Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Andy

  • Rank
    Senior Crew Member
  • Birthday July 2

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Friendswood, TX
  • Interests
    CTSW, flying, flight instruction techniques, writing, Macs, manned spaceflight, hiking, camping
  • Gender
  1. This discussion has my interest and I hear what Ed's saying and think there's some merit in it, but I have a lot of questions since the relationships are complex. I do intend to dig into this but it'll take me a while; I've got a lot of things on my plate and there simply isn't much in the literature about the use of reflex flaps and we never talked about them in any of my engineering courses. I agree there's a better config than 15 flaps at 63 for engine out; but it's also possible they assumed you were performing a 15 degree flap takeoff (normal for our CT's) and were talking about that case in the quote above (in which case transiting back to minus 6 would not be the thing to do). Someone involved with it would have to say. While the overalll thrust of the information in what Ed posted is correct, like a lot of things on the Internet concerning performance and aerodynamics, the devil is in the details. While power and thrust required are driven by the drag curves, it is not actually correct to superimpose thrust or power available curves over them and make an analysis; the correct analysis is a comparison of power available vs power required or thrust available and thrust required. They are both dependent on drag but other terms are also involved, so the shapes of the curves are similar but not the same.
  2. Strange Noise

    You guys are the CAT'S MEOW!!! I put two overlays over the original tape so that they overlaid the original and each other as well as the edges and made sure they both went to the flap bracket. Worked great! THANKS SO MUCH!
  3. Strange Noise

    I didn't see any cracks. I thought it went back to the flap bracket on both sides. Sounds like the easiest thing to do is to overlap what's been done and see if that does it. I'll go out in the morning and give it a try. Thanks.
  4. Strange Noise

    Those were just replaced. I'll take a closer look at them and see if one of them could be it. if it is, it's probably wing tape up on the left wing. It sounds like it's coming from the left side. (I updated the links and embedded the video,)
  5. Strange Noise

    Gang, I've got a strange noise I need help troubleshooting. This started after a troublesome conditional the inspection, 5 year rubber replacement, and replacement of the head due to a stripped spark plug. After two months of getting oil leaks associated with the head straight, now I've got this noise. While I think it's airframe related (and the wings were pulled off and the fuel tubes replaced), I'm not sure. It is airspeed related and not related to any engine power setting (confirmed by a static ground run). There are two videos you can view. Both the audio and video are captured by a cockpit mounted Go Pro allowed to pick up the cockpit environment vice internal audio (i.e., radio chatter). Noise Clip 1 runs for 5:40 total. The first 30 seconds is from an earlier "normal" flight so you can hear the normal cockpit background (baseline). The flight today starts at 31 seconds and the anomalous noice starts at 40 seconds elapsed. The rest of the clip can be used to see the relationship of the sound to airspeed and power setting, if you want to go there. Noise Clips 2 runs 3:01. The first thirteen seconds is normal background with the anomalous sound from there to the end. Thanks! Andy
  6. There are a few more details here: http://flightdesign.com/wordpress/?p=5257. It mentions licensing in Taiwan and China but doesn't give any details about the future.
  7. BRS removal

    Damn! There goes my plan to lash up some Estes series F's (model rocket engines)!
  8. Flying in the rain?

    There was actually nothing in there at the time. I think the original intent was for an IR sensor, but I'd have to check. By "LLTV", I think you're talking about what was eventually called TVSU (Television Sensor Unit, originally called TCS for Television Camera Set) which was an optical system that we could use to get visual i.d.'s at long rages. It could be slaved to the radar or operate independently.
  9. Flying in the rain?

