quick question -

[Tom Cummings]

Segmented circle
"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm interested in the term used for the marking at an airport that can
> be viewed from overhead that indicates the traffic patterns for the
> runways -
>
> Thanks -
>
> -B

[Sandman]

I'm interested in the term used for the marking at an airport that can
be viewed from overhead that indicates the traffic patterns for the
runways -

Thanks -

-B

[Sandman]

On Jul 12, 6:36*pm, "Tom Cummings" > wrote:

> Segmented circle

Outstanding, found an FAA circular on it in short order, thanks -

B

[Andy Hawkins]

Him

In article >,
> wrote:

> I'm interested in the term used for the marking at an airport that can
> be viewed from overhead that indicates the traffic patterns for the
> runways -

For the exams in the UK we have to learn about the signal square. The runway
in use is signfied by a 'T', with landings made in the direction running
from the base of the T upwards (so for a normal 'T' that would signify a
Northerly landing direction). There is also a 90 degree right hand arrow
that signifies if right hand circuits are in use (the norm is left hand).

I'm yet to land at a field without radio so haven't paid too much attention
to them thus far, and apparently they're gradually disappearing from use.

Andy

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:20:30 +0000 (UTC), Andy Hawkins
> wrote:

>Him
>
>In article >,
> > wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in the term used for the marking at an airport that can
>> be viewed from overhead that indicates the traffic patterns for the
>> runways -
>
>For the exams in the UK we have to learn about the signal square. The runway
>in use is signfied by a 'T', with landings made in the direction running
>from the base of the T upwards (so for a normal 'T' that would signify a
>Northerly landing direction). There is also a 90 degree right hand arrow
>that signifies if right hand circuits are in use (the norm is left hand).
>
>I'm yet to land at a field without radio so haven't paid too much attention
>to them thus far, and apparently they're gradually disappearing from use.
>
>Andy

in australia we use windsocks, and notes in ersa.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Stealth > wrote:
> in australia we use windsocks, and notes in ersa.

We have windsocks too :) Hard to tell which direction the pattern is from
that though!

ERSA?

Andy

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:12:14 +0000 (UTC), Andy Hawkins
> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>In article >,
> Stealth > wrote:
>> in australia we use windsocks, and notes in ersa.
>
>We have windsocks too :) Hard to tell which direction the pattern is from
>that though!
>
>ERSA?
>
>Andy

the acronym is so intuitive that I'm sure you wont need me to
elaborate.

<sarcasm off>

ersa is the 'enroute supplement australia' it is a large book of the
details of commercially used airfields in australia.

it is pretty useless for private flying beause of the subset of
airfields featured.

your windsocks must be made from concrete because we actually use ours
to determine the pattern. (hint: land into wind)

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Stealth > wrote:
> the acronym is so intuitive that I'm sure you wont need me to
> elaborate.
>
> <sarcasm off>
>
> ersa is the 'enroute supplement australia' it is a large book of the
> details of commercially used airfields in australia.
>
> it is pretty useless for private flying beause of the subset of
> airfields featured.

Ah, ok. I tend to consult a VFR flight guide first, and then if they have a
variable pattern give the airfield a call.

> your windsocks must be made from concrete because we actually use ours
> to determine the pattern. (hint: land into wind)

Err...yes. But how does a windsock tell you if it's a left or right hand
circuit?

Andy

[george]

On Jul 15, 11:46 am, Clark > wrote:

> Ehhh, he's tawkin' 'bout 'stralia. There's not much congestion or even
> topography so they're all standard lefthand patterns,
>
> 'cept when they're not...
>
Depends.
Any pilot on a cross country into an unknown airfield will (or should)
be carrying an AIP
No matter where they are in the world.
For the circuit pattern look at the square outside the Tower
That's why they teach circuit rejoins.
BTW
Do you know what to do to work in a circuit nonaudio?
Do they still teach that ?

[BT]

square... outside the tower?
that must be a euro thing..
and what if there is no tower?

in the USofA, it's a segmented circle, with either a windsock or wind
tetrahedron in the middle of it

"george" > wrote in message
...
> On Jul 15, 11:46 am, Clark > wrote:
>
>> Ehhh, he's tawkin' 'bout 'stralia. There's not much congestion or even
>> topography so they're all standard lefthand patterns,
>>
>> 'cept when they're not...
>>
> Depends.
> Any pilot on a cross country into an unknown airfield will (or should)
> be carrying an AIP
> No matter where they are in the world.
> For the circuit pattern look at the square outside the Tower
> That's why they teach circuit rejoins.
> BTW
> Do you know what to do to work in a circuit nonaudio?
> Do they still teach that ?

[Kai Rode]

>square... outside the tower?
>that must be a euro thing..

It is an ICAO thing, I believe. These:

http://tinyurl.com/6knnaw

are the German regulations on marking aerodromes with VFR traffic, and they
claim to be in accordance with ICAO annex 14, volume I. The landing-T is
shown on page 3.

>and what if there is no tower?

There is a signal field between the operations building and the runway, even
if there is no tower.

[Benjamin Dover]

Kai Rode > wrote in
:

>>square... outside the tower?
>>that must be a euro thing..
>
> It is an ICAO thing, I believe. These:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6knnaw
>
> are the German regulations on marking aerodromes with VFR traffic, and
> they claim to be in accordance with ICAO annex 14, volume I. The
> landing-T is shown on page 3.
>
>>and what if there is no tower?
>
> There is a signal field between the operations building and the
> runway, even if there is no tower.
>

So the airport MUST have an operations building?

WOW!

[Kai Rode]

>Kai Rode > wrote in
:

>> There is a signal field between the operations building and the
>> runway, even if there is no tower.
>>
>
>So the airport MUST have an operations building?

Yes it does. Even if it's just a beach chair as at this airfield:

http://tinyurl.com/5m4js4

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bild:Flugplatz_Fehmarn-Neujellingsdorf.jpg&filetimestamp=20050822072716


That's what the regulations say..I didn't write them. :)

[Sandman]

Another quick question - I heard an ATC in B airspace refer to an
aircraft as being "in the penalty box" - is this a holding area for
aircraft that aren't cleared to depart or who are waiting for an
aircraft to clear their gate?

Thanks in advance -

-B

[Robert Moore]

Sandman wrote
> Another quick question - I heard an ATC in B airspace refer to an
> aircraft as being "in the penalty box" - is this a holding area for
> aircraft that aren't cleared to depart or who are waiting for an
> aircraft to clear their gate?

At Chicago's O'hare (ORD), waiting for a gate.

Bob Moore
PanAm (retired)

[Journeyman]

On 2008-07-15, Sandman > wrote:
>
> Another quick question - I heard an ATC in B airspace refer to an
> aircraft as being "in the penalty box" - is this a holding area for
> aircraft that aren't cleared to depart or who are waiting for an
> aircraft to clear their gate?
>
> Thanks in advance -

It doesn't exist. Just a slang term for a controller who sends you to
the back of the line when you **** them off or mess up their sequencing.


Morris

[[email protected]]

On Jul 15, 4:19 pm, Robert Moore > wrote:
> Sandman wrote
>
> > Another quick question - I heard an ATC in B airspace refer to an
> > aircraft as being "in the penalty box" - is this a holding area for
> > aircraft that aren't cleared to depart or who are waiting for an
> > aircraft to clear their gate?
>
> At Chicago's O'hare (ORD), waiting for a gate.
>
> Bob Moore
> PanAm (retired)

If I remember correctly, there's a a parking area on the tarmac that
is labeled "Penalty Box". I thought airplanes that violated a
controller's directive were sent there. Was it just a parking area
waiting for a gate to clear?

[george]

On Jul 15, 2:34 pm, Clark > wrote:

> You really mean sans-radio now don't you, sport.

Not being American no I don't mean that

> > Do they still teach that ?
>
> Still need to learn it now do you? Go pay the instructor and get the help
> you need...

