How well can a helicopter handle someone jumping onto it while taking off?

The total mass of a light helicopter is about 1000 kg (depending on type and actual payload, of course). The 200 pound guy adds about 10%  to the total mass (and weight). The skids are relatively close to the centre of gravity (COG).

Immediate impact

Kinetic energy

In terms of mechanics, the jumping man will have a mostly inelastic collision with the helicopter, and he will transfer both, kinetic energy and impulse accordingly. One may simply choose the helicopter as reference coordinate system to calculate the resulting change of (vertical) speed for the helicopter:
$$\Delta v_\rm{H} = \frac{m_\rm{G} \Delta v_\rm{G}}{m_\rm{H}+m_\rm{G}} = \frac{1}{11} \Delta v_\rm{G}  \ \ \ \ \ \ (m_\rm{H}=1000 \rm{\,kg},\ m_\rm{G}=100 \rm{\,kg})$$
In the movie, the jumping man will just make it. The relative speed will be close to zero, and divided by 11 will be even closer to zero. If he had a significant speed relative to the skid, he would not be able to hold himself.

The transfer of kinetic energy is negligible for the stability of the helicopter.

Added weight

The total weight of the aircraft increases by 10%. This sudden change creates a jolt which is clearly perceptible inside the helicopter, also suddenly changing the vertical acceleration. The (vertical) speed is the mathematical integral of the (vertical) acceleration. The speed will steadily change. The same holds true for the (vertical) position of the aircraft, which is the mathematical integral of the (vertical) speed.

In other words, the inertia of the bigger mass will prevent sudden  change of vertical speed. For the pilot, this 10% disturbance will be very obvious, and he needs to counteract.

(Note that there was a related question recently: What would happen if a plane lost half of its weight instantly?)

Imbalance

The imbalance caused by the guy hanging somewhere else than under the COG creates a torque. This torque creates an angular acceleration. This angular acceleration integrates to angular speed, which integrates to roll and pitch respectively. While the angular acceleration starts suddenly, the angular speed can only change steadily.

The helicopter will not loose its attitude in a fraction of a second, like it happens in Hollywood movies.

Countermeasure

The pilot will use the Collective control to counter the added weight, and the Cyclic control to counter roll and pitch. Provided that the pilot reacts timely enough, it should be possible to stabilize the helicopter. 100 kg additional mass should not prevent the helicopter from climbing, unless it was already overloaded and without safety margins before the 200 pound guy arrived.

More critical is the torque created by the offset load and the resulting COG shift. I am not aware of the roll and pitch performance of small helicopters, but I believe that they are able to fly with somebody standing or hanging on a skid. Asymmetric load of this magnitude will likely impact stability and manoeuvrability, but will not necessarily cause a crash.

If the fearless 200 pound guy instead would jump and hold to the tail skid, the additional weight would be much further from the COG, and the outcome probably be disastrous.

Safety

This does not mean that it is safe to continue the flight with the 200 pound guy hanging anywhere on one skid. Pilots always need to verify if the amount and distribution of the load is within the performance limits of their aircraft. See "Helicopter - Weight & Balance, Performance" for some explanation and example (note Figures 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7). Depending on the helicopter performance and the load distribution before the guy jumps, the new distribution may be within the specified safe longitudinal and lateral COG envelopes, or not.


Are any agile (aerobatic) private jets produced?

The reason these aren't built is that there's no market for them. Sure, there's loads of people who would love one of these (including me) but they would be incredibly expensive to buy and operate, far out of reach for anyone but the extremely wealthy.

At the airfield I fly from there are Jet Provosts, a 50's era jet trainer, available. These old, not particularly fast or agile jets cost about 1000 USD per  hour to fly. I've seen Mig-21 (certainly fast with lots of Gs) training for about $4500 per hour, which gives you an idea of the running costs for a fast, exciting jet.

The existing market of people who can afford this is already supplied by military surplus jets. These run from trainers like the L-39 and Gnats to fighters and bombers like Migs, an F-104, hawker hunter, there's even a privately owned Harrier. These don't cost that much to buy considering what one would cost new, and there's plenty of them on the market, so there's no call for new builds.


Why is ARTCC room lighting in the US dim?

The FAA set out the ARTCC Facility Design Guidelines in this document. In short they are dark to minimize glare.

  295. TRACON OPERATIONS ROOM. Lighting intensities in the TRACON operations room are usually kept at a very low ambient level, less
  than 5 foot-candles (fc), in order to prevent glare and reflection
  detracting from the target viewing on the radar displays. The design
  shall consider incandescent lighting with pinhole covers or framing
  capabilities in lieu of fluorescent lights. These incandescent lights
  can be aimed exactly where needed and, unlike fluorescent lights, can
  be dimmed to low light levels.

Its possible the British have no such requirement (under EASA or ICAO) or that the photo was simply over exposed and the room appears bright.


Why does it feel like a plane stops in mid-air during approach?

Lowering flaps and gear will add significant drag, which causes the plane to decelerate. Your body feels that, but without visual reference to the ground, your brain has no way to know what speed it was traveling before or after that deceleration.
This is an example of “spatial disorientation”, where the brain gets confusing inputs and comes to the wrong conclusion about what is actually happening. Pilots have instruments to tell us what is actually happening, which we are trained to trust over the suspect data our bodies are giving us, but passengers don’t have that advantage.


Why are the call signs of some airlines completely different than their name?

I found this on Wikipedia:

  Some call signs are less obviously associated with a particular airline than others. This might be for historic reasons (South African Airways uses the callsign "Springbok", hearkening back to the airline's old livery which featured a springbok), or possibly to avoid confusion with a call sign used by an established airline. Companies' assigned names may change as a result of mergers, acquisitions, or change in company name or status; British Airways uses BOAC's old callsign ("Speedbird"), as British Airways was formed by a merger of BOAC and British European Airways. Country names can also change over time and new call signs may be agreed in substitution for traditional ones.

Before America West bought US Airways, their callsigns were Cactus (associated with the deserts of the American West) and USAir. After the merger, the combined airline kept the better-known (airline) name, and the other airline's callsign. Now, after the acquisition/merger of American Airlines, they're using that airline's name and callsign.  Leading to more than a few radio calls recently (late spring / early summer 2015) along the lines of

  "Center, Cactuuu...merican 123, FL 350"


How do I obtain the max endurance altitude?

The answer depends on many factors. Things to consider are:

Improved efficiency of combustion engines at higher altitude because of lower air temperature.
Lower power output with altitude due to lower air density, so the most efficient power setting coincides with the best endurance speed, which is close to stall speed.

But not all is better higher up:

Again due to lower temperature at higher altitude, the Reynolds number drops over altitude, even when the higher flight speed to compensate for the drop in air density is factored in. This increases the zero-lift drag and lowers the maximum lift coefficient. For propeller-driven high aspect ratio designs this alone lowers the maximum endurance altitude.

There is more, but those are the main factors. So it depends on engine characteristics, wing loading, planform and airfoil and even on atmospheric conditions. This makes it hard to give a generalised answer – in the end the optimum has to be found for each design individually.

With all caveats, a good candidate for the optimum endurance altitude is close to the service ceiling of the aircraft when optimum loiter speed can be flown at the cruise power setting of the engine. If winds allow: A maximum of wind speed occurs near the tropopause, and in order to keep station even in high winds, it might be impossible to fly at best loiter speed. There are stories of Me-109s which should be flown to the western front from the plant in Augsburg and ended up on airfields in Czechoslovakia, because the pilot got caught in the then-unknown jet stream.

Wind speed over altitude at 40N latitude (picture source).


The plane is probably modelled after both a Sopwith Snipe and a Sopwith Camel. Look at the cutout of the wing above the pilot's seat. It's rectangular as on the Snipe, not a semicircle as on the Camel. The engine looks like a Camel's however.

So, this model is possibly a hybrid of two famous World War I British fighter planes.

It could also be a specially modified Camel according to @Michael Tracy (except the painting scheme does not match the one on the picture he provides).


What is the upper altitude limit for propeller driven aircraft?

The altitude 100 km is also known as the Kármán line. It is also called the 'edge of space'. No aircraft can fly higher than this line. Because of the sparseness of the atmosphere they would have to go so fast in order to generate lift that they would reach orbital velocity. Therefore they would be spacecrafts, and not aircrafts.
As you can see it's a theoretical limit, in practice aircraft fly a lot lower than this.

So in effect, no it's not possible for a propeller driven aircraft to fly above 100 kilometers altitude, but this is also true for any other kind of propulsion.

About your other question, I believe it's already answered quite nicely here: How high can propeller airplanes fly?


Is it at all possible (or safe) to pursue a pilot's license with a history of mental illness?

I have no medical degree, but I can give you some things to consider:
Even as a hobby, flying is at times a high stress environment. You must stay alert at all times, and the ability to maintain functionality even when all hell breaks loose is highly desirable. It's not all clear blue skies and three degrees of freedom. You got checkrides, new things to learn, old things to remember, and pretty much everything you do might end up badly.
You correctly point out that medication that effects cognitive capabilities is a strict no-go. As such, a history of using them might not exclude the possibility of ppl level medical certificate, but would require jumping through some hoops, with no guarantee of succes.
Any history of suicidal tendencies is pretty much a 100% no-go. Just a not, you do not mention this, but I'll let the cat out of the bag anyway.
Your anamnesis has quite a listing of various mental issues. You do realize this is a major obstacle, which is a good start. Loading high expectations on PPL licence would not serve your recovery well, but my non-expert opinion backed up by some real life examples is, that a person can shed even quite severe mental issues, and regain & maintain "full functionality" without any medication.
In your case the minimum requirement would be a long period of stability. Be honest to yourself and do not push it. If you get on top of things naturally, you might be good to go for PPL in some point in future. But do not risk you mental health on it, not but pushing towards it, and not by hanging on to it if you get there. As I wrote in the beginning, flying is a high stress environment at times, and it can trigger all kinds of unexpexted reactions. There is absolutely no loss or shame in putting the safety of yourself and the others above your dreams.
Flying is so much fun it's hard to describe it, but there are many other things just as fun, even more so.
Dream big, but don't let your dreams run you, or they will ruin you.


