APenNameAndThatA

My car is registered and therefore can be driven on the road. I don't need to specify that the driver has to be licenced. Others here have pointed out that aircraft need to be fitted with a transponder before they can fly in controlled airspace. So, it is relevant to the ad. Also, I met a flying instructor once who told me that an aircraft is not permitted to fly over a built up area unless it has a certified engine. In short, saying that the aircraft can fly over controlled airspace is both true and informative. The idea that the pilot needs to be appropriately licenced is obvious and outside the scope of an ad. WAY outside the scope of an ad. 

1 hour ago, walrus said:

you need it in your jacket pocket when flying.

I don’t understand why you would say this? 

Discussing things with you one one site is plenty, thank you. 

19 hours ago, old man emu said:

Can we get off this Centripetal/Centrifugal Force thing? It's obvious that nobody is willing to try to understand it and it is not getting an answer to the original question

 

 

This is a pattern. When people disagree with you, you assume that they are dumb. Centrifugal force is apparent, but it is also real. Let me explain. Centripital force and centrifugal force act in opposite directions. If you have a rock tied to the end of a string and swing it around your head, the string goes tight. String can only go tight if it is under tension. A piece of string can only be under tension if it is being pulled from *both* ends in *both* directions. The apparent part of centrifugal force is not that it does not exist, but that if you let go of a string, the stone flys forward and not straight out. 

You still have not learnt after you said that centrifugal force in the propeller diagram was there in error. It was not there in error. Someone smart enough to create a propeller diagram will be smart enough to know the nature of centrifugal force. 

On 10/02/2021 at 7:51 AM, old man emu said:

It is hard to reply correctly to that statement because we need to specify when the density changes. Normally we fly on Area QNH. The acronym QNH is one of the Q(uestion) code names developed, circa 1909, for use in morse code. To concisely ask for atmospheric pressure at mean sea level (MSL), the operator would transmit the letters QNH. This was understood to mean "I have a question. What is the atmospheric pressure at Nil Height", i.e. at mean sea level.

 

These are the boundaries of Area QNH for Australia. http://www.pilotpracticeexams.com/courses/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Image-2019-02-26-at-10.22.52-AM.png

 

We know that pressure systems move across Australia from west to east, so while an Area QNH is current for three hours, commencing 0100 UTC and each three hours thereafter, an altimeter set to Area QNH will be representative to within ±5 hPa of any actual QNH of any location within the defined area. If a pressure system, usually a Low, is crossing the continent, the actual air pressure is constantly changing, but we don't usually keep adjusting the subscale as we fly along within a QNH zone.

 

Interestingly, if we are flying towards a low pressure area, and our altimeter is set to Area QNH, the altimeter will gradually overread our actual height because the air pressure is dropping and the altimeter interprets that as the aircraft climbing. So if we keep flying at a constant indicate altitude based on a QNH derived altimeter reading, we could fly into the ground.

 

So, getting back to the original quote, if we fly within a QNH Zone using the Area QNH, we don't alter the sub-scale until Air Services changes it at the end of the three hour validity period. However, if we cross a QNH Zone boundary, we need to check with Air Services for the current Area QNH in that zone, and possibly adjust the sub scale.

 

If an altimeter has reminder markings to mark Vso - Stall speed or minimum flight speed in landing configuration they have a safety factor of 1.3. In practice that should take care of local air density changes on altimeter indications at airfields in Australia, which for the whole continent average out at about 1000' AMSL.

Safety factors have nothing to do with QNH. What often happens is that you cut and paste stuff from the internet, and then add add an erroneous conclusion. That would not be a problem, except people up vote your comments as if they believe you. 

On 10/02/2021 at 11:18 AM, old man emu said:

You have to go back to read what the person who was quoted said.

 

ARO said, "The important V speeds Vs0, Vs1, VFE are IAS not TAS."

To which I replied, "ARO, I specifically wrote TAS because the Lift equation uses TAS, not IAS" to explain why I had written what I had.

 

The ARO said," It's inconvenient to constantly adjust speeds for changing density"

Then I went off topic a bit to explain that what we know about air density and how it changes, especially with the movement of atmospheric pressure systems, usually has no huge effect as we potter around within one QNH zone in good flying weather. Indicating on an ASI face where the needle should point for an airspeed that is your aircraft's normal landing speed increased by a factor of 1.3 (30%) should work for 90+per cent of the flights we make.

It's getting so that before I post a comment I will have to provide a list of definitions, formulae and constraints so that people don't immediately shoot back with minute exceptions to the generality.

Your list of errors is a mile long and I'm not sure that you accept that they are errors. I can list them if you want. 

On 09/02/2021 at 12:30 PM, old man emu said:

Never try to remember something that you can look up in print. In this case the "in print" are those simple strips of tape.

 

Isn't is amazing that airspeed indicators are marked with the white, green and yellow ranges out of the box, but no one ever says to "calibrate" them for your aircraft.

 

White Arc - Flap operating range

Green Arc - Normal operating speed in smooth and turbulent air

Yellow Arc - Operations in smooth are only.

