Canyon Turns

[Marc Lattoni]

I found a new rental opportunity at CYBW (Springbank, Alberta) with a brand
new 172SP the other day and today went out for a Mountain check ride with
the chief CFI.

Now, I did two mountain courses over the past 18 months - one with my
original training outfit and one with the local flying club. All well. Ridge
approaches, choosing the right side of the valley, updrafts, downdrafts,
lenticular clouds, rotors, 45 degrees turns, etc.

Today we did canyon turns, not at 30, not at 45 but more than 45 degrees.
Sort of standing the airplane on its wingtip as we turn.

YIKES. I just could not get it all together. What a mess. Any more of a
mess and it would have been a real mess, the kind you need soap and Lysol
for. So, no more mountain flying until I can get this right.

Anyways folks, any suggestions? I am going to try to get this right another
day.

Marc

[Mike Rapoport]

Practice rolling the airplane into the turn slower, figure out the required
power and pitch. Keep in mind that if you start to climb or descend in a
60deg bank, the elevator won't do much. You either have to flatten out the
bank or get the pitch/power/bank right the first time. When you have that
nailed, start rolling into the turn faster. It gets fun. In real world
flying, you are probably better off with 45deg with flaps and a lower
airspeed then 60deg and a higher airspeed. Keep in mind that most planes
are rated to only +2G with the flaps extended, so don't do 60deg banks with
flaps.

Mike
MU-2

"Marc Lattoni" > wrote in message
news:aJQ3c.73545$Ff2.46917@clgrps12...
> I found a new rental opportunity at CYBW (Springbank, Alberta) with a
brand
> new 172SP the other day and today went out for a Mountain check ride with
> the chief CFI.
>
> Now, I did two mountain courses over the past 18 months - one with my
> original training outfit and one with the local flying club. All well.
Ridge
> approaches, choosing the right side of the valley, updrafts, downdrafts,
> lenticular clouds, rotors, 45 degrees turns, etc.
>
> Today we did canyon turns, not at 30, not at 45 but more than 45 degrees.
> Sort of standing the airplane on its wingtip as we turn.
>
> YIKES. I just could not get it all together. What a mess. Any more of a
> mess and it would have been a real mess, the kind you need soap and Lysol
> for. So, no more mountain flying until I can get this right.
>
> Anyways folks, any suggestions? I am going to try to get this right
another
> day.
>
> Marc
>
>

[John Harper]

There's a BIG difference between 45 and 60 degree banked
turns - which is why I practice 60 degree turns, makes 45 deg
turns seem a piece of cake. You need LOTS of pull on the yoke.
Start pulling at 30, and start to pull a lot harder at 45. In my
182 it takes two hands to hold the plane level through 360 deg,
unless you retrim (which I prefer not to, although this is a matter
of taste). If the nose starts to drop, take out some of the bank
AS WELL AS pulling back.

John


"Marc Lattoni" > wrote in message
news:aJQ3c.73545$Ff2.46917@clgrps12...
> I found a new rental opportunity at CYBW (Springbank, Alberta) with a
brand
> new 172SP the other day and today went out for a Mountain check ride with
> the chief CFI.
>
> Now, I did two mountain courses over the past 18 months - one with my
> original training outfit and one with the local flying club. All well.
Ridge
> approaches, choosing the right side of the valley, updrafts, downdrafts,
> lenticular clouds, rotors, 45 degrees turns, etc.
>
> Today we did canyon turns, not at 30, not at 45 but more than 45 degrees.
> Sort of standing the airplane on its wingtip as we turn.
>
> YIKES. I just could not get it all together. What a mess. Any more of a
> mess and it would have been a real mess, the kind you need soap and Lysol
> for. So, no more mountain flying until I can get this right.
>
> Anyways folks, any suggestions? I am going to try to get this right
another
> day.
>
> Marc
>
>

[Robert Moore]

"Marc Lattoni" wrote

> Today we did canyon turns, not at 30, not at 45 but more than 45
> degrees. Sort of standing the airplane on its wingtip as we turn.

Yep! We fought this battle for about two weeks last year.
There were two groups, one was the slow down and use flaps
with a shallow angle of bank and the other group (me) quoting
the aerodynamic textbook solution of flying at maneuver speed
and using about 75 degrees angle-of-bank.

Quoting from "Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators":

"The aerodynamic limit of turn radius requires that increased
velocity be utilized to produce increasing load factors and
greater angles of bank"

"The maneuver speed is the minimum speed necessary to develop
aerodynamically the limit load factor and it produces the
minimum turn radius within aerodynamic and structural limits."

