Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/20/2017 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I never really liked the Willette opinion letter. It focuses on part 43. That portion of the regs. imposes NOTHING on owners or operators. The topic of mandatory engine overhaul, or any other mandatory maintenance, are requirements of WHEN to perform maintenance, and they are found in other rules like part 91, 39, 135, etc........................Part 43 speaks to WHO can perform, and HOW maintenance must be performed. So for SLSA, 91.327 is the operational rule that puts maintenance burdens on operators. It doesn't speak to any kind of "maintenance program". It does speak to an "inspection program" for the aircraft.......................................... a "Condition Inspection". A condition inspection is just that..........................an inspection. That is the extent of legally required maintenance on SLSA aircraft. The other key language in 91.327 is the requirement for operators to have any maintenance performed on their SLSA be performed (by appropriately qualified personnel) in accordance with PROCEDURES. In the case of SLSA, these PROCEDURES must be those specified by the aircraft manufacturer. An overhaul requirement, or a hose change requirement, or a training requirement, are not PROCEDURES, and are therefore not part of required maintenance on SLSA regardless of what the maintenance manual or POH say. I agree with previous posts, that an SLSA aircraft manufacturer can make other types of maintenance legally mandatory with regard to WHEN, and HOW by way of the Safety Directive system. The FAA can also do so using the Airworthiness Directive system. I too think that the inspector in IOWA is 100% wrong in taking the position that the engine must be overhauled for the aircraft to be legal. He is well within his authority to say that he is not going to certify the aircraft as in a condition for safe operation, but his basis for saying it is fundamentally incorrect in this case. Same could be said for hose change, or lock nut change. Absent a Safety Directive or AD, those types of maintenance requirements come down to the judgment of the inspector after diligent application of the required inspection PROCEDURES. Just because something is replaced, or overhauled does not by itself correct an unsafe condition. I can replace a properly functioning used lock nut with a brand new defective one, and I have actually induced a potentially unsafe condition. Wouldn't it just make more sense to use proper maintenance PROCEDURES when installing/inspecting any fastener, and then safety can be assured. Basically what that means is......................if the nut is found to be bad as installed, REPLACE it. Used is not necessarily bad, new is not necessarily good...................Judgment prevails and the regulations support this. How many hose changes have resulted in off airport landings due to debris? How many off airport landings have been found to be a direct result of NOT replacing all hoses at and arbitrary 5 yr. mark? Anticept, The Piper hose AD is an apples to oranges comparison as I see it. The unsafe condition there is cause primarily by a routing proximity to the aircraft exhaust and not a blanket life limit for a hose. It is very specific, and as we have discussed previously, the AD only applies to aircraft with a specific type of hose design installed in the first place. Nevertheless, the safety issue was addressed in the correct way. If hose changes or engine overhauls, or locknut replacements are so critical to safety in the SLSA world, a Safety Directive must be issued.
  2. 2 points
    The wind has no effect on the turn, whether upwind or downwind in direction.
  3. 2 points
    Repairing two wingtips shattered during landing short of runway.
  4. 2 points
    It takes about 12 man hours to do a proper condition inspection on a CTSW, that includes complying with all the safety directives. If you change sparkplugs, and change oil and filter you will have another $100 in parts. That is if there is nothing wrong.
  5. 2 points
    $900 isn't steep for an annual many main centers charge $2200 up to $5K. $900 is reasonable cheap.
  6. 2 points
    Congrats on keeping the CTSW, I think it’s a good choice. $900 seems steep for an annual, that is getting toward Lockwood price without the Lockwood experience level! What worked out for me when I was S-LSA, was to find a good local independent A&P, and I did all the work myself. I paid him $400 to supervise and look over all my work and sign off the logbook entry.
  7. 2 points
    Just remember anyone, including a trunk monkey, can do work on an experimental aircraft. But, unless you built it EAB (experimental, amateur built) you will need the 16 hour course and the appropriate FAA certificate to sign off inspections on an E-LSA but only if it's yours. If EAB you don't need the 16 hour course but you still need a FAA certificate to sign off inspections and that only works for the original builder. If you didn't build the EAB the "anyone can work on it" still applies but an A&P would be required to sign off inspections. For S-LSA you need the 3 week course then you can work on and sign off inspections on any S-LSA. Being an A&P works too. And, what Andy says about just because you can, doesn't mean you should, is right on. About 7 years ago a cylinder head cost about $2K, probably a lot more now. So, screw up a valve job and you could have a major expense.
