APenNameAndThatA

a) Inertia and momentum are the same thing. b) If something is weighed on a scale and the scale says 2.35, then the mass is 2.35 kg. (Assuming the object is not being accelerated and the scale is accurate and being used on the surface of Earth.) c) You messed up because force is measured in newtons, not kg.

Yes. Some people have posted here about what survival kits they would carry. The survival kit that you should carry for remote areas is very simple. a) Sat phone, b) EPIRB (or whatever the correct acronym is), and c) as much water as you can carry, say 10 L per person.

Disclaimer: I have about 90 hours. On the other hand, I have bought my aircraft for touring and exploring the desert so have given it some thought. I think that if you want to see the sights, you are better off with a high-wing aircraft. If you want to avoid misery half the year, avoid something with a bubble canopy. Your aircraft will not be hangered for the 12 months. I was not game to get a composite aircraft because I did not know what the sun would do to it, so I was keen on getting something that was not composite. I suspect that if you are touring, you will want the ability to land on short, rough, soft fields. I have not landed there, but, for example there is a strip to the north of Fraser Island that I would not want to take a plane with small wheels. I needed tricycle undercarriage because I am inexperienced. That left aluminium, high wing aircraft large wheels. The Foxbat is mostly aluminium, but the control surfaces are fabric and the cowel is fiberglass. That is what I ended up getting. The Zenith is a kit plane. I might have got a Savannah but I did not fit. Even if I did fit, the cabin would have been much smaller than the Foxbat, which is roomy and has excellent visibility. The Brumby did not have enough useful load, and a review in Australian Flying said it lacked rudder authority (!) IIRC, the SuperSTOL, Highlander and Hornet are all tricycle gear, and the Hornet is very slow. There are lots of Foxbats in Australia, and the support from Foxbat Australia is excellent. They use them on cattle stations a lot. Foxbats cruise at 90 kts. There is the Vixxen which is much faster and is more expensive, but is not approved for use with big tyres like can be used on the Foxbat. IIRC, they are 6 x 6.00. I have been told that if you put big wheels on a Vixxen, it ends up no faster than a Foxbat. There is an older version of the Foxbat with a lower MTOW that is much less expensive and would be okay for flying alone. Eurofoxes are fabric and smaller inside that the Foxbat; they need attention to the rudder when flying but have a very benign stall. There are other planes that are older relatives of the ICP Savannah and look a bit like it. I would not emphasise speed in my purchase decision. If you have a fast plane, there will be lots of places you cannot get to at all because of the landing strips, and you will be wondering if your plane will be able to handle a particular strip. Aircraft Reference SuperSTOL wikipedia.Just_Superstol Flyingmag.com Highlander www.justaircraft. com Zenigth CH 750 zenithair.com WITH CINTINENTAL O-200 therefore with 912S Foxbat A22LS Kelpie foxbat.com.au (112L) http://www.hdfc.com.au/foxbat-a22ls AAK Hornet STOL wikipedia ICP Savannah wikipeia (jab) fly-buylsa.com CH 701 zenithair.com (912s) Summit 2 (50kph) summitaerosports.com Eurofox K2 and K3 http://www.aerotrek.aero Kitfox SS7 http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com

The actual answer is that whichever ship has the most favourable tides will go faster, this factor being much more important than air density. It also overcomes the issue of hull speed.

About flying in your mind, you can do the same thing when you are learning to navigate long trips. You can sit in a lounge chair, look at your watch, plot on the map and fill out your flight log.

I train at Archerfield and don't find that I get held up for more than a few moments. There are other reasons to train at a non-controlled field, and I suppose some controlled fields do waste your time. I passed the RA-Aus theory exams by myself, but I did physics (gasses, momentum, acceleration) and maths (vectors) in Grade 11 and 12, which helped a lot. The other thing, which I hinted at before, is that it does not matter if you attempt an exam and fail. In fact, the more you fail the more you learn. I found stalling too frightening to do. So I went on the thrill rides at Dreamworld and Movie World (the giant drop, the claw, the tailspin, rollercoasters) about 90 times. I went from keeping my eyes and barely being able to go on the ride to not hanging on and being a bit scared (the giant drop) to enjoying them (the rest). As I bragged on this forum earlier, I performed and recovered from an inverted spin. That was great fun. I was on the rides with little kids and the occasional intellectually disabled adults, so it is a phobia that some people have and some don't. The risk of dying is about 1 in 1000 per year for the general population. RA-Aus has a fatal accident every 100 000 hours. That means a risk of death of about 1 in 2000 if you fly 50 hours per year. As best I can determine, it is more dangerous than driving and less dangerous than riding a motorbike. My own view is that it is not dangerous but it is not safe either. Other people who post to this forum have a completely different way of viewing risk. I suggest that you wear a helmet. The inside of Most LSA's have steel bars at head height that would be completely illegal in a car. Helicopter pilots wear helmets and fixed wing pilots tend not to. The difference is therefore more based on culture and cost than risk. Wearing a helmet also slows things down and they are a nuisance to fit. MSA is said to be better than Alpha. I suspect that Evolution/Evo helmets are merely helmet-shaped objects, but I might be wrong. There are other, cheaper brands that are much cheaper and vastly better than nothing. My family and I are the only people I know of who wear helmets in enclosed RA-Aus aircraft, so this is a minority opinion. Also about the fatality statistics, for every fatality, there are probably an order of magnitude more nasty accidents. One of my jobs is assessing the psychiatric permanent impairment from physical injuries. I see lots of people whose lives are badly affected by soft tissue injuries that just never stop hurting.

