Windmilling Prop, More Drag or Less?
Charles K. Scott
In article <3473098b....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
billphil*nospam*@ix.netcom.com (Badwater Bill) writes:
> Ok gang, what do you think about this one? Is a windmilling prop more
> or less drag? I'll post my opinion after some good debate.
>
> BWB
I'll assume you are comparing the windmilling prop to one that is
stopped, although you didn't say that :-), and vote for prop creating
more drag windmilling than stopped.
My reason is simple, a prop has to be spun by the engine to produce
thrust, it can't produce thrust while stopped. So to invert this, it
would appear to me that a stopped prop will produce a lot less drag
than a spinning prop. Not none, but less.
I also remember reading about the guy testing the original F4U Corsair.
During one of the test flights, the engine failed. the crankshaft
actually broke but remained connected to the engine so that the prop
just windmilled. The pilot nosed down and headed for the field. He
turned in with plenty of height but missjudged the amount of drag the
windmilling prop was creating and touched down just a little bit short
of the runway. Unfortunately, there was a large drainage ditch right
at the foot of the runway and the Corsair settled right against the
runway side section of it. The impact literally broke the nose off the
airplane and the pilot found himself alive but battered and staring at
open space in front of him.
When he approached normally, the engine, even at idle, was producing
enough thrust to substantially reduce the drag of the prop and change
the glide profile.
Corky Scott
David Hyde
Billy P. writes:
> Ok gang, what do you think about this one? Is a windmilling prop more
> or less drag? I'll post my opinion after some good debate.
Corky responds:
>Not none, but less.
Correct, less. See:
"Hartman, E. P., NACA TR 464, Negative Thrust and Torque Characteristics
of an Adjustable-Pitch Metal Propeller,1933"
Dave 'lima bean' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
Rich Lanning
A windmilling prop has far more drag than a stopped prop since it is
acting like a flat plate to the relative wind. This is the whole
reasoning behind feathering a prop, stop its rotation and provide as
little surface to the relative wind as possible.
However, one should not immediately jump to the conclusion that you
should attempt to stop your prop in flight if it is a non-feathering
type. There are several reasons for this:
1) Slowing the aircraft in order to stop the prop will result in a
greater sink rate. The altitude loss may result in an even shorter
glide distance.
2) Number one rule is to fly the aircraft. Trying to stop the prop
diverts your attention from the immediate need to find a suitable
landing spot.
3) Even if you stop the prop there is no guarantee that once you lower
the nose the relative wind might not get it windmilling again. Many
times when I have unfeathered a prop it immediately began windmilling
without the need to hit the starter.
4) Should the engine quit you should first attempt to identify the
reason for the failure. I could care less about increased glide
distance if I can regain power. Even in aircraft with feathering props
you typically do not immediately feather until you checked the obvious
reasons for the failure - mixture, throttle, mags, fuel pump, fuel tank.
5) Trying to stop the prop puts the aircraft in a near stall condition
and quite possibly in a full stall condition. The last thing you want
to do is stall the aircraft.
Just my opinions on the subject. Am interested to see other thoughts on
the subject.
Rich
Badwater Bill wrote:
>
> Mike Jacobs wrote:
>
> >> glide ratio, and hence selection of emergency landing sites, is better in the
> > long run if you first nose up slightly to slow down enough to make the prop
> >completely stop windmilling and then gently nose down to accelerate to best
> >glide speed, than if you nose over immediately with the fan still turning.
> > True? Having only experienced *simulated* engine-outs myself, never had
> > opportunity to test it (not being damfool enough to kill the engine in midair
> > and then hope the starter works).
>
> >Mike Jacobs
> >ASEL/S, COML, IFR, VP-1 under construction
>
> Ok gang, what do you think about this one? Is a windmilling prop more
> or less drag? I'll post my opinion after some good debate.
>
> BWB
Badwater Bill
John R. Johnson
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Badwater Bill wrote:
<snip>
>
> Ok gang, what do you think about this one? Is a windmilling prop more
> or less drag? I'll post my opinion after some good debate.
>
However, you can significantly reduce the drag, even if it is windmilling,
by increasing the pitch as much as possible.
I notice with my "Lady in Red" ( see http://aviator.cwis.siu.edu/john )
that I can make a REAL steep approach with the throttle all the way back
and the prop in "go around" pitch. If I then give the pitch knob a
healthy yank, I not only return lots of oil to the engine, but the
glide angle flattens out noticeably. Stopping it entirely, ( My prop
does not go to full feather ) would noticeably flatten the glide again.
Of course, I normally plan fairly steep approaches, so the airport does
not get away from me. They are easier to hit when you come straight
down at them! Flat prop, full flaps, no throttle, straight down, aim
at the numbers and DON'T forget to flare! :-)
JOhn
Bill
"John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu> wrote:
>Of course, I normally plan fairly steep approaches, so the airport does
>not get away from me. They are easier to hit when you come straight
>down at them! Flat prop, full flaps, no throttle, straight down, aim
>at the numbers and DON'T forget to flare! :-)
>
>JOhn
Yep, that's the way I like to do it. If anything happens you KNOW you
have the runway made because you just clean up and change your glide
angle. I hate to see guys dragging it in every time in rental
airplanes that probably aren't among the best maintained in the world
anyway.
Besides, it's more fun to drop like a brick! Take a Cessna 150 (152
limited the flaps to 30 degrees) with 40 degrees of flaps, engine at
idle and a 65 knot rudder-to-the-stop slip and you'll peg the VSI. My
friend and partner goes crazy every time I do it, but that might just
be because it's his 150. :)
-Bill S.
Bill Strahan
bi...@ttgwest.com
"She could while away the hours, conferring with the flowers..."
Roger J.Hamlett
In article: <651eci$d...@jupiter.planet.net> Dave Sutton
<nospam...@planet.net> writes:
>
> > "Janet & Doug Crossman-Bosworth"
<JDBosworth<nospam>@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> > Badwater Bill <billphil*nospam*@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
>
> > > Ok gang, what do you think about this one? Is a windmilling
prop more
> > > or less drag? I'll post my opinion after some good debate.
> > >
>
>
>
> > I'm not willing to go out and test these theories.
> >
> > I'll vote for stopped and feathered, but I've yet to
> > see a piston single capable of that.
> >
> > Doug
>
>
>
> Errr.... I 'have' unfortunately tested the theory and had it
confirmed in the
> subsequent NTSB investigation. I was a passenger in a radial
engined
> aircraft that suffered a catastrophic hydraulic lock which resulted
is a
> seized engine (so violently that the stoppage of the engine sheared
the
> propleller shaft off inside the gearbox). The propeller remained
attached
> to the gearbox and was freewheeling at an RPM that is unknown, but
> was very high. The drag of this propeller made the glide rate
extremely
> high (6000 FPM estimated)..... I was the only survivor of 3
occupants in
> the remaining impact with the trees.....
>
>
> Been there, done that. Did my 4 months in a hospital bed. You are
far better
> off with the engine stopped. The kinetic energy to turn the prop
comes from
> somewhere, and that somewhere is from the total kinetic energy
budget available.
> If you take it from "A" (glide) and divert some (a lot, perhaps) to
"B" (engine motion)
> you obviously lose some of what is available to "A". Simple
stuff.....
A salutory story. I like the 'sycamore seed' analogy myself. If you
try bending one of the blades on such a seed so it no longer spins,
it falls much quicker. It's normal windmilling action, increases the
drag, which is exactly what happens with the prop.
Best Wishes
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| EMail ro...@ttelmah.demon.co.uk http://www.ttelmah.demon.co.uk/ |
| A beard! A beard! cried Fly Nicholas.'By God, that's a good one!'|
| (Chaucer) |
David Hyde
PPlous (ppl...@aol.com) wrote:
>Dave Hyde wrote:
>>Correct, less. See:
>Less than what?
AAAAAAIIIIYYYYEEEEEE!!!!! I over-snipped Corky's reply. What I was
responding to was where Corky had posted:
"a stopped prop will produce a lot less drag than a spinning prop."
And I said "Correct, less." D'oh, I hate it when that happens.
You don't even have to feather the prop to get less drag. A stopped fixed
pitch prop has less drag than the same prop windmilling.
Dave '*smack*' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
pa...@euclid.nrl.navy.mil
In article <6508b4$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Janet & Doug Crossman-Bosworth" <JDBosworth<nospam>@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>I'm not willing to go out and test these theories.
>
>I'll vote for stopped and feathered, but I've yet to
>see a piston single capable of that.
>
>Doug
It's actually pretty easy to stop the prop from windmilling by approaching
to a stall. You can then also nose down enough to do an air start. I've
done it (with my instructor) in a Beech Sport with the high comp 180HP
motor. It's much easier on airplane with low compression motors. It does
take a lot of altitude, so I wouldn't try it unless the engine filed at
a pretty good altitude and I needed a LONG glide to make a safe landing
(or possibly landfall?).
--
Gregory S. Page
Janet & Doug Crossman-Bosworth
Badwater Bill <billphil*nospam*@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<3473098b....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> Mike Jacobs wrote:
>
>
> >> glide ratio, and hence selection of emergency landing sites, is better
in the
> > long run if you first nose up slightly to slow down enough to make the
prop
> >completely stop windmilling and then gently nose down to accelerate to
best
> >glide speed, than if you nose over immediately with the fan still
turning.
> > True? Having only experienced *simulated* engine-outs myself, never
had
> > opportunity to test it (not being damfool enough to kill the engine in
midair
> > and then hope the starter works).
>
> >Mike Jacobs
> >ASEL/S, COML, IFR, VP-1 under construction
>
> Ok gang, what do you think about this one? Is a windmilling prop more
> or less drag? I'll post my opinion after some good debate.
>
> BWB
>
>
Dave Sutton
> "Janet & Doug Crossman-Bosworth" <JDBosworth<nospam>@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Badwater Bill <billphil*nospam*@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> > Ok gang, what do you think about this one? Is a windmilling prop more
> > or less drag? I'll post my opinion after some good debate.
> >
> > BWB
> I'm not willing to go out and test these theories.
>
> I'll vote for stopped and feathered, but I've yet to
> see a piston single capable of that.
>
> Doug
Errr.... I 'have' unfortunately tested the theory and had it confirmed in the
subsequent NTSB investigation. I was a passenger in a radial engined
aircraft that suffered a catastrophic hydraulic lock which resulted is a
seized engine (so violently that the stoppage of the engine sheared the
propleller shaft off inside the gearbox). The propeller remained attached
to the gearbox and was freewheeling at an RPM that is unknown, but
was very high. The drag of this propeller made the glide rate extremely
high (6000 FPM estimated)..... I was the only survivor of 3 occupants in
the remaining impact with the trees.....
Been there, done that. Did my 4 months in a hospital bed. You are far better
off with the engine stopped. The kinetic energy to turn the prop comes from
somewhere, and that somewhere is from the total kinetic energy budget available.
If you take it from "A" (glide) and divert some (a lot, perhaps) to "B" (engine motion)
you obviously lose some of what is available to "A". Simple stuff.....
Dave Sutton
J Morris
> I'm going to asume that eventually everyone will agree with
> Dave that a stopped prop produces less drag than a
> conventionally windmilling prop. That's pretty well known.
>
> However, it's not due to diversion of kinetic enegy, and in
> the situation he described, broken shaft, freewheeling, it's
> not conventionally windmilling, as would occur from, say,
> fuel exhaustion. Generally, if the prop is going to spin,
> the easier it is for the prop to turn, the less drag it
> creates and the farther you can glide.
Nope, should make no difference, really, if the prop`s driving the engine
or not. If the prop was freewheeling with no resistance, it`d produce as
much, and maybe even more drag than if it was dragging a failed engine
around with it.
Gyrocopters don`t need a brake to produce more lift, do they? If you
autorotate a chopper, you are freewheeling as well.
Depending on the prop installed, it`s going to whirl around until it finds
a nice comfortable speed for itself. Even though it`s in "inverted" flight
(i.e producing lift the other way around from what it`s supposed to) it`s
going to be producing lift on the AFT side of the disc.
But don`t take my word for it. Get a model airplane prop and mount it on a
stick and try it out of the window of your car. If nothing else, you`ll
provide a little levity on the highway!
Jeff
Terry Schell
"J Morris" <if...@indigo.ie> writes:
<snip>
>Nope, should make no difference, really, if the prop`s driving the engine
>or not. If the prop was freewheeling with no resistance, it`d produce as
>much, and maybe even more drag than if it was dragging a failed engine
>around with it.
I disagree. You should go check some references on this one. One of
those common aero text (Dommach I think) has a section on helio rotor
design that covers this.
Duncan Charlton
I think you've hit on the key -- the prop isn't just resisting the wind the
way a flat plate would, but as an airfoil it generates lift (towards the
rear of the plane instead of towards the front as when under power.) I
suspect the windmilling prop creates more adverse lift because it meets the
relative wind at an angle of attack in which the airflow remains fairly
well attached -- whereas the still prop is pretty much stalled. Think
about a wing being pushed 90 degrees from its chord line (like an airplane
wing being pushed straight down when the wing is level) versus the same
wing allowed to keep an angle of attack relative to its perceived wind that
allows unstalled flow. Which one resists gravity longer? Seems pretty
straightforward.
duncan
char...@flash.net
Ed Sullivan
> >
> >Ok gang, what do you think about this one? Is a windmilling prop more
> >or less drag? I'll post my opinion after some good debate.