  8. 2 points
    It smells exactly the same as burning money. When my exhaust broke just aft of the cylinder, I didn’t notice until I pulled the cowl, likely a couple of flight hours later. Others said later they thought my airplane sounded a bit different from the other CTs, but not crazy. I didn’t notice any change, maybe because of my noose canceling headset. I did hear a change in some of the GoPro video I reviewed after the repair.
  9. 2 points
    We have the same problem in Aus. with not enough Rotax trained people. The average aircraft mechanic seems to have the attitude "I've been working on Lycs. and Conts. for thirty years so why should I go to school to work on these little pieces of crap". I think the saying goes they don't know what they don't know.
  10. 2 points
    The latest is that our two are on the docks in Singapore. They were offloaded from the TAURUS on the 4th Oct. and scheduled to load on another ship end of month. That would have them arrive in Aus. fifteen days later. We wait patiently but at least they are out of Germany.
  11. 1 point
    " it should be made a Safety Directive" So you're proposing more regulation to protect people from themselves. I don't see it that way. There are many "Best Maint. practice" items that aren't flight issues, but should be done. With this Safety Directive thinking why not make oil changes, plug changes, gearbox friction torque test, brake pads, ect.. mandatory at a specific hour. If left long enough they can cause engine issues and bring a plane down. Why change tires, why not wait until one goes flat. Smart and intelligent maint. practices should be common sense and not need more regulation that affects everyone else to make some sloppy owner or mechanic maintain their aircraft from hurting themselves and someone else. Why do helicopters have timed maint. Because some idiots would go until more fell out of the air and killed people. You shouldn't have to mandatorily regulate good maint. practices into someone's head. A few people will always cause the rest more aggravation from being over regulated because they just don't get it. Why do we have so many laws and regulations in everything we do with more coming everyday. The few cause the rest of us grief. "It is absolutely amazing to me that there is a video on the internet showing pilots how to perform maintenance" Then you should be really offended by all the Rotax owner videos. Have you EVER watched any video on maint. they you were to preform? " Any pilot who performs the procedures shown in this video on an SLSA that he/she just landed in a field due to power loss should take a serious gut check because it is highly unsafe, and correspondingly, completely illegal." With this thinking you think owners are too dumb to dump a bowl and not be left stranded? You're right you could just sit there and do nothing and or let another non educated mechanic that knows nothing about your Rotax try and figure it out. Your plane and you could sit at some oddball airstrip for days when 30 minutes of your time puts you back on your way. You can be proactive and educated or just another helpless victim. I know many of these pilots here and I fully believe all of them are smart enough and proactive enough to handle this minor situation. No Thanks. There have been many that have self rescued themselves on continued on home. Dumping a carb bowl isn't rocket science and not an invasive procedure. You do what you need to do when things aren't in a nice neat package sitting at your mechanic's shop.
  12. 1 point
    Anticept, My point was that the FD hose change requirement should be looked at in the same way as the engine overhaul requirement. If changing all the hoses on FD rotax aircraft arbitrarily every 5 years is really a safety of flight issue, it should be made a Safety Directive......................................in the same way that AD's very specifically require actions to correct very specific unsafe conditions. In the Piper oil cooler hose AD, there were 26 reported incident/accidents, and 24 SDRs submitted from field A&P and repair station mechanics, in an eight year period. It is quite possible that some of those incidents were off field landings. Had those gone unreported (self rescue maybe) or had diligent mechanics not submitted SDR's in the other non-operational cases, the AD may have not been issued and injuries could have resulted. It is well to note that once an owner has the proper TSO'd hoses installed correctly on their aircraft, the AD is no longer applicable (no further life-limitation to the oil cooler hoses at all). I ask again of all the guys who routinely perform this type of maintenance......................... How many off field landings or flight plan changes have occurred after arbitrary changing all the hoses and subsequent debris induced into the fuel system? How many off field landings or flight plan changes have happened due to NOT changing all of the hoses? And of these, how many were actually due to a problem with all of the hoses on the aircraft that could not have been detected with proper inspection techniques at the aircraft's required "condition inspection"? It is absolutely amazing to me that there is a video on the internet showing pilots how to perform "self rescue" maintenance on their aircraft after an off field landing due to debris in a carb bowl. That maintenance task is absolutely not within a pilot's privileges as an airmen operating an SLSA................................................................. which is the least worrisome fact in that scenario. I am left to assume that off field landings due to carb debris are common enough that someone thought that it was a good idea to create a video which clearly shows maintenance tasks being performed to correct what could possibly be a symptom of some unknown larger problem, and then to imply that anyone can do it to "self rescue". Any pilot who performs the procedures shown in this video on an SLSA that he/she just landed in a field due to power loss should take a serious gut check because it is highly unsafe, and correspondingly, completely illegal. What is next I wonder, a self rescue engine overhaul?
