Runway Sideslip Drill?

[Lindberg]

It's more like the downwind turn, where people actually think the airplane cares what the wind is doing.

 

[whifferdill]

Did you watch the videos posted in the other thread, which clearly show aircraft moving laterally.

I watched it multiple times. You say "moving laterally", I say "slipping turn to a new flight path, stopping that slipping turn, and then continuing the slip along that new flight path". Yep, you can do that with the nose on heading as long as you keep the turn very small - like 10 degrees in many airplanes. I could even do this. It's not what I'm getting at though.

The King video seems to perfectly demonstrate the side-slip drill, and the nose never changes direction. So whether or not you want to call what you're seeing a "turn," but you're wrong about the controls.

I was addressing the specific diagram I originally posted. Before you (or anyone) claim I'm "wrong about the controls", just go up in your airplane and try this drill with the caveat that you understand that to fly this per that diagram, you must start the airplane in runway tracking flight, then move the airplane to the side of the runway in a slip, release that slip, and immediately be back on your original runway tracking flight path. Anyone with an airplane can go try this, wind or no wind. Wind doesn't change this specific question. Maybe someone can explain precisely how in my video that I could have reached the left side of the runway and retracked the runway simply by releasing the slip, and not turning the airplane (along a curving flight path) back to the right. That is all. It's a simple point. Until someone flies this and can tell me precisely what I'm doing wrong, I'll file this one in the 'semantics battle' bin.

This "sideways" movement talk makes it sound as if you apply more aileron in a slip, the airplane immediately jumps to a new (non curving) flight path for as long as you hold that amount of additional aileron, then returns (in a non curving turn) to the original flight path simply by releasing that bank to what you were previously holding. I've just not seen or experienced this. Or again, I guess we could just be considering "sideways" in different ways.

 

[whifferdill]

It's like Henning and whifferdill are speaking another language. Seriously, I'm lost. Being able to slip left and right is dependent upon how strong the wind is? You realize the airplane doesn't know there is any wind right?

Who said anything like that? Not sure what you're talking about and now I'm lost. I've kept saying wind is irrelevant here. The written word just can't cut it I guess. Nothing to accomplish here either. At least we have learned that slips are the most controversial, and most difficult to communicate and understand subject in all of flying. Enough academia, flying needs to happen this weekend. Tired of this Wx.

 

[dmspilot]

Maybe I don't really understand the argument being made. Are you people really trying to say it's not possible to fly sideways in a slip? Isn't that what a slip is?

Consider the attached image (sorry for my amateur artwork).

 

[dmspilot]

I've kept saying wind is irrelevant here.

Wasn't you.

The only way to mimic the Runway Sideslip Drill as it is drawn is if you have a crosswind.

Because you don't change the flight path, the wind does.

BINGO! You have to have the crosswind. The drill is not predicate on a crosswind.

the cross wind is changing your flight path. Your slip is altering your relationship to the wind, not the relationship to your flight path.

There is no such thing as a side slip if there is no crosswind, because a side slip is defined as a slip used to correct for a crosswind.

I don't agree.

 

[Henning]

Maybe I don't really understand the argument being made. Are you people really trying to say it's not possible to fly sideways in a slip? Isn't that what a slip is?

Consider the attached image (sorry for my amateur artwork).

It is not possible to displace your flight path sideways using a slip except as such to regulate your speed in relationship to a crosswind. That's more involved than 'flying sideways' as it not only references the alignment of the plane, but the path as well. You can change the alignment of the plane no problem, but to change the path in a no wind situation, you still need to turn.

 

[eetrojan]

... but to change the path in a no wind situation, you still need to turn.

You may be right, but the more I think about this, the more I question it.

When you bank the plane, you create a horizontal component of lift that in the absence of one other phenomena (weathervaning), would simply translate the plane to the side as it moved forward, causing it to move along an angled line relative to the body of air in which the plane is moving forward.

If you allowed the tail to weathervane in a normal fashion, and with the RW coming in from an angle due to the angled movement, the plane would continually try to turn into the RW and would indeed follow a curved path relative to the body of air. The weathervaning happens quickly, I believe, but it's not instantaneous.

It's cause (horizontal component due to bank from aileron) and effect (weathervaning of tail, followed by curving flight path). If desired, I think, you can prevent the effect altogether (using rudder).

