Mild Aerobatics

[Jay Honeck]

During primary training, many moons ago, I was growing frustrated with the
sedate nature of our flying, so I asked my flight instructor (Bob -- a guy
with 20K hours in every known flying machine) when we were going to get to
the "fun stuff"? He didn't know what I was talking about, so I told him I
wanted to see what these things could actually *do*...

At which point he smiled that crooked smile of his, and proceeded to do a
wing-over with a recovery out the bottom, going the opposite direction! I
was whooping and hollering for more, but he just went back to our lesson for
the day....

Nowadays, Mary and I are very cautious in our Pathfinder, rarely exceeding
45 degree banks, and never pulling more than mild G turns. Mary hates steep
banks (except in a Super Decathlon -- then all bets are off!), and the most
rambunctious thing we ever do are "Up-Downs" (as the kids call them), which
is a firm pull up with a steady push-over at the top that induces negative
Gs in the back seat.

Just curious -- what do you guys do with your spam cans? I've seen video
from inside a Cessna that shows a guy doing some pretty radical maneuvers,
but in real life what's the most you push your aircraft?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

My airplanes say that "no aerobatic manuevers, including spins, are
approved" so I don't do any aerobatic maneuvers or spins.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:p_JKe.239722$x96.59507@attbi_s72...
> During primary training, many moons ago, I was growing frustrated with the
> sedate nature of our flying, so I asked my flight instructor (Bob -- a guy
> with 20K hours in every known flying machine) when we were going to get to
> the "fun stuff"? He didn't know what I was talking about, so I told him I
> wanted to see what these things could actually *do*...
>
> At which point he smiled that crooked smile of his, and proceeded to do a
> wing-over with a recovery out the bottom, going the opposite direction!
> I was whooping and hollering for more, but he just went back to our lesson
> for the day....
>
> Nowadays, Mary and I are very cautious in our Pathfinder, rarely exceeding
> 45 degree banks, and never pulling more than mild G turns. Mary hates
> steep banks (except in a Super Decathlon -- then all bets are off!), and
> the most rambunctious thing we ever do are "Up-Downs" (as the kids call
> them), which is a firm pull up with a steady push-over at the top that
> induces negative Gs in the back seat.
>
> Just curious -- what do you guys do with your spam cans? I've seen video
> from inside a Cessna that shows a guy doing some pretty radical maneuvers,
> but in real life what's the most you push your aircraft?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[three-eight-hotel]

Steep turns here and there, and definitely the "tummy hills", which is
what "my" kids call them... ;-)

I'd like to break away and get the aerobatic endorsement at some point.
If for nothing else, to really know how to recover from some "truly"
unusual attitudes!

Best Regards,
Todd

[Dudley Henriques]

Hi Jay;

I realize that you are offering this question in the context of a "normal"
flight situation for the average safe pilot flying an average GA light
airplane safely, and considering that, I would say the following.
There are pilots out here who will "push" their normal/utility category GA
airplanes and those who won't. The smart ones don't "push" their airplanes
at all. The reason for this is that there are two factors involved. You have
a POH that offers you figures to follow that define your flight envelope,
then you have the reality involved with an aging airplane.
Considering both factors, it's simply smart flying to keep the "excursions"
from normal flight to an absolute minimum. This is not to say that the
airplane will fall apart on you if you do a little "not straight and level"
flying with it, but it does say that doing this in aging airplanes can
increase that aging process somewhat.
My advice as an aerobatic instructor to pilots flying light GA airplanes in
the normal category is simply to use their heads and don't stray too far
into "working" the airplane.
I always use a favorite analogy of mine when answering on this issue when
asked.
G........any g...on an airplane is cumulative. It can add up on you. If
someone gently poked their finger into your arm it wouldn't hurt very much
the first time they did it; but if they poked that finger into your arm at
exactly the same spot a hundred times in a row, that last time could hurt a
bunch :-)))
Bottom line for GA pilots wanting to "play" a bit..........fly the
book....and as the airplane ages.........ease off the airplane even a bit
more. Go rent the Decathlon and have some fun!!!!
Dudley



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:p_JKe.239722$x96.59507@attbi_s72...
> During primary training, many moons ago, I was growing frustrated with the
> sedate nature of our flying, so I asked my flight instructor (Bob -- a guy
> with 20K hours in every known flying machine) when we were going to get to
> the "fun stuff"? He didn't know what I was talking about, so I told him I
> wanted to see what these things could actually *do*...
>
> At which point he smiled that crooked smile of his, and proceeded to do a
> wing-over with a recovery out the bottom, going the opposite direction!
> I was whooping and hollering for more, but he just went back to our lesson
> for the day....
>
> Nowadays, Mary and I are very cautious in our Pathfinder, rarely exceeding
> 45 degree banks, and never pulling more than mild G turns. Mary hates
> steep banks (except in a Super Decathlon -- then all bets are off!), and
> the most rambunctious thing we ever do are "Up-Downs" (as the kids call
> them), which is a firm pull up with a steady push-over at the top that
> induces negative Gs in the back seat.
>
> Just curious -- what do you guys do with your spam cans? I've seen video
> from inside a Cessna that shows a guy doing some pretty radical maneuvers,
> but in real life what's the most you push your aircraft?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Guy Elden Jr]

Well it wasn't for fun, but while flying with my old instructor a
couple years ago on a night x-country he suddenly grabbed the controls
from me, rolled into a 45 degree bank, and pushed the nose down HARD to
avoid what appeared to be an imminent head-on mid-air. Definitely took
a flight within the plane for a couple of seconds during that maneuver,
but we cleared the traffic with no problem. (It probably wasn't all
that close actually, but when you see red on right, a white light, and
no movement, you get the hell outta the way).

--
Guy Elden Jr.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Just curious -- what do you guys do with your spam cans? I've seen video
> from inside a Cessna that shows a guy doing some pretty radical maneuvers,
> but in real life what's the most you push your aircraft?


Chandelles in the C-172 and PA-28R-201. I've spun C-150s / 152s / 172s. I've
crashed C-210 / PA323R-300.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Jim Burns]

Steep banks are about it. More than anything I practice the normal
"precision" maneuvers, practicing smoothness and fluidity. The commercial
maneuvers really aren't aerobatics, but I practice them just to see how bad
I can screw up a Lazy 8. Chandelles are fun and take some work to do
correctly, mostly a planning maneuver.

Nick and I went out for a bit last night, he wanted to fly over the house so
I did some clearing turns and a few 60 degree banks. He thought it was
cool. That big ole Aztec just rolls into and out of those banks sooooo
sweet, and with just the right touch on the throttles holds the altitude
perfectly.

I have seen some amazing things done with Aztecs though, nothing I'd ever
recommend or try, especially in a twin. There is a company in ND that uses
them for crop dusting (more government contract bug work than anything)
really some cranking and banking.

