A new direction for an old thread: Crosswind landings

5Z wrote:

Even on a narrow runway, one can line up on
the downwind side and touch down maybe 20 degrees or more into the
wind.

A recipe for disaster. Obviously you've never seen a narrow runway.

Reminds me of that old joke where a navy pilot talks about a somewhat
short, but very large runway.

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
A recipe for disaster. Obviously you've never seen a narrow runway.

With that tone, I assume you've never seen a wide runway!

I think it's obvious that each landing requires a unique set of tools
to be applied.

Where I fly, the runway is about 14M wide with grass on either side and
no lights. Easy to apply some of my techniques. At another airport
the runway is maybe 25M wide with lights and a bit of a dropoff from
pavenent to rough dirt on the sides. Still easy to land diagonally.

I have also landed on areas that are just a few meters wide (of smooth
ground) with rough terrain on either side. In this case I would indeed
line up on the centerline and stay there.

I have also landed in the "paddock" in the middle of the airport, and
flown the approach at 90 degrees to the paved runway when the wind was
40-50 knots.

A recipe for disaster is to not make the best approach for the
conditions.

-Tom

5Z wrote:

With that tone, I assume you've never seen a wide runway!

You're partly correct. I still remember my first landing on a paved
runway with actual, painted numbers and a real center line. Just like
the big guys! Now *that* was an adventure!

Where I fly, the runway is about 14M wide with grass on either side and
no lights. Easy to apply some of my techniques. At another airport
the runway is maybe 25M wide with lights and a bit of a dropoff from
pavenent to rough dirt on the sides. Still easy to land diagonally.

At my home base, the runway (sort of, difficult to tell on grass) is
about 20 meters wide. On One side, there are often some gliders parked
along the runway, on the other side are 30 cm high markers. I don't like
the idea of landing diagonally.

A recipe for disaster is to not make the best approach for the
conditions.

I fully agree.

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
5Z wrote:

Even on a narrow runway, one can line up on
the downwind side and touch down maybe 20 degrees or more into the
wind.


A recipe for disaster. Obviously you've never seen a narrow runway.

I saw Tom at Boulder once, before the runway was widened to 16 feet or
so. :-)

Reminds me of that old joke where a navy pilot talks about a somewhat
short, but very large runway.

Stefan

"My god," the pilot exclaimed as the plane screeched to a halt. "That
has to be the shortest runway I've ever had to land on."

"Yeah," replied the copilot, "But look how wide it is!"

Ok here is a little video gem for you all....in the middle of this
video

http://www.silentflight.com/movies/silentflight.wmv

there is a crosswind landing (30 degree + in 20+ knots of wind) in my
ASW22.

Big Plane, Big wind, Big crosswind angle.

Note the yaw string in the incockpit footage.

enjoy...

Al

Pretty cool.

Bryan

wrote in message
oups.com...
Ok here is a little video gem for you all....in the middle of this
video

http://www.silentflight.com/movies/silentflight.wmv

there is a crosswind landing (30 degree + in 20+ knots of wind) in my
ASW22.

Big Plane, Big wind, Big crosswind angle.

Note the yaw string in the incockpit footage.

enjoy...

Al

wrote:
As often happens, the discussion is digressing into the particulars
of
landing in a crosswind, and I couldn't be happier. Watching pilots
wrangle through the explanation of why they do what they do is
fascinating, especially since the inference chain gets all kinds of
twisted as they work their way back up to the model.

The trick, I'm convinced, is to completely divorce the slip/skid
alignment maneuvers from the maneuver required to establish a track
down the runway. Once we've determined that there is a crosswind, the
only way to establish a proper track is to change our direction
through
the airmass. The problem arises when pilots confuse the alignment
maneuver with the turn. We've discovered this slick maneuver where we
can turn base to final and initiate the slip all in one motion. Which
leads to a false perception that we only turned 90 degrees, then used
the wing to compensate for crosswind. But we have in fact changed our
direction by more than 90 degrees and inserted our alignment slip
early
on final. But whether your turn is coordinated throughout, or
slipped,
the means by which we change direction is exactly the same. Remove
the
slip, and you'll point upwind, put the slip back in and you'll point
down the runway. The forces produced by the glider remain balanced
throughout.

Maybe it is easier to conceptualize this if you simply ignore the
direction the nose is pointing and think of it in terms of the
glider's
path through the air. Because in a side slip the nose is pointing
down
the runway, there is an illusion that the lowered wing is dragging
the
glider sideways, compensating for the "force" of the wind. But in a
side slip (as in a foward slip), the horizontal component of lift is
exactly balanced by the force created by sideways motion of the
fuselage. There is no extra force to compensate for an external
force.
Which is a good thing since there is no external force from the wind.

That said, an unbalanced force is required to establish a new
direction
through the air that will produce a desired ground track. And this is
only accomplished by turning. Whether the turn is slipped or skidded
or
coordinated is a matter of pilot choice. It is nonetheless a turn
since
the direction of the glider changes. When the new direction is
achieved, the turn ceases. Whether this is accomplished by rolling
the
wings level or increasing beta to balance the wing turning force is a
matter of pilot choice.

Hello everyone!

I have been following ras for a few years now and have finally felt
compelled to add my voice. Other than the threads on V-tails& flaps of
death, this has been the most interesting discussion although for an
entirely differing reason. Usually there is no need for comment as most
important bases on topics generally get equal time. Aside from wading
or suffering through some personal opinions I have enjoyed the comments
and insights.

