About Stall Psychology and Pilots

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

I've been reading the interesting thread started by Rocky about stall vs
the modern pilot. I'd like to offer some added comment on this subject
as this exact issue is closely associated with the human factors
research work I've done and am doing now on a continuing basis within
the air show demonstration community as well as the general primary flight
training community. This comment comes after experiencing literally
thousands of hours evaluating other pilots and covers part of a lecture
I've been giving on these issues for many years.



There are obviously diversified personalities among the general pilot
population, and you will be hard pressed to find any two pilots who view
their flying in exactly the same way.

This having been said however, on the issue of stalls and how pilots
envision themselves within the stall
environment there are two general categories involved.

There is a
comfort zone for some pilots where flight deep into the left side of the
envelope as well as flight on the back side of the lift curve apex
causes no discomfort or apprehension, and there are pilots whose comfort
zone virtually ends at 30 degrees of pitch and 60 degrees of bank with
the airplane right side up. The 30/60 component of this equation isn't
related to the parachute parameter in the regulations, but rather simply
to define the edge of that pilot group's comfort zone.

One thing I should make perfectly clear here is that pilots can fly
through entire careers within this 30/60 comfort zone and never have a
problem. There are many pilots out here right now who fit into this
category as the result of their training, and how that training has
ingrained this comfort zone into the way they envision their flying
environment.

Just where do stalls and how pilots view stalls fit into all this?
Well, before I go on, I think I should establish a base premise that I
strongly believe in, and have been preaching about for about 50 years
now. That premise is that although pilots can be considered "good"
pilots having been trained to fly within that 30/60 comfort zone, these
same pilots could be better pilots if their training and the way they
felt in the air while flying exhibited a comfort zone BEYOND that 30/60
defining line.

Let's explore this a bit more and take a look at some history.

Aviation is a business. To make it in business, you need to sell
product, services, or both. Aviation involves both. No sales, no aviation.
Now if one looks at a prospective pilot base as well as a prospective
aircraft sales base, it doesn't take very long to discover that for General
Aviation, if you want to make money and get the public in the air to
make that money, you have to SELL aviation as a safe, non-threatening-
and most of all, non- FRIGHTENING endeavor.

Now, if you look back to the fifties, you will find a concentrated and
skillful marketing program generally involving Fixed Base Operators, Flight
Schools, Airplane Manufactures, and indeed lobbyists in Washington; all
involved in structuring general aviation to be as safe as a walk in
the park.

The general "attitude" that defines how stall is viewed came right out
of this era. Add to this that design characteristics of the general
aviation fleet began to reflect much more stable flight envelopes than
the planes that came before this period, and you have the makings for
the way the issue of stalls came to be viewed generally within the GA
community.
In other words, a combination of business considerations, and design
enhancement all came together to redefine how flight instructors looked
at stall, and more importantly, approached the issue of teaching stall.

The result of all this from my own personal experience as a check pilot
and as a primary CFI was that I began to notice a pronounced difference
in the "comfort levels" of the pilots and CFI's I was encountering on a
fairly constant basis.

Where pilots and CFI's had been dealing with stall as a complete event,
in other words, full stalls both power on and power off, I noticed a
definite trend toward pilots dealing with stalls highly concentrated on
the recovery from the approach to the stall.

Naturally, the CFI's who came out of this era reflected this change to a
certain extent, and they carried this approach on into their tenures as
instructors.

All this isn't to say that there weren't still pilots and CFI's out
there teaching stalls the "old way". There most certainly were, and
still are such instructors. I am such an instructor BTW.

The bottom line on this issue is that as a pilot, you can function just
fine being trained to recognize and instantly recover from an
approaching stall. You can as well function very well as a pilot if your
comfort zone in the air lies within that magical 30/60 defining line.

But in my opinion, and in the opinion of many CFI's out here, you will
be a MUCH better pilot if your comfort zone in the air includes a
complete familiarity with the left side of the flight envelope, you feel
comfortable doing a full stall and recovery with the airplane, and your
butt cheeks don't squeeze together ever more tightly as the pitch
exceeds 30 degrees and the bank goes beyond 60 degrees.

--
Dudley Henriques

[WingFlaps]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
> But in my opinion, and in the opinion of many CFI's out here, you will
> be a MUCH better pilot if your comfort zone in the air includes a
> complete familiarity with the left side of the flight envelope, you feel
> comfortable doing a full stall and recovery with the airplane, and your
> butt cheeks don't squeeze together ever more tightly as the pitch
> exceeds 30 degrees and the bank goes beyond 60 degrees.
>

I see your point but I admit to being "uncomfortable" with advanced
stalling manouvers. I can recover well within PTS when the wings let
go but I don't like it. What runs in my mind is: Should I feel
comfortable at the edge of control, and if I am comfortable will I be
more likely to go where I should not? When I get onto my dream of
aerobatics I'll let you know how my comfort zone extends.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:643db0b5-e53c-4d06-87ef-
:

>
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>
>> But in my opinion, and in the opinion of many CFI's out here, you will
>> be a MUCH better pilot if your comfort zone in the air includes a
>> complete familiarity with the left side of the flight envelope, you feel
>> comfortable doing a full stall and recovery with the airplane, and your
>> butt cheeks don't squeeze together ever more tightly as the pitch
>> exceeds 30 degrees and the bank goes beyond 60 degrees.
>>
>
> I see your point but I admit to being "uncomfortable" with advanced
> stalling manouvers. I can recover well within PTS when the wings let
> go but I don't like it. What runs in my mind is: Should I feel
> comfortable at the edge of control, and if I am comfortable will I be
> more likely to go where I should not? When I get onto my dream of
> aerobatics I'll let you know how my comfort zone extends.

Well, one way you can look at it is that well into the stall you still have
control. At least in most lightplanes. The aforementioned falliing leaf
manuever is a good example of how to get past that notion.



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> But in my opinion, and in the opinion of many CFI's out here, you will
>> be a MUCH better pilot if your comfort zone in the air includes a
>> complete familiarity with the left side of the flight envelope, you feel
>> comfortable doing a full stall and recovery with the airplane, and your
>> butt cheeks don't squeeze together ever more tightly as the pitch
>> exceeds 30 degrees and the bank goes beyond 60 degrees.
>>
>
> I see your point but I admit to being "uncomfortable" with advanced
> stalling manouvers. I can recover well within PTS when the wings let
> go but I don't like it. What runs in my mind is: Should I feel
> comfortable at the edge of control, and if I am comfortable will I be
> more likely to go where I should not? When I get onto my dream of
> aerobatics I'll let you know how my comfort zone extends.
>
> Cheers

The key to everything I commented on and with your comment as well is a
GOOD CFI, and I don't mean a CFI who can teach full stalls and left side
flying. The answer is more subtle than that. It lies in how the
instructor approaches these issues with the student.

If the instructor is lacking in the ability to evaluate the student on a
personal basis and deal with these issues directly on that basis, there
is a very good chance a new student will never feel comfortable in an
expanded comfort zone.
The instructor literally has to take a new student who might be, and
more often than not IS, apprehensive, and GUIDE that student CAREFULLY
and with great skill and tact into the areas of flight that define an
expanded comfort zone.
Instructors capable and willing to teach in this manner are the good
ones, and if there is one single facet of flight training where I
literally BEG new pilots to spend time it's in seeking out and finding
these instructors.
Once this pairing has been made, the potential for a new pilot to become
a better pilot than they would have been in any other scenario is
TREMENDOUS!!

As for your own situation, just the fact that you are seeking out
aerobatics tells me that the odds of you achieving your goal of becoming
a better all around pilot are high. You will need to make the pairing of
which I speak. The rest will come easily and naturally to you.

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 3:36 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Let's explore this a bit more and take a look at some history.
>
> Aviation is a business. To make it in business, you need to sell
> product, services, or both. Aviation involves both. No sales, no aviation.
> Now if one looks at a prospective pilot base as well as a prospective
> aircraft sales base, it doesn't take very long to discover that for General
> Aviation, if you want to make money and get the public in the air to
> make that money, you have to SELL aviation as a safe, non-threatening-
> and most of all, non- FRIGHTENING endeavor.
>
> Now, if you look back to the fifties, you will find a concentrated and
> skillful marketing program generally involving Fixed Base Operators, Flight
> Schools, Airplane Manufactures, and indeed lobbyists in Washington; all
> involved in structuring general aviation to be as safe as a walk in
> the park.
>
> Dudley Henriques

A very interesting and trenchant analysis.

I think some other relevant historical data points are that in the
late 60's and early 70's many of the WW2 era military-trained pilots
started retiring, quitting, or dying. At the same time there was a
change in educational philosophy that stressed the learner over the
content.

We saw a related change in the Army in the 80s -- from "Do it cuz I
said so, maggot" to "Here's the task, here's how, (and sometimes,
'here's why') -- now move out smartly."

As in most social movements, as the pendulum swings the baby and the
bathwater get tossed.

The GA Flying industry has to push utility and fun. They have to --
the opposite -- the innate fear that is resident in most normal humans
with the brain capacity and means to pursue GA flying -- counters the
"utility and fun" with loads of "That's scary."

But unless a person is ignorantly unaware of the inherent danger or
suicidal, I assume most pilots with more than 15 hours continue to
think, "Gee, this is dangerous -- I'd better do things the right way,
and avoid the things that can kill me."

So maybe the sell for spins and other advanced maneuvers is not, "Do
it cause it's in the PTS, maggot!", or "Do it cuz I did it" but
rather, "Here's a way to save your life and the life of your
passengers."

Oh, so spin recovery is part of that learning? Good. Sign me up.

You're right, I fly in mountains and should know how to perform a
maximum performance 180 at the edge of stall. Great, show me how.

This presumes a relationship with a trusted instructor who knows his
audience, knows what is needed, and then persuades him/her to act.

Too much of the current system is geared towards producing ratings,
and CFIs are cogs in that machine.

Those CFIs who've "been there" and yet still "hang around the airport"
are sorely needed.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

>
>
> You're right, I fly in mountains and should know how to perform a
> maximum performance 180 at the edge of stall. Great, show me how.

A shallow wingover would probably be a better deal here.
They;'re pretty easy and lots of fun to do.


>
> Too much of the current system is geared towards producing ratings,
> and CFIs are cogs in that machine.

I agree. Your wing, the weather and the ground care not what's in your
wallet.



Bertie
>
>
>

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 16, 10:49*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:

>
> As for your own situation, just the fact that you are seeking out
> aerobatics tells me that the odds of you achieving your goal of becoming
> a better all around pilot are high. You will need to make the pairing of
> which I speak. The rest will come easily and naturally to you.
>

So far, I've flown with three instructors and I have noted that the
older instructors have a different way about them The young one was
always complaining if I did not do a manouver to his satisfaction.
That changed when I went out and tried a trail flight with aanother
instructor. We were working our way through the PTS curriculum when he
said "OK glide down that valley below the ridges and turn 180 at the
end." I glided down the right side and then went into a steep turn
adding gobs of power to make a very steep 180 -the valley looked
dangerously narrow to my inexperienced eye. He said nothing and did
nothing while I did this sweaty palm (for me) manouver. We made it
with space to spare and then he said "let me show you another way". He
did not offer criticism. He dropped into the slow flight configuration
from the glide and turned much more easily. No gobs of power or steep
angles just a medium rate slow turn. I realized that although I knew
the technicality of flying the plane quite well my airmanship was not
good, I was not _using_ the plane or my skills to best outcome. After
the flight he said, "You've been flying with an instructor too much,
you need more solo time". At that point I had about 60 hours dual and
12 solo but my mind was always wound up expecting a complaint from the
right seat -I was so unrelaxed I just could not learn. The older
instructors seem to just like being there (even with me) and, dare I
say it, even seem to enjoy my audacity in attempting to become a
pilot.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:8944c789-22c8-48cc-b10b-
:

The older
> instructors seem to just like being there (even with me) and, dare I
> say it, even seem to enjoy my audacity in attempting to become a
> pilot.
>

Sounds like you got a good one there.

I had sim recently and, for a change, had a very experienced instructor. In
fact he's semi retired. He worked us harder than the kids ever do and yet
it was more relaxed. We got more done and we both performed very well. It
definitely makes a difference.



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 16, 10:49 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>
>> As for your own situation, just the fact that you are seeking out
>> aerobatics tells me that the odds of you achieving your goal of becoming
>> a better all around pilot are high. You will need to make the pairing of
>> which I speak. The rest will come easily and naturally to you.
>>
>
> So far, I've flown with three instructors and I have noted that the
> older instructors have a different way about them The young one was
> always complaining if I did not do a manouver to his satisfaction.
> That changed when I went out and tried a trail flight with aanother
> instructor. We were working our way through the PTS curriculum when he
> said "OK glide down that valley below the ridges and turn 180 at the
> end." I glided down the right side and then went into a steep turn
> adding gobs of power to make a very steep 180 -the valley looked
> dangerously narrow to my inexperienced eye. He said nothing and did
> nothing while I did this sweaty palm (for me) manouver. We made it
> with space to spare and then he said "let me show you another way". He
> did not offer criticism. He dropped into the slow flight configuration
> from the glide and turned much more easily. No gobs of power or steep
> angles just a medium rate slow turn. I realized that although I knew
> the technicality of flying the plane quite well my airmanship was not
> good, I was not _using_ the plane or my skills to best outcome. After
> the flight he said, "You've been flying with an instructor too much,
> you need more solo time". At that point I had about 60 hours dual and
> 12 solo but my mind was always wound up expecting a complaint from the
> right seat -I was so unrelaxed I just could not learn. The older
> instructors seem to just like being there (even with me) and, dare I
> say it, even seem to enjoy my audacity in attempting to become a
> pilot.
>
> Cheers
>
>

The old Canyon Turn. There are several ways to extricate yourself from a
blind canyon. That was one of them, and it works. The more training and
proficient you become as a pilot the more options become available to
you in circumstances like these.

The average fighter pilot for example, if faced with a blind canyon turn
situation wouldn't hesitate to use the vertical plane to cut down the
horizontal turning component for the airplane and possibly make the turn
in that manner.
As a highly trained aerobatic pilot, perhaps a Hammerhead turn would do
the trick.

Or, as a simple pilot who took the trouble to make himself/herself a
better pilot through added training with a real fine CFI, perhaps I
wouldn't be in that blind canyon to start with :-))

As for the age factor in CFI's; it could be a player of course, but I
wouldn't rely on it as a common denominator. You can find young
instructors out there who are excellent teachers and have all the
attributes I've mentioned.

Of course, some of us "older folk" have our good points as well.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

That's true. After the war a lot of highly qualified pilots hit the
streets as new GA instructors. They brought with them the military
approach to flying that was based on maximum result in minimum time,
which was the natural process of the military scenario.
Many of these pilots were great sticks, but few of them possessed any
teaching skills at all as we define those skills in a GA market place.
The result of this influx was a no nonsense teaching environment that
actually clashed with the changes that were occurring in GA at that time.
Gradually, these military pilots became a liability in the new
marketplace and many were "replaced" as FBO's began to realize that new
students like "Mrs. Duffy" the housewife, was coming back in from her
hour of dual looking a bit pale and concerned :-)

What happened is what we have now; a few holdovers from the "old school"
and a whole lot of the "new breed" of instructor.

The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA pilot
community will in my opinion require a whole new look at the way flight
instruction is conducted.

I know from my own personal experience that it is possible to take an
average newbie with the average apprehensive feeling about flying and
take that newbie through a learning process that replaces the
apprehension with confidence. These newbies can be trained by GOOD
instructors to function not only well, but VERY well in the flying
environment with comfort zones well beyond their initial level of
apprehension found at the initiation of training.

Barring the influx of CFI's who are capable of teaching students in this
manner, I would project no meaningful changes in the present GA environment.

Dudley Henriques





wrote:
> On Feb 15, 3:36 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Let's explore this a bit more and take a look at some history.
>>
>> Aviation is a business. To make it in business, you need to sell
>> product, services, or both. Aviation involves both. No sales, no aviation.
>> Now if one looks at a prospective pilot base as well as a prospective
>> aircraft sales base, it doesn't take very long to discover that for General
>> Aviation, if you want to make money and get the public in the air to
>> make that money, you have to SELL aviation as a safe, non-threatening-
>> and most of all, non- FRIGHTENING endeavor.
>>
>> Now, if you look back to the fifties, you will find a concentrated and
>> skillful marketing program generally involving Fixed Base Operators, Flight
>> Schools, Airplane Manufactures, and indeed lobbyists in Washington; all
>> involved in structuring general aviation to be as safe as a walk in
>> the park.
>>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> A very interesting and trenchant analysis.
>
> I think some other relevant historical data points are that in the
> late 60's and early 70's many of the WW2 era military-trained pilots
> started retiring, quitting, or dying. At the same time there was a
> change in educational philosophy that stressed the learner over the
> content.
>
> We saw a related change in the Army in the 80s -- from "Do it cuz I
> said so, maggot" to "Here's the task, here's how, (and sometimes,
> 'here's why') -- now move out smartly."
>
> As in most social movements, as the pendulum swings the baby and the
> bathwater get tossed.
>
> The GA Flying industry has to push utility and fun. They have to --
> the opposite -- the innate fear that is resident in most normal humans
> with the brain capacity and means to pursue GA flying -- counters the
> "utility and fun" with loads of "That's scary."
>
> But unless a person is ignorantly unaware of the inherent danger or
> suicidal, I assume most pilots with more than 15 hours continue to
> think, "Gee, this is dangerous -- I'd better do things the right way,
> and avoid the things that can kill me."
>
> So maybe the sell for spins and other advanced maneuvers is not, "Do
> it cause it's in the PTS, maggot!", or "Do it cuz I did it" but
> rather, "Here's a way to save your life and the life of your
> passengers."
>
> Oh, so spin recovery is part of that learning? Good. Sign me up.
>
> You're right, I fly in mountains and should know how to perform a
> maximum performance 180 at the edge of stall. Great, show me how.
>
> This presumes a relationship with a trusted instructor who knows his
> audience, knows what is needed, and then persuades him/her to act.
>
> Too much of the current system is geared towards producing ratings,
> and CFIs are cogs in that machine.
>
> Those CFIs who've "been there" and yet still "hang around the airport"
> are sorely needed.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>


--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

> The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA pilot
> community will in my opinion require a whole new look at the way flight
> instruction is conducted.
> ...
>
> Dudley Henriques
>

That is a requirement. But there is something else: GA has become so
expensive that it takes an extraordinary commitment to attain the
higher skill levels and quality that you are writing about. I read
somewhere recently that survival and skill depend for the greatest
part on experience. I believe that is true -- and it builds on itself.
These days it is financially very difficult if not impossible to get
the kind of flight experience required to attain and maintain the high
skill and confidence just within 30/60 -- let alone beyond it. At
least for the average person who is not a professional pilot of some
sort.

I would like to fly once every two to three days, weather permitting,
but at $80 an hour MINIMUM it is just not possible as a renter -- even
with a very high paying job. And most aircraft cost more like $100 for
that one hour.

The only way to get the chance for the experience you guys are talking
about (other than being a professional) is to build a plane or
possilby share a used plane with another couple of pilots. That would
be doable. Rental is just simply out in many parts of the country.

Price is THE obstacle to higher quality in GA from my perspective --
especially because many pilots just aren't up to the commitment to
homebuild. Because even if you find a really good instructor, after
the aerobatics course you still have to fly ... and fly a lot.

I hope to push through to a higher level by building something simple
first, and then later an aerobatic bipe. In the meantime my club has
an 152 Aerobat for rent and I've got Kershner on my desk top. I sneak
in the payments under the old lady's nose.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 9:06*pm, wrote:
> > The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA pilot
> > community will in my opinion require a whole new look at the way flight
> > instruction is conducted.
> > ...
>
> > Dudley Henriques
>

Obliquely related to the topic of comfort in the left hand curve of
the flight envelope, some low speed F22 aerobatics:

http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080214_raptors.html

What a ride that aircraft provides.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 9:06*pm, wrote:
>> > The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA pilot
>> > community will in my opinion require a whole new look at the way
>> > flight instruction is conducted.
>> > ...
>>
>> > Dudley Henriques
>>
>
> Obliquely related to the topic of comfort in the left hand curve of
> the flight envelope, some low speed F22 aerobatics:
>
> http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080214_raptors.html
>
> What a ride that aircraft provides.
>
>

Well, that thing looks after alpha for you.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
>> The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA pilot
>> community will in my opinion require a whole new look at the way flight
>> instruction is conducted.
>> ...
>>
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>
> That is a requirement. But there is something else: GA has become so
> expensive that it takes an extraordinary commitment to attain the
> higher skill levels and quality that you are writing about. I read
> somewhere recently that survival and skill depend for the greatest
> part on experience. I believe that is true -- and it builds on itself.
> These days it is financially very difficult if not impossible to get
> the kind of flight experience required to attain and maintain the high
> skill and confidence just within 30/60 -- let alone beyond it. At
> least for the average person who is not a professional pilot of some
> sort.
>
> I would like to fly once every two to three days, weather permitting,
> but at $80 an hour MINIMUM it is just not possible as a renter -- even
> with a very high paying job. And most aircraft cost more like $100 for
> that one hour.
>
> The only way to get the chance for the experience you guys are talking
> about (other than being a professional) is to build a plane or
> possilby share a used plane with another couple of pilots. That would
> be doable. Rental is just simply out in many parts of the country.
>
> Price is THE obstacle to higher quality in GA from my perspective --
> especially because many pilots just aren't up to the commitment to
> homebuild. Because even if you find a really good instructor, after
> the aerobatics course you still have to fly ... and fly a lot.
>
> I hope to push through to a higher level by building something simple
> first, and then later an aerobatic bipe. In the meantime my club has
> an 152 Aerobat for rent and I've got Kershner on my desk top. I sneak
> in the payments under the old lady's nose.

I am in complete agreement and sympathy with what you have said here.
There is no doubt that the cost involved in general aviation,
specifically for non professional pilots has increased to almost
unbearable levels.
I always, when talking on these issues in public, have to recognize the
cost factor.
Fortunately for the GA pilot, the price for the increased quality I'm
speaking of doesn't have to be all that high. Considering a good
instructor/student pairing, a pilot could easily be upgraded to a much
higher comfort zone in 5 hours of highly concentrated dual in the right
airplane.

5 more hours of dual seems a low enough price to pay to gain this higher
comfort zone.
I can't count the amount of pilots I have taken through a 5 hour upgrade
that included upset recovery, advanced stall and spin training, and
basic aerobatics.

You don't have to do this in an S2 Pitts. The instructor is the key, NOT
the high priced airplane. This upgrading can easily be done in an
Aerobat, or if you have a few dollars more, a Decathlon or Citabria.

The bottom line is your comfort zone and where you feel you are as a
pilot vs where you would like to be. You might not need such an upgrade.
You're right. There is some added cost involved, but the gain in skill,
confidence, and experience could be priceless.

In my opinion, an average VFR pilot investing in this added 5 hours of
highly specialized dual with a carefully chosen instructor could easily
experience the most important investment they will ever make in aviation.


--
Dudley Henriques

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:36:35 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> you will
> be a MUCH better pilot if your comfort zone in the air includes a
> complete familiarity with the left side of the flight envelope, you feel
> comfortable doing a full stall and recovery with the airplane, and your
> butt cheeks don't squeeze together ever more tightly as the pitch
> exceeds 30 degrees and the bank goes beyond 60 degrees.

Do you look to find a CFI that will teach stalls as you suggest above or
find another one (if yours doesn't) that will?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:36:35 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> you will
>> be a MUCH better pilot if your comfort zone in the air includes a
>> complete familiarity with the left side of the flight envelope, you feel
>> comfortable doing a full stall and recovery with the airplane, and your
>> butt cheeks don't squeeze together ever more tightly as the pitch
>> exceeds 30 degrees and the bank goes beyond 60 degrees.
>
> Do you look to find a CFI that will teach stalls as you suggest above or
> find another one (if yours doesn't) that will?


I would strongly suggest that you do this. You can learn to fly and be a
safe pilot flying with a CFI who teaches you completely within the 30/60
comfort zone, but there is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that
you will be a BETTER pilot if you seek out and fly with a CFI who
teaches you in such a way that you have no fear of being outside that
30/60 zone.
A point that is critical to make here is that it's not necessary that
you actually fly outside the 30/60 on any constant basis for you to be
comfortable there. What IS important is that although the vast majority
of your flying will remain inside the 30/60 zone, your training has
resulted in your not being uncomfortable outside your normal area.
In other words, the complete objective of this type of flight training
is to produce a pilot who flies normally while at the same time feeling
comfortable with the airplane completely throughout it's flight envelope.
Keep in mind that although possessing this expanded comfort zone, your
general flying will still remain (if you choose to remain non aerobatic)
exercised as it always has been. You will just be a better pilot and
much more secure in the aircraft than you were before.

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

> A point that is critical to make here is that it's not necessary that
> you actually fly outside the 30/60 on any constant basis for you to be
> comfortable there. What IS important is that although the vast majority
> of your flying will remain inside the 30/60 zone, your training has
> resulted in your not being uncomfortable outside your normal area.
> ...
> Dudley Henriques

I'm probably much luckier than many in that my club has both an
Aerobat and an instructor available with an aerobatics rating (or
endorsement, whatever it's called). She has me working through the
Kershner book as a prereq. I plan for a 5 or 6 hour course this April/
May.

Speaking directly to the discomfort outside of 30/60: I had moderate
nerves flying slow at first, but after a time or two of dual I found
myself settled. I became at ease with power-off stalls, as the
aircraft just wasn't doing any bucking or dipping. But I didn't get
comfortable with power-on -- even though I was comfortable in the
reverse power curve in steady slow flight with the stall horn buzzing
constantly. Still, solo I was quite nervous with power-on stalls. When
it came time to really practice that before the checkride I had a hard
time finding the same calm place I was at with power-off stalls. The
power-on has a harder break in the Aerobat; I had trouble holding
course and keeping coordinated. On one flight I got rather exasperated
with myself and thought "dang it, this is an airplane, it's okay if it
banks and pitches and rolls about!", then, after doing some clearing
turns I did some steeper banks while power-off in a moderately steep
nose down attitude (less than 30 -- but definitely far from straight
and level).

I kept doing that until I settled down. Even though I knew before I
did those steeper maneuvers that I could recover from them (they were
"unusual attitudes"), nevertheless ACTUALLY performing them and
recovering made a huge difference to my comfort level.

After than I was able to do better power-on stalls and not have the
nerves about when the plane would suddenly lose lift. They weren't
perfect but I didn't have the nerves anymore.

By the way, though the checkride DE did not make be do a power-on to
full stall break, my instructor always did. In retrospect, though it
was more uncomfortable at first, I'm glad she always made me do to a
full break stall. If I didn't, she'd say "let's do that again", rather
sternly.

Oddly, I was more frightened of the spin from power-on than power off
(which may be reasonable, I'm not sure); even though the two spins she
demonstrated for me were done power-off. I think maybe because I felt
it was easier to stay coordinated power-off, without all those extra
precession and p-factor effects twisting the plane, thus was at lower
risk to a flight condition I had not myself recovered from.

For me there's a mental wall of nerves/fear when I have not done a
manuever myself -- even if I know how in theory. For spin, PARE. But I
haven't done it; thus, a wall exists that I have to bust through.

That is one big motivator for Aerobatic training, but not the only.
All told, I just want to understand control inputs to make the plane
do what I want it to do regardless of my orientation in the sky.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
>> A point that is critical to make here is that it's not necessary that
>> you actually fly outside the 30/60 on any constant basis for you to be
>> comfortable there. What IS important is that although the vast majority
>> of your flying will remain inside the 30/60 zone, your training has
>> resulted in your not being uncomfortable outside your normal area.
>> ...
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I'm probably much luckier than many in that my club has both an
> Aerobat and an instructor available with an aerobatics rating (or
> endorsement, whatever it's called). She has me working through the
> Kershner book as a prereq. I plan for a 5 or 6 hour course this April/
> May.
>
> Speaking directly to the discomfort outside of 30/60: I had moderate
> nerves flying slow at first, but after a time or two of dual I found
> myself settled. I became at ease with power-off stalls, as the
> aircraft just wasn't doing any bucking or dipping. But I didn't get
> comfortable with power-on -- even though I was comfortable in the
> reverse power curve in steady slow flight with the stall horn buzzing
> constantly. Still, solo I was quite nervous with power-on stalls. When
> it came time to really practice that before the checkride I had a hard
> time finding the same calm place I was at with power-off stalls. The
> power-on has a harder break in the Aerobat; I had trouble holding
> course and keeping coordinated. On one flight I got rather exasperated
> with myself and thought "dang it, this is an airplane, it's okay if it
> banks and pitches and rolls about!", then, after doing some clearing
> turns I did some steeper banks while power-off in a moderately steep
> nose down attitude (less than 30 -- but definitely far from straight
> and level).
>
> I kept doing that until I settled down. Even though I knew before I
> did those steeper maneuvers that I could recover from them (they were
> "unusual attitudes"), nevertheless ACTUALLY performing them and
> recovering made a huge difference to my comfort level.
>
> After than I was able to do better power-on stalls and not have the
> nerves about when the plane would suddenly lose lift. They weren't
> perfect but I didn't have the nerves anymore.
>
> By the way, though the checkride DE did not make be do a power-on to
> full stall break, my instructor always did. In retrospect, though it
> was more uncomfortable at first, I'm glad she always made me do to a
> full break stall. If I didn't, she'd say "let's do that again", rather
> sternly.
>
> Oddly, I was more frightened of the spin from power-on than power off
> (which may be reasonable, I'm not sure); even though the two spins she
> demonstrated for me were done power-off. I think maybe because I felt
> it was easier to stay coordinated power-off, without all those extra
> precession and p-factor effects twisting the plane, thus was at lower
> risk to a flight condition I had not myself recovered from.
>
> For me there's a mental wall of nerves/fear when I have not done a
> manuever myself -- even if I know how in theory. For spin, PARE. But I
> haven't done it; thus, a wall exists that I have to bust through.
>
> That is one big motivator for Aerobatic training, but not the only.
> All told, I just want to understand control inputs to make the plane
> do what I want it to do regardless of my orientation in the sky.
>
Your assessment of your entire situation sounds completely normal to me
in every respect. It's a healthy attitude, and as well a good summation
based on sound principle.
You're right. Power on stalls have a natural tendency to make newbies
more nervous than power off. The nose attitude is generally higher, it's
louder, (this is a factor BTW), the break is cleaner and more sudden,
and the recovery can seem hurried to a newbie who is experiencing the
recovery under stress.
This can be partially addressed by allowing the aircraft to slow as the
nose is raised to normal climb speed before climb power is applied.
This will generally cause the break with a lower nose attitude which can
show an immediate improving effect on a newbie.

One thing that will definitely help you develop some added confidence
doing power on stalls is in actively changing your attitude up front
about them.
Think about this for a second. You know what to expect, and you know the
airplane will recover with normal recovery control application, so the
only thing left that is contributing to your apprehension is the stall
itself.
Think for a moment what would happen if instead of getting that sudden
adrenalin flow you have been experiencing as your system reacts as the
stall breaks, you were instead mentally and physically AHEAD of the
stall break and now EXPECTING it, and more importantly, WANTING IT!
You have just changed your entire interface with the stall. When it
happens, your system is waiting for it; you react as trained, and
recover the airplane.
The ingredient that has been added to your equation is simply EXPECTATION.
You do several power on stalls in this frame of mind and I guarantee
that you will not be apprehensive again when dealing with power on stalls.

Just something to think about before you fly again :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

> Think for a moment what would happen if instead of getting that sudden
> adrenalin flow you have been experiencing as your system reacts as the
> stall breaks, you were instead mentally and physically AHEAD of the
> stall break and now EXPECTING it, and more importantly, WANTING IT!
> You have just changed your entire interface with the stall. When it
> happens, your system is waiting for it; you react as trained, and
> recover the airplane.
> ...
> Just something to think about before you fly again :-))
>
> Dudley Henriques-

Thanks, this sounds like a really good approach to try.

I'll give it a shot next time I'm up & let you know the results.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
>> Think for a moment what would happen if instead of getting that sudden
>> adrenalin flow you have been experiencing as your system reacts as the
>> stall breaks, you were instead mentally and physically AHEAD of the
>> stall break and now EXPECTING it, and more importantly, WANTING IT!
>> You have just changed your entire interface with the stall. When it
>> happens, your system is waiting for it; you react as trained, and
>> recover the airplane.
>> ...
>> Just something to think about before you fly again :-))
>>
>> Dudley Henriques-
>
> Thanks, this sounds like a really good approach to try.
>
> I'll give it a shot next time I'm up & let you know the results.


I'll be here....unless of course my wife has conned me into doing yard
work again!!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> You're right. Power on stalls have a natural tendency to make newbies more
> nervous than power off. The nose attitude is generally higher, it's louder,
> (this is a factor BTW), the break is cleaner and more sudden, and the
> recovery can seem hurried to a newbie who is experiencing the recovery
> under stress.

Are you familiar with what Derrik Piggott has written about some peoples
sensitivity to reduced G forces? It used to be on-line but I can't find a
copy anymore.

But his theory is that some people react very poorly to reduced G and will
can attempt to "brace" themself to avoid falling which can result in an
accident when stalling at a low altitude...

I'll have to keep looking - it was an interesting read for me since my
youngest just HATES even things like elevators or driving over a bit of a
hill (reduced G situations)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> <...>
>> You're right. Power on stalls have a natural tendency to make newbies
>> more nervous than power off. The nose attitude is generally higher,
>> it's louder, (this is a factor BTW), the break is cleaner and more
>> sudden, and the recovery can seem hurried to a newbie who is
>> experiencing the recovery under stress.
>
> Are you familiar with what Derrik Piggott has written about some peoples
> sensitivity to reduced G forces? It used to be on-line but I can't find
> a copy anymore.
>
> But his theory is that some people react very poorly to reduced G and
> will can attempt to "brace" themself to avoid falling which can result
> in an accident when stalling at a low altitude...
>
> I'll have to keep looking - it was an interesting read for me since my
> youngest just HATES even things like elevators or driving over a bit of
> a hill (reduced G situations)
>
Haven't seen this specific report, but the symptom is a common one and
something every good instructor feels out carefully in the beginning
stages of a newbies training.
I've often said to new CFI's that probably the most important time they
will ever spend with a new student is in that first few hours of
exposure with that student. It's during this time the instructor has to
evaluate exactly how he/she will interface with that specific student,
and also during the first hour of dual, just where a specific student is
comfort wise in the airplane.
Instructors who fail to make these assessments do great harm to
themselves AND their students.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Private]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>>> A point that is critical to make here is that it's not necessary that
>>> you actually fly outside the 30/60 on any constant basis for you to be
>>> comfortable there. What IS important is that although the vast majority
>>> of your flying will remain inside the 30/60 zone, your training has
>>> resulted in your not being uncomfortable outside your normal area.
>>> ...
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> I'm probably much luckier than many in that my club has both an
>> Aerobat and an instructor available with an aerobatics rating (or
>> endorsement, whatever it's called). She has me working through the
>> Kershner book as a prereq. I plan for a 5 or 6 hour course this April/
>> May.
>>
>> Speaking directly to the discomfort outside of 30/60: I had moderate
>> nerves flying slow at first, but after a time or two of dual I found
>> myself settled. I became at ease with power-off stalls, as the
>> aircraft just wasn't doing any bucking or dipping. But I didn't get
>> comfortable with power-on -- even though I was comfortable in the
>> reverse power curve in steady slow flight with the stall horn buzzing
>> constantly. Still, solo I was quite nervous with power-on stalls. When
>> it came time to really practice that before the checkride I had a hard
>> time finding the same calm place I was at with power-off stalls. The
>> power-on has a harder break in the Aerobat; I had trouble holding
>> course and keeping coordinated. On one flight I got rather exasperated
>> with myself and thought "dang it, this is an airplane, it's okay if it
>> banks and pitches and rolls about!", then, after doing some clearing
>> turns I did some steeper banks while power-off in a moderately steep
>> nose down attitude (less than 30 -- but definitely far from straight
>> and level).
>>
>> I kept doing that until I settled down. Even though I knew before I
>> did those steeper maneuvers that I could recover from them (they were
>> "unusual attitudes"), nevertheless ACTUALLY performing them and
>> recovering made a huge difference to my comfort level.
>>
>> After than I was able to do better power-on stalls and not have the
>> nerves about when the plane would suddenly lose lift. They weren't
>> perfect but I didn't have the nerves anymore.
>>
>> By the way, though the checkride DE did not make be do a power-on to
>> full stall break, my instructor always did. In retrospect, though it
>> was more uncomfortable at first, I'm glad she always made me do to a
>> full break stall. If I didn't, she'd say "let's do that again", rather
>> sternly.
>>
>> Oddly, I was more frightened of the spin from power-on than power off
>> (which may be reasonable, I'm not sure); even though the two spins she
>> demonstrated for me were done power-off. I think maybe because I felt
>> it was easier to stay coordinated power-off, without all those extra
>> precession and p-factor effects twisting the plane, thus was at lower
>> risk to a flight condition I had not myself recovered from.
>>
>> For me there's a mental wall of nerves/fear when I have not done a
>> manuever myself -- even if I know how in theory. For spin, PARE. But I
>> haven't done it; thus, a wall exists that I have to bust through.
>>
>> That is one big motivator for Aerobatic training, but not the only.
>> All told, I just want to understand control inputs to make the plane
>> do what I want it to do regardless of my orientation in the sky.
>>
> Your assessment of your entire situation sounds completely normal to me in
> every respect. It's a healthy attitude, and as well a good summation based
> on sound principle.
> You're right. Power on stalls have a natural tendency to make newbies more
> nervous than power off. The nose attitude is generally higher, it's
> louder, (this is a factor BTW), the break is cleaner and more sudden, and
> the recovery can seem hurried to a newbie who is experiencing the recovery
> under stress.
> This can be partially addressed by allowing the aircraft to slow as the
> nose is raised to normal climb speed before climb power is applied.
> This will generally cause the break with a lower nose attitude which can
> show an immediate improving effect on a newbie.
>
> One thing that will definitely help you develop some added confidence
> doing power on stalls is in actively changing your attitude up front about
> them.
> Think about this for a second. You know what to expect, and you know the
> airplane will recover with normal recovery control application, so the
> only thing left that is contributing to your apprehension is the stall
> itself.
> Think for a moment what would happen if instead of getting that sudden
> adrenalin flow you have been experiencing as your system reacts as the
> stall breaks, you were instead mentally and physically AHEAD of the stall
> break and now EXPECTING it, and more importantly, WANTING IT!
> You have just changed your entire interface with the stall. When it
> happens, your system is waiting for it; you react as trained, and recover
> the airplane.
> The ingredient that has been added to your equation is simply EXPECTATION.
> You do several power on stalls in this frame of mind and I guarantee that
> you will not be apprehensive again when dealing with power on stalls.
>
> Just something to think about before you fly again :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques


I agree, lots of good stuff in this thread.

