Ailerons ineffective in high wind?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
wanjung@toast.net - 20 Apr 2006 00:58 GMT Hi,
I am trying to recall what happened. I did a ground check and everything seems to be OK. As close as I can get it, I'll describe what took place with my trusty electric airplane.
I took it off into the wind and the plane rose rapidly into the gusty headwind (about 15 MPH), but about 50 feet high and 50 yards away, I began to bank away and about 90º from the take off the plane veered quickly and when it was about 180º I had no response from aileron control. All attempts to regain control failed, By now the plane winged over and had crashed into the wall of a residence, outside of our flying area,
Luckily, the homeowners were congenial and retrieved my plane parts for me, no complaints.
Should I not have turned away from the wind as I took off? Or is it that I should not have flown such a light plane in that kind of wind condition?
Plane facts:
AXI 2212/34 powered 3S1P Thunderpower Li Poly About 8 oz./ sq. ft. wing loading 44" wingspan 22 0z, flying weight. Over 100 flights for this plane
Tim Wescott - 20 Apr 2006 01:52 GMT > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > 22 0z, flying weight. > Over 100 flights for this plane Most likely, one of two things happened.
One is that there was enough turbulence to turn the plane regardless of what you did.
The other is that you didn't keep your airspeed up. Flying a slow plane in a stiff wind takes some practice, because when it's flying downwind it has to have a really cooking ground speed to be maintaining adequate airspeed. The reflex is to make the ground speed 'right' -- which can lead to a stall, and an airplane that has no more control than a piece of tissue floating in the same stiff breeze. You have to fly the plane by feel, and be ready to have it really whip by you on the downwind leg.
 Signature Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com
Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/
The Natural Philosopher - 20 Apr 2006 02:07 GMT >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > of tissue floating in the same stiff breeze. You have to fly the plane > by feel, and be ready to have it really whip by you on the downwind leg. Tell me about it. Twice I have crashed a new slowish glider on finals when for some reason it just fell out of the sky going below 12 feet or so.
Either my brain has turned to jello, or something like wind shear was happening.
The damned thing was practically hovering than thump..it was in the ground.
Ailerons are actually better in wind - well in turbulence..with rudder its hard to steer a straight course AND keep the wings level.
Anyway, trick is to keep airpseed up...I have vivid memories of one parkflyer with its nose up 25 degrees, full throttle, and still getting closer and closer to the ground as a tail wind gust over took it...eventually the gust passed and with a couple of feet to spare it SHOT up with the excess airspeed..
Tim Wescott - 20 Apr 2006 04:36 GMT >>> Hi, >>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > it...eventually the gust passed and with a couple of feet to spare it > SHOT up with the excess airspeed.. There is a permanent wind shear close to the ground -- the ground slows the wind down a _lot_; a sailplane with it's long wings gets messed up by the gradient. Apparently it's well known to full-scale sailplane pilots, as well as the good model flyers.
Gusty wind can be fun though, if you're feeling your oats.
 Signature Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com
Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/
The Natural Philosopher - 20 Apr 2006 08:47 GMT > Gusty wind can be fun though, if you're feeling your oats. My oats have rotted and turned to porridge some time ago I think.;-)
wanjung@toast.net - 20 Apr 2006 12:49 GMT In retrospect, I am wrong about having no groundspeed. The plane was going very fast on the downwind leg. But it was more probable that the high wind was carrying the plane along so the plane had hardly any wind speed.
So most of you were correct. Let's see if I have it right. Taking off in a cross wind, turn into the wind. When flying with a tail wind, keep up on the air speed. If possible land into the wind. Anything else?
I read of fliers who fly in wind speeds as high as 40 MPH, but not around here. In the future, I will not fly in wind speed higher than 12 MPH with my light planes.
Thanks, Wan
Six_O'Clock_High - 20 Apr 2006 19:13 GMT > In retrospect, I am wrong about having no groundspeed. The plane was > going very fast on the downwind leg. But it was more probable that the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Thanks, > Wan Don't let a little breeze scare you off! Practice some very serious slow flight 3 mistakes high until you are comfortable at throttle settings one or two clicks above stall when straight and level. When you do that, you begin to recognize the 'feeling' (hand and eye coordination issues) just before the plane stops flying. This will help you in high wind times and when you have to bring a plane down with a dead engine.
