90 Degree turn while slipping

In article ,
Vaughn wrote:

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:40252ec1@darkstar...
Vaughn wrote:

That said, a slip/skid indicator costs a whole $45.00 at Wings&
Wheels
and there is no reason for any trainer to be without one.

I wonder if one can get an experimental version at
Orchard Supply for $2.35...

I have seen bubble levels used, they work in the opposite direction
from a slip/skid (same as the yaw string), are excessively sensitive, but
the one I flew with seemed to agree with the yaw string.

Vaughn

www.aircraft-spruce.com $34.

but the real long, sensitive ones at store.wagaero.com
look about in this price range too, and a selection of 5...

In article
,
"Vaughn" wrote:

I should tell my early-solo students that a missing or stuck yaw string
is sufficient reason for them to make a non-standard pattern, make
deliberately uncoordinated and little-practiced turns near the ground, and
give up the advantage of a correctly functioning IAS? I don't think so!

I once hired an ASK-21 (the one at Turf that crashed recently :-( ), and
on two flights I found after takeoff that the yaw string had got caught
by the front canopy and was inoperative.

It was unnerving at first, but didn't seem to make any difference to
being able to soar sucessfully.

-- Bruce

Vaughn" wrote in message ...
"JohnD" wrote in message
om...
ISoar wrote in message
. ..
...
What about this situation: You are on your fifth solo flight and OOOH
NOOO! your yaw string disintigrates while under tow. No, this never
happens does it? (Happened to me once: Club 1-26 with brand new canopy
& no yaw string. Damn it wasn't on my pre-flight checklist! How could
I have missed it?) But if it does what better way to fly the pattern
but to execute moderate slipping turns in the pattern while maintaing
proper airspeed? Wouldn't that be safer than having a 30 flight
student attempt to fly perfectly coordinated without a yaw string? Err
on the safe side?
...
P.S. Always remember: Proper pitch attitude control is imperative when
executing this maneuver as the IAS will almost certainly not be
correct.

I should tell my early-solo students that a missing or stuck yaw string
is sufficient reason for them to make a non-standard pattern, make
deliberately uncoordinated and little-practiced turns near the ground, and
give up the advantage of a correctly functioning IAS? I don't think so!

In that situation, I might want my student to hold an extra 5 knots in
the pattern, and even if their asscheeks are not yet sufficiently calibrated
to produce a perfect turn, they should be able to mechanically coordinate
the controls enough to make a spin unlikely while simultaneously remaining
far enough above stall speed to make a spin impossible.

That said, a slip/skid indicator costs a whole $45.00 at Wings& Wheels
and there is no reason for any trainer to be without one.

Vaughn

I'm sorry, but I believe you missed my point. What I am saying is that
I have been taught that early-solo students should know how to
properly execute and know when to utilize a slip and slipping turns
BEFORE they solo. First, I did not say anything about flying a
non-standard pattern. They wouldn't be flying a 'non-standard' pattern
if they had been taught the skill in the first place and they wouldn't
be 'little practiced' if you had them practice and develop the skill.
Yes, 'deliberately uncoordinated' slipping turns are a required skill
by CFI's here and by the FAA designee. "During the landing portion of
this flight I want you to demonstrate at least one slipping turn and a
slip while controlling your heading."

"JohnD" wrote in message
om...
What about this situation: You are on your fifth solo flight and OOOH
NOOO! your yaw string disintigrates while under tow. No, this never
happens does it? (Happened to me once: Club 1-26 with brand new canopy
& no yaw string. Damn it wasn't on my pre-flight checklist! How could
I have missed it?) But if it does what better way to fly the pattern
but to execute moderate slipping turns in the pattern while maintaing
proper airspeed? Wouldn't that be safer than having a 30 flight
student attempt to fly perfectly coordinated without a yaw string? Err
on the safe side?
...
P.S. Always remember: Proper pitch attitude control is imperative when
executing this maneuver as the IAS will almost certainly not be
correct.

I should tell my early-solo students that a missing or stuck yaw
string
is sufficient reason for them to make a non-standard pattern, make
deliberately uncoordinated and little-practiced turns near the ground,
and
give up the advantage of a correctly functioning IAS? I don't think so!

In that situation, I might want my student to hold an extra 5 knots
in
the pattern, and even if their asscheeks are not yet sufficiently
calibrated
to produce a perfect turn, they should be able to mechanically
coordinate
the controls enough to make a spin unlikely while simultaneously
remaining
far enough above stall speed to make a spin impossible.

That said, a slip/skid indicator costs a whole $45.00 at Wings&
Wheels
and there is no reason for any trainer to be without one.

Vaughn

I'm sorry, but I believe you missed my point.

