Lazy Eight's

[Dick[_1_]]

After taking some rigorous Unusual Attitudes Training, now I can't do a
smooth Lazy Eight to save my soul <G> (or comfort my wife).

One item the course taught me was a Modified Wingover which allowed a blind
canyon 180* turn within a wingspan. Entry at 30* pitch & 30* bank proceeding
to 60* pitch & 60* bank at 90* point to entry. Then at 0 mph, the nose falls
without rudder assist and ball is too the side.

My procedure for the Lazy 8: entry at 15/15* P&B, then up to 30/30* P&B
at 90* to entry and down to 5-10 mph over stall using proper rudder control
and centered ball.

Unfortunately after I look left over the wing to line up with the entry
point and initiate first pitch/bank, I'm then at the 90* point and still too
fast.....

Advice please. Thanks, Dick

[[email protected]]

Be sure your airplane is certified for 60 degree pitch!

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:15:25 -0000, wrote:

>Be sure your airplane is certified for 60 degree pitch!

No airplane is "certified for 60 degree pitch". Sixty degrees pitch qualifies
as an aerobatic maneuver. Airplanes *are* certified for aerobatics, but that is
solely a limitation on G-loading. Dick's description of the maneuver ("...60*
pitch & 60* bank at 90* point to entry. Then at 0 mph, the nose falls...")
sounds unlikely to exceed the positive G limits for normal category.

Finally, the maneuver where Dick describes reaching 60 degrees of pitch is a
blind canyon escape maneuver, where you suddenly discover you've got granite
ahead and on both sides. It's the choice of the maneuver or going
two-dimensional on the canyon wall. Might I gently suggested that if you're
ever faced with the choice between A) Death or B) Violating FAA regs, that you
select B)?

Ron Wanttaja

[Dick[_1_]]

The course used a French Acro plane. My question is on the 30/30 in an
experimental..
> wrote in message
ps.com...
> Be sure your airplane is certified for 60 degree pitch!
>
>

[[email protected]]

seems to me the owner's manual on our Mooney says limits are 60
degrees bank and 30 degrees pitch. It also says the airplane should
not be spun.

I could be wrong about that.

As for practice of these manouvers? Do whatever you like. Probably it
would not be wise to post here, though, except as a hypothetical
question. There's nothing like a written record to influence courts or
insurance companies.

T




On Jun 24, 11:30 am, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:15:25 -0000, wrote:
> >Be sure your airplane is certified for 60 degree pitch!
>
> No airplane is "certified for 60 degree pitch". Sixty degrees pitch qualifies
> as an aerobatic maneuver. Airplanes *are* certified for aerobatics, but that is
> solely a limitation on G-loading. Dick's description of the maneuver ("...60*
> pitch & 60* bank at 90* point to entry. Then at 0 mph, the nose falls...")
> sounds unlikely to exceed the positive G limits for normal category.
>
> Finally, the maneuver where Dick describes reaching 60 degrees of pitch is a
> blind canyon escape maneuver, where you suddenly discover you've got granite
> ahead and on both sides. It's the choice of the maneuver or going
> two-dimensional on the canyon wall. Might I gently suggested that if you're
> ever faced with the choice between A) Death or B) Violating FAA regs, that you
> select B)?
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[birdog]

"Dick" > wrote in message
news:byvfi.3176$cV.223@trnddc04...
> After taking some rigorous Unusual Attitudes Training, now I can't do a
> smooth Lazy Eight to save my soul <G> (or comfort my wife).
>
> One item the course taught me was a Modified Wingover which allowed a
> blind canyon 180* turn within a wingspan. Entry at 30* pitch & 30* bank
> proceeding to 60* pitch & 60* bank at 90* point to entry. Then at 0 mph,
> the nose falls without rudder assist and ball is too the side.
>
> My procedure for the Lazy 8: entry at 15/15* P&B, then up to 30/30* P&B
> at 90* to entry and down to 5-10 mph over stall using proper rudder
> control and centered ball.
>
> Unfortunately after I look left over the wing to line up with the entry
> point and initiate first pitch/bank, I'm then at the 90* point and still
> too fast.....
>
> Advice please. Thanks, Dick

What you're describing we used to call a split "S" entry. Roll over and pull
out - if you have elevation. Used to do it in an old Champ regularly. - no
negative g's. Not recommended for planes not certified, but if dying is the
alternative?

Who the hell's dumb enough to fly up a blind canyon below the rim?

[Blueskies]

UND stuff here: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/UniversityOfNorthDakotaAerocast/~3/76589811/CommercialLazyEights.m4v


"Dick" > wrote in message news:byvfi.3176$cV.223@trnddc04...
> After taking some rigorous Unusual Attitudes Training, now I can't do a smooth Lazy Eight to save my soul <G> (or
> comfort my wife).
>
> One item the course taught me was a Modified Wingover which allowed a blind canyon 180* turn within a wingspan. Entry
> at 30* pitch & 30* bank proceeding to 60* pitch & 60* bank at 90* point to entry. Then at 0 mph, the nose falls
> without rudder assist and ball is too the side.
>
> My procedure for the Lazy 8: entry at 15/15* P&B, then up to 30/30* P&B at 90* to entry and down to 5-10 mph over
> stall using proper rudder control and centered ball.
>
> Unfortunately after I look left over the wing to line up with the entry point and initiate first pitch/bank, I'm then
> at the 90* point and still too fast.....
>
> Advice please. Thanks, Dick
>
>
>
>
>

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:36:11 -0000, wrote:

>seems to me the owner's manual on our Mooney says limits are 60
>degrees bank and 30 degrees pitch. It also says the airplane should
>not be spun.
>
>I could be wrong about that.

No, you are undoubtedly right. But there is no such thing as being "certified
for 60 degree pitch." The manufacturer can place any warning they wish in the
manual, but that's not the same as certification. The airplane is certified in
the normal (or utility) category, in the aerobatic category. But this is a *G*
limit, not an overt certification limit on bank or pitch angle. If Mooney said
the limits are 59 degrees bank and 29 degrees pitch, that STILL wouldn't make it
a "certification" limit.

From what I can tell, Part 91's only comment about aerobatics is that you have
to wear a 'chute...it doesn't seem to care about the certification category of
the aircraft. The 91.13 catch-all undoubtedly works, though.

>As for practice of these manouvers? Do whatever you like. Probably it
>would not be wise to post here, though, except as a hypothetical
>question. There's nothing like a written record to influence courts or
>insurance companies.

Well, let's get this out of the way, then. I regularly exceed 30 degrees of
pitch in my US-registered aircraft, despite the airplane not being certified in
the aerobatic category. My 25-year-old airplane has never undergone an annual
inspection. I haven't held a medical for about four years, yet I hold a Private
Pilot license and fly my N-numbered aircraft regularly.

I'll just sit here and wait for the subpoenas and insurance cancellations,
then....

