Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 11-27-2011, 08:15 AM
pullin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: N Texas
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asimovian View Post
In light of the crash in Arizona and this one near Chicago earlier today, I'm wondering what the closest calls or scariest moments have been for the Doper pilots. Would any of you care to share your stories?
I posted this story about my son's unsettling experience. I had to do some serious reassuring for my wife to let me continue teaching him to fly. Have to admit I was a little spooked too (as a Dad).
  #202  
Old 11-27-2011, 01:30 PM
GusNSpot's Avatar
GusNSpot is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N/W Arkansas
Posts: 8,753
Long story short.
Cessna 310
Night + storms
St Louis to Tulsa
Blew the left engine near Springfield, MO.
Ice build up nixed going on to Tulsa
Instrument talk down as I had no approach plates for there.
No ability for a go around.
Lots of knee shaking after landing.
  #203  
Old 11-27-2011, 06:49 PM
Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 62,832
I just want to share this gorgeous 1956 Cessna 310. Unfortunately it's an eBay link, so the photos won't be there long. The only other picture of the aircraft is this one. More pics on the eBay page, while it lasts.
  #204  
Old 11-27-2011, 07:41 PM
Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Packer fan?
  #205  
Old 11-27-2011, 08:02 PM
Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 62,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
Packer fan?
From the description:
Quote:
New paint in original scheme and color IAW data plate.
  #206  
Old 11-27-2011, 09:23 PM
GusNSpot's Avatar
GusNSpot is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N/W Arkansas
Posts: 8,753
Beautiful.

Got 40 or 3 hours in a 57 model.

180 kts, even talking true, not indicated, not happenin on 23 gal/hr in level flight on a perfect day.

Real good price if all the AD's are done right.

Need lotto ticket win for fuel purchases .....
  #207  
Old 11-28-2011, 01:08 AM
Av8trix is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 155
I have a real soft spot for the 310, and was fortunate to have a job flying one for 1500 hours or so (R model). Such a sexy airplane. That straight-tail is about the most pristine looking one I think I've ever seen. =)
  #208  
Old 11-28-2011, 11:44 AM
Pixel_Dent is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asimovian View Post
I'm wondering what the closest calls or scariest moments have been for the Doper pilots. Would any of you care to share your stories?
Only two "oops" in 700 hours of flying. Neither was particularly scary.

One was just stupid. I misjudged my speed and overran the end of a runway into some briars. Plane wasn't hurt but I had to have a local guy with a pickup truck pull me out.

Another time my vacuum pump gave up the ghost while I was in solid IMC over a 200' ceiling. Luckily my autopilot is slaved to an electric turn coordinator so I just took my hands off the controls and let it keep the wings level. I knew there was an airport about 45 minutes ahead reporting VMC so I told ATC about the failure and that I wanted to divert to that airport. I let the autopilot fly the plane, broke out of the clouds after about 30 minutes, declined an offer from the tower at the new airport to roll the emergency equipment, and landed uneventfully. I think I was calm while flying the plane; however, while I was taxiing to the FBO, my legs started shaking like crazy and banging off the yoke.

Neither of these events made me consider giving up flying but there was one flight which wasn't dangerous at all but had me seriously considering selling the plane. That flight consisted of 3 1/2 hours of constant light turbulence. After about the 10th time my head bounced off the ceiling I started thinking if maybe a 9 hour drive wasn't all that bad.
  #209  
Old 11-30-2011, 05:40 PM
Asimovian's Avatar
Asimovian is offline
Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 11,731
I've got another "lesson" scheduled for this Saturday, assuming the weather holds. Since this will likely be the last time I'm able to go up this year (and possibly until March or April), I'm tempted to ask the instructor for a different plane than I had the last time, just for the hell of it (I went up in N19688 last time). But since they're all Cessnas (and mostly 172s), I'm not sure there's enough difference to warrant paying a higher rental fee even for an hour. I'd be curious about all of your thoughts. Here are my potential choices (pending availability, of course).

I'm disinclined to choose anything with glass, by the way, since I likely won't be doing any serious training in a glass cockpit (unless I manage to win the lottery before next summer). But if anyone thinks there's an advantage to trying it this one time, I'm open to the reasoning of those who have gone before me.

