FlyBoy1960

I would share the following press release from the Gold Coast Sports Flying Club who operates out of Heck Field at Jacobs Well. As a purely recreational airfield with no outside support from council or government, any improvements to our facilities are completely funded by members. There have been many improvements over the years, but our runways have always been, let's say, pretty rough. The whole airfield was built on the waste material excavated when the government was building the M1 motorway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. We were lucky at the time that our president organised for all of this waste material to be dumped at our airfield and levelled out raising the level approximately 2 m, because previously the area flooded just about any time there was a high tide and any rain. The runways were further improved about six months ago raising the level again and adding a stabilised base. Yesterday was a very important time where we laid asphalt to each end of the runway to eliminate/reduce propeller damage on takeoff. I must say that it was very satisfying to see these works completed yesterday, makes me a very proud club member ! Read more about it below, (60 second read with photos) https://www.gcsfc.org.au/latest-runway-improvements-january-2021/

they are investigating the same use of this phenome with new technologies for Electric power generation. no idea how they are going to use it but you could imagine some sort of wing on a cable computer controlled and going around and around producing electricity. Almost like science fiction !

I second this motion, just stupidity. Delete the entire thread imo

if you overload the wing by going past the designed lift profile you will get laminar flow separation. This is also called laminar bucket and the aircraft will not fly, it will drag its tail around the sky with a high angle of attack and it heavy enough will just sink. Pushing the stick forward does nothing except change the angle of attack slightly but it doesn't produce any more lift. Simple answer is, don't fly over the maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft. I don't know why we are even talking about this because it requires an approval from CASA each and every time you want to do this and it is only approved for things like ferry flights where you are carrying extra fuel coming over from the states ? I don't really want to sound like Capt obvious that this is such a bad idea. Just don't flly overweight !

I would like to know if you have an STC approval for fitting this in your motor vehicle ! 😁 Also, it looks to me like it may have flat batteries. 🆗

all of this should be in the manual for every aircraft. They are easy formulas to calculate but some manufacturers include simple tables like this for people that don't have a calculator

for a start, you can fly over the aircraft maximum takeoff weight. It is there for a reason ! DUH secondly, there should be graphs in the POH which show you the different calculations for density altitude and from this you can calculate your ground roll for temperatures above standard atmosphere and the climb rate to be expected.

Some people should never fly, just enjoy going for rides with people and life the dream from the other seat !

The info came from the certified Virus SW model from Pipistrel

okay, I have managed to get more information and this is a screenshot from the manual of an aircraft showing the difference between the glide performance when the propeller is completely stopped and the engine/propeller is at idle. The top row which is blue is the aircraft performance with the propeller and engine at idle. The bottom row is the engine and propeller stationery. As you can see the glide performance is massively better with the engine running until you get to about 70 kn where the running engine will start to deteriorate the performance due to excessive drag. I think this information form a certified aircraft manual really puts the subject to bed. All of the training that we do with the engine at idle practicing forced landings is a good part of our training but the performance is significantly different when the engine actually stops. In this aircraft's case at 52 kn airspeed the difference is more than 20% to graded performance with the engine turned off and a propeller stationary, contrary to Flat Earth people who think an engine at idle is creating more drag than a stationary propeller. In my opinion we should be teaching people precautionary landings with the engine at idle, but they must know that there will be at least 20% difference when the engine is actually stopped. Demonstrated performance reduction between an engine on and at idle, and engine off and propeller stopped. between V1 = 23 and V2 = 18.8 |V1−V2|[(V1+V2)2]×100=?|V1−V2|[(V1+V2)2]×100=? =|23−18.8|[(23+18.8)2]×100=|23−18.8|[(23+18.8)2]×100 =|4.2|[41.82]×100=|4.2|[41.82]×100 =4.220.9×100=4.220.9×100 =0.200957×100=0.200957×100 =20.0957% difference

