So I need to learn slips...

jesse said:
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.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. You should compare the brakes on both planes. You're not going to out stop that with Cessna 1[5,7,etc.]2 quality. I've tried both, and it's not much of a contest, at least given your typical 172 brakes, which admittedly might not be in the best condition.
 
sba55 said:
I doubt it. You should compare the brakes on both planes. You're not going to out stop that with Cessna 1[5,7,etc.]2 quality. I've tried both, and it's not much of a contest, at least given your typical 172 brakes, which admittedly might not be in the best condition.
Click to expand...

Maybe. The 172s that I have flown have had enough brake to lock the wheels. My bo flying is limited so my knowledge is crap--but--I'll have to see one out stop me to believe it :)

BTW: I have nothing against the Bo and would love to have one of my own.
 
That's the real airshow, imho. I like to arrive early and stay late just to see it.

Watching the BoMass arrival at Airventure there's a spread in skill level, but most make that transition from air to ground almost effortlessly.

[but i ain't sellin the iar]

kyleb said:
...

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.
Click to expand...
 
jesse said:
Maybe. The 172s that I have flown have had enough brake to lock the wheels. My bo flying is limited so my knowledge is crap--but--I'll have to see one out stop me to believe it :)

BTW: I have nothing against the Bo and would love to have one of my own.
Click to expand...

172 wheels are very easy to lock, especially when there still some lift in the wings (very likely scenario and explains the flat spots in 152/172 tires at flight schools).

Bonanza wheels are even easier -- the wing is in ground effect and keeps flying (especially with full flaps), so a Bonanza pilot with any hope to save tires is very careful about locking them up.
 
So, if Sigmund Freud were a pilot, would this be a Freudian slip? :rofl:
 
Dudley Henriques said:
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 :))))
Click to expand...

LOL- I wasn't thinking "clown act" when I made the first landing shown in my Champ video, but I guess it might've looked that way from outside. :D

( starts at @ 1:44)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dk6QOJ0efQ

It's just a fun exercise, and possibly useful if you happen to find yourself a bit high and close, with light variable winds and way more runway than you need... I am also very new to the type, and that was the first time I really dug deep for a forward slip in that thing. Also the first time I tried transitioning to the other side.

Watching that again, I think I may have been a little too wary of stalling- probably could have allowed more pitch to slow down a little more. But it's usually smart to err on the side of caution, and I could've gone around, no problem.

Wasn't enough to get me to the numbers, but it was fun and educational. :D
 
rottydaddy said:
LOL- I wasn't thinking "clown act" when I made the first landing shown in my Champ video, but I guess it might've looked that way from outside. :D

( starts at @ 1:44)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dk6QOJ0efQ

It's just a fun exercise, and possibly useful if you happen to find yourself a bit high and close, with light variable winds and way more runway than you need... I am also very new to the type, and that was the first time I really dug deep for a forward slip in that thing. Also the first time I tried transitioning to the other side.

Watching that again, I think I may have been a little too wary of stalling- probably could have allowed more pitch to slow down a little more. But it's usually smart to err on the side of caution, and I could've gone around, no problem.

Wasn't enough to get me to the numbers, but it was fun and educational. :D
Click to expand...

Not bad. Slipping turn to final looked ok to me, as did the approach generally. I can't figure out the left turn after takeoff followed by the right pattern. Did I miss something in the editing :)))) ??

The ole' Champ was a lot of fun to fly; noisy and airy and more solid than the J3 which was also fun to fly. I loved those little beasts. Flew one all the way down the East from Pa down through the Fl keys all the way out to Key West. What was real fun was opening the side window (it was a J3) throttling back to idle at 100 feet over the ocean and exchanging "hello" with all the people on boats under me :))
 
It doesn't matter what you fly, it's how well you fly it.

Many of the descriptions and even numbers in the POH are not exact. Atmospheric, pilot, and even plane conditions will vary from day to day. This goes the same for the test pilot. And believe me, if you haven't found out by now, standard conditions rarely exist. Just because an airplane POH says it will stall at 74kts, doesn't mean it will today. Thus, because of this, landing distances will always vary too. The idea is it gives you a ball park average.

