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.)

Are you suggesting you can't stall with a centered ball? Go slow
enough, and in a steep turn the stall will put your stomach in your
throat.




On Mar 11, 11:23*pm, 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.)

No, certainly not.

Stall speed increases dramatically with angle of bank: the more
vertical your wings become, the less horizontal lift they supply for a
given air speed.

You can definitely stall with the ball centered. This is true
regardless of bank angle. If you do stall below TPA (like when turning
base to final) your odds of auguring in are high no matter how neatly
centered your ball was when you initiated the stall.

On Mar 11, 8:23 pm, 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.)

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.)

What happens to stall speed as your bank angle increases?

What are two options to preventing a stall (regardless of whether a
spin in entered)?

Ron Lee

Thanks for replies. I had meant to address the speed issue since I
knew the stall speed increased with bank. I also kept my speed higher
than normal in the turn because of that. I left it out of the
question, and shouldn't have. Assuming I keep the speed up, is the
centered ball a reliable guide?

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.)

Ask your instructor to explain to you what happens to the stall speed in
a LEVEL turn as opposed to the stall speed in an unloaded gliding turn
from base to final.
This is a distinction you should definitely be aware of.

--
Dudley Henriques

In article >,
Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> 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.)
>
> Ask your instructor to explain to you what happens to the stall speed in
> a LEVEL turn as opposed to the stall speed in an unloaded gliding turn
> from base to final.
> This is a distinction you should definitely be aware of.

Dudley,

I'm not sure what you mean by "unloaded gliding turn". As long as your
descent rate is constant, the loading in a turn is exactly the same as it
is during level flight. A turn is only unloaded if your descent rate is
increasing, as it is during the second quadrant of a lazy eight. But, most
people don't fly their base-to-final turns like that; they fly them at a
(more or less) constant descent rate.

Either that, or I'm mis-understanding what you're trying to say.

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>> Ask your instructor to explain to you what happens to the stall speed in
>> a LEVEL turn as opposed to the stall speed in an unloaded gliding turn
>> from base to final.
>> This is a distinction you should definitely be aware of.
>
> Dudley,
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "unloaded gliding turn". As long as your
> descent rate is constant, the loading in a turn is exactly the same as it
> is during level flight. A turn is only unloaded if your descent rate is
> increasing, as it is during the second quadrant of a lazy eight. But, most
> people don't fly their base-to-final turns like that; they fly them at a
> (more or less) constant descent rate.
>
> Either that, or I'm mis-understanding what you're trying to say.
The situation I'm describing can occur if you are high as well as wide.
Trading off the altitude by unloading the wings as you turn, you are in
effect doing a gentle last half of a lazy eight, although very shallow.
Unless you can unload the wings by lowering the nose, you are absolutely
correct. Everything is the same g wise. The only reason I mentioned this
is so that he gets squared away on the different scenarios concerning
the base to final turn.
Many students get into a deep fear about base to final turns and bank
thinking all they need to do is increase the bank and they are on the
stall speed increase with g graph. This is true for a level turn and
even a loaded descending turn, but many times on an approach, a pilot
can make the energy tradeoff saving the turn by unloading in the turn
and letting the nose drop scrubbing off some altitude while neutralizing
the bank g increase.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 11, 7:23 pm, 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.)

Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
Ken

The absolute best way to find out what will happen is to take an
instructor and go out and do steep turns until you stall it...
Obviously, with adequate altitude...

One of the things you will find is that it is down right hard to stall
the plane in a coordinated turn at a normal approach speed... You will
need to have the yoke back into your gut and ignore all the G's and
the complaining and shaking the airframe will be making... Now, that
isn't to say you can't stall it, but you will have to be blind and
deaf and have a numb butt to do it accidentally...

The other thing you will find is that it is easier to do it in an
uncoordinated turn, but it still takes determination and ignoring the
airframe shaking like a wet dog...

"So, how did Harry Dumbass manage to ignore this and kill himself and
his passengers by turning his fork tailed doctor killer into a lawn
dart?", you ask...
Ahh, I'm glad you asked that...
Ya see, Harry is both high <because he is in close> and about to over
run the centerline <because he is in close>... So, being a hotshot
pilot, he chops the throttle, rolls into a hard bank, and stands on
the bottom rudder... About halfway around he realizes his descent rate
has gone off the peg and he is now going to be way short - so he
solves that by pulling the nose up!

Close your eyes and picture it...
The bottom wing snap stalls without so much as a warning shudder
(because the horizontal stab is still flying) , they whip over
inverted, and it is all over but the screaming...

denny

On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

--> IGNORE BELOW <--
> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
> Ken
--> IGNORE ABOVE <---

Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
reality....

This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot --
don't cross control stall on turn to final!

And that's that.

So -- pilots being the life loving critters that they are, add "a
little more speed" as a "buffer." Because we all know we can't stall
at X speed, right?

And then we turn onto final 10-15-20 knots faster than required and
then wonder why 3,500' strip is just barely big enough.

So we'll assume you still need three things:

1) A correct understanding of stall

2) A consistent, safe procedure for the pattern in the airplane you're
flying

3) Demonstrations by a CFI of the sensations and perceptions of the
event prior to and just at the stall in the various possible
circumstances (turn to final being one).

For (1) you need to get into your head that stalls -- while often
described in terms of speed -- are a function of angle of attack. The
wing (or a portion) can't fly anymore because the flow of air below
and above isn't working as designed (I'm sure you've seen the pictures
of burbling air over the wing).

This can be demonstrated on the ground by a CFI with a model airplane.
Then he/she should take you out and demonstrate this in an appropriate
airplane.

For (2), you need to fly patterns at altitude and figure out the
optimal Power (1500 RPM?), Attitude (Nose about there, trim to there),
and configuration (gear down, flaps full, etc) for your airplane at
the speeds you will be flying in the pattern. And then (with your
CFI), explore the left side of the envelope (slower). What you will
find is that in normal 30 degree banks (which you were taught to use
in the pattern), with coordinated turns the airplane continues to fly
quite well 30% over stall speed (1.3 Vso).

Does this mean you will drop out of the sky if a gusts catches you and
momentarily disturbs coordination? No. The airplanes we fly
(especially trainers) are very forgiving in this regard. But keep in
mind "momentarily." You should catch it and fix it.

For (3), he/she should take you to altitude and show you how much
cross control you need to apply to get the airplane to stall. This
should ease your mind a bit, but also ingrain a sense of "This isn't
good" should you place yourself in that predicament later on.

Finally (not on the list but its early), you should practice short
field landings often. I'll probably catch flak on this, but one of the
biggest problems you will see at any airport on a nice day is small
airplanes coming in Way Too Fast.

You will know this by watching the approach from a spot on the ground
-- the patterns are enormous (2 miles or more from the runway) and the
airplane touches down 1/3-1/2 way down the runway and rolls a long,
long way.

I think (IMHO) this is due to the same understanding you have -- "I
might stall due to low speed, so a bit more will give me a buffer to
keep me from that unwelcome event."

Get some more training in stalls and flight at the low end of the
speed regime and join the ranks of safe, educated pilots.


Dan

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:0f85d04c-1390-4fc4-
:

> On Mar 11, 7:23 pm, 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.)
>
> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.


You're a fjukkwit of the first order, kennie.

And for those of you who don't live in lollipop land and don't already
know, a 2 G turn requires 60 degrees of bank and will raise your stall
speed 40%.


Bertie

I don't think anyone has suggested this, but there is a nearly
universal cure if you find yourself uncomfortably out of a reasonable
approach condition -- simply say to yourself this isn't looking good
enough, go around, and do better the next time.

It's my uneducated opinion that too many perfectly good airplanes get
turned to scrap because pilots continue to commit to an action that
has become untenable. You have a hand on the throttle and it's
important to remember to be ready to push it in if you don't like the
way things are shaping up.

Don't let ego get in the way of good judgement.

In article
>,
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.)

1. You can stall with the ball centered -- if the ball is not centered,
you can get a spin more easily when you stall.

2. The stall speed goes up as the square root of the secant (1/cosine)
of the angle of bank.

At:
30 deg: 1.07
45 deg: 1.19
60 deg: 1.41
75 deg: 1.97

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Tina > wrote in news:874d408e-73e6-4064-8d08-
:

> I don't think anyone has suggested this, but there is a nearly
> universal cure if you find yourself uncomfortably out of a reasonable
> approach condition -- simply say to yourself this isn't looking good
> enough, go around, and do better the next time.
>
> It's my uneducated opinion that too many perfectly good airplanes get
> turned to scrap because pilots continue to commit to an action that
> has become untenable. You have a hand on the throttle and it's
> important to remember to be ready to push it in if you don't like the
> way things are shaping up.

Absolutely.
>
> Don't let ego get in the way of good judgement.

True again. Sometimes it's not ego, though. A lot of thigs come into play,
especially if conditions are tough. It's a curious thing, the sort of
single-mindedness that often accompanies an accident.


Bertie

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in news:o_r_fairbairn-
:

> In article
> >,
> 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.)
>
> 1. You can stall with the ball centered -- if the ball is not centered,
> you can get a spin more easily when you stall.
>
> 2. The stall speed goes up as the square root of the secant (1/cosine)
> of the angle of bank.


Which is, coincidenatlally, the load on the airplane. Minus the sq root
bit, of course.

>
> At:
> 30 deg: 1.07
> 45 deg: 1.19
> 60 deg: 1.41
> 75 deg: 1.97
>

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Ask your instructor to explain to you what happens to the stall speed in
> a LEVEL turn as opposed to the stall speed in an unloaded gliding turn
> from base to final.
> This is a distinction you should definitely be aware of.
>

If he's maintaining a constant rate of descent during the turn there is
no distinction. The load factor decreases only if he is accellerating
towards the ground.

skym wrote:
> Thanks for replies. I had meant to address the speed issue since I
> knew the stall speed increased with bank. I also kept my speed higher
> than normal in the turn because of that. I left it out of the
> question, and shouldn't have. Assuming I keep the speed up, is the
> centered ball a reliable guide?

A reliable guide for what? It's an indicator of coordination, which
is always a good idea. Your airplane flies more efficiently.

Why does no one distinguish between a level turn (constant acceleration into
the center of the arc, which increases load factor) and the load factor in
which the same angle of bank exists in a descent? When descending you are
moving away from the center of the in the vertical direction which means
less acceleration towards the center in the original plane (geometric).

You can feel the load factor difference in the seat of your pants when
descending, compared to maintaining level flight in a steep bank. I don't
understand how people can claim the load factor is the same descending and
turning for example in a 600 fpm descent.

It is no different than twirling a weight at the end of a string. Takes
more energy to maintain the string at a higher horizontal angle.



>> 2. The stall speed goes up as the square root of the secant (1/cosine)
>> of the angle of bank.
>
>> At:
>> 30 deg: 1.07
>> 45 deg: 1.19
>> 60 deg: 1.41
>> 75 deg: 1.97
>>
>

> writes:
> Why does no one distinguish between a level turn (constant acceleration into
> the center of the arc, which increases load factor) and the load factor in
> which the same angle of bank exists in a descent? When descending you are
> moving away from the center of the in the vertical direction which means
> less acceleration towards the center in the original plane (geometric).

