If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
... Peter Duniho wrote: AFAIK, there is no official definition of "overhead break" or "overhead approach", and given that the approaches I have witnessed do involve flight Well... here it is. Reference AIM 5-4-26 (Chapter 5 Air Traffic Procedures/Section 4 Arrival Procedures). It's a little hidden underneath a lot of IFR stuff: http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Chap5/...tml#Va821cROBE Hmmm...well, I'd agree that is as close to an official definition as we're likely to see. However, note that it's in the context of IFR arrivals, at airports where an "overhead maneuver pattern" has specifically been designated. If one is to use that as the official definition, then one also needs to accept that they are allowed only in the specific circumstances described in that section. I think it makes more sense to accept that the phrases "overhead break" or "overhead approach" are used to describe a variety of similar procedures. Pete |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
"Morgans" wrote in message ... Y'all ought to consider changing the subject line of this thread. :-) -- Jim in NC Things have sure changed since I was flying. Hell, I used to have towers ASK me for overhead approaches just so they could see the damn airplane :-) All this dialog about overheads not being efficient is really non sequitur. (that's a flight instructor word folks :-) They are indeed efficient in high performance airplanes and in fact the preferred approach in hot props P51-F8F- etc where engine cool down and plug fouling can be low power issues on extended approaches. What's making me laugh at all this is that I think everybody is on separate pages discussing the "issue" :-) The poster taking the negative side seems to think that overheads are the everyday result of some hothead hot rock driving in through the trees and doing a Chandelle off the deck right into somebody else's downwind. It's not that this couldn't happen, and I'm sure, knowing some of the idiots who own high performance airplanes, that it HAS happened, but flying like this would be considered strictly taboo by any pilot with an once of brains. So either everybody flying a warbird hasn't an once of brains, or what the poster on the negative side is saying is that these approaches are routinely flown by warbird pilots without consideration for regulations and local traffic. I can assure everybody, that anyone flying an unannounced and APPROVED overhead approach would be the exception, certainly not the rule; not for any warbird pilots I know anyway :-) There are idiots flying all kinds of airplanes, and every once in a while, as sure as putting a Chimp on a computer keyboard will result in his typing War and Peace, one of these folks will drive on in unannounced at 46" and 2700 RPM in the old P51 and take the heads off the daisies, but believe me gang, this type of incident is NOT what we teach people to do with warbirds :-)) Dudley |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ink.net... I can assure everybody, that anyone flying an unannounced and APPROVED overhead approach would be the exception, certainly not the rule; not for any warbird pilots I know anyway :-) Naturally this should have read "UNAPPROVED" DH |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
Blueskies.,
You said vaporware - vaporware doesn't fly, maybe a vaporplane... Something flew, yes. Was it a product from Cessna? Hardly. Vaporware in my book is something you demo to great effect but with nothing even remotely approaching a finished product in sight, let alone a firm date for a finished product "on the shelves". Often, the purpose is to keep the impressed masses from buying an available product from the competition while playing catch-up with that competition after you have badly dropped the ball. IMHO, what Cessna did qualifies fully and in all aspects. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Midfield crosswind entry WAS: Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:18:32 GMT, Don Tuite
wrote: I understand that the midfield crosswind entry is standard in Canada. It's also one of the standard entries at my (controlled) home field[1]. From that experience, I find I like it because it gives me good situational awareness of what's going on with closed traffic, 45-degree entries, and base-leg entries. There is a nuclear power plant a few miles south of my home airport. To approach from the west (the usual direction, since the ocean is on the east) and to make the usual approach to runway 20 therefore involves a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, which is apt to make the security guards nervous. Ever since 9/11, therefore, I have always entered the 45 from the west, regardless of wind direction. If I am to land to the north, I fly the standard pattern. If I am landing to the south, I make a midfield crossover. (It's actually a bit south of midfield.) The Cub is NORDO. I carry a handheld, but interference from the sparkplugs makes it unfeasible to transmit unless the engine is at idle. So I announce that I'm on the 45 from the west as I am descending to pattern altitude, and generally I announce when I'm descending on base or final. But otherwise I'm silent, though of course I'm listening (and looking). No one has ever complained about this. I do confess however that, the first time I saw a midfield crossover, I was so startled that I flew off and did some practice stuff for a while, then returned when I was sure this interloper had parked his plane or else left the area. -- all the best, Dan Ford email: usenet AT danford DOT net Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
Morgans,
I think many would disagree with your definition. Hey, that's what usenet is all about, isn't it? ;-) Here's what I'm trying to say: If one looks beyond the Ah's and Oh's of the excellently executed Cessna marketing presentation, one sees two "proof of concept" airplanes. Both are destined for market categories that are already well filled with other company's products. As an aside: That means there are no concepts to prove, really, other than the concept of Cessna entering those markets. So what we really see is Cessna waking up to market trends that have been apparent and established for years, if not decades. What we also see is that a certified product from Cessna in either category is years away. And all that together, in my view, shows a failure of Cessna rather than a success. It's still great that they might(!) enter those markets, but the presentation was underwhelming to me in that it was too little too late and no firm commitment. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... And all that together, in my view, shows a failure of Cessna rather than a success. It's still great that they might(!) enter those markets, but the presentation was underwhelming to me in that it was too little too late and no firm commitment. -- It does look like Cessna is coming late to the party in both the LSA and the "Cirrus Killer" arena. Another company showing up late to the LSA party is Van's. They've had the RV-12 on the drawing board since before I started building my 601 back in 2002 and they have yet to get a kit to market much less a completed S-LSA. Piper it seems isn't going to come and play in either sandbox and are counting on Honda's VLJ to make them relevant. Good luck with that. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Blueskies., You said vaporware - vaporware doesn't fly, maybe a vaporplane... Something flew, yes. Was it a product from Cessna? Hardly. Vaporware in my book is something you demo to great effect but with nothing even remotely approaching a finished product in sight, let alone a firm date for a finished product "on the shelves". Often, the purpose is to keep the impressed masses from buying an available product from the competition while playing catch-up with that competition after you have badly dropped the ball. IMHO, what Cessna did qualifies fully and in all aspects. I think many would disagree with your definition. Vaporware to most, is a plan, some nice specifications, and some 3-D cad pictures. Have the computer crash, and what do you have to show for your airplane? Nothing. Vapor! -- Jim in NC |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
Thomas Borchert schrieb:
If one looks beyond the Ah's and Oh's of the excellently executed Cessna marketing presentation, one sees two "proof of concept" airplanes. Both are destined for market categories that are already well filled with other company's products. As an aside: That means there are no concepts to prove, really, other than the concept of Cessna entering those markets. So what we really see is Cessna waking up to market trends that have been apparent and established for years, Why does this remind me of Windoze? Stefan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Oshkosh Reflections | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 54 | August 16th 05 09:24 PM |
Oshkosh Reflections | Jay Honeck | Owning | 44 | August 7th 05 02:31 PM |
Oshkosh Reflections | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 45 | August 7th 05 02:31 PM |
Oshkosh EAA Warbirds ??? | Paul | Restoration | 0 | July 11th 04 04:17 AM |
How I got to Oshkosh (long) | Doug | Owning | 2 | August 18th 03 12:05 AM |