Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:17 AM - Re: Past Present Future (Dan Brady)
2. 06:01 AM - Re: chicken or egg (Bill Bow)
3. 06:02 AM - Re: chicken or egg (Bill Bow)
4. 06:47 AM - Model 680E (Barry Collman)
5. 06:50 AM - Re: FW: Airframe life expectancy (W J R HAMILTON)
6. 07:03 AM - Re: FW: Airframe life expectancy (Deneal Schilmeister (Portege))
7. 07:30 AM - Re: FW: Airframe life expectancy (MASON Chevaillier)
8. 11:36 AM - Re: Past Present Future (Don Girod)
9. 12:09 PM - Final Flaps (CloudCraft@aol.com)
10. 02:21 PM - Re: FW: Airframe life expectancy (Derek Monk)
11. 02:39 PM - Re: Past Present Future (John Vormbaum)
12. 02:43 PM - Re: Past Present Future (John Vormbaum)
13. 02:47 PM - Re: Final Flaps (John Vormbaum)
14. 03:08 PM - Re: Past, Present, Future (BobsV35B@aol.com)
15. 04:01 PM - Re: Past Present Future (Chris Schuermann)
16. 04:07 PM - Re: FW: Airframe life expectancy (css nico)
17. 04:07 PM - Re: FW: Airframe life expectancy (css nico)
18. 04:13 PM - Re: Past, Present, Future (css nico)
19. 04:13 PM - Re: Past Present Future (css nico)
20. 04:16 PM - Re: Past, Present, Future (BobsV35B@aol.com)
21. 04:20 PM - Re: Past Present Future (John Vormbaum)
22. 04:23 PM - Re: Past, Present, Future (John Vormbaum)
23. 04:38 PM - Re: Past Present Future (BobsV35B@aol.com)
24. 07:49 PM - Re: Past Present Future ()
25. 08:04 PM - Re: Past Present Future (Tylor Hall)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Cc: <commander-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Re: Past Present Future |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Dan Brady" <westwind@hdiss.net>
I constantly monitor the list,but by the time I think of a comment other
members jump in and say it better than I could or in the case of a
"discusion" several people will hash it out and settle it so there is no
need for my input. But about every 9 months or so a pressure builds up in me
that can only be relieved by the birth of a posting, no matter how inane.
First to Chris re: your Ode to Spam(tm) OY VEY! Next to John Vormbaum as you
hit the full flap setting do you increase back pressure either with yoke or
elevator trim to maintain the speed you want? It may be that with your new
mods there is a slight difference in nose attitude that gives you a
different windscreen picture than the one you have become accustomed to. As
you know when you're close to the ground just a few degrees can make a big
difference in the windscreen picture. Some day when you've got GA$ to burn
fly over to a quiet strip and do some touch&gos with no flaps, partial flaps
and full flaps and make mental notes of the different sound, feel and
windscreen picture on each.....they might be close but they will be
different. The desert duck@westwind
----- ll" <john@vormbaum.com>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
>
> Excellent, Wing Commander Gordon is in the house! Perhaps you can
> enlighten
> me:
>
> I seem to have developed a bad habit, or omitted something important.
> Since
> I've had my airplane painted, and had new cowl latches put on (tightening
> the cowlings up quite a bit), had new antennas (antennae?) installed,
> adjusted the gear doors, and a few other things, all of which have cleaned
> up the airframe nicely (to the tune of about 6kts in cruise), I've had
> difficulty on final. I can set the power, enter the pattern, get the gear
> down, add flaps in 2 stages, and end up configured correctly at 85 kias on
> final, then give the flaps the last 'notch' to "full flaps" on 1/2 mile
> final or so, when the landing is assured, and BAM, suddenly I'm at
> 100kias,
> trying to slow up before I get over the fence. It feels like simply an
> attitude issue, like suddenly there's a greater pitch-down tendency than
> there used to be when I go to full flaps.
>
> It didn't used to be this way. I used to be able to come in at ~80kias
> over
> the fence and make the first turnoff at 1000 feet...often having to *add*
> power to pull off the runway. I've now got ~600 hours in the airplane, so
> although I'm no pro, I'm not exactly new either.
>
> So my questions are:
>
> 1) Have I started doing something boneheaded? Am I omitting something that
> should be in my pre-landing checklist?
> 2) Is this a consequence of the cleaner airframe, and if so, how do I
> compensate? Fly even slower on downind & base?
> 3) Am I being too conservative with the flaps? Should I throw full flaps
> much earlier?
>
> Thanks as always,
>
> /John
>
> PS: PAO is fairly noise-sensitive so I generally have the props pulled
> pretty far back (2,100 - 2,200 rpm)....but I've flown every approach at
> home
> that way since I got the airplane so I can't blame it on not using the
> props
> as brakes.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <CloudCraft@aol.com>
> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:23 PM
> Subject: Commander-List: Past Present Future
>
>
>> --> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 20-Jan-06 17:01:26 Pacific Standard Time,
>> BertBerry1@aol.com writes:
>> If this list was intended for JUST CURRENT Commander Owners, Drivers
>> ...etc.
>> then maybe someone should say it and get it over with.
>> Bert, you and everyone esle is most welcome. We have past, present and
>> future Commander owners and aficionados here: That's what makes this
>> knowledge base
>> so valuable to future and current operators.
>>
>> Those of us who have been here for years value that and are worried about
>> this knowledge base getting diluted -- or polluted.
>>
>> I say let anyone who wants to build a better mousetrap, do so. The hard
>> core
>> information is right here (and on Nico's server) and I forecast this is
>> where
>> it will stay.
>>
>> Wing Commander Gordon
>> (too sane to own an airplane, not sane enough to stop participating in
>> the
>> Commander world)
>>
>> Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
Well put!
Bill Bow
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jody
Pillatzki
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:39 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Jody Pillatzki"
<Jpillatzki@702com.net>
Actually, he does own a commander. He does love, and has had some other
experiences in them before buying his own. I guess I could ask for a bio
from everyone before I post or ask questions at this site as well, so that I
can profile them to see if they are worth communicating with.
Jody
Pillatzki
P.S. I own a commander as well, and I have a family, and am a Christian, I
hope I make to the cut!!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:47 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: chicken or egg
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
I think Chris S. " doesn't own, fly, or want a Commander" yet he is allowed
to participate.....????
bilbo
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Vormbaum
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: chicken or egg
--> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
Perhaps you're right, Chris. What I don't like is the fact that he
participates in NO Commander discussions, evidently doesn't own, fly, or
want a Commander, and the only indication of his presence is the frequent
"go here" emails.
