Sloppy Piloting

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:33:13 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in
:

Wow! I never would have guessed!

I would have thought more like 75 knots. Learn something new.

Best glide (at gross) is 120:-)) = ~ 600 fpm which makes for a pretty
good glide ratio.


Pretty good? That's an L/D of 20/1.. Couldn't be. I'd be seriously
impressed with 14/1

5280 feet / 300 feet per statute mile = 17.6:1
We're relying on a foggy memory here, but next time out I'll try to
remember to refresh it. :-))

It's considerably more than that of a 172. On my last biennial flight
review the CFI pulled the power right as I was taking the hood off
after a bunch of instrument work. We were at 4000. He said, "find a
spot", I suggested the airport which was about 6 miles to the East. I
received the usual, "think you can do it", and I replied "with room to
spare". Actually it was a LOT of room to spare, as I had enough extra
altitude to fly the pattern (with a close base) while slipping all the
time. Pattern altitude is about 1700 with field elevation being 630.
So we had 4000 - 1700 = 2300 feet to lose in 6 miles and ended up
reaching the airport at roughly 500 above the pattern or 2700. That
figures out to about 4000 - 2200 = 1800/6 = 300 FPM. (These are rough
figures) other than the starting altitude, and knowing I was well
above the pattern altitude when I got there) I don't usually have to
slip all the way down wind to base, to the runway. :-))


OTOH with a normal VFR landing, final is 80 MPH/70 knots minus 1 MPH
for each 100# under gross. With just me and half fuel at about 75-76
MPH (and a fair amount of power, the old girl can make some really
short landings. With only my 40 minutes and 3 landings since last
March I'm not quite that proficient... yet. :-)) of course the
weather has been crap ever since that flight except yesterday and I
had too much to do. Maybe I can get out again this Saturday or Sunday
between snow showers. (winter storm coming in tonight.)

The the old V tail I once flew was extremely good at short field stuff.
I remember being amazed.

Book figures are better than many 172s. :-)) It's a slippery plane
but the wing loading on mine is the same as many Cherokees (~17#sq ft)
The older V-Tails like the one you flew are lighter yet.
The wing loading on the G-III I'm building is 29# plus change.


BTW that difference between best glide and a normal landing really
screws with some pilots minds. Little high on final. Lower the nose
and you find the extra speed will move your landing spot farther
down the runway. OTOH get 'er down to the proper speed and with those
big flaps she'll come down right steep with a surprising rate of
descent too. :-))

Yeah, thsat makes sense.

Add some slip and you can scare some Cherokee and Cessna pilots. For
that matter you can scare a lot of Bo pilots too. :-)) Most of 'em
land way too fast and aren't used to seeing the VSI wayyyy over
"there". That's what Maynord was laughing about when I made the one
pattern a U-turn from down wind to the numbers. He knows more about
flying Bo's than I'll probably ever learn.


Power off landings use a lot more runway than normal landings
Roger (K8RI)


Well, you could fiddle around with that with some odd technique, but
it's true of most airplanes that you can touch down a bit more slowly
with the power on.

Power off landing is 90 while the normal is the 80 minus listed above.
The manual states you need the extra speed to have enough energy to
flare.

Roger (K8RI)

Bertie

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in
:

5280 feet / 300 feet per statute mile = 17.6:1
We're relying on a foggy memory here, but next time out I'll try to
remember to refresh it. :-))


Oh, OK, I was thinking NM becaus I'm used to just taking the descentx
the TAS. even 17/1 sounds , um optimistic. Some of the gliders I used to
fly wouldn't do that ( the 1-19, for instance)


It's considerably more than that of a 172.

Oh yeah!


