Turns at low IAS

[Jabiru7252]

2 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

I think low inertia is a good word to use for aircraft like the thruster. Whilst maybe not technically correct inertia to my simple mind is the same as kinetic? or stored energy in a moving object. ke = 1/2 x mass x velocity x velocity. An rv6 at 140knots has 14 times as much as the thruster at 50knots. 

Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist any change in its velocity, including zero velocity when subjected to an external force. Kinetic refers to motion, a moving object has kinetic energy, a rock raised up 10 meters has potential energy, that energy becomes kinetic when the rock is dropped. When the rock hits the ground that energy is converted to heat etc.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Jabiru7252

[Bruce Tuncks]

Completely correct Jab 7252. But I still understand what they mean by " low inertia" and "low kinetic" planes.

I like the term "low wing loading " too.

My Jabiru has the same wing loading as my Libelle, as they both have the same empty weight and very similar wing areas. It is actually a low wing loading for a glider these days which it why it outclimbs everything except for even lower wing-loading planes like the Pilatus.

Gosh this maybe the last day I will be able to say " my Libelle" as the glider is for sale. It was the best-looking thing I have ever owned. 

And as for turning at low IAS, how about 45 degrees and 45 knots? You increase bank until diagonal instrument screws are parallel with the horizon then try and maintain 45 knots steady. Now this is more of an aim than what actually happens, just like a golf-shot where you are trying for a hole in one.

[facthunter]

Too low a wing loading and you will feel every gust and end up with a plane you can only fly when it's still. . Flaps and slats enable slower speeds but added complexity and cost.  I've only flown a Kookaburra and a Blanik in the glider lot. Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

I think the Blanik has lower wing loading than the libelle Nev. I dunno about the Kooka as they were before my time. 

There was a short and long winged Kooka, and the short wing one didn't thermal well, I have been told.

I have read that the Me109 later versions had too high a wing loading and even with slats and flaps they were dangerous to land. 

[facthunter]

Can't recall much about the kooka except you didn't stay in the air long for all the effort of getting it there.  I don't know about all these stories you hear but the B 727 had a lot of flap to achieve the ability to land on shorter strips . As a result their airworthiness was questioned after a few "land short" efforts and high sink potential and engines had to be spooled below 3,000 ft. The plane continued in service but crews had to be well trained in regard to it's potential high drag, high sink rate  on approaches..   Some which operated at high altitude aerodromes  had brakes fitted to the nosewheels. Nev

[Jabiru7252]

With your glider picture, the seat cover and grass look so similar it appears as though there is a big area cut out in the side of the glider.  My brain playing tricks...

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yeah! Thanks Jab 7252. I see that now, I never noticed it before. That sheepskin cover on the parachute is due for a visit to the washing machine  I reckon.

[Yenn]

I flew the very first Kookaburra at Cobar in the seventies. It taught me a lot about flying. The most impressive way to see the further effects of Rudder and aileron. It was damaged before I could so;o in it and I spent quite a bit of time helping repair it. I have heard it is now in a museum.

[facthunter]

There's one in the museum at Bacchus Marsh. Nev

[BirdDog]

I didn't know there was a museum at Baccus.  I was just there. Bugger.

 

[Red]

I've been reading Internet forums for a loooooooooong time (probably too long and I think I can honestly say I've never seen anyone dig such a big hole for themselves....astounding