The way to start this is to make sure your engine is well and correctly tuned. You want the engine to idle for 5 minutes and take a slam to full throttle without stumbling. If yours is not like that, fix it but as my friend George Aldrich taught me, do the fixing at 1/2 tank. Most folks tend to run a little rich on the low end which floods the plug when at long idle and slammed to full throttle. For a 2 stroke, use a glow driver to test the idle mix. Once you think it is right, put the glow driver on the plug. If the engine speeds up, you are too rich. If the engine note does not change significantly, you are probably right on.
Now that the idle is fixed lets go flying. Get 3 or 4 mistakes high and trimmed out hands free when at full throttle. The next step is to find the lowest throttle setting that is needed to maintain straight and level flight without stalling. If your throttle won't go that low, land and fix the linkage so it will. Go fly and test again. Then establish a horizontal figure 8 with the plane coming back at you when it hits the crossover point. This will give you a 2 for 1 training flight, slow and left and right under those conditions. Once the pattern is established, begin reducing the throttle a few clicks at a time while maintaining altitude. When you get to the straight and level stall throttle setting, advance the throttle 2 or 3 clicks and just fly that figure 8 for several cycles. The trick here is to get comfortable with the feeling of sloppy controls, recognize your left and right, and to be ready to land.
A little of this is generally recommended for each and every model you fly as all airframes are different.
Jim Branaum AMA 1428
The OTHER Kevin in San Diego - 20 Apr 2006 16:01 GMT >> Gusty wind can be fun though, if you're feeling your oats. > >My oats have rotted and turned to porridge some time ago I think.;-) They have a little blue pill for that now. :)
Boo - 20 Apr 2006 16:22 GMT >> My oats have rotted and turned to porridge some time ago I think.;-) > > They have a little blue pill for that now. :) Well that's changed. My recollection of little blue pills is they did the opposite...
 Signature Boo
The Natural Philosopher - 21 Apr 2006 00:45 GMT >>> My oats have rotted and turned to porridge some time ago I think.;-) >> >> They have a little blue pill for that now. :) > > Well that's changed. My recollection of little blue pills is they did > the opposite... Mmm. There were little blue pills that made you gabble and behave like a dork..and some other ones that made the world go away, and you with it, and you were profoundly glad when both reappeared..mind you sex and drugs can be magic...;-)
wanjung@toast.net - 21 Apr 2006 12:19 GMT <snip> Anyway, trick is to keep airpseed up...I have vivid memories of one parkflyer with its nose up 25 degrees, full throttle, and still getting
closer and closer to the ground as a tail wind gust over took it...eventually the gust passed and with a couple of feet to spare it SHOT up with the excess airspeed. <snip>
It would be a real trick if one is not accustomed to an airplane suddenly appears to fly at high rate of groundspeed when actually it was carried by the wind and it had little air speed. Glad that parkflyer had the presence of mind to give his plane full throttle. I did just the oppposite.
Wan
wanjung@toast.net - 20 Apr 2006 02:42 GMT Tim,
You may have it right. I noticed the airspeed of my airplane was very fast on the downwind leg of the flight, I barely had time to say, "I don't have any control of my plane" I probably didn't have much groundspeed. The biggest mistake I made was to cut throttle to reduce damage upon impact. This may have led to less effective control. The ailerons had no effect, neither did the elevator.
By this time the plane was being blown by the wind on the topside as I banked to return and the plane then crashed. All that happened in less than about 30 seconds or so.
Wan
Frank Schwartz - 20 Apr 2006 06:33 GMT It appears to me that what happened is that your plane was riding on the wind at the speed of the wind and actually was barely flying...then when you tried to use the ailerons, you had little air going over them and had little if any control. I have seen this happen...and more than once. Example the last time I saw it: flyer going down wind in preparation for a landing...literally riding on the wind, tries to turn on base leg and the plane falls out of the air and the flyer turns around to the pits and demands to know "who turned on?"!!!!! Frank
tapio.linkosalo@helsinki.fi.invalid - 20 Apr 2006 07:33 GMT : You may have it right. I noticed the airspeed of my airplane was very : fast on the downwind leg of the flight, I barely had time to say, "I : don't have any control of my plane" I probably didn't have much : groundspeed. Just the opposite. When flying downwind in high wind you may have high groundspeed (the model flies fast compared to you standing still), yet the airspeed (the speed of the model related to the airmass around it) is very low, causing loss of control, stall and crash.
