I'm going for it. RA licence coming right up. :)

[Tomo]

Thanks Ahlocks, I will do just that......

 

Thanks again,

 

Tom

 

 

[motzartmerv]

The link provided by ahlocks is a good one.. Full of great stuff.. however, i had a quick glance at it, and it seems a bit full on for a newbie.. its just my opinion of course, but id be starting out on the BAK, the technical info on that site is fantastic, but when starting out you need to work from the Known to the unknown.. it may seem a bit complicated if youve had absoultly no study on the subject before..

 

just my opinion, you may devaour it all no problems...

 

Good stuff though:thumb_up:

 

 

[Tomo]

Yes Thanks motzartmerv, I have got and read a book called "PPL Book" by a fella called Jim Davis, and so I got a lot of good stuff out of that... I think anyway:big_grin:... www.jimdavis.com.au is the website of this fella if you have never heard of him before.....;)

 

Your and instructor aren't you? what books would you recommend or what books do you use for your students?

 

Thanks,

 

Tom

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Tom. Yea, we use the aviation theory centre student kit. The red boxed set. It has a BAK, a flying training manuel (exellent book) vfr flight radio for pilots and a log book.. about $140 for the kit.. Most pilot supply shops carry them.

 

The BAK is very thurough but still explains things very simply..

 

The flying training manuel is fantastic. It goes through sequence by sequence, the syllabus, explaining what you will be doing in the air. It sort of ties the theory into the 'physical' reality of whats happening in the air and explains how to actually pilot the aeroplane.. Push this, pull that, hold the nose here sort of thing..its great..

 

The PPl book you have would also be fine, but remeber that the PPL subjects build on knowlage aquired from studying the BAK. So study the BAK first and then hook into the PPL books. There's not much new stuff in the ppl, just the same subjects only more in depth..

 

Hope this helps..

 

ps..The stuff in ahlock's link is great stuff, just see how you go with it..perhaps have some other stuff handy to reffer to when it gets a bit wordy.

 

Cheers

 

 

[ahlocks]

...... i had a quick glance at it, and it seems a bit full on for a newbie....just my opinion, you may devaour it all no problems...Good stuff though:thumb_up:

Now, now Motz. . Don't stifle the young lad. (where's the 'stirring Motz up' smiley?)

 

The young bloke shows an eagerness to learn and I betcha he'll digest it in no time flat. ;)

 

Tomo, here's another good one;

 

See How It Flies

 

Reading through both of the sites will keep you occupied until you get yourself into formal training with an instructor. And they come at the right price!! :thumb_up:

 

Like Motz says though tomo, grab a BAK text book when you get a chance.

 

Cheers!

 

Steven B

 

 

[motzartmerv]

:laugh:yea good one steve.. i should get Ian to get a stirrin up motz smiley, it would get some use..

 

I just worry to much i guess that blokes could get discouraged by reading tecnical stuff and thinking "man, this is some tough shizzle, don't know if i can learn this"

 

you know what i mean?

 

anyway, its all good stuff, get into it tomo

 

 

[ahlocks]

Yeah, good point.

 

But they've always got this forum and Motz! to help 'em if it gets a bit shizzle. :thumb_up:

 

I usually read and re-read through both sites when I can't fly. Keeps the addiction at bay.

 

 

[Tomo]

Yes, Thanks again for that Ahlocks, that one is good too, but IS very wordy, but nevertheless its still good info.........:big_grin: I think I might go and get a BAK kit before to long.........:thumb_up:

 

Cheers,

 

Tomo:)

 

 

[Guest Cralis]

ahlocks - now you're in trouble.

 

Breezing through that site you mentioned, and am finding the Energy vs Power page reall interesting.

 

Came across this part:

 

Energy Awareness and Energy Management [Ch. 1 of See How It Flies]

 

See fig 1.2

 

Energy conversion - Glide.

 

The 'Heat' in that image relates to what? The small amount of heat behind the gliding aircraft?

 

Is there THAT much heat behind the aircraft?

 

Also, this statement has limititations right?

 

"An airplane (like any other object) has potential energy proportional to its altitude. Every increment of altitude represents an increment of energy."

 

True - up until you start losing the earths gravitational pull... at which point you could land up at a very high altitude, with no potential energy. Right?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

oh my god ahlocks...what have you done....haha:laugh:

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Now, now Motz. . Don't stifle the young lad. (where's the 'stirring Motz up' smiley?)The young bloke shows an eagerness to learn and I betcha he'll digest it in no time flat. ;)

Tomo, here's another good one;

 

See How It Flies

 

Reading through both of the sites will keep you occupied until you get yourself into formal training with an instructor. And they come at the right price!! :thumb_up:

 

Like Motz says though tomo, grab a BAK text book when you get a chance.

