APenNameAndThatA

And if you can see the 5000 metres and see you're off track, why not just adjust your heading slightly to intercept the next on-track feature, then make another small adjustment to have yourself running on track.

 

While I have been practicing for my nav test, I  have learnt to either fly a heading OR proceed visually. I am tempted to half fly a heading and twist it a bit to make up for unexpected winds. 

the advantage of flying a heading and then correcting it is that you can fly a/the second more difficult half of your trip with more accuracy. 

On 07/01/2020 at 9:37 AM, old man emu said:

 

The 1 in 60 rule is a nice thing to know if you are flying very long distances at high speed, but to try to apply it for short flights at speeds below 100 kts is making the argument ad absurdum. Have a look at the presentation of the 1 in 60 rule in this video. The track lengths and off-track distances are very small, resulting in off-heading amounts of only a few degrees.

 

Well, well, well. I based my assessment of the 1 in 60 rule on the assumption that you would measure how far you had actually flown, not how far you had hypothetically gone down the original track. The video uses the example of the intended track. That version of the 1:60 rule will be accurate up to about 10 degrees off track, as others have said. Bob Tait, in his RA-Aus cross country endorsement seems to switch between methods. 

Using the original track is easier because you don’t have to measure the hypotenuse. 

The hypotenuse is the better method for navigation because, for example that is the only method that tells you your ground speed and allows you to determine what the winds actually are - not that I would attempt to do that alone in flight. 

But it is good to throw this "over thinking" around on these forums. Now I bet Apen will fly with the map on his knees and his eyes outside. After all, this is recreational flying. We don't have "air races" any more where it is essential to keep "on track, on time" to win the prize.

 

Yes. As I was destroying my brain doing the maths. BUT, now that the maths is done, it turns out that you have to think less, not more. The 1 in 60 rule is accurate up to being *really* off course. You don't have to think about it just being a rule of thumb. 

The rule is only good for small deviations. 10 miles off in 60 is 9.5 degrees approx.

 

40 off in 60 is approx. 33.7 degrees.

 

As others have said it is hard to judge distance off and I would not be waiting until I had gone 60 miles to try to fix my track, unless I had no other option.

 

It used to work well in the old days, before all the GPS and other gizmos, but we could plot it onto the map and use a protractor.

 

My understanding is that you are supposed to use the hypotenuse for the distance that you have flown, not the distance of the original, intended track. So, if you have flown 60 miles and are off course by 40 miles, you are off course by 42 degrees. (If the original distance that you were supposed to fly was 60 miles and you are off track by 40 miles, then you are off track by 33.7 degrees.) As you say, plotting it on a map is just as effective as using maths. 

The tanks will only cross feed on BOTH if the ball is out of the middle. Banking is irrelevant if the ball is in the middle. Some more revision on aerodynamics is indicated for some people.

 

Except if the fuel-return line sends fuel to a different tank to the one that was being used. With non-fuel injected Foxbats, you are supposed to only use one tank at a time because you can end up losing fuel as it is pumped to a tank that is already full. 

I have own a Foxbat and now have a Sav XL. Took a little getting used to but for the Sav is by far a better flying machine.

 

I got a foxbat. I don’t fit in a Sav. 

The 1 in 60 rule is only appropriate for small deviations off track. It is good to see this proved mathematically.

 

What amazes me is that if you are off track by 40 degrees, the one in 60 rule is still less than one degree inaccurate. 40 degrees off course is a lot. 

Please post a link to the article that contains this graph

 

/monthly_2020_01/1in60.thumb.jpg.f0269e0e7e609fa29a062baa9bdc4ffc.jpg

 

The graphic came from an iPhone app called Desmos. It is a cropped screenshot from my iPhone. 

This article needs proof-reading, Ian. The first couple of sentences don't make sense, due to missing and mis-spelt words.

 

As you know, the one in 60 rule is that you are off course one degree for every nautical mile you would BE off course if you had travelled 60 miles. So, for example, if you are off course one MILE after flying 10 miles, you are off course six degrees (6 x 10 = 60). I wondered how accurate the rule is. As far as I can tell, very accurate up until you are 40 degrees off course.  

