How do I find how much it costs to park a B747 at an airbridge in Perth?

Note that parking is not the same as waiting at the gate to load/offload passengers. Parking is when your aircraft is not using the terminal, but the airport facilities (like aprons, hangars, etc.)

Let us assume you are carrying 200 passengers, and leaving with 200 passengers:

First of all, you have to pay the landing fee, which is:

(4.891 x 400) + (9.528 x your landing weight, in tonnes)

Next, you have to calculate the terminal charges - assuming you are an international flight, (so you are using Terminal 1):

(13.868 x 400) + (0.450 x 200) + (1.111 x 200) + (5.997 x 200)

13.868 is the terminal fee, per arriving or departing passenger
0.450 is Common Use Service charge, per departing passenger
1.111 is the security fee, per departing passenger
5.997 is the baggage checking fee, per departing passenger

Since you'll only be staying for 1 hour, you don't have to pay any parking charges; which are only charged for staying more than 2 hours.

So total passenger fees are: AUS $9,015.20, before tax;  you still have to calculate your landing weight and multiply it by 9.528 to get the final amount.


Are grass strips more dangerous than tarmac?

Cloud, you are making a huge inference from a few small data points.  But in any case, to the basic question, which is actually a very good one:

In terms of the chance of getting killed, (what you seem to be looking for), maybe, marginally, but not enough to rule out operating from grass.  If you know what you are doing, and make allowances, I would say zero.  In terms of non-fatal incidents, maybe a bit higher, depending.

On the plus side: A grass surface is more compliant than a paved one because the tires have less traction.  Grass is much easier to handle flying taildraggers because there is some lateral give with respect to tire side loading.  A tailwheel airplane on pavement is much more skittish and easier to ground loop.  This is also true of tri-gears but much less so because they are already naturally stable while rolling. In both cases however, most people will find it easier to maintain directional control while on grass because of the traction compliance.

On the down side: Somewhat less braking dry, quite a bit less braking wet (wet grass is quite slippery, as anyone who tries to run on it without spiked shoes quickly discovers).  Rolling resistance is higher so take-off distance can be longer than published numbers, which are based on a dry paved runway, and in marginal conditions this has to be accounted for and this varies with how long the grass is at the time.

Bottom line: If I'm in a taildragger I'll much prefer a grass runway. In a tricycle airplane I'll prefer a paved one.  Overall I would expect to see more runway excursion incidents on grass, like landings in rain or in morning dew where pilots slide off into a fence when they discover, surprise surprise, they can't stop, that kind of thing.

That being said, I would never say that a grass runway surface is inherently more dangerous IF the pilot is properly trained in what to expect (especially landing on wet) and makes allowances for it.  The only kind of fatality I would directly attribute to grass would be a takeoff fatality where the airplane's take-off run was extended and it struggled into the air at the far end and stalled out.

In the end though, regardless of this factor or that factor, these things really come down to that old standby, BAD AIRMANSHIP.

More than boating, aviation is fraught with hidden hazards waiting to trip you up.  But if you are educated and trained, they are neutralized and can't get you unless you let your guard down.  You have to approach things in flying this way, or you will worry yourself out of the activity before you ever really get to enjoy it.  On the other hand, you are asking the right kind of questions so this is good.


What is the rule of thumb for land/taking-off on a sloped runway?

What does your POH/AFM says?

Ignoring winds and other factors, it depends on effective runway length, not just runway length. If you have a runway long (really long) enough, you can takeoff/land in either direction.

As mentioned here:

  ... advantage or disadvantage of a sloped runway is that a 1% runway
  gradient — an increase or decrease in altitude of 10’ for every 1000’
  of runway length — is equivalent to a 10% increase or decrease in
  effective runway length ...

Example:

Runway length is 1500' with 3% up-slope gradient

Landing uphill on it will give us an effective runway length of almost 2000’ (1500’ x 1.3 = 1950’).
Landing downhill on it will give us an effective runway length of just over 1000’ (1500’ x 0.7 = 1050’).

Just for reference, the runway (6: uphill; 24: downhill) at Lukla Airport has 12% gradient and is 1500' long.

Effective Runway Lengths (using the formula above)

 6: 1500' x |(1+1.2)| = 3300'
24: 1500' x |(1-1.2)| =  300'

Hence, hypothetically speaking, if runway 24 is 48,400' long with no wind, A380 can takeoff too.


Why does the Pressure ratio across the compressor increases when the mass flow rate is reduced?

The simplest way to understand this is to refer to Bernoulli's Theorem.  When the flow of a compressible fluid (in this case air) speeds up, the density of the compressible fluid goes down (and vice versa).  Pressure is directly related to density, so pressure also goes down when flow rate (velocity) goes up.

Mathematically, Bernoulli's Theorem is expressed $\rho \times v =$ constant.

Here, $\rho$ is density, $v$ is velocity.

Look at a diagram of a Venturi tube, and it will make sense.


Is there an equation for jet engine efficiency as a function of turbine inlet temperature?

The jet engine efficiency is unfortunately more complicated than just a one-to-one function between static Turbine Inlet Temperature and efficiency. Thermodynamic efficiency of a turbine engine is defined as the useful generated power extracted from the chemical energy added by the fuel.

The following is extracted from a paper format uni book on aircraft gas turbines.

Station 0 is for the engine inlet, the other station numbers are:

Compressor inlet.
Combustion chamber inlet.
Turbine inlet.
Turbine outlet.
Engine exhaust.

Energy IN

The heat flow $\dot{Q}$ added to the engine is:

$$ \dot{Q} = \dot{m} \cdot c_{pg} \cdot (T_{3t} - T_{2t}) \tag{1}$$
With $\dot{m}$ = mass flow through engine, $c_{pg}$ = gas constant, $T_{3t}$ = total temperature at turbine inlet. Total temperature is the temperature reached when a gas flow is compressed isentropically, measured in the stagnation point, and defined as $$T_t = T + v^2/(2 * C_p) \tag{2}$$

So energy IN is a function of:

Static Turbine Inlet Temperature
total mass flow
gas flow velocity at the turbine inlet.

Useful power OUT

The power delivered by the gas generator is:

$$P_{gg} = \dot{}m \cdot c_{pg} \cdot T_{4t} \left[ 1 - {\left(\frac{p_0}{p_{4t}} \right)}^{\frac{\kappa_g - 1}{\kappa_g}} \right] \tag{3}$$

with

$T_{4t}$ = stagnation temperature at  the turbine outlet.
$p_0$ = static pressure at engine inlet, a function of air density and airspeed.
$p_{4t}$ = stagnation pressure at the turbine outlet, which depends on how much energy the turbine has extracted from the gas flow.

Efficiency

If we could vary the $T_{3t}$ only and keep the other variables constant, we could indeed get to the sort of function sought after - but we cannot. Increasing T.I.T creates more thrust, accelerates the aircraft, increases inlet pressure, increases turbine outlet pressure etc.

From Gas Turbine Theory by Saravanamuttoo/Rogers/Cohen, page 81:

  The large number of variables involved make it impracticable to derive algebraic expressions for the specific output and efficiency of real cycles.


What is this plane doing flying back and forth near Sydney at night?

With a path like that its most likely surveying something. There are a handful of 404's registered in Australia for areal survey, you can find them on this list.


Is it a good thing that ailerons remain deflected and the stick is hard to move?

The controls of any aircraft should move easily under the pilot's control.  Large aircraft have hydraulic servos to assist the pilot, or even complete fly-by-wire systems, while smaller aircraft often have aerodynamic trim tabs which act as a simple assistance mechanism.  On the ground, with no aerodynamic loads, the controls should move easily without such assistance, especially on an ultralight.

I would suspect that your control cables or pulleys are binding on something, or that the pivots of your cockpit controls or control surfaces are over-tightened.  Either of these could result in premature wear and failure in flight, as well as the more obvious difficulty in maintaining control before failure.  You should definitely investigate the cause thoroughly before attempting flight.


In the Philippines' Civil Aviation Regulation Part 7, what does this part mean?

"first production aircraft" indicates the first aircraft built as part of the "production" run (as opposed to the ones built for the test phase, that are not part of the "production").

"under the type certificate" indicates that the type of aircraft has achieved certification and can be legally flown in the Philippines.

All together it identifies the first production built aircraft of a certain type after the certification was provided (in this case for the Philippines).


Could the V-22 Osprey be used as a close air support platform?

Can it be? Sure.

Let's take a look at what it would be replacing.

The A-10 was designed from the ground up to be a platform for moving the GAU-8 into range of the target.

It has good low speed flight characteristics.
The engines are mounted high and to the rear to protect them from FOD (both debris kicked up by the GAU-8 and hostile weapons fire).
The cockpit is within a 540Kg titanium armored tub to protect the pilot and critical flight systems.
It has wing hard-points for carrying additional munitions should the GAU-8 not be sufficient for the current mission.

Why won't the Osprey be adapted for CAS?

Because it travels slowly, it's susceptible not only to MANPADS and other traditional AA systems, but simple small arms fire becomes a threat.

For example, the Douglas A-1 Skyraider (which the A-10 replaced) - a "propeller-driven design was also relatively slow and vulnerable to ground fire. The U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps lost 266 A-1s in action in Vietnam, largely from small arms fire." (Source, emphasis mine)

Those huge props (38' diameter, which is smaller than the optimal 43' (Source)) are a very vulnerable target - damage to them may make the aircraft unflyable.
Hits to the engine rotation system that may not cripple the aircraft may cause it to have to land with the props in the vertical plane instead of horizontal. They're designed for this without destroying the rest of the aircraft, but that means thorough inspections and expensive prop replacement prior to its next flight.
It could have an armored cockpit surround retrofitted, but it's not designed for it.
It could have hard-points mounted, but they would need to be integrated with this swing-wing mechanism which would significantly increase the design/build cost and complexity

The swing-wing (used for stowing the plane on a carrier) could be eliminated, but that would defeat one of the main uses of the aircraft.

