Turn to Final - Keeping Ball Centered [Archive]

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 12th 08, 04:31 AM

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> skym wrote:
>>> While making a turn to base and final recently, I was aware that I was
>>> going to be wide with my normal turn from downwind through base to
>>> final, so I banked more to keep as close to the runway centerline as
>>> possible. I kept thinking about the infamous and usually fatal stall/
>>> spin by some pilots in this situation, I kept thinking that if I keep
>>> the ball centered, even with a very steep bank, that I would be ok and
>>> not auger in. Some of you instructors and old pros...is this correct?
>>> (Not that I intend to make it a practice.)
>> Ask your instructor to explain to you what happens to the stall speed in
>> a LEVEL turn as opposed to the stall speed in an unloaded gliding turn
>> from base to final.
>> This is a distinction you should definitely be aware of.
>
> Dudley,
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "unloaded gliding turn". As long as your
> descent rate is constant, the loading in a turn is exactly the same as it
> is during level flight. A turn is only unloaded if your descent rate is
> increasing, as it is during the second quadrant of a lazy eight. But, most
> people don't fly their base-to-final turns like that; they fly them at a
> (more or less) constant descent rate.
>
> Either that, or I'm mis-understanding what you're trying to say.
The situation I'm describing can occur if you are high as well as wide.
Trading off the altitude by unloading the wings as you turn, you are in
effect doing a gentle last half of a lazy eight, although very shallow.
Unless you can unload the wings by lowering the nose, you are absolutely
correct. Everything is the same g wise. The only reason I mentioned this
is so that he gets squared away on the different scenarios concerning
the base to final turn.
Many students get into a deep fear about base to final turns and bank
thinking all they need to do is increase the bank and they are on the
stall speed increase with g graph. This is true for a level turn and
even a loaded descending turn, but many times on an approach, a pilot
can make the energy tradeoff saving the turn by unloading in the turn
and letting the nose drop scrubbing off some altitude while neutralizing
the bank g increase.

--
Dudley Henriques

Ken S. Tucker

March 12th 08, 06:18 AM

On Mar 11, 7:23 pm, skym > wrote:
> While making a turn to base and final recently, I was aware that I was
> going to be wide with my normal turn from downwind through base to
> final, so I banked more to keep as close to the runway centerline as
> possible. I kept thinking about the infamous and usually fatal stall/
> spin by some pilots in this situation, I kept thinking that if I keep
> the ball centered, even with a very steep bank, that I would be ok and
> not auger in. Some of you instructors and old pros...is this correct?
> (Not that I intend to make it a practice.)

Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
Ken

Denny

March 12th 08, 11:27 AM

The absolute best way to find out what will happen is to take an
instructor and go out and do steep turns until you stall it...
Obviously, with adequate altitude...

One of the things you will find is that it is down right hard to stall
the plane in a coordinated turn at a normal approach speed... You will
need to have the yoke back into your gut and ignore all the G's and
the complaining and shaking the airframe will be making... Now, that
isn't to say you can't stall it, but you will have to be blind and
deaf and have a numb butt to do it accidentally...

The other thing you will find is that it is easier to do it in an
uncoordinated turn, but it still takes determination and ignoring the
airframe shaking like a wet dog...

"So, how did Harry Dumbass manage to ignore this and kill himself and
his passengers by turning his fork tailed doctor killer into a lawn
dart?", you ask...
Ahh, I'm glad you asked that...
Ya see, Harry is both high <because he is in close> and about to over
run the centerline <because he is in close>... So, being a hotshot
pilot, he chops the throttle, rolls into a hard bank, and stands on
the bottom rudder... About halfway around he realizes his descent rate
has gone off the peg and he is now going to be way short - so he
solves that by pulling the nose up!

Close your eyes and picture it...
The bottom wing snap stalls without so much as a warning shudder
(because the horizontal stab is still flying) , they whip over
inverted, and it is all over but the screaming...

denny

Dan[_10_]

March 12th 08, 11:39 AM

On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

--> IGNORE BELOW <--
> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
> Ken
--> IGNORE ABOVE <---

Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
reality....

This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot --
don't cross control stall on turn to final!

And that's that.

So -- pilots being the life loving critters that they are, add "a
little more speed" as a "buffer." Because we all know we can't stall
at X speed, right?

And then we turn onto final 10-15-20 knots faster than required and
then wonder why 3,500' strip is just barely big enough.

So we'll assume you still need three things:

1) A correct understanding of stall

2) A consistent, safe procedure for the pattern in the airplane you're
flying

3) Demonstrations by a CFI of the sensations and perceptions of the
event prior to and just at the stall in the various possible
circumstances (turn to final being one).

For (1) you need to get into your head that stalls -- while often
described in terms of speed -- are a function of angle of attack. The
wing (or a portion) can't fly anymore because the flow of air below
and above isn't working as designed (I'm sure you've seen the pictures
of burbling air over the wing).

This can be demonstrated on the ground by a CFI with a model airplane.
Then he/she should take you out and demonstrate this in an appropriate
airplane.

For (2), you need to fly patterns at altitude and figure out the
optimal Power (1500 RPM?), Attitude (Nose about there, trim to there),
and configuration (gear down, flaps full, etc) for your airplane at
the speeds you will be flying in the pattern. And then (with your
CFI), explore the left side of the envelope (slower). What you will
find is that in normal 30 degree banks (which you were taught to use
in the pattern), with coordinated turns the airplane continues to fly
quite well 30% over stall speed (1.3 Vso).

Does this mean you will drop out of the sky if a gusts catches you and
momentarily disturbs coordination? No. The airplanes we fly
(especially trainers) are very forgiving in this regard. But keep in
mind "momentarily." You should catch it and fix it.

For (3), he/she should take you to altitude and show you how much
cross control you need to apply to get the airplane to stall. This
should ease your mind a bit, but also ingrain a sense of "This isn't
good" should you place yourself in that predicament later on.

Finally (not on the list but its early), you should practice short
field landings often. I'll probably catch flak on this, but one of the
biggest problems you will see at any airport on a nice day is small
airplanes coming in Way Too Fast.

You will know this by watching the approach from a spot on the ground
-- the patterns are enormous (2 miles or more from the runway) and the
airplane touches down 1/3-1/2 way down the runway and rolls a long,
long way.

I think (IMHO) this is due to the same understanding you have -- "I
might stall due to low speed, so a bit more will give me a buffer to
keep me from that unwelcome event."

Get some more training in stalls and flight at the low end of the
speed regime and join the ranks of safe, educated pilots.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 12th 08, 11:47 AM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:0f85d04c-1390-4fc4-
:

> On Mar 11, 7:23 pm, skym > wrote:
>> While making a turn to base and final recently, I was aware that I was
>> going to be wide with my normal turn from downwind through base to
>> final, so I banked more to keep as close to the runway centerline as
>> possible. I kept thinking about the infamous and usually fatal stall/
>> spin by some pilots in this situation, I kept thinking that if I keep
>> the ball centered, even with a very steep bank, that I would be ok and
>> not auger in. Some of you instructors and old pros...is this correct?
>> (Not that I intend to make it a practice.)
>
> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.

You're a fjukkwit of the first order, kennie.

And for those of you who don't live in lollipop land and don't already
know, a 2 G turn requires 60 degrees of bank and will raise your stall
speed 40%.

Bertie

Tina

March 12th 08, 12:39 PM

I don't think anyone has suggested this, but there is a nearly
universal cure if you find yourself uncomfortably out of a reasonable
approach condition -- simply say to yourself this isn't looking good
enough, go around, and do better the next time.

It's my uneducated opinion that too many perfectly good airplanes get
turned to scrap because pilots continue to commit to an action that
has become untenable. You have a hand on the throttle and it's
important to remember to be ready to push it in if you don't like the
way things are shaping up.

Don't let ego get in the way of good judgement.

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

March 12th 08, 01:14 PM

In article
>,
skym > wrote:

> While making a turn to base and final recently, I was aware that I was
> going to be wide with my normal turn from downwind through base to
> final, so I banked more to keep as close to the runway centerline as
> possible. I kept thinking about the infamous and usually fatal stall/
> spin by some pilots in this situation, I kept thinking that if I keep
> the ball centered, even with a very steep bank, that I would be ok and
> not auger in. Some of you instructors and old pros...is this correct?
> (Not that I intend to make it a practice.)

1. You can stall with the ball centered -- if the ball is not centered,
you can get a spin more easily when you stall.

2. The stall speed goes up as the square root of the secant (1/cosine)
of the angle of bank.

At:
30 deg: 1.07
45 deg: 1.19
60 deg: 1.41
75 deg: 1.97

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 12th 08, 01:46 PM

Tina > wrote in news:874d408e-73e6-4064-8d08-
:

> I don't think anyone has suggested this, but there is a nearly
> universal cure if you find yourself uncomfortably out of a reasonable
> approach condition -- simply say to yourself this isn't looking good
> enough, go around, and do better the next time.
>
> It's my uneducated opinion that too many perfectly good airplanes get
> turned to scrap because pilots continue to commit to an action that
> has become untenable. You have a hand on the throttle and it's
> important to remember to be ready to push it in if you don't like the
> way things are shaping up.

Absolutely.
>
> Don't let ego get in the way of good judgement.

True again. Sometimes it's not ego, though. A lot of thigs come into play,
especially if conditions are tough. It's a curious thing, the sort of
single-mindedness that often accompanies an accident.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 12th 08, 01:52 PM

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in news:o_r_fairbairn-
:

> In article
> >,
> skym > wrote:
>
>> While making a turn to base and final recently, I was aware that I was
>> going to be wide with my normal turn from downwind through base to
>> final, so I banked more to keep as close to the runway centerline as
>> possible. I kept thinking about the infamous and usually fatal stall/
>> spin by some pilots in this situation, I kept thinking that if I keep
>> the ball centered, even with a very steep bank, that I would be ok and
>> not auger in. Some of you instructors and old pros...is this correct?
>> (Not that I intend to make it a practice.)
>
> 1. You can stall with the ball centered -- if the ball is not centered,
> you can get a spin more easily when you stall.
>
> 2. The stall speed goes up as the square root of the secant (1/cosine)
> of the angle of bank.

Which is, coincidenatlally, the load on the airplane. Minus the sq root
bit, of course.

>
> At:
> 30 deg: 1.07
> 45 deg: 1.19
> 60 deg: 1.41
> 75 deg: 1.97
>

Ron Natalie

March 12th 08, 02:20 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Ask your instructor to explain to you what happens to the stall speed in
> a LEVEL turn as opposed to the stall speed in an unloaded gliding turn
> from base to final.
> This is a distinction you should definitely be aware of.
>

If he's maintaining a constant rate of descent during the turn there is
no distinction. The load factor decreases only if he is accellerating
towards the ground.

Ron Natalie

March 12th 08, 02:21 PM

skym wrote:
> Thanks for replies. I had meant to address the speed issue since I
> knew the stall speed increased with bank. I also kept my speed higher
> than normal in the turn because of that. I left it out of the
> question, and shouldn't have. Assuming I keep the speed up, is the
> centered ball a reliable guide?

A reliable guide for what? It's an indicator of coordination, which
is always a good idea. Your airplane flies more efficiently.

No Name

March 12th 08, 04:22 PM

Why does no one distinguish between a level turn (constant acceleration into
the center of the arc, which increases load factor) and the load factor in
which the same angle of bank exists in a descent? When descending you are
moving away from the center of the in the vertical direction which means
less acceleration towards the center in the original plane (geometric).

You can feel the load factor difference in the seat of your pants when
descending, compared to maintaining level flight in a steep bank. I don't
understand how people can claim the load factor is the same descending and
turning for example in a 600 fpm descent.

It is no different than twirling a weight at the end of a string. Takes
more energy to maintain the string at a higher horizontal angle.

>> 2. The stall speed goes up as the square root of the secant (1/cosine)
>> of the angle of bank.
>
>> At:
>> 30 deg: 1.07
>> 45 deg: 1.19
>> 60 deg: 1.41
>> 75 deg: 1.97
>>
>

James Carlson

March 12th 08, 05:34 PM

> writes:
> Why does no one distinguish between a level turn (constant acceleration into
> the center of the arc, which increases load factor) and the load factor in
> which the same angle of bank exists in a descent? When descending you are
> moving away from the center of the in the vertical direction which means
> less acceleration towards the center in the original plane (geometric).

The center just becomes a line in that case, doesn't it? You end up
with the same centripetal force needed towards that center line in
order to turn.

> You can feel the load factor difference in the seat of your pants when
> descending, compared to maintaining level flight in a steep bank. I don't
> understand how people can claim the load factor is the same descending and
> turning for example in a 600 fpm descent.

Nosing over into a descent does temporarily reduce load factor, but as
soon as you're established in a constant descent, you're back at the
same 1g load. Gravity is *acceleration*, not *velocity*.

--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking >
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677

No Name

March 12th 08, 05:57 PM

I am sorry to belabor this point, but hopefully I will understand it better
if you have the patience to help me.

I understand that gravity's acceleration is indistinguishable from any other
acceleration in a frame of reference, and that it is 1g in a constant
descent or climb. I also understand that a turn is accelerating to the
center of the arc whether it is descending, level, or climbing.

Are you saying the force vector sums are equivalent when comparing level
turns at the same bank angle to constant rate descent? In other words, that
a 2g load factor occurs in a 60 degree bank regardless of whether remaining
level or a constant rate of descent and that the stall speeds are identical?
The engine power required is plainly different.

Thanks.

>
> The center just becomes a line in that case, doesn't it? You end up
> with the same centripetal force needed towards that center line in
> order to turn.
>
> Nosing over into a descent does temporarily reduce load factor, but as
> soon as you're established in a constant descent, you're back at the
> same 1g load. Gravity is *acceleration*, not *velocity*.
>
> --
> James Carlson, Solaris Networking >

Ken S. Tucker

March 12th 08, 06:20 PM

On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
> > In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
> > a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
> > Ken
>
> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>
> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
> reality....
>
> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot --
> don't cross control stall on turn to final!

A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
a requirement for a pilot's license.
Ken
[snip, I have no comment]

No Name

March 12th 08, 06:33 PM

This is bugging me so much, I am going to climb to altitude and test it
myself next time I fly.

It will be good practice anyway. The problem will be that the airspeed
indicator isn't that accurate at those slow speeds but it should be
equivalent in both level and descending flight stall breaks. The hard part
will be maintaining a constant descent rate while in a steep bank and not
letting it wander up and down.

I believe you guys are correct, I just can't understand the reason behind
it. Nothing like a real experiment to prove the theory if I can't
understand the physics behind it.

Ron Natalie

March 12th 08, 06:34 PM

wrote:

>
> Are you saying the force vector sums are equivalent when comparing level
> turns at the same bank angle to constant rate descent? In other words, that
> a 2g load factor occurs in a 60 degree bank regardless of whether remaining
> level or a constant rate of descent and that the stall speeds are identical?

Yes. That's exactly the case.

Stalls are determined by the critical angle of attack. The so-called
stall speed is the minimum speed required to maintain (vertical)
unaccellerated flight without exceeding the critical angle. It doesn't
matter if it is "level" or any other constant rate.

> The engine power required is plainly different.

That is true, but engine power has nothing to do with stalling.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 12th 08, 06:36 PM

> wrote in news:mrTBj.72580$yE1.11316@attbi_s21:

> Why does no one distinguish between a level turn (constant
> acceleration into the center of the arc, which increases load factor)
> and the load factor in which the same angle of bank exists in a
> descent?

Because it's negligable.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 12th 08, 06:40 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:343516c1-8fa1-
:

> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>> > In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>> > a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>> > Ken
>>
>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>
>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>> reality....
>>
>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot
--
>> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>
> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
> It's a perfectly safe thing to do

Not on base to finals it isn't, you moron.

and IIRC was
> a requirement for a pilot's license.
> Ken
> [snip, I have no comment]

You never do. Just crap.

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 12th 08, 06:44 PM

> wrote in news:rmVBj.72735$yE1.30385@attbi_s21:

> This is bugging me so much, I am going to climb to altitude and test
> it myself next time I fly.
>
> It will be good practice anyway. The problem will be that the
> airspeed indicator isn't that accurate at those slow speeds but it
> should be equivalent in both level and descending flight stall breaks.
> The hard part will be maintaining a constant descent rate while in a
> steep bank and not letting it wander up and down.

Doesn't matter if it's correct or not, you'll reap huge benifits form this
sort of experimentation in the experience you'll get flying that close to
the edge.

Bertie

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

March 12th 08, 06:44 PM

In article <xQUBj.19725$TT4.4490@attbi_s22>, > wrote:

> I am sorry to belabor this point, but hopefully I will understand it better
> if you have the patience to help me.
>
> I understand that gravity's acceleration is indistinguishable from any other
> acceleration in a frame of reference, and that it is 1g in a constant
> descent or climb. I also understand that a turn is accelerating to the
> center of the arc whether it is descending, level, or climbing.
>
> Are you saying the force vector sums are equivalent when comparing level
> turns at the same bank angle to constant rate descent? In other words, that
> a 2g load factor occurs in a 60 degree bank regardless of whether remaining
> level or a constant rate of descent and that the stall speeds are identical?
> The engine power required is plainly different.
>
> Thanks.

In the case of descending flight, gravity is supplying some of the power
required to maintain flight. With wings level, you are at 1.0 g whether
climbing, level or descending. The same rules apply to turning flight.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 12th 08, 06:48 PM

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Ask your instructor to explain to you what happens to the stall speed
>> in a LEVEL turn as opposed to the stall speed in an unloaded gliding
>> turn from base to final.
>> This is a distinction you should definitely be aware of.
>>
>
> If he's maintaining a constant rate of descent during the turn there is
> no distinction. The load factor decreases only if he is accellerating
> towards the ground.
Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the
nose to fall through with reduced back pressure.

--
Dudley Henriques

Jim Stewart

March 12th 08, 06:52 PM

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>> Ken
>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>
>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>> reality....
>>
>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot --
>> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>
> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
> a requirement for a pilot's license.

Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

The Practical Test Standard requires the
demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.

That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
not going to be 2g in my plane.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 12th 08, 06:57 PM

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>
>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>> Ken
>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>
>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>> reality....
>>>
>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot
--
>>> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>
>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>
> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

I figger he's reading the snot in his hanky like tea leaves.
>
> The Practical Test Standard requires the
> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>
> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
> not going to be 2g in my plane.

Oh but how about a paper F-104?

Bertie
>

Jim Stewart

March 12th 08, 07:02 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Jim Stewart > wrote in
> :
>
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>> Ken
>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>
>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>> reality....
>>>>
>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot
> --
>>>> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>
>
> I figger he's reading the snot in his hanky like tea leaves.
>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>>
>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>
> Oh but how about a paper F-104?

Excellent. Does it come with a checkride with MX?

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 12th 08, 07:10 PM

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Jim Stewart > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>> reality....
>>>>>
>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
pilot
>> --
>>>>> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>
>>
>> I figger he's reading the snot in his hanky like tea leaves.
>>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>>>
>>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>>
>> Oh but how about a paper F-104?
>
> Excellent. Does it come with a checkride with MX?
>

If you can take it to his apartment in paris. Of course, he could walk
to you for expenses.

Bertie

Jim Stewart

March 12th 08, 07:16 PM

skym wrote:
> While making a turn to base and final recently, I was aware that I was
> going to be wide with my normal turn from downwind through base to
> final, so I banked more to keep as close to the runway centerline as
> possible. I kept thinking about the infamous and usually fatal stall/
> spin by some pilots in this situation, I kept thinking that if I keep
> the ball centered, even with a very steep bank, that I would be ok and
> not auger in. Some of you instructors and old pros...is this correct?
> (Not that I intend to make it a practice.)

I hesitate to add to this discussion because
I'm not an instructor, just a rather slow
student who's not qualified to give advice
that might kill someone.

My instructor carefully pointed out the difference
between a stall on final as opposed to a snap
spin. A stall might be recoverable with no more
damage than a looseness of the bowels whereas
a spin could really fsk up your day.

The gist of his advice was that if you keep the
turn coordinated or even add a little extra
aileron, the up wing will have to come all the
way down through level before it will spin,
giving you time get the nose down and level the
wings before that spin can develop.

OTOH, a flat turn to final can quickly develop
into a spin before you can get it under control.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 12th 08, 07:31 PM

Jim Stewart wrote:
> skym wrote:
>> While making a turn to base and final recently, I was aware that I was
>> going to be wide with my normal turn from downwind through base to
>> final, so I banked more to keep as close to the runway centerline as
>> possible. I kept thinking about the infamous and usually fatal stall/
>> spin by some pilots in this situation, I kept thinking that if I keep
>> the ball centered, even with a very steep bank, that I would be ok and
>> not auger in. Some of you instructors and old pros...is this correct?
>> (Not that I intend to make it a practice.)
>
> I hesitate to add to this discussion because
> I'm not an instructor, just a rather slow
> student who's not qualified to give advice
> that might kill someone.
>
> My instructor carefully pointed out the difference
> between a stall on final as opposed to a snap
> spin. A stall might be recoverable with no more
> damage than a looseness of the bowels whereas
> a spin could really fsk up your day.
>
> The gist of his advice was that if you keep the
> turn coordinated or even add a little extra
> aileron, the up wing will have to come all the
> way down through level before it will spin,
> giving you time get the nose down and level the
> wings before that spin can develop.
>
> OTOH, a flat turn to final can quickly develop
> into a spin before you can get it under control.
>
Any stall in the pattern can be a serious problem. You need stall and
yaw rate to induce spin. Of all the possible scenarios to have if you
manage to be ham handed enough to get into a stall in the pattern, a
stall from a slip is the most anti-spin. Then comes a coordinated stall
with no yaw induced at the break, and finally the worst condition is a
stall from a skidding turn. No matter which scenario, angle of attack
MUST be lowered, and any yaw rate MUST be neutralized IMMEDIATELY!

--
Dudley Henriques

Ken S. Tucker

March 12th 08, 07:32 PM

On Mar 12, 10:52 am, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
> >> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
> >>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
> >>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
> >>> Ken
> >> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>
> >> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
> >> reality....
>
> >> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot --
> >> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>
> > A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
> > even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
> > It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
> > a requirement for a pilot's license.
>
> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
> The Practical Test Standard requires the
> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
> not going to be 2g in my plane.

One instructor I had was really good, and he
certainly wasn't a sissy, he went beyond the
book, but within stated limits of the A/C in that
case a 152. Just twist to 60 degrees for a few
seconds, watch the ball, and twist back to level.

Doing a 45 is a MINIMUM govmonk standard,
as Jim point's out, well some instructors want
better than minimum skills, and as it turned
out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
which he did.
Ken

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 12th 08, 07:40 PM

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> skym wrote:
>> While making a turn to base and final recently, I was aware that I was
>> going to be wide with my normal turn from downwind through base to
>> final, so I banked more to keep as close to the runway centerline as
>> possible. I kept thinking about the infamous and usually fatal stall/
>> spin by some pilots in this situation, I kept thinking that if I keep
>> the ball centered, even with a very steep bank, that I would be ok and
>> not auger in. Some of you instructors and old pros...is this correct?
>> (Not that I intend to make it a practice.)
>
> I hesitate to add to this discussion because
> I'm not an instructor, just a rather slow
> student who's not qualified to give advice
> that might kill someone.
>
> My instructor carefully pointed out the difference
> between a stall on final as opposed to a snap
> spin. A stall might be recoverable with no more
> damage than a looseness of the bowels whereas
> a spin could really fsk up your day.
>
> The gist of his advice was that if you keep the
> turn coordinated or even add a little extra
> aileron, the up wing will have to come all the
> way down through level before it will spin,
> giving you time get the nose down and level the
> wings before that spin can develop.

You turn too tight base to finals and lose the plot with speed and co-
ordination, the airplane could spin. Unless it's an Ercoupe, of course.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 12th 08, 07:41 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 12, 10:52 am, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>> >> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> >> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>> >>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>> >>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>> >>> Ken
>> >> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>
>> >> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>> >> reality....
>>
>> >> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>> >> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>
>> > A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>> > even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>> > It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>> > a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>
>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>
> One instructor I had was really good, and he
> certainly wasn't a sissy, he went beyond the
> book, but within stated limits of the A/C in that
> case a 152. Just twist to 60 degrees for a few
> seconds, watch the ball, and twist back to level.
>
> Doing a 45 is a MINIMUM govmonk standard,
> as Jim point's out, well some instructors want
> better than minimum skills, and as it turned
> out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
> which he did.

No, he didn;'t. Nobody could possibly ever have licensed you with the
level of knowledge you display, wannabe boi.

Bertie

george

March 12th 08, 07:45 PM

On Mar 12, 4:39 pm, (Ron Lee) wrote:

> What happens to stall speed as your bank angle increases?

Increases (supposing that you're turning)
>
> What are two options to preventing a stall (regardless of whether a
> spin in entered)?
>
1)Keep your airspeed up
2)ncrease power and keep your airspeed up

Jim Stewart

March 12th 08, 07:46 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Jim Stewart wrote:
>> skym wrote:
>>> While making a turn to base and final recently, I was aware that I was
>>> going to be wide with my normal turn from downwind through base to
>>> final, so I banked more to keep as close to the runway centerline as
>>> possible. I kept thinking about the infamous and usually fatal stall/
>>> spin by some pilots in this situation, I kept thinking that if I keep
>>> the ball centered, even with a very steep bank, that I would be ok and
>>> not auger in. Some of you instructors and old pros...is this correct?
>>> (Not that I intend to make it a practice.)
>>
>> I hesitate to add to this discussion because
>> I'm not an instructor, just a rather slow
>> student who's not qualified to give advice
>> that might kill someone.
>>
>> My instructor carefully pointed out the difference
>> between a stall on final as opposed to a snap
>> spin. A stall might be recoverable with no more
>> damage than a looseness of the bowels whereas
>> a spin could really fsk up your day.
>>
>> The gist of his advice was that if you keep the
>> turn coordinated or even add a little extra
>> aileron, the up wing will have to come all the
>> way down through level before it will spin,
>> giving you time get the nose down and level the
>> wings before that spin can develop.
>>
>> OTOH, a flat turn to final can quickly develop
>> into a spin before you can get it under control.
>>
> Any stall in the pattern can be a serious problem. You need stall and
> yaw rate to induce spin. Of all the possible scenarios to have if you
> manage to be ham handed enough to get into a stall in the pattern, a
> stall from a slip is the most anti-spin. Then comes a coordinated stall
> with no yaw induced at the break, and finally the worst condition is a
> stall from a skidding turn. No matter which scenario, angle of attack
> MUST be lowered, and any yaw rate MUST be neutralized IMMEDIATELY!