The center just becomes a line in that case, doesn't it? You end up
with the same centripetal force needed towards that center line in
order to turn.

> You can feel the load factor difference in the seat of your pants when
> descending, compared to maintaining level flight in a steep bank. I don't
> understand how people can claim the load factor is the same descending and
> turning for example in a 600 fpm descent.

Nosing over into a descent does temporarily reduce load factor, but as
soon as you're established in a constant descent, you're back at the
same 1g load. Gravity is *acceleration*, not *velocity*.

--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking >
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677

I am sorry to belabor this point, but hopefully I will understand it better
if you have the patience to help me.

I understand that gravity's acceleration is indistinguishable from any other
acceleration in a frame of reference, and that it is 1g in a constant
descent or climb. I also understand that a turn is accelerating to the
center of the arc whether it is descending, level, or climbing.

Are you saying the force vector sums are equivalent when comparing level
turns at the same bank angle to constant rate descent? In other words, that
a 2g load factor occurs in a 60 degree bank regardless of whether remaining
level or a constant rate of descent and that the stall speeds are identical?
The engine power required is plainly different.

Thanks.


>
> The center just becomes a line in that case, doesn't it? You end up
> with the same centripetal force needed towards that center line in
> order to turn.
>
> Nosing over into a descent does temporarily reduce load factor, but as
> soon as you're established in a constant descent, you're back at the
> same 1g load. Gravity is *acceleration*, not *velocity*.
>
> --
> James Carlson, Solaris Networking >

On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
> > In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
> > a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
> > Ken
>
> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>
> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
> reality....
>
> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot --
> don't cross control stall on turn to final!

A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
a requirement for a pilot's license.
Ken
[snip, I have no comment]

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.

wrote:

>
> Are you saying the force vector sums are equivalent when comparing level
> turns at the same bank angle to constant rate descent? In other words, that
> a 2g load factor occurs in a 60 degree bank regardless of whether remaining
> level or a constant rate of descent and that the stall speeds are identical?

Yes. That's exactly the case.

Stalls are determined by the critical angle of attack. The so-called
stall speed is the minimum speed required to maintain (vertical)
unaccellerated flight without exceeding the critical angle. It doesn't
matter if it is "level" or any other constant rate.


> The engine power required is plainly different.

That is true, but engine power has nothing to do with stalling.

> wrote in news:mrTBj.72580$yE1.11316@attbi_s21:

> Why does no one distinguish between a level turn (constant
> acceleration into the center of the arc, which increases load factor)
> and the load factor in which the same angle of bank exists in a
> descent?

Because it's negligable.


Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:343516c1-8fa1-
:

> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>> > In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>> > a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>> > Ken
>>
>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>
>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>> reality....
>>
>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot
--
>> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>
> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
> It's a perfectly safe thing to do


Not on base to finals it isn't, you moron.


and IIRC was
> a requirement for a pilot's license.
> Ken
> [snip, I have no comment]


You never do. Just crap.


Bertie
>

> wrote in news:rmVBj.72735$yE1.30385@attbi_s21:

> 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.


Doesn't matter if it's correct or not, you'll reap huge benifits form this
sort of experimentation in the experience you'll get flying that close to
the edge.



Bertie

In article <xQUBj.19725$TT4.4490@attbi_s22>, > wrote:

> I am sorry to belabor this point, but hopefully I will understand it better
> if you have the patience to help me.
>
> I understand that gravity's acceleration is indistinguishable from any other
> acceleration in a frame of reference, and that it is 1g in a constant
> descent or climb. I also understand that a turn is accelerating to the
> center of the arc whether it is descending, level, or climbing.
>
> Are you saying the force vector sums are equivalent when comparing level
> turns at the same bank angle to constant rate descent? In other words, that
> a 2g load factor occurs in a 60 degree bank regardless of whether remaining
> level or a constant rate of descent and that the stall speeds are identical?
> The engine power required is plainly different.
>
> Thanks.

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.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Ask your instructor to explain to you what happens to the stall speed
>> in a LEVEL turn as opposed to the stall speed in an unloaded gliding
>> turn from base to final.
>> This is a distinction you should definitely be aware of.
>>
>
> If he's maintaining a constant rate of descent during the turn there is
> no distinction. The load factor decreases only if he is accellerating
> towards the ground.
Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the
nose to fall through with reduced back pressure.

--
Dudley Henriques

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>> Ken
>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>
>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>> reality....
>>
>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot --
>> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>
> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
> a requirement for a pilot's license.

Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

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.

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>
>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>> Ken
>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>
>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>> reality....
>>>
>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot
--
>>> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>
>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>
> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?


I figger he's reading the snot in his hanky like tea leaves.
>
> 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.

Oh but how about a paper F-104?


Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Jim Stewart > wrote in
> :
>
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>> Ken
>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>
>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>> reality....
>>>>
>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot
> --
>>>> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>
>
> I figger he's reading the snot in his hanky like tea leaves.
>> 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.
>
> Oh but how about a paper F-104?

Excellent. Does it come with a checkride with MX?

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Jim Stewart > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>> reality....
>>>>>
>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
pilot
>> --
>>>>> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>
>>
>> I figger he's reading the snot in his hanky like tea leaves.
>>> 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.
>>
>> Oh but how about a paper F-104?
>
> Excellent. Does it come with a checkride with MX?
>

If you can take it to his apartment in paris. Of course, he could walk
to you for expenses.

Bertie

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.

OTOH, a flat turn to final can quickly develop
into a spin before you can get it under control.

Jim Stewart wrote:
> 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.
>
> OTOH, a flat turn to final can quickly develop
> into a spin before you can get it under control.
>
Any stall in the pattern can be a serious problem. You need stall and
yaw rate to induce spin. Of all the possible scenarios to have if you
manage to be ham handed enough to get into a stall in the pattern, a
stall from a slip is the most anti-spin. Then comes a coordinated stall
with no yaw induced at the break, and finally the worst condition is a
stall from a skidding turn. No matter which scenario, angle of attack
MUST be lowered, and any yaw rate MUST be neutralized IMMEDIATELY!


--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 12, 10:52 am, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
> >> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
> >>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
> >>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
> >>> Ken
> >> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>
> >> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
> >> reality....
>
> >> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot --
> >> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>
> > A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
> > even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
> > It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
> > a requirement for a pilot's license.
>
> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
> 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.

One instructor I had was really good, and he
certainly wasn't a sissy, he went beyond the
book, but within stated limits of the A/C in that
case a 152. Just twist to 60 degrees for a few
seconds, watch the ball, and twist back to level.

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

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

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 12, 10:52 am, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>> >> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> >> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>> >>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>> >>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>> >>> Ken
>> >> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>
>> >> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>> >> reality....
>>
>> >> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>> >> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>
>> > A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>> > even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>> > It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>> > a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>
>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>> 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.
>
> One instructor I had was really good, and he
> certainly wasn't a sissy, he went beyond the
> book, but within stated limits of the A/C in that
> case a 152. Just twist to 60 degrees for a few
> seconds, watch the ball, and twist back to level.
>
> 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.

No, he didn;'t. Nobody could possibly ever have licensed you with the
level of knowledge you display, wannabe boi.


Bertie

On Mar 12, 4:39 pm, (Ron Lee) wrote:

> What happens to stall speed as your bank angle increases?

Increases (supposing that you're turning)
>
> What are two options to preventing a stall (regardless of whether a
> spin in entered)?
>
1)Keep your airspeed up
2)ncrease power and keep your airspeed up

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Jim Stewart wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> OTOH, a flat turn to final can quickly develop
>> into a spin before you can get it under control.
>>
> Any stall in the pattern can be a serious problem. You need stall and
> yaw rate to induce spin. Of all the possible scenarios to have if you
> manage to be ham handed enough to get into a stall in the pattern, a
> stall from a slip is the most anti-spin. Then comes a coordinated stall
> with no yaw induced at the break, and finally the worst condition is a
> stall from a skidding turn. No matter which scenario, angle of attack
> MUST be lowered, and any yaw rate MUST be neutralized IMMEDIATELY!

You put it better than I could. Thanks.

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.

"skym" > wrote in message
...
> 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.)

Instead of asking about keeping the ball centered, perhaps you should be
asking why you elected to flirt with a pilot error fatality by cranking and
yanking for the sake of a few style points... So what if you overshoot the
turn????

Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with bank.
Stall speed changes with increasing G (increasing lift). Increasing G comes
from pulling on the yoke/stick. Period. No pull, no G, no increase in stall.
More pull, more G, higher stall. Wings level, wings banked, wings upside
down - makes no difference.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

>> What are two options to preventing a stall (regardless of whether a
>> spin in entered)?
>>
>1)Keep your airspeed up
>2)ncrease power and keep your airspeed up

I would have said get the nose down (increase airspeed)
and go-around (not far from your #2.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> skym > wrote:
<...>
> What happens to stall speed as your bank angle increases?
>
Nothing. Stall speed changes with G's which are caused by pulling on the
stick - not by bank angle.

> What are two options to preventing a stall (regardless of whether a
> spin in entered)?

1) Don't pull.
2) Keep the speed up.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
> fall through with reduced back pressure.

Reducing back pressure is something an inexperienced pilot is instinctively
loath to do when manuvering close to the ground, much more likely to be pulling.

Vaughn

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
>> fall through with reduced back pressure.
>
> Reducing back pressure is something an inexperienced pilot is instinctively
> loath to do when manuvering close to the ground, much more likely to be pulling.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
This is an issue where I have seen evidence on both sides. It is
entirely dependent on the caliber of training a student pilot is
subjected to in the stall curve.
All instructors should be teaching and ingraining in every student they
teach that stall recovery REGARDLESS OF ALTITUDE is entirely dependent
on reducing angle of attack. This is especially true at low altitude
where recovery can be a matter of using every inch of available air
under the airplane to recover.
Instructors should be EMPHASIZING to every student this all important
aspect of a low altitude stall.
By the time an instructor is finished teaching stall recovery to a
student, that student should have the stall recovery habit pattern
BURNED into their very being.......so much in fact that their natural
reaction to ANY stall is to recover by reducing angle of attack so that
the reaction is to do this instead of pulling back.
To accomplish this, instructors have to demonstrate to every student
again and again proper stall recovery using all available means....angle
of attack reduction, coordinated aileron and rudder (for modern GA
airplanes) and power. This should be practiced with emphasis on the
regaining of angle of attack BEFORE initiating recovery. As this
pertains to low altitude recovery, the instructor should emphazize again
and again that recovery in this scenario might very well mean the
lowering of the nose when the raising of the nose is the natural reaction.

Many....many...pilots have been killed outright trying to recover from a
low altitude stall when extending the recovery closer to the ground to
assure regaining of angle of attack was the proper thing to do.