Another potential factor: 688 is the oldest plane in the school's fleet and has neither TCAS nor TIS. A friend who is a much-further-along student pilot says he'd be afraid to fly without it through the pass, which he's described as being the 405 Freeway of the air. When I took my last flight, I did find myself startled by passing a couple of planes fairly nearby where I feel I didn't see them until the last second. On the other hand, perhaps that's just better practice for me to keep me eyes outside of the cockpit and scanning.
  #210  
Old 11-30-2011, 06:06 PM
Richard Pearse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 10,627
I'd recommend you stick with the same aeroplane, or at least the same type, if you can. Otherwise you'll be distracted by the differences and won't learn as much. Try different aeroplanes a bit later on. Same deal with the glass, at the moment you're just learning to fly, you need stick and rudder and basic instruments. In my experience it is easier to transition from analogue instruments to glass than the other way around, so go with what is simple and cheap and build on that later. TCAS is nice to have but it has some big limitations. It is a backup collision avoidance system rather than a separation tool and is not meant to replace your eyes and ears.
  #211  
Old 11-30-2011, 07:56 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,294
If you had the chance to fly a low wing plane I'd go for that but I didn't see any in your list. With that you could experience ground affect. It was a nice learning experience for me with the Piper Cherokees especially with the mechanical flaps. You could dump them upon landing in a crosswind and quickly bleed off lift.
  #212  
Old 11-30-2011, 10:41 PM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 16,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
If you had the chance to fly a low wing plane I'd go for that but I didn't see any in your list. With that you could experience ground affect. It was a nice learning experience for me with the Piper Cherokees especially with the mechanical flaps. You could dump them upon landing in a crosswind and quickly bleed off lift.
You don't get ground effect in a high-wing plane like a Cessna 172?

I had a rather dramatic demonstration once of ground effect, in a Schweizer 2-33 (high wing) sailplane.

Okay, maybe that's different.

Last edited by Senegoid; 11-30-2011 at 10:41 PM.
  #213  
Old 11-30-2011, 11:39 PM
Richard Pearse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 10,627
You still get it in high wing aircraft, it's just not as pronounced. You need to be within about half a wingspan from the ground to get ground effect.
  #214  
Old 12-01-2011, 10:06 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 30,552
Yes, you get ground effect in a C172 but it's nowhere near a dramatic as the effect in a low-wing - I doubt a new student would pick up on it in a high wing but almost everyone notices the effect in a low wing.
  #215  
Old 12-01-2011, 10:38 AM
Asimovian's Avatar
Asimovian is offline
Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 11,731
Since I haven't had occasion to read about it yet, will someone explain ground effect?
  #216  
Old 12-01-2011, 11:23 AM
LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
In just a few sentences ...

Despite all the Bernoulli BS you read, by and large a wing makes lift by deflecting air downwards and the old equal and opposite reaction law of physics make the airplane go/stay up.

When very near the ground, the air deflected downwards by the wing encounters the ground. Which is more "resistant" to being deflected downwards in turn than is the free air at higher altitude. So in some sense, that air "pushes back" harder at the wing, holding it up more effectively than ordinary free-stream air would.

The net effect is the wing in ground effect develops more lift at any given airspeed & AOA than it does in free air. The effect becomes noticable when the altitude is about 1/2 the wingspan & increases the closer you get to the ground.

For a small airplane with a 30-ish foot wingspan, the difference between a high wing mounted at 6ft above the gear and a low wing mounted at 2 ft above the gear becomes very noticable.

On landing the big picture is that assuming a constant power setting, glide path & airspeed, passing about 15-10 ft AGL the rate of descent will reduce, the flightpath will shallow out & the flightpath will be as if airplane flared itself, but without raising the nose attitude. The effect is similar to what would happen if at 10-15 ft you started gradually adding power.

You can see this in a high wing light plane once you know what to look for and can reliably set up & hold that smooth constant parameter descent. In a low wing airplane the effect is vastly stronger in those last 5 ft. So much so that you need to add a much smaller flare or the airplane will balloon due to the combined effect of a too-big flare & the increasing ground effect at altitudes below, say, 5 ft.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 12-01-2011 at 11:28 AM.
  #217  
Old 12-01-2011, 11:32 AM
LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Late edit: replace last paragraph with ...

You can see this in a high wing light plane once you know what to look for and can reliably set up & hold that smooth constant parameter descent. But it's pretty subtle. The effect just gets started and then the landing gear stops the descent from continuing.

In a low wing airplane the effect is vastly stronger in those last 5 ft. So much so that you need to add a much smaller flare or the airplane will balloon due to the combined effect of a too-big flare & the increasing ground effect at altitudes below, say, 5 ft.

