It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.

But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?

Roy Smith wrote:

> It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
> turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
> landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
> cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.
>
> But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
> the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?

To balance the wear on the control surfaces. :-)

Matt

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
> the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?

Um, if you are holding over an airport then you are holding on the opposite
side from the traffic pattern?

Minimum holding altitude is 2000 agl, according to FAAO 7130.3...hard to
conflict with traffic in the pattern at that altitude.

Bob Gardner

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
> > the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?
>
> Um, if you are holding over an airport then you are holding on the
opposite
> side from the traffic pattern?
>
>

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Um, if you are holding over an airport then you are holding on the
opposite
> side from the traffic pattern?
>

Seems rather weak to me. If the weather is good enough for pattern work
there wouldn't seem to be much need to hold.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
|
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > Um, if you are holding over an airport then you are holding on the
| opposite
| > side from the traffic pattern?
| >
|
| Seems rather weak to me. If the weather is good enough for pattern work
| there wouldn't seem to be much need to hold.

Unless you're anywhere near ORD. Then, if someone waters their house plants,
enough water vapor could be injected into the atmosphere through evaporation
to cause delays and holds for hours (I'm only marginally joking here).

"Randy at Home" > wrote in
message
.cable.rogers.com...
>
> Unless you're anywhere near ORD. Then, if someone waters their
> house plants, enough water vapor could be injected into the
> atmosphere through evaporation to cause delays and holds for
> hours (I'm only marginally joking here).
>

How much pattern work is conducted at ORD?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
|
| "Randy at Home" > wrote in
| message
| .cable.rogers.com...
| >
| > Unless you're anywhere near ORD. Then, if someone waters their
| > house plants, enough water vapor could be injected into the
| > atmosphere through evaporation to cause delays and holds for
| > hours (I'm only marginally joking here).
| >
|
| How much pattern work is conducted at ORD?

Oh, I know. None. But I couldn't resist. Sorry, Steven. I've been through
there twice a week for the past 16 months and have been on-time less than 20
times. ATC is continually, and inappropriately, blamed.

"Randy at Home" > wrote in
message
.cable.rogers.com...
>
> Oh, I know. None.
>

Is it really none now? 15-20 years or so ago you could get a few
touch-and-goes in the wee hours, say 3 AM or so.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
|
| "Randy at Home" > wrote in
| message
| .cable.rogers.com...
| >
| > Oh, I know. None.
| >
|
| Is it really none now? 15-20 years or so ago you could get a few
| touch-and-goes in the wee hours, say 3 AM or so.

Maybe at 3am. Although, I didn't hear any traffic movements last time I was
stuck sleeping in baggage claim.

You can still get in...just 2 weeks back someone took a training twin in
from 06C at 11pm for a T&G


Iain

>
> Is it really none now? 15-20 years or so ago you could get a few
> touch-and-goes in the wee hours, say 3 AM or so.
>
>

Roy Smith wrote:

> It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
> turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
> landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
> cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.
>
> But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
> the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?

The Wright Bros flipped a coin?

You sure that wasn't just an RJ? Probability is pretty high <ducking>.

"Iain Wilson" > wrote in message
link.net...
| You can still get in...just 2 weeks back someone took a training twin in
| from 06C at 11pm for a T&G
|
|
| Iain
|
| >
| > Is it really none now? 15-20 years or so ago you could get a few
| > touch-and-goes in the wee hours, say 3 AM or so.
| >
| >
|
|

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
> turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
> landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
> cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.
>
> But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
> the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?
>

I've wondered that myself. I've got a pretty good collection of old
training and procedures manuals that go back to the thirties but I've never
found a definite answer. The only thing fairly close was an explanation for
the shape of the holding pattern. Gyro instruments needed time to settle
down after a turn, so the one minute straight leg was established to allow
them to do that. A holding pattern of a continuous turn would cause
excessive precession. That explanation seemed rather weak to me. A
circular pattern would seem rather dizzying and make maintaining one's
position more difficult, which I think would be more than enough reason to
have the level segment. But it does bring up the issue of excessive
precession. I'm certainly no expert on the mechanics of gyros, but it seems
reasonable that a turn in one direction could cause more precession than a
turn in the opposite direction. Assuming gyros turned in a standard
direction, perhaps right turns were made standard because they caused less
precession.

