antzx6r Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 No, just the normal hasell check including lookout.
motzartmerv Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 If you don't mind me asking..was he "teaching" this to you??...or demonstrating something else??... cheers
antzx6r Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 No not a standard decent nor a lesson in the proper way to drop thru cloud. (ps. never drop thru cloud in a stall! Bad Bad Bad) Relax guys, it was't a small gap in the clouds. It was a thin stratus about 2000agl over the field we were going to. The 'lesson' was, ok so even though its a thin layer, we need to be under it so lets lose some height. good visability otherwise. We could have set a steepish decent or circled. Lots of visability. Lots of room. We just dropped 500 or so for something different on a two hour nav to goulburn. Sorry if I gave the vision of dangerous behaviour. Reading it now it sounds terrible.
antzx6r Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I've edited that post too. I don't want any impressionable ab initio's thinking stalling through cloud is a cool thing to do.
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 ANTzx6r, Yes I have been lucky enough to fly about five different Storches over the years, mainly as I was maintaining them for Western property owners who love them for property work. They would fly them in, and leave them with me for a couple of weeks. Since I'm such a nice guy, I would be happy to deliver them back when I was done messing around with them. I still have two out bush that I keep an eye on, and I will be seeing one of those shortly, by the sound of it. They are quite a unique aircraft, Nestor did a good job on the flying side, but they can be a bit of a handfull maintenance wise, especially if they are abused. As Oz said, Nestor moved back to Europe a few years ago, but I have his phone No and he still is making them, and supplying parts. If you Google 'Slepcev Storch ' his site should come up. I am his offical/unoffical parts contact here in Australia. The Storch is a blast to fly, and I never knock back the opportunatly. With the 912s and only me on board (69 kgs), basically as soon as the tail comes up in about 10-15 mts the aircraft levitates. Only two stages of flaps, OFF and ON, and on is about 42 deg. Full flap is used for both takeoff and landing. A very safe, stable aircraft that you fly by the seat of you'r pants, and once used to it's low speed capabilities, one you can virtually do anything with, and land anywhere ,in any wind. A couple were fitted with Indavario in-flight 3 blade adjustable props, and it's livens them up a bit, compared to the standard wood toothpick, 2 blade. You can land them very short also, as soon as the tail wheel is down you can apply full brakes, which pulls them up very quick. They have very good top pedal-mounted disc brakes. The main wheels are a foot further foward than they should be, which makes the tail very heavy, so there is very little chance of sitting one on it's nose. Strangly this is not evident on take off, as they pick the tail up as soon as you apply power. I used to do Townsville to Richmond in just under three hours first thing in the morning, so they are not too bad cross country, but obviosly not built for their speed. Gives you time to have a nice brekkie watching the sun come up. Cheers Ross
antzx6r Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 The site comes up in google but I get a web hosting page from the link. NEOBEE or something. Is importing a kit still viable or should I look for other kits? I found this example in the states for instance. STOL King - Preceptor Aircraft - Makers of N3 Pup, Ultra Pup, Super Pup and the new STOL King Though it strays from the original design a bit it has good stats. I might just have to find a well looked after used slepcev storch I think. When the money starts flowing my way again.i_dunno
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 They are around you just have to keep you'r eyes open.
Student Pilot Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 STOL King - Preceptor Aircraft - Makers of N3 Pup, Ultra Pup, Super Pup and the new STOL King[/url]i_dunno How can they quote a stall speed of 15mph and cruise of 100mph on 75HP? no doubt about the yanks.
antzx6r Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 If you've seen a slepcev storch you would think it may be possible. I think it boasted 22mph flight w 30% power. They may be refering to power on stall too.
facthunter Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Possible. I would believe it possible. As for the low speed end .The aircraft has full leading edge slats, and the very large flap is probably slotted. It's must likely recorded with a large amount of power on as well. As far as max speed, it looks cleaner than the storch, the figure is mph, (not Knots) and that would be with the throttle wide open, and seventy-five horsepower is about what I cruise the Citabria on, and it does 100 mph and IT is a LOT heavier than this aircraft, with a bit more wingspan. So I could believe it. Nev..
antzx6r Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 A lot of amazing stuff happens in that land. What about the ar-5 clocking 185knts off a 65hp rotax with still a stall speed of 46knts. And that was by a guy with no engineering back ground at all.
