Billzilla

I've seen that before somewhere .... :) Anyway you guys should love our new engines. I can't say too much right now but they are different to the usual crop and will also sound much better.

Yes one of them - http://www.billzilla.org/flying2.html

The problem is that the brakes used on the airliners aren't sensitive enough to control low wheel speeds like that when they have no load on them. Just the lightest touch and they'd stop the rotation. You'd need a much smaller independent brake system .... so more weight and complexity. It's not uncommon for the smaller jets to have a bleed air system to spin-up the nosewheel for landing on gravel runways. We had it on the Citation 2 I used to fly in PNG and to make sure the nosewheel got enough speed I'd plan for a short level segment before landing so I could spool the engines up to make enough bleed air to the desired RPM. By far most of the damage is done when the tyres go from zero to 150 kts in the blink of an eye and have hundreds of tonnes press down on them to make that happen. There's a bit of extra wear when you turn tight corners as well, due to the nature of the dynamics of the turn and the usual four-wheel truck system - It's why the body gear on the 747 steers in the opposite direction to the nosewheel and also the last two pairs of wheels on the 777 six-wheel trucks. Airliners very definitely require brakes for stopping on the runway. We tired a few times, even at light weight in the simulator, to stop the 747 with reverse alone and even on a 4,000 metre runway we pretty much always went off the far end at about 60 kts. If you have traffic behind you at a controlled airport they sometimes dictate which taxiway to exit from, or it's also sometimes in the Jepps. If you can't make it, you tell them in advance. Airlines are a bit different though, the crew don't have to really look after the brakes as they are an expendable item .... though you have to really watch the brake temps for the next sector.

The 747 Classic freighter I used to fly would approach at 157 kts at max landing weight and touch down at around 150 kts so that's a very good guess. There's the problems mentioned above though gyroscopic precession isn't a problem because you'd spin the wheels up once they're already down. One of the larger problems, as far as I know, was making sure that all the wheels were spinning at exactly the same speed left & right for touchdown because if they were at different speeds the aeroplane would tend to yaw otherwise. So it was easier to just have them all at zero speed. It wouldn't be all that difficult to have ribs moulded into the side of the tyres to help them spin up, but as mentioned there's no guarantee that they'd all be spinning at the same rate.

ALT + 0160 = space ;)

Could you perhaps buy a space-bar for your keyboard please?

Why would you assume I didn't? I have found that quite often the student would learn better by making the occasional safe mistake. So I'd let them do a tight circuit entry, point it out, then they would recognise it the next time they went to a new airport.

A FWIW on the topic of joining the circuit at an unfamiliar runway - I have taught a fair few people to fly and I can't remember a time where when entering downwind at a new runway the student pilot hasn't been much closer to the runway than at a familiar airport. I don't know why, but everyone did it. My point being that being closer to the runway on downwind means it's more difficult to roll-out onto final without going to larger bank angles, etc.

The engine(s) will be 'western' designed and specified, and so equal in quality to any other good western engine.

Yep - round circuits are easier to adjust to align yourself with the extended centreline as all you have to do is vary the angle of bank. A little experience will give you the judgement you need to get it right the vast majority of the time.

I endorse this product and/or service. :D

It's just a regular GoPro Hero2 HD, firmly mounted. Mounting them firmly is the trick to stopping the 'jello' vids they make. I put it right out the front so there wasn't a lot of the props to be seen. (I'm still drooling over that P-47 though, dang it's nice!)