When I was first becoming interested in these airplanes, if I'd said, "golly
gosh, guys, how would you like an interactive bulletin-board style of forum,
and I'll manage it for you?" after properly introducing myself, I think I
would have gotten a much better reaction than Joe Skyhawk has. I think it's
his approach & attitude causing the problem.
/J
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:14 AM
Subject: Commander-List: chicken or egg
> --> Commander-List message posted by: Chris Schuermann <cschuerm@cox.net>
>
>
>>>Take a hike, Joe. If we want a different forum, WE'LL solicit YOU.
>
>
> I've noticed the discussions regarding the person who's trying to put
> together some kind of web commander related web site lately. Havn't
> really paid any attention as I have little interest these days. Some of
> the more acidic comments did strike a bit of a chord however. IMO,
> there are some people who are looking at this from a rather strange
> perspective. If nobody ever takes the initiative to try to create new
> and better things, nothing ever progresses. I have no idea who the
> skyhawk guy is and agree that he might be going at whatever he's trying
> to accomplish in the wrong way, but more power to him for at least
> trying to do something....even if it isn't exactly in harmony with the
> status quo. A little competition can do a lot to improve the product.
> Other than Nico's document archive, there has no no innovation in
> Commander net-land in years. Maybe this will spur some effort towards
> improving that situation.
> When I first created aerocommander.com, there were pre-existing
> Commander related web sites. I found them to be lacking in value and
> decided to create my own - not to cause problems in the community, but
> to add value. Took a few shots from a few people early on, but more
> appreciated the effort than not. Could it be that this guy has simply
> found the existing efforts to be simply insufficient in his eyes and
> he's trying to do better? I say let him try....and fail or succeed...
> The "market" will decide.
>
> chris
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
It hasn't worked on me yet.
bilbo
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Schuermann
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: chicken or egg
--> Commander-List message posted by: Chris Schuermann <cschuerm@cox.net>
css nico wrote:
> will not leave unless we insult them.
AH! I finally understand the key to moderating a chatlist. Just insult
the nuts and they'll go away. If only I'd known that years ago.... :-)
Nico, your comments are appreciated but far too kind. Thank you.
cs
do not archive
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 |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Hi Bert,
Well, I've finaly managed to get some sort of cross-tab query run, and saved in
.XLS format.
Those built as a Model 680E are shown first, apart from the two that were built
as a Model 680, then modified and re-serialled as a Model 680E.
These two are shown in serial number order, not 680E unit number order.
After the straight 680E models, there is an empty line, then, in serial number
order are those converted to 680E from other Models.
These have their previous history on the preceeding line.
For instance, 560A-257 (the 25th 560A) was N2757B, as shown in column "Reg1".
It was then modified, still, as N2757B, to 680E, whose history therefore starts
under "Reg2".
Any queries - just shout.
With the query, it cannot give me fates, but I hope the remnants of your records
will still have those.
Very Best Regards,
Barry
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: FW: Airframe life expectancy |
--> Commander-List message posted by: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au>
Folks,
In Australia, a large variety of aircraft are subject to locally
imposed fatigue life limits, they vary from reasonable ( based on the
record) through illogical to unreasonable, and finally downright crazy.
As to the last, take the Piper Seneca --- It was actually tested in a
rig by Piper to Australian designed fatigue criteria, (the test was
very severe, amongst other things zero allowance was made for engine
or fuel weight for bending relief) and the test was finally stopped
at the point where the wing/airframe could be declared "unlimited life" .
Never mind, a severe life was imposed "to be consistent"with other
aircraft. For pressure hull, don't even start me.
Where a wing is re-spared, the rest of the aircraft is limited to two
wing lifes. This leads to the wonderful result that a particular
C-310 fuselage and tail feathers has two lives ( don't quote me on
the figures, but let us say 14 or 28 thousand hours) depending on the
wing it is bolted on to!!
The history is interesting, the following is a highly biased summary.
Some years after the end of WW11, there were lots of P-51D wings
around the place, so about 100 new wings were tested to destruction,
resulting ( surprise, surprise) in a "bell curve" of failures, and
the just slightly contestable claim that Australia has discovered
metal fatigue.
Despite a more or less identical claim by the poms ( English for
those of you who haven't done a Crocodile Dundee refresher recently)
as a result of the loss of the "Square window" Comets, and;
Despite some fascinating stuff even then on the public record about
Boeing experience with the original 338, and the fact that
engineering text books put it 100 years or so earlier, in the early
days of railways, and some bridge collapses.
Compared to any other light twin, the Aero Commander "fatigue AD"
limits are not generally a big issue, they are 3 or 4 times the "average".
Best regards,
Bill Hamilton
At 10:35 21/01/2006, you wrote:
>--> Commander-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>Good Evening Steve,
>
>I certainly do not understand why the folks down under want to extract such
>a penalty from those who attempt to improve their flying machines, but may I
>make a comment?
>
>Adding winglets should make the outer portion of the wing more efficient.
>Something like a tip plate. Getting a little more lift out there
>means that the
>center of pressure (lift) moves outboard a bit. Moving the lifting point
>outboard causes a greater bending moment at whatever point the
>bending moment is
>calculated.
>
>It appears to me that the people in charge down there are making those
>onerous noises in an effort to force someone to develop data that
>will show the
>increased bending moment is not great enough to demand cutting the
>useful life
>in half.
>
>Has anyone developed such data?
>
>One the other hand:
>
>Why not maintain the airplane as a US registered aircraft? Are we not
>allowed to fly our US registered airplanes in Australia and then use
>US standards?
>
>Just in case it matters, I do not own a Commander, but I did fly them quite
>a bit forty to fifty years ago. I enjoy your list, but will leave if asked.
>
>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 1/20/2006 5:04:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>steveg@nternet.com writes:
>
>I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below. I
>have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to me
>that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half. My
>last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the
>connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part of
>the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments
>pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here??
>
>Steve G
>
>
CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE
W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet
Services and Warbirds.Net. & <wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au>.
This message is intended for and should only be used by the
addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged
information.If you are not the intended recipient any use
distribution,disclosure or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this
communication are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken
delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please
notify us immediately to Australia 61 (0)408 876 526
Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do.
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: | FW: Airframe life expectancy |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Deneal Schilmeister (Portege)" <deneals@sbcglobal.net>
Thanks, Bill.
As former Chief Pilot for Nomad Distributors in the US, reading your post
about aircraft certifications in Australia makes me wonder....
How the heck did the NOMADS ever get certification!!??
