Stalls and Thoughts

Ok Dudley,

Let's get into an area of your expertise. I've always wondered this. On a
P-38, when they first came out the Allison's turned counter rotating (top
blade towards cabin, as you would expect). But after the first 12 or so
proto's and for the rest of production, they interchanged the engines. That
is each engine's top blade rotated away from the aircraft. Why? Serious,
I really want to know.

--
BobF.
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Robert Moore wrote:
Tell us once again how much solo
time you have in all of thse "Navy Test Pilot School" jets. My local
TV Newscaster can probably match your time with his many Blue Angel PR
flights.

Moore, you are really becoming a flaming bore. :-))

Don't know what your problem is but I'll say it again here for both you
and any intelligent people who might read this.

My flying in jets at the Test Pilot School and everywhere else connected
with the military was as a guest of these institutions. They made both
themselves and their aircraft available to me based on the mutual respect
we maintained and maintain even today for each other. I am NOT a military
pilot, nor have I ever claimed such status.
I am a civilian pilot with a commercial, CFI, and a center thrust rating.
My expertise is now and always has been in primary instruction, aerobatic
instruction, and the flying of high performance prop aircraft.




Bob Moore
Naval Aviator V-15753 1958-1967 S-2F, P-2V, P-3B
Airline Transpoprt Pilot ASMEL L-188, B-727, B-707
Flight Instructor ASEL, IA
PanAm (retired)




--
Dudley Henriques

Yeah, we could do a lot of things on board during test, before the AC was
shipped. Image minimum fuel, no seats, not painted, etc. It just pops off
the ground and landed like a 172.

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Bob F." wrote in
:

I asked a lot of 72 pilots this and I get a 50 -50 answer. When I
land a 72 I notice, or I think I can feel, a better landing when I
drop the nose just before it touches. I attributed it because the AC
rotation center was so far ahead of the main mounts that the tires
started to "come up" on this rotation, while the AC was descending.
Ever notice that?


Yeah, it definitely works, but you got to time it juuuust right! I flew
the
BAC 1-11-500 and it was the same like that, but I didn;t use it in either.
What I did do was to ensure that I kept the pitch dead steady until about
20 feet, close the taps, check and give myself just a second to see if I
could find the ground myself before the airplane did it for me. If I
couldn't get a good one in that second or so I just let it sit down the
way
it it wanted to and I would just sort out the rest!


Bertie

Close,

Really close. It stood for DENver Training Kindom and you got the rest
right.

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Bob F." wrote in
:

Bertie,
Ok...I'll send you a prize if in 5 minutes you can tell me what DENTK
stands for.


It's some training facility in Denver, isn't it? United? Never been to it
anyway. I've heard it mentioned in crew rooms. I initially learned jets
with Western ( contract training) and have done the rest in various places
round the world, some in the US and some elsewhere.


Bertie

"Bob F." wrote in
:

Yeah, we could do a lot of things on board during test, before the AC
was shipped. Image minimum fuel, no seats, not painted, etc. It just
pops off the ground and landed like a 172.


What, the 747? I've been a pax in a light one only going about 100 miles.
Like a 172 OK!¬


Bertie

"Bob F." wrote in
:

Close,

Really close. It stood for DENver Training Kindom and you got the rest
right.


OK. no prize then ;(


Bertie

Right, but I'll think of another entertaining Q. I'm sure you'll hit one.
As Tony said, "We're just tawkin here".

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Bob F." wrote in
:

Close,

Really close. It stood for DENver Training Kindom and you got the rest
right.


OK. no prize then ;(


Bertie

Bob F. wrote:
Ok Dudley,

Let's get into an area of your expertise. I've always wondered this.
On a P-38, when they first came out the Allison's turned counter
rotating (top blade towards cabin, as you would expect). But after the
first 12 or so proto's and for the rest of production, they interchanged
the engines. That is each engine's top blade rotated away from the
aircraft. Why? Serious, I really want to know.

Well Bob, I hope it's a friendly request and I'll take it this way.

