walrus

she wasnt a victim at all. She didnt get a scratch. She was "traumatised".

There is a mathematical basis to this discussion which I think it is important to understand (but not the maths) these are termed "transfer functions" that govern how the control input gets converted to an output and the feedback provided. Transfer functions explain the difference between "Nice", "easy", "hard" etc. The best way to explain it is by reference to Mercedes Benz. A cars "feel" is a transfer function of the tyres, suspension geometry spring rates damping etc, right down to the seat geometry and padding. Mercedes years ago put billions into understanding the transfer functions for a very important reason - they wanted to ensure that the average driver could use 70% - 80% of the cars actual capability in terms of braking, steering, collision avoidance etc. without feeling uncomfortable or in danger. This is a transfer function of how the car "feels" to the driver ie feedback through the steering, seat vibration etc. Mercedes understood that the vehicles ultimate performance was unimportant - what mattered was what fraction of it was actually available to mum and dad without scaring them to death. Other carmakers exclaimed that their cars could perform better than MB ...in the hands of a Lewis Hamilton but none of it was available to the average driver because they will feel unstable and at risk long before the car is anywhere near its limits. This is the source of all those "My torana is faster than your benz" stories. I suggest Piper and Cessna by luck and hard work got most things right and the average pilot can make them perform to specification. Not so other aircraft. I learned about this after taking a Mercedes off the road in a 70 mph perfectly controlled 4 wheel drift with ten passengers on board. I had been licenced for two weeks. We were on our wy to a party. Very little damage to car and none to us. If it had been a Holden or Ford of that era we would have hit a tree or gone into the yarra inverted all dead. I decided to learn about driving after that.

KGW, have you logged in to the website and checked your email address recently?

Let’s all do our best to support our new CEO. From my brief reading of his resume, he has very considerable aviation experience. He deserves a fair go in implementing the RAA business strategy.

BFR $220??? My last GA one was $840 - 2 hrs!

I see lots of young tradies with a Dodge Ram or similar towing a $150,000 wakeboard boat. By those standards an aircraft isn't that expensive. I have one acquaintance, in the concrete business, who just spent about $350,000 on his Jetranger overhaul. Yesterday someone paid $4.3 million for a relatively modest house in my old suburb. Aircraft aren't that expensive consideriing......

Well that's progress for you. When I started sailing, sails were cotton, the ropes hemp. You were always cold and damp because nothing was waterproof including the deck. It was still expensive although you could swap a few bottles for a fresh cray. Maximum speed maybe 6 knots. These days warm dry breathable goretex, carbon fibre, spectra, titanium , autopilots, powered winches and GPS. 20 knots surfing on occasion. I know which I prefer but we still have some beautifully restored antiques for perfect weather use only. I built a quicksilver hang glider from plans circa 1974 and almost killed myself before I sold it. I like a Tiger Moth on a sunny day. However now I will take all the technology I can get. What is happening is that the Seventy (?) year old model of what we used to regard as GA is facing disruptive technology; new engines, GPS, EFIS, carbon and kevlar composite, etc. The gap betweenn sports plane and GA performance is slowly narrowing. Yes, I know they are not certified, but as time progresses that will matter less and less until one day a sports aircraft becomes the better choice. As for utility, it depends. Some destinations are eight hours by road and two hours by air. Sydney is about the same time by commercial and sports aircraft once you factor three to four hours of airport BS into it.

I had Conversations with two different engine and airframe agents recently. Both said, without any prompting from me, that sales were excellent - better than normal. One put it down to the pandemic - intending builders who now had time on their hands and the money to pursue their flying dream. ‘’Anyone asked RAA how busy they are? New pilots? New aircraft?

