"Crazy" Pitts and Cub Landings

steingar said:
The voice of ignorance speaks. You should check out my thread about loosing 7K feet on downwind. Cherokees slip just fine, thank you.
Click to expand...

I probably have more PA time than you do, Professor.

If you think a Cherokee slips "just fine," you haven't slipped an airplane with real rudder authority.
 
From what I've seen flying a J3 from the back and what I've heard about the Pitts, I'd say the slipping approaches shown were actually very safe...much easier to see the landing spot.
 
dmccormack said:
Michael owns a Cherokee, thus is only person capable of issuing advice, observations, or comments about all Piper products. Therefore ignore all pilots who have flown half a dozen Piper Cherokees. They can't know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

I love you guys! I really do!:D
 
dmccormack said:
(let's keep that on the QT, shall we?)

;)
Click to expand...

No, Really...

I abundantly enjoy the exchanges between the folks here, both heated and not. Its a plethera of information imbedded in frothy dialog between competing personalities with diverse backgrounds.

That's my report! :thumbsup:
 
dmccormack said:
Slips in a Cherokee are like burnouts in a '66 Rambler.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the first car I had regular access to was my grandfather's '63 Rambler Ambassador. It had a factory 327 V-8 in it. It would certainly burn out. Or so I heard. Yeah, that's it.

John
 
dmccormack said:
Michael owns a Cherokee, thus is only person capable of issuing advice, observations, or comments about all Piper products. Therefore ignore all pilots who have flown half a dozen Piper Cherokees. They can't know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
Well, I got to say that I have more time in PA28s than 172s and I would have to agree with Michael. They slip just fine.
 
rottydaddy said:
From what I've seen flying a J3 from the back and what I've heard about the Pitts, I'd say the slipping approaches shown were actually very safe...much easier to see the landing spot.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Low straight-ins are a bad idea in the Pitts for visibility reasons, especially if approaching over obstacles.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Well, I got to say that I have more time in PA28s than 172s and I would have to agree with Michael. They slip just fine.
Click to expand...

Well, they slip at least. Whether or not anyone would say they slip "fine" probably depends on their experience in other types. :) Citabria ailerons are fine, says the Citabria pilot who has never flown a Decathlon. :D
 
dmccormack said:
Michael owns a Cherokee, thus is only person capable of issuing advice, observations, or comments about all Piper products. Therefore ignore all pilots who have flown half a dozen Piper Cherokees. They can't know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Anyone who says a Cherokee doesn't slip either hasn't flown one or doesn't really know what a slip is. Or is factually incorrect for some other reason. Nonetheless, they are factually incorrect. I repeat, Cherokee's slip just fine. Unless the airplane in question is badly out of trim.

I have no doubt that a tail dragger, with it's larger rudder surface, will slip dramatically. On the other hand, reference my thread about loosing 7K feet on downwind. Just how much more slip does one really need?
 
steingar said:
Anyone who says a Cherokee doesn't slip either hasn't flown one or doesn't really know what a slip is. Or is factually incorrect for some other reason. Nonetheless, they are factually incorrect. I repeat, Cherokee's slip just fine. Unless the airplane in question is badly out of trim.

I have no doubt that a tail dragger, with it's larger rudder surface, will slip dramatically. On the other hand, reference my thread about loosing 7K feet on downwind. Just how much more slip does one really need?
Click to expand...

Did I say a "Cherokee doesn't slip"?


:no:

Read more carefully next times before you get your hackles all a-twitter.

I compared a Cherokee's slipping performance to Rambler's burn out (an automobile also known for docile, less-than-enthusiastic performance).

Cherokees are docile, well-mannered, and not particularly outstanding in any single measure of performance -- including slips.

That's fine -- Cessna 172s are docile and they sold a whole lotta those.
 
dmccormack said:
Did I say a "Cherokee doesn't slip"?


:no:

Read more carefully next times before you get your hackles all a-twitter.

I compared a Cherokee's slipping performance to Rambler's burn out (an automobile also known for docile, less-than-enthusiastic performance).

Cherokees are docile, well-mannered, and not particularly outstanding in any single measure of performance -- including slips.

That's fine -- Cessna 172s are docile and they sold a whole lotta those.
Click to expand...

And I said, how much more slip do you need? I brought my airplane down thousands of feet, under control, in the space of a downwind leg of the landing pattern. That's docile? Just how much more is it supposed to do?
 
steingar said:
And I said, how much more slip do you need? I brought my airplane down thousands of feet, under control, in the space of a downwind leg of the landing pattern. That's docile? Just how much more is it supposed to do?
Click to expand...