On my last biennial flight
review the CFI pulled the power right as I was taking the hood off
after a bunch of instrument work. We were at 4000. He said, "find a
spot", I suggested the airport which was about 6 miles to the East. I
received the usual, "think you can do it", and I replied "with room to
spare". Actually it was a LOT of room to spare, as I had enough extra
altitude to fly the pattern (with a close base) while slipping all the
time. Pattern altitude is about 1700 with field elevation being 630.
So we had 4000 - 1700 = 2300 feet to lose in 6 miles and ended up
reaching the airport at roughly 500 above the pattern or 2700. That
figures out to about 4000 - 2200 = 1800/6 = 300 FPM. (These are rough
figures) other than the starting altitude, and knowing I was well
above the pattern altitude when I got there) I don't usually have to
slip all the way down wind to base, to the runway. :-))


OK. I'll take your word for it, but if I was flying one, I don't think
I'd bet the farm on it on the day.


Book figures are better than many 172s. :-)) It's a slippery plane
but the wing loading on mine is the same as many Cherokees (~17#sq ft)
The older V-Tails like the one you flew are lighter yet.
The wing loading on the G-III I'm building is 29# plus change.

Well, the loading won't change the L/D anyway, but I didn't do any
soaring in the one I flew!
I'd have to check but I think it wa a D. About 1953? had the triangular
third window. Can't remember which engine, but an electric prop.



BTW that difference between best glide and a normal landing really
screws with some pilots minds. Little high on final. Lower the nose
and you find the extra speed will move your landing spot farther
down the runway. OTOH get 'er down to the proper speed and with
those
big flaps she'll come down right steep with a surprising rate of
descent too. :-))

Yeah, thsat makes sense.

Add some slip and you can scare some Cherokee and Cessna pilots. For
that matter you can scare a lot of Bo pilots too. :-)) Most of 'em
land way too fast and aren't used to seeing the VSI wayyyy over
"there".


Yeah, I know what you're talking about there. A lot of guys, when thye
move into higher performance airplanes, start flying crazy big patterns
and landing at outrageous speeds.
"no more than you absolutely need"


Power off landing is 90 while the normal is the 80 minus listed above.
The manual states you need the extra speed to have enough energy to
flare.


OK. Again, I'll have to defer! Loooong time since I flew a single
retract. We have to land with power on, but we could land at idle if we
wanted to!


Bertie

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:02:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:



1. Sterile Cockpit: gone
2. Fly Headings: Whatever
3. Level Flight: More or less
4. See and Avoid: Avoid Seeing
5: Nice Field down the finding an emergency LZ
6. Stealth Traffic Pattern
7. Flat Landings
8. Go Around
9. Slow flight: Or an inability to perform slow
10: Stalls

wow such a detailed list.
you could do all that in the late evening at 65 knots and never even
raise a sweat. such a champion!

how about a sloppy pilot is the guy who cant fly his aircraft in a 20
knot crosswind.

fly a decent aircraft like a tailwind and you'll never get sloppy.

I wouldn't imagine so!

Tell me a bit about the tailwind.. I've always had a bit of a yen for
one...



Bertie

deliberately uncomfortable to sit in for long periods ...so that you
dont go to sleep.

pretty well neutrally stable.

very sensitive controls that require you to fly with the arm resting
on the leg to steady the hand.

totally honest aerodynamics. all controls are well harmonised and
equally sensitive.

mine now cruises at 120 knots at 2500rpm and a little over 20 litres
per hour fuel burn.

takeoff safety speed 57 knots
best angle of climb 60 knots
best rate of climb 70 knots
turbulence penetration 100knots
vne 160 knots
max flap 85 knots
stall no flap 52 knots
stall 30 degrees of flap 47 knots
approach speed 70 knots

3 points with 20 degrees of flap.

fuselage has a noticeable buffet 5 knots before stall.

if you take a cessna 150 as a difficulty benchmark.
an Auster J1B is a quantum leap harder to fly.
a Tailwind is a quantum leap harder again to fly.
took me 100 hours to be really comfortable flying it. it is now just
an extension of my hand. I can and have and do fy in 20 knot
crosswinds.

mine is a W8 with the improved wing, 120 litre tank and slightly
stretched seat position.

if you fly at 80 knots and hold the stick rock steady, then haul on
full flaps, you will seem to be pointing vertically downward.

on a summer's day I can leave Perth in western australia at crack of
dawn and be in Ceduna in south australia by nightfall.
I've owned mine 9 years and 360 hours flying. the aircraft was first
flown in 1985 and the previous owner did 320 hours in it.

btw all that and more is etched in my head. I dont use checklists.
I use left to right and right to left scans.