I would (humbly) like to suggest that some of the apprehension of performing
and dealing with stalls is due to the feeling that they must be corrected
immediately and with minimal loss of altitude.

At my request, my first two training flights were almost completely devoted
to stalls and especially spins. By the end of the second lesson I was able
to recover on a heading that my instructor requested after the full
incipient stage of the spin had developed. We had lots of altitude and a
stable spinning Super Cub which allowed me to experience that the fully
developed spin was really quite stable and that I had the ability to stop it
whenever I wanted even to the point of recovering on (=fairly close to) a
desired heading. It allowed me time to look at the airspeed indicator and
confirm that we were in a stall and not a spiral and to note that the VSI
showed a relatively slow decent rate. I could also check the T&B to note
the reported spin direction and to confirm that this was also what my eyes
were telling me. It made me understand that I was always in control of the
situation and helped me with spatial awareness and seemed to slow the
experience down somewhat so that I had lots of time to internalize what was
happening and what my eyes were seeing.

Later in my training I was better able to enjoy and comprehend the
demonstration and execution of the full range of accelerated stalls, and
this gave me the confidence to perform and enjoy all these maneuvers while
solo. I need to note that the above only applies to stable spinning
aircraft and that one of the problems of learning in a more modern and
therefore dumbed down aircraft like the C172 is that they will not spin long
enough to really experience a stable fully developed spin and IMHE will
spiral out of the spin far too quickly, and that is a flight condition that
I do NOT suggest should be savored or not corrected immediately.

Once a person is fully comfortable with the full regime of stalls and spins
then stall demonstration and recovery on heading and with minimal loss of
altitude is IMHE a much simpler exercise. I do not mean to suggest that I
am in any way special, but only that I was fortunate to have had instructors
who taught me that there was little to fear on the left side of the
envelope.

Happy landings,

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be thought
of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the emphasis on
recovery should always be placed on the regaining of angle of attack as
PRIME to recovery.
I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
altitude. Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground impact by
pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down there a bit
longer than they did, using the air under them to better advantage and
giving themselves the needed time to regain angle of attack and smooth
airflow as they attempted a recovery. But because they had been taught
that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was the killer, they recovered trying to
save altitude, when in reality what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE
ALTITUDE CORRECTLY....and save the airplane.

Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in
stall recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does mean
that to recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and at
low altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to the
last foot of air to do that.
I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power. The FAA
requires power. I want the student to see the difference and at the same
time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF ATTACK that saves your
butt. The strong lesson here is that you USE altitude......you don't try
to minimize it at the expense of angle of attack.
Sounds like you had a fine instructor.



Private wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>>> A point that is critical to make here is that it's not necessary that
>>>> you actually fly outside the 30/60 on any constant basis for you to be
>>>> comfortable there. What IS important is that although the vast majority
>>>> of your flying will remain inside the 30/60 zone, your training has
>>>> resulted in your not being uncomfortable outside your normal area.
>>>> ...
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> I'm probably much luckier than many in that my club has both an
>>> Aerobat and an instructor available with an aerobatics rating (or
>>> endorsement, whatever it's called). She has me working through the
>>> Kershner book as a prereq. I plan for a 5 or 6 hour course this April/
>>> May.
>>>
>>> Speaking directly to the discomfort outside of 30/60: I had moderate
>>> nerves flying slow at first, but after a time or two of dual I found
>>> myself settled. I became at ease with power-off stalls, as the
>>> aircraft just wasn't doing any bucking or dipping. But I didn't get
>>> comfortable with power-on -- even though I was comfortable in the
>>> reverse power curve in steady slow flight with the stall horn buzzing
>>> constantly. Still, solo I was quite nervous with power-on stalls. When
>>> it came time to really practice that before the checkride I had a hard
>>> time finding the same calm place I was at with power-off stalls. The
>>> power-on has a harder break in the Aerobat; I had trouble holding
>>> course and keeping coordinated. On one flight I got rather exasperated
>>> with myself and thought "dang it, this is an airplane, it's okay if it
>>> banks and pitches and rolls about!", then, after doing some clearing
>>> turns I did some steeper banks while power-off in a moderately steep
>>> nose down attitude (less than 30 -- but definitely far from straight
>>> and level).
>>>
>>> I kept doing that until I settled down. Even though I knew before I
>>> did those steeper maneuvers that I could recover from them (they were
>>> "unusual attitudes"), nevertheless ACTUALLY performing them and
>>> recovering made a huge difference to my comfort level.
>>>
>>> After than I was able to do better power-on stalls and not have the
>>> nerves about when the plane would suddenly lose lift. They weren't
>>> perfect but I didn't have the nerves anymore.
>>>
>>> By the way, though the checkride DE did not make be do a power-on to
>>> full stall break, my instructor always did. In retrospect, though it
>>> was more uncomfortable at first, I'm glad she always made me do to a
>>> full break stall. If I didn't, she'd say "let's do that again", rather
>>> sternly.
>>>
>>> Oddly, I was more frightened of the spin from power-on than power off
>>> (which may be reasonable, I'm not sure); even though the two spins she
>>> demonstrated for me were done power-off. I think maybe because I felt
>>> it was easier to stay coordinated power-off, without all those extra
>>> precession and p-factor effects twisting the plane, thus was at lower
>>> risk to a flight condition I had not myself recovered from.
>>>
>>> For me there's a mental wall of nerves/fear when I have not done a
>>> manuever myself -- even if I know how in theory. For spin, PARE. But I
>>> haven't done it; thus, a wall exists that I have to bust through.
>>>
>>> That is one big motivator for Aerobatic training, but not the only.
>>> All told, I just want to understand control inputs to make the plane
>>> do what I want it to do regardless of my orientation in the sky.
>>>
>> Your assessment of your entire situation sounds completely normal to me in
>> every respect. It's a healthy attitude, and as well a good summation based
>> on sound principle.
>> You're right. Power on stalls have a natural tendency to make newbies more
>> nervous than power off. The nose attitude is generally higher, it's
>> louder, (this is a factor BTW), the break is cleaner and more sudden, and
>> the recovery can seem hurried to a newbie who is experiencing the recovery
>> under stress.
>> This can be partially addressed by allowing the aircraft to slow as the
>> nose is raised to normal climb speed before climb power is applied.
>> This will generally cause the break with a lower nose attitude which can
>> show an immediate improving effect on a newbie.
>>
>> One thing that will definitely help you develop some added confidence
>> doing power on stalls is in actively changing your attitude up front about
>> them.
>> Think about this for a second. You know what to expect, and you know the
>> airplane will recover with normal recovery control application, so the
>> only thing left that is contributing to your apprehension is the stall
>> itself.
>> Think for a moment what would happen if instead of getting that sudden
>> adrenalin flow you have been experiencing as your system reacts as the
>> stall breaks, you were instead mentally and physically AHEAD of the stall
>> break and now EXPECTING it, and more importantly, WANTING IT!
>> You have just changed your entire interface with the stall. When it
>> happens, your system is waiting for it; you react as trained, and recover
>> the airplane.
>> The ingredient that has been added to your equation is simply EXPECTATION.
>> You do several power on stalls in this frame of mind and I guarantee that
>> you will not be apprehensive again when dealing with power on stalls.
>>
>> Just something to think about before you fly again :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> I agree, lots of good stuff in this thread.
>
> I would (humbly) like to suggest that some of the apprehension of performing
> and dealing with stalls is due to the feeling that they must be corrected
> immediately and with minimal loss of altitude.
>
> At my request, my first two training flights were almost completely devoted
> to stalls and especially spins. By the end of the second lesson I was able
> to recover on a heading that my instructor requested after the full
> incipient stage of the spin had developed. We had lots of altitude and a
> stable spinning Super Cub which allowed me to experience that the fully
> developed spin was really quite stable and that I had the ability to stop it
> whenever I wanted even to the point of recovering on (=fairly close to) a
> desired heading. It allowed me time to look at the airspeed indicator and
> confirm that we were in a stall and not a spiral and to note that the VSI
> showed a relatively slow decent rate. I could also check the T&B to note
> the reported spin direction and to confirm that this was also what my eyes
> were telling me. It made me understand that I was always in control of the
> situation and helped me with spatial awareness and seemed to slow the
> experience down somewhat so that I had lots of time to internalize what was
> happening and what my eyes were seeing.
>
> Later in my training I was better able to enjoy and comprehend the
> demonstration and execution of the full range of accelerated stalls, and
> this gave me the confidence to perform and enjoy all these maneuvers while
> solo. I need to note that the above only applies to stable spinning
> aircraft and that one of the problems of learning in a more modern and
> therefore dumbed down aircraft like the C172 is that they will not spin long
> enough to really experience a stable fully developed spin and IMHE will
> spiral out of the spin far too quickly, and that is a flight condition that
> I do NOT suggest should be savored or not corrected immediately.
>
> Once a person is fully comfortable with the full regime of stalls and spins
> then stall demonstration and recovery on heading and with minimal loss of
> altitude is IMHE a much simpler exercise. I do not mean to suggest that I
> am in any way special, but only that I was fortunate to have had instructors
> who taught me that there was little to fear on the left side of the
> envelope.
>
> Happy landings,
>
>


--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

As much as I like the "dud" his post is the
most completely idiotic thing I had to read.

On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be thought
> of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the emphasis on
> recovery should always be placed on the regaining of angle of attack as
> PRIME to recovery.

NUTZ. You need airspeed, it's called kinetic
energy that is needed to suck off, using the
wings (you know, those little things that
protude out the side of airplanes).

> I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
> consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
> strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
> altitude.

See KIAS, Dud, you'd last 2 minutes in the RHS
of my plane, after that you'd be lickin' pavement,
from my shoe on your ass.

>Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
> secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground impact by
> pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down there a bit
> longer than they did, using the air under them to better advantage and
> giving themselves the needed time to regain angle of attack and smooth
> airflow as they attempted a recovery. But because they had been taught
> that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was the killer, they recovered trying to
> save altitude, when in reality what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE
> ALTITUDE CORRECTLY....and save the airplane.
>
> Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in
> stall recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does mean
> that to recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and at
> low altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to the
> last foot of air to do that.
> I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power. The FAA
> requires power. I want the student to see the difference and at the same
> time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF ATTACK that saves your
> butt. The strong lesson here is that you USE altitude......you don't try
> to minimize it at the expense of angle of attack.

Dud, you're clueless, you have not a clue about KIAS,
spiral dives or g-force recovery's. In short I see NO
evidence you have even been in an airplane with your
focus on AoA.
I can get a good AoA at 10 KIAS or 200 KIAS,
what are going to do?
Regards
Ken

[Private]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be thought of
> as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the emphasis on
> recovery should always be placed on the regaining of angle of attack as
> PRIME to recovery.

Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to which is
attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.

> I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should consider
> altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more strongly on
> recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum altitude. Stalls
> entered at low altitude have many times resulted in secondary stall entry
> or a mushed recovery followed by ground impact by pilots who COULD have
> lowered the nose and held it down there a bit longer than they did, using
> the air under them to better advantage and giving themselves the needed
> time to regain angle of attack and smooth airflow as they attempted a
> recovery. But because they had been taught that ALTITUDE rather than AOA
> was the killer, they recovered trying to save altitude, when in reality
> what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE ALTITUDE CORRECTLY....and save
> the airplane.

'Flying requires airspeed, altidude and brains.
A lack of one can be traded for an excess of another.
Try not to run out of all three at the same time.'

> Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in stall
> recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does mean that to
> recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and at low
> altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to the last
> foot of air to do that.
> I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power. The FAA
> requires power. I want the student to see the difference and at the same
> time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF ATTACK that saves your butt.
> The strong lesson here is that you USE altitude......you don't try to
> minimize it at the expense of angle of attack.
> Sounds like you had a fine instructor.

I was very fortunate to have had several good instructors and only a few not
so good. The best of them were fully confident in the abilities of the
aircraft and were not afraid to demonstrate the full range of aircraft
behavior. IMHE it is easier to find good instructors at schools offering
tailwheel. Here in Canada VFR instructors are licensed at 4 different
levels plus 2 levels of acro instructor, (IIRC, IFR is an additional
qualification on top of each of the VFR levels) (CPL is permitted to do
some training of >PPL level pilots.) IMHE hiring instructors with level 1
rating (required to train other instructors) results in finding much more
experience and a much better learning experience, they usually cost a little
bit more but it is minimal in the big picture of total training costs. The
typical level 4 instructor is often referred to as a 231 hr wonder, as that
is the minimum amount of time required to obtain this license.

After my initial power lessons I did most of my training in sailplane
gliders and there the only thing we have is AOA. Sailplanes spend a great
deal of time scratching in minimal lift conditions flying just above the
stall looking for the minimum sink rate. Adverse yaw is substantial and
quick footwork is required to lift a dropping wing. The need to stay
coordinated is helped by the yaw string but they are great for training ones
feet. I found it relatively easy to transition back into powered tailwheel
aircraft but it did take some time to add power management to the various
recovery procedures. I experienced no reluctance from my gliding
instructors to demonstrate or practice stalls or spins. Since all stalls
are power off, they are quite gentle but spinning over the top while
reclined in a full canopy glider gives a view of the action that a Cessna
student can only imagine. Thermalling @60 deg bank and pulling a constant
2Gs while crosscontrolled is quite different from steep turns in a Cessna.
I did experience much more variability in instructor ability and experience
in sailplane training than I did in power.

Happy landings,

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
> :
>
> > On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> >> :
>
> > Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much newsgrouping,
> > people need to do more flying ;)
>
> When my airplane is finished!
>
> Bertie

Watchu building?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 2:37 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> I see your point but I admit to being "uncomfortable" with advanced
> stalling manouvers. I can recover well within PTS when the wings let
> go but I don't like it. What runs in my mind is: Should I feel
> comfortable at the edge of control, and if I am comfortable will I be
> more likely to go where I should not? When I get onto my dream of
> aerobatics I'll let you know how my comfort zone extends.

Here's half the battle: Realizing that the airplane is never out of
control. It's only doing what we ask it to do. It will stall if we
make it, it will unstall if we make it. It will spin if we ask it to
and will stop spinning when we say so. Of course, the CG had better be
within limits.
The folks who get into trouble with stalls or spins are getting
into them without knowing what happened, and why. They learned by rote
and did not get an understanding and some experience with these things
so they don't recognize the situations that lead to them, and they
don't know the methods of control throughout.
When I show students that the airplane does exactly what I
demand of it, they lose their fear of all this.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 9:54 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 9:06 pm, wrote:
> >> > The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA pilot
> >> > community will in my opinion require a whole new look at the way
> >> > flight instruction is conducted.
> >> > ...
>
> >> > Dudley Henriques
>
> > Obliquely related to the topic of comfort in the left hand curve of
> > the flight envelope, some low speed F22 aerobatics:
>
> >http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080214_raptors.html
>
> > What a ride that aircraft provides.
>
> Well, that thing looks after alpha for you.
>
> Bertie

OH that's just great. Now I have to ask WTF 'alpha' is. ****.
Thanks. ;-)

Sew watt is it?

[Private]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> As much as I like the "dud" his post is the
> most completely idiotic thing I had to read.
>
> On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be thought
>> of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the emphasis on
>> recovery should always be placed on the regaining of angle of attack as
>> PRIME to recovery.
>
> NUTZ. You need airspeed, it's called kinetic
> energy that is needed to suck off, using the
> wings (you know, those little things that
> protude out the side of airplanes).
>
>> I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
>> consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
>> strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
>> altitude.
>
> See KIAS, Dud, you'd last 2 minutes in the RHS
> of my plane, after that you'd be lickin' pavement,
> from my shoe on your ass.
>
>>Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
>> secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground impact by
>> pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down there a bit
>> longer than they did, using the air under them to better advantage and
>> giving themselves the needed time to regain angle of attack and smooth
>> airflow as they attempted a recovery. But because they had been taught
>> that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was the killer, they recovered trying to
>> save altitude, when in reality what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE
>> ALTITUDE CORRECTLY....and save the airplane.
>>
>> Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in
>> stall recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does mean
>> that to recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and at
>> low altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to the
>> last foot of air to do that.
>> I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power. The FAA
>> requires power. I want the student to see the difference and at the same
>> time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF ATTACK that saves your
>> butt. The strong lesson here is that you USE altitude......you don't try
>> to minimize it at the expense of angle of attack.
>
> Dud, you're clueless, you have not a clue about KIAS,
> spiral dives or g-force recovery's. In short I see NO
> evidence you have even been in an airplane with your
> focus on AoA.
> I can get a good AoA at 10 KIAS or 200 KIAS,
> what are going to do?
> Regards
> Ken

Ken,
With respect, I think you must have missed my reply in another thread. I am
enclosing it here for your convenience and consideration.

"Private" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
>> piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
>> any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
>> when I'm broke, works every time!
>> Ken
>
> Some here would suggest that you apply the same strategy to your head
> before
> posting.
>
> I am somewhat embarrassed to be entering this thread, but I just can't
> resist swinging at a soft pitch like that.
> Happy landings,

To elaborate, my suggestion was that before posting you should give your
head a shake to determine if there is anything inside and to consider
whether you really wished to make the fact public.

Happy landings,

[[email protected]]

>
> > Are you familiar with what Derrik Piggott has written about some peoples
> > sensitivity to reduced G forces? It used to be on-line but I can't find
> > a copy anymore.


I haven't heard of this study but will suggest a technique recommended
by an instructor who was also a downhill skiier -- instead of tensing
up and "backing away" from the "fall", lean forward and go with it.

As Dudley said, prepare for it in your head. The physical corollary is
to lean forward a tiny bit.

Try it next time you're on a roller coaster.

Dan

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 16, 2:08 pm, "Private" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > As much as I like the "dud" his post is the
> > most completely idiotic thing I had to read.
>
> > On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be thought
> >> of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the emphasis on
> >> recovery should always be placed on the regaining of angle of attack as
> >> PRIME to recovery.
>
> > NUTZ. You need airspeed, it's called kinetic
> > energy that is needed to suck off, using the
> > wings (you know, those little things that
> > protude out the side of airplanes).
>
> >> I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
> >> consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
> >> strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
> >> altitude.
>
> > See KIAS, Dud, you'd last 2 minutes in the RHS
> > of my plane, after that you'd be lickin' pavement,
> > from my shoe on your ass.
>
> >>Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
> >> secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground impact by
> >> pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down there a bit
> >> longer than they did, using the air under them to better advantage and
> >> giving themselves the needed time to regain angle of attack and smooth
> >> airflow as they attempted a recovery. But because they had been taught
> >> that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was the killer, they recovered trying to
> >> save altitude, when in reality what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE
> >> ALTITUDE CORRECTLY....and save the airplane.
>
> >> Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in
> >> stall recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does mean
> >> that to recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and at
> >> low altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to the
> >> last foot of air to do that.
> >> I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power. The FAA
> >> requires power. I want the student to see the difference and at the same
> >> time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF ATTACK that saves your
> >> butt. The strong lesson here is that you USE altitude......you don't try
> >> to minimize it at the expense of angle of attack.
>
> > Dud, you're clueless, you have not a clue about KIAS,
> > spiral dives or g-force recovery's. In short I see NO
> > evidence you have even been in an airplane with your
> > focus on AoA.
> > I can get a good AoA at 10 KIAS or 200 KIAS,
> > what are going to do?
> > Regards
> > Ken
>
> Ken,
> With respect, I think you must have missed my reply in another thread. I am
> enclosing it here for your convenience and consideration.
>
> "Private" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
> >> piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
> >> any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
> >> when I'm broke, works every time!
> >> Ken
>
> > Some here would suggest that you apply the same strategy to your head
> > before
> > posting.
>
> > I am somewhat embarrassed to be entering this thread, but I just can't
> > resist swinging at a soft pitch like that.
> > Happy landings,
>
> To elaborate, my suggestion was that before posting you should give your
> head a shake to determine if there is anything inside and to consider
> whether you really wished to make the fact public.
> Happy landings,

If I were you, I'd ****-off and read.
You're swinging at screw-balls...
Me and the "dud" ****ed your mush mind.
Get a ****in life, crack a book.

Best Regards
Ken
xxxx

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
>> :
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> >> :
>>
>> > Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much newsgrouping,
>> > people need to do more flying ;)
>>
>> When my airplane is finished!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Watchu building?
>

A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:1f25eddb-4c7f-
:

> As much as I like the "dud" his post is the
> most completely idiotic thing I had to read.
>
> On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
thought
>> of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the emphasis on
>> recovery should always be placed on the regaining of angle of attack
as
>> PRIME to recovery.
>
> NUTZ. You need airspeed, it's called kinetic
> energy that is needed to suck off, using the
> wings (you know, those little things that
> protude out the side of airplanes).
>
>> I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
>> consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
>> strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
>> altitude.
>
> See KIAS, Dud, you'd last 2 minutes in the RHS
> of my plane, after that you'd be lickin' pavement,
> from my shoe on your ass.
>
>>Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
>> secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground impact
by
>> pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down there a bit
>> longer than they did, using the air under them to better advantage
and
>> giving themselves the needed time to regain angle of attack and
smooth
>> airflow as they attempted a recovery. But because they had been
taught
>> that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was the killer, they recovered trying
to
>> save altitude, when in reality what was needed was to USE THE
AVAILABLE
>> ALTITUDE CORRECTLY....and save the airplane.
>>
>> Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in
>> stall recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does
mean
>> that to recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and
at
>> low altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to
the
>> last foot of air to do that.
>> I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power. The
FAA
>> requires power. I want the student to see the difference and at the
same
>> time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF ATTACK that saves your
>> butt. The strong lesson here is that you USE altitude......you don't
try
>> to minimize it at the expense of angle of attack.
>
> Dud, you're clueless, you have not a clue about KIAS,
> spiral dives or g-force recovery's. In short I see NO
> evidence you have even been in an airplane with your
> focus on AoA.
> I can get a good AoA at 10 KIAS or 200 KIAS,
> what are going to do?



Again with the bank rattling.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Private" > wrote in :

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
>> thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the
>> emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the regaining of
>> angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
>
> Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to which is
> attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.
>
>

Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 9:54 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:48ff8b66-f84b-4281-998b-158e7acf78dd@
28g2000hsw.googlegroups.co
>> m:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 9:06 pm, wrote:
>> >> > The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA
>> >> > pilot community will in my opinion require a whole new look at
>> >> > the way flight instruction is conducted.
>> >> > ...
>>
>> >> > Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > Obliquely related to the topic of comfort in the left hand curve of
>> > the flight envelope, some low speed F22 aerobatics:
>>
>> >http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080214_raptors.html
>>
>> > What a ride that aircraft provides.
>>
>> Well, that thing looks after alpha for you.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> OH that's just great. Now I have to ask WTF 'alpha' is. ****.
> Thanks. ;-)
>
> Sew watt is it?
>

Oh sorry, slang for Angle of Attack, basically.



Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in message
news:nfWdnZsrSOkXpiranZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> <...>
>> You're right. Power on stalls have a natural tendency to make newbies
>> more nervous than power off. The nose attitude is generally higher, it's
>> louder, (this is a factor BTW), the break is cleaner and more sudden, and
>> the recovery can seem hurried to a newbie who is experiencing the
>> recovery under stress.
>
> Are you familiar with what Derrik Piggott has written about some peoples
> sensitivity to reduced G forces? It used to be on-line but I can't find a
> copy anymore.
>
> But his theory is that some people react very poorly to reduced G and will
> can attempt to "brace" themself to avoid falling which can result in an
> accident when stalling at a low altitude...
>
> I'll have to keep looking - it was an interesting read for me since my
> youngest just HATES even things like elevators or driving over a bit of a
> hill (reduced G situations)
>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

I think that Google found it for me and the spelling of the author's first
name is Derek The article is at:
http://www.danlj.org/~danlj/Soaring/Clues/SDO.html

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 2:08 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> messagenews:1f25eddb-4c7f-4bde-a4fa-3cc5d7844522
@e23g2000prf.googlegro
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > As much as I like the "dud" his post is the
>> > most completely idiotic thing I had to read.
>>
>> > On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
>> >> thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the
>> >> emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the regaining of
>> >> angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
>>
>> > NUTZ. You need airspeed, it's called kinetic
>> > energy that is needed to suck off, using the
>> > wings (you know, those little things that
>> > protude out the side of airplanes).
>>
>> >> I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
>> >> consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
>> >> strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
>> >> altitude.
>>
>> > See KIAS, Dud, you'd last 2 minutes in the RHS
>> > of my plane, after that you'd be lickin' pavement,
>> > from my shoe on your ass.
>>
>> >>Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
>> >> secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground
>> >> impact by pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down
>> >> there a bit longer than they did, using the air under them to
>> >> better advantage and giving themselves the needed time to regain
>> >> angle of attack and smooth airflow as they attempted a recovery.
>> >> But because they had been taught that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was
>> >> the killer, they recovered trying to save altitude, when in
>> >> reality what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE ALTITUDE
>> >> CORRECTLY....and save the airplane.
>>
>> >> Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA
>> >> in stall recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it
>> >> does mean that to recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to
>> >> restore AOA, and at low altitude that might very well mean using
>> >> available altitude to the last foot of air to do that.
>> >> I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power.
>> >> The FAA requires power. I want the student to see the difference
>> >> and at the same time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF
>> >> ATTACK that saves your butt. The strong lesson here is that you
>> >> USE altitude......you don't try to minimize it at the expense of
>> >> angle of attack.
>>
>> > Dud, you're clueless, you have not a clue about KIAS,
>> > spiral dives or g-force recovery's. In short I see NO
>> > evidence you have even been in an airplane with your
>> > focus on AoA.
>> > I can get a good AoA at 10 KIAS or 200 KIAS,
>> > what are going to do?
>> > Regards
>> > Ken
>>
>> Ken,
>> With respect, I think you must have missed my reply in another
>> thread. I am enclosing it here for your convenience and
>> consideration.
>>
>> "Private" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
>> >news:64fb5517-76cc-49df-8db1-

>> >m...
>> >> I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
>> >> piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
>> >> any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
>> >> when I'm broke, works every time!
>> >> Ken
>>
>> > Some here would suggest that you apply the same strategy to your
>> > head before
>> > posting.
>>
>> > I am somewhat embarrassed to be entering this thread, but I just
>> > can't resist swinging at a soft pitch like that.
>> > Happy landings,
>>
>> To elaborate, my suggestion was that before posting you should give
>> your head a shake to determine if there is anything inside and to
>> consider whether you really wished to make the fact public.
>> Happy landings,
>
> If I were you, I'd ****-off and read.


Some people read 'em. Others write them..


> You're swinging at screw-balls...



Well, I certainly am.


Bertie
>

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 17, 11:39*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> Me and the "dud" ****ed your mush mind.
> Get a ****in life, crack a book.

Cuniform tablets are quite outdated ...

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 17, 11:41*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> >> news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> >> >> :
>
> >> > Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much newsgrouping,
> >> > people need to do more flying ;)
>
> >> When my airplane is finished!
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Watchu building?
>
> A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>

Are you building alone? How far along is it? Where is it -I'd like to
see it if I got the chance.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:3c62ecc9-9a01-4341-9b6d-
:

> On Feb 17, 11:39*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> Me and the "dud" ****ed your mush mind.
>> Get a ****in life, crack a book.
>
> Cuniform tablets are quite outdated ...

I stil need 'em. My outfit does all of our manual updates on CD every few
months. I insist on paper copies as well. I just can't find anythingn in
the PDF manual! You stick in a keyword on, say "First officer landing
limitations" and you get 435 returns on FO, 1687 on landing and 4622 on
limitations. Crap! I can nearly find what I want in a paper manual by
dropping it 'just so' on its binding.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 17, 11:41*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:5df6e0b3-35d5-490f-8b31-1a1fbe48eeed@62g
> 2000hsn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> >> news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> >> >> :
>>
>> >> > Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much
>> >> > newsgrouping, people need to do more flying ;)
>>
>> >> When my airplane is finished!
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Watchu building?
>>
>> A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>>
>
> Are you building alone? How far along is it? Where is it -I'd like to
> see it if I got the chance.
>

It's in my shop, of course!

The Hatz is not as far along as it ought to be! the Citabria is nearly
done ( I hope) and whouc be up and going in a few weeks.


Bertie
>

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 17, 12:41*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 11:41*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote
> >> innews:5df6e0b3-35d5-490f-8b31-1a1fbe48eeed@62g
> > 2000hsn.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> >> >> news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> >> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much
> >> >> > newsgrouping, people need to do more flying ;)
>
> >> >> When my airplane is finished!
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > Watchu building?
>
> >> A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>
> > Are you building alone? How far along is it? Where is it -I'd like to
> > see it if I got the chance.
>
> It's in my shop, of course!
>
> The Hatz is not as far along as it ought to be! the Citabria is nearly
> done ( I hope) and whouc be up and going in a few weeks.
>

Ah, OK I understand you don't wan't to reveal you location but perhaps
you could tell me the time zone on my gmail?

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 17, 12:41*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:617cc4fe-42ad-4f70-940b-916fa
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 17, 11:41*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote
>> >> innews:5df6e0b3-35d5-490f-8b31-1a1fbe48eeed@62g
>> > 2000hsn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> >> >> news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
>> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> > On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> >> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> > Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much
>> >> >> > newsgrouping, people need to do more flying ;)
>>
>> >> >> When my airplane is finished!
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > Watchu building?
>>
>> >> A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>>
>> > Are you building alone? How far along is it? Where is it -I'd like
>> > to see it if I got the chance.
>>
>> It's in my shop, of course!
>>
>> The Hatz is not as far along as it ought to be! the Citabria is
>> nearly done ( I hope) and whouc be up and going in a few weeks.
>>
>
> Ah, OK I understand you don't wan't to reveal you location but perhaps
> you could tell me the time zone on my gmail?

Sorry! but there are a string of very ****ed off people looking for
Bertie!

N70 your field?



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Private" > wrote in :
>
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
>>> thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the
>>> emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the regaining of
>>> angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
>> Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to which is
>> attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.
>>
>>
>
> Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.
>
> Bertie
>
As you already know and I can confirm emphatically , as soon as you
start flying high performance jets, it's all about wing management.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Big John[_2_]]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:43:10 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>
>> That's true. After the war a lot of highly qualified pilots hit the
>> streets as new GA instructors. They brought with them the military
>> approach to flying that was based on maximum result in minimum time,
>> which was the natural process of the military scenario.
>> Many of these pilots were great sticks, but few of them possessed any
>> teaching skills at all as we define those skills in a GA market place.
>> The result of this influx was a no nonsense teaching environment that
>> actually clashed with the changes that were occurring in GA at that
>> time. Gradually, these military pilots became a liability in the new
>> marketplace and many were "replaced" as FBO's began to realize that
>> new students like "Mrs. Duffy" the housewife, was coming back in from
>> her hour of dual looking a bit pale and concerned :-)
>>
>> What happened is what we have now; a few holdovers from the "old
>> school" and a whole lot of the "new breed" of instructor.
>>
>> The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA pilot
>> community will in my opinion require a whole new look at the way
>> flight instruction is conducted.
>>
>> I know from my own personal experience that it is possible to take an
>> average newbie with the average apprehensive feeling about flying and
>> take that newbie through a learning process that replaces the
>> apprehension with confidence. These newbies can be trained by GOOD
>> instructors to function not only well, but VERY well in the flying
>> environment with comfort zones well beyond their initial level of
>> apprehension found at the initiation of training.
>>
>> Barring the influx of CFI's who are capable of teaching students in
>> this manner, I would project no meaningful changes in the present GA
>> environment.
>>
>>
>
>I've had very few nervous students. Only two that really stood out that
>i can recall. One was terrfied of stalls and did this hyperventilating
>thing, which was really freaky, every time we went to do them. He got
>over it by me demonstrating that the airplane would sit happily in the
>stall for ages without the earth coming up to smite us. He got over it.
>Another guy was terrified of the engine failing and no amount of
>explaining to him that the idling engine was the same as having the
>engine not running at all made no difference at all to him, he spent
>most of every flight half freaked out over the prospect of this
>happening. I finally got so ****ed off with him I just pulled the
>mixture and raised the nose until the prop stopped. The transformation
>in him was almost instantaneous.
>In retrospect, it was not such a clever thing to do since we were at
>about 1,000' and nowhere near an airport! It started up straight away,
>fortunately. That's an incident/accident that would have made
>interesting reading.
>
>It worked, though.
>
>
>Bertie
************************************************** ****************************

Bertie

I used to shut the engine down in a T-33 to give students an actuall
air start. Had them talk me through the air start procedure as they
did each step so I could correct them if they were going to screw up.

Know there was a lot of talking back in baracks at night between my
studebts but they all learned the emergency rocedures as they never
knew if I was going to give them an actual emergency to use the
procedures in.

I talked to some of my students years later and they all said that
what I did in training made them good Fighter Pilots in the Squadrons.

Big John

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2:08 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> As much as I like the "dud" his post is the
>>> most completely idiotic thing I had to read.
>>> On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be thought
>>>> of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the emphasis on
>>>> recovery should always be placed on the regaining of angle of attack as
>>>> PRIME to recovery.
>>> NUTZ. You need airspeed, it's called kinetic
>>> energy that is needed to suck off, using the
>>> wings (you know, those little things that
>>> protude out the side of airplanes).
>>>> I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
>>>> consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
>>>> strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
>>>> altitude.
>>> See KIAS, Dud, you'd last 2 minutes in the RHS
>>> of my plane, after that you'd be lickin' pavement,
>>> from my shoe on your ass.
>>>> Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
>>>> secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground impact by
>>>> pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down there a bit
>>>> longer than they did, using the air under them to better advantage and
>>>> giving themselves the needed time to regain angle of attack and smooth
>>>> airflow as they attempted a recovery. But because they had been taught
>>>> that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was the killer, they recovered trying to
>>>> save altitude, when in reality what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE
>>>> ALTITUDE CORRECTLY....and save the airplane.
>>>> Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in
>>>> stall recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does mean
>>>> that to recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and at
>>>> low altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to the
>>>> last foot of air to do that.
>>>> I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power. The FAA
>>>> requires power. I want the student to see the difference and at the same
>>>> time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF ATTACK that saves your
>>>> butt. The strong lesson here is that you USE altitude......you don't try
>>>> to minimize it at the expense of angle of attack.
>>> Dud, you're clueless, you have not a clue about KIAS,
>>> spiral dives or g-force recovery's. In short I see NO
>>> evidence you have even been in an airplane with your
>>> focus on AoA.
>>> I can get a good AoA at 10 KIAS or 200 KIAS,
>>> what are going to do?
>>> Regards
>>> Ken
>> Ken,
>> With respect, I think you must have missed my reply in another thread. I am
>> enclosing it here for your convenience and consideration.
>>
>> "Private" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
>>>> piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
>>>> any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
>>>> when I'm broke, works every time!
>>>> Ken
>>> Some here would suggest that you apply the same strategy to your head
>>> before
>>> posting.
>>> I am somewhat embarrassed to be entering this thread, but I just can't
>>> resist swinging at a soft pitch like that.
>>> Happy landings,
>> To elaborate, my suggestion was that before posting you should give your
>> head a shake to determine if there is anything inside and to consider
>> whether you really wished to make the fact public.
>> Happy landings,
>
> If I were you, I'd ****-off and read.
> You're swinging at screw-balls...
> Me and the "dud" ****ed your mush mind.
> Get a ****in life, crack a book.
>
> Best Regards
> Ken
> xxxx

Just for the record, and on the off chance that there might just be one
person on Usenet who needs to be informed of this, please be advised
that regardless of what this idiot says and when he uses my name in his
posts; I am in NO way even remotely involved with this character in any
way whatsoever.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:J6mdnf-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Private" > wrote in :
>>
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
>>>> thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the
>>>> emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the regaining of
>>>> angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
>>> Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to which is
>>> attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> As you already know and I can confirm emphatically , as soon as you
> start flying high performance jets, it's all about wing management.


