Lidle, Langewiesche, and turns

[Snidely]

On Anderson Cooper 360 about last night, (at least) one of their
sources pointed out that to make the tight turn to compelte the u-turn
at that altitude and turning left, a very steep bank is needed, and
that this can cause a los of altitude -- and the radar returns indicate
that 200' was lost during the turn.

IIRC, William Langewiesche talks about this in his Atlantic article
(Dec '93, it seems),
and maybe in Stick and Rudder (Stick and Rudder: An Explanation of the
Art of Flying
by Wolfgang Langewiesche, William Langewiesche, ISBN: 0070362408 Pub.
Date: September 1990).

I don't have a copy in front of me (of either -- the Atlantic article
is not one of the non-subscription ones, unlike the EgyptAir article).


Does anyone have additional information? I know, the official version
won't be available for months, but there will gradually be information
available that will add to our picture. Which apartment was the engine
found in, btw -- the point of original contact?

A sidebar is that the pilot for the TV report siad, "this is very busy
space...I wouldn't fly solo here; having someone to do the radio knobs
[etc] would make a big difference" (I don't think that's verbatim, but
it should be close").

One way some good could come out of this, I hope, is if researchers
such as those at Purdue can use this as a check of their WTC models.
If properly calibrated, the models should show the difference in damage
(see <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911153219.htm>,
and better copies of the simulation pictures at the Purdue site).

/dps

[Snidely]

Snidely wrote:
> On Anderson Cooper 360 about last night, (at least) one of their
> sources pointed out that to make the tight turn to compelte the u-turn
> at that altitude and turning left, a very steep bank is needed, and
> that this can cause a los of altitude -- and the radar returns indicate
> that 200' was lost during the turn.
>
> IIRC, William Langewiesche talks about this in his Atlantic article
> (Dec '93, it seems),
> and maybe in Stick and Rudder (Stick and Rudder: An Explanation of the
> Art of Flying
> by Wolfgang Langewiesche, William Langewiesche, ISBN: 0070362408 Pub.
> Date: September 1990).

Another Atlantic columnist, talks about the crash in 2 articles:

"For the second time in a month, I have woken up (in China) to news of
a fatal crash of exactly the kind of airplane that I used to own and
fly." <http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200610u/lidle-crash>

See also <http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200610u/lidle-crash-2>

/dps

[NW_Pilot]

Go Take a mountain flying class and you will learn about speed, tempture,
wind, and turns.

Also don't believe anything you here on the news! Like Beirut Lebanon is a
bad place and they all want to kill Americans hahahahaha Well I walked the
streets at night for a few hours alone, myself a non Muslim on a Muslim
holiday and nothing but friendly people even the guys with the machine guns
has proper muzzle control and friendlier than our police in the states!!

But what do I know!!! I just keep my eyes open look and wonder that is if we
are such a civilized society then why are we not removing rules/laws If we
were civilized we would not be making up new rules/laws!!!!

Funniest thing I herd on the news this week was an "Aviation Psychologist"
What the hell was is a Aviation Psychologist!!!! He had his facts and times
for ratings wrong it was good comedy for a pilots!!!! No wonder why the guy
no longer works for the NTSB and The FAA hahahahaha the guy was a quack!!!!

"Snidely" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Anderson Cooper 360 about last night, (at least) one of their
> sources pointed out that to make the tight turn to compelte the u-turn
> at that altitude and turning left, a very steep bank is needed, and
> that this can cause a los of altitude -- and the radar returns indicate
> that 200' was lost during the turn.
>
> IIRC, William Langewiesche talks about this in his Atlantic article
> (Dec '93, it seems),
> and maybe in Stick and Rudder (Stick and Rudder: An Explanation of the
> Art of Flying
> by Wolfgang Langewiesche, William Langewiesche, ISBN: 0070362408 Pub.
> Date: September 1990).
>
> I don't have a copy in front of me (of either -- the Atlantic article
> is not one of the non-subscription ones, unlike the EgyptAir article).
>
>
> Does anyone have additional information? I know, the official version
> won't be available for months, but there will gradually be information
> available that will add to our picture. Which apartment was the engine
> found in, btw -- the point of original contact?
>
> A sidebar is that the pilot for the TV report siad, "this is very busy
> space...I wouldn't fly solo here; having someone to do the radio knobs
> [etc] would make a big difference" (I don't think that's verbatim, but
> it should be close").
>
> One way some good could come out of this, I hope, is if researchers
> such as those at Purdue can use this as a check of their WTC models.
> If properly calibrated, the models should show the difference in damage
> (see <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911153219.htm>,
> and better copies of the simulation pictures at the Purdue site).
>
> /dps
>

[Blanche Cohen]

Aircraft Turn Calculator

www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html

[vincent p. norris]

>On Anderson Cooper 360 about last night, (at least) one of their
>sources pointed out that to make the tight turn to compelte the u-turn
>at that altitude and turning left, a very steep bank is needed, and
>that this can cause a los of altitude -- and the radar returns indicate
>that 200' was lost during the turn.

