turboplanner

17 minutes ago, Jase T said:

 If you expect to only learn the knowledge and practice from flight instruction or in the aircraft alone you must have very very deep pockets and a very very thick wallet. 

No, that's not at all what I was saying, because this thread is, or should be solely about someone who had not done any spinning being well on his way to writing up his all-purpose, any plane anti-spin actions and sharing them publicly with others who might be just starting to learn to fly or might be some of the people I see in the training area doing 80 degree turns at 1,000 feet secure in the knowledge that if they do get into a spin they just apply the APEN method from their notebook.

He's said he's going to do some spin training on Saturday; why not let him do it?

47 minutes ago, Jase T said:

Here is the advice from the RAAus instructor reference manual...

 

Instructor. I am now reducing the power and you can see that the nose pitches down and yaws. To prevent height loss I am applying back pressure to the control column and sufficient rudder to stop

further yaw. As the speed drops further I apply more back pressure and keeping the wings level using more rudder.

Note the reduced airspeed and the comparatively high nose attitude. I can feel that the controls are becoming less responsive and now we hear the stall warning. There is a slight buffet and a quick glance at the airspeed which is registering XX knots. The control column is now fully back, the nose pitches down and we are losing height. That was a stall and I am recovering by simply releasing the

back pressure on the control column and smoothly pitching the nose attitude to just below the

horizon. As the speed increases I can apply cruise power and fully recover to level and straight flight. You can see that this is a fairly straight forward procedure which we will be introducing you to during the next exercise....

 

Now you demonstrate the effect of power on the stall, resulting in slower speed reduction, more

sensitive elevator and rudder due to slipstream effect, and less effective ailerons as they are outside the slipstream. A slightly higher nose attitude at stall will be evident and a reduced airspeed at stall due to power application. The aircraft may show an increased tendency for uncommanded yaw.

Ensure the student completes the correct recovery actions, pitching the nose down to just below

horizon while applying full power. The resulting pitching up and yaw due to power application should be controlled and finally wings leveled if roll occurs.

Demonstrate the effect of flaps on the stall, commencing with half flap and then full flap. Expected

outcomes include a faster speed reduction, slightly lower nose attitude and reduced airspeed at

stall. Demonstrate the recovery action including raising flaps at safe speed and in stages. The student should then practice these with the Instructor monitoring.

Now demonstrate the effect of power and flaps and provide reference to an approach configuration, resulting in slightly higher nose attitude, increased tendency for a wing to drop, reduced airspeed and the need for prompt recovery action.

It is essential that the student becomes highly proficient with recognition and recovery from this type of stall and does not allow the nose to pitch too high, and context is provided relative to the approach

configuration and the conduct of go-around manoeuvres.

 

 

And the NZ CAA instructor reference manual (which oddly enough is written in more plain english the the Australian one) says;

To unstall Decrease the backpressure, or check forward, with ailerons neutral and remaining straight on the reference point with rudder. The student should be reminded that check forward with the elevator is a smooth but positive control movement but not a push. The correct use of aileron must be reinforced toproduce the required automatic response.

Advanced Manoeuvres: Advanced Stalling 5

To minimise altitude loss Full power is smoothly but positively applied – use rudder to keep straight – and the nose is smoothly raised to the horizon. There is no need to hold the nose down as excessive altitude will be lost, while increasing backpressure too rapidly, or jerking, may cause a secondary stall. The result is sufficient to arrest the sink and minimise the altitude loss. Hold the aeroplane in the nose-on-the-horizon attitude and reduce the flap setting (as appropriate to aeroplane type) immediately. Do not raise all the flap at this stage, for example in a PA 38 reduce to one notch of flap, or in a C152 reduce the setting by at least 10 degrees. Any benefit

of attitude plus power will be reduced the longer

the aeroplane is held in the nose-on-the-horizon attitude with full flap extended. A pitch change will occur as flap is raised if uncorrected, therefore, the nose attitude must be held constant. In addition, flap should not be raised with the nose below the horizon, as this will result in considerable altitude loss. Before raising the remaining flap, there are three criteria that must be met;

• safe altitude,

• safe airspeed (above a minimum and

accelerating), and

• a positive rate of climb (to counter the sink as

a result of reducing lift through flap retraction).

