Re: Landing without flaps

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> Hi all, studied the posts to this thread.
>
> On Mar 8, 8:40 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
>> >> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> >>> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
>> >>> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
>> >>> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
>> >> If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good
>> >> frauds.
>> >> The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
>> >> aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There
>> >> would be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they
>> >> were savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have
>> >> little argument with most of what they say.
>> >> There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds
>> >> from
>> >> the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes
>> >> of discredit. They're just incredible.
>>
>> > Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
>> > is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.
>>
>> >> Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
>> >> takeoff is asking to die. Soon.
>>
>> > No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
>> > and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
>> > properly he take control and have that figured out.
>>
>> >> Pulling the throttle has the same
>> >> engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with
>> >> killing the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
>> >> the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture
>> >> control cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment,
>> >> making a recovery of the engine impossible.
>>
>> > Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
>> > point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.
>>
>> >> In the last 15 years or so we've
>> >> had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now
>> >> we replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no
>> >> legal requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I
>> >> decided that it was going to get done.
>> >> Dan
>>
>> > My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
>> > very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
>> > back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
>> > that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
>> > Ken
>>
>> The answer to this entire issue is quite easily proved one way or the
>> other. Anyone.....and I mean ANYONE, reading about this issue here
>> can easily pick up the phone and call their local FAA office here in
>> the United States anyway, and ask for an official opinion on the
>> following question. (Someone please do this :-)
>> "Is it acceptable procedure for a flight instructor to turn off a
>> fuel valve on a student on takeoff causing fuel starvation and
>> subsequent engine failure as a teaching method"
>>
>> No flames......no back and forth on who's an idiot or who's a fraud;
>> no banter on who's a good instructor and who isn't.....simply get the
>> official position of the authoritative body officially responsible
>> for flight instruction and flight safety in the United
>> States.......then post the answer right here for the world to see.
>> How fair and up front is that?
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Dud if you're asking me, the govmonks create minimum
> standards, that I would expect instructors to exceed.
> How they do that is a matter of experience.


No, there is a professional consencus and there is common sense and that
instructor waved sayonora to both.


P.S. you're a moron


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Glide back to the runway
>>>>> Ken
>>>> Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
>>>> are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
>>>> considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose,
>>>> reducing speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten
>>>> the turn using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and
>>>> spin.
>>>> Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
>>>> path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
>>>> airports.
>>>>
>>> Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be done.
>>> The guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is
>>> probably right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field
>>> in standard lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors
>>> where I worked agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you were
>>> proficient and it was planned before the takeoff roll started. We
>>> knew they couldn't neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in all
>>> situations. The wind had to be considered as well as traffic ( bad
>>> idea to turn back toward a runway with something rolling on it) and
>>> so on. We had it sussed. then one of the guys had one one day. Very
>>> good stci as well. Better than me back then anyway. He had a good bit
>>> of altitude, too 50 or so, he turned around and made the runway but
>>> stalled coming across the threshold and cartwheeled donw the runway.
>>> He and his father in law survived, but they were lucky. They would
>>> definitely have been better off going straight ahead.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider some
>> kind of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
>> Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so full
>> of variables it muddies the equation.
>> Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
>> departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
>> highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even
>> make the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the vertical
>> plane, (modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up line using
>> the vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning component)
>> This is even possible done by such a pilot flying something like a 172
>> or a 150, but I would never recommend doing it to anyone.
>> For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within reasonable degree
>> offset approach to the engine failure scenario on takeoff is still the
>> safe way to deal with this issue and probably always will be in my
>> opinion.
>
> Exactly. This guy was way above average and he didn;t manage it... I
> don't mean to muddy the waters by bringing it up, but the notion is out
> there. Of course that fjukkwit Ken latched onto it as soon as he heard
> it.
>
>
> Bertie
Yeah. I had to laugh as I read this. Could we ACTUALLY muddy up the
waters any more on this thread? :-)))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 8, 3:16 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 1:57 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> On Mar 8, 12:00 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
> >>>> Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
> >>>> disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> Not so fast -- you have the best platform for FSX AND SimCity at the
> >>> same time...
> >>> Have all your simulated people flying on your simulated airplanes.
> >>> Load o' fun!
> >>> Dan
> >> I actually quit working with Microsoft on their sim program
> >> this year.
> >> PLEASE don't tell me that you're one of these people who believe I'm a
> >> "simulator" pilot because they have discovered I have advised on the
> >> program :-)))
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > Come on, now...
>
> > Though I disagree with folks but bright and not so, surely you give me
> > more credit than that....
>
> > Dan
>
> I don't mean anything personal at all Dan. Just seems every time someone
> associates me with Microsoft, somebody suggests I don't fly or haven't
> flown in real life. In fact, this thread has been full of just that type
> of accusation by two individuals.
> No big deal by a long shot. :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Reasonable people usually figure out who's who....

I used MSFS 2004 to great advantage in preparing for my instrument
rating. It saved me many hours of dual and I took the test at the
minimum logged time (though I probably twice that unlogged on the
sim). It was worth it for holds alone

Is this an endorsement of MFS in all cases for all people? Of course
not! In the same way I don't use a torque wrench to hammer nails.

MSFS/X-Plane/what-have-you is a tool like any other. Misuse a tool and
you'll have bad results.
Why is this so hard to understand?

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> On Mar 9, 5:53 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
>>>>> :
>>>>>> On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>>> Glide back to the runway
>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>> Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You
>>>>>> lose considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose,
>>>>>> reducing speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten
>>>>>> the turn using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall
>>>>>> and spin.
>>>>>> Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your
>>>>>> flight
>>>>>> path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
>>>>>> airports.
>>>>> Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be
>>>>> done. The guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is
>>>>> probably right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field
>>>>> in standard lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors
>>>>> where I worked agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you
>>>>> were proficient and it was planned before the takeoff roll started.
>>>>> We knew they couldn't neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in
>>>>> all situations. The wind had to be considered as well as traffic (
>>>>> bad idea to turn back toward a runway with something rolling on it)
>>>>> and so on. We had it sussed. then one of the guys had one one day.
>>>>> Very good stci as well. Better than me back then anyway. He had a
>>>>> good bit of altitude, too 50 or so, he turned around and made the
>>>>> runway but stalled coming across the threshold and cartwheeled donw
>>>>> the runway. He and his father in law survived, but they were lucky.
>>>>> They would definitely have been better off going straight ahead.
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider
>>>> some kind of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
>>>> Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so
>>>> full of variables it muddies the equation.
>>>> Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
>>>> departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
>>>> highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even
>>>> make the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the
>>>> vertical plane, (modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up
>>>> line using the vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning
>>>> component) This is even possible done by such a pilot flying
>>>> something like a 172 or a 150, but I would never recommend doing it
>>>> to anyone. For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within
>>>> reasonable degree offset approach to the engine failure scenario on
>>>> takeoff is still the safe way to deal with this issue and probably
>>>> always will be in my opinion.
>>>>
>>> I'm not a n acro pilot so I'd like you (or some other pilot) to try
>>> that manouver power off from the glide and see how much altitude they
>>> loose. I'm guessing 200' minimum.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>> Depends on the airplane and the pilot combination. Such a maneuver
>> assuming a normal climb speed at entry of 80mph as the engine quits
>> would require an immediate aggressive pull into accelerated stall
>> followed by aggressive pro spin rudder to induce a required yaw rate.
>> The trick is to catch the spin entry on the first half turn nose down.
>> 200 feet could easily be required in some airplanes.
>> This isn't something you argue on the specifics. The variables are
>> just too vast.
>> Put it this way. If I had 200 feet in a 172 with an engine failure,
>> I'd be looking for a landing area straight ahead, or more properly I'd
>> already know if such an area existed for the runway I was using since
>> I would have asked :-) (There are runways where no such landing is
>> possible of course)
>> On the other hand, in a Pitts or an Extra in the same scenario, I
>> wouldn't hesitate to attempt what I have described here.
>> I've done this easily in the Pitts with under 100 feet lost and a 180
>> change in the flight path.
>
>
> One of the problems is you need to do more than 180 degrees, of course.
> This can be minimised by turning into wind if you have some across and
> if your runway is wide you've saved a bit of turn that way as well, but
> you're probably going to have a bit of 'essing' to do on finals and
> that's going to cost. That's where my friend lost it.
>
>
> Bertie
>
Yeah, that's right. No matter what you do the chances are you will have
a heading "adjustment" to make after the reversal. It can get sticky,
and requires a lot of judgment. You screw up and it could spoil your
whole day :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 8, 3:16 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 8, 1:57 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 8, 12:00 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
>>>>>> Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
>>>>>> disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> Not so fast -- you have the best platform for FSX AND SimCity at the
>>>>> same time...
>>>>> Have all your simulated people flying on your simulated airplanes.
>>>>> Load o' fun!
>>>>> Dan
>>>> I actually quit working with Microsoft on their sim program
>>>> this year.
>>>> PLEASE don't tell me that you're one of these people who believe I'm a
>>>> "simulator" pilot because they have discovered I have advised on the
>>>> program :-)))
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Come on, now...
>>> Though I disagree with folks but bright and not so, surely you give me
>>> more credit than that....
>>> Dan
>> I don't mean anything personal at all Dan. Just seems every time someone
>> associates me with Microsoft, somebody suggests I don't fly or haven't
>> flown in real life. In fact, this thread has been full of just that type
>> of accusation by two individuals.
>> No big deal by a long shot. :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Reasonable people usually figure out who's who....
>
> I used MSFS 2004 to great advantage in preparing for my instrument
> rating. It saved me many hours of dual and I took the test at the
> minimum logged time (though I probably twice that unlogged on the
> sim). It was worth it for holds alone
>
> Is this an endorsement of MFS in all cases for all people? Of course
> not! In the same way I don't use a torque wrench to hammer nails.
>
> MSFS/X-Plane/what-have-you is a tool like any other. Misuse a tool and
> you'll have bad results.
> Why is this so hard to understand?
>
> Dan
Beats me. Lord knows I've spent a ton of time online trying to explain
it to people.
I reviewed the Bruce Williams book on using MSFS as a training tool for
flight instructors for ASA and covered most of it there.
That review can be found on www.simflight.com BTW (just search
Henriques)if you'd like to glance at it.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> One of the problems is you need to do more than 180 degrees, of course.
> This can be minimised by turning into wind if you have some across and
> if your runway is wide you've saved a bit of turn that way as well, but
> you're probably going to have a bit of 'essing' to do on finals and
> that's going to cost. That's where my friend lost it.

A good tow pilot will let the formation drift downwind (once obstacles
have been cleared, of course) so that in the event that the glider behind
him needs to do a 180 back to the runway, the turn into the wind will get
him more or less lined up.

When I took my checkride there was a fair crosswind. On the second
takeoff, the tow pilot for whatever reason had us turned into the wind
instead of drifting with it. And of course this was the one where the
examiner pulled the rope on me at exactly 200ft AGL.

A quick 180 still left me quite far downwind, so it took a bit of exciting
maneuvering to get lined up, but there was still plenty of room to spare.
It would have been much simpler to start from the downwind side, though.

Of course even a medium-performance glider can do with ease at 200ft what
the average windmilling GA airplane will have difficulty with at two or
three times the altitude, so it's really a different world. But when you
don't want to change position too much, always turn into the wind when you
can.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Michael Ash > wrote in
:

> In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> One of the problems is you need to do more than 180 degrees, of
>> course. This can be minimised by turning into wind if you have some
>> across and if your runway is wide you've saved a bit of turn that way
>> as well, but you're probably going to have a bit of 'essing' to do on
>> finals and that's going to cost. That's where my friend lost it.
>
> A good tow pilot will let the formation drift downwind (once obstacles
> have been cleared, of course) so that in the event that the glider
> behind him needs to do a 180 back to the runway, the turn into the
> wind will get him more or less lined up.


Hmm, I used to tow ( a lot) and never heard this before. Good idea.

> When I took my checkride there was a fair crosswind. On the second
> takeoff, the tow pilot for whatever reason had us turned into the wind
> instead of drifting with it. And of course this was the one where the
> examiner pulled the rope on me at exactly 200ft AGL.
>
> A quick 180 still left me quite far downwind, so it took a bit of
> exciting maneuvering to get lined up, but there was still plenty of
> room to spare. It would have been much simpler to start from the
> downwind side, though.

Wel, you still probably would have been better off turning into wind
unless you were well upwind of the runway.
>
> Of course even a medium-performance glider can do with ease at 200ft
> what the average windmilling GA airplane will have difficulty with at
> two or three times the altitude, so it's really a different world. But
> when you don't want to change position too much, always turn into the
> wind when you can.
>

Yeah, even a student in a 2-22 should be able to do it on th eworst day.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 8, 3:47 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 3:16 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> On Mar 8, 1:57 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 8, 12:00 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>>>> I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
> >>>>>> Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
> >>>>>> disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>>>> Not so fast -- you have the best platform for FSX AND SimCity at the
> >>>>> same time...
> >>>>> Have all your simulated people flying on your simulated airplanes.
> >>>>> Load o' fun!
> >>>>> Dan
> >>>> I actually quit working with Microsoft on their sim program
> >>>> this year.
> >>>> PLEASE don't tell me that you're one of these people who believe I'm a
> >>>> "simulator" pilot because they have discovered I have advised on the
> >>>> program :-)))
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> Come on, now...
> >>> Though I disagree with folks but bright and not so, surely you give me
> >>> more credit than that....
> >>> Dan
> >> I don't mean anything personal at all Dan. Just seems every time someone
> >> associates me with Microsoft, somebody suggests I don't fly or haven't
> >> flown in real life. In fact, this thread has been full of just that type
> >> of accusation by two individuals.
> >> No big deal by a long shot. :-))
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > Reasonable people usually figure out who's who....
>
> > I used MSFS 2004 to great advantage in preparing for my instrument
> > rating. It saved me many hours of dual and I took the test at the
> > minimum logged time (though I probably twice that unlogged on the
> > sim). It was worth it for holds alone
>
> > Is this an endorsement of MFS in all cases for all people? Of course
> > not! In the same way I don't use a torque wrench to hammer nails.
>
> > MSFS/X-Plane/what-have-you is a tool like any other. Misuse a tool and
> > you'll have bad results.
> > Why is this so hard to understand?
>
> > Dan
>
> Beats me. Lord knows I've spent a ton of time online trying to explain
> it to people.
> I reviewed the Bruce Williams book on using MSFS as a training tool for
> flight instructors for ASA and covered most of it there.
> That review can be found onwww.simflight.comBTW (just search
> Henriques)if you'd like to glance at it.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Read it.
Have it.
Good stuff.


