Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:08 AM - Re: F-35 accident (BobsV35B@aol.com)
2. 08:41 AM - Re: F-35 accident (Randy L. Thwing)
3. 09:17 AM - Re: F-35 accident (Robert J. Mayer)
4. 10:03 AM - Query about ruddervators (and what to do about them) (Marcos R. Della)
5. 11:35 AM - Re: T&B Was: F-35 accident (BobsV35B@aol.com)
6. 11:40 AM - Query about ruddervators (and what to do about them) (Weber, Barry [LFS])
7. 11:49 AM - Re: F-35 accident (BobsV35B@aol.com)
8. 04:44 PM - Re: Query about ruddervators (and what to do about them) (carmine pecoraro)
9. 06:51 PM - Shadin Miniflo Fuel Flow Meter (Thom Cook)
10. 06:57 PM - Re: Shadin Miniflo Fuel Flow Meter (BobsV35B@aol.com)
11. 07:35 PM - Re: Shadin Miniflo Fuel Flow Meter (Thom Cook)
12. 11:13 PM - Re: Shadin Miniflo Fuel Flow Meter (Frank Stutzman)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: F-35 accident |
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 8/13/03 10:25:29 PM Central Daylight Time, gstrong@att.net
writes:
> One more thing - do either of you (or anyone else) have a 2 1/4 turn and
> bank indicator OR turn coordinator? Mine came with a 2 1/4" turn and
> bank indicator that says 1 minute turns.
Good Morning Gary,
I have used a two and one quarter inch sized turn and bank for the last
twelve years. The failure rate has been quite high. My instrument guru tells
me
that the only good ones built that size are the ones built for the military.
They are around five thousand bucks apiece.
On top of that, I have noted that I am not including it in my scan as much as
I formerly did. I am not sure how long my last one had been failed before I
picked up that it had gone belly up.
I was giving one of my sons an instrument competency check in my airplane.
When I "failed" his attitude and heading gyros so as to make him shoot a
partial panel non precision approach, he asked if I had failed the T&B as well.
It
wasn't until then that either he or I had noted that it wasn't working!
In addition to it being a small sized instrument, I had placed it on the
center instrument panel in a major panel rebuild conducted in 1991.
I have decided that it should be returned to it's place of honor directly to
the left of my HSI and that I need to go back to the old way of checking every
turn to see whether or not it is at standard rate. I don't mean to imply
that every turn must be made at standard rate, just that I want something that
will force me to look at that needle every time I make a turn!
I am strongly of the belief that any back up should be something that is used
all the time.
If it should fail, it is imperative that we pick up on that failure
immediately. That is my gripe with standby attitude indicators. They are rarely
used
in normal everyday flying. I suppose that, if they are installed side by side
in the panel, a failure of one will be noted, but most of the ones I have
seen installed are NOT so placed. The ones we had in the airplanes I flew my
former life were in the center instrument panel. That's further away from the
primary flight panel than is the radio stack in my Bonanza!
While I am on this soap box, may I strongly recommend that you use a real
Turn And Bank, (preferably a full sized one) not one of those abominable Turn
Coordinators. I have written many long and boring diatribes as to why. I won't
repeat it now, but will expand if anyone desires to hear more.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
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: F-35 accident |
--> Beech-List message posted by: "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v@mindspring.com>
Hello Bob:
The original T & B in my Straight 35 is TU (variation of "belly up") and
am trying to decide what to replace it with. I don't know the difference
between a T & B and a TC. If you'll write about the difference and why one
is preferred, I'll gratefully read it.
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, Straight 35, Las Vegas, NV
> may I strongly recommend that you use a real
> Turn And Bank, (preferably a full sized one) not one of those abominable
Turn
> Coordinators. I have written many long and boring diatribes as to why. I
won't
> repeat it now, but will expand if anyone desires to hear more.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
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: F-35 accident |
--> Beech-List message posted by: "Robert J. Mayer" <rjmayer@optonline.net>
> In addition to it being a small sized instrument, I had placed it on the
> While I am on this soap box, may I strongly recommend that you use a real
> Turn And Bank, (preferably a full sized one) not one of those abominable
Turn
> Coordinators. I have written many long and boring diatribes as to why. I
won't
> repeat it now, but will expand if anyone desires to hear more.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
Old Bob:
If you don't mind, I for one would like to hear your diatribe on the virtues
of a "real Turn & Bank" as opposed to one of those "abominable Turn
Coordinators". I don't know about the others on the list, but I don't find
your comments boring by any stretch of the imagination! Your knowledgeable
"diatribes" are always welcome by this lister! Keep up the 'good work'
Rob
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: | Query about ruddervators (and what to do about them) |
--> Beech-List message posted by: "Marcos R. Della" <mdella@cstone.com>
Speaking of older Bonanzas and ruddervators, I have a few questions. I'm not sure
if this is a topic for this list, but here it goes...
I have a C-35 (D3865) with an E225 that has a heavy slip to the right. At cruise,
I have to use basically both feet to step on the left rudder to keep the ball
centered. On takeoff and climb or when travelling under around 100 kts, it
works pretty normally and I only see this need at around 130kts and higher.