You put it better than I could. Thanks.

No Name

March 12th 08, 08:04 PM

Orval, I can't thank you enough (missing energy found!). That was the
missing piece, even though it is so obvious after you point it out. I
haven't seen that part explained or referred to in all of the usual
discussions.

Thank you very much.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message

> In the case of descending flight, gravity is supplying some of the power
> required to maintain flight. With wings level, you are at 1.0 g whether
> climbing, level or descending. The same rules apply to turning flight.

Peter Dohm

March 12th 08, 08:07 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Jim Stewart > wrote in
> :
>
>> skym wrote:
>>> While making a turn to base and final recently, I was aware that I was
>>> going to be wide with my normal turn from downwind through base to
>>> final, so I banked more to keep as close to the runway centerline as
>>> possible. I kept thinking about the infamous and usually fatal stall/
>>> spin by some pilots in this situation, I kept thinking that if I keep
>>> the ball centered, even with a very steep bank, that I would be ok and
>>> not auger in. Some of you instructors and old pros...is this correct?
>>> (Not that I intend to make it a practice.)
>>
>> I hesitate to add to this discussion because
>> I'm not an instructor, just a rather slow
>> student who's not qualified to give advice
>> that might kill someone.
>>
>> My instructor carefully pointed out the difference
>> between a stall on final as opposed to a snap
>> spin. A stall might be recoverable with no more
>> damage than a looseness of the bowels whereas
>> a spin could really fsk up your day.
>>
>> The gist of his advice was that if you keep the
>> turn coordinated or even add a little extra
>> aileron, the up wing will have to come all the
>> way down through level before it will spin,
>> giving you time get the nose down and level the
>> wings before that spin can develop.
>
> You turn too tight base to finals and lose the plot with speed and co-
> ordination, the airplane could spin. Unless it's an Ercoupe, of course.
>
>
> Bertie

My personal suspicion is that most of the accidents involving a tightening
turn to final also involve a failure to allow for a tailwind on base, and
very rarely occur in calm conditions.

That mainly serves to underscore your earlier point that the difference
between a level and descending turn is rarely discussed because it is
trivial--probably less than 1%. It also works in favor of Dudleys point
about using excess altitude to unload the turn--which could be used to
salvage the approach or facilitate a missed approach as needed. (Actually,
both of you made both points in different ways.)

Peter

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 12th 08, 08:31 PM

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> and as it turned
> out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
> which he did.
> Ken

Which one is you?

Total Names found for KEN TUCKER is 22.

KENNETH CARDEN TUCKER KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER
KENNETH W TUCKER KENDALL JOHN TUCKER
KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER KENNETH RAY TUCKER
KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH THOMAS TUCKER
KENNETH RICHARD TUCKER KENNETH DALE TUCKER
KENNETH E TUCKER KENNETH J TUCKER
KENNETH JOHN TUCKER KENT HOWARD TUCKER
KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH WAYNE TUCKER
KENT DAVID TUCKER KENT LEE TUCKER
KENNETH ROYAL TUCKER KENNETH CLAYTON TUCKER
KENNETH STEVEN TUCKER KENNETH HAROLD TUCKER

terry

March 12th 08, 08:39 PM

On Mar 13, 5:33*am, > wrote:
> This is bugging me so much, I am going to climb to altitude and test it
> myself next time I fly.
>
> It will be good practice anyway. *The problem will be that the airspeed
> indicator isn't that accurate at those slow speeds but it should be
> equivalent in both level and descending flight stall breaks. *The hard part
> will be maintaining a constant descent rate while in a steep bank and not
> letting it wander up and down.
>
> I believe you guys are correct, I just can't understand the reason behind
> it. *Nothing like a real experiment to prove the theory if I can't
> understand the physics behind it.

I have been having exactly the same problem trying to understand why
the load would be the same in a descending contstant speed turn. As I
have said in a previous post, I was only trained to do 45 degree steep
( sorry Dudley - medium) turns, but do recall sitting on my butt in a
C206 jump plane while the pilot did a spiralling 60 degreeish bank to
descend from 8000 ft. It was a very long time ago, but I really cant
recall experiencing anything like 2g.
From a theoretical view, the load on the wing is a function of the
weight of the airplane, but in a descending turn , or a climbing turn
for that matter, the weight of the airplane is partly supported by
drag and thrust respectively, which intuitively suggests ( to me) that
the load ought to be less if the weight is ( effectively) less. Does
that make sense to anyone?
I would really like to see a full description of the physics going on
here. All the textbooks I have seen, even commercial theory text
books, do not treat this subject at all, they look at the forces
involved in descending and climbing with level wings and banking at
constant altitude. If anyone can reccomend a good text , or if you
can offer a more detailed explanation it would be really
appreciated.
Terry
PPL Downuder.

No Name

March 12th 08, 08:53 PM

I think the PTS for the commercial steep turns is 50 degrees +-5 degrees (5
degrees more than the private) so it would be within the PTS tolerances to
be at 55 degrees for the commercial exam. My first instructor taught 60
degrees (not for pattern work obviously). My examiner never said a word
when I used the 60 degree reference for my private.

My instrument flight test required level steep turns partial panel, which I
assume was 45 degrees or more. You can't tell once the turn and bank is
pegged. He suggested lessening the bank every once and a while to see the
needle come off the peg to make sure it wasn't too much bank. I don't think
that was on the PTS but both the instructor and examiner have been around
since WWII. I guess I could have refused if it wasn't on the PTS but that
wouldn't have been too kosher since I was passing anyway and I didn't feel
that it was dangerous on a VFR day.

I don't know why anybody would be worried about 2g's with flaps retracted
other than comfort. The certification limits are way above that for the
airframe. I don't exceed the 2g's, I just go up to it as a limit.

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
> The Practical Test Standard requires the
> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>
> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
> not going to be 2g in my plane.

Ken S. Tucker

March 12th 08, 09:05 PM

On Mar 12, 12:31 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > and as it turned
> > out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
> > which he did.
> > Ken
>
> Which one is you?
>
> Total Names found for KEN TUCKER is 22.
>
> KENNETH CARDEN TUCKER KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER
> KENNETH W TUCKER KENDALL JOHN TUCKER
> KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER KENNETH RAY TUCKER
> KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH THOMAS TUCKER
> KENNETH RICHARD TUCKER KENNETH DALE TUCKER
> KENNETH E TUCKER KENNETH J TUCKER
> KENNETH JOHN TUCKER KENT HOWARD TUCKER
> KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH WAYNE TUCKER
> KENT DAVID TUCKER KENT LEE TUCKER
> KENNETH ROYAL TUCKER KENNETH CLAYTON TUCKER
> KENNETH STEVEN TUCKER KENNETH HAROLD TUCKER

LOL, thank you for your interest in me.
I'm afraid I cannot post my license number
off my old paper license for security reasons,
and not my Mensa number either, or social
security number, CIA file etc. , it's all classified.

I sure hope you aren't going to become some
sort queer stalker like bertie is, however
"Gig" is a queer stalker.
Why don't you and phony baloney bertie stalk each
other, and give our group some entertainment, that
would be fun.....<yawn>..
Ken

Peter Clark

March 12th 08, 09:14 PM

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:32:52 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:

>Doing a 45 is a MINIMUM govmonk standard,
>as Jim point's out, well some instructors want
>better than minimum skills, and as it turned
>out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
>which he did.
>Ken

Wrong again. 45+-5 for the private, 50+-5 for commercial, 45+ for
ATP.

Peter Clark

March 12th 08, 09:28 PM

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:53:14 GMT, > wrote:

>I think the PTS for the commercial steep turns is 50 degrees +-5 degrees (5
>degrees more than the private) so it would be within the PTS tolerances to
>be at 55 degrees for the commercial exam. My first instructor taught 60
>degrees (not for pattern work obviously). My examiner never said a word
>when I used the 60 degree reference for my private.

He probably should have since the PTS standard is 45+-5, but I guess
it's his call.

>My instrument flight test required level steep turns partial panel, which I
>assume was 45 degrees or more. You can't tell once the turn and bank is
>pegged. He suggested lessening the bank every once and a while to see the
>needle come off the peg to make sure it wasn't too much bank. I don't think
>that was on the PTS but both the instructor and examiner have been around
>since WWII.

I don't see steep turns anywhere on the instrument PTS so it's not
technically 'required'. Since you were doing OK they may have taught
something to you during the test for use out in the real world of
instrument flying, but had it gone wrong they couldn't have busted you
for it.

Ken S. Tucker

March 12th 08, 09:32 PM

On Mar 12, 1:14 pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:32:52 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> > wrote:
> >Doing a 45 is a MINIMUM govmonk standard,
> >as Jim point's out, well some instructors want
> >better than minimum skills, and as it turned
> >out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
> >which he did.
> >Ken
>
> Wrong again. 45+-5 for the private, 50+-5 for commercial, 45+ for
> ATP.

That's right, that's why we did 60's (2g's) in 152's.
I think that's good stuff, it's the sissy's that argue.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Ken

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 12th 08, 09:49 PM

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 12, 1:14 pm, Peter Clark
> > wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:32:52 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> Doing a 45 is a MINIMUM govmonk standard,
>>> as Jim point's out, well some instructors want
>>> better than minimum skills, and as it turned
>>> out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
>>> which he did.
>>> Ken
>> Wrong again. 45+-5 for the private, 50+-5 for commercial, 45+ for
>> ATP.
>
> That's right, that's why we did 60's (2g's) in 152's.
> I think that's good stuff, it's the sissy's that argue.
> Makes you think, doesn't it?
> Ken

No it is just one more addition to the mounting pile of evidence that
you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

March 12th 08, 10:14 PM

"skym" > wrote in message
...
> While making a turn to base and final recently, I was aware that I was
> going to be wide with my normal turn from downwind through base to
> final, so I banked more to keep as close to the runway centerline as
> possible. I kept thinking about the infamous and usually fatal stall/
> spin by some pilots in this situation, I kept thinking that if I keep
> the ball centered, even with a very steep bank, that I would be ok and
> not auger in. Some of you instructors and old pros...is this correct?
> (Not that I intend to make it a practice.)

Instead of asking about keeping the ball centered, perhaps you should be
asking why you elected to flirt with a pilot error fatality by cranking and
yanking for the sake of a few style points... So what if you overshoot the
turn????

Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with bank.
Stall speed changes with increasing G (increasing lift). Increasing G comes
from pulling on the yoke/stick. Period. No pull, no G, no increase in stall.
More pull, more G, higher stall. Wings level, wings banked, wings upside
down - makes no difference.

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

Ron Lee[_2_]

March 12th 08, 10:22 PM

>> What are two options to preventing a stall (regardless of whether a
>> spin in entered)?
>>
>1)Keep your airspeed up
>2)ncrease power and keep your airspeed up

I would have said get the nose down (increase airspeed)
and go-around (not far from your #2.

Ron Lee

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

March 12th 08, 10:26 PM

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> skym > wrote:
<...>
> What happens to stall speed as your bank angle increases?
>
Nothing. Stall speed changes with G's which are caused by pulling on the
stick - not by bank angle.

> What are two options to preventing a stall (regardless of whether a
> spin in entered)?

1) Don't pull.
2) Keep the speed up.

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

Vaughn Simon

March 12th 08, 10:35 PM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
> fall through with reduced back pressure.

Reducing back pressure is something an inexperienced pilot is instinctively
loath to do when manuvering close to the ground, much more likely to be pulling.

Vaughn

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 12th 08, 11:08 PM

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
>> fall through with reduced back pressure.
>
> Reducing back pressure is something an inexperienced pilot is instinctively
> loath to do when manuvering close to the ground, much more likely to be pulling.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
This is an issue where I have seen evidence on both sides. It is
entirely dependent on the caliber of training a student pilot is
subjected to in the stall curve.
All instructors should be teaching and ingraining in every student they
teach that stall recovery REGARDLESS OF ALTITUDE is entirely dependent
on reducing angle of attack. This is especially true at low altitude
where recovery can be a matter of using every inch of available air
under the airplane to recover.
Instructors should be EMPHASIZING to every student this all important
aspect of a low altitude stall.
By the time an instructor is finished teaching stall recovery to a
student, that student should have the stall recovery habit pattern
BURNED into their very being.......so much in fact that their natural
reaction to ANY stall is to recover by reducing angle of attack so that
the reaction is to do this instead of pulling back.
To accomplish this, instructors have to demonstrate to every student
again and again proper stall recovery using all available means....angle
of attack reduction, coordinated aileron and rudder (for modern GA
airplanes) and power. This should be practiced with emphasis on the
regaining of angle of attack BEFORE initiating recovery. As this
pertains to low altitude recovery, the instructor should emphazize again
and again that recovery in this scenario might very well mean the
lowering of the nose when the raising of the nose is the natural reaction.

Many....many...pilots have been killed outright trying to recover from a
low altitude stall when extending the recovery closer to the ground to
assure regaining of angle of attack was the proper thing to do.

The answer to this issue is in proper training by instructors with the
goal of CHANGING through this training the natural reaction to recover
too early in low altitude stalls.

I consider the imparting of this attitude in a student pilot a critical
aspect of stall recovery training.
I can't emphasize it's importance enough to new instructors.

--
Dudley Henriques

Benjamin Dover

March 12th 08, 11:11 PM

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> and as it turned
>> out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
>> which he did.
>> Ken
>
> Which one is you?
>
> Total Names found for KEN TUCKER is 22.
>
>
> KENNETH CARDEN TUCKER KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER
> KENNETH W TUCKER KENDALL JOHN TUCKER
> KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER KENNETH RAY TUCKER
> KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH THOMAS TUCKER
> KENNETH RICHARD TUCKER KENNETH DALE TUCKER
> KENNETH E TUCKER KENNETH J TUCKER
> KENNETH JOHN TUCKER KENT HOWARD TUCKER
> KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH WAYNE TUCKER
> KENT DAVID TUCKER KENT LEE TUCKER
> KENNETH ROYAL TUCKER KENNETH CLAYTON TUCKER
> KENNETH STEVEN TUCKER KENNETH HAROLD TUCKER

Gee. There is no KEN ****HEAD TUCKER. The Ken S. Tucker who keeps
posting here has been shown to be a total imposter. Good job!

WingFlaps

March 12th 08, 11:40 PM

On Mar 13, 9:53*am, > wrote:

>
> My instrument flight test required level steep turns partial panel, which I
> assume was 45 degrees or more. *

How do you judge a 45 degree bank angle with just a TC as you would
have with partial panel (no AH)?

Cheers

george

March 13th 08, 12:10 AM

On Mar 13, 11:22 am, (Ron Lee) wrote:
> >> What are two options to preventing a stall (regardless of whether a
> >> spin in entered)?
>
> >1)Keep your airspeed up
> >2)ncrease power and keep your airspeed up
>
> I would have said get the nose down (increase airspeed)
> and go-around (not far from your #2.
>
And go off with an instructor to 3,500 AGL and rehearse the steep
descending turn manoeuvre until you are happy with your understanding
of the situation..

Vaughn Simon

March 13th 08, 12:16 AM

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
> My instrument flight test required level steep turns partial panel, which I
> assume was 45 degrees or more.

How do you judge a 45 degree bank angle with just a TC as you would
have with partial panel (no AH)?

In VFR with no gyros, you line up two diagonal instrument mounting screws
with the horizon. (old glider trick)

Vaughn

WingFlaps

March 13th 08, 12:19 AM

On Mar 13, 1:16*pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > My instrument flight test required level steep turns partial panel, which I
> > assume was 45 degrees or more.
>
> How do you judge a 45 degree bank angle with just a TC as you would
> have with partial panel (no AH)?
>
> * *In VFR with no gyros, you line up two diagonal instrument mounting screws
> with the horizon. *(old glider trick)
>

As I read it, this is not VFR it's an IF test...

Cheers

Vaughn Simon

March 13th 08, 12:53 AM

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 1:16 pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
>As I read it, this is not VFR it's an IF test...

I read it that way also, which is why I suitably qualified my answer

Cheers back atcha
Vaughn

Private

March 13th 08, 12:57 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Any stall in the pattern can be a serious problem. You need stall and yaw
> rate to induce spin. Of all the possible scenarios to have if you manage
> to be ham handed enough to get into a stall in the pattern, a stall from a
> slip is the most anti-spin. Then comes a coordinated stall with no yaw
> induced at the break, and finally the worst condition is a stall from a
> skidding turn. No matter which scenario, angle of attack MUST be lowered,
> and any yaw rate MUST be neutralized IMMEDIATELY!
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Can you please elaborate on the stall from a slip condition.

I am fond of the bush pilot style pattern, using180 degree constant slipping
turn to final and would also be interested in your thoughts on these.

TIA
Happy landings,

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

March 13th 08, 01:09 AM

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in message
news:tOKdnXSOOaMvyEXanZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
> Stall speed changes with increasing G (increasing lift). Increasing G
> comes

Strictly speaking, the increasing G correlates to an increasing coefficient
of lift which comes from an increasing angle of attack which comes from the
moment generated by the tail which comes from an increasing pull (assuming a
constant airspeed).

(just trying to get a head start on the nit picking)

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

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 13th 08, 01:13 AM

Private wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Any stall in the pattern can be a serious problem. You need stall and yaw
>> rate to induce spin. Of all the possible scenarios to have if you manage
>> to be ham handed enough to get into a stall in the pattern, a stall from a
>> slip is the most anti-spin. Then comes a coordinated stall with no yaw
>> induced at the break, and finally the worst condition is a stall from a
>> skidding turn. No matter which scenario, angle of attack MUST be lowered,
>> and any yaw rate MUST be neutralized IMMEDIATELY!
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Can you please elaborate on the stall from a slip condition.
>
> I am fond of the bush pilot style pattern, using180 degree constant slipping
> turn to final and would also be interested in your thoughts on these.
>
> TIA
> Happy landings,
>
>
I see no problems at all with a constant slipping turn approach, and in
fact favor this type myself when flying prop fighters such as the P51
and the F8F and even the Pitts Spcial due to the better visibility
during these approaces over the nose and ahead and inside the turn as
the approach is flown.

Slips are basically anti spin. You can actually increase the angle of
attack available in front of your critical angle of attack as you deepen
a slip. The ultimate example of this would be knife edge flight where
forward stick pressure is required to reduce angle of attack to near the
0 lift point on the wing.
Of course you won't be doing any knife edge flight on a slipping
approach, but the slip you are in is still anti spin.
Even if you stall the airplane in a slip, the likely result will be a
break over the top, which is a much better stall break than a skidding
stall break which will usually break under the bottom. You have much
more time to recover from a slipping stall entry than you do from a skid
entry.

The bottom line is that it's quite safe to fly a slipping approach if
you are aware, flying properly and watching what you are doing.

--
Dudley Henriques

terry

March 13th 08, 01:14 AM

On Mar 13, 9:14*am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m> wrote:
> "skym" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > While making a turn to base and final recently, I was aware that I was
> > going to be wide with my normal turn from downwind through base to
> > final, so I banked more to keep as close to the runway centerline as
> > possible. *I kept thinking about the infamous and usually fatal stall/
> > spin by some pilots in this situation, *I kept thinking that if I keep
> > the ball centered, even with a very steep bank, that I would be ok and
> > not auger in. *Some of you instructors and old pros...is this correct?
> > (Not that I intend to make it a practice.)
>
> Instead of asking about keeping the ball centered, perhaps you should be
> asking why you elected to flirt with a pilot error fatality by cranking and
> yanking for the sake of a few style points... So what if you overshoot the
> turn????
>
> Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with bank.
> Stall speed changes with increasing G (increasing lift). Increasing G comes
> from pulling on the yoke/stick. Period. No pull, no G, no increase in stall.
> More pull, more G, higher stall. *Wings level, wings banked, wings upside
> down - makes no difference.
>
so if i am doing a steep descending turn , I wont be pulling back on
the stick as much as a steep level turn,
hence less g ? This would seem to contradict others comments that
you pull the same no of g in a bank whether it is level
or descending. I am still confused.
Terry

terry

March 13th 08, 01:20 AM

On Mar 13, 9:35*am, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
> > fall through with reduced back pressure.
>
> * *Reducing back pressure is something an inexperienced pilot is instinctively
> loath to do when manuvering close to the ground, much more likely to be pulling.
>
on the contrary I have a habit of deliberately pushing forward on the
yoke as I turn onto final, it comes from a fear of stalling and the
fact
that being at this stage of the landing procedure I want my attention
focused outside the cockpit to ensure I line up out of the turn on the
runway centerline, and not worrying about my airspeed.
Terry

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 13th 08, 01:30 AM

terry wrote:
> On Mar 13, 9:35 am, "Vaughn Simon" >
> wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
>>> fall through with reduced back pressure.
>> Reducing back pressure is something an inexperienced pilot is instinctively
>> loath to do when manuvering close to the ground, much more likely to be pulling.
>>
> on the contrary I have a habit of deliberately pushing forward on the
> yoke as I turn onto final, it comes from a fear of stalling and the
> fact
> that being at this stage of the landing procedure I want my attention
> focused outside the cockpit to ensure I line up out of the turn on the
> runway centerline, and not worrying about my airspeed.
> Terry
>
>
You had good instruction Terry. I'd only add for you to monitor your
airspeed as well. In other words, never omit an available cue.

"We don't fly in a single cue world"
Chris Patterakis
USAF Thunderbirds Lead

--
Dudley Henriques

WJRFlyBoy

March 13th 08, 01:32 AM

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:46:16 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Tina > wrote in news:874d408e-73e6-4064-8d08-
> :
>
>> I don't think anyone has suggested this, but there is a nearly
>> universal cure if you find yourself uncomfortably out of a reasonable
>> approach condition -- simply say to yourself this isn't looking good
>> enough, go around, and do better the next time.
>>
>> It's my uneducated opinion that too many perfectly good airplanes get
>> turned to scrap because pilots continue to commit to an action that
>> has become untenable. You have a hand on the throttle and it's
>> important to remember to be ready to push it in if you don't like the
>> way things are shaping up.
>
> Absolutely.
>>
>> Don't let ego get in the way of good judgement.
>
> True again. Sometimes it's not ego, though. A lot of thigs come into play,
> especially if conditions are tough. It's a curious thing, the sort of
> single-mindedness that often accompanies an accident.
>
> Bertie

Lesson here is go-around if concerned and make sure you are preset for that
option?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Private

March 13th 08, 01:43 AM

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> My instructor carefully pointed out the difference
> between a stall on final as opposed to a snap
> spin.

I suspect a misuse in terminology, IMHO normal usage of the term 'snap' is
to refer to a 'snap roll' (or as the Brits would say, 'flick roll') which is
a roll performed with (loading and) rudder only and is really a spin in the
logitudinal plane or direction of flight.

>A stall might be recoverable with no more
> damage than a looseness of the bowels whereas
> a spin could really fsk up your day.
>
> The gist of his advice was that if you keep the
> turn coordinated or even add a little extra
> aileron, the up wing will have to come all the
> way down through level before it will spin,
> giving you time get the nose down and level the
> wings before that spin can develop.

IMHO, a combination of stall and yaw in a decending turn (arrival stall) is
most likely to result in a spin under the bottom, where the aircraft will
enter the spin by dropping the lower or inside wing. On the other hand, a
stall combined with yaw in a climbing turn (departure stall) is most likely
to result in a spin over the top where the aircraft will enter the spin by
dropping the upper or outside wing. I suspect that you or your instructor
may be confusing the two. Your instructor is correct that most consider a
slip to be more spin resistant than a skid and some/most will maintain that
a turning slip is even more spin resistant than cordinated flight.

IMHO stall/spin awareness training should include lots of demonstrations (at
safe altitude (where recover is made @>2000')) of at least incipient (and
preferably full spin) spin entry (and recovery) from both arrival and
departure stall spins and demonstrations of the circumstances likely to lead
to each.

> OTOH, a flat turn to final can quickly develop
> into a spin before you can get it under control.

IMHO, A flat turn is most likely to be a skid, which most consider to be the
uncoordinated condition most likely to result in a spin.

Happy landings,

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 13th 08, 01:59 AM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:46:16 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Tina > wrote in news:874d408e-73e6-4064-8d08-
>> :
>>
>>> I don't think anyone has suggested this, but there is a nearly
>>> universal cure if you find yourself uncomfortably out of a reasonable
>>> approach condition -- simply say to yourself this isn't looking good
>>> enough, go around, and do better the next time.
>>>
>>> It's my uneducated opinion that too many perfectly good airplanes get
>>> turned to scrap because pilots continue to commit to an action that
>>> has become untenable. You have a hand on the throttle and it's
>>> important to remember to be ready to push it in if you don't like the
>>> way things are shaping up.
>> Absolutely.
>>> Don't let ego get in the way of good judgement.
>> True again. Sometimes it's not ego, though. A lot of thigs come into play,
>> especially if conditions are tough. It's a curious thing, the sort of
>> single-mindedness that often accompanies an accident.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Lesson here is go-around if concerned and make sure you are preset for that
> option?

Well trained pilots will fly the approach treating it as a constantly
changing dynamic. They will be planning for the next anticipated action
based on all prevailing cues. Along with this they will have an
accompanying exit plan keyed by any expected parameter not being met by
any of these cues.
The go around trigger should occur if a critical parameter isn't met.
Each pilot will have a different trigger level based on various human
factors involving the pilot's training and his/her mental processing in
play on the approach.
This is the pedantic version of "If it don't look good, it usually ain't
no good......take it around!! :-))"

--
Dudley Henriques

WingFlaps

March 13th 08, 02:01 AM

On Mar 13, 11:14*am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m> wrote:

>
> Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with bank.

Do you really mean that?

Cheers

WingFlaps

March 13th 08, 02:05 AM

On Mar 13, 1:53*pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 13, 1:16 pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
> wrote:
>
> >As I read it, this is not VFR it's an IF test...
>
> * *I read it that way also, which is why I suitably qualified my answer
>
> Cheers back atcha
> Vaughn

So, how do you do it in an IF test?