Therefore, if you used opposite rudder to prevent the weathervaning, you could make the plane continue to fly straight relative to the body of air (e.g. to lose altitude when too high on final and while flying on the runway centerline on a calm day) or, by judicious application of just a bit too little or a bit too much of the opposite rudder, cause (or allow) the horizontal lift component to translate the plane along an angled path relative to the body of air (and runway since it's a calm day).

Maybe when you apply just a bit too little or too much rudder, the tail necessarily weathervanes to that same small degree, like a regular turn, and this all becomes a matter of philosophy on when the plane is turning, versus translating,... But I'm not sure I can noodle that yet.

Of course, you could also keep the same rudder, and apply a bit more or a bit less aileron - same difference.

Just some thoughts...

(Edited to make a little more sense, maybe)

 

[dmspilot]

It is not possible to displace your flight path sideways using a slip except as such to regulate your speed in relationship to a crosswind. That's more involved than 'flying sideways' as it not only references the alignment of the plane, but the path as well. You can change the alignment of the plane no problem, but to change the path in a no wind situation, you still need to turn.

The wind is irrelevant. The aerodynamics are the same whether there is a wind or not.

 

[Silvaire]

The wind is irrelevant. The King video shows a definite side slip although the pilot was being a bit aggressive for demonstration purposes and did let the nose turn in on the last cross over.

I can sort of understand why some of you want to classify this maneuver as a turn because the flight path of the aircraft does change when entering the side slip and of course it can't do that like an acute angle and instantly be flying the new direction so there is a curve to the entry. However, when you see the aircraft drifting off to the left in the video and the nose still pointed in the same direction as the runway realize that he doesn't have to stop or reverse that, he could keep going off to the left in that manner indefinitely and the heading would never change. So no, it is not a turn.

From post #10:

BTW, here is the FAA Handbook illustrating the difference between forward and sideslip. See the difference? Sure hope nobody forgets which is which when it comes time to make your next x-wind landing.

Wiff, you've rotated the picture for the forward slip, that's not how it's depicted in the book. Think of up as being the direction of the runway because that's the only difference. The control inputs are exactly the same and in a forward slip you clearly understand that the airplane is flying laterally in reference to it's longitudinal axis so why would it be any different if you used those same exact control inputs but kept the nose pointed down the runway? Honestly, how could it be different?

As for your video, the Pitts is too fast for you to demonstrate this over the length of the runway, try doing it over a road and apply your cross control inputs gently while concentrating on keeping the heading dead constant. You are banked to the point where half of your heading control is from the elevator and stepping on the rudder lifts the nose.

As I said in the other thread the purpose of this exercise is to develop control coordination. You want to slowly rock the wings back and forth while keeping the nose dead steady on a constant heading. Believe me the aircraft will enter a slip and the flight path will change in the direction of the slip. It has too.

 

[FastEddieB]

Don't forget the yaw string.

dtuuri

Seriously, Karen just bought some yarn for a project and not ten minutes ago I was thinking about how to place both yaw and pitch strings!

 

[FastEddieB]

It sure looks possible to me.

Nice find!

Mine should look similar, but a cockpit view.

Now it seems like I could move side to side back and forth across the runway, never letting my nose move off runway heading, and some here would still call it a fail because in their minds some sort of non-turning ""turn" must be occurring.



Sorry, that makes no sense to me, and if the King video hasn't put this to rest, any pitiful attempt of mine is unlikely to.

Still, it gives me a mission!

 

[pilot1956]

Eddie - the King video does not depict the runway drill shown in the original post.

In the diagram in the original post (right hand diagram), the airplane moves from side to side of the runway, with the track and heading always identical to each other and with both always pointing straight down the runway. This is not possible with constant airspeed and constant wind.

Watch the video closely, when the pilot slips the airplane from left to right, the plane yaws left (i.e., heading and track diverge) while transitioning from left side of runway to right side of runway. It is not possible to slip the plane across the runway left to right and right to left while maintaining heading and track that are the same as each other (and the same as the runway centerline).

 

[Henning]

You may be right, but the more I think about this, the more I question it.

When you bank the plane, you create a horizontal component of lift that in the absence of one other phenomena (weathervaning), would simply translate the plane to the side as it moved forward, causing it to move along an angled line relative to the body of air in which the plane is moving forward.

