The place for technical discussions about GA and flying.
Forum rules: Technical discussions about GA only, please.
By riverrock
#1661559
GH - you are clearly attacking the person rather than the question. I suggest you pay the ball. Everyone needs to start somewhere in their understanding.

The original post was simple with an if before the second line, with a reason provided for the question.
The assumption is a common one for every other part of life so why not flying.
It is concise and accurate without excessive verbage. You've taken a simple sentence and jumped to a conclusion.

Wind your neck in.
User avatar
By GolfHotel
#1661560
The other thing to understand about flying is that the aircraft is seldom the cause of the accident. Pilot error is many times more common than airframe or engine failures.

GA Flying it self is hazardous. It is difficult to compare but it’s probably fair to say it’s more dangerous than motorcycling and less dangerous than horse riding. (Unless you fly a Cirrus with one of those nice parachutes. :twisted: :D )
User avatar
By GolfHotel
#1661569
riverrock wrote:GH - you are clearly attacking the person rather than the question. I suggest you pay the ball. Everyone needs to start somewhere in their understanding.

The original post was simple with an if before the second line, with a reason provided for the question.
The assumption is a common one for every other part of life so why not flying.
It is concise and accurate without excessive verbage. You've taken a simple sentence and jumped to a conclusion.

Wind your neck in.


@riverrock thanks for that personal attack on my motivation.

I respect your interpretation of the op. However I think you are being naive. It take little thought to appreciate that his stated assumption is not realistic. As many others have also indicated.

@Quanta Mechanic started off wanting to go straight to aerobatics. Apparently learning to fly is a bit too boring and easy. Rather obviously this ignores the easy option of flying with someone like Ultimate High as he could if he actually wanted to do this

Next he comes on here wanting to know if Microsoft Flight Simulator will come in useful for avoiding the boring issue of learning to fly. How’s that for a reversal from his first post? Now real flying that was boring is replaced by MFS. :shock:

Then he’s wanting to know if all our old aircraft should be grounded? Actually he assumed they should be. Now if he really is a solicitor he should have the joined up thinking to work that out for himself.

He may well be for real. He may well be a spotty 14 year old. Who knows? But for sure he comes up with some weird twists and turns.

And your claim that his assumption is a common one is so wide of the mark I wonder if you have really thought about what your saying? As many others have indicated. It is the norm in almost every field that once something is made to a standard it can be used indefinitely. That could be your old Morris Minor with no chance of remotely coming even close to modern standards of safety that is still “road worthy”. Or it could be the fire alarm in the hotel you stayed in last night. They can have been built many years ago and far far short of today’s standards. This is one area where we already have, arguably, higher standards than many fields.

Finally if it sounds like a duck and waddles it’s probably a duck. (No guarantee it is a duck thought)
mick w liked this
By johnm
#1661623
In respect of the original question.

The age of an aircraft is largely immaterial. Its condition will be thoroughly checked each year at its annual inspection and components reaching the end of service life replaced.

Corrosion and metal fatigue may bring an individual example to the point where it is beyond economic repair but that's pretty rare.

Typically aircraft with nosewheels are easier to fly and those with tailwheels better on short fields and rough fields.

Learning to fly is easy, it's learning to land that takes the time.

That's all you need to know until you've acquired a PPL or similar licence.
By Quanta Mechanic
#1661681
I see there’s some actual quality discussion happening!

Thanks!

Yet I still find it ridiculous that people resort to attacking me because I have worded/spelt something wrong as a means to try and invalidate me! Ha!
I’m not in work now, pal and I don’t need to prove anything by making sure my spelling and grammar is correct on an online forum!

I’ll also mention that my phone keyboard is set to German (as I’m learning German) so its a pain to keep on top of spelling mistakes.

And so what if I want to go into aerobics? Yes I do, that’s my motivation to start flying. Everyone has a reason/ambition to do anything! Why is this any different? (and yes, that would include starting the PPL).

I watched the Red Bull races and thought, thats mint, I’d love to do that!

I was also enthusiastic about planes my whole life. I had Flight Sim 95/98 and had model RC airplanes. Hence why I asked if Flight Sim was at all useful for learning to fly.

Yet again you failed to understand the reasons behind my other thread about aerobatics. I was told by a school that the flight time doing aerobatics training can count to your hours.

And if I could do aerobatics training before paying for a full PPL course, then that’s what I’ll do! Atlessst I‘d have a good idea if I would enjoyed aerobatics beforehand!

