mnewbery

Another fly in appears to be in planning. Before you reply F_W, think very hard about what you want to say. Then have a cup of tea and go do something else.

Hands up everyone who has a functioning ADF and somewhere to use it. I do but half the NDBs I want to use are already Notam'd "Pilot monitored"

Australia’s third F-35A pilot takes to the skies | Australian Aviation

Agreed. It is my understanding the first export date is the same.

Read post #123. The main thing it appears to be to the scornful public is candy to attract more people to the RAAF. No argument about that from here.

Which pyjamas go best with those?

Correct. What the boffins finally decide to do will come out of various warfare schools. But when you are beat, you are beat. Sending the wrong warfighter when you know it's wrong is the behaviour of another century. Here is the original claim for export of the Su-35 / PAK FA. In 2013 it was claimed the exports would be ready in 2025 not 2020 as stated in my post #150. Russian experts upbeat about export prospects for the PAK FA

Another bad example. If I ride a powered watercraft, I need a boat licence and a registered boat-thingy. If I could ride a 300Hp JetSki thingy towing an inflated tube full of drunk passengers over the top of your house, there would probably be rules around that quite quickly. As a GA pilot, I'm not overly bothered by RA-Aus requirements. I still think the RA-Aus barrier to participation is less than (but very different to) the GA participation barrier.

Post #144. JSF and pretty much every other multi role fighter won't be sent into contested airspace where the engagement described was possible. So change the comment from F-35 to F/A-18 F or even Su-25 vs Su-35 and the comments would still be valid. Again, the F-22 is air-to-air, the F-35 is not. The point is and will always be "use the advantages and avoid the pitfalls" of the scenario. And again, the only time an F-15 will out perform an F-35 in terms of "pure E-M" is when both are configured for AN AIRSHOW DISPLAY. Don't take my word for it, read up and be sure the people aren't feeding you their own special diet of BS. Believe what you want to believe. The AESA radar is rubbish and will fail most days within 4 hours, required commonality between variants knobbled the F-35A which should have whipped the F-16 in every way from day one and so on it goes. Some of it will probably be true for a few years yet. Other issues are already fixed and work continues away from the scornful public gaze. I'm really sorry for the eastern bloc fanbois and the sinophiles that their fave twin engine Neo-liability-fighter didn't get up. I'm really sorry the earliest an SU-35 would even be ready for export is stated by the manufacturer to be 2020. I'm really sorry that the scandal ridden Gripen is the same price as the F-35A once the features are taken into account and that purchasing Gripens risks damaging trade relations with USA. I'm really very sorry that purchasing Gripens would expose Australia to the same spares issues that dogged two other high profile European military airframe purchases. These inconvenient facts aren't going away. Time to make do.

About the same time your garden becomes part of the national airspace I expect

Tampon=stamp in French. Often as a verb

Complicating things further, the air off a high wing aircraft spills on to the cruciform tail plane more effectively with the flaps deployed. Dash-8 is high wing and T-tail, and on it goes

Edit: The OP and facthunter correctly pointed out the pitch up or down on flap application is dependent on the change in the centre of pressure plus the change in drag. I earlier noted for a simple flap the effective wing chord is lengthened when maximum flap is applied. This is incorrect for the purpose of understanding the BAK question (even if the question is irrelevant and obsolete). It may actually get shorter, effecting the centre of pressure moving forward. The BAK question assumes the simple flap full application will always move the centre of pressure of the main wing forward thereby causing a pitch up. Aircraft that pitch down with full flap application include those with leading edge lift devices (think Boeing 737) and aircraft that use split flaps or a combination of split flaps with fowler action. I think some examples include the Cessna 340 and Beech Baron. Now I will need to go have a look.

Did you read the title of the thread?

It's in the exam

Bonus point: Name an aircraft that pitches down when flaps are applied. When flaps are applied (in BAK land) the chord line of the main wing is lengthened and pitched up. It does this in relation to the relative wind, the horizontal tail and the airframe. This has the same effect as moving the horizontal tail plane. Right now, a pen and a bit of paper might help show the result. Just extend the chord lines for the wing and the horizontal tail with and without flap until the lines meet. I got this question wrong twice.

More lift and much more drag when applying flap causes the aircraft to slow and pitch which way? This is definitely a BAK and a CASA PPL cyber exam question by the way.

Drifters definitely go nose up on thrust loss. During a gliding descent as the wing encounters an increased headwind, the Drifter wing produces more lift and pitches up. There is an axiom in flying that says "in the absence of other inputs an aircraft will return to its trimmed speed" (then overshoot through it and enter a fugoid oscillation). The pilot in command makes things better or worse by adding or removing pitch with the "houses" lever as discussed. This means that in the case of an increasing wind gradient closer to the ground, the aircraft will initially record an increase in IAS then begin to pitch up. Rotational inertia (flywheel effect) will cause the pitch to increase beyond that required to regain the trimmed speed. Then it will record a slower IAS and pitch down. This is the source of the fugoid oscillation in pitch. The behaviour is a design feature of all fixed wing GA aircraft and it is quite deliberate. An aircraft can be designed to do other things (like stall the tail plane first thus losing pitch control while still generating main wing lift or have anhedral wings causing deliberate instability) . But the insurance companies don't like it and charge accordingly. The size and frequency of the fugoid can be easily determined (discussed perhaps in another thread) and it is specific to each example of aircraft because of manufacturing differences and centre of gravity plus mass at the time of flight. Your instructor should be able to demonstrate the effect of trimmed airspeed and fugoid oscillation. I found that lesson quite fun. Fun fact. The Cessna Citation and Lear aircraft have engines above the wings. Losing thrust on takeoff with this configuration requires considerable down pitch input to maintain control. This requires specific training to safely handle. Cessna 172s, Piper Warriors and the like, these naturally pitch down on thrust loss. Insurance...

With regard to post #11 above, the plastic fuel tank will demonstrably discharge into the ground albeit slowly as soon as it comes into contact with said ground (dirt, grass, concrete etc). Even composite aircraft have metal engines, so earthing there on the exhaust for example will earth the entire aircraft in a minute or so for reasons I won't go into here. Earthing the aircraft then periodically placing a plastic Jerry can on the ground will reduce (not eliminate) static build up, as will decanting the fuel more slowly. This last point is described in the link in post #2. A dry, windy day will build up static on the plastic (and your nice clean car and you). Would I earth a plastic Jerry can with a wire while decanting it? CAO 20.9 has the answer. Not necessarily a wire, I might make sure it's me or even my ladder who has the bonded earth. Sensing that static had built up is the last line of defence. Ignore that at your peril.

Army’s Tiger ARH achieves FOC http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/05/armys-tiger-arh-achieves-foc/

Is Pearo still calling BS on this or will he recant his statements about static charge and petrol as noted in the link in post #2 above? Refer: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/bak-questions-thread.148145/page-2#post-557712

Whoa. Serious electric fence!

I'll get F_W on it for an objective appraisal immediately!

Agree with all that. The original Gripen up to 1980 cost less than $5,000 per flight hour ... A bit more than half of the cost of the F-16. Current prices for the Gripen NG (with the all the goodies) are $116M per unit and $27,000 total cost per flying hour. I think they can use some of the same helmets too. An F-35A is $116M plus the engine but minus the high level US interference for even considering an alternative and minus the issues around spares availability. The Gripen will actually super cruise faster than the F-35.

Good. What makes it viable?