Bob Moore

[C J Campbell]

The 55 degree steep turn is a required commercial maneuver. As you have
noted, it is harder than the 45 degree turn required of private pilots. It
must be maintained within five degrees of bank throughout the turn.

This is a *visual* maneuver. A lot of pilots try to look at the instruments
too much, especially the VSI. Nearly every student that I have seen who had
trouble with the 55 degree steep turn was looking at the VSI, but they don't
all realize that they are doing this. You would be amazed at how much better
they all do when I cover the instrument.

The best way to do this turn is to never look at the instruments at all.
Roll smoothly into a 55 degree bank and do not let the nose drop. You should
be able to see the slightest vertical movement of the nose against the
horizon. Let the horizon cut like a knife across the cowling -- don't let it
rise or fall in the least. Use whatever arm strength you have to hold it
there. When you roll out, the airplane will want to pitch up sharply. If you
have used trim to help you in the turn, be prepared for an even greater
pitch up moment. Anticipate this by gradually applying forward pressure on
the nose as you roll out. Again, watch the horizon on the cowling. Don't let
it rise or fall in the slightest.

The only instrument you want to even glance at is the attitude indicator. It
also will tell you whether the pitch is up or down, and confirm that you are
at the proper bank angle. Once you have confirmed that, don't look at it
again. It is not nearly as sensitive as watching the nose on horizon.

[Teacherjh]

>> The only instrument you want to even glance at is the attitude indicator
[during steep turns]

IF the goal is to maintain altitude +/- 100 feet, how do you know you did that
unless you glance at the altimiter?

jOSE

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:47:43 GMT, Robert Moore
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>There were two groups, one was the slow down and use flaps
>with a shallow angle of bank and the other group (me) quoting
>the aerodynamic textbook solution of flying at maneuver speed
>and using about 75 degrees angle-of-bank.

On 4/21/2000 John T. Lowry, PhD (author of: Performance of Light
Aircraft ISBN 1-56347-330-5) said:

Message-ID: >
Actually the best turnaround bank angle (least altitude lost per
degree turned) is slightly above 45 degrees. See Performance of
Light Aircraft p. 295. Rogers neglected the inclination of the
flight path angle. For GA aircraft the extra angle beyond 45
degrees is, admittedly, negligible. For a Cessna 172, flaps up, I
get 45.4 degrees for the best turnaround bank angle. Now for that
flamed-out jet fighter ...

And on 1 Nov 1999 07:11:02 -0700:
Message-ID: >
Best turnaround bank angle phi (least altitude loss per angle
turned through) for a gliding airplane is given by:

cos(phi) = (sqrt(2)/2)*sqrt(1-k^2)

where k = CD0/CLmax + CLmax/(pi*e*A)

where CD0 is the parasite drag coefficient, CLmax is the maximum
lift coefficient for the airplane's flaps configuration, e is the
airplane efficiency factor, and A is the wing aspect ratio. I know
most ng readers hate those darned formulas, but that's the way the
world works.

For GA propeller-driven airplanes, k is a small number (0.116 for
a Cessna 172, flaps up) and so the best turnaround bank angle is
very closely the 45 degrees cited by Rogers and, much earlier, by
Langewiesche (Stick and Rudder, p. 358). For the above Cessna, for
instance, it's 45.4 degrees. For a flamed-out jet fighter,
however, things are considerably different.

The formulas above, along with formulas for the banked stall
speed, for banked gliding flight path angle, and for the minimum
altitude loss in a 180-degree turn, can all be found in my recent
book Performance of Light Aircraft, pp. 294-296. The following
seven pages then treat the return-to-airport maneuver, from start
of the takeoff roll to contact with the runway or terrain, in
excruciating detail. Including wind effects, the typical
four-second hesitation when the engine stops, etc.

See also:

Message-ID: >

[C J Campbell]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >> The only instrument you want to even glance at is the attitude
indicator
> [during steep turns]
>
> IF the goal is to maintain altitude +/- 100 feet, how do you know you did
that
> unless you glance at the altimiter?
>

If your nose does not pitch up or down then you will maintain your altitude.
You can glance at the altimeter to after you have completed the maneuver to
see how you did.

