The airspeed correction table noted will have nothing other than the IAS and TIAS on it. with no other parameters, it would have to be CAS.Mark, it's still not clear what is meant by "true indicated airspeed". In today's terminology, it's either "true airspeed" or "indicated airspeed". "True indicated airspeed" is a contradiction. Kind of like "real imitation crab meat".
Is there another section in the book that defines terms? Because my first thought was like @Tspin 's, where "true indicated" means "accurately corrected indicated", which says to me "calibrated".
Or it's possible, of course, that "indicated" is an extraneous word. Or it's possible that back in 1957 the terms weren't defined the same as today. Or several other scenarios.
I see. How is that explained? Stalls should happen at the same critical angle of attack - how does the throttle setting affect that?
54 knots is exactly 100 km/hr, so it may be too correspond to some Euro rule.I'm seldom one to express my displeasure with things, but this rule making is poorly envisioned and just an outright waste of time! I'm not sure what AOPA and EAA saught to accomplish here but I'd really like to know if they are honestly happy with what they got. The thing that messes this up to me is the performance based standard. The rule makers have obviously written the rules such that they do not cover the majority (if not all) of the legacy 4 seat cruiser aircraft. Indeed, I suspect the arbitrary 54 KCAS VS1 was selected for this very purpose.
What's a "traditional sport aircraft"? A fat ultralight? A Cub? A Pitts? My Hatz? I'd say all of them, but currently the last two don't qualify.Another thing that is poorly though out are the additional pilot and instructor capabilities. Sport pilot instructors should not be teaching outside of traditional sport pilot aircraft - enough said there - if they want to teach at a higher level they should become CFIs.
You can get a Private today in a LSA, but you need a medical to take the checkride.Similarly, sport pilots who want additional capabilities should be allowed to pursue private licenses in normal category sport pilot eligible aircraft. These folks would then become private pilots limited to sport pilot eligible aircraft (whatever that becomes) with the same capabilities as current private pilots who are doing the sport pilot thing without a medical.
At very high AOA, the propeller contributes to holding the plane up, and increased airflow over the wings delays separation.I see. How is that explained? Stalls should happen at the same critical angle of attack - how does the throttle setting affect that?
Ok I'll bite - here's an example.No, not enough said there. What makes a CFI-SP unqualified to teach in the expanded envelope, and what makes a CFI not a CFI?
where does it say a CFI-SP is only allowed to have three hours of night experience?Ok I'll bite - here's an example.
To provide the night sign off as an instructor all you need to do is be night eligible yourself. Hey, I'm going to teach you how to fly at night when I've only got three night hours myself. I'm not denigrating the sport pilot CFIs -but with only three hours of night experience I suspect they may be trying to just keep themselves oriented much less ride herd on a student.
Okay but why note include the legacy 4 place cruisers?54 knots is exactly 100 km/hr, so it may be too correspond to some Euro rule.
No, this won't make everybody happy, but they have to draw the line somewhere. Remember that LSA originated as a way to make all the 2 seat "fast ultralights" legal. Me, I'm pretty happy with it... my Hatz isn't LSA only for gross weight (it's gross is 1550), now it will be. For a lot of pilots who can't get a medical, it's a godsend.
What's a "traditional sport aircraft"? A fat ultralight? A Cub? A Pitts? My Hatz? I'd say all of them, but currently the last two don't qualify.
You can get a Private today in a LSA, but you need a medical to take the checkride.
At very high AOA, the propeller contributes to holding the plane up, and increased airflow over the wings delays separation.
your statements that they’re not qualified are based on not exceeding minimum qualifications, and your determination of actual qualification is based on hope?No, that's what they have to have to sign someone off for night. Let's hope they've got more!
No - dead private pilots and their families who sleep with the fishes - never had a chance to use that before.full of CFIs who never get night flying experience?
If the CFI-As are screwing it up that badly, maybe it SHOULD be handed over to someone else. The CFI-SPs I know personally have more relevant experience than the average flight school CFI-A anyway.No - dead private pilots and their families who sleep with the fishes - never had a chance to use that before.
They’ve had a couple of bad night accidents with folks leaving out of there at night after dinner - it’s a black hole departure right over the Gulf.You’ve obviously got an affinity for Maule’s and anyone who likes an airplane made in Moultrie GA is my buddy and likely a real good stick and rudder person who doesn’t like or tolerate incompetent folks/pilots. It just concerns me the bar is so low for Sport Pilot CFI that loosing (some - not all) of these folks in 172s is going to be worrisome.
I think the numbers you quoted may be KIAS not KCAS. My C172N has a max VS1 of 47 KIAS and 53 KCAS. But the wing changed with the C172M so speeds may be different for all the models...Am I understanding this correctly - Both the Cessna 172 AND 182 would be accessible with Sport Pilot Privileges?
C172 - VS1 - 48 KCAS
C182 - VS1 - 54 KCAS
So I’ve reported your post to the moderators as I do not appreciate being called either ignorant or prejudiced- that’s what’s called bullying.If the CFI-As are screwing it up that badly, maybe it SHOULD be handed over to someone else. The CFI-SPs I know personally have more relevant experience than the average flight school CFI-A anyway.
And I’m partial to the pilots flying airplanes built in Napoleon, MI. You might keep your ignorance and prejudices to one topic at a time.
That is impressive! One question though. How can Max Cruise exceed Vne?
I think the numbers you quoted may be KIAS not KCAS. My C172N has a max VS1 of 47 KIAS and 53 KCAS. But the wing changed with the C172M so speeds may be different for all the models...
54 knots is exactly 100 km/hr, so it may be too correspond to some Euro rule.
Skip down to chapter 5 ("Performance"). The tables there say 54KCAS is at most rearward CG and 56KCAS is most forward CG.Doing a quick search for C182 POHs on Google, depending on model and year the KCAS stall speeds I'm seeing are all 56 or 54 knots. Here are a couple of the 54s:
Aaaaannnnnnnnddddddd...... From the wording of the proposed reg, looks like that is STILL not fixed for the case where the prop came and went... Prolly worth commenting on when they open up the comments.That's why you can have a 100% stock Taylorcraft, but it's not legal because someone back in the day put a Beech Roby in-flight adjustable prop on it even though it's looooong gone. Ask me how I know.