It's highly likely that the replacement for the A-10 (current thought trends toward the F-35, but that's contentious) will be more similar to the A-10 itself. That kind of role has some unique requirements that can be fulfilled by a more multipurpose aircraft, but not as well.


What are the regulations for crossing the Atlantic in a twin engine prop plane

Aircraft operating under Part 91 have no ETOPS requirements. ETOPS is only applicable to Part 121 and Part 135 operations. FAR 121.161 only applies to operators of twin-engine turbine aircraft in scheduled airline service. The rules for Part 135 are in 14 CFR Appendix G to Part 135, Extended Operations (ETOPS) and excludes multiengine transport-category turbine-powered aircraft.


How to calculate the fuselage geometrical parameters?

There is no straight answer or a formula for this one. In real life you first think of what you want to fit inside the fuselage and then design the rest of the plane. For airliners that would be space for passengers and luggage as well. Different fuselage shapes come straight in line from the requirements that the airplane is supposed to meet. Antonov has the shape you described, because it needs a lot of space inside and should stay low to the ground, so it's wings are mounted on top. It also has a huge weight, so a strong set of wheels is required - hence the shape at the bottom (to create enough space for the landing gear to hide without taking the loading space)

Apart from functional requirements, designing a fuselage must take many different aspects into consideration (starting from the most important - but of course the hierarchy depends on many factors):

mass
drag - the frontal area is not all, it is also the nose shape, wing connection and overal area wchich results in friction loses
stress caused by wing's lift and drag, momentums of wing and stabilizers and pressure difference
fatigue safety
doors, windows, landing gear


Why are there so few carrier capable delta wing aircraft?

The reason may be change in tactics.  The 4FD was designed to intercept aircraft, and as a point defender and dogfighter, it would have been very successful in this role.

But the WW2 scenario of planes appearing overhead to drop bombs changed to planes launching cruise missiles from farther away.

Carrier aircraft need to go further out to intercept them, carrying as much ordinance and fuel as they can.  Deltas simply do not do this as well as even lower aspect straight wings, because the design does not lift as efficiently for the amount of drag produced.

Lack of stealth would add to their modern-day woes.

The F4D, in its day, possessed many of the advantages the WW 1 triplane did in maneuverability,  this time with cannon and missiles.  Like the triplane, it became obsolete.


How can you stop your missile locking onto a friendly target?

First off, very rarely will you shoot at an unidentified aircraft.  Most engagements require a visual ID, or a hostile action, prior to engagement. However, you will also program your aircraft with specific ROE logic that will indicate that certain aircraft are friendly, as identified by IFF transponders, Link 16, etc.

You can still lock up friendly aircraft, and we frequently do to facilitate rendezvous with friendly aircraft and to clear ourselves from traffic, but if your master switch goes to ARM and you have a friendly locked up, there's a good chance you won't be flying again for awhile, if ever.

When we lock up an aircraft, 99% of the time, it does not indicate an intention to shoot.  By using our radar and "locking up" a target we get target aircraft altitude, speed, range, target aspect, heading, $Vc$, etc, all useful things that come in handy for routine events.


When do you contact ATC when departing from a non-towered airport into class D controlled airspace?

Class D is usually a cylinder so there's no shelf to be underneath; I'm assuming you're asking about departing from an uncontrolled airport that's actually in class D, like this one (N96):

Because class D goes to the surface I'd try to contact ATC on the ground before departure if possible, either on a regular frequency or via an RCO. And it would be worth checking the Chart Supplement for any local rules.

Otherwise, 14 CFR 91.129 says you should contact ATC as soon as you can after departure:

  (2) Departing flight. Each person—

  [...]

  (ii) From a satellite airport without an operating control tower, must
  establish and maintain two-way radio communications with the ATC
  facility having jurisdiction over the Class D airspace area as soon as
  practicable after departing.

There are some special cases like KDTS where you can't takeoff without contacting ATC first, but it's in a special rules area.


Why didn't the EASA enforce the 2 man cockpit rule BEFORE the Gemanwings accident?

Because aviation procedures and rules develop from historical occurances.

In some cases, the actual occurance and the resulting change in procedures do not have anything in common or are not related, e.g. some will argue that the two-man rule would not have prevented 9/11. It is also being discussed that the two man rule would only have had a psychological effect to deter the pilot/copilot from deliberately crashing the plane (as in the Germanwings crash), some will argue that a pilot or co-pilot intent to deliberately crash the airplane will not be deterred by a flight attendant in the cockpit, who due to lack of flight education would not be able to counter the pilot's/copilot's input in the FMC/AP.

The cockpit door measures to deny unauthorized access to the cockpit were implemented because the threat was assumed to come from outside the cockpit. You cannot implement measures that will work against everything and every threat, internal or external. Hence why EASA (and this is only speculative, because we can't know for sure) did not implement a two-man rule and currently has not implemented one, the two-man rule is a airline SOP issue at the moment.


Does "pendulum effect" apply to hang gliders or any aircraft?

For a proper discussion, we should first define what a pendulum is. Only then can be established if such an effect can exist in airplanes.

Let's base the definition on Wikipedia. It says that

  A pendulum is a weight suspended from a pivot so that it can swing freely.

Maybe it is also worth to look closer what a pivot is: A thing on which something turns.

So the pendulum is fixed to a fulcrum which keeps it suspended and allows it to swing freely. The ideal pendulum has all its mass in its massive bob and, therefore, pivot and center of gravity are not in the same place. If the center of gravity and the pivot would fall together, a pendulum could only rotate but not swing. And that swinging motion is what the pendulum is all about.

Now for airplanes: Here we have no pivot. All rotation can only happen around the center of gravity. This is equivalent to the pendulum with no length which is no pendulum any more. But what about hang gliders? Using Pilothead's sketch let's consider how a hangglider starts a rolling motion and compare that to how a glider does it. The top two sketches show each in steady straight flight while the bottom two sketches show both initiating a roll to the right:

In both cases, a lateral imbalance is needed to create a rolling moment (red round arrow). While the pilot of the hang glider shifts the whole wing sideways, the glider pilot commands a lift difference between both wings using ailerons. Note the shift of the hangglider to the right and with it the center of lift in the lower left sketch: The center of gravity stays where it is due to the conservation of momentum while the pilot will shift slightly to the left.  In case of the glider, no such lateral shift of the craft occurs; instead the distribution of lift is shifted in order to create the imbalance. The effect is the same: A lateral displacement between weight and lift which causes a rolling moment. Rolling happens around the center of gravity (because of conservation of momentum again) and in all cases there is no displacement between the pivot point and the working point of the weight, because both are the same: The center of gravity.

A hangglider is only superficially different from an airplane because the center of lift is actively shifted by displacing the wing laterally instead of a change in lift distribution (neglecting the influence of the pilot mass on the rigging of each wing), but in all cases the vehicle will rotate around its center of gravity. Weight has no lever arm to that center of gravity, so there can be no pendulum effect. Or keel effect, fo that matter.


Can an airline lay off its flight attendants and use pilots to fill the role?

When I was flight crew on CRJs for a private operator we got abbreviated FA training for pilots, which was mostly a kind of crowd control course, taught by a contract FA. Their training is about managing a chaotic cabin full or panicking passengers. FA's are more or less under-cover riot control cops who spend their careers working as servers/attendants and are very unlikely to use their actual training.
So theoretically, airlines could offer flight crews FA postions, if they were willing to take the pay cut and were willing to be reminded every day where they are not, performing that undercover waiter/waitress function.  Yes, additional training would be required because airline flight crews don't get significant FA (crowd control) training and a pilot would have to take the FA course.
This is an opinion, but I would say not a difficult call; you would NOT get any takers. Every pilot will take the furlough and go look for another flying job, or change careers.  There is just no way that someone who loves flying enough to jump through all the hoops to get into a flight deck would take that kind of "demotion" (maybe... maybe... one person here or there would agree to it out of sheer desperation, but not enough to be significant).


Why does operating the rudders in the engine slipstream offer improved rudder authority at low speed?

A propeller accelerates the air flowing through it in order to create thrust. This acceleration is highest at low speed.

The acceleration will increase the dynamic pressure at the tail if it is in the slipstream. A higher dynamic pressure will cause a proportionally higher aerodynamic force. A H-tail will, therefore, only be in the slipstream if two engines are mounted ahead of it, like in two- or four-engined designs with wing-mounted propellers. Also, by placing the area of the vertical low, a H-tail offers better dynamic flying characteristics.


What is the reference plane for the ILS glideslope angle?

It is referenced to the zero-degree plane, and depending on obstacle clearance it may be a little steeper (3.5° or 4°). There is no reason to refer it to the runway slope as it defines a sink rate to speed ratio during final approach.


Are there different configurations of cabin crew seating arrangement for one aircraft model?

Crew seating is partly concerned with the regulations requiring a crew member next to certain exits. Airlines choose different combinations of seating based on class and galley/lavatory arrangements and this changes the number of required exits and crew required to sit next to the exits. Some long hall airlines require berths for crew rest and sleep - I imagine some airlines may have employee union requirements.

All this requires ongoing customized cabin arrangements. Airlines often change the seating during mandatory maintenance (a, b, and c checks) to accommodate different routes, cultural expectations and changing economy.

Interestingly, the cockpit itself may vary. According to FAA regulations large aircraft must have at least one observer seat (usually called a "jump seat"). But, I have seen cockpit options that vary the number and type of "jump seat" in the triple 7.

For example, one cockpit of a Boeing 777 offered two padded conventional seats or three fold down "bench" type seats. I guess one company wanted the FAA observer to fall asleep and another company wanted to discourage "observers".


What do taxiway lane, taxiway strip and taxiway shoulder mean?

According to the Skybrary from EUROCONTROL and a UK CAA document on taxiways markings (Visual Aids Handbook UK CAA CAP 637 (2007)), the definitions are:

Taxiway Strip

An area which contains the taxiway and gives protection to aircraft from obstacles and other taxiways.

Image Source: Transport Canada

Taxiway Lane

This one is ambiguous and could not be found citation on, except for a document from the BAZL. Taxilanes or Taxiway Lanes are dashed taxiways, which give guidance to stands and aircraft parking positions.

