East River turning radius

[Gary Drescher]

NYC's East River is about 2000' wide. So when you approach the north
endpoint of the VFR corridor there, you need to make a U turn with a 1000'
radius (or less if you're not right next to the eastern shore when you start
the turn).

Suppose you're afraid to fly too slowly because you don't want to stall
during the turn, so you cruise up the river at 90 knots. Suppose you're
afraid to bank too steeply because you don't want to stall during the turn,
so you use just a 30-degree bank.

Oops: your turning radius is about 1200'.

Using the East River VFR corridor requires planning the turn
carefully--especially since you need to leave an extra margin in case you
have to dodge high-density traffic there.

--Gary

[Peter R.]

Gary Drescher > wrote:

> NYC's East River is about 2000' wide. So when you approach the north
> endpoint of the VFR corridor there, you need to make a U turn with a 1000'
> radius (or less if you're not right next to the eastern shore when you start
> the turn).

I have flown the Hudson River VFR corridor several times, but only flew the
East River corridor once.

My impression at the time was that a very tight turn is required to go back
south to exit this corridor.

--
Peter

[d&tm]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
> NYC's East River is about 2000' wide. So when you approach the north
> endpoint of the VFR corridor there, you need to make a U turn with a 1000'
> radius (or less if you're not right next to the eastern shore when you
start
> the turn).
>
> Suppose you're afraid to fly too slowly because you don't want to stall
> during the turn, so you cruise up the river at 90 knots. Suppose you're
> afraid to bank too steeply because you don't want to stall during the
turn,
> so you use just a 30-degree bank.
>
> Oops: your turning radius is about 1200'.
>
> Using the East River VFR corridor requires planning the turn
> carefully--especially since you need to leave an extra margin in case you
> have to dodge high-density traffic there.

only have to increase bank to 36 degrees to get under 1000' radius ( or
slow to 81 kts) or go half way and 33 degrees bank and 85 kts. shouldnt be
a problem in a 172 ( isnt that what you fly?) stall speed would still only
be 55 kts. ( assuming 50 kts strait and level from memory)
terry

> --Gary
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"d&tm" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> NYC's East River is about 2000' wide. So when you approach the north
>> endpoint of the VFR corridor there, you need to make a U turn with a
>> 1000'
>> radius (or less if you're not right next to the eastern shore when you
> start
>> the turn).
>>
>> Suppose you're afraid to fly too slowly because you don't want to stall
>> during the turn, so you cruise up the river at 90 knots. Suppose you're
>> afraid to bank too steeply because you don't want to stall during the
> turn,
>> so you use just a 30-degree bank.
>>
>> Oops: your turning radius is about 1200'.
>>
>> Using the East River VFR corridor requires planning the turn
>> carefully--especially since you need to leave an extra margin in case you
>> have to dodge high-density traffic there.
>
> only have to increase bank to 36 degrees to get under 1000' radius ( or
> slow to 81 kts) or go half way and 33 degrees bank and 85 kts. shouldnt
> be
> a problem in a 172 ( isnt that what you fly?) stall speed would still
> only
> be 55 kts. ( assuming 50 kts strait and level from memory)
> terry

Yup, I fly 172s and Arrows. But the folks in the news were in a Cirrus. In
any case, the turn can certainly be executed--my point is just that the
situation is unusual (outside of mountain flying) for the degree of planning
that's required in order to make the turn safely.

--Gary

[Bob Gardner]

I think that any pilot with the fears that you describe should go up with an
instructor and explore the low-speed end of the operating envelope until he
or she is comfortable. "Fear" of stalling is based on lack of knowledge or
experience, and I know from reading your posts that you do not fit into
either category.

Bob Gardner

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
> NYC's East River is about 2000' wide. So when you approach the north
> endpoint of the VFR corridor there, you need to make a U turn with a 1000'
> radius (or less if you're not right next to the eastern shore when you
> start the turn).
>
> Suppose you're afraid to fly too slowly because you don't want to stall
> during the turn, so you cruise up the river at 90 knots. Suppose you're
> afraid to bank too steeply because you don't want to stall during the
> turn, so you use just a 30-degree bank.
>
> Oops: your turning radius is about 1200'.
>
> Using the East River VFR corridor requires planning the turn
> carefully--especially since you need to leave an extra margin in case you
> have to dodge high-density traffic there.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Stefano]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> NYC's East River is about 2000' wide. So when you approach the north
> endpoint of the VFR corridor there, you need to make a U turn with a 1000'
> radius (or less if you're not right next to the eastern shore when you
> start the turn).
>
> Suppose you're afraid to fly too slowly because you don't want to stall
> during the turn, so you cruise up the river at 90 knots. Suppose you're
> afraid to bank too steeply because you don't want to stall during the
> turn, so you use just a 30-degree bank.
>
> Oops: your turning radius is about 1200'.
>
> Using the East River VFR corridor requires planning the turn
> carefully--especially since you need to leave an extra margin in case you
> have to dodge high-density traffic there.
>
> --Gary
In occasions like these I was trained to do a chandelle.
Immelman turn will also do ;-)

[EridanMan]

How is this turn any different (at all) then a tight traffic pattern?

Based on what I've seen, that's how it should be handled. Flaps down,
Approach speed, stabalize... determine the winds, and make a nice
crisp, 20 degree-of-bank turn into them.

Hell, the 27L Left pattern at OAK is only 1800 feet wide (its 1800 feet
from the numbers to the United Hangar used as reference), I've seen
plenty of fast glass practicing on it with no problems (Including a
full Base Leg (90 degree turn base, level off, 90 degree turn final)).

This is a basic piloting skill.


Gary Drescher wrote:
> NYC's East River is about 2000' wide. So when you approach the north
> endpoint of the VFR corridor there, you need to make a U turn with a 1000'
> radius (or less if you're not right next to the eastern shore when you start
> the turn).
>
> Suppose you're afraid to fly too slowly because you don't want to stall
> during the turn, so you cruise up the river at 90 knots. Suppose you're
> afraid to bank too steeply because you don't want to stall during the turn,
> so you use just a 30-degree bank.
>
> Oops: your turning radius is about 1200'.
>
> Using the East River VFR corridor requires planning the turn
> carefully--especially since you need to leave an extra margin in case you
> have to dodge high-density traffic there.
>
> --Gary

[Maule Driver]

As soon as I heard East Side, Cirrus, building strike - I thought low
time pilot, hot aircraft, many distractions, wrong side of the VFR
corridor having do the U-turn.

I've lived on Roosevelt Island (middle of the East River just south of
the turn) and flown the corridor in a 172. I early on decided never to
fly the East River just because it's too tight and too filled with
traffic. It's not unsafe, it's just unnecessarily challenging when the
Hudson provides an equivalent experience.

I don't know how you properly train for that flight.... Few of us spend
much time flying within 1/4 mile of buildings and below their tops. All
of us can make the necessary turn at 1,000 feet in Iowa. Most of us
will find it catches your breath the first time you do it at 800 feet in
a concrete canyon near so many millions of people. Low ceilings, some
wind, some rapid fire Laguardia radio work in the background. It's
pretty high excitement.

I had flown many hours ridge soaring the Appalachins - 500 feet above
valley floor, 2 wingspans from the trees, redlining at 155mph, 200 miles
from homebase. Then I went out west. It took me 3 days of flying
before I could get within a 1/4 mile of a Sierra peak, 5,000 feet above
the valley floor, at 60 mph, 2 miles from takeoff. Vice-a-versa for
western pilots flying the eastern hills. It's all in you head but it's
all quite real. We already have the knowledge and skills to do it. We
just have to get the quivering mass of grey matter to settle down enough
to let the training take over.

Gary Drescher wrote:
> Using the East River VFR corridor requires planning the turn
> carefully--especially since you need to leave an extra margin in case you
> have to dodge high-density traffic there.

Yep. And not doing so can end up just like a guy in a used Porsche on a
rain slicked road - they just don't scramble jets on the west coast
while pulling the lifeless remains out of a Meadowlands swamp.

No point here... just rambling.

[Gary Drescher]

"Stefano" > wrote in message
.. .
> In occasions like these I was trained to do a chandelle.
> Immelman turn will also do ;-)

Except that you're probably already close to the 1100' ceiling in this case.
:)

--Gary

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Stefano > posted:

> Gary Drescher wrote:
>>
>> Oops: your turning radius is about 1200'.
>>
>>
> In occasions like these I was trained to do a chandelle.
> Immelman turn will also do ;-)
>
Wow. You can do an Immelman in under 500'? Impressive!

Neil

[Ron Natalie]

EridanMan wrote:
> How is this turn any different (at all) then a tight traffic pattern?
>
> Based on what I've seen, that's how it should be handled. Flaps down,
> Approach speed, stabalize... determine the winds, and make a nice
> crisp, 20 degree-of-bank turn into them.

People screw up the base-to-final turns. Usually they just overshoot
and don't hit anything. Sometimes they stall and spin in, but small
airplanes balling it up off the end of the runway don't make the
national news.

[Matt Whiting]

EridanMan wrote:

> How is this turn any different (at all) then a tight traffic pattern?
>
> Based on what I've seen, that's how it should be handled. Flaps down,
> Approach speed, stabalize... determine the winds, and make a nice
> crisp, 20 degree-of-bank turn into them.

