Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:57 AM - Re: More on the TC vs T&B (Mickey Coggins)
2. 06:45 AM - Re: More on the TC vs T&B (BobsV35B@aol.com)
3. 07:30 AM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to (Brett Ferrell)
4. 08:17 AM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to (Olen Goodwin)
5. 08:58 AM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to (Dj Merrill)
6. 09:22 AM - Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) ()
7. 09:58 AM - Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) (BobsV35B@aol.com)
8. 10:50 AM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to (Olen Goodwin)
9. 11:04 AM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
10. 11:40 AM - Re: Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) (Matt Prather)
11. 03:26 PM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to (Greg Young)
12. 03:26 PM - Z-16 OV variation (Gilles Thesee)
13. 03:26 PM - Re: Z-16 OV simplification ? (Gilles Thesee)
14. 08:37 PM - Re: Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) (BobsV35B@aol.com)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
BobsV35B@... wrote:
> mick-matronics@... writes:
>>
>> There is a picture along with an explanation here:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_coordinator
>>
> ...
>
> Thanks for that reference, but don't you think it slides rather rapidly over
> some very important points?
Bob, I agree with you. One nice thing about Wikipedia is that
the articles can be fixed right way, by you and me.
I've already made a small change to the wikipedia article on
the T&B: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_and_bank_indicator
They had a picture of a TC, so I just added a picture of a
T&B. I'd like to update the text. Feel free to send me any
updates or changes you would like to see in either of these
two articles, and I'll be happy to paste them in. You can
do it yourself as well if you like, of course. Takes about
2 minutes to create an account and start editing.
I've read several of your notes on the differences between
the TC and the T&B, and they have helped me a lot. I think
it would be great to get this information out to a wider
audience, and I believe Wikipedia is a good start.
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 6/21/2006 8:30:08 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mick-matronics@rv8.ch writes:
I've read several of your notes on the differences between
the TC and the T&B, and they have helped me a lot. I think
it would be great to get this information out to a wider
audience, and I believe Wikipedia is a good start.
Good Morning Mickey,
Thanks for the very kind words. I had no idea about how Wikipedia works!
Very Interesting. Definitely worthy of further thought.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Do Not Archive
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brett Ferrell <bferrell@123mail.net>
Folks,
Regarding the wings coming off, I really don't think this is something that you
need to worry about - they're coming off if you hit something big. Although
I'm not familiar with the Glasair, I doubt it's substantially stronger than the
spar in a Cozy or Velocity, and I've gathered a fair amount of accident data
(and pictures) on my website (http://www.velocityxl.com/downloads.htm), and
getting the wings off isn't a big deal. Also, having read Pappy Boyington's
"Baa Baa Blacksheep", which included a story of a Corsair strafing a runway
pulling out too late and colliding with trees on both wings (and continuing to
fly) - both wings failed at the impact point, and I suspect it was designed
for some negative Gs. Not definitive, but some data to consider.
Brett
Quoting Mike <mlas@cox.net>:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
>
> John,
>
> It sounds like you have given this issue some thought. What is your
> alternative plan when facing a stand of trees or a field of rock? I too
> have thought about the same issue and have not been able to come up with
> a better idea. One thing to remember is my primary point was that you
> still has to be a landing and then you stop the plane. My thoughts are
> to think of a formula 1 car which is strong like the Glassair. From my
> direct examination of composite aircraft crashes at the site, the impact
> into the ground is what seems to kill most of the pilots and not the
> stop after the landing. Most of the crashes in composite airplanes are
> burners, lots of little pieces, or almost no breakup damage. The
> burners are strait forward and mixed, but the airplanes that breakup are
> all high velocity impacts.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Burnaby
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 11:25 AM
> to have)
>
> Do not archive
>
> Mike,
>
> You have repeated what an experienced 4 engine water bomber pilot, in
> the Pacific northwest, told me when I asked him, as a newly minted pilot
> in 1980, "What do you do when forced down in a forest?" He said to land
> between two trees to shear off the wings to absorb and diminish a lot of
> the energy involved in the landing.
