Turn to Final - Keeping Ball Centered

On Mar 13, 4:33*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"WingFlaps" wrote in message

...

On Mar 13, 11:14 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m wrote:

Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with
bank.
Do you really mean that?
Cheers

Yes, he does; and yes, he is correct.

You have gone back to thinking in only two dimensions; and therefore
ignoring the effects of vertical acceleration.


Nope, the plane's vertical acceleration is 0 so all that matters is
that the lift must equal the weight. As the plane banks the lift
vector is no linger in line with the weight so the load factor is
increased by 1/cos(bank angle) and the stall speed is proportional to
the square root of the load factor. Or are we talking at crossed
purposes?

Cheers

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:10:06 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Roger wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:08:30 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Vaughn Simon wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
fall through with reduced back pressure.
snip for brevity

I consider the imparting of this attitude in a student pilot a critical
aspect of stall recovery training.
I can't emphasize it's importance enough to new instructors.

After following many of these threads over the years I am truly
thankful for the instructors who followed these tenants in my primary
training.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Me too !

One of the things they emphasized was if I ever encountered an
accelerated stall close to the ground was to just point the nose in
the direction it wanted to go. That immediately brakes the stall and
stops any tendency to roll under or over the top. You might leave the
pattern at a rather embarrassing altitude and direction but at least
it would be alive.

That was not a recommendation for anyone to try it, or in any way
reduce the thought of how serious stalling at low altitude and
particularly a turning stall at low altitude can be.

OTOH as you've pointed out the recovery techniques have to be
ingrained. They are not something you can stop and think about. Like
engine failure just after lift off you don't stop to think, "Hey, I
just had an engine failure. The first thing I need to do is lower the
nose to keep flying speed, now I need to pick a landing spot which
one is best, can I keep it on the airport, or am I high enough to make
the "impossible turn?". By the time you can say that first sentence
your subconscious will have, or should have, done all the rest.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Peter Dohm" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Jim Stewart wrote in
:

skym wrote:
While making a turn to base and final recently, I was aware that I
was going to be wide with my normal turn from downwind through base
to final, so I banked more to keep as close to the runway
centerline as possible. I kept thinking about the infamous and
usually fatal stall/ spin by some pilots in this situation, I kept
thinking that if I keep the ball centered, even with a very steep
bank, that I would be ok and not auger in. Some of you instructors
and old pros...is this correct? (Not that I intend to make it a
practice.)

I hesitate to add to this discussion because
I'm not an instructor, just a rather slow
student who's not qualified to give advice
that might kill someone.

My instructor carefully pointed out the difference
between a stall on final as opposed to a snap
spin. A stall might be recoverable with no more
damage than a looseness of the bowels whereas
a spin could really fsk up your day.

The gist of his advice was that if you keep the
turn coordinated or even add a little extra
aileron, the up wing will have to come all the
way down through level before it will spin,
giving you time get the nose down and level the
wings before that spin can develop.

You turn too tight base to finals and lose the plot with speed and
co- ordination, the airplane could spin. Unless it's an Ercoupe, of
course.


Bertie

My personal suspicion is that most of the accidents involving a
tightening turn to final also involve a failure to allow for a
tailwind on base, and very rarely occur in calm conditions.

Yes, I agree.

That mainly serves to underscore your earlier point that the
difference between a level and descending turn is rarely discussed
because it is trivial--probably less than 1%. It also works in favor
of Dudleys point about using excess altitude to unload the turn--which
could be used to salvage the approach or facilitate a missed approach
as needed. (Actually, both of you made both points in different
ways.)


Yes, I've done it alright. Simple if you know how...


Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:1c376b6c-0279-
:

On Mar 12, 12:31 pm, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
and as it turned
out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
which he did.
Ken

Which one is you?

Total Names found for KEN TUCKER is 22.

KENNETH CARDEN TUCKER KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER
KENNETH W TUCKER KENDALL JOHN TUCKER
KENNETH EDWARD TUCKER KENNETH RAY TUCKER
KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH THOMAS TUCKER
KENNETH RICHARD TUCKER KENNETH DALE TUCKER
KENNETH E TUCKER KENNETH J TUCKER
KENNETH JOHN TUCKER KENT HOWARD TUCKER
KENNETH W TUCKER KENNETH WAYNE TUCKER
KENT DAVID TUCKER KENT LEE TUCKER
KENNETH ROYAL TUCKER KENNETH CLAYTON TUCKER
KENNETH STEVEN TUCKER KENNETH HAROLD TUCKER

LOL, thank you for your interest in me.
I'm afraid I cannot post my license number
off my old paper license for security reasons,
and not my Mensa number either, or social
security number, CIA file etc. , it's all classified.

Whoowhie! Kennie

CIA eh? I hear they pay ten-lebben dollars!

I sure hope you aren't going to become some
sort queer stalker like bertie is, however
"Gig" is a queer stalker.
Why don't you and phony baloney bertie stalk each
other, and give our group some entertainment, that
would be fun.....yawn..

You really should expose me as a fraud by taking any points I make one
at a time and tearing them apart.

You'd be doing me a favor by stripping me of my delsuions of being a
pilot.


Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:28869ac0-5e13-40fa-
:

On Mar 12, 1:14 pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:32:52 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"

wrote:
Doing a 45 is a MINIMUM govmonk standard,
as Jim point's out, well some instructors want
better than minimum skills, and as it turned
out the fella was gov qualified to license me,
which he did.
Ken

Wrong again. 45+-5 for the private, 50+-5 for commercial, 45+ for
ATP.

That's right, that's why we did 60's (2g's) in 152's.
I think that's good stuff, it's the sissy's that argue.
Makes you think, doesn't it?

Makes us all think you're a lying pice of ****, actually.

