---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 06/21/06: 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:57:14 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: More on the TC vs T&B --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:45:44 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:30:25 AM PST US From: Brett Ferrell Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brett Ferrell 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 : > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:17:32 AM PST US From: "Olen Goodwin" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" 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 > > > 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 : > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" >> >> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:58:58 AM PST US From: Dj Merrill Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill Olen Goodwin wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:22:55 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:58:16 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:50:07 AM PST US From: "Olen Goodwin" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" 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 > > Olen Goodwin wrote: >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" >> >> >> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:04:04 AM PST US From: Fiveonepw@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:40:15 AM PST US From: "Matt Prather" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" 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: > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:26:08 PM PST US From: Greg Young Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Greg Young 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:26:09 PM PST US From: Gilles Thesee Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z-16 OV variation --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:26:12 PM PST US From: Gilles Thesee Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-16 OV simplification ? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:37:35 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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