The answer to this issue is in proper training by instructors with the
goal of CHANGING through this training the natural reaction to recover
too early in low altitude stalls.

I consider the imparting of this attitude in a student pilot a critical
aspect of stall recovery training.
I can't emphasize it's importance enough to new instructors.

--
Dudley Henriques

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> 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

Gee. There is no KEN ****HEAD TUCKER. The Ken S. Tucker who keeps
posting here has been shown to be a total imposter. Good job!

On Mar 13, 9:53*am, > wrote:

>
> My instrument flight test required level steep turns partial panel, which I
> assume was 45 degrees or more. *

How do you judge a 45 degree bank angle with just a TC as you would
have with partial panel (no AH)?

Cheers

On Mar 13, 11:22 am, (Ron Lee) wrote:
> >> What are two options to preventing a stall (regardless of whether a
> >> spin in entered)?
>
> >1)Keep your airspeed up
> >2)ncrease power and keep your airspeed up
>
> I would have said get the nose down (increase airspeed)
> and go-around (not far from your #2.
>
And go off with an instructor to 3,500 AGL and rehearse the steep
descending turn manoeuvre until you are happy with your understanding
of the situation..

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
> My instrument flight test required level steep turns partial panel, which I
> assume was 45 degrees or more.

How do you judge a 45 degree bank angle with just a TC as you would
have with partial panel (no AH)?

In VFR with no gyros, you line up two diagonal instrument mounting screws
with the horizon. (old glider trick)

Vaughn

On Mar 13, 1:16*pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > My instrument flight test required level steep turns partial panel, which I
> > assume was 45 degrees or more.
>
> How do you judge a 45 degree bank angle with just a TC as you would
> have with partial panel (no AH)?
>
> * *In VFR with no gyros, you line up two diagonal instrument mounting screws
> with the horizon. *(old glider trick)
>


As I read it, this is not VFR it's an IF test...

Cheers

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 1:16 pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
>As I read it, this is not VFR it's an IF test...

I read it that way also, which is why I suitably qualified my answer


Cheers back atcha
Vaughn

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Any stall in the pattern can be a serious problem. You need stall and yaw
> rate to induce spin. Of all the possible scenarios to have if you manage
> to be ham handed enough to get into a stall in the pattern, a stall from a
> slip is the most anti-spin. Then comes a coordinated stall with no yaw
> induced at the break, and finally the worst condition is a stall from a
> skidding turn. No matter which scenario, angle of attack MUST be lowered,
> and any yaw rate MUST be neutralized IMMEDIATELY!
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Can you please elaborate on the stall from a slip condition.

I am fond of the bush pilot style pattern, using180 degree constant slipping
turn to final and would also be interested in your thoughts on these.

TIA
Happy landings,

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in message
news:tOKdnXSOOaMvyEXanZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
> Stall speed changes with increasing G (increasing lift). Increasing G
> comes

Strictly speaking, the increasing G correlates to an increasing coefficient
of lift which comes from an increasing angle of attack which comes from the
moment generated by the tail which comes from an increasing pull (assuming a
constant airspeed).

(just trying to get a head start on the nit picking)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Private wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Any stall in the pattern can be a serious problem. You need stall and yaw
>> rate to induce spin. Of all the possible scenarios to have if you manage
>> to be ham handed enough to get into a stall in the pattern, a stall from a
>> slip is the most anti-spin. Then comes a coordinated stall with no yaw
>> induced at the break, and finally the worst condition is a stall from a
>> skidding turn. No matter which scenario, angle of attack MUST be lowered,
>> and any yaw rate MUST be neutralized IMMEDIATELY!
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Can you please elaborate on the stall from a slip condition.
>
> I am fond of the bush pilot style pattern, using180 degree constant slipping
> turn to final and would also be interested in your thoughts on these.
>
> TIA
> Happy landings,
>
>
I see no problems at all with a constant slipping turn approach, and in
fact favor this type myself when flying prop fighters such as the P51
and the F8F and even the Pitts Spcial due to the better visibility
during these approaces over the nose and ahead and inside the turn as
the approach is flown.

Slips are basically anti spin. You can actually increase the angle of
attack available in front of your critical angle of attack as you deepen
a slip. The ultimate example of this would be knife edge flight where
forward stick pressure is required to reduce angle of attack to near the
0 lift point on the wing.
Of course you won't be doing any knife edge flight on a slipping
approach, but the slip you are in is still anti spin.
Even if you stall the airplane in a slip, the likely result will be a
break over the top, which is a much better stall break than a skidding
stall break which will usually break under the bottom. You have much
more time to recover from a slipping stall entry than you do from a skid
entry.

The bottom line is that it's quite safe to fly a slipping approach if
you are aware, flying properly and watching what you are doing.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 13, 9:14*am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m> wrote:
> "skym" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > 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.)
>
> Instead of asking about keeping the ball centered, perhaps you should be
> asking why you elected to flirt with a pilot error fatality by cranking and
> yanking for the sake of a few style points... So what if you overshoot the
> turn????
>
> Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with bank.
> Stall speed changes with increasing G (increasing lift). Increasing G comes
> from pulling on the yoke/stick. Period. No pull, no G, no increase in stall.
> More pull, more G, higher stall. *Wings level, wings banked, wings upside
> down - makes no difference.
>
so if i am doing a steep descending turn , I wont be pulling back on
the stick as much as a steep level turn,
hence less g ? This would seem to contradict others comments that
you pull the same no of g in a bank whether it is level
or descending. I am still confused.
Terry

On Mar 13, 9:35*am, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
> > fall through with reduced back pressure.
>
> * *Reducing back pressure is something an inexperienced pilot is instinctively
> loath to do when manuvering close to the ground, much more likely to be pulling.
>
on the contrary I have a habit of deliberately pushing forward on the
yoke as I turn onto final, it comes from a fear of stalling and the
fact
that being at this stage of the landing procedure I want my attention
focused outside the cockpit to ensure I line up out of the turn on the
runway centerline, and not worrying about my airspeed.
Terry

terry wrote:
> On Mar 13, 9:35 am, "Vaughn Simon" >
> wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
>>> fall through with reduced back pressure.
>> Reducing back pressure is something an inexperienced pilot is instinctively
>> loath to do when manuvering close to the ground, much more likely to be pulling.
>>
> on the contrary I have a habit of deliberately pushing forward on the
> yoke as I turn onto final, it comes from a fear of stalling and the
> fact
> that being at this stage of the landing procedure I want my attention
> focused outside the cockpit to ensure I line up out of the turn on the
> runway centerline, and not worrying about my airspeed.
> Terry
>
>
You had good instruction Terry. I'd only add for you to monitor your
airspeed as well. In other words, never omit an available cue.

"We don't fly in a single cue world"
Chris Patterakis
USAF Thunderbirds Lead

--
Dudley Henriques

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:46:16 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Tina > wrote in news:874d408e-73e6-4064-8d08-
> :
>
>> I don't think anyone has suggested this, but there is a nearly
>> universal cure if you find yourself uncomfortably out of a reasonable
>> approach condition -- simply say to yourself this isn't looking good
>> enough, go around, and do better the next time.
>>
>> It's my uneducated opinion that too many perfectly good airplanes get
>> turned to scrap because pilots continue to commit to an action that
>> has become untenable. You have a hand on the throttle and it's
>> important to remember to be ready to push it in if you don't like the
>> way things are shaping up.
>
> Absolutely.
>>
>> Don't let ego get in the way of good judgement.
>
> True again. Sometimes it's not ego, though. A lot of thigs come into play,
> especially if conditions are tough. It's a curious thing, the sort of
> single-mindedness that often accompanies an accident.
>
> Bertie

Lesson here is go-around if concerned and make sure you are preset for that
option?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> My instructor carefully pointed out the difference
> between a stall on final as opposed to a snap
> spin.

I suspect a misuse in terminology, IMHO normal usage of the term 'snap' is
to refer to a 'snap roll' (or as the Brits would say, 'flick roll') which is
a roll performed with (loading and) rudder only and is really a spin in the
logitudinal plane or direction of flight.

>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.

IMHO, a combination of stall and yaw in a decending turn (arrival stall) is
most likely to result in a spin under the bottom, where the aircraft will
enter the spin by dropping the lower or inside wing. On the other hand, a
stall combined with yaw in a climbing turn (departure stall) is most likely
to result in a spin over the top where the aircraft will enter the spin by
dropping the upper or outside wing. I suspect that you or your instructor
may be confusing the two. Your instructor is correct that most consider a
slip to be more spin resistant than a skid and some/most will maintain that
a turning slip is even more spin resistant than cordinated flight.

IMHO stall/spin awareness training should include lots of demonstrations (at
safe altitude (where recover is made @>2000')) of at least incipient (and
preferably full spin) spin entry (and recovery) from both arrival and
departure stall spins and demonstrations of the circumstances likely to lead
to each.

> OTOH, a flat turn to final can quickly develop
> into a spin before you can get it under control.

IMHO, A flat turn is most likely to be a skid, which most consider to be the
uncoordinated condition most likely to result in a spin.

Happy landings,

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:46:16 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Tina > wrote in news:874d408e-73e6-4064-8d08-
>> :
>>
>>> I don't think anyone has suggested this, but there is a nearly
>>> universal cure if you find yourself uncomfortably out of a reasonable
>>> approach condition -- simply say to yourself this isn't looking good
>>> enough, go around, and do better the next time.
>>>
>>> It's my uneducated opinion that too many perfectly good airplanes get
>>> turned to scrap because pilots continue to commit to an action that
>>> has become untenable. You have a hand on the throttle and it's
>>> important to remember to be ready to push it in if you don't like the
>>> way things are shaping up.
>> Absolutely.
>>> Don't let ego get in the way of good judgement.
>> True again. Sometimes it's not ego, though. A lot of thigs come into play,
>> especially if conditions are tough. It's a curious thing, the sort of
>> single-mindedness that often accompanies an accident.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Lesson here is go-around if concerned and make sure you are preset for that
> option?

Well trained pilots will fly the approach treating it as a constantly
changing dynamic. They will be planning for the next anticipated action
based on all prevailing cues. Along with this they will have an
accompanying exit plan keyed by any expected parameter not being met by
any of these cues.
The go around trigger should occur if a critical parameter isn't met.
Each pilot will have a different trigger level based on various human
factors involving the pilot's training and his/her mental processing in
play on the approach.
This is the pedantic version of "If it don't look good, it usually ain't
no good......take it around!! :-))"


--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 13, 11:14*am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m> wrote:

>
> Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with bank.

Do you really mean that?

Cheers

On Mar 13, 1:53*pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 13, 1:16 pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
> wrote:
>
> >As I read it, this is not VFR it's an IF test...
>
> * *I read it that way also, which is why I suitably qualified my answer
>
> Cheers back atcha
> Vaughn

So, how do you do it in an IF test?