20 deg is way too shallow a bank angle unless you are flying in IMC. :-)

Matt

[.Blueskies.]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message . ..
: NYC's East River is about 2000' wide. So when you approach the north
: endpoint of the VFR corridor there, you need to make a U turn with a 1000'
: radius (or less if you're not right next to the eastern shore when you start
: the turn).
:
: Suppose you're afraid to fly too slowly because you don't want to stall
: during the turn, so you cruise up the river at 90 knots. Suppose you're
: afraid to bank too steeply because you don't want to stall during the turn,
: so you use just a 30-degree bank.
:
: Oops: your turning radius is about 1200'.
:
: Using the East River VFR corridor requires planning the turn
: carefully--especially since you need to leave an extra margin in case you
: have to dodge high-density traffic there.
:
: --Gary
:
:

Found this link:
http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html
(Some other interesting calculators there also)

[Gary Drescher]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> EridanMan wrote:
>> How is this turn any different (at all) then a tight traffic pattern?
>>
>> Based on what I've seen, that's how it should be handled. Flaps down,
>> Approach speed, stabalize... determine the winds, and make a nice
>> crisp, 20 degree-of-bank turn into them.
>
> People screw up the base-to-final turns. Usually they just overshoot and
> don't hit anything.

Right. The base-to-final turn isn't usually just short of a row of
skyscrapers.

But there's another difference. Pilots are taught what the proper approach
speed is for landing, what a proper distance is between the downwind leg and
the runway, and proper bank angles (not to exceed thirty degrees for basic
landings, although steep turns are appropriate for more sophisticated
techniques).

So if a pilot used the same parameters for the East River U-turn, it would
work out ok. The potential problem, though, is that a pilot might not
recognize that those parameters are appropriate there. The pilot might
instead maintain an airspeed closer to cruise (but might still use just a
moderate bank angle).

Pilots are taught to perform explicit calculations of, say, the distance
required for landing or takeoff under various circumstances. But does the
private-pilot curriculum include explicit calculation of turning radius as a
function of airspeed and bank angle? (I don't recall encountering that in
the official part of my training, but perhaps I'm just forgetting.)

--Gary

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Neil Gould" > wrote
>
> Wow. You can do an Immelman in under 500'? Impressive!

How about a baby hammerhead turn, with a half roll coming out of it? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> Found this link:
> http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html
> (Some other interesting calculators there also)

I think the turing radius calculator is borked......

Try 80MPH at 89 degree bank angle....

Impressive piece of engineering if possible.> Found this link:

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Peter R.]

Maule Driver > wrote:

> some rapid fire Laguardia radio work in the background

Good points except the above, IMO. Why monitor LaGuardia when you are not
required to do so? Monitoring and self-announcing on the discreet
frequency for that VFR corridor should be all the radio needed.

--
Peter

[Maule Driver]

Peter R. wrote:
> Maule Driver > wrote:
>>some rapid fire Laguardia radio work in the background
>
> Good points except the above, IMO. Why monitor LaGuardia when you are not
> required to do so? Monitoring and self-announcing on the discreet
> frequency for that VFR corridor should be all the radio needed.
>
That makes sense. What I was thinking of was, "what do you do to
request the a Class B clearance so you don't have to do the U-turn". Is
there a freq for self announcing and requesting clearances?

I'm wondering if the only thing that may keep the VFR corridor in place
is a desire on the part of ATC to keep all the sightseeing requests at bay.

[Maule Driver]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> EridanMan wrote:
>
>> How is this turn any different (at all) then a tight traffic pattern?
>>
>> Based on what I've seen, that's how it should be handled. Flaps down,
>> Approach speed, stabalize... determine the winds, and make a nice
>> crisp, 20 degree-of-bank turn into them.
>
>
> 20 deg is way too shallow a bank angle unless you are flying in IMC. :-)
>
Yep. That's why most patterns are so darn big!

Sure would prefer to be maneuvering a Maule in there rather than a
Cirrus... let's see, a Cirrus to get there and a Maule to sight see from
= RV-10

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Neil Gould" > wrote
> >
> > Wow. You can do an Immelman in under 500'? Impressive!
>
> How about a baby hammerhead turn, with a half roll coming out of it? <g>
> --
> Jim in NC

Presuming that no one is immediately on top of you, somethng akin to a
duster turn works quite well and only uses about 50 feet to make a really
dramatic difference in the turn radius. I used to do that to turn around a
Tomohawk (PA-38) in a small radius.

Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> Presuming that no one is immediately on top of you, somethng akin to a
> duster turn works quite well and only uses about 50 feet to make a really
> dramatic difference in the turn radius. I used to do that to turn around a
> Tomohawk (PA-38) in a small radius.

I wonder if a low time pilot like this one, at what, about 80 hours, could be
taught to do this kind of turn in a Cirrus? Doubtful, I think, don't you?

I didn't even think of a duster turn. Perhaps that should become a new required
maneuver in the private pilot test? <g>

Or does that go in the classification of, "Hey, y'all, watch this!" </;-o))
--
Jim in NC

[Peter R.]

Maule Driver > wrote:

> That makes sense. What I was thinking of was, "what do you do to
> request the a Class B clearance so you don't have to do the U-turn". Is
> there a freq for self announcing and requesting clearances?

They are not one in the same. However, I have a hard time imagining
LaGuardia having the time to identify and clear an East River VFR
corridor-located aircraft into their class B airspace north of Roosevelt
Island, given how busy they are.

Considering the helicopter traffic on that side of the island, perhaps it
is possible but in my case during the many times I have been in along the
Hudson, my plan for getting out of the scenic corridors was to return to
the Hudson side, remain below class B and fly north back up the Hudson to
the Tappan Zee Bridge where the class B shelf rises. At that point I would
call NY approach for clearance into the class B. This seemed to me to be
the least stressful method for doing this.

I recall reading that there is also an option of calling Teterboro tower as
well, then turning west over New Jersey towards TEB, but I have never tried
that option.

--
Peter

[d&tm]

> wrote in message
...
> > Found this link:
> > http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html
> > (Some other interesting calculators there also)
>
> I think the turing radius calculator is borked......
>
> Try 80MPH at 89 degree bank angle....
>
> Impressive piece of engineering if possible.> Found this link:
>
The calculator is correct by my reckoning. 80mph and 89 degree bank gives 8
ft radius turning circle which is correct in theory. it sounds ridiculous
but really the 89 degree angle of bank is what is ridiculous . such a turn
if possible would pull 57 g. the calculation is not that difficult.
radius= v squared / g tan ( bank angle)
terry

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Maule Driver wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if the only thing that may keep the VFR corridor in place
> is a desire on the part of ATC to keep all the sightseeing requests at bay.

You _can_ fly the corridor in the Bravo space with a clearance, and
enjoy positive separation, etc...

[Ron Natalie]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Maule Driver wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering if the only thing that may keep the VFR corridor in
>> place is a desire on the part of ATC to keep all the sightseeing
>> requests at bay.
>
> You _can_ fly the corridor in the Bravo space with a clearance, and
> enjoy positive separation, etc...
>
Nope, if you're in the corridor VFR you neither have a clearance
nor positive separation. What you can do is ask to fly down the
river just above the corridor, inside the class B, which will
require the clearance and provide separation.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> What you can do is ask to fly down the
> river just above the corridor, inside the class B, which will
> require the clearance and provide separation.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. <G>

You are correct that technically you're no longer in the "VFR corridor"
when you're in Bravo space, I didn't make that very clear.

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Peter
What is a "duster turn"?
Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Neil Gould" > wrote
> > >
> > > Wow. You can do an Immelman in under 500'? Impressive!
> >
> > How about a baby hammerhead turn, with a half roll coming out of it? <g>
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> Presuming that no one is immediately on top of you, somethng akin to a
> duster turn works quite well and only uses about 50 feet to make a really
> dramatic difference in the turn radius. I used to do that to turn around a
> Tomohawk (PA-38) in a small radius.
>
> Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>
> > Presuming that no one is immediately on top of you, somethng akin to a
> > duster turn works quite well and only uses about 50 feet to make a
really
> > dramatic difference in the turn radius. I used to do that to turn
around a
> > Tomohawk (PA-38) in a small radius.
>
> I wonder if a low time pilot like this one, at what, about 80 hours, could
be
> taught to do this kind of turn in a Cirrus? Doubtful, I think, don't you?
>
> I didn't even think of a duster turn. Perhaps that should become a new
required
> maneuver in the private pilot test? <g>
>
> Or does that go in the classification of, "Hey, y'all, watch this!"
</;-o))
> --
> Jim in NC
>
What I did wasn't a true duster turn; I didn't turn out, then greater than
180, and then reverse again. What really happened (the first time I did it)
was that I probably had about 30 hours and was out in the practice area with
my instructor, who believed in tight patterns, for the purpose of horsing
the plane around to become accustomed to its handling characteristics. At
that time, the PA-38 was pretty new to both of us. By the time that he
requested that I turn the plane around over a field in the practice area,
within plus or minus 50 feet of altitude, it was apparent to me (from doing
2G circles and figure 8s around pilons) that the width of that field was
less than the plane's 2G turning diameter at 80 Kts. So, I throttled back,
lost about 25 feet, pulled up, rolled into the bank and around the turn,
leveled the wings, pulled out and brought the power back up. The maneuver
used about half of the altitude tolerance--and about half the width of the
field.

