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

"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

"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

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)

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

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:19:25 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:

I was also taught to never be more than gliding distance
from the runway while in the pattern.

This has always bugged me about the standard pattern as it was taught
to me, especially the bit about first overflying the field, then
flying off at least a mile before descending to the 45. Why would you
leave the vicinity of a perfectly good airport, especially when your
engine is 60 years old? The FAA recommended approach makes perfectly
good sense from a collision-avoidance point of view, but it ignores
the fact that engines are not immortal.



-- 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

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)

"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.

"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

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