Well, that's my best guess.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
> > turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
> > landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
> > cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.
> >
> > But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
> > the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?
> >
>
> I've wondered that myself. I've got a pretty good collection of old
> training and procedures manuals that go back to the thirties but I've
never
> found a definite answer.

Is there any indication as to which was standardized first--the
holding-pattern direction or the traffic pattern direction?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote:
> Is there any indication as to which was standardized first--the
> holding-pattern direction or the traffic pattern direction?

My guess would be the traffic pattern. People were landing airplanes
long before they were holding them.

I don't have any idea.
One idea I'll throw out is that if a pilot already in a right turn sees
a conflicting aircraft ahead of him, he'll already be deviating to the
right since he's in a right turn pattern. If he was in a left pattern he
would have to switch to a right turn to avoid the oncoming aircraft if
they were approaching head on, since both aircraft are supposed to turn
right to avoid a head on conflict per the FAR's.

JPH

Roy Smith wrote:
> It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
> turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
> landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
> cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.
>
> But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
> the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:35:03 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
>turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
>landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
>cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.
>
>But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
>the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?

As an IFR student, I was told that it is so controllers can easily
pick out planes in a hold vs planes in the pattern. It sounded good
at the time, but in retrospect, I question the statement:

1. Holds are pretty uncommon. Holds when VFR conditions exist at the
surface (to allow pattern work) seem even less likely.

2. Is a controller really going to use relative motion to pick
targets? It seems to me it would be easier to just look at their
squawk code or altitude.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:43:15 -0700, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>Minimum holding altitude is 2000 agl, according to FAAO 7130.3...hard to
>conflict with traffic in the pattern at that altitude.

My copy says "MHA's are determined by the National Flight Procedures
Office." It also says

2-11. ALTITUDE LEVELS.
....Holding at 2,000' and below requires use of the appropriate pattern
for 2,000'....

Anyway, a local approach has a hold at 2,000 MSL, which is about 1,500
AGL.

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message =
...
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:35:03 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:
>=20
> >It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left=20
> >turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for =

> >landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of =
the=20
> >cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.
> >
> >But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way =
or=20
> >the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?
>=20
> As an IFR student, I was told that it is so controllers can easily
> pick out planes in a hold vs planes in the pattern. It sounded good
> at the time, but in retrospect, I question the statement:
>=20
> 1. Holds are pretty uncommon. Holds when VFR conditions exist at the
> surface (to allow pattern work) seem even less likely.
>=20
> 2. Is a controller really going to use relative motion to pick
> targets? It seems to me it would be easier to just look at their
> squawk code or altitude.

How about: "3. Right-Hand Holds predated Radar by decades!"
---JRC---

Greg Esres wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:43:15 -0700, "Bob Gardner" >
> wrote:
>
> >Minimum holding altitude is 2000 agl, according to FAAO 7130.3...hard to
> >conflict with traffic in the pattern at that altitude.
>
> My copy says "MHA's are determined by the National Flight Procedures
> Office." It also says
>
> 2-11. ALTITUDE LEVELS.
> ...Holding at 2,000' and below requires use of the appropriate pattern
> for 2,000'....
>
> Anyway, a local approach has a hold at 2,000 MSL, which is about 1,500
> AGL.

You're right; there is no 2,000' floor. It's policy to have controlled
airspace at least 300 feet below the MHA. That is normally accomplished with
Class E 700 AGL airspace. That means, in theory, the MHA could be as low as
1,000 AGL, except no one would design to that assumption. But, 1,200 AGL is
certainly possible because 200 feet is the assumed adverse obstacle height
where no higher obstacles are recorded in the digital obstacle file.

Nathan Young > wrote in message >...

> 1. Holds are pretty uncommon. Holds when VFR conditions exist at the
> surface (to allow pattern work) seem even less likely.