[David]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:47:43 GMT, Robert Moore
> wrote:

>"Marc Lattoni" wrote
>
>> Today we did canyon turns, not at 30, not at 45 but more than 45
>> degrees. Sort of standing the airplane on its wingtip as we turn.
>
>Yep! We fought this battle for about two weeks last year.
>There were two groups, one was the slow down and use flaps
>with a shallow angle of bank and the other group (me) quoting
>the aerodynamic textbook solution of flying at maneuver speed
>and using about 75 degrees angle-of-bank.
>
>Quoting from "Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators":
>
>"The aerodynamic limit of turn radius requires that increased
>velocity be utilized to produce increasing load factors and
>greater angles of bank"
>
>"The maneuver speed is the minimum speed necessary to develop
>aerodynamically the limit load factor and it produces the
>minimum turn radius within aerodynamic and structural limits."
>
>Bob Moore

I have been taught two ways of making Canyon Turns.
In New Zealand I was shown a maximum performance turn. First make a
note of horizontal references then roll over 60deg, applying full
power and pull hard on elevator with both hands. The stall warning
goes off all time. It works well but I could not pull hard enough to
get stall warning to operate (C172).

The alternative way was shown to me in the USA.
Apparently called a Texas Turn, this involved reducing throttle to
idle then pitch up until in 'White Arc'. Immediately apply full flap
then full power then full rudder. Some pull on elevator but
controlling airspeed.

The former causes lots of 'G' whilst the latter has almost no 'G' and
you turn in about one wingspan, very impressive.

It has been suggested that the latter could induce a spin. I've not
had anybody confirm but it appears to be something like a 'Wingover'
maneuver but I'm not into aerobatics! Any comments?



E-mail (Remove Space after pilot): pilot

[MikeM]

C J Campbell wrote:
> The 55 degree steep turn is a required commercial maneuver. As you have
> noted, it is harder than the 45 degree turn required of private pilots. It

A "canyon" turn has nothing to do with a "required commercial maneuver"!
It is a last ditch manuver to get out a bad situation.

Altitude loss may be acceptable, if you have some excess to begin with.

If the canyon is narrow, start the turn as close to one wall as you dare,
about two wingspans. You should have been near the "updraft" wall before
you figured out that you need to turn around.

If you have some excess speed, first pull up into a zoom which gains
altitude, and bleeds off the speed. Canyons are usually wider higher up.

As speed decays to 1.2Vs, deploy ~15 deg of flaps, roll away from
the canyon wall to a 45-60 deg bank, use lots of rudder, dont
pull elevator until the nose drops to about 20 below horizontal.

Since you started the turn with the nose up (in the zoom), you will
be most of the way around by the time the nose has dropped.

Roll out parallel to your original course. You will feel a small
g force as you pull out of the slight dive; you can modulate the
pull out by controlling elevator back pressure.

Done this way, you will finish the turn over the center of the
canyon, where presumably the floor of the canyon is "deeper",
so you have more ground clearance.

Starting from an airspeed of ~100mph, I can turn my 182 around
in a horizontal space of about 10 wingspans, while gaining
100 to 200 ft of altitude. btw- I have practised this dozens of
times. My airplane is hangared about 10 miles from some very deep,
very long, very narrow glacier-cut canyons. Have you ever skiied
at Alta, UT? Ever flown Lake Clark Pass in AK?

MikeM
Skylane '1MM

[ShawnD2112]

Why the flaps? Seems to add a bit of complexity to an otherwise simple
wingover.

Shawn
"MikeM" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > The 55 degree steep turn is a required commercial maneuver. As you have
> > noted, it is harder than the 45 degree turn required of private pilots.
It
>
> A "canyon" turn has nothing to do with a "required commercial maneuver"!
> It is a last ditch manuver to get out a bad situation.
>
> Altitude loss may be acceptable, if you have some excess to begin with.
>
> If the canyon is narrow, start the turn as close to one wall as you dare,
> about two wingspans. You should have been near the "updraft" wall before
> you figured out that you need to turn around.
>
> If you have some excess speed, first pull up into a zoom which gains
> altitude, and bleeds off the speed. Canyons are usually wider higher up.
>
> As speed decays to 1.2Vs, deploy ~15 deg of flaps, roll away from
> the canyon wall to a 45-60 deg bank, use lots of rudder, dont
> pull elevator until the nose drops to about 20 below horizontal.
>
> Since you started the turn with the nose up (in the zoom), you will
> be most of the way around by the time the nose has dropped.
>
> Roll out parallel to your original course. You will feel a small
> g force as you pull out of the slight dive; you can modulate the
> pull out by controlling elevator back pressure.
>
> Done this way, you will finish the turn over the center of the
> canyon, where presumably the floor of the canyon is "deeper",
> so you have more ground clearance.
>
> Starting from an airspeed of ~100mph, I can turn my 182 around
> in a horizontal space of about 10 wingspans, while gaining
> 100 to 200 ft of altitude. btw- I have practised this dozens of
> times. My airplane is hangared about 10 miles from some very deep,
> very long, very narrow glacier-cut canyons. Have you ever skiied
> at Alta, UT? Ever flown Lake Clark Pass in AK?
>
> MikeM
> Skylane '1MM
>