Actualy, in the turkeys we fly it's all about nailing your pitch to what
the computer wants, but you're right, they're all about the wing. I've
always understood that to be the case, but I learned to fly in gliders, so
it was more about pefromance and less about procedure like it is in a lot
of lightplane instruction.


Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:43:10 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>>
>>> That's true. After the war a lot of highly qualified pilots hit the
>>> streets as new GA instructors. They brought with them the military
>>> approach to flying that was based on maximum result in minimum time,
>>> which was the natural process of the military scenario.
>>> Many of these pilots were great sticks, but few of them possessed
>>> any teaching skills at all as we define those skills in a GA market
>>> place. The result of this influx was a no nonsense teaching
>>> environment that actually clashed with the changes that were
>>> occurring in GA at that time. Gradually, these military pilots
>>> became a liability in the new marketplace and many were "replaced"
>>> as FBO's began to realize that new students like "Mrs. Duffy" the
>>> housewife, was coming back in from her hour of dual looking a bit
>>> pale and concerned :-)
>>>
>>> What happened is what we have now; a few holdovers from the "old
>>> school" and a whole lot of the "new breed" of instructor.
>>>
>>> The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA pilot
>>> community will in my opinion require a whole new look at the way
>>> flight instruction is conducted.
>>>
>>> I know from my own personal experience that it is possible to take
>>> an average newbie with the average apprehensive feeling about flying
>>> and take that newbie through a learning process that replaces the
>>> apprehension with confidence. These newbies can be trained by GOOD
>>> instructors to function not only well, but VERY well in the flying
>>> environment with comfort zones well beyond their initial level of
>>> apprehension found at the initiation of training.
>>>
>>> Barring the influx of CFI's who are capable of teaching students in
>>> this manner, I would project no meaningful changes in the present GA
>>> environment.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I've had very few nervous students. Only two that really stood out
>>that i can recall. One was terrfied of stalls and did this
>>hyperventilating thing, which was really freaky, every time we went to
>>do them. He got over it by me demonstrating that the airplane would
>>sit happily in the stall for ages without the earth coming up to smite
>>us. He got over it. Another guy was terrified of the engine failing
>>and no amount of explaining to him that the idling engine was the same
>>as having the engine not running at all made no difference at all to
>>him, he spent most of every flight half freaked out over the prospect
>>of this happening. I finally got so ****ed off with him I just pulled
>>the mixture and raised the nose until the prop stopped. The
>>transformation in him was almost instantaneous.
>>In retrospect, it was not such a clever thing to do since we were at
>>about 1,000' and nowhere near an airport! It started up straight away,
>>fortunately. That's an incident/accident that would have made
>>interesting reading.
>>
>>It worked, though.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
> ************************************************** ********************
*
> *******
>
> Bertie
>
> I used to shut the engine down in a T-33 to give students an actuall
> air start. Had them talk me through the air start procedure as they
> did each step so I could correct them if they were going to screw up.
>
> Know there was a lot of talking back in baracks at night between my
> studebts but they all learned the emergency rocedures as they never
> knew if I was going to give them an actual emergency to use the
> procedures in.
>
> I talked to some of my students years later and they all said that
> what I did in training made them good Fighter Pilots in the Squadrons.


Good fun, eh?

Did they have hydraulic controls?


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:J6mdnf-
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Private" > wrote in :
>>>
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
>>>>> thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the
>>>>> emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the regaining of
>>>>> angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
>>>> Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to which is
>>>> attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> As you already know and I can confirm emphatically , as soon as you
>> start flying high performance jets, it's all about wing management.
>
>
> Actualy, in the turkeys we fly it's all about nailing your pitch to what
> the computer wants, but you're right, they're all about the wing. I've
> always understood that to be the case, but I learned to fly in gliders, so
> it was more about pefromance and less about procedure like it is in a lot
> of lightplane instruction.
>
>
> Bertie
>>
>

In the T38 for example, the approach is flown at an optimum alpha on the
indexer or at a specific airspeed plus fuel. Either way, the object is
to keep the wing within specific limits aoa wise. The bird will develop
a sink rate that can't be recovered otherwise.
I've always wondered why you guys in the big jets don't use alpha more
on the approach. I'm guessing it's because of the complicated fuel loads
possible which gives you such a wide range of approach speeds to bug to
keep the pitch angle right at touchdown.
I know that Boeing for one is doing some research into providing better
aoa data to you on the ADI for approaches but haven't heard much about
how this outreach is being accepted by the carriers.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:J6mdnf-
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "Private" > wrote in :
>>>>
>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
>>>>>> thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the
>>>>>> emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the regaining of
>>>>>> angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
>>>>> Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to which
>>>>> is attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> As you already know and I can confirm emphatically , as soon as you
>>> start flying high performance jets, it's all about wing management.
>>
>>
>> Actualy, in the turkeys we fly it's all about nailing your pitch to
>> what the computer wants, but you're right, they're all about the
>> wing. I've always understood that to be the case, but I learned to
>> fly in gliders, so it was more about pefromance and less about
>> procedure like it is in a lot of lightplane instruction.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>
> In the T38 for example, the approach is flown at an optimum alpha on
> the indexer or at a specific airspeed plus fuel. Either way, the
> object is to keep the wing within specific limits aoa wise. The bird
> will develop a sink rate that can't be recovered otherwise.
> I've always wondered why you guys in the big jets don't use alpha more
> on the approach. I'm guessing it's because of the complicated fuel
> loads possible which gives you such a wide range of approach speeds to
> bug to keep the pitch angle right at touchdown.
> I know that Boeing for one is doing some research into providing
> better aoa data to you on the ADI for approaches but haven't heard
> much about how this outreach is being accepted by the carriers.


Well, the military guys have it. I was in a 141 sim once and that had
it. We bug a diffeent approach speed for each weight. The takeoff speeds
provide for a variety of AoAs depending on whether we want to climb, get
off a short runway or get over some obstacles. We can select a range of
V2s based on a runway analysis to get the most weight possible off the
ground on a given takeoff. That, of course, gives us different AoAs
depending on whether we're looking for best angle or best rate. We don't
call it any of that, but it's exaclty what we do. on approach we select
Vso 1.3 based on the weight. So we do use a constant alpha. It's
important to avoid float, and to touch down at the right attitude so we
don't end up bouncing off the nosewheel or the tail as well. I do it in
light planes as well, and hopefully most guys do have nominal approach
speeds for different weights.. I just knock off a few knots if I'm
light, basically.


Bertie

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 16, 4:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> >> news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> >> >> :
>
> >> > Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much newsgrouping,
> >> > people need to do more flying ;)
>
> >> When my airplane is finished!
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Watchu building?
>
> A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>
> Bertie

Cool. Thanks. My son took a Young Eagle flight last year in a
Citabria...after flying FsX. He loved it.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 16, 4:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
> > On Feb 15, 9:54 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote
> >> innews:48ff8b66-f84b-4281-998b-158e7acf78dd@
>
> 28g2000hsw.googlegroups.co
>
>
>
> >> m:
>
> >> > On Feb 15, 9:06 pm, wrote:
> >> >> > The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA
> >> >> > pilot community will in my opinion require a whole new look at
> >> >> > the way flight instruction is conducted.
> >> >> > ...
>
> >> >> > Dudley Henriques
>
> >> > Obliquely related to the topic of comfort in the left hand curve of
> >> > the flight envelope, some low speed F22 aerobatics:
>
> >> >http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080214_raptors.html
>
> >> > What a ride that aircraft provides.
>
> >> Well, that thing looks after alpha for you.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > OH that's just great. Now I have to ask WTF 'alpha' is. ****.
> > Thanks. ;-)
>
> > Sew watt is it?
>
> Oh sorry, slang for Angle of Attack, basically.
>
> Bertie

Ahhh... a 'docile' well centered ac. Similar to a non-elliptical
airfoil parachute. (Like mine, being old, slow and ready to live till
the end of the week).

Richard.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 4:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:5df6e0b3-35d5-490f-8b31-1a1fbe48eeed@
62g2000hsn.googlegroups.co
>> m:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> >> news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> >> >> :
>>
>> >> > Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much
>> >> > newsgrouping, people need to do more flying ;)
>>
>> >> When my airplane is finished!
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Watchu building?
>>
>> A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Cool. Thanks. My son took a Young Eagle flight last year in a
> Citabria...after flying FsX. He loved it.


It's an honest old airplane. It's been around in one form or another
since WW2.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 4:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:5268d2a1-66db-4dd9-8616-6defa1a7cab2
@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 9:54 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote
>> >> innews:48ff8b66-f84b-4281-998b-158e7acf78dd@
>>
>> 28g2000hsw.googlegroups.co
>>
>>
>>
>> >> m:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 15, 9:06 pm, wrote:
>> >> >> > The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA
>> >> >> > pilot community will in my opinion require a whole new look
>> >> >> > at the way flight instruction is conducted.
>> >> >> > ...
>>
>> >> >> > Dudley Henriques
>>
>> >> > Obliquely related to the topic of comfort in the left hand curve
>> >> > of the flight envelope, some low speed F22 aerobatics:
>>
>> >> >http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080214_raptors.html
>>
>> >> > What a ride that aircraft provides.
>>
>> >> Well, that thing looks after alpha for you.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > OH that's just great. Now I have to ask WTF 'alpha' is. ****.
>> > Thanks. ;-)
>>
>> > Sew watt is it?
>>
>> Oh sorry, slang for Angle of Attack, basically.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Ahhh... a 'docile' well centered ac. Similar to a non-elliptical
> airfoil parachute. (Like mine, being old, slow and ready to live till
> the end of the week).

??You've lost me, now. I taqke it you've lapsed into meatbomb speak?


Bertie

[Big John[_2_]]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:44:08 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

wrote in
:
>
>> On Feb 15, 9:54 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> wrote
>>> innews:48ff8b66-f84b-4281-998b-158e7acf78dd@
>28g2000hsw.googlegroups.co
>>> m:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Feb 15, 9:06 pm, wrote:
>>> >> > The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA
>>> >> > pilot community will in my opinion require a whole new look at
>>> >> > the way flight instruction is conducted.
>>> >> > ...
>>>
>>> >> > Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> > Obliquely related to the topic of comfort in the left hand curve of
>>> > the flight envelope, some low speed F22 aerobatics:
>>>
>>> >http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080214_raptors.html
>>>
>>> > What a ride that aircraft provides.
>>>
>>> Well, that thing looks after alpha for you.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> OH that's just great. Now I have to ask WTF 'alpha' is. ****.
>> Thanks. ;-)
>>
>> Sew watt is it?
>>
>
>Oh sorry, slang for Angle of Attack, basically.
>
>
>
>Bertie
************************************************** *******************

Bertie

Just tell him that when thrust exceds gross weight, Alpha no longer
is a problem.

Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:44:08 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
wrote in
>>news:5268d2a1-66db-4dd9-8616-6defa1a7cab2
@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Feb 15, 9:54 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> wrote
>>>> innews:48ff8b66-f84b-4281-998b-158e7acf78dd@
>>28g2000hsw.googlegroups.co
>>>> m:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Feb 15, 9:06 pm, wrote:
>>>> >> > The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA
>>>> >> > pilot community will in my opinion require a whole new look at
>>>> >> > the way flight instruction is conducted.
>>>> >> > ...
>>>>
>>>> >> > Dudley Henriques
>>>>
>>>> > Obliquely related to the topic of comfort in the left hand curve
of
>>>> > the flight envelope, some low speed F22 aerobatics:
>>>>
>>>> >http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080214_raptors.html
>>>>
>>>> > What a ride that aircraft provides.
>>>>
>>>> Well, that thing looks after alpha for you.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> OH that's just great. Now I have to ask WTF 'alpha' is. ****.
>>> Thanks. ;-)
>>>
>>> Sew watt is it?
>>>
>>
>>Oh sorry, slang for Angle of Attack, basically.
>>
>>
>>
>>Bertie
> ************************************************** *******************
>
> Bertie
>
> Just tell him that when thrust exceds gross weight, Alpha no longer
> is a problem.


So I've heard, but never got the chance to try it! Well, with an RC
model, maybe...But not strapped to one!

Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 2:08 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>
>>> oups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> As much as I like the "dud" his post is the
>>>> most completely idiotic thing I had to read.
>>>> On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
>>>>> thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the
>>>>> emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the regaining of
>>>>> angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
>>>> NUTZ. You need airspeed, it's called kinetic
>>>> energy that is needed to suck off, using the
>>>> wings (you know, those little things that
>>>> protude out the side of airplanes).
>>>>> I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
>>>>> consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
>>>>> strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
>>>>> altitude.
>>>> See KIAS, Dud, you'd last 2 minutes in the RHS
>>>> of my plane, after that you'd be lickin' pavement,
>>>> from my shoe on your ass.
>>>>> Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
>>>>> secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground
>>>>> impact by pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down
>>>>> there a bit longer than they did, using the air under them to
>>>>> better advantage and giving themselves the needed time to regain
>>>>> angle of attack and smooth airflow as they attempted a recovery.
>>>>> But because they had been taught that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was
>>>>> the killer, they recovered trying to save altitude, when in
>>>>> reality what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE ALTITUDE
>>>>> CORRECTLY....and save the airplane. Toward this goal, I strongly
>>>>> encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in stall recovery. This
>>>>> doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does mean that to recover
>>>>> the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and at low
>>>>> altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to the
>>>>> last foot of air to do that.
>>>>> I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power.
>>>>> The FAA requires power. I want the student to see the difference
>>>>> and at the same time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF
>>>>> ATTACK that saves your butt. The strong lesson here is that you
>>>>> USE altitude......you don't try to minimize it at the expense of
>>>>> angle of attack.
>>>> Dud, you're clueless, you have not a clue about KIAS,
>>>> spiral dives or g-force recovery's. In short I see NO
>>>> evidence you have even been in an airplane with your
>>>> focus on AoA.
>>>> I can get a good AoA at 10 KIAS or 200 KIAS,
>>>> what are going to do?
>>>> Regards
>>>> Ken
>>> Ken,
>>> With respect, I think you must have missed my reply in another
>>> thread. I am enclosing it here for your convenience and
>>> consideration.
>>>
>>> "Private" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> om...
>>>>> I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
>>>>> piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
>>>>> any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
>>>>> when I'm broke, works every time!
>>>>> Ken
>>>> Some here would suggest that you apply the same strategy to your
>>>> head before
>>>> posting.
>>>> I am somewhat embarrassed to be entering this thread, but I just
>>>> can't resist swinging at a soft pitch like that.
>>>> Happy landings,
>>> To elaborate, my suggestion was that before posting you should give
>>> your head a shake to determine if there is anything inside and to
>>> consider whether you really wished to make the fact public.
>>> Happy landings,
>>
>> If I were you, I'd ****-off and read.
>> You're swinging at screw-balls...
>> Me and the "dud" ****ed your mush mind.
>> Get a ****in life, crack a book.
>>
>> Best Regards
>> Ken
>> xxxx
>
> Just for the record, and on the off chance that there might just be
> one person on Usenet who needs to be informed of this, please be
> advised that regardless of what this idiot says and when he uses my
> name in his posts; I am in NO way even remotely involved with this
> character in any way whatsoever.
>
>

It should be obvious that Ken always puts the "S" between "Ken" and
"Tucker" to emphasize to everyone that he is a total ****HEAD!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:J6mdnf-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> "Private" > wrote in :
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
>>>>>>> thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the
>>>>>>> emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the regaining of
>>>>>>> angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
>>>>>> Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to which
>>>>>> is attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>> As you already know and I can confirm emphatically , as soon as you
>>>> start flying high performance jets, it's all about wing management.
>>>
>>> Actualy, in the turkeys we fly it's all about nailing your pitch to
>>> what the computer wants, but you're right, they're all about the
>>> wing. I've always understood that to be the case, but I learned to
>>> fly in gliders, so it was more about pefromance and less about
>>> procedure like it is in a lot of lightplane instruction.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> In the T38 for example, the approach is flown at an optimum alpha on
>> the indexer or at a specific airspeed plus fuel. Either way, the
>> object is to keep the wing within specific limits aoa wise. The bird
>> will develop a sink rate that can't be recovered otherwise.
>> I've always wondered why you guys in the big jets don't use alpha more
>> on the approach. I'm guessing it's because of the complicated fuel
>> loads possible which gives you such a wide range of approach speeds to
>> bug to keep the pitch angle right at touchdown.
>> I know that Boeing for one is doing some research into providing
>> better aoa data to you on the ADI for approaches but haven't heard
>> much about how this outreach is being accepted by the carriers.
>
>
> Well, the military guys have it. I was in a 141 sim once and that had
> it. We bug a diffeent approach speed for each weight. The takeoff speeds
> provide for a variety of AoAs depending on whether we want to climb, get
> off a short runway or get over some obstacles. We can select a range of
> V2s based on a runway analysis to get the most weight possible off the
> ground on a given takeoff. That, of course, gives us different AoAs
> depending on whether we're looking for best angle or best rate. We don't
> call it any of that, but it's exaclty what we do. on approach we select
> Vso 1.3 based on the weight. So we do use a constant alpha. It's
> important to avoid float, and to touch down at the right attitude so we
> don't end up bouncing off the nosewheel or the tail as well. I do it in
> light planes as well, and hopefully most guys do have nominal approach
> speeds for different weights.. I just knock off a few knots if I'm
> light, basically.
>
>
> Bertie
>
> Bertie
>

I've always said that if I could only have one instrument in the
airplane I'd like an angle of attack indicator. :-))
In a way we have the same problems landing in airplanes like the T38 as
you do in the big jobs. We usually are dealing with a long fuselage mass
to wing mass configuration in the fast jets that requires a specific aoa
spread at touchdown to keep from catching the tail feathers. The F104
was particularly susceptible to this. (never flew the zipper but always
wanted to). The F14 and the F16 (have flown these) are a narrow alpha
spread at touchdown.
The approaches in these airplanes all require strict wing management
right down to the ground.
With you guys, the GW can be so wide an available spread that flying an
optimum aoa would probably put you outside your landing allowance spread
to clear your tails if I understand correctly. This makes sense anyway,
considering how long some of the stuff is you guys are handling.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:J6mdnf-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> "Private" > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
>>>>>>>> thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude,
>>>>>>>> the emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the
>>>>>>>> regaining of angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
>>>>>>> Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to
>>>>>>> which is attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>> As you already know and I can confirm emphatically , as soon as
>>>>> you start flying high performance jets, it's all about wing
>>>>> management.
>>>>
>>>> Actualy, in the turkeys we fly it's all about nailing your pitch to
>>>> what the computer wants, but you're right, they're all about the
>>>> wing. I've always understood that to be the case, but I learned to
>>>> fly in gliders, so it was more about pefromance and less about
>>>> procedure like it is in a lot of lightplane instruction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> In the T38 for example, the approach is flown at an optimum alpha on
>>> the indexer or at a specific airspeed plus fuel. Either way, the
>>> object is to keep the wing within specific limits aoa wise. The bird
>>> will develop a sink rate that can't be recovered otherwise.
>>> I've always wondered why you guys in the big jets don't use alpha
>>> more on the approach. I'm guessing it's because of the complicated
>>> fuel loads possible which gives you such a wide range of approach
>>> speeds to bug to keep the pitch angle right at touchdown.
>>> I know that Boeing for one is doing some research into providing
>>> better aoa data to you on the ADI for approaches but haven't heard
>>> much about how this outreach is being accepted by the carriers.
>>
>>
>> Well, the military guys have it. I was in a 141 sim once and that had
>> it. We bug a diffeent approach speed for each weight. The takeoff
>> speeds provide for a variety of AoAs depending on whether we want to
>> climb, get off a short runway or get over some obstacles. We can
>> select a range of V2s based on a runway analysis to get the most
>> weight possible off the ground on a given takeoff. That, of course,
>> gives us different AoAs depending on whether we're looking for best
>> angle or best rate. We don't call it any of that, but it's exaclty
>> what we do. on approach we select Vso 1.3 based on the weight. So we
>> do use a constant alpha. It's important to avoid float, and to touch
>> down at the right attitude so we don't end up bouncing off the
>> nosewheel or the tail as well. I do it in light planes as well, and
>> hopefully most guys do have nominal approach speeds for different
>> weights.. I just knock off a few knots if I'm light, basically.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> I've always said that if I could only have one instrument in the
> airplane I'd like an angle of attack indicator. :-))
> In a way we have the same problems landing in airplanes like the T38
> as you do in the big jobs. We usually are dealing with a long fuselage
> mass to wing mass configuration in the fast jets that requires a
> specific aoa spread at touchdown to keep from catching the tail
> feathers. The F104 was particularly susceptible to this. (never flew
> the zipper but always wanted to). The F14 and the F16 (have flown
> these) are a narrow alpha spread at touchdown.


Yeah, I could well imagine with an airfoil like that.

> The approaches in these airplanes all require strict wing management
> right down to the ground.
> With you guys, the GW can be so wide an available spread that flying
> an optimum aoa would probably put you outside your landing allowance
> spread to clear your tails if I understand correctly. This makes sense
> anyway, considering how long some of the stuff is you guys are
> handling.

Well, it depends on what you mean by optimum. I presume you're talking
about maintaining a healthy enough Alpha to prevent a departure, then
controllability, and finally due consideration to touchdown attitude. I
know most of the fast jet guys I fly with can't do a crosswind landing
worth a damn! They fly a straight line down to touchdonw ( good) then
pull the taps closed, yank and close their eyes. It seems to work but it
ain't pretty! We fly most of them just like airplanes, really.


Bertie

>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Benjamin Dover > wrote in
:


>
> It should be obvious that Ken always puts the "S" between
> "Ken" and
> "Tucker" to emphasize to everyone that he is a total ****HEAD!
>

Hmm, his parents must have been real disappointed in him to do that.



Bertie
>

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 17, 1:09*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 12:41*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps > wrote
> >> innews:617cc4fe-42ad-4f70-940b-916fa
> > :
>
> >> > On Feb 17, 11:41*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> wrote
> >> >> innews:5df6e0b3-35d5-490f-8b31-1a1fbe48eeed@62g
> >> > 2000hsn.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> > On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> >> >> >> news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> > On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques >
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> >> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> > Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much
> >> >> >> > newsgrouping, people need to do more flying ;)
>
> >> >> >> When my airplane is finished!
>
> >> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> >> > Watchu building?
>
> >> >> A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>
> >> > Are you building alone? How far along is it? Where is it -I'd like
> >> > to see it if I got the chance.
>
> >> It's in my shop, of course!
>
> >> The Hatz is not as far along as it ought to be! the Citabria is
> >> nearly done ( I hope) and whouc be up and going in a few weeks.
>
> > Ah, OK I understand you don't wan't to reveal you location but perhaps
> > you could tell me the time zone on my gmail?
>
> Sorry! but there are a string of very ****ed off people looking for
> Bertie!
>
> N70 your field?

Negative on that, but have a Wild Turkey on me. Yes, I can imagine you
have the weak minded baying for your blood -in life I've found you
always collect enemies while friends come and go.

Cheers

[Mike Beede]

In article
>,
WingFlaps > wrote:

> On Feb 17, 11:39*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Me and the "dud" ****ed your mush mind.
> > Get a ****in life, crack a book.
>
> Cuniform tablets are quite outdated ...

You know, if people would just quit replying to Tucker K. Troll,
my kill file would work better. Just a humble request.

Mike Beede

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:J6mdnf-
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> "Private" > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
>>>>>>>>> thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude,
>>>>>>>>> the emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the
>>>>>>>>> regaining of angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
>>>>>>>> Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to
>>>>>>>> which is attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you already know and I can confirm emphatically , as soon as
>>>>>> you start flying high performance jets, it's all about wing
>>>>>> management.
>>>>> Actualy, in the turkeys we fly it's all about nailing your pitch to
>>>>> what the computer wants, but you're right, they're all about the
>>>>> wing. I've always understood that to be the case, but I learned to
>>>>> fly in gliders, so it was more about pefromance and less about
>>>>> procedure like it is in a lot of lightplane instruction.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> In the T38 for example, the approach is flown at an optimum alpha on
>>>> the indexer or at a specific airspeed plus fuel. Either way, the
>>>> object is to keep the wing within specific limits aoa wise. The bird
>>>> will develop a sink rate that can't be recovered otherwise.
>>>> I've always wondered why you guys in the big jets don't use alpha
>>>> more on the approach. I'm guessing it's because of the complicated
>>>> fuel loads possible which gives you such a wide range of approach
>>>> speeds to bug to keep the pitch angle right at touchdown.
>>>> I know that Boeing for one is doing some research into providing
>>>> better aoa data to you on the ADI for approaches but haven't heard
>>>> much about how this outreach is being accepted by the carriers.
>>>
>>> Well, the military guys have it. I was in a 141 sim once and that had
>>> it. We bug a diffeent approach speed for each weight. The takeoff
>>> speeds provide for a variety of AoAs depending on whether we want to
>>> climb, get off a short runway or get over some obstacles. We can
>>> select a range of V2s based on a runway analysis to get the most
>>> weight possible off the ground on a given takeoff. That, of course,
>>> gives us different AoAs depending on whether we're looking for best
>>> angle or best rate. We don't call it any of that, but it's exaclty
>>> what we do. on approach we select Vso 1.3 based on the weight. So we
>>> do use a constant alpha. It's important to avoid float, and to touch
>>> down at the right attitude so we don't end up bouncing off the
>>> nosewheel or the tail as well. I do it in light planes as well, and
>>> hopefully most guys do have nominal approach speeds for different
>>> weights.. I just knock off a few knots if I'm light, basically.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> I've always said that if I could only have one instrument in the
>> airplane I'd like an angle of attack indicator. :-))
>> In a way we have the same problems landing in airplanes like the T38
>> as you do in the big jobs. We usually are dealing with a long fuselage
>> mass to wing mass configuration in the fast jets that requires a
>> specific aoa spread at touchdown to keep from catching the tail
>> feathers. The F104 was particularly susceptible to this. (never flew
>> the zipper but always wanted to). The F14 and the F16 (have flown
>> these) are a narrow alpha spread at touchdown.
>
>
> Yeah, I could well imagine with an airfoil like that.
>
>> The approaches in these airplanes all require strict wing management
>> right down to the ground.
>> With you guys, the GW can be so wide an available spread that flying
>> an optimum aoa would probably put you outside your landing allowance
>> spread to clear your tails if I understand correctly. This makes sense
>> anyway, considering how long some of the stuff is you guys are
>> handling.
>
> Well, it depends on what you mean by optimum. I presume you're talking
> about maintaining a healthy enough Alpha to prevent a departure, then
> controllability, and finally due consideration to touchdown attitude. I
> know most of the fast jet guys I fly with can't do a crosswind landing
> worth a damn! They fly a straight line down to touchdonw ( good) then
> pull the taps closed, yank and close their eyes. It seems to work but it
> ain't pretty! We fly most of them just like airplanes, really.
>
>
> Bertie
>
>>
>
You're right. Those crosswind landings in fast jets are pretty much crab
um right into the concrete...a lot like the old Ercoupe really. You
touch down in the crab, and the impetus straightens you out (hopefully)
in the right direction :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 17, 1:09*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:d5d4b4b5-aecb-4672-aae0-8c871
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 17, 12:41*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> WingFlaps > wrote
>> >> innews:617cc4fe-42ad-4f70-940b-916fa
>> > :
>>
>> >> > On Feb 17, 11:41*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> wrote
>> >> >> innews:5df6e0b3-35d5-490f-8b31-1a1fbe48eeed@62g
>> >> > 2000hsn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> >> > On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
>> >> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> >> > Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much
>> >> >> >> > newsgrouping, people need to do more flying ;)
>>
>> >> >> >> When my airplane is finished!
>>
>> >> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> >> > Watchu building?
>>
>> >> >> A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>>
>> >> > Are you building alone? How far along is it? Where is it -I'd
>> >> > like to see it if I got the chance.
>>
>> >> It's in my shop, of course!
>>
>> >> The Hatz is not as far along as it ought to be! the Citabria is
>> >> nearly done ( I hope) and whouc be up and going in a few weeks.
>>
>> > Ah, OK I understand you don't wan't to reveal you location but
>> > perhaps you could tell me the time zone on my gmail?
>>
>> Sorry! but there are a string of very ****ed off people looking for
>> Bertie!
>>
>> N70 your field?
>
> Negative on that, but have a Wild Turkey on me. Yes, I can imagine you
> have the weak minded baying for your blood -in life I've found you
> always collect enemies while friends come and go.
>

Well, on usenet it's been sort of an avocation. in particular there are
a gang of nazis with a penchant for going RL that have been trying to
find me for years.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

>
>>>
>>
> You're right. Those crosswind landings in fast jets are pretty much
> crab um right into the concrete...a lot like the old Ercoupe really.
> You touch down in the crab, and the impetus straightens you out
> (hopefully) in the right direction :-))


Yep, that's what they do. A lot of screeching and lurching. It's not the
way to do it, but....
Another thing I've noticed about them is they tend to be quite coarse in
the way they handle the airplane. A smooth roll inot a 25 deg bank doesn't
seem to be an option with a lot of them. The roll has to be made as crisply
as possible. likewise with pitch changes. I imagine this comes form a lot
of formation flying and refueling and what not, but I don't know. I'm not
knocking them, but it's interesting to see there's more than one way to
skin a cat. Mine;s better, though.
I used to get a lot of ex military guys coming to fly cubs and Stearmans
and gliders. Most of them had forgotten what their feet were for and I
would have to point at the ball regularly. I noticed that ex-navy guys
never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in the direction the ball
needed to go. I asked one about this and he told me that's what you do to
co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just as well and unless you're making a
gross correction you'd never notice the difference. I guess it comes from a
naval notion of the rudder being the primary control or something..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mike Beede > wrote in news:beede-5D194D.21221516022008
@news.visi.com:

> In article
> >,
> WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>> On Feb 17, 11:39*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > Me and the "dud" ****ed your mush mind.
>> > Get a ****in life, crack a book.
>>
>> Cuniform tablets are quite outdated ...
>
> You know, if people would just quit replying to Tucker K. Troll,
> my kill file would work better. Just a humble request.

they never work!

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> You're right. Those crosswind landings in fast jets are pretty much
>> crab um right into the concrete...a lot like the old Ercoupe really.
>> You touch down in the crab, and the impetus straightens you out
>> (hopefully) in the right direction :-))
>
>
> Yep, that's what they do. A lot of screeching and lurching. It's not the
> way to do it, but....
> Another thing I've noticed about them is they tend to be quite coarse in
> the way they handle the airplane. A smooth roll inot a 25 deg bank doesn't
> seem to be an option with a lot of them. The roll has to be made as crisply
> as possible. likewise with pitch changes. I imagine this comes form a lot
> of formation flying and refueling and what not, but I don't know. I'm not
> knocking them, but it's interesting to see there's more than one way to
> skin a cat. Mine;s better, though.
> I used to get a lot of ex military guys coming to fly cubs and Stearmans
> and gliders. Most of them had forgotten what their feet were for and I
> would have to point at the ball regularly. I noticed that ex-navy guys
> never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in the direction the ball
> needed to go. I asked one about this and he told me that's what you do to
> co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just as well and unless you're making a
> gross correction you'd never notice the difference. I guess it comes from a
> naval notion of the rudder being the primary control or something..
>
>
> Bertie
>
>
>
>
>

It's strange about fighter guys. I've noticed the same thing when
teaching them. They can be very rough. I used to get a lot of them
wanting to join the display community that wanted to go pro on the
circuit with a Pitts or something more exotic. I found the best way to
deal with their roughness was to explain it back to them in terms they
understood....with Ps and energy state. The rougher you are in display
acro, the deeper you pull the airplane into drag rise, and drag equates
out to energy loss rate and decay.
I had two Blue Angels in the air once on the same day in the S2; one
solo and one flew the slot position. The solo was rougher than hell, and
the slot flew me through a solid hour without a twitch.
Interesting about things like this.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> You're right. Those crosswind landings in fast jets are pretty much
>>> crab um right into the concrete...a lot like the old Ercoupe really.
>>> You touch down in the crab, and the impetus straightens you out
>>> (hopefully) in the right direction :-))
>>
>>
>> Yep, that's what they do. A lot of screeching and lurching. It's not
>> the way to do it, but....
>> Another thing I've noticed about them is they tend to be quite coarse
>> in the way they handle the airplane. A smooth roll inot a 25 deg bank
>> doesn't seem to be an option with a lot of them. The roll has to be
>> made as crisply as possible. likewise with pitch changes. I imagine
>> this comes form a lot of formation flying and refueling and what not,
>> but I don't know. I'm not knocking them, but it's interesting to see
>> there's more than one way to skin a cat. Mine;s better, though.
>> I used to get a lot of ex military guys coming to fly cubs and
>> Stearmans and gliders. Most of them had forgotten what their feet
>> were for and I would have to point at the ball regularly. I noticed
>> that ex-navy guys never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in
>> the direction the ball needed to go. I asked one about this and he
>> told me that's what you do to co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just
>> as well and unless you're making a gross correction you'd never
>> notice the difference. I guess it comes from a naval notion of the
>> rudder being the primary control or something..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> It's strange about fighter guys. I've noticed the same thing when
> teaching them. They can be very rough. I used to get a lot of them
> wanting to join the display community that wanted to go pro on the
> circuit with a Pitts or something more exotic. I found the best way to
> deal with their roughness was to explain it back to them in terms they
> understood....with Ps and energy state. The rougher you are in display
> acro, the deeper you pull the airplane into drag rise, and drag
> equates out to energy loss rate and decay.

Yes, of course they have more thrust than they need for most cases so
that usually isn't an issue with them.

> I had two Blue Angels in the air once on the same day in the S2; one
> solo and one flew the slot position. The solo was rougher than hell,
> and the slot flew me through a solid hour without a twitch.
> Interesting about things like this.

Well, i'm generalising , of course. There are guys who just got it and
that's it. They can adapt to anything. Most people are creatures of
habit..

Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> You're right. Those crosswind landings in fast jets are pretty much
>>>> crab um right into the concrete...a lot like the old Ercoupe really.
>>>> You touch down in the crab, and the impetus straightens you out
>>>> (hopefully) in the right direction :-))
>>>
>>> Yep, that's what they do. A lot of screeching and lurching. It's not
>>> the way to do it, but....
>>> Another thing I've noticed about them is they tend to be quite coarse
>>> in the way they handle the airplane. A smooth roll inot a 25 deg bank
>>> doesn't seem to be an option with a lot of them. The roll has to be
>>> made as crisply as possible. likewise with pitch changes. I imagine
>>> this comes form a lot of formation flying and refueling and what not,
>>> but I don't know. I'm not knocking them, but it's interesting to see
>>> there's more than one way to skin a cat. Mine;s better, though.
>>> I used to get a lot of ex military guys coming to fly cubs and
>>> Stearmans and gliders. Most of them had forgotten what their feet
>>> were for and I would have to point at the ball regularly. I noticed
>>> that ex-navy guys never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in
>>> the direction the ball needed to go. I asked one about this and he
>>> told me that's what you do to co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just
>>> as well and unless you're making a gross correction you'd never
>>> notice the difference. I guess it comes from a naval notion of the
>>> rudder being the primary control or something..
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It's strange about fighter guys. I've noticed the same thing when
>> teaching them. They can be very rough. I used to get a lot of them
>> wanting to join the display community that wanted to go pro on the
>> circuit with a Pitts or something more exotic. I found the best way to
>> deal with their roughness was to explain it back to them in terms they
>> understood....with Ps and energy state. The rougher you are in display
>> acro, the deeper you pull the airplane into drag rise, and drag
>> equates out to energy loss rate and decay.
>
> Yes, of course they have more thrust than they need for most cases so
> that usually isn't an issue with them.
>
>> I had two Blue Angels in the air once on the same day in the S2; one
>> solo and one flew the slot position. The solo was rougher than hell,
>> and the slot flew me through a solid hour without a twitch.
>> Interesting about things like this.
>
> Well, i'm generalising , of course. There are guys who just got it and
> that's it. They can adapt to anything. Most people are creatures of
> habit..
>
> Bertie
>
Yeah...like Mrs H with yard work!!!
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 17, 4:23*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 1:09*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps > wrote
> >> innews:d5d4b4b5-aecb-4672-aae0-8c871
> > :
>
> >> > On Feb 17, 12:41*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> WingFlaps > wrote
> >> >> innews:617cc4fe-42ad-4f70-940b-916fa
> >> > :
>
> >> >> > On Feb 17, 11:41*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> >> wrote
> >> >> >> innews:5df6e0b3-35d5-490f-8b31-1a1fbe48eeed@62g
> >> >> > 2000hsn.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> >> > On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> >> >> >> >> news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
> >> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques >
> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> >> > Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much
> >> >> >> >> > newsgrouping, people need to do more flying ;)
>
> >> >> >> >> When my airplane is finished!
>
> >> >> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> >> >> > Watchu building?
>
> >> >> >> A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>
> >> >> > Are you building alone? How far along is it? Where is it -I'd
> >> >> > like to see it if I got the chance.
>
> >> >> It's in my shop, of course!
>
> >> >> The Hatz is not as far along as it ought to be! the Citabria is
> >> >> nearly done ( I hope) and whouc be up and going in a few weeks.
>
> >> > Ah, OK I understand you don't wan't to reveal you location but
> >> > perhaps you could tell me the time zone on my gmail?
>
> >> Sorry! but there are a string of very ****ed off people looking for
> >> Bertie!
>
> >> N70 your field?
>
> > Negative on that, but have a Wild Turkey on me. Yes, I can imagine you
> > have the weak minded baying for your blood -in life I've found you
> > always collect enemies while friends come and go.
>
> Well, on usenet it's been sort of an avocation. in particular there are
> a gang of nazis with a penchant for going RL that have been trying to
> find me for years.

Well it takes everyone a while to understand not to take anything too
seriously and some never get it at all. Their testicle-aggression
circuit is hard wired and not subject to control. Neither intelligence
or the calming of wisdom that comes with age seems to modify "hate"
behaviour in some people and these people never say mea culpa. In what
group would one find these brown shirts?

Cheers

[[email protected]]

> We bug a diffeent approach speed for each weight.

How are the weights delivered up to you guys in the control room? And
the weight's distribution?

It seems like the handlers just jam whatever they've got on the cart
in the hole.

Is the stuff weighed and put onto the carts in a certain way and then
loaded according to some train-oriented protocol?

> I just knock off a few knots if I'm
> light, basically.
>
> Bertie

And you know you're light because you have the fuel left, the "empty
weight", and the number of bodies plus estimate (or weighed) total
baggage?

Just curious how it works.

[[email protected]]

> I think that Google found it for me and the spelling of the author's first
> name is Derek *The article is at:http://www.danlj.org/~danlj/Soaring/Clues/SDO.html
>
> Peter-

Wow, this is excellent. Thanks!

[Big John[_2_]]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:20:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Big John > wrote in
:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:43:10 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> That's true. After the war a lot of highly qualified pilots hit the
>>>> streets as new GA instructors. They brought with them the military
>>>> approach to flying that was based on maximum result in minimum time,
>>>> which was the natural process of the military scenario.
>>>> Many of these pilots were great sticks, but few of them possessed
>>>> any teaching skills at all as we define those skills in a GA market
>>>> place. The result of this influx was a no nonsense teaching
>>>> environment that actually clashed with the changes that were
>>>> occurring in GA at that time. Gradually, these military pilots
>>>> became a liability in the new marketplace and many were "replaced"
>>>> as FBO's began to realize that new students like "Mrs. Duffy" the
>>>> housewife, was coming back in from her hour of dual looking a bit
>>>> pale and concerned :-)
>>>>
>>>> What happened is what we have now; a few holdovers from the "old
>>>> school" and a whole lot of the "new breed" of instructor.
>>>>
>>>> The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA pilot
>>>> community will in my opinion require a whole new look at the way
>>>> flight instruction is conducted.
>>>>
>>>> I know from my own personal experience that it is possible to take
>>>> an average newbie with the average apprehensive feeling about flying
>>>> and take that newbie through a learning process that replaces the
>>>> apprehension with confidence. These newbies can be trained by GOOD
>>>> instructors to function not only well, but VERY well in the flying
>>>> environment with comfort zones well beyond their initial level of
>>>> apprehension found at the initiation of training.
>>>>
>>>> Barring the influx of CFI's who are capable of teaching students in
>>>> this manner, I would project no meaningful changes in the present GA
>>>> environment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I've had very few nervous students. Only two that really stood out
>>>that i can recall. One was terrfied of stalls and did this
>>>hyperventilating thing, which was really freaky, every time we went to
>>>do them. He got over it by me demonstrating that the airplane would
>>>sit happily in the stall for ages without the earth coming up to smite
>>>us. He got over it. Another guy was terrified of the engine failing
>>>and no amount of explaining to him that the idling engine was the same
>>>as having the engine not running at all made no difference at all to
>>>him, he spent most of every flight half freaked out over the prospect
>>>of this happening. I finally got so ****ed off with him I just pulled
>>>the mixture and raised the nose until the prop stopped. The
>>>transformation in him was almost instantaneous.
>>>In retrospect, it was not such a clever thing to do since we were at
>>>about 1,000' and nowhere near an airport! It started up straight away,
>>>fortunately. That's an incident/accident that would have made
>>>interesting reading.
>>>
>>>It worked, though.
>>>
>>>
>>>Bertie
>> ************************************************** ********************
>*
>> *******
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>> I used to shut the engine down in a T-33 to give students an actuall
>> air start. Had them talk me through the air start procedure as they
>> did each step so I could correct them if they were going to screw up.
>>
>> Know there was a lot of talking back in baracks at night between my
>> studebts but they all learned the emergency rocedures as they never
>> knew if I was going to give them an actual emergency to use the
>> procedures in.
>>
>> I talked to some of my students years later and they all said that
>> what I did in training made them good Fighter Pilots in the Squadrons.
>
>
>Good fun, eh?
>
>Did they have hydraulic controls?
>
>
>Bertie
************************************************** ***********

Elevator and rudder manual control unboosted.

Ailerons had manual connection plus a boost system. Bird could be
flown ok with engine out but ailerons were just a little heavy. You
just didn't crank bird into a steep turn engine out as was slow ro
straighten backout due to rather heavy aileron control.

Big John

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> I think that Google found it for me and the spelling of the author's first
> name is Derek The article is
> at:http://www.danlj.org/~danlj/Soaring/Clues/SDO.html
>
> Peter-

Wow, this is excellent. Thanks!

---------------------------------

Well, I printed it out and read it and it was a great article. But, about
three quarters of the way through it, I found that it was not the originally
requested treatise, which I could only find offered in printed form. That
one appears to be: "Sub-gravity Sensations and Gliding Accidents" 1994 by
Derek Piggott, and is available from the Soaring Society of America amoung
other places.

Peter

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 16, 5:30 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote :
....
> > Just for the record, and on the off chance that there might just be
> > one person on Usenet who needs to be informed of this, please be
> > advised that regardless of what this idiot says and when he uses my
> > name in his posts; I am in NO way even remotely involved with this
> > character in any way whatsoever.

Well, that's true. Are we supposed to put AoA meters
on all control surfaces, such as Elevators, Ailerons,
Rudder, Flaps or just the main wing?
Dud, have you ever heard of a *stall warning audio
annunciator*?
In sims I've installed an AoA meter, it's basically
an aerodynamic curiousity.

> It should be obvious that Ken always puts the "S" between "Ken" and
> "Tucker" to emphasize to everyone that he is a total ****HEAD!

Well Mr. BenDover <snicker>, you seem to have
a curiousity about what's in other peoples asses,
so you're a queer, not that there's anything wrong
with that, but most people wouldn't want to spend
too much time in a cockpit with you, except Bertie,
butt that's a given.

OK, back to aerodynamics.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 17, 4:23*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:a075a388-fe88-4927-a442-68648
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 17, 1:09*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> WingFlaps > wrote
>> >> innews:d5d4b4b5-aecb-4672-aae0-8c871
>> > :
>>
>> >> > On Feb 17, 12:41*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> WingFlaps > wrote
>> >> >> innews:617cc4fe-42ad-4f70-940b-916fa
>> >> > :
>>
>> >> >> > On Feb 17, 11:41*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> >> wrote
>> >> >> >> innews:5df6e0b3-35d5-490f-8b31-1a1fbe48eeed@62g
>> >> >> > 2000hsn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
>> >> >> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques
>> >> >> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much
>> >> >> >> >> > newsgrouping, people need to do more flying ;)
>>
>> >> >> >> >> When my airplane is finished!
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> >> >> > Watchu building?
>>
>> >> >> >> A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to
>> >> >> >> fly.
>>
>> >> >> > Are you building alone? How far along is it? Where is it -I'd
>> >> >> > like to see it if I got the chance.
>>
>> >> >> It's in my shop, of course!
>>
>> >> >> The Hatz is not as far along as it ought to be! the Citabria is
>> >> >> nearly done ( I hope) and whouc be up and going in a few weeks.
>>
>> >> > Ah, OK I understand you don't wan't to reveal you location but
>> >> > perhaps you could tell me the time zone on my gmail?
>>
>> >> Sorry! but there are a string of very ****ed off people looking
>> >> for Bertie!
>>
>> >> N70 your field?
>>
>> > Negative on that, but have a Wild Turkey on me. Yes, I can imagine
>> > you have the weak minded baying for your blood -in life I've found
>> > you always collect enemies while friends come and go.
>>
>> Well, on usenet it's been sort of an avocation. in particular there
>> are a gang of nazis with a penchant for going RL that have been
>> trying to find me for years.
>
> Well it takes everyone a while to understand not to take anything too
> seriously and some never get it at all. Their testicle-aggression
> circuit is hard wired and not subject to control. Neither intelligence
> or the calming of wisdom that comes with age seems to modify "hate"
> behaviour in some people and these people never say mea culpa. In what
> group would one find these brown shirts?


alt.religion.asatru Dirk breure and one of his asslicks named nik are
teh two that are the most fun to torment. Dirk has his own political
party!

They aren't your standard brownshirt types, BTW. They're kind of new age
nazis and vehemently deny any connection, but poke them with a sharp
stick for a while and you'll see..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:0459303d-a8cb-4123-911c-
:

>> We bug a diffeent approach speed for each weight.
>
> How are the weights delivered up to you guys in the control room? And
> the weight's distribution?


>
> It seems like the handlers just jam whatever they've got on the cart
> in the hole.
>
> Is the stuff weighed and put onto the carts in a certain way and then
> loaded according to some train-oriented protocol?
>
>> I just knock off a few knots if I'm
>> light, basically.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> And you know you're light because you have the fuel left, the "empty
> weight", and the number of bodies plus estimate (or weighed) total
> baggage?
>
Ah that last bit I was talking about when I fly a light plane.

We get a load sheet with the various weights on it ( zero fuel, empty,
TOW, etc) and a balance position based on MAC. It's not all that much
different than you'd do it in a 172, really. We get a trim position
translated from the MAC, though and we just set that number on the trim
indicator. We go into tables for a specific runway with weight info and
get a V1 Vr and V2 from that as well as a thrust reduction if we're
light enough to use one.
The airplane is compartmentalised for load sheet purposes and we could
do it by hand if we had to but it's all computerised. Even if we were in
the wilderness with nobody to hamdle us we can get one over the ACARS
thing we have in the cockpit ( sort of like phone texting)

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:20:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Big John > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:43:10 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> That's true. After the war a lot of highly qualified pilots hit
the
>>>>> streets as new GA instructors. They brought with them the military
>>>>> approach to flying that was based on maximum result in minimum
time,
>>>>> which was the natural process of the military scenario.
>>>>> Many of these pilots were great sticks, but few of them possessed
>>>>> any teaching skills at all as we define those skills in a GA
market
>>>>> place. The result of this influx was a no nonsense teaching
>>>>> environment that actually clashed with the changes that were
>>>>> occurring in GA at that time. Gradually, these military pilots
>>>>> became a liability in the new marketplace and many were "replaced"
>>>>> as FBO's began to realize that new students like "Mrs. Duffy" the
>>>>> housewife, was coming back in from her hour of dual looking a bit
>>>>> pale and concerned :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> What happened is what we have now; a few holdovers from the "old
>>>>> school" and a whole lot of the "new breed" of instructor.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA
pilot
>>>>> community will in my opinion require a whole new look at the way
>>>>> flight instruction is conducted.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know from my own personal experience that it is possible to take
>>>>> an average newbie with the average apprehensive feeling about
flying
>>>>> and take that newbie through a learning process that replaces the
>>>>> apprehension with confidence. These newbies can be trained by GOOD
>>>>> instructors to function not only well, but VERY well in the flying
>>>>> environment with comfort zones well beyond their initial level of
>>>>> apprehension found at the initiation of training.
>>>>>
>>>>> Barring the influx of CFI's who are capable of teaching students
in
>>>>> this manner, I would project no meaningful changes in the present
GA
>>>>> environment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I've had very few nervous students. Only two that really stood out
>>>>that i can recall. One was terrfied of stalls and did this
>>>>hyperventilating thing, which was really freaky, every time we went
to
>>>>do them. He got over it by me demonstrating that the airplane would
>>>>sit happily in the stall for ages without the earth coming up to
smite
>>>>us. He got over it. Another guy was terrified of the engine failing
>>>>and no amount of explaining to him that the idling engine was the
same
>>>>as having the engine not running at all made no difference at all to
>>>>him, he spent most of every flight half freaked out over the
prospect
>>>>of this happening. I finally got so ****ed off with him I just
pulled
>>>>the mixture and raised the nose until the prop stopped. The
>>>>transformation in him was almost instantaneous.
>>>>In retrospect, it was not such a clever thing to do since we were at
>>>>about 1,000' and nowhere near an airport! It started up straight
away,
>>>>fortunately. That's an incident/accident that would have made
>>>>interesting reading.
>>>>
>>>>It worked, though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bertie
>>>
************************************************** ********************
>>*
>>> *******
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> I used to shut the engine down in a T-33 to give students an
actuall
>>> air start. Had them talk me through the air start procedure as they
>>> did each step so I could correct them if they were going to screw
up.
>>>
>>> Know there was a lot of talking back in baracks at night between my
>>> studebts but they all learned the emergency rocedures as they never
>>> knew if I was going to give them an actual emergency to use the
>>> procedures in.
>>>
>>> I talked to some of my students years later and they all said that
>>> what I did in training made them good Fighter Pilots in the
Squadrons.
>>
>>
>>Good fun, eh?
>>
>>Did they have hydraulic controls?
>>
>>
>>Bertie
> ************************************************** ***********
>
> Elevator and rudder manual control unboosted.
>
> Ailerons had manual connection plus a boost system. Bird could be
> flown ok with engine out but ailerons were just a little heavy. You
> just didn't crank bird into a steep turn engine out as was slow ro
> straighten backout due to rather heavy aileron control.

OK, just wondering if you were able to fly it when gliding! It'd make
the exercise really interesting if you couldn't!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 5:30 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote
>> :
> ...
>> > Just for the record, and on the off chance that there might just be
>> > one person on Usenet who needs to be informed of this, please be
>> > advised that regardless of what this idiot says and when he uses my
>> > name in his posts; I am in NO way even remotely involved with this
>> > character in any way whatsoever.
>
> Well, that's true. Are we supposed to put AoA meters
> on all control surfaces, such as Elevators, Ailerons,
> Rudder, Flaps or just the main wing?


And the cluelessness continues.


> Dud, have you ever heard of a *stall warning audio
> annunciator*?

Jees, I haven't tel us how they work Kenny!


> In sims I've installed an AoA meter, it's basically
> an aerodynamic curiousity.
>
>> It should be obvious that Ken always puts the "S" between
>> "Ken" and
>> "Tucker" to emphasize to everyone that he is a total ****HEAD!
>
> Well Mr. BenDover <snicker>, you seem to have
> a curiousity about what's in other peoples asses,
> so you're a queer, not that there's anything wrong
> with that, but most people wouldn't want to spend
> too much time in a cockpit with you, except Bertie,
> butt that's a given.
>
> OK, back to aerodynamics


God I love usenet


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 17, 9:44 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> Well, that's true. Are we supposed to put AoA meters
> on all control surfaces, such as Elevators, Ailerons,
> Rudder, Flaps or just the main wing?
> Dud, have you ever heard of a *stall warning audio
> annunciator*?
> In sims I've installed an AoA meter, it's basically
> an aerodynamic curiousity.

In a sim it's not aerodynamic. It's an electronic illusion.
And it won't mean much to the simmer who has little understanding of
AOA, never mind boundary layer control, stagnation points, stalls,
accelerated stalls, stall progression, leading edge radii, and the
like. BTW, "curiousity" is spelled "curiosity." And the "main wing" is
known among real pilots simply as the "wing."
We don't need AOA indicators on control surfaces. All control
surface travels have well-defined legal limits as per the TCDS for any
airplane, and those travels are there to prevent their stalling. Those
things are, after all, just part of the larger surface to which
they're attached such as the wing, fin (or vertical stab), or
(horizontal) stabilizer. It's important to prevent any of those from
stalling, and limiting control surface travel is the way to do it.
You just discredit yourself immensely when you take a dig at a
guy like Dudley. Or at just about anyone else here, for that matter.

> OK, back to aerodynamics.

Back to simming, you mean.

Dan

[Benjamin Dover]

"Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 5:30 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote
>> :
> ...
>> > Just for the record, and on the off chance that there might just be
>> > one person on Usenet who needs to be informed of this, please be
>> > advised that regardless of what this idiot says and when he uses my
>> > name in his posts; I am in NO way even remotely involved with this
>> > character in any way whatsoever.
>
> Well, that's true. Are we supposed to put AoA meters
> on all control surfaces, such as Elevators, Ailerons,
> Rudder, Flaps or just the main wing?
> Dud, have you ever heard of a *stall warning audio
> annunciator*?
> In sims I've installed an AoA meter, it's basically
> an aerodynamic curiousity.
>
>> It should be obvious that Ken always puts the "S" between
>> "Ken" and
>> "Tucker" to emphasize to everyone that he is a total ****HEAD!
>
> Well Mr. BenDover <snicker>, you seem to have
> a curiousity about what's in other peoples asses,
> so you're a queer, not that there's anything wrong
> with that, but most people wouldn't want to spend
> too much time in a cockpit with you, except Bertie,
> butt that's a given.
>
> OK, back to aerodynamics.
> Ken

Back to aerodynamics? You consistently demonstrate in this newsgroup
that you don't know **** from Shineola when it comes to aerodynamics.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 17, 12:39 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 17, 9:44 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Well, that's true. Are we supposed to put AoA meters
> > on all control surfaces, such as Elevators, Ailerons,
> > Rudder, Flaps or just the main wing?
> > Dud, have you ever heard of a *stall warning audio
> > annunciator*?
> > In sims I've installed an AoA meter, it's basically
> > an aerodynamic curiousity.
>
> In a sim it's not aerodynamic. It's an electronic illusion.
> And it won't mean much to the simmer who has little understanding of
> AOA, never mind boundary layer control, stagnation points, stalls,
> accelerated stalls, stall progression, leading edge radii, and the
> like. BTW, "curiousity" is spelled "curiosity." And the "main wing" is
> known among real pilots simply as the "wing."

" We don't need AOA indicators on control surfaces. "

Well Dan, try telling that to the "dud".
He's the genoius who want's them deployed
all over you body, sounds like a govmonker
trying to tell REAL pilots how to fly.
Like I said, most of the posters in this group
have never flown, I can tell, "dud", "bertie"
and a few others are total fakes.

> All control
> surface travels have well-defined legal limits as per the TCDS for any
> airplane, and those travels are there to prevent their stalling. Those
> things are, after all, just part of the larger surface to which
> they're attached such as the wing, fin (or vertical stab), or
> (horizontal) stabilizer. It's important to prevent any of those from
> stalling, and limiting control surface travel is the way to do it.
> You just discredit yourself immensely when you take a dig at a
> guy like Dudley. Or at just about anyone else here, for that matter.
>
> > OK, back to aerodynamics.
>
> Back to simming, you mean.

Nothing wrong with siming a low altidude recovery,
dude. It's cheaper to crash and burn in a sim than
to ****-up reallllllllly.

> Dan

Regards
Two weeks to fly day....Yahooo
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:fdb73a60-ea0c-
:

> On Feb 17, 12:39 pm, wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 9:44 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > Well, that's true. Are we supposed to put AoA meters
>> > on all control surfaces, such as Elevators, Ailerons,
>> > Rudder, Flaps or just the main wing?
>> > Dud, have you ever heard of a *stall warning audio
>> > annunciator*?
>> > In sims I've installed an AoA meter, it's basically
>> > an aerodynamic curiousity.
>>
>> In a sim it's not aerodynamic. It's an electronic illusion.
>> And it won't mean much to the simmer who has little understanding of
>> AOA, never mind boundary layer control, stagnation points, stalls,
>> accelerated stalls, stall progression, leading edge radii, and the
>> like. BTW, "curiousity" is spelled "curiosity." And the "main wing"
is
>> known among real pilots simply as the "wing."
>
> " We don't need AOA indicators on control surfaces. "
>
> Well Dan, try telling that to the "dud".
> He's the genoius who want's them deployed
> all over you body, sounds like a govmonker
> trying to tell REAL pilots how to fly.
> Like I said, most of the posters in this group
> have never flown, I can tell, "dud", "bertie"
> and a few others are total fakes.
>

Yeah, it's obvious isn't it?




> Nothing wrong with siming a low altidude recovery,
> dude. It's cheaper to crash and burn in a sim than
> to ****-up reallllllllly.
>

Go to it trailer trash!

Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

"Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in news:fdb73a60-ea0c-
:

[Mindless drivel snipped]

You and MXSmoron would make a perfect cockpit crew. Would probably
set the Guiness record for fastest **** up while attempting flight.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 17, 1:09 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in news:fdb73a60-ea0c-
> :
>
> [Mindless drivel snipped]
>
> You and MXSmoron would make a perfect cockpit crew. Would probably
> set the Guiness record for fastest **** up while attempting flight.

Look you ****ING QUEER, "BenDover"
I don't like you're type of people.
So ****-OFF
Ken

[Benjamin Dover]

"Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 17, 1:09 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in
>> news:fdb73a60-ea0c-
>> :
>>
>> [Mindless drivel snipped]
>>
>> You and MXSmoron would make a perfect cockpit crew. Would
>> probably
>> set the Guiness record for fastest **** up while attempting flight.
>
> Look you ****ING QUEER, "BenDover"
> I don't like you're type of people.
> So ****-OFF
> Ken
>

Does your mommy know what you are doing on your computer?

Does she know that you use your computer to jerk off? Or do you get
together with MXSmoron and jerk each other off?

You still don't know **** about aerodynamics.

[Benjamin Dover]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 17, 1:09 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in
>> news:fdb73a60-ea0c-
>> :
>>
>> [Mindless drivel snipped]
>>
>> You and MXSmoron would make a perfect cockpit crew. Would
>> probably
>> set the Guiness record for fastest **** up while attempting flight.
>
> Look you ****ING QUEER, "BenDover"
> I don't like you're type of people.
> So ****-OFF
> Ken
>

A picture of Ken ****head Tucker studying aerodynamics can be found at
http://tinyurl.com/ydkmck

[Blueskies]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> As you already know and I can confirm emphatically , as soon as you
> start flying high performance jets, it's all about wing management.
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques


I received this book years ago, and it is one of the best books I have seen
about flying the wing, and now I see it is all updated and 'fresh'; may have
to get it again:
http://www.joepilot.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=FLY-WING&eq=&Tp=
Fly the Wing, by Jim Webb
http://www.amazon.com/Fly-Wing-Jim-Webb/dp/1560276274/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203287827&sr=1-1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in
. net:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>> Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> As you already know and I can confirm emphatically , as soon as you
>> start flying high performance jets, it's all about wing management.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> I received this book years ago, and it is one of the best books I have
> seen about flying the wing, and now I see it is all updated and
> 'fresh'; may have to get it again:
> http://www.joepilot.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=FLY-WING&eq=&Tp=
> Fly the Wing, by Jim Webb
> http://www.amazon.com/Fly-Wing-Jim-Webb/dp/1560276274/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?i
> e=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203287827&sr=1-1
>
>
>

I can recommend this one as well.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Benjamin Dover > wrote in
:

> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in
> news:fdb73a60-ea0c-
> :
>
> [Mindless drivel snipped]
>
> You and MXSmoron would make a perfect cockpit crew. Would
> probably
> set the Guiness record for fastest **** up while attempting flight.
>

With any luck, someone would film it in black and white and it can be
tacked on to that bit they show every time they want to make fun of early
aviation!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 17, 1:09 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in
>> news:fdb73a60-ea0c-
>> :
>>
>> [Mindless drivel snipped]
>>
>> You and MXSmoron would make a perfect cockpit crew. Would
>> probably
>> set the Guiness record for fastest **** up while attempting flight.
>
> Look you ****ING QUEER, "BenDover"
> I don't like you're type of people.

Oh dear Kenny. Someone seems to have hit a nerve


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_homosexuality


> So ****-OFF


Oh the erotic tenison of it all!


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 16, 6:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
> > On Feb 16, 4:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote
> >> innews:5df6e0b3-35d5-490f-8b31-1a1fbe48eeed@
>
> 62g2000hsn.googlegroups.co
>
>
>
> >> m:
>
> >> > On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> >> >> news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> >> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much
> >> >> > newsgrouping, people need to do more flying ;)
>
> >> >> When my airplane is finished!
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > Watchu building?
>
> >> A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Cool. Thanks. My son took a Young Eagle flight last year in a
> > Citabria...after flying FsX. He loved it.
>
> It's an honest old airplane. It's been around in one form or another
> since WW2.
>
> Bertie

I was jealous. I have a nice photo at sunrise while he's doing the
preflight with the owner/Pic. Sigh. FIrst flights are special.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 6:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:ac46f6ce-a398-42fa-9371-a0868556e381
@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>> > On Feb 16, 4:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote
>> >> innews:5df6e0b3-35d5-490f-8b31-1a1fbe48eeed@
>>
>> 62g2000hsn.googlegroups.co
>>
>>
>>
>> >> m:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> >> >> news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
>> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> > On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> >> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> > Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much
>> >> >> > newsgrouping, people need to do more flying ;)
>>
>> >> >> When my airplane is finished!
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > Watchu building?
>>
>> >> A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Cool. Thanks. My son took a Young Eagle flight last year in a
>> > Citabria...after flying FsX. He loved it.
>>
>> It's an honest old airplane. It's been around in one form or another
>> since WW2.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I was jealous. I have a nice photo at sunrise while he's doing the
> preflight with the owner/Pic. Sigh. FIrst flights are special.

I'm looking forward to flying it. It's not the sexiest aerobatic
airplane, but they're good fun..

Bertie
>

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:30:49 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> I noticed that ex-navy guys
> never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in the direction the ball
> needed to go. I asked one about this and he told me that's what you do to
> co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just as well and unless you're making a
> gross correction you'd never notice the difference. I guess it comes from a
> naval notion of the rudder being the primary control or something..

Holy ****, I thought it was me and my newbieness. I am working NAS JAX and
spending time with the NAS and I get the same conversations.

I think.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 17, 8:19 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:30:49 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > I noticed that ex-navy guys
> > never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in the direction the ball
> > needed to go. I asked one about this and he told me that's what you do to
> > co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just as well and unless you're making a
> > gross correction you'd never notice the difference. I guess it comes from a
> > naval notion of the rudder being the primary control or something..
>
> Holy ****, I thought it was me and my newbieness. I am working NAS JAX and
> spending time with the NAS and I get the same conversations.
> I think.

My Instructor Pilot "balled" me out on that too (pun
intended), he pointed out my turns were not properly
coordinated because the ball went off center.
Well the SOB aka IP (good fella all the way) explains
that passengers have drinks on their little tables and
a coordinated turn keeps them level, and won't spill!

So he takes his plastic water bottle and sets it on his
clip board that is even on his lap, then orders up some
coordinated turns...10 , 20 , 30 degree banks, I thought
that was a good lesson.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:30:49 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> I noticed that ex-navy guys
>> never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in the direction the
>> ball needed to go. I asked one about this and he told me that's what
>> you do to co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just as well and unless
>> you're making a gross correction you'd never notice the difference. I
>> guess it comes from a naval notion of the rudder being the primary
>> control or something..
>
> Holy ****, I thought it was me and my newbieness. I am working NAS JAX
> and spending time with the NAS and I get the same conversations.
>


No reason why it wouldn't work just as well! As long as you're co-
ordinated.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 17, 8:19 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:30:49 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> > I noticed that ex-navy guys
>> > never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in the direction
>> > the ball needed to go. I asked one about this and he told me that's
>> > what you do to co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just as well and
>> > unless you're making a gross correction you'd never notice the
>> > difference. I guess it comes from a naval notion of the rudder
>> > being the primary control or something..
>>
>> Holy ****, I thought it was me and my newbieness. I am working NAS
>> JAX and spending time with the NAS and I get the same conversations.
>> I think.
>
> My Instructor Pilot "balled" me out on that too (pun
> intended), he pointed out my turns were not properly
> coordinated because the ball went off center.
> Well the SOB aka IP (good fella all the way) explains
> that passengers have drinks on their little tables and
> a coordinated turn keeps them level, and won't spill!
>
> So he takes his plastic water bottle and sets it on his
> clip board that is even on his lap, then orders up some
> coordinated turns...10 , 20 , 30 degree banks, I thought
> that was a good lesson.


What about the water on your brain, Ken? Did that stay level?


Bertie

[Private]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>>> >> but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>>> It's an honest old airplane. It's been around in one form or another
>>> since WW2.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>
> I'm looking forward to flying it. It's not the sexiest aerobatic
> airplane, but they're good fun..
>
> Bertie

Somehow I am not surprised, I am also a big Citabria fan and similarly
describe them as 'honest'.

IMHO they are best described as capable of 'limited areobatics' (+5-2) and
their aerobatics are not severe or particularly 'high performance'. However
the slower roll rate and low power force one to fly more elegant aerobatics
and because the maneuvers are slower they are good training aircraft for
slow thinkers like me who need time to notice what is happening.

What model?

Happy landings,

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Private" > wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>>> >> but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>>>> It's an honest old airplane. It's been around in one form or
>>>> another since WW2.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>
>> I'm looking forward to flying it. It's not the sexiest aerobatic
>> airplane, but they're good fun..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Somehow I am not surprised, I am also a big Citabria fan and similarly
> describe them as 'honest'.
>
> IMHO they are best described as capable of 'limited areobatics' (+5-2)
> and their aerobatics are not severe or particularly 'high
> performance'. However the slower roll rate and low power force one to
> fly more elegant aerobatics and because the maneuvers are slower they
> are good training aircraft for slow thinkers like me who need time to
> notice what is happening.


Exactly.
>
> What model?
>

KCAB


Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 18, 9:17 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Private" > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >>>> >> but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
> >>>> It's an honest old airplane. It's been around in one form or
> >>>> another since WW2.
>
> >>>> Bertie
>
> >> I'm looking forward to flying it. It's not the sexiest aerobatic
> >> airplane, but they're good fun..
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Somehow I am not surprised, I am also a big Citabria fan and similarly
> > describe them as 'honest'.
>
> > IMHO they are best described as capable of 'limited areobatics' (+5-2)
> > and their aerobatics are not severe or particularly 'high
> > performance'. However the slower roll rate and low power force one to
> > fly more elegant aerobatics and because the maneuvers are slower they
> > are good training aircraft for slow thinkers like me who need time to
> > notice what is happening.
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>
> > What model?
>
> KCAB
>
> Bertie

Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
Ken :-).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:40579f93-e593-
:

> On Feb 18, 9:17 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Private" > wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >>>> >> but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>> >>>> It's an honest old airplane. It's been around in one form or
>> >>>> another since WW2.
>>
>> >>>> Bertie
>>
>> >> I'm looking forward to flying it. It's not the sexiest aerobatic
>> >> airplane, but they're good fun..
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Somehow I am not surprised, I am also a big Citabria fan and
similarly
>> > describe them as 'honest'.
>>
>> > IMHO they are best described as capable of 'limited areobatics' (+
5-2)
>> > and their aerobatics are not severe or particularly 'high
>> > performance'. However the slower roll rate and low power force one
to
>> > fly more elegant aerobatics and because the maneuvers are slower
they
>> > are good training aircraft for slow thinkers like me who need time
to
>> > notice what is happening.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>
>>
>> > What model?
>>
>> KCAB
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
> provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
> forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?

Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you to be
playing with.




Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

"Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in news:40579f93-e593-
:

> On Feb 18, 9:17 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Private" > wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >>>> >> but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>> >>>> It's an honest old airplane. It's been around in one form or
>> >>>> another since WW2.
>>
>> >>>> Bertie
>>
>> >> I'm looking forward to flying it. It's not the sexiest aerobatic
>> >> airplane, but they're good fun..
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Somehow I am not surprised, I am also a big Citabria fan and similarly
>> > describe them as 'honest'.
>>
>> > IMHO they are best described as capable of 'limited areobatics' (+5-2)
>> > and their aerobatics are not severe or particularly 'high
>> > performance'. However the slower roll rate and low power force one to
>> > fly more elegant aerobatics and because the maneuvers are slower they
>> > are good training aircraft for slow thinkers like me who need time to
>> > notice what is happening.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>
>>
>> > What model?
>>
>> KCAB
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
> provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
> forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
> Ken :-).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Your mommy letting you play with the computer again Kenny boi?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Benjamin Dover > wrote in
:

> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in
> news:40579f93-e593-
> :
>
>> On Feb 18, 9:17 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> "Private" > wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>> >>>> >> but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>>> >>>> It's an honest old airplane. It's been around in one form or
>>> >>>> another since WW2.
>>>
>>> >>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> >> I'm looking forward to flying it. It's not the sexiest aerobatic
>>> >> airplane, but they're good fun..
>>>
>>> >> Bertie
>>>
>>> > Somehow I am not surprised, I am also a big Citabria fan and
>>> > similarly describe them as 'honest'.
>>>
>>> > IMHO they are best described as capable of 'limited areobatics'
>>> > (+5-2) and their aerobatics are not severe or particularly 'high
>>> > performance'. However the slower roll rate and low power force
>>> > one to fly more elegant aerobatics and because the maneuvers are
>>> > slower they are good training aircraft for slow thinkers like me
>>> > who need time to notice what is happening.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > What model?
>>>
>>> KCAB
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
>> provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
>> forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
>> Ken :-).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Your mommy letting you play with the computer again Kenny
> boi?
>

I think he's actualy using one at MacDonalds.


Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in
>> news:40579f93-e593-
>> :
>>
>>> On Feb 18, 9:17 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> "Private" > wrote :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>> .. .
>>>> >>>> >> but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>>>> >>>> It's an honest old airplane. It's been around in one form or
>>>> >>>> another since WW2.
>>>>
>>>> >>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> >> I'm looking forward to flying it. It's not the sexiest aerobatic
>>>> >> airplane, but they're good fun..
>>>>
>>>> >> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> > Somehow I am not surprised, I am also a big Citabria fan and
>>>> > similarly describe them as 'honest'.
>>>>
>>>> > IMHO they are best described as capable of 'limited areobatics'
>>>> > (+5-2) and their aerobatics are not severe or particularly 'high
>>>> > performance'. However the slower roll rate and low power force
>>>> > one to fly more elegant aerobatics and because the maneuvers are
>>>> > slower they are good training aircraft for slow thinkers like me
>>>> > who need time to notice what is happening.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > What model?
>>>>
>>>> KCAB
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
>>> provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
>>> forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
>>> Ken :-).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Your mommy letting you play with the computer again Kenny
>> boi?
>>
>
> I think he's actualy using one at MacDonalds.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Kenny boi has his daily tryst with MXSmoron there. When they are
done, they plot their next attempt at subtracting from the sum total of
human knowledge.

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 18, 5:45*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WJRFlyBoy > wrote :
>
> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:30:49 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> I noticed that ex-navy guys
> >> never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in the direction the
> >> ball needed to go. I asked one about this and he told me that's what
> >> you do to co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just as well and unless
> >> you're making a gross correction you'd never notice the difference. I
> >> guess it comes from a *naval notion of the rudder being the primary
> >> control or something..
>
> > Holy ****, I thought it was me and my newbieness. I am working NAS JAX
> > and spending time with the NAS and I get the same conversations.
>
> No reason why it wouldn't work just as well! As long as you're co-
> ordinated.
>

I hadn't thought of that, but how would you line up with a x-wind for
landing... Is it that the undercarts are so strong they really don
care that much?

