Garfly

A similar issue, I believe, is that pilots are trained to be very aware of increased stall speeds in banked turns but some seem less aware that those figures are based on level turns (necessarily implying back pressure) and not descending turns, with wings (partly) unloaded. I've read that this fixed idea (from training) promotes an exaggerated fear of banking in turns onto base and final and indirectly contributes to the dangerous use of rudder to speed up the (possibly underbanked) turn. Would DJP or other pros care to comment/advise?

Some will never get it wrong. I get that.

Birdwatching aside, let's say you're on a right downwind to an unfamiliar bush strip and you reckon you're about ready to turn base but now you've lost sight of the strip behind; you crane your neck around the right-hand pax to regain the threshold but as you do, you don't notice that you're tugging a little on the already back-trimmed stick, and with eyes now back out front it's all a bit mushier and tippier and quieter than normal ... Yes, I know, Lesson One: pay full attention to the job of flying whenever low and slow. But Lesson Two might be what to do if L1 goes AWOL. IMHO, a muscle memory for immediate pushing-and-footing will work better than the default: pulling-and-screaming. In a car, it's the opposite problem. Wise words for new drivers are 'Don't speed and you won't skid'. Still, advanced driving courses are available for those who want to be ready. I reckon, in those situations, it'll be the first moments after (during?) 'Oh sh!t' that'll save - or spoil - the day.

But with humans, there are going to be factors. Being determined never to stall (without meaning to) makes perfect sense. But having the muscle memory to save the day IF you do, is still a basic piloting skill. Remember this one:

You mean like ...

And, as they used to tell it ....

I don't think the Red Bull stunt should be put in the same basket as the Trevor Jacobs affair. There was no specific intention to mislead in the plane swap attempt. But then, even TJ's multi-cam leap from his 'broken' Taylorcraft, can hardly be called deceptive, given it was so manifestly incredible from the get go - right down to his woeful acting. A defence could be that it was less un-truthful than post-truthful. Trump left office with over 25,000 public presidential lies recorded and tabulated by the New York Times. Yet I never once heard him complaining about being called a liar. 'Where's the insult in that?' I guess he'd think. Same with Trevor. The truth-ethic of advertising has taken over all types of public/social discourse. But I agree with Bertorelli, the Red Bull team came up with a wrong-headed answer when asked by the FAA what the public good might be (some BS about aeronautical / scientific progress, blah, blah). They should just have fessed up along the lines that serious stunting is deep in the DNA of aviation and that a responsibly performed difficult trick can be publicly valuable in and of itself. I reckon that would have been harder to gainsay. As Flying Mag reminds us: https://www.flyingmag.com/aviation-stunts-a-history-lesson/ Aviation Stunts: A History Lesson Almost from the start of aviation, and well before the advent social media, people have been pushing the boundaries of aircraft. By Meg Godlewski April 26, 2022 John “Auggy” Pedlar has a seat on the wing. [Courtesy: NASA]

Flywire's follow-up video:

This is a new analysis of an old Stall/spin accident (2013) by Scott Perdue.

FAA Revokes Certificate Of YouTuber Who Crashed Plane https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/faa-revokes-certificate-of-youtuber-who-crashed-plane/

Swedish sports car maker Koenigsegg are now touting the aerospace cred of their new Quark/Terrier electric motors: "The Quark is unique in its high efficiency in combination with its class-leading torque-to-power-to-rpm-to-weight matrix. This means, when using the Quark in applications such as marine, aircraft or VTOL, there is no need for a step-down transmission, instead direct drive can be achieved, as the RPM of the motor is right from the get-go. Small high-revving motors can have higher peak power to weight ratio, but they need transmissions in most applications in order to get to the desired output rpm and torque, causing energy loss and adding weight and complexity to do the same job. So any benefit in size is lost. In other cases, like the Terrier application, the transmissions can be reduced in size and complexity compared to higher-revving, less torque dense motors, which is also a big win. I guess we’re trying to reach the edge of optimal in-betweeness. —CEO and Founder Christian von Koenigsegg Source: https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/02/20220203-quark.html

It's worth checking out his whole catalogue of videos on all kinds of GA types : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbIsUS2IVCx3cUxhsR0sGmg/videos

Can we all come to watch, Bruce?

Right ... any excuse for another look, then ... Oh, aye! ;- )

Really? I thought SP's 160K sounded like a pretty good deal for speed freaks. (I believe it's over half-a-mil USD for a 172 nowadays ... and a long wait, at that.)

True. Luckily our preferred Mogas is back under $2 and airports that charge $75 are unavailable to us anyway. Interesting, though, that the JMB guy was selling his VL3 as the poor man's Cirrus. LOL, it's all relative.

How about half the speed for half the price? (and a fraction of the runway) https://aeroplanemanufactory.com/ChinookPlus2.html

160K for 160K ain't bad, Stude.