My question was and still is
Do they still teach pilots how to fly nonaudio circuits ?
I use
d to fly DH82s and PA18s in the 60s, aircraft not known for their
copious radio equipment.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

wrote:
>
> If I remember correctly, there's a a parking area on the tarmac that
> is labeled "Penalty Box". I thought airplanes that violated a
> controller's directive were sent there. Was it just a parking area
> waiting for a gate to clear?

As far as I know, the PB is at any airport, and is just a euphemism for
wherever you get to sit and wait for many reasons. You could be waiting
for a clearance, a gate, etc... but you can't wait on the taxi way, or
at the gate, if outbound.

Anything with no place to be gets to sit there, out of the way, in the
Penalty Box.

[Benjamin Dover]

Kai Rode > wrote in
:

>>Kai Rode > wrote in
:
>
>>> There is a signal field between the operations building and the
>>> runway, even if there is no tower.
>>>
>>
>>So the airport MUST have an operations building?
>
> Yes it does. Even if it's just a beach chair as at this airfield:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5m4js4
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bild:Flugplatz_Fehmarn-Neujel
> lingsdorf.jpg&filetimestamp=20050822072716
>
>
> That's what the regulations say..I didn't write them. :)

Intersting. Does someone have to be at the "operations building" or, in
this case, in the lawn chair?

I guess the brothel just before the start of RWY 18 at Lida Junction, NV
(0L4) is an operations building by regulation!

Would the hangar at Jackass Aeropark in Lathrop Wells, NV (U75) also count
as an operations building? Or does the general store, gas station, and
brothel, all about 1 mile away, constitute the operations building?

[BT]

I have never seen the designated "signal square" on any US airfield.. even
US ICAO approved airfields..

http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/AIM_Basic_2-14-08.pdf

do a word search on "segmented circle"

B


"Kai Rode" > wrote in message
...
> >square... outside the tower?
>>that must be a euro thing..
>
> It is an ICAO thing, I believe. These:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6knnaw
>
> are the German regulations on marking aerodromes with VFR traffic, and
> they
> claim to be in accordance with ICAO annex 14, volume I. The landing-T is
> shown on page 3.
>
>>and what if there is no tower?
>
> There is a signal field between the operations building and the runway,
> even
> if there is no tower.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"BT" > wrote in
:

> I have never seen the designated "signal square" on any US airfield..
> even US ICAO approved airfields..

It's a brit thing.



Bertie

[Sandman]

On Jul 15, 4:19*pm, Robert Moore > wrote:
> Sandman *wrote
>
> > Another quick question - I heard an ATC in B airspace refer to an
> > aircraft as being "in the penalty box" - is this a holding area for
> > aircraft that aren't cleared to depart or who are waiting for an
> > aircraft to clear their gate?
>
> At Chicago's O'hare (ORD), waiting for a gate.
>
> Bob Moore
> PanAm (retired)

For what it's worth, ORD was in fact the airport where I heard this -
thanks - puzzling to me that it would be specific to that airport.

I had a research advisor named Bob Moore, BTW

-B

[Robert Moore]

Sandman wrote
> For what it's worth, ORD was in fact the airport where I heard this -
> thanks - puzzling to me that it would be specific to that airport.

The ground controllers at ORD used to have all sorts of cutesy names
for the ramps and taxiways. The following was copied for a web site.

"O'Hare is a bit busier at nine in the morning than JFK would be, but not
enough to be a problem. It's been quite a while since I last originated a
flight from ORD, and among other changes the taxiways have all been renamed
to the modern standard of alphabetic names. This is a bit of a shame, since
ORD taxiways were, at one time, embellished with names of the most
outlandish whimsy, such as the "Scenic", no doubt short for the scenic
route, which that particular piece of concrete may well have been! "Wolf
Road" was the terminology for a short north-south stretch that could, in
fact, be seen as a virtual extension of the real Wolf Rd, a major
thoroughfare just north of the airport. Some names, such as the "Cargo"
were self explanatory (that was the one that ran right by the old cargo
facility, the facility that was torn down to make way for the new
international terminal), while others, such as the "Wedge" are more
nebulous. I suppose that particular taxiway just looked like a wedge from
the air. Who among us really knows now, since all of the original players
are long retired?"

Ah..Yes....aren't we?

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:05:34 -0700 (PDT), george >
wrote:

>On Jul 15, 2:34 pm, Clark > wrote:
>
>> You really mean sans-radio now don't you, sport.
>
>Not being American no I don't mean that
>
>> > Do they still teach that ?
>>
>> Still need to learn it now do you? Go pay the instructor and get the help
>> you need...
>
>My question was and still is
>Do they still teach pilots how to fly nonaudio circuits ?
>I use
>d to fly DH82s and PA18s in the 60s, aircraft not known for their
>copious radio equipment.

in australia the student at a GAAP airport will be given a circuit or
two with simulated radio out and the student being given the tower's
aldis lamp signalling.

the procedure in australia is to dial up 7600 on the transponder, if
fitted, which indicates radio failure, then to proceed as per normal
practise still trying to make radio calls. you just slot in and make
the circuit as best you can. they'll get the picture eventually, and
watch for aldis light signals from the tower.

so yes it is still taught, but there isnt much to teach.

GAAP = general aviation airport procedures.
these procedures are used at australian secondary airports.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On 16 Jul 2008 02:47:40 GMT, Clark > wrote:

>george > wrote in news:44fab440-a69d-4f9d-88f6-c83bbd8135b3
:
>
>> On Jul 15, 2:34 pm, Clark > wrote:
>>
>>> You really mean sans-radio now don't you, sport.
>>
>> Not being American no I don't mean that
>
>Then what do you mean?
>>
>>> > Do they still teach that ?
>>>
>>> Still need to learn it now do you? Go pay the instructor and get the help
>>> you need...
>>
>> My question was and still is
>> Do they still teach pilots how to fly nonaudio circuits ?
>
>cough, cough
>
>> I use
>> d to fly DH82s and PA18s in the 60s,
>
>sure you did

tiger moths and cherokees ???
why do you doubt him???

Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On 16 Jul 2008 02:47:40 GMT, Clark > wrote:
>
>>george > wrote in
>>news:44fab440-a69d-4f9d-88f6-c83bbd8135b3
:
>>
>>> On Jul 15, 2:34 pm, Clark > wrote:
>>>
>>>> You really mean sans-radio now don't you, sport.
>>>
>>> Not being American no I don't mean that
>>
>>Then what do you mean?
>>>
>>>> > Do they still teach that ?
>>>>
>>>> Still need to learn it now do you? Go pay the instructor and get
>>>> the help you need...
>>>
>>> My question was and still is
>>> Do they still teach pilots how to fly nonaudio circuits ?
>>
>>cough, cough
>>
>>> I use
>>> d to fly DH82s and PA18s in the 60s,
>>
>>sure you did
>
> tiger moths and cherokees ???
> why do you doubt him???

The 18 is a Super cub. I didn't believe him either. Super cubs are as
rare as fishlips juice and can only be flown by the seventh son of a
seventh son.


Bertie

[george]

On Jul 17, 1:27 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:05:34 -0700 (PDT), george >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jul 15, 2:34 pm, Clark > wrote:
>
> >> You really mean sans-radio now don't you, sport.
>
> >Not being American no I don't mean that
>
> >> > Do they still teach that ?
>
> >> Still need to learn it now do you? Go pay the instructor and get the help
> >> you need...
>
> >My question was and still is
> >Do they still teach pilots how to fly nonaudio circuits ?
> >I use
> >d to fly DH82s and PA18s in the 60s, aircraft not known for their
> >copious radio equipment.
>
> in australia the student at a GAAP airport will be given a circuit or
> two with simulated radio out and the student being given the tower's
> aldis lamp signalling.
>
> the procedure in australia is to dial up 7600 on the transponder, if
> fitted, which indicates radio failure, then to proceed as per normal
> practise still trying to make radio calls. you just slot in and make
> the circuit as best you can. they'll get the picture eventually, and
> watch for aldis light signals from the tower.
>
> so yes it is still taught, but there isnt much to teach.
>
> GAAP = general aviation airport procedures.
> these procedures are used at australian secondary airports.
>

Thanks.

