Spin to impact AOA

[fredsez]

So many good ideas on AoA. Much thought and real considerationhas
have been expressed. Something (A-HA!) came to mind.
Visual indicators!
Back in 1901, or some where about then, I flew a 1-26 to a really
high altitude. I had left the area of recognizable land and decided to
look at the ground and figure out where I was. Before I had that good
idea, I was looking right at the sun, well above the horizon.
Looking down, all I could see was black! The land was in definate
NIGHT TIME!
I have always been a FLAT EARTH person. I have also watched the sun go
around the earth! I get up with the sun in the east and go to bed with
it setting in the west.
From umpteen thousand ft, I spotted a little (very little) strip of
light. There was where I decided they would find my body. I opened the
airbrakes and managed to find a lighted strip of asphalt at an
intersection in Nevada.
The rest of the story is interesting (to me) but has little to do
with AoA.

At my air strip, when you turn onto base leg, the ground rises, With
the horizon high, pilots tend to raise the nose to see a normal sight
picture. Airspeed slows,.. things don't look right and some push
rudder to point the nose down the runway...or at the tie-down area.

At thousands of ft in the air, the horizon looks low relative to the
instrument panel. At pattern altitude, the horizon looks higher and
may lead a pilot to raise the nose, losing airspeed in the turn onto
final. I need to make changes. What should I do? Maybe reverse the
pattern and let pilots see the lower horizon and tend to make them let
the nose down? Maybe I ought to go to bed and let things be as they
will be.
Fred.

[fredsez]

On Jan 12, 9:52*pm, fredsez > wrote:
> So many good ideas on AoA. *Much thought and real considerationhas
> have been expressed. Something (A-HA!) came to mind.
> Visual indicators!
> Back in 1901, *or some where about then, I flew a 1-26 to a really
> high altitude. I had left the area of recognizable land and decided to
> look at the ground and figure out where I was. Before I had that good
> idea, I was looking right at the sun, well above the horizon.
> Looking down, all I could see was black! The land was in definate
> NIGHT TIME!
> I have always been a FLAT EARTH person. I have also watched the sun go
> around the earth! I get up with the sun in the east and go to bed with
> it setting in the west.
> From umpteen thousand ft, I spotted a little (very little) strip of
> light. There was where I decided they would find my body. I opened the
> airbrakes and managed to find a lighted strip of asphalt at an
> intersection in Nevada.
> *The rest of the story is interesting (to me) but has little to do
> with AoA.
>
> At my air strip, when you turn onto base leg, the ground rises, *With
> the horizon high, pilots tend to raise the nose to see a normal sight
> picture. Airspeed slows,.. things don't look right and some push
> rudder to point the nose down the runway...or at the tie-down area.
>
> At thousands of ft in the air, the horizon looks low relative to the
> instrument panel. At pattern altitude, the horizon looks higher and
> may lead a pilot to raise the nose, losing airspeed in the turn onto
> final. I need to make changes. What should I do? Maybe reverse the
> pattern and let pilots see the lower horizon and tend to make them let
> the nose down? Maybe I ought to go to bed and let things be as they
> will be.
> Fred.

Fredsez, Maybe my great-great grand daughter can teach me how to use
my spel chucker and my granma usage before I spin in. Love you'all.

[Bill Daniels]

To tie Fred's comments about false horizons to the thread on mountain
flying, think about the situation when you descend into a mountain valley.
As you drop below the ridge line, you lose a useful horizon reference. If
you keep the nose on the jagged line between ridge top and sky, your nose
will get higher and higher as you continue the decent - you have to point
the nose at some indeterminate point on the sides of the valley to maintain
the desired airspeed and prevent a stall.

This is a subtitle trap that snares many 'flatland' pilots on their first
mountain trip - usually in an overloaded Cessna 172 right after takeoff.
These pilots have learned to use the familiar, reliable horizon line at
their home airports. It's always there and they have always relied heavily
on it. Take it away, and their pilot skills evaporate.

It's quite possible to fly pitch attitude with reference to the airspeed
indicator but that's a instrument rated pilot "partial panel" trick and
most pilots either aren't trained to do it or aren't good at it.

An AOA indicator solves the problem nicely.