I seem to recall being required, on check rides, to do two 360 degree
turns, one each way (like a figure 8), at 60 degrees of bank, without
losing (or gaining) any altitude.

vince norris

[Brian Whatcott]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:00:39 -0400, vincent p. norris >
wrote:

>>On Anderson Cooper 360 about last night, (at least) one of their
>>sources pointed out that to make the tight turn to compelte the u-turn
>>at that altitude and turning left, a very steep bank is needed, and
>>that this can cause a los of altitude -- and the radar returns indicate
>>that 200' was lost during the turn.
>
>I seem to recall being required, on check rides, to do two 360 degree
>turns, one each way (like a figure 8), at 60 degrees of bank, without
>losing (or gaining) any altitude.
>
>vince norris


Then there's that business of pull up, wingover, pull out in opposite
direction at same altitude. That's CPL training, if I recall.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

[Snidely]

Blanche Cohen wrote:
> Aircraft Turn Calculator
>
> www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html

Interesting -- but doesn't speak to asltitude issues (loss of, or
adjustments to avoid loss of).

Tnx

/dps

[Don Tuite]

On 16 Oct 2006 13:28:37 -0700, "Snidely" >
wrote:

>
>Blanche Cohen wrote:
>> Aircraft Turn Calculator
>>
>> www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html
>
>Interesting -- but doesn't speak to asltitude issues (loss of, or
>adjustments to avoid loss of).
>
Losing altitude at a constant rate (rather than accelerating downward)
would be the same as maintaining a constant altitude, wouldn't it?
(Vectors on a free-body diagram and all that)

Don

[Ron Hardin]

Don Tuite wrote:
>
> On 16 Oct 2006 13:28:37 -0700, "Snidely" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Blanche Cohen wrote:
> >> Aircraft Turn Calculator
> >>
> >> www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html
> >
> >Interesting -- but doesn't speak to asltitude issues (loss of, or
> >adjustments to avoid loss of).
> >
> Losing altitude at a constant rate (rather than accelerating downward)
> would be the same as maintaining a constant altitude, wouldn't it?
> (Vectors on a free-body diagram and all that)
>
> Don

You get additional horsepower from going downhill, letting you maintain
your speed.

--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:41:58 GMT, Ron Hardin >
wrote:

>Don Tuite wrote:
>>
>> On 16 Oct 2006 13:28:37 -0700, "Snidely" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Blanche Cohen wrote:
>> >> Aircraft Turn Calculator
>> >>
>> >> www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html
>> >
>> >Interesting -- but doesn't speak to asltitude issues (loss of, or
>> >adjustments to avoid loss of).
>> >
>> Losing altitude at a constant rate (rather than accelerating downward)
>> would be the same as maintaining a constant altitude, wouldn't it?
>> (Vectors on a free-body diagram and all that)
>>
>> Don
>
>You get additional horsepower from going downhill, letting you maintain
>your speed.

Telegraphic as ever, Ron.

So, because I'm using the same throttle position as I was using in
level flight, I'm descending while in a turn and banked at A degrees.
The airplane seat is pushing on my butt at an angle A degrees from
vertical. That can be resolved into a vertical vector and a horizontal
vector aimed at the center of the circular path I'm describing.
Meanwhile the back of the seat is exerting another force on my butt
tangential to the circular path I'm describing in the horizontal, er,
"plane." That force is a reaction to the thrust of the prop.

If I "maintain my speed," I get the same lift I would have got from
adding enough throttle so as not to lose altitude. That means the
magnitude of the vertical component of the lift vector is still equal
to mg and my rate of descent is constant.

You were agreeing with me? (Never happened before.) Maintaining
vertical equilbrium depends on maintaining the same speed as in
straight and level flight, doesn't it?

Don

[Ron Hardin]

Don Tuite wrote:
> >You get additional horsepower from going downhill, letting you maintain
> >your speed.
>
> Telegraphic as ever, Ron.
>
> So, because I'm using the same throttle position as I was using in
> level flight, I'm descending while in a turn and banked at A degrees.
> The airplane seat is pushing on my butt at an angle A degrees from
> vertical. That can be resolved into a vertical vector and a horizontal
> vector aimed at the center of the circular path I'm describing.
> Meanwhile the back of the seat is exerting another force on my butt
> tangential to the circular path I'm describing in the horizontal, er,
> "plane." That force is a reaction to the thrust of the prop.
>
> If I "maintain my speed," I get the same lift I would have got from
> adding enough throttle so as not to lose altitude. That means the
> magnitude of the vertical component of the lift vector is still equal
> to mg and my rate of descent is constant.
>
> You were agreeing with me? (Never happened before.) Maintaining
> vertical equilbrium depends on maintaining the same speed as in
> straight and level flight, doesn't it?

There's no force on you from the back of the seat, unless you're also getting
a force from the wind in your face, say it's a powered hang glider. The
additional thrust on the airplane from its spiraling downward into gravity
is also a thrust on you yourself, so you don't feel it.