If you allowed the tail to weathervane in a normal fashion, and with the RW coming in from an angle due to the angled movement, the plane would continually try to turn into the RW and would indeed follow a curved path relative to the body of air. The weathervaning happens quickly, I believe, but it's not instantaneous.

It's cause (horizontal component due to bank from aileron) and effect (weathervaning of tail, followed by curving flight path). If desired, I think, you can prevent the effect altogether (using rudder).

Therefore, if you used opposite rudder to prevent the weathervaning, you could make the plane continue to fly straight relative to the body of air (e.g. to lose altitude when too high on final and while flying on the runway centerline on a calm day) or, by judicious application of just a bit too little or a bit too much of the opposite rudder, cause (or allow) the horizontal lift component to translate the plane along an angled path relative to the body of air (and runway since it's a calm day).

Maybe when you apply just a bit too little or too much rudder, the tail necessarily weathervanes to that same small degree, like a regular turn, and this all becomes a matter of philosophy on when the plane is turning, versus translating,... But I'm not sure I can noodle that yet.

Of course, you could also keep the same rudder, and apply a bit more or a bit less aileron - same difference.

Just some thoughts...

(Edited to make a little more sense, maybe)

You are forgetting one factor, when yo put in the opposite rudder, you create an opposite horizontal component of lift with the fuselage that cancels the horizontal component of lift of the wing. As soon as you unbalance the rudder and aileron from a straight line, the path followed will start to curve.

 

[Henning]

The wind is irrelevant. The aerodynamics are the same whether there is a wind or not.

The aerodynamics of the airplane yes, however the angular geometry does change, and therefor you can get the effect demonstrated, moving sideways across the runway, by altering the depth of the slip because it alters your vector speed into the relative wind which is angular to the runway and aircraft, thereby changing your angular velocity as you go down the runway vector.

 

[dtuuri]

Maybe I don't really understand the argument being made. Are you people really trying to say it's not possible to fly sideways in a slip? Isn't that what a slip is?

Consider the attached image (sorry for my amateur artwork).

Here's another:

​

EDIT: Any "turn", meaning curved flight path entering the slip, is because you can't immediately go from level wings to banked in zero seconds, so the amount of deflection is changing while the plane is rolling resulting in a slight (very slight) curve or "turn" to some folks.

dtuuri

 

[whifferdill]

You are forgetting one factor, when yo put in the opposite rudder, you create an opposite horizontal component of lift with the fuselage that cancels the horizontal component of lift of the wing. As soon as you unbalance the rudder and aileron from a straight line, the path followed will start to curve.

THIS. This better describes what I was doing in my video. Balancing the opposing horizontal components of lift of the wing and fuselage during the slip- until I UNBALANCE it - at which point the path starts to turn (curve). I could have stopped that turn after the airplane started moving in a new direction, and then continued in a slip without turning, but it still took a turn to get there.

Wiff, you've rotated the picture for the forward slip, that's not how it's depicted in the book. Think of up as being the direction of the runway because that's the only difference. The control inputs are exactly the same and in a forward slip you clearly understand that the airplane is flying laterally in reference to it's longitudinal axis so why would it be any different if you used those same exact control inputs but kept the nose pointed down the runway? Honestly, how could it be different?

I posted that turned picture as a joke to make a point. I hope you don't think I fail to understand something so simple as the FAA's definition of side vs. fwd slip. That's not even what we're talking about here. We're talking about that runway drill, not shown by the FAA.

As I said in the other thread the purpose of this exercise is to develop control coordination. You want to slowly rock the wings back and forth while keeping the nose dead steady on a constant heading. Believe me the aircraft will enter a slip and the flight path will change in the direction of the slip. It has too.

Replace "change" with turn, and that to cause this turn, you must use enough aileron to cause an imbalance in horizontal lift forces as Henning states above. As long as there is a lift imbalance, the airplane will turn in circles. You must REMOVE that lift imbalance once the airplane has started to turn if you are to do this runway drill. Once you have 'rebalanced' the slip, you will slip along a new constant flight path without turning.