Taxiway Shoulder

The taxiway shoulder is the paved or unpaved area beyond the double taxiway edge line, indicating that the load bearing capabilities beyond these lines can be different from the taxiway weight allowance.


What is the structural impact on the wing if no fuel is stored in the wings and just in the fuselage?

This has been well-studied, here are the basics.
For the case of fuselage tankage for fuel: The structural loads caused by the weight of the fuel in a fuselage tank must be transmitted between the wings and the fuselage. This means beefing up the wing-to-fuselage attachment points, which is not required if the wings carry the tankage instead. Putting the tankage in the fuselage also means less room for passengers and cargo.
The best place for this fuselage tank would be right at the center of gravity so the CG shift with fuel consumption is minimized- which unfortunately puts the tank right where the passengers sit. And because this places fuel in close proximity to passengers, it creates a risk factor during a crash.
There are more subtleties involved, but these are the primary considerations. I invite the experts here to weigh in with more details.


Reasons that it would be just a pretend airplane, perhaps the body of a wheeled vehicle:

big awkward holes on the cowl sides for headlights
paint scheme is straight lines only, inexpensive
unusual tiny duct in the top of the cowl

But it does have an antenna poking out of the roof. Molto misterioso.
If one rotated the panel below the side window half a turn about the vehicle's pitch axis, its stripes would align with the cowl's.  So it is indeed the door, not something else.
Through the gap behind the door, one sees what might be grass.  The vehicle may not have a floor back there.
Era:

cowl top's deterioration suggests fiberglass, so after 1950
paint scheme is 1960's


Why don't solar powered aircraft use wings with more surface area

First, because solar panels are pretty mediocre sources of power per area. An industry average found via quick Google search is in the 200 - 300 Watt per square meter range, so let us be very optimistic and take the higher value, $300W/m^2$, for a round of math. If you want the details, solar irradiation on the surface is about $1kW/m^2$ and the best experimental photo-voltaic cell efficiencies by year are graphed here.

Using the ASH 26 motor glider as a case study, we can see if solar powering an aircraft is as trivial as the OP suggests.

Assuming our panels are made of fairy dust we can further decide their weight is negligible and that we can perfectly cover the $11.68\,m^2$ of wing area this glider has and that it will operate as though under normal incidence (Sun at 90° to the panel) all the time. Thus, $3.5\,kW$ of free energy... which sadly is only $9.4\,\%$ of the power supplied by the Wankel engine used on the real glider, and with which it attains a very humble $4\,m/s$ climb rate. This is before even considering that batteries are also very inefficient sources of energy per unit of mass when compared to hydrocarbons.

Now, for the second part of the OP´s query, how about enlarging the chord of the wing to increase the area?
This also happens to fall flat for different reasons. The drag coefficient:
$$
C_D =C_{D0} + \frac{(C_L)^2}{\pi e AR}
$$
has the aspect ratio ($AR = {b^2 \over S}$) of the wing in the denominator of the second term, the so called induced drag (because it is induced by the lift, note the coefficient of lift itself appears in the numerator).

This equation quickly illustrates why gliders have long wings: a higher AR provides a lower induced drag term. The other term, the parasitic drag, is either indifferent to the chord or slowly grows with it due to boundary layer transition in laminar airfoil designs.

We can arrive at the conclusion that for a given surface, a higher-AR wing will be the less draggy solution.

Therefore, the current attempts at solar powered aircraft all attempt to add area by extending the wings, and are limited by structural constraints like bending moment at the root, which you can clearly see them try and alleviate by spacing out the engines into the wings, providing some relief at the expense of increased roll inertia.


What fraction of air intake becomes bleed air in airliner engines?

Indeed about 1-2% of compressed air is bled off for cooling turbine disks and blade roots. When turbine inlet temperatures are higher than 1350K, the turbine blades must be internally cooled as well, and up to 15% of compressor air may be required as bleed air for cooling. Source

Bleed air is also used for aircraft systems. If we take a typical airliner such as the B737NG, compressed air can be supplied by either the engines, the APU or an external air chart, and is used for the following purposes:

Air conditioning & cabin pressurisation, which are both subject to regulation quality standards.
Wing & engine thermal anti-icing
Engine starting
Hydraulic reservoir pressurisation. The reservoirs are pressurised to ensure that hydraulic fuel reaches the hydraulic pumps.
Water tank pressurisation

Compressed air is tapped from the engine 5th and/or 9th compressor stage. Air supply is regulated according to demand and varies according to flight stage - during flight stages with relatively high engine power (take-off, climb, most cruise), 5th stage compressed air only is used. During low engine power conditions such as approach and landing, 9th stage compressed air is used for the pneumatic systems as well. This air is under higher pressure, and hotter, than the 5th stage air.

Exactly how much bleed air is used for the systems is hard to get a reference for, but here is an estimate for the CFM56-7B18:

Bypass ratio = 5.5:1, Air mass flow = 307 kg/s => hot flow = 307 / 5.5 = 55.8 kg/s
Cabin air systems refresh the whole cabin volume every 2-3 mins. Let's take 2 minutes, without recirculation.
Internal volume of a 737NG is about 400 $m^3$ (from fuselage width and length of an -800).
Air density = 0.94 kg/$m^3$ (we'll take cruise conditions, cabin air density @ 2,000 m)
Aircon flow = 400 * 0.94 / 120 = 3.1 kg/s

There are two engines, so the percentage of flow used for the aircon and pressurisation would be 3.1 / (2 * 55.8) = 2.8% maximum. Please again note that this is a ROM value which I will gladly give up for an official reference.

As a magnitude check: the APU brochure mentions 154 pounds of air per minute = 1.16 kg/s for environmental control and engine start. The APU can deliver air conditioning on the ground without the engines running so that would be the right order of magnitude.

Final estimate: bleed air for air conditioning is between 1 - 3 kg/s is about 1 - 3% per engine.

Bleed air is not used for:

Hydraulic power generation. The hydraulic pumps are engine driven pumps (via a gearbox) and electrical pumps, powered by the AC system
Electrical power generation. This is provided by Integrated Drive Generators, from a generator in the APU, and from the batteries through an inverter.

Source: own work from open source on-line pilot training courses.


Why do propellors have white markings on their tips?

It is so you will see a circle when they are turning.  Without contrasting bright tips turning propellers are invisible, and pose a grave risk for someone who is deaf, wearing heavy hearing protection, or distracted by other noises.


How do we choose a frequency range of interest for flutter prediction?

You might want to try reviewing MIL-A-8870C  AIRPLANE STRENGTH AND RIGIDITY
VIBRATION, FLUTTER, AND DIVERGENCE.  The CRJs were certified to this standard.  Available here: http://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL-SPECS-MIL-A/MIL-A-8870C_6746/  Just click the Download File button.


What is the mechanism by which condensation forms above wings?

We know that the pressure decreases over the wing. We can also assume that a particle of air travelling above a wing does it  so fast that does not have the time to exchange energy with the sorrounding ones (called adiabatic process)

We can now look at a pressure/volume diagram for an adiabatic process that goes from "high" pressure (the free undisturbed air in front of the aircraft) to low pressure (the air on top of the wing):

image source (currently unreachable)

As you see from the diagram, if you move along the Adiabat line from the top to the bottom, the temperature drops. If the air has already a temperature near the water condensation one and a high enough humidity, it will condense.
From the Wikipedia article linked before:

  Adiabatic cooling occurs when the pressure on an adiabatically isolated system is decreased, allowing it to expand, thus causing it to do work on its surroundings. When the pressure applied on a parcel of air is reduced, the air in the parcel is allowed to expand; as the volume increases, the temperature falls as internal energy decreases.


What are the advantages and disadvantages of mixing the bypass flow with the core flow?

In simple terms, mixing the exhaust flow (with any bypass ratio) is good for all the reasons except for construction and weight. It is aerodynamically more efficient; it reduces noise (exhaust noise makes most of the jet noise); it cools combustion chamber (and other downwind parts) more efficiently, etc.

However, making the mixing chamber on a high bypass / big engine would require enormous outer nacelle to cover the whole engine (and extend somewhat beyond), and the weight penalty and complexity/cost negates all the benefits.


What happens to the pressure differential of airflow under and over the wing as the critical angle of attack is reached?

While this may seem pretty easy, it's not for a 12th-grade student like me.

It definitely does not seem easy. It takes solid background in numeric integration, good working knowledge of a numeric library and some serious programming time.

There is a good reason everybody—and I mean aircraft engineers and researchers—just uses XFoil. And that's just the basic analysis—3D calculations require even more complex software packages—that cost hefty sums of money (XFoil is free).

  We all know that the pressure differential is 1/2 ρ〖(v2-v1)〗^2, where v2 is the airflow velocity over the wing and v1 the airflow velocity under the wing.

There is no single $v_1$ and single $v_2$. There is just $\vec{v}(x, y)$ (limiting to 2D analysis like XFoil does for simplicity) that is different at each point. You can't just take $\alpha$ and divine two speeds from it, because the situation is more complex than that.

Remember that:

The air flowing over the wing reaches the trailing edge in significantly shorter time than the air flowing below it!
A thin flat plate is not a particularly good wing, but it does generate some lift.
At the Reynolds numbers involved for full-scale aircraft the flow is rarely laminar beyond 20–30% chord. Turbulence increases the velocity and therefore decreases pressure and increases lift.
In viscous fluid, the velocity must be continuous in all coordinates and that includes the boundary, so the layer directly touching the surface is not moving relative to it. The velocity quickly increases in the boundary layer. The properties of this boundary layer is what governs whether the stream will remain attached or not.
There is no lift in inviscid fluid (= superfluid) and neither would there be in massless fluid. That is, you need to take both inertia and viscosity into account to get any result.

Basically the only way to calculate this is by evaluating the Navier–Stokes equations, which has to be done numerically and in fairly fine grid to achieve any useful precision.

Before numeric integration, there were some simpler analytical methods like the thin airfoil theory, but those didn't work from scratch—some coefficients must be measured experimentally.