[Robert Moore]

Larry Dighera wrote

> Message-ID: >
> Actually the best turnaround bank angle (least altitude lost per
> degree turned) is slightly above 45 degrees.

Note that all of Lowery's discussions deal with minimizing altitude
loss during a "loss of power return to the field". This is not the
same as minimizing turn radius in a canyon where altitude loss may
not be a factor and where power is still available to maintain air-
speed during the high-g turn.

Once again, I did not post post anything about a "return to the field"
but simply quoted a highly respected aerodynamics text with regard to
minimizing turn radius.

Bob Moore

[Dudley Henriques]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 8...
> Larry Dighera wrote
>
> > Message-ID: >
> > Actually the best turnaround bank angle (least altitude lost per
> > degree turned) is slightly above 45 degrees.
>
> Note that all of Lowery's discussions deal with minimizing altitude
> loss during a "loss of power return to the field". This is not the
> same as minimizing turn radius in a canyon where altitude loss may
> not be a factor and where power is still available to maintain air-
> speed during the high-g turn.
>
> Once again, I did not post post anything about a "return to the field"
> but simply quoted a highly respected aerodynamics text with regard to
> minimizing turn radius.
>
> Bob Moore

Hi Bob;
There's a difference between a fighter turning at Vc (corner velocity) and a
Canyon Turn. Corner provides both maximum turn rate and minimum turn radius
ONLY if maximum available radial g is applied! Below corner the fighter is
aerodynamically limited at the Cl line, and above corner limited by the max
available load factor out to the limit LF.
A Canyon turn isn't a constant altitude turn against a maximum g like a
fighter turning at it's Vc. It's in fact, partly an unloaded turn through
the vertical plane if airspeed has to be bled, or decreasing in altitude
through the steepest part of the bank angle used if initiated below cruise.
These are the subtle differences between these two turns.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Casey Wilson]

My apologies for coming in late, if this has already been mentioned. How
about a chandelle or wing-over?
http://www.skyjackmotorsports.com/IAC24/aresti.html

[Dan Thomas]

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message news:<O634c.279$pA3.40@newsfe1-win>...
> Why the flaps? Seems to add a bit of complexity to an otherwise simple
> wingover.
>
> Shawn

Flaps lower the stall speed, which rises markedly in a steep
turn. You need all the margin you can get.
In a 172 the first 20 degrees of flap lower the stall the most, and
the last 20 is mostly drag. We do minimum-radius turns at 70 kts, 20
flap, 60 degrees of bank.

Dan

[PJ Hunt]

"MikeM" > wrote in message
...

>Ever flown Lake Clark Pass in AK?

I wouldn't classify that as a tight canyon. You could turn a C130 around in
there.

PJ

[C J Campbell]

"MikeM" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > The 55 degree steep turn is a required commercial maneuver. As you have
> > noted, it is harder than the 45 degree turn required of private pilots.
It
>
> A "canyon" turn has nothing to do with a "required commercial maneuver"!
> It is a last ditch manuver to get out a bad situation.
>

Maybe so. But the OP was basically describing a steep turn even if he did
call it a canyon turn.

[Brian Burger]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Casey Wilson wrote:

> My apologies for coming in late, if this has already been mentioned. How
> about a chandelle or wing-over?
> http://www.skyjackmotorsports.com/IAC24/aresti.html

Cool Aresti diagrams, but... if you're really, honestly in need of a
canyon turn, you're unlikely to have the excess airspeed you need to pull
a wingover or chandelle off, and if you're turning away from rising
terrain you might not have the altitude needed to trade for the needed
airspeed either...

Sparky Imeson's "Mountain Flying Bible" points this out at least three
times; he's in favour of the 60-degree bank, with flaps up to full as
appropriate, and power as needed. Personally, doing these turns in a 172N
starting at ~80 KIAS, I've gotten the plane turned around inside the long
dimension of a high school running track that was below us - that's about
200-250ft, give or take.