To be absolutely truthful with you, P38 design and development really
isn't in my area of expertise but I'll give it a shot based loosely on
something an old friend Jeff Ethell once mentioned to me about the engines.
As you now they were Allison V1710's and thy were handed inward in the
XP38. The prop swing was indeed changed I believe in th second run or
even back as far as the YP38.
I'll admit it always puzzled me as well. I knew the Brits didn't like
the handed engines and even our side had maintanence issues. For many
years I thought it might have had something to do with the flow
direction linkages on the turbochargers but I believe the change was
made after gunnery testing indicated the change would improve the
airplane's stability in the gun firing equation.
Not absolutely certain, but I believe I recall Jeff mentioning it in
this context.

--
Dudley Henriques

Thanks for the response. I heard different stories but nothing that made
sense to me. The closest partial story had something to do with the props
slipstream on the stabilizer (H or V, I don't know) gave them better
performance (whatever that means) in high speed, high powered dives. I
could never get a complete story. I even talked with 3 of the last pilots
that shot down Adm. Yamamoto, when they gave a talk at the Boeing Museum
about 20 years ago. They had no idea either.

--
BobF.
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Bob F. wrote:
Ok Dudley,

Let's get into an area of your expertise. I've always wondered this. On
a P-38, when they first came out the Allison's turned counter rotating
(top blade towards cabin, as you would expect). But after the first 12
or so proto's and for the rest of production, they interchanged the
engines. That is each engine's top blade rotated away from the aircraft.
Why? Serious, I really want to know.

Well Bob, I hope it's a friendly request and I'll take it this way.

To be absolutely truthful with you, P38 design and development really
isn't in my area of expertise but I'll give it a shot based loosely on
something an old friend Jeff Ethell once mentioned to me about the
engines.
As you now they were Allison V1710's and thy were handed inward in the
XP38. The prop swing was indeed changed I believe in th second run or even
back as far as the YP38.
I'll admit it always puzzled me as well. I knew the Brits didn't like the
handed engines and even our side had maintanence issues. For many years I
thought it might have had something to do with the flow direction linkages
on the turbochargers but I believe the change was made after gunnery
testing indicated the change would improve the airplane's stability in the
gun firing equation.
Not absolutely certain, but I believe I recall Jeff mentioning it in this
context.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 15, 7:57*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Bob F." wrote innews
Yes, you learn a lot about Dutch rolls real quick. *...and I did
experience a elevator hydraulic cylinder stall once in a 707. *That
was an experience.

Ouch. I didn't know they had hydraulics on the elevator. I thought the 707 *
was all tab control except the rudder.
I had a pitch problem in an A300 at about FL190 once. That was pretty
exciting, but since it was the automatics that caused it we were able to
disconnnect and get it all back under control. Scared the crap out of us.
We thought we had something on the airframe come loose and cause the pitch
problems. Nothing else made sense until we got down and maintenence
diagnosed the problem. We got a mach buffet recovering (2.5 G) but of
course that part of it wasnt too dramatic because of the relatively low
altitude. It would have been a different story at 330 ( the 'Bus was not
good at altitude)

Bertie

2.5 G ... that would be something new in the passenger cabin. Get any
screams or spilt coke?

Speaking of g and jets, what kind of g loads can airliners like 707,
727, 737, and then the really big ones take?

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:09:24 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

wrote:
How much of a new students time is spent
flying in slow flight at the low end of the performance envelope?
Isn't that where all the nasty things can happen?

I spent a fair amount of time, probably close to an hour or two in
slow flight. Maybe a little longer.

I don't think it's the case that slow flight is where all the nasty
things can happen. A stall can happen at any speed in any flight
attitude, and may be worse at higher speeds in certain attitudes than
low speed, upright, straight and level.
This is true. Stalls at 1g are seldom the issue. Accelerated stall is
the stall that will kill you. Pilots are well advised to go WELL beyond
understanding stalls with the airplane at 1g. A good look into the realm
of stall over 1g and in ALL flight attitudes, especially cross
controlled is time well spent.

Those are fun in the Deb. They can give you a whole new outlook (or
attitude).:-)) They were still pretty much a non event in the
Cherokee 180 at least with practice. The Deb left no doubt as to
whether the turn was coordinated or not when it stalled and which
way. :-))
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com