Back in the air.

[Oz Lander[_2_]]

Well, it's almost 2 months since I last flew, due to maintenance issues
and a holiday interstate.
I had a lesson today, and was feeling fairly confident that I hadn't
become too rusty, due to constant visualisation and going over stuff in
my head. I was slightly nervous about the a/c as it's wings were only
reattached yesterday, and the prop had also been removed for
re-dressing. I was a little surprised at the prop, because I had
expected the resin leading edge inserts to have been replaced, but they
weren't. They had just re-coated the prop itself with that varnish
stuff, whatever they call it! :-)
We started the a/c, after a couple of tries with and without choke. She
was running very rough, and didn't sound right at all. I shut her dwn
again, and tried again to start it. This time all sounded and felt just
right. Must have just been too much fuel in the previous attempts to
start it.
Taxiied and took off. Pulling back the throttle to begin decent for the
first touch and go delivered another nervous moment. A fairly strong,
unusual vibration was felt. As we were not on the ground, my mouth
instantly did an impression of a cats bum, and gauges were frantically
checked. My instructor suggested that the prop may not be 100% balanced
properly after being re-dressed. Turned out that must have been
correct, as it did it every time we throttled back, and caused no ill
effects other than the unusual vibration.
We did 2 touch and goes and a full stop with the instructor with me,
and then I did 5 touch and goes and a full stop on my own. One of my
aproaches was a little high, so I thought it was the perfect
opportunity to have a go at a side slip. I'd been shown how twice, done
it once with assistance, and done it once or maybe twice without
assistance. Well, I gave myself a little bit of a scare, as it didn't
go quite to plan. Discussions with my instructor once on the ground
revealed that I simply didn't have quite enough rudder applied, but I
was applauded for trying to practice it. I was't happy with any of my
approaches, most of them were too low, and I needed to apply power to
get back on the correct glide slope, and a couple of the landings were
a bit ordinary too, however I did have a bit of a last minute crosswind
to contend with on the last few approaches from about 300 feet and
below. I', now at 1.3hrs solo, and need 3 hours solo before we move on
to the next section of the syllabus.
I'm booked in again for next Saturday morning, so we'll try and whittle
away that time then.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

[Not4wood]

Sounds good there CL.

Not4wood

"Oz Lander" > wrote in message
...
> Well, it's almost 2 months since I last flew, due to maintenance issues
> and a holiday interstate.
> I had a lesson today, and was feeling fairly confident that I hadn't
> become too rusty, due to constant visualisation and going over stuff in
> my head. I was slightly nervous about the a/c as it's wings were only
> reattached yesterday, and the prop had also been removed for
> re-dressing. I was a little surprised at the prop, because I had
> expected the resin leading edge inserts to have been replaced, but they
> weren't. They had just re-coated the prop itself with that varnish
> stuff, whatever they call it! :-)
> We started the a/c, after a couple of tries with and without choke. She
> was running very rough, and didn't sound right at all. I shut her dwn
> again, and tried again to start it. This time all sounded and felt just
> right. Must have just been too much fuel in the previous attempts to
> start it.
> Taxiied and took off. Pulling back the throttle to begin decent for the
> first touch and go delivered another nervous moment. A fairly strong,
> unusual vibration was felt. As we were not on the ground, my mouth
> instantly did an impression of a cats bum, and gauges were frantically
> checked. My instructor suggested that the prop may not be 100% balanced
> properly after being re-dressed. Turned out that must have been
> correct, as it did it every time we throttled back, and caused no ill
> effects other than the unusual vibration.
> We did 2 touch and goes and a full stop with the instructor with me,
> and then I did 5 touch and goes and a full stop on my own. One of my
> aproaches was a little high, so I thought it was the perfect
> opportunity to have a go at a side slip. I'd been shown how twice, done
> it once with assistance, and done it once or maybe twice without
> assistance. Well, I gave myself a little bit of a scare, as it didn't
> go quite to plan. Discussions with my instructor once on the ground
> revealed that I simply didn't have quite enough rudder applied, but I
> was applauded for trying to practice it. I was't happy with any of my
> approaches, most of them were too low, and I needed to apply power to
> get back on the correct glide slope, and a couple of the landings were
> a bit ordinary too, however I did have a bit of a last minute crosswind
> to contend with on the last few approaches from about 300 feet and
> below. I', now at 1.3hrs solo, and need 3 hours solo before we move on
> to the next section of the syllabus.
> I'm booked in again for next Saturday morning, so we'll try and whittle
> away that time then.
>
> --
> Oz Lander.
> I'm not always right,
> But I'm never wrong.

