APenNameAndThatA

You have gone to a huge amount of effort. What motivates you? 

I forgot to mention that one of the commenters on Kathryn’s page said he left town without paying his bill. 

Hard to know what was happening. He was only aged 60, so frontal lobe dementia is unlikely but possible. Poor judgement, grumpy, insight-less. Poor financial management. Did not care about any of it. 

He did not even do a proper preflight, much less an inspection. He flew a strange aircraft *at night* while not current. 

The strange part was he seemed to be doing all that while he was broke. The brokeness would have contributed to the get home itis. He deserved to be punched in the face. 

The best thing to do when landing is to try not to land. Prevents a lot of problems with nose wheels. 

18 hours ago, RFguy said:

High crosswind (desire for nose on ground early to gain authority ) and bad surface (desire to keep nosewheel light)  are opposing requirements and I have not practiced nor encountered those requirements yet. 

any comments ?

 

Agree Turbs, and finals and landing in the J230 without anything much in the rear  is usually done with full back trim.  at least in my bird... landing and flare is  full stick back with two pax. 

It would take a bit weight in the back (due to wing posiiton is over the back) to change that.  stick is held back until nose lowers on its own as airspeed decays once mains are down. at least in benign  (nil Xwind ) condix

 

 

 

 

 

Nosewheels aren’t for landing, they’re only for taxiing. (I have a massive 160 hrs. So, Im just repeating something memorable and instructive I heard.)

Good CRM. Copilot unthreateningly pointing out something to the captain. We can all learn from this cartoon. Well done, Gary Larson. 

16 hours ago, turboplanner said:

As I mentioned, the difference between Mazda and what might be the fuel leader in the 2 litre class, Honda is about $20 to $30 in a Melbourne-Gold Coast trip.

Mazda are set to go forward and meet coming emissions,and have been able to get an increase in power.

The bar for engine life in this class is at least the first ownership, but preferebly the second or third; that way the economics are affordable to families and their children.

 

I'm not suggesting SKYactive is a world-beater which will crush the oppostition, just that it's made some achievements. Other manufacturers are also moving into new technology. What I am suggesting is that this is the most exciting class of cars in terms of going forward to meet the new emphasis on CO2 reduction plus continuing reduction in NOx  (we are already at 97% reduction on Particulate Matter and 98% reduction on NOx since 1992), while still achieving minimal fuel consumption.

 

 

In the past we have seen the whole industry, in just falling over the line for a new level of emission compliance, being released with lower power and higher fuel consumption.  This is what happened around Euro IV with diesel engines and manufacturers who committed to EGR (Exhaust gas recycling). Those who couldn't afford the development opted to continue to use their older engines and hose the particulates down by injecting Urea into the exhausts, so for a time they were selling more power and better fuel economy.

Good points. I hadn’t considered it from the point of view of future emission standards. 

Sounds like they got an engineer to come up with the name, too. And not a very innovative one neither. 

Maybe you could make the cowl the most aerodynamic and aesthetic shape and address internal airflow with baffles. That would provide access room around the engine, and if it grew a little it would not throw your plans out. Disclaimer: I know nothing about this. 

I imagine that someone would travel if you paid them properly. Flying instructors often like flying around. They might like the idea of collecting your new plane with you. Maybe you need someone to inspect it too.  

On 25/12/21 at 7:38 AM, turboplanner said:

SKYactiv has moved engine technology ahead in several areas:

It introduces compression ignition to petrol-engined cars so a cleaner fuel starting point. The crossover to "diesel" is now blurred with several fuel injections for emissions, and a spark introduced at some point for enhancement as well.

It meets the increased power and torque standards for the class

It lowers NOx and PM even further

It produces a low CO2 output of 90<116g/km

It lowers fuel consumption into the current ballpark

It utilises a pulse-tuned exhaust to drive the turbocharger harder, something which is dear to racers.

 

Car applications are changing.

Historically if young families wanted to travel interstate cheaply they bought a caravan and hitched it up to a Holden or Falcon. Fuel was cheap, Motels were expensive.

