I just read the AOPA ePilot Flight Training Edition -- Vol. 4, Issue 4 from

"Roger Bartholomee" wrote:
The author says "It's important to leave a little slack in each
line, especially if you are expecting gusty wind conditions.
Slack will allow the airplane to move a little. Without any
slack, a strong gust could damage the airframe."

Utter bulls---.

AOPA should fix this.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

Plus the wind is less the closerit is to the ground because of friction.

Roger @ MD43 C150E


"Rick Durden" wrote in message
m...
Allen

Lets just say I've seen more than one Cessna flipped onto its back
when tie
downs failed in high winds.. But Pipers seem to stay upright.

I wondered about this.

I found that taxing a low wing is much easier to handle in high winds
situation. Is it because the CG is lower to the ground?

After all, the weight of the fuel is lower to the ground over the
wheels, thus harder to tip over?

A little too simplified. Low wing airplanes get blown over in high
winds as do high wing airplanes. Dihedral, direction and force of the
wing, width of the landing gear all play a role.

When taxiing, holding appropriate aileron and elevator deflection
makes a big difference. Doing it wrong on an extremely windy or gusty
day, combined with misue of the brakes which gets the airplane
rocking, can ruin things for you in almost any light airplane.

All the best,
Rick

I agree. Low wings ought to be taxed out of existence.

{;-)


Jim (manly high winger)

that's MANLY, not mainly.
-



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

Taxes aren't needed. Just send a high-wing out after them

The Ultimate High-Wing = B-52!

- - -

Al Gilson
1964 Skyhawk 3082U


In article , wrote:

I agree. Low wings ought to be taxed out of existence.

{;-)


Jim (manly high winger)

that's MANLY, not mainly.

--
Al Gilson
Spokane, WA USA
1970 VW Convertible
1964 Cessna Skyhawk

A Lieberman wrote in message ...

I found that taxing a low wing is much easier to handle in high winds
situation. Is it because the CG is lower to the ground?

After all, the weight of the fuel is lower to the ground over the
wheels, thus harder to tip over?


Lower CG is part of it. The weight of not only the fuel, but the
wing spar and internal structure significantly contributes to the
lower CG. The other part is that the gear stance is usually wider on
a low wing, since it is often attached to the wing spar instead of the
fuselage. The triangle formed by the nose, left and right wheel is
wider and less prone to tip to one side or the other.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"John Galban" wrote in message
om...
A Lieberman wrote in message
...

I found that taxing a low wing is much easier to handle in high winds
situation. Is it because the CG is lower to the ground?

After all, the weight of the fuel is lower to the ground over the
wheels, thus harder to tip over?


Lower CG is part of it. The weight of not only the fuel, but the
wing spar and internal structure significantly contributes to the
lower CG. The other part is that the gear stance is usually wider on
a low wing, since it is often attached to the wing spar instead of the
fuselage. The triangle formed by the nose, left and right wheel is
wider and less prone to tip to one side or the other.

For a low center of gravity, consider the Rockwell JetProp (now Twin
Commander) when the bottom of the fusalage is only nine inches off the
pavement. This can make the body act like an air dam for crosswind taxiing.

Although all planes differ, the general answer is... yes.

Lot of factors here, but the wing being lower, helps..center
of gravity is lower, and the main gear stance is wider , not being
confined to mounting on the fuselage.

I remember a landing a Comanche in a X-wind..(no cross rny-
BTW, landings are mandatory) that would have sent our Cessna end over
end.

3rd attempt, right foot in the firewall.. I would have been
plain dumb to try this with a 182..

I have some time on a Warrior, - short, sturdy wide spaced
gear.. Worked well in x-winds, but the rudder on the Comanche seemed
to be more effective in the slip...

Cheers!

Dave



on the On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 07:51:29 -0800, A Lieberman
wrote:

BTIZ wrote:

Lets just say I've seen more than one Cessna flipped onto its back when tie
downs failed in high winds.. But Pipers seem to stay upright.

I wondered about this.

I found that taxing a low wing is much easier to handle in high winds
situation. Is it because the CG is lower to the ground?

After all, the weight of the fuel is lower to the ground over the
wheels, thus harder to tip over?

Allen

In article , Dan Luke
wrote:

"Roger Bartholomee" wrote:
The author says "It's important to leave a little slack in each
line, especially if you are expecting gusty wind conditions.
Slack will allow the airplane to move a little. Without any
slack, a strong gust could damage the airframe."

Utter bulls---.

AOPA should fix this.

There is, however, an exception.

In some airplanes, like a Bonanza or Debonair, the CG moves aft as fuel
is burned. If you tie down such an airplane when you return with empty
tanks and make the tail tiedown very tight, then when the FBO comes
along and fills the tanks the CG will move forward putting a lot of
stress on the tail tiedown. This cannot be good for the airframe. And
if someone still happens to be sitting in the back seat while you are
tying the tail down tightly it will make this problem even worse.

I either wait for the fuel truck before tying down or leave a little
slack in the tail tiedown when I tie down the Bo or the Deb with tanks
not full.

Tom Fleischman wrote:

In some airplanes, like a Bonanza or Debonair, the CG moves aft as fuel
is burned. If you tie down such an airplane when you return with empty
tanks and make the tail tiedown very tight, then when the FBO comes
along and fills the tanks the CG will move forward putting a lot of
stress on the tail tiedown. This cannot be good for the airframe. And
if someone still happens to be sitting in the back seat while you are
tying the tail down tightly it will make this problem even worse.

I either wait for the fuel truck before tying down or leave a little
slack in the tail tiedown when I tie down the Bo or the Deb with tanks
not full.

That seems a little far-fetched to me. The tanks are what, a few inches ahead of
the CG? and the tail tie-down is what, 6 feet (at least) behind the CG? and the
weight of the added fuel is what, maybe 100 lbs? Doesn't seem like that should
produce "a lot of stress". But then you're there and I'm not, and it's your
airplane.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

"Tom Fleischman" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
In article , Dan Luke
wrote:

"Roger Bartholomee" wrote:
The author says "It's important to leave a little slack in each
line, especially if you are expecting gusty wind conditions.
Slack will allow the airplane to move a little. Without any
slack, a strong gust could damage the airframe."

Utter bulls---.

AOPA should fix this.

There is, however, an exception.

In some airplanes, like a Bonanza or Debonair, the CG moves aft as fuel
is burned.

So what? Even Cessnas do that.

If you tie down such an airplane when you return with empty
tanks and make the tail tiedown very tight, then when the FBO comes
along and fills the tanks the CG will move forward putting a lot of
stress on the tail tiedown.

Only if the nose is not already resting on its gear. If you are worried
about that, then you sure don't want to see what happens in the maintenance
hangar when they are working on your nose gear.

Pulling on a tail tiedown should not damage it. If it does, the tiedown is
too weak to be useful in a windstorm anyway. The thing that damages tail
tiedowns is smacking them on the runway during poorly executed takeoff and
landing operations. That can strip the threads on the tiedown and buckle the
bulkhead that the tiedown is attached to.