 

When these conditions have been met, raise the remaining flap and counter the pitch change. The aeroplane will continue to accelerate, and at the nominated climb speed, select the climb attitude. Straight and level flight should be regained at the starting altitude, and the reference point or heading regained if necessary. The student should expect an altitude loss of less than 50 feet, and reducing to zero when recovering at onset.

 

Sorry for the theory lesson.

 

 

These are not lessons; these are extracts of what an Instructor, who is familiar with all the terms is going to impart to a student in a real-life lesson.

As far as I know, nowhere in the world is flying taught by correspondence; too much modulation and multiple-response actions are needed, and many students never really pick up terms.

To give you an example, at one stage I was in a group of competing cadets to decide who was going to be the school Guard with the white spats and bayonets.

On the command "By the right, quick march!" where you lead off with the left foot, but align ranks with the Right Hand marcher, one of the guys would always start with his right foot.

By one on one splitting up the command (because at times we drilled by the centre) and showing him we always moved the trouser leg with the pin in it first, we won the competition.

Some aircraft will spin so fast and hard that there's no time to recite by rote.

4 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Forums might be a bad way to teach managing emergencies, but I think that helping people think through emergencies and what they would do in them can only help. Athletes prepare by visualising themselves doing what they are supposed to do. I imagine that us sitting her and imagining what we would do can only help. Also, I think I will add "airspeed" to the start of the sequence "power, aileron, rudder, elevator" because if you are all over the place, and you are going fast, you cut the throttle and level the wings simultaneously. That is easy to remember.

They are a very bad way to teach managing emergencies. Teaching should always becoming from qualified instructors and one of the weakness of this forum is that instructors don't seem to speak up when they should.

1 minute ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Roundsounds said to not use the rudder to pick up the wing, and Nev said that using too much rudder to pick up a wing can cause problems. Both comments are basically saying the same thing, and I don't doubt that they are right. My question is "Why?"

 

I am going to attempt to answer the original question, when do you open the throttle and when do you close it. My guess is that you open the throttle if you can definitely unstall the descending wing if you increase your forward speed of the aircraft. Looking at the same thing differently, it depends if you need more kinetic energy in the system or less kinetic energy, where rotational energy trumps the energy of linear movement. If the airplane is rotating too much, you need less energy, so close the throttle. The above is a guess.

Your guess could kill someone if he/she decided to make a note and get that into subconscious memory. You told us you were going out on Saturday to do upset training. Only two sleeps to go and you'll know all about ALL the factors involved, not the least of which is learning how to stay calm and detached which the aircaft is doing things you've never experienced before and your body is taking substantially more Gs than you've ever experienced. They are the things I'm interested in hearing about because I'm with Facthunter on this upsets require an instructor qualified to do them and an aircraft rated for them, and that's in GA. My opinion is once you've done that training, you'll know how to fly an aircraft so you're a mile away from inadvertent spinning.

10 hours ago, old man emu said:

Have a think about that recurring question we get here about buying an airplane. You can tell from the way these questions are framed that the buyers really don't know much about the engines in the  airplanes they are looking to buy. They are like people who go to by a car, not really being knowledgeable about the engine and transmission, but knowing a great deal about the trim options and accessories. 

 

So how many people buy an aircraft based on engine displacement and torque development?

Probably none.

Aircraft purchases are, or should be decided on Application.

Truck purhases also are decided on Application

Some cars, like those which may have to tow, or others which may need to be fast are decided on application, but the rest have enough overlap that they are pretty much a lifestyle choice.

If you're aircraft Application is flying for pleasure and that decides a Cessna Skyhawk, you're going to get whatever engine comes in it.

If you're doing long range touring or charter and that application decides a Cessna Caravan, you're going to get whatever engine comes in it.

............."Blue Suit; it's a French term for their equivalent of CASA. The photo above was the result of a Blue Suit investigation of potential wing flutter at high speed. They decided to test fly the aircraft themselves and were able to produce the flutter. "That happens to me evey time I see......."

PS Placez un fouterre en midel est c'best outlay

I've got a good real-world example of how hard it is to design a successful engine based on size no matter how skilled you are.