As the cost of fuel rose this model was slowly destroyed and caravan towing moved across to more committed camping type people in 4WDs. That this group now strongly dominates the top vehicle turnover in Australia is surprising, but there it is.

 

As Holden and Falcon models dropped out of the market the 2 litre market has been getting more and more use in longer distance travel, to the point where cars like Honda Civic can squeeze out a fuel economy on gentle highway travel of up to 4 litres/100 km, so increasingly the affordable interstate holiday trips have switched to low fuel cost and cheap motels.

 

In that application the 2 litre SKYactiv-X at around 4.6 litres per 100 km, but from Melbourne to Brisbane that's only an out of pocket compared to the Honda of about $20 to $30, so petty cash.

 

 On the other hand power is now within 14% of a VY Commodore which had a highway fuel cycle of around 9 l/100 km, so the SKYactiv will be pretty much giving the same performance on the holiday trip on about half the fuel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can look up the Wheels magazine review on their website. They compared the Skyactiv compression ignition engine to the old one. The fuel economy was the same. The new engine was 16% more powerful. Considering the expense in development and production, passed to the consumer, not a good outcome. Not to mention probable shorter engine life.  

On 27/12/21 at 9:12 AM, walrus said:

I note that there is a low level endorsement in the RAA Operations manual. Anyone know who does training for this? 

 

I find that, although it is legal to fly at 500 ft AGL in open country, I am not comfortable doing it, particularly if the terrain is undulating. It is disconcerting to be looking UP at terrain around you.

Flightscope at Archerfield does this. 

On 23/12/21 at 3:17 PM, onetrack said:

Mazda's current SkyActiv-X engines use a modified HCCI (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition) engine design, that Mazda call SPCCI (Spark Controlled Compression Ignition). The engine runs at 16:1 CR, so definitely a diesel.

Their SkyActiv-X engine is pretty impressive in torque, power and economy figures - but the downside is, they're an exceptionally high-tech engine, with microprocessors controlling every single combustion event, as they happen. 

The problem with HCCI is it's a particularly unstable, very lean combustion process, that needs a high level of electronic control to ensure stability during the combustion events.

 

Mazda SkyActiv-X engines also utilise an air-to-water intercooler, a low-boost Roots-type supercharger, an EGR cooler that helps prevent premature combustion, electric variable valve timing actuators (that use stepper motors) for faster valve timing, and they also use a 48v electrical system.

Overall, a major step forward in engine efficiency for cars - but at the expense of extreme complexity - and probably not a design you'd want to adapt for powering your ultralight.

 

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/01/mazdas-skyactiv-x-shows-the-internal-combustion-engine-has-a-future/

 

IIRC, Wheels magazine said those engines were no more economical than a normal engine of the same capacity (but a little more powerful). Mercedes tried and failed to produce such an engine. It sort of looks to me like Mazda failed but put the engine into production anyway, if you know what I mean. 

38 minutes ago, Roundsounds said:

A proper understanding of the aerodynamics associated with un-coordinated flight would be a good start. The fear you mentioned is related to the lack of understanding. 
The BS taught as to why an aeroplane rolls when yawed constantly amazes me. 

What BS is that? (I love pet hates.)

2 hours ago, Garfly said:

 

Roundsounds (and Nev et al), do you think, then, that the ingrained fear of banking when low and slow (well founded, of course, for level turns) needs to be modified when the wing is partially unloaded, as in a (coordinated) descending turn?  Or to put it another way, does our basic training get in the way of our progressing to 'advanced manoeuvring'; or simply learning to turn?

 

 

 

 

Slips are safe when low and slow. I think people should unload the wing and bank away to their heart’s content. (Disclaimer: as above). 

Thrusters have a tractor propeller, and Drifters have a pusher (ie thruster) propeller. Can we swap the names to end the confusion, please? 

