So I need to learn slips...

[Dudley Henriques]

If I'm forward slipping in the turn all the way from downwind to touchdown for max drop, I still rock the wings (while keeping the nose down) once in the areas where the corners of a rectangular pattern would be to check for traffic, especially in water landings.

Visability is one reason why the squared pattern was delveloped, so variants should employ compensatory methods to help maintain full integrity of flight proceedures.

In some airplanes turning slips from base through final coupled into circling tight in approaches are a great advantage both for scrubbing off altitude and to improve visibility over the nose. This is especially applicable to high performance tailwheel aircraft.

In the Pitts and like Bipes, this type of approach is commonly flown for these reasons.

In prop fighters like the P51, visibility is very poor over the nose with no flaps. It's a little better in the Grumman radial fighters thanks to Grumman tapering the nose on their prop fighters

In extremely high performance airplanes like these, visibility over the nose is not all that great with the wing clean, so approaches are usually set up
carrying some flap if using a downwind, or milking them down through the drag rise after the pitchout on initial. From then on in, using a tight in circling pattern carrying some manifold pressure is the way to go. Being tight in, it's normal to have to scrub off some excess air as you circle through from base on in through final.

An added benefit in the Mustang and the Bearcat to this type of approach is that carrying some extra mainfold pressure helps keep the plugs clean through the approach, where a wider pattern carrying less power has a tendency to foul the plugs on these engines.

For GA airplanes, this type of approach is good for the big tailwheels like the Reliant, Staggerwing Beech, Cessna 190, 195's etc.

 

[docmirror]

In some airplanes turning slips from base through final coupled into circling tight in approaches are a great advantage both for scrubbing off altitude and to improve visibility over the nose. This is especially applicable to high performance tailwheel aircraft.

In the Pitts and like Bipes, this type of approach is commonly flown for these reasons.

In prop fighters like the P51, visibility is very poor over the nose with no flaps. It's a little better in the Grumman radial fighters thanks to Grumman tapering the nose on their prop fighters

In extremely high performance airplanes like these, visibility over the nose is not all that great with the wing clean, so approaches are usually set up
carrying some flap if using a downwind, or milking them down through the drag rise after the pitchout on initial. From then on in, using a tight in circling pattern carrying some manifold pressure is the way to go. Being tight in, it's normal to have to scrub off some excess air as you circle through from base on in through final.

An added benefit in the Mustang and the Bearcat to this type of approach is that carrying some extra mainfold pressure helps keep the plugs clean through the approach, where a wider pattern carrying less power has a tendency to foul the plugs on these engines.

For GA airplanes, this type of approach is good for the big tailwheels like the Reliant, Staggerwing Beech, Cessna 190, 195's etc.

Impressive advice, welcome to the forum. Now, if there was something for the erstwhile Traumahawk driver to use, that would be really impressive. My only useful contribution was not to slip into the selected fuel tank, and it is an under-utilized pilot tool. Sigh,,,,,

 

[drizzt76]

Bah, all poppycock. Jesse is wrong.

Sorry man, it was just so weird to see everyone agree with you, I figured someone had to jump in and dispute it.

Looks like it took a year and a half to actually get a dispute going.

 

[Dudley Henriques]

Impressive advice, welcome to the forum. Now, if there was something for the erstwhile Traumahawk driver to use, that would be really impressive. My only useful contribution was not to slip into the selected fuel tank, and it is an under-utilized pilot tool. Sigh,,,,,

Thank you for the welcome. It's a great forum.

I'm afraid I was addressing more the post commenting on slipping turns more than the Tomahawk itself )

I was one of the instructors with input to Piper when the T Hawk was introduced. The airplane has a much undeserved reputation caused mostly by lack of proper training in the airplane for the instructors who used it as a training tool.

The Whitcomb wing was actually a NASA design and was never meant to duplicate the performance of say a Cessna 150. The T Hawk was meant to be a transitional trainer into heavier airplanes as well as a primary trainer. As such, and because it was different from the ground up, the airplane required a learning curve to fly it properly.

I never found slips, or even spins to be an issue in the T Hawk. The T tail characteristics on landing and takeoff did have to be understood as they related to airflow but this also was built into the learning curve for the airplane.

I've always considered the T Hawk to have been Piper's answer to Northrop's design of the T38 Talon, which in effect was the exact same design concept; an aircraft designed to train pilots who would be moving up to higher performance airplanes.

The problem with the T Hawk was that Piper in my opinion didn't follow through enough pushing what should have been a complete training package to the CFI's who would be using the airplane; thus the accidents and the "reputation".

It was a shame really. Flown correctly, the Pa38 was and is a neat little bird. The addition of stall strips toned down the stall a bit, but I always advise pilots moving into T Hawks to get some PROPER training from a CFI who is familiar with the T Hawk.

On slips in the airplane; I've not noted anything specifically out of the ordinary in my use of the airplane and I would simply advise that pilots slipping the Tomahawk first of all read the POH and be aware of the slippery wing and keep slips within normal angle of attack range by carefully monitoring pitch while slipping the aircraft.

Bottom line on the PA38; it's a great little airplane if flown properly and it's characteristics are known and dealt with properly.

