Accidents happen...

"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:VSwod.131876$bk1.3469@fed1read05...
and what is the published max demonstrated crosswind ??
less than 20knts in my guess..


I've landed my 172 in 30 knot crosswinds, as in 25g40 knot winds
perpendicular to the runway. Sure as hell not with more than one notch down,
though. Fun ride it was.

The number in the book is for a plane at gross weight with the engine at
idle. It's the number at which the rudder runs out of effectiveness to keep
the nose aligned with the runway. So you blow it over with the prop. Of
course if it's a short field and you're near gross, then you're going to be
a lot closer to what the book says. But a 15-kt crosswind is nothing for a
lightly-loaded plane as long as the pilot knows what he's doing.

-cwk.

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...
The number in the book is for a plane at gross weight with the engine at
idle. It's the number at which the rudder runs out of effectiveness to
keep
the nose aligned with the runway. So you blow it over with the prop. Of

How do you use prop on a single engine plane to improve alignment to the
runway? Rudder and ailerons I understand. And on a dual engine airplane I
understand how you could (in theory) use prop to improve alignment. But
how would you use prop in a single engine airplane?

--
Will
westes AT earthbroadcast.com

"CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" wrote in
message ...
[...] But how would you use prop in a single engine airplane?

I assume he means that with power on (rather than at idle), the prop
slipstream provides a some extra rudder authority.

In article , CHANGE USERNAME TO westes wrote:
How do you use prop on a single engine plane to improve alignment to the
runway? Rudder and ailerons I understand. And on a dual engine airplane I

In a tractor configured (i.e. engine and prop on the nose, single fin
directly in line with the fuselage and in the propwash) single engine
plane, at low speeds the propwash over the tail surfaces make the rudder
much more effective if you give the engine some power. Fly a taildragger
which has a free castoring tailwheel and useless brakes and you soon
learn how a quick 'goose' on the throttle can help you taxi around a
corner in a quartering tailwind.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith wrote in message ...
In article , CHANGE USERNAME TO westes wrote:
How do you use prop on a single engine plane to improve alignment to the
runway? Rudder and ailerons I understand. And on a dual engine airplane I

In a tractor configured (i.e. engine and prop on the nose, single fin
directly in line with the fuselage and in the propwash) single engine
plane, at low speeds the propwash over the tail surfaces make the rudder
much more effective if you give the engine some power.

Bingo.

-cwk.

"C Kingsbury" wrote
The number in the book is for a plane at gross weight with the engine at
idle. It's the number at which the rudder runs out of effectiveness to keep
the nose aligned with the runway.

Actually, no. It would make sense if that were the case, which is why
it's not

In reality, the max demonstrated crosswind component is at least 20%
of Vso - and above and beyond that, it's a compromise between what
legal and marketing want. It's certainly not the best the factory
test pilot can do, and depending on technique it need not be the best
you can do, but there is no guarantee that the max demonstrated
crosswind component will not be more (or less) than the plane can
handle by the wing-low method at short field approach speed. It's not
a certification requirement.

BTW, lightly loaded makes crosswind harder, not easier, because your
stall speed goes down, and thus the crosswind as a fraction of stall
speed goes up.

Michael

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
"C Kingsbury" wrote
The number in the book is for a plane at gross weight with the engine at
idle. It's the number at which the rudder runs out of effectiveness to keep
the nose aligned with the runway.

Actually, no. It would make sense if that were the case, which is why
it's not


That makes sense. Hey, wait a minute...

you can do, but there is no guarantee that the max demonstrated
crosswind component will not be more (or less) than the plane can
handle by the wing-low method at short field approach speed.

I was using probably a little over 3000' of a 5000' runway to land in
those conditions (30kt xwind component). No problem on a nice big,
wide runway, but on those kinds of days I'd avoid anything much
shorter than that, personally. Which makes the exercise somewhat
nugatory since in these parts any field big enough to have a 5000'
main runway will usually have a crosswind one too. But it's nice to
know you have a margin of comfort.

-cwk.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:30:09 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote:


"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:VSwod.131876$bk1.3469@fed1read05...
and what is the published max demonstrated crosswind ??
less than 20knts in my guess..


I've landed my 172 in 30 knot crosswinds, as in 25g40 knot winds
perpendicular to the runway. Sure as hell not with more than one notch down,
though. Fun ride it was.

The number in the book is for a plane at gross weight with the engine at
idle. It's the number at which the rudder runs out of effectiveness to keep
the nose aligned with the runway. So you blow it over with the prop. Of

I sure hope your instructor didn't come up with that.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the planes real capabilities.

The figure in the book has only one meaning. It was the wind on the
day the cross wind landing capability was tested and has very little
to do with what the plane can actually do in stronger wings.

My Deb has a 12 knot demonstrated cross wind component. I've taken
off and landed a the cross wind component of 25.

course if it's a short field and you're near gross, then you're going to be
a lot closer to what the book says. But a 15-kt crosswind is nothing for a
lightly-loaded plane as long as the pilot knows what he's doing.

It depends on the airplane.
If the slip to land is used you know if you have enough aileron and
rudder to keep the plane tracking and aligned with the runway.

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

-cwk.

"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:VSwod.131876$bk1.3469@fed1read05...
and what is the published max demonstrated crosswind ??
less than 20knts in my guess..



It also depends on how you're loaded. As the CG moves back
the rudder is working off a shorter arm in trying to pivot the
airplane straight. With a more forward CG it's effectiveness
will stay to a lower airspeed. The real bottom line is whether
or not you can keep the nose straight with the amount of
aileron needed to stay over the centerline.

The max demonstrated number is a good guideline for your
average pilot. For those that fly in areas of the country with
high winds a lot of the time they get a little more skilled at
handling the xw.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:02:35 -0800, "BTIZ"
wrote:

and what is the published max demonstrated crosswind ??
less than 20knts in my guess..

Which has nothing to do with real life.

but I agree.. 40 degree flaps in a cross wind is not a good idea..
even less so for a Cessna

I would agree for a gusty cross wind, but not a steady wind.

OTOH it does depend on the airplane.
I always used full flaps in the Cherokee. Never found a reason not to
and I flew in a lot of windy conditions.

Then again I've landed a 150 in some very strong cross winds and I
used full flaps. However which every configuration you choose, work
up to it. Just because some one else does it doesn't mean you can use
any particular configuration in wind conditions you haven't
experienced before.

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


snip