Conventional v tricycle gear

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:10:47 +0800, Stealth Pilot
wrote:


$aus6,000 to fill the tanks with avgas!

There used to be a DC-3 at Hampton Airfield. Its alternate airport was
in Massachusetts. Whenever he took off, the owner used Runway 20
regardless of which way the wind was blowing because he didn't want to
spend the extra money to take off to the north and have to circle back
to the south.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:36:42 GMT, Marty Shapiro
wrote:

Stealth Pilot wrote in
m:

what were they like to fly? the dak I mean.
it is one aircraft I'd really love to fly just to see what they were
like, having read Gann's masterpieces.
I had an old airline dak pilot as a customer once. he reckoned that
they were a really sweet aircraft to fly and lifting the tail on
takeoff was a non event.
Stealth Pilot


Why not fly one and see for yourself?

See http://www.incredible-adventures.com/dc3.html

Or, you can go all the way and get a DC-3 type rating added to your
certificate at http://www.douglasdc3.com/

I'm sure there must be some places closer to you.

(No, I haven't done either of these, but it's fun to think about!)

$aus6,000 to fill the tanks with avgas!
thats an enthusiasts aeroplane.

the bugger is that in not being an american citizen it isnt available
to me. or is it....

marty that's very interesting. thats blown the next few nights :-)
Stealth Pilot

Stealth -

I believe it is now possible for a non-US citizen to get flight
training in the U.S., but there is a bunch of TSA BS you've got to go
through. The flight schools will know the drill and what it required.
There is an article on how a US company trained Mexican Air Force pilots
for DC-3 operations at
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...2/ai_n21451823

A quick Google search turned up 3 places in Australia which have DC-
3s. They need to get DC-3 pilots from somewhere and might know of a place
there which will let you purchase a DC-3 lesson.

http://www.onedge.com.au/adventures/...roductid=16199
http://virginblue.godo.com.au/activity/SJCH102/gift
http://www.shortstop.com.au/gooney.html

Enjoy.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

More_Flaps wrote in
:

On Jul 12, 6:03*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-6efa72157885
@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:



Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can --
guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch
down tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying, and
breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta
setting? With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop
short of the numbers!

No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston trikes had
tha
t
for the most part.
I'm intrigued by the *wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll have to
t
ry
it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with, bu tI
will be flying out of some very short fields so if there's an
advantage I'd use i
t.


It's true, you push the stick forward and stomp on the brakes. Much
more downforce for braking than a 3 point

Maybe, but if the braking you have is sufficient to get the airplane's
tail up in the three point attitude, then the co-efficient of braking is
enough to rotate the airplane around the main wheels in either case. If
this is so, then thee is no more braking available anywa.
In the wheel landing scenario, there is more of the airplane on the
wrong side of the deceleration vector than there is in the three point
attitude. Simply put, you tip the airplane forward enough and the thing
will nose over by itself. And you're not too far from that tipping point
in a nose low attitude even with the aircraft static with many
taildraggers. This limits the amount of brake you may apply nose low
since the only thing acting against your braking is the horizontal stab
and whatever tiny bit of work gravty is accomplishing over deceleration.
In the 3 point attitude this vector is altered considerably, and more
brake can be applied than in the nose low scenario, providing the Cf is
enough and the brakes themselves are powerful enough, to raise the tail
from three point. In my experience, it usually is. If the surface is
slimy, like wet grass, applying more downforce will only increase the Cf
appreciably if you are managing to dig a few ruts!
This is the way I see it, but the proof is in the pudding. I'll just
have to try t at the next opportunity and decide for myself.

Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Maybe, but if the braking you have is sufficient to get the airplane's
tail up in the three point attitude, then the co-efficient of braking is
enough to rotate the airplane around the main wheels in either case. If
this is so, then thee is no more braking available anywa.
In the wheel landing scenario, there is more of the airplane on the
wrong side of the deceleration vector than there is in the three point
attitude. Simply put, you tip the airplane forward enough and the thing
will nose over by itself. And you're not too far from that tipping point
in a nose low attitude even with the aircraft static with many
taildraggers. This limits the amount of brake you may apply nose low
since the only thing acting against your braking is the horizontal stab
and whatever tiny bit of work gravty is accomplishing over deceleration.
In the 3 point attitude this vector is altered considerably, and more
brake can be applied than in the nose low scenario, providing the Cf is
enough and the brakes themselves are powerful enough, to raise the tail
from three point. In my experience, it usually is. If the surface is
slimy, like wet grass, applying more downforce will only increase the Cf
appreciably if you are managing to dig a few ruts!
This is the way I see it, but the proof is in the pudding. I'll just
have to try t at the next opportunity and decide for myself.