-Tapio-
Ed Forsythe - 22 Apr 2006 17:38 GMT No Taipo, I think you may have it wrong. Wind direction or speed has *no* effect on airspeed! For this discussion let's call it TAS (True Airspeed) is the speed at which the aircraft is actually moving through the air mass) Assuming straight and level flight, TAS is a function of power setting. If you're flying at a fixed power setting, no wind, direction has no effect on TAS *or* GS. If that power setting yields a 30 kt. TAS your TAS remains at 30kts regardless of aircraft direction. Now let's increase the wind speed to 20 kts. No matter which direction you're heading your TAS remains 30 kts! However, when flying downwind your GS increases to 50kts.(30+20) and when flying upwind your GS decreases to 10kts.(30-20). As a pilot standing on the ground you can't see TAS. What you do see is GS and therein lies the potential problem. We see the bird moving much faster downwind (same TAS but higher GS) and we honk back on the power to slow it down. Newer (and some old timers) pilots will not consider the effect on the bird caused by reducing power. So they see that the bird has slowed to a comfortable pace by observing what? - *Groundspeed* Now they've fallen into the trap because while the bird looks OK (GS) its TAS could be dangerously close to stall. Perhaps I've oversimplified the theory but that's about as close as I can get without using my hands <BG> These are irrefutable facts which some will undoubtedly refute ;-))
> : You may have it right. I noticed the airspeed of my airplane was very > : fast on the downwind leg of the flight, I barely had time to say, "I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -Tapio- Stanley Barthfarkle - 20 Apr 2006 08:37 GMT Always take off into the wind, and in a cross-wind, turn into the wind on climb-out until you get to safe altitude and develop proper airspeed. Airspeed is your friend. Ground speed means nothing to an airplane.
IE: Your 25 mph plane turning away from and WITH (same direction as) a 15 mph breeze is effectively traveling 10 mph- well below stall speed on most RC planes. You wouldn't have any control.
Your 25 mph plane turning into (wind against it's nose) a 15 mph breeze is effectively traveling 40 mph... resulting in lots of lift and control.
Hi,
I am trying to recall what happened. I did a ground check and everything seems to be OK. As close as I can get it, I'll describe what took place with my trusty electric airplane.
I took it off into the wind and the plane rose rapidly into the gusty headwind (about 15 MPH), but about 50 feet high and 50 yards away, I began to bank away and about 90º from the take off the plane veered quickly and when it was about 180º I had no response from aileron control. All attempts to regain control failed, By now the plane winged over and had crashed into the wall of a residence, outside of our flying area,
Luckily, the homeowners were congenial and retrieved my plane parts for me, no complaints.
Should I not have turned away from the wind as I took off? Or is it that I should not have flown such a light plane in that kind of wind condition?
Plane facts:
AXI 2212/34 powered 3S1P Thunderpower Li Poly About 8 oz./ sq. ft. wing loading 44" wingspan 22 0z, flying weight. Over 100 flights for this plane
Ed Cregger - 20 Apr 2006 15:48 GMT > Always take off into the wind, and in a cross-wind, turn into the wind on > climb-out until you get to safe altitude and develop proper airspeed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Your 25 mph plane turning into (wind against it's nose) a 15 mph breeze > is effectively traveling 40 mph... resulting in lots of lift and control. Stanley, is there any chance that you're related to Bertha Maye Barthfarkle of Sweet Teats, Idaho? <G>
Ed Cregger
Frank Schwartz - 20 Apr 2006 18:30 GMT Final Summation from an old semi-biblical Proverb
"When the plane stalleth, the plane falleth....
Dan_Thomas_nospam@yahoo.com - 21 Apr 2006 22:42 GMT > Always take off into the wind, and in a cross-wind, turn into the wind on > climb-out until you get to safe altitude and develop proper airspeed. > Airspeed is your friend. Ground speed means nothing to an airplane.
> IE: Your 25 mph plane turning away from and WITH (same direction as) a 15 > mph breeze is effectively traveling 10 mph- well below stall speed on most > RC planes. You wouldn't have any control.