Yes, Cherokees do relatively mild slips even with full rudder and aileron inputs. In what horizontal distance did you lose 7,000 ft? What was the wind doing? What was your vertical descent rate? There are airplanes that will slip what feels like 4 times more effectively than a Cherokeee. You don't NEED it, but it sure opens up your options for stuffing the plane into a tight spot from otherwise impossible angles in an emergency. But the number one reason to want it is just for plain old fun. :)
 
RoscoeT said:
Yes, Cherokees do relatively mild slips even with full rudder and aileron inputs. In what horizontal distance did you lose 7,000 ft? What was the wind doing? What was your vertical descent rate? There are airplanes that will slip what feels like 4 times more effectively than a Cherokeee. You don't NEED it, but it sure opens up your options for stuffing the plane into a tight spot from otherwise impossible angles in an emergency. But the number one reason to want it is just for plain old fun. :)
Click to expand...

Thread here. If memory serves I came in at 8.5K feet and dropped down to 500 in the space of a 5K foot runway. From the thread I assume winds were variable and gusty.

Look, I won't compare my Cherokee to a Pitts or any other aerobatic aircraft. I will happily compare it to a WWII era taildragger. Those aren't hell-bent-for-leather aerobatic aircraft, they were (and are) docile training aircraft that used inferior technology. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you could stuff a Cherokee or Skyhawk into the exact same space. The latter don't have huge rudder surfaces, but the taildraggers by and large lack landing flaps.
 
steingar said:
And I said, how much more slip do you need? I brought my airplane down thousands of feet, under control, in the space of a downwind leg of the landing pattern. That's docile? Just how much more is it supposed to do?
Click to expand...

So you descended 7,000' in 2 miles? (the length of a long runway plus a mile, let's say)?

So we'll concede that anecdote.

How does that one incident prove slipping prowess? Cherokee flaps are very effective, and with power to idle and a high AoA a PA-28 will drag its way downwind right, quick, and in a hurry. So will a LearJet.

If the Cherokee had a more effective rudder, you could probably drop almost straight down, which some airplanes will do (C-172H with manual 40 degree flaps, the T-craft with spoilers :yikes:, Cubs, and of course the Chief).

Anyway, I think you're confusing descent rate with rudder effectiveness.

The more effective the rudder, the more fuselage is presented to the relative wind, thereby increasing total drag. This plus flaps, slow speed, etc will result in a dramatic descent rate without an increase in airspeed. A less effective rudder will permit a slip, and the descent rate may be significant, but given the same conditions the more effective rudder-ed airplane will lose more altitude in less distance.

Why did rudders become less effective in smaller GA singles? I don't know, but I'll guess it had to do with the target market during the late 50s and through the 70s, and not pleasing old geezers who like to fly sideways.

:dunno:
 
steingar said:
Thread here. If memory serves I came in at 8.5K feet and dropped down to 500 in the space of a 5K foot runway. From the thread I assume winds were variable and gusty.
Click to expand...

8000' vertically in 5000' horizontally? That's a 58 degree approach angle. Unless you had a 55 mph or so wind on your nose, there ain't no f'n way. Something is seriously wrong with your observation.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
I wouldn't be at all surprised if you could stuff a Cherokee or Skyhawk into the exact same space. The latter don't have huge rudder surfaces, but the taildraggers by and large lack landing flaps.
Click to expand...

I regularly (like, every time) land in 400' with no heroics -- or brakes.

The aircraft you're maligning had a different mission. The Cherokee was designed for and marketed to a different audience, that's all.
 
I never said my cherokee had better rudder effectiveness than an old taildragger. I wouldn't, such a thing is patently false. By the way, that was thousands of feet in the space of 5K feet, not two miles. And no, it would not have done so simply with landing flaps, sorry.

What I said was that Cherokees slip just fine. A slip is used on most aircraft to increase descent rate. I used my anecdote to prove that a Cherokee (well, my Cherokee) can establish a tremendous descent rate using a slip (and flaps, yes). Honestly, how much more do you need?

I doubt the taildraggers will come down that much faster. Yes they can fly sideways, but those wings have plenty of glide in them, unlike my aircraft, which has the glide of a Buick.
 
steingar said:
I used my anecdote to prove that a Cherokee (well, my Cherokee) can establish a tremendous descent rate using a slip (and flaps, yes). Honestly, how much more do you need?
Click to expand...

