Garfly

And now it seems the Skyranger has joined Foxbat on the suicide frontline.

Hopey, if you haven't come across it yet, you might find this (UK) Wing Nuts YT channel interesting:

Well, whoever resorts to this kind of research in this context hasn't studied airframe parachute 'landings'. Of course, just a small amount of collision force dissipation over time (crush) makes for much higher human survivability. No one doubts it. But we're talking here of 'arrival' speeds of between 10 and 20 knots. And whereas that could do damage statistics show that only a few airframe arrivals under canopy have led to occupant injury. Cirrus apart, not many ultralight BRS equipped craft would have crash-crush protection, however, the landing gear (for feet first only) seems to do the same shock absorbing job as it does for your everyday drop-it-on heavy landing. Only more so ;- )

Regarding the pull force needed in typical BRS devices, this is from an article by Thierry Couderc in the French "Bulletin of Flight Safety" Sep 2017 "The length of stroke and the force to be applied are nothing like the gesture of squeezing a brake lever or pulling the engine choke. The action to expect is more akin to the effort required to start a small chainsaw engine with a cord. Moreover, the user manuals for the most widely distributed parachutes mention, depending on the model, a pull force which will gradually increase until reaching 6 to 9 kilos at the end of its run of approximately 40 centimeters." bsv-40-septembre-2017.pdf For anyone interested, the full article, below, is actually a discussion on the best placement of the red handle in the cockpit. (This translation is my own gloss on Google's best efforts.) The parachute handle By Thierry COUDERC The relatively high number of ultralights equipped with airframe parachutes which weren’t deployed in accidents where they might have helped, had us wondering why. Could it be explained by the fact of the victims simply having had problems triggering the rocket? People who've had the experience of using ballistic ‘chutes often mention how surprised they were by the force and length of pull needed to ignite the rocket. It appears that quite a few of us have some wrong ideas about how these things work. Of course, it's essential to treat the handle with care to avoid inadvertent launches - with potentially serious consequences. But contrary to what we might think, it's not like a mouse trap, primed to snap as soon as the safety pin's removed. The firing device is actually not that sensitive; not easily triggered by mistake - at least not with the current pyrotechnic devices (*). Their design meets proven principles of safety and reliability. At rest, no element of the mechanism is in tension. It is the pulling of the handle which causes its arming, then, towards the end of the stroke, it's triggered. Thus, pulling on the cable will cause three successive actions (**): 1.Tensioning a spring to arm the percussion mechanism. 2.The removal of the mechanical safety devices which protect the primers against unwanted ignition, particularly in the event of a violent impact. 3. The release of the percussion mechanism. The length of stroke and the force to be applied are nothing like the gesture of squeezing a brake lever or pulling the engine choke. The action to expect is more akin to the effort required to start a small chainsaw engine with a cord. Moreover, the user manuals for the most widely distributed parachutes mention, depending on the model, a pull force which will gradually increase until reaching 6 to 9 kilos at the end of its run of approximately 40 centimeters. These parameters suggest that handles may not always be well placed to allow them to be pulled from the pilot’s seat with the necessary force over the entire length of the cable stroke. If the chosen location does not provide sufficient clearance to allow an easy pull, in an emergency situation, the occupants, possibly facing stress and unusual attitudes, may not manage to complete the pull. We must, then, consider what it would be like, faced with the need to pull the handle, in a given aircraft. In some cases, it may be wise to think about a change of location. For example, a handle arranged facing the pilots at the level of the instrument panel must be able to be pulled back without them needing to undo their harnesses in order to pull through without hitting obstacles such as a handle or lever, and/or without prematurely having their elbows blocked by the rear bulkhead. In any case, pulling the handle horizontally with the arm stretched to bring it back to towards the torso, may not be the most ergonomic option when it comes to exerting a continuous and progressively powerful pull. The most suitable locations could be: • The handle placed high, oriented forward and downward, behind the head, roughly above one shoulder, at ear level or on the ceiling. We reach up with the hand and push forward. This is the configuration used on certified aircraft which are equipped as standard. • The handle facing forward and upwards, placed in the low position on one side at the hip, which you grab with the hand on the other side while crossing your arm in front of you, to pull it here also forward, but upwards. • The handle located on the floor between the legs behind the stick, if there is one, turned slightly towards the rear, which can be pulled upwards. This type of assembly is known to favor speed of implementation, provided that the gesture is possible given the set up of the seat harness. But it assumes the installation of one handle per seat if we want both occupants have access to it. Be careful though, these are just suggestions, listing a few set-ups that have proven themselves. The most appropriate arrangement will clearly depend on the particular configuration.

