Is there a Risk of Tail Tipping during Push-back of a passenger aircraft?

During pushback the (usually quite substantial) weight of the tug pulls the nose down, and additionally when it's pushing backward the line of force is below the CG and acting rearward, so that would also tend to counteract any tipover tendency.

As Jan mentions in comments, the tipover situations tend to happen during loading when the CG is moving around. I suppose if the tug were first attached and then the aircraft were grossly misloaded, it's conceivable that it could tip over backward as the tug detaches and removes it's weight, but I've never heard of that happening.


How can I correct an expected climb rate for density altitude?

That depends on what the POH for your specific aircraft includes. For example the POH for the PA-28 Warrior has a correction chart for calculating just that. In this case you need to use pressure altitude and local temperature (which combine to density altitude anyway).

Its important to use the POH for the specific aircraft as things like engine modifications, installed propellors and other changes to the airframe can greatly affect the numbers. These changes may only be reflected in the POH for the airframe its self and a copy found elsewhere may be inaccurate. Correction charts and your POH may also include pertinent information about operational limitations during a climb as well.


How do I keep the neighboring Remote Control Airfield from flying over my property?

I'm surprised that all the answers and comments so far have been about resorting to laws, other higher authorities, or anti-aircraft batteries, and that nobody has suggested being nice.
When you say that you approached them to stop and they refused, that sounds like you went and talked to people flying their RC planes.  Presumably the RC airfield is leased by a club, which is probably legally organized as a non-profit corporation, which therefore has a board that meets regularly according to bylaws.  In ordinary times I would suggest finding out when the club board meets, and paying them a visit.  (With the pandemic stalking the land you're probably better off telephoning the club president or other club officer.)  If you appear at the board meeting and identify yourself politely and state reasonable concerns without accusing anyone personally, then I would think most club boards would take your concerns seriously, raise the issue with the rank-and-file club members at the next regular meeting, put a strongly-worded notice in the club newsletter, and give you telephone numbers of several board members to call in case you have any more trouble.
Most clubs devoted to any hobby just want to pursue their hobby in peace, and in order to be left alone they need to be good neighbors, and so that's what most clubs try to do.  It shouldn't be hard to get people to not fly over your property and close gates after they retrieve planes that accidentally came down on your land.
Then there is your demand that they not fly planes in your view.  Are planes over their field in your view?  In that case your demand may be neither legal nor reasonable.  (Please know that I'm no lawyer.)  Even so they may be willing to negotiate if asked nicely, and for instance offer to fly only three hours a day for two days a week just to avoid trouble.


How much does weight really affect the operation cost?

A couple of old references behind paywalls estimate commercial aircraft weight reduction is worth $300-800/lb over the life of the aircraft, and it is heavily fuel price dependent. This was back when fuel was half the cost it is today, so double it.

Your reference quotes a Northwest Airlines manager who may have been describing savings across their whole fleet of 320 planes. This drops the annual savings to 50/lb/aircraft, or $1500/lb across the 30yr life of an aircraft, roughly equivalent to my two sources.


Does wing with bell lift distribution has negative lift at tips?

1. Summary
As your first plot shows, the optimal Bell-Shaped Lift Distribution (BSLD) is positive throughout its span for an untwisted planform. What's different is that the downwash near the wingtip is negative for the BSLD, thereby giving rise to an apparent thrust and decreasing the overall induced drag compared to the Elliptical-Shaped Lift Distribution (ESLD).
However, for a non-optimal BSLD, you may get negative lift near the wingtips. And when there is geometric/aerodynamic twist, then you will almost certainly get negative lift over some portion of the span at AOAs lower than your design point.
2. Reasoning
Inspired by an Aerocrafty blog (be cautious that the derivation in that article contains some minor errors), we can derive an approximate BSLD without resorting to complex analysis. From Lifting-Line Theory, section lift ($L^{'}$) and upwash ($w$) are given as follows:
$$L^{'}(y_0) = \rho_\infty V_\infty \Gamma(y_0)$$
$$w(y_0) = -\frac{1}{4\pi} \int_{-b/2}^{b/2}\frac{(d\Gamma/dy)}{y_0-y}dy$$
where $y_0$ is the lateral span coordinate, $b/2$ is half span, $\Gamma(y_0)$ is the circulation distribution of the bound vortex, $\rho_\infty$ is the free-stream density, and $V_\infty$ is the free-stream airspeed.
Through a transformation of coordinates (from Cartesian to polar):
$$y=-\frac{b}{2}\cos{\theta}$$
We can write any general circulation distribution as a Fourier sine series:
$$\Gamma(y) = \Gamma(\theta) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} {A_n\sin{n\theta}}$$

For an ESLD, the circulation distribution is only the first term, with $A_1=\Gamma_{e_0}$, where $\Gamma_{e_0}$ is the circulation at wing root:

$$\Gamma_e(\theta) = \Gamma_{e_0}\sin{\theta}$$

For a BSLD, we will only keep the first two terms and truncate the rest (noting that due to symmetry, only odd terms remain):

$$\Gamma_b(\theta) \approx A_1\sin{\theta} + A_3\sin{3\theta}$$
Now we can solve for the unknown coefficients $A_1$ and $A_3$ in the BSLD distribution by requiring that a comparative ESLD must have the same total lift ($L$) and root bending moment ($B$):
$$L = \int_{-b/2}^{b/2} {L^{'}dy} = L_e = L_b \tag{a}$$
$$B = \int_{-b/2}^{b/2} {yL^{'}(y)dy} = B_e = B_b \tag{b}$$
That's two equations and two unknowns. The solutions are:
$$A_1 = \frac{b_e}{b_b}\Gamma_{e_0}$$
$$A_3 = \frac{5\Gamma_{e_0}}{3} \frac{b_e}{b_b} \left( \frac{b_e}{b_b}-1 \right)$$
where $b_e$ is the wing span in the ESLD case satisfying (a) and (b), while $b_b$ is the wing span in the BSLD case. That is, we are expressing BSLD as a ratio of span ratio compared to an Elliptical case with the same total lift and root bending moment. Notice that when $b_e/b_b = 1$, we retrieve the ESLD exactly.
2.1 Validation
In the beginning, I mentioned that this derivation is an approximation. But it's not a bad one. Calculating the total induced drag with this formulation, we get:
$$D_i = \frac{2L^2}{\rho_\infty \pi b^2 V_\infty^2} \left[\frac{25}{3} \left( \frac{b_e}{b_b} \right)^4 - \frac{50}{3} \left( \frac{b_e}{b_b} \right)^3 + \frac{28}{3} \left( \frac{b_e}{b_b} \right)^2 \right]$$
Compare this with the exact result from NACA TN-2249:
$$D_i = \frac{2L^2}{\rho_\infty \pi b^2 V_\infty^2} \left[8\left( \frac{b_e}{b_b} \right)^4 - 16\left( \frac{b_e}{b_b} \right)^3 + 9\left( \frac{b_e}{b_b} \right)^2 \right]$$
2.2 Results
Time to get back to the question we began with, can the lift (or circulation) distribution be negative on any part of the span? The plot below shows the circulation distribution of our approximate solution for various ratios:

For our approximate formulation, the most optimal BSLD occurs at $b_e/b_b = 0.8$ ($b_b/b_e = 1.25$ in the plot). As you can see, it's all positive up to the wing tip.
However, as we keep increasing the span (while maintaining total lift and root bending moment), at some point the distribution goes negative near the wingtip. Eventually the bending moment at certain points along the span will exceed that at the wing root (Ref NACA TN-2249).


How many displays does an ARTCC Air Traffic Controller view and what is displayed on each?

Although your question is specifically about the USA, I thought an insight into a typical European setup would be interesting as well. I imagine it will be very similar to what you find in many American centers.

The image is from Copenhagen Area Control Centre (Denmark) and shows a normal controller working position. You will notice five screens in total.

The largest screen, immediately in front of the controller, is the main situational display. It is essentially the radar screen, showing different aircraft in their geographical position in relation to airspaces and other traffic. Typically, the situational display will also, depending on the specific system, enable the controller to interact with aircraft labels, for instance to enter notes about clearances and instructions and show them directly on the display.

To the left is a secondary screen which also shows information about traffic in the area. Here, the traffic is presented in text lists, which allows the controller to get a thorough overview of what is currently going on, and what is coming. This is basically a replacement for old fashioned paper flight strips (which are being phased out across the world). In this example, it also features the arrival management (AMAN) system.

Below the main situational display there are three screens. From left to right, the first one is a telephone panel, which gives the controller easy access to all relevant phone communication lines. It is a touch screen, and by pressing any button on the screen, the controller can call adjacent ATC sectors, control towers, emergency services, the meteorological office etc. to coordinate.

The lower middle screen can show a lot of different information. On the image above, it is set up to show the frequencies of other ATC sectors in the area along with any active military areas. It can also be used to retrieve meteorological information or anything else that might be relevant.

Finally, in the lower right corner is the voice communication system (VCS) interface. Also a touch screen, here you have control buttons for the VHF radio equipment, used to communicate with aircraft. The controller will be able to toggle which radio frequencies are used to transmit and receive, and will receive information about any radio equipment that might not be working as it should.

Apart from the actual computer screens, you will notice the backup phone to the left and a clock above it. There is also a backup VHF radio in the upper right of the console, but that cannot be seen on the above image.


Why do some pilots misuse (troll) the GUARD frequency?

Every field has its bottom 2%, and some of ours regularly self-identify as such on 121.5.

Sigh.

The "work work work" refers to this video (start about 2:55 for the relevant section).


How is a wing designed to be stall or spin proof?

It's really two separate questions. In both cases the wing is not alone, it is the whole configuration, especially when it comes to spins.

A stall is unavoidable. At some point the airflow over the wing will start to separate, and if this flow separation is extensive enough to limit the increase in lift with increasing angle of attack (AoA), the wing stalls.

