Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, how about yours?
I said most airplanes will not spin out of a slip to land configuration. It's a pretty simple point. You can confuse the issue and again talk AROUND points by jabbering about gravity or dihedral or whatever, but the text says, "it displays very little of the yawing tendency that causes a skidding stall to develop into a spin". That's the same dang thing I said. It also says stall behavior "may even be improved". In some airplanes that means the thing just won't even stall properly. I've experienced this. You're spinning this into an argument over whether airplanes can be made to stall in a slip or not. This discussion started as whether or not they will SPIN from a slip. Again, you're dancing around the simple, direct issue.
By yourself? Go for it, what doesn't kill you will make you a better pilot. When you have passengers though, you must resist the temptation.
I think it's irresponsible to encourage readers of this forum to fly nose-high with a bootful of rudder at low altitude by alleging immunity from "stalling/spinning" -- and I'm bored with trying to deal with somebody whose brain is always stuck on transmitting insults.
Now you've moved past evasion, spin, and misdirection to being straight up disingenuous. Lots of pilots are afraid of steep slips because they think the more uncoordinated the airplane is, the more easily they will enter a spin should the airplane accidentally stall. It's just not generally the case with slips. I'm advocating pilots learn the flying qualities of their airplane, not some parroted crap their kid wonder CFI told them, but has no experience with. I'm pretty sure I made that clear in another post. But since you have no legs to stand on, you've just reverted to this silly claim that I'm "encouraging" pilots to fly around at low altitude with the yoke in their lap and lots of rudder. Yeah right. I still think you should find one of these airplanes, just go do it, and report back. I don't see that happening though, because I think you know what the results will be. This isn't a quantum theory proof here. It involves a simple exercise in a simple airplane. This is a pilot forum. I assume this means many here actually have access to airplanes and are able to fly them.
. Yep, if you've flown nothing but Cessnas, you might think they come down fast power off, full slip, and full flaps. Then if you get some experience in certain old taildragger or aerobatic types, you realize that Cessnas don't slip or come down worth a crap.
, and a stick is sooo much more fun than a yoke!
If I was his CFI we'd be doing some retraining before he flies solo again.
Well done. 12,000 feet! Wow... you really could have been the space shuttle with that much runway.
. JFK as well.
Well done. 12,000 feet! Wow... you really could have been the space shuttle with that much runway.
11440' x 200'
You won't spin if you don't stall.Two paragraphs laters, the same POH says:
My instructor said he has experienced the oscillation once with full 40 degrees of flaps and it was maybe startling but not compromising. I've never had an issue with it.
I can think of two exceptions in Michigan alone: KSAW and KOSC, both former military bases (both Air Force I believe). KSAW was Sawyer, and KOSC was Wurtsmith. I think there's some jet traffic in and out of Sawyer, but KOSC doesn't even have a tower, AFAIK it's strictly a GA haven.
Being a Cold War Veteran, I've heard the Cold War called lots of things, but "waste of resource" has never been one of them. At the time, without the benefit of hindsight, the resources spent seemed very worthwhile given the alternative was potential world annialation.
Waste of resource?
Waste of resource?