 

Cheers!

 

Steven B

I'm with you Steven,

Some of us need to understand the arcane theory on our way to learning how to do something. Others just want to do it. That Av8N site is a good one.

 

Cralis, a lot of good pilots have learned to fly in Tecnams, and in Tiger Moths and in C150s and in all sorts of other a/c. As long as you have a good instructor and you stick at it you will turn into a good pilot - whatever you learn in.

 

After your first lesson you will probably feel knackered - strange environment, new skills etc. This will go on for a while as you get new stuff thrown at you and you can't quite pull it all together. That's pretty normal. Your instructor should be working not to overload you, but inevitably it will be demanding. During that stage I reckon 1 flight a day is all you need. Don't leave it more than a week between lessons however - otherwise it tends to be 1 step forward and 2 back.

 

As you go on though you will find that doing a couple of lessons in a day will help you to polish your skills and to bed down the knowledge. As you move into the more advanced areas of your training I think that the more often you fly the better. You are cementing those skills, working on your weak areas and just making the whole process natural and repeatable. Coming up to my certificate test I used to fly 4 or 5 hours a weekend. I think it really helped.

 

Enjoy the Tecnam - like all aircraft it will test you out from time to time.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Tomo]

ahlocks - now you're in trouble. Breezing through that site you mentioned, and am finding the Energy vs Power page reall interesting.

Came across this part:

 

Energy Awareness and Energy Management [Ch. 1 of See How It Flies]

 

See fig 1.2

 

Energy conversion - Glide.

 

The 'Heat' in that image relates to what? The small amount of heat behind the gliding aircraft?

 

Is there THAT much heat behind the aircraft?

 

Also, this statement has limititations right?

 

"An airplane (like any other object) has potential energy proportional to its altitude. Every increment of altitude represents an increment of energy."

 

True - up until you start losing the earths gravitational pull... at which point you could land up at a very high altitude, with no potential energy. Right?

I think when he talks about "Heat" behind a acft he's implying Drag/friction, so coming in on a glide you have to keep you AoA right other wise you loose traveling distance by to much Drag/or heat as i think he calls it.... because the steeper the AoA the more Drag you've got, and so forth......and thats why you got to use full throttle to climb steeply... It's not just because your going up the hill......:big_grin:

 

(That's what I think anyway, if you've got something of a different thought, let me know, cause I might be wrong and just don't know iti_dunno)

 

What do you think of the way he calls a gain in altitude "Zoom"

 

Cheers

 

Tom

 

 

[ahlocks]

ahlocks - now you're in trouble. Energy Awareness and Energy Management [Ch. 1 of See How It Flies]

 

See fig 1.2

 

Energy conversion - Glide.

 

The 'Heat' in that image relates to what? The small amount of heat behind the gliding aircraft?

Re-read section 1.1 Grasshopper :yin_yan:

 

1.1 Energy cannot be created or destroyed

 

the energy left behind in the air as the plane passes through, stirring the air and leaving it slightly warmer. ;)

 

Is there THAT much heat behind the aircraft?

I doubt it... unless the lift fairies are breathing heavy from all the effort.

 

Also, this statement has limititations right?

"An airplane (like any other object) has potential energy proportional to its altitude. Every increment of altitude represents an increment of energy."

 

True - up until you start losing the earths gravitational pull... at which point you could land up at a very high altitude, with no potential energy. Right?

In relation to aeroplanes? Nope. You'll never get there.

 

Heard the yarn about a really long and fast conveyer belt?

 

 

[Guest Cralis]

I think I'm reading too much into it, and also, failed to qualify my question. When I asked if there was THAT much heat behind the wing, I should have added, 'compared to the amount of energy used to get the aircraft to it's altitude'. I'm picturing it that in the climb, it's burning fuel to convert it into 'altitude' energy.. then to glide down, it's using up that 'altitude' energy (Potential?) until it lands. So, what I am asking is ... it used all that energy to climb, but that seems out of proportion to the amount of enery it loses to the 'heat behind the wing' on the glide. The image I pointed to says, for the glide, the energy shifts from Altitude, to Heat... and the only Heat I can see is this heat behind the wings...

 

As far as re-reading 1.1, I read that, and that's why I ask the question. Energy can't be destoryed. So if the potential energy is being reduced due to the loss of altitude... and it's being lost via the heat behind the wing... then... that's why I ask.. is THAT much heat being lost?

 

I assume there is more places the energy is being converted.

 

PS: I'm not saying it's wrong, or anything.. I'm just.. trying to understand.

 

 

[Guest Cralis]

In relation to aeroplanes? Nope. You'll never get there.Heard the yarn about a really long and fast conveyer belt?