Jim

[Frank Stutzman]

My plane is 54 years old. Other than the occaisonal 2 G turn, I don't do
anything vaguely aerobatic with it. Heck, I'm somewhat embarrased that I
can't even remember the last time I did an accellerated stall in it.

Not that knowing how to do some simple maneuvers isn't useful. My
primary flight instructer was once rolled 150 degrees or so due to wake
turbulence. Even though he was at about a thousand feet, he had the
sense enough to contine the roll all the way around. Don't know if I
would have been so quick witted.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Rod]

Why not practice some of the commercial pilot maneuvers? Lazy eights are
nowhere near aerobatics but they will make you be precise. Eights on pylons
will get you comfortable with steep banks near the ground.

Rod

> Just curious -- what do you guys do with your spam cans? I've seen video
> from inside a Cessna that shows a guy doing some pretty radical maneuvers,
> but in real life what's the most you push your aircraft?
> --

[Maule Driver]

Well, my favorite eye-opener for select passengers is a lazy eight.
It's a non-aerobatic manuever but it looks and feels like one to the
unitiated - especially when done sloppily. A turn in a lazy eight feels
like a wing-over and is probably quite close to what Bob did.

I'm not sure of the technical description for a wingover but if you keep
the pitch and bank under 45 I guess it's technically non-acro(?). You
don't even have to get close to those figures to get the desired effect.

I've had the benefit of formal acro training (gliders) and lot's of
informal practice (gliders). Stall turns and wingovers (whatever they
are) can get dangerous so it's nothing to play with without instruction.
But non-acro 'wingovers' and lazy eights are easy and fun as long as
know where the limits are.

Now if I can just get my hands on that clown that snapped a C150 on me
during my pre-solo....

Jay Honeck wrote:
> During primary training, many moons ago, I was growing frustrated with the
> sedate nature of our flying, so I asked my flight instructor (Bob -- a guy
> with 20K hours in every known flying machine) when we were going to get to
> the "fun stuff"? He didn't know what I was talking about, so I told him I
> wanted to see what these things could actually *do*...
>
> At which point he smiled that crooked smile of his, and proceeded to do a
> wing-over with a recovery out the bottom, going the opposite direction! I
> was whooping and hollering for more, but he just went back to our lesson for
> the day....
>
> Nowadays, Mary and I are very cautious in our Pathfinder, rarely exceeding
> 45 degree banks, and never pulling more than mild G turns. Mary hates steep
> banks (except in a Super Decathlon -- then all bets are off!), and the most
> rambunctious thing we ever do are "Up-Downs" (as the kids call them), which
> is a firm pull up with a steady push-over at the top that induces negative
> Gs in the back seat.
>
> Just curious -- what do you guys do with your spam cans? I've seen video
> from inside a Cessna that shows a guy doing some pretty radical maneuvers,
> but in real life what's the most you push your aircraft?

[Casey Wilson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:p_JKe.239722$x96.59507@attbi_s72...
> During primary training, many moons ago, I was growing frustrated with the
> sedate nature of our flying, so I asked my flight instructor (Bob -- a guy
> with 20K hours in every known flying machine) when we were going to get to
> the "fun stuff"? He didn't know what I was talking about, so I told him I
> wanted to see what these things could actually *do*...
>
> At which point he smiled that crooked smile of his, and proceeded to do a
> wing-over with a recovery out the bottom, going the opposite direction!
> I was whooping and hollering for more, but he just went back to our lesson
> for the day....

Jay, I'm surprised at you. This sounds almost like, "Hey, watch this!"
Weren't you not long ago pondering your son's flying with his pals, someday?

[Jay Honeck]

> Considering both factors, it's simply smart flying to keep the
> "excursions" from normal flight to an absolute minimum. This is not to say
> that the airplane will fall apart on you if you do a little "not straight
> and level" flying with it, but it does say that doing this in aging
> airplanes can increase that aging process somewhat.

Good point. This is something that concerns me, and I suspect I'm not
alone. Here's one recent experience that made me wonder about our aging
airframe.

While departing Iowa City last month, another pilot reported his position as
being 3 miles Southeast of the field, maneuvering. Since we were departing
to the Northeast, we determined that he would not be a factor.

Not! As we were climbing out, our direction-challenged fellow pilot became
visible in the haze, and I saw that he was on an intercept course -- with us
as the target.

For the first time in our flying lives (10 years, 1500+ hours), Mary and I
experienced an in-flight disagreement over what to do. She, in the left
seat, saw no reason for evasive maneuvers, determining that the plane would
pass over us with room to spare. I, in the right seat, saw the plane
growing larger in my starboard-side window by the second.

After a few more seconds of debate, I ended the discussion by pushing my
yoke firmly forward, inducing negative G and allowing us to pass harmlessly
beneath the traffic. We cleared the plane with room to spare.

Would we have hit him without my action? Probably not. Nevertheless, we
decided (after much debate) that I had acted correctly, given the
circumstances, since it fit into our pre-arranged agreement that the right
seater doesn't ever touch the controls unless they feel that their inaction
would put the plane at risk.

However, I did (and still) wonder about putting that much negative-G on our
34 year old airframe. Without a G meter it's impossible to know how much G
was induced, but I'd say it was 50% more than I've ever done before. (The
only negative G maneuver I ever do is the push-over at the top of a steep
pull-up, known by my kids as an "Up-Down".) Was 50% more too much?

We were climbing out, so our airspeed was relatively low -- probably around
80 knots. The entire maneuver lasted less than 5 seconds, and nothing
floated in the cockpit -- but in an old airplane, how much is too much?

As another reference point (and a crude way of measuring the negative Gs), I
routinely read about guys doing the "up-down" maneuver to the point where
their engine sputters due to fuel starvation. I've *never* done the
maneuver to that degree, even in this situation (although that may be due to
the short duration of the maneuver) -- so I'm assuming that I didn't push
the airframe beyond structural limits. Since that flight I've carefully
inspected the empennage, and there is obviously no visible stress or strain,
or I wouldn't be flying it -- but how can you really know without extensive
metallurgic testing?

If you've ever looked at the stabilator attachment on a Cherokee you will
marvel at the simplicity and apparent fragility of the design, so inducing
excessive negative-G is something we never, ever do. However, even though
there is (to my knowledge) no record of a stabilator departing the airframe
of a Cherokee, you've got to wonder how many days (weeks? months?) a sudden
push-over takes off the life of an airframe?

Thanks for the post, Dudley. As always, you have introduced a
thought-provoking angle to the discussion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Just curious -- what do you guys do with your spam cans? I've seen video
> from inside a Cessna that shows a guy doing some pretty radical maneuvers,
> but in real life what's the most you push your aircraft?

I've owned a Cessna 150 and a Maule MX-7. Neither were certified for aerobatic
maneuvers, and the Maule was placarded against spins and other aerobatics.
Closest I intentionally came to radical maneuvers in either was ~50 degree
turns. One of my instructors was going to show me chandelles in the 150 (it was
certified for those), but we never got around to it.