>
> I filed that away on my brain's essential bus, hoping that I never have
> to access it. However, since I began building my Glasair, with its one
> piece wing that would be housing my valuable (at least to me) bottom at
> an inhospitable landing site, I have wondered if the aiming between two
> solid objects is a prudent idea. From a lay person perspective, the
> Glasair wing is built hell-for-stout, and its fuelage anchor points seem
> less so, as their function is mainly to keep the wing attached during
> negative G. I have visions of landing between two trees still sitting in
> the wing and the inertia of the empennage, still moving at 70 kts,
> ruining any chance of smugness to which I might be entitled.
>
> Hopefully, I am over estimating the strength of that spar.
>
> Cheers,
> John
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
I think the concern is that in some aircraft the wing is one piece, tip to
tip. In that case the wing will probably come off...in one piece...but with
catastrophic results for the person sitting on or behind the main spar,
especially if the seat structure and/or harness is fastened to the wing
structure. If the wing(s) come off and take the seat structure and occupant
with it, it could be a real bad thing.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 8:25 AM
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brett Ferrell
> <bferrell@123mail.net>
>
> Folks,
>
> Regarding the wings coming off, I really don't think this is something
> that you
> need to worry about - they're coming off if you hit something big.
> Although
> I'm not familiar with the Glasair, I doubt it's substantially stronger
> than the
> spar in a Cozy or Velocity, and I've gathered a fair amount of accident
> data
> (and pictures) on my website (http://www.velocityxl.com/downloads.htm),
> and
> getting the wings off isn't a big deal. Also, having read Pappy
> Boyington's
> "Baa Baa Blacksheep", which included a story of a Corsair strafing a
> runway
> pulling out too late and colliding with trees on both wings (and
> continuing to
> fly) - both wings failed at the impact point, and I suspect it was
> designed
> for some negative Gs. Not definitive, but some data to consider.
>
> Brett
>
> Quoting Mike <mlas@cox.net>:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
>>
>> John,
>>
>> It sounds like you have given this issue some thought. What is your
>> alternative plan when facing a stand of trees or a field of rock? I too
>> have thought about the same issue and have not been able to come up with
>> a better idea. One thing to remember is my primary point was that you
>> still has to be a landing and then you stop the plane. My thoughts are
>> to think of a formula 1 car which is strong like the Glassair. From my
>> direct examination of composite aircraft crashes at the site, the impact
>> into the ground is what seems to kill most of the pilots and not the
>> stop after the landing. Most of the crashes in composite airplanes are
>> burners, lots of little pieces, or almost no breakup damage. The
>> burners are strait forward and mixed, but the airplanes that breakup are
>> all high velocity impacts.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
>> Burnaby
>> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 11:25 AM
>> to have)
>>
>> Do not archive
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> You have repeated what an experienced 4 engine water bomber pilot, in
>> the Pacific northwest, told me when I asked him, as a newly minted pilot
>> in 1980, "What do you do when forced down in a forest?" He said to land
>> between two trees to shear off the wings to absorb and diminish a lot of
>> the energy involved in the landing.
>>
>> I filed that away on my brain's essential bus, hoping that I never have
>> to access it. However, since I began building my Glasair, with its one
>> piece wing that would be housing my valuable (at least to me) bottom at
>> an inhospitable landing site, I have wondered if the aiming between two
>> solid objects is a prudent idea. From a lay person perspective, the
>> Glasair wing is built hell-for-stout, and its fuelage anchor points seem
>> less so, as their function is mainly to keep the wing attached during
>> negative G. I have visions of landing between two trees still sitting in
>> the wing and the inertia of the empennage, still moving at 70 kts,
>> ruining any chance of smugness to which I might be entitled.
