Stalls and Thoughts

Bob F. wrote:



Amazing. When you think of airplanes, it's quite natural to think of
them as though they are punched out on a production line with a cookie
cutter with every nut and bolt exactly the same. It's hard to think of
things that complicated as highly individual products each with it's own
materials reflecting the hands of the specific people who built it.

I'm sure you have noticed this as well through the years; that every
airplane has a "personality" all it's own. Some are a pleasure to fly,
and another of the same type will have a completely different "feel" to it.
Even pilots are this way. Ever notice when you're flying with someone
else who has all the guges nailed in to within a fraction of an inch and
they hand the airplane over to you to fly for awhile the first thing you
always do is retrim the thing because it "just doesn't feel right to you?"
:-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in news:vb-
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Blueskies" wrote in
. net:

LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38,
and
there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
whole
works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
what
stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the
first
production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came
after
the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.

--
Dudley Henriques
All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines
on
both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...


Are you sure about that?


Bertie
I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
considered
a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to
the
handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton
of
P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The
word
we
got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.

Found some info on that in an old book I have. Apparently there
were
a
handful of unblown 38s delivered to the RAF with both engines RH
but
they had a lot of problems and the remainder all had contra
rotating
engines.


Bertie
That's right on the Turbo Chargers. The Brits believed they wouldn't
be
fighting at the altitudes where the Turbos were an advantage.


According to the ariticle on the website they were inherited from a
French order and the French wanted them without to avoid delays in
deliveries.

Bertie
That one's new to me, but highly likely :-))


Don't know a whole lot about WW2 aviation. just peripheral stuff,
really. You'd be a lifetime at figuring out the whole mess.

Bertie
I agree. The history stuff is interesting but highly speculative to say
the least. Sorting it out can try your patience for sure. I remember
Bader telling me about one "historian" who cornered him one evening and
proceeded to TELL him about an air battle he had been in personally.
When Bader tried to correct the man on a certain detail he personally
had experienced, the "historian" argued with him that he (Bader) was
wrong! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in news:Xv6dnflw9_
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Blueskies" wrote in
. net:

LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38,
and
there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck; the
whole
works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
what
stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the program
according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before the first
production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach dives came
after
the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.

--
Dudley Henriques
All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines
on
both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...


Are you sure about that?


Bertie
I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
considered
a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to the
handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a ton
of
P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed prop. The
word
we
got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.


http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38.html

And here'some more stuff saying more or less the same thing.

BTW, do you remember the guy with the yellow 38 who used to do a low
level deadstick aerobatic routine? Saw him at Rockford once but can't
remember his name.


Bertie

The only P38 guys I knew who did the show circuit during the time I
was
in it were Lefty Gardner, Chuck Lyford, Jeff Ethell, Bill Ross, and
Hoof
Proudfoot. Can't recall anyone flying a yellow bird.


Chuck Lyford. That was him. I remember now. I think it might have been
Lockheed's own airplane he was flying . He did some of the routine
deadstick. I think I saw him at Reading once too.


Bertie

Chuck used to feather one engine and do a roll into it. I believe he did
some dead stick as well.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in news:6sWdne8-
:

I agree. The history stuff is interesting but highly speculative to say
the least. Sorting it out can try your patience for sure. I remember
Bader telling me about one "historian" who cornered him one evening and
proceeded to TELL him about an air battle he had been in personally.
When Bader tried to correct the man on a certain detail he personally
had experienced, the "historian" argued with him that he (Bader) was
wrong! :-))


Beautiful. It's realy interesting talking to those guys. I haven't met one
in a long time, now, though.. They'll soon be all gone.. I did meet a B-50
pilot at a party not too long ago. He was interesting to talk to alright.
Pretty old!


Bertie

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:46:27 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 16, 1:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

That's not dragging it in. 1.3 VSo is standard approach speed for all
airplanes.

Bertie

Right.

But if you only target 1.3 Vso, and are 5 mile final in a 152, your
angle of approach will be very shallow and you will need lots of power
to make it to the touchdown point.

So it'd be time for some remedial training.
5 miles out the 150 should still be in level cruise.

Flying a long, or straight in final is difficult compared to flying a
pattern and not something for a student or pilot who is used to only
flying stabilized patterns. It's even more difficult to do a short
field landing from far out. Instead of turning final at 500 AGL and
nearly 1.3 Vso you have to calculate how far out to start the
descent, speed, and angle. So here you are at cruise. You don't have
to fly the whole final at 1.3 Vso, but should be stabilized at it as
soon as necessary. One key is knowing what the runway environment
looks like when turning a normal base to final. It should look the
same (angle) from pattern altitude when coming straight in. If it
does then you'll pass through the same spot and speed you'd normally
see when flying a normal pattern. Of course it's easier to do if you
slow up before starting down hill. It makes the energy management so
much easier. 1.3 Vso in a 150 with no flaps and full flaps is a
whole different ball game. 1.3 Vso, flap requirements, angle of
descent and when to stabilize are different for regular and short
field landings. I can maintain 1.3 Vso, for either type of landing
with full flaps but the stabilization point, will be different. I can
do that in a 150, Cherokee 180, or the Deb although "for me" the Deb
is the easiest for power/energy management and can come down the
steepest. The Cherokee is not far behind, but even at idle, 1.3 Vso,
and full flaps I don't think I could call the angle of descent in a
150 steep. (Everything is relative) For those that think a Cherokee
glides like a brick, try 1.3 Vso, and full flaps in a Bo. :-)) That's
why we carry so much power. Without it we don't have enough energy to
flare.