To make stall characteristics benign, the outer wing should still have mostly attached flow to enable the ailerons to correct roll angle. If the stall starts on one wingtip, causing a local loss of lift, the aircraft will roll uncontrollably. The downward movement of the wing tip during the rolling motion increases angle of attack further, thus making the stall unrecoverable. You achieve roll control by using washout at the wingtips and/or by using airfoils with a higher maximum AoA, eg. by using slats on the outer wing.

The second condition is a gradual flow separation, starting from the trailing edge. Old five-digit NACA airfoils had a nasty stall characteristic with flow separation starting from the leading edge, resulting in a sudden drop of lift. This is achieved by designing the upper surface with an appropriate chordwise pressure distribution. Then the loss of lift over AoA will be gradual, giving the pilot the opportunity to recover easily.

In all cases, the tail (or in canards the main wing) needs to remain in the attached flow regime to enable pitch control and pitch damping. In addition, the vertical position of the tail should be slightly lower than the wake from the separated flow, still close enough to have some turbulence hitting the elevator (so that the pilot feels the stall with the stick/yoke), but low enough that the airplane will not enter a deep stall (where the wing is fully separated and the tail in the wake of the wing, which reduces control authority to a point where the pilot cannot pitch down anymore).

Spinning needs a fuselage with some mass along the length. The rotation of this mass at a high AoA produces a pitch-up moment which is needed to stabilize the spin. The tail must be able to produce the remaining pitching moment and a yawing moment to stabilize the spin, but also to end it when the pilot so wishes. For this, it is important that the rudder is not in the wake of the horizontal tail. The deHavilland Tiger Moth has two aluminum strakes ahead of the empennage; without them a stall is unrecoverable because the rudder authority is not sufficient. To end a spin in the F-14, the all-flying tailplanes had to be pulled all the way to their minimum angle of -70°, so they would not obstruct the flow to the two rudders. Only when the pilots would pull, they could end the spin.

Just to be clear: Normally you need to push to end the spin. Especially in gliders with their relatively small rudders and large wing inertia, this will put most of the wing back into the normal flow region, and roll damping will stop the rotation. This ends the inertial pitch-up from the fuselage, and the aircraft can be recovered.

In more fuselage-dominated configurations, you end the spin by applying rudder against the spin direction. This reduces the rotation, reducing the inertial pitch-up and allowing the airplane to recover to normal AoAs.

Other than the stall, a spin is not always possible. Sometimes, especially at forward center-of-gravity locations, the pitch authority will not be sufficient to stabilize the spin. You can stall and apply rudder, but the airplane will only enter a spiral dive. Especially on jets the forward fuselage is a major factor in spins, because it produces a wake at high AoA which stabilizes the spin. Details in the shape of the fuselage will determine if the wake is sufficient to enable spins. This is a complex topic - sorry, but this scope makes it hard to get into more details.


If the intake of a running jet engine is blocked for some short duration what would be the sequence of events following it?

This explanation is for a subsonic aircraft, a similar process occurs at higher speeds.
Causes
A bird, an object or ice can disturb the flow of air entering the engine. Another source of compressor stall is an excessive engine angle relative to the air flow, when a large pitch or crab is forced, or when entering the wake of a preceding aircraft.
Immediate effect
Regardless of the case, if the flow departs from the operating area at some location in the engine compressor, an aerodynamic stall of the compressor can be experienced exactly like a wing can stall:

Stalled airfoil in a wind tunnel, flow separation and turbulence visible. Source
The air boundary layer detaches from compressor blades surface and becomes unsteady.
Compressor stages are made of rotating blades and stationary vanes delimiting small channels:

Source
The problem develops from a low mass flow region, with disparities increasing until the flow stops, in a process called rotating stall:

A passage is blocked by slow air (detached boundary layer in orange), upstream air tries to use the next passage:

However the next passage is reached under a higher angle of attack, this condition tends to stall this passage too.

This effect propagates rapidly from one blade to the next on the compressor stage.

As passages are blocked by detached air over stalled airfoils, pressure increases in the passages and upstream:

Detached airflow is very turbulent with changing velocity (including negative values).

Stalled cells keep rotating at a fraction of the compressor rotational speed, pressure around the blades varies periodically.

Blade/vane vibrations can start. Vibrations are not good for an engine, buffeting can break a metal part if resonance occurs.
A turbine engine works by reaching a precise equilibrium around the flow of air in the compressor, the combustion chambers and the turbine:

The turbine must receive a given quantity of energy to drive the compressor at the proper speed.

Combustors must receive the exact quantity of fuel and air to deliver the energy to the turbine.

Compressor must provide the required quantity of air to the combustors.

(Let's ignore the fact that turbine engines have most of the time two or three spools, i.e. compressor-turbine assembly with a mechanical linkage, each one turning at its own speed, which have to find this shared equilibrium).
As soon as air velocity or pressure changes for any cause, a new equilibrium must be found, else bad things start to happen. In a compressor stall, sometimes no new equilibrium can be reached. This lead to dramatic consequences.
Subsequent effects
After the rotating stall, a cascade of events is triggered:

Pressure decrease at combustion chamber inlets
The compressor being now less efficient, pressure downstream the compressor decreases in addition of being unstable. The magnitude of the pressure variation is somehow limited by the plenum chamber effect of the compressor diffuser for an axial compressor (by the diffuser stator after the impeller for a centrifugal compressor).

Location of the diffuser, source

Depending on whether a new balance can be found or not, combustion may continue while the rotating stall occurs. In that case it'll be at reduced power due to the less efficient compressor, and a lower fuel flow is required.

It may be necessary to shutdown the engine and restart it to get out of the compressor stall.

Overheating
Less air being now available for combustion, if fuel flow is not reduced, the mixture becomes too rich, combustion temperature increases, overheating occurs in the combustion chambers and downstream in the turbine. As the materials used for the combustion chambers and the turbine are working at their highest sustainable temperature, any unwanted increase can damage them.

This can happen if the fuel control unit (FCU) doesn't limit fuel flow correctly and attempts to maintain previous thrust / fuel flow.

Surge
The compressor diffuser (or plenum in a centrifugal compressor) is upstream of the combustion chambers. The latter is a very high pressure region at hot temperature. If the diffuser pressure is too low compared to turbine inlet pressure, hot gas can start flowing back into the diffuser and the compressor. This is a surge.

The surge creates a loud bang and the pressure wave can damage the fan and the engine inlet.

The surge can be associated with flames getting out of the engine via the exhaust pipe or engine inlet. Flames are due to the ejection of unburnt fuel accumulated in the combustion chambers.

Compressor elements are not designed to sustain hot gas from the combustion chambers they may be damaged if expulsion is repeated.

Again, the engine may recover itself from the surge if there is no damage. The cycle can repeat but at some point damages are inevitable.

More on compressor stall: What exactly is a compressor stall?

Loss of control
The surge also creates an asymmetrical additional thrust leading to a yaw force, for an engine not on the center-line.

If the surge is important and the aircraft in a critical phase (e.g. rotating to take off), the yaw effect can lead to a loss of control.

Stall actual cases

In this accident due to icing, the repeated surges are suspected to be the result of the improper fuel flow management. Both engines were destroyed.

This accident was caused by a compressor stall at large crab angle.

In this takeoff accident, the yaw effect of the surge was actually interpreted as a collision with another aircraft.

Fortunately most compressor stalls are handled safely, like this one near takeoff rotation speed (note the flames at 0:34).
Obviously a compressor stall is a serious problem, so engine designers spend a lot of efforts to prevent it and maintain the engine working point in a safe (and efficient) state. For instance using vanes with variable angle of attack and air escape paths, etc.


What are the spiral marks in the center of the engines?

The benefit of these white markings inside the engine is twofold:

The ground crew can tell if the engine is running or not.
When an airplane is at the gate before departure, there are several personal attending the airplane. They would be loading luggage, refueling, removing waste products, loading food, etc. etc.. Not all of these people are in constant contact with the pilots and they can come very close to the engines. Although there are several precautionary measures taken before the pilots turn on the engines, it is a very clear visual indication by looking at the spirals to tell if the engines are running or not. Rotor or prop blades sometimes have their tips painted for the same reason.
The birds keep away.
During flight, when the engine is running, birds see the spinning spiral as opposed to just a black hole, and hence they stay away from it. It is like an anti-bird signal because if there was nothing in the middle it just looks like a cave or black void that birds tend to fly toward. Even though it looks like a blur to us, birds can see motion better. Wikipedia mentions this also:

  ... it appears as a white circle which discourages birds from flying into the engine.

Rolls-Royce brochure (PDF) quoted the following (identified by user BowlOfRed in comment below):

  Our aerospace engines have swirls painted onto their spinners in order
  to indicate when the engine is rotating while on the ground. In flight
  these swirls flicker as the engine rotates at high speed, scaring
  birds and allowing them to fly clear of the engine.


How are forces on the landing gear reduced or compensated for at touchdown?

There are lots of forces acting on the gear at the point of landing. The best way to minimize loads on the gear is to land smooth (I know that sounds obvious).

For what it's worth you do not necessarily want to spin up the gear before landing for a few reasons. First off you would need to spin up the gear to precisely (or at least very close to) the speed that the plane was going to touch down at. If you spin the gear up faster you actually will create a problem by accelerating the plane when it touches down. Spinning the gear up can also have a serious gyroscopic effect (since you now have a fast rotating mass) (see here as well) that will affect the handling of the aircraft.

On top of that remember that in aviation it's often about cost. What are the costs to maintain a system that pre-spins the gear vs the cost of tires. Some times its actually cheaper and easier to make a part that wears out some what quickly and replace it often, then design a complex system that require maintenance and up keep.

It appears that some devices for spin up have been looked into but the rotational inertia problem seems to be more of a concern than wheal wear. I would imagine that unintentional side loads on gear are a bigger issue and bigger cause of wear on the landing assembly. Keep in mind that the addition of an assembly like this also adds weight to the aircraft, and no one likes weight that is not needed.