>>
>> Hopefully, I am over estimating the strength of that spar.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> John
>
>
>
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net>
Olen Goodwin wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin"
> <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
>
> I think the concern is that in some aircraft the wing is one piece,
> tip to tip. In that case the wing will probably come off...in one
> piece...but with catastrophic results for the person sitting on or
> behind the main spar, especially if the seat structure and/or harness
> is fastened to the wing structure. If the wing(s) come off and take
> the seat structure and occupant with it, it could be a real bad thing.
In a Glasair the control stick comes up directly out of the wing.
If the one-piece wing does become stationary while the rest of the
fuselage moves forward, it is going to be mighty painful in the tender bits.
However, I'm not sure hitting a tree straight-on with the fuselage
is going to be much better...
-Dj
Glasair 1 FT
do not archive
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
I don't vote for a TC or T&B as back-up, I vote for an attitude
indicator.
I have good sound reasons to say so and it is not based
on any pilot should be able to fly partial panel. It comes
from many years of giving instruction.
As Bob and others pointed out a T&B or TC does not tell
if the wings are level. I understand Bob's statement if you
are not yawing you are no turning, BUT you are also not
necessarily wings level.
Also on the other hand you can be wings level and be
yawing (turning). Example, a skidding turn w/ rudder and
opposite aileron. Wings level but yawing. The point is the
T&B and TC do not tell you if the wings are level.
Given the choice I would want a pictorial ATTITUDE
indication, with a direct indication of wing (roll) and
pitch, even though I know I can fly a T&B.
With a T&B as long as I keep it upright I am good, but
once you've lost it you're in a pretty bad situation and
may not survive. Statistics bare this out. I realize some
auto pilots are Yaw based but than they do a better
job keeping it upright than most pilots. I doubt many
yaw only autopilots can recover from an unusual
attitude.
Flying with only a T&B you have no direct indication of
the wings being level. With an attitude indicator you do,
which is better, obviously. I don't think I am going to
get an argument here.
However to recover from unusual attitude with just
altimeter, airspeed, T&B and slip skid ball (needle ball and
airspeed) is a real talent, and most pilots will NOT survive
if faced with this. This is fact based on studies. Many
vacume failures in IMC, leaving just the T&B has resulted
in the loss of aircraft and crew. What makes us think we
can survive, for real, under high stress actual IMC?
Who last practiced or last attempted an unusual attitude
recovery under the hood or IMC with just Needle Ball &
airspeed?
The best and only way to recover from a unusual nose
low dive or graveyard spiral is level the wings first before
applying back pressure. What is the best way to know
if the wings are level? An ATTITUDE indicator. A real
time pictorial depiction of aircraft roll and pitch.
So lets say IMC diving with only a T&B you get it to stop
yawing, where are the wings? How do you level the wings?
If in a hot homebuilt you are way past Vne and dead.
T&B and TC are dampened. Too much dampening they
are useless for recovery because of the lag. If they don't
have enough damping they are useless because they
are flopping around with any yaw or turbulence.
I appreciate Bob's old school attitude, but I have been
teaching in aviation for over 20 years and I know the
skills of mere mortals, typical pilots. They respond and
consistently perform better with an attitude display not
a yaw display. Many old time pilots have died trying
to fly after the Vac pump failed. The history of real
partial plane with real pilots in real IMC is poor.
I appreciates Bob's pride in being able to fly needle ball
and airspeed. I can do it too. However if you have not
done it, for real in turbulence or IMC in a small home
built with natural roll stability, sensitive control and a
low drag configuration that builds speed very fast when
pointed down hill, I think we would all want a back-up
ATTITUDE indicator.
Yaw is great but a picture of you wings being level is
more important or priceless as they commercial says.
With the advent of cheap battery powered ATTITUDE
indicators I think the day of T&B or TC only back up
are gone.
