djpacro

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.

It doesn't actually. Just says that if training is done then it can only be done by an instructor and logged accordingly. It suggests that the instructor might like to provide a certificate of completion. It finishes with the statement that the pilot is responsible.

Nope, you do not need to be deemed competent by an instructor to satisfy 61.385 - it is the responsibility of the individual pilot. Having a debate with a pilot who has been flying a single seat Pitts (he has flown a two seat Pitts) - after observing him I have recommended that he get some more training - his choice and he hasn't pranged it yet. Of course, the owner or operator may require a check by an instructor - its always been the case.

Had an issue with Avplan recently: I have Avplan on an iPad Mini and an iPhone. The iPad is the cellular model but a sim card is not installed. Wanted to show a friend so the night before I opened it up (at home so connected to the internet (via wifi) on the iPad to make sure all was up to date. All good. The next day (not connected to the internet) I was unable to access it – it gave an error - said that my subscription had expired yet I had 6 months to go. Tried it connected to the internet via my iPhone as well, didn’t help. Much later in the day later it worked. Same issue with the iPhone - good connection to the internet at all times. Avplan support responded: "We were experiencing some website issues which caused these issues." My response - "I would’ve thought that my iPad not being connected to the internet would’ve been especially immune to such website issues – perhaps it did something in the background before I left home. Glad it didn’t happen on my trip to Qld recently – sorry, but .." I am going to dump Avplan, I wonder if OzRunways can suffer from the same problem? As for mounting an EFB on a control yoke - refer to the CAAP on the subject.

Inverted?

He confirmed today that he is turning up.

It will be interesting to hear what he has to say when he gives a talk to us at Moorabbin Airport soon. Royal Aeronautical Society - Melbourne Branch

I initially had a comment about different readings on the g meters between the front and back cockpits but edited it out as I wanted to quote a reference.Here's a good one: http://atlantis-press.com/php/download_paper.php?id=2599 A Method for Correcting The Error in Indicated Normal Acceleration Due to G-Sensor Location. SAE PAPER 700222 (Loading conditions measured during aerobatic maneuvers in flight test to determine structural design requirements for aerobatic-type aircraft) has some typical data for Pitts and Decathlon but the document is not available for free online. See extract below. The bottom line is that the G meter must be located very close to the aircraft CG.

.... or tailplane icing ... or a "moose stall" .....After one accident report I tried to replicate the scenario - yep, an aeroplane with a very benign stall in all situations suddenly pitched extreme nose down. Added a warning in the flight manual about combinations of flap, power and airspeed to avoid, especially in a turn. Excellent advice, but I have had to do it (and I am sure that others here have had to do it also).Whenever I do any analysis of flying qualities I put the axes through the CG, not only by convention but it just makes the equations and arithmetic more simple. Velocities and accelerations etc are therefore defined wrt those axes through the CG. Back seat of a Pitts S-2 is way behind the CG so quite a different feeling in snap rolls compared to a Pitts S-1. Aeroplane going up but, initially, the rear seat is going down.

Worth a visit to Watts Bridge if something interesting is happening: Watts Bridge Memorial Airfield - Calendar of Events otherwise I'm happy with the beach and the pool.

Suggest reading the relevant chapters of Book #1 at FLY BETTER...... or page 2 of the smaller document: Spin notes at http://www.flightlab.net/Flightlab.net/Download_Course_Notes.html A common explanation is simply that the wing centre of pressure moves aft at the stall - seems to be based on the excellent book Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators - see that bit about "... as stall occurs, the drop in suction near the leading edge cause the c.p. to move aft." but that's not true of all aerofoils e.g. NACA 63-415. In any case, the data presented is from two-dimensional wind tunnel tests etc so doesn't really address the real situation of a three-dimensional wing, especially with flow separation originating from the inboard root.

In little aeroplanes too per CASR Part 61.

We can get it right now. I have a US pilot certificate, just need to fly a US registered airplane here.

At the Qld Aerobatic Championships, Watts Bridge, last weekend.

Good stuff! I passed by yesterday on my way north. Will wave as I fly over on my way home on Monday.

Tocumwal and Lilydale will do it, both in Eurofox.