Maybe you don't really know as much as you think you do ? But its not meant as an insult, just experience with a very small aircraft segment perhaps ? The aircraft is was referencing cruises at 147 knots, stalls at 34 knots. My recollection from the guy at the airport was supported as I said in previous correspondence by a follow-up phone call last week to refreshment I memory after the original post. Anyway, I digress. This is not a pissing competition it was just an explanation about why very experienced pilots who should be able to make it back to the airfield don't, they come up short and the difference is that the performance of the aircraft with a propeller stopped is less than the performance of an aircraft with the propeller at idle speed which is what we train for and this as I was highlighting maybe the reason that so many experienced pilots get caught out and why many people think it is a good idea to occasionally go out (at altitude) and turn the engine off, propeller stopped and just get a visual outlook on the descent profile and feet per minute descent. not every aircraft is a same but at least if you know you can be prepared

Hello John, This is EXACTLY what i was saying. If you practice with engine at idle its going to give you BETTER performance than with prop stopped, forget all the drag of a rotating propeller crap, that's just from people who don't understand simple physics. So, when the engine does actually stop you will get WORSE performance than with everything you practiced previously. Thank you for validating what i wrote, which i simply parrot replied here from a really experienced guy at the airfield.

Not in a Trike !

this is where we are getting confused I think we are not talking DRAG we are talking sink rate. An aircraft with a propeller turning at idle will create more drag than a stopped propeller but the sink rate of the engine at idle will be less. My comments were about a stall spin occurrence and it is much more likely to happen with the engine stopped completely than it is with the engine at idle and possibly producing around 15 hp. From what I am told it is impossible to windmill a propeller attached to a Rotax engine because of the gearbox, it may roll over a compression once every now and again but it is not an issue like direct drive. So in summary, it is much easier to stall and spin with the engine stopped completely than it is with the engine at idle and producing roughly 15 hp. The sink rate is less with an engine at idle because it is producing some thrust from the 15 hp. This was why I made the comments that I did as part of the discussion, not to excite people into debate just to think about it a little bit more and it could hopefully/possibly affect a result in the future. We can practice engine off landings with the engine at idle but it is going to give you a better "performance" result than it will with the engine stopped so you need to be prepared for reduced performance when the engine actually stops. The same person gave me all of this information also told me the following which has never left my memory in years. "I thought he was a pretty good pilot until I started flying a motorglider and this just proved how little I really knew. It was only when I actually learnt how to glide that I then became a good pilot." I think that is pretty close to Word for Word but it made me think that every pilot license should have at least a couple of hours of gliding as part of the training package because every aircraft without an engine will become a glider, that is guaranteed !

okay naysayers, I checked my sources with a quick phone call last night and can give you real figures regarding flying with the engine at idle flying with the engine stopped The Pipistrel Sinus airframe with the engine stopped and the propeller unfeathered has a sink rate of around 210 ft/m, with the propeller feathered 187 ft/m The Pipistrel Sinus airframe with the engine at idle has a sink rate of 90 ft/m and of course this is why the aircraft must use both flaps and airbrakes for a normal landing with the engine at idle otherwise it sits in ground effect for more than 1000 m before it will slow enough to settle. As demonstrated by these figures with the engine stopped the sink rate is around double of what it is with the engine at idle, and this is the point I was trying to make. People practice "engine failed landings" but still have the engine at idle will therefore have a performance which is significantly better than it is with the engine stopped. Regardless of what creates more drag has nothing to do with what we are talking about, we are talking about sink rate, what will get you to the ground fastest and that is definitely stopped engine. Again, I am not the expert I'm just repeating parrot fashion the information from a two times NASA/CAFE challenge winner pilot and one time team owner winner who does know what he is talking about. (provided I have understood him correctly) So in summary, if we practice dead stick landings with the engine at idle we are going to get better performance both in sink rate and distance than we are with the engine stopped. The point I was trying to make through all of these comments is that you can practice with the engine at idle as much as you want BUT when the engine is stopped there is going to be a deep crease in performance which may/can/does catch out many experienced pilots because the sink rate is significantly less and turning is not helped by those extra 15 hp of the engine at idle pulling you through a turn back to the runway. The message here is, unless you have KNOWN performance of your aircraft sorted out or you have an excessive height beyond what you think you can get away with than just land straight ahead