Perhaps you missed mine. I don't think that a missing or stuck yaw
string is sufficient reason for an early solo student (or anyone else that I
can imagine right now) to fly a slipping approach. If I am wrong please
educate me.

What I am saying is that
I have been taught that early-solo students should know how to
properly execute and know when to utilize a slip and slipping turns
BEFORE they solo.

Actually, 61.87(i) tells us what flight training a student pilot must
receive prior to solo and the only guidance we have there regarding slips is
the variously-interpreted phrase "slips to a landing", there is no specific
requirement for slipping turns. I realize that 61.87 represents an
absolute minimum and we should add things to the mix that we find important.

Vaughn

"Vaughn" wrote in message ...
"JohnD" wrote in message
om...
What about this situation: You are on your fifth solo flight and OOOH
NOOO! your yaw string disintigrates while under tow. No, this never
happens does it? (Happened to me once: Club 1-26 with brand new canopy
& no yaw string. Damn it wasn't on my pre-flight checklist! How could
I have missed it?) But if it does what better way to fly the pattern
but to execute moderate slipping turns in the pattern while maintaing
proper airspeed? Wouldn't that be safer than having a 30 flight
student attempt to fly perfectly coordinated without a yaw string? Err
on the safe side?
...
P.S. Always remember: Proper pitch attitude control is imperative when
executing this maneuver as the IAS will almost certainly not be
correct.

I should tell my early-solo students that a missing or stuck yaw
string
is sufficient reason for them to make a non-standard pattern, make
deliberately uncoordinated and little-practiced turns near the ground,
and
give up the advantage of a correctly functioning IAS? I don't think so!

In that situation, I might want my student to hold an extra 5 knots
in
the pattern, and even if their asscheeks are not yet sufficiently
calibrated
to produce a perfect turn, they should be able to mechanically
coordinate
the controls enough to make a spin unlikely while simultaneously
remaining
far enough above stall speed to make a spin impossible.

That said, a slip/skid indicator costs a whole $45.00 at Wings&
Wheels
and there is no reason for any trainer to be without one.

Vaughn

I'm sorry, but I believe you missed my point.

Perhaps you missed mine. I don't think that a missing or stuck yaw
string is sufficient reason for an early solo student (or anyone else that I
can imagine right now) to fly a slipping approach. If I am wrong please
educate me.

What I am saying is that
I have been taught that early-solo students should know how to
properly execute and know when to utilize a slip and slipping turns
BEFORE they solo.

Actually, 61.87(i) tells us what flight training a student pilot must
receive prior to solo and the only guidance we have there regarding slips is
the variously-interpreted phrase "slips to a landing", there is no specific
requirement for slipping turns. I realize that 61.87 represents an
absolute minimum and we should add things to the mix that we find important.

Vaughn

O.K. I'm really not trying to argue here so perhaps we could get away
from the yawstring example and you could help me understand why you
believe 'an early solo student (or anyone else....' should not know
how to execute and be skilled at a 'slipping approach'.

It would appear to me that other CFI's and FAA examiners believe the
"slips to landing" phrase in 61.87(i) means they should teach and
expect to see competancy in this maneuver. So why is your approach so
different from theirs? Shouldn't we be standardized in this? If not in
our training then certainly in what an FAA examiner expects from a
pilot? What about the poor guy who trains and obtains his license in
your area, moves out here, then flunks his BFR because the standard
and expectations are so different? (I realize I may be exaggerating
this a bit but you see what I mean don't you?)

More importantly how does the downside of knowing how to execute a
'slipping approach' outweigh the benefits of being able to utilize
this skill when the situation warrants?

JohnD

My instructor had me do this the last time I was up. Actually, he told me
to hold the aircraft (2-33) high in the pattern so that I was at "800-1000'
abeam of the numbers", then set it down, he didn't say how...that was the
excercise for the student(me). There was a slight crosswind and a bit more
(landing)headwind as well. 3-5kts by 5-10kts at ground level. It was an
*interesting* ride. I went to full slip, full spoilers and extended the
downwind leg a bit, then 1/2 spoilers and less rudder to let the slip turn
to base (didn't know how much altitude I'd lose in the turn), held slip and
spoilers on base, 1/2 spoilers and less rudder to slip turn to final. The
crosswind was opposite the slip (left pattern, right to left x-wind on
final) so closed spoilers and converted from left slip to right slip (that
was the *interesting* part...never did that in a pattern before...can't let
the track wander) and laid on full spoilers, did a normal slip to
landing...yes I reduce spoilers on final just before flare...the 2-33 is a
barge and flares like one too. An indestructable barge, but a barge
nonetheless.