Now if you want to practice "partial panel" I suggest
you find a good safety pilot who knows their job, safety
and looking for traffic. Get a Francis IFR hood,
http://www.ifrhood.com/ ,
not an el-cheepo foggles or plastic visor. Use some
tape and cardboard paper and blank out areas of the
canopy you might cheat, peripheral or straight ahead,
but don't block the safety pilots view.
Best practice is at night over sparsely populated area.
Also a good idea is get ATC flight following for your
practice. Now do partial panel unusual attitude recovery.
Look down at the floor and let the safety pilot roll the
pitch the plane, who than will give it back to you as you
look up to the panel. If you can recover consistently
than good. Most will not with just a T&B. With an
attitude indicator everyone will recover with a little
practice. With just a T&B your chance of getting it
level is limited. Never let the speed get to Vne. The
safety pilot should take over early. There is no need
to push it. Of course the safety pilot must have enough
currency in type and visual clues to recover safely.
I am not talking about training that is so over the top
that no one can survive. I am talking about real training
that is realistic that gives you a real indication of your
ability to fly and recover IMC partial panel.
A Cessna you can almost just let go and it will almost
recover. A hot home built forget it; they have the stability
of a jet fighter. There was a time when more military
fighters where lost to IFR accidents than lost due to
combat.
That is my point. Don't cheat forget the T&B and TC if
you really want a back up. It's 2006; there are many
backup attitude indicators available for less than $1000.
They are all electric but so is a T&B or TC.
These are my opinions after 1000 hours teaching GA
and airline pilots in planes and simulators. I am NOT
saying you CAN'T fly with just a T&B but that is ONLY
and indirect indication of wing level. I don't think I will
get an argument that an ACTUAL indication of WING
level is better than an old fashion yaw indicator. I do
think it still has a place in the panel, but be realistic
in you ability to save the say with JUST a T&B.
Cheers George M. RV-4/RV-7 ATP, CFI-CFII-MEI
---------------------------------
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning George,
You wrote:
"The best and only way to recover from a unusual nose
low dive or graveyard spiral is level the wings first before
applying back pressure. What is the best way to know
if the wings are level? An ATTITUDE indicator. A real
time pictorial depiction of aircraft roll and pitch."
JFK Jr and Carnahan both had operative Attitude Indicators available.
They are both dead.
'Lectric Bobs Autopilot would have saved their lives.
Skill with either an attitude indicator, a T&B or a TC would also have saved
their lives.
My reasons for preferring the T&B over the TC have to do with how the mind
works. My reason for having the T&Bs in my panel has to do with cost,
reliability and availability.
To me, that means training to use a T&B combined with reasonable reliability
for the instrument used.
I totally disagree with your premise that an attitude indicator is "best" or
"better".
Best or Better is dependent on the training of the user, the reliability of
the instrument and the modes of failure.
When automatic flight becomes economically feasible and suitably reliable,
we will be able to have airplanes that anyone can fly with little or no
training.
I have no objection to that goal, but, in the meantime, I want what I can
afford.
The Air Bus is a step in the direction of machine controlled flight. As a
trained pilot, I am not sure I like that trend, but we have accepted a similar
scene with automobiles and all manner of other conveniences in our lives.
I agree that we will have to agree to disagree ---- Totally!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 6/21/2006 11:19:45 A.M. Central Standard Time,
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com writes:
I don't vote for a TC or T&B as back-up, I vote for an attitude
indicator.
I have good sound reasons to say so and it is not based
on any pilot should be able to fly partial panel. It comes
from many years of giving instruction.
As Bob and others pointed out a T&B or TC does not tell
if the wings are level. I understand Bob's statement if you
are not yawing you are no turning, BUT you are also not
necessarily wings level.
Also on the other hand you can be wings level and be
yawing (turning). Example, a skidding turn w/ rudder and
opposite aileron. Wings level but yawing. The point is the
T&B and TC do not tell you if the wings are level.
Given the choice I would want a pictorial ATTITUDE
indication, with a direct indication of wing (roll) and
pitch, even though I know I can fly a T&B.
