Snoopy

I learnt to fly with stick (either a center stick or one between the knees) in the right hand and throttle in the left. The first and only time that I flew with stick in the left and throttle in the right, I could not land the airplane even after eight attempts. If I didn't have an instructor next to me I would have crashed. I subsequently flew a 172 with yoke and center throttle. I could handle that ok but kept moving my right hand back and forth between throttle and yoke at touch down instead of keeping it on the throttle. BTW that stick aeroplane with the centre throttle was no worries when I flew from the right seat. But one day I'm going to have to get with an instructor and learn to fly cacky handed. Oh yeah the original question. I prefer stick.

Length of the fuse and wingspan have absolutely no relationship with each other. There's a rule of thumb that states that the wing quarter cord point and the horizontal stabilizer quarter cord point should be at least four times the cord of the wing apart. Mainly to keep the tail out of the downwash. However the length of the fuse is mire dependant on the size of the tailplane to ensure enough elevator and rudder authority. Wing Span and Aspect Ratio are dependant on Induced Drag, Cruise Speed, and Stall Speed. Kitplanes magazine contributer Barnaby Wainfarn has a current series about the process of designing aeroplanes, called Design Process. He's up to wing design. The upcoming July 2020 issue will feature, Span and Aspect Ratio. It's very interesting. Read it if you can.

Great description of why the RPM drop OME. Spot on. Now to why airplanes have two spark plugs and cars have only one. Airplane engines are over-square. Their bore is wider than the length of the stroke. They need two separated spark plugs to start two flame fronts, in order to get a complete burn before the piston reaches TDC. (You're right Facthunter) I really thought all pilots already knew this, but the reason airplane engines are over-square is to keep the weight of the crankshaft down. A crankshaft with a shorter stroke can be made significantly lighter. The further that the big end journals are out from the main bearings the beefier that the metal must be, to carry the torque around the cranks from one end of the engine to the other. By far the heaviest single component of an engine is the crankshaft. It is well worth the extra weight and complexity of dual ignition, for the significant saving in crankshaft weight. As an added bonus we get some redundancy (at reduced power) in the event that one ignition system fails. Although this was never the primary reason for dual ignition. But all you guys already knew that . Didn't you?

Pro argument . liquid cooled engines provide a little bit of protection against shock cooling on long descents. sorry that's all I can come up with. All engines are ultimately air cooled. The liquid is only a means for transporting the heat to the heat exchanger (radiator). The thermostat in the liquid system helps the engine to heat up to operating temperature quickly and helps to retain heat for longer at low power settings. The only time that I think this would be an advantage is if you were conduction emergency landing practice by actually turning the engine off. Which we are not allowed to do. So no advantage in liquid cooling. Jabiru was a relatively new (ish) engine. It has had a few teething problems. Some of which involved cooling issues. However most of these have been addressed and the engine has matured into a good reliable engine. I wouldn't change a thing. I would use it exactly how it came out of the box.

I've had 4 engine failures in an ultralight. One at 1000 feet AGL. 3 at less than 200 feet AGL. Flew home after a field repair after 3 of them, and trailered the plane after the other because it got too dark to fly. I do a short soft field landing nearly every time I land. Not because I need to but to keep in practice. Engine failure at 1500 AGL training did not prepare me, except for the stick forward as soon as the noise stops part. Being vigilant regarding wind direction and staying away from tiger country certainly helped. Practice practice practice landing without touching the throttle also certainly helped. As this thread states. Engine failure should not reusult in a fatality as long as you prepare, train, and anticipate that it will happen to you one day.

You’re right Antarctica is the driest, but they don’t have much soil, only rock and ice. Tim Howes article did mention Screw in Systems very favourably, in the lakebed soil, saying that they appeared to only pull out marginally. However he also, was hesitant about using them over here with our soils. I live in South Oz and most places I go have very hard or rocky ground maybe it’s different where you are. Please let me know how you get on.

You’re right, you are wrong. They are different to tent pegs take a close look at Head in the Clouds’ photo the eye at the end of the offset at the top is the actual tie down point. This effectively means that when the plane pulls on the rope the peg is pushed sideways as well as pulled up. This puts extra friction on the peg making it much harder to pull out of the ground. However when it come time to remove them and leave, you hook a rope or another peg or anything else handy under the top right near the long shaft and pull the stake out without any sideways pressure, and it comes out easily. Especially with a bit of simultaneous twisting side to side.

Screwits don't work in hard soil. The driest continent in the world is mostly hard soil.

Interesting that this question has just come up now. Decmber/January edition of Australian Pilot page 60 has an article called Tied Down and Safe, by Tim Howes (Bush Pilot). The article is based on his experience and in particlular the storm at High Sierra Fly-in United States with 150 km winds over the lake bed. A walk around the following morning revealed a lot of information on what worked and what didn’t. The two best options seemed to be the Duck Bill Anchors - very effective although an expensive single use item , but if you plan to return to a place regularly and reuse them then they are possibly worth it. The only other anchor that did not move at all even in very wet soil were the Boy Scout Stakes - cheap effective light , but you need to carry a hammer. The plane he flew in with was anchored with the Boy Scout Stakes and didn’t move. While the plane parked next to his , a J3 Cub which blew away, was anchored by Tha Claw, and several other users of The Claw had to repeatedly re-anchor their planes because the pins kept elongating the holes and began to pull out. He also described several other anchors that began to loosen and pull out. This is only one persons experience, but I am going to try to make my own Boy Scout Stakes

A 95-10 ultralight. Four engine failures. 3 at below 200 AGL and one on crosswind joining the circuit at 1000. Walked away from one because it got dark, so I trailered the plane back, and flew away from the rest after fixing the cause of the failure on the same day. No damage due to the outlanding. First one, I just stared incredulously at the stationary prop for some time before I reacted, (not good in a low inertia ultralight), but the rest were just another day at the office, but without the noise, type landing. None of my engine failure training, ie find a field get to a downwind /base corner at 1000AGL and then land normally was any use. Not that close to the ground. However my training did include to avoid overflying tiger country, so every landing although a bit bouncy was a good landing regardless of the dead stick. I look for suitable landing sites first and at the scenery second. Engine failure should not be fatal in an ultralight. As long as you avoid tiger country and regardless what happens FLY THE PLANE, right through the crash.

You can fly solo as a student under supervision of an instructor. In fact it is a requirement of the training.

Advertiser reported RAAus investigating but other sources reported ATSB

Flat panels are the most common and thousands of pilots use and put up with them. That's why flight instruments are on the left (pilot side) and engine instruments are right (copilot side). Pity the poor copilot trying to use the flight instruments. But if you want a very interesting option google CH 750 SD. The more conventional other option is two glass screens. They can be set up to show all flight and engine instruments on the each screen. Or flight on one screen and engine on the other as in conventional panels. With the option of switching them over to the opposite sides when the copilot is in command. This link will take you to a sportstar photo with a glass panel SportStar Photos, Harmony Airplane, Cobra, EV55 Outback, Evektor Australia Hope this helps

Foxbat stalls at 27kt. Approach at 47kt. C172 stalls at 47kt. Approach at 62kt. Even doused in grease the foxbat wouldn't be slippery enough to exceed the c172 ground roll. Foxbat isn't advertised as STOL for no reason.