Ron Wanttaja

[buttman]

On Jun 24, 7:51 am, "Dick" > wrote:
> After taking some rigorous Unusual Attitudes Training, now I can't do a
> smooth Lazy Eight to save my soul <G> (or comfort my wife).
>
> One item the course taught me was a Modified Wingover which allowed a blind
> canyon 180* turn within a wingspan. Entry at 30* pitch & 30* bank proceeding
> to 60* pitch & 60* bank at 90* point to entry. Then at 0 mph, the nose falls
> without rudder assist and ball is too the side.
>
> My procedure for the Lazy 8: entry at 15/15* P&B, then up to 30/30* P&B
> at 90* to entry and down to 5-10 mph over stall using proper rudder control
> and centered ball.
>
> Unfortunately after I look left over the wing to line up with the entry
> point and initiate first pitch/bank, I'm then at the 90* point and still too
> fast.....
>
> Advice please. Thanks, Dick

Why would anyone want to do a lazy-8 once they've completed their
commercial? I can understand doing an "8's on" (as a matter of fact, I
do them all the time), or a chandelle, but a lazy-8?

[RomeoMike]

buttman wrote:

>
> Why would anyone want to do a lazy-8 once they've completed their
> commercial? I can understand doing an "8's on" (as a matter of fact, I
> do them all the time), or a chandelle, but a lazy-8?
>

Because, if done >correctly<, they teach coordination and control. If
done correctly, they require more skill than a Chandelle, IMHO. And if
you want to have more fun and develop more skill, you can start out with
the standard 30 deg bank, then increase it to 45 deg, 60 deg, etc, until
you are doing wing overs on each turn (usual caveats, etc).

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:19:42 -0400, "birdog" > wrote in
>:

>Who the hell's dumb enough to fly up a blind canyon below the rim?

One day in 2002 two owners flew their "forked-tailed doctor killers"
up a blind canyon in southern California:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX02FA211&rpt=fa
On June 30, 2002, about 1059 Pacific daylight time, a Beech V-35A,
N156U, collided with mountainous terrain while maneuvering in a
canyon near Ojai, California. The pilot/owner was operating the
airplane under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91. The commercial
pilot, one pilot rated passenger, and another passenger sustained
fatal injuries; the airplane was destroyed. The personal
cross-country flight departed Van Nuys (VNY), California, about
1030, en route to Oceano (L52), California. Visual meteorological
conditions prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed. The
primary wreckage was at 34 degrees 33.503 minutes north latitude
and 119 degrees 28.139 minutes west longitude.

A witness reported that the pilot was one of a group that
routinely gathered on weekends for local flights. They all met at
Van Nuys about 0930 for a preflight briefing. The accident pilot
was to be the lead, and he obtained a weather brief. He then
briefed the group on weather, communications, route, altitudes,
alternates, and safety issues.

The flight consisted of a group of eight airplanes. The airplanes
departed as three groups in formation. Two groups consisted of
three airplanes, and a third group consisted of just two
airplanes. The group formed up at 4,500 feet.

The witness reported that after flying around the area for about
25 minutes, the lead instructed everyone to separate and follow in
trail. The lead and the number two airplane stayed in formation
with the second airplane on the right wing. The rest of the
airplanes followed in loose trail as the leader maneuvered in a
serpentine manner. The flight was now over the Ojai area and
proceeded on a northerly heading. Members of the group reported
that they had flown in this area before.

Witnesses reported that the first two airplanes separated from the
rest of the group. They descended into a canyon to an estimated
500 to 1,000 feet above ground level (agl). The other airplanes
followed about 500 feet behind the airplane that they were
following. The number three pilot estimated that he was about 200
feet above the leader's altitude and number two was between
them. Number three was flying at 120 knots and heard "90." He
noticed that number two was getting closer to the leader, and he
was closing on number two.

As the airplanes proceeded toward the end of the canyon, number
three noticed that the terrain was rising, and the canyon was
getting narrow. Due to his concern about terrain clearance, he
decided to exit the formation. He asked the leader if he was going
to make it, but he had his microphone keyed and did not hear a
response. Other pilots heard someone say, "I don't think so."

A few seconds later, number three initiated a hard pull up to the
left and began to climb. He completed about 15 degrees of turn and
saw the lead airplane collide with trees and terrain at his
2-o'clock position. The number two airplane was a little to the
right of the lead when it also collided with the terrain. The lead
airplane caught fire and then the second airplane caught fire.
The second airplane was N576Q, a Beech S35; see NTSB accident
report LAX02FA212.

Number three estimated that the ridgeline elevation was 6,000
feet, and he cleared the ridgeline by 50 feet. He noted an outside
air temperature of 87 degrees Fahrenheit. He immediately notified
authorities in Santa Barbara, California, and entered an orbit at
8,000 feet. Within 7 to 8 minutes a helicopter arrived and dropped
water on the fire. About 20 minutes later several aircraft arrived
on scene and number 3 departed the area.


While I wouldn't characterize him as dumb, there's the tragic tale of
stunt pilot Frank Tallman:

Frank Tallman, (EAA 75) returning from a flight to northern
California scouting movie locations, was killed when his Piper
Aztec hit near the top of the Santa Ana Mountains east of El Toro
Marine air base, southeast of Los Angeles.


Died April 16, 1978 Frank Gifford Tallman III
The coroner's report said that he died of a heart attack in
flight.

04/15/78 TRABUCO CANYON,CA N5641Y PIPER PA-23 FATAL (1)
33 40N 117 28W UNKNOWN AZTEC N5641Y WHITE W/YELLOW TRIM


N-Number: 5641Y
Aircraft Make: Piper
Aircraft Model: PA-23-250
Serial Number: 27-2755
Year Manufactured: 1965
Aircraft Type: Land
Engine Make: Lycoming
Engine Model: TI0-540 SER
Horsepower: 310
Airworthiness Class: Standard
Seats: 6
Type of Ownership: Corporation
Owner Name: Sale Reported
Street: 11962 S Prairie Ave
City: Hawthorne, CA 90250
FAA Region: Western-Pacific
Country: US
Last Activity Date: 16-Aug-1980


Frank Tallman succumbed as chronicled in NTSB report LAX78FA043.
Below are some newspaper articles which appeared subsequent to Mr.
Tallman's death:

Tallman had over 21,000 flying hours by the time of his death. HE
HAD PILOTED MORE THAN 500 DIFFERENT KINDS OF POWERED, FIXED-WING,
AIRCRAFT, HELICOPTERS, GLIDERS, AND BALLOONS.

"He had just refueled in Santa Monica, there are no,indications of
any pre-impact mechanical malfunctions, he had had plenty of
sleep, he was not taking any medicine, and the autopsy and
toxicological tests all came up negative."

Tallman had departed San Francisco earlier in the day, flown to
the Salinas VOR south of the Bay Area and then followed the coast
to Santa Monica, flying most of the time at less than 1,000 feet.

