FWIW, on the P-51 there is so much torque that you need full right aileron at liftoff speed to counteract it.
Or it just wasn't as big of a deal as all of the other things they were trying to deal with at the time. There are an awful lot of WWII era airplanes that were nicknamed the "Widowmaker" because we still didn't truly know how to make airplanes fly well at that point. We kinda figured it out by the end of the war, though.
Yanno, this thread was making me think of some work a friend's son was doing with Monsieur Fourier while engineering helicopters. It was actually pretty neat what he was doing.
Any significant quantity of tequila is known to suspend the laws of physics for the individual who consumes it.
On the TBMs, it's the top of the right wing that gets most of the soot.
We always wondered whether we left a contrail in the TBM, until I got definitive proof one day (it gets better toward the end):
This is an excellent description!
Really? I could swear the dorsal on our old fixed-gear 182 had a noticeable offset when viewed from directly in front of the plane - Like, where the dorsal comes up from the fuselage isn't even that close to the center.
This is an excellent description!
Of course, if you think about all those effects during the maneuver, you're guaranteed to mess it up.
When I was giving Stearmans rides years ago, I tended toward maneuvers that were probably ugly to watch but more comfortable for the passengers. I did loops with a 2-g pull until I got full elevator, and needed full left rudder over the top. I held full elevator until I got a nibble of stall buffet (pointed straight down) and eased off the elevator to maintain the buffet until I got back to level flight, again about 2-g max in the back side.Aerobatics is more than just pulling G's. The slow speed stuff really develops your stick and rudder skills. An airplane can be "flown" well below stall speed. Hopefully I'm planting the seed of interest in a couple of readers.
Ah, Zeno's arrow and grasshopper. They were always specious. As N goes from 1 to infinity, the infinite sum of (1 / 2^N) equals 1, so they both travel the full distance. The sum is finite in both space and time and they do reach their destination. Of course we knew that in reality since we've watched grasshoppers and arrows reach their destinations. The math of splitting it into ever-smaller halves is also correct and gives the same answer. What is incorrect is Zeno's interpretation.
I worked on a lot of 182s and never noticed any fin offset.
I don’t think I’d accept a poh drawing as proof of anything but the rough shape of the aircraft. lol
When I learned hammerheads, the key was to be told "Just look at a spot on the horizon past the wing - Then keep your eyes there as you kick it over and try to slice the nose and the other wing through that same spot." Then, my flying brain just did all of the stuff automatically. It was really cool.
I found aerobatics to be really addictive, right up until I saw how expensive it was to buy the higher performance aerobatic planes.Hopefully I'm planting the seed of interest in a couple of readers.
Later I was in a club with a 7ECA Citabria, and while you can make it do some things that are theoretically defined as aerobatic, it's not nearly as fun. Starting a loop by going full power and pointing the nose at the ground and waiting feels more like work than just deciding "Hey, I want to do a loop" and pulling back on the stick. It definitely takes a better pilot to complete the maneuvers properly in the 7ECA than something like a Pitts or Extra, but it's not as fun.
Ok, now I want to find one, and an instructor to match, and try some spins. Some of the most fun I've ever had was flying a cub. (Yep, I know, cubs are fine to spin, too, but I didn't get that opportunity when I had them available to me to fly.)
I agree with all that but I'm of the opinion that benign and easier to recover doesn't necessarily make the ideal spin trainer. Something that will bang your head off the canopy on entry and leave you wondering if it's going to recover can teach you some motivation to avoid them and know your recovery procedures cold.
How many here know that Citabria is Airbatic spelled backwards?
When I was a kid we had a Spezio Tuholer that I accidentally got into a stall with a bit of wing drop while <doing stupid things over people I knew>. My not yet developed frontal lobe said, “huh…maybe I should know how this thing recovers from spins.” The logbooks showed that the builder had spun it, so “it must st be ok.”I agree with all that but I'm of the opinion that benign and easier to recover doesn't necessarily make the ideal spin trainer. Something that will bang your head off the canopy on entry and leave you wondering if it's going to recover can teach you some motivation to avoid them and know your recovery procedures cold.
<raises hand>
Well, almost. Did you know that "Citabria" is "Adverse Yaw" spelled backwards?
.em to enif tsuj skool tI . wonk t'nod I
No, that's 'the step' that everyone talks about cruising on. It's a little too cold and breezy out there for me so I take the efficiency hit and stay inside where I won't spill my drink.
I’m in that club, even before your post, Dan. -Skip
I encountered a rebuilt P-51 that had crashed when the previous owner, inadequately trained, went to full power in a landing overshoot. The airplane rolled over, dove in and killed him. Can't use full power on takeoff.
I was briefed that
Hehe...good catch.
The FAA doesn’t publish myths in their training materials.
I was going to dig up the explanation of dihedral effect in the Glider Flying Handbook.
I was going to dig up the explanation of dihedral effect in the Glider Flying Handbook.
Nauga,
and his vector sum
So load factor does not occur in turns?
"Two forces" don't cause it. Pulling on the yoke causes it.
And of gyroscopic precession.