All in all, I would not put it in the category of "Hey, y'all, watch this!"
Instead, it is a precision method that allows a 1G turn with 60 a degree
bank at approach speed, and a resulting tight turning radius. Like any
precision work, it is a good idea to practice it first over a lot of flat
countryside--as we did.

Including steeper banks and some energy management manuevers in the private
pilot training would probably be a good idea.

I think that duster turns, as done by dusters, might be fun to watch--from
the ground. <g>

Peter
(Off line 'till tomorrow evening)

[swag]

Any body notice that CNN quoted the NTSB last nite as saying that the
parachute had been thermally deployed?

To me that means he was trying to recover from an airframe disaster.
And it makes it much less likely that he was just botching up a turn
maneuver. I really have trouble visualizing a student with his flight
instructor flying into a building because he screwed up the turn. And
reaching up and pulling the big red lever in the roof. Since we're all
guessing, I'm going with loss of a flight control surface --maybe a
bird?

Maule Driver wrote:
> As soon as I heard East Side, Cirrus, building strike - I thought low
> time pilot, hot aircraft, many distractions, wrong side of the VFR
> corridor having do the U-turn.
>
> I've lived on Roosevelt Island (middle of the East River just south of
> the turn) and flown the corridor in a 172. I early on decided never to
> fly the East River just because it's too tight and too filled with
> traffic. It's not unsafe, it's just unnecessarily challenging when the
> Hudson provides an equivalent experience.
>
> I don't know how you properly train for that flight.... Few of us spend
> much time flying within 1/4 mile of buildings and below their tops. All
> of us can make the necessary turn at 1,000 feet in Iowa. Most of us
> will find it catches your breath the first time you do it at 800 feet in
> a concrete canyon near so many millions of people. Low ceilings, some
> wind, some rapid fire Laguardia radio work in the background. It's
> pretty high excitement.
>
> I had flown many hours ridge soaring the Appalachins - 500 feet above
> valley floor, 2 wingspans from the trees, redlining at 155mph, 200 miles
> from homebase. Then I went out west. It took me 3 days of flying
> before I could get within a 1/4 mile of a Sierra peak, 5,000 feet above
> the valley floor, at 60 mph, 2 miles from takeoff. Vice-a-versa for
> western pilots flying the eastern hills. It's all in you head but it's
> all quite real. We already have the knowledge and skills to do it. We
> just have to get the quivering mass of grey matter to settle down enough
> to let the training take over.
>
> Gary Drescher wrote:
> > Using the East River VFR corridor requires planning the turn
> > carefully--especially since you need to leave an extra margin in case you
> > have to dodge high-density traffic there.
>
> Yep. And not doing so can end up just like a guy in a used Porsche on a
> rain slicked road - they just don't scramble jets on the west coast
> while pulling the lifeless remains out of a Meadowlands swamp.
>
> No point here... just rambling.

[swag]

Any body notice that CNN quoted the NTSB last nite as saying that the
parachute had been thermally deployed?

To me that means he was trying to recover from an airframe disaster.
And it makes it much less likely that he was just botching up a turn
maneuver. I really have trouble visualizing a student with his flight
instructor flying into a building because he screwed up the turn. And
reaching up and pulling the big red lever in the roof. Since we're all
guessing, I'm going with loss of a flight control surface --maybe a
bird?

Maule Driver wrote:
> As soon as I heard East Side, Cirrus, building strike - I thought low
> time pilot, hot aircraft, many distractions, wrong side of the VFR
> corridor having do the U-turn.
>
> I've lived on Roosevelt Island (middle of the East River just south of
> the turn) and flown the corridor in a 172. I early on decided never to
> fly the East River just because it's too tight and too filled with
> traffic. It's not unsafe, it's just unnecessarily challenging when the
> Hudson provides an equivalent experience.
>
> I don't know how you properly train for that flight.... Few of us spend
> much time flying within 1/4 mile of buildings and below their tops. All
> of us can make the necessary turn at 1,000 feet in Iowa. Most of us
> will find it catches your breath the first time you do it at 800 feet in
> a concrete canyon near so many millions of people. Low ceilings, some
> wind, some rapid fire Laguardia radio work in the background. It's
> pretty high excitement.
>
> I had flown many hours ridge soaring the Appalachins - 500 feet above
> valley floor, 2 wingspans from the trees, redlining at 155mph, 200 miles
> from homebase. Then I went out west. It took me 3 days of flying
> before I could get within a 1/4 mile of a Sierra peak, 5,000 feet above
> the valley floor, at 60 mph, 2 miles from takeoff. Vice-a-versa for
> western pilots flying the eastern hills. It's all in you head but it's
> all quite real. We already have the knowledge and skills to do it. We
> just have to get the quivering mass of grey matter to settle down enough
> to let the training take over.
>
> Gary Drescher wrote:
> > Using the East River VFR corridor requires planning the turn
> > carefully--especially since you need to leave an extra margin in case you
> > have to dodge high-density traffic there.
>
> Yep. And not doing so can end up just like a guy in a used Porsche on a
> rain slicked road - they just don't scramble jets on the west coast
> while pulling the lifeless remains out of a Meadowlands swamp.
>
> No point here... just rambling.

[Flyin'[email protected]]

Ah... Well... I just through some random numbers in there... Of course, one
would not try and pull a 57G turn as cool as it sounds...

Thanks for the lesson! I learned something new today...


> The calculator is correct by my reckoning. 80mph and 89 degree bank
> gives 8 ft radius turning circle which is correct in theory. it sounds
> ridiculous but really the 89 degree angle of bank is what is ridiculous .
> such a turn if possible would pull 57 g. the calculation is not that
> difficult. radius= v squared / g tan ( bank angle)
> terry

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Swag,

> To me that means he was trying to recover from an airframe disaster.
>

Huh? To me, that means the postcrash fire ignited it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gary Drescher]

"swag" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Any body notice that CNN quoted the NTSB last nite as saying that the
> parachute had been thermally deployed?
>
> To me that means he was trying to recover from an airframe disaster.

NYT today: "a representative of the plane's maker, Cirrus Design, which is
working with the investigators, had determined that a small rocket
ordinarily used to deploy the chute had fired. But it appeared that the
rocket was set off by the heat of the fire that followed the crash, not by
one of the occupants while the plane was in the air"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/nyregion/13crash.html

[Jim Macklin]

Possible, also possible that they hoped the BRS chute would
open and cushion the forward speed and impact. We'll just
have to wait and see all the evidence next year. There is
already a CG video of the impact, there may be more video
that will be found, the flight path will be refined, the
pilots experience in the NYC area will be examined, the
plane will be examined for any signs of a failure and
including any bird damage [feathers and blood may have
survived the fire and fall].

But for now, all pilots flying in and near such Class B
corridors can brush up on their steep turns with minimum
radius. Radio procedures and "self-announcing in the
corridors or getting ATC clearance through rather than being
required to turn might have helped in this case [ might
other times too].

It should be noted that it didn't open.


"swag" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| Any body notice that CNN quoted the NTSB last nite as
saying that the
| parachute had been thermally deployed?
|
| To me that means he was trying to recover from an airframe
disaster.
| And it makes it much less likely that he was just botching
up a turn
| maneuver. I really have trouble visualizing a student
with his flight
| instructor flying into a building because he screwed up
the turn. And
| reaching up and pulling the big red lever in the roof.
Since we're all
| guessing, I'm going with loss of a flight control
surface --maybe a
| bird?
|
| Maule Driver wrote:
| > As soon as I heard East Side, Cirrus, building strike -
I thought low
| > time pilot, hot aircraft, many distractions, wrong side
of the VFR
| > corridor having do the U-turn.
| >
| > I've lived on Roosevelt Island (middle of the East River
just south of
| > the turn) and flown the corridor in a 172. I early on
decided never to
| > fly the East River just because it's too tight and too
filled with
| > traffic. It's not unsafe, it's just unnecessarily
challenging when the
| > Hudson provides an equivalent experience.
| >
| > I don't know how you properly train for that flight....
Few of us spend
| > much time flying within 1/4 mile of buildings and below
their tops. All
| > of us can make the necessary turn at 1,000 feet in Iowa.
Most of us
| > will find it catches your breath the first time you do
it at 800 feet in
| > a concrete canyon near so many millions of people. Low
ceilings, some
| > wind, some rapid fire Laguardia radio work in the
background. It's
| > pretty high excitement.
| >
| > I had flown many hours ridge soaring the Appalachins -
500 feet above
| > valley floor, 2 wingspans from the trees, redlining at
155mph, 200 miles
| > from homebase. Then I went out west. It took me 3 days
of flying
| > before I could get within a 1/4 mile of a Sierra peak,
5,000 feet above
| > the valley floor, at 60 mph, 2 miles from takeoff.
Vice-a-versa for
| > western pilots flying the eastern hills. It's all in
you head but it's
| > all quite real. We already have the knowledge and
skills to do it. We
| > just have to get the quivering mass of grey matter to
settle down enough
| > to let the training take over.
| >
| > Gary Drescher wrote:
| > > Using the East River VFR corridor requires planning
the turn
| > > carefully--especially since you need to leave an extra
margin in case you
| > > have to dodge high-density traffic there.
| >
| > Yep. And not doing so can end up just like a guy in a
used Porsche on a
| > rain slicked road - they just don't scramble jets on the
west coast
| > while pulling the lifeless remains out of a Meadowlands
swamp.
| >
| > No point here... just rambling.
|

[Jim Macklin]

There were witnesses in the building, a working crew of
contractors if I remember, that reported seeing a puff of
smoke above the airplane before it hit. Another GUESS on my
part. They saw that they were going to crash into the
building and pulled the handle hoping it would stop their
forward speed and make the crash survivable. Either they
waited too long or the chute malfunctioned. [If they did
pull the handle, when and why will be subject to more
guesses]



"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
| "swag" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| > Any body notice that CNN quoted the NTSB last nite as
saying that the
| > parachute had been thermally deployed?
| >
| > To me that means he was trying to recover from an
airframe disaster.
|
| NYT today: "a representative of the plane's maker, Cirrus
Design, which is
| working with the investigators, had determined that a
small rocket
| ordinarily used to deploy the chute had fired. But it
appeared that the
| rocket was set off by the heat of the fire that followed
the crash, not by
| one of the occupants while the plane was in the air"
|
| http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/nyregion/13crash.html
|
|

[Ron Natalie]

swag wrote:
> Any body notice that CNN quoted the NTSB last nite as saying that the
> parachute had been thermally deployed?