[Jay Honeck]

> Taxiied and took off. Pulling back the throttle to begin decent for the
> first touch and go delivered another nervous moment. A fairly strong,
> unusual vibration was felt. As we were not on the ground, my mouth
> instantly did an impression of a cats bum, and gauges were frantically
> checked. My instructor suggested that the prop may not be 100% balanced
> properly after being re-dressed. Turned out that must have been
> correct, as it did it every time we throttled back, and caused no ill
> effects other than the unusual vibration.
> We did 2 touch and goes and a full stop with the instructor with me,


Oz, I'm trying not to read too much into this, but it seems to me that
you and your instructor should have landed the plane after
experiencing a "fairly strong, unusual vibration".

I've found that "strong, unusual vibrations" usually lead to bad
things happening in airplanes.

Otherwise, glad you're back in the air!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Shirl]

"Oz Lander" > wrote:
> We did 2 touch and goes and a full stop with the instructor with me,
> and then I did 5 touch and goes and a full stop on my own. One of my
> aproaches was a little high, so I thought it was the perfect
> opportunity to have a go at a side slip. I'd been shown how twice, done
> it once with assistance, and done it once or maybe twice without
> assistance. Well, I gave myself a little bit of a scare, as it didn't
> go quite to plan. Discussions with my instructor once on the ground
> revealed that I simply didn't have quite enough rudder applied, but I
> was applauded for trying to practice it.

Congrats at getting back up. Glad the "vibration" didn't lead to
anything more, but after two unrelated, back-to-back engine problems,
I'm with Jay about making assumptions re the cause while in the air.

Quick comment: a "side slip" is for crosswind correction (lowered wing
into the wind w/rudder to keep the longitudinal axis of the plane lined
up with the runway;a "forward slip" is for losing excess altitude (wing
low w/opposite rudder so as to descend in line with the runway but with
the longitudinal axis exposed to the oncoming air to produce more drag
for descent). It *does* seem like they were named incorrectly.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Oz, I'm trying not to read too much into this, but it seems to me that
> you and your instructor should have landed the plane after
> experiencing a "fairly strong, unusual vibration".
>
> I've found that "strong, unusual vibrations" usually lead to bad
> things happening in airplanes.
>
> Otherwise, glad you're back in the air!
> --
> Jay Honeck

Hi Jay,
It should be noted, that ANY unusual vibration to me, a student pilot with
only 10.3 hours, is fairly strong. ;-)
My instructor didn't seem phased by it, and I'm sure she would not have let
me go if she was concerned about it, but I do understand your comment.
Crash Lander

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Shirl" > wrote in message
...
> Quick comment: a "side slip" is for crosswind correction (lowered wing
> into the wind w/rudder to keep the longitudinal axis of the plane lined
> up with the runway;a "forward slip" is for losing excess altitude (wing
> low w/opposite rudder so as to descend in line with the runway but with
> the longitudinal axis exposed to the oncoming air to produce more drag
> for descent). It *does* seem like they were named incorrectly.

My bad! I meant forward slip. We've only learned the one so far. I didn't
know there was a difference, as we haven't covered the other type yet. I now
look forward to learning all about 'side slipping'! ;-)
Crash Lander

[Jose]

> My bad! I meant forward slip. We've only learned the one so far. I didn't
> know there was a difference, as we haven't covered the other type yet. I now
> look forward to learning all about 'side slipping'! ;-)

There is no difference.

It =seems= like there is a difference, only because the perspective of
what you want to accomplish is different. However, as far as the way
the airplane goes through the air is concerned, they are completely
identical. The only difference is the way you think of the airplanes
motion with respect to the ground.