> Your 25 mph plane turning into (wind against it's nose) a 15 mph breeze > is effectively traveling 40 mph... resulting in lots of lift and control. The old Downwind Turn fallacy raises its head again. The airplane, flying in the airmass, feels no acceleration or deceleration when turning into or out of the wind. We train students under the hood for instrument flight; they can't see outside, can't see anything but the instruments in front of them, and when we fly in strong winds we can have them turn circles and they will neither feel any acceleration or deceleration nor see any airspeed or altitude variations. Yet the airplane's track over the ground will be anything but circular. The airplane has plenty of time to adjust while in the turn, and the only way an airplane would feel any increase or decrease of lift in a turn would be if it could turn instantly, without any turn radius or time in the turn. Inertia has to do with space, not the Earth or its surface. Gravity works in the vertical, not the horizontal. The tiny speed changes of an airplane's groundspeed are infitesimal in comparison with the movement of the planet, the galaxy, and everything else. The only time wind bothers us is when we descend through some shear layers (which are rather think and won't make too muich difference to a model) or while taking off or landing.
Dan
wanjung@toast.net - 22 Apr 2006 01:21 GMT I have been reading Dan's Downwind Turn fallacy statement over and over, but I couldn't leave it alone.
I've tried to think as an airplane. And I tried to feel like an airplane, if an airplane could think or feel. But I believe it's how the airplane relates to the ground that matters. In a matter of seconds, my plane was moving very fast over the ground, in a path sort of like a J hook and it crashed.
Would someone please sort it out for me?
Meaning no disrespect, Wan
JH - 22 Apr 2006 13:35 GMT >I have been reading Dan's Downwind Turn fallacy statement over and >over, but I couldn't leave it alone. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Meaning no disrespect, >Wan It might have to do with how fast your turn was, and the power of the engine. If you turn quickly downwind, and the plane has a poor thrust to mass ratio, then it could loose airspeed and drop.
A slow turn downwind would not do the same. Your description of a "J hook" implies a fast turn and stall.
J.
Ed Cregger - 22 Apr 2006 15:22 GMT >>I have been reading Dan's Downwind Turn fallacy statement over and >>over, but I couldn't leave it alone. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > J. One of the most difficult things to learn as a pilot is that the model flies in the air. The ground has nothing to do with it, or the airspeed at which the model is travelling over the ground. Unfortunately, we humans have trained ourselves to relate everything to the ground. This must be unlearned when flying R/C models.
High speed stalls are usually what brings a model down in a downwind turn. The pilot tightens up on the bank angle and the elevator in an effort to make the model fly over a particular portion of the ground which he/she feels is appropriate. This feeling does not take into consideration the true airspeed of the model relative to the airmass that the model is flying in, hence, the high speed stall.
No matter how long you have been flying, this one can creep up on you and cause mayhem at times.
Ed Cregger
wanjung@toast.net - 22 Apr 2006 17:01 GMT That's just about how it happened. I made a high speed turn away from the high wind, making the plane fly fast over the ground, but not in the wind.
The problems are compounded when I tried to bring the model back by making my sharp "J" bank and throttling back, thereby stalling.
In the future, I will try to practice good flyman ship and unlearn the things that I had conditioned my reflexes to do.
Thanks gentlemen, Wan
JH - 22 Apr 2006 18:18 GMT >That's just about how it happened. I made a high speed turn away from >the high wind, making the plane fly fast over the ground, but not in >the wind. > >The problems are compounded when I tried to bring the model back by >making my sharp "J" bank and throttling back, thereby stalling. Thar ya go: you should have kept the throttle wide open. Like driving: just 'cos you get off the ground..... it doesn't mean you'll survive.
The main thing is the learning: find the cause and avoid it in future.
J.
>In the future, I will try to practice good flyman ship and unlearn the >things that I had conditioned my reflexes to do. > >Thanks gentlemen, >Wan Ed Forsythe - 23 Apr 2006 06:00 GMT Hi JH, Why communicate back channel?
True airspeed, Indicated airspeed, Calibrated airspeed. Adding power doesn't always increase airspeed. *First* you drop the nose. Ever heard of the backside of the power curve?
I'd appreciate it if you'd reply via the NG. CYA -
----- Original Message ----- From: "JH" <jacques@nospam.demon.co.uk> To: "Ed Forsythe" <EdForsythe@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 1:21 PM Subject: Re: Ailerons ineffective in high wind?