Cheers back again

On Mar 12, 4:14*pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m> wrote:
> . . .
> Instead of asking about keeping the ball centered, perhaps you should be
> asking why you elected to flirt with a pilot error fatality by cranking and
> yanking for the sake of a few style points... So what if you overshoot the
> turn????
> Geoff

This, of course, is a good question. The bank was probably 45 deg, so
it wasn't an extremely steep turn, just steeper than I am used to
making at that point in my approach. Also, I wasn't "yanking" if, by
that, you mean pulling back significantly on the yoke; although I lead
guilty to "cranking". I was letting the nose stay down and descending
at a normal or better rate (is this "unloading"the wing?), and the
airspeed at 70-75 K, rather than the usual 65-70 K. I wasn't thinking
about about "style"; I was just wanting to keep the plane upright and
make the runway. I had been asked by the tower at my local airport
(KBIL) to make a short base and turn to final due to other traffic,
and I was trying to comply. (Yes, I know I could have refused or gone
around; I just figured at the time I could do it with no problem.)
Since I had a 10,000+ ft runway I knew I had plenty of room to keep
coming around and still be able to land, if a bit long.

Private wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Private wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Any stall in the pattern can be a serious problem. You need stall and
>>>> yaw rate to induce spin. Of all the possible scenarios to have if you
>>>> manage to be ham handed enough to get into a stall in the pattern, a
>>>> stall from a slip is the most anti-spin. Then comes a coordinated stall
>>>> with no yaw induced at the break, and finally the worst condition is a
>>>> stall from a skidding turn. No matter which scenario, angle of attack
>>>> MUST be lowered, and any yaw rate MUST be neutralized IMMEDIATELY!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Can you please elaborate on the stall from a slip condition.
>>>
>>> I am fond of the bush pilot style pattern, using180 degree constant
>>> slipping turn to final and would also be interested in your thoughts on
>>> these.
>>>
>>> TIA
>>> Happy landings,
>> I see no problems at all with a constant slipping turn approach, and in
>> fact favor this type myself when flying prop fighters such as the P51 and
>> the F8F and even the Pitts Spcial due to the better visibility during
>> these approaces over the nose and ahead and inside the turn as the
>> approach is flown.
>>
>> Slips are basically anti spin. You can actually increase the angle of
>> attack available in front of your critical angle of attack as you deepen a
>> slip. The ultimate example of this would be knife edge flight where
>> forward stick pressure is required to reduce angle of attack to near the 0
>> lift point on the wing.
>> Of course you won't be doing any knife edge flight on a slipping approach,
>> but the slip you are in is still anti spin.
>> Even if you stall the airplane in a slip, the likely result will be a
>> break over the top, which is a much better stall break than a skidding
>> stall break which will usually break under the bottom. You have much more
>> time to recover from a slipping stall entry than you do from a skid entry.
>>
>> The bottom line is that it's quite safe to fly a slipping approach if you
>> are aware, flying properly and watching what you are doing.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Thanks for the reply. Why is the stall from a descending slipping turn more
> likely to result in a break over the top? Will this also be the likely
> break in a descending straight slip? I suspect that fuselage shadowing may
> play a role?
>
> Seems like I need to go do some more, nothing is as good fun as real world
> practice on the left side of the envelope.
>
> Happy landings,
>
>
Yes, the fuselage tends to blank out the upside wing as critical aoa is
reached causing it to stall first.
Something else about slips, the roll/yaw couple needed for pro spin
input is actually wider apart than it is in level flight. This is as
anti spin as it gets :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:08:30 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Vaughn Simon wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
>>> fall through with reduced back pressure.
<snip for brevity>

>I consider the imparting of this attitude in a student pilot a critical
>aspect of stall recovery training.
>I can't emphasize it's importance enough to new instructors.

After following many of these threads over the years I am truly
thankful for the instructors who followed these tenants in my primary
training.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Private wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Any stall in the pattern can be a serious problem. You need stall and
>>> yaw rate to induce spin. Of all the possible scenarios to have if you
>>> manage to be ham handed enough to get into a stall in the pattern, a
>>> stall from a slip is the most anti-spin. Then comes a coordinated stall
>>> with no yaw induced at the break, and finally the worst condition is a
>>> stall from a skidding turn. No matter which scenario, angle of attack
>>> MUST be lowered, and any yaw rate MUST be neutralized IMMEDIATELY!
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Can you please elaborate on the stall from a slip condition.
>>
>> I am fond of the bush pilot style pattern, using180 degree constant
>> slipping turn to final and would also be interested in your thoughts on
>> these.
>>
>> TIA
>> Happy landings,
> I see no problems at all with a constant slipping turn approach, and in
> fact favor this type myself when flying prop fighters such as the P51 and
> the F8F and even the Pitts Spcial due to the better visibility during
> these approaces over the nose and ahead and inside the turn as the
> approach is flown.
>
> Slips are basically anti spin. You can actually increase the angle of
> attack available in front of your critical angle of attack as you deepen a
> slip. The ultimate example of this would be knife edge flight where
> forward stick pressure is required to reduce angle of attack to near the 0
> lift point on the wing.
> Of course you won't be doing any knife edge flight on a slipping approach,
> but the slip you are in is still anti spin.
> Even if you stall the airplane in a slip, the likely result will be a
> break over the top, which is a much better stall break than a skidding
> stall break which will usually break under the bottom. You have much more
> time to recover from a slipping stall entry than you do from a skid entry.
>
> The bottom line is that it's quite safe to fly a slipping approach if you
> are aware, flying properly and watching what you are doing.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Thanks for the reply. Why is the stall from a descending slipping turn more
likely to result in a break over the top? Will this also be the likely
break in a descending straight slip? I suspect that fuselage shadowing may
play a role?

Seems like I need to go do some more, nothing is as good fun as real world
practice on the left side of the envelope.

Happy landings,

Roger wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:08:30 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
>>>> fall through with reduced back pressure.
> <snip for brevity>
>
>> I consider the imparting of this attitude in a student pilot a critical
>> aspect of stall recovery training.
>> I can't emphasize it's importance enough to new instructors.
>
> After following many of these threads over the years I am truly
> thankful for the instructors who followed these tenants in my primary
> training.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Me too !

--
Dudley Henriques

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
>On Mar 13, 11:14 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
>D0t C0m> wrote:

>>
>> Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with
>> bank.

>Do you really mean that?

>Cheers

Yes, he does; and yes, he is correct.

You have gone back to thinking in only two dimensions; and therefore
ignoring the effects of vertical acceleration.

Just as a theoretically simple example; consider the case of an aircraft
flying around in a circle, but the circle is an inclined plane relative to
the surface of the earth--rather than being horizontal. In that case, since
we speak of bank angle relative to the horizontal (referenced to the earth
at that location) the G-load (and therefore the stall speed) will be
greatest at the point on the circle where the bank angle is least--and this
will remain true even in the special case where the aircraft is able to fly
around the circle at a constant speed.

Peter

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

> Something else about slips, the roll/yaw couple needed for pro spin input
> is actually wider apart than it is in level flight. This is as anti spin
> as it gets :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Thanks, this will give me something to think about and research, I need to
do some book review before commenting.

Happy landings,

On Mar 12, 7:59*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Well trained pilots will fly the approach treating it as a constantly
> changing dynamic. They will be planning for the next anticipated action
> based on all prevailing cues. Along with this they will have an
> accompanying exit plan keyed by any expected parameter not being met by
> any of these cues.
> The go around trigger should occur if a critical parameter isn't met.
> Each pilot will have a different trigger level based on various human
> factors involving the pilot's training and his/her mental processing in
> play on the approach.
> This is the pedantic version of "If it don't look good, it usually ain't
> no good......take it around!! :-))"
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -

Bertie, WJR andDudley,
I like these explanations, even if not highly technical. I would
characterize my thinking at the time (if you can call it that) as the
"critical parameters" being (1) the ball being centered, (2) the speed
being above 70k, (3) keeping the nose down, not "yanked", to permit
the plane to sort of fall into a descent at 400-500 ft.min. and (4) my
position (altitude/heading) at every point during the turn.
Obviously, I wasn't thinking in terms of "critical parameters', but
the turn "felt" and looked OK (according to those criteria). I was
constantly prepared to level the wings, shove in the thrrottle and
break off the approach at any time things didn't feel or look right or
stay within the criteria I set. Right hand was on the throttle at all
times. I guess my original question was really "how much of a comfort
factor, if any, is a coordinated turn vs a slip or skid while turning
at that point in the approach?"

On Mar 13, 4:33*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >On Mar 13, 11:14 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
> >D0t C0m> wrote:
>
> >> Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with
> >> bank.
> >Do you really mean that?
> >Cheers
>
> Yes, he does; and yes, he is correct.
>
> You have gone back to thinking in only two dimensions; and therefore
> ignoring the effects of vertical acceleration.
>

Nope, the plane's vertical acceleration is 0 so all that matters is
that the lift must equal the weight. As the plane banks the lift
vector is no linger in line with the weight so the load factor is
increased by 1/cos(bank angle) and the stall speed is proportional to
the square root of the load factor. Or are we talking at crossed
purposes?

Cheers

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:10:06 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:08:30 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
>>>>> fall through with reduced back pressure.
>> <snip for brevity>
>>
>>> I consider the imparting of this attitude in a student pilot a critical
>>> aspect of stall recovery training.
>>> I can't emphasize it's importance enough to new instructors.
>>
>> After following many of these threads over the years I am truly
>> thankful for the instructors who followed these tenants in my primary
>> training.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Me too !

One of the things they emphasized was if I ever encountered an
accelerated stall close to the ground was to just point the nose in
the direction it wanted to go. That immediately brakes the stall and
stops any tendency to roll under or over the top. You might leave the
pattern at a rather embarrassing altitude and direction but at least
it would be alive.

That was not a recommendation for anyone to try it, or in any way
reduce the thought of how serious stalling at low altitude and
particularly a turning stall at low altitude can be.

OTOH as you've pointed out the recovery techniques have to be
ingrained. They are not something you can stop and think about. Like
engine failure just after lift off you don't stop to think, "Hey, I
just had an engine failure. The first thing I need to do is lower the
nose to keep flying speed, now I need to pick a landing spot which
one is best, can I keep it on the airport, or am I high enough to make
the "impossible turn?". By the time you can say that first sentence
your subconscious will have, or should have, done all the rest.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

>
> "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.

Yes, I agree.
>
> 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.)


Yes, I've done it alright. Simple if you know how...


Bertie
>

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:1c376b6c-0279-
:

> 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.

Whoowhie! Kennie

CIA eh? I hear they pay ten-lebben dollars!
>
> 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>..

You really should expose me as a fraud by taking any points I make one
at a time and tearing them apart.

You'd be doing me a favor by stripping me of my delsuions of being a
pilot.


Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:28869ac0-5e13-40fa-
:

> 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?

Makes us all think you're a lying pice of ****, actually.

