Stalls and Thoughts

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

What the hell.....why do we work at teaching stalls and recoveries? It
has gone to stall recognition and avoidance which is good. Does it
teach the proper things? How much of a new students time is spent
flying in slow flight at the low end of the performance envelope?
Isn't that where all the nasty things can happen?
I fly with students that become paranoid when they hear the least
little blip from the stall waring horn, and want to push the nose over
to get airspeed back. They fail to realize the whole point of the
training.
OK Here we go....... I teach slow flight with and without flaps at the
lowest edge of the flight envelope and req

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Mar 14, 11:11*am, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> What the hell.....why do we work at teaching stalls and recoveries? It
> has gone to stall recognition and avoidance which is good. Does it
> teach the proper things? How much of a new students time is spent
> flying in slow flight at the low end of the performance envelope?
> Isn't that where all the nasty things can happen?
> I fly with students that become paranoid when they hear the least
> little blip from the stall waring horn, and want to push the nose over
> to get airspeed back. They fail to realize the whole point of the
> training.
> OK Here we go....... I teach slow flight with and without flaps at the
> lowest edge of the flight envelope and req

what the hell happened?...... and to follow on to the above.....
flight envelope and require my students to make a lot of turns to
headings while holding altitude and airspeed. I'll have them pitch
slightly to nibble on a stall while in the turn and even to go into a
stall and recover back to the nibble area instead of pushing the nose
over and watching the VSI go to 1000fpm and lose 100'+ while the
airspeed goes back up to Vx.
We are learning to avoid a stall when altitude is at a premium either
on approach or on a departure or go-around. How much altitude can be
sacrificed?
What the hell...lets have a donnybrook on the issue and keep things
interesting.
Ol S&B

[Deadstick]

I haven't done any instructing recently, but when I did, I taught slow
flight, stall recognition and avoidance AND stall entry & recovery. I
don't think they have be be exclusive of one another.

Plus I think learning to recognize and avoid stalls is probably a
better risk-management strategy given that it can be easily learned
and mastered by pilots of all skill levels. In principle I agree that
ALL pilots should be fully competent at slow airspeeds and at
recovering from stalls, but I would also tend to say that there's a
lot more that we can teach pilots before we set them free to fly on
their own.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 14, 3:40 pm, Deadstick > wrote:
> I haven't done any instructing recently, but when I did, I taught slow
> flight, stall recognition and avoidance AND stall entry & recovery. I
> don't think they have be be exclusive of one another.
>
> Plus I think learning to recognize and avoid stalls is probably a
> better risk-management strategy given that it can be easily learned
> and mastered by pilots of all skill levels. In principle I agree that
> ALL pilots should be fully competent at slow airspeeds and at
> recovering from stalls, but I would also tend to say that there's a
> lot more that we can teach pilots before we set them free to fly on
> their own.

I think nothing breeds confidence like experience at all edges of the
envelope. Slow flight proficiency is required when you're trying to
squeeze it in somewhere on the backside of the curve.

So I agree that this instruction is valuable and necessary.

Dan Mc

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:16:28 -0700 (PDT), "Ol Shy & Bashful"
> wrote:

>On Mar 14, 11:11*am, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>> What the hell.....why do we work at teaching stalls and recoveries? It
>> has gone to stall recognition and avoidance which is good. Does it
>> teach the proper things? How much of a new students time is spent
>> flying in slow flight at the low end of the performance envelope?
>> Isn't that where all the nasty things can happen?
>> I fly with students that become paranoid when they hear the least
>> little blip from the stall waring horn, and want to push the nose over
>> to get airspeed back. They fail to realize the whole point of the
>> training.
>> OK Here we go....... I teach slow flight with and without flaps at the
>> lowest edge of the flight envelope and req
>
> what the hell happened?...... and to follow on to the above.....
>flight envelope and require my students to make a lot of turns to
>headings while holding altitude and airspeed. I'll have them pitch
>slightly to nibble on a stall while in the turn and even to go into a
>stall and recover back to the nibble area instead of pushing the nose
>over and watching the VSI go to 1000fpm and lose 100'+ while the
>airspeed goes back up to Vx.
>We are learning to avoid a stall when altitude is at a premium either
>on approach or on a departure or go-around. How much altitude can be
>sacrificed?
>What the hell...lets have a donnybrook on the issue and keep things
>interesting.
>Ol S&B

I think all of the above are important and particularly so if the
pilot moves up to high performance or even plans on doing so.
Even in my last flight review we flew around at minimum controllable
airspeed for a while.

To back up, I think only teaching stall avoidance is out right bad and
dangerous. I say that as there are times if I pilot flys enough they
are likely to encounter an inadvertent stall even when playing by the
rules. An unexpected vertical gust in one instance. A very strong
gust from the rear is another . In the latter the wing may not be
stalled or it may be, but the lift has been drastically reduced.
But...flying around for a while in a Bo at Vmc all the while nibbling
at a stall while making shallow turns and holding altitude is quite an
exercise. For one, if it's hanging on the edge of a stall and you use
an aileron to raise a wing you just may stall that wing. which
results in a very fast roll to inverted if the pilot doesn't catch it
with the rudder. The Deb and F33 WANT to drop a wing and spin. Their
stall characteristics are very different than the 150, 172, and
Cherokees used in training. In doing stalls like this they are an
absolutely rudder only airplane. When doing stalls the instructors
from the Air Safety foundation even _block_ the yoke to prevent the
pilot from using the ailerons.

Departure stalls even at full power aren't all that bad and although
abrupt can be done without losing any altitude. Accelerated stalls in
a coordinated turn are pretty much a non event. When the stall breaks
you just let the nose go in the direction it wants by easing off on
the back pressure. Uncoordinated can get interesting, or downright
exciting depending on the pilot. Again, if proficient instinct has
you pointing the nose in the direction it wants to go whether the top
wing is going over or the bottom one is going under. As soon as the
nose it pointed where it wants to go the roll stops and you can
recover but there is absolutely no time to stop and think about
recovery techniques. Approach stalls with gear and flaps down and
the plane becomes a different animal where the pilot has to know what
it's going to do. If you don't it'll show a nasty disposition by
turning around and biting the pilot in the back side leaving teeth
marks. It's going to want to drop a wing and spin. It becomes a
rudder only airplane. Touch an aileron and it will ABRUPTLY roll over
into a spin. These are best practiced at 5,000 or above.

With practice the pilot should be able to hold the plane in a stall
but it's like walking on a tight rope using the rudder for balance.
OTOH if back pressure is released (Don't shove the nose down) at the
first break it'll just fly on out of the stall with little or no loss
of altitude.

From what I've seen in trainers one of the biggest errors is "shoving
the nose down". It depends on the plane and conditions, but normally
the only thing needed to recover is release the back pressure on the
yoke.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 14, 11:50 pm, Roger > wrote:

> with the rudder. The Deb and F33 WANT to drop a wing and spin. Their
> stall characteristics are very different than the 150, 172, and
> Cherokees used in training. In doing stalls like this they are an
> absolutely rudder only airplane. When doing stalls the instructors
> from the Air Safety foundation even _block_ the yoke to prevent the
> pilot from using the ailerons.

The A36 with VGs installed is a kitten -- compared to the straight 35,
which wing will stall abruptly!

> From what I've seen in trainers one of the biggest errors is "shoving
> the nose down". It depends on the plane and conditions, but normally
> the only thing needed to recover is release the back pressure on the
> yoke.

Yep.


Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Roger > wrote in
:


>
> I think all of the above are important and particularly so if the
> pilot moves up to high performance or even plans on doing so.

I agree, but would add high performance flying of any sort to this., but
particularly real short field or other rough stuff. Obvious, I guess..

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Mar 14, 12:16*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
> On Mar 14, 11:11*am, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>
> > What the hell.....why do we work at teaching stalls and recoveries? It
> > has gone to stall recognition and avoidance which is good. Does it
> > teach the proper things? How much of a new students time is spent
> > flying in slow flight at the low end of the performance envelope?
> > Isn't that where all the nasty things can happen?
> > I fly with students that become paranoid when they hear the least
> > little blip from the stall waring horn, and want to push the nose over
> > to get airspeed back. They fail to realize the whole point of the
> > training.
> > OK Here we go....... I teach slow flight with and without flaps at the
> > lowest edge of the flight envelope and req
>
> *what the hell happened?...... and to follow on to the above.....
> flight envelope and require my students to make a lot of turns to
> headings while holding altitude and airspeed. I'll have them pitch
> slightly to nibble on a stall while in the turn and even to go into a
> stall and recover back to the nibble area instead of pushing the nose
> over and watching the VSI go to 1000fpm and lose 100'+ while the
> airspeed goes back up to Vx.

Yup, your approach is certainly consistent with the PTS. Private
pilots are expected to perform slow flight at "an airspeed at which
any further increase in angle of attack, increase in load factor, or
reduction in power, would result in an immediate stall", and recover
from power-off and power-on stalls "with a minimum loss of altitude
appropriate for the airplane".

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 14, 3:40 pm, Deadstick > wrote:
> I haven't done any instructing recently, but when I did, I taught slow
> flight, stall recognition and avoidance AND stall entry & recovery. I
> don't think they have be be exclusive of one another.
>
> Plus I think learning to recognize and avoid stalls is probably a
> better risk-management strategy given that it can be easily learned
> and mastered by pilots of all skill levels. In principle I agree that
> ALL pilots should be fully competent at slow airspeeds and at
> recovering from stalls, but I would also tend to say that there's a
> lot more that we can teach pilots before we set them free to fly on
> their own.

To add to the above comment, it is not the lack of ability to
recognize stalls that got many pilots into trouble, but the ability to
overcome their natural instincts and do the right thing (pitch down,
level wings, ball centered). When there is a tree looming on the
windshield it is awfully tempting to simply pull up or bank away. The
same is true with VFR into IMC. It is not about flying the gauges, but
overcoming their natural senses to do what they already know how to
do. This is a human factors training more than a skill training.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:925e8025-8f81-4991-9a0b-
:

> On Mar 14, 12:16*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>> On Mar 14, 11:11*am, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>>
>> > What the hell.....why do we work at teaching stalls and recoveries?
It
>> > has gone to stall recognition and avoidance which is good. Does it
>> > teach the proper things? How much of a new students time is spent
>> > flying in slow flight at the low end of the performance envelope?
>> > Isn't that where all the nasty things can happen?
>> > I fly with students that become paranoid when they hear the least
>> > little blip from the stall waring horn, and want to push the nose
over
>> > to get airspeed back. They fail to realize the whole point of the
>> > training.
>> > OK Here we go....... I teach slow flight with and without flaps at
the
>> > lowest edge of the flight envelope and req
>>
>> *what the hell happened?...... and to follow on to the above.....
>> flight envelope and require my students to make a lot of turns to
>> headings while holding altitude and airspeed. I'll have them pitch
>> slightly to nibble on a stall while in the turn and even to go into a
>> stall and recover back to the nibble area instead of pushing the nose
>> over and watching the VSI go to 1000fpm and lose 100'+ while the
>> airspeed goes back up to Vx.
>
> Yup, your approach is certainly consistent with the PTS. Private
> pilots are expected to perform slow flight at "an airspeed at which
> any further increase in angle of attack, increase in load factor, or
> reduction in power, would result in an immediate stall", and recover
> from power-off and power-on stalls "with a minimum loss of altitude
> appropriate for the airplane".


There's a difference between being able to demonstrate this and being
comfy or even competent doing it. .


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:16:28 -0700 (PDT), "Ol Shy & Bashful"
> > wrote:
>
>> On Mar 14, 11:11 am, "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote:
>>> What the hell.....why do we work at teaching stalls and recoveries? It
>>> has gone to stall recognition and avoidance which is good. Does it
>>> teach the proper things? How much of a new students time is spent
>>> flying in slow flight at the low end of the performance envelope?
>>> Isn't that where all the nasty things can happen?
>>> I fly with students that become paranoid when they hear the least
>>> little blip from the stall waring horn, and want to push the nose over
>>> to get airspeed back. They fail to realize the whole point of the
>>> training.
>>> OK Here we go....... I teach slow flight with and without flaps at the
>>> lowest edge of the flight envelope and req
>> what the hell happened?...... and to follow on to the above.....
>> flight envelope and require my students to make a lot of turns to
>> headings while holding altitude and airspeed. I'll have them pitch
>> slightly to nibble on a stall while in the turn and even to go into a
>> stall and recover back to the nibble area instead of pushing the nose
>> over and watching the VSI go to 1000fpm and lose 100'+ while the
>> airspeed goes back up to Vx.
>> We are learning to avoid a stall when altitude is at a premium either
>> on approach or on a departure or go-around. How much altitude can be
>> sacrificed?
>> What the hell...lets have a donnybrook on the issue and keep things
>> interesting.
>> Ol S&B
>
> I think all of the above are important and particularly so if the
> pilot moves up to high performance or even plans on doing so.
> Even in my last flight review we flew around at minimum controllable
> airspeed for a while.
>
> To back up, I think only teaching stall avoidance is out right bad and
> dangerous. I say that as there are times if I pilot flys enough they
> are likely to encounter an inadvertent stall even when playing by the
> rules. An unexpected vertical gust in one instance. A very strong
> gust from the rear is another . In the latter the wing may not be
> stalled or it may be, but the lift has been drastically reduced.
> But...flying around for a while in a Bo at Vmc all the while nibbling
> at a stall while making shallow turns and holding altitude is quite an
> exercise. For one, if it's hanging on the edge of a stall and you use
> an aileron to raise a wing you just may stall that wing. which
> results in a very fast roll to inverted if the pilot doesn't catch it
> with the rudder. The Deb and F33 WANT to drop a wing and spin. Their
> stall characteristics are very different than the 150, 172, and
> Cherokees used in training. In doing stalls like this they are an
> absolutely rudder only airplane. When doing stalls the instructors
> from the Air Safety foundation even _block_ the yoke to prevent the
> pilot from using the ailerons.
>
> Departure stalls even at full power aren't all that bad and although
> abrupt can be done without losing any altitude. Accelerated stalls in
> a coordinated turn are pretty much a non event. When the stall breaks
> you just let the nose go in the direction it wants by easing off on
> the back pressure. Uncoordinated can get interesting, or downright
> exciting depending on the pilot. Again, if proficient instinct has
> you pointing the nose in the direction it wants to go whether the top
> wing is going over or the bottom one is going under. As soon as the
> nose it pointed where it wants to go the roll stops and you can
> recover but there is absolutely no time to stop and think about
> recovery techniques. Approach stalls with gear and flaps down and
> the plane becomes a different animal where the pilot has to know what
> it's going to do. If you don't it'll show a nasty disposition by
> turning around and biting the pilot in the back side leaving teeth
> marks. It's going to want to drop a wing and spin. It becomes a
> rudder only airplane. Touch an aileron and it will ABRUPTLY roll over
> into a spin. These are best practiced at 5,000 or above.
>
> With practice the pilot should be able to hold the plane in a stall
> but it's like walking on a tight rope using the rudder for balance.
> OTOH if back pressure is released (Don't shove the nose down) at the
> first break it'll just fly on out of the stall with little or no loss
> of altitude.
>
> From what I've seen in trainers one of the biggest errors is "shoving
> the nose down". It depends on the plane and conditions, but normally
> the only thing needed to recover is release the back pressure on the
> yoke.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com


All good points.
There actually is an argument that can be made about accident stats that
suggests the "avoid the stall through recognition" approach hasn't
been as effective in decreasing the stall/ spin situation as has the
improvement in general aircraft design.
Actually this argument can be made for both the period when spin
training was in effect and during the period where stall recognition has
been stressed.

No matter how this pie is cut, and no matter what side of the argument
one is on, in my opinion there is absolutely no substitute for pilots
seeking out and taking some kind of advanced program after the
certificate has been obtained, that deals directly with extreme unusual
attitude recovery, spins, and advanced stall training.
As an aerobatic instructor, one has the opportunity to fly with all
kinds of pilots who have come through the program; each one taught by a
different instructor. You just wouldn't believe the skill differences in
these pilots. Those coming through a learning curve involving emphasis
on accuracy in stall RECOVERY as opposed to stall recognition, in my
opinion are better prepared and posess a much higher degree of basic
flying skills than their "recognition" counterparts.

The bottom line on this issue is that it's quite simple really. The
deeper a pilot goes into the basics involving flight in the left side of
the envelope, the better that pilot will be.

This reason is the exact reason I stress post license training so strongly.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Denny]

Ahh common Dudley, admit it... The only reason you want the student to
get inverted so's you can dream about pulling through the split S and
bringing those 50's to bear just ahead of the bogey....

denny

[[email protected]]

> How much of a new students time is spent
> flying in slow flight at the low end of the performance envelope?
> Isn't that where all the nasty things can happen?

I spent a fair amount of time, probably close to an hour or two in
slow flight. Maybe a little longer.

I don't think it's the case that slow flight is where all the nasty
things can happen. A stall can happen at any speed in any flight
attitude, and may be worse at higher speeds in certain attitudes than
low speed, upright, straight and level.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Denny wrote:
> Ahh common Dudley, admit it... The only reason you want the student to
> get inverted so's you can dream about pulling through the split S and
> bringing those 50's to bear just ahead of the bogey....
>
> denny
To tell you the truth, I spent most of the time teaching them to ROLL
out instead of pulling through that Split S :-))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Mar 15, 12:13*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:925e8025-8f81-4991-9a0b-
> > Yup, your approach is certainly consistent with the PTS. Private
> > pilots are expected to perform slow flight at "an airspeed at which
> > any further increase in angle of attack, increase in load factor, or
> > reduction in power, would result in an immediate stall", and recover
> > from power-off and power-on stalls "with a minimum loss of altitude
> > appropriate for the airplane".
>
> There's a difference between being able to demonstrate this and being
> comfy or even competent doing it. .

That's true.

The CFIs who taught me treated practice stalls as routine and expected
their students to do so too. But I don't know if that's typical these
days, or if I was just lucky.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 14, 2:40 pm, Deadstick > wrote:
> I haven't done any instructing recently, but when I did, I taught slow
> flight, stall recognition and avoidance AND stall entry & recovery. I
> don't think they have be be exclusive of one another.
>
> Plus I think learning to recognize and avoid stalls is probably a
> better risk-management strategy given that it can be easily learned
> and mastered by pilots of all skill levels. In principle I agree that
> ALL pilots should be fully competent at slow airspeeds and at
> recovering from stalls, but I would also tend to say that there's a
> lot more that we can teach pilots before we set them free to fly on
> their own.

I am curious as to the meaning of the phrase "..dragging it in". As
in "...he turned on final, dragging it in".

I knew a pilot at A&M who died in a C182 while "dragging it in". I
assumed at the time that this was slow flight and without further
details could only assume that he inadvertently stalled the plane at
some point.

I also inferred that this phrase could also say "was behind the power
curve".

Any thoughts would be appreciated. (IIRC, he did not spin in).

Richard

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:7bcc745a-a5d6-4731-84a6-
:

> On Mar 14, 2:40 pm, Deadstick > wrote:
>> I haven't done any instructing recently, but when I did, I taught slow
>> flight, stall recognition and avoidance AND stall entry & recovery. I
>> don't think they have be be exclusive of one another.
>>
>> Plus I think learning to recognize and avoid stalls is probably a
>> better risk-management strategy given that it can be easily learned
>> and mastered by pilots of all skill levels. In principle I agree that
>> ALL pilots should be fully competent at slow airspeeds and at
>> recovering from stalls, but I would also tend to say that there's a
>> lot more that we can teach pilots before we set them free to fly on
>> their own.
>
> I am curious as to the meaning of the phrase "..dragging it in". As
> in "...he turned on final, dragging it in".
>
> I knew a pilot at A&M who died in a C182 while "dragging it in". I
> assumed at the time that this was slow flight and without further
> details could only assume that he inadvertently stalled the plane at
> some point.
>
> I also inferred that this phrase could also say "was behind the power
> curve".
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated. (IIRC, he did not spin in).
>

That's generally how I understand that expression ot mean. Even for short
field stuff it's unnecessary to do that, IMO.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2:40 pm, Deadstick > wrote:
>> I haven't done any instructing recently, but when I did, I taught slow
>> flight, stall recognition and avoidance AND stall entry & recovery. I
>> don't think they have be be exclusive of one another.
>>
>> Plus I think learning to recognize and avoid stalls is probably a
>> better risk-management strategy given that it can be easily learned
>> and mastered by pilots of all skill levels. In principle I agree that
>> ALL pilots should be fully competent at slow airspeeds and at
>> recovering from stalls, but I would also tend to say that there's a
>> lot more that we can teach pilots before we set them free to fly on
>> their own.
>
> I am curious as to the meaning of the phrase "..dragging it in". As
> in "...he turned on final, dragging it in".
>
> I knew a pilot at A&M who died in a C182 while "dragging it in". I
> assumed at the time that this was slow flight and without further
> details could only assume that he inadvertently stalled the plane at
> some point.
>
> I also inferred that this phrase could also say "was behind the power
> curve".
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated. (IIRC, he did not spin in).
>
> Richard
The analogy "dragging it in" refers to having the airplane configured
behind the power curve or if you wish, in the area of reverse command,
on final approach....a very dangerous situation.

--
Dudley Henriques

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:40:52 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>I don't think it's the case that slow flight is where all the nasty
>things can happen. A stall can happen at any speed in any flight
>attitude, and may be worse at higher speeds in certain attitudes than
>low speed, upright, straight and level.

True.

I think slow flight is where many pilots expect things to happen,
while they actually get bitten in the ass by not understanding
relative winds, load factors, turning AOA's, and cross-control stalls.

I've always found slow flight exercises to be fun.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 15, 4:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

>
> The analogy "dragging it in" refers to having the airplane configured
> behind the power curve or if you wish, in the area of reverse command,
> on final approach....a very dangerous situation.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Dangerous, but certainly useful at times!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
>> How much of a new students time is spent
>> flying in slow flight at the low end of the performance envelope?
>> Isn't that where all the nasty things can happen?
>
> I spent a fair amount of time, probably close to an hour or two in
> slow flight. Maybe a little longer.
>
> I don't think it's the case that slow flight is where all the nasty
> things can happen. A stall can happen at any speed in any flight
> attitude, and may be worse at higher speeds in certain attitudes than
> low speed, upright, straight and level.
This is true. Stalls at 1g are seldom the issue. Accelerated stall is
the stall that will kill you. Pilots are well advised to go WELL beyond
understanding stalls with the airplane at 1g. A good look into the realm
of stall over 1g and in ALL flight attitudes, especially cross
controlled is time well spent.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 15, 4:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>>
>> The analogy "dragging it in" refers to having the airplane configured
>> behind the power curve or if you wish, in the area of reverse command,
>> on final approach....a very dangerous situation.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Dangerous, but certainly useful at times!

Such as? (I can think of one instance, but I'd like to know if we're on the
same page)

[Bob F.]

"Dragging it in" does not necessarily mean "in in the area of reverse
command". It just means that you have added power instead of reducing drag
by retracting flaps or gear, etc. "The area of reverse command" is an
exteme example.

--
BobF.
"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mar 15, 4:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The analogy "dragging it in" refers to having the airplane configured
>>> behind the power curve or if you wish, in the area of reverse command,
>>> on final approach....a very dangerous situation.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Dangerous, but certainly useful at times!
>
> Such as? (I can think of one instance, but I'd like to know if we're on
> the same page)
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob F. wrote:
> "Dragging it in" does not necessarily mean "in in the area of reverse
> command". It just means that you have added power instead of reducing
> drag by retracting flaps or gear, etc. "The area of reverse command"
> is an exteme example.
>
The coffin corner of the back side of the power curve is the extreme.
You can add power flaps or no flaps and still be well on the front side
of the power curve.
Generally speaking, if you are "dragging it in, you are most certainly
in the area of reverse command

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mar 15, 4:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>> The analogy "dragging it in" refers to having the airplane configured
>>> behind the power curve or if you wish, in the area of reverse command,
>>> on final approach....a very dangerous situation.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>> Dangerous, but certainly useful at times!
>
> Such as? (I can think of one instance, but I'd like to know if we're on the
> same page)
>
>
I hope he's not thinking of carrier approaches; popular misconception!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bob F.]

"Generally"?, "most certainly"?, I'd say "in one case". The other way
around is correct. That is "if you are in the area of reverse command, you
are dragging it in". Notwithstanding that the phrase includes the notion of
approaching and/or landing. The coffin corner is also not on the back side
of the power curve. It is at the asymptote and you can never get into the
back side. That's why it a corner. It is certainly not referred to as
"dragging it in" there. Been there with the best test pilots in the world
in a 747-400 while I was testing the 400. No one has ever referred to is as
that.

--
BobF.
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Bob F. wrote:
>> "Dragging it in" does not necessarily mean "in in the area of reverse
>> command". It just means that you have added power instead of reducing
>> drag by retracting flaps or gear, etc. "The area of reverse command" is
>> an exteme example.
>>
> The coffin corner of the back side of the power curve is the extreme. You
> can add power flaps or no flaps and still be well on the front side of the
> power curve.
> Generally speaking, if you are "dragging it in, you are most certainly in
> the area of reverse command
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob F. wrote:
> "Generally"?, "most certainly"?, I'd say "in one case". The other way
> around is correct. That is "if you are in the area of reverse command,
> you are dragging it in". Notwithstanding that the phrase includes the
> notion of approaching and/or landing. The coffin corner is also not on
> the back side of the power curve. It is at the asymptote and you can
> never get into the back side. That's why it a corner. It is certainly
> not referred to as "dragging it in" there. Been there with the best
> test pilots in the world in a 747-400 while I was testing the 400. No
> one has ever referred to is as that.
>
You're kidding right?

I believe you are repeating wht I have said. I said that "dragging it
in" generally refers to flying the approach in the area of reverse
command or if you will behind the power curve. This is absolutely
correct. Coffin corner is the area behind the curve where sink rate
can't be stopped with power but requires reduction in angle of attack.
For a perfect example of an aircraft in coffin corner, see the Edwards
AFB accident involving a young AF pilot who got his F100 so deep into
coffin corner behind the curve he couldn't recover the airplane; not
enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
reverse command.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bob F.]

WrongO againO. The "coffin corner" is an altitude (point on a chart where
the stall speed and Mach come together) with a max power setting. If you go
faster, you get mach buffet. If you go to slow, you stall. If you reduce
power setting, you stall. If you nose over to recover, you mach buffet.
With your example I can see why you're confused.

--
BobF.
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Bob F. wrote:
>> "Generally"?, "most certainly"?, I'd say "in one case". The other way
>> around is correct. That is "if you are in the area of reverse command,
>> you are dragging it in". Notwithstanding that the phrase includes the
>> notion of approaching and/or landing. The coffin corner is also not on
>> the back side of the power curve. It is at the asymptote and you can
>> never get into the back side. That's why it a corner. It is certainly
>> not referred to as "dragging it in" there. Been there with the best test
>> pilots in the world in a 747-400 while I was testing the 400. No one has
>> ever referred to is as that.
>>
> You're kidding right?
>
> I believe you are repeating wht I have said. I said that "dragging it in"
> generally refers to flying the approach in the area of reverse command or
> if you will behind the power curve. This is absolutely correct. Coffin
> corner is the area behind the curve where sink rate can't be stopped with
> power but requires reduction in angle of attack.
> For a perfect example of an aircraft in coffin corner, see the Edwards AFB
> accident involving a young AF pilot who got his F100 so deep into coffin
> corner behind the curve he couldn't recover the airplane; not enough air
> under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full burner but
> couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of attack was what
> he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the definition of coffin
> corner and it most certainly IS in the area of reverse command.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob F. wrote:
> WrongO againO. The "coffin corner" is an altitude (point on a chart
> where the stall speed and Mach come together) with a max power setting.
> If you go faster, you get mach buffet. If you go to slow, you stall.
> If you reduce power setting, you stall. If you nose over to recover,
> you mach buffet. With your example I can see why you're confused.
>
I'm not confused and neither are you. :-))

The coffin corner YOU are describing can be found in the flight envelope
of the U2 (as well as other airplanes) at high altitude cruise. The
coffin corner I'm describing can be found on a dragged in approach AT
LOW ALTITUDE with the aircraft behind where the flight test community
defines the area of reverse command; that being below the airspeed for
maximum endurance. The corner is reached as you get the airplane low
enough on the approach where the sink rate can't be stopped with power
as maximum is already applied. The ONLY way out of the corner is to
reduce angle of attack. If the proximity between the aircraft and the
ground won't allow that angle of attack reduction, you hve what we call
the "coffin corner".

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> WrongO againO. The "coffin corner" is an altitude (point on a chart
> where the stall speed and Mach come together) with a max power
> setting. If you go faster, you get mach buffet. If you go to slow,
> you stall. If you reduce power setting, you stall. If you nose over
> to recover, you mach buffet. With your example I can see why you're
> confused.
>

Acctually, the low side buffet isn't strictly a stall. The proof of this is
it happens at a much higher indicated and much lower alpha than a stall at
low altitudes. The wing doe lose lift, so in the broadest definition of a a
stall the wing stals, but what's actualy happening is that the increased
angle of attack you neccesarily have as you reduce speed increases the
speed of the air over the wing so that there are localised areas of
supersonic flow with an accompanying buffet. So what coffin corner actually
is is an onset of mach buffet caused by any combination of speed and alpha.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bob F. wrote:
>> "Generally"?, "most certainly"?, I'd say "in one case". The other way
>> around is correct. That is "if you are in the area of reverse command,
>> you are dragging it in". Notwithstanding that the phrase includes the
>> notion of approaching and/or landing. The coffin corner is also not on
>> the back side of the power curve. It is at the asymptote and you can
>> never get into the back side. That's why it a corner. It is certainly
>> not referred to as "dragging it in" there. Been there with the best
>> test pilots in the world in a 747-400 while I was testing the 400. No
>> one has ever referred to is as that.
>>
> You're kidding right?
>
> I believe you are repeating wht I have said. I said that "dragging it
> in" generally refers to flying the approach in the area of reverse
> command or if you will behind the power curve.

Well, it;s not a tech term, is it? It's slang. This is turning into the
three blind guys and the elephant thing.. I still don't even like doing
stabilised apprlaches in single at all. I see them as tanatmount to
dragging it in and of course, if there;s nowhere to land on the approach,
an engine failure will result in the smae result on either..


Bertie

[Bob F.]

The term "coffin corner" has the term "critical mach" in the formula. I've
never been at critical mach at such a low altitude. A little to fast for an
approach. So now you're telling me that the term "coffin corner" has been
high jacked to mean something different. Wouldn't be the first time!

--
BobF.
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Bob F. wrote:
>> WrongO againO. The "coffin corner" is an altitude (point on a chart
>> where the stall speed and Mach come together) with a max power setting.
>> If you go faster, you get mach buffet. If you go to slow, you stall.
>> If you reduce power setting, you stall. If you nose over to recover, you
>> mach buffet. With your example I can see why you're confused.
>>
> I'm not confused and neither are you. :-))
>
> The coffin corner YOU are describing can be found in the flight envelope
> of the U2 (as well as other airplanes) at high altitude cruise. The coffin
> corner I'm describing can be found on a dragged in approach AT LOW
> ALTITUDE with the aircraft behind where the flight test community defines
> the area of reverse command; that being below the airspeed for maximum
> endurance. The corner is reached as you get the airplane low enough on the
> approach where the sink rate can't be stopped with power as maximum is
> already applied. The ONLY way out of the corner is to reduce angle of
> attack. If the proximity between the aircraft and the ground won't allow
> that angle of attack reduction, you hve what we call the "coffin corner".
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Bob F.]