RFguy, Mogas has a higher energy content than Avgas (3-5%). If your engine is designed to use it, it will perform better with mogas than Avgas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas DO NOT USE FUEL WITH ETHANOL. Ethanol dissolves water into solution. Under some circumstances it can reverse and dump that water into your engine. It also plays hell with your fuel system. https://generalaviationnews.com/2016/10/24/ethanol-and-aircraft-just-say-no/ ‘’As for fuel quality, do what others have advised and buy brand name fuel from busy outlets. Your concerns about contamination are not backed up by experience. Save your money. I’ve had one deliberate contamination incident in fifty years and that was from a cut price no name retailer at peak hill, nsw thirty years ago.

The equation is volume of air in cylinder is proportional to actual air pressure minus manifold pressure. As you go higher you are opening the throttle wider but that is offset by the falling external pressure.

Be careful what you wish for......... ‘Every time you ask for a change in regulations, you are creating an irresistible opportunity for an aspiring bureaucrat to increase his authority, salary and number of subordinates- at YOUR expense. ‘’When someone asks for RAA aircraft to be incorporated on the VH register at no charge, the true bureaucrat is asking why, if RAA aircraft pay annual fees, why shouldn’t VH aircraft do likewise? That would increase CASA revenue and incidentally require more staff and computer systems, making our bureaucrats job bigger and more important. ‘’Same with engaging with CASA about medicals, access to controlled airspace, weight increases, etc. YOU see an opportunity to increase your freedoms. THEY see an opportunity to restrict them further. This is why I worried about the SAAA submission re medical self certification, SAAA want that to be extended to their members. The likely response of a true bureaucrat is to remove that privilege from RAA. ‘’You need a very clear and cohesive position when you argue for change or you will get the worst of both worlds.

It happens at the best of airports. Watched a baron come in against the flow at YMMB. There had been a change of runway a few minutes before and this guy didn’t get the message. The controller in the tower was yelling “break left! break left!”.

There is no need for a plastic card any more. We don’t need car registration stickers for the same reason, Electronics will pick you up if you are not registered. What is needed is the management of registration, not the card. Management costs money. As for a few hundred dollars in annual registration fees, you can either pay it or pay for your medical every two years as well as your hundred hourly maintenance bill. I know which is cheaper. ‘’As for registration in perpetuity being cheaper, I think not. The simple fact of the daily issue of available VH marks and the management of numbers for fleets indicates that such a service is not without costs. ‘’To put it another way, you are a punter thinking of buying a second hand aircraft. Would you like to know it’s registered? Maybe the name and address of the registrant? Do you want to know if it’s not a rebirthed wreck? Maybe never registered at all? Maybe a collection of broken used parts assembled around a bogus registration number? Maybe some more information? A secure and accurate registration system adds value.

What concerns me is that light aircraft flying is starting to “go underground” which is considerably less safe but avoids the endless double bind situations you might face trying to comply with regulations. By that I mean: - if there is no flight plan, there is no evidence to convict me. -if there is no transponder, I can’t be identified if I break controlled airspace. - If I don’t have ADSB, I can’t be flight followed and identified. -If I maintain radio silence, nobody knows I’m flying. - If I don’t get treatment for my illness, Avmed won’t cancel my medical. -If I don’t do a fuel plan and weight and balance, there is no evidence to convict me. -if I don’t use certified airports, I can’t be harassed. -if I don’t enter a defect on the maintenance release, there is no evidence the aircraft might be unsafe. - if I press on, nobody will know about my fuel state. -if I don’t tell people about my accident, it can’t be investigated. ...and last but not least if I don’t call for help now that I’m in trouble, nobody will know I’ve made a punishable serious mistake. ‘’Thoughts running through my mind; CASA, all stick and no carrot. I am told, but have not seen it for myself, that the reputation of CASA is so bad in some places, that GA businesses have been known to stop work, lock up and shut down for the day if a CASA inspector is seen arriving at the airport. The comment was made that :”even people who normally hate each other will ring to pass the warning”.

