PinG Jay.. Now drivin a Piper!

[Dave]

Wellll...

We did it.... The 172 is history..

We are the proud owners of a 1976 Warrior, 151....

Pix to follow for the gallery.... :)

So far so good. We planning some upgrades, but so far
enjoying the toys,( it's REALLY tricked out for IFR) and LOVING the
view of the rny on the turn to final... :)

More of a Pirep when we get some more time on it..

Thanks to all in this group for thoughts and advice..

I was the dude with the "stalling speeds" thread a while
ago....

Cheers!

Dave

[Dudley Henriques]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> Wellll...
>
> We did it.... The 172 is history..
>
> We are the proud owners of a 1976 Warrior, 151....
>
> Pix to follow for the gallery.... :)
>
> So far so good. We planning some upgrades, but so far
> enjoying the toys,( it's REALLY tricked out for IFR) and LOVING the
> view of the rny on the turn to final... :)
>
> More of a Pirep when we get some more time on it..
>
> Thanks to all in this group for thoughts and advice..
>
> I was the dude with the "stalling speeds" thread a while
> ago....
>
> Cheers!
>
> Dave

Congratulations and the best of luck with the new airplane.
Just for what it's worth, and I'm sure you have most likely already
considered this, but I'll pass it along to you anyway just in case. It's a
bit of advice I always gave pilots transitioning from high wings to low
wings and visa versa.
For the first few hours you fly the new airplane, put a penciled notation on
your preflight checklist as the last item to be checked just before takeoff
and before landing.
"Concentrate on the NEW blind spots!!!!!"
Dudley Henriques

[Morgans]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote

> For the first few hours you fly the new airplane, put a penciled notation
on
> your preflight checklist as the last item to be checked just before
takeoff
> and before landing.
> "Concentrate on the NEW blind spots!!!!!"
> Dudley Henriques


REALLY ! ! !

One day at OSH, during a rush of departures on 36, I almost saw a mid-air
collision, due to the blind spot.

Departure on 36 has you do a right turn at midfield, to a course of 150,
until clear of the OSH airspace. A biplane (couldn't tell for sure what the
types were, as I was horrified at seeing what was sure to be a fatal
accident) had taken off on the right side of 36L, and shortly after a plane
(Piper 6 ?) departed on the left side of 36L. The biplane and Piper arrived
at the turning point (midfield) at the same time, with the Piper a bit
faster and higher. He never saw the biplane, and crossed over it by what
looked to be less than a wingspan. Thankfully, they missed. Remember those
clearing turns, gang!
--
Jim in NC

[Denny]

DAve, Dave, Dave, tsk, tsk... ANYONE can land an airplane when they cn
see the runway on the turn to final... It's the 'real' pilots who can
do it blind....

denny <snicker>

[Dan Luke]

"Denny" wrote:

> DAve, Dave, Dave, tsk, tsk... ANYONE can land an airplane when they cn
> see the runway on the turn to final... It's the 'real' pilots who can
> do it blind....

Damn straight!

> denny <snicker>

OK, laugh it up, low wing boy. Let's see how you do when there's a 900'
tree blocking your view when you're about to turn final! No sweat for
he-man high wing pilots--we can't see the runway anyway!

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Marco Leon]

Isn't "he-man high-wing" an oxymoron?? hehe

Dave, congrats on your new bird. And great choice on the Warrior! One of the
best damn values out there.

(Why yes, how did you know I own a Warrior?!)

Marco "Manly Low-Wing Driver" Leon



"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Denny" wrote:
>
> > DAve, Dave, Dave, tsk, tsk... ANYONE can land an airplane when they cn
> > see the runway on the turn to final... It's the 'real' pilots who can
> > do it blind....
>
> Damn straight!
>
> > denny <snicker>
>
> OK, laugh it up, low wing boy. Let's see how you do when there's a 900'
> tree blocking your view when you're about to turn final! No sweat for
> he-man high wing pilots--we can't see the runway anyway!
>
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Marco Leon wrote:
> Isn't "he-man high-wing" an oxymoron?? hehe
>
> Dave, congrats on your new bird. And great choice on the Warrior! One of the
> best damn values out there.