This is a great research paper on the topic that suggests (in their conclusion) a pre spin situation would see 1.07% of the wear of a static situation. They go on to state that that they used a simple linear approximation and only accounted for forces in one direction but it would seem that it is beneficial for the tire.

On a side note this article even suggests the tires can be remolded so even if the are replaced often it seems they are recycled a few times.

  an A340 will complete roughly 6,000 take-offs and landings, calling for about 25 sets of replacement tires, each 1.30 m high and weighing about 200 kg. The tires can be remolded several times before they are finally scrapped.

In general, it's the job of the pilot to reduce the forces on the landing gear when landing. One of the best descriptions I have ever heard of landing is that the goal is not to land but to "transition". In other words what you really want to do is transition the load from the wings to the landing gear as smooth as possible, this will reduce the load on the gear. In some cases (short runway heavy plane) your landing may see more force on the gear. I have never flown a 737, but I can tell you that I can put a Piper Warrior down on a 7000-foot strip with out ever feeling that you have touched the ground.


Can a F/O declare "My plane" to the Captain?

Pretty much every FO struggles with this.  Technically yes, in the extreme case.  If the actions of the capt are about to get everybody killed or otherwise endanger the aircraft, the FO is supposed to have the authority and an obligation, after a suitable verbal interchange, to intervene by saying "I have control" and take over.  Generally there needs to be a trigger such as a situation where the capt does something that deviates outside normal operating limits, procedures, or protocols.

If the capt declines to hand over control, because, say, the capt has gone off the deep end, well you have a problem.  But in most cases of suspected suicide by plane for example, the suicidee waits for the other crew member to use the rest room and locks the cockpit door - one unintended consequence of reinforced cockpit doors.

The more likely case is a capt that is disoriented or fixated, and in theory an FO who intervenes with proper procedure and with enough "authority" should be able to do it and a capt is expected to relinquish control in such a situation.

But however well trained the crew is, they are two humans and you can't predict what's going to happen.  Different airline cultures apply this kind of thinking more strongly than others. At some airlines the FOs are encouraged to be maybe a little too forceful for most captains' tastes, questioning everything, and others, it's the old fashioned "shut-up-and-pull-gear" culture.  This is still a serious problem outside of "western" operators, in countries that have strong patriarchal cultures, which is partly why you see so many "expat" American, Australian/NZ, Canadian, British, or European captains at far east airlines.

But even in up-to-date places like Canada, FO inassertiveness can be a problem. First Air 6560, pretty much the only major crash of a heavy in North America in almost 20 years (excluding runway excursions and Sully's adventure), is a classic case of an FO failing to intervene to thwart an incompetent captain who develops fixation tunnel vision and breaks the most basic rules of the book.  Every FO needs to read the Transportation Safety Board report.


Is the Brodie landing system still in use somewhere?

I'm not aware of the Brodie landing system used anywhere now. The system was actually a response to the pressing problem of non-availability of escort carriers in required numbers, similar to the British CAM ships, that launched hurricanes on one-way missions. The only difference being that the aircraft could be retrieved here.

The main advantage of the system is its ability to operate from (cargo) ships and LSTs, which became less important as the war progressed and more and more aircraft and escort carriers became available. There were some disadvantages too- it required certain skill from the pilot for landing (especially if installed in a jungle or on the top of a building). Also, a 600' cable between two 65' posts can hardly be called small (and as @ymb1 noted, it is hardly practicable for larger aircraft).

Helicopters serve the same purposes- operate from anywhere with much heavier payloads and in non-existent airstrips routinely.

However, similar systems are used for retrieval of small UAVs. For example, the Boeing Insitu ScanEagle uses a similar system of retrieval (though the launching system is different). From uavglobal.com:

  ScanEagle needs no airfield for deployment. Instead, it is launched using a pneumatic launcher, patented by Insitu, known as the “SuperWedge” launcher. It is recovered using the “Skyhook” retrieval system, which uses a hook on the end of the wingtip to catch a rope hanging from a 30-to-50-foot (9.1 to 15 m) pole.

Scan Eagle retieval; By United States Navy, Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kenneth R. Hendrix - Navy NewsStand Photo ID: 071114-N-5758H-065Navy NewsStand Home, Public Domain, Link

There are patents for a number of similar systems (eg 1,2 and 3). Interestingly, Insitu calls its skyhook system:

  ... the first capture system to eliminate runways and nets

Apparently, they didn't get the memo.


Is there a term for the general design used in most modern fighters?

That particular empennage design is called a “four poster” amongst the OEMs.  It’s popular because it provides both excellent longitudinal and directional stability with a minimum side profile.  As to leading edge extensions, I’ve heard of them referred to by aviation scholars as Leading Edge Extensions (LEXs) or Leading Edge Root Extensions (LERXs) they’re popular because they create a turbulent boundary layer over the inboard sections of the wing and fuselage which provides better high alpha controllability.  Canopies, such as those found on the Eurofighter Typhoon or the F-16 are sometimes called ‘blister’ or ‘bubble’ canopies because of their outraised profiles against the OML of the fuselage, providing the pilot unobstructed 360° visibility with a minimum of blind spots, so critical to air to air combat.  The serrated  or ‘dog tooth’ edges of panels are done to minimize the radar cross section around panels or skin joints.

I don’t know if there’s a particular name for such a fighter configuration, save that for that kind of a performance requirements and flight envelope, it just seems to work very well.  Similar to Bill Sweetman’s analysis in his article How the 747 Got Its Hump, given certain criteria and other demands on designing and building an airplane, this is just the best solution to the problem of designing a large twin engine fighter airplane.  It’s an open ended design so there’s no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer here; it’s just certain solutions work better than others.

They don’t always follow the mold though.  Take Lockheed’s F-22 in comparison to Northrop’s F-23 design.  The YF-22 was a stout, little chunky, conventionally styled twin fighter with stealth characteristics, while the Northrop YF-23 had a trapezoidal planform with smooth, voluptuous curved surfaces and a large pelican tail with twin all moving ruddervators.  Both aircraft excelled at what they did; a high speed low observable air superiority fighter but seemed to come to very different conclusions.  While the F-23 lost the contract, its design philoophy did not go unnoticed.  The Sukhoi design bureau seemed to draw very similar layout conclusions in the development of their Su-50 stealth fighter.  The same is true of the F-35 vs the F-32 aircraft.  LMACO’s entry was very conventional and the Boeing jet was an ungainly, unconventional delta wing design with a pelican tail, laid out largely for simplicity and ease of manufacture (which didn’t work out!).


"Clearance Delivery" is exactly what you've surmised it is - a frequency used on the ground to copy your initial clearance from ATC before you take off.
The idea behind using a dedicated frequency for this is that it avoids tying up the ground control frequency (used for authorizing ground movement on taxiways and such) with long clearances and readbacks.

Clearance Delivery is found at controlled fields. Pilots operating under Instrument Flight Rules will generally use it prior to each flight, and at airfields in class C or class B airspace it's used by VFR pilots as well (since they'll be talking to departure controllers very shortly after take off until clear of the controlled airspace).

At less busy fields Clearance Delivery is often staffed by the same controller working Ground (e.g. at Long Island / Mac Arthur it's usually the same controller working both positions), and at some airports clearances will be read over the ground control frequency when it's not busy. At busier airports clearance is usually its own position - possibly with multiple frequencies (e.g. at La Guardia there is a separate clearance frequency for helicopters).


Where can I get statistics on landing incidents?

NASA collects statistics on aviation incidents through its Aviation Safety Reporting System, and the ASRS database is searchable online.  You can specify criteria such as the flight phase and aircraft type in your search.


What official government document should a pilot check to determine what magnetic north a VOR was set to when it was commissioned?

The chart supplement does list the magnetic variation of the VORs. Looking under the "radio aids to navigation" section for a nearby airport, it's listed at the end of the line, right after the elevation.

  BATTLE GROUND (H) VORTACW 116.6 BTG Chan 113 N45º44.87´ W122º35.49´
  160º 9.6 NM to fld. 253/21E.

Another source is the radio fix and holding data records from the FAA. Among other information, you can find the magnetic variation in the remarks section, along with the year it was set.

  REMARKS:
  ...
  BTG MAG VAR 1975/E21

It's not official, but the easiest place I've found to get this is to search for the navaid on AirNav.


For a large commercial plane on landing, does the L/D ratio increase, decrease, or not change much?

In the flare you are already in ground effect. Maybe we should compare the final approach with cruise.

The answer is simple: L/D is far worse in approach configuration. The wing buys the increased lifting capacity with a relatively higher drag increase. This is not all bad: If the L/D is too high, a precise landing becomes much harder. Also, some more drag allows you to run the engines above idle, so spooling up for a go-around takes less time. Generally, you want the L/D to be between 5 and 10 for landing. Too much, and the approach becomes too shallow for a precise selection of the touchdown point, and too little and you lose too much energy in the flare, so you decelerate too fast in that final phase where sink speed is reduced.

Compare that to the L/D of modern airliners in cruise, which is around 16 for designs like the Boeing 747 and above 20 for the Boeing 787 or the A350.

You can study this cheaply in gliders. Take one with powerful flaps, like the ASW 20 or the ASH 25. Try to land them with all flaps and spoilers fully extended: You will never get to a smooth touchdown, but drop on the wheel somewhere before the flare is complete. Then try to land them with flaps set for slow flight and no spoilers: You need a loooong runway to do so.

The lift contribution of the engines during the flare is very moderate. They do not run at full power, and even if they did, their combined thrust would be only maybe 30% of the aircraft weight. Since they don't point straight up, but only by about 10°, the vertical component would be only 5% even at full thrust. In reality, they run at a little above idle, and their lift contribution is only 2% at most.

Flap type effectiveness comparison (picture source). The L/D is only for maximum lift, not at 60% of it which would be more representative for an approach lift coefficient, but the trend to lower L/D with higher maximum lift coefficient should be obvious.


How is the camera positioned for these plane-to-plane Schlieren images of shock waves?

Where is the camera relative to these target aircraft, and what's behind them?

