NljbA380

I feel that because of the vast majority of the responses here, while it is good, confused me even more in a sense. Im still getting used to the whole process of learning to fly. And am defiantly taking your advice on board with regards sitting down with the instructor. As a younger guy I must admit, i feel a tad awkward wanting to do so. But its ultimately for the better of my understanding/knowledge and safety that I should. Maybe as im working through the textbook i should compile a range of questions I should ask next time I go flying.

So by saying if i do them at the same speed, im ignoring the term BEST. My bad. The best climb performance is given by a given speed depending upon whether it is best rate or best angle. I think i finally get it all. Sorry for being a pain in the butt. Why is the vertical speed of a best rate always slightly greater then a best angle? I know its due to the slightly extra height gained, but why is this extra height gained say over a time interval of one minute? Is it just the nature of comparing the two climbs? Can anyone answer this question? Just out of curiosity. I know that when your flying in a nose up attitude, the angle of attack is the angle between the air flow and the chord of the cross sectional of the wind. How is said angle of attack influenced/calculated in bank and even in a ascending bank? How is it different from each side of the wing? Can someone confirm this. I just read. "The only two terms in the lift equation that can be different between the two wings are lift coefficient (ie AOA) and speed. We have agreed the speed of the outer one is up so it must have less AOA." Say were in a bank to the left. Obvisouly the right hand side of the wing is travelling at a quicker speed. When they say the only thing that can be different between the two wings are lift coefficient and speed. How is this true, because if your in a bank, then one wing is going to have to produce a greater amount of lift. And in which case, if we are banking to the left, the right hand wing is going to have both a greater speed and as a result angle of attack isnt it? And that explains why because of the greater angle of attack, it will stall first at a higher speed. And thus why we flip to the right when we stall. is this the correct thinking?

Haha, yes. I have indeed. Its just i asked if the airspeeds differ before and was told they dont. which is what confused me even more. But i referred back to my book again, and basically its saying for one minute of time, a best angle of climb will produce x altitude gain, over a smaller horizontal distance, at a steep angle of attack with a higher attitude and because of this a lower speed. Where as a best rate of climb will produce a climb that is at a lower angle of attack and hence a lower attitude, will cover more horizontal distance, and will reach the similar altitude in the same time because it is doing so at a higher speed. If they were to complete both these two climbs, at the same speed and the same time interval, the best angle of climb would clearly gain a larger amount in altitude Correct?

I think im just going to have to accept it for what it is at this stage. For some reason i just cant grasp it. If there doing it at the same speeds, the best angle of climb will have a higher attitude, will cover less ground distance, but reach the same height. Where as the best rate of climb will have a lower nose attitude, and cover more horizontal distance, which would be better for fuel encomy. Where as the best rate would be more appropriate for takes off where there are obstacles at the end of the runway. So generally speaking, is it preferred to use a best rate of climb, since your covering more ground distance which would be mean you going to save time (fuel) and because you have better visibility because of the lower nose attitude. I just dont understand how they can be the same altitude after the one min, and not have different speeds. If they had different speeds, that would make sense, what is the difference between them. Sorry if im being a pain.

So why it is said the rate of climb is unaffected, the horizontal distance covered in a headwind is effected, and would be less. Let me confirm. The rate of climb is the height gained over a certain time interval. Say if we had a headwind, the ground speed is going to be less. We are going to not travel as far horizontally as opposed to no wind. Is the actual speed at which you climb less? Hence why we only climb to the same/similar altitude as a best rate of climb with no wind, which would cover a greater horizontal distance, but do so because it is at a greater speed?

Just out of curiosity. I know that when your flying in a nose up attitude, the angle of attack is the angle between the air flow and the chord of the cross sectional of the wind. How is said angle of attack influenced/calculated in bank and even in a ascending bank? How is it different from each side of the wing? Can someone confirm this. I just read. "The only two terms in the lift equation that can be different between the two wings are lift coefficient (ie AOA) and speed. We have agreed the speed of the outer one is up so it must have less AOA." Say were in a bank to the left. Obvisouly the right hand side of the wing is travelling at a quicker speed. When they say the only thing that can be different between the two wings are lift coefficient and speed. How is this true, because if your in a bank, then one wing is going to have to produce a greater amount of lift. And in which case, if we are banking to the left, the right hand wing is going to have both a greater speed and as a result angle of attack isnt it? And that explains why because of the greater angle of attack, it will stall first at a higher speed. And thus why we flip to the right when we stall. is this the correct thinking?

So there is a stalling speed, which has a corresponding stalling angle for any given aircraft at a given wait. It is to fly at this speed, at x weight, the aircraft must have an angle of attack of whatever it is. Correct? So which is the fixed variable? By the sounds of it its the stalling angle and the stalling speed is dependent on the weight of the aircraft. And by increasing the weight of the aircraft, for a given stalling angle (commonly 16 degrees) the stalling speed will INCREASE. Is this all correct? Anyone confirm?

So im guessing this is where the IAS and GAS comes into it does it? IAS doesnt take into account the speed at which the wind is moving. Where as the ground speed does. So if I had a 5 knot headwind and a 20 knot headwind, the rate of climb would be the same regardless. But if we were talking about the GAS in relation to the rate of climb, they would be different? But because the rate of climb is in relation to time, it is uneffected by it correct?

