Garfly

I'm not sure but if the earlier posts in this thread still apply it looks like you can. I wonder if they're still being made in Gympie.

We can lose it coming, and we can lose it going ... and sometimes be lucky enough to get away with it, anyway. But if the second one had have been 'fiery' then the outcome would have been dire. As usual, lots of interesting discussion in the YT comments. "Watch on YouTube" to see them.

I see that the Aussie Aeropup is now being made in the USA: Fielden Aero • Home of Aeropup USA USA https://www.fieldenaero.com/ Brochure: https://www.fieldenaero.com/_files/ugd/f1dfaa_21e0c50e0ded415f8dc6985008ef0e64.pdf This is an interesting posted comment on the YouTube video above: R Barnard 9 days ago (edited) I think this is the right way to go. A solid platform designed for easy maintenance ("easy" means it'll be more likely to get done on time, translating to safety). A design that trades a couple extra pounds and a little extra drag for safety, durability, maintainability, utility, and economy....without exotic materials or technology at its core. Steele is strong, durable, can absorb a lot of energy when it's being deformed, and will often bitch loudly to anyone paying attention when it's failing (i.e. doesn't tend to fail catastrophically). Adding a smart flight adjustable prop and pairing it with a modern engine, fuel injection, and (redundant) ignition and engine management firmware makes good sense (IMHO) as it is now well proven to be reliable and performant. It also allows for data recording which can be used to spot trends, and help diagnose issues and potential issues. Leveraging modern electronics for trim servos, navigation, and to help with awareness and simplify the pilot's workload is another great move. There isn't a replacement for proficiency, but amateur pilot's (for the most part) will always lack the skills and proficiency of professional pilots (yet we all want to build and fly an F-18 or a Warthog). Making an aircraft that builds in a fare amount of safety margin, remains approachable in multiple aspects (costs, maintenance, storage, etc), and provides utility beyond the $100 hamburger seems a more comfortable and obtainable dream. Regarding proficiency... I like to ride motorcycles, which is viewed by many as a risky activity. In fact, a motorcyclist is at risk of serious injury at a rate of 25 time greater that car drivers. Therefore I try to ride every day (here in the Atlanta Metro area), to maintain proficiency. So far (and knock on wood), it seems to work. This is how I manage the risk.

I think this is the one you mean Thruster. Yeah, an interesting suite of engine problems, trouble-shootings and seeming solutions:

And now an electric rag and tube type that can haul 100 tons: Google Co-Founder Plans Longest U.S. Airship Since 1930s https://www.flyingmag.com/google-co-founder-plans-longest-u-s-airship-since-1930s/

From the preliminary ATSB report: At interview, the pilot on board WVV recalled that there was scattered[5] cloud at 1,500 ft on the forecast that would not allow them to track below cloud via the recommended VFR route to Kilmore Gap (elevation 1,200 ft AMSL). Therefore, they elected to take a more direct track to their destination, which took them over Mount Disappointment, to the east of Kilmore Gap https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2022/aair/ao-2022-016/

Oh, really!? Explain this then:

Quite a lot apparently; at least according to this old chap: And this mob: http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/aero/aero_res.htm CLICK FOR HI-REZ PIC

That ain't magic ... (THIS is magic ... ;- ) and maybe this ...

Smart watch?

Yeah, I'm also happy to put physics aside in favour of practical stick and rudder know-how. My point (poorly communicated) was just to urge tolerance of alternate explanations when even the physicists can't agree. However, I should have taken my own counsel of a few posts back "(Let's not get started on 'How does lift happen?" ;- ) " Anyway, even if (as argued in the Plane and Pilot article, above) the hazard of the "downwind turn" is a myth "... so long as pilots believe it, they're more likely to pay careful attention to their airspeed when they're close to the ground and especially on low altitude turns ... " So all good.

He has the swagger of one. But a better argument about experts disagreeing on basics is made in this Scientific American article from Feb. 2020 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/ No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air Do recent explanations solve the mysteries of aerodynamic lift? [excerpt] In December 2003, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the first flight of the Wright brothers, the New York Times ran a story entitled “Staying Aloft; What Does Keep Them Up There?” The point of the piece was a simple question: What keeps planes in the air? To answer it, the Times turned to John D. Anderson, Jr., curator of aerodynamics at the National Air and Space Museum and author of several textbooks in the field. What Anderson said, however, is that there is actually no agreement on what generates the aerodynamic force known as lift. “There is no simple one-liner answer to this,” he told the Times. People give different answers to the question, some with “religious fervor.” More than 15 years after that pronouncement, there are still different accounts of what generates lift, each with its own substantial rank of zealous defenders. At this point in the history of flight, this situation is slightly puzzling. After all, the natural processes of evolution, working mindlessly, at random and without any understanding of physics, solved the mechanical problem of aerodynamic lift for soaring birds eons ago. Why should it be so hard for scientists to explain what keeps birds, and airliners, up in the air?

