Mazda

The chance of Willy being active over the Christmas period is very low unless there is some sort of conflict! If it isn't active you don't need the lanes. If you do use the lanes, the coastal one is a bit friendlier (although I believe there are an awful lot of big sharks in that water). The inland lane is a bit of an adventure, it's quite twisty and there's a bit of high ground around.

Thanks for posting that Tomo! I've been interested in flying in there and wondered what it was like. You've said it is around 6km from town, I'm not a local - how far do you think it would be to the marina? I have a friend there and would love to drop in some time.

Oh, if you do go via the Willy inland lane, Maitland is quite close if you do decide to drop in there!

Military control zones are classified as Class C, so if the zone is active the requirement is the same as for flying in Sydney or Canberra, including a transponder. That applies for the coastal route if Willy is active. There is a phone number in the PRD section of ERSA, it could be worthwile phoning them in advance if you don't have a transponder to see if they would allow you to fly through, I can't answer that one. There is usually quite a lengthy "stand down" period over Christmas, it most likely won't be active but I can't guarantee that! It's true the that Class E has now been lowered. The inland lane is OCTA with no clearance or transponder requirement. Yes if you have a PPL and transponder, if the zone is active you can request clearance to track via the coastal lane, or you could request direct tracking - they may or may not give it to you!

Turbo, be very careful about personal attacks on forums. Tomo, you and Darky are absolutely right, of course it is all linked so I still can't understand what all the fuss is about. As I've said about a zillion times on this thread, power and attitude = performance. All you need to do with a constant attitude approach is to keep pointing where you want to go. If you do that and you are too high, the speed will increase so you reduce power to maintain speed (use flap/sideslip as required). If you are too low, just keep pointing where you want to go and if the speed reduces, increase power to maintain speed. (Delay flap) It's absolutely pointless to go on. There's no point wasting time in offering any advice gained from experience or training to those who know it all anyway!

Good on you Darky, you are spot on. Of course it is the same thing - power and attitude = performance. However keeping a constant attitude is a lot simpler and gives a good, stable approach. You can do it either way but I hate controlling speed with elevator now, it's such a clumsy way to do it. Yes, I do think it is important to discuss both methods, especially as text books may show something different to the method being taught. Maj Millard it's pretty obvious. Power and attitude = performance. If you don't have power, you only have attitude to control performance. You might remember back to your descending brief and the explanation of the forces once the thrust force has been removed. David I don't have that much time in Austers, maybe 15 hours or so, but I can't see why you say they are so difficult. The fast jet gentleman in question did fly an Auster too (J4), without putting a scratch on it (or himself), flew a Storch with Nestor, and was invited to fly a Sea Fury in an air display (which he did, without a scratch), and he flew all of them with a stable attitude approach using power for speed. He believes the trickiest taildragger he flew was the piston Provost. Turbo, spot on. Aerodynamics are aerodynamics. It doesn't matter if the aircraft is a fast jet, a GA lightie, or an RA-Aus aircraft. After all, if a Jabiru pilot has a GA licence does that mean they don't know how to fly an RA-Aus registered Jab? You are absolutely right that my background is in GA and I'm sure not ashamed of that. Have I flown RA-Aus aircraft? You bet I have, at the very light end of the scale. But that isn't important! Sorry if I missed any of your questions, this thread has become a bit of an epic and I don't sit here all day reading it, I've been out flying (using power for speed on approach!) Please let me know if there's something I've missed. I do hope this site remains a place for people to discuss issues and ask for advice without fear, not one involving personal attacks on others. There are other aviation sites for that. My opinion of people isn't based on whether they are a student pilot, RA-Aus pilot, GA pilot, airline pilot or military pilot - they all have knowledge which we can learn from. I just worry when people have not been taught the basics, such as the relative airflow/load factor/stall/spin stuff Turbo was not taught initially. We are all here to fly because we love it, we are all here to support each other - aren't we?

Could you fly up the Willy inland lane?