Since I'm new to the Bonanza game, I don't have the experiance to go looking for
the problem. Pouring through the shop manuals and looking at the differential,
I can't determine (without the centering guide mentioned in the shop manual)
if the thing is set up correctly. The local shop that does the annual doesn't
have experiance in this particular area and so I'm looking for some advice
on what the problem might be (for me to diagnose further) as well as any recommendations
on someone with experiance in this area in the Monterey, CA area (or
something in a 150mi radius :-)
I must say, its rather annoying flying with both feet on the rudder. If I just
fly without this correction, I lose around 6-8 kts of airspeed. I have other
things that I need to start looking at (I just aquired this aircraft and now
am trying to do the complete teardown/inspection/rebuild as best as I can) and
also am looking for advice on resource areas (documentation, web sites, etc).
If all the pointers are all over the place, I'll try and collect them all on a
single site. Since I'm one of the many unemployed website builders out there,
I suppose this can be my next "honey do" project :-)
Marcos Della (mdella@cstone.com)
Bonaza C35 (D3865) N607D
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: T&B Was: F-35 accident |
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 8/14/03 11:22:00 AM Central Daylight Time,
rjmayer@optonline.net writes:
> If you don't mind, I for one would like to hear your diatribe on the
> virtues
> of a "real Turn &Bank" as opposed to one of those "abominable Turn
> Coordinators".
>
>
Good Afternoon Rob,
Thanks for your interest!
This will be so long that I will break it up into two messages.
I went back through some of my records and found a few things that I have
written on the T&B versus the TC.
I haven't read this stuff recently and I haven't put it in any particular
order, but if you care to spend the time to read it, maybe you will come up=20with
questions you would like answered.
If that is the case, I would be happy to attempt some answers.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Subj: Re: Was Personal Minimums, now a long and boring discussion of T&Bs and
stuff
From: jtsmall@onramp.net (John Small)
Bob, I have just finished re-reading this msg and it still glows as a beacon
in
the dark. In all seriousness, why not submit it intact to IFR Magazine for
consideration? I really think it is that good and on the level, if not in
excess, of what they regularly publish. That along with Aviation Consumer
are
the two magazines I read cover to cover the moment they hit my mail box!=20=A0
Of
course there are a lot more aviation publications cluttering up my house. <g>
-jts
Beech P35 (N519BD)
Arlington Municipal (GKY)
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u191389&a1403055
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:32:54 EST, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
Good Morning All,
I returned last night to find some four hundred messages on my E-mail, most
of them in some way related to the tragic crash in Newark.
My quick scan noted several references to back up instrumentation and at
least one request asking how others have dealt with that quest.
A couple of folks noted my personal preference for a Turn and Bank instrument
over the now almost universally used Turn Coordinator instrument.
I do have comments considering what has been done to provide redundancy but=20I
want to discuss my reasons for choosing the T&B first.
To make sure we are all on the same track, the Turn Coordinator is a
development of the T&B.=A0 The first units were used as a stabilization device
for an autopilot developed by one of the major corporations. I believe it
was ITT, but someone else may have better information.
That autopilot used a standard T&B mounted within the magic box of the
autopilot, not on the instrument panel. I believe it was mounted at an
angle
of about thirty-five or forty degrees. By mounting the control box in the
same plane as the level position of the aircraft, the T&B ended up in the
"canted" or "inclined" attitude.
One of the tenants of mounting the standard T&B in the days when those were=20a
primary instrument, was that it must be mounted so that the face of the
instrument was in a vertical plane parallel to the vertical axis of the
aircraft. This was necessary to eliminate, or at least minimize, the effect
of roll on the instrument. The T&B was designed to tell the operator that
the aircraft was turning, nothing else.
By mounting the instrument with the front end (the part toward the nose of
the aircraft) above the back or face that we read, it became sensitive to
roll as well as turn. I understand that it has been tried at many different
angles. I am not sure what is currently used, but believe it to be somewhat
less than forty-five degrees. Thirty-five or so is what comes to mind.
Someone felt that there might be an advantage to presenting information to
the pilot in a similar manner and the Turn Coordinator was born.
Whether the airplane is rolled or yawed, the Turn Coordinator indicates
something!
Seems like a good idea doesn't it? If a wing drops (roll) a turn is likely
to follow. The canted or inclined gyro would give an indication to the
autopilot or the operator to take action to stop the impending turn. Most
of
the early GA autopilots would use aileron for that purpose and viola, we had
the early wing levelers!
One of the first things that bothered me about the early Turn Coordinators
was the following effect. If a takeoff was initiated immediately following
a
turn onto the runway, the Turn Coordinator would show a wing down indication
even though the wheels were solidly on the ground and holding the aircraft in
a very stable horizontally level position. A phone call to the manufacturer
elicited the information that the unit was operating as it was supposed to
do. In order to make the turn coordinator modification to the standard T&B
usable, it was necessary to heavily dampen the response or it would wiggle
too much to be usable.
Over the years, different manufacturers have used different amounts of
dampening, but the Turn Coordinators still do not give as rapid a response to
a yawing moment as do the T&Bs.
The next thing that bothered me about the Turn Coordinator was the
presentation which was almost identical to that of the artificial horizon.=20=A0
I
found that students often tried to make pitch corrections while watching the
instrument for verification of their input.
This was not as big a problem for beginning instrument pilots as it was for
very experienced ones who would take action by reflex borne from long
experience rather than thought on what needed to be done!
After several years of using Turn Coordinators for primary training and for
recurrent checks and training, I came to the conclusion that students who
used the older T&B for training and in normal flight, had a lot less
difficulty with partial panel on recurrent competency checks than did those
who trained on and regularly used Turn Coordinators.
The T&B seems to take longer to learn to use, but gives better long term
results than the TC.