> >
> >BWB
> >
> I can only comment out of experience, not theory. I learned to fly in a
Citabria 7KCAB. One of the maneuvers I was made to perform by my instructor
was an engine off, with prop stopped, decent to a landing. It was a good
glider and seemed to glide further that way at best speed.
My only other experience was an inadvertent stopped prop landing in a
Teenie Two which is a never to be forgotten event. It took two guys to pull
the seat cushion out of my butt after I landed.
I have landed my Jungster with the prop windmilling, but never stopped. I'm
afraid the sink rate would be ugly. I understand the Pitts Special has a
really high sink rate with the prop stopped.
Ed Sullivan
>
>
J P Rourke
tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) wrote:
I second that. As I've learned from someone else on this newsgroup, it's really
just an 'energy management' exercise. ..'dragging a failed engine' performs
Work (even if it is useless work) which requires energy from somewhere... When
you're traveling X knots (kinetic energy) at Y altitude (potential energy), it's
going to get that energy from one of them!
I'm not the expert on it, but it seems pretty clear...
-John R.
David Hyde
Todd Pattist (pat...@NOSPAMworldnet.att.net) wrote:
>Generally, if the prop is going to spin,
>the easier it is for the prop to turn, the less drag it
>creates and the farther you can glide.
If that were correct then autogyros would fall faster with the blades
turning that with them stopped. Any gyro pilots here ever land softly
with the blades stopped? ;-)
Dave 'plummet' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
Duncan Charlton
I've seen ultralights with the RK400 clutch that allows the prop to remain
unengaged until the engine reaches a certain rpm (easier to start) and heard
complaints that when the engine's off and the fan windmills w/o turning the
engine it creates horrendous drag.
duncan
char...@flash.net
QDurham
> I like the 'sycamore seed' analogy myself. If you
>try bending one of the blades on such a seed so it no longer spins,
>it falls much quicker. It's normal windmilling action, increases the
>drag, which is exactly what happens with the prop.
Lovely illustration. Many thanks
Quent
Aero
A prop, both on a plane and on a boat, has less drag when it is stopped.
This is due to the system trying to minimize energy not drag. Two
equations govern this situation. The first is KE=1/2mv^2 and the second is
F=ma. They are related by v=at. KE is energy change of the air. m is the
mass of the air effected by the prop. v is the velocity change of the air
effected by the prop. a is the acceleration of the air effected by the
prop. t is time, and since we are interested in rates we let t=1 second
and make all of the equations per second.
Since t=1 and v=at then v=a. So F=mv. Note that force is proportional to
the velocity change of the air but energy is proportional to the square of
the velocity change of the air. If the prop is turning, the air in the
whole disk area is effected. This makes a large mass of the air effected,
m. The change in v of the effected air is small maybe about 25 ft/sec for
a plane going about 100 mph. If the prop is stopped, only the air in the
wake of each of the blades are effected. This makes a small m. The change
in the v is larger maybe about 100 ft/sec. Since the prop blades only
cover less then 10% of the disk area the stopped prop effects only about
10% of the air that the windmilling prop. This makes the m for the stopped
prop only about 0.1 that of the windmilling prop. So the energy is less
with the windmilling prop since KE=1/2*1*25*25=312.5 units (windmilling)
vs. KE=1/*0.1*100*100=500 units (stopped). But the drag is higher
windmilling F=1*25=25 units (windmilling) vs. F=0.1*100=10 units (stopped).
Most everything in nature (Physics) try's to minimize energy.
If the prop blades are extremely wide the reverse can be true and this may
happen on some boat props. I know on sail boats they lock the prop for
less drag.
Mark Kettering
Loontus <loo...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971121032...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> It seems to me that if the prop wanted to turn, it's because it is trying
to
> move through the air with the least amount of resistance, not increase
its
> apparent resistance. If that were so, it would turn backward. Try it
with a
> toy boat (or model plane) in a bathtub. Stop the prop and it will take
more to
> pull or push it. The same with a powered canoe. Pulling the prop out of
the
> water altogether is better than feathering it, but, taking it out of gear
will
> help. Feather it then and it will stop. However, now as you turn the
pitch
> flatter, it will first start to move, then faster, then slower, until it
> stopped. Why? Not because that (flat) is the least resistance, but
because
> the next step is to turn backward.
> Dave (Loo...@aol.aol.com)(1 aol)
>
John R. Johnson
On 21 Nov 1997, QDurham wrote:
> >You can then also nose down enough to do an air start.
>
> Or as an occasionally-truthful friend claims, in a float-equipped J3 Cub and
> somebody in the cockpit steering, open the door, step out onto the float, hang
> onto the lift strut and hand-prop from behind.
>
> Oh sure. (But then, hand-propping while standing on the float is standard
> procedure for such planes. How else without getting very wet?)
>
> Quent
>
Besides the first law of seaplane flying reads:
REMEMBER, YOU HAVE NO BRAKES!!!!!!!
John
John R. Johnson
On 21 Nov 1997, QDurham wrote:
> >rudder-to-the-stop slip
>
> A pleasant thing about a slip is that, in contrast to using flaps, one can
> always UNslip.
>
One can always UNflap as well, although it does give you quite a letdown! :-)
John
Brian K. Michalk
In article <BB635680814E0761.D78EF43F...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Bill <bi...@ttgwest.com> wrote:
>
>Yep, that's the way I like to do it. If anything happens you KNOW you
>have the runway made because you just clean up and change your glide
>angle. I hate to see guys dragging it in every time in rental
>anyway.
>
Argh!
That's the way my mom does it, and it drives me up the wall. I'm a very
type 'A' personality, and I'm very aware of it in the cockpit. It takes
a lot of self control to keep my mouth shut and my hands off the controls.
One thing I did notice; after I transitioned to a Warroir from a C152,
I found that I was always high on final. I've since learned the
proper configuration ... man, that low wing will just keep on
gliding in ground effect if you are too fast.
--
Brian Michalk |No, the |AWPI, home of *the* online magazine about Austin.
mic...@awpi.com|other one|Providing systems integration and internet solutions.
QDurham
>rudder-to-the-stop slip
A pleasant thing about a slip is that, in contrast to using flaps, one can
always UNslip.
Quent
Bruce A. Frank
> Besides, it's more fun to drop like a brick! Take a Cessna 150 (152
> limited the flaps to 30 degrees) with 40 degrees of flaps, engine at
> idle and a 65 knot rudder-to-the-stop slip and you'll peg the VSI. My
> friend and partner goes crazy every time I do it, but that might just
> be because it's his 150. :)
>
My instructor used to give me a hard time because I hated to land the
Tomahawk with a nice gentle 500 fpm descent glide. I'd approach high,
close the throttle, put it into a full rudder deflected slip and try to
hit the numbers. She also informed me that if I did that on my check
ride I'd probably fail.
--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8L Engine and V-6 STOL
BAF...@worldnet.att.net Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding
John R. Johnson
On 21 Nov 1997, Aero wrote:
>
> If the prop blades are extremely wide the reverse can be true and this may
> happen on some boat props. I know on sail boats they lock the prop for
> less drag.
>
prop and then lock it so that the prop is vertical in the opening in the
skeg to minimize the drag. It works well. The only thing I found that
is better is the quarter mounted folding prop like on some of the early
Herreshoff hulls.
A few powered sailplanes fold the prop. All stop it. There is at least
one that feathers it. ( See the Moravia engine info. ) By the way, in
answer to an earlier poster, there is an example of a single engine
airplane with a feathering prop for drag reduction! :-)
JOhn
John R. Johnson
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Bruce A. Frank wrote:
> My instructor used to give me a hard time because I hated to land the
> Tomahawk with a nice gentle 500 fpm descent glide. I'd approach high,
> close the throttle, put it into a full rudder deflected slip and try to
> hit the numbers. She also informed me that if I did that on my check
> ride I'd probably fail.
>
approach. Of course, if the engine stutters and you poke the nose of
the airplane through the fence in front of the airport, you would probably
fail also!
Much of what is considered correct is really fashion. I love it when these
now young instructors so seriously explain that I must keep the proper
indication on the VASI on my approach. Then I take my delightful old
Lady out there and dirty her up for landing some distance out and show
them that I am carrying full power to maintain their approach. Then I
point out to them that there is NO WAY I could make a go around from
their "safe" approach because it takes full power just to keep me
off the ground on that approach path and at the recommended airspeed of
1.3 Vso. Vso is about 52 mph. 1.3 Vso is about 68 mph. Best glide
speed for my airplane is 87 mph! 68 mph is so far behind the power curve
that you cannot maintain level flight at full power! It is handy to
know, though, if the throttle cable breaks and the throttle goes to
wide open!
John
Terry Schell
"Aero" <mketter...@daniel.aero.calpoly.edu> writes:
<snip>
>If the prop blades are extremely wide the reverse can be true and this may
>happen on some boat props. I know on sail boats they lock the prop for
>less drag.
You are correct about the drag of the prop in general... but most
every boat has lower drag with a free prop, i.e., they have the wide chord
problem. The reason they lock the props is that 95% of the
trannys used in boats require a running engine to provide lubrication.
They have very short lifespans if you allow the prop to spin without
the engine running. If you actually free the prop while sailing you
often see significant increases in boat speed... I routinely charter
sailboats so I spend a lot of time abusing those trannys. :-)
Terry
Terry Schell
"John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu> writes:
<snip>
>Analysis is good. On sail boats they try to use a skinny bladed two blade
>prop and then lock it so that the prop is vertical in the opening in the
>skeg to minimize the drag. It works well. The only thing I found that
>is better is the quarter mounted folding prop like on some of the early
>Herreshoff hulls.
Almost all racing sailboats use folding props. They are pretty cool!
I have often thought they would be great for sailplanes, but I haven't
seen anyone try those folding designs.
QDurham
Badwater Bill
>
>My instructor used to give me a hard time because I hated to land the
>Tomahawk with a nice gentle 500 fpm descent glide. I'd approach high,
>close the throttle, put it into a full rudder deflected slip and try to
>hit the numbers. She also informed me that if I did that on my check
>ride I'd probably fail.
>
>--
>Bruce A. Frank, Editor
If you did that with me on your checkride I'd paste a gold star in
your logbook next to my PASSED stamp. I like people who don't just
drive, they fly!
BWB
Badwater Bill
On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:36:40 GMT, dave_p...@NO-SPAMmindspring.com
(Dave Parrish) wrote:
>On my PPL checkride in '94, the DE made a point of doing a full-flap
>slip to landing in the C172. I had previously done the slip thing for
>him, but he wanted me to be purposely really high, then go full flaps
>and slip all the way to the landing.... something my instructor was
>not happy about when I reported back afterwards!!!
>
>So the full-flap slip debate continues...
>
>----------> Dave
>
If memory serves me correctly, slips in C-172's with full flaps
extended are prohibited! Maybe they changed that later but in the old
days when you could lower 40 degrees instead of 30 (in the newer
models) slipping in the 40 configuration blocked the airflow to the
elevator in some cases and you lost pitch control.
Who out there has a C-172 manual and can look this up?
BWB
Badwater Bill
On 21 Nov 1997 23:16:26 GMT, tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell)
wrote:
>
>You are correct about the drag of the prop in general... but most
>every boat has lower drag with a free prop, i.e., they have the wide chord
>problem. The reason they lock the props is that 95% of the
>trannys used in boats require a running engine to provide lubrication.
>They have very short lifespans if you allow the prop to spin without
>the engine running. If you actually free the prop while sailing you
>often see significant increases in boat speed... I routinely charter
>sailboats so I spend a lot of time abusing those trannys. :-)
>
>Terry
Ok Terry has hit on the essence of something here. What is it?
Here's a windmilling prop that produces less drag than a stopped prop.
So, in some boats it's better to let the prop spin. Why?
BWB
Richard White
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, John R. Johnson wrote:
> [RW: previous conversation snipped]
>
> Best glide speed for my airplane is 87 mph! 68 mph is so far behind
> the power curve that you cannot maintain level flight at full power!
> It is handy to know, though, if the throttle cable breaks and the
> throttle goes to wide open!
John, have you landed it like that? This doesn't seem to be a common
topic and I'm curious about others' experiences doing this.
When I was young and stupid (I'm now older and stupid), I did that
once in a 1959 Cessna 150, full power, full flaps, and without a
passenger I hasten to add. It was the shortest landing I've ever made
- one hard bounce, no roll out.
The airport in Mountain Home, ID where I did this is in a flat desert
with little to disturb the airflow over the runway. The wind that day
was high with almost no gusting. As an experiment, I maintained
pattern altitude on final to runway 28 and transitioned to full power,
full flaps and literally hovered over the numbers at 800 feet.
