Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:04 AM - Re: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (pj.ladd)
2. 03:40 AM - Re: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (pj.ladd)
3. 03:51 AM - Re: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (pj.ladd)
4. 04:48 AM - Re: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Eugene Zimmerman)
5. 04:51 AM - Re: Re: BNC bulkhead connector (russ kinne)
6. 05:22 AM - Re: BNC bulkhead connector (Mike Welch)
7. 05:38 AM - Re: BNC bulkhead connector (R. Hankins)
8. 05:40 AM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Watkinsdw)
9. 07:54 AM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Richard Pike)
10. 08:08 AM - Re: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (b young)
11. 12:13 PM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (JetPilot)
12. 01:55 PM - Angle of Bank vs Stall Speed (The Kuffels)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 180 turn back to the runway video |
a flat skidding turn leading to the inside wing stalling,>>
Hi Dana,
reminds me of an incident I saw just around the end of the war.
An Albemarle, which was a twin engined light/medium bomber reduced to
glider tugging was struggling into the sky from my local field pulling
a Waco glider. The glider got out of position and pulled the tail of
the Albemarle to starboard. The Albemarles port wing stalled and she
dropped into a straight down nosedive with both engines flat out.
Unfortunately there was not enough height and she hit the ground about
10 degrees from vertical. The pilot had obviously realised what was
happening and dumped the tow line as his plane dropped out of control
thus certainly saving the glider pilot from filling his pants or as a
worst case causing the glider to crash with its full complement of
squaddies aboard.
Sports gliders with their long wing span are prone to this on final turn
when they are close to the ground and skid into a flat turn instead of
banking properly.
Cheers
Pat
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: 180 turn back to the runway video |
The wind would have to be blowing on the order of 10 to 15 knots (an
estimate) down the runway to be in danger of running out of runway on the
landing roll.>>
Hi Jason,
working the accurate math for that is beyond me but a 10knot windspeed and
say 35knot airspeed at take off is going to produce a ground speed on
takeoff of 25knots. Landing downwind is going to require at least 45 knots
ground speed and to keep proper control, a bit more. That will certainly
take a lot more runway than you expect.
I will tell you how I know. I flew to a fly in last weekend. Viz was not
great and I was non radio. The wind was light and I couldn`t see the
windsock. I saw another a/c in the circuit and decided to follow him around
the circuit. As I turned I lost him in the haze and the next time I saw him
he was on the ground having (I assumed), just landed. I tracked round to
follow and landed in the same direction. I realised that something was not
quite right when the hedge wizzed under me a bit faster than I expected.
Then the plane plonked herself down a bit more solidly than usual and I
found myself charging down the grass and applying brakes hard. I taxied to
the clubhouse where I was given a (richly deserved) b*******ing from the
CFI.
What I had seen was not the other plane landing, but BACKTRACKING after he
had landed. A stupid error whch to salve my pride I shall put down as being
due to the first away flight of the season and not being really switched on
yet.
Take it from me. Down wind landings take MUCH more runway than you expect.
Cheers
Pat
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: 180 turn back to the runway video |
If you bank steeper you descend faster and you are still at 1G.>>
Hi Jason,
If that were the case then any bank angle would not increase the `G`.
Ascending, descending, power on or off. None of these is germane to the
case.
Cheers
Pat
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 180 turn back to the runway video |
On Apr 28, 2010, at 6:40 AM, pj.ladd wrote:
> Take it from me. Down wind landings take MUCH more runway than you
> expect.
Ok,
You perhaps. What do you expect?
Unrealistic expectations inevitably make pilots unsafe.
Gene,
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: BNC bulkhead connector |
Roger
Just a thought -- but ik you have a good electronics shop nearby --
air, ground or marine; -- they may well have a junk drawer with a
chassis that has a bulkhead BNC fitting on it Worth a try.
Good luck,
Russ K
do not archive
On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:04 AM, R. Hankins wrote:
>
> "Show this to your local Radio Shack sales clerk. "
>
> Your link is pretty much what the local Shack clerk showed me...
> Lots of BNC stuff, but no bulkhead fitting like Jimmy is looking
> for. It's not in their system at all. The Shack ain't what it
> used to be.
>
> --------
> Roger in Oregon
> 1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295978#295978
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: BNC bulkhead connector |
Roger=2C Russ=2C Jimmy=2C anyone else=2C
When Jimmy asked about a BNC bulkhead connector=2C I posted an immediate
response showing what I think is what he was after. I did not get a reply
=2C so I don't know whether it was or not.