  13. 1 point
    I am really glad to see things are coming together for you and your CT, Buckaroo. Looking forward to reading your posts in the coming months, while you learn more about the 912ULS and your CTSW. Maybe you'll be teaching us on some things!
  14. 1 point
    Montana -- Just got off the phone with Carol C. Will make our 2006 CTsw and myself available to you for 'refinement CT training' while you are here.
  15. 1 point
    Pulling the engine is easy. I pull it all the way off during a hose change. I can have it ready to come off the airframe in an hour or less. Putting it back on and rigging the carbs takes a little longer. The wings are easy too, most of the time. I have run into a couple that were difficult. One had a wire bundle run through the wrong hole, and one needed shims on the front pins. There was one that was a little tough getting the wings back in and seated all the way to get the main pins reinstalled.
  16. 1 point
    WOW! Professional Aerobatic Pilot Stefan Trischuk gives the Pipistrel Virus SW a workout. Aircraft - Pipistrel Virus Short Wing Engine - Rotax 912iS 100 horsepower fuel injected Propellor - MT hydraulic constant speed This Aircraft is registered as Canadian Amateur Built with the Aerobatic restriction removed. The documented G force limits are +4G -2G at Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW) 600kg (ultimate load safety factor 1.875 +7.5 G and - 3.75 G at 600 kg) In this video the takeoff weight is 460kg. You can watch a wing destruction test here https://youtu.be/tFqioA8OYCM Filmed at Estevan Saskatchewan, Canada airshow 2017.
  17. 1 point
    You've been saying that for years and I find it is still one of the best pieces of advice a new CT owner can scour from this site.
  18. 1 point
    Buckaroo, different point than the one I was responding to.
  19. 1 point
    Perhaps, we can all agree that the FAA ADM "hazardous attitude" term "macho" applies... perhaps with a bit of impulsivity and invulnerability thrown in....
  20. 1 point
    One of our Forum members, Tip, has been bringing Jimmy Stewart's personal plane back to life after bringing this back from Texas to Jimmy Stewart airport in Pennsylvania. After many hours spent getting the plane restored to a static display level, Tip will be pulling the plane in a Veteran's Day parade this weekend. Stewart flew over 20 bomber missions in WWII. He is one of our Great American heroes. https://www.indianagazette.com/news/veterans-day-parade-to-feature-stewart-s-airplane/article_f3970fb4-c3cc-11e7-9378-b7cf3af4317b.html
  21. 1 point
    You will only be able to take the first 2 courses which are 4 days. The heavy maintenance 3 day course requires that you have taken the first 2, and have been actively working on Rotax engines for at least 2 years.
  22. 1 point
    Sounds like a great plan. I bet you will have fun. I am taking the rotax service course at Lockwood right after the light sport expo in January. Anyone else going? Rich
  23. 1 point
    I was thinking the same thing.