[george]

On Jul 17, 1:29 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2008 02:47:40 GMT, Clark > wrote:
>
>
>
> >george > wrote in news:44fab440-a69d-4f9d-88f6-c83bbd8135b3
> :
>
> >> On Jul 15, 2:34 pm, Clark > wrote:
>
> >>> You really mean sans-radio now don't you, sport.
>
> >> Not being American no I don't mean that
>
> >Then what do you mean?
>
> >>> > Do they still teach that ?
>
> >>> Still need to learn it now do you? Go pay the instructor and get the help
> >>> you need...
>
> >> My question was and still is
> >> Do they still teach pilots how to fly nonaudio circuits ?
>
> >cough, cough
>
> >> I use
> >> d to fly DH82s and PA18s in the 60s,
>
> >sure you did
>
> tiger moths and cherokees ???
> why do you doubt him???
>
Piper Cubs mate :-)
the 60 horse power variety

[george]

On Jul 17, 8:51 am, george > wrote:

> Piper Cubs mate :-)
> the 60 horse power variety

Whoops. My bad.
It was a J2.
PA18s have electrics AFAIK they have electric start.
Sheer luxury

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

george > wrote in news:2ae71e29-2085-4fde-800e-7b70dbd2a3f8
@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 17, 8:51 am, george > wrote:
>
>> Piper Cubs mate :-)
>> the 60 horse power variety
>
> Whoops. My bad.
> It was a J2.
> PA18s have electrics AFAIK they have electric start.
> Sheer luxury

Most of them do but the J2 had a 40 HP continental. The J3 came with a
variety of engines from a variety of manufacturers from 50 HP to 65,
though.



Bertie

[george]

On Jul 17, 12:05 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Most of them do but the J2 had a 40 HP continental. The J3 came with a
> variety of engines from a variety of manufacturers from 50 HP to 65,
> though.
>
For a while here they (PA18's) were used for topdressing and aerial
spraying and all had starters.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

george > wrote in news:abc9fb07-f50b-45cc-827c-c9ec9b69b6d0
@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 17, 12:05 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Most of them do but the J2 had a 40 HP continental. The J3 came with a
>> variety of engines from a variety of manufacturers from 50 HP to 65,
>> though.
>>
> For a while here they (PA18's) were used for topdressing and aerial
> spraying and all had starters.
>
>
>

Oh, I think all PA-18s came with starters, even the little 95 horse ones
had electrical systems. Some had them stripped out for weight is all.


Bertie

[Cubdriver]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:01:17 -0700 (PDT), george >
wrote:

>It was a J2.
>PA18s have electrics AFAIK they have electric start.
>Sheer luxury

The J-2s, J-3s, and PA-11s were all built without electrics. The PA-18
was built in a variety of styles, with engines ranging from 95 hp to
150 hp. The early models had no flaps and a single wing tank. Oddly
enough, the best book on Piper aircraft (by Roger Peperell) doesn't
address the subject of electrics. Peter Bowers's book says that as
first offered, the "standard" version of the PA-18 had no electrics,
while the "deluxe" had a starter, battery, etc. Flaps were added in
the PA-18-125.

The early Super Cubs were less than $3000. I am just getting
acquainted with a Legend Cub, which is essentially a PA-11 with
electrics added, two wing tanks, no flaps, a cockpit three inches
wider than the original, and doors/windows on both sides. Fully kitted
out, it goes for about $130,000.

About half that increase is simply the devaluation of the dollar since
1945. The other Cub I fly is a 1946 J-3 that went out the door for
$2300 in August that year. We are required to carry $60,000 hull
insurance in order to rent it. Its actual resale value is probably
something in the neighborhood of $40,000.




Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Clark" > wrote

> 'cause he is obviously full of it...anyone can claim anything...this guy
> does not acknowledge common terminology so he gets the skeptical point of
> view.

I wonder if Ken took a new screen name?
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
:

> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:01:17 -0700 (PDT), george >
> wrote:
>
>>It was a J2.
>>PA18s have electrics AFAIK they have electric start.
>>Sheer luxury
>
> The J-2s, J-3s, and PA-11s were all built without electrics. The PA-18
> was built in a variety of styles, with engines ranging from 95 hp to
> 150 hp. The early models had no flaps and a single wing tank. Oddly
> enough, the best book on Piper aircraft (by Roger Peperell) doesn't
> address the subject of electrics. Peter Bowers's book says that as
> first offered, the "standard" version of the PA-18 had no electrics,
> while the "deluxe" had a starter, battery, etc. Flaps were added in
> the PA-18-125.
>
> The early Super Cubs were less than $3000. I am just getting
> acquainted with a Legend Cub, which is essentially a PA-11 with
> electrics added, two wing tanks, no flaps, a cockpit three inches
> wider than the original, and doors/windows on both sides. Fully kitted
> out, it goes for about $130,000.
>
> About half that increase is simply the devaluation of the dollar since
> 1945. The other Cub I fly is a 1946 J-3 that went out the door for
> $2300 in August that year. We are required to carry $60,000 hull
> insurance in order to rent it. Its actual resale value is probably
> something in the neighborhood of $40,000.
>

Even though the PA 18 is seen as a cub, it's really quite a different
airplane. The Cubs through the 11 were really parasol aircraft with an
encolsure added, wheras the Supercub was a true cabin aricraft. ..

[george]

On Jul 19, 1:36 pm, Clark > wrote:
> Stealth Pilot > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On 16 Jul 2008 02:47:40 GMT, Clark > wrote:
>
> >>george > wrote in
> >>news:44fab440-a69d-4f9d-88f6-c83bbd8135b3 @m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> On Jul 15, 2:34 pm, Clark > wrote:
>
> >>>> You really mean sans-radio now don't you, sport.
>
> >>> Not being American no I don't mean that
>
> >>Then what do you mean?
>
> >>>> > Do they still teach that ?
>
> >>>> Still need to learn it now do you? Go pay the instructor and get the
> >>>> help you need...
>
> >>> My question was and still is
> >>> Do they still teach pilots how to fly nonaudio circuits ?
>
> >>cough, cough
>
> >>> I use
> >>> d to fly DH82s and PA18s in the 60s,
>
> >>sure you did
>
> > tiger moths and cherokees ???
> > why do you doubt him???
>
> 'cause he is obviously full of it...anyone can claim anything...this guy
> does not acknowledge common terminology so he gets the skeptical point of
> view.
>
Riiiight.
As I stated before I am not American. I spell colour colour.
We use other terms than those you -might- be used to.
It took a while to find the photo but
http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/Pages/Flying.htm and it's the photo
at the bottom of the page.
The prop swinger is or was Harry Jenkins who was at the time a "C" Cat
instructor.
And I'm in the cockpit.

Apology awaited

[george]

On Jul 20, 1:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:01:17 -0700 (PDT), george >
> > wrote:
>
> >>It was a J2.
> >>PA18s have electrics AFAIK they have electric start.
> >>Sheer luxury
>
> > The J-2s, J-3s, and PA-11s were all built without electrics. The PA-18
> > was built in a variety of styles, with engines ranging from 95 hp to
> > 150 hp. The early models had no flaps and a single wing tank. Oddly
> > enough, the best book on Piper aircraft (by Roger Peperell) doesn't
> > address the subject of electrics. Peter Bowers's book says that as
> > first offered, the "standard" version of the PA-18 had no electrics,
> > while the "deluxe" had a starter, battery, etc. Flaps were added in
> > the PA-18-125.
>
> > The early Super Cubs were less than $3000. I am just getting
> > acquainted with a Legend Cub, which is essentially a PA-11 with
> > electrics added, two wing tanks, no flaps, a cockpit three inches
> > wider than the original, and doors/windows on both sides. Fully kitted
> > out, it goes for about $130,000.
>
> > About half that increase is simply the devaluation of the dollar since
> > 1945. The other Cub I fly is a 1946 J-3 that went out the door for
> > $2300 in August that year. We are required to carry $60,000 hull
> > insurance in order to rent it. Its actual resale value is probably
> > something in the neighborhood of $40,000.
>
> Even though the PA 18 is seen as a cub, it's really quite a different
> airplane. The Cubs through the 11 were really parasol aircraft with an
> encolsure added, wheras the Supercub was a true cabin aricraft. ..