The airplane doesn't care about the ground though.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
> There is no difference.
>
> It =seems= like there is a difference, only because the perspective of
> what you want to accomplish is different. However, as far as the way the
> airplane goes through the air is concerned, they are completely identical.
> The only difference is the way you think of the airplanes motion with
> respect to the ground.
>
> The airplane doesn't care about the ground though.

Aha! Now I understand. Thankyou.
Oz/Crash Lander

[Shirl]

Jose > wrote:
[re side slip vs. forward slip]
> There is no difference.
>
> It =seems= like there is a difference, only because the perspective of
> what you want to accomplish is different. However, as far as the way
> the airplane goes through the air is concerned, they are completely
> identical. The only difference is the way you think of the airplanes
> motion with respect to the ground.

The difference is that when the longitudinal axis of the airplane is not
lined up with the runway centerline (forward slip), there is much more
drag. If you're too high, a side slip doesn't help you lose excess
altitude as effectively as a forward slip. If you're doing an emergency
landing off field, landing on a short strip, or landing with a
crosswind, the difference between the two slips can be quite significant.

[Jose]

> The difference is that when the longitudinal axis of the airplane is not
> lined up with the runway centerline (forward slip), there is much more
> drag.

This is true of a side slip too. I suppose if you want to lose
altitude, you cross your controls more, but again, the =airplane=
doesn't see the runway, so the =airplane= can't tell the difference.
It's just cross controlled.

The only difference between the two slips is what you are looking at out
the window.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Tony]

In my experience, it's a matter of how cross controlled you have the
airplane. If it's being done for landing, one uses the yoke to keep
the airplane in line with the centerline of the runway and the rudder
to keep its axis in line with that same centerline. In a sideslip for
altitude loss, one isn't concerned about that -- you want to present
the side of the airplane to the wind, making it areodynamically dirty.

If you had some sort of monitor on the contols and reviewed their
position after the flight you'd have a hard time telling the
difference, unless you noted the controls were a lot more active if it
was for a cross wind landing.



On Mar 5, 8:20 am, Jose > wrote:
> > The difference is that when the longitudinal axis of the airplane is not
> > lined up with the runway centerline (forward slip), there is much more
> > drag.
>
> This is true of a side slip too. I suppose if you want to lose
> altitude, you cross your controls more, but again, the =airplane=
> doesn't see the runway, so the =airplane= can't tell the difference.
> It's just cross controlled.
>
> The only difference between the two slips is what you are looking at out
> the window.
>
> Jose
> --
> Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
> follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
> understands this holds the world in his hands.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Shirl]

Shirl:
> > The difference is that when the longitudinal axis of the airplane is not
> > lined up with the runway centerline (forward slip), there is much more
> > drag.

Jose:
> This is true of a side slip too. I suppose if you want to lose
> altitude, you cross your controls more, but again, the =airplane=
> doesn't see the runway, so the =airplane= can't tell the difference.
> It's just cross controlled.

It's true that the action of the pilot is the same; however, in a
forward slip (for loss of altitude) it is cross-controlled to a greater
degree so that the airplane is actually coming down sideways (but in
line with the centerline) so as to expose more of it to the oncoming
wind. Yes, there's drag in a side slip (for crosswind correction) too,
but not as much, and the whole point of the side slip is to keep the
airplane lined up with the runway, not to lose altitude.

[Shirl]

"Tony" > wrote:
> In my experience, it's a matter of how cross controlled
> you have the airplane.

Exactly.
And that depends on what you're using the slip for -- to lose altitude
or for x-wind correction.

> In a sideslip for altitude loss,

Side slip is used for x-wind correction, not altitude loss.

> one isn't concerned about that -- you want to present
> the side of the airplane to the wind, making it areodynamically
> dirty.

True.

> If you had some sort of monitor on the contols and reviewed their
> position after the flight you'd have a hard time telling the
> difference, unless you noted the controls were a lot more active if it
> was for a cross wind landing.

Describe "more active"?
The controls are used to a lesser degree in a side slip for a crosswind
landing than they are in a forward slip for loss of altitude. If you
have the wing into the wind and are using full rudder and still can't
keep the axis lined up with the centerline because of the strong x-wind,
you're probably in conditions that exceed the x-wind limit of the
airplane.