Bertie

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:343516c1-8fa1-
:
>
>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>
>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>> > In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>> > a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>> > Ken
>>>
>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>
>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>> reality....
>>>
>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot

And although we sometimes hear complaints about the GA safety record,
There are those rare statements that sometimes make me wonder why it's
as good as it is.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:46:16 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Tina > wrote in news:874d408e-73e6-4064-8d08-
>> :
>>
>>> I don't think anyone has suggested this, but there is a nearly
>>> universal cure if you find yourself uncomfortably out of a
>>> reasonable approach condition -- simply say to yourself this isn't
>>> looking good enough, go around, and do better the next time.
>>>
>>> It's my uneducated opinion that too many perfectly good airplanes
>>> get turned to scrap because pilots continue to commit to an action
>>> that has become untenable. You have a hand on the throttle and it's
>>> important to remember to be ready to push it in if you don't like
>>> the way things are shaping up.
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>> Don't let ego get in the way of good judgement.
>>
>> True again. Sometimes it's not ego, though. A lot of thigs come into
>> play, especially if conditions are tough. It's a curious thing, the
>> sort of single-mindedness that often accompanies an accident.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Lesson here is go-around if concerned and make sure you are preset for
> that option?

Yeah. Should be, but we're only human. We have a two approach limit, too.
We're not allowed to do a third one ( company manual)
the number of accidents off a third approach is alarming.

Bertie

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 4:33 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >On Mar 13, 11:14 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
> >D0t C0m> wrote:
>
> >> Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with
> >> bank.
> >Do you really mean that?
> >Cheers
>
> Yes, he does; and yes, he is correct.
>
> You have gone back to thinking in only two dimensions; and therefore
> ignoring the effects of vertical acceleration.
>

Nope, the plane's vertical acceleration is 0 so all that matters is
that the lift must equal the weight. As the plane banks the lift
vector is no linger in line with the weight so the load factor is
increased by 1/cos(bank angle) and the stall speed is proportional to
the square root of the load factor. Or are we talking at crossed
purposes?

Cheers

Then we are clearly talking at crossed purposes, as all of us who are
separating stall speed from angle of bank are considering vertical
acceleration. The salient point is that, whether you are amking use of it
at any given moment, vertical acceleration downward is one of the tools that
is available. OTOH, from the airplane's point of view, acceleration upward
and deceleration downward are basically the same thing; so if you are trying
to stop a descent while banked, the load factor and stall speed can increase
dramatically.

All the best
Peter

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Private wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Private wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Any stall in the pattern can be a serious problem. You need stall and
>>>>> yaw rate to induce spin. Of all the possible scenarios to have if you
>>>>> manage to be ham handed enough to get into a stall in the pattern, a
>>>>> stall from a slip is the most anti-spin. Then comes a coordinated
>>>>> stall with no yaw induced at the break, and finally the worst
>>>>> condition is a stall from a skidding turn. No matter which scenario,
>>>>> angle of attack MUST be lowered, and any yaw rate MUST be neutralized
>>>>> IMMEDIATELY!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> Can you please elaborate on the stall from a slip condition.
>>>>
>>>> I am fond of the bush pilot style pattern, using180 degree constant
>>>> slipping turn to final and would also be interested in your thoughts on
>>>> these.
>>>>
>>>> TIA
>>>> Happy landings,
>>> I see no problems at all with a constant slipping turn approach, and in
>>> fact favor this type myself when flying prop fighters such as the P51
>>> and the F8F and even the Pitts Spcial due to the better visibility
>>> during these approaces over the nose and ahead and inside the turn as
>>> the approach is flown.
>>>
>>> Slips are basically anti spin. You can actually increase the angle of
>>> attack available in front of your critical angle of attack as you deepen
>>> a slip. The ultimate example of this would be knife edge flight where
>>> forward stick pressure is required to reduce angle of attack to near the
>>> 0 lift point on the wing.
>>> Of course you won't be doing any knife edge flight on a slipping
>>> approach, but the slip you are in is still anti spin.
>>> Even if you stall the airplane in a slip, the likely result will be a
>>> break over the top, which is a much better stall break than a skidding
>>> stall break which will usually break under the bottom. You have much
>>> more time to recover from a slipping stall entry than you do from a skid
>>> entry.
>>>
>>> The bottom line is that it's quite safe to fly a slipping approach if
>>> you are aware, flying properly and watching what you are doing.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. Why is the stall from a descending slipping turn
>> more likely to result in a break over the top? Will this also be the
>> likely break in a descending straight slip? I suspect that fuselage
>> shadowing may play a role?
>>
>> Seems like I need to go do some more, nothing is as good fun as real
>> world practice on the left side of the envelope.
>>
>> Happy landings,
> Yes, the fuselage tends to blank out the upside wing as critical aoa is
> reached causing it to stall first.
> Something else about slips, the roll/yaw couple needed for pro spin input
> is actually wider apart than it is in level flight. This is as anti spin
> as it gets :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I had no trouble with the concept of "over the top" vs "under the bottom";
but it took me a while to get the theory straight on why the slipping turn
has less risk of a spin than a coordinated stall.

Thanks for another addition to the bag of tools and tricks!
Peter

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart >
wrote:

>Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>
>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>> Ken
>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>
>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>> reality....
>>>
>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot --
>>> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>
>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was

Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is proficient
ant not just current.

>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>
>Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>
>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.

2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming up
on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
"sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so they
couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))

I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.

When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying far
later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me when
I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end of
the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where you
fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed on
27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and I
quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full power,
stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that left things
floating. He never would tell me how close we came but from his
actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did all of
that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured had it
been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured that I knew
the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he could even if
he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I couldeven feel him
tense sitting next to me) told me that this should be a maximum effort
and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for approaches instead
of 80 or 90 too<:-))

Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
the Deb.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mar 12, 6:05 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, your psychologist did say all your information is classified, but I
> thought that was due to doctor/patient privileges :)

u1= -sin H sin P cos R + cos H sin R
u2 = cos H sin P cos R - sin H sin R
u3 = cos P cos R
Unit vector u is up, H is Heading, R is Roll, P is Pitch.

Vectors A = G+L+T+D
A is net acceleration, Gravity, Lift, Thrust, Drag.
G = -1k.

Is any of that familiar?
If so, are the components of u correct?
I'm also a student of aerodynamics.
Ken

On Mar 13, 12:30*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> terry wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 9:35 am, "Vaughn Simon" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >>> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
> >>> fall through with reduced back pressure.
> >> * *Reducing back pressure is something an inexperienced pilot is instinctively
> >> loath to do when manuvering close to the ground, much more likely to be pulling.
>
> > on the contrary I have a habit of deliberately pushing forward on the
> > yoke as I turn onto final, it comes from a fear of stalling and the
> > fact
> > that being at this stage of the landing procedure I want my attention
> > focused outside the cockpit to ensure I line up out of the turn on the
> > runway centerline, and not worrying about my airspeed.
> > Terry
>
> You had good instruction Terry. I'd only add for you to monitor your
> airspeed as well. In other words, never omit an available cue.
>
Its not something I was actually trained to do, just something I
developed myself to be sure I dont lose any speed. Although I do
remember in my training losing airspeed in the turns practising
power off landings while concentrating too much on finding a field.
Having carefully trimmed the C150 to 65 kt glide speed I was maybe
dropping to 55 kts in the turns. I can still remember the instructors
warning to "watch the f......k airspeed in the turn or it will bite
you one day" Rather than watching the airspeed more carefully, I
just developed the habit of dipping the nose a bit to make sure of
it. I think its just an overload thing. While I do normally keep a
close watch on my airspeed, when I am turning I think I focus too much
on the attitude indicator instead of the ASI, as well as focusing
outside of course. I guess I am one of those people who have trouble
walking and chewing gum at the same time!
Terry

"Ken ****head Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 12, 6:05 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Yes, your psychologist did say all your information is classified,
>> but I thought that was due to doctor/patient privileges :)
>
> u1= -sin H sin P cos R + cos H sin R
> u2 = cos H sin P cos R - sin H sin R
> u3 = cos P cos R
> Unit vector u is up, H is Heading, R is Roll, P is Pitch.
>
> Vectors A = G+L+T+D
> A is net acceleration, Gravity, Lift, Thrust, Drag.
> G = -1k.
>
> Is any of that familiar?
> If so, are the components of u correct?
> I'm also a student of aerodynamics.
> Ken
>

You're a student of assodynamics, as can be readily seen in this
picture of you studying: http://tinyurl.com/2zxtrq

On Mar 13, 6:45*pm, Roger > wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:10:06 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Roger wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:08:30 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
> >>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>> Exactly. The difference between a loaded turn and simply allowing the nose to
> >>>>> fall through with reduced back pressure.
> >> <snip for brevity>
>
> >>> I consider the imparting of this attitude in a student pilot a critical
> >>> aspect of stall recovery training.
> >>> I can't emphasize it's importance enough to new instructors.
>
> >> After following many of these threads over the years I am truly
> >> thankful for the instructors who followed these tenants in my primary
> >> training.
>
> >> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> >> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> >>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> >Me too !
>
> One of the things they emphasized was if I ever encountered an
> accelerated stall close to the ground was to just point the nose in
> the direction it wanted to go. *

How does that fix a developing yaw?

Cheers

On Mar 13, 7:37*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 12, 6:05 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Yes, your psychologist did say all your information is classified, but I
> > thought that was due to doctor/patient privileges :)
>
> u1= -sin H sin P cos R + cos H sin R
> u2 = cos H sin P cos R - sin H sin R
> u3 = cos P cos R
> Unit vector u is up, H is Heading, R is Roll, P is Pitch.
>
> Vectors A = G+L+T+D
> A is net acceleration, Gravity, Lift, Thrust, Drag.
> G = -1k.
>
> Is any of that familiar?
> If so, are the components of u correct?
> I'm also a student of aerodynamics.

Nope. Forces don't equal acceleration You are a fraud.

Cheers

On Mar 13, 4:55*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WJRFlyBoy > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:46:16 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> Tina > wrote in news:874d408e-73e6-4064-8d08-
> >> :
>
> >>> I don't think anyone has suggested this, but there is a nearly
> >>> universal cure if you find yourself uncomfortably out of a
> >>> reasonable approach condition -- simply say to yourself this isn't
> >>> looking good enough, *go around, and do better the next time.
>
> >>> It's my uneducated opinion that too many perfectly good airplanes
> >>> get turned to scrap because pilots continue to commit to an action
> >>> that has become untenable. You have a hand on the throttle and it's
> >>> important to remember to be ready to push it in if you don't like
> >>> the way things are shaping up.
>
> >> Absolutely.
>
> >>> Don't let ego get in the way of good judgement.
>
> >> True again. Sometimes it's not ego, though. A lot of thigs come into
> >> play, especially if conditions are tough. It's a curious thing, the
> >> sort of single-mindedness that often accompanies an accident.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Lesson here is go-around if concerned and make sure you are preset for
> > that option?
>
> Yeah. Should be, but we're only human. We have a two approach limit, too.
> We're not allowed to do a third one ( company manual)
> the number of accidents off a third approach is alarming.
>
so you just stay up there? :<)

On Mar 13, 1:53 am, Roger > wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:343516c1-8fa1-
> :
>
> >> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
> >>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
> >>> > In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
> >>> > a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
> >>> > Ken
>
> >>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>
> >>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
> >>> reality....
>
> >>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot
>
> And although we sometimes hear complaints about the GA safety record,
> There are those rare statements that sometimes make me wonder why it's
> as good as it is.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

Hunh?

