Stick and rudder

[robinsm]

didn't john denver die in a vari eze crash in the states?

 

 

[Phil Perry]

didn't john denver die in a vari eze crash in the states?

Yes he DID Sir,. . . .the accident investigators "Suggested" by extrapolation of time from takeoff, to time of crash, that he was "arguably" at a position whereupon he would have had to change fuel tanks,. . .the fuel selector on a Vari-Eze is, or was ( so I am told ) behind the pilot, and is/was a "door handle" arrangement, on a square shaft. Other operators had reported that these fuel selector handles, ( dunno what they were made from ) could break off, requiring a stilson, or adjustable wrench ( spanner ? ) to rotate the control from one tank to the other, and that he may have A) forgotten to take one. . . and lost control after running out of fuel , B) not turned it far enough to select a live fuel feed from the other tank, or C) been distracted by turning around to operate the selector valve and lost control of the aircraft in the process. . . . All of this is speculation, and Mr. Denver was, apparently quite a well experienced pilot, having quite a lot of seaplane experience too.

 

He was flying solo at the time of the crash and there were no witnesses.

 

He starred in a movie about an FBI officer, flying a Beaver in his spare time. . . .good flying scenes, but anyone could have written a better script that that one. . .( IMHO )can't remember the name of the film and can't be bothered to Google or Wiki. . . . .

 

Seemed to be a fairly nice bloke anyway, apart from the bad prress he got in the early days ( The John Denver Story ) when he pi$$ed off his missus bigstyle in his attempt at stardom, and serviced a number of nubile ladies in the process. . . .but HEY. . .nobody's perfect. . .

 

I nearly had a flight in one of those at Moorabbin, the pilot wound the nosewheel down, and I was really excited, tightened the rear seat harness expectantly. . . but the engine stubbornly refused to start. . . .so I didn't get my fright. This may be the same aircraft which I seem to remember crashed some time later at the same place, but don't quote me. . . .old age,. . .memories, and such. . . . .

 

 

[diesel]

No flying this week, weather in SEQ is a bit avarage, lucky I received a prezzy in the mail to keep me occupied: [ATTACH=full]36372[/ATTACH]Interesting reading from the fourties... (have been looking for it in Oz for a while, eventually got it free delivery from the US via fishpond). After the first couple of chapters I'd recommend it.

I have only seen a Russian test pilot discribe it as well though differently. He did not like Bernalle either but Bernelle did have more to do with flight than Marconi. Chas

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I have only seen a Russian test pilot discribe it as well though differently. He did not like Bernalle either but Bernelle did have more to do with flight than Marconi. Chas

Hi Chas,. . . well,. . . our CFI uses plagiarised pages from Stick and Rudder to explain landing approaches, and other basic stuff, as the cartoony drawings are very descriptive, and it saves him ( his words) from having to continually draw them on the whiteboard in his briefing room ( ! ) A lot of people have been unhappy with Bernoulli's theory for a while, and although not entirely wrong per se, well,. . . .there are dsome other threads where this is explained in some detail by our resident eggspurts, so no need to go into aerodynamiteicks here mate. ( That translates as "Cowardy custard" for me not having a go at explaining it myself )

 

I once bought a very small paperback book in Australia entitled "Aerodynamics" by a bloke named Aage Rhode, or Rode, or summat like that, ( haven't googlewhatsited it )

 

It was full of cartoons and very simple explanations of a highly complex subject, but for the "Bods" it was also backed up with really 'In depth' explanations too, replete with equations of all sorts. I remember that the author ( Some kind of Professor of whatever with fifty metres of letters after his name. . . ) rubbished poor old Bernoulli a bit as well, whilst saying that he was not completely wrong, but that his theory was not the only one, citing Oswald Reynolds ( 17th Century scientist - studied FLUID DYNAMICS and got a hell of a lot of it right too BTW, including the fact that his calculations did NOT work very well, when scaled down,. . .

 

(Which is why some model Spitfires didn't fly very well when scaled down, . BTAS. . . ) and that the accepted "Bernoulli effect" ( pressure reduction / increase in velocity of an airflow when fed into a restricted space -( A La Venturi effect ) or flowing over a cambered aerofoil. . . was only a PART of the total lift force created by an aerofoil section. Terrifically interesting stuff,. . . but largely irrelevant unless you're designing a conventional flying machine OR having an argument on a flying forum. . . .

 

Phil

 

 

[dutchroll]

Well for a start. The comment that it is impossible to stall unless you have the stick back!Phil

As an absolute or literal statement that comment certainly isn't true....and that's why I don't like using the word "impossible".

 

 

[Phil Perry]

As an absolute or literal statement that comment certainly isn't true....and that's why I don't like using the word "impossible".