NO ONE has ever mistaken a T&B for an artificial horizon! That often happens
with a TC.
When the turn coordinator shows a "wing down" indication, there is no way to
tell if the wing is down or a yaw has developed.
If the nose is not allowed to turn, the airplane will not spin in, spiral
dive or grave yard spiral into terra firmae!
Don't let it turn and, if the airplane is in trim, nothing drastic is likely
to occur.
(As an aside, the argument could be made that if the wings are held level,
nothing much is likely to happen either. Think about the 747-400 that came
within 70 feet of scattering bodies and aluminum over San Francisco. He
held
his wings level, but because there was no rudder input, the spoilers were
extended, the airplane was descending and the heading changed enough to take
the aircraft off the track which was designed to take it between the hills.=20=A0
If that pilot had not allowed the airplane to turn, it would have been a non
event whether the wings were level or not!)
I can't imagine any instrument being more reliable than the standard T&B,
though I have had them fail.
It must be noted that I learned to fly instruments in the days when the use
of an artificial horizon and directional gyro was not allowed on the flight
test.
That resulted in most IFR training airplanes not being equipped with either
of those attitude instruments.
Most small GA airplanes which were regularly flown IFR had either a DG or one
of the stabilized compasses added to make rolling out on a heading easier.=20=A0
Other than that, we tended to use rate flying as opposed to the current
method of attitude flying.
The military services during WWII equipped every airplane that was intended
for IFR flight with a "full panel" and the airlines had used such a panel
since well before the war.
Shortly after WWII, the military officially started to train their primary
students in the attitude method of flight and somewhere in the late fifties
or early sixties the FAA followed suite.
I don't know whether the old way or the new way is the best, but I do know
that you can turn out an adequate instrument pilot using the attitude method
in less time and therefore at lower cost than you can using the rate method.
I also know that instrument pilots who flew a couple of years and a few
hundred hours on the T&B, rate based panel before the days when the
government mandated the use of a full panel never have any trouble flying
partial panel.
The same cannot be said even for very experienced pilots who have only flown
partial panel during training and checking.
The most difficult thing is to identify the failure of the artificial
horizon. It is also very difficult to fly partial panel when the failed
attitude instrument is leaning over where it doesn't belong! Pasties or
other cover-up devices are almost mandatory.
I would imagine that my confidence in the T&B is at least partially
responsible for my hate of the TC, but I also feel that I gave it several
years to convince me otherwise.
As to what has been used in the past as back up devices, John Miller, who
will be 94 this month and still fly's his Bonanza IFR several hundred hours=20a
year, told me about a device which he carried in his old C model. He rigged
up a venturi on a board that was sized to fit in the pilot vent window.=20The
venturi was connected by a rubber hose to a standard vacuum T&B which he then
placed on the top of the instrument panel.
The first airplane on which I regularly flew Captain was the Convair 340.=20=A0
It
was an all electric airplane, no air system at all! Northeast had one on
which a wrench or some other tool had been left on the electrical compartment
and it shorted out the whole shebang. All of the emergency and battery
busses as well as normal things.
These guys were in a whole lot of hurt! Fortunately, they were on top in
the
late afternoon and had some time to think things out. They felt that they
knew their position fairly well and I will shorten this dissertation enough
to state that they let down through a four or five hundred foot overcast and
broke out over Long Island Sound. They recognized their position by
landmarks along the shore, flew to and landed at LaGuardia.=A0 It was by then
quite dark and no one knew they were on the ground until someone complained
of an unlit airplane taxiing on a taxiway!
That bothered me enough that I took a twenty-eight volt T&B, taped three nine
volt "B" batteries around it, equipped it with a switch and carried the thing
with me in my flight bag. I could place it on the glare shield with the
forward end setting on a coffee cup holder that Convair had conveniently
supplied and I had a comfortable method of flying the airplane! Worked like
a charm!
My first two Bonanzas had a directional gyro, but no horizon, That was the
most common configuration before the Feds required a full panel. Both
airplanes had come that way from the factory and were equipped with a vacuum
T&B as well. I added an electric T&B and felt that I had as much redundancy
as anyone could ever want!
My current airplane has only one airpowered instrument, the attitude
indicator. That supplies the information for my number one autopilot.=20=A0 My
number two autopilot is a turn coordinator that uses a canted gyro for
information.
I feel very comfortable that I have sufficient back up for my type of flying.
If I were to have a complete electrical failure along with a failure of the
pneumatic air system on takeoff, I would probably lose the airplane. But if
I were at altitude, I would get out one of my hand held GPS units and use it
to tell me if I was turning or not. Given reasonable time to acclimate,=20I
think it would be usable for going generally in one direction without losing
control, but I don't think trying to comply with ATC instructions would be in
my repertoire.
I have practiced keeping it right side up with just the panel mount GPS, but
I have not yet tried it with the handhelds. My handhelds do not update
anywhere near as well as my panel unit.
I do have a standby alternator that will come on the line automatically
following a failure of the primary one. Hopefully there will never be a
complete electrical failure, but it did happen to that Northeast Convair and
to one of our Musketeer instrument trainers many years ago.
As to my personal minima, I fly to the FARs. I enjoy single pilot IFR and I
like flying to low minima. Shooting an approach to minima is fun and if=20the
approach is completed, it can be very satisfying. If a miss is required,
that too can be a satisfying experience if you have plenty of fuel and places
to go. Always the opportunity for a new experience. I have found that non
completed trips often allow me to meet a lot of interesting folks at out of
the way places.
