djpacro

I always consider the forces on the airplane ..... https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/technique/turbulence-v-speeds/ Do the sums on gust loads. Manoeuvring loads and structural fatigue are adversely affected by overweight operation. So is performance but, as you say, a big engine is good. 20 kg .... 3% maybe .... almost trivial compared to those aeroplanes found to have incorrect empty weights a while back along with a gross error in crew moment arms so their CG was way further aft. Fixed by adding mass on the engine - a much bigger % increase - what effect does that have on the engine mount and forward fuselage structure?

I would and I do. Class D towers wouldn't specify a speed as they don't know what my airplane is capable of.

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/gapseal.php Effectiveness depends on the design of the ailerons you have and the size of the gap. Some designs are not intended to have the gap sealed.

I'd like to fly one https://bevhoward.com/Buecker.htm Dragging the top of the fin through water like Fred Nicole sounds like fun ... https://sbeaver.com/Bucker/index.php/anecdotes-mainmenu-69?start=5

Somewhere in my filing cabinet I have a manufacturing plan for the SAH-1.

Instrument screws are brass for a reason https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/hapages/brassinstrscrew2.php

Fleetwings, I used to visit it often. I’m pretty sure that it has been restored and flying now.

Cessna 152 Aerobat simply has this note in the POH. The 7ECA Citabria with the same powerplant doesn't bother.

And quite a few with VW engines, the Corby Starlet for one.

An inspiration to the rest of us!

The 242 is a very nice aeroplane to fly.

“ However, if customers register the aircraft as ‘Experimental’, then aerobatics are authorised…” pretty clear.

It needs more development in the area of handling qualities.

Easy enough to demonstrate roll due to rate of yaw - fly an airplane with nil dihedral (ideally a mid-wing, which I owned for many years) through a hammerhead/stall turn. See the different behaviour depending on whether you fly a good vertical (wings developing zero lift) vs wings developing a bit of lift.

Apologies, I must've misunderstood your comments about your instructor. The effect of aileron in a spin for the Cessna (which has Frise ailerons) is significantly different than for the Decathlon, the opposite effect in some situations. (Cessna published a comprehensive document on spinning.)

Suggest that you try another instructor. Reading CASA AC 61-16 may assist. Totally agree with that bit except about the Frise ailerons.

Let us know how you go with the course. Hopefully you get the full, complete theory and enough practice that the techniques stick (for a while) and you don't automatically do the wrong thing in their scenarios.

from https://www.flyingmag.com/aps-webinar-featuring-learn-to-turn-rich-stowell/ from https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/implementing-learn-to-turn-with-rich-stowell

Yes indeed. Many pilots are surprised when I talk to them about that. A good primer for UPRT is https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/06_afh_ch5.pdf UA recoveries from failed aerobatic manoeuvres in an aerobatic course share some of the elements of UPRT and unfortunately some schools have simply rebadged their extreme UA recovery courses as UPRT. My advice for people looking for UPRT is to see what EASA specifies for their Advanced UPRT course and compare that with what is being offered. https://www.apstraining.com/resource/easa-advanced-uprt-requirements-are-a-big-step-toward-reducing-loc-i-fatalities/

Very nice, behaved much like a Pitts S-1 as far as I recall, although I didn’t get much time in it and no aerobatics. The owner had flown it from the UK to Australia and he wasn’t here to get it to Richmond for the show.

In 1988 I flew G-AWPZ into Richmond for the Bicentennial Air Show.

EASA is incorporating basic UPRT in their PPL and so is the USA FAA to some extent. The FAA revised their Airplane Flying Handbook a few years ago https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/06_afh_ch4.pdf EASA is leading the way with UPRT in simulators as well as their on-aeroplane advanced UPRT course mandated https://www.easa.europa.eu/faq/44870 I believe that CASA is currently looking at just UPRT in simulators so a long way behind EASA. Incidentally, CASA has just discovered that NACA's 1935 standard spin recovery method is not really applicable to current training types https://www.casa.gov.au/files/advisory-circulars-61-16-spin-avoidance-stall-recovery-trainingpdf Pilots at the bottom end may choose to do UPRT. Consider https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/undoing-an-upset/ but noting that quote attributed to Patty Wagstaff "is on record as saying that upset recovery “is just aerobatics;” to one well-versed in that discipline, no attitudes are really unusual." I was at this event when she said that however she said a whole lot more - https://www.flyingmag.com/ntsb-forum-looks-into-loss-control-inflight/ An aerobatic course is not UPRT as explained by that FAA handbook above, nor is it a new name for the common EMT courses.

More real examples of flutter on GA aircraft where the crritical mode is way below Vne at http://acversailles.free.fr/documentation/08~Documentation_Generale_M_Suire/Aerodynamique/Flutter/Taming_the_flutter_monster.pdf

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/