Glad they are lucid enough to follow basic safety rules and that none of those arms are directly pointed at someone else's head.

Rita. :(

1 more. :(

it looks like you could just give those 2 ships a shove , provided the channel was deep enough ,

Just imagen , the "Fonzerelli touch does it again !!!!!"


I was installing a BIG truck scale a few years back , the scetions didn't want to fit togather , I had Iron workers with 6 foot pry bars prying this way and that way , I had every body stop ( they were working against each other ) , I walked around survieying the situation , stoped , kicked one part and the WHOLE structure shifted and fell into place , I just looked up and said " HEEYYYY !!!!!"

yesterday i left my camera behind since i knew i was going to be over the same area. turned out to be a mistake. i could've taken a movie of me flying backwards! the winds were strong enough out of the SSE that all i had to do was drop the flaps and back off the throttle and PRESTO! i was flying backwards at about 3 knots!

:eek:

Like the gulls do as they "surf" over the waves looking for a tasty morsel?

yeah, i'm telling you, it was wild. i was laughing my ass off! then after a little while something did freak me out though. there are temporary flight restrictions, TFR's, everywhere in that region from the surface to 5,000 feet AGL and eventhough I was at 9,500 a light twin (maybe a baron?) came out, flew past me, turned around and went back to where it came from leaving me perplexed as to whether i'd busted a TFR or not. i called "flight watch" and confirmed that i was in fact legal. maybe it was just someone goofing around. i don't know. still left me freaked. he passed within a mile of me.

If you're flying directly into that strong of a head wind, what kind of special techniques are needed? Would you try to use less banking and more rudder to turn out of it? I would imagine that once you banked, the wind would catch you and toss you around pretty fast.

it's not as bad as you would think. in fact when your in "slow flight" - a technique taught at the private/student pilot you learn to turn the aircraft with the rudder only. if you use aileron you run the risk of stalling a wing and entering a spin. on the other hand you can only use so much rudder or you can still enter a spin. double edged sword. but, to answer your question, you let the airplane weather-vane into the wind and when you want to turn with such a strong wind all you do is put in a teeny bit of rudder and when the wind hits the upwind side of the plane then yes, it will turn you quickly but nothing uncontrollable since your not banking but yawing in the turn.

clear as mud?

I got it I think.

If you're flying at -3, you would lose a lot of lift immediately once you turn, huh? You would want to be at full throttle before turning at all?

in the configuration that i was in, yeah, so i recovered before i turned. add power, take out a notch of flaps and simultaneously gracefully lower the nose, increase speed, another notch out and so forth until your back to "cruise" settings. that's the procedure for manuver recovery, i just made sure i had foward speed. let me think about this though. did i have to do the recovery proceedure? probably not. it could have been a sporty recovery but i don't think i would have entered a spin. i did the recovery because i had all kinds of shit laying around the cockpit. i.e. kneeboard, clipboard, books, maps and such and a spin might have stirred it all up so....

from Here so you can see the figures

In order to discuss how an airfoil produces lift or why it stalls, there are three terms we must understand. These are relative wind, angle of incidence, and angle of attack.

There is a noticeable motion when an object moves through a fluid or as a fluid moves around an object. If a thick stick is moved through still water or the same stick is held still in a moving creek, relative motion is produced. It does not matter whether the stick or the water is moving. This relative motion has a speed and direction.

Now let's replace the water with air as our fluid and the stick with an airplane as our object. Here again, it doesn't matter whether the airplane or the air is moving, there is a relative motion called relative wind. The relative wind will be abbreviated with the initials RW (see figure 3-3). Since an airplane is a rather large object, we will use a reference line to help in explaining the effects of relative wind. This reference is the aircraft's longitudinal axis, an imaginary line running from the center of the propeller, through the aircraft to the center of the tail cone.



Note in Figure 3-4 that the relative wind can theoretically be at any angle to the longitudinal axis. However, to maintain controlled flight, the relative wind must be from a direction that will produce lift as it flows over the wing. The relative wind, therefore, is the airflow produced by the aircraft moving through the air. The relative wind is in a direction parallel with and opposite to the direction of flight.

Let's look a little closer at how relative wind affects an airplane and its wings. As shown in Figure 3-3, the chord line of the wing is not parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. The wing is attached so that there is an angle between the chord line and the longitudinal axis. (We call this difference the angle of incidence.) Since we describe relative wind (relative motion) as having velocity (speed and direction), the relative wind's direction for the wing is different from that of the fuselage. It should be easy to see that the direction of the relative wind can also be different for the other parts of the airplane.

Very briefly, angle of attack is a term used to express the relationship between an airfoil's chord and the direction of its encounter with the relative wind. This angle can be either positive, negative, or zero. When speaking of the angle of attack, we normally think of the relative wind striking the airfoil from straight ahead. In practice, however, this is true only during stabilized flight which is in a constant direction.

Is stress on the aircraft itself ever a consideration? I mean just additional routine stress, not going beyond what it's rated to do.

Like, when I back up, I never to kick it into first gear while the vehicle is moving quickly backwards, because that's harder on the clutch. Sure it can do it but why force it to?