Cheers

[Al G[_1_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
> "Al G" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> What I don't understand, is how anyone can get through life without a
>> few snap rolls.
>>
>> What better way to demonstrate to a student; it is over before they
>> can complain. ;)
>>
>> Al G
>>
>
> What is a snap roll, except for a horizontal spin. I like the brits name
> for them tho'....flick rolls...pretty much describes it!
>
>
Exactly. These folks were talking about altitude loss in a spin. I was
thinking "Whatever for?"

Al G

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Benjamin Dover > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> Benjamin Dover > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in
>>> news:40579f93-e593-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Feb 18, 9:17 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> "Private" > wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>>> .. .
>>>>> >>>> >> but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.
>>>>> >>>> It's an honest old airplane. It's been around in one form or
>>>>> >>>> another since WW2.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> >> I'm looking forward to flying it. It's not the sexiest
>>>>> >> aerobatic airplane, but they're good fun..
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> > Somehow I am not surprised, I am also a big Citabria fan and
>>>>> > similarly describe them as 'honest'.
>>>>>
>>>>> > IMHO they are best described as capable of 'limited areobatics'
>>>>> > (+5-2) and their aerobatics are not severe or particularly 'high
>>>>> > performance'. However the slower roll rate and low power force
>>>>> > one to fly more elegant aerobatics and because the maneuvers are
>>>>> > slower they are good training aircraft for slow thinkers like me
>>>>> > who need time to notice what is happening.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > What model?
>>>>>
>>>>> KCAB
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
>>>> provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
>>>> forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
>>>> Ken :-).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your mommy letting you play with the computer again Kenny
>>> boi?
>>>
>>
>> I think he's actualy using one at MacDonalds.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Kenny boi has his daily tryst with MXSmoron there. When they
> are
> done, they plot their next attempt at subtracting from the sum total
> of human knowledge.
>
>

Looks like they#re winning


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 18, 5:45*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WJRFlyBoy > wrote
>> innews:1n9us0sjivjdo$.1fyiah
> :
>>
>> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:30:49 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >> I noticed that ex-navy guys
>> >> never stepped on the ball, they moved the stick in the direction
>> >> the ball needed to go. I asked one about this and he told me
>> >> that's what you do to co-ordinate! Interesting. It works just as
>> >> well and unless you're making a gross correction you'd never
>> >> notice the difference. I guess it comes from a *naval notion of
>> >> the rudder being the primary control or something..
>>
>> > Holy ****, I thought it was me and my newbieness. I am working NAS
>> > JAX and spending time with the NAS and I get the same
>> > conversations.
>>
>> No reason why it wouldn't work just as well! As long as you're co-
>> ordinated.
>>
>
> I hadn't thought of that, but how would you line up with a x-wind for
> landing... Is it that the undercarts are so strong they really don
> care that much?
>

They just do this to center the ball. It's a six of one, half dozen of the
other type of thing. Nothing to do with crossing the controls for a
landing. Presumably they do that the same way as anyone else.


Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:40579f93-e593-
....
> > Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
> > provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
> > forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
>
> Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you to be
> playing with.
> Bertie

We nailed you little bertie, you a big fake!
I knew it right off the bat....<<plonk>>.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:54a68b12-fd5e-41cf-
:

> On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:40579f93-e593-
> ...
>> > Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
>> > provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
>> > forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
>>
>> Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you to be
>> playing with.
>> Bertie
>
> We nailed you little bertie, you a big fake!


Oh yeah, you got me good there trailer trash.

> I knew it right off the bat....<<plonk>>.


Oh no! Not a plonk! First I get a taste of my own medicine and now I'm
plonked!

Oh woe!

Oh cruel fate!


It's like I'm in a Twilight zone episode, 'cept I'm the troll!

Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 19, 3:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:54a68b12-fd5e-41cf-
> :
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:40579f93-e593-
> > ...
> >> > Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
> >> > provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
> >> > forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
>
> >> Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you to be
> >> playing with.
> >> Bertie
>
> > We nailed you little bertie, you a big fake!
>
> Oh yeah, you got me good there trailer trash.
>
> > I knew it right off the bat....<<plonk>>.
>
> Oh no! Not a plonk! First I get a taste of my own medicine and now I'm
> plonked!
>
> Oh woe!
>
> Oh cruel fate!
>
> It's like I'm in a Twilight zone episode, 'cept I'm the troll!
>
> Bertie

Bertie, you've been plonked, so why do you reply
when you know it won't be read?
Ken

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 20, 7:41*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 3:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:54a68b12-fd5e-41cf-
> > :
>
> > > On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:40579f93-e593-
> > > ...
> > >> > Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
> > >> > provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
> > >> > forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
>
> > >> Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you to be
> > >> playing with.
> > >> Bertie
>
> > > We nailed you little bertie, you a big fake!
>
> > Oh yeah, you got me good there trailer trash.
>
> > > I knew it right off the bat....<<plonk>>.
>
> > Oh no! Not a plonk! First I get a taste of my own medicine and now I'm
> > plonked!
>
> > Oh woe!
>
> > Oh cruel fate!
>
> > It's like I'm in a Twilight zone episode, 'cept I'm the troll!
>
> > Bertie
>
> Bertie, you've been plonked, so why do you reply
> when you know it won't be read?

Our Bertie knows Kooks.

Cheers

[george]

On Feb 20, 8:03 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:41 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> > Bertie, you've been plonked, so why do you reply
> > when you know it won't be read?
>
> Our Bertie knows Kooks.
>
And kooks ALWAYS claim they plonked their irritant.
Peekaboo

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:41 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 3:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:54a68b12-fd5e-41cf-
>>> :
>>>> On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:40579f93-e593-
>>>> ...
>>>>>> Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
>>>>>> provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
>>>>>> forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
>>>>> Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you to be
>>>>> playing with.
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> We nailed you little bertie, you a big fake!
>>> Oh yeah, you got me good there trailer trash.
>>>> I knew it right off the bat....<<plonk>>.
>>> Oh no! Not a plonk! First I get a taste of my own medicine and now I'm
>>> plonked!
>>> Oh woe!
>>> Oh cruel fate!
>>> It's like I'm in a Twilight zone episode, 'cept I'm the troll!
>>> Bertie
>> Bertie, you've been plonked, so why do you reply
>> when you know it won't be read?
>
> Our Bertie knows Kooks.
>
> Cheers
I'm still trying to figure out how someone can see a post from someone
they claim they have kill filed; then be stupid enough to answer the
poster they say has been kill filed telling them they haven't read the
post :-))
Must be magic!!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 19, 12:22 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 7:41 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >> On Feb 19, 3:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:54a68b12-fd5e-41cf-
> >>> :
> >>>> On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:40579f93-e593-
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>> Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
> >>>>>> provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
> >>>>>> forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
> >>>>> Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you to be
> >>>>> playing with.
> >>>>> Bertie
> >>>> We nailed you little bertie, you a big fake!
> >>> Oh yeah, you got me good there trailer trash.
> >>>> I knew it right off the bat....<<plonk>>.
> >>> Oh no! Not a plonk! First I get a taste of my own medicine and now I'm
> >>> plonked!
> >>> Oh woe!
> >>> Oh cruel fate!
> >>> It's like I'm in a Twilight zone episode, 'cept I'm the troll!
> >>> Bertie
> >> Bertie, you've been plonked, so why do you reply
> >> when you know it won't be read?
>
> > Our Bertie knows Kooks.
>
> > Cheers
>
> I'm still trying to figure out how someone can see a post from someone
> they claim they have kill filed; then be stupid enough to answer the
> poster they say has been kill filed telling them they haven't read the
> post :-))
> Must be magic!!! :-))

Say Dud, are you some kind of lawyer or
something? I slipped up on one little detail,
dang you should work for the womens libers.
<plonk>

Seriously tho Dud, I think you screwed up
stall landings visa-vis AoA over the runway.
I pull back the yoke for a perfect flare, and
as the stall begins, my nose drops, then I
nudge back the yoke a bit more to settle
my little machine pretty much level and
stalled simultaneously....bingo!
At the moment before touch-down push the
yoke easy forward and I do a 3 point landing
at less than stall speed.

Dud, take your machine out to do some touch
and go's, and do 3 point landings at less than
stall. It's an awesome feeling. It's so smooth
you might not know you're on the pavement,
when you do it really well, no guff.

If you can do it once you'll know what I'm talking
about.

> Dudley Henriques

Yes Regards
Ken

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:22 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 7:41 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>> On Feb 19, 3:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:54a68b12-fd5e-41cf-
>>>>> :
>>>>>> On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:40579f93-e593-
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
>>>>>>>> provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
>>>>>>>> forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
>>>>>>> Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you to be
>>>>>>> playing with.
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> We nailed you little bertie, you a big fake!
>>>>> Oh yeah, you got me good there trailer trash.
>>>>>> I knew it right off the bat....<<plonk>>.
>>>>> Oh no! Not a plonk! First I get a taste of my own medicine and now I'm
>>>>> plonked!
>>>>> Oh woe!
>>>>> Oh cruel fate!
>>>>> It's like I'm in a Twilight zone episode, 'cept I'm the troll!
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Bertie, you've been plonked, so why do you reply
>>>> when you know it won't be read?
>>> Our Bertie knows Kooks.
>>> Cheers
>> I'm still trying to figure out how someone can see a post from someone
>> they claim they have kill filed; then be stupid enough to answer the
>> poster they say has been kill filed telling them they haven't read the
>> post :-))
>> Must be magic!!! :-))
>
> Say Dud, are you some kind of lawyer or
> something? I slipped up on one little detail,
> dang you should work for the womens libers.
> <plonk>
>
> Seriously tho Dud, I think you screwed up
> stall landings visa-vis AoA over the runway.
> I pull back the yoke for a perfect flare, and
> as the stall begins, my nose drops, then I
> nudge back the yoke a bit more to settle
> my little machine pretty much level and
> stalled simultaneously....bingo!
> At the moment before touch-down push the
> yoke easy forward and I do a 3 point landing
> at less than stall speed.
>
> Dud, take your machine out to do some touch
> and go's, and do 3 point landings at less than
> stall. It's an awesome feeling. It's so smooth
> you might not know you're on the pavement,
> when you do it really well, no guff.
>
> If you can do it once you'll know what I'm talking
> about.
>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Yes Regards
> Ken

Sorry Ken. Not today buddy. I'm busy today. Thanks anyway.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 20, 11:17*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 12:22 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps wrote:
> >>> On Feb 20, 7:41 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 19, 3:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:54a68b12-fd5e-41cf-
> >>>>> :
> >>>>>> On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:40579f93-e593-
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
> >>>>>>>> provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
> >>>>>>>> forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
> >>>>>>> Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you to be
> >>>>>>> playing with.
> >>>>>>> Bertie
> >>>>>> We nailed you little bertie, you a big fake!
> >>>>> Oh yeah, you got me good there trailer trash.
> >>>>>> I knew it right off the bat....<<plonk>>.
> >>>>> Oh no! Not a plonk! First I get a taste of my own medicine and now I'm
> >>>>> plonked!
> >>>>> Oh woe!
> >>>>> Oh cruel fate!
> >>>>> It's like I'm in a Twilight zone episode, 'cept I'm the troll!
> >>>>> Bertie
> >>>> Bertie, you've been plonked, so why do you reply
> >>>> when you know it won't be read?
> >>> Our Bertie knows Kooks.
> >>> Cheers
> >> I'm still trying to figure out how someone can see a post from someone
> >> they claim they have kill filed; then be stupid enough to answer the
> >> poster they say has been kill filed telling them they haven't read the
> >> post :-))
> >> Must be magic!!! :-))
>
> > Say Dud, are you some kind of lawyer or
> > something? I slipped up on one little detail,
> > dang you should work for the womens libers.
> > <plonk>
>
> > Seriously tho Dud, I think you screwed up
> > stall landings visa-vis AoA over the runway.
> > I pull back the yoke for a perfect flare, and
> > as the stall begins, my nose drops, then I
> > nudge back the yoke a bit more to settle
> > my little machine pretty much level and
> > stalled simultaneously....bingo!
> > At the moment before touch-down push the
> > yoke easy forward and I do a 3 point landing
> > at less than stall speed.
>
> > Dud, take your machine out to do some touch
> > and go's, and do 3 point landings at less than
> > stall. It's an awesome feeling. It's so smooth
> > you might not know you're on the pavement,
> > when you do it really well, no guff.
>
> > If you can do it once you'll know what I'm talking
> > about.
>
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > Yes Regards
> > Ken
>
> Sorry Ken. Not today buddy. I'm busy today. Thanks anyway.
> :-))
>

Oh no not YARD WERK again!

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 20, 11:06*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:22 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > WingFlaps wrote:
> > > On Feb 20, 7:41 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > >> On Feb 19, 3:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > >>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:54a68b12-fd5e-41cf-
> > >>> :
> > >>>> On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:40579f93-e593-
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>>>> Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
> > >>>>>> provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
> > >>>>>> forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
> > >>>>> Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you to be
> > >>>>> playing with.
> > >>>>> Bertie
> > >>>> We nailed you little bertie, you a big fake!
> > >>> Oh yeah, you got me good there trailer trash.
> > >>>> I knew it right off the bat....<<plonk>>.
> > >>> Oh no! Not a plonk! First I get a taste of my own medicine and now I'm
> > >>> plonked!
> > >>> Oh woe!
> > >>> Oh cruel fate!
> > >>> It's like I'm in a Twilight zone episode, 'cept I'm the troll!
> > >>> Bertie
> > >> Bertie, you've been plonked, so why do you reply
> > >> when you know it won't be read?
>
> > > Our Bertie knows Kooks.
>
> > > Cheers
>
> > I'm still trying to figure out how someone can see a post from someone
> > they claim they have kill filed; then be stupid enough to answer the
> > poster they say has been kill filed telling them they haven't read the
> > post :-))
> > Must be magic!!! :-))
>
> Say Dud, are you some kind of lawyer or
> something? I slipped up on one little detail,
> dang you should work for the womens libers.
> <plonk>
>
> Seriously tho Dud, I think you screwed up
> stall landings visa-vis AoA over the runway.
> I pull back the yoke for a perfect flare, and
> as the stall begins, my nose drops, then I
> nudge back the yoke a bit more to settle
> my little machine pretty much level and
> stalled simultaneously....bingo!
> At the moment before touch-down push the
> yoke easy forward and I do a 3 point landing
> at less than stall speed.
>
> Dud, take your machine out to do some touch
> and go's, and do 3 point landings at less than
> stall. It's an awesome feeling. It's so smooth
> you might not know you're on the pavement,
> when you do it really well, no guff.
>

Tried that, but the nose wheel collapsed. Can I send you the bill?

Cheers

[[email protected]]

On Feb 19, 3:06 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> Seriously tho Dud, I think you screwed up
> stall landings visa-vis AoA over the runway.
> I pull back the yoke for a perfect flare, and
> as the stall begins, my nose drops, then I
> nudge back the yoke a bit more to settle
> my little machine pretty much level and
> stalled simultaneously....bingo!
> At the moment before touch-down push the
> yoke easy forward and I do a 3 point landing
> at less than stall speed.
>
> Dud, take your machine out to do some touch
> and go's, and do 3 point landings at less than
> stall. It's an awesome feeling. It's so smooth
> you might not know you're on the pavement,
> when you do it really well, no guff.
>
> If you can do it once you'll know what I'm talking
> about.

If we could do it once we'd be flying some cheap
simulator. You will NOT do a full stall landing placing all three
wheels of a trike on the runway at once, unless you managed to flare
at 20 feet and ran out of airspeed and dropped straight down onto the
pavement. tends to break airplanes. You cannot stall an airplane with
the relative wind at such a low angle as you claim. Period.
Besides, landing all three wheels at once is VERY poor
technique. It means a landing made at rather high speed, which is hard
on tires, brakes, and the rest of the airplane if you happen to run
out of runway. It'd also dangerous, since it poses the risk of
wheelbarrowing, meaning a complete loss of control.
So much baloney. Even a ten-hour student can spot this as
such.

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 20, 11:17 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 12:22 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 20, 7:41 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 19, 3:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:54a68b12-fd5e-41cf-
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:40579f93-e593-
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
>>>>>>>>>> provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
>>>>>>>>>> forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
>>>>>>>>> Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you to be
>>>>>>>>> playing with.
>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>> We nailed you little bertie, you a big fake!
>>>>>>> Oh yeah, you got me good there trailer trash.
>>>>>>>> I knew it right off the bat....<<plonk>>.
>>>>>>> Oh no! Not a plonk! First I get a taste of my own medicine and now I'm
>>>>>>> plonked!
>>>>>>> Oh woe!
>>>>>>> Oh cruel fate!
>>>>>>> It's like I'm in a Twilight zone episode, 'cept I'm the troll!
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> Bertie, you've been plonked, so why do you reply
>>>>>> when you know it won't be read?
>>>>> Our Bertie knows Kooks.
>>>>> Cheers
>>>> I'm still trying to figure out how someone can see a post from someone
>>>> they claim they have kill filed; then be stupid enough to answer the
>>>> poster they say has been kill filed telling them they haven't read the
>>>> post :-))
>>>> Must be magic!!! :-))
>>> Say Dud, are you some kind of lawyer or
>>> something? I slipped up on one little detail,
>>> dang you should work for the womens libers.
>>> <plonk>
>>> Seriously tho Dud, I think you screwed up
>>> stall landings visa-vis AoA over the runway.
>>> I pull back the yoke for a perfect flare, and
>>> as the stall begins, my nose drops, then I
>>> nudge back the yoke a bit more to settle
>>> my little machine pretty much level and
>>> stalled simultaneously....bingo!
>>> At the moment before touch-down push the
>>> yoke easy forward and I do a 3 point landing
>>> at less than stall speed.
>>> Dud, take your machine out to do some touch
>>> and go's, and do 3 point landings at less than
>>> stall. It's an awesome feeling. It's so smooth
>>> you might not know you're on the pavement,
>>> when you do it really well, no guff.
>>> If you can do it once you'll know what I'm talking
>>> about.
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Yes Regards
>>> Ken
>> Sorry Ken. Not today buddy. I'm busy today. Thanks anyway.
>> :-))
>>
>
> Oh no not YARD WERK again!
>
> Cheers

Believe it or not, I'd rather do yard work than give free dual to Ken
Tucker :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Feb 19, 3:06 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> Seriously tho Dud, I think you screwed up
>> stall landings visa-vis AoA over the runway.
>> I pull back the yoke for a perfect flare, and
>> as the stall begins, my nose drops, then I
>> nudge back the yoke a bit more to settle
>> my little machine pretty much level and
>> stalled simultaneously....bingo!
>> At the moment before touch-down push the
>> yoke easy forward and I do a 3 point landing
>> at less than stall speed.
>>
>> Dud, take your machine out to do some touch
>> and go's, and do 3 point landings at less than
>> stall. It's an awesome feeling. It's so smooth
>> you might not know you're on the pavement,
>> when you do it really well, no guff.
>>
>> If you can do it once you'll know what I'm talking
>> about.
>
> If we could do it once we'd be flying some cheap
> simulator. You will NOT do a full stall landing placing all three
> wheels of a trike on the runway at once, unless you managed to flare
> at 20 feet and ran out of airspeed and dropped straight down onto the
> pavement. tends to break airplanes. You cannot stall an airplane with
> the relative wind at such a low angle as you claim. Period.
> Besides, landing all three wheels at once is VERY poor
> technique. It means a landing made at rather high speed, which is hard
> on tires, brakes, and the rest of the airplane if you happen to run
> out of runway. It'd also dangerous, since it poses the risk of
> wheelbarrowing, meaning a complete loss of control.
> So much baloney. Even a ten-hour student can spot this as
> such.
>
> Dan
>
>

Thank you for saving me the trouble of doing this. This character is so
ridiculous I don't even want to be bothered dealing with him any longer
if I can possibly avoid him. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

Hi BIG HEAD, I'll give you a "B" on your post.
It lacks detail, see below...

On Feb 19, 9:14 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 19, 3:06 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Seriously tho Dud, I think you screwed up
> > stall landings visa-vis AoA over the runway.
> > I pull back the yoke for a perfect flare, and
> > as the stall begins, my nose drops, then I
> > nudge back the yoke a bit more to settle
> > my little machine pretty much level and
> > stalled simultaneously....bingo!
> > At the moment before touch-down push the
> > yoke easy forward and I do a 3 point landing
> > at less than stall speed.
>
> > Dud, take your machine out to do some touch
> > and go's, and do 3 point landings at less than
> > stall. It's an awesome feeling. It's so smooth
> > you might not know you're on the pavement,
> > when you do it really well, no guff.
>
> > If you can do it once you'll know what I'm talking
> > about.
>
> If we could do it once we'd be flying some cheap
> simulator. You will NOT do a full stall landing placing all three
> wheels of a trike on the runway at once, unless you managed to flare
> at 20 feet and ran out of airspeed and dropped straight down onto the
> pavement. tends to break airplanes. You cannot stall an airplane with
> the relative wind at such a low angle as you claim. Period.
> Besides, landing all three wheels at once is VERY poor
> technique. It means a landing made at rather high speed, which is hard
> on tires, brakes, and the rest of the airplane if you happen to run
> out of runway. It'd also dangerous, since it poses the risk of
> wheelbarrowing, meaning a complete loss of control.
> So much baloney. Even a ten-hour student can spot this as
> such.
> Dan

Sorry Dan, you don't know how to land aircraft,
most pilots don't so don't feel like your centered
out.
I find the C152 a bit better than the C150, I guess
cuz a bit more engine weight in the nose, subtle
shift in CG vs CL, you know.

So go over the numbers and do the flare + pitch.
The horny should be going, and pull the yoke
back easy to maintain a constant horny.

Yangooooo.....listen....

Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
you can't even feel the nose wheel touching
down.
((I know about porposing, if the landing sucks
then hit the throotle, SOP)).

You know what your problem is Dan, your a
loser, you've never do a fantastic landing in
your life, if you ever have done one you'd
know what we're talking about.
Best Landings though...
Ken

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 21, 10:34*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> Hi BIG HEAD, I'll give you a "B" on your post.
> It lacks detail, see below...
>
> On Feb 19, 9:14 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 3:06 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > Seriously tho Dud, I think you screwed up
> > > stall landings visa-vis AoA over the runway.
> > > I pull back the yoke for a perfect flare, and
> > > as the stall begins, my nose drops, then I
> > > nudge back the yoke a bit more to settle
> > > my little machine pretty much level and
> > > stalled simultaneously....bingo!
> > > At the moment before touch-down push the
> > > yoke easy forward and I do a 3 point landing
> > > at less than stall speed.
>
> > > Dud, take your machine out to do some touch
> > > and go's, and do 3 point landings at less than
> > > stall. It's an awesome feeling. It's so smooth
> > > you might not know you're on the pavement,
> > > when you do it really well, no guff.
>
> > > If you can do it once you'll know what I'm talking
> > > about.
>
> > * * * * * *If we could do it once we'd be flying some cheap
> > simulator. *You will NOT do a full stall landing placing all three
> > wheels of a trike on the runway at once, unless you managed to flare
> > at 20 feet and ran out of airspeed and dropped straight down onto the
> > pavement. tends to break airplanes. You cannot stall an airplane with
> > the relative wind at such a low angle as you claim. Period.
> > * * * Besides, landing all three wheels at once is VERY poor
> > technique. It means a landing made at rather high speed, which is hard
> > on tires, brakes, and the rest of the airplane if you happen to run
> > out of runway. It'd also dangerous, since it *poses the risk of
> > wheelbarrowing, meaning a complete loss of control.
> > * * * * So much baloney. Even a ten-hour student can spot this as
> > such.
> > * * * *Dan
>
> Sorry Dan, you don't know how to land aircraft,
> most pilots don't so don't feel like your centered
> out.
> I find the C152 *a bit better than the C150, I guess
> cuz a bit more engine weight in the nose, subtle
> shift in CG vs CL, you know.
>
> So go over the numbers and do the flare + pitch.
> The horny should be going, and pull the yoke
> back easy to maintain a constant horny.
>
> Yangooooo.....listen....
>
> Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
> you can't even feel the nose wheel touching
> down.
> ((I know about porposing, if the landing sucks
> then hit the throotle, SOP)).
>
> You know what your problem is Dan, your a
> loser, you've never do a fantastic landing in
> your life, if you ever have done one you'd
> know what we're talking about.

So, you are advocating not following the POH?

Cheers

[[email protected]]

On Feb 20, 2:34 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> You know what your problem is Dan, your a
> loser, you've never do a fantastic landing in
> your life, if you ever have done one you'd
> know what we're talking about.
> Best Landings though...
> Ken

Lemme see. Learned to fly in the early '70s. Towed gliders
for two summers. Got a Commercial license in '93. Got an Instrument
rating in '95. Got a Flight Instructor Rating in '99. Got an Aircraft
Maintenance Engineer's license in 2000. I own an airplane and fly it.
I have six others here in the school I can fly anytime I get the time.
172s and Citabrias and a 182RG. We used to have two 150s in which I
taught for some time, along with an older Champ, a Turbo 182RG, a 182,
a 180, a 185, and a Comanche 250. I have had three aircraft building/
restoration projects and have a fourth in the garage.
How many licenses do you have? How many airplane types have
you flown? (Real airplanes, not simulated airplanes.)
How many hours? Three, maybe? Kinda sounds like it.

Dan

[Benjamin Dover]

wrote in news:b1842d13-087b-494a-861f-
:

> On Feb 20, 2:34 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> You know what your problem is Dan, your a
>> loser, you've never do a fantastic landing in
>> your life, if you ever have done one you'd
>> know what we're talking about.
>> Best Landings though...
>> Ken
>
> Lemme see. Learned to fly in the early '70s. Towed gliders
> for two summers. Got a Commercial license in '93. Got an Instrument
> rating in '95. Got a Flight Instructor Rating in '99. Got an Aircraft
> Maintenance Engineer's license in 2000. I own an airplane and fly it.
> I have six others here in the school I can fly anytime I get the time.
> 172s and Citabrias and a 182RG. We used to have two 150s in which I
> taught for some time, along with an older Champ, a Turbo 182RG, a 182,
> a 180, a 185, and a Comanche 250. I have had three aircraft building/
> restoration projects and have a fourth in the garage.
> How many licenses do you have? How many airplane types have
> you flown? (Real airplanes, not simulated airplanes.)
> How many hours? Three, maybe? Kinda sounds like it.
>
> Dan

Ken ****head Tucker thinks that a joystick is what he has between his
legs to stroke while he pretends to fly with MSFS.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 20, 2:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 10:34 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi BIG HEAD, I'll give you a "B" on your post.
> > It lacks detail, see below...
>
> > On Feb 19, 9:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 3:06 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > Seriously tho Dud, I think you screwed up
> > > > stall landings visa-vis AoA over the runway.
> > > > I pull back the yoke for a perfect flare, and
> > > > as the stall begins, my nose drops, then I
> > > > nudge back the yoke a bit more to settle
> > > > my little machine pretty much level and
> > > > stalled simultaneously....bingo!
> > > > At the moment before touch-down push the
> > > > yoke easy forward and I do a 3 point landing
> > > > at less than stall speed.
>
> > > > Dud, take your machine out to do some touch
> > > > and go's, and do 3 point landings at less than
> > > > stall. It's an awesome feeling. It's so smooth
> > > > you might not know you're on the pavement,
> > > > when you do it really well, no guff.
>
> > > > If you can do it once you'll know what I'm talking
> > > > about.
>
> > > If we could do it once we'd be flying some cheap
> > > simulator. You will NOT do a full stall landing placing all three
> > > wheels of a trike on the runway at once, unless you managed to flare
> > > at 20 feet and ran out of airspeed and dropped straight down onto the
> > > pavement. tends to break airplanes. You cannot stall an airplane with
> > > the relative wind at such a low angle as you claim. Period.
> > > Besides, landing all three wheels at once is VERY poor
> > > technique. It means a landing made at rather high speed, which is hard
> > > on tires, brakes, and the rest of the airplane if you happen to run
> > > out of runway. It'd also dangerous, since it poses the risk of
> > > wheelbarrowing, meaning a complete loss of control.
> > > So much baloney. Even a ten-hour student can spot this as
> > > such.
> > > Dan
>
> > Sorry Dan, you don't know how to land aircraft,
> > most pilots don't so don't feel like your centered
> > out.
> > I find the C152 a bit better than the C150, I guess
> > cuz a bit more engine weight in the nose, subtle
> > shift in CG vs CL, you know.
>
> > So go over the numbers and do the flare + pitch.
> > The horny should be going, and pull the yoke
> > back easy to maintain a constant horny.
>
> > Yangooooo.....listen....
>
> > Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
> > you can't even feel the nose wheel touching
> > down.
> > ((I know about porposing, if the landing sucks
> > then hit the throotle, SOP)).
>
> > You know what your problem is Dan, your a
> > loser, you've never do a fantastic landing in
> > your life, if you ever have done one you'd
> > know what we're talking about.
>
> So, you are advocating not following the POH?
> Cheers

What's a POH?
Ken

[Benjamin Dover]

"Ken ****head Tucker" > took his dick out of his
mouth and wrote in
:


> What's a POH?
> Ken
>

What a dumb **** you are. All your talk about landing an airplane and
you have no idea what a POH is. Even a sim moron knows what that is.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 20, 3:31 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2:34 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> > You know what your problem is Dan, your a
> > loser, you've never do a fantastic landing in
> > your life, if you ever have done one you'd
> > know what we're talking about.
> > Best Landings though...
> > Ken
>
> Lemme see. Learned to fly in the early '70s. Towed gliders
> for two summers. Got a Commercial license in '93. Got an Instrument
> rating in '95. Got a Flight Instructor Rating in '99. Got an Aircraft
> Maintenance Engineer's license in 2000. I own an airplane and fly it.
> I have six others here in the school I can fly anytime I get the time.
> 172s and Citabrias and a 182RG. We used to have two 150s in which I
> taught for some time, along with an older Champ, a Turbo 182RG, a 182,
> a 180, a 185, and a Comanche 250. I have had three aircraft building/
> restoration projects and have a fourth in the garage.
> How many licenses do you have?

"Licenses", well that depends, if you are controlled
by govmonks, as you apparently are, we're about
equal, however I'm a citizen who works for private
corporations - for profit - and have diploma's all over
the place, filed somewhere.

>How many airplane types have
> you flown? (Real airplanes, not simulated airplanes.)
> How many hours? Three, maybe? Kinda sounds like it.

I tossed my log book, cuz I don't keep my Gr.1
printing anymore, just crappy paper work.

You know, I do a poo-poo, and I ain't going to keep
the used TP dated and filed. RULE 1, never leave a
paper-work trail!

Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
Ken

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 21, 7:06*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 10:34 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > Hi BIG HEAD, I'll give you a "B" on your post.
> > > It lacks detail, see below...
>
> > > On Feb 19, 9:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 19, 3:06 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Seriously tho Dud, I think you screwed up
> > > > > stall landings visa-vis AoA over the runway.
> > > > > I pull back the yoke for a perfect flare, and
> > > > > as the stall begins, my nose drops, then I
> > > > > nudge back the yoke a bit more to settle
> > > > > my little machine pretty much level and
> > > > > stalled simultaneously....bingo!
> > > > > At the moment before touch-down push the
> > > > > yoke easy forward and I do a 3 point landing
> > > > > at less than stall speed.
>
> > > > > Dud, take your machine out to do some touch
> > > > > and go's, and do 3 point landings at less than
> > > > > stall. It's an awesome feeling. It's so smooth
> > > > > you might not know you're on the pavement,
> > > > > when you do it really well, no guff.
>
> > > > > If you can do it once you'll know what I'm talking
> > > > > about.
>
> > > > * * * * * *If we could do it once we'd be flying some cheap
> > > > simulator. *You will NOT do a full stall landing placing all three
> > > > wheels of a trike on the runway at once, unless you managed to flare
> > > > at 20 feet and ran out of airspeed and dropped straight down onto the
> > > > pavement. tends to break airplanes. You cannot stall an airplane with
> > > > the relative wind at such a low angle as you claim. Period.
> > > > * * * Besides, landing all three wheels at once is VERY poor
> > > > technique. It means a landing made at rather high speed, which is hard
> > > > on tires, brakes, and the rest of the airplane if you happen to run
> > > > out of runway. It'd also dangerous, since it *poses the risk of
> > > > wheelbarrowing, meaning a complete loss of control.
> > > > * * * * So much baloney. Even a ten-hour student can spot this as
> > > > such.
> > > > * * * *Dan
>
> > > Sorry Dan, you don't know how to land aircraft,
> > > most pilots don't so don't feel like your centered
> > > out.
> > > I find the C152 *a bit better than the C150, I guess
> > > cuz a bit more engine weight in the nose, subtle
> > > shift in CG vs CL, you know.
>
> > > So go over the numbers and do the flare + pitch.
> > > The horny should be going, and pull the yoke
> > > back easy to maintain a constant horny.
>
> > > Yangooooo.....listen....
>
> > > Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
> > > you can't even feel the nose wheel touching
> > > down.
> > > ((I know about porposing, if the landing sucks
> > > then hit the throotle, SOP)).
>
> > > You know what your problem is Dan, your a
> > > loser, you've never do a fantastic landing in
> > > your life, if you ever have done one you'd
> > > know what we're talking about.
>
> > So, you are advocating not following the POH?
> > Cheers
>
> What's a POH?
>

Oh you've really blown it. Bertie will be wetting himself with
laughter.

Cheers

[Benjamin Dover]

"Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in news:256b8641-a00d-
:

>
> "Licenses", well that depends, if you are controlled
> by govmonks, as you apparently are, we're about
> equal, however I'm a citizen who works for private
> corporations - for profit - and have diploma's all over
> the place, filed somewhere.
>

The only diploma you ever received was from Pilgram State.

>>How many airplane types have
>> you flown? (Real airplanes, not simulated airplanes.)
>> How many hours? Three, maybe? Kinda sounds like it.
>
> I tossed my log book, cuz I don't keep my Gr.1
> printing anymore, just crappy paper work.
>

Translation: You flunked Gr.1

> You know, I do a poo-poo, and I ain't going to keep
> the used TP dated and filed. RULE 1, never leave a
> paper-work trail!
>
> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
> why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
> Ken

Yeah. Your just as good a pilot as Harmon Rabb.

[Big John[_2_]]

----clip----


Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
Ken

************************************************** **

Ken

Did you chop power landing or land power on?

Big John

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 21, 8:27 am, Big John > wrote:
> ----clip----
>
> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
> why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
> Ken
>
> ************************************************** **
>
> Ken
> Did you chop power landing or land power on?
> Big John

When I land something like a Cessna (in reality) I use
minimum power so the prop is acting as a break.

In the F104 sim, I crashed and burned about 10 times.
IIRC, I set-up slowest speed on final, (possibly with
airspeed brakes) then, near the deck, flared, cut power,
and squealed the tires. I think the sim allowed a 2g
vertical strike on the gear. It was quite a rush
- even tho it was a sim - when I finally landed it ok.

Do you do sims to?
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 21, 3:32 am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in news:256b8641-a00d-
> :
>
>
>
> > "Licenses", well that depends, if you are controlled
> > by govmonks, as you apparently are, we're about
> > equal, however I'm a citizen who works for private
> > corporations - for profit - and have diploma's all over
> > the place, filed somewhere.
>
> The only diploma you ever received was from Pilgram State.
>
> >>How many airplane types have
> >> you flown? (Real airplanes, not simulated airplanes.)
> >> How many hours? Three, maybe? Kinda sounds like it.
>
> > I tossed my log book, cuz I don't keep my Gr.1
> > printing anymore, just crappy paper work.
>
> Translation: You flunked Gr.1
>
> > You know, I do a poo-poo, and I ain't going to keep
> > the used TP dated and filed. RULE 1, never leave a
> > paper-work trail!
>
> > Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
> > of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
> > Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
> > on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
> > why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
> > Ken
>
> Yeah. Your just as good a pilot as Harmon Rabb.

