Student Pilot wrote:Flyby, you brag of handling 20 crosswind with the RV, what is the stated max crosswind component with your RV? If it's less than 20 knots you've blown your own argument out.

Have you ever overloaded an Aircraft? You could answer that with have you ever been paid to fly.

The book world and the real world are different, don't know about the old grizzley guys egging each other to do more stupid things. I haven't been to Alaska, with comments like that I doubt youv'e been there either.

So Student by your comments, you are unqualified to speak intelligently about common human behavior unless you have been to Alaska?

Your point about blowing an argument is well taken but it ain't bragging if you can do it. The near beginning of the thread started with claims something like 35 or 40 knots or more as I remember? I still doubt it can be done in more than 20 knots direct on dry pavement in anything like a Cessna170 or Stinson 108-3 with great frequency of success. I'll stick by that and would still like to see it. Having hundreds of hours in my 170A and with 30 hours or so in mentioned Stinson , I'm willing to learn.

As far as the RV goes, if I didn't live in one of the windiest places in the USA (At least the wind power people think so and I agree), I may not know my abilities or the airplanes. Van's has no stated crosswind component for any of their aircraft and my ability to land my airplane in a stiff crosswind speaks not to my ability but to the airplanes design as I simply stated. Never the less I'm thankfull for the 3 runways at our airport community. Otherwise most tailwheeled airplanes would be largely impractical here. I am also thankfull that I have only needed to use one of the two unpaved crosswind runways on about 4 occasions in the past 3 years in my RV, especially in light of the fact that a wind of less than 45 degrees to our paved runway is fairly rare. Might I ask have you ever flown an RV? Folks do like em and for good reason.

As far as the real world goes.... statistics and physics don't lie. Look up Alaskan accident statistics. I wouldn't be surprised if half the non injury accidents are ever reported adding up to plenty of banged up airplanes. I live in a rural area and that's pretty much the case around here. A big assumption to be sure but not entirely unfounded. Just a wild guess.

In answer to your overload question. On my private pilot checkride, we were overgross. Second question....no.

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:

flyby wrote:

GumpAir wrote: Not the best way to win friends and influence people.

If you weren't there, you don't know.

True .... wasn't there but I would submit that planes fly the same "there" as "here" therefore odds are I might make a good guess.

flyby wrote:So Student by your comments, you are unqualified to speak intelligently about common human behavior unless you have been to Alaska?

No but if you comment about how you've heard somebody's best friends uncle said that's the way they behave there then maybe it might not have been true? Reading this site there are a few who have actually been there done that, maybe we can learn from them?

flyby wrote:Your point about blowing an argument is well taken but it ain't bragging if you can do it.

So you can do it but and you believe others can't? Read the end of your next quoted paragraph.

flyby wrote:The near beginning of the thread started with claims something like 35 or 40 knots or more as I remember? I still doubt it can be done in more than 20 knots direct on dry pavement in anything like a Cessna170 or Stinson 108-3 with great frequency of success. I'll stick by that and would still like to see it. Having hundreds of hours in my 170A and with 30 hours or so in mentioned Stinson , I'm willing to learn.

At an accurate guess I'd say one or two of the posters on this thread have maybe 10 times the hours you have? Read the last four words of your last paragraph. I still learn everytime I fly, which is most days.

flyby wrote: Might I ask have you ever flown an RV? Folks do like em and for good reason.

Yip 4's and 6's, a great little machines.

flyby wrote:As far as the real world goes.... statistics and physics don't lie. Look up Alaskan accident statistics. I wouldn't be surprised if half the non injury accidents are ever reported adding up to plenty of banged up airplanes. I live in a rural area and that's pretty much the case around here. A big assumption to be sure but not entirely unfounded. Just a wild guess.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics................You can fiddle figures all you like, have a look at the hours flown in such a high risk environment. It's all peachy easy when everythings in your favour.

flyby,

I can assure you that not many non-injury airplane accidents get past the FAA in ALaska any more. Maybe twenty years ago, but the FAA has put a lot of emphasis on accident reduction and surveillance up there.

It's pretty hard to get away with anything there, frankly, cause there are so many aviators around, and we all know that pilots "tell stories over a beer", right . Sooner or later, the Feds find out.

The air taxi industry in Alaska has a terrible accident record, no doubt. But, again, there are many reasons for that record, and frankly bravado isn't all that much of a factor any more. Long distances and severe conditions are, though.

