Jump to content

djpacro

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,902

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

 Content Type 

Everything posted by djpacro

  1. djpacro
    LAA UK has their mandatory requirements which are worth considering at http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TADs/324%20SUPERMARINE%20SPITFIRE%20MK26.pdf Incidentally, there is a variation in stall behaviour arising from accuracy (or inaccuracy) of construction.
  2. djpacro
    Certification of composite aircraft structures requires some redundancy (fail-safe is old hat) so types such as the Extra have that built-in.
  3. djpacro
    I must hang out with a different crowd at competitions.Some do push the limits and those flying a Pitts S-1 usually get away with it (apart from little bits over time) as its structure does not deform until way beyond the limit load factor. Disappointingly, some S-1 owners don't actually know the limit load factors and manoeuvre speed limitations. More relevant, I hear some pilots of new-fangled monoplanes saying that their airplane has no such limits, effectively.
  4. djpacro
    1. About 18 years ago a CAP 222, French built version of the Giles 202, lost its tail in a similar fashion. As far as I know it was not the same problem. 2. All the local (and I daresay all in the world) drivers of Giles wear chutes. As do many Pitts and Extra etc pilots. 3. Need enough time/height to exit with a chute high enough above the ground for it to be useful. As mentioned, it takes time. Gyrations following a structural failure can make it extremely difficult to exit. (I can only hope that focussing on the chute takes one's mind off other things). 4. Discussion today with a Giles driver about how to inspect the structure in that area. Hhhm. (Incidentally, the previous day we'd been talking about 787 ground damage and inspections.) 5. The Giles is an orphan - not certified so never going to be any ADs and the manufacturer no longer exists so only individual owners with a keen interest. The MX was developed from the Giles and also not certified with the manufacturer also out of business. 6. I've heard that we'll get an investigation of the MX structural failure at the recent World AerobaticChampionships. 7. Many of us like the Pitts structure. I also like certified airplanes.
  5. djpacro
    In the aerobatic box over Narromine for the NSW Aerobatic Championships.
  6. djpacro
    Black and white in the regs for training for endorsements previously mentioned plus some other things. The new Part 61 specifically lists the training endorsements for a PPL with a flight instructor rating.
  7. djpacro
    No law that says a PPL can't earn money, they are just limited to private ops (there was another thread where commercial ops was discussed - pilot did not earn any money but the situation required a CPL). Exactly my point, not "just like it".
  8. djpacro
    Yes indeed, but just a few specific training endorsements. Nope, not just like a CASA instructor rating.
  9. djpacro
    I know it well.
  10. djpacro
    91.030: "This Part does not apply in relation to the operation of an aircraft if any provision of Part 101, 103 or 131 applies to the operation." So, if Part 103 is silent on a specific issue then whatever is in Part 91 for that specific issue does apply.
  11. djpacro
    91.030: "This Part does not apply in relation to the operation of an aircraft if any provision of Part 101, 103 or 131 applies to the operation." So, if Part 103 is silent on a specific issue then whatever is in Part 91 for that specific issue does apply.
  12. djpacro
    Until we see the final parts 101 and 103 can't say that anything in 91 doesn't apply.
  13. djpacro
    Until we see the final parts 101 and 103 can't say that anything in 91 doesn't apply.
  14. djpacro
    It is true - very extensive over the last 12 years - it is just that they don't take much notice of the feedback.
  15. djpacro
    It is true - very extensive over the last 12 years - it is just that they don't take much notice of the feedback.
  16. djpacro
    Yep.Simple pilot theory is far from true in real life. Neither speed for best angle of climb nor best rate of climb occur at a "fixed angle of attack"! Refer: http://cospilot.com/documents/Why%20Vx%20and%20Vy%20Change%20with%20Altitude.pdf
  17. djpacro
    How about experience as a flight instructor plus experience having worked as an aerodynamicist?I don't have high regard for a physicist regarding aerodynamics of aircraft. And, it really doesn't need a high level of knowledge of aerodynamics to be a good flight instructor.
  18. djpacro
    That was removed after the ValueJet accident many years ago, I don't know why people still claim it is so. I suggest that people take a look at the FAA website before making a fool of themselves with their local member. Hope I wasn't too late.
  19. djpacro
    I see no more trivia on FB than I see on this forum. Some good discussions in some FB groups.
  20. djpacro
    Typical of issues with Part 61. Some places try to do the right thing and follow the rules but get stuck with requirements which are impossible to comply with.
  21. djpacro
    Tocumwal and Lilydale for a Eurofox. Savage Cub at Lethbridge. The Decathlon thingy at Lethbridge has gone - will soon be at Bacchus Marsh if not there already.
  22. djpacro
    I agree in general. As I stated, it just needs enough down elevator to stall it (cambered aerofoils have more pitching moment to overcome, fuselage shape and its pitching moment also a factor). There are some types around which do have this apart from the serious aerobatic types. Me too. I totally agree. I have lost too many friends to spin accidents, including inadvertent inverted spins so it is near the top of my list. I agree, of little concern to the average GA pilot. Agreed, I see too much of this, even amongst instructors approved to teach spinning which is a real concern. CASA's Part 61 Manual of Standards specifies stalls in quite a few more situations than I see in a typical syllabus at a flying school.
  23. djpacro
    Modern, specialised aerobatic aeroplanes these days have a high power to weight ratio so will be at an extremely low airspeed when you hit the rudder. A Pitts will even do a passable stall turn going backwards when rudder is hit. Plenty of slipstream over the tail for rudder and elevator to be effective. Torque and gyroscopics dominate at low speeds for small aeroplanes with big engines. Hit the rudder for the stall turn then need pretty much full opposite aileron and full forward stick to maintain the plane of rotation in yaw. Some people do it mechanically and if they hit the rudder at too high an airspeed the controls are set up for an inverted flat spin. A Pitts S-1D with flat bottom wings will do it just as easily as an S-1S with symmetrical aerofoils. Regardless, it seems to be quite happy in an inverted spin
  24. djpacro
    Are you calling me a modern pilot? I bought the book only about 10 years ago, wish I had bought it 50 years ago. I hope to finish reading it one day. Not all Pitts have symmetrical aerofoils. The Decathlon doesn't have a symmetrical aerofoil, the earlier 7KCAB Citabria even more camber yet will happily spin inverted - even transition from an upright spin to inverted with barely a hesitation. All an aeroplane needs is enough down elevator to drive the angle of attack negative enough to stall the wing - many types do not, plus the high stick force/extreme forward position is un-natural enough that you have to really want to put the stick there. The Pitts catches many people out with aggressive spin entries, often to flat inverted, from a messed up stall turn or roll off the top. Very disorientating if experienced accidently for the first time. The "Silver Chain" wouldn't work here.
  25. djpacro
    It regularly kills people flying Pitts.
×
×
  • Create New...