I have no intentions of ever selling my aircraft.
I might be a quiet unassuming guy but I have stainless steel balls.
I'm a tailwind pilot :-)
Stealth Pilot

The the old V tail I once flew was extremely good at short field stuff.
I remember being amazed.

A friend lets me fly his 1947 straight 35 Bonanza. While the panel
needs a serious upgrade and the interior screams 1965, the thing
climbs at 1500-2000 FPM single pilot and lands in less distance than a
172.

Not bad for 185 HP, 7 GPH airplane that can cruise at 140 TAS!

I did some night stop and go practice this week after she sat for a
month (December has been terrible for VFR) and was really impressed.
All my time lately has been in the A36 (which can be flown slow and
land short as well -- just not as short as the 35), so the sights and
sounds were quite different -- but all good.

Winds were straight down the runway at 5.

With two of us on board we were 200' AGL halfway down the 4000' foot
runway. Landings were accomplished and all rolling was complete before
the 1500' mark.

I probably could have shortened it up even more by using 73 MPH as
final approach speed instead of 80. On this flight I used 80 from
abeam the numbers to base to final, then gradually bled off the
airspeed over the threshold. By the time we reached the touchdown
point airspeed was 65-70 MPH.

Dan
http://trainingforcfi.blogspot.com/

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

deliberately uncomfortable to sit in for long periods ...so that you
dont go to sleep.

He he. Been there done that!


pretty well neutrally stable.

very sensitive controls that require you to fly with the arm resting
on the leg to steady the hand.

totally honest aerodynamics. all controls are well harmonised and
equally sensitive.

mine now cruises at 120 knots at 2500rpm and a little over 20 litres
per hour fuel burn.


O 200?

takeoff safety speed 57 knots
best angle of climb 60 knots
best rate of climb 70 knots
turbulence penetration 100knots
vne 160 knots
max flap 85 knots
stall no flap 52 knots
stall 30 degrees of flap 47 knots
approach speed 70 knots

3 points with 20 degrees of flap.

VNE is 160? How are the guys that are claiming over 200mph top speed
managing it? I know they are running O320s and probably hopped up at
that, but are they doing this at altitude, or are theydoing airframe
mods to raise VNE or are they hallucinating?


fuselage has a noticeable buffet 5 knots before stall.

if you take a cessna 150 as a difficulty benchmark.
an Auster J1B is a quantum leap harder to fly.
a Tailwind is a quantum leap harder again to fly.
took me 100 hours to be really comfortable flying it. it is now just
an extension of my hand. I can and have and do fy in 20 knot
crosswinds.


Sounds like fun!

mine is a W8 with the improved wing, 120 litre tank and slightly
stretched seat position.


The tank all behind the panel?

if you fly at 80 knots and hold the stick rock steady, then haul on
full flaps, you will seem to be pointing vertically downward.

on a summer's day I can leave Perth in western australia at crack of
dawn and be in Ceduna in south australia by nightfall.
I've owned mine 9 years and 360 hours flying. the aircraft was first
flown in 1985 and the previous owner did 320 hours in it.

btw all that and more is etched in my head. I dont use checklists.
I use left to right and right to left scans.

Well, we do that in airliners for the most part. We have only an
abbrevisated checklist owadays, but OTOH we have a few warning systems
if we elave anything switched off.