Some here are getting hung up on this heading maintaing exercise, which I think is clouding things. Here's an easy exercise anyone can do next time they fly -

Fly along a straight line in a slip that's balanced such there there is no turning or movement of the flight path - how my video starts. Then either ADD aileron or REDUCE the rudder to make the airplane DO something new. Now MAINTAIN those EXACT inputs. The airplane will fly an indefinite curved flight path until you STOP it and rebalance the slip.

 

[Henning]

Here's another:

View attachment 38308​

EDIT: Any "turn", meaning curved flight path entering the slip, is because you can't immediately go from level wings to banked in zero seconds, so the amount of deflection is changing while the plane is rolling resulting in a slight (very slight) curve or "turn" to some folks.

dtuuri

It's not the "turn" of the plane that is the issue, the flight path will ground track as a curve whenever there is sideways motion to the relative wind. You are still making a turn, you are just making an uncoordinated turn.

 

[Henning]

There is one way I'm thinking to make the drill work, but it is a power management exercise because you have to add power in the forward vector to straighten out the curve at a rate that will offset the energy used by the combined horizontal components of lift.

 

[dtuuri]

It's not the "turn" of the plane that is the issue, the flight path will ground track as a curve whenever there is sideways motion to the relative wind. You are still making a turn, you are just making an uncoordinated turn.

Nope. This "drill" is something CFIs everywhere do. Unless you're trolling, stop confusing the newbies with this nonsense. For them, seeing should be believing. The King video is spot on. The Pitts video doesn't show sideways movement because of the crosswind.

dtuuri

 

[whifferdill]

The Pitts video doesn't show sideways movement because of the crosswind.

Are you saying that in the beginning of the video the only reason I'm not moving to the left is because of the very slight x-wind? It was just a plain old 'sideslip' like anyone does to lose altitude. Slip was balanced so no movement took place. Wind did nothing. I think I'm overstating the obvious here. I often simply can't understand your interjections.

Nope. This "drill" is something CFIs everywhere do.

They don't. If you hung out at your average flight school every day and watched ops all day long, you'd die of old age before you ever saw this. I've watched a whole lot of training ops at various airports, and I've never seen it. If I was a CFI, I'd make sure my student was comfortable and competent with slips to lose altitudes, slipping turns, and slips to land in a x-wind. This silly runway drill? No way.

 

[Lindberg]

I think some of us need to reread Stick and Rudder.

 

[whifferdill]

I think some of us need to reread Stick and Rudder.

Do. Shall I quote what Mr. Langeweische has to say about slips? Not only does he not discuss the 'sideslip' drill, he did not even invent names for different types of slips as we later did. There was no forward or sideslip nonsense. Only the pure basics, beautifully written, simple and unequivocal.

 

[Silvaire]

...Some here are getting hung up on this heading maintaing exercise, which I think is clouding things. Here's an easy exercise anyone can do next time they fly -

Fly along a straight line in a slip that's balanced such there there is no turning or movement of the flight path - how my video starts. Then either ADD aileron or REDUCE the rudder to make the airplane DO something new. Now MAINTAIN those EXACT inputs. The airplane will fly an indefinite curved flight path until you STOP it and rebalance the slip.

Well once again we are not on the same page because the constant heading slip is exactly what that is. Look at the King video, just from 00:22 to 00:30 - he has put the aircraft in a slip to the left while keeping the nose on a constant heading. He could have held that and flown to the next county without ever changing the heading or turning.

...Fly along a straight line in a slip that's balanced such there there is no turning or movement of the flight path - how my video starts. Then either ADD aileron or REDUCE the rudder to make the airplane DO something new. Now MAINTAIN those EXACT inputs. The airplane will fly an indefinite curved flight path until you STOP it and rebalance the slip.

Wait a minute here. The slip is a balanced configuration, if you want to ADD aileron then you're going to have to ADD rudder to maintain that balance. That's how you keep tracking the runway in a forward slip without turning. That's exactly what is happening in the side slip, the only difference is that the nose has not changed heading. In either case the lift is offset, that's why the airplane is flying sideways. If the lift were balanced it would go in the direction the nose is pointed.

I posted several links in the previous discussion about this, one of them explained how to do it in a DC3. All you need to do is Google "constant heading slip" and you'll find plenty to read.

