|
|
Hi John
This is a nice idea about the 1500ft and the rounded arc approach, however
the Tower will not always agree with you, so I imagine you will have to
call 'unable' a lot. (Tight Pattern, Squared Pattern are calls that I have
heard many times from the tower), is it not then wiser just to go a bit
faster? And just for fun.....1500ft pattern would not be possible where I live,
our airport (7FL6) is right under Daytona Beach (KDAB) where our ceiling
is at 1200ft.
-- Ronald
On 6/29/11 1:14 PM, "John Hafen" <j.hafen@comcast.net> wrote:
Giff:
Good moves all.
Additionally, I think in the early days, guys didn't consciously realize
how much AOA increases with bank angle. Flying square corners in a
pattern, especially in the base to final turn, can stall the plane way
too close to the ground to do anything about it.
That is why HPAT recommends flying a 1500 foot pattern, and a roundish
arc from down wind to final, rather than square corners from down wind to
base, then base to final.
John Hafen
On Jun 29, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Giffen Marr wrote:
Before I started to build my IV-P, I reviewed the accident history of the
IV.What I found was a significant number of stall spin accidents in the
IV. Why a higher rate then other aircraft? From my analysis, I felt there
were two reasons, one,the aircraft tended to have an aft CG, and two, the
tail became blanketed in the spin, causing difficulty in recovery. My
un-flown solution was to move as much weight forward as I could, add
stall strips, add the ventral fin and add about 48 square inches of area
to the rudder trailing edge. You must also remember that when you retract
the gear, the cg moves aft about 2 inches. With an aft CG, the aircraft
will tend to go flat in the spin, which makes recovery difficult.
Giff Marr
N229GM
1st engine run before AirVenture.
--
For archives and unsub
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
--
For archives and unsub
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
|
|