AT

"ISoar" wrote in message
...
I can't find anything in my books about how to make a 90 degree turn
(e.g., downwind to base) while in a full slip, but maybe that's
because it's so obvious. (Given my limited # hours, just because
something seems obvious to me doesn't mean I'm not going to check it
out.) I figure I'll turn with roll input, but can't picture the side
effects from doing that. If I know the side effects I can have a
chance of being ahead of the plane during the maneuver.

Anyway, is there going to be any adverse yaw from turning in this
mode? Even if there is, I don't think I can do anything about it,
but enquiring minds want to know. The other question is if the
attitude going to change as a side effect of the roll input. This
will be in a 2-33.

Thanks

As a bit of light relief to this e-mail tennis, I thought
I'd add an 'interesting' idea that did the rounds in
the UK a few years ago. Basically, the BGA instructors'
committee (or the national coach, can't remember exactly
now) suggested that if you were high on finals, pulling
full brake/spoiler and diving at the ground would burn
off more energy than other options. We had great fun
trying this out one weekend until our CFI decided his
aircraft were in mortal danger and stopped the experiment.

Happy days!

Paul

At 18:30 12 February 2004, Johnd wrote:
'Vaughn Simon' wrote in message news:...
'JohnD' wrote in message
om...

O.K. I'm really not trying to argue here.

Neither am I, this would best be done over a
friendly beer.

so perhaps we could get away
from the yawstring example and you could help me
understand why you
believe 'an early solo student (or anyone else....'
should not know
how to execute and be skilled at a 'slipping approach'.

You are 'putting words in my keyboard', I wrote
no such thing as what
you have above. I was addressing your yawstring example
speciifically, and
I wrote that (within my present knowledge and experience)
a missing or
broken yawstring is not a reason to make a slipping
pattern.



It would appear to me that other CFI's and FAA examiners
believe the
'slips to landing' phrase in 61.87(i) means they
should teach and
expect to see competancy in this maneuver. So why
is your approach so
different from theirs?

Where did I say it is?

'Round and round we go.'
As I read this I can see that you certainly didn't
say that exactly,
in fact you have really said nothing except dispute
my poor example.
Good job. Thanks for correcting me. Do you actually
have an opinion on
the subject?

Have a nice day.

Paul Kaye wrote:

As a bit of light relief to this e-mail tennis, I thought
I'd add an 'interesting' idea that did the rounds in
the UK a few years ago. Basically, the BGA instructors'
committee (or the national coach, can't remember exactly
now) suggested that if you were high on finals, pulling
full brake/spoiler and diving at the ground would burn
off more energy than other options. We had great fun
trying this out one weekend until our CFI decided his
aircraft were in mortal danger and stopped the experiment.

I find the technique quite useful in gliders with good but not extremely
powerful airbrakes (don't need to use it in the Blanik!), but it does
work better if you turn base to final with plenty of height. I prefer
that, so I don't use airbrakes or slipping turns in the pattern (except
for the rare "expedited" arrival) until I've turned onto final. Making
turns 600-800 feet off the ground has always seemed safer than 300 feet.

I'm told it is an EXTEMELY effective method in gliders with trailing
edge divebrakes.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

As a bit of light relief to this e-mail tennis, I thought
I'd add an 'interesting' idea that did the rounds in
the UK a few years ago. Basically, the BGA instructors'
committee (or the national coach, can't remember exactly
now) suggested that if you were high on finals, pulling
full brake/spoiler and diving at the ground would burn
off more energy than other options. We had great fun
trying this out one weekend until our CFI decided his
aircraft were in mortal danger and stopped the experiment.

Happy days!

Paul

Nice analogy Paul - do you play doubles?

As I recall it was the CFI who initiated it and I believe the correct
procedure was to reduce speed to min sink, then deploy full air brake, then
initiate a dive attempting to reach 60knots. The national coach at the time,
lovely man, card player, suggested its use as a means of landing straight
ahead from a failed which launch. I recall there was another game we played
involved a life expired 'chute - he initiated that one too, as I recall.

Rgds,

Derrick.

Derrick Steed skrev den 13 Feb
2004 08:12:31 GMT:

As a bit of light relief to this e-mail tennis, I thought
I'd add an 'interesting' idea that did the rounds in
the UK a few years ago. Basically, the BGA instructors'
committee (or the national coach, can't remember exactly
now) suggested that if you were high on finals, pulling
full brake/spoiler and diving at the ground would burn
off more energy than other options. We had great fun
trying this out one weekend until our CFI decided his
aircraft were in mortal danger and stopped the experiment.

Er, that is indeed the way to do it. Every bit of drag possible and Vne is
the quickest way to loose all that excess energy associated with too high
altitude. You might not want to take it down to ground effect though, for
several reasons.

Not dangerous at all. Just keep ahead of the aircraft, but that applies
all the time.

Cheers,
Fred