Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FD USA

New F2 Article in AOPA

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2020 at 9:04 AM, Roger Lee said:

I seriously doubt a plane certified by the factory for one weight and set of specs will be allowed to be increased just because the FAA says they are raising the weight. The factory would then have to do it all over and give everyone a new set of weight / balance specs and and other paperwork and some of it would be for each individual plane. It won't happen. 

Plus if and when the FAA releases these new parameters it isn't just for weight.

Concur totally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 .... 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

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

Good points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...