Flap angles

[DeltaDeltaDelta]

I was leafing through the C172N POH for some flap settings yesterday and a
thought occured to me: there was a post here about some verions of the 172
having different full flap angles - some have 40 and 38 degrees. So i
wonder, how do they determine these angles for all flap settings when the
plane's still on the drawing board? Or is it an airfoil design thing? I've
noted that for example the Learjet 45 has first setting at 8 degrees. How do
they determine what is the right angle for each setting?

Triple Delta

[HECTOP]

"DeltaDeltaDelta" > wrote in message
...
>I was leafing through the C172N POH for some flap settings yesterday and a

If you read Russian (who knows, you might :), check out this paper:
http://www.sla.ru/aviamaster/zipfiles/mexan_wing.pdf
it pretty much answers all your questions and more.

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[John T Lowry]

They don't write the POH (AFM) until they've performance tested the
prototypes.

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

"DeltaDeltaDelta" > wrote in message
...
> I was leafing through the C172N POH for some flap settings yesterday
and a
> thought occured to me: there was a post here about some verions of the
172
> having different full flap angles - some have 40 and 38 degrees. So i
> wonder, how do they determine these angles for all flap settings when
the
> plane's still on the drawing board? Or is it an airfoil design thing?
I've
> noted that for example the Learjet 45 has first setting at 8 degrees.
How do
> they determine what is the right angle for each setting?
>
> Triple Delta
>
>

[Blanche]

Another option is to look for an aerodynamics course at a college
near you.

[Bob Martin]

"John T Lowry" > wrote in message et>...
> They don't write the POH (AFM) until they've performance tested the
> prototypes.

I think he's asking why manufacturers designate the flap settings as
they do (not which setting should be used when). For example, the
G550 has flap settings of 0, 10, 20, and 39; his question is something
like "why 39 and not 40?" or "why do some 172's have 40 degrees of
flap avalible and others only have 38?" Or "why are flap settings not
evenly spaced?" Basically, how do they determine what flap intervals
should be available?

[Teacherjh]

>>
"why do some 172's have 40 degrees of
flap avalible and others only have 38?"
<<

Dunno about 38, but the newer ones have 30, because full 40 degree flaps were
causing problems (which I can't recall) due to poor technique of some sort.

Might have something to do with slips with flaps, IIRC.

Jose

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

[HECTOP]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> Dunno about 38, but the newer ones have 30, because full 40 degree flaps
> were
> causing problems (which I can't recall) due to poor technique of some
> sort.

at 40 deg they sucked for crosswinds and that probably ruined a student or
two complete with cross-control flutter, but were great for "carrier-deck"
landings

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[zatatime]

On 16 May 2004 02:06:53 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

>>>
>"why do some 172's have 40 degrees of
>flap avalible and others only have 38?"
><<
>
>Dunno about 38, but the newer ones have 30, because full 40 degree flaps were
>causing problems (which I can't recall) due to poor technique of some sort.
>
>Might have something to do with slips with flaps, IIRC.
>
>Jose

Yep, slips with flaps was part of it, but a nose high attitude with
full flaps on go-around is what bit most of the people before they
changed to 30.

z

[Rick Durden]

Jose,

> "why do some 172's have 40 degrees of
> flap avalible and others only have 38?"
> <<
>
> Dunno about 38, but the newer ones have 30, because full 40 degree flaps were
> causing problems (which I can't recall) due to poor technique of some sort.
>
> Might have something to do with slips with flaps, IIRC.
>
I'm always amazed at the amount of misinformation running around here.

Cessna switched to 30 degrees of flap deflection maximum on a heavier
model of the 172 because of rate of climb requirements during a balked
landing under the FARs. The earlier airplanes could meet the rate of
climb with 40 degrees, the newer ones could not, so flap travel was
limited to 30 degrees.

There is no problem with slips with full flaps on a 172, it's another
of aviation's old wives tales.