  24. 1 point
    Everybody has a different take on this and comfort level with S-LSA or E-LSA. An S-LSA converted to a E-LSA, like my CTSW, is every bit as much a factory-built airplane as any other, it's only the maintenance and operating limitations that are different. The "just to save on annual inspections" is a little misleading. The reality is you can save on ALL aspects of maintenance, not just annuals. In the first nine months after my E-LSA conversion, I did my annual, Rotax 5 year rubber change, pulled the wings and replaced the sight tubes and inspected the spars, and a bunch of other minor maintenance. That alone saved me $2500-3000. A few months from now I will be doing a complete ADS-B in/out installation, that will save me another $500-1000. Next year I will have to remove the BRS for repack and rocket replacement, that will be another several hundred dollars saved. As I have said in the past, it all depends on where you want to save money. You can save it at sales time, maybe. I have had two DARs tell me that E-LSA have no less resale value than S-LSA, they just have slightly different audiences. An "Ask The DAR" column in Kitplanes magazine a few months back said the same. So, while an S-LSA might be more marketable to you, that does not make it less marketable overall. Besides, if your mechanic will do a better job than you on maintenance, you are not the right kind of owner for an E-LSA anyway. On the other side of the coin, I am confident in my ability to perform maintenance that is not highly technical (like composite repair or heavy engine maintenance). I'm also 100% sure than nobody has a better incentive to get things right than the guy whose ass will be in the left seat. And my savings are already banked. If save an average of $1000 per year in maintenance costs (easy, my annual is half of that), and own the airplane for ten years, that is $10k saved. Will my E-LSA sell for $10k less than an equivalent S-LSA in ten years? Maybe, but I doubt it based on my research. And if so, who cares? An airplane is a depreciating asset, not an investment vehicle. There are also other benefits to E-LSA: 1) I know my airplane inside and out. I know how it's put together, what to watch for, and where failures are likely to occur. I'm not going to get that level of intimate knowledge by letting others do all the work on it. This has real safety benefits. You could get the same benefit on an S-LSA, but it will cost you in the form of the LSRM class. 2) I never have to wait on somebody else's schedule for maintenance. If I show up at the airport to fly, and find a minor maintenance issue, I don't have to call an A&P and wait for him to fit me into his schedule. I just make the repair and then go fly. Also, if my airplane has a problem at some podunk airport, as long as I can get parts and have tools, I can get myself flying again without having to track down an A&P (who has likely never touched a CT before) in an unfamiliar area and wait for him to have time for me. 3) If I want to make a change to my airplane (like install ADS-B), I'm outside the whole MRA/LOA structure and no longer need factory permission. I just do it, or find somebody to do it, and make the logbook entry. Done, no more factory fees (even more money saved, yay!). I'm not saying you're wrong to keep your airplane S-LSA, at all. What I'm saying is that for a lot of people it makes sense to go E-LSA, and pointing out there are some real advantages, and not just saving money. Are there disadvantages? Yes, but to me they are minor. The only one I consider significant is that you can't conduct flight training for persons that don't own it in the airplane. But I'm not an instructor and won't be leasing my CTSW back to a flight school, so that's a non-issue for me. It's a "six of one, half-dozen of the other" choice for me, it's all about who you are, what you enjoy, how involved you want to be with your airplane, and what you are comfortable with. There are no wrong answers.
  25. 1 point
    I wouldn't want an 80 hp and I would bet that may hurt sales. You already lose HP with the 100 hp so that puts an 80 hp even farther back and poor performance at higher altitudes and especially at higher DA's.
  26. 1 point
    I am working on a sport pilot glider add on. Just this past weekend flying with a glider instructor, he ask me to do a stall in a skidding turn. I did, but just as soon as the nose started to brake I initiated the recovery. I didn't let it go far enough to suit him, so he did one letting it break into the spin entry. No big issue, because I have done spins on many occasions. Back when I did my CFI 25+ years ago the instructor ask me to do a stall in a slip. I held full up elevator, full rudder, and full opposite aileron while the airplane just shook and shuddered. It never did brake letting the nose drop. Another thing that sticks in my mind even though it didn't happen to me is hearing about a Mooney. Just doing simple straight ahead full stalls it likes to break and spin. I think the take away is that each airplane is different and you need to know the individual habits of the airplane you are flying. Personally I am not afraid of slips. I use them and teach using them. They are a valuable tool to have in your pilots bag of tricks. Sometime soon I plan on taking my 14 year old son who recently soloed in a glider out and do some skidding turn stalls. Just so he will know what happens if you mess up.
  27. 1 point
    Wow... Icon just announced 30-50% price increases.... $389K loaded, $269K base (and they won't sell any base until at least 2019!)
  28. 1 point
    I'd like to go to Roger's place and have him train us for the LSRM Maintenance 3 week class. Plus I'd like to stay in Buckaroo's trailer.
  29. 1 point
    Desser monster tread 6.00-6 6 ply. don't get 8 plys.
  30. 1 point
    Desser is the place to buy them. 6.00x 6 6ply if you have tundra gear.
  31. 1 point
    You can take moulds and forms easily from another airplane. In many cases in non-high stress areas, you'll just create a part in a mold, then put it in a jig to line everything up and lay fabric to attach it. Or, lay the inner fabric directly to the repair area using a form to guide the shape, and then add the core and outer fabric on top. Lots of different ways to do it. You'll be making oval shaped access ports for yourself to be able to reach the inside of the wing too, if you aren't building it up in sections. You then repair your access port like it were a hole. You want oval shape so you can insert a stiffened repair ply through it (not possible with a circular hole), then build core and outer layer over it.
