Lazy Eight's

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

wrote

It would be interesting for someone to run a simulation for that
airplane and track, to gain a sense of how much time the pilot and CFI
would have had from the time the problem was obvious, and what they
might have done about it. It might give some insight as to if they
had the airspeed to climb fast enough. Did they have 2 seconds to
react, or 15?

I remember seeing some radar tracks, and although I do not remember what
the
speed was, I thought that they were going way faster than needed, and that
excess speed could have been partially responsible (among other factors,
such as the wind, just naming one) for not being able to turn in a tight
enough radius.

If that is the case, and there was a speed reserve, they would have been
able to do a zoom climb, and avoid the building. As to when they should
have recognized the problem, I would guesstimate that they should have
realized there was a problem, say, 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the way around the
turn. How many seconds would it take to execute a 180? 30 or 40 seconds?
If that is the case, then 3/4ths of the way around would be at worst 7.5
seconds. & seconds would have been enough time, to climb (or change the
bank angle and fly past it) and avoid crashing.

This all hinges on realizing that there was a severe problem, which it
seems
obvious they did not.

All in all, it was a tragic incident, and it really does not matter to
them
what the mistake was. They are dead, and that is the end as far as they
are
concerned.
--
Jim in NC


All that I recall seeing was a simulation made by/for one of the news
agencies.

In the simulation, they began the left turn from approximately the center of
the river--although I don't know the source of that presumption and have
serious doubts. However, in the event that it was factual, the two
reasonable actions would have been to 1) move over to the edge of the
corridor before beginning the turnaround, or 2) continue straight ahead,
contact ATC, and say the "E" word.

As you point out, they are dead and clearly did not realize they had an
emergency untill very late in the chain of events. Regrettably, all that
the rest of us can really learn from their demise is to reinforce what we
already knew: Situational awareness is important.

Peter

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2007-06-24 19:35:43 -0700, Dudley Henriques said:
What I do with acro students having trouble with Lazy 8's is to have
them concentrate on doing a good wingover first. This way, they can
concentrate on the 90 degree reference point, the 45 degree point and
the 135 degree point on one side only at a time.
When you can consistantly perform good wingovers to one side, then the
other, you should then put them together and do Lazy 8's.
Basically, you are dealing with pitch and bank and what you have to do
with varying control pressures with BOTH these parameters to achieve
the desired result.

Dudley, I am not sure I understand this as a teaching technique for a
Lazy Eight. You get examiners who complain that people doing Lazy Eights
are actually doing Wingovers instead of Lazy Eights. You see comments
like this, for example, in Ken Medley's article on the AOPA web site:

"Examiners complain that many applicants actually do wingovers when they
think they are doing lazy eights. A wingover is a good, easy aerobatic
maneuver, but it isn't a lazy eight.
In lazy eights you fly the airplane throughout. In wingovers, you slip
the airplane during the turnaround. For lazy eights, fly the airplane
throughout the turns - no slipping - and be sure to allow for torque."

Although you can indeed slip through a wing over, if you're slipping
through a wing over, you are too slow through the apex.

When I say wing over as relates to a lazy 8, I'm simply referring to the
first half of a Lazy 8, not a maximum performance, high angle bank
through the top usually associated with a "wing over".