 

[dmccormack]

The Beech Skipper design considerations must have been similar to the Piper Tomahawk -- very light controls, very clean break on stall with wing drop certain if not all in order. Both share the same throttle-mixture layout (I'm not sure why Beech choose this route, as they used Verniers on the Bonanza line, which would be the natural progression from a Skipper...)

The Skipper panel replicates the Bonanza and Baron line.

I noticed the elevator seemed light and ultra responsive at slow speed. Not sure how this helps a pilot move to bigger, heavier airplanes....

The only grip I have with the Skipper as a trainer is the abysmal speeds -- full throttle hovered around 90 KIAS... yikes...

 

[Dudley Henriques]

The Beech Skipper design considerations must have been similar to the Piper Tomahawk -- very light controls, very clean break on stall with wing drop certain if not all in order. Both share the same throttle-mixture layout (I'm not sure why Beech choose this route, as they used Verniers on the Bonanza line, which would be the natural progression from a Skipper...)

The Skipper panel replicates the Bonanza and Baron line.

I noticed the elevator seemed light and ultra responsive at slow speed. Not sure how this helps a pilot move to bigger, heavier airplanes....

The only grip I have with the Skipper as a trainer is the abysmal speeds -- full throttle hovered around 90 KIAS... yikes...

I somehow missed flying the 77 through my tenure as an instructor. Just never seemed to couple up with the airplane for some reason.
I would assume the performance and issues are comparable to the Tomahawk with the wing being similar. I believe it was the same GA (W)-1 or possibly the -2 wing.

If I'm not mistaken, Beech was going in the same design concept direction with the 77 as Piper was with the PA38. The word we got in the flight safety community was that both airplanes had similar transition problems due to lack of proper interfacing with CFI's suddenly thrown into using the airplanes as they were put on the line.
Apparently the FBO's didn't take the time to handle the training required for the instructors and as such, many FBO's simply pushed both the Piper and the Beechcraft as inexpensive trainers with a "new look" to replace the old 150/152/ Cherokee fleet.
That part of the equation is a shame. I've always felt that had the FBO's handled both airplanes differently, they would have been better received and
not had the "issues" that developed surrounding their use.

 

[dmccormack]

I've looked through the POH -- The wing type/ derivation isn't mentioned, though it is certainly rectangular!

 

[Dudley Henriques]

I've looked through the POH -- The wing type/ derivation isn't mentioned, though it is certainly rectangular!

I'm pretty sure it's either the same wing or a slightly upgraded -2 of the same planform.

 

[kyleb]

I somehow missed flying the 77 through my tenure as an instructor. Just never seemed to couple up with the airplane for some reason.
I would assume the performance and issues are comparable to the Tomahawk with the wing being similar. I believe it was the same GA (W)-1 or possibly the -2 wing.

<<snip>>

.

The Tomahawk outperforms the Skipper by a noticable amount in both climb and cruise. Probably 100-200 fpm and 5-8 knots. I assume that is because the Tomahawk had a higher aspect ratio (34' span vs 30' span), which is a real key to efficiency in relatively low performance aircraft.

I have about 350 hours in the Tomahawk and found it to be an honest aircraft, with the only problem being that on a soft field takeoff with the wheel fully aft, the elevator was stalled until 50 knots or so, then hit its flying speed and rotated the aircraft RIGHT NOW. The first time you were guaranteed to slam the tail tiedown/skid into the ground.

As to the aircraft's stall/spin issues, I did a thorough review of those once upon a time and conlcuded that A) the tomahawk is easier to accidentally stall than a 150/152 (it stalls faster), b) If you stall/spin from pattern altitude, you die, and C) At the time (maybe 8 years ago) there were zero spin accidents where a Tomahawk spun in from a meaningful altitude carrying a pilot who knew spin recovery techniques. The vast majority of the stall spin accidents were due to low altitude maneuvering, base to final turns, etc. - typical trainer stuff that you get from an aircraft that willingly stalls and spins.

One thing I would add for the original poster is that you should practice slips at altitude with an instructor before doing aggressive slips to a landing. In a slip, the aircraft is cross controlled and relatively slow - a perfect setup for a stall/snap-roll/spin.

 

[Dudley Henriques]

The Tomahawk outperforms the Skipper by a noticable amount in both climb and cruise. Probably 100-200 fpm and 5-8 knots. I assume that is because the Tomahawk had a higher aspect ratio (34' span vs 30' span), which is a real key to efficiency in relatively low performance aircraft.

I have about 350 hours in the Tomahawk and found it to be an honest aircraft, with the only problem being that on a soft field takeoff with the wheel fully aft, the elevator was stalled until 50 knots or so, then hit its flying speed and rotated the aircraft RIGHT NOW. The first time you were guaranteed to slam the tail tiedown/skid into the ground.

As to the aircraft's stall/spin issues, I did a thorough review of those once upon a time and conlcuded that A) the tomahawk is easier to accidentally stall than a 150/152 (it stalls faster), b) If you stall/spin from pattern altitude, you die, and C) At the time (maybe 8 years ago) there were zero spin accidents where a Tomahawk spun in from a meaningful altitude carrying a pilot who knew spin recovery techniques. The vast majority of the stall spin accidents were due to low altitude maneuvering, base to final turns, etc. - typical trainer stuff that you get from an aircraft that willingly stalls and spins.

One thing I would add for the original poster is that you should practice slips at altitude with an instructor before doing aggressive slips to a landing. In a slip, the aircraft is cross controlled and relatively slow - a perfect setup for a stall/snap-roll/spin.