For an interesting descent rate, fly a Cessna O-1/L-19 (Model 305)
Bird Dog. It had 60 degrees of flaps available.

All the best,
Rick

[G.R. Patterson III]

Rick Durden wrote:
>
> Cessna switched to 30 degrees of flap deflection maximum on a heavier
> model of the 172 because of rate of climb requirements during a balked
> landing under the FARs.

That's also the reason the 160hp Maule has only 40 degrees of flaps while more
powerful ones have 44 degrees. Even at that, max gross is 200 pounds less than the
180hp version.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[EDR]

In article >, Rick
Durden > wrote:

> There is no problem with slips with full flaps on a 172, it's another
> of aviation's old wives tales.

Why does the 1979 C172N have a placard by the flap switch that states,
"AVOID SLIPS WITH FLAPS EXTENDED"?

[HECTOP]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> Why does the 1979 C172N have a placard by the flap switch that states,
> "AVOID SLIPS WITH FLAPS EXTENDED"?

The insightful folks at Cessna were experimenting with trolling USENET.

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Bob Moore]

EDR > wrote

> Why does the 1979 C172N have a placard by the flap switch that states,
> "AVOID SLIPS WITH FLAPS EXTENDED"?

The following paragraph is copied from the book "Cessna, Wings for the
World" written by William D. Thompson, an Engineering Test Pilot and
later Manager of Flight Test and Aerodynamics at the Cessna Aircraft Co.

I would hope that everyone would copy this to their documents folder
and recall it every time that the subject comes up.

"With the advent of the large slotted flaps in the C-170, C-180,
and C-172 we encountered a nose down pitch in forward slips with
the wing flaps deflected. In some cases it was severe enough to
lift the pilot against his seat belt if he was slow in checking
the motion. For this reason a caution note was placed in most of
the owner's manuals under "Landings" reading "Slips should be
avoided with flap settings greater than 30° due to a downward pitch
encountered under certain combinations of airspeed, side-slip angle,
and center of gravity loadings". Since wing-low drift correction in
cross-wind landings is normally performed with a minimum flap
setting (for better rudder control) this limitation did not apply
to that maneuver. The cause of the pitching motion is the transition
of a strong wing downwash over the tail in straight flight to a
lessened downwash angle over part of the horizontal tail caused by the
influence of a relative "upwash increment" from the upturned aileron
in slipping flight. Although not stated in the owner's manuals, we
privately encouraged flight instructors to explore these effects at
high altitude, and to pass on the information to their students.
This phenomenon was elusive and sometimes hard to duplicate, but it
was thought that a pilot should be aware of its existence and know
how to counter-act it if it occurs close to the ground.
When the larger dorsal fin was adopted in the 1972 C-172L, this side-
slip pitch phenomenon was eliminated, but the cautionary placard was
retained. In the higher-powered C-172P and C-R172 the placard was
applicable to a mild pitch "pumping" motion resulting from flap
outboard-end vortex impingement on the horizontal tail at some
combinations of side-slip angle, power, and airspeed."

Bob Moore

[John Pelchat]

zatatime > wrote in message >...
> On 16 May 2004 02:06:53 GMT, (Teacherjh)
> wrote:
>
> >>>
> >"why do some 172's have 40 degrees of
> >flap avalible and others only have 38?"
> ><<
> >
> >Dunno about 38, but the newer ones have 30, because full 40 degree flaps were
> >causing problems (which I can't recall) due to poor technique of some sort.
> >
> >Might have something to do with slips with flaps, IIRC.
> >
> >Jose
>
> Yep, slips with flaps was part of it, but a nose high attitude with
> full flaps on go-around is what bit most of the people before they
> changed to 30.
>
> z

This month's edition of Flying has a good article by Richard Collins
about landings and a lot of the article is devoted to the use (or when
appropriate, the non-use) of flaps

Blue Skies

John

[zatatime]