  Whenever the critical AoA (AoA at which the aircraft stalls) is reached, how do we calculate pressure differential?

Just like before—by integrating the Navier–Stokes equations.


Can noise from contra-rotating propellers be reduced by having a different number of blades on each propeller?

It does help a little, yes.

One source of noise is the fluctuation in dynamic pressure experienced by a blade of the rear propeller when it cuts through the wake of a blade of the forward propeller. Friction in the boundary layer on the first blade will reduce the dynamic pressure locally and create pressure fluctuations on the second blade, and noise.

By using a different number of blades, the pressure fluctuations will not happen all at the same time, but sequentially, which reduces the peak power of the noise. The effect of the second blade cutting through the wake of the first is still there, but is distributed over time.

Thanks to @MSalters for pointing out another effect. I copy straight from his comment:
The effect is not just distributed over time, but also shifted up in frequency. At 6000 RPM (100 Hz), with 4 blades per propeller they pass each other 8 times per revolution (800 Hz). If the second propeller has 5 blades, this moves up to 4000 Hz.

P-27 prop on the D-27 turboshaft of the An-70 transport, picture by Marina Lystseva. The forward propeller has 8 blades and the rear propeller has 6. For optimum noise reduction, the rear propeller should have just one blade less than the forward propeller. The leading edge sweep helps to stretch out the contact of a single blade with the wake over time, which again reduces peak noise.


How do navigation displays depict turn anticipation?

First, the ND doesn't calculate anything. It just renders the navigation data sent to it from the FMS. Yes, it can pan and rotate and scale the nav data. It also displays the compass rose with heading or track from the IRS/AHRS and various data fields around the edge.

The green line on your ND is the lateral path computed by the FMS. The source data for the path is the flight plan which is a list of waypoints and associated leg types. The FMS builds the path by connecting the waypoints as defined by the leg types (ref ARINC 424).

As you noted, it also builds transitions between each of the legs. They can be fly-over or fly-by transitions. The 'normal' transition is a fly-by. Within procedures defined in the nav database, some waypoints will be coded as fly-over. Others will be fly-over due to the specific leg type. Some legs end at fixes, others end at a 'floating' waypoint such as an altitude.

For altitude terminated legs the FMS can predict roughly where it will be, but ultimately the end of the leg is only known with certainty when the altitude is reached at which time you just did a fly-over of the 'fix'.

In your example, KKW02 is a fly-over because it is altitude terminated. Takeoff legs are typically coded in the database as a VA (Heading to Altitude) or CA (Course to Altitude) leg, commonly terminating at 400 feet above the runway altitude.

The FMS builds the transitions based on the actual geometry of the inbound and outbound legs, bank angle limits from the aircraft manufacturer, aircraft speed, altitude, and what it knows of the wind. The resulting transition will be an arc that is tangent to both the inbound and outbound legs. For large course changes like the one shown in your example, it may require two arcs.

Thus the path is made up of a series of straights and arcs. The straights are defined by their start and end positions (latitude/longitude). Arcs have the start and end positions (lat/lon) as well as the radius of the curve (NM) and the center of the arc (lat/lon).

The display gets the aircraft position and track from the FMS/GPS/IRS and heading
from the IRS. Based on the pilot's selected display range the display plots out the path on the display.

RTCA DO-283 Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Required Navigation Performance for Area Navigation covers the generation of the path. RTCA DO-257, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for the Depiction of Navigation Information on Electronic Maps is the standard for NDs. How the manufacturers actually accomplish it is up to them and they don't share that information.


At which angle tiltrotor's rotors generates more lift?

Technically, if the tilt rotor flies forwards with vertical rotors, the lift is produced by the wings and forward thrust by the rotors. So let's regard the rotor thrust, whether in horizontal or vertical rotor position. Tilt of the rotor does not affect the amount of thrust produced. The following factors do:

Rotor speed. This would remain pretty constant over the tilt range, with tip speed as close as possible to drag divergence speed. At top speed with vertical rotors, rotor speed must be lower than in the hover because of the velocity triangle tip speed = rotor speed + air speed.
Blade Angle of Attack. A function of blade angle and of airstream inflow.
Airstream inflow. With the rotors in a vertical position and flying forwards, air flows into the rotor disk and requires less acceleration to provide the same amount of thrust. Or: a given thrust requires less engine power in forward flight than in vertical take-off.

Therefore, for a given amount of engine power the vertical rotor at speed would be able to provide the highest thrust - but depending on the max. speed of the craft, rotor speed must be reduced, which also reduces the ability of the rotor to convert power into thrust.

The picture above from Leishman, also used in this answer, shows the amount of engine power required vs. airspeed for helicopters. Note that a helicopter rotor must always provide more thrust than its weight. In order to gain airspeed, the main rotor is tilted as well, and the effect or airflow at higher speed can be seen from the reduced amount of induced power.

For a tiltrotor, the rotors will be dimensioned for vertical take-off: they must provide thrust > weight in this situation. In horizontal flight the wings provide the vertical force for weight compensation, and the rotors only need to overcome drag. Which increases quadratically with speed, so at top speed thrust will be the same as TO weight again.


How much FOD hazard can a Styrofoam drink cup pose?

Probably very little. There's the very slight chance that it could stuck on a pitot tube or some other terrible scenario in a Final Destination type film which, coupled with another issue, could cause a problem but again very unlikely.

The underlying hazard is the attitude towards FOD in general. It's a bad habit to build complacency towards any FOD sitting on a parking apron or letting it "get away". If it's SAFE to pickup the FOD then it should be picked up. It's possible the next time someone ignores a cup, it could have been used by a wayward mechanic to hold a sticky chemical that would ruin a pilot's windshield and his day if it  smacks and smears on the glass on takeoff. Again very unlikely but why risk it!


A satellite is an object in orbit. A satellite keeps a constant altitude if it is traveling at the correct orbital speed for their altitude. Otherwise it will be in an elliptical orbit where the altitude is constantly changing. In any case, satellites are (almost) in free-fall

An airplane travels at much, much lower speed than orbital speed. Airplanes keep their altitude because their wings produce lift.

Satellites in lower orbited are subject to atmospheric drag, albeit to much smaller extentd than planes. GOCE was orbiting Earth at an - for satellites - very low altitude (224 km). There is hardly any atmosphere at this altitude, but at an orbital velocity of 7.8 m/s (51337 kts), atmospheric drag is still a problem.

Therefore the structure of GOCE was particularly designed for low drag. The wings were flat without camber. They did not produce any lift. GOCE used ion thrusters to compensate the atmospheric drag and maintain orbital velocity.

Photo: ESA

Photo: ESA

Missiles are self-propelled guided weapons. I can assure you that GOCE was not a weapon.

[TL;DR]: GOCE was a satellite, because it orbited an astronomical body. It was not a plane, because its wings did not produce lift.

GOCE´s 20 month mission ended on November 11, 2013 with the planned destructive re-enty into the atmosphere. It measured Earth´s gravity field and acquired a precise model of the Earth geoid:

Image: ESA


In its basic form, it is just like the cruise control in a car.*

Here is a photo of the autopilot control panel on a Boeing 777. Note the "IAS 200" window on the left:

IAS stands for "indicated airspeed". When engaged, this setting tells the auto-thrust to adjust engine power to maintain 200 knots of airspeed.

Just like a car, when you go uphill you need more gas to maintain a constant speed, and when you go downhill you give it less gas. If the downhill is steep enough, you may have to use some brakes to maintain a constant speed.

Same thing happens when a plane pitches up to climb or pitches down to descend. Airspeed, vertical speed and engine power are closely related - changing any one will impact the remaining two. This is the fundamental of how planes fly, and likely your first ground school lesson if you learn to become a pilot. Auto-thrust is a component of the autopilot system which manages engine power. Note that I used constant airspeed as an example in the previous paragraph: advanced autopilots have many modes, and it can be set to maintain constant vertical speed instead of airspeed. But in all cases, auto-thrust manages engine power.

* Well said TomMcW


What are these green "bags" on the SSJ100?

That's cabin insulation - probably fiberglass.

It's not always in green bags (blankets), and not always fiberglass, but some kind of insulation is necessary to help control temperature and reduce cabin noise (air moving over the fuselage is REALLY loud).

Here are some other photos of different types of insulation:

Basic fiberglass with a plastic backing, cut to fit.
Fiberglass with either plastic or foil backings is commonly used because it is both light and inherently flame-retardant (as long as the backing is fireproof it will not burn).

Soundex - a sandiwch of acoustic foam, thermal insulating foam and aluminum foil - is a popular choice on propeller aircraft: Slightly heaver than fiberglass, but better at dampening sound.

Foam padding (similar to the foam used under carpets) does a decent job at both sound and thermal insulation. In this case it's green & has no covering, but colors and coverings vary.

Prefabricated insulation blankets on a Boeing 777.
(I believe these are fiberglass sealed in polyethylene, they're manufactured to fit each bay without cutting which avoids loose insulation material floating around).


What is the sweep angle of the Boeing 787's horizontal stabilizers?

(Source: Boeing)
Simple image analysis shows it has higher sweep.
The general rules of empennage design can be found here (Hamburg University of Applied Sciences).

The sweep of the horizontal tailplane should be approximately 5° larger than the sweep of the wing. Thus a higher critical Mach number of the horizontal tailplane can be achieved and a loss of efficiency due to shock waves is avoided.
In addition, the lift gradient of the horizontal tailplane can be less than the lift gradient of the wing due to the increased sweep, so that the horizontal tailplane only reaches the stall state at larger angles of attack than the wing.

The main wing sweep is easily found on Wikipedia, it's 32.2°. In comparison, the stabilizer angle is 36.00° (source).

Related: How are the dimensions of the empennage determined for jetliners?


Why was the Concorde painted white and not black?