That's exactly right Bertie. I never ran into anyone who knew that except
for a few engineers at Boeing. I'd love to meet you sometime. I was
fortunate enough to be able to take all the aero engineering courses they
offered. It was great. Most of the instructors were old 707 engineers. I
had great respect for them. They had all kinds of rules of thumb that I
never hear about. I have a note book full of them. I don't even see
reference to them in the the my bible, the NAVWEPS.

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob F." > wrote in
> :
>
>> WrongO againO. The "coffin corner" is an altitude (point on a chart
>> where the stall speed and Mach come together) with a max power
>> setting. If you go faster, you get mach buffet. If you go to slow,
>> you stall. If you reduce power setting, you stall. If you nose over
>> to recover, you mach buffet. With your example I can see why you're
>> confused.
>>
>
> Acctually, the low side buffet isn't strictly a stall. The proof of this
> is
> it happens at a much higher indicated and much lower alpha than a stall at
> low altitudes. The wing doe lose lift, so in the broadest definition of a
> a
> stall the wing stals, but what's actualy happening is that the increased
> angle of attack you neccesarily have as you reduce speed increases the
> speed of the air over the wing so that there are localised areas of
> supersonic flow with an accompanying buffet. So what coffin corner
> actually
> is is an onset of mach buffet caused by any combination of speed and
> alpha.
>
>
> Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> That's exactly right Bertie. I never ran into anyone who knew that
> except for a few engineers at Boeing. I'd love to meet you sometime.
> I was fortunate enough to be able to take all the aero engineering
> courses they offered. It was great. Most of the instructors were old
> 707 engineers. I had great respect for them. They had all kinds of
> rules of thumb that I never hear about. I have a note book full of
> them. I don't even see reference to them in the the my bible, the
> NAVWEPS.
>

I got a mole at Boeing. A rocket scientist, in fact. Meganerd. We grew up
together. This guy built a Piet in his basement starting at the age of 14.
( I helped) The things he found to do with Estes rockets and various
explosives as a teen were numerous and exciting! Especially to the local
cops.
He's just left Boeing to work for some millionaire on a commercial space
flight project. In texas I think.
I can't understand why they don't teach this in a bit more detail, though.
There are very few airline pilots who understand this nowadays. There's an
OK-ish FAA circular on it, but causes and recoveries ae not gone into in
any great detail. They seem to be happy to let the FMC look after it.

BTW, ever get a yaw damper failure in the 707? I've doen them in the sim in
the 727 and they were pretty exciting.
I've been told the 707 was worse.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob F. wrote:
> The term "coffin corner" has the term "critical mach" in the formula.
> I've never been at critical mach at such a low altitude. A little to
> fast for an approach. So now you're telling me that the term "coffin
> corner" has been high jacked to mean something different. Wouldn't be
> the first time!
>
Yes, that is exactly right. In the engineering sense I as well as you,
have always heard he term used in the sense you are using it.
In the world of high performance singles, especially in the figher
community, terms are often "stolen" or used in conversation so often
that they eventually become generic in the industry.
The term "Coffin Corner" as relates to "dragging it in" has been a
mainstay in our industry since the 50's. The F100 crash at Edwards
in 56 solidified the term to posterity. A young pilot named Barty Brooks
augured in when his nose wheel malfunctioned. He got so far behind the
curve on approach he couldn't lower the nose to recover the sink. The
subsequent crash has been used to demonstrate area of reverse command
issues t both the Naval and Air Force Test Pilot Schools for as long as
I can remember.
Actually, the other use of the term as well had it's origins within the
test community as do most terms like "coffin corner" :-)
Both are correct. I'm sure Bertie will eventually pop in and remind us
both of the blind men feeling the elephant. I agree with him
actually.That one's becoming one of my favorite Usenet analogies :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert Moore wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote
>
>> Coffin corner is the area behind the curve where sink rate
>> can't be stopped with power but requires reduction in angle of attack.
>> For a perfect example of an aircraft in coffin corner, see the Edwards
>> AFB accident involving a young AF pilot who got his F100 so deep into
>> coffin corner behind the curve he couldn't recover the airplane; not
>> enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
>> burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
>> attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
>> definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
>> reverse command.
>
> You're kidding, right? Better stick to light plane flight instructing
> Dudley. I sure don't see the F-100 pilot anywhere near critical mach
> speed. THAT was NOT a case of "coffin corner".
>
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Coffin corner (aviation)
> The coffin corner or Q-Corner is the altitude at or near which an
> aircraft's stall speed is equal to the critical Mach number, at a given
> gross weight and G loading. At this altitude the aircraft becomes nearly
> impossible to keep in stable flight. Since the stall speed is the
> minimum speed required to maintain level flight, any reduction in speed
> will cause the airplane to stall and lose altitude. Since the critical
> Mach number is maximum speed at which air can travel over the wings
> without losing lift to flow separation and shock waves, any increase in
> speed will cause the airplane to lose lift, or to pitch heavily nose-
> down, and lose altitude. The "corner" refers to the triangular shape at
> the top of a flight envelope chart where the stall speed and critical
> Mach number lines come together. Some aircraft, such as the Lockheed U-
> 2, routinely operate in the "coffin corner", which demands great skill
> from their pilots.[1]
>
>
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Slow flight
> Slow flight is a portion of an airplane's performance envelope above the
> speed at which the plane will stall, but below the aircraft's endurance
> speed. This part of the performance chart is also known as "the back
> side of the power curve" because when flying in this area, more power is
> required in order to go slower and still maintain straight and level
> flight. A large angle of attack is required in order to maintain the
> altitude of the aircraft.
>
> Bob Moore
For God's sake Moore, try actually READING these posts before shooting
off your mouth once in a while. Our mutual dislike for each other is
legendary by now.
As usual, you are beating a dead horse here. Coffin corner is explained
in full in several posts above.
The use of the term is correct in BOTH instances!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bob F.]

Yes, you learn a lot about Dutch rolls real quick. ...and I did experience
a elevator hydraulic cylinder stall once in a 707. That was an experience.

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob F." > wrote in
> :
>
>> That's exactly right Bertie. I never ran into anyone who knew that
>> except for a few engineers at Boeing. I'd love to meet you sometime.
>> I was fortunate enough to be able to take all the aero engineering
>> courses they offered. It was great. Most of the instructors were old
>> 707 engineers. I had great respect for them. They had all kinds of
>> rules of thumb that I never hear about. I have a note book full of
>> them. I don't even see reference to them in the the my bible, the
>> NAVWEPS.
>>
>
> I got a mole at Boeing. A rocket scientist, in fact. Meganerd. We grew up
> together. This guy built a Piet in his basement starting at the age of
> 14.
> ( I helped) The things he found to do with Estes rockets and various
> explosives as a teen were numerous and exciting! Especially to the local
> cops.
> He's just left Boeing to work for some millionaire on a commercial space
> flight project. In texas I think.
> I can't understand why they don't teach this in a bit more detail, though.
> There are very few airline pilots who understand this nowadays. There's an
> OK-ish FAA circular on it, but causes and recoveries ae not gone into in
> any great detail. They seem to be happy to let the FMC look after it.
>
> BTW, ever get a yaw damper failure in the 707? I've doen them in the sim
> in
> the 727 and they were pretty exciting.
> I've been told the 707 was worse.
>
> Bertie

[Bob F.]

Bertie,
Did your mole ever tell you the story about Jack Waddell when he took the
maiden 747-100 flight to Farnborough?

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob F." > wrote in
> :
>
>> That's exactly right Bertie. I never ran into anyone who knew that
>> except for a few engineers at Boeing. I'd love to meet you sometime.
>> I was fortunate enough to be able to take all the aero engineering
>> courses they offered. It was great. Most of the instructors were old
>> 707 engineers. I had great respect for them. They had all kinds of
>> rules of thumb that I never hear about. I have a note book full of
>> them. I don't even see reference to them in the the my bible, the
>> NAVWEPS.
>>
>
> I got a mole at Boeing. A rocket scientist, in fact. Meganerd. We grew up
> together. This guy built a Piet in his basement starting at the age of
> 14.
> ( I helped) The things he found to do with Estes rockets and various
> explosives as a teen were numerous and exciting! Especially to the local
> cops.
> He's just left Boeing to work for some millionaire on a commercial space
> flight project. In texas I think.
> I can't understand why they don't teach this in a bit more detail, though.
> There are very few airline pilots who understand this nowadays. There's an
> OK-ish FAA circular on it, but causes and recoveries ae not gone into in
> any great detail. They seem to be happy to let the FMC look after it.
>
> BTW, ever get a yaw damper failure in the 707? I've doen them in the sim
> in
> the 727 and they were pretty exciting.
> I've been told the 707 was worse.
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> Yes, you learn a lot about Dutch rolls real quick. ...and I did
> experience a elevator hydraulic cylinder stall once in a 707. That
> was an experience.
>

Ouch. I didn't know they had hydraulics on the elevator. I thought the 707
was all tab control except the rudder.
I had a pitch problem in an A300 at about FL190 once. That was pretty
exciting, but since it was the automatics that caused it we were able to
disconnnect and get it all back under control. Scared the crap out of us.
We thought we had something on the airframe come loose and cause the pitch
problems. Nothing else made sense until we got down and maintenence
diagnosed the problem. We got a mach buffet recovering (2.5 G) but of
course that part of it wasnt too dramatic because of the relatively low
altitude. It would have been a different story at 330 ( the 'Bus was not
good at altitude)


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
> Did your mole ever tell you the story about Jack Waddell when he took
> the maiden 747-100 flight to Farnborough?
>

Nope don't think he would have known. He operated in some weird way with
Boeing. Because he did defense stuff he was isolated. I just meant he knows
how all this stuff works.

Do tell, though..


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Well, the bit of the envelope you're talking about is the low end of the
speed envelope fro every airplane. The coffin corner really only applies to
high alt/high speed transonic airplanes. When you climb up above transition
and reach th ealtitude where the airplane is mach limited the rules
changed.
I've attached a diagram of a typical flight envelope showing the constant
indicated max/min speeds up to transition where they taper in. The point in
dashded lines at the top is the point Bob was talking about where both
happen at the same time. To maintain a margin a max altitude dictated by a
G is determined. Going to fast or sow or pulling too much G at or near max
will result in a buffet and loss of lift, just for starters.





I've just reposted this because I've gotten some e-mail complaining that
the attachment didn't come through. I'll repost that in
alt.binaries.pictures.aviation


Bertie

[Bob F.]

Where did you come to the conclusion it was correct in both cases? I just
said I am not surprised the term got "high jacked. and it wouldn't be the
first time" Meaning, incorrectly. I've just never heard it being used
associated with the back of the power curve in 50 years of aviation that's
all. Could have missed it. Love to see some real documentation.

--
BobF.
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Moore wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>> Coffin corner is the area behind the curve where sink rate can't be
>>> stopped with power but requires reduction in angle of attack.
>>> For a perfect example of an aircraft in coffin corner, see the Edwards
>>> AFB accident involving a young AF pilot who got his F100 so deep into
>>> coffin corner behind the curve he couldn't recover the airplane; not
>>> enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
>>> burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
>>> attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
>>> definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
>>> reverse command.
>> You're kidding, right? Better stick to light plane flight instructing
>> Dudley. I sure don't see the F-100 pilot anywhere near critical mach
>> speed. THAT was NOT a case of "coffin corner".
>>
>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>> Coffin corner (aviation)
>> The coffin corner or Q-Corner is the altitude at or near which an
>> aircraft's stall speed is equal to the critical Mach number, at a given
>> gross weight and G loading. At this altitude the aircraft becomes nearly
>> impossible to keep in stable flight. Since the stall speed is the minimum
>> speed required to maintain level flight, any reduction in speed will
>> cause the airplane to stall and lose altitude. Since the critical Mach
>> number is maximum speed at which air can travel over the wings without
>> losing lift to flow separation and shock waves, any increase in speed
>> will cause the airplane to lose lift, or to pitch heavily nose-
>> down, and lose altitude. The "corner" refers to the triangular shape at
>> the top of a flight envelope chart where the stall speed and critical
>> Mach number lines come together. Some aircraft, such as the Lockheed U-
>> 2, routinely operate in the "coffin corner", which demands great skill
>> from their pilots.[1]
>>
>>
>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>> Slow flight
>> Slow flight is a portion of an airplane's performance envelope above the
>> speed at which the plane will stall, but below the aircraft's endurance
>> speed. This part of the performance chart is also known as "the back side
>> of the power curve" because when flying in this area, more power is
>> required in order to go slower and still maintain straight and level
>> flight. A large angle of attack is required in order to maintain the
>> altitude of the aircraft.
>>
>> Bob Moore
> For God's sake Moore, try actually READING these posts before shooting off
> your mouth once in a while. Our mutual dislike for each other is legendary
> by now.
> As usual, you are beating a dead horse here. Coffin corner is explained in
> full in several posts above.
> The use of the term is correct in BOTH instances!
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Bob F.]

Right, right...it is actually controlled by tabs, my slip. Boy, not many
know that either, I'll bet. Anyway, if you pull too hard, they stall, that
is won't move, So you have to relax the back pressure almost completely and
then pull not so hard the next time. Weird feeling when you are descending,
trying to check altitude quickly, and don't know what's happening.
--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob F." > wrote in
> :
>
>> Yes, you learn a lot about Dutch rolls real quick. ...and I did
>> experience a elevator hydraulic cylinder stall once in a 707. That
>> was an experience.
>>
>
> Ouch. I didn't know they had hydraulics on the elevator. I thought the 707
> was all tab control except the rudder.
> I had a pitch problem in an A300 at about FL190 once. That was pretty
> exciting, but since it was the automatics that caused it we were able to
> disconnnect and get it all back under control. Scared the crap out of us.
> We thought we had something on the airframe come loose and cause the pitch
> problems. Nothing else made sense until we got down and maintenence
> diagnosed the problem. We got a mach buffet recovering (2.5 G) but of
> course that part of it wasnt too dramatic because of the relatively low
> altitude. It would have been a different story at 330 ( the 'Bus was not
> good at altitude)
>
>
> Bertie

[Bob F.]

Well, I'll tell you right here and now.

Seems Jack, who already had lots of test hours in the 100 and made a flight
to NY already, was preparing for a flight to the air show in England. Bill
Allen (president) came on board just before he was about to depart and said.
"You know Jack, if you don't want to make a maiden cross Atlantic flight
now, it's ok, we don't have to take this plane there." Jack said "It's ok
Bill, I don't see any problem in doing so". Bill nodded and walked off the
plane but came back a few minutes later and said "Jack, I'm serious, if you
feel any reason why you don't want to make the flight, it's ok", Jack looked
a little puzzled but said "It's ok Bill, I have no bad feelings at all
about it and I feel completely confident it'll be ok" Bill looked at Jack
for a few seconds, said nothing and walked of the plane but returned almost
immediately and said "Jack, I know you'll do the right thing, but when you
get to the air show, please don't roll this airplane !"

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob F." > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie,
>> Did your mole ever tell you the story about Jack Waddell when he took
>> the maiden 747-100 flight to Farnborough?
>>
>
> Nope don't think he would have known. He operated in some weird way with
> Boeing. Because he did defense stuff he was isolated. I just meant he
> knows
> how all this stuff works.
>
> Do tell, though..
>
>
> bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 15, 7:10 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bob F. wrote:
> > "Dragging it in" does not necessarily mean "in in the area of reverse
> > command". It just means that you have added power instead of reducing
> > drag by retracting flaps or gear, etc. "The area of reverse command"
> > is an exteme example.
>
> The coffin corner of the back side of the power curve is the extreme.
> You can add power flaps or no flaps and still be well on the front side
> of the power curve.
> Generally speaking, if you are "dragging it in, you are most certainly
> in the area of reverse command
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?

One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
conditions.

The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field landings.

Dan Mc

[Bob F.]

Well I only have a few 707 hours like 200, but in the first model there was
a hydraulic system between the elevator and tab. I thought it was on all
models. That's all I know about it. This was the model without the
Yahoodi.
--
BobF.
"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
46.128...
> "Bob F." wrote
>> Yes, you learn a lot about Dutch rolls real quick. ...and I did
>> experience a elevator hydraulic cylinder stall once in a 707. That
>> was an experience.
>
> Tell us more about that "elevator hydraulic cylinder". I have flown
> just about every model B-707/720 made and they all had elevators
> operated by control tabs which were moved by the yoke. No hydraulics
> what-so-ever, the elevators actually free-floated until the aircraft
> was moving at a fair speed.
>
> The only hydraulic flight controls on the B-707 were the rudder and
> the flaps and the spoilers.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP B-707, B-727
> PanAm (retired)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Well, the bit of the envelope you're talking about is the low end of the
> speed envelope fro every airplane. The coffin corner really only applies to
> high alt/high speed transonic airplanes. When you climb up above transition
> and reach th ealtitude where the airplane is mach limited the rules
> changed.
> I've attached a diagram of a typical flight envelope showing the constant
> indicated max/min speeds up to transition where they taper in. The point in
> dashded lines at the top is the point Bob was talking about where both
> happen at the same time. To maintain a margin a max altitude dictated by a
> G is determined. Going to fast or sow or pulling too much G at or near max
> will result in a buffet and loss of lift, just for starters.
>
>
>
>
>
> I've just reposted this because I've gotten some e-mail complaining that
> the attachment didn't come through. I'll repost that in
> alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
>
>
> Bertie
If you read my post first mentioning "coffin corner", you will notice I
used it as an adjective to describe a "condition" found t the extreme
end of the back side of the power curve; this being the "condition"
where low altitude and no more power available necessitate a reduction
in angle of attack to stop a developing sink rate; a very dangerous
situation on any approach.
It should be obvious that I never meant to convey that the term "coffin
corner" didn't refer to it's classic definition for high altitude
critical mach vs stall condition.
I will not get into a shouting match with Usenet advasiaries who wish to
convey I have no idea what coffin corner is as defined in the
aeronautical engineering sense.
Good God, I've even heard coffin corner used to define
the warnings block on an approach plate!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> Right, right...it is actually controlled by tabs, my slip. Boy, not
> many know that either, I'll bet. Anyway, if you pull too hard, they
> stall, that is won't move, So you have to relax the back pressure
> almost completely and then pull not so hard the next time. Weird
> feeling when you are descending, trying to check altitude quickly, and
> don't know what's happening.

i retrained a lot of 707 guys on the 727 and the 'Bus and they had the
weirdest way of flying! They'd start to interecept an altitude with
thousands of feet to go sometime. They also used to just about have a heart
attack if you used the speedbrake.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> Well, I'll tell you right here and now.
>
> Seems Jack, who already had lots of test hours in the 100 and made a
> flight to NY already, was preparing for a flight to the air show in
> England. Bill Allen (president) came on board just before he was
> about to depart and said. "You know Jack, if you don't want to make a
> maiden cross Atlantic flight now, it's ok, we don't have to take this
> plane there." Jack said "It's ok Bill, I don't see any problem in
> doing so". Bill nodded and walked off the plane but came back a few
> minutes later and said "Jack, I'm serious, if you feel any reason why
> you don't want to make the flight, it's ok", Jack looked a little
> puzzled but said "It's ok Bill, I have no bad feelings at all about
> it and I feel completely confident it'll be ok" Bill looked at Jack
> for a few seconds, said nothing and walked of the plane but returned
> almost immediately and said "Jack, I know you'll do the right thing,
> but when you get to the air show, please don't roll this airplane !"
>

Heh heh. I wonder if anyone has. I know someone who claims to have rolled a
Convair 880 9 the FAA's own flying lab) and some Lufty guys tried to roll
a 707 and pulled two engines off it ( so the story goes, anyway) The 757
would be a piece of cake to roll if you were so inclined. The sim does some
fine aerobatics anyway.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:a7bc480e-2c0d-44ee-b560-e8d7aaa866a5
@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 15, 7:10 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bob F. wrote:
>> > "Dragging it in" does not necessarily mean "in in the area of reverse
>> > command". It just means that you have added power instead of reducing
>> > drag by retracting flaps or gear, etc. "The area of reverse command"
>> > is an exteme example.
>>
>> The coffin corner of the back side of the power curve is the extreme.
>> You can add power flaps or no flaps and still be well on the front side
>> of the power curve.
>> Generally speaking, if you are "dragging it in, you are most certainly
>> in the area of reverse command
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
> command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
> pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?
>
> One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
> conditions.
>
> The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field landings.
>

Wel, I don't do it and I bet you ten bucks I can pull off the runway
shorter than you.

Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 15, 9:43 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> > Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
> > command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
> > pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?
>
> > One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
> > conditions.
>
> > The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field landings.
>
> Wel, I don't do it and I bet you ten bucks I can pull off the runway
> shorter than you.
>
> Bertie

I didn't say it was the only technique, but it works well.

And what are you flying? Because I'll take that bet.


Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob F. wrote:
> Where did you come to the conclusion it was correct in both cases? I
> just said I am not surprised the term got "high jacked. and it wouldn't
> be the first time" Meaning, incorrectly. I've just never heard it
> being used associated with the back of the power curve in 50 years of
> aviation that's all. Could have missed it. Love to see some real
> documentation.
>
You might or might not not find documentation. The first time I heard it
was in connection with the F100 crash at Edwards. I've heard it since
used by several sources when discussing landing accidents involving low
and slow approach profiles.
I'm sure it probably was hijacked as you have said. If you will notice,
I used it only to describe the condition of a behind the curve
airspeed, high sink rate, not enough altitude to recover without
reducing angle of attack approach profile. I could have used another
term. I choose coffin corner. It was you who chimed in with the
'official definition" which I know quite well.
I never meant to imply anything else.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bob F.]

Well, I usually try to keep things simple. So when I teach this I draw the
standard power curve chart and show the part to the left where you can see
that an increase in pitch results in a loss of lift. Hence the construction
of the phrase "Reverse" and "Command". There might be a more precise
definition but I think that illustrates the concept and gets the points
across. The phrase "dragging it in" has the word "drag" and phrase "it
in". The "drag" part we all see. The "it in" part implies "for a landing".
So I see "dragging it in" and "back of the power curve" going together real
nicely.
--
BobF.
"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 15, 7:10 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bob F. wrote:
>> > "Dragging it in" does not necessarily mean "in in the area of reverse
>> > command". It just means that you have added power instead of reducing
>> > drag by retracting flaps or gear, etc. "The area of reverse command"
>> > is an exteme example.
>>
>> The coffin corner of the back side of the power curve is the extreme.
>> You can add power flaps or no flaps and still be well on the front side
>> of the power curve.
>> Generally speaking, if you are "dragging it in, you are most certainly
>> in the area of reverse command
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
> command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
> pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?
>
> One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
> conditions.
>
> The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field landings.
>
> Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:ee18e9bc-1a2d-41b5-a269-421fc3ee9928
@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 15, 9:43 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> > Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
>> > command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
>> > pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?
>>
>> > One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
>> > conditions.
>>
>> > The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field landings.
>>
>> Wel, I don't do it and I bet you ten bucks I can pull off the runway
>> shorter than you.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I didn't say it was the only technique, but it works well.

Nope, it;'s dangerous and unnecessary and sloppy technique.
>
> And what are you flying? Because I'll take that bet.

Anything you like sunshine.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 15, 9:43 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>> Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
>>> command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
>>> pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?
>>> One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
>>> conditions.
>>> The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field landings.
>> Wel, I don't do it and I bet you ten bucks I can pull off the runway
>> shorter than you.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I didn't say it was the only technique, but it works well.
>
> And what are you flying? Because I'll take that bet.
>
>
> Dan
>

What I think he's saying Dan is that you can drag it in and plop it down
if you do it right and don't screw it up, but it's not the best
procedure and can get you into trouble real fast.
It's not necessary to fly a behind the curve approach into a short
field. In fact, the accepted procedure for short field is nowhere near
back side.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bob F.]

I remember that, there was a reason for it. It'll come to me and I'll have
to get back. It had something to do with persistent or repetitive negative
G, or always maintaining positive G for cabin integrity over time...or
something like that. It's funny because you train people to do things and
sometime don't teach them the reasons why.

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob F." > wrote in
> :
>
>> Right, right...it is actually controlled by tabs, my slip. Boy, not
>> many know that either, I'll bet. Anyway, if you pull too hard, they
>> stall, that is won't move, So you have to relax the back pressure
>> almost completely and then pull not so hard the next time. Weird
>> feeling when you are descending, trying to check altitude quickly, and
>> don't know what's happening.
>
> i retrained a lot of 707 guys on the 727 and the 'Bus and they had the
> weirdest way of flying! They'd start to interecept an altitude with
> thousands of feet to go sometime. They also used to just about have a
> heart
> attack if you used the speedbrake.
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:7JGdnS1ILaP_
:

> Bob F. wrote:
>> Where did you come to the conclusion it was correct in both cases? I
>> just said I am not surprised the term got "high jacked. and it wouldn't
>> be the first time" Meaning, incorrectly. I've just never heard it
>> being used associated with the back of the power curve in 50 years of
>> aviation that's all. Could have missed it. Love to see some real
>> documentation.
>>
> You might or might not not find documentation. The first time I heard it
> was in connection with the F100 crash at Edwards. I've heard it since
> used by several sources when discussing landing accidents involving low
> and slow approach profiles.

Well, like "dragging it in" it's not exactly a tech term. But it's origins
are in the shape of the envelope and relate to mach buffet problems
associated with high alt flight. It's poorly understood, even by most
airline pilots, and frequently misused, usually as a modrn equivelent of
"there be dragons there" for all sorts of things that happen around the
edges of all sorts of flight envelopes. I've heard a chopper guy use it to
describe the lead lag roll they get when they go too fast, for instance.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> I remember that, there was a reason for it. It'll come to me and I'll
> have to get back. It had something to do with persistent or
> repetitive negative G, or always maintaining positive G for cabin
> integrity over time...or something like that. It's funny because you
> train people to do things and sometime don't teach them the reasons
> why.
>

No more so than these days. My 757 course was a joke, really. I think it
took about ten minutes to do the engine module and maybe twenty to do the
fuel system, for instance. They don;t want us to play with anything
anymore. On the plus side, the new airplanes fly just like airplanes. Spool
up times are almost as fast as pistons, they're speed stable on approach,
the controls are light. They have real good power/weight. IOW, they're for
kids.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Dan wrote:
>> On Mar 15, 9:43 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>>> Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
>>>> command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
>>>> pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?
>>>> One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
>>>> conditions.
>>>> The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field
landings.
>>> Wel, I don't do it and I bet you ten bucks I can pull off the runway
>>> shorter than you.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> I didn't say it was the only technique, but it works well.
>>
>> And what are you flying? Because I'll take that bet.
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
> What I think he's saying Dan is that you can drag it in and plop it
down
> if you do it right and don't screw it up, but it's not the best
> procedure and can get you into trouble real fast.
> It's not necessary to fly a behind the curve approach into a short
> field. In fact, the accepted procedure for short field is nowhere near
> back side.
>

Exaclty. The approach speed matters not a jot. It aonly matters that you
arrive at the spot and at the speed. Dragging it in is easy. A short
cut. Aside form the engine failure problem, there's the problem of wind
shear taking you even further back at an inopportune moment. Unless you
have moe power than god, you're screwed. A fairly normal 1.3 VSO
approach speed with excess bled off when it's safe to do so ( i.e., not
too far to fall) is a much better way to do it. It takes a lot more
practice, though...


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:7JGdnS1ILaP_
> :
>
>> Bob F. wrote:
>>> Where did you come to the conclusion it was correct in both cases? I
>>> just said I am not surprised the term got "high jacked. and it wouldn't
>>> be the first time" Meaning, incorrectly. I've just never heard it
>>> being used associated with the back of the power curve in 50 years of
>>> aviation that's all. Could have missed it. Love to see some real
>>> documentation.
>>>
>> You might or might not not find documentation. The first time I heard it
>> was in connection with the F100 crash at Edwards. I've heard it since
>> used by several sources when discussing landing accidents involving low
>> and slow approach profiles.
>
> Well, like "dragging it in" it's not exactly a tech term. But it's origins
> are in the shape of the envelope and relate to mach buffet problems
> associated with high alt flight. It's poorly understood, even by most
> airline pilots, and frequently misused, usually as a modrn equivelent of
> "there be dragons there" for all sorts of things that happen around the
> edges of all sorts of flight envelopes. I've heard a chopper guy use it to
> describe the lead lag roll they get when they go too fast, for instance.
>
>
> Bertie
Perhaps I misread the poster's question. he stated as follows;

The Sargon wrote and I answered;
"I am curious as to the meaning of the phrase "..dragging it in". As
in "...he turned on final, dragging it in".

Perhaps I'm nuts, but I took this wording to be referring to an
approach, not the high altitude scenario :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bob F.]

Did you take any of the classes at Boeing? I used to teach the FMCS and
EICAS portions in some of the classes. We used to say in the 777 classes
that when the pilots retire, they won't be able to fly worth a damn but they
will be able to type at 90 WPM. :-)

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Bob F." > wrote in
> :
>
>> I remember that, there was a reason for it. It'll come to me and I'll
>> have to get back. It had something to do with persistent or
>> repetitive negative G, or always maintaining positive G for cabin
>> integrity over time...or something like that. It's funny because you
>> train people to do things and sometime don't teach them the reasons
>> why.
>>
>
> No more so than these days. My 757 course was a joke, really. I think it
> took about ten minutes to do the engine module and maybe twenty to do the
> fuel system, for instance. They don;t want us to play with anything
> anymore. On the plus side, the new airplanes fly just like airplanes.
> Spool
> up times are almost as fast as pistons, they're speed stable on approach,
> the controls are light. They have real good power/weight. IOW, they're for
> kids.
>
>
>
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:7JGdnS1ILaP_
>> :
>>
>>> Bob F. wrote:
>>>> Where did you come to the conclusion it was correct in both cases?
>>>> I just said I am not surprised the term got "high jacked. and it
>>>> wouldn't be the first time" Meaning, incorrectly. I've just never
>>>> heard it being used associated with the back of the power curve in
>>>> 50 years of aviation that's all. Could have missed it. Love to
>>>> see some real documentation.
>>>>
>>> You might or might not not find documentation. The first time I
>>> heard it was in connection with the F100 crash at Edwards. I've
>>> heard it since used by several sources when discussing landing
>>> accidents involving low and slow approach profiles.
>>
>> Well, like "dragging it in" it's not exactly a tech term. But it's
>> origins are in the shape of the envelope and relate to mach buffet
>> problems associated with high alt flight. It's poorly understood,
>> even by most airline pilots, and frequently misused, usually as a
>> modrn equivelent of "there be dragons there" for all sorts of things
>> that happen around the edges of all sorts of flight envelopes. I've
>> heard a chopper guy use it to describe the lead lag roll they get
>> when they go too fast, for instance.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> Perhaps I misread the poster's question. he stated as follows;
>
> The Sargon wrote and I answered;
> "I am curious as to the meaning of the phrase "..dragging it in". As
> in "...he turned on final, dragging it in".
>
> Perhaps I'm nuts, but I took this wording to be referring to an
> approach, not the high altitude scenario :-))
>

Yeh, the coffin corner thing is high alt.


Bertie

[Bob F.]

The hardest thing to teach a new Airline candidate is to plant the plane on
the ground, don't play with it. The tire brakes don't work and armed
spoiler won't come up unless you're down. They all want to hold it off to
make that perfect landing.

