Jump to content

Recommended Posts

With driving, despite your best efforts someone else can kill you. In flying most of the risk is controlled by YOU especially  as you don't have to fly at all unless you want to, so you can pick your time place and circumstances.  The most unskilled and undisciplined among us is infinitely more capable of and prone to risk than the most skilled and careful.. Nev

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wind-shear aside,  if we take it that we're flying within a moving parcel of air, then, is 'turning into a tailwind' really a thing, up-there, as it is, on the ground, say, while taxiing?  Of cou

OME - Let's keep it simple. The circuit is at Old Mate's place at Wattagai.   So why is everyone looking to fly low slow on base final turn? Because we were trained that way on L plates.

Skidding from base to final. The low speed is not much relevant as is angle of attack. This video may help in explaining differences between skidding and slipping. https://www.youtube.com/wa

Posted Images

There are two parts to operating any vehicle, car, plane, boat, bicycle etc. The first part is learning how to operate the vehicle. Basically, this means being able to begin moving, changing direction and stopping before reaching a certain point. There's a helluva lot to learn in this part, and it's best done somewhere isolated, eg in a paddock for car and motorcycle operation.

 

The second part is how to operate a vehicle when travelling amongst other vehicle users. This is where one needs to learn to anticipate the expected situations - like traffic light changes or travelling far enough away from the vehicle in front, and also to be able to "read" the actions of other drivers. 

 

Don't you agree that given the right conditions for learning a student pilot should be able to solo in at least 15 hours? But at that stage the student has only learned to operate the vehicle. There's a lot more learning to do before the same student can say he can "fly a plane" in its broadest sense.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, old man emu said:

There are two parts to operating any vehicle...

 

The second part is how to operate a vehicle when travelling amongst other vehicle users. This is where one needs to learn to anticipate the expected situations - like traffic light changes or travelling far enough away from the vehicle in front, and also to be able to "read" the actions of other drivers.

Good point, OME. Like many farm kids, I learned to drive at an early age and was pretty much waved thru my driving test. Although quite proficient at controlling the machine, I never was trained to read signs and traffic flow.

 

For this reason alone, our kids need professional trainers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree entirely on training car/motorcycle Learner,s for their test.

Nothing to do with aptitude. the most proficient people fail the test, because it's a Bureaucratic derived syllabus, used to meet their quota.

As soon as MY trainee's are a day or two into vehicle training I tell them to get their head into the books and learn what the bureaucrats need to hear & see.

Yes I have trained over a thousand people for their driving test, with ONLY one absolute failure. The Wife told me " I'm not doing what You tell me ".  Still not driving many, Many, years, Decades later.

I'll offer a lot of money to get her to get that licence.   ( Trained student Doctors & Nurses at a teaching hospital, word of mouth advertising  )

I even had driving schools begging the garage owner ( were l worked ) to let me become a professional instructor.

spacesailor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you have to satisfy the bureaucrats and the other point is that you may be perfectly good at driving a vehicle, but you will not pass the test if the examiner is worried in any way.

In the army it was decreed that we had to have licences to drive tracked vehicles in the depot. 20 of us took the test, I went first and passed and only one other passed although we were all good drivers. The examiner could not drive the vehicles and was put off by those who showed a mastery of the machine. I just took it very slowly and carefully.

Flying is not like that, although if you really want to demonstrate your superior skill I doubt that the instructor would be impressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Yenn said:

Yes you have to satisfy the bureaucrats and the other point is that you may be perfectly good at driving a vehicle, but you will not pass the test if the examiner is worried in any way.

In the army it was decreed that we had to have licences to drive tracked vehicles in the depot. 20 of us took the test, I went first and passed and only one other passed although we were all good drivers. The examiner could not drive the vehicles and was put off by those who showed a mastery of the machine. I just took it very slowly and carefully.

Flying is not like that, although if you really want to demonstrate your superior skill I doubt that the instructor would be impressed.

My Diamond Reo B11 test was 6 weeks, with a final supervised trip of 1600 miles, back in the day. Pay level 6, ECN 267 Specialist Vehicle Operator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nev - The Diamond Reo B11 was a 335HP Cummins-diesel-powered tandem drive prime mover delivered to the Australian Army from early 1970.