Can somebody explain why the best rate of climb is uneffected by a headwind. I understand that the best rate of climb will provide the greatest vertical distance over minimal time, and will generally cover greater ground distance at a higher speed and lower attitude then that of the best angle of climb which will provide the greatest vertical distance over the minimal ground distance, and generally have a slower speed and higher attitude. And that the best angle of attack is effected by the headwind, which would produce a greater attitude, but why is the best rate of climb uneffected by a headwind and is the same with or without a wind (same vertical distance). Also, can someone please explain the stalling angle of attack/speed. The definition in my book is "At the stalling speed, the stalling angle of attack is required to produce the necessary lift. Any further increase in angle of attack will result in less lift but more drag. It is important to note that it is actually the angle of attack that causes the stall". So correct me if im wrong: I can fly at 60 knots, and say the aircraft, at this speed, will have a stalling angle of attack of say 16 degrees (just random). Anything above this angle will result in a stall. Or i can fly at 50 knots, and say the aircraft, at this speed, will have a stalling angle which is less then 16 degrees And vice versa. So essentially, the angle of attack for a stall is dependent on the IAS of the aircraft? How is this effected by weight? Naturally, by increasing the weight, a greater amount of lift is required. For the aircraft to fly at an angle of say 16 degrees, the IAS is going to be have to be greater then the original 60 knots. So basically the increase in weight, will require a greater speed to fly at the angle of attack to maintain lift, which will create the stall if gone beyond this angle or if the airspeed is lowered beyond this new airspeed. Ive kind of confused my self.

Had my first lesson today! Now ive got forms to fill out and logged my first hour in a Cessna 172. Covered a bit of everything, mainly focusing on keeping level flight, trimming it and getting a feel for it all! Crazy pushing the throttle all the way in, pull straight back, flaps 30 degrees and just climbing at 40 odd knots! Loved it! Planning on getting lessons every 3 weeks. Hardest thing was taxing with the whole rudder and rocking the foot for the brake. Zig zagging down the runway, haha. Thanks for all the advice guys.

Thanks for all the feed back guys. Deffs keeping year 12 a priority! Just keep second guessing about go ahead with it all. Just generally speaking, im looking at flying out of latrobe, and saw on their website that there a scholarship opportunities. Generally speaking, how often are these given out, to what amounts, etc? Does a young kid like me have a chance of scoring one. This is a major point of second guessing it all. While my family is paying for a majority of it, ive agreed to chip in 1-2000 dollars to help. Which is a considerable amount considering i also ahve to put money towards a car and pay for fuel, etc.

Ahhh ok. Make sense now. That would make sense why there only offering the CASA RPL at my school because the smallest they have is a cessna 172 sp, which is obvs a four seater. Is there much difference in price between the two? My original plan is to get the CASA version, which i would need a medical assessment for wouldnt I? Am i allowed to then fly into controlled airspace (such as morab)? Ill have to ask if they offer the RAAus on Saturday. Edit: Had a look on the website and doesnt look like the airport i train at is on there (in terms of the actual school).

Hahaha, thanks. Ive been having a look on the forums and i see two different licences like the forum title below. Would someone be able to elaborate? RA-Aus RPC to CASA RPL

I defiantly have a passion for it. And its my dream, to get a good job so i can fund my flying, eventually working towards IFR ratings, etc. And one day, maybe my own plane ;) Im booked in for another introductory flight on saturday to have a chat and obviously go up for a fly. Im not too concerned about school getting in the way. Im currently doing well at it, and taking a lesson once every three weeks before work isnt going to be to demanding or take to much time. In terms of theory, i can always find time throughout the day such as on the bus and at break at school to complete some of it. After all, if you enjoy learning it and have a passion for it, it isnt really studying/work is it! Worst comes to worst, during exam time if it gets to demanding i can just call it off temporary. Im hoping to get a majority of the hours out of the way during the 2 to 3 month summer holidays i have before i start (hopefully) university. I think its full steam ahead! Cant wait until Saturday! Thanks guys for all the advice, glad to be part of the forums!

Thanks for the replys guys! Much appreciated. Im doing fine in school, and would consider my self quite strong in maths and the sciences (physics) its just the score i want requires a fair bit of time commitment (engineering). I thought about doing it at the end of the year in the holidays but wasnt sure how good it would be to cram it all in kind of thing. But over a two or so month break its probably not that bad. Keep in mind i work in retail also so the summer holidays are crazy for me. If i was to do it during the year, how often would you recommend doing it? I usually work once a week on a sunday afternoon for a couple of hours, so id possibly try and squeeze my flying in that sunday morning, so then i can work for the rest of the day, and just take the day of school work completely. That was my plan. Im glad the theory is quite simple though, and im sure ill enjoy the read anyway. Can anyone provide a sample of a question like that found on the recreational pre-solo exam? And also, id be training out of a uncontrolled airspace. If i was to then go flying at a different airport, say Morabbin, is there a strong learning curve in dealing with ATC, or is the whole recreational pilots liscence requirment that you only fly within the area you trained in? (I remeber reading that somewhere but not sure if its true)

Hi, First post. Im currently 17 turning 18 in a couple of months. I have a passion for aviation, have had various model aircraft throughout my teenage years, and generally just love hoping into a big metal tube and whizzing past in the sky. Ive been toying with the idea of getting my recreational pilots license for a while, but only know have kind of thought what have i got to loose. THere was a lot holding me back in the past. I guess my main question is how much is involved, theory wise in getting your recreational pilots licence in Australia? How mnay hours should i being putting towards it per a week (maximum)? I raise this question because im currently in my last year of schooling. It takes a lot of time, and i also work a part time job. Ideally id getting a flying lesson in every three weeks, possibly every fortnight. Which in itself isnt that time consuming. The theory is my major concern. Can anyone elaborate on the difficulty, time and contents of the theory involved? Im planning on timing it such that im ready to take the theory exam, have my medical done, and be ready to solo after im complete exams for school. Around the November, December time frame before i start univeristy. THanks.