There is a discussion on it here that's worth reading but in short the requirements were just different. A few of the key points,

The black color on the SR-71 offered some night camouflage in addition to its heat dissipation
The Concorde had an Aluminium airframe while the SR-71 had a primarily titanium airframe which could lead to different coating types.
The Concorde was a commercial aircraft many of which are often painted white thermal benefits aside they may have simply been keeping with what they usually did.
The SR-71 flew substantially faster than the Concorde and had different thermal requirements.
The hottest point on the Concorde was the nose 127°C which was actually cooled by fuel being pumped through as a coolant. The hottest point on the SR-71 was the cockpit window which cooked in at 327°C again, very different requirements thermally.


PA/APV Glidepath Descent and Obstacle Clearance Slope's lowest point determination

I can't yet find where this is indicated in TERPS, but it appears that the OCS surface starts at the point before the threshold where the GP is 250 feet above the threshold height.

I'm inferring that from this document about calculating VNAV criteria.

It has the above diagram and says:

  The distance from the runway threshold where the OCS surface starts
  (Section 1) is defined by the formula D = (250-HATh)/.052407779

where HATh is the same as TCH, which is a standard 50', and the number .05240779 is the tangent of 3°. So far I'm unable to reference that back to any TERPS definition, but maybe you can find it.

There's an interesting article discussing how TCH is defined over at Code7700.com


When airspaces adjoin vertically, which airspace class does the shared flight level or altitude belong to?

According to ICAO Annex 11 - ATS (Air Traffic Services)PDF, the less restrictive airspace is in effect on shared boundaries:

  Note.— Where the ATS airspaces adjoin vertically, i.e. one above the other, flights at a common level would comply with
  requirements of, and be given services applicable to, the less restrictive class of airspace. In applying these criteria, Class B
  airspace is therefore considered less restrictive than Class A airspace; Class C airspace less restrictive than Class B
  airspace, etc.

Unless national regulations in the country's AIP are in contradiction or the national AIP does not list any information on this, the ICAO regulation will apply.

In the above example, the altitudes or flight level would be considered:

2500ft MSL: Class D airspace
4500ft MSL: Class E airspace, since class E is less restrictive than class D
FL100: Class E airspace, since Class E is less restrictive than class C

Related questions:
What is the difference between “flight level” and “altitude”?
What is the difference between the airspace's classes (for non-pilots)?


I'm a CFI/MEI.  I have 700-800 hours teaching private pilot students in the part 61 environment.  That's not an awesome amount but I think it's enough to comment on this question.

This guy is wildly unprofessional, maybe even criminally negligent.  You are paying him to observe you, to provide feedback, and to keep you safe.  He can do none of those things while he is sleeping on the job.

You have a lazy instructor and I'm curious to know in what other ways he is failing to teach you.

It's his job to excercise good judgement and scrub a flight if he's not up for it.  If he's overworked he shouldn't be flying.  That's his problem, not yours.  He has no excuse for his behavior and he's setting a terrible example for you to follow.  DO NOT be like your instructor.  I hope you're not using him as a role model for what a good pilot should be.

He's failing to demonstrate sound judgement and showing you that complacency is OK.
He's not challenging you or looking for teachable moments.
He's exhibiting classic hazardous attitudes...invulnerability and anti-authourity at a minimum.

I'd talk to him first and then fire him if this nonsense continues.  I'd also demand a refund on CFI billing for his nap time.

And, yes, there should be a defined lesson plan with expectations for each lesson.  This goes for pt61 and pt141 schools.  Every CFI should have created plans during their CFI training.  I have no idea how a CFI applicant can pass a CFI practical or oral exam without a comprehensive collection of lesson plans.

No, it's not OK for you to be in charge of what is covered.  You should know what the next lesson will cover so you can prepare.  He needs to give you the training plan and he needs to drive it.  Again, it's his job, it's why you pay him.

I think this guy is milking you for billable hours.  You might just be a cash pinata for him.  Either that or he's just incompetent.


Why would ASOS have a caution for Low Density Altitude?

Low density altitudes mean your engine generates more power, and your wings generate more lift. Everything is better with low density altitudes, right?

The potential danger in low density altitudes is that your engine generates more power than it can handle. Even without exceeding the maximum rated RPM and manifold pressure, you can exceed the rated power of an engine under low density altitude conditions.

At low temperatures the air becomes denser. At standard sea level conditions air has a temperature of 15 degrees Celcius and a density of 1.225 kg per cubic meter.
When the temperature is -30 degrees Celcius, the density increases to 1.452 kg per cubic meter. The equivalent altitude where this density is found under standard atmosphere conditions would be about -5900 ft. This is called the density altitude.

When air with these properties enters the combustion chamber of your engine and is combusted to the normal exhaust temperature it expands (increases in pressure) far more that air normally would, resulting in excessive power.

This FAA paper on Winter Flying Tips says the following about the risks associated with low density altitudes:

  Do not overboost supercharged engines. This is easy to do because at very low density altitude, the engine "thinks" it is operating as much as 8,000 feet below sea level in certain situations. Care should be exercised in operating normally aspirated engines. Power output increases at about 1% for each ten degrees of temperature below that of standard air. At -40 degree F, an engine will develop 10 percent more than rated power even though RPM and MP limits are not exceeded.


How to use wind currents for constant elevation in gliding?

You need some inhomogeneity to extract energy. For gliders there are three basic ways to do that:

Thermals: The sun heats up the ground which in turn heats up the air above it. Hotter air is lighter and rises up. It keeps rising as long as the lapse rate of the atmosphere is above the adiabatic rate. This means that three conditions must be met for thermals to occur:
1.1 Sunshine
1.2 Sufficient atmospheric lability
1.3 Ground that easily heats up, such as forest or sand.
Ridge lift: Air streams across a hill and rises up on the windward side. Behind mountain ranges you might also find lee waves, an atmospheric oscillation caused by wind blowing across a mountain.
Dynamic soaring: Here the wind gradient in the atmospheric boundary layer is exploited by flying turns while pulling up when turning into a headwind and diving down when turning into a tailwind. This is currently only used by Albatrosses and has been experimented with by Ingo Renner, but is much too stressful for human pilots if done for extended periods.

Look at the variometer in your glider and try to fly circles when you see an indication of rising air. Tighten the circle when climb rate decreases and flatten it when it increases in order to center the glider in the thermal.


Do FAA regulations keep aircraft away from 18,000 feet MSL to avoid conflict with FL190?

It's not the altitude that is adjusted, but the flight level. Aircraft are allowed to fly at 17,500 feet MSL. Per the rules provided in other answers, this would be VFR flight to the north or east. an IFR aircraft could be flying at FL180, and this would provide 500 feet of separation.

However, 14 CFR 91.121 determines the lowest usable flight level. If the altimeter setting is 29.92 or higher, FL180 provides at least 500 feet separation from the next VFR altitude, and at least 1000 feet from the next IFR altitude. However, if the altimeter setting is lower, then the lowest usable flight level is higher than FL180.

Current altimeter setting   Lowest usable flight level
29.92 (or higher)           180
29.91 through 29.42         185
29.41 through 28.92         190
28.91 through 28.42         195
28.41 through 27.92         200
27.91 through 27.42         205
27.41 through 26.92         210


How do I request a touch and go and then remain closed traffic?

Yes you can request that on your call, generally if you don't the tower will ask how you will terminate/proceed at which point you will request closed traffic.


Why don't we have yokes that look like steering wheels?

We Do! It just has been a while since anyone has built a plane like that.

Many early planes did, notably the curtis biplane comes to mind

As closed cockpits came into be and the modern control set up we see something like a car wheel.

  The cockpit of the Reliant SR-6A shows the love and skill that went into the restoration.

source

Yokes then evolved to have a more cut down top like the one seen here (in my favorite plane) the Spartan Execuitve This plane was built in the 30's

Even later than that the Ercoupe has a somewhat rounded control wheel.

Also of note the Piper Pacer and Cessna 140 had rounded yokes. After that period most of the big makers moved to the yoke we know and love today. Piper would have a closed top yoke on their early Comanches through the early 60's as well. It should also be noted that early planes (wright flyer etc) had stick like controls. I would assume this was to allow the cable to be mounted far from the pivot for torque reasons although Im not sure (this was for sure before trim).

Remember in an airplane its all about weight so trimming it where ever you can is worth it.

In a plane the maximum deflection of a yoke is often no more than 90 degrees so having a full wheel (which allows a hand over hand car style turn) is not necessary.

Orientation is a bit of a concern when flying on instruments but many race cars have center marks on their steering wheels for a similar reason.

For what its worth formula 1 steering wheels see about as much travel as a yoke and are similarly shaped. Some even have more buttons than a cockpit.

source


What model is this strange airplane-helicopter combination?

It is a Pitcairn PCA-2 autogiro. From the linked article:

  This aircraft is a Pitcairn PCA-2 autogiro, S/N B-12 (ATC #410), manufactured in April 1931 by Pitcairn Aircraft, Inc., Willow Grove, PA. It came from the factory with a Wright J-6 engine (S/N 12528) of 300HP. It had a Hartzell steel propeller.  It was a three-place craft, weighing 3,000 pounds.

Apparently, the aircraft was owned by Amelia Earhart and sponsored by Beech-Nut packing company.

  NC10780 was sold to George Palmer Putnam, husband of Amelia Earhart, of New York, NY on May 7, 1931.  This autogiro is the “older” (by a week) sister ship of NC10781 flown through Tucson by John M. Miller.


Which Navigation Specifications support an RF leg?

First is understanding the difference between RNAV and RNP.  This related question: What is the difference between RNAV and RNP? provides a basic answer to that part of your question.

To your specific question, RNAV procedures predate the acceptance of RNP standards. Since RNP standards have been established as the basis of navigation, you should expect that all procedures published in the future would be RNP procedures.

As a reference, I can point to RTCA Document DO-236C, Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards: Required Navigation Performance for Area Navigation (MASPS). This document describes how RNP standards will be applied in the airspace. That covers airspace design, procedures and equipment used to fly within RNP airspace. Performance Based Navigation (PBN) adds aircraft specific performance requirements to the RNP concept.

Definitions from DO-236C which references ICAO Doc 9613:

  RNAV system (as defined by ICAO Doc 9613): A navigation system which
  permits aircraft operation on any desired flight path within the
  coverage of station-referenced NAVAIDs or within the limits of the
  capability of self-contained aids, or a combination of these. An RNAV
  system may be included as part of a flight management system (FMS).

