The 2022 Aviation thread

Ed Lada

Super Anarchist
19,690
5,303
Poland
Juan Browne on Dallas airshow crash...




I've been following Browne for some time now. I like his objective 'just the facts' detailed analysis of aviation accidents from a guy with extensive military and commercial piloting experience.

Browne and Gryder are friends and often cooperate with each other. Gryder is a bit more opinionated than Browne.
 
I did my service ceiling flight test yesterday. My little 80HP VW bug motor could only get me to 9024' at full power.
nine grand instrument view.jpg


That was plenty high for me.
nine grand window view.jpg



Because I don't have ADSB, I'm limited to 10,000' anyway. In my flying career I've been higher. I flew my L33 Blanik glider to 10,500'. But there I had no loss of engine performance due to altitude!
 

veni vidi vici

Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
5,521
1,171
Flying was my first passion as a boy, unfortunately I found out I was colorblind and didn’t think as career was in my future.
 

Ventucky Red

Super Anarchist
11,563
1,299
I did my service ceiling flight test yesterday. My little 80HP VW bug motor could only get me to 9024' at full power.
View attachment 555162

That was plenty high for me.
View attachment 555164


Because I don't have ADSB, I'm limited to 10,000' anyway. In my flying career I've been higher. I flew my L33 Blanik glider to 10,500'. But there I had no loss of engine performance due to altitude!

That is awesome...
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,806
1,994
Punta Gorda FL

I follow an SR-71 group on Facebook. That was a scary airplane to fly. It would do something called "unstart" and make you shit your pants. Today's entry was about fuel...

The SR-71, needed to be refuelled approximately every hour. Refueling was tricky, but SR 71 pilots were always up to the challenge.

Usually, refueling was the first thing that they did after takeoff. Under some circumstances, while flying from Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa, they would takeoff with enough fuel for the entire mission. No refueling necessary it was called a Yo-Yo. but this was a maintenance nightmare. A few of our missions required the SR-71 to accelerate to Mach 3+ right after takeoff with a 65,000-pound fuel load. The Yo-Yo procedure had the crew chief completely refuel the plane to full tanks of 80,000 pounds of fuel. Then, with the nitrogen pressurization system working, they de-fueled 15,000 pounds of JP-7, ending up with a 65,000-pound fuel load and a plane that was capable of going immediately to Mach 3+.”

Refueling presented special problems: visibility was poor due to the triangular forward window, and the helmet associated with the pressure suit caused undesired reflections. The receptacle (which received the fuel) was aft of the cockpit; therefore, the SR-71 had to fly under- neath the tanker. Normally, one would take on about 70,000 pounds or 11,000 gallons of JP7 fuel.

Typically, refueling took place at about 25,000 feet. As the weight increased and the air speed had to be held down to accommodate the slower tanker, the aircraft became thrust-limited; that is, drag increased as it approached the stall speed for this unique aircraft (there was no additional thrust available without afterburner). At that point, the pilot had to move one throttle slightly into the after- burner range to hold position.

Using one afterburner required the pilot to counter the asymmetry with rudder or just tolerate some sideways flight. Interestingly, the pilots developed the left afterburner technique so the aircraft would yaw slightly to the right. This way, only the left quarter panel had defogged air, and one could get that benefit if needed. Refueling was an intense effort for the pilot and was required two to four times for each mission.

Source: Rich Graham, Aloysius Casey.
~ Linda Sheffield Miller
Hanging there under a tanker, nearly stalled, on one barely lit afterburner. Yeah, tricky.
 
Some people just fly their experimental homebuilts around for 40 hours during phase 1 testing. Some of us use the 40 hours to collect data for the aircraft manual per AC 90-89B and the kit manufacturer's recommendations. Yesterday I did another round of power off glide performance. Not a perfect data set, but it's a little hard to do it all perfectly single pilot.

Waiex 191 glide data 11-23-22.png


After 40 hours, I can leave my designated test area and take passengers. First passenger will be my oldest son, who logged over 600 hours building it with me starting at age 12.
 

Chris in Santa Cruz CA

Super Anarchist
6,447
1,439
earths surface
Some people just fly their experimental homebuilts around for 40 hours during phase 1 testing. Some of us use the 40 hours to collect data for the aircraft manual per AC 90-89B and the kit manufacturer's recommendations. Yesterday I did another round of power off glide performance. Not a perfect data set, but it's a little hard to do it all perfectly single pilot.

View attachment 555577

After 40 hours, I can leave my designated test area and take passengers. First passenger will be my oldest son, who logged over 600 hours building it with me starting at age 12.
Do you do full inspections after every flight with a strong flash light etc.? Did have to retorque fasteners?
 
Do you do full inspections after every flight with a strong flash light etc.? Did have to retorque fasteners?
Heck no. We did a lot more inspections the first few hours and had the cowl off a lot more. We are following the new engine maintenance as specified in the manual. Of course there is preflight and postflight every time.

Part of the maintenance is torquing the head and adjusting valves. Also the wheel bearing races were not fully seated and that has been addressed. All of the flight control connections have cotter pins and everything else has lock nuts. I have a wood prop so I retorque that every time the cowl is off.
 

Ventucky Red

Super Anarchist
11,563
1,299
@Ventucky Red Are you starting to see the light? It appeared to me that thought I was full of shit.


Again, the P-63 pilot lost sight of the B-17 and hit it. Ultimately it’s the PIC that is responsible for the safe operation of the flight.

What else needs to be discussed - who are they going to point the fingers at? The FAA - who approved the plan and issued the permit, the CAF for holding the show, or the pilot for flying the airplane?
 
Last edited:

Ventucky Red

Super Anarchist
11,563
1,299
Did you watch the video? The flight boss sent them on a collision course!!

Did you read the FAR when you were doing your training? Here, let this sink in:

§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.


(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.


(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.


(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
 




Top