Student Pilot Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 The actual calibrated stall speed would be much more than that, the speeds quoted would be indicated speeds. With attitude or position error they could be anything up to an actual stall speed of around 35? Remember just because you see it on the web it doesn't actually mean it's true. A case in point is some of the claims made for vortex generators, the only actual figures (as against, "The only thing that was on the airspeed was the makers name" type stuff) I've seen with before and after with GPS numbers witnessed stated there was only 1 or 2 knots actual difference. That doesn't take into account the "Feel" at stall speed and how it makes it safer to go closer to the stall speed. Maybe we should get some of these people who make fantastic claims to design and manufacture commercial aircraft, they could quarter fuel consumption and triple the speed while increasing load by a factor of ten.
antzx6r Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Ha ha.. I don't know about figures like that, but maybe??? There are some good surfers in the top 44 but to see some of the best, you need to go to the local hot spots and watch the locals. In my work I get a lot of people straight out of uni who claim they are fully trained in autocad. So I sit down and ask them to do something simple enough and they have no idea. I've never had any formal training. Hackers are amazing at writing code that can automate all kinds of devious fun stuff. And Microsoft can't even make simple graphic animations work right. But the guys in the top seat of all these and more areas of life will never eat humble pie and realise that its the ones who do it cause they have a passion for it are the ones that get it right. And not the ones who sit in school thinking "Aeronautical Engineers make a ton of money. I'm doing that!"
Yenn Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I saw Nestor at Old Station, a nice breeze blowing, he lifted the tail with a blast of throttle, full power, dropped the tail and took off. I don't think the mains even started turning. The AR5 was so well finished that someone checking it said that the wing skin had only a few thousandths of an inch waviness at any point. Would be fun to fly as the throttle is hooked up in reverse to save weight, and if you fully reduced power for descent it could blow up the motor, you have to keep quite a bit of power on.
Adrian Lewer Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Hi Merv, sorry for the late reply, been busy working on getting us safely into YMAE. Yep u you got the Question, it was the answer i was looking for....
Student Pilot Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 But the guys in the top seat of all these and more areas of life will never eat humble pie and realise that its the ones who do it cause they have a passion for it are the ones that get it right. And not the ones who sit in school thinking "Aeronautical Engineers make a ton of money. I'm doing that!" So when the manufacturers are saving micrograms on Aircraft construction they are too proud to let anybody who could save them BILLIONS to help? Come on fella's don't you think an more realistic explination is some of these promoters of products (Like secondhand cars salesmen) are gilding the lilly a bit and telling straight out lies? I saw Nestor at Old Station, a nice breeze blowing, he lifted the tail with a blast of throttle, full power, dropped the tail and took off. I don't think the mains even started turning. I'm sure Nestor is a pretty smart bloke (looked how he took a 60 year old design and sold it again in a different field) and a skilled flyer but levitation? Tell the truth about the "nice breeze blowing", maybe it was more than a "Nice breeze" and above the stall speed of the Slepcev copy of the Storch? The AR5 was so well finished that someone checking it said that the wing skin had only a few thousandths of an inch waviness at any point. Would be fun to fly as the throttle is hooked up in reverse to save weight, and if you fully reduced power for descent it could blow up the motor, you have to keep quite a bit of power on. Do you mean by "blow up the motor" running for any period of time at higher revs with low power settings (like extended decent) thereby depriving the a two stroke non oil injected engine of lubricating oil, seizing it?