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 15, 9:43 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
>>>>> command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
>>>>> pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?
>>>>> One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
>>>>> conditions.
>>>>> The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field
> landings.
>>>> Wel, I don't do it and I bet you ten bucks I can pull off the runway
>>>> shorter than you.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> I didn't say it was the only technique, but it works well.
>>>
>>> And what are you flying? Because I'll take that bet.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>
>> What I think he's saying Dan is that you can drag it in and plop it
> down
>> if you do it right and don't screw it up, but it's not the best
>> procedure and can get you into trouble real fast.
>> It's not necessary to fly a behind the curve approach into a short
>> field. In fact, the accepted procedure for short field is nowhere near
>> back side.
>>
>
> Exaclty. The approach speed matters not a jot. It aonly matters that you
> arrive at the spot and at the speed. Dragging it in is easy. A short
> cut. Aside form the engine failure problem, there's the problem of wind
> shear taking you even further back at an inopportune moment. Unless you
> have moe power than god, you're screwed. A fairly normal 1.3 VSO
> approach speed with excess bled off when it's safe to do so ( i.e., not
> too far to fall) is a much better way to do it. It takes a lot more
> practice, though...
>
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> Did you take any of the classes at Boeing? I used to teach the FMCS
> and EICAS portions in some of the classes. We used to say in the 777
> classes that when the pilots retire, they won't be able to fly worth a
> damn but they will be able to type at 90 WPM. :-)
>
Yeh. I've heard that one alright. I tend to use FLCH a lot myself!

Nope, never done a course in Seattle. All in house stuff. I did a factory
course in Toulouse once, though. Aeroformation ( their training company)
didn't want us to know more than what was necessary, but I had an ex French
Air force instructor who knew his business who would tell you anything you
wanted to know. Very good.
I may be about to change types, so I might be out there yet!



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> The hardest thing to teach a new Airline candidate is to plant the
> plane on the ground, don't play with it. The tire brakes don't work
> and armed spoiler won't come up unless you're down. They all want to
> hold it off to make that perfect landing.
>

Well, if you can do both!

They still teach the same things on the newer airplanes, but in fact you
can get a greaser without floating. I don't see a problem as long as you
aren't tight on runway and can afford to wait a nanosecond for the
speedbrakes to deploy. I tend not to use the brakes anyway unless theyre's
a good reason or the traffic is heavy and I need to get off the runway
quickly. I let the airplane slow down naturally and then brake near the
turnoff if I can. The kids I fly with now think it's dangerous to land
without autobrake for some reason.. They also seem to think they;re some
sort of control panacea. God help 'em if they ever get it sideways in a
wind...


Bertie

[Bob F.]

Bertie,
Ok...I'll send you a prize if in 5 minutes you can tell me what DENTK stands
for.

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Bob F." > wrote in
> :
>
>> Did you take any of the classes at Boeing? I used to teach the FMCS
>> and EICAS portions in some of the classes. We used to say in the 777
>> classes that when the pilots retire, they won't be able to fly worth a
>> damn but they will be able to type at 90 WPM. :-)
>>
> Yeh. I've heard that one alright. I tend to use FLCH a lot myself!
>
> Nope, never done a course in Seattle. All in house stuff. I did a factory
> course in Toulouse once, though. Aeroformation ( their training company)
> didn't want us to know more than what was necessary, but I had an ex
> French
> Air force instructor who knew his business who would tell you anything you
> wanted to know. Very good.
> I may be about to change types, so I might be out there yet!
>
>
>
> Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert Moore wrote:
> Tell us once again how much solo
> time you have in all of thse "Navy Test Pilot School" jets. My local
> TV Newscaster can probably match your time with his many Blue Angel PR
> flights.

Moore, you are really becoming a flaming bore. :-))

Don't know what your problem is but I'll say it again here for both you
and any intelligent people who might read this.

My flying in jets at the Test Pilot School and everywhere else connected
with the military was as a guest of these institutions. They made both
themselves and their aircraft available to me based on the mutual
respect we maintained and maintain even today for each other. I am NOT a
military pilot, nor have I ever claimed such status.
I am a civilian pilot with a commercial, CFI, and a center thrust rating.
My expertise is now and always has been in primary instruction,
aerobatic instruction, and the flying of high performance prop aircraft.



>
> Bob Moore
> Naval Aviator V-15753 1958-1967 S-2F, P-2V, P-3B
> Airline Transpoprt Pilot ASMEL L-188, B-727, B-707
> Flight Instructor ASEL, IA
> PanAm (retired)
>
>


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bob F.]

I asked a lot of 72 pilots this and I get a 50 -50 answer. When I land a 72
I notice, or I think I can feel, a better landing when I drop the nose just
before it touches. I attributed it because the AC rotation center was so
far ahead of the main mounts that the tires started to "come up" on this
rotation, while the AC was descending. Ever notice that?

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Bob F." > wrote in
> :
>
>> The hardest thing to teach a new Airline candidate is to plant the
>> plane on the ground, don't play with it. The tire brakes don't work
>> and armed spoiler won't come up unless you're down. They all want to
>> hold it off to make that perfect landing.
>>
>
> Well, if you can do both!
>
> They still teach the same things on the newer airplanes, but in fact you
> can get a greaser without floating. I don't see a problem as long as you
> aren't tight on runway and can afford to wait a nanosecond for the
> speedbrakes to deploy. I tend not to use the brakes anyway unless theyre's
> a good reason or the traffic is heavy and I need to get off the runway
> quickly. I let the airplane slow down naturally and then brake near the
> turnoff if I can. The kids I fly with now think it's dangerous to land
> without autobrake for some reason.. They also seem to think they;re some
> sort of control panacea. God help 'em if they ever get it sideways in a
> wind...
>
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
> Ok...I'll send you a prize if in 5 minutes you can tell me what DENTK
> stands for.
>

It's some training facility in Denver, isn't it? United? Never been to it
anyway. I've heard it mentioned in crew rooms. I initially learned jets
with Western ( contract training) and have done the rest in various places
round the world, some in the US and some elsewhere.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> I asked a lot of 72 pilots this and I get a 50 -50 answer. When I
> land a 72 I notice, or I think I can feel, a better landing when I
> drop the nose just before it touches. I attributed it because the AC
> rotation center was so far ahead of the main mounts that the tires
> started to "come up" on this rotation, while the AC was descending.
> Ever notice that?
>

Yeah, it definitely works, but you got to time it juuuust right! I flew the
BAC 1-11-500 and it was the same like that, but I didn;t use it in either.
What I did do was to ensure that I kept the pitch dead steady until about
20 feet, close the taps, check and give myself just a second to see if I
could find the ground myself before the airplane did it for me. If I
couldn't get a good one in that second or so I just let it sit down the way
it it wanted to and I would just sort out the rest!


Bertie

[Bob F.]

Ok Dudley,

Let's get into an area of your expertise. I've always wondered this. On a
P-38, when they first came out the Allison's turned counter rotating (top
blade towards cabin, as you would expect). But after the first 12 or so
proto's and for the rest of production, they interchanged the engines. That
is each engine's top blade rotated away from the aircraft. Why? Serious,
I really want to know.

--
BobF.
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Moore wrote:
>> Tell us once again how much solo
>> time you have in all of thse "Navy Test Pilot School" jets. My local
>> TV Newscaster can probably match your time with his many Blue Angel PR
>> flights.
>
> Moore, you are really becoming a flaming bore. :-))
>
> Don't know what your problem is but I'll say it again here for both you
> and any intelligent people who might read this.
>
> My flying in jets at the Test Pilot School and everywhere else connected
> with the military was as a guest of these institutions. They made both
> themselves and their aircraft available to me based on the mutual respect
> we maintained and maintain even today for each other. I am NOT a military
> pilot, nor have I ever claimed such status.
> I am a civilian pilot with a commercial, CFI, and a center thrust rating.
> My expertise is now and always has been in primary instruction, aerobatic
> instruction, and the flying of high performance prop aircraft.
>
>
>
>>
>> Bob Moore
>> Naval Aviator V-15753 1958-1967 S-2F, P-2V, P-3B
>> Airline Transpoprt Pilot ASMEL L-188, B-727, B-707
>> Flight Instructor ASEL, IA
>> PanAm (retired)
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Bob F.]

Yeah, we could do a lot of things on board during test, before the AC was
shipped. Image minimum fuel, no seats, not painted, etc. It just pops off
the ground and landed like a 172.

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Bob F." > wrote in
> :
>
>> I asked a lot of 72 pilots this and I get a 50 -50 answer. When I
>> land a 72 I notice, or I think I can feel, a better landing when I
>> drop the nose just before it touches. I attributed it because the AC
>> rotation center was so far ahead of the main mounts that the tires
>> started to "come up" on this rotation, while the AC was descending.
>> Ever notice that?
>>
>
> Yeah, it definitely works, but you got to time it juuuust right! I flew
> the
> BAC 1-11-500 and it was the same like that, but I didn;t use it in either.
> What I did do was to ensure that I kept the pitch dead steady until about
> 20 feet, close the taps, check and give myself just a second to see if I
> could find the ground myself before the airplane did it for me. If I
> couldn't get a good one in that second or so I just let it sit down the
> way
> it it wanted to and I would just sort out the rest!
>
>
> Bertie

[Bob F.]

Close,

Really close. It stood for DENver Training Kindom and you got the rest
right.

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Bob F." > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie,
>> Ok...I'll send you a prize if in 5 minutes you can tell me what DENTK
>> stands for.
>>
>
> It's some training facility in Denver, isn't it? United? Never been to it
> anyway. I've heard it mentioned in crew rooms. I initially learned jets
> with Western ( contract training) and have done the rest in various places
> round the world, some in the US and some elsewhere.
>
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> Yeah, we could do a lot of things on board during test, before the AC
> was shipped. Image minimum fuel, no seats, not painted, etc. It just
> pops off the ground and landed like a 172.
>

What, the 747? I've been a pax in a light one only going about 100 miles.
Like a 172 OK!¬


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> Close,
>
> Really close. It stood for DENver Training Kindom and you got the rest
> right.
>

OK. no prize then ;(


Bertie

[Bob F.]

Right, but I'll think of another entertaining Q. I'm sure you'll hit one.
As Tony said, "We're just tawkin here".

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Bob F." > wrote in
> :
>
>> Close,
>>
>> Really close. It stood for DENver Training Kindom and you got the rest
>> right.
>>
>
> OK. no prize then ;(
>
>
> Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob F. wrote:
> Ok Dudley,
>
> Let's get into an area of your expertise. I've always wondered this.
> On a P-38, when they first came out the Allison's turned counter
> rotating (top blade towards cabin, as you would expect). But after the
> first 12 or so proto's and for the rest of production, they interchanged
> the engines. That is each engine's top blade rotated away from the
> aircraft. Why? Serious, I really want to know.
>
Well Bob, I hope it's a friendly request and I'll take it this way.

To be absolutely truthful with you, P38 design and development really
isn't in my area of expertise but I'll give it a shot based loosely on
something an old friend Jeff Ethell once mentioned to me about the engines.
As you now they were Allison V1710's and thy were handed inward in the
XP38. The prop swing was indeed changed I believe in th second run or
even back as far as the YP38.
I'll admit it always puzzled me as well. I knew the Brits didn't like
the handed engines and even our side had maintanence issues. For many
years I thought it might have had something to do with the flow
direction linkages on the turbochargers but I believe the change was
made after gunnery testing indicated the change would improve the
airplane's stability in the gun firing equation.
Not absolutely certain, but I believe I recall Jeff mentioning it in
this context.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bob F.]

Thanks for the response. I heard different stories but nothing that made
sense to me. The closest partial story had something to do with the props
slipstream on the stabilizer (H or V, I don't know) gave them better
performance (whatever that means) in high speed, high powered dives. I
could never get a complete story. I even talked with 3 of the last pilots
that shot down Adm. Yamamoto, when they gave a talk at the Boeing Museum
about 20 years ago. They had no idea either.

--
BobF.
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Bob F. wrote:
>> Ok Dudley,
>>
>> Let's get into an area of your expertise. I've always wondered this. On
>> a P-38, when they first came out the Allison's turned counter rotating
>> (top blade towards cabin, as you would expect). But after the first 12
>> or so proto's and for the rest of production, they interchanged the
>> engines. That is each engine's top blade rotated away from the aircraft.
>> Why? Serious, I really want to know.
>>
> Well Bob, I hope it's a friendly request and I'll take it this way.
>
> To be absolutely truthful with you, P38 design and development really
> isn't in my area of expertise but I'll give it a shot based loosely on
> something an old friend Jeff Ethell once mentioned to me about the
> engines.
> As you now they were Allison V1710's and thy were handed inward in the
> XP38. The prop swing was indeed changed I believe in th second run or even
> back as far as the YP38.
> I'll admit it always puzzled me as well. I knew the Brits didn't like the
> handed engines and even our side had maintanence issues. For many years I
> thought it might have had something to do with the flow direction linkages
> on the turbochargers but I believe the change was made after gunnery
> testing indicated the change would improve the airplane's stability in the
> gun firing equation.
> Not absolutely certain, but I believe I recall Jeff mentioning it in this
> context.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Mar 15, 7:57*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Bob F." > wrote m:
>
> > Yes, you learn a lot about Dutch rolls real quick. *...and I did
> > experience a elevator hydraulic cylinder stall once in a 707. *That
> > was an experience.
>
> Ouch. I didn't know they had hydraulics on the elevator. I thought the 707 *
> was all tab control except the rudder.
> I had a pitch problem in an A300 at about FL190 once. That was pretty
> exciting, but since it was the automatics that caused it we were able to
> disconnnect and get it all back under control. Scared the crap out of us.
> We thought we had something on the airframe come loose and cause the pitch
> problems. Nothing else made sense until we got down and maintenence
> diagnosed the problem. We got a mach buffet recovering (2.5 G) but of
> course that part of it wasnt too dramatic because of the relatively low
> altitude. It would have been a different story at 330 ( the 'Bus was not
> good at altitude)
>
> Bertie

2.5 G ... that would be something new in the passenger cabin. Get any
screams or spilt coke?

Speaking of g and jets, what kind of g loads can airliners like 707,
727, 737, and then the really big ones take?

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:09:24 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

wrote:
>>> How much of a new students time is spent
>>> flying in slow flight at the low end of the performance envelope?
>>> Isn't that where all the nasty things can happen?
>>
>> I spent a fair amount of time, probably close to an hour or two in
>> slow flight. Maybe a little longer.
>>
>> I don't think it's the case that slow flight is where all the nasty
>> things can happen. A stall can happen at any speed in any flight
>> attitude, and may be worse at higher speeds in certain attitudes than
>> low speed, upright, straight and level.
>This is true. Stalls at 1g are seldom the issue. Accelerated stall is
>the stall that will kill you. Pilots are well advised to go WELL beyond
>understanding stalls with the airplane at 1g. A good look into the realm
>of stall over 1g and in ALL flight attitudes, especially cross
>controlled is time well spent.

Those are fun in the Deb. They can give you a whole new outlook (or
attitude).<:-)) They were still pretty much a non event in the
Cherokee 180 at least with practice. The Deb left no doubt as to
whether the turn was coordinated or not when it stalled and which
way. <:-))
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 15, 9:52 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
> >>> Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
> >>> command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
> >>> pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?
> >>> One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
> >>> conditions.
> >>> The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field landings.

>
> What I think he's saying Dan is that you can drag it in and plop it down
> if you do it right and don't screw it up, but it's not the best
> procedure and can get you into trouble real fast.
> It's not necessary to fly a behind the curve approach into a short
> field. In fact, the accepted procedure for short field is nowhere near
> back side.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

So when flying 1.3 Vso is the airplane in or not in the region of
reversed command?

At 67 KIAS in an A36 on final any increase in pitch results in a
descent.

I agree you have to be on top of things in this PAC, but a short field
landing is considered a maximum performance maneuver, and 1.3 Vso is
the target airspeed.


Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 15, 9:52 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>>>> Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
>>>>> command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
>>>>> pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?
>>>>> One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
>>>>> conditions.
>>>>> The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field landings.
>
>> What I think he's saying Dan is that you can drag it in and plop it down
>> if you do it right and don't screw it up, but it's not the best
>> procedure and can get you into trouble real fast.
>> It's not necessary to fly a behind the curve approach into a short
>> field. In fact, the accepted procedure for short field is nowhere near
>> back side.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> So when flying 1.3 Vso is the airplane in or not in the region of
> reversed command?
>
> At 67 KIAS in an A36 on final any increase in pitch results in a
> descent.
>
> I agree you have to be on top of things in this PAC, but a short field
> landing is considered a maximum performance maneuver, and 1.3 Vso is
> the target airspeed.
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
What's the airspeed for maximum endurance in the A36?

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob F. wrote:
> Thanks for the response. I heard different stories but nothing that
> made sense to me. The closest partial story had something to do with
> the props slipstream on the stabilizer (H or V, I don't know) gave them
> better performance (whatever that means) in high speed, high powered
> dives. I could never get a complete story. I even talked with 3 of the
> last pilots that shot down Adm. Yamamoto, when they gave a talk at the
> Boeing Museum about 20 years ago. They had no idea either.
>
The slipstream I believe could very well have been a factor although
I've never seen the Schlieren photography from the tunnel tests.
Apparently the direction of the slip stream spiral hitting the vertical
stabilizer from the inward props was causing issues, most likely from
any asymmetricals or differentials in the throttle settings during
gunnery. The guns solution requires a center ball or there's a high
degree of trajectory shift .
Tony LeVier would have been the guy to settle up on this issue. He and
Kelsey did most of the tests on the 38. I met him during the L1011
program. Great guy.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 6:58 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 9:52 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
>
> >>>>> Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
> >>>>> command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
> >>>>> pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?
> >>>>> One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
> >>>>> conditions.
> >>>>> The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field landings.
>
> >> What I think he's saying Dan is that you can drag it in and plop it down
> >> if you do it right and don't screw it up, but it's not the best
> >> procedure and can get you into trouble real fast.
> >> It's not necessary to fly a behind the curve approach into a short
> >> field. In fact, the accepted procedure for short field is nowhere near
> >> back side.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > So when flying 1.3 Vso is the airplane in or not in the region of
> > reversed command?
>
> > At 67 KIAS in an A36 on final any increase in pitch results in a
> > descent.
>
> > I agree you have to be on top of things in this PAC, but a short field
> > landing is considered a maximum performance maneuver, and 1.3 Vso is
> > the target airspeed.
>
> > Dan
>
> What's the airspeed for maximum endurance in the A36?
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

110 KIAS

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 6:58 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 9:52 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
>
> >>>>> Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
> >>>>> command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
> >>>>> pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?
> >>>>> One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
> >>>>> conditions.
> >>>>> The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field landings.
>
> >> What I think he's saying Dan is that you can drag it in and plop it down
> >> if you do it right and don't screw it up, but it's not the best
> >> procedure and can get you into trouble real fast.
> >> It's not necessary to fly a behind the curve approach into a short
> >> field. In fact, the accepted procedure for short field is nowhere near
> >> back side.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > So when flying 1.3 Vso is the airplane in or not in the region of
> > reversed command?
>
> > At 67 KIAS in an A36 on final any increase in pitch results in a
> > descent.
>
> > I agree you have to be on top of things in this PAC, but a short field
> > landing is considered a maximum performance maneuver, and 1.3 Vso is
> > the target airspeed.
>
> > Dan
>
> What's the airspeed for maximum endurance in the A36?
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

110 KIAS is book value. To arrive at the exact figure would require a
bit of extrapolation, but wouldn't vary much more than 5 KIAS in
either direction.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob F. wrote:
> Thanks for the response. I heard different stories but nothing that
> made sense to me. The closest partial story had something to do with
> the props slipstream on the stabilizer (H or V, I don't know) gave them
> better performance (whatever that means) in high speed, high powered
> dives. I could never get a complete story. I even talked with 3 of the
> last pilots that shot down Adm. Yamamoto, when they gave a talk at the
> Boeing Museum about 20 years ago. They had no idea either.
>
It was good to see Barber finally get his just due on the Yamamoto
issue. Rex was a true gentlemen. He avoided the mess with Lamphier all
through his life.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 16, 6:58 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 15, 9:52 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>>> Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
>>>>>>> command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
>>>>>>> pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?
>>>>>>> One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
>>>>>>> conditions.
>>>>>>> The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field landings.
>>>> What I think he's saying Dan is that you can drag it in and plop it down
>>>> if you do it right and don't screw it up, but it's not the best
>>>> procedure and can get you into trouble real fast.
>>>> It's not necessary to fly a behind the curve approach into a short
>>>> field. In fact, the accepted procedure for short field is nowhere near
>>>> back side.
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> So when flying 1.3 Vso is the airplane in or not in the region of
>>> reversed command?
>>> At 67 KIAS in an A36 on final any increase in pitch results in a
>>> descent.
>>> I agree you have to be on top of things in this PAC, but a short field
>>> landing is considered a maximum performance maneuver, and 1.3 Vso is
>>> the target airspeed.
>>> Dan
>> What's the airspeed for maximum endurance in the A36?
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> 110 KIAS is book value. To arrive at the exact figure would require a
> bit of extrapolation, but wouldn't vary much more than 5 KIAS in
> either direction.

The accepted point that separates the front and back side of the power
curve should be the maximum endurance airspeed for the airplane, but
this assumes a constantly maintained altitude as the airspeed decreases.
Transition into slow flight while maintaining altitude is a good example
of transition along the curve.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 7:22 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 16, 6:58 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> On Mar 15, 9:52 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> Dan wrote:
> >>>>>>> Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
> >>>>>>> command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
> >>>>>>> pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?
> >>>>>>> One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
> >>>>>>> conditions.
> >>>>>>> The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field landings.
> >>>> What I think he's saying Dan is that you can drag it in and plop it down
> >>>> if you do it right and don't screw it up, but it's not the best
> >>>> procedure and can get you into trouble real fast.
> >>>> It's not necessary to fly a behind the curve approach into a short
> >>>> field. In fact, the accepted procedure for short field is nowhere near
> >>>> back side.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> So when flying 1.3 Vso is the airplane in or not in the region of
> >>> reversed command?
> >>> At 67 KIAS in an A36 on final any increase in pitch results in a
> >>> descent.
> >>> I agree you have to be on top of things in this PAC, but a short field
> >>> landing is considered a maximum performance maneuver, and 1.3 Vso is
> >>> the target airspeed.
> >>> Dan
> >> What's the airspeed for maximum endurance in the A36?
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > 110 KIAS is book value. To arrive at the exact figure would require a
> > bit of extrapolation, but wouldn't vary much more than 5 KIAS in
> > either direction.
>
> The accepted point that separates the front and back side of the power
> curve should be the maximum endurance airspeed for the airplane, but
> this assumes a constantly maintained altitude as the airspeed decreases.
> Transition into slow flight while maintaining altitude is a good example
> of transition along the curve.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Thereby any speed under 110 KIAS could be considered "dragging it in",
which means there's something unclear about the terms.

In the A36, 70 KIAS gives best short field performance -- there's
enough energy to flare if power is lost (not much, but enough), and
yet the airplane lands and stops in a very short distance.

I don't consider that "dragging it in" but it is on the high induced
drag side of the curve.

I think "dragging it in" refers to the practice of setting up a
landing configuration far from the touchdown point, and then applying
lots of power to overcome the high drag configuration to make the
runway.

If you're flying 1.3 Vso you will have a steeper descent angle, which
means kinetic energy is supplementing whatever power may be set, so
you're not at 80% power just to maintain that airspeed.

That's my understanding -- if this is wrong I'd like to know!


Dan

[Bob F.]

Minor point. In aircraft engineering, you can interpolate but never
extrapolate, as the saying goes. IOW, given two data points, it's
acceptable to find a third in the middle someplace (interpolation), but
never go beyond or outside the graph numbers (extrapolation). You should
not make any predictions about what's out there. That's test pilot area.

--
BobF.
"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 16, 6:58 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>> > On Mar 15, 9:52 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> Dan wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
>> >>>>> command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
>> >>>>> pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?
>> >>>>> One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
>> >>>>> conditions.
>> >>>>> The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field
>> >>>>> landings.
>>
>> >> What I think he's saying Dan is that you can drag it in and plop it
>> >> down
>> >> if you do it right and don't screw it up, but it's not the best
>> >> procedure and can get you into trouble real fast.
>> >> It's not necessary to fly a behind the curve approach into a short
>> >> field. In fact, the accepted procedure for short field is nowhere near
>> >> back side.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > So when flying 1.3 Vso is the airplane in or not in the region of
>> > reversed command?
>>
>> > At 67 KIAS in an A36 on final any increase in pitch results in a
>> > descent.
>>
>> > I agree you have to be on top of things in this PAC, but a short field
>> > landing is considered a maximum performance maneuver, and 1.3 Vso is
>> > the target airspeed.
>>
>> > Dan
>>
>> What's the airspeed for maximum endurance in the A36?
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> 110 KIAS is book value. To arrive at the exact figure would require a
> bit of extrapolation, but wouldn't vary much more than 5 KIAS in
> either direction.

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:39:13 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>
>I believe you are repeating wht I have said. I said that "dragging it
>in" generally refers to flying the approach in the area of reverse
>command or if you will behind the power curve. This is absolutely
>correct. Coffin corner is the area behind the curve where sink rate
>can't be stopped with power but requires reduction in angle of attack.
>For a perfect example of an aircraft in coffin corner, see the Edwards
>AFB accident involving a young AF pilot who got his F100 so deep into
>coffin corner behind the curve he couldn't recover the airplane; not
>enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
>burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
>attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
>definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
>reverse command.

I thought coffin corner was the point where if you go slower you stall
and if you go faster you hit critical mach number?

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 8:54 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
> Minor point. In aircraft engineering, you can interpolate but never
> extrapolate, as the saying goes. IOW, given two data points, it's
> acceptable to find a third in the middle someplace (interpolation), but
> never go beyond or outside the graph numbers (extrapolation). You should
> not make any predictions about what's out there. That's test pilot area.
>

Good point!

The A36 POH provides airspeeds for best glide (110 KIAS) and
maneuvering (chandelles and lazy 8s @ 120 KIAS).

The POH does not specify if this is at gross or some weight less than
gross, so I use these speeds at all times -- empty or not.

Dan Mc

[[email protected]]

> I think "dragging it in" refers to the practice of setting up a
> landing configuration far from the touchdown point, and then applying
> lots of power to overcome the high drag configuration to make the
> runway.

My experience with the term was this: during dual as a student pilot I
screwed up my angle of descent on a short field landing attempt. I was
using the a touch down point marking, well into the runway, as the
spot where I was supposed to put down. My instructor said, "You'll
have to drag it in to not land short of your aiming point."

Whereupon added power (not full), shallowed the descent angle to
almost level, and "dragged it in" to the touchdown point marker.

It was a craptastic landing, and illustrated much of what has been
discussed.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Mar 15, 7:57*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Bob F." > wrote
>> innews:pradndOZJqc580HanZ2dnUVZ_qOk
> :
>>
>> > Yes, you learn a lot about Dutch rolls real quick. *...and I did
>> > experience a elevator hydraulic cylinder stall once in a 707. *That
>> > was an experience.
>>
>> Ouch. I didn't know they had hydraulics on the elevator. I thought
>> the 707
> *
>> was all tab control except the rudder.
>> I had a pitch problem in an A300 at about FL190 once. That was pretty
>> exciting, but since it was the automatics that caused it we were able
>> to disconnnect and get it all back under control. Scared the crap out
>> of us. We thought we had something on the airframe come loose and
>> cause the pitch
>
>> problems. Nothing else made sense until we got down and maintenence
>> diagnosed the problem. We got a mach buffet recovering (2.5 G) but of
>> course that part of it wasnt too dramatic because of the relatively
>> low altitude. It would have been a different story at 330 ( the 'Bus
>> was not good at altitude)
>>
>> Bertie
>
> 2.5 G ... that would be something new in the passenger cabin. Get any
> screams or spilt coke?
>

Nope, no pax on that flight.

the airplane had just come off a heavy check. A 'D' Check which is nigh
on a complete rebuild. It was a cluster**** of certification, paperwork
and miscomunication that caused the problems. For one thing the airplane
had had a complete refit of all it's control surface bearings, and i had
known that which is what made me think we had airframe damage. The guy
who had tested it after the rebuild had discovered that the stal warning
system and alpha floor protection ( automatics that engage the
autothrottles and apply power regardless of what you want) was firing
off too early.
All this hapened to us on this flight and then some. The power came on
and the nose pitched up fairly quickly ( because of the underslung
engines) the pitch trim failed simultaneously which allowed the nose to
come up even more. The FO was flying but I took it and disconnected the
autoflight and put the nose down. Out intercept alt of FL 190 was coming
up quick so I pulled ( doing over 260 indicated) and the nose came up
very quickly due to the stab trim being wildly out for the speed. That's
when we got the buffet. Analysis of the FDR after determined the G and
flight profile. Airbus tried to blame me but actually caught hell for
inadequate flight testing both during certifiaction and failure to
rectify reported faults from the D check flight test.

> Speaking of g and jets, what kind of g loads can airliners like 707,
> 727, 737, and then the really big ones take?

Certified limits are +2.5 , -1.0 clean and +2.0 and 0.0 with flaps out.
I believe it's the smae for all jet transoprts. They'll come apart after
that. Scary, eh?
The airplane needed to be checked for damage after this exposure, but
there was none.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bob F. wrote:
>> Ok Dudley,
>>
>> Let's get into an area of your expertise. I've always wondered this.
>> On a P-38, when they first came out the Allison's turned counter
>> rotating (top blade towards cabin, as you would expect). But after
>> the first 12 or so proto's and for the rest of production, they
>> interchanged the engines. That is each engine's top blade rotated
>> away from the aircraft. Why? Serious, I really want to know.
>>
> Well Bob, I hope it's a friendly request and I'll take it this way.
>
> To be absolutely truthful with you, P38 design and development really
> isn't in my area of expertise but I'll give it a shot based loosely on
> something an old friend Jeff Ethell once mentioned to me about the
> engines. As you now they were Allison V1710's and thy were handed
> inward in the XP38. The prop swing was indeed changed I believe in th
> second run or even back as far as the YP38.
> I'll admit it always puzzled me as well. I knew the Brits didn't like
> the handed engines and even our side had maintanence issues. For many
> years I thought it might have had something to do with the flow
> direction linkages on the turbochargers but I believe the change was
> made after gunnery testing indicated the change would improve the
> airplane's stability in the gun firing equation.
> Not absolutely certain, but I believe I recall Jeff mentioning it in
> this context.
>

It was due to buffeting of the tailplane during high speed flight. The
flow from the props was supposed to be the problem and they decided to
try and they decided to try swapping the eninges around to see if it
made any difference. It did , so they they just left it like that.
As for the brits not liking it. I'd have no doubt about that. They
suffer more than any country I know of from "not invented here"
syndrome. If they didn't like 'em they didn't have to take 'em. they
could have continued along with their cute little Ansons and
Beaufighters.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bob F. wrote:
>> Thanks for the response. I heard different stories but nothing that
>> made sense to me. The closest partial story had something to do with
>> the props slipstream on the stabilizer (H or V, I don't know) gave
>> them better performance (whatever that means) in high speed, high
>> powered dives. I could never get a complete story. I even talked
>> with 3 of the last pilots that shot down Adm. Yamamoto, when they
>> gave a talk at the Boeing Museum about 20 years ago. They had no
>> idea either.
>>
> The slipstream I believe could very well have been a factor although
> I've never seen the Schlieren photography from the tunnel tests.
> Apparently the direction of the slip stream spiral hitting the
> vertical stabilizer from the inward props was causing issues, most
> likely from any asymmetricals or differentials in the throttle
> settings during gunnery. The guns solution requires a center ball or
> there's a high degree of trajectory shift .
> Tony LeVier would have been the guy to settle up on this issue. He and
> Kelsey did most of the tests on the 38. I met him during the L1011
> program. Great guy.
>
>

and he usd to post right here! Yeah, if anyone would know it would have
been the guy who test flew it!