Until you admit the egregious error and the physical impossibility of what you described in your "anecdote" (58 degree descent angle), you have zero credibility with anything you state as far as I'm concerned. The only way a Cherokee could come down even close to that angle without shredding airplane parts would be under a BRS chute. Again, if you had 55-60 mph of wind on your nose, OK. But I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
I never said my cherokee had better rudder effectiveness than an old taildragger. I wouldn't, such a thing is patently false. By the way, that was thousands of feet in the space of 5K feet, not two miles. And no, it would not have done so simply with landing flaps, sorry.

What I said was that Cherokees slip just fine. A slip is used on most aircraft to increase descent rate. I used my anecdote to prove that a Cherokee (well, my Cherokee) can establish a tremendous descent rate using a slip (and flaps, yes). Honestly, how much more do you need?

I doubt the taildraggers will come down that much faster. Yes they can fly sideways, but those wings have plenty of glide in them, unlike my aircraft, which has the glide of a Buick.
Click to expand...

I agree -- A forward slip can be used to lose lots of altitude in a short distance without increasing speed.

However any airplane with a rudder and ailerons can slip.

The only question is: How steep can you descend and at what speed?

If I'm descending at 3000 FPM at 55 MPH, I'm going to able to clear those trees and get the wheels on the ground sooner, and in a pinch, that's a good tool to have. In addition, if I regulaly slip the airplane, i'm more likley to employ the tool when under duress.

That's all.
 
RoscoeT said:
Until you admit the egregious error and the physical impossibility of what you described in your "anecdote" (58 degree descent angle), you have zero credibility with anything you state as far as I'm concerned. The only way a Cherokee could come down even close to that angle without shredding airplane parts would be under a BRS chute. Again, if you had 55-60 mph of wind on your nose, OK. But I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Don't much like being called a liar. Our local class C butts up agains the class delta of my home drone, and is 5K feet tall. Coming back from Cleveland I had to be on an even numbered altitude as I was headed westward. Hence either or 6.5K or 8.5k. I recall it being really hot, and I was trying to keep things cool and smooth for the Mrs. as long as I could, so I pulled the plug on downwind and came in. I'm fairly certain it was 8.5 K feet, as I recall dropping 7.5K feet on downwind.

My one advantage is Cherokees come down like a rock when the power is pulled. Add flaps and a slip, and they come down fast indeed. The aerodynamic modifications in my aircraft probably helped as much. However, the result was so dramatic that I started a thread here in response, not something I do every day (most of the threads I start are useless political things).

Thus my ire is raised when someone says a Cherokee can't slip very well. I must also point out that the only derogatory thing I said about WWII vintage taildraggers is they were created with inferior technology, which they were. They did manage to learn a thing or two about how to build airplanes in the intervening decades. Doesn't make them inferior airplanes in any respect.
 
steingar said:
Don't much like being called a liar.
Click to expand...

Never said that. But I think you are seriously mistaken. Just so you understand what you're saying...you're describing a glide path like this without extreme wind effects. A flying squirrel glides better than this. So in this case, your lowly Cherokee has achieved a much steeper slipping glide angle than is possible from the the most stub-winged, heavily loaded, huge constant-speed propped, huge ruddered aerobatic airplane available. Maybe you believe what you are saying, but I think you are seriously mistaken.

So, if this glide angle is possible, you should be able to demonstrate this on video by flying a final approach in level flight at normal 1000' AGL pattern altitude until you reach a point over the ground that is about 640' from the runway threshold. Then pull power, enter your super slip and you should be able to show the numbers staying still in your windscreen as you come down final. If you can show a Cherokee doing this without gaining airspeed, I will consider you to be the second coming of Christ. :D

w2kugz.jpg
[/IMG]
 
Am I the only one reading the old thread and this one thinking that descending "several thousand feet on downwind, which I lost without doing any detours, S turns, or circles," probably isn't the brightest way to arrive into the downwind in a low wing aircraft?

Seems like I've seen photos over the years of the low wing aircraft "mating" with a high-wing from above, and more than one of those photos. (Pretty sure it was some of those evil CFIs that showed me such crazy photos too.)

I don't really want to attempt to haul your aircraft around the base and final turns on my back.

I'd really prefer you descend somewhere other than on the downwind if at all possible, sir.

No one mentioned it in the original thread so I'll be the bad guy and toss it into this one.

Who cares if it'll slip like a Baby Grand Piano pushed out of the back of a C-130? Do it somewhere away from the pattern and enter normally at a reasonable pattern altitude like everybody else. :nono:

We're all too busy watching out for the RV'ers doing their overhead breaks. ;)

:stirpot:
 
denverpilot said:
Am I the only one reading the old thread and this one thinking that descending "several thousand feet on downwind, which I lost without doing any detours, S turns, or circles," probably isn't the brightest way to arrive into the downwind in a low wing aircraft?

