Андрей
Banned
Why do you think Holland can't finish the trial for the MH-17 crash, it's been seven long years.
No politics, just facts.
No politics, just facts.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I've slipped with 30, and sometimes you get a severe buffet over the elevator. In any aircraft with flap I'd use that in preference to slipping.AFAIK, C172 prohibition on slips is only with 20°+ flaps. At least that was the case on the ones I flew. To be on the safe side, I never slipped with more than 10°, and I never experienced any erratic handling. Most of the ones I flew were 1970s vintage and earlier.
I was a bit of a nazi about crosswind landings, as most rural fields around here are single strip airports.
We would practice flying down the runway in a slip and maintaining a specified altitude, then do it again lower, then lower still, finally flying a pass with one wheel rolling down the centerline, but with the weight still on the wings. The goal is precise control, and the benefit extends to all landings.
I've slipped with 30, and sometimes you get a severe buffet over the elevator. In any aircraft with flap I'd use that in preference to slipping.
My training for x-wind was more aligned with airline procedures - correct for drift on finals, then transition to wing-low slip crossing the fence.
AFAIK, C172 prohibition on slips is only with 20°+ flaps. At least that was the case on the ones I flew. To be on the safe side, I never slipped with more than 10°, and I never experienced any erratic handling. Most of the ones I flew were 1970s vintage and earlier.
I was a bit of a nazi about crosswind landings, as most rural fields around here are single strip airports.
We would practice flying down the runway in a slip and maintaining a specified altitude, then do it again lower, then lower still, finally flying a pass with one wheel rolling down the centerline, but with the weight still on the wings. The goal is precise control, and the benefit extends to all landings.
With the decent rate slipping with 30º being so high, I can only imagine how long it would take to arrest the sink if you were slipping with 40º. I wouldn't want to be doing that on finals.I've told my students to avoid slips in a 172 beyond 20 degree flaps (pre the POH), but I know it can be done with 30. I know the more ancient Cessna high wings featured 40 degree flaps and I think that's where many of your facilities occurred. I went up with a guy who owned a 57 or 58 Skylane and we actually demonstrated this to some folks investigating an accident involving a border patrol aircraft, mind you we were up over 10,000' AGL. When the washout occurs there's an abrupt pitch down with the nose seeming to twist to the left. Quick right rudder corrects this but not something I would recommend doing all the time because of stress on the flaps and flaptracks.
I guess some folks will try this with 40° flaps so they can play helicopter.With the decent rate slipping with 30º being so high, I can only imagine how long it would take to arrest the sink if you were slipping with 40º. I wouldn't want to be doing that on finals.
yep.I guess some folks will try this with 40° flaps so they can play helicopter.
I remember the oscillations as you describe, when when the elevator got washed out it felt like the tail came off and an immediate pitch downyep.
And I don't think I'd describe it as a 'slight oscillation' of the elevator when slipping with 30º flaps. From memory, I had about 2-3 inches of control column travel.
I also didn't experience the nose pitch down and yaw that you mentioned, but that could have been due to the direction of slip.
In a high wing Cessna, don't try to do a slip with more than 20 degrees of flaps deployed
In a high wing Cessna, don't try to do a slip with more than 20 degrees of flaps deployed.
No politics in this case is like someone to explain what a cat is without mentioning that it's an animal. It's all politics.Why do you think Holland can't finish the trial for the MH-17 crash, it's been seven long years.
No politics, just facts.
Not idea what Andrei referring to, nor interested to know!No politics in this case is like someone to explain what a cat is without mentioning that it's an animal. It's all politics.
Why do you think Holland can't finish the trial for the MH-17 crash, it's been seven long years.
The final accident report by the Dutch safety authority was released in 2015. The criminal trial only began last year after the accident investigation and extensive criminal investigation.
Remind me again, what is the purpose of a trial? Isn't it the court that determines the guilty party? In seven years no judgment has been rendered in this case, but you say that everyone who has a brain understands everything - are you saying that Dutch specialists have no brains?And everyone with a brain knows who is responsible for this crime.
Tell me, why do you think some plane crashes are investigated in one or two years, but the Malaysian plane has not been investigated in seven years? You don't have to write publicly, you can write to me personally.The final accident report by the Dutch safety authority was released in 2015. The criminal trial only began last year after the accident investigation and extensive criminal investigation.
I apologize, but I could not translate your thought correctly. You can say it straightforwardly, without allegory.No politics in this case is like someone to explain what a cat is without mentioning that it's an animal. It's all politics.
No problem. What I mean is that you cannot avoid politics in this case. The whole case is all politics. So explaining it without politics is simply impossible as you are avoiding the crux of the matter. The reason why it takes a really long time is of course that, with Russia involved, things should be a thoroughly and precise as possible. No mistakes can be made. I will not go into details as we have a strict non-politics policy and you probably know where I stand in this case anyway with me being Dutch.I apologize, but I could not translate your thought correctly. You can say it straightforwardly, without allegory.