Cheers back again

skym

March 13th 08, 02:16 AM

On Mar 12, 4:14*pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m> wrote:
> . . .
> Instead of asking about keeping the ball centered, perhaps you should be
> asking why you elected to flirt with a pilot error fatality by cranking and
> yanking for the sake of a few style points... So what if you overshoot the
> turn????
> Geoff

This, of course, is a good question. The bank was probably 45 deg, so
it wasn't an extremely steep turn, just steeper than I am used to
making at that point in my approach. Also, I wasn't "yanking" if, by
that, you mean pulling back significantly on the yoke; although I lead
guilty to "cranking". I was letting the nose stay down and descending
at a normal or better rate (is this "unloading"the wing?), and the
airspeed at 70-75 K, rather than the usual 65-70 K. I wasn't thinking
about about "style"; I was just wanting to keep the plane upright and
make the runway. I had been asked by the tower at my local airport
(KBIL) to make a short base and turn to final due to other traffic,
and I was trying to comply. (Yes, I know I could have refused or gone
around; I just figured at the time I could do it with no problem.)
Since I had a 10,000+ ft runway I knew I had plenty of room to keep
coming around and still be able to land, if a bit long.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 13th 08, 02:25 AM

Private wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Private wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Any stall in the pattern can be a serious problem. You need stall and
>>>> yaw rate to induce spin. Of all the possible scenarios to have if you
>>>> manage to be ham handed enough to get into a stall in the pattern, a
>>>> stall from a slip is the most anti-spin. Then comes a coordinated stall
>>>> with no yaw induced at the break, and finally the worst condition is a
>>>> stall from a skidding turn. No matter which scenario, angle of attack
>>>> MUST be lowered, and any yaw rate MUST be neutralized IMMEDIATELY!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Can you please elaborate on the stall from a slip condition.
>>>
>>> I am fond of the bush pilot style pattern, using180 degree constant
>>> slipping turn to final and would also be interested in your thoughts on
>>> these.
>>>
>>> TIA
>>> Happy landings,
>> I see no problems at all with a constant slipping turn approach, and in
>> fact favor this type myself when flying prop fighters such as the P51 and
>> the F8F and even the Pitts Spcial due to the better visibility during
>> these approaces over the nose and ahead and inside the turn as the
>> approach is flown.
>>
>> Slips are basically anti spin. You can actually increase the angle of
>> attack available in front of your critical angle of attack as you deepen a
>> slip. The ultimate example of this would be knife edge flight where
>> forward stick pressure is required to reduce angle of attack to near the 0
>> lift point on the wing.
>> Of course you won't be doing any knife edge flight on a slipping approach,
>> but the slip you are in is still anti spin.
>> Even if you stall the airplane in a slip, the likely result will be a
>> break over the top, which is a much better stall break than a skidding
>> stall break which will usually break under the bottom. You have much more
>> time to recover from a slipping stall entry than you do from a skid entry.
>>
>> The bottom line is that it's quite safe to fly a slipping approach if you
>> are aware, flying properly and watching what you are doing.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Thanks for the reply. Why is the stall from a descending slipping turn more
> likely to result in a break over the top? Will this also be the likely
> break in a descending straight slip? I suspect that fuselage shadowing may
> play a role?
>
> Seems like I need to go do some more, nothing is as good fun as real world
> practice on the left side of the envelope.
>
> Happy landings,
>
>
Yes, the fuselage tends to blank out the upside wing as critical aoa is
reached causing it to stall first.
Something else about slips, the roll/yaw couple needed for pro spin
input is actually wider apart than it is in level flight. This is as
anti spin as it gets :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Roger[_4_]

March 13th 08, 03:02 AM

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:08:30 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Vaughn Simon wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
>>> fall through with reduced back pressure.
<snip for brevity>

>I consider the imparting of this attitude in a student pilot a critical
>aspect of stall recovery training.
>I can't emphasize it's importance enough to new instructors.

After following many of these threads over the years I am truly
thankful for the instructors who followed these tenants in my primary
training.

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

Private

March 13th 08, 03:08 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Private wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Any stall in the pattern can be a serious problem. You need stall and
>>> yaw rate to induce spin. Of all the possible scenarios to have if you
>>> manage to be ham handed enough to get into a stall in the pattern, a
>>> stall from a slip is the most anti-spin. Then comes a coordinated stall
>>> with no yaw induced at the break, and finally the worst condition is a
>>> stall from a skidding turn. No matter which scenario, angle of attack
>>> MUST be lowered, and any yaw rate MUST be neutralized IMMEDIATELY!
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Can you please elaborate on the stall from a slip condition.
>>
>> I am fond of the bush pilot style pattern, using180 degree constant
>> slipping turn to final and would also be interested in your thoughts on
>> these.
>>
>> TIA
>> Happy landings,
> I see no problems at all with a constant slipping turn approach, and in
> fact favor this type myself when flying prop fighters such as the P51 and
> the F8F and even the Pitts Spcial due to the better visibility during
> these approaces over the nose and ahead and inside the turn as the
> approach is flown.
>
> Slips are basically anti spin. You can actually increase the angle of
> attack available in front of your critical angle of attack as you deepen a
> slip. The ultimate example of this would be knife edge flight where
> forward stick pressure is required to reduce angle of attack to near the 0
> lift point on the wing.
> Of course you won't be doing any knife edge flight on a slipping approach,
> but the slip you are in is still anti spin.
> Even if you stall the airplane in a slip, the likely result will be a
> break over the top, which is a much better stall break than a skidding
> stall break which will usually break under the bottom. You have much more
> time to recover from a slipping stall entry than you do from a skid entry.
>
> The bottom line is that it's quite safe to fly a slipping approach if you
> are aware, flying properly and watching what you are doing.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Thanks for the reply. Why is the stall from a descending slipping turn more
likely to result in a break over the top? Will this also be the likely
break in a descending straight slip? I suspect that fuselage shadowing may
play a role?

Seems like I need to go do some more, nothing is as good fun as real world
practice on the left side of the envelope.

Happy landings,

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 13th 08, 03:10 AM

Roger wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:08:30 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
>>>> fall through with reduced back pressure.
> <snip for brevity>
>
>> I consider the imparting of this attitude in a student pilot a critical
>> aspect of stall recovery training.
>> I can't emphasize it's importance enough to new instructors.
>
> After following many of these threads over the years I am truly
> thankful for the instructors who followed these tenants in my primary
> training.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Me too !

--
Dudley Henriques

Peter Dohm

March 13th 08, 03:33 AM

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
>On Mar 13, 11:14 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
>D0t C0m> wrote:

>>
>> Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with
>> bank.

>Do you really mean that?

>Cheers

Yes, he does; and yes, he is correct.

You have gone back to thinking in only two dimensions; and therefore
ignoring the effects of vertical acceleration.

Just as a theoretically simple example; consider the case of an aircraft
flying around in a circle, but the circle is an inclined plane relative to
the surface of the earth--rather than being horizontal. In that case, since
we speak of bank angle relative to the horizontal (referenced to the earth
at that location) the G-load (and therefore the stall speed) will be
greatest at the point on the circle where the bank angle is least--and this
will remain true even in the special case where the aircraft is able to fly
around the circle at a constant speed.

Peter

Private

March 13th 08, 03:43 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

> Something else about slips, the roll/yaw couple needed for pro spin input
> is actually wider apart than it is in level flight. This is as anti spin
> as it gets :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Thanks, this will give me something to think about and research, I need to
do some book review before commenting.

Happy landings,

skym

March 13th 08, 04:07 AM

On Mar 12, 7:59*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Well trained pilots will fly the approach treating it as a constantly
> changing dynamic. They will be planning for the next anticipated action
> based on all prevailing cues. Along with this they will have an
> accompanying exit plan keyed by any expected parameter not being met by
> any of these cues.
> The go around trigger should occur if a critical parameter isn't met.
> Each pilot will have a different trigger level based on various human
> factors involving the pilot's training and his/her mental processing in
> play on the approach.
> This is the pedantic version of "If it don't look good, it usually ain't
> no good......take it around!! :-))"
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -

Bertie, WJR andDudley,
I like these explanations, even if not highly technical. I would
characterize my thinking at the time (if you can call it that) as the
"critical parameters" being (1) the ball being centered, (2) the speed
being above 70k, (3) keeping the nose down, not "yanked", to permit
the plane to sort of fall into a descent at 400-500 ft.min. and (4) my
position (altitude/heading) at every point during the turn.
Obviously, I wasn't thinking in terms of "critical parameters', but
the turn "felt" and looked OK (according to those criteria). I was
constantly prepared to level the wings, shove in the thrrottle and
break off the approach at any time things didn't feel or look right or
stay within the criteria I set. Right hand was on the throttle at all
times. I guess my original question was really "how much of a comfort
factor, if any, is a coordinated turn vs a slip or skid while turning
at that point in the approach?"

WingFlaps

March 13th 08, 04:12 AM

On Mar 13, 4:33*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >On Mar 13, 11:14 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
> >D0t C0m> wrote:
>
> >> Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with
> >> bank.
> >Do you really mean that?
> >Cheers
>
> Yes, he does; and yes, he is correct.
>
> You have gone back to thinking in only two dimensions; and therefore
> ignoring the effects of vertical acceleration.
>

Nope, the plane's vertical acceleration is 0 so all that matters is
that the lift must equal the weight. As the plane banks the lift
vector is no linger in line with the weight so the load factor is
increased by 1/cos(bank angle) and the stall speed is proportional to
the square root of the load factor. Or are we talking at crossed
purposes?

Cheers

Roger[_4_]

March 13th 08, 05:45 AM

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:10:06 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:08:30 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
>>>>> fall through with reduced back pressure.
>> <snip for brevity>
>>
>>> I consider the imparting of this attitude in a student pilot a critical
>>> aspect of stall recovery training.
>>> I can't emphasize it's importance enough to new instructors.
>>
>> After following many of these threads over the years I am truly
>> thankful for the instructors who followed these tenants in my primary
>> training.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Me too !

One of the things they emphasized was if I ever encountered an
accelerated stall close to the ground was to just point the nose in
the direction it wanted to go. That immediately brakes the stall and
stops any tendency to roll under or over the top. You might leave the
pattern at a rather embarrassing altitude and direction but at least
it would be alive.

That was not a recommendation for anyone to try it, or in any way
reduce the thought of how serious stalling at low altitude and
particularly a turning stall at low altitude can be.

OTOH as you've pointed out the recovery techniques have to be
ingrained. They are not something you can stop and think about. Like
engine failure just after lift off you don't stop to think, "Hey, I
just had an engine failure. The first thing I need to do is lower the
nose to keep flying speed, now I need to pick a landing spot which
one is best, can I keep it on the airport, or am I high enough to make
the "impossible turn?". By the time you can say that first sentence
your subconscious will have, or should have, done all the rest.

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

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 13th 08, 05:47 AM

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Jim Stewart > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> skym wrote:
>>>> While making a turn to base and final recently, I was aware that I
>>>> was going to be wide with my normal turn from downwind through base
>>>> to final, so I banked more to keep as close to the runway
>>>> centerline as possible. I kept thinking about the infamous and
>>>> usually fatal stall/ spin by some pilots in this situation, I kept
>>>> thinking that if I keep the ball centered, even with a very steep
>>>> bank, that I would be ok and not auger in. Some of you instructors
>>>> and old pros...is this correct? (Not that I intend to make it a
>>>> practice.)
>>>
>>> I hesitate to add to this discussion because
>>> I'm not an instructor, just a rather slow
>>> student who's not qualified to give advice
>>> that might kill someone.
>>>
>>> My instructor carefully pointed out the difference
>>> between a stall on final as opposed to a snap
>>> spin. A stall might be recoverable with no more
>>> damage than a looseness of the bowels whereas
>>> a spin could really fsk up your day.
>>>
>>> The gist of his advice was that if you keep the
>>> turn coordinated or even add a little extra
>>> aileron, the up wing will have to come all the
>>> way down through level before it will spin,
>>> giving you time get the nose down and level the
>>> wings before that spin can develop.
>>
>> You turn too tight base to finals and lose the plot with speed and
>> co- ordination, the airplane could spin. Unless it's an Ercoupe, of
>> course.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> My personal suspicion is that most of the accidents involving a
> tightening turn to final also involve a failure to allow for a
> tailwind on base, and very rarely occur in calm conditions.

Yes, I agree.
>
> That mainly serves to underscore your earlier point that the
> difference between a level and descending turn is rarely discussed
> because it is trivial--probably less than 1%. It also works in favor
> of Dudleys point about using excess altitude to unload the turn--which
> could be used to salvage the approach or facilitate a missed approach
> as needed. (Actually, both of you made both points in different
> ways.)

Yes, I've done it alright. Simple if you know how...

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 13th 08, 05:52 AM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:1c376b6c-0279-
:

> On Mar 12, 12:31 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > and as it turned
>> > out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
>> > which he did.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Which one is you?
>>
>> Total Names found for KEN TUCKER is 22.
>>
>> KENNETH CARDEN TUCKER KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER
>> KENNETH W TUCKER KENDALL JOHN TUCKER
>> KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER KENNETH RAY TUCKER
>> KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH THOMAS TUCKER
>> KENNETH RICHARD TUCKER KENNETH DALE TUCKER
>> KENNETH E TUCKER KENNETH J TUCKER
>> KENNETH JOHN TUCKER KENT HOWARD TUCKER
>> KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH WAYNE TUCKER
>> KENT DAVID TUCKER KENT LEE TUCKER
>> KENNETH ROYAL TUCKER KENNETH CLAYTON TUCKER
>> KENNETH STEVEN TUCKER KENNETH HAROLD TUCKER
>
> LOL, thank you for your interest in me.
> I'm afraid I cannot post my license number
> off my old paper license for security reasons,
> and not my Mensa number either, or social
> security number, CIA file etc. , it's all classified.

Whoowhie! Kennie

CIA eh? I hear they pay ten-lebben dollars!
>
> I sure hope you aren't going to become some
> sort queer stalker like bertie is, however
> "Gig" is a queer stalker.
> Why don't you and phony baloney bertie stalk each
> other, and give our group some entertainment, that
> would be fun.....<yawn>..

You really should expose me as a fraud by taking any points I make one
at a time and tearing them apart.

You'd be doing me a favor by stripping me of my delsuions of being a
pilot.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 13th 08, 05:53 AM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:28869ac0-5e13-40fa-
:

> On Mar 12, 1:14 pm, Peter Clark
> > wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:32:52 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >Doing a 45 is a MINIMUM govmonk standard,
>> >as Jim point's out, well some instructors want
>> >better than minimum skills, and as it turned
>> >out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
>> >which he did.
>> >Ken
>>
>> Wrong again. 45+-5 for the private, 50+-5 for commercial, 45+ for
>> ATP.
>
> That's right, that's why we did 60's (2g's) in 152's.
> I think that's good stuff, it's the sissy's that argue.
> Makes you think, doesn't it?

Makes us all think you're a lying pice of ****, actually.

Bertie

Roger[_4_]

March 13th 08, 05:53 AM

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:343516c1-8fa1-
:
>
>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>
>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>> > In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>> > a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>> > Ken
>>>
>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>
>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>> reality....
>>>
>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot

And although we sometimes hear complaints about the GA safety record,
There are those rare statements that sometimes make me wonder why it's
as good as it is.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 13th 08, 05:55 AM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:46:16 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Tina > wrote in news:874d408e-73e6-4064-8d08-
>> :
>>
>>> I don't think anyone has suggested this, but there is a nearly
>>> universal cure if you find yourself uncomfortably out of a
>>> reasonable approach condition -- simply say to yourself this isn't
>>> looking good enough, go around, and do better the next time.
>>>
>>> It's my uneducated opinion that too many perfectly good airplanes
>>> get turned to scrap because pilots continue to commit to an action
>>> that has become untenable. You have a hand on the throttle and it's
>>> important to remember to be ready to push it in if you don't like
>>> the way things are shaping up.
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>> Don't let ego get in the way of good judgement.
>>
>> True again. Sometimes it's not ego, though. A lot of thigs come into
>> play, especially if conditions are tough. It's a curious thing, the
>> sort of single-mindedness that often accompanies an accident.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Lesson here is go-around if concerned and make sure you are preset for
> that option?

Yeah. Should be, but we're only human. We have a two approach limit, too.
We're not allowed to do a third one ( company manual)
the number of accidents off a third approach is alarming.

Bertie

Peter Dohm

March 13th 08, 06:12 AM

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 4:33 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >On Mar 13, 11:14 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
> >D0t C0m> wrote:
>
> >> Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with
> >> bank.
> >Do you really mean that?
> >Cheers
>
> Yes, he does; and yes, he is correct.
>
> You have gone back to thinking in only two dimensions; and therefore
> ignoring the effects of vertical acceleration.
>

Nope, the plane's vertical acceleration is 0 so all that matters is
that the lift must equal the weight. As the plane banks the lift
vector is no linger in line with the weight so the load factor is
increased by 1/cos(bank angle) and the stall speed is proportional to
the square root of the load factor. Or are we talking at crossed
purposes?

Cheers

Then we are clearly talking at crossed purposes, as all of us who are
separating stall speed from angle of bank are considering vertical
acceleration. The salient point is that, whether you are amking use of it
at any given moment, vertical acceleration downward is one of the tools that
is available. OTOH, from the airplane's point of view, acceleration upward
and deceleration downward are basically the same thing; so if you are trying
to stop a descent while banked, the load factor and stall speed can increase
dramatically.

All the best
Peter

Peter Dohm

March 13th 08, 06:23 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Private wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Private wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Any stall in the pattern can be a serious problem. You need stall and
>>>>> yaw rate to induce spin. Of all the possible scenarios to have if you
>>>>> manage to be ham handed enough to get into a stall in the pattern, a
>>>>> stall from a slip is the most anti-spin. Then comes a coordinated
>>>>> stall with no yaw induced at the break, and finally the worst
>>>>> condition is a stall from a skidding turn. No matter which scenario,
>>>>> angle of attack MUST be lowered, and any yaw rate MUST be neutralized
>>>>> IMMEDIATELY!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> Can you please elaborate on the stall from a slip condition.
>>>>
>>>> I am fond of the bush pilot style pattern, using180 degree constant
>>>> slipping turn to final and would also be interested in your thoughts on
>>>> these.
>>>>
>>>> TIA
>>>> Happy landings,
>>> I see no problems at all with a constant slipping turn approach, and in
>>> fact favor this type myself when flying prop fighters such as the P51
>>> and the F8F and even the Pitts Spcial due to the better visibility
>>> during these approaces over the nose and ahead and inside the turn as
>>> the approach is flown.
>>>
>>> Slips are basically anti spin. You can actually increase the angle of
>>> attack available in front of your critical angle of attack as you deepen
>>> a slip. The ultimate example of this would be knife edge flight where
>>> forward stick pressure is required to reduce angle of attack to near the
>>> 0 lift point on the wing.
>>> Of course you won't be doing any knife edge flight on a slipping
>>> approach, but the slip you are in is still anti spin.
>>> Even if you stall the airplane in a slip, the likely result will be a
>>> break over the top, which is a much better stall break than a skidding
>>> stall break which will usually break under the bottom. You have much
>>> more time to recover from a slipping stall entry than you do from a skid
>>> entry.
>>>
>>> The bottom line is that it's quite safe to fly a slipping approach if
>>> you are aware, flying properly and watching what you are doing.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. Why is the stall from a descending slipping turn
>> more likely to result in a break over the top? Will this also be the
>> likely break in a descending straight slip? I suspect that fuselage
>> shadowing may play a role?
>>
>> Seems like I need to go do some more, nothing is as good fun as real
>> world practice on the left side of the envelope.
>>
>> Happy landings,
> Yes, the fuselage tends to blank out the upside wing as critical aoa is
> reached causing it to stall first.
> Something else about slips, the roll/yaw couple needed for pro spin input
> is actually wider apart than it is in level flight. This is as anti spin
> as it gets :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I had no trouble with the concept of "over the top" vs "under the bottom";
but it took me a while to get the theory straight on why the slipping turn
has less risk of a spin than a coordinated stall.

Thanks for another addition to the bag of tools and tricks!
Peter

Roger[_4_]

March 13th 08, 06:34 AM

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart >
wrote:

>Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>
>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>> Ken
>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>
>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>> reality....
>>>
>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot --
>>> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>
>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was

Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is proficient
ant not just current.

>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>
>Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>
>The Practical Test Standard requires the
>demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>
>That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>not going to be 2g in my plane.

2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming up
on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
"sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so they
couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))

I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.

When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying far
later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me when
I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end of
the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where you
fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed on
27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and I
quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full power,
stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that left things
floating. He never would tell me how close we came but from his
actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did all of
that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured had it
been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured that I knew
the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he could even if
he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I couldeven feel him
tense sitting next to me) told me that this should be a maximum effort
and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for approaches instead
of 80 or 90 too<:-))

Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
the Deb.

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

Ken S. Tucker

March 13th 08, 06:37 AM

On Mar 12, 6:05 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 12:31 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> > and as it turned
> >> > out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
> >> > which he did.
> >> > Ken
>
> >> Which one is you?
>
> >> Total Names found for KEN TUCKER is 22.
>
> >> KENNETH CARDEN TUCKER KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER
> >> KENNETH W TUCKER KENDALL JOHN TUCKER
> >> KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER KENNETH RAY TUCKER
> >> KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH THOMAS TUCKER
> >> KENNETH RICHARD TUCKER KENNETH DALE TUCKER
> >> KENNETH E TUCKER KENNETH J TUCKER
> >> KENNETH JOHN TUCKER KENT HOWARD TUCKER
> >> KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH WAYNE TUCKER
> >> KENT DAVID TUCKER KENT LEE TUCKER
> >> KENNETH ROYAL TUCKER KENNETH CLAYTON TUCKER
> >> KENNETH STEVEN TUCKER KENNETH HAROLD TUCKER
>
> > LOL, thank you for your interest in me.
> > I'm afraid I cannot post my license number
> > off my old paper license for security reasons,
> > and not my Mensa number either, or social
> > security number, CIA file etc. ,
> > it's all classified.
>
> Yes, your psychologist did say all your information is classified, but I
> thought that was due to doctor/patient privileges :)

u1= -sin H sin P cos R + cos H sin R
u2 = cos H sin P cos R - sin H sin R
u3 = cos P cos R
Unit vector u is up, H is Heading, R is Roll, P is Pitch.

Vectors A = G+L+T+D
A is net acceleration, Gravity, Lift, Thrust, Drag.
G = -1k.

Is any of that familiar?
If so, are the components of u correct?
I'm also a student of aerodynamics.
Ken

terry

March 13th 08, 08:04 AM

On Mar 13, 12:30*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> terry wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 9:35 am, "Vaughn Simon" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >>> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
> >>> fall through with reduced back pressure.
> >> * *Reducing back pressure is something an inexperienced pilot is instinctively
> >> loath to do when manuvering close to the ground, much more likely to be pulling.
>
> > on the contrary I have a habit of deliberately pushing forward on the
> > yoke as I turn onto final, it comes from a fear of stalling and the
> > fact
> > that being at this stage of the landing procedure I want my attention
> > focused outside the cockpit to ensure I line up out of the turn on the
> > runway centerline, and not worrying about my airspeed.
> > Terry
>
> You had good instruction Terry. I'd only add for you to monitor your
> airspeed as well. In other words, never omit an available cue.
>
Its not something I was actually trained to do, just something I
developed myself to be sure I dont lose any speed. Although I do
remember in my training losing airspeed in the turns practising
power off landings while concentrating too much on finding a field.
Having carefully trimmed the C150 to 65 kt glide speed I was maybe
dropping to 55 kts in the turns. I can still remember the instructors
warning to "watch the f......k airspeed in the turn or it will bite
you one day" Rather than watching the airspeed more carefully, I
just developed the habit of dipping the nose a bit to make sure of
it. I think its just an overload thing. While I do normally keep a
close watch on my airspeed, when I am turning I think I focus too much
on the attitude indicator instead of the ASI, as well as focusing
outside of course. I guess I am one of those people who have trouble
walking and chewing gum at the same time!
Terry

Benjamin Dover

March 13th 08, 08:46 AM

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

> On Mar 12, 6:05 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 12, 12:31 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
>> > wrote:
>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >> > and as it turned
>> >> > out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
>> >> > which he did.
>> >> > Ken
>>
>> >> Which one is you?
>>
>> >> Total Names found for KEN TUCKER is 22.
>>
>> >> KENNETH CARDEN TUCKER KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH W TUCKER KENDALL JOHN TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER KENNETH RAY TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH THOMAS TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH RICHARD TUCKER KENNETH DALE TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH E TUCKER KENNETH J TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH JOHN TUCKER KENT HOWARD TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH WAYNE TUCKER
>> >> KENT DAVID TUCKER KENT LEE TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH ROYAL TUCKER KENNETH CLAYTON TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH STEVEN TUCKER KENNETH HAROLD TUCKER
>>
>> > LOL, thank you for your interest in me.
>> > I'm afraid I cannot post my license number
>> > off my old paper license for security reasons,
>> > and not my Mensa number either, or social
>> > security number, CIA file etc. ,
>> > it's all classified.
>>
>> Yes, your psychologist did say all your information is classified,
>> but I thought that was due to doctor/patient privileges :)
>
> u1= -sin H sin P cos R + cos H sin R
> u2 = cos H sin P cos R - sin H sin R
> u3 = cos P cos R
> Unit vector u is up, H is Heading, R is Roll, P is Pitch.
>
> Vectors A = G+L+T+D
> A is net acceleration, Gravity, Lift, Thrust, Drag.
> G = -1k.
>
> Is any of that familiar?
> If so, are the components of u correct?
> I'm also a student of aerodynamics.
> Ken
>

You're a student of assodynamics, as can be readily seen in this
picture of you studying: http://tinyurl.com/2zxtrq

WingFlaps

March 13th 08, 08:50 AM

On Mar 13, 6:45*pm, Roger > wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:10:06 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Roger wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:08:30 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
> >>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
> >>>>> fall through with reduced back pressure.
> >> <snip for brevity>
>
> >>> I consider the imparting of this attitude in a student pilot a critical
> >>> aspect of stall recovery training.
> >>> I can't emphasize it's importance enough to new instructors.
>
> >> After following many of these threads over the years I am truly
> >> thankful for the instructors who followed these tenants in my primary
> >> training.
>
> >> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> >> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> >>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> >Me too !
>
> One of the things they emphasized was if I ever encountered an
> accelerated stall close to the ground was to just point the nose in
> the direction it wanted to go. *

How does that fix a developing yaw?