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:38:57 -0400, in rec.models.rc.air you wrote:
>No Taipo, >I think you may have it wrong. Wind direction or speed has *no* effect on [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >will >undoubtedly refute ;-)) Well , if the bastard looks as though it is sagging in the air: you stick the throttle down and gain some AIRSPEED.
Airspeed is airspeed. No such thing as "true airspeed".
J.
wanjung@toast.net - 23 Apr 2006 12:46 GMT Near the end of my mad dash to bring my plane back, the fleeting thought of me wandering the streets of a new community of homes, looking for my model. I was lucky the crash occured onto the outer wall of a friendly homeowner whose house is on the fringe of the community.
What you have done in such a situation, apply throttle to gain airspeed and risk going further into the housing area?
Just a thought, Wan
The OTHER Kevin in San Diego - 23 Apr 2006 20:55 GMT >Near the end of my mad dash to bring my plane back, the fleeting >thought of me wandering the streets of a new community of homes, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >What you have done in such a situation, apply throttle to gain airspeed >and risk going further into the housing area? Um, turn around and fly away from the housing?
wanjung@toast.net - 23 Apr 2006 21:45 GMT San Diego : ) That would be real nice if I could turn around. Remember I said earlier, there was no aileron control?
I liked Tim Wescott's way better. To plan ahead, in a high wind situation, go way upwind before attempting to making a turn.
Anyway, the plane is repaired and ready for good weather.
Good flying, Wan
The OTHER Kevin in San Diego - 24 Apr 2006 06:41 GMT >San Diego : ) That would be real nice if I could turn around. Remember >I said earlier, there was no aileron control? Half loop, fly inverted back upwind. :)
wanjung@toast.net - 24 Apr 2006 12:54 GMT Half loop up elevator or down elevator? : )
Ed Cregger - 24 Apr 2006 14:38 GMT > Half loop up elevator or down elevator? : ) If the model is flying to slow to roll, it will be flying to slow to loop. Add throttle, wait a few seconds and then turn the model around, after the model has acquired some airspeed.
I do not recommend half looping the model because you cannot assess whether the model has sufficient airspeed to complete the maneuver. If it fails, it will fall into a spiral dive, from which there will probably not be sufficient altitude to recover.
Ed Cregger
wanjung@toast.net - 24 Apr 2006 17:22 GMT Ed, I and "San Diego" were talking in jest as you may know. I do appreciate your commentary. Especially the part where I should add throttle. That should work well except I don't have a few seconds left under the situation. However, all is well that ends well, my plane is ready to fly again.
Thanks, Wan
Ed Cregger - 24 Apr 2006 21:54 GMT > Ed, I and "San Diego" were talking in jest as you may know. I do > appreciate your commentary. Especially the part where I should add [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thanks, > Wan What? Huh? Never mind! <G>
Ed Cregger
The OTHER Kevin in San Diego - 27 Apr 2006 20:53 GMT >> Half loop up elevator or down elevator? : ) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >will fall into a spiral dive, from which there will probably not be >sufficient altitude to recover. I was being facetious Ed. :)
The OTHER Kevin in San Diego - 27 Apr 2006 20:53 GMT >Half loop up elevator or down elevator? : ) Assuming you're inverted, down elevator (stick forward) would be best..
Tim Wescott - 23 Apr 2006 21:07 GMT > Near the end of my mad dash to bring my plane back, the fleeting > thought of me wandering the streets of a new community of homes, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Just a thought, > Wan You should always plan ahead -- in a high wind this means going way upwind before you attempt to turn.
 Signature Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com
Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/
Dan_Thomas_nospam@yahoo.com - 26 Apr 2006 15:06 GMT >Airspeed is airspeed. No such thing as "true airspeed". In the world of full-scale aviation, we have: Indicated Airspeed, which is what the airspeed indicator tells us; Calibrated Airspeed, which is what the airspeed indicator would say if it was a perfect installation without pitot ot static errors; and True Airspeed, which is calibrated airspeed corrected for pressure altitude and temperature.
The modeler needs to be concerned with plain old Airspeed and Groundspeed.
Dan
The Natural Philosopher - 22 Apr 2006 22:04 GMT > That's just about how it happened. I made a high speed turn away from > the high wind, making the plane fly fast over the ground, but not in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thanks gentlemen, > Wan Yup. Its not like driving a car.