The reason for pointing out the difference in the first place was to
note, for example, that if you are in an emergency where you HAVE TO
lose altitude and get the plane down quickly to a designated spot, a
"side slip" (axis lined up with the runway) isn't going to burn off
altitude like a "forward slip". Knowing the difference in the two slips
and how/when to use them in an emergency could make the difference in a
successful landing and not ending up where you wanted to.

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 13:20:47 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> The difference is that when the longitudinal axis of the airplane is not
>> lined up with the runway centerline (forward slip), there is much more
>> drag.
>
>This is true of a side slip too. I suppose if you want to lose
>altitude, you cross your controls more, but again, the =airplane=
>doesn't see the runway, so the =airplane= can't tell the difference.
>It's just cross controlled.
>
>The only difference between the two slips is what you are looking at out
>the window.

It may be worth noting that the controls are crossed in a skid as well
as a slip. Slips are good; skids may be the entry to the deadly
cross-controlled stall.

Don

[Nils Rostedt]

Let me chime in... ;-)

"Shirl"wrote
> Shirl:
>> > The difference is that when the longitudinal axis of the airplane is
>> > not
>> > lined up with the runway centerline (forward slip), there is much more
>> > drag.

I think this is true only in the no-crosswind case when the relative wind
has the same direction as the runway. If there is crosswind, the relative
wind direction is from a direction more or less to the side, depending on
the crosswind component. Therefore, in a crosswind side-slip approach, even
if the airplane's longitudinal axis is aligned with the runway there is some
degree of additional drag as the airplane is not aligned into the relative
wind. (In comparison, in a crabbing approach the airplane is aligned much
closer to the relative wind.)

>
> Jose:
>> This is true of a side slip too. I suppose if you want to lose
>> altitude, you cross your controls more, but again, the =airplane=
>> doesn't see the runway, so the =airplane= can't tell the difference.
>> It's just cross controlled.
>
> It's true that the action of the pilot is the same; however, in a
> forward slip (for loss of altitude) it is cross-controlled to a greater
> degree so that the airplane is actually coming down sideways (but in
> line with the centerline) so as to expose more of it to the oncoming
> wind. Yes, there's drag in a side slip (for crosswind correction) too,
> but not as much, and the whole point of the side slip is to keep the
> airplane lined up with the runway, not to lose altitude.

Yes, in a forward slip where you want maximum descent speed it's no problem
to use full opposite rudder. In a crosswind side-slip, the crosswind itself
does much of the job the opposite rudder does in a forward slip, so less
rudder is needed.

Did we reach a higher level of confusion? ;-)

[Tony]

The reason I suggest a "forward" slip would show more active controls
is that when I do them there are constant control adjustments to keep
the hull aligned along the runway and on the centerline.

For a slip to lose energy, however, I stomp on the rudder and use the
yoke deflection to more or less keep things OK. Rudder authority is
not that great in the Mooney.

So, if a knowledgable px was hooded, she would note I'm working a
little harder with a forward slip (using the definition of this
thread.)


On Mar 5, 10:17 am, Shirl > wrote:
> "Tony" > wrote:
> > In my experience, it's a matter of how cross controlled
> > you have the airplane.
>
> Exactly.
> And that depends on what you're using the slip for -- to lose altitude
> or for x-wind correction.
>
> > In a sideslip for altitude loss,
>
> Side slip is used for x-wind correction, not altitude loss.
>
> > one isn't concerned about that -- you want to present
> > the side of the airplane to the wind, making it areodynamically
> > dirty.
>
> True.
>
> > If you had some sort of monitor on the contols and reviewed their
> > position after the flight you'd have a hard time telling the
> > difference, unless you noted the controls were a lot more active if it
> > was for a cross wind landing.
>
> Describe "more active"?
> The controls are used to a lesser degree in a side slip for a crosswind
> landing than they are in a forward slip for loss of altitude. If you
> have the wing into the wind and are using full rudder and still can't
> keep the axis lined up with the centerline because of the strong x-wind,
> you're probably in conditions that exceed the x-wind limit of the
> airplane.
>
> The reason for pointing out the difference in the first place was to
> note, for example, that if you are in an emergency where you HAVE TO
> lose altitude and get the plane down quickly to a designated spot, a
> "side slip" (axis lined up with the runway) isn't going to burn off
> altitude like a "forward slip". Knowing the difference in the two slips
> and how/when to use them in an emergency could make the difference in a
> successful landing and not ending up where you wanted to.