___________________________
Deneal Schilmeister
St. Louis - Cincinnati
1997 SL500
http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/SL500.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/Sites/My_Commanders.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of W J R
HAMILTON
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: FW: Airframe life expectancy
--> Commander-List message posted by: W J R HAMILTON
<wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au>
Folks,
In Australia, a large variety of aircraft are subject to locally
imposed fatigue life limits, they vary from reasonable ( based on the
record) through illogical to unreasonable, and finally downright crazy.
As to the last, take the Piper Seneca --- It was actually tested in a
rig by Piper to Australian designed fatigue criteria, (the test was
very severe, amongst other things zero allowance was made for engine
or fuel weight for bending relief) and the test was finally stopped
at the point where the wing/airframe could be declared "unlimited life" .
Never mind, a severe life was imposed "to be consistent"with other
aircraft. For pressure hull, don't even start me.
Where a wing is re-spared, the rest of the aircraft is limited to two
wing lifes. This leads to the wonderful result that a particular
C-310 fuselage and tail feathers has two lives ( don't quote me on
the figures, but let us say 14 or 28 thousand hours) depending on the
wing it is bolted on to!!
The history is interesting, the following is a highly biased summary.
Some years after the end of WW11, there were lots of P-51D wings
around the place, so about 100 new wings were tested to destruction,
resulting ( surprise, surprise) in a "bell curve" of failures, and
the just slightly contestable claim that Australia has discovered
metal fatigue.
Despite a more or less identical claim by the poms ( English for
those of you who haven't done a Crocodile Dundee refresher recently)
as a result of the loss of the "Square window" Comets, and;
Despite some fascinating stuff even then on the public record about
Boeing experience with the original 338, and the fact that
engineering text books put it 100 years or so earlier, in the early
days of railways, and some bridge collapses.
Compared to any other light twin, the Aero Commander "fatigue AD"
limits are not generally a big issue, they are 3 or 4 times the "average".
Best regards,
Bill Hamilton
At 10:35 21/01/2006, you wrote:
>--> Commander-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>Good Evening Steve,
>
>I certainly do not understand why the folks down under want to extract such
>a penalty from those who attempt to improve their flying machines, but may
I
>make a comment?
>
>Adding winglets should make the outer portion of the wing more efficient.
>Something like a tip plate. Getting a little more lift out there
>means that the
>center of pressure (lift) moves outboard a bit. Moving the lifting point
>outboard causes a greater bending moment at whatever point the
>bending moment is
>calculated.
>
>It appears to me that the people in charge down there are making those
>onerous noises in an effort to force someone to develop data that
>will show the
>increased bending moment is not great enough to demand cutting the
>useful life
>in half.
>
>Has anyone developed such data?
>
>One the other hand:
>
>Why not maintain the airplane as a US registered aircraft? Are we not
>allowed to fly our US registered airplanes in Australia and then use
>US standards?
>
>Just in case it matters, I do not own a Commander, but I did fly them quite
>a bit forty to fifty years ago. I enjoy your list, but will leave if
asked.
>
>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 1/20/2006 5:04:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>steveg@nternet.com writes:
>
>I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below.
I
>have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to
me
>that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half. My
>last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the
>connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part of
>the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments
>pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here??
>
>Steve G
>
>
CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE
W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet
Services and Warbirds.Net. & <wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au>.
This message is intended for and should only be used by the
addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged
information.If you are not the intended recipient any use
distribution,disclosure or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this
communication are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken
delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please
notify us immediately to Australia 61 (0)408 876 526
Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do.
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: | FW: Airframe life expectancy |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "MASON Chevaillier" <kamala@msn.com>
suggest that for the technical info on winglets that you go to the source.
call john bosh at commander aero 888-881-5580. dick wartinger at commander
aero developed these winglets, they hold the stc. also the air force
engineneers at the air force facility used there wind tunnels and all
available u s government equipment and computing power to arive at the right
design for the commander wing. mason ps there are a lot of illegal
winglets out there!
>From: "steve" <steveg@nternet.com>
>To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Commander-List: FW: Airframe life expectancy
>Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:55:48 -0600
>
>--> Commander-List message posted by: "steve" <steveg@nternet.com>
>
>Bob,
>
>Your input and knowledge are invaluable. I was part owner of AC500 N6291B
>with Rob. Now only own Bonanza E35 N52DF and participate on both lists.
>Dream of owning another AC500 and may wind up doing so with my Australian
>business associate or may not. Either way, both lists are full of
>talented,
>knowledgeable people that feed my thirst for aviation knowledge,
>particularly involving specific types of aircraft. You even got me looking
>at the new Xerion for my Bonanza the other day. Might do it!!
>
>Thanks,
>Steve G
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>BobsV35B@aol.com
>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:36 PM
>To: commander-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Commander-List: FW: Airframe life expectancy
>
>--> Commander-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>Good Evening Steve,
>
>I certainly do not understand why the folks down under want to extract such
>
>a penalty from those who attempt to improve their flying machines, but may
>I
>
>make a comment?
>
>Adding winglets should make the outer portion of the wing more efficient.
>Something like a tip plate. Getting a little more lift out there means that
>the
>center of pressure (lift) moves outboard a bit. Moving the lifting point
>outboard causes a greater bending moment at whatever point the bending
>moment is
>calculated.
>
>It appears to me that the people in charge down there are making those
>onerous noises in an effort to force someone to develop data that will show
>the
>increased bending moment is not great enough to demand cutting the useful
>life
>in half.
>
>Has anyone developed such data?
>
>One the other hand:
>
>Why not maintain the airplane as a US registered aircraft? Are we not
>allowed to fly our US registered airplanes in Australia and then use US
>standards?
>
>Just in case it matters, I do not own a Commander, but I did fly them quite
>
>a bit forty to fifty years ago. I enjoy your list, but will leave if
>asked.
>
>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 1/20/2006 5:04:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>steveg@nternet.com writes:
>
>I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below.
>I
>have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to
>me
>that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half. My
>last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the
>connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part of
>the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments
>pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here??
>
>Steve G
>
>
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: Past Present Future |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Don Girod" <dongirod@bellsouth.net>
> 1) Have I started doing something boneheaded? Am I omitting something that
> should be in my pre-landing checklist?
> 2) Is this a consequence of the cleaner airframe, and if so, how do I
> compensate? Fly even slower on downind & base?
> 3) Am I being too conservative with the flaps? Should I throw full flaps
> much earlier?
John;
I guess its just the old habits coming through, but I put my flaps down much
sooner. When flying for a living, the flaps went to 15 (about half) on down
wind and over the outer marker or glide slope interception it was full
flaps. True we didn't drop the gear so soon like we do in the Commander,
but that is because of speed limits on the gear vs. flaps with this
airplane. In a typical Boeing that I used to fly it was flaps 15 on
downwind, 25 on base, glide slope movement gear down, glide slope intercept,
landing flaps. With both the heavies and the Commander, its very little
throttle movement once set up. Just my thoughts.