There was a very slight crosswind, so I couldn't keep the nose
parallel to the runway. Flying very close to the stall (with zero
*indicated* airspeed and the warning horn switched off) I began a slow
vertical descent by easing back power. Descending thru 500 feet while
still keeping the numbers directly below me, the wind gradient caught
up with me and I stalled it.
After recovering around 300 feet, I resumed the descent with some
forward creep down the runway. A perfectly vertical landing was now
out of the question. Nonetheless, I held my toes on the brakes and
with only a few feet to go, the plane suddenly dropped, bounced once,
and came to a stop a few feet farther, with no roll out.
OK, so it wasn't the smartest thing I've ever done. I've not been
tempted to try it again. It was an interesting experience, though.
I haven't heard anyone recommend this type of landing (does anyone
even teach it?), and I never imagined a practical use for it until I
read your comment about the throttle cable breaking. However, if this
happens and the throttle goes wide open, and you have the runway made,
would it be better to cut the engine and glide in normally?
Richard.
Dave Parrish
"Bruce A. Frank" <BAFRANKMailBlockŽ@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>My instructor used to give me a hard time because I hated to land the
>Tomahawk with a nice gentle 500 fpm descent glide. I'd approach high,
>close the throttle, put it into a full rudder deflected slip and try to
>hit the numbers. She also informed me that if I did that on my check
>ride I'd probably fail.
>
--------------------------------------------------
On my PPL checkride in '94, the DE made a point of doing a full-flap
slip to landing in the C172. I had previously done the slip thing for
him, but he wanted me to be purposely really high, then go full flaps
and slip all the way to the landing.... something my instructor was
not happy about when I reported back afterwards!!!
So the full-flap slip debate continues...
----------> Dave
(to reply, remove the "NO-SPAM" from address)
J P Rourke
"John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Bruce A. Frank wrote:
>> My instructor used to give me a hard time because I hated to land the
>> Tomahawk with a nice gentle 500 fpm descent glide. I'd approach high,
>> close the throttle, put it into a full rudder deflected slip and try to
>> hit the numbers. She also informed me that if I did that on my check
>> ride I'd probably fail.
>>
>She is right Bruce. The DE's these days like to see a 3 degree airliner
>approach. Of course, if the engine stutters and you poke the nose of
>the airplane through the fence in front of the airport, you would probably
>fail also!
>Much of what is considered correct is really fashion.
Speaking of 'fashion', on my PPL checkride (in 86), I was a bit high turning
final, so the DE asked me, "What are you going to do about it?" My airspeed was
OK, so I said I'd reduce power a bit more, to come down quicker... whereupon,
he said "Wrong answer!" I thought he was testing me, so I stuck to my guns...
he continued to prod me for a different answer, but now I thought he was just
trying to distract me (I'm now on short final...) finally he says "If you want
to go down, point it down... if you want to go up, point it up..." Deciding
he's really serious, I go along and point it down a bit more, so what if I land
a little fast...
On roll-out I'm still arguing with him, until he says "Do you want to go around
again so I can show you?" So finally I just give in, and say "No, I know what
you're saying, it's just that I was taught to look at it as 'pitch controls
airspeed, power controls altitude', even though I know that both affect both".
Whereupon he says "That's how the FAA used to do it, now it's the opposite"
How's that for fashionable? Has anyone else heard of the FAA doing this
flip-flop? What is the current 'fashion' now, anyways?
-John R.
P.S.: Just two weeks later, the wind picked up while I was on short final,
pushing me back a bunch and I could tell I was getting too low... What do you
suppose I did?? (Hint: I landed fine..)
> I love it when these
>now young instructors so seriously explain that I must keep the proper
>indication on the VASI on my approach. Then I take my delightful old
>Lady out there and dirty her up for landing some distance out and show
>them that I am carrying full power to maintain their approach. Then I
>point out to them that there is NO WAY I could make a go around from
>their "safe" approach because it takes full power just to keep me
>off the ground on that approach path and at the recommended airspeed of
>1.3 Vso. Vso is about 52 mph. 1.3 Vso is about 68 mph. Best glide
Ronald James Wanttaja
In article <34771496....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Badwater Bill <billphil*nospam*@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>If memory serves me correctly, slips in C-172's with full flaps
>extended are prohibited! Maybe they changed that later but in the old
>days when you could lower 40 degrees instead of 30 (in the newer
>models) slipping in the 40 configuration blocked the airflow to the
>elevator in some cases and you lost pitch control.
This issue has been popping up on the net for more than 15 years, so I've
heard the answer several times: Slips are supposed to be "Avoided", but
they aren't outright banned. It was, as Bill says, a case of blockage
to the elevator, but it was more a buffet than a danger. And, indeed,
Cessna did restrict flap travel in later models.
Ron Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Roy Madewell
Dave Parrish wrote:
>
> "Bruce A. Frank" <BAFRANKMailBlock哦worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >My instructor used to give me a hard time because I hated to land the
> >Tomahawk with a nice gentle 500 fpm descent glide. I'd approach high,
> >close the throttle, put it into a full rudder deflected slip and try to
> >hit the numbers. She also informed me that if I did that on my check
> >ride I'd probably fail.
> >
>
> On my PPL checkride in '94, the DE made a point of doing a full-flap
> slip to landing in the C172. I had previously done the slip thing for
> him, but he wanted me to be purposely really high, then go full flaps
> and slip all the way to the landing.... something my instructor was
> not happy about when I reported back afterwards!!!
>
> So the full-flap slip debate continues...
>
> ----------> Dave
>
> (to reply, remove the "NO-SPAM" from address)
I'm glad I made (IMHO) the proper choice of flight schools when I
decided to get my ticket. Option "A" was a part 141 school run over at
the muni with seven or eight trainers and an entire squadron of 22-25
year old CFI's packed into the fancy facilities ready to show you their
skills to make you into a pilot. On the other hand, option "B" set
about five miles NE of the muni under a cutout in the ARSA sporting a
C172, a Warrior, and two CFI's who had been flying for 30+ years. I
decided that the "B" route was the way to go for me and I look back at
it as one of the better decisions I ever made. The ONLY time I was
taught to use power was during the soft field landings which were
performed along side the massive runway. I was instructed to fly the
aircraft until it was in position to make a landing and pull the power
to idle, then use what ever means necessary to put it down on the ground
where I wanted. The theme was: "If every landing is an engine out
landing then it's no big deal if your engine isn't running some day". I
learned quite a bit behind a lopping engine and hearing a calm voice
from beside me saying "If you don't start doing something different
soon, you'll kill both of us". Airspeed, flaps, and slips where his
recipe for any landing and you'd learn to cook if it took until hell
froze over.
The following will be seen as good or evil but that was beaten up
pretty good in a thread a while back. One day after about 45 minutes of
hood work starting from just after take off, the instructor took the
plane and had me sit there for a while. During this time he asked me
what I would do in a situation where the engine quit working. As I
started talking, he pulled the mixture and held the nose up until the
prop quit wind milling. I sat there staring at the tach reading "0" rpm
from under the head gear when he said "Your airplane, I'll give you
vectors to follow and target altitudes". It felt like a lifetime until
he said to pull the hood. I was a little over a mile from the airport
and got it lined up for a landing and will testify that the stopped prop
presents less drag since I started working like hell to get the airplane
down to the runway compared with a "normal" sight picture. I put it
down a little short of halfway down the runway and had to us some good
braking to catch the turn out before the end of the pavement.
I passed my checkride on a good windy Texas day on a nice fat runway
without a hitch and flew a night cross country back home. I paid my
money and got the crap beat out of me for every dollar I spent on my
training at "B". I flew with some guys who took their training over a
"A" and spent more money. I could really see the difference. They were
nervous with the airplane but they could work the radios real good.
They dragged every landing in and had butt cheeks that would eat seats
when I took my turn in the pattern and cut the power instead of stepping
it down to the numbers. I got the better deal!
Speaking of checkrides and the use of "distractions". Have any of you
ever heard of a DE falling asleep during a test? Is this used to
simulate a death in the cockpit or was it just too smooth at altitude
during "a friends" cross country portion of the test? A little bob of
the yoke took care of the situation when at "my friends" check point and
needed further directions to proceed.
Roy Madewell- Sacramento CA
--
To reply, remove "junkmail" from return address
John Ousterhout
>If memory serves me correctly, slips in C-172's with full flaps
>extended are prohibited! Maybe they changed that later but in the old
>days when you could lower 40 degrees instead of 30 (in the newer
>models) slipping in the 40 configuration blocked the airflow to the
>elevator in some cases and you lost pitch control.
>Who out there has a C-172 manual and can look this up?
My 1974 Skyhawk II (electric flaps that go to 40 degrees) official
Cessna Owners Manual says"
"Steep slips should be avoided with flap settings greater
than 20 degrees due to a slight tendency for the elevator
to oscillate under certain combinations of airspeed,
sideslip angle, and center of gravity loadings."
The Skyhawk doesn't slip nearly as well as my buddy Jerry's Piper
Colt.
Now I've confessed that I'm a Spam Can Driver.
Isn't that step one of a twelve step program?
- John -
jous...@SPAMcyberis.net
http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster
Badwater Bill
On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 07:53:08 -0500, Richard White <wh...@csee.usf.edu>
wrote:
>
>John, have you landed it like that? This doesn't seem to be a common
>topic and I'm curious about others' experiences doing this.
>
That configuration is the one used for short field landings routinely.
Go to about 1.2 Vso with full flaps, steep decent angle, lots of
power. Nose high and settling fast. Just over the fence pop the
throttle off , flair and you'll go "Plunk" on the numbers. You
purposely get behind the power curve to do it right.
I did it yesterday in a C-182 with a Roberson STOL kit on it during a
demo for a prospective buyer. Full flaps, 60 indicated, 15 to 18
inches MP and dropping like a brick on a steep decent angle. No
margin for error. He was so amazed at how short we got on and
stopped, he bought the airplane. He was easy to impress, he was only
a lawyer and a low time pilot.
BWB
Bruce A. Frank
My instructor always taught closed throttle landings. I always felt that
was best until the day I was solo and had to land in a 30 mph 90 degree
cross wind. I knew after a couple of tries that I was going to need
power to fly it onto the runway. I did it. I had never done it before.
Had never been taught it. Thought I was pretty hot stuff at figuring it
out, until I steped out of the plane and found I could hardly walk from
the adrenalin overload let down. After I turned in the log and key I sat
in my car and shook for twenty minutes. It later became routine to land
with a cross wind like that, but never again was it as much FUN.8-o
--
Badwater Bill
>
>Now I've confessed that I'm a Spam Can Driver.
>Isn't that step one of a twelve step program?
>
>- John -
>jous...@SPAMcyberis.net
>http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster
>
Hey John. You're OK. It's better than being NO PILOT AT ALL! Hang
in there buddy!
BWB
Tony P.
Bruce:
Waddid I miss? I was taught to keep the thing high enough to glide in
deadstick if the engine quits. That means not dragging in low over the
houses, and in an Arrow with the gear down and flaps means STEEP.
Cessnas surely glide better than my flying brick, but I see a lot of
guys and gals locally who aren't gonna clear the fence if the prop stops
and THEY are the ones I'd flunk rather than you. [Of course my opinion
doesn't matter since I'll never be a CFI -- not crazy enough and I don't
like being poor either.]
Tony Pucillo
[I speak only for myself unless I say otherwise. One personality is
quite enough, thank you.]
"Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>
Tony P.
John:
Who cares what the FAA says today. I vote for power. Best landing I
ever made almost turned out to be the worst when a stiff headwind
suddenly died with the Arrow maybe 15' over the runway at PBI (I mean
something like a "wind shear" type sudden velocity change). Without the
first thought I had full power in and landed so gently I never felt the
wheels touch down [good thing, too -- my sister was in the right seat on
her first ride in a small plane -- her squeak was kind of funny and I
never told her the truth] :)
I don't WANT an instinct that says point the nose up if I'm sinking too
fast; I want one that says "power, now!" because I won't have a second
reaction in time.
Badwater Bill
On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:11:59 -0800, Roy Madewell
<madewell...@pacbell.net> wrote:
.. I got the better deal!
> Speaking of checkrides and the use of "distractions". Have any of you
>ever heard of a DE falling asleep during a test? Is this used to
>simulate a death in the cockpit or was it just too smooth at altitude
>during "a friends" cross country portion of the test? A little bob of
>the yoke took care of the situation when at "my friends" check point and
>needed further directions to proceed.
>
> Roy Madewell- Sacramento CA
>
I could write about this post for hours. Good for you Roy. You did
make the right choice. Always opt for the guys with the experience
even if it cost's you more. When I was flight instructing, people
would call me and ask me what I charged before they ever asked my
experience level. When I got a call like that I'd just send them to
the nearest flight school. Once in a while I got someone sharp,
someone I wouldn't mind spending a few hours in a cockpit with. That
person always asked me what I'd flown, how long I'd flown and how much
instruction I'd given before they ever asked me for my hourly rate. I
remember one call where this guy asked me right off how much I charged
and told me his name was Doctor Reeves. I said, " WELL,,, DR. REEVES
you need to go to the local 141 school and get your flight
instruction. Do you expect me to call you DR REEVES in a cockpit
where I'm pilot in command? Aren't you at all interested in that fact
that I have an ATP or various other ratings in balloons, gliders,
multiengine aircraft, seaplanes and hang gliders?" I think you are
asking the wrong questions."