Now as to really dragging it in, a Farmer friend has a 1200 foot
strip off the end of a bean field. He'd bring his Cherokee in about
three feet over the beans and cop the power at the end of the strip.
His landings and roll our seldom took more than 200 to 300 feet. Of
course if the engine quite he'd just get a plane painted green all
over the front. That is unless they were white/navy beans. Those
vines (when green) would make a good arresting cable. Not something
you'd want tied around the nose gear.

So it's 1.3 Vso PLUS the optimal descent angle, where weight
complements thrust.


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

Dudley Henriques wrote in news:6sWdne4-
:



Chuck used to feather one engine and do a roll into it. I believe he did
some dead stick as well.


Oh he did. Definitely. At least i think it was him. It definitely wasn't
hoover, anyway. Did he beat the odds?

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Blueskies" wrote in
. net:

LeVier did a lot of the high mach number dive tests in the 38,
and there definitely was a compressibility problem, mach tuck;
the
whole
works. I know they added speed brakes but not sure at exactly
what stage. The engine rotation switch was early on in the
program according to Ethell; I believe in the YP38 stage before
the first production run. If I'm not mistaken, the high mach
dives came after the switch but I'm not at all certain of that.

--
Dudley Henriques
All the -38s sold to England had same rotation direction engines
on both sides all the way through. Just another odd thing...


Are you sure about that?


Bertie
I heard the same thing. The Brits raised hell about what they
considered
a high degree of possibility for unnecessary maintainence due to
the handed engines. On the practical side, the Brits had ordered a
ton of P40's which used the V1710 Allison with a right handed
prop. The word
we
got was that the brits wanted the Allison's on the 38's to be
interchangeable with the P40 to cut down on cost.


Well, that's reasonable. Never heard that before. Could be an urban
legend based on one photo of an airplane field kitted with two RH
engines. A bit like the Fokker DR1 that got an odd aileron and
started a legend that they all had one smaller than the other to
compensate for torque.


Bertie
Possible?? Torque correction IS in roll and not yaw as is the common
belief :-)

Oh the things had torque issues alright, but some nerd of an
historian has proven that there was only one DR1 with mismatched
ailerons. The eraly ones had one size and the later ones had another
and a field repair resulted in the one with two odd ailerons. Since
it was a good pictiure showing them clearly and someone did a
detailed drawing basd on it, it got lodged in folklore. There were
airplanes that had larger wings n the left for this purpose however.
Ansaldo, for one.


Bertie
I guess the WW1 practical test for German AI's missed "aileron
mismatch"
:-))


Wouldn't be the first or last time! I had two very different wings on a
Luscombe with two completely different aileron hinge arrangements. It
was a very early 1939 airplane and it must have damaged a wing and one
was put on from a later machine.
There's a famous pic of a DC-3 that was dmamged and flown for a time
with a DC 2 wing, which was considerably smaller.. Early days of WW2 in
China, I beleive.

Bertie
I think I remember that DC3 shot. Lots of spare parts birds out there.
Many civvy Mustangs were retrofitted with P63 brakes if that counts :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 16, 2:08 pm, Dan wrote:
On Mar 16, 5:51 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
....
My 3.1416 cents.
Ferrying A/C across the Pacific, I read, the fella's
would experiment with lean ratio's and speed.
The idea was to max the fuel burn efficiency and
minimize the induced wing drag.
Of course that needs to consider the parasitic
drag of the fuselage, tail and so on.
From the standpoint of aerodynamic engineering,
experience is the answer.
Ken

I'm a bit confused by what the point is...
But a JPI + GAMInjectors makes leaning lean of peak feasible and
productive.

Well the discussion is about maxing endurance
which is a similiar problem to maxing range.
Two a/c of nearly equal weight, say a Flying wing
and B-52, have different numbers, of course.
Ken

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in news:6sWdne4-
:


Chuck used to feather one engine and do a roll into it. I believe he did
some dead stick as well.


Oh he did. Definitely. At least i think it was him. It definitely wasn't
hoover, anyway. Did he beat the odds?
Last I heard, Chuck was alive and well and still flying.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:25:24 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:39:13 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:


I believe you are repeating wht I have said. I said that "dragging it
in" generally refers to flying the approach in the area of reverse
command or if you will behind the power curve. This is absolutely

Well, time to try again. I had this ready to go and the computer ate
it.

When flying a Debonair, F-33, and A36 Bo by the POH all landings are
done well below the max endurance speed, but not to the point where
they don't have enough reserve power to arrest or even change the
descent into a climb. They are however in the area where power
controls rate of descent and pitch controls speed.

correct. Coffin corner is the area behind the curve where sink rate
can't be stopped with power but requires reduction in angle of attack.
For a perfect example of an aircraft in coffin corner, see the Edwards
AFB accident involving a young AF pilot who got his F100 so deep into
coffin corner behind the curve he couldn't recover the airplane; not

I saw the video and he did one whale of a job balancing on the
thrust/tail until he lost it. He just needed a few thousand pounds
more thrust.

enough air under him to reduce the angle of attack. He applied full
burner but couldn't fly it out on power alone. Reduction of angle of
attack was what he needed and he didn't have the room. THIS is the
definition of coffin corner and it most certainly IS in the area of
reverse command.

I saw a clip of a 104 that was skidding sideways and then flipped over
on its top. I believe the engine seized on that one. any thought?


I thought coffin corner was the point where if you go slower you stall
and if you go faster you hit critical mach number?
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com