On Sun, 16 May 2004 15:14:19 GMT, Bob Moore
> wrote:

>EDR > wrote
>
>> Why does the 1979 C172N have a placard by the flap switch that states,
>> "AVOID SLIPS WITH FLAPS EXTENDED"?
>
>The following paragraph is copied from the book "Cessna, Wings for the
>World" written by William D. Thompson, an Engineering Test Pilot and
>later Manager of Flight Test and Aerodynamics at the Cessna Aircraft Co.
>
>I would hope that everyone would copy this to their documents folder
>and recall it every time that the subject comes up.
>
>"With the advent of the large slotted flaps in the C-170, C-180,
>and C-172 we encountered a nose down pitch in forward slips with
>the wing flaps deflected. In some cases it was severe enough to
>lift the pilot against his seat belt if he was slow in checking
>the motion. For this reason a caution note was placed in most of
>the owner's manuals under "Landings" reading "Slips should be
>avoided with flap settings greater than 30° due to a downward pitch
>encountered under certain combinations of airspeed, side-slip angle,
>and center of gravity loadings". Since wing-low drift correction in
>cross-wind landings is normally performed with a minimum flap
>setting (for better rudder control) this limitation did not apply
>to that maneuver. The cause of the pitching motion is the transition
>of a strong wing downwash over the tail in straight flight to a
>lessened downwash angle over part of the horizontal tail caused by the
>influence of a relative "upwash increment" from the upturned aileron
>in slipping flight. Although not stated in the owner's manuals, we
>privately encouraged flight instructors to explore these effects at
>high altitude, and to pass on the information to their students.
>This phenomenon was elusive and sometimes hard to duplicate, but it
>was thought that a pilot should be aware of its existence and know
>how to counter-act it if it occurs close to the ground.
>When the larger dorsal fin was adopted in the 1972 C-172L, this side-
>slip pitch phenomenon was eliminated, but the cautionary placard was
>retained. In the higher-powered C-172P and C-R172 the placard was
>applicable to a mild pitch "pumping" motion resulting from flap
>outboard-end vortex impingement on the horizontal tail at some
>combinations of side-slip angle, power, and airspeed."
>
>Bob Moore


Thank you for this information! I've experienced this at high
altitude and try to pass along the info to others, but most of the
time I receive stubborn feedback like "I've never had a problem
so...." Now I can show documentation! One of my biggest pet peeves
are CFIs who actually teach people to slip a 172 with flaps.

Thanks again.
z

[Roger Halstead]

On 16 May 2004 09:17:09 -0700, (John Pelchat)
wrote:

>zatatime > wrote in message >...
>> On 16 May 2004 02:06:53 GMT, (Teacherjh)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>
>> >"why do some 172's have 40 degrees of
>> >flap avalible and others only have 38?"
>> ><<
>> >
>> >Dunno about 38, but the newer ones have 30, because full 40 degree flaps were
>> >causing problems (which I can't recall) due to poor technique of some sort.
>> >
>> >Might have something to do with slips with flaps, IIRC.
>> >
>> >Jose
>>
>> Yep, slips with flaps was part of it, but a nose high attitude with
>> full flaps on go-around is what bit most of the people before they
>> changed to 30.
>>
>> z
>
>This month's edition of Flying has a good article by Richard Collins
>about landings and a lot of the article is devoted to the use (or when
>appropriate, the non-use) of flaps

If you are referring to the May issue (we don't all receive our issues
at the same time) then no it doesn't.

It does have one by Tom Benneson though on page 84.

There's a lot in that article to which I take issue.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Blue Skies
>
>John

[Greg Esres]

<<One of my biggest pet peeves are CFIs who actually teach people to
slip a 172 with flaps.>>

Interesting that the only thing you picked up on was that which
supported your preconception.

[John Gaquin]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
>
> Thank you for this information! .... One of my biggest pet peeves
> are CFIs who actually teach people to slip a 172 with flaps.


???????

