Garfly

On this point we are all in furious agreement. But given F10's savvy and experience he must have his reasons for complicating conventional wisdom with his practical observations. Which is why I asked about the wind-shear 'exception'. I wondered if he meant that a quick 180 is a bit akin to rolling your own wind-shear. Anyway, the theory around rapid turns within an air mass has long been debated. Experts seem to disagree; that's nothing new in aeronautics. (Let's not get started on 'How does lift happen?" ;- )

Yeah, I don't think this issue has anything to do with the ground per se. It's a rehash of the old debate as to whether 'turning downwind' is even a thing in aeronautics (apart from obvious ground considerations). Typical of the argument (between experts, it seems) is this contribution to the Comments section of the video below. "The animation does not clearly show that an airplane can only experience wind shear at the moment it flies from one airmass into another one. INSIDE an airmass the airplane does not experience headwind, tailwind or crosswind."

Normally we don't directly relate IAS with 'wind', when it comes to aircraft performance and control. We think of operating within moving parcels of air and so we only factor 'wind' into ground speed considerations. But I guess what you're pointing out is that in a sudden upwind >> downwind turn-back you're creating a kind of wind-shear situation for yourself and so you must be ready for the big push to be bigger and faster at the turn than it would be straight ahead. Is that right? Would you care to elaborate?

Yeah, I knew it'd been replaced but figured if there were some still around, they'd be a good deal. (Like < $300 or so) But, yeah, for sure, the 16 will be better. I reckon the accessory that lets you attach a normal headset is great to have. Also the battery pack that lets you use 6XAAs in case you're away from mains power. But they do push the price up quite a bit. Anyway, all the best. Good to see you back. ;- )

If you can still find the (superseded) Icom IC-A15 I reckon that'd be the best bang for the buck. I can't see them on the Clear Prop site anymore but it looks like this mob might have them: http://www.aircraftradio.com.au/products/icom/ica15

More info on the Sherwood eKub in this article https://flyer.co.uk/britains-sherwood-electric-kub-makes-first-flight/ It even makes mention of an electric Skyranger that's in the works. "Also heavily involved is Flylight led by Paul Dewhurst (who is well on with the build of the second aircraft, the electric SkyRanger Nynja)." This Royal Aeronautical Society article https://www.aerosociety.com/news/the-way-ahead-for-general-aviation/ says that the Skyranger project involves a hybrid type: "The EnabEl plan is to explore the design, build, fly and certification of electric microlights with two companies: electrifying the TLAC Kub and making the Flylight Nynja hybrid capable." This is the brochure for the (ICE powered) Kub: Sherwood-KUB-flyer.pdf https://www.g-tlac.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Sherwood-KUB-flyer.pdf

Okay, back to the future, then ....

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. Anyway, according to one expert quoted in this report: https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/up-in-flames what has changed is that " ... greed has overcome safety" Which does bring us back to aviation. (Boeing, we're looking at you.)

Thanks for the info, Cyrano. From viewing US vids showing GA IFR ops, I got the impression that clearance delivery/read-back with full routing is more usual than it is here.

Well the big change that the video above refers to is the recall - due fire-risk - of 5.8 million vehicles. (More than one third of the number of Model-Ts Henry ever made.)

Yeah, and surprisingly, in the end, the guy had a pretty good answer. JeffDG said: ↑ Damn little, and none since I left ZAU. Twenty some years ago a NASA ER-1 was doing some atmospheric research out of KMSN. The pilot would request an unrestricted climb to FL 610, leaving FL 600 he'd call to say, "cancel my IFR."

No, the video backs up Octave's (and Onetrack's) posts. Those are ICE vehicles. As the video commentary says, oil leaks and fuel line leaks have been major factors.

This video (very hard to listen to) reminds me of a question I've often pondered (as a curious VFR only type): Why is it that, in the US, IFR clearances have to be delivered and read back in full - including complete routing details - all on frequency (ground/tower)? It seems that here in Oz, the route part is commonly covered by the phrase 'flight planned route'. How can airports - especially busy ones - tolerate the flow of their departures being slowed by such drawn out, back and forth, conversations (even when pilots are properly practiced in the art). As I understand it, pre-departure clearances (PDCs) via text are coming into use both here and Stateside. None too soon, it seems, by the evidence of this video. (And the 'runway incursion' is the least of it ;- )

From a similar discussion on a Pilots of America forum: "VFR above FL 180 Yes?...No?...Maybe?" vontresc said: ↑ You can be. In my experience the aircraft that can get up there just cancel IFR as they climb above Class A airspace. https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/vfr-above-fl-180-yes-no-maybe.37858/

This AvWeb editorial of a few years back tends to agree: Reviving Stick And Rudder Skills By AvWeb editorial staff • September 21, 2016 The Miracle on the Hudson is back in the news, with the big-budget flick Sully in theaters. For pilots, it’s a stark reminder that basic stick-and-rudder skills still come in handy sometimes. Those skills certainly helped Sullenberger, whose four decades of experience included glider flying. But in my work as an FAA aviation safety inspector — and during my own four decades of flying, as a flight instructor, airline pilot and the owner of a taildragger — I’ve seen innumerable examples of pilots, at all levels of experience, who seem to have forgotten or never learned those basic skills. All too often, I see commercial pilots who have forgotten what the rudder is for. You do remember adverse yaw, don’t you? I’ve seen CFIs who allow their students to land nose-wheel first, instead of properly flaring the aircraft, without blinking an eye. And I’ve seen all too many flight-test applicants who blindly follow the magenta line while navigating with their glass-panel GPS. If the screens went blank, would they have a clue about their position? Besides my own observations, I hear similar complaints from seasoned air crews at the major air carriers about the new hires. The new hires know how to fly the systems, but basic airmanship is poor. By the time you’re at a major airline, it’s too late to learn those basic skills. Technology has improved tremendously over the years, and that’s great, but we still need to have a firm grasp on the basics to use them effectively. So now we have some instructors without a firm grasp of the basic skills, who in turn train students who become pilots without a firm grasp of the basic skills. These pilots go on to become instructors without basic skills, who train students without good basic skills… you see where this is going.// ... As Sullenberger put it in an interview, “For 42 years, I’ve been making small, regular deposits in this bank of experience, education, and training. And on January 15th, the balance was sufficient so that I could make a very large withdrawal.” What’s in your bank account? Is your balance sufficient to meet any challenge? If you’re not sure, then find a CFI who can help you to get there.