With a T&B as long as I keep it upright I am good, but
once you've lost it you're in a pretty bad situation and
may not survive. Statistics bare this out. I realize some
auto pilots are Yaw based but than they do a better
job keeping it upright than most pilots. I doubt many
yaw only autopilots can recover from an unusual
attitude.
Flying with only a T&B you have no direct indication of
the wings being level. With an attitude indicator you do,
which is better, obviously. I don't think I am going to
get an argument here.
However to recover from unusual attitude with just
altimeter, airspeed, T&B and slip skid ball (needle ball and
airspeed) is a real talent, and most pilots will NOT survive
if faced with this. This is fact based on studies. Many
vacume failures in IMC, leaving just the T&B has resulted
in the loss of aircraft and crew. What makes us think we
can survive, for real, under high stress actual IMC?
Who last practiced or last attempted an unusual attitude
recovery under the hood or IMC with just Needle Ball &
airspeed?
The best and only way to recover from a unusual nose
low dive or graveyard spiral is level the wings first before
applying back pressure. What is the best way to know
if the wings are level? An ATTITUDE indicator. A real
time pictorial depiction of aircraft roll and pitch.
So lets say IMC diving with only a T&B you get it to stop
yawing, where are the wings? How do you level the wings?
If in a hot homebuilt you are way past Vne and dead.
T&B and TC are dampened. Too much dampening they
are useless for recovery because of the lag. If they don't
have enough damping they are useless because they
are flopping around with any yaw or turbulence.
I appreciate Bob's old school attitude, but I have been
teaching in aviation for over 20 years and I know the
skills of mere mortals, typical pilots. They respond and
consistently perform better with an attitude display not
a yaw display. Many old time pilots have died trying
to fly after the Vac pump failed. The history of real
partial plane with real pilots in real IMC is poor.
I appreciates Bob's pride in being able to fly needle ball
and airspeed. I can do it too. However if you have not
done it, for real in turbulence or IMC in a small home
built with natural roll stability, sensitive control and a
low drag configuration that builds speed very fast when
pointed down hill, I think we would all want a back-up
ATTITUDE indicator.
Yaw is great but a picture of you wings being level is
more important or priceless as they commercial says.
With the advent of cheap battery powered ATTITUDE
indicators I think the day of T&B or TC only back up
are gone.
Now if you want to practice "partial panel" I suggest
you find a good safety pilot who knows their job, safety
and looking for traffic. Get a Francis IFR hood,
_http://www.ifrhood.com/_ (http://www.ifrhood.com/) ,
not an el-cheepo foggles or plastic visor. Use some
tape and cardboard paper and blank out areas of the
canopy you might cheat, peripheral or straight ahead,
but don't block the safety pilots view.
Best practice is at night over sparsely populated area.
Also a good idea is get ATC flight following for your
practice. Now do partial panel unusual attitude recovery.
Look down at the floor and let the safety pilot roll the
pitch the plane, who than will give it back to you as you
look up to the panel. If you can recover consistently
than good. Most will not with just a T&B. With an
attitude indicator everyone will recover with a little
practice. With just a T&B your chance of getting it
level is limited. Never let the speed get to Vne. The
safety pilot should take over early. There is no need
to push it. Of course the safety pilot must have enough
currency in type and visual clues to recover safely.
I am not talking about training that is so over the top
that no one can survive. I am talking about real training
that is realistic that gives you a real indication of your
ability to fly and recover IMC partial panel.
A Cessna you can almost just let go and it will almost
recover. A hot home built forget it; they have the stability
of a jet fighter. There was a time when more military
fighters where lost to IFR accidents than lost due to
combat.
That is my point. Don't cheat forget the T&B and TC if
you really want a back up. It's 2006; there are many
backup attitude indicators available for less than $1000.
They are all electric but so is a T&B or TC.