Bill Daniels


"fredsez" > wrote in message
...
> So many good ideas on AoA. Much thought and real considerationhas
> have been expressed. Something (A-HA!) came to mind.
> Visual indicators!
> Back in 1901, or some where about then, I flew a 1-26 to a really
> high altitude. I had left the area of recognizable land and decided to
> look at the ground and figure out where I was. Before I had that good
> idea, I was looking right at the sun, well above the horizon.
> Looking down, all I could see was black! The land was in definate
> NIGHT TIME!
> I have always been a FLAT EARTH person. I have also watched the sun go
> around the earth! I get up with the sun in the east and go to bed with
> it setting in the west.
> From umpteen thousand ft, I spotted a little (very little) strip of
> light. There was where I decided they would find my body. I opened the
> airbrakes and managed to find a lighted strip of asphalt at an
> intersection in Nevada.
> The rest of the story is interesting (to me) but has little to do
> with AoA.
>
> At my air strip, when you turn onto base leg, the ground rises, With
> the horizon high, pilots tend to raise the nose to see a normal sight
> picture. Airspeed slows,.. things don't look right and some push
> rudder to point the nose down the runway...or at the tie-down area.
>
> At thousands of ft in the air, the horizon looks low relative to the
> instrument panel. At pattern altitude, the horizon looks higher and
> may lead a pilot to raise the nose, losing airspeed in the turn onto
> final. I need to make changes. What should I do? Maybe reverse the
> pattern and let pilots see the lower horizon and tend to make them let
> the nose down? Maybe I ought to go to bed and let things be as they
> will be.
> Fred.
>

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:05:13 -0700, "Bill Daniels"
<bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:

>To tie Fred's comments about false horizons to the thread on mountain
>flying, think about the situation when you descend into a mountain valley.
>As you drop below the ridge line, you lose a useful horizon reference. If
>you keep the nose on the jagged line between ridge top and sky, your nose
>will get higher and higher as you continue the decent - you have to point
>the nose at some indeterminate point on the sides of the valley to maintain
>the desired airspeed and prevent a stall.
>
>This is a subtitle trap that snares many 'flatland' pilots on their first
>mountain trip - usually in an overloaded Cessna 172 right after takeoff.
>These pilots have learned to use the familiar, reliable horizon line at
>their home airports. It's always there and they have always relied heavily
>on it. Take it away, and their pilot skills evaporate.
>
>It's quite possible to fly pitch attitude with reference to the airspeed
>indicator but that's a instrument rated pilot "partial panel" trick and
>most pilots either aren't trained to do it or aren't good at it.
>
>An AOA indicator solves the problem nicely.
>

Long ago in my Southern Cal power-flying days, I often flew coworkers
over to Catalina for the $100 buffalo burger. That strip was built by
cutting the tops off two hills and putting the rocks in between --
basically a giant carrier deck, with steep dropoffs all around.

You had to fly your pattern in a very left-hemisphere, by the numbers,
way or you would invariably get high. You could actually get the
impression you were _below_ the runway, even though you were looking
at pavement, and that feeling would not go away until you were about
200 feet on final.

There almost always seemed to be a Cessna sitting off to the side with
its nose gear folded up...

rj

[[email protected]]

>
> It's quite possible to fly pitch attitude with reference to the airspeed
> indicator but that's a instrument rated pilot *"partial panel" trick and
> most pilots either aren't trained to do it or aren't good at it.
>
> An AOA indicator solves the problem nicely.

Only if pilots are trained to use it. Why not just train them to use
what they already have? The airspeed indicator can be very useful.

If the AOA indicator had a stall warning that might help.

You know, if you think about it, we already have an AOA indicator.
It's called "the aircraft"!

Maybe the problem is the lack of awarenss of the degradation of mental
attention under stress, so called "overload".

Matt

[Bill Daniels]

> wrote in message
...

>
> It's quite possible to fly pitch attitude with reference to the airspeed
> indicator but that's a instrument rated pilot "partial panel" trick and
> most pilots either aren't trained to do it or aren't good at it.
>
> An AOA indicator solves the problem nicely.

Only if pilots are trained to use it. Why not just train them to use
what they already have? The airspeed indicator can be very useful.

If the AOA indicator had a stall warning that might help.

You know, if you think about it, we already have an AOA indicator.
It's called "the aircraft"!

Maybe the problem is the lack of awarenss of the degradation of mental
attention under stress, so called "overload".

Matt

Mat, training yourself to use an AOA indicator takes about 30 seconds - it's
really obvious. Training to use the ASI for pitch attitude without
reference to the visible horizon takes many hours of intensive training and
even then most pilots don't do it well.

AOA indicators are about reducing information overload, not increasing it.
An AOA indicator IS a stall warning with far greater resolution. The EASY
way to fly is with an AOA. The HARD way is to do without it.