That ain't the takeaway message of this 1945 US Navy film "Quit Stalling - or spin in." From the narration: "In the first two years following Pearl Harbour many more Navy fliers were killed in accidents than were killed in air combat. Stalls and spins alone killed almost as many fliers as the enemy did." (All still relevant to us today.)

Heck, there might even be time to post a quick report here. (Trevor Jacob eat your heart out!) And yes, a being-on-fire situation combined with a ditching situation might make you glad of not having a BRS thingy to pull (for more reasons than one ;- )

Facing a ditching situation might make you glad of having a BRS thingy to pull. A gentle-ish let down under canopy is not so scary a prospect (yes, winds allowing). Plus, on the way down, you might have time to gather your stuff, open the doors (or not), make a passenger announcement ("Look, awfully sorry about all this but ...."). Might even be time to call home (or AMSA, if you fancy a free chopper ride. ;- )

There was some discussion on the pilot's diagnosis - and carb ice in general - in the YouTube comments. (Click "Watch on YouTube" on the vid to check it out.) Here are a few excepts: Mike Wood 1 year ago ... I can only "suspect" carb ice since, as usual, the evidence tends to disappear quite quickly after landing! However, since the engine had been performing normally prior to the failure and ran perfectly the next day once we had recovered the aircraft, combined with the local (RAF) met office opinion of likelihood of Moderate to Severe icing conditions, I'm happy that was the cause. There's a discussion on the remedy on the Yahoo groups page: https://groups.io/g/SD-Planes Robert Borchert 1 month ago (edited) Brilliant emergency landing! Carburetor icing? Indeed! I rebuilt carburetors professionally for some time, years ago. This process was different from mere cleaning. Service included taking care of the bore and throttle plate, bearings if fitted, seals, linkages, jetting, emulsion tubes, bypass fuel and air jetting. The reason carburetors ice is a combination of two factors, Boyle's Law and atomization of the fuel. On the engine side of the throttle, pressure is lower than at the inlet. The air now occupies an area where it can expand. In doing so, it absorbs energy. At this point, we introduce fuel. The fuel is drawn inward and vaporized. In doing so, it also absorbs energy. The net result is a rapid drop in temperature. The throttle plate becomes much cooler than the ambient temperature. Moisture in the air rapidly condenses, cooling to ice. You can count on a 40 degree drop or more at this point. Carburetor icing is critical at low power settings when landing. You are at idle power. Less volume of air is passing through the bore, that air has a wee bit more time to cool, and the pressure differential is at its highest. The solution is to give that incoming air mass more thermal energy. This is why we have carburetor heat systems. Fuel injection systems have the primary advantage in this case of moving the fuel atomization much further downstream of the throttle. Years ago, throttle body injection systems were more common, injecting the fuel directly down onto the throttle plate. The fuel sure kept the plate shiny, but the assembly was very cool in operation. In some installations, an electrically heated grid was fitted in line with the bore, to help completely vaporize the fuel droplets for cleaner emissions. Mike Wood 1 month ago Thank you, Robert. A useful reminder of how it all happens. I initially set up a system that would warm the inducted air but decided that this was not as efficient as warming the carb body (and, by conduction, the throttle plate) since this is where the ice would form. Obviously, warm dry air into the carb would be best (from an icing point of view), but since I couldn't arrange that I went for the "hot carb" option. Any thoughts?

And this silent archival film from the 1930s shows how they were originally put together in Augsburg. The text below is from the YouTube description. CONSTRUCTION OF MESSERSCHMITT Bf 108 AIRCRAFT AUGSBURG, GERMANY This silent German educational film shows the construction of a Messerschmitt Bf 108 Taifun, a German single-engine sport and touring aircraft developed by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (Bavarian Aircraft Works) in the 1930s. The Bf 108 is of all-metal construction. aircraft. Originally designated the M 37, the aircraft was designed as a four-seat sports/recreation aircraft for competition in the 4th Challenge International de Tourisme (1934). The M 37 prototype flew first in spring 1934 powered by a 250 PS (247 hp, 184 kW) Hirth HM 8U inverted-V engine, which drove a three-blade propeller. Although it was outperformed by several other aircraft in the competition, the M 37's overall performance marked it as a popular choice for record flights. Particular among these traits was its extremely low fuel consumption rate, good handling, and superb takeoff and landing characteristics. The Bf 108A first flew in 1934, followed by the Bf 108B in 1935. The Bf 108B used the Argus As 10 air-cooled inverted V8 engine. The nickname Taifun (German for "typhoon") was given to her own aircraft by Elly Beinhorn, a well known German pilot, and was generally adopted. Soon after the first production aircraft began to roll off the assembly line in Augsburg, several Bf 108s had set endurance records. The Bf 108 was adopted into Luftwaffe service during World War II, where it was primarily used as a personnel transport and liaison aircraft ... Production of the Bf 108 was transferred to occupied France during World War II and production continued after the war as the Nord 1000 Pingouin.