Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / April 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Ailerons ineffective in high wind?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.