Conventional v tricycle gear

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:10:51 +0200, Bertie the Bunyip wrote
(in article ):

"Kadaitcha Man" wrote in news:eklxir
:

Bertie the Bunyip, ye rank don worm, goodness is poison to your
stomach,
ye disputed:

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-
6efa72157885
@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:


Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can --
guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch
down tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying,
and
breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta
setting?
With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short of
the
numbers!

No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston trikes
had
that for the most part.
I'm intrigued by the wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll have
to
try it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with, bu
tI
will be flying out of some very short fields so if there's an
advantage I'd use it.


Bertie


So thrill us with you knowledge. How short can you stop an empty DC-
3
on dry asphalt?

Why? You'll never fly one, luser boi.

But for anyone else who would like to try it, less than 2,000 feet at
MLW.


And much less than that if you come in at a 90 degree angle.

Or if you land directly against the terminal.

Bertie


WTF, am i in kiddie land?

-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹
Brutality Personified

http://www.asshelmets.com/

http://thetrolls.net/phpbb/

http://www.trollvalhalla.com/

On Jul 12, 6:03*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-6efa72157885
@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:



Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can --
guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch down
tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying, and
breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta setting?
With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short of the
numbers!

No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston trikes had that
for the most part.
I'm intrigued by the *wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll have to try
it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with, bu tI will be
flying out of some very short fields so if there's an advantage I'd use it.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:46:09 -0500, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net
wrote:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .

Major bull**** snip -


Bertie


I don't know what book you are reading, but you just proved you have never
flown one, to anyone that really has.

What a crock.


pray tell. what have you ever flown maxie?????

Stealth Pilot

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:20:42 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:



what were they like to fly? the dak I mean.

Aaargh! Only Brits call it a Dak.

Ok I'll call it a Gooney Bird.

on the ground handling were they sensitive to tyre pressures?

I've only ever sat in a gooney bird pilot's seat once. I was just
amazed at how little space they had up front.


reduce power a bit and have both guys stick both feet on the high rudder
and push. The only other real gotcha was a runaway prop. It was a
problem common to all airplanes of the period. If you lost all oil it
wouldn't autofeather like a modern twin would. It would go into fine

a friend of mine who used to post as "V1...oops" had that happen to
him on takeoff out of Sydney. you can see the accident write up in the
ATSB case logs. its the DC3 that ditched into Sydney harbour.
he thinks the investigations were done by absolute pricks.

thanks for the notes. I think I need to start buying lottery tickets
again...

Stealth Pilot

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:36:42 GMT, Marty Shapiro
wrote:

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

what were they like to fly? the dak I mean.
it is one aircraft I'd really love to fly just to see what they were
like, having read Gann's masterpieces.
I had an old airline dak pilot as a customer once. he reckoned that
they were a really sweet aircraft to fly and lifting the tail on
takeoff was a non event.
Stealth Pilot


Why not fly one and see for yourself?

See http://www.incredible-adventures.com/dc3.html

Or, you can go all the way and get a DC-3 type rating added to your
certificate at http://www.douglasdc3.com/

I'm sure there must be some places closer to you.

(No, I haven't done either of these, but it's fun to think about!)

$aus6,000 to fill the tanks with avgas!
thats an enthusiasts aeroplane.

the bugger is that in not being an american citizen it isnt available
to me. or is it....

marty that's very interesting. thats blown the next few nights :-)
Stealth Pilot

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:18:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:


"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.

I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.

On Jul 10, 4:28 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My
Sig.com wrote:
My _experience_ has been that brakes slow you down faster than floating
along the runway waiting for a three point.

Exactly. The problem, Geoff, as many don't see it, is that a
three-point rollout has the wing at a high AOA. The wing does not stop
lifting just because the wheels are on the ground so that traction is
minimal, and aerodynamic braking diminishes by the square of the
airspeed---half the speed, one-quarter of the drag. So a three-point
touchdown does not allow immediate heavy braking, and since the speed
is still high the airplane covers lots of runway before the lift has
dropped to the point that the tires have enough traction for heavy
braking. If we wait for the drag to slow us down, that's what we'll
do: wait. And use up runway.
Raising the tail gets rid of lift and places weight on the
mains. Modulating brakes and elevator slows the airplane quickly right
from the touchdown point, noseover tendency being controlled with the
elevator. Once the airplane is slowed the tail is planted and braking
increased further if necessary, though the loss of elevator
effectiveness determines just how much brake one can use.
Until one tries it he has no idea what it feels like. There was
no way I could stop the 185 in anywhere near the same distance three-
point as I was able to do with the tail-high braking. I'm not talking
the normal wheel landing here; that requires a higher airspeed to
reduce AOA so that the tail is high to start with at touchdown. That
eats up runway. I'm talking minimum speed touchdown, which will be
close to the three-point attitude, if not tailwheel-first, and then
the tail is raised after touchdown to dump the lift.

Dan

that's called a tail low wheeler.