Bertie

You're totally full of ****.

On Jul 13, 11:07 pm, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in 8.18...





Maybe, but if the braking you have is sufficient to get the airplane's
tail up in the three point attitude, then the co-efficient of braking is
enough to rotate the airplane around the main wheels in either case. If
this is so, then thee is no more braking available anywa.
In the wheel landing scenario, there is more of the airplane on the
wrong side of the deceleration vector than there is in the three point
attitude. Simply put, you tip the airplane forward enough and the thing
will nose over by itself. And you're not too far from that tipping point
in a nose low attitude even with the aircraft static with many
taildraggers. This limits the amount of brake you may apply nose low
since the only thing acting against your braking is the horizontal stab
and whatever tiny bit of work gravty is accomplishing over deceleration.
In the 3 point attitude this vector is altered considerably, and more
brake can be applied than in the nose low scenario, providing the Cf is
enough and the brakes themselves are powerful enough, to raise the tail
from three point. In my experience, it usually is. If the surface is
slimy, like wet grass, applying more downforce will only increase the Cf
appreciably if you are managing to dig a few ruts!
This is the way I see it, but the proof is in the pudding. I'll just
have to try t at the next opportunity and decide for myself.

Bertie

You're totally full of ****.

And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least MX
provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in newsqzek.13942$Fj5.2750
@newsfe23.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Maybe, but if the braking you have is sufficient to get the
airplane's
tail up in the three point attitude, then the co-efficient of braking
is
enough to rotate the airplane around the main wheels in either case.
If
this is so, then thee is no more braking available anywa.
In the wheel landing scenario, there is more of the airplane on the
wrong side of the deceleration vector than there is in the three
point
attitude. Simply put, you tip the airplane forward enough and the
thing
will nose over by itself. And you're not too far from that tipping
point
in a nose low attitude even with the aircraft static with many
taildraggers. This limits the amount of brake you may apply nose low
since the only thing acting against your braking is the horizontal
stab
and whatever tiny bit of work gravty is accomplishing over
deceleration.
In the 3 point attitude this vector is altered considerably, and more
brake can be applied than in the nose low scenario, providing the Cf
is
enough and the brakes themselves are powerful enough, to raise the
tail
from three point. In my experience, it usually is. If the surface is
slimy, like wet grass, applying more downforce will only increase the
Cf
appreciably if you are managing to dig a few ruts!
This is the way I see it, but the proof is in the pudding. I'll just
have to try t at the next opportunity and decide for myself.

Bertie

You're totally full of ****.



Oh do tell us whow you do it, wannabe boi.



Bwawahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahwha!


Bertie

wrote in message
...

And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least MX
provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.

Sorry Robert, but if you find Mx entertaining, your are clearly the clueless
moron,,,or just another Burtie sock.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


wrote in message
..
.

And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least MX
provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.

Sorry Robert, but if you find Mx entertaining, your are clearly the
clueless moron,,,or just another Burtie sock.






Well, we al find you entertaining, anyway!

Anthony has nowhere near your level of idiocy....



Bertie

In article , Bertie the
Bunyip says...

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


wrote in message
..
.

And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least MX
provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.

Sorry Robert, but if you find Mx entertaining, your are clearly the
clueless moron,,,or just another Burtie sock.

Well, we all find you entertaining, anyway!

At least those of us with an appreciation for Vogon poetry do

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

Maxwell luv2^fly99@live.^com wrote in
:

In article , Bertie the
Bunyip says...

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


wrote in message

m.. .

And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least MX
provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.

Sorry Robert, but if you find Mx entertaining, your are clearly the
clueless moron,,,or just another Burtie sock.

Well, we all find you entertaining, anyway!

At least those of us with an appreciation for Vogon poetry do


True... Now I'm depressed.



Bertie