Aw, come on Dutch. . . you can't lambast old Wolfie for that one,. . I doubt if he could have foreseen in his wildest dreams an airliner at FL 430, flying right on the edge of a stall, and within one knottie of VNE. . . . It was more than likely a good thought to promulgate at the time given the flying appliances / students that were around then. . .?

 

Anyway,. . .according to some physics theorists, the word "impossible" is relative.

 

Not only that,. . .what about Shrodinger's Cat ?

 

 

[djpacro]

Well for a start. The comment that it is impossible to stall unless you have the stick back!Phil

What he actually stated in the book is quite correct.

[dutchroll]

Aw, come on Dutch. . . you can't lambast old Wolfie for that one,. . I doubt if he could have foreseen in his wildest dreams an airliner at FL 430, flying right on the edge of a stall, and within one knottie of VNE. . . . It was more than likely a good thought to promulgate at the time given the flying appliances / students that were around then. . .?Anyway,. . .according to some physics theorists, the word "impossible" is relative.

 

Not only that,. . .what about Shrodinger's Cat ?

What about when you're upside down? What if you get leading edge ice accumulation?

 

 

[facthunter]

Stall stick position is a valid concept, since stall is an angle of attack, not a particular speed and the elevator has control of it. A particular established position is only valid if nothing else is changed about the aircraft. ie Cof G flap extension, icing etc . Some instructors won't wear the concept. Something I can't understand. A plane won't stall unless the pilot stalls it. Unfortunately it is fairly instinctive to pull the stick back when the nose is lower than you wish it to be, or if you want to tighten the turn. Nev

 

 

[Maritime_Ev]

The book had points to make that were more relevant to the time of writing, than a general application without critique today. Nev

After finishing most of the book I have to agree with facthunter, I probably wouldn't recomend it as a basic flying guide to someone just learning to fly (if such a thing even exists). But for more advanced pilots there's definately bits and pieces that you could learn from or at least make you think about stuff. For myself I found the focus on AoA interesting and I'm sure when I continue with aerobatics that will be something to remember.

 

I can't immagine though that he had any experience in nosewheel aircraft (not so strange given how rare they were at that point), I think the aeroclub would like me not to follow his advice to just smack the thing down on the nosewheel.

 

He talks a fair bit about 'modern rudderless aircaft' too which I don't really understand. Perhaps a promise about the future from contemporary disigners that never really came to pass?

 

This book assumes, from cover to cover, that all pilots are always male.

Apart from how relevant the book is a textbook/manual it is also interesting to just read from a historical perspecive. To see how it was done in those days just around when aviation made a giant leap forward. And in a way, how far we have come... Did Wolfie live long enough to see more than a few token women pilots around BTW?

 

 

[dutchroll]

"Pulling the stick back" as a prerequisite for stalling is a valid concept most of the time for small planes under most circumstances. But not always (yes I'm being picky here).

 

For example, in an inverted spin, if you push the stick forward to attempt to unstall the wing (unstalling it being a necessary part of recovery), the wing will remain stalled and you're going to die.

 

 

[Soleair]

Note to self: do not get into an inverted spin.

 

 

[djpacro]

Note to self: do not get into an inverted spin.

It regularly kills people flying Pitts.

[keith.b]

No flying this week, weather in SEQ is a bit avarage, lucky I received a prezzy in the mail to keep me occupied: [ATTACH=full]36372[/ATTACH]Interesting reading from the fourties... (have been looking for it in Oz for a while, eventually got it free delivery from the US via fishpond). After the first couple of chapters I'd recommend it.

I just got my copy during my trip to Oshkosh, just got back haven't started reading it yet..

 

 

[facthunter]

Symmetrical airfoil isn't it? Fly's inverted as well as it does upright. The "normal" lifting wing shape plus positive rigger's angle of attack would make it difficult to stall a more conventional arrangement inverted.

 

I haven't done it for a while but the DH 82 needed a lot of forward stick to fly level inverted. NO power of course so you are descending.

 

Inverted spinning is an everyday event for you modern blokes , but you only got there by being a bit heavy on the forward stick during recovery from a normal spin back then, and it took most by surprise, and so was a very rare event Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

Are you calling me a modern pilot? I bought the book only about 10 years ago, wish I had bought it 50 years ago. I hope to finish reading it one day.

 

Not all Pitts have symmetrical aerofoils. The Decathlon doesn't have a symmetrical aerofoil, the earlier 7KCAB Citabria even more camber yet will happily spin inverted - even transition from an upright spin to inverted with barely a hesitation. All an aeroplane needs is enough down elevator to drive the angle of attack negative enough to stall the wing - many types do not, plus the high stick force/extreme forward position is un-natural enough that you have to really want to put the stick there.

 

The Pitts catches many people out with aggressive spin entries, often to flat inverted, from a messed up stall turn or roll off the top. Very disorientating if experienced accidently for the first time. The "Silver Chain" wouldn't work here.

 

 

[dutchroll]

There are of course quite a few aeroplanes which will inverted spin under the right circumstances out of a botched stall turn. No need for a symmetrical aerofoil.