I have no intentions of ever selling my aircraft.
I might be a quiet unassuming guy but I have stainless steel balls.
I'm a tailwind pilot :-)


Hehe I've seen some beauts!

How's the short field performance? Would you get out of a 4oo meter
grass strip 2up?
I've eyeballed the Buttercup as well, but I think I'd better finish the
hatz first!

Bertie

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:59:43 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

deliberately uncomfortable to sit in for long periods ...so that you
dont go to sleep.

He he. Been there done that!


pretty well neutrally stable.

very sensitive controls that require you to fly with the arm resting
on the leg to steady the hand.

totally honest aerodynamics. all controls are well harmonised and
equally sensitive.

mine now cruises at 120 knots at 2500rpm and a little over 20 litres
per hour fuel burn.


O 200?

yeah O-200. a lovely engine. the only drawback is the marvel schebler
support going toes up.

takeoff safety speed 57 knots
best angle of climb 60 knots
best rate of climb 70 knots
turbulence penetration 100knots
vne 160 knots
max flap 85 knots
stall no flap 52 knots
stall 30 degrees of flap 47 knots
approach speed 70 knots

3 points with 20 degrees of flap.

VNE is 160? How are the guys that are claiming over 200mph top speed
managing it? I know they are running O320s and probably hopped up at
that, but are they doing this at altitude, or are theydoing airframe
mods to raise VNE or are they hallucinating?

After 10 years of being around this aircraft I still have no idea how
the Vne was set. It is possible that there have never been structural
calcs other than what Fairchild did after WW2 but I've never ever seen
mention of their existence if they exist at all.
it is entirely possible that Vne is set at 90% of what someone has
driven their aircraft to with the high figure taken as Vd.
the high fliers could also have poorly calibrated airspeed
indications.


fuselage has a noticeable buffet 5 knots before stall.

if you take a cessna 150 as a difficulty benchmark.
an Auster J1B is a quantum leap harder to fly.
a Tailwind is a quantum leap harder again to fly.
took me 100 hours to be really comfortable flying it. it is now just
an extension of my hand. I can and have and do fy in 20 knot
crosswinds.


Sounds like fun!

mine is a W8 with the improved wing, 120 litre tank and slightly
stretched seat position.


The tank all behind the panel?

yep. 120 litres of high octane avgas right above your knees.
if I ever do become a sloppy pilot I know how I'll die. rolled up in a
ball and burning fiercely.


if you fly at 80 knots and hold the stick rock steady, then haul on
full flaps, you will seem to be pointing vertically downward.

on a summer's day I can leave Perth in western australia at crack of
dawn and be in Ceduna in south australia by nightfall.
I've owned mine 9 years and 360 hours flying. the aircraft was first
flown in 1985 and the previous owner did 320 hours in it.

btw all that and more is etched in my head. I dont use checklists.
I use left to right and right to left scans.

Well, we do that in airliners for the most part. We have only an
abbrevisated checklist owadays, but OTOH we have a few warning systems
if we elave anything switched off.


the only checklist I use is 'roger' after startup.
revs
oil
gyro
electrics
radio.

I have no intentions of ever selling my aircraft.
I might be a quiet unassuming guy but I have stainless steel balls.
I'm a tailwind pilot :-)


Hehe I've seen some beauts!

How's the short field performance? Would you get out of a 4oo meter
grass strip 2up?

mmmmmmm. yes.
I operate from a grass runway that is 600 metres long.
I'm at 150 ft over the end of it. rarely ever not airborne before the
middle.

I've eyeballed the Buttercup as well, but I think I'd better finish the
hatz first!


finish what you've started.
the tailwind design is 55 years old now. I heard it described as a
surfboard sitting on a 'frige (refrigerator) and ugly.
for aerodynamics it still beats the most of the more modern designs in
outright efficiency, something that perpetually amazes me..


Bertie

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:59:43 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Stealth Pilot wrote in
m:

deliberately uncomfortable to sit in for long periods ...so that you
dont go to sleep.