If you keep the turn coordinated, you're pointing the nose slightly down the
vertical to streamline into the downward spiral.

The additional horsepower lets the wings run fast enough at their angle of
attack to maintain the lift they need to hold the turn, where the engine alone
does not suffice.

--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

[Ron Natalie]

Ron Hardin wrote:

>> Losing altitude at a constant rate (rather than accelerating downward)
>> would be the same as maintaining a constant altitude, wouldn't it?
>> (Vectors on a free-body diagram and all that)
>>
>> Don
>
> You get additional horsepower from going downhill, letting you maintain
> your speed.
>
Power is a different issue than g-loading. Power has only
coincidental impact on stall speed (you do get a small gain
from the prop blast).

[Ron Hardin]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> Ron Hardin wrote:
>
> >> Losing altitude at a constant rate (rather than accelerating downward)
> >> would be the same as maintaining a constant altitude, wouldn't it?
> >> (Vectors on a free-body diagram and all that)
> >>
> >> Don
> >
> > You get additional horsepower from going downhill, letting you maintain
> > your speed.
> >
> Power is a different issue than g-loading. Power has only
> coincidental impact on stall speed (you do get a small gain
> from the prop blast).

Power has a significant impact on airplane speed, however.

--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

[Ron Natalie]

Ron Hardin wrote:

>>>
>> Power is a different issue than g-loading. Power has only
>> coincidental impact on stall speed (you do get a small gain
>> from the prop blast).
>
> Power has a significant impact on airplane speed, however.
>
and on whether you are climbing or descending.

[Brian Whatcott]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:22:40 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:41:58 GMT, Ron Hardin >
>wrote:
>
>>Don Tuite wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16 Oct 2006 13:28:37 -0700, "Snidely" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Blanche Cohen wrote:
>>> >> Aircraft Turn Calculator
>>> >>
>>> >> www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html
>>> >
>>> >Interesting -- but doesn't speak to asltitude issues (loss of, or
>>> >adjustments to avoid loss of).
>>> >
>>> Losing altitude at a constant rate (rather than accelerating downward)
>>> would be the same as maintaining a constant altitude, wouldn't it?
>>> (Vectors on a free-body diagram and all that)
>>>
>>> Don
>>
>>You get additional horsepower from going downhill, letting you maintain
>>your speed.
>
>Telegraphic as ever, Ron.
>
>So, because I'm using the same throttle position as I was using in
>level flight, I'm descending while in a turn and banked at A degrees.
>The airplane seat is pushing on my butt at an angle A degrees from
>vertical. That can be resolved into a vertical vector and a horizontal
>vector aimed at the center of the circular path I'm describing.
>Meanwhile the back of the seat is exerting another force on my butt
>tangential to the circular path I'm describing in the horizontal, er,
>"plane." That force is a reaction to the thrust of the prop.
>
>If I "maintain my speed," I get the same lift I would have got from
>adding enough throttle so as not to lose altitude. That means the
>magnitude of the vertical component of the lift vector is still equal
>to mg and my rate of descent is constant.
>
>You were agreeing with me? (Never happened before.) Maintaining
>vertical equilbrium depends on maintaining the same speed as in
>straight and level flight, doesn't it?
>
>Don


I'll try this time:

altitude = potential energy.
Losing altitude means giving up potential energy.
Where does that energy go?
Into providing a greater (effective) angle of attack than
you could at constant altitude and airspeed and thrust
OR
providing more airspeed than you could at constant altitude
and AoA and thrust.

Untelegraphic enough?

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:56:26 GMT, Brian Whatcott
> wrote:
>
>I'll try this time:
>
> altitude = potential energy.
>Losing altitude means giving up potential energy.
>Where does that energy go?
>Into providing a greater (effective) angle of attack than
>you could at constant altitude and airspeed and thrust
>OR
>providing more airspeed than you could at constant altitude
>and AoA and thrust.
>
>Untelegraphic enough?
>
Yes. Energy conservation is always a good way to clarify things.

Over the years, I've played Menos' slave boy to Ron's Socrates several
times, but he usually requires that I show some effort before he moves
out of ultar-terse mode.

Don

[Brian Whatcott]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:32:42 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:56:26 GMT, Brian Whatcott
> wrote:
>>
>>I'll try this time:
>>
>> altitude = potential energy.
>>Losing altitude means giving up potential energy.
>>Where does that energy go?
>>Into providing a greater (effective) angle of attack than
>>you could at constant altitude and airspeed and thrust
>>OR
>>providing more airspeed than you could at constant altitude
>>and AoA and thrust.
>>
>>Untelegraphic enough?
>>
>Yes. Energy conservation is always a good way to clarify things.
>
>Over the years, I've played Menos' slave boy to Ron's Socrates several
>times, but he usually requires that I show some effort before he moves
>out of ultar-terse mode.
>
>Don


Good attitude, Don!

:-)

Brian Whatcott Altus OK