Hurricane Rita: a photo journal - Page 5

Undertoad · 10-02-2005, 06:52 AM

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

xoxoxoBruce · 10-02-2005, 01:01 PM

Rita.

xoxoxoBruce · 10-02-2005, 01:02 PM

1 more.

zippyt · 10-02-2005, 01:23 PM

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 !!!!!"

plthijinx · 10-03-2005, 06:56 AM

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!

BigV · 10-03-2005, 02:40 PM

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

plthijinx · 10-03-2005, 03:02 PM

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.

Undertoad · 10-03-2005, 03:59 PM

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.

plthijinx · 10-03-2005, 04:05 PM

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?

Undertoad · 10-03-2005, 04:18 PM

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?

plthijinx · 10-03-2005, 04:26 PM

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....

plthijinx · 10-03-2005, 04:30 PM

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.

Undertoad · 10-03-2005, 04:43 PM

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?

busterb · 10-03-2005, 04:57 PM

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.

plthijinx · 10-03-2005, 05:08 PM

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?

10-02-2005, 01:01 PM	#62
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Rita. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. Last edited by xoxoxoBruce; 04-07-2007 at 05:55 PM.

10-02-2005, 01:02 PM	#63
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	1 more. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. Last edited by xoxoxoBruce; 04-07-2007 at 05:55 PM.

10-02-2005, 01:23 PM	#64
zippyt LONG LIVE KING ZIPPY! per Feetz Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Arkansas Posts: 7,661	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 !!!!!" __________________ "Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get. " Brother Dave Gardner

10-03-2005, 06:56 AM	#65
plthijinx Master Dwellar Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,197	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! __________________ For your dreams to come true, you must first have a dream.

10-03-2005, 02:40 PM	#66
BigV Goon Squad Leader Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,063	Like the gulls do as they "surf" over the waves looking for a tasty morsel? __________________ Be Just and Fear Not.

10-02-2005, 06:52 AM	#61
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Glad they are lucid enough to follow basic safety rules and that none of those arms are directly pointed at someone else's head.

10-03-2005, 03:02 PM	#67
plthijinx Master Dwellar Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,197	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. __________________ For your dreams to come true, you must first have a dream.

10-03-2005, 03:59 PM	#68
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	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.

10-03-2005, 04:05 PM	#69
plthijinx Master Dwellar Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,197	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? __________________ For your dreams to come true, you must first have a dream.

10-03-2005, 04:18 PM	#70
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	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?

10-03-2005, 04:26 PM	#71
plthijinx Master Dwellar Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,197	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.... __________________ For your dreams to come true, you must first have a dream.

10-03-2005, 04:30 PM	#72
plthijinx Master Dwellar Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,197	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. __________________ For your dreams to come true, you must first have a dream.

10-03-2005, 04:43 PM	#73
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	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?

10-03-2005, 04:57 PM	#74
busterb NSABFD Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: MS. usa Posts: 3,908	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. __________________ I've haven't left very deep footprints in the sands of time. But, boy I've left a bunch.

10-03-2005, 05:08 PM	#75
plthijinx Master Dwellar Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,197	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? __________________ For your dreams to come true, you must first have a dream.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)