Spend time watching birds flying, and see how they do it.
Bill - 26 Apr 2006 06:42 GMT >I have been reading Dan's Downwind Turn fallacy statement over and >over, but I couldn't leave it alone. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Meaning no disrespect, >Wan Wan , I think Dan Thomas explained it very well. Go back and read his post again and I think that will sort it out for you.
You've received a lot of good information from the other guys , but I would like to say something about the wind. As far as a 15 mph wind , that IS a 'wind' and not a ' light breeze' as some will call it. I hear guys talking quite often about that 25 , 30 or 40 mph wind they flew in yesterday or last week. I don't think any intend to lie about it , but many people tend to exaggerate it. I carry a little wind meter in my field box which is pretty accurate and many times those 15-20 mph winds are actually 4-5 mph.
BTW , 15 knots is the maximum recommended cross wind for take off and landing a full scale Cessna 172. I don't like even a 10 knot crosswind. I like it nice and smooth. :-)
I love to fly RC in the wind myself , but it does require an airplane that will handle it , and , most importantly , a lot of practice.
Flying in the wind can open up a lot of fun possibilties after you get the experience. I still rememember when my son was young....10-12 years old , when we would get to the field and the wind was blowing he would say , "Hurry up Dad, get my airplane together before the wind stops blowing". He's now 30 and a very good flyer. Still loves the wind. :-)
Watch the other flyers and when you see someone thats flying in the wind almost as though there is no wind , go ask that guy for advice.
Just my .02 cents worth.
Ken Day
Doug McLaren - 26 Apr 2006 16:50 GMT | As far as a 15 mph wind , that IS a 'wind' and not a ' light breeze' | as some will call it. I hear guys talking quite often about that 25 | , 30 or 40 mph wind they flew in yesterday or last week. I don't | think any intend to lie about it , but many people tend to | exaggerate it. 40 mph is a LOT of wind. It's also great fun if you have an appropriate slope and slope planes to fly there, but I probably wouldn't go flying anything that wasn't made of foam, and I probably wouldn't fly in it unless I was slope flying.
| I carry a little wind meter in my field box which is pretty accurate | and many times those 15-20 mph winds are actually 4-5 mph. Well, don't forget the wind gradient. If the wind is 5 mph at six feet, it may be 10 or 15 mph at 30 feet up (the exact difference depends mostly on your terrain) and may go higher even higher.
And because of this wind gradient, flying in the wind IS somewhat different, even to the plane, than flying when there is no wind. People like to rant about the `myth of the downwind turn' and such, and while it is mostly just a perceptual issue, there are some real things that might affect your plane under certain conditions. And of course, people who say `flying in the wind is no different' are also assuming that the wind speed is constant (which it rarely is -- gusts, lulls and direction changes happen often) and are ignoring the turbulence that is usually there. But your airplane won't ignore these things ...
| BTW , 15 knots is the maximum recommended cross wind for take off and | landing a full scale Cessna 172. I don't like even a 10 knot | crosswind. I like it nice and smooth. :-) Of course, now you're talking apples and oranges. Not only is a knot 15% more than a mph, but you're also talking about a crosswind -- that Cessna can probably safely take off and land in winds a lot stronger than that with no crosswind. And as for models, you usually don't have to do a proper crosswind landing or takeoff if you don't want to -- just do it on the grass. (There are some exceptions, of course -- a paved runway, and a plane that can't go on grass.)
| I love to fly RC in the wind myself , but it does require an airplane | that will handle it , and , most importantly , a lot of practice. To be more specific, you need a plane that has a top speed faster than the wind speed (because if it's not, you'll lose the plane downwind, no matter what you do), you'll need lots of control authority to cope with the turbulence kicked up by the wind, and you'll need big cajones to actually fly in a big wind -- either that, or a good amount of skill, or a plane that can survive crashes.