  RNP system (as defined by ICAO Doc 9613): An area navigation system
  which supports onboard performance monitoring and alerting. An area
  navigation system capable of achieving the performance requirement of
  an RNP specification is referred to as an RNP system.

  PBN (as defined by ICAO Doc 9613): Area navigation based on
  performance requirements for aircraft operating along an ATS route, on
  an instrument approach procedure or in a designated airspace.

Also from DO-236C, section 3.2 Path Definition Requirements, we find:

  3.2.1.1 Navigation Database Flight Path Legs for Terminal Area Procedures

  Permissible leg types for the definitions of the RNP flight paths for
  all navigation database procedures (e.g. SIDs, STARS, Approaches
  including missed approaches), with the exception of airways, are
  limited to the following:

  Permissible Leg Types          ARINC 424 Leg Type
  - Track to Fix leg                      TF
  - Radius to Fix leg                     RF
  - Initial Fix                           IF
  - Hold legs                        HM, HA and HF
  - Fix to Altitude leg                   FA
  - Direct to Fix leg                     DF
  - Course to Fix leg                     CF

  Note 1: RNP procedures that require the repeatability and predictability of
  a specified ground track should be constructed using IF, TF, and RF legs only.

  Note 2: If the FA, DF and CF types are used, they may introduce less
  repeatability and predictability.

As you can see from the above, RNP procedures are built using RNAV leg types. RF legs are an RNAV leg type unlike the similar AF leg which is a DME arc that can be flown with a DME.

Realistically, you will only find RF legs within SIDs, STARs, and IAPs as that's where they are needed. They are useful when you need a large change of direction which is common in the terminal environment but not so much while enroute.


What is the energy demand of a secondary surveillance radar?

What you propose is possible.  TCAS is essentially a secondary surveillance radar, and is a piece of avionics which doesn't break the bank power wise. In a moderate traffic environment, I have seen 3 to 5 amps at 24VDC.  I am sure it is higher in a dense environment.  The interrogation power requirement doesn't go up but processing the returns may take more power.

5 amps at 24VDC is a modest power requirement for a mid-sized wind energy system, therefore at first blush, what you propose is quite possible.


What is the reference chord for AoA measurement or calculation in a twisted wing?

In short: it’s up to the designer to pick any definition as long as the design and analysis always obeys that definition.

Usually, it’s a general practice to define a root chord and then calculate the rest of the local aoa‘s in relation to the root chord. This makes wing-strip calculations simpler. It’s also used in helicopter rotor blades and propellers.

On the other hand, there are numerous simplified calculations (that calculate wing or aircraft level properties) that may consider the mean aerodynamic chord. In this case, of course, the mac location would be used.


How does the adiabatic cooling of wingtip vortices work?

The vortex is rotating. This by itself should suffice to explain the expansion at its core. The mechanism is less Bernoulli (which applies to straight flows) but centrifugal force. Compare it to the decreasing height at the center of the bathtub vortex when water flows out the drain and starts to rotate. The height is proportional to the pressure in the fluid. The same happens with air - the pressure change is highest at the core because the angular velocity decreases with the distance from the core.

And, yes, air is compressible below Mach 1. It is only incompressible ideally and at Mach 0. The density changes are minuscule at low speed, but they are there. The thermodynamic process is an adiabatic one (no heat flow) with changes to pressure, volume and density (a tiny bit).


Why were early AFRP A300/A310 rudders prone to delaminating?

You'd have to find someone with access to the original Airbus failure analysis to know the details, but in general it's more difficult to get good bonds with Kevlar laminates compared to graphite or glass (something to do with helpful reactive compounds on the surface of glass and graphite fibres that Kevlar lacks), and special surface treatments and epoxies are required.

I'll hazard an educated guess that Airbus engineering at the time may not have had a lot of experience with Kevlar composites and didn't appreciate the bonding issues sufficiently, and it didn't show up in testing and took the stresses of service operation to uncover it.

Nothing new there as such screw ups go... on the CRJ200, the floors were carbon honeycomb set on floor beams of aluminum.   Somebody seemed to have missed their galvanic scale class in university and didn't realize that carbon and aluminum don't like to live side by side, and areas of the floor see significant moisture from people spilling stuff, rain coming in the doors, humidity, etc.  The company ended up replacing the floor beams on the first couple hundred airplanes with titanium ones.


What property of a wing allows it to flex?

The flexing of a structure like an aircraft's wing is generally due to the materials used, but is also related to the nature of the structure itself.

In very simplified form, a wing is a beam that is supported at one end (the fuselage). Any forces such as from aerodynamics that act on the beam will cause it to bend.

All materials have a characteristic way in which they behave when load is applied. This can be expressed as stress (from applied forces) vs. strain (deformation of the material). Once the material reaches the yield strength point, it will be permanently deformed. For stress below this point, though, the material will return to its original shape. The wing can then flex as long as it remains below the yeild strength in all required loads.

See here for more about this graph

Of course there is much more detail to the subject. The whole structure is designed together so that it will be as light as possible, but the amount of flexing is limited to prevent related issues. The wing may need to be made more stiff to prevent flutter. Farhan mentions fatigue, which can also limit the amount the wing may flex. The panels on top and bottom of the wing must also be prevented from breaking or permanently buckling. There are also fuel tank seals that should not be broken. Adding material in the right places can help to spread out the loads, which reduces the stress on the material and therefore reduces the amount of flexing.


Under what conditions may a colorblind pilot fly a Light Sport Aircraft legally?

What I assume you are talking about is the drivers license medical loop here in the US that allows you to fly LSA aircraft with only holding a Drivers License (in lieu of a medical certificate). You can find the full regulation here but there are a few things you should know.

First off you need to see what your local state requires (since drivers licenses are issued by states not a federal body like pilots licenses). If your state has color blind restrictions on drivers licenses you may have an issue

  (i) Comply with each restriction and limitation imposed by that person's U.S. driver's license and any judicial or administrative order applying to the operation of a motor vehicle;

If you are stepping down from larger planes into LSA planes you can not use the drivers license if you have ever lost a medical cert

  (iii) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn; and

The catch all clause that may make the colorblind condition an issue is the last requirement in the FAR

  (iv) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.

There are lots of light signals used in aviation that a red/green color blind person would have issues with. According to this article color blind LSA pilots are restricted from flying into where color light signals may be used (these signals include but are not limited to tower light signals and ground based warning lights like those in the DC area). If your state issues you a color blind restriction on your drivers license it holds here as well,

  Of course, any limitations placed on the driver's license would also apply to flying, and a person must always be physically able to perform the flight safely.

Furthermore it seems that according to this article you can have the restrictions lifted if you can pass a color blind test (I assume this applies to both the LSA restrictions as well as the regular PPL restrictions)


It depends

It seems that currently the term is more a marketing term than an engineering term.

  When fears arose among airline officials that the word “turboprop” would meet with consumer resistance, the term “prop-fan” was used in a poll of United Airlines passengers. It worked: 50 percent of the respondents said they’d fly on a prop-fan-powered airliner.

From Air&Space Magazine

It depends which particular features you consider an essential defining element for the term "propfan".

Turboprop?

Many features of propfans are also found on some powerplants described as turboprops by their makers.

Contra-rotating blades? - Found on, for example the 1950's NK-12 turboprop.
Supersonic tip speeds? - NK-12 turboprop again.
More than four blades?

The 1945 RB.50 tuboprop had five.
The 1984 PW127 turboprop drove a six-bladed prop.
The 2009 TP400 turboprop drives an eight-bladed propeller.

Curved blades? - TP400 turboprop.

Gearbox?

No Reduction Gearbox - A key distinction of a key forerunner, the GE36, was the lack of a reduction gearbox as used in turboprops.

Other names?

GE called their GE36 an unducted fan (UDF).
Rolls Royce call their design an open rotor engine.
The acronym CROR is also in used; it stands for Contra-Rotating Open Rotor.

D27?

The marketing department of its designers call it a propfan.

Dictionaries

Oxford says

Turbofan: A jet engine in which a turbine-driven fan provides additional thrust.
Turboprop: A jet engine in which a turbine is used to drive a propeller.
Propfan: No results found for “propfan”.

Mirriam Webster - same as Oxford essentially.

Aviation terms.com also defines turboprop etc but not propfan.

Aviation Canada, and other aviation glossaries I looked at, also fail to mention propfan.

Dictionary.com says

  propfan. Aeronautics. a turbojet having a turbine-driven propeller that operates completely outside the jet engine.

But that definition could equally apply to any turboprop.

Wordsense.eu says

  propfan (pl. propfans)
  A modified turbofan engine with the propeller outside the engine duct of an aircraft.

Which is not any better.

Wikipedia tries to define propfan in terms of what it isn't. The nearest it gets to a definition is to say that a propfan has a propellor with many short twisted blades. However the TP400 has many twisted blades - perhaps they are not short enough to qualify?

Conclusion?

There doesn't currently seem to be a clear and short widely-agreed or widely-used set of engineering criteria for labeling a particular engine a propfan rather than an advanced turboprop, an unducted turbofan, an open rotor engine or any other name.

The D27 is a propfan because its maker's marketing department calls it that.


How to select a SID during the planning stage?

"File what you want, fly what you get."

There's no way to know for sure what clearance ATC will give you until you actually call them. If you're departing from an airport that you know well then you may be able to make an educated guess but that won't help if the winds change, an incident closes a runway, or any number of other things happen to invalidate your assumptions.

For planning purposes, just use the SID that best fits your needs, based on all the information you have available: direction of departure, aircraft type, weather, local procedures etc. But ultimately, you'll have to fly what you get (or what you can negotiate with ATC).


What types of gear/supplies are "must-haves" for private pilots?

Get a good headset and a decent mobile device that can run a charting app. I use my Moto4 with Avare.

Download The Airplane Flying Handbook -and- The Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge from the FAA site (both free).  Also download the Airman Certification Standards (ACS) for private pilot airplane.