A flight between Santa Monica and Phoenix:

Tallman dropped off his sole passenger at Santa Monica and
departed for the Phoenix area. Tallman told his passenger he
would follow the coast south to San Diego and then fly eastward to
his destination.

Approximately 20 minutes after departing Santa Monica, Tallman's
light twin flew into the side of a 3,500-foot mountain ridge that
had an east/west orientation [located 16 miles from his home field
SNA]. The aircraft impacted on a heading of 130' with its wings
level and in a slightly nose-down attitude. Ground contact
occurred about 3,100 feet msl, straight-on and with no indications
that the pilot was incapacitated, that the aircraft was
mechanically impaired or that evasive maneuvering had occurred
prior to the time the Aztec struck the trees that covered the
ridge. According to observers near the accident site, the local
visibility was practically nil in heavy rain showers and the
ceiling was approximately 800 to 1,000 feet agl. [The weather was
unrealistically severe that evening including thunder
storms.]
---
Sheriff's deputies said the Piper Aztec aircraft went down during
the night and was sighted Sunday morning in rugged terrain 50
yards from' the top of a 3,500-foot-high ridge line in the
Cleveland National Forest. Tallman had been flying alone.

A helicopter airdropped sheriff's dep. Jim Ohr at the scene, one
mile from the entrance to Holy Jim Canyon, a few hours later.

Ohr said there was massive damage to the right side and front of
the plane, "possibly like he was making a left turn in the last
minute. It looked like it plowed into the cliff."

Tallman was found in the cockpit, with the seat belt On. The
emergency locator transmitter was still sending out signals.

Ohr said there was considerable turbulence over the mountain.
[OC Sheriff: 714 647000, 550 N. Flower St. Santa Ana, CA 92703]
---
Keith McGuire, a National Transportation Safety
Board investigator assigned to the Oakland office

Keith McGuire [ISASI '99 TECHNICAL COMMITTE,ALASKA REGIONAL
CHAPTER; NTSB Northwest Region, Rm. 201, 19518 Pacific Hwy. S.,
Seattle, WA 98188 Regional Director], a National Transportation
Safety Board investigator assigned to the Oakland office,said:

Reconstructing Tallman's last days, McGuire said the flier
had left Santa Monica Airport Friday, April 14, with a client,
British film maker Michael Wilson. The two flew along the
Sierra Nevada Mountains looking for film locations, then
landed in San Francisco where they spent the night.

McGuire said both men retired relatively early. They left
San Francisco Saturday and flew back to Santa Monica,
arriving there at 2:32 p.m.

Tallman dropped Wilson off and told him that he was
going to fly to Phoenix on personal business before returning to
Orange County. After refueling, he left Santa Monica
at 2:54 p.m. the time of his List radio contact

Twenty minutes later, at 3:14 p.m., his plane hit the 3,100-foot
mark of the 3,500-foot ridge just four miles south of Santiago
Peak.

Tallman was killed just two days before his 59th birthday.
When search teams arrived at the brush-covered crash site,
they found his body still strapped into the seat of his plane.
He had died instantly.

[RST Engineering]

>
> Well, let's get this out of the way, then. I regularly exceed 30 degrees
> of
> pitch in my US-registered aircraft, despite the airplane not being
> certified in
> the aerobatic category.

Ron, of all people who should know the difference between certificated and
certified...


My 25-year-old airplane has never undergone an annual
> inspection.

Nor has any experimental aircraft. A once-a-year CONDITION inspection
though.


I haven't held a medical for about four years, yet I hold a Private
> Pilot license and fly my N-numbered aircraft regularly.

Nor do you need a medical to fly a Light Sport Aircraft, which the FlyBaby
certainly is, only a LSA pilot OR HIGHER, which a PPC certainly is.. Being
a homebuilt and certificated as such, it HAS to have an N number.

Sheesh, you kids.

Jim


>
> I'll just sit here and wait for the subpoenas and insurance cancellations,
> then....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:44:11 -0700, "RST Engineering" >
wrote:

>Sheesh, you kids.

Shhhh, Jim, I wuz settin' him up! :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[[email protected]]

On Jun 24, 4:02 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:19:42 -0400, "birdog" > wrote in
> >:
>
> >Who the hell's dumb enough to fly up a blind canyon below the rim?
>

According to observers near the accident site, the local
> visibility was practically nil in heavy rain showers and the
> ceiling was approximately 800 to 1,000 feet agl. [The weather was
> unrealistically severe that evening including thunder
> storms.]

'Unrealistically severe' - was this a simulated flight?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:29:17 -0700,
wrote in m>:

>On Jun 24, 4:02 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:19:42 -0400, "birdog" > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >Who the hell's dumb enough to fly up a blind canyon below the rim?
>>
>
>According to observers near the accident site, the local
>> visibility was practically nil in heavy rain showers and the
>> ceiling was approximately 800 to 1,000 feet agl. [The weather was
>> unrealistically severe that evening including thunder
>> storms.]
>
>'Unrealistically severe' - was this a simulated flight?

From what I remember, eye witnesses reported that they had to pull
over to the side of the road/freeway because the rain was so heavy
they couldn't proceed safely. Apparently the weather was worse than
anyone who experienced it could remember it having been in the past at
that location. It was so bad, that the medical examiner indicated
that Mr. Tallman suffered a heart attack before impact.

A very tragic end for a super guy.

[Peter Dohm]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:36:11 -0000, wrote:
>
> >seems to me the owner's manual on our Mooney says limits are 60
> >degrees bank and 30 degrees pitch. It also says the airplane should
> >not be spun.
> >
> >I could be wrong about that.
>
> No, you are undoubtedly right. But there is no such thing as being
"certified
> for 60 degree pitch." The manufacturer can place any warning they wish in
the
> manual, but that's not the same as certification. The airplane is
certified in
> the normal (or utility) category, in the aerobatic category. But this is
a *G*
> limit, not an overt certification limit on bank or pitch angle. If Mooney
said
> the limits are 59 degrees bank and 29 degrees pitch, that STILL wouldn't
make it
> a "certification" limit.
>
> From what I can tell, Part 91's only comment about aerobatics is that you
have
> to wear a 'chute...it doesn't seem to care about the certification
category of
> the aircraft. The 91.13 catch-all undoubtedly works, though.
>
> >As for practice of these manouvers? Do whatever you like. Probably it
> >would not be wise to post here, though, except as a hypothetical
> >question. There's nothing like a written record to influence courts or
> >insurance companies.
>
> Well, let's get this out of the way, then. I regularly exceed 30 degrees
of
> pitch in my US-registered aircraft, despite the airplane not being
certified in
> the aerobatic category. My 25-year-old airplane has never undergone an
annual
> inspection. I haven't held a medical for about four years, yet I hold a
Private
> Pilot license and fly my N-numbered aircraft regularly.
>
> I'll just sit here and wait for the subpoenas and insurance cancellations,
> then....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Actually, this explains a lot that had been made a little confusing by some
of the discussions which I had heard. In other words, just as a type certif
ied aircraft which falls within the LSA limitations of weight, speed and
configuration; the same is true for an amateur built experimental with the
appropriate operating limitations.