Let me just throw out a plug for Mr. Imeson's great book, while I'm at it.
I've only had my copy of the "Mountain Flying Bible" for six months, but
it's already got a well-thumbed look to it. I keep my copy on the kitchen
table, and review bits and pieces when I've got a spare five minutes, in
addition to more regular reviews. (http://www.mountainflying.com/ is his
website; Amazon has his books too.)

Brian - PP-ASEL/Night -

[John T Lowry]

I second you on Sparky Imeson's book, also on the low probability that, in a
relatively low-powered airplane like the 172, that you'd have enough
airspeed or altitude for a fancy canyon turn when you need it.

There is a speed (dependent on gross weight, density altitude, and flaps
configuration) called the "Banked Absolute Ceiling Speed" Vbac and a
corresponding angle, "Banked Absolute Ceiling Angle" PHIbac. If you have
those written down for a few likely cases (e.g., max gross wt., 12000 ft,
flaps up; two or three other combinations) and keep your airspeed above Vbac
and your bank below PHIbac, you can turn level. Of course that may not be a
very short radius turn (that radius should be written down in your cheat
sheet also). So you have to stay out of canyons of width narrower than twice
that turn radius.

For how to calculate all this stuff, see the Maneuvering chapter of
Performance of Light Aircraft.

John

--
John T Lowry, PhD
Flight Physics
5217 Old Spicewood Springs Rd, #312
Austin, Texas 78731
(512) 231-9391

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Casey Wilson wrote:
>
> > My apologies for coming in late, if this has already been mentioned.
How
> > about a chandelle or wing-over?
> > http://www.skyjackmotorsports.com/IAC24/aresti.html
>
> Cool Aresti diagrams, but... if you're really, honestly in need of a
> canyon turn, you're unlikely to have the excess airspeed you need to pull
> a wingover or chandelle off, and if you're turning away from rising
> terrain you might not have the altitude needed to trade for the needed
> airspeed either...
>
> Sparky Imeson's "Mountain Flying Bible" points this out at least three
> times; he's in favour of the 60-degree bank, with flaps up to full as
> appropriate, and power as needed. Personally, doing these turns in a 172N
> starting at ~80 KIAS, I've gotten the plane turned around inside the long
> dimension of a high school running track that was below us - that's about
> 200-250ft, give or take.
>
> Let me just throw out a plug for Mr. Imeson's great book, while I'm at it.
> I've only had my copy of the "Mountain Flying Bible" for six months, but
> it's already got a well-thumbed look to it. I keep my copy on the kitchen
> table, and review bits and pieces when I've got a spare five minutes, in
> addition to more regular reviews. (http://www.mountainflying.com/ is his
> website; Amazon has his books too.)
>
> Brian - PP-ASEL/Night -

[Casey Wilson]

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Casey Wilson wrote:
>
> > My apologies for coming in late, if this has already been mentioned.
How
> > about a chandelle or wing-over?
> > http://www.skyjackmotorsports.com/IAC24/aresti.html
>
> Cool Aresti diagrams, but... if you're really, honestly in need of a
> canyon turn, you're unlikely to have the excess airspeed you need to pull
> a wingover or chandelle off, and if you're turning away from rising
> terrain you might not have the altitude needed to trade for the needed
> airspeed either...
>
> Sparky Imeson's "Mountain Flying Bible" points this out at least three
> times; he's in favour of the 60-degree bank, with flaps up to full as
> appropriate, and power as needed. Personally, doing these turns in a 172N
> starting at ~80 KIAS, I've gotten the plane turned around inside the long
> dimension of a high school running track that was below us - that's about
> 200-250ft, give or take.

Thanks for the book tip, Brian. First, about the mountain flying. All
my experience has been in the Southern Sierra Madre, south of Mt. Whitney,
generally, although I've poked the nose over a few other ranges and
ridgelines. Maybe I'm too conservative, but I don't fly "up" a canyon blind.
I have to pretty much know what's up there before I let the ridgelines get
above the wings. Same thing going down-canyon -- I've got to know where it
opens up.
As far as the chandelle and wing-over, I was looking for opinions. Now
you piqued my interest in horsing the club's 172S into a 60-degree-bank turn
with full-flaps. I don't remember doing that with flaps. I've got a date
with my CFII next week. I wonder if the club has parachutes....
Just to pick a nit... the straight sections of the high school track
(presuming it is around a football field) is closer to 400 feet. Still a
darn tight turn, though.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Robert Moore wrote:
>
> Yep! We fought this battle for about two weeks last year.
> There were two groups, one was the slow down and use flaps
> with a shallow angle of bank and the other group (me) quoting
> the aerodynamic textbook solution of flying at maneuver speed
> and using about 75 degrees angle-of-bank.