Below is what I hope is the graph of the error of the one in sixty rule. The y-axis (up and down axis) is is error. There is no error at zero and thirty degrees. The x-axis is the course. The black line what the one in 60 rule says is how far off course you ARE. The blue line is how far off course you actually are. As you can see, when you are 90 degrees off course, the one in 60 rule says that you are only 60 degrees off course. At about 17 degrees off course, the rule overestimates by about 0.5 degrees. At 40 degrees, it underestimates by only one degree. Amazingly accurate for something that is supposed to be a rule of thumb. 

As you know, the one in 60 rule is that you are off course one degree for every nautical mile you would by off course if you had travelled 60 miles. So, for example, if you are off course one mine after flying 10 miles, you are off course six degrees (6 x 10 = 60). I wondered how accurate the rule is. As far as I can tell, very accurate up until you are 40 degrees off course.  

Below is what I hope is the graph of the error of the one in sixty rule. The y-axis (up and down axis) is is error. There is no error at zero and thirty degrees. The x-axis is the course. The black line what the one in 60 rule says is how far off course you. The blue line is how far off course you actually are. As you can see, when you are 90 degrees off course, the one in 60 rule says that you are only 60 degrees off course. At about 17 degrees off course, the rule overestimates by about 0.5 degrees. At 40 degrees, it underestimates by only one degree. Amazingly accurate for something that is supposed to be a rule of thumb. 

Hi Everyone,

 

So, I have been ‘grounded’ for months while my flying school awaits its new aircraft:-(.  Getting bored not flying, so I thought maybe to try using a flight simulator for LSA.  Not interested in complex stuff, not wanting to fly a 747 etc.

 

I have joystick and rudder hardware and a good spec PC.

 

Any ideas appreciated:-)

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

So, they sold the old plane months before the new one was due to arrive? And they only had one plane to begin with? Wow. It would be nice if they could borrow a local Vixxen/Foxbat for a while. Maybe you could travel to a different club for a while. I assume that you don't feel like flying GA in Rocky for a while? If you want to fly out of Rockhampton itself, you will need a GA licence? 

I love the way people come in on a topic obviously without taking the time to review the material in the post. It took a lot of time to search for information on this topic and to present it in a clear an comprehensible way. 

 

Did Facthunter and Yenn even bother to investigate the links I provided? I very much doubt it. At no time, apart from initially referring to how chrome/moly tubing is joined, did I mention welding sheet metal or dealing with destressing areas where heat had been applied in the course of welding. I even mentioned that heat welding of aluminium is difficult and apart from learning to control the weld, people doing aluminium welding require a special formulation in their welder's helmet lens.

 

Well, they are probably glad they didn't bother. They were probably under the impression that chatting was okay... 

You sure the stall if 54 kts and the best glide speed is 60 kts. Those numbers seem too close together to me. In the Foxbat, IIRC, they are 42 and 54 respectively. Disclaimer: I have about 50 hrs. 

What is IPS? What difference did it make? Scuse my ignorance. 

The F.u.n.k.e. if my Foxbat feels beautifully made and has not broken down yet. Thank you for the heads-up about Microair. 

I bought a second hand Foxbat about 12 months ago, which has the same manufacturer and distributor. They have provided excellent support, both with getting things and giving me information. For example, they got me a bit of the firewall that cracked (but had not cracked on anyone else's plane apparently), pretty quickly. They sent me a ballistic parachute quickly, even though they are a pain to get from the factory because they contain a rocket. And you pay after your stuff arrives, at least for smallish things. 

They way I see it, there are so many airplanes to choose from that it is sensible to get a plane with good support, not just a good plane. They have sold hundreds of Foxbats in Australia and quite a few Vixxens, so if you get a Vixxen it won't be an orphan. Peter said online that he sold two Foxbats and two Vixxen at whatever the recent flying event was that had the high winds. 

I have never heard the slightest suggestion that the Vixxen's claimed slow stall and fast cruise are exaggerated. I have minimal skills as a pilot and, IF I remember correctly, I was flying along in a Foxbat at 22 kt indicated on the Dynon with power but no flaps. The Vixxen is supposed to stall a knot slower than the Foxbat. 