Attempting to use aircraft attitude (deck angle) without a reliable horizon
will get you killed real fast.

Bill Daniels

[Ian]

On 13 Jan, 18:07, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:

> Mat, training yourself to use an AOA indicator takes about 30 seconds - it's
> really obvious. Training to use the ASI for pitch attitude without
> reference to the visible horizon takes many hours of intensive training and
> even then most pilots don't do it well.

Surely most pilots - after their first few flights - are capable of
hitting and maintaining a desired speed as shown on the ASI?

> AOA indicators are about reducing information overload, not increasing it.
> An AOA indicator IS a stall warning with far greater resolution. The EASY
> way to fly is with an AOA. The HARD way is to do without it.

So why don't we all have them?

Ian

[Bill Daniels]

"Ian" > wrote in message
...
> On 13 Jan, 18:07, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>
>> Mat, training yourself to use an AOA indicator takes about 30 seconds -
>> it's
>> really obvious. Training to use the ASI for pitch attitude without
>> reference to the visible horizon takes many hours of intensive training
>> and
>> even then most pilots don't do it well.
>
> Surely most pilots - after their first few flights - are capable of
> hitting and maintaining a desired speed as shown on the ASI?

If you think it's easy, borrow an instrument training hood that blocks your
view of the horizon and give it a try. Only in a 2-seater with a safety
pilot, of course.
>
>> AOA indicators are about reducing information overload, not increasing
>> it.
>> An AOA indicator IS a stall warning with far greater resolution. The
>> EASY
>> way to fly is with an AOA. The HARD way is to do without it.
>
> So why don't we all have them?

Damn good question.

Bill Daniels

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> If you think it's easy, borrow an instrument training hood that blocks your
> view of the horizon and give it a try. Only in a 2-seater with a safety
> pilot, of course.

That's how you do it when you are flying blind without an attitude
indicator - it is harder. Flying VFR, I can look out the window, and use
the horizon or even just the side of a mountain to select and maintain
an attitude, then check the ASI; repeat as needed to get the correct
ASI. Most pilots do this from take off until they land, subconsciously
selecting a new "horizon" as they go along and the topography changes.

All this speculation about the usefulness of AOA indicators in gliders
is an interesting way to pass the winter, but I'd like to go from the
academic to the concrete with these questions:

1. Which of the commercially available AOA indicators is most suited to
a glider?

2. Who is planning to put one in their glider?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[[email protected]]

>
> Mat, training yourself to use an AOA indicator takes about 30 seconds - it's
> really obvious. *Training to use the ASI for pitch attitude without
> reference to the visible horizon takes many hours of intensive training and
> even then most pilots don't do it well.
>
> AOA indicators are about reducing information overload, not increasing it.
> An AOA indicator IS a stall warning with far greater resolution. *The EASY
> way to fly is with an AOA. *The HARD way is to do without it.
>
> .
>
> Bill Daniels

So, we are talking about pitch attitude control without reference to
the visible horizon. In that situation how do we control roll and
yaw?

By saying, "Attempting to use aircraft attitude (deck angle) without a
reliable horizon
will get you killed real fast" do you mean attempting to CONTROL
attitude, or attempting to DETERMINE aircraft attitude?
Matt

[Colin Field[_3_]]

On Jan 13, 5:33 pm, wrote:
> > Mat, training yourself to use an AOA indicator takes about 30 seconds - it's
> > really obvious. Training to use the ASI for pitch attitude without
> > reference to the visible horizon takes many hours of intensive training and
> > even then most pilots don't do it well.
>
> > AOA indicators are about reducing information overload, not increasing it.
> > An AOA indicator IS a stall warning with far greater resolution. The EASY
> > way to fly is with an AOA. The HARD way is to do without it.
>
> > .
>
> > Bill Daniels
>
> So, we are talking about pitch attitude control without reference to
> the visible horizon. In that situation how do we control roll and
> yaw?

The same way as we control roll and yaw in normal flight, since we
don't need a horizon to do this. Roll can be detected as long as there
is a reference in the distance we can see we are rolling with respect
to, and yaw can be detected using a yaw string or slip ball. Balanced
bank will always produce a turn, which can of course be seen as the
reference surface moving past the nose.

[Nyal Williams]

[Not answering directly to this poster]

Consider the yaw string. How much simpler it is and
how much quicker it responds than the ball slip/skid
indicator. An proper AoA indicator should behave just
like the yaw string, and would give better information
than the ASI. Arguments that we should ignore AoA
possibilities are effectively the same as saying we
should go back to the ball. It can be done, but it
is nowhere near as easy to fly with as the yaw string.