Well, I'm almost certainly going to be at max angle of climb by the time I decide
I need to turn around, so maneuvering speed is out of the question. I'll be starting
my turn with 24 degrees of flaps at 70 mph.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Mike Rapoport]

Before you try this you should know that the load rating for your 172 with
the flaps down is 2.0G and the load factor in a level 60deg turn is 2.0g.

Mike
MU-2


"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brian Burger" > wrote in message
> ia.tc.ca...
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Casey Wilson wrote:
> >
> > > My apologies for coming in late, if this has already been mentioned.
> How
> > > about a chandelle or wing-over?
> > > http://www.skyjackmotorsports.com/IAC24/aresti.html
> >
> > Cool Aresti diagrams, but... if you're really, honestly in need of a
> > canyon turn, you're unlikely to have the excess airspeed you need to
pull
> > a wingover or chandelle off, and if you're turning away from rising
> > terrain you might not have the altitude needed to trade for the needed
> > airspeed either...
> >
> > Sparky Imeson's "Mountain Flying Bible" points this out at least three
> > times; he's in favour of the 60-degree bank, with flaps up to full as
> > appropriate, and power as needed. Personally, doing these turns in a
172N
> > starting at ~80 KIAS, I've gotten the plane turned around inside the
long
> > dimension of a high school running track that was below us - that's
about
> > 200-250ft, give or take.
>
> Thanks for the book tip, Brian. First, about the mountain flying. All
> my experience has been in the Southern Sierra Madre, south of Mt. Whitney,
> generally, although I've poked the nose over a few other ranges and
> ridgelines. Maybe I'm too conservative, but I don't fly "up" a canyon
blind.
> I have to pretty much know what's up there before I let the ridgelines get
> above the wings. Same thing going down-canyon -- I've got to know where it
> opens up.
> As far as the chandelle and wing-over, I was looking for opinions.
Now
> you piqued my interest in horsing the club's 172S into a 60-degree-bank
turn
> with full-flaps. I don't remember doing that with flaps. I've got a date
> with my CFII next week. I wonder if the club has parachutes....
> Just to pick a nit... the straight sections of the high school track
> (presuming it is around a football field) is closer to 400 feet. Still a
> darn tight turn, though.
>
>

[John T Lowry]

That "mathematically correct" minimum radius turn, at the load factor limit
(3.8 g, 74.7 deg bank) at Va, is not realizeable in practice. For the Cessna
172 I once calculated you'd have (I forget the altitude and gross weight),
under those circumstances, a rate of descent of about 3400 fpm. Unless the
canyon's narrowing AND the floor's rising (relative to your flight path),
you might be allowed some descent in the few seconds of the turn, but not
THAT much!

John.

--
John T Lowry, PhD
Flight Physics
5217 Old Spicewood Springs Rd, #312
Austin, Texas 78731
(512) 231-9391

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Robert Moore wrote:
> >
> > Yep! We fought this battle for about two weeks last year.
> > There were two groups, one was the slow down and use flaps
> > with a shallow angle of bank and the other group (me) quoting
> > the aerodynamic textbook solution of flying at maneuver speed
> > and using about 75 degrees angle-of-bank.
>
> Well, I'm almost certainly going to be at max angle of climb by the time I
decide
> I need to turn around, so maneuvering speed is out of the question. I'll
be starting
> my turn with 24 degrees of flaps at 70 mph.
>
> George Patterson
> Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
would
> not yield to the tongue.

[Dale]

In article .net>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> Before you try this you should know that the load rating for your 172 with
> the flaps down is 2.0G and the load factor in a level 60deg turn is 2.0g.

I do believe the load limit is 3G with the flaps down.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Mike Rapoport]

Ary your sure? From memory, the requrement is 2.0G (from a Barry Schieff
book). In my flight manual (not a 172) the limit is listed as 2.0G.