Which is not to say that ground effect will prevent slamming a low-wing airplane into the ground. But for reasonable aispeeds & descent rates it softens most of the flared too late & hit anyway mistakes. And instead provokes more flared too big & ballooned, followed by bouncing or worse mistakes.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 12-01-2011 at 11:36 AM. Reason: Out! Out Foul typos!
  #218  
Old 12-01-2011, 12:57 PM
Bookkeeper's Avatar
Bookkeeper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ottawa, Canuckistan
Posts: 2,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny L.A. View Post
I just want to share this gorgeous 1956 Cessna 310. Unfortunately it's an eBay link, so the photos won't be there long. The only other picture of the aircraft is this one. More pics on the eBay page, while it lasts.
A beauty! This is the only GA aircraft other than the Beaver I've ever built a model of.
  #219  
Old 12-01-2011, 03:03 PM
av8rmike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 1,695
This feels like a thread I should have been following, if I had any semblance of currency.
  #220  
Old 12-09-2011, 04:12 PM
Asimovian's Avatar
Asimovian is offline
Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 11,731
So, I've had a bit of a setback...

I've actually been a little ashamed to post about this. This happened on Saturday.

I was scheduled to go up Saturday morning with my instructor around 9. It had been very windy in the LA area over the last several days, and although the gusts were supposed to pick up again during the day on Saturday, they were calm when I woke up. Off I went for a lesson.

When I got there, the winds had picked up a little, but my CFI said we were good to go. We spent quite a while doing pre-flight checks (partially because of waiting a long time for a fuel truck), and at one point, we had to put the tie-downs back on the plane because it started walking on us with the gusts that were coming through. We watched some other folks struggle after take-off in the meantime, but it seemed more of an idle curiosity at the time. I asked my instructor about any concerns he had about flying in windy conditions, but he mentioned he normally flew out of Palm Springs, which is always windy, and thus it wasn't a big deal.

Ultimately, we were ready to head out. ATIS was reporting variable winds at 5 knots gusting to 21. We were told to hold short of runway 12 for another Cessna coming in to land, but he then called in to say he needed to "work this out" -- he was having some issues getting in to land. We were then cleared to take-off, but we were warned about hitting some wind shear at 100 ft off the ground. At which point my instructor said to me, "Well, looks like I'll be handling take-off." Which he did, and we began to get tossed around the second we got off the ground.

I was pretty unhappy from the get-go. Getting pushed to the side by the wind isn't a big deal to me, but the sudden drops were really upsetting me. Not to mention the wind trying to flip us while we were in turns. When we turned downwind, he said that we would head over to the practice area, but I think my silence after that statement gave him pause. He said, "Are you up for this?" I had to swallow my pride and tell him that I just couldn't see how I was going to enjoy the experience at all. What I didn't say was that if I was this nervous and borderline scared while flying in the pattern, I thought I'd have been mortified with the turbulence we'd experience over the mountains to get the practice area, and I just didn't think I could deal with it. He asked if I wanted to just land, and I said yes.

Landing was a bit of an adventure in and of itself. He really struggled to get us lined up with the runway, and eventually had to do a go-around on the first attempt ("Too much speed!"). He fought with it all the way down the second time around, too, and we'd been warned to get down before Charlie because there was a strong crosswind on the other end of the runway. We weren't really near the centerline on our landing, either.

Afterward, I asked him if he'd ever encountered a condition where he'd gotten up in the air and then thought that maybe it was a bad idea to be flying at the time. He laughed and said, "Yeah, today!" I told him I was confused because he'd said he had no issues flying in the wind, particular in Palm Springs. He said that dealing with the wind while flying is no big deal, but trying to land in these circumstances was a lot harder than is desireable. He said the runway in Palm Springs is shielded by buildings, and the runway is a lot longer there, so it isn't usually that difficult to get on the ground there.

Despite getting a little reassurance from knowing my CFI had struggled in these conditions, I ultimately walked away from the experience feeling like I'm not cut out to become a pilot, ready to give up on something I thought was going to be a fun challenge for me. While having a few days' distance from the events makes me feel like things really weren't all that bad, the reality is that when I was in the heat of the moment, I was too scared to go on with a lesson because of the turbulence. I didn't trust myself to be in control of the plane while trying to suck back my discomfort.

I don't think it means that I'd never go up for another lesson again. I do want to enjoy the opportunity to handle a plane again at some point. But I'm not sure I have what it takes to go all the way and get my license, and I find that incredibly depressing.