These are my opinions after 1000 hours teaching GA
and airline pilots in planes and simulators. I am NOT
saying you CAN'T fly with just a T&B but that is ONLY
and indirect indication of wing level. I don't think I will
get an argument that an ACTUAL indication of WING
level is better than an old fashion yaw indicator. I do
think it still has a place in the panel, but be realistic
in you ability to save the say with JUST a T&B.
Cheers George M. RV-4/RV-7 ATP, CFI-CFII-MEI
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
Same thing on my SAL Mustang, I think the wing would still be at the point
of contact along with the seat and....
The solution would seem to be avoiding large, heavy stationary objects:-)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:55 AM
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net>
>
> Olen Goodwin wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin"
>> <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
>>
>> I think the concern is that in some aircraft the wing is one piece, tip
>> to tip. In that case the wing will probably come off...in one
>> piece...but with catastrophic results for the person sitting on or behind
>> the main spar, especially if the seat structure and/or harness is
>> fastened to the wing structure. If the wing(s) come off and take the
>> seat structure and occupant with it, it could be a real bad thing.
>
> In a Glasair the control stick comes up directly out of the wing. If
> the one-piece wing does become stationary while the rest of the fuselage
> moves forward, it is going to be mighty painful in the tender bits.
>
> However, I'm not sure hitting a tree straight-on with the fuselage is
> going to be much better...
>
> -Dj
> Glasair 1 FT
>
> do not archive
>
> --
> Dj Merrill - N1JOV
> Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
> http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/
>
> "Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
> airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 6/21/06 10:22:31 AM Central Daylight Time,
ogoodwin@comcast.net writes:
> If the wing(s) come off and take the seat structure and occupant
> with it, it could be a real bad thing.
>>>
Hop over to the RV-list archive and hunt for message from Grey Young dated
July 14, 2001. There were some pictures posted shortly thereafter that IIRC
showed that the spar, though bent, had remained intact with the wing ripped maybe
30-40 degrees from normal. Bear in mind that this is the earlier spar design
(RV-6) and I would surmise that the design of the newer spars would behave
quite differently. It is a harrowing story and we are truly lucky Greg was able
to relate the tale. Pretty harrowing...
Here's a direct link if it works:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=102136041?KEYS=greg_&_young?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=217?SERIAL=10492418029X?SHOWBUTTONS=YES
Mark do not archive
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Hello George,
In practice, if the 2 AI's disagree, how does the pilot break the tie (an
issue Bruce Gray has raised)? With a panel that has a T&B and single AI,
if there's conflict, no flag on the T&B, and the T&B wiggles, the T&B
wins.
Moving the controls to center the T&B and center the skid indicator should
yield upright wings-level flight. Coordinating application of ailerons and
rudder gets you there.
I don't have your years of instruction (nor that much hot homebuilt time -
mostly my Varieze, which is properly stable, and some RV time).. When
people have a tough time recovering from unusual attitudes, do they have
the ball centered, but just continue to turn? Or do they flop about,
varying in and out of coordination? Maybe marginally stable-unstable
airplanes that lack sophisticated autopilots are poor candidates for IFR
flight..
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
> I don't vote for a TC or T&B as back-up, I vote for an attitude
> indicator.
>
> I have good sound reasons to say so and it is not based
> on any pilot should be able to fly partial panel. It comes
> from many years of giving instruction.
>
> As Bob and others pointed out a T&B or TC does not tell
> if the wings are level. I understand Bob's statement if you
> are not yawing you are no turning, BUT you are also not
> necessarily wings level.
>
> Also on the other hand you can be wings level and be
> yawing (turning). Example, a skidding turn w/ rudder and
> opposite aileron. Wings level but yawing. The point is the
> T&B and TC do not tell you if the wings are level.
>
> Given the choice I would want a pictorial ATTITUDE
> indication, with a direct indication of wing (roll) and
> pitch, even though I know I can fly a T&B.
