EZ - Thank you for the enlightenment consider me smitted (is that a word). I have noticed what you are refurring to. I just wish people would not get so personal.

Contactflying - Please keep posting original posts, I for one and it seems many others are enjoying your posts - they are vary thought provoking. I applaud you for self publishing, leave the middle man out.

To some others - A number of the "new terms" are terms used in the book "Stick and Rudder", hardly new.

Marty

New word: brain energy. You guys are doing good.

Point338 wrote:
You guys can go back and forth lamenting about being victims of the big, bad BCP boards. If that's what trips your trigger, go right ahead.

But if you're authoritatively spreading misinformation, you're going to get called out.

(Not sure if the above was pointed at me or at someone else)

I got called out and brawled half to death on the one subject in aviation that I was able to speak 100% authoritatively on. Broken heart? Abso-F-lutely. Victim?... not exactly, I brawled right back at 6 or 8 of them at a time. When some of the animals in this zoo spread what I saw as misinformation (concerning the validity and/or usefulness of a certain modification), you're damn right I called them out.

Then there's that other subject Zzz mentioned. People started talking about narrow canyon turns, and too tight of a turn would result in an accelerated stall. So... silly me, I pointed out the simple physics that reversing direction in the vertical plane uses no room in the horizontal plane, and that if you had more vertical room than horizontal room, there was theoretically a safer way out of that narrow canyon than a level turn. Apparently, theoretical discussions like this ran slightly above the intellectual capacity of some folks, so I got brawled at again.

So when 180Jocky made a (correct) comment about someone putting new ideas out there, it was too juicy of a plum not to pick and have a little fun with. Hopefully it tickled the funny bone of a few Vietnam vets on BCP, one of whom is a close friend and flies serial number one of that aircraft modification.

With the benefit of time having passed, I'm pleased to say that the laws of physics still support my original statement, that a vertical reverse (for the tenth time, if you have the !(#*$#@ vertical room to do it) will theoretically allow an airplane to turn around and escape a canyon that was too narrow to use a horizontal reverse. As for the first time the "big bad BCP boards" smited the crap out of me, I'm happy to say I've been proven overwhelmingly right on that as well. Now that that has happened, being "the bad guy" isn't all that terrible. Gorgeous George, "the man you love to hate", was the highest paid wrestler in the world in his day

EZ Flap,

I don't fly the turbo props much because the speed scares me to death. However, they are going so fast that when the wind gets up enough to require back and forth, they have to do the wing over to get back into the next swath run. The slower we go the faster we turn. Any motorcycle jock knows that.

EZFlap wrote:..When some of the animals in this zoo spread what I saw as misinformation (concerning the validity and/or usefulness of a certain modification), you're damn right I called them out. .................
People started talking about narrow canyon turns, and too tight of a turn would result in an accelerated stall. So... silly me, I pointed out the simple physics that reversing direction in the vertical plane uses no room in the horizontal plane, and that if you had more vertical room than horizontal room, there was theoretically a safer way out of that narrow canyon than a level turn. ....

The validity &/or usefulness of that certain modification is subjective, and not everyone agrees that it is useful. Don't be bitter just because everyone didn't hop on the bandwagon for your new product. Just like a 172 t/w conversion isn't for everyone, so don't be surprised if you get the same some yes, some no sort of response for that one when you get all the bugs worked out & offer it for sale.
As far as the vertical canyon maneuvers, let's get real.... when you're headed up into the wrong end of a box canyon & realize that you've fucked up, you don't generally have the "kinetic energy of pressure airspeed" (or as I like to call it, smash) for an immelman from level flight nor enough AGL under you for a split s. So neither of those is a very practical solution. A plain old climbing turn slowed down to about 1.3 Vs with half flaps & about 30* bank would be my choice-- not as dramatic as an immelman or a split s, or even a hammerhead, but IMHO much more doable.

This brand new 'kinetic energy of pressure airspeed' stuff sure is getting a lot of play. Just what are the folks using it trying to describe?

Did you drama queens ever figure out what causes load factor?

wyomingiswindy wrote:Did you drama queens ever figure out what causes load factor?

depends on how hot she is......

"40 second Boyd", for those that didn't catch that comment by "contactflying" you should look up John Boyd. There's an excellent book detailing his life called: [u]Boyd, The Fighter Pilot That Changed The Art of War.[/u] Besides being an excellent bio of his life it's a real eye opener into the Pentagon procurement process.

wyomingiswindy wrote:Did you drama queens ever figure out what causes load factor?

It should be right there in your student pilot training handbook.