Don
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 |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 20-Jan-06 23:28:20 Pacific Standard Time,
john@vormbaum.com writes:
final, then give the flaps the last 'notch' to "full flaps" on 1/2 mile
final or so, when the landing is assured, and BAM, suddenly I'm at 100kias,
John,
You've gotten some good pointers already on the sight picture and flap
operation. Nice work, guys!
I went to half flaps prior to turning base or about 2 minutes from final
approach fix and then full flaps prior to turning final or one dot from
glideslope intercept.
One of the glorious things about a Commander is that the flaps will always
come up (unlike electric flaps) so use them knowing you can always reduce if
needed -- so use more, and earlier than you are now.
I doubt that you'll need to reduce flap setting unless you go One Engine
Inoperative.
But something else is going on here. The Aero Dynamic clean up gave you 6
KIAS at cruise but the sudden increase in speed prior to touchdown makes me
wonder about pitot/static changes that may have taken place with all of your
"clean up" work.
Do you have GPS? Can you get out on an ISA day with no wind and check GPS
ground speed vs. indicated? No wind at PAO is a lot to ask for, but now is the
time to find a cool, sea level day.
I'd be curious about your IAS at different deck angles in approach
configuration and full landing configuration and the GPS Ground Speed would help
spot
whether your indicated speeds are way out of whack.
Also, having just been painted, check out your static ports; even your pitot
tubes if they were removed or had paint applied near them.
One thing I've learned taking 4 Falcons throught RVSM is how critical all
that stuff is.
Wing Commander Gordon
Godless Heathen / Non-Aircraft Owner / Like this site best
Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere.
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: FW: Airframe life expectancy |
--> Commander-List message posted by: Derek Monk <britmonk@adelphia.net>
I understand that the winglets are purely cosmetic and make no change in
the aerodynamic characteristics. Thus the BM should not be changed.
However it only takes about a 10% change in load to half the fatigue
life of a structure. Perhaps the Ozzies are just playing it safe.
Derek Monk
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>--> Commander-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>
>Good Evening Steve,
>
>I certainly do not understand why the folks down under want to extract such
>a penalty from those who attempt to improve their flying machines, but may I
>make a comment?
>
>Adding winglets should make the outer portion of the wing more efficient.
>Something like a tip plate. Getting a little more lift out there means that the
>center of pressure (lift) moves outboard a bit. Moving the lifting point
>outboard causes a greater bending moment at whatever point the bending moment
is
>calculated.
>
>It appears to me that the people in charge down there are making those
>onerous noises in an effort to force someone to develop data that will show the
>increased bending moment is not great enough to demand cutting the useful life
>in half.
>
>Has anyone developed such data?
>
>One the other hand:
>
>Why not maintain the airplane as a US registered aircraft? Are we not
>allowed to fly our US registered airplanes in Australia and then use US standards?
>
>Just in case it matters, I do not own a Commander, but I did fly them quite
>a bit forty to fifty years ago. I enjoy your list, but will leave if asked.
>
>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 1/20/2006 5:04:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>steveg@nternet.com writes:
>
>I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below. I
>have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to me
>that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half. My
>last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the
>connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part of
>the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments
>pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here??
>
>Steve G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Past Present Future |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
Dan, that's a great suggestion. I probably have to re-learn the picture out
the front window with the airframe changes. Thanks!
/J
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Brady" <westwind@hdiss.net>
Cc: <commander-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Dan Brady" <westwind@hdiss.net>
>
> I constantly monitor the list,but by the time I think of a comment other
> members jump in and say it better than I could or in the case of a
> "discusion" several people will hash it out and settle it so there is no
> need for my input. But about every 9 months or so a pressure builds up in
> me
> that can only be relieved by the birth of a posting, no matter how inane.
> First to Chris re: your Ode to Spam(tm) OY VEY! Next to John Vormbaum as
> you
> hit the full flap setting do you increase back pressure either with yoke
> or
> elevator trim to maintain the speed you want? It may be that with your new
> mods there is a slight difference in nose attitude that gives you a
> different windscreen picture than the one you have become accustomed to.
> As
> you know when you're close to the ground just a few degrees can make a big
> difference in the windscreen picture. Some day when you've got GA$ to burn
> fly over to a quiet strip and do some touch&gos with no flaps, partial
> flaps
> and full flaps and make mental notes of the different sound, feel and
> windscreen picture on each.....they might be close but they will be
> different. The desert duck@westwind
> ----- ll" <john@vormbaum.com>
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future
>
>
>> --> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
>>
>> Excellent, Wing Commander Gordon is in the house! Perhaps you can
>> enlighten
>> me:
>>
>> I seem to have developed a bad habit, or omitted something important.
>> Since
>> I've had my airplane painted, and had new cowl latches put on (tightening
>> the cowlings up quite a bit), had new antennas (antennae?) installed,
>> adjusted the gear doors, and a few other things, all of which have
>> cleaned
>> up the airframe nicely (to the tune of about 6kts in cruise), I've had
>> difficulty on final. I can set the power, enter the pattern, get the gear
>> down, add flaps in 2 stages, and end up configured correctly at 85 kias
>> on
>> final, then give the flaps the last 'notch' to "full flaps" on 1/2 mile
>> final or so, when the landing is assured, and BAM, suddenly I'm at
>> 100kias,
>> trying to slow up before I get over the fence. It feels like simply an
>> attitude issue, like suddenly there's a greater pitch-down tendency than
>> there used to be when I go to full flaps.
>>
>> It didn't used to be this way. I used to be able to come in at ~80kias
>> over
>> the fence and make the first turnoff at 1000 feet...often having to *add*
>> power to pull off the runway. I've now got ~600 hours in the airplane, so
>> although I'm no pro, I'm not exactly new either.
>>
>> So my questions are:
>>
>> 1) Have I started doing something boneheaded? Am I omitting something
>> that
>> should be in my pre-landing checklist?
>> 2) Is this a consequence of the cleaner airframe, and if so, how do I
>> compensate? Fly even slower on downind & base?
>> 3) Am I being too conservative with the flaps? Should I throw full flaps
>> much earlier?