Well, anyway, that's my 2 cents worth. All you low time pilots out
there might not know how it works. When you are a kid you get a
commercial-instrument then a CFI so you can build time and experience
at the other guy's cost. If you people realy want to learn to fly, go
get an old piece of shit like me with 6000 hours to teach you. I
might be grumpy and smack you in the head a few times for being stupid
but by God you'll learn to fly the damn airplane before I'm finished
with you or I'll beat you to death in the process.
BWB
BWB
Gandalf
John Ousterhout wrote:
> My 1974 Skyhawk II (electric flaps that go to 40 degrees) official
> Cessna Owners Manual says"
>
> "Steep slips should be avoided with flap settings greater
> than 20 degrees due to a slight tendency for the elevator
> to oscillate under certain combinations of airspeed,
> sideslip angle, and center of gravity loadings."
>
Yup. It says that. I've done rudder-to-the-stop slips, with full
flaps, in that same airplane. Yes, the same airplane (hi, John.)
Never had any problems, but as I recall, I was also pushing
real hard on the yoke at the time, as my instructor had just
pulled the power on takeoff, and I was kinda hoping to
get it down before I ran outta runway.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Davenport - gan...@navicom.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose you were an idiot..... And suppose you were a member of
Congress................But I repeat myself. --MarkTwain
------------------------------------------------------------------
dpi...@erolsxx.com
Bill,
There's a special place in Hell for anyone who takes advantage of a lawyer
like that!! (Or was that Heaven ... I get so confused about those two places).
Pastor Dave
Bruce A. Frank
Tony P. wrote:
>
> Bruce:
>
> Waddid I miss? I was taught to keep the thing high enough to glide in
> deadstick if the engine quits. That means not dragging in low over the
> houses, and in an Arrow with the gear down and flaps means STEEP.
>
> Cessnas surely glide better than my flying brick, but I see a lot of
> guys and gals locally who aren't gonna clear the fence if the prop stops
> and THEY are the ones I'd flunk rather than you. [Of course my opinion
> doesn't matter since I'll never be a CFI -- not crazy enough and I don't
> like being poor either.]
>
>
> [I speak only for myself unless I say otherwise. One personality is
> quite enough, thank you.]
>
> "Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>
I was also taught to maintain a glide with the trottle closed and an
angle so that an engine-out presented no reach-the-airport problems.
But, my instructor felt that if I had to slip it in, and the Tomahawk
has reasonable flaps, I was not displaying good piloting skills. Even
when I told her that the next landing was going to be a slipped in one.
Of course, she was the one who taught me to enjoy cross controlled
landings, and the perpetual cross wind at New Garden(N57) required
development of good cross controlled aircraft handling. In my hangar
shared with 6 other planes (Stitts, Skybolts, and J-3's) all the pilots
were practised and accomplished with no flap short field landing.
J P Rourke
"Tony P." <ae...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>John:
> Who cares what the FAA says today. I vote for power. Best landing I
>ever made almost turned out to be the worst when a stiff headwind
>suddenly died with the Arrow maybe 15' over the runway at PBI (I mean
>something like a "wind shear" type sudden velocity change). Without the
>first thought I had full power in and landed so gently I never felt the
>wheels touch down [good thing, too -- my sister was in the right seat on
>her first ride in a small plane -- her squeak was kind of funny and I
>never told her the truth] :)
> I don't WANT an instinct that says point the nose up if I'm sinking too
>fast; I want one that says "power, now!" because I won't have a second
>reaction in time.
Tony, I agree absolutely, and I guess I shouldn't play around with 'hints' when
it could lead to a dangerous situation (for the record, when I was too low, I
added power to keep my altitude, and actually pointed it down a bit (even though
I was already low) to make sure I had a little extra airspeed in case that gust
suddenly dropped - as in your case!)
If I had followed the (apparently) FAA-sanctioned advice, I would not have made
it. Probably wouldn't have gotten hurt, but I would have bent some metal (there
was a shallow ditch just a bit before the threshold)
Just remember the three most important things needed to keep an airplane flying:
airspeed, airspeed and airspeed! Add power, point it down, whatever, if that
airspeed falls you do whatever it takes to keep it above stall!
As for the current FAA fashion, I wonder what they're teaching these days - I
did pass my checkride in spite of arguing with the DE, but I'm sure there's some
DE's that would have failed me on the spot for daring to question the wisdom of
the FAA.
Just wondering..
-John R.
Badwater Bill
On Sun, 23 Nov 1997 01:22:06 -0800, "Tony P." <ae...@mail.idt.net>
wrote:
>Bruce:
>
> Waddid I miss? I was taught to keep the thing high enough to glide in
>deadstick if the engine quits. That means not dragging in low over the
>houses, and in an Arrow with the gear down and flaps means STEEP.
>
> Cessnas surely glide better than my flying brick, but I see a lot of
>guys and gals locally who aren't gonna clear the fence if the prop stops
>and THEY are the ones I'd flunk rather than you. [Of course my opinion
>doesn't matter since I'll never be a CFI -- not crazy enough and I don't
>like being poor either.]
>
> Tony Pucillo
>
>[I speak only for myself unless I say otherwise. One personality is
>quite enough, thank you.]
>
>"Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>
>
>
It's interesting how things change. I learned to fly "Formally" in
the early 60's.
Jesus! That was 35 years ago. God I'm getting old.
Anyway, the 180 degree power off landing was all I was taught at that
time. On downwind when you get abeam the point you want to land at,
you pull the throttle all the way out, you establish a glide, turn
base at a 45 degree angle from that predetermined touchdown point and
you should be high. If you are, you crank in 20 degrees of flap. IF
you are low because of a stiff wind, leave the flaps up and cut the
corner a bit on the turn to final, or if you're real low, head for the
numbers directly. If you are high (which you will be in a 140 or a
150 and light wind) then get the 20 degrees down and go
perpendicularly to the turn to final. On final crank in 30 because
you should be high, then finally when you know you have it made go to
40 or slip. I was never allowed to use power at all. I knew no other
way until I started flying bigger machines.
In the late 70's they started teaching is differently. Engines are so
reliable nowadays they just gave up on the 180 degree power off
approach. Everyone reduced power to 1500 rpm in the C-150's and left
it there but essentially followed the same proceedure with an extended
downwind. What that did is make the pattern bigger, give the student
more time and make life easier for the CFI. I remember because I was
one then.
BWB
John Ousterhout
On Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:51:43 -0800, Gandalf <gan...@navicom.com>
wrote:
>Yup. It says that. I've done rudder-to-the-stop slips, with full
>flaps, in that same airplane. Yes, the same airplane (hi, John.)
>Never had any problems, but as I recall, I was also pushing
>real hard on the yoke at the time, as my instructor had just
>pulled the power on takeoff, and I was kinda hoping to
>get it down before I ran outta runway.
I know it say "not recommended" not "prohibited". I'll give it a try
but I think I want my first full flaps slip to be above 3000 feel AGL.
Want to take the Skylane to the Pinckneyville Fly-in next May? I
might be able to round up another homebuilder weirdo to share
expenses.
- John -
Charles K. Scott
In article <3478A56F...@navicom.com>
Gandalf <gan...@navicom.com> writes:
> Yup. It says that. I've done rudder-to-the-stop slips, with full
> flaps, in that same airplane. Yes, the same airplane (hi, John.)
> Never had any problems, but as I recall, I was also pushing
> real hard on the yoke at the time, as my instructor had just
> pulled the power on takeoff, and I was kinda hoping to
> get it down before I ran outta runway.
My father did this to me while he was teaching me to fly when I was 16.
I'm not sure how many hours I had when he did this, maybe around 15.
The choice was obvious though, we were flying out of North Philadelphia
Airport and it's main runway is something like 10,000 feet long. I
just pushed the nose down and prepared to land. We hadn't discussed
stuff like this but once I got the nose down it looked like the runway
went on forever in front of me. My father allowed that I'd made the
correct decision and pushed the throttle back in.
The Tower was pretty unhappy with him though.
Corky Scott
John R. Johnson
On 24 Nov 1997, Charles K. Scott wrote:
<snip>
>
> My father did this to me while he was teaching me to fly when I was 16.
> I'm not sure how many hours I had when he did this, maybe around 15.
> The choice was obvious though, we were flying out of North Philadelphia
> Airport and it's main runway is something like 10,000 feet long. I
> just pushed the nose down and prepared to land. We hadn't discussed
> stuff like this but once I got the nose down it looked like the runway
> went on forever in front of me. My father allowed that I'd made the
> correct decision and pushed the throttle back in.
>
> The Tower was pretty unhappy with him though.
>
> Corky Scott
I took my checkride for my commercial at North Philadelphia, with the
GADO there. It was a few years ago. I had a C-150. Of course I filled
the tanks when I landed, because it was a habit I had.
I walked into the GADO and there was the FAA Maintenance Examiner sitting
there. He weighed about 220 and I weighed about 220. He just looked at
me and said, "And I suppose you topped up the tanks too, didn't you!"
I just said "Yup."
He said, "Well, I guess we will fly this checkride overgross." and we
went out to fly!
John
John R. Johnson
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, John Ousterhout wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:51:43 -0800, Gandalf <gan...@navicom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Yup. It says that. I've done rudder-to-the-stop slips, with full
> >flaps, in that same airplane. Yes, the same airplane (hi, John.)
> >Never had any problems, but as I recall, I was also pushing
> >real hard on the yoke at the time, as my instructor had just
> >pulled the power on takeoff, and I was kinda hoping to
> >get it down before I ran outta runway.
>
> I know it say "not recommended" not "prohibited". I'll give it a try
> but I think I want my first full flaps slip to be above 3000 feel AGL.
>
> Want to take the Skylane to the Pinckneyville Fly-in next May? I
> might be able to round up another homebuilder weirdo to share
> expenses.
>
> - John -
>
You would be welcome! :-) We do not discriminate against Cessna's and
Piper's. Last year we even had a couple of Mooney's fly in! Greg Travis
has a really neat 180 HP C-172. It is a poor man's Skylane!
John
John R. Johnson
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Badwater Bill wrote:
>
> It's interesting how things change. I learned to fly "Formally" in
> the early 60's.
>
> Jesus! That was 35 years ago. God I'm getting old.
>
Yeah, we know that Bill!
> Anyway, the 180 degree power off landing was all I was taught at that
> time. On downwind when you get abeam the point you want to land at,
> you pull the throttle all the way out, you establish a glide, turn
> base at a 45 degree angle from that predetermined touchdown point and
> you should be high. If you are, you crank in 20 degrees of flap. IF
> you are low because of a stiff wind, leave the flaps up and cut the
> corner a bit on the turn to final, or if you're real low, head for the
> numbers directly. If you are high (which you will be in a 140 or a
> 150 and light wind) then get the 20 degrees down and go
> perpendicularly to the turn to final. On final crank in 30 because
> you should be high, then finally when you know you have it made go to
> 40 or slip. I was never allowed to use power at all. I knew no other
> way until I started flying bigger machines.
>
Right. That is the way I learned also. I still fly that way because I
still fly those old airplane like I learned in. :-)
> In the late 70's they started teaching is differently. Engines are so
> reliable nowadays they just gave up on the 180 degree power off
> approach. Everyone reduced power to 1500 rpm in the C-150's and left
> it there but essentially followed the same proceedure with an extended
> downwind. What that did is make the pattern bigger, give the student
> more time and make life easier for the CFI. I remember because I was
> one then.
>
> BWB
>
Right. It made things real neat. Do everything in stages and stretch
it out so they have plenty of time to figure out what comes next. I
think it is interesting that is has been since that time that we have
now got an increasing number, ( at least one a month ) of aircraft
accidents where something happened to the engine and the aircraft landed
just before it got to the airport. I have been watching this increase
in accidents and wondering if it was not due to the change in flight
training philosophy from the FAA.
In the 70's when they did this all of these airplanes were new and ran
well. Now, they are still the same airplanes, and they are getting older.
Perhaps a return to the older philosophy might not be all bad! :-)
John
David A. Lamphere
Badwater Bill wrote:
> big-time snip
>
> I
> might be grumpy and smack you in the head a few times for being stupid
> but by God you'll learn to fly the damn airplane before I'm finished
> with you or I'll beat you to death in the process.
>
> BWB
>
> BWB
Bill,
Thank you!
You just gave me a good chuckle! Your comment reminded me of my CFI that
I had back in '70-'71 at the Lowry AFB Aero-Club (C150 $8/hr wet!). His
name was George Day. Buoy could that guy real! - but he was a dorn good
pilot.
Clear Skies and Smooth Crusin'
Dave Lamphere
Tailwind Builder
Grunt ASEL
John R. Johnson
> On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 07:53:08 -0500, Richard White <wh...@csee.usf.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> >John, have you landed it like that? This doesn't seem to be a common
> >topic and I'm curious about others' experiences doing this.
> >
>
On Sat, 22 Nov 1997, Badwater Bill wrote:
>
> That configuration is the one used for short field landings routinely.