Air, flowing over the wings, either flowing really fast or approaching the wings at a certain angle, which results in an increase in the amount of lift made by the wings, which attempts to accelerate the wings roughly perpendicular to the flight path, that force of which is resisted by gravity and/or mass inertia, thus applying a load to the aircraft structure.

Hotrod 150-I wish one of the other instructors would tell you this, as you may not listen to what I have to say. Of course you can climb or even climb and turn if you have excess engine thrust for climb and excess engine thrust to replace the lift lost in the turn. Forget the big words. If you pull back and go down in a much, push forward. When engine thrust will only offset the level weight of the airplane, there is no more thrust for either climb or turn. The nose will go down, either because you let the airplane do what it was, for safety, designed to do or because you have forced it to exceed the critical angle of attack. The critical angle, fancy words, are misleading. You will be going down flat in a severe mush long before the stall. Talk to instructors you trust. Thinking the airplane will necessarily climb is dangerous. I'm not saying this stuff to be the old bold guy. I have lost students in their first season.

contactflying wrote:....Of course you can climb or even climb and turn if you have excess engine thrust for climb and excess engine thrust to replace the lift lost in the turn. Forget the big words. If you pull back and go down in a much, push forward. When engine thrust will only offset the level weight of the airplane, there is no more thrust for either climb or turn. .....

I think I've got a handle on that part, but thanks for clarifying. I've heard it expressed as running out of airspeed, altitude, and ideas all at the same time.

contactflying wrote:Hotrod 150-I wish one of the other instructors would tell you this, as you may not listen to what I have to say. Of course you can climb or even climb and turn if you have excess engine thrust for climb and excess engine thrust to replace the lift lost in the turn. Forget the big words. If you pull back and go down in a much, push forward. When engine thrust will only offset the level weight of the airplane, there is no more thrust for either climb or turn. The nose will go down, either because you let the airplane do what it was, for safety, designed to do or because you have forced it to exceed the critical angle of attack. The critical angle, fancy words, are misleading. You will be going down flat in a severe mush long before the stall. Talk to instructors you trust. Thinking the airplane will necessarily climb is dangerous. I'm not saying this stuff to be the old bold guy. I have lost students in their first season.

But, the point is, if you paint yourself into those kinds of corners, you probably aren't going to survive the event in any case. If you are at a density altitude which will not permit you to climb, what the hell are you doing in a canyon in the first place?

Granted, it happens. But, your suggesting that putting the nose down will fix it isn't going to work in every context either. As noted in earlier threads on the canyon turn, when you're going up canyon, the bottom of the canyon is typically climbing, and oftentimes, THAT"S the very reason you're having to turn around. If you've painted yourself into such a state and you cannot climb and you cannot turn, you are then truly out of ideas, because going down is just going to expedite the crash.

The key here is to never permit yourself to get into such a low energy state in the first place, and certainly not in a confined area with terrain. Permit yourself to get into that energy state in terrain, and you're very likely to remove yourself from the gene pool.

MTV

MTV correctly said prior planning prevents piss poor performance. This is true. It is also true that the most perfect pilots are those who don't fly in anything but prefect conditions. Point taken, however.

Not recommending it for everyone, but I lived in a low energy state in terrain for about fifty years.

Contact,

I believe your posts and experience have some merit. Unfortunately much of the time is seems like you take basic concepts that even the current FAA's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge has simplified for the new pilot to understand, and make them so complicated with confusing semantics and by putting your own titles to commonly recognized principals, that most of your target audience has no idea what you're talking about.

I taught at the same ag school you did, and fly airplanes, helicopters, gliders, pistons, turbines, twins, etc...and I scratch my head at some of your presentations.

Mike-

Amen.....

stearmann4 wrote:Contact,

I believe your posts and experience have some merit. Unfortunately much of the time is seems like you take basic concepts that even the current FAA's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge has simplified for the new pilot to understand, and make them so complicated with confusing semantics and by putting your own titles to commonly recognized principals, that most of your target audience has no idea what you're talking about.

I taught at the same ag school you did, and fly airplanes, helicopters, gliders, pistons, turbines, twins, etc...and I scratch my head at some of your presentations.

Mike-

Amen is right. When it takes a 1/2 bottle of rum for it to make any sense, I know that there's something wrong. Some people make a living out of making simple things complicated.

When you want to seem revolutionary, but have nothing useful to add, your only option is take something else and rename it.

Point338 wrote:When you want to seem revolutionary, but have nothing useful to add, your only option is take something else and rename it.

Got anything useful to add ?