If a good, reliable, effective, and inexpensive one
is developed, I'll buy it. I've toyed with strings
on the side of the canopy and I like what I see.

At 00:36 14 January 2008, wrote:
>
>>
>> Mat, training yourself to use an AOA indicator takes
>>about 30 seconds - it=
>'s
>> really obvious. =A0Training to use the ASI for pitch
>>attitude without
>> reference to the visible horizon takes many hours
>>of intensive training an=
>d
>> even then most pilots don't do it well.
>>
>> AOA indicators are about reducing information overload,
>>not increasing it.=
>
>> An AOA indicator IS a stall warning with far greater
>>resolution. =A0The EA=
>SY
>> way to fly is with an AOA. =A0The HARD way is to do
>>without it.
>>
>> .
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>
>So, we are talking about pitch attitude control without
>reference to
>the visible horizon. In that situation how do we control
>roll and
>yaw?
>
>By saying, 'Attempting to use aircraft attitude (deck
>angle) without a
>reliable horizon
> will get you killed real fast' do you mean attempting
>to CONTROL
>attitude, or attempting to DETERMINE aircraft attitude?
>Matt
>

[Bill Daniels]

> wrote in message
...

>
> Mat, training yourself to use an AOA indicator takes about 30 seconds -
> it's
> really obvious. Training to use the ASI for pitch attitude without
> reference to the visible horizon takes many hours of intensive training
> and
> even then most pilots don't do it well.
>
> AOA indicators are about reducing information overload, not increasing it.
> An AOA indicator IS a stall warning with far greater resolution. The EASY
> way to fly is with an AOA. The HARD way is to do without it.
>
> .
>
> Bill Daniels

>So, we are talking about pitch attitude control without reference to
>the visible horizon. In that situation how do we control roll and
>yaw?

I wrote a confusing line. It should have said "controlling AOA with the ASI
and no relaible horizon is difficult."

>By saying, "Attempting to use aircraft attitude (deck angle) without a
>reliable horizon
>will get you killed real fast" do you mean attempting to CONTROL
>attitude, or attempting to DETERMINE aircraft attitude?

Does it matter? If you can't detemine attitude, you can't control it.

Bill D



Obviously, if you can't DETERMINE attitude, you can't CONTROL it.

[[email protected]]

>
> > So, we are talking about pitch attitude control without reference to
> > the visible horizon. *In that situation how do we control roll and
> > yaw?
>
> The same way as we control roll and yaw in normal flight, since we
> don't need a horizon to do this. Roll can be detected as long as there
> is a reference in the distance we can see we are rolling with respect
> to, and yaw can be detected using a yaw string or slip ball. Balanced
> bank will always produce a turn, which can of course be seen as the
> reference surface moving past the nose.- Hide quoted text -
>

A reference in the distance we can see we are rolling with respect to
is, in my expeience, a horizon. It may not be THE horizon but is
sufficient to control the aircraft both in pitch and roll. I think
Bill is trying to make the point that an AOA indicator would be useful
when there is NO horizon.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 13, 7:19*pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mat, training yourself to use an AOA indicator takes about 30 seconds -
> > it's
> > really obvious. Training to use the ASI for pitch attitude without
> > reference to the visible horizon takes many hours of intensive training
> > and
> > even then most pilots don't do it well.
>
> > AOA indicators are about reducing information overload, not increasing it.

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
>>> So, we are talking about pitch attitude control without reference to
>>> the visible horizon. In that situation how do we control roll and
>>> yaw?
>> The same way as we control roll and yaw in normal flight, since we
>> don't need a horizon to do this. Roll can be detected as long as there
>> is a reference in the distance we can see we are rolling with respect
>> to, and yaw can be detected using a yaw string or slip ball. Balanced
>> bank will always produce a turn, which can of course be seen as the
>> reference surface moving past the nose.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> A reference in the distance we can see we are rolling with respect to
> is, in my expeience, a horizon. It may not be THE horizon but is
> sufficient to control the aircraft both in pitch and roll. I think
> Bill is trying to make the point that an AOA indicator would be useful
> when there is NO horizon.

We could call it something catchy, like an "artificial horizon"! Well,
maybe that's a simple way to get an attitude indicator that's
commercially available for a $1000 or so, solid state so power
consumption is low, and easily installed. It might indicate the AOA
accurately enough in steady flight for performance optimizing. Anyone
tried it?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Ian]

On 13 Jan, 19:52, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "Ian" > wrote in message

> > Surely most pilots - after their first few flights - are capable of
> > hitting and maintaining a desired speed as shown on the ASI?
>
> If you think it's easy, borrow an instrument training hood that blocks your
> view of the horizon and give it a try. Only in a 2-seater with a safety
> pilot, of course.