Cheers

WingFlaps

March 13th 08, 08:55 AM

On Mar 13, 7:37*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 12, 6:05 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > > On Mar 12, 12:31 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> > > wrote:
> > >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > >> > *and as it turned
> > >> > out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
> > >> > which he did.
> > >> > Ken
>
> > >> Which one is you?
>
> > >> Total Names found for KEN TUCKER is 22.
>
> > >> KENNETH CARDEN TUCKER * KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER
> > >> KENNETH W TUCKER * KENDALL JOHN TUCKER
> > >> KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER * KENNETH RAY TUCKER
> > >> KENNETH W TUCKER * KENNETH THOMAS TUCKER
> > >> KENNETH RICHARD TUCKER * KENNETH DALE TUCKER
> > >> KENNETH E TUCKER * KENNETH J TUCKER
> > >> KENNETH JOHN TUCKER * KENT HOWARD TUCKER
> > >> KENNETH W TUCKER * KENNETH WAYNE TUCKER
> > >> KENT DAVID TUCKER * KENT LEE TUCKER
> > >> KENNETH ROYAL TUCKER * KENNETH CLAYTON TUCKER
> > >> KENNETH STEVEN TUCKER * KENNETH HAROLD TUCKER
>
> > > LOL, thank you for your interest in me.
> > > I'm afraid I cannot post my license number
> > > off my old paper license for security reasons,
> > > and not my Mensa number either, or social
> > > security number, CIA file etc. ,
> > > it's all classified.
>
> > Yes, your psychologist did say all your information is classified, but I
> > thought that was due to doctor/patient privileges :)
>
> u1= -sin H sin P cos R + cos H sin R
> u2 = cos H sin P cos R - sin H sin R
> u3 = cos P cos R
> Unit vector u is up, H is Heading, R is Roll, P is Pitch.
>
> Vectors A = G+L+T+D
> A is net acceleration, Gravity, Lift, Thrust, Drag.
> G = -1k.
>
> Is any of that familiar?
> If so, are the components of u correct?
> I'm also a student of aerodynamics.

Nope. Forces don't equal acceleration You are a fraud.

Cheers

terry

March 13th 08, 09:56 AM

On Mar 13, 4:55*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WJRFlyBoy > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:46:16 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> Tina > wrote in news:874d408e-73e6-4064-8d08-
> >> :
>
> >>> I don't think anyone has suggested this, but there is a nearly
> >>> universal cure if you find yourself uncomfortably out of a
> >>> reasonable approach condition -- simply say to yourself this isn't
> >>> looking good enough, *go around, and do better the next time.
>
> >>> It's my uneducated opinion that too many perfectly good airplanes
> >>> get turned to scrap because pilots continue to commit to an action
> >>> that has become untenable. You have a hand on the throttle and it's
> >>> important to remember to be ready to push it in if you don't like
> >>> the way things are shaping up.
>
> >> Absolutely.
>
> >>> Don't let ego get in the way of good judgement.
>
> >> True again. Sometimes it's not ego, though. A lot of thigs come into
> >> play, especially if conditions are tough. It's a curious thing, the
> >> sort of single-mindedness that often accompanies an accident.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Lesson here is go-around if concerned and make sure you are preset for
> > that option?
>
> Yeah. Should be, but we're only human. We have a two approach limit, too.
> We're not allowed to do a third one ( company manual)
> the number of accidents off a third approach is alarming.
>
so you just stay up there? :<)

Dan[_10_]

March 13th 08, 10:27 AM

On Mar 13, 1:53 am, Roger > wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:343516c1-8fa1-
> :
>
> >> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
> >>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
> >>> > In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
> >>> > a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
> >>> > Ken
>
> >>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>
> >>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
> >>> reality....
>
> >>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot
>
> And although we sometimes hear complaints about the GA safety record,
> There are those rare statements that sometimes make me wonder why it's
> as good as it is.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

Hunh?

Ron Natalie

March 13th 08, 11:49 AM

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
> ...
>> My instrument flight test required level steep turns partial panel, which I
>> assume was 45 degrees or more.
>
> How do you judge a 45 degree bank angle with just a TC as you would
> have with partial panel (no AH)?
>

A 45 degree turn in most planes is going to peg the needle in the turn
indicator.

And the last thing you want to be doing partial panel are manouvers
like that. Standard rate at the most.

It's certainly not in the PTS or any FAA-endorsed curriculum.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 13th 08, 01:47 PM

Roger wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart >
> wrote:
>
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>> Ken
>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>
>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>> reality....
>>>>
>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot --
>>>> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>
> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is proficient
> ant not just current.
>
>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>
>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>>
>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>
> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming up
> on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so they
> couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>
> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>
> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying far
> later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me when
> I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end of
> the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where you
> fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed on
> 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and I
> quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full power,
> stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that left things
> floating. He never would tell me how close we came but from his
> actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did all of
> that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured had it
> been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured that I knew
> the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he could even if
> he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I couldeven feel him
> tense sitting next to me) told me that this should be a maximum effort
> and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for approaches instead
> of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>
> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
> the Deb.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 13th 08, 02:08 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 12, 6:05 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> messagenews:1c376b6c-0279-4781-b126-068490aa8201
@s13g2000prd.googlegro
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 12, 12:31 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
>> > wrote:
>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >> > and as it turned
>> >> > out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
>> >> > which he did.
>> >> > Ken
>>
>> >> Which one is you?
>>
>> >> Total Names found for KEN TUCKER is 22.
>>
>> >> KENNETH CARDEN TUCKER KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH W TUCKER KENDALL JOHN TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER KENNETH RAY TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH THOMAS TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH RICHARD TUCKER KENNETH DALE TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH E TUCKER KENNETH J TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH JOHN TUCKER KENT HOWARD TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH WAYNE TUCKER
>> >> KENT DAVID TUCKER KENT LEE TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH ROYAL TUCKER KENNETH CLAYTON TUCKER
>> >> KENNETH STEVEN TUCKER KENNETH HAROLD TUCKER
>>
>> > LOL, thank you for your interest in me.
>> > I'm afraid I cannot post my license number
>> > off my old paper license for security reasons,
>> > and not my Mensa number either, or social
>> > security number, CIA file etc. ,
>> > it's all classified.
>>
>> Yes, your psychologist did say all your information is classified,
>> but I thought that was due to doctor/patient privileges :)
>
> u1= -sin H sin P cos R + cos H sin R
> u2 = cos H sin P cos R - sin H sin R
> u3 = cos P cos R
> Unit vector u is up, H is Heading, R is Roll, P is Pitch.
>
> Vectors A = G+L+T+D
> A is net acceleration, Gravity, Lift, Thrust, Drag.
> G = -1k.
>
> Is any of that familiar?

Looks like it's prolly the formula for crack.

> If so, are the components of u correct?
> I'm also a student of aerodynamics.

Bwawhahwhawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhahhwahhwahwhahwha hhw!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 13th 08, 02:09 PM

terry > wrote in
:

> On Mar 13, 4:55*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WJRFlyBoy > wrote
>> innews:au07i6kpg998.na9z6vwx
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:46:16 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >> Tina > wrote in
>> >> news:874d408e-73e6-4064-8d08-
>> >> :
>>
>> >>> I don't think anyone has suggested this, but there is a nearly
>> >>> universal cure if you find yourself uncomfortably out of a
>> >>> reasonable approach condition -- simply say to yourself this
>> >>> isn't looking good enough, *go around, and do better the next
>> >>> time.
>>
>> >>> It's my uneducated opinion that too many perfectly good airplanes
>> >>> get turned to scrap because pilots continue to commit to an
>> >>> action that has become untenable. You have a hand on the throttle
>> >>> and it's important to remember to be ready to push it in if you
>> >>> don't like the way things are shaping up.
>>
>> >> Absolutely.
>>
>> >>> Don't let ego get in the way of good judgement.
>>
>> >> True again. Sometimes it's not ego, though. A lot of thigs come
>> >> into play, especially if conditions are tough. It's a curious
>> >> thing, the sort of single-mindedness that often accompanies an
>> >> accident.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Lesson here is go-around if concerned and make sure you are preset
>> > for that option?
>>
>> Yeah. Should be, but we're only human. We have a two approach limit,
>> too. We're not allowed to do a third one ( company manual)
>> the number of accidents off a third approach is alarming.
>>
> so you just stay up there? :<)
>

Yeah, I've been holding over Wayne county since '83

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 13th 08, 02:10 PM

Roger > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:343516c1-8fa1-
:
>>
>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>> > In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>> > a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>> > Ken
>>>>
>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>
>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>> reality....
>>>>
>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot
>
> And although we sometimes hear complaints about the GA safety record,
> There are those rare statements that sometimes make me wonder why it's
> as good as it is.

Very true. It's a bit the same way I marvel at the way my body continues to
function.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 13th 08, 02:12 PM

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 13, 1:53 am, Roger > wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:343516c1-8fa1-
>> :
>>
>> >> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>> >>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" >
>> >>> wrote:
>>
>> >>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>> >>> > In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>> >>> > a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>> >>> > Ken
>>
>> >>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>
>> >>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>> >>> reality....
>>
>> >>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>> >>> pilot
>>
>> And although we sometimes hear complaints about the GA safety record,
>> There are those rare statements that sometimes make me wonder why
>> it's as good as it is.
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> Hunh?

Often get this feeling you're missing something?

Oh wait. I guess you don't. Enjoy.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 13th 08, 02:14 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Roger wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>> reality....
>>>>>
>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>
>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>> proficient
>> ant not just current.
>>
>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>
>>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>>>
>>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>>
>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
>> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
>> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming
>> up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
>> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
>> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
>> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so
>> they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>
>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>
>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
>> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying
>> far later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me
>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end
>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where
>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed
>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and
>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came but
>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did
>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured
>> had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured
>> that I knew the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he
>> could even if he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I
>> couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told me that this should
>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for
>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>
>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
>> the Deb.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.
>

Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins, some
hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember filing and
putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so afraid to
deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my fin in
the clouds..

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 13th 08, 02:23 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Roger wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>>> reality....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>>> proficient
>>> ant not just current.
>>>
>>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>>
>>>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>>>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>>>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>>>>
>>>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>>>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
>>> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
>>> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
>>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming
>>> up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
>>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
>>> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
>>> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
>>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
>>> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so
>>> they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>>
>>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
>>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>>
>>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
>>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
>>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
>>> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying
>>> far later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me
>>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end
>>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where
>>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed
>>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and
>>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came but
>>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did
>>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured
>>> had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured
>>> that I knew the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he
>>> could even if he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I
>>> couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told me that this should
>>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for
>>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>>
>>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
>>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
>>> the Deb.
>>>
>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.
>>
>
> Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins, some
> hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember filing and
> putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so afraid to
> deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my fin in
> the clouds..
>
>
> Bertie
A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the requirement
was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from the
other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just racking
my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for the PRIVATE!!
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 13th 08, 02:44 PM

skym wrote:
> I guess my original question was really "how much of a comfort
> factor, if any, is a coordinated turn vs a slip or skid while turning
> at that point in the approach?"

Your "comfort factor" widens as you gain experience through exposure.

As you fly each approach and actually see and feel how the airplane
responds in various situations you will begin to feel more comfortable.
One thing that will help you is to leave the aerodynamics thinking on
the ground. Do your theory between flights. Not doing this can result in
you over working the problem. Just sit back, fly the airplane, and pay
attention to what's happening as you do this. I think you'll find that
each approach will get better generally. You will have some plateaus
where it all seems to go to hell, but hang in there.

One thing about approaches. Keep your main attention outside the
airplane. Don't over concentrate on the panel. Do your instrument
checking quickly and peripherally as you scan the horizon and your
visual positioning on the approach. Don't get all hung up on what the
ADI is doing. Your main attention at pattern altitude on down should be
NOSE ATTITUDE and VISUAL POSITIONING. Once you get used to this, you are
shortening the list of items on your multi-tasking list and your comfort
zone will widen for you.

--
Dudley Henriques

[email protected]

March 13th 08, 03:24 PM

On Mar 12, 7:14 pm, terry > wrote:
> On Mar 13, 9:14 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
>
> D0t C0m> wrote:
> > "skym" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > While making a turn to base and final recently, I was aware that I was
> > > going to be wide with my normal turn from downwind through base to
> > > final, so I banked more to keep as close to the runway centerline as
> > > possible. I kept thinking about the infamous and usually fatal stall/
> > > spin by some pilots in this situation, I kept thinking that if I keep
> > > the ball centered, even with a very steep bank, that I would be ok and
> > > not auger in. Some of you instructors and old pros...is this correct?
> > > (Not that I intend to make it a practice.)
>
> > Instead of asking about keeping the ball centered, perhaps you should be
> > asking why you elected to flirt with a pilot error fatality by cranking and
> > yanking for the sake of a few style points... So what if you overshoot the
> > turn????
>
> > Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with bank.
> > Stall speed changes with increasing G (increasing lift). Increasing G comes
> > from pulling on the yoke/stick. Period. No pull, no G, no increase in stall.
> > More pull, more G, higher stall. Wings level, wings banked, wings upside
> > down - makes no difference.
>
> so if i am doing a steep descending turn , I wont be pulling back on
> the stick as much as a steep level turn,
> hence less g ? This would seem to contradict others comments that
> you pull the same no of g in a bank whether it is level
> or descending. I am still confused.
> Terry

In a coordinated descending turn, the inside wing is at a
higher AOA than the outside wing and will stall first. In a skidding
descending turn, the difference is even greater and is asking for big
trouble. In a slipping turn, the inside wing's AOA decreases and is
much closer to the AOA of the outside wing. Danger of wing-drop
stalling is lessened.
In a climbing turn, the outside wing is at a higher AOA and
will stall first.

I built a device that demonstrates this visually so that our
students could get a handle on it. I keep promising to post pictures
of it somewhere. Can someone suggest to this Internet Ignoramus where
a good spot would be for that?

Dan

Ron A.[_3_]

March 13th 08, 03:36 PM

I didn't know at the time about turning more than standard rate on the
coordinator, it was something I hadn't done when he requested it. The peg
is around 45 degrees or so. I was also watching my airspeed for decay while
maintaining level flight. And I know you aren't supposed to use the feeling
in your butt for instrument flight, but it I couldn't help it being a newbie
to instrument flight. I of course rely on the instruments when they don't
agree with my body.

The concept was probably good, because failures of turn and banks are a lot
more rare than gyros, and if I was confused I would give the coordinator
more weight in decision making than the gyros until I sorted it out because
of that fact.

This would have been about 8 years ago. Same instructor said he doesn't
recommend any private pilot candidate without doing spins, so 5th lesson did
left and right multi-turn spins which scared the crap out of me until I
figured out they were fun on about the 2nd one. I doubt there are that many
of the old school instructors left. I was also never allowed to use power
pre-solo after abeam the numbers to turn base.

I personally feel it prolonged how long it took me to solo, but once you
figure it out it is good.

> Wingflaps
>So, how do you do it in an IF test?
>So, how do you do it in an IF test?

>Cheers back again

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 13th 08, 03:53 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Roger wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" >
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>>>> reality....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>>>> proficient
>>>> ant not just current.
>>>>
>>>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>>>>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>>>>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>>>>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>>>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
>>>> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
>>>> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll
into
>>>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming
>>>> up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other
direction
>>>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
>>>> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
>>>> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would
only
>>>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
>>>> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so
>>>> they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>>>
>>>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60
degrees
>>>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>>>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>>>
>>>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>>>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different
banking
>>>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back
to
>>>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
>>>> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying
>>>> far later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of
me
>>>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the
end
>>>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant
where
>>>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go
missed
>>>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said
and
>>>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>>>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>>>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came
but
>>>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I
did
>>>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured
>>>> had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured
>>>> that I knew the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he
>>>> could even if he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I
>>>> couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told me that this
should
>>>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120
for
>>>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>>>
>>>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the
PTS.
>>>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
>>>> the Deb.
>>>>
>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.
>>>
>>
>> Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins, some
>> hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember filing
and
>> putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so afraid
to
>> deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my fin
in
>> the clouds..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the
requirement
> was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from
the
> other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just racking
> my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for the
PRIVATE!!

I really can't remember, but I do remember being surprised when
instructing years later that i learned that many considered 45 deg to be
steep, so I must have learned at 60 degrees as well.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 13th 08, 04:35 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Roger wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" >
> wrote:
>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>>>>> reality....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>>>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>>>>> proficient
>>>>> ant not just current.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>>>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>>>>>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>>>>>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>>>>>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>>>>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
>>>>> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
>>>>> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll
> into
>>>>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming
>>>>> up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other
> direction
>>>>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
>>>>> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
>>>>> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would
> only
>>>>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
>>>>> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so
>>>>> they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>>>>
>>>>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60
> degrees
>>>>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>>>>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>>>>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different
> banking
>>>>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back
> to
>>>>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
>>>>> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying
>>>>> far later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of
> me
>>>>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the
> end
>>>>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant
> where
>>>>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go
> missed
>>>>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said
> and
>>>>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>>>>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>>>>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came
> but
>>>>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I
> did
>>>>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured
>>>>> had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured
>>>>> that I knew the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he
>>>>> could even if he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I
>>>>> couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told me that this
> should
>>>>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120
> for
>>>>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the
> PTS.
>>>>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
>>>>> the Deb.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.
>>>>
>>> Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins, some
>>> hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember filing
> and
>>> putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so afraid
> to
>>> deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my fin
> in
>>> the clouds..
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the
> requirement
>> was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from
> the
>> other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just racking
>> my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for the
> PRIVATE!!
>
> I really can't remember, but I do remember being surprised when
> instructing years later that i learned that many considered 45 deg to be
> steep, so I must have learned at 60 degrees as well.
>
> Bertie
>
I'm sure you did.

The problem with 45 degrees of bank is that it teaches little about
control in steep banked attitudes such as shallowing the bank before
raising the nose in a nose low condition caused by over bank.

I've never liked the 45 degree parameter and have always recommended to
instructors that they teach bank control all the way out to 60 degrees
regardless of the requirement.
This entire movement to make flying more "comfortable" for the masses to
sell airplanes and push aviation by lowering the requirements has been
flawed from the beginning in my opinion.

If I've flown with one pilot I've flown with a hundred who, when put in
a 60 degree banked turn with the nose going down and being told to raise
the nose, pulled instead of
shallowing out the bank first, tightening up the nose low condition.
It's a shame really, and I hate to see it.

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 13th 08, 04:55 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Roger wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" >
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you
>>>>>>>>> flying?
>>>>>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>>>>>> reality....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>>>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>>>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>>>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>>>>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>>>>>> proficient
>>>>>> ant not just current.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>>>>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>>>>>>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>>>>>>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>>>>>>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>>>>>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to
>>>>>> the ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor
>>>>>> started talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to
>>>>>> just roll
>> into
>>>>>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled.
>>>>>> Coming up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other
>> direction
>>>>>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a
>>>>>> laughing comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?"
>>>>>> My puzzled "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo
>>>>>> pilots would
>> only
>>>>>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard
>>>>>> them complain when told the instructors would be blocking the
>>>>>> yokes so they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60
>> degrees
>>>>>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>>>>>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>>>>>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different
>> banking
>>>>>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back
>> to
>>>>>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did
>>>>>> things that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra
>>>>>> light flying far later than allowed popped out of the dark
>>>>>> directly in front of
>> me
>>>>>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the
>> end
>>>>>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant
>> where
>>>>>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go
>> missed
>>>>>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said
>> and
>>>>>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>>>>>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>>>>>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came
>> but
>>>>>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I
>> did
>>>>>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I
>>>>>> figured had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he
>>>>>> figured that I knew the limits of the plane and would react
>>>>>> quicker than he could even if he could see. He was right though,
>>>>>> The urgency (I couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told
>>>>>> me that this
>> should
>>>>>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120
>> for
>>>>>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the
>> PTS.
>>>>>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits
>>>>>> of the Deb.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>>> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as
>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>> Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins,
>>>> some hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember
>>>> filing
>> and
>>>> putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so
>>>> afraid
>> to
>>>> deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my
>>>> fin
>> in
>>>> the clouds..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the
>> requirement
>>> was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from
>> the
>>> other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just
>>> racking my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for
>>> the
>> PRIVATE!!
>>
>> I really can't remember, but I do remember being surprised when
>> instructing years later that i learned that many considered 45 deg to
>> be steep, so I must have learned at 60 degrees as well.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> I'm sure you did.
>
> The problem with 45 degrees of bank is that it teaches little about
> control in steep banked attitudes such as shallowing the bank before
> raising the nose in a nose low condition caused by over bank.

Yeah. OK. That makes sense.
>
> I've never liked the 45 degree parameter and have always recommended
> to instructors that they teach bank control all the way out to 60
> degrees regardless of the requirement.
> This entire movement to make flying more "comfortable" for the masses
> to sell airplanes and push aviation by lowering the requirements has
> been flawed from the beginning in my opinion.

Well, exactly.
>
> If I've flown with one pilot I've flown with a hundred who, when put
> in a 60 degree banked turn with the nose going down and being told to
> raise the nose, pulled instead of
> shallowing out the bank first, tightening up the nose low condition.
> It's a shame really, and I hate to see it.

Hmm. I've never othought of steep turns as this sort of exercise. I've
alwyas looked at them as keeping, rather than a regaining control type
of thing, but I might try this with some of my guys if we ever get the
damned airplane!
You're sort of crossing over into the spiral dive lesson there. Not a
bad thing...

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 13th 08, 05:28 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you
>>>>>>>>>> flying?
>>>>>>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>>>>>>> reality....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>>>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>>>>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>>>>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>>>>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>>>>>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>>>>>>> proficient
>>>>>>> ant not just current.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>>>>>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>>>>>>>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>>>>>>>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>>>>>>>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>>>>>>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to
>>>>>>> the ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor
>>>>>>> started talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to
>>>>>>> just roll
>>> into
>>>>>>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled.
>>>>>>> Coming up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other
>>> direction
>>>>>>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a
>>>>>>> laughing comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?"
>>>>>>> My puzzled "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo
>>>>>>> pilots would
>>> only
>>>>>>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard
>>>>>>> them complain when told the instructors would be blocking the
>>>>>>> yokes so they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60
>>> degrees
>>>>>>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>>>>>>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>>>>>>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different
>>> banking
>>>>>>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back
>>> to
>>>>>>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did
>>>>>>> things that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra
>>>>>>> light flying far later than allowed popped out of the dark
>>>>>>> directly in front of
>>> me
>>>>>>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the
>>> end
>>>>>>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant
>>> where
>>>>>>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go
>>> missed
>>>>>>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said
>>> and
>>>>>>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>>>>>>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>>>>>>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came
>>> but
>>>>>>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I
>>> did
>>>>>>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I
>>>>>>> figured had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he
>>>>>>> figured that I knew the limits of the plane and would react
>>>>>>> quicker than he could even if he could see. He was right though,
>>>>>>> The urgency (I couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told
>>>>>>> me that this
>>> should
>>>>>>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120
>>> for
>>>>>>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the
>>> PTS.
>>>>>>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits
>>>>>>> of the Deb.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>>>> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins,
>>>>> some hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember
>>>>> filing
>>> and
>>>>> putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so
>>>>> afraid
>>> to
>>>>> deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my
>>>>> fin
>>> in
>>>>> the clouds..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the
>>> requirement
>>>> was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from
>>> the
>>>> other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just
>>>> racking my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for
>>>> the
>>> PRIVATE!!
>>>
>>> I really can't remember, but I do remember being surprised when
>>> instructing years later that i learned that many considered 45 deg to
>>> be steep, so I must have learned at 60 degrees as well.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> I'm sure you did.
>>
>> The problem with 45 degrees of bank is that it teaches little about
>> control in steep banked attitudes such as shallowing the bank before
>> raising the nose in a nose low condition caused by over bank.
>
> Yeah. OK. That makes sense.
>> I've never liked the 45 degree parameter and have always recommended
>> to instructors that they teach bank control all the way out to 60
>> degrees regardless of the requirement.
>> This entire movement to make flying more "comfortable" for the masses
>> to sell airplanes and push aviation by lowering the requirements has
>> been flawed from the beginning in my opinion.
>
> Well, exactly.
>> If I've flown with one pilot I've flown with a hundred who, when put
>> in a 60 degree banked turn with the nose going down and being told to
>> raise the nose, pulled instead of
>> shallowing out the bank first, tightening up the nose low condition.
>> It's a shame really, and I hate to see it.
>
> Hmm. I've never othought of steep turns as this sort of exercise. I've
> alwyas looked at them as keeping, rather than a regaining control type
> of thing, but I might try this with some of my guys if we ever get the
> damned airplane!
> You're sort of crossing over into the spiral dive lesson there. Not a
> bad thing...
>
>
> Bertie
>
Actually you're right on how you view the exercise. It is an exercise in
maintaining control. What happens however, with the average pilot,
especially those not trained in steep turns at around 60 degrees, is
that invariably, pilots trying to maintain that 60 degree bank will
allow the nose to get lower than the horizon line as they attempt to
maintain and control the over bank.
When this happens, the only way to correct and get the nose back
tracking again on the horizon is to shallow out FIRST, then raise the
nose back up where it belongs. Trying to solve the error by pulling the
nose back up without shallowing first just takes the pilot deeper into
the error.
The secondary error that is most common is in not releasing the back
pressure properly then reapplying it again as the turn is reversed.
All in all, 60 degree banked turn to alternating sides is a wonderful
training tool. These turns teach control pressure blending and
coordination better than any other maneuver I've ever used .
If a pilot can enter alternating 720's and perform the turns AND the
transition through the reversal between them within a 50 foot altitude
error parameter, they KNOW control pressure and can FLY the airplane!

A side advantage to learning steep 720's VFR really comes in handy later
on if
a pilot goes into serious instrument training where recovery from nose
low unusual attitudes requires correcting the bank first, then raising
the nose........as I've always maintained and always will...it's the way
you learn the basics that will determine how well you eventually will
fly all through your career in aviation.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan Luke[_2_]

March 13th 08, 05:47 PM

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

> When this happens, the only way to correct and get the nose back tracking
> again on the horizon is to shallow out FIRST, then raise the nose back up
> where it belongs.