> Go to about 1.2 Vso with full flaps, steep decent angle, lots of
> power. Nose high and settling fast. Just over the fence pop the
> throttle off , flair and you'll go "Plunk" on the numbers. You
> purposely get behind the power curve to do it right.
>
> I did it yesterday in a C-182 with a Roberson STOL kit on it during a
> demo for a prospective buyer. Full flaps, 60 indicated, 15 to 18
> inches MP and dropping like a brick on a steep decent angle. No
> margin for error. He was so amazed at how short we got on and
> stopped, he bought the airplane. He was easy to impress, he was only
> a lawyer and a low time pilot.
>
Shame on you for shamelessly taking advantage of a lawyer like that! :-)
That does indeed make for an impressive approach. The only problem with
the approach is that a go around is tough from behind the power curve,
and your energy reserve is absolutely minimal which makes the flare a
bit critical. If you screw up your flare you are in deep Kim-Chee!
All landings are an excercise in energy control. You HAVE to get rid
of it to stop, and you HAVE to have it to fly! It is easier to spend
the energy when you are high enough to be out of ground effect. However,
if you spend too much of it at that altitude you landing will best be
described as "FIRM." That is the description I usually use when I drop
it on it's butt. :-) By the same token, if you have too much energy left
when you get into ground effect, the tendency is to float. ANY airplane
can and will float if you try to land with too much energy. I have seen
B-17's floating like a Taylorcraft! :-) If you misjudge the other way,
and have a bit less that you really need the ONLY answer is POWER. That
is your only way to increase the energy level of your system. Without
adding power all you can do is convert it from one form to the other.
John
Peter Chapman
On 23 Nov 1997 22:33:48 GMT, dpi...@erolsXX.com wrote:
>> >John, have you landed it like that? This doesn't seem to be a common
>> >topic and I'm curious about others' experiences doing this.
>>
>> That configuration is the one used for short field landings routinely.
>> Go to about 1.2 Vso with full flaps, steep decent angle, lots of
>> power. Nose high and settling fast. Just over the fence pop the
>> throttle off , flair and you'll go "Plunk" on the numbers. You
>> purposely get behind the power curve to do it right.
On the subject of landing behind the power curve:
A year or two ago there was a thread, I believe in this newsgroup (or
perhaps more likely rec.aviation.piloting) discussing short field
techniques -- either a steep or a flat approach. I can only relate
what I got from that thread, but have no real experience myself in the
matter. I don't recall whether being behind the power curve was
specifically part of the discussion, but it certainly had to do with
using power on approach.
Basically, approaching with power on to allow a slower approach and
touchdown speed sounded to be a widespread technique.
From the thread it sounded like the normal, full flap, power off,
steep approach was fine most of the time. But if really necessary, a
bush pilot might use a shallow, power on approach for the shortest
landing run possible. It was naturally recognized as a more dangerous
method, being behind the power curve, closer to the stall (and
certainly to the power off stall speed), closer to obstacles, and
reliant on engine power to reach the field.
The quote above seems to be a combination of the two techniques. I'd
guess that how steep or shallow the approach will actually be will
depend on how much power one wants to use and how well one can time
the flare. For a shallow descent, there probably won't be much of a
flare anyway -- just chop the power.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, Canada
John R. Johnson
On Sat, 22 Nov 1997, Richard White wrote:
<snip>
> John, have you landed it like that? This doesn't seem to be a common
> topic and I'm curious about others' experiences doing this.
>
it is an impressive demonstration.
>
> There was a very slight crosswind, so I couldn't keep the nose
> parallel to the runway. Flying very close to the stall (with zero
> *indicated* airspeed and the warning horn switched off) I began a slow
> vertical descent by easing back power. Descending thru 500 feet while
> still keeping the numbers directly below me, the wind gradient caught
> up with me and I stalled it.
>
> After recovering around 300 feet, I resumed the descent with some
> forward creep down the runway. A perfectly vertical landing was now
> out of the question. Nonetheless, I held my toes on the brakes and
> with only a few feet to go, the plane suddenly dropped, bounced once,
> and came to a stop a few feet farther, with no roll out.
>
I set up a normal approach and then dove to a higher than normal approach
speed to get to the airport. I then leveled out a couple of fee off the
runway and slowed to a hover. Then I eased the power slightly and
settled onto my mains. The only problem was, I couldn't put the tail down.
Once time I did that a La Junta, Colorado. There I sat right on the
numbers, with my tail in the air and about half power, wondering
"What the h*** am I going to do NOW!"
I saw someone come out of the office and get in a pickup truck and start
down the taxiway toward me, so I just kind of sat there balancing on my
mains and waited! He drove up and walked up to my little window.
I opened the window and looked at him.
He said "What are you going to do now?"
I said " I was just wondering the same thing. I am about out of gas!"
He said "I will go on back and open the door on that big hangar over
there. You just kind of drop on down and land into the hanger."
I didn't know any better, so I said "OK." and up I went.
There I was hovering over the ramp in front of this hangar, right on
the downwind side of the hangar. He parks the pickup and gos inside.
I am sitting up there about 80 feet off the ground in a hover, heading
into a 65 mph wind in my little Taylorcraft! The hangar door slid open.
It was a huge old WWII hangar with a door forty feet high and 100 feet
wide.
He got it open and I stayed back about 100 feet or so from the hangar
and started letting it settle down with part throttle. Suddenly, I
settled into the lee of that hangar and the airplane dropped quickly
and surged forward. Talk about wind shear! :-) I touched down gently
in a perfect three point right in the doorway, and rolled forward about
fifty feet into the hangar and he closed the door behind me.
He came up and said "Nice job!"
I loved it. The first time I ever LANDED in a hangar! :-)
> OK, so it wasn't the smartest thing I've ever done. I've not been
> tempted to try it again. It was an interesting experience, though.
>
> I haven't heard anyone recommend this type of landing (does anyone
> even teach it?), and I never imagined a practical use for it until I
> read your comment about the throttle cable breaking. However, if this
> happens and the throttle goes wide open, and you have the runway made,
> would it be better to cut the engine and glide in normally?
>
Actually, that is what I did the time it happened to me. I made a normal
approach kind of nose high so I wouldn't pick up too much speed, and then
pulled the mixture control out when I was opposite the numbers on downwind.
From there it was a normal "power off" landing.
John
Jerry Springer
Lou Hinshaw wrote:
>
> >
>
> The tower and you and a lot of others should be unhappy with
> instructors that pull pop tests on students, way ahead of their
> skill, and/or as part of their training, fail to tell them what is going on.
>
> Every time I get around an instructor that tries that on me, I leave.
>
> My first flight experience was in 1954, with an AF sergeant
> who wasn't cleared to fly, and it went very well, because he tried to
> see that there weren't any sudden suprises for me to respond to
> with ANOTHER sudden surprise he wasn't able to counter.
>
So you won't fly with a instructor that gives you a "pop test" but
you will fly with a AF sergeant who "wasn't cleared to fly" hmmm.
> very few instructors aree instructors, just pilots trying to build time at
> someone's expensae.
Most instructors that I know including me do it because we love to
fly, what qualifies you to say that "very few instructors are
instructors? "You might be the best pilot in the world for all
I know, but with the attitude you display here it's no wonder you
have had so many instructors.
>
> ciao.
> Lou H.
--
Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS First flight July 14, 1989 :-)
Certificated Flight Instructor
jsf...@ix.netcom.com
Janet & Doug Crossman-Bosworth
dpi...@erolsXX.com wrote in article
<65ab0c$5hi$1...@winter.news.erols.com>...
>
> Badwater Bill wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 07:53:08 -0500, Richard White <wh...@csee.usf.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >John, have you landed it like that? This doesn't seem to be a common
> > >topic and I'm curious about others' experiences doing this.
> > >
> >
> > That configuration is the one used for short field landings routinely.
> > Go to about 1.2 Vso with full flaps, steep decent angle, lots of
> > power. Nose high and settling fast. Just over the fence pop the
> > throttle off , flair and you'll go "Plunk" on the numbers. You
> > purposely get behind the power curve to do it right.
> >
> > I did it yesterday in a C-182 with a Roberson STOL kit on it during a
> > demo for a prospective buyer. Full flaps, 60 indicated, 15 to 18
> > inches MP and dropping like a brick on a steep decent angle. No
> > margin for error. He was so amazed at how short we got on and
> > stopped, he bought the airplane. He was easy to impress, he was only
> > a lawyer and a low time pilot.
> >
> > BWB
>
>
> Bill,
>
> There's a special place in Hell for anyone who takes advantage of a
lawyer
> like that!! (Or was that Heaven ... I get so confused about those two
places).
>
> Pastor Dave
>
>
I have yet to fly a plane that requires anything more than a good normal
short field approach to get into a strip that it can actually get out of.
If you need to resort to this technique I would consider it an emergency.
Doug.
Badwater Bill
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 02:12:17 GMT, jo...@allied-computer.com (J P
Rourke) wrote:
>Just wondering..
>
You guys obviously know how to fly. You have no idea how important
what you are saying here is to a hang glider pilot or even a sailplane
pilot. When you see the Earth coming up on you and you have no speed,
you have point the damn nose down anyway. You hope you have enough
potential energy to convert to kinetic energy so you can bail your ass
out in the flare. In a power airplane you have the luxury of an
engine to add energy. It's much easier. Been there a hundred times.
BWB
Badwater Bill
On 21 Nov 1997 23:18:06 GMT, tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell)
wrote:
>"John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu> writes:
><snip>
>>Analysis is good. On sail boats they try to use a skinny bladed two blade
>>prop and then lock it so that the prop is vertical in the opening in the
>>skeg to minimize the drag. It works well. The only thing I found that
>>is better is the quarter mounted folding prop like on some of the early
>>Herreshoff hulls.
>
>Almost all racing sailboats use folding props. They are pretty cool!
>I have often thought they would be great for sailplanes, but I haven't
>seen anyone try those folding designs.
Ah Terry: This is common on RC electric sailplanes. Have one in my
garage.
BWB
Lou Hinshaw
Charles...@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) wrote:
>In article <3478A56F...@navicom.com>
>Gandalf <gan...@navicom.com> writes:
>
>> Yup. It says that. I've done rudder-to-the-stop slips, with full
>> flaps, in that same airplane. Yes, the same airplane (hi, John.)
>> Never had any problems, but as I recall, I was also pushing
>> real hard on the yoke at the time, as my instructor had just
>> pulled the power on takeoff, and I was kinda hoping to
>> get it down before I ran outta runway.
>
>My father did this to me while he was teaching me to fly when I was 16.
> I'm not sure how many hours I had when he did this, maybe around 15.
>The choice was obvious though, we were flying out of North Philadelphia
>Airport and it's main runway is something like 10,000 feet long. I
>just pushed the nose down and prepared to land. We hadn't discussed
>stuff like this but once I got the nose down it looked like the runway
>went on forever in front of me. My father allowed that I'd made the
>correct decision and pushed the throttle back in.
>
>The Tower was pretty unhappy with him though.
>
>Corky Scott
The tower and you and a lot of others should be unhappy with
instructors that pull pop tests on students, way ahead of their
skill, and/or as part of their training, fail to tell them what is going on.
Every time I get around an instructor that tries that on me, I leave.
My first flight experience was in 1954, with an AF sergeant
who wasn't cleared to fly, and it went very well, because he tried to
see that there weren't any sudden suprises for me to respond to
with ANOTHER sudden surprise he wasn't able to counter.
I believe it was on this NG or the UL one that we saw a thing about
trying a dead engine on the student and the kid froze the controls
and that was that for THAT plane.
On one occasion, I developed the belief which I held for years that the
instructor was trying to kill me, and on another, in a check ride which
I wasn't told was one, the instructor froze the controls on me.
We went hopping down the runway on one wheel until the 172 finally
got off the ground. The instructor gave me A+ on takeoffs, and I gave
the instructor the go-by.
very few instructors aree instructors, just pilots trying to build time at
someone's expensae.
ciao.
Lou H.
Prolific inventor,
Lousy Salesman,
Incompetent businessman.
(Typical of the Breed)
Tulsa OK, USA
John Ousterhout
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:14:37 -0600, "John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu>
wrote:
>You would be welcome! :-) We do not discriminate against Cessna's and
>Piper's. Last year we even had a couple of Mooney's fly in! Greg Travis
>has a really neat 180 HP C-172. It is a poor man's Skylane!
Since Badwater Bill mentioned that even Spam Cans were welcome I
figured we wouldn't be shot down (at least not until after we tie down
the Cessna).
I'm about One and a half Standard FAA persons and Gandalf is no midget
so that 180 hp Skyhawk would sure climb a lot better than the ones
that we fly.
There are way too many persons with the same first name here.
- John O -
jouster...@cyberis.net
http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster
Warrick Forbes
I have also seen this on a couple of Self Launching Gliders in Tocumwal NSW
(Oz). One was on a Pilatus B4, a very impressive setup. It was a three cyl
'radial', pod mounted on the fuse, and with the folding prop and fibreglass
fiarings, added very little drag. Owner designed and built it himself. Over
summer with a thermal off the wheat stubble just off the end of his strip
he claimed an average launch time of 2-4 minutes.
