AOPA Rod Machado article

[z987k]

I did it 10 times a day every weekend for a year, and I know the difference between 1.2 vs 2G.

The vertical forces were NOT equal, and I was coming down like a bank safe. Which was of course the whole point after droping a load of jumpers.

You can do it well past 60 as well. Tgrason keeps emphasizing stabilized though, which we are not. I don't know what stabilized has to do with the big picture here though.

I think our point is you can do these maneuvers and stay well within the load limits, and further, the Cessna can do it over and over and over.

 

[USMCmech]

I was very stable, with a constant bank angle, constant airspeed (Vne), and a constant (very high) vertical speed. The load factor was just a little over 1.

The view out the windshield was a little crazy.

 

[z987k]

I was very stable, with a constant bank angle, constant airspeed (Vne), and a constant (very high) vertical speed. The load factor was just a little over 1.

The view out the windshield was a little crazy.

I'm familiar with the operations, but I never really assumed the decent rate was constant (VSI is pegged and unreadable).

 

[shdw]

My point was that just because you roll 80* does not mean the load factor has to go up and it's very possible to do in a Cessna without going over the load limits. You could be initializing a descent with an increasing falling rate for example, there are quite a few 182's and 206's, 208's, DHC-6(see where this is going) that do this daily.

[YT]9ZBcapxGHjE[/YT]

Skip to 2:02 for the really interesting part.

 

[shdw]

The vertical forces were NOT equal, and I was coming down like a bank safe. Which was of course the whole point after droping a load of jumpers.

Each time you let just a slight bit of back pressure off you're no longer stabilized. During those moments you don't satisfy tgrays statement. Those brief intervals where we, consciously or unconsciously, change pitch, account for most of our disbelief with such statements. Have an auto pilot do it on a calm day, with a g-meter installed. You'll never question it again.

This fundamental concept is the key, in my opinion, to teaching climbing and descending turns. Once the student can feel and accurately fly a 30 degree banked, level turn, they can do it from any starting pitch attitude. Simply pitch to a desired attitude and execute a normal level turn. Control pressure and kinesthetic feel will be identical to any level turn. The only change is to the visual picture.

 

[Hacker15e]

There is no way as a professional flight instructor that I would allow a student exceed the limitations of the aircraft.

Are you reading what I'm writing, or just hitting reply and firing away immediately after seeing my name?

I said FACTORS OTHER THAN PILOT INPUTS. Wind shear. Convective activity. Clear air turbulence. Tip vorticies. It's got nothing to do with what you'd "allow" your student to do.

While we're talking about it, though, there are instances where you might find yourself outside normal pitch and bank limits because of pilot inputs. What about an aggressive and abrupt control input to avoid a midair?

This MUST be the case; otherwise the vertical forces wouldn't be equal to weight and the aircraft would be falling like a rock.

Yes, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. We operate in a 3 dimensional environment. Falling like a rock happens...and when it does, I can be in 60* of bank without your load factor of 2. Not everything is based on a level turn. Despite your accusation, I wasn't inventing some spurious one-off situations to cover up some mistake I made. You made a black-and-white statement, and I provided a counter to it. More than one, actually.

Seriously, anyone with a Commercial pilot's certificate should have experienced this first-hand while doing steep spirals.

You guys are ALL totally missing the mark.

Have you ever heard of unusual attitudes? Ever heard of upset training? Airplanes CAN and DO get themselves into unusual attitudes even WITH the most attentive and experienced pilots on board. There are MANY factors outside of pilot inputs that can get you there, regardless of if it's wind shear, convective weather, tip vorticies, what have you.

What I'm talking about is that there are a lot of civilian pilots who are VERY uncomfortable outside of the comfortable limits of straight and level, and their lack of knowledge about aerobatics directly contributes to it. I think this is a complete foul that we have so many pilots who feel uncomfortable, to the point of being outright scared, at operating outside the "warm, chewy center" of the aircraft flight envelope. I've experienced this personally with a number of civilian pilots I've flown with in perfectly aerobatically-capable aircraft (with the proper equipment, too).

Nowhere am I advocating WILLFULLY going out and exceeding the CFR pitch and bank limits without chutes or exceeding the load limits of aircraft. Of course this training should be conducted in the proper airplanes, in the proper airspace, with the proper equipment (just like I've all ready posted, but you guys in your fervor to prove me 'wrong' seem to have missed reading).

What I AM advocating is that we SHOULD use those proper airplanes, that proper equipment, and that proper airspace on EVERY pilot -- if not at the Private level (that would be my first choice), then at the Commercial or CFI level -- to go explore advanced aircraft handling and learn basic acro. Is it a paradigm shift from the current thought process? Yes, of course it is. Would it require different aircraft and different equipment? Yep. Would it benefit the pilots that are trained that way? Hugely.

If Machado's article is intended to get pilots to re-think how we "make" new pilots, I'm simply identifying what I believe to be a weakness in how we currently train, and advocating a change I'd like to see that would produce a better overall aviator.

 

[BaronPete]

[YT]9ZBcapxGHjE[/YT]

Skip to 2:02 for the really interesting part.

I'm at a loss for words.

 

[tgrayson]

I was very stable, with a constant bank angle, constant airspeed (Vne), and a constant (very high) vertical speed. The load factor was just a little over 1

I don't believe the situation was as you described.