They're probably far more common in VFR conditions, because more
aircraft are flying and therefore more flight training is being
conducted. Holds are the domain of instrument-rating applicants.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 03:41:58 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
> wrote:

>
>"Nathan Young" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:35:03 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:
>>
>> >It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
>> >turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
>> >landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
>> >cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.
>> >
>> >But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
>> >the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?
>>
>> As an IFR student, I was told that it is so controllers can easily
>> pick out planes in a hold vs planes in the pattern. It sounded good
>> at the time, but in retrospect, I question the statement:
>>
>> 1. Holds are pretty uncommon. Holds when VFR conditions exist at the
>> surface (to allow pattern work) seem even less likely.
>>
>> 2. Is a controller really going to use relative motion to pick
>> targets? It seems to me it would be easier to just look at their
>> squawk code or altitude.
>
>How about: "3. Right-Hand Holds predated Radar by decades!"

Excellent point!

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
> > Is there any indication as to which was standardized first--the
> > holding-pattern direction or the traffic pattern direction?
>
> My guess would be the traffic pattern. People were landing airplanes
> long before they were holding them.

True, but it was awhile before air traffic was concentrated enough to
require standard patterns. If the holding pattern did get formalized first,
perhaps right-hand turns were chosen simply because clockwise is a more
standard direction than counterclockwise, and the choice was otherwise
arbitrary. For the traffic pattern, though, pilot-side visibility makes a
counterclockwise pattern much more sensible, as you noted.

Anyway, I'm just throwing in another wild guess. :)

--Gary

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> Seems rather weak to me. If the weather is good enough for pattern work
> there wouldn't seem to be much need to hold.

Good enough is in the eye of the beholder. Not too long ago, I shot
the NDB into GTU. The bases were right at minimums - I was in and out
of cloud at MDA. Once I finally got the airport in sight (less than 2
miles out - and I've shot that approach several times so I know the
area) and started my descent to the runway, someone asked on the radio
what the bases were.

I gave an honest answer - "Right at mins, in fact I wasn't sure until
30 seconds ago whether I would get in or not."

As I fueled, I watched a plane take off and do pattern work...

Michael

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> Seems rather weak to me. If the weather is good enough for pattern work
> there wouldn't seem to be much need to hold.

A backup of traffic?

I remember not too long ago spending about 20 minutes in a holding pattern
(not as PIC) due to a traffic jam.

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message =
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> > Seems rather weak to me. If the weather is good enough for pattern =
work
> > there wouldn't seem to be much need to hold.
>=20
> A backup of traffic?
>=20
> I remember not too long ago spending about 20 minutes in a holding =
pattern
> (not as PIC) due to a traffic jam.
>=20
>=20
Ouch. Even Oshkosh AirVenture isn't usually that bad.
---JRC---

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:t4GDc.125921$0y.63326@attbi_s03...
>
> Is there any indication as to which was standardized first--the
> holding-pattern direction or the traffic pattern direction?
>

None of the material in my possession provides even a hint which was first.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> My guess would be the traffic pattern. People were landing airplanes
> long before they were holding them.
>

Yes, but not necessarily from a landing pattern as we know it today. The
Air Commerce Regulations of 1928 say nothing about any kind of landing
pattern.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> My guess would be the traffic pattern. People were landing airplanes
>> long before they were holding them.
>>
>
> Yes, but not necessarily from a landing pattern as we know it today.
> The Air Commerce Regulations of 1928 say nothing about any kind of
> landing pattern.

Maybe that's because many "fields" were used to land airships. They were
circular so wind direction didn't matter. It's hard to define a "pattern"
for a circular field. Lakehurst NJ is still circular and is easily seen
from airliners heading to the JFK VOR from the south.