I was speaking about this with a professional pilot at our airfield and he explained, and it all made sense to me. There is a huge difference in aircraft performance between a simulated engine failure with the engine at idle and the propeller still turning and the engine stopped and the propeller stopped. "just as an example" At idle any 80/100 hp engine is still producing maybe 15 hp and producing some thrust. This depending on your aircraft may give you a sink rate, of let's say 300 ft/m. The same aircraft with the engine completely stopped and a stationary fixed pitch propeller will significantly increase the sink rate, perhaps 500 feet to 600 ft/m sink rate. So it is substantially different and the controls will be significantly different and most probably more "mushy" because of the reduced airflow over the control surfaces and in particular rudder. This all makes sense to me, this same person also told me that about 95% of pilots will never experience what their aircraft flies like with the engine turned off and in a glide, they wouldn't know the sink rate of a fixed/stopped propeller or any other performance characteristic of their aircraft because they never fly the aircraft in this configuration. It was his advice that this huge performance decrease compared to what some pilots train with the engine at idle is really the big killer and catches many experienced pilots out because they are looking for a 300 ft/m sink rate and they get more than double this with the engine completely stopped and of course they pull back on the stick to try and slow the sink rate forgetting about airspeed, combined with different performance on the controls and it is all over before you start. He insists that all recreational pilots must train in their aircraft (at altitude of course) with the engine turned off so you will know your actual real performance, trim requirements and aircraft outlook you should be looking for when the engine fails. I have never forgotten this story because it all just made absolute sense

You mean 180 degrees turn back, 360 and he would be still heading the same direction as he left and that wont help.

what is PLA ?

I saw this in an aircraft at Oshkosh a long time ago. Apparently according to the Rotax people they had the engine all of the way through certification and it was going to be approved for many different types of aircraft including many four seat aircraft. Once it became known to the legal teams in Rotax HQ which I think from memory they said was bombardier in Canada the engine was immediately canned. Their concern was liability. Apparently they can handle accidents happening in two seat recreational aircraft but with this bigger engine it could be fitted into four seat certified aircraft and this was the nail in the coffin. They only ever built about 20, about 15 of these were used for testing to destruction and the other five were used for test flights. The one at Oshkosh was in a really big Tail-wheel aircraft, I can't remember it exactly but it may have been a moose or something like this. It was really unfortunate that the legal team were scared of litigation and being able to carry twice as many people was the reason for the program cancellation and the immediate destruction of all of the engines. All of them were destroyed except a mockup that is now in Austria HQ from what I could find researching this about five years ago. The one on display at Oshkosh was painted bright yellow and not the red shown in the photograph.

great story

Only works on a good day otherwise you need to be on an IFR flight plan. Any cloud will ruin your plans, it is usually clear at Armidale and the cloud bank is not visible until you are about 50 miles from the coast and you just keep going lower and lower and lower to get underneath it until you are tree bashing. On a perfect day with clear blue sky it is a good option but 9 days out of 10 it is not the safest way of crossing the range. Ideally you want to be in lower locations like the Newcastle where you can come down very quickly from Mudgee and across all going up to Warwick where you can sneak across a range and get into the coastal area

For the absolute best safety I would transit via Warwick, over the great divide to Boonah and then down into the Lismore Valley. Anywhere north near Armidale all the way through to just south of Warwick is very high country and you need to cross over a lot of tiger country with very few landing opportunities to get to the coast. This would be my recommendation for an inland route, for a more scenic flight coastal go Cowra to Mudgee, Mudgee through to the north of Newcastle, probably through the valley at Gloucester and then up the coast to Byron. You will have controlled airspace at Coffs Harbour but they always let recreational aircraft through provided you have a working radio and transponder. Tyagarah is a great airfield but it is a little bit rough at the moment, Ballina is completely security controlled. Perhaps go there one direction and back the other.

as I read this it was the pilot who was suing the Council and the organisers of the fair and he lost because payment is to the defendants. It must've been really bad representation for and on behalf of the pilot because negligence is solely with the positioning of the Ferris wheel being inside the profile for the airstrip. If the airstrip was shut and he flew into the Ferris wheel then it would be the pilots fault (in my opinion), the airstrip was however open and the Ferris wheel inside the airstrip profiles. This is no different than some idiot doing burnouts on the runway while you are landing and you run into him, how can it be your fault when the other party is operating/acting illegally ? Sometimes, I just don't understand judgements from people who don't know anything about aviation, the rules and regulations. In this case it is obvious that the pilots legal counsel did not get the message across

I have been traumatised myself I reading all of this, watching the video and looking at some photographs. Where is my compensation please ?