I allowed one of my "Young Eagles" to do some of what you call "Ups & Downs"
once. Her two friends in the back seat became pretty queasy in short order and
were not pleased with her. That sort of thing got removed from the menu for my
flights.

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.

[Jay Honeck]

> I allowed one of my "Young Eagles" to do some of what you call "Ups &
> Downs" once. Her two friends in the back seat became pretty queasy in
> short order and were not pleased with her. That sort of thing got removed
> from the menu for my flights.

Yeah, up/downs can get pretty ugly, if done too often.

My kids usually beg for one, ask for one more, and then are happy not to do
a third, especially when it's hot.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> At which point he smiled that crooked smile of his, and proceeded to do a
>> wing-over with a recovery out the bottom, going the opposite direction! I
>> was whooping and hollering for more, but he just went back to our lesson
>> for the day....
>
> Jay, I'm surprised at you. This sounds almost like, "Hey, watch this!"
> Weren't you not long ago pondering your son's flying with his pals,
> someday?

Ah, yes -- but I was young and foolish back then!

Which, of course, is precisely why I'm going to be worried when my kid(s)
gets his/her ticket...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RST Engineering]

And, as a wise old pilot once observed, the flight envelope is altitude
going up and airspeed going right. We mostly push the upper right corner of
the envelope. And that is also where the stamp gets cancelled.

Jim



". You have
> a POH that offers you figures to follow that define your flight envelope,
> then you have the reality involved with an aging airplane.

[john smith]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Ah, yes -- but I was young and foolish back then!
> Which, of course, is precisely why I'm going to be worried when my kid(s)
> gets his/her ticket...

The year is now 2007, the sticker next to the door on Atlas read:
"My other airplane is a Pitts!"

[RST Engineering]

As opposed to the one that is there now on this low-wing troglodyte that
says: "This girly-girl low winger is the Pits."

{;-)

Jim

>
> The year is now 2007, the sticker next to the door on Atlas read:
> "My other airplane is a Pitts!"

[Maule Driver]

Try this in anticipation of a future conflict. Unless it is a direct
head on conflict, i.e. directly in front and not moving on the
windscreen, try turning into it.

This is much harder to describe than to experience. And it's not
natural unless you practice a bit. But if an a/c is *converging* on you
and you can put your nose on it before the anticipated collision, you'll
miss it, almost no matter what the other a/c does.

If you try to turn away from a converging a/c the opposite occurs - a
collision becomes more likely.

Try it with some hand held models. Try it with some real traffic at a
good distance. You'll get the idea.

Then when that a/c appears out of no where, you will tend to do a
positive G turn rather than a push over or pull up.

If it's converging, turn into it. If it's diverging - turn away. Keep
it positive.

comments?

Jay Honeck wrote:
> ... As we were climbing out, our direction-challenged fellow pilot became
> visible in the haze, and I saw that he was on an intercept course -- with us
> as the target.
>
> After a few more seconds of debate, I ended the discussion by
pushing my
> yoke firmly forward, inducing negative G and allowing us to pass harmlessly
> beneath the traffic. We cleared the plane with room to spare.
>
> However, I did (and still) wonder about putting that much negative-G on our
> 34 year old airframe. Without a G meter it's impossible to know how much G
> was induced, but I'd say it was 50% more than I've ever done before. (The
> only negative G maneuver I ever do is the push-over at the top of a steep
> pull-up, known by my kids as an "Up-Down".) Was 50% more too much?
>

[Bob Noel]

In article <7kLKe.239817$x96.9166@attbi_s72>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

[snip]
> However, I did (and still) wonder about putting that much negative-G on our
> 34 year old airframe. Without a G meter it's impossible to know how much G
> was induced, but I'd say it was 50% more than I've ever done before.

I've been told that what people usually think of as negative Gs are actually
just a reduction in positive g loading. As you said, without the g meter,
you don't know. But if you weren't "hanging" from the seat belts, I would
think you didn't see negative g's at all, just something noticably less than
the usual 1.0 positive g.

Sounds like you have an excuse er reason to go and get some real aerobatic
training to see what -1 g really feels like. :-)

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Newps]

A friend has a 182 and we have rolled that many times. Another buddy
has a Baron and we have rolled that many times. Yet another friend has
a Super Cub and I have gotten fairly proficient at rolling and looping
that. In my plane I frequently take it up and go power at idle, full
back stick and hold a 45 degree bank. I have VG's so the plane will not
roll over into the raised wing, just sits there and falls at about 1500
fpm. This helps to keep my ass current in flying the plane. I try and
make about half my landings from about a mile or mile and a half final
at a few mph above stall without looking at the airspeed indicator.



Jay Honeck wrote:

> During primary training, many moons ago, I was growing frustrated with the
> sedate nature of our flying, so I asked my flight instructor (Bob -- a guy
> with 20K hours in every known flying machine) when we were going to get to
> the "fun stuff"? He didn't know what I was talking about, so I told him I
> wanted to see what these things could actually *do*...
>
> At which point he smiled that crooked smile of his, and proceeded to do a
> wing-over with a recovery out the bottom, going the opposite direction! I
> was whooping and hollering for more, but he just went back to our lesson for
> the day....
>
> Nowadays, Mary and I are very cautious in our Pathfinder, rarely exceeding
> 45 degree banks, and never pulling more than mild G turns. Mary hates steep
> banks (except in a Super Decathlon -- then all bets are off!), and the most
> rambunctious thing we ever do are "Up-Downs" (as the kids call them), which
> is a firm pull up with a steady push-over at the top that induces negative
> Gs in the back seat.
>
> Just curious -- what do you guys do with your spam cans? I've seen video
> from inside a Cessna that shows a guy doing some pretty radical maneuvers,
> but in real life what's the most you push your aircraft?

[B. Jensen]

Jay,

Sounds like it's time for you to get your Commercial ticket. Not that
you need it for the type of flying you do, but at least you can learn
and become proficient with some new maneuvers like Chandelles, Lazy
eights, turns on pylons, accuracy landings, etc without hurting Atlas.
Also, you are certainly receptive to learning more about flying, so why
not study for the Commercial written in your spare time and expand you
"database"? I think you'll find it very enjoyable since you can do it
on your own time. You'll find the commercial ticket is fun and
"relative" easy to achive. And heck, your insurance rates might come
down as a result too??