How to perform a "first principle" performance calculation?

The equations of motion are the easy part. In essence, you look at all forces affecting the aircraft (lift, thrust, drag, weight) and balance them with proper control settings (elevator, throttle) and accelerations (if thrust > drag, the forward acceleration is (thrust - drag)/mass).

This you repeat over and over, one timestep at a time. The next timestep sees the aircraft at a new speed, which you get by multiplying the forward acceleration with time, and altitude if the climb speed is nonzero. The new, changed mass is the old mass minus the fuel consumed during the last timestep. And so on. This involves coordinate translations as some forces are defined in the aerodynamic and others in the airplane coordinate system. NASA Langley has published an open source software which does exactly that (LaRCsim).

For very high precision you can even model the inertias and calculate which aileron deflection is needed to arrive at a desired roll rate in the next timestep, but even without that you will get very precise data if the forces are correct.

The hard part is to arrive at the correct forces. We have had several questions here asking for the aerodynamic data of modern airliners, and every time the answer was: They are kept secret. You need to do your own analysis, and it is the same with engine data. Older methods relied on tabulated data, but in order to calculate conditions outside of the validity of the table they need to calculate the forces analytically. To get an idea what parameters need to be considered, look at this answer about the Boeing SCAP module.

However, even some crude assumptions can get you very close to the real result.


Why is the speed brake lever not a "spring" one that returns to the default position when released?

Indeed spring-loaded or not, the pilot will keep a hand on it. But in the latter case, they can still use that hand, and return to the lever, without abrupt changes to the plane's pitch/configuration.

An example busy scenario is a rapid decompression descent.

Source: YouTube; annotated

If you continue watching the video past step 4 (deploying the speed brakes), there are other things the captain attends to with his right hand: pointing something out, making a call to the cabin, fine tuning the mode control panel, putting on the oxygen mask, inputs to the CDU, etc.


Could this "Wingless Dodo" fly in real life?

There is an old saying "If you put a big enough engine on it, you can make anything fly."

The Lockheed Starfighter was a classic example of that. With its short stubby wings it is basically a guided jet engine / missile.

With small wings you have two issues. Obviously, the sheer lack of lift at low speeds, but also the lack of control surface area at those speeds. If you go fast enough it balances out, but takeoff and landing become a major challenge.

Could you do that with a modified stock Cessna?

No. The airframe simply would not be strong enough to support the required engine and the drag would be horrendous. At the airspeeds you would need, it would break up.

Could you build something that looks like a stock Cessna but with stubby wings? With enough money and resources, I'd guess anything is possible. Either built like a truck with a huge engine, or some ultra-lightweight version. But it would be a novelty, an airshow item at best.

Speaking of making anything fly... these are always fun to watch...


What is the meaning of "static pressure"?

There is a static pressure port, often on the side of the aircraft, that senses the air pressure at the altitude the aircraft is flying and unaffected by the aircraft's passage through the air.

The pitot tube, facing into the relative wind caused by the aircraft's passage through the air, measures the ram air pressure, which is higher the faster you go.

The indicated airspeed is the difference between the ram air pressure and the static pressure, subject to some adjustment due to sensor positioning.

The altimeter operates off the static air pressure.

So, if the static line is somehow opened to the inside of a pressurized cabin, the system will read that higher pressure and believe the altitude is what it is inside the pressurized cabin, which will be significantly less than the actual altitude.

And the difference between the ram air pressure and the false higher static pressure (the pressure inside the cabin) will be much less and the system will read this reduced different as a much lower speed.

This is a somewhat simplified answer.


What happens if the gust alleviation system on an A380 fails?

You have a few questions here so I will address them independently. But first off in a more general sense you should understand that everything on an airplane is generally designed with a failure mode this helps to ensure that if something fails it fails in a way to create the least adversity to flight. However there are event scenarios where multiple units fail in such a way that an adverse condition can be encountered. Generally (if you read accident reports) these can be avoided if an emergency landing is executed earlier on.

  What happens if the GAS fail, if for instance two ailerons get stuck
  in an extreme position? Or maybe even worse: imagine a sensor failure
  that produces two opposite extremes on each wing, such that e.g. the
  left wing have all its ailerons in the up position, and the right wing
  ailerons in the down position.

In this case the plane still, to an extent controllable. I don't know for the Airbus, but generally speaking all systems like this have a manual override and can be disconnected. So this is implying that the system is somehow stuck on and not responding. It should be noted that in the Airbus this system does not independently actuate the flight control surfaces and most likely is bused as input to the fly by wire system. On that note a sensor failure generally does not cause extreme inputs but instead causes no input. Most things like this are at least triple redundant (so that you can figure out which sensor is bad) and if all are providing inputs that disagree the system usually disconnects and becomes inop. So to create the case you ask about you would need to have 3 independent sensors provide the same erroneous input which is highly unlikely.

  Could this be fatal?

Its hard to say, but generally speaking no, the direct failure of a single system would not be fatal.

  Are there procedures for this in some checklist?

More than likely but I don't have access to the official checklists so I cant say for sure.


Do black wings have better aerodynamics?

For the bird analogy, you're thinking about this wrong.  Birds have dark upper wings for camouflage, not for aerodynamics.  A predator above them is less likely to see a dark top against a darkish background (the ground).  This is the same reason that many birds have lighter colors under their wings - that looks a bit more like the sky.


Short answer: only part of the airway is unusable, and even then it's usable with GPS.

Your image shows V522 between FAILS intersection and the ERI VOR but you have to look at the full airway, which runs from the DJB VOR in the south-west to MYPAL intersection in the north-east:

As you can see, only some parts of it are marked unusable, even if they're very large parts in this case. But you can still use the rest of V522 apart from those sections; the NOTAMs say the ERI VOR's signal is unusable beyond 20nm until December:

  FDC 6/6576 (A0050/16) - OH..ROUTE ZOB. V522 FAILS, OH TO ERIE (ERI)
  VORTAC, PA NA ; ERIE (ERI) VOR R-264 UNUSABLE BEYOND 20NM. 19 MAY
  11:59 2016 UNTIL 29 DEC 11:59 2016 ESTIMATED. CREATED:19 MAY 11:59
  2016

A 7-month 'outage' covers several of the FAA's 28 or 56 days chart cycles, so I guess they decided it was worth charting in addition to the NOTAMs. Removing the sections completely from the chart would mean decommissioning or redesigning the full V522 airway, which is presumably a much bigger task than just marking it unusable.

Finally, the ATC orders give some instructions on this and if part of an airway is unusable because of a NAVAID issue they still expect RNAV-equipped aircraft to be able to use it:

  4−4−4. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES

  When any part of an airway or route is
  unusable because of NAVAID status, clear aircraft that are not RNAV
  capable via one of the following alternative routes:

So the only aircraft that can't use those parts of V522 are ones that have to use the ERI VOR signal for navigation and even then they can expect ATC to give them an alternative route.


Is an FAA Part 121/135 checkride conducted under Part 91 or Part 121/135?

Any flights operated by a certificate holder must be operated in accordance with the authorization of their certificate. Authorization will vary.

An Air Carrier may conduct training1 flights under §91 if authorized to do so. If not authorized, any flights operated by that Air Carrier—including training flights—must be conducted under the part of 14 CFR (§121, §135, etc) specified by their Air Operating Certificate (AOC).

An Air Carrier may be authorized to conduct training flights under 14 CFR 91 in accordance with their Operation Specifications authorized by the FAA.

The exception to this would be if that Air Carrier's Operation Specifications do not authorize the Air Carrier to conduct flights under §91. I know of no reason for such exception, nor if any such exception has been withheld from any actual Air Carrier.

The authorization is found within the Operation Specifications of the company in question, not necessarily in 14 CFR, though it can be inferred there. See Operation Specification A001 for authorization to conduct training flights under 14 CFR 91, for example:

  d. The certificate holder is authorized to conduct flights under 14 CFR Part 91 for crewmember training, maintenance tests, ferrying, re-positioning, and the carriage of company officials using the applicable authorizations in these operations specifications, without obtaining a Letter of Authorization, provided the flights are not conducted for compensation or hire and no charge of any kind is made for the conduct of the flights.

(The above is an example only; actual authorization may vary.)

An Air Carrier may also be authorized by A031 of their Ops Spec to make arrangements with an outside party for Contract Training, including instruction and evaluation. An authorized outside party under this specification may include a §142 Training Center and/or a different §119 Certificate holder authorized to conduct training and/or checking. Any training flights operated by either such certificate holder must likewise be authorized by the terms of their certificate.

1Note: Regarding the question of what is included under the definition of the term training—particularly whether checkrides are included in that definition—no explicit guidance is offered. However, a definition might well be inferred from—among other things—the definitions for the following two terms as found in Ops Spec A002, Definitions and Abbreviations:

  Major Contract Training
  Any flight training, flight testing, or flight checking leading to and maintaining certification and qualification of air carrier flight crew members in accordance with the requirements (maneuvers and procedures) explicitly stated in 14 CFR Parts 61, 121, or 135; or in SFAR 58 Advanced Qualification Program (AQP), as applicable.

  Outsourced Training
  Any training, testing, or checking activity which an air carrier certificate holder provides by way of a contract arrangement with another party.


How is a meatball calibrated and checked?

There is a vast amount of printed information available on the IFLOLS. A thorough understanding of the following list of publications is a must for an LSO:

Technical Manual, Improved Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System Mk 13 Mod 0, Installation, Service, Operation, and Maintenance Instruction (NAVAIR 51-40ABA-21).

— NATOPS Landing Signal Officer Manual (2004)

If you want a thorough how-to, I believe NAVAIR 51-40ABA-21 is the way to go if it is publicly available.

