabin. So, it all depends on your frame of reference - sitting inside the cabin if you put a tube into the wing connected to a hole on the upper surface near the leading edge - put the other end into your mouth - you will feel the suction.Reminds me of a test I as asked to witness many years ago - the engineer connected a manometer up something like that tube - whoooosh - all the fluid was sucked out. He turned and looked to me, disbelieving what he had just seen. You need a suction gauge, I said. He was a mechanical engineer.
-
Ahh! Aspect ratio - one of my pet subjects. Span loading considerations have benefit. Wing loading considerations have benefit. Doesn't leave many benefits to consider for aspect ratio alone. Who would've though that we'd be discussing stuff like Biot-Savart and Prandtl here.
-
NASA does a pretty good job with their educational info online for school children.