The Thunderbirds use the same derivative maneuver and call it a
"Wifferdill". To them, it gets them turned around with minimum energy loss.
The main objective in splitting a Lazy 8 into 2 parts is to get the
student used to flying the airplane through the apex coordinated with
the right bank and pitch inputs, which have to be constantly changed
pressure wise through the entire maneuver. Once the student can do a 1/2
Lazy 8 to pre-stated parameters, then you introduce the second half and
the transition issues the second half involves.
This is simply 1/2 of a Lazy 8 referred to as a wing over. The reason I
refer to it as a wingover is that when I teach Lazy 8's, I teach them to
varying pitch and bank parameters rather than only to the FAA standard
parameters. A Lazy 8 can be performed to various pitch and bank
combinations and I like my students to be able to do them this way as
preparation for aerobatics. The result of this type of approach to a
Lazy 8 should produce a student who can give you a decent Lazy 8 to any
combination of pitch and bank requested, thus demonstrating a much
improved understanding of what is required in control pressures in
combinmation that simply teaching the maneuver to a single FAA standard.
Contrary to "popular belief", you can easily fly through a wing over
without slipping through the top. You simply need better airspeed
control throughout the maneuver.
As was my policy throughout my tenure as a flight instructor; I geared
ALL my teaching toward preparing my students to fly using the FAA test
standard as a STARTING POINT, not as a single level of competence to be
attained and demonstrated for the purpose of passing a flight test.
Doing a Lazy 8 to the FAA stated standard should be, and indeed CAN be,
simply another maneuver done as requested by an examiner, when in
actuality, the student could if asked, perform the same Lazy 8 to a
higher or lessor degree of bank with the same coordinated results.

Dudley Henriques

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:19:42 -0400, "birdog" wrote:

Who the hell's dumb enough to fly up a blind canyon below the rim?

Corey Lidle?

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you glue a piece of toast, butter side up, to your cat's back, and drop it from a high place, which way will it land?

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:35:43 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Only way to do this would be a Hammerhead, and a Hammerhead done
perfectly as well :-)

Of course the danger of a hammerhead (in a non aerobatic airplane, and
especially if performed by an inexperienced pilot) is kicking the
rudder too late and doing a tailslide, which makes most non acro
planes quite unhappy...

OTOH if you kick the rudder a bit earlier you'll use a bit more than
that one wingspan (do you really need to be THAT tight?), and you
wouldn't get a good score in an aerobatic contest, but you won't rip
the tail off, either.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you glue a piece of toast, butter side up, to your cat's back, and drop it from a high place, which way will it land?

If you glue a piece of toast, butter side up, to your cat's back, and drop it from a high place, which way will it land?

By george, you've just invented lift fairies!

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
If you glue a piece of toast, butter side up, to your cat's back, and
drop it from a high place, which way will it land?

By george, you've just invented lift fairies!

Jose

Subject: Lift demons

Mary Shafer ) explains lift:

OK, here it is--the real, intuitively-obvious-even-to-the-lay-person
explanation of lift.

People, lift is caused by lift demons. These little, invisible demons
hold on to the leading and trailing edges of the aircraft and lift it
into the air by flapping their wings (so, in a reductionist sense,
lift is actually caused by feathers). Some of the demons are a little
confused and they hold on backwards, causing drag.

The reason that planes stall at high alpha is that the leading edge
demons get scared and let go when they can't see the ground anymore.

Lift demons have good taste and don't like to look at ugly aircraft,
so they hold on backwards on ugly planes. That's why gliders have
so much lift and so little drag and why F-4s have lots of drag.

John Wolter ) asked:

What I would like is a simple *intuitive* explanation of what causes
lift
on a lift demon's wing. (Here we go again... ;-)

Mary Shafer ) replied:

Feathers. The multiple filaments on feathers trap the air molecules
and they struggle to escape, which causes the action-reaction that we
call lift. Bat wings don't have feathers but they're hairy and that
works just about as well (air molecules are a little claustrophobic).

And Richard Winterstein ) suggested another
mechanism:

It was originally believed smaller lift demons, who had their lift
produced by even smaller lift demons, etc., as proposed by the great
Greek philosopher/scientist Miasma. However, with the revival of
scientific knowledge that eventually ended the Dark Ages, it was
realized that this situation was unresolvable according to Zeno's
paradox.

Of course, the 'infinite demons' theory works in many problems of
engineering signifigance, but a real understanding requires that the
ether be introduced into the analysis at some point. The ether
concept, of course, explains why planes fly more efficiently at higher
altitudes, and, of course, is an absolute necessity when studying
orbital and interplanetary travel, where (it is believed) many of the
lift demons are unable to breathe. Hope that settles the question.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:35:43 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

On 2007-06-24 10:51:51 -0400, "Dick" said:

After taking some rigorous Unusual Attitudes Training, now I can't do a
smooth Lazy Eight to save my soul G (or comfort my wife).