The vertical forces were NOT equal,

I don't know if you understand what this means. When forces are not in equilibrium, there is an acceleration. You deny there was an acceleration, yet say forces were not in equilibrium. This is a contradiction and not logically possible.

 

[tgrayson]

Are you reading what I'm writing, or just hitting reply and firing away immediately after seeing my name?

You quoted someone other than me. I don't usually pay much attention to your posts.

 

[tgrayson]

I don't know what stabilized has to do with the big picture here though.

My only real point was to object Hacker's implication that the airplane doesn't have any inherent tendency to create its own load factor. That isn't true. What is true is that it takes time for this response to occur, during which the aircraft will not be experiencing the load factor appropriate for the bank angle. That means that a brief 90 degree bank won't break anything on the airplane.

 

[Hacker15e]

You quoted someone other than me.

Fair criticism; that was a mistake, I apologize.

I don't usually pay much attention to your posts.

Which is really too bad, because even though I disagree with some of your statements, I still am interested in what you have to say. It's important to listen to alternate points of view, since none of us are close to knowing it all.

 

[USMCmech]

I don't believe the situation was as you described.

I saw what I saw. Repeated hundreds of times with the same result.

So long as you do not hold a load on the airplane you can bank to any angle at 1G. If you pull a load hard enough, you can have 2G at 10deg bank. The two factors are independant of each other.

I don't know if you understand what this means. When forces are not in equilibrium, there is an acceleration. You deny there was an acceleration, yet say forces were not in equilibrium. This is a contradiction and not logically possible.

You are right, I was not clear. There was plenty of aceleration initially when weight exceded vertical lift and I started descending, after that it stabilized at 60 deg bank, 30 deg nose down, 160 KIAS, about 2500 FPM down, and a little over 1G.

 

[shdw]

It's important to listen to alternate points of view

I've found there are often many points of view when flight dynamics is discussed. What I run into difficulty with is when those who don't understand the material attempt to present their point of view as a factual one.

I by no means am implying this is you. My point is this: When it comes to how planes fly, I like to put my faith in the physicists who developed the equations we use to quantify flight as opposed to "alternate points of view."

 

[tgrayson]

So long as you do not hold a load on the airplane you can bank to any angle at 1G. If you pull a load hard enough, you can have 2G at 10deg bank. The two factors are independant of each other.

This is quite wrong, a violation of basic physics and trigonometry. In order to have vertical forces in equilibrium, there is a load factor that you must pull at a particular bank angle. More than likely, you are misjudging your load factor.

 

[USMCmech]

My point is this: When it comes to how planes fly, I like to put my faith in the physicists who developed the equations we use to quantify flight as opposed to "alternate points of view."

You are correct of course, but sometimes the "technially correct" way doesn't jive with how we do things in the real world where pilots fly airplanes.

For example, gravity is a constant and two skydivers should freefall at the same speed. However this doesn't happen in real life, heavier jumpers fall faster than light ones.

 

[Douglas]

Well aware of that. Did you read the part of my post when I said "it depends on what you're wearing"?

No, I did totally miss that.


That's not what this discussion is about. It's about having the experience and confidence to deal with it when you do get there because of factors other than the sole-manipulator-of-the-controls' intent.

Sure more upset training would be nothing but a positive for instructors, but if that is what we are discussing, I've totally misread this thread. Wouldn't be the first time...
I read it as you getting upset at flight school instructors in normal GA planes who get squeamish when you, a renter, take the airplane past 60. I'm saying that is a natural reaction.

 

[Hacker15e]

When it comes to how planes fly, I like to put my faith in the physicists who developed the equations we use to quantify flight as opposed to "alternate points of view."

That's not really what I meant when I wrote that, but the point is taken.

What's unfortunate, though, is that academic understanding does not always directly translate to understanding of practical application, and frequently we end up with two discussions -- one academic and one practical -- without the ability to directly connect the two logically. IMHO, that's exactly what's happened with this discussion of load factors and bank angle.

 

[USMCmech]

This is quite wrong, a violation of basic physics and trigonometry. In order to have vertical forces in equilibrium, there is a load factor that you mustpull at a particular bank angle. More than likely, you are misjudging your load factor.

I didn't have a G meter installed, but I know the difference between 1G and 2G. I've done 60 deg constant altitude turns and I've done 60 deg descending turns. They do NOT have the same load factor.

If what you say is true, then how can acro planes fly stabilzed knife edge, 90 deg bank, constant altitude, 1G?

 

[Hacker15e]

I read it as you getting upset at flight school instructors in normal GA planes who get squeamish when you, a renter, take the airplane past 60. I'm saying that is a natural reaction.

The root cause was actually experiences I've had while flying warbirds with pilots who got squeamish when that happened. The airplanes were legal to be there, and so were the parachutes.

I still categorize that as "GA", which is probably the root cause of the misunderstanding.

 

[tgrayson]

For example, gravity is a constant and two skydivers should freefall at the same speed. However this doesn't happen in real life, heavier jumpers fall faster than light ones.

No physicist would tell you that they would fall at the same speed; they would tell you they'd fall at the same speed in a vacuum. Usually when people say the facts don't conform to theory, it's because they have an incomplete understanding of the theory.