APenNameAndThatA

So, we can agree, finally, that something with a mass of 0.3 kg does NOT have a weight of 3 kg?

I have to say that I think that it is poor form to have everyone come up with interesting answers to your question and then decline to think about them because it turns out that the only thing that you were interested in was that sine 45 = 0.7.

One more question: what is "kilogram-weight"?

So OME, you've got some great info about what happens to the lift of the wing when someone is doing a hesitation roll. Would you care to summarise it for us?

Duly noted.

China, I believe

It’s not easy when you’re really clever and no one believes you.

I am surprised at that, to say the least. Got a problem with a plane? Hire a test pilot to examine it. Simples. Or am I missing something?

In the video, the first stall he loses 500 feet, and the second one 400 feet. And a wing drops about 45 degrees. Not good.

400 feet by a *factory* pilot AND the stick forces are wrong!? And it’s legal to fly at 500 feet over unpopulated areas, right? If the above is even half true it does not look like CASA will be on a witch hunt no matter what they do.

I would ask CASA. When I asked then about landing in the desert they were sensible but a tiny bit non committal. I would avoid the forgiveness rather than permission approach. I would test on the ground and in the air. And check that the smoke is visible from the ground. I would have a separate person to operate the canister so that the pilot can just fly the plane. I would use at least two canisters in case one failed. I would have predetermined, written minimums that someone would hold me to because if you are the gender reveal centre piece the get there itis will be intense. Make sure the party host has a canister of there own in case you cannot fly that day. Don’t use a system to hold the cannisters outside the airplane to get around rules about attaching stuff to the airplane. You might drop the canister or fill the airplane with smoke. DISCLAIMER I have 119.1 hours and know *nothing* about this topic.

And this from someone who says that they do not think that they come here to teach people. " I just try to expose general misunderstandings."

"Prior to beginning the roll, the aircraft is flying with its wings parallel to the Earth's surface." Wrong. The two planes will be at the angle of attack (assuming that the manoeuvre starts with the airplane straight and level, which is a reasonable assumption. By "planes" I mean the flat plane of the earth's surface and the plane of the wing, defined by the theoretical plane formed by the chord and the span of the wing. Actually, on reflection, even that is untrue, unless there is no dihedral. Airplane wings with dihedral are not parallel to each other so there is no chance that they will be parallel to the surface of the earth.

And this, "Yes. But first I want to get people to really think, and to question what they believe." The idea that you don't think you are here as a teacher is laughable.

Also, as someone might, and might not have said, if a plane does an aileron roll, the AoA will change unless the roll axis is exactly parallel to the angle of incidence of the wind. I don't think you can guarantee that. For example, in an Extra, before you do an aileron roll, you point the nose up a bit. I expect that the nose is up a bit during the whole aileron roll. That means that when inverted the wings will be providing negative lift (lift against gravity) and when the aircraft is on a knife edge, the AoA could be zero. That would mean that at 45% the AoA would have decreased a little. Also, a particular pilot in a particular aircraft, might adjust the elevators as they complete the roll. So, there is every reason to believe that the wing will be producing less lift during the roll. Your answer assumes that the AoA is the same at 45° bank as at 0° bank, which is wrong.

Can I show you where you purported to be a teacher? How about this quote. "I really do give up. No matter how much I try to clarify and have people's attention hone in on the point I'm making they have to go past the point I want to stop at." If I recall correctly, you complained that by posting here you were casting your pearls before swine and giving what is holy to dogs. Correct me if I got the bible quote wrong.

This is ludicrous. You are presenting yourself as a teacher on this forum when you believe a) That a spirit level can be used to measure angle of attack and b) something with a weight of 3 kg has a mass of 0.3 kg. It would be fine, except some people will believe what you write. The more well-respected posters to this forum should not stand for it.

Superb boots.

I was sitting on the aluminium bench that is built into the plane. Maybe there is more to this than I am aware of. Also, i was wearing a helmet. Not that it adds too much height.

Why do you keep moving?

I know of someone who copied a prop. They had a cutting wheel and a guide wheel of the same diameter attached to something like a jig and used an existing prop to make a new prop. Kind of like a giant, 3D pantograph. At least that's what they said they did.

What’s the black box to the left of the panel. My Foxbat has the same space and Im wondering what to fill it with

They will be great value either way. Just make sure you don’t stall.

Polish. If anyone wondered

I think we have a duty to not let people state false things as fact, mislead other people and not be pulled up about it. Not long ago, I said that I had a *theory* about when to respond to something as a stall and when to respond to it as a spin. Someone replied that someone could die if they read what I said and acted on it. That was not the end of the world. When I post something that is wrong, I welcome the correction. Like when I conflated mass and inertia. I value negative feedback. It’s unpleasant but valuable. I recognise that a number of people here think I’m a troll and therefore not good for the site. I honestly don’t know what to do about that, and welcome suggestions. One alternative is having a site that recommends using spirit levels to measure angle of attack. Is there a way to have a site that does not recommend spirit levels to measure angle of attack and does not make multiple members feel there are trolls? (A troll is someone who acts in bad faith, which clearly I am not. But the point is that people find what I was posting unpleasant.)