Straight from NASA themselves:

  NASA flew a B-200, outfitted with an updated imaging system, at around 30,000 feet while the pair of T-38s were required to not only remain in formation, but to fly at supersonic speeds at the precise moment they were directly beneath the B-200

and (alternative link)


What are different components of an engine pylon?

Your question is very broad.  Are you looking for something specific? There isn't really a single configuration where one can simply list standard function of each component, but  I can give broad overview.
Firstly, pylon is also a conduit for multiple systems between aircraft and engine and thus contains secondary structure for mounting them. It looks much like aircraft wing with frames and ribs to support distributed loads. Secondary structure is easily made from aluminum and includes brackets, cleats, supports, stand-offs, and attachment hardware like clamps, nuts, bolts. Also pylon skins/fairings can (depending on design) be minor part of load distribution. But I presume you mean primary structure components that are most directly associated with mounting  the engine.
The functions are to attach/support engine (including withstanding emergency/crash/FBO loads), transmit thrust to airframe, and accommodate engine thermal expansion. Most generically, this is achieved by structural members forming a torque box or space frame. But realization and component names vary a lot. The are two fundamental families depending on attachment: 1) fuselage (i.e.) side-mounted,  and 2) wing (i.e. vertically)-mounted. We won't go into exotics like above-wing & wing-root mounting. Furthermore, there are few styles of wing-mounting (with different components) that fundamentally are driven by relative location of engine to the wing and relative size of engine to aircraft. There are also different mounting philosophies like soft-mounted (with elastomeric vibration isolators) or hard-mounted (without such).
Bear in mind that aircraft structures are designed to distribute load across multiple members and provide redundant load paths, so as to intentionally avoid single point of failure. Having said that,  4 key  elements can be identified:

a forward mounting beam/strut, which is perpendicular to engine axis and usually terminates in a yoke/frame that wraps around engine fan case. It primarily supports engine weight, but also crash loads & lateral FBO loads, including subsequent windmilling.
a thrust strut/link/mount, which is most aligned with engine thrust line, but inevitably runs diagonally to connect engine to pylon structure. It carries most of the thrust load into airframe, but would also carry longitudinal crash loads.
An aft/rear mounting beam/strut, which is also perpendicular to engine axis. Depending on engine size & proportion, in can vary from a frame to yoke to very thin struts. Aft mount's (primary but not only) function is to provide 2nd support point to secure the engine and allow expansion.
Space frame further into the body that disperses the loads and provides rigidity out of principal plane created by elements 1-3.

In a fuse-mounted configuration the principal plane is horizontal and functions are more decoupled. In wing-mounted configurations the principal plane is vertical and some functions & load distributions are more coupled.  Other designs like B-747, where engine hangs far below wing attachment points, rely on a space fame of axial members to suspend the engine in a 3D truss (as can be seen in previous post with link to FAA accident investigation). The functions mentioned before are even more coupled & shared between all members. The names are really irrelevant as Boeing chooses to refer to them as upper/ lower links and side braces.

In terms of actual parts, this is realized by main fittings, sleeves, bushings, alignment pins, load-bearing pins/bolts, etc.
Materials: Actually aluminum is widely used in mounts, with steel as required, and titanium when $/kg weight trade studies justify it. Titanium is expensive & horrendously difficult to machine and is used sparingly, albeit more so on recent designs that push margins. Of course, as everything in such highly complex products, it depends on specifics and sizing of a given design. Temperature must be considered, but is typically not a driving factor, especially for fuselage- mounted  engines,  and areas adjacent to cold sections of the engine. Actually it works out quite well - the heaviest and most loaded section of engine (like fan)is in front, which is cold. The loads are best supported & reacted by a big, intricate mount with large x-section area & moment of inertia (like yoke). Manufacturing it from titanium would be cost prohibitive and it is best made from aluminum. The aft hot section of the engine is supported by simpler, smaller struts that could be made from titanium. For wing-mounted though, the whole pylon area is subject to heat soaking, but weight is more evenly distributed between forward and aft mounts, so having smaller, simpler titanium fittings is practical.


What are the measurements for a "Black Box"?

The two main "black boxes" are the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR). These units are available from various manufacturers and therefore sizes vary. Many units can be used as either CVR or FDR, or as both.

A quick search provides a few examples:

etep Sentinel ED-112: CVR/FDR
Height: 3.929 in (9.980 cm)
Width: 4.970 in (12.624 cm)
Depth: 6.907 in (17.545 cm)

L3 F1000: FDR
Height: 7.62 in (19.4 cm)
Width: 4.88 in (12.4 cm)
Depth: 19.56 in (49.7 cm)

Universal Avionics Systems CVFDR: CVR/FDR
Height 6.1 in (15.5 cm)
Width 4.9 in (12.4 cm)
Depth 8.0 in (20.3 cm)

L3 SRVIVR: CVR/FDR
standard configuration:
Height: 3.25 in (8.26 cm)
Width 5.55 in (14.1 cm)
Depth: 6.55 in (16.6 cm)
extended configuration:
Height: 3.25 in (8.26 cm)
Width: 5.55 in (14.1 cm)
Depth: 7.2 in (18.3 cm)

L3 FA2100: CVR
Height 5.5 in. (14.00 cm)
Width 5.0 in. (12.70 cm)
Depth 12.6 in. (32.00 cm)

If you were asking something else, see:

How much data do FDR and CVR generate on commercial jets?

Or other questions already asked here.


Do you need 40 hours in a helicopter to get a PPL add-on if you already have an ASEL PPL?

Considering the difference between legal and smart, you could nonetheless potentially satisfy the training requirements with just a few hours in a helicopter. FAR 61.109 specifically notes that certain requirements must be satisfied in a helicopter:

  61.109(c)(1): "3 hours of cross-country flight training in a helicopter;"
  61.109(c)(2): "[...] 3 hours of night flight training in a helicopter that includes" a 50nm flight and 10 takeoffs and
  landings
  61.109(c)(3): "3 hours of flight training with an authorized instructor in a helicopter in preparation for the practical test..."
  61.109(c)(4): "10 hours of solo flight time in a helicopter..."

Theoretically, the flight training could be all combined, resulting in 3 dual and 10 solo hours in a helicopter, the rest of the requirements being fulfilled in a different category or class of aircraft.

The FAA issued an interpretation (O'Mara, 2012) about these rules in 2012. The discussion was about weight-shift-control aircraft (61.109(j)), but the reasoning is applicable to other sections of 61.109:

  In your letter you indicate that an examiner you spoke with stated that all of the aeronautical experience requirements specified in § 61.109(j), to include the 40 hours of flight time, 20 hours of flight training, and 10 hours of solo flight training must be completed in a weight-shift-control aircraft. That statement was incorrect.

  [...]

  ...[T]he requirement for an applicant for a weight-shift-control aircraft to have 40 hours of flight time may be met by obtaining flight time in any category and class of aircraft.

  Paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(5) of § 61.109 specify the flight training that must be received by an applicant to receive a weight-shift-control aircraft rating. Flight training is defined in § 61.1 as "training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft." Similar to the definition of flight time, it also does not include a limitation that the training be obtained in any particular category and class of aircraft.

That said, this is somewhat academic: in order to get a solo signoff from a CFI, a student would at least require nontrivial training time in a helicopter. I'll also cite another interpretation (Zomnir, 2010) I came across in my research, which has perhaps the most obvious statement in an FAA legal interpretation:

  First, you ask whether your student is required to be proficient to the practical test standards to pass a practical exam. The answer is yes.


What is the working principle of gravel kits?

Notice the path of condensation leading up from below this engine into it:

That image was taken from this video, and it clearly demonstrates that there exists a path of air which flows from ground level up into the engine. Any debris on the ground is liable to be sucked up in that vortex. The nozzle is designed to break up the flowing air on that specific, well-known path.

Note that even when there is no condensation to make the vortex visible and obvious, it still might exist.

Here is a nice intake vortex video, and here you can see the vortex swirling on the ground. This video really shows off a C-17's huge vortex during landing.


Is there an equation which allow us to perfectly match a helix propeller and an engine?

Did you try Mark Drela's XROTOR? I have difficulty with your term "helix", but that software should do what you ask if your blade loading is not too high.

From the linked page:
XROTOR is an interactive program for the design and analysis of ducted and free-tip propellers and windmills.
It consists of a collection of menu-driven routines which perform various useful functions such as:

Design of minimum induced loss rotor (propeller or windmill)
Prompted input of an arbitrary rotor geometry
Interactive modification of a rotor geometry
Twist optimization of an arbitrary rotor for minimum induced loss
Analysis of a rotor with a wealth of choices of operating parameters
Incoming slipstream effects (from an upstream propeller, viscous wake...)
Multi-point parameter display
Structural analysis and corrections for twist under load
Acoustic analysis with dB noise footprint predictions
Interpolation of geometry to radii of interest
Plotting of geometry, aerodynamic parameters, and performance maps
...


Why do small aircraft rentals charge per flight hour?

In the US most General Aviation rentals are "Wet Hobbs Time" -- You are billed based on the actual clock time the engine was running (in tenths of an hour), and fuel/oil are included in the rental price.

This is attractive to renters because of the simplicity: You don't have to pay the FBO separately for the fuel, oil, and aircraft, and you're basically paying for the amount of "clock time" you spent in the plane.
It's easy to understand, especially for new students who may not quite grasp the concept of how the recording tachometer measures "time".

Hobbs billing is attractive to the FBO as well, for different reasons:

Rentals are typically blocked out by clock hours ("10 AM to 2 PM").
Since booking is clock time billing based on clock time (Hobbs hours) makes sense.
In practice the two numbers are usually close (and when they're not the error tends to favor the FBO).

Let's look at your "Tach vs. Hobbs" scenarios (for the sake of simplicity let's assume both flights are three "clock hours" chock-to-chock):

Pattern Work

Pattern work consists of three basic phases:

Takeoff (full throttle, high RPM - Tach runs faster than Hobbs)
Circuit (low power, low RPM - Tach runs slower than Hobbs)
Descent & Landing (near idle power, very low RPM - Tach runs MUCH slower than Hobbs)
There might be a taxi in there for full-stop practice, but you'll be close to idle there too.