Grit is more important than talent. Failure is an inevitable byproduct of success. Flying instructors vary in quality.

If all else fails, the longest answer is most likely to be the correct one.

This is me doing an inverted spin and recovery in an Extra 300. I stand by my previous comments and have nothing to add. 201121a EX300 Inv Spin - Copy.mp4 201121a EX300 Inv Spin - Copy.mp4

Triple fail, Turbo. The first fail was that you missed the comment in my original post that was wrong, and, if followed, actually could have caused a problem if someone followed it. I said to recover from a stall by, all at once, applying full power, aileron neutral and release back pressure. In fact, according to the FAA, you should move the stick forward (if you are not inverted) THEN apply full power. They said that the reason for applying the controls in that order was so that one was not tempted to try and maintain altitude with the elevators and still break the stall. So, the correct order or actions is the opposite the the order that I presented. I also suspect that anther reason to move the stick forward before applying power is that it is important to avoid applying more power before moving the stick forward. If you apply power before moving the stick forward, you might increase the airflow across the elevators, increasing their effectiveness, increase the angle of attack, and worsen the stall. Also, if you apply power before the moving the stick forward, and the thrust line is below the centre of drag and/or the centre of gravity, you might pitch the nose up, increase the angle of attack and worsen the stall. (I think that I will see if this is true, flying with an instructor.) The second fail was that you suggested that I might kill somebody by posting a theory. The third fail was that you could have pointed out that the reasons to cut the power in a spin include that adding power flattens the spin, and that if the spin is actually a spiral dive, you will more quickly exceed the structural capacity of the plane. People are supposed to read up the theory before they have the corresponding lesson. Asking questions here is part of me reading up on the theory before the lesson.

You are so right. 👍

The answer is that I'll get more out of it if I think about it before I do it. Also, as far as I know, Foxbat don't have a specified method of spin recovery, so it's going to have to be generic.

Anytime someone reads a book, they are learning to fly by correspondence. And suggesting that I could kill someone by writing down a guess is just ludicrous, Facthunter's +1 notwithstanding.

Forums might be a bad way to teach managing emergencies, but I think that helping people think through emergencies and what they would do in them can only help. Athletes prepare by visualising themselves doing what they are supposed to do. I imagine that us sitting her and imagining what we would do can only help. Also, I think I will add "airspeed" to the start of the sequence "power, aileron, rudder, elevator" because if you are all over the place, and you are going fast, you cut the throttle and level the wings simultaneously. That is easy to remember.

Roundsounds said to not use the rudder to pick up the wing, and Nev said that using too much rudder to pick up a wing can cause problems. Both comments are basically saying the same thing, and I don't doubt that they are right. My question is "Why?" I am going to attempt to answer the original question, when do you open the throttle and when do you close it. My guess is that you open the throttle if you can definitely unstall the descending wing if you increase your forward speed of the aircraft. Looking at the same thing differently, it depends if you need more kinetic energy in the system or less kinetic energy, where rotational energy trumps the energy of linear movement. If the airplane is rotating too much, you need less energy, so close the throttle. The above is a guess.

Good point to add spiral the the list of things that can make a wing drop. I had always thought that adding as much rudder as you wanted was fine to keep a wing up. It is important to know if that can cause problems. What problems can it cause?

I'll answer by own question, Turbo. If you are upside down, you are entering a spin, so throttle to idle. 🙄

Saturday.

So, recovery from stall is: all at once: full power, aileron neutral, opposite rudder, release back pressure. Spin recovery is: one after the other: power to idle, ailerons neutral, opposite rudder, release back pressure. So, when do you decide that you are no longer just stalling and have started spinning? Most of the actions are roughly equivalent, but what you do with the throttle is opposite.

There is a shortage of hanger space everywhere it seems.

Five hour flying time per year IS leaving something around to rot.

No point getting the owner to get the condition report. Don't bother. You need to get someone to get and airplane mechanic to spend a few hours going over it. Otherwise, don't bother. And, they need to know Jabarus.

Rag and tube LSA's have been replaced by weight shift. So, many of the new LSA's are plastic fantastics. Shouldn't you be trying to talk things up?

That is completely incorrect.

Single seat four stroke. I'd go with this. Late model for this particular aircraft. You would need to get an independent inspection, and factor in shipping.