I wouldn't be surprised if he had posted something about it over the years.
I know I have the answer written down somewhere, but where....


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Peter Clark > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:39:13 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>I believe you are repeating wht I have said. I said that "dragging it
>>in" generally refers to flying the approach in the area of reverse
>>command or if you will behind the power curve. This is absolutely
>>correct. Coffin corner is the area behind the curve where sink rate
>>can't be stopped with power but requires reduction in angle of attack.
>>For a perfect example of an aircraft in coffin corner, see the Edwards
>>AFB accident involving a young AF pilot who got his F100 so deep into
>>coffin corner behind the curve he couldn't recover the airplane; not
>>enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
>>burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
>>attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
>>definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
>>reverse command.
>
> I thought coffin corner was the point where if you go slower you stall
> and if you go faster you hit critical mach number?

Kind of , but the bottom side isn;t exactly a stall, it's also a mach
buffet. the main distinction being it happens at a higher than normally
indicated airspeed, and more crucially, a lesser angle of attack. The net
effect is the same, but it's important to distinguish between the two since
the picture when it happens is substantially different.

Just in case any of you guys are thinking of a VLJ.


Bertie

[Bob F.]

That's what I heard before. Makes you wonder. Who would have thought of
that? "Oh, buffeting, let' s swap the engines and see if that works."
More likely story is they accidentally installed the engines wrong and
someone said, "Hey, this thing performs better this way". You can see I have
a lot of confidence in American ingenuity.

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bob F. wrote:
>>> Ok Dudley,
>>>
>>> Let's get into an area of your expertise. I've always wondered this.
>>> On a P-38, when they first came out the Allison's turned counter
>>> rotating (top blade towards cabin, as you would expect). But after
>>> the first 12 or so proto's and for the rest of production, they
>>> interchanged the engines. That is each engine's top blade rotated
>>> away from the aircraft. Why? Serious, I really want to know.
>>>
>> Well Bob, I hope it's a friendly request and I'll take it this way.
>>
>> To be absolutely truthful with you, P38 design and development really
>> isn't in my area of expertise but I'll give it a shot based loosely on
>> something an old friend Jeff Ethell once mentioned to me about the
>> engines. As you now they were Allison V1710's and thy were handed
>> inward in the XP38. The prop swing was indeed changed I believe in th
>> second run or even back as far as the YP38.
>> I'll admit it always puzzled me as well. I knew the Brits didn't like
>> the handed engines and even our side had maintanence issues. For many
>> years I thought it might have had something to do with the flow
>> direction linkages on the turbochargers but I believe the change was
>> made after gunnery testing indicated the change would improve the
>> airplane's stability in the gun firing equation.
>> Not absolutely certain, but I believe I recall Jeff mentioning it in
>> this context.
>>
>
> It was due to buffeting of the tailplane during high speed flight. The
> flow from the props was supposed to be the problem and they decided to
> try and they decided to try swapping the eninges around to see if it
> made any difference. It did , so they they just left it like that.
> As for the brits not liking it. I'd have no doubt about that. They
> suffer more than any country I know of from "not invented here"
> syndrome. If they didn't like 'em they didn't have to take 'em. they
> could have continued along with their cute little Ansons and
> Beaufighters.
>
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> Right, but I'll think of another entertaining Q. I'm sure you'll hit
> one. As Tony said, "We're just tawkin here".
>

Came across this looking for info on the P-38s problem.
This makes some kind of sense since the flwo fom the props would modify the
alpha the stab would experience and exacerbate tailplane mach problems.

http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/MAE331Lecture13.pdf

Down lower on the page they discuss mach tuck and the info is 100%
accurate. What isn;'t mentioned is that the stab will also buffet and
anything contributing to the acceleration of air due to high alpha on the
tailplane will bring a buffet on at a lower airspeed. No tailplane
authority equals a pitch down moment equals more speed equals more buffet
equals .... you see where this is going..



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> That's what I heard before. Makes you wonder. Who would have thought
> of that? "Oh, buffeting, let' s swap the engines and see if that
> works." More likely story is they accidentally installed the engines
> wrong and someone said, "Hey, this thing performs better this way".
> You can see I have a lot of confidence in American ingenuity.
>

No, it was a deliberate move. They had some idea of what was going on even
then. Lippsich's stuff was well known worldwide even if the germans were
keeping the best stuff for themselves and contaptions like millers "Time
Flies" and the rapidly advancing experimental fighters were giving data
about what compressibility and buffet were all about. I know i have some
reliable info on it somewhere.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> That's what I heard before. Makes you wonder. Who would have thought
> of that? "Oh, buffeting, let' s swap the engines and see if that
> works." More likely story is they accidentally installed the engines
> wrong and someone said, "Hey, this thing performs better this way".
> You can see I have a lot of confidence in American ingenuity.
>

Should have looked here first

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning


This seems to be a pretty accurate account of the teething problems the
airplane had and the remedies they used. i'm pretty sure the prop rotation
was part of the buffet solution, but this article seems to indicate
otherwise.


bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 10:38 am, wrote:
> > I think "dragging it in" refers to the practice of setting up a
> > landing configuration far from the touchdown point, and then applying
> > lots of power to overcome the high drag configuration to make the
> > runway.
>
> My experience with the term was this: during dual as a student pilot I
> screwed up my angle of descent on a short field landing attempt. I was
> using the a touch down point marking, well into the runway, as the
> spot where I was supposed to put down. My instructor said, "You'll
> have to drag it in to not land short of your aiming point."
>
> Whereupon added power (not full), shallowed the descent angle to
> almost level, and "dragged it in" to the touchdown point marker.
>
> It was a craptastic landing, and illustrated much of what has been
> discussed.

Exactly.

To clarify -- I said at 1.3 Vso you will have a steeper descent angle.

Not exactly.

Actually, you *should* be at a steeper angle of descent, but what can
happen is the pilot shoots for the airspeed, not airspeed + angle.

To get the airspeed all you need is lots of drag and lots of power to
fly with lots of induced drag.

The short field approach at 1.3 Vso works if the descent angle
complements the airspeed (where power is used to control the descent
rate to the touchdown point).

Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:b52303c3-1c03-415e-9abc-
:

> On Mar 16, 10:38 am, wrote:
>> > I think "dragging it in" refers to the practice of setting up a
>> > landing configuration far from the touchdown point, and then
applying
>> > lots of power to overcome the high drag configuration to make the
>> > runway.
>>
>> My experience with the term was this: during dual as a student pilot
I
>> screwed up my angle of descent on a short field landing attempt. I
was
>> using the a touch down point marking, well into the runway, as the
>> spot where I was supposed to put down. My instructor said, "You'll
>> have to drag it in to not land short of your aiming point."
>>
>> Whereupon added power (not full), shallowed the descent angle to
>> almost level, and "dragged it in" to the touchdown point marker.
>>
>> It was a craptastic landing, and illustrated much of what has been
>> discussed.
>
> Exactly.
>
> To clarify -- I said at 1.3 Vso you will have a steeper descent angle.
>
> Not exactly.
>
> Actually, you *should* be at a steeper angle of descent, but what can
> happen is the pilot shoots for the airspeed, not airspeed + angle.
>
> To get the airspeed all you need is lots of drag and lots of power to
> fly with lots of induced drag.
>
> The short field approach at 1.3 Vso works if the descent angle
> complements the airspeed (where power is used to control the descent
> rate to the touchdown point).
>

That's not dragging it in. 1.3 VSo is standard approach speed for all
airplanes.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 1:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> That's not dragging it in. 1.3 VSo is standard approach speed for all
> airplanes.
>
> Bertie

Right.

But if you only target 1.3 Vso, and are 5 mile final in a 152, your
angle of approach will be very shallow and you will need lots of power
to make it to the touchdown point.

So it's 1.3 Vso PLUS the optimal descent angle, where weight
complements thrust.


Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:80604f56-52ce-442d-b7c3-e3c6775e5e3e@
2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 16, 1:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> That's not dragging it in. 1.3 VSo is standard approach speed for all
>> airplanes.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Right.
>
> But if you only target 1.3 Vso, and are 5 mile final in a 152, your
> angle of approach will be very shallow and you will need lots of power
> to make it to the touchdown point.

So don't fly shallow, that is the point.
>
> So it's 1.3 Vso PLUS the optimal descent angle, where weight
> complements thrust.
>

No, standard approach speed for just about all airplanes is 1.3 VSO. What
you fly up to the fence is your own business and has nothing to do with
performance.


Bertie

[Roy Smith]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> No, standard approach speed for just about all airplanes is 1.3 VSO.

I know this is true, but what's so magic about 1.3 Vs0 that makes it so
universal over such a wide variety of designs?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Roy Smith > wrote in news:roy-F5060D.14035016032008@70-1-84-
166.area1.spcsdns.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> No, standard approach speed for just about all airplanes is 1.3 VSO.
>
> I know this is true, but what's so magic about 1.3 Vs0 that makes it so
> universal over such a wide variety of designs?
>

Just gives ample manueverability, speed margins and g protection.
Performance is predicated upon it as well. There must be airplanes that are
different, but aside from the 737, on whihc they've raised approach speeds
to buffer against problems induced by the rudder hardover thing, I can't
think of any.


bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 1:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in
> > But if you only target 1.3 Vso, and are 5 mile final in a 152, your
> > angle of approach will be very shallow and you will need lots of power
> > to make it to the touchdown point.
>
> So don't fly shallow, that is the point.

Right, and that is the difference between "dragging it in" and not.

1.3 Vso is the backside of the power curve or "region of reversed
command", where induced drag is high, parasite drag is low.

In a shallow approach only power is available to counteract drag,
while in a steeper approach, weight complements power. If you only
have power and no kinetic energy (altitude), flight in the region of
reversed command adds risk -- you're limited to one input, which may
be in short supply.

Which somewhere long ago was the topic that had me posting to this
thread.

If this is incorrect I'd like to know (I said that before too), but
seems in line with Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators (page 353-356).



Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:dea9c337-78c9-4cdf-990a-f2237111a9f9
@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 16, 1:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in
>> > But if you only target 1.3 Vso, and are 5 mile final in a 152, your
>> > angle of approach will be very shallow and you will need lots of power
>> > to make it to the touchdown point.
>>
>> So don't fly shallow, that is the point.
>
> Right, and that is the difference between "dragging it in" and not.
>
> 1.3 Vso is the backside of the power curve or "region of reversed
> command", where induced drag is high, parasite drag is low.
>
> In a shallow approach only power is available to counteract drag,
> while in a steeper approach, weight complements power. If you only
> have power and no kinetic energy (altitude), flight in the region of
> reversed command adds risk -- you're limited to one input, which may
> be in short supply.
>
> Which somewhere long ago was the topic that had me posting to this
> thread.
>
> If this is incorrect I'd like to know (I said that before too), but
> seems in line with Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators (page 353-356).


Nope, that's right. So why did you say you drag it in?



Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 2:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:dea9c337-78c9-4cdf-990a-f2237111a9f9
> @s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 1:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Dan > wrote in
> >> > But if you only target 1.3 Vso, and are 5 mile final in a 152, your
> >> > angle of approach will be very shallow and you will need lots of power
> >> > to make it to the touchdown point.
>
> >> So don't fly shallow, that is the point.
>
> > Right, and that is the difference between "dragging it in" and not.
>
> > 1.3 Vso is the backside of the power curve or "region of reversed
> > command", where induced drag is high, parasite drag is low.
>
> > In a shallow approach only power is available to counteract drag,
> > while in a steeper approach, weight complements power. If you only
> > have power and no kinetic energy (altitude), flight in the region of
> > reversed command adds risk -- you're limited to one input, which may
> > be in short supply.
>
> > Which somewhere long ago was the topic that had me posting to this
> > thread.
>
> > If this is incorrect I'd like to know (I said that before too), but
> > seems in line with Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators (page 353-356).
>
> Nope, that's right. So why did you say you drag it in?
>
> Bertie

I was making the point that there is a difference between "dragging it
in" and not.

You can be accused of "dragging it in" when you're too low and using
power to overcome the drag configuration of the airplane. The airspeed
may be right, but the angle of descent is too shallow. The exact same
configuration and airspeed, at the proper descent angle (wind factored
in, or course), would not be "dragging it in" but would in fact be the
ideal.

This distinction matters (IMHO), as it wasn't adequately explained to
me until recently, and I want to make sure I properly explain it to my
students.



Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 16, 2:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in
>> news:dea9c337-78c9-4cdf-990a-f2237111a9f9
>> @s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 16, 1:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Dan > wrote in
>> >> > But if you only target 1.3 Vso, and are 5 mile final in a 152,
>> >> > your angle of approach will be very shallow and you will need
>> >> > lots of power to make it to the touchdown point.
>>
>> >> So don't fly shallow, that is the point.
>>
>> > Right, and that is the difference between "dragging it in" and not.
>>
>> > 1.3 Vso is the backside of the power curve or "region of reversed
>> > command", where induced drag is high, parasite drag is low.
>>
>> > In a shallow approach only power is available to counteract drag,
>> > while in a steeper approach, weight complements power. If you only
>> > have power and no kinetic energy (altitude), flight in the region
>> > of reversed command adds risk -- you're limited to one input, which
>> > may be in short supply.
>>
>> > Which somewhere long ago was the topic that had me posting to this
>> > thread.
>>
>> > If this is incorrect I'd like to know (I said that before too), but
>> > seems in line with Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators (page 353-356).
>>
>> Nope, that's right. So why did you say you drag it in?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I was making the point that there is a difference between "dragging it
> in" and not.
>
> You can be accused of "dragging it in" when you're too low and using
> power to overcome the drag configuration of the airplane. The airspeed
> may be right, but the angle of descent is too shallow. The exact same
> configuration and airspeed, at the proper descent angle (wind factored
> in, or course), would not be "dragging it in" but would in fact be the
> ideal.


If you're "too low" you;re dragging it in.
>
> This distinction matters (IMHO), as it wasn't adequately explained to
> me until recently, and I want to make sure I properly explain it to my
> students.

Well, my view would be a little different. I operate out of a fairly
short strip. One of them is about 1350 feet with a fairly big slope and
obstacles at one end and the other is about 1300 feet and not quite so
tight with the obstacles. And we're not flying just cubs in and out
either.
Some of the guys flying in and out do rely on power for glidepath
control but i do not. When short field becomes normal operation you ae
completely reliant on the engine to preserve your life. I was taught
early on never to do that so I generally operate in such a way so I
don't have to. It's difficult and I don't always get it right, but i
make al approaches into these places power off.
Someone, who I checked out in taildraggers, BTW, did develop a fondness
for dragging it in against my repeated advice and completely destroyed
his perfectly good vintage airplane by doing so.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 2:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 2:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Dan > wrote in
> >> news:dea9c337-78c9-4cdf-990a-f2237111a9f9
> >> @s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Mar 16, 1:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> Dan > wrote in
> >> >> > But if you only target 1.3 Vso, and are 5 mile final in a 152,
> >> >> > your angle of approach will be very shallow and you will need
> >> >> > lots of power to make it to the touchdown point.
>
> >> >> So don't fly shallow, that is the point.
>
> >> > Right, and that is the difference between "dragging it in" and not.
>
> >> > 1.3 Vso is the backside of the power curve or "region of reversed
> >> > command", where induced drag is high, parasite drag is low.
>
> >> > In a shallow approach only power is available to counteract drag,
> >> > while in a steeper approach, weight complements power. If you only
> >> > have power and no kinetic energy (altitude), flight in the region
> >> > of reversed command adds risk -- you're limited to one input, which
> >> > may be in short supply.
>
> >> > Which somewhere long ago was the topic that had me posting to this
> >> > thread.
>
> >> > If this is incorrect I'd like to know (I said that before too), but
> >> > seems in line with Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators (page 353-356).
>
> >> Nope, that's right. So why did you say you drag it in?
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > I was making the point that there is a difference between "dragging it
> > in" and not.
>
> > You can be accused of "dragging it in" when you're too low and using
> > power to overcome the drag configuration of the airplane. The airspeed
> > may be right, but the angle of descent is too shallow. The exact same
> > configuration and airspeed, at the proper descent angle (wind factored
> > in, or course), would not be "dragging it in" but would in fact be the
> > ideal.
>
> If you're "too low" you;re dragging it in.
>
>
>
> > This distinction matters (IMHO), as it wasn't adequately explained to
> > me until recently, and I want to make sure I properly explain it to my
> > students.
>
> Well, my view would be a little different. I operate out of a fairly
> short strip. One of them is about 1350 feet with a fairly big slope and
> obstacles at one end and the other is about 1300 feet and not quite so
> tight with the obstacles. And we're not flying just cubs in and out
> either.
> Some of the guys flying in and out do rely on power for glidepath
> control but i do not. When short field becomes normal operation you ae
> completely reliant on the engine to preserve your life. I was taught
> early on never to do that so I generally operate in such a way so I
> don't have to. It's difficult and I don't always get it right, but i
> make al approaches into these places power off.
> Someone, who I checked out in taildraggers, BTW, did develop a fondness
> for dragging it in against my repeated advice and completely destroyed
> his perfectly good vintage airplane by doing so.
>
> Bertie

You make all short field approaches power off with steep descent,
therefore not relying on power to maintain altitude or permit a more
shallow descent.

Is that correct?

I also use some power on the descent, only because I'm usually
reducing about 1" MAP a minute or so. By the time I'm on downwind I'm
at 15" (bottom of the green).

On base and final 13", which is still "power", but just barely.

If I pull back to idle the entire pattern dimensions compress about
30%.

The approach regime you describe is how I learned in a 150 -- the old
B-29 driver check pilot at the 141 school pulled the power -- oh about
-- every other pattern.

Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 16, 2:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:8d949db2-dc7d-4587-b31c-

>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 16, 2:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Dan > wrote in
>> >> news:dea9c337-78c9-4cdf-990a-f2237111a9f9
>> >> @s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Mar 16, 1:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> Dan > wrote in
>> >> >> > But if you only target 1.3 Vso, and are 5 mile final in a
>> >> >> > 152, your angle of approach will be very shallow and you will
>> >> >> > need lots of power to make it to the touchdown point.
>>
>> >> >> So don't fly shallow, that is the point.
>>
>> >> > Right, and that is the difference between "dragging it in" and
>> >> > not.
>>
>> >> > 1.3 Vso is the backside of the power curve or "region of
>> >> > reversed command", where induced drag is high, parasite drag is
>> >> > low.
>>
>> >> > In a shallow approach only power is available to counteract
>> >> > drag, while in a steeper approach, weight complements power. If
>> >> > you only have power and no kinetic energy (altitude), flight in
>> >> > the region of reversed command adds risk -- you're limited to
>> >> > one input, which may be in short supply.
>>
>> >> > Which somewhere long ago was the topic that had me posting to
>> >> > this thread.
>>
>> >> > If this is incorrect I'd like to know (I said that before too),
>> >> > but seems in line with Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators (page
>> >> > 353-356).
>>
>> >> Nope, that's right. So why did you say you drag it in?
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > I was making the point that there is a difference between "dragging
>> > it in" and not.
>>
>> > You can be accused of "dragging it in" when you're too low and
>> > using power to overcome the drag configuration of the airplane. The
>> > airspeed may be right, but the angle of descent is too shallow. The
>> > exact same configuration and airspeed, at the proper descent angle
>> > (wind factored in, or course), would not be "dragging it in" but
>> > would in fact be the ideal.
>>
>> If you're "too low" you;re dragging it in.
>>
>>
>>
>> > This distinction matters (IMHO), as it wasn't adequately explained
>> > to me until recently, and I want to make sure I properly explain it
>> > to my students.
>>
>> Well, my view would be a little different. I operate out of a fairly
>> short strip. One of them is about 1350 feet with a fairly big slope
>> and obstacles at one end and the other is about 1300 feet and not
>> quite so tight with the obstacles. And we're not flying just cubs in
>> and out either.
>> Some of the guys flying in and out do rely on power for glidepath
>> control but i do not. When short field becomes normal operation you
>> ae completely reliant on the engine to preserve your life. I was
>> taught early on never to do that so I generally operate in such a way
>> so I don't have to. It's difficult and I don't always get it right,
>> but i make al approaches into these places power off.
>> Someone, who I checked out in taildraggers, BTW, did develop a
>> fondness for dragging it in against my repeated advice and completely
>> destroyed his perfectly good vintage airplane by doing so.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You make all short field approaches power off with steep descent,
> therefore not relying on power to maintain altitude or permit a more
> shallow descent.
>
> Is that correct?

Yep.
Also neccesary on one end to avoid the barns.

>
> I also use some power on the descent, only because I'm usually
> reducing about 1" MAP a minute or so. By the time I'm on downwind I'm
> at 15" (bottom of the green).
>
> On base and final 13", which is still "power", but just barely.


Well, that's stil not draggin it in, but it depends on the terrain on
the approach. We're talking max performnance approaches here. Very whort
field, which is the idea.
>
> If I pull back to idle the entire pattern dimensions compress about
> 30%.
>
> The approach regime you describe is how I learned in a 150 -- the old
> B-29 driver check pilot at the 141 school pulled the power -- oh about
> -- every other pattern.

Exactly. Once you're not frying the engine, the only other real
consideration is loading the plugs up, and a quick blast every now and
again should look after that.

Oh, and in some airplanes there's little protection against carb ice at
idle, so that has to be considered, but those airplanes are not common.



Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 3:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Yep.
> Also neccesary on one end to avoid the barns.
>

In the A36, 1.3 Vso (67 KIAS) + 13" MAP + Full Flaps & Gear results in
a very steep descent rate -- not as steep as a C185, but still like an
"elevator going down."

In the '47 V tail, it's nearly as impressive as the 185.

> Well, that's stil not draggin it in, but it depends on the terrain on
> the approach. We're talking max performnance approaches here. Very whort
> field, which is the idea.

True, though I try to use that method on every approach unless I'm
asked to keep speed up on final, etc etc.

> > If I pull back to idle the entire pattern dimensions compress about
> > 30%.
>
> > The approach regime you describe is how I learned in a 150 -- the old
> > B-29 driver check pilot at the 141 school pulled the power -- oh about
> > -- every other pattern.
>
> Exactly. Once you're not frying the engine, the only other real
> consideration is loading the plugs up, and a quick blast every now and
> again should look after that.
>
> Oh, and in some airplanes there's little protection against carb ice at
> idle, so that has to be considered, but those airplanes are not common.
>
> Bertie

True -- I have to conscious of that when flying the older 172s.

The 35 Bonanza carb heat is only recommended when at low power in
visible moisture -- I think I've used it once.


Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:4343fe24-39bf-47d4-964b-
:

> On Mar 16, 3:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Yep.
>> Also neccesary on one end to avoid the barns.
>>
>
> In the A36, 1.3 Vso (67 KIAS) + 13" MAP + Full Flaps & Gear results in
> a very steep descent rate -- not as steep as a C185, but still like an
> "elevator going down."
>
> In the '47 V tail, it's nearly as impressive as the 185.
>
>> Well, that's stil not draggin it in, but it depends on the terrain on
>> the approach. We're talking max performnance approaches here. Very
whort
>> field, which is the idea.
>
> True, though I try to use that method on every approach unless I'm
> asked to keep speed up on final, etc etc.
>
>> > If I pull back to idle the entire pattern dimensions compress about
>> > 30%.
>>
>> > The approach regime you describe is how I learned in a 150 -- the
old
>> > B-29 driver check pilot at the 141 school pulled the power -- oh
about
>> > -- every other pattern.
>>
>> Exactly. Once you're not frying the engine, the only other real
>> consideration is loading the plugs up, and a quick blast every now
and
>> again should look after that.
>>
>> Oh, and in some airplanes there's little protection against carb ice
at
>> idle, so that has to be considered, but those airplanes are not
common.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> True -- I have to conscious of that when flying the older 172s.

There are some moe vulnerable than than a C145. The old Gypsies, for
instance have no carb heat to speak of when they're at idle. Some
others, like some Jodels, use ambient cowl air to prevent carb ice and
you're outside the green arc at something like 2100 RPM.
>
> The 35 Bonanza carb heat is only recommended when at low power in
> visible moisture -- I think I've used it once.

E 185?

Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 4:05 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:4343fe24-39bf-47d4-964b-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 3:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> Yep.
> >> Also neccesary on one end to avoid the barns.
>
> > In the A36, 1.3 Vso (67 KIAS) + 13" MAP + Full Flaps & Gear results in
> > a very steep descent rate -- not as steep as a C185, but still like an
> > "elevator going down."
>
> > In the '47 V tail, it's nearly as impressive as the 185.
>
> >> Well, that's stil not draggin it in, but it depends on the terrain on
> >> the approach. We're talking max performnance approaches here. Very
> whort
> >> field, which is the idea.
>
> > True, though I try to use that method on every approach unless I'm
> > asked to keep speed up on final, etc etc.
>
> >> > If I pull back to idle the entire pattern dimensions compress about
> >> > 30%.
>
> >> > The approach regime you describe is how I learned in a 150 -- the
> old
> >> > B-29 driver check pilot at the 141 school pulled the power -- oh
> about
> >> > -- every other pattern.
>
> >> Exactly. Once you're not frying the engine, the only other real
> >> consideration is loading the plugs up, and a quick blast every now
> and
> >> again should look after that.
>
> >> Oh, and in some airplanes there's little protection against carb ice
> at
> >> idle, so that has to be considered, but those airplanes are not
> common.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > True -- I have to conscious of that when flying the older 172s.
>
> There are some moe vulnerable than than a C145. The old Gypsies, for
> instance have no carb heat to speak of when they're at idle. Some
> others, like some Jodels, use ambient cowl air to prevent carb ice and
> you're outside the green arc at something like 2100 RPM.
>
>
>
> > The 35 Bonanza carb heat is only recommended when at low power in
> > visible moisture -- I think I've used it once.
>
> E 185?
>
> Bertie

You got it.. E185-1 with electric prop.

Looks like the block to an M-60A3 tank.



Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:5d37b09b-52be-43bc-895e-
:

> On Mar 16, 4:05 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:4343fe24-39bf-47d4-964b-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 16, 3:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> Yep.
>> >> Also neccesary on one end to avoid the barns.
>>
>> > In the A36, 1.3 Vso (67 KIAS) + 13" MAP + Full Flaps & Gear results
in
>> > a very steep descent rate -- not as steep as a C185, but still like
an
>> > "elevator going down."
>>
>> > In the '47 V tail, it's nearly as impressive as the 185.
>>
>> >> Well, that's stil not draggin it in, but it depends on the terrain
on
>> >> the approach. We're talking max performnance approaches here. Very
>> whort
>> >> field, which is the idea.
>>
>> > True, though I try to use that method on every approach unless I'm
>> > asked to keep speed up on final, etc etc.
>>
>> >> > If I pull back to idle the entire pattern dimensions compress
about
>> >> > 30%.
>>
>> >> > The approach regime you describe is how I learned in a 150 --
the
>> old
>> >> > B-29 driver check pilot at the 141 school pulled the power -- oh
>> about
>> >> > -- every other pattern.
>>
>> >> Exactly. Once you're not frying the engine, the only other real
>> >> consideration is loading the plugs up, and a quick blast every now
>> and
>> >> again should look after that.
>>
>> >> Oh, and in some airplanes there's little protection against carb
ice
>> at
>> >> idle, so that has to be considered, but those airplanes are not
>> common.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > True -- I have to conscious of that when flying the older 172s.
>>
>> There are some moe vulnerable than than a C145. The old Gypsies, for
>> instance have no carb heat to speak of when they're at idle. Some
>> others, like some Jodels, use ambient cowl air to prevent carb ice
and
>> you're outside the green arc at something like 2100 RPM.
>>
>>
>>
>> > The 35 Bonanza carb heat is only recommended when at low power in
>> > visible moisture -- I think I've used it once.
>>
>> E 185?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You got it.. E185-1 with electric prop.


A lovely looking lump, I always thought. I've only ever fown one and
that was in a bonanza, which I thought glided quite well!It also had an
electric prop. 1835D IIRC.

> Looks like the block to an M-60A3 tank.

It had a good reputation, I think. In any case, they didn't install
anything too junky in a Bonanza. I've seen lots of them for sale
recently for very little money, but I'm willing to bet they'll break the
bank in operating costs. I have a friend selling his 260 Commanche
because he figures it costs him over 500 an hour to fly.

Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 4:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:5d37b09b-52be-43bc-895e-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 4:05 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Dan > wrote in news:4343fe24-39bf-47d4-964b-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Mar 16, 3:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> Yep.
> >> >> Also neccesary on one end to avoid the barns.
>
> >> > In the A36, 1.3 Vso (67 KIAS) + 13" MAP + Full Flaps & Gear results
> in
> >> > a very steep descent rate -- not as steep as a C185, but still like
> an
> >> > "elevator going down."
>
> >> > In the '47 V tail, it's nearly as impressive as the 185.
>
> >> >> Well, that's stil not draggin it in, but it depends on the terrain
> on
> >> >> the approach. We're talking max performnance approaches here. Very
> >> whort
> >> >> field, which is the idea.
>
> >> > True, though I try to use that method on every approach unless I'm
> >> > asked to keep speed up on final, etc etc.
>
> >> >> > If I pull back to idle the entire pattern dimensions compress
> about
> >> >> > 30%.
>
> >> >> > The approach regime you describe is how I learned in a 150 --
> the
> >> old
> >> >> > B-29 driver check pilot at the 141 school pulled the power -- oh
> >> about
> >> >> > -- every other pattern.
>
> >> >> Exactly. Once you're not frying the engine, the only other real
> >> >> consideration is loading the plugs up, and a quick blast every now
> >> and
> >> >> again should look after that.
>
> >> >> Oh, and in some airplanes there's little protection against carb
> ice
> >> at
> >> >> idle, so that has to be considered, but those airplanes are not
> >> common.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > True -- I have to conscious of that when flying the older 172s.
>
> >> There are some moe vulnerable than than a C145. The old Gypsies, for
> >> instance have no carb heat to speak of when they're at idle. Some
> >> others, like some Jodels, use ambient cowl air to prevent carb ice
> and
> >> you're outside the green arc at something like 2100 RPM.
>
> >> > The 35 Bonanza carb heat is only recommended when at low power in
> >> > visible moisture -- I think I've used it once.
>
> >> E 185?
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > You got it.. E185-1 with electric prop.
>
> A lovely looking lump, I always thought. I've only ever fown one and
> that was in a bonanza, which I thought glided quite well!It also had an
> electric prop. 1835D IIRC.
>
> > Looks like the block to an M-60A3 tank.
>
> It had a good reputation, I think. In any case, they didn't install
> anything too junky in a Bonanza. I've seen lots of them for sale
> recently for very little money, but I'm willing to bet they'll break the
> bank in operating costs. I have a friend selling his 260 Commanche
> because he figures it costs him over 500 an hour to fly.
>
> Bertie

$500/hour??

Sheese... No wonder Comanche prices are so low!

The 35 prices have come down some... These older airplanes biggest
issue is spare yellow tagged parts. So far the repairs haven't been
beyond the norm (flap motor, etc).