Did you read what Cpt Moore posted?

[Rick Durden]

Bob,

Yeah, Bill Thompson sometimes got a little sensational to sell his
books. sigh

The POH for the new 172s deals specifically with the subject. Slips
with full flaps can cause some oscillation in the control wheel, but
it does not affect control of the aircraft. And that was only in a
very significant, controls nearly to the stop, slip. For a normal
crosswind landing, it's a non-event. Pilots are more at risk by
landing with partial flaps and losing control because they touch down
fast than landing with full flaps at a slower touchdown speed.

Ah, well, the discussion will continue without resolution forever,
while pilots continue to land with partial flaps and lose control of
their airplanes on rollout and then are puzzled as to why it happened.

All the best,
Rick

Bob Moore > wrote in message >...
> EDR > wrote
>
> > Why does the 1979 C172N have a placard by the flap switch that states,
> > "AVOID SLIPS WITH FLAPS EXTENDED"?
>
> The following paragraph is copied from the book "Cessna, Wings for the
> World" written by William D. Thompson, an Engineering Test Pilot and
> later Manager of Flight Test and Aerodynamics at the Cessna Aircraft Co.
>
> I would hope that everyone would copy this to their documents folder
> and recall it every time that the subject comes up.
>
> "With the advent of the large slotted flaps in the C-170, C-180,
> and C-172 we encountered a nose down pitch in forward slips with
> the wing flaps deflected. In some cases it was severe enough to
> lift the pilot against his seat belt if he was slow in checking
> the motion. For this reason a caution note was placed in most of
> the owner's manuals under "Landings" reading "Slips should be
> avoided with flap settings greater than 30° due to a downward pitch
> encountered under certain combinations of airspeed, side-slip angle,
> and center of gravity loadings". Since wing-low drift correction in
> cross-wind landings is normally performed with a minimum flap
> setting (for better rudder control) this limitation did not apply
> to that maneuver. The cause of the pitching motion is the transition
> of a strong wing downwash over the tail in straight flight to a
> lessened downwash angle over part of the horizontal tail caused by the
> influence of a relative "upwash increment" from the upturned aileron
> in slipping flight. Although not stated in the owner's manuals, we
> privately encouraged flight instructors to explore these effects at
> high altitude, and to pass on the information to their students.
> This phenomenon was elusive and sometimes hard to duplicate, but it
> was thought that a pilot should be aware of its existence and know
> how to counter-act it if it occurs close to the ground.
> When the larger dorsal fin was adopted in the 1972 C-172L, this side-
> slip pitch phenomenon was eliminated, but the cautionary placard was
> retained. In the higher-powered C-172P and C-R172 the placard was
> applicable to a mild pitch "pumping" motion resulting from flap
> outboard-end vortex impingement on the horizontal tail at some
> combinations of side-slip angle, power, and airspeed."
>
> Bob Moore

[Neil Gould]

Hi,

Recently, Rick Durden > posted:

> I'm always amazed at the amount of misinformation running around here.
>
(snip)

> There is no problem with slips with full flaps on a 172, it's another
> of aviation's old wives tales.
>
So... I suppose that Cessna was so taken with this "old wive's tale" that
they decided to include a warning against it in the POH? ;-)

That said, I have slipped 172s with full flaps and lived to tell about it.

Neil

[zatatime]

On Sun, 16 May 2004 21:18:32 GMT, Greg Esres >
wrote:

><<One of my biggest pet peeves are CFIs who actually teach people to
>slip a 172 with flaps.>>
>
>Interesting that the only thing you picked up on was that which
>supported your preconception.
>
>


Not at all, alhough it was the only thing I specifically commented on.
Its great to know the various models and the different response that
will be acheived from the different airfoils used. I should have
specifically stated "forward slips," but that gets into a whole other
conversation on CFIs who do not distinguish side slips from forward
slips in their teaching.