Furthermore the whole point of the exercise is to develop cross control coordination. If you think you're going to just go up and yank the stick full left and full right and keep the nose pinned on a constant heading then you're darn good because it takes practice. That's why it's called an exercise or drill. Trying to demonstrate it unrehearsed with a 30 second video in a Pitts at 90 knots 30 feet over a skinny runway isn't the best way to get good results. No offense Wiff I'm sure you're a great pilot but this takes a bit of patience and graceful finesse. Your Pitts is short coupled with very little dihedral and although it will do it it's probably not the best platform to make a demonstration video with.

I think the King video should have put this to rest but apparently nothing ever will.

 

[Lindberg]

Do. Shall I quote what Mr. Langeweische has to say about slips? Not only does he not discuss the 'sideslip' drill, he did not even invent names for different types of slips as we later did. There was no forward or sideslip nonsense. Only the pure basics, beautifully written, simple and unequivocal.

Please do. Please also include his pictures. Maybe we can dispense with some of the unhelpful noise in this thread like:

There is no such thing as a side slip if there is no crosswind, because a side slip is defined as a slip used to correct for a crosswind.

[T]he flight path will ground track as a curve whenever there is sideways motion to the relative wind.

I don't really know why I'm still here. We might as well be talking about a plane turning downwind in a gale after taking off from a treadmill while the pilot is floating in a tube filled with neutrally-buoyant jelly.

Despite the fact that your Pitts likely doesn't fly like most non-aerobatic monoplanes, I strongly suspect that you could perform this drill if you understood it, and that you're imposing some constraint that doesn't exist in anyone else's mind. Many of us have said that we've done this, and you've essentially called us all liars or stupid. You've been shown videos of it, and still claim it's impossible. So what's left?

 

[vintage cessna]

Well once again we are not on the same page because the constant heading slip is exactly what that is. Look at the King video, just from 00:22 to 00:30 - he has put the aircraft in a slip to the left while keeping the nose on a constant heading. He could have held that and flown to the next county without ever changing the heading or turning.



Wait a minute here. The slip is a balanced configuration, if you want to ADD aileron then you're going to have to ADD rudder to maintain that balance. That's how you keep tracking the runway in a forward slip without turning. That's exactly what is happening in the side slip, the only difference is that the nose has not changed heading. In either case the lift is offset, that's why the airplane is flying sideways. If the lift were balanced it would go in the direction the nose is pointed.

I posted several links in the previous discussion about this, one of them explained how to do it in a DC3. All you need to do is Google "constant heading slip" and you'll find plenty to read.

Furthermore the whole point of the exercise is to develop cross control coordination. If you think you're going to just go up and yank the stick full left and full right and keep the nose pinned on a constant heading then you're darn good because it takes practice. That's why it's called an exercise or drill. Trying to demonstrate it unrehearsed with a 30 second video in a Pitts at 90 knots 30 feet over a skinny runway isn't the best way to get good results. No offense Wiff I'm sure you're a great pilot but this takes a bit of patience and graceful finesse. Your Pitts is short coupled with very little dihedral and although it will do it it's probably not the best platform to make a demonstration video with.

I think the King video should have put this to rest but apparently nothing ever will.

All of your references differ from his perceived reality, and that is the real issue. No amount of video will change that, becuase he will swear he observes a turn first. There is also no logic to his argument, becuase there would be no use of performing a side slip on landing if the aircraft didn't have a side ways component of movement, and he can't see the illogic of his argument. You will just continue to state reality and he will counter with his version of reality.

 

[whifferdill]

Wait a minute here. The slip is a balanced configuration, if you want to ADD aileron then you're going to have to ADD rudder to maintain that balance. That's how you keep tracking the runway in a forward slip without turning. That's exactly what is happening in the side slip, the only difference is that the nose has not changed heading. In either case the lift is offset, that's why the airplane is flying sideways. If the lift were balanced it would go in the direction the nose is pointed.

This stupid runway drill has muddied the waters of even basic slip talk. When you are approaching the runway for a x-wind landing, tracking and aligned with the runway, you are in a balanced slip. Rudder horizontal turning force equals opposing aileron turning force. I really do understand these things perfectly. When you're landing in a x-wind, you crab and then you slip at some point. You do NOT change your flight patch.

The problem is when you introduce this stupid 'runway drill' diagram AS DRAWN. It depicts a flight path change. I've never needed to make a flight path change transitioning from coordinated flight to slip on approach to a x-wind landing. That initial flight path change as shown in that drill diagram requires an unbalanced, turning slip for a few moments. If we disagree on this simple point, then so it will remain that way. That silly drill has no bearing on realistic handling of the controls on approach to a x-wind. I've landed in plenty of x-winds, and never done it.