Stabilization

4.3 IFLOLS STABLIZATION INPUTS
IFLOLS receives ship’s pitch and roll information from either the ship’s gyros or SPN-46. IFLOLS receives ship’s heave information from either an IFLOLS generated ship’s heave signal or SPN-46. The IFLOLS signal is generated using the IFLOLS unit 5 accelerometer. The IFLOLS can use either ship’s pitch and roll gyro source with either heave source. When aircraft are landing using ACLS, any mode, IFLOLS should use the same stabilization inputs as SPN-46. Typically SPN-46, SPN-41, and IFLOLS will all use the SPN-46 gyro for pitch, roll, and heave information when aircraft are landing using ACLS.

SPN-42/46 is a carrier-landing radar.
From Wikipedia—

[The] shipboard units are mechanically moved (the "roll angle") to adjust the touchdown point of each aircraft. With this adjustment, the tailhook touchdown point can be precisely targeted based on the tailhook-to-pilot's eye distance for each aircraft type.

Calibration
(YouTube) Calibration c. 1968.
Manually calibrating the IFLOLS from the stern of the ship from specified distances and heights hasn't changed much from the earlier days.
(navy.mil) ATLANTIC OCEAN (May 13, 2013) Electrician's Mate 3rd Class Martin Torres, from Long Beach, Calif., calibrates an Improvised Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (IFLOLS) aboard the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77). George H.W. Bush is conducting training operations in the Atlantic Ocean. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kevin J. Steinberg/Released)
(navy.mil) CORONADO, Ca. (Nov. 16, 2016) Sailors assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) take measurments while conducting maintenance on the ship's Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System on the flight deck. Nimitz is preparing to get underway to conduct routine operations in preparation for an upcoming 2017 deployment. (U.S. Navy photo by Seaman Cole Schroeder/Released)


Why are landing gear retraction mechanisms mostly based on the four bar system?

(wikimedia.org)

The schematic above (with four arcs that are easy to trace) will hopefully serve as a starting point. This is a rather simple mechanism, say compared to the A380's body landing gear.

The principle can be explained by trying the proposed solution, and see what problems we run into. If you place only one actuator to rotate the landing gear at the attachment point* to the airplane (magenta colored circle), you run into many problems:

No locking mechanism
Small lever arm
Bigger actuating force needed
Limited movement (no full retraction/extension possible), unless

Packaging the mechanism in a small volume is not required
More linkages are added.

End result: back to square one, the first 3 problems, and no space for it in the limited volume of wings/bellies.

* If you place the actuator in a more convenient place like near the wing root, then it won't be able to get out of the way to stow the landing gear, unless you have a very thick unrealistic wing.

Note from the above schematic that the hydraulic cylinder (1) needs to retract/expand only by a relatively short distance to accomplish the retraction/extension.

The flaps and slats are also complex, not only you need to turn something around an axis, you need to translate it as well, creating the gaps seen, and package it neatly in a small volume.

If this basic objective is clear now, the next step is to read more, and to build models and/or play with kinematic simulation software. Try to build the same mechanism with one link, and then try to solve the issues you run into.


What is meant by a "pressure system" in FAR 91.205?

EDIT:    With the additional information that the oil pressure gauge is "pegged", the CFI is correct in calling it un-serviceable.

It sounds like the A&P has checked the engine oil pressure with another means and finds that the actual engine oil pressure reading is within limits. The A&P then signs it off thinking that a correct gauge reading is not required. The A&P is incorrect as a serviceable gauge is required as per FAR 91.205

Oil pressure gauges are required for engines with pressurized lubrication systems,  but not for engines with "splash" oiling.

Older engine designs, and may of today's smaller engines (like lawn mowers), use a "splash" oiling system that does not supply oil under pressure to the bearing journals, or to other friction points in the engine.

In a "splash" system, oil is applied to the cylinders and pistons by rotating dippers on the connecting-rod bearing caps. As they they rotate, the dippers pass through the oil pan and slash oil into the areas that require lubrication.

If the oil pressure gauge in your "pressure system" is reading high, outside acceptable limits, it should be replaced. It is easy to confirm using another gauge. High oil pressure can also be caused using the wrong viscosity oil, incorrect pressure relief valve on the oil pump, or bearing clearances that are to tight.

High (or low) oil pressure could cause an engine to fail. If the gauge was out of calibration, it would be impossible to tell what the actual pressure was. If you are accustomed to seeing high oil pressure, how could you possibly identify what was too high, or what was too low?

I would not want to fly any aircraft with an inaccurate oil pressure gauge because it would rob you of valuable time to deal with an engine that might fail at any time.


Yes, you can trust the PAPI lights. As usual in aviation, safety is priority #1, this also applies to airport lighting, which is checked and monitored continuously.
PAPI lights are calibrated regularily to ensure their indications are correct. As with all technical equipment, there is a non-zero risk PAPI lights may fail, however, given how simple they are (literally just a light bulb, a colour filter and a lens - no moving parts) a failure is very unlikely.
You should note that not all PAPI lights are calibrated for a 3° glidepath. While 3° is most common, there are runways where the normal approach angle is different and the PAPI lights will be calibrated to that. So make sure to check the airport charts before using the PAPI system, or you may risk coming in steeper or shallower than you are used to.
Also note that, as pointed out by @wbeard52, approaching with the PAPI showing two whites and two reds is not a guarantee of obstacle clearance if you are far from the runway - it is only a guarentee that you are following the nominal glideslope of the approach procedure with which the PAPI is aligned.


Is it required to be an ATP and work for an airline to be a Captain?

The key phrase, legally speaking, is "pilot in command".  On a multi-crew aircraft the PIC is normally given the honorific title of Captain, but what really matters is the legal status of PIC where an aircraft legally requires more than one crew.  In general to be PIC of a multi-crew a/c you need an ATPL.  Operators may operate single-pilot aircraft like Caravans as if they were multi-crew with two pilots and call the PIC Capt, but again that's just an honorific title and in that case the PIC can be just a CPL.

Like DLH says, a PPL or CPL can call themselves anything they want; Captain, Great Exalted Poobah, Zontar The Munificent, whatever.


If:

Your unmanned aircraft weighs between 250g and 25kg (including fuel and cargo),
You are not flying under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, also known as section 336
You intend to operate it outdoors, and
You are operating it in the United States,

you need to register your drone through the FAA's online registration system.  If your drone is heavier than 25kg, you need to go through the regular aircraft registration process.  If your drone is ligher than 250g, or you are only operating it indoors, you do not need to register it.

Additionally, if you are operating the drone for commercial purposes, you must have a remote pilot airman certificate.

(Note: if you are younger than 13 years old, someone who is 13 or older needs to register your drone for you.)


What is the ultraviolet signature, if any, of aircraft and jet engines?

Your assumption is correct - it is indeed about infrared (wavelength between 750 nm and 10,000 nm) and ultraviolet (wavelength between 100 nm and 400 nm) radiation. The sensor detected two specific wavelengths, one from each range.

Every body has an electromagnetic radiation which is consistent with its temperature. This radiation has an intensity distribution which shifts to shorter wavelengths with temperature. By comparing the intensity of the IR and UV parts of this radiation, the sensor can much better distinguish between radiation sources of different temperature. Flares are normally hotter than engine exhausts, so by detecting an excess of UV radiation, the sensor can distinguish between flares and exhaust pipes.

"Wiens law" by 4C - Own work, based on JPG version. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons.

Natural disturbances means reflected sunlight off a polished aircraft surface or canopy, or off lakes or windows on the ground. Even after filtering by the upper atmosphere, sunlight will contain much more UV radiation than your average exhaust pipe, and glares were a big distraction to early thermal seekers. Sunlight would correspond to the green line in the diagram above, while the exhaust would be even below the dark red line.

Note that the absolute intensity also goes up with temperature, but would not help in identifying the temperature of a target if only one wavelength is observed. A more distant, hotter target would cause the same intensity than a colder, closer one. By sensing two wavelengths, the sensor could much better tell an exhaust pipe from other heat sources.

To answer the question directly: The UV signature of the aircraft itself is practically zero except for the reflection of the UV part of sunlight, and the active UV emission of a jet engine is extremely low and concentrated around its exhaust when seen from behind. Lighting the afterburner will increase the UV radiation, but it will still be much less relative to the IR radiation that that of, say, burning magnesium.


Where can I find GA VFR maps for Australia?

I have both US and Australian PPLs, and having flown VFR in both countries, there are some real differences in the VFR charts and supplemental data available. Mostly the contents are fairly evident but if you are unfamiliar with a specific type of VFR chart, it is important to look over the chart in detail to make sure you understand it.

The US publishes VFR charts known as Sectionals. These cover the entire country, including non-continental areas like Hawaii. IMHO these are excellent although in busy airspace, the 1:500,000 scale can become complex. So pilots learning to fly in the US usually become familiar with the sectional covering their base field, and then with that understanding, can look at sectionals for anywhere else in the US.

Printed sectionals can also be used for long range VFR flight planning as they can be laid out in sequence and routes plotted across adjoining chart boundaries. For online chart examination, SkyVector publishes all US sectionals online, which is a great resource.

Australia does not publish sectionals covering the whole country. It's a good question as to why but essentially the centre of the country is a big desert where few people live. So from a historical perspective, the inner part of the country has been regarded as "remote" and thus less in need of highly detailed maps. In addition, the word 'sectional' isn't even in Australian pilot lexicon, so use the word 'chart' instead.

Australia publishes Visual Terminal Charts (VTC) for each large metropolitan area which are a Mercator projection at 1:250,000. And there are Visual Navigational Charts (VNC) which mostly encapsulate the VTCs and are at 1:500,000 (same as sectionals). The image below is an example of the Brisbane VTC.

As VTC/VNCs cover only largely populated areas, for printed chart long VFR route planning, you will need to revert to the World Aeronautical Charts (WACs), pronounced 'whacks'.

WACs started as an ICAO project after WW2 to transition from the existing US-based international wartime series and so all Allied nations were effectively asked to harmonize their maps with a US design. But in 2015, the FAA stopped WAC production and thus a recently US-trained VFR PPL would never have heard of them(!)