Flying without any visual attitude indications is not the same as
flying without a horizon. If anything is visible over the nose it's
possible to use for feedback on changes in nose position, if not
absolute values. In fact, I suspect that that is how most of us do it:
using attitude /change/ in combination with ASI to hit a target speed.
Very few glider pilots fly without any external reference at all.

If that's what you were saying, and I've misunderstood, I'm sorry!

> > So why don't we all have them?
>
> Damn good question.

And ... ?

Ian

[Ian]

On 13 Jan, 22:15, Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> 1. Which of the commercially available AOA indicators is most suited to
> a glider?
>
> 2. Who is planning to put one in their glider?

3. How do they deal with flaps?

Ian

[Ian]

On 14 Jan, 01:19, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:

> Does it matter? If you can't detemine attitude, you can't control it.

Hmm. Philosophical question, maybe, but it's perfectly possible to
control attitude while only knowing airspeed, as my friends who fly in
cloud using ASI and T&S do ...

Ian

[J a c k[_2_]]

Ian wrote:

> Surely most pilots - after their first few flights - are capable of
> hitting and maintaining a desired speed as shown on the ASI?


Yes, when they have nothing more pressing to think about. and as long
the ASI tells them what they think it should be telling them. Flying a
sailplane is about as easy as flying gets, and yet there are a
half-dozen times a year in the US when it is too much, under the
circumstances, for the involved pilots and they meet an untimely end.

We should all fly more. The accident numbers might go up, but I think
the rates would go down.


Jack

[J a c k[_2_]]

Colin Field wrote:


> Balanced bank will always produce a turn, which can of course be seen as the
> reference surface moving past the nose.


Thank you for expanding our opportunities for winter-time distraction.

Let us begin by asking, "What does the term 'balanced' mean in this context?



Jack

[J a c k[_2_]]

Colin Field wrote:


> Balanced bank will always produce a turn, which can of course be seen as the
> reference surface moving past the nose.


Thank you for expanding our opportunities for winter-time distraction.

Let us begin by asking, "What does the term 'balanced' mean in this context?





Jack

[kirk.stant]

On Jan 14, 1:36*am, Ian > wrote:
> On 14 Jan, 01:19, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>
> > Does it matter? *If you can't detemine attitude, you can't control it.
>
> Hmm. Philosophical question, maybe, but it's perfectly possible to
> control attitude while only knowing airspeed, as my friends who fly in
> cloud using ASI and T&S do ...
>
> Ian

Hmm, no - you have to have more than just airspeed, you also need some
turn rate information - the T&S, as you mention - or better yet an
artificial horizon.

Trying to maintain attitude in a cloud without any gyro instrument (or
a fancy compass like a Bohli) is a sure way to end up in a classic
graveyard spiral.

But in the context of this thread - AOA isn't going to help with
attitude - any more than airspeed does - when there isn't any outside
reference. OTOH, as others have stated, if you can see anything
distinct outside, it is relatively easy to adjust airspeed. Ridge
flying is another situation where the horizon cannot be used without
constant adjustment to obtain the desired airspeed.

Another situation that can sneak up on a glider pilot is flying into
the sun, late in the day, on a very hazy/smoggy day. I've had
westbound final glides out here in Illinois where there was
absoulutely no visible horizon heading west, but good references when
heading down sun, with the result that airspeed control during
thermalling became a bit of a challenge (due to the gradual losing of
the horizon during the turn). One technique I've used while heading
towards the sun was to actually use the sun position on the canopy to
hold my bank angle, watching the GPS for track changes. Awkward, but
it will get you home. A bit tense, though, as you are effectively
IMC!

Kirk
66

[Nyal Williams]

At 05:36 14 January 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Nope! We're not after an attitude indicator; we are
talking about a relative wind indicator.
>
>We could call it something catchy, like an 'artificial
>horizon'! Well,
>maybe that's a simple way to get an attitude indicator
>that's
>commercially available for a $1000 or so, solid state
>so power
>consumption is low, and easily installed. It might
>indicate the AOA
>accurately enough in steady flight for performance
>optimizing. Anyone
>tried it?
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>* Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>* 'Transponders in Sailplanes' http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
>* 'A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation' at
>www.motorglider.org
>

[Ian]

On 14 Jan, 14:39, "kirk.stant" > wrote:

> Trying to maintain attitude in a cloud without any gyro instrument (or
> a fancy compass like a Bohli) is a sure way to end up in a classic
> graveyard spiral.

