djpacro

I've never seen a kit built Pitts as good as a factory Pitts and never seen a rebuilt Citabria/Decathlon as good as one from the factory. I've seen some diabolical homebuit Pitts.

Just look at the pictures, you will like Figure A7.

Someone has already done the hard work (for small conventional airplanes):14 CFR Appendix A to Part 23, Simplified Design Load Criteria

Having an RPC does away with the need for a flight training area if one does not want a nav endorsement. The solution is to get an RPL where that note on consecutive flights does not exist. I know quite a few people without nav endorsements but enjoying aerobatics on an RPL, as I did for many years on the old restricted PPL.

Perhaps Latrobe Valley or Drouin.

The answer to that question would seem to be found in the meaning of the word "consecutive" - shouldn't be too hard to get the official meaning of that word (with a reference).As for the rules from CASA on the RPL and their advice, as distinct from what is in an Ops Manual anywhere: As for getting the nav endorsement on an RPL, CASA says nothing about now being entitled to land at another airfield and without the nav endorsement there is nothing about requiring a return to the departure airfield, nothing about limitations on consecutive flights. If one had an RPL and owned his/her own aeroplane then note that first bit of advice above and read what CASA says are the limitations of the licence - it is not that hard to read words and understand them. As for the risk of getting into trouble on a 25 nm flight 25 nm have a look at what this flying school promotes as the privileges of an RPL: Top 10 Things to See with your RPL – Sydney

Obesity | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

I wonder if he had just read the new regulation

showing a degree, not 60 however, of importenter

One day, in the fullness of time .... someone at CASA will be given the job of rewriting the advisory publication on flight reviews ... it will probably be a sensible person .... but he won't have much choice, he will read the new Part 61 regulation on flight reviews and will probably come to the same view as myself as to what it means .... and he probably won't like what he is writing but ... I know, I could be wrong so I always suggest that people read the regs themselves.

.... repeated for the benefit of anyone who may think that I made a different comment about banking at 60 deg ...Much better to discuss this stuff over a bottle of red in the hangar at the end of the flying day ... Narromine in October ...

page 5-37 of Chapter 5 expands a little bit on that here Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge

Perhaps it was a Q

When I do AFRs I try to help pilots wrt that requirement, not a show stopper if they don't have one - and some don't. I take more of an interest doing instructor quaifications as they must set an example for their students, again not a show stopper when I come to tick the pass or fail box, up to them whether they comply with the security requirement to exercise the privileges of their licence. For my own proficiency check recently we only joked about displaying our ASICs as we were at Moorabbin, it wasn't on his list of things to check.

I am saying take a look at the controls used for turning from the point of view that some of us have been stating ... to focus on elevator as that controls angle of attack to promote greater awareness of the situation in a turn. I quoted one of the highly respected FAA Manuals simply because it is the USA industry-developed standard for pilot theory. Just for once, addressing the points that you make. Happy for you to visit and learn. I don't think anyone has started arguing (yet). Others have explained why they chose to answer about bank angle the way they did. I'm quite sure there was a particular reason for picking on the 30 degree bank stall speed increase. Miserable weather here in Melbourne so on my PC with some spare time so here I am but I don't have that much time. "a stupid, incompetent, or foolish person" - I really don't think he is and I think that is a misquote about not increasing stall speed (I'm not going back to check it anyway) but he did have a good reason for the comment. I think there was also a clear enough answer on how to turn with a precise bank angle with no AH. There was an excellent reason why he made that comment in that particular context - the adverse outcome when people limit bank angle but then find themselves in a situation where increased bank angle is a good decision but take alternative action with an unfortunate outcome. I will say that it is good to avoid bank angles of more than 60 deg at that point in the circuit at towered airports because CASA would regard it as aerobatics. Just googled the meaning of that and decided that it does not warrant a response from me.

At least they understand the importance of rotor diameter in the relationship between weight, power and lift.

Really! And how do you turn at all at the slowest airspeed possible?Refer Aerodynamics of Naval Aviators pages 178-180: "The maneuver speed is the minimum speed necessary to develop aerodynamically the limit load factor and it produces the minimum turn radius within aerodynamic and structural limitations."

Perhaps start with the full description of how to turn from the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook page 3-7: "The elevator .... pulls the nose of the airplane around in a turn" seems pretty close to "the elevator turns the airplane" to me.

Put elevator to neutral and see if it turns while banked.

Actually, bank does not increase G-forces! The elevator control is the only thing that can increase G-forces.My competition aerobatic students are judged on their angle of bank in a steep turn of 60 deg bank. 1 point off out of 10 for each 5 deg error (downgrades for other factors too) - they get top marks. Competition aerobatics is precision flying, try it sometime.

Fig 9-5 here suggests a factor: http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/HOOU/AircraftDesign_9_EmpennageGeneralDesign.pdf - effect of wing wake (and also changes in wing downwash). See also fig 9-3 to get back on topic. Worth thinking about if you are selecting an aeroplane to be used as an ab initio trainer doing CASA's new advanced stalling exercises.

it is not a chat frequency!See Tutorial: Aircraft station licences or the official source referenced there for: "Communications between aircraft on 123.45 MHz are restricted to the exchange of information relating to aircraft operations and only the proper call-signs may be used."

A bit more info about Aub that you may be interested in. He was aged 92, I believe. I knew he was at Parkes etc and was involved with the introduction of the Airtourer into flight training when first produced. CFI at LaTrobe Valley Aeroclub, Victoria, I think from around 1960 – 1964 CFI at Grovedale Airport, Victoria Ran flying schools at Barwon Heads Airport and Lethbridge Airpark, Victoria Ex-RAAF No 1 Air Observer School RAAF Evans Head, NSW, as a Navigator. Learnt to fly in 1946, commercial/instructor rating 1951, still active instructor after 64 years (2015). He built a KR-2 VH-CTE. "As at January 2009: ARN 008142 with Class 2 Medical and R.A.Aus Certificate No. 01514 with aviation experience as follows: 1944-1945 RAAF navigator/air bomber (Avro Anson/B24 Liberator) June 1947 Student Pilot License issued March 1948 Private Pilot License issued September 1948 Aerobatic Endorsement (flown 21 different aerobatic types) July 1951 Commercial Pilot License issued October 1951 B2 Flight Instructor Rating issued July 1952 B1 Flight Instructor Rating issued April 1953 A2 Flight Instructor Rating issued November 1954 A1 Flight Instructor Rating issued Total aeronautical experience 20,000 hours in 111 different single engine types Total instructional experience 13,000 plus hours Tail wheel experience 5735 hours in 55 different types Have “first Flight/Test Flown” 13 different types of aircraft. I currently fly as honorary Senior Flight Instructor (R.A.Aus) with South Barwon Air Service based on Barwon Heads Airport."

Exactly. A manufacturer should do a very comprehensive series of tests to demonstrate compliance so it is not cheap.http://www.flighttestsafety.org/images/stories/workshop/2010/07-Sky_Catcher_Flight_Test_Spin_Testing.ppt Some don't get it right, like the Piper Tomahawk Darren Smith's CFI Homepage Flight Instruction Website Tampa