Dan

[buttman]

On Mar 8, 9:30 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >> Glide back to the runway
> >> Ken
>
> > Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
> > are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
> > considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose, reducing
> > speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten the turn
> > using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and spin.
> > Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
> > path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
> > airports.
>
> > Dan
>
> I'm slowly changing the way I view Usenet at this point in time. You can
> do as both of us have been doing and attempt to deal with this crap post
> by post, or you can come to the inevitable conclusion that doing it is a
> waste of time.
> Sooner or later, one has to conclude that student pilots are all under
> the control of a CFI one way or the other and that these people all have
> the common sense not to take anything they read on Usenet into a
> practical situation in the airplane.
>
> I know that I for one, personally anyway, am coming to the conclusion
> that I care less and less about Usenet and my interactive role with it
> every day.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Either a pathetic cry for attention, or the best news I've heard all
day. Hoping for the latter.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:37:55 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:

> Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
> but what should you do if your engine sputters
> and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.
>
> Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
> use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
> happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
> ((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).
>
> Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
> safe alternative and use it.
> Ken

Wow, Ken, even *I* know this is idiotic.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:a60b25cb-6a8a-4ecf-889e-
:


>
> Either a pathetic cry for attention, or the best news I've heard all
> day. Hoping for the latter.


Neither, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[buttman]

On Mar 8, 3:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> buttman > wrote in news:a60b25cb-6a8a-4ecf-889e-
> :
>
>
>
> > Either a pathetic cry for attention, or the best news I've heard all
> > day. Hoping for the latter.
>
> Neither, fjukkwit.
>
> Bertie

awww, sticking up for your boyfriend

at least now we now know which one wears the pants in this
relationship...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:592caddb-a61d-4cfe-a408-
:

> On Mar 8, 3:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote in news:a60b25cb-6a8a-4ecf-889e-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > Either a pathetic cry for attention, or the best news I've heard
all
>> > day. Hoping for the latter.
>>
>> Neither, fjukkwit.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> awww, sticking up for your boyfriend
>
> at least now we now know which one wears the pants in this
> relationship...


Nice try buttboi. don;'t yuo have an airplane to demolish somewhere?

Bertie

[buttman]

On Mar 8, 3:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> buttman > wrote in news:592caddb-a61d-4cfe-a408-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 3:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> buttman > wrote in news:a60b25cb-6a8a-4ecf-889e-
> >> :
>
> >> > Either a pathetic cry for attention, or the best news I've heard
> all
> >> > day. Hoping for the latter.
>
> >> Neither, fjukkwit.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > awww, sticking up for your boyfriend
>
> > at least now we now know which one wears the pants in this
> > relationship...
>
> Nice try buttboi. don;'t yuo have an airplane to demolish somewhere?
>
> Bertie

don';t yuo have a 8410 to fraudulently endorse somewhere?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:f7c7fb2b-5e30-4e34-9bf2-
:

> On Mar 8, 3:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote in news:592caddb-a61d-4cfe-a408-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 8, 3:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> buttman > wrote in news:a60b25cb-6a8a-4ecf-889e-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > Either a pathetic cry for attention, or the best news I've heard
>> all
>> >> > day. Hoping for the latter.
>>
>> >> Neither, fjukkwit.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > awww, sticking up for your boyfriend
>>
>> > at least now we now know which one wears the pants in this
>> > relationship...
>>
>> Nice try buttboi. don;'t yuo have an airplane to demolish somewhere?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> don';t yuo have a 8410 to fraudulently endorse somewhere?
>

Is there anything you're good at? you sure ain't very good at this.




Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 8, 2:28 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:37:55 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
> > but what should you do if your engine sputters
> > and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.
>
> > Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
> > use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
> > happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
> > ((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).
>
> > Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
> > safe alternative and use it.
> > Ken
>
> Wow, Ken, even *I* know this is idiotic.

My thoughts are: Given no good alternative aside
from the runway, know the x-wind at T-O, do max
ascent into the wind as is normal, then if the engine
quit's (do radio) do a descending gentle 20 into the
x-wind, and come back and set the ship down.
I think the key is max ascent rate, that's insurance.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:dc992240-db48-
:

> On Mar 8, 2:28 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:37:55 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
>> > but what should you do if your engine sputters
>> > and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.
>>
>> > Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
>> > use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
>> > happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
>> > ((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).
>>
>> > Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
>> > safe alternative and use it.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Wow, Ken, even *I* know this is idiotic.
>
> My thoughts are: Given no good alternative aside
> from the runway, know the x-wind at T-O, do max
> ascent into the wind as is normal, then if the engine
> quit's (do radio) do a descending gentle 20 into the
> x-wind, and come back and set the ship down.
> I think the key is max ascent rate, that's insurance.

And who taught you that, ?


Bertie

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Michael Ash > wrote in
> :
>
>> In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> One of the problems is you need to do more than 180 degrees, of
>>> course. This can be minimised by turning into wind if you have some
>>> across and if your runway is wide you've saved a bit of turn that way
>>> as well, but you're probably going to have a bit of 'essing' to do on
>>> finals and that's going to cost. That's where my friend lost it.
>>
>> A good tow pilot will let the formation drift downwind (once obstacles
>> have been cleared, of course) so that in the event that the glider
>> behind him needs to do a 180 back to the runway, the turn into the
>> wind will get him more or less lined up.
>
> Hmm, I used to tow ( a lot) and never heard this before. Good idea.

I probably should have qualified that a little more. "Some good tow
pilots", etc.

>> When I took my checkride there was a fair crosswind. On the second
>> takeoff, the tow pilot for whatever reason had us turned into the wind
>> instead of drifting with it. And of course this was the one where the
>> examiner pulled the rope on me at exactly 200ft AGL.
>>
>> A quick 180 still left me quite far downwind, so it took a bit of
>> exciting maneuvering to get lined up, but there was still plenty of
>> room to spare. It would have been much simpler to start from the
>> downwind side, though.
>
> Wel, you still probably would have been better off turning into wind
> unless you were well upwind of the runway.

We were. It would have definitely been the wrong move there. If we were a
couple dozen feet off the centerline it's probably the better move, but we
had made a fairly significant turn by that point.

>> Of course even a medium-performance glider can do with ease at 200ft
>> what the average windmilling GA airplane will have difficulty with at
>> two or three times the altitude, so it's really a different world. But
>> when you don't want to change position too much, always turn into the
>> wind when you can.
>
> Yeah, even a student in a 2-22 should be able to do it on th eworst day.

One of our instructors has done it in an ASK-21 (glide ratio about 34:1)
from 100ft. When you have that kind of performance, you end up just
bleeding off your extra speed in the 180 and come out of it at the same
altitude where you started. You'd probably meet an early demise trying
that in a 2-22 though.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[[email protected]]

On Mar 8, 4:07 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2:28 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:37:55 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
> > > but what should you do if your engine sputters
> > > and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.
>
> > > Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
> > > use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
> > > happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
> > > ((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).
>
> > > Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
> > > safe alternative and use it.
> > > Ken
>
> > Wow, Ken, even *I* know this is idiotic.
>
> My thoughts are: Given no good alternative aside
> from the runway, know the x-wind at T-O, do max
> ascent into the wind as is normal, then if the engine
> quit's (do radio) do a descending gentle 20 into the
> x-wind, and come back and set the ship down.
> I think the key is max ascent rate, that's insurance.
> Ken

So much nonsense. A 20 degree banked turn will make about a
half-mile diameter circle at glide speed. Since much more than 180
degrees of turn is needed (typical is the 90/270 turn, which adds up
to 360 degrees; trimming it some will bring it down to 300 degrees), a
half-mile diameter circle is a mile and a half around. 7500 feet to
travel just to turn around. At an optimistic 10:1 glide ratio, you'd
need 750 of altitude just for the turn. 172's, and many other
lightplanes, don't glide that well. The Grumman singles are notorious
sinkers. So are the short-wing Pipers.
So many have died doing this. As I said earlier, a controlled
collision is better than stalling and spinning, and stalling and
spinning is MUCH more likely in this situation.
You might get away with it over a long runway and at altitude.
You might get away with it in the crosswind in the circuit, since
you're already above 500' and turn the turn would be less. Off short
runways and at lower altitudes it's a waste of time. If there's much
of a tailwind, things could get ugly.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Michael Ash > wrote in
:

> In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Michael Ash > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> One of the problems is you need to do more than 180 degrees, of
>>>> course. This can be minimised by turning into wind if you have some
>>>> across and if your runway is wide you've saved a bit of turn that
>>>> way as well, but you're probably going to have a bit of 'essing' to
>>>> do on finals and that's going to cost. That's where my friend lost
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> A good tow pilot will let the formation drift downwind (once
>>> obstacles have been cleared, of course) so that in the event that
>>> the glider behind him needs to do a 180 back to the runway, the turn
>>> into the wind will get him more or less lined up.
>>
>> Hmm, I used to tow ( a lot) and never heard this before. Good idea.
>
> I probably should have qualified that a little more. "Some good tow
> pilots", etc.
>
>>> When I took my checkride there was a fair crosswind. On the second
>>> takeoff, the tow pilot for whatever reason had us turned into the
>>> wind instead of drifting with it. And of course this was the one
>>> where the examiner pulled the rope on me at exactly 200ft AGL.
>>>
>>> A quick 180 still left me quite far downwind, so it took a bit of
>>> exciting maneuvering to get lined up, but there was still plenty of
>>> room to spare. It would have been much simpler to start from the
>>> downwind side, though.
>>
>> Wel, you still probably would have been better off turning into wind
>> unless you were well upwind of the runway.
>
> We were. It would have definitely been the wrong move there. If we
> were a couple dozen feet off the centerline it's probably the better
> move, but we had made a fairly significant turn by that point.
>
>>> Of course even a medium-performance glider can do with ease at 200ft
>>> what the average windmilling GA airplane will have difficulty with
>>> at two or three times the altitude, so it's really a different
>>> world. But when you don't want to change position too much, always
>>> turn into the wind when you can.
>>
>> Yeah, even a student in a 2-22 should be able to do it on th eworst
>> day.
>
> One of our instructors has done it in an ASK-21 (glide ratio about
> 34:1) from 100ft. When you have that kind of performance, you end up
> just bleeding off your extra speed in the 180 and come out of it at
> the same altitude where you started. You'd probably meet an early
> demise trying that in a 2-22 though.


100 feet? Yeah. It was regularly done at 200. I got used to manuevering
down low early on anyhow. It wasn't that uncommon to reach less than 500
off an auto tow, and the LK was no Libelle..


bertie

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 11:40 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>> On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >>>>> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
> >>>>> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
> >>>>> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
> >>>> If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good frauds.
> >>>> The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
> >>>> aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There would
> >>>> be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
> >>>> savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have little
> >>>> argument with most of what they say.
> >>>> There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds from
> >>>> the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes of
> >>>> discredit. They're just incredible.
> >>> Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
> >>> is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.
> >>>> Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
> >>>> takeoff is asking to die. Soon.
> >>> No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
> >>> and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
> >>> properly he take control and have that figured out.
> >>>> Pulling the throttle has the same
> >>>> engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with killing
> >>>> the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
> >>>> the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture control
> >>>> cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment, making a
> >>>> recovery of the engine impossible.
> >>> Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
> >>> point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.
> >>>> In the last 15 years or so we've
> >>>> had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now we
> >>>> replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no legal
> >>>> requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I decided
> >>>> that it was going to get done.
> >>>> Dan
> >>> My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
> >>> very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
> >>> back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
> >>> that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
> >>> Ken
> >> The answer to this entire issue is quite easily proved one way or the
> >> other.
> >> Anyone.....and I mean ANYONE, reading about this issue here can easily
> >> pick up the phone and call their local FAA office here in the United
> >> States anyway, and ask for an official opinion on the following
> >> question. (Someone please do this :-)
> >> "Is it acceptable procedure for a flight instructor to turn off a fuel
> >> valve on a student on takeoff causing fuel starvation and subsequent
> >> engine failure as a teaching method"
> >>
> >> No flames......no back and forth on who's an idiot or who's a fraud; no
> >> banter on who's a good instructor and who isn't.....simply get the
> >> official position of the authoritative body officially responsible for
> >> flight instruction and flight safety in the United States.......then
> >> post the answer right here for the world to see.
> >>
> >> How fair and up front is that?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
> >
> > That's way too easy and implies moments away from the computer.
> >
> > Are you KIDDING?
> >
> > Sheese...
> >
> >
> > Dan
> I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
> Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
> disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))

Say...if you decide to give up on usenet for sure, I'll take that
MacBook Air off your hands.

Because I'm all about being helpful. :}

[buttman]

On Mar 8, 3:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> buttman > wrote in news:f7c7fb2b-5e30-4e34-9bf2-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 3:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> buttman > wrote in news:592caddb-a61d-4cfe-a408-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Mar 8, 3:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> buttman > wrote in news:a60b25cb-6a8a-4ecf-889e-
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > Either a pathetic cry for attention, or the best news I've heard
> >> all
> >> >> > day. Hoping for the latter.
>
> >> >> Neither, fjukkwit.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > awww, sticking up for your boyfriend
>
> >> > at least now we now know which one wears the pants in this
> >> > relationship...
>
> >> Nice try buttboi. don;'t yuo have an airplane to demolish somewhere?
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > don';t yuo have a 8410 to fraudulently endorse somewhere?
>
> Is there anything you're good at? you sure ain't very good at this.
>
> Bertie

If only the Dud could take you with him...