Best,

Bryan

Jay Honeck wrote:

>During primary training, many moons ago, I was growing frustrated with the
>sedate nature of our flying, so I asked my flight instructor (Bob -- a guy
>with 20K hours in every known flying machine) when we were going to get to
>the "fun stuff"? He didn't know what I was talking about, so I told him I
>wanted to see what these things could actually *do*...
>
>At which point he smiled that crooked smile of his, and proceeded to do a
>wing-over with a recovery out the bottom, going the opposite direction! I
>was whooping and hollering for more, but he just went back to our lesson for
>the day....
>
>Nowadays, Mary and I are very cautious in our Pathfinder, rarely exceeding
>45 degree banks, and never pulling more than mild G turns. Mary hates steep
>banks (except in a Super Decathlon -- then all bets are off!), and the most
>rambunctious thing we ever do are "Up-Downs" (as the kids call them), which
>is a firm pull up with a steady push-over at the top that induces negative
>Gs in the back seat.
>
>Just curious -- what do you guys do with your spam cans? I've seen video
>from inside a Cessna that shows a guy doing some pretty radical maneuvers,
>but in real life what's the most you push your aircraft?
>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...

>A friend has a 182 and we have rolled that many times. Another buddy has a
>Baron and we have rolled that many times. Yet another friend has a Super
>Cub and I have gotten fairly proficient at rolling and looping that.

"In nomine Patris et fillii et Spiritus Sancti........"
:-)

Dudley Henriques

[Jay Honeck]

> "In nomine Patris et fillii et Spiritus Sancti........"
> :-)

Another guy who was forced to attend Catholic church for many years a child,
I see?

:-)

Or, as we used to say, "Oh feeley me boney, dominos nabisco..."

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim N.]

Jay:

One one of your trips eastward stop by Waukesha. I can arrange a ride in a
Stearman or Yak owned by my friends (might even be able to arrange a ride in
a mustang).

You are always welcome to go up with me in the Extra. Send me an email
offline and let me know about your schedule.

JN

[Rod]

> We were climbing out, so our airspeed was relatively low -- probably
around
> 80 knots. The entire maneuver lasted less than 5 seconds, and nothing
> floated in the cockpit -- but in an old airplane, how much is too much?
>
If nothing floated you didn't even reach zero g, let alone negative g's.
You had a long way to go before risking overstressing anything.

Rod

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:7kLKe.239817$x96.9166@attbi_s72...

<<snip>>
>
> After a few more seconds of debate, I ended the discussion by pushing my
> yoke firmly forward, inducing negative G and allowing us to pass
> harmlessly beneath the traffic. We cleared the plane with room to spare.
>
<<snip>>>
> However, I did (and still) wonder about putting that much negative-G on
> our 34 year old airframe. Without a G meter it's impossible to know how
> much G was induced, but I'd say it was 50% more than I've ever done
> before. (The only negative G maneuver I ever do is the push-over at the
> top of a steep pull-up, known by my kids as an "Up-Down".) Was 50% more
> too much?
>
> We were climbing out, so our airspeed was relatively low -- probably
> around 80 knots. The entire maneuver lasted less than 5 seconds, and
> nothing floated in the cockpit -- but in an old airplane, how much is too
> much?
>
> As another reference point (and a crude way of measuring the negative Gs),
> I routinely read about guys doing the "up-down" maneuver to the point
> where their engine sputters due to fuel starvation. I've *never* done the
> maneuver to that degree, even in this situation (although that may be due
> to the short duration of the maneuver) -- so I'm assuming that I didn't
> push the airframe beyond structural limits. Since that flight I've
> carefully inspected the empennage, and there is obviously no visible
> stress or strain, or I wouldn't be flying it -- but how can you really
> know without extensive metallurgic testing?
>
<<snip>>
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Is the engine on the pathfinder carburated? If so, the engine will stumble
anywhere near zero g. In addition, since you didn't see anything "flying"
inside the cockpit, my guess is that you merely approached zero g, which
isn't a problem at all.

KB

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:9rRKe.18168$084.15176@attbi_s22...
>> "In nomine Patris et fillii et Spiritus Sancti........"
>> :-)
>
> Another guy who was forced to attend Catholic church for many years a
> child, I see?
>
> :-)

A Parochial live in military academy for boys no less; run by the Sisters of
the Immaculate Heart.
With a name like Dudley Arthur Henriques the Third, by the time I made the
fifth grade I had to either be the toughest or the fastest kid in school.
Fortunately for me, I was a little of both :-))
D

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> However, I did (and still) wonder about putting that much negative-G on our
> 34 year old airframe. Without a G meter it's impossible to know how much G
> was induced, but I'd say it was 50% more than I've ever done before. (The
> only negative G maneuver I ever do is the push-over at the top of a steep
> pull-up, known by my kids as an "Up-Down".) Was 50% more too much?

Jay,

As others have pointed out, you alomst certainly didn't hit much
negative g or you'd really know it. A full negative 1 g would result
in you hitting the straps firmly, loose objects flying all around
inside of the airplane, and a dust storm you can't imagine from the
carpet in a 'clean' airplane (trust me on that one). Negative 2 takes
work. Negative 3 *hurts*.

Think about it this way: when you unloaded the wing the airplane's
primary structure was actually under less stress than it had been while
cruising along straight-n-level... it was no longer carrying any
weight! I don't know what the loads on the tail are when you push
over, but I'm betting that they're not that much, either.

No fears.... Atlas remains trustworthy.

-Dave Russell
N2S-3

[Chris Schmelzer]

In article <7kLKe.239817$x96.9166@attbi_s72>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>
> However, I did (and still) wonder about putting that much negative-G on our
> 34 year old airframe. Without a G meter it's impossible to know how much G
> was induced, but I'd say it was 50% more than I've ever done before. (The
> only negative G maneuver I ever do is the push-over at the top of a steep
> pull-up, known by my kids as an "Up-Down".) Was 50% more too much?
>


I doubt you had the negative G's you thought you had...

Trained military pilots start 'redding out' at negative 2 to 2.5 Gs and
anything more than negative 1.5 is quite uncomfortable

--
Chris Schmelzer, MD
Capt, 110th Fighter Michigan ANG
University of Michigan Hospitals
Ann Arbor, MI

[Morgans]

"RST Engineering" > wrote

And that is also where the stamp gets cancelled.

Groan!
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> A Parochial live in military academy for boys no less; run by the Sisters
> of the Immaculate Heart.

Hey, I was forced to attend Mass at Holy Angels Catholic Church, in West
Bend, Wisconsin, EVERY DAY from 1963 through 1967.

EVERY DAY.

Nowadays, that would constitute "child abuse" -- but back then, it was
considered "normal"...

;-)

Strangely enough, I can still recite long stretches of the old Catholic Mass
entirely from memory...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I could be wrong, but doesn't it matter a LOT as to how quickly the
> maneuver
> is stopped and started? Like, an up down done over 9 seconds is almost no
> strain, and one done in 3 seconds is *considerably* more strain on the
> plane?

Yeah, I'm wondering that, too.

Everyone is saying I didn't put too much negative G on the airframe -- which
is nice to hear -- but it was a pretty abrupt maneuver. I know when I do
"up/downs" with the kids, if I do it long and slow, it's a lot easier on
everyone than if I yank and push.

Hopefully pushing hard didn't stress things too much...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> My kids usually beg for one, ask for one more, and then are happy not to
do
> a third, especially when it's hot.