Mike
MU-2


"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article .net>,
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
> > Before you try this you should know that the load rating for your 172
with
> > the flaps down is 2.0G and the load factor in a level 60deg turn is
2.0g.
>
> I do believe the load limit is 3G with the flaps down.
>
> --
> Dale L. Falk
>
> There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
> as simply messing around with airplanes.
>
> http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Dale]

In article .net>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> Ary your sure? From memory, the requrement is 2.0G (from a Barry Schieff
> book). In my flight manual (not a 172) the limit is listed as 2.0G.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

Yeah, my info manual for the 172P shows 3g with flaps down..pretty sure
it's the same for the 172S

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Doug]

When you NEED a canyon turn, you usually are already at slow airspeed,
due to the fact that you have been trying to climb (and can't outclimb
the terrain, so you want to turn around). I teach using best angle of
climb (Vx), go over to one side of the canyon, and make only as steep
a turn as necessary to turn before you come to the other side of the
canyon.

Use of flaps, in my opinion, unecesarily complicates things. But it
can be done with or without flaps. Like Mike R pointed out, max wing
loading goes down with the flaps down, and mountains do have
turbulence, so lots of turbulence would suggest not using flaps.

You can practice this by doing the turns "above" the canyon, and when
you get proficient, drop down "into" the canyon. Use the steepest bank
angle you dare. It is suprising how small a canyon you can be in, and
still be able to turn around. You may want to get some instruction in
"steep turn stalls".

If you want true, scary, thrilling and dangerous mountain flying, the
wilderness airstrips in Idaho await you. There are primitive airports
in the bottom of some BIG canyons and you can pretty much forget about
staying over an emergency putdown area, they don't exist. Don't try it
on a hot summer afternoon, morning and after 6 pm are best. Get some
local instruction, and you will be flying patterns down in the bottom
of 4000' deep canyons landing on bumpy, short grass fields. Yikes!
Takeoffs are just as exciting.

[Mike Rapoport]

OK I guess that the requirment is a *minimium* of 2.0G and some airplanes
are higher.

Mike
MU-2

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article .net>,
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
> > Ary your sure? From memory, the requrement is 2.0G (from a Barry
Schieff
> > book). In my flight manual (not a 172) the limit is listed as 2.0G.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
>
> Yeah, my info manual for the 172P shows 3g with flaps down..pretty sure
> it's the same for the 172S
>
> --
> Dale L. Falk
>
> There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
> as simply messing around with airplanes.
>
> http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Before you try this you should know that the load rating for your 172 with
> the flaps down is 2.0G and the load factor in a level 60deg turn is 2.0g.
>

What's a "level 60 degree turn"?

[Doug]

This is based on my experience flying a small, single engine, GA plane
around Colorado and Idaho.

From my experience, you usually wont be at manuevering speed for a
canyon turnaround, because you are trying to climb. You can't climb
fast enough to outclimb the terrain. You are trying climb out
somewhere around Vx to Vy.

I suppose it all depends on what you are doing. The times when I have
NEEDED a small radius turn I was in a narrow canyon, flying a pattern
to an unimproved strip. In another case, I went up a canyon that ended
at a mountain, not at the airport. (I went up a dead end canyon,
mistakingly thinking there was an airport there.) It was hot, bumpy, I
was heavy, and I was slow.

I suppose if you are flying high speed manuevers in canyons and want
to turn around, then turning at Va might be an option. But that is not
how most of us fly in the mountains. Most of us are either climbing
out of an airport, and can't outclimb the terrain, or are headed up a
canyon, it's not working out due to steep terrain and downdrafts, so
we have to turn around. We are flying at speeds closer to Vy and Vx,
not at Va. If I could get Va, I'd pull up until at Vx and might not
need to turn around.

Most small planes will barely climb at Va. My Husky has a Va of 94. At
gross weight on a hot day, I would not be climbing much at that speed,
maybe 50-100 fpm. And a Husky climbs well (but not at Va it doesn't).
The Cessnas I have flown are similar (though most don't climb as well
as my Husky).

If you are talking about flying fighter jets in the mountains, zooming
around the canyons, you have LOTS of power, then I would suspect it is
different. Get enough power, your climb problems are over, just go
straight up!