And you mine. We're square. Although, you didn't answer my question.

Turbs, I really don't understand your almost religious devotion to the text of that particular PPL O&P module. Sure, it's good (and something like it is necessary) but just 'doing' a module - once - doesn't guarantee much in the real world. (As you point out, yourself, vis-a-vis the OP video). Anyway, how can 'picking and plucking' (aka, continuing study and consolidation of knowledge) lead to aircraft flying at different heights in the circuit? Makes no sense. Also, regarding the need to be "fluent enough to replan in the air for safe transit and landing at an alternate field if the weather ahead of you closes in. etc." : maybe having some handy rules-of-thumb in your head (and/or checklist) would be even better than those "step by step calculations" you worked through once, yonks ago, to satisfy the regulator that you 'knew' that stuff. In any case, pilots not averse to a little "picking and plucking" might find the Performance rules-of-thumb, cited above, useful, somehow. I know I did.

I like this article on the subject of DA / Aircraft Performance: DA EFFECTS ON PERF..pdf A few highlights: (screen shots - click for full rez)

https://discussions.flightaware.com/t/general-confusion-about-aircraft-ads-b-altitude/79557 "ADS-B and Mode S (and for that matter Mode C) transmit uncorrected pressure altitude as the primary altitude value. That is, it’s directly related to static air pressure. That’s not necessarily a true altitude, and it needs to be adjusted to produce a correct height above AMSL or height AGL, but it has the large advantage that every aircraft is doing exactly the same thing, which is very important when used for resolving conflicts"

Yeah, Juan was asking the same question, that is, about a kill switch for pilots in case the seat starts moving forward while they're in it (un-commanded by the pilot's own seat switches on the console). The design of the rocker switch on the seat-back presumably assumes that the cover is there to guard against inadvertent operation whenever the seat was occupied. But there ya go In the confusion of having a meal tray plonked down on your moveable table and your sudden realisation that you're being moved forward relentlessly - and possibly being out of reach of the console switches (even assuming they countermand the rear switch) I can imagine the inevitable HF/WTF! pause could easily see you - or your dinner - jamming the yoke forward to no good effect. Certainly would not have been trained for in the simulator.

Juan explains:

This recent (30 min) video history of the B727 has a sting in its T-tail for today's Boeing Company.

2022 Kangawallafox KWF Aircraft | Aircraft Listing | Plane Sales Australia WWW.PLANESALES.COM.AU This aircraft holds the current Australian record for the most touch-and-go circuits in one day. 145 circuits were completed in 6.8 engine hours. I thought that this was the best way for me to prove the concept of the...

Wow! What's going to happen to our friendly, quick and savvy local support service? Will we all be moved over (like it or lump it) to the FF app, after OzRWYs Classic is quietly withdrawn? This comes as a bit of a shock - even for iOS users; a Starbucks style takeover, quite out of the blue. Will AvPlan bat on as the only little Aussie battler EFB?

Not too many takers for Lisa's "Just make the next 5 seconds perfect" little mind trick to counter mental drift (vid above). Well, Paul Bertorelli came up with an equally pithy take on the same subject which might prove more memorable: "You are unlikely to stall if you just take your head out of your ass." He goes on, in this film (posted before) to confess his own failure to comply, which, he reckons, very nearly did him in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2mzsjXn88Y&t=73s

Yes, I've had quite similar lapses and I know exactly what you mean. But then, it's generally agreed that humans (+ friends) can only really concentrate on one thing at a time; So what to do about it? ... how to get the discipline needed to save us, as pilots, from our primal brains. (To be fair to the Creator Spirit, flying too high with some guy in the sky was Her idea of nothing to do.) Of course, the old "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" mantra addresses the same (universal) problemo. In any case, I just found this video of a US CFI, "Lisa", in conversation with Rich Stowell. Among other things, she explains that after many years of instructing, she finally came up with her own simple mantra to help her students: "Just make the next 5 seconds perfect". (Long enough for any squirrel to be no-factor ;- ) She explains it from around 06:30

As I read it, anything below 1000kg MTOW will be deemed a tonne of fun, no less.