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
news:0afEc.126010$eu.46151@attbi_s02...
>
> Maybe that's because many "fields" were used to land airships. They were
> circular so wind direction didn't matter. It's hard to define a
"pattern"
> for a circular field. Lakehurst NJ is still circular and is easily seen
> from airliners heading to the JFK VOR from the south.
>

This was the day of the "all-ways" airfield. There were no runways at many
airfields, they were just open fields. Airplanes simply landed and took off
into the wind

Yup, it was a Duchess. To spoil the story as it were, he had a hard landing
(wide RWY at night was the prognosis) came and had another one damaging the
nose gear...too bad

Iain


"Randy at Home" > wrote in
message
.cable.rogers.com...
> You sure that wasn't just an RJ? Probability is pretty high <ducking>.
>
> "Iain Wilson" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> | You can still get in...just 2 weeks back someone took a training twin in
> | from 06C at 11pm for a T&G
> |
> |
> | Iain
> |
> | >
> | > Is it really none now? 15-20 years or so ago you could get a few
> | > touch-and-goes in the wee hours, say 3 AM or so.
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>

oops, should have said Travel Air


"Iain Wilson" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Yup, it was a Duchess. To spoil the story as it were, he had a hard
landing
> (wide RWY at night was the prognosis) came and had another one damaging
the
> nose gear...too bad
>

Roy Smith > wrote in message >...
> It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
> turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
> landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
> cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.
>
> But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
> the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?

Perhaps they just had to pick one and since most of us are right
handed, it may have been an easy suggestion. The straight section was
probably to adjust for wind correction, etc. It would be pretty hard
to stay over the holding fix if you just kept turning and never flew
straight. Of course, back then, the holding fix was probably an AM
radio beacon not a fix painted on a full color Garmin. The left hand
landing pattern seems pretty obvious since people seem to have always
wanted to fly from the left seat.

-Robert

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in
m:

<snip>
> ... The left hand
> landing pattern seems pretty obvious since people seem to have always
> wanted to fly from the left seat.


Do people in Europe fly from the right seat?

> Do people in Europe fly from the right seat?

are you serious? They certainly can just like many people
in the US fly from the right seat (CFI's)

it is the same as the US. I bet even in England, they fly
from the left seat but they probably don't call the V-airways
as a V like often doesn't mean "victory" but "f**k you." <grin>

Gerald

Judah > wrote in news:Xns951DD2EF8772AjudahNOSPAMMSG@
167.206.3.2:

> Do people in Europe fly from the right seat?

They do if they fly helicopters, just as we do in the US. Flying from the
left seat has never made any sense at all to me. Most people are right-
handed, and flying from the left seat requires using your left hand, while
using the right to tune radios, etc. We fly helicopters from the right,
allowing the use of the right hand on the cyclic stick to keep upright, while
tuning, eating donuts, etc with the left.

In reality, flying from the right puts the collective in the center, so you
don't have to climb over it to get in and out; plus, the very early models
had only one collective, and the left-seat pilot had to use the left hand on
the cyclic, and the right on the collective, and this isn't easy to get used
to. Most of these type things go back to historical trivia; it was done on
one model for whatever reason, and just became tradition.

Regards,

Stan

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message =
...
> Judah > wrote in news:Xns951DD2EF8772AjudahNOSPAMMSG@
> 167.206.3.2:
>=20
> > Do people in Europe fly from the right seat?
>=20
> They do if they fly helicopters, just as we do in the US. Flying from =
the=20
> left seat has never made any sense at all to me. Most people are =
right-
> handed, and flying from the left seat requires using your left hand, =
while=20
> using the right to tune radios, etc. We fly helicopters from the =
right,=20
> allowing the use of the right hand on the cyclic stick to keep =
upright, while=20
> tuning, eating donuts, etc with the left. =20
>=20
> In reality, flying from the right puts the collective in the center, =
so you=20
> don't have to climb over it to get in and out; plus, the very early =
models=20
> had only one collective, and the left-seat pilot had to use the left =
hand on=20
> the cyclic, and the right on the collective, and this isn't easy to =
get used=20
> to. Most of these type things go back to historical trivia; it was =
done on=20
> one model for whatever reason, and just became tradition.
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Stan

I thought some European helicopters turned their rotors oppositely,
and for a related reason flew from the left. Did I think wrong?
---JRC---

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in
:

> I thought some European helicopters turned their rotors oppositely,
> and for a related reason flew from the left. Did I think wrong?
> ---JRC---

Yes, you did. The direction the rotors turn has nothing to do with where the
pilot sits. It does mean you have to use a different foot to counteract
torque, but that's instinctive, at least for most pilots, except for power
changes in cruise. There have been a few American (and European) helicopters
(The Hughes 500, for instance) in which the standard pilot's seat was on the
left, for some unknown reason. As for which direction the main rotor turns,
it was originally due to engineering reasons. The first Sikorsky models
turned either direction, depending on which required the least number of
gearboxes. Tradition took over eventually, and the French decided to be
different, just because they were French. The Russians did the same.
Everyone else has stayed with the clockwise direction as viewed from below.