 

There was a guy not long before I did my RAAF pilot training who botched a stall turn in the Macchi jet. He believed he was in an inverted spin so he ejected (rules were if you lost control < 10,000 ft you jettisoned the aircraft).

 

 

[facthunter]

I really don't understand your first statement above. Dutch.

 

For acro the modern aerobatic plane is in and out of spins spirals inverted or upright at will (as you know). Inverted spins in my day were accidental and rare. I knew of no one who ever did one intentionally. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

Modern, specialised aerobatic aeroplanes these days have a high power to weight ratio so will be at an extremely low airspeed when you hit the rudder. A Pitts will even do a passable stall turn going backwards when rudder is hit. Plenty of slipstream over the tail for rudder and elevator to be effective.

 

Torque and gyroscopics dominate at low speeds for small aeroplanes with big engines. Hit the rudder for the stall turn then need pretty much full opposite aileron and full forward stick to maintain the plane of rotation in yaw.

 

Some people do it mechanically and if they hit the rudder at too high an airspeed the controls are set up for an inverted flat spin.

 

A Pitts S-1D with flat bottom wings will do it just as easily as an S-1S with symmetrical aerofoils.

 

....... There was a guy not long before I did my RAAF pilot training who botched a stall turn in the Macchi jet. He believed he was in an inverted spin so he ejected .....

Regardless, it seems to be quite happy in an inverted spin

 

 

[dutchroll]

I really don't understand your first statement above. Dutch.

I was referring to inverted spin accidents. Not deliberate ones. Accidental inverted spins in the military have been around for decades - I'd guess mostly as a result of the type of flying done versus what is (or was) common in the civil world.

 

 

[facthunter]

My comment on lifting aerofoils performance when inverted is there is not much extra forward stick available from a normal glide.(and that the engine isn't available either.) I'm also keeping (hopefully) to things that are relevant to what might happen with the type of planes we fly generally.

 

In some circumstances a pilot of the types we fly could find them selves inverted without intending to be. Wake turbulence or a strong frontal effect or a dust devil, from which I would like to think they could recover. That is why I strongly advocate unusual attitudes recovery skills plus spiral and spin positive identification and recovery techniques. Read carefully what I have just said there please...( which is not aerobatics per se. though some skills are common.)

 

There needs to be some clarification of that in people's minds. I think inverted spin recovery is a bit further than we need go here except that turning it into a normal spin and recovering from that is what most did in the past on the extremely RARE occasion anyone go into one, and most recoveries then have a good element of luck I would think. There is enough confusion about recovery from"normal" spins. out there.

 

Recovery from a stall with minimum height loss would be a worth while practical topic. The current acceptance of about 250 feet (plus) height loss is absurd and the training of it (most times) ineffective at preventing accidents which are usually fatal when it happens near the ground. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

My comment on lifting aerofoils performance when inverted is there is not much extra forward stick available from a normal glide.(and that the engine isn't available either.) ......

I agree in general. As I stated, it just needs enough down elevator to stall it (cambered aerofoils have more pitching moment to overcome, fuselage shape and its pitching moment also a factor). There are some types around which do have this apart from the serious aerobatic types.

 

.... I'm also keeping (hopefully) to things that are relevant to what might happen with the type of planes we fly generally....

Me too.

 

.....That is why I strongly advocate unusual attitudes recovery skills plus spiral and spin positive identification and recovery techniques. Read carefully what I have just said there please...( which is not aerobatics per se. though some skills are common.) ...

I totally agree.

 

.... There needs to be some clarification of that in people's minds. I think inverted spin recovery is a bit further than we need go here ....

I have lost too many friends to spin accidents, including inadvertent inverted spins so it is near the top of my list. I agree, of little concern to the average GA pilot.

 

...... There is enough confusion about recovery from"normal" spins. out there...

Agreed, I see too much of this, even amongst instructors approved to teach spinning which is a real concern.

 

...... Recovery from a stall with minimum height loss would be a worth while practical topic. The current acceptance of about 250 feet (plus) height loss is absurd and the training of it (most times) ineffective at preventing accidents which are usually fatal when it happens near the ground. Nev

CASA's Part 61 Manual of Standards specifies stalls in quite a few more situations than I see in a typical syllabus at a flying school.

[Ada Elle]

When is the right point to do unusual attitude recovery training? I had my first PPL conversion lesson yesterday, but when constructing the course the question was whether to do citabria conversion at the start or after I got my PPL.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think you are close to being at the right point. It used to be NORMAL for everyone when we had planes that permitted it. Done in the PPL syllabus at that time. Changed in the mid 60's.

 

I have owned and like a Citabria but there may be planes a bit stronger you could use..Nev

 

 

[Ada Elle]

I didn't really want to do tailwheel, unusual attitudes, controlled airspace, all at once.