The only books that I usually recommend people actually purchase are the aircraft manual and a written test study guide from ASA, Jeppesen, Gleim, or King.


Where do I find charts like this for Europe or Global

The search term you're looking for is "instrument approach procedure" where sometimes "procedure" will be replaced with "chart" or "plate". Jeppesen provides these commercially for the world in a convenient standardized format for a hefty fee, but the aviation authority for each country also publishes their own versions as part of the ICAO-mandated Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). In most cases these can be found for free online though it may take some digging.

For the US, the third-party (free) website airnav.com provides a convenient index for the FAA information - search for an airport from their homepage and scroll down for the links under "Instrument Procedures".

Picking a European country at random, Austria's charts are here. Generally you'll want to search for the country's AIP first, then dig through that to look for the instrument procedure charts

I flew myself from California to the UK and back (via Canada, Greenland, Iceland & the Faero Islands) without paying anything for charts this way - paid a lot for fuel though!


Can a simulator (FFS) be used in place of a Technically Advanced Aircraft (TAA) to meet the commercial experience requirements?

You can't use a simulator for this time because the regulation specifically requires training time in an airplane; there's no mention of using a simulator. If you look at some of the wording in the currency regulations in 61.57 (for example) you can see that when the FAA allows you to use  a simulator they state it explicitly:

  The takeoffs and landings required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section
  may be accomplished in a full flight simulator or flight training
  device that is [...]

  A pilot may accomplish the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this
  section in a full flight simulator, flight training device, or
  aviation training device provided [...]


Does Airbus provide pitch control correction symbols outside "normal law"?

You may be confusing the operation of the autopilot, the envelope protections and the flight director.

AIUI, the job of the flight director is to indicate the required roll angle and pitch to achieve a new compass heading and/or new altitude that the pilot has selected on the FD. If the AP is engaged, the FD will cause the AP to make the appropriate control movements, otherwise the pilot has to make the control inputs suggested on the FD display.

This has nothing to do with flight envelope protections AFAIK.

In Alternate Law the Flight Director can still be visible.

The BEA identified misuse of the FD as a possible factor in the loss of AF447

  as the flight control law switched from normal to alternate, the flight director’s crossbars disappeared. But they then reappeared several times. ... PF may have trusted the flight director so much that he was verbally agreeing to the other pilot’s pitch-down instructions, while still actually pitching up.

AIN online

  Disconnection of the flight director is normally part of the "unreliable airspeed" procedure. But after the A330 lost its airspeed information, and the autopilot and autothrust automatically disconnected, the crew left the flight directors engaged.

FlightGlobal


What happened to the blades in this picture?

It's an artifact of how a digital camera downloads captures the image from the sensor called rolling shutter.

Essentially the image is captured a single line at a time and the fast moving propeller changes location between each line captured.

Wikipedia has a nice diagram showing what happens step by step:

On our sister site photography.SE has a question asking about it.


In normal condition, is the Airbus A320 APU fuel supplied by the main engine boost pump only?

The LH fuel line feeds the APU unless the pressure is too low. In this case the advisory "FUEL LO PR" will be displayed on the APU page of the lower ECAM and backup pump is started.

From the A320 family FCOM:


Why isn't it possible to locate the rudder in front of an airplane's center of gravity?

Effect on Aerodynamic Coefficients

It is possible to locate a vertical fin, as well as a control surface, ahead of the center of gravity.  $c_{n_r}$ (yaw-induced yawing moment or yaw damping) will not likely change much, all other things being equal. $c_{n_\beta}$ (sideslip-induced yawing moment or directional stability), on the other hand, will be reduced, perhaps becoming negative. Any sideslip will therefore result in a yaw moment which increases the sideslip.  Expressed in linear control theory terms, this will be a pole in right hand plane when you plot the complex solution of the equations of motion. It is an unstable configuration.

Active Control

As Peter mentioned, it is possible to remain in control in this configuration by means of active control.  Active control tends to be somewhat tiring for a human operator if it is possible at all.  Incidentally, this kind of instability existed in the lateral axis of the 1903 Wright Flyer, which was configured with a canard of considerable proportion. It was reportedly quite tiring to keep stable.

CP ahead of CG

There are advantages to having a center of pressure ahead of the center of gravity, the chief being agility.  Back in control terms, the farther you move poles to the right, toward instability, the faster or "twitchy-er" the response.  The F-16 is configured this way and has been the standard of maneuverability for quite some time, requiring computers and fly-by wire for stability augmentation.

Control surfaces ahead of CG

It is also advantageous for maneuverability to have control surfaces ahead of the CG.  In this case it is for avoiding a feature of control termed "non-minimum phase" response.  For a conventional, tail-configured aircraft, when a climb is commanded, the tail is forced down, leading to a net reduction in lift until an increase of angle of attack is developed.  This is non-minimum phase response.  It was necessary to initially go the opposite direction from that which was desired.  In canard configurations, this is not the case, first the nose climbs, then everything climbs.

Put them together...

Forward control surfaces, forward center of pressure and a stability augmentation system with adequate dynamic pressure make for one heck of a maneuverable package.  This is a common recipie for tactical missiles.


Other than being controlled by Take-Off Run/Distance Available (TORA/TODA) or Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA), all field limits, maximum $V_1$ is also controlled by $V_R$ (Speed for rotation) and $V_{MBE}$ (Maximum brake energy speed, but let's ignore $V_{MBE}$ in this context). $V_1$ must not exceed either.

$V_R$ increases with increasing gross weight.

This means that at low gross weight, theoretically, if the aircraft had not yet been rotated past a $V_1$ limited by $V_R$, sufficient distance may still exist to stop the aircraft on the remaining ASDA.

At higher gross weights, the higher $V_R$ required might allow for a higher $V_1$. Therefore, in response to: "So why isn't V1 reduced to allow for better stopping?": The higher $V_1$ still provides adequate margin for stopping on the ASDA, but gives you the option to abort the take-off at a higher speed with the increased $V_1$.

Rejected take-off (RTO) is still initiated when the engine failure is recognized, so a failure before the "increased" $V_1$ will result in RTO at the time of recognition of the failure, and not at $V_1$.

If performance allows, I prefer $V_1$ = $V_R$, as opposed to say $V_1$ = $V_R$ - 20 kt, on a short, slippery runway, which would imply that given an engine failure past $V_1$ you'd have to keep accelerating the aircraft with asymmetric thrust, on said runway, close to $V_{MCG}$ (minimum control speed on ground, which can be the lower limit for $V_1$).


Converting lat long & altitude into a line of sight target?

Here's javascript source code with a detailed explanation, too long to paste into a standalone answer, but by the time this goes offline certainly a dozen more will appear if they haven't already.
https://github.com/cosinekitty/geocalc/blob/master/compass.html

Online calculator for the same:
https://doncross.net/geocalc/compass.html


Not only is it possible to hack a UAV, but it has already happened. In December 2011 a US RQ-170 recon drone landed in Iran after being hijacked by Iran's security services, possibly with Russian help. This was as much poor security implementation on the drone as clever hacking on the part of Iran.

As for whether it would be possible to take over an armed drone and fire its weapons, it would certainly seem so.


How to program an FMC if the database is missing the arrival airport?

If the arrival is missing:

If the departure is missing:

And here are the affected items:

Source: 787 FCOM.


How common are missile defense systems on civil airplanes?

It's far from being common. The following carriers use missile defense on all or part of their fleet:

El Al
Israir and Arkia "can be assumed" to use the laser-type from Elbit (flightglobal.com, 2009).

  While Elbit has not identified any of the carriers likely to receive the equipment, a source familiar with the agreement says "it can be assumed" that all three major Israeli airlines - El Al, Israir and Arkia - are in line to be fitted.

FedEx uses Northrop Grumman Guardian (Wikipedia).

Missile defense systems are also reportedly installed on some VIP business jets.

Further reading:

Flight Guard
Directional Infrared Counter Measures
Civil Aircraft Missile Protection System

Related: How does the Guardian counter-MANPADS system work?


How do airports determine when they should change their runway numbers?

Implementing changes to runway numbers is quite complicated and requires a lot of different parties to get involved.  There is a ton of related information in FAA Order 8260.19E and it has the details.
Simple Version
According to an article by the NBAA called "How Changes in Magnetic North Are Impacting Airports":

“Adjustments to runways like this and to navigational aids are
ongoing,” according the Kathleen Bergen, a spokeswoman for the FAA
Southern Region. “Every five years, the FAA reevaluates shifts in the
pole—its magnetic variation—and makes changes to runways and flight
procedures as needed,” she said.

Medium Version
NOAA, NOS, and NGS (see below) provide the magnetic variation information, and publish it every five years.  They work with a bunch of different offices, and different branches of the military as they make adjustments.  When a determination is made that a runway number should be changed, they coordinate with several other groups (such as AeroNav Products, OSG-FPT, the applicable Airportt Traffic Service Area Office, and the Airports Division), to choose the actual number used, based on "careful consideration and evaluation of a number of factors" and then to make the actual changes in charting, runway markings and signs, etc.
They are supposed to change it when it is more than three degrees off from what it is should to be.  AC 150/5340-1L - Standards for Airport Markings contains the official runway designator rules (paraphrased):  If the actual magnetic course of the runway ends in 5, it can use either number, otherwise you round to the closest runway number (there are some variations for special cases like parallel runways and such, but this covers most runways). So in your example, 145 is still valid as runway 14, and they wouldn't need to change it until it exceeds 148 deg.  In your case, the annual rate of change for Farmingdale airport (as of 2010) is 0.0 deg East, so I don't see that happening for awhile.
Long Version - Quotes from FAA Order 8260.19E (above)