As has been mentioned by many others, single pilot IFR is a lot different
than multiple crew operations. Crew Resource Management is a neat catch
phrase. What it amounts to for the single pilot is organization to see that
one does not try to do too much.
I find that in my current aircraft, I have so many options that it is easy to
divide my attention to the point that I don't do a good job of flying the
airplane. I must decide what functions I really need and let the others=20go
by the board.
One thing at a time for me.
Younger folks might be able to do more, but I think simple tasks are all I
want to do and not too many of those. If I am shooting a GPS approach, I
may
set up the VHF Nav for something else in the area, but I don't try to cross
check unless I have a suspicion that something may not be going well and then
it would likely lead me to initiate a miss to sort things out rather than
trying to figure out what was going on that caused the discrepancy.
I do have dual glide slopes which I tune for all low ILS approaches. They
are mounted side by side and I find them easy to cross check.
Remember that Personal Minima are just that! They are what works and feels
comfortable for you
Well, I guess that is about all the space I am allowed for this week!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Good Morning John,
I wrote the following answer to your question. After I finished,
I wondered if it might be of interest to a few of the others on the
Bonanza list. If you feel that it would, would you mind sending
the question that you sent me and this answer to the list?
Thanks,
Old Bob
In a message dated 4/28/00 11:04:13 PM Central Daylight Time,
jtsmall@onramp.net writes:
<< Do you carry that now ... or asked another way, what backup
power system do you use? Actually I recall you have a standby
alternator and that would be good providing you can still the power
to the avionics bus after the main alternator or other component
failed. >>
Good Morning John,
Very kind of you to archive those old thoughts. Some of them
still sound good, even to me!
I haven't carried the battery pack since the Convair days. I did
carry it with me in my Bonanza in those days, but somewhere
I just quit. Don't know why.
I suppose that I have become complacent. I have had pneumatic
pumps fail, both pressure and vacuum, though that has usually
been in airplanes which I did not personally maintain. I have had
several alternators fail as well. Along the way I have had a few
cases of instrument failure.
The most difficult to handle were the horizon failures. Even
after the failure is determined, it is very difficult to tell your
brain to disregard that information. As soon as your mind
starts to think of something else, your subconscious habits
take over and input a correction to that horizon that has become
lazy. I now carry a rubber stick-on cover to use in the event of
a horizon failure. Once it is covered up, I have no problem
maintaining proper attitude via the remaining instrumentation.
I never incurred a failure affecting my instrumentation in as
critical a time as did Itzahk. Who knows what any of us
might have done.
I have always noted my pneumatic system and electrical failures
long before they became a problem. That was true before the
current warning devices became available. I now have a nice big
red light that will let me know the alternator has failed, but my
only indication of pneumatic failure is the action of the horizon or
the indication on the pressure gauge. I think a Gizmo or similar
device would be a good idea.
My intention is to go all electric. Eliminate the pressure pump
entirely. The big hold up is my horizon. It provides the information
for my primary roll autopilot. The manufacturer originally had an
electric one available, but the failure rate was so high, they quit
making it.
Once I solve that problem, I will eliminate the air!
My standby alternator works great. It is a very simple installation.=20=A0
It is hooked up to the basic electrical system and is running all of
the time. No clutches, relays or anything else mechanical to fail.
Anytime the electrical system voltage falls below 26 volts, the
standby alternator starts to put out power. It will do that if the only
problem is that the primary alternator is overloaded and can't keep
up. A yellow light comes on to warn me that the standby alternator
is in use, but no action is required on my part other than to monitor
the load when I have time. The standby alternator is capable of
putting out 30 or 35 amps for a short period of time. If it had a
cooling blast tube run to it, that power could probably be carried
for quite a while. However that isn't necessary. It is a simple job
to reduce the loads to keep them within the output rating of the
alternator without the additional cooling and I don't want to waste
all of that nice cooling air during normal operations.
I installed a load meter and appropriate switching capability so
that I can directly monitor the electrical system, but Bill Bainbridge
has since gotten a device approved which will flash the yellow light
anytime the alternator is putting out more than twenty amps. The
operator can then reduce load until the light stops flashing.
I find that my normal night time running load with everything going,
including the pitot heat, is just at, or a little over, 20 amps. If I
turn off either the rotating beacon or the strobes, the load goes
below twenty amps.
If one has the twelve volt system, as do you, load management would
be a little more important, but you still have plenty of time to take
care of it before the little alternator would be in trouble. I can't imagine
how it could be made simpler or more reliable. It is a vast
improvement over the complicated load reduction device that Beech
used and I absolutely don't want something that has to have a clutch
or that takes any action on my part to become operative.
I don't think any standby device that takes a pilot action to be put
in operation is worth having. Redundancy is another matter. If I were
really enamored with a pneumatic system as a source of instrument
power, I would install dual pumps and set it up just like a light twin.
Both pumps would be operative at all times with a shuttle valve for
isolation. The only trouble is that those shuttle valves have been
known to fail when an engine was shut down.
I think air driven instruments are from the dark ages! I like open
cockpits, but I don't want one on my Bonanza.
I don't know how I will handle things if George gets his ignition system
approved. Provided it is priced within my capability, I would like to
have it. I don't know if my standby alternator system will satisfy the
FAA as providing adequate redundancy or not. Obviously, if you lose
all electrical while flying with the full electronic ignition, the engine
quits!