LOL, I consider myself a bad pilot and a bad driver,
cuz I have some ADD, my mind wanders, so I have
to really concentrate. So far it's paid off, never had an
accident in ~1,000,000 miles.
I can't even drive with the radio on unless there is no
traffic.
Ken

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Feb 21, 3:32 am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in news:256b8641-a00d-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Licenses", well that depends, if you are controlled
>>> by govmonks, as you apparently are, we're about
>>> equal, however I'm a citizen who works for private
>>> corporations - for profit - and have diploma's all over
>>> the place, filed somewhere.
>> The only diploma you ever received was from Pilgram State.
>>
>>>> How many airplane types have
>>>> you flown? (Real airplanes, not simulated airplanes.)
>>>> How many hours? Three, maybe? Kinda sounds like it.
>>> I tossed my log book, cuz I don't keep my Gr.1
>>> printing anymore, just crappy paper work.
>> Translation: You flunked Gr.1
>>
>>> You know, I do a poo-poo, and I ain't going to keep
>>> the used TP dated and filed. RULE 1, never leave a
>>> paper-work trail!
>>> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
>>> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
>>> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
>>> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
>>> why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
>>> Ken
>> Yeah. Your just as good a pilot as Harmon Rabb.
>
> LOL, I consider myself a bad pilot and a bad driver,
> cuz I have some ADD, my mind wanders, so I have
> to really concentrate. So far it's paid off, never had an
> accident in ~1,000,000 miles.
> I can't even drive with the radio on unless there is no
> traffic.
> Ken

Well, I'll tell ya Ken. Landing a Zipper on a carrier would be a bit of
a chore, even for you. You DO of course know that the 104 lands at 155
to 160kts depending on fuel weight.
To my knowledge, even Tony Levier couldn't pull this one off.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 22, 8:04*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> > Did you chop power landing or land power on?
> > Big John
>
> When I land something like a Cessna (in reality) I use
> minimum power so the prop is acting as a break.
>

Is that because it's dragging on the ground after your nose wheel
crushing landing?

LOL
Cheers

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 21, 11:46 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 3:32 am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> >> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in news:256b8641-a00d-
> >> :
>
> >>> "Licenses", well that depends, if you are controlled
> >>> by govmonks, as you apparently are, we're about
> >>> equal, however I'm a citizen who works for private
> >>> corporations - for profit - and have diploma's all over
> >>> the place, filed somewhere.
> >> The only diploma you ever received was from Pilgram State.
>
> >>>> How many airplane types have
> >>>> you flown? (Real airplanes, not simulated airplanes.)
> >>>> How many hours? Three, maybe? Kinda sounds like it.
> >>> I tossed my log book, cuz I don't keep my Gr.1
> >>> printing anymore, just crappy paper work.
> >> Translation: You flunked Gr.1
>
> >>> You know, I do a poo-poo, and I ain't going to keep
> >>> the used TP dated and filed. RULE 1, never leave a
> >>> paper-work trail!
> >>> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
> >>> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
> >>> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
> >>> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
> >>> why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
> >>> Ken
> >> Yeah. Your just as good a pilot as Harmon Rabb.
>
> > LOL, I consider myself a bad pilot and a bad driver,
> > cuz I have some ADD, my mind wanders, so I have
> > to really concentrate. So far it's paid off, never had an
> > accident in ~1,000,000 miles.
> > I can't even drive with the radio on unless there is no
> > traffic.
> > Ken
>
> Well, I'll tell ya Ken. Landing a Zipper on a carrier would be a bit of
> a chore, even for you. You DO of course know that the 104 lands at 155
> to 160kts depending on fuel weight.
> To my knowledge, even Tony Levier couldn't pull this one off.
> :-))

Ok Dud, let's fly your figures, (I'll go over to feet/sec "fps").
I'm touching down at 160 MPH = 230 fps.
I need to stop on a 1000' carrier deck.
((s= 1/2 at^2 , v= at ))
((s=1000', v=230 fps , g=32 fps/s))

I need to stop in 8.7 seconds, and that requires a
deacceleration of "a"= 26 fps/s == 0.8g's on the brakes.

I think the 0.8g braking deacceleration is in bounds,
compared to slamming on the brakes in a car.
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Regards
Ken
PS: I assumed the deck was dry :-).

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Feb 21, 11:46 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> On Feb 21, 3:32 am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>>>> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in news:256b8641-a00d-
>>>> :
>>>>> "Licenses", well that depends, if you are controlled
>>>>> by govmonks, as you apparently are, we're about
>>>>> equal, however I'm a citizen who works for private
>>>>> corporations - for profit - and have diploma's all over
>>>>> the place, filed somewhere.
>>>> The only diploma you ever received was from Pilgram State.
>>>>>> How many airplane types have
>>>>>> you flown? (Real airplanes, not simulated airplanes.)
>>>>>> How many hours? Three, maybe? Kinda sounds like it.
>>>>> I tossed my log book, cuz I don't keep my Gr.1
>>>>> printing anymore, just crappy paper work.
>>>> Translation: You flunked Gr.1
>>>>> You know, I do a poo-poo, and I ain't going to keep
>>>>> the used TP dated and filed. RULE 1, never leave a
>>>>> paper-work trail!
>>>>> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
>>>>> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
>>>>> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
>>>>> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
>>>>> why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
>>>>> Ken
>>>> Yeah. Your just as good a pilot as Harmon Rabb.
>>> LOL, I consider myself a bad pilot and a bad driver,
>>> cuz I have some ADD, my mind wanders, so I have
>>> to really concentrate. So far it's paid off, never had an
>>> accident in ~1,000,000 miles.
>>> I can't even drive with the radio on unless there is no
>>> traffic.
>>> Ken
>> Well, I'll tell ya Ken. Landing a Zipper on a carrier would be a bit of
>> a chore, even for you. You DO of course know that the 104 lands at 155
>> to 160kts depending on fuel weight.
>> To my knowledge, even Tony Levier couldn't pull this one off.
>> :-))
>
> Ok Dud, let's fly your figures, (I'll go over to feet/sec "fps").
> I'm touching down at 160 MPH = 230 fps.
> I need to stop on a 1000' carrier deck.
> ((s= 1/2 at^2 , v= at ))
> ((s=1000', v=230 fps , g=32 fps/s))
>
> I need to stop in 8.7 seconds, and that requires a
> deacceleration of "a"= 26 fps/s == 0.8g's on the brakes.
>
> I think the 0.8g braking deacceleration is in bounds,
> compared to slamming on the brakes in a car.
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Regards
> Ken
> PS: I assumed the deck was dry :-).

I take it you are using MSFS?

I never know when you post something like this as being the Mensa guy
and super pilot you are, I'm assuming you could be talking a real
airplane :-))

The landing distance of the F104, like any other airplane, depends on
weight elevation and touchdown speed. Figuring under 19K landing GW for
the zipper (about right) to land one from 50 feet to a dead stop would
take about 5000 feet of runway. The ground roll is about 2500 feet using
the proper landing flap setting (blown flaps must be over 85% throttle
on final in the Zipper ) and using the drag chute. You can increase
these numbers by a good 50% with no brakes and no chute.
The Zipper FYI, is one of the hottest landing airplanes ever built.

Be careful you don't get that drag chute caught up in that 3 wire there
ole' buddy. Oh...I almost forgot; when that 19K fighter hits that 3 wire
at 160kts, when it snaps, it should take out the entire deck crew :-)))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 21, 11:57 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Feb 22, 8:04 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> > When I land something like a Cessna (in reality) I use
> > minimum power so the prop is acting as a break.
>
> Is that because it's dragging on the ground after your nose wheel
> crushing landing?
> LOL
> Cheers

I think it was Dud who kicked off this thread,
" Psychology and Pilots".
I recall pilots expressing a fear of landings too.
The take-off followed by regular fair weather flying
was pleasureable, but (now that Dud raised the
issue), I recall some pilots expressing stress at
landing, (I never paid attention to that before).

I remind you it was Dud who brought up the
psychology issues, I'm just working his issues
with psychology, it was his call at the OP.

BTW, "wing flaps" I very definitely recommend
an SOP *buy the book* landing, if that how you
want to land.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 21 Feb, 21:51, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 11:57 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 8:04 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > When I land something like a Cessna (in reality) I use
> > > minimum power so the prop is acting as a break.
>
> > Is that because it's dragging on the ground after your nose wheel
> > crushing landing?
> > LOL
> > Cheers
>
> I think it was Dud who kicked off this thread,
> " Psychology and Pilots".
> I recall pilots expressing a fear of landings too.
> The take-off followed by regular fair weather flying
> was pleasureable, but (now that Dud raised the
> issue), I recall some pilots expressing stress at
> landing, (I never paid attention to that before).
>
> I remind you it was Dud who brought up the
> psychology issues, I'm just working his issues
> with psychology, it was his call at the OP.
>
> BTW, "wing flaps" I very definitely recommend
> an SOP *buy the book* landing, if that how you
> want to land.

Oh why don't you just tell us how to do it.

just for giggles.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 21 Feb, 06:06, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 10:34 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > Hi BIG HEAD, I'll give you a "B" on your post.
> > > It lacks detail, see below...
>
> > > On Feb 19, 9:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 19, 3:06 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Seriously tho Dud, I think you screwed up
> > > > > stall landings visa-vis AoA over the runway.
> > > > > I pull back the yoke for a perfect flare, and
> > > > > as the stall begins, my nose drops, then I
> > > > > nudge back the yoke a bit more to settle
> > > > > my little machine pretty much level and
> > > > > stalled simultaneously....bingo!
> > > > > At the moment before touch-down push the
> > > > > yoke easy forward and I do a 3 point landing
> > > > > at less than stall speed.
>
> > > > > Dud, take your machine out to do some touch
> > > > > and go's, and do 3 point landings at less than
> > > > > stall. It's an awesome feeling. It's so smooth
> > > > > you might not know you're on the pavement,
> > > > > when you do it really well, no guff.
>
> > > > > If you can do it once you'll know what I'm talking
> > > > > about.
>
> > > > * * * * * *If we could do it once we'd be flying some cheap
> > > > simulator. *You will NOT do a full stall landing placing all three
> > > > wheels of a trike on the runway at once, unless you managed to flare
> > > > at 20 feet and ran out of airspeed and dropped straight down onto the
> > > > pavement. tends to break airplanes. You cannot stall an airplane with
> > > > the relative wind at such a low angle as you claim. Period.
> > > > * * * Besides, landing all three wheels at once is VERY poor
> > > > technique. It means a landing made at rather high speed, which is hard
> > > > on tires, brakes, and the rest of the airplane if you happen to run
> > > > out of runway. It'd also dangerous, since it *poses the risk of
> > > > wheelbarrowing, meaning a complete loss of control.
> > > > * * * * So much baloney. Even a ten-hour student can spot this as
> > > > such.
> > > > * * * *Dan
>
> > > Sorry Dan, you don't know how to land aircraft,
> > > most pilots don't so don't feel like your centered
> > > out.
> > > I find the C152 *a bit better than the C150, I guess
> > > cuz a bit more engine weight in the nose, subtle
> > > shift in CG vs CL, you know.
>
> > > So go over the numbers and do the flare + pitch.
> > > The horny should be going, and pull the yoke
> > > back easy to maintain a constant horny.
>
> > > Yangooooo.....listen....
>
> > > Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
> > > you can't even feel the nose wheel touching
> > > down.
> > > ((I know about porposing, if the landing sucks
> > > then hit the throotle, SOP)).
>
> > > You know what your problem is Dan, your a
> > > loser, you've never do a fantastic landing in
> > > your life, if you ever have done one you'd
> > > know what we're talking about.
>
> > So, you are advocating not following the POH?
> > Cheers
>
> What's a POH?

**** Off Hillbilly



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 19 Feb, 18:41, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 3:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:54a68b12-fd5e-41cf-
> > :
>
> > > On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:40579f93-e593-
> > > ...
> > >> > Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
> > >> > provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
> > >> > forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
>
> > >> Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you to be
> > >> playing with.
> > >> Bertie
>
> > > We nailed you little bertie, you a big fake!
>
> > Oh yeah, you got me good there trailer trash.
>
> > > I knew it right off the bat....<<plonk>>.
>
> > Oh no! Not a plonk! First I get a taste of my own medicine and now I'm
> > plonked!
>
> > Oh woe!
>
> > Oh cruel fate!
>
> > It's like I'm in a Twilight zone episode, 'cept I'm the troll!
>
> > Bertie
>
> Bertie, you've been plonked, so why do you reply
> when you know it won't be read?

Must just be too stupid to understand



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:1d524c70-22a0-483c-
:
>
> Sorry Dan, you don't know how to land aircraft,
> most pilots don't so don't feel like your centered
> out.
> I find the C152 a bit better than the C150, I guess
> cuz a bit more engine weight in the nose, subtle
> shift in CG vs CL, you know.
>
> So go over the numbers and do the flare + pitch.
> The horny should be going, and pull the yoke
> back easy to maintain a constant horny.
>
> Yangooooo.....listen....
>
> Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
> you can't even feel the nose wheel touching
> down.
> ((I know about porposing, if the landing sucks
> then hit the throotle, SOP)).
>
> You know what your problem is Dan, your a
> loser, you've never do a fantastic landing in
> your life, if you ever have done one you'd
> know what we're talking about.
> Best Landings though...
> Ken
>

Wow. We should bottle this.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 21, 7:06*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 2:55 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 21, 10:34 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > > Hi BIG HEAD, I'll give you a "B" on your post.
>> > > It lacks detail, see below...
>>
>> > > On Feb 19, 9:14 pm, wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Feb 19, 3:06 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" >
>> > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > Seriously tho Dud, I think you screwed up
>> > > > > stall landings visa-vis AoA over the runway.
>> > > > > I pull back the yoke for a perfect flare, and
>> > > > > as the stall begins, my nose drops, then I
>> > > > > nudge back the yoke a bit more to settle
>> > > > > my little machine pretty much level and
>> > > > > stalled simultaneously....bingo!
>> > > > > At the moment before touch-down push the
>> > > > > yoke easy forward and I do a 3 point landing
>> > > > > at less than stall speed.
>>
>> > > > > Dud, take your machine out to do some touch
>> > > > > and go's, and do 3 point landings at less than
>> > > > > stall. It's an awesome feeling. It's so smooth
>> > > > > you might not know you're on the pavement,
>> > > > > when you do it really well, no guff.
>>
>> > > > > If you can do it once you'll know what I'm talking
>> > > > > about.
>>
>> > > > * * * * * *If we could do it once we'd be flying some ch
> eap
>> > > > simulator. *You will NOT do a full stall landing placing all
>> > > > three
>
>> > > > wheels of a trike on the runway at once, unless you managed to
>> > > > flare
>
>> > > > at 20 feet and ran out of airspeed and dropped straight down
>> > > > onto th
> e
>> > > > pavement. tends to break airplanes. You cannot stall an
>> > > > airplane wit
> h
>> > > > the relative wind at such a low angle as you claim. Period.
>> > > > * * * Besides, landing all three wheels at once is VERY poor
>> > > > technique. It means a landing made at rather high speed, which
>> > > > is ha
> rd
>> > > > on tires, brakes, and the rest of the airplane if you happen to
>> > > > run out of runway. It'd also dangerous, since it *poses the
>> > > > risk of wheelbarrowing, meaning a complete loss of control.
>> > > > * * * * So much baloney. Even a ten-hour student can spot th
> is as
>> > > > such.
>> > > > * * * *Dan
>>
>> > > Sorry Dan, you don't know how to land aircraft,
>> > > most pilots don't so don't feel like your centered
>> > > out.
>> > > I find the C152 *a bit better than the C150, I guess
>> > > cuz a bit more engine weight in the nose, subtle
>> > > shift in CG vs CL, you know.
>>
>> > > So go over the numbers and do the flare + pitch.
>> > > The horny should be going, and pull the yoke
>> > > back easy to maintain a constant horny.
>>
>> > > Yangooooo.....listen....
>>
>> > > Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
>> > > you can't even feel the nose wheel touching
>> > > down.
>> > > ((I know about porposing, if the landing sucks
>> > > then hit the throotle, SOP)).
>>
>> > > You know what your problem is Dan, your a
>> > > loser, you've never do a fantastic landing in
>> > > your life, if you ever have done one you'd
>> > > know what we're talking about.
>>
>> > So, you are advocating not following the POH?
>> > Cheers
>>
>> What's a POH?
>>
>
> Oh you've really blown it. Bertie will be wetting himself with
> laughter.
>

Ken always makes me laugh. He's like Jerry Lewis on acid.



Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:256b8641-a00d-
:

> On Feb 20, 3:31 pm, wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 2:34 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> > You know what your problem is Dan, your a
>> > loser, you've never do a fantastic landing in
>> > your life, if you ever have done one you'd
>> > know what we're talking about.
>> > Best Landings though...
>> > Ken
>>
>> Lemme see. Learned to fly in the early '70s. Towed gliders
>> for two summers. Got a Commercial license in '93. Got an Instrument
>> rating in '95. Got a Flight Instructor Rating in '99. Got an Aircraft
>> Maintenance Engineer's license in 2000. I own an airplane and fly it.
>> I have six others here in the school I can fly anytime I get the
time.
>> 172s and Citabrias and a 182RG. We used to have two 150s in which I
>> taught for some time, along with an older Champ, a Turbo 182RG, a
182,
>> a 180, a 185, and a Comanche 250. I have had three aircraft building/
>> restoration projects and have a fourth in the garage.
>> How many licenses do you have?
>
> "Licenses", well that depends, if you are controlled
> by govmonks, as you apparently are, we're about
> equal, however I'm a citizen who works for private
> corporations - for profit - and have diploma's all over
> the place, filed somewhere.
>
>>How many airplane types have
>> you flown? (Real airplanes, not simulated airplanes.)
>> How many hours? Three, maybe? Kinda sounds like it.
>
> I tossed my log book, cuz I don't keep my Gr.1
> printing anymore, just crappy paper work.

Liar.


>
> You know, I do a poo-poo, and I ain't going to keep
> the used TP dated and filed. RULE 1, never leave a
> paper-work trail!
>
> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.

No, it's what your instructor lives for.


> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible,

you're a liar.

do you know
> why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!


No, it wouldn't, moron.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 21, 3:32 am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in
>> news:256b8641-a00d-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Licenses", well that depends, if you are controlled
>> > by govmonks, as you apparently are, we're about
>> > equal, however I'm a citizen who works for private
>> > corporations - for profit - and have diploma's all over
>> > the place, filed somewhere.
>>
>> The only diploma you ever received was from Pilgram State.
>>
>> >>How many airplane types have
>> >> you flown? (Real airplanes, not simulated airplanes.)
>> >> How many hours? Three, maybe? Kinda sounds like it.
>>
>> > I tossed my log book, cuz I don't keep my Gr.1
>> > printing anymore, just crappy paper work.
>>
>> Translation: You flunked Gr.1
>>
>> > You know, I do a poo-poo, and I ain't going to keep
>> > the used TP dated and filed. RULE 1, never leave a
>> > paper-work trail!
>>
>> > Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
>> > of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
>> > Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
>> > on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
>> > why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
>> > Ken
>>
>> Yeah. Your just as good a pilot as Harmon Rabb.
>
> LOL, I consider myself a bad pilot


You do like to flatter yourself, don't you?

Nobody else considers you to be a pilot at all.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 21, 11:46 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > On Feb 21, 3:32 am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> >> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in
>> >> news:256b8641-a00d-
>> >> :
>>
>> >>> "Licenses", well that depends, if you are controlled
>> >>> by govmonks, as you apparently are, we're about
>> >>> equal, however I'm a citizen who works for private
>> >>> corporations - for profit - and have diploma's all over
>> >>> the place, filed somewhere.
>> >> The only diploma you ever received was from Pilgram State.
>>
>> >>>> How many airplane types have
>> >>>> you flown? (Real airplanes, not simulated airplanes.)
>> >>>> How many hours? Three, maybe? Kinda sounds like it.
>> >>> I tossed my log book, cuz I don't keep my Gr.1
>> >>> printing anymore, just crappy paper work.
>> >> Translation: You flunked Gr.1
>>
>> >>> You know, I do a poo-poo, and I ain't going to keep
>> >>> the used TP dated and filed. RULE 1, never leave a
>> >>> paper-work trail!
>> >>> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
>> >>> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
>> >>> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
>> >>> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
>> >>> why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
>> >>> Ken
>> >> Yeah. Your just as good a pilot as Harmon Rabb.
>>
>> > LOL, I consider myself a bad pilot and a bad driver,
>> > cuz I have some ADD, my mind wanders, so I have
>> > to really concentrate. So far it's paid off, never had an
>> > accident in ~1,000,000 miles.
>> > I can't even drive with the radio on unless there is no
>> > traffic.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Well, I'll tell ya Ken. Landing a Zipper on a carrier would be a bit
>> of a chore, even for you. You DO of course know that the 104 lands at
>> 155 to 160kts depending on fuel weight.
>> To my knowledge, even Tony Levier couldn't pull this one off.
>> :-))
>
> Ok Dud, let's fly your figures, (I'll go over to feet/sec "fps").
> I'm touching down at 160 MPH = 230 fps.
> I need to stop on a 1000' carrier deck.
> ((s= 1/2 at^2 , v= at ))
> ((s=1000', v=230 fps , g=32 fps/s))
>
> I need to stop in 8.7 seconds, and that requires a
> deacceleration of "a"= 26 fps/s == 0.8g's on the brakes.
>
> I think the 0.8g braking deacceleration is in bounds,

Nope, you are full of ****.


A liar.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:ffa6dbc5-f9a0-
:

> On Feb 21, 8:27 am, Big John > wrote:
>> ----clip----
>>
>> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
>> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
>> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
>> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
>> why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
>> Ken
>>
>> ************************************************** **
>>
>> Ken
>> Did you chop power landing or land power on?
>> Big John
>
> When I land something like a Cessna (in reality) I use
> minimum power so the prop is acting as a break.
>


You break your prop landing?

Not surprised somehow.


> In the F104 sim, I crashed and burned about 10 times.


They really should let you try it in a real one.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> ----clip----
>
>
> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
> why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
> Ken
>
> ************************************************** **
>
> Ken
>
> Did you chop power landing or land power on?
>

Oh you have a wicked streak, John.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:f4ea91a6-ace6-4c67-
:

> On Feb 21, 11:57 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 8:04 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> > When I land something like a Cessna (in reality) I use
>> > minimum power so the prop is acting as a break.
>>
>> Is that because it's dragging on the ground after your nose wheel
>> crushing landing?
>> LOL
>> Cheers
>
> I think it was Dud who kicked off this thread,
> " Psychology and Pilots".
> I recall pilots expressing a fear of landings too.


I'm not. never was. Not any landing.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 20, 7:41*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 3:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> > news:54a68b12-fd5e-41cf
> -
>> > :
>>
>> > > On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> > >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> > >> news:40579f93-e593-
>> > > ...
>> > >> > Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
>> > >> > provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
>> > >> > forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
>>
>> > >> Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you
>> > >> to be
>
>> > >> playing with.
>> > >> Bertie
>>
>> > > We nailed you little bertie, you a big fake!
>>
>> > Oh yeah, you got me good there trailer trash.
>>
>> > > I knew it right off the bat....<<plonk>>.
>>
>> > Oh no! Not a plonk! First I get a taste of my own medicine and now
>> > I'm plonked!
>>
>> > Oh woe!
>>
>> > Oh cruel fate!
>>
>> > It's like I'm in a Twilight zone episode, 'cept I'm the troll!
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> Bertie, you've been plonked, so why do you reply
>> when you know it won't be read?
>
> Our Bertie knows Kooks.
>


I can pick 'em can't I?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 7:41 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 3:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>> news:54a68b12-fd5e-41cf-
>>>> :
>>>>> On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>>>> news:40579f93-e593-
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
>>>>>>> provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
>>>>>>> forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
>>>>>> Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you
>>>>>> to be playing with.
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> We nailed you little bertie, you a big fake!
>>>> Oh yeah, you got me good there trailer trash.
>>>>> I knew it right off the bat....<<plonk>>.
>>>> Oh no! Not a plonk! First I get a taste of my own medicine and now
>>>> I'm plonked!
>>>> Oh woe!
>>>> Oh cruel fate!
>>>> It's like I'm in a Twilight zone episode, 'cept I'm the troll!
>>>> Bertie
>>> Bertie, you've been plonked, so why do you reply
>>> when you know it won't be read?
>>
>> Our Bertie knows Kooks.
>>
>> Cheers
> I'm still trying to figure out how someone can see a post from someone
> they claim they have kill filed; then be stupid enough to answer the
> poster they say has been kill filed telling them they haven't read the
> post :-))
> Must be magic!!! :-))
It is!

It's th emagic that is usenet!

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 19, 12:22 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>> > On Feb 20, 7:41 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> >> On Feb 19, 3:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> >>> news:54a68b12-fd5e-41cf-
>> >>> :
>> >>>> On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> >>>>> news:40579f93-e593-
>> >>>> ...
>> >>>>>> Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
>> >>>>>> provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
>> >>>>>> forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
>> >>>>> Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you
>> >>>>> to be playing with.
>> >>>>> Bertie
>> >>>> We nailed you little bertie, you a big fake!
>> >>> Oh yeah, you got me good there trailer trash.
>> >>>> I knew it right off the bat....<<plonk>>.
>> >>> Oh no! Not a plonk! First I get a taste of my own medicine and
>> >>> now I'm plonked!
>> >>> Oh woe!
>> >>> Oh cruel fate!
>> >>> It's like I'm in a Twilight zone episode, 'cept I'm the troll!
>> >>> Bertie
>> >> Bertie, you've been plonked, so why do you reply
>> >> when you know it won't be read?
>>
>> > Our Bertie knows Kooks.
>>
>> > Cheers
>>
>> I'm still trying to figure out how someone can see a post from
>> someone they claim they have kill filed; then be stupid enough to
>> answer the poster they say has been kill filed telling them they
>> haven't read the post :-))
>> Must be magic!!! :-))
>
> Say Dud, are you some kind of lawyer or
> something? I slipped up on one little detail,
> dang you should work for the womens libers.
> <plonk>
>
> Seriously tho Dud, I think you screwed up
> stall landings visa-vis AoA over the runway.
> I pull back the yoke for a perfect flare, and
> as the stall begins, my nose drops, then I
> nudge back the yoke a bit more to settle
> my little machine pretty much level and
> stalled simultaneously....bingo!
> At the moment before touch-down push the
> yoke easy forward and I do a 3 point landing
> at less than stall speed.
>
> Dud, take your machine out to do some touch
> and go's, and do 3 point landings at less than
> stall.


you do three point landings in a 150?

What's that, the prop the wingtip and your head?


Bertie
>

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 21, 1:41 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 11:46 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>> On Feb 21, 3:32 am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> >>>> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in news:256b8641-a00d-
> >>>> :
> >>>>> "Licenses", well that depends, if you are controlled
> >>>>> by govmonks, as you apparently are, we're about
> >>>>> equal, however I'm a citizen who works for private
> >>>>> corporations - for profit - and have diploma's all over
> >>>>> the place, filed somewhere.
> >>>> The only diploma you ever received was from Pilgram State.
> >>>>>> How many airplane types have
> >>>>>> you flown? (Real airplanes, not simulated airplanes.)
> >>>>>> How many hours? Three, maybe? Kinda sounds like it.
> >>>>> I tossed my log book, cuz I don't keep my Gr.1
> >>>>> printing anymore, just crappy paper work.
> >>>> Translation: You flunked Gr.1
> >>>>> You know, I do a poo-poo, and I ain't going to keep
> >>>>> the used TP dated and filed. RULE 1, never leave a
> >>>>> paper-work trail!
> >>>>> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
> >>>>> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
> >>>>> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
> >>>>> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
> >>>>> why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
> >>>>> Ken
> >>>> Yeah. Your just as good a pilot as Harmon Rabb.
> >>> LOL, I consider myself a bad pilot and a bad driver,
> >>> cuz I have some ADD, my mind wanders, so I have
> >>> to really concentrate. So far it's paid off, never had an
> >>> accident in ~1,000,000 miles.
> >>> I can't even drive with the radio on unless there is no
> >>> traffic.
> >>> Ken
> >> Well, I'll tell ya Ken. Landing a Zipper on a carrier would be a bit of
> >> a chore, even for you. You DO of course know that the 104 lands at 155
> >> to 160kts depending on fuel weight.
> >> To my knowledge, even Tony Levier couldn't pull this one off.
> >> :-))
>
> > Ok Dud, let's fly your figures, (I'll go over to feet/sec "fps").
> > I'm touching down at 160 MPH = 230 fps.
> > I need to stop on a 1000' carrier deck.
> > ((s= 1/2 at^2 , v= at ))
> > ((s=1000', v=230 fps , g=32 fps/s))
>
> > I need to stop in 8.7 seconds, and that requires a
> > deacceleration of "a"= 26 fps/s == 0.8g's on the brakes.
>
> > I think the 0.8g braking deacceleration is in bounds,
> > compared to slamming on the brakes in a car.
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > Regards
> > Ken
> > PS: I assumed the deck was dry :-).
>
> I take it you are using MSFS?

No, I/we wrote the software I/we used, it was a
collaborative effort.

> I never know when you post something like this as being the Mensa guy

Mensa has nothing to do with it, (IMO)
it's straightforward HS algebra.

> and super pilot you are, I'm assuming you could be talking a real
> airplane :-))

A good friend of mine was a CF104 fighter
pilot instructor and he thought the sim was
realistic. When he banked his F104, the
nose started to drop, and he had to pull back
for some more pitch to keep level altitude,
and he looks at me and swears "damn that's
realistic", of course that's a compliment.

> The landing distance of the F104, like any other airplane, depends on
> weight elevation and touchdown speed. Figuring under 19K landing GW for
> the zipper (about right) to land one from 50 feet to a dead stop would
> take about 5000 feet of runway. The ground roll is about 2500 feet using
> the proper landing flap setting (blown flaps must be over 85% throttle
> on final in the Zipper ) and using the drag chute.

That's interesting and refers to a normal (low stress)
landing.

> You can increase
> these numbers by a good 50% with no brakes and no chute.
> The Zipper FYI, is one of the hottest landing airplanes ever built.
> Be careful you don't get that drag chute caught up in that 3 wire there
> ole' buddy. Oh...I almost forgot; when that 19K fighter hits that 3 wire
> at 160kts, when it snaps, it should take out the entire deck crew :-)))

LOL, if the pilot can walk away from the landing,
it's good landing.

> Dudley Henriques
Ken

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 22, 10:07*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 11:46 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > On Feb 21, 3:32 am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> > >> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in news:256b8641-a00d-
> > >> :
>
> > >>> "Licenses", well that depends, if you are controlled
> > >>> by govmonks, as you apparently are, we're about
> > >>> equal, however I'm a citizen who works for private
> > >>> corporations - for profit - and have diploma's all over
> > >>> the place, filed somewhere.
> > >> * * * * The only diploma you ever received was from Pilgram State.
>
> > >>>> How many airplane types have
> > >>>> you flown? (Real airplanes, not simulated airplanes.)
> > >>>> * * * *How many hours? Three, maybe? Kinda sounds like it.
> > >>> I tossed my log book, cuz I don't keep my Gr.1
> > >>> printing anymore, just crappy paper work.
> > >> * * * * Translation: *You flunked Gr.1
>
> > >>> You know, I do a poo-poo, and I ain't going to keep
> > >>> the used TP dated and filed. RULE 1, never leave a
> > >>> paper-work trail!
> > >>> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
> > >>> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
> > >>> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
> > >>> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
> > >>> why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
> > >>> Ken
> > >> * * * * Yeah. *Your just as good a pilot as Harmon Rabb.
>
> > > LOL, I consider myself a bad pilot and a bad driver,
> > > cuz I have some ADD, my mind wanders, so I have
> > > to really concentrate. So far it's paid off, never had an
> > > accident in ~1,000,000 miles.
> > > I can't even drive with the radio on unless there is no
> > > traffic.
> > > Ken
>
> > Well, I'll tell ya Ken. Landing a Zipper on a carrier would be a bit of
> > a chore, even for you. You DO of course know that the 104 lands at 155
> > to 160kts depending on fuel weight.
> > To my knowledge, even Tony Levier couldn't pull this one off.
> > :-))
>
> Ok Dud, let's fly your figures, (I'll go over to feet/sec "fps").
> I'm touching down at 160 MPH = 230 fps.
> I need to stop on a 1000' carrier deck.
> ((s= 1/2 at^2 , v= at ))
> ((s=1000', v=230 fps , g=32 fps/s))
>
> I need to stop in 8.7 seconds, and that requires a
> deacceleration of *"a"= 26 fps/s == 0.8g's on the brakes.
>
> I think the 0.8g braking deacceleration is in bounds,
> compared to slamming on the brakes in a car.
>

What aircraft carrier has a landing deck 1000' long?

Cheers

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 7:41 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>> On Feb 19, 3:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>>> news:54a68b12-fd5e-41cf-
>>>>> :
>>>>>> On Feb 18, 12:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>>>>> news:40579f93-e593-
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Speakin' of honesty [LOL], would our bertie care to
>>>>>>>> provide pix of his alledged enterprise? (that's not
>>>>>>>> forged), or is it Top Secret, like the rest of your crap?
>>>>>>> Sorry Ken, but steel tube construction is too dangerous for you
>>>>>>> to be playing with.
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> We nailed you little bertie, you a big fake!
>>>>> Oh yeah, you got me good there trailer trash.
>>>>>> I knew it right off the bat....<<plonk>>.
>>>>> Oh no! Not a plonk! First I get a taste of my own medicine and now
>>>>> I'm plonked!
>>>>> Oh woe!
>>>>> Oh cruel fate!
>>>>> It's like I'm in a Twilight zone episode, 'cept I'm the troll!
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Bertie, you've been plonked, so why do you reply
>>>> when you know it won't be read?
>>> Our Bertie knows Kooks.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>> I'm still trying to figure out how someone can see a post from someone
>> they claim they have kill filed; then be stupid enough to answer the
>> poster they say has been kill filed telling them they haven't read the
>> post :-))
>> Must be magic!!! :-))
> It is!
>
> It's th emagic that is usenet!
>
> Bertie
>

It IS entertaining!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 2:51 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> LOL, if the pilot can walk away from the landing,
> it's good landing.
>
> Ken

You haven't paid for parts, have you?

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 21, 1:41 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > On Feb 21, 11:46 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >>> On Feb 21, 3:32 am, Benjamin Dover >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> "Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in
>> >>>> news:256b8641-a00d-
>> >>>> :
>> >>>>> "Licenses", well that depends, if you are controlled
>> >>>>> by govmonks, as you apparently are, we're about
>> >>>>> equal, however I'm a citizen who works for private
>> >>>>> corporations - for profit - and have diploma's all over
>> >>>>> the place, filed somewhere.
>> >>>> The only diploma you ever received was from Pilgram
>> >>>> State.
>> >>>>>> How many airplane types have
>> >>>>>> you flown? (Real airplanes, not simulated airplanes.)
>> >>>>>> How many hours? Three, maybe? Kinda sounds like it.
>> >>>>> I tossed my log book, cuz I don't keep my Gr.1
>> >>>>> printing anymore, just crappy paper work.
>> >>>> Translation: You flunked Gr.1
>> >>>>> You know, I do a poo-poo, and I ain't going to keep
>> >>>>> the used TP dated and filed. RULE 1, never leave a
>> >>>>> paper-work trail!
>> >>>>> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
>> >>>>> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
>> >>>>> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
>> >>>>> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
>> >>>>> why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
>> >>>>> Ken
>> >>>> Yeah. Your just as good a pilot as Harmon Rabb.
>> >>> LOL, I consider myself a bad pilot and a bad driver,
>> >>> cuz I have some ADD, my mind wanders, so I have
>> >>> to really concentrate. So far it's paid off, never had an
>> >>> accident in ~1,000,000 miles.
>> >>> I can't even drive with the radio on unless there is no
>> >>> traffic.
>> >>> Ken
>> >> Well, I'll tell ya Ken. Landing a Zipper on a carrier would be a
>> >> bit of a chore, even for you. You DO of course know that the 104
>> >> lands at 155 to 160kts depending on fuel weight.
>> >> To my knowledge, even Tony Levier couldn't pull this one off.
>> >> :-))
>>
>> > Ok Dud, let's fly your figures, (I'll go over to feet/sec "fps").
>> > I'm touching down at 160 MPH = 230 fps.
>> > I need to stop on a 1000' carrier deck.
>> > ((s= 1/2 at^2 , v= at ))
>> > ((s=1000', v=230 fps , g=32 fps/s))
>>
>> > I need to stop in 8.7 seconds, and that requires a
>> > deacceleration of "a"= 26 fps/s == 0.8g's on the brakes.
>>
>> > I think the 0.8g braking deacceleration is in bounds,
>> > compared to slamming on the brakes in a car.
>> >> --
>> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > Regards
>> > Ken
>> > PS: I assumed the deck was dry :-).
>>
>> I take it you are using MSFS?
>
> No, I/we wrote the software I/we used, it was a
> collaborative effort.
>
>> I never know when you post something like this as being the Mensa guy
>
> Mensa has nothing to do with it, (IMO)
> it's straightforward HS algebra.
>
>> and super pilot you are, I'm assuming you could be talking a real
>> airplane :-))
>
> A good friend of mine was a CF104 fighter
> pilot instructor and he thought the sim was
> realistic. When he banked his F104, the
> nose started to drop, and he had to pull back
> for some more pitch to keep level altitude,
> and he looks at me and swears "damn that's
> realistic", of course that's a compliment.

