Geoff_H

Just did my Class 2 with a DAME. Cost me $50 less than a basic class 2. And I can again fly at night and do aerobatics. I only had one examination, not one with an optometrist and one from a doctor. Won't do the Basic Class 2 again.

I have lived under the Lane North of you for over 35 years. I've seen quite a few aircraft coming Southbound in that Lane I also questioned it some years ago and I think the answer I got was that's an advisory Lane not compulsory that someone else might be able to confirm that. Personally I wouldn't go South in it

Around 10 years ago a group of us on the Mooney Australia web site were planning go to NZ. The guys that did the planning suggested that we would be up for a couple of grand each, singly I would expect more. A visit to their website may find the person that knows what to y.

I rented out my first aircraft, it cost me a fortune in damages cleaning etc. My Mooney was only ever flown by me when I owned it. I am so glad that I did not rent it. Same with my house when I rented it out. Only once!

No toe out will help taidraggers. Race cars use it as it responds quicker. Also consider that the C of g is in front of the wheels. A drag to the off side will pull the craft the other way correcting the off course deviation. Toe out on tricycle craft will make the off track worse. It is all in where the C of G sits. All forces produce moments about the C of G.

I believe that the toe in/out depends upon whether the craft is a tricycle or tail wheel. In a tail wheel the C of g is Infront of the wheels, this is critically stable and can lead to instability very easily. I understand that on a tail dragger toe out is better as it acts quicker and pulls the craft back to a more straight line during landing. Landing is where stability is critical, taxying can be less important and whilst annoying I think that most manufacturers look to landing characteristics. Tricycle craft have the C of g in front of the wheels, somewhat more stable arrangement for landing. It is my understanding that manufacturers will arrange toe in/out on tricycle craft so that from touchdown to relatively slow motion that the wheels are close to zero toe in/out. The toe in/out at this point of relatively low loading depends on the way the undercarriage moves with camber and caster and forward alignment during the process of undercarriage loading. I think that as you can only adjust the undercarriage alignment during stationary but light to medium loading is critical then it is trial and error, unless you have a finite element program and lots of time to calculate a variety of options, and of course springs vary so much that you would have to test the spring rate. I have no idea what your friends problem is caused by, I suspect spring geometry or an undercarriage wear problem or change from original, but if one craft behaves differently to another of the same make and model I would carefully examine the whole system including location to the frame of the craft.

Oct 15, 2018 New #48 "Geoff_H, were you referring to the Navier-Stokes equations? They have been around for years longer than you said. And incomprehensible to us poor mortals." The way I understand it the first solution of the Napier stoke equations for ships hulls was done in 1896. I think that it was a mathematical solution to the differential equations. I think, but not sure, that it was using a froude number maybe in three dimensions

The most interesting story that I was told about aviation mathematics was told in 1970 when I was at Uni. Early in the 20th Century (around 1915) aeronautical were working on the mathematics of fluid flow around a solid body, they were so proud of themselves determining all the mathematics using first principles and then published their research only to be informed by naval architects that they had developed the mathematics 20 years before. L ack of communications!

For my money both are exactly the same. An object produces a force equal to the mass change in momentum that it causes to the air, or fluid if we are talking about boat props. But try and work out the lift using the change in flow. To theoretically work out lift use the Dell operator around the wing. Very complex mathematics. However Bernoulli's theorem with a lot of factors to make a single instance of the equation work and you have the most appropriate equations work. There is a website that offers a two dimensional solution using the Dell operator mathematics. But even that is approximate, the three dimensions makes it much more difficult. I did three years of university mathematics and four years of engineering nearly 50 years ago and so the Dell operator is just a faint memory. 20 years ago I got the old books out. I was totally lost in how to do the mathematics. I just use the Bernoulli's equations with correction factors determined by wind tunnel testing.

I wish that I had never made the throwaway comment about the possible lack of need lot pilots in the future. I was seriously trying to find out if there was a genuine upturn in people wanting a ppl. A friend of mine was asked to buy an aircraft and put it on line to make money. Basis of the request was that he could expect 400 hours per year of hiring. Any comments

I worked in super reliable control systems. The first 4 Airbus crashes were a result pilots overriding the control systems. Now Airbus have many actions that are cannot override. Accidents in Airbus aircraft are very rare. When we design superstars control systems we look at the reliability of each individual "control system" usually ifr something is too hot we measure with 2 to 4 temperature devices and use 1 to 4 devices to regulate the temperature. A solenoid may have been tested and failed 1 in every 10,000 operations. We multiply all systems out to get a probability of failure that the systems cannot control . For human travel these systems have to be greater than 1 in a million hours. Why is this relavent? When the control device is a human, the probability is 1 in 2! With excellent training, like I am sure that you provide, it is much better, but no where near the safety figure offered by multiple redundant control systems. I have now retired but 45 years in the control industry have seen me not wanting people's jobs taken by control systems. I don't think that we as humans are going to cope with a lack of purpose . Unfortunately the economics of peopleless machines will win out when big business are just after profits. Who would ever the banks would be like they are today because of automation.

I expect bus drivers employment will be o lot less than 20 years. Bus and truck drivers are the source of money making driverless cars. Airline pilots are only there to make frightened passengers feel safe lol

I have had a report that there has been a large upturn in the demand for GA pilots licence. Has anyone else heard this? I suppose as the airlines are having a demand. Personally I expect pilotless aircraft in around 20 years I wonder if an airlines job has so much future.

Point taken. I don't know what other words to use

I could not agree more. The expense that made the cost around double was that my doctor was not equipped to test my eyes. She asked me to go to an optometrist. The optometrist charged $160 for an eye examination for a heavy vehicle licence. I have a licence that the medical does not all ifr flying, no endorsement so no worries . No night flying, well I think that my night vision is not as good when one gets older, so not really an issue. Biggie is aerobatic flying. Something I was about to start, but next year I can do a dame exam and then get all privileges back.

Sorry, just read profile. I see that you are in Great Britain. Age is getting to me lol

Where are you located?

Sure, but using your driver's licence foris a lot less expensive. But your point is well worth your mentioning it. Appreciate your effort.

My basic Class 2 medical just cost me $330. Now that I am 70, this could be each year! None get away cheap.

Found a publication that says floor height for house must be 500mm +1% flood level ( no idea what it means) above ground. Looks like it floods, hangar may have lots of water in ir

I expect with me in it .

My own design aircraft is single seat. But in case that I die I have suggested to my wife that she not sell it but put a chain saw through it. No insurance problems. She said that she would love to put a chain saw through it, unfortunately she wants to do it now, before it is even finished.

The eye test was so comprehensive. Apparently this is what they do for the heavy vehicle driving examination. Took about an hour.

After spending $200 plus each two years and now reaching 70 and having to do Class 2 medicals each year I decided to do the Basic medical, save some money. How wrong I was. Yes CASA only charge $10 to process it but, I have spent two visits to our medical fraternity and have been charged around $240 dollars in medical examinations and nearly 2.5 hours in these examinations. Went to my usual GP, she is far more cautious than any pilot DAME that I have ever been to. That flying is so dangerous! She could not do the simple eye test and asked me to get a certificate for the heavy vehicle licence eye test from an optometrist. $100 dollars! her fee $125. And I still have to fill out a sleep questionnaire as she gave me some tablets for some sleep problems during a recent very worrying time. I just wish that I had gone to a DAME.

And by the way the most spectacular person that was on the spectrum was Albert Einstein. He was asked to be the first president of Israel he declined he knew that his people skills were poor.