That leaves one question about which I am still curious. Do you happen to
know what pilot rating and medical certification requirements would exist
for the initial pilot of a new amateur built experimental (or a new design)
expected to comply with the LSA definitions.

Thanks,
Peter

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Jun 24, 1:46 pm, buttman > wrote:
> On Jun 24, 7:51 am, "Dick" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > After taking some rigorous Unusual Attitudes Training, now I can't do a
> > smooth Lazy Eight to save my soul <G> (or comfort my wife).
>
> > One item the course taught me was a Modified Wingover which allowed a blind
> > canyon 180* turn within a wingspan. Entry at 30* pitch & 30* bank proceeding
> > to 60* pitch & 60* bank at 90* point to entry. Then at 0 mph, the nose falls
> > without rudder assist and ball is too the side.
>
> > My procedure for the Lazy 8: entry at 15/15* P&B, then up to 30/30* P&B
> > at 90* to entry and down to 5-10 mph over stall using proper rudder control
> > and centered ball.
>
> > Unfortunately after I look left over the wing to line up with the entry
> > point and initiate first pitch/bank, I'm then at the 90* point and still too
> > fast.....
>
> > Advice please. Thanks, Dick
>
> Why would anyone want to do a lazy-8 once they've completed their
> commercial? I can understand doing an "8's on" (as a matter of fact, I
> do them all the time), or a chandelle, but a lazy-8?- Hide quoted text -
>

Lazy 8 is one of the few maneuvers that is challenging, yet graceful
and relaxing. You can climb to a high altitude into smooth air, sit
back, take a deep breath. The maneuver is very demanding yet it won't
make you sweat or grip the yoke tight. Almost every time I fly solo
(which is not too often because most of my flights are with pax or
students), I do a few. But I don't do 8's-on pylons because I
consider bouncing at a few hundred feet while looking out for
obstacles and traffic is too much sweaty work.

[vincent norris]

> One item the course taught me was a Modified Wingover which allowed a blind
> canyon 180* turn within a wingspan.

Impossible.

vince norris

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 19:51:58 -0400, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

>That leaves one question about which I am still curious. Do you happen to
>know what pilot rating and medical certification requirements would exist
>for the initial pilot of a new amateur built experimental (or a new design)
>expected to comply with the LSA definitions.

The FAA made this a bit more confusing than they had to. A couple years back,
they developed a *definition* of a "Light Sport Aircraft," at the same time they
developed two new certification categories, both with "Light Sport Aircraft" in
the names (Special Light Sport Aircraft and Experimental Light Sport Aircraft).

If an airplane meets the Light Sport Aircraft *definition*, then it can be flown
by anyone with a Sport Pilot license or higher. If the aircraft meets the
*definition*, a person with a Recreational/Private/Commercial/ATP license and a
valid Class III medical or higher may fly the airplane. The same individuals
may instead use a valid state drivers license in lieu of the standard medical,
PROVIDING their last medical "died a natural death" (e.g., just expired rather
than getting canceled) and they have not failed an FAA medical since.

It's like the "fourth step" in the standard FAA medical. You can fly operations
requiring a Class I for six months, then fly in operations only requiring a
Class II for the NEXT six months, and finally can execute Private Pilot
privileges for the next year. After that you, you can be a "Private Pilot
executing Sport Pilot privileges" for as long as you have a driver's license and
DON'T flunk an FAA medical.

The certification status of the airplane is immaterial...it can be normal
category, utility, aerobatic, experimental, limited, etc. If it *meets* the
Light Sport Aircraft definition, a Private Pilot can execute Sport Pilot
privileges and use a driver's license in lieu of a medical.

The specific aircraft certification categories (Special LSA and Experimental
LSA) implement simplified processes to gain airworthiness certificates and
simplified maintenance requirements.

I've got more details on my Fly Baby web page:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/lsa.html

Ron Wanttaja

[Dudley Henriques]

On 2007-06-24 10:51:51 -0400, "Dick" > said:

> After taking some rigorous Unusual Attitudes Training, now I can't do a
> smooth Lazy Eight to save my soul <G> (or comfort my wife).
>
> One item the course taught me was a Modified Wingover which allowed a blind
> canyon 180* turn within a wingspan.

Only way to do this would be a Hammerhead, and a Hammerhead done
perfectly as well :-)



>
>
> Unfortunately after I look left over the wing to line up with the entry
> point and initiate first pitch/bank, I'm then at the 90* point and still too
> fast.....
>
> Advice please. Thanks, Dick

Hi Dick;

I won't get into the mechanics on Lazy 8's as there are literally
hundreds of competent sources available and I'm sure you have already
read them.
Procedure is only part of the equation when it comes to doing a good Lazy 8.
Contrary to what some might think, doing a good Lazy 8 within specific
parameters is actually not as easy as it might seem. In fact, as an
aerobatic instructor, I'll have even a competent acro pilot demonstrate
a good Lazy 8 to me before moving on into the "good stuff" :-)
The key to doing good Lazy 8's is control coordination and feel. You
are dealing directly with an ever changing dynamic in a Lazy 8. This
means that your aircraft's altitude, attitude, airspeed, and heading
are all in constant flux as you execute the maneuver.
There's a lot more involved than simply being at the right point in
space at the right time, altitude, and angle of bank.
All these things are changing as far as control response goes as the
maneuver progresses. As airspeed decreases, you will need to alter the
angle of bank to compensate. Same for increasing airspeed. All the
while this is going on, you have to be watching your heading change
along the arc of the maneuver.
What I do with acro students having trouble with Lazy 8's is to have
them concentrate on doing a good wingover first. This way, they can
concentrate on the 90 degree reference point, the 45 degree point and
the 135 degree point on one side only at a time.
When you can consistantly perform good wingovers to one side, then the
other, you should then put them together and do Lazy 8's.
Basically, you are dealing with pitch and bank and what you have to do
with varying control pressures with BOTH these parameters to achieve
the desired result.
Try practicing a single wingover to one side. Let the airplane tell you
what you are doing wrong. In aerobatics, (yes, I know the definition as
relates to Lazy 8's :-) the airplane will teach you every time you try
to perform a maneuver what you are doing wrong. What YOU have to do is
WATCH for the difference between what you wanted the airplane to do and
what it actually did do based on the control input you provided.
In a Lazy 8, if you are early or late at a reference point, you are
either early or late in pitch or roll. Ask yourself what you have to
change in control input; then try it again with that change.
Don't overtask on reference points. Learn where you lose and regain
your visual cues vs your reference points vs your high or low wing and
compensate for that.
Basically what you are looking for is smooth fluid unhurried continious
control pressures throughout a Lazy 8.
As I said, contrary to what some might say, a pilot who can perform a
good Lazy 8 is a pilot who has taken the time to become proficient in
the basics, and in all of flying, there is nothing more desirable in a
pilot then being someone who can execute based on a well rounded
comprehension of the basics.
Dudley Henriques

[Hilton]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> Sixty degrees pitch qualifies as an aerobatic maneuver.

