I hate instrument flying
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
Sounds ok.
[quote author=Shiny link=topic=7245.msg20160#msg20160 date=1509055673]
I hear your guys' arguments, but I still don't like instrument flying.
[/quote]
I do but it's still a novelty to me.
[quote author=Shiny link=topic=7245.msg20160#msg20160 date=1509055673]
I hear your guys' arguments, but I still don't like instrument flying.
[/quote]
I do but it's still a novelty to me.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
TK thought he was being brilliantly witty and cutting when
he attacked me [i]today[/i] by saying:
[quote]rants against the entire aviation community [b]who do not meet your perceived level of perfection[/b].[/quote]
Years ago, I wrote an article called [u]The Meatball Multi-Engine Takeoff[/u]:
[quote]If an engine fails at very low altitude, before you move your right hand from the throttles to the gear selector, [b]push the nose down to maintain airspeed, and simply pull both throttles back and land on the remaining runway.[/b] If you have lots of runway left, you should be able to land with no damage to the airframe. The gear is still down, remember? If you took off from a short runway your landing might not be pretty, but you and your passengers will do better than if you had elected to continue the takeoff.
In the above scenario I have deliberately decided against going aviating in a piston twin with only one engine, with the gear down and one engine windmilling and producing drag. You aren’t going to be able to maintain a positive rate of climb with all that drag, and you don’t have time to get rid of all that drag, so [b]it’s best to land sooner, under control. It’s always best to land under control.[/b]
[b]One thing I cannot emphasize enough after an engine failure:[/b]
[b][size=1.35em]LOWER THE NOSE[/size][/b]
This is something which is often skipped during an engine failure during a climb, with hideous results as the airspeed decreases from blue line (Vyse) to red line (Vmc). If you maintain the same deck angle as you had with two engines turning, [b]the airspeed WILL decrease below red line and you will roll inverted as your rudder loses effectiveness and you yaw uncontrollably into the dead engine, killing yourself and your passengers.[/b]
[b]You must LOWER THE NOSE[/b] to maintain blue line airspeed, which is essential. When one engine fails, you have very little excess thrust available and simply cannot continue to climb with the pitch angle you had with two engines.[/quote]
So, the four bars tell me my standards are too high, and I
[i]hurt people's feelings[/i] by insisting on pilots developing strong
basic aircraft handling skills, which I spent a [i]quarter century[/i]
of my life teaching.
Hm.
I guess I should have gone to Woodstock with TK in his
VW microbus during the summer of love, when we all
had long beards and wore ponchos, and we could have
dropped acid and held hands and watched the sun set.
That would have been really groovy.
[img width=500 height=333]https://img1.10bestmedia.com/Images/Pho ... 90x660.jpg[/img]
he attacked me [i]today[/i] by saying:
[quote]rants against the entire aviation community [b]who do not meet your perceived level of perfection[/b].[/quote]
Years ago, I wrote an article called [u]The Meatball Multi-Engine Takeoff[/u]:
[quote]If an engine fails at very low altitude, before you move your right hand from the throttles to the gear selector, [b]push the nose down to maintain airspeed, and simply pull both throttles back and land on the remaining runway.[/b] If you have lots of runway left, you should be able to land with no damage to the airframe. The gear is still down, remember? If you took off from a short runway your landing might not be pretty, but you and your passengers will do better than if you had elected to continue the takeoff.
In the above scenario I have deliberately decided against going aviating in a piston twin with only one engine, with the gear down and one engine windmilling and producing drag. You aren’t going to be able to maintain a positive rate of climb with all that drag, and you don’t have time to get rid of all that drag, so [b]it’s best to land sooner, under control. It’s always best to land under control.[/b]
[b]One thing I cannot emphasize enough after an engine failure:[/b]
[b][size=1.35em]LOWER THE NOSE[/size][/b]
This is something which is often skipped during an engine failure during a climb, with hideous results as the airspeed decreases from blue line (Vyse) to red line (Vmc). If you maintain the same deck angle as you had with two engines turning, [b]the airspeed WILL decrease below red line and you will roll inverted as your rudder loses effectiveness and you yaw uncontrollably into the dead engine, killing yourself and your passengers.[/b]
[b]You must LOWER THE NOSE[/b] to maintain blue line airspeed, which is essential. When one engine fails, you have very little excess thrust available and simply cannot continue to climb with the pitch angle you had with two engines.[/quote]
So, the four bars tell me my standards are too high, and I
[i]hurt people's feelings[/i] by insisting on pilots developing strong
basic aircraft handling skills, which I spent a [i]quarter century[/i]
of my life teaching.