I'll post it again. It might be nice to know if this is what he was after.
: )
http://www.mouser.com/Search/ProductDetail.aspx?R=112575virtualkey523300
00virtualkey523-112575
Regarding Radio Shack=2C you're right=2C they aren't what they used to be
!! My local Radio Shack is a subsection in some other store (kind of like
a bank in a grocery store). They don't have much!!! But=2C they are bett
er than nothing for the basics.
Mike Welch
MkIII
> From: russkinne@mac.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: BNC bulkhead connector
> Date: Wed=2C 28 Apr 2010 07:50:52 -0400
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
>
>
> Roger
> Just a thought -- but ik you have a good electronics shop nearby --
> air=2C ground or marine=3B -- they may well have a junk drawer with a
> chassis that has a bulkhead BNC fitting on it Worth a try.
> Good luck=2C
> Russ K
> do not archive
>
> On Apr 28=2C 2010=2C at 2:04 AM=2C R. Hankins wrote:
>
> >
> > "Show this to your local Radio Shack sales clerk. "
> >
> > Your link is pretty much what the local Shack clerk showed me...
> > Lots of BNC stuff=2C but no bulkhead fitting like Jimmy is looking
> > for. It's not in their system at all. The Shack ain't what it
> > used to be.
> >
> > --------
> > Roger in Oregon
> > 1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295978#295978
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hot
mail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=P
ID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
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: BNC bulkhead connector |
Mike,
I posted before checking your second link. Mouser has many options for BNC bulkhead
fittings. I can't speak for Jimmy, but they have what I have been looking
for.
Thanks for the tip,
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=296001#296001
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: 180 turn back to the runway video |
Hi, Gang,
Just for fun, and since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned, when safely practicing
at altitude, perform a 270 degree turn to establish your altitude loss.
Unless we take off sideways across a football field, it takes a 45 to return to
the runway, and another 45 to line up for landing. All that is after the initial
180.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=296002#296002
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 180 turn back to the runway video |
Here is a very good video about the "Impossible Turn" as performed by two guys
in a C172.
http://www.aerobats.com/seminar_02-07.html
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=296028#296028
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: 180 turn back to the runway video |
Hello Boyd,
Again, a descending (power off) turn at constant air speed is a 1G maneuver.
Jason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jason
Just visited a cfi, and I asked the question "could you remain in 1 g
during a descending turn at a constant air speed" his reply was "you could
for a short while, but it would be the start of a death spiral."
Straight flight at a constant speed and power setting, is considered 1g.
If 1 g is lifting the aircraft and you put it into a turn, You will
require additional energy to cause the plane to change direction, I.e.
TURN 180 Energy is needed to stop the plane from traveling in one
direction, and accelerate it into another direction. Thus more energy/lift
is required from the wings, to make the direction change and also lift the
aircraft. I guess it could be argued that there is still only 1g apposing
gravity, but additional lift is required to cause the change of direction.
Thus 1 PLUS g maneuver, the greater the bank angle the greater the PLUS.
Boyd
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: 180 turn back to the runway video |
Any turn of an airplane will require acceleration to change its direction, you
can not turn the direction of any moving object without putting force on it, its
a law of physics that can not be broken. What can be done is that the turning
forces can be temporarily kept near one G by initiating a descent, and using
more of the lift component for the turn, and less for lifting against gravity,
TEMPORARILY. But any descent incurred by this will have to be arrested sooner
or later by additional lift from the wings, additional G loading somewhere
before hitting the ground. You can not change the laws of physics by being
a good pilot.
What a good pilot can do is manage these forces so gradually, and smoothly that
any increase in G loading is minimal and not noticed by the humans inside the
plane. This is very good and important technique, as the return to airport would
be done at minimal airspeed with no power... Horsing the plane around and
being abrupt with the controls and the resulting G forces could cause an accelerated
stall and be disastrous in this situation. So while you can not change
the laws of physics, you can manage them so smoothly as to give yourself every
chance of completing this maneuver without stalling.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=296079#296079
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: | Angle of Bank vs Stall Speed |
Sent this two hours ago. So far it hasn't appeared on the list. My
paranoid side says there must be censorship of my ideas somewhere.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh. My conscience won't let me ignore this.
pj, boyd, Dana:
Dang it, ignore what I say, fly the maneuver and see for yourself. Go
to
altitude, reduce power if you wish, enter a 30 degree bank and hold
absolutely constant airspeed for 180 degrees and then roll level.