He he. Been there done that!


pretty well neutrally stable.

very sensitive controls that require you to fly with the arm resting
on the leg to steady the hand.

totally honest aerodynamics. all controls are well harmonised and
equally sensitive.

mine now cruises at 120 knots at 2500rpm and a little over 20 litres
per hour fuel burn.


O 200?

yeah O-200. a lovely engine. the only drawback is the marvel schebler
support going toes up.


?/ WTF is there to go wrong with one of those?

After 10 years of being around this aircraft I still have no idea how
the Vne was set. It is possible that there have never been structural
calcs other than what Fairchild did after WW2 but I've never ever seen
mention of their existence if they exist at all.
it is entirely possible that Vne is set at 90% of what someone has
driven their aircraft to with the high figure taken as Vd.
the high fliers could also have poorly calibrated airspeed
indications.


No, one was done by CAFE years ago and they maxed it at somethng well in
excess of that alright. Might be an Aussie restriction.
I don't think Fairchild looked at the Buttercup in too much detail. It
would have been the Big X, which is still a better performer in every
way than any simlarly powered production airplane today. It would have
dominated the market had it gone into production after WW2. Imagine what
it would have done with the fancy tips.

fuselage has a noticeable buffet 5 knots before stall.

if you take a cessna 150 as a difficulty benchmark.
an Auster J1B is a quantum leap harder to fly.
a Tailwind is a quantum leap harder again to fly.
took me 100 hours to be really comfortable flying it. it is now just
an extension of my hand. I can and have and do fy in 20 knot
crosswinds.


Sounds like fun!

mine is a W8 with the improved wing, 120 litre tank and slightly
stretched seat position.


The tank all behind the panel?

yep. 120 litres of high octane avgas right above your knees.
if I ever do become a sloppy pilot I know how I'll die. rolled up in a
ball and burning fiercely.


if you fly at 80 knots and hold the stick rock steady, then haul on
full flaps, you will seem to be pointing vertically downward.

on a summer's day I can leave Perth in western australia at crack of
dawn and be in Ceduna in south australia by nightfall.
I've owned mine 9 years and 360 hours flying. the aircraft was first
flown in 1985 and the previous owner did 320 hours in it.

btw all that and more is etched in my head. I dont use checklists.
I use left to right and right to left scans.

Well, we do that in airliners for the most part. We have only an
abbrevisated checklist owadays, but OTOH we have a few warning systems
if we elave anything switched off.


the only checklist I use is 'roger' after startup.
revs
oil
gyro
electrics
radio.

I have no intentions of ever selling my aircraft.
I might be a quiet unassuming guy but I have stainless steel balls.
I'm a tailwind pilot :-)


Hehe I've seen some beauts!

How's the short field performance? Would you get out of a 4oo meter
grass strip 2up?

mmmmmmm. yes.
I operate from a grass runway that is 600 metres long.
I'm at 150 ft over the end of it. rarely ever not airborne before the
middle.

Wow, that's excellent.

I've eyeballed the Buttercup as well, but I think I'd better finish
the
hatz first!


finish what you've started.
the tailwind design is 55 years old now. I heard it described as a
surfboard sitting on a 'frige (refrigerator) and ugly.
for aerodynamics it still beats the most of the more modern designs in
outright efficiency, something that perpetually amazes me..

Well, it was race bred! While it's not what you'd call Svelte, I always
thought it looked purposeful. Some of them have been painted up to look
very cool indeed. in fact it's hard to think of an airplane whose looks
are so reliant on decent paint.
Steve definitely knoew what he was doing.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:34:58 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:


O 200?

yeah O-200. a lovely engine. the only drawback is the marvel schebler
support going toes up.


?/ WTF is there to go wrong with one of those?

my carby simply wore out on critical areas through 20 years of
absolutely trouble free operation. it even still retained the original
plastic float which never gave trouble.
functionally the marvel schebler ma3 carby is superb.