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article >,
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 8, 11:40 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>>> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
>>>>>>> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
>>>>>>> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
>>>>>> If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good frauds.
>>>>>> The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
>>>>>> aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There would
>>>>>> be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
>>>>>> savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have little
>>>>>> argument with most of what they say.
>>>>>> There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds from
>>>>>> the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes of
>>>>>> discredit. They're just incredible.
>>>>> Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
>>>>> is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.
>>>>>> Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
>>>>>> takeoff is asking to die. Soon.
>>>>> No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
>>>>> and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
>>>>> properly he take control and have that figured out.
>>>>>> Pulling the throttle has the same
>>>>>> engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with killing
>>>>>> the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
>>>>>> the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture control
>>>>>> cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment, making a
>>>>>> recovery of the engine impossible.
>>>>> Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
>>>>> point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.
>>>>>> In the last 15 years or so we've
>>>>>> had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now we
>>>>>> replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no legal
>>>>>> requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I decided
>>>>>> that it was going to get done.
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>> My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
>>>>> very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
>>>>> back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
>>>>> that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
>>>>> Ken
>>>> The answer to this entire issue is quite easily proved one way or the
>>>> other.
>>>> Anyone.....and I mean ANYONE, reading about this issue here can easily
>>>> pick up the phone and call their local FAA office here in the United
>>>> States anyway, and ask for an official opinion on the following
>>>> question. (Someone please do this :-)
>>>> "Is it acceptable procedure for a flight instructor to turn off a fuel
>>>> valve on a student on takeoff causing fuel starvation and subsequent
>>>> engine failure as a teaching method"
>>>>
>>>> No flames......no back and forth on who's an idiot or who's a fraud; no
>>>> banter on who's a good instructor and who isn't.....simply get the
>>>> official position of the authoritative body officially responsible for
>>>> flight instruction and flight safety in the United States.......then
>>>> post the answer right here for the world to see.
>>>>
>>>> How fair and up front is that?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> That's way too easy and implies moments away from the computer.
>>>
>>> Are you KIDDING?
>>>
>>> Sheese...
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan
>> I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
>> Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
>> disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
>
> Say...if you decide to give up on usenet for sure, I'll take that
> MacBook Air off your hands.
>
> Because I'm all about being helpful. :}
Hey..I LOVE this thing! It's amazing. This is my second Mac. I have an
IMac downstairs that serves as a wireless relay for the Macbook Air with
the laser printer.
I use a high end gaming PC for the flight simulator only. I'll never
again buy a PC for anything but the sim. I'm completely sold on Apple!


--
Dudley Henriques

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> On Mar 8, 11:40 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
> >>>>>>> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
> >>>>>>> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
> >>>>>> If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good frauds.
> >>>>>> The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
> >>>>>> aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There would
> >>>>>> be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
> >>>>>> savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have little
> >>>>>> argument with most of what they say.
> >>>>>> There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds from
> >>>>>> the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes of
> >>>>>> discredit. They're just incredible.
> >>>>> Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
> >>>>> is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.
> >>>>>> Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
> >>>>>> takeoff is asking to die. Soon.
> >>>>> No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
> >>>>> and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
> >>>>> properly he take control and have that figured out.
> >>>>>> Pulling the throttle has the same
> >>>>>> engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with killing
> >>>>>> the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
> >>>>>> the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture control
> >>>>>> cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment, making a
> >>>>>> recovery of the engine impossible.
> >>>>> Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
> >>>>> point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.
> >>>>>> In the last 15 years or so we've
> >>>>>> had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now we
> >>>>>> replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no legal
> >>>>>> requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I decided
> >>>>>> that it was going to get done.
> >>>>>> Dan
> >>>>> My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
> >>>>> very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
> >>>>> back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
> >>>>> that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
> >>>>> Ken
> >>>> The answer to this entire issue is quite easily proved one way or the
> >>>> other.
> >>>> Anyone.....and I mean ANYONE, reading about this issue here can easily
> >>>> pick up the phone and call their local FAA office here in the United
> >>>> States anyway, and ask for an official opinion on the following
> >>>> question. (Someone please do this :-)
> >>>> "Is it acceptable procedure for a flight instructor to turn off a fuel
> >>>> valve on a student on takeoff causing fuel starvation and subsequent
> >>>> engine failure as a teaching method"
> >>>>
> >>>> No flames......no back and forth on who's an idiot or who's a fraud; no
> >>>> banter on who's a good instructor and who isn't.....simply get the
> >>>> official position of the authoritative body officially responsible for
> >>>> flight instruction and flight safety in the United States.......then
> >>>> post the answer right here for the world to see.
> >>>>
> >>>> How fair and up front is that?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> That's way too easy and implies moments away from the computer.
> >>>
> >>> Are you KIDDING?
> >>>
> >>> Sheese...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >> I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
> >> Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
> >> disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
> >
> > Say...if you decide to give up on usenet for sure, I'll take that
> > MacBook Air off your hands.
> >
> > Because I'm all about being helpful. :}
> Hey..I LOVE this thing! It's amazing. This is my second Mac. I have an
> IMac downstairs that serves as a wireless relay for the Macbook Air with
> the laser printer.
> I use a high end gaming PC for the flight simulator only. I'll never
> again buy a PC for anything but the sim. I'm completely sold on Apple!

Yeah, they work pretty well.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:07:56 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:

>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:37:55 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
>>> but what should you do if your engine sputters
>>> and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.
>>
>>> Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
>>> use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
>>> happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
>>> ((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).
>>
>>> Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
>>> safe alternative and use it.
>>> Ken
>>
>> Wow, Ken, even *I* know this is idiotic.
>
> My thoughts are: Given no good alternative aside
> from the runway, know the x-wind at T-O, do max
> ascent into the wind as is normal, then if the engine
> quit's (do radio) do a descending gentle 20 into the
> x-wind, and come back and set the ship down.
> I think the key is max ascent rate, that's insurance.
> Ken

Ken, the simple geometries don't work. Regardless of aircraft
characteristics. Are you willing to bet your life on these false
assumptions?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 9, 6:54*pm, "Owner" > wrote:
> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:07:56 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:37:55 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>>> Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
> >>>> but what should you do if your engine sputters
> >>>> and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.
>
> >>>> Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
> >>>> use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
> >>>> happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
> >>>> ((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).
>
> >>>> Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
> >>>> safe alternative and use it.
> >>>> Ken
>
> >>> Wow, Ken, even *I* know this is idiotic.
>
> >> My thoughts are: Given no good alternative aside
> >> from the runway, know the x-wind at T-O, do max
> >> ascent into the wind as is normal, then if the engine
> >> quit's (do radio) do a descending gentle 20 into the
> >> x-wind, and come back and set the ship down.
> >> I think the key is max ascent rate, that's insurance.
> >> Ken
>
> > Ken, the simple geometries don't work. Regardless of aircraft
> > characteristics. Are you willing to bet your life on these false
> > assumptions?
> > --
> > Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>
> No worries, I don't believe anyone has ever been injured or killed using MS
> Flight Simulator :)- Hide quoted text -
>

Not true. There are strong rumours that the personality known as
Anthony A....i died as a results of playing it too much in Paris. His
alter ego, Mxmaniac was injured by trying to simulate a "sexy
manouver". It turned out that a joy stick did not live up to his
expectations.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 9, 1:50*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> On Mar 8, 11:40 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
> >>>>>>> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
> >>>>>>> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
> >>>>>> * * *If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good frauds.
> >>>>>> The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
> >>>>>> aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There would
> >>>>>> be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
> >>>>>> savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have little
> >>>>>> argument with most of what they say.
> >>>>>> * * *There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds from
> >>>>>> the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes of
> >>>>>> discredit. They're just incredible.
> >>>>> Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
> >>>>> is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.
> >>>>>> * * *Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
> >>>>>> takeoff is asking to die. Soon.
> >>>>> No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
> >>>>> and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
> >>>>> properly he take control and have that figured out.
> >>>>>> Pulling the throttle has the same
> >>>>>> engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with killing
> >>>>>> the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
> >>>>>> the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture control
> >>>>>> cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment, making a
> >>>>>> recovery of the engine impossible.
> >>>>> Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
> >>>>> point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.
> >>>>>> In the last 15 years or so we've
> >>>>>> had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now we
> >>>>>> replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no legal
> >>>>>> requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I decided
> >>>>>> that it was going to get done.
> >>>>>> * * * * Dan
> >>>>> My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
> >>>>> very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
> >>>>> back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
> >>>>> that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
> >>>>> Ken
> >>>> The answer to this entire issue is quite easily proved one way or the
> >>>> other.
> >>>> Anyone.....and I mean ANYONE, reading about this issue here can easily
> >>>> pick up the phone and call their local FAA office here in the United
> >>>> States anyway, and ask for an official opinion on the following
> >>>> question. (Someone please do this :-)
> >>>> "Is it acceptable procedure for a flight instructor to turn off a fuel
> >>>> valve on a student on takeoff causing fuel starvation and subsequent
> >>>> engine failure as a teaching method"
>
> >>>> No flames......no back and forth on who's an idiot or who's a fraud; no
> >>>> banter on who's a good instructor and who isn't.....simply get the
> >>>> official position of the authoritative body officially responsible for
> >>>> flight instruction and flight safety in the United States.......then
> >>>> post the answer right here for the world to see.
>
> >>>> How fair and up front is that?
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> That's way too easy and implies moments away from the computer.
>
> >>> Are you KIDDING?
>
> >>> Sheese...
>
> >>> Dan
> >> I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
> >> Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
> >> disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
>
> > Say...if you decide to give up on usenet for sure, I'll take that
> > MacBook Air off your hands.
>
> > Because I'm all about being helpful. *:}
>
> Hey..I LOVE this thing! It's amazing. This is my second Mac. I have an
> IMac downstairs that serves as a wireless relay for the Macbook Air with
> the laser printer.
> I use a high end gaming PC for the flight simulator only. I'll never
> again buy a PC for anything but the sim. I'm completely sold on Apple!
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>


Just make sure you have a service contract. I've has two Mac laptop
diplays die in 3 years -never had a similar prob with a PC by the way.
Most disappointing as they are now a really good machine -not as
crippled as a PC by windoze.

Cheers

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Mar 9, 1:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 8, 11:40 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
>>>>>>>>> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
>>>>>>>>> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
>>>>>>>> If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good frauds.
>>>>>>>> The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
>>>>>>>> aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There would
>>>>>>>> be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
>>>>>>>> savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have little
>>>>>>>> argument with most of what they say.
>>>>>>>> There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds from
>>>>>>>> the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes of
>>>>>>>> discredit. They're just incredible.
>>>>>>> Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
>>>>>>> is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.
>>>>>>>> Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
>>>>>>>> takeoff is asking to die. Soon.
>>>>>>> No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
>>>>>>> and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
>>>>>>> properly he take control and have that figured out.
>>>>>>>> Pulling the throttle has the same
>>>>>>>> engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with killing
>>>>>>>> the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
>>>>>>>> the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture control
>>>>>>>> cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment, making a
>>>>>>>> recovery of the engine impossible.
>>>>>>> Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
>>>>>>> point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.
>>>>>>>> In the last 15 years or so we've
>>>>>>>> had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now we
>>>>>>>> replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no legal
>>>>>>>> requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I decided
>>>>>>>> that it was going to get done.
>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>> My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
>>>>>>> very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
>>>>>>> back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
>>>>>>> that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>> The answer to this entire issue is quite easily proved one way or the
>>>>>> other.
>>>>>> Anyone.....and I mean ANYONE, reading about this issue here can easily
>>>>>> pick up the phone and call their local FAA office here in the United
>>>>>> States anyway, and ask for an official opinion on the following
>>>>>> question. (Someone please do this :-)
>>>>>> "Is it acceptable procedure for a flight instructor to turn off a fuel
>>>>>> valve on a student on takeoff causing fuel starvation and subsequent
>>>>>> engine failure as a teaching method"
>>>>>> No flames......no back and forth on who's an idiot or who's a fraud; no
>>>>>> banter on who's a good instructor and who isn't.....simply get the
>>>>>> official position of the authoritative body officially responsible for
>>>>>> flight instruction and flight safety in the United States.......then
>>>>>> post the answer right here for the world to see.
>>>>>> How fair and up front is that?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> That's way too easy and implies moments away from the computer.
>>>>> Are you KIDDING?
>>>>> Sheese...
>>>>> Dan
>>>> I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
>>>> Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
>>>> disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
>>> Say...if you decide to give up on usenet for sure, I'll take that
>>> MacBook Air off your hands.
>>> Because I'm all about being helpful. :}
>> Hey..I LOVE this thing! It's amazing. This is my second Mac. I have an
>> IMac downstairs that serves as a wireless relay for the Macbook Air with
>> the laser printer.
>> I use a high end gaming PC for the flight simulator only. I'll never
>> again buy a PC for anything but the sim. I'm completely sold on Apple!
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>
> Just make sure you have a service contract. I've has two Mac laptop
> diplays die in 3 years -never had a similar prob with a PC by the way.
> Most disappointing as they are now a really good machine -not as
> crippled as a PC by windoze.
>
> Cheers
>
I have the Apple Care Plan. So far no issues.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 8, 3:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote in news:f7c7fb2b-5e30-4e34-9bf2-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 3:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> buttman > wrote in news:592caddb-a61d-4cfe-a408-
>>>> :
>>>>> On Mar 8, 3:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>> buttman > wrote in news:a60b25cb-6a8a-4ecf-889e-
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> Either a pathetic cry for attention, or the best news I've heard
>>>> all
>>>>>>> day. Hoping for the latter.
>>>>>> Neither, fjukkwit.
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> awww, sticking up for your boyfriend
>>>>> at least now we now know which one wears the pants in this
>>>>> relationship...
>>>> Nice try buttboi. don;'t yuo have an airplane to demolish somewhere?
>>>> Bertie
>>> don';t yuo have a 8410 to fraudulently endorse somewhere?
>> Is there anything you're good at? you sure ain't very good at this.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> If only the Dud could take you with him...