I have always had shall we say "mixed feelings" about the Tomahawk. I liked the airplane but with severe reservations.

I was never really happy with the test variances I felt were present during the aftermath of the initial accidents in the airplane. I felt much of the information gathered was inconclusive and involved conflicting data points from the various test programs involved.

Apparently there are enough differences in the spin dynamics between individual PA38's to conclude that a one thing solves all spin recovery technique in my opinion as an aerobatic instructor anyway, can't be considered reliable. Also, there was the discovery of a secondary upright spin mode in SOME PA38's that could go flat and become unrecoverable if severe forward stick (in this case yoke) wasn't applied and HELD through several ever increasing in rate turns that if encountered by a normal CFI teaching spin recovery, could easily turn into a non recovery event.

My bottom line on the PA38 has always been that it is a good airplane but absolutely requires a learning curve that unfortunately it never seems to have received.

As far as I can determine from my lack of experience with the Beech 77, for some reason, it seems to have escaped all the hassle inherent with the PA38 and just keeps on merrily trucking along

 

[dmccormack]

Makes you wonder why anyone would build a trainer with other than standard recovery techniques....?

 

[jesse]

Makes you wonder why anyone would build a trainer with other than standard recovery techniques....?

It is pretty damn hard to build a certified airplane with "other than standard recovery techniques" even more so if it is approved for spins (there are a few exceptions). It is worth reading FAR Part 23 or the old CAR 3.

There are rumors and I don't know how valid they are that Piper did not fully do all the testing required by CAR 3 with the Tomahawk. This is an interesting read: http://www.landings.com/_landings/ganflyer/jul25-1997/New-Tomahawk-Tests.html

 

[Dudley Henriques]

Makes you wonder why anyone would build a trainer with other than standard recovery techniques....?

In a way I can see this although the ultimate answer in my opinion lies in the training program as much as with aircraft design.

For years the emphasis on spin recovery has been the standard technique of rudder against, stick forward to break the stall, ailerons neutral, and recovery.
This worked fine for the trainers that were on the line, but once a pilot leaves the official training mode and moves on into higher performance airplanes, anti spin control application and equally importantly, the timing and sequencing of anti spin control application can vary substantially from type to type flown.
Obviously there was and IS a need to fill this gap in the training program and the answer to filling it has been perplexing to say the least.
I honestly believe both Piper and Beech were trying to make an attempt to address this need by providing a more high performance wing on their new training planes, but in my opinion, they failed miserably by not following through with what obviously was needed; more research on the wing as related to spin recovery, and a complete and thorough training program designed to PROPERLY indoctrinate the instructors who would be teaching spin recovery in these airplanes; especially Piper!

Excellent pilots and instructors like Rich Stowell have done much to correct the damage that was done and have created wonderful programs designed to finish what the early design concept failed to achieve.

I have been recommending Rich's program to pilots for years and will continue to do so. It's programs like his that make aviation safer for every pilot trained.

 

[Dudley Henriques]

It is pretty damn hard to build a certified airplane with "other than standard recovery techniques" even more so if it is approved for spins. It is worth reading FAR Part 23 or the old CAR 3.

There are rumors and I don't know how valid they are that Piper did not fully do all the testing required by CAR 3 with the Tomahawk. This is an interesting read: http://www.landings.com/_landings/ganflyer/jul25-1997/New-Tomahawk-Tests.html

The Part 23 requirement is there for sure. Piper certificated the T Hawk under Part 23. The spin recovery history for the PA38 in the field however, GROSSLY contradicts the Part 23 requirement and instead implies that Part 23 parameters for the airplane are if nothing else; suspect!

 

[dmccormack]

Originally Posted by jesse: It is pretty damn hard to build a certified airplane with "other than standard recovery techniques" even more so if it is approved for spins (there are a few exceptions). It is worth reading FAR Part 23 or the old CAR 3.

It was done -- see the Cessna 205 as an example.

The Beech Skipper POH has extensive instructions on how to enter a spin -- it is very clear that, "The airplane will not spin if orthodox entry is used, but will enter a spiral dive."

To get it to spin you must apply "full aileron against the intended direction of spin."

The POH warns that not following this procedure will result in a spiral dive and "recovery must be initiated by the second turn."

Recovery is standard NASA/ PARE -- Power Idle, Ailerons Neutral, Rudder opposite Rotation, Elevator full forward (last two simultaneously).

 

[rottydaddy]

Re: slipping...

It's very easy and useful with a little practice ()and fun, yes!) and the turning point for me was not being skeered to get all uncoordinated. My instructor would say "go ahead, put that wing down! More!!" And more than ten years later, learning to do it all over again in a taildragger, I heard the same thing...

But as I said, it's easy. Very useful sometimes- like when you have to get into a short field with obstructions and you have no flaps.
I've even slipped at around Va to descend from cruise...I've done it myriad times when dropping to pattern altitude a few miles out. Allows you to get closer at a safer altitude then descend without needless spiraling or picking up airspeed.