Maybe, but it seems that you're confusing acrobatic flight with parachute
requirements.

Hilton

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 06:32:10 GMT, "Hilton" > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>> Sixty degrees pitch qualifies as an aerobatic maneuver.
>
>Maybe, but it seems that you're confusing acrobatic flight with parachute
>requirements.

It's true, the Part 91 definition of aerobatics makes no mention of bank or
pitch angles. Part 23 lets the manufacturer define the maneuvers the aircraft
is allowed to do...looks to me that they can declare a plane "aerobatic" (by
meeting the structural requirements) even if it's banned from doing loops,
spins, or rolls.

Marketing might be a problem, though. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Dick[_1_]]

after the instructor said it would be within a wingspan, it sure seemed that
way to this old man <G>.

"vincent norris" > wrote in message
...
>> One item the course taught me was a Modified Wingover which allowed a
>> blind canyon 180* turn within a wingspan.
>
> Impossible.
>
> vince norris

[vincent norris]

Dick wrote:
> after the instructor said it would be within a wingspan, it sure seemed that
> way to this old man <G>.


I recall, now, an airplane that can change heading by 180 degrees within
one wingspan.

It is a DC-3 that is mounted on a pedestal at Whitehorse, Yukon,
airport. It is on a support that permits it to windcock, and it does,
even in a slight breeze.

And it needs no more space that one wingspan to do a 180 or even a 360!

vince norris

[[email protected]]

Turns is a wingspan? We could do a Bill Clinton here, depends on what
you mean by 'wingspan'. Or whose wingspan.

Just how tight a non-aerobatic turn can you do in a training airplane
like a 152?


On Jun 26, 12:21 am, vincent norris > wrote:
> Dick wrote:
> > after the instructor said it would be within a wingspan, it sure seemed that
> > way to this old man <G>.
>
> I recall, now, an airplane that can change heading by 180 degrees within
> one wingspan.
>
> It is a DC-3 that is mounted on a pedestal at Whitehorse, Yukon,
> airport. It is on a support that permits it to windcock, and it does,
> even in a slight breeze.
>
> And it needs no more space that one wingspan to do a 180 or even a 360!
>
> vince norris

[[email protected]]

Opps -- asked a question that I could have checked on myself.

looks like a 60 degree bank and 60 MPH would result in a turn diameter
a bit under 300 feet (no wind etc)

[Dick[_1_]]

the plane was a French CAP 10 acrobatic plane
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Turns is a wingspan? We could do a Bill Clinton here, depends on what
> you mean by 'wingspan'. Or whose wingspan.
>
> Just how tight a non-aerobatic turn can you do in a training airplane
> like a 152?
>
>
> On Jun 26, 12:21 am, vincent norris > wrote:
>> Dick wrote:
>> > after the instructor said it would be within a wingspan, it sure seemed
>> > that
>> > way to this old man <G>.
>>
>> I recall, now, an airplane that can change heading by 180 degrees within
>> one wingspan.
>>
>> It is a DC-3 that is mounted on a pedestal at Whitehorse, Yukon,
>> airport. It is on a support that permits it to windcock, and it does,
>> even in a slight breeze.
>>
>> And it needs no more space that one wingspan to do a 180 or even a 360!
>>
>> vince norris
>
>

[Bob Crawford]

On Jun 26, 8:03 am, wrote:
> Opps -- asked a question that I could have checked on myself.
>
> looks like a 60 degree bank and 60 MPH would result in a turn diameter
> a bit under 300 feet (no wind etc)

That's for a level (coordinated?) turn.
The original maneuver didn't sound like a level turn.

[Morgans[_2_]]

<tbaker27705> wrote

> Just how tight a non-aerobatic turn can you do in a training airplane
> like a 152?

If it were my butt about to run into a cumulogranite, it would matter not,
what the rating of the aircraft was.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Of course not. But unless you had a reasonable airspeed so that lots
of 'up' was available in the airplane's kinetic energy, it would be
mostly a climbing steeply banked turn, wouldn't it? And having an idea
of what that turn diameter would be would be a useful hint when you
either saw canyon walls closing in on you, or you were making a turn
over the East River in NYC, wouldn't it?

The walls could be concrete with windows in them.

So I think the lesson might be if you're in a cruise configuration be
sure there's nothing solid within a half mile in the direction you're
turning, and pay attention to the wind direction.

The other option is to be some kind of a macho hero, but airplanes
should die of old age, not transitioned from something beautiful and
aloft into a compressed mess containing bodies in a couple of seconds.





On Jun 26, 7:23 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> <tbaker27705> wrote
>
> > Just how tight a non-aerobatic turn can you do in a training airplane
> > like a 152?
>
> If it were my butt about to run into a cumulogranite, it would matter not,
> what the rating of the aircraft was.
> --
> Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Of course not. But unless you had a reasonable airspeed so that lots
> of 'up' was available in the airplane's kinetic energy, it would be
> mostly a climbing steeply banked turn, wouldn't it? And having an idea
> of what that turn diameter would be would be a useful hint when you
> either saw canyon walls closing in on you, or you were making a turn
> over the East River in NYC, wouldn't it?
>
> The walls could be concrete with windows in them.
>
> So I think the lesson might be if you're in a cruise configuration be
> sure there's nothing solid within a half mile in the direction you're
> turning, and pay attention to the wind direction.
>
> The other option is to be some kind of a macho hero, but airplanes
> should die of old age, not transitioned from something beautiful and
> aloft into a compressed mess containing bodies in a couple of seconds.
>
>
A little trading of airspeed for altitude, and possibly back again, can make
a lot more difference than you seems to believe. You can also make a huge
difference without doing anything which might be regarded as acrobatic.
Therefore, you are free to practice those non acrobatic maneuvers for
proficiency--which will let you know what the airplane can safely
accomplish, both turning into the wind and turning out of the wind.

OTOH, like Jim, if my arse is on the line, I will do whatever appears
necessary, acrobatic or not--especially in any circumstance where I am "dead
anyway"!

Peter

[[email protected]]

without a doubt a climbing turn, if you're going fast enough, is going
to tighten the turn. But how tight? Assume you're in a turn over the
East River, and you're going to impact a builiding. Assume you're a
good pilot and were distracted or whatever, and now you're within 500
feet of a wall. What then? Big pullup, bank, all of that? Will you be
able to get 90 degrees around in 500 feet?