Yup. That was my bad I just posted without looking up the details in
the log book.
However you want to see my handsome youthful (1966) features take a
look at
http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/Pages/Flying.htm

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

george > wrote in
:

> On Jul 20, 1:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:01:17 -0700 (PDT), george >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>It was a J2.
>> >>PA18s have electrics AFAIK they have electric start.
>> >>Sheer luxury
>>
>> > The J-2s, J-3s, and PA-11s were all built without electrics. The
>> > PA-18 was built in a variety of styles, with engines ranging from
>> > 95 hp to 150 hp. The early models had no flaps and a single wing
>> > tank. Oddly enough, the best book on Piper aircraft (by Roger
>> > Peperell) doesn't address the subject of electrics. Peter Bowers's
>> > book says that as first offered, the "standard" version of the
>> > PA-18 had no electrics, while the "deluxe" had a starter, battery,
>> > etc. Flaps were added in the PA-18-125.
>>
>> > The early Super Cubs were less than $3000. I am just getting
>> > acquainted with a Legend Cub, which is essentially a PA-11 with
>> > electrics added, two wing tanks, no flaps, a cockpit three inches
>> > wider than the original, and doors/windows on both sides. Fully
>> > kitted out, it goes for about $130,000.
>>
>> > About half that increase is simply the devaluation of the dollar
>> > since 1945. The other Cub I fly is a 1946 J-3 that went out the
>> > door for $2300 in August that year. We are required to carry
>> > $60,000 hull insurance in order to rent it. Its actual resale value
>> > is probably something in the neighborhood of $40,000.
>>
>> Even though the PA 18 is seen as a cub, it's really quite a different
>> airplane. The Cubs through the 11 were really parasol aircraft with
>> an encolsure added, wheras the Supercub was a true cabin aricraft. ..
>
> Yup. That was my bad I just posted without looking up the details in
> the log book.

Oh i wasn't correcting, just pointing out some cub trivia.

> However you want to see my handsome youthful (1966) features take a
> look at
> http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/Pages/Flying.htm


Rallye.
Shudder!
?I flew one of those that was lucky to do 300 fpm.

[george]

On Jul 20, 8:29 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> george > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 1:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote
> >> :
>
> >> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:01:17 -0700 (PDT), george >
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>It was a J2.
> >> >>PA18s have electrics AFAIK they have electric start.
> >> >>Sheer luxury
>
> >> > The J-2s, J-3s, and PA-11s were all built without electrics. The
> >> > PA-18 was built in a variety of styles, with engines ranging from
> >> > 95 hp to 150 hp. The early models had no flaps and a single wing
> >> > tank. Oddly enough, the best book on Piper aircraft (by Roger
> >> > Peperell) doesn't address the subject of electrics. Peter Bowers's
> >> > book says that as first offered, the "standard" version of the
> >> > PA-18 had no electrics, while the "deluxe" had a starter, battery,
> >> > etc. Flaps were added in the PA-18-125.
>
> >> > The early Super Cubs were less than $3000. I am just getting
> >> > acquainted with a Legend Cub, which is essentially a PA-11 with
> >> > electrics added, two wing tanks, no flaps, a cockpit three inches
> >> > wider than the original, and doors/windows on both sides. Fully
> >> > kitted out, it goes for about $130,000.
>
> >> > About half that increase is simply the devaluation of the dollar
> >> > since 1945. The other Cub I fly is a 1946 J-3 that went out the
> >> > door for $2300 in August that year. We are required to carry
> >> > $60,000 hull insurance in order to rent it. Its actual resale value
> >> > is probably something in the neighborhood of $40,000.
>
> >> Even though the PA 18 is seen as a cub, it's really quite a different
> >> airplane. The Cubs through the 11 were really parasol aircraft with
> >> an encolsure added, wheras the Supercub was a true cabin aricraft. ..
>
> > Yup. That was my bad I just posted without looking up the details in
> > the log book.
>
> Oh i wasn't correcting, just pointing out some cub trivia.
>
> > However you want to see my handsome youthful (1966) features take a
> > look at
> >http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/Pages/Flying.htm
>
> Rallye.
> Shudder!
> ?I flew one of those that was lucky to do 300 fpm.

The Cub yes.
It was actually quite dangerous to fill the seats
However the MS885 was a pretty good short field machine and I used to
drop in on the farmers in the family.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

george > wrote in
:

> On Jul 20, 8:29 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> george > wrote
>> innews:5320ec8d-3a86-41a6-a201-

>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 20, 1:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:01:17 -0700 (PDT), george
>> >> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>It was a J2.
>> >> >>PA18s have electrics AFAIK they have electric start.
>> >> >>Sheer luxury
>>
>> >> > The J-2s, J-3s, and PA-11s were all built without electrics. The
>> >> > PA-18 was built in a variety of styles, with engines ranging
>> >> > from 95 hp to 150 hp. The early models had no flaps and a single
>> >> > wing tank. Oddly enough, the best book on Piper aircraft (by
>> >> > Roger Peperell) doesn't address the subject of electrics. Peter
>> >> > Bowers's book says that as first offered, the "standard" version
>> >> > of the PA-18 had no electrics, while the "deluxe" had a starter,
>> >> > battery, etc. Flaps were added in the PA-18-125.
>>
>> >> > The early Super Cubs were less than $3000. I am just getting
>> >> > acquainted with a Legend Cub, which is essentially a PA-11 with
>> >> > electrics added, two wing tanks, no flaps, a cockpit three
>> >> > inches wider than the original, and doors/windows on both sides.
>> >> > Fully kitted out, it goes for about $130,000.
>>
>> >> > About half that increase is simply the devaluation of the dollar
>> >> > since 1945. The other Cub I fly is a 1946 J-3 that went out the
>> >> > door for $2300 in August that year. We are required to carry
>> >> > $60,000 hull insurance in order to rent it. Its actual resale
>> >> > value is probably something in the neighborhood of $40,000.
>>
>> >> Even though the PA 18 is seen as a cub, it's really quite a
>> >> different airplane. The Cubs through the 11 were really parasol
>> >> aircraft with an encolsure added, wheras the Supercub was a true
>> >> cabin aricraft. ..
>>
>> > Yup. That was my bad I just posted without looking up the details
>> > in the log book.
>>
>> Oh i wasn't correcting, just pointing out some cub trivia.
>>
>> > However you want to see my handsome youthful (1966) features take a
>> > look at
>> >http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/Pages/Flying.htm
>>
>> Rallye.
>> Shudder!
>> ?I flew one of those that was lucky to do 300 fpm.
>
> The Cub yes.
> It was actually quite dangerous to fill the seats
> However the MS885 was a pretty good short field machine and I used to
> drop in on the farmers in the family.
>

I meant the Rallye, actually. Might have been a bad one though. It was
one of the 100hp ones which the one you were in looks to be the same.
It went up at a good angle but at a low rate. I think even a J3 would
outclimb it. I flew a J-2 two up once and it needed a calender for rate
of climb!


