Lidle, Langewiesche, and turns

On Anderson Cooper 360 about last night, (at least) one of their
sources pointed out that to make the tight turn to compelte the u-turn
at that altitude and turning left, a very steep bank is needed, and
that this can cause a los of altitude -- and the radar returns indicate
that 200' was lost during the turn.

IIRC, William Langewiesche talks about this in his Atlantic article
(Dec '93, it seems),
and maybe in Stick and Rudder (Stick and Rudder: An Explanation of the
Art of Flying
by Wolfgang Langewiesche, William Langewiesche, ISBN: 0070362408 Pub.
Date: September 1990).

I don't have a copy in front of me (of either -- the Atlantic article
is not one of the non-subscription ones, unlike the EgyptAir article).


Does anyone have additional information? I know, the official version
won't be available for months, but there will gradually be information
available that will add to our picture. Which apartment was the engine
found in, btw -- the point of original contact?

A sidebar is that the pilot for the TV report siad, "this is very busy
space...I wouldn't fly solo here; having someone to do the radio knobs
[etc] would make a big difference" (I don't think that's verbatim, but
it should be close").

One way some good could come out of this, I hope, is if researchers
such as those at Purdue can use this as a check of their WTC models.
If properly calibrated, the models should show the difference in damage
(see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911153219.htm,
and better copies of the simulation pictures at the Purdue site).

/dps

Snidely wrote:
On Anderson Cooper 360 about last night, (at least) one of their
sources pointed out that to make the tight turn to compelte the u-turn
at that altitude and turning left, a very steep bank is needed, and
that this can cause a los of altitude -- and the radar returns indicate
that 200' was lost during the turn.

IIRC, William Langewiesche talks about this in his Atlantic article
(Dec '93, it seems),
and maybe in Stick and Rudder (Stick and Rudder: An Explanation of the
Art of Flying
by Wolfgang Langewiesche, William Langewiesche, ISBN: 0070362408 Pub.
Date: September 1990).

Another Atlantic columnist, talks about the crash in 2 articles:

"For the second time in a month, I have woken up (in China) to news of
a fatal crash of exactly the kind of airplane that I used to own and
fly." http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200610u/lidle-crash

See also http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200610u/lidle-crash-2

/dps

Go Take a mountain flying class and you will learn about speed, tempture,
wind, and turns.

Also don't believe anything you here on the news! Like Beirut Lebanon is a
bad place and they all want to kill Americans hahahahaha Well I walked the
streets at night for a few hours alone, myself a non Muslim on a Muslim
holiday and nothing but friendly people even the guys with the machine guns
has proper muzzle control and friendlier than our police in the states!!

But what do I know!!! I just keep my eyes open look and wonder that is if we
are such a civilized society then why are we not removing rules/laws If we
were civilized we would not be making up new rules/laws!!!!

Funniest thing I herd on the news this week was an "Aviation Psychologist"
What the hell was is a Aviation Psychologist!!!! He had his facts and times
for ratings wrong it was good comedy for a pilots!!!! No wonder why the guy
no longer works for the NTSB and The FAA hahahahaha the guy was a quack!!!!

"Snidely" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Anderson Cooper 360 about last night, (at least) one of their
sources pointed out that to make the tight turn to compelte the u-turn
at that altitude and turning left, a very steep bank is needed, and
that this can cause a los of altitude -- and the radar returns indicate
that 200' was lost during the turn.

IIRC, William Langewiesche talks about this in his Atlantic article
(Dec '93, it seems),
and maybe in Stick and Rudder (Stick and Rudder: An Explanation of the
Art of Flying
by Wolfgang Langewiesche, William Langewiesche, ISBN: 0070362408 Pub.
Date: September 1990).

I don't have a copy in front of me (of either -- the Atlantic article
is not one of the non-subscription ones, unlike the EgyptAir article).


Does anyone have additional information? I know, the official version
won't be available for months, but there will gradually be information
available that will add to our picture. Which apartment was the engine
found in, btw -- the point of original contact?

