Please tell me more, for instance, was that put in the book after that crash? What that describes to me is a partial stall caused by a steep bank or too slow or a combination of the two. I agree with the importance of coordination, however, if you hardly need to tip the wings (coordinated, of course) — you hardly ever get into trouble, either.
The math is whatever you want it to be. Dumb rules are dumb. Fly the plane and do what needs to be done.
Claiming that load factor is determined by bank angle and that "excessive" bank angles are dangerous causes the misconceptions shown in this thread.
Load factor is determined by increased elevator deflection for a given speed, i.e., a steeper bank.
Here's a more recent one I remembered, a B1B pilot in a Cirrus: Report_CEN17FA084_94649_10_3_2022 11_37_01 AM.pdf
That normal turns in the pattern are dangerous. That bank angle causes spins. And a new one for me, that increased elevator deflection equals a steeper bank.
Huh?
I didn't say you said those things. I said that "[c]laiming that load factor is determined by bank angle and that "excessive" bank angles are dangerous causes the misconceptions shown in this thread."
Good point. After all, after a 3 hour flight during which the engine worked perfectly, it's bound to quit in the traffic pattern with no warning.@ those pattern distances how would you ever make the runway if you lost an engine?
Common phrase referring to your airspeed as you cross the threshold. Tends to be a bit slower than Vref because you have reduced power and are starting the roundout.
Well, there WAS elevator* input before you trimmed it nose up.
So, what's the practical necessity of doing them other than to build skill in managing the plane. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. For instance, if the stsll speed is so high you need a 60° bank to stay within obstruction-free airspace, that's a good reason. OTOH, if you have room to spare, the accident record proves a shallower bank is less risky.
In simple terms, load factor is a result of the curving flight path. The thing that makes it curve is the horizontal tail surface. In wings level flight they hold the nose up (cut 'em off and straight down you'll go). If you tilt the wings, you change that "up" to "around". If you don't increase elevator — you'll increase speed and turn radius and lose altitude. Which would then require more bank than necessary and make you too fast to land. So, you need to add more elevator so that doesn't happen. No need to bring in "stability" nor sines and cosines, it's just simple logic.
Yaw dampers help too, I'd imagine. So, I'm still thinking about See's crash. What category would it have been circling in? Or, what's the T-38s stalling speed in the circling configuration? Slayton said See was too timid and didn't fly "aggressively" enough.Well, we did the traffic pattern at 300 KIAS.
Jets don't require much rudder, so very unlikely to spin.
Whatever that means about a circling approach. In my experience, both high speed and high bank should be avoided on a circling approach. I'd call that sort of flying "too aggressive".
It happens to be the only example the FAA uses in the AFH. And it's the, usually unstated, perhaps unknown, assumption by most pilots making unqualified claims that stall speed increases with bank angle.
It's a normal pattern for that airplane. It's on the high-end, though. Most other jets will be able to fly slower in the pattern and fly a bit tighter pattern.
Graveyard spirals are not stalls, nor are they caused by or related to, load factor. Improper recovery from a spiral can result in increasing load factor and stalling - if you pull the elevator before leveling the wings.
I call BS. Publish the profile.
