Lazy Eight's

wrote in message
oups.com...
Of course not. But unless you had a reasonable airspeed so that lots
of 'up' was available in the airplane's kinetic energy, it would be
mostly a climbing steeply banked turn, wouldn't it? And having an idea
of what that turn diameter would be would be a useful hint when you
either saw canyon walls closing in on you, or you were making a turn
over the East River in NYC, wouldn't it?

The walls could be concrete with windows in them.

So I think the lesson might be if you're in a cruise configuration be
sure there's nothing solid within a half mile in the direction you're
turning, and pay attention to the wind direction.

The other option is to be some kind of a macho hero, but airplanes
should die of old age, not transitioned from something beautiful and
aloft into a compressed mess containing bodies in a couple of seconds.


A little trading of airspeed for altitude, and possibly back again, can make
a lot more difference than you seems to believe. You can also make a huge
difference without doing anything which might be regarded as acrobatic.
Therefore, you are free to practice those non acrobatic maneuvers for
proficiency--which will let you know what the airplane can safely
accomplish, both turning into the wind and turning out of the wind.

OTOH, like Jim, if my arse is on the line, I will do whatever appears
necessary, acrobatic or not--especially in any circumstance where I am "dead
anyway"!

Peter

without a doubt a climbing turn, if you're going fast enough, is going
to tighten the turn. But how tight? Assume you're in a turn over the
East River, and you're going to impact a builiding. Assume you're a
good pilot and were distracted or whatever, and now you're within 500
feet of a wall. What then? Big pullup, bank, all of that? Will you be
able to get 90 degrees around in 500 feet?

We know of one case where whatever was done wasn't enough, and that
was in VFR conditions, they had to have seen it coming.



oups.com...



Of course not. But unless you had a reasonable airspeed so that lots
of 'up' was available in the airplane's kinetic energy, it would be
mostly a climbing steeply banked turn, wouldn't it? And having an idea
of what that turn diameter would be would be a useful hint when you
either saw canyon walls closing in on you, or you were making a turn
over the East River in NYC, wouldn't it?

The walls could be concrete with windows in them.

So I think the lesson might be if you're in a cruise configuration be
sure there's nothing solid within a half mile in the direction you're
turning, and pay attention to the wind direction.

The other option is to be some kind of a macho hero, but airplanes
should die of old age, not transitioned from something beautiful and
aloft into a compressed mess containing bodies in a couple of seconds.

A little trading of airspeed for altitude, and possibly back again, can make
a lot more difference than you seems to believe. You can also make a huge
difference without doing anything which might be regarded as acrobatic.
Therefore, you are free to practice those non acrobatic maneuvers for
proficiency--which will let you know what the airplane can safely
accomplish, both turning into the wind and turning out of the wind.

OTOH, like Jim, if my arse is on the line, I will do whatever appears
necessary, acrobatic or not--especially in any circumstance where I am "dead
anyway"!

Peter- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote in message
oups.com...
without a doubt a climbing turn, if you're going fast enough, is going
to tighten the turn. But how tight? Assume you're in a turn over the
East River, and you're going to impact a builiding. Assume you're a
good pilot and were distracted or whatever, and now you're within 500
feet of a wall. What then? Big pullup, bank, all of that? Will you be
able to get 90 degrees around in 500 feet?

We know of one case where whatever was done wasn't enough, and that
was in VFR conditions, they had to have seen it coming.

A simple pull up would have been all that was needed, in that case.
--
Jim in NC

It would be interesting for someone to run a simulation for that
airplane and track, to gain a sense of how much time the pilot and CFI
would have had from the time the problem was obvious, and what they
might have done about it. It might give some insight as to if they
had the airspeed to climb fast enough. Did they have 2 seconds to
react, or 15?








On Jun 27, 1:14 am, "Morgans" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

without a doubt a climbing turn, if you're going fast enough, is going
to tighten the turn. But how tight? Assume you're in a turn over the
East River, and you're going to impact a builiding. Assume you're a
good pilot and were distracted or whatever, and now you're within 500
feet of a wall. What then? Big pullup, bank, all of that? Will you be
able to get 90 degrees around in 500 feet?

We know of one case where whatever was done wasn't enough, and that
was in VFR conditions, they had to have seen it coming.

A simple pull up would have been all that was needed, in that case.
--
Jim in NC

On 2007-06-24 07:51:51 -0700, "Dick" said:

After taking some rigorous Unusual Attitudes Training, now I can't do a
smooth Lazy Eight to save my soul G (or comfort my wife).

One item the course taught me was a Modified Wingover which allowed a blind
canyon 180* turn within a wingspan. Entry at 30* pitch & 30* bank proceeding
to 60* pitch & 60* bank at 90* point to entry. Then at 0 mph, the nose falls
without rudder assist and ball is too the side.