You DO seem to have this strange judgment problem don't you?

Sorry to disappointed you but I've not gone anywhere and will most
likely be your Usenet "companion" for a very long time . :-))

Simply decided that I've exhausted enough time on this issue; that you
are not going to be affected in any way that will make the students who
fly with you any safer by anything I've attempted to tell you.

Judging from the posting I've seen on your fuel starvation on takeoff
issue, it would appear there are now more than enough experienced and
qualified pilots here who along with me have recognized the fact that
you are not using safe practices as a CFI.

I'm sure you and I will be enjoying a long term relationship on this
forum :-))

All the best to you

--
Dudley Henriques

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 00:43:27 -0800 (PST), WingFlaps
> wrote:
<snip>
>Just make sure you have a service contract. I've has two Mac laptop
>diplays die in 3 years -never had a similar prob with a PC by the way.
>Most disappointing as they are now a really good machine -not as
>crippled as a PC by windoze.
>
That's why I use LINUX on most of the machines<:-))

>Cheers
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:97f7641b-9394-499b-93eb-
:

> On Mar 8, 3:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote in news:f7c7fb2b-5e30-4e34-9bf2-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 8, 3:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> buttman > wrote in news:592caddb-a61d-4cfe-a408-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > On Mar 8, 3:31 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> buttman > wrote in news:a60b25cb-6a8a-4ecf-
889e-
>> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> > Either a pathetic cry for attention, or the best news I've
heard
>> >> all
>> >> >> > day. Hoping for the latter.
>>
>> >> >> Neither, fjukkwit.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > awww, sticking up for your boyfriend
>>
>> >> > at least now we now know which one wears the pants in this
>> >> > relationship...
>>
>> >> Nice try buttboi. don;'t yuo have an airplane to demolish
somewhere?
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > don';t yuo have a 8410 to fraudulently endorse somewhere?
>>
>> Is there anything you're good at? you sure ain't very good at this.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> If only the Dud could take you with him...
>

I hadn't noticed that he's going anywhere.


Bertie.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Mar 9, 6:54*pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:07:56 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:37:55 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >>>> Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
>> >>>> but what should you do if your engine sputters
>> >>>> and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.
>>
>> >>>> Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
>> >>>> use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
>> >>>> happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
>> >>>> ((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).
>>
>> >>>> Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
>> >>>> safe alternative and use it.
>> >>>> Ken
>>
>> >>> Wow, Ken, even *I* know this is idiotic.
>>
>> >> My thoughts are: Given no good alternative aside
>> >> from the runway, know the x-wind at T-O, do max
>> >> ascent into the wind as is normal, then if the engine
>> >> quit's (do radio) do a descending gentle 20 into the
>> >> x-wind, and come back and set the ship down.
>> >> I think the key is max ascent rate, that's insurance.
>> >> Ken
>>
>> > Ken, the simple geometries don't work. Regardless of aircraft
>> > characteristics. Are you willing to bet your life on these false
>> > assumptions?
>> > --
>> > Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>>
>> No worries, I don't believe anyone has ever been injured or killed
>> using M
> S
>> Flight Simulator :)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Not true. There are strong rumours that the personality known as
> Anthony A....i died as a results of playing it too much in Paris. His
> alter ego, Mxmaniac was injured by trying to simulate a "sexy
> manouver". It turned out that a joy stick did not live up to his
> expectations.
>

Seeing as how it;s Anthony, he prolly has a 16 ton weight suspended over
his chair in case he crashes.


Bertie

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-09, Roger > wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 00:43:27 -0800 (PST), WingFlaps
> wrote:
>>Just make sure you have a service contract. I've has two Mac laptop
>>diplays die in 3 years -never had a similar prob with a PC by the way.
>>Most disappointing as they are now a really good machine -not as
>>crippled as a PC by windoze.
> That's why I use LINUX on most of the machines<:-))

I run Macs for machines that I use to get work done, and Linux for machines
I use to do computing for its own sake. I used to carry a Linux laptop, but
I spent as much time fiddling with the OS as I did getting my real work
accomplished.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 19:54:37 -1000, Owner wrote:

>>>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:37:55 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>> Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
>>>>> but what should you do if your engine sputters
>>>>> and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.
>>>>
>>>>> Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
>>>>> use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
>>>>> happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
>>>>> ((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).
>>>>
>>>>> Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
>>>>> safe alternative and use it.
>>>>> Ken
>>>>
>>>> Wow, Ken, even *I* know this is idiotic.
>>>
>>> My thoughts are: Given no good alternative aside
>>> from the runway, know the x-wind at T-O, do max
>>> ascent into the wind as is normal, then if the engine
>>> quit's (do radio) do a descending gentle 20 into the
>>> x-wind, and come back and set the ship down.
>>> I think the key is max ascent rate, that's insurance.
>>> Ken
>>
>> Ken, the simple geometries don't work. Regardless of aircraft
>> characteristics. Are you willing to bet your life on these false
>> assumptions?
>> --
>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>
> No worries, I don't believe anyone has ever been injured or killed using MS
> Flight Simulator :)

I know a guy that nearly poked his eye out with a controller, does that
count?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 10, 2:12*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 6:54*pm, "Owner" > wrote:
> >> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:07:56 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> >> >>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:37:55 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> >>>> Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
> >> >>>> but what should you do if your engine sputters
> >> >>>> and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.
>
> >> >>>> Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
> >> >>>> use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
> >> >>>> happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
> >> >>>> ((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).
>
> >> >>>> Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
> >> >>>> safe alternative and use it.
> >> >>>> Ken
>
> >> >>> Wow, Ken, even *I* know this is idiotic.
>
> >> >> My thoughts are: Given no good alternative aside
> >> >> from the runway, know the x-wind at T-O, do max
> >> >> ascent into the wind as is normal, then if the engine
> >> >> quit's (do radio) do a descending gentle 20 into the
> >> >> x-wind, and come back and set the ship down.
> >> >> I think the key is max ascent rate, that's insurance.
> >> >> Ken
>
> >> > Ken, the simple geometries don't work. Regardless of aircraft
> >> > characteristics. Are you willing to bet your life on these false
> >> > assumptions?
> >> > --
> >> > Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>
> >> No worries, I don't believe anyone has ever been injured or killed
> >> using M
> > S
> >> Flight Simulator :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Not true. There are strong rumours that the personality known as
> > Anthony A....i died as a results of playing it too much in *Paris. His
> > alter ego, Mxmaniac was injured by trying to simulate a "sexy
> > manouver". It turned out that a joy stick did not live up to his
> > expectations.
>
> Seeing as how it;s Anthony, he prolly has a 16 ton weight suspended over
> his chair in case he crashes.
>

Labelled ACME of course. LOL

Cheers

[george]

On Mar 10, 7:54 am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> I know a guy that nearly poked his eye out with a controller, does that
> count?

I bet he was running with it at the time :-)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Mar 10, 2:12*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:3ae75984-3a6e-4148-b39c-6360f
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 9, 6:54*pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> >> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:07:56 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:37:55 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >> >>>> Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
>> >> >>>> but what should you do if your engine sputters
>> >> >>>> and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.
>>
>> >> >>>> Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
>> >> >>>> use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
>> >> >>>> happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
>> >> >>>> ((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).
>>
>> >> >>>> Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
>> >> >>>> safe alternative and use it.
>> >> >>>> Ken
>>
>> >> >>> Wow, Ken, even *I* know this is idiotic.
>>
>> >> >> My thoughts are: Given no good alternative aside
>> >> >> from the runway, know the x-wind at T-O, do max
>> >> >> ascent into the wind as is normal, then if the engine
>> >> >> quit's (do radio) do a descending gentle 20 into the
>> >> >> x-wind, and come back and set the ship down.
>> >> >> I think the key is max ascent rate, that's insurance.
>> >> >> Ken
>>
>> >> > Ken, the simple geometries don't work. Regardless of aircraft
>> >> > characteristics. Are you willing to bet your life on these false
>> >> > assumptions?
>> >> > --
>> >> > Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee"
>> >> > either!
>>
>> >> No worries, I don't believe anyone has ever been injured or killed
>> >> using M
>> > S
>> >> Flight Simulator :)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > Not true. There are strong rumours that the personality known as
>> > Anthony A....i died as a results of playing it too much in *Paris.
>> > His
>
>> > alter ego, Mxmaniac was injured by trying to simulate a "sexy
>> > manouver". It turned out that a joy stick did not live up to his
>> > expectations.
>>
>> Seeing as how it;s Anthony, he prolly has a 16 ton weight suspended
>> over his chair in case he crashes.
>>
>
> Labelled ACME of course. LOL
>


Naturellement.

Be

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 13:44:49 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:

>On 2008-03-09, Roger > wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 00:43:27 -0800 (PST), WingFlaps
> wrote:
>>>Just make sure you have a service contract. I've has two Mac laptop
>>>diplays die in 3 years -never had a similar prob with a PC by the way.
>>>Most disappointing as they are now a really good machine -not as
>>>crippled as a PC by windoze.
>> That's why I use LINUX on most of the machines<:-))
>
>I run Macs for machines that I use to get work done, and Linux for machines
>I use to do computing for its own sake. I used to carry a Linux laptop, but
>I spent as much time fiddling with the OS as I did getting my real work
>accomplished.
The Macs are a very fine machine. I don't happen to like Apple, but
that's a different story.

As much as I hate to say it, I really don't think LINUX is ready for
prime time...with the exception of pre configured, stand alone
machines where no one changes anything.. The one next to this (Athlon
64X2 6000 and 8800GTS 640 PCIe) has Fedora 8 and XP Pro in a dual boot
configuration. I have another almost identical machine in the shop but
with a Sapphire X1950XT 256 PCIe) but Fedora 8 and XP Pro are on
different boot disks that are selected in the BIOS at boot time.

Once configured they have been very stable, but putting them on a
gigabit CAT5e network and playing with Samba is not for the faint of
heart or the average end user<:-)) . One thing I've noted is not
having to clean up gigabytes of disk space after a week or two of use
like I do with XP Pro.

All my mail is now on that machine, but I still need to get the news
reader moved to the LINUX machine.

Except for when I need to switch to XP Pro (such as running FSX) those
machines stay on Fedora. I do need to find a GOOD multimedia package
that will run most of the multimedia stuff out there like an
equivalent to the old Windows Media player Classic I use on XP.