 

They were fitted with air brakes, in line with the era, and were also equipped with the Allison automatic transmission.

 

The Diamond T and Reo motor truck companies merged in 1967. Prior to that date, the truck names were separate brands - Diamond T and Reo.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Reo_Trucks#:~:text=In 1967%2C Diamond T and,Tilt began building vehicles.

 

Several of these B11 Diamond Reo trucks served in South Vietnam during the last 2 years of the Vietnam War. To keep up the aviation content, here's one in SVN recovering a crashed Bell 47 chopper.

 

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1236245

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Nev - The Diamond Reo B11 was a 335HP Cummins-diesel-powered tandem drive prime mover delivered to the Australian Army from early 1970.

 

 

Sadly these days the Diamond Reo brand is back and a Chinese owned company... They are the LDV / Cherry of trucks!!! Would rather drive a UD.. Its a shame what's happened to a good old brand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Nev - The Diamond Reo B11 was a 335HP Cummins-diesel-powered tandem drive prime mover delivered to the Australian Army from early 1970.

 

They were fitted with air brakes, in line with the era, and were also equipped with the Allison automatic transmission.

 

The Diamond T and Reo motor truck companies merged in 1967. Prior to that date, the truck names were separate brands - Diamond T and Reo.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Reo_Trucks#:~:text=In 1967%2C Diamond T and,Tilt began building vehicles.

 

Several of these B11 Diamond Reo trucks served in South Vietnam during the last 2 years of the Vietnam War. To keep up the aviation content, here's one in SVN recovering a crashed Bell 47 chopper.

 

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1236245

Originally in storage at 1COD Bandiana, in 1968 and units sent to Vietnam were all prepared for war service and shipped from there.
They were model C11464DB having a set back front axle, with Cummins custom rating of 270hp, 2 of them were equiped with 13 speed Roadranger transmissions,

one stationed at Melbourne Tpt Unit, the other at 85 Tpt Unit, Moorebank.

Pic of my old rig on the Nullarbor with a load of Cordite bound for Northam Ammo Depot WA.....a far cry from my Aeropup 🙂 

205919C2-305A-47E0-9E73-529C25030F7A.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Jase - The new Diamond Reo is not Chinese - it's an Australian company, Daysworth International, run by the Vodanovich Bros - who were the Australian assemblers of the Diamond Reo Giant from the early 1980's until Diamond Reo finally stopped production in 2010 (2013 in the U.S.).

The new Diamond Reo uses a chassis from the Whitman T-line Trucks & Chassis Co in the U.S., the engines, transmissions, and axles from the regular truck driveline suppliers - Cummins, Eaton, Allison, Meritor, Hendrickson, etc - and the cabs are supplied by Volvo. A real "bitser" as compared to the original Diamond Reo.

 

Joseph Whitman was one of the original engineering heads in the Osterlund Engineering Company, who bought the remnants of the Diamond Reo operations in 1977, after it was sold by the Diamond Reo bankruptcy trustee, after Diamond Reo went bankrupt in 1974. Loyal Osterlund was the owner of a Diamond Reo dealership from 1955 onwards.

 

https://www.truckandbus.net.au/daysworth-digs-diamond-reo/

 

https://reoclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Diamond-REO-The-Truck-That-Came-Back.pdf

Edited by onetrack
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack, I first remember seeing the new Diamond Reos at Moorebank Depot in early 1970. I was stationed at S.M.E. Casula from early January 1970 to late July 1970. I didn't realise they had been purchased much earlier, and stored.

We were still using WW2 Diamond T 980's and 981's, with the monstrous Hall-Scott petrol engines, and the Hercules diesel, in 1970!

I seem to recall they were flat out at about 55kmh? Something like about a 10:1 diff ratio?!

 

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1196782

 

https://roadtransporthall.com/yesterdays-workhorses/diamond-t

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Jack, I first remember seeing the new Diamond Reos at Moorebank Depot in early 1970. I was stationed at S.M.E. Casula from early January 1970 to late July 1970. I didn't realise they had been purchased much earlier, and stored.

We were still using WW2 Diamond T 980's and 981's, with the monstrous Hall-Scott petrol engines, and the Hercules diesel, in 1970!