The US WAC coverage looked like this:

WACs are a Lambert projection at 1:1,000,000 and in Australia, printed chart VFR route planning would be done over sequential WAC's, with likely a supplemental VNC chart for the populated areas to be crossed. WAC's do not contain airspace (although supposedly an aeronautical chart!). They are essentially a topo map with features that are easy to spot from the air.

So, to answer the OP's question - no, there are no free online sources for Australian government produced charts. SkyVector shows a very data sparse US Sectional-like view of Australia but I wouldn't use it for anything other than simple distance/leg planning.

However, all of the previously mentioned chart types for Australia are now encapsulated and adjoined in a single app known as OzRunways. I have no association with them, other than being a customer. Another answer has also referred to this as well.

OzRunways works on both iOS and Android and in my experience seems very widely used amongst Australian VFR pilots. For VFR use, they provide a so-called 'Hybrid VFR Map' which simply uses the most detailed chart available. Price at time of writing is about AUD $100 and chart-wise also has New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

But also of value to pilots flying in Australia, there is comprehensive airfield information available in the ERSA (EnRoute Supplement Australia), which is a free download. It lists technical aspects/refueling contacts/etc. for every sizeable airfield in Australia. In addition to this, AOPA also publish a pilot guide for various airfields. OzRunways contains the ERSA and for an extra amount, they also will bundle the pilot's guide.

I would value any other comments about VFR chart sources for Australia but hopefully this is a good overview.


How much lift comes from the fuselage on modern jets?

Not as much as potentially possible. This thread lists the numbers for some common aircraft and should give you a general idea, it seems to be ~10%

  747:

  Wings: 89.5%
  Fuselage: 13.1%
  Horizontal Tail: -3.7%
  Vertical Tail: .1%
  Nacelles and Pylons: 1%

  P-51D:

  Wings: 92.9%
  Fuselage: 7.7%
  Horizontal Tail: -.7%
  Vertical Tail: .1%

I belive the center bulge on the bottom is also there to allow for a floor recess in the cabin making it easier to get around.


What are the operational differences between an airplane equipped with a constant speed propeller and one with a fixed pitch propeller?

A constant speed propeller runs at a specific rpm by changing the blade pitch. When the blades are at a lower pitch (i.e., flatter angle), there is less air resistance, so the propeller puts less drag on the engine and runs faster. Additional pitch causes more drag and slower RPM. A governor (or something similar) will adjust the blade pitch to keep the propeller running at a particular rpm, even when more or less power is produced by the engine.

A constant speed prop is typically found on more powerful engines. Constant speed props are more efficient, but are more complex and heavier than fixed pitch props.

Some planes have a prop speed control for the pilot to adjust the propeller rpm, and some, such has the Cirrus SR22 and Pilatus PC12 have a single prop speed for flight.

The operation of a variable pitch prop depends on the plane. For example, in a Cirrus SR22 you don't even have a propeller pitch control. You operate it just like a fixed pitch prop. With a Pilatus PC12, the only prop pitch adjustments are when you feather the prop on engine shutdown or reverse the prop pitch for landing or ground operations. In a Beech Bonanza A36, you adjust the prop pitch for max RPM (minimum pitch) on takeoff, then add pitch for cruise flight, and max RPM for landing (in case of go-around).


Do Airbus avionics give good deadstick landing outcomes?

Airbus (A320+) normal flight law will, at slow speed¹, maintain angle of attack according to the side-stick position, where full aft deflection gets you to the onset of stall.

However the ram air turbine (at least on A320-family; not sure about A330) does not provide enough power to keep all units on and then the system degrades to direct law, in which the side-sticks just control the deflection of the control surfaces directly. This is similar to any other aircraft except since there is no force feedback the side-stick does not become stiffer with increasing speed.

In the US-1549 flight case (landing on Hudson), they had enough time to start the APU, so all systems were powered and they had normal law and did take advantage of it to let the airplane settle as slow as possible.

In the recent U6-178 flight case we don't yet have enough information whether they did have normal law available.

¹ Slower than normal approach speed. At normal speeds, the system maintains wing loading at 1G with neutral side-stick, which can be also described as trimming for current speed. Until the trimmed angle of attack exceeds alpha-limit (12.8° IIRC; 17° is onset of stall, on normal approach should be around half of that), when it switches to maintaining angle of attack.


How do I convert my FAA PPL to the equivalent in the UK / Europe?

As a disclaimer, this answer is based on Googling, not on personal experience, and compared to the US the situation seems very complicated. I'd suggest contacting the CAA directly; EASA delegates licensing to its member states, so the practical details depend on the country you're in. You can read about one person's experience here, although it's in Hungary, not the UK.

Anyway, it looks like there are two processes: validation and conversion. A validation is a temporary license valid for 12 months only (or 24 months, according to some sources), whereas a conversion gives you a full EASA license. The purpose of a validation seems to be to let you fly while you work on conversion; I couldn't find any definitive sources on the process.

As for conversion itself, the requirements I found on various sites are consistent with EASA's own information:

  If you hold a Private Pilot Licence obtained outside Europe or not
  according to the relevant EASA licensing regulations, you can convert
  it to an European one. In order to do this you will need to pass an
  exam on Air Law and another exam on Human Performance. You also need
  to undertake a skill test and have at least 100 hours as a pilot in
  the relevant aircraft category.

That doesn't sound too bad, although I have no idea how much effort and expense there is in practice. If you're instrument rated, though, the requirements seem quite onerous compared to the US because of the large amount of theory required (this is from the same EASA source):

  Competence Based Instrument Rating (CB-IR): This rating is for those
  who already have an Instrument Rating issued outside Europe (e.g.
  FAA). This reduces the requirements of obtaining an Instrument Rating
  to at least 80 hours of theory and 40 hours of instrument time, 25
  hours of which must be training.

And to add more complication, it appears that the UK currently allows FAA license holders to fly using their FAA license but in the UK only, i.e. it isn't an EASA license and therefore not valid across Europe. There's an ongoing discussion with EASA about it, so it might not be a good long-term option but I really have no idea.

There's also something in the UK - and perhaps other countries? - called an NPPL, a National Private Pilot License. But that also has limitations, and isn't valid outside the UK.

Finally, although it's common to see N-registered aircraft in Europe, if you're a European resident then you can't fly them with just an FAA license. You also need an EASA license.

Someone who's actually converted an FAA license to EASA could probably give you a better answer.


Which authority regulates airliner design?

The safe operations of an aircraft is called airworthiness. It is the standard by which an aircraft is determined fit to fly. Responsibility of airworthiness lies with national aviation regulatory bodies, manufacturers, as well as owners and operators. International standards are dictated by ICAO during the aircraft design process:

  The International Civil Aviation Organization sets international
  standards and recommended practices for national authorities to base
  their regulations on

FAA has regulations governing all aviation activities in the US. EASA also has airworthiness regulations.

The answer to your question is:

  The aircraft manufacturer makes sure that the aircraft meets existing
  design standards, defines the operating limitations and maintenance
  schedules and provides support and maintenance throughout the
  operational life of the aircraft.


Where does my pee go when I flush at 35,000 ft?

I can speak for the most common commercial models (the 7x7s, A3xxs and the like) via an engineer friend.  All of these models flush into a tank which is emptied on the turnaround.

For Vulcans, I can speak with first hand experience.  Each crew member had a stainless steel "pee tube", a funnel, which fed into a rubber bladder.  They are emptied and cleaned during the after flight inspection.

I was changing a radio under the rear crew table where the electronics, navigator and radar operator sat.  This involved squeezing down behind the seats to lie under the table, disconnecting and unfastening the radio, hauling onto your chest then pushing it up onto one of the seats and reversing the process to get out from under the table.

As I pushed the radio up onto the seat, I knocked one of the pee tubes and bladders out of it's clip holder which then emptied the contents onto me and the radio.

The bladder had not been emptied - and the aircraft had been in the hangar for 3 weeks!

Of course, it was my job to clean up the mess - lots of french chalk as urine is very corrosive to airframes.

The radio also needed writing up so I tagged it as "suspect urine ingress".

The same radio came back to me with a tag attached saying (and this might work only for non-American English speakers) - "are you taking the p*ss?".

Yeuch.


What does gravity compensation do in flight control?

That term is a feedforward.
It simply makes sure that during a turn the rudder will anticipate the need for that $r$ component and thus helps making the turn coordinated.
Since the term is complete (i.e. there is also the $\theta$ component) this will work also for climbing/descending turns.


What is the meaning of these Lido abbreviations?

RCONT is route reserve / contingency fuel:

SKYbrary Fuel - Flight Planning Definitions

  Contingency fuel is carried to account for additional enroute fuel consumption caused by wind, routing changes or ATM: ATM/CNS restrictions. According to ICAO Annex 6, the recommended minimum contingency fuel is the greater of 5% of the trip fuel or 5 minutes holding consumption at 1500' above destination airfield elevation computed based on calculated arrival weight.

In this case the 5 minute holding consumption is greater than the 5% of trip fuel, so it is the one considered in calculation.


What are the advantages of squawking 7700?

If you make a radio call, unless you are on 121.5 (or 243 military), then only the station you are talking to will initially know about the emergency. Initial calls should always be with the unit you are working with unless you are VFR.

If you squawk 7700, then all stations in transponder range, including possible airborne stations such as AWACS and SAR will know right away that you are in trouble, with position, altitude and possibly aircraft type and flight number.

If VFR, you might not be talking to anyone and may not have the frequencies of nearby units easily to hand.

Squawking 7700 is definitely a good thing.

You mentioned being busy.  The mantra drilled into everyone is "aviate, navigate, communicate".  In most circumstances, fly the plane, fly it where you want it to go, then tell someone about it.  Squawking 7700 will be one of the last actions carried out.


What type of supersonic intake does the Dassault Rafale fighter jet have?

The semi-ventral pitot air intakes is a compromise between Ventral and Side Mounting where the intakes and their ducts are placed on the lower corner of the fuselage. In order to prevent interaction in case of single engine failure Rafale uses two semi-circular air intakes on the windward side, separated by the body.