From that site, exactly what I was after - "CPL, ATPL) who wish to obtain an RA-Aus Pilot Certificate can undertake conversion training at an RA-Aus flight training facility (FTF) to familiarise them to the particular flight characteristics of very light aircraft. Prior to undertaking the flight test for the issue of a Pilot Certificate and endorsements, an applicant must complete such dual training as deemed necessary by a CFI and, in any case, shall have not less than 5 hours experience, in an aeroplane registerable with RA-Aus, which shall include a minimum of one hour solo. Full RA-Aus membership, plus a student pilot certificate, must be obtained before a solo flight is undertaken. An intending member can apply for RA-Aus membership and issue of the student pilot certificate — before selecting a particular flight school — by downloading the form Application for membership and student pilot certificate and returning it to the RA-Aus office. Or, the flight school can provide the form and process the paperwork and training can start with temporary RA-Aus membership issued by the FTF. Holders of a pilot licence which is no longer valid because the period of effectiveness of the last biennial flight review or class 2 medical certificate has lapsed, are also eligible to apply for the Pilot Certificate, however it is likely that lack of recency will affect the conversion flight time necessary. An aviation medical certificate is not required but an RA-Aus pilot must be medically fit to a standard equivalent to that required to hold a private motor vehicle driver’s licence in Australia. It is the responsibility of all Pilot Certificate holders to report to RA-Aus any change in their health status which would cause them to be below that minimum health standard required." http://www.raa.asn.au/join/ The last paragraph fits me perfectly, as I last flew in 2009 and haven't kept anything up to date after that. I reckon I'd still pass a Class One medical though, they were never a problem.

Err .... this one? - http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Converting-Application1.pdf (your link doesn't work)

Thanks.

Quick on-topic question - I've got a regular CASA licence, does that cover me for these types of aircraft? Or would I need an RAA one as well?

Nothing very exciting from me, but I enjoy flying it - it's a hexacopter with FPV gear. (ignore the last bit of this video, that's the one and only time I ever try to do aerobatics with it) I'm also building a large aluminium aeroplane, loosely based on the Piper Cub. Got a three metre wingspan and is electric. It's made from aluminium because I learned to TIG weld a short while before I planned it. :)

Look right down the far end of the runway, not a bit in front of the aeroplane. Make sure you're sitting high enough to see over the dashboard. (as appropriate) A good landing comes from a good approach, make them as accurate and consistent as you can.

FWIW the Citation 2 I used to fly had one and it was brilliant. I used to fly it back in the 90's mainly on freight runs and after takeoff at V2 + 10 kts we got 0.6 on the AoA meter. if we had 0.61 that meant the loaders had given us a bit more than they showed on the manifest. ;) You could also fly a surprisingly accurate approach with it and not look at the ASI at all.

If you want to be really fussy, the AoA can also vary a little; the higher the speed the lower the stalling AoA is, but it's not a big enough effect to worry about. To give an example of why AoA is more important than airspeed, back in the 80's when I was instructing I'd show the students a low-G arc, and at the top of the arc as the nose was level with the horizon the airspeed in the Piper Tomahawk would be down to only 40 kts with no stall warning horn blaring away. They stall S&L at 48 kts clean.