I could be wrong, but doesn't it matter a LOT as to how quickly the maneuver
is stopped and started? Like, an up down done over 9 seconds is almost no
strain, and one done in 3 seconds is *considerably* more strain on the
plane?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

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

> "In nomine Patris et fillii et Spiritus Sancti........"

I don't do Latin, but doesn't that loosely translate to....
Hey y'all, watch this! <g>

I would have thought he learned his lesson the first time. I guess not.
Old pilot? Bold pilot? Not both.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Jim N." > wrote

> Send me an email offline

Isn't that really hard to do? <vb smartass g>
--
Jim in NC

[Happy Dog]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> I could be wrong, but doesn't it matter a LOT as to how quickly the
>> maneuver
>> is stopped and started? Like, an up down done over 9 seconds is almost
>> no
>> strain, and one done in 3 seconds is *considerably* more strain on the
>> plane?
>
> Yeah, I'm wondering that, too.
>
> Everyone is saying I didn't put too much negative G on the airframe --
> which is nice to hear -- but it was a pretty abrupt maneuver. I know
> when I do "up/downs" with the kids, if I do it long and slow, it's a lot
> easier on everyone than if I yank and push.
>
> Hopefully pushing hard didn't stress things too much...

Really unlikely. When you're on the ground, the wings aren't holding the
plane up. The landing gear is. You, probably, didn't even hit -.1G. -1 is
everything plastered against the roof. You probably didn't put much more
stress on it than a take-off at gross.

That being said, DHs advice is as sound as any I've seen on the subject.
Unless you're really competent with acro, even something as innocent as a
chandelle or lazy 8, spiral or spin can quickly get out of hand and stress
the airframe.

moo

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:uTUKe.19103$084.14874@attbi_s22...
>> A Parochial live in military academy for boys no less; run by the Sisters
>> of the Immaculate Heart.
>
> Hey, I was forced to attend Mass at Holy Angels Catholic Church, in West
> Bend, Wisconsin, EVERY DAY from 1963 through 1967.
>
> EVERY DAY.
>
> Nowadays, that would constitute "child abuse" -- but back then, it was
> considered "normal"...
>
> ;-)

Amateurs!!! We had that AND rosary in that afternoon....PLUS
benedictions!!!
:-)))
D

[Dudley Henriques]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote
>
>> "In nomine Patris et fillii et Spiritus Sancti........"
>
> I don't do Latin, but doesn't that loosely translate to....
> Hey y'all, watch this! <g>

Probably closer to " We all die sooner or later. Why rush it?"
:-)
DH

[Jay Honeck]

> Amateurs!!! We had that AND rosary in that afternoon....PLUS
> benedictions!!!
> :-)))

Oooo. Was that a chill I just felt? I remember those, with dread.

And, amazingly, the Church still wonders aloud why their membership
plummeted in the 1970s! D'oh!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Rb1Le.20082$084.9963@attbi_s22...
>> Amateurs!!! We had that AND rosary in that afternoon....PLUS
>> benedictions!!!
>> :-)))
>
> Oooo. Was that a chill I just felt? I remember those, with dread.
>
> And, amazingly, the Church still wonders aloud why their membership
> plummeted in the 1970s! D'oh!
>
> ;-)

It was a great education though. I remember I was inspired toward flying
fast airplanes at the tender age of 15 one morning when Sister Pasklinina
taught me about the speed of sound.
She explained that it was the air separating on that quickly descending
hickory pointing stick she using to turn my open right hand into totally
useless flesh.
:-)
D

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:12:59 -0500, "B. Jensen"
> wrote:

>Jay,
>
>Sounds like it's time for you to get your Commercial ticket. Not that
>you need it for the type of flying you do, but at least you can learn
>and become proficient with some new maneuvers like Chandelles, Lazy
>eights, turns on pylons, accuracy landings, etc without hurting Atlas.
>Also, you are certainly receptive to learning more about flying, so why
>not study for the Commercial written in your spare time and expand you
>"database"? I think you'll find it very enjoyable since you can do it
>on your own time. You'll find the commercial ticket is fun and
>"relative" easy to achive. And heck, your insurance rates might come
>down as a result too??

Bryan, can't you learn those maneuvers without getting a commercial
ticket?

Corky Scott

[Dale]

In article >,
"Happy Dog" > wrote:


>
> Really unlikely. When you're on the ground, the wings aren't holding the
> plane up. The landing gear is.

Last time I looked the main gear on Jay's airplane was attached to the
wing. The spar is still taking the load.


> Unless you're really competent with acro, even something as innocent as a
> chandelle or lazy 8, spiral or spin can quickly get out of hand and stress
> the airframe.

You're kidding right?! I've done acro, but I certainly don't consider
myself "competent" (which frankly, is why I've never rolled the Cessna's
I fly). I am quite capable of doing lazy 8s or chandelles without
"getting out of hand".

IMO a private pilot should be able to do a lazy 8 or chandelle without
losing control of the airplane. They are simply climbing and/or
descending turns done at moderate bank angles. The chandelle is the
only one that "pushes" at all since you get very close to stall at the
finish.

--
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

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

wrote:
> Bryan, can't you learn those maneuvers without getting a commercial
> ticket?


Of course you can but why bother? The maneuvers are and of themselves are
pretty useless. You might as well get credit for learning them.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[John Gaquin]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
> Everyone is saying I didn't put too much negative G on the airframe --
> which is nice to hear -- but it was a pretty abrupt maneuver.

Gs are Gs. I know what you're saying -- an abrupt application *could* yield
some pretty high instantaneous G force, but keep it simple. Did anything
come off the floor and slam right back down during your avoidance maneuver?
Did you feel a quick but unmistakable tug on your belt?

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>
>>>I could be wrong, but doesn't it matter a LOT as to how quickly the
>>>maneuver
>>>is stopped and started? Like, an up down done over 9 seconds is almost
>>>no
>>>strain, and one done in 3 seconds is *considerably* more strain on the
>>>plane?
>>
>>Yeah, I'm wondering that, too.
>>
>>Everyone is saying I didn't put too much negative G on the airframe --
>>which is nice to hear -- but it was a pretty abrupt maneuver. I know
>>when I do "up/downs" with the kids, if I do it long and slow, it's a lot
>>easier on everyone than if I yank and push.
>>
>>Hopefully pushing hard didn't stress things too much...
>
>
> Really unlikely. When you're on the ground, the wings aren't holding the
> plane up. The landing gear is. You, probably, didn't even hit -.1G. -1 is
> everything plastered against the roof. You probably didn't put much more
> stress on it than a take-off at gross.

Did you forget where Piper connects their landing gear?