Actgually, the word you're looking for is "patronise"
>
>> The landing distance of the F104, like any other airplane, depends on
>> weight elevation and touchdown speed. Figuring under 19K landing GW
>> for the zipper (about right) to land one from 50 feet to a dead stop
>> would take about 5000 feet of runway. The ground roll is about 2500
>> feet using the proper landing flap setting (blown flaps must be over
>> 85% throttle on final in the Zipper ) and using the drag chute.
>
> That's interesting and refers to a normal (low stress)
> landing.
>


You're an idiot AND a liar.

>> You can increase
>> these numbers by a good 50% with no brakes and no chute.
>> The Zipper FYI, is one of the hottest landing airplanes ever built.
>> Be careful you don't get that drag chute caught up in that 3 wire
>> there ole' buddy. Oh...I almost forgot; when that 19K fighter hits
>> that 3 wire at 160kts, when it snaps, it should take out the entire
>> deck crew :-)))
>
> LOL, if the pilot can walk away from the landing,
> it's good landing.


I'm sure that's actually true in your case.


Bertie

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Feb 22, 5:46*am, " > wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2:51 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > LOL, if the pilot can walk away from the landing,
> > it's good landing.
>
> > Ken
>
> You haven't paid for parts, have you?
>
> Dan

Dan et al
Its like MxMANIAC all over again. (perhaps its the same person?) I'm
gonna ignore him.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 10:24 am, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> On Feb 22, 5:46 am, " > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 2:51 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > LOL, if the pilot can walk away from the landing,
> > > it's good landing.
>
> > > Ken
>
> > You haven't paid for parts, have you?
>
> > Dan
>
> Dan et al
> Its like MxMANIAC all over again. (perhaps its the same person?) I'm
> gonna ignore him.

Very true.

Maybe it is mxmaniac's hillbilly twin?

[gatt[_2_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...

> Yangooooo.....listen....
>
> Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super


Why would you have to "nudge" the yoke forward unless you're carrying too
much airspeed? In a proper Cessna 152 landing, you're pulling the yoke
back as you bleed off airspeed in order to ease the nosewheel down. There's
no forward nudging. The nose is going to come down eventually no matter
what.

Previously you wrote:

>>At the moment before touch-down push the yoke easy forward and I do a 3
>>point landing

That puts undue stress on the nosewheel, especially in a soft-terrain
environment. Published procedure is to hold the nosewheel off for as long
as possible (which is done by pulling back on the yoke) and ease it to the
ground as gently as possible.

-c

[gatt[_2_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...


>> So, you are advocating not following the POH?
>> Cheers
>
> What's a POH?
> Ken


Ah. He may be a good troll, but he's not a real pilot.

-c

[gatt[_2_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...


> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
> why?

And yet you don't know what a POH is.

Fraud.

-c

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"gatt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
> .
> ..
>
>> Yangooooo.....listen....
>>
>> Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
>
>
> Why would you have to "nudge" the yoke forward unless you're carrying
> too much airspeed?


To recover from th eflat spin you did on approach , of course.



Bertie
>
>
>
>

[gatt[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...

>> BTW, "wing flaps" I very definitely recommend
>> an SOP *buy the book* landing, if that how you
>> want to land.
>
> Oh why don't you just tell us how to do it.
>
> just for giggles.

He already did:

> > > > I pull back the yoke for a perfect flare, and
> > > > as the stall begins, my nose drops, then I
> > > > nudge back the yoke a bit more to settle
> > > > my little machine pretty much level and
> > > > stalled simultaneously....bingo!
> > > > At the moment before touch-down push the
> > > > yoke easy forward and I do a 3 point landing
> > > > at less than stall speed.

-c

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"gatt" > wrote in news:13ru5cef625a46
@corp.supernews.com:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> BTW, "wing flaps" I very definitely recommend
>>> an SOP *buy the book* landing, if that how you
>>> want to land.
>>
>> Oh why don't you just tell us how to do it.
>>
>> just for giggles.
>
> He already did:


Ah yes, the three point in a trike. I wouldn;t be surprised if the local
FBO keeps a lookout for him so they can lock up and hide when they see him
coming.

Bertie

[george]

On Feb 23, 7:26 am, "gatt" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
> > of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
> > Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
> > on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
> > why?
>
> And yet you don't know what a POH is.
>
> Fraud.

and is unable to use google.
Sad really

[gatt[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...

>>> Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
>>
>>
>> Why would you have to "nudge" the yoke forward unless you're carrying
>> too much airspeed?
>
> To recover from th eflat spin you did on approach , of course.

Oh, yes, how could I forget?

Whenever I do a flat spin on approach, I just cover my hands and scream.
Alternatively, if you throw in full power at exactly the right moment,
hey... 3 point landing!



-c

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"gatt" > wrote in news:13ruaeoim1cnn06
@corp.supernews.com:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>> Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
>>>
>>>
>>> Why would you have to "nudge" the yoke forward unless you're carrying
>>> too much airspeed?
>>
>> To recover from th eflat spin you did on approach , of course.
>
> Oh, yes, how could I forget?
>
> Whenever I do a flat spin on approach, I just cover my hands and scream.
> Alternatively, if you throw in full power at exactly the right moment,
> hey... 3 point landing!
>

I'm looking forward to seeing him perform on the airshow circuit.


bertie

[gatt[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Very true.
>
> Maybe it is mxmaniac's hillbilly twin?

I was thinking one could give the other flight lessons. Maybe over the
north Atlantic or something... Can you imagine being in that cockpit?

-c

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"gatt" > wrote in news:13ruamjsbick8a3
@corp.supernews.com:

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Very true.
>>
>> Maybe it is mxmaniac's hillbilly twin?
>
> I was thinking one could give the other flight lessons. Maybe over the
> north Atlantic or something... Can you imagine being in that cockpit?
>

the horror!


bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "gatt" > wrote in news:13ruaeoim1cnn06
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>>> Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
>>>>
>>>> Why would you have to "nudge" the yoke forward unless you're carrying
>>>> too much airspeed?
>>> To recover from th eflat spin you did on approach , of course.
>> Oh, yes, how could I forget?
>>
>> Whenever I do a flat spin on approach, I just cover my hands and scream.
>> Alternatively, if you throw in full power at exactly the right moment,
>> hey... 3 point landing!
>>
>
> I'm looking forward to seeing him perform on the airshow circuit.
>
>
> bertie

Bite your tongue!!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "gatt" > wrote in news:13ruaeoim1cnn06
>> @corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>> Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you have to "nudge" the yoke forward unless you're
>>>>> carrying too much airspeed?
>>>> To recover from th eflat spin you did on approach , of course.
>>> Oh, yes, how could I forget?
>>>
>>> Whenever I do a flat spin on approach, I just cover my hands and
>>> scream. Alternatively, if you throw in full power at exactly the
>>> right moment, hey... 3 point landing!
>>>
>>
>> I'm looking forward to seeing him perform on the airshow circuit.
>>
>>
>> bertie
>
> Bite your tongue!!! :-))
>

It'd be spectacular! Those propane explosions the CAF do are getting a bit
old...


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "gatt" > wrote in news:13ruaeoim1cnn06
>>> @corp.supernews.com:
>>>
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>> Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
>>>>>> Why would you have to "nudge" the yoke forward unless you're
>>>>>> carrying too much airspeed?
>>>>> To recover from th eflat spin you did on approach , of course.
>>>> Oh, yes, how could I forget?
>>>>
>>>> Whenever I do a flat spin on approach, I just cover my hands and
>>>> scream. Alternatively, if you throw in full power at exactly the
>>>> right moment, hey... 3 point landing!
>>>>
>>> I'm looking forward to seeing him perform on the airshow circuit.
>>>
>>>
>>> bertie
>> Bite your tongue!!! :-))
>>
>
> It'd be spectacular! Those propane explosions the CAF do are getting a bit
> old...
>
>
> Bertie

That is quite a show they do. Great place for a Pyro Maniac!
Not quite sure how a paper airplane being flown remotely by a simulator
jockey would fare though. Gets pretty hot in there for paper airplanes.
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 22, 10:20 am, "gatt" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > Yangooooo.....listen....
>
> > Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
>
> Why would you have to "nudge" the yoke forward unless you're carrying too
> much airspeed? In a proper Cessna 152 landing, you're pulling the yoke
> back as you bleed off airspeed in order to ease the nosewheel down. There's
> no forward nudging. The nose is going to come down eventually no matter
> what.
>
> Previously you wrote:
> >>At the moment before touch-down push the yoke easy forward and I do a 3
> >>point landing
>
> That puts undue stress on the nosewheel, especially in a soft-terrain
> environment. Published procedure is to hold the nosewheel off for as long
> as possible (which is done by pulling back on the yoke) and ease it to the
> ground as gently as possible.

FWIW, I definitely agree, I'm talking about hitting pavement.
It's the ground-effect that can keep the plane floating, that
is a mysterious effect (not really well understood) that does
happen at landings, but can be used to advantage, if you're
not a *fraidy cat*.
Once the rolling air from ground effect is achieved, a new
dynamic is effective. Of course that "rolling air" needs AoA
to be maintained, so nudging forward kills the "ground effect"
and you're very near a 3 point landing.
Maybe you guys want to analyse "ground effect lift".
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "gatt" > wrote in news:13ruaeoim1cnn06
>>>> @corp.supernews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
>>>>>>> Why would you have to "nudge" the yoke forward unless you're
>>>>>>> carrying too much airspeed?
>>>>>> To recover from th eflat spin you did on approach , of course.
>>>>> Oh, yes, how could I forget?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whenever I do a flat spin on approach, I just cover my hands and
>>>>> scream. Alternatively, if you throw in full power at exactly the
>>>>> right moment, hey... 3 point landing!
>>>>>
>>>> I'm looking forward to seeing him perform on the airshow circuit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bertie
>>> Bite your tongue!!! :-))
>>>
>>
>> It'd be spectacular! Those propane explosions the CAF do are getting
>> a bit old...
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> That is quite a show they do. Great place for a Pyro Maniac!
> Not quite sure how a paper airplane being flown remotely by a
> simulator jockey would fare though. Gets pretty hot in there for paper
> airplanes.


He'd make a fortune if he could pull it off though!


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

gatt wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Very true.
>>
>> Maybe it is mxmaniac's hillbilly twin?
>
> I was thinking one could give the other flight lessons. Maybe over the
> north Atlantic or something... Can you imagine being in that cockpit?
>
> -c
>
>
I've never flown a Hillbilly Twin. Is it "center thrust" by any chance?
(I've always found this particular rating to illicit strange erotic
responses from women when shown to them on the flight line)

:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Feb 22, 10:20 am, "gatt" > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>>
>>> Yangooooo.....listen....
>>> Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
>> Why would you have to "nudge" the yoke forward unless you're carrying too
>> much airspeed? In a proper Cessna 152 landing, you're pulling the yoke
>> back as you bleed off airspeed in order to ease the nosewheel down. There's
>> no forward nudging. The nose is going to come down eventually no matter
>> what.
>>
>> Previously you wrote:
>>>> At the moment before touch-down push the yoke easy forward and I do a 3
>>>> point landing
>> That puts undue stress on the nosewheel, especially in a soft-terrain
>> environment. Published procedure is to hold the nosewheel off for as long
>> as possible (which is done by pulling back on the yoke) and ease it to the
>> ground as gently as possible.
>
> FWIW, I definitely agree, I'm talking about hitting pavement.
> It's the ground-effect that can keep the plane floating, that
> is a mysterious effect (not really well understood) that does
> happen at landings, but can be used to advantage, if you're
> not a *fraidy cat*.
> Once the rolling air from ground effect is achieved, a new
> dynamic is effective. Of course that "rolling air" needs AoA
> to be maintained, so nudging forward kills the "ground effect"
> and you're very near a 3 point landing.
> Maybe you guys want to analyse "ground effect lift".
> Ken

Good Grief!!

I swear you're turning me into Charlie Brown, Ken.
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[gatt[_2_]]

>>>>>
>>>>> Whenever I do a flat spin on approach, I just cover my hands and
>>>>> scream. Alternatively, if you throw in full power at exactly the
>>>>> right moment, hey... 3 point landing!
>>>>>
>>>> I'm looking forward to seeing him perform on the airshow circuit.

>
> That is quite a show they do. Great place for a Pyro Maniac!
> Not quite sure how a paper airplane being flown remotely by a simulator
> jockey would fare though. Gets pretty hot in there for paper airplanes.


I meant to say "cover my eyes and scream," not "cover my hands," so, sorry
if I was unclear. I'm sure it makes all the difference.

You all may not like my patented "eyes-covered screaming flat-spin
three-point landing" but I assure you it would be a show-stopper. The Blue
Angels don't even do it.

-c

[Benjamin Dover]

"Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in
:


>
> FWIW, I definitely agree, I'm talking about hitting pavement.
> It's the ground-effect that can keep the plane floating, that
> is a mysterious effect (not really well understood) that does
> happen at landings, but can be used to advantage, if you're
> not a *fraidy cat*.
> Once the rolling air from ground effect is achieved, a new
> dynamic is effective. Of course that "rolling air" needs AoA
> to be maintained, so nudging forward kills the "ground effect"
> and you're very near a 3 point landing.
> Maybe you guys want to analyse "ground effect lift".
> Ken


YOU don't know **** from Shineola when it comes to ground effect.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 22, 10:20 am, "gatt" > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> messagenews:1d524c70-22a0-483c-9b1f-c9c179fb6815
@e10g2000prf.googlegro
>> ups.com...
>>
>> > Yangooooo.....listen....
>>
>> > Then nudge yoke foward. If the landing is super
>>
>> Why would you have to "nudge" the yoke forward unless you're carrying
>> too much airspeed? In a proper Cessna 152 landing, you're pulling
>> the yoke back as you bleed off airspeed in order to ease the
>> nosewheel down. There's no forward nudging. The nose is going to
>> come down eventually no matter what.
>>
>> Previously you wrote:
>> >>At the moment before touch-down push the yoke easy forward and I do
>> >>a 3 point landing
>>
>> That puts undue stress on the nosewheel, especially in a soft-terrain
>> environment. Published procedure is to hold the nosewheel off for
>> as long as possible (which is done by pulling back on the yoke) and
>> ease it to the ground as gently as possible.
>
> FWIW, I definitely agree,


FWIW? That'd be the value of the dust bunnies under my couch and the
dog's worn out chewie frog, I beleive.


> I'm talking about hitting pavement.


Hey, you must be a reeeeel pile-it iffin you can talk lke that!


> It's the ground-effect that can keep the plane floating, that
> is a mysterious effect (not really well understood)


Hey, the whole world is one big mystery to you Kennie!


But wait, if you understand how to land a Starfighter on a carrier, then
you must understand ground effect.

>that does
> happen at landings, but can be used to advantage, if you're
> not a *fraidy cat*.
> Once the rolling air from ground effect is achieved, a new
> dynamic is effective. Of course that "rolling air" needs AoA
> to be maintained, so nudging forward kills the "ground effect"
> and you're very near a 3 point landing.
> Maybe you guys want to analyse "ground effect lift".


I can think of several things that the Mounties should be analysing
right about now.


Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 22, 1:46 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> >>>>> Whenever I do a flat spin on approach, I just cover my hands and
> >>>>> scream. Alternatively, if you throw in full power at exactly the
> >>>>> right moment, hey... 3 point landing!
>
> >>>> I'm looking forward to seeing him perform on the airshow circuit.
>
> > That is quite a show they do. Great place for a Pyro Maniac!
> > Not quite sure how a paper airplane being flown remotely by a simulator
> > jockey would fare though. Gets pretty hot in there for paper airplanes.
>
> I meant to say "cover my eyes and scream," not "cover my hands," so, sorry
> if I was unclear. I'm sure it makes all the difference.
>
> You all may not like my patented "eyes-covered screaming flat-spin
> three-point landing" but I assure you it would be a show-stopper. The Blue
> Angels don't even do it.
> -c

Man, that would be cool, using a modified C152.
Do a 180 over the numbers, with lots of rudder
and convert the A/C into an effective Canard,
and land backwards.
That sounds like a super idea!
Then go to throttle as a reverse thruster.
Let's do it,...you first.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 22, 1:46 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
>> >>>>> Whenever I do a flat spin on approach, I just cover my hands
>> >>>>> and scream. Alternatively, if you throw in full power at
>> >>>>> exactly the right moment, hey... 3 point landing!
>>
>> >>>> I'm looking forward to seeing him perform on the airshow
>> >>>> circuit.
>>
>> > That is quite a show they do. Great place for a Pyro Maniac!
>> > Not quite sure how a paper airplane being flown remotely by a
>> > simulator jockey would fare though. Gets pretty hot in there for
>> > paper airplanes.
>>
>> I meant to say "cover my eyes and scream," not "cover my hands," so,
>> sorry if I was unclear. I'm sure it makes all the difference.
>>
>> You all may not like my patented "eyes-covered screaming flat-spin
>> three-point landing" but I assure you it would be a show-stopper.
>> The Blue Angels don't even do it.
>> -c
>
> Man, that would be cool, using a modified C152.
> Do a 180 over the numbers, with lots of rudder
> and convert the A/C into an effective Canard,
> and land backwards.
> That sounds like a super idea!
> Then go to throttle as a reverse thruster.
> Let's do it,...you first.

If it were possible, I could, you , never..


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 4:39 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> gatt wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Very true.
>
> >> Maybe it is mxmaniac's hillbilly twin?
>
> > I was thinking one could give the other flight lessons. Maybe over the
> > north Atlantic or something... Can you imagine being in that cockpit?
>
> > -c
>
> I've never flown a Hillbilly Twin. Is it "center thrust" by any chance?
> (I've always found this particular rating to illicit strange erotic
> responses from women when shown to them on the flight line)
>
> :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Hmm..

Maybe Cessna missed an opportunity..

Just think: "Let me show you the joystick in my center thrust
SkyMaster"

nice.......

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Feb 22, 4:39 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> gatt wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Very true.
>>>> Maybe it is mxmaniac's hillbilly twin?
>>> I was thinking one could give the other flight lessons. Maybe over the
>>> north Atlantic or something... Can you imagine being in that cockpit?
>>> -c
>> I've never flown a Hillbilly Twin. Is it "center thrust" by any chance?
>> (I've always found this particular rating to illicit strange erotic
>> responses from women when shown to them on the flight line)
>>
>> :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Hmm..
>
> Maybe Cessna missed an opportunity..
>
> Just think: "Let me show you the joystick in my center thrust
> SkyMaster"
>
> nice.......
>

Something tells me this one will need some work :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Benjamin Dover writes:

> YOU don't know **** from Shineola when it comes to ground effect.

Since neither has anything to do with ground effect, why would that be a
problem?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> YOU don't know **** from Shineola when it comes to ground effect.
>
> Since neither has anything to do with ground effect, why would that be a
> problem?


You'll never fly so you'll never know.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Benjamin Dover writes:

> > YOU don't know **** from Shineola when it comes to ground effect.

> Since neither has anything to do with ground effect, why would that be a
> problem?

My god you are ignorant.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[gatt[_2_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...

>> You all may not like my patented "eyes-covered screaming flat-spin
>> three-point landing" but I assure you it would be a show-stopper. The
>> Blue
>> Angels don't even do it.

> Man, that would be cool, using a modified C152.
> Do a 180 over the numbers, with lots of rudder
> and convert the A/C into an effective Canard,
> and land backwards.
> That sounds like a super idea!
> Then go to throttle as a reverse thruster.


Too easy unless it's on an aircraft carrier, but that's also too easy
because the arresting cables catch the nosewheel. Of course, if you time it
right, when the nose gear rips off it can get yanked through the prop. But
since I don't have permission to land on carriers and you apparently have, I
guess you'll get a wikipedia page before I do.

-c

[Benjamin Dover]

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> > YOU don't know **** from Shineola when it comes to ground effect.
>
>> Since neither has anything to do with ground effect, why would that be a
>> problem?
>
> My god you are ignorant.
>
>

His level of ignorance is unsurpassed in the annals of mankind.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> YOU don't know **** from Shineola when it comes to ground effect.
>
> Since neither has anything to do with ground effect, why would that be a
> problem?

To coin a phrase:

"Good grief"

Andy

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> My god you are ignorant.

That's a terrible thing to say about your deity.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > My god you are ignorant.

> That's a terrible thing to say about your deity.

It can never be said enough; my god you are ignorant.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> My god you are ignorant.
>
> That's a terrible thing to say about your deity.
>

Do you actually think you're going to convince anyone that you have a sense
of humor, tard-o-mat?


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :

> > writes:
> >
> >> My god you are ignorant.
> >
> > That's a terrible thing to say about your deity.
> >

> Do you actually think you're going to convince anyone that you have a sense
> of humor, tard-o-mat?

Since he is obviously humor impaired and totally oblivious to sarcasm, I
think it is more a case of being so socially isolated he has no
understanding of colloquial expressions like "**** from shinola" or
"my god".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Benjamin Dover]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>
>> > writes:
>> >
>> >> My god you are ignorant.
>> >
>> > That's a terrible thing to say about your deity.
>> >
>
>> Do you actually think you're going to convince anyone that you have a
>> sense of humor, tard-o-mat?
>
> Since he is obviously humor impaired and totally oblivious to sarcasm,
> I think it is more a case of being so socially isolated he has no
> understanding of colloquial expressions like "**** from shinola" or
> "my god".
>

MXSmoron doesn't know the difference between ****, Shinola, and god.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>
>> > writes:
>> >
>> >> My god you are ignorant.
>> >
>> > That's a terrible thing to say about your deity.
>> >
>
>> Do you actually think you're going to convince anyone that you have a
>> sense of humor, tard-o-mat?
>
> Since he is obviously humor impaired and totally oblivious to sarcasm,
> I think it is more a case of being so socially isolated he has no
> understanding of colloquial expressions like "**** from shinola" or
> "my god".
>

Or "you are an idiot" or "**** off", for that matter.

Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 22, 4:38 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> >> You all may not like my patented "eyes-covered screaming flat-spin
> >> three-point landing" but I assure you it would be a show-stopper. The
> >> Blue
> >> Angels don't even do it.
> > Man, that would be cool, using a modified C152.
> > Do a 180 over the numbers, with lots of rudder
> > and convert the A/C into an effective Canard,
> > and land backwards.
> > That sounds like a super idea!
> > Then go to throttle as a reverse thruster.
>
> Too easy unless it's on an aircraft carrier, but that's also too easy
> because the arresting cables catch the nosewheel. Of course, if you time it
> right, when the nose gear rips off it can get yanked through the prop. But
> since I don't have permission to land on carriers and you apparently have, I
> guess you'll get a wikipedia page before I do.
>
> -c

Well sims are fun, I was running low on fuel
near Hawaii heading North, in an SR-71.
At 80,000 feet, I set KIAS to 649 with descent,
((that's not secret anymore, right)).

I practically glided into Alaska, (Elwsworth?) on
fumes.
Ken

PS: Dear Officer, the reason I was speeding was to
get to the gas station before I ran out of gas.
(works every time)....

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

>

>
> I practically glided into Alaska, (Elwsworth?) on
> fumes.


Too easy.


Bertie

[Big John[_2_]]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:04:27 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:

>On Feb 21, 8:27 am, Big John > wrote:
>> ----clip----
>>
>> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
>> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
>> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
>> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
>> why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
>> Ken
>>
>> ************************************************** **
>>
>> Ken
>> Did you chop power landing or land power on?
>> Big John
>
>When I land something like a Cessna (in reality) I use
>minimum power so the prop is acting as a break.
>
>In the F104 sim, I crashed and burned about 10 times.
>IIRC, I set-up slowest speed on final, (possibly with
>airspeed brakes) then, near the deck, flared, cut power,
>and squealed the tires. I think the sim allowed a 2g
>vertical strike on the gear. It was quite a rush
>- even tho it was a sim - when I finally landed it ok.
>
>Do you do sims to?
>Ken


************************************************** ************

Last first.

Yep. Flew the Link Trainer. Did you ever fly one?

On question.

If you chop power before your rolling you are going to crash. Been
there. Seen that.

Do you know the minimum ejection altitude with the original downward
seat??

Do you wear your spurs when flying your hot sim?

Big John

[Big John[_2_]]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:01:37 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Big John > wrote in
:
>
>> ----clip----
>>
>>
>> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
>> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
>> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
>> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
>> why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
>> Ken
>>
>> ************************************************** **
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> Did you chop power landing or land power on?
>>
>
>Oh you have a wicked streak, John.
>
>
>bertie


************************************************** ********

Why would you say that Bertie :o)

Anyone with as many hours in bird as Ken, has to know the normal safe
landing technique.

I wonder if they issued a midget tech rep with his 104 sim?

Big John

[[email protected]]

On Feb 23, 5:04 pm, Big John > wrote:

>
> Do you wear your spurs when flying your hot sim?
>
> Big John

I wear a Stetson when I play a Cav sim...

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 23, 2:04 pm, Big John > wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:04:27 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"

> > wrote:
> >On Feb 21, 8:27 am, Big John > wrote:
> >> ----clip----
>
> >> Dan, man to man, I get the impression you're afraid
> >> of landings, where as myself, that's what I live for.
> >> Sure some is sim's, but I managed to land an F104
> >> on a Carrier deck, to prove it's possible, do you know
> >> why? Cuz it could save a pilots life!
> >> Ken
>
> >> ************************************************** **
>
> >> Ken
> >> Did you chop power landing or land power on?
> >> Big John
>
> >When I land something like a Cessna (in reality) I use
> >minimum power so the prop is acting as a break.
>
> >In the F104 sim, I crashed and burned about 10 times.
> >IIRC, I set-up slowest speed on final, (possibly with
> >airspeed brakes) then, near the deck, flared, cut power,
> >and squealed the tires. I think the sim allowed a 2g
> >vertical strike on the gear. It was quite a rush
> >- even tho it was a sim - when I finally landed it ok.
>
> >Do you do sims to?
> >Ken
>
> ************************************************** ************
>
> Last first.
> Yep. Flew the Link Trainer. Did you ever fly one?

Fly a Link Trainer, no I haven't, but my Old Boy did
in WW2, he even had those little manuals, that I
wish I kept.
Mind if I ask about your experience with the Link?
(My Old Boy said they were fun).

> On question.
> If you chop power before your rolling you are going to crash. Been
> there. Seen that.
>
> Do you know the minimum ejection altitude with the original downward
> seat??

No, but I bet a lot of F104 pilots have never heard
of that. I read the rationale was to avoid the T-tail,
and at low altitude one was to roll the A/C over,
then eject.

> Do you wear your spurs when flying your hot sim?
> Big John

Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:f6e532d3-a93d-4d72-
:

>
> Fly a Link Trainer, no I haven't, but my Old Boy did
> in WW2, he even had those little manuals, that I
> wish I kept.
> Mind if I ask about your experience with the Link?
> (My Old Boy said they were fun).
>

>> On question.
>> If you chop power before your rolling you are going to crash. Been
>> there. Seen that.
>>
>> Do you know the minimum ejection altitude with the original downward
>> seat??
>
> No, but I bet a lot of F104 pilots have never heard
> of that. I read the rationale was to avoid the T-tail,
> and at low altitude one was to roll the A/C over,
> then eject.


Boggle


Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 23, 3:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:f6e532d3-a93d-4d72-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > Fly a Link Trainer, no I haven't, but my Old Boy did
> > in WW2, he even had those little manuals, that I
> > wish I kept.
> > Mind if I ask about your experience with the Link?
> > (My Old Boy said they were fun).
>
> >> On question.
> >> If you chop power before your rolling you are going to crash. Been
> >> there. Seen that.
>
> >> Do you know the minimum ejection altitude with the original downward
> >> seat??
>
> > No, but I bet a lot of F104 pilots have never heard
> > of that. I read the rationale was to avoid the T-tail,
> > and at low altitude one was to roll the A/C over,
> > then eject.
>
> Boggle
> Bertie

Funny, you'll need to channel Kelly Johnson for the
whole story.
Recall, from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,
"I can't swim", "well the fall will kill you anyway".

Ok, so you eject from an F104 at mach2, and
experience significant deacceleration trauma,
(your not very streamlined, does hitting a brick
wall sound reasonable).
but don't worry, the T-tail is not an issue.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 23, 3:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> news:f6e532d3-a93d-4d72-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Fly a Link Trainer, no I haven't, but my Old Boy did
>> > in WW2, he even had those little manuals, that I
>> > wish I kept.
>> > Mind if I ask about your experience with the Link?
>> > (My Old Boy said they were fun).
>>
>> >> On question.
>> >> If you chop power before your rolling you are going to crash.
>> >> Been there. Seen that.
>>
>> >> Do you know the minimum ejection altitude with the original
>> >> downward seat??
>>
>> > No, but I bet a lot of F104 pilots have never heard
>> > of that. I read the rationale was to avoid the T-tail,
>> > and at low altitude one was to roll the A/C over,
>> > then eject.
>>
>> Boggle
>> Bertie
>
> Funny, you'll need to channel Kelly Johnson for the
> whole story.
> Recall, from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,
> "I can't swim", "well the fall will kill you anyway".
>
> Ok, so you eject from an F104 at mach2, and
> experience significant deacceleration trauma,
> (your not very streamlined, does hitting a brick
> wall sound reasonable).
> but don't worry, the T-tail is not an issue.


killfile troubles again, Your Tardness?


Bertie

[Big John]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:45:30 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:

>On Feb 23, 3:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:f6e532d3-a93d-4d72-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Fly a Link Trainer, no I haven't, but my Old Boy did
>> > in WW2, he even had those little manuals, that I
>> > wish I kept.
>> > Mind if I ask about your experience with the Link?
>> > (My Old Boy said they were fun).
>>
>> >> On question.
>> >> If you chop power before your rolling you are going to crash. Been
>> >> there. Seen that.
>>
>> >> Do you know the minimum ejection altitude with the original downward
>> >> seat??
>>
>> > No, but I bet a lot of F104 pilots have never heard
>> > of that. I read the rationale was to avoid the T-tail,
>> > and at low altitude one was to roll the A/C over,
>> > then eject.
>>
>> Boggle
>> Bertie
>
>Funny, you'll need to channel Kelly Johnson for the
>whole story.
>Recall, from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,
>"I can't swim", "well the fall will kill you anyway".
>
>Ok, so you eject from an F104 at mach2, and
>experience significant deacceleration trauma,
>(your not very streamlined, does hitting a brick
>wall sound reasonable).
>but don't worry, the T-tail is not an issue.
>Ken


****************************************
Ken

Do you remeber when they changed from the downward ejection seat to
the historic upward ejection and why? Did they put a charge in
fuselage to blow the tail off so you wouldn't hit it when you ejected
?????

Big John

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 24, 5:25 pm, Big John > wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:45:30 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 23, 3:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:f6e532d3-a93d-4d72-
> >> :
>
> >> > Fly a Link Trainer, no I haven't, but my Old Boy did
> >> > in WW2, he even had those little manuals, that I
> >> > wish I kept.
> >> > Mind if I ask about your experience with the Link?
> >> > (My Old Boy said they were fun).
>
> >> >> On question.
> >> >> If you chop power before your rolling you are going to crash. Been
> >> >> there. Seen that.
>
> >> >> Do you know the minimum ejection altitude with the original downward
> >> >> seat??

> >> > No, but I bet a lot of F104 pilots have never heard
> >> > of that. I read the rationale was to avoid the T-tail,
> >> > and at low altitude one was to roll the A/C over,
> >> > then eject.

> >Funny, you'll need to channel Kelly Johnson for the
> >whole story.
> >Recall, from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,
> >"I can't swim", "well the fall will kill you anyway".
>
> >Ok, so you eject from an F104 at mach2, and
> >experience significant deacceleration trauma,
> >(your not very streamlined, does hitting a brick
> >wall sound reasonable).
> >but don't worry, the T-tail is not an issue.
> >Ken
>
> ****************************************
> Ken
>
> Do you remeber when they changed from the downward ejection seat to
> the historic upward ejection and why? Did they put a charge in
> fuselage to blow the tail off so you wouldn't hit it when you ejected
> ?????
> Big John

There's some info here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-104_Starfighter#Equipment_and_armament

Try googling *f-104 + ejection seat*, a few articles came up,
that are quite detailed.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 24, 5:25 pm, Big John > wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:45:30 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>> > wrote:
>> >On Feb 23, 3:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> >> news:f6e532d3-a93d-4d72-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > Fly a Link Trainer, no I haven't, but my Old Boy did
>> >> > in WW2, he even had those little manuals, that I
>> >> > wish I kept.
>> >> > Mind if I ask about your experience with the Link?
>> >> > (My Old Boy said they were fun).
>>
>> >> >> On question.
>> >> >> If you chop power before your rolling you are going to crash.
>> >> >> Been there. Seen that.
>>
>> >> >> Do you know the minimum ejection altitude with the original
>> >> >> downward seat??
>
>> >> > No, but I bet a lot of F104 pilots have never heard
>> >> > of that. I read the rationale was to avoid the T-tail,
>> >> > and at low altitude one was to roll the A/C over,
>> >> > then eject.
>
>> >Funny, you'll need to channel Kelly Johnson for the
>> >whole story.
>> >Recall, from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,
>> >"I can't swim", "well the fall will kill you anyway".
>>
>> >Ok, so you eject from an F104 at mach2, and
>> >experience significant deacceleration trauma,
>> >(your not very streamlined, does hitting a brick
>> >wall sound reasonable).
>> >but don't worry, the T-tail is not an issue.
>> >Ken
>>
>> ****************************************
>> Ken
>>
>> Do you remeber when they changed from the downward ejection seat to
>> the historic upward ejection and why? Did they put a charge in
>> fuselage to blow the tail off so you wouldn't hit it when you ejected
>> ?????
>> Big John
>
> There's some info here,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-104_Starfighter#Equipment_and_armament
>
> Try googling *f-104 + ejection seat*, a few articles came up,
> that are quite detailed.


Awww, but we wanted YOU to tel us about it, Kenny!


Did you put bungees on your lawn chair as a simulation aid?

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 21, 1:57 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:31 pm, wrote:

> > How many licenses do you have?
>
> "Licenses", well that depends, if you are controlled
> by govmonks, as you apparently are, we're about
> equal, however I'm a citizen who works for private
> corporations - for profit - and have diploma's all over
> the place, filed somewhere.

Didn't ask about diplomas. (Note the punctuation, Mr Mensa.) I
asked about licenses.

> >How many airplane types have
> > you flown? (Real airplanes, not simulated airplanes.)
> > How many hours? Three, maybe? Kinda sounds like it.
>
> I tossed my log book, cuz I don't keep my Gr.1
> printing anymore, just crappy paper work.

Didn't ask about logbooks. Asked about licenses.

> You know, I do a poo-poo, and I ain't going to keep
> the used TP dated and filed. RULE 1, never leave a
> paper-work trail!

Didn't ask about paperwork trails. Asked about licenses.

I didn't think you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 2:35 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> FWIW, I definitely agree, I'm talking about hitting pavement.
> It's the ground-effect that can keep the plane floating, that
> is a mysterious effect (not really well understood) that does
> happen at landings, but can be used to advantage, if you're
> not a *fraidy cat*.
> Once the rolling air from ground effect is achieved, a new
> dynamic is effective. Of course that "rolling air" needs AoA
> to be maintained, so nudging forward kills the "ground effect"
> and you're very near a 3 point landing.
> Maybe you guys want to analyse "ground effect lift".
> Ken

Ground effect is not a mystery to those who have taken
groundschools and have licenses. It's mystery to simulated "pilots."
Ground effect was well understood by aerodynamicists a long time ago,
and it's been explained in the textbooks since then.
Lowering the nose just before touchdown just reduces AOA so
that the airplane thumps onto the runway. It's not going to squeak on.
It's sloppy and stupid and damages things.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:40396cd2-7aa3-4d05-9875-
:




> Lowering the nose just before touchdown just reduces AOA so
> that the airplane thumps onto the runway. It's not going to squeak on.
> It's sloppy and stupid and damages things.
>

He he. you should get a job with Jeppy writing pilot manuals!

Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:

> I didn't think

Dan, I agree with that.

> you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
> they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.

When I got my license, I did of course read the
Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
circumstances to have the license revoked.
Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
Ken
PS: You don not understand the system.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2:35 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> FWIW, I definitely agree, I'm talking about hitting pavement.
>> It's the ground-effect that can keep the plane floating, that
>> is a mysterious effect (not really well understood) that does
>> happen at landings, but can be used to advantage, if you're
>> not a *fraidy cat*.
>> Once the rolling air from ground effect is achieved, a new
>> dynamic is effective. Of course that "rolling air" needs AoA
>> to be maintained, so nudging forward kills the "ground effect"
>> and you're very near a 3 point landing.
>> Maybe you guys want to analyse "ground effect lift".
>> Ken
>
> Ground effect is not a mystery to those who have taken
> groundschools and have licenses. It's mystery to simulated "pilots."
> Ground effect was well understood by aerodynamicists a long time ago,
> and it's been explained in the textbooks since then.
> Lowering the nose just before touchdown just reduces AOA so
> that the airplane thumps onto the runway. It's not going to squeak on.
> It's sloppy and stupid and damages things.
>
> Dan
>
>

I would strongly recommend that lowering the nose on any landing is
asking for trouble in a BIG way. In fact, the exact opposite is true.
You should be HOLDING the nose in the landing attitude as the airplane
touches down.