By the way, if anyone's really curious, I went through LiveATC's archives of the time I was in the plane to listen for some of the highlights. This link opens directly to a sound file: LINK.

09:13 - 09:41: KWHP tower talking to another pilot regarding variable winds and crosswinds
17:42 - 17:51: Cessna 31P "I've gotta work this out"
18:11 - 18:26: Tail end of my CFI's readback of crosswind at 100ft and tower advisory to us about crosswind
21:37 - 21:58: Our request to come back and land
22:14 - 22:28: Tower warning to get down before Charlie due to crosswind
  #221  
Old 12-09-2011, 04:19 PM
Asimovian's Avatar
Asimovian is offline
Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 11,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asimovian View Post
18:11 - 18:26: Tail end of my CFI's readback of crosswind at 100ft and tower advisory to us about crosswind
Too late to edit -- the bolded part was supposed to say "wind shear," not "crosswind."
  #222  
Old 12-09-2011, 04:31 PM
Llama Llogophile is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: 50% chord point
Posts: 4,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asimovian View Post
So, I've had a bit of a setback...
I've had this conversation with a lot of flight students, so I hope you'll take this to heart:

Don't worry about it.

Most flight students, no matter how enthusiastic, run into something that makes them think twice about what they are undertaking. Lots of times it's a bad experience in wind or turbulence* as you've described. Try to schedule another lesson soon in more serene conditions. If you really do enjoy flying, this will pass.

That being said, it's a good idea later on in training to go up on days where the wind is sporty. Do it too early on - as in your case - and it can be disconcerting to the point of alarming. But it's good to see some wind and find out that it's usually more do-able than you might think, if not always pleasant. I make a point of taking students (if they're game for it - no pressure) flying in winds of up to 25 knots. They work their butts off, it's not really "fun", but it's valuable experience for when you find yourself in that situation as a rated pilot with no CFI aboard.






* Stalls often spook students (including me back in the day), as does instrument flight. I had one student become alarmed at turns-around-a-point. Almost nobody has a bad reaction to that maneuver, but in my view he was quite correct. I think ground reference maneuvers are among the most dangerous because the airplane is flying low, often away from an airport. Lots of pilots and instructors don't appreciate the hazards there because they are viewed as routine training maneuvers.

Last edited by Llama Llogophile; 12-09-2011 at 04:35 PM.
  #223  
Old 12-09-2011, 04:38 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 30,552
Asimovian, let me congratulate you on showing excellent judgement and doing exactly the right thing.

You ARE cut out to be a pilot. Knowing your limits, and when to go home (or not leave) is as important as anything else in aviation.

I've been flying out here in the Midwest since 1995, where high winds are much more common than many other places. It would still give me pause to go up in those conditions because I know it won't be a lot of fun. I know I can handle it, because I've flown Cessnas in 30 knot winds with near perpendicular crosswinds successfully, but I don't want to launch into gusty winds because it's not really fun. The worst trip I came home in winds that had picked up more than predicted and by the time I landed I had bruises across my hips and shoulders from the safety harness, it was that bad. Still, I was on my own and had to deal with it, as there was no other choice. The airplanes can handle it, so it comes down to whether or not the pilot can handle it.

Right now, where you are in the learning process, you can't handle it. You recognized that fact very early on. You did exactly the right thing. That is fantastic.

At some point in flight training everyone bumps up against this sort of thing. It should provoke some thoughtful reflection. Again, you are doing everything you should do.
  #224  
Old 12-09-2011, 10:53 PM
Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 62,832
One day I went to VNY and it was drizzling. I lost a screw out of my glasses. Strike one.

I found a pice of wire for a field repair, and started the preflight. Someone had torqued down the oil dipstick. I don't remember how I got it off. I may have gotten a wrench out of the car. Not a good sign. Strike two.

I took off in light rain. My carb heat gauge, which warns of potential icing -- which you don't want in a helicotper -- was fluctuating wildly. I did not want to fly if I didn't have warning my engine would suddenly stop. Strike three. I returned to base.

Sometimes you just have to look at the situation and make the best decision.

Am I making sense? The scotch it hitting me...
  #225  
Old 12-09-2011, 11:54 PM
GusNSpot's Avatar
GusNSpot is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N/W Arkansas
Posts: 8,753
It's important, I really need to go.

It's not so bad, I'll just go on a little farther.

I really want to just get home.

Those three thoughts probably have killed more GA pilots than all others combined.