Not only this but many POHs also include facts that they even state is their "best guess." A good example is in the Beechcraft Duchess POH under the topic of spins. Which has a note that states:
Federal Aviation Administration Regulations do not require spin demonstration of airplanes of this class; therefore, no spin tests have been conducted. The recovery technique is based on the best available information.​

​
This is obviously because it's harder to stop a spin with a dead weight on each wing.

So with that in mind, I'm not saying to ignore the POH at all, simply to take into perspective what the manufacturer actually does when they create the info. For all of you student types, you will have to know the exact numbers such as Vso, Vs and Vy. The FAA tends to love them but...in real life...its okay to fly Vy at 80 instead of 78 although I will teach it that way. Great landings in VFR conditions are not done by exact numbers but rather a close estimate. They're done by understanding feel and the sight picture which comes with a little practice. If you think about it, when was the last time you looked at the airspeed indicator 50-100ft from the ground anyways?

Flying is an art, not a science.
 
Last edited:
Dudley Henriques said:
Not bad. Slipping turn to final looked ok to me, as did the approach generally.
Click to expand...

You are too kind- I was too wide on that downwind, and turned base too early because I didn't expect the wind to peter out near the ground as it did... and I wound up rolling to the last taxiway- a sin in a Champ, I think.

Had I arrived at that same point on final in even a 150, I'd have gone around.
But Champs are so slow and docile it's not a problem to experiment a little, as long as you keep it flying. As you know, they stall pretty tamely but can lose a lot of altitude in the process.

I can't figure out the left turn after takeoff followed by the right pattern. Did I miss something in the editing :)))) ??
Click to expand...
The confusion may be because we departed Brown Muni then landed at Borrego Valley... two different patterns (although both right-hand)? There's also some footage ( I think) of turns made while I was looking for Jacumba. there's a lot cut out... it was a pretty long Champ flight: over 80 miles, I guess, including the leg eastward towards Jacumba.


I didn't really turn left after takeoff (except to check drift maybe)... departed off the (right) crosswind, basically. Maybe the melange of shots out either side confused you.



The ole' Champ was a lot of fun to fly; noisy and airy and more solid than the J3 which was also fun to fly. I loved those little beasts. Flew one all the way down the East from Pa down through the Fl keys all the way out to Key West. What was real fun was opening the side window (it was a J3) throttling back to idle at 100 feet over the ocean and exchanging "hello" with all the people on boats under me :))
Click to expand...
LOL- haven't done that in a Champ yet; we were just getting acquainted, so I kept a healthy altitude, even on one trip north up the coast (also quite windy that day).

But it's also fun even up pretty high, especially when you find how much it likes ridge lift and thermals...I really miss that little plane. :D
 
Tristar said:
It doesn't matter what you fly, it's how well you fly it.

Many of the descriptions and even numbers in the POH are not exact. Atmospheric, pilot, and even plane conditions will vary from day to day. This goes the same for the test pilot. And believe me, if you haven't found out by now, standard conditions rarely exist. Just because an airplane POH says it will stall at 74kts, doesn't mean it will today. Thus, because of this, landing distances will always vary too. The idea is it gives you a ball park average.

Not only this but many POHs also include facts that they even state is their "best guess." A good example is in the Beechcraft Duchess POH under the topic of spins. Which has a note that states:
Federal Aviation Administration Regulations do not require spin demonstration of airplanes of this class; therefore, no spin tests have been conducted. The recovery technique is based on the best available information.​

​
This is obviously because it's harder to stop a spin with a dead weight on each wing.

So with that in mind, I'm not saying to ignore the POH at all, simply to take into perspective what the manufacturer actually does when they create the info. For all of you student types, you will have to know the exact numbers such as Vso, Vs and Vy. The FAA tends to love them but...in real life...its okay to fly Vy at 80 instead of 78 although I will teach it that way. Great landings in VFR conditions are not done by exact numbers but rather a close estimate. They're done by understanding feel and the sight picture which comes with a little practice. If you think about it, when was the last time you looked at the airspeed indicator 50-100ft from the ground anyways?