HOWEVER, especially when slipping in a turn to lose altitude base-to-final (we're talking 500 AGL or less, remember!), you must keep the nose down. It's tempting to let the slip slow you down even more, to let the plane sort of wallow, but you must stay ahead mentally and keep a healthy margin of airspeed. Once you present the side of the plane to the relative wind, and change the direction of flow over the wings, the airspeed will begin to drop quickly, and because of the angles involved, the wing will quickly "want" a different A of A. Add the "square rule" during a slipping turn, and you're in more danger.

Doesn't matter what you're flying- if you get near a stall (which may be a higher speed than normal, due to the attitude of the airplane) when you are crossed-up, that low to the ground... you could have a very nasty surprise from which you'll probably have no room to recover.

Stall/spin crashes on base and final, or in that last turn, are very common, and usually fatal. You don't have to have coordinated rudder, but you'd better have that airspeed if you are slipping or skidding.

 

[dmccormack]

All good advice...

The OP should definitely spend some time slipping at altitude with his instructor on board to get the feel.

A stall while slipping demo would be very useful as well.

 

[Dudley Henriques]

Re: slipping...



Stall/spin crashes on base and final, or in that last turn, are very common, and usually fatal. You don't have to have coordinated rudder, but you'd better have that airspeed if you are slipping or skidding.

I would respectfully add to this that airspeed control while slipping can be a problem if only the ASI is used for the cue.
Multiple cues are the way to go when slipping, and your best airspeed cue is the actual "feel" of the airplane itself. Nose attitude coupled with the feel of the aircraft are prime cues, and the ASI should be used as a peripheral backup cue.
While in the slip, any difference or variation to the sluggish side of the "feel" equation should be met immediately with an angle of attack reduction.
The ASI can be a bit off in a slip depending on where the pitot tube is located and the angle of the relative wind to the pitot head, but the feel of the airplane will never fail you.

In slips, fly nose attitude, and angle of attack control by feeling what the aircraft is telling you.

 

[gismo]

My comments were not limited to 172s --pilots should read and heed the POH/AFM/Owners Manual for each airplane flown.

Flying solo? Full gross?

172s, 205s, 206s, 182s -- All have familiar handling characteristics, and all will bite you on the posterior if you expect it to behave exactly the same aft loaded as it does forward and lightly loaded with one or two sitting in the front seats (which is the most usual situation).

Dan, three comments.

One: I think what was meant by "let the nose drop" was that if you were trimmed for sufficient airspeed before the slip, you won't stall in a slip if you don't apply up elevator force.

Two: I have flown a fair number of airplanes and read many a POH and I've never found one that was truly "prohibited" from slipping in any configuration, nor have I found any scary tendencies slipping them. There are some that cannot be slipped (e.g. the Ercoupes without rudder pedals) but excluding those and the very few other designs that have a landing gear designed to land in a crab, prohibiting slips is akin to prohibiting crosswind landings.


Three: Some of the 172 (not the 182, 206, or any other piston single Cessna made) flight manuals included language which said to "avoid" slipping with full flaps. AFaIK there was even one year when the wording was changed to include the dreaded word "prohibited" but later versions for the same model year retracted that and in any case the phrase was never in the limitations section or the TCDS which would be necessary if this mode of flight were truly not allowed. Unfortunately the "avoid" suggestion was taken to mean an outright ban by a large group of pilots including way too many CFIs with some apparently inventing symptomatic "reasons" why slips should be avoided ranging from "the airplane will suddenly enter a spin" to "the elevator will be damaged". The only issue that ever existed in relation to slipping a 172 with full flaps is a slight pitch bobble that might be distracting but won't by itself interfere with control and it can be eliminated immediately by simply letting up on the rudder.

 

[dmccormack]

One: I think what was meant by "let the nose drop" was that if you were trimmed for sufficient airspeed before the slip, you won't stall in a slip if you don't apply up elevator force.

I think all airplanes I've flown have required slight forward pressure to maintain sufficient airspeed -- I'll have to experiment today.

Pointing the nose down helps maintain sufficient airspeed as gravity acts as a thrust vector.

Two: I have flown a fair number of airplanes and read many a POH and I've never found one that was truly "prohibited" from slipping in any configuration, nor have I found any scary tendencies slipping them. There are some that cannot be slipped (e.g. the Ercoupes without rudder pedals) but excluding those and the very few other designs that have a landing gear designed to land in a crab, prohibiting slips is akin to prohibiting crosswind landings.

I never said "prohibited." I said the OP should check to see if the POH has a limitation.

Many airplanes have some warning or caution or suggested limitation. Especially in the case of student pilots, I think it would be wise for them to read the specific POH and heed those sections. While I agree few (if any?) prohibit slips, if the POH adds some qualification it would be best to fly the airplane IAW that advice until such time as the pilot has sufficient altitude and experience to do otherwise.

Three: Some of the 172 (not the 182, 206, or any other piston single Cessna made) flight manuals included language which said to "avoid" slipping with full flaps. AFaIK there was even one year when the wording was changed to include the dreaded word "prohibited" but later versions for the same model year retracted that and in any case the phrase was never in the limitations section or the TCDS which would be necessary if this mode of flight were truly not allowed. Unfortunately the "avoid" suggestion was taken to mean an outright ban by a large group of pilots including way too many CFIs with some apparently inventing symptomatic "reasons" why slips should be avoided ranging from "the airplane will suddenly enter a spin" to "the elevator will be damaged". The only issue that ever existed in relation to slipping a 172 with full flaps is a slight pitch bobble that might be distracting but won't by itself interfere with control and it can be eliminated immediately by simply letting up on the rudder.