Intakes are separated from the fuselage so as to avoid capturing the fuselage boundary layer (layer of air where air slows from high velocity relative to aircraft at its edge to standstill at the surface itself) as boundary layer, if enters engine, impairs pressure recovery and increases distortion, thus lowering intake performance; space between intake and fuselage is called external boundary layer bleed. This space is repartitioned, and expansion waves from it energize canard root vortex. Engine cooling duct is also located in this layer. In case the Rafale is equipped with stronger engine, intakes can be enlarged.

The architecture of the air intakes along with the nose and main undercarriages gives the capability for a large store to be carried under the fuselage, which is essential to achieve certain Air-to-Ground missions


What equation describes the relation between engine thrust and EPR?

I'm heavily cribbing from Boeing's "Jet Transport Performance Methods" here, so hold on to your seat...

F = m· (V2 – V1)
where m· is the gas flow rate, mass per unit time
V1 is the initial velocity of the gas
V2 is the final velocity of the gas
Let’s re-write equation 3 in a more complete form:
Fnet = [(m·core air + m·fuel) × Vcore exhaust] + (m·fan air × Vfan exhaust) - (m·air × Vairplane)                                       Note that the force is
now called Fnet, for net thrust. What are those terms in
parentheses? The term (m·air × Vairplane)is the momentum per unit
of time of the air being taken into the engine.  The term [(m·core
air + m·fuel) × Vjet exhaust] is the momentum per unit of time of
the gas leaving the core of the engine. Notice that we are now
accounting for the fact that the mass flow of the exhaust is greater
than the mass flow of the inlet, because fuel has been added to the
intake air.  Finally, the term (m·fan air × Vfan exhaust)is the
momentum per unit of time of the air leaving the fan stage of the
engine. The net force, which is the thrust produced by the engine,
is the algebraic sum of these three terms, which is the rate of
change of momentum of the gas as it passes through the engine.
If we considered only the first two terms, the exhaust flow, we would see only the force created at the fan and the exhaust nozzle.
But this is only half of the story, because we must remember that the
flow of the air entering the engine also has momentum and the useful
work that the engine is doing is the difference between the two.

Note that m· is "m-dot." The dot should be over the letter "m" but didn't copy well from the original pdf. I bold-texted the part about force created at the fan and exhaust nozzle, because I think that's what you're measuring with EPR. Again, from the JTPM textbook:

This stands for engine pressure ratio. It’s the ratio of the gas flow
total pressures measured at two specific points: at the entrance to
the exhaust nozzle (station 7) and at the inlet to the fan and
compressor (station 2). EPR is defined simply as:
EPR = Pt7 / Pt2
where Pt2 is the total pressure measured at station 2 Pt7 is the total
pressure measured at station 7

Hope this helps. Just a little math, but I highly recommend the whole book.


Is it legal to fly an aircraft with no navigation beacons, and only solid lighting?

This answer assumes that the question is in the context of the FAA's jurisdiction.
The red, green and white lights are position lights. They are required from sunset to sunrise by 14 CFR 91.203.

(a) During the period from sunset to sunrise (or, in Alaska, during the period a prominent unlighted object cannot be seen from a distance of 3 statute miles or the sun is more than 6 degrees below the horizon)—
...
(1) Operate an aircraft unless it has lighted position lights;

A solid red or solid white light on the underbelly doesn't correspond to a configuration that I am familiar with and doesn't meet the legal requirements.
I have, however, seen some older varieties of rotating beacons that if broken may become a solid red light mounted on the underbelly. Some older models actually have a motor that actuates rotation. If one had a failed motor it could appear as a solid red light.

The strobes are anticollision lights. The answer is also in 14 CFR 91.203 . If anticollision lights are installed, they must be used unless the pilot turns them off in the interest of safety. The most common reason for this is if the aircraft is flying in the clouds and the diffuse strobing lights are a distraction or cause of disorientation such as flicker vertigo.

(a) During the period from sunset to sunrise (or, in Alaska, during the period a prominent unlighted object cannot be seen from a distance of 3 statute miles or the sun is more than 6 degrees below the horizon)—
...
(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off.

14 CFR 91.205 is also relevant. Parts of it deal with the FAA requirements for both position and anticollision light systems. It states that aircraft may not be operated without position lights. It also states that aircraft may not be operated without anticollision lights installed with some exceptions.
There are some provisions by which a flight may be conducted legally with broken lights so that it may be repaired. One such provision is also found in 14 CFR 91.205.

(11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft may continue to a location where repairs or replacement can be made.

If you're really interested, and I mean really really interested, the FAA released AC 20-74 which contains a lot of technical data on exactly how these lights are to be built in terms of intensity, color and position. Delving into this document should be reserved for the truly bored and those who manufacture aircraft lighting.


How can you calculate the vertical speed of an helicopter during auto-rotation?

It would depend on the pilot's inputs, since autorotation is still controlled flight and the pilot could choose to descend faster or slower. Depending on the helicopter, there may be a trade off between the amount of time it takes to descend and the distance covered. For example, the sink rate of the best ratio of forward distance covered to vertical distance covered (equivalent to glide ratio in a fixed wing aircraft--the engine failed over water and the pilot wants to go as far as possible toward land) could be different than the minimum possible sink rate (the engine failed over a safe place to land and the pilot wants to buy time while trying to restart the engine).

The most important quantity that affects minimum sink rate in either case is disk loading, which is the equivalent of wing loading in fixed wing aircraft. Page 4 of this pdf (heading: "Basic Physics of Autorotation") has the information you need to calculate minimum sink rate during autorotation based on an assortment of parameters.


How to calculate the wing chord of the aircraft Aero A.10?

how to calculate [...] the wing chord?

Given the data you provided you can only compute the SMC (Standard Mean Chord), that is equal to:

$$SMC = \frac{S}{b}$$

where $S$ is the wing surface and $b$ is the wingspan.


The second law of motion states that: $F = m * a$

Rate of turn will be determined by the acceleration: $\frac{F}{m} = a$

If your vertical lift is 10,000 lb, in a 30 degree bank, your lateral force is $10,000 * tan(30)$, your acceleration is $\frac{10000 * tan(30)}{10000}$, or $tan(30)$.

If your vertical lift is 9,000 lb, in a 30 degree bank, your lateral force is $9,000 * tan(30)$, your acceleration is $\frac{9000 * tan(30)}{9000}$, or $tan(30)$.

Thus you can see the rate of turn depends on the bank angle, not the mass.


Why is the ILS16 approach at KSKF not available in my Garmin 430W?

There are two ILS approaches for runway 16. Both of them had amendments on 13 Aug 20. Therefore, the IAP charts that were in the database are no longer valid. They expired. It would be interesting to know the effective date of your last Garmin update. That could affect what approaches you are able to see.
I am unable to pull up the former IAP charts at this time. It would also be interesting to see what has changed. At the KTKI airport, the decommissioning of the MELISA NDB was enough to require a complete change of the ILS approach. Melissa was the Final Approach Fix. You were to notify ATC when you were Inbound inside of the FAF. The NDB has been replaced by the JIPUK waypoint.
This is a good lesson for new pilots. Read the entire IAP chart (including the borders) and check the effective dates.


What is the Extent of the Emergency Authority of the Pilot-in-Command (FAA)?

The scope of the part 91 exception is exactly what it says: deviate from any rule of this part, i.e. part 91. But remember that part 91 applies to all flights anyway; part 121 (or 135 etc.) regulations are in addition to part 91, not instead of them.

But that still means that 91.3(b) doesn't give any authority to deviate from other parts, like 135 or 121 regulations. 14 CFR 135.19(b) is the equivalent authority for part 135 operations:

  In an emergency involving the safety of persons or property, the pilot
  in command may deviate from the rules of this part to the extent
  required to meet that emergency.

Note that the language is again of this part. So in an emergency, the PIC of a part 135 flight can deviate from part 91 rules per 91.3 and from part 135 rules per 135.19.

Part 121 is a little different. 14 CFR 121.557(a) says:

  In an emergency situation that requires immediate decision and action
  the pilot in command may take any action that he considers necessary
  under the circumstances. In such a case he may deviate from prescribed
  operations procedures and methods, weather minimums, and this chapter,
  to the extent required in the interests of safety.

Here, the regulation allows for deviations from any part of this chapter, not this part as in the part 91 and 135 regulations. Chapter I of title 14 is at a higher level: it includes all parts of the FAA's aviation regulations, so under part 121 emergency authority the PIC can deviate from any aviation regulation, not just the ones in part 91 or 135.


How many actuators does the F-35 have for each primary control surface?

Just one per control surface.  Though the airplane is unique with using a single Electro-Hydrostatic Actuator (EHA) per control surface as opposed to a centralized hydraulics system.

https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/up-in-the-air-understanding-the-f-35-air-vehicle

I don’t know what you mean by active/standby but the surface actuators are commanded by inputs from the flight control computers, which respond as needed to stick and rudder inputs from the pilot to achieve a desired aircraft reaction to a control input.


ICAO three-letter codes are always unique. The official source, ICAO Document 8585, says the following:

1.2 The same designator will not be registered for more than one aircraft operating agency, aeronautical authority or service.
1.3 No more than one three-letter or telephony designator will be registered for each aircraft operating agency, aeronautical authority or services.

In your example, Tiger Airways Singapore only exists as a single airline in document 8585. The fact that they have an Australian division does not mean that it is a separate aircraft operator, and thus no separate ICAO code can be assigned.
You can find more rules regarding ICAO identification codes, including a complete list of every ICAO code in the world, in doc 8585: http://dcaa.trafikstyrelsen.dk:8000/icaodocs/Doc%208585/DOC%208585,%20Edition%20no%20149.PDF
Interestingly, British Airways seem to contradict the above rules with their seasonal "Santa" flights. Around Christmas, certain British Airways flights will operate with the XMS ICAO code (radio callsign "Santa"), instead of the usual BAW ICAO code (radio callsign "Speedbird").
In ICAO doc 8585, the XMS code is registered to "British Airways Santa", which I very much doubt is the name of a real company, so it does seem there are ways around the rules quoted above.