If we average this out over three hours of pattern work (and assuming you and your instructor don't commit suicide to break the monotony) the Tach hour meter will be reading a number much lower than the Hobbs meter.
In this scenario you might have 2.25 tach hours for your 3 Hobbs / Clock hours.

3-hour Cross Country

A cross country consists of 5 phases:

Takeoff/Climb (full throttle, high RPM - Tach runs faster than Hobbs)
Cruise (moderate throttle, moderate RPM - Tach and Hobbs run about the same speed)
Descent (moderate-low throttle, moderate-low RPM - Tach may be a bit slower than Hobbs)
Circuit/Approach (low power, low RPM - Tach runs slower than Hobbs)
Landing (near idle power, very low RPM - Tach runs MUCH slower than Hobbs)

If we assume Phases 1 and 3 take about the same time they roughly cancel each other out. Phase 2 (Cruise) is a wash too, so we're left with two brief periods where the tach is running noticeably slower than the Hobbs (the pattern and landing at the destination).
In this scenario you might have 2.85 Tach Hours for your 3 Hobbs / Clock hours.

  In both of these scenarios the FBO comes out ahead of the game -- they're billing you for 3 hours of time, but their maintenance cycle is based on the tach. This might be enough to squeeze another day or two of profitable flying out of an airframe before it's next annual or 100-hour inspection.

There are scenarios where you can "beat" the Tach clock, but most of them involve being downright abusive to the aircraft/engine. For example if you flew that 3 hour cross country at low altitude and full throttle (very high RPM) you might rack up 3.3 tach hours for your 3 Hobbs hours. The FBO is basically stuck eating that maintenance expense.
Along similar lines when renter pilots abuse an engine (for example by leaving the mixture knob full rich for the whole flight) the tach time doesn't always tell the whole maintenance story - the mechanic's time cleaning the plugs because the next renter couldn't get through a runup has to be paid for somehow.


In what emergency situations would a pilot bail out of a helicopter?

One example of a helicopter bailout that I am aware of was the ditching of a USAF Sikorsky HH-60G during the infamous "Perfect Storm." After several failed attempts to refuel from a tanker in the extreme weather the pilot decided to ditch. He hovered to allow the other occupants to bail out, but he was unable to bail out himself as the engines flamed out from fuel exhaustion and he autorotated to the water. After it hit the waves it rolled over. At this point he realized that he had not jettisoned his door as per the procedure for bailout or ditching so he was trapped. He managed to escape, but one of the other crew was lost at sea.


Why isn't the wing span of a certain airliner longer with the longer fuselage versions?

There are two main reasons:

It is easier to plug in a fuselage section than a (swept back) wing section. If you notice, one thing that has been kept constant across models is the fuselage cross section. Basically, the manufacturer can make another fuselage cross section and add it to the exiting ones.
If a wing section is added, on the other hand, the aircraft characteristics will change appreciably, in addition to the difficulty in doing so. If you are adding wing section, quite a lot of additional modifications have to be made (like control surfaces, etc.) which will increase cost, eliminating any cost savings the manufacturer could've had by using common parts across models.

The next, perhaps more important reason for this from airline viewpoint is that it will change the aircraft design group. The following table is from the FAA AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design (The ICAO definitions are more or less the same):

Image from FAA AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design
For example, the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 have wingspans at the limit of the design group III (B737 has 117 ft 10 in while A320 has 117 ft 5 in with sharklets). Any increase will change the ADG, which will restrict the number of airports that the aircraft can be operated from, which the airlines won't like.
For example, when the 747-8 wingspan was increased, the aircraft category was changed (from ICAO category E to F, equivalent to V to VI) and compatibility studies had to be carried out to permit operations in airports were 747-400s are already in operation.
The airlines are perfectly happy to use different operational procedures or sacrifice some other characteristics (like range- for e.g. B737 MAX range drops around 200 miles between MAX 7 and MAX 9; aircraft rarely operate those distances anyway) for having the same aircraft operate in a large number of airports and reduce maintenance burden by having common parts across models.


How are extreme winds aloft handled and how do they affect flight?

Is there a maximum or safe winds aloft value / crosswind for say, a
  737 to fly?

Crosswind limits are in place for landing not flying. Cross wind limits have to do with how effective the control surfaces are which allows you to fly the plane in such a manner where the fuselage is aligned with the ground track. At altitude winds simply either add to your ground speed or count against it.

  How is it reasonable to deal with wind speeds this high when they're
  other than a direct headwind or tailwind? What if it is a direct
  crosswind, how is it possible for the airplane to fly without
  significant navigation issues (or maybe safety issues?) at velocities
  that high.

Winds are not always a direct head or tail wind (for that matter they often are not) thus you simply need to figure out your course correction. You can check out this video on how to do so. Keep in mind that you are flying through the air and thus moving with it, on the ground you feel wind because you are stationary and it is moving around you.

  In general, how does the significant wind speeds found in the upper
  altitudes affect flight (contrasted with typical general aviation
  flight)

Its all relative but in general it simply effects time in transit (ground speed). However keep in mind that the planes that fly up there are often faster so 150Kt headwind on a plane that can cruise at 550Kts at FL300 is not all that different from a 35 Knot headwind on a plane cruising at 140kts at 5000ft.


While flying, how do I contact someone who is on the ground?

Once, in a pinch, I persuaded Phoenix Approach to call my mother-in-law and advise her to meet me at an alternate airport since I would have had to hold for two hours to get into PHX where we'd originally planned to meet. This is definitely not something that ATC does on a regular basis.

Other options include carrying an Iridium handheld satellite phone (not cheap, but certainly a possibility for light GA) or installing an amateur radio transceiver.


How does the power transfer unit in the A320 work?

The PTU consist of a hydraulic motor that drives a hydraulic pump.

The motor is driven by one hydraulic system, the shaft of the motor is connected to the pump and the pump powers the other hydraulic system.


Which companies develop software for airplane systems?

This entire branch is known as  avionics (aviation electronics). Limited work is generally done by the aircraft producers themselves, and the majority is subcontracted to specialist companies. A name which does come to mind is Thales group, who are behind much of the Airbus A380 avionics. Other ones are Rockwell Collins, Honeywell and Garmin. These are however though often at the top of an iceberg of various subsystems and controls.

A huge increase in this field (particularly in small aircraft but now also coming to larger ones) has been in tablet computers and the like in the past few years, and while I'm not a pilot I think it's hardly at the limit of what is possible. An iPad has more processing power than most if not virtually all aircraft flying today. Many customers today are disappointed if they don't get WiFi and inflight entertainment onboard.

With the increase in drones and unmanned aircraft, it's certainly not a shrinking field. A large area of this includes complex calculations and plenty of sensors. And more drones and unmanned aircraft require advanced communication and control systems. I've even heard about dynamic models of aircraft who adapt the plane's control to maintain control in the event of structural failure or serious damage. Only having scratched the field personally it's a very broad field with plenty.


Why are passengers requested to close their window blinds during a night-time takeoff?

This is a personal experience rather than an authoritative answer, but I thought it would be relevant.

I fly a few airlines fairly frequently and have done for many years. I've always thought that blinds should be open for safety reasons. However, a few years back I was on a flight with an airline that I'd flown many times before and had always enforced the blinds-open policy. To my surprise everyone was asked to close the window blinds. Within a year the trend had increased to point where all flights by this airline were blinds-closed. Then, a year or so after that, the policy was reverted to blinds-open and has remained since.

My theory is that someone in the senior crew, or crew training, mixed up the policy and started enforcing the wrong one (i.e. blinds-closed). I think this is plausible as the reasons for having blinds-open are not entirely obvious. It would also explain the gradual adoption of the new policy. I guess someone eventually realised the mistake, hence the sudden reversal.

Sorry for the long post and lack of sources. Will delete if deemed not helpful.


Why don't flights fly towards their landing approach path sooner?

In general, IFR flights through controlled airspace use airways (highways in the sky) to fly between waypoints. The particular flight you show looks like it arrived via the N774 airway to a waypoint MARLN:

(skyvector.com)
The traffic flow around busy airports like Kingsford Smith (YSSY) in Sydney is usually structured using Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) and Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs). Your example was probably on the MARLN5 RNAV STAR:

(from the Jeppesen chart for MARLN5 at YSSY)
From somewhere after the JAKLN waypoint, the air traffic controller (ATC) would have instructed the flight to turn right to intercept their final approach path (probably to runway 34R).
All of this structure (airways and procedures around busy airports) exists to allow for an efficient flow of traffic that can be easily managed by ATC. There are many things to consider when these paths are designed:

avoiding conflicts between aircraft (e.g. between departing and arriving aircraft or between flights from different airports in the area)
restricted airspace (e.g. airspace reserved for the military or avoiding flights near sensitive areas, like nuclear power plants)
noise abatement (especially near large cities you want to avoid overflying the city center at low altitudes)
terrain (not really relevant for Sydney)

Nonetheless, one can deviate from these fixed routes. ATC might clear an aircraft on a more direct route if traffic and restricted airspace allows this (very common right now due to the pandemic). Some countries have even removed all high altitude airways and replaced it with Free Route Airspace.
The problem with setting an aircraft on a direct route for final approach interception is that this would have to be done far away from the airport. The aircraft needs time to descend and slow down (usually more than 100 NM). At this point they are typically not handled by the approach controller for the airport they are landing at, but still by the Area Control Center (ACC). This would require significantly more coordination between various controllers and is probably not very efficient in busy airspace. During the current pandemic with significantly less traffic, you might see it though.


How does the mechanical linkage of the airspeed indicator convert dynamic pressure to KIAS?

(YouTube)

As the diaphragm inflates, it pushes a levered arm up, which drives a gear via a hollowed curved track (not via the cogs). The bigger the inflation, the smaller the rotation of the gear (arm increasing radius) compared to the piston displacement. It's the only variable in the mechanism that is not a fixed ratio.