 

Vso - Stall speed or minimum flight speed in landing configuration

Vs1 - Stall speed or minimum steady flight speed for which the aircraft is still controllable in a specific configuration

VRef - Landing reference speed or threshold crossing speed - The speed to be "over the numbers"

Vx - Speed that will allow for best angle of climb - Obstacle clearance speed

Vy - Speed that will allow for the best rate of climb

 

NOTE:

On the illustrated ASI, there is a moveable scale to allow for IAS to be converted to TAS. Remember that the Lift formula is expressed in terms of TAS, so if you have one of these ASIs that has a moveable scale, the markings for V speeds should be on that scale.

The V speeds are based on IAS. 

19 minutes ago, SSCBD said:

The USA drone market ban is not going to hurt Rotax

It *might* be the opening a competitor needs to make Rotax the next Nokia or Kodak. 

I think drones are a good idea. The problem is that the way they are deployed means that each time you kill five combatants you incense 100 people enough to become combatants. The US has provided a bad example to the world. Imagine China treating Australia the way the US treats other countries?  

On 04/02/2021 at 10:29 AM, old man emu said:

What is the link to the site that contained the picture?

 

If you want to get into the nitty-gritty, sit yourself down with a refreshing drink of your own choosing and read the attached pdf.

62174-244239-1-SM.pdf 698.21 kB · 2 downloads

 

Here's another reference : https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/propeller-blade

 

This diagram is from an article in the above reference. Can you C the error in the vector digrams?

 

I can't see the error in the diagram. From an engineering point of view, centrifugal force does exist because it opposes the centripetal force. Stated differently, if it were not for the centrifugal force, centripetal  force would zap the blade tips into the propeller hub. Stated differently again, centrifugal force is the force exerted by the blades because of their momentum. The idea that centrifugal force does not exist, as I think you have stated, is because if the blade were separated, it would fly in the direction of delta Q rather than the direction of delta C. Where this idea falls down is that the moment the blade breaks off, the centripital force stops, and the moment that happens centrifugal force stops, and the blade stops accelerating. So, if this is what you were referring to, delta C in the diagram is perfectly correct.

13 hours ago, NT5224 said:

Ok kinda a dumb question here. I've stupidly forgotten my flight bag  with licence, POH, maintenance release,  logbook etc... Can I still  legally fly circuits from my own strip over my own land? 

 

I'll have  ERSA and other electronic documents in my EFB (which is with me).

 

Alan

Disclaimer: I have 117 hours. At the risk of giving patronising advice, you could leave the POH and logbook with the plane so that it is always legal. You can scan the POH and logbook in case they get lost, and update the logbook with your phone.

1 hour ago, Yenn said:

Does RAAus require a MR. Do they even have such a thing?

You need to sign the RA-Aus MR before the first flight of the day.

Make sure you fit. I'm 1.94 m and don't fit in a Savannah.

Landing would be fun. Taking off - not so much. 

8 hours ago, RFguy said:

if you want a bit of glass, try an Uavionix AV-30  (or a pair of them) - they fit in a round hole.  but that's off topic.

Or gamin aera 760? Which is portable 

On 26/01/2021 at 12:27 PM, extralite said:

More of a GA issue when flying IFR.

 

If a clearance cannot be obtained on the ground in places where ATC can't be reached on the ground, won't it involve having to stay under 1500ft until a clearance can be obtained? Depending on radio traffic and ATC load, this can take some time. So on an IFR flight plan, possibly with low cloud, can't ensure terrain clearance by planning a departure within the splay set out in ersa, or reverse approach etc.  If cloud is a factor, i think it would mean having to maneuver clear of cloud within the circling area which is not really idea. Or is there another approach?

You don’t need clearance to fly in Class E. 

I see disagreement rather than trolling. I think that even the people I disagree with are making an honest effort. There is the added incentive that people think that what others have posted is dangerous. For example, some people misinterpreted a recent post I made as advocating flying over weight. Since more than one person thought that that’s what I was advocating, it  looks like what I said was not clear. 

I don’t have a clue about how long the theory will take. I expect it will depend what education you have already done. If you studied high school physics and maths, that will help. Specifically, the physics of gasses and of the acceleration, energy and momentum of masses. And the maths of vectors, trigonometry, algebra, and a little calculus. If you did any navigation or orienteering or messed about with mechanical things that would help. Someone said sailing helped. I had never sailed but I expect that it would definitely help. If you have exposure to the above, very little will be completely foreign. 
 

Bob Taits books are probably the gold standard, but imperfect. To learn enough for the PPL is about 800 pages. Maybe ⅔ of that for the RAAus Certificate. 
 

Some say you should learn three hours on the ground for every hour in the air. So 30 x 4 = 120 hours. Round up to 200 and that’s my guess. Others might disagree. But I thought I would give a shot at answering. 

16 hours ago, onetrack said:

Always upgrade if you can afford it. Mechanical items of equipment get "old" very quickly, with the rapid passing of years. With the reference to "old", I mean - parts get harder to acquire, blueprints are thrown out, buyers become more scarce when your item of machinery is deemed "old". 20 years is a general guide to "old", as regards mechanical items.

