IFR in the 1930's

I have always though of a turn coordinator as a magnificent solution.....
to
a non-existent problem.

Do you call designing a smooth flying autopilot a non-existing problem?
True some later autopilots achieve smooth flying by tapping off the
attitude indicator, but I believe this is slightly more complicated.
I'll grant you that if it were not for the autopilot problem we would
all be happily flying around with turn and bank indicators.

If turbulence bumps the aircraft to a 30 degree bank but the aircraft
does not turn, the ball will instantly show this by moving toward the low
wing.

True. For that reason I shouldn't have said that you wouldn't even
know about the 30 degree bank until the turn started. I was thinking
from the autopilot's perspective. (The autopilot is not hooked to the ball.)

Since the ball does not over-react, the pilot won't either.

The turn coordinator does not over-react any more than the ball does.
It merely shows the sum of the yaw and roll rate. In any case the response
by the pilot to an unwanted bank angle whether detected from looking at
an AI, TC, or T&B is the same - enter a smooth coordinated turn in the
opposite direction (usually requiring both aileron and rudder opposite
to the unwanted bank) until the airplane is once again straight and level.

I've seen some pilots (esp. those relying mostly on a T&B) respond to
this situation simply by stomping on the rudder opposite to the direction
of the ball deflection. Perhaps the reasoning is - well since it is only
the ball that is out of whack because of the damn turbulence, I'll counter
the turbulence in the most expeditious manner by an equally jarring jab
on the opposite rudder. This works fine unless you have any passengers.
They will turn green about 3 times faster than if you fly properly.

The thing I like most about a needle is that if held exactly on the
standard
rate turn "doghouse" timed turns are very accurate - the kind of accuracy
that makes partial panel approaches practical.

Bill, you are showing your prejudice. It is entirely practical to do
such approaches with either instrument. On my CFII checkride I did a
fine partial panel approach down to 200 feet using my turn coordinator.
I've seen other pilots do this also.

As far as timed turns, remember that once the turn has stabilized
(constant bank angle) the T&B and TC needles show the same thing.
If you roll out of the turn the same way you roll into it, your timed
turns will be accurate. (This is true using either instrument).
The TC needle will react more to turbulence, but if you react to the
indications smoothly (as I described for straight and level flight)
it will do a good job for you.

I've never seen anybody get that kind of accuracy out of a turn
coordinator.
Bill Daniels

Well I guess you just haven't looked very hard

~Paul

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 19:27:44 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



Badwater Bill wrote:

You guys must not remember the "Cat and Duck" method of flying
instruments. Hell, when I was a kid in the 1950's that's all we used.

Hell, the ASPCA won't let us use cats anymore, and good ducks are hard to find.
Been hunted too much, I suppose.

Lordy...I have a cat that loves to play catch...Yah have to remember
to be careful though as he's not been declawed. They are long and
sharp, so if he grabs yah, you know which ever way them fish hooks are
pulling is down.

My biggest problem is he's not afraid of heights and killed the last
two ducks.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

In rec.aviation.owning Badwater Bill wrote:
: two, it would be a DG then a horizon. I also hate turn coodinators.
: Pieces of crap. The turn needle is much better.

My limited experience having flown with both (albeit moreso with
the TC than the turn needle), is that the TC is *much* more stable in
turbulence than the stick. Have I just been flying with slow TC and/or
twitchy turn needles?

From what I've seen, keeping the wings level partial panel with
the stick would be almost impossible in turbulence.

Feel free to correct:
-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

Hate to sound dense but how do you fly an NDB approach without an ADF?

"Bill Daniels" wrote in message
nk.net...
As a geezer who learned to fly "blind" with needle, ball and airspeed I
can
say that in a slow, stable aircraft, that those are enough for rather
precise instrument flight. I can still fly a respectable partial panel
NDB
approach with just those instruments + an altimeter. (BTW, I HATE a turn
coordinator.)

For me an attitude indicator and a DG are just icing on the cake.

Bill Daniels

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
...
You need the turn needle, ball, and airspeed at bare minumum.
And you'll have to be sharp to fly IMC under those conditions.

If I were planning to fly like this, I'd equip the thing
properly. Make it easier to stay alive...


Richard

Dick wrote:

Let me change that from "any thoughts" to "any helpful" thoughts G.

"Dick" wrote in message
m...
Staring at my empty instrument panel while considering which
instruments
and
their placement, I got wondering how old time Mail pilots flew if
caught
in
IFR conditions.

On my project plane, I'm considering just a airspeed/altitude/ ball
&
tube
slip (no needle) indicator/compass setup in order to avoid the
venturi
or
vacuum pump setup. Since I consider "electric" too expensive and
wondered
whether a dome style compass might be the key??