It's interesting that WW1 pilots used to fly blind in cloud regularly.
They also used to fly up to 20,000' and occasionally higher without
oxygen. It's amazing what you can do when you don;t know it's
impossible!

Ian

[Andreas Maurer]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:34:02 -0800 (PST), Ian
> wrote:


>It's interesting that WW1 pilots used to fly blind in cloud regularly.
>They also used to fly up to 20,000' and occasionally higher without
>oxygen. It's amazing what you can do when you don;t know it's
>impossible!

Indeed.
But please check the average lifespan of a WW1 pilot.

Google for "ww1 pilot lifespan".

The results on the first page only mention life spans of 15.5 flying
hours, three weeks, and a loss rate of 77 percent of the French
pilots.

Maybe the things you mentioned played a role? ;)





Bye
Andreas

[kirk.stant]

> It's interesting that WW1 pilots used to fly blind in cloud regularly.
> They also used to fly up to 20,000' and occasionally higher without
> oxygen. It's amazing what you can do when you don;t know it's
> impossible!
>
> Ian

Huh? Cite please. High altitude yes - climbers do it all the time -
but it is physiologically impossible to fly safe IMC (without external
ground references) without some sort of accurate turn instrument.
Until the advent of the gyro T&B, cloud flying was a practical
impossibility. It it possible to use a compass like a Bohli to
substitute for a gyro in a glider - but there were'nt many of those
around in WW1.

If you think you can cloud fly using only airspeed, then make sure
your glider has terminal velocity dive brakes - you'll need them!

Or maybe they used the Cat and Dog method...

Kirk

[jcarlyle]

OK, I'll bite - the Cat and Dog method? Wazzat?

-John

On Jan 14, 4:30 pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> If you think you can cloud fly using only airspeed, then make sure
> your glider has terminal velocity dive brakes - you'll need them!
>
> Or maybe they used the Cat and Dog method...

[John Smith]

kirk.stant Wrote:

> Until the advent of the gyro T&B, cloud flying was a practical
> impossibility.

Luckily, Max Kegel didn't know this. The early (very early) glider
pilots did fly in clouds on a regular basis without gyros. But their
gliders were much draggier than ours are and, as these pilots themselves
admitted later, they were very lucky to survive this experiment. They
just didn't know better.

With today's slippery gliders, don't even think about it.

[Ian]

On 14 Jan, 17:51, Andreas Maurer > wrote:

> The results on the first page only mention life spans of 15.5 flying
> hours, three weeks, and a loss rate of 77 percent of the French
> pilots.
>
> Maybe the things you mentioned played a role? ;)

Maybe. There were some other distractions around at the time, I
gather.

Cue cheap "the fokkers are shooting me" joke.

Ian

[Ian]

On 14 Jan, 21:30, "kirk.stant" > wrote:

> Huh? Cite please.

Plenty of accounts of WW1 aeial fighting. Hiding in cloud was an
accepted and commonly used tactic.

> If you think you can cloud fly using only airspeed, then make sure
> your glider has terminal velocity dive brakes - you'll need them!

I have no intention of trying it ... and yes, I have proper air
brakes, thank you!

> Or maybe they used the Cat and Dog method...

Cat and duck, surely?

Ian

[Tony Verhulst]

>
> Cue cheap "the fokkers are shooting me" joke.

Cut to the BBC interviewing an RAF pilot.

Pilot: So, this Fokker was on my tail and shooting at me.
Interviewer: I should mention to the audience that a Fokker is a type of
German airplane.
Pilot: That's right, but this Fokker was a Messerschmitt.

[kirk.stant]

On Jan 14, 4:28*pm, Ian > wrote:
> On 14 Jan, 21:30, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > Huh? Cite please.
>
> Plenty of accounts of WW1 aeial fighting. Hiding in cloud was an
> accepted and commonly used tactic.
>
> > If you think you can cloud fly using only airspeed, then make sure
> > your glider has terminal velocity dive brakes - you'll need them!
>
> I have no intention of trying it ... and yes, I have proper air
> brakes, thank you!
>
> > Or maybe they used the Cat and Dog method...
>
> Cat and duck, surely?
>
> Ian

Ah, yes, Ian, that's the one, thank you!

