APenNameAndThatA

I wonder if you mean confidence or fear? I was too scared to do stalls. Did the scary rides at Dreamworld about 90 times. Then did a couple of aerobatic sessions in an Extra 300, including recovery from inverted spins. Problem solved. So, if the aerobatics is too scary to cope with, do the thrill rides and go back. Good luck.

We've all been there. I was told that in a stall it is okay to lower the nose and apply power at the same time. And I repeated that on this forum! (You have to lower the nose first, because adding power might pitch you up and yaw you to the left, which is not what you want to do if you are stalled close to the ground!)

If you are in a coordinated turn and then change the setting of the rudder, you see a change of turn rate - but you are no longer in a coordinated turn. About the elevator not turning you in level flight: that's true, but you can't do a coordinated turn if you are in level flight.

This might be the most important post ever. It means that we are all practicing forced landings wrongly, and should be banking on twice the rate of descent than we get when we are practicing forced landings. That means that when we are practicing forced landings, we should be half as far from the field. It also means that in an actual forced landing, our turns would need to be tighter and *our nose would need to be much lower*. Maybe, what it means is that we should practice forced landings with full flaps, and that in the even of an engine failure, we should expect the same performance with half or no flaps. Maybe, the reason that people spin when they are trying to return to the airfield is not that they try to stretch the glide, but that they use the same view through windscreen as they are used to, when, in fact, they need the nose much lower than they have ever had it in the past!

The elevator turns and elevates the aircraft. More accurately, in coordinated flight, the elevator controls the angle of attack of the wing, and the wing turns and elevates the aircraft. When the aircraft is banked, the horisontal component of lift turns the aircraft and the vertical component of lift elevates the aircraft. The rudder does not turn the aircraft at all in coordinated flight because the rudder acts at right angles to the direction of acceleration of the aircraft. The rudder has to act at right angles to the direction of acceleration of an aircraft in coordinated flight, because the ball is in the middle! (Turning an aircraft is acceleration because turning means a change in velocity. Velocity is defined in terms of speed and direction.)

This does seem to be the truth of it. I had been thinking that an idling engine provided least drag (because power from engine), then stopped prop providing next least drag (stalled prop), then windmilling prop providing the most drag (because the prop is using the gravitational potential energy of the plane to turn the engine over.) But, if an aircraft is going really fast, an idling prop will provide more drag than a stopped prop, because the air is turning the prop rather than the prop providing any thrust at all.

The torque effect being referred to here is the precession effect. Lifting up the nose of the plane tilts the engine back (exerting a torque on it) and the precession effect means that the engine exerts a force (torque) turning to the aircraft to the right. It doesn't have anything to do with the torque produced by the engine. The torque produced by the engine is in a different plane. But, it is smaller stuff. I have checked for it and haven't managed to feel it. The torque produced by the engine will push the left wheel down harder and made the plane turn to the left, but I think that this is more a function of power than torque! Applying more right rudder is important to me when the roll starts. At that time, in a tricycle grear aircraft, P factor will not come into play either. So, it seems the wind on the tail is the only effect that is important.

That's how come I stopped.

When a tricycle undercarriage aircraft lifts its nose, torque pushes the nose to the *right* (so long as the propeller turns clockwise, viewed from the pilot's seat.) THE SPIRIT OF ST LOUIS WAS A TAIL DRAGGER, SO I GUESS THIS TOPIC RELATES TO THE PILOTAGE OF AIRCRAFT WITH CONVENTIONAL UNDERCARRIAGE DESIGN.

This is a very good point I have practiced impossible turns at height. I can turn around withing 4-600 feet. I climb at about 65 kt (Vy is 54). After I have cut power and waited three seconds, my speed drops to about 45 kt. To get around as fast as possible, I have to push the nose way down, bank to 45 to 60 degrees and, as speed increases, put in a fair bit of back pressure. I don't even want to practice any more because I'm worried I will over stress the plane do an accelerated stall. There area at either end of my runway is very built up. I don't think I'll attempt to turn at less than 800 ft. Which means, not unless I have already turned downwind at 500 ft.

