Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not always: If you have the static ports on the pitot tube, it's called a pitot-static tube. If you have the static ports elsewhere, it's called a pitot-static system. Technically it's a pitot static system regardless.
Have you ever heard the word "interpolate"? This is one of the many things in flying where you have to depend on experience and a "feel for what's happening" rather than going blindly "by the numbers". Even a Boeing, despite its far more sophisticated static system, will experience an IAS error in a sideslip condition. (Something they don't do much!) In a Cessna 150 (or, I suppose an F6F-5), you note the airspeed before starting your slip, then note again after the slip is established, to give you a correction factor + or - . Hold your airspeed at the corrected value.
The very essence of all phases of flight. This is why the Squids and the Jarheads have been ahead of the rest of aviation for decades! IT'S ALL ABOUT AOA!! Airspeed/weight/configuration tables are all crutches to hobble you down the path to the holy grail, which is Angle Of Attack, the ultimate determinant of airframe performance and behavior. Terrestrial aviation seems to have a problem absorbing this fact, as so many planes have the sensors, which feed various systems, but don't display AOA to the crew.
So, I guess you just have to develop a feel for it in practice. The hardest part to grasp that I would see, is gauging changes in speed (if the speed is reading nothing) either eyes in or outside the cockpit.
Actually, that's the funny thing about the DMV. It teaches you to drive eyes on the gauge. One MPH over during the road test, and you lose. Now, in real life -- you don't constantly monitor the gauge: You just focus on the other cars. If you're passing everybody really fast, then you're going too fast; if everybody is passing you, and you're getting honked at: You're probably going too slow.
And for descent, you also use the ball to determine glide-path.
The problem is at high speed, you have to remember what AoA limits correlate to the limiting/ultimate g-load. I figure muscle memory helps out for that.
I remember Chuck Yeager didn't have that particular problem. In fact, he criticized the F-15's AoA gauge, saying if you don't know what that that is, you shouldn't be flying.
I think the most common agreement on this forum is bacon tastes good. Honestly, there are wildly varying views on so many things, but we all agree on bacon. Sad for the pigs, but ironically, pigs like the taste of bacon too...Thanks Tomo, it's quite tasty!
First of all, you will never see "nothing" on the ASI unless you're fully stalled and tumbling ass over teakettle, and then not for very long. Second, you have many clues to airspeed besides the gauge, such as sound, attitude, vibration, stall horn, and experience. If you're the "white knuckle" type, anxiety will probably prevent experience from coming into play.
Listen, if you're in a machine built for turn 'n burn and you're anywhere near ultimate G load, you're going to be struggling to maintain consciousness and too greyed out to read the G meter precisely, much less calculate AOA equivalents. And if in a plane NOT designed for such antics, what are you doing there in the first place??
He was the real deal. The ultimate class act. On a par with John Glenn.
You said the speed gauge would go to zero in large slips...
So there are additional cues to use? While not related to flying, it relates to driving: While the blind spot will not allow you to see a car in the mirrors, you actually can often tell they are present. The whoosh sound of the car displacing is audible and right about the time it slips into the blind spot, you can hear it (my vision sucks, but my hearing is pretty good for a guy in his mid 30's).
Generally I've been heavily knowledge driven, and some are able to desensitize one's self.
So as long as the controls aren't too light, you should be okay if you have good muscle memory, in that particular case?
Both were awesome in their own right.
If you're in BOS, NYC, Philly, DC, etc, and you're less than 15 over the limit, you're an obstacle to traffic and a road hazard. You can have it. I'll settle for Podunk, USA.
Oh, in that case, just drive at the same speed as everybody else. If they're going faster, you're not doing it right, and if they're going slower, you might want to consider your driving habits
Tell me about it. As a flight instructor, that's what I did for a living. It works for most folks eventually, but the hard core white knucklers never seem to come around, and if they have any sense, self-select out of flying.
That's what stick force gradient is all about. If it takes a lot of effort to maintain a high G load, then a pilot blacking out will relax back stick pressure, relieving the G load. FBW planes, with their lack of control feel, don't have this protection, unless artificially built in.
75 MPH bumper to bumper on the beltway or 50 MPH on city streets doesn't leave enough reflex time.Oh, in that case, just drive at the same speed as everybody else. If they're going faster, you're not doing it right, and if they're going slower, you might want to consider your driving habits
I suggest you RE-READ this entire thread and pay attention to who said what. The ASI at zero in a slip was a reference to the F6F-5 after the pitot static system had been modified. I personally suspect the accuracy of that statement is questionable. Otherwise, it points to an egregiously bad design.
Yeah, I did misread that. I stand corrected.
Apology accepted.
I think you're crediting long range overwater dead reckoning navigation with a bit more precision than existed at the time. Winds aloft data was nowhere near as detailed and complete as it is today, with every airliner's GPS and ACARS updating constantly in real time. 400 miles each way provides plenty of opportunity for variations in wind aloft to obscure a 10 knot error in airspeed.
Well, maybe. Your faith in the precision of these things is greater than mine.
That depends on the accuracy of the error corrections. There's nothing cut and dried about these things. They're arrived at by theoretical calculatiions modified by measurements and testing and more measurements and more testing, and then the discovery that repeated identical tests are creating inconsistent results, and it's back to the drawing board. And test pilots are well aware of all the details and how to do the calculations, many of them being engineers by training, and practically all graduates of test pilot schools.