Another was on a Monerai glider ( Very small, boom type fuse and V-Tail),
it had the folding prop, and then retracted the engine.
Or maybe the retract was on a PIK 20, I'm a bit hazy on the details.
Bill Riley was in the proccess of installing a similar setup on a Blanik,
but I never seen that one completed.
Badwater Bill <billphil*nospam*@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<347a2c66....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
: On 21 Nov 1997 23:18:06 GMT, tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell)
: wrote:
:
: >
: >Almost all racing sailboats use folding props. They are pretty cool!
:
Badwater Bill
On 25 Nov 1997 01:30:43 GMT, "Janet & Doug Crossman-Bosworth"
<JDBosworth<nospam>@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>I have yet to fly a plane that requires anything more than a good normal
>short field approach to get into a strip that it can actually get out of.
>
>If you need to resort to this technique I would consider it an emergency.
>
>Doug.
>
Doug: How do you do your short field approach? I do mine this way
everytime and have for 35 years. If you know another way to make it
in short without hanging it behind the power curve tell me. I've not
seen another way in the couple thousand hours of bush-flying I've
done.
BWB
John R. Johnson
Right. My NORMAL short field approach is,
Full Flaps, Best ANGLE speed, ( approximately 1.2 Vso unless otherwise
noted in the POH, found with newer airplanes. )
Aiming point slightly in front of the runway threshold.
Flare appropriately to halt descent. Sometimes a short blast of power
helps to halt the descent.
Touchdown at approximately 1.1 Vso, or three point in a taildragger.
I can consistently land as short as I can take off using that technique.
( About 600 feet for both landing and takeoff on nice short grass )
Needless to say, the landing is shorter if the field is also SOFT, and
the SOFT takeoff may be longer. FAA examiners tend to combine SHORT
and SOFT since they are similiar on landing. In both you want to touch
down with minimal excess energy. However, short and soft field TAKEOFFS
are quite different.
John
John R. Johnson
On 25 Nov 1997, Janet & Doug Crossman-Bosworth wrote:
<snip>
> I have yet to fly a plane that requires anything more than a good normal
> short field approach to get into a strip that it can actually get out of.
>
> If you need to resort to this technique I would consider it an emergency.
>
> Doug.
>
Please describe you "good normal short field approach" technique. Don't
tell me I have been doing it WRONG for forty five years!
John
Charles K. Scott
In article <347a3599...@news.pipeline.com>
aru...@pipeline.com (Lou Hinshaw) writes:
> The tower and you and a lot of others should be unhappy with
> instructors that pull pop tests on students, way ahead of their
> skill, and/or as part of their training, fail to tell them what is going on.
Lou, remember where I was; we had just lifted off and 9/10's of the
runway was still ahead, plus my father was right there in the right
seat where he could take over if necessary.
He pulled the same trick on another student while I was sitting in the
rear seat observing and she froze to the controls (not literally, she
just didn't get the nose down, she sat there wondering what to do). My
father calmly grabbed the controls while the stall warning horn was
blaring saying "I've got it" put the nose down as he added power and we
continued the climb out once we regained climb speed.
It isn't unsafe if the instructor knows what he's going to do and can
easily make the runway. This was the case both times I experienced
this situation.
Corky Scott
John R. Johnson
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Peter Chapman wrote:
<snip>
>
> Basically, approaching with power on to allow a slower approach and
> touchdown speed sounded to be a widespread technique.
>
It just alters your rate of energy dissipation so that it takes you
longer to dissipate the energy. This allows the kind of approach I
mentioned earlier, which was a demonstration of how to make an approach
that is blessed by the FAA ( 3 degree and all that ) but is EXTREMELY
dangerous and wisely avoided.
> From the thread it sounded like the normal, full flap, power off,
> steep approach was fine most of the time. But if really necessary, a
> bush pilot might use a shallow, power on approach for the shortest
> landing run possible. It was naturally recognized as a more dangerous
> method, being behind the power curve, closer to the stall (and
> certainly to the power off stall speed), closer to obstacles, and
> reliant on engine power to reach the field.
>
most accurate landing is always made from the steepest approach.
To illustrate this, draw a base line to represent the runway. Now
draw a line at three degrees for the FAA approved approach. Now draw
one at 45 degrees for a power off, full flaps, prop flat, hang it out
approach. Now make a 3 degree error plus or minus and see where it
leaves you.
> The quote above seems to be a combination of the two techniques. I'd
> guess that how steep or shallow the approach will actually be will
> depend on how much power one wants to use and how well one can time
> the flare. For a shallow descent, there probably won't be much of a
> flare anyway -- just chop the power.
>
The standard short field approach is at best angle speed instead of
best glide speed. That steepens the approach and allows you to reduce
the stored energy that you have to dissipate in the flare. It also
gives you less energy to use in the flare, so the flare must be a bit
more accurate. It is usually considered allowable to give a short blast
of power to help arrest the descent during the flare portion of the
landing. Land with minimum residual energy to reduce the landing roll
to a minimum.
Notice that the best angle speed puts you right at the minimum power
required speed. This is the break point for "behind the power curve."
From that speed you must add power to maintain altitude if you airspeed
changes in EITHER direction. When you have to ADD power when you slow
down, you are "behind the power curve."
I never recommend "dragging it in hanging on the prop." That is deadly.
OK for a demo of how not to do it, but definately not a standard practice.
Steep approachs at minimum energy, behind the power curve, ARE standard
practice for short field landings and a normal tool in a bush pilots
repertoire. That is my NORMAL landing when landing on an unprepared
surface. Notice that it is perfectly alright to be behind the power
curve with NO POWER. It merely means a greater rate of energy dissipation
which translates directly to a steeper approach path, and a more accurate
landing. The trick is to stay above stall until you are firmly on the
ground.
John
Lou Hinshaw
Jerry Springer <jsf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Lou Hinshaw wrote:
>>
>> The tower and you and a lot of others should be unhappy with
>> instructors that pull pop tests on students, way ahead of their
>> skill, and/or as part of their training, fail to tell them what is going on.
>>
>> Every time I get around an instructor that tries that on me, I leave.
>>
>> My first flight experience was in 1954, with an AF sergeant
>> who wasn't cleared to fly, and it went very well, because he tried to
>> see that there weren't any sudden suprises for me to respond to
>> with ANOTHER sudden surprise he wasn't able to counter.
>>
>So you won't fly with a instructor that gives you a "pop test" but
>you will fly with a AF sergeant who "wasn't cleared to fly" hmmm.
You don't read very well, do you?
I said that he did well because he planned the training, and we discussed it.
He avoided unpleasant surprises both ways.
several instructors have done this waym and it ALWAYS works better than
trying to pull surprises on the student.
I am not the best anything. I used to think I could fly until I met a few REAL
pilots, then I knew better.
>
>> very few instructors aree instructors, just pilots trying to build time at
>> someone's expensae.
Don't know many, then. Even so, his/her love of flying should not be paid
for by some poor sod who needs to get the best training possible.
When I get a chance, I try to learn whatever I can. I am NOT one of those who
get a ticket and then decide I will never need another instruction unless
I want to upgrade the ticket.
There are many things known by better pilots and I want to know some of them,
also. THAT is why I have seen so many instructors.
Not taking stuff from someone I cannot trust is why I am worrying about
old age instead of my widow worrying about flirting.
>
>Most instructors that I know including me do it because we love to
>fly, what qualifies you to say that "very few instructors are
>instructors? "You might be the best pilot in the world for all
>I know, but with the attitude you display here it's no wonder you
>have had so many instructors.
>>
ciao again.
The Hecksel's
> Touchdown at approximately 1.1 Vso, or three point in a taildragger.
I tried that tecnique once and made a perfect 3 point taildragger
landing. The only problem was that I was in my Mooney. Had to replace
the tail tie down ring and tail skid. Oh well, live and learn.
Warren
Jerry Springer
Lou Hinshaw wrote:
> >> My first flight experience was in 1954, with an AF sergeant
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> who wasn't cleared to fly, and it went very well, because he tried to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> see that there weren't any sudden suprises for me to respond to
> >> with ANOTHER sudden surprise he wasn't able to counter.
> >>
> >So you won't fly with a instructor that gives you a "pop test" but
> >you will fly with a AF sergeant who "wasn't cleared to fly" hmmm.
>
> You don't read very well, do you?
> I said that he did well because he planned the training, and we discussed it.
> He avoided unpleasant surprises both ways.
Maybe I don't read or write to well but it is your quote that the AF
sergeant was not cleared to fly.
> >
> >> very few instructors aree instructors, just pilots trying to build time at
> >> someone's expensae.
> >Most instructors that I know including me do it because we love to
> >fly, what qualifies you to say that "very few instructors are
> >instructors? "You might be the best pilot in the world for all
> >I know, but with the attitude you display here it's no wonder you
> >have had so many instructors.
>
> Don't know many, then. Even so, his/her love of flying should not be paid
> for by some poor sod who needs to get the best training possible.
I see you expect us instructors to teach this poor sod for nothing?
>
> ciao again.
> Lou H.
> Prolific inventor,
> Lousy Salesman,
> Incompetent businessman.
> (Typical of the Breed)
> Tulsa OK, USA
--
Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS First flight July 14, 1989 :-) Hillsboro, OR
Certificated Flight Instructor
jsf...@ix.netcom.com
Johnny
John R. Johnson wrote:
> ...
> He got it open and I stayed back about 100 feet or so from the hangar
> and started letting it settle down with part throttle. Suddenly, I
> settled into the lee of that hangar and the airplane dropped quickly
> and surged forward. Talk about wind shear! :-) I touched down gently
> in a perfect three point right in the doorway, and rolled forward about
> fifty feet into the hangar and he closed the door behind me.
>
> He came up and said "Nice job!"
>
> I loved it. The first time I ever LANDED in a hangar! :-)
Now THAT'S flyin'.
-j-
Janet & Doug Crossman-Bosworth
Badwater Bill <billphil*nospam*@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<347afa1a....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> On 25 Nov 1997 01:30:43 GMT, "Janet & Doug Crossman-Bosworth"
> <JDBosworth<nospam>@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >I have yet to fly a plane that requires anything more than a good normal
> >short field approach to get into a strip that it can actually get out
of.
> >
> >If you need to resort to this technique I would consider it an
emergency.
> >
> >Doug.
> >
>
> Doug: How do you do your short field approach? I do mine this way
> everytime and have for 35 years. If you know another way to make it
> in short without hanging it behind the power curve tell me. I've not
> seen another way in the couple thousand hours of bush-flying I've
> done.
>
> BWB
>
Power off, full flaps with a stabilized approach that lets me land right
on the numbers. When I was good at it I landed right on the flour line
at a spot landing contest.
I'm no bush pilot, and only have 300 some hours, but the Oct. 97 Issue
of Aviation Safety Pg. 7 outlines why a steep approach is safer than
a shallow one "dragging it in on the prop."
I also think it makes more sense to have a stabilized approach as your
coming in over obstacles rather than chopping power just as you clear
them. If you do it your way...which seems to work...then your making
power changes at 50-100 feet, close to stall speed, and then dropping
onto the runway. I'd rather fly at close to the same speed you do on
approach, not make any power changes, and land within 50ft of where
you put it.
Doug - Kingfisher plans on order...and I need more float time!
Badwater Bill
On 26 Nov 1997 02:04:03 GMT, "Janet & Doug Crossman-Bosworth"
<JDBosworth<nospam>@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
You know Doug you are absolutely right! In stable conditions that's
the perfect way of doing it. If you are in blowing snow, gusts up to
40 knots, marginal visibility, plus blowing sleet, hail, the sea
crashing on the beach, your front window frozen over, your wings
loaded with 2 inches of ice, then I tend to put my faith in my
engine. I hang it one the prop and pray at 1.2 Vso (1.4 Vso with ice
or whatever the hell it takes without stalling). It isn't about
style. It's about survival. You hang your ass out every time in the
commercial opperations to make it work. Don't ever let anyone tell
you different. When you are in a C-206 on floats, it's you alone,
screw the manual, screw the feds, you make it work, PERIOD! Or you are
history!
BWB
John R. Johnson
On 26 Nov 1997, Janet & Doug Crossman-Bosworth wrote:
> Power off, full flaps with a stabilized approach that lets me land right
> on the numbers. When I was good at it I landed right on the flour line
> at a spot landing contest.
>
That is a good description of a NORMAL approach and landing. That is how
I normally land my airplane. What makes that SHORT field. I see nothing
in your description.
> I'm no bush pilot, and only have 300 some hours, but the Oct. 97 Issue
> of Aviation Safety Pg. 7 outlines why a steep approach is safer than
> a shallow one "dragging it in on the prop."
>
Depends on the situation. It is certainly a lot easier to hit the runway
without adding power from a steep approach. However, there are many
situations where the steep approach is quite short. I have seen many
situations where I flew my "pattern" well below 300 feet AGL for one
reason or another.
