turboplanner

Just as a matter of interest, and I accept there might be a more accurate comparison, but this was a quick check.

The Toyota Prius C is 13% heavier than the Corolla Sedan

The Prius at its GVM only carries 400 kg, so four big guys would make it overweight.

The Corolla carries 22.5% more.

So I wouldn't be getting too excited about a hybrid aircraft, particularly since an aircraft cruises at constant rpm, i.e. without brake regeneration.

Far 103 basically has one main restriction. The empty weight must be less than 254 lbs. You can then add up to 5 gall of fuel plus the pilot. Of course the MTOW must be within aircraft limits. What the poster is saying is that as he is not adding petrol can he add the equivalent weight of the 5 gall (30 lbs) in batteries. The MTOW does not change one iota.

ELECTRIC

Replacing the internal combustion engine and the items I mentioned above (including useable fuel), and replacing that with a battery powered motor is going to reduce the empty weight by a lot more than 30 lbs, so the question is irrelevant.

HYBRID

I haven't seen any hybrid designs for RA aircraft so far, but the hybrid specifications we have seen, each developed at a cost of several million dollars, contain an electric drive motor (s), drive batteries, and a much smaller petrol motor than usual to drive the power line (prop) at maximum power demand, and an alternator while the machine operates at cruise power demand. The 30 lbs for 5 gals would be overly simplistic in this design.

All he is asking the FAA for is to replace the weight that is allowed for fuel tank and 5 galls of petrol with battery weight. No overall weight increase at all. Sounds like a fair request to me. Hopefully they will see it that way and it will advance the development of electric aircraft.

You increase the empty weight to include batteries

You decrease the empty weight by the equivalent weight of Internal combustion engine and its accessories such as exhaust system, fuel injection system, starter motor, alternator, battery, fuel tank etc.

Maximum Zero Fuel Weight (before useable fuel) and Basic Empty Weights are dry arguments if you're going down that path; what the wing understands is MTOW, and electric flying will open up some new horizons.

I would have thought that logic dictates it is a fuel source- as it powers the engine. So should be allowable to the same weight of the allowable gasoline limit.Some will say- but it is a battery and is not consumed- bulldust the energy is consumed and must be refilled after flight just as gasoline does. The only difference is the battery will weigh only very slightly less after discharge.

It meets the spirit and intent of the part 103 rules.

 

The same applies for floats- that adds a lot more allowable weight, make some very light floats and take up the rest of the allowance with batteries stored in the floats- to assist with C of G and stability.

 

And you can always have some luggage that just happens to have batteries in it.

This is also the reason for separating Pilot, Passenger(s) and their masses.

And also for separating baggage for its location ad mass.

To talk about batteries/electricity being a "fuel" might be OK for Philosophy class, but a battery as some has said, with a few exceptions, is something you can't tak off without, and will always be in its same place in relatiuon to the COG envelope, so isn't a "removable" item. Nor is the very clever "batteries in the luggage tip".

Right through the aircrtaft models, from rag and tube to Cessna 210s:

• if the flight is long enough, you will have to cut back on number of passengers and/or baggage.
   
   
  
• if there's a passenger in every seat, you are likely to have to flight plan on an upper limit of fuel, and possibly plan shorter trip legs, and there can be a minium time before you've burned off enough fuel to be able to meet the landing capabity of the undercarriage.
   
   
  
• if you're doing a long leg with medium sized passengers and need full fuel, you may have to cut back on baggage
   
   
  
• And with any of these combinations, you may have to cut something back, or relocated it even further to meet the balance requirement.
   
   
  

The way we calculate aircraft we use cantilever calculations, where the input mass unloads one side of the pivot; that mass just doesn't go up into the air but comes down on the other side, meaking its mass more than 1g (so if something weighs 10 kg, and lifts 30 kg from one arm from the COG it will input 130 kg to the other arm.

In a 60 degree bank (2G), that goes to -60 kg on one arm and 260 kg on the other. (which is why we had the concerns expressed a few days ago about cable ties around a ballast weight on the tail)

I recall someone on here reporting that he'd lost control of his aircraft (Morgan) after putting a 15 kg tool box on board, and just managed to get it down again, so even small mass changes can make a major difference to handling and safety.

I know the investigators had to look at the possibility that he could've made it to a nearby airport but Sullenberger was the one in the hot-seat, and trying to glide a powerless aircraft across the city in the "chance" that you could make it there would've been a very hard decision. The consequences of not quite getting it right are extreme.Especially as the aircraft doesn't really give you many clues as to how far it'll actually go (or how that will change with flap selection to get your speed back, etc) and while you do train for temporary dual engine flameouts from higher altitudes, you don't train for glide approaches in big jets because they're so extremely improbable.

 

The best he could do was hit "green dot" speed (min drag for an Airbus) and stay there while looking for somewhere without buildings, even if it was the water.

 

I haven't seen the movie but I have seen the CVR transcript. They did well with very little time available!

Sully was on the set all the time, and Tom Hanks in an interview said he had one of the first copies of the script, and even after one segment had been cut out/shortened, he still insisted on going over it to get Hanks to understand what the real issues were with that segment.

They did tweak the NTSB involvement from what NTSB routinely does, to make it look as if NTSB had an agenda to prove force landinsg could have been made, and with the benefit of hindsight that wasn't fair to NTSB, but it was dramatic license to make it clear to the audience, of which probably less than 5% would understand the technicalities, just how good the combined actions were.