I hadn't heard those particular reasons before. The two I've heard have been fuel un-porting (very likely with low fuel in many airplanes) and elevator downwash blanketing (results in nose bob).

You can put me down in the "teaching student pilots to fly according to the POH" camp of CFIs. Not because the airplane is incapable, but at that specific level of learning, we're not expecting test pilot or even commercial pilot knowledge and skill.

While you and I may know that the worst that will happen in a 172N full flaps in a slip is some slight nose bob, that's something we learned at altitude (hopefully). I will certainly demonstrate this to student pilots (and may in fact let them try it for the sharper, less timid ones), but I don't expect mastery. If the Cessna model warns against slips longer than 30 seconds, I keep the student to that on real approaches.

Why?

If the student needs a 2 minute slip to lose altitude in order to land, he/she should be going around anyway.

Besides if he's been doing 2 minute slips on final, tries that on the checkride, and the POH suggests no longer than 30 seconds -- I'm guessing there will be issues -- not because the DE is an idiot, but because the applicant is exhibiting poor judgment. The POH has a limitation, the applicant is ignoring that limitation -- what other limits is he ignoring?

While we all know the airplane will keep flying, at the student and private pilot level or training we're not expecting that level of airplane handling. Eventually that pilot should expand that envelope -- absolutely! -- but CFIs need to know their students and the expected levels of mastery and teach to that.

IF there is a student who shows above average proficiency/ability/skill -- then by all means capitalize on that and if he/she can do more than you (as CFI) can teach, then send him/her to a fellow CFI who can really push that student.

Anyway, all good points so far and worth discussing, even if it's been rehashed before.

 

[ScottM]

Tomahawks are really nice planes! Scott, care to back me up?

I'll back you up. I did my primary training in them. Including slips. Great airplane.

Missed this post.
I like them too!

Did a lot of my training in them. Great plane. Good flying, comfortable cockpit, great entry and exit (2 doors). Nothing to be frightened of except if you are not that good of a pilot to begin with.

 

[jesse]

I think all airplanes I've flown have required slight forward pressure to maintain sufficient airspeed -- I'll have to experiment today.

Pointing the nose down helps maintain sufficient airspeed as gravity acts as a thrust vector.

Maybe if you're trimmed really funny. Every airplane I've flown requires no forward pressure in a slip. The nose always falls by itself. Of course this is airplane / pilot / w&b specific so who knows what you'll end up seeing in whatever airplane you try it in. Just keep the nose down.

People really don't understand the signifcance of letting the nose fall. I always enjoy watching pilots do a low-pass at an airport because they tend to pull up real steep until their out of airspeed. After that they shove the yoke/stick forward and go zero-G to try and prevent the stall. In reality--all you have to do is start banking after the pull-up and let the nose fall in the bank. No excited forces required.

I never said "prohibited." I said the OP should check to see if the POH has a limitation.

Many airplanes have some warning or caution or suggested limitation. Especially in the case of student pilots, I think it would be wise for them to read the specific POH and heed those sections. While I agree few (if any?) prohibit slips, if the POH adds some qualification it would be best to fly the airplane IAW that advice until such time as the pilot has sufficient altitude and experience to do otherwise.

You can put me down in the "teaching student pilots to fly according to the POH" camp of CFIs. Not because the airplane is incapable, but at that specific level of learning, we're not expecting test pilot or even commercial pilot knowledge and skill.

I sincerely hope that you do not teach your students to avoid slips in a Cessna. You will be taking away a *very* valuable tool and decreasing their skills as a pilot. I also have no idea how the hell your students would ever land with a cross-wind nor do I know how you even complete the requirements of training without teaching slips.

With all do respect, the POH on many of our aircraft are old, old, old and some of the the advice is crap (not all of it). More so in the engine management department.

While you and I may know that the worst that will happen in a 172N full flaps in a slip is some slight nose bob, that's something we learned at altitude (hopefully). I will certainly demonstrate this to student pilots (and may in fact let them try it for the sharper, less timid ones), but I don't expect mastery. If the Cessna model warns against slips longer than 30 seconds, I keep the student to that on real approaches.

Why?

If the student needs a 2 minute slip to lose altitude in order to land, he/she should be going around anyway.

Please find me the statement in the Cessna 172N POH that uses the term '30 seconds'. If that is in there--that is nuts and should be ignored--what is the difference between a 30 second slip and a 60 second slip? Do you really want to scare your students into trying to count the length of their slip for fear of some evil thing that'll never occur that they don't even understand? I suspect you must teach the "crab into the wind until the last second and then transition to a slip real fast" method of landing..Because if you don't that 30 second timer would make it impossible.

I have experienced the pitch deviations that can occur in a 172 in a strong full flap slip. I even have a video of it somewhere. You can hardly notice it. It is just a yoke shaking in your hand and stops as soon as you go a little bit coordinated.

By the time you get 30 seconds into a slip you are well developed. The wings don't have a timer on them and they aren't going to go 'OH ****, CRASH NOW, ITS BEEN 32 seconds!'. 30 seconds, 60 seconds, 2 hours...same difference.