I don't know where this guy reads the crap he posts on these groups but
I wouldn't climb into an airplane with Ken Tucker for a million
bucks....and I mean even a PAPER airplane!!!!.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:
>
>> I didn't think
>
> Dan, I agree with that.
>
>> you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
>> they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
>
> When I got my license, I did of course read the
> Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
> circumstances to have the license revoked.
> Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
> Ken
> PS: You don not understand the system.

Obviously we don't understand the system. ANY system that allowed you a
pilot's certificate is quite frankly beyond our meager ability to
understand.
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:91159c92-dd52-4dbd-
:

> On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:
>
>> I didn't think
>
> Dan, I agree with that.
>
>> you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
>> they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
>
> When I got my license, I did of course read the
> Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
> circumstances to have the license revoked.
> Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
> Ken
> PS: You don not understand the system.


So now we know. A Cheerios lah-since is bulletproof.


Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 11:23 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:
>
> > I didn't think
>
> Dan, I agree with that.
>
> > you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
> > they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
>
> When I got my license, I did of course read the
> Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
> circumstances to have the license revoked.
> Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
> Ken
> PS: You don not understand the system.

No, YOU don't know anything.

If we have a look at the Aeronautics Act at
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/Regserv/Affairs/AeronauticsAct/Nov2007.htm
we will see this little item:

6.8 In addition to any grounds referred to in any of sections 4.4,
6.71, 6.9 to 7.1 and 7.21, the Minister may suspend, cancel or refuse
to issue, renew or amend a Canadian aviation document in the
circumstances and on the grounds prescribed by regulation of the
Governor in Council.

And if we have a look at the Canadian Aviation Regulations, referred
to above by "regulation of the Governor in Council" here:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part1/103.htm#103_01

We will read thus:

103.06 (1) A notice issued by the Minister pursuant to subsections
6.9(1) and (2) of the Act shall include

(a) a description of the particulars of the alleged contravention;

(b) where the Minister has decided to suspend the Canadian aviation
document, a statement of the duration of the suspension; and

(c) a statement that a request for review by the Tribunal does not
operate as a stay of the suspension or cancellation but that an
application may be made in writing to the Tribunal, pursuant to
subsection 6.9(4) of the Act, to stay the suspension or cancellation
until the review of the decision of the Minister has been concluded.

(2) A notice issued by the Minister pursuant to subsections 7(1) and
(2) of the Act shall include

(a) a statement of the effective date of the suspension;

(b) a statement of the conditions under which the suspension is
terminated; and

(c) a statement that a request for review by the Tribunal does not
operate as a stay of the suspension.

(3) A notice issued by the Minister pursuant to subsections 7.1(1) and
(2) of the Act shall include

(a) where the Minister has decided to suspend or cancel a Canadian
aviation document, a statement of the effective date of the suspension
or cancellation;

(b) where the Minister has decided to suspend the Canadian aviation
document, a statement of the duration of the suspension or the
conditions under which the suspension is terminated; and

(c) a statement that a request for review by the Tribunal does not
operate as a stay of the suspension, cancellation or refusal to renew.

(4) A notice issued by the Minister under subsection 6.71(2) of the
Act informing an applicant or an owner or operator of an aircraft,
aerodrome, airport or other facility of the Minister's decision made
under subsection 6.71(1) of the Act to refuse to issue or amend a
Canadian aviation document in respect of the aircraft, aerodrome,
airport or other facility shall be in the form set out in Schedule I
to this Subpart.
(amended 2004/05/11; no previous version)

Administrative Grounds for Suspension, Cancellation or Refusal to
Renew

103.07 In addition to the grounds referred to in Sections 6.9 to 7.1
of the Act, the Minister may suspend, cancel or refuse to renew a
Canadian aviation document where

(a) the Canadian aviation document has been voluntarily surrendered to
the Minister by its holder;

(b) he Canadian aviation document has been mutilated, altered, or
rendered illegible;

(c) the aircraft in respect of which the Canadian aviation document
was issued has been destroyed or withdrawn from use; or

(d) the commercial air service, other service or undertaking in
respect of which the Canadian aviation document was issued has been
discontinued.

In Canada, Ken, "cancellation" means revocation. Lost
forever.

I still believe you don't have any licenses.

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:91159c92-dd52-4dbd-
> :
>
>> On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't think
>> Dan, I agree with that.
>>
>>> you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
>>> they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
>> When I got my license, I did of course read the
>> Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
>> circumstances to have the license revoked.
>> Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
>> Ken
>> PS: You don not understand the system.
>
>
> So now we know. A Cheerios lah-since is bulletproof.
>
>
> Bertie
>
Well, you have to admit; a Cheerios box top can make a paper airplane!
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[george]

On Feb 26, 8:28 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Obviously we don't understand the system. ANY system that allowed you a
> pilot's certificate is quite frankly beyond our meager ability to
> understand.
> :-)

Yup.
All a group of dummies like us can do is fly aeroplanes and hold the
licenses and rating that are required ...
Is Ken the alterego of Mixedup?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

george wrote:
> On Feb 26, 8:28 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Obviously we don't understand the system. ANY system that allowed you a
>> pilot's certificate is quite frankly beyond our meager ability to
>> understand.
>> :-)
>
> Yup.
> All a group of dummies like us can do is fly aeroplanes and hold the
> licenses and rating that are required ...
> Is Ken the alterego of Mixedup?
>
Bertie seems to think they might be in the sock puppet business
together. He might very well be right. :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> news:91159c92-dd52-4dbd-
>> :
>>
>>> On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:
>>>
>>>> I didn't think
>>> Dan, I agree with that.
>>>
>>>> you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
>>>> they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
>>> When I got my license, I did of course read the
>>> Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
>>> circumstances to have the license revoked.
>>> Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
>>> Ken
>>> PS: You don not understand the system.
>>
>>
>> So now we know. A Cheerios lah-since is bulletproof.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> Well, you have to admit; a Cheerios box top can make a paper airplane!
>:-)
>

I remember those!

They were the old WW2 paper airplanes done by Air Trails during the war
itself, I think. Cheerios were giving them away for box tops around
1964 or so. I only got one pair. I think it was the Zero and the Il2.
They actually flew very well.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>> news:91159c92-dd52-4dbd-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I didn't think
>>>> Dan, I agree with that.
>>>>
>>>>> you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
>>>>> they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
>>>> When I got my license, I did of course read the
>>>> Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
>>>> circumstances to have the license revoked.
>>>> Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
>>>> Ken
>>>> PS: You don not understand the system.
>>>
>>> So now we know. A Cheerios lah-since is bulletproof.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> Well, you have to admit; a Cheerios box top can make a paper airplane!
>> :-)
>>
>
> I remember those!
>
> They were the old WW2 paper airplanes done by Air Trails during the war
> itself, I think. Cheerios were giving them away for box tops around
> 1964 or so. I only got one pair. I think it was the Zero and the Il2.
> They actually flew very well.
>
>
> Bertie

It's surprising how well these things flew. HAD to be made by some other
company than the Tucker Paper Airplane Factory :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 25, 11:32 am, wrote:
> On Feb 25, 11:23 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:
>
> > > I didn't think
>
> > Dan, I agree with that.
>
> > > you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
> > > they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
>
> > When I got my license, I did of course read the
> > Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
> > circumstances to have the license revoked.
> > Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
> > Ken
> > PS: You don not understand the system.
>
> No, YOU don't know anything.
>
> If we have a look at the Aeronautics Act athttp://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/Regserv/Affairs/AeronauticsAct/Nov2...
> we will see this little item:
>
> 6.8 In addition to any grounds referred to in any of sections 4.4,
> 6.71, 6.9 to 7.1 and 7.21, the Minister may suspend, cancel or refuse
> to issue, renew or amend a Canadian aviation document in the
> circumstances and on the grounds prescribed by regulation of the
> Governor in Council.
>
> And if we have a look at the Canadian Aviation Regulations, referred
> to above by "regulation of the Governor in Council" here:
>
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part1/103.htm#...
>
> We will read thus:
>
> 103.06 (1) A notice issued by the Minister pursuant to subsections
> 6.9(1) and (2) of the Act shall include
>
> (a) a description of the particulars of the alleged contravention;
>
> (b) where the Minister has decided to suspend the Canadian aviation
> document, a statement of the duration of the suspension; and
>
> (c) a statement that a request for review by the Tribunal does not
> operate as a stay of the suspension or cancellation but that an
> application may be made in writing to the Tribunal, pursuant to
> subsection 6.9(4) of the Act, to stay the suspension or cancellation
> until the review of the decision of the Minister has been concluded.
>
> (2) A notice issued by the Minister pursuant to subsections 7(1) and
> (2) of the Act shall include
>
> (a) a statement of the effective date of the suspension;
>
> (b) a statement of the conditions under which the suspension is
> terminated; and
>
> (c) a statement that a request for review by the Tribunal does not
> operate as a stay of the suspension.
>
> (3) A notice issued by the Minister pursuant to subsections 7.1(1) and
> (2) of the Act shall include
>
> (a) where the Minister has decided to suspend or cancel a Canadian
> aviation document, a statement of the effective date of the suspension
> or cancellation;
>
> (b) where the Minister has decided to suspend the Canadian aviation
> document, a statement of the duration of the suspension or the
> conditions under which the suspension is terminated; and
>
> (c) a statement that a request for review by the Tribunal does not
> operate as a stay of the suspension, cancellation or refusal to renew.
>
> (4) A notice issued by the Minister under subsection 6.71(2) of the
> Act informing an applicant or an owner or operator of an aircraft,
> aerodrome, airport or other facility of the Minister's decision made
> under subsection 6.71(1) of the Act to refuse to issue or amend a
> Canadian aviation document in respect of the aircraft, aerodrome,
> airport or other facility shall be in the form set out in Schedule I
> to this Subpart.
> (amended 2004/05/11; no previous version)
>
> Administrative Grounds for Suspension, Cancellation or Refusal to
> Renew
>
> 103.07 In addition to the grounds referred to in Sections 6.9 to 7.1
> of the Act, the Minister may suspend, cancel or refuse to renew a
> Canadian aviation document where
>
> (a) the Canadian aviation document has been voluntarily surrendered to
> the Minister by its holder;
>
> (b) he Canadian aviation document has been mutilated, altered, or
> rendered illegible;
>
> (c) the aircraft in respect of which the Canadian aviation document
> was issued has been destroyed or withdrawn from use; or
>
> (d) the commercial air service, other service or undertaking in
> respect of which the Canadian aviation document was issued has been
> discontinued.
>
> In Canada, Ken, "cancellation" means revocation. Lost
> forever.

No, you need to understand retro-activity of law.
<yawn>, you don't understand the system.

Besides, who gives a *flying ***** about about
a bunch of suck up govmonk workers suckin
bucks from us. The canuck govmonkery is so
corrupt, anyone who goes along with that system
is a *cock-sucker*, be their guest....LOL...
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 25, 11:23 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:
>>
>> > I didn't think
>>
>> Dan, I agree with that.
>>
>> > you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
>> > they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
>>
>> When I got my license, I did of course read the
>> Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
>> circumstances to have the license revoked.
>> Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
>> Ken
>> PS: You don not understand the system.
>
> No, YOU don't know anything.
>
> If we have a look at the Aeronautics Act at
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/Regserv/Affairs/AeronauticsAct/Nov20
0
> 7.htm
> we will see this little item:
>
> 6.8 In addition to any grounds referred to in any of sections 4.4,
> 6.71, 6.9 to 7.1 and 7.21, the Minister may suspend, cancel or refuse
> to issue, renew or amend a Canadian aviation document in the
> circumstances and on the grounds prescribed by regulation of the
> Governor in Council.
>
> And if we have a look at the Canadian Aviation Regulations, referred
> to above by "regulation of the Governor in Council" here:
>
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part1/103.htm#
10
> 3_01
>
> We will read thus:
>
> 103.06 (1) A notice issued by the Minister pursuant to subsections
> 6.9(1) and (2) of the Act shall include
>
> (a) a description of the particulars of the alleged contravention;
>
> (b) where the Minister has decided to suspend the Canadian aviation
> document, a statement of the duration of the suspension; and
>
> (c) a statement that a request for review by the Tribunal does not
> operate as a stay of the suspension or cancellation but that an
> application may be made in writing to the Tribunal, pursuant to
> subsection 6.9(4) of the Act, to stay the suspension or cancellation
> until the review of the decision of the Minister has been concluded.
>
> (2) A notice issued by the Minister pursuant to subsections 7(1) and
> (2) of the Act shall include
>
> (a) a statement of the effective date of the suspension;
>
> (b) a statement of the conditions under which the suspension is
> terminated; and
>
> (c) a statement that a request for review by the Tribunal does not
> operate as a stay of the suspension.
>
> (3) A notice issued by the Minister pursuant to subsections 7.1(1) and
> (2) of the Act shall include
>
> (a) where the Minister has decided to suspend or cancel a Canadian
> aviation document, a statement of the effective date of the suspension
> or cancellation;
>
> (b) where the Minister has decided to suspend the Canadian aviation
> document, a statement of the duration of the suspension or the
> conditions under which the suspension is terminated; and
>
> (c) a statement that a request for review by the Tribunal does not
> operate as a stay of the suspension, cancellation or refusal to renew.
>
> (4) A notice issued by the Minister under subsection 6.71(2) of the
> Act informing an applicant or an owner or operator of an aircraft,
> aerodrome, airport or other facility of the Minister's decision made
> under subsection 6.71(1) of the Act to refuse to issue or amend a
> Canadian aviation document in respect of the aircraft, aerodrome,
> airport or other facility shall be in the form set out in Schedule I
> to this Subpart.
> (amended 2004/05/11; no previous version)
>
> Administrative Grounds for Suspension, Cancellation or Refusal to
> Renew
>
> 103.07 In addition to the grounds referred to in Sections 6.9 to 7.1
> of the Act, the Minister may suspend, cancel or refuse to renew a
> Canadian aviation document where
>
> (a) the Canadian aviation document has been voluntarily surrendered to
> the Minister by its holder;
>
> (b) he Canadian aviation document has been mutilated, altered, or
> rendered illegible;
>
> (c) the aircraft in respect of which the Canadian aviation document
> was issued has been destroyed or withdrawn from use; or
>
> (d) the commercial air service, other service or undertaking in
> respect of which the Canadian aviation document was issued has been
> discontinued.
>
> In Canada, Ken, "cancellation" means revocation. Lost
> forever.
>
> I still believe you don't have any licenses.
>

But have you checked with Cheerios?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:29udnRl-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>> news:91159c92-dd52-4dbd-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't think
>>>>> Dan, I agree with that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
>>>>>> they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
>>>>> When I got my license, I did of course read the
>>>>> Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
>>>>> circumstances to have the license revoked.
>>>>> Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
>>>>> Ken
>>>>> PS: You don not understand the system.
>>>>
>>>> So now we know. A Cheerios lah-since is bulletproof.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> Well, you have to admit; a Cheerios box top can make a paper
airplane!
>>> :-)
>>>
>>
>> I remember those!
>>
>> They were the old WW2 paper airplanes done by Air Trails during the
war
>> itself, I think. Cheerios were giving them away for box tops around
>> 1964 or so. I only got one pair. I think it was the Zero and the Il2.
>> They actually flew very well.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> It's surprising how well these things flew. HAD to be made by some
other
> company than the Tucker Paper Airplane Factory :-)
>
Heheh, Amazing what we had to occupy our time with before computers, eh?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 25, 11:32 am, wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 11:23 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:
>>
>> > > I didn't think
>>
>> > Dan, I agree with that.
>>
>> > > you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
>> > > they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
>>
>> > When I got my license, I did of course read the
>> > Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
>> > circumstances to have the license revoked.
>> > Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
>> > Ken
>> > PS: You don not understand the system.
>>
>> No, YOU don't know anything.
>>
>> If we have a look at the Aeronautics Act
>>
athttp://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/Regserv/Affairs/Aeronaut
>> icsAct/Nov2...
>> we will see this little item:
>>
>> 6.8 In addition to any grounds referred to in any of sections 4.4,
>> 6.71, 6.9 to 7.1 and 7.21, the Minister may suspend, cancel or refuse
>> to issue, renew or amend a Canadian aviation document in the
>> circumstances and on the grounds prescribed by regulation of the
>> Governor in Council.
>>
>> And if we have a look at the Canadian Aviation Regulations,
>> referred
>> to above by "regulation of the Governor in Council" here:
>>
>>
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part1/103.htm#.
>> ..
>>
>> We will read thus:
>>
>> 103.06 (1) A notice issued by the Minister pursuant to subsections
>> 6.9(1) and (2) of the Act shall include
>>
>> (a) a description of the particulars of the alleged contravention;
>>
>> (b) where the Minister has decided to suspend the Canadian aviation
>> document, a statement of the duration of the suspension; and
>>
>> (c) a statement that a request for review by the Tribunal does not
>> operate as a stay of the suspension or cancellation but that an
>> application may be made in writing to the Tribunal, pursuant to
>> subsection 6.9(4) of the Act, to stay the suspension or cancellation
>> until the review of the decision of the Minister has been concluded.
>>
>> (2) A notice issued by the Minister pursuant to subsections 7(1) and
>> (2) of the Act shall include
>>
>> (a) a statement of the effective date of the suspension;
>>
>> (b) a statement of the conditions under which the suspension is
>> terminated; and
>>
>> (c) a statement that a request for review by the Tribunal does not
>> operate as a stay of the suspension.
>>
>> (3) A notice issued by the Minister pursuant to subsections 7.1(1)
>> and (2) of the Act shall include
>>
>> (a) where the Minister has decided to suspend or cancel a Canadian
>> aviation document, a statement of the effective date of the
>> suspension or cancellation;
>>
>> (b) where the Minister has decided to suspend the Canadian aviation
>> document, a statement of the duration of the suspension or the
>> conditions under which the suspension is terminated; and
>>
>> (c) a statement that a request for review by the Tribunal does not
>> operate as a stay of the suspension, cancellation or refusal to
>> renew.
>>
>> (4) A notice issued by the Minister under subsection 6.71(2) of the
>> Act informing an applicant or an owner or operator of an aircraft,
>> aerodrome, airport or other facility of the Minister's decision made
>> under subsection 6.71(1) of the Act to refuse to issue or amend a
>> Canadian aviation document in respect of the aircraft, aerodrome,
>> airport or other facility shall be in the form set out in Schedule I
>> to this Subpart.
>> (amended 2004/05/11; no previous version)
>>
>> Administrative Grounds for Suspension, Cancellation or Refusal to
>> Renew
>>
>> 103.07 In addition to the grounds referred to in Sections 6.9 to 7.1
>> of the Act, the Minister may suspend, cancel or refuse to renew a
>> Canadian aviation document where
>>
>> (a) the Canadian aviation document has been voluntarily surrendered
>> to the Minister by its holder;
>>
>> (b) he Canadian aviation document has been mutilated, altered, or
>> rendered illegible;
>>
>> (c) the aircraft in respect of which the Canadian aviation document
>> was issued has been destroyed or withdrawn from use; or
>>
>> (d) the commercial air service, other service or undertaking in
>> respect of which the Canadian aviation document was issued has been
>> discontinued.
>>
>> In Canada, Ken, "cancellation" means revocation. Lost
>> forever.
>
> No, you need to understand retro-activity of law.
> <yawn>, you don't understand the system.
>
> Besides, who gives a *flying ***** about about
> a bunch of suck up govmonk workers suckin
> bucks from us. The canuck govmonkery is so
> corrupt, anyone who goes along with that system
> is a *cock-sucker*, be their guest..

Gonna shoot 'em with yer skwerl gun, are ya?

bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:29udnRl-
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>>> news:91159c92-dd52-4dbd-
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't think
>>>>>> Dan, I agree with that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
>>>>>>> they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
>>>>>> When I got my license, I did of course read the
>>>>>> Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
>>>>>> circumstances to have the license revoked.
>>>>>> Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>> PS: You don not understand the system.
>>>>> So now we know. A Cheerios lah-since is bulletproof.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>> Well, you have to admit; a Cheerios box top can make a paper
> airplane!
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>> I remember those!
>>>
>>> They were the old WW2 paper airplanes done by Air Trails during the
> war
>>> itself, I think. Cheerios were giving them away for box tops around
>>> 1964 or so. I only got one pair. I think it was the Zero and the Il2.
>>> They actually flew very well.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> It's surprising how well these things flew. HAD to be made by some
> other
>> company than the Tucker Paper Airplane Factory :-)
>>
> Heheh, Amazing what we had to occupy our time with before computers, eh?
>
>
> Bertie

Yeah. I can actually remember chasing girls for some other reason than
getting them to wipe the hydraulic fluid off and wax down the aluminum
on my fairing doors! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:35:58 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:


>Once the rolling air from ground effect is achieved, a new
>dynamic is effective. Of course that "rolling air" needs AoA
>to be maintained, so nudging forward kills the "ground effect"
>and you're very near a 3 point landing.
>Maybe you guys want to analyse "ground effect lift".
>Ken

If the wing is still flying in ground effect it's not going to quit
just because some one lowered the nose. Yes, you can plant the nose
gear on, but the wing will continue to fly which can be a bit
inconvenient as well as disconcerting and uncomfortable.

Ever see an airplane trying to do an imitation of a wheelbarrow?
Just think of that tiny little nose gear supporting (and directing)
the entire airplane's weight plus the extra downward force from
prematurely lowering the nose (forcing it on). As the nose gear is
usually coupled to the rudder it *may* not be going in the same
direction the airplane is.

I saw a *loaded* Aztec roll the tire right off the rim doing that,
with *most* of the "North 40" watching. Fortunately the rim and tire
survived, as did the twin and it only took a new inner tube and a bit
of elbow grease to get it ready to fly out that evening.

No, I wasn't flying it, but I was in charge of the group coming in on
it which was a bit hard on the blood pressure.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 2:30 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> No, you need to understand retro-activity of law.
> <yawn>, you don't understand the system.

What would retroactivity have to do with it? (Note the
spelling.) The laws have been written as such since long before you
were born. They'll look like that after you're gone, too. You can mock
government but it makes no difference: you still have no credibility.

You were checkmated a long time ago, Ken. Give up.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> george wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 8:28 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously we don't understand the system. ANY system that allowed you a
>>> pilot's certificate is quite frankly beyond our meager ability to
>>> understand.
>>> :-)
>>
>> Yup.
>> All a group of dummies like us can do is fly aeroplanes and hold the
>> licenses and rating that are required ...
>> Is Ken the alterego of Mixedup?
>>
> Bertie seems to think they might be in the sock puppet business
> together. He might very well be right. :-)
>

Nah! I never thought those two were socks of each other. Kennie tried a
sock there a while back though. I can't remember the name he usd but he was
found out first post.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:29udnRl-
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>>>> news:91159c92-dd52-4dbd-
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't think
>>>>>>> Dan, I agree with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
>>>>>>>> they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
>>>>>>> When I got my license, I did of course read the
>>>>>>> Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
>>>>>>> circumstances to have the license revoked.
>>>>>>> Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>> PS: You don not understand the system.
>>>>>> So now we know. A Cheerios lah-since is bulletproof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, you have to admit; a Cheerios box top can make a paper
>> airplane!
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>> I remember those!
>>>>
>>>> They were the old WW2 paper airplanes done by Air Trails during the
>> war
>>>> itself, I think. Cheerios were giving them away for box tops
>>>> around 1964 or so. I only got one pair. I think it was the Zero and
>>>> the Il2. They actually flew very well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> It's surprising how well these things flew. HAD to be made by some
>> other
>>> company than the Tucker Paper Airplane Factory :-)
>>>
>> Heheh, Amazing what we had to occupy our time with before computers,
>> eh?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yeah. I can actually remember chasing girls for some other reason than
> getting them to wipe the hydraulic fluid off and wax down the aluminum
> on my fairing doors! :-))
>
Pervert.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> george wrote:
>>> On Feb 26, 8:28 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obviously we don't understand the system. ANY system that allowed you a
>>>> pilot's certificate is quite frankly beyond our meager ability to
>>>> understand.
>>>> :-)
>>> Yup.
>>> All a group of dummies like us can do is fly aeroplanes and hold the
>>> licenses and rating that are required ...
>>> Is Ken the alterego of Mixedup?
>>>
>> Bertie seems to think they might be in the sock puppet business
>> together. He might very well be right. :-)
>>
>
> Nah! I never thought those two were socks of each other. Kennie tried a
> sock there a while back though. I can't remember the name he usd but he was
> found out first post.
>
>
> Bertie

That's what it was! Between Tucker and Mxsmanic I can't keep up with all
the in's and out's :-))))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:29udnRl-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>>>>> news:91159c92-dd52-4dbd-
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I didn't think
>>>>>>>> Dan, I agree with that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
>>>>>>>>> they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
>>>>>>>> When I got my license, I did of course read the
>>>>>>>> Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
>>>>>>>> circumstances to have the license revoked.
>>>>>>>> Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>> PS: You don not understand the system.
>>>>>>> So now we know. A Cheerios lah-since is bulletproof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you have to admit; a Cheerios box top can make a paper
>>> airplane!
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> I remember those!
>>>>>
>>>>> They were the old WW2 paper airplanes done by Air Trails during the
>>> war
>>>>> itself, I think. Cheerios were giving them away for box tops
>>>>> around 1964 or so. I only got one pair. I think it was the Zero and
>>>>> the Il2. They actually flew very well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> It's surprising how well these things flew. HAD to be made by some
>>> other
>>>> company than the Tucker Paper Airplane Factory :-)
>>>>
>>> Heheh, Amazing what we had to occupy our time with before computers,
>>> eh?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Yeah. I can actually remember chasing girls for some other reason than
>> getting them to wipe the hydraulic fluid off and wax down the aluminum
>> on my fairing doors! :-))
>>
> Pervert.
>
> Bertie

Hey.....that's HAPPY pervert PLEASE!!!!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> george wrote:
>>>> On Feb 26, 8:28 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Obviously we don't understand the system. ANY system that allowed
>>>>> you a pilot's certificate is quite frankly beyond our meager
>>>>> ability to understand.
>>>>> :-)
>>>> Yup.
>>>> All a group of dummies like us can do is fly aeroplanes and hold
>>>> the licenses and rating that are required ...
>>>> Is Ken the alterego of Mixedup?
>>>>
>>> Bertie seems to think they might be in the sock puppet business
>>> together. He might very well be right. :-)
>>>
>>
>> Nah! I never thought those two were socks of each other. Kennie tried
>> a sock there a while back though. I can't remember the name he usd
>> but he was found out first post.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> That's what it was! Between Tucker and Mxsmanic I can't keep up with
> all the in's and out's :-))))))
>

Well, they're both idiots! But the style is completely different and
neither one has the capability of running a sock that could fool anyone
for long..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:29udnRl-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:91159c92-dd52-4dbd-
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't think
>>>>>>>>> Dan, I agree with that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
>>>>>>>>>> they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
>>>>>>>>> When I got my license, I did of course read the
>>>>>>>>> Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
>>>>>>>>> circumstances to have the license revoked.
>>>>>>>>> Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>> PS: You don not understand the system.
>>>>>>>> So now we know. A Cheerios lah-since is bulletproof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, you have to admit; a Cheerios box top can make a paper
>>>> airplane!
>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remember those!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were the old WW2 paper airplanes done by Air Trails during
the
>>>> war
>>>>>> itself, I think. Cheerios were giving them away for box tops
>>>>>> around 1964 or so. I only got one pair. I think it was the Zero
and
>>>>>> the Il2. They actually flew very well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> It's surprising how well these things flew. HAD to be made by some
>>>> other
>>>>> company than the Tucker Paper Airplane Factory :-)
>>>>>
>>>> Heheh, Amazing what we had to occupy our time with before
computers,
>>>> eh?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Yeah. I can actually remember chasing girls for some other reason
than
>>> getting them to wipe the hydraulic fluid off and wax down the
aluminum
>>> on my fairing doors! :-))
>>>
>> Pervert.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Hey.....that's HAPPY pervert PLEASE!!!!
>

Know the definition of a Kiwi queer? Prefers women to sheep.

Bertie

[george]

On Feb 26, 3:42 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

>
> That's what it was! Between Tucker and Mxsmanic I can't keep up with all
> the in's and out's :-))))))
>
So long as there is a respectable time gap between the ins and the
outs and we have aeroplanes to watch.
Anything else is just to much information

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:29udnRl-
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:91159c92-dd52-4dbd-
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't think
>>>>>>>>>> Dan, I agree with that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
>>>>>>>>>>> they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
>>>>>>>>>> When I got my license, I did of course read the
>>>>>>>>>> Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
>>>>>>>>>> circumstances to have the license revoked.
>>>>>>>>>> Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>>> PS: You don not understand the system.
>>>>>>>>> So now we know. A Cheerios lah-since is bulletproof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, you have to admit; a Cheerios box top can make a paper
>>>>> airplane!
>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I remember those!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They were the old WW2 paper airplanes done by Air Trails during
> the
>>>>> war
>>>>>>> itself, I think. Cheerios were giving them away for box tops
>>>>>>> around 1964 or so. I only got one pair. I think it was the Zero
> and
>>>>>>> the Il2. They actually flew very well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> It's surprising how well these things flew. HAD to be made by some
>>>>> other
>>>>>> company than the Tucker Paper Airplane Factory :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Heheh, Amazing what we had to occupy our time with before
> computers,
>>>>> eh?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Yeah. I can actually remember chasing girls for some other reason
> than
>>>> getting them to wipe the hydraulic fluid off and wax down the
> aluminum
>>>> on my fairing doors! :-))
>>>>
>>> Pervert.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Hey.....that's HAPPY pervert PLEASE!!!!
>>
>
> Know the definition of a Kiwi queer? Prefers women to sheep.
>
> Bertie


Beautiful place New Zealand, and wonderful people. Just don't stick out
your tongue at the wrong guy :-))

Speaking of Kiwi's, you've probably seen this but I thought it was a
GREAT video. Here's the link just in case. This guy has a very creative
mind :-))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdUUx5FdySs
--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:=
>
> Speaking of Kiwi's, you've probably seen this but I thought it was a
> GREAT video. Here's the link just in case. This guy has a very creative
> mind :-))
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdUUx5FdySs

Pretty cool. I watched a few of his videos while I was there. Wow!

Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 26, 5:22*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote :=
>
>
>
> > Speaking of Kiwi's, you've probably seen this but I thought it was a
> > GREAT video. Here's the link just in case. This guy has a very creative
> > mind :-))
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdUUx5FdySs
>
> Pretty cool. I watched a few of his videos while I was there. *Wow!
>

Does this make you sweat -just a bit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_LaAkAyoz0

Cheers

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 26, 5:22 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote :=
>>
>>
>>
>>> Speaking of Kiwi's, you've probably seen this but I thought it was a
>>> GREAT video. Here's the link just in case. This guy has a very creative
>>> mind :-))
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdUUx5FdySs
>> Pretty cool. I watched a few of his videos while I was there. Wow!
>>
>
> Does this make you sweat -just a bit?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_LaAkAyoz0
>
> Cheers
>
>
Just the last one. THAT one made me just a bit nervous :-)) The rest
were just what you call "all in a day's work" :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 25, 7:14 pm, george > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 3:42 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> > That's what it was! Between Tucker and Mxsmanic I can't keep up with all
> > the in's and out's :-))))))
>
> So long as there is a respectable time gap between the ins and the
> outs and we have aeroplanes to watch.
> Anything else is just to much information

I can't always answer all the posts, cuz I have
a job that pays $10/hr, ((but with incentive bonuses,
expense accounts, employee benefits, commisions,
kick-backs, tax-write-offs, and a few dozen people
I've sued for slander, I'm now netting $100k/week)).

Deduct the X-wifes alimony, paternity liabilities,
income tax evasion fines, lawyer bills, tax on tax
and I'm clearing $10/hr.
Not bad.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 25, 7:14 pm, george > wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 3:42 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> > That's what it was! Between Tucker and Mxsmanic I can't keep up
>> > with all the in's and out's :-))))))
>>
>> So long as there is a respectable time gap between the ins and the
>> outs and we have aeroplanes to watch.
>> Anything else is just to much information
>
> I can't always answer all the posts, cuz I have
> a job that pays $10/hr,


Somebody's paying you not to answer posts?


Dudley, j'accuse!

Bertie

[george]

On Feb 26, 3:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Know the definition of a Kiwi queer? Prefers women to sheep.
>
You obviously have us confused with Australians. :-)
Happens all the time

[george]

On Feb 26, 11:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote :
>
> > On Feb 25, 7:14 pm, george > wrote:
> >> On Feb 26, 3:42 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >> > That's what it was! Between Tucker and Mxsmanic I can't keep up
> >> > with all the in's and out's :-))))))
>
> >> So long as there is a respectable time gap between the ins and the
> >> outs and we have aeroplanes to watch.
> >> Anything else is just to much information
>
> > I can't always answer all the posts, cuz I have
> > a job that pays $10/hr,
>
> Somebody's paying you not to answer posts?
>
> Dudley, j'accuse!

Bragging about getting $10 an hour
What's your firms slogan ? "Do you want chips with that"

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 26, 11:35 am, george > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 11:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote :
>
> > > On Feb 25, 7:14 pm, george > wrote:
> > >> On Feb 26, 3:42 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > >> > That's what it was! Between Tucker and Mxsmanic I can't keep up
> > >> > with all the in's and out's :-))))))
>
> > >> So long as there is a respectable time gap between the ins and the
> > >> outs and we have aeroplanes to watch.
> > >> Anything else is just to much information
>
> > > I can't always answer all the posts, cuz I have
> > > a job that pays $10/hr,
>
> > Somebody's paying you not to answer posts?
>
> > Dudley, j'accuse!
>
> Bragging about getting $10 an hour
> What's your firms slogan ? "Do you want chips with that"

Unlike hobby's like golf, hunting or fishing, flying
was tax deductable until you received your license,
it was treated as a tuition deduction, provided you
were a student.
(I did actually figure out how to write-off golf, hunting
and fishing, but that's another story).

Why I mention that, is cuz if you maintain a student
rating, hobby flying is tax deductable.
(When you get your license, don't read it, and go for
plausible deniability, if you're audited ;-).
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

george > wrote in
:

> On Feb 26, 11:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote
>>
>> m:
>>
>> > On Feb 25, 7:14 pm, george > wrote:
>> >> On Feb 26, 3:42 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> >> > That's what it was! Between Tucker and Mxsmanic I can't keep up
>> >> > with all the in's and out's :-))))))
>>
>> >> So long as there is a respectable time gap between the ins and the
>> >> outs and we have aeroplanes to watch.
>> >> Anything else is just to much information
>>
>> > I can't always answer all the posts, cuz I have
>> > a job that pays $10/hr,
>>
>> Somebody's paying you not to answer posts?
>>
>> Dudley, j'accuse!
>
> Bragging about getting $10 an hour
> What's your firms slogan ? "Do you want chips with that"
>
>

I believe he's a window washer , so probably.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

george > wrote in news:d25d21c8-05a5-4a37-bb96-a8a0ca8740b9
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 26, 3:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Know the definition of a Kiwi queer? Prefers women to sheep.
>>
> You obviously have us confused with Australians. :-)
> Happens all the time
>
>

'Twas a Kiwi who told me that!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 26, 11:35 am, george > wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 11:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote
>> > innews:2739bbf3-fff9-484d-a84e-ea78536c48b1
@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.
>> > com:
>>
>> > > On Feb 25, 7:14 pm, george > wrote:
>> > >> On Feb 26, 3:42 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> > >> > That's what it was! Between Tucker and Mxsmanic I can't keep
>> > >> > up with all the in's and out's :-))))))
>>
>> > >> So long as there is a respectable time gap between the ins and
>> > >> the outs and we have aeroplanes to watch.
>> > >> Anything else is just to much information
>>
>> > > I can't always answer all the posts, cuz I have
>> > > a job that pays $10/hr,
>>
>> > Somebody's paying you not to answer posts?
>>
>> > Dudley, j'accuse!
>>
>> Bragging about getting $10 an hour
>> What's your firms slogan ? "Do you want chips with that"
>
> Unlike hobby's like golf, hunting or fishing, flying
> was tax deductable until you received your license,
> it was treated as a tuition deduction, provided you
> were a student.
> (I did actually figure out how to write-off golf, hunting
> and fishing, but that's another story).


Oh please! Tell us!

>
> Why I mention that, is cuz if you maintain a student
> rating, hobby flying is tax deductable.

Oh cool!
Oh wait, I get paid to do it anyway.

Say, think if I tel 'em it's just a hobby, they'll stop taxing my wages?


> (When you get your license, don't read it, and go for
> plausible deniability, if you're audited ;-).

Just like your relationship with reality! Plausibly deniable.


Bertie

[vincent norris]

>>> Then nudge yoke foward.

No, you should do just the opposite.

vince norris