|
| 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 |
|
#191
November 17th 03, 12:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
what makes people lose control in complex plane and not fixed gear?
I dont understand the big difference. As has been discussed at least twice in this thread, it is not that much that retracts lose contol more often, it is that they're less forgiving when they do. The fixed-gear pilot has longer to figure out what to do and speeds stay under control enough that they have a good chance of emerging from the bottom of the cloud and getting it upright. The retract has either broken up already, or emerges from the cloud 40K over redline and the pilot pulls the wings off attempting to recover before hitting the ground. I'll also note that my Bonanza is much more laterally stable with the gear down, but I don't really know if fixed-gears tend to be more laterally stable as a rule. - Mark 
|
|
#192
November 17th 03, 04:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
But this is no different then if you were VFR so shouldnt be an issue. Power
management is part of flying any airplane. I cant see this as being a reason for complex airplanes causing more accidents in IMC. Has to be something more. "Tom S." wrote: "Jeff" wrote in message ... At what point do people in these situations lose control? Why do they lose control - why a difference in complex and fixed gear? I dont understand why someone would lose control in a complex and not fixed. A retractable will accelerate much more quickly, and being faster, the spin will happen much more quickly. In much the same way, one needs closer attention (seeing ahead) doing 75 on a freeway than on a side street doing 25. Of course, retractables are flown FOR SPEED, whereas fixed gears are not necessarily in that same category.
|
|
#193
November 17th 03, 04:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
See, thats not an acceptable answer.
Power management is part of flying any airplane, VMC or IMC. Its part of your scan. Personally, in smooth air, I will take my plane up to the yellow line and have no concerns about losing control. But once established on the approach course, you get it in landing configuration. If you fly your airplane more then a few times, your used to the speed and know when to slow down. It has to be a different reason or the people that were in what ever study that said this was not experienced in the aircraft they were flying or were yahoo's and didnt care. I dont believe its the plane (complex/fixed gear), I think its pilot error. markjen wrote: what makes people lose control in complex plane and not fixed gear? I dont understand the big difference. As has been discussed at least twice in this thread, it is not that much that retracts lose contol more often, it is that they're less forgiving when they do. The fixed-gear pilot has longer to figure out what to do and speeds stay under control enough that they have a good chance of emerging from the bottom of the cloud and getting it upright. The retract has either broken up already, or emerges from the cloud 40K over redline and the pilot pulls the wings off attempting to recover before hitting the ground. I'll also note that my Bonanza is much more laterally stable with the gear down, but I don't really know if fixed-gears tend to be more laterally stable as a rule. - Mark
|
|
#194
November 17th 03, 05:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom S." wrote in message ...
"Jeff" wrote in message ... At what point do people in these situations lose control? Why do they lose control - why a difference in complex and fixed gear? I dont understand why someone would lose control in a complex and not fixed. A retractable will accelerate much more quickly, and being faster, the spin will happen much more quickly. The "loss of control" in the study was not necessarily a spin, nor is a spin the outcome IRL loss of control accidents. However, Jeff, I think the basic principle is right. In general, there's less drag in a retract, and the margin between any sort of distraction vs. loss of control or overspeeding and stressing the airframe is shorter. Some of the planes studied are also noted for responsive handling rather than stability (ie Bonanza vs. Archer, Malibu vs 172) which may also be an issue. Of course, retractables are flown FOR SPEED, whereas fixed gears are not necessarily in that same category. I don't think difference in cruise speed is the issue. If you read the study carefully, IIRC the vacuum failure was done during climbout after a missed approach -- a point where the speed difference is not as large. I believe the same protocol was followed during the previous simulator study. I note that there are several pairs of planes where the retract apparently has a higher LOC accident rate than its fixed gear "brother" yet the handling is pretty much the same and the speed difference not that great. One can rationalize that difference as being caused by different uses, but somehow I don't think people are buying fixed-gear Saratogas to pop around the pattern on a nice day. Cheers, Sydney
|
|
#195
November 17th 03, 05:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jeff, you still don't get it. The issue is loss of lateral control on
instruments and has nothing to do with power or airspeed management. Pilots make errors, they get distracted, instruments fail, turbulence happens. For whatever reason, pilots fail to keep the wings level in clouds. If you don't keep the wings level, bad things happen very quickly. A fixed-gear (with more drag) gives pilots much time to regain control before structural failure occurs. If you're not an instrument pilot, you may not be familar with the issue of loss of lateral control. It is a big issue and claims a bunch of lives every year. - Mark
|
|
#196
November 17th 03, 06:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stu Gotts" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:01:02 +0100, Thomas Borchert wrote: Stu, Wow, remember the old days when airplanes didn't have chutes and pilots knew how to fly? Oh, yeah, and they didn't have autopilots. And real men flew by just flapping their arms. Jeeze, how stupidly macho do you want to get? Hardly a difference between recognizing an imminent spin then being able to maneuver (fly) out of it and being unable to get out due to design and pulling a chute, don't you think? My arms still hurt when I think about those old days, sonny! Honestly, Ive heard this so many times before that I used to ignore it.... Then it happend 3000 feet in the clouds, just finishing the departure, setting up for my approach into seatac, im in a single engine 172XP, and the engine starts running VERY rough. Net result, I broke out at 700 feet above the ground, luckily a road was there, I landed fine, but a car pulled out infront of me and I rear ended her. Every one was ok (me 2 passengers and the car on the ground) but I still thank god I learned to fly IFR the hard way..... No auto pilot, and my unusual attitudes were real. Would I have pulled the parachute? Maybe, but im glad I had the skills to FLY the plane first. Scott N1909V (the plane is totaled, but the report is in the NTSB database if you want to read the prelim)
|
|
#197
November 17th 03, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#198
November 17th 03, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Snowbird wrote:
I know a number of 'Bo owners who are former Tiger owners and are happy to take their 'Bos into and out of fields I'm not comfortable taking my Tiger. Cliff Hansen and Andreas come to mind. They tell me the 'Bo is a much better short/ rough plane than the Tiger (and again, it's not the price tag that's the issue, obviously). Lots of power, highly effective flaps, nosegear that isn't held on by a bent piece of wire, and plenty of prop clearance all add up to making a Bonanza a good short/rough field performance aircraft. The S-35 Bonanza can land and stop in a shorter distance than a C172N. Not only that, they go fast too once you're cruising, and they fly incredibly nicely. -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
|
|
#199
November 17th 03, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Tom S. wrote:
Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance. /me raises eyebrows. I had lots of crash avoidance training when I learned to fly. Where did you get instruction where it was considered nutty to teach crash avoidance? -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