Reliability and redundancy of the electrical system becomes a very
important factor in the equation, but we do fly with one engine
don't we?
Decisions, decisions, all the time decisions!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Subj: Re: Standby Attitude Indicator=A0
From: Bobs V35B
In a message dated 2/17/02 12:36:10 AM Central Standard Time,
ljames3@austin.rr.com writes:
> I could not
> get to a situation where there was a turn with the TC showing wings level.
>
Good Morning Larry,
You won't find a situation where the aircraft is in a
turn with the TC showing wings level unless the
aircraft is also rolling in the direction opposite to
the turn. In any case, it wouldn't last that way
for long!
The TC is NOT an attitude indicator.
It is a rate indicator. It will show the rate of roll
and/or the rate of turn.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It is relatively easy to demonstrate that it can
show "wings level" when the wings are not level.
All you have to do is place the aircraft in knife
edge flight.
When you have it stabilized, no rolling and no
turning, the indicator will show "wings level."
The instrument is nothing more than a standard
T&B gyro mounted so that it will sense both roll
and yaw. It can't tell which is happening and it
shows the same indication for both.
To my knowledge, the idea was first used by a
professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology
who built and certified an early wingleveler, or
single axis autopilot, shortly after WWII.
He used a standard T&B mounted so that the
nose was high. When it is rolled, it thinks it
is turning. When it yaws it is telling the truth.
Since most turns are preceded by a roll in the
direction of the desired turn, reading that roll
gives the autopilot an indication that a turn is
likely to commence very soon.
The "canted gyro" thus allowed for a faster
counter control input with a very low cost
sensor.
A very ingenious idea which was picked up
later by several of the wing leveler
manufacturers.
The difference between pilots and autopilots
is that we tend to think and analyze.
When our thinking mechanism is all messed
up with incorrect information, our analysis
sometimes is faulty and we input the wrong
corrective action.
The mechanical devices don't have that problem.
As you discovered with your investigation, if the
turn is stopped, the modern airplane will pretty
well take care of the rest.
As Cy Galley noted, many airplanes built to
designs developed in the twenties and thirties
will roll into a spin if aileron is used to pick up
a wing right at the point of stall. Therefore we
are all taught to use the rudder for directional
control when at that point and leave the ailerons
where they are.
Not required for modern designs, but it works
with them as well, so why not do it that way?
It is a similar situation with the TC and the T&B.=A0
If the function and capability of both are well
understood, a trained pilot can fly partial panel
with either.
If either the T&B or the TC are telling us that we
are turning, the appropriate way to stop that turn
is to utilize a coordinated input of aileron and
rudder to stop that turn.
Once again. the key thing here is to
STOP the TURN.
The problem comes when we humans are
confused.
Autopilots don't get confused. They may fail or
the aircraft may be outside the limits at which
the autopilot can exert adequate control, but
they don't get confused!
We humans do.
Since the one thing that is most likely to be
required to prevent disaster is to stop the turn,
it is my opinion that we need to present to the
aviator an indication that tells him/her that
the aircraft is turning.
The TC and the T&B will both do that.
So will a spinning directional indicator, a moving
map display and a multitude of other indications
that may or not be available.
If the pilot is able to discern that the aircraft is
in a turn, and if control input is effected in the
correct direction, we should be able to stop
the turn. A properly trimmed aircraft will regain
steady flight on it's own, if there is room to do
so and we can just keep it from turning.
So why do I keep promoting the T&B over the TC?
Because I feel that it is very difficult to resolve
the conflict between what our senses are telling
us and what the instruments are saying.
I also feel that it is much easier for us to accept
the fact that the airplane is turning than it is to
accept the fact that our senses are telling us
that "level" is somewhere other than where we
think it is.
Therefore, I want to concentrate on determining
whether or not the airplane is turning and stop
that turn at all costs using the best combination
of controls to do so.
I don't even want my mind to consider whether or
not the wings are level. If my mind wants to be
confused, I'll let it be confused, just so long as
the airplane is NOT turning.
The turn indicator presents nothing but turn
information.
That is what we need to know and react upon.
Keep It Simple!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Subj: Re: Back-Up Attitude Indicator=A0
From: Bobs V35B
In a message dated 2/12/02 11:12:44 PM Central Standard Time, lcg@inreach.com
writes:
> Hello Bob,
>
=A0=A0=A0 I know that you are not a fan of TC's and definitely prefer the simpler
turn indicator, but I forgot why. Could you please refresh my memory.=20=A0
Thanks,
A different Larry
Good Evening Different Larry,
The Turn Coordinator shows the same indication
for both a roll or a yaw. Therefore, it never tells
you for sure what is happening. Ergo, it is
always telling a lie.
If you are flying a steady knife edge, it will show
that the wings are level. Pure fabrication on
it's part.
It presents a picture that looks very similar to
an artificial horizon. That tends to make one
think of leveling the wings whereas the important
thing is to stop the turn.
If the aircraft does not turn, it will survive=A0=A0=A0 -----=A0=A0 period!
When we get confused and don't know quite
what is happening, it is very difficult to convince
ourselves that the sensations that we feel are
incorrect. That is why pilots so often input a
control that rolls the aircraft in the wrong direction.
Most of us don't have anywhere near as much
resistance to accepting that we are turning when
our senses tell us that we are not as we do in
accepting the fact that we have a wing down
when the aircraft is actually level.
With a turn needle, there is absolutely no way
to interpret it as anything other than a device
that tells us whether we are turning or not turning.