> I also think it makes more sense to have a stabilized approach as your
> coming in over obstacles rather than chopping power just as you clear
> them. If you do it your way...which seems to work...then your making
> power changes at 50-100 feet, close to stall speed, and then dropping
> onto the runway. I'd rather fly at close to the same speed you do on
> approach, not make any power changes, and land within 50ft of where
> you put it.
>
When you can, I would too. When things are less than optimal and it is
not a nice VFR day, you may not have that option. I have been caught in
situations well away from any normal aviation facility in places like
the Canadian north woods, where I was forced to keep my entire approach
to the desired landing area below 100 feet. With high obstacles, low
ceilings and visibility, and a short landing area, you do it differently.
Knowing how to adapt can be life sustaining! :-)
When I drop into my buddy's 1200 foot grass strip on a sunny summer day,
I do it like you describe. I usually even leave half the strip unused.
I do keep my airspeed low enough to be on the edge of or behind the
power curve. With that technique I have seen a DC-3 operated on and
off of a 1300 foot grass strip. It made me want to go up and try it!
I have also made good use of a landing technique that can only be done
with a taildragger with good brakes, but will really get you down short
in a tight spot. You bring it down ahead of your spot with some power.
Then add substantial power, hoist it over the obstacle, and nail it on
the mains with the brakes locked and chop the power at the same time.
As the tail starts to get high enough to endanger the prop ease off the
brakes just enough to hold the tail high with full back stick.
I have seen C-180's used in the bush modifyed with a second set of
brake calipers to make this more effective. The negative angle of attack
forces the wheels down to make the brakes more effective, while your
speed keeps the airplane from going onto its back. Of course, if you
goof the airplane will usually go onto its back. That makes a real
short landing, but it is hard to taxi. :-)
We all need more float time. Short field landings on floats are not a
problem. You can always stop a float plane pretty darned short. A
flying boat can be stopped even shorter. I have about 400 hours landing
on the hull, and it is the ONLY way to fly sea. A couple of tricks to
remember before you go haring off into the outback with a float plane.
Before you land on a strange lake, make a low pass at low speed over you
selected landing area. This will help you determine if it is long
enough for you to get off again! It is easy to land a seaplane on a
lake that you cannot fly out of. If the lake is not long enough to
get out with a straight run, fly down close to the lake and set up a
climbing turn over the landing area. If you can do that without running
over the shoreline, you can always get out. If you can't you may want to
consider seriously landing in a different lake! Many of the lakes I
have flown into in Minnesota, Ontario, and Manitoba are pretty remote.
A lot of them have no roads or other ground access other than shanks mare!
You definately do NOT want to be stuck on one of those lakes at sunset
with no mosquito repellent!
John
Badwater Bill
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:07:26 -0600, "John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu>
wrote:
>
>Before you land on a strange lake, make a low pass at low speed over you
>selected landing area. This will help you determine if it is long
>enough for you to get off again! It is easy to land a seaplane on a
>lake that you cannot fly out of. If the lake is not long enough to
>get out with a straight run, fly down close to the lake and set up a
>climbing turn over the landing area. If you can do that without running
>over the shoreline, you can always get out. If you can't you may want to
>consider seriously landing in a different lake! Many of the lakes I
>have flown into in Minnesota, Ontario, and Manitoba are pretty remote.
>A lot of them have no roads or other ground access other than shanks mare!
>You definately do NOT want to be stuck on one of those lakes at sunset
>with no mosquito repellent!
>
>John
>
Reminds me of a couple times I got stuck on a lake in a C-206
floatplane waiting for the wind to change so I could get out. On my
final try, I punched it pointed downwind, got on-step heading toward
the downwind shore. I yawed her around into the wind at the last
moment before I crashed into the bank. I made a nice tangent line to
the downwind shore at about 40 knots, cranked her into the wind and
punched full power. To top it off the water was smooth (worse case
scenario) I cross controlled her and pulled the right float out of
the water when I could and finally got unstuck in enough time to get
100 feet to clear the trees.
Typical day in the bush.
BWB
John R. Johnson
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Badwater Bill wrote:
>
> Reminds me of a couple times I got stuck on a lake in a C-206
> floatplane waiting for the wind to change so I could get out. On my
> final try, I punched it pointed downwind, got on-step heading toward
> the downwind shore. I yawed her around into the wind at the last
> moment before I crashed into the bank. I made a nice tangent line to
> the downwind shore at about 40 knots, cranked her into the wind and
> punched full power. To top it off the water was smooth (worse case
> scenario) I cross controlled her and pulled the right float out of
> the water when I could and finally got unstuck in enough time to get
> 100 feet to clear the trees.
>
> Typical day in the bush.
>
I remember one time I was a bit heavy. Couldn't get over the hump!
Ran about three miles down the river. Finally some yahoos in speed boats
came over and ran circles around me laughing at the funny airplane that
couldn't get onto a plane. There wake did the job. I hit the backside
of their wave and it lowered the wing angle of attack just enough to
cut the drag a little and I was able to slide over the hump and come up
onto the step. That was it. I eased the yoke back and forth a little
making about 1/2 degree variations in my AOA and suddenly I was flying!
Fortunately it was the Delaware River, and I was able to stay over the
river all the way down to the bay and then up the Maurice River to my
home airport. I was too heavy to get out of ground effect! Another day
in the "bush." :-)
John
John R. Johnson
Yes, I didn't say that this is a "taildragger" technique did I. It has
been so many years since I have flown something with a wheel under the
nose I tend to forget. Indeed this is one of the very reasons that most
bush pilots favor taildraggers.
John
Owen Davies
Badwater Bill wrote:
>
> On 26 Nov 1997 02:04:03 GMT, "Janet & Doug Crossman-Bosworth"
> <JDBosworth<nospam>@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >coming in over obstacles rather than chopping power just as you clear
> >them. If you do it your way...which seems to work...then your making
> >power changes at 50-100 feet, close to stall speed, and then dropping
> >onto the runway. I'd rather fly at close to the same speed you do on
> >approach, not make any power changes, and land within 50ft of where
> >you put it.
> >
>
> You know Doug you are absolutely right! In stable conditions that's
> the perfect way of doing it. If you are in blowing snow, gusts up to
> 40 knots, marginal visibility, plus blowing sleet, hail, the sea
> crashing on the beach, your front window frozen over, your wings
> loaded with 2 inches of ice, then I tend to put my faith in my
> engine. I hang it one the prop and pray at 1.2 Vso (1.4 Vso with ice
> or whatever the hell it takes without stalling). It isn't about
> style. It's about survival. You hang your ass out every time in the
> commercial opperations to make it work. Don't ever let anyone tell
> you different. When you are in a C-206 on floats, it's you alone,
> screw the manual, screw the feds, you make it work, PERIOD! Or you are
> history!
Hmmm... I've never had any use for winter, but in its own
perverted way, that sounds like fun!
Owen Davies
Badwater Bill
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:12:43 -0600, "John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu>
wrote:
>
>Fortunately it was the Delaware River, and I was able to stay over the
>river all the way down to the bay and then up the Maurice River to my
>home airport. I was too heavy to get out of ground effect! Another day
>in the "bush." :-)
>
>John
>
Hey John. Don't answer this. Let the lower time guys think it out.
Question: Which way is preferable to take off on a river and why?
I guess this is a stupid quiz since all you have to do is read John's
post above and you'll know the answer, but why?
BWB
Badwater Bill
On 21 Nov 1997 19:24:51 GMT, "Aero"
<mketter...@daniel.aero.calpoly.edu> wrote:
>
>Since t=1 and v=at then v=a. So F=mv. Note that force is proportional to
>the velocity change of the air but energy is proportional to the square of
>the velocity change of the air. If the prop is turning, the air in the
>whole disk area is effected.
Dear Mark: Why do you say this. If you take any instant of time and
look at the prop, is the whole cross sectional area of the disk being
effected? It looks like this to us in real time but look at what
happens each millisecond.
Look at a helicopter in autorotation. The blades are producing lift
not just drag to slow the descent, but is the whole disk area of the
outside air effected? I'm not arguing I'm just exploring a bit.
BWB
Janet & Doug Crossman-Bosworth
Badwater Bill <billphil*nospam*@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<347bbaf9...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> You know Doug you are absolutely right! In stable conditions that's
> the perfect way of doing it. If you are in blowing snow, gusts up to
> 40 knots, marginal visibility, plus blowing sleet, hail, the sea
> crashing on the beach, your front window frozen over, your wings
> loaded with 2 inches of ice, then I tend to put my faith in my
> engine. I hang it one the prop and pray at 1.2 Vso (1.4 Vso with ice
> or whatever the hell it takes without stalling). It isn't about
> style. It's about survival. You hang your ass out every time in the
> commercial opperations to make it work. Don't ever let anyone tell
> you different. When you are in a C-206 on floats, it's you alone,
> screw the manual, screw the feds, you make it work, PERIOD! Or you are
> history!
>
> BWB
>
I have to assume you're right, but the only time I've flown in 40 kt wind
was enroute and saw 150 on the DME.
I'm commercially rated, but we all know what that means...just slightly
more difficult than private. I've never earned my living flying, and
from what you've described, I'm glad I never will. Way too dangerous.
I chose when I go and where I go. No one paying my check saying
go out in this crap. I'll stay home thank you very much.
Doug - fairweather flyer and Kingfisher plans on order...hurry up plans!
Janet & Doug Crossman-Bosworth
John R. Johnson <jo...@siu.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.971126100824.1712m-100000@reliant>...
> On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Badwater Bill wrote:
> >
> > Reminds me of a couple times I got stuck on a lake in a C-206
> > floatplane waiting for the wind to change so I could get out. On my
> > final try, I punched it pointed downwind, got on-step heading toward
> > the downwind shore. I yawed her around into the wind at the last
> > moment before I crashed into the bank. I made a nice tangent line to
> > the downwind shore at about 40 knots, cranked her into the wind and
> > punched full power. To top it off the water was smooth (worse case
> > scenario) I cross controlled her and pulled the right float out of
> > the water when I could and finally got unstuck in enough time to get
> > 100 feet to clear the trees.
> >
> > Typical day in the bush.
> >
>
> I remember one time I was a bit heavy. Couldn't get over the hump!
> Ran about three miles down the river. Finally some yahoos in speed boats
> came over and ran circles around me laughing at the funny airplane that
> couldn't get onto a plane. There wake did the job. I hit the backside
> of their wave and it lowered the wing angle of attack just enough to
> cut the drag a little and I was able to slide over the hump and come up
> onto the step. That was it. I eased the yoke back and forth a little
> making about 1/2 degree variations in my AOA and suddenly I was flying!
>
> Fortunately it was the Delaware River, and I was able to stay over the
> river all the way down to the bay and then up the Maurice River to my
> home airport. I was too heavy to get out of ground effect! Another day
> in the "bush." :-)
>
> John
>
>
Show offs!
Doug
Badwater Bill
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 19:54:43 GMT, pat...@NOSPAMworldnet.att.net (Todd
Pattist) wrote:
>
>For boats, however: 1) a wide chord boat prop might be very
>high drag when stopped, 2) putting the transmission in
>neutral, and thereby disconnecting the engine, would
>significantly reduce the power required to spin the prop
>shaft, 3) perhaps boat props in water are more efficient
>than airplane props (anyone know?).
>
>Those factors might make it better to let the boat prop
>spin.
>
>------------
>Todd Pattist
Todd: You win the prize. You got it. It isn't an easy question. If
you have a feathering prop that changes the equation quite a bit. Of
course the stopped feathered prop has much less drag. If you are in a
fixed pitch prop airplane and driving the engine you are Jake-Braking
and BTW if you push the throttle to full open in this condition (like
one poster recommended) you will use up much less energy and approach
the free wheeling scenario. If you look at the tree seed falling or
the helicopter in autorotation, those conditions are producing a lot
of lift just like a windmilling propeller producesm drag. If you look
at a boat with a large cross sectional area consumed by three blades
then you are better off letting it rotate since when it's stopped it's
a large flat plate of drag. You said it better than I can. There is
a cross over point if you are free wheeling that has to do with how
much of the total disk area is occupied by the prop and how much
energy you're taking away by driving your engine.
In fixed pitch prop airplanes the max speed in a dive at full power is
limited many times by the prop itself. You get going so fast that the
relative angle of attack goes negative and slows you down. Same thing
in a windmilling prop. On airplanes that we normally fly, the drag
produced by a stopped prop is less than the windmilling prop only
because the flat plate drag area is so small. If the cord of the prop
were increased (like a boat prop) and the engine could be disengaged,
then there would be some ideal windmilling speed at which drag would
be minimized just like you said.
You guys are all really bright. I really enjoyed everyone's input and
I learned some ways of looking at this that I had never considered,
like opening up the throttle to minimize braking. That was a very
good idea.
Nice Job Everyone ! Todd, you get the prize however.
BWB
Peter S. Lert
One of the reasons it's hard to quantify drag of a windmilling prop is
that there's a significant amount of twist along the blade.
When using an autorotating helicopter as an example, take a look at any
good helo textbook. (Or, for that matter, p. 406 of
_Aerodynamics_for_Naval_Aviators_.) In a steady-state vertical
autorotation (analogous to the windmilling prop situation), there's a
relatively small region near the hub where the blades are stalled; a
fairly large region outside that, called the "autorotation region,"
where the majority of the forces go to keep the rotor spinning; and a
relatively small ring outside that, the "propeller region," which is the
part that actually allows temporary repeal of the law of gravity.
