1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?

heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers
would
tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?

sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes
up. make sure to sandbag for CG!


I don't recall hearing of that, except for launching gliders. But a BD-5
was pushed along on a boom ahead of a pick-up truck as a sort of poor man's
true motion simulator. I believe that something similar may have been done
with another design as well--possibly one of Rutan's.

Peter Dohm wrote:

And there are a significant fraction that almost NEVER fly.


That "almost" is a real concern. I presume that pilot proficiency is as
important as the aircraft.


Absolutely, Peter.

The smaller machines can be a handful at first.

Even when perfectly balanced, they can be very quick to respond.
Way much more so than anything built in Wichita or Florida.

My parasol, as an example, flies strictly by thought control.
(Stole the set-up from the Russians

You only THINK about moving the stick.
If you actually MOVE it, you're going for a roller coaster ride!

Mind you, it's not unstable, twitchy or anything like that.
It's just quick!

The control pressure is very light, and the pressure gradient
(i.e.: the increase in stick pressure due to control deflection)
is less than a pound per G.

It's a finger tip airplane. One finger tip on top of the stick.

Somebody used to a Cessna or Piper is going to be at a real disadvantage
for the first flight(s?).
Until they get used to it.
Then, the old Cessna suddenly feels like flying a 2-ton dump truck.

Richard

Peter Dohm wrote:

heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers

would

tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?

sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes
up. make sure to sandbag for CG!



I don't recall hearing of that, except for launching gliders. But a BD-5
was pushed along on a boom ahead of a pick-up truck as a sort of poor man's
true motion simulator. I believe that something similar may have been done
with another design as well--possibly one of Rutan's.



I got to "fly" that contraption - once.
That was enough.

It was sorta fun, but with the truck driver manning the "throttle", the
limited lateral range, and limited roll range, it was - well - interesting...

I heard it was later destroyed by some guy who claimed 10,000 hours of glider
time...


Richard

"kd5sak" wrote in message
m...

Same tactic killed Wiley Post and Will Rogers. Don't fly myself, but in a
lifetime of reading
I've seen several references to crashes occuring from pilots trying to
turn back to a runway
when they had a reasonably flat bit of terrain in front of them. It's been
said that Post knew better, but had the family fortune tied up in the
plane he and Will were traveling in and just let that drive his decision
making. What do some of you actual pilots think?

Harold
KD5SAK


It seems to me that when I learned to fly the normal landing was a "power
off" landing. You always cut the power on the downwind leg heading away
from the airport and from the end of the runway. Then, after a little
while, you proceeded to make a 180 degree turn back to the airport and
landed. This was done with the engine cut to idle. Sometimes, they cut
even beyond idle and quit completely! :-) It was called a normal landing
and you were supposed to do all of them that way.

Clearly there is some altitude and distance from the end of the runway where
a "turnback" type maneuver is no problem at all, and actually closely
approximates the normal landing of my youth. Equally clearly there is also
some altitude and distance from the end of the runway where such a
"turnback" maneuver is clearly impossible. Obviously the trick is knowing
exactly where in the range between A and B that you are at the moment the
engine quits and behaving accordingly. Most flight instructors cop out
totally and just say "Go straight ahead."

Personally, I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where straight ahead was
best. I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where "turnback" was best.
And I even had ONE engine failure on "takeoff" where neither "turnback" nor
"straight ahead" would work and I had to do something creative! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
oups.com...
There's a difference between a glider with a 30:1 L/D and a Cessna with
9:1. Doing a 180 in a glider from 400' is like doing it in a Cessna
from 1200'.


Richard, Richard, Richard ...

A normal poweroff landing is a 180 back to the field from 800 feet.
Cessnas make them quite handily all of the time! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
...

To the Cessna 172 driver that asked for proof that homebuilt aircraft were
safe please post you information saying they are not as safe as
any other aircraft flying. I find that is mostly the uniformed that
that have a preconceived notion that an aircraft built at home must not
be as safe as factory built aircraft. Most homebuilders are very
particulier and realize that it is their butts and their families and
friends that will be flying in these creations.

Jerry(flying my RV-6 over 16 years)Springer

As both an FAA Technical Safety Counselor and an EAA Technical Counselor I
have inspected a lot of airplanes, both certified and homebuilt. For what
it is worth, the average homebuilt is built to a much higher standard than
the average certified factory built airplane.

I suspect this is due to several factors. First, the type of people who
invest the time for both building and for skills acquisition that is
required to actually build an airplane are the type of people who are very
proud of what they do and how they do it and take the care required to do it
both well and right. Secondly, when the guy who built it is also the guy
who is going to fly in it, it lends one a certain incentive to avoid cutting
corners or making do with something that is a bit less than it really should
be! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
ink.net...
Peter Dohm wrote:

heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers

would

tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?

sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw
comes
up. make sure to sandbag for CG!



I don't recall hearing of that, except for launching gliders. But a
BD-5
was pushed along on a boom ahead of a pick-up truck as a sort of poor
man's
true motion simulator. I believe that something similar may have been
done
with another design as well--possibly one of Rutan's.



I got to "fly" that contraption - once.
That was enough.

It was sorta fun, but with the truck driver manning the "throttle", the
limited lateral range, and limited roll range, it was - well -
interesting...

I heard it was later destroyed by some guy who claimed 10,000 hours of
glider
time...


Richard

The picture of it that I recall suggested that it might be - well -
interesting...

Peter

"John Ammeter" wrote in message
...
My "first flight" WAS my second flight...

I was "taxi testing" my RV-6 when I became airborne for about a hundred
yards or so. Since I was not authorized to commit flight per the FAA
obviously I had not flown.... right??

John


Sure is funny how often that happens, John. I think taxiing around in a new
airplane must really be dangerous! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

"Highflyer" wrote in message
...

"kd5sak" wrote in message
m...

Personally, I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where straight ahead
was best. I have had engine failures on "takeoff" where "turnback" was
best. And I even had ONE engine failure on "takeoff" where neither
"turnback" nor "straight ahead" would work and I had to do something
creative! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )


Hmmm, I imagine one could add a bank left or right and center the bubble,
what was the right choice when neither turn back or go straight was correct?
You have my curiosity
itching something fierce.

Harold
KD5SAK

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Dohm" wrote:

In any event, we climbed to a little more than 350 feet before I pulled
the
power to idle; and promptly began my turn back tothe runway.

Idle thrust is still quite a bit of applied power.
Instead of pulling the throttle (air), pull the mixture (gas).
This will give you a windmilling prop with all the associated drag.
When you are ready to restore power, push the mixture back in.
Try it and see how your results change.

I recall pulling the mixture on a newly overhauled A-65 Continental on a
little airplane. It had a wooden prop. I pulled the mixture and the prop
didn't have enough inertia to overcome the compression on the fresh overhaul
and the prop stopped. Since the A-65 doesn't have an electrical starter the
only way to get a restart was to get out and flip the prop. It seemed to me
that do so would require me to land first! The stopped prop had
considerably less drag than the engine at idle.

By the way, any multiengine instructor can tell you that an engine at idle
has less than nuetral thrust and does NOT contribute any thrust. :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

PS: The 10th annual Pinckneyville RAH Flyin is coming up May 19, 20, and
21. Plan now to attend. Send Mary a note at or there may
not be enough food for you! :-)