djpacro

I've done quite a bit in ECI but far from my favourite Airtourer model. Even the factory built Airtourer Super 150 had a miserable useful load for aerobatics. Add engine oil to the empty weight here then the amended unusable fuel allowance. ECI's empty weight is higher as I recall.

I had forgotten about that - forward of the painted section. Sun protection must’ve been an option. https://images.app.goo.gl/rfyc7GUkzBAPhBK79

1. Very informative free handbooks from the FAA at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation especially the Airplane Flying Handbook, Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge and Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators. 2. Try the online courses at USA’s AOPA - register for free and take the free course e.g. https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/online-learning/online-courses/essential-aerodynamics

Details here on page 12 https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/1970s/media/am72-28.pdf

My friend fitted these. Airtourer Association is the best place to ask.

I'm certainly not knowledgeable on WW2 fighters however I know that -5G would be beyond their limit load factor. I also know how an aircraft responds to control inputs and I've been to -5G many times. Response depends on the rate of control application with airspeed also a big factor. Flying along upright and suddenly hit full forward stick, full left rudder with full left aileron lagging a tad results in an outside snap roll. Easy to calculate the G based on entry speed and the stall speed at -1G. Slower control movements - obviously forward stick into a dive results in a speed increase. WW2 fighters have similar flight load limitations as current GA airplanes. Rolling G limitations and Va, maneuvering speed. Something will break doing that.

Yep, Part 91.267 with MOS 13.02 specifically addresses this.

Two hours after sunset. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/302136 USA PPL includes night VFR training and the permission for night VFR flights. I wonder if the training included taking off over the water with no lights ahead. When I did my night VFR rating we did circuits at Philip Island out over the water on a dark night. https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/dark-and-deadly-nights/

61.435 and my earlier link refer.

lannguage proficency Sometimes I fail. For pilot licences ... regs 61.120 & 61.435 refer to authorisations to use radio.

Seems like you might be transitioning to the new-fangled Part 61 licence from an old CAR 5 licence? You'll need a GELP, general english lannguage proficency, assessment as a prerequisite for using a radio. https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certificates/pilots/pilot-licences/getting-recreational-pilot-licence-rpl#

Quite a contrast to https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/event_details.aspx?eid=117601&fbclid=IwAR1g8RGw7wUDd8X3RJw9FnNBqFAS3-BDh-dAkgNphv3V8kKzw60g1w-CBB0 "Teaching Control In The Pattern - Topic: Discussion With In-Flight Videos Covering: Pilot-Induced Oscillations, Wake Turbulence Upsets, And Stalls At Low Altitudes." I saw it live today - video will be in the archives. (I even got credit for my flight review).

Yep, just fill in the form. Ask CASA to be sure to be sure, they are quite helpful at https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/contact-us/flight-crew-licensing-enquiries

I agree, not as common as control locks left in, but FOD moving during flight and jamming controls in aerobatic airplanes is a well known hazard. It has happened to myself and several others that I know over the years.

Good discussion. Great work APenNameAndThatA It is a fairly common cause, however. They are. Refer CASA's Flight Instructor Manual.

I think you'll find the rule is operational not aircraft certification.

Hi Nev, is that a new philosophy, as your Citabria was a 5G airplane? And - there are quite a few RAA planes certified for intentional spinning.

Yes, that is the placard (although not actually required for all flat spins, testing revealed specific control actions to get it there). Interesting that the general spin placard there is not quite correct per the AFM.

The factory test pilot found some modes which were not recoverable with that method. Amendment to the AFM and cockpit placard refers.