Before the emissions era the focus on truck engine design was on lowering fuel consumption because of the Opec squeeze. Before it the Cummins 210 with loaded semi trailer could achieve about 4 mpg. After it the Cummins 14 litre in 270 hp setting in one of the fleets I'd set up was achieving 6 mpg and this became the benchmark for that power group for a while.

Cummins wanted to do better and they came to me with information on teir new L10, 10 litre model, 30% smaller, faster revving, but a documented semi trailer haul from San Francisco to New York at an average 10 mpg!

Normally when you go smaller and lighter, you lose reliability and durability, but no this design; they'd thought of everything.

They were using the 14 litre pistons, just a shorter stroke and the con rod at the big end and little end was the same size as the 14 litre, so very robust. They'd kept the same big cam, so this was a bullet proof engine with a hege fuel payback on Australian long distance routes. They sold me and I had no problem in getting orders from some of Australia's biggest fleets.

A few months later, one of my fleet customerscalled me, We'll call him Mr Short Fuse (one afternoon I'd come to his office to tell him some new Prime Movers would be late, and he'd yelled through the door "Mary, are you still there?" She said "Yes, Short"

He said "Well go home so I can tell this bastard what I really think of him")

He told me three of his new Prime Movers were at Cummins having new pistons fitted, and what was I going to do about it.

I phoned Cummins and arranged to come over the the service office later that day.

When I got there, I should have realised the significance of about ten pallets stacked a metre high with pistons, but I'd never had a piston problem on a Cummins, so just thought they were rebuild scrap.

When I walked in the girl on reception jumped up and said "We've been expecting you and walked me straight into the Board Room, telling me she'd be back with a coffee. On the way I'd noticed an office full of suits; unusual in a Service facility, but still didn't register.

A few minutes later the eight walked in after, as I later found out working out a strategy to shut me up, and sat down rather nervously.

The General manager opened by saying perhaps an Engineer (my friend) could start by giving us the current status on the L10.

He started with "At the present time we have 120 issues with the L10. I didn't hear the "but we've got fixes for most of them" I was just visualising my next meeting with Short Fuse.

For the next couple of hours we went through issues and actions and who was going to do what and they stood behind every customer and we eventually got out of the soup, but the L10 was never to winner it's designers thought it would be.

That's what can happen to a concept.

Cummins Diesel last year spent $1 billion dollars on research, development and engineering expenses and they have a lot less engine variants that the General Aviation industry, and huge annual sales by comparison.

1 minute ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

 

Well, how many Jabiru's are being flown ATM ?    if there are 100 Rotax hours to only one Jabiru hour then of course the statistics are going to be weighted

No one has made a numbers comparison, just that it's very unusual to see Rotaxes coming down other than in minute numbers.

42 minutes ago, jackc said:

Out of how many successful takeoffs?

As Methusla says, we were comparings known crashes/forced landings.

If it was airliners you might be talking per 100,000 Nm or million Nm, in Recreational aircraft if you base it on takeoffs, no one collects that data, if you base it on mission all aircraft do a lot of missions without an accident. If you just base it on forced landings or crashes arising out of engine failure, it's easier to visualise how close it might be coming to your turn.

RAA occurrence figures list these accident oe  incident causes in order:

1. Engine faiure or malfunction

2. Near Miss

3. Airspace infringement

4. Bird Strike

5. Loss of control

6. Landing gear issues

7. Hard Landing

SplitS:

RAA list 25 accidents for the first half of 2020

Your 4 is a big increase on the figures I pulled for Rotax several years ago, so maybe there is some sort of trend.

.......different brand of baseball bat. This started a fight because the Secretary of the newly formed American Baseball Foundation had just walked past. The Foundation had worked for 35 years to try to rid the game of being for builders only because in it's early days the players just brought their favourite length of 4x2 with them to the game, and they wore their overalls to play. The Players kept on tripping over, so the legs were cut off above the knees, and the problem of trying to remember eastern Eurpean names like Klackenhofenbuger was solved by embroidering a number on their bag.  At first round bats were rejected by the players who ............

41 minutes ago, planedriver said:

I think SplitS is simply 

So much for this site as a valuable resource if this crap isn't moderated out.

7 minutes ago, facthunter said:

A bad subject to teach technique on a forum. Planes spin differently and recovery is specific to an individual type often. Too much rudder to Lift the wing can cause problems. In a spin you are stalled, the world is going round  but the speed stays near the stall.   The first thing is Spin or spiral?  Identify which.. The clue is airspeed.