 

Yes, you can still run them at 30 and 40 years old, but they are then classed as "antiques" - or in more kindly terms, "classic" - but nothing gets around the fact that they have been superseded, technologically, and design-wise.

 

Then there's the reliability factor of older items of equipment. Yes, you can spend big $$$'s making them as new as possible, mechanically, and electrically, and electronically - but often, it's the little annoying small non-critical things that break with age, that cause holdups and lack of availability.

 

I'd sell what you've got, and go for a newer machine that is fitted with the nicer and newer options, that you're looking for. Bugger the cost, it's only money - you forget about that angle when you're getting lots of pleasure from your new toy.

 

Disclaimer: I am not an expert.

I wonder if, at 13 years old, OP's aircraft will not have already gone through most of its depreciation. That would mean that, if it still flys as well as a new one, it would be more economical to keep it. Also, as far as I know, Sportstars are still being produced. This means that it will not become an orphan and parts should remain available. Of course, it would be nice to upgrade, but OP might spend a lot of money to upgrade and still end up with exactly the same flying experience. I suppose that finding out how much he might be able to sell the airplane for and how much a new one would cost would be worthwhile. OP  might want to upgrade, but with LSA's I am not sure what he would upgrade to. Cirrus? Bush plane?

Like most of these things that pretend to ask what I want to know, I didn't care about the EFI/carby, I wanted to know if the superharger would make the engine explode.

I can't get past the background music. It feels like I'm watching an ad for a torch/flashlight that has been designed for the military and is so powerful that perhaps it should be banned, or an ad with some joker in a rented Porsche explaining how I can buy things for $0.33 an sell a thousand a month on eBay for $25.

If you can't do 4a, then the decision becomes more complicated. Lose cash because you mess up your plane, or lose cash because of the trade - you would need to research the $ cost of each option. My own experience is that a Dynon is *much* easier to read in a cockpit because it is bright. But my plane came with a Dynon because it has a fuel-injected 912. If you just want a moving map, isn't there some Garmin thing you can Velcro to the panel and not lose your factory status. What do you want glass for?

Disclaimer: I have 117 hrs and have never never done more to my plane than measure the tyre pressures.

36 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Excess power enables climb. Nev

Power x time = work. 
force plus movement gives work. 
half makes sense. It is good to be confused. Happens before learning something. 

6 hours ago, facthunter said:

Formula's are great if you apply the right one. The universal gas equation has 3 components to it, all equalling a constant.

  Also if you reduce the weight you can climb slower at the  same ANGLE OF ATTACK. Angle of attack relates to stall speeds and also best climb speed. You don't increase lift to climb except a tiny bit to initiate it. Lift stays close to weight unless you have lot's of power and do a steep climb and THEN you need LESS lift.  Nev

That is counter intuitive, but after you have initiated the climb, the aircraft is no longer accelerating. But more work is being done against gravity. I’m confused. Thanks. 😆

8 hours ago, Jabiru7252 said:

What does one mean when they say "Foxbats don't have laminar flow wings"? Isn't all airflow over a wing 'laminar' (during normal flight) or am I having a senior's moment?

I think that the smooth lines representing the air flow around pictures of wings causes confusion. Most air around a wing, at the surface, is turbulent. That is not the same as airflow separating from the wing, which is what happens in a stall. 
. 

Some mathematician or other proved that it is impossible for *any* wing to have only laminar flow.

. 

I went looking for something on the internet about laminar/turbulent/stalled airflow and didn’t find anything about that. But, apparently, the WW2 Mustang wing was designed to be laminar but wasn’t because it wasn’t smooth enough, even though they tried to make it smooth enough! 
.

I am not sure if non laminar includes a tiny bit at the leading edge. 

.
I imagine that vortex generators, which stop separation by energising the airflow, are very not laminar! So, they decrease stall by increasing turbulence. 
 

On 22/01/2021 at 9:32 PM, Thruster88 said:

Isn't the OP asking what weight would give the same performance at 45°C as he gets at 600kg and 15°C?

Thank you for at least thinking about what I was asking. My question was as follows. If the MTOW is 600 kg on a normal day, should the weight be decreased on a really really hot day because performance will be less. Seems like a perfectly interesting question. One answer is "No, DUH, or it would be in the POH".

Another answer might be that, theoretically, from some points of view, the MTOW could reasonably be *higher*. My understanding of Vno is that it is set so that if there is a really big updraft, the aircraft stalls (because of the increased AoA) before the aircraft is subjected to more than the design limits. If the air was not dense at all, and the aircraft was flying at Vno, then the AoA would be higher in level flight, meaning that the wing would stall with a less severe updraft, providing an extra margin of safety and an actually higher Vno.

For similar reasons, the actual Va could be higher for very thin air.

No I'm not advocating taking off at high weight. This is a true story. I took off one day a very small amount overweight by accident and was surprised how much performance was degraded. It was uncomfortable. So, I said to myself, "How would my plane have flown if it was 40 C instead of 25".

At least OME was directing some thought to the question. So, thank you OME.