Search Results for : Flight Design

Lined up on the runway, I open the throttle to the stop. The Dynamic surges forward, my right thumb presses a small button at the base of the throttle quadrant and I push the lever further forward. In an instant there’s 15% more thrust and the speed tape really starts to roll. Ease back on the stick and we’re airborne after a very short ground roll and climbing away at well over 1200 fpm.
Flaps up, and 20 seconds later we’re passing through 400 feet, I pull the power back past the detent and the turbocharger control unit (TCU) reduces boost to 35 inches of manifold pressure. I then lower the nose, dial the prop rpm down to 5500 engine rpm and note the VSI is still showing around 1000 fpm before swinging the shapely spinner onto a south-easterly heading. Already I can see that the field of view is phenomenal and feel that the handling is crisp and taut.

I probably shouldn’t admit this, but some features that come with the latest electronic flight instruments have left me a little, um, disinterested. Until I try them, that is. A good example is the concept of “safe glide” or even autoland. Garmin introduced both concepts a few years ago, though the full-autoland idea is more recent and limited to high-end aircraft where the system can control the engine directly. That’s not at my pay grade.
The more common version is what Garmin calls Smart Glide and, more recently, Dynon rolled out what it calls Emergency Glide. They work similarly: When commanded, they set up a controlled descent to the nearest viable airport and let the pilot concentrate on other things. To be honest, I was a bit meh about them as safety features. After all, you’re trained to set the airplane up for best-glide speed as soon as you recognize a power failure and all good pilots fly along considering which airports beneath them are reachable.

Purchasing a used airplane can be risky because it’s sometimes difficult to determine whether the aircraft has been taken care of properly. Buying a used kit aircraft? Even riskier. Not only do you have to worry about wear and tear, but also whether the builder knew what they were doing. But that doesn’t mean buying one is foolish. It might allow you to find an aircraft that truly fits your needs, and possibly save you money because its home-built origin will likely reduce the price.
If you feel comfortable going this direction, then a used Zenith is worth looking at—and if you don’t, remember that Zenith has also made the CH 750 as a factory-built SLSA, of which there are currently 42 registered in the U.S. Anyway, the company has been making kits for three decades and it has a great reputation in the Light Sport world. Its STOL CH 750 model is especially popular among builders, and you can find used ones up for sale fairly often.

Sometimes the simpler the better. At least that’s the philosophy James Weibe has always seemed to follow. He’s definitely embraced that approach with the new visual angle of attack (AoA) indicator. No electronics. No special pitot tube.
The Radiant AoA is a simple vane-style pointer you mount to the wing nearest you—well, because you want to see it. According to Radiant, “Our new Visual AOA provides direct visual feedback of the aircraft’s Angle Of Attack.  Any pitch change or power change is immediately reflected in the indication. It is designed to mount on the leading edge of an experimental aircraft. It is available with a generic mount for the leading edge of aircraft. A top side mount for Sonex (low wing) aircraft is also available.” The instrument is easily removable to prevent skewering your next Young Eagles ride. (Mom says thanks.)
Weibe includes a demo video for your consideration.

 
In the previous article, I explained how high levels of flight activity can make access more affordable and, for most people, how that would likely be achieved only through some form of shared ownership/use. The use of the term “shared ownership/use” is deliberate because not everybody really wants or feels the need to “own” something they use but, perhaps, believes that there is no other realistic or safe alternative.
This article is based on a close examination of the reasons people give for not being open to any form of sharing and looking at how those barriers might be removed. It will also try to address the second, less discussed, part of affordability, which is “accessibility” to shared use aircraft. There is little benefit to being able to afford what does not, essentially, exist. A good, but somewhat parallel, example of this has been the original iteration of Light Sport Aircraft and Sport Pilot Licenses.