Matt

[Capt. Geoffry Thorpe]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:yXUKe.261230$xm3.216131@attbi_s21...
< snip>
> Everyone is saying I didn't put too much negative G on the airframe --
> which is nice to hear -- but it was a pretty abrupt maneuver. I know
> when I do "up/downs" with the kids, if I do it long and slow, it's a lot
> easier on everyone than if I yank and push.
>
> Hopefully pushing hard didn't stress things too much...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

If the view out the front didn't look like the picture I just posted on
alt.binaries.pictures.avation you are probably allright (View out the
windscreen).

If you went really negative you would have been banging your noggin on the
overhead.

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> Really unlikely. When you're on the ground, the wings aren't holding the
>> plane up. The landing gear is. You, probably, didn't even hit -.1G. -1
>> is everything plastered against the roof. You probably didn't put much
>> more stress on it than a take-off at gross.
>
> Did you forget where Piper connects their landing gear?

Didn't know it was a Piper. Didn't check either.

* Idiot. (Self directed with smack upside the snout.) *

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Dale" > wrote in message
>> Really unlikely. When you're on the ground, the wings aren't holding the
>> plane up. The landing gear is.
>
> Last time I looked the main gear on Jay's airplane was attached to the
> wing. The spar is still taking the load.

Oops! Thought he drove a 172...
>
>
>> Unless you're really competent with acro, even something as innocent as a
>> chandelle or lazy 8, spiral or spin can quickly get out of hand and
>> stress
>> the airframe.
>
> You're kidding right?! I've done acro, but I certainly don't consider
> myself "competent" (which frankly, is why I've never rolled the Cessna's
> I fly). I am quite capable of doing lazy 8s or chandelles without
> "getting out of hand".
>
> IMO a private pilot should be able to do a lazy 8 or chandelle without
> losing control of the airplane. They are simply climbing and/or
> descending turns done at moderate bank angles. The chandelle is the
> only one that "pushes" at all since you get very close to stall at the
> finish.

Should be? Sure. Is? Nope. I've taken lots of people through this stuff
and most, pilots and even some non-pilots are fine with them. But a few,
who may have only done them many years before when getting their ticket,
hesitate on the recovery. The airspeed winds up and they overreact on the
pullout. If you don't believe this happens, get the proper qualifications
and try it on a bunch of people. Preferably in something designed to handle
it. Or ask an acro instructor. The one who taught me worked for Bombardier
and used my plane to teach an emergency maneuvers course to Bombardier
pilots. He said one of the first thing he did was roll inverted to a +1G
dive and ask them to recover. He said many tried to pull out of it. That,
in anything not designed for acro can be fatal. You may have better
instincts or training or both. But many, many people don't. Again, the
post by DH says it as well as I've ever read.

moo

[Darrel Toepfer]

Happy Dog wrote:

>>Last time I looked the main gear on Jay's airplane was attached to the
>>wing. The spar is still taking the load.
>
> Oops! Thought he drove a 172...

Insult, injury... Ouch!!! Ooooh thats just mean, man...

[Matt Whiting]

Darrel Toepfer wrote:

> Happy Dog wrote:
>
>>> Last time I looked the main gear on Jay's airplane was attached to the
>>> wing. The spar is still taking the load.
>>
>>
>> Oops! Thought he drove a 172...
>
>
> Insult, injury... Ouch!!! Ooooh thats just mean, man...

Yes, one should not insult Cessnas in such a crude manner! :-)

Matt

[Mike Weller]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:49:07 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>As another reference point (and a crude way of measuring the negative Gs), I
>routinely read about guys doing the "up-down" maneuver to the point where
>their engine sputters due to fuel starvation.

I've done that with Cherokees since the 1960s. It doesn't hurt them
at all. And it is a wonderful way to teach the kids about physics.
It's called a parabolic arc and it's not an aerobatic maneuver.

>Since that flight I've carefully
>inspected the empennage, and there is obviously no visible stress or strain,
>or I wouldn't be flying it -- but how can you really know without extensive
>metallurgic testing?

Think about it Jay. When you're just flying along, there is a large
load on the the stabilator forcing the tail down to make the plane
stable (hence the term). When you "unload" the stabilator you've
given it a nice little rest.

I knew a pilot with a Commanche that put 50 pounds of lead in the tail
cone. It made it go faster. Really not that much faster, but the
plane flew better. That was also a long time ago! And I loved flying
that Commanche.

>
>If you've ever looked at the stabilator attachment on a Cherokee you will
>marvel at the simplicity and apparent fragility of the design, so inducing
>excessive negative-G is something we never, ever do.

Don't ever look closely at a helicopter.

Mike Weller

[Happy Dog]

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
> I knew a pilot with a Commanche that put 50 pounds of lead in the tail
> cone. It made it go faster. Really not that much faster, but the
> plane flew better. That was also a long time ago! And I loved flying
> that Commanche.

How about spinning it?

moo

[Big John]

Mike

Did you mean to say intentionally?

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````

On 11 Aug 2005 15:21:35 GMT, "Mike Rapoport" >
wrote:

>My airplanes say that "no aerobatic manuevers, including spins, are
>approved" so I don't do any aerobatic maneuvers or spins.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>news:p_JKe.239722$x96.59507@attbi_s72...
>> During primary training, many moons ago, I was growing frustrated with the
>> sedate nature of our flying, so I asked my flight instructor (Bob -- a guy
>> with 20K hours in every known flying machine) when we were going to get to
>> the "fun stuff"? He didn't know what I was talking about, so I told him I
>> wanted to see what these things could actually *do*...
>>
>> At which point he smiled that crooked smile of his, and proceeded to do a
>> wing-over with a recovery out the bottom, going the opposite direction!
>> I was whooping and hollering for more, but he just went back to our lesson
>> for the day....
>>
>> Nowadays, Mary and I are very cautious in our Pathfinder, rarely exceeding
>> 45 degree banks, and never pulling more than mild G turns. Mary hates
>> steep banks (except in a Super Decathlon -- then all bets are off!), and
>> the most rambunctious thing we ever do are "Up-Downs" (as the kids call
>> them), which is a firm pull up with a steady push-over at the top that
>> induces negative Gs in the back seat.
>>
>> Just curious -- what do you guys do with your spam cans? I've seen video
>> from inside a Cessna that shows a guy doing some pretty radical maneuvers,
>> but in real life what's the most you push your aircraft?
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>

[Mike Weller]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:46:13 -0400, "Happy Dog"
> wrote:

>"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>> I knew a pilot with a Commanche that put 50 pounds of lead in the tail
>> cone. It made it go faster. Really not that much faster, but the
>> plane flew better. That was also a long time ago! And I loved flying
>> that Commanche.
>
>How about spinning it?
>
>moo
>

Not a good idea. Even Cherokees take a lot of altitude to recover
from a spin.

Mike Weller

[Jay Honeck]

>>If you've ever looked at the stabilator attachment on a Cherokee you will
>>marvel at the simplicity and apparent fragility of the design, so inducing
>>excessive negative-G is something we never, ever do.
>
> Don't ever look closely at a helicopter.