Beer was good. Puny fireworks around here, but about 11:00 PM last night Mother Nature kicked up her heels with a hell of a lightning display. Quite the little Fourth Celebration.

MTV

I have just reread my last reply, maybe that could come across as a bit aggressive? If it does I don't mean it so and apoligise if it offends.

Ultimately crosswind comes into pilot capability more than the Aircraft. We have a Pacer that for me is a pig in anything more than about 15 knots, but it's still fun trying.

Gol-Darn It Student!!!! You've totally screwed this whole thread!!

Here we were just getting into it and you had to......apologize.

Criminy, Man, what were you thinking??

Dang it People, let's get back to a good argum......er--DISCUSSION on landings in crosswinds...

Nothing like being NICE to take the starch right outta an argument..

MTV

Well winds here at BNO are 180 at 26g39 and getting worse. Thrush is out on a fire and We'll see if the pilot can stick it on the ground. Glad I'm on the porch.

Be back with details as time moves along.

Bub

Mike if its getting boring, I could bring up the whole liberal thing again, that took awhile to get over.

Bub,

Now we're talking, keep us posted, better yet, take your camera out to the drome and document the whole deal.

MTV

Well went over to the airport and missed the whole landing. Talked with the pilot "Bill" and he said the wind was 180 18G29 when he landed on 21. Not sure what kind of X wind componet that would be, I'll get the wiz wheel and see later. Said the gust were the pain, about touch down and balloon a bit when a gust hit, and dispatch called him on the radio about the time he touched down. A regular PITA. I missed the whole thing because of the dust blowing between the house and the airport. ASOS said vis was 6 and hazz. From my perspective it was 1/2 and blowing dust. Wind was from a Tstorm coming through. Bill sat out for about an hour and is back at it. Dry lightening started at least 9 fires in the twenty minutes it was popping. I can see 4 from the house.

MTV, I'll get a picture.

Ok, so I have to ask.

Among the tail wheel airplanes, how do you rank them, if relevant, in the planes ability to handle x-winds?

add j3, pa-18, beaver, c-180, c-185, maule m7, stinson, rans s7s

freestone wrote:Ok, so I have to ask.

Among the tail wheel airplanes, how do you rank them, if relevant, in the planes ability to handle x-winds?

add j3, pa-18, beaver, c-180, c-185, maule m7, stinson, rans s7s

As a loose rule, the heavier the Aircraft the better the X-wind capability.

I'd put the J-3 with the Rans, Supercub,Stinson (Wild guess as I haven't flown one), Maule (one of them either), 180 then Beaver and 185 sort of the same.

I was told as far as Tail Wheel planes go. The 170 is one of the easier ones to land. I have only flown in a Stinson and Citabria, both times I was only a passenger. I really have no idea how to compare them.

So another question would be, what is the easiest (Or most dossal) Tail Wheel to fly and what is the hardest Tail Wheel to fly?

X-wind factor is the sine of the angle. 210-180 = 30. You can Google the answer if you don't have a calculator with trig functions:

18 * sin(30 degrees)

Answer is 9

As a rough approximation:

30 degrees - .5
45 degrees - .7
60 degrees - .9

Skylane wrote:Well went over to the airport and missed the whole landing. Talked with the pilot "Bill" and he said the wind was 180 18G29 when he landed on 21. Not sure what kind of X wind componet that would be, I'll get the wiz wheel and see later.

I tried to add up my landings and got distracted, but near as I can guess I've landed approximately 2000 times and exactly THREE of those landings have been on something other than pavement. That should sum up both my experience level and my perspective.

With that in mind, I'm STILL dubious of anyone's claim that they are landing in a 20 knot direct x-wind. Now 'dubious' doesn't mean I'm calling anyone a liar; 'dubious' means maybe you're doing what you say and maybe you're not, but I'm going to need more than your good word to actually believe it.

I'm sure there are pilots out there who can routinely do things in a common airplane that are well beyond what I can do on my best try out of fifty. And you only have to watch a couple of minutes of Bob Hoover flying to realize that most of us have no real idea what can be done in an airplane. But I've found that cross winds are a lot like trout...that two pounder you caught seven years ago must weigh at least twelve pounds today, so it's not really lying to say you caught a twelve pound trout seven years ago...

I hear a lot of people throwing out pretty heroic numbers for what kind of x-wind they will land in, but when the wind is actually blowing half of that, I don't see anyone flying.