 

[SkyHog]

Maybe if you're trimmed really funny. Every airplane I've flown requires no forward pressure in a slip. The nose always falls by itself. Of course this is airplane / pilot / w&b specific so who knows what you'll end up seeing in whatever airplane you try it in. Just keep the nose down.

People really don't understand the signifcance of letting the nose fall. I always enjoy watching pilots do a low-pass at an airport because they tend to pull up real steep until their out of airspeed. After that they shove the yoke/stick forward and go zero-G to try and prevent the stall. In reality--all you have to do is start banking after the pull-up and let the nose fall in the bank. No excited forces required.




I sincerely hope that you do not teach your students to avoid slips in a Cessna. You will be taking away a *very* valuable tool and decreasing their skills as a pilot. I also have no idea how the hell your students would ever land with a cross-wind nor do I know how you even complete the requirements of training without teaching slips.

With all do respect, the POH on many of our aircraft are old, old, old and some of the the advice is crap (not all of it). More so in the engine management department.


Please find me the statement in the Cessna 172N POH that uses the term '30 seconds'. If that is in there--that is nuts and should be ignored--what is the difference between a 30 second slip and a 60 second slip? Do you really want to scare your students into trying to count the length of their slip for fear of some evil thing that'll never occur that they don't even understand? I suspect you must teach the "crab into the wind until the last second and then transition to a slip real fast" method of landing..Because if you don't that 30 second timer would make it impossible.

I have experienced the pitch deviations that can occur in a 172 in a strong full flap slip. I even have a video of it somewhere. You can hardly notice it. It is just a yoke shaking in your hand and stops as soon as you go a little bit coordinated.

By the time you get 30 seconds into a slip you are well developed. The wings don't have a timer on them and they aren't going to go 'OH ****, CRASH NOW, ITS BEEN 32 seconds!'. 30 seconds, 60 seconds, 2 hours...same difference.

Nicely said. However, when I slip, I definitely need to give nosedown pressure, lest the nose rise and I stall/spin.

But yeah, this is still a qualifying question for any of my CFIs: What would you do if a student entered a slip in a C172 with full flaps?

If the answer is anything other than "continue looking out the window and continue teaching," I'm walking. I don't need a CFI that is afraid of flying or willing to take OWTs as gold without doing their own research.

 

[Jack Allison]

Slips are fun! Learn them in both directions and practice when you get a chance. I sure like to do them often in the Arrow.

 

[dmccormack]

Good grief -- read what I wrote again and then tone down the amperage.

Some seem a bit too quick to "walk" on the CFI that doesn't share their specific view on how things should be done now, at their current level of experience and proficiency.

In case I wasn't clear enough -- I said you should teach to the level of the student. If the student is just learning slips, I don't have them practice on short final -- they learn at altitude, and gradually learn to add bank and rudder (most are too timid to do full rudder on the first try).

Learning to fly is all about expanding envelopes, until the pilot's expertise stretches to the airplane's capabilities. No one starts out with both edges covered.

I have a Cessna 172N POH right here that has the 30 second "limitation."

The BE77 Beech Skipper POH states "Slips are limited to 30 seconds."

FWIW, I'm not afraid of slips -- I used one to good effect in a 152 as far back as my PP checkride. The DE said, "You're kinda high, aren't ya" on a straight-in approach to a controlled field about 5 miles out.

I pulled power, dropped full flaps, and dropped like a rock in a full-deflection slip to about 100 feet above the threshold.

And I've used and taught that technique many times since.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Good grief -- read what I wrote again and then tone down the amperage.

Everybody's so quick to "walk" on the CFI that doesn't share their specific view on how things should be done now, at their current level of experience and proficiency.

In case I wasn't clear enough -- I said you should teach to the level of the student. If the student is just learning slips, I don't have them practice on short final -- they learn at altitude, and gradually learn to add bank and rudder (most are too timid to do full rudder on the first try).

Learning to fly is all about expanding envelopes, until the pilot's expertise stretches to the airplane's capabilities. No one starts out with both edges covered.

And I have a Cessna 172N POH right here that has the 30 second "limitation."

Well spoken. I insist that all my students become intimate enough with aggressive slips to make an essential emergency landing site from moderately high altitude if required, before they solo.

 

[SCCutler]

Well, I have never flown a T-hawk, and I am nowhere near the Holiday Inn Express, but I love the vertical options a slip gives me... like the time I am cleared for a GPS approach and am about to turn outbound for the procedure turn, and lo and behold, there's the runway, in the clear; rather than fly away, back into the cloud, I cancel IFR, turn for the runway and slip all the way to a squeaker at the threshold. Felt great.

 

[sba55]

I love doing slips in the Bo. It's very dramatic at full rudder deflection (much more so than a 210 or similar), and with flaps, gear, and idle power, it easily drops the plane at 2000-2500 fpm and 110 KIAS. With just approach flaps, I've seen 3000 fpm at 140 knots.

-Felix

 

[gismo]

I think all airplanes I've flown have required slight forward pressure to maintain sufficient airspeed -- I'll have to experiment today.

Pointing the nose down helps maintain sufficient airspeed as gravity acts as a thrust vector.

Could be, I was just addressing what you wrote:

I never said "prohibited." I said the OP should check to see if the POH has a limitation.