>
> With a T&B as long as I keep it upright I am good, but
> once you've lost it you're in a pretty bad situation and
> may not survive. Statistics bare this out. I realize some
> auto pilots are Yaw based but than they do a better
> job keeping it upright than most pilots. I doubt many
> yaw only autopilots can recover from an unusual
> attitude.
>
> Flying with only a T&B you have no direct indication of
> the wings being level. With an attitude indicator you do,
> which is better, obviously. I don't think I am going to
> get an argument here.
>
>
> However to recover from unusual attitude with just
> altimeter, airspeed, T&B and slip skid ball (needle ball and
> airspeed) is a real talent, and most pilots will NOT survive
> if faced with this. This is fact based on studies. Many
> vacume failures in IMC, leaving just the T&B has resulted
> in the loss of aircraft and crew. What makes us think we
> can survive, for real, under high stress actual IMC?
>
> Who last practiced or last attempted an unusual attitude
> recovery under the hood or IMC with just Needle Ball &
> airspeed?
>
> The best and only way to recover from a unusual nose
> low dive or graveyard spiral is level the wings first before
> applying back pressure. What is the best way to know
> if the wings are level? An ATTITUDE indicator. A real
> time pictorial depiction of aircraft roll and pitch.
>
> So lets say IMC diving with only a T&B you get it to stop
> yawing, where are the wings? How do you level the wings?
> If in a hot homebuilt you are way past Vne and dead.
>
> T&B and TC are dampened. Too much dampening they
> are useless for recovery because of the lag. If they don't
> have enough damping they are useless because they
> are flopping around with any yaw or turbulence.
>
> I appreciate Bob's old school attitude, but I have been
> teaching in aviation for over 20 years and I know the
> skills of mere mortals, typical pilots. They respond and
> consistently perform better with an attitude display not
> a yaw display. Many old time pilots have died trying
> to fly after the Vac pump failed. The history of real
> partial plane with real pilots in real IMC is poor.
>
>
> I appreciates Bob's pride in being able to fly needle ball
> and airspeed. I can do it too. However if you have not
> done it, for real in turbulence or IMC in a small home
> built with natural roll stability, sensitive control and a
> low drag configuration that builds speed very fast when
> pointed down hill, I think we would all want a back-up
> ATTITUDE indicator.
>
> Yaw is great but a picture of you wings being level is
> more important or priceless as they commercial says.
>
> With the advent of cheap battery powered ATTITUDE
> indicators I think the day of T&B or TC only back up
> are gone.
>
> Now if you want to practice "partial panel" I suggest
> you find a good safety pilot who knows their job, safety
> and looking for traffic. Get a Francis IFR hood,
>
> http://www.ifrhood.com/ ,
>
> not an el-cheepo foggles or plastic visor. Use some
> tape and cardboard paper and blank out areas of the
> canopy you might cheat, peripheral or straight ahead,
> but don't block the safety pilots view.
>
> Best practice is at night over sparsely populated area.
> Also a good idea is get ATC flight following for your
> practice. Now do partial panel unusual attitude recovery.
> Look down at the floor and let the safety pilot roll the
> pitch the plane, who than will give it back to you as you
> look up to the panel. If you can recover consistently
> than good. Most will not with just a T&B. With an
> attitude indicator everyone will recover with a little
> practice. With just a T&B your chance of getting it
> level is limited. Never let the speed get to Vne. The
> safety pilot should take over early. There is no need
> to push it. Of course the safety pilot must have enough
> currency in type and visual clues to recover safely.
>
> I am not talking about training that is so over the top
> that no one can survive. I am talking about real training
> that is realistic that gives you a real indication of your
> ability to fly and recover IMC partial panel.
>
> A Cessna you can almost just let go and it will almost
> recover. A hot home built forget it; they have the stability
> of a jet fighter. There was a time when more military
> fighters where lost to IFR accidents than lost due to
> combat.