What are good tips for flying across Tejon pass?

I cross that pass on my commute twice a week in my VariEze at altitudes between 5500 and 11500 ft depending on winds and clouds. There's nothing to be particularly nervous about, there's rarely any noticeable turbulence if you're at 7500 or higher.  You can check the Sandberg AWOS and forecast winds aloft, and ask L.A. Center or Bakersfield Approach for ride reports.

I do tend to be flying that route either fairly early in the morning or around dusk, so it may be bumpy more often in the heat of the early afternoon.

If clouds are forcing you down to 5500 be sure not to accidentally fly up the wrong valley when headed north!


Who has the responsibility to make altimeter corrections in cold temperatures?

I don't have enough points to make a comment so I'll just leave this one...
http://code7700.com/altimeter_temperature_correction.htm

All throughout, it's
Pilot In Command...
Pilot In Command...
Pilot In Command...
Pilot In Command...

  4.1.4 Air traffic control (ATC). If an aircraft is cleared by ATC to an altitude which the pilot-in-command finds unacceptable due to low temperature, then the pilot-in-command should request a higher altitude. If such a request is not received, ATC will consider that the clearance has been accepted and will be complied with. See Annex 2 and the PANS-ATM (Doc 4444), Chapter 6.


How do diffusers turn velocity into pressure?

While we wait for a probably better answer, here's my tentative.

You state that you understand the concept of constant mass flow. Let's for a moment write the mass flow properly:

$$\dot{m} = \rho A v$$

on the left we have the mass flow $\dot{m}$, on the right we have the density $\rho$, the area $A$, and the velocity $v$.

If we want $\dot{m}$ to be constant while changing $A$, we need to change $\rho$ and $v$ accordingly. In these scenarios $\rho$ is taken as roughly constant, leaving only the velocity as free variable. While this might be more true for liquids, it is not too far from the reality also when air is involved (although you might observe minor variations in density).

Where do the forces come from? The walls of the duct and the fluid downstream (when decelerating, the fluid that is already at a slower speed will effectively work as a "wall" for the incoming fluid) or the fluid upstream (when accelerating the incoming fluid will push the rest of the fluid like an extruding piston).

In other terms the required energy comes from the pressure differential (the faster fluid has lower pressure).


How should I deal with a passenger experiencing hypoxia over the Grand Canyon?

First, let's be crystal clear on something: A person experiencing symptoms of acute hypoxia is an emergency which requires immediate action to ensure the safety of that person. In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule …  to the extent required to meet that emergency. (FAR 91.3 (b)).

So if you're over the Grand Canyon at 11,500 feet and your mother starts showing signs of hypoxia you key the mic and let ATC know you have a passenger showing signs of hypoxia, tell them you are descending to a lower altitude, and ask for vectors to an airport where you can land. If they give you any trouble about it you respond with "N12345 is declaring a medical emergency".

All that said, there are sensible things you can do to mitigate the risk of hypoxia and avoid the need to declare an emergency.
If you intend to spend an extended period of time at altitude (which I personally define as "Over 10,000 feet" for an average healthy non-smoker):

Bring a portable oxygen system
Ideally with enough cannulas/outlets for yourself and your mother/other passengers).
If a full oxygen system isn't an option bring one or more "boost cans"
These can provide temporary/limited relief for symptoms of hypoxia – probably enough to get yourself back on the ground, or at least to a lower altitude.
Carry a relatively inexpensive pulse oximeter
Check your SpO2 periodically to catch hypoxia early - before clinical symptoms develop.


What level of information does a PIC have about a missile crossing their aircraft route?

Pre-announced missile launches will often be published by responsible countries in NOTAMs (Notices to Airmen), which are notices of potential hazards to aircraft in flight or on the ground. These are generally things like closed runways, inoperative radio navigation aids, cranes on approach or departure paths and the like. They can also warn pilots about conflict zones, missile/rocket launches, and satellite re-entry paths.

NOTAMs are published publicly and are read by pilots as part of flight planning. I've heard of important ones being read off by ATC, but that's extremely rare. Commercial flights can also be sent warnings using the ACARS system by their corporate support groups.

The NOTAM system relies on organizations/governments posting these notices. North Korea does not announce missile launches before they happen, or even after they happen (unless they are successful or course), so nobody in civil aviation knew about it until it was all over.


What happened during this foggy landing?

I don't care how good the pilot's eyes were; there was zero visibility outside that airplane. That fog we were in was the metaphorical "pea soup", and he could not possibly have landed visually.

What you see from a passenger window has little relationship to what the pilot is looking for and can see out his windshield. The pilot is looking for lead-in lights (there's a lot of them) and a sequence flasher that creates the effect of a ball of light starting at the beginning of the lead-in lights and traveling to the runway. In low visibility the tower will typically turn them up to maximum intensity. These lights are very bright, so much so that after catching sight of them I usually asked for them to be turned down. None of this light system is visible from the passenger cabin of a large aircraft save for the fact that you might notice a glow outside as the airplane passes over them when it's dark.

  the pilot came on the intercom and announced that it was too foggy down below to land, but we still had plenty of fuel reserves left and so he was going to fly in circles for a while and see if the rising sun didn't burn off some of the fog.

Another thing that the pilot can do if he has the fuel and if the sun is about to set, is to loiter until it gets darker. The runway visual range (RVR) will generally increase considerably in the dark.

There are other things at play as well. In patchy and/or blowing fog, what the RVR reads may not accurately reflect what the visibility is anyplace in the runway environment save where the RVR instrumentation is.

Occasionally, local politics can also be a factor. In the 1980s I used to fly into an airport that had as its only air service the commuter airline I was flying for. The local government and chamber of commerce very much wanted to keep that air service. The problem was fog. An unwritten accommodation was reached that took advantage of the rule that once inside the outer marker, you can continue the approach even though the RVR dropped below the minimum required. We knew that if the reported RVR was right at the minimun required when we were cleared for the approach, we might well be told after reporting passing the outer marker that it was a lesser value.

In two years of flying for that commuter, I never failed to land on the first approach at that airport and neither did most of the captains.

I suspect that in today's hypersensitive regulatory environment, this accommodation might not be possible, and I also don't know if the rule is still in force that permits you to continue an approach once inside the outer marker.


Is there any benefit to science from the Swiss built solar plane flying across the globe?

As you can see from the massive delay in its flight schedule, the Solar Impulse II has run into some problems. This is always an indication that something has been learned. Unfortunately, what has been learned is that electric flight is even harder than expected.

The value of this particular airplane is the demonstration that purely electric long-range flights are possible, and in this it ranks with the first rocket-powered airplanes in 1928 and 1929 - yes, it can be done, but for now there is no practical value in it.

As for long term developments - this is just speculation, but I doubt that in 50 or 100 years we will see the Solar Impulse II as the starting point of a new era.


How many VHF system can be in MEL for an A340?

There are three VHF systems on A340 aircraft, as described here:

  Item: VHF Systems
  Number Installed: 3
  Number Required for Dispatch: -
  Remarks or Exceptions: Any in excess of those required by FAR may be inoperative provided it is not powered by an Essential Bus and not
  required for emergency procedures.

MMEL is required by FAA:

  A minimum equipment list is required in the United States by the
  Federal Aviation Administration:

  When operating any turbine-powered aircraft such as jets or turboprops.
  When operating under part 135 (Commuter and on-demand operations)
  When operating under part 125 (Non-airline large aircraft operations)

MEL for FAR 121 is discussed here.


Vy includes engine/prop efficiency factors, so it can not be directly compared to glide data.  Vbg is the best speed for DISTANCE, which is what you want to make your emergency landing site if you have an "engine out". Vmd will give you a lower sink rate, but you will not glide as far.

Interestingly, if you have to glide INTO the wind, best glide speed will be FASTER than Vbg to make up for loss of groundspeed.  Best glide speed there for is the optimal ratio of altitude given for ground gained.


Do turnbuckles twist the flight control wires?

Yes the cables can be twisted if proper care is not administered during tightening. There are tools that allow for tightening the buckle while keeping both ends untwisted. From this article:

  Cable tensions are adjusted by twisting the turnbuckles that connect different sections of cable together. It’s a simple system, but you need to hold each cable end stable while turning the turnbuckle in order to avoid putting twisting stress on the cable itself. If you work alone, you may want to invest in a cable turnbuckle tool that holds both cable ends stable while you twist the turnbuckle barrel.


Is this a very sloppy holding pattern or something else?

It does indeed look like they are not correcting for wind. The current wind over Belarus at 10km altitude looks like this:

(screenshot from windy.com)
That is consistent with the direction in which they are drifting. Such a flight path is not a normal holding pattern, which is based on a holding fix. While wind might push the aircraft somewhat off the nominal racetrack pattern, they would at least regularly overfly this fix (although modern RNAV systems are pretty good at compensating for wind).
I can only speculate on why they are flying like this. Most likely they are not holding at a specified fix. They might have been instructed to hold at current position by ATC, probably while they figure out if they are still allowed to fly into the EU, after the European Council has called for a ban:

The European Council:

[...] calls on the Council to adopt the necessary measures to ban overflight of EU airspace by Belarusian airlines and prevent access to EU airports of flights operated by such airlines;

(europa.eu)

Update: It seems they are returning now:

(flightradar24.com)


Are helicopters reinforced asymmetrically?

As far as i know, the helicopter airframes are not reinforced asymmetrically due to this reason. Note that the helicopter has to yaw in both ways- so there is no point in reinforcing only one side.

The helicopter airframes are not weak- they are designed to withstand the full envelope of expected loads. Also, it is easier to design and manufacture a symmetric helicopter structure.

That said, I've personally seen at least one case where the torque has affected one side of the helicopter more than the other locally (especially in tail fin area), though the effects were not considered serious enough to warrant a design change.


Are there any aircraft that come with interchangeable flightdecks?