Except they glide like a lead sled. Still, they are fun.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Denny" wrote:
>
>
>>DAve, Dave, Dave, tsk, tsk... ANYONE can land an airplane when they cn
>>see the runway on the turn to final... It's the 'real' pilots who can
>>do it blind....
>
>
> Damn straight!
>
>
>>denny <snicker>
>
>
> OK, laugh it up, low wing boy. Let's see how you do when there's a 900'
> tree blocking your view when you're about to turn final! No sweat for
> he-man high wing pilots--we can't see the runway anyway!

Us high-wing folks don't even much care if it even IS a runway! :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Marco Leon wrote:

> Isn't "he-man high-wing" an oxymoron?? hehe

No, men are broader at the shoulders and women broader at the hips, like
a low-wing. :-)


Matt

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> Us high-wing folks don't even much care if it even IS a runway! :-)

If you've got a Maule (or a Helio), a runway is what you decide is one. :-)

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> Us high-wing folks don't even much care if it even IS a runway! :-)
>
>
> If you've got a Maule (or a Helio), a runway is what you decide is one.
> :-)

Yep, you got my point. :-) Same is true for even the lowly Cessna
singles. You can land a Skylane in a lot of places ... and, even more
importantly, get back out of those places!

Matt

[Dave]

Hehe...

Thanks Dudely!

Taken as GOOD advice!

"A rubberneckin we go"

The new vis is very good, except for straight down for the
rear seat pax....

It sure is nice to see where we are headed in turns...

Now, don't get the High vs low wing thingy going guys... be
kind...

I flew a Cardinal once, high wing but super vis... my eyeballs
were AHEAD of the wing root... :)

Dave



On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 03:31:51 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>
>"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>> Wellll...
>>
>> We did it.... The 172 is history..
>>
>> We are the proud owners of a 1976 Warrior, 151....
>>
>> Pix to follow for the gallery.... :)
>>
>> So far so good. We planning some upgrades, but so far
>> enjoying the toys,( it's REALLY tricked out for IFR) and LOVING the
>> view of the rny on the turn to final... :)
>>
>> More of a Pirep when we get some more time on it..
>>
>> Thanks to all in this group for thoughts and advice..
>>
>> I was the dude with the "stalling speeds" thread a while
>> ago....
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Dave
>
>Congratulations and the best of luck with the new airplane.
>Just for what it's worth, and I'm sure you have most likely already
>considered this, but I'll pass it along to you anyway just in case. It's a
>bit of advice I always gave pilots transitioning from high wings to low
>wings and visa versa.
>For the first few hours you fly the new airplane, put a penciled notation on
>your preflight checklist as the last item to be checked just before takeoff
>and before landing.
>"Concentrate on the NEW blind spots!!!!!"
>Dudley Henriques
>

[Dave]

Oh... NOW I understand!

I thought it was only ME!!!

:)

Dave


3 Aug 2005 04:32:58 -0700, "Denny" > wrote:

>DAve, Dave, Dave, tsk, tsk... ANYONE can land an airplane when they cn
>see the runway on the turn to final... It's the 'real' pilots who can
>do it blind....
>
>denny <snicker>

[Dave]

RUH ROH!

Look what I started!

Always wanted my own thread!

:)

Dave


On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:44:13 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>George Patterson wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Us high-wing folks don't even much care if it even IS a runway! :-)
>>
>>
>> If you've got a Maule (or a Helio), a runway is what you decide is one.
>> :-)
>
>Yep, you got my point. :-) Same is true for even the lowly Cessna
>singles. You can land a Skylane in a lot of places ... and, even more
>importantly, get back out of those places!
>
>Matt

[Dave]

No argument there...!!!

I could safely scare people with those 40 deg of flap!!