RFguy: ‘I don’t know you, but in friendship don’t try it. The transition when you finally reach the limit of available lift from the tail is likely to be abrupt and could over stress your wing structure. I am in no way an expert but there is no guarantee that the stabiliser is going too stall in a benign and gradual fashion. To put it another way, you could be into a tail slide or at least an uncommanded stall turn. Unless your aircraft is designed for aerobatics it may fail in reversed airflow.

And another thing.... The performance and capability of 600kg. limit aircraft is rapidly approaching and perhaps surpassing larger/heavier GA types, at least as far as a value proposition is concerned. There is also the emergence of the “STOL’ market segment - people who want to keep right away from airports of any kind, that seems to be appealing to a younger demographic. What this means to me is that the boundaries between GA, experimental and RAA are going to be further blurred. Without some harmonisation, absurdities are going to proliferate. In addition CASA is, in my opinion, unlikely to be able to keep up with the technology driven performance changes. For example, according to what I’ve been told, AsA will occasionally agree to a request for non entitled RAA aircraft to traverse controlled airspace. Similarly certain non TSO avionics are accepted for some tasks. UAV’S are going to add to the confusing mix as well. Then there are glaring. holes in parts of the regulations themselves.....

Noting the SAAA submission to the Senate RRAT and the RAAust response. All I can say is disunity is a disaster. I’m a member of both organizations. It would be nice to harmonise regulation and standards if we could keep the best of both organisations. Regrettably, I think we are more likely to end up with the worst features of each; eg. stricter medical requirements for everyone, less access to controlled airspace for all, $800 data packs for registration. etc., etc.. ‘None of this sounds like a win/win situation.

I don’t think Airmaster has any props for Lycoming or Continentals. They design for rotax engines and one or two others.

True

Skip, it’s not necessarily foolish. In my opinion what counts is the size of the aircraft performance envelope in terms of stalling speed to maximum cruise. Something like a C172 has a max speed of a little over twice stall (roughly 45 Vso and max 110) However a Savannah has a much bigger envelope about three times stall (30Vso and max about 90). Then you get to RV’S etc and the range is even bigger. On U.S. aviation boards you can read endless discussions from people trying to find a suitable compromise pitch setting with their ground adjustable props. A CS prop gets rid of that problem. Then there are all these new engines, but some of them have useless torque curves because you have to set pitch to avoid the possibility of over revving on takeoff. They advertise huge horses at high rpm, but you can’t use the power without a CS PROP.

Agreed Nev, there is always the possibility of the regulator (electronic or hydraulic) failure. The regs call, I think, for the ability to climb on full coarse and the fine pitch stop gives you the same. There is a lot of tosh talked about CS props but they are a trade off - performance vs. complexity and weight. A fixed pitch prop is also a trade off. In my case I want more than usual range and a CS prop appears to be the way to et it and still keep within 600kg.

Airmaster CSU props have backup mechanical pitch stops to prevent this type of failure. You set them as partof the installation routine.

They adjust to keep constant rpm. Fuel flow and MAP ‘should” confirm you are making rated power, but I guess an engine analyser with individual EGT’s would be needed to absolutely confirm there isn’t a burned valve or clogged injector somewhere.....

Thruster and RFguy, yes. You have to monitor fuel flow as well as manifold pressure to ensure your CS prop is not masking power loss. You are taught that amongst other things in a CS endoresement. A CS prop saves you from the niggling crap you can see on American threads: “what did you set your prop to? Yadda, Yadda. A CS prop is almost always, by definition, at the optimum pitch for the manifold pressure you have selected. Someone told me “you can buy a lot of fuel for the price of a CS Prop”. True, but I can’t stuff money in my fuel tanks. I bought one for range considerations. Coincidentally, the weight saving from a lithium battery balances out the extra prop weight. Confession: I love doing Caribou style steep approaches. A CS prop set full fine is a great airbrake.

PUSH NOSE DOWN. GET TO TWICE STALL SPEED. TURN HARD AND COORDINATED. You MUST get to twice stall speed before you execute.