Exactly Maj Millard, as I've said all along power and attitude = performance. If you need to increase power for speed, you'll need to lower the attitude to point where you want to go. Well David, I can tell you a story there. I know a fast jet pilot who wanted to fly a Chipmunk. Off you go they said, take that one. Here's the book, read that before you go. That's as much tailwheel training as he had. No dual, no instruction, and he didn't have a problem at all. Took plenty of people flying in that Chippie over hundreds of hours. There weren't any people sitting around expecting blood, they knew anyone with his training wouldn't have a problem. What makes people think because something is published it is law? Even Naval Aviators says something a bit odd about adverse yaw. You or I could publish anything, does that make it right? As for Stick and Rudder, it says the same as Trevor Thom to use elevator to control speed. It's not wrong, it works, but so does doing it the other way (and it has better results). Power and attitude = performance. I was taught the Trevor Thom/Stick & Rudder way, that's the way I started, but I've been shown a better way. For the doubters, have you actually TRIED both ways?

If you want it published, there are contact details in the front of ERSA. All you need to do is send them details and they publish it.

Sorry David. I know people who have flown Tornados, F/A18s, 767s, 737s, Chipmunks, Pitts and Citabrias, and while observing speed recommendations etc the approach is done in the same way. Instead of speculating, have you ever discussed this with people who may have done this? Citabrias are not exactly difficult, landing a 7GCBC or 7ECA isn't rocket science. I'm sure anyone who has gone through the training to be a successful fast jet pilot wouldn't have a problem. Maj Millard, ATC has told you to maintain the cleared level and increase speed. What do you do? I think you would be increasing power, just as students are shown to do in their second lesson - straight and level at various speeds.

Turbo, aviation is something which teaches you to never stop learning. If you don't open your mind to ideas, if you already know it all, you can't ever learn. I was initially taught as you were, and it wasn't until I was flying something of a reasonably high performance with an extremely good instructor that I realised I'd been doing it backwards. Believe me, I tried both ways, and the way that worked every time was to point the thing where I wanted it to go and control power with speed. And yes, that is what most schools teach these days. The funny thing about more experienced pilots sometimes is they are not actually doing what they think they are doing. They'll tell you until they are blue in the face that they are flying an ILS using elevator for speed, but that is not necessarily the case. Remember the two are linked. So if for instance you dropped below profile and kept the aircraft pointed at the aiming point, the speed would decay so you would add power. And for Qwerty, if you point the nose down and it starts to pick up speed, you would reduce power to adjust the speed. Easy! For the knockers out there - if you don't take my word for it, or mozartmerv's, or djpacro's, or the RAAF's, or the RAF's, or any airline pilot's - don't knock it too much without trying it. It works on Gazelles, Citabrias, Tornados, 767s, there's no reason why it won't work for you. Darky don't be concerned, what you are being taught is correct.

Turbo if you read my post you would have seen that both ways can work, and most schools these days teach power for speed - as confirmed by Darky who is learning right now. Turbo I'm not going to enter a contest as to which high power to weight ratio aircraft I have flown but I can assure you that the technique works. Point the thing where you want it to go and control speed with power. Anything will fly with enough thrust, even a Reliant Robin. Djpacro an interesting post which I'm thinking about. I'm familiar with the NASA website and a number of various publications but am trying to think of Newton being the only source of lift. I'm on good terms with a member of the RAeS who does not share the view that the principles of Newton's third law are the sole source of lift. He does say this is a time honoured argument which aerodynamicists have been debating for decades and the Society recognises Bernoulli's contribution. Anyway, could it be that they just fly because they want to? Perhaps we should consider the Richard Bach theory about aircraft sometimes performing beyond the numbers as though they have a soul!

It doesn't matter if it is a symmetrical aerofoil, it will still have an angle of attack and most likely an angle of incidence. The aircraft I've flown with symmetrical aerofoils have a different attitude upright and inverted due to the angle of incidence. Newton isn't enough to produce the amount of lift required which is where Bernoulli and circulation theory come in. Remember, if we only flew by Newton, wings could be flat plates, which they generally are not - they are cambered. Coanda does not produce lift, all that does is assist the air to follow a curved path. Be careful with coming up with theories such as your angle of attack one. Angle of attack does have variables, such as weight and flap. That's why some aircraft have different glide speeds for different weights, it's a guide to the angle of attack for the best lift/drag ratio. Remember attitude does not equal angle of attack. Power + attitude = performance. A combination of power setting and attitude will give you the result you want. Most schools these days teach constant attitude approaches. That's what you'll end up doing in airline aircraft, fast jets, and even single pistons with a bit more performance. That means point the thing where you want it to go, keep that picture, and control speed with power. Some of the books will say use power to control descent and attitude for airspeed. You can do it that way but it does end up sometimes with an up and down type approach, and it isn't comfortable in bigger aircraft due to inertia. I agree not to overcomplicate things, you'll have a different perspective once you are doing it. Just find a good instructor and take guidance from them.