And for you die-hard Cessna fans, don't EVER look at the wing spar attach
points... You'll never do a steep turn in your 172/182 again!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Happy Dog]

"Mike Weller"
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:46:13 -0400, "Happy Dog"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>>> I knew a pilot with a Commanche that put 50 pounds of lead in the tail
>>> cone. It made it go faster. Really not that much faster, but the
>>> plane flew better. That was also a long time ago! And I loved flying
>>> that Commanche.
>>
>>How about spinning it?
>
> Not a good idea. Even Cherokees take a lot of altitude to recover
> from a spin.

I was being facetious. Did he do a W&B on the thing?

moo

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>If you've ever looked at the stabilator attachment on a Cherokee you will
>>>marvel at the simplicity and apparent fragility of the design, so inducing
>>>excessive negative-G is something we never, ever do.
>>
>>Don't ever look closely at a helicopter.
>
>
> And for you die-hard Cessna fans, don't EVER look at the wing spar attach
> points... You'll never do a steep turn in your 172/182 again!

I have. What is the problem? :-)

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

>> And for you die-hard Cessna fans, don't EVER look at the wing spar attach
>> points... You'll never do a steep turn in your 172/182 again!
>
> I have. What is the problem? :-)

Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be enough
"there" there...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Moore]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
> Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be
> enough "there" there...

Each 10,000# engine on the B-707 was attached with three (3)
bolts the size of your small finger! :) Never lost one.

Bob

[RST Engineering]

And each engine on the 727 was attached with the same sort of 3-bolt
mechanism, only the bolts were "necked down" in the middle to provide a
positive shear strength. Theory was if the engine started shaking violently
enough, they wanted the engine to depart the airframe before it tore the
tailfeathers off.

I find nothing wrong with the beef in the area of the lift strut on the 100
series Cessnas. What's your problem, Jay?

Jim




"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be
>> enough "there" there...
>
> Each 10,000# engine on the B-707 was attached with three (3)
> bolts the size of your small finger! :) Never lost one.
>
> Bob

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>And for you die-hard Cessna fans, don't EVER look at the wing spar attach
>>>points... You'll never do a steep turn in your 172/182 again!
>>
>>I have. What is the problem? :-)
>
>
> Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be enough
> "there" there...
>
> :-)

Ha, ha, ha. I guess being an engineer, I figured there was enough. :-)

Personally, I much prefer strut braced wings as any engineer (and many
non-engineers!) know that a triangle is one of natures favorites
structurally. A cantilever requires more weight for equivalent
strength. I always took great comfort looking out at those struts on my
182 when I was getting bounced around unmercifully over the Allegheny's
on a windy day.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Moore wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
>>Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be
>>enough "there" there...
>
>
> Each 10,000# engine on the B-707 was attached with three (3)
> bolts the size of your small finger! :) Never lost one.

You never lost a bolt or a finger? :-)

I'm guessing there were used in double shear, if not more, which helps a
lot.


Matt

[Jay Honeck]

>> Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be
>> enough "there" there...
>
> Each 10,000# engine on the B-707 was attached with three (3)
> bolts the size of your small finger! :) Never lost one.

At OSH several of us were examining "Aluminum Overcast" (the EAA B-17 that
is being re-built after a landing gear collapse), and we all shuddered after
looking at the engine-less nacelles and noting that those huge radial
engines were attached to the firewall with what appeared to be bicycle
parts...

In fact, the bolt holding my rear sprocket on my bicycle is BIGGER than the
bolts holding the motor mounts to the nacelle!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be enough "there" there...

In all fairness, the struts don't have to support the whole load of the
wing. There is also some strength in the wing spar itself.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> I'm guessing there were used in double shear

Whazzat?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mike Weller]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 01:49:13 -0400, "Happy Dog"
> wrote:

>"Mike Weller"
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:46:13 -0400, "Happy Dog"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>>>> I knew a pilot with a Commanche that put 50 pounds of lead in the tail
>>>> cone. It made it go faster. Really not that much faster, but the
>>>> plane flew better. That was also a long time ago! And I loved flying
>>>> that Commanche.
>>>
>>>How about spinning it?
>>
>> Not a good idea. Even Cherokees take a lot of altitude to recover
>> from a spin.
>
>I was being facetious. Did he do a W&B on the thing?
>
>moo
>

I understand that, but it's a true story. Long ago, but not far away.

I've been a passenger on a Shorts Skyvan where to get the weight and
balance right we had to sit in the very back of the airplane.

Mike Weller

[Happy Dog]

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>>>>"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>>>>> I knew a pilot with a Commanche that put 50 pounds of lead in the tail
>>>>> cone. It made it go faster. Really not that much faster, but the
>>>>> plane flew better. That was also a long time ago! And I loved flying
>>>>> that Commanche.
>>>>
>>>>How about spinning it?
>>>
>>> Not a good idea. Even Cherokees take a lot of altitude to recover
>>> from a spin.
>>
>>I was being facetious. Did he do a W&B on the thing?
>>
> I understand that, but it's a true story. Long ago, but not far away.
>
> I've been a passenger on a Shorts Skyvan where to get the weight and
> balance right we had to sit in the very back of the airplane.

Point is that putting 50#s in the tail without doing a W&B is insane. I
would be surprised if it could recover from a stall if it was already at the
POH tail-heavy limit.

moo

[Newps]

Jose wrote:
>> Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be
>> enough "there" there...
>
>
> In all fairness, the struts don't have to support the whole load of the
> wing. There is also some strength in the wing spar itself.

Not like you'd think. Pull the strut out from under a Cessna and the
wing falls to the ground faster than you can get out from under it.

[Jose]

>> In all fairness, the struts don't have to support the whole load of the wing. There is also some strength in the wing spar itself.
>
> Not like you'd think. Pull the strut out from under a Cessna and the wing falls to the ground faster than you can get out from under it.

Hmmm. Good to know. I always thought the strut was more for when the
wing is supporting the aircraft. Is the support set up so that if the
bolts fail on the ground, the wing will fall, or is there a little notch
that would hold it in place.

All in all, I think I'd prefer the wing to fall. It would let me know
that I probably didn't want to take it into the air.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be
>>>enough "there" there...
>>
>>Each 10,000# engine on the B-707 was attached with three (3)
>>bolts the size of your small finger! :) Never lost one.
>
>
> At OSH several of us were examining "Aluminum Overcast" (the EAA B-17 that
> is being re-built after a landing gear collapse), and we all shuddered after
> looking at the engine-less nacelles and noting that those huge radial
> engines were attached to the firewall with what appeared to be bicycle
> parts...
>
> In fact, the bolt holding my rear sprocket on my bicycle is BIGGER than the
> bolts holding the motor mounts to the nacelle!
>
> :-)

Jay, Jay, Jay ... don't confuse size with strength. :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be
>> enough "there" there...
>
>
> In all fairness, the struts don't have to support the whole load of the
> wing. There is also some strength in the wing spar itself.