This discussion is as futile as talking about politics. Religion, slips, and politics. Never bring it up in polite company.

 

[Lindberg]

The problem is when you introduce this stupid 'runway drill' diagram AS DRAWN. It depicts a flight path change. I've never needed to make a flight path change transitioning from coordinated flight to slip on approach to a x-wind landing. That initial flight path change as shown in that drill diagram requires an unbalanced, turning slip for a few moments. If we disagree on this simple point, then so it will remain that way. That silly drill has no bearing on realistic handling of the controls on approach to a x-wind. I've landed in plenty of x-winds, and never done it.

So it sounds like you crab down final and make turns to to maintain runway alignment. My tailwheel instructor would have beat me on the back of the head if I crabbed a taildragger on final. All the tailwheel instructors I know teach keeping the nose pointed down the runway on final and adjusting position by slipping, whether there is a crosswind or not.

Peace, out.

 

[FastEddieB]

It's not the "turn" of the plane that is the issue, the flight path will ground track as a curve whenever there is sideways motion to the relative wind. You are still making a turn, you are just making an uncoordinated turn.

This seems to be rendering the argument in such a way as to make it impossible to counter.

A diagram was given, showing a plane flying down a runway on a constant heading, but moving left and right in the process. The path over the ground would be roughly a continuous "s".

That is what was deemed impossible, and that I'm purporting is not only possible but straightforward - as the King video showed.

If the position is "It's impossible to fly an "s" pattern over the ground without turning" and then define "turning" to be a change in the path over the ground, that's making it a fool's errand - you've just defined "turn" in such a way as to render your position inarguable.

Or I'm totally missing what's being proposed here.

I just fear I'll go out in a little while, fly the maneuver shown in the diagram, and someone will say "But you turned when your ground track changed!" in spite of the fact that I maintained runway heading throughout.

 

[whifferdill]

Despite the fact that your Pitts likely doesn't fly like most non-aerobatic monoplanes...

Yep, the Pitts plays by a different set of aerodynamic rules. Flies just like J-3 Cub, only does everything twice as fast. I guess those Cubs are also exempt from the usual flight physics.

...I strongly suspect that you could perform this drill if you understood it, and that you're imposing some constraint that doesn't exist in anyone else's mind. Many of us have said that we've done this, and you've essentially called us all liars or stupid. You've been shown videos of it, and still claim it's impossible. So what's left?

Not even close. That's your own reading and comprehension fail. There are points I'm making that are lost because I guess it's too hard to communicate on a forum, given the tendency for folks to be spring-loaded find a way to disagree with something someone says.

I'm wondering if some people here actually have airplanes to fly. I'll say it again - I posted about that diagram as drawn. This is a pilot forum. I assume some people on here actually fly. I do. So all I'm asking is that you fly along per that diagram, apply a slip such that is CHANGES your flight path (as drawn), then "neutralize the controls", and report back if this immediately and automatically returns the airplane to the original flight - as drawn. It's that simple. I'm interested to hear the results from this who go try this rather than continue to peck on a keyboard.

 

[vintage cessna]

This seems to be rendering the argument in such a way as to make it impossible to counter.

A diagram was given, showing a plane flying down a runway on a constant heading, but moving left and right in the process. The path over the ground would be roughly a continuous "s".

That is what was deemed impossible, and that I'm purporting is not only possible but straightforward - as the King video showed.

If the position is "It's impossible to fly an "s" pattern over the ground without turning" and then define "turning" to be a change in the path over the ground, that's making it a fool's errand - you've just defined "turn" in such a way as to render your position inarguable.

Or I'm totally missing what's being proposed here.

I just fear I'll go out in a little while, fly the maneuver shown in the diagram, and someone will say "But you turned when your ground track changed!" in spite of the fact that I maintained runway heading throughout.

One issue Wiff has with the diagram is that it depicts an "instintaneous" " change of flight path. Which I would agree is technically wrong . No moving object is going to "instantaneously" change direction due to inertia.

However, if the King video is not enough, what ever you post certainly won't be, guaranteed.