Many airplanes have some warning or caution or suggested limitation. Especially in the case of student pilots, I think it would be wise for them to read the specific POH and heed those sections. While I agree few (if any?) prohibit slips, if the POH adds some qualification it would be best to fly the airplane IAW that advice until such time as the pilot has sufficient altitude and experience to do otherwise.

I agree that you didn't say "prohibited" but "some aren't approved for slips with full flaps" has the same meaning to me. That said I think we're in complete agreement on checking the POH limitations section and adhering to what's written there as well as the walking before running concept you're promoting (as long as the student eventually gets to learn the full Monty).

I hadn't heard those particular reasons before. The two I've heard have been fuel un-porting (very likely with low fuel in many airplanes) and elevator downwash blanketing (results in nose bob).

Those ridiculous stories are out there, propagated by some undereducated CFIs and their students. Obviously you're not kin to that group.

 

[rottydaddy]

I would respectfully add to this that airspeed control while slipping can be a problem if only the ASI is used for the cue.
Multiple cues are the way to go when slipping, and your best airspeed cue is the actual "feel" of the airplane itself. Nose attitude coupled with the feel of the aircraft are prime cues, and the ASI should be used as a peripheral backup cue.
While in the slip, any difference or variation to the sluggish side of the "feel" equation should be met immediately with an angle of attack reduction.
The ASI can be a bit off in a slip depending on where the pitot tube is located and the angle of the relative wind to the pitot head, but the feel of the airplane will never fail you.

In slips, fly nose attitude, and angle of attack control by feeling what the aircraft is telling you.

Yup, that's why I started with "keep the nose down". I'm not suggesting one stare at the ASI; by "airspeed" I mean the actual airspeed, not the instrument's indication.
I'm just prone to remind pilots to avoid the temptation to slip "flat" in order to get that desired speed-to-descent-rate ratio. I've found that if the slip is aggressive, you can put the nose down quite a bit and not worry about picking up enough airspeed to spoil your efforts.
But of course, no, focusing on the ASI is a no-no when maneuvering, just like landing or taking off. I strive for quality looking vs. quantity when it comes to the ASI; glance at it and ponder what you see, but fly the airplane by attitude and feel and you will do better.

The possible pitot error produced by the slip is definitely worth mentioning; good point.

 

[Dudley Henriques]

Yup, that's why I started with "keep the nose down". I'm not suggesting one stare at the ASI; by "airspeed" I mean the actual airspeed, not the instrument's indication.
I'm just prone to remind pilots to avoid the temptation to slip "flat" in order to get that desired speed-to-descent-rate ratio. I've found that if the slip is aggressive, you can put the nose down quite a bit and not worry about picking up enough airspeed to spoil your efforts.
But of course, no, focusing on the ASI is a no-no when maneuvering, just like landing or taking off. I strive for quality looking vs. quantity when it comes to the ASI; glance at it and ponder what you see, but fly the airplane by attitude and feel and you will do better.

The possible pitot error produced by the slip is definitely worth mentioning; good point.

Many times during a show routine (we're talking closed airspace with NOTAMS of course I'd use a very tight in 360 overhead approach with a pitchout through a 3/4 to knife edge roll followed by alternating slips side to side to scrub off the altitude gained through the climbing roll. Sliding through from left to right and visa versa is a great exercise to teach nose attitude control in sustained slips. You have to be VERY careful switching sides to allow the nose to arc slightly through the straight ahead transition then adjust the nose attitude again for the other side slip.

Doing this right on target without letting the airspeed get away from you takes a little practice, and I highly recommend that all pilots learn how to do this by practicing at a suitable altitude so they can do it on a consistent basis. It's fun as well!!

Also used alternate slips often in a clown act using light taildraggers, but if anything, the clown act is a perfect example to the world on how NOT to fly the airplane although performing it I believe takes the most actual stick skills of any of the display formats! )
Extreme fun as well )))

 

[dmccormack]

I love doing slips in the Bo. It's very dramatic at full rudder deflection (much more so than a 210 or similar), and with flaps, gear, and idle power, it easily drops the plane at 2000-2500 fpm and 110 KIAS. With just approach flaps, I've seen 3000 fpm at 140 knots.

Most people who haven't flown a Bonanza are surprised they can be so good at short field landings. I've had more than one person comment (including a DE on a Comm checkride), "This is a pretty tight pattern for a Bonanza, isn't it?"

The questions end when the power is reduced, the nose comes up, the power goes back, the flaps are fully extended, the airplane drops like a rock at 70 KIAS, the descent arrested with slight power, and the 150 knot retract rolls to a stop in less landing distance that a C172.

My experience in the A36 and V tail 35 has been that after a fifty landings or so you get the feel for glideslope and don't need to slip much.

Crosswinds are handled well with a crab down final and transition to wing low (slip) within 20' of the surface. IMHO, there are few airplanes that can handle crosswinds as well as an A36 (I've flown that airplane in winds 25G37, varying 40-70 degrees off the nose).

 

[dmccormack]

Sliding through from left to right and visa versa is a great exercise to teach nose attitude control in sustained slips. You have to be VERY careful switching sides to allow the nose to arc slightly through the straight ahead transition then adjust the nose attitude again for the other side slip.

Doing this right on target without letting the airspeed get away from you takes a little practice, and I highly recommend that all pilots learn how to do this by practicing at a suitable altitude so they can do it on a consistent basis. It's fun as well!!