A rival forty-horse, 4-stroke, one pot screamer is the Airtech AERO1000: AERO 1000 HO ENGINE PACKAGE – Air-Tech Inc. Ultralight Aircraft AIR-TECHINC.COM

As far as I can tell, it's basically a one man operation. One guy with a passion. Here he (in orange) is taking on some of the YT critiques: @andrekemp5059 2 months ago Nice HONDA @kidkhaos6427 2 months ago There are exactly zero parts of this made by Honda. Yes it is loosely based on a Honda. @andrekemp5059 2 months ago @kidkhaos6427 Ok. So is it Chines parts or car parts in there. Because Honda crankshaft and piston rod are great and high quality. Koyo bearings. @kidkhaos6427 2 months ago There are very few chinese parts, but yes a couple. Most are US made from various racing industries or here in my shop. Every part and specification is important and I have not just simply put a prop on a generator engine here. I have gone through several iterations of this to reach successful reliability and power delivery. I have tested multiple combinations of valves, pistons, camshafts, carburetors, exhaust configurations , and so on. The engine you see in this video actually now lives in a box in the attic. It was brutally murdered between the test stand and two different airplanes. I have also revised the reduction drive design since this video was made. This is simply a snapshot along my journey.

I also found that Air Tractor video very helpful; it was clearer than most I've seen on the complex of forces acting on a turning aircraft. I think Nev's problem was with the guy uttering the word "downwind" while talking turns, seeing it, I guess, as adding to the (much discussed) myth of the downwind turn. Like Brendan, though, I doubt that this savvy ag/airshow guy simply buys-into the widely held myth and is, therefore, 'wrong'. The video was, after all, an ad hoc interview and he didn't really seem to finish that thought. If he had, he may have complicated the matter with the 'wind-shear' exception and/or dangerous visual illusions. Who knows? In any case, for anyone interested, here's one example of the topic debated online (with some relevant bits extracted). (There are many discussions of the same thing on here, as well) Why do gusts change the airspeed during landing, but turning (which changes where the wind is coming from) does not? AVIATION.STACKEXCHANGE.COM As we know it, aircraft are extremely sensitive to gust during its final landing stage. They can lose airspeed if the wind changes to tail, ad thus loose lift or need to adjust their thrust in orde... "The myth of the downwind turn ... As you stated the plane is moving along with the airmass. So, for the plane, aerodynamically there is no head-, side-, or downwind. Only us on the ground can feel it, as we are locked into to the coordinate system of the earth with our feet. The airplane is locked into the coordinate system of the airmass, and as long as the airmass itself does not experience acceleration, the airplane flying in it can turn in whichever way, and it will not notice any change in the wind direction. The direction of the wind is locked into the coordinate system of the earth, so in your example there is no change in wind direction." Jpe61 "Windshear (a sudden and/or drastic change of wind velocity) will affect airspeed momentarily until the plane’s momentum is overcome by the aerodynamic forces acting on it. This will be most apparent as turbulence or loss of performance. It is also most apparent during slow flight due to being so close to your performance envelope edge. The sudden gain then loss of altitude when flying through a microburst is a good example of that. ... During landing, your slow airspeed and proximity to the ground combined with the vertical component of your momentum makes any loss of performance dangerous. It could lead to a sudden increase in descent rate at the wrong moment or a stall if you are too slow. A change in wind velocity as little as 5-10 knots can have an effect on the plane. That’s why pilots are encouraged to add half of the gust factor (the difference between the steady wind and the peak wind) to their approach and landing speeds. In your example, it looks like you are concentrating more on changes in relative wind velocity based on changes in aircraft heading instead of windshear. That is different. The aircraft’s airspeed will remain the same. There will be no loss of performance relative to the airmass because the aircraft is flying IN the airmass. The airplane does not care about its performance in relation to the ground unless it is on the ground." DeanF

Here's Kid Khaos demonstrating a prototype and explaining/defending his concept in the YT Comments (Watch on YouTube to see them). And here he is doing some crow hop flight testing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swBVXPkzWUo

Okay ... but to be fair, it is called a Thump-Air (from Chaos Concepts ... powering the Badlands ;- )

Another video about the Badland Ultralight (Part 103 compliant) now sporting the new Thumpair 40 Horse 4-stroke. Badland Aircraft – 100% Part 103 – 100% Airplane WWW.BADLANDAIRCRAFT.COM Thumpair – Badland Aircraft WWW.BADLANDAIRCRAFT.COM

It could be worse ... (but then you might need to do something with the VS ;- )