The thing about flying is the sheer physicality of it, and the high stakes. IMHO riding a bicycle is a better simulation of flying than Flight Simulator is.

One theory is that the Americans bombed in daylight to down enemy fighters and thereby make the invasion easier.

250 kg useful load, 87 kt cruise, 90 hp, two people. Nothing's changed in 80 years. Except it was probably fully aerobatic and today's LSA's have longer range.

I know far less about this than others. If you love measuring things, you can buy harness testing kits to measure the hardness of concrete. They are a variation of the Mohs scale of hardness. Some concreters are literally criminals. For some reason, there are far more criminals in concreting than other trades. Buyer beware.

I agree entirely. They can't not both be correct.

And probably the only supplier who dishes it out. He said that I recommended a silver-tongued approach, again deliberately misrepresenting what I said. What I said was that he could be more polite *and* better promote truth. Promoting truth is the opposite of being silver tongued. He also accused me being a hypocrite. It is true that I recommend politeness and am rude. However, I don’t recommend that he be polite to be more moral. I recommend that he be polite so he can sell some aeroplanes. If to be a supplier one needs to supply someone with something, Skippy might not be an aeroplane supplier at all. I’m sure he feels better now you have put me in my place.

Yeah, but how many aeroplanes have you sold?

That’s a straw man argument: not the kind of thing that someone who prides themselves on debating and searching for truth should engage in. It goes without saying that if you call someone hairy chested, you are doing the opposite of trying to find the truth. It would be best, in a conversational or sales context, to find and amplify any truth in what someone says. By doing that, you have more opportunity to lean, and the person who you are talking with will be more likely to listen to anything you say that is true. For example, if someone says that 27 kt is unrealistically slow, then you might acknowledge that indicated speed can be inaccurate, 16 degree angle of attack might make a difference to the reading, and that you were at 4000 rpm and 100 kg below max weight where as official figures are at max weight and closed throttle. You can say that you don’t blame them for being cynical because there is a long history of fibbing. Then you can go out and video yourself measuring speed by GPS in two directions. You could check the stall speed closed throttle at max weight and see if it was the same as book after all. How many aircraft have you actually sold?

OME, I don’t blame you for being angry. This time were going well and looking clever, until you said that something that had a weight of 2.3 kg had a mass of 0.23 kg. 😞 With the previous thread about the carburettor ice, I said that a trimmed aircraft that loses power would lose height rather than airspeed. At first I thought that making an important point would be a “positive contribution”, but in the light of your objective I guess my post was very negative. ☹️ Earlier on this thread you got upset at someone for answering this question the wrong way. The same thing happened the last thread too. It looks like if you keep posting you are going to feel worse and worse. I suggest that you try blogging. You will have administrator privileges so when someone makes a negative comment, you can change things so you look better. If you write the whole thing in Latin you will be able to keep the riff raff away. 👍

I stand corrected. Well done on clawing one back. The issue wasn’t that I don’t know Newton’s laws. The issue was that I didn’t know the definitions. As far as I can tell, inertia = mass. Momentum = mass x velocity, broadly speaking.

The issue is if I have taken offence or not. I haven’t. I’m actually trying to do you a favour. You seem to value being right above selling aeroplanes. Given the plethora of low winged composite aircraft on the market, someone reading this forum would be nuts to buy a plane from you. I can only imagine that if I had a problem with my aircraft you would swiftly “correct an error, refute an unfounded accusation and enter into vagarous debate”. As a customer, I couldn’t imagine a more unpleasant experience.

Are you rude to people who buy aircraft from you? Or do you change completely? Or is it too early to tell?

Where was the CoG? I imagine that the plane could be overloaded and still have the CoG within limits.

a) Inertia and momentum are the same thing. b) If something is weighed on a scale and the scale says 2.35, then the mass is 2.35 kg. (Assuming the object is not being accelerated and the scale is accurate and being used on the surface of Earth.) c) You messed up because force is measured in newtons, not kg.

Yes. Some people have posted here about what survival kits they would carry. The survival kit that you should carry for remote areas is very simple. a) Sat phone, b) EPIRB (or whatever the correct acronym is), and c) as much water as you can carry, say 10 L per person.