According to this answer they used to be very customizable, but not very much interchangeable at least to the point that no one bothered to change them on second-hand aircraft. They are reducing it because it only causes confusion. Aircraft change owners and pilots change employers and it's most useful if all aircraft of the same type have the same cockpit layout.

As far as 787 goes, it has very similar flight deck to 777, always, to the point it has common type rating.


From a totally practical standpoint, let's say you're in a small tricycle gear aircraft with a freely castoring nose wheel (or a tail dragger) and you're starting your takeoff roll in a calm wind. When you bring the power up, the aircraft is going to want to turn left (why is another question), in other words to yaw about its vertical axis in a counter-clockwise direction, and head for the grass off the left side of the runway. You counteract that adverse yaw by using right rudder to keep the airplane straight. Initially you might have to use some right brake as well until there's sufficient air moving past the rudder. If you had a steerable nose gear, you wouldn't need the right brake.

You reach flying speed, apply up elevator, and lift off. As the airplane rotates about its lateral axis, there'll be some additional adverse yaw as a result of that rotation (again another question). Even if you had a steerable nose gear, that would now be useless as the nose gear is no longer on the ground. Your means of continuing to fly straight ahead is to counter the adverse yaw with rudder, and you would continue to use right rudder as you climb out. If you don't, you'll start turning left.

You reach the altitude you want, level off, and trim for level flight straight ahead. Then you decide you want to turn left. You start the turn briskly with left aileron, but you forgot to use any rudder. If you were looking at the ball on the bottom of the turn and bank indicator, you would see it shoot left. If you had used left rudder while initiating the turn, that wouldn't have happened. You would have started a coordinated turn.

Now you're coming back to the airport, and there's a crosswind from the left. You decide you want to counter that crosswind by slipping into it. In other words, you want the airplane to travel sideways at a speed that matches the crosswind while still having your nose pointing straight down the runway. So, you lower the left wing and to keep the airplane from turning, you use right rudder to keep the airplane aligned with the runway. You match the crosswind by adding or decreasing your bank.

There are other uses of rudder, and especially in aerobatics.

I once flew a few loads of skydivers. The jumpmaster sat behind me, and to help him in positioning for the drop zone, he wanted flat turns. In other words, he wanted the airplane turned while keeping the wings level. So, if he wanted a left turn, that meant left rudder and right aileron. Uncomfortable from a pilot's standpoint.

Finally, back in the 1960s when I was working on my instrument rating, I had an instructor who taught that the best way to track a localizer in close was to use rudder only for small corrections. Personally, I don't like that method, but it's one way of doing things.

A useful thing, the rudder. You need to be able to directly control movement about all three aircraft axes.


What general aviation single-engine piston pressurized airplanes are there?

The ones I know of

Mooney Mustang M22 (out of production)
Piper Mirage (they claim its the only pressurized piston single on the market)
Cessna P210N (out of production)
Lancair IV-P (falls under experimental but is in "production" none the less)

For what its worth this is a pretty small category of plane to begin with. The M22 was not very successful (although it was ahead of its time) and there are not that many left flying (less than 20 I think). The P210N saw some better success and the Mirage seems to be selling but in the end of the day extra maintenance and complexity of the plane its self does not lend to a very practical plane considering there size and performance numbers.

If we are talking about the less produced or experimental designs we can add,

Junkers Ju 49 - One of the early test beds for pressurization
Farman F.1000 - Altitude record plane
Airco DH.9A - Another early frame used for testing


Does an Airbus A320 Navigation Display depict constraints for flightplans other than the primary?

No, just the active flight plan.

Those constraints are part of the pseudo-waypoints, which are predictions that are only displayed for the active flight plan.

  The system calculates various predictions for the active flight plan and updates them continually
  during flight (...) The MCDU and the ND show these predictions, each of which is based on specific assumptions.

  (A320 FCOM)


Why might an instructor in a small aircraft choose to descend with a substantial yaw on a first lesson?

Sounds like a Forward Slip. It is not an unusual maneuver. It is very useful in order to descend faster than normal (Vertical Speed) without increasing your airspeed. The maneuver reduces the amount of lift generated while at the same time creating a large amount of drag by presenting the broad side of the fuselage to the relative wind.

Did the instructor happen to reduce the throttle to idle right before the maneuver?

It is also a great maneuver to practice in case a no-flap landing is needed due to flap failure.


Why are wind tunnel models sometimes placed upside down?

In the times before strain gauges and electronic transducers, the forces on the wind tunnel model were measured with scales. To avoid interference as much as possible, the model was hung on strings, the scales being mounted above the measurement area of the tunnel. Since the forces in upright flight were of the highest interest, gravity plus lift would make sure that the strings were always taut. If the model were hung upright, the lift might grow bigger than the weight, and the model would move towards the scales.

Today, the orientation of the model can be either way, and only in exceptional cases there is a strong reason for placing it upside down. This might be when unusual attitudes together with the supporting sting (the long spike on which the model sits) would block one part of the wind tunnel cross section too much, or if movement restrictions of the sting force a certain orientation.

Another reason is flow visualization techniques: Sometimes it helps to put a coat of a mixture of petroleum and pigments on the surface and to watch where the pigments are blown by the flow (this is called an Anstrichbild). Obviously, it helps to place the surface of interest on top.


What is a red airway on the VFR sectional?

These are Red Federal Airways, and can be found in Order 7400.9

Red airways are one of a 1950s-ish system of airways: Red, Blue, Green, Amber, which are designated by an NDB (rather than a VOR or VORTAC for a V or J route).

Green and Red airways go east/west, and Blue and Amber routes go north/south.

These routes were prioritized: GARB, with Green routes having the highest priority.


How can the cruise speed be larger than Vne?

The reason is that cruise speeds are usually given in TAS (True AirSpeed) rather than IAS (Indicated AirSpeed) or CAS (Calibrated AirSpeed). See e.g. this answer for details on what these speeds are.
Have a look at the following plot showing TAS as a function of altitude for the two Vne speeds you gave (assuming ISA conditions):

You can see that the claimed cruise speeds are achievable above 14,000 ft for the M20 and above 11,000 ft for the VL3 without exceeding Vne.
You said that advertisement for the M20V claimed a top speed of 242 KIAS, but I think that is a mistake. It should be KTAS, not KIAS. Wikipedia also claims:

Cruise speed: 242 kn (278 mph, 448 km/h) (TAS)

(Wikipedia - Mooney M20)


Why aren't there more passenger helicopters?

Airplanes are much more efficient, much faster and scale better.

Helicopters are limited to around 150 knots because when flying forward the tip of the advancing blade must not exceed the speed of sound while the retreating blade must still move aft fast enough to produce lift.

Helicopters are also difficult to make large, because for efficiency the rotor disk needs to be large, but the diameter is again limited by the tip speed having to remain subsonic. And the material requirements to make the blades strong enough without making them too large to keep drag low.


Can commercial airliners fly over central Antarctica during winter?

Surface air temperatures aren't really going to be relevant for an airliner. The temperature of the troposphere doesn't vary that much. In fact, the troposphere is warmer at the poles (from Wikipedia Troposphere):

  At middle latitudes, tropospheric temperatures decrease from an average of 15 °C at sea level to about −55 °C at the tropopause. At the poles, tropospheric temperature only decreases from an average of 0 °C at sea level to about −45 °C at the tropopause. At the equator, tropospheric temperatures decrease from an average of 20 °C at sea level to about −70 to −75 °C at the tropopause.

Sightseeing flights are indeed run during the summer months, but that is because it's actually possible to see things, not because it's any warmer. It wouldn't be very interesting to do a sightseeing flight in darkness.

The biggest obstacle to doing winter commercial flights over Antarctica is the lack of suitable alternate places to land in the event of an emergency.


Can the load factor during glider winch launch be measured with the G-meter?

You are absolutely correct.
Since a string can only transmit tension forces (and no shear or compression force), the direction of the tow cable near the glider directly indicates the direction of its force. In the late phase of a winch launch the tow cable is pulling mostly downwards and has only a small forward component left. As long as the ratio between forward and downward component is still larger than the gliders lift-to-drag ratio, staying in the launch still adds energy to the glider, so a glider launch ends only when the cable shows an almost vertical direction.
All tow cables have a weak link at their glider end which limits the loads than can be transmitted. The picture below (source) shows a collection of color coded weak links with different limit loads (note the different center hole sizes), the strongest one being 10,000 N, mostly used for two-seaters.

The picture below (source) shows how the weak link is integrated: It sits in a U-shaped sleeve and is connected to the rest of the cable by shackles. On the right you see the rings which engage with the hook on the glider. In this particular case two weak links are used, and one has oblong holes at both ends so it can act as a fallback if the first snaps from some sudden jerk. Most tow cables have several of those weak links at their end and the appropriate one is selected depending on the glider type.

As you say, the load on the tow cable must be added to the weight of the glider to determine the lift force the wing has to produce in the late phase of a winch launch, which can easily be twice the weight of the glider for a total of 3 g. All while a g meter in the cockpit will read only less than 1 g (less because the glider is still climbing, with a nose-up pitch attitude). The pilot can only guess the load on the airframe, judging from indicators such as the wind noise, the stick force or the airspeed instrument. Another indication would be the sudden jump the glider performs when the cable is disconnected when still at high load. That happening, however, depends on the style of the winch operator.
When sitting in the winch on the ground, this load can be felt: During the launch the whole winch (normally a truck with a second engine and spools mounted at its back) will be lifted up a bit and drops back into its suspension when the tension on the cable is released. Still, this load is much less than the safe load the glider has been certified for which is 5.3 g for most modern gliders (see CS-22.337).
While the cable load is not dangerous, a more critical moment can occur during lift-off:
At the initial phase of a winch launch the force on the cable, acting in horizontal direction and at the bottom of the fuselage, creates a mostly horizontal acceleration and, in addition, a pitch-up moment which can stall the glider if not counteracted by elevator lift. Especially gliders with a fully-flying horizontal tail suffered crashes when their tail was still stalled during lift-off due to an excessive angle of attack on the tail. Therefore, it is important to keep the stick neutral and only push it forward when the glider raises its nose too quickly. The worst is to pull too early: A low-level stall will follow with the risk of an unsymmetrical wing stall, followed by a half roll and violent ground contact soon after.
If you are interested in the physics of winch launching: In 2008 a thesis has simulated the launch of an ASK-21 and describes what happens in detail.