Yes, I have ONE copy of Vista Ultimate (OEM), but only because I
needed to get familiar with it. It is not currently installed and I
see no likelihood of doing so again, at least in the near future. I
have three OEM copies of XP Pro and 2 of XP 64 that came with free
upgrades to Vista. I never bothered to send them in.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article >,
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> On Mar 9, 1:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 11:40 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
>>>>>>>>>>> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
>>>>>>>>>>> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
>>>>>>>>>> If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good
>>>>>>>>>> frauds.
>>>>>>>>>> The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
>>>>>>>>>> aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
>>>>>>>>>> savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have little
>>>>>>>>>> argument with most of what they say.
>>>>>>>>>> There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds from
>>>>>>>>>> the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> discredit. They're just incredible.
>>>>>>>>> Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
>>>>>>>>> is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.
>>>>>>>>>> Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
>>>>>>>>>> takeoff is asking to die. Soon.
>>>>>>>>> No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
>>>>>>>>> and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
>>>>>>>>> properly he take control and have that figured out.
>>>>>>>>>> Pulling the throttle has the same
>>>>>>>>>> engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with killing
>>>>>>>>>> the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
>>>>>>>>>> the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture
>>>>>>>>>> control
>>>>>>>>>> cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment, making a
>>>>>>>>>> recovery of the engine impossible.
>>>>>>>>> Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
>>>>>>>>> point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.
>>>>>>>>>> In the last 15 years or so we've
>>>>>>>>>> had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no
>>>>>>>>>> legal
>>>>>>>>>> requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I decided
>>>>>>>>>> that it was going to get done.
>>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>> My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
>>>>>>>>> very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
>>>>>>>>> back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
>>>>>>>>> that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>> The answer to this entire issue is quite easily proved one way or the
>>>>>>>> other.
>>>>>>>> Anyone.....and I mean ANYONE, reading about this issue here can easily
>>>>>>>> pick up the phone and call their local FAA office here in the United
>>>>>>>> States anyway, and ask for an official opinion on the following
>>>>>>>> question. (Someone please do this :-)
>>>>>>>> "Is it acceptable procedure for a flight instructor to turn off a fuel
>>>>>>>> valve on a student on takeoff causing fuel starvation and subsequent
>>>>>>>> engine failure as a teaching method"
>>>>>>>> No flames......no back and forth on who's an idiot or who's a fraud;
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>> banter on who's a good instructor and who isn't.....simply get the
>>>>>>>> official position of the authoritative body officially responsible for
>>>>>>>> flight instruction and flight safety in the United States.......then
>>>>>>>> post the answer right here for the world to see.
>>>>>>>> How fair and up front is that?
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>> That's way too easy and implies moments away from the computer.
>>>>>>> Are you KIDDING?
>>>>>>> Sheese...
>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>> I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
>>>>>> Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
>>>>>> disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
>>>>> Say...if you decide to give up on usenet for sure, I'll take that
>>>>> MacBook Air off your hands.
>>>>> Because I'm all about being helpful. :}
>>>> Hey..I LOVE this thing! It's amazing. This is my second Mac. I have an
>>>> IMac downstairs that serves as a wireless relay for the Macbook Air with
>>>> the laser printer.
>>>> I use a high end gaming PC for the flight simulator only. I'll never
>>>> again buy a PC for anything but the sim. I'm completely sold on Apple!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just make sure you have a service contract. I've has two Mac laptop
>>> diplays die in 3 years -never had a similar prob with a PC by the way.
>>> Most disappointing as they are now a really good machine -not as
>>> crippled as a PC by windoze.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>> I have the Apple Care Plan. So far no issues.
>
> I always get AppleCare for laptops or my main work machine.
>
> Had cause to use the service, lessee, four times in ten years. Once when
> I forgot I'd put my wife's TiBook on the floor to move a printer, and
> then kicked and broke the display hinge when I turned around. She
> remembers that one for some reason.
>
> The other events were drive failures, one DVD, two hard drives.
>
> They work well for us.
I'll tell you the truth. After 10 years of messing with PC's; having
BIOS updates trash them, and having o deal with Microsoft's absolutely
ridiculous installation policies that take it for granted I'm a software
thief, I'm totally sold on Apple. Haven't had even a minor glitch yet,
and they actually know my name over at the Apple store.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> WingFlaps wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 1:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Steve Hix wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 8, 11:40 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
> >>>>>>>>> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
> >>>>>>>>> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
> >>>>>>>> If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good
> >>>>>>>> frauds.
> >>>>>>>> The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
> >>>>>>>> aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There
> >>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>> be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
> >>>>>>>> savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have little
> >>>>>>>> argument with most of what they say.
> >>>>>>>> There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds from
> >>>>>>>> the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> discredit. They're just incredible.
> >>>>>>> Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
> >>>>>>> is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.
> >>>>>>>> Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
> >>>>>>>> takeoff is asking to die. Soon.
> >>>>>>> No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
> >>>>>>> and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
> >>>>>>> properly he take control and have that figured out.
> >>>>>>>> Pulling the throttle has the same
> >>>>>>>> engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with killing
> >>>>>>>> the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
> >>>>>>>> the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture
> >>>>>>>> control
> >>>>>>>> cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment, making a
> >>>>>>>> recovery of the engine impossible.
> >>>>>>> Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
> >>>>>>> point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.
> >>>>>>>> In the last 15 years or so we've
> >>>>>>>> had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now
> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>> replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no
> >>>>>>>> legal
> >>>>>>>> requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I decided
> >>>>>>>> that it was going to get done.
> >>>>>>>> Dan
> >>>>>>> My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
> >>>>>>> very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
> >>>>>>> back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
> >>>>>>> that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
> >>>>>>> Ken
> >>>>>> The answer to this entire issue is quite easily proved one way or the
> >>>>>> other.
> >>>>>> Anyone.....and I mean ANYONE, reading about this issue here can easily
> >>>>>> pick up the phone and call their local FAA office here in the United
> >>>>>> States anyway, and ask for an official opinion on the following
> >>>>>> question. (Someone please do this :-)
> >>>>>> "Is it acceptable procedure for a flight instructor to turn off a fuel
> >>>>>> valve on a student on takeoff causing fuel starvation and subsequent
> >>>>>> engine failure as a teaching method"
> >>>>>> No flames......no back and forth on who's an idiot or who's a fraud;
> >>>>>> no
> >>>>>> banter on who's a good instructor and who isn't.....simply get the
> >>>>>> official position of the authoritative body officially responsible for
> >>>>>> flight instruction and flight safety in the United States.......then
> >>>>>> post the answer right here for the world to see.
> >>>>>> How fair and up front is that?
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>>>> That's way too easy and implies moments away from the computer.
> >>>>> Are you KIDDING?
> >>>>> Sheese...
> >>>>> Dan
> >>>> I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
> >>>> Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
> >>>> disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
> >>> Say...if you decide to give up on usenet for sure, I'll take that
> >>> MacBook Air off your hands.
> >>> Because I'm all about being helpful. :}
> >> Hey..I LOVE this thing! It's amazing. This is my second Mac. I have an
> >> IMac downstairs that serves as a wireless relay for the Macbook Air with
> >> the laser printer.
> >> I use a high end gaming PC for the flight simulator only. I'll never
> >> again buy a PC for anything but the sim. I'm completely sold on Apple!
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >
> >
> > Just make sure you have a service contract. I've has two Mac laptop
> > diplays die in 3 years -never had a similar prob with a PC by the way.
> > Most disappointing as they are now a really good machine -not as
> > crippled as a PC by windoze.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> I have the Apple Care Plan. So far no issues.

I always get AppleCare for laptops or my main work machine.

Had cause to use the service, lessee, four times in ten years. Once when
I forgot I'd put my wife's TiBook on the floor to move a printer, and
then kicked and broke the display hinge when I turned around. She
remembers that one for some reason.

The other events were drive failures, one DVD, two hard drives.

They work well for us.

[Highflyer]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 8:51 am, buttman > wrote:
I don't believe ANYTHING can be fairly classified as
> objectively unsafe except for one thing and one thing only;
> unpreparedness.

Here's an example, start cleaning a loaded gun.

Cheers

I always start cleaning a loaded gun. Of course, about the first thing I do
in my cleaning procedure is unload it. When I am done I REload it. AFter
all the most useless things you can have are:

runway behind you,
altitude above you,
fuel in the truck,
an unloaded gun! :-)

Highflyer

[Highflyer]

>>
>>
>> Bertie
> The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider some kind
> of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
> Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so full of
> variables it muddies the equation.
> Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
> departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
> highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even make
> the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the vertical plane,
> (modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up line using the
> vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning component)
> This is even possible done by such a pilot flying something like a 172 or
> a 150, but I would never recommend doing it to anyone.
> For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within reasonable degree offset
> approach to the engine failure scenario on takeoff is still the safe way
> to deal with this issue and probably always will be in my opinion.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Hi Bertie, Hi Dudley, ...

I agree that minimum maneuvering is appropriate after low level engine
failure for the average pilot.

The successful turn around procedures put the airplane quite close to the
edge and hamfisted piloting can easily result in a stall or stall/spin
maneuver that will ruin your entire day.

However, on the other hand, in a normal landing the way we used to teach
them years ago, you cut the power on downwind opposite you planned touchdown
point and then proceeded to make a power off 180 degree turn to a landing
for EVERY landing you made. What difference does it make if you shut off
the power, or it shuts off automatically for some reason? :-) And we always
did that from 800 feet AGL.

When I got my seaplane rating from Bob Mills at the Philadelphia Seaplane
Base we had an even lower traffic pattern. Since we were situated
underneath the traffic off the main runway at Philadelphia International we
had to keep our pattern at or below 300 feet AWL.
(That's above Water level ... it's a seaplane base.) I was flying a
Republic Seabee, which is nortorious for having a glide angle somewhere
between that of a bowling ball and a concrete block. I could cut power at
300 feet above the river on downwind opposite my planned touchdown point,
make a leisurely 180 degree turn with clearcut downwind, crosswind, and
final legs and land on the desired spot. All of this with only 300 feet
altitude and no power. In a flying brick. :-)

Clearly there is some altitude where a "turn back" is not unreasonable. The
main requirement would be a long enough runway to allow you to make it to
the runway.

All that being said, the last time I lost an engine on takeoff , a couple of
years ago I didn't put the nose down and glide straight ahead and I didn't
turn back. I had about 1000 feet of a 4000 foot runway in front of me,
although I couldn't see any of it. I had 150 feet of altitude in the bank.
My airspeed was about 140 mph, in an airplane with a stall speed around 50.
My first thought was to dump all that excess speed. How do you do that?
Easy, I honked the yoke back and went straight up. When I got rid of my
airspeed I had lots of altitude but no speed. Now all I had to do was get
back down to the runway without picking up all of the speed I had lost going
up.

I just kicked it halfway around a hammerhead and then let it fall sideways.
I figured that would minimize the speed buildup. It did, and when I got low
enough I kicked it out of the slip and pulled up the nose to kill the
descent rate, which was quite high! :-) I got the nose up and the descent
stopped with an altitude of about 3 feet right over the numbers. I dropped
it on the numbers and rolled about forty feet into the overrun before it
stopped.

No damage to people or airplane. The only thing I did wrong, because I
wasn't thinking too clearly, was maintain a straight slip all the way down
to pull out time. If I had rolled a bit either going up or coming down, I
could have also made a 180 degree turn and landed toward the 3000 foot end
instead of the 1000 foot end. Of course that would have been downwind and
downwind landings are tricky with taildraggers because you are still moving
fairly fast when you lose your aerodynamic directional control.

By the way, if I had just put the nose down and glided it out straight ahead
we would have gone into the woods and a creek. Probably totaled the
airplane and we would likely have taked some small injury. I would still
tell my students "Don't do what I just did!"

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport, PJY

[Highflyer]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>> On Mar 9, 5:53 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Glide back to the runway
>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>> Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if
>>>>>>> you are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You
>>>>>>> lose considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose,
>>>>>>> reducing speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten
>>>>>>> the turn using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall
>>>>>>> and spin. Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your
>>>>>>> flight path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> airports.
>>>>>> Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be
>>>>>> done. The guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is
>>>>>> probably right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field
>>>>>> in standard lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors
>>>>>> where I worked agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you
>>>>>> were proficient and it was planned before the takeoff roll started.
>>>>>> We knew they couldn't neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in
>>>>>> all situations. The wind had to be considered as well as traffic (
>>>>>> bad idea to turn back toward a runway with something rolling on it)
>>>>>> and so on. We had it sussed. then one of the guys had one one day.
>>>>>> Very good stci as well. Better than me back then anyway. He had a
>>>>>> good bit of altitude, too 50 or so, he turned around and made the
>>>>>> runway but stalled coming across the threshold and cartwheeled donw
>>>>>> the runway. He and his father in law survived, but they were lucky.
>>>>>> They would definitely have been better off going straight ahead.
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider
>>>>> some kind of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
>>>>> Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so
>>>>> full of variables it muddies the equation.
>>>>> Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
>>>>> departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
>>>>> highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even
>>>>> make the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the
>>>>> vertical plane, (modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up
>>>>> line using the vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning
>>>>> component) This is even possible done by such a pilot flying
>>>>> something like a 172 or a 150, but I would never recommend doing it
>>>>> to anyone. For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within
>>>>> reasonable degree offset approach to the engine failure scenario on
>>>>> takeoff is still the safe way to deal with this issue and probably
>>>>> always will be in my opinion.
>>>> I'm not a n acro pilot so I'd like you (or some other pilot) to try
>>>> that manouver power off from the glide and see how much altitude they
>>>> loose. I'm guessing 200' minimum.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>> Depends on the airplane and the pilot combination. Such a maneuver
>>> assuming a normal climb speed at entry of 80mph as the engine quits
>>> would require an immediate aggressive pull into accelerated stall
>>> followed by aggressive pro spin rudder to induce a required yaw rate.
>>> The trick is to catch the spin entry on the first half turn nose down.
>>> 200 feet could easily be required in some airplanes.
>>> This isn't something you argue on the specifics. The variables are
>>> just too vast.
>>> Put it this way. If I had 200 feet in a 172 with an engine failure,
>>> I'd be looking for a landing area straight ahead, or more properly I'd
>>> already know if such an area existed for the runway I was using since
>>> I would have asked :-) (There are runways where no such landing is
>>> possible of course)
>>> On the other hand, in a Pitts or an Extra in the same scenario, I
>>> wouldn't hesitate to attempt what I have described here.
>>> I've done this easily in the Pitts with under 100 feet lost and a 180
>>> change in the flight path.
>>
>>
>> One of the problems is you need to do more than 180 degrees, of course.
>> This can be minimised by turning into wind if you have some across and if
>> your runway is wide you've saved a bit of turn that way as well, but
>> you're probably going to have a bit of 'essing' to do on finals and
>> that's going to cost. That's where my friend lost it. Bertie
>>
> Yeah, that's right. No matter what you do the chances are you will have a
> heading "adjustment" to make after the reversal. It can get sticky, and
> requires a lot of judgment. You screw up and it could spoil your whole day
> :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Then, a few years ago, I was test flying a homebuilt Pulsar and lost the
engine ( rotax ) just as I crossed over the upwind end of the runway at
abouat 300 feet AGL. In front of me were creek, woods, and an old coal
mine slurry pit. None of which offered attractive landing possibilities. I
opted to try a turn back maneuver. I turned to downwind and lost about
fifty feet. I didn't believe it! I flew the whole downwind, did a base
leg, and a final and would up doing ess turns down the final so I wouldn't
overshoot the airport! I have flown sailplanes that didn't glide any better
than that darn Pulsar!

Highflyer

[Highflyer]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
>
> My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
> very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
> back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
> that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
> Ken

It isn't all that rare. However, it normally isn't too difficult either. I
always demonstrate to my students a landing using only elevator trim
controls.

Of course, that wouldn't have helped Alaska Air because what caused the
problem was running the elevator trim off the end of the trim jackscrew.
That was on an airplane where the trim is so powerful that you cannot
override it.

A friend of mine ran that event in the 737 sim when he did his flight check
for American and said he was able to fly it that way by doing a continuous
string of lazy eights. The would certainly have the passengers upset
though! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport, PJY

[Steve Hix]

In article >, "Highflyer" >
wrote:

> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
> > very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
> > back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
> > that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
> > Ken
>
> It isn't all that rare. However, it normally isn't too difficult either. I
> always demonstrate to my students a landing using only elevator trim
> controls.
>
> Of course, that wouldn't have helped Alaska Air because what caused the
> problem was running the elevator trim off the end of the trim jackscrew.

It didn't help that part of the trim system had been installed upside
down.