If we forget about the wings being level and just
accept that we must stop the turn whether the
wings are level or not, it is much easier to make
the proper correction.
The fact that we still think the wings are not level
doesn't make any difference at all.
If the airplane doesn't turn, we will survive!
I have absolutely no scientific research to back up
these thoughts, but the accident statistics do show
that aircraft upset accidents have become common
since the advent of the turn coordinator. There are
training complications involved, but I strongly feel
that placing the emphasis on turning instead of
placing the emphasis on wings level is the
primary point.
The T&B directs our thoughts toward the turn.
The Turn Coordinator tends to make us think
about the position of the wings. That is what
our minds find so difficult to accept when we
have lost our equilibrium.
The FAA now says that the first thing we
should do is to level the wings.
I think the first thing that we should think
about is to stop the turn.
If that includes leveling the wings, so much
the better, but if our mind tells us that the
wings are not level, but the aircraft is not
turning, we have already saved the day.
The T&B is relatively low cost.
It is the most reliable gyro instrument
that we have ever had.
It is light weight.
It is very easy to spot a failure, if it
wiggles, it is working!
That's about it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 2/17/02 8:41:09 PM Central Standard Time,
mach25@swbell.net writes:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPECITE style"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT:
5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> I remember asking if the TC ever gave
the wrong
indication and I believe he said yes, that if you are in an inverted spin
the TC will tell you the wrong turn direction and the T&B will still give
you the right answer.
Good Morning Jeff,
Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, I am not sure
which, I have never knowingly been in an inverted spin.
There were a couple of cases where I was confused
and not sure what was happening, but the aircraft
were not equipped with either a T&B or TC and I
doubt if my mind was working well enough to observe
them had they been available!
Without a very good knowledge of the dynamics of an
inverted spin, I don't feel I am able to analyze the
situation and the response of a TC competently.
However, they are both based on the same sort of
gyro and should show something similar. The
major difference would be the relationship of the
axis of rotation of the gyro to the axis of rotation
of the aircraft. Since airplanes can spin, both right
side up and inverted in so many different attitudes,
or angles of "flatness," I think it might be hard to
predict what the response of either instrument might be.
As an aside, Bill Kershner, an acknowledged guru
of spins in GA airplanes has found out something
rather interesting.
He was asked about the position of the ball during
a spin. Tests showed rather scattered results. He
then mounted one inclinometer on the far right side
of the panel and one on the far left. The result of
spin tests in that configuration showed that the ball
of the instrument always went to the side on which
it was mounted regardless of the direction of the turn.
His tests were done in one of the aerobatic Cessna 150s.
I wonder if the answer to your question might not
vary with the aircraft in which the tests are conducted,
the center of gravity, the rotation axis of the airplane
and the position within the aircraft at which the
sensing instrument was mounted.
In any case, I would hazard a guess that there is
unlikely to be an indication on a TC in a different
direction than one on a T&B.
Remember, I am often wrong!
It all depends.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
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: | Query about ruddervators (and what to do about them) |
--> Beech-List message posted by: "Weber, Barry [LFS]" <BWEBER1@LFSUS.JNJ.com>
"I have a C-35 (D3865) with an E225 that has a heavy slip to the right."
Marcos,
I just went through the whole rigging process on my 35 and may be able to
help. At least I'm close to you in Livermore CA. I had my whole airplane
in pieces and just got it back flying about 2 months ago and needed to work
out some rigging anomalies myself. email me and we can trade contact
information.
I need a some help myself right now. Can anyone help me find the 6 rubber
mounting grommets for a Beech 215 Prop. Aero Propeller in Hemet recently
lost their inventory in a fire and Beech doesn't have any.
I restored a straight 35 s/n D-18 to it's original configuration when it was
ferried from Wichita to Burbank, 25 February 1947. Won the Vintage class
Lindy at EAA Oshkosh just weeks ago. You can see a few pictures of it at
this link http://www.eaa663.org/projectgallery.asp
Barry Weber
D-18
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: F-35 accident |
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 8/14/03 11:22:00 AM Central Daylight Time,
rjmayer@optonline.net writes:
> I for one would like to hear your diatribe on the virtues
> of a "real Turn &Bank" as opposed to one of those "abominable Turn
> Coordinators".
Good Afternoon Once Again,
Here is the second installment.
Incidentally, since the time when I originally wrote the earlier messages, I
have had the opportunity to try flying with just the Garmin 295 as a standby
instrument. I put a blanket over my head in such a manner that I could see
nothing on the panel. Only my 295 which is mounted on the control column.
My safety pilot put the airplane in several unusual attitudes and then told
me to open my eyes and recover.
We tried several configurations and found that it worked best for me when I
was looking at the "HSI" on one half the screen and had a map on the other
half.
It was nowhere near as comfortable as using a T&B and other rate instruments,
but it was doable. I think it would be easy to use the GPS to get down
through an overcast when you had a chance to set up before starting the descent.
I
don't know if I would be able to recover the aircraft if I was actually in a
grave yard spiral and had already lost my sense of orientation. For that, I
think I would need a T&B.
Here goes my most recent diatribe on T&Bs.
> Bob-
> I've missed out on the old discussion, so I've emailed you privately on
> this. Since a turn coordinator more or less shows the sum of roll rate and yaw
> rate, once the bank angle is established, it just shows yaw rate. Why=20the
> strong preference for a turn and bank? I've used both, the TC is "jumpier,"
> but I seem to adapt to either OK.