    My pilot and I were in a Tomcat on a cross-country from Houston to Montgomery, AL. We had taken a southerly route to avoid heavy weather to the north; but as we hit Mobile, we flew into the goo at FL 350. Still didn't think much of it until Center issued a weather warning and we realized we were right in the middle of it. We plowed into heavy rain at 400 KTS, and it sounded like the forward windscreen had been hit with buckshot! Scared the hell out of me for an instant it was so loud. (The pilot didn't say anything and he was a lot closer to it.) No damage to the windscreen (which was very thick plexiglass) but the rain chewed off the nose of a small protruding dome (about 6 inches in diameter) under the radome (nosecone). Luckily, the Air National Guard at Danelly had some guys who could patch us up so we could continue on our way; but the sound of heavy rain hitting at high velocity is something I will never forget.
  10. CT Dream - The Journey Begins

    Thanks for the compliment but it's the wrong gauge since I'm an aerospace engineer by training. Here's somebody who knows a lot more about aerodynamics than me: Since we've had aero discussions in this group and there's so much B.S. being distributed by AOPA and now the FAA (in their latest version of the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge), it's worth your while to watch at least the first 29 minutes of this video..which takes you right to the Biot-Savart Law which is probably only of interest to engineers. I've got his book and am going through it; fills in a lot of holes even college aero classes don't explain but is a bit heavy on the technical, so you gotta be into it..
  11. Helicopter Rotor Wash on Takeoff

    One of the most unstable air masses I've flown through on approach was generated by a Marine CH-47 Chinook doing touch and go's at our airport. All you can do is fly it out and, frankly, I was so "all over the place" in airflow that felt very odd and didn't make sense. The wake turbulence guidance the FAA publishes is concerned with a helicopter in a hover that can disturb the air up to three rotor diameters away and to stay above their flight path (just like avoiding the big heavies). (You can see more in AC 90-23G.) I was doing a intro ride in my CTSW with a prospective student and was happy to full stop it and get a Coke until the Chinook left...
  12. CT Dream - The Journey Begins

    David and Hollie, In the next few days, I'll be flying my 2006 CTSW up to CFDI Aero at KDTO (Denton) for its conditional and her next Rotax 5 year rubber changeout. Message me and I'll send you my personal info and let's see if we can tag up..or arrange for you to stop by and see her in the shop. (Me and mine are based at KLVJ near Friendswood, TX.)
  13. Was Bernoulli wrong?

    That's drag. Not really the best approach for trying to make an airplane fly... http://theandyzone.com/flightblog/?p=387
  14. Full power run ups?

    I've been using 3200 as my POH says, and I don't feel I've ever had any issue picking out the magnitude of the ignition drops; I feel I can see my analog gauge within about 25 RPM, so unless something is hairline I don't see the impact (and if I'm seeing something abnormal and am pushing the limit, I need to taxi back anyway). I do use 4000 in the Remos I teach in because that's what the POH calls for; it's a much more dynamic affair. I prefer the lower 3200 RPM not only because of the debris issue mentioned but because I'm much less likely to wind up messing with the parking brake not being effective enough, which is a bigger problem in the Remos than in the CT.
  15. Was Bernoulli wrong?

    The problem isn't that Bernouilli was wrong, but that the application of his principles and its relationship to the generation of lift is misunderstood and oversimplified (and the application of Newton's Laws even more so). I've been blogging about this quite a bit, and there's a good discussion from NASA Glenn about this issue (Included in the links below): https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html https://t.co/p0wVcIOK6r https://t.co/zJTaFF1Hq8 The downward deflection of air..which we all know as downwash..is a manifestation of a real (three dimensional) wing and is a result of the production of lift by the wing. It doesn't exist in the production of lift if you look at a 2d infinite span. People keep trying to ascribe it as the action in the Newtonian action-reaction explanation of lift; but that's false. If you just have to go there, the action is the reduction of pressure above the wing (that is typically the bigger driver than the increase in positive pressure below) and the reaction is the wing moving upward from the force generated. Downwash is the driver behind induced drag and that's why engineers design things like winglets to reduce it. You can calculate lift using Newton's laws only, but you must calculate the momentum change of the air in the entire system, and that's a bitch of a thing to do. It's easier to simply measure the pressure distributions in a wind tunnel and then do an integration of areas to come up with the forces.