Low alt cross controlled turns.

kyleb said:
We don't want 100 hour pilots coming here and blindly duplicating poor technique because "a guy does it that way on Youtube".
Click to expand...

Yes, all those 100 hr guys in a rental 152 doing bending river bar takeoffs. :rolleyes:
 
RoscoeT said:
Jeez, to each their own. "Right or "wrong", he's doing a type of flying that 99.9% of pilots don't do. Nobody needs to imitate anyone else. The flying farmer acts skid low level turns way more aggressively than this. I'm not concerned about the OP doing anything dangerous. There is room for pilots to have sufficient skill with their airplanes even if there is disagreement on the validity of certain techniques.
Click to expand...

Skidding descending turns are dangerous. Period. The airshow guys are well above stall and aren't descending, and are the guys that have thoroughly explored the capabilities of the airplane at altitude, all the way up to stalling and spinning out of various maneuvers including skidding turns. The average 182 driver skidding around near the surface is NOT one of those guys and has no idea when the airplane is going to bite him. He gradually takes more and more chances until it's suddenly too much.

In a descending turn the wings are at different angles of attack. The inside wing is at a slightly high AoA due to the helical path taken by the wings, and since the inside wing is descending at the same rate as the outside but over a shorter horizontal distance, its AoA goes up. A skid involves aileron down on the inside wing, and since the aileron changes the wing's chordline, the chord is now at a higher AoA yet, which not only raises the stall speed for that wing but causes the stall to progress outward much faster than normal, and it can be sudden death for the unwary. In a climbing skidding turn it is usually the outside wing that stalls first, since its AoA is now higher than the inside wing.

I was an instructor for a time and taught this stuff. We did skidding turn stalls and spins in the Citabrias, and the students would never dream of skidding in the circuit after that. That was the whole point: to show them what can happen, and how much altitude it takes to fix it. On base-to-final, or at low level along a river, there is no opportunity to ask forgiveness.
 
Dan Thomas said:
And I think your 12 ft AGL is measured at the wing, not at the wheels, right? SInce the wingtip is already six feet off the ground when the airplane is on the ground, the wheels would have to be pretty close to the ground in a 45° bank for that tip to strike.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so bank angle can't be the reason for doing such a skidding turn.

However, I wonder if there are aerodynamic reasons for choosing the skidding turn instead of a coordinated turn. With a shallower bank, the stall speed may not increase as much as in a coordinated turn. But I am not sure if a skidding turn affects the stall speed at all.
 
apilotb said:
Exactly, so bank angle can't be the reason for doing such a skidding turn.

However, I wonder if there are aerodynamic reasons for choosing the skidding turn instead of a coordinated turn. With a shallower bank, the stall speed may not increase as much as in a coordinated turn. But I am not sure if a skidding turn affects the stall speed at all.
Click to expand...

A skid adds drag, and drag slows the airplane, and slower is dangerous. A proper bank adds less drag.

We like to lose altitude on final using a slip or slipping turn. It's safe, unlike a skidding turn, and the altitude loss is due to the enormous drag of a fuselage going sideways, the shortened effective wingspan, and the deflected ailerons and rudder. A skid adds all those as well, besides risking the stall/spin.
 
RoscoeT said:
Yes, all those 100 hr guys in a rental 152 doing bending river bar takeoffs. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What we don't want is for people who don't know better to think a skidding turn at low airspeed is an appropriate technique. It isn't. It doesn't maximize safety or performance.
 
Mooney Fan said:
Whenever I think of cross control I go back to my days flying as crew on P-3 Orions. We had a camera installed in the aft observer station. The camera gimbal was limited to about 30 degrees in elevation. When tracking ballistic missiles we would run out of elevation. To gain more look up angle, we had the commander, with #4 feathered (Improved optics with no exhaust in view) give us as much 'up' right wing while using top rudder to maintain heading, followed by a shallow turn holding the wing up. That old Lockheed would fly on the edge of stall, shaking like a wet dog. They actually stalled once, departed and wound up with a cracked wing (I wasn't onboard) and retired her to the desert in China Lake. They fire it up now and then for fire/rescue training.

Sorry for the divergence on thread but seeing the cross control flying brought back memories
Click to expand...

I enjoyed what you had to say about the P-3. Spent 10 years USNR, worked on the P-3B mod, VP-90. Deployed West PAC, AD1 ground pounder, full systems QAR when I lift the reserves. I always enjoyed watching what the P-3 was capable of and what the pilots could do with a 4 engine turbo prop...:thumbsup::thumbsup: Yah they mounted the engine upside down on the C-130..:)

Also spent 4 years regular Navy, AIMD Pensacola, FL working on the J-85, J-52, J-52-408, J-60 and J-58 engines for the T-2, A-4, T-39, HC-46.

I enjoyed the experience but was always broke, Navy enlisted wages and all...:rolleyes:

Now my turn for as say sorry for divergence on the thread.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I only got as far as the post that said the reason this is safe is because you've got extra speed on the wing due to ground effect. Mmmkay. We're done here.
Click to expand...
You're right. I miss understood.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
 
There’s already a lot going against you when doing this kind of flying. Like others, I’m struggling to see why this is necessary with a high wing airplane.
 