>
> Just curious,
> John
>
>
Good Evening John,
It has to do with the way our minds work. Just my thoughts and no science
to base it on at all.
I figure that when a pilot gets disoriented, it takes a major mental effort
to accept that his/her senses are all wrong and that some instrument is telling
the truth.
I believe that the sense that is the hardest to convince is the one that
tells us where up is and one of the easier ones to accept is whether or not=20we
are
turning.
Therefore, I think we should be emphasizing the idea that we should stop the
turn and not worry whether or not the wings are level. Even if our mind
tells us that we are in a horrendous bank, but the airplane is not turning,=20we
wil
l survive. Our mind can be right or wrong. The wings can be level or
banked. It doesn't make any difference at all.
If we don't turn, we will survive. Period!
Now, back to the instrument of choice for me.
The Turn Coordinator shows either yaw or roll. If both are occurring at=20the
same time, the results will be cumulative.
Sounds like a pretty good idea.
If the wings are level and the aircraft is in trim, when a roll develops it
is likely to be followed by a turn.
If you hook up an autopilot so that an anti-turning force is applied when the
first indication of a roll is noted, the TC becomes a very nice low cost
sensor for a low cost autopilot.
Still sounds like a good idea.
If it is good for an autopilot to have that early warning of an impending
turn, why not give that same warning to a human pilot?
Back to my theory. Autopilots never get confused. Pilots do.
If we aviators are comfortable with rate instrument flying and have good
situational awareness, partial panel is a piece of cake whether one is using a
TC
or a T&B.
The trouble comes when some poor sole named Kennedy, Carnahan or John Q.
Public has a mind that is telling him/her one thing while an instrument is telling
him/her something else.
Why can't we tell them to not worry about it! Regardless of the attitude
they are in, just stop the turn. So what if you are leaning way over to=20one
side or the other. That is not important. JUST STOP THE TURN!
Putting the TC in the position where the "wings" are level will stop the
turn, but don't you think there will be a very difficult mental block to accepting
that fact?
If we are using a turn needle, it has nothing about it that even suggests a
wing or whether or not the aircraft is level. All it does is tell us if=20the
airplane is yawing. If it isn't yawing, it isn't turning. I think that
indication is MUCH easier for a confused pilot to accept.
Go out someday in an aircraft equipped with a Turn Coordinator and do a nice
strong Knife Edge. Doesn't it seem rather strange to be flying that knife
edge and also be looking at the turn coordinator that is showing a "Wings Level"
indication?
Do the same maneuver in an airplane equipped with T&B.=A0 The T&B will be
sitting in the center for the same reason the TC was showing wings level.=20=A0
No
turns and no yaw in a properly flown knife edge. Isn't it a lot easier for even
we experienced aviators to accept that the T&B is doing what it should be
doing than it is to accept that the wings level indication of the TC is proper?
The TC is always compromised. There is no way to determine if it is showing
a roll or a yaw without using supporting information.
If a T&B needle is showing an indication, the aircraft is yawing. No yaw,
no turn. No turn, no graveyard spiral.
There is no doubt that I suffer somewhat from the primacy phenomenon. When
I received my instrument training, we were not allowed to use any attitude or
direction gyros either in training or on the flight test. The only
gyroscopic instrument allowed was the Turn Needle. It is a rate instrument as are
the
airspeed, altimeter and vertical speed.
When the canted gyro was first introduced, it was as a device to allow a low
cost wing leveler. Someone realized that if the canted gyro was tied to=20some
sort of an indication which could be presented to the pilot, the pilot would
be given the same advance warning of an impending turn as the canted gyro gave
to the wing leveler.
Sounded good to me!
When the first TC came on the market, I installed them in my trainers and
started to use them for all training purposes. After a few years, I noted that
the proficiency in partial panel of students who had been trained on, and
continued the use of TCs, was not as good as had been the case when we were=20all
using T&Bs.
Part of the problem, I feel, is because we no longer emphasize the use of
standard rate turns so that regardless whether one is using a TC or a T&B, it
does not tend to be in the normal scan. Any technique we quit using gets rusty.
Beyond that though, I think that there is always a bit of confusion in our
minds as to just what is happening with a TC. With the T&B, there is never any
doubt.
The example of the knife edged flight is one that I have used often. It=20is
amazing to see the look on the face of folks who have been flying with a TC
for years and have never seen such a demonstration.
There is nothing else on the panel that even looks remotely like a classic T&
B.=A0
So many folks confuse a TC with an attitude gyro that many have a notation
warning that it provides no pitch information.
Once again.
I think we should emphasize that one needs to stop the turn at all costs.
While leveling the wings will most likely stop the turn, it will require a
leap of faith and strong will to persuade us to go against what our senses are
telling us.
In my opinion, it is much easier to get that poor lost soul to accept the
fact that he/she just needs to stop that turn regardless of how it feels or=20where
the ball is located.
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
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: Query about ruddervators (and what to do about them) |
--> Beech-List message posted by: "carmine pecoraro" <aeroauto@hotmail.com>
If the flaps and ailerons are rigged okay then you can correct your problem
by adjusting the trim tabs. The maint. manual and Norm Colvin's book
explains the procedure.
cheers carmine pecoraro
>From: "Marcos R. Della" <mdella@cstone.com>
>Reply-To: beech-list@matronics.com
>To: <beech-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Beech-List: Query about ruddervators (and what to do about them)
>Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:01:23 -0700
>
>--> Beech-List message posted by: "Marcos R. Della" <mdella@cstone.com>
>
>Speaking of older Bonanzas and ruddervators, I have a few questions. I'm
>not sure if this is a topic for this list, but here it goes...