I took that to mean that the fire had caused to deploy.

[d&tm]

> wrote in message
...
> Ah... Well... I just through some random numbers in there... Of course,
one
> would not try and pull a 57G turn as cool as it sounds...
>
> Thanks for the lesson! I learned something new today...
>
>
> > The calculator is correct by my reckoning. 80mph and 89 degree bank
> > gives 8 ft radius turning circle which is correct in theory. it sounds
> > ridiculous but really the 89 degree angle of bank is what is ridiculous
..
> > such a turn if possible would pull 57 g. the calculation is not that
> > difficult. radius= v squared / g tan ( bank angle)
> > terry

I should add that this calulation assumes all the lift is coming from the
wing , but that theory would imply that an aircraft cant hold altitude in a
90 degree bank, and of course we have all seen aerobatic aircraft do this.
For this to occur the lift must be coming from the fuselage of the aircraft
and so the equation will not be strictly correct. But for the type of turns
that mere mortals like me will do I think it tells the story. I have heard
guys on this group regulary mention 60 degree or 2 g turns, but in my
training steep turns were 45 degrees maximum.
terry

[Mxsmanic]

d&tm writes:

> I should add that this calulation assumes all the lift is coming from the
> wing , but that theory would imply that an aircraft cant hold altitude in a
> 90 degree bank, and of course we have all seen aerobatic aircraft do this.

No, you haven't. It's impossible to hold altitude in a 90° bank. In
fact, it's impossible to execute a coordinated turn with a 90° bank.
A 90° bank requires infinite speed, because the acceleration vector
would have to be perpendicular to gravity, which is never possible as
long as gravity is non-zero. With both vertical and horizontal
non-zero components, the net acceleration vector can never be
completely horizontal or vertical. You can eliminate the non-zero
horizontal component in level flight, but you cannot eliminate the
force of gravity, so a 0° "bank" (i.e., level flight) is perfectly
possible, but a 90° bank is not.

You can come infinitely close to 90°, but you can never reach it, in
any type of aircraft. In an aircraft that can withstand 9 Gs, you can
reach slightly less than an 84° bank, but no more.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

A manuever similar to what you are describing that I like to do in the
Archer is to leave the power on, pitch up 30 degrees, and hold that
until the airspeed drops to 65 knots. Then I kick full left rudder and
do a flat hammer head style turn while leaving the elevator in a
neutral position to unload the wings to prevent a stall. I also use
just enough aileron to keep the roll angle under control. The result
is that I come out 180 degrees from my original heading and level out
at the same altitude that I started at. The turn radius is very tight.

Dean

[Matt Whiting]

swag wrote:

> Any body notice that CNN quoted the NTSB last nite as saying that the
> parachute had been thermally deployed?

The key word here is "thermally." Think about it.


Matt

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> Maule Driver wrote:
> >
> > I'm wondering if the only thing that may keep the VFR corridor in place
> > is a desire on the part of ATC to keep all the sightseeing requests at bay.
>
> You _can_ fly the corridor in the Bravo space with a clearance, and
> enjoy positive separation, etc...

This is what I do most of the time. I only go down into the VFR exclusion
as a last resort if NY won't give me a clearance. It's amazing what ATC
will let you do if you know how to ask. Up one side of Manhattan, down the
other, cross right over Central Park, turns around the Empire State
Building, cross right over the top of LGA at 1000 ft, etc. Jumbo jets
passing 500 feet right below you -- now that's cool!

Why anybody would want to be down at 800 when they could be up at 1500 or
more, with positive separation, is beyond me. The view is better from up
there too.

[Peter R.]

Roy Smith > wrote:

> Why anybody would want to be down at 800 when they could be up at 1500 or
> more, with positive separation, is beyond me.

Two reasons: A better view of the Statue of Liberty, and it is pretty cool
to be below the building tops and actually level with the ground along the
Palisades (the cliffs on the New Jersey side up around the George
Washington Bridge).

Positive separation is overrated. :)

--
Peter

[mike regish]

By "thermally deployed" they meant that the rocket had cooked off in the
fire.

mike

"swag" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Any body notice that CNN quoted the NTSB last nite as saying that the
> parachute had been thermally deployed?

[mike regish]

It actually possible to hold altitude in a straight line with a 90 degree
bank. I know because I've done it in a real plane.

I've done very close to 90 degree turns in a Decathlon. I wanted to see what
6 Gs felt like. That's about all we pulled and I hit a full 90 degrees
momentarily several times. I was within a few degrees of 90 for the entire
turn.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> d&tm writes:
>
> No, you haven't. It's impossible to hold altitude in a 90° bank. In
> fact, it's impossible to execute a coordinated turn with a 90° bank.
> A 90° bank requires infinite speed, because the acceleration vector
> would have to be perpendicular to gravity, which is never possible as
> long as gravity is non-zero. With both vertical and horizontal
> non-zero components, the net acceleration vector can never be
> completely horizontal or vertical. You can eliminate the non-zero
> horizontal component in level flight, but you cannot eliminate the
> force of gravity, so a 0° "bank" (i.e., level flight) is perfectly
> possible, but a 90° bank is not.
>
> You can come infinitely close to 90°, but you can never reach it, in
> any type of aircraft. In an aircraft that can withstand 9 Gs, you can
> reach slightly less than an 84° bank, but no more.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Macklin]

Witnesses reported that they saw a puff of smoke from the
rear area before the plane hit the building. The key will
be to see if the handle was pulled.


"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
| By "thermally deployed" they meant that the rocket had
cooked off in the
| fire.
|
| mike
|
| "swag" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| > Any body notice that CNN quoted the NTSB last nite as
saying that the
| > parachute had been thermally deployed?
|
|

[PPL-A (Canada)]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> d&tm writes:
>
> > I should add that this calulation assumes all the lift is coming from the
> > wing , but that theory would imply that an aircraft cant hold altitude in a
> > 90 degree bank, and of course we have all seen aerobatic aircraft do this.
>
> No, you haven't. It's impossible to hold altitude in a 90° bank. In
> fact, it's impossible to execute a coordinated turn with a 90° bank.
> A 90° bank requires infinite speed, because the acceleration vector
> would have to be perpendicular to gravity, which is never possible as
> long as gravity is non-zero. With both vertical and horizontal
> non-zero components, the net acceleration vector can never be
> completely horizontal or vertical. You can eliminate the non-zero
> horizontal component in level flight, but you cannot eliminate the
> force of gravity, so a 0° "bank" (i.e., level flight) is perfectly
> possible, but a 90° bank is not.
>
> You can come infinitely close to 90°, but you can never reach it, in
> any type of aircraft. In an aircraft that can withstand 9 Gs, you can
> reach slightly less than an 84° bank, but no more.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I belive you have neglected to take into account that many aircraft
wings incorporate positive dihedral (as well as wash-out {although a
very few have wash-in}), which would have the effect, even while the
aircraft is in a 90º banked condition, of producing non-90º lift
vectors from the airfoils. The upward wing will still have a lift
vector that is not perpendicular to the weight vector, and depending on
the thrust available (or airspeed upon establishing the 90º banked
attitude), will allow a 90º banked turn for a period of time without
loss of altitude.

[PPL-A (Canada)]

PPL-A (Canada) wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > d&tm writes:
> >
> > > I should add that this calulation assumes all the lift is coming from the
> > > wing , but that theory would imply that an aircraft cant hold altitude in a
> > > 90 degree bank, and of course we have all seen aerobatic aircraft do this.
> >
> > No, you haven't. It's impossible to hold altitude in a 90° bank. In
> > fact, it's impossible to execute a coordinated turn with a 90° bank.
> > A 90° bank requires infinite speed, because the acceleration vector
> > would have to be perpendicular to gravity, which is never possible as
> > long as gravity is non-zero. With both vertical and horizontal
> > non-zero components, the net acceleration vector can never be
> > completely horizontal or vertical. You can eliminate the non-zero
> > horizontal component in level flight, but you cannot eliminate the
> > force of gravity, so a 0° "bank" (i.e., level flight) is perfectly
> > possible, but a 90° bank is not.
> >
> > You can come infinitely close to 90°, but you can never reach it, in
> > any type of aircraft. In an aircraft that can withstand 9 Gs, you can
> > reach slightly less than an 84° bank, but no more.
> >
> > --
> > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> I believe you have neglected to take into account that many aircraft
> wings incorporate positive dihedral (as well as wash-out {although a
> very few have wash-in}), which would have the effect, even while the
> aircraft is in a 90º banked condition, of producing non-90º lift
> vectors from the airfoils. The upward wing will still have a lift
> vector that is not perpendicular to the weight vector, and depending on
> the thrust available (or airspeed upon establishing the 90º banked
> attitude), will allow a 90º banked turn for a period of time without
> loss of altitude.