I was curious so I did the math. I won’t draw any conclusions nor will I guarantee accuracy of my math. I don’t do this for a living.

My results were a 21.7 degree bank before a wingtip goes below the wheels.

At 30 degrees of bank, the wing is 2.3 feet below the wheel. FD11F823-3515-4D59-B879-EAC61BE56F17.jpeg
501DBEAF-89EC-47A2-A40F-7C54B52F8E83.jpeg
 
Yeah, but they're bush pilots. They know things mere mortals don't. Like how to alter the laws of physics at their whim.
 
Y'all have any experience with slats? I can do slow turns in my Cub with level wings and rudder. I know of a few guys who think that's cool. Just because my plane can do it doesn't mean I should. Even slats work better when coordinated.
 
Some of you have seen this before:

Note the contradiction. The pilot is described as being "highly qualified" and then we see evidence to the contrary. "Even the most qualified pilots make mistakes." I believe a most qualified pilot would have been ready and waiting to simultaneously stomp opposite rudder and lower the nose and apply full power to recover from that. He wouldn't try using ailerons.

Rudder alone might have stopped the rotation. It wouldn't prevent the accident. The airplane is stalled.
 
Tom is very highly qualified. I'd wager he's a whole hell of a lot more qualified in STOL ops than you.
 
Stewartb said:
Tom is very highly qualified. I'd wager he's a whole hell of a lot more qualified in STOL ops than you.
Click to expand...

This thread basically consists of folks who fly within a very narrow sliver of the envelope passing judgment on those who venture into the more adventurous realms that push the art and skill of flying much further than the average pilot population. Regarding the Talkeetna video, it just proves that the instinctual mind can sometimes overpower better training when you're suddenly facing unexpected and imminent perceived danger. I bet this pilot does not regularly practice crashing like this. Once the airplane departed beyond a certain point, he was beyond the refined and practiced regimes I'm sure he was highly qualified in handling. No pilot can claim with certainty to be immune from applying incorrect inputs moments before crashing unless they've already crashed an airplane in all the ways that are possible. I don't know anyone with that level of experience. Anyone who thinks their talent level surpasses this susceptibility is fantasizing.
 
RoscoeT said:
This thread basically consists of folks who fly within a very narrow sliver of the envelope passing judgment on those who venture into the more adventurous realms that push the art and skill of flying much further than the average pilot population. Regarding the Talkeetna video, it just proves that the instinctual mind can sometimes overpower better training when you're suddenly facing unexpected and imminent perceived danger. I bet this pilot does not regularly practice crashing like this. Once the airplane departed beyond a certain point, he was beyond the refined and practiced regimes I'm sure he was highly qualified in handling. No pilot can claim to be immune from applying incorrect inputs moments before crashing. Anyone who thinks their talent level surpasses this susceptibility is fantasizing.
Click to expand...
If he’s so great at flying on the edge of the envelope, you’d expect him to be trained and prepared for this to happen. Ok, I would expect that.

If not, then all these guys are setting up for the eventual snap roll at the end of the runway when they eventually push too hard or the “headwind dies”. It’s not a matter of if, but when for every one of them.

But, I don’t agree with your statement.
 
Salty said:
If he’s so great at flying on the edge of the envelope, you’d expect him to be trained and prepared for this to happen. Ok, I would expect that.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you think skilled folks are immune from screwing up. I guess you've never done any activity at a high level. But folks like you are definitely able to turn on the TV and watch highly skilled folks screw up from time to time. Never seen an F1 or Moto GP driver crash?
 
That video was filmed at a contest for maintained slow flight without landing. The result wasn't surprising. If you fly at a constant airspeed in a configuration that works and the wind changes suddenly? Boom. That's what happened. Did he respond incorrectly? Sure, the armchair quarterbacks sitting in front of their computers all say so, and Tom agreed. Stuff happens fast. He rebuilt the plane and returned to that fly-in the following year and won the revised STOL contest, which was changed to shortest total takeoff and landing at gross weight. That's on Youtube, too.
 
RoscoeT said:
Not sure why you think skilled folks are immune from screwing up. I guess you've never done any activity at a high level. But folks like you are definitely able to turn on the TV and watch highly skilled folks screw up from time to time. Never seen an F1 or Moto GP driver crash?
Click to expand...
I was mostly reacting to this, which implies he isn’t training for this sort of thing.
RoscoeT said:
I bet this pilot does not regularly practice crashing like this
Click to expand...
 
Salty said:
I was mostly reacting to this, which implies he isn’t training for this sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Dude...we all TRAIN to avoid crashing, but few of us ever get to test our skills and reactions in the short moments before ACTUALLY crashing. Doing that gets expensive.
 
RoscoeT said:
Dude...we all TRAIN to avoid crashing, but few of us ever get to test our skills and reactions in the short moments before ACTUALLY crashing. Doing that gets expensive.
Click to expand...
Can’t tell if you’re being intentionally obtuse or you really don’t see it.
 