One item the course taught me was a Modified Wingover which allowed a blind
canyon 180* turn within a wingspan.

Only way to do this would be a Hammerhead, and a Hammerhead done
perfectly as well :-)





Unfortunately after I look left over the wing to line up with the entry
point and initiate first pitch/bank, I'm then at the 90* point and still too
fast.....

Advice please. Thanks, Dick

Hi Dick;

I won't get into the mechanics on Lazy 8's as there are literally
hundreds of competent sources available and I'm sure you have already
read them.
Procedure is only part of the equation when it comes to doing a good Lazy 8.
Contrary to what some might think, doing a good Lazy 8 within specific
parameters is actually not as easy as it might seem. In fact, as an
aerobatic instructor, I'll have even a competent acro pilot demonstrate
a good Lazy 8 to me before moving on into the "good stuff" :-)
The key to doing good Lazy 8's is control coordination and feel. You

"To me" and I emphasize to me and I have nowhere near a fraction of
the knowledge or skill in aerobatics as you, but I know what the lazy
8 is going to look like and "feel" like at each point in a particular
plane. "To me" all maneuvers are like that and probably more feel than
every thing else put together, but I know my plane well throughout the
envelope and know the feeling for all of the edges.


When I haven't flown for a while and my competency suffers, like now,
I go out and spend hours getting reacquainted before I am really
comfortable.

I found the much steeper lazy 8 far easier to learn than the 15, 30 15
degree banked civilian lazy 8.

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:35:43 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

On 2007-06-24 10:51:51 -0400, "Dick" said:

After taking some rigorous Unusual Attitudes Training, now I can't do a
smooth Lazy Eight to save my soul G (or comfort my wife).

One item the course taught me was a Modified Wingover which allowed a blind
canyon 180* turn within a wingspan.
Only way to do this would be a Hammerhead, and a Hammerhead done
perfectly as well :-)




Unfortunately after I look left over the wing to line up with the entry
point and initiate first pitch/bank, I'm then at the 90* point and still too
fast.....

Advice please. Thanks, Dick
Hi Dick;

I won't get into the mechanics on Lazy 8's as there are literally
hundreds of competent sources available and I'm sure you have already
read them.
Procedure is only part of the equation when it comes to doing a good Lazy 8.
Contrary to what some might think, doing a good Lazy 8 within specific
parameters is actually not as easy as it might seem. In fact, as an
aerobatic instructor, I'll have even a competent acro pilot demonstrate
a good Lazy 8 to me before moving on into the "good stuff" :-)
The key to doing good Lazy 8's is control coordination and feel. You

"To me" and I emphasize to me and I have nowhere near a fraction of
the knowledge or skill in aerobatics as you, but I know what the lazy
8 is going to look like and "feel" like at each point in a particular
plane. "To me" all maneuvers are like that and probably more feel than
every thing else put together, but I know my plane well throughout the
envelope and know the feeling for all of the edges.

When I haven't flown for a while and my competency suffers, like now,
I go out and spend hours getting reacquainted before I am really
comfortable.

I found the much steeper lazy 8 far easier to learn than the 15, 30 15
degree banked civilian lazy 8.

You are right. The shallow Lazy 8 is in my opinion harder to control
than the steep 8. The reason is that the control pressures are more
subtle and take place over a longer time period in the shallow 8.
A good shallow Lazy 8 done correctly is the mark of a well trained pilot.
Dudley Henriques

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:03:35 -0000, wrote:

Opps -- asked a question that I could have checked on myself.

looks like a 60 degree bank and 60 MPH would result in a turn diameter
a bit under 300 feet (no wind etc)

I'll bet it'd be a whole lot wider than that in the Deb at 60 while
losing a *lot* of altitude. At 60 degrees it stalls at just a bit
under 120 MPH in a coordinated turn.:-))