djpacro

You should see that it is a copy of the Provost wing. Different aerofoil sections root to tip combined with washout designed to give good stall behaviour - didn't quite work as inboard leading edge stall strips were required. The Model T-6 doesn't have those stall strips and, in my opinion, is stretching FAR 23 requirements for uncommanded roll at the stall.See page 13 of http://airtourer.asn.au/airtourer/images/Newsletter/Newsletter%20153.pdf (from memory, not quite right - it is a 23012 not a 2312)

definitely was, sorry Yes, my old memory mixed two data sets. The Aircruiser WT test report I have is the same wing configuration as the prototype - both wind tunnel model and flight test of the prototype displayed the same sudden stall of one wing. Fixed by the wing fence on the prototype.That triangular LE extension I call the wing root cuff. The one on the Aircruiser is bigger than the one on the T-34C - somewhere there is data on a wing like the T-34C with and without cuff - perhaps I will find it before long. My recollection is that this data shows the benefits in stall behaviour of the wing root leading edge cuff as used on the Nash Petrel here http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/JS/Janes75/1/296-1.jpg this was based on the Kittiwake which had a straight wing https://doc8643.com/static/img/aircrafts/3D/KITI.jpg Prototypes of both flew so must be data on them somewhere too ..... https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1981/1981%20-%203419.PDF ...... https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1967/1967%20-%201297.PDF The root LE cuff is fairly common http://www.zlinaircraft.eu/galerie/slider/slider-26.jpg wish I could find the data The following link for wing design, generic and specific to T-34C is relevant but doesn't fully address your interest so I will keep looking. https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiK9JWs8_rPAhXGp5QKHY12AnYQFggwMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.public.navy.mil%2Fnavsafecen%2FDocuments%2Faviation%2FSAS%2Faero%2FCH4-Stal.doc%3FMobile%3D1%26Source%3D%252Fnavsafecen%252F_layouts%252Fmobile%252Fview.aspx%253FList%253D8006e81c-b3d9-4e6f-a528-d2944db57cae%2526View%253D24fea1bc-5ae2-4542-a47b-901dc8d264d2%2526RootFolder%253D%25252Fnavsafecen%25252FDocuments%25252Faviation%25252FSAS%25252Faero%2526CurrentPage%253D1&usg=AFQjCNGir6y6kRJW7_CdV23m9Gkqq_69yg&sig2=5l_XF3_XD2SwoVGDRha41A All of the above was a generation before this stuff that you see on some modern wings Leading-edge extension - Wikipedia

http://airtourer.asn.au/airtourer/images/Newsletter/Newsletter_81.pdf with a bit of Airtourer/Aircruiser history reminded me of the TP: Vic Walton. (Incidentally, that article was wrong about Wamira - Henry had nought to do with it.) The report I indicated was ARL Aerodynamics Note 235 Low Speed Wind Tunnel Tests of the Victa Aircruiser 180 in 1965. My memory failed me in some details, sorry. This wind tunnel model and the prototype had the wing root cuff. Vic said it was an extremely violent wing drop. The wing fence cured that. Extracts from wind tunnel report.

Verbal from Henry Millicer and ... just think of TP's name at the moment. I think you'll find the ARL wind tunnel report online - if not I can post an extract later.

yep

even if it is only the CASA doctors who believe it is "clinically necessary". From CASA at 3.4 Fees

Suggest that you read earlier posts in this thread for discussion re wots in the POH about sideslipping the 172s ...

Seems to be a lot of effort just to duplicate ATSB efforts in gathering data. ATSB reports consistently show the same causes year in year out with diddly squat change in the accident rate.