 

[asechrest]

The more I stay with the thread, the more I believe the argument has nothing to do with slips, but rather the transition between flight paths. Because everything in between cannot be in dispute. I think he's saying that in order to change flight paths, he has to make a momentary curving flight path to change directions. I think. Even if true, though, I don't understand why that matters, or make the drill less worthwhile.

 

[vintage cessna]

Nope. This "drill" is something CFIs everywhere do. Unless you're trolling, stop confusing the newbies with this nonsense. For them, seeing should be believing. The King video is spot on. The Pitts video doesn't show sideways movement because of the crosswind.

dtuuri

This is why I have told every student that I ever had that while I was training them to stick to their text books and study materials. I didn't want to have to waiste time on every lesson clearing up confusion on some wild notion they got on the Internet.

 

[whifferdill]

My tailwheel instructor would have beat me on the back of the head if I crabbed a taildragger on final.

OK, so you are unable to think in terms different from "how you were taught". Your instructor did you a disservice. I've flown nothing but tailwheels since learning to fly, and I've always crabbed down final, tracking the runway, and then applied a balanced slip to align the airplane the the runway. Most pilots do this, tailwheel or trike. You can slip all the way down final if you want. No reason to though. Lots of people crab down final once they get past the student pilot stage, and branch out from "what I was taught". There is no turning involved. Not sure where you're reading that I'm turning when applying a balanced slip. But I don't think you're actually reading very carefully to understand. Just too eager to spray p!ss. Such is the internet.

 

[whifferdill]

Maybe it will help if I say you CAN do the drill. I've already said I could. I take issue with the diagram AS DRAWN - especially where it says "controls are neutralized" and the airplane automatically returns to the original flight path AS DRAWN. That is all. This was intended to be an academic discussion on THAT PARTICULAR PICTURE. Can't make this any more clear.

Still hoping for someone to actually go fly and shed some light on how the flight path can be changed as shown simply by neutralizing the controls. I'm not the only one who says that picture is bogus as drawn. Beyond that, there's way too much twisting, spinning, and misunderstanding of comments all around to take it any further than this simple point and question.

 

[FastEddieB]

However, if the King video is not enough, what ever you post certainly won't be, guaranteed.

My thoughts exactly.

But still a good excuse to go fly.

Which I'm going to do once I have a snack!

 

[Sac Arrow]

I honestly don't understand where the confusion is. A slip is a slip. Whether it's a forward slip or a side slip is only determined by the orientation with respect to the runway. If you put the runway on a turntable, entered a forward slip on final, and rotated it parallel to the heading of the aircraft, it is now a side slip.

Or is there some other issue I'm missing?

 

[vintage cessna]

I honestly don't understand where the confusion is. A slip is a slip. Whether it's a forward slip or a side slip is only determined by the orientation with respect to the runway. If you put the runway on a turntable, entered a forward slip on final, and rotated it parallel to the heading of the aircraft, it is now a side slip.

Or is there some other issue I'm missing?

Yes. The issue is if in a forward slip ( bank, but no change in heading of the aircraft) whether the aircraft can move side ways through the air, that is, at a striaght diagonal line with no curve in the flight path , as in a turn.

 

[whifferdill]

I honestly don't understand where the confusion is. A slip is a slip. Whether it's a forward slip or a side slip is only determined by the orientation with respect to the runway. If you put the runway on a turntable, entered a forward slip on final, and rotated it parallel to the heading of the aircraft, it is now a side slip.

Or is there some other issue I'm missing?

Yes. The issue is if in a forward slip ( bank, but no change in heading of the aircraft) whether the aircraft can move side ways through the air, that is, at a striaght diagonal line with no curve in the flight path , as in a turn.

No to both. This thread was about that slip drill diagram as drawn. Can't be more concise and clear about this than post # 74.

 

[Silvaire]

This all started for me back in post #154 of the previous thread about density altitude when this statement was made:

...It is physically impossible to move an airplane "laterally" through the air at a constant heading. It is only possible to turn the airplane, which causes your heading to change.

If after watching the King video you still stand by that statement then there isn't anything that I can do about it. I don't think it's semantics, it's something else.

 

[vintage cessna]

No to both. This thread was about that slip drill diagram as drawn. Can't be more concise and clear about this than post # 74.

Stupid me, I was going by post 1 that started the thread.