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks, Dick -Lakeland, Florida

"Steve House" wrote:
Hate to sound dense but how do you fly an NDB approach without an ADF?

Old answer: RDF. At least in the marine world, this was the predecessor
to the ADF. I'm assuming this was true in the aviation world too?
Stands for Radio Direction Finder (as opposed to Automatic Direction
Finder). Same principle, the difference being with the RDF, you have to
manually turn the antenna to find the strongest signal. The workload
involved pretty much requires a dedicated radio operator or navigator.

New answer: GPS

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
"Steve House" wrote:
Hate to sound dense but how do you fly an NDB approach without an ADF?

Old answer: RDF. At least in the marine world, this was the predecessor
to the ADF. I'm assuming this was true in the aviation world too?
Stands for Radio Direction Finder (as opposed to Automatic Direction
Finder). Same principle, the difference being with the RDF, you have to
manually turn the antenna to find the strongest signal. The workload
involved pretty much requires a dedicated radio operator or navigator.

New answer: GPS

Actually you turn the antenna for the weakest signal.

A little flip, really sad but mostly true.

Del Rawlins wrote:

On 29 Aug 2003 01:15 PM, Dick posted the following:


Staring at my empty instrument panel while considering which
instruments and their placement, I got wondering how old time Mail
pilots flew if caught in IFR conditions.



Mostly, they flew into the ground.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

I can see emulating an NDB approach with a GPS, flying the same pathway etc.
but for something to be a "real" NDB approach wouldn't you need some device,
an actual ADF or a manual DF antenna rig, that actually receives the radio
beacon signal and gives you a bearing to it? A GPS may give you a bearing
to a waypoint that has the same coordinates as the beacon antenna and/or
guide you over the same path you'd follow with the NDB approach, but unless
it's actually picking up the radio beacon from the ground station would it
count as a true NDB approach?

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
"Steve House" wrote:
Hate to sound dense but how do you fly an NDB approach without an ADF?

Old answer: RDF. At least in the marine world, this was the predecessor
to the ADF. I'm assuming this was true in the aviation world too?
Stands for Radio Direction Finder (as opposed to Automatic Direction
Finder). Same principle, the difference being with the RDF, you have to
manually turn the antenna to find the strongest signal. The workload
involved pretty much requires a dedicated radio operator or navigator.

New answer: GPS

They flew very effectively on the Adcock range, which was set up across the
nation. This was a aural navigation system in which all that was necessary
was a tunable low freq radio, a watch, compas. and chart (some knowledge of
Morris code
"ADCOCK RANGE - National radio navigation system replaced after World War 2
by the omnirange system. It consisted of segmented quadrants broadcasting
Morse Code "A" (dot-dash) and "N" (dash-dot) signals in opposing quadrants
so that pilots could orient their position relative to a "beam" broadcasting
a steady tone, and a Morse Code station identifier. Using a "build-and-fade"
technique, a pilot could (ideally) pinpoint his location by the strength or
weakness of a signal"
look up adcock range on Goggle.DF was also available.
Bill
wrote in message
...
A little flip, really sad but mostly true.

Del Rawlins wrote:

On 29 Aug 2003 01:15 PM, Dick posted the following:


Staring at my empty instrument panel while considering which
instruments and their placement, I got wondering how old time Mail
pilots flew if caught in IFR conditions.



Mostly, they flew into the ground.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

"William T Bartlett" wrote in message
. ..
They flew very effectively on the Adcock range, which was set up across
the
nation. This was a aural navigation system in which all that was necessary
was a tunable low freq radio, a watch, compas. and chart (some knowledge
of
Morris code
"ADCOCK RANGE - National radio navigation system replaced after World War
2
by the omnirange system. It consisted of segmented quadrants broadcasting
Morse Code "A" (dot-dash) and "N" (dash-dot) signals in opposing quadrants
so that pilots could orient their position relative to a "beam"
broadcasting
a steady tone, and a Morse Code station identifier. Using a
"build-and-fade"
technique, a pilot could (ideally) pinpoint his location by the strength
or
weakness of a signal"
look up adcock range on Goggle.DF was also available.
Bill

That came long after the original airmail pilots and did absolutely nothing
to help them keep the dirty side down. Knowing where you are doesn't mean
much if you don't know which way is up. One tool they did use if caught on
top was to drop a parachute flare and follow it down through the soup hoping
they broke out before hitting the ground. If all else failed they hit the
silk.



wrote in message
...
A little flip, really sad but mostly true.

Del Rawlins wrote:

On 29 Aug 2003 01:15 PM, Dick posted the following:


Staring at my empty instrument panel while considering which
instruments and their placement, I got wondering how old time Mail
pilots flew if caught in IFR conditions.



Mostly, they flew into the ground.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/