You'll just have to learn on the job, then. It can't be that hard.

Oh, wait ... Nope, still hard to understand. Even on the basics, experts disagree: YouTube Comment on "Airflow across a wing": 37rainman The "actual force upward" is caused by air molecules (mass) colliding with the wing and causing lift due to an equal and opposite reaction. Lift is not created by something happening somewhere "beyond the trailing edge". This does not in any way serve to deny that a part of the lift is attributable to the "shaped wing" concept, explainable by Bernoulli's principles.

But F10's scenario involves "turning rapidly" so your leisurely 360 on AP is probably not going to test the theory. Anyway, I have my doubts about the phrase "you will see a drop in IAS in a light aircraft". Really? But how, in practice, can you see that? Surely in any, quasi-emergency rapid 180, the ASI will be doing a merry jig (while we aim to tame the beast) so who's to say which jig, this way or that, indicates the "downwind turn effect" as opposed to, say, our ham-fisted stick work, that time? Plus, I just can't conceive of an aerial reversal quick enough to approximate the 'shear' effect. Soaring hawks don't turn on a dime and neither do Skyhawks. But who knows!? If we could only see the damn air it'd be a lot easier to understand.

Actually, that was F10's main point. It was the second part that stirred the possum.

For what it's worth, back in 2008, a couple of long running threads about this issue on Supercub.org involved some pretty sophisticated aeronautical theory, on both sides. The arguments got pretty heated such that one contributor was prompted to write: "I think the single biggest problem with these type of discussions is that folks get so passionate about their stance that they begin to make blanket statements that are absolute and ambiguous at the same time." https://www.supercub.org/forum/showthread.php?33563-Downwind-Turns&s=4e085b14b628e1138e78f6dcfce72693 https://www.supercub.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-33563.html And the beat goes on: an article in last month's Plane and Pilot The Downwind Turn: Hazard Or Fiction? https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/downwind-turn/

Of course, SP, I'll even fly with students if it's free. Have you got a C150, now? (They're what they call the poor man's Skyranger, no?)

I knew you'd have your reasons and your reasoning, F10. I've followed this interesting debate among aeronauts for years. But frankly, the 'parcel of air' conception still makes more sense to me, whether we're close to the ground or not. As I understand that idea, the wing, along with its associated pitot/ASI, cares nought for the landlubbers' 'wind' nor the ground, for that matter. It cares only about the air molecules flowing by relative to itself. After all, when we take off in a stiff cross-wind, as soon as the wheels unload we're in no doubt that our aircraft has hopped aboard the air-mass train. We're instantly off in THAT direction unless and until we do something about it. Yes, I suppose like the fly in the speeding train carriage we're slipping through the air but like the fly, surely we can never just "forget our TAS" (in favour of GS) while we're still flying. Yes, it's the ground that may rise to smite us but only when the air decides to drop us. By the same token, then, I can't see a special need to "accelerate into our turn, downwind". But always happy to learn by being corrected. ;- )

Yep, that's all.

That's all you've got, Flighty?

Geez, Flighty, even when you come across a recreational flyer with first class stick and rudder skills (and an exemplary safety message) you still manage to pull a negative message from it. You're never happy, are ya! Truth be told, I'd fly to any strip with that BC182 bloke, in a heartbeat, given the chance. (Or, for that matter, with any experienced, right minded, PNG pilot on their daily mountain milk run.) BC182 sums it up in the vid: "Flying in the mountains can be very rewarding but you've got to do your homework and you've got to get the training." Done right, there's no reason we can't seek that kind of reward in OZ - without, necessarily, strewing bodies everywhere. (Anyway, at our age, we're not even safe in a simulator. ;- )

Yeah, we all totally agree, but that's another issue altogether. What we're talking about is contained in these few words: "you will have to be able to accelerate in the turn to maintain a safe IAS, as you turn downwind"