Roger Lee Posted November 14, 2020 Report Share Posted November 14, 2020 9 hours ago, Warmi said: But that’s exactly what some manufacturers are already hinting at ( Bristell, The Airplane Factory ) and for a good reason- as long as we have the prospect of significant changes out there, it has the potential of resulting in a variant of Osborne effect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect ) which could devastate their sales. It would most likely be for new planes not existing ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmi Posted November 14, 2020 Report Share Posted November 14, 2020 9 hours ago, sandpiper said: My base to final turn is more gradual and with less bank than my downwind to base turn which may be 30 degrees. I do the base to final turn more gradual and "softer" as Dale suggests. I do downwind to final rounded turns and put as much bank angle as necessary - sometimes 40 or so - people tend to stall and spin because of too shallow turns ( attempting to fix them with rudder) , not the other way around... as long as these are descending turns without loading the wings, I feel very safe in making reasonably steep turns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted November 14, 2020 Report Share Posted November 14, 2020 I agree with Warmi 100%. I think it’s when a pilot is taught “No more that x degrees in the pattern” that danger lies. It then can become instinctive to avoid more bank, even when necessary. That can result in skidded turns, where the real danger lies. I have no problem with 45° of bank in the pattern on occasion if the wings are unloaded and the ball is in the center. That said, with proper planning excessive bank shouldn’t be needed, and I’m not advocating “horsing” the plane roughly around the pattern. A couple of years back there was much discussion about rounded patterns. I tried a couple, but didn’t care for them. I like well-defined crosswind and base legs in wings-level flight, even if they only last 5 or 10 seconds in my preferred tight patterns. Two main advantages in my book: 1) Depending on the plane, in a continuous bank the view of traffic on final can be blocked for an extended time. Mostly a problem in low wings, but even in a high wing I don’t care for having my view blocked in any direction in the pattern for any extended duration. 2) Having the wings level on base provides the opportunity for the pilot to take a breath, check final, add flaps if desired* and judge whether his or her height is correct. If too low, an early turn towards the runway may be justified. If too high, a small s-turn to final or more flaps may be appropriate. But if rounded patterns work for you and don’t seem to have these obvious drawbacks, go for it! *I was taught to avoid deploying flaps while turning as a general practice. The thought is if the admittedly rare case of “split flaps” occurs while already banked, the resulting difference in lift of the two wings might be harder to deal with. Almost vanishingly unlikely to happen to any given pilot over his or her career, but since it’s so easy to avoid with proper planning, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 14, 2020 Report Share Posted November 14, 2020 Good post Ed. I remember in 2006 I was checked out buy a really impressive guy. With my very light plane experience I had the CT from the get go but he changed one thing, the way I flew the pattern. No more shallow gradual 30 degree turns when the CT would safely do them much steeper and allow me too maintain visibility. And as Ed said limiting bank can lead to inadvertent skidding. I do bank as steep as I want but I limit loading the wings and favor slipping over skidding. I also limit my pitch attitude on climb out from sea level so I can see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tip Posted November 14, 2020 Report Share Posted November 14, 2020 X2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmi Posted November 14, 2020 Report Share Posted November 14, 2020 13 hours ago, Roger Lee said: It would most likely be for new planes not existing ones. Then good luck selling a new plane that will be forever handicapped with pointless paperwork while you can wait and get the same plane without artificial limitations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted November 14, 2020 Report Share Posted November 14, 2020 6 hours ago, Warmi said: - people tend to stall and spin because of too shallow turns ( attempting to fix them with rudder) , not the other way around... as long as these are descending turns without loading the wings, I feel very safe in making reasonably steep turns. This is exactly what I said in my original post on this subject, not the one you quoted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmi Posted November 14, 2020 Report Share Posted November 14, 2020 2 hours ago, WmInce said: Concur totally. Oh so you consider that absolutely positively normal customer service to have your customers shell out north of $200 000 for a luxury product and then tell them to GFT because the factory couldn't be bothered to print out a new set of papers that would potentially greatly enhance usability of the product (and btw ... reflect the actual reality in the first place) - Nope, can't do it, got to shell out another $200 000 if you want new papers .