Like Broomstick & Johnny said, being able to recognize and act correctly for what you, your plane & the weather are able or likely to do is the most important thing after you get your license.


Go get your license and then keep learning....
  #226  
Old 12-10-2011, 07:39 AM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,294
fighting a plane all the way to the runway is actually quite fun once you've logged enough hours. I would qualify this by saying not all airplanes do well under gusting conditions. You'd have to know the limitations of the plane. A low wing tricycle gear is generally going to do better than a high wing tail dragger. Landing is the last thing that gels so obviously it seems intimidating when getting tossed around as a passenger.

My first long distance flight after my license was a complete test of my flying skills. It started out as a flight that was going to be chased by a storm. Preflight was done on the run as the front was on the horizon. by the time I got to the runway I could see it raining on the far end of the airport. I took off parallel to the line of rain. I wasn't 100 feet off the ground when hit with a wall of rain and the tower asked if I wanted to return. Hell no I don't want to return. I banked into a lovely tail wind and left for blue skies.

The final destination was one state over and I called 25 miles out. My instructions were to call a 5 mile base leg for a particular runway. this was back before GPS's and I had to actually find the airport first since I was flying off a map. when I called a 5 mile base the tower yelled at me. "who are you and why didn't you call before entering this airspace". Good God what did I do wrong? when I said I made the call he remembered and all went well.

The return trip was the decision maker. I needed to get home. Flight service kept telling me that VFR flight was not recommended. Seemed OK to me. A little bumpy maybe but doable. I took off and fought my way through the cloud layer and finally got on top. Blue skies and smooth sailing. So there I am fat and happy with full fuel tanks and I look down through the clouds and notice the trucks on the highway are moving faster than I am. Huh. that's interesting. must be a pretty big headwind. Pretty smooth one at that.

And then I started to fly ahead of the plane which is where I should have had my head in the first place. At this ground speed I'm going to have to cross triangulate an airport in the dark, fight my way through the clouds and rough weather and land with heavy gusts at night. Yeah, that's not going to end well. I landed soon after and got a hotel room.
  #227  
Old 12-10-2011, 11:00 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
I'll chime in too, Asimovian. I'm another one who doesn't enjoy flying in gusts and turbulence quite as much, but it's still flying, and in this part of the world you just can't fly very much if you put those conditions outside your personal minimums. You can certainly be happy flying recreationally with your personal minimums requiring clear, calm, and uncrowded skies, many pilots are, but many pilots also enjoy stretching themselves and learning more about how to handle other conditions.

What you just did was to expand your envelope. You've experienced this stuff, you know what you have to do to handle it safely in the future, you are no longer scared of it (are you? you shouldn't be, and you are now a better pilot for it. Your basic stick-and-rudder skills are now better, and your judgment will now be better too. This was a necessary part of learning how to fly, and you did just fine.
  #228  
Old 12-10-2011, 12:55 PM
Asimovian's Avatar
Asimovian is offline
Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 11,731
Thank you all for the feedback and encouragement. I will approach future flights with a more open mind. My co-worker friend, who is further along in his lessons, also told me that it's possible to come back and feel much differently about experiencing that sort of turbulence once you've already been through it. I won't count myself out of the game just yet.

Elvis, just to be clear, I never took the controls during this flight, which was less than 10 minutes total.
  #229  
Old 12-10-2011, 01:27 PM
GusNSpot's Avatar
GusNSpot is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N/W Arkansas
Posts: 8,753
The pilot ALWAYS has the final say in 'go' or 'no go' but when you fly for pay, the pressure can be real intense.


That said:

I was flying checks at night as a second job and it was most interesting in many ways but as far as this discussion goes, you hired on knowing that the company had these two requirements.

To refuse a flight there had to be:
1) A tornado ON the departure airport.
2) Airline class aircraft reporting sever icing on final approach.

I never ran into those conditions so I always flew.
Prior pipeline patrol experience, an instrument rating with actual use, much experience with the airports ( and a good rapport with the local controllers ) time in the types of aircraft I had to use ( Piper Arrow retract, 601 AeroStar, Shrike ) I was using all helped...

So do not worry at this time as you are just learning & you will probably never have or be in a position to do something like that. The point is that experience and your personal limits will allow you to have a good & lasting time as a pilot. Make good 'go & no go' decisions but in the long run, you will hopefully always make them with real forethought & continue to learn.

Aside:
The P 47 was used after the war to do thunderstorm research.

They eventually had to go to a reinforced T-28 Trojan. The pilot would deliberately fly into the worse storms they could find & get to.