  32. 1 point
    This might be your best source for any information on these systems: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BMA_Users/info
  33. 1 point
    Good for you Buckaroo! Probably the hardest part is making the decision to actually do it. There is plenty of help here to guide you through the transition process. Andy just finished taking his CTSW to ELSA and I am sure he will be a valuable source of timely information.
  34. 1 point
    For your situation, that's the ticket.
  35. 1 point
    I wouldn't be happy feeling isolated with no other repair/maintenance services nearby. I have taken the Rotax class and still want help to be nearby. Have you considered that for annual inspections flying it to someone elsewhere? Should you end up in a repair scenario where you can't take the plane to someone, then you could coordinate with a repair person so they know what to bring with them, and then pay their airfare to come to you. Hopefully the annual can be worked into a trip and the repairs would never happen. Hate to see you give up a plane you have worked so hard to come to terms with. When I got my CTLS, I read somewhere that for the first year, you will fight the plane for who is in control. In the second year the plane will decide if you have earned the right to be boss. Danny
  36. 1 point
    Yes the engine needs to be pulled for the hose change, but it isn't to hard. There isn't to much about the hose change that is difficult, but it is time consuming. There are a few special tools, but they are not to expensive.
  37. 1 point
    Seeing those aircraft pictures is gonna make me have a workout today. Off the polish and detail mine today. Looks great !! How can you even consider selling ? (kidding) I know service is not easily available. Hope something comes up that allows you to keep her.
  38. 1 point
    I finally went ahead and deleted the "extra" spring that pre-loaded the joystick pitch axis in my 2007 CTSW yesterday. I don't think I'll be replacing it. I test flew it yesterday including cruise flight up to 125kt (~5500rpm), a dive to Vne, and two landings, one on grass and one on pavement, both at 30° flaps. Impressions: * I'm no longer confused by Charlie Tango and other describing how they set trim for landing, etc. My airplane now flies similarly, and needs minimal/no trim from downwind to landing. Previously I needed to use full aft trim from abeam the numbers to touchdown. It was fine that way, and the 2007 I trained in was the same. But not having to touch the trim is, as Forrest Gump says, "one less thing"... * I did need to add some some nose down trim on climb out as I accelerated with flaps in. On my next flight I will start the roll with the trim a little more forward and see if that reduces that somewhat. * I found that in cruise at 100+ knots I have my trim at about 80-90% forward, and I run out of forward trim around 125kias. I rarely if ever cruise that fast or faster, so I don't know if I will bother adjusting the trim system. I had previously adjusted it to give me more aft trim, so I might need to turn those rod ends back a turn to give me more nose down range. I'm in "wait and see" mode on that. * I worried that since I was used to a much heavier stick feel, that I'd over-control the airplane in pitch . Unfounded. Apparently my brain works more on the amount of stick travel than on stick force; I found myself just moving the stick the same as always, it just took less effort. I used to fly with my first two fingers and thumb wrapped around the stick to get the necessary force for control. Now I can fly with just the tips of those three digits. That's better and less fatiguing. * The stick forces feel more linear, and perhaps a bit more precise. I attribute this to the nature of a coil spring; the forces are not linear, but load up in an increasing curve as the spring tension increases. This leads to an ever-increasing ramp up of effort as the stick is moved farther aft. * Landings felt the same, just with less stick effort. The stick does come back easier close to the ground. On my pavement landing I seemed to get the stick back more and sooner, which led to a greaser landing, but the nose was higher than I'm used to. I wondered if I might hear a scraping noise from the tail, but it never happened. I guess that is just something I'll have to be aware of, and not over-do the pitch change on touchdown. Overall, I have not seen any disadvantages to this change, and it definitely makes the controls feel a bit more sporty. I'd recommend this for other 2007 CTSW owners with the extra spring installed. Of course, the applies only to E-LSA owners or S-LSA owners with an anti-authoritarian streak.
  39. 1 point
    You AZ guys have an embarrassment of riches regarding CT resources available to you. How about sharing with the rest of the country?!?