Certainly I really enjoyed doing the instructor rating course and the subsequent instructor experience did wonders for my own piloting skills.For some years I was doing some part-time instructing at a combined GA/RAA school - would've been paid the same whichever numbers/letters were on the tail. Regardless, I'm glad that I don't have to work on the GA instructor award salary to afford to live and eat. Incidentally, I decided not to proceed with RAA instructing mainly because I didn't want to do much ab initio training at all at that stage of my life. Did volunteer instruction with the scouts for some years but there is something wrong when my students drove to the airport in flash cars etc. My motivation has always been to help people get into aerobatics, especially competition aerobatics. Yes indeed. Doing joyflights you run across many different types/behaviours - some worthwhile and others just annoying. Students ... we all could write a book.

Fairly common in aviation. e.g. Superior Air Parts :: Home made Lycoming and Allison etc parts for many years - sold spares under their own brand as PMA'd - now their own complete engines too. Same with a lot of airframe parts. However, my understanding is that Jabiru/CAMit situation was different in not being a simple prime/supplier arrangement.

My favourite stops are Tocumwal, Temora, Narromine and Moree to Watts Bridge.

4) max of 7 std drinks per CASA

C150 cost me $12.60 solo and $13.20 dual.

Perhaps designed by the same guy who did the F/A-18 fin strengthening ....

I did some flying at Lovely Banks back then. Last saw Alan about a year ago.The Age - Google News Archive Search

My thought is that they were taught by flying schools who had taken the earlier version of CASA's rules to heart - "it says recommended so you must do it because if you don't and ........ " My observation is that there were few, if any, superfluous radio calls prior to that.

there is still a limitation (for quite different reasons than previously mentioned) on slipping in the 172S POH

Yep, definitely worthwhile reading the POH - especially the Limitations Section:Also worthwhile noting the placards on the panel. From the book "Cessna, Wings for the World" by William D Thompson, former Manager of Flight Test and Aerodynamics at Cessna: "we encountered a nose down pitch in forward slips with the flaps deflected. In some cases it was severe enough to lift the pilot against his seat belt if he was slow in checking the motion. For this reason a caution note was placed in most of the owner's manuals under 'Landings' reading 'Slips should be avoided with flap settings greater than 30 deg due to the downward pitch encountered under certain combinations of airspeed, side-slip angle, and center of gravity loadings.' ... the cause of the pitching motion is the transition of a strong wing downwash over the tail in straight flight to a lessened downwash angle over part of the horizontal tail ... This phenomenon was elusive and sometimes hard to duplicate ... When the larger dorsal fin was adopted in the 1972 C-172L, this sideslip pitch phenomenon was eliminated, but the cautionary placard was retained. In the higher powered C-172P and C-R172 the placard was applicable to a mild pitch 'pumping' motion resulting from a flap outboard-end vortex impingement on the horizontal tail at some combinations of sideslip angle, power, and airspeed."

Depends onthe Cessna - refer the flight manual. I did a bit with Capt Jack in an Auster near Geelong too.

The clue is "read back".

I've had one of these kneeboards for many years. NAV-DATA LIGHTED KNEEBOARD from Aircraft Spruce Cross country in an open cockpit Pitts (well, even one with a canopy if it is really cold - minus 15 is my limit) demands regular barrel rolls to keep warm so essential to keep maps etc secure. My iPad Mini sits neatly on it, secured by rubber bands.

Yep, probably just a trade day or three - I know a quiet place away from the crowd.

I'm all airshowed out but I still occasionally go to one just to catch up with friends. I'd rather go to an aerobatic contest. Oshkosh '96.

Been a few people transition to the Yak 50 without getting an instructor involved - an important consideration is that there are very few instructors who know anything about such specialised aircraft so it would be nonsensical for 61.385 to require an instructor to certify competency every time someone decided to fly a different type. And there is no one size fits all rule. eg I know some test pilots - trained to fly anything - they have a sensible process before they jump into a new aeroplane (which may involve dual in a similar type) but they're not going to find an instructor to certify their competency on the new type (or old type in the recent case of the Boxkite). I'd be happy to get into a Yak 50 myself (i.e. I would decide that I met 61.385) but not that Cessna 210 for example.

Of course, that document is only guidance. You can look at the NPRM for the intent but that is irrelevant now. The reg itself is fairly clear.