3 minutes ago, Roundsounds said:

I would estimate at least 70% of pilots I completed tailwheel endorsements with would have completed skidding turns at some point. Most frequently on a marginal glide approach, trying to stretch the glide, minimise bank angle and away they’d go. The offenders were of all levels of experience. Whenever I had the chance we would go to altitude and see how close to a stall / spin they’d been. I hope this may have saved a life or two. 
unfortunately most current training aircraft do not permit this demonstration. The Citabria would have to be one of the best training aeroplanes produced. 

How come you can’t do a stall in a skidding turn to see what happens? I have been told that a C172 can suddenly invert (ie spin) if you stall with crossed controls. 

Stalling one’s own aircraft in a skidding turn sounds like an excellent idea. But is that a bad thing to do in an aircraft not licensed for spins? 

That’s one reason I feel better stalling aircraft that are licensed to spin. I know this is a minority view, but Im a bit annoyed that if stalls and spins are so different, then how come NOBODY can tell me when/where one ends and the other starts? People don’t even seem to understand the question. And don’t get me started on incipient spins vs actual spins. 

I can’t wait to get back in the Decathlon and see what happens in a skidding stall, steep turn stall and after letting a wing drop drop and drop. I know that what happens in a Decathlon will not tell me what will happen in a Foxbat. The mystery annoys me and contributes to my anxiety. 

On 19/12/21 at 1:03 PM, Yenn said:

I have always found the calls require to make sense and it pays to make less calls and look out better. What is annoying me now is that when Airservices were told of our airstrip they decided to rename it. The correct name according to Airservices is Iveragh. On the map it is adjacent to a spot called Rods bay and the YIVG is further away from the location than Rods Bay.

Now according to Airervices the rename was to bring it into compliance with ICAO, but then they explain that it doesn't comply with ICAO. Now I have to listen to at least 3 different pronunciations of Iveragh and people still calling it Rods Bay.

We are right at the edge of Gladstone 118.8, but use 126.7 and then area frequency 119.55. We really need to listen to all 3 to know what is around and of course the choppers dash about everywhere with no calls at all on any frequency.

😠

This is what you want to do. 

Touch and go: flaps THEN full throttle

Go around: full power THEN WAIT for full throttle. 

You only need to use two controls at once. 

(I have 140 hrs and am not a flying instructor: disclaimer.) 

The ergonomics of aeroplanes can be really bad. In a Foxbat, the carby heat and cabin heat controls are the same shape and are right next to each other. In a Decathlon, the Throttle and trim controls are both on the left wall and the knobs are the same size and shape, and not really where you look! Those things are called “latent errors”, which is technical speak for “accidents waiting to happen”. 

On 13/12/21 at 4:46 PM, jackc said:

Military of today are Snowflakes, no guts…no glory.  In my military days, IF something was no good I told them, AND had a plan to fix it. Just like Aeroprakt of recent times, was interested in an aircraft but wanted some logical and safe engineering changes and was told in no uncertain terms a big NO.  So I said forget it……

Same at Brumby  Cowra, gave them my request for a change and was told NO, walked out the door…….

Plenty of choices in this World, even for the military…….

What didn’t you like about the Aeroprakt aircraft? 

6 hours ago, Roundsounds said:

You’re overthinking this whole thing. Each aeroplane type behave differently, stall and spin entry / recovery procedures will be found in the flight manual.

Don’t think about down elevator, think in terms of reducing angle of attack. If you’re in an inverted spin you’ll need “up” elevator to reduce the angle of attack. 
Again don’t stress, you should seek proper instruction in each aeroplane type. 

I don’t agree with the over thinking bit. Thinking about things is part of understanding and of mental rehearsal. Both are important.

You are right about the inverted spins. I never had any problems with them though. 

23 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

$2K (or thereabouts)

All part of the money you’ll save…

22 hours ago, djpacro said:

Apologies, I must've misunderstood your comments about your instructor.

 

The effect of aileron in a spin for the Cessna (which has Frise ailerons) is significantly different than for the Decathlon, the opposite effect in some situations. (Cessna published a comprehensive document on spinning.)

no probs

8 hours ago, Jeffmel said:

I'll get an outdoor parking for $100 per mth

Even parking outdoors can cause probs

Dec 10, not Apr 1, btw.