Yep. I can see how that would ruin your Lazy 8. Now you have a tendency
to do Crazy 8s.


My procedure for the Lazy 8: entry at 15/15* P&B, then up to 30/30* P&B
at 90* to entry and down to 5-10 mph over stall using proper rudder control
and centered ball.

Unfortunately after I look left over the wing to line up with the entry
point and initiate first pitch/bank, I'm then at the 90* point and still too
fast.....

My guess is you are overbanking without realizing it, maybe even trying
to force it around. You might be entering it too fast, too. I enter at
wings level and make very slow, smooth changes to pitch and bank. The
Lazy 8 is not a chandelle or a wingover. It is a graceful, ballet-like
maneuver that requires patience and fine, precise control. At no point
should your pitch or bank be constant. So, I don't enter with a 15/15,
because that is not a Lazy 8 to begin with -- it implies that you hold
that pitch or bank at some point.

AOPA has a good method for learning Lazy Eights that I use when
teaching the maneuver. Practicing these steps will improve your Lazy
Eights enormously.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications...m?article=4147
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-06-24 16:16:35 -0700, Larry Dighera said:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:29:17 -0700,
wrote in om:

On Jun 24, 4:02 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:19:42 -0400, "birdog" wrote in
:

Who the hell's dumb enough to fly up a blind canyon below the rim?


According to observers near the accident site, the local
visibility was practically nil in heavy rain showers and the
ceiling was approximately 800 to 1,000 feet agl. [The weather was
unrealistically severe that evening including thunder
storms.]

'Unrealistically severe' - was this a simulated flight?

From what I remember, eye witnesses reported that they had to pull
over to the side of the road/freeway because the rain was so heavy
they couldn't proceed safely. Apparently the weather was worse than
anyone who experienced it could remember it having been in the past at
that location. It was so bad, that the medical examiner indicated
that Mr. Tallman suffered a heart attack before impact.

A very tragic end for a super guy.

I have seen storms like that near Flagstaff.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:45:10 -0000, wrote in
.com:

It might give some insight as to if they
had the airspeed to climb fast enough. Did they have 2 seconds to
react, or 15?

It would also be good to know if the tops of the buildings were
obscured in cloud or not, so they would have been aware that a pull-up
could have cleared the building tops.

On 2007-06-24 19:35:43 -0700, Dudley Henriques said:
What I do with acro students having trouble with Lazy 8's is to have
them concentrate on doing a good wingover first. This way, they can
concentrate on the 90 degree reference point, the 45 degree point and
the 135 degree point on one side only at a time.
When you can consistantly perform good wingovers to one side, then the
other, you should then put them together and do Lazy 8's.
Basically, you are dealing with pitch and bank and what you have to do
with varying control pressures with BOTH these parameters to achieve
the desired result.

Dudley, I am not sure I understand this as a teaching technique for a
Lazy Eight. You get examiners who complain that people doing Lazy
Eights are actually doing Wingovers instead of Lazy Eights. You see
comments like this, for example, in Ken Medley's article on the AOPA
web site:

"Examiners complain that many applicants actually do wingovers when
they think they are doing lazy eights. A wingover is a good, easy
aerobatic maneuver, but it isn't a lazy eight.
In lazy eights you fly the airplane throughout. In wingovers, you slip
the airplane during the turnaround. For lazy eights, fly the airplane
throughout the turns - no slipping - and be sure to allow for torque."
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:
In wingovers, you slip
the airplane during the turnaround. For lazy eights, fly the airplane
throughout the turns - no slipping - and be sure to allow for torque."

You are saying that a wingover is not coordinated, but it is.

wrote

It would be interesting for someone to run a simulation for that
airplane and track, to gain a sense of how much time the pilot and CFI
would have had from the time the problem was obvious, and what they
might have done about it. It might give some insight as to if they
had the airspeed to climb fast enough. Did they have 2 seconds to
react, or 15?

I remember seeing some radar tracks, and although I do not remember what the
speed was, I thought that they were going way faster than needed, and that
excess speed could have been partially responsible (among other factors,
such as the wind, just naming one) for not being able to turn in a tight
enough radius.

If that is the case, and there was a speed reserve, they would have been
able to do a zoom climb, and avoid the building. As to when they should
have recognized the problem, I would guesstimate that they should have
realized there was a problem, say, 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the way around the
turn. How many seconds would it take to execute a 180? 30 or 40 seconds?
If that is the case, then 3/4ths of the way around would be at worst 7.5
seconds. & seconds would have been enough time, to climb (or change the
bank angle and fly past it) and avoid crashing.

This all hinges on realizing that there was a severe problem, which it seems
obvious they did not.

All in all, it was a tragic incident, and it really does not matter to them
what the mistake was. They are dead, and that is the end as far as they are
concerned.
--
Jim in NC