Question to Mxmanic

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Snowbird writes:

Do you have a reference saying this is always the case?

Every reference I've checked says so. They sink at a variable rate, but
usually at least 150-200 feet per minute, sometimes much more.

They have to do this, because it is the reaction to forcing the downwash
downward that produces lift.

Maybe the propwash?

I'd expect the propwash to be drawn down with the downwash, but I'm not sure.
I would not expect the propwash to be significant after two minutes.

What you expect and what really happens in real airplanes are obviously
two different things.

Any object in the air with an airspeed greater than zero has wake
turbulance.

The precise details of that turbulance depend upon the shape of the
object, the speed of the object, and the condition of the surrounding
air.

The wake turbulance of transport category aircraft has been widely
studied because such turbulance is dangerous to other aircraft.

The wake turbulance of light aircraft has not been studied to such
a degree, if at all, because the worst that happens when you fly
through it is you experience a little bump, i.e. no one cares
about it.

Therefor, it is highly unlikely that you will be able to find any
information on the typical characteristics of the wake turbulance
generated by a Cessna 182, or any other GA aircraft other than from
the experiences of real pilots.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Apr 14, 6:05 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Snowbird writes:
Tip vortices is not the only form of turbulence behind an aircraft. And an
airliner on approach has a different type of wake than a trainer at
altitude.

All of them should be moving downward, though. Which means that if you try to
catch your own wake at constant altitude, you should miss it, as it will have
drifted downward. Or am I missing something?

The best value of a good simulator is that it enables training of situations
that would be unsafe to do in a real aircraft.Flying into wake turbulence is
a good example.

But flying into wake turbulence can flip your aircraft onto the ground. Is
that really worth practicing? You should be avoiding it instead.

Rather like the logic that says that it's better to train at avoiding spins
than to train at recovering from them.

It´s the same training fjukktard



bertie

writes:

Your research at what, at your desk in front of Microsoft Flight
Simulator?

No, my survey of the literature.

In my experience as a real pilot of real airplanes, it has happened.

In the experience of many real pilots of real airplanes, it has happened.

In the course of my research, it appears to be impossible. The sources I
consulted seemed more reliable than a name on a screen.

The altitude tolerance on a 360 degree turn is +/- 100 feet from
start to finish.

If you are not descending at the same speed as your wake, I don't see how you
can run back into it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Maxwell writes:

Sixty degrees turns are part of routine PPL training, without a parachute.

Training is exempt from the parachute requirement.

Check the regs you so often quote with implied authority.

I've already pointed to them, and if you had looked at them yourself, you
would have seen the exemption for training.

Finding your own wake turbulence while doing 60/360s happens every day, and
is most often demonstrated by every CFI.

At constant altitude?

Descending 360 turns are executed routinely by pilots needing to descend
without leaving an area, such as descending to land after crossing high
mountains.

Ah ... descending turns are different, and you might well enounter your own
wake in that case.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Don't you have to descend to catch the wake? Downwash should be moving
downward at a few knots and IIRC the vortices do as well, so after two
minutes at, say, 12 knots, the turbulence would be almost 2500 feet
below you, if you are staying at altitude. I don't see how you could
run into it.

I'm not a physicist, but I suspect your calculations are missing several
factors, including (but not limited to) some that I can point out:

1) At a 45 degree bank, the wings are not actually pointed directly down.

2) In the typical trainer plane flying 100 knots, a 45 degree bank turn
will take far less than 2 minutes to go 360 degrees.

3) Wind can blow the wake in any number of directions, including up, and
including into the path of the 360 degree turn.

The bottom line is that the Practical Test Standards call for pilots to
perform a manuever called a Steep Turn of 360 degrees at a bank angle of 45
degrees. Every certificated pilot practices this, and demonstrates it to an
examiner, and frequently demonstrates it again during his or her Biannual
Flight Review.

Do you think it is more likely that the pilots on this newsgroup who
express that they have flown through their own wake while performing this
manuever are just lying to you?

Or perhaps you have miscalculated or omitted something from your
calculations.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

Sixty degrees turns are part of routine PPL training, without a
parachute.

Training is exempt from the parachute requirement.

Check the regs you so often quote with implied authority.

I've already pointed to them, and if you had looked at them yourself, you
would have seen the exemption for training.

Finding your own wake turbulence while doing 60/360s happens every day,
and
is most often demonstrated by every CFI.

At constant altitude?

Descending 360 turns are executed routinely by pilots needing to descend
without leaving an area, such as descending to land after crossing high
mountains.

Ah ... descending turns are different, and you might well enounter your
own
wake in that case.


All your answers are either wrong or negligently incomplete. You ZEROed this
one too!

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Your research at what, at your desk in front of Microsoft Flight
Simulator?

No, my survey of the literature.

What does your "literature" say about the wake turbulance to be
found from a Cessna 172? How about a '47 Ercoupe?

In my experience as a real pilot of real airplanes, it has happened.

In the experience of many real pilots of real airplanes, it has happened.

In the course of my research, it appears to be impossible. The sources I
consulted seemed more reliable than a name on a screen.

I, and many, many other pilots have experienced it.

Yet another difference between simulated and real flight.

The altitude tolerance on a 360 degree turn is +/- 100 feet from
start to finish.

If you are not descending at the same speed as your wake, I don't see how you
can run back into it.

Because you have no context with which to even begin to understand it.

All your protestations do is show how unrealistic your flight simulator
and "experience" gained through playing flight simulator is.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

we weren't talking about beyond 60 degrees.

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
mike regish writes:

no it wouldn't

If it's exactly 60 degrees, it wouldn't. Beyond 60 degrees, however, a
parachute is required. See FAR 91.307(c)(1).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

If the local air mass is rising, it will slow the sink or even raise the
vortex.

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

Real people in real airplanes training to become real pilots do real
45 degree bank, constant altitude turns on a regular basis and run into
their real wake.

My research indicates that this is not possible. The wake sinks at a rate
between 150 and 500 feet per minute (roughly). Thus, it would always be
well
below the airplane by the time it closes its own circle, unless the
airplane
is also descending.

I've seen reports of pilots descending in a 360-degree turn and running
into
their own wakes. If they can descend and encounter their own wake, then
they
cannot remain at the same altitude and encounter it. It cannot be in two
places at once.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

rong

mik

"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: "mike regish"

eye'm purty shoor meye eye que iz ovur atey.

Wel mebbee U is a slo lerner.
Eeder dat or U liv in Northampton.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQCVAwUBRiFIjpMoscYxZNI5AQF0nQP8Coth/UsXiw3ZvTCvlsaUhTgGgJrhuHDm
D/PrYAsy9/YeJxB9OuEKBZ+xsR7tgJIx4DavPBlDMvRemslgFcf2a0UYgJUy l1tg
/vLA2/MqYz1Ef/Ahq+mTwhDJethNKtOq2IDr0zU/TJvkQkK5b9eElNH18gNTXF0L
n6harSPbSi8=
=aJEq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----