Thanks for clarification. I did not get the impression that it meant to shut it down, and did not mean to do it either. The minimum speed I have set for myself is a few miles over best glide.

It went fine when I did them easy. It was when I began trying to do them a bit more vigorously that the plane got ahead of me. I am certain I did use a higher power setting, and it probably played a role in it. I will dial it back a bit. No need for it to be 180s either…

Both are free online FAA website.

I read the Lazy eights explanation in the FAA Pilots Flying Handbook, thanks 48Stinson 1083, and found it to be less instrument oriented than one I had read in a schools manual that had airplane specific airspeeds for each phase of the maneuver. I was wrong to knock it Varanger. The energy management turn of 180 degrees uses a much steeper bank than the FAA suggests, however. We are concerned with getting on a near target before burning through the vertical space available. Other than the mid point on the horizon, they are looking for a heading rather than a target. All turns in maneuvering flight are turns to target. The FAA mentions pilots eye to target (various places on the horizon) for longitudinal alignment. Visualize between your legs. That is the longitudinal axis from your eye to the target.

Again, try the more moderate energy management turns first. The target then is farther away, but not a heading and not a long, long distance away as with the lazy eight.

One thing about all these CPL maneuvers, they are really for the checkride. I’ve been flying 40 years, and rarely fly these unless teaching. Yeah, you need to learn them, impressed the DE but at the end of the day, no one wants to pay a commercial pilot to go and fly these maneuvers.

They do make your flying smoother, sharper so at the end of the day, it’s all good. But for the average PPL with no desire to fly commercially, I wouldn’t spend too much time on them. Focus on energy management, listening to the wing and be better at maintaining altitude within 50’ and airspeed within 5 kts.

Good luck and I’ll be happy to review any flight video.

Cheers,

48Stinson1083 wrote:One thing about all these CPL maneuvers, they are really for the checkride. I’ve been flying 40 years, and rarely fly these unless teaching. Yeah, you need to learn them, impressed the DE but at the end of the day, no one wants to pay a commercial pilot to go and fly these maneuvers.

They do make your flying smoother, sharper so at the end of the day, it’s all good. But for the average PPL with no desire to fly commercially, I wouldn’t spend too much time on them. Focus on energy management, listening to the wing and be better at maintaining altitude within 50’ and airspeed within 5 kts.

Good luck and I’ll be happy to review any flight video.

Cheers,

Thanks, man

I'll go flying a bit this weekend and try and shoot from inside the cockpit when I do L8's. I might be going a bit overboard here, I know. I am trying to avoid getting to rusty in the low season, and I got room for improvement when it comes to energy management. So whenever I go flying, I try to make a plan and fly with purpose. Not that it has to always be flight training, the exploring bit is the most important!

This thread also went a little overboard, but I have happily stoked the fire since there has been so much to learn from the responses!

I should probably leave well enough alone, but you are actually trying to learn here, as opposed to the guy that's just trying to do an L8 to pass a cpl ride.

The rub with just saying "read the FAA Pilot Flying Handbook", is that it is painted with a very broad standardized stroke. It specifically calls out for right rudder regardless of turn direction, and specifically calls out for less in a left turn. Ok, good says I.... is this in a 1000 hp ship with a 12' prop, a 65 hp ship with more wing than HP, or something in between ? What about the Garretts and polish engines? I realize I am calling out extremes, but my point is, in my very limited flying experience, a 170 class ship in an L8 may require so much as the weight of your shoe on the right peddle in a left turn on the L8 if your squared up, slowed up, and not pulling. An 800hp Turbine Thrush with a 108" prop pulling against an empty weight of 4000# is going to take some boot.

Now again, I realize that when you are talking the DPE through the maneuver, you had better announce that right peddle, regardless of how much pressure you have in it, but IMHO real life requires understanding why and how this is going down, not just a rote "because the FAA handbook said so"

Why is this important? because when you arrive at the unfortunate day that your airplane is all gassed out in a turn, the crusty old curmudgeon that has turned more times in a month than most will in their entire career, will have given you the tools to ensure that you are not all crossed up. The FAA handbook? Meh... maybe it'll be your lucky day and you were turning the right way.

48Stinson1083 wrote:no one wants to pay a commercial pilot to go and fly these maneuvers.

And here I just happily paid a young gentleman what amounts to a very handsome paycheck to sit in my plane for a few nights so I could go chase bambi with my daughter. While he was not tasked with flying L8's proper, he most certainly was tasked with utilizing the skills forged by knowing those maneuvers.