Bertie

[Marty Shapiro]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> george > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Jul 20, 1:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:01:17 -0700 (PDT), george >
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >>It was a J2.
>>> >>PA18s have electrics AFAIK they have electric start.
>>> >>Sheer luxury
>>>
>>> > The J-2s, J-3s, and PA-11s were all built without electrics. The
>>> > PA-18 was built in a variety of styles, with engines ranging from
>>> > 95 hp to 150 hp. The early models had no flaps and a single wing
>>> > tank. Oddly enough, the best book on Piper aircraft (by Roger
>>> > Peperell) doesn't address the subject of electrics. Peter Bowers's
>>> > book says that as first offered, the "standard" version of the
>>> > PA-18 had no electrics, while the "deluxe" had a starter, battery,
>>> > etc. Flaps were added in the PA-18-125.
>>>
>>> > The early Super Cubs were less than $3000. I am just getting
>>> > acquainted with a Legend Cub, which is essentially a PA-11 with
>>> > electrics added, two wing tanks, no flaps, a cockpit three inches
>>> > wider than the original, and doors/windows on both sides. Fully
>>> > kitted out, it goes for about $130,000.
>>>
>>> > About half that increase is simply the devaluation of the dollar
>>> > since 1945. The other Cub I fly is a 1946 J-3 that went out the
>>> > door for $2300 in August that year. We are required to carry
>>> > $60,000 hull insurance in order to rent it. Its actual resale value
>>> > is probably something in the neighborhood of $40,000.
>>>
>>> Even though the PA 18 is seen as a cub, it's really quite a different
>>> airplane. The Cubs through the 11 were really parasol aircraft with
>>> an encolsure added, wheras the Supercub was a true cabin aricraft. ..
>>
>> Yup. That was my bad I just posted without looking up the details in
>> the log book.
>
> Oh i wasn't correcting, just pointing out some cub trivia.
>
>> However you want to see my handsome youthful (1966) features take a
>> look at
>> http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/Pages/Flying.htm
>
>
> Rallye.
> Shudder!
> ?I flew one of those that was lucky to do 300 fpm.
>
>

You didn't fly the right Rallye!

The Rallye product line light air frames ran the gamut from a 2 seat 100 HP
Rolls-Royce engine through a 4 seat 180 HP Lycoming O-360. The more common
2 seaters, and the Koliber clone, have 150 HP engines. The 4 seat heavy
air frames, which included 2 hard points on each wing, were either the 220
HP Franklin engine or the 235 HP Lycoming 0-545. With either of the heavy
air frames, you get a pretty good climb rate.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> george > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Jul 20, 8:29 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> george > wrote
>>> innews:5320ec8d-3a86-41a6-a201-
>
>>> om:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Jul 20, 1:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> >> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote
>>> >> :
>>>
>>> >> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:01:17 -0700 (PDT), george
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >>It was a J2.
>>> >> >>PA18s have electrics AFAIK they have electric start.
>>> >> >>Sheer luxury
>>>
>>> >> > The J-2s, J-3s, and PA-11s were all built without electrics. The
>>> >> > PA-18 was built in a variety of styles, with engines ranging
>>> >> > from 95 hp to 150 hp. The early models had no flaps and a single
>>> >> > wing tank. Oddly enough, the best book on Piper aircraft (by
>>> >> > Roger Peperell) doesn't address the subject of electrics. Peter
>>> >> > Bowers's book says that as first offered, the "standard" version
>>> >> > of the PA-18 had no electrics, while the "deluxe" had a starter,
>>> >> > battery, etc. Flaps were added in the PA-18-125.
>>>
>>> >> > The early Super Cubs were less than $3000. I am just getting
>>> >> > acquainted with a Legend Cub, which is essentially a PA-11 with
>>> >> > electrics added, two wing tanks, no flaps, a cockpit three
>>> >> > inches wider than the original, and doors/windows on both sides.
>>> >> > Fully kitted out, it goes for about $130,000.
>>>
>>> >> > About half that increase is simply the devaluation of the dollar
>>> >> > since 1945. The other Cub I fly is a 1946 J-3 that went out the
>>> >> > door for $2300 in August that year. We are required to carry
>>> >> > $60,000 hull insurance in order to rent it. Its actual resale
>>> >> > value is probably something in the neighborhood of $40,000.
>>>
>>> >> Even though the PA 18 is seen as a cub, it's really quite a
>>> >> different airplane. The Cubs through the 11 were really parasol
>>> >> aircraft with an encolsure added, wheras the Supercub was a true
>>> >> cabin aricraft. ..
>>>
>>> > Yup. That was my bad I just posted without looking up the details
>>> > in the log book.
>>>
>>> Oh i wasn't correcting, just pointing out some cub trivia.
>>>
>>> > However you want to see my handsome youthful (1966) features take a
>>> > look at
>>> >http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/Pages/Flying.htm
>>>
>>> Rallye.
>>> Shudder!
>>> ?I flew one of those that was lucky to do 300 fpm.
>>
>> The Cub yes.
>> It was actually quite dangerous to fill the seats
>> However the MS885 was a pretty good short field machine and I used to
>> drop in on the farmers in the family.
>>
>
> I meant the Rallye, actually. Might have been a bad one though. It was
> one of the 100hp ones which the one you were in looks to be the same.
> It went up at a good angle but at a low rate. I think even a J3 would
> outclimb it. I flew a J-2 two up once and it needed a calender for rate
> of climb!
>
>
> Bertie
>
>

The deck angle for a Rallye in a Vx climb can be frightening when compared
to Cessna's and Pipers. At Vy, you have a noticeably steeper deck angle
than Warriors, Archers, C172s, C182s, and Arrows. When I'm carrying
passengers who are not pilots and have never been in a Rallye, I pitch for
a cruise climb on take off. It still beats Vy on most just about all the
single engine Pipers and Cessnas.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Marty Shapiro > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> george > wrote in
>> news:550d2736-60f8-4b70-b33a-50cf54871587
@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com
>> :
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 8:29 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> george > wrote
>>>> innews:5320ec8d-3a86-41a6-a201-
>>
>>>> om:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Jul 20, 1:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> >> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote
>>>> >> :
>>>>
>>>> >> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:01:17 -0700 (PDT), george
>>>> >> > > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >>It was a J2.
>>>> >> >>PA18s have electrics AFAIK they have electric start.
>>>> >> >>Sheer luxury
>>>>
>>>> >> > The J-2s, J-3s, and PA-11s were all built without electrics.
>>>> >> > The PA-18 was built in a variety of styles, with engines
>>>> >> > ranging from 95 hp to 150 hp. The early models had no flaps
>>>> >> > and a single wing tank. Oddly enough, the best book on Piper
>>>> >> > aircraft (by Roger Peperell) doesn't address the subject of
>>>> >> > electrics. Peter Bowers's book says that as first offered, the
>>>> >> > "standard" version of the PA-18 had no electrics, while the
>>>> >> > "deluxe" had a starter, battery, etc. Flaps were added in the
>>>> >> > PA-18-125.
>>>>
>>>> >> > The early Super Cubs were less than $3000. I am just getting
>>>> >> > acquainted with a Legend Cub, which is essentially a PA-11
>>>> >> > with electrics added, two wing tanks, no flaps, a cockpit
>>>> >> > three inches wider than the original, and doors/windows on
>>>> >> > both sides. Fully kitted out, it goes for about $130,000.
>>>>
>>>> >> > About half that increase is simply the devaluation of the
>>>> >> > dollar since 1945. The other Cub I fly is a 1946 J-3 that went
>>>> >> > out the door for $2300 in August that year. We are required to
>>>> >> > carry $60,000 hull insurance in order to rent it. Its actual
>>>> >> > resale value is probably something in the neighborhood of
>>>> >> > $40,000.
>>>>
>>>> >> Even though the PA 18 is seen as a cub, it's really quite a
>>>> >> different airplane. The Cubs through the 11 were really parasol
>>>> >> aircraft with an encolsure added, wheras the Supercub was a true
>>>> >> cabin aricraft. ..
>>>>
>>>> > Yup. That was my bad I just posted without looking up the details
>>>> > in the log book.
>>>>
>>>> Oh i wasn't correcting, just pointing out some cub trivia.
>>>>
>>>> > However you want to see my handsome youthful (1966) features take
>>>> > a look at
>>>> >http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/Pages/Flying.htm
>>>>
>>>> Rallye.
>>>> Shudder!
>>>> ?I flew one of those that was lucky to do 300 fpm.
>>>
>>> The Cub yes.
>>> It was actually quite dangerous to fill the seats
>>> However the MS885 was a pretty good short field machine and I used
>>> to drop in on the farmers in the family.
>>>
>>
>> I meant the Rallye, actually. Might have been a bad one though. It
>> was one of the 100hp ones which the one you were in looks to be the
>> same. It went up at a good angle but at a low rate. I think even a J3
>> would outclimb it. I flew a J-2 two up once and it needed a calender
>> for rate of climb!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> The deck angle for a Rallye in a Vx climb can be frightening when
> compared to Cessna's and Pipers. At Vy, you have a noticeably steeper
> deck angle than Warriors, Archers, C172s, C182s, and Arrows. When I'm
> carrying passengers who are not pilots and have never been in a
> Rallye, I pitch for a cruise climb on take off. It still beats Vy on
> most just about all the single engine Pipers and Cessnas.