> That was on an airplane where the trim is so powerful that you cannot
> override it.
>
> A friend of mine ran that event in the 737 sim when he did his flight check
> for American and said he was able to fly it that way by doing a continuous
> string of lazy eights. The would certainly have the passengers upset
> though! :-)
>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport, PJY
>

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 9, 9:01 pm, "Highflyer" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
> > very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
> > back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
> > that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
> > Ken
>
> It isn't all that rare. However, it normally isn't too difficult either. I
> always demonstrate to my students a landing using only elevator trim
> controls.
>
> Of course, that wouldn't have helped Alaska Air because what caused the
> problem was running the elevator trim off the end of the trim jackscrew.
> That was on an airplane where the trim is so powerful that you cannot
> override it.
>
> A friend of mine ran that event in the 737 sim when he did his flight check
> for American and said he was able to fly it that way by doing a continuous
> string of lazy eights. The would certainly have the passengers upset
> though! :-)
>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport, PJY

Thank you, High Flyer.
Some of the fella's suggested a 20 degree bank,
for return (engine failure on ascent) was too sissy,
so I guess I'll bleed more energy by going to 45
and snug up the geometry quicker, at the expense
of a bit of altitude loss using the heavier bank.
Thanks
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Highflyer" > wrote in :

>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider some
>> kind of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
>> Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so
>> full of variables it muddies the equation.
>> Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
>> departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
>> highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even
>> make the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the
>> vertical plane, (modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up
>> line using the vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning
>> component) This is even possible done by such a pilot flying
>> something like a 172 or a 150, but I would never recommend doing it
>> to anyone. For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within
>> reasonable degree offset approach to the engine failure scenario on
>> takeoff is still the safe way to deal with this issue and probably
>> always will be in my opinion.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Hi Bertie, Hi Dudley, ...
>
> I agree that minimum maneuvering is appropriate after low level engine
> failure for the average pilot.
>
> The successful turn around procedures put the airplane quite close to
> the edge and hamfisted piloting can easily result in a stall or
> stall/spin maneuver that will ruin your entire day.
>
> However, on the other hand, in a normal landing the way we used to
> teach them years ago, you cut the power on downwind opposite you
> planned touchdown point and then proceeded to make a power off 180
> degree turn to a landing for EVERY landing you made. What difference
> does it make if you shut off the power, or it shuts off automatically
> for some reason? :-) And we always did that from 800 feet AGL.
>
> When I got my seaplane rating from Bob Mills at the Philadelphia
> Seaplane Base we had an even lower traffic pattern. Since we were
> situated underneath the traffic off the main runway at Philadelphia
> International we had to keep our pattern at or below 300 feet AWL.
> (That's above Water level ... it's a seaplane base.) I was flying a
> Republic Seabee, which is nortorious for having a glide angle
> somewhere between that of a bowling ball and a concrete block. I
> could cut power at 300 feet above the river on downwind opposite my
> planned touchdown point, make a leisurely 180 degree turn with
> clearcut downwind, crosswind, and final legs and land on the desired
> spot. All of this with only 300 feet altitude and no power. In a
> flying brick. :-)
>
> Clearly there is some altitude where a "turn back" is not
> unreasonable. The main requirement would be a long enough runway to
> allow you to make it to the runway.
>
> All that being said, the last time I lost an engine on takeoff , a
> couple of years ago I didn't put the nose down and glide straight
> ahead and I didn't turn back. I had about 1000 feet of a 4000 foot
> runway in front of me, although I couldn't see any of it. I had 150
> feet of altitude in the bank. My airspeed was about 140 mph, in an
> airplane with a stall speed around 50. My first thought was to dump
> all that excess speed. How do you do that? Easy, I honked the yoke
> back and went straight up. When I got rid of my airspeed I had lots
> of altitude but no speed. Now all I had to do was get back down to
> the runway without picking up all of the speed I had lost going up.
>
> I just kicked it halfway around a hammerhead and then let it fall
> sideways. I figured that would minimize the speed buildup. It did,
> and when I got low enough I kicked it out of the slip and pulled up
> the nose to kill the descent rate, which was quite high! :-) I got
> the nose up and the descent stopped with an altitude of about 3 feet
> right over the numbers. I dropped it on the numbers and rolled about
> forty feet into the overrun before it stopped.
>
> No damage to people or airplane. The only thing I did wrong, because
> I wasn't thinking too clearly, was maintain a straight slip all the
> way down to pull out time. If I had rolled a bit either going up or
> coming down, I could have also made a 180 degree turn and landed
> toward the 3000 foot end instead of the 1000 foot end. Of course that
> would have been downwind and downwind landings are tricky with
> taildraggers because you are still moving fairly fast when you lose
> your aerodynamic directional control.
>
> By the way, if I had just put the nose down and glided it out straight
> ahead we would have gone into the woods and a creek. Probably totaled
> the airplane and we would likely have taked some small injury. I
> would still tell my students "Don't do what I just did!"

Yeah, it can be done alright. Depends on a lot of things, not least of
which is the pilots preparedness and experience. The type has to be
right, to. The accident I mentioned earleir was a Stearman. Not the best
glider going. I used to practice them in various types but it requires
an aggresive and very steep turn to minimise altitude loss in most of
the airplanes I practiced it in, discounting gliders. This means you
have to lower the nose as you're going around the turn both to keep the
speed up and to help offload the wing. It's tricky to do if you haven't
done a lot of it, of course. You must,must,must, plan this ahead if you
are going to do it. Minimum altitude , wind considerations, obstacles
and the intended flight path as well as glide control on 'finals' is
critical to make the manuever a success and unless you've practicd it
lots of times, both at altitude and down on the runway they shouldn't
even be considered.
What may be a practical alternative for the less experienced.is the case
of a field with multiple runways, especially if they're only 30 degrees
apart or so and the thresholds are close together,like Woodbine, for
instance. The same rules apply though,. you had to have done it in
practice,and this is a case where the practice maybe very dangerous for
the less than 100% co-ordinated, And it can only be planned accurately
if you've done it before, which brings us back to that practice thing
again. and to practice safely you have to be able to do the manuever
without stalling or spinnning every time.


Bertie

>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Highflyer" > wrote in :

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 9, 5:53 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Glide back to the runway
>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>> Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if
>>>>>>>> you are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make
>>>>>>>> it. You
>>>>>>>> lose considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the
>>>>>>>> nose, reducing speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend
>>>>>>>> to tighten the turn using a skid. It's death waiting to happen
>>>>>>>> via a stall and spin. Normal practice is to pick a spot with
>>>>>>>> 30° or so of your
>>>>>>>> flight path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the
>>>>>>>> location of
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> airports.
>>>>>>> Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be
>>>>>>> done. The guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done
>>>>>>> is probably right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short
>>>>>>> field in standard lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the
>>>>>>> instructors where I worked agreed that it was the thing to do as
>>>>>>> long as you were proficient and it was planned before the
>>>>>>> takeoff roll started. We knew they couldn't neccesarily be done
>>>>>>> in all airplanes and in all situations. The wind had to be
>>>>>>> considered as well as traffic ( bad idea to turn back toward a
>>>>>>> runway with something rolling on it) and so on. We had it
>>>>>>> sussed. then one of the guys had one one day. Very good stci as
>>>>>>> well. Better than me back then anyway. He had a good bit of
>>>>>>> altitude, too 50 or so, he turned around and made the runway but
>>>>>>> stalled coming across the threshold and cartwheeled donw
>>>>>>> the runway. He and his father in law survived, but they were
>>>>>>> lucky. They would definitely have been better off going straight
>>>>>>> ahead. Bertie
>>>>>> The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider
>>>>>> some kind of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
>>>>>> Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so
>>>>>> full of variables it muddies the equation.
>>>>>> Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
>>>>>> departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience
>>>>>> level, a highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could
>>>>>> possibly even make the turn using a half turn accelerated stall
>>>>>> done in the vertical plane, (modified hammerhead with practically
>>>>>> no vertical up line using the vertical plane to reduce the
>>>>>> horizontal turning component) This is even possible done by such
>>>>>> a pilot flying something like a 172 or a 150, but I would never
>>>>>> recommend doing it to anyone. For the "average Joe", that
>>>>>> straight ahead within reasonable degree offset approach to the
>>>>>> engine failure scenario on takeoff is still the safe way to deal
>>>>>> with this issue and probably always will be in my opinion.
>>>>> I'm not a n acro pilot so I'd like you (or some other pilot) to
>>>>> try that manouver power off from the glide and see how much
>>>>> altitude they loose. I'm guessing 200' minimum.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>> Depends on the airplane and the pilot combination. Such a maneuver
>>>> assuming a normal climb speed at entry of 80mph as the engine quits
>>>> would require an immediate aggressive pull into accelerated stall
>>>> followed by aggressive pro spin rudder to induce a required yaw
>>>> rate. The trick is to catch the spin entry on the first half turn
>>>> nose down. 200 feet could easily be required in some airplanes.
>>>> This isn't something you argue on the specifics. The variables are
>>>> just too vast.
>>>> Put it this way. If I had 200 feet in a 172 with an engine failure,
>>>> I'd be looking for a landing area straight ahead, or more properly
>>>> I'd already know if such an area existed for the runway I was using
>>>> since I would have asked :-) (There are runways where no such
>>>> landing is possible of course)
>>>> On the other hand, in a Pitts or an Extra in the same scenario, I
>>>> wouldn't hesitate to attempt what I have described here.
>>>> I've done this easily in the Pitts with under 100 feet lost and a
>>>> 180 change in the flight path.
>>>
>>>
>>> One of the problems is you need to do more than 180 degrees, of
>>> course. This can be minimised by turning into wind if you have some
>>> across and if your runway is wide you've saved a bit of turn that
>>> way as well, but you're probably going to have a bit of 'essing' to
>>> do on finals and that's going to cost. That's where my friend lost
>>> it. Bertie
>>>
>> Yeah, that's right. No matter what you do the chances are you will
>> have a heading "adjustment" to make after the reversal. It can get
>> sticky, and requires a lot of judgment. You screw up and it could
>> spoil your whole day
>> :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Then, a few years ago, I was test flying a homebuilt Pulsar and lost
> the engine ( rotax ) just as I crossed over the upwind end of the
> runway at abouat 300 feet AGL. In front of me were creek, woods, and
> an old coal mine slurry pit. None of which offered attractive landing
> possibilities. I opted to try a turn back maneuver. I turned to
> downwind and lost about fifty feet. I didn't believe it! I flew the
> whole downwind, did a base leg, and a final and would up doing ess
> turns down the final so I wouldn't overshoot the airport! I have
> flown sailplanes that didn't glide any better than that darn Pulsar!

Wow! i never would have guessed that one of those things would go quite
that far. Long wing version or something? doing a complete pattern in a
1-26 from 300' would be ropey, never mind a powered aircraft.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Steve Hix > wrote in
:

> In article >, "Highflyer" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
>> news:4e85f758-faf7-4db3-8eeb-

>> ...
>> >
>> > My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
>> > very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
>> > back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
>> > that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
>> > Ken
>>
>> It isn't all that rare. However, it normally isn't too difficult
>> either. I always demonstrate to my students a landing using only
>> elevator trim controls.
>>
>> Of course, that wouldn't have helped Alaska Air because what caused
>> the problem was running the elevator trim off the end of the trim
>> jackscrew.
>
> It didn't help that part of the trim system had been installed upside
> down.
>

Huh? The cause of that was corrosion due to type IV de-icing fluid,
which was hygroscopic, being used frequently, and the recommended lube
cycles not being adjusted to account for this. We got some flap damage
on a couple of our 727s for the same reasona few years previous to this
accident. I never heard anything about an incorrect component
installation as well though.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 9, 9:01 pm, "Highflyer" > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> messagenews:4e85f758-faf7-4db3-8eeb-

>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
>> > very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
>> > back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
>> > that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
>> > Ken
>>
>> It isn't all that rare. However, it normally isn't too difficult
>> either. I always demonstrate to my students a landing using only
>> elevator trim controls.
>>
>> Of course, that wouldn't have helped Alaska Air because what caused
>> the problem was running the elevator trim off the end of the trim
>> jackscrew. That was on an airplane where the trim is so powerful that
>> you cannot override it.
>>
>> A friend of mine ran that event in the 737 sim when he did his flight
>> check for American and said he was able to fly it that way by doing a
>> continuous string of lazy eights. The would certainly have the
>> passengers upset though! :-)
>>
>> Highflyer
>> Highflight Aviation Services
>> Pinckneyville Airport, PJY
>
> Thank you, High Flyer.
> Some of the fella's suggested a 20 degree bank,
> for return (engine failure on ascent) was too sissy,
> so I guess I'll bleed more energy by going to 45
> and snug up the geometry quicker, at the expense
> of a bit of altitude loss using the heavier bank.
> Thanks
> Ken (a statistic to be)
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Highflyer wrote:
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider some kind
>> of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
>> Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so full of
>> variables it muddies the equation.
>> Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
>> departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
>> highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even make
>> the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the vertical plane,
>> (modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up line using the
>> vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning component)
>> This is even possible done by such a pilot flying something like a 172 or
>> a 150, but I would never recommend doing it to anyone.
>> For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within reasonable degree offset
>> approach to the engine failure scenario on takeoff is still the safe way
>> to deal with this issue and probably always will be in my opinion.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Hi Bertie, Hi Dudley, ...
>
> I agree that minimum maneuvering is appropriate after low level engine
> failure for the average pilot.
>
> The successful turn around procedures put the airplane quite close to the
> edge and hamfisted piloting can easily result in a stall or stall/spin
> maneuver that will ruin your entire day.
>
> However, on the other hand, in a normal landing the way we used to teach
> them years ago, you cut the power on downwind opposite you planned touchdown
> point and then proceeded to make a power off 180 degree turn to a landing
> for EVERY landing you made. What difference does it make if you shut off
> the power, or it shuts off automatically for some reason? :-) And we always
> did that from 800 feet AGL.
>
> When I got my seaplane rating from Bob Mills at the Philadelphia Seaplane
> Base we had an even lower traffic pattern. Since we were situated
> underneath the traffic off the main runway at Philadelphia International we
> had to keep our pattern at or below 300 feet AWL.
> (That's above Water level ... it's a seaplane base.) I was flying a
> Republic Seabee, which is nortorious for having a glide angle somewhere
> between that of a bowling ball and a concrete block. I could cut power at
> 300 feet above the river on downwind opposite my planned touchdown point,
> make a leisurely 180 degree turn with clearcut downwind, crosswind, and
> final legs and land on the desired spot. All of this with only 300 feet
> altitude and no power. In a flying brick. :-)
>
> Clearly there is some altitude where a "turn back" is not unreasonable. The
> main requirement would be a long enough runway to allow you to make it to
> the runway.
>
> All that being said, the last time I lost an engine on takeoff , a couple of
> years ago I didn't put the nose down and glide straight ahead and I didn't
> turn back. I had about 1000 feet of a 4000 foot runway in front of me,
> although I couldn't see any of it. I had 150 feet of altitude in the bank.
> My airspeed was about 140 mph, in an airplane with a stall speed around 50.
> My first thought was to dump all that excess speed. How do you do that?
> Easy, I honked the yoke back and went straight up. When I got rid of my
> airspeed I had lots of altitude but no speed. Now all I had to do was get
> back down to the runway without picking up all of the speed I had lost going
> up.
>
> I just kicked it halfway around a hammerhead and then let it fall sideways.
> I figured that would minimize the speed buildup. It did, and when I got low
> enough I kicked it out of the slip and pulled up the nose to kill the
> descent rate, which was quite high! :-) I got the nose up and the descent
> stopped with an altitude of about 3 feet right over the numbers. I dropped
> it on the numbers and rolled about forty feet into the overrun before it
> stopped.
>
> No damage to people or airplane. The only thing I did wrong, because I
> wasn't thinking too clearly, was maintain a straight slip all the way down
> to pull out time. If I had rolled a bit either going up or coming down, I
> could have also made a 180 degree turn and landed toward the 3000 foot end
> instead of the 1000 foot end. Of course that would have been downwind and
> downwind landings are tricky with taildraggers because you are still moving
> fairly fast when you lose your aerodynamic directional control.
>
> By the way, if I had just put the nose down and glided it out straight ahead
> we would have gone into the woods and a creek. Probably totaled the
> airplane and we would likely have taked some small injury. I would still
> tell my students "Don't do what I just did!"
>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport, PJY
>
>
Hi Highflyer; good to see you here again.