What this has to do with IFR, I don't know. ;-) On topic, flying with the
right hand makes writing clearances, etc a little dodgy. I have to keep my
kneeboard on my left knee, because I use the right knee for my forearm.
Fortunately, my first officer can take the clearances for me, or vice versa.
Single-pilot, it can get tricky.

Stan Gosnell wrote:

>
> They do if they fly helicopters, just as we do in the US. Flying from the
> left seat has never made any sense at all to me. Most people are right-
> handed, and flying from the left seat requires using your left hand, while
> using the right to tune radios, etc. We fly helicopters from the right,
> allowing the use of the right hand on the cyclic stick to keep upright, while
> tuning, eating donuts, etc with the left.
>
> In reality, flying from the right puts the collective in the center, so you
> don't have to climb over it to get in and out; plus, the very early models
> had only one collective, and the left-seat pilot had to use the left hand on
> the cyclic, and the right on the collective, and this isn't easy to get used
> to. Most of these type things go back to historical trivia; it was done on
> one model for whatever reason, and just became tradition.

I heard once that the right-seat thing got started because some early model had
flame coming out the exhaust stack that was very distracting from the left seat
at night.

Probably a pure BS urban legend, though. ;-)

wrote in :

> I heard once that the right-seat thing got started because some early
> model had flame coming out the exhaust stack that was very distracting
> from the left seat at night.
>
> Probably a pure BS urban legend, though. ;-)

That's one I never heard.

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
>... Flying from the
> left seat has never made any sense at all to me. ...

Exactly. Boats have their helm on the right, so that helmspersons (choke)
can more easily observe the traffic in their "give-way" zone, the RIGHT.
Its the same rules for aircraft, but from the left seat you have a much more
restricted view of that side.

In article
.rogers.com>,
"Icebound" > wrote:

> "Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >... Flying from the
> > left seat has never made any sense at all to me. ...
>
> Exactly. Boats have their helm on the right, so that helmspersons (choke)
> can more easily observe the traffic in their "give-way" zone, the RIGHT.
> Its the same rules for aircraft, but from the left seat you have a much more
> restricted view of that side.

Some boats have their helm on the right. Generally small powerboats.
Larger boats tend to have them on the centerline.

Launches (the small powerboats that take people from a dock out to a
boat on a mooring) almost always have the helm on the left (port) side.
Why? Because they come up to the starboard side of the moored boat, and
it makes it easier for the launch driver to be on the port side, towards
the boat he's approaching. Why do they come up to the starboard side of
the moored boat? Well, I'm not sure, but the explanation I've heard is
that the head (i.e. toilet) discharge is usually on the port side, which
seems like a pretty good reason to me.

Boats often have multiple helm stations. Sometimes there's one up on
the flybridge for use in good weather, and another down below where you
can stay warm and dry. Workboats often have a secondary helm station
near the stern, so you can control the boat while back there pulling in
fishing nets or whatever.

Nobody ever mentioned a twin engine aircraft, so this is my guess. In a
twin, where both engines turn in the same direction, there is a slight
asymmetry to the thrust vector, I believe, slightly to the right side of the
airplane. If you were in a turn, at low speed, and you lost and engine, you
would rather be turning into the engine with the power than away from it.
But since you don't know which engine is going to fail, you would rather
turn into the thrust vector than away from it. That's my theory.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
> turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
> landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
> cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.
>
> But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
> the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?