Altho the book nos. are not much different, the Warrior seems
to be faster at the same power levels... (both have 150 hp engines
and wheel pants)... and our 172 was considered one of the fastest
around here...

It was well rigged,- feet on the floor cruise...

Warrior seems more stable in the roll axis and requires less
attention in rough air...

It appears we need an extra 150 ft to get off and on the
ground, and if that makes a difference, I (personally) have EITHER
plane in the wrong place...

Now , regarding crosswinds...

In my hands/feet, a clear winner here seems to be the Warrior
..... It certianly feels better anyway.

One landing last weekend was on a narrow rny... 15 G 20
knts...

I have about 100 hrs in Warriors, 140's and Comanches years
ago... and always felt morer comfortable in x-winds with the low
wing and the shorter landing gear...

Initial impressions only..

We still learning for a while yet...

Dave



On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:44:13 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>George Patterson wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Us high-wing folks don't even much care if it even IS a runway! :-)
>>
>>
>> If you've got a Maule (or a Helio), a runway is what you decide is one.
>> :-)
>
>Yep, you got my point. :-) Same is true for even the lowly Cessna
>singles. You can land a Skylane in a lot of places ... and, even more
>importantly, get back out of those places!
>
>Matt

[Dudley Henriques]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> Hehe...
>
> Thanks Dudely!
>
> Taken as GOOD advice!
>
> "A rubberneckin we go"
>
> The new vis is very good, except for straight down for the
> rear seat pax....
>
> It sure is nice to see where we are headed in turns...
>
> Now, don't get the High vs low wing thingy going guys... be
> kind...
>
> I flew a Cardinal once, high wing but super vis... my eyeballs
> were AHEAD of the wing root... :)
>
> Dave

Too bad you guys can't try the T38..........can't see the wings at all!!!!!
:-))))))
Dudley

[Jay Honeck]

> Too bad you guys can't try the T38..........can't see the wings at
> all!!!!!

There's a great write-up on the T-38 in this month's "Air & Space" magazine.
Man, it sounds like a great plane.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:rtgIe.235698$xm3.5659@attbi_s21...
>> Too bad you guys can't try the T38..........can't see the wings at
>> all!!!!!
>
> There's a great write-up on the T-38 in this month's "Air & Space"
> magazine. Man, it sounds like a great plane.

One of my favorites. If you can handle a 38, you can handle anything in the
inventory.
Dudley

[Jay Beckman]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:rtgIe.235698$xm3.5659@attbi_s21...
>>> Too bad you guys can't try the T38..........can't see the wings at
>>> all!!!!!
>>
>> There's a great write-up on the T-38 in this month's "Air & Space"
>> magazine. Man, it sounds like a great plane.
>
> One of my favorites. If you can handle a 38, you can handle anything in
> the inventory.
> Dudley

That speaks volumes regarding it's longevity as an advanced
trainer...wouldn't you say?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Jay Honeck]

>> One of my favorites. If you can handle a 38, you can handle anything in
>> the inventory.
>> Dudley
>
> That speaks volumes regarding it's longevity as an advanced
> trainer...wouldn't you say?

Interestingly, according to the Air & Space article, when first introduced
the Air Force complained that the T-38 was too forgiving and easy to fly for
a trainer. Apparently the F-100s, F-105s, etc., of the day were quite a
handful to fly, and the T-38 was a relatively simple jet, by comparison.

Northrup responded by telling the Air Force that they should be buying
fighters that were easier and safer to fly.

Which is precisely what they have done, over time. Apparently the F-16,
F-15, F/A-18 are all quite easy to fly, by comparison to the old jets.
Predictably, the Air Force has started to grumble that the T-38 may be too
difficult to fly to be a trainer!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> One of my favorites. If you can handle a 38, you can handle anything in the
> inventory.

