- Thread starter
-
- #81
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
I think that was a fart. The most common last words are "Oh Sh*t!" and the fart logically preceeds that.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think that was a fart. The most common last words are "Oh Sh*t!" and the fart logically preceeds that.Statistics showed 90% of accidents were preceded by the pilot whistling.
Prevents adverse yaw. A dropped aileron causes more drag than a raised one. Helps with Pilots who aren't used to a coordinated use of Rudder and Aileron for turningIn the Ercoupe the ailerons have a very differential action. At low roll rates they both move about the same, one up and one down. But as the amount of aileron applied increases the aileron on the high wing (which moves down) actually starts to go back the other way, so that at full travel it is almost flush with the trailing edge. Meanwhile the aileron on the low wing (which moves up) continues to move up until at full travel it is sticking almost straight up, and acts as a spoiler. This means that past a certain point the high wing, which is gaining lift, gains less lift, while the low wing, which is losing lift, keeps losing it. Seeing how this works is a marvelous thing to behold and I have no idea how they figured it out, but it is nothing exotic. The result is that you are less likely to stall the high wing as a result of "revising the wing camber" by the aileron action. I would not be at all surprised if the Zero did something similar, although how this would affect control forces I do not know.
There may be other reasons, but I am pretty sure the main reason for the relatively lightly built aft section on the P-39 is that it uses tricycle landing gear. With tricycle landing gear the fuselage stresses will be on the forward section, because the landings are primarily on the main wheels or on both the main and nose gear (unless you hit the nose wheel first in which case the stress will primarily be on the nose gear). With a traditional tail dragger the primary stresses on the fuselage will be in the aft section, whether the main gear hits first, or a 3-point landing is done, or when the tail wheel hits first.On the P-39 the engine is not way out there at the tip of the nose but is in the aft fuselage. Therefore the aft fuselage does not have to be as strong because less "negative lift" is required.
That is also the traditional method of landing a nosedragger, although many of us do not do it consistently or very well, myself included.The traditional method of a conventional (tail dragger) is to touch the main gear and set the tail down as you bleed off your air speed.
If Jiro Horikoshi or Hideo Itokawa had access to an equal of the Bearcat's 2,250 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-30 Double Wasp instead of the 940 hp Nakajima Sakae, then I am sure they would have made different choices, such as the armoured and robust Nakajima Ki-84. But that's a generation apart.Zero and Ki-43 designs put too much emphasis to lower speed maneuverability but look at the Grumman F8F Bearcat
The traditional method of a conventional (tail dragger) is to touch the main gear and set the tail down as you bleed off your air speed.
Trying to do a "three point" landing sees the aircraft at such a pitch that you run the risk of lofting.
Because the aircraft the rest of the world made were designed too meet a different set of parameters so comparing them is pointless. Like I said, ''if'' Grumman Supermarine Focke Wolf Messerschmitt wanted to make the F4F Spitfire 190 or 109 to the same design brief as the A6M they would have but it wouldn't have been accepted into service.Since when is striving to understand your enemy pointless?
Note that for a carrier fighter with a tail hook this may not always be the case.This should not happen because the aircraft should be fully stalled by the time it touches down.
Note that for a carrier fighter with a tail hook this may not always be the case.
On the walls of USAF Operations buildings there are posters giving the capabilities of tail hooks on fighter aircraft - and they all have them, because they have to be able to engage the cable in case their brakes are out. And on that poster is a note saying that USN aircraft have far greater strength in their tail hooks than do USAF fighters.
If you're stalling your aircraft at or near touch-down, you're doing it wrong.This should not happen because the aircraft should be fully stalled by the time it touches down.
Do you mean carrier aircraft, all taildraggers, tricycle gear, or all of the above? The Ercoupe is designed with an angle of incidence of an airfoil with specific characteristics so that when properly set up the airplane with its wheels on the ground will not be developing lift; you can just drive it on, preferably at as low a speed as you can manage, but you really should be nose high, MLG first and just about to stall. Cessnas are not that way and if you land one like that you are merely flying in very close formation with the ground.If you're stalling your aircraft at or near touch-down, you're doing it wrong.
How do You flare for a three point landing?If you're stalling your aircraft at or near touch-down, you're doing it wrong.
Well, you do not do three point landings. In a taildragger you normally try to hit on the MLG and then the tail comes down and the tailwheel makes contact; this is called a Wheel landing. With Tricycle gear you flare to arrest your descent and try to hit on the MLG and then the nosewheel comes down as the lift goes away; hitting with all three wheels at the same time is not what you want to do. With either one if you bounce on landing then the nose will go up, the wing will develop more lift and the airplane will come off the ground as a result.How do You flare for a three point landing?
A wheel landing may be what you want to do if you want to keep speed up in the landing. There should be no bounce on a proper three point landing because you have lost all flying speed by the time the aircraft touches down. Three point landings in a nose wheel aircraft are not a good idea is what I was told because the nose wheel is not stressed for it. I watched an instructor lecture his student when we were all in a Red Bird simulator when student did this. He seemed to think I was doing the three point landings correctly.Well, you do not do three point landings. In a taildragger you normally try to hit on the MLG and then the tail comes down and the tailwheel makes contact; this is called a Wheel landing. With Tricycle gear you flare to arrest your descent and try to hit on the MLG and then the nosewheel comes down as the lift goes away; hitting with all three wheels at the same time is not what you want to do. With either one if you bounce on landing then the nose will go up, the wing will develop more lift and the airplane will come off the ground as a result.
We had an interesting event at our airport a couple of weeks back. One of the FBO's bought a couple of Sport Cruisers made in the Czech Republic, cute two place airplanes for Sport Pilot licenses. A student pilot on a solo flight was flying one and hit, bounced, then bounced worse, and then on the third bounce the nose gear collapsed. They have the airplane propped up with a sawhorse right now and it turns out that to accomplish that level of repair the airplane has to go back to the Czech Republic. Yikes!
Well, it is a nice warning for everybody else to tighten seatbelts, find floatation device, assume crash positions, etcYes, and some people whistle a tune. Statistics showed 90% of accidents were preceded by the pilot whistling. So, pilot whistling is strictly prohibited!
Well, it is a nice warning for everybody else to tighten seatbelts, find floatation device, assume crash positions, etc
A pretty narrow viewpoint. You ALWAYS want to compare the enemy's aircraft to yours, if only to verify your view of it's potential. Many times, it give designers something new to shoot for in the next airplane, AND allows you to tell your pilots how to handle encounters with it.Because the aircraft the rest of the world made were designed too meet a different set of parameters so comparing them is pointless. Like I said, ''if'' Grumman Supermarine Focke Wolf Messerschmitt wanted to make the F4F Spitfire 190 or 109 to the same design brief as the A6M they would have but it wouldn't have been accepted into service.