Turn to Final - Keeping Ball Centered

Orval, I can't thank you enough (missing energy found!). That was the
missing piece, even though it is so obvious after you point it out. I
haven't seen that part explained or referred to in all of the usual
discussions.

Thank you very much.


"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message

In the case of descending flight, gravity is supplying some of the power
required to maintain flight. With wings level, you are at 1.0 g whether
climbing, level or descending. The same rules apply to turning flight.

"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.

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.)

Peter

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

On Mar 13, 5:33*am, wrote:
This is bugging me so much, I am going to climb to altitude and test it
myself next time I fly.

It will be good practice anyway. *The problem will be that the airspeed
indicator isn't that accurate at those slow speeds but it should be
equivalent in both level and descending flight stall breaks. *The hard part
will be maintaining a constant descent rate while in a steep bank and not
letting it wander up and down.

I believe you guys are correct, I just can't understand the reason behind
it. *Nothing like a real experiment to prove the theory if I can't
understand the physics behind it.

I have been having exactly the same problem trying to understand why
the load would be the same in a descending contstant speed turn. As I
have said in a previous post, I was only trained to do 45 degree steep
( sorry Dudley - medium) turns, but do recall sitting on my butt in a
C206 jump plane while the pilot did a spiralling 60 degreeish bank to
descend from 8000 ft. It was a very long time ago, but I really cant
recall experiencing anything like 2g.
From a theoretical view, the load on the wing is a function of the
weight of the airplane, but in a descending turn , or a climbing turn
for that matter, the weight of the airplane is partly supported by
drag and thrust respectively, which intuitively suggests ( to me) that
the load ought to be less if the weight is ( effectively) less. Does
that make sense to anyone?
I would really like to see a full description of the physics going on
here. All the textbooks I have seen, even commercial theory text
books, do not treat this subject at all, they look at the forces
involved in descending and climbing with level wings and banking at
constant altitude. If anyone can reccomend a good text , or if you
can offer a more detailed explanation it would be really
appreciated.
Terry
PPL Downuder.

I think the PTS for the commercial steep turns is 50 degrees +-5 degrees (5
degrees more than the private) so it would be within the PTS tolerances to
be at 55 degrees for the commercial exam. My first instructor taught 60
degrees (not for pattern work obviously). My examiner never said a word
when I used the 60 degree reference for my private.

My instrument flight test required level steep turns partial panel, which I
assume was 45 degrees or more. You can't tell once the turn and bank is
pegged. He suggested lessening the bank every once and a while to see the
needle come off the peg to make sure it wasn't too much bank. I don't think
that was on the PTS but both the instructor and examiner have been around
since WWII. I guess I could have refused if it wasn't on the PTS but that
wouldn't have been too kosher since I was passing anyway and I didn't feel
that it was dangerous on a VFR day.

I don't know why anybody would be worried about 2g's with flaps retracted
other than comfort. The certification limits are way above that for the
airframe. I don't exceed the 2g's, I just go up to it as a limit.


"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
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.

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.

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..
Ken

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.

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:53:14 GMT, wrote:

I think the PTS for the commercial steep turns is 50 degrees +-5 degrees (5
degrees more than the private) so it would be within the PTS tolerances to
be at 55 degrees for the commercial exam. My first instructor taught 60
degrees (not for pattern work obviously). My examiner never said a word
when I used the 60 degree reference for my private.

He probably should have since the PTS standard is 45+-5, but I guess
it's his call.

My instrument flight test required level steep turns partial panel, which I
assume was 45 degrees or more. You can't tell once the turn and bank is
pegged. He suggested lessening the bank every once and a while to see the
needle come off the peg to make sure it wasn't too much bank. I don't think
that was on the PTS but both the instructor and examiner have been around
since WWII.

I don't see steep turns anywhere on the instrument PTS so it's not
technically 'required'. Since you were doing OK they may have taught
something to you during the test for use out in the real world of
instrument flying, but had it gone wrong they couldn't have busted you
for it.

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?
Ken

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
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?
Ken

No it is just one more addition to the mounting pile of evidence that
you don't know what the hell you are talking about.