Seems like I've seen photos over the years of the low wing aircraft "mating" with a high-wing from above, and more than one of those photos. (Pretty sure it was some of those evil CFIs that showed me such crazy photos too.)

I don't really want to attempt to haul your aircraft around the base and final turns on my back.

I'd really prefer you descend somewhere other than on the downwind if at all possible, sir.

No one mentioned it in the original thread so I'll be the bad guy and toss it into this one.

Who cares if it'll slip like a Baby Grand Piano pushed out of the back of a C-130? Do it somewhere away from the pattern and enter normally at a reasonable pattern altitude like everybody else. :nono:

We're all too busy watching out for the RV'ers doing their overhead breaks. ;)

:stirpot:
Click to expand...

See post #65 , I'm on your frequency :thumbsup:
 
steingar said:
Thread here. If memory serves I came in at 8.5K feet and dropped down to 500 in the space of a 5K foot runway. From the thread I assume winds were variable and gusty.
Click to expand...
You can do that without slipping as well, Cherokee sinks like a rock quite comfortably at 1.01 Vso while fully coordinated when you close the throttle. Fly minimum controllable airspeed, just don't add power, so simple every PP has practiced their part of it at least for a while. This time don't add power to maintain altitude, watch your Vsi...weeeee.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
You can do that without slipping as well, Cherokee sinks like a rock quite comfortably at 1.01 Vso while fully coordinated when you close the throttle. Fly minimum controllable airspeed, just don't add power, so simple every PP has practiced their part of it at least for a while. This time don't add power to maintain altitude, watch your Vsi...weeeee.
Click to expand...

Yes. My checkide was in a PA-28 and the DPE was known to like to demonstrate falling leaf stalls. Throttle to idle, keep the nose level, and soon we were descending with about 30 kts indicated. Whee indeed! :D

-Skip
 
denverpilot said:
Am I the only one reading the old thread and this one thinking that descending "several thousand feet on downwind, which I lost without doing any detours, S turns, or circles," probably isn't the brightest way to arrive into the downwind in a low wing aircraft?
Click to expand...

I'd be less likely to do this in uncontrolled airspace for the reasons you specify, though if the need presented itself, and I thought it could be accomplished safely, I would.

In this case I was in the controlled airspace at my home airport. The tower had been notified of my intentions and reasoning, and had assured me I was the only traffic. Thus there was no compromise to safety, nor would I have allowed one. My spouse was sickened no further, and will continue to fly with me. I am actually quite impressed that she flies with me in the first place, both for the obvious (how many here have non-flying spouses?) and will continue to do so despite the discomfort and the occasional airsickness. I will therefore do whatever I can to give her a good ride. F
 
steingar said:
I'd be less likely to do this in uncontrolled airspace for the reasons you specify, though if the need presented itself, and I thought it could be accomplished safely, I would.

In this case I was in the controlled airspace at my home airport. The tower had been notified of
Click to expand...
Oh, great.

Now, instead of just having degenerated into pattern technique and how well a Cherokee slips, we can now pick nits over the definitions of controlled (A,B,C,D,E) vs. uncontrolled (G) airspace which doesn't happen at most non-towered airfields.

How about we all agree that we know what Prof. Steingar really meant even if the wording was not 100% precise and not go there?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Oh, great.

Now, instead of just having degenerated into pattern technique and how well a Cherokee slips, we can now pick nits over the definitions of controlled (A,B,C,D,E) vs. uncontrolled (G) airspace which doesn't happen at most non-towered airfields.

How about we all agree that we know what Prof. Steingar really meant even if the wording was not 100% precise and not go there?
Click to expand...

You raise a good point. The airspace through with I was descending was indeed pilot controlled until I got with in the confines of the class delta airspace. It was on the edge of a Class Charlie, thus is is unlikely that aircraft not under ATC direction would have been flying below and unawares. Even in the absence of Class Charlie, I am far more concerned about aircraft within the vicinity of an airport than without.

I hope my lack of hyperintimate familiarity with airspace can be forgiven.
 
I'm so glad my first post here was to talk about practicing slips in a Cherokee. :rofl:
 
Auburn2002 said:
I'm so glad my first post here was to talk about practicing slips in a Cherokee. :rofl:
Click to expand...

Good for you - lots of people don't like doing slips. But please get some video of your 58 degree descent angle. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top