I am 14 and want to be a pilot but don’t know how

PPL is a very good choice to begin with your pilot career.
- You got quite a good knowledge which will be really usefull when you go for the CPL.
- You begin to collect flying hours (which is the most important thing to get a job).
- And you may realize if you are fit to fly (sometimes wishes don't match reality).

University is fine, but afaik nowadays airline companies don't ask for such degree when you apply for a job. However, it'd be a bonus.
Competition was hell years ago ('07-17), in particular for those with very low flying hours, never the less, currently companies are hiring a lot.
Sorry but I know nothing about VCE (I'm not aussie), but, if I can change your question to ' What should I begin to study to get ready for PPL/CPL?', then I'd say that you must get ready for the two subjects which trouble the most students. Principles of flight, and General Navigation.
I don't know if they are out of reach from your current knowledge, but, you may give it a try. I'd suggest you to use the Oxford books, or Jeppesen ones. Both are really good ones.
And about the stages, in my opinion:

PPL (fly as much you can)
CPL
Try to get a job (probably Flight Instructor (get FI license)
Apply for a company

Good luck


Who is responsible for aircraft separation in IFR (limited/no visibility)?

ATC is always responsible for IFR-IFR separation, regardless of weather conditions. That is their primary mandate, and all other services are provided on a workload-permitting basis.

In visual meteorological conditions, pilots of IFR aircraft are also responsible for seeing and avoiding other aircraft. But for IFR traffic of course this is not always possible, since the aircraft may be going in and out of the clouds.

If a loss of separation (at worst, a collision) occurs between two IFR aircraft, ATC would be held responsible (assuming the pilots followed ATC's instructions). If analysis indicates the pilots could have seen each other, they would also be held responsible.


Where does the Garmin G1000 Nav ID come from?

Garmin doesn't explicitly state the method in the documentation I can find, but I believe the answer is #1. It decodes the Morse code and displays that value. I say that for two reasons:

First; Garmin, like most successful aviation companies, makes it a habit to reuse technology where it can. Volumes are low and certification costs are high so using the same NAV receiver in more than one product saves costs and increases profit. From their web site, the GNC 225 decodes the ident.

  Automatically displays tuned frequency's navaid or airport identifier
  Automatically decodes Morse signals so you don't have to

Second; the fact that it takes several seconds for the ID to display indicates it's being decoded as it has to be received before it's displayed. If it were pulled from the database, it would be available almost instantly.


Has color vision deficiency ever contributed to any incidents in aviation history?

In response to two NTSB safety recommendations, the FAA stated that it has only identified three accidents involving pilots with valid medical qualifications in which color vision deficiency (CVD) was cited as a contributing cause.

As you mention above, on July 26, 2002, a Federal Express Boeing 727-200F crashed during a visual approach to Tallahassee Regional Airport in nighttime visual meteorological conditions. The three crew members were seriously injured and the airplane was destroyed in the crash, which the NTSB attributed to “the captain’s and first officer’s failure to establish and maintain a proper glide path.” Because the first officer was flying the plane at the time of the crash, the NTSB cited as one of several contributing factors “the first officer’s color vision deficiency" which interfered with his ability to discern the red and white lights of the precision approach path indicator (PAPI).

On Aug. 29, 1992, an incident occurred in which the pilot of a Mooney 20F with “a waiver for partial color blindness to red and green” landed on a closed runway that was marked with orange crosses in the dirt 50 ft beyond each end. The pilot’s “limited ability to detect the orange-colored marking” was cited as a contributing factor.

One incident involved a Navy F4J lost on Aug. 5, 1980, “when a severely color deficient pilot failed to interpret correctly the colored navigation lights of other aircraft in the area, leading to the false impression of a collision.”

Regarding the severity of the FO's color blindness from FedEx flight 1478, records indicate that he passed all color vision tests during his 16 years as a U.S. Navy pilot but failed a test administered during an FAA medical evaluation in 1995. This failed test indicated that he had a mild red-green deficiency. The FAA issued a first-class medical certificate with a statement of demonstrated ability (SODA), based on his years as a Navy pilot and the results of his Navy color vision tests. He was issued this SODA on all subsequent medical examinations.
After the 2002 crash, the first officer passed the Farnsworth Lantern (FALANT) color vision test, which was designed to differentiate between those with mild red-green deficiencies, who pass the test, and others with more significant red-green deficiencies, who fail. He also passed a light-gun-signal test administered by an FAA medical examiner. However, he failed seven other red-green color vision tests and was determined to have a “severe congenital deuteranomaly” — a red-green deficiency that is the most common color vision defect.
Hope this helps.
References: Werfelman, L. (2008, December). Color deficient?[PDF] Aero Safety World, 38-41. Flight Safety Foundation. Retrieved from:http://www.flightsafety.org/asw/dec08/asw_dec08_p38-41.pdf


Would it be realistic to live in an airplane?

Sure, it actually is more common than you might think. While the general notion of a private plane is a small sleek jet to dart about in, plenty of wealthily people own larger jets equipped as you describe. Nick Gleis is somewhat famous for photographing the biggest of the biggest private jets and this article covers a lot of the really cool stuff he has seen.
The FAA does not necessarily mind how you configure interiors as long as you don't try and qualify things as a "seat" for occupancy, takeoff and landing purposes.
Sleeping on the apron is likely more about airport rules than anything else. You would need some kind of an APU to run your electronics as most airports wont want you running your engines all night...
If it does not need to fly this is always an option.
While you likely cant order the cool defense stuff there is nothing stopping you from outfitting a VC-25 similar to Airforce One which is more than livable.


Why don't turbofan engines have shrouds affixed to the fan blades?

This has actually been done, at least on the CFM-56 series at some point.

The image is taken from here, the article is about the F108 engine which is the US military version of the CFM-56.
In newer versions of the engine the blade-tip shrouds have been replaced by mid-span shrouds as below (from Wikipedia), or have been removed.

As pointed out by Camille Goudeseune, turbofans have to accomodate a lot of situations, and a blade-tip shroud adds a lot of mass and therefore increases loads in the blade, further reducing fatigue life.
Among the advantages of this configuration that were not mentioned in the question or in the other answer is that shrouds help reduce vibration amplitudes through frictional damping. This explains why mid-span shrouds are still in play in several engines, while these do not participate in reducing blade-tip losses.
Finally, while this configuration is seemingly not used anymore on fan blades, it is still used in other parts of modern engines, specifically the turbine module.
As an example, the picture below is from the GE9X website, see the Low Pressure Turbine blades.


How much do 1947 and 2014 Beechcraft Bonanzas have in common?

The V-Tail Bonanza design was retired (for a bunch of reasons, many of them marketing-related), but the actual airframe of a modern Beech 36 Bonanza is, essentially, the same as the 1968 Beech 36 (and very similar to the 1959 Debonair, just stretched). You can trace a great deal of the design and parts back to the V-tail as well.

There have been some changes made to the design over the years (for example, the throw-over yoke is gone, replaced by conventional dual controls), but the bulk of the airframe parts are interchangeable because the designs are essentially the same (this is an advantage for Beech owners: The factory is still producing nearly all the parts you'll need for maintenance, because they need them to put in the new planes).

Most of the light GA aircraft produced by the legacy manufacturers (Beech, Cessna, Piper) are what are known as "follow-on type certificate models" -- they are the same production design approved back in the 1950s/1960s, with "minor" changes incorporated along the way. This means you'll find the same kind of parts continuity in pretty much all the major manufacturer's aircraft:

Most of the parts on a 1960s Cherokee 180 are the same parts you'll find in a 2014 Archer III (changes to the airfoil and panel layout notwithstanding)
Many of the parts on a modern Cessna 172S are the same as the 1965 172F (the year they went to electric flaps).

You'll find many common parts on the 172 going back all the way to the original 1956 172 if you look. Big changes were the swept-back tail fin (1960) and the electric flaps (1965)


They were tested in 1935. Since ailerons are thin (thickness-to-chord ratio), they were placed in a leading edge slot, and it was dubbed slot-lip aileron. The study's conclusion is:

The slot-lip ailerons appear to be usable as a form of lateral control device that shows promise of giving improved lateral control and stability at the high angles of attack through the stall, with negligible lag, light control forces, and relatively simple construction. It is desirable that additional tests be made to find the yawing moments given by these ailerons and the effect of the slot on the drag.

The aforementioned additional tests were carried out in 1937; of note:

The more forward the slot-lip is, the higher the lag (control delay after input). It works best when the slot-lip is in the rearmost 20% of the wing.

My understanding of the lag is that it's due to the delay in relieving the low-pressure behind the aileron as it deploys, especially nearer where the lowest pressures exist on the upper surface.

Much higher drag in the order of +10% at high speed and +35% in climb attitudes.

Weick, Fred E., and Joseph A. Shortal. "Development of the NACA Slot-lip Aileron." (1935). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930081340
Shortal, Joseph A. "Wind-Tunnel and Flight Tests of Slot-Lip Ailerons." (1937). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930091678


Is there any comprehensive source for landing fee information?

After working on the problem some more I have found there is not really any centralized source for landing fee information. Pretty much the only option is to call the FBO. However, you can get the FBO information from Flight Aware, assuming a US airport. For example, to get FBO information for Logan Airport in Boston, you would use the URL:

https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KBOS

This tells you that the GA FBO for Logan is Signature and that their number is 617-561-2500. At that point you have to call them to find out more. For example, I did this and the answer was:

\$33 single engine piston landing fee
\$6 per hour parking
\$53.90 general landing fee
\$49.00 handling charge (waived if you buy at least 15 gallons of fuel) \$95 "security" charge
\$5 random bureaucracy charge