High wing loading tends to give you a plane that is faster and it also tends to get buffetted less by turbulence, which it's why it's suggested that you fly such a plane in the wind.
| Flying in the wind can open up a lot of fun possibilties after you get | the experience. In some places, not being willing to fly in the wind means you're not flying, ever.
| I still rememember when my son was young....10-12 years old , when we | would get to the field and the wind was blowing he would say , | "Hurry up Dad, get my airplane together before the wind stops | blowing". He's now 30 and a very good flyer. Still loves the wind. :-) If you're in a windy, hilly place, get something like your typical Zagi (foam flying wing) and fly it. It'll help you become quite adept at flying in heavy winds with lots of turbulence and the like. It's also a blast! But beware -- flying a plane that is undamaged by crashes tends to make you lazy (no need to bother with a formal landing -- just smack it down) and reckless (`hey -- watch this!'), so be sure to put yourself back into the right frame of mind when you fly your more fragile planes.
It's funny how you can go slope flying all day, and end up with not a single real landing -- just a bunch of crashes (or maybe just one!) (That probably didn't hurt your plane if you're flying the usual flying wing.)
 Signature Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com "We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world, and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read." -- Mark Twain
wanjung@toast.net - 26 Apr 2006 18:27 GMT Thanks, guys. You all have been more than helpful. I made a print out of Dan Thamas' commentary and will take it with me to have coffee with a flying buddy to read it over again.
Wan
wanjung@toast.net - 26 Apr 2006 23:52 GMT Sorry about misspelling your last name, Dan.
I did read over your statement and had no problems understanding it this time.
Thanks, Wan
wanjung@toast.net - 27 Apr 2006 08:13 GMT Normally I don't post again after I have my questions resolved, but I am really in need of some information as to why I lost all other threads in this usenet. This is the only thread that I could find. All the others have disappeared. I mean there are no other topics here for me. It is very disturbing for me because I like to read about others model plane experiences. Could anyone tell me what happened or how to get it back?
Wan AMA 773188
The Natural Philosopher - 27 Apr 2006 09:42 GMT > Normally I don't post again after I have my questions resolved, but I > am really in need of some information as to why I lost all other [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Wan > AMA 773188 Prolly because your upstream ISP is having problems with its server.
wanjung@toast.net - 27 Apr 2006 12:20 GMT By upstream ISP, do you mean my local ISP the same one who serves my emails?
Thanks, Wan
wanjung@toast.net - 27 Apr 2006 12:36 GMT Here I am again. I found the following doing a google search. Maybe the reason why I have no other threads is explained?
"Help > Troubleshooting > Problems on the website
My group is missing messages! Why does it say "This group has 0 topics" when I know that it has more?
You'll encounter this temporary display problem when an individual posts and then removes many messages relatively soon thereafter. While it may seem that there are no posts in the group, please be assured that the content of the group is still available. To find older posts, we suggest conducting a search through our Advanced Groups Search page.
Our engineers are looking into this problem and hope to have it fixed soon. We appreciate your patience".
The OTHER Kevin in San Diego - 27 Apr 2006 20:54 GMT >BTW , 15 knots is the maximum recommended cross wind for take off and >landing a full scale Cessna 172. I don't like even a 10 knot >crosswind. I like it nice and smooth. :-) That's why you should fly a helicopter. Just point the nose into the wind. No need for a couple thousand feet of concrete to land.. :)
Ed Cregger - 27 Apr 2006 22:11 GMT >>BTW , 15 knots is the maximum recommended cross wind for take off and >>landing a full scale Cessna 172. I don't like even a 10 knot >>crosswind. I like it nice and smooth. :-) > > That's why you should fly a helicopter. Just point the nose into the > wind. No need for a couple thousand feet of concrete to land.. :) When they get rid of those old fashioned rotor blades and replace them with turbo fans, I'll make the switch.
Ed Cregger
The OTHER Kevin in San Diego - 28 Apr 2006 03:20 GMT >When they get rid of those old fashioned rotor blades and replace them with >turbo fans, I'll make the switch. Those old fashioned rotor blades still work pretty good. They haven't killed me yet. :)
Thinkin' about getting my fixed wing addon this summer right after my instrument heli rating...
Six_O'Clock_High - 28 Apr 2006 06:10 GMT >>When they get rid of those old fashioned rotor blades and replace them >>with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thinkin' about getting my fixed wing addon this summer right after my > instrument heli rating... I thought about getting the rotary wing addon in recent times, but all those moving parts bothered me a lot. Something about the wings going faster than the fuselage just does not give me warm fuzzies. I'd rather fly twins.
