djpacro

Often the critical flutter mode is at an intermediate speed i.e. it is not as simple as the higher the TAS the closer to flutter (although, yes TAS is the appropriate figure to consider). I know of one high wing GA airplane - fabric covered with struts where the flutter speed was around 100 kts - fixed with the appropriate aileron mass balance - Vne is 133 kts IAS. This set of slides is from the FAA showing the typical process of flutter analysis and testing https://www.kimerius.com/app/download/5784128936/Flutter+and+aeroelastic+stability.pdf Page A-59 shows an example of flutter at less than Vd, design design speed, and the flutter margin improves at higher speeds such that there is no flutter at Vd and above.

Depending on the design basis for the detail, but taking FAR 23 as the typical one as most are consistent with this: Vne is defined as IAS, full stop, for little airplanes. Determination of flutter margins must take into account the maximum TAS that the airplane can achieve. Testing therefore, the test pilot takes the airplane to the maximum altitude then dives to the required test airspeed. This article is useful reading: https://www.australianflying.com.au/news/vne-and-flutter-explained (Earlier versions of FAR 23 required the use of CAS rather than IAS so you will encounter variations with altitude. Faster airplanes will have a scheduled Mach number limit as well). You must read FAA AC 23-8C Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes for background - see Page 106 onwards. https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_23-8c.pdf Then their guide for homebuilt airplanes at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 90-89A.pdf CASA also has their own flight test guide for home-built aircraft which is based on AC 23-8. https://www.casa.gov.au/airworthiness/standard-page/flight-test-guides as does the LAA http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/flight_testing.html EAA too https://www.kitplanes.com/new-flight-test-manual-from-eaa/

"In general, manufacturers recommend that for engines which won’t be flown for 30 days or more, a preservation regime should be instigated." So, one or the other. "The desired flight time for air cooled engines is at least one continuous hour at oil temperatures of 165°F to 200°F at intervals not to exceed 30 days ..." so that is what I do. Yep, same rules apply now. Closed businesses may undertake essential maintenance. Yep, CASA email is just an opinion. I only have that extract however I understand it is quite recent.

Maintenance per CASA https://www.casa.gov.au/files/awb-85-021-issue-1-–-piston-engine-low-utilisation-maintenance-practices and Lycoming https://www.lycoming.com/content/service-letter-no-l180b

No, sorry, however I'm aware of recent discussions. I've suggested to my friends that they get their mechanic to fly it for them.

Aviation businesses are permitted to fly aircraft per maintenance requirements. The alternative is to inhibit the engines.

deleted...mod

Power off - yes, get rid of features not needed. But step #1 is still unload. I’m not talking about thread drift but the pervasive hijacking of threads and forums. I only come here for the declared subject - recreational and general aviation. I’m not going to bother sifting out the irrelevant stuff which means I look in here less often. I have lots of other interests, places to go, people to see. I go elsewhere for political opinions and rantings if I want them.

Totally agreed. Standard pilot theory is that aileron will have an adverse effect at the stall, particularly when that part of the wing is about stalled. Note the words: "It shall be possible .." so a test pilot must be able to do it ... so the wing design must allow for the outer part to be sufficiently away from the stall for the ailerons to work normally ... with the aircraft in balance etc. Just because a test pilot can do it under test conditions doesn't mean that it is appropriate for unintentional stalls. There is an aerobatic Musketeer however I have not flown one. Aileron against the spin on entry is required on a number of types to get them to spin - but that is also with full back stick and full rudder - unlike the certification stall requirement where the stick is also coming forward and rudder is used to oppose yaw. Spin resistance is the key.

Obviously, recovery actions for a spiral dive in an aircraft would not strictly apply but just an idea to focus on the objectives and how to achieve them. I just went to a part of the forum about “General discussion on recreational and general aviation” and got into a discussion about drugs. Why would I bother? So, my first thought is to unload the irrelevant stuff.

LSA requirement is "It shall be possible to prevent more than 20° of roll or yaw by normal use of the controls during the stall and the recovery" i.e. during the stall aileron must be able to be used to control roll. FAR 23 certified airplanes are similar but the requirement is 15°. I wonder about the Bristell.

I went to a thread about an accident to find myself in the midst of a discussion about Japanese immigration. I'm only interested in coming to a recreationalflying forum for recreational flying discussions. It has been in a downward spiral for some time so relying on subscriptions and pushing donations will only add to the downwards spiral. Usual recovery from a spiral dive - unload, power off, roll level and pull out.

Include accidents of similar types by the same designer. Especially interested in stall/spin accidents. I wonder if the ATSB will publish independent flight tests on its stall characteristics conducted a little while back.

Tocumwal. The Aero Club building is always open.

I took this photo from a point very close to where that red dot is ....

Starduster Too

My friend had "told him off" more than once with no effect and, as I said, was criticised by the coroner for not telling CASA about his behaviour which was considered to be the appropriate, reasonable thing to do as people like that don't listen to anyone else. As a result, the parents of that lad were devastated. I can guess what the coroner might have said about anyone who had seen his antics and considered it funny.

Here are the rules https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2005B00836 The Royal Victorian Aero Club had a device to eject ashes through the small window in a Warrior, they should still have it. A device like this is essential otherwise you will remain mostly inside the aeroplane.

It just needs its spinner back on https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1152579

Yep, spin and aerobatic endorsements may be granted to an RPL.

Certainly a consideration. Submitting a CAIR to ATSB will get info to CASA without identifying yourself. My experience is that mentioning anything individually has nil effect.

Nope, defamation laws here expose them to legal action which is costly. Nought to do with anyone’s version of the truth. ....... One of my friends was criticised by a coroner in court. He had witnessed unsafe behaviour by someone on a number of occasions and had words with the pilot. Didn’t stop the guy killing himself and a young passenger. If he had told CASA it may have changed things.

Adding an elevator tab where there was no tab in the design adds significantly to the elevator weight far behind the hinge. Elevator mass balance must be considered.

Go here and follow the links to see the differences between an RPL with nav endorsement and a PPL https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/flight-crew-licensing-information-sheets It also explains the transition from RPC to RPL. The flight radio endorsement requires the English language assessment. Have fun in the Citabria!

RAA is an optional registration. Types you are discussing can have VH registrations and its just normal life with your RPL.