Getting my pilot aides mixed up. The dog is required to keep the
pilot from touching the autopilot switches, if I remember correctly.
Much later development than the cat and duck letdown technique.

Anyway - It's just possible, in a plane with strong inherent
stability, to climb or let down hands-off through a cloud deck. This
may have been what those intrepid WW1 aviators were doing. But I
wouldn't recommend it in a modern glider (unless you have established
a benign spiral procedure).

From practical experience in instrument conditions - unless the plane
can do it by itself, the pilot WILL only make it worse, if he doesn't
have suitable instrumentation AND training.

So - it sure would be nice to have a simple attitude display on our
fancy PDAs, for those days when the horizon insists on hiding from
view....

Kirk

[Scott[_1_]]

Or Maybe "LEAD POISONING"???

Scott


Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:34:02 -0800 (PST), Ian
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>It's interesting that WW1 pilots used to fly blind in cloud regularly.
>>They also used to fly up to 20,000' and occasionally higher without
>>oxygen. It's amazing what you can do when you don;t know it's
>>impossible!
>
>
> Indeed.
> But please check the average lifespan of a WW1 pilot.
>
> Google for "ww1 pilot lifespan".
>
> The results on the first page only mention life spans of 15.5 flying
> hours, three weeks, and a loss rate of 77 percent of the French
> pilots.
>
> Maybe the things you mentioned played a role? ;)
>
>
>
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

[toad]

On Jan 14, 10:31 pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 4:28 pm, Ian > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 14 Jan, 21:30, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > > Huh? Cite please.
>
> > Plenty of accounts of WW1 aeial fighting. Hiding in cloud was an
> > accepted and commonly used tactic.
>
> > > If you think you can cloud fly using only airspeed, then make sure
> > > your glider has terminal velocity dive brakes - you'll need them!
>
> > I have no intention of trying it ... and yes, I have proper air
> > brakes, thank you!
>
> > > Or maybe they used the Cat and Dog method...
>
> > Cat and duck, surely?
>
> > Ian
>
> Ah, yes, Ian, that's the one, thank you!
>
> Getting my pilot aides mixed up. The dog is required to keep the
> pilot from touching the autopilot switches, if I remember correctly.
> Much later development than the cat and duck letdown technique.
>
> Anyway - It's just possible, in a plane with strong inherent
> stability, to climb or let down hands-off through a cloud deck. This
> may have been what those intrepid WW1 aviators were doing. But I
> wouldn't recommend it in a modern glider (unless you have established
> a benign spiral procedure).
>
> From practical experience in instrument conditions - unless the plane
> can do it by itself, the pilot WILL only make it worse, if he doesn't
> have suitable instrumentation AND training.
>
> So - it sure would be nice to have a simple attitude display on our
> fancy PDAs, for those days when the horizon insists on hiding from
> view....
>
> Kirk

Get out your checkbook, here it is.

http://www.flynavgps.com/egyro.htm

But a dedicated AI might be cheaper and more reliable :-)

Todd
3S

[fredsez]