I can do and say what the f**k I like. It’s none of your concern, and as another poster has rightly pointed out, your comments towards me have been out of order.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1661691
In the days I part-owned the Colt I took a particular interest in any incidents involving the PA22.

My non-scientific conclusion, supported by nothing more than gut feeling, was that the rag and tube Pipers did a far better job of protecting the occupants than a more 'modern' all-metal monocoque.

Of course, you were never likely to hit anything whilst travelling very quickly in the Colt.

To the OP I'd suggest he posts in the student forum henceforth, where even the silliest of questions are not flamed by order.

Rob P
By MidlandsPilot
#1661727
If you're concerned about the changes in airworthiness requirements, why not compare America's CAR 3 requirements (what a typical C152 would have probably been certified to - predates the FARs) to the current amendment of FAA Part 23, or EASA CS 23. All are freely available online, either from the FAA's RGL or from EASA's website.

You'll see that while some requirements have been added as time has gone on, others have evolved or even remained pretty much unchanged.

Don't forget, old planes that are still flying didn't get to be old planes by magic. They are each issued with an annual certificate of airworthiness (or permit to fly in LAA-land) that says they are, well, airworthy.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By Quanta Mechanic
#1661746
tomshep wrote:You asked the question, responded with abuse to the answers given and don't check what you typed. If you are a solicitor, I'm the Aga Khan. Now go away and hassle some Billy goats instead. The grown ups are busy.



I did not respond with abuse towards people who provided answers! Can you not read either?! I clearly referred to those comments where people just said I must be a troll/14 year old and other ridiculous remarks, contributing nothing apart from a deliberate attempt to be an ignorant/arrogant pratt.6

As pointed out by a pevious poster, my question was perfectly simple and valid.

There’s no need for anyone to come on here and make disrespectful comments, and I cannot see how it is ever right to defend some of the comments which have been made!

That is the last I’m going to say on the matter, unless someone wants to have this discussion face to face.
Last edited by Quanta Mechanic on Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By A le Ron
#1661747
Indeed, many flying schools are reverting to older trainers (e.g. the venerable Cessna 150/152) because they are, well, "more robust" shall we say...
By Quanta Mechanic
#1661753
Using a Spitfire as a simple example, would it then be right to say that if one was built today (with 100% the original parts and gadgets) would this still be deemed OK according to the CAA? Or have some of the parts/instruments been made obsolete or no longer fit regulatory requirements?
By johnm
#1661759
Quanta Mechanic wrote:Using a Spitfire as a simple example, would it then be right to say that if one was built today (with 100% the original parts and gadgets) would this still be deemed OK according to the CAA? Or have some of the parts/instruments been made obsolete or no longer fit regulatory requirements?


AIUI Most of those flying have been rebuilt to very close to original design. Variations tend to be because some items are no longer available and can’t be tailor made.

Why not take a trip to Duxford and ask those who do it?
By cockney steve
#1661785
As Warbirds were designed to carry armament,which could be fired "on the move" and bombers were mainly equipped with big belly-doors which opened into a slipstream, there was a huge amount of strength built-in to take the shock-loading from firing/recoil , not to mention the dynamic loads imposed hurling these big lumps of iron all over the place when dogfighting. again, in the case of a bomber, you had the added weight of cupolas, gimbals and drive-motors.

To summarise, these aircraft were designed to take a far higher level of stress and loading than any conceivable forces that could be imposed in peacetime flying. (not that anybody would need to , or want to, explore the outer limits of their flight-envelope in that way, anyway.

No, I don't have a pilot's licence either (and never have) but I also was a keen schoolboy aeromodeler
and have a mechanical/metalworking background.

I have, in the past, hung a car-engine on a single strand of 1/8 " welding-wire.......you'd wet yourself! a scientist- customer expressed concern, did a quick calc and confirmed that it was only loaded ~ 15% of it's tensile-strength.

Flown in 2 different vintage Aeroncas, when I had a mortgage, a business a woman and 3 schoolage kids

Also went in a more modern Rans 6 (rag and tube) Despite the very flimsy-looking aileron-horns and cables I knew the type was safe.

Perhaps, if you're really interested in Aviation, a few hours spent on basic metallurgy, engineering principles and aerodynamics, will improve your understanding....it's a broad church but all fodder to the inquisitive mind. :)