[Shirl]

"Tony" > wrote:
> The reason I suggest a "forward" slip would show more active controls
> is that when I do them there are constant control adjustments to keep
> the hull aligned along the runway and on the centerline.

When the hull is aligned with the centerline of the runway, that is a
*side* slip, not a forward slip. If you like, I can quote the Soaring
Flight Manual that spells out the difference and what condition each is
used for. As previously noted, it does seem they were named in reverse,
and that makes it confusing as to which is which.

> So, if a knowledgable px was hooded, she would note I'm working a
> little harder with a forward slip (using the definition of this
> thread.)

I agree that you work harder in a *SIDE* slip (keeping the hull aligned
with the runway centerline in a crosswind), although the degree of
cross-control in a forward slip (for loss of altitude) is greater.

[Shirl]

Shirl:
> >The difference is that when the longitudinal axis of
> >the airplane is not lined up with the runway centerline
> >(forward slip), there is much more drag.

"Nils Rostedt" wrote:
> I think this is true only in the no-crosswind case when the
> relative wind has the same direction as the runway. If there
> is crosswind, the relative wind direction is from a direction
> more or less to the side, depending on the crosswind component.
> Therefore, in a crosswind side-slip approach, even if the airplane's
> longitudinal axis is aligned with the runway there is some degree
> of additional drag as the airplane is not aligned into the relative
> wind. (In comparison, in a crabbing approach the airplane is aligned
> much closer to the relative wind.)

Agreed.

> > It's true that the action of the pilot is the same; however, in a
> > forward slip (for loss of altitude) it is cross-controlled to a greater
> > degree so that the airplane is actually coming down sideways (but in
> > line with the centerline) so as to expose more of it to the oncoming
> > wind. Yes, there's drag in a side slip (for crosswind correction) too,
> > but not as much, and the whole point of the side slip is to keep the
> > airplane lined up with the runway, not to lose altitude.
>
> Yes, in a forward slip where you want maximum descent speed it's no problem
> to use full opposite rudder. In a crosswind side-slip, the crosswind itself
> does much of the job the opposite rudder does in a forward slip, so less
> rudder is needed.

Agreed.

> Did we reach a higher level of confusion? ;-)

No confusion here. ;-)
Again, I only meant to point out the difference and their uses because
in an emergency situation where losing altitude quickly and/or fighting
a strong crosswind were paramount to getting the plane down where you
have to, knowing the difference and using the correct one could mean the
difference between success and disaster.

[Dallas]

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:30:44 GMT, Crash Lander wrote:

> My instructor didn't seem phased by it, and I'm sure she would not have let
> me go if she was concerned about it, but I do understand your comment.

One must take into account the personality of the instructor. We have an
old codger instructor with thousands of hours as a commercial commuter
pilot.

Despite all this experience, I won't fly with the guy. His "Bold Pilot"
approach to aviation scares the crap out of me.

--
Dallas

[Jose]

> It's true that the action of the pilot is the same; however, in a
> forward slip (for loss of altitude) it is cross-controlled to a greater
> degree...

The slip is the same, just differing in degree, and only because the
purpose is different. But the airplane doesn't know the purpose. :)

Also, if you need to sideslip to a parallel runway that is sort of far
away, you'll slip more, and lose more altitude, just like a forward slip.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> It may be worth noting that the controls are crossed in a skid as well
> as a slip. Slips are good; skids may be the entry to the deadly
> cross-controlled stall.

Are they? I think not. one is uncoordinated, but the controls are in
the same direction, not opposite directions. (too much rudder, rather
than too little or opposite direction)

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:52:03 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> It may be worth noting that the controls are crossed in a skid as well
>> as a slip. Slips are good; skids may be the entry to the deadly
>> cross-controlled stall.
>
>Are they? I think not. one is uncoordinated, but the controls are in
>the same direction, not opposite directions. (too much rudder, rather
>than too little or opposite direction)
>
http://www.fcitraining.com/article5_fci_training_feb03.htm

Says it better than I could.

Don