>
> That is my point. Don't cheat forget the T&B and TC if
> you really want a back up. It's 2006; there are many
> backup attitude indicators available for less than $1000.
> They are all electric but so is a T&B or TC.
>
> These are my opinions after 1000 hours teaching GA
> and airline pilots in planes and simulators. I am NOT
> saying you CAN'T fly with just a T&B but that is ONLY
> and indirect indication of wing level. I don't think I will
> get an argument that an ACTUAL indication of WING
> level is better than an old fashion yaw indicator. I do
> think it still has a place in the panel, but be realistic
> in you ability to save the say with JUST a T&B.
>
>
> Cheers George M. RV-4/RV-7 ATP, CFI-CFII-MEI
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
>
>
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Greg Young <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
I was debating weighing in on this topic since it's not 'lectric oriented but since
you brought it up... I am still here as testimony to the ability to disipate
energy thru the bending, breaking or shedding of parts. You do not want a
significant vertical impact. I had > 1500fpm vertical but was fortunate enough
to judge the "flare" well enough to splat the airplane and crush the gear and
seat ribs without doing too much damage to my back. Hitting the tree disipated
a lot of energy by bending the spar 90 deg and scissoring the wing and fuselage
about 40 deg. Seemingly every piece of metal bent - all using energy that
did not go into me. The wing tried to wrap itself around the tree causing the
hulk to rotate around the tree and then pop off - all of which eased the deceleration.
Even the strongest spars are not designed for the fore and aft forces of hitting
a tree horizontally. They WILL bend or rip off - absorbing energy that your
body won't have to and hopefully allowing a survivable deceleration. The sudden
stop, either vertical or horizontal, will kill you. Horizontal deceleration
even over very short distances can save you. And fly it as far into the crash
as possible. I changed my ground path after the splat enough to keep from hitting
the tree head on. Luck helps but you can make your own luck. Save your butt,
not the airplane.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
Sent: Wed 06/21/06 12:59 PM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 6/21/06 10:22:31 AM Central Daylight Time,
ogoodwin@comcast.net writes:
> If the wing(s) come off and take the seat structure and occupant
> with it, it could be a real bad thing.
>>>
Hop over to the RV-list archive and hunt for message from Grey Young dated
July 14, 2001. There were some pictures posted shortly thereafter that IIRC
showed that the spar, though bent, had remained intact with the wing ripped maybe
30-40 degrees from normal. Bear in mind that this is the earlier spar design
(RV-6) and I would surmise that the design of the newer spars would behave
quite differently. It is a harrowing story and we are truly lucky Greg was able
to relate the tale. Pretty harrowing...
Here's a direct link if it works:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=102136041?KEYS=greg_&_young?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=217?SERIAL=10492418029X?SHOWBUTTONS=YES
Mark do not archive
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Z-16 OV variation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Bob,
Hope you won't mind my sending again this message about figure Z 16 :
> Bob,
>
> Thank you for responding.
> By the way, my buddy also raised an issue apropos the OV protection in
> figure Z16. He suggests that the sense (C) wire be connected to the
> capacitor and never be severed, lest the Rotax regulator should lose
> voltage reference and go berserk.
>
> What's your opinion ?
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Z-16 OV simplification ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> OV protection needs to be discriminating (not to nuisance
> trip on true transient conditions) but they also need
> to have absolute control over the alternator in terms of
> shutting it off.
>
>
Bob,
Thanks again.
Regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 6/21/2006 1:42:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather@spro.net writes:
Hello George,
In practice, if the 2 AI's disagree, how does the pilot break the tie (an
issue Bruce Gray has raised)? With a panel that has a T&B and single AI,
if there's conflict, no flag on the T&B, and the T&B wiggles, the T&B
wins.
Moving the controls to center the T&B and center the skid indicator should
yield upright wings-level flight. Coordinating application of ailerons and
rudder gets you there.
Good Evening Matt,
Methinks you have it precisely correct!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|