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGLyme Posted November 14, 2020 Report Share Posted November 14, 2020 On a similar subject... at my BFR... my instructor, who has about 15 hours in my plane and a gajillion in homebuilts and homebuilts... the guy could fly a vacuum cleaner... said this about my flying... "your patterns suck". He pointed out that at downwind mid-field, "you should always be able to land without an engine from this point on..." our airport is surrounded by forest and water... zero fields and each end of the runway is pretty much a cliff. So we tightened up my B-17 pattern and basically I am now flying a hybrid box/circle pattern which is forcing me to slow down and "trust my plane specs". I am slipping if I go past the Final line... smaller fields are a breeze too... I was landing too fast as my speed margin was too great. We would always fly just at gross as he is husky. Landings are way better and safer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted November 14, 2020 Report Share Posted November 14, 2020 2 hours ago, Warmi said: Oh so you consider that absolutely positively normal customer service to have your customers shell out north of $200 000 for a luxury product and then tell them to GFT because the factory couldn't be bothered to print out a new set of papers that would potentially greatly enhance usability of the product (and btw ... reflect the actual reality in the first place) - Nope, can't do it, got to shell out another $200 000 if you want new papers .... It may not be a manufacture decision. It all boils down to what the FAA says. Regardless of what the intentions are, the wording is what matters when it comes to legal technicalities. If an airplane already has an airworthiness certificate it may not be able to change. That certainly was the case when the original rule was written in regards to moving backwards. I'm sure if an airplane design can be safely flown at a higher weight within the ASTM or whatever certification standards it was built, the manufactures will be more than willing to allow for the increased weight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEH Posted December 20, 2020 Report Share Posted December 20, 2020 The F2 on the cover of Flying Magazine. What is that wrinkle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Koerner Posted December 21, 2020 Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 Also, why 34 fasteners holding the wrinkled piece down. It looks like a cover to provide access to the spars, but why? Our spars slide into a box. Maybe someone dropped one of the wings on disassembly, damaged the box and this is just a sheet metal repair. Mike Koerner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGLyme Posted December 21, 2020 Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 Mike, the F2 wing is one piece, it is no longer a two wings slide in the box design. I am certain the model here is a prototype. They were still working on freezing certain design items while the F2 was flying around the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skunkworks85 Posted December 21, 2020 Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 4 hours ago, Ed Cesnalis said: Hey Roger, of the people I fly with (one of them male and 3 female) we all make that weight. You can ask me how I got rid of 60lbs 5 years ago and kept it off without ever restricting calories. I eat 4-6,000 Kcal / day I am unsure how they have determined these weights. The prototype a/c was missing a lot of the safety items, BRS chute, Airbags. at the Midwest LSA expo. Tom P did not tell me actual empty weight of that F2, but did start talking about how the prototype F2 was not representative of the actual F2's due to these items as well as the prototype is a hand lay-up were the production model will be automated. p.s. if kcal in = kcal burned, you will not gain weight. Simple physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGLyme Posted December 23, 2020 Report Share Posted December 23, 2020 They didn't know about Lead, Mercury, OSHA, the FAA and 40 hours work weeks in those days... ; ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted December 23, 2020 Report Share Posted December 23, 2020 On 11/12/2020 at 4:56 PM, Warmi said: even if you buy it now under LSA rules, you would be able to update the gross later when new rules are in effect. That is by no means a given. It's up to the manufacturer and once the airplane is sold they have zero incentive to increase the weight on an existing airframe. But that is what E-LSA is for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madhatter Posted December 23, 2020 Report Share Posted December 23, 2020 TMI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okent Posted December 24, 2020 Report Share Posted December 24, 2020 Now its awkward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted December 24, 2020 Report Share Posted December 24, 2020 2 hours ago, Madhatter said: TMI 43 minutes ago, okent said: Now its awkward I'll be quiet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.