Full disclosure: this is my analysis of the video, I haven't designed one before.


Were there any successful flying machines that did not rely on Bernoulli's Principle?

How about all lighter-than-air vehicles:

Hot air balloons
Hydrogen- or helium-filled balloons
Airships

If you want to restrict the choice to heavier-than-air vehicles, rockets should still qualify.

You may also include VTOL aircraft which do not rely on their wings during hover, their internal turbo machinery would still use Bernoulli's principle, however, so for me they do not qualify.


What are the differences between types I, II, and III emergency doors?

The major difference is size.
FAR part 25.801 defines them as:

(1) Type I. This type is a floor-level exit with a rectangular opening
of not less than 24 inches wide by 48 inches high, with corner radii
not greater than eight inches.
(2) Type II. This type is a rectangular
opening of not less than 20 inches wide by 44 inches high, with corner
radii not greater than seven inches. Type II exits must be floor-level
exits unless located over the wing, in which case they must not have a
step-up inside the airplane of more than 10 inches nor a step-down
outside the airplane of more than 17 inches.
(3) Type III. This type
is a rectangular opening of not less than 20 inches wide by 36 inches
high with corner radii not greater than seven inches, and with a
step-up inside the airplane of not more than 20 inches. If the exit is
located over the wing, the step-down outside the airplane may not
exceed 27 inches.

There is also a type IV:

(4) Type IV. This type is a rectangular opening of not less than 19
inches wide by 26 inches high, with corner radii not greater than 6.3
inches, located over the wing, with a step-up inside the airplane of
not more than 29 inches and a step-down outside the airplane of not
more than 36 inches.

If you read the full text, you will also find definitions for ventral and tailcone exits. For pictures I refer you to this answer.


Why are the leading edges on the Boeing 787 made from aluminum?

There are probably many factors in choosing aluminum vs. composites.

A big one is bird strikes. The leading edges are at the highest risk for this. Metal tends to absorb the impact better while retaining its strength, while composites would tend to delaminate and become much weaker. Resistance to in-flight hail must also be considered.

(Source Left, Right) Comparison of bird strike effect on aluminum and carbon fiber.

Anti ice was also mentioned. These areas are heated with bleed air (or, for the 787, electrical elements) to melt or prevent any ice formation. Metals do much better at high temperatures than composites, which would tend to melt or lose strength. Metals are also able to conduct the anti ice heat better than composites.

Another factor could be manufacturing. These surfaces have a lot of curvature. Composite panels are often reinforced with honeycomb core, which is best on relatively flat surfaces. Of course composites could be made into these shapes, but the shape would limit material and configuration options. Metal is also easier to work with or repair than composites.

As far as choosing aluminum over other metals, it tends to be very light and cheap for its strength, has decent temperature capability for anti-ice, and when properly used is fairly resistant to corrosion or fatigue.

The nose does not have anti ice and must serve as a cover for the weather radar. Composites can be made relatively transparent to radar, but metal would tend to block the waves.


Why doesn't the Convair 580 have check valves to prevent inadvertent fuel transfer?

A check valve is another failure point in the fuel system (they can stick) so you have to do a risk analysis to decide if the benefit of adding them outweighs the risk of the added failure mode introduced, with sufficient weight to justify mandating them by AD.  With no AD, it's up to KFC to decide if it wants to do anything on its own.

Assuming this was a one-off event (the report only mentions one previous less serious  but similar event) that is more or less attributable to bad piloting, the balance of risk, when added to the burden of forcing an AD on operators, would have been determined to not fall within the threshold needed to mandate such a change (I've participated in these kinds of projects over the years).

If another crash or two happens later with more or less the same circumstances, it's more likely to trigger an AD.  But these airplanes have been flying a very long time like this.

Yes there is a tendency to think the need to do something is obvious, but if ADs were issued for every potential design deficiency to cover every eventuality, there would be eleventy jillion ADs out there.  That being said, there was probably an internal debate with discussions between Transport Canada and KFC, with pro and con factions arguing it out, and TC was probably convinced that mandating check valves would not provide sufficient risk mitigation to justify the burden of issuing an AD (The FAA could do something on their own, but usually they will work with TC on this and go along with TC's resolution).


Where can I go to sit in the cockpit of a Boeing?

There is a company called Flight Experience which builds 737 simulators and offers their use to the public. These are fully certified simulators and are frequently used by commercial pilots for currency training.

Their closest location to London appears to be in Paris.

I had an opportunity to fly one of their simulators a few years ago, and it was a lot of fun. We spent some time doing landings at the old Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong.


What is that hole on the front portion of the empennage of a CRJ-1000?

It is the Ram Air Inlet Duct for the cabin air system. It normally acts as cooling air for the packs but can also be used as an alternate vent source in an emergency.

  The cooling efficiency of each air conditioning pack is enhanced by
  ram air cooling via a heat exchanger. Ram air enters through an inlet
  at the abse of the vertical stabilizer and passes through the pack
  heat exchangers and then exits overboard. In case of failure of both
  packs, ram air can be used as the sole source of ventilation. This is
  accomplished by opening the ram-air valve via the RAM AIR switch. Ram
  air then enters the occupied areas through the normal vents.

(source)


How close to the White House did the Space Shuttle Discovery "fly"?

According to this article they cruised through DC at an altitude of 1,500 Ft. Based on the pictures you can see here and here and here and lastly here of the flight and some of the locations it banked at its course seems to have taken it right around the prohibited flight area noted in Carlo's answer which you can see on the sectional here:

(source)

Foreflight does a better job of overlaying that on a street map. Assuming they kept a reasonable margin if we drop a ruler on it Im showing ~0.6 NM

(source: own images)

As for special clearance they were flying the the SFRA and would need to follow the rules on that as everyone else. Im sure the course was prearranged as the FAA prefers transitions more than loitering in the SFRA. The SCA also had a fair number of limits to its flight regime as discussed in this podacast the weather would have also needed to be optimal for the flight to occur.


What are the main obstacles to becoming IFR-rated in USA?

The problem is an instrument rating is expensive, time consuming and requires much more - expensive - proficiency related activity. If you are only flying 20-50 hours a year like most PPLs, it's pretty hard to come up with a "business case" to spend the 10-15 grand for getting one if you're not doing serious travel regularly, just from the standpoint of return on investment, let alone staying proficient.

In other words, the majority of PPLs simply don't fly enough to justify an IR.  The majority that do usually have their own a/c and use it a lot on business, or it's a stepping stone on a career progression.  And even if you have an IR, if your airplane doesn't have airborne weather radar and equipment for flying in icing, you are still pretty limited in your travel at certain times of the year (generally, to under the freezing level and far away from convective weather unless you like taking chances).

If you study a lot of VFR/IMC accidents you find that it's mostly people doing VFR travel for extended distances and time frames.  A light aircraft being used for travel in VFR weather is a very unreliable travel method and pilots have to accept that; too many don't.

So the big problem is people don't allow for weather delays in schedules, so they push weather to get home.  If you travel places VFR for time frames beyond the next day or two (about the limit you can depend on forecasts most of the time) you have to treat it like flying standby on the airlines; always ready to wait a day or two to get where you're going.  When you build this into your planning (like planning to be home 3 days before you have to return to work instead of the day before) you can relax a bit, and the risks of getting caught in a get-home-itis trap go down dramatically.


The answer to the question lies in your statements

  I deduced that runway lights are kept always on as soon as the day
  light or weather conditions require it

Typically when the visibility drops below a certain level airports will turn their lights on. You mention that the airport does not have a whole lot of arrivals but you would only be able to progressively turn them on and off if all the arrivals were planned. There are plenty of cases where they may not be, (here in the US GA traffic is one), emergencies, diversion, aircraft not operating on a flight plan etc. In that case its simple courtesy to leave them on.

In some cases the lights are actually part of the instrument system and the regulations may dictate that if the ILS is on so are the lights.

The lights may also not always be on, it may simply be that you happen to drive past them when they commonly are on. There are lots of variables here but different airports handle this differently. Here in the states smaller non-towered airports often have lights that are always off, a pilot can turn them on by keying the mic button on their radio 3 or 5 times. They are typically on a 10 or 15 minute timer. If you turn them on to far out and forget about it they may shut off on short final... Larger towered airports may keep some lights on and allow you to request others be turned on or off. This is only applicable if the tower is in operation. At night, if the tower closes they may simply leave the lights on as there is no way to remote key them.

At night, even in good weather (or especially in good weather) lights can help identify an airport from quite a distance. Since runways are lit in a predictable, standard way if you are on approach to an airport in a well lit city it can help to split the airport out from all the roads and highways when looking for it in the terminal area.


There are two questions here.  The first question is in the thread title.  The second question is in the OP.  But they are two different questions.  It's possible the OP was edited after it was initially posted and after several answers were given.

The correct answer to the first question is yes provided the flight takes place outside the DC FRZ.

The correct answer to the second question is no because you state you are flying in Class B airspace.  Ironically it has little to do with flying in the outer ring of the DC SFRA which would otherwise be permitted.

You say you are flying in Class B.  Flying in Class B requires authorization via the FAA's dronezone portal linked here:  https://www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/

You may fly in Class B (or any controlled airspace) only after your online request for waiver or authorization is approved by FAA.

Don't confuse this with a Part 101 flight which has different rules.

I am posting this for anybody who might be looking for this info in a search.


How could a Focke-Wulf 190 pilot see anything at all from his cockpit?

It looks like the pilots are performing taxi-runs for show. For an actual flight, by sitting on the seat pack parachute (and/or a cushion) the eye level is raised as shown below:

(warbirdsnews.com)

(worldwarphotos.info)

For how to taxi while sitting so low, it's usually down by taxiing in an S-shape or following hand signals from a marshaller.