Ed Sullivan
Badwater Bill <billphil*nospam*@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<347ca302...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:12:43 -0600, "John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Fortunately it was the Delaware River, and I was able to stay over the
> >river all the way down to the bay and then up the Maurice River to my
> >home airport. I was too heavy to get out of ground effect! Another day
> >in the "bush." :-)
> >
> >John
> >
>
> Hey John. Don't answer this. Let the lower time guys think it out.
>
> Question: Which way is preferable to take off on a river and why?
>
> I guess this is a stupid quiz since all you have to do is read John's
> post above and you'll know the answer, but why?
>
> BWB
A. Tough to get a floatplane off the dirt.
B. River power.
Ed Sullivan
>
pswes...@worldnet.att.net
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:07:26 -0600, "John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu>
wrote:
>
>We all need more float time. Short field landings on floats are not a
>problem. You can always stop a float plane pretty darned short. A
>flying boat can be stopped even shorter. I have about 400 hours landing
>on the hull, and it is the ONLY way to fly sea. A couple of tricks to
>remember before you go haring off into the outback with a float plane.
>
>Before you land on a strange lake, make a low pass at low speed over you
>selected landing area. This will help you determine if it is long
>enough for you to get off again! It is easy to land a seaplane on a
>lake that you cannot fly out of. If the lake is not long enough to
>get out with a straight run, fly down close to the lake and set up a
>climbing turn over the landing area. If you can do that without running
>over the shoreline, you can always get out. If you can't you may want to
>consider seriously landing in a different lake! Many of the lakes I
>have flown into in Minnesota, Ontario, and Manitoba are pretty remote.
>A lot of them have no roads or other ground access other than shanks mare!
>You definately do NOT want to be stuck on one of those lakes at sunset
>with no mosquito repellent!
>
>John
A simple technique I use is to fly over the lake at low altitude and
at relatively low speed. While scanning the water surface for rocks
and logs, etc. I'm counting seconds. Since I know how many seconds it
takes my airplane to get off the water with different loads, I can
then get a good idea of whether the lake is long enough or not.
Southeast Alaska where I fly is covered with thousands of small lakes
so you get lots of practice going into strange ones.
Paul Westcott
Daniel R. Edwards
<<<<snip>>>>>
>
> You guys are all really bright. I really enjoyed everyone's input and
> I learned some ways of looking at this that I had never considered,
> like opening up the throttle to minimize braking. That was a very
> good idea.
>
> Nice Job Everyone ! Todd, you get the prize however.
> BWB
I missed the reply where someone referred to opening the throttle to
minimize braking. However I believe he\she must have meant closing the
throttle. (Throttle plate at idle position.) This would allow the least
amount of air into the cylinders and our air pump (non-running engine)
would have very little to do. I have an air compressor that closses off
the air intake when full pressure is reached. It is designed to be run
by a gas engine and not stop and start when required. When at full
pressure and the air intake is closed it will coast for about 20 seconds
when I shut off the motor ( I am using an eletric motor) If I shut off
the motor while the pump is doing work it stops in about 2 revs. Less
than a second.
Great thread here though. There were some articles similar to this
about the C.A.F.E. testing the glide ratios of aircraft.
--
Daniel Edwards
anon
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 22:31:50 GMT, billphil*nospam*@ix.netcom.com
(Badwater Bill) wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:12:43 -0600, "John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Fortunately it was the Delaware River, and I was able to stay over the
>>river all the way down to the bay and then up the Maurice River to my
>>home airport. I was too heavy to get out of ground effect! Another day
>>in the "bush." :-)
>>
>>John
>>
>
>Hey John. Don't answer this. Let the lower time guys think it out.
>
>Question: Which way is preferable to take off on a river and why?
>
>I guess this is a stupid quiz since all you have to do is read John's
>post above and you'll know the answer, but why?
>
>BWB
Downstream? Free airspeed?
Glenn "Zero-time" Scherer
Eugene Templet
You guys think too much. Fly ahead of the airplane (look for suitable
landing sights as you fly) in the event of an engine failure; best glide
speed, mixture, mags, and fuel. Don't try to strech a glide. Do you guys
really fly? I hope not over my ranch.
Sky King
Eugene Templet
John R. Johnson <jo...@siu.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.971125121027.1712D-100000@reliant>...
> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Peter Chapman wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > Basically, approaching with power on to allow a slower approach and
> > touchdown speed sounded to be a widespread technique.
> >
> But NOT a good one. By the way, power does not allow a slower approach.
> It just alters your rate of energy dissipation .....
>
> Sky King Responds,
>
Thanks John, at last a pilot has risen from amoung the masses. Listen well
and learn. Never low and slow with no place to go, if you engine quits you
won't make the show.
Sky King
Daniel R. Edwards
Good point about the exhaust releasing into ambient versus pressurized
air. However the engine must must move dramtaically more air with the
throttle open vs. closed. This requires work. I did a couple of
experiments yesterday evening. My airplane is currenly disasssembled in
my shop so I had to used different motors. On my push lawnmower (3hp)
is slightly easier to crank with the throttle at idle vs. WFO. On my
rider (16hp) I grounded the spark plug and cranked the engine in both
tthrottle settings. I spun significantly faster at the idle position.
These are obviously low compression engines but there did seem to be
less work being done at idle sttings. These are quite unsophisticated
testing methods I'll admit, but seem to back my supposition.
On a slightly different note, I have read that on planes with small
diameter props you must turn off the mags in order to allow the engine
to begin turning again. The advance on the mags can create too much
initial cylinder pressure for the small prop to get past. This is
assuming you stopped the engine on purpose and are simply restarting or
a fuel problem was discovered and remedied.
Later,
--
Daniel Edwards
JStricker
Todd and others,
OK, more theory.
On my Semi (tractor trailer) I have a Jake Brake. Basically a compression
release. It's used to unseat the valves a bit (the engine, BTW, is an 8V-92
Detroit, 435 hp) and results in an IMMEDIATE increase in engine braking.
In my mis-spent youth, I also used to do some dirt-biking and moto-crossing.
My 360 Yamaha also had a compression release (screwed into a spark plug
hole, no valves of course) that did the same thing. Barrel into a corner,
hit the comp. release, and IMMEDIATE engine braking.
Now the plot thickens. I have an older 955 Cat loader-crawler. Old enough
to have the gasoline powered starting motor rather than the direct electric
start. You electric start the "pony" motor, engage the starting clutch,
turn on the fuel to the diesel and the diesel starts. Now, it also has a
compression release, but it is used when you first engage the starting
clutch to ease the resistance of the diesel. So the drill is really: 1)
Start the pony 2) Activate the compression release 3)engage the starting
clutch so the diesel spins 4) Open the fuel a bit till you get fuel and oil
pressure and to lube the cylinders a bit 5) Close the fuel, wait a few
seconds 6) Disengage the compression release to allow the heat of
compression to pre-warm the cylinders 7) open the fuel and (with luck) the
diesel is running 8)Disengage the starting clutch (if it didn't kick out by
itself) and shut off the pony motor 9) Go move some dirt.
This system has a few advantages. 1) Since the pony motor and diesel share
the same coolant, you can let it run and prewarm the diesel. You never have
to start the diesel cold. 2) the oil pressure in the diesel is always up
before it ever fires a shot. The disadvantage is of course one more motor to
maintain.
Now, I was taught that when you shut OFF the diesel, you kill the fuel and
engage the compression release. When you do that, the engine will spin over
for quite some time as it spins down. If you don't engage it, the engine
stops after just a few revolutions.
OK, now the theoreticians amongst you can explain to me how it is that when
I hit the compression release in my truck it causes an immediate increase in
engine braking and yet when you hit it in the dozer at shut down it appears
to do the opposite???
I'm not picking a fight with anyone about this, I really don't know. It
seems to me that the compression release should NOT cause an increase in
engine braking as it turns the engine into, for want of a better term, a
free air pump. But the Jake Brake works so go figger.
Any takers on an explanation???
John Stricker
--
Remove the "nosp..........." Oh hell, you folks know what to do and
why I had to put it in. If one of you real humans wants to contact me:
jstr...@odsys.net
"I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain
just to become a vegetarian"
Todd Pattist wrote in message <347ea6b5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>"Daniel R. Edwards" <DNED...@WILLMAR.COM> wrote:
>
>>I missed the reply where someone referred to opening the throttle to
>>minimize braking. However I believe he\she must have meant closing the
>>throttle. (Throttle plate at idle position.) This would allow the least
>>amount of air into the cylinders and our air pump (non-running engine)
>>would have very little to do. I have an air compressor that closses off
>>the air intake when full pressure is reached.
>
><Interesting stuff about the air compressor snipped>
>
>Actually, I meant what I said, which is that I expect from theory that
>opening the throttle fully should improve glide. Your air compressor
>was interesting, but isn't directly applicable. The main difference
>is that the engine exhausts into ambient air at the same pressure as
>the air going into the intake. The compressor exhausts into the tank
>at high pressure. As long as your compressor intake is open, the
>compressor is doing work pumping air from low to high pressure. The
>engine isn't doing that. It's pumping from ambient pressure to the
>same ambient air pressure at the exhaust.
>
>There are some other relevant differences. The throttle plate at idle
>isn't fully closed, unlike the intake valve on the compressor. I'll
>also guess that the intake valve on the compressor is very close to
>the cylinder. In the engine, the throttle plate is well away, leaving
>a large intake manifold volume between the two. These affect the
>relative efficiency of the two devices.
>
>On the issue of the throttle's effect on glide, I'd like to emphasize
>that it's a guess, based on what I expect from theory. I might be
>missing something important. That's why I posted it - to see if
>anyone had anything to support or refute my guess. Even if it's
>correct, I'm not sure of the magnitude of the effect, nor of the
>effect on the engine of the increased fuel flow that goes with the
>increased air flow through the carb. (Of course, I suppose when
>trying to make it across the trees to the only landable field, you
>wouldn't be too worried about cylinder ring scoring due to uncombusted
>fuel flow through your engine :-)
>
>
>---
>Todd Pattist
>
cbateman
Eugene Templet wrote in message
<01bcfba6$a67d3e60$af7a1bcc@eugene-templet>...
Maybe I missed the beginning of this thread, but why don't you feather the
prop and get that engine stopped?
Dave Sutton
> pat...@worldnet.att.net (Todd Pattist) writes:
> To those who celebrate it - Have a Happy Thanksgiving. (Is it a
> holiday anywhere else? - Canada?)
Probably more likely in England, where they
should be thankfull that they 'finally' got rid
of the unwashed occupants of the rebellious
colonies.
Just a joke, guys...
Dave Sutton pil...@planet.net
Jet Fighter Aircraft: The Ultimate Motorsport
MiG-17F, Dehavilland Vampire MK35, Fouga Magister
Gandalf
Lou Hinshaw wrote:
> The tower and you and a lot of others should be unhappy with
> instructors that pull pop tests on students, way ahead of their
> skill, and/or as part of their training, fail to tell them what is going on.
I'm not convinced that an engine is going to give me any prior notice
before it craps out for real, so why should I expect advance notice
of a simulation? I expect my instructors to challenge me when I fly
with them, including throwing in the occasional emergency.
Simulating an emergency situation when you know in advance it's
coming, is not training-- it's just playing with the airplane. I can
play with the airplane when I'm not paying for an instructor on
top the ride.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Davenport - gan...@navicom.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose you were an idiot..... And suppose you were a member of
Congress................But I repeat myself. --MarkTwain
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Holyoke
JStricker wrote:
> Todd and others,
>
> OK, more theory.
>
> On my Semi (tractor trailer) I have a Jake Brake. Basically a compression
> release. It's used to unseat the valves a bit (the engine, BTW, is an 8V-92
> Detroit, 435 hp) and results in an IMMEDIATE increase in engine braking.
>
> In my mis-spent youth, I also used to do some dirt-biking and moto-crossing.
> My 360 Yamaha also had a compression release (screwed into a spark plug
> hole, no valves of course) that did the same thing. Barrel into a corner,
> hit the comp. release, and IMMEDIATE engine braking.
>
> OK, now the theoreticians amongst you can explain to me how it is that when
> I hit the compression release in my truck it causes an immediate increase in
> engine braking and yet when you hit it in the dozer at shut down it appears
> to do the opposite???
>
>
>
> John Stricker
>
> --
>
John, I used to drive truck also ( Peterbilt w/250 Cummins) and I was always
under the impression that the "jake brake" worked by holding the exhaust valves
closed so that the exhaust stroke acted as a compression stroke. I remember
seeing signs in small towns threatening tickets for excessive noise for the use
of compression brakes. Caterpillar engines have an oil pressure actuated braking
system which is much quieter but raises the oil temp if you use it hard. Sort of
a torque converter as I understand it.
Using a compression release to brake a vehicle doesn't make any sense to me.
It seems that it would just let it free-wheel.
Pax,
Ed