>>
>> Thanks as always,
>>
>> /John
>>
>> PS: PAO is fairly noise-sensitive so I generally have the props pulled
>> pretty far back (2,100 - 2,200 rpm)....but I've flown every approach at
>> home
>> that way since I got the airplane so I can't blame it on not using the
>> props
>> as brakes.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <CloudCraft@aol.com>
>> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:23 PM
>> Subject: Commander-List: Past Present Future
>>
>>
>>> --> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
>>>
>>> In a message dated 20-Jan-06 17:01:26 Pacific Standard Time,
>>> BertBerry1@aol.com writes:
>>> If this list was intended for JUST CURRENT Commander Owners, Drivers
>>> ...etc.
>>> then maybe someone should say it and get it over with.
>>> Bert, you and everyone esle is most welcome. We have past, present and
>>> future Commander owners and aficionados here: That's what makes this
>>> knowledge base
>>> so valuable to future and current operators.
>>>
>>> Those of us who have been here for years value that and are worried
>>> about
>>> this knowledge base getting diluted -- or polluted.
>>>
>>> I say let anyone who wants to build a better mousetrap, do so. The hard
>>> core
>>> information is right here (and on Nico's server) and I forecast this is
>>> where
>>> it will stay.
>>>
>>> Wing Commander Gordon
>>> (too sane to own an airplane, not sane enough to stop participating in
>>> the
>>> Commander world)
>>>
>>> Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Past Present Future |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
> When flying for a living, the flaps went to 15 (about half) on down
> wind and over the outer marker or glide slope interception it was full
> flaps.
Hi Don,
I guess it's a shortcoming of my training; I was trained not to go full
flaps until the runway was assured. How do all you other guys manage your
flaps in Commanders?
/John
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
Keith,
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll practice using the flaps earlier & more
than I am now. I also hadn't considered the possible pitot/static
implications. I'll definitely have to find a calm ISA day (haha, probably
not at PAO!) to test these theories out.
In any case, you guys have all given me something to occupy a couple of
hours of flying time. And you all know how much you have to twist my arm to
go fly! :-)
Thanks again to all for the input.
/John
----- Original Message -----
From: <CloudCraft@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 12:08 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Final Flaps
> --> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 20-Jan-06 23:28:20 Pacific Standard Time,
> john@vormbaum.com writes:
> final, then give the flaps the last 'notch' to "full flaps" on 1/2 mile
> final or so, when the landing is assured, and BAM, suddenly I'm at
> 100kias,
> John,
>
> You've gotten some good pointers already on the sight picture and flap
> operation. Nice work, guys!
>
> I went to half flaps prior to turning base or about 2 minutes from final
> approach fix and then full flaps prior to turning final or one dot from
> glideslope intercept.
>
> One of the glorious things about a Commander is that the flaps will always
> come up (unlike electric flaps) so use them knowing you can always reduce
> if
> needed -- so use more, and earlier than you are now.
>
> I doubt that you'll need to reduce flap setting unless you go One Engine
> Inoperative.
>
> But something else is going on here. The Aero Dynamic clean up gave you 6
> KIAS at cruise but the sudden increase in speed prior to touchdown makes
> me
> wonder about pitot/static changes that may have taken place with all of
> your
> "clean up" work.
>
> Do you have GPS? Can you get out on an ISA day with no wind and check GPS
> ground speed vs. indicated? No wind at PAO is a lot to ask for, but now
> is the
> time to find a cool, sea level day.
>
> I'd be curious about your IAS at different deck angles in approach
> configuration and full landing configuration and the GPS Ground Speed
> would help spot
> whether your indicated speeds are way out of whack.
>
> Also, having just been painted, check out your static ports; even your
> pitot
> tubes if they were removed or had paint applied near them.
>
> One thing I've learned taking 4 Falcons throught RVSM is how critical all
> that stuff is.
>
> Wing Commander Gordon
> Godless Heathen / Non-Aircraft Owner / Like this site best
>
> Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere.
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Past, Present, Future |
--> Commander-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Afternoon John,
That was the way it was taught in the days of the DC-4. By the time the DC-6
and DC-7 were on the scene, thoughts on handling the flaps began to change.
By the time the jets came upon the scene, almost everybody agreed that full
flaps were the best way to go. However, the last few years, many airlines
have reduced their flap settings for the final approach to reduce fuel
consumption and to reduce the noise. In any case, when partial flap approaches
are
executed these days, they are generally followed by partial flap landings.
Anyone who is currently teaching the application of flaps when the landing
is assured, is still working in the dark ages! I am not saying the they are
wrong, just not in step with current thinking.
I was taught to not take full flap until I had the field made when I
received my multiengine rating fifty-six years ago. I did it that way and taught
it
that way for the next fifteen years or so. However once I was trained to
evaluate the approach and use flaps as appropriate for the conditions that
prevail, I started to go with those that feel full flap should be used the vast
majority of the time.
A full evaluation of all the reasons to use full flap, and the reasons not
to do so, would take a lot more band width than I believe the list wants to
bear, but as I remember the characteristics of the Aero Commanders I flew all
those many years ago, I would recommend full flap being applied either when the
final descent to landing is initiated or very soon thereafter.
The old idea was that you didn't want to take full flap because you may have
to go around. There are many other ways to handle the go around with full
flap, but that does depend on the conditions encountered on the landing in
question.
As Always, It All Depends!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Do Not Archive
In a message dated 1/21/2006 4:44:13 P.M. Central Standard Time,
john@vormbaum.com writes:
I guess it's a shortcoming of my training; I was trained not to go full
flaps until the runway was assured. How do all you other guys manage your
flaps in Commanders?
Message 15
| 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: Past Present Future |
--> Commander-List message posted by: Chris Schuermann <cschuerm@cox.net>
John Vormbaum wrote:
> I guess it's a shortcoming of my training; I was trained not to go full
> flaps until the runway was assured.
John,
The replies have been rather interesting and they show quite a diverse
range of methodology.
I was taught to fly by military instructors and the 'stabilized
approach' was always their technique. By the time you were established
on final approach, everything was supposed to be set up for landing.
Fiddling with flaps, gear, etc was supposed to all complete by then. I
ran into a civilian instructor on a bi-annual who chastized me for that
technique and said the same thing yours did. Obviously it's not a
question of right/wrong, but just technique. The military guys were
constantly either pulling an engine or requiring a late go-around during
my training which made me comfortable with a quick, last-minute
re-configuration so I guess it all works out in the end. I do find I
make more regular nice landings on spot when I have plenty of time
during a well-established approach though....
chris
Message 16
| 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: FW: Airframe life expectancy |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
Didn't they just feed them kangeroos?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Deneal Schilmeister (Portege)" <deneals@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 7:03 AM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: FW: Airframe life expectancy
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Deneal Schilmeister (Portege)"
<deneals@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Thanks, Bill.
> As former Chief Pilot for Nomad Distributors in the US, reading your post
> about aircraft certifications in Australia makes me wonder....