I'd have thought the law applies to everything. A stone being thrown up... an aeroplane... a roller coaster (as they use as an example... maybe even, the shuttle?

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Everything has gravity (that includes you!) and is pulled towards something. You can not get "high enough" (i.e.: far away enough) to not have any potential energy from gravity.

 

If you manage to get a rocket into interstellar space and stop it there, eventually something will attract you and pull you in. (Getting to interstellar space would take an enormous amount of energy and stopping once you get the takes an equal amount of force.)

 

In space (like the Shuttle) you are not free of the gravity, you orbit. What this means is that you have so much forward momentum that for every meter the earth pulls you down, you move forward far enough for the earth's surface to be one meter lower. Thus you are endlessly falling! The fact that they don't need the engines on to stay there is because the burnt those engines for long enough to get an enormous amount of speed but with no atmosphere, there is (almost) no drag slowing you down.

 

 

[Guest Cralis]

Thanks bass...

 

So up there, you have an extremely high amount of Potential energy? I'm just trying to get a clear underatanding of kanetic vs potential. And I'm also trying to understand that everything needs to be in balance. A rock sitting on the surface of the earth has no kanetic, and no potential energy.. and no chemical energy. It's just.. there. Pick it up, and hold it 2 meters above the surface.. it now has potential energy, but no kanetic.

 

Let go of it, and as it falls, the kanetic energy rises and the potential energy drops, right? Still no chemical energy.

 

An equal balance? As PE drops, KE rises? But there is some extra loss of energy due to the air friction, and friction causes heat... so it loses some extra energy as it drops. So there's 3 things happening when it drops.. The PE gets converted into KE as well as heat (friction)?

 

No, go way advanced, and lift the rock into space and let it go. Some applies right? When you're way up there, potential energy is extremely high (Gained from getting the rock up there). Kanetic energy would be... low, but as it falls towards the earth, the KE would increase, and the PE would decrease.

 

Is that basically right?

 

Edit: This might have answered it for me. I may understand now. http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions/flight/energygravitintokinetic.htm

 

 

[Guest Cralis]

Everything has gravity (that includes you!) and is pulled towards something.

Not everything. There was this stunning blonde girl on the train today... And... nothing. My gravity might have inversed it's self to replusion!! ;)

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

G'day Cralis,

 

I can't tell you anything about stunning blondes - I'm married to a brunette!

 

What I would say is that it's OK to go off exploring PE and KE and their conversion, but beyond a simple understanding there is no real value for our purposes. Nice subject for a hypothetical.

 

If you want to focus anywhere then focus on Lift vs Weight and Drag vs Thrust and understand that stuff so thoroughly that you can explain it backwards whilst you are standing on your head. That is the stuff that will really help you to understand what is going on in the aircraft.

 

See the RAA Web tutorials here:

 

The basic forces

 

And forwards for the detail.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[ahlocks]

PS: I'm not saying it's wrong, or anything.. I'm just.. trying to understand.

Please don't take it to heart Cralis! :ah_oh:

 

It's my error cause I should have paid more attention. I thought you were Tomo just being cheeky. I was being a bit cheeky with my reply as I thought we were playing a bit of silly buggas..... oops!

 

Cheers!

 

Steven B.

 

 

[Guest Cralis]

Thanks Mike. Yeah, I think I'm off on a tangent here... Just, thought it was an interesting topic...

 

I'll stick to the basics... :thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest Cralis]

Please don't take it to heart Cralis! :ah_oh:

No probs Steve! 100%. I'm delving into areas I really shouldn't be at this stage, so I'll get back to my BAK, and prepare for the 18th. 'Too much knowledge is never enough' can actually be argued here. So, BAK book, here I come!

 

Funny thing just happened, actually. I was going to go for a flight on Saturday with someone, but that got cancelled and it was due to me being so early in my flying lessons. At first, I was really dissapointed because I was quite keen on going in an aircraft - but the pilot explained the reasons. Don't want to show any bad habits.. and would rather I got flying before GOING flying. And I understand that now.

 

So, I'm sitting at my desk.. and this chap walks past - farmiliar! I recalled his face pretty quick. It's a guy that was going to do his cross country training in the aircraft I did my TIF in on Saturday! He was waiting for the Tecnam. Small world. He works just across the room from me. OK, it's a big room, but still.

 

Had a chat, and he actually mentioned that he took up a new guys a while back (He has 60 hours), and didn't enjoy it, as the new guy was too 'keen'.