But we're very fortunate to have a reasonable and well qualified IA.

This particular 35 sat for years, and then flew rarely. So the
required get 'er back in shape costs were high (AD compliance, etc).

The panel is 1964 vintage (complete with Brittain B2D).

It's light as a cork so a handful on brisk days (we have plenty of low
level topography-induced turbulence up to 4000+ on days with sfc winds
>20), but is a real pleasure to fly, despite its 61 years.

I haven't run the numbers, but it should beat a 172 short field
takeoff or landing. It burns 7 GPH @ 135 TAS, climbs 1200 FPM with me
and full tanks, and that E-185 just lopes along.

It doesn't want to quit flying so you have to plan accordingly -- Vle/
V fe is 100 MPH so no dumping the gear/flaps to slow down.

X-wind can be a handful as rudder authority is about gone much over 15
knots (17 MPH x wind component listed in the Owners manual).

It's still not a feasible purchase for me as I can't use it to
instruct primary (well, I can -- but who would insure that!?).


Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:eacfcdfe-89e9-4b5c-902f-
:
>> Bertie
>
> $500/hour??
>
> Sheese... No wonder Comanche prices are so low!
>

Well, he wants big money for his, but it's pretty nice. His costs are
because he doesn't fly it enough ( he owns five or six airplanes)

> The 35 prices have come down some... These older airplanes biggest
> issue is spare yellow tagged parts. So far the repairs haven't been
> beyond the norm (flap motor, etc).

Yeah, the one I flew had flap issues in fact. They wouldnt retract after
landing. You had to go out and thump on the wing to get them up.
>
> But we're very fortunate to have a reasonable and well qualified IA.
>
> This particular 35 sat for years, and then flew rarely. So the
> required get 'er back in shape costs were high (AD compliance, etc).
>
> The panel is 1964 vintage (complete with Brittain B2D).
>
> It's light as a cork so a handful on brisk days (we have plenty of low
> level topography-induced turbulence up to 4000+ on days with sfc winds
>>20), but is a real pleasure to fly, despite its 61 years.
>
> I haven't run the numbers, but it should beat a 172 short field
> takeoff or landing. It burns 7 GPH @ 135 TAS, climbs 1200 FPM with me
> and full tanks, and that E-185 just lopes along.
>
> It doesn't want to quit flying so you have to plan accordingly -- Vle/
> V fe is 100 MPH so no dumping the gear/flaps to slow down.
>
> X-wind can be a handful as rudder authority is about gone much over 15
> knots (17 MPH x wind component listed in the Owners manual).
>
> It's still not a feasible purchase for me as I can't use it to
> instruct primary (well, I can -- but who would insure that!?).

Well, exactly. you need to do a good bit of flying to justify one
anyway. I would hardly ever go anywhere n it so a local runabout is all
I want. OTOH a nice Bellanca 19 would be even nicer and has the gear the
right way around..

Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 5:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > $500/hour??
>
> > Sheese... No wonder Comanche prices are so low!
>
> Well, he wants big money for his, but it's pretty nice. His costs are
> because he doesn't fly it enough ( he owns five or six airplanes)

Ahhh..well, that's the problem to have!

> > The 35 prices have come down some... These older airplanes biggest
> > issue is spare yellow tagged parts. So far the repairs haven't been
> > beyond the norm (flap motor, etc).
>
> Yeah, the one I flew had flap issues in fact. They wouldnt retract after
> landing. You had to go out and thump on the wing to get them up.

The limit adjustment seems to be the weak link in the system.


> > It's still not a feasible purchase for me as I can't use it to
> > instruct primary (well, I can -- but who would insure that!?).
>
> Well, exactly. you need to do a good bit of flying to justify one
> anyway. I would hardly ever go anywhere n it so a local runabout is all
> I want. OTOH a nice Bellanca 19 would be even nicer and has the gear the
> right way around..
>
> Bertie

I'm averaging 200-250/year so the cost-benefit seems to be in favor...

I like XC so 90 KIAS is no fun, especially after cruising at 150 KIAS
(A36).

Now I have to convince the Office of Management and Budget.

A Bellanca 19 is wood spar?


Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:26c96963-6eed-4832-bae7-
:

> On Mar 16, 5:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > $500/hour??
>>
>> > Sheese... No wonder Comanche prices are so low!
>>
>> Well, he wants big money for his, but it's pretty nice. His costs are
>> because he doesn't fly it enough ( he owns five or six airplanes)
>
> Ahhh..well, that's the problem to have!
>
>> > The 35 prices have come down some... These older airplanes biggest
>> > issue is spare yellow tagged parts. So far the repairs haven't been
>> > beyond the norm (flap motor, etc).
>>
>> Yeah, the one I flew had flap issues in fact. They wouldnt retract
after
>> landing. You had to go out and thump on the wing to get them up.
>
> The limit adjustment seems to be the weak link in the system.
>
>
>> > It's still not a feasible purchase for me as I can't use it to
>> > instruct primary (well, I can -- but who would insure that!?).
>>
>> Well, exactly. you need to do a good bit of flying to justify one
>> anyway. I would hardly ever go anywhere n it so a local runabout is
all
>> I want. OTOH a nice Bellanca 19 would be even nicer and has the gear
the
>> right way around..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I'm averaging 200-250/year so the cost-benefit seems to be in favor...
>
> I like XC so 90 KIAS is no fun, especially after cruising at 150 KIAS
> (A36).
>
> Now I have to convince the Office of Management and Budget.
>
> A Bellanca 19 is wood spar?
>

All woood wing. I don't know much about them but the aforementioned
Commanche owner does. It;s one of the early taildragger Bellancas. The
one with the triple tail. Rag and tube fuselage and all wood wings. You
have to get a good one of course. I know where theres a nice prewar
radial engine one for very little money. It has a falt four in it now,
but I happen to have a radial that will slot right into it. ..

So many toys, so little time .


Bertie
>

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 16, 1:29 pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 16, 5:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > $500/hour??
>
> > > Sheese... No wonder Comanche prices are so low!
>
> > Well, he wants big money for his, but it's pretty nice. His costs are
> > because he doesn't fly it enough ( he owns five or six airplanes)
>
> Ahhh..well, that's the problem to have!
>
> > > The 35 prices have come down some... These older airplanes biggest
> > > issue is spare yellow tagged parts. So far the repairs haven't been
> > > beyond the norm (flap motor, etc).
>
> > Yeah, the one I flew had flap issues in fact. They wouldnt retract after
> > landing. You had to go out and thump on the wing to get them up.
>
> The limit adjustment seems to be the weak link in the system.
>
> > > It's still not a feasible purchase for me as I can't use it to
> > > instruct primary (well, I can -- but who would insure that!?).
>
> > Well, exactly. you need to do a good bit of flying to justify one
> > anyway. I would hardly ever go anywhere n it so a local runabout is all
> > I want. OTOH a nice Bellanca 19 would be even nicer and has the gear the
> > right way around..
>
> > Bertie
>
> I'm averaging 200-250/year so the cost-benefit seems to be in favor...
>
> I like XC so 90 KIAS is no fun, especially after cruising at 150 KIAS
> (A36).
>
> Now I have to convince the Office of Management and Budget.
>
> A Bellanca 19 is wood spar?
>
> Dan Mc

My 3.1416 cents.
Ferrying A/C across the Pacific, I read, the fella's
would experiment with lean ratio's and speed.
The idea was to max the fuel burn efficiency and
minimize the induced wing drag.
Of course that needs to consider the parasitic
drag of the fuselage, tail and so on.

From the standpoint of aerodynamic engineering,
experience is the answer.
Ken

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 5:51 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 16, 1:29 pm, Dan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 5:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > > $500/hour??
>
> > > > Sheese... No wonder Comanche prices are so low!
>
> > > Well, he wants big money for his, but it's pretty nice. His costs are
> > > because he doesn't fly it enough ( he owns five or six airplanes)
>
> > Ahhh..well, that's the problem to have!
>
> > > > The 35 prices have come down some... These older airplanes biggest
> > > > issue is spare yellow tagged parts. So far the repairs haven't been
> > > > beyond the norm (flap motor, etc).
>
> > > Yeah, the one I flew had flap issues in fact. They wouldnt retract after
> > > landing. You had to go out and thump on the wing to get them up.
>
> > The limit adjustment seems to be the weak link in the system.
>
> > > > It's still not a feasible purchase for me as I can't use it to
> > > > instruct primary (well, I can -- but who would insure that!?).
>
> > > Well, exactly. you need to do a good bit of flying to justify one
> > > anyway. I would hardly ever go anywhere n it so a local runabout is all
> > > I want. OTOH a nice Bellanca 19 would be even nicer and has the gear the
> > > right way around..
>
> > > Bertie
>
> > I'm averaging 200-250/year so the cost-benefit seems to be in favor...
>
> > I like XC so 90 KIAS is no fun, especially after cruising at 150 KIAS
> > (A36).
>
> > Now I have to convince the Office of Management and Budget.
>
> > A Bellanca 19 is wood spar?
>
> > Dan Mc
>
> My 3.1416 cents.
> Ferrying A/C across the Pacific, I read, the fella's
> would experiment with lean ratio's and speed.
> The idea was to max the fuel burn efficiency and
> minimize the induced wing drag.
> Of course that needs to consider the parasitic
> drag of the fuselage, tail and so on.
>
> From the standpoint of aerodynamic engineering,
> experience is the answer.
> Ken

I'm a bit confused by what the point is...

But a JPI + GAMInjectors makes leaning lean of peak feasible and
productive.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 5:34 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:26c96963-6eed-4832-bae7-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 5:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> > $500/hour??
>
> >> > Sheese... No wonder Comanche prices are so low!
>
> >> Well, he wants big money for his, but it's pretty nice. His costs are
> >> because he doesn't fly it enough ( he owns five or six airplanes)
>
> > Ahhh..well, that's the problem to have!
>
> >> > The 35 prices have come down some... These older airplanes biggest
> >> > issue is spare yellow tagged parts. So far the repairs haven't been
> >> > beyond the norm (flap motor, etc).
>
> >> Yeah, the one I flew had flap issues in fact. They wouldnt retract
> after
> >> landing. You had to go out and thump on the wing to get them up.
>
> > The limit adjustment seems to be the weak link in the system.
>
> >> > It's still not a feasible purchase for me as I can't use it to
> >> > instruct primary (well, I can -- but who would insure that!?).
>
> >> Well, exactly. you need to do a good bit of flying to justify one
> >> anyway. I would hardly ever go anywhere n it so a local runabout is
> all
> >> I want. OTOH a nice Bellanca 19 would be even nicer and has the gear
> the
> >> right way around..
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > I'm averaging 200-250/year so the cost-benefit seems to be in favor...
>
> > I like XC so 90 KIAS is no fun, especially after cruising at 150 KIAS
> > (A36).
>
> > Now I have to convince the Office of Management and Budget.
>
> > A Bellanca 19 is wood spar?
>
> All woood wing. I don't know much about them but the aforementioned
> Commanche owner does. It;s one of the early taildragger Bellancas. The
> one with the triple tail. Rag and tube fuselage and all wood wings. You
> have to get a good one of course. I know where theres a nice prewar
> radial engine one for very little money. It has a falt four in it now,
> but I happen to have a radial that will slot right into it. ..
>
> So many toys, so little time .
>
> Bertie

Wood components scare away folks and help keep the prices down
(Bellanca Viking), but the same people will sleep for years under #2
yellow pine and staple trusses.

Oh well.

Nice... radials sure are purdy. And most airplanes of that era were
not afraid to show off the engines -- just like motorcycles.

I'm surprised more LSAs are not going to the tube and fabric way.
Might help get the price down under 100k.



Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 16, 1:29 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 5:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > > $500/hour??
>>
>> > > Sheese... No wonder Comanche prices are so low!
>>
>> > Well, he wants big money for his, but it's pretty nice. His costs
>> > are because he doesn't fly it enough ( he owns five or six
>> > airplanes)
>>
>> Ahhh..well, that's the problem to have!
>>
>> > > The 35 prices have come down some... These older airplanes
>> > > biggest issue is spare yellow tagged parts. So far the repairs
>> > > haven't been beyond the norm (flap motor, etc).
>>
>> > Yeah, the one I flew had flap issues in fact. They wouldnt retract
>> > after landing. You had to go out and thump on the wing to get them
>> > up.
>>
>> The limit adjustment seems to be the weak link in the system.
>>
>> > > It's still not a feasible purchase for me as I can't use it to
>> > > instruct primary (well, I can -- but who would insure that!?).
>>
>> > Well, exactly. you need to do a good bit of flying to justify one
>> > anyway. I would hardly ever go anywhere n it so a local runabout is
>> > all I want. OTOH a nice Bellanca 19 would be even nicer and has the
>> > gear the right way around..
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> I'm averaging 200-250/year so the cost-benefit seems to be in
>> favor...
>>
>> I like XC so 90 KIAS is no fun, especially after cruising at 150 KIAS
>> (A36).
>>
>> Now I have to convince the Office of Management and Budget.
>>
>> A Bellanca 19 is wood spar?
>>
>> Dan Mc
>
> My 3.1416 cents.
> Ferrying A/C across the Pacific, I read, the fella's
> would experiment with lean ratio's and speed.
> The idea was to max the fuel burn efficiency and
> minimize the induced wing drag.
> Of course that needs to consider the parasitic
> drag of the fuselage, tail and so on.
>
> From the standpoint of aerodynamic engineering,
> experience is the answer.


You're an idiot, Ken. You're not even smart enough to do your window
washing job.

Bertie

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-16, Dan > wrote:
> I'm surprised more LSAs are not going to the tube and fabric way.
> Might help get the price down under 100k.

There are definitely tube & fabric LSAs out there for well under $100K. Even
if one of them would meet my other requirements, though, I still wouldn't be
interested because I want an airplane I can leave outside if the need arises
without worrying about it.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:6918a068-5cd9-48a1-8389-9ab6c4c7c208
@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:


>
> Wood components scare away folks and help keep the prices down
> (Bellanca Viking), but the same people will sleep for years under #2
> yellow pine and staple trusses.
>
> Oh well.
>
> Nice... radials sure are purdy. And most airplanes of that era were
> not afraid to show off the engines -- just like motorcycles.
>
> I'm surprised more LSAs are not going to the tube and fabric way.
> Might help get the price down under 100k.

Some are and Steel tube is a good way to build an airplane.Very safe
The problem with old wooden wings is twofold. Glues that encouraged various
organisms to grow and moisture getting trapped in the structure. Bellancas
are pretty straightforward from what I understand. At least compared to
some really scary structures like the Cessna Bobcat or a Fairchild PT-19.
Wood spars OTOH, are a good thing pretty much no matter where they are.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-03-16, Dan > wrote:
>> I'm surprised more LSAs are not going to the tube and fabric way.
>> Might help get the price down under 100k.
>
> There are definitely tube & fabric LSAs out there for well under
> $100K. Even if one of them would meet my other requirements, though, I
> still wouldn't be interested because I want an airplane I can leave
> outside if the need arises without worrying about it.

They make airplanes from bricks?

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Bob F." > wrote in
> :
>
>> That's what I heard before. Makes you wonder. Who would have thought
>> of that? "Oh, buffeting, let' s swap the engines and see if that
>> works." More likely story is they accidentally installed the engines
>> wrong and someone said, "Hey, this thing performs better this way".
>> You can see I have a lot of confidence in American ingenuity.
>>
>
> Should have looked here first
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning
>
>
> This seems to be a pretty accurate account of the teething problems the
> airplane had and the remedies they used. i'm pretty sure the prop rotation
> was part of the buffet solution, but this article seems to indicate
> otherwise.
>
>
> bertie

LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and there
definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the whole works. I
know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what stage.
The engine rotation switch was early on in the program according to
Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first production run.
If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after the switch but I'm
not at all certain of that.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Bob F." > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> That's what I heard before. Makes you wonder. Who would have
>>> thought of that? "Oh, buffeting, let' s swap the engines and see
>>> if that works." More likely story is they accidentally installed the
>>> engines wrong and someone said, "Hey, this thing performs better
>>> this way". You can see I have a lot of confidence in American
>>> ingenuity.
>>>
>>
>> Should have looked here first
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning
>>
>>
>> This seems to be a pretty accurate account of the teething problems
>> the airplane had and the remedies they used. i'm pretty sure the prop
>> rotation was part of the buffet solution, but this article seems to
>> indicate otherwise.
>>
>>
>> bertie
>
> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the whole
> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>
Me neither. I did find one farily hilarious account of the airpanes
early flights in an old period magazine. The story is abou tBen Kelsey
one of the test pilots, and his transcontinental flight. Apparenlty he
cracke the thing up on landing after some sort of harrowing experinece
which left him babbling and he had to be hospitalised, with G-men
gaurding his bed. The aritcle goes on for several pages about how fligt
at high speeds like the lightning achieved, was at the ragged edge of
what even a superhuman could withstand mentally.
Those were the days!


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 6:27 pm, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
> On 2008-03-16, Dan > wrote:
>
> > I'm surprised more LSAs are not going to the tube and fabric way.
> > Might help get the price down under 100k.
>
> There are definitely tube & fabric LSAs out there for well under $100K. Even
> if one of them would meet my other requirements, though, I still wouldn't be
> interested because I want an airplane I can leave outside if the need arises
> without worrying about it.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)

True, though I think the ideal airplane collection has one to go fast,
one to go slow, and one to haul lots of stuff.

And a hangar for each.


Dan Mc

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 6:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > Nice... radials sure are purdy. And most airplanes of that era were
> > not afraid to show off the engines -- just like motorcycles.
>
> > I'm surprised more LSAs are not going to the tube and fabric way.
> > Might help get the price down under 100k.
>
> Some are and Steel tube is a good way to build an airplane.Very safe
> The problem with old wooden wings is twofold. Glues that encouraged various
> organisms to grow and moisture getting trapped in the structure. Bellancas
> are pretty straightforward from what I understand. At least compared to
> some really scary structures like the Cessna Bobcat or a Fairchild PT-19.
> Wood spars OTOH, are a good thing pretty much no matter where they are.
>
> Bertie

I haven't really looked, I suppose.

My dad is a fan of the Challenger.

The local enthusiast has a very light something in the big hangar at
VVS - the seat looks like a diaper and the engine came from a Lawn
Boy... yikes.


Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 16, 6:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > Nice... radials sure are purdy. And most airplanes of that era were
>> > not afraid to show off the engines -- just like motorcycles.
>>
>> > I'm surprised more LSAs are not going to the tube and fabric way.
>> > Might help get the price down under 100k.
>>
>> Some are and Steel tube is a good way to build an airplane.Very safe
>> The problem with old wooden wings is twofold. Glues that encouraged
>> various organisms to grow and moisture getting trapped in the
>> structure. Bellancas are pretty straightforward from what I
>> understand. At least compared to some really scary structures like
>> the Cessna Bobcat or a Fairchild PT-19. Wood spars OTOH, are a good
>> thing pretty much no matter where they are.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I haven't really looked, I suppose.
>
> My dad is a fan of the Challenger.
>
> The local enthusiast has a very light something in the big hangar at
> VVS - the seat looks like a diaper and the engine came from a Lawn
> Boy... yikes.

No thanks. I don;t fly lawn furniture.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 8:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 6:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> > Nice... radials sure are purdy. And most airplanes of that era were
> >> > not afraid to show off the engines -- just like motorcycles.
>
> >> > I'm surprised more LSAs are not going to the tube and fabric way.
> >> > Might help get the price down under 100k.
>
> >> Some are and Steel tube is a good way to build an airplane.Very safe
> >> The problem with old wooden wings is twofold. Glues that encouraged
> >> various organisms to grow and moisture getting trapped in the
> >> structure. Bellancas are pretty straightforward from what I
> >> understand. At least compared to some really scary structures like
> >> the Cessna Bobcat or a Fairchild PT-19. Wood spars OTOH, are a good
> >> thing pretty much no matter where they are.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > I haven't really looked, I suppose.
>
> > My dad is a fan of the Challenger.
>
> > The local enthusiast has a very light something in the big hangar at
> > VVS - the seat looks like a diaper and the engine came from a Lawn
> > Boy... yikes.
>
> No thanks. I don;t fly lawn furniture.
>
> Bertie

LOL

Yeah.. exactly.

It's not flying as much as being suspended from a temporary truce with
physics.

No Thanks.

Dan Mc

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Bob F." > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> That's what I heard before. Makes you wonder. Who would have
>>>> thought of that? "Oh, buffeting, let' s swap the engines and see
>>>> if that works." More likely story is they accidentally installed the
>>>> engines wrong and someone said, "Hey, this thing performs better
>>>> this way". You can see I have a lot of confidence in American
>>>> ingenuity.
>>>>
>>> Should have looked here first
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning
>>>
>>>
>>> This seems to be a pretty accurate account of the teething problems
>>> the airplane had and the remedies they used. i'm pretty sure the prop
>>> rotation was part of the buffet solution, but this article seems to
>>> indicate otherwise.
>>>
>>>
>>> bertie
>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the whole
>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>
> Me neither. I did find one farily hilarious account of the airpanes
> early flights in an old period magazine. The story is abou tBen Kelsey
> one of the test pilots, and his transcontinental flight. Apparenlty he
> cracke the thing up on landing after some sort of harrowing experinece
> which left him babbling and he had to be hospitalised, with G-men
> gaurding his bed. The aritcle goes on for several pages about how fligt
> at high speeds like the lightning achieved, was at the ragged edge of
> what even a superhuman could withstand mentally.
> Those were the days!
>
>
> Bertie

Yeah. That entire gang out there at the Skunk Works were a hoot. Kelly
Johnson was a hell of a designer.

I'm sure that Johnson as well as others like Ed Heinemann and Jack
Northrop, Alex Kartveli, and Dutch Kindelberger all benefited from the
work done by Lippisch and the others who came before them.
I've always been intrigued by the work Lippisch did on tailless
aircraft. His work on wing design was WAY ahead of it's time.
--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>> "Bob F." > wrote in
> :
>
> >>>> That's what I heard before. Makes you wonder. Who would have
> >>>> thought of that? "Oh, buffeting, let' s swap the engines and see
> >>>> if that works." More likely story is they accidentally installed the
> >>>> engines wrong and someone said, "Hey, this thing performs better
> >>>> this way". You can see I have a lot of confidence in American
> >>>> ingenuity.
>
> >>> Should have looked here first
>
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning
>
> >>> This seems to be a pretty accurate account of the teething problems
> >>> the airplane had and the remedies they used. i'm pretty sure the prop
> >>> rotation was part of the buffet solution, but this article seems to
> >>> indicate otherwise.
>
> >>> bertie
> >> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
> >> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the whole
> >> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
> >> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
> >> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
> >> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
> >> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>
> > Me neither. I did find one farily hilarious account of the airpanes
> > early flights in an old period magazine. The story is abou tBen Kelsey
> > one of the test pilots, and his transcontinental flight. Apparenlty he
> > cracke the thing up on landing after some sort of harrowing experinece
> > which left him babbling and he had to be hospitalised, with G-men
> > gaurding his bed. The aritcle goes on for several pages about how fligt
> > at high speeds like the lightning achieved, was at the ragged edge of
> > what even a superhuman could withstand mentally.
> > Those were the days!
>
> > Bertie
>
> Yeah. That entire gang out there at the Skunk Works were a hoot. Kelly
> Johnson was a hell of a designer.
>
> I'm sure that Johnson as well as others like Ed Heinemann and Jack
> Northrop, Alex Kartveli, and Dutch Kindelberger all benefited from the
> work done by Lippisch and the others who came before them.
> I've always been intrigued by the work Lippisch did on tailless
> aircraft. His work on wing design was WAY ahead of it's time.
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Any thoughts on why the canard never gained acceptance?

The Wright brothers thought it the optimal solution.


Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 16, 8:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:40d05f0f-d964-48e7-a3c2-981248eb3788
@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.co
>> m:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 16, 6:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> > Nice... radials sure are purdy. And most airplanes of that era
>> >> > were not afraid to show off the engines -- just like
>> >> > motorcycles.
>>
>> >> > I'm surprised more LSAs are not going to the tube and fabric
>> >> > way. Might help get the price down under 100k.
>>
>> >> Some are and Steel tube is a good way to build an airplane.Very
>> >> safe The problem with old wooden wings is twofold. Glues that
>> >> encouraged various organisms to grow and moisture getting trapped
>> >> in the structure. Bellancas are pretty straightforward from what I
>> >> understand. At least compared to some really scary structures like
>> >> the Cessna Bobcat or a Fairchild PT-19. Wood spars OTOH, are a
>> >> good thing pretty much no matter where they are.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > I haven't really looked, I suppose.
>>
>> > My dad is a fan of the Challenger.
>>
>> > The local enthusiast has a very light something in the big hangar
>> > at VVS - the seat looks like a diaper and the engine came from a
>> > Lawn Boy... yikes.
>>
>> No thanks. I don;t fly lawn furniture.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> LOL
>
> Yeah.. exactly.
>
> It's not flying as much as being suspended from a temporary truce with
> physics.
>
> No Thanks.
>

Mind you, some of the thirties ones do appeal to me. The Longster, The
Church midwing and the Piet, for instance, but they're all somehow real
airplanes..


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 8:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
> > On Mar 16, 8:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Dan > wrote
> >> innews:40d05f0f-d964-48e7-a3c2-981248eb3788
>
> @a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.co
>
>
>
> >> m:
>
> >> > On Mar 16, 6:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> > Nice... radials sure are purdy. And most airplanes of that era
> >> >> > were not afraid to show off the engines -- just like
> >> >> > motorcycles.
>
> >> >> > I'm surprised more LSAs are not going to the tube and fabric
> >> >> > way. Might help get the price down under 100k.
>
> >> >> Some are and Steel tube is a good way to build an airplane.Very
> >> >> safe The problem with old wooden wings is twofold. Glues that
> >> >> encouraged various organisms to grow and moisture getting trapped
> >> >> in the structure. Bellancas are pretty straightforward from what I
> >> >> understand. At least compared to some really scary structures like
> >> >> the Cessna Bobcat or a Fairchild PT-19. Wood spars OTOH, are a
> >> >> good thing pretty much no matter where they are.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > I haven't really looked, I suppose.
>
> >> > My dad is a fan of the Challenger.
>
> >> > The local enthusiast has a very light something in the big hangar
> >> > at VVS - the seat looks like a diaper and the engine came from a
> >> > Lawn Boy... yikes.
>
> >> No thanks. I don;t fly lawn furniture.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > LOL
>
> > Yeah.. exactly.
>
> > It's not flying as much as being suspended from a temporary truce with
> > physics.
>
> > No Thanks.
>
> Mind you, some of the thirties ones do appeal to me. The Longster, The
> Church midwing and the Piet, for instance, but they're all somehow real
> airplanes..
>
> Bertie

By the man behind the Wimpy?!

Aeronautical genius, perhaps.

Marketing -- not so much.

"Wimpy 23Kilo on left downwind for 26..."



Dan Mc

[Blueskies]

>
> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and there definitely was a compressibility problem,
> mach tuck; the whole works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what stage.
> The engine rotation switch was early on in the program according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the
> first production run.
> If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on both sides all the way through. Just another odd
thing...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 16, 8:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:f3837d9c-94e5-4d9d-826c-

>> om:
>>
>> > On Mar 16, 8:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Dan > wrote
>> >> innews:40d05f0f-d964-48e7-a3c2-981248eb3788
>>
>> @a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.co
>>
>>
>>
>> >> m:
>>
>> >> > On Mar 16, 6:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Nice... radials sure are purdy. And most airplanes of that
>> >> >> > era were not afraid to show off the engines -- just like
>> >> >> > motorcycles.
>>
>> >> >> > I'm surprised more LSAs are not going to the tube and fabric
>> >> >> > way. Might help get the price down under 100k.
>>
>> >> >> Some are and Steel tube is a good way to build an airplane.Very
>> >> >> safe The problem with old wooden wings is twofold. Glues that
>> >> >> encouraged various organisms to grow and moisture getting
>> >> >> trapped in the structure. Bellancas are pretty straightforward
>> >> >> from what I understand. At least compared to some really scary
>> >> >> structures like the Cessna Bobcat or a Fairchild PT-19. Wood
>> >> >> spars OTOH, are a good thing pretty much no matter where they
>> >> >> are.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > I haven't really looked, I suppose.
>>
>> >> > My dad is a fan of the Challenger.
>>
>> >> > The local enthusiast has a very light something in the big
>> >> > hangar at VVS - the seat looks like a diaper and the engine
>> >> > came from a Lawn Boy... yikes.
>>
>> >> No thanks. I don;t fly lawn furniture.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > LOL
>>
>> > Yeah.. exactly.
>>
>> > It's not flying as much as being suspended from a temporary truce
>> > with physics.
>>
>> > No Thanks.
>>
>> Mind you, some of the thirties ones do appeal to me. The Longster,
>> The Church midwing and the Piet, for instance, but they're all
>> somehow real airplanes..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> By the man behind the Wimpy?!


The wimpy? The only Wimpy I know of is the fifties FF model.

>
> Aeronautical genius, perhaps.
>
> Marketing -- not so much.
>
> "Wimpy 23Kilo on left downwind for 26..."

Got a link or a pic?


Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in
. net:

>
>>
>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the whole
>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on
> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>
>

Are you sure about that?