A friend of mine completed T-38 school, only to be told there were no
fighter slots.
They sent him to helicopter school and he completed his tour flying Air
Force VIP's around Germany in Huey's and Loaches.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:gJiIe.239423$Qo.89073@fed1read01...
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> news:rtgIe.235698$xm3.5659@attbi_s21...
>>>> Too bad you guys can't try the T38..........can't see the wings at
>>>> all!!!!!
>>>
>>> There's a great write-up on the T-38 in this month's "Air & Space"
>>> magazine. Man, it sounds like a great plane.
>>
>> One of my favorites. If you can handle a 38, you can handle anything in
>> the inventory.
>> Dudley
>
> That speaks volumes regarding it's longevity as an advanced
> trainer...wouldn't you say?
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ

Yes I would. The one assigned to me in 1975 was a NASA conversion T38A with
angle of attack indexing. It's still flying as far as I know..... and I'm
not :-))
Dudley
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Too bad you guys can't try the T38..........can't see the wings at
>>all!!!!!
>
>
> There's a great write-up on the T-38 in this month's "Air & Space" magazine.
> Man, it sounds like a great plane.

I always thought it one of the sleekest looking to be sure.

Matt

[Morgans]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote

> NASA conversion T38A with
> angle of attack indexing.

Wahzat?
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote
>
>> NASA conversion T38A with
>> angle of attack indexing.
>
> Wahzat?
> --
> Jim in NC

Most AF T38's didn't use an angle of attack indexer (arrows and donut). The
NASA T38's used by the Naval Test Pilot School had them installed.
With an AOA indexer, the approach is flown a bit differently than without
one in your visual cues.
By keeping the donut lit, the airplane seeks the optimum approach AOA
regardless of gross weight. (In the 38, this is at .6)
Without the indexer, you can of course fly the approach on the AOA
indicator, which is a bit harder as the indexer is a direct read (high, low,
or on speed) and the indicator is a steam gauge.
Without using AOA for the approach in a T38, you need to calculate the
remaining fuel on a base final speed of 155KIAS + 1Kt per 100LBS fuel >
1000LBS remaining.
You can fly the approach either way, but the indexer makes it a lot easier
since it's mounted on the top of the glare shield and you fly final using
direct visual cues and peripheral vision on the donut (on speed).
Dudley

[Morgans]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote
>
> Most AF T38's didn't use an angle of attack indexer (arrows and donut).
The
> NASA T38's used by the Naval Test Pilot School had them installed.
> With an AOA indexer, the approach is flown a bit differently than without
> one in your visual cues.
> By keeping the donut lit, the airplane seeks the optimum approach AOA
> regardless of gross weight. (In the 38, this is at .6)

I understand the concept, but have never seen the device. (lucky me, if I
ever get to fly in something with one)
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote
>>
>> Most AF T38's didn't use an angle of attack indexer (arrows and donut).
> The
>> NASA T38's used by the Naval Test Pilot School had them installed.
>> With an AOA indexer, the approach is flown a bit differently than without
>> one in your visual cues.
>> By keeping the donut lit, the airplane seeks the optimum approach AOA
>> regardless of gross weight. (In the 38, this is at .6)
>
> I understand the concept, but have never seen the device. (lucky me, if I
> ever get to fly in something with one)
> --
> Jim in NC

For extremely high performance airplanes, flying final using an AOA indexer
makes managing the wing a lot easier. The Navy uses an indexer because the
carrier approach has to be so stabilized. With the AF, it's a so so issue.
D

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:
>
> I understand the concept, but have never seen the device. (lucky me, if I
> ever get to fly in something with one)

http://www.xflight.de/f16/pe_org_par_cec_idxlights.htm

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:Q5NIe.4$Im1.1@trndny02...
> Morgans wrote:
> >
> > I understand the concept, but have never seen the device. (lucky me, if
I
> > ever get to fly in something with one)
>
> http://www.xflight.de/f16/pe_org_par_cec_idxlights.htm

Thanks, George.

I have seen a similar item for homebuilt airplanes (and maybe certified)

It worked off of a port on the top of the wing, and a port on the bottom.
It may be something I have to re-invent, one of these days.
--
Jim in NC