Excellent exercise -- my primary CFI had me do this many, many times and it really sharpened my feel for the airplane! Highly recommended -- at altitude, of course.

 

[jesse]

...rolls to a stop in less landing distance that a C172.

Maybe it rolls to a stop in less distance than a normal 172 landing--but I'd be willing to bet lunch on being able to out stop a Bo in a 172.

 

[dmccormack]

Maybe it rolls to a stop in less distance than a normal 172 landing--but I'd be willing to bet lunch on being able to out stop a Bo in a 172.

The A36 can land in less than 1000 feet. Book numbers -- full gross -- over 50' obstacle is 1450' (no wind, hard surface).

C172N book figures are 1250', same conditions.

The BE35 (1947 V tail) can be landed in under 1000'

Is that an FZ1 in your avatar pic?

 

[jesse]

The A36 can land in less than 1000 feet. Book numbers -- full gross -- over 50' obstacle is 1450' (no wind, hard surface).

C172N book figures are 1250', same conditions.

The BE35 (1947 V tail) can be landed in under 1000'

Is that an FZ1 in your avatar pic?

Those book numbers are whacked. We'll have to try it at a fly-in some day

Nope--the bike is a 2001 Suzuki Bandit 1200S.

 

[dmccormack]

Those book numbers are whacked. We'll have to try it at a fly-in some day

Deal -- I'll bring the V tail.



Though I've only had a real 50' obstacle on a short field once -- Reigle in Palmyra, PA (1950x40 with telephone line along the road just before the threshold).

Nope--the bike is a 2001 Suzuki Bandit 1200S.

Looks alot like my Yamaha FZ1 -- which I haven't ridden once this year....

 

[Tristar]

The A36 can land in less than 1000 feet. Book numbers -- full gross -- over 50' obstacle is 1450' (no wind, hard surface).

C172N book figures are 1250', same conditions.

The BE35 (1947 V tail) can be landed in under 1000'

Is that an FZ1 in your avatar pic?

Let me see if I understand this right.

Landing Performance:

A36: Over 50' = 1450, Ground roll = 1000'

C172N Over 50' = 1265 (10C, PA 1000), Ground roll = 530

The C172N outperforms in total distance and also in the shortest ground roll. The A36 outperforms in "who can drop the fastest" with a straight line difference between ground roll and 50' of 450 feet vs. C172 of 735. So unless you have trees at the immediate end of the runway, the C172N still wins in a short field landing.

I would like to see stats on the 1947 V tail. If it has the same 50' to touchdown stats as the other Bo, you're asking it to land with a 550' ground roll compared to 1000'. I'm not an airplane expert, but with an airplane so similar, that doesn't sound right.

 

[dmccormack]

Let me see if I understand this right.

Landing Performance:

A36: Over 50' = 1450, Ground roll = 1000'

C172N Over 50' = 1265 (10C, PA 1000), Ground roll = 530

The C172N outperforms in total distance and also in the shortest ground roll. The A36 outperforms in "who can drop the fastest" with a straight line difference between ground roll and 50' of 450 feet vs. C172 of 735. So unless you have trees at the immediate end of the runway, the C172N still wins in a short field landing.

I would like to see stats on the 1947 V tail. If it has the same 50' to touchdown stats as the other Bo, you're asking it to land with a 550' ground roll compared to 1000'. I'm not an airplane expert, but with an airplane so similar, that doesn't sound right.

First, you have to consider "Book value" vs pilot technique. I'll conceded that an expertly flown 172 will land about 200' shorter, but an A36 expertly flown will be pretty close, if not closer (83 KIAS is the POH recommended power-off landing approach speed. Yet the lightly loaded A36 1.3 Vso works out to 71 KIAS, a 12 knot reduction in A/S. Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators tells us every 10% increase in A/S will increase landing distance by 21%).

The '47 V Tail Bonanza doesn't have POH technique or figures for short field landings (the original "Owners Manual" was about 25 pages long and spent more ink describing how to wash the plane than short field land it), but it has greater flap deflection and more flap area for overall wing area than the A36, is much lighter (~800 lbs, IIRC), and lands slower (Lightly loaded, the A36 1.3 Vso = 71 KIAS, the BE35 1.3 Vso = 62 MPH).

So I look forward to that lunch bet.

I'll have the Surf and Turf platter for two...

 

[kyleb]

Most people who haven't flown a Bonanza are surprised they can be so good at short field landings. I've had more than one person comment (including a DE on a Comm checkride), "This is a pretty tight pattern for a Bonanza, isn't it?"

The questions end when the power is reduced, the nose comes up, the power goes back, the flaps are fully extended, the airplane drops like a rock at 70 KIAS, the descent arrested with slight power, and the 150 knot retract rolls to a stop in less landing distance that a C172.

<<<snip>>>

At SnF this year, we were watching the arrivals and in between all the rotten landings, someone in a V-tail flew a tight pattern that would have made a Cub driver proud. He put it on the landing target with the mains first and the nosewheel well off the ground, then slowed to taxi speed in a very short distance. It nearly brought a tear to my eye, seeing someone who knew how to fly the airplane and didn't need to fly a B-52 pattern to put the airplane on the landing target at stall speed.

Watching airshow arrivals is a horriffic experience in general. It amazes me that so many pilots have such a hard time following directions and landing their airplane in the same zip code as the intended touchdown point.