  40. 1 point
    Update: USAIG decided that the cost to repair it was reasonable. I have been working on it in my shop for the past month. Determining the correct parts to order has been a bit of a challenge to say the least. While the prop was shattered, the prop flange run-out was 0 degrees. I pulled the gear box and sent it off to Lockwood for a rebuild. The run-out on the crankshaft was also 0 degrees. Then I used the Rotax tool for testing crankshaft twist. Again, 0 degrees. Yeah! Didn't have to have the engine rebuilt. Saved $14K. I think the insurance company would have totaled it if it needed an engine rebuild. While the landing gear was wiped off, there was no damage to the main gear sockets so we just need to replace the main gear. The nose gear folded under the aircraft, but there was no firewall damage. So, I removed the small motor mount from the main motor mount and was able to swing the engine out and to the passenger side enough to remove the main motor mount and replace it without removing ALL of the plumbing. During the process, I found a badly chafed SCAT tube from the air filter to the intake plenum. So I'm replacing it with SCEET (double walled). The steering rods were bent. To replace them, I used a scope camera to line up the rod end joints while a helper inserted the steering rods and screwed them in. It is VERY hard to get your hand all of the way in there and I have the scrapes on my arm to prove it. The Vividea Ablescope is amazing. It's a tiny thing, transmits via wi-fi, and has a 180 degree bend feature that I have used extensively. You can insert it into a spark plug socket and check out the valves. I had 2 iPad mini's; one for me and one for my helper. After trying to screw it in by myself for a couple of hours, with the camera and a helper I was done in 10 minutes. Highly recommended. Both wingtips were heavily damaged (shattered), but there was only minor aileron damage. No wing root damage which was amazing. Looks like the wings "slapped" the ground alternately. A composite instructor is coming over from Germany to replace one wingtip and repair the other as well as fix some of the dings and dents. He'll be here for a couple of weeks. Really nice guy over Skype and email. When he's done, I'll be certified to do composite work in CTs. I built a Cozy IV from plans in the past, but am looking forward to learning from him techniques specific to Flight Design. Overall, I have been VERY impressed with this aircraft. So impressed that I decided to buy one and use it for flight training. So we now have a 2009 immaculate CTLS in our hangar for training and a 2008 CTLS under repair. So far, we already have 5 Private Pilot students and one Sport Pilot. Tomorrow I'm cutting a radio ad. We live in the Verde Valley of Arizona (Cottonwood, Sedona, Camp Verde), and there hasn't been a flight training facility here in about 15 years. Turns out that there's LOTS of interest in flight training. Some people want to come out and do intensive training for a couple of weeks while their spouse hangs out at one of the many Sedona spas. Nice! We do the 5-hour CT transition training as well. Also, Rainbow Aviation is holding an LSRI 2-day class at our facility in October. Contact Rainbow Aviation if you want to sign up. Sid Lloyd Kestrel Aviation Services LSRM - Aircraft/Weight shift iRMT - Service/Maintenance www.kestrelaviationservices.com
  41. -1 points
    Fly Boss sounds great at $150 a night!😱😂
  42. -1 points
    Box Canyon Exits are required after 1 of 2 things occur when flying in a mountain canyon. The terrain ahead rising faster than your CT is capable of climbing. The Canyon narrows to where turning around becomes impossible. Above are your 2 points of no return. Your shrinking left arm is perfectly natural as the terrain rises, it is your enemy as it robs you of your energy stored as air speed and reduces your exit maneuver options to the ones that are the least fun and most dangerous. If your speed degrades below 80kts IAS then lower your nose or turn around. Safe zones Cruise on the downwind side of a canyon with a crosswind so that your exit turn is into the wind. Do this to avoid drifting into the canyon wall when making an exit turn. Maintain 500 AGL or above the canyon floor. You need energy to exit and this 500' can be your trump card if all else fails. Safe speed zone is above 85kts IAS. Use the vertical escape route first. Aerobatic maneuvers that exit on a reciprocal heading use a vertical path to change headings and work well for canyon exits but CT pilots can't practice these. We can do steep climbing or descending turns that in a CT can have extremely small radius and permit reversing your heading in a tight canyon. With 500' or more to the canyon floor a descending steep turn is the essayist option. Lower your nose, retard your throttle and bank steeply with zero back pressure. With 85kts IAS you can climb steeply and bank steeply. In both cases above I bank steep without much wingloading. I trade the vertical for radius and the exit becomes effortless. Worst case - low speed exit. If you get slow and low your easy options disappear and you are now looking at a steep level turn at minimum speed. I have done over 100 canyon exits in 2017 and none of them were worst case, all of them were fun. PS: Teardrops often work, it may not be intuitive to begin by turning the wrong way but often this provides extra room.
  43. -1 points
    Where do I send flowers. I just read another article in FLYING mag. about this?
×