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
> ...
>> My instrument flight test required level steep turns partial panel, which I
>> assume was 45 degrees or more.
>
> How do you judge a 45 degree bank angle with just a TC as you would
> have with partial panel (no AH)?
>

A 45 degree turn in most planes is going to peg the needle in the turn
indicator.

And the last thing you want to be doing partial panel are manouvers
like that. Standard rate at the most.

It's certainly not in the PTS or any FAA-endorsed curriculum.

Roger wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart >
> wrote:
>
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>> Ken
>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>
>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>> reality....
>>>>
>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot --
>>>> don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>
> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is proficient
> ant not just current.
>
>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>
>> 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.
>
> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming up
> on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so they
> couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>
> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>
> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying far
> later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me when
> I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end of
> the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where you
> fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed on
> 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and I
> quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full power,
> stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that left things
> floating. He never would tell me how close we came but from his
> actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did all of
> that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured had it
> been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured that I knew
> the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he could even if
> he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I couldeven feel him
> tense sitting next to me) told me that this should be a maximum effort
> and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for approaches instead
> of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>
> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
> the Deb.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.

--
Dudley Henriques

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 12, 6:05 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> messagenews:1c376b6c-0279-4781-b126-068490aa8201
@s13g2000prd.googlegro
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Yes, your psychologist did say all your information is classified,
>> but I thought that was due to doctor/patient privileges :)
>
> u1= -sin H sin P cos R + cos H sin R
> u2 = cos H sin P cos R - sin H sin R
> u3 = cos P cos R
> Unit vector u is up, H is Heading, R is Roll, P is Pitch.
>
> Vectors A = G+L+T+D
> A is net acceleration, Gravity, Lift, Thrust, Drag.
> G = -1k.
>
> Is any of that familiar?


Looks like it's prolly the formula for crack.



> If so, are the components of u correct?
> I'm also a student of aerodynamics.

Bwawhahwhawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhahhwahhwahwhahwha hhw!

Bertie

terry > wrote in
:

> On Mar 13, 4:55*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WJRFlyBoy > wrote
>> innews:au07i6kpg998.na9z6vwx
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:46:16 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >> Tina > wrote in
>> >> news:874d408e-73e6-4064-8d08-
>> >> :
>>
>> >>> I don't think anyone has suggested this, but there is a nearly
>> >>> universal cure if you find yourself uncomfortably out of a
>> >>> reasonable approach condition -- simply say to yourself this
>> >>> isn't looking good enough, *go around, and do better the next
>> >>> time.
>>
>> >>> It's my uneducated opinion that too many perfectly good airplanes
>> >>> get turned to scrap because pilots continue to commit to an
>> >>> action that has become untenable. You have a hand on the throttle
>> >>> and it's important to remember to be ready to push it in if you
>> >>> don't like the way things are shaping up.
>>
>> >> Absolutely.
>>
>> >>> Don't let ego get in the way of good judgement.
>>
>> >> True again. Sometimes it's not ego, though. A lot of thigs come
>> >> into play, especially if conditions are tough. It's a curious
>> >> thing, the sort of single-mindedness that often accompanies an
>> >> accident.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Lesson here is go-around if concerned and make sure you are preset
>> > for that option?
>>
>> Yeah. Should be, but we're only human. We have a two approach limit,
>> too. We're not allowed to do a third one ( company manual)
>> the number of accidents off a third approach is alarming.
>>
> so you just stay up there? :<)
>

Yeah, I've been holding over Wayne county since '83



Bertie

Roger > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:343516c1-8fa1-
:
>>
>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>> > In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>> > a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>> > Ken
>>>>
>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>
>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>> reality....
>>>>
>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training pilot
>
> And although we sometimes hear complaints about the GA safety record,
> There are those rare statements that sometimes make me wonder why it's
> as good as it is.

Very true. It's a bit the same way I marvel at the way my body continues to
function.



Bertie

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 13, 1:53 am, Roger > wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:343516c1-8fa1-
>> :
>>
>> >> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>> >>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" >
>> >>> wrote:
>>
>> >>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>> >>> > In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>> >>> > a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>> >>> > Ken
>>
>> >>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>
>> >>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>> >>> reality....
>>
>> >>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>> >>> pilot
>>
>> And although we sometimes hear complaints about the GA safety record,
>> There are those rare statements that sometimes make me wonder why
>> it's as good as it is.
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> Hunh?

Often get this feeling you're missing something?

Oh wait. I guess you don't. Enjoy.


Bertie

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Roger wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>> reality....
>>>>>
>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>
>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>> proficient
>> ant not just current.
>>
>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
>> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
>> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming
>> up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
>> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
>> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
>> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so
>> they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>
>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>
>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
>> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying
>> far later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me
>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end
>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where
>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed
>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and
>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came but
>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did
>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured
>> had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured
>> that I knew the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he
>> could even if he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I
>> couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told me that this should
>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for
>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>
>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
>> the Deb.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.
>

Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins, some
hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember filing and
putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so afraid to
deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my fin in
the clouds..


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Roger wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>>> reality....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>>> proficient
>>> ant not just current.
>>>
>>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
>>> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
>>> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
>>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming
>>> up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
>>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
>>> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
>>> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
>>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
>>> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so
>>> they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>>
>>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
>>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>>
>>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
>>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
>>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
>>> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying
>>> far later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me
>>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end
>>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where
>>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed
>>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and
>>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came but
>>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did
>>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured
>>> had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured
>>> that I knew the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he
>>> could even if he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I
>>> couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told me that this should
>>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for
>>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>>
>>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
>>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
>>> the Deb.
>>>
>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.
>>
>
> Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins, some
> hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember filing and
> putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so afraid to
> deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my fin in
> the clouds..
>
>
> Bertie
A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the requirement
was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from the
other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just racking
my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for the PRIVATE!!
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

skym wrote:
> I guess my original question was really "how much of a comfort
> factor, if any, is a coordinated turn vs a slip or skid while turning
> at that point in the approach?"

Your "comfort factor" widens as you gain experience through exposure.

As you fly each approach and actually see and feel how the airplane
responds in various situations you will begin to feel more comfortable.
One thing that will help you is to leave the aerodynamics thinking on
the ground. Do your theory between flights. Not doing this can result in
you over working the problem. Just sit back, fly the airplane, and pay
attention to what's happening as you do this. I think you'll find that
each approach will get better generally. You will have some plateaus
where it all seems to go to hell, but hang in there.

One thing about approaches. Keep your main attention outside the
airplane. Don't over concentrate on the panel. Do your instrument
checking quickly and peripherally as you scan the horizon and your
visual positioning on the approach. Don't get all hung up on what the
ADI is doing. Your main attention at pattern altitude on down should be
NOSE ATTITUDE and VISUAL POSITIONING. Once you get used to this, you are
shortening the list of items on your multi-tasking list and your comfort
zone will widen for you.




--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 12, 7:14 pm, terry > wrote:
> On Mar 13, 9:14 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
>
> D0t C0m> wrote:
> > "skym" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > 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.)
>
> > Instead of asking about keeping the ball centered, perhaps you should be
> > asking why you elected to flirt with a pilot error fatality by cranking and
> > yanking for the sake of a few style points... So what if you overshoot the
> > turn????
>
> > Note: as others are beating to death - stall speed doesn't change with bank.
> > Stall speed changes with increasing G (increasing lift). Increasing G comes
> > from pulling on the yoke/stick. Period. No pull, no G, no increase in stall.
> > More pull, more G, higher stall. Wings level, wings banked, wings upside
> > down - makes no difference.
>
> so if i am doing a steep descending turn , I wont be pulling back on
> the stick as much as a steep level turn,
> hence less g ? This would seem to contradict others comments that
> you pull the same no of g in a bank whether it is level
> or descending. I am still confused.
> Terry

In a coordinated descending turn, the inside wing is at a
higher AOA than the outside wing and will stall first. In a skidding
descending turn, the difference is even greater and is asking for big
trouble. In a slipping turn, the inside wing's AOA decreases and is
much closer to the AOA of the outside wing. Danger of wing-drop
stalling is lessened.
In a climbing turn, the outside wing is at a higher AOA and
will stall first.

I built a device that demonstrates this visually so that our
students could get a handle on it. I keep promising to post pictures
of it somewhere. Can someone suggest to this Internet Ignoramus where
a good spot would be for that?

Dan

I didn't know at the time about turning more than standard rate on the
coordinator, it was something I hadn't done when he requested it. The peg
is around 45 degrees or so. I was also watching my airspeed for decay while
maintaining level flight. And I know you aren't supposed to use the feeling
in your butt for instrument flight, but it I couldn't help it being a newbie
to instrument flight. I of course rely on the instruments when they don't
agree with my body.

The concept was probably good, because failures of turn and banks are a lot
more rare than gyros, and if I was confused I would give the coordinator
more weight in decision making than the gyros until I sorted it out because
of that fact.

This would have been about 8 years ago. Same instructor said he doesn't
recommend any private pilot candidate without doing spins, so 5th lesson did
left and right multi-turn spins which scared the crap out of me until I
figured out they were fun on about the 2nd one. I doubt there are that many
of the old school instructors left. I was also never allowed to use power
pre-solo after abeam the numbers to turn base.

I personally feel it prolonged how long it took me to solo, but once you
figure it out it is good.

> Wingflaps
>So, how do you do it in an IF test?
>So, how do you do it in an IF test?

>Cheers back again

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Roger wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" >
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>>>> reality....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>>>> proficient
>>>> ant not just current.
>>>>
>>>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
>>>> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
>>>> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll
into
>>>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming
>>>> up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other
direction
>>>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
>>>> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
>>>> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would
only
>>>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
>>>> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so
>>>> they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>>>
>>>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60
degrees
>>>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>>>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>>>
>>>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>>>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different
banking
>>>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back
to
>>>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
>>>> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying
>>>> far later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of
me
>>>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the
end
>>>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant
where
>>>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go
missed
>>>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said
and
>>>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>>>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>>>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came
but
>>>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I
did
>>>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured
>>>> had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured
>>>> that I knew the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he
>>>> could even if he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I
>>>> couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told me that this
should
>>>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120
for
>>>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>>>
>>>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the
PTS.
>>>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
>>>> the Deb.
>>>>
>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.
>>>
>>
>> Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins, some
>> hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember filing
and
>> putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so afraid
to
>> deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my fin
in
>> the clouds..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the
requirement
> was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from
the
> other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just racking
> my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for the
PRIVATE!!

