djpacro

I wonder where they were going early arvo on the 19th Log in or sign up to view

The two presenters named on the programme to talk about aerobatics were both there.

Some Pitts there too.

Yep, including the hand-written amendments to WAC per AIP SUP: I see that, in Victoria, Beaufort and Moama are included now but Woodvale is deleted. That Beaufort one and Moama are on VNCs so Avplan picks them up. It seems that Woodvale hasn't yet made it to the VNC but AvPlan's ALA overlay picks it up - but the overlay is not a chart per CASA. I don't know how many people bother to check the AIP SUP for manuscript amendments?

Give thanks for the fowl shot into jet engines in the name of safety https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/documents/oklahoma_city_ok-2_web_bird_strike_cert_and_damage_john_ocallaghan.pdf

thawed before testing

Sportys

Good, important to fix that and develop good habits.

Get some of these

For FAR 23 airplanes not approved for intentional spins - basically a controllability requirement from a delayed stall recovery - recover after one turn (or 3 seconds) of a spin within one additional turn; plus consider the effect of abnormal control actions during that first turn in which a further two turns is acceptable to recover. Abnormal control actions "The parameters that need to be investigated depend on the design of the airplane as well as on the results of the normal spin tests. These checks include, as a minimum, the following: the effect of ailerons with and against the spin, the effect of elevator applied before the rudder at recovery, the effect of slow elevator release, the effect of entry attitude. Ailerons with and against the spin should be applied at entry and during spins. Elevator and rudder against the spin should be applied during the spin. Spinning should continue for up to three seconds, or for one full turn, while the effects of abnormal aerodynamic control inputs are observed. Apply normal recovery controls as outlined in paragraph c(2)." I have experienced most of those abnormal control actions just doing straight, power off stalls in flight reviews and refresher training with PPLs. It is quite an extensive test program with different cg positions etc - a pilot can be reasonably confident in using such an airplane as a flight trainer doing all of the stall exercises in Part 61. Para c(2): "recover by reducing power to idle, if not already at idle, apply full .... rudder followed by forward elevator". LSA requirements are similar or identical (I haven't looked recently and I'm not familiar with all of their requirements). Difference is that LSAs are self-certified and FAR 23 airplanes are certified by the USA FAA who are extremely knowledgeable and skilled.

Let me know how the Aerobatics Education Session goes - “what it takes, and how to go about it.”

The recent crash of the GIPPSAERO GA-10 during spin testing is also relevant ANC18LA042 The difference is that they were letting it go to the point required by FAR 23 before commencing recovery actions - i.e. after one turn.One would expect any certified single engine aeroplane to recover from a spin if the correct recovery actions were initiated prior to one turn.

There's more to the story in comments/discussion here - it would be good to see the video prior to the bit shown here, or get more detailed info from the pilot. Regardless, it does seem particularly relevant as the pilot stated that "I deployed the Chute because the aircraft would not recover from a Flat Spin!!!" His friend commented: "I actually know this guy and he's no lightweight in both fixed and rotary wing. Also did his time in the Airlines on jets. This was certification flying and things went wrong. I spoke with him about this and what you are seeing here is the latter stages of what became an unrecoverable spin." Yes, definitely relevant.

Thanks, but I've already got a skyrocket. I enjoy visiting Bill here ... ... check out the airspeed in the flat spin.

These days I generally only fly FAR 23 certified airplanes approved for intentional spins - anything different and I take a keen interest in the tech specs/testing/history of the type and I’ve declined to fly quite a few times. Even the shape and layout of a tail will put me off per previous discussion here.PS: want to buy my 4WD Jeep as I’d like a red open top sports car now?

One of the issues with the Tomahawk was that different examples of the type behaved differently and none conformed to the type design data per the prototype used for stall/spin testing.

I didn't go to this event a year ago and I have no idea what came out of the discussion:

Aaah the good old days when CASA's predecessor had the knowledge and interest in our safety wrt spins.

Yep, Cessna designers "lost it" for the Skycatcher at first. I have run numbers on quite a few aeroplanes using that method and, as it says here, it is quite good to use in preliminary design. The report detail is at http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/cp/0195.pdf The NACA Tail Damping Power Factor is more simple but not as good as a predictor https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930082166.pdf

It is not the only aeroplane around with those instructions - the early Robin 2160 is another however the Robin has a very big rudder but when they went for American certification the FAA insisted on PARE to stop the spin per FAR 23.I'm certainly interested in seeing the spin test report for the Bristell. Even for types which are not approved for intentional spins the scope of testing is quite comprehensive. Similar type to the Bristell:

I agree.For example, from one of the forums I attended at Oshkosh this year: Aft cg limit is commonly determined from compliance with spin recovery requirements. Another point is that there are some aeroplanes around where, at aft cg, the stick position to hold a steady airspeed does not vary much so the term "stall stick position" is of little use as a cue. As a comparison, the Decathlon spin doesn't vary much in behaviour between the forward and aft limits although at fwd cg it may tend to enter a spiral dive. Misuse of of aileron and/or power will flatten it regardless of cg; forward stick prior to rudder on recovery will steepen the nose down attitude (an accelerated spin) which can significantly delay the recovery.

Your hints weren't consistent with the DR-109 either but I thought that I would try to flush it out - certainly looks like it started life as a DR-109.

DR-109. I had dinner with Dan at Oshkosh.

Flying around the block near Lake Somerset