Sorry I wasn't specific enough.

z

[zatatime]

On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:16:16 -0400, "John Gaquin"
> wrote:

>
>"zatatime" > wrote in message
>>
>> Thank you for this information! .... One of my biggest pet peeves
>> are CFIs who actually teach people to slip a 172 with flaps.
>
>
>???????
>
>Did you read what Cpt Moore posted?

Completely. Depending on the model you will have different flight
characteristics while performing a forward slip. I doubt very
seriously that a typical flight instructor will have an in depth
conversation on models made in '72 and later, vs a straight tail, vs
everything in between (hell many don't even bother to make sure a
student knows the difference between a forward slip and a side slip)
so I would err on the side of caution and advise against teaching
slips as a general rule in 172 / 182s.

z
>

[Dave S]

The aircraft doesnt distinguish between a forward and a side slip, so
why should the CFI?

Dave

zatatime wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 21:18:32 GMT, Greg Esres >
> wrote:
>
>
>><<One of my biggest pet peeves are CFIs who actually teach people to
>>slip a 172 with flaps.>>
>>
>>Interesting that the only thing you picked up on was that which
>>supported your preconception.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Not at all, alhough it was the only thing I specifically commented on.
> Its great to know the various models and the different response that
> will be acheived from the different airfoils used. I should have
> specifically stated "forward slips," but that gets into a whole other
> conversation on CFIs who do not distinguish side slips from forward
> slips in their teaching.
>
> Sorry I wasn't specific enough.
>
> z

[Dave S]

A great way to descend quickly in a 172 is full flaps, cross controls
into a slip, and descend at the top of the white arc. Learned it from
more than one CFI. I personally have yet to observe the pitching
phenomenon described, but I have been aware of it's existence for years.

Dave

zatatime wrote:

> On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:16:16 -0400, "John Gaquin"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"zatatime" > wrote in message
>>
>>>Thank you for this information! .... One of my biggest pet peeves
>>>are CFIs who actually teach people to slip a 172 with flaps.
>>
>>
>>???????
>>
>>Did you read what Cpt Moore posted?
>
>
> Completely. Depending on the model you will have different flight
> characteristics while performing a forward slip. I doubt very
> seriously that a typical flight instructor will have an in depth
> conversation on models made in '72 and later, vs a straight tail, vs
> everything in between (hell many don't even bother to make sure a
> student knows the difference between a forward slip and a side slip)
> so I would err on the side of caution and advise against teaching
> slips as a general rule in 172 / 182s.
>
> z
>
>

[Greg Esres]

<<do not distinguish side slips from forward
slips in their teaching.>>

That's because there is no difference.

[Teacherjh]

>>
I should have
specifically stated "forward slips," but that gets into a whole other
conversation on CFIs who do not distinguish side slips from forward
slips in their teaching.
<<

There is no difference, until you meet the ground. In the air, all slips are
equal. In one, the ground is moving sideways, in the other it isn't.

Jose

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

[Bob Moore]

Dave S > wrote

> The aircraft doesnt distinguish between a forward and a side slip, so
> why should the CFI?

Probably because the FAA makes the distinction in AC 61-21A Flight
Training Handbook (pages 102-103). I don't have the replacement
for that AC, but it's probably in there also. I can assure you that
an Examiner will expect a CFI to have instructed the student on the
difference.

Bob Moore

[EDR]

"Yeah, Bill Thompson sometimes got a little sensational to sell his
books. sigh"

That's a potentially litiguous statement for a barrister, isn't it Rick?
I think you owes us a more complete explaination.
You have opened the door on this topic, now walk us through it.

[Bob Moore]

EDR > wrote

> "Yeah, Bill Thompson sometimes got a little sensational to sell his
> books. sigh"
>
> That's a potentially litiguous statement for a barrister, isn't it
> Rick? I think you owes us a more complete explaination.
> You have opened the door on this topic, now walk us through it.