I guess a little top rudder is right out, eh?

> The secondary error that is most common is in not releasing the back
> pressure properly then reapplying it again as the turn is reversed.
> All in all, 60 degree banked turn to alternating sides is a wonderful
> training tool. These turns teach control pressure blending and
> coordination better than any other maneuver I've ever used .
> If a pilot can enter alternating 720's and perform the turns AND the
> transition through the reversal between them within a 50 foot altitude
> error parameter, they KNOW control pressure and can FLY the airplane!

You're on. That will be the drill for Saturday.

I've done a lot of low/slow/steep flying lately on photo missions. Your
drill should help.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 13th 08, 05:57 PM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" wrote:
>
>> When this happens, the only way to correct and get the nose back tracking
>> again on the horizon is to shallow out FIRST, then raise the nose back up
>> where it belongs.
>
> I guess a little top rudder is right out, eh

Top rudder will produce a slipping turn but won't counteract the nose
down tendency. It will also take you out of complimentary coordination
and into slip which is undesirable in this instance. Remember, you're
holding in back pressure to produce the turn. The bank absolutely has to
be shallowed to the point where the nose can be raised as opposed to
pulled down deeper into the error.

When you are trying out these turns, try using top rudder when nose down
and note the result.

--
Dudley Henriques

Ken S. Tucker

March 13th 08, 06:52 PM

On Mar 13, 12:55 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 6:05 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>
> > > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > > > On Mar 12, 12:31 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > >> > and as it turned
> > > >> > out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
> > > >> > which he did.
> > > >> > Ken
>
> > > >> Which one is you?
>
> > > >> Total Names found for KEN TUCKER is 22.
>
> > > >> KENNETH CARDEN TUCKER KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER
> > > >> KENNETH W TUCKER KENDALL JOHN TUCKER
> > > >> KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER KENNETH RAY TUCKER
> > > >> KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH THOMAS TUCKER
> > > >> KENNETH RICHARD TUCKER KENNETH DALE TUCKER
> > > >> KENNETH E TUCKER KENNETH J TUCKER
> > > >> KENNETH JOHN TUCKER KENT HOWARD TUCKER
> > > >> KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH WAYNE TUCKER
> > > >> KENT DAVID TUCKER KENT LEE TUCKER
> > > >> KENNETH ROYAL TUCKER KENNETH CLAYTON TUCKER
> > > >> KENNETH STEVEN TUCKER KENNETH HAROLD TUCKER
>
> > > > LOL, thank you for your interest in me.
> > > > I'm afraid I cannot post my license number
> > > > off my old paper license for security reasons,
> > > > and not my Mensa number either, or social
> > > > security number, CIA file etc. ,
> > > > it's all classified.
>
> > > Yes, your psychologist did say all your information is classified, but I
> > > thought that was due to doctor/patient privileges :)
>
> > u1= -sin H sin P cos R + cos H sin R
> > u2 = cos H sin P cos R - sin H sin R
> > u3 = cos P cos R
> > Unit vector u is up, H is Heading, R is Roll, P is Pitch.
>
> > Vectors A = G+L+T+D
> > A is net acceleration, Gravity, Lift, Thrust, Drag.
> > G = -1k.
>
> > Is any of that familiar?
> > If so, are the components of u correct?
> > I'm also a student of aerodynamics.
>
> Nope. Forces don't equal acceleration

LOL, does a "unit" mass shine a light?
Ken

Ken S. Tucker

March 13th 08, 07:19 PM

On Mar 13, 6:23 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >> Roger wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
> >>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
> >>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
> >>>>>>> Ken
> >>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>
> >>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
> >>>>>> reality....
>
> >>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
> >>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
> >>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
> >>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
> >>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
> >>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
> >>> proficient
> >>> ant not just current.
>
> >>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
> >>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>
> >>>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
> >>>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
> >>>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>
> >>>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
> >>>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
> >>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
> >>> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
> >>> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
> >>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming
> >>> up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
> >>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
> >>> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
> >>> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
> >>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
> >>> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so
> >>> they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>
> >>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
> >>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
> >>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>
> >>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
> >>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
> >>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
> >>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
> >>> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying
> >>> far later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me
> >>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end
> >>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where
> >>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed
> >>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and
> >>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
> >>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
> >>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came but
> >>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did
> >>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured
> >>> had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured
> >>> that I knew the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he
> >>> could even if he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I
> >>> couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told me that this should
> >>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for
> >>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>
> >>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
> >>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
> >>> the Deb.
>
> >>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> >>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> >>>www.rogerhalstead.com
> >> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.
>
> > Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins, some
> > hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember filing and
> > putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so afraid to
> > deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my fin in
> > the clouds..
>
> > Bertie
>
> A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the requirement
> was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from the
> other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just racking
> my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for the PRIVATE!!
> :-))
> Dudley Henriques

An instrument that was stressed for me during
instruction was this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator

The 60 degree banked turn (IIRC), did require that
50' +/- altitude, keeping the ball centered, and
maintaining a constant KIAS with some +power.

When that 50' +/- requirement was spec'd by the
instructor I got fixated on the "rate of climb"
indicator.
Well he smirked and sent my concentration to the
attitude indicator and to learn to use that.
Other pilots have mentioned the attitude indicator
is the most important instrument.
What do you guys think?
Ken

WingFlaps

March 13th 08, 07:33 PM

On Mar 14, 4:36*am, "Ron A." > wrote:
> I didn't know at the time about turning more than standard rate on the
> coordinator, it was something I hadn't done when he requested it. *The peg
> is around 45 degrees or so. *I was also watching my airspeed for decay while
> maintaining level flight. *And I know you aren't supposed to use the feeling
> in your butt for instrument flight, but it I couldn't help it being a newbie
> to instrument flight. *I of course rely on the instruments when they don't
> agree with my body.
>

I think something is not quite right here. I may have this wrong, but
the TC doesn't indicate angle of bank at all. It's a rate instrument
and indicates rate of roll and rate of turn (plus ball) -at least
that's what I learnt. In that case where the peg is does not inicate
angle of bank but rate of bank/turn

Cheers

[email protected]

March 13th 08, 07:42 PM

On Mar 13, 1:19 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> An instrument that was stressed for me during
> instruction was this,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator
>
> The 60 degree banked turn (IIRC), did require that
> 50' +/- altitude, keeping the ball centered, and
> maintaining a constant KIAS with some +power.
>
> When that 50' +/- requirement was spec'd by the
> instructor I got fixated on the "rate of climb"
> indicator.
> Well he smirked and sent my concentration to the
> attitude indicator and to learn to use that.
> Other pilots have mentioned the attitude indicator
> is the most important instrument.
> What do you guys think?
> Ken

We think it shows you have not had any training. PPL students
are told to LOOK OUTSIDE during steep turn training, not to fixate on
instruments. They need to see what the horizon is up to, not what
instruments are indicating. A glance at the ASI and altimeter every
few seconds is in order, but they're not to refer to the AI constantly
for steep turns. We've had students who were all over the sky, chasing
instrument needles, so we sometimes cover up the whole panel and make
them do it by looking outside; the airplane settles down and behaves
itself. Amazing.
This is standard Canadian PPL curriculum, and the US wouldn't
be much different.

Dan

george

March 13th 08, 07:50 PM

On Mar 14, 8:33 am, WingFlaps > wrote:

> I think something is not quite right here. I may have this wrong, but
> the TC doesn't indicate angle of bank at all. It's a rate instrument
> and indicates rate of roll and rate of turn (plus ball) -at least
> that's what I learnt. In that case where the peg is does not inicate
> angle of bank but rate of bank/turn
>

Needle Rate of turn.

Ball Balanced turn

WJRFlyBoy

March 13th 08, 08:05 PM

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:16:23 -0800, Jim Stewart wrote:

> I hesitate to add to this discussion because
> I'm not an instructor, just a rather slow
> student who's not qualified to give advice
> that might kill someone.

I hope this isn't copyrighted because I just stole it.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WingFlaps

March 13th 08, 08:13 PM

On Mar 14, 7:52*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 13, 12:55 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 7:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 12, 6:05 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>
> > > > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > > > > On Mar 12, 12:31 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > > >> > *and as it turned
> > > > >> > out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
> > > > >> > which he did.
> > > > >> > Ken
>
> > > > >> Which one is you?
>
> > > > >> Total Names found for KEN TUCKER is 22.
>
> > > > >> KENNETH CARDEN TUCKER * KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER
> > > > >> KENNETH W TUCKER * KENDALL JOHN TUCKER
> > > > >> KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER * KENNETH RAY TUCKER
> > > > >> KENNETH W TUCKER * KENNETH THOMAS TUCKER
> > > > >> KENNETH RICHARD TUCKER * KENNETH DALE TUCKER
> > > > >> KENNETH E TUCKER * KENNETH J TUCKER
> > > > >> KENNETH JOHN TUCKER * KENT HOWARD TUCKER
> > > > >> KENNETH W TUCKER * KENNETH WAYNE TUCKER
> > > > >> KENT DAVID TUCKER * KENT LEE TUCKER
> > > > >> KENNETH ROYAL TUCKER * KENNETH CLAYTON TUCKER
> > > > >> KENNETH STEVEN TUCKER * KENNETH HAROLD TUCKER
>
> > > > > LOL, thank you for your interest in me.
> > > > > I'm afraid I cannot post my license number
> > > > > off my old paper license for security reasons,
> > > > > and not my Mensa number either, or social
> > > > > security number, CIA file etc. ,
> > > > > it's all classified.
>
> > > > Yes, your psychologist did say all your information is classified, but I
> > > > thought that was due to doctor/patient privileges :)
>
> > > u1= -sin H sin P cos R + cos H sin R
> > > u2 = cos H sin P cos R - sin H sin R
> > > u3 = cos P cos R
> > > Unit vector u is up, H is Heading, R is Roll, P is Pitch.
>
> > > Vectors A = G+L+T+D
> > > A is net acceleration, Gravity, Lift, Thrust, Drag.
> > > G = -1k.
>
> > > Is any of that familiar?
> > > If so, are the components of u correct?
> > > I'm also a student of aerodynamics.
>
> > Nope. Forces don't equal acceleration
>
> LOL, does a "unit" mass shine a light?

Nope, you're still a fraud. G is not -1k in any standard unit system.

Cheers

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 13th 08, 08:26 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 13, 6:23 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >> Roger wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>> >>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" >
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you
>> >>>>>> flying?
>> >>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>> >>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>> >>>>>>> Ken
>> >>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>
>> >>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>> >>>>>> reality....
>>
>> >>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>> >>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>> >>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>> >>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>> >>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>> >>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>> >>> proficient
>> >>> ant not just current.
>>
>> >>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>> >>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>
>> >>>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>> >>>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>> >>>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>>
>> >>>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>> >>>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>> >>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to
>> >>> the ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor
>> >>> started talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to
>> >>> just roll into it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left
>> >>> and pulled. Coming up on the proper heading he said now lets do
>> >>> one the other direction where by I rolled to the right and
>> >>> pulled. This brought a laughing comment, "You really like to do
>> >>> these things don't you?" My puzzled "sure", brought the
>> >>> explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only grudgingly do
>> >>> 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them complain
>> >>> when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so they
>> >>> couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>
>> >>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60
>> >>> degrees or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go
>> >>> out to practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>
>> >>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>> >>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different
>> >>> banking tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be
>> >>> put back to that. There have been moments where I've been glad
>> >>> they did things that way back then. One such moment was when a
>> >>> ultra light flying far later than allowed popped out of the dark
>> >>> directly in front of me when I was no more than a couple hundred
>> >>> yards (if that) from the end of the runway. Another was on the
>> >>> VOR approach to MtPleasant where you fly directly over the
>> >>> runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed on 27. When the
>> >>> instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and I
>> >>> quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>> >>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>> >>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came
>> >>> but from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet.
>> >>> BTW I did all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI
>> >>> that I figured had it been really close he'd have taken over. He
>> >>> said he figured that I knew the limits of the plane and would
>> >>> react quicker than he could even if he could see. He was right
>> >>> though, The urgency (I couldeven feel him tense sitting next to
>> >>> me) told me that this should be a maximum effort and not just a
>> >>> climb. Made me glad I use 120 for approaches instead of 80 or 90
>> >>> too<:-))
>>
>> >>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the
>> >>> PTS. They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the
>> >>> limits of the Deb.
>>
>> >>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> >>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> >>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>> >> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as
>> >> well.
>>
>> > Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins,
>> > some hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember
>> > filing and putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then
>> > being so afraid to deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at
>> > that alt with my fin in the clouds..
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the
>> requirement was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions
>> entering one from the other within an altitude parameter either way
>> of 50 feet. Just racking my memory here but that sounds close.....and
>> this was for the PRIVATE!!
>> :-))
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> An instrument that was stressed for me during
> instruction was this,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator
>
> The 60 degree banked turn (IIRC), did require that
> 50' +/- altitude, keeping the ball centered, and
> maintaining a constant KIAS with some +power.
>
> When that 50' +/- requirement was spec'd by the
> instructor I got fixated on the "rate of climb"
> indicator.
> Well he smirked and sent my concentration to the
> attitude indicator and to learn to use that.
> Other pilots have mentioned the attitude indicator
> is the most important instrument.
> What do you guys think?

That you're full of ****.

Bertie

Ken S. Tucker

March 13th 08, 08:32 PM

Mr. BIG HEAD, you've lost a star and the Mr.
You now just *Big Head*, you make too many
mistakes.

On Mar 13, 11:42 am, wrote:
> On Mar 13, 1:19 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> > An instrument that was stressed for me during
> > instruction was this,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator
>
> > The 60 degree banked turn (IIRC), did require that
> > 50' +/- altitude, keeping the ball centered, and
> > maintaining a constant KIAS with some +power.
>
> > When that 50' +/- requirement was spec'd by the
> > instructor I got fixated on the "rate of climb"
> > indicator.
> > Well he smirked and sent my concentration to the
> > attitude indicator and to learn to use that.
> > Other pilots have mentioned the attitude indicator
> > is the most important instrument.
> > What do you guys think?
> > Ken
>
> We think it shows you have not had any training. PPL students
> are told to LOOK OUTSIDE during steep turn training, not to fixate on
> instruments.

Night flying, IFR initiation, in good VFR the OUTSIDE
is peripheral vision, if you ever really flew an airplane.

> They need to see what the horizon is up to, not what
> instruments are indicating. A glance at the ASI and altimeter every
> few seconds is in order, but they're not to refer to the AI constantly
> for steep turns.

How the **** do you set-up to a 60 bank?
and maintain constant altitude?

> We've had students who were all over the sky, chasing
> instrument needles, so we sometimes cover up the whole panel and make
> them do it by looking outside; the airplane settles down and behaves
> itself. Amazing.

No that's pure BS.

> This is standard Canadian PPL curriculum, and the US wouldn't
> be much different.
> Dan

Dan you don't even know what an Attitude Indicator does,
otherwise you would have opined on my question.

I'll leave *Big Head* Dan with one star, but probationary.
Ken

Ron A.[_3_]

March 13th 08, 08:50 PM

I didn't mean it directly indicates bank. But at a given airspeed
(maneuvering in my instance) and no yaw you can come up with a good
approximation of a steep turn with the airplane in the coordinator pegged.
I haven't done it without partial panel so I don't know what it equated to
but if a standard rate is around 17 degrees at my airspeed it should be
around double that. It was probably close to 40-45 degrees at that
airspeed. Close enough for the instructional purpose of partial panel 720's
and then rollout the opposite way.

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 14, 4:36 am, "Ron A." > wrote:
> I didn't know at the time about turning more than standard rate on the
> coordinator, it was something I hadn't done when he requested it. The peg
> is around 45 degrees or so. I was also watching my airspeed for decay
> while
> maintaining level flight. And I know you aren't supposed to use the
> feeling
> in your butt for instrument flight, but it I couldn't help it being a
> newbie
> to instrument flight. I of course rely on the instruments when they don't
> agree with my body.
>

I think something is not quite right here. I may have this wrong, but
the TC doesn't indicate angle of bank at all. It's a rate instrument
and indicates rate of roll and rate of turn (plus ball) -at least
that's what I learnt. In that case where the peg is does not inicate
angle of bank but rate of bank/turn

Cheers

[email protected]

March 13th 08, 09:12 PM

On Mar 13, 2:32 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > We think it shows you have not had any training. PPL students
> > are told to LOOK OUTSIDE during steep turn training, not to fixate on
> > instruments.
>
> Night flying, IFR initiation, in good VFR the OUTSIDE
> is peripheral vision, if you ever really flew an airplane.
>
> > They need to see what the horizon is up to, not what
> > instruments are indicating. A glance at the ASI and altimeter every
> > few seconds is in order, but they're not to refer to the AI constantly
> > for steep turns.
>
> How the **** do you set-up to a 60 bank?
> and maintain constant altitude?
>
> > We've had students who were all over the sky, chasing
> > instrument needles, so we sometimes cover up the whole panel and make
> > them do it by looking outside; the airplane settles down and behaves
> > itself. Amazing.
>
> No that's pure BS.
>
> > This is standard Canadian PPL curriculum, and the US wouldn't
> > be much different.
> > Dan
>
> Dan you don't even know what an Attitude Indicator does,
> otherwise you would have opined on my question.
>
> I'll leave *Big Head* Dan with one star, but probationary.
> Ken

Then how do you explain away this lesson from people who
teach flying? I quote:

"When the required bank angle is achieved, keep it constant with
aileron control. Now
look at the reference of the plane nose to the horizon and
occasionally glance at the instruments.
Don't fixate on the instruments. Get familiar with the position of the
plane and the horizon on
both the left and right steep turn."
That's from http://www.forderlearntofly.com/lessons/mod1_lesson1_turns.pdf

Your only defense, Ken, is the standard "You don't know anything"
that you hand out to anyone who calls you on your baloney. Can't get a
weaker defense than that.

Dan
Now let's see you do it on the next page.

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 13th 08, 09:29 PM

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>... in good VFR the OUTSIDE
> is peripheral vision, if you ever really flew an airplane.
>

This is the part of his post that proves he doesn't know his ass from a
hole in the ground.

Ken S. Tucker

March 13th 08, 10:08 PM

To 'big head'...you lost your last star :-(.

On Mar 13, 1:12 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2:32 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > We think it shows you have not had any training. PPL students
> > > are told to LOOK OUTSIDE during steep turn training, not to fixate on
> > > instruments.
>
> > Night flying, IFR initiation, in good VFR the OUTSIDE
> > is peripheral vision, if you ever really flew an airplane.
>
> > > They need to see what the horizon is up to, not what
> > > instruments are indicating. A glance at the ASI and altimeter every
> > > few seconds is in order, but they're not to refer to the AI constantly
> > > for steep turns.
>
> > How the **** do you set-up to a 60 bank?
> > and maintain constant altitude?
>
> > > We've had students who were all over the sky, chasing
> > > instrument needles, so we sometimes cover up the whole panel and make
> > > them do it by looking outside; the airplane settles down and behaves
> > > itself. Amazing.
>
> > No that's pure BS.
>
> > > This is standard Canadian PPL curriculum, and the US wouldn't
> > > be much different.
> > > Dan
>
> > Dan you don't even know what an Attitude Indicator does,
> > otherwise you would have opined on my question.
>
> > I'll leave *Big Head* Dan with one star, but probationary.
> > Ken
>
> Then how do you explain away this lesson from people who
> teach flying? I quote:
>
> "When the required bank angle is achieved, keep it constant with
> aileron control. Now
> look at the reference of the plane nose to the horizon and
> occasionally glance at the instruments.
> Don't fixate on the instruments. Get familiar with the position of the
> plane and the horizon on
> both the left and right steep turn."
> That's from http://www.forderlearntofly.com/lessons/mod1_lesson1_turns.pdf
>
> Your only defense, Ken, is the standard "You don't know anything"
> that you hand out to anyone who calls you on your baloney. Can't get a
> weaker defense than that.
>
> Dan
> Now let's see you do it on the next page.

Some of what you say is true for beginners, but
a good instructor also thinks ahead to weaning
the student to *night flying*, IFR, and possible
inadvertent bad weather, where VFR fails.

In GROUND SCHOOL, we were taught the why
of this instrument lay-out, (note the Attitude ),

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

'big head' Dan, you don't know the function of
the primary AI and why it it is prominent, and
after reading your 60 deg bank post for 2 days
you FAILED to mention the throttle adjustment,
to maintain constant KIAS in the bank, inspite
of my hints.

One instructor I had, got into the right seat with
a clip board. He'd say bank 30 come to heading
XX and while I was doing that he'd being reading
the instruments and marking on his clip-board.
((He wouldn't let me read what he marked)).

He was very strict but friendly with candor and
very soon I gained a lot of respect for him.

((His name was Bob Burton, operating out of
Oshawa Flying Club at that time)).
Ken

george

March 13th 08, 11:13 PM

On Mar 14, 10:29 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >... in good VFR the OUTSIDE
> > is peripheral vision, if you ever really flew an airplane.
>
> This is the part of his post that proves he doesn't know his ass from a
> hole in the ground.

If he flew we'd know it because of the hole in the ground !

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

March 13th 08, 11:14 PM

>"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
>On Mar 13, 11:14 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m> wrote:

> >
> > Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with
> > bank.

> Do you really mean that?

Yup.

Bank is controlled by ailerons.

The angle of attack (which results in stalls) is controlled by the elevators
which don't cause the aircraft to bank.

No yank, no change in stall speed. If you do pull, you will increase the
stall speed - banked or not.

How do you do a snap roll? (flick roll if you are on the East side of teh
Atlantic)

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

[email protected]

March 13th 08, 11:19 PM

On Mar 13, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> 'big head' Dan, you don't know the function of
> the primary AI and why it it is prominent, and
> after reading your 60 deg bank post for 2 days
> you FAILED to mention the throttle adjustment,
> to maintain constant KIAS in the bank, inspite
> of my hints.

Your flight training appears to come entirely from Wikipedia.
Cut and paste, again. Tell me, now, what is the difference between a
turn coordinator and a turn and bank indicator? Tell me what apparent
precession is, versus drift. How is that sort of drift different from
illusion caused by drift? Why can it be dangerous? Tell me what an
attitude indicator will read after you level out from an extended
steep turn, say a minute or two of turning? What keeps the gyro erect
in an attitude indicator? What's the basic idea behind a laser gyro?
Why is it harder to do a right-hand steep turn as opposed to left?
What is P-factor? What is acceleration error? What is Northerly
turning error? This is all stuff our PPLs get. You have ten minutes.
And once again, you just assert that I don't fly. Well, I was
out not two hours ago, in my Jodel. When was the last time you flew (a
real airplane)?

Dan

BillJ

March 14th 08, 12:21 AM

skym wrote:
> Thanks for replies. I had meant to address the speed issue since I
> knew the stall speed increased with bank. I also kept my speed higher
> than normal in the turn because of that. I left it out of the
> question, and shouldn't have. Assuming I keep the speed up, is the
> centered ball a reliable guide?
Quit saying stall speed increases with bank. If you insist, add "in a
level turn"

[email protected]

March 14th 08, 12:35 AM

On Mar 13, 5:21 pm, BillJ > wrote:

> Quit saying stall speed increases with bank. If you insist, add "in a
> level turn"

But it will increase in descending or climbing turns, too.

Dan

Roger[_4_]

March 14th 08, 01:08 AM

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:53:33 -0400, Roger >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>wrote:
>
>>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:343516c1-8fa1-
:
>>
>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>> > In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>> > a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>> > Ken
>>>>
>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>
>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>> reality....
>>>>
>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot
>

Due to questions and a mail program that moved a few things: for
explanation to those who didn't follow, the statement below refers to
the statement that was made about high g, low level turns being safe.

>And although we sometimes hear complaints about the GA safety record,
>There are those rare statements that sometimes make me wonder why it's
>as good as it is.
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

March 14th 08, 01:15 AM

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:49:35 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Vaughn Simon wrote:
>> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> My instrument flight test required level steep turns partial panel, which I
>>> assume was 45 degrees or more.
>>
>> How do you judge a 45 degree bank angle with just a TC as you would
>> have with partial panel (no AH)?

You don't.

>>
>
>A 45 degree turn in most planes is going to peg the needle in the turn
>indicator.
>
>And the last thing you want to be doing partial panel are manouvers
>like that. Standard rate at the most.

Yup and half standard when you get any where near the airport. (Time
for a PAR<g>)
>
>It's certainly not in the PTS or any FAA-endorsed curriculum.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 14th 08, 01:22 AM

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 13, 6:23 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> Roger wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>>>>> reality....
>>>>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>>>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>>>>> proficient
>>>>> ant not just current.
>>>>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>>>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>>>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>>>>>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>>>>>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>>>>>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>>>>>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>>>>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
>>>>> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
>>>>> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
>>>>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming
>>>>> up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
>>>>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
>>>>> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
>>>>> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
>>>>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
>>>>> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so
>>>>> they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>>>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
>>>>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>>>>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>>>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>>>>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
>>>>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
>>>>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
>>>>> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying
>>>>> far later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me
>>>>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end
>>>>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where
>>>>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed
>>>>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and
>>>>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>>>>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>>>>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came but
>>>>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did
>>>>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured
>>>>> had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured
>>>>> that I knew the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he
>>>>> could even if he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I
>>>>> couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told me that this should
>>>>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for
>>>>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>>>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
>>>>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
>>>>> the Deb.
>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.
>>> Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins, some
>>> hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember filing and
>>> putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so afraid to
>>> deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my fin in
>>> the clouds..
>>> Bertie
>> A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the requirement
>> was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from the
>> other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just racking
>> my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for the PRIVATE!!
>> :-))
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> An instrument that was stressed for me during
> instruction was this,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator
>
> The 60 degree banked turn (IIRC), did require that
> 50' +/- altitude, keeping the ball centered, and
> maintaining a constant KIAS with some +power.
>
> When that 50' +/- requirement was spec'd by the
> instructor I got fixated on the "rate of climb"
> indicator.
> Well he smirked and sent my concentration to the
> attitude indicator and to learn to use that.
> Other pilots have mentioned the attitude indicator
> is the most important instrument.
> What do you guys think?
> Ken

Ken Tucker writes of Dudley Henriques in a prior thread;

"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!"