I really can't remember, but I do remember being surprised when
instructing years later that i learned that many considered 45 deg to be
steep, so I must have learned at 60 degrees as well.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Roger wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" >
> wrote:
>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
>>>>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>>>>> reality....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>>>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>>>>> proficient
>>>>> ant not just current.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>>>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
>>>>> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
>>>>> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll
> into
>>>>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming
>>>>> up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other
> direction
>>>>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
>>>>> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
>>>>> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would
> only
>>>>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
>>>>> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so
>>>>> they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>>>>
>>>>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60
> degrees
>>>>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>>>>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>>>>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different
> banking
>>>>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back
> to
>>>>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
>>>>> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying
>>>>> far later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of
> me
>>>>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the
> end
>>>>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant
> where
>>>>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go
> missed
>>>>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said
> and
>>>>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>>>>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>>>>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came
> but
>>>>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I
> did
>>>>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured
>>>>> had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured
>>>>> that I knew the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he
>>>>> could even if he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I
>>>>> couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told me that this
> should
>>>>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120
> for
>>>>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the
> PTS.
>>>>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
>>>>> the Deb.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.
>>>>
>>> Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins, some
>>> hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember filing
> and
>>> putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so afraid
> to
>>> deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my fin
> in
>>> the clouds..
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the
> requirement
>> was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from
> the
>> other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just racking
>> my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for the
> PRIVATE!!
>
> I really can't remember, but I do remember being surprised when
> instructing years later that i learned that many considered 45 deg to be
> steep, so I must have learned at 60 degrees as well.
>
> Bertie
>
I'm sure you did.

The problem with 45 degrees of bank is that it teaches little about
control in steep banked attitudes such as shallowing the bank before
raising the nose in a nose low condition caused by over bank.

I've never liked the 45 degree parameter and have always recommended to
instructors that they teach bank control all the way out to 60 degrees
regardless of the requirement.
This entire movement to make flying more "comfortable" for the masses to
sell airplanes and push aviation by lowering the requirements has been
flawed from the beginning in my opinion.

If I've flown with one pilot I've flown with a hundred who, when put in
a 60 degree banked turn with the nose going down and being told to raise
the nose, pulled instead of
shallowing out the bank first, tightening up the nose low condition.
It's a shame really, and I hate to see it.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Roger wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" >
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you
>>>>>>>>> flying?
>>>>>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>>>>>> reality....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>>>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>>>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>>>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>>>>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>>>>>> proficient
>>>>>> ant not just current.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>>>>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to
>>>>>> the ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor
>>>>>> started talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to
>>>>>> just roll
>> into
>>>>>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled.
>>>>>> Coming up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other
>> direction
>>>>>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a
>>>>>> laughing comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?"
>>>>>> My puzzled "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo
>>>>>> pilots would
>> only
>>>>>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard
>>>>>> them complain when told the instructors would be blocking the
>>>>>> yokes so they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60
>> degrees
>>>>>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>>>>>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>>>>>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different
>> banking
>>>>>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back
>> to
>>>>>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did
>>>>>> things that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra
>>>>>> light flying far later than allowed popped out of the dark
>>>>>> directly in front of
>> me
>>>>>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the
>> end
>>>>>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant
>> where
>>>>>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go
>> missed
>>>>>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said
>> and
>>>>>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>>>>>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>>>>>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came
>> but
>>>>>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I
>> did
>>>>>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I
>>>>>> figured had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he
>>>>>> figured that I knew the limits of the plane and would react
>>>>>> quicker than he could even if he could see. He was right though,
>>>>>> The urgency (I couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told
>>>>>> me that this
>> should
>>>>>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120
>> for
>>>>>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the
>> PTS.
>>>>>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits
>>>>>> of the Deb.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>>> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as
>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>> Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins,
>>>> some hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember
>>>> filing
>> and
>>>> putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so
>>>> afraid
>> to
>>>> deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my
>>>> fin
>> in
>>>> the clouds..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the
>> requirement
>>> was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from
>> the
>>> other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just
>>> racking my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for
>>> the
>> PRIVATE!!
>>
>> I really can't remember, but I do remember being surprised when
>> instructing years later that i learned that many considered 45 deg to
>> be steep, so I must have learned at 60 degrees as well.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> I'm sure you did.
>
> The problem with 45 degrees of bank is that it teaches little about
> control in steep banked attitudes such as shallowing the bank before
> raising the nose in a nose low condition caused by over bank.

Yeah. OK. That makes sense.
>
> I've never liked the 45 degree parameter and have always recommended
> to instructors that they teach bank control all the way out to 60
> degrees regardless of the requirement.
> This entire movement to make flying more "comfortable" for the masses
> to sell airplanes and push aviation by lowering the requirements has
> been flawed from the beginning in my opinion.

Well, exactly.
>
> If I've flown with one pilot I've flown with a hundred who, when put
> in a 60 degree banked turn with the nose going down and being told to
> raise the nose, pulled instead of
> shallowing out the bank first, tightening up the nose low condition.
> It's a shame really, and I hate to see it.

Hmm. I've never othought of steep turns as this sort of exercise. I've
alwyas looked at them as keeping, rather than a regaining control type
of thing, but I might try this with some of my guys if we ever get the
damned airplane!
You're sort of crossing over into the spiral dive lesson there. Not a
bad thing...


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you
>>>>>>>>>> flying?
>>>>>>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>>>>>>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>>>>>>>>>> reality....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>>>>>>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>>>>>>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>>>>>>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>>>>>>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>>>>>>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>>>>>>> proficient
>>>>>>> ant not just current.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>>>>>>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to
>>>>>>> the ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor
>>>>>>> started talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to
>>>>>>> just roll
>>> into
>>>>>>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled.
>>>>>>> Coming up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other
>>> direction
>>>>>>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a
>>>>>>> laughing comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?"
>>>>>>> My puzzled "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo
>>>>>>> pilots would
>>> only
>>>>>>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard
>>>>>>> them complain when told the instructors would be blocking the
>>>>>>> yokes so they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60
>>> degrees
>>>>>>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
>>>>>>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>>>>>>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different
>>> banking
>>>>>>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back
>>> to
>>>>>>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did
>>>>>>> things that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra
>>>>>>> light flying far later than allowed popped out of the dark
>>>>>>> directly in front of
>>> me
>>>>>>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the
>>> end
>>>>>>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant
>>> where
>>>>>>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go
>>> missed
>>>>>>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said
>>> and
>>>>>>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>>>>>>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>>>>>>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came
>>> but
>>>>>>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I
>>> did
>>>>>>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I
>>>>>>> figured had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he
>>>>>>> figured that I knew the limits of the plane and would react
>>>>>>> quicker than he could even if he could see. He was right though,
>>>>>>> The urgency (I couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told
>>>>>>> me that this
>>> should
>>>>>>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120
>>> for
>>>>>>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the
>>> PTS.
>>>>>>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits
>>>>>>> of the Deb.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>>>> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins,
>>>>> some hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember
>>>>> filing
>>> and
>>>>> putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so
>>>>> afraid
>>> to
>>>>> deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my
>>>>> fin
>>> in
>>>>> the clouds..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the
>>> requirement
>>>> was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from
>>> the
>>>> other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just
>>>> racking my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for
>>>> the
>>> PRIVATE!!
>>>
>>> I really can't remember, but I do remember being surprised when
>>> instructing years later that i learned that many considered 45 deg to
>>> be steep, so I must have learned at 60 degrees as well.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> I'm sure you did.
>>
>> The problem with 45 degrees of bank is that it teaches little about
>> control in steep banked attitudes such as shallowing the bank before
>> raising the nose in a nose low condition caused by over bank.
>
> Yeah. OK. That makes sense.
>> I've never liked the 45 degree parameter and have always recommended
>> to instructors that they teach bank control all the way out to 60
>> degrees regardless of the requirement.
>> This entire movement to make flying more "comfortable" for the masses
>> to sell airplanes and push aviation by lowering the requirements has
>> been flawed from the beginning in my opinion.
>
> Well, exactly.
>> If I've flown with one pilot I've flown with a hundred who, when put
>> in a 60 degree banked turn with the nose going down and being told to
>> raise the nose, pulled instead of
>> shallowing out the bank first, tightening up the nose low condition.
>> It's a shame really, and I hate to see it.
>
> Hmm. I've never othought of steep turns as this sort of exercise. I've
> alwyas looked at them as keeping, rather than a regaining control type
> of thing, but I might try this with some of my guys if we ever get the
> damned airplane!
> You're sort of crossing over into the spiral dive lesson there. Not a
> bad thing...
>
>
> Bertie
>
Actually you're right on how you view the exercise. It is an exercise in
maintaining control. What happens however, with the average pilot,
especially those not trained in steep turns at around 60 degrees, is
that invariably, pilots trying to maintain that 60 degree bank will
allow the nose to get lower than the horizon line as they attempt to
maintain and control the over bank.
When this happens, the only way to correct and get the nose back
tracking again on the horizon is to shallow out FIRST, then raise the
nose back up where it belongs. Trying to solve the error by pulling the
nose back up without shallowing first just takes the pilot deeper into
the error.
The secondary error that is most common is in not releasing the back
pressure properly then reapplying it again as the turn is reversed.
All in all, 60 degree banked turn to alternating sides is a wonderful
training tool. These turns teach control pressure blending and
coordination better than any other maneuver I've ever used .
If a pilot can enter alternating 720's and perform the turns AND the
transition through the reversal between them within a 50 foot altitude
error parameter, they KNOW control pressure and can FLY the airplane!

A side advantage to learning steep 720's VFR really comes in handy later
on if
a pilot goes into serious instrument training where recovery from nose
low unusual attitudes requires correcting the bank first, then raising
the nose........as I've always maintained and always will...it's the way
you learn the basics that will determine how well you eventually will
fly all through your career in aviation.

--
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

> When this happens, the only way to correct and get the nose back tracking
> again on the horizon is to shallow out FIRST, then raise the nose back up
> where it belongs.

I guess a little top rudder is right out, eh?



> The secondary error that is most common is in not releasing the back
> pressure properly then reapplying it again as the turn is reversed.
> All in all, 60 degree banked turn to alternating sides is a wonderful
> training tool. These turns teach control pressure blending and
> coordination better than any other maneuver I've ever used .
> If a pilot can enter alternating 720's and perform the turns AND the
> transition through the reversal between them within a 50 foot altitude
> error parameter, they KNOW control pressure and can FLY the airplane!

You're on. That will be the drill for Saturday.

I've done a lot of low/slow/steep flying lately on photo missions. Your
drill should help.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" wrote:
>
>> When this happens, the only way to correct and get the nose back tracking
>> again on the horizon is to shallow out FIRST, then raise the nose back up
>> where it belongs.
>
> I guess a little top rudder is right out, eh

Top rudder will produce a slipping turn but won't counteract the nose
down tendency. It will also take you out of complimentary coordination
and into slip which is undesirable in this instance. Remember, you're
holding in back pressure to produce the turn. The bank absolutely has to
be shallowed to the point where the nose can be raised as opposed to
pulled down deeper into the error.