> The upward wing will still have a lift
> vector that is not perpendicular to the weight vector ...

Forgive me ... I meant to type the downward wing ... this wing will
have a lift vector that is not perpendicular to the weight vector ...

PPL-A (Canada)

[d&tm]

"PPL-A (Canada)" > wrote in message
oups.com...
PPL-A (Canada) wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > d&tm writes:
> >
> > > I should add that this calulation assumes all the lift is coming from
the
> > > wing , but that theory would imply that an aircraft cant hold altitude
in a
> > > 90 degree bank, and of course we have all seen aerobatic aircraft do
this.
> >
> > No, you haven't. It's impossible to hold altitude in a 90° bank. In
> > fact, it's impossible to execute a coordinated turn with a 90° bank.
> > A 90° bank requires infinite speed, because the acceleration vector
> > would have to be perpendicular to gravity, which is never possible as
> > long as gravity is non-zero. With both vertical and horizontal
> > non-zero components, the net acceleration vector can never be
> > completely horizontal or vertical. You can eliminate the non-zero
> > horizontal component in level flight, but you cannot eliminate the
> > force of gravity, so a 0° "bank" (i.e., level flight) is perfectly
> > possible, but a 90° bank is not.
> >
> > You can come infinitely close to 90°, but you can never reach it, in
> > any type of aircraft. In an aircraft that can withstand 9 Gs, you can
> > reach slightly less than an 84° bank, but no more.
> >
> > --
> > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> I believe you have neglected to take into account that many aircraft
> wings incorporate positive dihedral (as well as wash-out {although a
> very few have wash-in}), which would have the effect, even while the
> aircraft is in a 90º banked condition, of producing non-90º lift
> vectors from the airfoils. The upward wing will still have a lift
> vector that is not perpendicular to the weight vector, and depending on
> the thrust available (or airspeed upon establishing the 90º banked
> attitude), will allow a 90º banked turn for a period of time without
> loss of altitude.


> The upward wing will still have a lift
> vector that is not perpendicular to the weight vector ...

Forgive me ... I meant to type the downward wing ... this wing will
have a lift vector that is not perpendicular to the weight vector ...


>>Good points. Also the thrust vector can have a component in the lift
direction as well.
terry

[Chris]

"d&tm" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ah... Well... I just through some random numbers in there... Of course,
> one
>> would not try and pull a 57G turn as cool as it sounds...
>>
>> Thanks for the lesson! I learned something new today...
>>
>>
>> > The calculator is correct by my reckoning. 80mph and 89 degree bank
>> > gives 8 ft radius turning circle which is correct in theory. it sounds
>> > ridiculous but really the 89 degree angle of bank is what is ridiculous
> .
>> > such a turn if possible would pull 57 g. the calculation is not that
>> > difficult. radius= v squared / g tan ( bank angle)
>> > terry
>
> I should add that this calulation assumes all the lift is coming from the
> wing , but that theory would imply that an aircraft cant hold altitude in
> a
> 90 degree bank, and of course we have all seen aerobatic aircraft do this.
> For this to occur the lift must be coming from the fuselage of the
> aircraft
> and so the equation will not be strictly correct. But for the type of
> turns
> that mere mortals like me will do I think it tells the story. I have
> heard
> guys on this group regulary mention 60 degree or 2 g turns, but in my
> training steep turns were 45 degrees maximum.
> terry

In the UK steep turn are defined as 60 degree turns and that is what we are
trained to do.
I remember the first time I was flying in the US and as part of the checkout
this young instructor asked me to do a steep turn. He made some strange
noises - I don't think he had done 60 degrees before.

I find them easier than 45 degree turns

[RK Henry]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:47:00 +0100, "Chris" >
wrote:

>
>"d&tm" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Ah... Well... I just through some random numbers in there... Of course,
>> one
>>> would not try and pull a 57G turn as cool as it sounds...
>>>
>>> Thanks for the lesson! I learned something new today...
>>>
>>>
>>> > The calculator is correct by my reckoning. 80mph and 89 degree bank
>>> > gives 8 ft radius turning circle which is correct in theory. it sounds
>>> > ridiculous but really the 89 degree angle of bank is what is ridiculous
>> .
>>> > such a turn if possible would pull 57 g. the calculation is not that
>>> > difficult. radius= v squared / g tan ( bank angle)
>>> > terry
>>
>> I should add that this calulation assumes all the lift is coming from the
>> wing , but that theory would imply that an aircraft cant hold altitude in
>> a
>> 90 degree bank, and of course we have all seen aerobatic aircraft do this.
>> For this to occur the lift must be coming from the fuselage of the
>> aircraft
>> and so the equation will not be strictly correct. But for the type of
>> turns
>> that mere mortals like me will do I think it tells the story. I have
>> heard
>> guys on this group regulary mention 60 degree or 2 g turns, but in my
>> training steep turns were 45 degrees maximum.
>> terry
>
>In the UK steep turn are defined as 60 degree turns and that is what we are
>trained to do.
>I remember the first time I was flying in the US and as part of the checkout
>this young instructor asked me to do a steep turn. He made some strange
>noises - I don't think he had done 60 degrees before.
>
>I find them easier than 45 degree turns

When I first learned my steep turns, they were 60 degrees. Then a few
years ago when I was receiving a flight review, the CFI told me that
we now do them at 45 degrees, apparently a change from the FAA. So now
we do 45 degree steep turns.

RK Henry

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> No, you haven't. It's impossible to hold altitude in a 90° bank.

Sorry, you are wrong. You are presuming that the wings are the only
source of lift on an aircraft. As the original poster said, there
were airshow acts that use the side of the fuselage coupled with a
LOT of power to maintain knifedge level flight.

There's more to aerodynamics than Microsoft would lend you to beleive.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> Sorry, you are wrong. You are presuming that the wings are the only
> source of lift on an aircraft. As the original poster said, there
> were airshow acts that use the side of the fuselage coupled with a
> LOT of power to maintain knifedge level flight.

Q: "How do you get a pig to fly?"
A: "Strap a big enough engine on it"

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> Sorry, you are wrong. You are presuming that the wings are the only
> source of lift on an aircraft.

Wings are the only things under discussion in such theoretical
scenarios.

> As the original poster said, there
> were airshow acts that use the side of the fuselage coupled with a
> LOT of power to maintain knifedge level flight.

I'm sure you could use helium balloons, too, but that isn't an
automatic assumption because it is not universally true.

> There's more to aerodynamics than Microsoft would lend you
> to beleive.

I don't see any connection with Microsoft here.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:
> It actually possible to hold altitude in a straight line with a 90 degree
> bank. I know because I've done it in a real plane.
>
> I've done very close to 90 degree turns in a Decathlon. I wanted to see what
> 6 Gs felt like. That's about all we pulled and I hit a full 90 degrees
> momentarily several times. I was within a few degrees of 90 for the entire
> turn.

Yes, folks forget that the wings aren't the only source of lift.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

PPL-A (Canada) wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>d&tm writes:
>>
>>
>>>I should add that this calulation assumes all the lift is coming from the
>>>wing , but that theory would imply that an aircraft cant hold altitude in a
>>>90 degree bank, and of course we have all seen aerobatic aircraft do this.
>>
>>No, you haven't. It's impossible to hold altitude in a 90° bank. In
>>fact, it's impossible to execute a coordinated turn with a 90° bank.
>>A 90° bank requires infinite speed, because the acceleration vector
>>would have to be perpendicular to gravity, which is never possible as
>>long as gravity is non-zero. With both vertical and horizontal
>>non-zero components, the net acceleration vector can never be
>>completely horizontal or vertical. You can eliminate the non-zero
>>horizontal component in level flight, but you cannot eliminate the
>>force of gravity, so a 0° "bank" (i.e., level flight) is perfectly
>>possible, but a 90° bank is not.
>>
>>You can come infinitely close to 90°, but you can never reach it, in
>>any type of aircraft. In an aircraft that can withstand 9 Gs, you can
>>reach slightly less than an 84° bank, but no more.
>>
>>--
>>Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
>
> I belive you have neglected to take into account that many aircraft
> wings incorporate positive dihedral (as well as wash-out {although a
> very few have wash-in}), which would have the effect, even while the
> aircraft is in a 90º banked condition, of producing non-90º lift
> vectors from the airfoils. The upward wing will still have a lift
> vector that is not perpendicular to the weight vector, and depending on
> the thrust available (or airspeed upon establishing the 90º banked
> attitude), will allow a 90º banked turn for a period of time without
> loss of altitude.
>

If the fuselage is at 90 degrees, the dihedral makes no difference as
the slight upward vector from the bottom wing is offset by the negative
vector from the upper wing and thus the wing lift is still zero for all
practical purposes. However, you get lift from the fuselage and also
from the thrust vector being inclined upwards as well if top rudder is
applied.