They did not use a C-150.

Hurricane hunters tend to use the C- 130

There is a lesson in this I would think.

Last edited by GusNSpot; 12-10-2011 at 01:28 PM.
  #230  
Old 12-10-2011, 01:37 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asimovian View Post
Thank you all for the feedback and encouragement. I will approach future flights with a more open mind. My co-worker friend, who is further along in his lessons, also told me that it's possible to come back and feel much differently about experiencing that sort of turbulence once you've already been through it. I won't count myself out of the game just yet.

Elvis, just to be clear, I never took the controls during this flight, which was less than 10 minutes total.
If you weren't flying the aircraft then you had no sense of situational control. Rest assured you will feel better if you're controlling the plane. My uncle is claustrophobic to the point that he doesn't like to fly commercially. I took him up and let him fly and it didn't bother him despite being in a smaller space. Being in control of the plane made a huge difference in his perception of the flight.

I myself don't mind the wings rocking back and forth in the wind but don't like the violent changes in altitude. You can mitigate this in flight by slowing the plane down. I don't know the physics behind it but a nose up attitude negates a great deal of the bucking. Also keep in mind that this occurs at lower altitudes. If you can get above the haze line the air tends to smooth out. You'll experience more of this as a student then when actually flying somewhere because you can get above it on a long flight.

Last edited by Magiver; 12-10-2011 at 01:38 PM.
  #231  
Old 12-13-2011, 12:20 PM
GusNSpot's Avatar
GusNSpot is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N/W Arkansas
Posts: 8,753
While flying pipeline patrol, we did not consider how rough it was, because it always was but if we hit so many bugs we could not see out the front. That was what we called a rough day.
  #232  
Old 07-14-2013, 08:43 AM
Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 62,832
The Arlington Fly-In has come and gong. We attended the last day yesterday. Beautiful day. Not too warm, and there was a nice breeze. The SO isn't rabid about planes (as I am), but she liked it.

It was a pretty low-key event. There weren't as many planes as the last time we went. SO was disappointed they didn't have a B-25 on display as they did two years ago. They did have a P-51B and a P-47 on display, and they flew some passes later in the day. There were aerobatic acts, including a Sukhoi Su-29 (with an 'intrusion' event' by a hang glider); a father-and-son team flying a Yakovlev Yak-55 and a Yak-18T, sailplane aerobatics, and a woman whose plane I don't remember. Fly-bys included half a dozen V-tail Bonanzas in formation, and a baker's dozen of RV-6s in formation, both before the 'airshow' started. A Stinson Model O, 1933 Fairchild 24, and a 1915 Nieuport 11 made circuits and circuits. (The Stinson was a replica, as there are no actual survivors; and the Nieuport, alas, was also a replica.) The Snohomish County Sheriff's Department put on a demonstration with their UH-1H. (The SO, a former Black Hawk pilot, said 'Pretty whop-whop' when we walked by it on display.) And there were the afore-mentioned P-51B and P-47 fly-bys.

Now, I've been to a lot of airshows in my life. Compared to... well, just about all of them... the Arlington Fly-In is... sedate. But it has its charms. The others are 'open houses' and 'airshows'. Arlington is a 'fly-in'; so there are lots of people who fly their planes to the airport and camp out for three days. I enjoy the diversity of GA aircraft, and seeing what 'real people' fly. There's the highly-polished aluminum-and-blue Cessna 170 that's so pretty. You could smell the polish. Beautiful. There were other bare-metal-and-trim Cessna taildraggers there, too. And lots of Vans, Long-EZ/Vari-Eze/Cosy canards, LSAs, and whole sections of 'in regular use' Cessnas, Pipers, Beachcraft, and others.

My favourite was a 1969 Cessna 172K flown by a retired-looking couple. I think you all know I have a soft spot for the 172K. Their's had its original paint, like this one -- only not nearly so pretty. No, this plane was dirty and streaked. The paint was faded, and I saw bare aluminum around the cowling edge. They both came right out and said it was dirty. The wife said her husband flies it every day. (Apparently he's not retired, but uses the airplane to work or get to work.) I reminded them that time spent washing is time not spent flying. The husband said he didn't like the colour (which I call 'baby-shit yellow' -- though I didn't tell him that), but it's grown on him over the years and he likes it now. Walking around the field, I was like 'Oh, there's that pretty 170. Look at that old Bellanca. Lots of Cherokees over there -- say, there's a gold Comanche from the '50s...' But I just totally dig this 172K for what it is, and that it's flown daily and the guy would rather fly it than wash it.