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 9:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote :
>
> > On Mar 16, 8:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Dan > wrote
> >> innews:f3837d9c-94e5-4d9d-826c-
>
>
>
>
>
> >> om:
>
> >> > On Mar 16, 8:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> Dan > wrote
> >> >> innews:40d05f0f-d964-48e7-a3c2-981248eb3788
>
> >> @a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.co
>
> >> >> m:
>
> >> >> > On Mar 16, 6:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > Nice... radials sure are purdy. And most airplanes of that
> >> >> >> > era were not afraid to show off the engines -- just like
> >> >> >> > motorcycles.
>
> >> >> >> > I'm surprised more LSAs are not going to the tube and fabric
> >> >> >> > way. Might help get the price down under 100k.
>
> >> >> >> Some are and Steel tube is a good way to build an airplane.Very
> >> >> >> safe The problem with old wooden wings is twofold. Glues that
> >> >> >> encouraged various organisms to grow and moisture getting
> >> >> >> trapped in the structure. Bellancas are pretty straightforward
> >> >> >> from what I understand. At least compared to some really scary
> >> >> >> structures like the Cessna Bobcat or a Fairchild PT-19. Wood
> >> >> >> spars OTOH, are a good thing pretty much no matter where they
> >> >> >> are.
>
> >> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> >> > I haven't really looked, I suppose.
>
> >> >> > My dad is a fan of the Challenger.
>
> >> >> > The local enthusiast has a very light something in the big
> >> >> > hangar at VVS - the seat looks like a diaper and the engine
> >> >> > came from a Lawn Boy... yikes.
>
> >> >> No thanks. I don;t fly lawn furniture.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > LOL
>
> >> > Yeah.. exactly.
>
> >> > It's not flying as much as being suspended from a temporary truce
> >> > with physics.
>
> >> > No Thanks.
>
> >> Mind you, some of the thirties ones do appeal to me. The Longster,
> >> The Church midwing and the Piet, for instance, but they're all
> >> somehow real airplanes..
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > By the man behind the Wimpy?!
>
> The wimpy? The only Wimpy I know of is the fifties FF model.
>
>
>
> > Aeronautical genius, perhaps.
>
> > Marketing -- not so much.
>
> > "Wimpy 23Kilo on left downwind for 26..."
>
> Got a link or a pic?
>
> Bertie

Here you go: http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/story.HTM

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 16, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> "Bob F." > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>> That's what I heard before. Makes you wonder. Who would have
>>>>>> thought of that? "Oh, buffeting, let' s swap the engines and see
>>>>>> if that works." More likely story is they accidentally installed the
>>>>>> engines wrong and someone said, "Hey, this thing performs better
>>>>>> this way". You can see I have a lot of confidence in American
>>>>>> ingenuity.
>>>>> Should have looked here first
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning
>>>>> This seems to be a pretty accurate account of the teething problems
>>>>> the airplane had and the remedies they used. i'm pretty sure the prop
>>>>> rotation was part of the buffet solution, but this article seems to
>>>>> indicate otherwise.
>>>>> bertie
>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
>>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the whole
>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
>>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
>>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>> Me neither. I did find one farily hilarious account of the airpanes
>>> early flights in an old period magazine. The story is abou tBen Kelsey
>>> one of the test pilots, and his transcontinental flight. Apparenlty he
>>> cracke the thing up on landing after some sort of harrowing experinece
>>> which left him babbling and he had to be hospitalised, with G-men
>>> gaurding his bed. The aritcle goes on for several pages about how fligt
>>> at high speeds like the lightning achieved, was at the ragged edge of
>>> what even a superhuman could withstand mentally.
>>> Those were the days!
>>> Bertie
>> Yeah. That entire gang out there at the Skunk Works were a hoot. Kelly
>> Johnson was a hell of a designer.
>>
>> I'm sure that Johnson as well as others like Ed Heinemann and Jack
>> Northrop, Alex Kartveli, and Dutch Kindelberger all benefited from the
>> work done by Lippisch and the others who came before them.
>> I've always been intrigued by the work Lippisch did on tailless
>> aircraft. His work on wing design was WAY ahead of it's time.
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Any thoughts on why the canard never gained acceptance?
>
> The Wright brothers thought it the optimal solution.
>
>
> Dan Mc
The Wrights were a smart pair. They figured out a virtual ton of new
ideas that have stood the test of Canards have many advantages and
disadvantages. The military has latched on to Canards and have accepted
the dark side in favor of the increase in maneuverability the Canards
give the new fighters.
The GA market however seems to be experimenting with rather than
committing to Canards as the disadvantages in the commercial market
might be causing some concerns.
I think Rutan is the exception to the ruke here, and it appears they are
committed to Canard technology.
Just my opinion.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 9:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > Aeronautical genius, perhaps.
>
> > Marketing -- not so much.
>
> > "Wimpy 23Kilo on left downwind for 26..."
>
> Got a link or a pic?
>
> Bertie
>
>

I'll find out the type bipe in the hangar -- apparently the guy bought
it, flew it once, landed, and there it sits, 5 years later.

Gotta admire that level of trust, and avoid riding with that level of
poor judgment.


Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 16, 9:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote
>> innews:ca0601b1-0473-4def-ad4e-71fbad752b05
@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>> > On Mar 16, 8:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Dan > wrote
>> >> innews:f3837d9c-94e5-4d9d-826c-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> om:
>>
>> >> > On Mar 16, 8:12 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> Dan > wrote
>> >> >> innews:40d05f0f-d964-48e7-a3c2-981248eb3788
>>
>> >> @a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.co
>>
>> >> >> m:
>>
>> >> >> > On Mar 16, 6:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > Nice... radials sure are purdy. And most airplanes of that
>> >> >> >> > era were not afraid to show off the engines -- just like
>> >> >> >> > motorcycles.
>>
>> >> >> >> > I'm surprised more LSAs are not going to the tube and
>> >> >> >> > fabric way. Might help get the price down under 100k.
>>
>> >> >> >> Some are and Steel tube is a good way to build an
>> >> >> >> airplane.Very safe The problem with old wooden wings is
>> >> >> >> twofold. Glues that encouraged various organisms to grow and
>> >> >> >> moisture getting trapped in the structure. Bellancas are
>> >> >> >> pretty straightforward from what I understand. At least
>> >> >> >> compared to some really scary structures like the Cessna
>> >> >> >> Bobcat or a Fairchild PT-19. Wood spars OTOH, are a good
>> >> >> >> thing pretty much no matter where they are.
>>
>> >> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> >> > I haven't really looked, I suppose.
>>
>> >> >> > My dad is a fan of the Challenger.
>>
>> >> >> > The local enthusiast has a very light something in the big
>> >> >> > hangar at VVS - the seat looks like a diaper and the engine
>> >> >> > came from a Lawn Boy... yikes.
>>
>> >> >> No thanks. I don;t fly lawn furniture.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > LOL
>>
>> >> > Yeah.. exactly.
>>
>> >> > It's not flying as much as being suspended from a temporary
>> >> > truce with physics.
>>
>> >> > No Thanks.
>>
>> >> Mind you, some of the thirties ones do appeal to me. The Longster,
>> >> The Church midwing and the Piet, for instance, but they're all
>> >> somehow real airplanes..
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > By the man behind the Wimpy?!
>>
>> The wimpy? The only Wimpy I know of is the fifties FF model.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Aeronautical genius, perhaps.
>>
>> > Marketing -- not so much.
>>
>> > "Wimpy 23Kilo on left downwind for 26..."
>>
>> Got a link or a pic?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Here you go: http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/story.HTM
>
>

Ah, OK. I have seen this one before. Of course I know about George
Bogardus' "little Gee Bee".That;'s just been restored, in fact.

Don't forget that Wimpy was a much beloved character in those days. it
was common to name airplanes after them. Art Chester, for instance, with
the Jeep, and Steve Wittman's Buster and Bonzo. Les sodl a good few kits
in the thirties. Probably only Corben and Heath did any better in that
department.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Blueskies" > wrote in
> . net:
>
>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the whole
>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on
>> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>
>>
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
>
> Bertie
I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they considered
a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton of
P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The word we
got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>> . net:
>>
>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
>>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
whole
>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
>>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
>>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on
>>> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Are you sure about that?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
considered
> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton of
> P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The word
we
> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>
>

Well, that's reasonable. Never heard that before. Could be an urban
legend based on one photo of an airplane field kitted with two RH
engines. A bit like the Fokker DR1 that got an odd aileron and started a
legend that they all had one smaller than the other to compensate for
torque.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>> . net:
>>
>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
>>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
whole
>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
>>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
>>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on
>>> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Are you sure about that?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
considered
> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton of
> P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The word
we
> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>

Found some info on that in an old book I have. Apparently there were a
handful of unblown 38s delivered to the RAF with both engines RH but
they had a lot of problems and the remainder all had contra rotating
engines.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>>> . net:
>>>
>>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
>>>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
> whole
>>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
>>>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>>>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
>>>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on
>>>> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
> considered
>> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
>> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton of
>> P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The word
> we
>> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
>> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>>
>>
>
> Well, that's reasonable. Never heard that before. Could be an urban
> legend based on one photo of an airplane field kitted with two RH
> engines. A bit like the Fokker DR1 that got an odd aileron and started a
> legend that they all had one smaller than the other to compensate for
> torque.
>
>
> Bertie
Possible?? Torque correction IS in roll and not yaw as is the common
belief :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>> . net:
>>
>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
>>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
whole
>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
>>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
>>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on
>>> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Are you sure about that?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
considered
> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton of
> P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The word
we
> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>
>

http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38.html

And here'some more stuff saying more or less the same thing.

BTW, do you remember the guy with the yellow 38 who used to do a low
level deadstick aerobatic routine? Saw him at Rockford once but can't
remember his name.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>>> . net:
>>>
>>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
>>>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
> whole
>>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
>>>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>>>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
>>>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on
>>>> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
> considered
>> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
>> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton of
>> P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The word
> we
>> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
>> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>>
>
> Found some info on that in an old book I have. Apparently there were a
> handful of unblown 38s delivered to the RAF with both engines RH but
> they had a lot of problems and the remainder all had contra rotating
> engines.
>
>
> Bertie

That's right on the Turbo Chargers. The Brits believed they wouldn't be
fighting at the altitudes where the Turbos were an advantage.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>>>> . net:
>>>>
>>>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38,
>>>>>> and there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck;
>>>>>> the
>> whole
>>>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
>>>>>> what stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the
>>>>>> program according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before
>>>>>> the first production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach
>>>>>> dives came after the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines
>>>>> on both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
>> considered
>>> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
>>> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton
>>> of P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The
>>> word
>> we
>>> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
>>> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, that's reasonable. Never heard that before. Could be an urban
>> legend based on one photo of an airplane field kitted with two RH
>> engines. A bit like the Fokker DR1 that got an odd aileron and
>> started a legend that they all had one smaller than the other to
>> compensate for torque.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> Possible?? Torque correction IS in roll and not yaw as is the common
> belief :-)


Oh the things had torque issues alright, but some nerd of an historian
has proven that there was only one DR1 with mismatched ailerons. The
eraly ones had one size and the later ones had another and a field
repair resulted in the one with two odd ailerons. Since it was a good
pictiure showing them clearly and someone did a detailed drawing basd on
it, it got lodged in folklore. There were airplanes that had larger
wings n the left for this purpose however. Ansaldo, for one.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:vb-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>>>> . net:
>>>>
>>>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38,
and
>>>>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
>> whole
>>>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
what
>>>>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>>>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>>>>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came
after
>>>>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines
on
>>>>> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
>> considered
>>> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
>>> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton
of
>>> P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The
word
>> we
>>> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
>>> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>>>
>>
>> Found some info on that in an old book I have. Apparently there were
a
>> handful of unblown 38s delivered to the RAF with both engines RH but
>> they had a lot of problems and the remainder all had contra rotating
>> engines.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> That's right on the Turbo Chargers. The Brits believed they wouldn't
be
> fighting at the altitudes where the Turbos were an advantage.
>
>

According to the ariticle on the website they were inherited from a
French order and the French wanted them without to avoid delays in
deliveries.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>>> . net:
>>>
>>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
>>>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
> whole
>>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
>>>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>>>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
>>>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on
>>>> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
> considered
>> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
>> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton of
>> P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The word
> we
>> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
>> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>>
>>
>
> http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38.html
>
> And here'some more stuff saying more or less the same thing.
>
> BTW, do you remember the guy with the yellow 38 who used to do a low
> level deadstick aerobatic routine? Saw him at Rockford once but can't
> remember his name.
>
>
> Bertie
>
The only P38 guys I knew who did the show circuit during the time I was
in it were Lefty Gardner, Chuck Lyford, Jeff Ethell, Bill Ross, and Hoof
Proudfoot. Can't recall anyone flying a yellow bird.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>>>>> . net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38,
>>>>>>> and there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck;
>>>>>>> the
>>> whole
>>>>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
>>>>>>> what stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the
>>>>>>> program according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before
>>>>>>> the first production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach
>>>>>>> dives came after the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines
>>>>>> on both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
>>> considered
>>>> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
>>>> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton
>>>> of P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The
>>>> word
>>> we
>>>> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
>>>> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well, that's reasonable. Never heard that before. Could be an urban
>>> legend based on one photo of an airplane field kitted with two RH
>>> engines. A bit like the Fokker DR1 that got an odd aileron and
>>> started a legend that they all had one smaller than the other to
>>> compensate for torque.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Possible?? Torque correction IS in roll and not yaw as is the common
>> belief :-)
>
>
> Oh the things had torque issues alright, but some nerd of an historian
> has proven that there was only one DR1 with mismatched ailerons. The
> eraly ones had one size and the later ones had another and a field
> repair resulted in the one with two odd ailerons. Since it was a good
> pictiure showing them clearly and someone did a detailed drawing basd on
> it, it got lodged in folklore. There were airplanes that had larger
> wings n the left for this purpose however. Ansaldo, for one.
>
>
> Bertie

I guess the WW1 practical test for German AI's missed "aileron mismatch"
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:vb-
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>>>>> . net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38,
> and
>>>>>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
>>> whole
>>>>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
> what
>>>>>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>>>>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>>>>>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came
> after
>>>>>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines
> on
>>>>>> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
>>> considered
>>>> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
>>>> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton
> of
>>>> P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The
> word
>>> we
>>>> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
>>>> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>>>>
>>> Found some info on that in an old book I have. Apparently there were
> a
>>> handful of unblown 38s delivered to the RAF with both engines RH but
>>> they had a lot of problems and the remainder all had contra rotating
>>> engines.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> That's right on the Turbo Chargers. The Brits believed they wouldn't
> be
>> fighting at the altitudes where the Turbos were an advantage.
>>
>>
>
> According to the ariticle on the website they were inherited from a
> French order and the French wanted them without to avoid delays in
> deliveries.
>
> Bertie
That one's new to me, but highly likely :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bob F.]

--
Regards, BobF.
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:vb-
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>>>>>> . net:
>>>>>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38,
>> and
>>>>>>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
>>>> whole
>>>>>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
>> what
>>>>>>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>>>>>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>>>>>>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came
>> after
>>>>>>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines
>> on
>>>>>>> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
>>>> considered
>>>>> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
>>>>> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton
>> of
>>>>> P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The
>> word
>>>> we
>>>>> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
>>>>> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>>>>>
>>>> Found some info on that in an old book I have. Apparently there were
>> a
>>>> handful of unblown 38s delivered to the RAF with both engines RH but
>>>> they had a lot of problems and the remainder all had contra rotating
>>>> engines.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> That's right on the Turbo Chargers. The Brits believed they wouldn't
>> be
>>> fighting at the altitudes where the Turbos were an advantage.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> According to the ariticle on the website they were inherited from a
>> French order and the French wanted them without to avoid delays in
>> deliveries. Bertie
> That one's new to me, but highly likely :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

There's a lot of strange airplanes out there. We once had a vendor come in
and try to sell us an aluminum thickness test tool. We went out on the
finished line at Renton and randomly went up to one 737 and did a quick
check of the right and left wings. His tool showed the sheet metal was a
few mills thicker on one side. We challenged it and sure enough he was
right. During final flight checks the plane had to be rigged uniquely and
cost a seat or two. Every airplane has a set of manuals assigned to it and
they had to updated too. The airplane sale went through at a discount to
the carrier. So look for a lopsided 737 out there. Now you know the rest
of the story.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:25:24 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:39:13 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I believe you are repeating wht I have said. I said that "dragging it
>>in" generally refers to flying the approach in the area of reverse

However: ormal and short field landin gin the Bo...F33, Deb, and A36
(IF flown according to the POH) are all at well less than maximum
endurance. This is far from dragging it in which was giving the ASF
fits about "dragging it in for short field landings" which are flown
well under max endurance speed, but are "steep". The short field is
just steeper with more power. However in neither case should the
plane be in the so called coffin corner as there is enough reserve
power to stop the descent without lowering the nose. That is even
flying a very steep short field approach.
>>command or if you will behind the power curve. This is absolutely
>>correct. Coffin corner is the area behind the curve where sink rate
>>can't be stopped with power but requires reduction in angle of attack.

Any of the Bo's get really squirley when flown this way and for a
competent pilot will provide suficient warning, but I'd sure not want
to get one that slow any where on final as that sucker is so close
to stalling the unwary could quickly ruin their insurance companie's
day.

>>For a perfect example of an aircraft in coffin corner, see the Edwards
>>AFB accident involving a young AF pilot who got his F100 so deep into
>>coffin corner behind the curve he couldn't recover the airplane; not

That was one impressive film strip. Although it w asn't long it sure
seemed that way. He did one whale of a job balancing on the tail until
she finally fell over to the left as I recall. When I say balancing
on the tail, for those who haven't seen the video/film clip he wasn't
just nose high.

>>enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
>>burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
>>attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
>>definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
>>reverse command.

Which reminds me, I saw a clip of a 104 where I believe the engine
seized. It started to skid sideways and then *flipped" over onto its
top. Do you know the story behind that?
>
>I thought coffin corner was the point where if you go slower you stall
>and if you go faster you hit critical mach number?
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:vb-
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>>>>>> . net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38,
>> and
>>>>>>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
>>>> whole
>>>>>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
>> what
>>>>>>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>>>>>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the
first
>>>>>>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came
>> after
>>>>>>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines
>> on
>>>>>>> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
>>>> considered
>>>>> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to
the
>>>>> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton
>> of
>>>>> P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The
>> word
>>>> we
>>>>> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
>>>>> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>>>>>
>>>> Found some info on that in an old book I have. Apparently there
were
>> a
>>>> handful of unblown 38s delivered to the RAF with both engines RH
but
>>>> they had a lot of problems and the remainder all had contra
rotating
>>>> engines.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> That's right on the Turbo Chargers. The Brits believed they wouldn't
>> be
>>> fighting at the altitudes where the Turbos were an advantage.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> According to the ariticle on the website they were inherited from a
>> French order and the French wanted them without to avoid delays in
>> deliveries.
>>
>> Bertie
> That one's new to me, but highly likely :-))
>

Don't know a whole lot about WW2 aviation. just peripheral stuff,
really. You'd be a lifetime at figuring out the whole mess.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:Xv6dnflw9_
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>>>> . net:
>>>>
>>>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38,
and
>>>>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
>> whole
>>>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
what
>>>>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>>>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>>>>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came
after
>>>>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines
on
>>>>> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
>> considered
>>> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
>>> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton
of
>>> P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The
word
>> we
>>> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
>>> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38.html
>>
>> And here'some more stuff saying more or less the same thing.
>>
>> BTW, do you remember the guy with the yellow 38 who used to do a low
>> level deadstick aerobatic routine? Saw him at Rockford once but can't
>> remember his name.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> The only P38 guys I knew who did the show circuit during the time I
was
> in it were Lefty Gardner, Chuck Lyford, Jeff Ethell, Bill Ross, and
Hoof
> Proudfoot. Can't recall anyone flying a yellow bird.
>

Chuck Lyford. That was him. I remember now. I think it might have been
Lockheed's own airplane he was flying . He did some of the routine
deadstick. I think I saw him at Reading once too.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>>>>>> . net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38,
>>>>>>>> and there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck;
>>>>>>>> the
>>>> whole
>>>>>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
>>>>>>>> what stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the
>>>>>>>> program according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before
>>>>>>>> the first production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach
>>>>>>>> dives came after the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines
>>>>>>> on both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
>>>> considered
>>>>> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to
>>>>> the handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a
>>>>> ton of P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed
>>>>> prop. The word
>>>> we
>>>>> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
>>>>> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well, that's reasonable. Never heard that before. Could be an urban
>>>> legend based on one photo of an airplane field kitted with two RH
>>>> engines. A bit like the Fokker DR1 that got an odd aileron and
>>>> started a legend that they all had one smaller than the other to
>>>> compensate for torque.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Possible?? Torque correction IS in roll and not yaw as is the common
>>> belief :-)
>>
>>
>> Oh the things had torque issues alright, but some nerd of an
>> historian has proven that there was only one DR1 with mismatched
>> ailerons. The eraly ones had one size and the later ones had another
>> and a field repair resulted in the one with two odd ailerons. Since
>> it was a good pictiure showing them clearly and someone did a
>> detailed drawing basd on it, it got lodged in folklore. There were
>> airplanes that had larger wings n the left for this purpose however.
>> Ansaldo, for one.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I guess the WW1 practical test for German AI's missed "aileron
> mismatch"
>:-))
>

Wouldn't be the first or last time! I had two very different wings on a
Luscombe with two completely different aileron hinge arrangements. It
was a very early 1939 airplane and it must have damaged a wing and one
was put on from a later machine.
There's a famous pic of a DC-3 that was dmamged and flown for a time
with a DC 2 wing, which was considerably smaller.. Early days of WW2 in
China, I beleive.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob F. wrote:
>
>

Amazing. When you think of airplanes, it's quite natural to think of
them as though they are punched out on a production line with a cookie
cutter with every nut and bolt exactly the same. It's hard to think of
things that complicated as highly individual products each with it's own
materials reflecting the hands of the specific people who built it.

I'm sure you have noticed this as well through the years; that every
airplane has a "personality" all it's own. Some are a pleasure to fly,
and another of the same type will have a completely different "feel" to it.
Even pilots are this way. Ever notice when you're flying with someone
else who has all the guges nailed in to within a fraction of an inch and
they hand the airplane over to you to fly for awhile the first thing you
always do is retrim the thing because it "just doesn't feel right to you?"
:-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:vb-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>>>>>>> . net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38,
>>> and
>>>>>>>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
>>> what
>>>>>>>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>>>>>>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the
> first
>>>>>>>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came
>>> after
>>>>>>>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines
>>> on
>>>>>>>> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
>>>>> considered
>>>>>> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to
> the
>>>>>> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton
>>> of
>>>>>> P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The
>>> word
>>>>> we
>>>>>> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
>>>>>> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Found some info on that in an old book I have. Apparently there
> were
>>> a
>>>>> handful of unblown 38s delivered to the RAF with both engines RH
> but
>>>>> they had a lot of problems and the remainder all had contra
> rotating
>>>>> engines.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> That's right on the Turbo Chargers. The Brits believed they wouldn't
>>> be
>>>> fighting at the altitudes where the Turbos were an advantage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> According to the ariticle on the website they were inherited from a
>>> French order and the French wanted them without to avoid delays in
>>> deliveries.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> That one's new to me, but highly likely :-))
>>
>
> Don't know a whole lot about WW2 aviation. just peripheral stuff,
> really. You'd be a lifetime at figuring out the whole mess.
>
> Bertie
I agree. The history stuff is interesting but highly speculative to say
the least. Sorting it out can try your patience for sure. I remember
Bader telling me about one "historian" who cornered him one evening and
proceeded to TELL him about an air battle he had been in personally.
When Bader tried to correct the man on a certain detail he personally
had experienced, the "historian" argued with him that he (Bader) was
wrong! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:Xv6dnflw9_
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>>>>> . net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38,
> and
>>>>>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
>>> whole
>>>>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
> what
>>>>>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>>>>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>>>>>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came
> after
>>>>>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines
> on
>>>>>> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
>>> considered
>>>> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
>>>> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton
> of
>>>> P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The
> word
>>> we
>>>> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
>>>> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38.html
>>>
>>> And here'some more stuff saying more or less the same thing.
>>>
>>> BTW, do you remember the guy with the yellow 38 who used to do a low
>>> level deadstick aerobatic routine? Saw him at Rockford once but can't
>>> remember his name.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> The only P38 guys I knew who did the show circuit during the time I
> was
>> in it were Lefty Gardner, Chuck Lyford, Jeff Ethell, Bill Ross, and
> Hoof
>> Proudfoot. Can't recall anyone flying a yellow bird.
>>
>
> Chuck Lyford. That was him. I remember now. I think it might have been
> Lockheed's own airplane he was flying . He did some of the routine
> deadstick. I think I saw him at Reading once too.
>
>
> Bertie
>
Chuck used to feather one engine and do a roll into it. I believe he did
some dead stick as well.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:6sWdne8-
:

> I agree. The history stuff is interesting but highly speculative to say
> the least. Sorting it out can try your patience for sure. I remember
> Bader telling me about one "historian" who cornered him one evening and
> proceeded to TELL him about an air battle he had been in personally.
> When Bader tried to correct the man on a certain detail he personally
> had experienced, the "historian" argued with him that he (Bader) was
> wrong! :-))
>

Beautiful. It's realy interesting talking to those guys. I haven't met one
in a long time, now, though.. They'll soon be all gone.. I did meet a B-50
pilot at a party not too long ago. He was interesting to talk to alright.
Pretty old!


Bertie

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:46:27 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 16, 1:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> That's not dragging it in. 1.3 VSo is standard approach speed for all
>> airplanes.
>>
>> Bertie
>
>Right.
>
>But if you only target 1.3 Vso, and are 5 mile final in a 152, your
>angle of approach will be very shallow and you will need lots of power
>to make it to the touchdown point.

So it'd be time for some remedial training.
5 miles out the 150 should still be in level cruise.

Flying a long, or straight in final is difficult compared to flying a
pattern and not something for a student or pilot who is used to only
flying stabilized patterns. It's even more difficult to do a short
field landing from far out. Instead of turning final at 500 AGL and
nearly 1.3 Vso you have to calculate how far out to start the
descent, speed, and angle. So here you are at cruise. You don't have
to fly the whole final at 1.3 Vso, but should be stabilized at it as
soon as necessary. One key is knowing what the runway environment
looks like when turning a normal base to final. It should look the
same (angle) from pattern altitude when coming straight in. If it
does then you'll pass through the same spot and speed you'd normally
see when flying a normal pattern. Of course it's easier to do if you
slow up before starting down hill. It makes the energy management so
much easier. 1.3 Vso in a 150 with no flaps and full flaps is a
whole different ball game. 1.3 Vso, flap requirements, angle of
descent and when to stabilize are different for regular and short
field landings. I can maintain 1.3 Vso, for either type of landing
with full flaps but the stabilization point, will be different. I can
do that in a 150, Cherokee 180, or the Deb although "for me" the Deb
is the easiest for power/energy management and can come down the
steepest. The Cherokee is not far behind, but even at idle, 1.3 Vso,
and full flaps I don't think I could call the angle of descent in a
150 steep. (Everything is relative) For those that think a Cherokee
glides like a brick, try 1.3 Vso, and full flaps in a Bo. <:-)) That's
why we carry so much power. Without it we don't have enough energy to
flare.

Now as to really dragging it in, a Farmer friend has a 1200 foot
strip off the end of a bean field. He'd bring his Cherokee in about
three feet over the beans and cop the power at the end of the strip.
His landings and roll our seldom took more than 200 to 300 feet. Of
course if the engine quite he'd just get a plane painted green all
over the front. That is unless they were white/navy beans. Those
vines (when green) would make a good arresting cable. Not something
you'd want tied around the nose gear.
>
>So it's 1.3 Vso PLUS the optimal descent angle, where weight
>complements thrust.
>
>
>Dan Mc
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:6sWdne4-
:


>>
> Chuck used to feather one engine and do a roll into it. I believe he did
> some dead stick as well.
>

Oh he did. Definitely. At least i think it was him. It definitely wasn't
hoover, anyway. Did he beat the odds?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>>>>>>> . net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38,
>>>>>>>>> and there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck;
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
>>>>>>>>> what stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the
>>>>>>>>> program according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before
>>>>>>>>> the first production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach
>>>>>>>>> dives came after the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines
>>>>>>>> on both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
>>>>> considered
>>>>>> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to
>>>>>> the handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a
>>>>>> ton of P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed
>>>>>> prop. The word
>>>>> we
>>>>>> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
>>>>>> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, that's reasonable. Never heard that before. Could be an urban
>>>>> legend based on one photo of an airplane field kitted with two RH
>>>>> engines. A bit like the Fokker DR1 that got an odd aileron and
>>>>> started a legend that they all had one smaller than the other to
>>>>> compensate for torque.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Possible?? Torque correction IS in roll and not yaw as is the common
>>>> belief :-)
>>>
>>> Oh the things had torque issues alright, but some nerd of an
>>> historian has proven that there was only one DR1 with mismatched
>>> ailerons. The eraly ones had one size and the later ones had another
>>> and a field repair resulted in the one with two odd ailerons. Since
>>> it was a good pictiure showing them clearly and someone did a
>>> detailed drawing basd on it, it got lodged in folklore. There were
>>> airplanes that had larger wings n the left for this purpose however.
>>> Ansaldo, for one.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> I guess the WW1 practical test for German AI's missed "aileron
>> mismatch"
>> :-))
>>
>
> Wouldn't be the first or last time! I had two very different wings on a
> Luscombe with two completely different aileron hinge arrangements. It
> was a very early 1939 airplane and it must have damaged a wing and one
> was put on from a later machine.
> There's a famous pic of a DC-3 that was dmamged and flown for a time
> with a DC 2 wing, which was considerably smaller.. Early days of WW2 in
> China, I beleive.
>
> Bertie
I think I remember that DC3 shot. Lots of spare parts birds out there.
Many civvy Mustangs were retrofitted with P63 brakes if that counts :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 16, 2:08 pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 16, 5:51 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
....
> > My 3.1416 cents.
> > Ferrying A/C across the Pacific, I read, the fella's
> > would experiment with lean ratio's and speed.
> > The idea was to max the fuel burn efficiency and
> > minimize the induced wing drag.
> > Of course that needs to consider the parasitic
> > drag of the fuselage, tail and so on.
> > From the standpoint of aerodynamic engineering,
> > experience is the answer.
> > Ken
>
> I'm a bit confused by what the point is...
> But a JPI + GAMInjectors makes leaning lean of peak feasible and
> productive.

Well the discussion is about maxing endurance
which is a similiar problem to maxing range.
Two a/c of nearly equal weight, say a Flying wing
and B-52, have different numbers, of course.
Ken

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:6sWdne4-
> :
>
>
>> Chuck used to feather one engine and do a roll into it. I believe he did
>> some dead stick as well.
>>
>
> Oh he did. Definitely. At least i think it was him. It definitely wasn't
> hoover, anyway. Did he beat the odds?
Last I heard, Chuck was alive and well and still flying.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:25:24 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:39:13 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I believe you are repeating wht I have said. I said that "dragging it
>>in" generally refers to flying the approach in the area of reverse
>>command or if you will behind the power curve. This is absolutely

Well, time to try again. I had this ready to go and the computer ate
it.

When flying a Debonair, F-33, and A36 Bo by the POH all landings are
done well below the max endurance speed, but not to the point where
they don't have enough reserve power to arrest or even change the
descent into a climb. They are however in the area where power
controls rate of descent and pitch controls speed.

>>correct. Coffin corner is the area behind the curve where sink rate
>>can't be stopped with power but requires reduction in angle of attack.
>>For a perfect example of an aircraft in coffin corner, see the Edwards
>>AFB accident involving a young AF pilot who got his F100 so deep into
>>coffin corner behind the curve he couldn't recover the airplane; not

I saw the video and he did one whale of a job balancing on the
thrust/tail until he lost it. He just needed a few thousand pounds
more thrust.

>>enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
>>burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
>>attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
>>definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
>>reverse command.

I saw a clip of a 104 that was skidding sideways and then flipped over
on its top. I believe the engine seized on that one. any thought?

>
>I thought coffin corner was the point where if you go slower you stall
>and if you go faster you hit critical mach number?
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:6sWdne8-
> :
>
>> I agree. The history stuff is interesting but highly speculative to say
>> the least. Sorting it out can try your patience for sure. I remember
>> Bader telling me about one "historian" who cornered him one evening and
>> proceeded to TELL him about an air battle he had been in personally.
>> When Bader tried to correct the man on a certain detail he personally
>> had experienced, the "historian" argued with him that he (Bader) was
>> wrong! :-))
>>
>
> Beautiful. It's realy interesting talking to those guys. I haven't met one
> in a long time, now, though.. They'll soon be all gone.. I did meet a B-50
> pilot at a party not too long ago. He was interesting to talk to alright.
> Pretty old!
>
>
> Bertie
We're losing a lot of our last flying generation each year.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:25:24 -0400, Peter Clark
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:39:13 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I believe you are repeating wht I have said. I said that "dragging it
>>> in" generally refers to flying the approach in the area of reverse
>>> command or if you will behind the power curve. This is absolutely
>
> Well, time to try again. I had this ready to go and the computer ate
> it.
>
> When flying a Debonair, F-33, and A36 Bo by the POH all landings are
> done well below the max endurance speed, but not to the point where
> they don't have enough reserve power to arrest or even change the
> descent into a climb. They are however in the area where power
> controls rate of descent and pitch controls speed.
>
>>> correct. Coffin corner is the area behind the curve where sink rate
>>> can't be stopped with power but requires reduction in angle of attack.
>>> For a perfect example of an aircraft in coffin corner, see the Edwards
>>> AFB accident involving a young AF pilot who got his F100 so deep into
>>> coffin corner behind the curve he couldn't recover the airplane; not
>
> I saw the video and he did one whale of a job balancing on the
> thrust/tail until he lost it. He just needed a few thousand pounds
> more thrust.
>
>>> enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
>>> burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
>>> attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
>>> definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
>>> reverse command.
>
> I saw a clip of a 104 that was skidding sideways and then flipped over
> on its top. I believe the engine seized on that one. any thought?
>
>> I thought coffin corner was the point where if you go slower you stall
>> and if you go faster you hit critical mach number?
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

I think it's in the pilot's code that we're not allowed to say the
airplane flipped over on it's "top" :-))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 16, 7:31 pm, Roger > wrote:
....
> I saw the video and he did one whale of a job balancing on the
> thrust/tail until he lost it. He just needed a few thousand pounds
> more thrust.