Bertie

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:343516c1-8fa1-
:

On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan wrote:
On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

-- IGNORE BELOW -- Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
Ken

-- IGNORE ABOVE ---

Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
reality....

This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot

And although we sometimes hear complaints about the GA safety record,
There are those rare statements that sometimes make me wonder why it's
as good as it is.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

WJRFlyBoy wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:46:16 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Tina wrote in news:874d408e-73e6-4064-8d08-
:

I don't think anyone has suggested this, but there is a nearly
universal cure if you find yourself uncomfortably out of a
reasonable approach condition -- simply say to yourself this isn't
looking good enough, go around, and do better the next time.

It's my uneducated opinion that too many perfectly good airplanes
get turned to scrap because pilots continue to commit to an action
that has become untenable. You have a hand on the throttle and it's
important to remember to be ready to push it in if you don't like
the way things are shaping up.

Absolutely.

Don't let ego get in the way of good judgement.

True again. Sometimes it's not ego, though. A lot of thigs come into
play, especially if conditions are tough. It's a curious thing, the
sort of single-mindedness that often accompanies an accident.

Bertie

Lesson here is go-around if concerned and make sure you are preset for
that option?

Yeah. Should be, but we're only human. We have a two approach limit, too.
We're not allowed to do a third one ( company manual)
the number of accidents off a third approach is alarming.

Bertie

"WingFlaps" wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 4:33 pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"WingFlaps" wrote in message

...

On Mar 13, 11:14 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m wrote:

Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with
bank.
Do you really mean that?
Cheers

Yes, he does; and yes, he is correct.

You have gone back to thinking in only two dimensions; and therefore
ignoring the effects of vertical acceleration.


Nope, the plane's vertical acceleration is 0 so all that matters is
that the lift must equal the weight. As the plane banks the lift
vector is no linger in line with the weight so the load factor is
increased by 1/cos(bank angle) and the stall speed is proportional to
the square root of the load factor. Or are we talking at crossed
purposes?

Cheers

Then we are clearly talking at crossed purposes, as all of us who are
separating stall speed from angle of bank are considering vertical
acceleration. The salient point is that, whether you are amking use of it
at any given moment, vertical acceleration downward is one of the tools that
is available. OTOH, from the airplane's point of view, acceleration upward
and deceleration downward are basically the same thing; so if you are trying
to stop a descent while banked, the load factor and stall speed can increase
dramatically.

All the best
Peter

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Private wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Private wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Any stall in the pattern can be a serious problem. You need stall and
yaw rate to induce spin. Of all the possible scenarios to have if you
manage to be ham handed enough to get into a stall in the pattern, a
stall from a slip is the most anti-spin. Then comes a coordinated
stall with no yaw induced at the break, and finally the worst
condition is a stall from a skidding turn. No matter which scenario,
angle of attack MUST be lowered, and any yaw rate MUST be neutralized
IMMEDIATELY!


--
Dudley Henriques
Can you please elaborate on the stall from a slip condition.

I am fond of the bush pilot style pattern, using180 degree constant
slipping turn to final and would also be interested in your thoughts on
these.

TIA
Happy landings,
I see no problems at all with a constant slipping turn approach, and in
fact favor this type myself when flying prop fighters such as the P51
and the F8F and even the Pitts Spcial due to the better visibility
during these approaces over the nose and ahead and inside the turn as
the approach is flown.

Slips are basically anti spin. You can actually increase the angle of
attack available in front of your critical angle of attack as you deepen
a slip. The ultimate example of this would be knife edge flight where
forward stick pressure is required to reduce angle of attack to near the
0 lift point on the wing.
Of course you won't be doing any knife edge flight on a slipping
approach, but the slip you are in is still anti spin.
Even if you stall the airplane in a slip, the likely result will be a
break over the top, which is a much better stall break than a skidding
stall break which will usually break under the bottom. You have much
more time to recover from a slipping stall entry than you do from a skid
entry.

The bottom line is that it's quite safe to fly a slipping approach if
you are aware, flying properly and watching what you are doing.

--
Dudley Henriques

Thanks for the reply. Why is the stall from a descending slipping turn
more likely to result in a break over the top? Will this also be the
likely break in a descending straight slip? I suspect that fuselage
shadowing may play a role?

Seems like I need to go do some more, nothing is as good fun as real
world practice on the left side of the envelope.

Happy landings,
Yes, the fuselage tends to blank out the upside wing as critical aoa is
reached causing it to stall first.
Something else about slips, the roll/yaw couple needed for pro spin input
is actually wider apart than it is in level flight. This is as anti spin
as it gets :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

I had no trouble with the concept of "over the top" vs "under the bottom";
but it took me a while to get the theory straight on why the slipping turn
has less risk of a spin than a coordinated stall.

Thanks for another addition to the bag of tools and tricks!
Peter

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
wrote:

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan wrote:
On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

-- IGNORE BELOW -- Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
Ken
-- IGNORE ABOVE ---

Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
reality....

This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot --
don't cross control stall on turn to final!

A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was

Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is proficient
ant not just current.

a requirement for a pilot's license.

Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

The Practical Test Standard requires the
demonstration of a steep turn at 45 degree
bank and a safe or recommended airspeed.

That's as steep and high g as it gets and it's
not going to be 2g in my plane.

2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming up
on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
"sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so they
couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.:-))

I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.

When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying far
later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me when
I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end of
the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where you
fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed on
27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and I
quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full power,
stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that left things
floating. He never would tell me how close we came but from his
actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did all of
that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured had it
been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured that I knew
the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he could even if
he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I couldeven feel him
tense sitting next to me) told me that this should be a maximum effort
and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for approaches instead
of 80 or 90 too:-))

Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
the Deb.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com