First, let me say that I know neither Mr. Thompson nor Mr. Durden. I
find on web sources that Mr. Durden worked for the Cessna Aircraft
Company in their legal department for about eight years. Mr. Durden is
also the holder of numerous airman certificates including an ATP.

I post the following from the back cover of Mr. Thompson's book.

"The author learned to fly in college in gliders and airplanes in 1940,
and continued his advanced flight training in St. Louis while working
for Curtiss-Wright Airplane Company until 1942. In the war emergency he
trained Army Air Corps and French Cadets for a Civilian Contract School
in South Carolina. Returning to Purdue University in 1945 and switching
to an aeronautical engineering curriculum, he graduated in February,
1947. For the next 28-years, he worked for Cessna Aircraft Company as an
engineering test pilot and, later, as the Manager of Flight Test &
Aerodynamics. He is a Fellow in the Society of Experimental Test
Pi-lots, and at Cessna was a long-time member of the SAE Cockpit
Standardization Committee and the sole representative of the General
Aviation Industry on NASA's Aerodynamics/Aeronautics Committees.
Presently, he owns Thompson Aeronautical Consultants and is an FAA
Engineering Representative for flight test pilot/analyst assignments."


I now ask myself.....self, who has the most credibility when it comes to
discussing the aerodynamic effects of various flap settings on a Cessna
172 airplane? :-)

Bob Moore

[Greg Esres]

<<I can assure you that an Examiner will expect a CFI to have
instructed the student on the difference.>>

There is no *aerodynamic* difference between the two, and that's what
is being discussed.

[Rick Durden]

The effect of slips with full flaps on some high wing Cessnas is on
the elevators, not the rudders. As a result, there's no real
difference for that maneuver between the straight and swept tail. If
there is a difference it's with the airplanes that have rear windows
versus the earlier ones that don't, due to the flow of the downwash
off of the flaps over the rear fuselage. Because the downwash may not
be consistent on the elevators as the airflow changes during the slip
it is suggested, not required, on some Cessnas, that slips be avoided
with full flaps. There is no such suggestion on models such as the
Cardinal. Even at its worst, the downwash change as the slip changes
only causes a very mild pulse in the control wheel that you feel as a
tug. It's a nonevent, but pilots who haven't experienced it before
can get excited because it is new.

BTW, there is absolutely no aerodynamic difference between a forward
and side slip. The difference is relative to track across the ground
once wind comes into play. The airplane is doing the same thing
aerodynamically no matter what sort of ground track is desired.

All the best,
Rick

zatatime > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:16:16 -0400, "John Gaquin"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"zatatime" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> Thank you for this information! .... One of my biggest pet peeves
> >> are CFIs who actually teach people to slip a 172 with flaps.
> >
> >
> >???????
> >
> >Did you read what Cpt Moore posted?
>
> Completely. Depending on the model you will have different flight
> characteristics while performing a forward slip. I doubt very
> seriously that a typical flight instructor will have an in depth
> conversation on models made in '72 and later, vs a straight tail, vs
> everything in between (hell many don't even bother to make sure a
> student knows the difference between a forward slip and a side slip)
> so I would err on the side of caution and advise against teaching
> slips as a general rule in 172 / 182s.
>
> z
> >

[CV]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Dave S > wrote
>>The aircraft doesnt distinguish between a forward and a side slip, so
>>why should the CFI?
> Probably because the FAA makes the distinction in AC 61-21A Flight
> Training Handbook (pages 102-103). I don't have the replacement
> for that AC, but it's probably in there also. I can assure you that
> an Examiner will expect a CFI to have instructed the student on the
> difference.

There is no way to slip other than sideways.
CV

[zatatime]

My experience was with 40 degrees of flaps and a full forward slip (at
altitude), the aircraft pitched abruptly downward (like a chain was
connected from the ground to the nosewheel). Not only was it very
uncomfortable, but it taught me a valuable lesson about the aircraft.
I was in a '62 or '63.

Your post and the fact that you have learned this from "many
instructors" re-enforces my ideology.

I honestly hope you never experience this at low altitude.

z

On Mon, 17 May 2004 03:24:05 GMT, Dave S >
wrote:

>A great way to descend quickly in a 172 is full flaps, cross controls
>into a slip, and descend at the top of the white arc. Learned it from
>more than one CFI. I personally have yet to observe the pitching
>phenomenon described, but I have been aware of it's existence for years.
>
>Dave
>
>zatatime wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:16:16 -0400, "John Gaquin"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"zatatime" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>Thank you for this information! .... One of my biggest pet peeves
>>>>are CFIs who actually teach people to slip a 172 with flaps.
>>>
>>>
>>>???????
>>>
>>>Did you read what Cpt Moore posted?
>>
>>
>> Completely. Depending on the model you will have different flight
>> characteristics while performing a forward slip. I doubt very
>> seriously that a typical flight instructor will have an in depth
>> conversation on models made in '72 and later, vs a straight tail, vs
>> everything in between (hell many don't even bother to make sure a
>> student knows the difference between a forward slip and a side slip)
>> so I would err on the side of caution and advise against teaching
>> slips as a general rule in 172 / 182s.
>>
>> z
>>
>>

[zatatime]

On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:56:35 GMT, Bob Moore
> wrote:

>EDR > wrote
>
>> "Yeah, Bill Thompson sometimes got a little sensational to sell his
>> books. sigh"
>>
>> That's a potentially litiguous statement for a barrister, isn't it
>> Rick? I think you owes us a more complete explaination.
>> You have opened the door on this topic, now walk us through it.
>
>First, let me say that I know neither Mr. Thompson nor Mr. Durden. I
>find on web sources that Mr. Durden worked for the Cessna Aircraft
>Company in their legal department for about eight years. Mr. Durden is
>also the holder of numerous airman certificates including an ATP.
>
>I post the following from the back cover of Mr. Thompson's book.
>
>"The author learned to fly in college in gliders and airplanes in 1940,
>and continued his advanced flight training in St. Louis while working
>for Curtiss-Wright Airplane Company until 1942. In the war emergency he
>trained Army Air Corps and French Cadets for a Civilian Contract School
>in South Carolina. Returning to Purdue University in 1945 and switching
>to an aeronautical engineering curriculum, he graduated in February,
>1947. For the next 28-years, he worked for Cessna Aircraft Company as an
>engineering test pilot and, later, as the Manager of Flight Test &
>Aerodynamics. He is a Fellow in the Society of Experimental Test
>Pi-lots, and at Cessna was a long-time member of the SAE Cockpit
>Standardization Committee and the sole representative of the General
>Aviation Industry on NASA's Aerodynamics/Aeronautics Committees.
>Presently, he owns Thompson Aeronautical Consultants and is an FAA
>Engineering Representative for flight test pilot/analyst assignments."
>
>
>I now ask myself.....self, who has the most credibility when it comes to
>discussing the aerodynamic effects of various flap settings on a Cessna
>172 airplane? :-)
>
>Bob Moore

Well it certainly can't be Mr. Thompson.....All those credentials
can't compare to the training most people get at the local 141 school
can they?

-Tongue planted firmly in cheek.

z

[John Pelchat]

Roger Halstead > wrote in message

(Snipped)
> If you are referring to the May issue (we don't all receive our issues
> at the same time) then no it doesn't.
>
> It does have one by Tom Benneson though on page 84.
>
> There's a lot in that article to which I take issue.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Mr. Halstead,

The article to which I was referring to is entitled "The Grand Arrival
Takes Time" on page 56 of the June 2004 issue of Flying . It was
written by Richard Collins.

I don't remember reading the article you refer to and I have already
given my copy of the May issue away to a friend.

When you get the June issue, read the article. It would be
interesting to know what you think.

Blue Skies

John Pelchat