Related:

How are aircraft controlled that have no forward view out of the cockpit?
How do pilots manage to keep aircraft on centerline during taxi?
How does a taildragger steer (taxi) differently to tricycle gear?
Would the Gee Bee be allowed to fly today, with so little forward visibility?


How to find the location of the Aerodynamic centre?

What you refer to as the aerodynamic centre is also called the neutral point, the point where pitch moments do not change at all angles of attack with attached airflow.

If you ask for an unswept body of high aspect ratio, the answer would be easy: At the quarter chord point in subsonic flow and at the half chord point in supersonic flow. Unfortunately, the neutral point shifts forward with decreasing aspect ratio until it sits right at the leading point (not edge) of a slender body, a body with infinitesimally small aspect ratio. It shifts slightly backwards with positive sweep, so you normally have to calculate correction factors which depend on

Sweep angle
Taper ratio
Ratio of fuselage width and span
Lengthwise position of the wing-fuselage intersection
High wing or low wing configuration (negligible influence)

If you don't have good wind tunnel data or a validated CFD model, you would use a collection of formulas and diagrams like DATCOM (see this link for a computerized version) to approximate a solution. Sorry, but I cannot give you a simple formula which would work out of the box.


What prevents a Machmeter from being the standard airspeed indicator?

Machmeter-based tachometer would not indicate something between IAS and CAS, it would indicate TAS but for the same¹ instrument and position errors the normal airspeed indicator has.

However, airspeed indicator does not indicate true airspeed and this is intentional.

The EAS, that the airspeed indicator is aiming to show, is a measure of dynamic pressure. Since lift, which also includes effectiveness of control surfaces, is proportional to dynamic pressure and drag is also a function of dynamic pressure, most handling characteristics depend on the dynamic pressure. Therefore the value indicated by the airspeed indicator is exactly what the pilot wants to know.

The only effects that depend on other speeds are aeroelastic flutter, which depends on true airspeed, and compressibility effects, that depend on Mach number. Both limit the maximum safe speed. That is why fast aircraft also need Machmeter. But they still need the indicated² airspeed.

¹ Both instruments use the same two raw values obtained from the pitot-static system: total and static pressure. The airspeed indicator shows square root of the difference (because dynamic pressure is proportional to square of speed), the Machmeter shows the ratio to some fractional exponent. So all the errors affect both the same way, and in electronic instruments, they are compensated² to the same extent.

² Electronic systems in modern airliners say to show CAS, correcting all errors they can reasonably estimate.


Are the implications of weight and balance for rotary wing aircraft similar to fixed wing aircraft?

I don't understand your statement since the lifting surface is rotating around the aircraft - not sure where you are going with that.

In general, the principles are the same as for fixed wing.  If the CofG limits are exceeded, it is possible to run out of control authority to the extent that the aircraft becomes uncontrollable.

Many helicopters, I believe any with a tail rotor, have different left/right CofG limits.  The tail rotor opposes the rotation of the fuselage due to torque from the rotor.  Since it does this by producing thrust to the side, there is a "translating tendency" which would cause the helicopter to drift in the direction in which the TR is generating lift.

To counter this, the cyclic neutral position is rigged to the left (CCW rotor) or right (CW rotor) which results in the skid on that side hanging low.  Clearly, there is now less possible movement in the cyclic to that side and therefore, a narrower lateral CofG.

For example, in a helicopter with a counter-clockwise rotating rotor, the fuselage wants to rotate clockwise.  The tail rotor will produce a thrust to the left to counter this and a long lever couple is formed with the main rotor which, if not corrected, would cause the helicopter to drift to the right.

With a perfectly balanced helicopter, in a no wind steady hover, you want the cyclic to be in the centre with no force required from the pilot.  To stop the drift to the right, the cyclic is moved to the left.  To prevent the need for the pilot to do this, the cyclic is rigged so that its neutral position is to the left.  The main rotor thrust vector is now titled to the left which introduces a horizontal component of thrust acting to the left.  This also causes the left skid to hang low.  This is why in most CCW rotor helicopters, the captain sits on the right and in some of these helicopters, solo flight from the left is prohibited.

Since the cyclic is already left of centre, there is less cyclic authority to the left than to the right.  Therefore, the right limit of lateral CofG is less than the left limit.

This could not be achieved by moving the CofG since this would level the fuselage but would not oppose the thrust.

I will never forget the sensation of my first solo lift into the hover after the talking ballast (my instructor) got out and left me to it.  I lifted with the control positions where I was used to them.  Because there was 170lbs less weight in the front left corner, this meant that I started to pitch up and move back.  I was surprised by how much forward and left I had to move the cyclic to counter it.  It felt very odd for a few minutes.


How can air launched UAV's be decelerated?

......the same way you decelerate any other kind of aircraft.  Once released from the Mothership at idle power, it slows down until reaching an appropriate cruise speed thence power is increased to maintain speed.

If the release speed of too high for the UAV, one might use some kind of a frangible capsule equipped with a drag chute or other high drag device of some sort to enclose the drone during launch, thence the capsule fractures once the speed is slow enough, releasing the drone to begin flight under its own power.


Can the emergency slide be re-used after it has been deployed?

Sure. In fact, the emergency slides have to be removed from aircraft and tested periodically under present regulations.
According to Lufthansa Technik:

Under current regulations each emergency escape slide must be removed from the aircraft every three years and checked in the workshop.
The slide is tested by "flat firing" the slide on the floor; the test confirms that the slide inflates properly within two to ten seconds, depending upon the aircraft and type of slide.
The inflated slide is also checked in the workshop at over-pressure to test that seams retain their integrity under extreme loads. The slide is also tested for its ability to remain properly inflated for several hours.

This testing cycle varies according to the OEM/operator. For example, according to Boeing, the B747-400 slides have a 12 year testing cycle. In addition, they are checked regularly depending on various factors like its age etc. According to Udo Janssen, Lufthansa Technik’s director of emergency equipment,

At approximately 15 years of age, the first signs of aging appear with the materials—porosity of the fabric, seam peal, or pack board delamination. That is the reason why, after 15 years, the OEMs change the inspection schedules from three-year intervals to yearly cycles.

During these tests, the slides are usually inflated either fully or partially. So, the undamaged slides can certainly be reused.


What is needed to go from a student pilot license to a private pilot license?

You have a bit of a misconception about the way these things work.  Everyone gets a student pilot's license before they get a private pilot's license.  The student license is just a step along the way to the private license.  The requirements for getting a student pilot's license are minimal.  It's the equivalent of a "learner's permit" in the automobile world.  The reason that the requirements for a student pilot's license are minimal is that you will be operating under the supervision of an instructor.  Just having the student license does not authorize you to fly an airplane without an instructor on board.  When you hold a student pilot's license, an instructor has to endorse your license for solo privileges in each make and model of aircraft, and also has to endorse your logbook for solo privileges every ninety days.  An instructor also has to review your planning for every cross-country flight, with exceptions for flights to another airport within 25 miles or repeated flights to another airport within 50 miles.  These and other requirements for solo flight under a student pilot's license are spelled out in FAR 61.87 and 61.93.

Without a student pilot's license, there would be no way to build solo flight time as needed to qualify to take the checkride for a private pilot's license.

This answer is assuming that

1) You live in the USA

2) You haven't already learned to fly, and accumulated flight time, in the military..

Highly related-- essentially the same question in fact-- see all answers--

Am I required to obtain a student license before a sport, recreational, or private one?


What is the main reason of air-cooled radials producing much less HP/L compared to liquid cooled Vs?

I read somewhere once, maybe I can find it again, but it is because of the inherent limitations of cooling the cylinder walls. Air cooling is not as controllable, because the temperature of the air varies with altitude and season. Hence, the temperature of the cylinders in an air cooled engine are not as tightly controlled as a liquid cooled engine. So, the cylinders need to be able to operate over a greater temperature range. Since metal expands with temperature, that means the gap between the cylinders and the bore is typically greater in an air cooled engine than a liquid cooled one. So, this greater gap, even with piston rings means some of the cylinder head pressure after combustion escapes rather than act on the piston. Makes sense to me...


Do French, Spanish, Italian, and Greek controllers still speak to their native pilots in their native language?

Well, I just pulled up LEMD on LiveATC and heard some Spanish there. So Madrid clearly speaks Spanish sometimes, although it's probably not very busy right now (5:30 AM there). Archives from midday for LFPO and LFBD (Orly and Bordeaux) have plenty of French. Archives from midday for LGAV (Athens) approach has something definitely non-English (I can't tell if it's Greek or not, but I can't imagine anything else it'd be); LGAV has heavy use of English, but it's not exclusively English. And LiveATC has no feeds for Italy. So, for three of them the answer is definitely "yes, they still speak not-English;" for the last, LiveATC can't answer.


Why don't pilots control window shades & seat recliners?

Adding all those actuators and associated wiring will add weight and cost to each flight, but the cabin crew have to be there for safety reasons, so they may as well have something to do.

Besides, how would you feel if your seat suddenly jolted you upright without warning?


What is the average g force experienced on takeoff for an ultralight?

I fly part 103, specifically a Hy-Tek Hurricane. I also have a G meter on board. It is a Dynon D2, which features an artificial horizon (attitude indicator) and also a G meter. The average G's on takeoff is pretty small, usually around 1.1 to 1.2 Gs. I can also tell you it is impossible to pull anything over 2 G's during takeoff. I actually performed this test in the air at 2000ft, straight and level at full throttle (simulated takeoff from 2000ft?) at about 55mph, then pulled the stick back all the way in about 1/4 of a second until I was nearly vertical. The highest recorded G reading during this maneuver was 1.8 Gs. Of course all ultralight aircraft are different. I would NOT recommend performing this test from an actual take-off from the surface. Also you should consider that by performing the test at 2000ft, I was not in any kind of ground effect, so you would have to factor in that little bit of extra lift cushion you would get from an actual takeoff from the surface, but I would guess the extra lift component is probably small, so that is why I estimated 2 Gs max.


Can I use the autoland mode if the airport is unknown to the FMC database?