All in all, a pleasant day. I hope one day I'll be able to fly in to a fly-in.
  #233  
Old 07-14-2013, 10:28 AM
Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 62,832
I found a picture of that dirty old 172K I like so much. I'd forgotten that it was fitted with the Powerflow exhaust system.
  #234  
Old 07-14-2013, 05:02 PM
usedtobe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,411
Did Glasair/Glastar even bother to make an appearance?

Stoddard-Hamilton: How to take a cutting-edge product (first pre-molded composite airplane kit, 1980) and then:
1. Sit own your ass while a sleazeball upstart takes the market (painting any composite product red is irresponsible unless it stays in the shade its entire life).
2. Declare yourselves Holier than your customers, but assure them you will lower yourselves enough to take their money.
3. Use your production molds as loan collateral - resulting in their ending up in the lot of a plumbing supply company - yes, outside in north-central Washington.
4. Go belly up
5. Have new owner unable to turn a profit either.
6. Be bought by a Chinese industrialist.

Maybe he can make a go - he intends to certify the Glastar - it he can do that and produce them for a Chinese price, he just might have something. Of course, he has no plans to move anything or terminate anyone.
  #235  
Old 07-14-2013, 07:17 PM
Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 62,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by usedtobe View Post
Did Glasair/Glastar even bother to make an appearance?
Here's the exhibitor list. I don't see them.

I remember when the Glasair came out. Dad liked the Lancair better, IIRC. But he was having fun with his Skyhawk and Skylane, and he was a little soured on homebuilding after the BD-5.

ISTM that the reason people built Glasairs, Lancairs, and such, wanted the performance and efficiency not offered by then-mass produced 'SPAM cans'. But performance costs money, and kitplanes cost time. The Lancair ES kit (no longer in production) cost $100,000. You'd have to get an IO-550 to power it, and you could easily spend $100,000 on avionics. And you have to build it. People take several years to build airplanes. Or the pilot could buy the certified version, which is now the Cessna 400 Corvalis for under half a million and save all of the time, 'blood, sweat and tears', FAA paperwork, flight testing, and so on; and have a certified, normal category aircraft.

I think that with the Lancair/Columbia/Cessna Corvalis available, plus the Cirrus SR22 or the non-composite (but fast) Mooney Acclaim, the market for Glasair will be very limited.

As for 'producing them for a Chinese price', that hasn't worked so well for the Cessna 162 Skycatcher.
  #236  
Old 07-14-2013, 08:14 PM
usedtobe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,411
The Glastar has the advantage of not being a moving design on a moving production line.
Lancair was using Singapore for parts manufacture - so why the noise about Cessna using China?

Saying you're going for a $100K price point and then saying "screw it - we're going to make money on this disaster" and adding $20K blatantly labelled "profit" - why don't they start running little Christian fish on their literature and complete the suicide?

Does anybody still even pretend that they "built" a 300 mph pressurized bullet (Lancair IV-P - yes kids, it's an alleged kit).

Too bad Burt couldn't have certified one of the 4-seat variants of the Long-EZ 40 years ago - the only way we got modern airplanes was by kits.

But you're right - the high-end kit is dead - by the time you pay the guy to put together the $100K Kit, $80K engine, 20K prop and $70K panel, you're probably over the cost of the certified Lancair ES. It is now a Cessna? I remember when the Lancair IV was using Cessna 210 landing gear - they were not amused.
So kits go back to being knock-abouts, the EAA tries ti get people to forget what the "E" was for and become another AOPA.

It was fun for a while
  #237  
Old 07-14-2013, 08:31 PM
Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 62,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by usedtobe View Post
Lancair was using Singapore for parts manufacture - so why the noise about Cessna using China?
Cessna wanted to sell the Skycatcher for under $100,000. According to them, the Chinese can't make it that cheaply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usedtobe View Post
Saying you're going for a $100K price point and then saying "screw it - we're going to make money on this disaster" and adding $20K blatantly labelled "profit"
If you're referring to the 162, that's the first I've heard of Cessna saying that. But then, I haven't followed the 162 at all.