When you are trying out these turns, try using top rudder when nose down
and note the result.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 13, 12:55 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 6:05 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>
> > > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > Yes, your psychologist did say all your information is classified, but I
> > > thought that was due to doctor/patient privileges :)
>
> > u1= -sin H sin P cos R + cos H sin R
> > u2 = cos H sin P cos R - sin H sin R
> > u3 = cos P cos R
> > Unit vector u is up, H is Heading, R is Roll, P is Pitch.
>
> > Vectors A = G+L+T+D
> > A is net acceleration, Gravity, Lift, Thrust, Drag.
> > G = -1k.
>
> > Is any of that familiar?
> > If so, are the components of u correct?
> > I'm also a student of aerodynamics.
>
> Nope. Forces don't equal acceleration

LOL, does a "unit" mass shine a light?
Ken

On Mar 13, 6:23 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >> Roger wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you flying?
> >>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
> >>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
> >>>>>>> Ken
> >>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>
> >>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
> >>>>>> reality....
>
> >>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
> >>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
> >>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
> >>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
> >>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
> >>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
> >>> proficient
> >>> ant not just current.
>
> >>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
> >>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>
> >>>> 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.
> >>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to the
> >>> ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor started
> >>> talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to just roll into
> >>> it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left and pulled. Coming
> >>> up on the proper heading he said now lets do one the other direction
> >>> where by I rolled to the right and pulled. This brought a laughing
> >>> comment, "You really like to do these things don't you?" My puzzled
> >>> "sure", brought the explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only
> >>> grudgingly do 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them
> >>> complain when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so
> >>> they couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>
> >>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60 degrees
> >>> or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go out to
> >>> practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>
> >>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
> >>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different banking
> >>> tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be put back to
> >>> that. There have been moments where I've been glad they did things
> >>> that way back then. One such moment was when a ultra light flying
> >>> far later than allowed popped out of the dark directly in front of me
> >>> when I was no more than a couple hundred yards (if that) from the end
> >>> of the runway. Another was on the VOR approach to MtPleasant where
> >>> you fly directly over the runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed
> >>> on 27. When the instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and
> >>> I quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
> >>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
> >>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came but
> >>> from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet. BTW I did
> >>> all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI that I figured
> >>> had it been really close he'd have taken over. He said he figured
> >>> that I knew the limits of the plane and would react quicker than he
> >>> could even if he could see. He was right though, The urgency (I
> >>> couldeven feel him tense sitting next to me) told me that this should
> >>> be a maximum effort and not just a climb. Made me glad I use 120 for
> >>> approaches instead of 80 or 90 too<:-))
>
> >>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the PTS.
> >>> They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the limits of
> >>> the Deb.
>
> >>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> >>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> >>>www.rogerhalstead.com
> >> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as well.
>
> > Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins, some
> > hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember filing and
> > putting in a cruising altitude of say, 3500 and then being so afraid to
> > deviate from it I flew underneat an overcast at that alt with my fin in
> > the clouds..
>
> > Bertie
>
> A lot has changed since those days. If I remember right, the requirement
> was for a 60 degree banked turn in both directions entering one from the
> other within an altitude parameter either way of 50 feet. Just racking
> my memory here but that sounds close.....and this was for the PRIVATE!!
> :-))
> Dudley Henriques

An instrument that was stressed for me during
instruction was this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator

The 60 degree banked turn (IIRC), did require that
50' +/- altitude, keeping the ball centered, and
maintaining a constant KIAS with some +power.

When that 50' +/- requirement was spec'd by the
instructor I got fixated on the "rate of climb"
indicator.
Well he smirked and sent my concentration to the
attitude indicator and to learn to use that.
Other pilots have mentioned the attitude indicator
is the most important instrument.
What do you guys think?
Ken

On Mar 14, 4:36*am, "Ron A." > wrote:
> I didn't know at the time about turning more than standard rate on the
> coordinator, it was something I hadn't done when he requested it. *The peg
> is around 45 degrees or so. *I was also watching my airspeed for decay while
> maintaining level flight. *And I know you aren't supposed to use the feeling
> in your butt for instrument flight, but it I couldn't help it being a newbie
> to instrument flight. *I of course rely on the instruments when they don't
> agree with my body.
>

I think something is not quite right here. I may have this wrong, but
the TC doesn't indicate angle of bank at all. It's a rate instrument
and indicates rate of roll and rate of turn (plus ball) -at least
that's what I learnt. In that case where the peg is does not inicate
angle of bank but rate of bank/turn

Cheers

On Mar 13, 1:19 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> An instrument that was stressed for me during
> instruction was this,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator
>
> The 60 degree banked turn (IIRC), did require that
> 50' +/- altitude, keeping the ball centered, and
> maintaining a constant KIAS with some +power.
>
> When that 50' +/- requirement was spec'd by the
> instructor I got fixated on the "rate of climb"
> indicator.
> Well he smirked and sent my concentration to the
> attitude indicator and to learn to use that.
> Other pilots have mentioned the attitude indicator
> is the most important instrument.
> What do you guys think?
> Ken

We think it shows you have not had any training. PPL students
are told to LOOK OUTSIDE during steep turn training, not to fixate on
instruments. They need to see what the horizon is up to, not what
instruments are indicating. A glance at the ASI and altimeter every
few seconds is in order, but they're not to refer to the AI constantly
for steep turns. We've had students who were all over the sky, chasing
instrument needles, so we sometimes cover up the whole panel and make
them do it by looking outside; the airplane settles down and behaves
itself. Amazing.
This is standard Canadian PPL curriculum, and the US wouldn't
be much different.

Dan

On Mar 14, 8:33 am, WingFlaps > wrote:

> I think something is not quite right here. I may have this wrong, but
> the TC doesn't indicate angle of bank at all. It's a rate instrument
> and indicates rate of roll and rate of turn (plus ball) -at least
> that's what I learnt. In that case where the peg is does not inicate
> angle of bank but rate of bank/turn
>

Needle Rate of turn.

Ball Balanced turn

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:16:23 -0800, Jim Stewart wrote:

> 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.

I hope this isn't copyrighted because I just stole it.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
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.

On Mar 14, 7:52*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 13, 12:55 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 7:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 12, 6:05 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>
> > > > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> > > > Yes, your psychologist did say all your information is classified, but I
> > > > thought that was due to doctor/patient privileges :)
>
> > > u1= -sin H sin P cos R + cos H sin R
> > > u2 = cos H sin P cos R - sin H sin R
> > > u3 = cos P cos R
> > > Unit vector u is up, H is Heading, R is Roll, P is Pitch.
>
> > > Vectors A = G+L+T+D
> > > A is net acceleration, Gravity, Lift, Thrust, Drag.
> > > G = -1k.
>
> > > Is any of that familiar?
> > > If so, are the components of u correct?
> > > I'm also a student of aerodynamics.
>
> > Nope. Forces don't equal acceleration
>
> LOL, does a "unit" mass shine a light?

Nope, you're still a fraud. G is not -1k in any standard unit system.

Cheers

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 13, 6:23 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >> Roger wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:52:38 -0800, Jim Stewart
>> >>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >>>>> On Mar 12, 3:39 am, Dan > wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 am, "Ken S. Tucker" >
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> --> IGNORE BELOW <--> Depends on the A/C, what were you
>> >>>>>> flying?
>> >>>>>>> In an F-4 doing a 3-4g bank is easy, but in
>> >>>>>>> a trainer I'd suggest 2g max.
>> >>>>>>> Ken
>> >>>>>> --> IGNORE ABOVE <---
>>
>> >>>>>> Assuming you're not flying an F-4 in a sim, we'll move on to
>> >>>>>> reality....
>>
>> >>>>>> This fear is (correctly) pounded into every aspiring/training
>> >>>>>> pilot -- don't cross control stall on turn to final!
>> >>>>> A pilot is trained to do 2g coordinated turns,
>> >>>>> even in twink flying, gee I wonder why.
>> >>>>> It's a perfectly safe thing to do and IIRC was
>> >>> Perfectly safe if not close to the ground and the pilot is
>> >>> proficient
>> >>> ant not just current.
>>
>> >>>>> a requirement for a pilot's license.
>> >>>> Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
>>
>> >>>> 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.
>> >>> 2Gg turns are fun nor are they hazardous when not done close to
>> >>> the ground. When I took Bo specific training the instructor
>> >>> started talking me into a steep turn. I asked if it was OK to
>> >>> just roll into it and go. I He said "OK", so I just rolled left
>> >>> and pulled. Coming up on the proper heading he said now lets do
>> >>> one the other direction where by I rolled to the right and
>> >>> pulled. This brought a laughing comment, "You really like to do
>> >>> these things don't you?" My puzzled "sure", brought the
>> >>> explanation that most of the Bo pilots would only grudgingly do
>> >>> 45 degrees let alone 60. You should have heard them complain
>> >>> when told the instructors would be blocking the yokes so they
>> >>> couldn't use the ailerons when doing stalls.<:-))
>>
>> >>> I've found few of newer pilots and instructors like 2G at 60
>> >>> degrees or the stalling characteristics of the Deb so when I go
>> >>> out to practice it's only the "old timers" who go along.
>>
>> >>> When I took the PTS it was 60 degrees and 2Gs. By not going to 60
>> >>> degrees in steep turns the students miss out on the different
>> >>> banking tendencies/characteristics. I often think it should be
>> >>> put back to that. There have been moments where I've been glad
>> >>> they did things that way back then. One such moment was when a
>> >>> ultra light flying far later than allowed popped out of the dark
>> >>> directly in front of me when I was no more than a couple hundred
>> >>> yards (if that) from the end of the runway. Another was on the
>> >>> VOR approach to MtPleasant where you fly directly over the
>> >>> runway at 500 feet to the VOR to go missed on 27. When the
>> >>> instructor's voice went up an octave and he said and I
>> >>> quote..."What that...Oh, ****! Pull UP, Pull UP! I went full
>> >>> power, stood the Deb on end and did a push over to level off that
>> >>> left things floating. He never would tell me how close we came
>> >>> but from his actions I'd say probably no more than a few feet.
>> >>> BTW I did all of that under the hood. I mentioned to the CFI
>> >>> that I figured had it been really close he'd have taken over. He
>> >>> said he figured that I knew the limits of the plane and would
>> >>> react quicker than he could even if he could see. He was right
>> >>> though, The urgency (I couldeven feel him tense sitting next to
>> >>> me) told me that this should be a maximum effort and not just a
>> >>> climb. Made me glad I use 120 for approaches instead of 80 or 90
>> >>> too<:-))
>>
>> >>> Neither of these were things covered in primary training or the
>> >>> PTS. They took a lot of time and practice getting to know the
>> >>> limits of the Deb.
>>
>> >>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> >>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> >>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>> >> I agree. I had to do 60 degree banked turns for my Private as
>> >> well.
>>
>> > Sheesh. I can't remember what I had to do . I do remember spins,
>> > some hood time and an engine failure on takeoff. I also remember
>> &