And as far as the great white north is concerned, It's hardly news that someone who flys for a living is going to be a better pilot than someone who flys for relaxation on the weekend, be it in the Yukon or in Kansas. But there are a lot of flying stories coming out of Alaska, and if you read enough of them you'd get the notion that a little gumption and a part 135 endorsement are more than enough to enough to trump the laws of physics.

Part of that is just the nature of story telling...nobody wants to hear about the load of Pepsi you couldn't deliver because the winds were too high, or the load of Pepsi you delivered right behind the student pilot doing her first solo... People want to hear stories about tough flights that turned out ok in the end.

But people being what they are, and story telling being what it is, I'm still dubious.

ravi wrote: But there are a lot of flying stories coming out of Alaska, and if you read enough of them you'd get the notion that a little gumption and a part 135 endorsement are more than enough to enough to trump the laws of physics

As long as no one's calling anyone a liar...

You don't trump the laws of physics. You understand them, and you use techniques you train for and practice, that allow you bring other laws into motion to make the airplane do what you want it to. Key issue being you make the airplane do what YOU want it to.

With a strong crosswind, and 20 kts is not a strong crosswind, you kick out your crab as the upwind wheel touches, and use inertia and the weight of the airplane to hold you close to straight down your landing surface while you slow down and stop, which is a force counter to that of the wind pushing you the opposite direction. Easier on snow or dirt because you can slide and be sloppier and get away with it, but still possible on pavement. It's not magic, and it's not violating any of nature's laws. It's just a skill that comes with experience and from doing it all the time. The more you do it, the better you are until you reach your own personal level of competence. Some guys have a knack for it, some guys don't.

Gump

ravi wrote:It's hardly news that someone who flys for a living is going to be a better pilot than someone who flys for relaxation on the weekend.

That's not always true, but in most cases the guy flying for a living is going to be proficient in a lot of areas and have a more acute feel for what he's doing than the guy who flys 100 to 200 hours a year.

And people who specialize, you mention Bob Hoover's show which is a good example, can do what at first glance seems impossible or improbable to those who haven't been exposed much. Like I said before, it's not magic, it's understanding the physics and managing energy to move that mass of airplane where the pilot needs to move it to.

If you want to learn crosswinds, go find an instructor with experience in heavy winds and see what he/she can show you. A lot of CFI's and pilots are uneasy in windy conditions and shy away from flying on those days and other than the bare minimum in technique, an inexperienced CFI is not going to show you much in the way of real world flying. No different than going to McCall to learn mountain flying. You want someone who does it to teach it. An 21 year old CFI in Long Beach with 500 total hours, all in a C150, is not who you want giving you advice on how to get into a high and hot one-way mountain strip. He'd probably tell you it's unsafe, and impossible, so don't go. The McCall CFI on the other hand... "Go have fun."

Gump

ravi wrote: I've landed approximately 2000 times and exactly THREE of those landings have been on something other than pavement.

With that in mind, I'm STILL dubious of anyone's claim that they are landing in a 20 knot direct x-wind.

Maybe when you have a bit more expirence in different conditions you might not be dubious?

I was flying right seat in a Pacer with a 150 hp in it yesterday. We went into a pretty nice airport with a wide concrete runway. It was 13 kts gusting to 21 with a right 45 to 55 degree angle on us. My friend did a good job getting us down but he really held that right wing down right to the ground. Even then he had his hands full on the short roll out.

What was interesting was during the whole pattern we flew there was a 180 sitting at the hold short line. He had plenty of time to get off before we landed but I think he was waiting to see how we did. Well after we landed and taxied over to the pumps, he taxied back and parked. Shortly thereafter, as I was exiting the bathroom, he walked by saying to another fellow that after watching the Pacer land he decided it was too windy.

You just have to know your limits.

Skystrider wrote: Even then he had his hands full on the short roll out.

Shortly thereafter, as I was exiting the bathroom, he walked by saying to another fellow that after watching the Pacer land he decided it was too windy.

You just have to know your limits.

That's right you hace to know your limits............and your Aircrafts. A Pacer might have had a hard time but a 180 would have been quite comfortable. Something about the 180's empty weight being nearly the loaded weight of the Pacer makes them handle crosswinds better. A Pacer is a twitchy little bugger, they are shorter than Cubs or Maules and being so light they are not good with crosswinds.