Personally, I believe Cessna aren't interested in selling GA airplanes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usedtobe View Post
It is now a Cessna?
AIUI, the Lancair ES/LS-40 became the certified Columbia 300 and 400, which Cessna bought five or six years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usedtobe View Post
So kits go back to being knock-abouts
Seems like LSAs are the popular thing in homebuilts nowadays. Cheaper and easier to build than traditional airplanes. Vans has the RV series for people who want performance planes.
  #238  
Old 07-14-2013, 08:38 PM
Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 62,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by usedtobe View Post
Saying you're going for a $100K price point and then saying "screw it - we're going to make money on this disaster" and adding $20K blatantly labelled "profit"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny L.A. View Post
If you're referring to the 162, that's the first I've heard of Cessna saying that. But then, I haven't followed the 162 at all.
OK, I've just looked on Wiki.
Quote:
In November 2011 the company indicated that the price was being increased to US$149,000... About US$20,000 of the increase was to improve company profits on the aircraft.
They just don't care.
  #239  
Old 07-16-2013, 02:52 AM
usedtobe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,411
Maybe Jim Bede can change his name and produce a kit version of the AA-5 (the stretch BD-1).

The Tiger is too sweet a plane to stay dead - or maybe the fellow who bought Glasair could buy the Tiger as well and see what the Chinese price is on it? Even the Mississippi price wouldn't sell the last time somebody dusted off the production certificate.
The Al honeycomb was a brilliant choice of kit material - only the close-out bulkhead and a tailcone riveted to a honeycomb box, castering nose wheel - a stone-simple design
  #240  
Old 08-01-2013, 05:04 PM
ducati is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,363
Although I admired everything Burt Rutan designed, I never really wanted a Long-Eze or Vari-Eze, although I did want a Quickie!

How foolish kids are.

And now, it looks like someone will take a Long-Eze across the Atlantic like Lindy...

Electrically!
  #241  
Old 08-01-2013, 05:25 PM
ducati is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,363
Cessna Commits to Efficient Turbo-Diesel Aircraft

The new airplane, called the Cessna 182 NXT, made its first appearance at Airventure here in Oshkosh and will match the performance of the existing gasoline-powered version, while burning around 30 percent less fuel.



http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/07...-turbo-diesel/
  #242  
Old 08-01-2013, 07:25 PM
Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 62,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by ducati View Post
Cessna Commits to Efficient Turbo-Diesel Aircraft
If only they'd commit to selling airplanes.

(I don't know anyone who has a half-million simleons for a Skylane.)
  #243  
Old 08-02-2013, 02:32 PM
ducati is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,363
Word.

Five of us kids split a 172 in 1980 for about 3 grand apiece so's we could learn us some flyin'.

Leased it to the flight school, and basically flew for gas cost.

Good times.
  #244  
Old 08-02-2013, 02:42 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 60,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixel_Dent View Post
One was just stupid. I misjudged my speed and overran the end of a runway into some briars. Plane wasn't hurt but I had to have a local guy with a pickup truck pull me out.
Does the FAA or the airport do anything to you when things like that occur?
I'm sure they both take a dim view of it, but did you pay any fines or fees?
  #245  
Old 08-02-2013, 07:07 PM
Pixel_Dent is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Does the FAA or the airport do anything to you when things like that occur?
I'm sure they both take a dim view of it, but did you pay any fines or fees?
No.

The FAA doesn't require you to report an accident unless someone was injured or over $25k of damage was done and in this case there wasn't any damage at all. I think they would have considered this a poor choice of a parking spot.

The airport itself was just a strip of asphalt with some numbers painted on it in the middle of some sand dunes. Someone in a nearby house saw what happened and came over in his truck with a rope to pull me out.

Even if the FAA had found out, somehow, they wouldn't fine me for a mistake like that unless they thought I'd been breaking a regulation. As a private pilot the most likely "punishment" would be to require me to take another lesson. They're much more strict with commercial pilots, of course.
  #246  
Old 08-02-2013, 08:36 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 60,169
[QUOTE=Pixel_Dent;16536418 I think they would have considered this a poor choice of a parking spot.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks, Pixel.

  #247  
Old 08-07-2013, 10:17 PM
ducati is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,363
What Happens When You Put Someone Afraid Of Flying In A Stunt Plane
  #248  
Old 08-07-2013, 11:06 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,294
hell it doesn't look like he pulled any G's at all. I had more fun landing in bad weather coming back from OSH.
  #249  
Old 08-23-2013, 02:03 PM
ducati is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,363
Fun helo stuff for Johnny...

Last edited by ducati; 08-23-2013 at 02:04 PM.
  #250  
Old 08-23-2013, 02:11 PM
ducati is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,363
http://jalopnik.com/watch-a-fire-fig...poo-1182724961
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017