Some people have suggested it was all focused on Sully being a hero, but they must have missed the parts where all the key players were highlighted including the cabin crew.

I don't think anyone could put themselves in their shoes, and know exactly what THEY would have done.

Have you not noticed the increasing use of imperial measurements, particularly by Australian businesses? Remember when it was a crime punishable by large fines? Was that statute/regulation ever removed?

There were pockets on Industry that satyed on imperial until tooling was amortised, and for a while shome sheet products had an imperial dimension in one direction and metric the other.

In aviation we were one of the exceptions, but after experiencing the rapid adaption of industry, I sometimes think we should have bitten the bullet and gone metric too; it would mainly have been a matter of getting the visualisations in our head.

Certainly there are pockets of individual people who haven't been able to cope with the change, but spend some time on this forumk and you'll see them making complaints when other chage subjects come up.

The Australian Metric Conversion Board, and currency change around the same time helped Australians get their heads around it; that's probably where the US went wrong.

The car manufacturers/aftermarket here made metris stickers you could past on your speedo; in the US they built cars with dual speedo calibrations.

When I first started doing truck design calculations, I was putting metric and imperial measurements on my drawings, but noticed that the drawings I received from the US manufacturer were all in metric, and then one day one fo the guys said "What the hell'r you doin; THAT for, we've been on the metric system for years!"

Tell that to the Americans who refuse to use the global measuring standard, well over a century after Congress decided to metricate the USA. Because of their backwardness (and the global influence of their domestic market) Australia is sliding backwards into using medieval measures.

It's clipped yours off too Ian, like looking through a ship's porthole.

That's the classic academic's report, like the one where the academic himself drowned in a creek of average depth 1 metre.

Reading this from casa it seems like there are only recommendations and no hard and fast rules of which calls have to be made

WEll, you would look a goose calling SMC on the tower frequency, but yes this call has no purpose at a non - towered airport.

The string of calls that you endured at Cessnock #29 is nonsensical, and would not be a safe practice at a busy airfield (although I'd think someone would tell him to shut up very quickly.

The most useless call that's appeared in recent years would be "clear of runway". Why make this call?

So there are no standard radio standards any more, no radio exam?

keeping CASA off our backs is a good policy. Is it not bizarre that our recreational activity is subject to such oppression?You can go mountain climbing or white-water rafting or fast-food eating without semi-police bossing you in detail.

Its my life and I don't want to be policed, even in the nanny way. If I want to climb a ladder, I want to accept the risk all by myself.

 

Alas, RAAus must work within the law of the land and I'm grateful for them dealing with CASA on my behalf. I would get too angry too quickly to do it myself. Not that all CASA people are bad, its their assignment to police my recreational activity that I hate.

The key to retaining your freedomn is to have a good self administering body.

Just likes.

Let's be clear here, we're not talking about gliders or minor power changes; we're talking about a full power application with full flap (we don't know what degree of power was applied in the Yarram crash, although when a Jab gets too low you're not going to fix the situation by kissing it).

Most importantly, does the landing on the Hudson end with the Airbus exploding in a massive fireball, just as the last passenger steps off it?? Wouldn't be Clint Eastwood and Hollywood, if it didn't.

Oh, and I trust there was the regular amount of gunplay, and crazies with assault rifles included.

 

Did Tom Hanks say in it, somewhere, "Go ahead - Make my day!!" If he did, I'm off to see it, pronto!!

Those who've never really thought about their obligations to their passengers, and sliding the pieces of cheese around to cover the holes won't be though.

Awesome film.

PS make sure you stay for the credits until the end

So....USAF would be out of he question then......

I would have thought the pitch up tendency of a Jabiru would be OK to overcome on a go around - even when trimmed for landing.

LSA55 - flew two of them, never experenced any pitch up.

J160 - flew two of them, never experienced any pitch up, and one of them was rigged beautifully.

J170 pre-AD - flew two of them and only experienced on pitch up from 5215.

J170 post-AD haven't flown one.

On one occasion I caught a wind shear on late final on 5215 with full flap close to the mangroves; slammed the throttle full open, and the aircraft ballooned up, as you would expect

The difference between the two occasions may have been momentum coming in vs hanging on the prop taking off.

One habit on 5215 was due to the lines coming up from the rear being bundled; you'd set take off trim, but when you did the final controls free and correct check, the trim control would slide forward with the yoke. I only ever noticed it sliding for take off, never saw it slide back, but that's a possibility.

If this was really the reason what the hell was he doing flying solo, if you are not able to a missed approach with full flap stay the hell away from aeroplanes. I wouldn't want to be the CFI/instructor that signed him off as competent. Aldo

Square shows more of the photo; easier to see what you're looking at with more of the peripheral showing.

The avatar photos are tiny as it is.

I was told by a friend who spoke to the owner of the aircraft pilot was on his first solo cross country trip ,pilot bit short on final and at full flaps applying power to reach the thresh hold plane pitched up and stalled dropped a wing rolled over .

So I can understand that if he was tired and realised he was short, and gave it full throttle it would be easy to be caught by not enough arm effort quickly enough.

Looks like there will be some witnesses: No Cookies | Herald Sun

Are there some Cessna's without starter motors?