Profile

Cover photo
Walt Bates
8,201 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

Walt Bates

Shared publicly  - 
 
All electrical items onboard an aircraft have to be capable of being disabled. The Electrical Smoke and Fire checklist for the B-777 as well as all the other aircraft I flew during 38 years at United Airlines has step by step procedures for turning off any item or electrical bus.
1
Add a comment...

Walt Bates

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
The ICON A5 has some serious design flaws. Notably, if it goes onto its back, as seaplanes sometimes do, you're in deep do do. Good luck getting that canopy open. Secondly, on the downwind to upwind taxi turn discussed in the Searey video note that the ICON has no wing sponsons. A good crosswind will lift the upwind wing putting the downwind wingtip into the water. At best this will prohibit you from getting turned into the wind. At worst it can roll the aircraft over in the water (then see first objection). As for its "spin-proof" wing watch their comparison video carefully where they stall it beside a C-150. When the pilots push hard right rudder and full up elevator look at the respective motion of those surfaces. The ICON accomplishes its "protection" with severely restricted control throws. Good luck trying to do a strong crosswind landing. Personally, I want the ability to fully stall and spin my aircraft. Limiting the max attainable alpha is a poor substitute for proper training. 
1
NimbusKhan NK's profile photo
 
"Limiting the max attainable alpha is a poor substitute for proper training".

...and yet, it is done by any modern AFCS in any modern airliner, such as the one you fly and is shown in your avatar photo....Or is it only good, when it is electronically achieved and pompously dubbed "flight envelope protection"?

Mortality rates in VLA flying come mostly from poorly prepared owners/operators that weren't, precisely, "properly trained" be it either because they have far too much money and think that physics are "boring" and do not apply to them or because they were lead to that perilous stance by less-than-scrupulous vendors who want to portray flying as "fun" and "easy" in an attempt to not lose sales with full encompassing flying syllabus that might be perceived as "bummers" in the ever-so-light current times.

If anything, it makes even more sense to flight-controls-restrict these kind of planes, who are likely to be operated by less than optimally prepared pilots, than to electronically-restrict an airliner that is operated by fully trained pilots, many of us with full degrees in Aerodynamics.

As for your objections to the in-water operation I can't add much, since I never operated an amphibious A/c.

However, I would like to point out that, although it it is true that it has no wing sponsons, it is fitted with in-body ones.

As for their efficiency in x-winds, let's leave that for the designers and test-pilots keeping in mind that strong x-winds are more prone to limit operations on account of off-limits water surface conditions than flare and landing maneuvering.
Add a comment...
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Links
YouTube