48Stinson1083 wrote:Focus on energy management, listening to the wing...

^This^

Take care, Rob

I was a guy with a rupturing disk that liked the weight of a shoe on the right rudder for P factor. No, not so good in a Pawnee. With flat control surfaces, it was the small buss. But yes, it actually worked in the finely control balanced CallAir. I stayed out of even the Air Tractor 302 because I didn't like flying an Indy 500 race qualified truck. Varanger is really ahead of the game because he is looking for what feels right. He is paying attention to what the airplane wants to do.

I regret my addiction to Scolopax's J-3 video in the J-3 School Me post, but now I need some math help with why I got lower and slower with each return to target during Cobra rocket runs in Vietnam. I had the engine running full blast. The video J-3 pilot had his 65 hp engine shut down, not that it makes a huge amount of difference anyway. So if airspeed (kinetic energy) is altitude and altitude (potential energy of altitude) is airspeed, the law of the roller coaster, why didn't I get back up to the same altitude after each dive onto the target? We use the same energy management turn in Ag, but we lose some of our gross weight with each spray run. What is the deal with continuous returns to target? Is the military doing it wrong? Do we experience the same gravity problem that the J-3 pilot experienced even with a working engine?

I was scrathching my head about how that thread played out. I did not really understand what caused so much aggravation, but its best letting sleeping dogs lie. But that deadstick aerobatics was really something. A very good demonstration of the law of the roller coaster. Having so low mass and such a high drag, I am impressed it is possible to gain and retain enough airspeed to loop a cub!

It is a little surprising to hear that the cobra does not have enough power to keep it from loosing altitude and speed. I dont know anything about helis, but does could the Apache do it? I suppose that much of the power lost downwards is lost in a very "messy" airflow? The cobra has about the same power to weight ratio as the best WWII fighters, and they also kept loosing energy when in a dogfight? I suppose drag and gravity are much more powerful forces than they seem.

I was supposed to go practice energy management, but when I got to the airfield, my friends were getting ready their planes. So we decided to go on a trip instead. Weather is getting increasingly more unstable as winter sets in, so I dont know if I can fly as often as I would like for a while now. I went to a general aviation conference this weekend, and talked to a few people about my strange observation. I think the thesis I will test, is that I am doing something without really being aware of it. I think I neeed an instructor to go up to observe and tell me...

But as I said, we are talking about the more "inspired" lazy eights. More relaxed and realistic turns works just fine!

Where are the mathematicians when we need them. The Cobra's T-53 L-13 Lycoming engine, at 1300 shp was a good engine, but not the same kind of rocket as is on the F-16. "John Boyd, The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War," was a mathematician par excellence and pilot par excellence and airplane designer par excellence who certainly understood energy management. He called his Fighter School (he wrote the book) techniques energy maneuverability. He lost energy fast, and gained energy fast (rapid transitions), in a dogfight but nailed everyone he flew against in 40 seconds or less with his OODA loop.

I think it is because we are being pulled down by gravity while overcoming some of it with the zoom up and we are being pulled down by gravity while spending the potential energy of altitude for airspeed in the turn which also is a dive. Boyd wanted the F-15 (ended up 70,000 pounds) to be the same around 20,000 pounds of the F-16 with the moon rocket engine, but the Air Force heavied it up like they always do. He tricked them on the F-16 with the F-15 F16 fly off. They wanted to can the F-16 and didn't put it in the regular AF inventory until embarrassed. They assumed, with its small gas tank it would not meet the "legs" endurance requirement. They didn't think about how much lighter it was. The original J-3 had 12 gallons up front but only used 3 per hour. The problem going over the high passes in our Western mountains is that against a 40 knot headwind it was only going 20 MPH. 80 miles would not necessarily get you to the next gas station out west. No problem in Kansas, just land on the frontage road, kill the engine, and push up to the auto station pump.

Varanger wrote: ...But that deadstick aerobatics was really something. A very good demonstration of the law of the roller coaster. Having so low mass and such a high drag, I am impressed it is possible to gain and retain enough airspeed to loop a cub!

That is flying in the purest sense a human can attain, and flying as Contact has been preaching. Endeavor to fly an aircraft like that, while bearing in mind that those forces are 3 dimensional, and you will truly enjoy a long adventure in the air.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying aircraft operation by the numbers. Someone has to captain those airliners and fighter jets. But in my opinion even they become better rounded pilots when they can be in tune with a wing.

Take care, Rob