I seem to recall they were flat out at about 55kmh? Something like about a 10:1 diff ratio?!

 

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1196782

 

https://roadtransporthall.com/yesterdays-workhorses/diamond-t

We had Diamond Ts at Bandiana, ‘70-71 with Hercules diesel,  used one to transport Centurion Tanks to RAEME workshops all the time, slow old rig, 2 gear sticks!  A & C Vehicle Serviceman back then.  Ever done a ‘pre flight’ on a Centurion 🙂 

I was stationed at 85tpt Moorebank ‘74-75 and prior ‘73 on the LARC V ‘aluminium bathtubs’ 42 Tpt Randwick.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We used the old Diamond T with the Hercules diesel. For tank transporting they had a hand clutch, mounted up on the rear body. Pull the clutch lever in. Put it in first or revers gear, climb back on the rear and release the hand lever, the clutch was released nice and slow and away you went. Good for coupling up. The bonnet was rather long.

Never did a pre flight on a Cent, but i have quite a few hours driving them. I notice when I see a magazine article about someone driving a Cent or any C class tank, that they never try to reverse them and don't know what a neutral turn is.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Yenn said:

that they never try to reverse them and don't know what a neutral turn is

Oh, good. We're back on topic.:augie:

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 07/01/2021 at 7:56 PM, skippydiesel said:

I have no memory of being concerned about turning final during my GA days. The mainly Cessna 172's I flew, just seem to be so well behaved, maintaining speed an attitude through turns with ease.

 

Now that I am RAA and fly a much lighter/low inertia aircraft, I have become very much more aware of turns at low speed,  as even a slight loss of concentration can see the nose rise during this turn and corresponding sharp drop in air speed.

 

So it would seem to me that the warnings/teaching I received in GA about air speed/attitude, when turning final, now have some real meaning in the LSA world.

 

Not suggesting things cant go wrong in GA, just that the typically heavier aircraft, are lese likely to exhibit the sudden loss of air speed that an RAA aircraft can so readily show.

I’m just reading through this thread while looking for information on the accuracy or latency of dynon electronic ball. (I think it’s next to useless btw) I’ll comment further after reading all this thread...This post caught my eye though. It’s exactly where I am. The 172 I learned in heading for 2 years ago was so well behaved and predictable I’d not ever been too concerned about coordinating turns and well aware final is the most dangerous. Low and slow and tempted to tighten the turn with a badly managed strong tail wind. I did this once only and was quite rightly hammered by CFI enough it burned into memory.

 

With steam gauges I’d just quickly glance at airspeed, altitude and the ball in 172.

 

So, you’d think LSA would require really good turn coordinators so you can reliably step on the ball. I don’t think I’ve flown an accurate ball indicator or version of since being in Philippines and flying the ultralight with piece of red string coordinator. That was wonderful. Can’t of course have it with a front mounted prop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/01/2021 at 2:25 PM, old man emu said:

Now that's something I'll have to address - inertia.

 

So far my research has introduced me to:

  1. Angle of bank and its relation to stalling
  2. Angle of Attack in climb and descent
  3. Radius of turn in relation to speed and angle of bank
  4. Now Inertia as it more greatly affects low mass aircraft.

I'm interested to study the Procedure Turn principle for doing a 180 degree turn to reciprocal heading

Procedure Turns

As I said, I'll avoid Human Factors, but welcome someone else starting a sister thread to deal with HF and Stall/Spin.

 

 

However, as i delve deeper into this Lift thing, I am being swamped with the number of variables that can affect the creation of Lift. It's a wonder that a plane can fly at all.

 

 

 

2 things as I advance through thread...

 

1. okay, I get HF is not what this is about.

 

2. in the above list and perhaps  at number 1 is coordinated turn and an uncoordinated skidding turn shielding the inside wing from airflow with disastrous results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/01/2021 at 3:00 PM, facthunter said:

Of course if you fall below the glide path you need extra power to regain it UNLESS you are also too FAST where you can use that energy instead.

In the 172 I was always on glide path or near enough. LSA I’ve been all the place and only really learned the above statement in the last few weeks. Well, learned because the CFI later asked why I didn’t just lift back up to the glide path and reduce speed at the same time instead of dragging it in while adding to an already too high airspeed.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...