APenNameAndThatA

That is counter intuitive, but after you have initiated the climb, the aircraft is no longer accelerating. But more work is being done against gravity. I’m confused. Thanks. 😆

I think that the smooth lines representing the air flow around pictures of wings causes confusion. Most air around a wing, at the surface, is turbulent. That is not the same as airflow separating from the wing, which is what happens in a stall. . Some mathematician or other proved that it is impossible for *any* wing to have only laminar flow. . I went looking for something on the internet about laminar/turbulent/stalled airflow and didn’t find anything about that. But, apparently, the WW2 Mustang wing was designed to be laminar but wasn’t because it wasn’t smooth enough, even though they tried to make it smooth enough! . I am not sure if non laminar includes a tiny bit at the leading edge. . I imagine that vortex generators, which stop separation by energising the airflow, are very not laminar! So, they decrease stall by increasing turbulence.

Thank you for at least thinking about what I was asking. My question was as follows. If the MTOW is 600 kg on a normal day, should the weight be decreased on a really really hot day because performance will be less. Seems like a perfectly interesting question. One answer is "No, DUH, or it would be in the POH". Another answer might be that, theoretically, from some points of view, the MTOW could reasonably be *higher*. My understanding of Vno is that it is set so that if there is a really big updraft, the aircraft stalls (because of the increased AoA) before the aircraft is subjected to more than the design limits. If the air was not dense at all, and the aircraft was flying at Vno, then the AoA would be higher in level flight, meaning that the wing would stall with a less severe updraft, providing an extra margin of safety and an actually higher Vno. For similar reasons, the actual Va could be higher for very thin air. No I'm not advocating taking off at high weight. This is a true story. I took off one day a very small amount overweight by accident and was surprised how much performance was degraded. It was uncomfortable. So, I said to myself, "How would my plane have flown if it was 40 C instead of 25". At least OME was directing some thought to the question. So, thank you OME.

I was not suggesting that anyone fly overweight. My question was if, in particular conditions, the MTOW should be revised. And Foxbats don't have laminar flow wings. And if CASA does allow you to fly overweight then, actually, you can do it and it is a legitimate thing to discuss. Except that was not what I was asking about. And, the same airframe of floats has a MTOW of 650 kg. And, no I'm not advocating flying overweight.

My question was not about ground roll. My question was about MTOW. My question was if one should reduce the MTOW for air that is much less dense than usual. The obvious answer would be, "No, otherwise it would be in the POH, DUH!" But because my plane does not fly well at around MTOW, and planes can take off at 40 degrees C, and this is a forum for chatting, I thought I would ask the question.

LSA's have no such graphs. Apparently the reason is that LSA's tend to have such short ground rolls.

Aerobatic incidents?

The numbers move in the wrong direction, just like you said. So, if I turn right, the numbers start moving from the left. What was interesting was that it was hard to work out *why* it seemed to be wrong. I suppose I thought that if I am turning right, that is where the numbers should appear from, the right. Also, bigger numbers should be to the right of littler numbers. I navigate with the compass rose on the Dynon, and the pedestal. compass was a late addition after the AHARS (? spelling) died and I was without any compass for a while. I also thought that I would be able to see at my leisure about nippy north and sluggish south. I have sort of observed it. Because cars have much more linear acceleration, I can easily see, for example, the numbers climbing if I am heading west and speed up (and vice versa x 2). If I can read it at a glance, and it does what I expect it to do, it will be less cognitive load flying.

It doesn’t need to be this complicated. She said she would send it to a CFI, so get a CFI to request it.

Don’t do that. Just get her to send it to a CFI. Also, no one cares what *you* find ridiculous. Find out if there are any regulations. If you can’t find any, ask CASA.

I'm *not* an expert on this. Can a cracked piston or ring problems cause the oil to be burnt, or vice versa? If not, they why test that particular cylinder. I would have thought that ring problems would have actually decreased the risk of oil being burnt because of inefficient combustion.

I am NOT an expert on this. I thought that there were portable transponders you could stick on your window or put on a wing tip? Like SkyEcho on the OzRunways website.

For, like, taking off when it is 45° C?

ATC is supposed to make travel as safe as possible, even for pilots who do the wrong thing. That’s how come a finding was against ACT even though the pilot was wrong. This way of looking at things is at the heart of aviation safety. Also, saying it was determined to be ATC’s fault is a straw man. Also, the point you made would have been understood by the people doing the report. They get it, don’t worry.

Got it

I'm still not getting it.

I can’t believe this got three upvotes. The school already gave their side of the story to the OP, and the school is hardly going to comment to a third party about OP. Maybe the comment was to the effect that there would have been two sides to the story or something. Feel free to explain what I am missing.

Magnetic variation is 30 degrees west for a fair bit of the trip. So, say, they took magnetic variation from halfway along the route, 303° would be correct.

I’m not saying its not saying lies. It’s still weird. The plane shudders a bit, as if, maybe, part of the wing is stalled.

Doesn’t sound like you were too nervous or lacked commitment. Don’t quit.

WTF?

Seems the same as a Foxbat, at idle. At about 575 kg, at full throttle, at 30 kt indicated, the Foxbat climbs at 400 fpm.

Momentum is a vector. Otherwise, two blocks running into each other on a frictionless plane would have the same momentum after the crash regardless of the directions they were going before the crash.

4) is wrong. Ground speed increases.