Repeat at
5 miles/knots slower. Repeat again until you are as close to Vso as
your
ability to hold a constant airspeed allows. You will not stall.
For more details as to why this is true review my messages in the thread
linked by Jason:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=38477&highlight=descendin
g+turn+stall
Now:
<< If the turns are less than 30 deg and the g load less than 1.5,,
you
may be ok. if the turn is 60 or more deg bank and g load 2 or above
>>
<< In a coordinated turn, the stall speed increases as a function of the
bank angle >>
These out of context statements are exactly the misconception which
kills
pilots every year. I know, it almost killed me during my primary
training.
I know, base to final turn accidents are a major source of aircraft
fatalities every year. They are true *if you maintain (approximately) a
constant vertical component for your lift vector.* The only way to do
this
is to increase your total lift, in other words maintain constant
altitude,
in other words increase your load factor.
But don't believe me, go out and fly the maneuver yourself at altitude.
Look at the AIM diagram we have all had drummed into our subconscious.
As
the angle of bank increases, the total lift increases to keep the
vertical
component the same. Now with your hands block out all but the first
airplane. Rotate the entire manual. This is the case of a constant
airspeed in a turn. Some of the lift is now used to make the turn and
less
lift is available to oppose gravity and you will *start* to descend
faster.
But since the total lift is unchanged so is the stall speed. In other
words, stall speed increases with load factor, not angle of bank.
But don't believe me, go out and fly the maneuver yourself at altitude.
<< Take a 45 degree bank, for example. In a normal, coordinated, level
turn, you pull 1.41G. If you put your aircraft into a 45 degree bank
and
hold 1G, the vertical component of lift will be only 0.707g; thus you'll
have a downward acceleration of 0.3g, or 9.4 ft/s/s, or 566 fpm/s. This
means that after one second, your rate of descent will have increased by
566
fpm. After four seconds, you're descending at 2264 fpm, which is a
pretty
steep dive, and you WILL pull more than one g pulling out of it. >>
The math here is wrong. After one second you are descending at 9
feet/sec,
2 seconds you are now at 19 ft/sec, 3 seconds = 28 ft/sec, 4 sec =
38 ft/sec
or so. In addition it ignores the vertical component of drag which is
significant.
But don't believe me, go out and fly the maneuver yourself at altitude.
The above statements as well as the "death spiral" of Boyd's CFI are the
result of misunderstanding the context of what I and others are trying
to
fix. The problem is the turn from base to final. Most pilots initiate
a
bank of about 30 degrees. Half way through the turn they see they are
overshooting the runway. What they should do is increase their angle of
bank to 45 degrees or even briefly 60 degrees at constant airspeed to
finish
the turn. Instead, because "increased angle of bank means increased
stall
speed" (in a different context) has been fixated in their minds they try
to
fudge the situation with rudder and/or tightening up (pulling on the
stick)
instead. This brings them to experience the other four fundamentals of
flight: stall, spin, crash and burn. What we must fixate instead is
"constant airspeed = constant load factor = constant stall speed".
But don't believe me, go out and fly the maneuver yourself at altitude.
Now just because I have an evil nature let me mention one more context
besides turns at low altitude for landing. This should start another
thread
in the Seafoam mode. The concept of constant airspeed control is also
paramount in mountain search and rescue reversing turns and box canyon
escapes. What I teach is no change in power, smoothly increase your
climb
rate and bank until you reach your desired bank and airspeed, say Vs1 +
10.
Maintain this bank and airspeed until you have reversed direction. You
will
now be in a decent but at a higher altitude, smoothly pullout and you
are
now going in the opposite direction at roughly your starting altitude
and
airspeed. This method allows the pilot to concentrate on airspeed
control
and situational awareness without the distraction of power control. The
reduced airspeed during the turn also creates a very small radius of
turn.
But don't believe me, go out and fly the maneuver yourself at altitude.
Let me finish with an irrelevant appeal to authority. Every, and I mean
every, CFI with whom I've had the above discussion and then taken flying
has
adopted my emphasis on constant airspeed control for maneuvering close
to
the ground.
But don't believe me, go out and fly the maneuver yourself at altitude.
Good luck and have fun,
Tom Kuffel, CFI
EAA Flight Advisor
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! --
|