We know of one case where whatever was done wasn't enough, and that
was in VFR conditions, they had to have seen it coming.



> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > Of course not. But unless you had a reasonable airspeed so that lots
> > of 'up' was available in the airplane's kinetic energy, it would be
> > mostly a climbing steeply banked turn, wouldn't it? And having an idea
> > of what that turn diameter would be would be a useful hint when you
> > either saw canyon walls closing in on you, or you were making a turn
> > over the East River in NYC, wouldn't it?
>
> > The walls could be concrete with windows in them.
>
> > So I think the lesson might be if you're in a cruise configuration be
> > sure there's nothing solid within a half mile in the direction you're
> > turning, and pay attention to the wind direction.
>
> > The other option is to be some kind of a macho hero, but airplanes
> > should die of old age, not transitioned from something beautiful and
> > aloft into a compressed mess containing bodies in a couple of seconds.
>
> A little trading of airspeed for altitude, and possibly back again, can make
> a lot more difference than you seems to believe. You can also make a huge
> difference without doing anything which might be regarded as acrobatic.
> Therefore, you are free to practice those non acrobatic maneuvers for
> proficiency--which will let you know what the airplane can safely
> accomplish, both turning into the wind and turning out of the wind.
>
> OTOH, like Jim, if my arse is on the line, I will do whatever appears
> necessary, acrobatic or not--especially in any circumstance where I am "dead
> anyway"!
>
> Peter- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> without a doubt a climbing turn, if you're going fast enough, is going
> to tighten the turn. But how tight? Assume you're in a turn over the
> East River, and you're going to impact a builiding. Assume you're a
> good pilot and were distracted or whatever, and now you're within 500
> feet of a wall. What then? Big pullup, bank, all of that? Will you be
> able to get 90 degrees around in 500 feet?
>
> We know of one case where whatever was done wasn't enough, and that
> was in VFR conditions, they had to have seen it coming.

A simple pull up would have been all that was needed, in that case.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

It would be interesting for someone to run a simulation for that
airplane and track, to gain a sense of how much time the pilot and CFI
would have had from the time the problem was obvious, and what they
might have done about it. It might give some insight as to if they
had the airspeed to climb fast enough. Did they have 2 seconds to
react, or 15?








On Jun 27, 1:14 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > without a doubt a climbing turn, if you're going fast enough, is going
> > to tighten the turn. But how tight? Assume you're in a turn over the
> > East River, and you're going to impact a builiding. Assume you're a
> > good pilot and were distracted or whatever, and now you're within 500
> > feet of a wall. What then? Big pullup, bank, all of that? Will you be
> > able to get 90 degrees around in 500 feet?
>
> > We know of one case where whatever was done wasn't enough, and that
> > was in VFR conditions, they had to have seen it coming.
>
> A simple pull up would have been all that was needed, in that case.
> --
> Jim in NC

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-06-24 07:51:51 -0700, "Dick" > said:

> After taking some rigorous Unusual Attitudes Training, now I can't do a
> smooth Lazy Eight to save my soul <G> (or comfort my wife).
>
> One item the course taught me was a Modified Wingover which allowed a blind
> canyon 180* turn within a wingspan. Entry at 30* pitch & 30* bank proceeding
> to 60* pitch & 60* bank at 90* point to entry. Then at 0 mph, the nose falls
> without rudder assist and ball is too the side.

Yep. I can see how that would ruin your Lazy 8. Now you have a tendency
to do Crazy 8s.

>
> My procedure for the Lazy 8: entry at 15/15* P&B, then up to 30/30* P&B
> at 90* to entry and down to 5-10 mph over stall using proper rudder control
> and centered ball.
>
> Unfortunately after I look left over the wing to line up with the entry
> point and initiate first pitch/bank, I'm then at the 90* point and still too
> fast.....

My guess is you are overbanking without realizing it, maybe even trying
to force it around. You might be entering it too fast, too. I enter at
wings level and make very slow, smooth changes to pitch and bank. The
Lazy 8 is not a chandelle or a wingover. It is a graceful, ballet-like
maneuver that requires patience and fine, precise control. At no point
should your pitch or bank be constant. So, I don't enter with a 15/15,
because that is not a Lazy 8 to begin with -- it implies that you hold
that pitch or bank at some point.

AOPA has a good method for learning Lazy Eights that I use when
teaching the maneuver. Practicing these steps will improve your Lazy
Eights enormously.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/inst_reports2.cfm?article=4147
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-06-24 16:16:35 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:29:17 -0700,
> wrote in m>:
>
>> On Jun 24, 4:02 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:19:42 -0400, "birdog" > wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>> Who the hell's dumb enough to fly up a blind canyon below the rim?
>>>
>>
>> According to observers near the accident site, the local
>>> visibility was practically nil in heavy rain showers and the
>>> ceiling was approximately 800 to 1,000 feet agl. [The weather was
>>> unrealistically severe that evening including thunder
>>> storms.]
>>
>> 'Unrealistically severe' - was this a simulated flight?
>
> From what I remember, eye witnesses reported that they had to pull
> over to the side of the road/freeway because the rain was so heavy
> they couldn't proceed safely. Apparently the weather was worse than
> anyone who experienced it could remember it having been in the past at
> that location. It was so bad, that the medical examiner indicated
> that Mr. Tallman suffered a heart attack before impact.
>
> A very tragic end for a super guy.

I have seen storms like that near Flagstaff.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:45:10 -0000, wrote in
. com>:

>It might give some insight as to if they
>had the airspeed to climb fast enough. Did they have 2 seconds to
>react, or 15?

It would also be good to know if the tops of the buildings were
obscured in cloud or not, so they would have been aware that a pull-up
could have cleared the building tops.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-06-24 19:35:43 -0700, Dudley Henriques > said:
> What I do with acro students having trouble with Lazy 8's is to have
> them concentrate on doing a good wingover first. This way, they can
> concentrate on the 90 degree reference point, the 45 degree point and
> the 135 degree point on one side only at a time.
> When you can consistantly perform good wingovers to one side, then the
> other, you should then put them together and do Lazy 8's.
> Basically, you are dealing with pitch and bank and what you have to do
> with varying control pressures with BOTH these parameters to achieve
> the desired result.

Dudley, I am not sure I understand this as a teaching technique for a
Lazy Eight. You get examiners who complain that people doing Lazy
Eights are actually doing Wingovers instead of Lazy Eights. You see
comments like this, for example, in Ken Medley's article on the AOPA
web site:

"Examiners complain that many applicants actually do wingovers when
they think they are doing lazy eights. A wingover is a good, easy
aerobatic maneuver, but it isn't a lazy eight.
In lazy eights you fly the airplane throughout. In wingovers, you slip
the airplane during the turnaround. For lazy eights, fly the airplane
throughout the turns - no slipping - and be sure to allow for torque."
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[RomeoMike]

C J Campbell wrote:
In wingovers, you slip
> the airplane during the turnaround. For lazy eights, fly the airplane
> throughout the turns - no slipping - and be sure to allow for torque."