On Jul 12, 3:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Kadaitcha Man" wrote in news:eklxir
:



Bertie the Bunyip, ye rank don worm, goodness is poison to your
stomach,
ye disputed:

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-
6efa72157885
@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can --
guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch
down tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying,
and
breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta
setting?
With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short of
the
numbers!

No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston trikes
had
that for the most part.
I'm intrigued by the *wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll have
to
try it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with, bu
tI
will be flying out of some very short fields so if there's an
advantage I'd use it.

Bertie

So thrill us with you knowledge. How short can you stop an empty DC-
3
on dry asphalt?

Why? You'll never fly one, luser boi.

But for anyone else who would like to try it, less than 2,000 feet at
MLW.

And much less than that if you come in at a 90 degree angle.

Or if you land directly against the terminal.

Bertie

I think a routine preplanned short field successful landing is one
where the airplane can be reused. Unplanned ones are successful if no
one is badly hurt.

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:20:42 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:



what were they like to fly? the dak I mean.

Aaargh! Only Brits call it a Dak.

Ok I'll call it a Gooney Bird.


Better!

The Dakota name was only used on the ones built for the Brits AFAIK and
I don't think any of those are still flying in any case. Almost all the
ones flying are war built C-47s, some converted to DC-3 spec. The
differences up front between types are small, though.


on the ground handling were they sensitive to tyre pressures?

No idea! Hopefully thye kept the pressures correct! But I wouldn't
think so. It was a sensitive airplane.

I've only ever sat in a gooney bird pilot's seat once. I was just
amazed at how little space they had up front.

It was OK. About the same as you have in a 737, anyway!


reduce power a bit and have both guys stick both feet on the high
rudder
and push. The only other real gotcha was a runaway prop. It was a
problem common to all airplanes of the period. If you lost all oil it
wouldn't autofeather like a modern twin would. It would go into fine

a friend of mine who used to post as "V1...oops" had that happen to
him on takeoff out of Sydney. you can see the accident write up in the
ATSB case logs. its the DC3 that ditched into Sydney harbour.
he thinks the investigations were done by absolute pricks.

I'll have a look.

thanks for the notes. I think I need to start buying lottery tickets
again...

Heh heh. Would be a lot of fun to have. You'd need to win a lot to keep
it flying, though. About 90 USG/hour..

Bertie

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:18:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:


"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.

I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.

On Jul 10, 4:28 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My
Sig.com wrote:
My _experience_ has been that brakes slow you down faster than
floating
along the runway waiting for a three point.

Exactly. The problem, Geoff, as many don't see it, is that a
three-point rollout has the wing at a high AOA. The wing does not stop
lifting just because the wheels are on the ground so that traction is
minimal, and aerodynamic braking diminishes by the square of the
airspeed---half the speed, one-quarter of the drag. So a three-point
touchdown does not allow immediate heavy braking, and since the speed
is still high the airplane covers lots of runway before the lift has
dropped to the point that the tires have enough traction for heavy
braking. If we wait for the drag to slow us down, that's what we'll
do: wait. And use up runway.
Raising the tail gets rid of lift and places weight on the
mains. Modulating brakes and elevator slows the airplane quickly right
from the touchdown point, noseover tendency being controlled with the
elevator. Once the airplane is slowed the tail is planted and braking
increased further if necessary, though the loss of elevator
effectiveness determines just how much brake one can use.
Until one tries it he has no idea what it feels like. There was
no way I could stop the 185 in anywhere near the same distance three-
point as I was able to do with the tail-high braking. I'm not talking
the normal wheel landing here; that requires a higher airspeed to
reduce AOA so that the tail is high to start with at touchdown. That
eats up runway. I'm talking minimum speed touchdown, which will be
close to the three-point attitude, if not tailwheel-first, and then
the tail is raised after touchdown to dump the lift.

Dan

that's called a tail low wheeler.


Those are the only kind I usually do. I've always felt the other kind ae
not the best technique..


Bertie

wrote in news:9d5fff30-a958-4e21-b98d-767e85f45756
@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Jul 12, 3:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Kadaitcha Man" wrote in news:eklxir
:



Bertie the Bunyip, ye rank don worm, goodness is poison to your
stomach,
ye disputed:

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-
6efa72157885
@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can
--
guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and
touch
down tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying,
and
breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta
setting?
With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short
of
the
numbers!

No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston
trikes
had
that for the most part.
I'm intrigued by the *wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll
have
to
try it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with,
bu
tI
will be flying out of some very short fields so if there's an
advantage I'd use it.

Bertie

So thrill us with you knowledge. How short can you stop an empty
DC-
3
on dry asphalt?

Why? You'll never fly one, luser boi.

But for anyone else who would like to try it, less than 2,000 feet
at
MLW.

And much less than that if you come in at a 90 degree angle.

Or if you land directly against the terminal.

Bertie

I think a routine preplanned short field successful landing is one
where the airplane can be reused. Unplanned ones are successful if no
one is badly hurt.


Or in Maxie's case, if they happen before he wakes up.

Bertie