> How the heck did the NOMADS ever get certification!!??
>
> ___________________________
> Deneal Schilmeister
> St. Louis - Cincinnati
> 1997 SL500
> http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/SL500.htm
> http://homepage.mac.com/deneals/Sites/My_Commanders.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of W J R
> HAMILTON
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 8:50 AM
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: FW: Airframe life expectancy
>
> --> Commander-List message posted by: W J R HAMILTON
> <wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au>
>
> Folks,
> In Australia, a large variety of aircraft are subject to locally
> imposed fatigue life limits, they vary from reasonable ( based on the
> record) through illogical to unreasonable, and finally downright crazy.
>
> As to the last, take the Piper Seneca --- It was actually tested in a
> rig by Piper to Australian designed fatigue criteria, (the test was
> very severe, amongst other things zero allowance was made for engine
> or fuel weight for bending relief) and the test was finally stopped
> at the point where the wing/airframe could be declared "unlimited life" .
>
> Never mind, a severe life was imposed "to be consistent"with other
> aircraft. For pressure hull, don't even start me.
>
> Where a wing is re-spared, the rest of the aircraft is limited to two
> wing lifes. This leads to the wonderful result that a particular
> C-310 fuselage and tail feathers has two lives ( don't quote me on
> the figures, but let us say 14 or 28 thousand hours) depending on the
> wing it is bolted on to!!
>
> The history is interesting, the following is a highly biased summary.
>
> Some years after the end of WW11, there were lots of P-51D wings
> around the place, so about 100 new wings were tested to destruction,
> resulting ( surprise, surprise) in a "bell curve" of failures, and
> the just slightly contestable claim that Australia has discovered
> metal fatigue.
>
> Despite a more or less identical claim by the poms ( English for
> those of you who haven't done a Crocodile Dundee refresher recently)
> as a result of the loss of the "Square window" Comets, and;
>
> Despite some fascinating stuff even then on the public record about
> Boeing experience with the original 338, and the fact that
> engineering text books put it 100 years or so earlier, in the early
> days of railways, and some bridge collapses.
>
> Compared to any other light twin, the Aero Commander "fatigue AD"
> limits are not generally a big issue, they are 3 or 4 times the "average".
>
> Best regards,
> Bill Hamilton
>
>
> At 10:35 21/01/2006, you wrote:
> >--> Commander-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Good Evening Steve,
> >
> >I certainly do not understand why the folks down under want to extract
such
> >a penalty from those who attempt to improve their flying machines, but
may
> I
> >make a comment?
> >
> >Adding winglets should make the outer portion of the wing more efficient.
> >Something like a tip plate. Getting a little more lift out there
> >means that the
> >center of pressure (lift) moves outboard a bit. Moving the lifting point
> >outboard causes a greater bending moment at whatever point the
> >bending moment is
> >calculated.
> >
> >It appears to me that the people in charge down there are making those
> >onerous noises in an effort to force someone to develop data that
> >will show the
> >increased bending moment is not great enough to demand cutting the
> >useful life
> >in half.
> >
> >Has anyone developed such data?
> >
> >One the other hand:
> >
> >Why not maintain the airplane as a US registered aircraft? Are we not
> >allowed to fly our US registered airplanes in Australia and then use
> >US standards?
> >
> >Just in case it matters, I do not own a Commander, but I did fly them
quite
> >a bit forty to fifty years ago. I enjoy your list, but will leave if
> asked.
> >
> >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 1/20/2006 5:04:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> >steveg@nternet.com writes:
> >
> >I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below.
> I
> >have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to
> me
> >that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half.
My
> >last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the
> >connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part
of
> >the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments
> >pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here??
> >
> >Steve G
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE
> W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet
> Services and Warbirds.Net. & <wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au>.
> This message is intended for and should only be used by the
> addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged
> information.If you are not the intended recipient any use
> distribution,disclosure or copying of this message is strictly
> prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this
> communication are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken
> delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please
> notify us immediately to Australia 61 (0)408 876 526
> Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do.
>
>
Message 17
| 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: FW: Airframe life expectancy |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
My understanding is that winglets inhibit the development of wingtip
vortices, one of the major players in drag. Am I right?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Monk" <britmonk@adelphia.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: FW: Airframe life expectancy
> --> Commander-List message posted by: Derek Monk <britmonk@adelphia.net>
>
> I understand that the winglets are purely cosmetic and make no change in
> the aerodynamic characteristics. Thus the BM should not be changed.
> However it only takes about a 10% change in load to half the fatigue
> life of a structure. Perhaps the Ozzies are just playing it safe.
> Derek Monk
>
> BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>
> >--> Commander-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Good Evening Steve,
> >
> >I certainly do not understand why the folks down under want to extract
such
> >a penalty from those who attempt to improve their flying machines, but
may I
> >make a comment?
> >
> >Adding winglets should make the outer portion of the wing more efficient.
> >Something like a tip plate. Getting a little more lift out there means
that the
> >center of pressure (lift) moves outboard a bit. Moving the lifting point
> >outboard causes a greater bending moment at whatever point the bending
moment is
> >calculated.
> >
> >It appears to me that the people in charge down there are making those
> >onerous noises in an effort to force someone to develop data that will
show the
> >increased bending moment is not great enough to demand cutting the useful
life
> >in half.
> >
> >Has anyone developed such data?
> >
> >One the other hand:
> >
> >Why not maintain the airplane as a US registered aircraft? Are we not
> >allowed to fly our US registered airplanes in Australia and then use US
standards?
> >
> >Just in case it matters, I do not own a Commander, but I did fly them
quite
> >a bit forty to fifty years ago. I enjoy your list, but will leave if
asked.
> >
> >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 1/20/2006 5:04:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> >steveg@nternet.com writes:
> >
> >I forwarded Jim's earlier email to my partner and his response is below.
I
> >have not had time to review and research as Michael has. Seems crazy to
me
> >that Oz sees winglets as capable of cutting a Commanders life in half.
My
> >last AC500 had winglets and other than watching for corrosion at the
> >connection points and overall body I see no threat. Just another part
of
> >the aircraft to inspect and maintain. Any knowledgeable comments
> >pertaining to Oz. Is Michael misreading something here??
> >
> >Steve G
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 18
| 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: Past, Present, Future |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
Good grief, Bob, you don't mess around when you refer to yourself as 'Old
Bob', huh?
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past, Present, Future
> --> Commander-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> Good Afternoon John,
>
> That was the way it was taught in the days of the DC-4. By the time the
DC-6
> and DC-7 were on the scene, thoughts on handling the flaps began to
change.