Personally Ken, if I held this opinion about someone, they would be the
last person in the world I'd ask for an opinion on ANYTHING. :-)

I'm sure with your excellent qualifications as a pilot, you really don't
need any feedback from the likes of me.

Best to you

--
Dudley Henriques

Roger[_4_]

March 14th 08, 01:25 AM

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:23:02 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Roger wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>>>> reality....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>>>> proficient
>>>> ant not just current.
>>>>
>>>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>>>>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>>>>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>>>>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>>>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
>>>> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
>>>> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
>>>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming
>>>> up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
>>>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
>>>> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
>>>> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
>>>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
>>>> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so
>>>> they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>>>
>>>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
>>>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>>>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>>>
>>>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>>>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
>>>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
>>>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
>>>> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying
>>>> far later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me
>>>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end
>>>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where
>>>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed
>>>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and
>>>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>>>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>>>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came but
>>>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did
>>>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured
>>>> had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured
>>>> that I knew the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he
>>>> could even if he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I
>>>> couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told me that this should
>>>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for
>>>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>>>
>>>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
>>>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
>>>> the Deb.
>>>>
>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.
>>>
>>
>> Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins, some
>> hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember filing and
>> putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so afraid to
>> deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my fin in
>> the clouds..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the requirement
>was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from the
>other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just racking

That was permissible ,but they'd bitch if you were more than 20 feet
off.<LOL> Yah, they not only expected you to roll out on the proper
heading +/-10, but continue the roll right into the 360 in the other
direction...unless you wanted to make it a 720<:-)) AND we did have
to do 720s at 60 degrees. ALL of this while maintaining PTS standards
for altitude, bank, and headings.

BTW if you did the roll out and into the other direction properly
you'd hit the wake every time you came around on the 720.

>my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for the PRIVATE!!
>:-))
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 14th 08, 01:32 AM

Roger wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:23:02 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Roger wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>>>>> reality....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>>>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>>>>> proficient
>>>>> ant not just current.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>>>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>>>>>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>>>>>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>>>>>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>>>>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
>>>>> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
>>>>> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
>>>>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming
>>>>> up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
>>>>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
>>>>> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
>>>>> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
>>>>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
>>>>> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so
>>>>> they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>>>>
>>>>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
>>>>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>>>>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>>>>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
>>>>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
>>>>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
>>>>> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying
>>>>> far later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me
>>>>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end
>>>>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where
>>>>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed
>>>>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and
>>>>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>>>>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>>>>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came but
>>>>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did
>>>>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured
>>>>> had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured
>>>>> that I knew the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he
>>>>> could even if he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I
>>>>> couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told me that this should
>>>>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for
>>>>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
>>>>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
>>>>> the Deb.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.
>>>>
>>> Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins, some
>>> hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember filing and
>>> putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so afraid to
>>> deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my fin in
>>> the clouds..
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the requirement
>> was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from the
>> other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just racking
>
> That was permissible ,but they'd bitch if you were more than 20 feet
> off.<LOL> Yah, they not only expected you to roll out on the proper
> heading +/-10, but continue the roll right into the 360 in the other
> direction...unless you wanted to make it a 720<:-)) AND we did have
> to do 720s at 60 degrees. ALL of this while maintaining PTS standards
> for altitude, bank, and headings.
>
> BTW if you did the roll out and into the other direction properly
> you'd hit the wake every time you came around on the 720.
>
>> my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for the PRIVATE!!
>> :-))
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
Yeah, it was fun seeing the look on the student's faces as they got it
right and hit the wake.
In acro, you can do the same thing in a perfect loop on a calm day.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Peter Dohm

March 14th 08, 01:55 AM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
--------some snipped----------
>
> Yup and half standard when you get any where near the airport. (Time
> for a PAR<g>)
>>
I had wonderedl whether those were even still available.

Peter

Roger[_4_]

March 14th 08, 02:51 AM

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:32:46 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:

>Mr. BIG HEAD, you've lost a star and the Mr.
>You now just *Big Head*, you make too many
>mistakes.
>
>On Mar 13, 11:42 am, wrote:
>> On Mar 13, 1:19 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>Night flying, IFR initiation, in good VFR the OUTSIDE
>is peripheral vision, if you ever really flew an airplane.

Night flying VFR is the same as day VFR when finding the horizon at
least in most of the country. With IFR initiation peripheral vision
can get you into a whole lot of trouble including a beautiful shade of
green. Flicker vertigo is something to behold.

>
>> They need to see what the horizon is up to, not what
>> instruments are indicating. A glance at the ASI and altimeter every
>> few seconds is in order, but they're not to refer to the AI constantly
>> for steep turns.
>
>How the **** do you set-up to a 60 bank?
>and maintain constant altitude?

Look ahead, check the AI as you roll up to 60 degrees and pull back
on the yoke as you look back outside. Get the position of the nose on
the horizon and bank burned in your memory. Keep glancing back to the
AI for confirmation. you will eventually (with practice) find the
view outside pretty much stays at that the AI says. You add power to
maintain altitude. Again, practice will tell you how much. This is
confirmed by glancing at the ALTIMETER, NOT the VSI which is a TREND
instrument. If the VSI is showing movement you are already well
behind the airplane. The sensation created by rolling into a 2G turn
is one that many pilots dislike and it's not something you normally
start out doing 20 or 30 in a row.

>
>> We've had students who were all over the sky, chasing
>> instrument needles, so we sometimes cover up the whole panel and make
>> them do it by looking outside; the airplane settles down and behaves
>> itself. Amazing.

I'd not want to do away with the entire panel, BUT I have found many
Cherokee and Cessna pilots flying the Deb will end up in a PIO with in
just a few seconds. We'll be doing 2 Geeeesss out of the bottom and
ZEEeeROoooo over the top. All I have to do is tell them to quit
looking at the VSI and look out the windshield. I'll tell them when
to stop the horizon from going up and down. OK? Keep the horizon
right where you see it now. Glance at the altimeter. Check the
horizon position. OK glance at the altimeter again. Did it move up or
down? If up, just lower the nose a _little_bit_ if it went down, just
raise the nose a _little_bit. That's usually all it takes. The vast
majority of the time They are flying by the VSI and you can't do that
in a quick airplane. I can put it through the 2 Gs out of the
bottom and zero over the top while keeping the VSI steady. (Man, what
a ride<g>)

>
>No that's pure BS.
>
>> This is standard Canadian PPL curriculum, and the US wouldn't
>> be much different.
>> Dan
>
>Dan you don't even know what an Attitude Indicator does,
>otherwise you would have opined on my question.
>
>I'll leave *Big Head* Dan with one star, but probationary.
>Ken
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

skym

March 14th 08, 04:26 AM

On Mar 13, 8:44*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> skym wrote:
> > * I guess my original question was really "how much of a comfort
> > factor, if any, is a coordinated turn vs a slip or skid while turning
> > at that point in the approach?"
>
> Your "comfort factor" widens as you gain experience through exposure.
>
> As you fly each approach and actually see and feel how the airplane
> responds in various situations you will begin to feel more comfortable.
> One thing that will help you is to leave the aerodynamics thinking on
> the ground. Do your theory between flights. Not doing this can result in
> you over working the problem. Just sit back, fly the airplane, and pay
> attention to what's happening as you do this. I think you'll find that
> each approach will get better generally. You will have some plateaus
> where it all seems to go to hell, but hang in there.
>
> One thing about approaches. Keep your main attention outside the
> airplane. Don't over concentrate on the panel. Do your instrument
> checking quickly and peripherally as you scan the horizon and your
> visual positioning on the approach. Don't get all hung up on what the
> ADI is doing. Your main attention at pattern altitude on down should be
> NOSE ATTITUDE and VISUAL POSITIONING. Once you get used to this, you are
> shortening the list of items on your multi-tasking list and your comfort
> zone will widen for you.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Dudley,
Thanks. Very helpful.

Roger[_4_]

March 14th 08, 08:03 AM

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:32:13 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:23:02 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Roger wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>>>>>> reality....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>>>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>>>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>>>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>>>>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>>>>>> proficient
>>>>>> ant not just current.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>>>>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>>>>>>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>>>>>>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>>>>>>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>>>>>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
>>>>>> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
>>>>>> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
>>>>>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming
>>>>>> up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
>>>>>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
>>>>>> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
>>>>>> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
>>>>>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
>>>>>> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so
>>>>>> they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
>>>>>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>>>>>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>>>>>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
>>>>>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
>>>>>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
>>>>>> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying
>>>>>> far later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me
>>>>>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end
>>>>>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where
>>>>>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed
>>>>>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and
>>>>>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>>>>>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>>>>>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came but
>>>>>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did
>>>>>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured
>>>>>> had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured
>>>>>> that I knew the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he
>>>>>> could even if he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I
>>>>>> couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told me that this should
>>>>>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for
>>>>>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
>>>>>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
>>>>>> the Deb.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>>> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.
>>>>>
>>>> Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins, some
>>>> hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember filing and
>>>> putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so afraid to
>>>> deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my fin in
>>>> the clouds..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the requirement
>>> was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from the
>>> other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just racking
>>
>> That was permissible ,but they'd bitch if you were more than 20 feet
>> off.<LOL> Yah, they not only expected you to roll out on the proper
>> heading +/-10, but continue the roll right into the 360 in the other
>> direction...unless you wanted to make it a 720<:-)) AND we did have
>> to do 720s at 60 degrees. ALL of this while maintaining PTS standards
>> for altitude, bank, and headings.
>>
>> BTW if you did the roll out and into the other direction properly
>> you'd hit the wake every time you came around on the 720.
>>
>>> my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for the PRIVATE!!
>>> :-))
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>Yeah, it was fun seeing the look on the student's faces as they got it
>right and hit the wake.
>In acro, you can do the same thing in a perfect loop on a calm day.
>:-))

Last time I did a loop was in a G-III and that was years ago. Used a
wee bit more space than a Decathlon. <:-)) OTOH my aerobatic
experience doesn't extend beyond the basic stuff. Now I'd be happy
just go be able to go fly.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 14th 08, 10:54 AM

Roger wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:32:13 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Roger wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:23:02 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>>>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>>>>>>> reality....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>>>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>>>>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>>>>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>>>>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>>>>>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>>>>>>> proficient
>>>>>>> ant not just current.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>>>>>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Practical Test Standard requires the
>>>>>>>> demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
>>>>>>>> bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
>>>>>>>> not going to be 2g in my plane.
>>>>>>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
>>>>>>> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
>>>>>>> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
>>>>>>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming
>>>>>>> up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
>>>>>>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
>>>>>>> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
>>>>>>> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
>>>>>>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
>>>>>>> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so
>>>>>>> they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
>>>>>>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>>>>>>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>>>>>>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
>>>>>>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
>>>>>>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
>>>>>>> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying
>>>>>>> far later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me
>>>>>>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end
>>>>>>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where
>>>>>>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed
>>>>>>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and
>>>>>>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>>>>>>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>>>>>>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came but
>>>>>>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did
>>>>>>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured
>>>>>>> had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured
>>>>>>> that I knew the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he
>>>>>>> could even if he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I
>>>>>>> couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told me that this should
>>>>>>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for
>>>>>>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
>>>>>>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
>>>>>>> the Deb.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>>>> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins, some
>>>>> hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember filing and
>>>>> putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so afraid to
>>>>> deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my fin in
>>>>> the clouds..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the requirement
>>>> was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from the
>>>> other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just racking
>>> That was permissible ,but they'd bitch if you were more than 20 feet
>>> off.<LOL> Yah, they not only expected you to roll out on the proper
>>> heading +/-10, but continue the roll right into the 360 in the other
>>> direction...unless you wanted to make it a 720<:-)) AND we did have
>>> to do 720s at 60 degrees. ALL of this while maintaining PTS standards
>>> for altitude, bank, and headings.
>>>
>>> BTW if you did the roll out and into the other direction properly
>>> you'd hit the wake every time you came around on the 720.
>>>
>>>> my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for the PRIVATE!!
>>>> :-))
>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>> Yeah, it was fun seeing the look on the student's faces as they got it
>> right and hit the wake.
>> In acro, you can do the same thing in a perfect loop on a calm day.
>> :-))
>
> Last time I did a loop was in a G-III and that was years ago. Used a
> wee bit more space than a Decathlon. <:-)) OTOH my aerobatic
> experience doesn't extend beyond the basic stuff. Now I'd be happy
> just go be able to go fly.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Hang in. You've done great so far.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dylan Smith

March 14th 08, 02:17 PM

On 2008-03-13, Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
> How the **** do you set-up to a 60 bank?
> and maintain constant altitude?

Why so hostile?

It's really not all that hard to get a 60 degree bank, +-5 degrees,
merely by looking outside. There's still quite a number of planes that
don't have an attitude indicator at all. Looking out the window is the
only way to judge bank angle in that type of aircraft.

Also, in gliders, 60 degree banks are routinely taught (usually,
nibbling at the edge of the stall). The vast majority of gliders do not
have attitude indicators. You look out of the front and judge the angle
of the horizon relative to the aircraft.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 14th 08, 02:48 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:0e51695f-63e5-
:

> Mr. BIG HEAD, you've lost a star and the Mr.
> You now just *Big Head*, you make too many
> mistakes.
>
> On Mar 13, 11:42 am, wrote:
>> On Mar 13, 1:19 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> > An instrument that was stressed for me during
>> > instruction was
this,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator
>>
>> > The 60 degree banked turn (IIRC), did require that
>> > 50' +/- altitude, keeping the ball centered, and
>> > maintaining a constant KIAS with some +power.
>>
>> > When that 50' +/- requirement was spec'd by the
>> > instructor I got fixated on the "rate of climb"
>> > indicator.
>> > Well he smirked and sent my concentration to the
>> > attitude indicator and to learn to use that.
>> > Other pilots have mentioned the attitude indicator
>> > is the most important instrument.
>> > What do you guys think?
>> > Ken
>>
>> We think it shows you have not had any training. PPL
students
>> are told to LOOK OUTSIDE during steep turn training, not to fixate on
>> instruments.
>
> Night flying, IFR initiation, in good VFR the OUTSIDE
> is peripheral vision, if you ever really flew an airplane.

You're an idiot kennie.
>
>> They need to see what the horizon is up to, not what
>> instruments are indicating. A glance at the ASI and altimeter every
>> few seconds is in order, but they're not to refer to the AI
constantly
>> for steep turns.
>
> How the **** do you set-up to a 60 bank?
> and maintain constant altitude?

Why don;t you tell us how you do it, fjukkktard?

>
>> We've had students who were all over the sky, chasing
>> instrument needles, so we sometimes cover up the whole panel and make
>> them do it by looking outside; the airplane settles down and behaves
>> itself. Amazing.
>
> No that's pure BS.
>
>> This is standard Canadian PPL curriculum, and the US wouldn't
>> be much different.
>> Dan
>
> Dan you don't even know what an Attitude Indicator does,

Bwahwahwhahwhahwhahw!

> otherwise you would have opined on my question.
>
> I'll leave *Big Head* Dan with one star, but probationary.

You're not just an idio, you;'re lame.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 14th 08, 02:50 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

>
> He was very strict but friendly with candor and
> very soon I gained a lot of respect for him.
>
> ((His name was Bob Burton, operating out of
> Oshawa Flying Club at that time)).

Thanks.
>

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 14th 08, 03:12 PM

wrote in news:c62e6a9a-5841-4647-a645-
:

> On Mar 13, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> 'big head' Dan, you don't know the function of
>> the primary AI and why it it is prominent, and
>> after reading your 60 deg bank post for 2 days
>> you FAILED to mention the throttle adjustment,
>> to maintain constant KIAS in the bank, inspite
>> of my hints.
>
> Your flight training appears to come entirely from Wikipedia.
> Cut and paste, again.

I still think he's jerking off agains a wll and reading the splatter like
tea leaves.

Bertie

Ken S. Tucker

March 14th 08, 04:11 PM

I think we should restore Dan Thomas to *Mr. Big Head*,
(he get's his star back), see below...

On Mar 13, 3:19 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 13, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > 'big head' Dan, you don't know the function of
> > the primary AI and why it it is prominent, and
> > after reading your 60 deg bank post for 2 days
> > you FAILED to mention the throttle adjustment,
> > to maintain constant KIAS in the bank, inspite
> > of my hints.
>
> Your flight training appears to come entirely from Wikipedia.
> Cut and paste, again. Tell me, now, what is the difference between a
> turn coordinator and a turn and bank indicator? Tell me what apparent
> precession is, versus drift. How is that sort of drift different from
> illusion caused by drift? Why can it be dangerous? Tell me what an
> attitude indicator will read after you level out from an extended
> steep turn, say a minute or two of turning? What keeps the gyro erect
> in an attitude indicator? What's the basic idea behind a laser gyro?
> Why is it harder to do a right-hand steep turn as opposed to left?
> What is P-factor? What is acceleration error? What is Northerly
> turning error? This is all stuff our PPLs get. You have ten minutes.

Many good questions above, but's let's discuss one at
a time.
I'd like to remain on the topic of the Attitude Indicator,
too start, however, the sexy laser gyro has a ref here,
http://www.nuclearabms.info/Sprint.html

I read Roger's input regarding the Attitude Indicator and
his writing parallels experienced pilots and myself,
however *Mr. Big Head* has issues about precession
and drift, that's good questions.

> And once again, you just assert that I don't fly. Well, I was
> out not two hours ago, in my Jodel. When was the last time you flew (a
> real airplane)?

Where I an in BC, you get the bends from driving
cars up and down mountains.

Do you suppose Neil Armstrong got out of his capsule
to correct Von Brauns understanding of the Saturn V?

Speaking for my experience, I pushed the safety limits
as a pilot, got bored, and then the only way to go further
into the envelope was using sims, and models.
Regards
Ken

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 14th 08, 04:22 PM

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

>
> Speaking for my experience, I pushed the safety limits
> as a pilot, got bored, and then the only way to go further
> into the envelope was using sims, and models.
> Regards
> Ken

Let me decode the above for everyone. Ken took a discovery flight and
got scared and went home and played with his computer and toys.

Ken S. Tucker

March 14th 08, 05:08 PM

On Mar 14, 8:22 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> > Speaking for my experience, I pushed the safety limits
> > as a pilot, got bored, and then the only way to go further
> > into the envelope was using sims, and models.
> > Regards
> > Ken
>
> Let me decode the above for everyone. Ken took a discovery flight and
> got scared and went home and played with his computer and toys.

That's about the size of it Mr. "Gigit". Experienced pilots
using my sim's confirm they are realistic, and then have
the pleasure of doing things they can't do in a jet fighter.

I also use model aircraft with calibated catapults.

Do you know you to build a supersonic catapult?

When was the 1st time mankind broke the sound
barrier?
Ken

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 14th 08, 05:12 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:32c4af52-5e04-4717-
:

> On Mar 14, 8:22 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>
>> > Speaking for my experience, I pushed the safety limits
>> > as a pilot, got bored, and then the only way to go further
>> > into the envelope was using sims, and models.
>> > Regards
>> > Ken
>>
>> Let me decode the above for everyone. Ken took a discovery flight and
>> got scared and went home and played with his computer and toys.
>
> That's about the size of it Mr. "Gigit". Experienced pilots
> using my sim's confirm they are realistic, and then have
> the pleasure of doing things they can't do in a jet fighter.
>
> I also use model aircraft with calibated catapults.

Of course you do. that's rubber bands can be tricky.
>
> Do you know you to build a supersonic catapult?

Yes.
>
> When was the 1st time mankind broke the sound
> barrier?

1282.

Bertie

[email protected]

March 14th 08, 05:24 PM

On Mar 14, 10:11 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> Many good questions above, but's let's discuss one at
> a time.
> I'd like to remain on the topic of the Attitude Indicator,
> too start, however, the sexy laser gyro has a ref here,http://www.nuclearabms.info/Sprint.html

So you don't know any of the answers to my questions. You want
to discuss one at a time so you can Google to find the answers. Most
of those are questions that might appear on a PPL written exam.
They're covered in groundschool.
Go ahead. Tell me I don't know anything. It makes no
difference, and it doesn't prove that you have any licenses.

Dan

Ken S. Tucker

March 14th 08, 05:43 PM

On Mar 14, 9:24 am, wrote:
> On Mar 14, 10:11 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Many good questions above, but's let's discuss one at
> > a time.
> > I'd like to remain on the topic of the Attitude Indicator,
> > too start, however, the sexy laser gyro has a ref here,http://www.nuclearabms.info/Sprint.html
>
> So you don't know any of the answers to my questions. You want
> to discuss one at a time so you can Google to find the answers. Most
> of those are questions that might appear on a PPL written exam.
> They're covered in groundschool.
> Go ahead. Tell me I don't know anything. It makes no
> difference, and it doesn't prove that you have any licenses.
> Dan

*Mr Big Head* suppose you have problems with your AI.
(possibly out of sync with other instruments),
What would you do?
Ken

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 14th 08, 05:47 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 14, 9:24 am, wrote:
>> On Mar 14, 10:11 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > Many good questions above, but's let's discuss one at
>> > a time.
>> > I'd like to remain on the topic of the Attitude Indicator,
>> > too start, however, the sexy laser gyro has a ref
>> > here,http://www.nuclearabms.info/Sprint.html
>>
>> So you don't know any of the answers to my questions. You
>> want
>> to discuss one at a time so you can Google to find the answers. Most
>> of those are questions that might appear on a PPL written exam.
>> They're covered in groundschool.
>> Go ahead. Tell me I don't know anything. It makes no
>> difference, and it doesn't prove that you have any licenses.
>> Dan
>
> *Mr Big Head* suppose you have problems with your AI.
> (possibly out of sync with other instruments),
> What would you do?

Get a bigger syringe.

Bertie

Ken S. Tucker

March 14th 08, 06:12 PM

On Mar 14, 9:54 am, Clark > wrote:
> Jim Stewart > wrote :
>
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> On Mar 14, 8:22 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> >> wrote:
> >>> Let me decode the above for everyone. Ken took a discovery flight and
> >>> got scared and went home and played with his computer and toys.
>
> Good one!
>
> >> That's about the size of it Mr. "Gigit". Experienced pilots
> >> using my sim's confirm they are realistic, and then have
> >> the pleasure of doing things they can't do in a jet fighter.
>
> Something like sitting in front of a computer monitor and drinking beer? Yup,
> ya can't do that in a jet...

There is truth in that. We start with coffee, then order a more
stimulating beverage, delivered by a ...(use imagination),
after a few hours getting burned out...we push hard.

> Ok, I filter Ken and his ilk and generally despise responses to him but this
> has gotten way too funny to pass up.

"funny" is good, "depise" is a bit harsh, you have psycho-issues.
I recommend "Plonk", I DO NOT WANT to see you posting a
reply to me, aside from an apology , otherwise ****-OFF>
Regards
Ken

Jim Stewart

March 14th 08, 06:24 PM

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 14th 08, 06:28 PM

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 14, 8:22 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking for my experience, I pushed the safety limits
>>> as a pilot, got bored, and then the only way to go further
>>> into the envelope was using sims, and models.
>>> Regards
>>> Ken
>> Let me decode the above for everyone. Ken took a discovery flight and
>> got scared and went home and played with his computer and toys.
>
> That's about the size of it Mr. "Gigit". Experienced pilots
> using my sim's confirm they are realistic, and then have
> the pleasure of doing things they can't do in a jet fighter.
>
> I also use model aircraft with calibated catapults.
>
> Do you know you to build a supersonic catapult?
>
> When was the 1st time mankind broke the sound
> barrier?
> Ken

Thanks for being honest for once Mr Ken Sucker. At least you finally
admit that you know nothing about real aviation and only play with toys.

As far as building a super sonic catapult I'd have to say no I have no
expereince in that field. But I'm not posting message to Rec.super-sonic
-catapults either. The list of things I don't know is long, I'll admit.
The difference is that I don't post in newsgroups about those things
unless it is a question and then I shut up a read the answers.

[email protected]

March 14th 08, 06:32 PM

On Mar 14, 10:11 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> Where I an in BC, you get the bends from driving
> cars up and down mountains.

Funny thing. I grew up in BC, too, but never got the bends driving up
and down mountains. It ain't possible.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 14th 08, 08:09 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 14, 9:54 am, Clark > wrote:
>> Jim Stewart > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >> On Mar 14, 8:22 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Let me decode the above for everyone. Ken took a discovery flight
>> >>> and got scared and went home and played with his computer and
>> >>> toys.
>>
>> Good one!
>>
>> >> That's about the size of it Mr. "Gigit". Experienced pilots
>> >> using my sim's confirm they are realistic, and then have
>> >> the pleasure of doing things they can't do in a jet fighter.
>>
>> Something like sitting in front of a computer monitor and drinking
>> beer? Yup, ya can't do that in a jet...
>
> There is truth in that. We start with coffee, then order a more
> stimulating beverage, delivered by a ...(use imagination),
> after a few hours getting burned out...we push hard.
>
>> Ok, I filter Ken and his ilk and generally despise responses to him
>> but this has gotten way too funny to pass up.
>
> "funny" is good, "depise" is a bit harsh, you have psycho-issues.
> I recommend "Plonk", I DO NOT WANT to see you posting a
> reply to me, aside from an apology , otherwise ****-OFF>

Nobody cares what you want, fjukktard.

How's that killfile working out, BTW?

Bwahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhhahwha!

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 14th 08, 08:10 PM

wrote in news:e65d8732-f522-4e74-81b1-
:

> On Mar 14, 10:11 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> Where I an in BC, you get the bends from driving
>> cars up and down mountains.
>
> Funny thing. I grew up in BC, too, but never got the bends driving up
> and down mountains. It ain't possible.
>
> Dan
>

Oh god,i missed that one. A thousand monkey typing for a thousand years
couldn't get this many things wrong!

Bertie

george

March 14th 08, 08:18 PM

On Mar 15, 6:08 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> I also use model aircraft with calibated catapults.

Ah. the old 'calibated' technology eh.
Colour me unimpressed

> Do you know you to build a supersonic catapult?

Eh?
>
> When was the 1st time mankind broke the sound
> barrier?