Mazda Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I've just looked at this thread and there's a lot on here! On shutting down engines, when I did my aerobatic training one of the mandatory exercises was to shut down the engine and stop the prop in flight, before restarting. It actually took a bit of effort to make the prop stop too. I was taught to convert speed to height for more time, or convert speed to distance if the field is further away than you'd like. I agree everyone who flies should do at least spin training, and preferably emergency maneouvre training. It will give you confidence, understanding, and could save your life. There are some aircraft requiring a specific spin recovery technique so it is wise to find out if your aircraft is different. Otherwise, I agree with the standard recovery mentioned, with power off, neutral ailerons and elevator, opposite rudder etc. Think about it. A spin is in a stalled state. If the wing is not exceeding the critical angle (either upright or inverted) it cannot be stalled. If you are just taught "stick forward" you could indeed be holding it in an inverted spin instead of recovering. One thing that hasn't been mentioned (unless I've missed it). What is opposite rudder? OK, opposite to the rotation ... but how will you know? If you are not spin trained everything will happen pretty fast. What happens if this happens because you get stuck in weather? You are in cloud and end up somehow in a spin. (And would you know if it was a spin or a spiral dive?) Say you are spinning, no visual reference or you just don't know which way you are going. Push on the rudder pedal closest to you, or if you can't tell it will be the one hardest to push. That is your opposite rudder. But please don't just take it from here, do a proper course of training if you can! Seeing it for real is quite different from reading about it.
Student Pilot Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Say you are spinning, no visual reference or you just don't know which way you are going. Push on the rudder pedal closest to you, or if you can't tell it will be the one hardest to push. That is your opposite rudder. Or look at the ball.
djpacro Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Or look at the ball. Before you get in a situation where you really need to follow that advice I suggest that you take a Cessna Aerobat for a spin and look at how the ball behaves. The ball will be out to the left no matter which way you are spinning.
Student Pilot Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Before you get in a situation where you really need to follow that advice I suggest that you take a Cessna Aerobat for a spin and look at how the ball behaves.The ball will be out to the left no matter which way you are spinning. Are there any other Aircraft that this happens to or is it just a Aerobat thing? What about the 172's that are cleared for spinning, they do it too? I have had a bit of a go in 150's/152 Aerobats but have never taken notice on which way the ball goes.
Guest pelorus32 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Before you get in a situation where you really need to follow that advice I suggest that you take a Cessna Aerobat for a spin and look at how the ball behaves.The ball will be out to the left no matter which way you are spinning. G'day Dave, after I read Mazda's post I sat here thinking about the ball and was interested to see your post. Why does it do that on the Aerobat and what do you expect from other a/c? Regards Mike
Mazda Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 DJP is right. The ball will NOT tell you which way the aircraft is spinning. It depends where the ball is mounted on the aircraft. On some aircraft with two balls (male aircraft? ) the balls will go in different directions.
Guest pelorus32 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 A Single Centreline Ball DJP is right. The ball will NOT tell you which way the aircraft is spinning.It depends where the ball is mounted on the aircraft. On some aircraft with two balls (male aircraft? ) the balls will go in different directions. This post is NOT related to the Secret Policeman's Other Ball or anything like that! I've done all my spinning in gliders with a single ball mounted on the centreline. It's a very long time ago but I seem to recall that they acted as one might expect. Incipient dementia however leaves me unsure. Anybody else know? Regards Mike
djpacro Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 To expand on Mazda's post: The slip ball responds to local lateral acceleration so if it is some distance away from the spin axis then it will be affected by the rotation - been a long while since I did high school physics but I recall something about linear acceleration being equal to the rate of rotation squared multiplied by the radius. William Kershner's excellent book "The Basic Aerobatic Manual" has everything you ever wanted to know about the Cessna Aerobat. He lists other types where the ball behaves in the same way. Sorry, can't help you with the 172 but I guess so. If you fly a tandem aeroplane then you will probably find that the ball behaves OK - at least in a steady spin. If you've got a turn co-ordinator then look at the rate of turn indicator - it works pretty well in upright spins. The old turn & slip is even better - the bat is driven by a yaw rate gyro so works both upright and inverted. i.e. the only thing that matters is direction of yaw. When I teach spinning I ensure that my student has a good look at what the relevant instruments are doing in a spin and what they are showing. I've done a lot of flying and spinning in a female aircraft - nil balls.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now