East River turning radius

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Yes, folks forget that the wings aren't the only source of lift.

And there are more forces available than just lift.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:33:37 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

Two reasons: A better view of the Statue of Liberty, and it is pretty
cool to be below the building tops and actually level with the ground
along the Palisades (the cliffs on the New Jersey side up around the
George Washington Bridge).

Admittedly, that's fun too. But the view is definitely better a little
higher.

- Andrew

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:53:27 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:

Witnesses reported that they saw a puff of smoke from the rear area before
the plane hit the building.

Witnesses also reported a helicopter hit the building. We should consider
ourselves lucky that no witnesses saw a Klingon Battle Cruiser attacking.

- Andrew

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message news:CwXXg.2967$XX2.1598@dukeread04...
: Witnesses reported that they saw a puff of smoke from the
: rear area before the plane hit the building. The key will
: be to see if the handle was pulled.
:
:


I heard today the handle was not pulled...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
: In article ,
: Matt Whiting wrote:
:
: Yes, folks forget that the wings aren't the only source of lift.
:
: And there are more forces available than just lift.
:
: --
: Bob Noel
: Looking for a sig the
: lawyers will hate
:

So the ball is off center and you are holding top rudder...

Thanks, have you heard if the safety pin was removed as
called for in the checklist before engine start?



".Blueskies." wrote in
message
t...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message news:CwXXg.2967$XX2.1598@dukeread04...
| : Witnesses reported that they saw a puff of smoke from
the
| : rear area before the plane hit the building. The key
will
| : be to see if the handle was pulled.
| :
| :
|
|
| I heard today the handle was not pulled...
|
|

"d&tm" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"d&tm" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
Ah... Well... I just through some random numbers in there... Of
course,
one
would not try and pull a 57G turn as cool as it sounds...

Thanks for the lesson! I learned something new today...


The calculator is correct by my reckoning. 80mph and 89 degree
bank
gives 8 ft radius turning circle which is correct in theory. it
sounds
ridiculous but really the 89 degree angle of bank is what is
ridiculous
.
such a turn if possible would pull 57 g. the calculation is not
that
difficult. radius= v squared / g tan ( bank angle)
terry

I should add that this calulation assumes all the lift is coming from
the
wing , but that theory would imply that an aircraft cant hold altitude
in
a
90 degree bank, and of course we have all seen aerobatic aircraft do
this.
For this to occur the lift must be coming from the fuselage of the
aircraft
and so the equation will not be strictly correct. But for the type of
turns
that mere mortals like me will do I think it tells the story. I have
heard
guys on this group regulary mention 60 degree or 2 g turns, but in my
training steep turns were 45 degrees maximum.
terry

In the UK steep turn are defined as 60 degree turns and that is what we
are
trained to do.
I remember the first time I was flying in the US and as part of the
checkout
this young instructor asked me to do a steep turn. He made some strange
noises - I don't think he had done 60 degrees before.

I find them easier than 45 degree turns

I am actually based in Australia. I know that in the C150 which I am
guessing about 90% of GA pilots train in here, you generally need full
power
to hold altitude in a 45 degree turn. With 2 people on board I doubt you
could do 60 degree turns and hold altitude, but as I said I havent tried.
terry


My C-150 experience was mostly C-150M. But we did used to hold a 60 degree
bank as long as we pleased at gross weight and about 2000 feet agl--which
was very close to 5000 feet density altitude in Florida in the summer. I
never tried that in a C-150J, which I also flew a couple of times, but the
earlier airframe did have a lot more drag and the earlier prop was also much
less efficient.

In those days, about 25 years ago, 60 degrees was quite common practice for
steep turns. I presume that was based on the limit of standard and utility
category operations--since more than 60 degrees relative to the plane of
gravity would have been acrobatic flight.

The idea that a current younger instructor might regard an old fashioned
steep turn as an unusual attitude explains a lot--and is terrifying.

Peter

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:53:27 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:

Witnesses reported that they saw a puff of smoke from the rear area before
the plane hit the building.

Witnesses also reported a helicopter hit the building. We should consider
ourselves lucky that no witnesses saw a Klingon Battle Cruiser attacking.

Of course not...they would have been using a Romulan cloaking device,

"d&tm" wrote in message
...
I have heard guys on this group regulary mention 60 degree
or 2 g turns, but in my training steep turns were 45 degrees
maximum.

A 60 degree turn is only 2Gs if you you maintain altitude during the turn...

In article , (Blanche Cohen)
wrote:

Witnesses also reported a helicopter hit the building. We should consider
ourselves lucky that no witnesses saw a Klingon Battle Cruiser attacking.

Of course not...they would have been using a Romulan cloaking device,

Why? They have their own.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate