![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The second phase follows the first.
Are we in agreement? I think so. My answers to your questions a 1: No 2: From my experience in a 172, I don't think you'd move to the back side, however I have not looked at the performance charts or done the math. 3: Yes, for the reasons I explained upthread. 4: Outside of magic, yes. Jose -- "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter). for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
oups.com... 5th question: Further to question 4, suppose that I am already at full throttle, unable to increase thrust, and wish to maintain altitude. The only remaining variable that I can change is airspeed via yoke position, by pulling or pushing. Would you agree that I would have to push on the yoke to maintain altitude if I was on the backside of the 2g power curve and pull on the yoke to maintain altitude if I was on the front side of 2g power curve? Does it seem counterintuitive to push on the yoke to maintain altitude in a turn? It's pretty much always counterintuitive to push on the yoke to maintain altitude. The power curve is the power curve, and while the numbers might change when you change the load factor, the nature of it doesn't. For any power curve, if your power available exceeds the minimum power required, you have the opportunity to maintain altitude or climb. If your power available does not exceed the minimum power required, you're going down, whether you push or pull. Normally, we approach the minimum power required from the higher airspeed side. You have to do something slightly unusual to get to steady state on the backside of the power curve, e.g. take power off and then put it back on again, or zoom up a little to allow the airspeed to fall. It's the same in a turn. As you pull back to maintain your altuitude in the turn, your speed bleeds off. If you just allow the speed to bleed off while maintaining altitude, you'll either reach a point on the normal side of the power curve where you can maintain speed and altitude, or you'll find you reach minimum power required and you still can't maintain altitude, in which case you'll be going down, whatever you do. To get into equilibrium on the backside of the power curve, you'd have to do something "unusual", more than just pulling back to maintain altitude. I suppose it's slightly more likely that you might do that in a steep turn, when you've exceeded the performance of the aircraft at your chosen bank angle and power setting, the airspeed has dropped below minimum power required, and you think "Doh, better put some power on now". Julian |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn | Kris Kortokrax | Instrument Flight Rules | 208 | October 14th 05 12:58 AM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Procedure Turn | Bravo8500 | Instrument Flight Rules | 65 | April 22nd 04 03:27 AM |
Rate of turn indicator on commercial jets (Boeing / Airbus) | Mark | Simulators | 1 | November 1st 03 10:35 AM |