Matt

[Happy Dog]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> Sorry, you are wrong. You are presuming that the wings are the only
>> source of lift on an aircraft.
>
> Wings are the only things under discussion in such theoretical
> scenarios.

No. Whether planes can fly a knife edge is. And, you didn't understand how
this is done.
>
>> As the original poster said, there
>> were airshow acts that use the side of the fuselage coupled with a
>> LOT of power to maintain knifedge level flight.
>
> I'm sure you could use helium balloons, too, but that isn't an
> automatic assumption because it is not universally true.

It isn't even a suggestion.

Did you lose every argument as a child? Is that why you live in a fantasy
world where computer simulation defines your reality?

moo

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote\

> What is a "duster turn"?

I'm guessing that is what he is calling a turn that you have done a "few" times,
while crop dusting in fixed wings. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[d&tm]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "d&tm" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Ah... Well... I just through some random numbers in there... Of course,
> > one
> >> would not try and pull a 57G turn as cool as it sounds...
> >>
> >> Thanks for the lesson! I learned something new today...
> >>
> >>
> >> > The calculator is correct by my reckoning. 80mph and 89 degree bank
> >> > gives 8 ft radius turning circle which is correct in theory. it
sounds
> >> > ridiculous but really the 89 degree angle of bank is what is
ridiculous
> > .
> >> > such a turn if possible would pull 57 g. the calculation is not that
> >> > difficult. radius= v squared / g tan ( bank angle)
> >> > terry
> >
> > I should add that this calulation assumes all the lift is coming from
the
> > wing , but that theory would imply that an aircraft cant hold altitude
in
> > a
> > 90 degree bank, and of course we have all seen aerobatic aircraft do
this.
> > For this to occur the lift must be coming from the fuselage of the
> > aircraft
> > and so the equation will not be strictly correct. But for the type of
> > turns
> > that mere mortals like me will do I think it tells the story. I have
> > heard
> > guys on this group regulary mention 60 degree or 2 g turns, but in my
> > training steep turns were 45 degrees maximum.
> > terry
>
> In the UK steep turn are defined as 60 degree turns and that is what we
are
> trained to do.
> I remember the first time I was flying in the US and as part of the
checkout
> this young instructor asked me to do a steep turn. He made some strange
> noises - I don't think he had done 60 degrees before.
>
> I find them easier than 45 degree turns
>
I am actually based in Australia. I know that in the C150 which I am
guessing about 90% of GA pilots train in here, you generally need full power
to hold altitude in a 45 degree turn. With 2 people on board I doubt you
could do 60 degree turns and hold altitude, but as I said I havent tried.
terry

[d&tm]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
> > Sorry, you are wrong. You are presuming that the wings are the only
> > source of lift on an aircraft. As the original poster said, there
> > were airshow acts that use the side of the fuselage coupled with a
> > LOT of power to maintain knifedge level flight.

You gotta give the boy ( or girl?)some credit for his intelligence and
enquiring mind. But the attitude that goes with it is really something. I
just hope he sticks to flight simming and not the real thing.
terry

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"d&tm" > wrote:

> You gotta give the boy ( or girl?)some credit for his intelligence and
> enquiring mind. But the attitude that goes with it is really something. I
> just hope he sticks to flight simming and not the real thing.
> terry

He wouldn't last long actually flying. He'd prove Darwin correct when the
airplane doesn't respond like it should (based on his sim experience).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Yes, folks forget that the wings aren't the only source of lift.

And there are more forces available than just lift.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:33:37 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

> Two reasons: A better view of the Statue of Liberty, and it is pretty
> cool to be below the building tops and actually level with the ground
> along the Palisades (the cliffs on the New Jersey side up around the
> George Washington Bridge).

Admittedly, that's fun too. But the view is definitely better a little
higher.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:53:27 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:

> Witnesses reported that they saw a puff of smoke from the rear area before
> the plane hit the building.

Witnesses also reported a helicopter hit the building. We should consider
ourselves lucky that no witnesses saw a Klingon Battle Cruiser attacking.

- Andrew

[.Blueskies.]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message news:CwXXg.2967$XX2.1598@dukeread04...
: Witnesses reported that they saw a puff of smoke from the
: rear area before the plane hit the building. The key will
: be to see if the handle was pulled.
:
:


I heard today the handle was not pulled...

[.Blueskies.]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
: In article >,
: Matt Whiting > wrote:
:
: > Yes, folks forget that the wings aren't the only source of lift.
:
: And there are more forces available than just lift.
:
: --
: Bob Noel
: Looking for a sig the
: lawyers will hate
:

So the ball is off center and you are holding top rudder...

[Jim Macklin]

Thanks, have you heard if the safety pin was removed as
called for in the checklist before engine start?



".Blueskies." > wrote in
message
t...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:CwXXg.2967$XX2.1598@dukeread04...
| : Witnesses reported that they saw a puff of smoke from
the
| : rear area before the plane hit the building. The key
will
| : be to see if the handle was pulled.
| :
| :
|
|
| I heard today the handle was not pulled...
|
|

[Peter Dohm]

"d&tm" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "d&tm" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> Ah... Well... I just through some random numbers in there... Of
course,
> > > one
> > >> would not try and pull a 57G turn as cool as it sounds...
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the lesson! I learned something new today...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > The calculator is correct by my reckoning. 80mph and 89 degree
bank
> > >> > gives 8 ft radius turning circle which is correct in theory. it
> sounds
> > >> > ridiculous but really the 89 degree angle of bank is what is
> ridiculous
> > > .
> > >> > such a turn if possible would pull 57 g. the calculation is not
that
> > >> > difficult. radius= v squared / g tan ( bank angle)
> > >> > terry
> > >
> > > I should add that this calulation assumes all the lift is coming from
> the
> > > wing , but that theory would imply that an aircraft cant hold altitude
> in
> > > a
> > > 90 degree bank, and of course we have all seen aerobatic aircraft do
> this.
> > > For this to occur the lift must be coming from the fuselage of the
> > > aircraft
> > > and so the equation will not be strictly correct. But for the type of
> > > turns
> > > that mere mortals like me will do I think it tells the story. I have
> > > heard
> > > guys on this group regulary mention 60 degree or 2 g turns, but in my
> > > training steep turns were 45 degrees maximum.
> > > terry
> >
> > In the UK steep turn are defined as 60 degree turns and that is what we
> are
> > trained to do.
> > I remember the first time I was flying in the US and as part of the
> checkout
> > this young instructor asked me to do a steep turn. He made some strange
> > noises - I don't think he had done 60 degrees before.
> >
> > I find them easier than 45 degree turns
> >
> I am actually based in Australia. I know that in the C150 which I am
> guessing about 90% of GA pilots train in here, you generally need full
power
> to hold altitude in a 45 degree turn. With 2 people on board I doubt you
> could do 60 degree turns and hold altitude, but as I said I havent tried.
> terry
>
>
My C-150 experience was mostly C-150M. But we did used to hold a 60 degree
bank as long as we pleased at gross weight and about 2000 feet agl--which
was very close to 5000 feet density altitude in Florida in the summer. I
never tried that in a C-150J, which I also flew a couple of times, but the
earlier airframe did have a lot more drag and the earlier prop was also much
less efficient.

In those days, about 25 years ago, 60 degrees was quite common practice for
steep turns. I presume that was based on the limit of standard and utility
category operations--since more than 60 degrees relative to the plane of
gravity would have been acrobatic flight.

The idea that a current younger instructor might regard an old fashioned
steep turn as an unusual attitude explains a lot--and is terrifying.

Peter

[Blanche Cohen]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:53:27 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> Witnesses reported that they saw a puff of smoke from the rear area before
>> the plane hit the building.
>
>Witnesses also reported a helicopter hit the building. We should consider
>ourselves lucky that no witnesses saw a Klingon Battle Cruiser attacking.

Of course not...they would have been using a Romulan cloaking device,

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"d&tm" > wrote in message
...
> I have heard guys on this group regulary mention 60 degree
> or 2 g turns, but in my training steep turns were 45 degrees
> maximum.

A 60 degree turn is only 2Gs if you you maintain altitude during the turn...

[Bob Noel]

In article >, (Blanche Cohen)
wrote:

> >Witnesses also reported a helicopter hit the building. We should consider
> >ourselves lucky that no witnesses saw a Klingon Battle Cruiser attacking.
>
> Of course not...they would have been using a Romulan cloaking device,

Why? They have their own.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[mike regish]

I got into this debate here several years ago. I was of the opinion (not
having a G meter to test it) that your G load would be less if you were
descending, but most seemed to think that 60 degrees was a 2 G turn
regardless of whether you were holding altitude or not.

Which is it? I still think G forces would be reduced by descending, but
can't come up with a good explanation why.

mike

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
.. .
> "d&tm" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I have heard guys on this group regulary mention 60 degree
>> or 2 g turns, but in my training steep turns were 45 degrees
>> maximum.
>
> A 60 degree turn is only 2Gs if you you maintain altitude during the
> turn...
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

"Grumman-581" > writes:

> A 60 degree turn is only 2Gs if you you maintain altitude during the turn...