I remember the Mills operation down there on the river near the airport.
Do you recall Mills driving an F4U Corsair up the river a bit "low" one
sunny afternoon and Lynn Probst (FAA Chief Echelon Field at the time)
having a bird over it? :-))))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Then, a few years ago, I was test flying a homebuilt Pulsar and lost
>> the engine ( rotax ) just as I crossed over the upwind end of the
>> runway at abouat 300 feet AGL. In front of me were creek, woods, and
>> an old coal mine slurry pit. None of which offered attractive landing
>> possibilities. I opted to try a turn back maneuver. I turned to
>> downwind and lost about fifty feet. I didn't believe it! I flew the
>> whole downwind, did a base leg, and a final and would up doing ess
>> turns down the final so I wouldn't overshoot the airport! I have
>> flown sailplanes that didn't glide any better than that darn Pulsar!
>
> Wow! i never would have guessed that one of those things would go quite
> that far. Long wing version or something? doing a complete pattern in a
> 1-26 from 300' would be ropey, never mind a powered aircraft.

I'd guess that the 1-26 is one of those sailplanes he's referring to that
didn't glide any better!

In any case, I think you're missing an essential factor in the craziness
of long-time 1-26 drivers. I've seen these guys start out at 3-400ft AGL
from the opposite side of the airport and do something which could at
least be claimed as a full pattern with a relatively straight face.
Meanwhile all the glass fellows are joining midfield at 1000. You can get
away with a surprising amount if you're somewhat insane.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[[email protected]]

On Mar 7, 9:30 pm, buttman > wrote:
> On 7 Mar, 19:22, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > How's that? Learned something?:-)
>
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> No because you did not teach anything. "This is how it is" is not
> teaching, it's telling.
>
> Anyways, the topic of discussion has never been about "is it OK to
> starve fuel on takeoff". Even if it was, its not a matter of "yes" or
> "no"
>
> Safety is, in my opinion, never a "yes" or "no" kind of thing. Its
> like discussing abortion or something. It's never as simple as "yes"
> or "no".

By your logic a driving school should simulate (for training!) how to
handle a blowout by shooting out a tire while on a flyover ramp doing
70.

To make it interesting you could do it in the rain.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 10, 9:10 am, wrote:
> On Mar 7, 9:30 pm, buttman > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 7 Mar, 19:22, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > > How's that? Learned something?:-)
>
> > > --
> > > Dudley Henriques
>
> > No because you did not teach anything. "This is how it is" is not
> > teaching, it's telling.
>
> > Anyways, the topic of discussion has never been about "is it OK to
> > starve fuel on takeoff". Even if it was, its not a matter of "yes" or
> > "no"
>
> > Safety is, in my opinion, never a "yes" or "no" kind of thing. Its
> > like discussing abortion or something. It's never as simple as "yes"
> > or "no".
>
> By your logic a driving school should simulate (for training!) how to
> handle a blowout by shooting out a tire while on a flyover ramp doing
> 70.
> To make it interesting you could do it in the rain.

I'm enjoying this thread now, it's stimulating.
The fellas were discussing flying in the rain last
week. Shooting out tires, I'm placing that on next
weeks agenda.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Michael Ash > wrote in
:

> In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> Then, a few years ago, I was test flying a homebuilt Pulsar and lost
>>> the engine ( rotax ) just as I crossed over the upwind end of the
>>> runway at abouat 300 feet AGL. In front of me were creek, woods,
>>> and an old coal mine slurry pit. None of which offered attractive
>>> landing possibilities. I opted to try a turn back maneuver. I
>>> turned to downwind and lost about fifty feet. I didn't believe it!
>>> I flew the whole downwind, did a base leg, and a final and would up
>>> doing ess turns down the final so I wouldn't overshoot the airport!
>>> I have flown sailplanes that didn't glide any better than that darn
>>> Pulsar!
>>
>> Wow! i never would have guessed that one of those things would go
>> quite that far. Long wing version or something? doing a complete
>> pattern in a 1-26 from 300' would be ropey, never mind a powered
>> aircraft.
>
> I'd guess that the 1-26 is one of those sailplanes he's referring to
> that didn't glide any better!
>
> In any case, I think you're missing an essential factor in the
> craziness of long-time 1-26 drivers. I've seen these guys start out at
> 3-400ft AGL from the opposite side of the airport and do something
> which could at least be claimed as a full pattern with a relatively
> straight face. Meanwhile all the glass fellows are joining midfield at
> 1000. You can get away with a surprising amount if you're somewhat
> insane.


Oh yeah, depends on the size, of course. 500 feet was standard for
students even in the 2-33 to do a complete pattern. The pulsar must be
some airplane to approach a 20/1 L/D, though.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:e17d1d43-2aa8-
:

> On Mar 10, 9:10 am, wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 9:30 pm, buttman > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 7 Mar, 19:22, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> > > How's that? Learned something?:-)
>>
>> > > --
>> > > Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > No because you did not teach anything. "This is how it is" is not
>> > teaching, it's telling.
>>
>> > Anyways, the topic of discussion has never been about "is it OK to
>> > starve fuel on takeoff". Even if it was, its not a matter of "yes"
or
>> > "no"
>>
>> > Safety is, in my opinion, never a "yes" or "no" kind of thing. Its
>> > like discussing abortion or something. It's never as simple as
"yes"
>> > or "no".
>>
>> By your logic a driving school should simulate (for training!) how to
>> handle a blowout by shooting out a tire while on a flyover ramp doing
>> 70.
>> To make it interesting you could do it in the rain.
>
> I'm enjoying this thread now, it's stimulating.
> The fellas were discussing flying in the rain last
> week. Shooting out tires, I'm placing that on next
> weeks agenda.


I've little doubt.



bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 19:54:37 -1000, Owner wrote:
>
>>>>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:37:55 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>> Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
>>>>>> but what should you do if your engine sputters
>>>>>> and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.
>>>>>> Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
>>>>>> use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
>>>>>> happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
>>>>>> ((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).
>>>>>> Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
>>>>>> safe alternative and use it.
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>> Wow, Ken, even *I* know this is idiotic.
>>>> My thoughts are: Given no good alternative aside
>>>> from the runway, know the x-wind at T-O, do max
>>>> ascent into the wind as is normal, then if the engine
>>>> quit's (do radio) do a descending gentle 20 into the
>>>> x-wind, and come back and set the ship down.
>>>> I think the key is max ascent rate, that's insurance.
>>>> Ken
>>> Ken, the simple geometries don't work. Regardless of aircraft
>>> characteristics. Are you willing to bet your life on these false
>>> assumptions?
>>> --
>>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>> No worries, I don't believe anyone has ever been injured or killed using MS
>> Flight Simulator :)
>
> I know a guy that nearly poked his eye out with a controller, does that
> count?

Must have been about as coordinated as this guy:

http://www.wyff4.com/news/15478240/detail.html

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:17:23 -0500, Rich Ahrens wrote:

>> I know a guy that nearly poked his eye out with a controller, does that
>> count?
>
> Must have been about as coordinated as this guy:
>
> http://www.wyff4.com/news/15478240/detail.html

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

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:01:16 -0500, "Highflyer" > wrote:

>
>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
>> very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
>> back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
>> that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
>> Ken
>
>It isn't all that rare. However, it normally isn't too difficult either. I
>always demonstrate to my students a landing using only elevator trim
>controls.

You demonstrate? You are oh, so kind!
After a brief practice I was expected to (and did) land the Deb using
only ailerons, rudder, and trim.
It aint all that difficult EXCEPT it'd be nice if some one 5'7" (just
happens to be my height) could see the runway while adjusting the
trim<:-)) Ah well, I just thought of it like a no flap landing where
the only view of the airport is out the side windows.<:-))

>
>Of course, that wouldn't have helped Alaska Air because what caused the
>problem was running the elevator trim off the end of the trim jackscrew.
>That was on an airplane where the trim is so powerful that you cannot
>override it.
>
>A friend of mine ran that event in the 737 sim when he did his flight check
>for American and said he was able to fly it that way by doing a continuous
>string of lazy eights. The would certainly have the passengers upset
>though! :-)

My wife hard me talking about lazy eights so she wanted to see one.
After the first 180 she said, "that's enough".

>
>Highflyer
>Highflight Aviation Services
>Pinckneyville Airport, PJY
>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 11, 4:53 am, Roger > wrote:

> After a brief practice I was expected to (and did) land the Deb using
> only ailerons, rudder, and trim.
> It aint all that difficult EXCEPT it'd be nice if some one 5'7" (just
> happens to be my height) could see the runway while adjusting the
> trim<:-)) Ah well, I just thought of it like a no flap landing where
> the only view of the airport is out the side windows.<:-))

Roger -- any idea why Beech out the trim where it did? It's probably
the worst location in any airplane I've been in (except maybe the
overhead thing in a Cherokee (IIRC).


Dan

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 10, 11:51 am, "Owner" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 9:10 am, wrote:
> >> On Mar 7, 9:30 pm, buttman > wrote:
>
> >> > On 7 Mar, 19:22, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >> > > How's that? Learned something?:-)
>
> >> > > --
> >> > > Dudley Henriques
>
> >> > No because you did not teach anything. "This is how it is" is not
> >> > teaching, it's telling.
>
> >> > Anyways, the topic of discussion has never been about "is it OK to
> >> > starve fuel on takeoff". Even if it was, its not a matter of "yes" or
> >> > "no"
>
> >> > Safety is, in my opinion, never a "yes" or "no" kind of thing. Its
> >> > like discussing abortion or something. It's never as simple as "yes"
> >> > or "no".
>
> >> By your logic a driving school should simulate (for training!) how to
> >> handle a blowout by shooting out a tire while on a flyover ramp doing
> >> 70.
> >> To make it interesting you could do it in the rain.
>
> > I'm enjoying this thread now, it's stimulating.
> > The fellas were discussing flying in the rain last
> > week. Shooting out tires, I'm placing that on next
> > weeks agenda.
> > Ken
>
> You can do that in your flight sim Ken??? Wow, I'm impressed!

Sure but it's hard on the monitor.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 10, 11:51 am, "Owner" > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> messagenews:e17d1d43-2aa8-4684-a372-

>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 9:10 am, wrote:
>> >> On Mar 7, 9:30 pm, buttman > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On 7 Mar, 19:22, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > How's that? Learned something?:-)
>>
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > Dudley Henriques
>>
>> >> > No because you did not teach anything. "This is how it is" is
>> >> > not teaching, it's telling.
>>
>> >> > Anyways, the topic of discussion has never been about "is it OK
>> >> > to starve fuel on takeoff". Even if it was, its not a matter of
>> >> > "yes" or "no"
>>
>> >> > Safety is, in my opinion, never a "yes" or "no" kind of thing.
>> >> > Its like discussing abortion or something. It's never as simple
>> >> > as "yes" or "no".
>>
>> >> By your logic a driving school should simulate (for training!) how
>> >> to handle a blowout by shooting out a tire while on a flyover ramp
>> >> doing 70.
>> >> To make it interesting you could do it in the rain.
>>
>> > I'm enjoying this thread now, it's stimulating.
>> > The fellas were discussing flying in the rain last
>> > week. Shooting out tires, I'm placing that on next
>> > weeks agenda.
>> > Ken
>>
>> You can do that in your flight sim Ken??? Wow, I'm impressed!
>
> Sure but it's hard on the monitor.

Like all your other activities.


Bertie

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:42:28 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 11, 4:53 am, Roger > wrote:
>
>> After a brief practice I was expected to (and did) land the Deb using
>> only ailerons, rudder, and trim.
>> It aint all that difficult EXCEPT it'd be nice if some one 5'7" (just
>> happens to be my height) could see the runway while adjusting the
>> trim<:-)) Ah well, I just thought of it like a no flap landing where
>> the only view of the airport is out the side windows.<:-))
>
>Roger -- any idea why Beech out the trim where it did? It's probably
>the worst location in any airplane I've been in (except maybe the
>overhead thing in a Cherokee (IIRC).
>
Absolutely none, nor have I seen any write ups about it either. Also
on the early Debs that trim is COARSE. Fortunately they fixed it late
in the first year or early in the second.