Tom's take off is at 3:14 and landing at 3:30. The Cub with the green windshield trim is good, too. My nephew handles that Cub pretty well. :) Remember, all of this is at GROSS WEIGHT!
 
Salty said:
Can’t tell if you’re being intentionally obtuse or you really don’t see it.
Click to expand...

I can't state my point any more clearly than I've already written. I suspect you're an extremely narrow envelope flyer and can't really relate to this flying or any other activity done at a high level.
 
Stewartb said:
Tom is very highly qualified. I'd wager he's a whole hell of a lot more qualified in STOL ops than you.
Click to expand...
That's likely so. I never had much need to operate in an out of 250' strips so I don't have that experience.

But I spent a fair amount of time doing banner ops. The last weekend on my first season, first pickup of the day, tankered up with fuel for a long tow, I come through the poles, pitch up hard and hook the rope. As I'm starting to round out at the top and look over my shoulder to see if the banner was on the hook, I felt the plane get quickly mushy and then left wing dropped hard. Holy **** I just stalled this f**ker. Stick center and briskly forward while trying to put your right foot through the firewall might not be something your typical 400 hour recreational pilot would necessarily to do at that point. But its not an unusual reaction for anyone that's spent a lot of time pulling banners. Wing drops are very common when towing slow in gusty conditions. If idiot banner pilots can learn it, I should think it wouldn't be too hard for those god-like bush guys to wrap their heads around it. Especially when they're purposely trying to get the plane as close to a hover as possible.

So while I can't comment much on the bush pilot/STOL contest side of things, I'd strongly suspect the thing that ends up biting guys in the butt there is very similar to what tends to bite guys in the butt on the banner side. And one of those things is the attitude that I'm excellent at what I do and I can get away with doing things with the airplane which other people cannot. That attitude can be a very slippery slope which can lead one to believing they're able to do things with the airplane which the laws of physics simply will not allow.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the stall video is that he had worked the plane just fine for quite a ways. Until the air changed. Nobody says the rudder wasn't the proper response or that it's what he should have done. But he didn't. I guess he's not as good as some of y'all believe yourselves to be. I doubt he cares. I know I don't.
 
RoscoeT said:
This thread basically consists of folks who fly within a very narrow sliver of the envelope passing judgment on those who venture into the more adventurous realms that push the art and skill of flying much further than the average pilot population. Regarding the Talkeetna video, it just proves that the instinctual mind can sometimes overpower better training when you're suddenly facing unexpected and imminent perceived danger. I bet this pilot does not regularly practice crashing like this. Once the airplane departed beyond a certain point, he was beyond the refined and practiced regimes I'm sure he was highly qualified in handling. No pilot can claim with certainty to be immune from applying incorrect inputs moments before crashing unless they've already crashed an airplane in all the ways that are possible. I don't know anyone with that level of experience. Anyone who thinks their talent level surpasses this susceptibility is fantasizing.
Click to expand...
Well I don’t know about any other contributors to this thread but personally I’ve earned a living in aviation for a few years now. Currently in year twenty. Hope to have a few more decades before I hang it up. My experience goes from airline to ag. I have plenty of time dragging around at low altitudes in heavy high powered taildraggers. I don’t see any benefit in the maneuver demonstrated in the video. You will also notice that despite my experience and my opinion I still deferred to the OP’s own judgement based on their experiences.

No matter how much experience we acquire we will never run out of new things to learn or be immune from error.
 
Here is one reason why low, slow and skidding frightens me. In all honesty I have not watched this whole video, I haven't been able to do it, but my understanding is that this was a stall spin from about 50 feet at an airport on an approach to land. I don't know if he was skidding or really what happened other than he crashed and lived. The guy who did the video flies near the edge of the envelope in a kitfox, landing in remote areas. I really pass no judgement on any of this. But stall spin at low altitude is a still a big problem for GA pilots and as others have said it's important that all are cognizant of that.

 
Salty said:
I was curious so I did the math. I won’t draw any conclusions nor will I guarantee accuracy of my math. I don’t do this for a living.

My results were a 21.7 degree bank before a wingtip goes below the wheels.

At 30 degrees of bank, the wing is 2.3 feet below the wheel. View attachment 70327
View attachment 70326
Click to expand...
Next, figure out the rate and radius of turn for 20 degrees of bank at, say, 50 knots. You’ll see that there’s really no need for a skidding turn on takeoff.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Some of you have seen this before:

Note the contradiction. The pilot is described as being "highly qualified" and then we see evidence to the contrary. "Even the most qualified pilots make mistakes." I believe a most qualified pilot would have been ready and waiting to simultaneously stomp opposite rudder and lower the nose and apply full power to recover from that. He wouldn't try using ailerons.

Rudder alone might have stopped the rotation. It wouldn't prevent the accident. The airplane is stalled.
Click to expand...

But but but you can’t stall a slatted wing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Who said that? Unless a wing can hover without motion it must be able to stall. The bigger point is the stall is at what, half your stall speed? And the response to the same situation and control inputs in your plane would have seen the left wing tuck under and you lawn dart inverted? A slow ground loop looks like a better alternative. Slats are great. They’re better with better flaps, too. Stall proof? Nope. Stall improved? Absolutely.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top