I remember about 40 years ago, I was shooting touch and goes at lake front airport in NO. I came in high and hot, so added a bunch of flaps. AND forgot to dump them on take off. I was about 50 feet off ground going no where wondering WTF. So I played with the trim tab and things got a little better.Then It dawned on me what was wrong, so I started dumping the flaps and the trim. Then it flew off like a bird.
That might have been the day I decided, this ain't for me.

that's a loaded question of sorts. you have the value Va, or maneuvering speed, to which the airspeed actually lowers as weight is reduced. Va is loosely defined as an airspeed at which abrupt or full control deflection can be done without over stressing the airframe. why does this speed decrease as weight is decreased? simple, the lighter the object, the easier it is to through it around. take my trip back from paragould a few weeks ago. ATC (air traffic control) had me fly through a towering cumulous cloud that was not yet cumulonimbus. i got thrown around, badly. in an airframe that was built circa 1958. i remember looking at my airspeed upon entering the turbulence and immediately reaching for the throttles. right when i grabbed the throttle levers i got jolted again but thankfully i caused me to bring the throttles to idle as to get my speed around 120. i was doing 140 but when i closed the throttles at the same time i pitched up as best i could and quickly slowed down. back to the question in a way, the aircraft has a gross takeoff weight of 3800 lbs. would it be easier or harder to throw that plane around fully loaded or half loaded. it's all about inertia. your more apt to overstress the frame at a lighter weight because it's easier for the airplane to react to an abrupt or full deflection or both. in that one instance ATC asked me my on course heading to which i replied 210ish but that i couldn't hold it (with a stressed voice due to the situation, it's not easy talking on the radio whilst being bounced around) so she asked if i wanted another altitude and i said i couldn't do anything about it at the moment because i was along for the ride.

clear as mud?

why did you quit buster? that's just a rookie mistake.....

Fred. I guess I just wasn't interested enough. And just maybe a little scared? I hated flying solo over the marshes east of NO. 40 years ago wasn't anything there. Kind of like driving around the same block, over and over in a car with no radio. Ha ha.
Then I went back overseas to work and just never tried again. Often wish I had.
Wife problems also. You couldn't pour her in a plane. :smack:

Wind tunnel. ;)

yeah, it's not for all people that's for sure. hehe, my exwife, ah shit. this is a good one, i hope i can type it out as good as it actually happened. the very last time she flew with me i had gone to kileen, tx to pick her up and fly her home. on the way back to houston we were at 7500 ft i think and when we were flying over lake summerville i noticed a plane flying at about 500 ft agl perpendicular to our course and i mentioned it to her. well she was looking out the window from the right seat and said that she couldn't see it. i said hang on and when the plane dissapeared from my view under the plane i counted to three to myself and then turned the plane on it's side to the right and said there he is right there. instead of an "oh ok" i got hit repeatedly in the right arm with her screaming to "put this plane back level you asshole!" i was like "what??" it wasn't like a snap role or anything. oh well. of course now that she's my EX-wife, i'm glad it scared the shit out of her... :D

it had me laughing so hard i didn't even notice!

Fred I'm going to make a wild guess that this is rice fields?
http://cellar.org/attachment.php?att...tid=6979&stc=1

your guess is as good as mine. that's why i was asking, maybe they are. it makes sense.....

My dad was a pilot for a long time (he's medically unfit now) and I have a few logged hours, but no ground school. My favorite thing was rolling back and forth. I LOVED it. Course, I love rollercoasters, too....

with these radio relay missions I've been on, I've rolled the wings, made the plane imitate a boat in 10 foot seas, done countless lazy 8's, flown backwards, flown forward at less than 5 knots as well as other countless bored out of my mind goofy tricks. at least today I get to go someplace. we have 2 planes left in Mexia, Tx. so i'm taking the Geronimo and 2 other pilots to get them. one of the planes though has a dead battery so I have to hand prop it. and then this coming Tuesday I have to fly some lady to Memphis for a seminar she's speaking at and then fly her back afterwards.

Fred. I'm going to stick this here, since couldn't PM it. We used a twin Otter on floats in Peru while I was working there.

I have always been facanated by sea planes , not only do you have to fly and land the plane but you have to deal with wind , tide and drift , you have to think about 5 steps ahead !!!

I'm nearly positive those are Sections of 4 Quarters. This land was probably divided for sale or granting back in the mid 1800's. Most of the land West of the Mississippi is surveyed and title given that way since the Homestead Act 140 years ago, but the article at the link below says Texas went by old land grants except in the panhandle, so this might be a more recent partitioning. People tended to clear a road of sorts all the way around their square quarter, which is why in ranching country nowdays you find paved roads that run for miles straight as an arrow and suddenly make a 90-degree turn; it's because the road reached a corner of the original holdings. Those regular squared fields you see from the air in Kansas and Missouri are composed of quarters too, and that is why they are so perfectly sharp-cornered. It's very possible those are fields in your photograph, but the reason they are shaped like that is the Homestead Act. I suspect the boundaries are flooded, which gives the impression of roads from reflections on the water.

http://www.uta.edu/paleomap/geol1435/township.htm

160 acres and a mule. :)

ok, i'll buy that tonchi. after the last few flights i deduced that they were not and couldn't be rice fields because they'd never been turned. cool, thanks for the info.

busterb, that's way cool! the first plane i ever flew was a beaver on floats on great slave lake in the great white north back in '84 and i loved it! i wish i could get ahold of that pilot today to let him know how much $ he's cost me! lol! nah, j/k, to thank him for my passion.