Maritime_Ev Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 No flying this week, weather in SEQ is a bit avarage, lucky I received a prezzy in the mail to keep me occupied: 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGL Fox Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Yes been raining the last couple of days...looks like we will have nice days back tomorrow... David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Stick and rudder one of my aero bibles..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maritime_Ev Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 He chucks out Bernoulli on page 6, I like it already! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Lovely book,. . . recommended it here before. . . during my first read some time back, I DID have to bite on a dog biscuit each time Wolfie called an airframe a "Ship" though, but I re-baptized my elevators "Flippers" straight away. . . . his description of landing a Trike undercarriage, ie, "Slam it onto the ground on all three wheels then hit the brakes" was wonderful. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 The book had points to make that were more relevant to the time of writing, than a general application without critique today. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru Phil Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Gave a couple of copies to mates as Xmas presents a couple of years ago. Very sound and easy to follow chapters. Would recommend Phil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Then we can't both be right can we?. I welcome more discussion. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru Phil Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Well for a start. The comment that it is impossible to stall unless you have the stick back! Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maritime_Ev Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 Then we can't both be right can we?. I welcome more discussion. Nev Haven't finished it yet; so far found it quite interesting and given it's age quite relevant too (just imagine reading a book about driving a car that was written before WWII). His remarks on flight training are not so relevant anymore (i.e. "it would be good to include some slow/high AoA flying before starting to practice landings") ; I would imagine that the training syllabus in the late 30ies was a lot smaller than it is today. We all know the stories of people going solo after 5-7 hours in a Tiger Moth, clearly they couldn't cover everything in that time frame. I DID have to bite on a dog biscuit each time Wolfie called an airframe a "Ship" though, but I re-baptized my elevators "Flippers" straight away. . . . I don't mind the 'ship' too much, but the 'flippers' are weird, even writes Elevator in brackets behind it at some point. Curious to know if that was the accepted American term back then? Anyone here owns a Cessna PoH from that era? Well for a start. The comment that it is impossible to stall unless you have the stick back! That was something that struck me as something very obvious and yet not much discussed during flight training. Only 1 out of the 3 flying instructors I've done basic training with stated that in such an explicit way. Stalling is caused by a to high AoA, and the AoA is regulated by the elevator. No back stick, no stall (of course how much back stick depends on the load of the AC, correct?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maritime_Ev Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 I welcome more discussion. Nev Yes, yes!! I love a good technical discussion... Can we promise each other that we will leave GA vs RAAus, Labour vs Liberals, Maroons vs Blues and people's opinion on a certain Australian brand of aircraft out of it? Please... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru Phil Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 By memory, I got the impression that nose wheel aircraft were not around when this was written Could be wrong though. PHIL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 By memory, I got the impression that nose wheel aircraft were not around when this was writtenCould be wrong though. PHIL. Some of the earliest attempts at flight were tricycle. One even had retractable gear, but couldn't get off the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 .... We all know the stories of people going solo after 5-7 hours in a Tiger Moth, clearly they couldn't cover everything in that time frame........ Talking to some instructors (two different schools) operating Gazelles a couple of years ago about this - time to solo about the same - one school specifically referring to high school students. ...........No back stick, no stall (of course how much back stick depends on the load of the AC, correct?) Stick position for specific angle of attack varies significantly with CG. Flap and power also change the relationship. From memory the book deals with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 There weren't many nosewheel equipped aircraft True. Even many larger transports were Tailwheel. and most www2 bombers. The ME 262 started as a T/W but had difficulties so was modified.. There is a lot of what is correct but the way it is presented fitted "problems" the HE saw as needing to be addressed. at thew time. All thoughtful instructional flying books are to be read in context . Nothing is completely right. They are all worth reading if you wish to make a complete study of it, but they wouldn't be the manual of choice for a flying school today. A particular aircraft with a particular CofG and unchanged configuration will have the stick at a repeatable position at the stall point. It won't stall till the stick is placed there, as it controls the angle of attack, and that is when the wing stalls, not any speed or attitude to the horizon. You can make an aircraft virtually unable to be stalled if you make it nose heavy or not enough back stick pitch effectiveness. 8 Eight hours was fairly normal time to solo in a Tiger moth, This included full spin familarity stalls etc. It's a very simple aeroplane No brakes, flaps spring trim for elevator Just have to lock the slats closed on the ground or doing aeros. Not much else to think about. ALL OVER fields were still around but disappearing. There was plenty of them around too.. AP 1732 was the manual (ex RAAF) Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Time to solo has a lot to do with what aircraft the student is learning in. As an example - somebody would be a real gun if they went solo in a tail wheel Skyfox under 10 hours. But if somebody took more than 10 hours to solo in the Skyfox nose wheel version, the Gazelle. They would probably be better off taking up knitting as a hobby. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 You are looking at the ease of landing mainly there and they are chalk and cheese. After a Gazelle everything seems harder. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 He chucks out Bernoulli on page 6, I like it already! Bernoulli still has something to do with it... nice example of pressure drop here.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maritime_Ev Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 Bernoulli still has something to do with it... nice example of pressure drop here.. Ah the old Bernoulli vs Newton debate... Almost as heated a subject as the Blues/Maroons, pages have been written full about it on various aviation fora. Don't really wan to start that again, and I agree with Langewiesche that it is not relevant to the pilot in flight, it's all about AoA. Also https://xkcd.com/803/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 i think its almost generally agreed now that the bernoulli principle isn't responsible for the entire production of lift, but its still a part of it, a small part.. but what i think is wrong now is, people are being taught bernoullis principle is wrong.. its not wrong, its still holds true that an increase in air speed results in a pressure drop. its wrong now to assume its responsible for all lift. anyway, back to stick and rudder....... stall stick position or something or rather? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 There weren't many nosewheel equipped aircraft True. Even many larger transports were Tailwheel. and most www2 bombers. The ME 262 started as a T/W but had difficulties so was modified..There is a lot of what is correct but the way it is presented fitted "problems" the HE saw as needing to be addressed. at thew time. All thoughtful instructional flying books are to be read in context . Nothing is completely right. They are all worth reading if you wish to make a complete study of it, but they wouldn't be the manual of choice for a flying school today. A particular aircraft with a particular CofG and unchanged configuration will have the stick at a repeatable position at the stall point. It won't stall till the stick is placed there, as it controls the angle of attack, and that is when the wing stalls, not any speed or attitude to the horizon. You can make an aircraft virtually unable to be stalled if you make it nose heavy or not enough back stick pitch effectiveness. 8 Eight hours was fairly normal time to solo in a Tiger moth, This included full spin familarity stalls etc. It's a very simple aeroplane No brakes, flaps spring trim for elevator Just have to lock the slats closed on the ground or doing aeros. Not much else to think about. ALL OVER fields were still around but disappearing. There was plenty of them around too.. AP 1732 was the manual (ex RAAF) Nev I could have sworn that Mr. Langweische said that ( previous post ) regarding nosewheel aircraft, dunno whether the Mitchell twin started life as a T/W aircraft ? ? but I'm sure he mentioned it but as I said earlier, I lent out my last copy so someone or other. . . . . Burt Rutan's notes on his canard design ( specifically the Vari-Eze ) mentions that the canard is a useful idea, as the flying surface can be set up so that it will stall BEFORE the wings do, thereby preventing any unintentional stalls in normal flight. . . it looks as though Wilbur and Orville got it right with the "Flyer" in the first instance doesn't it ? Do I remember correctly that there was a Vari-Eze crash somewhere in Australia in the 80s,. . . might have been at Moorabbin. . . can't remember,. . . a stall was mentioned there. . . but there is a difference between an aerodynamic stall and an aircraft which is "zoom climbed" into an over-steep climb angle so that it ceases to move through the air with sufficient velocity to sustain any kind of flight,. . . .anyone remember this or did I dream it one night after a bottle of Cold Duck at the Burwood Drive-in movie theatre. . . . .? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I'm sure I saw a Vari-Eze parked outside the Aero Club bar at Moorabbin ( Have not looked up the "Y" designator,. sorry ),. . . the day before I night taxied a Beech Musketeer through an asbestos ground marker to the merriment of the bar occupants. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Haven't finished it yet; so far found it quite interesting and given it's age quite relevant too (just imagine reading a book about driving a car that was written before WWII). His remarks on flight training are not so relevant anymore (i.e. "it would be good to include some slow/high AoA flying before starting to practice landings") ; I would imagine that the training syllabus in the late 30ies was a lot smaller than it is today. We all know the stories of people going solo after 5-7 hours in a Tiger Moth, clearly they couldn't cover everything in that time frame. I don't mind the 'ship' too much, but the 'flippers' are weird, even writes Elevator in brackets behind it at some point. Curious to know if that was the accepted American term back then? Anyone here owns a Cessna PoH from that era? That was something that struck me as something very obvious and yet not much discussed during flight training. Only 1 out of the 3 flying instructors I've done basic training with stated that in such an explicit way. Stalling is caused by a to high AoA, and the AoA is regulated by the elevator. No back stick, no stall (of course how much back stick depends on the load of the AC, correct?) Other variables too EV, . . . Yes, in very basic terms, but then, when you get your learjet up to FL 400, , and you are teetering on the edge of a stall at max alpha, whilst being on the edge of VNE also,. . . and other stuff in between. . . . . Load, atmospheric density, type. . . . I feel the man was quite correct, for Basic training at the time of writing. . . . Where are our Airliner / Military Savvy pilots when you need 'em. . .? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Yes, yes!! I love a good technical discussion...Can we promise each other that we will leave GA vs RAAus, Labour vs Liberals, Maroons vs Blues and people's opinion on a certain Australian brand of aircraft out of it? Please... ...and it would also be a good idea not to debate the Torax aircraft engine versus the Yabawoo aircraft engine. This book assumes, from cover to cover, that all pilots are always male. Apart from that, "ship" and "flippers" (already mentioned) it is a good read! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 By memory, I got the impression that nose wheel aircraft were not around when this was writtenCould be wrong though. PHIL. I think there's a few. Here's one example, the Caproni Ca-3. Looks like it would be a pain to land too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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