You are saying that a wingover is not coordinated, but it is.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> It would be interesting for someone to run a simulation for that
> airplane and track, to gain a sense of how much time the pilot and CFI
> would have had from the time the problem was obvious, and what they
> might have done about it. It might give some insight as to if they
> had the airspeed to climb fast enough. Did they have 2 seconds to
> react, or 15?

I remember seeing some radar tracks, and although I do not remember what the
speed was, I thought that they were going way faster than needed, and that
excess speed could have been partially responsible (among other factors,
such as the wind, just naming one) for not being able to turn in a tight
enough radius.

If that is the case, and there was a speed reserve, they would have been
able to do a zoom climb, and avoid the building. As to when they should
have recognized the problem, I would guesstimate that they should have
realized there was a problem, say, 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the way around the
turn. How many seconds would it take to execute a 180? 30 or 40 seconds?
If that is the case, then 3/4ths of the way around would be at worst 7.5
seconds. & seconds would have been enough time, to climb (or change the
bank angle and fly past it) and avoid crashing.

This all hinges on realizing that there was a severe problem, which it seems
obvious they did not.

All in all, it was a tragic incident, and it really does not matter to them
what the mistake was. They are dead, and that is the end as far as they are
concerned.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
>
> > It would be interesting for someone to run a simulation for that
> > airplane and track, to gain a sense of how much time the pilot and CFI
> > would have had from the time the problem was obvious, and what they
> > might have done about it. It might give some insight as to if they
> > had the airspeed to climb fast enough. Did they have 2 seconds to
> > react, or 15?
>
> I remember seeing some radar tracks, and although I do not remember what
the
> speed was, I thought that they were going way faster than needed, and that
> excess speed could have been partially responsible (among other factors,
> such as the wind, just naming one) for not being able to turn in a tight
> enough radius.
>
> If that is the case, and there was a speed reserve, they would have been
> able to do a zoom climb, and avoid the building. As to when they should
> have recognized the problem, I would guesstimate that they should have
> realized there was a problem, say, 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the way around the
> turn. How many seconds would it take to execute a 180? 30 or 40 seconds?
> If that is the case, then 3/4ths of the way around would be at worst 7.5
> seconds. & seconds would have been enough time, to climb (or change the
> bank angle and fly past it) and avoid crashing.
>
> This all hinges on realizing that there was a severe problem, which it
seems
> obvious they did not.
>
> All in all, it was a tragic incident, and it really does not matter to
them
> what the mistake was. They are dead, and that is the end as far as they
are
> concerned.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
All that I recall seeing was a simulation made by/for one of the news
agencies.

In the simulation, they began the left turn from approximately the center of
the river--although I don't know the source of that presumption and have
serious doubts. However, in the event that it was factual, the two
reasonable actions would have been to 1) move over to the edge of the
corridor before beginning the turnaround, or 2) continue straight ahead,
contact ATC, and say the "E" word.

As you point out, they are dead and clearly did not realize they had an
emergency untill very late in the chain of events. Regrettably, all that
the rest of us can really learn from their demise is to reinforce what we
already knew: Situational awareness is important.

Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2007-06-24 19:35:43 -0700, Dudley Henriques > said:
>> What I do with acro students having trouble with Lazy 8's is to have
>> them concentrate on doing a good wingover first. This way, they can
>> concentrate on the 90 degree reference point, the 45 degree point and
>> the 135 degree point on one side only at a time.
>> When you can consistantly perform good wingovers to one side, then the
>> other, you should then put them together and do Lazy 8's.
>> Basically, you are dealing with pitch and bank and what you have to do
>> with varying control pressures with BOTH these parameters to achieve
>> the desired result.
>
> Dudley, I am not sure I understand this as a teaching technique for a
> Lazy Eight. You get examiners who complain that people doing Lazy Eights
> are actually doing Wingovers instead of Lazy Eights. You see comments
> like this, for example, in Ken Medley's article on the AOPA web site:
>
> "Examiners complain that many applicants actually do wingovers when they
> think they are doing lazy eights. A wingover is a good, easy aerobatic
> maneuver, but it isn't a lazy eight.
> In lazy eights you fly the airplane throughout. In wingovers, you slip
> the airplane during the turnaround. For lazy eights, fly the airplane
> throughout the turns - no slipping - and be sure to allow for torque."

Although you can indeed slip through a wing over, if you're slipping
through a wing over, you are too slow through the apex.

When I say wing over as relates to a lazy 8, I'm simply referring to the
first half of a Lazy 8, not a maximum performance, high angle bank
through the top usually associated with a "wing over".

The Thunderbirds use the same derivative maneuver and call it a
"Wifferdill". To them, it gets them turned around with minimum energy loss.
The main objective in splitting a Lazy 8 into 2 parts is to get the
student used to flying the airplane through the apex coordinated with
the right bank and pitch inputs, which have to be constantly changed
pressure wise through the entire maneuver. Once the student can do a 1/2
Lazy 8 to pre-stated parameters, then you introduce the second half and
the transition issues the second half involves.
This is simply 1/2 of a Lazy 8 referred to as a wing over. The reason I
refer to it as a wingover is that when I teach Lazy 8's, I teach them to
varying pitch and bank parameters rather than only to the FAA standard
parameters. A Lazy 8 can be performed to various pitch and bank
combinations and I like my students to be able to do them this way as
preparation for aerobatics. The result of this type of approach to a
Lazy 8 should produce a student who can give you a decent Lazy 8 to any
combination of pitch and bank requested, thus demonstrating a much
improved understanding of what is required in control pressures in
combinmation that simply teaching the maneuver to a single FAA standard.
Contrary to "popular belief", you can easily fly through a wing over
without slipping through the top. You simply need better airspeed
control throughout the maneuver.
As was my policy throughout my tenure as a flight instructor; I geared
ALL my teaching toward preparing my students to fly using the FAA test
standard as a STARTING POINT, not as a single level of competence to be
attained and demonstrated for the purpose of passing a flight test.
Doing a Lazy 8 to the FAA stated standard should be, and indeed CAN be,
simply another maneuver done as requested by an examiner, when in
actuality, the student could if asked, perform the same Lazy 8 to a
higher or lessor degree of bank with the same coordinated results.

Dudley Henriques

[Dana M. Hague]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:19:42 -0400, "birdog" > wrote:

>Who the hell's dumb enough to fly up a blind canyon below the rim?

Corey Lidle?

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you glue a piece of toast, butter side up, to your cat's back, and drop it from a high place, which way will it land?

[Dana M. Hague]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:35:43 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Only way to do this would be a Hammerhead, and a Hammerhead done
>perfectly as well :-)

Of course the danger of a hammerhead (in a non aerobatic airplane, and
especially if performed by an inexperienced pilot) is kicking the
rudder too late and doing a tailslide, which makes most non acro
planes quite unhappy...

