"buttman" wrote in message
ups.com...
Thats my point. You're supposed to finish a lazy 8 at the same altitude
and airspeed as what you started with. The beauty of the lazy 8 is how
you start out in perfect equilibrium, disrupt that equilibrium by
changing all kinds of things, then returning back to the equilibrium
you started with.

I agree with those who suggest you are over-complicating the issue.

Yes, the lazy eight should finish up at about the same altitude and airspeed
as you had when you started the maneuver. But IMHO, the biggest factor in
aiding you to that goal, other than flying the maneuver correctly, is
selecting an appropriate power setting.

Throughout the maneuver, your power setting is "wrong" for the flight
attitude and configuration (clean). You are either slowing down or speeding
up. Ideally, you'll wind up as much slower than your equilibrium point as
you wind up faster than it, and in the end it all comes out even. To
accomplish this, you either need to compensate by spending more or less time
in the decelerating or accelerating portion of the maneuver (as
appropriate), or you need to select a power setting that puts those end
point roughly the same distance from the middle equilibrium point.

I am, of course, oversimplifying the whole "middle, low end, high end" part
of this discussion. The end points may or may not be exactly the same
distance from the ideal middle point, from an absolute airspeed point of
view. But the basic idea is true, regardless: there's an appropriate
"center point" around which you fly the maneuver, and your power setting
determines that center point (assuming the rest of the maneuver is flown the
same...you can rush or slow down portions of the maneuver to compensate for
a "wrong" center point, of course).

I believe that you are right, that a constant speed prop provides a more
constant contribution of power throughout the maneuver. But, for one thing,
the maneuver is as much about drag (force) as it is about power (force over
distance over time). Since your airspeed is constantly changing, you're not
really producing a constant balance between engine output and drag anyway.

For another thing, I believe that in the context of the maneuver, the
difference in power output between a fixed pitch prop and a constant speed
prop isn't significant. Not compared to the other issues surrounding the
maneuver (flying it smoothly, and choosing an appropriate power setting for
the maneuver).

I think of it this way: as far as preserving your equilibrium, it's not
really that important how much energy the engine is providing at any given
point during the maneuver. The only thing that's important there is how
much extra energy the engine provides, TOTAL, throughout the maneuver.
Regardless of the type of prop installed, you control this directly through
the choice of the power setting used. If you finish the maneuver fast, your
power setting was too high; slow, your power setting was too low. It works
the same regardless of the type of prop.

[...]
So I guess my point is that it's impossible to do a lazy 8, unless
either your plane is 100% efficient (which is physically impossible),
or you somehow add power. This is spliting hairs, and you may only lose
3 or 4 knots of "energy", but theoretically its true.

Well, I'm not aware of any airplane in which it's impossible to do a lazy
eight without changing the power during the maneuver. So I'd say that
"point" of yours is obviously incorrect. In your example of a
low-horsepower, high-prop-pitch airplane, all you should need to do is use a
slightly higher power setting for your entry into the maneuver. Of course,
that presumes such an airplane and frankly, people don't usually go around
putting high-pitch fixed-pitch props on low horsepower airplanes.

[talk about ease of performing the maneuver between
fixed-pitch and CS props]

It is?

I've been lead to believe so. That might be due to the fact that even
though the control surfaces are roughly the same surface area as
compared to a Skyhawk, the bonanza is faster, allowing the plane to be
more responsive. I start my training in the bonanza in about another
week, so I'll see for myself soon.

My experience has been that of the three airplanes I flew a lazy eight in --
a C172, a C177RG, and my Lake Renegade -- the easiest airplane for the
maneuver was the Cardinal and the hardest was the Lake, both of which have
constant speed props. IMHO, control feel on the Cessnas is better, and I
especially like the stabilator on the Cardinal (not everyone feels this way
). Even in the Lake, once I got the power setting figured out, the
maneuver went pretty smoothly, as it should. (I needed a lower power
setting...flying the maneuver near Va, as I was doing with the Cessnas, was
too fast an entry and I wound up too fast at the end).

Frankly, even in the C172 the maneuver is fairly easy as long as you fly it
by the numbers and don't try to rush it. Like you, I find the lazy eights
to be one of the more enjoyable of the commercial maneuvers, but it does
require a relaxed, smooth hand on the controls. Provide that, and I don't
see why it shouldn't go well in just about any airplane, constant speed prop
or not.

Pete