>
>I have a C-35 (D3865) with an E225 that has a heavy slip to the right. At
>cruise, I have to use basically both feet to step on the left rudder to
>keep the ball centered. On takeoff and climb or when travelling under
>around 100 kts, it works pretty normally and I only see this need at around
>130kts and higher.
>
>Since I'm new to the Bonanza game, I don't have the experiance to go
>looking for the problem. Pouring through the shop manuals and looking at
>the differential, I can't determine (without the centering guide mentioned
>in the shop manual) if the thing is set up correctly. The local shop that
>does the annual doesn't have experiance in this particular area and so I'm
>looking for some advice on what the problem might be (for me to diagnose
>further) as well as any recommendations on someone with experiance in this
>area in the Monterey, CA area (or something in a 150mi radius :-)
>
>I must say, its rather annoying flying with both feet on the rudder. If I
>just fly without this correction, I lose around 6-8 kts of airspeed. I
>have other things that I need to start looking at (I just aquired this
>aircraft and now am trying to do the complete teardown/inspection/rebuild
>as best as I can) and also am looking for advice on resource areas
>(documentation, web sites, etc).
>
>If all the pointers are all over the place, I'll try and collect them all
>on a single site. Since I'm one of the many unemployed website builders
>out there, I suppose this can be my next "honey do" project :-)
>
>Marcos Della (mdella@cstone.com)
>Bonaza C35 (D3865) N607D
>
>
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: | Shadin Miniflo Fuel Flow Meter |
--> Beech-List message posted by: Thom Cook <adtouch@bellsouth.net>
I have this C-35 project that was bought totally disassembled and am in
the process of getting the assembly done. Now for the question. Does
anyone know where I can find a copy of a 337 for the installation of a
Shadin Miniflo on a E series engine with a pressure carb? We have all
the parts but do not have a example to go by for the install. On this
application we have to use 2 fuel tranducers on the engine because of
excess fuel pumped back into the left main. I have searched the ABS CD
to no avail all the examples are of latter models mostly with IO-520's.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thom Cook
N59TC
C-35 D-2736
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: Shadin Miniflo Fuel Flow Meter |
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 8/14/03 8:51:55 PM Central Daylight Time,
adtouch@bellsouth.net writes:
> I have this C-35 project that was bought totally disassembled and am in
> the process of getting the assembly done. Now for the question. Does
> anyone know where I can find a copy of a 337 for the installation of a
> Shadin Miniflo on a E series engine with a pressure carb? We have all
> the parts but do not have a example to go by for the install. On this
> application we have to use 2 fuel tranducers on the engine because of
> excess fuel pumped back into the left main. I have searched the ABS CD
> to no avail all the examples are of latter models mostly with IO-520's.
> Any info would be greatly appreciated.
> Thom Cook
> N59TC
> C-35 D-2736
>
Good Evening Thom,
Have you tried the Shadin website?
Or if that doesn't work, you might give them a call!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
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: Shadin Miniflo Fuel Flow Meter |
--> Beech-List message posted by: Thom Cook <adtouch@bellsouth.net>
Yes I have and they were not a lot of help.
Thom
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 8/14/03 8:51:55 PM Central Daylight Time,
>adtouch@bellsouth.net writes:
>
>
>
>>I have this C-35 project that was bought totally disassembled and am in
>>the process of getting the assembly done. Now for the question. Does
>>anyone know where I can find a copy of a 337 for the installation of a
>>Shadin Miniflo on a E series engine with a pressure carb? We have all
>>the parts but do not have a example to go by for the install. On this
>>application we have to use 2 fuel tranducers on the engine because of
>>excess fuel pumped back into the left main. I have searched the ABS CD
>>to no avail all the examples are of latter models mostly with IO-520's.
>>Any info would be greatly appreciated.
>>Thom Cook
>>N59TC
>>C-35 D-2736
>>
>>
>>
>Good Evening Thom,
>
>Have you tried the Shadin website?
>
>Or if that doesn't work, you might give them a call!
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Shadin Miniflo Fuel Flow Meter |
--> Beech-List message posted by: Frank Stutzman <stutzman@stutzman.com>
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Thom Cook wrote:
> Now for the question. Does
> anyone know where I can find a copy of a 337 for the installation of a
> Shadin Miniflo on a E series engine with a pressure carb? We have all
> the parts but do not have a example to go by for the install. On this
> application we have to use 2 fuel tranducers on the engine because of
> excess fuel pumped back into the left main.
Sorry, I'm no help on a Shadin installation, but I ran into the same
thing when I installed a JPI EDM-800 on my A-35.
I had to get a "fuel flow differential module" from Electronics
International that tied the two transducers togather and made them looke
like one to the JPI (it basically subtracted the return
line transducer 'clicks' from the feed line transducer 'clicks'). I
couldn't find the EI web page, but Aircraft Spruce talks about this magic
box at the bottom of
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/ei_fuelflowpress.php
It'll be a grey area about getting it legally installed. In my case JPI
recommended it, but EI refuses to support it when not used with their fuel
flow gauge. JPI couldn't help me with it (not their product), EI wouldn't
help me with it (not an approved installation). I think we rather glossed
over it in the STC/337 paperwork and the FSDO didn't question us on it.
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR
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! --
|