Well, it was race bred! While it's not what you'd call Svelte, I always
thought it looked purposeful. Some of them have been painted up to look
very cool indeed. in fact it's hard to think of an airplane whose looks
are so reliant on decent paint.
Steve definitely knoew what he was doing.

the only mistake in the design that I would point out to an intending
new builder ( people do still build them ) is that the tailwheel is
overgeared and in its overgeared state it is a nightmare to control on
the ground.
I moved the link arm in to half the original distance at the rudder
bellcrank arm and turned mine into an absolute pussycat.

if you want a real thriller ride have the neutral position of the
tailwheel set differently to the rudder. landings become unbelievably
squirreley :-)

how far are you along on the hatz?

Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot wrote in
news
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:34:58 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:


my carby simply wore out on critical areas through 20 years of
absolutely trouble free operation. it even still retained the original
plastic float which never gave trouble.
functionally the marvel schebler ma3 carby is superb.

Ah, OK. I was wondering! Good lesson though...

Well, it was race bred! While it's not what you'd call Svelte, I
always
thought it looked purposeful. Some of them have been painted up to
look
very cool indeed. in fact it's hard to think of an airplane whose
looks
are so reliant on decent paint.
Steve definitely knoew what he was doing.

the only mistake in the design that I would point out to an intending
new builder ( people do still build them ) is that the tailwheel is
overgeared and in its overgeared state it is a nightmare to control on
the ground.
I moved the link arm in to half the original distance at the rudder
bellcrank arm and turned mine into an absolute pussycat.

if you want a real thriller ride have the neutral position of the
tailwheel set differently to the rudder. landings become unbelievably
squirreley :-)


O~K, best avoided then!

how far are you along on the hatz?


Probably about 1/4 done. Need to finish weld the fuse and start
assembling the wings. Al the major parts for the wings are made now.

Bertie

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:32:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Stealth Pilot wrote in
news
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:34:58 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:


my carby simply wore out on critical areas through 20 years of
absolutely trouble free operation. it even still retained the original
plastic float which never gave trouble.
functionally the marvel schebler ma3 carby is superb.

Ah, OK. I was wondering! Good lesson though...

Well, it was race bred! While it's not what you'd call Svelte, I
always
thought it looked purposeful. Some of them have been painted up to
look
very cool indeed. in fact it's hard to think of an airplane whose
looks
are so reliant on decent paint.
Steve definitely knoew what he was doing.

the only mistake in the design that I would point out to an intending
new builder ( people do still build them ) is that the tailwheel is
overgeared and in its overgeared state it is a nightmare to control on
the ground.
I moved the link arm in to half the original distance at the rudder
bellcrank arm and turned mine into an absolute pussycat.

if you want a real thriller ride have the neutral position of the
tailwheel set differently to the rudder. landings become unbelievably
squirreley :-)


O~K, best avoided then!

how far are you along on the hatz?


Probably about 1/4 done. Need to finish weld the fuse and start
assembling the wings. Al the major parts for the wings are made now.

Bertie

thats not a bad start.

what gets me is that the mx twonks never realise that you build an
aeroplane out of little bits that individually dont cost that much.

my Druine Turbulent has rudder and fin done. elevator and horizontal
stabiliser done and the fuselage all but complete but for some
finishing and bottom sheeting. wings are to go.
timber is Queensland Hoop Pine which is superb stuff to work with when
you find good bits. the ply is some birch out of finland but mainly
marine grade hoop pine ply. total cost to date for half an aeroplane
is between $200 and $300.
I reckon that I could build an aerobatic Corby Starlet fuselage for
under $500, twice the cost of the plans.

why dont the twonks ever get out and have a go?
it isnt hard. just some techniques to learn. it is good fun.
keep on ripping into them for me. you're giving me building time :-)

keep on building the hatz. it will be a good aircraft when finished.
if I bring a beer can I fly it :-)

Stealth Pilot