Thanks again Carl, I got through to someone and they are OK. Now let's hope the report of something going down off Point Lookout is false.

Thanks Carl, got through to Patrick, he's on holidays and obviously didn't know and the other two numbers went through to voicemail. I'll look at the site.

There was a Jab heading south this afternoon planning to land at Heck Field. If anyone is based at Heck Field could you advise if a NSW based Jab landed there this afternoon? I've tried to phone the field to check, it went through to messagebank. Does anyone have any contact details for someone who may be there?

Who says the particles at the trailing edge are there at the same time? :devil:

Sirius, transponders are not required in Class D, which is 'controlled' airspace. That's what I was getting at. Class A, C and E are controlled and require transponders. It is my understanding that ICAO does not require transponder carriage in Class E, but transponders are required in Australian Class E for reasons I won't go into here.

Sort of. Bernoulli was the one who actually observed rivers to come up with a concept of a constant pressure. I believe Eucla was the one who did the work with measurement, and named it after Bernoulli who carried out the initial observations on rivers. The principle does work for aerodynamics, but only up to a point. Bernoulli is one of the reasons why aircraft fly, not all, and Newton does not explain it fully either. The lift produced by Bernoulli is not enough. The lift produced by Newton is not enough. Lift is a function of a number of principles, using one explanation doesn't fully cover it, but going into all of them would be beyond the scope of the basic aerodynamics required. This is why most basic briefings just go into Bernoulli and Newton. Air only acts like water (i.e. is non-compressible) at low speeds. Up to CPL level it is assumed that air cannot be compressed and therefore it acts in a similar way to water. However air can be compressed, so the basic explanation given up to CPL level is not entirely correct, but correct enough for practical use at low speed. Air sure doesn't act like a non-compressible fluid (i.e. water) at high speed. This is why there were so many problems encountered by middle 20th century aerodynamicists as aero engine power increased and enabled the wing and other surface designs to approach the speed of sound (including of course the prop). Instead of using the Spitfire etc which is well covered in books and google I'd like to use an example the aerofoil section of the Jet Provost (a modified NACA 23015 section at the root and NACA 4412 at the tip but known to the students as RAF 35) which encountered mild wing buffet at Mach 0.73. When this occurred RAF student pilots were taught that this was caused by compressibility and was known as the "cobblestone effect" - that's what it feels like. Interestingly the Victa Airtourer has a very similar aerofoil section to the Jet Provost (NACA 23012 at the root and NACA 4412 at the tip) but (in my one at least ) doesn't have the engine power to encounter the 'stones! :big_grin: Again, this is way beyond the scope of what is being covered here.

It's really interesting Slarti and Turbo, I wonder why that stuff isn't being taught (and demonstrated)? For those who are currently learning, do you think you being shown these sorts of things - such as Slarti's example of stalling at 90 knots? If it is not being demonstrated to you, do you think such things are being explained? :)

At present transponders are not mandatory for flight in 'controlled' airspace. They are required for flight in Class A, C and E airspace. Flight into Class D (and current GAAP) does not currently require a transponder. Most places in the world do not require transponders in Class E either, the fact that we have the requirement was the result of a "deal" made some time ago.