Robert Moore > wrote in message >...
> "Marc Lattoni" wrote
>
> > Today we did canyon turns, not at 30, not at 45 but more than 45
> > degrees. Sort of standing the airplane on its wingtip as we turn.
>
> Yep! We fought this battle for about two weeks last year.
> There were two groups, one was the slow down and use flaps
> with a shallow angle of bank and the other group (me) quoting
> the aerodynamic textbook solution of flying at maneuver speed
> and using about 75 degrees angle-of-bank.
>
> Quoting from "Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators":
>
> "The aerodynamic limit of turn radius requires that increased
> velocity be utilized to produce increasing load factors and
> greater angles of bank"
>
> "The maneuver speed is the minimum speed necessary to develop
> aerodynamically the limit load factor and it produces the
> minimum turn radius within aerodynamic and structural limits."
>
> Bob Moore

[[email protected]]

"Marc Lattoni" > wrote in message news:<aJQ3c.73545$Ff2.46917@clgrps12>...
> I found a new rental opportunity at CYBW (Springbank, Alberta) with a brand
> new 172SP the other day and today went out for a Mountain check ride with
> the chief CFI.
>
> Now, I did two mountain courses over the past 18 months - one with my
> original training outfit and one with the local flying club. All well. Ridge
> approaches, choosing the right side of the valley, updrafts, downdrafts,
> lenticular clouds, rotors, 45 degrees turns, etc.
>
> Today we did canyon turns, not at 30, not at 45 but more than 45 degrees.
> Sort of standing the airplane on its wingtip as we turn.
>
> YIKES. I just could not get it all together. What a mess. Any more of a
> mess and it would have been a real mess, the kind you need soap and Lysol
> for. So, no more mountain flying until I can get this right.
>
> Anyways folks, any suggestions? I am going to try to get this right another
> day.
>
> Marc

I live here in the east coast where canyon flying is an optional
pasttime to make a fun flight. The one thing I noticed was the need to
learn a canyon escape turn at the altitude of almost hitting the trees
of brush.

So, let the aircraft get there and escape by the high bank angle turn.
And the use of the attitude indicator to ensure a correct steep well
coordinated turn is to be reserved for practicing. Just practice the
bank in good power conditions!!!!!! Except at less than 30 feet.
This is the altitude where the illusion trapped pilot panics in a real
western caynon event.

And the altitude and power available are very substanially not at the
practiced levels!

So, the practice of taking the moountain flying course to learn of
mountain illusions is highly recommended. Actually it is mandatory.

The books on mountainflying are poorly written in my readings and the
experienced mountain flyer is truely going to teach things they hardly
acknowledge as needed facts. The philosopher warns of this school
knowledge, to always go into a new area of flying, with the same eyes
as when you first got a private license. The book learning is poor at
best compared to the expert in the field of a flying specialty.


Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA

[Paul Sengupta]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > Before you try this you should know that the load rating for your 172
with
> > the flaps down is 2.0G and the load factor in a level 60deg turn is
2.0g.
> >
>
> What's a "level 60 degree turn"?

One where you don't lose or gain altitude.

But I know what you're getting at! :-)

Paul

[vincent p. norris]

>> What's a "level 60 degree turn"?
>
>One where you don't lose or gain altitude.
>
>But I know what you're getting at! :-)

The guy who gives me my BFR usually askes me for a level 70 degree
tlurn each way. Is that unusual?

The trick is to get the nose above the horizon whole rolling into the
turn, and keeping it there.

vince norris

[G.R. Patterson III]

"vincent p. norris" wrote:
>
> The guy who gives me my BFR usually askes me for a level 70 degree
> tlurn each way. Is that unusual?

Depends on the plane. Mine is not approved for aerobatic maneuvers, which includes
any banks steeper than 60 degrees.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[John Galban]

vincent p. norris > wrote in message >...
> >> What's a "level 60 degree turn"?
> >
> >One where you don't lose or gain altitude.
> >
> >But I know what you're getting at! :-)
>
> The guy who gives me my BFR usually askes me for a level 70 degree
> tlurn each way. Is that unusual?
>
Yes, it's a little unusual. I think the FARs require that you wear
a parachute to do that. There are exemptions for manuevers required
for a rating, but I don't think a 70 degree banked turn is one of
them.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[John Galban]

(Doug) wrote in message >...
>
> If you want true, scary, thrilling and dangerous mountain flying, the
> wilderness airstrips in Idaho await you.

Those are the kinds of canyons that "canyon turns" were made for.

> Get some
> local instruction, and you will be flying patterns down in the bottom
> of 4000' deep canyons landing on bumpy, short grass fields. Yikes!
> Takeoffs are just as exciting.

Definitely get some instruction. Last year a guy killed his family
by trying to turn around in a canyon after departing a popular Idaho
strip. He started the turn with a high rate of speed, from the
middle(!) of the canyon. Ended up planting his Bo into the canyon
wall. A little education in the proper execution of a turn in a
canyon would have made all the difference.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)