Firing a rifle!
Where's my prize?

george

March 14th 08, 08:19 PM

On Mar 15, 7:32 am, wrote:
> On Mar 14, 10:11 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Where I an in BC, you get the bends from driving
> > cars up and down mountains.
>
> Funny thing. I grew up in BC, too, but never got the bends driving up
> and down mountains. It ain't possible.
>
It's ken. he started bent

WingFlaps

March 14th 08, 10:23 PM

On Mar 15, 7:32*am, wrote:
> On Mar 14, 10:11 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Where I an in BC, you get the bends from driving
> > cars up and down mountains.
>
> *Funny thing. I grew up in BC, too, but never got the bends driving up
> and down mountains. It ain't possible.
>

Err, not completely true -if you were a diver close to saturation and
then quickly went up a mountain? That's why you don't fly after
diving.

Cheers

[email protected]

March 14th 08, 10:59 PM

On Mar 14, 4:23 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:

> Err, not completely true -if you were a diver close to saturation and
> then quickly went up a mountain? That's why you don't fly after
> diving.
>
> Cheers

How do you quickly drive up a mountain? How many mountains have
roads that would allow you to gain lots of altitude at that rate?

On the other hand, flying after diving, as you said, is
certainly asking for trouble. The airplane, especially a non-
pressurized but powerful airplane, can gain altitude very quickly and
cause the bends. Even an airliner with a cabin altitude of no more
than 8000' can do it.

Dan

WingFlaps

March 15th 08, 12:01 AM

On Mar 15, 11:59*am, wrote:
> On Mar 14, 4:23 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > Err, not completely true -if you were a diver close to saturation and
> > then quickly went up a mountain? That's why you don't fly after
> > diving.
>
> > Cheers
>
> * * * How do you quickly drive up a mountain? How many mountains have
> roads that would allow you to gain lots of altitude at that rate?
>
> * * * On the other hand, flying after diving, as you said, is
> certainly asking for trouble. The airplane, especially a non-
> pressurized but powerful airplane, can gain altitude very quickly and
> cause the bends. Even an airliner with a cabin altitude of no more
> than 8000' can do it.
>

Well quicky is relative, 24 hours is the normal time you leave after a
dive before flying. But, how about a nice dive in Hawaii, say 30m for
20mins then jump in your car and go visit the observatory visitor
center at 9000'... ?
Cheers

Ken S. Tucker

March 15th 08, 05:50 AM

On Mar 14, 12:18 pm, george > wrote:
> On Mar 15, 6:08 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > I also use model aircraft with calibated catapults.
>
> Ah. the old 'calibated' technology eh.
> Colour me unimpressed
>
> > Do you know you to build a supersonic catapult?
>
> Eh?
>
>
>
> > When was the 1st time mankind broke the sound
> > barrier?
>
> Firing a rifle!
> Where's my prize?

What about a bull whip, is it true the "crack of the
whip" exceeds the sound barrier?
Ken

WingFlaps

March 15th 08, 10:13 AM

On Mar 15, 6:50*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

>
> What about a bull whip, is it true the "crack of the
> whip" exceeds the sound barrier?
> Ken- Hide quoted text -

Yep, the tip gets to Mach 2.

Cheers

Blueskies

March 15th 08, 01:29 PM

> wrote in message ...
> On Mar 13, 5:21 pm, BillJ > wrote:
>
>> Quit saying stall speed increases with bank. If you insist, add "in a
>> level turn"
>
> But it will increase in descending or climbing turns, too.
>
> Dan
>
>

It all depends on the 'G' the wing is feeling. Doesn't matter what direction the plane is 'headed'...

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 15th 08, 02:09 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:351dd8f9-1527-4ac1-
:

> On Mar 14, 12:18 pm, george > wrote:
>> On Mar 15, 6:08 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > I also use model aircraft with calibated catapults.
>>
>> Ah. the old 'calibated' technology eh.
>> Colour me unimpressed
>>
>> > Do you know you to build a supersonic catapult?
>>
>> Eh?
>>
>>
>>
>> > When was the 1st time mankind broke the sound
>> > barrier?
>>
>> Firing a rifle!
>> Where's my prize?
>
> What about a bull whip, is it true the "crack of the
> whip" exceeds the sound barrier?

So you're going to tell us when the first whip was cracked?

how loud a bang was it when your head cracked, kennie?

Bertie

Vaughn Simon

March 15th 08, 02:25 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> So you're going to tell us when the first whip was cracked?
>
Is it safe to say that it happened at some time before Chuck Yeager soloed?

Vaughn

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 15th 08, 02:27 PM

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> So you're going to tell us when the first whip was cracked?
>>
> Is it safe to say that it happened at some time before Chuck Yeager
> soloed?

Wel, it was before I was born so i have no direct evidence of it.

Bertie
>
>
>
>

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 15th 08, 04:00 PM

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> So you're going to tell us when the first whip was cracked?
>>
> Is it safe to say that it happened at some time before Chuck Yeager soloed?
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>
Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Vaughn Simon

March 15th 08, 07:13 PM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>>
> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))

Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the sound barrier
lived to tell about it?

Vaughn

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 15th 08, 07:37 PM

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
>
> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the sound barrier
> lived to tell about it?
>
> Vaughn
>
>
Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager and he
most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally lost his life in a
crash during the F100 program while working as a test pilot for NORTH
AMERICAN Aviation.

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 15th 08, 07:46 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
>>
>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the sound
>> barrier
>> lived to tell about it?
>>
>> Vaughn
>>
>>
> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager and he
> most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally lost his life in
> a crash during the F100 program while working as a test pilot for
> NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>

There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
compressibility?

Bertie

george

March 15th 08, 08:00 PM

On Mar 15, 5:50 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 14, 12:18 pm, george > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 6:08 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > I also use model aircraft with calibated catapults.
>
> > Ah. the old 'calibated' technology eh.
> > Colour me unimpressed
>
> > > Do you know you to build a supersonic catapult?
>
> > Eh?
>
> > > When was the 1st time mankind broke the sound
> > > barrier?
>
> > Firing a rifle!
> > Where's my prize?
>
> What about a bull whip, is it true the "crack of the
> whip" exceeds the sound barrier?

A whip exceeds Mach1
Your bull exceeds expectation

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 15th 08, 08:27 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the sound
>>> barrier
>>> lived to tell about it?
>>>
>>> Vaughn
>>>
>>>
>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager and he
>> most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally lost his life in
>> a crash during the F100 program while working as a test pilot for
>> NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>>
>
> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
> compressibility?
>
>
> Bertie
There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh broke the
barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if you dig deep
enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the week before in the
prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses sitting at the bar at
Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at the time,
but there is general acceptance in the flight est community that Welch
did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day. His flight test
data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach dive and he did it on his
own call.
Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as he knew
almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my knowledge
anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career on his "reputation".
Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's X1 flight to say he wa the
first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the man!!

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 15th 08, 08:46 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the sound
>>>> barrier
>>>> lived to tell about it?
>>>>
>>>> Vaughn
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager and
>>> he most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally lost his
>>> life in a crash during the F100 program while working as a test
>>> pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>>>
>>
>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
>> compressibility?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
> surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh broke
> the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if you dig
> deep enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the week before in
> the prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses sitting at the bar at
> Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
> The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at the
> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est community that
> Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day. His flight
> test data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach dive and he did it
> on his own call.
> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as he knew
> almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my knowledge
> anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career on his
> "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's X1 flight
> to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
> The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the man!!
>

I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in 46 in
something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not know, but
they weren't interested in advertising it since it wasn't a russian
aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it may have been that.
They did seem to have a fascination for that design as reflected by
some of their own efforts, particularly Lavotchkin and Mig. If anything
should have been capable it would have been the TA 183. No stab trim
though AFAIK.

Ken S. Tucker

March 15th 08, 08:53 PM

On Mar 15, 12:00 pm, george > wrote:
> On Mar 15, 5:50 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 12:18 pm, george > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 15, 6:08 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > I also use model aircraft with calibated catapults.
>
> > > Ah. the old 'calibated' technology eh.
> > > Colour me unimpressed
>
> > > > Do you know you to build a supersonic catapult?
>
> > > Eh?
>
> > > > When was the 1st time mankind broke the sound
> > > > barrier?
>
> > > Firing a rifle!
> > > Where's my prize?
>
> > What about a bull whip, is it true the "crack of the
> > whip" exceeds the sound barrier?
>
> A whip exceeds Mach1
> Your bull exceeds expectation

We have some viable designs for a supersonic
catapult, I'm studying the market for them.
Best so far is to spin up a fly wheel electrically
then engage the stored momentum to pull a
1 lb model to supersonic+ speed and then release
it for free flight.
Unfortunately, it's never been done before on those
specs. If I authorize *****Conception Dynamics*****
****Aerodynamic Division**** to build it then it must
work and be saleable, otherwise the Aero-Div ends
up in red-ink....that's a baddy.
Ken

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 15th 08, 09:17 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:65eae68e-ce50-48f4-
:

> We have some viable designs for a supersonic
> catapult, I'm studying the market for them.
> Best so far is to spin up a fly wheel electrically
> then engage the stored momentum to pull a
> 1 lb model to supersonic+ speed and then release
> it for free flight.
> Unfortunately, it's never been done before on those
> specs. If I authorize *****Conception Dynamics*****
> ****Aerodynamic Division**** to build it then it must
> work and be saleable, otherwise the Aero-Div ends
> up in red-ink....that's a baddy.
> Ken
>

Kook

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 15th 08, 09:27 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
>>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the sound
>>>>> barrier
>>>>> lived to tell about it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Vaughn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager and
>>>> he most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally lost his
>>>> life in a crash during the F100 program while working as a test
>>>> pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>>>>
>>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
>>> compressibility?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
>> surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh broke
>> the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if you dig
>> deep enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the week before in
>> the prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses sitting at the bar at
>> Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
>> The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at the
>> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est community that
>> Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day. His flight
>> test data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach dive and he did it
>> on his own call.
>> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as he knew
>> almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my knowledge
>> anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career on his
>> "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's X1 flight
>> to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
>> The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the man!!
>>
>
>
> I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in 46 in
> something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not know, but
> they weren't interested in advertising it since it wasn't a russian
> aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it may have been that.
> They did seem to have a fascination for that design as reflected by
> some of their own efforts, particularly Lavotchkin and Mig. If anything
> should have been capable it would have been the TA 183. No stab trim
> though AFAIK.

Well, as much as I respect the work of Kurt Tank, I don't think he made
it through Mach 1 with the TA183. There was a ton of fuselage drag on
that thing. Even the Mig 15 which a lot of people believe was loosely
based on Tank's design, couldn't get through Mach 1.
The "barrel planes" just had too much parasite drag .
This having been said, I never quite get to the point on these things
where I never say never :-)) Those were highly secretive times, but the
basic designs don't pass muster with the guys I know who crack the
numbers on the supersonic math :-))
We'll have to ask Tucker. I'm sure he has the answer :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 15th 08, 09:59 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
>>>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the
>>>>>> sound barrier
>>>>>> lived to tell about it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vaughn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager
>>>>> and he most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally lost
>>>>> his life in a crash during the F100 program while working as a
>>>>> test pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>>>>>
>>>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
>>>> compressibility?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
>>> surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh broke
>>> the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if you dig
>>> deep enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the week before
>>> in the prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses sitting at the
>>> bar at Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
>>> The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at the
>>> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est community
>>> that Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day. His
>>> flight test data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach dive and
>>> he did it on his own call.
>>> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as he
>>> knew almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my
>>> knowledge anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career on
>>> his "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's X1
>>> flight to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
>>> The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the man!!
>>>
>>
>>
>> I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in 46 in
>> something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not know,
>> but they weren't interested in advertising it since it wasn't a
>> russian aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it may have
>> been that. They did seem to have a fascination for that design as
>> reflected by some of their own efforts, particularly Lavotchkin and
>> Mig. If anything should have been capable it would have been the TA
>> 183. No stab trim though AFAIK.
>
> Well, as much as I respect the work of Kurt Tank, I don't think he
> made it through Mach 1 with the TA183. There was a ton of fuselage
> drag on that thing. Even the Mig 15 which a lot of people believe was
> loosely based on Tank's design, couldn't get through Mach 1.

No? I thought the mig 15 could do it in a dive.

> The "barrel planes" just had too much parasite drag .

Well, they would have made a shock wave that would have been pretty
nasty, allright.

> This having been said, I never quite get to the point on these things
> where I never say never :-)) Those were highly secretive times, but
> the basic designs don't pass muster with the guys I know who crack the
> numbers on the supersonic math :-))
> We'll have to ask Tucker. I'm sure he has the answer :-))

Good God, no.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 15th 08, 10:08 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
>>>>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the
>>>>>>> sound barrier
>>>>>>> lived to tell about it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vaughn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager
>>>>>> and he most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally lost
>>>>>> his life in a crash during the F100 program while working as a
>>>>>> test pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>>>>>>
>>>>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
>>>>> compressibility?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
>>>> surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh broke
>>>> the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if you dig
>>>> deep enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the week before
>>>> in the prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses sitting at the
>>>> bar at Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
>>>> The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at the
>>>> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est community
>>>> that Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day. His
>>>> flight test data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach dive and
>>>> he did it on his own call.
>>>> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as he
>>>> knew almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my
>>>> knowledge anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career on
>>>> his "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's X1
>>>> flight to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
>>>> The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the man!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in 46 in
>>> something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not know,
>>> but they weren't interested in advertising it since it wasn't a
>>> russian aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it may have
>>> been that. They did seem to have a fascination for that design as
>>> reflected by some of their own efforts, particularly Lavotchkin and
>>> Mig. If anything should have been capable it would have been the TA
>>> 183. No stab trim though AFAIK.
>> Well, as much as I respect the work of Kurt Tank, I don't think he
>> made it through Mach 1 with the TA183. There was a ton of fuselage
>> drag on that thing. Even the Mig 15 which a lot of people believe was
>> loosely based on Tank's design, couldn't get through Mach 1.
>
> No? I thought the mig 15 could do it in a dive.
>
>> The "barrel planes" just had too much parasite drag .
>
> Well, they would have made a shock wave that would have been pretty
> nasty, allright.
>
>> This having been said, I never quite get to the point on these things
>> where I never say never :-)) Those were highly secretive times, but
>> the basic designs don't pass muster with the guys I know who crack the
>> numbers on the supersonic math :-))
>> We'll have to ask Tucker. I'm sure he has the answer :-))
>
> Good God, no.
>
> Bertie
Mig 15 is subsonic as far as I know. The Soviets went super in the 19. I
believe that was their first. The 15 was high end close at around 600+
but to my knowledge they never got it through. Same reason; the high
drag rise would peak and hold at just under mach one.

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 15th 08, 10:24 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
>>>>>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the
>>>>>>>> sound barrier
>>>>>>>> lived to tell about it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vaughn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager
>>>>>>> and he most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally lost
>>>>>>> his life in a crash during the F100 program while working as a
>>>>>>> test pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
>>>>>> compressibility?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
>>>>> surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh
broke
>>>>> the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if you
dig
>>>>> deep enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the week before
>>>>> in the prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses sitting at the
>>>>> bar at Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
>>>>> The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at the
>>>>> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est community
>>>>> that Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day.
His
>>>>> flight test data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach dive and
>>>>> he did it on his own call.
>>>>> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as he
>>>>> knew almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my
>>>>> knowledge anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career on
>>>>> his "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's X1
>>>>> flight to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
>>>>> The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the man!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in 46 in
>>>> something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not
know,
>>>> but they weren't interested in advertising it since it wasn't a
>>>> russian aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it may
have
>>>> been that. They did seem to have a fascination for that design as
>>>> reflected by some of their own efforts, particularly Lavotchkin and
>>>> Mig. If anything should have been capable it would have been the TA
>>>> 183. No stab trim though AFAIK.
>>> Well, as much as I respect the work of Kurt Tank, I don't think he
>>> made it through Mach 1 with the TA183. There was a ton of fuselage
>>> drag on that thing. Even the Mig 15 which a lot of people believe
was
>>> loosely based on Tank's design, couldn't get through Mach 1.
>>
>> No? I thought the mig 15 could do it in a dive.
>>
>>> The "barrel planes" just had too much parasite drag .
>>
>> Well, they would have made a shock wave that would have been pretty
>> nasty, allright.
>>
>>> This having been said, I never quite get to the point on these
things
>>> where I never say never :-)) Those were highly secretive times, but
>>> the basic designs don't pass muster with the guys I know who crack
the
>>> numbers on the supersonic math :-))
>>> We'll have to ask Tucker. I'm sure he has the answer :-))
>>
>> Good God, no.
>>
>> Bertie
> Mig 15 is subsonic as far as I know. The Soviets went super in the 19.
I
> believe that was their first. The 15 was high end close at around 600+
> but to my knowledge they never got it through. Same reason; the high
> drag rise would peak and hold at just under mach one.
>

Well, the fuselage shape would have made an awful mess of buffet around
the wing roots, but the Bell X-1 wouldn't have been an awful lot better
transonic. The TA-183 would have had area rule issues as well, but much
of the wing on that airplane is aft of the fusealge, so they may have
stumbled on a rough equivelant by accident. In any case, the TA 183
would have been capable of some pretty high mach numbers with the 45
degree sweep it had . Mach tuck would have been a problem I reckon,
particularly with the small fixed stab.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 15th 08, 10:36 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
>>>>>>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the
>>>>>>>>> sound barrier
>>>>>>>>> lived to tell about it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vaughn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager
>>>>>>>> and he most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally lost
>>>>>>>> his life in a crash during the F100 program while working as a
>>>>>>>> test pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
>>>>>>> compressibility?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
>>>>>> surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh
> broke
>>>>>> the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if you
> dig
>>>>>> deep enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the week before
>>>>>> in the prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses sitting at the
>>>>>> bar at Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
>>>>>> The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at the
>>>>>> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est community
>>>>>> that Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day.
> His
>>>>>> flight test data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach dive and
>>>>>> he did it on his own call.
>>>>>> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as he
>>>>>> knew almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my
>>>>>> knowledge anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career on
>>>>>> his "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's X1
>>>>>> flight to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
>>>>>> The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the man!!
>>>>>>
>>>>> I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in 46 in
>>>>> something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not
> know,
>>>>> but they weren't interested in advertising it since it wasn't a
>>>>> russian aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it may
> have
>>>>> been that. They did seem to have a fascination for that design as
>>>>> reflected by some of their own efforts, particularly Lavotchkin and
>>>>> Mig. If anything should have been capable it would have been the TA
>>>>> 183. No stab trim though AFAIK.
>>>> Well, as much as I respect the work of Kurt Tank, I don't think he
>>>> made it through Mach 1 with the TA183. There was a ton of fuselage
>>>> drag on that thing. Even the Mig 15 which a lot of people believe
> was
>>>> loosely based on Tank's design, couldn't get through Mach 1.
>>> No? I thought the mig 15 could do it in a dive.
>>>
>>>> The "barrel planes" just had too much parasite drag .
>>> Well, they would have made a shock wave that would have been pretty
>>> nasty, allright.
>>>
>>>> This having been said, I never quite get to the point on these
> things
>>>> where I never say never :-)) Those were highly secretive times, but
>>>> the basic designs don't pass muster with the guys I know who crack
> the
>>>> numbers on the supersonic math :-))
>>>> We'll have to ask Tucker. I'm sure he has the answer :-))
>>> Good God, no.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Mig 15 is subsonic as far as I know. The Soviets went super in the 19.
> I
>> believe that was their first. The 15 was high end close at around 600+
>> but to my knowledge they never got it through. Same reason; the high
>> drag rise would peak and hold at just under mach one.
>>
>
> Well, the fuselage shape would have made an awful mess of buffet around
> the wing roots, but the Bell X-1 wouldn't have been an awful lot better
> transonic. The TA-183 would have had area rule issues as well, but much
> of the wing on that airplane is aft of the fusealge, so they may have
> stumbled on a rough equivelant by accident. In any case, the TA 183
> would have been capable of some pretty high mach numbers with the 45
> degree sweep it had . Mach tuck would have been a problem I reckon,
> particularly with the small fixed stab.
>
> Bertie
>
Bell designed the X1 based on wind tunnel tests on a 50 Caliber Bullet.
The drag curve was almost identical as were the flow patterns. The plan
was to "drive it through" with the brute force of the rockets.
The Tank design had sweep but huge fuselage drag issues. Not sure if the
wings were transonic but that would be a possibility. It would have been
the huge drag issues and subsequent shock drag that would have stopped
the TA183......but who knows really.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan[_10_]

March 15th 08, 10:47 PM

On Mar 15, 6:36 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >>>>>>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the
> >>>>>>>>> sound barrier
> >>>>>>>>> lived to tell about it?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Vaughn
>
> >>>>>>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager
> >>>>>>>> and he most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally lost
> >>>>>>>> his life in a crash during the F100 program while working as a
> >>>>>>>> test pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>
> >>>>>>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
> >>>>>>> compressibility?
>
> >>>>>>> Bertie
> >>>>>> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
> >>>>>> surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh
> > broke
> >>>>>> the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if you
> > dig
> >>>>>> deep enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the week before
> >>>>>> in the prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses sitting at the
> >>>>>> bar at Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
> >>>>>> The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at the
> >>>>>> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est community
> >>>>>> that Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day.
> > His
> >>>>>> flight test data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach dive and
> >>>>>> he did it on his own call.
> >>>>>> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as he
> >>>>>> knew almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my
> >>>>>> knowledge anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career on
> >>>>>> his "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's X1
> >>>>>> flight to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
> >>>>>> The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the man!!
>
> >>>>> I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in 46 in
> >>>>> something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not
> > know,
> >>>>> but they weren't interested in advertising it since it wasn't a
> >>>>> russian aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it may
> > have
> >>>>> been that. They did seem to have a fascination for that design as
> >>>>> reflected by some of their own efforts, particularly Lavotchkin and
> >>>>> Mig. If anything should have been capable it would have been the TA
> >>>>> 183. No stab trim though AFAIK.
> >>>> Well, as much as I respect the work of Kurt Tank, I don't think he
> >>>> made it through Mach 1 with the TA183. There was a ton of fuselage
> >>>> drag on that thing. Even the Mig 15 which a lot of people believe
> > was
> >>>> loosely based on Tank's design, couldn't get through Mach 1.
> >>> No? I thought the mig 15 could do it in a dive.
>
> >>>> The "barrel planes" just had too much parasite drag .
> >>> Well, they would have made a shock wave that would have been pretty
> >>> nasty, allright.
>
> >>>> This having been said, I never quite get to the point on these
> > things
> >>>> where I never say never :-)) Those were highly secretive times, but
> >>>> the basic designs don't pass muster with the guys I know who crack
> > the
> >>>> numbers on the supersonic math :-))
> >>>> We'll have to ask Tucker. I'm sure he has the answer :-))
> >>> Good God, no.
>
> >>> Bertie
> >> Mig 15 is subsonic as far as I know. The Soviets went super in the 19.
> > I
> >> believe that was their first. The 15 was high end close at around 600+
> >> but to my knowledge they never got it through. Same reason; the high
> >> drag rise would peak and hold at just under mach one.
>
> > Well, the fuselage shape would have made an awful mess of buffet around
> > the wing roots, but the Bell X-1 wouldn't have been an awful lot better
> > transonic. The TA-183 would have had area rule issues as well, but much
> > of the wing on that airplane is aft of the fusealge, so they may have
> > stumbled on a rough equivelant by accident. In any case, the TA 183
> > would have been capable of some pretty high mach numbers with the 45
> > degree sweep it had . Mach tuck would have been a problem I reckon,
> > particularly with the small fixed stab.
>
> > Bertie
>
> Bell designed the X1 based on wind tunnel tests on a 50 Caliber Bullet.
> The drag curve was almost identical as were the flow patterns. The plan
> was to "drive it through" with the brute force of the rockets.
> The Tank design had sweep but huge fuselage drag issues. Not sure if the
> wings were transonic but that would be a possibility. It would have been
> the huge drag issues and subsequent shock drag that would have stopped
> the TA183......but who knows really.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

...and the 50 cal remains the best anti-everything small arms known to
man.

John Browning's design is still at work on helicopters, tanks, APCs,
et al.

Not a bad run...

Ken S. Tucker

March 15th 08, 10:48 PM

On Mar 15, 1:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
> >>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
> >>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the sound
> >>>>> barrier
> >>>>> lived to tell about it?
>
> >>>>> Vaughn
>
> >>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager and
> >>>> he most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally lost his
> >>>> life in a crash during the F100 program while working as a test
> >>>> pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>
> >>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
> >>> compressibility?
>
> >>> Bertie
> >> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
> >> surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh broke
> >> the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if you dig
> >> deep enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the week before in
> >> the prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses sitting at the bar at
> >> Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
> >> The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at the
> >> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est community that
> >> Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day. His flight
> >> test data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach dive and he did it
> >> on his own call.
> >> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as he knew
> >> almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my knowledge
> >> anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career on his
> >> "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's X1 flight
> >> to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
> >> The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the man!!
>
> > I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in 46 in
> > something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not know, but
> > they weren't interested in advertising it since it wasn't a russian
> > aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it may have been that.
> > They did seem to have a fascination for that design as reflected by
> > some of their own efforts, particularly Lavotchkin and Mig. If anything
> > should have been capable it would have been the TA 183. No stab trim
> > though AFAIK.
>
> Well, as much as I respect the work of Kurt Tank, I don't think he made
> it through Mach 1 with the TA183. There was a ton of fuselage drag on
> that thing. Even the Mig 15 which a lot of people believe was loosely
> based on Tank's design, couldn't get through Mach 1.
> The "barrel planes" just had too much parasite drag .
> This having been said, I never quite get to the point on these things
> where I never say never :-)) Those were highly secretive times, but the
> basic designs don't pass muster with the guys I know who crack the
> numbers on the supersonic math :-))
> We'll have to ask Tucker. I'm sure he has the answer :-))
> Dudley Henriques

Ok Mr. Dud, It seems probable to me that a Me-163
could exceed Mach 1 in a dive, and likely did.