Autoland is an autopilot mode.
AUTOLAND could be « armed » while the autopilot is receiving FMS inputs, but once it is « active » it doesn’t use FMS data but the ILS receivers or the ILS and GPS receivers.

No need of the FMS neither for the approach, nor for AUTOLAND


What should I study to understand basics of aircraft construction?

I have seen many universities that they suggest Anderson's Introduction to Flight for the first course in aerospace engineering. This book contains fundamental aspects of the aeronautics.

Regarding construction principles, a good knowledge of aerodynamic, propulsion, structure and flight dynamics is required before getting into aircraft design. Meanwhile, as the first step you can familiarize yourself with the anatomy of the airplane with Stinton's Anatomy of the Aeroplane, and then going to aircraft design books such as Roskam's Airplane Design Books or Torenbeek's Design book.


What is the typical aircrew for a cargo flight?

The context of this answer is 747-100 and -200 freighters at two airlines during the 1990s flying both civilian and military freight.

In the case of the 747-100 and -200 you had a 3-man cockpit crew: Captain, First Officer, and Flight Engineer. With the 3-man crew, there was no regulatory need to carry an additional pilot for a long flight. The 747-400 has, of course, a 2-man cockpit, but I don't know what the long-haul regulatory requirement was/is for an additional pilot.

There was no regulatory requirement to carry a loadmaster. If you were going between two stations that you regularly operated between, a loadmaster might not be carried if each station had trained loadmasters. However, if you were on a multi-leg, multi-day trip including stops where there wouldn't be loadmasters, one would be on-board (and maybe two if one of them was being trained). The loadmasters sometimes stayed with the airplane (or at least they used to) for periods of a few days to as much as two weeks even though the cockpit crews were changed out every day. Every few days the loadmasters would check into a close hotel for a quick shower or use a shower at an airport maintenance facility or some such. What always dismayed me was that they seemed to exist solely on catered food on the airplane for the entire time. While the airplane was in the air they slept when they weren't eating. Hopefully by now loadmasters are unionized and have better working conditions.

A mechanic was often carried if the airplane was having troubles or if it was being dispatched into Africa or other places where competent maintenance would not be available.

If you were carrying horses, there would be handlers with them. The one time I carried horses, they had a handler for each horse. Also, if you were carrying sensitive or very expensive cargo, there would often be someone to watch over it.

If it was a military cargo flight, there would sometimes be a 'military courier' or two aboard.

Jumpseaters were common, sometimes a lot of them depending on where you going, where you were coming from. The old 747s had 2 jumpseats in the cockpit and, typically, at least 8 first class seats on the upper deck, and often a bunk or two. I noticed in the accident report for the 747 freighter loss at Bagram that there were 7 persons aboard.


Do you need a commercial certificate to fly unpaid for a non-pilot owner?

This situation would be Illegal as the law stands. What it boils down to is that flight time is considered compensation. This answer covers it well and in your case, since you are not paying your pro-rata share and the owner is paying the full expenses you are in a way getting compensated in flight time.

This answer is somewhat related as well and its seems there needs to be some "common purpose" for everyone on board as well.


How to proceed in designing a catapult glider with maximum flight distance?

Two parameters are important to arrive at a good answer, but not covered in your question:

What is the size of the glider? The Shuttle model will fly at Reynolds numbers in the order of a few ten thousands, which puts it in a flight regime quite different from that of large, man-carrying aircraft.
How much kinetic energy will be provided at launch? One advantage of the Shuttle model is its large volume relative to surface area. This allows it to start the glide with more kinetic energy when compared to the model of, say, a glider. In the end, it is more ballistics than aerodynamics which can explain the gliding distance.

The optimum configuration will change with the absolute size. Aspect ratio will grow with size, and a high ratio of mass to surface area will yield better results. The Shuttle model has a weak spot, however: Its large base area will result in flow separation and high base drag. A streamlined body should be better at all sizes.


What is the maximum number of waypoints one can have in a flight plan?

The only info about this I have been able to find is this quote from the ICAO:

  ATS data systems may impose communications or processing constraints on information in filed flight plans.  Possible constraints may, for example, be limits regarding item length, number of elements in the route item, or total flight plan length.  Significant constraints are documented in the relevant Aeronautical Information Publication.

Which essentially just says that individual countries could impose (due to technical reasons) restrictions, but there are no general rules.

I have no doubt that many ATS systems would probably break if you asked them to process an unreasonably long flightplan. Hopefully the flightplan processing system is set up to reject such flightplans before they make it into the live system.

After playing around a bit with the EUROCONTROL flightplan validator tool (IFPUV), I have noticed that it starts throwing a syntax error when the FPL message is above approximately 985 characters in total. It's hard to say if this is just a limitation of the validator or if it's actually a limitation of the flightplan processing system. The actual error message is "SYN73: SUSPECT INVALID FIELD (F15 GENERATES TOO MANY RENAMED POINTS)", which I haven't been able to find an explination for in any of the usual EUROCONTROL manuals.

So, for practical purposes, you should probably keep your entire flightplan below ~985 characters, at least if you want it accepted in European airspace. But refer to the local AIP (probably ENR 1.10) of whichever country you are flying in to check if any local restrictions are mentioned.


Do ultralight engines need a thrust bearing?

Any aircraft engine that spins a prop to generate thrust will necessarily contain a thrust bearing to prevent the propeller thrust force from pulling the crankshaft out of the block.  But since a bearing designed for mostly radial loads will also be capable of resisting a certain amount of thrust load, some automobile engines converted for aircraft use can get by without having a thrust bearing added to their crankshaft supports.


Can civilians who buy ex-military fighter jets get the necessary maintenance information for them?

Most military surplus aircraft are considered by the FAA to be experimental exhibition aircraft and subject to the rules and maintenance requirements for experimental aircraft.  That being said, most owners seek out retired military personnel who did maintenance on these aircraft and currently work as AIs (authorized inspectors) in civilian aviation to handle maintenance and repairs.  Firms like Code 1 Aviation and Thornton Aircraft specialize in certain types of military aircraft and have collected libraries of maintenance manuals and other resources for owners and can perform maintenance conforming to the old military and civilian experimental aircraft guidelines.


In the US you need to file a flight plan for the following flights:

IFR flights
Defense VFR Flights, which are required to fly in the ADIZ that is off the coast of the US (an IFR flight plan may also be used).
Some TFR's only allow air traffic to fly within their boundaries if they are on an IFR or VFR flight plan.
A DC FRZ flight plan is required to fly VFR in the DC FRZ.
A DC SFRA flight plan is required to fly VFR in the DC SFRA.
When entering or leaving the U.S., an ICAO international flight plan (IFR or VFR).

Other than that, no flight plans are required, but are strongly recommended so that search and rescue gets called if you don't show up at your destination on time!


Why changes the lift during turning with sidewinds? Why is there relative wind in the wind-frame?

Wind cannot 'attack' your wing, because there is no wind relative to your aircraft, only relative to the ground.  You are flying in still air; the still air in which you are flying is moving over the ground.

Your path over the ground is affected by the wind, so your first bullet point is correct.  'Wind' (in the weather sense) is the parcel of air in which you are flying, moving relative to the ground.

In your second bullet point, if your speed is varying, it must be due to a change in the controls, resulting in a pitch attitude change, or a change in power setting.  I'm not sure what you mean by "glide angle controller" but that would usually be the pilot.  Your speed cannot vary as a result of the wind, as there is no wind relative to the aircraft.  Only by referencing an external frame of reference (looking at the ground, looking at GPS) can you tell that there is any wind.

So if you are experiencing any sidewind (or any other wind), it is caused by whatever is controlling the aircraft (pilot or something in the program) referencing something other than the air.  This experience cannot be caused by a constant wind.


How do the military pilots of Air Force One train for exceptional circumstances in an airliner not designed for high performance?

Does the United States Air Force retain identical aircraft not
  routinely used as Air Force One, for specific training use?

The Airforce maintains two identical versions of the VC-25A that it uses to fulfill the role of Air Force One but its unclear (and likely not public) if any practice occurs in either airframe.

  Otherwise, how is it determined that these manoeuvres are feasible in
  such an aircraft and that the pilot is capable of performing them?

Through testing, as is the case for the operational envelope of any aircraft. Due to the nature of Air Force One this data is not (as far as I know) public.

On any note the pilots, who are typically career Air Force pilots all have lots of experience and in some cases experience flying other heavy or high performance aircraft as is the case with one of the most recent pilots

  Col. Tillman's distinguished career spans 30 years in the United
  States Air Force. Utilizing his Bachelors of Science degree in
  Chemical Engineering (Tulane Univ '79), he served as a Rocket
  Propulsion Engineer upon entering the service but was quickly selected
  to attend USAF pilot training. His flying experiences include time as
  a T-37 Instructor Pilot for undergraduate pilot training, C-130
  transport pilot, VIP airlift as a pilot in the Gulfstream III and IV

The air force trains for low altitude and evasive maneuvers in the C-130's not infrequently. I fly fairly close to a major air force base all the time, if you pick up flight following and get handed off to their tower you will often get a warning of such activity. You can generally see it out the window as well (its pretty neat). Presumably an force pilot coming from a C-130 background has some experience flying evasive maneuvers in heavy aircraft.


Do crew rest seats count towards the maximum allowed number of seats per flight attendant?

The applicable regulation, CFR121.391, says this:

  (4) For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 100 passengers—two flight attendants plus one additional flight attendant for each unit (or part of a unit) of 50 passenger seats above a seating capacity of 100 passengers.

Note that the regulation only refers to seating capacity, not whether or not the occupants are "passengers" under the legal definition (fare paying person), or airline employees.  With 152 seats, that airplane has 2 seats, a part unit, of the next "50 seat unit" above 150 seats. So I would say your concern is correct and you need an extra FA to be compliant with 121.391, or at least I would assume so until the airline is able to show that the seats are not counted as "passenger capacity" due to some language in its operating certificate or some other document.  Probably something for your union's legal rep to confirm.