Section 5. Implementing Epoch Year Magnetic Variation (MV)
a. Background. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), and the National Geodetic
Survey (NGS), for all areas of the United States and its territories
for application to navigation charts and maps, is the source for
magnetic variation (MV) information and tools for establishing
magnetic variation. Changing values for MV are tabulated and published on
a 5-year epoch basis; e.g., 00, 05, 10, 15, 20, etc. In order to
assist in stabilizing the National Airspace System (NAS), a fixed
value of MV is assigned to each  navigational aid and airport as the
Magnetic Variation of Record. This value is applied to true
directions to obtain the magnetic values for radials, courses,
bearings, and headings published in instrument flight procedures.
Periodic updating of the MV assigned to navigation facilities is
required to maintain reasonable proximity of alignment with the
earth’s ever-changing magnetic field. ...
b.
Participating Offices. Management and control of Epoch Year MV values
require action  by the following offices:
(1) AeroNav Products.
(2) Military Organizations.
(3) National Flight Data Center (NFDC).
(4) Western, Central, and Eastern Technical Operations.
(5) Western, Central, and Eastern OSG-FPTs.
(6) Regional Airports Divisions.
...
f. Regional Airports Division/Airports District Office (ADO).
Coordinate with the  applicable OSG-FPT prior to establishing or
revising runway designator numbers for an airport  having one or more
instrument approach or departure procedures, to determine the
appropriate MV to be applied to the runway true bearing. Determination
of the runway designator number should be a matter of joint agreement
with AeroNav Products, and be accomplished sufficiently in advance to
allow for procedural amendments. Take appropriate NOTAM action if
repainting of an affected runway has not been accomplished on the
required date.
...
2-18. Guidelines. The identification and selection of navigational
aids or airports as candidates for revision of MV of Record require
careful consideration and evaluation of a number of factors - as the
impact of MV changes can be considerable. The applicable Air Traffic
Service Area Office may have to initiate or revise published air
traffic procedures; the Technical Operations Service (AJW-0) is
directly involved in facility rotations and requires proper
coordination. The Airports Division, or appropriate military
authority, may have to arrange for repainting of runway designator
numbers [see paragraph 8-58e(2)(e)].
a. MV versus Epoch Year Value. When the difference between the MV of
Record and the nearest future Epoch Year value of any navigational aid
or airport is 3 degrees or more, the MV of Record must be changed to
the nearest future Epoch Year value.


What precautions prevent 'insiders' from stealing a large aircraft, as in the Horizon Air Q400 incident?

As an aircraft mechanic at a major airline, I think I can answer this pretty well.

It wouldn’t be hard at all. All I have to do is wait for an aircraft move. This could be to bring a plane into the hangar or just to move it from one gate to another. I could simply volunteer to taxi the aircraft, which wouldn’t be unusual at all. At my airport, we have to cross an active taxiway and runway to do this sort of thing. We do it weekly, if not daily. I’d request fuel (if needed), and instead of proceeding across the active runway, I’d just hang a right and throttle up. By the time anyone knew what was going on, I’d be airborne.
There aren’t really many precautions to prevent this. Nor are there a lot of precautions preventing me from, say, throwing a bunch of screws into an engine or chopping a wire bundle in half. The truth is that I pretty much have carte blanche access to the airplane.
What will be done? Probably nothing. The efficacy of airport security is about what you’d expect from a $12/hour job. The focus is on making sure you don’t have a large tube of toothpaste, not whether I’m going to steal an aircraft. Most mechanics have often joked about how easy it would be to “steal” an aircraft. I’m so familiar with airport procedures and policies that even if you prohibited me from doing A, B, and C, I could simply do X, Y and Z. I am a mechanic after all. My job is to think outside the box with respect to “my” aircraft as well as to think about policies and procedures we have in place. I’m probably more lawyer than mechanic. I can find a loophole in everything long before security ever will.

Furthermore, we do a really good job at policing ourselves. My coworkers and I are like brothers (and sisters). We know when someone has an alcohol problem, a marital problem, a debt problem, etc. security is just focused on the four seconds they see you. As long as you’re not acting extremely strange, and you don’t have a weapon, they’re as good as useless.

Is it possible for this to happen? Sure. But, I wouldn’t bet on it being a new way for down and out aircraft mechanics to end their lives.

EDIT: Since my original answer, the media has reported that the person in question was a ground servicing agent. I think this is an interesting twist as, where I work, most of these agents do not come from an Airframe & Powerplant background. Even the ones that do generally don't have a background on the same fleet types. They may know how to do some things in the cockpit, such as operate the fuel panel, but most of them are not familiar with all of the controls.

I suppose anybody could download a flight simulator game and learn these things, to some extent, but there's still enough going on that it would be sufficiently difficult, if not very slow, to figure out how to do things like starting an engine (which generally requires starting the APU), release the parking brake, steer with the tiller, etc...

That said, I have heard of some airlines allowing these ground service agents to tow the aircraft. That would require knowledge of starting the APU, releasing the parking brake, etc. To my knowledge, none of them are allowed to taxi, so there's still the "problem" of starting the engines. That said, it's not like starting engines is really a big deal, it's just that it's another delay in the process. I'm going to go out on a limb and take a stab that he has had some prior "higher capacity" experience with planes before this ground servicing job.

I'd also like to note that now that I think about it: when I see planes being pushed back on the ramp, their engines starting, and them taxiing out, I rarely give it a second thought. It is literally not something I would even question. You just assume the people up there are qualified, know what they're doing, and you just go about your day.


Why is thrust said to be constant over speed for a jet engine?

There are several effects which in combination make constant thrust a good approximation at subsonic speed.
Thrust is created by accelerating a working mass in opposite direction. Net thrust is the difference between the impulse of the air flowing towards the engine and the combined impulse of burnt fuel and the air exiting the engine (and propeller, if one is fitted), derived after the time. Since that impulse is the product of mass and speed, you can either accelerate a large mass by a small speed difference, like a propeller does, or a small mass by a large speed difference, like a turbojet does.
When flying faster, the entry impulse of a propeller quickly grows large relative to the exit impulse, so thrust goes down with the inverse of speed. On the other hand, the high exit speed of a turbojet results only in a small increase of the entry impulse relative to the exit impulse while speed increases.
But if that were all, even the thrust of a turbojet engine would drop when speed increases. But there is a second effect which helps to let thrust grow with speed. With the square of speed, to be precise. That is the ram effect which helps to precompress the air entering the engine. At subsonic speed, this just about compensates for the loss of thrust: At low speed, the growing entry impulse lets thrust drop a bit but at higher subsonic speed the ram effect becomes larger and raises thrust again, such that a constant thrust becomes a good approximation. However, at supersonic speed the ram effect becomes dominant and thrust grows with speed squared – until the absolute internal pressure becomes too high so the engine must be throttled (or the aircraft needs to fly higher) or the shock losses in the intake become too large and thrust drops again.


Why do certain airlines give names to their aircraft?

The practice of naming aircraft probably comes from the days of the flying boat, and the naval tradition of naming ships - the Pan Am Clippers had many named aircraft, and Pan Am kept up the tradition into the Jet Age. Other airlines of the period had similar naming practices (I'm not sure who started it, but Pan Am's fleet was well known for it).

As a marketing tool telling folks they're flying on "Clipper Emerald Isle from New York to Dublin" may have been more attractive to passengers than "Pan Am Flight 12345" or N880PA. Particularly before the commoditization of air travel, when flying was still a new and novel form of transportation, having a connection back to familiar "sailing" metaphors may have helped get passengers on board and could help differentiate your service from another airline.

Modern airlines don't seem to push their aircraft naming as much as historic carriers did, but as SentryRaven noted there are a few airlines that still name their ships - in fact Lufthansa paints their plane names onto the fuselage, though I'm not sure if they announce them to passengers.
A skilled marketing department could build a brand around ship names, but I'm not aware of any airline doing so today.


How do I factor sweep and dihedral in the lift equation?

Snorri Gudmundsson's "General Aviation Aircraft Design"'s equation 9-57 allows you to estimate the lift coefficient curve's linear slope for trapezoidal/swept wings:

Note: the equation is in radians, not degrees

As for the dihedral, Equation 9-33 estimates the impact on angle of attack and Equation 9-35 estimates the resulting lift force:

Let me know if it's not what you wanted, though, I didn't quite get the "without factoring it into the lift coefficient." part - isn't the question's title about how it impacts the lift coefficient?


What is the origin of the practice of numbering runways by magnetic heading?

A pprune.org thread mentions that the UK borrowed the numbering system from the US.

  I believe the magnetic headings were adopted by the RAF in the UK early in 1944 and were inspired by American practice. Prior to that, RAF runways were numbered clockwise from north.

From the Department of Commerce Appropriation Bill for 1943 on page 515 from the snippet view (unfortunately can't find a fully scanned version) there's mention of a plan based on recommendations to number the runways.

This is confirmed by Flying Magazine Jul 1943:

So the when is circa 1943, the who is US Department of Commerce. It caught on by regulation based on recommendations. Naming runways north-south or 1, 2, 3, 4 were probably very confusing as the number of users grew.


What is the oldest aircraft still in production?

Longest production run (civil)
The Beechcraft Bonanza seems like a likely candidate for 'oldest design still being made'; first flight was 1945, and it's still in production today (albeit made by the same parent company that makes Cessnas!). Even during the general aviation downturn in the US of the 1980s & 90s, production continued, as Kevin Cathcart pointed out in the comments:

FAA registrations show no gap in years of manufacture of the A36 Bonaza. I was able to find a registration for one manufactured in every year from 1980-1999 in california alone. Production did drastically slow during that time frame, but it never stopped.

Longest production run (military)
The Lockheed C-130 Hercules military transport first flew in 1954 and has been in continuous production ever since. According to Wikipedia, they've even been built in the same factory (in Marietta, Georgia) the entire time.

Because only around 2,300 have been produced (only!), they don't show up on the 'most produced aircraft list' mentioned in another answer.


Where can a PDF of the TPP legend and supplemental materials be found?

Apparently the file you are looking for is FRNTMATTER.PDF, located in the "D" download file.   DDTPPD_201603.zip

(but it still looks like you have to download the 900MB ZIP file just to get that one important file)

The file that @JonathanWalters referenced has very similar information in a much smaller download and a different format.  But there are differences between the two.

I recommend downloading both the Chart Users guide at the FRNTMATTER.PDF file, and judging for yourself which one (or both) best has the info you are after.