More generally, it has to be a coordinated turn.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"mike regish" > wrote:

> I got into this debate here several years ago. I was of the opinion (not
> having a G meter to test it) that your G load would be less if you were
> descending, but most seemed to think that 60 degrees was a 2 G turn
> regardless of whether you were holding altitude or not.
>
> Which is it? I still think G forces would be reduced by descending, but
> can't come up with a good explanation why.

Consider the vectors. Consider the portion of the lift vector that is vertical.
If you bank, the vertical portion of the lift vector is decreased and you will
descend (assuming level flight initially).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[mike regish]

Meaning that a descending turn will produce a smaller G force, correct?

mike

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
>
> Consider the vectors. Consider the portion of the lift vector that is
> vertical.
> If you bank, the vertical portion of the lift vector is decreased and you
> will
> descend (assuming level flight initially).
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate
>

[Gary Drescher]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "d&tm" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I have heard guys on this group regulary mention 60 degree
>>> or 2 g turns, but in my training steep turns were 45 degrees
>>> maximum.
>>
>> A 60 degree turn is only 2Gs if you you maintain altitude during the
>> turn...
>I got into this debate here several years ago. I was of the opinion (not
>having a G meter to test it) that your G load would be less if you were
>descending, but most seemed to think that 60 degrees was a 2 G turn
>regardless of whether you were holding altitude or not.
>
> Which is it? I still think G forces would be reduced by descending, but
> can't come up with a good explanation why.

You need to look at the acceleration, not the velocity. If you're
descending at a constant vertical velocity (zero acceleration), then the
forces are the same as with constant altitude, so you still get a 2G turn
with a 60-degree bank. (Emergency-descent spirals are often flown that way.)
If you accelerate downward though, you get less than 2G during the
acceleration.

This is a special case of the Galilean/Newtonian relativity principle that
there is no absolute frame of reference for velocity--no detectable
difference (except relative to other objects) between being at rest and
being at (constant) motion. Here, we're just applying that principle to the
vertical component of motion.

--Gary

[Mxsmanic]

mike regish writes:

> Meaning that a descending turn will produce a smaller G force, correct?

You would have to be accelerating downward, and not just descending at
a constant speed. The greater the rate of acceleration, the smaller
the acceleration due to gravity, and the smaller the overall G force.

The smaller the acceleration due to gravity, the greater the bank
angle for a given turn. If there is no gravity at all (i.e., the
aircraft is vertically in free fall), all turns will have a bank angle
of 90°.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[mike regish]

OK. That makes sense.

mike

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message

>
> You need to look at the acceleration, not the velocity. If you're
> descending at a constant vertical velocity (zero acceleration), then the
> forces are the same as with constant altitude, so you still get a 2G turn
> with a 60-degree bank. (Emergency-descent spirals are often flown that
> way.) If you accelerate downward though, you get less than 2G during the
> acceleration.
>
> This is a special case of the Galilean/Newtonian relativity principle that
> there is no absolute frame of reference for velocity--no detectable
> difference (except relative to other objects) between being at rest and
> being at (constant) motion. Here, we're just applying that principle to
> the vertical component of motion.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Peter Dohm]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
.. .
> "d&tm" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I have heard guys on this group regulary mention 60 degree
> > or 2 g turns, but in my training steep turns were 45 degrees
> > maximum.
>
> A 60 degree turn is only 2Gs if you you maintain altitude during the
turn...
>
>
Close, but not exactly. The geometry might cause a to be trivially more in
a descending turn and trivially more in a climbing turn. However, during a
constant rate climb or descent, a 60 degree bank will be very close to
2Gs--for a typical standard or utility category airplane which can maintain
only a modest angle of climb or descent.

Maneuvering in any manner which trades altitude against airspeed causes
radical changes in the relationship of G loading and bank angle, and most
are easier to demonstrate than describe.

Even in the simplest case (which really exceeds my ability to fully
describe), consider an aircraft flying a circular path in a plane angled 30
degrees from the horizontal (or plane of gravity). At the bottom of the
maneuver, a 30 degree bank relative to the horizontal would be 60 degrees
relative to the plane of flight and would significantly exceed 2Gs, but may
still not be sufficient. At that point, a 60 degree bank would be knife
edge relative to the plane of flight, so it would be quite easy to reach the
structural limit of standard category within the maneuvering limits of
standard category. Conversely, at the top of the maneuver, a 60 degree bank
is only 30 degrees relative to the plane of flight; but a very short turning
radius is easily achieved and the loading can easily be 1G, or even slightly
less. Meanwhile, halfway up or down during the maneuver, the relationship
of bank angle to loading should be identical to what would be expected in
level flight.

Crop dusters and banner towers routinely exploit portions of the above, plus
some usefull additions, but a Google search did not yeild any usefull links
to include for a graphical description.

I hope this helps.

Peter

[Grumman-581[_4_]]

On Oct 15, 11:34 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> Close, but not exactly. The geometry might cause a to be trivially more in
> a descending turn and trivially more in a climbing turn. However, during a
> constant rate climb or descent, a 60 degree bank will be very close to
> 2Gs--for a typical standard or utility category airplane which can maintain
> only a modest angle of climb or descent.

I don't have a G-meter on my plane, so all I can tell is from the
feeling in the seat of my pants, but if I'm doing a 90 degree turn
banked at 60 degrees and I'm willing to lose 500 ft in the process, it
feels like quite a bit lesss than what I experience when I don't want
to lose 500 ft in the process... I do this quite often when coming back
to my home airport from the south... Fly over midfield at 1500 ft until
I nearly intercept the downwind leg... If no traffic conflicts, drop
the left wing to 60 degrees or more while making a 90 degree turn to
downwind, losing 500 ft in the process...

[Gary Drescher]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Oct 15, 11:34 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> However, during a
>> constant rate climb or descent, a 60 degree bank will be very close to
>> 2Gs--
>
> I don't have a G-meter on my plane, so all I can tell is from the
> feeling in the seat of my pants, but if I'm doing a 90 degree turn
> banked at 60 degrees and I'm willing to lose 500 ft in the process, it
> feels like quite a bit lesss than what I experience when I don't want
> to lose 500 ft in the process...

Right, because you're accelerating downward. But if you perform a
constant-rate descent instead, you'll feel the usual 2 Gs.

--Gary

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"mike regish" > wrote:

> Meaning that a descending turn will produce a smaller G force, correct?

hmmm, that's backwards. By pulling fewer G's, it'll be a descending turn
because there is insufficient amount of lift in the vertical direction.


> > Consider the vectors. Consider the portion of the lift vector that is
> > vertical.
> > If you bank, the vertical portion of the lift vector is decreased and you
> > will
> > descend (assuming level flight initially).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[mike regish]

I guess it depends on your intent. If my intent is to do a descending turn,
then it will produce less G force than if I intended to maintain altitude,
bank angles being the same.

But the other explanation that says that the reduced Gs are a result of
downward acceleration makes sense. Once the descent rate stabilizes, the G
force will be the same as a level, or non-descending turn.

I generally don't set up a turn with the intent of pulling a certain number
of Gs. But I see your point.

mike

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm->
>> Meaning that a descending turn will produce a smaller G force, correct?
>
> hmmm, that's backwards. By pulling fewer G's, it'll be a descending turn
> because there is insufficient amount of lift in the vertical direction.
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate
>

[Mxsmanic]

mike regish writes:

> I guess it depends on your intent. If my intent is to do a descending turn,
> then it will produce less G force than if I intended to maintain altitude,
> bank angles being the same.

Downward movement at a constant speed is a steady state, and won't
affect G forces. Acceleration downward is different, and it will
decrease the magnitude of acceleration due to gravity, which will
affect net G forces.

> But the other explanation that says that the reduced Gs are a result of
> downward acceleration makes sense. Once the descent rate stabilizes, the G
> force will be the same as a level, or non-descending turn.

Yes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, (Blanche
> Cohen)
> wrote:
>
>> >Witnesses also reported a helicopter hit the building. We should
>> >consider
>> >ourselves lucky that no witnesses saw a Klingon Battle Cruiser
>> >attacking.
>>
>> Of course not...they would have been using a Romulan cloaking device,
>
> Why? They have their own.
>

The Klingons stole the technology from the Romulans.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> posted:

> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> (Blanche Cohen)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Witnesses also reported a helicopter hit the building. We should
>>>> consider
>>>> ourselves lucky that no witnesses saw a Klingon Battle Cruiser
>>>> attacking.
>>>
>>> Of course not...they would have been using a Romulan cloaking
>>> device,
>>
>> Why? They have their own.
>>
>
> The Klingons stole the technology from the Romulans.
>
I don't recall... did the Federation steal it from the Klingons or
Romulans?

Neil

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:20:33 +0000, Neil Gould wrote:

> I don't recall... did the Federation steal it from the Klingons or
> Romulans?

It wasn't *stolen*. It was downloaded from Napster. If it had been
stolen, then the Romulans wouldn't have had it any more. So it couldn't
have been stolen. Not stolen.

Just downloaded.