>
> By the time the jets came upon the scene, almost everybody agreed that
full
> flaps were the best way to go. However, the last few years, many airlines
> have reduced their flap settings for the final approach to reduce fuel
> consumption and to reduce the noise. In any case, when partial flap
approaches are
> executed these days, they are generally followed by partial flap
landings.
>
> Anyone who is currently teaching the application of flaps when the landing
> is assured, is still working in the dark ages! I am not saying the they
are
> wrong, just not in step with current thinking.
>
> I was taught to not take full flap until I had the field made when I
> received my multiengine rating fifty-six years ago. I did it that way and
taught it
> that way for the next fifteen years or so. However once I was trained to
> evaluate the approach and use flaps as appropriate for the conditions that
> prevail, I started to go with those that feel full flap should be used the
vast
> majority of the time.
>
> A full evaluation of all the reasons to use full flap, and the reasons not
> to do so, would take a lot more band width than I believe the list wants
to
> bear, but as I remember the characteristics of the Aero Commanders I flew
all
> those many years ago, I would recommend full flap being applied either
when the
> final descent to landing is initiated or very soon thereafter.
>
> The old idea was that you didn't want to take full flap because you may
have
> to go around. There are many other ways to handle the go around with
full
> flap, but that does depend on the conditions encountered on the landing in
> question.
>
> As Always, It All Depends!!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> In a message dated 1/21/2006 4:44:13 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> john@vormbaum.com writes:
>
> I guess it's a shortcoming of my training; I was trained not to go full
> flaps until the runway was assured. How do all you other guys manage your
> flaps in Commanders?
>
>
Message 19
| 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: Past Present Future |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
As I was told (not as long ago as Old Bob) your landing begins at your TOD.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future
> --> Commander-List message posted by: Chris Schuermann <cschuerm@cox.net>
>
>
> John Vormbaum wrote:
> > I guess it's a shortcoming of my training; I was trained not to go full
> > flaps until the runway was assured.
>
> John,
> The replies have been rather interesting and they show quite a diverse
> range of methodology.
> I was taught to fly by military instructors and the 'stabilized
> approach' was always their technique. By the time you were established
> on final approach, everything was supposed to be set up for landing.
> Fiddling with flaps, gear, etc was supposed to all complete by then. I
> ran into a civilian instructor on a bi-annual who chastized me for that
> technique and said the same thing yours did. Obviously it's not a
> question of right/wrong, but just technique. The military guys were
> constantly either pulling an engine or requiring a late go-around during
> my training which made me comfortable with a quick, last-minute
> re-configuration so I guess it all works out in the end. I do find I
> make more regular nice landings on spot when I have plenty of time
> during a well-established approach though....
>
> chris
>
>
Message 20
| 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: Past, Present, Future |
--> Commander-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/21/2006 6:14:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nico@cybersuperstore.com writes:
Good grief, Bob, you don't mess around when you refer to yourself as 'Old
Bob', huh?
Hey I was an Eagle Scout! Gotta tell the truth.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 21
| 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: Past Present Future |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
I am beginning to think that the "full flaps when landing assured" technique
was for a broad range of airplanes, and to make things a tad safer if you
lost an engine during the approach. Keith made me think "aha" when he
mentioned that unlike electric flap airplanes, the flaps on a Commander will
go UP regardless, as long as you put the lever up. That in my mind makes it
a bit safer to use the full range of flaps anywhere on approach.
/J
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future
> --> Commander-List message posted by: Chris Schuermann <cschuerm@cox.net>
>
>
> John Vormbaum wrote:
>> I guess it's a shortcoming of my training; I was trained not to go full
>> flaps until the runway was assured.
>
> John,
> The replies have been rather interesting and they show quite a diverse
> range of methodology.
> I was taught to fly by military instructors and the 'stabilized
> approach' was always their technique. By the time you were established
> on final approach, everything was supposed to be set up for landing.
> Fiddling with flaps, gear, etc was supposed to all complete by then. I
> ran into a civilian instructor on a bi-annual who chastized me for that
> technique and said the same thing yours did. Obviously it's not a
> question of right/wrong, but just technique. The military guys were
> constantly either pulling an engine or requiring a late go-around during
> my training which made me comfortable with a quick, last-minute
> re-configuration so I guess it all works out in the end. I do find I
> make more regular nice landings on spot when I have plenty of time
> during a well-established approach though....
>
> chris
>
>
>
Message 22
| 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: Past, Present, Future |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
Bob,
Thanks for the reply. I hope I'm still flying 56 years from now. Heck, I
hope I'm still HERE 56 years from now!
It's definitely starting to sound like there's little consequence to using
full flaps on a Commander anywhere in the approach, assuming you can manage
a go-around with a modicum of skill.
Again, I'll have all sorts of fun stuff to try the next time I go flying.
Whenever that is....the weather here isn't so good right now.
/J
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past, Present, Future
> --> Commander-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> Good Afternoon John,
>
> That was the way it was taught in the days of the DC-4. By the time the
> DC-6
> and DC-7 were on the scene, thoughts on handling the flaps began to
> change.
>
> By the time the jets came upon the scene, almost everybody agreed that
> full
> flaps were the best way to go. However, the last few years, many airlines
> have reduced their flap settings for the final approach to reduce fuel
> consumption and to reduce the noise. In any case, when partial flap
> approaches are
> executed these days, they are generally followed by partial flap
> landings.
>
> Anyone who is currently teaching the application of flaps when the landing
> is assured, is still working in the dark ages! I am not saying the they
> are
> wrong, just not in step with current thinking.
>
> I was taught to not take full flap until I had the field made when I
> received my multiengine rating fifty-six years ago. I did it that way and
> taught it
> that way for the next fifteen years or so. However once I was trained to
> evaluate the approach and use flaps as appropriate for the conditions that
> prevail, I started to go with those that feel full flap should be used the
> vast
> majority of the time.
>
> A full evaluation of all the reasons to use full flap, and the reasons not
> to do so, would take a lot more band width than I believe the list wants
> to
> bear, but as I remember the characteristics of the Aero Commanders I flew
> all
> those many years ago, I would recommend full flap being applied either
> when the
> final descent to landing is initiated or very soon thereafter.
>
> The old idea was that you didn't want to take full flap because you may
> have
> to go around. There are many other ways to handle the go around with
> full
> flap, but that does depend on the conditions encountered on the landing in
> question.
>
> As Always, It All Depends!!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> In a message dated 1/21/2006 4:44:13 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> john@vormbaum.com writes:
>
> I guess it's a shortcoming of my training; I was trained not to go full
> flaps until the runway was assured. How do all you other guys manage your
> flaps in Commanders?