Really? Most Cessnas I've seen don't have any way to develop any
significant moment about the wing attack points, so the struts DO have
to support the whole load of the wing. The spar is there simply to
transfer the air loads to the strut and wing attach points (compression
generally, or tension if pulling negative G.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> I'm guessing there were used in double shear
>
>
> Whazzat?
>
> Jose

It is when a bolt has two shear planes, which means the bolt passes
through three pieces of metal, with one being on either side of a middle
member. Hard to draw in ASCII, but I'll try:

X's represent the metal being fastened, O's represent the bolt

Single shear:
O
XXXXXXOXX
XXOXXXXXXX
O

Double shear:
O
XXXXXXOXX
XXOXXXXXXX
XXXXXXOXX
O


You can probably Google "double shear" and find much better diagrams and
explanations.

Matt

[Newps]

Jose wrote:

>>> In all fairness, the struts don't have to support the whole load of
>>> the wing. There is also some strength in the wing spar itself.
>>
>>
>> Not like you'd think. Pull the strut out from under a Cessna and the
>> wing falls to the ground faster than you can get out from under it.
>
>
> Hmmm. Good to know. I always thought the strut was more for when the
> wing is supporting the aircraft. Is the support set up so that if the
> bolts fail on the ground, the wing will fall, or is there a little notch
> that would hold it in place.

The wingtip will go right to the ground. There are two bolts that hold
the wing to the fuselage, and they really aren't all the big. These two
attach points are basically like a door hinge, their strength is fore
and aft, not up and down. The strut handles the up and down part.

[john smith]

Newps wrote:
> These two attach points are basically like a door hinge,
> their strength is fore and aft,

Tension and compression?

> not up and down. The strut handles the up and down part.

Shear?

[Mike Weller]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:45:36 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Jose wrote:
>>> Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be
>>> enough "there" there...
>>
>>
>> In all fairness, the struts don't have to support the whole load of the
>> wing. There is also some strength in the wing spar itself.
>
>Not like you'd think. Pull the strut out from under a Cessna and the
>wing falls to the ground faster than you can get out from under it.

I'll never pre-flight a 210 again.

Thanks for the info.

Mike Weller

[Mike Weller]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:15:42 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote:

wrote:
>> Bryan, can't you learn those maneuvers without getting a commercial
>> ticket?
>
>
>Of course you can but why bother? The maneuvers are and of themselves are
>pretty useless. You might as well get credit for learning them.

One of the best things about flying is that you never stop learning.

I mean that in the kindest way.

Mike Weller

[Stefan]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> rambunctious thing we ever do are "Up-Downs" (as the kids call them), which
> is a firm pull up with a steady push-over at the top that induces negative
> Gs in the back seat.

As others have sait: If there's no dirt floating around, you don't even
hit zero G, let alone negatives. I think you should go and take some
real acro lessons. (Actually, I think every pilot should!) It's fun and
it definitely makes you a better pilot. And you'll learn something about
the flight envelope. If I recollect correctly, your average spam can is
certified for something like +5.3 and -2.5 G at Va. Ask your acro
instructor to demonstrate those loads. You'll be surprized! (Not sure
whether you'll like it.)

Stefan

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>> These two attach points are basically like a door hinge,
>> their strength is fore and aft,
>
>
> Tension and compression?
>
>> not up and down. The strut handles the up and down part.
>
>
> Shear?

Just the opposite. The wing attach bolts are loaded in shear and the
strut in tension (primarily) or compression (negative G).


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Mike Weller wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:45:36 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Jose wrote:
>>
>>>>Well, to my (admittedly un-trained) eye, there doesn't appear to be
>>>>enough "there" there...
>>>
>>>
>>>In all fairness, the struts don't have to support the whole load of the
>>>wing. There is also some strength in the wing spar itself.
>>
>>Not like you'd think. Pull the strut out from under a Cessna and the
>>wing falls to the ground faster than you can get out from under it.
>
>
> I'll never pre-flight a 210 again.
>
> Thanks for the info.

I've never read the preflight checklist for a 210, but the 150-182
series doesn't include removing the wing strut as a preflight checklist
item! :-)

Matt

[Darkwing \(Double Secret Disinformation Agent\)]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:CDLKe.242331$_o.184938@attbi_s71...
>> I allowed one of my "Young Eagles" to do some of what you call "Ups &
>> Downs" once. Her two friends in the back seat became pretty queasy in
>> short order and were not pleased with her. That sort of thing got removed
>> from the menu for my flights.
>
> Yeah, up/downs can get pretty ugly, if done too often.
>
> My kids usually beg for one, ask for one more, and then are happy not to
> do a third, especially when it's hot.
> --
> Jay Honeck


I like the pencil test.

-------------------------------------------------
DW

[John Clonts]

"Darkwing (Double Secret Disinformation Agent)" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:CDLKe.242331$_o.184938@attbi_s71...
>>> I allowed one of my "Young Eagles" to do some of what you call "Ups & Downs" once. Her two friends in the
>>> back seat became pretty queasy in short order and were not pleased with her. That sort of thing got removed
>>> from the menu for my flights.
>>
>> Yeah, up/downs can get pretty ugly, if done too often.
>>
>> My kids usually beg for one, ask for one more, and then are happy not to do a third, especially when it's
>> hot.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>
>
> I like the pencil test.
>

Whats that?

[john smith]

>>>>I allowed one of my "Young Eagles" to do some of what you call "Ups & Downs" once. Her two friends in the
>>>>back seat became pretty queasy in short order and were not pleased with her. That sort of thing got removed
>>>>from the menu for my flights.

>>>Yeah, up/downs can get pretty ugly, if done too often.

>>>My kids usually beg for one, ask for one more, and then are happy not to do a third, especially when it's
>>>hot.

>>I like the pencil test.

> Whats that?

Hold a pencil up, do a Humpty-Bump, then let go and watch the pencil
float in the air.

[Jay Honeck]

>>>I like the pencil test.
>
>> Whats that?
>
> Hold a pencil up, do a Humpty-Bump, then let go and watch the pencil float
> in the air.

Dang!

I was waiting for the "Do you need to wear a bra?" version of the "pencil
test" to somehow be *******ized by utilizing "zero G" maneuvers in my plane!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

>>>>I like the pencil test.

>>>Whats that?

>>Hold a pencil up, do a Humpty-Bump, then let go and watch the pencil float
>>in the air.

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Dang!
> I was waiting for the "Do you need to wear a bra?" version of the "pencil
> test" to somehow be *******ized by utilizing "zero G" maneuvers in my plane!
> :-)

Isn't that a "1-g" maneuver?
If you drop the pencil and it passes through without "catching", are
such garments necessary?

[Stefan]

john smith wrote:

> Hold a pencil up, do a Humpty-Bump, then let go and watch the pencil
> float in the air.

Dogs work fine, too:
http://www.bofunk.com/video/1794/zero_g_dog.html