Yeahm but you have a big engine one, don;t you?

Been years since I've flown one, but the slats should alter the chord
line and give a high deck angle with no flaps out.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Marty Shapiro > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> george > wrote in
>> news:5320ec8d-3a86-41a6-a201-

>> :
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 1:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:01:17 -0700 (PDT), george
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>It was a J2.
>>>> >>PA18s have electrics AFAIK they have electric start.
>>>> >>Sheer luxury
>>>>
>>>> > The J-2s, J-3s, and PA-11s were all built without electrics. The
>>>> > PA-18 was built in a variety of styles, with engines ranging from
>>>> > 95 hp to 150 hp. The early models had no flaps and a single wing
>>>> > tank. Oddly enough, the best book on Piper aircraft (by Roger
>>>> > Peperell) doesn't address the subject of electrics. Peter
>>>> > Bowers's book says that as first offered, the "standard" version
>>>> > of the PA-18 had no electrics, while the "deluxe" had a starter,
>>>> > battery, etc. Flaps were added in the PA-18-125.
>>>>
>>>> > The early Super Cubs were less than $3000. I am just getting
>>>> > acquainted with a Legend Cub, which is essentially a PA-11 with
>>>> > electrics added, two wing tanks, no flaps, a cockpit three inches
>>>> > wider than the original, and doors/windows on both sides. Fully
>>>> > kitted out, it goes for about $130,000.
>>>>
>>>> > About half that increase is simply the devaluation of the dollar
>>>> > since 1945. The other Cub I fly is a 1946 J-3 that went out the
>>>> > door for $2300 in August that year. We are required to carry
>>>> > $60,000 hull insurance in order to rent it. Its actual resale
>>>> > value is probably something in the neighborhood of $40,000.
>>>>
>>>> Even though the PA 18 is seen as a cub, it's really quite a
>>>> different airplane. The Cubs through the 11 were really parasol
>>>> aircraft with an encolsure added, wheras the Supercub was a true
>>>> cabin aricraft. ..
>>>
>>> Yup. That was my bad I just posted without looking up the details in
>>> the log book.
>>
>> Oh i wasn't correcting, just pointing out some cub trivia.
>>
>>> However you want to see my handsome youthful (1966) features take a
>>> look at
>>> http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/Pages/Flying.htm
>>
>>
>> Rallye.
>> Shudder!
>> ?I flew one of those that was lucky to do 300 fpm.
>>
>>
>
> You didn't fly the right Rallye!
>
> The Rallye product line light air frames ran the gamut from a 2 seat
> 100 HP Rolls-Royce engine through a 4 seat 180 HP Lycoming O-360. The
> more common 2 seaters, and the Koliber clone, have 150 HP engines.
> The 4 seat heavy air frames, which included 2 hard points on each
> wing, were either the 220 HP Franklin engine or the 235 HP Lycoming
> 0-545. With either of the heavy air frames, you get a pretty good
> climb rate.
>

Oh yeah. Obviously! The little engine ones went OK and I even flew an ST
and did some aerobatics in it, which it did farily well compared to
similar airplanes. In Europe they're nicknamed the "tin parachute" for
their ability to settle to earth with the stick fully back at a minimal
rate. The idea being that someone who gets stuck in IMC without the
ability to fly out of it can close the power, pull the stick back and
probably have a better chance than thye would if they continued to push
onwards. The engine out scenario was supposed to be the same. I wouldn't
like to try it, however!

Bertie

[Marty Shapiro]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> Oh yeah. Obviously! The little engine ones went OK and I even flew an ST
> and did some aerobatics in it, which it did farily well compared to
> similar airplanes. In Europe they're nicknamed the "tin parachute" for
> their ability to settle to earth with the stick fully back at a minimal
> rate. The idea being that someone who gets stuck in IMC without the
> ability to fly out of it can close the power, pull the stick back and
> probably have a better chance than thye would if they continued to push
> onwards. The engine out scenario was supposed to be the same. I wouldn't
> like to try it, however!
>
> Bertie
>

I've played with this one year when when I did the return to service flight
after an annual. Power off, stick full back, full flaps, you are
descending at about 1,050 fpm with an indicated air speed of about 35 MPH
(it bounces between 30 and 40) and the nose bobbling on the horizon.

Note that the descent rate in this mode is the same as that of a Cirrus
with the chute popped. Now if SOCATA had beefed up the seats to handle the
impact, they would have had a true tin parachute.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> Yeahm but you have a big engine one, don;t you?
>
> Been years since I've flown one, but the slats should alter the chord
> line and give a high deck angle with no flaps out.

Yes, I have the 235. I've never flown the smaller ones.

The deck angle is even higher with the flaps out. When I want to pop it
off the runway, I use 1/2 flaps (at this setting, they are pretty much only
about 15 degrees down, but at maximum extension)and pitch for Vx. Trim for
Vx and then simply raising the flaps will lower the nose slightly and put
me right on Vy.

The slats, as you know, are automatic, and will pretty much stay out in a
climb until you lower the nose to about 85-90 MPH indicated. The slats are
in for a cruise climb (106 MPH).

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Marty Shapiro > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> Oh yeah. Obviously! The little engine ones went OK and I even flew an
>> ST and did some aerobatics in it, which it did farily well compared
>> to similar airplanes. In Europe they're nicknamed the "tin parachute"
>> for their ability to settle to earth with the stick fully back at a
>> minimal rate. The idea being that someone who gets stuck in IMC
>> without the ability to fly out of it can close the power, pull the
>> stick back and probably have a better chance than thye would if they
>> continued to push onwards. The engine out scenario was supposed to be
>> the same. I wouldn't like to try it, however!
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> I've played with this one year when when I did the return to service
> flight after an annual. Power off, stick full back, full flaps, you
> are descending at about 1,050 fpm with an indicated air speed of about
> 35 MPH (it bounces between 30 and 40) and the nose bobbling on the
> horizon.
>
> Note that the descent rate in this mode is the same as that of a
> Cirrus with the chute popped. Now if SOCATA had beefed up the seats
> to handle the impact, they would have had a true tin parachute.



hmm, that sounds survivable allright. and the lighter airplanes would
probably be even just a bit less. Doesn't sound like something your
chiropractor woudl approve of, but it would be better than spearing in
out of a spiral dive, which is the more traditional way of getting out
of situation A.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Marty Shapiro > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> Yeahm but you have a big engine one, don;t you?
>>
>> Been years since I've flown one, but the slats should alter the chord
>> line and give a high deck angle with no flaps out.
>
> Yes, I have the 235. I've never flown the smaller ones.
>
> The deck angle is even higher with the flaps out. When I want to pop
> it off the runway, I use 1/2 flaps (at this setting, they are pretty
> much only about 15 degrees down, but at maximum extension)and pitch
> for Vx. Trim for Vx and then simply raising the flaps will lower the
> nose slightly and put me right on Vy.
>
> The slats, as you know, are automatic, and will pretty much stay out
> in a climb until you lower the nose to about 85-90 MPH indicated. The
> slats are in for a cruise climb (106 MPH).


hmmm, strange that the angle would be higher with flaps out, The mean chord
line should change and require a lower deck angle for a given airspeed.