OTOH if you kick the rudder a bit earlier you'll use a bit more than
that one wingspan (do you really need to be THAT tight?), and you
wouldn't get a good score in an aerobatic contest, but you won't rip
the tail off, either.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you glue a piece of toast, butter side up, to your cat's back, and drop it from a high place, which way will it land?

[Jose]

> If you glue a piece of toast, butter side up, to your cat's back, and drop it from a high place, which way will it land?

By george, you've just invented lift fairies!

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jose wrote:
>> If you glue a piece of toast, butter side up, to your cat's back, and
>> drop it from a high place, which way will it land?
>
> By george, you've just invented lift fairies!
>
> Jose

Subject: Lift demons

Mary Shafer ) explains lift:

OK, here it is--the real, intuitively-obvious-even-to-the-lay-person
explanation of lift.

People, lift is caused by lift demons. These little, invisible demons
hold on to the leading and trailing edges of the aircraft and lift it
into the air by flapping their wings (so, in a reductionist sense,
lift is actually caused by feathers). Some of the demons are a little
confused and they hold on backwards, causing drag.

The reason that planes stall at high alpha is that the leading edge
demons get scared and let go when they can't see the ground anymore.

Lift demons have good taste and don't like to look at ugly aircraft,
so they hold on backwards on ugly planes. That's why gliders have
so much lift and so little drag and why F-4s have lots of drag.

John Wolter ) asked:

What I would like is a simple *intuitive* explanation of what causes
lift
on a lift demon's wing. (Here we go again... ;-)

Mary Shafer ) replied:

Feathers. The multiple filaments on feathers trap the air molecules
and they struggle to escape, which causes the action-reaction that we
call lift. Bat wings don't have feathers but they're hairy and that
works just about as well (air molecules are a little claustrophobic).

And Richard Winterstein ) suggested another
mechanism:

It was originally believed smaller lift demons, who had their lift
produced by even smaller lift demons, etc., as proposed by the great
Greek philosopher/scientist Miasma. However, with the revival of
scientific knowledge that eventually ended the Dark Ages, it was
realized that this situation was unresolvable according to Zeno's
paradox.

Of course, the 'infinite demons' theory works in many problems of
engineering signifigance, but a real understanding requires that the
ether be introduced into the analysis at some point. The ether
concept, of course, explains why planes fly more efficiently at higher
altitudes, and, of course, is an absolute necessity when studying
orbital and interplanetary travel, where (it is believed) many of the
lift demons are unable to breathe. Hope that settles the question.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:35:43 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>On 2007-06-24 10:51:51 -0400, "Dick" > said:
>
>> After taking some rigorous Unusual Attitudes Training, now I can't do a
>> smooth Lazy Eight to save my soul <G> (or comfort my wife).
>>
>> One item the course taught me was a Modified Wingover which allowed a blind
>> canyon 180* turn within a wingspan.
>
>Only way to do this would be a Hammerhead, and a Hammerhead done
>perfectly as well :-)
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately after I look left over the wing to line up with the entry
>> point and initiate first pitch/bank, I'm then at the 90* point and still too
>> fast.....
>>
>> Advice please. Thanks, Dick
>
>Hi Dick;
>
>I won't get into the mechanics on Lazy 8's as there are literally
>hundreds of competent sources available and I'm sure you have already
>read them.
>Procedure is only part of the equation when it comes to doing a good Lazy 8.
>Contrary to what some might think, doing a good Lazy 8 within specific
>parameters is actually not as easy as it might seem. In fact, as an
>aerobatic instructor, I'll have even a competent acro pilot demonstrate
>a good Lazy 8 to me before moving on into the "good stuff" :-)
>The key to doing good Lazy 8's is control coordination and feel. You

"To me" and I emphasize to me and I have nowhere near a fraction of
the knowledge or skill in aerobatics as you, but I know what the lazy
8 is going to look like and "feel" like at each point in a particular
plane. "To me" all maneuvers are like that and probably more feel than
every thing else put together, but I know my plane well throughout the
envelope and know the feeling for all of the edges.

>
When I haven't flown for a while and my competency suffers, like now,
I go out and spend hours getting reacquainted before I am really
comfortable.

I found the much steeper lazy 8 far easier to learn than the 15, 30 15
degree banked civilian lazy 8.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:35:43 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2007-06-24 10:51:51 -0400, "Dick" > said:
>>
>>> After taking some rigorous Unusual Attitudes Training, now I can't do a
>>> smooth Lazy Eight to save my soul <G> (or comfort my wife).
>>>
>>> One item the course taught me was a Modified Wingover which allowed a blind
>>> canyon 180* turn within a wingspan.
>> Only way to do this would be a Hammerhead, and a Hammerhead done
>> perfectly as well :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately after I look left over the wing to line up with the entry
>>> point and initiate first pitch/bank, I'm then at the 90* point and still too
>>> fast.....
>>>
>>> Advice please. Thanks, Dick
>> Hi Dick;
>>
>> I won't get into the mechanics on Lazy 8's as there are literally
>> hundreds of competent sources available and I'm sure you have already
>> read them.
>> Procedure is only part of the equation when it comes to doing a good Lazy 8.
>> Contrary to what some might think, doing a good Lazy 8 within specific
>> parameters is actually not as easy as it might seem. In fact, as an
>> aerobatic instructor, I'll have even a competent acro pilot demonstrate
>> a good Lazy 8 to me before moving on into the "good stuff" :-)
>> The key to doing good Lazy 8's is control coordination and feel. You
>
> "To me" and I emphasize to me and I have nowhere near a fraction of
> the knowledge or skill in aerobatics as you, but I know what the lazy
> 8 is going to look like and "feel" like at each point in a particular
> plane. "To me" all maneuvers are like that and probably more feel than
> every thing else put together, but I know my plane well throughout the
> envelope and know the feeling for all of the edges.
>
> When I haven't flown for a while and my competency suffers, like now,
> I go out and spend hours getting reacquainted before I am really
> comfortable.
>
> I found the much steeper lazy 8 far easier to learn than the 15, 30 15
> degree banked civilian lazy 8.
>
You are right. The shallow Lazy 8 is in my opinion harder to control
than the steep 8. The reason is that the control pressures are more
subtle and take place over a longer time period in the shallow 8.
A good shallow Lazy 8 done correctly is the mark of a well trained pilot.
Dudley Henriques

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:03:35 -0000, wrote:

>Opps -- asked a question that I could have checked on myself.
>
>looks like a 60 degree bank and 60 MPH would result in a turn diameter
>a bit under 300 feet (no wind etc)

I'll bet it'd be a whole lot wider than that in the Deb at 60 while
losing a *lot* of altitude. At 60 degrees it stalls at just a bit
under 120 MPH in a coordinated turn.<:-))

>
>
>