The OTHER Kevin in San Diego - 28 Apr 2006 15:17 GMT >> Thinkin' about getting my fixed wing addon this summer right after my >> instrument heli rating... >> >I thought about getting the rotary wing addon in recent times, but all those >moving parts bothered me a lot. Something about the wings going faster than >the fuselage just does not give me warm fuzzies. I'd rather fly twins. Little story for you.. Back before I got my private (I now have my Commercial helo ticket) I was getting ready for a dual instruction flight. As I'm preflighting the helicopter, some old codger walks up and starts talking to my instructor. I overhear the old guy say he wouldn't be caught dead in a helicopter... very dangerous machines... fall out of the sky when the engine quits... The usual stuff..
We launch out of there and are flying of some of the local canyons and pass over this small valley about 500' AGL. Down below is a lot of brush, a few small trees and spot of short grass about 50' in diameter. Not a confined area by any means, but it's pretty small.
My instructor takes the controls, says "I've got the ship" and does a full down auto right to the spot turns to me and says, "Let's see that old fart land his Cessna down here."
Back then, I'd have rather been in an airplane, but now a couple hundred autos later, I'd rather be in a helo. I've gotten pretty good about hitting my landing spot in an auto.. No need for a length of land to get down. Just enough room to clear the rotor blades. :)
Still gonna get my fixed wing addon tho. Helos are too damned slow to get anywhere... :)
Six_O'Clock_High - 29 Apr 2006 21:30 GMT >>> Thinkin' about getting my fixed wing addon this summer right after my >>> instrument heli rating... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Still gonna get my fixed wing addon tho. Helos are too damned slow to > get anywhere... :) I hear every single word you said, but that does not change my 'feeling' about fling wings.
Prolly dates back to my two years in RVN...
The OTHER Kevin in San Diego - 29 Apr 2006 23:52 GMT >I hear every single word you said, but that does not change my 'feeling' >about fling wings. Understood.. :)
Ed Forsythe - 22 Apr 2006 17:43 GMT Hi Dan, I sent a response to some of the statements here before reading your reply. You nailed it - sorry I stepped on your reply :) I've tried tom dispel the downwind turn myth for over 50 years but I've never tried your "under the hood" analogy - very good I'll borrow it if you don't mind :-)
>> Always take off into the wind, and in a cross-wind, turn into the wind on >> climb-out until you get to safe altitude and develop proper airspeed. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Dan Texas Pete - 20 Apr 2006 18:33 GMT >Hi, > >I am trying to recall what happened. I did a ground check and >everything seems to be OK. As close as I can get it, I'll describe >what took place with my trusty electric airplane. <snip>
Yer first mistake was flying a far too wimpy electric-powered airplane in a stiff breeze. I've had 'em blow away from making a similar mistake, then I've had to take a hike in order to regain them.
Non-wimpy electric power planes are available to all of us, but as yet it takes a whole lots more cash than fuel power to unwimp 'em.
My advice? Get an engine instead of a motor and smell the nitro!
TP
wanjung@toast.net - 20 Apr 2006 23:47 GMT <snip>Yer first mistake was flying a far too wimpy electric-powered airplane in a stiff breeze. I've had 'em blow away from making a similar mistake, then I've had to take a hike in order to regain them.
Non-wimpy electric power planes are available to all of us, but as yet it takes a whole lots more cash than fuel power to unwimp 'em.
My advice? Get an engine instead of a motor and smell the nitro!
TP<snip>
Been there, done that. I had glow powered planes before. Now I am all electric. Not intended to offend anyone.
Wan
Texas Pete - 21 Apr 2006 14:30 GMT > <snip>Yer first mistake was flying a far too wimpy electric-powered >airplane in a stiff breeze. I've had 'em blow away from making a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Been there, done that. I had glow powered planes before. Now I am all >electric. Not intended to offend anyone. Nor did I intend to come off sounding as obnoxious as I did, it was said in good humor. Suppose I should have included a smiley face.
TP
wanjung@toast.net - 21 Apr 2006 15:21 GMT Well, You have read the other posts in this thread. The "little blue pill" got a lot of milage in the humor department. No offense taken.
BTW, I flew the identical twin of the one I crashed in calmer wind and had a great day. The crashed one I called "Patches" had been repaired 6 times before and is almost repaired again.
Wan
|
|
|