Bertie

[george]

On Jul 20, 6:23 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Oh yeah. Obviously! The little engine ones went OK and I even flew an ST
> and did some aerobatics in it, which it did farily well compared to
> similar airplanes. In Europe they're nicknamed the "tin parachute" for
> their ability to settle to earth with the stick fully back at a minimal
> rate. The idea being that someone who gets stuck in IMC without the
> ability to fly out of it can close the power, pull the stick back and
> probably have a better chance than thye would if they continued to push
> onwards. The engine out scenario was supposed to be the same. I wouldn't
> like to try it, however!

Yup.
I heard the same story about some-one in France lost above cloud who
used that technique.
As I soloed in the Rallye featured in the photo I have a lot of regard
for that particular aeroplane.
As to stability there -was- a private owner who would drop the control
lock over the stick and concentrate on his navigation.

Marty
What are the new Socatta (I think they're called) like to fly?
and do they have lockable slots ?
Used to be quite distracting on a crosscountry for the passengers with
them banging away
..

[Marty Shapiro]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Yeahm but you have a big engine one, don;t you?
>>>
>>> Been years since I've flown one, but the slats should alter the
>>> chord line and give a high deck angle with no flaps out.
>>
>> Yes, I have the 235. I've never flown the smaller ones.
>>
>> The deck angle is even higher with the flaps out. When I want to pop
>> it off the runway, I use 1/2 flaps (at this setting, they are pretty
>> much only about 15 degrees down, but at maximum extension)and pitch
>> for Vx. Trim for Vx and then simply raising the flaps will lower the
>> nose slightly and put me right on Vy.
>>
>> The slats, as you know, are automatic, and will pretty much stay out
>> in a climb until you lower the nose to about 85-90 MPH indicated. The
>> slats are in for a cruise climb (106 MPH).
>
>
> hmmm, strange that the angle would be higher with flaps out, The mean
> chord line should change and require a lower deck angle for a given
> airspeed.
>
>
> Bertie
>

That's a very good point, Bertie.

When doing power on stalls, it works exactly as one would expect. I have a
significantly higher angle of attack to get to stall buffet with the flaps
in than with them out. In fact, with flaps in, you need to get up to
nearly 30 degrees nose high just to start getting stall buffet. I remember
the first time I did this I thought I was going to roll backwards out of my
seat. But in this case I'm comparing no flaps to full flaps, which is
almost 45 degrees.

Remember that the Rallye also has Fowler flaps. In the maximum effort take
off, 1/2 flaps basically only lowers them 15 degrees while reaching maximum
rearward extension. I'm wondering if in this case the change in speed from
75 MPH (Vx) to 81 MPH (Vy) offets the effect of the 15 degree downward to a
greater extent. Anything less than 1/2 flaps and all you have done is
extend them rearward with no downward angle.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

george > wrote in news:1d794c95-8b8f-49e7-9e3a-
:

> On Jul 20, 6:23 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Oh yeah. Obviously! The little engine ones went OK and I even flew an ST
>> and did some aerobatics in it, which it did farily well compared to
>> similar airplanes. In Europe they're nicknamed the "tin parachute" for
>> their ability to settle to earth with the stick fully back at a minimal
>> rate. The idea being that someone who gets stuck in IMC without the
>> ability to fly out of it can close the power, pull the stick back and
>> probably have a better chance than thye would if they continued to push
>> onwards. The engine out scenario was supposed to be the same. I wouldn't
>> like to try it, however!
>
> Yup.
> I heard the same story about some-one in France lost above cloud who
> used that technique.
> As I soloed in the Rallye featured in the photo I have a lot of regard
> for that particular aeroplane.
> As to stability there -was- a private owner who would drop the control
> lock over the stick and concentrate on his navigation.
>
> Marty
> What are the new Socatta (I think they're called) like to fly?
> and do they have lockable slots ?
> Used to be quite distracting on a crosscountry for the passengers with
> them banging away
> .
>
>

If by new SOCATAs you mean the Islander series (Tampico, Trinidad, Tobago),
which were the successors to the Rallye, I have never flown one. I
believe they do not have leading edge slats.

I don't have the problem of the slats deploying in cruise unless I hit
moderate or more turbulence or chop. The heavy airframe Rallyes have slat
dampeners, which may also explain why they don't bang when they do
deploy/retract compared to the light airframe models.

I've flown quite a few Angel Flights in the Rallye and just explain the
slats to the passengers as part of my passenger briefing just before take
off and again just before I do my pre-landing check list. So far, it has
not been a problem.

I really love the Rallye, but in many ways I'm glad that I did NOT learn to
fly in one. It lets you get a way with too much that most aircraft won't.
I'm glad I used a Cessna to learn stalls and MCA, where, when I made a
mistake, it was very, very obvious. With the Rallye, you just mush. But
it is a very stable platform and that, coupled with its great visibility,
makes it a pleasure to fly cross country. Again, my point of view is based
on the heavy airframe models, specifically the 235. It might very well be
different for the light airframes, but I don't have any experience with
them.

I wouldn't try that control lock trick in the 4-seaters which have yokes,
not control sticks. The control lock is the tow bar. The rudder "pedals"
are two tubes. The upper tube is the brakes and the lower tube is the
rudder. There is a gap between the upper and lower tubes. The lower tubes
on the pilots side are hollow. You insert the handle of the tow bar into
the lower tubes and then slide a pin through the control column on the
yoke. Not something I'd want to do in flight.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[george]

On Jul 21, 11:06 am, Marty Shapiro >
wrote:
> george > wrote in news:1d794c95-8b8f-49e7-9e3a-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 6:23 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> Oh yeah. Obviously! The little engine ones went OK and I even flew an ST
> >> and did some aerobatics in it, which it did farily well compared to
> >> similar airplanes. In Europe they're nicknamed the "tin parachute" for
> >> their ability to settle to earth with the stick fully back at a minimal
> >> rate. The idea being that someone who gets stuck in IMC without the
> >> ability to fly out of it can close the power, pull the stick back and
> >> probably have a better chance than thye would if they continued to push
> >> onwards. The engine out scenario was supposed to be the same. I wouldn't
> >> like to try it, however!
>
> > Yup.
> > I heard the same story about some-one in France lost above cloud who
> > used that technique.
> > As I soloed in the Rallye featured in the photo I have a lot of regard
> > for that particular aeroplane.
> > As to stability there -was- a private owner who would drop the control
> > lock over the stick and concentrate on his navigation.
>
> > Marty
> > What are the new Socatta (I think they're called) like to fly?
> > and do they have lockable slots ?
> > Used to be quite distracting on a crosscountry for the passengers with
> > them banging away
> > .
>
> If by new SOCATAs you mean the Islander series (Tampico, Trinidad, Tobago),
> which were the successors to the Rallye, I have never flown one. I
> believe they do not have leading edge slats.
>
> I don't have the problem of the slats deploying in cruise unless I hit
> moderate or more turbulence or chop. The heavy airframe Rallyes have slat
> dampeners, which may also explain why they don't bang when they do
> deploy/retract compared to the light airframe models.
>
> I've flown quite a few Angel Flights in the Rallye and just explain the
> slats to the passengers as part of my passenger briefing just before take
> off and again just before I do my pre-landing check list. So far, it has
> not been a problem.
>
> I really love the Rallye, but in many ways I'm glad that I did NOT learn to
> fly in one. It lets you get a way with too much that most aircraft won't.
> I'm glad I used a Cessna to learn stalls and MCA, where, when I made a
> mistake, it was very, very obvious. With the Rallye, you just mush. But
> it is a very stable platform and that, coupled with its great visibility,
> makes it a pleasure to fly cross country. Again, my point of view is based
> on the heavy airframe models, specifically the 235. It might very well be
> different for the light airframes, but I don't have any experience with
> them.
>
> I wouldn't try that control lock trick in the 4-seaters which have yokes,
> not control sticks. The control lock is the tow bar. The rudder "pedals"
> are two tubes. The upper tube is the brakes and the lower tube is the
> rudder. There is a gap between the upper and lower tubes. The lower tubes
> on the pilots side are hollow. You insert the handle of the tow bar into
> the lower tubes and then slide a pin through the control column on the
> yoke. Not something I'd want to do in flight.
>