A sidebar is that the pilot for the TV report siad, "this is very busy
space...I wouldn't fly solo here; having someone to do the radio knobs
[etc] would make a big difference" (I don't think that's verbatim, but
it should be close").

One way some good could come out of this, I hope, is if researchers
such as those at Purdue can use this as a check of their WTC models.
If properly calibrated, the models should show the difference in damage
(see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911153219.htm,
and better copies of the simulation pictures at the Purdue site).

/dps

Aircraft Turn Calculator

www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html

On Anderson Cooper 360 about last night, (at least) one of their
sources pointed out that to make the tight turn to compelte the u-turn
at that altitude and turning left, a very steep bank is needed, and
that this can cause a los of altitude -- and the radar returns indicate
that 200' was lost during the turn.

I seem to recall being required, on check rides, to do two 360 degree
turns, one each way (like a figure 8), at 60 degrees of bank, without
losing (or gaining) any altitude.

vince norris

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:00:39 -0400, vincent p. norris
wrote:

On Anderson Cooper 360 about last night, (at least) one of their
sources pointed out that to make the tight turn to compelte the u-turn
at that altitude and turning left, a very steep bank is needed, and
that this can cause a los of altitude -- and the radar returns indicate
that 200' was lost during the turn.

I seem to recall being required, on check rides, to do two 360 degree
turns, one each way (like a figure 8), at 60 degrees of bank, without
losing (or gaining) any altitude.

vince norris


Then there's that business of pull up, wingover, pull out in opposite
direction at same altitude. That's CPL training, if I recall.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Blanche Cohen wrote:
Aircraft Turn Calculator

www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html

Interesting -- but doesn't speak to asltitude issues (loss of, or
adjustments to avoid loss of).

Tnx

/dps

On 16 Oct 2006 13:28:37 -0700, "Snidely"
wrote:


Blanche Cohen wrote:
Aircraft Turn Calculator

www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html

Interesting -- but doesn't speak to asltitude issues (loss of, or
adjustments to avoid loss of).

Losing altitude at a constant rate (rather than accelerating downward)
would be the same as maintaining a constant altitude, wouldn't it?
(Vectors on a free-body diagram and all that)

Don

Don Tuite wrote:

On 16 Oct 2006 13:28:37 -0700, "Snidely"
wrote:


Blanche Cohen wrote:
Aircraft Turn Calculator

www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html

Interesting -- but doesn't speak to asltitude issues (loss of, or
adjustments to avoid loss of).

Losing altitude at a constant rate (rather than accelerating downward)
would be the same as maintaining a constant altitude, wouldn't it?
(Vectors on a free-body diagram and all that)

Don

You get additional horsepower from going downhill, letting you maintain
your speed.

--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:41:58 GMT, Ron Hardin
wrote:

Don Tuite wrote:

On 16 Oct 2006 13:28:37 -0700, "Snidely"
wrote:


Blanche Cohen wrote:
Aircraft Turn Calculator

www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html

Interesting -- but doesn't speak to asltitude issues (loss of, or
adjustments to avoid loss of).

Losing altitude at a constant rate (rather than accelerating downward)
would be the same as maintaining a constant altitude, wouldn't it?
(Vectors on a free-body diagram and all that)

Don

You get additional horsepower from going downhill, letting you maintain
your speed.

Telegraphic as ever, Ron.

So, because I'm using the same throttle position as I was using in
level flight, I'm descending while in a turn and banked at A degrees.
The airplane seat is pushing on my butt at an angle A degrees from
vertical. That can be resolved into a vertical vector and a horizontal
vector aimed at the center of the circular path I'm describing.
Meanwhile the back of the seat is exerting another force on my butt
tangential to the circular path I'm describing in the horizontal, er,
"plane." That force is a reaction to the thrust of the prop.

If I "maintain my speed," I get the same lift I would have got from
adding enough throttle so as not to lose altitude. That means the
magnitude of the vertical component of the lift vector is still equal
to mg and my rate of descent is constant.

You were agreeing with me? (Never happened before.) Maintaining
vertical equilbrium depends on maintaining the same speed as in
straight and level flight, doesn't it?

Don