>
>
>
Message 23
| 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: Past Present Future |
--> Commander-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Evening John,
Beware! -- Rant Mode Coming On!
That has always been one of the reasons given, but a good analysis of the
problem shows many other ways to make a safe go around. There is no 'one size
fits all' answer. Many of the methods taught fifty to sixty years ago were
the result of WWII training expediency.
They didn't have time to train the pilots the full range of airmanship, so
the training was simplified and conditions compromised. Good Old Joe saved the
world for the rest of us using what he had been taught. When he came home, he
taught the rest of us the way he had been taught. Some of those Joes went
with the FAA and put those training expediencies in the FAA regulatory
environment. We have been suffering from World War Two training expediencies
for
almost sixty years.
It is time we went beyond what Good Old Joe was taught.
Have you ever been told to never turn into a failed engine! That was gospel
in many WWII squadrons. Had I turned into a dead engine when I got my
multi-engine rating I would have failed the check ride. Fortunately, that one
has
been pretty well stamped out, but many others, such as: "Don't take full flap
until landing is assured" are still being foisted on the flying public.
Rant Off
Do Not Archive
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 1/21/2006 6:21:03 P.M. Central Standard Time,
john@vormbaum.com writes:
I am beginning to think that the "full flaps when landing assured" technique
was for a broad range of airplanes, and to make things a tad safer if you
lost an engine during the approach. Keith made me think "aha" when he
mentioned that unlike electric flap airplanes, the flaps on a Commander will
go UP regardless, as long as you put the lever up. That in my mind makes it
a bit safer to use the full range of flaps anywhere on approach.
Message 24
| 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: Past Present Future |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "" <br549phil@mindspring.com>
My two cents on flaps. I think when you have only one running, there is
great value in following whatever your normal approach routine might be.
You already are dealing with one problem, keep it simple and don't add more
variables to your routine, they will only increase your workload and invite
distraction from the problem at hand. Remember that most accidents are the
result of a series of events. An engine out on a Commander need not lead to
anything worse than a low speed steering problem once on the ground.
Phil
> [Original Message]
> From: John Vormbaum <john@vormbaum.com>
> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 1/21/2006 7:20:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future
>
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" <john@vormbaum.com>
>
> I am beginning to think that the "full flaps when landing assured"
technique
> was for a broad range of airplanes, and to make things a tad safer if you
> lost an engine during the approach. Keith made me think "aha" when he
> mentioned that unlike electric flap airplanes, the flaps on a Commander
will
> go UP regardless, as long as you put the lever up. That in my mind makes
it
> a bit safer to use the full range of flaps anywhere on approach.
>
> /J
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm@cox.net>
> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 4:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future
>
>
> > --> Commander-List message posted by: Chris Schuermann
<cschuerm@cox.net>
> >
> >
> >
> > John Vormbaum wrote:
> >> I guess it's a shortcoming of my training; I was trained not to go full
> >> flaps until the runway was assured.
> >
> > John,
> > The replies have been rather interesting and they show quite a diverse
> > range of methodology.
> > I was taught to fly by military instructors and the 'stabilized
> > approach' was always their technique. By the time you were established
> > on final approach, everything was supposed to be set up for landing.
> > Fiddling with flaps, gear, etc was supposed to all complete by then. I
> > ran into a civilian instructor on a bi-annual who chastized me for that
> > technique and said the same thing yours did. Obviously it's not a
> > question of right/wrong, but just technique. The military guys were
> > constantly either pulling an engine or requiring a late go-around during
> > my training which made me comfortable with a quick, last-minute
> > re-configuration so I guess it all works out in the end. I do find I
> > make more regular nice landings on spot when I have plenty of time
> > during a well-established approach though....
> >
> > chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 25
| 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: Past Present Future |
--> Commander-List message posted by: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall@sbcglobal.net>
I read an accident report on a 500B that crashed on landing during
engine out situation.
The pilots were not experienced in Twin Commanders and on down wind
they put the gear down.
The extra drag could not be overcome and they landed about 1/2 mile
short and in the trees.
Both pilots died.
If I was in a engine out situation, I would wait until I had the
landing made before dropping the gear. Once down, it is staying
there and it will cause a lot of drag.
just my $0.02
Tylor Hall
On Jan 21, 2006, at 8:49 PM, "" <br549phil@mindspring.com> wrote:
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "" <br549phil@mindspring.com>
>
> My two cents on flaps. I think when you have only one running,
> there is
> great value in following whatever your normal approach routine
> might be.
> You already are dealing with one problem, keep it simple and don't
> add more
> variables to your routine, they will only increase your workload
> and invite
> distraction from the problem at hand. Remember that most accidents
> are the
> result of a series of events. An engine out on a Commander need not
> lead to
> anything worse than a low speed steering problem once on the ground.
> Phil
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: John Vormbaum <john@vormbaum.com>
>> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
>> Date: 1/21/2006 7:20:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future
>>
>> --> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum"
>> <john@vormbaum.com>
>>
>> I am beginning to think that the "full flaps when landing assured"
> technique
>> was for a broad range of airplanes, and to make things a tad safer
>> if you
>> lost an engine during the approach. Keith made me think "aha" when he
>> mentioned that unlike electric flap airplanes, the flaps on a
>> Commander
> will
>> go UP regardless, as long as you put the lever up. That in my mind
>> makes
> it
>> a bit safer to use the full range of flaps anywhere on approach.
>>
>> /J
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm@cox.net>
>> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 4:02 PM
>> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Past Present Future
>>
>>
>>> --> Commander-List message posted by: Chris Schuermann
> <cschuerm@cox.net>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John Vormbaum wrote:
>>>> I guess it's a shortcoming of my training; I was trained not to
>>>> go full
>>>> flaps until the runway was assured.
>>>
>>> John,
>>> The replies have been rather interesting and they show quite a
>>> diverse
>>> range of methodology.
>>> I was taught to fly by military instructors and the 'stabilized
>>> approach' was always their technique. By the time you were
>>> established
>>> on final approach, everything was supposed to be set up for landing.
>>> Fiddling with flaps, gear, etc was supposed to all complete by
>>> then. I
>>> ran into a civilian instructor on a bi-annual who chastized me
>>> for that
>>> technique and said the same thing yours did. Obviously it's not a
>>> question of right/wrong, but just technique. The military guys
>>> were
>>> constantly either pulling an engine or requiring a late go-around
>>> during
>>> my training which made me comfortable with a quick, last-minute
>>> re-configuration so I guess it all works out in the end. I do
>>> find I
>>> make more regular nice landings on spot when I have plenty of time
>>> during a well-established approach though....
>>>
>>> chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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! --
|