On Jan 15, 6:42*am, toad > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 10:31 pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 14, 4:28 pm, Ian > wrote:
>
> > > On 14 Jan, 21:30, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > > > Huh? Cite please.
>
> > > Plenty of accounts of WW1 aeial fighting. Hiding in cloud was an
> > > accepted and commonly used tactic.
>
> > > > If you think you can cloud fly using only airspeed, then make sure
> > > > your glider has terminal velocity dive brakes - you'll need them!
>
> > > I have no intention of trying it ... and yes, I have proper air
> > > brakes, thank you!
>
> > > > Or maybe they used the Cat and Dog method...
>
> > > Cat and duck, surely?
>
> > > Ian
>
> > Ah, yes, Ian, that's the one, thank you!
>
> > Getting my pilot aides mixed up. *The dog is required to keep the
> > pilot from touching the autopilot switches, if I remember correctly.
> > Much later development than the cat and duck letdown technique.
>
> > Anyway - It's just possible, in a plane with strong inherent
> > stability, to climb or let down hands-off through a cloud deck. *This
> > may have been what those intrepid WW1 aviators were doing. *But I
> > wouldn't recommend it in a modern glider (unless you have established
> > a benign spiral procedure).
>
> > From practical experience in instrument conditions - unless the plane
> > can do it by itself, the pilot WILL only make it worse, if he doesn't
> > have suitable instrumentation AND training.
>
> > So - it sure would be nice to have a simple attitude display on our
> > fancy PDAs, for those days when the horizon insists on hiding from
> > view....
>
> > Kirk
>
> Get out your checkbook, here it is.
>
> http://www.flynavgps.com/egyro.htm
>
> But a dedicated AI might be cheaper and more reliable :-)
>
> Todd
> 3S- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Boy! You guys are good! A collection of knowledge very hard to find.
Every post has value. My original point is to find a way to reduce the
errors a pilot might make when too low to recover. My guess is that
AoA is not fully understood before flight as PIC.
Control of an aircraft needs information fed to the brain.
Instrument Indicators, visual pictures remembered and a mind that is
on the job are so important. Believe your indications. Feel can fail
at times. Strings help and they can be installed by all pilots. Get
something better, but don't dismiss the side mounted string and a line
marked on the canopy for a chord line.
I'll go to bed feeling like this discussion will save lives. Fred.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 13, 9:05*am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> To tie Fred's comments about false horizons to the thread on mountain
> flying, think about the situation when you descend into a mountain valley.
> As you drop below the ridge line, you lose a useful horizon reference. *If
> you keep the nose on the jagged line between ridge top and sky, your nose
> will get higher and higher as you continue the decent - you have to point
> the nose at some indeterminate point on the sides of the valley to maintain
> the desired airspeed and prevent a stall.
>
> This is a subtitle trap that snares many 'flatland' pilots on their first
> mountain trip - usually in an overloaded Cessna 172 right after takeoff.
> These pilots have learned to use the familiar, reliable horizon line at
> their home airports. *It's always there and they have always relied heavily
> on it. *Take it away, and their pilot skills evaporate.
>
> It's quite possible to fly pitch attitude with reference to the airspeed
> indicator but that's a instrument rated pilot *"partial panel" trick and
> most pilots either aren't trained to do it or aren't good at it.
>
> An AOA indicator solves the problem nicely.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> "fredsez" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > So many good ideas on AoA. *Much thought and real considerationhas
> > have been expressed. Something (A-HA!) came to mind.
> > Visual indicators!
> > Back in 1901, *or some where about then, I flew a 1-26 to a really
> > high altitude. I had left the area of recognizable land and decided to
> > look at the ground and figure out where I was. Before I had that good
> > idea, I was looking right at the sun, well above the horizon.
> > Looking down, all I could see was black! The land was in definate
> > NIGHT TIME!
> > I have always been a FLAT EARTH person. I have also watched the sun go
> > around the earth! I get up with the sun in the east and go to bed with
> > it setting in the west.
> > From umpteen thousand ft, I spotted a little (very little) strip of
> > light. There was where I decided they would find my body. I opened the
> > airbrakes and managed to find a lighted strip of asphalt at an
> > intersection in Nevada.
> > The rest of the story is interesting (to me) but has little to do
> > with AoA.
>
> > At my air strip, when you turn onto base leg, the ground rises, *With
> > the horizon high, pilots tend to raise the nose to see a normal sight
> > picture. Airspeed slows,.. things don't look right and some push
> > rudder to point the nose down the runway...or at the tie-down area.
>
> > At thousands of ft in the air, the horizon looks low relative to the
> > instrument panel. At pattern altitude, the horizon looks higher and
> > may lead a pilot to raise the nose, losing airspeed in the turn onto
> > final. I need to make changes. What should I do? Maybe reverse the
> > pattern and let pilots see the lower horizon and tend to make them let
> > the nose down? Maybe I ought to go to bed and let things be as they
> > will be.
> > Fred.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Chuckle .........That's what I do when I see Fred here...haha

Doesn't anyone use trim anymore? Some good aircraft fly best when they
are not being touched.
Some of them even thermal well by themselves.with a good trim setting.
In the Blanik it used to be all the way back. When teaching beginners,
I would show them how well aircraft fly by themselves.

Guess as an old mtn-pilot, that's what I have always used: Trim and
airspeed x-check. The 1-26, even in 1901 must have had a decent trim
tab? Never owned one, but in the 2-33 I always remember yelling to the
student in front" And now...trim forward. For some it would take a
while to figure that out with that funny latch. With it all the way
forward that bird would hurry home nicely. Of course one have to let
it, and not use your biceps much.

Coming back to the Blanik ...a little more advanced, after thermaling
tightly with trim al the way back. If the pilot would forget to
readjust the trim for level flight one could find oneself in a stall-
spin situation! Teaching in the Blanik I would do that some time,
sneak the trim slowly back. A student with a touch or feel would
notice, also eye for airspeed. Muscel people would make a spin entry.

Yeah Fred, didn't we have fun?

Dieter Gliders Of Aspen