One thing about the Vixxen, if you want to fit 8.00 X 6 tyres (like on a Foxbat Kelpie) you will be doing something that the factory has not approved and loses you all the speed gains over a Foxbat - at least that was the case a year ago. I am not sure about more normal 6 x 6.00 tyres, which are (in my opinion) probs just as good on rough surfaces so long as they are only four ply. 

I just listened to "Why Planes Crash" by David Soucie, on Audible. The book claims to be the true of David Soucie, an FAA investigator who made air travel safer. Mr Soucie has gone on to be an aviation expert repeatedly interviewed by CNN and others.To say the least, the book said a lot of things that I just did not understand. I emailed the publisher (Skyhorse Publishing) and they said that mine was the first such message that they had received and that the book was published in 2011. That is to say, they did not believe me and/or care. So, I thought I would crowd source it. Happy listening. 

I like the idea of an airplane with no fabric. I probably would have got one instead of a Foxbat except that I did not fit. The seat is not really lowerable.  The flap controls were the least of my problems. I have to console myself with an aluminium airplane with fabric control surfaces, just like a Spitfire or P-51 Mustang. (Actually, the underneath of the wings is fabric, too, on a Foxbat). 

 There's a lot of what might be referred to as adverse aileron effect.. Better to anticipate it than try to correct later. Near stall it's just what you don't want.  Nev

 

Good point. The wing with the higher AoA slows down with adverse yaw. I fly a foxbat, which has both flaperons and adverse yaw. 

Flapperons have their downside.. You really need a different control style with them with more rudder lead. (and a more effective rudder than otherwise needed). Nev

 

How do you mean "rudder lead"? Do you mean that to start a turn, you use rudder a moment before you start using aileron? 

This would be part of the reason they kept him circling for an hour, to get the right people in the tower where he needed them. The other would be to get the fire trucks fuelled up.

 

TBH, if I was the instructor, being kept circling for an hour during my medical emergency would have seemed a bit unfair. 

 

Good start!

 

I didn't see your qualifying statement about "flying straight ahead" and stall. Anyway, my comment is pretty much the same. The objective with the use of rudder in a stall is NOT to keep the wings level, particularly not to return the wings to level after an entry to an incipient spin.

 

My bad!

RUDDER YAW

 

If rudder is added to level wings at stall(ish) speed, the wing inside the ark from rudder application will lesson the speed of that wing,

 

while the opposite wing(outside that same ark) , will gain speed, hence more lift,

 

One wing with greater lift than the other will roll aircraft over. contributing a spin.

 

Hope I got it right.

 

spacesailor

 

I was talking about when the rudder is added when the wings are not level to begin with. 

10 hours ago, djpacro said:

 

When people ask me that I generally get them (in an aeroplane) to do a stall in a turn and then recover. I don’t offer any advice as anyone who has learnt to fly or done a flight review in recent years per CAsA’s Part 61 should be competent at them.

 

I don't get it. If you are in a coordinated turn and you stall, you unstall by releasing the back pressure. What has that got to do with keeping the wings level when you are flying straight ahead and stall. I'm not saying that keeping the wings level with the rudder isn't dangerous, I just don't know why from this. 

A few points in response:

 

• I used to be scared of stalls when I was learning to fly. I know quite a few instructors who are scared of them. So your situation is quite common and there is a cure as Kyle suggested.
   
  
• "they are safe" - well, too many of my friends and acquaintances have been killed as a result of a stall, so nope, not necessarily.
   
  
• "using the rudder to keep the wings level" - that can be very dangerous so your "easing the control column forward without worrying about using the rudder to keep the wings level" is very much safer.
   
  
• "worrying that if I don't keep the wings level I will spin" - keeping the wings level has diddly squat to do whether you spin or not.
   
  
• "And die." Potentially, if you do the wrong thing and that seems likely from your post.
   
  
• I recommend that you now read https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/06_afh_ch4.pdf
   
  

Thank you for your reply! Ain’t no doubt about it, the FAA says to lower the nose first, and to later on level the wings with coordinated ailerons and rudder! 

What is is that makes keeping the wings level with the rudder (in a stall) dangerous?