>
>Dan
>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 13, 9:04 pm, Roger > wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:42:28 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 11, 4:53 am, Roger > wrote:
>
> >> After a brief practice I was expected to (and did) land the Deb using
> >> only ailerons, rudder, and trim.
> >> It aint all that difficult EXCEPT it'd be nice if some one 5'7" (just
> >> happens to be my height) could see the runway while adjusting the
> >> trim<:-)) Ah well, I just thought of it like a no flap landing where
> >> the only view of the airport is out the side windows.<:-))
>
> >Roger -- any idea why Beech out the trim where it did? It's probably
> >the worst location in any airplane I've been in (except maybe the
> >overhead thing in a Cherokee (IIRC).
>
> Absolutely none, nor have I seen any write ups about it either. Also
> on the early Debs that trim is COARSE. Fortunately they fixed it late
> in the first year or early in the second.
>
>
>
> >Dan
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

The A36 manual (under the dash) trim is fine enough. The electric trim
is nigh unusable. I talked to the IA that maintains it and he said all
is within tolerance.

I'm having a tough time reaching the trim from the right seat.
Demonstrating steep turns is a bit of a challenge with no trim!

Dan

[Peter Dohm]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 13, 9:04 pm, Roger > wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:42:28 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mar 11, 4:53 am, Roger > wrote:
>>
>> >> After a brief practice I was expected to (and did) land the Deb using
>> >> only ailerons, rudder, and trim.
>> >> It aint all that difficult EXCEPT it'd be nice if some one 5'7" (just
>> >> happens to be my height) could see the runway while adjusting the
>> >> trim<:-)) Ah well, I just thought of it like a no flap landing where
>> >> the only view of the airport is out the side windows.<:-))
>>
>> >Roger -- any idea why Beech out the trim where it did? It's probably
>> >the worst location in any airplane I've been in (except maybe the
>> >overhead thing in a Cherokee (IIRC).
>>
>> Absolutely none, nor have I seen any write ups about it either. Also
>> on the early Debs that trim is COARSE. Fortunately they fixed it late
>> in the first year or early in the second.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Dan
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> The A36 manual (under the dash) trim is fine enough. The electric trim
> is nigh unusable. I talked to the IA that maintains it and he said all
> is within tolerance.
>
> I'm having a tough time reaching the trim from the right seat.
> Demonstrating steep turns is a bit of a challenge with no trim!
>
> Dan

I can really feel your pain on that one. At the moment, I don't have any
"within tolerance" war stories involving aircraft; but a lot of things that
are "within tolerance" seem to need a little TLC--before they drive you
nuts!

Peter :-(

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:30:57 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>buttman > wrote in news:24e58b46-6e28-45c9-93fb-
:
>
>> On Mar 4, 6:57 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>> I have nothing against you personally. I don't even know you. You don't
>>> use your actual name and the stage personna you've chosen souns like it
>>> came from a 2 year old.
>>
>> You think I don't know that? I picked this name for that very reason.
>> I don't play that name game crap. It don't matter what name appears
>> above my posts, the meaning stays the same.
>>
>>> Just a vast difference in opinion
>>> between you and me as to how flight instruction should be performed.
>>
>> You're darn right. If a student comes to me asking about somethi9ng,
>> I'll do my best to explain it to him in terms he or she can
>> understand. I'll never just bluntly say "This is how it is" without
>> any kind of reasoning, which is the technique you seem to prefer. I've
>> asked you how many times now to point out what exactly you find so
>> appaling about my ability to be an instructor? All I ever get from you
>> is "You are downright dangerous", "You damage this profession", "I
>> would never fly with you", these are very loaded words to be using
>> without any kind of backup whatsoever.
>>
>> You don't post here because you care about safety. You don't post here
>> because you care about instructing. You don't even post here because
>> you care about aviation. You post here so you can call out people like
>> myself on weak bases such as my freaking internet chitchat handle.
>> Your existence here has never, and will never be anything more than a
>> huge ego stroke.
>>
>Hey,I never called you on yournhandle and I can see you are a complete and
>utter tit..
>

Just out of curiosity I did a search on it. What did I find?

>Bertie
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:56:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

wrote in news:b550bda9-cdfa-4ebf-83b7-
:
>
>> On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>> On Mar 3, 12:04 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>
>>> > > I had a great Instructor, he was strict and informative.
>>> > > While doing our bank instruction - up to 60 degs - he
>>> > > gently admonished that my ball was not centered.
>>> > > He went on to explain that most pilots bank left to
>>> > > site see and also in the circuit, so the left tank may
>>> > > fill up from the right if your uncoordinated and too
>>> > > lax to coordinate turns while site seeing.
>>>
>>> > It sort of depends on the aircraft and its' fuel system.
>>>
>>> Of course, Cessna 150/2 herein.
>>> Ken
>>
>> Go out, do a long slip, and report back as to how much
>> imbalance occurs.
>
>I think we're starting with a considerable amount of imbalance to start

Think so?<:-))

All things considered, I wonder how long you'd have to circle in a
coordinated turn at 60, or 45 degrees before there was a fuel
imbalance? <:-)) Pattern turns ARE STILL supposed to be coordinated
aren't they?<cough>

OTOH I wonder how long a 150 could remain in a maximum effort slip
without hitting the ground before a noticable/detectable fuel
imbalance developed?

>with.
>
>
>Bertie
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in :

> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:56:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
> All things considered, I wonder how long you'd have to circle in a
> coordinated turn at 60, or 45 degrees before there was a fuel
> imbalance? <:-)) Pattern turns ARE STILL supposed to be coordinated
> aren't they?<cough>
>
> OTOH I wonder how long a 150 could remain in a maximum effort slip
> without hitting the ground before a noticable/detectable fuel
> imbalance developed?
>
>>with.

Well, i know someone who unported a Bird-dog slipping and ended up
deadsticking. They have no both selection, though.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:03:59 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

wrote in :
>
>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:56:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>> All things considered, I wonder how long you'd have to circle in a
>> coordinated turn at 60, or 45 degrees before there was a fuel
>> imbalance? <:-)) Pattern turns ARE STILL supposed to be coordinated
>> aren't they?<cough>
>>
>> OTOH I wonder how long a 150 could remain in a maximum effort slip
>> without hitting the ground before a noticable/detectable fuel
>> imbalance developed?
>>
>>>with.
>
>Well, i know someone who unported a Bird-dog slipping and ended up
>deadsticking. They have no both selection, though.

I've unported the Deb too, but it wasn't due to fuel running to the
other side<:-)) No baffels in the tanks.
>
>Bertie
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:08:55 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>I can see the headlines now........
>
>"Three hundred and fifty killed in crash of DC10 on take off at Kennedy.
>Investigators are puzzled by an initial report of strange evidence of
>small dogs found to have been sucked through the engines."

Hey! lay off the small dogs. I gotta keep Streak fed somehow.

Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in :

> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:03:59 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
wrote in news:21bbv3tlno484t5qe9krlvo19av0g23b5o@
4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:56:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> All things considered, I wonder how long you'd have to circle in a
>>> coordinated turn at 60, or 45 degrees before there was a fuel
>>> imbalance? <:-)) Pattern turns ARE STILL supposed to be
coordinated
>>> aren't they?<cough>
>>>
>>> OTOH I wonder how long a 150 could remain in a maximum effort slip
>>> without hitting the ground before a noticable/detectable fuel
>>> imbalance developed?
>>>
>>>>with.
>>
>>Well, i know someone who unported a Bird-dog slipping and ended up
>>deadsticking. They have no both selection, though.
>
> I've unported the Deb too, but it wasn't due to fuel running to the
> other side<:-)) No baffels in the tanks.
>>

So, you were slipping towards the feeding tank, or was it turbulence or
something?


Bertie

[george]

On Apr 4, 4:27 pm, wrote:

> OTOH I wonder how long a 150 could remain in a maximum effort slip
> without hitting the ground before a noticable/detectable fuel
> imbalance developed?

Saw some-one once do a local with the 'ability' to fly one wing low in
a C150.
He lost about a third of his fuel through the low tank overflow

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 17:51:27 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

wrote in :
>
>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:03:59 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
wrote in news:21bbv3tlno484t5qe9krlvo19av0g23b5o@
>4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:56:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All things considered, I wonder how long you'd have to circle in a
>>>> coordinated turn at 60, or 45 degrees before there was a fuel
>>>> imbalance? <:-)) Pattern turns ARE STILL supposed to be
>coordinated
>>>> aren't they?<cough>
>>>>
>>>> OTOH I wonder how long a 150 could remain in a maximum effort slip
>>>> without hitting the ground before a noticable/detectable fuel
>>>> imbalance developed?
>>>>
>>>>>with.
>>>
>>>Well, i know someone who unported a Bird-dog slipping and ended up
>>>deadsticking. They have no both selection, though.
>>
>> I've unported the Deb too, but it wasn't due to fuel running to the
>> other side<:-)) No baffels in the tanks.
>>>
>
>So, you were slipping towards the feeding tank, or was it turbulence or

Tis limited in POH (but not placarded) to 20 seconds in any one
direction. I was just out doing some steep slips practicing to see
which method would get me down fastest in an emergency.
I just held a wing down a tad too long. It started as soon as I rolled
it level.

It'll un port toward either tank regardless of which is feeding.

Go to the POH emergency let down, (power off, gear down, flaps up) and
then add a max effort slip and the rate of descent can get pretty
impressive. I'd probably scare the crap out of any passengers, but if
something requires an emergency descent that would be the least of my
worries.


>something?
>
>
>Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in :

> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 17:51:27 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
wrote in news:nfaev3hid96amp30ivek5impbs4pei6l55@
4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:03:59 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
wrote in news:21bbv3tlno484t5qe9krlvo19av0g23b5o@
>>4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:56:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> All things considered, I wonder how long you'd have to circle in a
>>>>> coordinated turn at 60, or 45 degrees before there was a fuel
>>>>> imbalance? <:-)) Pattern turns ARE STILL supposed to be
>>coordinated
>>>>> aren't they?<cough>
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH I wonder how long a 150 could remain in a maximum effort
slip
>>>>> without hitting the ground before a noticable/detectable fuel
>>>>> imbalance developed?
>>>>>
>>>>>>with.
>>>>
>>>>Well, i know someone who unported a Bird-dog slipping and ended up
>>>>deadsticking. They have no both selection, though.
>>>
>>> I've unported the Deb too, but it wasn't due to fuel running to
the
>>> other side<:-)) No baffels in the tanks.
>>>>
>>
>>So, you were slipping towards the feeding tank, or was it turbulence
or
>
> Tis limited in POH (but not placarded) to 20 seconds in any one
> direction. I was just out doing some steep slips practicing to see
> which method would get me down fastest in an emergency.
> I just held a wing down a tad too long. It started as soon as I rolled
> it level.
>
> It'll un port toward either tank regardless of which is feeding.

?? Really? If you slip in either direction you'll unprt regardless of
which tank is feeding? I can't get my head around that. Can you exapnad
a bit?
>
> Go to the POH emergency let down, (power off, gear down, flaps up) and
> then add a max effort slip and the rate of descent can get pretty
> impressive. I'd probably scare the crap out of any passengers, but if
> something requires an emergency descent that would be the least of my
> worries.
>

Well, exactly. Whether they're there to praise you or damn you , they're
there to do it.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

george > wrote in news:1423eebd-6a80-40dd-b045-1138d02653c5
@q10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 4, 4:27 pm, wrote:
>
>> OTOH I wonder how long a 150 could remain in a maximum effort slip
>> without hitting the ground before a noticable/detectable fuel
>> imbalance developed?
>
> Saw some-one once do a local with the 'ability' to fly one wing low in
> a C150.
> He lost about a third of his fuel through the low tank overflow
>

He would have done, OK.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:37:03 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

wrote in :
>
>> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 17:51:27 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
wrote in news:nfaev3hid96amp30ivek5impbs4pei6l55@
>4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:03:59 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
wrote in news:21bbv3tlno484t5qe9krlvo19av0g23b5o@
>>>4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:56:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All things considered, I wonder how long you'd have to circle in a
>>>>>> coordinated turn at 60, or 45 degrees before there was a fuel
>>>>>> imbalance? <:-)) Pattern turns ARE STILL supposed to be
>>>coordinated
>>>>>> aren't they?<cough>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OTOH I wonder how long a 150 could remain in a maximum effort
>slip
>>>>>> without hitting the ground before a noticable/detectable fuel
>>>>>> imbalance developed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>with.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, i know someone who unported a Bird-dog slipping and ended up
>>>>>deadsticking. They have no both selection, though.
>>>>
>>>> I've unported the Deb too, but it wasn't due to fuel running to
>the
>>>> other side<:-)) No baffels in the tanks.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>So, you were slipping towards the feeding tank, or was it turbulence
>or
>>
>> Tis limited in POH (but not placarded) to 20 seconds in any one
>> direction. I was just out doing some steep slips practicing to see
>> which method would get me down fastest in an emergency.
>> I just held a wing down a tad too long. It started as soon as I rolled
>> it level.
>>
>> It'll un port toward either tank regardless of which is feeding.
>
>?? Really? If you slip in either direction you'll unprt regardless of
>which tank is feeding? I can't get my head around that. Can you exapnad
>a bit?

Apparently it has to do with the location of the feeds in the tanks.
I've never tried it with full tanks or worked at finding out just how
low I could get before it'd do that or compared the feeding tank level
Vs the other so there must be a specific fuel level the tanks must be
down and I'd not doubt it'd be different between the one feeding and
the other. Maybe I can go out and to the occasional slip each way to
see how much each tank has to be down before it quits.

>>
>> Go to the POH emergency let down, (power off, gear down, flaps up) and
>> then add a max effort slip and the rate of descent can get pretty
>> impressive. I'd probably scare the crap out of any passengers, but if
>> something requires an emergency descent that would be the least of my
>> worries.
>>
>
>Well, exactly. Whether they're there to praise you or damn you , they're
>there to do it.

That's the point for every one to shut up and say put except the
pilot. Unless the see a potential collision.

>
>
>bertie
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com