Hm.
I guess I should have gone to Woodstock with TK in his
VW microbus during the summer of love, when we all
had long beards and wore ponchos, and we could have
dropped acid and held hands and watched the sun set.
That would have been really groovy.
[img width=500 height=333]https://img1.10bestmedia.com/Images/Pho ... 90x660.jpg[/img]
-
Rookie Pilot
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:44 am
[quote author=Shiny link=topic=7245.msg20160#msg20160 date=1509055673]
I hear your guys' arguments, but I still don't like instrument flying.
[/quote]
I've done a 180 in my flying. I used to think IFR was the coolest thing. Liked executing the various procedures well. And it is a great skill for long CC's in sketchy weather. I still know how, But.........
Now I'd rather be 500 agl over the countryside not talking to anyone. Just enjoying. Perhaps my last flight out west where I valley flew the transcanada corridor on a magically calm VFR day, transformed me. Was one of those amazing days, with amazing photos.
For some bizzare reason flying a SE with light wing loading in turbulent IMC -- isn't so much my idea of "fun" anymore.
Must be getting old Shiny.
I hear your guys' arguments, but I still don't like instrument flying.
[/quote]
I've done a 180 in my flying. I used to think IFR was the coolest thing. Liked executing the various procedures well. And it is a great skill for long CC's in sketchy weather. I still know how, But.........
Now I'd rather be 500 agl over the countryside not talking to anyone. Just enjoying. Perhaps my last flight out west where I valley flew the transcanada corridor on a magically calm VFR day, transformed me. Was one of those amazing days, with amazing photos.
For some bizzare reason flying a SE with light wing loading in turbulent IMC -- isn't so much my idea of "fun" anymore.
Must be getting old Shiny.
-
Rosco P Coltrane
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:46 pm
That picture was not from this weekend.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
That picture was not from this year ;D
He spent five days watching the fog in Wawa.
Character-building.
What my kid thinks of instrument flying is not
printable in a family-friendly forum (note the irony).
His idea of IFR:
[img width=500 height=375][/img]
He spent five days watching the fog in Wawa.
Character-building.
What my kid thinks of instrument flying is not
printable in a family-friendly forum (note the irony).
His idea of IFR:
[img width=500 height=375][/img]
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
"Aerobatics prohibited" Who put that sticker there?
Pretty bummed he was here and never even stopped for a Dr Pepper.
Pretty bummed he was here and never even stopped for a Dr Pepper.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]"Aerobatics prohibited" Who put that sticker there?[/quote]
I know. Buzz kill. But Canadian homebuilts seem to start out
as non-aerobatic, then there is a paper dance (and one flight -
wheee!) that you have to do, to remove the non-aerobatic
restriction. I've done it several times. Not intellectually
challenging.
The above is the "one-off" homebuilt aerobatic approval
process, that everyone seems to do these days. There is
also a type approval for aerobatic homebuilts but oddly
I've never had anything to do with it. Not sure it's used
any more. I strongly recommend people abide by Van's
maximum gross aerobatic weights, though.
Eric was gonna see Shiny when he delivered the Cub to
Calgary but he had to hustle to YYC to catch the tube
home. Too much quality time spent in Wawa, I guess.
I know. Buzz kill. But Canadian homebuilts seem to start out
as non-aerobatic, then there is a paper dance (and one flight -
wheee!) that you have to do, to remove the non-aerobatic
restriction. I've done it several times. Not intellectually
challenging.
The above is the "one-off" homebuilt aerobatic approval
process, that everyone seems to do these days. There is
also a type approval for aerobatic homebuilts but oddly
I've never had anything to do with it. Not sure it's used
any more. I strongly recommend people abide by Van's
maximum gross aerobatic weights, though.
Eric was gonna see Shiny when he delivered the Cub to
Calgary but he had to hustle to YYC to catch the tube
home. Too much quality time spent in Wawa, I guess.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 12 Replies
- 4348 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
-
- 4 Replies
- 1123 Views
-
Last post by vanNostrum