 

So, I guess I'm the new keen guy, and with time, that keen 'energy' (Potential?) will be converted into Kinetic... :thumb_up:

 

I just need the reigns to be pulled back now and again. I'm sure all you masters can recall when you started... It's a fun/daunting/expensive time.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

pelorus32, i fully agree, i just think starting off with something simpler and then working towards the great stuff in that site helps build a more solid understanding of the subject.

 

Now, to the whole aeroplane flying into outaspace problem.. Once again flying is off for the day, so im pretty bored. Ill have a crack at explaining whats happening (might help myself get a better idea aswell..hehe)

 

So, imagine a rifle. You hold the rifle up at say 45 deg and fire off a shot. What happens??..well, first of all there is a massive release of energy which comes about from the chemical reaction of the gunpowder exploding. The energy generated needs to go somewhere, it can't be destroyed, only changed. So there is some ( a lot ) of heat created (hmmm, don't like that word) a heap of noise (which is also energy) but most of the energy is 'changed into ' kinetic energy as the bullet flies out of the barrel and screams through the air (or crow, dam them crows)..

 

now, if its a normal bullet there should be enough energy to project the bullet a mile or more across the surface of the earth and also quite a ways into the air, until the kinetic energy is overcome by gravity and friction with the air, so it comes back down to earth.

 

Now imagine we fire an even more powerfull gun, the bullet may accelerate out of the barrel to a fantastic speed, say twice the speed of sound.. So its kinetic energy is much higher then the first one. So, the bullet travels much higher and much further before it starts to fall back to earth..

 

Now, this is where it gets interesting.. If we had a gun big and powerfull enough and the bullet could be accelerated to 11.2 kilometers per second, or about 34 times the speed of sound, it would have reached a speed which we call 'escape velocity'. and it would end up in an orbit around the earth. It wouldn't just keep flying off into space. The gravitational 'pull' of the earth reaches far far far out into space, for instance the moon is affected by the earths gravity and vice versa.

 

anyway, so it has enough speed to keep orbiting around the earth with energy which is equal to gravity trying to bring it back down.

 

Hmm, havn't done a great job explaining it there have i..awell, you get the picture..

 

now here's a kicka for you.. You would think that escape velocity wou;d change with weight ie more weight more speed needed to get it out into space..But thats not the case..escape velocity is uneffected by weight, but, you would need more energy to accelerate the object to the speed required..

 

So next time you see the shuttle screaming across the sky, remeber, it has to get to mach 34 (34 times the speed of sound) to enter into orbit..now thats a ride i would love to take..

 

So you can see that the tecnam wouldn't have anywhere near the energy required to accelerate it to mach 34, thus potential energy would never be negated by altitude..

 

man.. you ask some tough questions...

 

one day when im bored again ill tottaly confuse you with a problem regarding energy concervation which dictates that time has no need to travel forward in physics...all these things can happen in reverse without breaking the concervation of energy laws..

 

lol...but thats for another day...

 

 

[Guest Cralis]

That is pretty interesting. On that 11.2km/second thing... If it was 11.19km/sec, it would just fly up, and return back down? And if it was 11.21km/sec, would it just continue away from earth... until some other objects pull grabbed it? Is that 11.2km/sec the speed the bullet reaches (In the barrel maybe), which would slow down as it got higher, and when it got to 0km/h... it would be in orbit, and stationary..., going around the earth?

 

Is the shuttle not a different story, as it has constant propultion until it gets to orbit? Surely it doesn't reach 11.2km/sec before orbit. Is that 11.2km/sec the speed it must be at sea level, and a one off 'kick' to get it to that speed?

 

Man, theres a lot of worms in this can!

 

 

[ahlocks]

... I'm delving into areas I really shouldn't be at this stage, so I'll get back to my BAK, and prepare for the 18th. 'Too much knowledge is never enough' can actually be argued here. So, BAK book, here I come!

Nah, reading up on it will help you while away the time and gain some understanding while you're waiting for the 18th. You don't have to know the finite details but you will have to understand the fundamentals.

 

You'll find that it'll all clunk into place and make sense when you start your face to face sessions with an instructor. I spent about half an hour in the classroom all up. The rest of the theory was home study and 'chewing the fat' with my instructor while flying around. Best bang for the buck I thought.

 

So, I guess I'm the new keen guy, and with time, that keen 'energy' (Potential?) will be converted into Kinetic... :thumb_up:

There you go! You're getting the idea already!

 

I just need the reigns to be pulled back now and again. I'm sure all you masters can recall when you started... It's a fun/daunting/expensive time.

Cralis, I'm far from a master. In fact I'm still on my aviation equivalent of 'Red Ps' :confused:

 

My job is to stir Motz up!! :thumb_up: :thumb_up: :thumb_up: ..'cuz he loves the attention!

 

Cheers!

 

Steven B