Phil_P

RIP http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8157128.stm

That sounds about my level, although I am very partial to a single malt

I think I still have a standard one down my shed. I'll check in a while. Anyone got any ideas what it would be reasonable to ask in recompense?

It's easy to deal with, just keep your eyes shut when landing or taking off Landings always have scared the bejasus out of me, I'm much better with my eyes closed. When your passengers screams get really loud, ease back on the stick.

The downward turn myth suggests that there is a practical physical difference that an aircraft will experience between the two situations of; 1) flying along upwind, and turning through 180 degrees to flying downwind. and 2) flying along downwind, and turning through 180 degrees to flying upwind. The only difference is in relation to the ground, however, an aircraft doesn't care where it is in relation to the ground, and only flies in relation to the air through which it is moving. This can be considered it's frame of reference. Someone making these turns in an aircraft will perceive them differently, because of the way the ground moves beneath them. However, as any pilot who has either flown simulated or real IMC (ie can't see where he is going) will tell you that it is impossible to tell any difference whatsoever when you remove the ground from the equation. The article claims that an aircraft turning downwind will lose altitude unlike one turning upwind, due to some fictitious changes to it's energy levels. In reality, any aircraft, turning in any direction will tend to lose altitude unless power is added, for the simple reason that the wings lift is diminished at increasing angles of bank. This one has being doing the rounds since Orville Wright was a wee lad, and I thought it had been debunked by now, never mind a magazine publishing an article on it! Stroll on. Anyone who doubts this, just go for a fly, and fly in a circle. Keep your eyes glued to your altimeter. Without looking at the ground, it is impossible to tell which way the wind is coming from. At no point will your rate of descent suddenly shoot up, just because you have turned downwind.

Just registered, and it's great. Only concern is that there is an article that seems to support the great 'Downwind Turn' myth. Maybe I have misread it, but I don't think so. Phil

You are quite right Dave, as the propeller reaches what is called it's 'pitch speed' the dynamic thrust actually tends towards zero. If the motor always had an excess of thrust above that required to overcome drag, then it would theoretically just become faster and faster, or in the case of our machines, the rate of climb woul just increase. I am working on some figures to try and give an idea what we might expect as dynamic thrust at a given speed. Phil

If you go to the various connected web sites, you can find that it was tested in '08. It does look agricultural, but then it IS. It is being used in jungle terrain to provide emergency medical relief and medivac facilities for locals who need hospitalisation, with only very short strips. It has to endure some very harsh environments, so cosmetics come way down the list. The wing is pre erected in order to make the t/o run as short as possible, so they can get up out of jungle clearings etc. I think it is massively impressive that a company have actually applied the technology in a fantastic humanitarian way.

Looks like Gilo was actually beaten to the punch; http://www.itecusa.org/ifly.html

Damn good idea. The only thing you might have to deal with is an understandable reluctance to 'give up' your hard won site to someone you don't know, and who could conceivably bu**er things up for you with the land owner by taking the p**s.

I didn't say it was naughty Si (you said you had all the required permissions, so why should I think otherwise?) I was just making a light hearted comment about the 'negative comments' post. Phil

Well I used an NGK, '8' range plug, can't remember which one, but it was the correct substitute for the Bosch that Adventure supplied. A '6' heat range plug like your mate is using is two stages hotter. This will reduce any tendency for the plug to foul, but will also make it more likely to burn a hole in your piston. I'd go with the '8' and only change it if you find you are getting poor running from the plug fouling up.

What? You mean like; "He's NOT the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy"?

That was exactly my response when I launched with my Thrust HP, I was so surprised that the wing was there waiting, I almost let it fall back down again! It does make maintaining a little forward momentum quite important though, as there is certainly no tendency to hang back. The new breed of wings is certainly something of a revelation.

Well the Bailey gets me off the deck easily at 108kg on an APCO Thrust HP 09 in Medium which measures at 27.5 m2 flat, if that gives you any reference. The Bailey I have found generates rather more thrust than it's HP figures would suggest. I can only put this down to the prop, which seems very efficient.

All the more reason to calculate your own true glide/ L : D ratio

Report them and their base to the CAA. Get photo evidence of their actions. Report the shotgun incident to the police, they take threats with firearms VERY seriously. So now you are thinking of retaliating rather than problem solving with the sort of escalation that is almost inevitable. You will likely get the same sort of result as the Welsh farmer who painted 'F**c of Biggles' on his barn roof, and then wondered why every pilot from 500 milesd popped over to his place for a look. At the moment, they've pissed you off with their noise and your solution is to potentially kill someone. A disproportionate response I'm afraid. I'll say no more on the subject, you've asked for an opinion, you've had it.

YOURS! You would be doing with intent. Recklessness as to whether there is a risk to life adds up to man-slaughter in the event of a death. If they are not flying legally, go about it the right way and you will have my full support. Do it your way, I hope they throw the book at you!

To all you nay sayers Remember that I did qualify my statements with 'to maintain level flight'. Obviously, the getting off the ground bit is 'climbing' so will require an excess of thrust. An easy way to check out your TRUE L : D is to start off at a given height in still air (or fly an averaging course) say 2000 feet, then time your descent to 1000 feet. from the time and the distance you can work out a vertical velocity. Use a GPS ground speed, hence requiring still air (or if you believe it, the quoted air speed of your wing). the two figures in ratio is your L : D ratio (or glide ratio, it's the same thing). I bet it comes out at a lower value than you expect. Another thing I think people should question, is whether their wing really DOES have a L : D ratio of in excess of 8:1 at their body weight. What the manufacturers are claiming is that for every kilo of drag (which is opposed by thrust) their wing will generate 8kg of lift. That is exactly what a L : D ratio IS. At my maximum all up weight I weighed about 165 kg, I personally think that at that weight, my Swing Arcus at max trim probably had a L : D closer to 4:1, meaning I would need just over 40kg of thrust to maintain level flight, and remember, you nearly always will need more power at fast trim than slow. Given the relatively modest performance of the Solo, I don't think that is too wide of the mark. Personally, I take pretty much ALL manufacturers performance figures with a very large pinch of salt. You might not like the results of all the above, but it is the truth. Phil

Basically, if you have a wing with a lift to drag ratio of 6:1, then you need 1/6th of the amount of the weight you are lifting in thrust. eg, 6:1 L : D wing, AUW 120kg, so minimum thrust required to maintain level flight at best LD speed = 20kg. (120 / 6) Anything more than that will mean you can climb. Phil

No but she often makes a whining noise...does that count Probably a slipping belt, tighten at once to avoid failure.

Mark, I think that you'll find that all the 'approved' (if by that you mean have CAA type approval for installation in an aircraft) sets, are older variants. Specifically the older ICOM sets have approval, but ICOM themselves have decided not to pursue type approval as it is too costly for the limited marke, on their current and future models (and that's from the ICOM UK MD). That said, as long as you operate an airband in the correct manner, I doubt anyone will ever concern themselves with whether it has type approval. The same goes for whether an individual has his FRTL. Phil

If you can't fix it with baler twine, mole grips and a lump hammer, it can't be fixed, eh Dave?

This is the wrong way to do it, Dont. If you cannot get it right find someone that knows how to set it up for you. Pete b What problems does this create then Pete? You seem pretty emphatic, so I guess there must be a reason. It's not something I've found the need to do myself, BTW.

Depends rather on your weight on the wing.