I get a steady stream of curious flight instructors asking about it when they can't get numbers to tie up when they do the arithmetic. Of course, they must use CAS - are those stall speeds in CAS or IAS? When the manufacturer does the calculations do they use the stall speed at the same CG published in the POH or not - some manufacturers publish stall speeds for both fore and aft CG positions. There are several reasons why a manufacturer may state a higher Va than Vs.sqrt(n). One is that they are allowing for future growth of that model so just do the certification once at the anticipated higher weight - as you saw, Va is only used to get control surface and tail loads, nothing to do with stresses in the wing. When an engineer first specifies Va it is before the prototype has flown so the stall speed is only estimated and perhaps the engineer builds in a buffer. Perhaps the actual stall speed is less than originally estimated. The structural engineering certification paperwork is largely done, they're not going to revise Va and delay the FAA's review if they don't have to.

I’d say it would be exactly as required by the design airworthiness regulations as explained succinctly by FAA AC 23-19. Vs below is at maximum weight.

Yep, I did state "almost any instructor". Aerobatic customers often consider different schools and sometimes specific instructors before deciding but often don't bother asking about the instructor's experience. I think an instructor like that would've been fine for the general aerobatic training - I would expect some solo aerobatic practice (normal with others I know who transition to other types) rather than pick it up with a student on board paying for it as the report indicates.

My opinion is that the Cessna Aerobat is a great little aerobatic trainer. I've done quite a bit of instruction in them. Yep, so easy to do a roll in a Pitts or Extra. Students in a Cessna, with its much lower roll rate, must learn more skills in rolling it as well as energy management overall. The Decathlon is an excellent aerobatic trainer. Very few in Australia learn basic aerobatics in a Pitts or Extra - they could learn those correct basic skills to do a roll at low roll rates but won't iniitially. Techniques for hammerheads are quite a bit different in high performance aircraft. I don't see a problem with teaching aerobatics on different types in general as almost any instructor would've started on a low performance type. Courses for an instructor doing an aerobatic training endorsement should include some little classroom techniques in different types per the MOS. Manuals give good guidance on how to do stuff and most of the skills are transferable. I do enjoy seeing a Pitts pilot try to do a hammerhead (stall turn) in an Airtourer though! The real issue is spinning. The MOS only requires knowledge of the type which is being used for training.

Unusual attitudes - a good point for more discussion at that other thread on UPRT, perhaps. When I do a spin endorsement for someone there is classroom work which includes: all the aggravated spin modes and how to avoid them some characteristics of other types so the recovery method is likely to be different than the type we are using the limitations of Beggs-Mueller what to do if you apply the correct (or you think it was correct) recovery method and it doesn't work - what do you do? especially for flight instructors, what aircraft will they be instructing in, as if not approved for spins they must know the control actions specified in the POH - probably totally different than what I've taught them - and apply them as soon as it starts to spin - certainly before one turn. eg this Diamond Indeed. I expect (hope) there will be changes to the spin training MOS and instructor training.

Here is the list from Gene Beggs, October 1985 magazine article, which he claims to have thoroughly tested. Of these, he states that it doesn't work (at least for some spin modes) for the Beech T-34C, North American AT-6 and that Cessna 150. Bill Kershner confirmed that every Cessna Aerobat behaves the same when trying to recover using Beggs-Mueller - even the 152 will not recover. They weren't certification standard tests, for example, he did not rig the control surfaces to the extremes of the tolerances most adverse for spin recovery. What CG range did he test for each aircraft? How can he guarantee it? His book, Spins in the Pitts Special, was published later and it had another statement: "Another aircraft that will not always recover is the 180 Decathlon. This occurs in the inverted left rudder spin. I have not flown the 180 Decathlon extensively. I do not know if the 150 Decathlon also exhibits the same behaviour." Hang on, in that earlier magazine article he stated that he had thoroughly tested it? He goes on "If we could spin-test every aircraft, I am sure we would find others that will lock-in and continue spinning on their own." An instructor and student were conducting inverted spins in a Decathlon and the Beggs-Mueller technique was being demonstrated. The student was told to bail out and survived. The instructor was killed as he didn't have enough time to get out. Eric Mueller is quite vague - I have only seen him state that it works for all those aircraft which have a conventional (according to Eric) tail design like that of the Pitts Special. Tell that to Paul Bennet - it doesn't work for his Wolf Pitts.