Garfly

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

5 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Whoever came up with that hasn't studied accident and crash technology.

As I mentioned in my post above, Cirrus builds in collapsible items; it's those that are designed to be destroyed; if you look at the many photos they show the airframe mostly intact, not totally destroyed.

 

Early crash studies quickly showed that the instant stop which slammed the person's brain into the skull was the big killer.

In the car industry Toyota Land Cruisers with heavy bull bars were a good example of unnecessary deaths. Today's Land Cruisers with collapsible components including bull bars along with the same system in trucks saves a lot of lives.

In cars, the collapsibility of the items ahead of the windscreen and deflection of the engine downwards also save a lot of lives.

Airbags which are actually blown up by explosives deflate as the person's torso is thrown forward, all for the slower deceleration.

 

 

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

And you mine.  We're square.  

Although, you didn't answer my question.

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

For those doing cross country flying, I'd recommend cooling down and waiting for the PPL Module where you'll be taught sequence by sequence to do it correctly rather than the picking and plucking we've been reading among which, if I remember correctly was a great way to have two lots of aircaft flying the circuit at different heights.

 

In the P&O module you'll get exercises in the step by step calculations that come together to become your flight plan (and yes I know that's not the formal flight plan we used to submit to DCA, CAA etc), and most impirtantly you'll 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.

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"

25 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

If what Juan Browne explains is correct then there are a few questions to answer here, including the design of the system, whether there is a switch the pilot is able to activate quickly to stop the seat moving forward if as appears to be the case it was inadvertently activated or just poor maintenance.

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.

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

On 05/02/2024 at 11:15 AM, sfGnome said:

... Even more so, GET cool and methodical, even if you have to break out of the circuit for a few minutes to compose yourself ... I did something dumb (no idea what now) during a solo T&G, and I was berating myself all the way down downwind.

Suddenly realised that I was so busy worrying about what had been that I wasn’t thinking about what was to come, and it was the ‘what was to come’ that could kill me ...

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 

8 hours ago, Reynard said:

?…..and anything below 1000kg MTOW is free ?? 

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:

12 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I think you are going out on a limb doing that with an Industrial engine A reliable GENSET engine might be a good start. The NAME on the BOX doesn't tell you who made it and from where. these days. I'm seeing good Chinese brands being used by good name companies. I have a LONCIN engine in a ride on zero turn and It's  fantastic with 250 hours on it now. 24'5 HP.  Nev

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: 

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.

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

20 hours ago, facthunter said:

Gliders are a sophisticated design all over and don't have to handle the effects of a propeller OR a disgusting square sectioned fuselage to much up the rudder effectiveness.  Nev

29 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Oi, as the owner of a square sectioned fuselage.... I resemble that remark!

Oi, oi, me too!