But to improve on the story, the Ruskies captured
a lot of V2's that could launch a 1 ton warhead to
Mach 3. So I figure it's pretty easy to replace a 1 ton
warhead with a 1 ton capsule that contains a man,
and could soft land.

Following the Sputnik motivation, the US took
Von Brauns modified Redstone missile which
was a souped up V2 and did sub-orbitals with
men in Project Mercury.

The Ruskies are careful but quick, so I figure
they were doing manned sub orbitals in 1946,
using V2's at Mach 3.
Additionally, they were very fast to do manned
orbital flight, so they had an experience base,
that costed America $billions to catch up to.

Next, does anyone know what a cooked chink
looks like?
Returning to Roswell.
As it happens the oriental is a highly intelligent
person in a small body, makes a perfect cosmo-
naut.
So the USSR puts a couple of chinks into an
orbital craft, hits the button, lights the engines
and something went wrong....the fella's landed
near Roswell, following an anomalous excess
heat re-entry.
Do you know what a chink looks like following
an anomalous excessive heat re-entry, ie
roasted chinks?
Well I do.
I visited the Roswell Museum, and there they
had on display "roasted chinks".
Ken
PS: If any person's of the oriental persuasion
read my post please understand all the racial
remarks were with deep respect to those fine
men.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 15th 08, 10:51 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:f-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the
>>>>>>>>>> sound barrier
>>>>>>>>>> lived to tell about it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vaughn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before
Yeager
>>>>>>>>> and he most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally
lost
>>>>>>>>> his life in a crash during the F100 program while working as a
>>>>>>>>> test pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
>>>>>>>> compressibility?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
>>>>>>> surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh
>> broke
>>>>>>> the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if you
>> dig
>>>>>>> deep enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the week
before
>>>>>>> in the prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses sitting at
the
>>>>>>> bar at Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
>>>>>>> The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at
the
>>>>>>> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est
community
>>>>>>> that Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day.
>> His
>>>>>>> flight test data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach dive
and
>>>>>>> he did it on his own call.
>>>>>>> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as
he
>>>>>>> knew almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my
>>>>>>> knowledge anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career
on
>>>>>>> his "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's
X1
>>>>>>> flight to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
>>>>>>> The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the
man!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in 46
in
>>>>>> something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not
>> know,
>>>>>> but they weren't interested in advertising it since it wasn't a
>>>>>> russian aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it may
>> have
>>>>>> been that. They did seem to have a fascination for that design
as
>>>>>> reflected by some of their own efforts, particularly Lavotchkin
and
>>>>>> Mig. If anything should have been capable it would have been the
TA
>>>>>> 183. No stab trim though AFAIK.
>>>>> Well, as much as I respect the work of Kurt Tank, I don't think he
>>>>> made it through Mach 1 with the TA183. There was a ton of fuselage
>>>>> drag on that thing. Even the Mig 15 which a lot of people believe
>> was
>>>>> loosely based on Tank's design, couldn't get through Mach 1.
>>>> No? I thought the mig 15 could do it in a dive.
>>>>
>>>>> The "barrel planes" just had too much parasite drag .
>>>> Well, they would have made a shock wave that would have been pretty
>>>> nasty, allright.
>>>>
>>>>> This having been said, I never quite get to the point on these
>> things
>>>>> where I never say never :-)) Those were highly secretive times,
but
>>>>> the basic designs don't pass muster with the guys I know who crack
>> the
>>>>> numbers on the supersonic math :-))
>>>>> We'll have to ask Tucker. I'm sure he has the answer :-))
>>>> Good God, no.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Mig 15 is subsonic as far as I know. The Soviets went super in the
19.
>> I
>>> believe that was their first. The 15 was high end close at around
600+
>>> but to my knowledge they never got it through. Same reason; the high
>>> drag rise would peak and hold at just under mach one.
>>>
>>
>> Well, the fuselage shape would have made an awful mess of buffet
around
>> the wing roots, but the Bell X-1 wouldn't have been an awful lot
better
>> transonic. The TA-183 would have had area rule issues as well, but
much
>> of the wing on that airplane is aft of the fusealge, so they may have
>> stumbled on a rough equivelant by accident. In any case, the TA 183
>> would have been capable of some pretty high mach numbers with the 45
>> degree sweep it had . Mach tuck would have been a problem I reckon,
>> particularly with the small fixed stab.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> Bell designed the X1 based on wind tunnel tests on a 50 Caliber
Bullet.
> The drag curve was almost identical as were the flow patterns. The
plan
> was to "drive it through" with the brute force of the rockets.
> The Tank design had sweep but huge fuselage drag issues. Not sure if
the
> wings were transonic but that would be a possibility. It would have
been
> the huge drag issues and subsequent shock drag that would have stopped
> the TA183......but who knows really.

Well, exactly, The F86, while a bit more slender was less than ideal
too. Not sure which airfoil they used on the TA 183, but it looks pretty
slender. That much sweep would have dealt with compresibility pretty
handily, but as you say the fusealge would have done it no favors. Every
airplane has difficulties in the transonic region but some designers
have ammeliorated them to the point where they are negligable with
various tricks. Kelly Johnson had a supersonic jet fighter. a canard, on
the drawing board at one stage during the war. I'm not sure why it was
abandoned, but, like most of those abandoned projects, it was probably
be outstripped by some other technology. Probably stuff they got from
Lippisch and Messerschmidt.

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 15th 08, 10:54 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 15, 1:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>> >>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
>> >>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the
>> >>>>> sound barrier
>> >>>>> lived to tell about it?
>>
>> >>>>> Vaughn
>>
>> >>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager
>> >>>> and he most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally lost
>> >>>> his life in a crash during the F100 program while working as a
>> >>>> test pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>>
>> >>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
>> >>> compressibility?
>>
>> >>> Bertie
>> >> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
>> >> surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh
>> >> broke the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if
>> >> you dig deep enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the
>> >> week before in the prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses
>> >> sitting at the bar at Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
>> >> The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at the
>> >> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est community
>> >> that Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day.
>> >> His flight test data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach dive
>> >> and he did it on his own call.
>> >> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as he
>> >> knew almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my
>> >> knowledge anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career on
>> >> his "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's X1
>> >> flight to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
>> >> The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the man!!
>>
>> > I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in 46 in
>> > something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not
>> > know, but they weren't interested in advertising it since it wasn't
>> > a russian aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it may
>> > have been that. They did seem to have a fascination for that
>> > design as reflected by some of their own efforts, particularly
>> > Lavotchkin and Mig. If anything should have been capable it would
>> > have been the TA 183. No stab trim though AFAIK.
>>
>> Well, as much as I respect the work of Kurt Tank, I don't think he
>> made it through Mach 1 with the TA183. There was a ton of fuselage
>> drag on that thing. Even the Mig 15 which a lot of people believe was
>> loosely based on Tank's design, couldn't get through Mach 1.
>> The "barrel planes" just had too much parasite drag .
>> This having been said, I never quite get to the point on these things
>> where I never say never :-)) Those were highly secretive times, but
>> the basic designs don't pass muster with the guys I know who crack
>> the numbers on the supersonic math :-))
>> We'll have to ask Tucker. I'm sure he has the answer :-))
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Ok Mr. Dud, It seems probable to me that a Me-163
> could exceed Mach 1 in a dive, and likely did.

Nope, you're an idiot.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 15th 08, 11:16 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Mar 15, 1:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
>>>>>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the
>>>>>>>> sound barrier
>>>>>>>> lived to tell about it?
>>>>>>>> Vaughn
>>>>>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager
>>>>>>> and he most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally lost
>>>>>>> his life in a crash during the F100 program while working as a
>>>>>>> test pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>>>>>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
>>>>>> compressibility?
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
>>>>> surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh
>>>>> broke the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if
>>>>> you dig deep enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the
>>>>> week before in the prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses
>>>>> sitting at the bar at Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
>>>>> The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at the
>>>>> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est community
>>>>> that Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day.
>>>>> His flight test data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach dive
>>>>> and he did it on his own call.
>>>>> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as he
>>>>> knew almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my
>>>>> knowledge anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career on
>>>>> his "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's X1
>>>>> flight to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
>>>>> The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the man!!
>>>> I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in 46 in
>>>> something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not
>>>> know, but they weren't interested in advertising it since it wasn't
>>>> a russian aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it may
>>>> have been that. They did seem to have a fascination for that
>>>> design as reflected by some of their own efforts, particularly
>>>> Lavotchkin and Mig. If anything should have been capable it would
>>>> have been the TA 183. No stab trim though AFAIK.
>>> Well, as much as I respect the work of Kurt Tank, I don't think he
>>> made it through Mach 1 with the TA183. There was a ton of fuselage
>>> drag on that thing. Even the Mig 15 which a lot of people believe was
>>> loosely based on Tank's design, couldn't get through Mach 1.
>>> The "barrel planes" just had too much parasite drag .
>>> This having been said, I never quite get to the point on these things
>>> where I never say never :-)) Those were highly secretive times, but
>>> the basic designs don't pass muster with the guys I know who crack
>>> the numbers on the supersonic math :-))
>>> We'll have to ask Tucker. I'm sure he has the answer :-))
>>> Dudley Henriques
>> Ok Mr. Dud, It seems probable to me that a Me-163
>> could exceed Mach 1 in a dive, and likely did.
>
>
> Nope, you're an idiot.
>
>
> Bertie

I wonder if Mr. Tucker realizes that by the time the 163 got high enough
to "dive" it became a glider :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 16th 08, 12:04 AM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> news:575932e0-ef5f-4870-be93-43f2005fc961
@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Mar 15, 1:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
>>>>>>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the
>>>>>>>>> sound barrier
>>>>>>>>> lived to tell about it?
>>>>>>>>> Vaughn
>>>>>>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager
>>>>>>>> and he most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally
lost
>>>>>>>> his life in a crash during the F100 program while working as a
>>>>>>>> test pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>>>>>>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
>>>>>>> compressibility?
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
>>>>>> surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh
>>>>>> broke the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if
>>>>>> you dig deep enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the
>>>>>> week before in the prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses
>>>>>> sitting at the bar at Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
>>>>>> The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at
the
>>>>>> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est community
>>>>>> that Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day.
>>>>>> His flight test data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach
dive
>>>>>> and he did it on his own call.
>>>>>> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as he
>>>>>> knew almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my
>>>>>> knowledge anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career
on
>>>>>> his "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's
X1
>>>>>> flight to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
>>>>>> The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the man!!
>>>>> I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in 46
in
>>>>> something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not
>>>>> know, but they weren't interested in advertising it since it
wasn't
>>>>> a russian aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it may
>>>>> have been that. They did seem to have a fascination for that
>>>>> design as reflected by some of their own efforts, particularly
>>>>> Lavotchkin and Mig. If anything should have been capable it would
>>>>> have been the TA 183. No stab trim though AFAIK.
>>>> Well, as much as I respect the work of Kurt Tank, I don't think he
>>>> made it through Mach 1 with the TA183. There was a ton of fuselage
>>>> drag on that thing. Even the Mig 15 which a lot of people believe
was
>>>> loosely based on Tank's design, couldn't get through Mach 1.
>>>> The "barrel planes" just had too much parasite drag .
>>>> This having been said, I never quite get to the point on these
things
>>>> where I never say never :-)) Those were highly secretive times, but
>>>> the basic designs don't pass muster with the guys I know who crack
>>>> the numbers on the supersonic math :-))
>>>> We'll have to ask Tucker. I'm sure he has the answer :-))
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Ok Mr. Dud, It seems probable to me that a Me-163
>>> could exceed Mach 1 in a dive, and likely did.
>>
>>
>> Nope, you're an idiot.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I wonder if Mr. Tucker realizes that by the time the 163 got high
enough
> to "dive" it became a glider :-))
>

By the time Tucker gets high enough to dive he bcomes a boob.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 16th 08, 12:06 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>> news:575932e0-ef5f-4870-be93-43f2005fc961
> @s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>>>> On Mar 15, 1:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the
>>>>>>>>>> sound barrier
>>>>>>>>>> lived to tell about it?
>>>>>>>>>> Vaughn
>>>>>>>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager
>>>>>>>>> and he most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally
> lost
>>>>>>>>> his life in a crash during the F100 program while working as a
>>>>>>>>> test pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>>>>>>>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
>>>>>>>> compressibility?
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
>>>>>>> surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh
>>>>>>> broke the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if
>>>>>>> you dig deep enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the
>>>>>>> week before in the prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses
>>>>>>> sitting at the bar at Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
>>>>>>> The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at
> the
>>>>>>> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est community
>>>>>>> that Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day.
>>>>>>> His flight test data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach
> dive
>>>>>>> and he did it on his own call.
>>>>>>> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as he
>>>>>>> knew almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my
>>>>>>> knowledge anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career
> on
>>>>>>> his "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's
> X1
>>>>>>> flight to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
>>>>>>> The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the man!!
>>>>>> I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in 46
> in
>>>>>> something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not
>>>>>> know, but they weren't interested in advertising it since it
> wasn't
>>>>>> a russian aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it may
>>>>>> have been that. They did seem to have a fascination for that
>>>>>> design as reflected by some of their own efforts, particularly
>>>>>> Lavotchkin and Mig. If anything should have been capable it would
>>>>>> have been the TA 183. No stab trim though AFAIK.
>>>>> Well, as much as I respect the work of Kurt Tank, I don't think he
>>>>> made it through Mach 1 with the TA183. There was a ton of fuselage
>>>>> drag on that thing. Even the Mig 15 which a lot of people believe
> was
>>>>> loosely based on Tank's design, couldn't get through Mach 1.
>>>>> The "barrel planes" just had too much parasite drag .
>>>>> This having been said, I never quite get to the point on these
> things
>>>>> where I never say never :-)) Those were highly secretive times, but
>>>>> the basic designs don't pass muster with the guys I know who crack
>>>>> the numbers on the supersonic math :-))
>>>>> We'll have to ask Tucker. I'm sure he has the answer :-))
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> Ok Mr. Dud, It seems probable to me that a Me-163
>>>> could exceed Mach 1 in a dive, and likely did.
>>>
>>> Nope, you're an idiot.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> I wonder if Mr. Tucker realizes that by the time the 163 got high
> enough
>> to "dive" it became a glider :-))
>>
>
> By the time Tucker gets high enough to dive he bcomes a boob.
>
> Bertie
Yeah, but I believe he has a head start! :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 16th 08, 12:17 AM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:3LudnfZqkqMG-
:
>>>
>>
>> By the time Tucker gets high enough to dive he bcomes a boob.
>>
>> Bertie
> Yeah, but I believe he has a head start! :-)
>

You gotta wonder how someone gets that stupid, really

Bertie

Ken S. Tucker

March 16th 08, 12:34 AM

On Mar 15, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >>> news:575932e0-ef5f-4870-be93-43f2005fc961
> > @s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> >>>> On Mar 15, 1:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
> >>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
> >>>>>>>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the
> >>>>>>>>>> sound barrier
> >>>>>>>>>> lived to tell about it?
> >>>>>>>>>> Vaughn
> >>>>>>>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager
> >>>>>>>>> and he most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally
> > lost
> >>>>>>>>> his life in a crash during the F100 program while working as a
> >>>>>>>>> test pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
> >>>>>>>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
> >>>>>>>> compressibility?
> >>>>>>>> Bertie
> >>>>>>> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
> >>>>>>> surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh
> >>>>>>> broke the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if
> >>>>>>> you dig deep enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the
> >>>>>>> week before in the prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses
> >>>>>>> sitting at the bar at Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
> >>>>>>> The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at
> > the
> >>>>>>> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est community
> >>>>>>> that Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day.
> >>>>>>> His flight test data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach
> > dive
> >>>>>>> and he did it on his own call.
> >>>>>>> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as he
> >>>>>>> knew almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my
> >>>>>>> knowledge anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career
> > on
> >>>>>>> his "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's
> > X1
> >>>>>>> flight to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
> >>>>>>> The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the man!!
> >>>>>> I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in 46
> > in
> >>>>>> something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not
> >>>>>> know, but they weren't interested in advertising it since it
> > wasn't
> >>>>>> a russian aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it may
> >>>>>> have been that. They did seem to have a fascination for that
> >>>>>> design as reflected by some of their own efforts, particularly
> >>>>>> Lavotchkin and Mig. If anything should have been capable it would
> >>>>>> have been the TA 183. No stab trim though AFAIK.
> >>>>> Well, as much as I respect the work of Kurt Tank, I don't think he
> >>>>> made it through Mach 1 with the TA183. There was a ton of fuselage
> >>>>> drag on that thing. Even the Mig 15 which a lot of people believe
> > was
> >>>>> loosely based on Tank's design, couldn't get through Mach 1.
> >>>>> The "barrel planes" just had too much parasite drag .
> >>>>> This having been said, I never quite get to the point on these
> > things
> >>>>> where I never say never :-)) Those were highly secretive times, but
> >>>>> the basic designs don't pass muster with the guys I know who crack
> >>>>> the numbers on the supersonic math :-))
> >>>>> We'll have to ask Tucker. I'm sure he has the answer :-))
> >>>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>>> Ok Mr. Dud, It seems probable to me that a Me-163
> >>>> could exceed Mach 1 in a dive, and likely did.
>
> >>> Nope, you're an idiot.
>
> >>> Bertie
> >> I wonder if Mr. Tucker realizes that by the time the 163 got high
> > enough
> >> to "dive" it became a glider :-))
>
> > By the time Tucker gets high enough to dive he bcomes a boob.
>
> > Bertie
>
> Yeah, but I believe he has a head start! :-)

Hey Dud, bertie is an outright ****ing queer,
I've noticed you kiss his asshole alot, why?

Anyway, the Me-163C was certainly able
to do Mach+ in a shallow dive. Hell, even
the twinky straight winged CF-100 could
do that with junky canucky jets, and canux
knew ****-all about flying (still don't).
-
> Dudley Henriques

One of the reasons why I pulled your last star
is because you're an ass-kisser as bertie demo'd.
Ken

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 16th 08, 12:43 AM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 15, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> >>> news:575932e0-ef5f-4870-be93-43f2005fc961
>> > @s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>> >>>> On Mar 15, 1:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>> >>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>> >>>>>>>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier
>> >>>>>>>>>>> :-))
>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through
>> >>>>>>>>>> the sound barrier
>> >>>>>>>>>> lived to tell about it?
>> >>>>>>>>>> Vaughn
>> >>>>>>>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before
>> >>>>>>>>> Yeager and he most certainly did live to tell about it. He
>> >>>>>>>>> finally
>> > lost
>> >>>>>>>>> his life in a crash during the F100 program while working
>> >>>>>>>>> as a test pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>> >>>>>>>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
>> >>>>>>>> compressibility?
>> >>>>>>>> Bertie
>> >>>>>>> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues
>> >>>>>>> that surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that
>> >>>>>>> Welsh broke the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in
>> >>>>>>> the X1 if you dig deep enough. Welsh said he was going to
>> >>>>>>> attempt it the week before in the prototype F86, and he had a
>> >>>>>>> ton of witnesses sitting at the bar at Pancho's who heard it
>> >>>>>>> when he went through. The AF squelched it due to
>> >>>>>>> considerations in play with Bell at
>> > the
>> >>>>>>> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est
>> >>>>>>> community that Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive
>> >>>>>>> of the day. His flight test data card wasn't programmed for
>> >>>>>>> the high Mach
>> > dive
>> >>>>>>> and he did it on his own call.
>> >>>>>>> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one
>> >>>>>>> as he knew almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and
>> >>>>>>> has to my knowledge anyway, just let it slide as he rode an
>> >>>>>>> entire career
>> > on
>> >>>>>>> his "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised
>> >>>>>>> Yeager's
>> > X1
>> >>>>>>> flight to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL
>> >>>>>>> FLIGHT. The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh
>> >>>>>>> was the man!!
>> >>>>>> I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in
>> >>>>>> 46
>> > in
>> >>>>>> something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not
>> >>>>>> know, but they weren't interested in advertising it since it
>> > wasn't
>> >>>>>> a russian aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it
>> >>>>>> may have been that. They did seem to have a fascination for
>> >>>>>> that design as reflected by some of their own efforts,
>> >>>>>> particularly Lavotchkin and Mig. If anything should have been
>> >>>>>> capable it would have been the TA 183. No stab trim though
>> >>>>>> AFAIK.
>> >>>>> Well, as much as I respect the work of Kurt Tank, I don't think
>> >>>>> he made it through Mach 1 with the TA183. There was a ton of
>> >>>>> fuselage drag on that thing. Even the Mig 15 which a lot of
>> >>>>> people believe
>> > was
>> >>>>> loosely based on Tank's design, couldn't get through Mach 1.
>> >>>>> The "barrel planes" just had too much parasite drag .
>> >>>>> This having been said, I never quite get to the point on these
>> > things
>> >>>>> where I never say never :-)) Those were highly secretive times,
>> >>>>> but the basic designs don't pass muster with the guys I know
>> >>>>> who crack the numbers on the supersonic math :-))
>> >>>>> We'll have to ask Tucker. I'm sure he has the answer :-))
>> >>>>> Dudley Henriques
>> >>>> Ok Mr. Dud, It seems probable to me that a Me-163
>> >>>> could exceed Mach 1 in a dive, and likely did.
>>
>> >>> Nope, you're an idiot.
>>
>> >>> Bertie
>> >> I wonder if Mr. Tucker realizes that by the time the 163 got high
>> > enough
>> >> to "dive" it became a glider :-))
>>
>> > By the time Tucker gets high enough to dive he bcomes a boob.
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> Yeah, but I believe he has a head start! :-)
>
> Hey Dud, bertie is an outright ****ing queer,
> I've noticed you kiss his asshole alot, why?
>
> Anyway, the Me-163C was certainly able
> to do Mach+ in a shallow dive.

No, it wasn;t, fjukkwit.

Hell, even
> the twinky straight winged CF-100 could
> do that with junky canucky jets, and canux
> knew ****-all about flying (still don't).

You're an idiot.
> -
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> One of the reasons why I pulled your last star
> is because you're an ass-kisser as bertie demo'd.

You must be gutted Dudley.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 16th 08, 12:56 AM

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 15, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>>> news:575932e0-ef5f-4870-be93-43f2005fc961
>>> @s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>> On Mar 15, 1:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chuck Yeager wasn't the first through the sound barrier :-))
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but how many of those who preceeded Chuck through the
>>>>>>>>>>>> sound barrier
>>>>>>>>>>>> lived to tell about it?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vaughn
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, the guy who did it did it just the week before Yeager
>>>>>>>>>>> and he most certainly did live to tell about it. He finally
>>> lost
>>>>>>>>>>> his life in a crash during the F100 program while working as a
>>>>>>>>>>> test pilot for NORTH AMERICAN Aviation.
>>>>>>>>>> There's some debate on that, isn't there? Some suspicion of
>>>>>>>>>> compressibility?
>>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>>> There will always be debate on it due to the various issues that
>>>>>>>>> surrounded the incident, but the word is rock solid that Welsh
>>>>>>>>> broke the barrier the week prior to Yeager's attempt in the X1 if
>>>>>>>>> you dig deep enough. Welsh said he was going to attempt it the
>>>>>>>>> week before in the prototype F86, and he had a ton of witnesses
>>>>>>>>> sitting at the bar at Pancho's who heard it when he went through.
>>>>>>>>> The AF squelched it due to considerations in play with Bell at
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> time, but there is general acceptance in the flight est community
>>>>>>>>> that Welch did indeed bust through on his last dive of the day.
>>>>>>>>> His flight test data card wasn't programmed for the high Mach
>>> dive
>>>>>>>>> and he did it on his own call.
>>>>>>>>> Yeager has known that Welsh broke the barrier since day one as he
>>>>>>>>> knew almost everybody who was at Pancho's that day,and has to my
>>>>>>>>> knowledge anyway, just let it slide as he rode an entire career
>>> on
>>>>>>>>> his "reputation". Officially, the AF I believe revised Yeager's
>>> X1
>>>>>>>>> flight to say he wa the first to break Mach one in LEVEL FLIGHT.
>>>>>>>>> The "debate" will probably go on forever, but Welsh was the man!!
>>>>>>>> I read a few years back that the russians may have done it in 46
>>> in
>>>>>>>> something they captured from the germans. what it was I do not
>>>>>>>> know, but they weren't interested in advertising it since it
>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>> a russian aircraft. I think they got ahold of the TA183 and it may
>>>>>>>> have been that. They did seem to have a fascination for that
>>>>>>>> design as reflected by some of their own efforts, particularly
>>>>>>>> Lavotchkin and Mig. If anything should have been capable it would
>>>>>>>> have been the TA 183. No stab trim though AFAIK.
>>>>>>> Well, as much as I respect the work of Kurt Tank, I don't think he
>>>>>>> made it through Mach 1 with the TA183. There was a ton of fuselage
>>>>>>> drag on that thing. Even the Mig 15 which a lot of people believe
>>> was
>>>>>>> loosely based on Tank's design, couldn't get through Mach 1.
>>>>>>> The "barrel planes" just had too much parasite drag .
>>>>>>> This having been said, I never quite get to the point on these
>>> things
>>>>>>> where I never say never :-)) Those were highly secretive times, but
>>>>>>> the basic designs don't pass muster with the guys I know who crack
>>>>>>> the numbers on the supersonic math :-))
>>>>>>> We'll have to ask Tucker. I'm sure he has the answer :-))
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>> Ok Mr. Dud, It seems probable to me that a Me-163
>>>>>> could exceed Mach 1 in a dive, and likely did.
>>>>> Nope, you're an idiot.
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> I wonder if Mr. Tucker realizes that by the time the 163 got high
>>> enough
>>>> to "dive" it became a glider :-))
>>> By the time Tucker gets high enough to dive he bcomes a boob.
>>> Bertie
>> Yeah, but I believe he has a head start! :-)
>
> Hey Dud, bertie is an outright ****ing queer,
> I've noticed you kiss his asshole alot, why?
>
> Anyway, the Me-163C was certainly able
> to do Mach+ in a shallow dive. Hell, even
> the twinky straight winged CF-100 could
> do that with junky canucky jets, and canux
> knew ****-all about flying (still don't).
> -
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> One of the reasons why I pulled your last star
> is because you're an ass-kisser as bertie demo'd.
> Ken
I've noticed your language seems to get worse the more wrong you are Ken :-)

--
Dudley Henriques