 IF you are low you are in big strife,  compounded by the usual tendency to pull the stick right back when the nose is down, which probably put you in the spin in the first place . Most planes will come out by themselves.  Some require very specific sequence of inputs and even then may be somewhat uncertain in respect of a predictable positive recovery. Proper training is what's required here otherwise prevention. . Learn how to deal with stalling, thoroughly.  I've forever recommended doing recovery from unusual attitudes training..You never know when you will get into one. Nev

I agree, but see above - he's going to go out and do some unusual attitude training Saturday.

14 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Saturday.

Great! Tell us how you went.

39 minutes ago, SplitS said:

Anyone else notice a trend with Rotax power aircraft.

They should have been flying a Jabiru. 🍿

Why would you say that?

The RAA Occurrance Review for the forst half of 2020 lists 25 accidents and 54 incidents - is it a trend in that volume?

15 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Turboplanner Maaaate !- most of use will know that argument , almost off by heart, doesnt change the wishful thinking one iota AND doesnt alter my observations regarding the shortcomings of LyCons or my feeling that if the USA market demanded something more in keeping with the available technologies, we would have new engine designs/concepts to select from.

My comment did relate to the US market, that's part of the world aviation market.

Lycoming and Continental are two different brands with many different models which might offend you, but are the backbone of GA.

1 minute ago, skippydiesel said:

Shortfielder - I am also deeply effected by nostalgia - I used to have a "thing" for Mercedes W123 (1977-85) 300D & 240D's - had 7 of them at one time - something had to "give" at retirements & it was the Merc's. I could go on about the old diesel Merc's for pages but will control myself and just say - many achieved over 1 million K's, accelerated like "watching paint dry " but could maintain 160 ks all day (if so required), cornered "on rails" and just soaked up the corrugations/bumps. My best one achieved any easy 7L/100K  (this is for a near 2 tonne car). Technology way ahead of the "herd" super easy to work on/maintain and parts cheap & plentiful 

 

BUT

 

Not a patch on my Ford Ranger, great car, which wont last as long, but does things (like pull heavy trailers) that the Mercs should never be asked to do. .

 

My point is, when do you say we have stuck with the lovely old engines long enough and need to move forward, not for the sake of change but to incorporate/take on a load of improved technologies/concepts??

I thought I made the point some posts back, but I'll try to make it simpler.

The aircraft market is a tiny one compared to the Automotive market.

The variety of aircraft require a variety of engines in terms of size, mass fuel consumption, power.

So the market for each engine variant is miniscule.

Some of the improved technologies you refer to will be emission standards where, logically in the light aircraft industry these are not required.

This still leaves quite a few engine variants to be developed in miniscule quantities.

The cost of the development required is in excess of $5 billion, so amortisation of the development cost by the number of aircraft sold even over a 40 year budget doesn't return costs.

If a company knows it can't get a return on its money, it's not going to be silly enough to go broke tooling up.

With the basic tooling amortised on existing engines, the industry can achieve a performance factor which pilots can live with, at a cost which, in some cases they can afford, and other cases more upmarket aircraft which flying schools can afford.

While the engine issue could be anything including fuel exhaustion, the two previous failures could possibly point to an initial issue of dirty fuel, cleaning the system out afterwards, but not replacing the fuel filter with a new one.

Not all filters are up to the standard we are used to with Ryco filters where you can usually blow the filter out with an air hose and go back to as new performance. 

6 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

I'll answer by own question, Turbo. If you are upside down, you are entering a spin, so throttle to idle. 🙄

No I didn't say that and there's no way I would suggest spin training by correspondence, or in a Recreational Aircraft apart from the fact that it's illegal.

You need to do the upset training in a GA aircraft and with a GA instructor both rated for spins.

17 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

So, recovery from stall is: all at once: full power, aileron neutral, opposite rudder, release back pressure.

 

Spin recovery is: one after the other: power to idle, ailerons neutral, opposite rudder, release back pressure.

 

So, when do you decide that you are no longer just stalling and have started spinning? Most of the actions are roughly equivalent, but what you do with the throttle is opposite.