I think some tape of that incident was used in this movie,
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048364/

> >>enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
> >>burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
> >>attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
> >>definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
> >>reverse command.
>
> I saw a clip of a 104 that was skidding sideways and then flipped over
> on its top. I believe the engine seized on that one. any thought?

I have a clip from "Planes of Flame", where the 104
is tangled in an arrestor net, yaws left, then rolls over
right that looked messy. Is that the clip you mean?
Ken

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:6sWdne8-
>> :
>>
>>> I agree. The history stuff is interesting but highly speculative to
>>> say the least. Sorting it out can try your patience for sure. I
>>> remember Bader telling me about one "historian" who cornered him one
>>> evening and proceeded to TELL him about an air battle he had been in
>>> personally. When Bader tried to correct the man on a certain detail
>>> he personally had experienced, the "historian" argued with him that
>>> he (Bader) was wrong! :-))
>>>
>>
>> Beautiful. It's realy interesting talking to those guys. I haven't
>> met one in a long time, now, though.. They'll soon be all gone.. I
>> did meet a B-50 pilot at a party not too long ago. He was interesting
>> to talk to alright. Pretty old!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> We're losing a lot of our last flying generation each year.
>

Yep

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:6sWdne4-
>> :
>>
>>
>>> Chuck used to feather one engine and do a roll into it. I believe he
>>> did some dead stick as well.
>>>
>>
>> Oh he did. Definitely. At least i think it was him. It definitely
>> wasn't hoover, anyway. Did he beat the odds?
> Last I heard, Chuck was alive and well and still flying.
>

Very good! Still doing deadstick aerobatics, though?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>>>>>>>> . net:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the
38,
>>>>>>>>>> and there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach
tuck;
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
>>>>>>>>>> what stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the
>>>>>>>>>> program according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage
before
>>>>>>>>>> the first production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach
>>>>>>>>>> dives came after the switch but I'm not at all certain of
that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>> All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction
engines
>>>>>>>>> on both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to
>>>>>>> the handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered
a
>>>>>>> ton of P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed
>>>>>>> prop. The word
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
>>>>>>> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, that's reasonable. Never heard that before. Could be an
urban
>>>>>> legend based on one photo of an airplane field kitted with two RH
>>>>>> engines. A bit like the Fokker DR1 that got an odd aileron and
>>>>>> started a legend that they all had one smaller than the other to
>>>>>> compensate for torque.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Possible?? Torque correction IS in roll and not yaw as is the
common
>>>>> belief :-)
>>>>
>>>> Oh the things had torque issues alright, but some nerd of an
>>>> historian has proven that there was only one DR1 with mismatched
>>>> ailerons. The eraly ones had one size and the later ones had
another
>>>> and a field repair resulted in the one with two odd ailerons. Since
>>>> it was a good pictiure showing them clearly and someone did a
>>>> detailed drawing basd on it, it got lodged in folklore. There were
>>>> airplanes that had larger wings n the left for this purpose
however.
>>>> Ansaldo, for one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> I guess the WW1 practical test for German AI's missed "aileron
>>> mismatch"
>>> :-))
>>>
>>
>> Wouldn't be the first or last time! I had two very different wings on
a
>> Luscombe with two completely different aileron hinge arrangements. It
>> was a very early 1939 airplane and it must have damaged a wing and
one
>> was put on from a later machine.
>> There's a famous pic of a DC-3 that was dmamged and flown for a time
>> with a DC 2 wing, which was considerably smaller.. Early days of WW2
in
>> China, I beleive.
>>
>> Bertie
> I think I remember that DC3 shot. Lots of spare parts birds out there.
> Many civvy Mustangs were retrofitted with P63 brakes if that counts
:-))
>

Yeah, it's a pretty common shot. IIRC it had some Chinese wrting on the
top of the wings. I think I have it in a book about the flying tigers,
in fact.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:8065ea8a-893a-41da-
:

> On Mar 16, 2:08 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 5:51 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> ...
>> > My 3.1416 cents.
>> > Ferrying A/C across the Pacific, I read, the fella's
>> > would experiment with lean ratio's and speed.
>> > The idea was to max the fuel burn efficiency and
>> > minimize the induced wing drag.
>> > Of course that needs to consider the parasitic
>> > drag of the fuselage, tail and so on.
>> > From the standpoint of aerodynamic engineering,
>> > experience is the answer.
>> > Ken
>>
>> I'm a bit confused by what the point is...
>> But a JPI + GAMInjectors makes leaning lean of peak feasible and
>> productive.
>
> Well the discussion is about maxing endurance
> which is a similiar problem to maxing range.
> Two a/c of nearly equal weight, say a Flying wing
> and B-52, have different numbers, of course.

A bit like your IQ


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:e7b02c3d-eb33-4b04-
:

> On Mar 16, 7:31 pm, Roger > wrote:
> ...
>> I saw the video and he did one whale of a job balancing on the
>> thrust/tail until he lost it. He just needed a few thousand pounds
>> more thrust.
>
> I think some tape of that incident was used in this movie,
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048364/
>
>> >>enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
>> >>burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
>> >>attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
>> >>definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
>> >>reverse command.
>>
>> I saw a clip of a 104 that was skidding sideways and then flipped over
>> on its top. I believe the engine seized on that one. any thought?
>
> I have a clip from "Planes of Flame", where the 104
> is tangled in an arrestor net, yaws left, then rolls over
> right that looked messy. Is that the clip you mean?
> Ken
>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

A whole post where you didn't say anything idiotic. this must be a first,
kennie!


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:6sWdne4-
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>> Chuck used to feather one engine and do a roll into it. I believe he
>>>> did some dead stick as well.
>>>>
>>> Oh he did. Definitely. At least i think it was him. It definitely
>>> wasn't hoover, anyway. Did he beat the odds?
>> Last I heard, Chuck was alive and well and still flying.
>>
>
> Very good! Still doing deadstick aerobatics, though?
>
> Bertie
Not sure. Haven't seen him for a while now.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:e7b02c3d-eb33-4b04-
> :
>
>> On Mar 16, 7:31 pm, Roger > wrote:
>> ...
>>> I saw the video and he did one whale of a job balancing on the
>>> thrust/tail until he lost it. He just needed a few thousand pounds
>>> more thrust.
>> I think some tape of that incident was used in this movie,
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048364/
>>
>>>>> enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
>>>>> burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
>>>>> attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
>>>>> definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
>>>>> reverse command.
>>> I saw a clip of a 104 that was skidding sideways and then flipped over
>>> on its top. I believe the engine seized on that one. any thought?
>> I have a clip from "Planes of Flame", where the 104
>> is tangled in an arrestor net, yaws left, then rolls over
>> right that looked messy. Is that the clip you mean?
>> Ken
>>
>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> A whole post where you didn't say anything idiotic. this must be a first,
> kennie!
>
>
> Bertie
There does seem to be some improvement here. :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 16, 8:45 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:e7b02c3d-eb33-4b04-
> > :
>
> >> On Mar 16, 7:31 pm, Roger > wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> I saw the video and he did one whale of a job balancing on the
> >>> thrust/tail until he lost it. He just needed a few thousand pounds
> >>> more thrust.
> >> I think some tape of that incident was used in this movie,
> >>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048364/
>
> >>>>> enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
> >>>>> burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
> >>>>> attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
> >>>>> definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
> >>>>> reverse command.
> >>> I saw a clip of a 104 that was skidding sideways and then flipped over
> >>> on its top. I believe the engine seized on that one. any thought?
> >> I have a clip from "Planes of Flame", where the 104
> >> is tangled in an arrestor net, yaws left, then rolls over
> >> right that looked messy. Is that the clip you mean?
> >> Ken
>
> >>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> >>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> > A whole post where you didn't say anything idiotic. this must be a first,
> > kennie!
> > Bertie

****-OFF QUEER

> There does seem to be some improvement here. :-)
> Dudley Henriques

DITTO

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 16, 8:45 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> > news:e7b02c3d-eb33-4b04-
>> > :
>>
>> >> On Mar 16, 7:31 pm, Roger > wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >>> I saw the video and he did one whale of a job balancing on the
>> >>> thrust/tail until he lost it. He just needed a few thousand
>> >>> pounds more thrust.
>> >> I think some tape of that incident was used in this movie,
>> >>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048364/
>>
>> >>>>> enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied
>> >>>>> full burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction
>> >>>>> of angle of attack was what he needed and he didn't have the
>> >>>>> room. THIS is the definition of coffin corner and it most
>> >>>>> certainly IS in the area of reverse command.
>> >>> I saw a clip of a 104 that was skidding sideways and then flipped
>> >>> over on its top. I believe the engine seized on that one. any
>> >>> thought?
>> >> I have a clip from "Planes of Flame", where the 104
>> >> is tangled in an arrestor net, yaws left, then rolls over
>> >> right that looked messy. Is that the clip you mean?
>> >> Ken
>>
>> >>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> >>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>> > A whole post where you didn't say anything idiotic. this must be a
>> > first, kennie!
>> > Bertie
>
> ****-OFF QUEER

That's more like it k00kie boi.
>
>> There does seem to be some improvement here. :-)
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> DITTO


Ooow! I sense some insecurity here. Want to talk about it, Kennie?

Go on, you know you want to.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 16, 8:45 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:e7b02c3d-eb33-4b04-
>>> :
>>>> On Mar 16, 7:31 pm, Roger > wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> I saw the video and he did one whale of a job balancing on the
>>>>> thrust/tail until he lost it. He just needed a few thousand pounds
>>>>> more thrust.
>>>> I think some tape of that incident was used in this movie,
>>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048364/
>>>>>>> enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
>>>>>>> burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
>>>>>>> attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
>>>>>>> definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
>>>>>>> reverse command.
>>>>> I saw a clip of a 104 that was skidding sideways and then flipped over
>>>>> on its top. I believe the engine seized on that one. any thought?
>>>> I have a clip from "Planes of Flame", where the 104
>>>> is tangled in an arrestor net, yaws left, then rolls over
>>>> right that looked messy. Is that the clip you mean?
>>>> Ken
>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com
>>> A whole post where you didn't say anything idiotic. this must be a first,
>>> kennie!
>>> Bertie
>
> ****-OFF QUEER
>
>> There does seem to be some improvement here. :-)
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> DITTO
>
>
Well.possibly not much improvement after all :-))))))))))))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Owner" > wrote in
:

>
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
> news:3fead1e1-7aa6-4a76-b5dc-713e78705444
@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>> On Mar 16, 8:45 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>> > news:e7b02c3d-eb33-4b04-
>>> > :
>>>
>>> >> On Mar 16, 7:31 pm, Roger > wrote:
>>> >> ...
>>> >>> I saw the video and he did one whale of a job balancing on the
>>> >>> thrust/tail until he lost it. He just needed a few thousand
>>> >>> pounds more thrust.
>>> >> I think some tape of that incident was used in this movie,
>>> >>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048364/
>>>
>>> >>>>> enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied
>>> >>>>> full burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction
>>> >>>>> of angle of
>>> >>>>> attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is
>>> >>>>> the definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in
>>> >>>>> the area of reverse command.
>>> >>> I saw a clip of a 104 that was skidding sideways and then
>>> >>> flipped over
>>> >>> on its top. I believe the engine seized on that one. any
>>> >>> thought?
>>> >> I have a clip from "Planes of Flame", where the 104
>>> >> is tangled in an arrestor net, yaws left, then rolls over
>>> >> right that looked messy. Is that the clip you mean?
>>> >> Ken
>>>
>>> >>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>> >>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>
>> > A whole post where you didn't say anything idiotic. this must be a
>> > first,
>>> > kennie!
>>> > Bertie
>
> Well, we knew it couldn't last!
>

One hoped against hope... Alas..


Bertie
>>
>>
>
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Mar 16, 8:45 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>> news:e7b02c3d-eb33-4b04-
>>>> :
>>>>> On Mar 16, 7:31 pm, Roger > wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> I saw the video and he did one whale of a job balancing on the
>>>>>> thrust/tail until he lost it. He just needed a few thousand
>>>>>> pounds more thrust.
>>>>> I think some tape of that incident was used in this movie,
>>>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048364/
>>>>>>>> enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied
>>>>>>>> full burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction
>>>>>>>> of angle of attack was what he needed and he didn't have the
>>>>>>>> room. THIS is the definition of coffin corner and it most
>>>>>>>> certainly IS in the area of reverse command.
>>>>>> I saw a clip of a 104 that was skidding sideways and then flipped
>>>>>> over on its top. I believe the engine seized on that one. any
>>>>>> thought?
>>>>> I have a clip from "Planes of Flame", where the 104
>>>>> is tangled in an arrestor net, yaws left, then rolls over
>>>>> right that looked messy. Is that the clip you mean?
>>>>> Ken
>>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>> A whole post where you didn't say anything idiotic. this must be a
>>>> first, kennie!
>>>> Bertie
>> ****-OFF QUEER
>
> That's more like it k00kie boi.
>>> There does seem to be some improvement here. :-)
>>> Dudley Henriques
>> DITTO
>
>
> Ooow! I sense some insecurity here. Want to talk about it, Kennie?
>
> Go on, you know you want to.
>
>
> Bertie

I actually think we got 10 seconds of near sanity out of this nitwit.
Has to be a record of some kind :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 16, 9:08 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
....
> Well, we knew it couldn't last!

I object to public displays of homosexual affection.
As a kid in the 60's there would be men who were
room-mates, and people didn't need to think about
it, so dud and his butt-boy bertie should go to email,
which is fine with us.
I'm all for freedom, but if you let the likes of dud and
his butt boy bertie get away with it, tomorrow they'll
be doing it on the streets.

Theses homo's gang-up on hetro's, such as myself,
and let it be known, WE won't put up with it.

So ****-OFF QUEER's .
Ken

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 16, 9:08 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> ...
>> Well, we knew it couldn't last!
>
> I object to public displays of homosexual affection.
> As a kid in the 60's there would be men who were
> room-mates, and people didn't need to think about
> it, so dud and his butt-boy bertie should go to email,
> which is fine with us.
> I'm all for freedom, but if you let the likes of dud and
> his butt boy bertie get away with it, tomorrow they'll
> be doing it on the streets.
>
> Theses homo's gang-up on hetro's, such as myself,
> and let it be known, WE won't put up with it.
>
> So ****-OFF QUEER's .
> Ken

Ken ole buddy, I swear, you're certainly a hoot :-))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 16, 9:41 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Mar 16, 9:08 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> > ...
> >> Well, we knew it couldn't last!
>
> > I object to public displays of homosexual affection.
> > As a kid in the 60's there would be men who were
> > room-mates, and people didn't need to think about
> > it, so dud and his butt-boy bertie should go to email,
> > which is fine with us.
> > I'm all for freedom, but if you let the likes of dud and
> > his butt boy bertie get away with it, tomorrow they'll
> > be doing it on the streets.
>
> > Theses homo's gang-up on hetro's, such as myself,
> > and let it be known, WE won't put up with it.
>
> > So ****-OFF QUEER's .
> > Ken
>
> Ken ole buddy, I swear, you're certainly a hoot :-))))

Yeah sure dud, typical for a pedofile to say, that's
what homo's degrade too.
Dud and Berties 1st kink is to become socio-pathical,
which alleviates their conscious from homosexual
activity followed by pedophilia.

It's the same as smoking a joint is the 1st step to
cocaine and herione addiction, and queers rationalize
each step in the process to pedophilia.
Freedom can be abused.
Ken

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 16, 9:41 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> On Mar 16, 9:08 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>> ...
>>>> Well, we knew it couldn't last!
>>> I object to public displays of homosexual affection.
>>> As a kid in the 60's there would be men who were
>>> room-mates, and people didn't need to think about
>>> it, so dud and his butt-boy bertie should go to email,
>>> which is fine with us.
>>> I'm all for freedom, but if you let the likes of dud and
>>> his butt boy bertie get away with it, tomorrow they'll
>>> be doing it on the streets.
>>> Theses homo's gang-up on hetro's, such as myself,
>>> and let it be known, WE won't put up with it.
>>> So ****-OFF QUEER's .
>>> Ken
>> Ken ole buddy, I swear, you're certainly a hoot :-))))
>
> Yeah sure dud, typical for a pedofile to say, that's
> what homo's degrade too.
> Dud and Berties 1st kink is to become socio-pathical,
> which alleviates their conscious from homosexual
> activity followed by pedophilia.
>
> It's the same as smoking a joint is the 1st step to
> cocaine and herione addiction, and queers rationalize
> each step in the process to pedophilia.
> Freedom can be abused.
> Ken

Ken ole buddy, has anyone ever told you you're a
mite bit irrational?
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 16, 10:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Mar 16, 9:41 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>> On Mar 16, 9:08 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
> >>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >>> ...
> >>>> Well, we knew it couldn't last!
> >>> I object to public displays of homosexual affection.
> >>> As a kid in the 60's there would be men who were
> >>> room-mates, and people didn't need to think about
> >>> it, so dud and his butt-boy bertie should go to email,
> >>> which is fine with us.
> >>> I'm all for freedom, but if you let the likes of dud and
> >>> his butt boy bertie get away with it, tomorrow they'll
> >>> be doing it on the streets.
> >>> Theses homo's gang-up on hetro's, such as myself,
> >>> and let it be known, WE won't put up with it.
> >>> So ****-OFF QUEER's .
> >>> Ken
> >> Ken ole buddy, I swear, you're certainly a hoot :-))))
>
> > Yeah sure dud, typical for a pedofile to say, that's
> > what homo's degrade too.
> > Dud and Berties 1st kink is to become socio-pathical,
> > which alleviates their conscious from homosexual
> > activity followed by pedophilia.
>
> > It's the same as smoking a joint is the 1st step to
> > cocaine and herione addiction, and queers rationalize
> > each step in the process to pedophilia.
> > Freedom can be abused.
> > Ken
>
> Ken ole buddy, has anyone ever told you you're a
> mite bit irrational?
> :-))

Never, quite the contrary, I've been described as the
most possible rational being. In High School the
teachers would refer to me as Mr. Spook, from the
StarTrek TV show.
Perhaps, you "dud" have precession and/or drift in
your attitude.
When was the last time you re-calibrated your attitude?
Why is that instrument front and center on the panel?
Do you understand?

A self enforcement of attitude is the same as a
self imposed discipline.

Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
and more, an expression.
Ken
PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
***General Dud***.

[Scott Skylane]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
/snip much...uhhh.../
> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
> and more, an expression.
> Ken
> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
> ***General Dud***.

Wow. Just...wow.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 16, 9:25 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> Ah, OK. I have seen this one before. Of course I know about George
> Bogardus' "little Gee Bee".That;'s just been restored, in fact.
>
> Don't forget that Wimpy was a much beloved character in those days. it
> was common to name airplanes after them. Art Chester, for instance, with
> the Jeep, and Steve Wittman's Buster and Bonzo. Les sodl a good few kits
> in the thirties. Probably only Corben and Heath did any better in that
> department.
>
> Bertie

Wimpy --the hamburger-eating guy in Popeye?

Our language certainly has changed. I suppose today he would have
designed an sold a "KENNY!" or Cartman.

Though I'm dating myself with those references...


Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:16-
:
>
> I actually think we got 10 seconds of near sanity out of this nitwit.
> Has to be a record of some kind :-))
>

He deserves a lifetime achievement award for that.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:821ab73e-dd40-42d8-
:

> On Mar 16, 9:08 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> ...
>> Well, we knew it couldn't last!
>
> I object to public displays of homosexual affection.


Obviously.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:060a5978-f3dd-41d2-9640-aebbe32f67c2
@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 16, 9:25 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> Ah, OK. I have seen this one before. Of course I know about George
>> Bogardus' "little Gee Bee".That;'s just been restored, in fact.
>>
>> Don't forget that Wimpy was a much beloved character in those days. it
>> was common to name airplanes after them. Art Chester, for instance, with
>> the Jeep, and Steve Wittman's Buster and Bonzo. Les sodl a good few kits
>> in the thirties. Probably only Corben and Heath did any better in that
>> department.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Wimpy --the hamburger-eating guy in Popeye?

Yep. it's almost certainly named after him.
>
> Our language certainly has changed. I suppose today he would have
> designed an sold a "KENNY!" or Cartman.
>
> Though I'm dating myself with those references...
>

Prolly. But yeh, there was a lot of that in the thirties. The characters
were really popular. So was aviation. Race pilots were like rock stars back
then.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:9823880d-6325-
:

> On Mar 16, 9:41 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > On Mar 16, 9:08 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> > ...
>> >> Well, we knew it couldn't last!
>>
>> > I object to public displays of homosexual affection.
>> > As a kid in the 60's there would be men who were
>> > room-mates, and people didn't need to think about
>> > it, so dud and his butt-boy bertie should go to email,
>> > which is fine with us.
>> > I'm all for freedom, but if you let the likes of dud and
>> > his butt boy bertie get away with it, tomorrow they'll
>> > be doing it on the streets.
>>
>> > Theses homo's gang-up on hetro's, such as myself,
>> > and let it be known, WE won't put up with it.
>>
>> > So ****-OFF QUEER's .
>> > Ken
>>
>> Ken ole buddy, I swear, you're certainly a hoot :-))))
>
> Yeah sure dud, typical for a pedofile to say, that's
> what homo's degrade too.
> Dud and Berties 1st kink is to become socio-pathical,
> which alleviates their conscious from homosexual
> activity followed by pedophilia.
>
> It's the same as smoking a joint is the 1st step to
> cocaine and herione addiction, and queers rationalize
> each step in the process to pedophilia.
> Freedom can be abused.


Ahhh, pedolames.


It had to happen.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:791665e4-ffed-
:

>

>>
>> > It's the same as smoking a joint is the 1st step to
>> > cocaine and herione addiction, and queers rationalize
>> > each step in the process to pedophilia.
>> > Freedom can be abused.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Ken ole buddy, has anyone ever told you you're a
>> mite bit irrational?
>> :-))
>
> Never, quite the contrary, I've been described as the
> most possible rational being. In High School the
> teachers would refer to me as Mr. Spook, from the
> StarTrek TV show.
> Perhaps, you "dud" have precession and/or drift in
> your attitude.
> When was the last time you re-calibrated your attitude?
> Why is that instrument front and center on the panel?
> Do you understand?
>
> A self enforcement of attitude is the same as a
> self imposed discipline.
>
> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
> and more, an expression.
> Ken
> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
> ***General Dud***.
>

Awww, that's kewt!




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Scott Skylane > wrote in
:

> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> /snip much...uhhh.../
>> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
>> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
>> and more, an expression.
>> Ken
>> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
>> ***General Dud***.
>
> Wow. Just...wow.
>



Amazing, isn't it?

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Scott Skylane > wrote in
> :
>
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> /snip much...uhhh.../
>>> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
>>> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
>>> and more, an expression.
>>> Ken
>>> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
>>> ***General Dud***.
>> Wow. Just...wow.
>>
>
>
>
> Amazing, isn't it?
>
> Bertie
Hang on a second......I'll be going back to "1 star" in no time.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:16-
> :
>> I actually think we got 10 seconds of near sanity out of this nitwit.
>> Has to be a record of some kind :-))
>>
>
> He deserves a lifetime achievement award for that.
>
>
> Bertie
.........at least a night at Lincoln Center :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Scott Skylane > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> /snip much...uhhh.../
>>>> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
>>>> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
>>>> and more, an expression.
>>>> Ken
>>>> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
>>>> ***General Dud***.
>>> Wow. Just...wow.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Amazing, isn't it?
>>
>> Bertie
> Hang on a second......I'll be going back to "1 star" in no time.

Isn't that a beer they used to make in Pittsburgh?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:16-
>> :
>>> I actually think we got 10 seconds of near sanity out of this nitwit.
>>> Has to be a record of some kind :-))
>>>
>>
>> He deserves a lifetime achievement award for that.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> ........at least a night at Lincoln Center :-))
>

Chris rock move over.


bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Scott Skylane > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>> /snip much...uhhh.../
>>>>> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
>>>>> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
>>>>> and more, an expression.
>>>>> Ken
>>>>> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
>>>>> ***General Dud***.
>>>> Wow. Just...wow.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Amazing, isn't it?
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Hang on a second......I'll be going back to "1 star" in no time.
>
> Isn't that a beer they used to make in Pittsburgh?
>
> Bertie

Could be. Rolling Rock is made near here. Nasty little green bottles. It
gives you a hell of a headache. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Scott Skylane > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>> /snip much...uhhh.../
>>>>>> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
>>>>>> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
>>>>>> and more, an expression.
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
>>>>>> ***General Dud***.
>>>>> Wow. Just...wow.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Amazing, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Hang on a second......I'll be going back to "1 star" in no time.
>>
>> Isn't that a beer they used to make in Pittsburgh?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Could be. Rolling Rock is made near here. Nasty little green bottles.
It
> gives you a hell of a headache. :-))
>

But it's made frompure mountain spring water!

33!


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Scott Skylane > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>> /snip much...uhhh.../
>>>>>>> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
>>>>>>> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
>>>>>>> and more, an expression.
>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
>>>>>>> ***General Dud***.
>>>>>> Wow. Just...wow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Amazing, isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Hang on a second......I'll be going back to "1 star" in no time.
>>> Isn't that a beer they used to make in Pittsburgh?
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Could be. Rolling Rock is made near here. Nasty little green bottles.
> It
>> gives you a hell of a headache. :-))
>>
>
> But it's made frompure mountain spring water!
>
> 33!
>
>
> Bertie
Ah HA!! You've been there...done that! :-)) We used to put the planes
away at night, fly down to Bay Bridge and pick up a bushel of crabs, fly
back and break out the Rolling Rock. Many a great night was spent in he
airport back room playing piano, guitars, and watching old movies.
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 17, 9:10 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Scott Skylane >
>
> >Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >/snip much...uhhh.../
> >> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
> >> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
> >> and more, an expression.
> >> Ken
> >> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
> >> ***General Dud***.
>
> >Wow. Just...wow.
>
> I'm just trying to figure out how old this guy is.
> You just don't normally see that out of an adult.
> Even the more, um, mentally challenged kids, that I grew up with,
> abandoned that type of game playing by the age of 13-14.

Well, if we're all sitting in the same room, **Dud** and
his private <bertie> would be sitting together drinking
their beer out of straws with raised pinkies.

Anyway, back to the 104 that Roger mentioned that flipped
over, (I have video of that from a "Planes of Fame" series
that was awesome, maybe we should get them to put that
series out on DVD, definitely excellent).

Why it yawed left, then flipped over right wasn't specified.
I *guessed* it was either a hard x-wind or brake failure.
I would expect a good pilot would brake as well as he
could, BUT, considering the narrow gear Johnson gave
the 104, if the pilot brakes on the left wheel, the a/c
might have actually lifted (rolled right) and that renders
that left wheel ineffective.
Once the angular momentum from the yaw moment
bites, the right wheel appeared to become a privot.

Maybe we could get that posted to you-tube, I can't
myself, but if anyone can that would be great for the
group.
Ken

[cavedweller]

On Mar 17, 1:10*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Scott Skylane >
>
> >Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >/snip much...uhhh.../
> >> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
> >> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
> >> and more, an expression.
> >> Ken
> >> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
> >> ***General Dud***.
>
> >Wow. *Just...wow.
>
> I'm just trying to figure out how old this guy is.
> You just don't normally see that out of an adult.
> Even the more, um, mentally challenged kids, that I grew up with,
> abandoned that type of game playing by the age of 13-14.
>
Worse, by his e-mail address, he's a Canadian. On behalf of the other
30 or so million of us, I apologize.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Scott Skylane > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>> /snip much...uhhh.../
>>>>>>>> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
>>>>>>>> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
>>>>>>>> and more, an expression.
>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
>>>>>>>> ***General Dud***.
>>>>>>> Wow. Just...wow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amazing, isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Hang on a second......I'll be going back to "1 star" in no time.
>>>> Isn't that a beer they used to make in Pittsburgh?
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Could be. Rolling Rock is made near here. Nasty little green
bottles.
>> It
>>> gives you a hell of a headache. :-))
>>>
>>
>> But it's made frompure mountain spring water!
>>
>> 33!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> Ah HA!! You've been there...done that! :-)) We used to put the planes
> away at night, fly down to Bay Bridge and pick up a bushel of crabs,
fly
> back and break out the Rolling Rock. Many a great night was spent in
he
> airport back room playing piano, guitars, and watching old movies.
>:-)
>

niiice.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Scott Skylane >
>
>>Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>/snip much...uhhh.../
>>> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
>>> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
>>> and more, an expression.
>>> Ken
>>> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
>>> ***General Dud***.
>>
>>Wow. Just...wow.
>
> I'm just trying to figure out how old this guy is.
> You just don't normally see that out of an adult.
> Even the more, um, mentally challenged kids, that I grew up with,
> abandoned that type of game playing by the age of 13-14.


Oh there's plenty of adults into this kind of behaviour.


Bertie
>
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

cavedweller wrote:
> On Mar 17, 1:10 pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> From: Scott Skylane >
>>
>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> /snip much...uhhh.../
>>>> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
>>>> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
>>>> and more, an expression.
>>>> Ken
>>>> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
>>>> ***General Dud***.
>>> Wow. Just...wow.
>> I'm just trying to figure out how old this guy is.
>> You just don't normally see that out of an adult.
>> Even the more, um, mentally challenged kids, that I grew up with,
>> abandoned that type of game playing by the age of 13-14.
>>
> Worse, by his e-mail address, he's a Canadian. On behalf of the other
> 30 or so million of us, I apologize.
No need really. Most of your American friends realize the vast majority
of our Canadian Friends are nice people with a great sense of humor.
Besides, we have our share of "Tuckers" down here as well. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 17, 9:10 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> From: Scott Skylane >
>>
>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> /snip much...uhhh.../
>>>> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
>>>> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
>>>> and more, an expression.
>>>> Ken
>>>> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
>>>> ***General Dud***.
>>> Wow. Just...wow.
>> I'm just trying to figure out how old this guy is.
>> You just don't normally see that out of an adult.
>> Even the more, um, mentally challenged kids, that I grew up with,
>> abandoned that type of game playing by the age of 13-14.
>
> Well, if we're all sitting in the same room, **Dud** and
> his private <bertie> would be sitting together drinking
> their beer out of straws with raised pinkies.
>
> Anyway, back to the 104 that Roger mentioned that flipped
> over, (I have video of that from a "Planes of Fame" series
> that was awesome, maybe we should get them to put that
> series out on DVD, definitely excellent).
>
> Why it yawed left, then flipped over right wasn't specified.
> I *guessed* it was either a hard x-wind or brake failure.
> I would expect a good pilot would brake as well as he
> could, BUT, considering the narrow gear Johnson gave
> the 104, if the pilot brakes on the left wheel, the a/c
> might have actually lifted (rolled right) and that renders
> that left wheel ineffective.
> Once the angular momentum from the yaw moment
> bites, the right wheel appeared to become a privot.
>
> Maybe we could get that posted to you-tube, I can't
> myself, but if anyone can that would be great for the
> group.
> Ken

If this was a chess game, we could name it "Tucker's gambit
refused..............constantly :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:18ba5726-b3a3-457a-
:


>
> Well, if we're all sitting in the same room, **Dud** and
> his private <bertie> would be sitting together drinking
> their beer out of straws with raised pinkies.
>
> Anyway, back to the 104 that Roger mentioned that flipped
> over, (I have video of that from a "Planes of Fame" series
> that was awesome, maybe we should get them to put that
> series out on DVD, definitely excellent).
>
> Why it yawed left, then flipped over right wasn't specified.
> I *guessed* it was either a hard x-wind or brake failure.
> I would expect a good pilot would brake as well as he
> could, BUT, considering the narrow gear Johnson gave
> the 104, if the pilot brakes on the left wheel, the a/c
> might have actually lifted (rolled right) and that renders
> that left wheel ineffective.
> Once the angular momentum from the yaw moment
> bites, the right wheel appeared to become a privot.
>
> Maybe we could get that posted to you-tube, I can't
> myself, but if anyone can that would be great for the
> group.