I also conduct professional reviews of aircraft, I was asked about the Metroliner and here's my reply. I'll explain, as it's also my most hated aeroplane. The Metro. The cockpit was designed by a midget and anyone of even normal size is very uncomfortable in them. Especially if you have long legs as the pedals are simply far too close to the seat so you have to bend your legs so far that it's practically impossible to get your feet onto the pedals at anything like a comfortable angle. Fortunately the brakes, although fitted, don't actually work; they are there for show only and to amuse the ground engineers. So it's really not that important to get your feet where you would normally have them. The control column was designed by a personal trainer, to improve your fitness by means of a continuous physical workout whenever any movement at all is required as they forces needed to move any control surface is in the tens of kilograms. If you can't benchpress two or three hundred kilograms, forget it. Fortunately again, the engineers that designed the Metro had a sense of humour and made the ailerons so they don't really work much. They will roll the aeroplane roughly as fast as an oil tanker can turn, but no faster. Whilst on the subject of controls, I must mention the rudder; like most small aeroplanes it also control the nosewheel steering and this is where the Metro engineers must still be peeing their pants with laughter, with the nosewheel system being the result of something like ten completely unrelated bits of machinery all incorporated to make the Metro perform the complex tasks of .... left ..... and ...... right. The nosewheel system requires approximately two weeks to do a complete systems test on the taxi out to the holding point and so many Metros must return to be refueled before flight. Fortunately it works randomly but the aeroplane can be steered on the ground by means of futilely stabbing at the brakes (I use the term loosely) and moving the power levers to vary the noise left to right. Then there's the stall detection and Stall Avoidance System, which is designed to kick in just before landing; to do this, it senses a completely normal airspeed in the landing configuration just before landing, and then activates the stick pusher without warning, thus making the Metro land on the nosewheel and bounce down the runway. Normally this would be uncomfortable for the passengers, if you are carrying any, but they are probably still unconscious from the lack of pressuristation due to the Metro being fitted with door seals made from molten ear wax and the bleed source a small 12 volt hair drier fitted to each engine. Even though the door seals may keep a tiny fraction of the air in the cabin and they whistle a loud revelry to keep the punters awake, they are often wearing foam ear plugs to block the noise and are likely to be blacked out from the cabin being something like 1,000' below the cruise altitude. Fortunately, the Metro engineers had already considered the dual problems of trying to keep the passengers subdued and also making the ailerons a mere amusement, so they gave the machine a tiny little thin wing that only works when you are travelling along at many hundreds of knots. The wing is also very handy for smacking your head into, to remind you how lucky you are to be in aviation .... in case you had forgotten. Speaking of engines, again the Metro engineers excelled themselves by choosing engines that have the unique blend of being complete and utter p***ks to start unless you have a nuclear power station plugged in (good forethough again - the ground power plug is often on the side of the nacelle near the prop, to help keep the ground crew cool as they unplug you), they also make more noise than said nuclear power station blowing up, and they also take 1.2 weeks to complete a start cycle. So at least when flying a Metro you develop the ability to think ahead. The propeller is also capable of reverse pitch, and this is used to make more noise on landing with the noise reflecting on the airframe to slow it to taxi speed. Back to the cockpit. Whilst it may seem great fun to blast around the skies in a semi-pressurised aircraft that can barely be controlled - assuming it'll start - you can't actually see where you're going due to the windows being too small. To be fair there's a large-ish window on the side, but it often vibrates so much that nothing useful can be seen from it. This is assuming you're lucky enough to be flying in warm weather, for in colder conditions that require window heat only the window directly in front of each pilot has a tiny section of it heated, so if you thought you couldn't see much before you will see even less now. The various controls & instruments in the cockpit were strategically positioned by means of a very large shotgun and many cases of beer I suspect. Fortunately, most of them don't read very accurately or indeed at all. A large number of the switches were labelled by means of picking suitable-sounding words from a brown paper bag. The radar is merely a Nintendo Gameboy converted to black & white, yet still has the batteries removed so it doesn't work. Every internal light is designed to illuminate dimly and also burn you if you foolishly fiddle with it to make it brighter. If you do decide to go attempt to commit aviation in one, you first have to tackle the front door. It's hinged at the bottom and has a single handle to open & close/lock it. Sounds simple, but again the trusty Metro engineers decided that the door should be fitted with a totally reliable lift-assist device that detects the strength of the person trying to operate it, and if the person is weak then the door is scheduled to get no assistance at all, and vice-versa. The chains fitted to either side to stop the door from (mostly) plunging deep into the ground when opening are also designed to fall to the side when closing the door to make it jam, with the bonus of also damaging the door seal. But the Metro engineers weren't finished there, they decreed that even if you'd managed to lift the heavy door up and grow another arm or two to get the chains out of the way, then it has just enough twist in it so it simply won't shut. Well some doors are scheduled to only shut when slammed for the 3rd or 4th time with at least a grunt and swear word. It's then impossible to visually sight if the door is close as the inspection ports for the door pins are made from cataracts extracted from the eyes of old pilots. Fortunately it works nearly perfectly every single time you shut it from outside, though it must be a member of the flight crew that shuts it, not any old person on the ground. Engineer humour again I suspect .... I like the water/meth on takeoff. Does that answer your question? :)

Gidday, I'm in cahoots with that Bex fellow. I used to fly aeroplanes, but now I don't, but I might be again some time. Gold Coast lad here.