- Andrew

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. net...
> Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> posted:
>
>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> (Blanche Cohen)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Witnesses also reported a helicopter hit the building. We should
>>>>> consider
>>>>> ourselves lucky that no witnesses saw a Klingon Battle Cruiser
>>>>> attacking.
>>>>
>>>> Of course not...they would have been using a Romulan cloaking
>>>> device,
>>>
>>> Why? They have their own.
>>>
>>
>> The Klingons stole the technology from the Romulans.
>>
> I don't recall... did the Federation steal it from the Klingons or
> Romulans?
>
> Neil
>
>

The Federation then stole it from the Romulans then misplaced it because
they then borrowed it from the Romulans to use in the Defiant.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:20:33 +0000, Neil Gould wrote:
>
> > I don't recall... did the Federation steal it from the Klingons or
> > Romulans?
>
> It wasn't *stolen*. It was downloaded from Napster. If it had been
> stolen, then the Romulans wouldn't have had it any more. So it couldn't
> have been stolen. Not stolen.
>
> Just downloaded.

It was stolen from one Romulan ship, it wasn't downloaded.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Neil Gould" > wrote:

> > The Klingons stole the technology from the Romulans.
> >
> I don't recall... did the Federation steal it from the Klingons or
> Romulans?

I think they got it from the Romulans in a secret alliance against the
Dominion.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> It wasn't *stolen*. It was downloaded from Napster.

I heard the Ferengi ran a peer-to-peer network, ruleofacquisition155.com

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Roy Smith > posted:

> In article >,
> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>>> The Klingons stole the technology from the Romulans.
>>>
>> I don't recall... did the Federation steal it from the Klingons or
>> Romulans?
>
> I think they got it from the Romulans in a secret alliance against the
> Dominion.
>
I remember now. Kirk stole it from the Romulans while Spock kept the
female captain of the ship, um, distracted.

The other poster was correct; they must have misplaced that device,
because they had to borrow one for use on the Defiant.

Neil

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
> You need to look at the acceleration, not the velocity. If you're
> descending at a constant vertical velocity (zero acceleration), then the
> forces are the same as with constant altitude, so you still get a 2G turn
> with a 60-degree bank. (Emergency-descent spirals are often flown that
way.)
> If you accelerate downward though, you get less than 2G during the
> acceleration.

I wonder if perhaps the type of 60 degree bank turn that I do is less than
2Gs not so much because of any acceleration downward, but rather because
the actual radius of the turn is more than a 60 degree bank turn where you
were maintaining altitude... I suspect that you could consider the plane of
the turn to be inclined perhaps 45 degrees to the horizontal, dependent upon
the turn radius, couldn't you? Think of it as your traversal around 1/4 of
a cylinder... If you remained at the same altitude, the distance that you
travelled would be 2 * pi * R / 4 = pi * R / 2... Since your endpoint is not
at the same altitude, but rather at 500 ft below it, the distance that you
travelled around the cylinder is more... I don't have enough caffeine in me
at this time to calculate how much more, but I'm pretty damn sure that you
are travelling a further distance... Rough guess is that it is related to
something like the tangent of the angle between the altitude change and the
radius of the cylinder... So, if the distance travelled along the surface of
the cylinder is greater, then the effective radius of the turn is greater...
A greater radius of the turn equates to lower G forces...

For example, I used to fly a gyrocopter... Even if you were in a 60 degree
bank at a constant altitude, you don't get a 2G turn because you mush
through the air, basically resulting in a larger radius turn... The highest
Gs that you will receive in a gyro is perhaps 1.5Gs...

[Gary Drescher]

There's an NTSB update about Lidle's crash:
http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2006/061103.htm.

Unsurprisingly, they conclude that the plane didn't bank enough for the
turn.

--Gary

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> Unsurprisingly, they conclude that the plane didn't bank enough for the
> turn.

Duhhh!

Kind of the definition of a too wide turn, isn't it?

[Ron Lee]

Grumman-581 > wrote:

>Gary Drescher wrote:
>> Unsurprisingly, they conclude that the plane didn't bank enough for the
>> turn.
>
>Duhhh!
>
>Kind of the definition of a too wide turn, isn't it?

Or they did not roll out of the bank soon enough. Busting airspace
(go AROUND the building) or violating altitude above a populated area
is far better than what they did.

Ron Lee

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Ron Lee wrote:
> Or they did not roll out of the bank soon enough. Busting airspace
> (go AROUND the building) or violating altitude above a populated area
> is far better than what they did.

Oh, I think that if they were still around, they would agree that just
about *anything* is better than what they did do... <sick-grin>

[Gary Drescher]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> Unsurprisingly, they conclude that the plane didn't bank enough
>> for the turn.
>
> Duhhh!
>
> Kind of the definition of a too wide turn, isn't it?

Kind of the definition of 'unsurprisingly', too.

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Lee wrote:

> Grumman-581 > wrote:
>
>
>>Gary Drescher wrote:
>>
>>>Unsurprisingly, they conclude that the plane didn't bank enough for the
>>>turn.
>>
>>Duhhh!
>>
>>Kind of the definition of a too wide turn, isn't it?
>
>
> Or they did not roll out of the bank soon enough. Busting airspace
> (go AROUND the building) or violating altitude above a populated area
> is far better than what they did.
>
> Ron Lee

If they were in a steep bank and high AOA, I wonder if they could even
see the building over the nose?

Matt

[Jim Macklin]

It would have been high in the windshield, the roof would
have blocked it until the last 1/2 of the turn. But I doubt
they were experienced acro pilots trained to look out all of
the windows. They also probably did not bank even 45°, let
alone the 53-55° they needed to complete the turn.
They didn't plan the turn well, where they needed to be when
they started or what they would have done if the weather or
other traffic had blocked them, had they been prepared to
call for a Class B clearance, in other words the CFI screwed
up because he did not plan ahead, Casey Lidle screwed up
because he didn't act like the PIC, they both screwed up
because they expected the other pilot "did the planning" so
two dead pilots for no good reason.



"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Ron Lee wrote:
|
| > Grumman-581 >
wrote:
| >
| >
| >>Gary Drescher wrote:
| >>
| >>>Unsurprisingly, they conclude that the plane didn't
bank enough for the
| >>>turn.
| >>
| >>Duhhh!
| >>
| >>Kind of the definition of a too wide turn, isn't it?
| >
| >
| > Or they did not roll out of the bank soon enough.
Busting airspace
| > (go AROUND the building) or violating altitude above a
populated area
| > is far better than what they did.
| >
| > Ron Lee
|
| If they were in a steep bank and high AOA, I wonder if
they could even
| see the building over the nose?
|
| Matt

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:54:26 +0000, Grumman-581 wrote:

> Oh, I think that if they were still around, they would agree that just
> about *anything* is better than what they did do

Indeed. I was at a dinner last night where someone asked me whether or
not those flying that airplane had made a mistake.

- Andrew

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:54:26 +0000, Grumman-581 wrote:
>
>> Oh, I think that if they were still around, they would agree that just
>> about *anything* is better than what they did do
>
> Indeed. I was at a dinner last night where someone asked me whether or
> not those flying that airplane had made a mistake.

That doesn't say very much about the intelligence of the company you are
keeping, does it? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> Have you ever seen how nervous a new light plane flier can get if you
> take your hands off the yoke, once you're trimmed? <G>

sometimes it takes a lot of convincing to get a nervious flier to
touch the yoke, never mind doing any turns.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 13:43:25 -0500, Morgans wrote:

>> Indeed. I was at a dinner last night where someone asked me whether or
>> not those flying that airplane had made a mistake.
>
> That doesn't say very much about the intelligence of the company you are
> keeping, does it? <g>

Actually, now that I consider it, I think it speaks to her agenda. She
has a friend that's a CFI who was also there.

- Andrew

[Morgans[_2_]]

>>That doesn't say very much about the intelligence of the company you are
>>keeping, does it? <g>
>
>
> Why would you say that?
>
> Much of the non-pilot public think our Spam cans fall instantly out of
> the sky if the engine stops, are surprised that we actually have heat
> and radios in them, and think of flying light aircraft as something
> "daredevils" and "thrill seekers" do.

First, let me say that I made the comment in a joking sense.

As far as why I said it, when the person asked if the pilot made a mistake, that
was where I was coming from with the comment.

It just was not a very well thought out question, I thought.

As in, "Duh, he screwed up and ran into a building. Do you think that counts as
a mistake? "

No offense, I hope.

See ya;
--
Jim in NC

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
>
> No offense, I hope.
>

Definitely not! <G>

[Frank....H]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> There's an NTSB update about Lidle's crash:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2006/061103.htm.
>
> Unsurprisingly, they conclude that the plane didn't bank enough for the
> turn.
>
> --Gary

I'm a little surprised there seems to be no mention of reducing speed before
beginning the turn as something to be learned from this accident.

Do pilots flying this corridor use this technique?

--
Frank....H

[Peter R.]

"Frank....H" > wrote:

> Do pilots flying this corridor use this technique?

I flew this side once back in 2003 or early 2004 in a C172S and prior to
embarking on the flight I made a plan, based on looking at a terminal
chart, to turn around south of Roosevelt Island, the widest part of East
River within the corridor. In addition I also gave thought to dropping
flaps, slowing the aircraft, and making a 40 degree or so turn.

In fairness, I should mention that I had flown the Hudson River corridor at
least three times prior and in every case looked up the East River (while
over the wide NY Harbor near Governor Island) and noted how much more
narrow that side was. Consequently, that visual certainly added to my
eagerness to properly plan the flight up the east side.


--
Peter