VFR hold = left as pilot usually sits on left side and has better view
though
IFR hold = right 1) to better separate from VFR hold 2) no actual need to
look out, esp. in IMC

regards

Herbert
PPL ASEL
IFR student
ardent Cessna lover (172+182)

"Walter Ellison" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Nobody ever mentioned a twin engine aircraft, so this is my guess. In a
> twin, where both engines turn in the same direction, there is a slight
> asymmetry to the thrust vector, I believe, slightly to the right side of
the
> airplane. If you were in a turn, at low speed, and you lost and engine,
you
> would rather be turning into the engine with the power than away from it.
> But since you don't know which engine is going to fail, you would rather
> turn into the thrust vector than away from it. That's my theory.
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
> > turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
> > landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
> > cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.
> >
> > But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
> > the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?
>
>

In a twin the thrust line is slightly to the right when climbing, just like
a single, which makes the plane yaw left, just like in a single. The left
engine in a twin is the "important" engine. If you lose an engine, you
prefer it not to be the left one. Turning into the one good engine is about
the most difficult thing to do in a twin. If you lose the left engine, it
might take all of your right rudder just to keep it going straight. You
probably don't have enough to perform a right hand turn. It is probably
easier to do a 270 degree left turn than a 90 degree right turn. I don't
think the right hand turns associated with a hold have anything to do with a
twin.


"Walter Ellison" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Nobody ever mentioned a twin engine aircraft, so this is my guess. In a
> twin, where both engines turn in the same direction, there is a slight
> asymmetry to the thrust vector, I believe, slightly to the right side of
the
> airplane. If you were in a turn, at low speed, and you lost and engine,
you
> would rather be turning into the engine with the power than away from it.
> But since you don't know which engine is going to fail, you would rather
> turn into the thrust vector than away from it. That's my theory.
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
> > turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
> > landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
> > cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.
> >
> > But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
> > the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?
>
>

Kevin Chandler wrote:
> In a twin the thrust line is slightly to the right when climbing, just like
> a single, which makes the plane yaw left, just like in a single. The left
> engine in a twin is the "important" engine.

In most twins. However there are some that have no critical engine and
some that have both engines as critical.

"Herbert Paulis" > wrote in message
...
>
> VFR hold = left as pilot usually sits on left side and has better view
> though
> IFR hold = right 1) to better separate from VFR hold 2) no actual need to
> look out, esp. in IMC
>

Where did you find that information on VFR holding? How would opposite
directions aid in separating VFR from IFR aircraft?

> In most twins. However there are some that have no critical engine and
> some that have both engines as critical.
>

I know that some planes have counter-rotating engines for the right side;
however, I never knew that planes existed with both engines critical. Are
you saying the counter rotating goes on the left and a normal engine on the
right? Is so, why???? What benefit would there be in that?

Just curious and learning something new everyday.

Kevin

What he is implying is that in some twins you have a major problem if you
lose either engine.

Mike
MU-2


"Kevin Chandler" > wrote in message
...
> > In most twins. However there are some that have no critical engine and
> > some that have both engines as critical.
> >
>
> I know that some planes have counter-rotating engines for the right side;
> however, I never knew that planes existed with both engines critical. Are
> you saying the counter rotating goes on the left and a normal engine on
the
> right? Is so, why???? What benefit would there be in that?
>
> Just curious and learning something new everyday.
>
> Kevin
>
>

Kevin Chandler wrote:
>>In most twins. However there are some that have no critical engine and
>>some that have both engines as critical.
>>
>
>
> I know that some planes have counter-rotating engines for the right side;
> however, I never knew that planes existed with both engines critical. Are
> you saying the counter rotating goes on the left and a normal engine on the
> right? Is so, why???? What benefit would there be in that?
>
> Just curious and learning something new everyday.



Any engine that turns its prop outboard is a critical engine. The P38
is an example of an airplane that has both engines turning outboard.
They did this for better manuverability.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Any engine that turns its prop outboard is a critical engine. The P38
> is an example of an airplane that has both engines turning outboard.
> They did this for better manuverability.
>

The propellers on the XP-38 turned inboard (at the top). The propellers on
the YP-38 and subsequent Lightnings turned outboard. The change was made
not to improve maneuverability but to reduce the downwash onto the wing
centersection juncture with the fuselage. The disturbed airflow was having
an adverse effect on the horizontal stabilizer.