I just stumbled on this video. As it has been an eye-opener to me, I thought I’d share.
etn wrote:
I just stumbled on this video. As it has been an eye-opener to me, I thought I’d share.
It is the usual V-n diagram, just check the CS-23 older editions (with all the AMCs in it) and there will be all info there. Actually, EASA has got a worked example for an LAPL aircraft in their certification section…
etn wrote:
I just stumbled on this video. As it has been an eye-opener to me, I thought I’d share.
Hi, don’t listen to the people who have always known everything ;-) It’s a very nice explanation, thanks!
Nicely presented but a couple of queries.
The rolling G shrinking of the envelope by a third rule of thumb seems a bit light to me. Typically a basic aerobatic aircraft has entry speeds of around 120-130 KIAS for loops, which equates to around 4 g or around two times stall speed. However for a snap roll the entry speed is reduced to around 90 KIAS which is roughly around 2 g, and a snap roll is in effect a rolling g, albeit lower g, manoeuvre. This suggests to me the envelope shrinks more like a half under rolling g.
The classic airframe separation scenario is a spiral dive (by definition rolling g) breaking out of cloud and getting ground rush, and pulling even more g. In this scenario you have to unload and push to around 1/4 g, and then roll. A lot of UPRT is designed to teach and overcome startle, and to unload before rolling. The limited panel or PPL unusual attitude spiral dive recovery is a tame departure, not really an ‘upset’, and the unload is not taught, just to roll level before allowing the aircraft to pitch naturally yo trim speed.
The gust lines imply your turbulence penetration speed has to have a safety margin on Va, in GA around 10-15 KIAS typically, over and above any reduction of Va due to being below MAUM.
The narrator is a respected pilot.
Half an hour of mumbo jumbo of what can be understood fully in max 2 minutes 
Maybe it’s just me, but I seriously dislike this kind of children-TV approach to teaching/learning.
LeSving wrote:
Maybe it’s just me, but I seriously dislike this kind of children-TV approach to teaching/learning.
It is not just you.
LeSving wrote:
Half an hour of mumbo jumbo of what can be understood fully in max 2 minutes
Isn’t that the case for almost every “talk” video posted in YouTube? I value my free time too much to bother watch them. But maybe the ability to absorb information by reading is becoming
a lost art.
Isn’t that the case also for every school or university course we ever attended?
Some prefer to read books, some prefer a step-by-step mumbo jumbo course (or video), the geniuses among us will see a diagram or an equation for 2 minutes and will understand everything it is about (provided they had not already known it since before kindergarten!) To each her/his own. Nothing wrong with any learning approach – you just have to find what suits you.
etn wrote:
Isn’t that the case also for every school or university course we ever attended?
The difference is that university tuition is interactive. In fact, in my opinion (speaking as a university teacher), the only justification for formal higher education is the student-teacher – and student-student – interaction. When I (re)design courses, I no longer include lectures as they basically have one-way communication. Instead I use the flipped classroom approach.