The opinions that I have been hearing in this thread have all sounded
as if they have come from mostly instructors and or folks who fly
primarily slippery glass.One day I will be there as well, but for the
past 6 years I have been flying an SGS 1-35c model on the East coast w/
a commercial ticket. If any of you do not know them, they have only
flaps or slips for vertical glidepath control. My introduction to
soaring instruction began in 1998 and still is as fresh today as it was
then. On more than one occasion my instructor's voice has come back
when things were not very plesant in the air. And having said that, I
believe how information is passed along to be very important. I
consider all landings as practice for off field landings of which I
have my share, some of which have been done in rotor in and near
Petersburg W.Va. W-99.I am chiming into this thread because I still
have pretty vivid recollection of my training.

As I recall, slips were taught to me after stalls but before spin
entry and exits.At our club, I observe both slipping and crabbing style
allignments. Our strip is wide grass adjacent a hardpaved runway. It is
my opinion that the more experienced pilots choose the slip method and
the less experienced generally opt for the crab. I believe the reason
goes back to their training. With the less experienced being closer to
theirs. When learning the stall warning signs in most any older early
training ship ie; 2-33, Ka-13, Ka7 the pre-stall buffeting is quite
pronounced and makes quite an impression on the student. Therefore I
believe that early pilots transfer the pre-stall noises to a ship
slipping and are therefore uncomfortable doing so, esp closing in on
the grounds proximity! As for myself I agree that I use both and
sometimes together although generally I prefer the slip. I only tend to
use the crab as a combination during high x-wind.

Last fall one of our glass pilots had his canopy come loose on base.
Concentrating on the canopy, he failed to control his decent and
eventually his directional control. Extensive damage to the ship but
no more than an ego bruise to the pilot. During the ensuing discussions
slipping to keep the canopy closed was pretty generally the method we
all agreed we would have chosen. Of those in the discussion I might
have been the only one to have had practice at this during my late
stage training.That due to my instructor's foresight.

After all was said and done, one of my instructors challenged me
again. He asked me what I would do if one day while checking my flaps
upon entering the pattern the lever arm came off in my hands
essentially eliminating their use? Obviously slipping is the answer, so
I began to try this method.To this day I have only witnessed one other
club member attempt it.

Which brings me to my point. I believe having an effective slip in
every pilot's pocket is an essential thing. That pre-solo students
should be able to land their ship without the use of additional
mechanical devices.Taught late in the program to the point of
proficiency. If slips were used more, possibly even the deadly canopy
open on tow might loose some of it's near certainty! I do not see this
@ our club but wish I did.If slipping had been regularly practiced by
the accident pilot,he might have used it rather than his hand to keep
the canopy closed freeing up one for the divebreaks.

I have had the opportunity to to add a full slip to 75 deg. flaps @
90 mph. to extricate myself from a fast closing wave system. You need
to do it once to appreciate the view!

Paul Rehm KW

I am getting a little lost here. If you are trying
to say that an aircraft when flying moves relative
to the airmass it happens to be in you are right. The
direction in which the airmass is moving is unimportant
as far as the aircraft is concerned, as long as it
remains flyng. The concept of what happens when a pilot
has to change the movement of his glider from relative
to the air to releative to the ground because it is
about to become a wheeled vehicle with wings is not
that important. What is vital is that pilots are trained
how to change from being a vehicle moving relative
to the airmass to one moving relative to the ground.
As pilots, unlike the aircraft, we are more concerned
with our movement relative to the ground.
Do we really seek to change our direction through the
airmass? What we seek to achieve is changing our direction
relative to the ground, to align track and heading,
we don't really care a jot that our movement relative
to the airmass has changed (or not) until we try to
operate outside the limits of the aircraft, then we
care a lot. I suppose what I am trying to say is that
the procedure is a very human thing, a skill that requires
teaching, and not one which deep scientific analysis
will help as there are so many variables.

At 14:00 22 February 2005,
wrote:
As often happens, the discussion is digressing into
the particulars of
landing in a crosswind, and I couldn't be happier.
Watching pilots
wrangle through the explanation of why they do what
they do is
fascinating, especially since the inference chain gets
all kinds of
twisted as they work their way back up to the model.

The trick, I'm convinced, is to completely divorce
the slip/skid
alignment maneuvers from the maneuver required to establish
a track
down the runway. Once we've determined that there is
a crosswind, the
only way to establish a proper track is to change our
direction through
the airmass. The problem arises when pilots confuse
the alignment
maneuver with the turn. We've discovered this slick
maneuver where we
can turn base to final and initiate the slip all in
one motion. Which
leads to a false perception that we only turned 90
degrees, then used
the wing to compensate for crosswind. But we have in
fact changed our
direction by more than 90 degrees and inserted our
alignment slip early
on final. But whether your turn is coordinated throughout,
or slipped,
the means by which we change direction is exactly the
same. Remove the
slip, and you'll point upwind, put the slip back in
and you'll point
down the runway. The forces produced by the glider
remain balanced
throughout.

Maybe it is easier to conceptualize this if you simply
ignore the
direction the nose is pointing and think of it in terms
of the glider's
path through the air. Because in a side slip the nose
is pointing down
the runway, there is an illusion that the lowered wing
is dragging the
glider sideways, compensating for the 'force' of the
wind. But in a
side slip (as in a foward slip), the horizontal component
of lift is
exactly balanced by the force created by sideways motion
of the
fuselage. There is no extra force to compensate for
an external force.
Which is a good thing since there is no external force
from the wind.

That said, an unbalanced force is required to establish
a new direction
through the air that will produce a desired ground
track. And this is
only accomplished by turning. Whether the turn is slipped
or skidded or
coordinated is a matter of pilot choice. It is nonetheless
a turn since
the direction of the glider changes. When the new direction
is
achieved, the turn ceases. Whether this is accomplished
by rolling the
wings level or increasing beta to balance the wing
turning force is a
matter of pilot choice.