Wow, what an eye opening thread. It is amazing to me that such things are not being taught. Turbo, you are spot on about communication. I'm reallly shocked that you had not been taught those things! Stalling is ONLY due to exceeding the critical angle, it has nothing to do with speed. You can stall at cruising speed, or have the ASI reading zero and not be stalled. During a level steep turn the angle of attack is higher than in S & L flight, so you are closer to that critical angle (and one wing has a higher AoA). All of that stuff is covered in BAK books as well as the more technical ones, and it should be covered (at least in the GA syllabus) before people go solo. I agree that if this information is not being taught, maybe people should read Stick and Rudder. As I said I didn't find it particularly helpful, but I'd been taught the contents of the book along the way. As for formulas, there are hardly any used anyway for learning to fly. Instructors may talk about how things are derived, but the main one is the lift formula, which when broken down into what we can actually change really just means that lift is a function of angle of attack and airspeed. Increasing angle of attack = increase in lift. Increase in airspeed = increase in lift. So if we want to maintain the same lift and fly level, if we slow down we must increase the angle of attack. That's what the lift formula means. I haven't yet read all of that link but it looks like it could be interesting. There is good information out there. For Peter - Angle of Attack & lift. The simple way to explain it is to think of putting your hand out of a car window, with your hand flat (horizontal) - i.e. no angle of attack. It cuts through the air. But if you tilt your hand so it has an "angle of attack" it is forced up and back. The greater the angle, the greater the force. It is true that most people are just taught lift is produced by Bernoulli - perhaps because it is the easiest way to explain it - but it doesn't produce enough lift. There are a combination of factors such as Bernoulli, Newton & circulation theory. Coanda has its place but in some ways is a bit of a red herring. The main ones are Bernoulli & Newton. From Bernoulli, when a river narrows it goes from slow to fast flowing water. The "dynamic" pressure increases. Bernoulli's principle states that the pressure is constant (think of the same amount of water being pushed down the river) and when dynamic increases, static pressure must decrease. The narrower the section of river, the faster the water, the higher the dynamic pressure, therefore the lower the static pressure. At low speed air acts like a fluid. The wing causes the air to be deflected and to an extent the freeflowing air above causes a restriction like that in the river. The air flowing over the wing is faster, the pressure is lower. Meanwhile the air flowing below is slowed, resulting in a higher pressure. The pressure differential results in an upward force. The greater the angle of attack, the greater the "restriction in the river", the greater the pressure differential, the greater the force. As well as that, there is Newton's third law of motion that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The airflow leaving the top surface of the wing does not have the same angle as that ahead of the wing, it is deflected down, it has downwash. The air hitting the underside of the wing is also deflected down, it has downwash. The greater the angle, the more the downwash. Think about your hand out of the car window. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That downwash creates a force upwards and backwards - lift and drag (induced drag, from the production of lift!) So the greater the angle of attack, the greater the lift, and the greater the induced drag. Does that help at all? (I need the feedback!! :))

I don't think Stick and Rudder gives very good theory explanations at all. I found Stick and Rudder to waffle around without explaining a great deal. I guess Kermode's Flight Without Formulae tries to be practical too, again it states things without explaining why, but Kermode's more technical volume Mechanics of Flight is better, and it is a much easier read than Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators. However, starting with Mechanics of Flight might seem a bit over the top - at least initially, but it is valuable volume to have for reference. What's wrong with the standard BAK type books? Like the ATC one, and the more practical Flying Training Manual? There's a lot of information out there in published form and online. All people need to do is keep on reading. Look at all the books in libraries and pilot shops! There's nothing wrong with reading Stick & Rudder of course, there's just better (more detailed) information available. Yes, I would hope that flight instructors do pass on such information, and I would hope that students who are unsure of anything ask their instructors! I suppose there's only limited time for that though and it is up to all of us to keep learning! :thumb_up: What is it about aeronautical theory that people are having trouble understanding?

Comments for pduthoit. I found it took forever to actually get anywhere, it waffles. The theoretical information was on the light side, and the practical information was a bit on the obvious side. The theory is covered in so many other texts in so much more depth and without the flowery beating around the bush, the practical side is most likely taught from the start by instructors. Things like the landing perspective (which perhaps is why Darky is looking for it?) for instance. Everyone is taught when looking for traffic that the traffic which gets bigger but doesn't move on the screen is the one you are going to hit. It seems pretty obvious that an aiming point for landing is the same. Point the thing where you want to land and keep it there, adjust speed with power. It takes pages and pages. Gliding. Goes on forever about it being some great secret that pointing the nose up or down too far reduces the gliding range. Well, yeah. Just have a look at any lift/drag ratio graph in any student flying book at it is there slapping you in the face. It's covered in detail in the decscending briefing and flight, it's no "secret"!