djpacro

from https://www.flyingmag.com/aps-webinar-featuring-learn-to-turn-rich-stowell/ from https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/implementing-learn-to-turn-with-rich-stowell

Yes indeed. Many pilots are surprised when I talk to them about that. A good primer for UPRT is https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/06_afh_ch5.pdf UA recoveries from failed aerobatic manoeuvres in an aerobatic course share some of the elements of UPRT and unfortunately some schools have simply rebadged their extreme UA recovery courses as UPRT. My advice for people looking for UPRT is to see what EASA specifies for their Advanced UPRT course and compare that with what is being offered. https://www.apstraining.com/resource/easa-advanced-uprt-requirements-are-a-big-step-toward-reducing-loc-i-fatalities/

Very nice, behaved much like a Pitts S-1 as far as I recall, although I didn’t get much time in it and no aerobatics. The owner had flown it from the UK to Australia and he wasn’t here to get it to Richmond for the show.

In 1988 I flew G-AWPZ into Richmond for the Bicentennial Air Show.

EASA is incorporating basic UPRT in their PPL and so is the USA FAA to some extent. The FAA revised their Airplane Flying Handbook a few years ago https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/06_afh_ch4.pdf EASA is leading the way with UPRT in simulators as well as their on-aeroplane advanced UPRT course mandated https://www.easa.europa.eu/faq/44870 I believe that CASA is currently looking at just UPRT in simulators so a long way behind EASA. Incidentally, CASA has just discovered that NACA's 1935 standard spin recovery method is not really applicable to current training types https://www.casa.gov.au/files/advisory-circulars-61-16-spin-avoidance-stall-recovery-trainingpdf Pilots at the bottom end may choose to do UPRT. Consider https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/undoing-an-upset/ but noting that quote attributed to Patty Wagstaff "is on record as saying that upset recovery “is just aerobatics;” to one well-versed in that discipline, no attitudes are really unusual." I was at this event when she said that however she said a whole lot more - https://www.flyingmag.com/ntsb-forum-looks-into-loss-control-inflight/ An aerobatic course is not UPRT as explained by that FAA handbook above, nor is it a new name for the common EMT courses.

More real examples of flutter on GA aircraft where the crritical mode is way below Vne at http://acversailles.free.fr/documentation/08~Documentation_Generale_M_Suire/Aerodynamique/Flutter/Taming_the_flutter_monster.pdf

Often the critical flutter mode is at an intermediate speed i.e. it is not as simple as the higher the TAS the closer to flutter (although, yes TAS is the appropriate figure to consider). I know of one high wing GA airplane - fabric covered with struts where the flutter speed was around 100 kts - fixed with the appropriate aileron mass balance - Vne is 133 kts IAS. This set of slides is from the FAA showing the typical process of flutter analysis and testing https://www.kimerius.com/app/download/5784128936/Flutter+and+aeroelastic+stability.pdf Page A-59 shows an example of flutter at less than Vd, design design speed, and the flutter margin improves at higher speeds such that there is no flutter at Vd and above.

Depending on the design basis for the detail, but taking FAR 23 as the typical one as most are consistent with this: Vne is defined as IAS, full stop, for little airplanes. Determination of flutter margins must take into account the maximum TAS that the airplane can achieve. Testing therefore, the test pilot takes the airplane to the maximum altitude then dives to the required test airspeed. This article is useful reading: https://www.australianflying.com.au/news/vne-and-flutter-explained (Earlier versions of FAR 23 required the use of CAS rather than IAS so you will encounter variations with altitude. Faster airplanes will have a scheduled Mach number limit as well). You must read FAA AC 23-8C Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes for background - see Page 106 onwards. https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_23-8c.pdf Then their guide for homebuilt airplanes at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 90-89A.pdf CASA also has their own flight test guide for home-built aircraft which is based on AC 23-8. https://www.casa.gov.au/airworthiness/standard-page/flight-test-guides as does the LAA http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/flight_testing.html EAA too https://www.kitplanes.com/new-flight-test-manual-from-eaa/

"In general, manufacturers recommend that for engines which won’t be flown for 30 days or more, a preservation regime should be instigated." So, one or the other. "The desired flight time for air cooled engines is at least one continuous hour at oil temperatures of 165°F to 200°F at intervals not to exceed 30 days ..." so that is what I do. Yep, same rules apply now. Closed businesses may undertake essential maintenance. Yep, CASA email is just an opinion. I only have that extract however I understand it is quite recent.

Maintenance per CASA https://www.casa.gov.au/files/awb-85-021-issue-1-–-piston-engine-low-utilisation-maintenance-practices and Lycoming https://www.lycoming.com/content/service-letter-no-l180b

No, sorry, however I'm aware of recent discussions. I've suggested to my friends that they get their mechanic to fly it for them.

Aviation businesses are permitted to fly aircraft per maintenance requirements. The alternative is to inhibit the engines.

deleted...mod

Power off - yes, get rid of features not needed. But step #1 is still unload. I’m not talking about thread drift but the pervasive hijacking of threads and forums. I only come here for the declared subject - recreational and general aviation. I’m not going to bother sifting out the irrelevant stuff which means I look in here less often. I have lots of other interests, places to go, people to see. I go elsewhere for political opinions and rantings if I want them.

Totally agreed. Standard pilot theory is that aileron will have an adverse effect at the stall, particularly when that part of the wing is about stalled. Note the words: "It shall be possible .." so a test pilot must be able to do it ... so the wing design must allow for the outer part to be sufficiently away from the stall for the ailerons to work normally ... with the aircraft in balance etc. Just because a test pilot can do it under test conditions doesn't mean that it is appropriate for unintentional stalls. There is an aerobatic Musketeer however I have not flown one. Aileron against the spin on entry is required on a number of types to get them to spin - but that is also with full back stick and full rudder - unlike the certification stall requirement where the stick is also coming forward and rudder is used to oppose yaw. Spin resistance is the key.

Obviously, recovery actions for a spiral dive in an aircraft would not strictly apply but just an idea to focus on the objectives and how to achieve them. I just went to a part of the forum about “General discussion on recreational and general aviation” and got into a discussion about drugs. Why would I bother? So, my first thought is to unload the irrelevant stuff.

LSA requirement is "It shall be possible to prevent more than 20° of roll or yaw by normal use of the controls during the stall and the recovery" i.e. during the stall aileron must be able to be used to control roll. FAR 23 certified airplanes are similar but the requirement is 15°. I wonder about the Bristell.

I went to a thread about an accident to find myself in the midst of a discussion about Japanese immigration. I'm only interested in coming to a recreationalflying forum for recreational flying discussions. It has been in a downward spiral for some time so relying on subscriptions and pushing donations will only add to the downwards spiral. Usual recovery from a spiral dive - unload, power off, roll level and pull out.

Include accidents of similar types by the same designer. Especially interested in stall/spin accidents. I wonder if the ATSB will publish independent flight tests on its stall characteristics conducted a little while back.

Tocumwal. The Aero Club building is always open.

I took this photo from a point very close to where that red dot is ....

Starduster Too

My friend had "told him off" more than once with no effect and, as I said, was criticised by the coroner for not telling CASA about his behaviour which was considered to be the appropriate, reasonable thing to do as people like that don't listen to anyone else. As a result, the parents of that lad were devastated. I can guess what the coroner might have said about anyone who had seen his antics and considered it funny.

Here are the rules https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2005B00836 The Royal Victorian Aero Club had a device to eject ashes through the small window in a Warrior, they should still have it. A device like this is essential otherwise you will remain mostly inside the aeroplane.

It just needs its spinner back on https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1152579