Thanks. These control locks were inserted around the bottom of the
instrument panel and dropped over the LH stick.
My favourite was the metal plate with blocks of wood top and bottom
that you slid between the elevators and tailplane

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Marty Shapiro > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> Marty Shapiro > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Yeahm but you have a big engine one, don;t you?
>>>>
>>>> Been years since I've flown one, but the slats should alter the
>>>> chord line and give a high deck angle with no flaps out.
>>>
>>> Yes, I have the 235. I've never flown the smaller ones.
>>>
>>> The deck angle is even higher with the flaps out. When I want to
>>> pop it off the runway, I use 1/2 flaps (at this setting, they are
>>> pretty much only about 15 degrees down, but at maximum extension)and
>>> pitch for Vx. Trim for Vx and then simply raising the flaps will
>>> lower the nose slightly and put me right on Vy.
>>>
>>> The slats, as you know, are automatic, and will pretty much stay out
>>> in a climb until you lower the nose to about 85-90 MPH indicated.
>>> The slats are in for a cruise climb (106 MPH).
>>
>>
>> hmmm, strange that the angle would be higher with flaps out, The mean
>> chord line should change and require a lower deck angle for a given
>> airspeed.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> That's a very good point, Bertie.
>
> When doing power on stalls, it works exactly as one would expect. I
> have a significantly higher angle of attack to get to stall buffet
> with the flaps in than with them out. In fact, with flaps in, you
> need to get up to nearly 30 degrees nose high just to start getting
> stall buffet. I remember the first time I did this I thought I was
> going to roll backwards out of my seat. But in this case I'm
> comparing no flaps to full flaps, which is almost 45 degrees.
>
> Remember that the Rallye also has Fowler flaps. In the maximum effort
> take off, 1/2 flaps basically only lowers them 15 degrees while
> reaching maximum rearward extension. I'm wondering if in this case
> the change in speed from 75 MPH (Vx) to 81 MPH (Vy) offets the effect
> of the 15 degree downward to a greater extent. Anything less than 1/2
> flaps and all you have done is extend them rearward with no downward
> angle.
>

Yeah, could be. We have a similar setup on most jets where they travle
backwards for the first couple of settings. The slats come out at the
same time so the airplane tends to sit a couple of degrees more deck
angle than it does clean.

[Marty Shapiro]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Marty Shapiro > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Yeahm but you have a big engine one, don;t you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Been years since I've flown one, but the slats should alter the
>>>>> chord line and give a high deck angle with no flaps out.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I have the 235. I've never flown the smaller ones.
>>>>
>>>> The deck angle is even higher with the flaps out. When I want to
>>>> pop it off the runway, I use 1/2 flaps (at this setting, they are
>>>> pretty much only about 15 degrees down, but at maximum extension)and
>>>> pitch for Vx. Trim for Vx and then simply raising the flaps will
>>>> lower the nose slightly and put me right on Vy.
>>>>
>>>> The slats, as you know, are automatic, and will pretty much stay out
>>>> in a climb until you lower the nose to about 85-90 MPH indicated.
>>>> The slats are in for a cruise climb (106 MPH).
>>>
>>>
>>> hmmm, strange that the angle would be higher with flaps out, The mean
>>> chord line should change and require a lower deck angle for a given
>>> airspeed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>> That's a very good point, Bertie.
>>
>> When doing power on stalls, it works exactly as one would expect. I
>> have a significantly higher angle of attack to get to stall buffet
>> with the flaps in than with them out. In fact, with flaps in, you
>> need to get up to nearly 30 degrees nose high just to start getting
>> stall buffet. I remember the first time I did this I thought I was
>> going to roll backwards out of my seat. But in this case I'm
>> comparing no flaps to full flaps, which is almost 45 degrees.
>>
>> Remember that the Rallye also has Fowler flaps. In the maximum effort
>> take off, 1/2 flaps basically only lowers them 15 degrees while
>> reaching maximum rearward extension. I'm wondering if in this case
>> the change in speed from 75 MPH (Vx) to 81 MPH (Vy) offets the effect
>> of the 15 degree downward to a greater extent. Anything less than 1/2
>> flaps and all you have done is extend them rearward with no downward
>> angle.
>>
>
> Yeah, could be. We have a similar setup on most jets where they travle
> backwards for the first couple of settings. The slats come out at the
> same time so the airplane tends to sit a couple of degrees more deck
> angle than it does clean.
>
>

Don't you have control of the slats on the jets you fly? On the Rallye
they are automatic based on angle of attack.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Marty Shapiro > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> Marty Shapiro > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Marty Shapiro > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeahm but you have a big engine one, don;t you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Been years since I've flown one, but the slats should alter the
>>>>>> chord line and give a high deck angle with no flaps out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I have the 235. I've never flown the smaller ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> The deck angle is even higher with the flaps out. When I want to
>>>>> pop it off the runway, I use 1/2 flaps (at this setting, they are
>>>>> pretty much only about 15 degrees down, but at maximum extension)
and
>>>>> pitch for Vx. Trim for Vx and then simply raising the flaps will
>>>>> lower the nose slightly and put me right on Vy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The slats, as you know, are automatic, and will pretty much stay
out
>>>>> in a climb until you lower the nose to about 85-90 MPH indicated.
>>>>> The slats are in for a cruise climb (106 MPH).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hmmm, strange that the angle would be higher with flaps out, The
mean
>>>> chord line should change and require a lower deck angle for a given
>>>> airspeed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's a very good point, Bertie.
>>>
>>> When doing power on stalls, it works exactly as one would expect. I
>>> have a significantly higher angle of attack to get to stall buffet
>>> with the flaps in than with them out. In fact, with flaps in, you
>>> need to get up to nearly 30 degrees nose high just to start getting
>>> stall buffet. I remember the first time I did this I thought I was
>>> going to roll backwards out of my seat. But in this case I'm
>>> comparing no flaps to full flaps, which is almost 45 degrees.
>>>
>>> Remember that the Rallye also has Fowler flaps. In the maximum
effort
>>> take off, 1/2 flaps basically only lowers them 15 degrees while
>>> reaching maximum rearward extension. I'm wondering if in this case
>>> the change in speed from 75 MPH (Vx) to 81 MPH (Vy) offets the
effect
>>> of the 15 degree downward to a greater extent. Anything less than
1/2
>>> flaps and all you have done is extend them rearward with no downward
>>> angle.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, could be. We have a similar setup on most jets where they
travle
>> backwards for the first couple of settings. The slats come out at the
>> same time so the airplane tends to sit a couple of degrees more deck
>> angle than it does clean.
>>
>>
>
> Don't you have control of the slats on the jets you fly? On the
Rallye
> they are automatic based on angle of attack.
>

We do, but on most airplanes they come out when you select flaps.
Ususally, there are two slat positions, depending on the type of slat.
The first stage of slats comes out when you select the first stage of
flap and the second stage of slats comes out when you select the final
stages.
On airbusses, though, at least most of them, the frist selection
position selects slats only,and this is often the position you take off
in. No flaps and slats at 15 deg. Other guys not familiar with this wil
shout at you that your flaps are up as you taxi onto the runway if they
happen to be behind you.


Bertie