You're an idiot.

Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

Hi Mr. *Owner*

On Mar 17, 12:45 am, "Owner" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...

> > On Mar 16, 10:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> > On Mar 16, 9:41 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> >>> On Mar 16, 9:08 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
> >> >>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >> >>> ...
> >> >>>> Well, we knew it couldn't last!
> >> >>> I object to public displays of homosexual affection.
> >> >>> As a kid in the 60's there would be men who were
> >> >>> room-mates, and people didn't need to think about
> >> >>> it, so dud and his butt-boy bertie should go to email,
> >> >>> which is fine with us.
> >> >>> I'm all for freedom, but if you let the likes of dud and
> >> >>> his butt boy bertie get away with it, tomorrow they'll
> >> >>> be doing it on the streets.
> >> >>> Theses homo's gang-up on hetro's, such as myself,
> >> >>> and let it be known, WE won't put up with it.
> >> >>> So ****-OFF QUEER's .
> >> >>> Ken
> >> >> Ken ole buddy, I swear, you're certainly a hoot :-))))
>
> >> > Yeah sure dud, typical for a pedofile to say, that's
> >> > what homo's degrade too.
> >> > Dud and Berties 1st kink is to become socio-pathical,
> >> > which alleviates their conscious from homosexual
> >> > activity followed by pedophilia.
>
> >> > It's the same as smoking a joint is the 1st step to
> >> > cocaine and herione addiction, and queers rationalize
> >> > each step in the process to pedophilia.
> >> > Freedom can be abused.
> >> > Ken
>
> >> Ken ole buddy, has anyone ever told you you're a
> >> mite bit irrational?
> >> :-))
>
> > Never, quite the contrary,
>
> Ken, you are a mite bit irrational
>
> > I've been described as the
> > most possible rational being.
> >In High School the
> > teachers would refer to me as Mr. Spook, from the
> > StarTrek TV show.
>
> Hmm, I thought it could have something to do with the size and shape of your
> ears until I realized you were compared to a Spook.
>
> > Perhaps, you "dud" have precession and/or drift in
> > your attitude.
> > When was the last time you re-calibrated your attitude?
> > Why is that instrument front and center on the panel?
> > Do you understand?
>
> Linear math, yes. You, no.

I'm a victim of the enviroment. Take non-linear
math for example, I try to reduce my flap flutter.
Betcha you could understand non-linear math
by figuring out the source of flutter in control
surfaces, and then why a mass counter balance
is needed even for a 152.

Owner gets a star, he is now Mr. *Owner*, and
2 stars for anyone who explains flutter and 3 for
anyone who can explain why we need to carry
that ballast on our a/c to cancel said flutter.
Ken
PS:That problem irked me everytime I did a walk-
around on a 152 and physically jived the elevators.
But before I try an explanation I'd like everyone
else to wait until the others have explained it.
Ken

[george]

On Mar 17, 4:55 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

>
> ****-OFF QUEER

The gay rejoinder denoting ken has tossed his toys out of the pram
again..

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

george wrote:
> On Mar 17, 4:55 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> ****-OFF QUEER
>
> The gay rejoinder denoting ken has tossed his toys out of the pram
> again..
>
All except the bears. I think Ken REALLY likes his Teddy Bears!!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: cavedweller >
>
>> Worse, by his e-mail address, he's a Canadian. On behalf of the other
>> 30 or so million of us, I apologize.
>
> Ah.............That explains it!
>
>
> I jest, of course.
> I have nothing but respect for, and a few fond memories of, the Canadian people.
> Especially the women of Montreal.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBR976TpMoscYxZNI5AQFPRQQAmNY/bBDSKevJn29I+kECJq8K8xdNCP/Y
> Tmh1ErxN5eFP47yzQlPjrEzTpMrpl9Fyvsqvh4qwUSwEyJDOiU PymB14Z/tZvfC2
> XbJ3wFCvq1utIuXW/rv/Q1GqwUPT+fWxqOK/xJBcJRztwcj5i7tet1qEyRKswRKr
> 5rw9c/y3o4s=
> =m0pT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
I happened to mention to Ken once that Col Phillip and the Snowbirds had
invited me to fly one of their Tutors with them (not in the formation of
course) while all of us were doing a show here in the states.

This was his answer;

-- "Silly canux snowbirds. Doing hot shot **** and
kill a pilot every few years. It's their way to get
the canuck taxpayer to buy them a new plane,
and a very under-handed way to do that!
The least they could do is bail out before they
crash to save training another do-flunky.
My IQ is 99%+ and I'm a member of MENSA,
that "qualifies" me to genius level."
Ken
_____

Wonderful fellow our Ken :-))))

Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Mar 17, 1:16 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> I'm a victim of the enviroment. Take non-linear
> math for example, I try to reduce my flap flutter.
> Betcha you could understand non-linear math
> by figuring out the source of flutter in control
> surfaces, and then why a mass counter balance
> is needed even for a 152.

"Flap flutter." Well, it might be news to you that flaps don't
have mass balances. They're not subject to flutter.

Dan

[Blueskies]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>> . net:
>>
>>>> LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38, and
>>>> there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the whole
>>>> works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly what
>>>> stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
>>>> according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
>>>> production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came after
>>>> the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> SOME -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines on
>>> both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Are you sure about that?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they considered
> a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
> handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton of
> P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The word we
> got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
> interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Here we go, the model 322-61 Lightning I & II
http://www.aerofiles.com/JBlock-p38expo.html

[Blueskies]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message .. .
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:6sWdne8-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> I agree. The history stuff is interesting but highly speculative to
>>>> say the least. Sorting it out can try your patience for sure. I
>>>> remember Bader telling me about one "historian" who cornered him one
>>>> evening and proceeded to TELL him about an air battle he had been in
>>>> personally. When Bader tried to correct the man on a certain detail
>>>> he personally had experienced, the "historian" argued with him that
>>>> he (Bader) was wrong! :-))
>>>>
>>>
>>> Beautiful. It's realy interesting talking to those guys. I haven't
>>> met one in a long time, now, though.. They'll soon be all gone.. I
>>> did meet a B-50 pilot at a party not too long ago. He was interesting
>>> to talk to alright. Pretty old!
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> We're losing a lot of our last flying generation each year.
>>
>
> Yep
>
> Bertie
>

Have you guys seen the book "America's Hundred-Thousand"? It is about the USA fighter production in WWII. Very good...
Also, have you seen any of the EAA 'voices' or whatever it is they call it; the recordings and stories from the guys
(and gals) who were there. Also very good...

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Blueskies wrote:
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:6sWdne8-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> I agree. The history stuff is interesting but highly speculative to
>>>>> say the least. Sorting it out can try your patience for sure. I
>>>>> remember Bader telling me about one "historian" who cornered him one
>>>>> evening and proceeded to TELL him about an air battle he had been in
>>>>> personally. When Bader tried to correct the man on a certain detail
>>>>> he personally had experienced, the "historian" argued with him that
>>>>> he (Bader) was wrong! :-))
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Beautiful. It's realy interesting talking to those guys. I haven't
>>>> met one in a long time, now, though.. They'll soon be all gone.. I
>>>> did meet a B-50 pilot at a party not too long ago. He was interesting
>>>> to talk to alright. Pretty old!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> We're losing a lot of our last flying generation each year.
>>>
>>
>> Yep
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Have you guys seen the book "America's Hundred-Thousand"? It is about
> the USA fighter production in WWII. Very good...
> Also, have you seen any of the EAA 'voices' or whatever it is they call
> it; the recordings and stories from the guys (and gals) who were there.
> Also very good...
>
>
Haven't seen that but it sounds like a fine idea.

--
Dudley Henriques

[george]

On Mar 18, 8:31 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> george wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 4:55 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >> ****-OFF QUEER
>
> > The gay rejoinder denoting ken has tossed his toys out of the pram
> > again..
>
> All except the bears. I think Ken REALLY likes his Teddy Bears!!
>
He can't -bear- being without them....... ?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

george wrote:
> On Mar 18, 8:31 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> george wrote:
>>> On Mar 17, 4:55 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>> ****-OFF QUEER
>>> The gay rejoinder denoting ken has tossed his toys out of the pram
>>> again..
>> All except the bears. I think Ken REALLY likes his Teddy Bears!!
>>
> He can't -bear- being without them....... ?

I'm going to try and bear up under where this thread is going :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

cavedweller > wrote in news:1fe61d08-dd85-45e3-
:

> On Mar 17, 1:10*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> From: Scott Skylane >
>>
>> >Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >/snip much...uhhh.../
>> >> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
>> >> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
>> >> and more, an expression.
>> >> Ken
>> >> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
>> >> ***General Dud***.
>>
>> >Wow. *Just...wow.
>>
>> I'm just trying to figure out how old this guy is.
>> You just don't normally see that out of an adult.
>> Even the more, um, mentally challenged kids, that I grew up with,
>> abandoned that type of game playing by the age of 13-14.
>>
> Worse, by his e-mail address, he's a Canadian. On behalf of the other
> 30 or so million of us, I apologize.
>

While you're at it, you have a lot to answer for with Celine Dion as
well.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> Hi Mr. *Owner*
>
> On Mar 17, 12:45 am, "Owner" > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> messagenews:791665e4-ffed-45cd-bf2d-

>> ups.com...
>
>> > On Mar 16, 10:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >> > On Mar 16, 9:41 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >> >>> On Mar 16, 9:08 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> >> >>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> >> >>> ...
>> >> >>>> Well, we knew it couldn't last!
>> >> >>> I object to public displays of homosexual affection.
>> >> >>> As a kid in the 60's there would be men who were
>> >> >>> room-mates, and people didn't need to think about
>> >> >>> it, so dud and his butt-boy bertie should go to email,
>> >> >>> which is fine with us.
>> >> >>> I'm all for freedom, but if you let the likes of dud and
>> >> >>> his butt boy bertie get away with it, tomorrow they'll
>> >> >>> be doing it on the streets.
>> >> >>> Theses homo's gang-up on hetro's, such as myself,
>> >> >>> and let it be known, WE won't put up with it.
>> >> >>> So ****-OFF QUEER's .
>> >> >>> Ken
>> >> >> Ken ole buddy, I swear, you're certainly a hoot :-))))
>>
>> >> > Yeah sure dud, typical for a pedofile to say, that's
>> >> > what homo's degrade too.
>> >> > Dud and Berties 1st kink is to become socio-pathical,
>> >> > which alleviates their conscious from homosexual
>> >> > activity followed by pedophilia.
>>
>> >> > It's the same as smoking a joint is the 1st step to
>> >> > cocaine and herione addiction, and queers rationalize
>> >> > each step in the process to pedophilia.
>> >> > Freedom can be abused.
>> >> > Ken
>>
>> >> Ken ole buddy, has anyone ever told you you're a
>> >> mite bit irrational?
>> >> :-))
>>
>> > Never, quite the contrary,
>>
>> Ken, you are a mite bit irrational
>>
>> > I've been described as the
>> > most possible rational being.
>> >In High School the
>> > teachers would refer to me as Mr. Spook, from the
>> > StarTrek TV show.
>>
>> Hmm, I thought it could have something to do with the size and shape
>> of your ears until I realized you were compared to a Spook.
>>
>> > Perhaps, you "dud" have precession and/or drift in
>> > your attitude.
>> > When was the last time you re-calibrated your attitude?
>> > Why is that instrument front and center on the panel?
>> > Do you understand?
>>
>> Linear math, yes. You, no.
>
> I'm a victim of the enviroment.

Crack house next door eh?


Bertie>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> Hi Mr. *Owner*
>
> On Mar 17, 12:45 am, "Owner" > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> messagenews:791665e4-ffed-45cd-bf2d-

>> ups.com...
>
>> > On Mar 16, 10:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >> > On Mar 16, 9:41 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >> >>> On Mar 16, 9:08 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> >> >>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> >> >>> ...
>> >> >>>> Well, we knew it couldn't last!
>> >> >>> I object to public displays of homosexual affection.
>> >> >>> As a kid in the 60's there would be men who were
>> >> >>> room-mates, and people didn't need to think about
>> >> >>> it, so dud and his butt-boy bertie should go to email,
>> >> >>> which is fine with us.
>> >> >>> I'm all for freedom, but if you let the likes of dud and
>> >> >>> his butt boy bertie get away with it, tomorrow they'll
>> >> >>> be doing it on the streets.
>> >> >>> Theses homo's gang-up on hetro's, such as myself,
>> >> >>> and let it be known, WE won't put up with it.
>> >> >>> So ****-OFF QUEER's .
>> >> >>> Ken
>> >> >> Ken ole buddy, I swear, you're certainly a hoot :-))))
>>
>> >> > Yeah sure dud, typical for a pedofile to say, that's
>> >> > what homo's degrade too.
>> >> > Dud and Berties 1st kink is to become socio-pathical,
>> >> > which alleviates their conscious from homosexual
>> >> > activity followed by pedophilia.
>>
>> >> > It's the same as smoking a joint is the 1st step to
>> >> > cocaine and herione addiction, and queers rationalize
>> >> > each step in the process to pedophilia.
>> >> > Freedom can be abused.
>> >> > Ken
>>
>> >> Ken ole buddy, has anyone ever told you you're a
>> >> mite bit irrational?
>> >> :-))
>>
>> > Never, quite the contrary,
>>
>> Ken, you are a mite bit irrational
>>
>> > I've been described as the
>> > most possible rational being.
>> >In High School the
>> > teachers would refer to me as Mr. Spook, from the
>> > StarTrek TV show.
>>
>> Hmm, I thought it could have something to do with the size and shape
>> of your ears until I realized you were compared to a Spook.
>>
>> > Perhaps, you "dud" have precession and/or drift in
>> > your attitude.
>> > When was the last time you re-calibrated your attitude?
>> > Why is that instrument front and center on the panel?
>> > Do you understand?
>>
>> Linear math, yes. You, no.
>
> I'm a victim of the enviroment. Take non-linear
> math for example, I try to reduce my flap flutter.
> Betcha you could understand non-linear math
> by figuring out the source of flutter in control
> surfaces, and then why a mass counter balance
> is needed even for a 152.
>


Do tell,.

Oh wait, you can't.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> george wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 8:31 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> george wrote:
>>>> On Mar 17, 4:55 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>> ****-OFF QUEER
>>>> The gay rejoinder denoting ken has tossed his toys out of the pram
>>>> again..
>>> All except the bears. I think Ken REALLY likes his Teddy Bears!!
>>>
>> He can't -bear- being without them....... ?
>
> I'm going to try and bear up under where this thread is going :-)
>

I'm not sure i even want to know what you guys are talking about.


Bertie

[cavedweller]

On Mar 17, 11:39*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> cavedweller > wrote in news:1fe61d08-dd85-45e3-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 1:10*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >> From: Scott Skylane >
>
> >> >Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> >/snip much...uhhh.../
> >> >> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
> >> >> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
> >> >> and more, an expression.
> >> >> Ken
> >> >> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
> >> >> ***General Dud***.
>
> >> >Wow. *Just...wow.
>
> >> I'm just trying to figure out how old this guy is.
> >> You just don't normally see that out of an adult.
> >> Even the more, um, mentally challenged kids, that I grew up with,
> >> abandoned that type of game playing by the age of 13-14.
>
> > Worse, by his e-mail address, he's a Canadian. *On behalf of the other
> > 30 or so million of us, I apologize.
>
> While you're at it, you have a lot to answer for with Celine Dion as
> well.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Je le regrette.....(hangs head).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

cavedweller > wrote in news:3f2244cd-cf7f-4d6b-
:

> On Mar 17, 11:39*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> cavedweller > wrote in news:1fe61d08-dd85-
45e3-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 17, 1:10*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> >> From: Scott Skylane >
>>
>> >> >Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >> >/snip much...uhhh.../
>> >> >> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
>> >> >> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
>> >> >> and more, an expression.
>> >> >> Ken
>> >> >> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
>> >> >> ***General Dud***.
>>
>> >> >Wow. *Just...wow.
>>
>> >> I'm just trying to figure out how old this guy is.
>> >> You just don't normally see that out of an adult.
>> >> Even the more, um, mentally challenged kids, that I grew up with,
>> >> abandoned that type of game playing by the age of 13-14.
>>
>> > Worse, by his e-mail address, he's a Canadian. *On behalf of the
other
>
>> > 30 or so million of us, I apologize.
>>
>> While you're at it, you have a lot to answer for with Celine Dion as
>> well.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Je le regrette.....(hangs head).
>

Well, you also gave the world Joni Mitchell, so as a concilatroy gesture
we'll burn the entire panel of american idol at the stake.

Bertie

[cavedweller]

On Mar 18, 9:43*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> cavedweller > wrote in news:3f2244cd-cf7f-4d6b-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 11:39*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> cavedweller > wrote in news:1fe61d08-dd85-
> 45e3-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Mar 17, 1:10*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >> >> From: Scott Skylane >
>
> >> >> >Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> >> >/snip much...uhhh.../
> >> >> >> Tell you what **Dud**, "ole buddy" I'll restore your
> >> >> >> 2 stars, because you forced a decision from me,
> >> >> >> and more, an expression.
> >> >> >> Ken
> >> >> >> PS: If **Dud** makes 3 stars, we'll need call him
> >> >> >> ***General Dud***.
>
> >> >> >Wow. *Just...wow.
>
> >> >> I'm just trying to figure out how old this guy is.
> >> >> You just don't normally see that out of an adult.
> >> >> Even the more, um, mentally challenged kids, that I grew up with,
> >> >> abandoned that type of game playing by the age of 13-14.
>
> >> > Worse, by his e-mail address, he's a Canadian. *On behalf of the
> other
>
> >> > 30 or so million of us, I apologize.
>
> >> While you're at it, you have a lot to answer for with Celine Dion as
> >> well.
>
> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Je le regrette.....(hangs head).
>
> Well, you also gave the world Joni Mitchell, so as a concilatroy gesture
> we'll burn the entire panel of american idol at the stake.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wait, there's more (hanging head even further), As a conciliatory
gesture to SWMBO, I have tickets to not one, but two, diva Dion
concerts upcoming later this year. The things one must do. But 'mkew
for the panel sacrifice.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> george wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 8:31 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> george wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 17, 4:55 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>> ****-OFF QUEER
>>>>> The gay rejoinder denoting ken has tossed his toys out of the pram
>>>>> again..
>>>> All except the bears. I think Ken REALLY likes his Teddy Bears!!
>>>>
>>> He can't -bear- being without them....... ?
>> I'm going to try and bear up under where this thread is going :-)
>>
>
> I'm not sure i even want to know what you guys are talking about.
>
>
> Bertie

I have always admired your superior judgment :-))))))))))))))))))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 17, 1:42 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 17, 1:16 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > I'm a victim of the enviroment. Take non-linear
> > math for example, I try to reduce my flap flutter.
> > Betcha you could understand non-linear math
> > by figuring out the source of flutter in control
> > surfaces, and then why a mass counter balance
> > is needed even for a 152.
>
> "Flap flutter." Well, it might be news to you that flaps don't
> have mass balances. They're not subject to flutter.>
> Dan

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

Think about how a teader-tauter works, once balanced,
its angle stays constant in spite of the applied acceleration.

Control surfaces are subject to angular accelerations, when
engaged, around the a/c CG, in pitch, yaw, roll, so the input
can be varied by the induced acceleration.
Ken get's a star.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 18, 10:39 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 17, 1:42 pm, wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 1:16 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > I'm a victim of the enviroment. Take non-linear
> > > math for example, I try to reduce my flap flutter.
> > > Betcha you could understand non-linear math
> > > by figuring out the source of flutter in control
> > > surfaces, and then why a mass counter balance
> > > is needed even for a 152.
>
> > "Flap flutter." Well, it might be news to you that flaps don't
> > have mass balances. They're not subject to flutter.>
> > Dan
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroelasticity
>
> Think about how a teader-tauter works, once balanced,
> its angle stays constant in spite of the applied acceleration.
>
> Control surfaces are subject to angular accelerations, when
> engaged, around the a/c CG, in pitch, yaw, roll, so the input
> can be varied by the induced acceleration.
> Ken get's a star.

We have "Teeter-Totters" down here, Bub.

And the way they work is the fat kid wins.


Dan Mc

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 18, 10:39 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 1:42 pm, wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 17, 1:16 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>> I'm a victim of the enviroment. Take non-linear
>>>> math for example, I try to reduce my flap flutter.
>>>> Betcha you could understand non-linear math
>>>> by figuring out the source of flutter in control
>>>> surfaces, and then why a mass counter balance
>>>> is needed even for a 152.
>>> "Flap flutter." Well, it might be news to you that flaps don't
>>> have mass balances. They're not subject to flutter.>
>>> Dan
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroelasticity
>>
>> Think about how a teader-tauter works, once balanced,
>> its angle stays constant in spite of the applied acceleration.
>>
>> Control surfaces are subject to angular accelerations, when
>> engaged, around the a/c CG, in pitch, yaw, roll, so the input
>> can be varied by the induced acceleration.
>> Ken get's a star.
>
> We have "Teeter-Totters" down here, Bub.
>
> And the way they work is the fat kid wins.
>
>
> Dan Mc

Not if the skinny kid jumps off at the bottom!!
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 18, 11:28 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Not if the skinny kid jumps off at the bottom!!
> :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Ouch!

I know your kind.....


Dan Mc

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 18, 11:28 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Not if the skinny kid jumps off at the bottom!!
>> :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Ouch!
>
> I know your kind.....
>
>
> Dan Mc

Childhood memories!!! :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 8:39 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroelasticity
>
> Think about how a teader-tauter works, once balanced,
> its angle stays constant in spite of the applied acceleration.
>
> Control surfaces are subject to angular accelerations, when
> engaged, around the a/c CG, in pitch, yaw, roll, so the input
> can be varied by the induced acceleration.
> Ken get's a star.

No. No star. You didn't deal with the elasticity issue. All
airplanes flex, and it contributes to the problem of flutter.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

cavedweller > wrote in news:36c5df43-8309-4ad7-91e5-
:
>
> Wait, there's more (hanging head even further), As a conciliatory
> gesture to SWMBO, I have tickets to not one, but two, diva Dion
> concerts upcoming later this year. The things one must do. But 'mkew
> for the panel sacrifice.
>
I understand. I had to take mrs Bunyip to Cats.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

>> I'm not sure i even want to know what you guys are talking about.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I have always admired your superior judgment :-))))))))))))))))))))
>

Ken is almost too bordrline creepy for me. I always picture him livingn in
a trailer and skinning squirrels.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:54a608de-662f-
:

> On Mar 17, 1:42 pm, wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 1:16 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > I'm a victim of the enviroment. Take non-linear
>> > math for example, I try to reduce my flap flutter.
>> > Betcha you could understand non-linear math
>> > by figuring out the source of flutter in control
>> > surfaces, and then why a mass counter balance
>> > is needed even for a 152.
>>
>> "Flap flutter." Well, it might be news to you that flaps don't
>> have mass balances. They're not subject to flutter.>
>> Dan
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroelasticity
>
> Think about how a teader-tauter works, once balanced,
> its angle stays constant in spite of the applied acceleration.
>
> Control surfaces are subject to angular accelerations, when
> engaged, around the a/c CG, in pitch, yaw, roll, so the input
> can be varied by the induced acceleration.



Wow, you figured out how to use Wikipedia.

I'm impressed.

Now see if you can get the lid off that can of yellow pack beans you're
having for dinnner.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 18, 11:46 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> I understand. I had to take mrs Bunyip to Cats.
>
> Bertie

Please turn in your "He Man Woman Haters club" membership card
immediately.


Dan Mc

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in news:a4c15208-4f0a-4248-abf6-2773159ea144
@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 18, 11:46 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> I understand. I had to take mrs Bunyip to Cats.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Please turn in your "He Man Woman Haters club" membership card
> immediately.
>

Never hated women!

Definitely hated Cats, though. It was like two hours of root canal.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:a40afc6a-5329-4323-927b-
:

> On Mar 18, 8:39 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroelasticity
>>
>> Think about how a teader-tauter works, once balanced,
>> its angle stays constant in spite of the applied acceleration.
>>
>> Control surfaces are subject to angular accelerations, when
>> engaged, around the a/c CG, in pitch, yaw, roll, so the input
>> can be varied by the induced acceleration.
>> Ken get's a star.
>
> No. No star. You didn't deal with the elasticity issue. All
> airplanes flex, and it contributes to the problem of flutter.

He's just cut and pasting crap he's finding with no understanding of
what's going on.
Just like all the other crap he posts.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 18, 12:01 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:a4c15208-4f0a-4248-abf6-2773159ea144
> @n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Mar 18, 11:46 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> I understand. I had to take mrs Bunyip to Cats.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Please turn in your "He Man Woman Haters club" membership card
> > immediately.
>
> Never hated women!
>
> Definitely hated Cats, though. It was like two hours of root canal.
>
> Bertie

"Cats" -- why in the world would anyone want to....?

Anyway, you get 300 Husband Points for that one.

However, your next assignment is to review "The Little Rascals" and
then return...


Dan Mc

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>>> I'm not sure i even want to know what you guys are talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> I have always admired your superior judgment :-))))))))))))))))))))
>>
>
> Ken is almost too bordrline creepy for me. I always picture him livingn in
> a trailer and skinning squirrels.
>
>
>
> Bertie
>

I get the same feeling. His posting fragments between totally unrelated
comment. It's downright scary! :-))
It could be ADD. Our son gave Bea and I matching sweatshirts to go with
our old age. On each one is written as follows;

"Some people think I have ADD, but I've got news for them"
"Oh LOOK!.......a chicken!!!"

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 18, 12:01 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in
>> news:a4c15208-4f0a-4248-abf6-2773159ea144
>> @n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Mar 18, 11:46 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> I understand. I had to take mrs Bunyip to Cats.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Please turn in your "He Man Woman Haters club" membership card
>> > immediately.
>>
>> Never hated women!
>>
>> Definitely hated Cats, though. It was like two hours of root canal.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> "Cats" -- why in the world would anyone want to....?
>
> Anyway, you get 300 Husband Points for that one.


Only reason anyone goes to see it AFAIK.
>
> However, your next assignment is to review "The Little Rascals" and
> then return...


No prob. The one with the the fire engine is the best.

And may Ted Turner go to hell for coloring them.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>> I'm not sure i even want to know what you guys are talking about.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> I have always admired your superior judgment :-))))))))))))))))))))
>>>
>>
>> Ken is almost too bordrline creepy for me. I always picture him
>> livingn in a trailer and skinning squirrels.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> I get the same feeling. His posting fragments between totally
> unrelated comment. It's downright scary! :-))
> It could be ADD. Our son gave Bea and I matching sweatshirts to go
> with our old age. On each one is written as follows;
>
> "Some people think I have ADD, but I've got news for them"
> "Oh LOOK!.......a chicken!!!"
>

Heh heh. Hmm, I still see him as a hillbilly. One that can;'t get it
together enough to play Jug.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 18, 12:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > However, your next assignment is to review "The Little Rascals" and
> > then return...
>
> No prob. The one with the the fire engine is the best.
>
> And may Ted Turner go to hell for coloring them.
>
> Bertie

That is a good one...

My faves are the football in a cake, and the car with the boxing
glove.

We worked real hard to build one of those cars, but the whole axle-
alignment/steeing thing was too much for out 9 year old minds and
skills.

Darla was hot.


Dan Mc

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:a4c15208-4f0a-4248-abf6-2773159ea144
> @n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Mar 18, 11:46 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>> I understand. I had to take mrs Bunyip to Cats.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Please turn in your "He Man Woman Haters club" membership card
>> immediately.
>>
>
> Never hated women!
>
> Definitely hated Cats, though. It was like two hours of root canal.
>
> Bertie
>

I might have you guys beat on this one. I had to take Mrs H to see
Micheal Flatley in Lord of the Dance. Loved the show as we're really
into Celtic music, but Flatley blew her a kiss from the stage. I'll be
listening to the recounting of this story till the day I die, and if Mrs
H and I are buried closely together as planned, the dirt between our
caskets will reverberate with her trying to shout through it to my ear
so I can hear the story again!!
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure i even want to know what you guys are talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> I have always admired your superior judgment :-))))))))))))))))))))
>>>>
>>> Ken is almost too bordrline creepy for me. I always picture him
>>> livingn in a trailer and skinning squirrels.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> I get the same feeling. His posting fragments between totally
>> unrelated comment. It's downright scary! :-))
>> It could be ADD. Our son gave Bea and I matching sweatshirts to go
>> with our old age. On each one is written as follows;
>>
>> "Some people think I have ADD, but I've got news for them"
>> "Oh LOOK!.......a chicken!!!"
>>
>
> Heh heh. Hmm, I still see him as a hillbilly. One that can;'t get it
> together enough to play Jug.
>
>
> Bertie

Yes, but one must consider that the prime asset required to play Jug is
being full of hot air.

Come to think of it, Ken likes to think of himself as a great
Aerodynamicist . Along the lines of "hot air", he could actually make a
fine and well qualified balloonist!!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:ndmdncXwS-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure i even want to know what you guys are talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> I have always admired your superior judgment
:-))))))))))))))))))))
>>>>>
>>>> Ken is almost too bordrline creepy for me. I always picture him
>>>> livingn in a trailer and skinning squirrels.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> I get the same feeling. His posting fragments between totally
>>> unrelated comment. It's downright scary! :-))
>>> It could be ADD. Our son gave Bea and I matching sweatshirts to go
>>> with our old age. On each one is written as follows;
>>>
>>> "Some people think I have ADD, but I've got news for them"
>>> "Oh LOOK!.......a chicken!!!"
>>>
>>
>> Heh heh. Hmm, I still see him as a hillbilly. One that can;'t get it
>> together enough to play Jug.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yes, but one must consider that the prime asset required to play Jug
is
> being full of hot air.
>
> Come to think of it, Ken likes to think of himself as a great
> Aerodynamicist . Along the lines of "hot air", he could actually make
a
> fine and well qualified balloonist!!
>
Hehehehehe.

Bertie