What is a "Forward Skip"?

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:40:06 -0500, "Gary G"
wrote:

Can someone give me the 2 sentence (or how ever many is adequate) to
what a forward slip procedure is?

Hold left rudder and right aileron, or vice versa. Somehow I always
find it easier to slip to the left.

It's what Cub drivers have instead of flaps.

off stall. Which wing drops?

In a lot of planes neither.

I did my first couple of flights in a Colt, which the airport then
sold and put me ijn a 172. I hated it when the 172 wing dropped!

Cubs don't drop a wing, either.

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in
Have you stalled in a slip? It's no harder to recover than any other
power
off stall. Which wing drops?

In a lot of planes neither.

Idiot.

moo


Coming from you that is a compliment. Thanks!

Gary,

as other have said, the distinction between side and forward is more
confusing than helpful, IMHO. Same thing, only difference is movement
relativ to the ground.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:26:05 -0500, "Happy Dog"
wrote:

"Mike Rhodes"
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:34:48 -0800, "Peter Duniho"

Your assertion that "With full flaps its easy to end up real slow in a
slip
and approach a stall" is just plain nonsense, and certainly has nothing to
do with the *warning* (not prohibition) against slipping while flaps are
extended (even if there were something to your claim about flaps making it
easier to stall).

Pete


Odd, but interesting thread. I haven't heard of tail stall before.

Very uncommon and very serious. Weight and balance (forward C of G) and
icing can cause it. It's just a wing.

I meant in the context of this thread. I'm aware of icing, and that
the tailplane is an airfoil.


But if I've got the basics correct, don't flaps allow the aircraft to
fly at slow airspeeds with a lower angle of attack, including both
wing and tailplane?

Wing.

Meaningless retort. You said "it's just a wing." So you've conquered
the wing? And are looking for other nothings to walk on? Do you have
something against the wing, and other nothings?


So flaps should reduce the likelihood of any
stall, provided enough power is applied to those draggy 40 deg
settings. The wing stalls at a specific angle of attack, and I don't
think the flaps change that characteristic; not that it has been
suggested anywhere.

Flaps change the shape of the wing and allow it to fly at a higher angle of
attack before stall.

No they don't. Are you thinking of slats? This was the point I was
trying to get at in my post. Flaps actually increase the stalling
nature of the wing (though from the safer wing root area) when
referenced to AOA, but not airspeed.

A higher angle of attack before stall allows a higher
coeiffcient of lift.

I have my fluids book in front of me. It has a graph of coefficient
of lift versus angle of attack, and various plots of wings with and
without flaps. In general, the more substantial the flap then the
greater the coefficient of lift (and that coefficient can more than
double; from ~1.5 no-flaps to 3.5 double-slotted). Also, the more
substantial the flap then the _lower_ angle of attack at which the
_wing_ will stall, though only a relatively small (10-25%?) of the
original stall angle.

Stall speed is reduced. Drag is increased. Forward
visibility is improved at slow airspeeds.

Ha! You just proved my point, which you still deny!

Drag increases. Top speed is
reduced (white arc). Trim is affected noticibly. That's all the practical
stuff you need to know. But:

But are you sane?


http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0008.shtml
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0005.shtml
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/vdamp.ht...ffect-of-flaps


Actually, read all of this:

http://www.av8n.com/how/

You read it.



I may be wrong, but isn't this one reason why airliners need flaps at
landing? So they don't bounce the tail on touchdown? Or more likely
so the pilot can see the landing area; aside from just reducing
required runway length.

No.

(see my Ha! above)


moo

Are you a cow? with a bullish facade?

Dave wrote:
This the best explanation I have seen yet..

I have tried it, 1974 172 m, 40 deg., all the rudder we had,
....

You have to work a little harder than that. The phenomenon you were
looking for depends a lot on the CG. Many years ago when I used to fly
Cessnas of various vintage, I discovered the phenomenon after much
trial and error. It was most likely to occur near the rear CG limit in
a (early '70s)172 near gross. Frankly, I don't know what all the fuss
was about. It produced a fairly mild pitch oscilation that I couldn't
distiguish from the usual convective turbulence we get here in the
desert. If it wasn't for the instructor in the back seat pointing it
out, I would have missed it.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180, slips with flaps and got the T-shirt!)

"Mike Rhodes"

Odd, but interesting thread. I haven't heard of tail stall before.

Very uncommon and very serious. Weight and balance (forward C of G) and
icing can cause it. It's just a wing.

I meant in the context of this thread. I'm aware of icing, and that
the tailplane is an airfoil.

You said "I haven't heard of tail stall before" without any conditions.


But if I've got the basics correct, don't flaps allow the aircraft to
fly at slow airspeeds with a lower angle of attack, including both
wing and tailplane?

Wing.

Meaningless retort. You said "it's just a wing." So you've conquered
the wing? And are looking for other nothings to walk on? Do you have
something against the wing, and other nothings?

I said "wing" because your statement is incorrect WRT the tail. On T Tail
airplanes, flaps have no effect on tailplane performance.


So flaps should reduce the likelihood of any
stall, provided enough power is applied to those draggy 40 deg
settings. The wing stalls at a specific angle of attack, and I don't
think the flaps change that characteristic; not that it has been
suggested anywhere.

Flaps change the shape of the wing and allow it to fly at a higher angle
of
attack before stall.

No they don't. Are you thinking of slats?

Yes. My mistake. Lower angle of attack.

I have my fluids book in front of me. It has a graph of coefficient
of lift versus angle of attack, and various plots of wings with and
without flaps. In general, the more substantial the flap then the
greater the coefficient of lift (and that coefficient can more than
double; from ~1.5 no-flaps to 3.5 double-slotted). Also, the more
substantial the flap then the _lower_ angle of attack at which the
_wing_ will stall, though only a relatively small (10-25%?) of the
original stall angle.

Stall speed is reduced. Drag is increased. Forward
visibility is improved at slow airspeeds.

Ha! You just proved my point, which you still deny!

If your point was that "The wing stalls at a specific angle of attack, and I
don't think the flaps change that characteristic", then, yes, I still deny
it.

Drag increases. Top speed is
reduced (white arc). Trim is affected noticibly. That's all the
practical
stuff you need to know. But:

But are you sane?

You disagree with any of the above?

m

wrote in message
ups.com...
It produced a fairly mild pitch oscilation that I couldn't
distiguish from the usual convective turbulence we get here in the
desert. If it wasn't for the instructor in the back seat pointing it
out, I would have missed it.

Once, on approach, I was slipping heavily with full flaps and it felt like
the elevator was blanked out. When I slip in a 172, I apply forward pressure
to the yoke and this time, the yoke lost all resistance to my pushing. The
thing kind of went "limp" and went all the way to the console. I relaxed the
rudder and the yoke shot back into my hand. Mind you, this happened in the
span of a second, but it really got my attention!

I think that this could have been caused by turbulent winds that day
perhaps, but I can't be sure. Either way, I'm a little more careful now.

-Trent
PP-ASEL