 

When your world just turned upside down; I doubt that you would remember the theory when that happens, so I would recommend an hour with an Instructor in a suitable GA aircraft doing just recovery from upsets. Money very well spent, and entertaining too.

17 minutes ago, Yenn said:

I was thinking it was silly to say it could have collapsed, but then on thinking back we used to have a regular group that flew each weekend. Now I hardly ever see anyone at the strip. Nobody seems interested in running a fly in here, or at least they all say it would be a good idea, but have so little interest I cannot get them to say which weekend would suit. So I gave up and maybe that is what is happening to recreational flying. One bloke even went so far as to say he would organise one, but that was months ago and it still hasn't been mentioned again.

I hope you're reading the posts about full hangars and full flight bookings above. The Title of this thread just seems to invite doom and gloom.

What does happen at times is within a local district the demographics of people's interest sometimes changes.  I can remember a tennis club booming in a particular local district. All the farmers would chip in helping to build infrastructure, organise tournaments etc then a few people retired, no one wantd to do the work, and 50 years ago the tennis courts were dilapidated and covered in sheep dung, but the tennis centre in the nearby town has continued to expand to this day, so what you are saying is quite possible, but a few districts away a country airfield may be booming because all the kids have matured to the point where they want to fly. Also where an instructor sets up business catering for, say four districts and flies to each one once a month, he can build quite a good income per month flying to each district at the start of the week. To me the bottom line for Recreational Flying is the number of paid up members, and that seems to be going very well.

4 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I think the biggest problem is the constant changes; people are dropping off with each change.

 

I notice Tomo featured on a thread. I was only talking to him a few nights ago and said we were talking about him. He said he had tried to get on but his log in didn't work.

Since Tomo regularly posted there have been different site names, .com.au, .com, and I think back to au, and each time we usually have to clean out our memory for all time which means re-logging all the site we use, and if people haven't kept their passwords from sometines years ago, in separate files, that deletion can be a big issue for them. Go through is several times and they will drop off.

7 minutes ago, Admin said:

Another assumption I made is that with what you are saying in the thread "has recreational aviation collapsed" in that the sector is doing a roaring business still with flying schools flat out then why doesn't this site get new registered users? Years ago we use to get many each week and now lucky to get 1 a week. The site is bigger and better than it ever was and moderation is not really needed any more. Is the name not of interest to all these people, people who must be doing Google searches on various recreational aviation things, is the name Aircraft Pilots more their thing now with flying these plastic fantastics and they call themselves "a Pilot"? if the industry is in better shape than it ever was than has this site kept up with the changes in the mindset of the recreational pilot. Just a thought brought about by that other thread!

I think the biggest problem is the constant changes; people are dropping off with each change.

When I log on I stil see posts many years old, one being from a deceased member. Maybe there's a way to stop that, but there's no easily found "Instructions thread. You're looking at the site structure every day, but most people only have to time to have a quick look at the things that inerest them. Make that easy and people will look and stay.

If I remember correctly, the last time you changed the name to Aircraft Pilots it was an absolute disaster, and had to be changed back quickly.

The name doesn't aim at any flying segment except perhaps RPT pilots, and last time round they didn't come, and a lot of recreational flyers dropped off.

We've seen from the other thread, where posts are coming from people actually visiting airfields, the recreational flying scene is very healthy with good bookings and near-full hangars, and people using the Covid isolation policies to restart builds, so there will be more people looking for answers to build problems, service problems soon.

7 hours ago, Jabiru7252 said:

Still haven't got an answer to my question....

 

Well you did get an answer; I'll add to it. After sitting for perhaps thousands of hours, gravity will have pushed all the lubricants as far down as they can get without reaching a solid non-permeable surface.

So for those and the earlier reasons mentioned you do the whole yearly inspection again.

In Aircraft cost of ownership there are two wear/deterioration costs, Operating, and Standing.

In this case with 10 hours operating and 8760 hours standing, running costs will be negligible, but standing costs will be high. (So not all bad in terms of annual budget)

Ownership cost (interest lost on the money invested to buy the aircraft) will also be vey high per hour flown.

3 minutes ago, Arron25 said:

I wouldn't have classed 24 hours ( nearly a full Rotax oil change period on Avgas) being "stright after maintenance'?

 

Probably meant the day before