OWT compilation

GeorgeC

GeorgeC

Administrator
Management Council Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
5,615
Display Name
Display name:
GeorgeC
Fix your grounding problems, use some MMO, and get on the step to a zoom climb to the overhead- post your aviation OWTs here.
 
OWT #1: Slips with flaps extended in a C-172 blank out the tail and will kill you.

OWT #2: V-tails on Bonanzas cause horrible tail-wag in cruising flight -- at least until the tail falls off.

OWT #3: Grummans (at least those that have not yet fallen apart from delamination) are unstable in flight and spins go flat.
 
Last edited:
Stall speed increases with bank angle.

Lift has something to do with airfoils having a curved top and flat bottom.

Airfoils have curved tops and flat bottoms.
 
OWT tail is always true.
 
Interesting to see how many concepts had an original basis in truth, but as people have lost the original context, they have chalked them up to be old wives tails.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Interesting to see how many concepts had an original basis in truth, but as people have lost the original context, they have chalked them up to be old wives tails.
Click to expand...

I think "the step" is one of those.

There is a "front side" and a "back side" of the power curve. Hence, any power setting can result in two different speeds. For instance, full power in a C150 may result in 105 kt cruise or 40 kt in slow flight.

In that case, the difference is obvious. But near the service ceiling, it might not be so obvious - one might be able to cruise at 85 kts or 90 kts depending on whether they had accelerated to the "front side" or were laboring on the "back side". That could certainly feel like a "step", since allowing the plane to accelerate would permit a faster cruise.

That is why it's usually advised to maintain climb power as the plane accelerates to cruise speed, and only then to power back. Power back too soon and it's possible to never get on "the step" and fly for hours at a slower speed than the plane is capable of. I think that's also where the procedure of climbing a little above one's desired altitude and the accelerating in the descent to altitude came from, though in practice that should never be necessary.
 
FastEddieB said:
I think "the step" is one of those.

There is a "front side" and a "back side" of the power curve. Hence, any power setting can result in two different speeds. For instance, full power in a C150 may result in 105 kt cruise or 40 kt in slow flight.

In that case, the difference is obvious. But near the service ceiling, it might not be so obvious - one might be able to cruise at 85 kts or 90 kts depending on whether they had accelerated to the "front side" or were laboring on the "back side". That could certainly feel like a "step", since allowing the plane to accelerate would permit a faster cruise.

That is why it's usually advised to maintain climb power as the plane accelerates to cruise speed, and only then to power back. Power back too soon and it's possible to never get on "the step" and fly for hours at a slower speed than the plane is capable of. I think that's also where the procedure of climbing a little above one's desired altitude and the accelerating in the descent to altitude came from, though in practice that should never be necessary.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The whole step climb/step cruise originated in the early days of 4 engine piston airplanes getting up into the flight levels.

Just because it isn't necessarily applicable to the kind of ops most of us do today, doesn't make it a myth.
 
FastEddieB said:
I think "the step" is one of those.

There is a "front side" and a "back side" of the power curve. Hence, any power setting can result in two different speeds. For instance, full power in a C150 may result in 105 kt cruise or 40 kt in slow flight.

In that case, the difference is obvious. But near the service ceiling, it might not be so obvious - one might be able to cruise at 85 kts or 90 kts depending on whether they had accelerated to the "front side" or were laboring on the "back side". That could certainly feel like a "step", since allowing the plane to accelerate would permit a faster cruise.

That is why it's usually advised to maintain climb power as the plane accelerates to cruise speed, and only then to power back. Power back too soon and it's possible to never get on "the step" and fly for hours at a slower speed than the plane is capable of. I think that's also where the procedure of climbing a little above one's desired altitude and the accelerating in the descent to altitude came from, though in practice that should never be necessary.
Click to expand...
Wow, great explanation; thanks!
 
Helicopters are hard to fly.
 
SkyDog58 said:
No one ever said they were hard to fly, just sort of unforgiving on landing if you have lazy feet.
Click to expand...

I've heard many taildragger pilots tell others they are hard to fly...typically right after they make a crappy landing, I guess to make themselves feel better about it. It is just another skill one learns.
 
N3368K said:
I've heard many taildragger pilots tell others they are hard to fly...typically right after they make a crappy landing, I guess to make themselves feel better about it. It is just another skill one learns.
Click to expand...

Were they old wives? ;)
 
Fearless Tower said:
Where did that practice come from?
Click to expand...
Many POHs say to do it. For example, in the Amplified Procedures section of the Cessna ones I have, it says, "Move ignition switch first to R position and note RPM. Next move switch back to BOTH to clear the other set of plugs. Then move switch to the L position, note RPM and return the switch to the BOTH position."
 
Palmpilot said:
Many POHs say to do it. For example, in the Amplified Procedures section of the Cessna ones I have, it says, "Move ignition switch first to R position and note RPM. Next move switch back to BOTH to clear the other set of plugs. Then move switch to the L position, note RPM and return the switch to the BOTH position."
Click to expand...

Both-L-R-Both gives more and better information. L-R gives instant difference between the two. If one need to go back to "Both" in the middle to "Clear" the plugs, something else is wrong and the airplane needs to go to maintenance.
 
kgruber said:
Both-L-R-Both gives more and better information. L-R gives instant difference between the two. If one need to go back to "Both" in the middle to "Clear" the plugs, something else is wrong and the airplane needs to go to maintenance.
Click to expand...

I don't have any way of knowing whether you're right or not, so I'll continue to follow the manufacturer's recommendation.
 
kgruber said:
Both-L-R-Both gives more and better information. L-R gives instant difference between the two. If one need to go back to "Both" in the middle to "Clear" the plugs, something else is wrong and the airplane needs to go to maintenance.
Click to expand...

I'm going to use the above quote as an NWT, or New Wives' Tale. Count it.
 
Norman said:
Shock cooling
Click to expand...

Tell me more please. My impression is that with some engines in some installations, it is very real. Seems like a couple of local C-340 owners paid for a lot of cracked cylinders. Maybe we were wrong in attributing it to shock cooling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top