Flying is an art, not a science.
Click to expand...

As a pilot who has done a bit of test flying, I would say it's actually a bit of both :))

This is an excellent post in my opinion, and is EXACTLY how good CFI's should be teaching pilots to fly airplanes. The POH, and in fact everything you learn to use when learning to fly including the actual experience involved in learning to fly should be considered as simply a starting point to use in assessing what you have to do with your aircraft NOW after you have considered the existing conditions involving your specific flight NOW.

Nothing about flying is static. Flying itself takes place in a constantly changing extremely flexible and dynamic environment where what worked for you five seconds ago won't work for you now.
Teaching pilots to live and fly in this dynamic environment should be the goal of every flight instructor worth the title.

John Boyd, the father of energy maneuverability and designer of the comparative system we use today to test, and evaluate high performance fighter aircraft, gave us a living mathematical tool by which we can compare two aircraft and their performance one against the other. John once said that after all the math and physics had been done, the single element he couldn't put in the equation, and perhaps the most important element to compare was what he called "The difference between the cockpits".

This element relates to pilot skill.
 
Something we lost in the 20th century is the link between art and mastery. We see this in the nonsense "art" in so many galleries.

Before the modern age, artists first mastered a genre and form, and then only after expressing mastery, would art then emerge.

Unconvinced? Listen to Mozart, then consider how bound by formal rules music was in his time and how he was able to transcend, while still remaining within the form.

So while I agree flying is "art," the art only appears after mastery of the forms -- power, attitude, and configuration control across the flight regimes.
 
dmccormack said:
Something we lost in the 20th century is the link between art and mastery. We see this in the nonsense "art" in so many galleries.

Before the modern age, artists first mastered a genre and form, and then only after expressing mastery, would art then emerge.

Unconvinced? Listen to Mozart, then consider how bound by formal rules music was in his time and how he was able to transcend, while still remaining within the form.

So while I agree flying is "art," the art only appears after mastery of the forms -- power, attitude, and configuration control across the flight regimes.
Click to expand...

Right- the framework needs to be there. And the better the understanding of the framework, the stronger the "art" will be.

But flying by the numbers can get like painting by numbers- "feel" makes all the difference sometimes. And sometimes flying is like a paint-by-numbers kit where there's typos: you occasionally have to just apply what color seems best. Getting hung up on the numbers can be as detrimental as not understanding them.
 
dmccormack said:
172 wheels are very easy to lock, especially when there still some lift in the wings (very likely scenario and explains the flat spots in 152/172 tires at flight schools).
Click to expand...

Skidding tires comes from using too much brake at too much speed so there's too little weight on the wheels, and sometimes from not using full up-elevator when using heavy braking. Any weight taken off the nose is placed on the mains, and using elevator (in fact, all the controls should be used as applicable all the time; there's always some airflow except when sitting still on a calm day) will keep more grip on the ground.
It's hard to stall and spin out of a slip. Anyone afraid of it should go up with an instructor and do it at altitude. Airplanes with the static port on the left side will falsely indicate a lower airspeed in a left-wing-down slip, leading many pilots to drop the nose too much and increase speed unnecessarily. Stall-spin accidents on approach are almost always due to skidding, not slipping. Skidding in a descent puts the inside wing at a higher AOA, very dangerous and asking to die if done near the ground. Slipping puts the outside wing at higher AOA, so a stall in that case tends to level things. Holding the rudder in if it stalled could aggravate it and get you into trouble.
Cessna likely had the 30-second rule to avoid unporting a tank when at low fuel levels. It sure doesn't hurt the airplane itself. And 172s don't have much rudder authority anyway so slips are pretty benign. We do full-flap slips in our three 172s all the time, every day.
The Citabrias and many other older airplanes had much more rudder and slips were exciting. My Jodel will practically turn sideways in the air and will drop like a stone.

Dan
________
toyota specs
 
Last edited:
Tristar said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have the Type Certificate handy for the 47-50 Bo. Landing distance over a 50' obstacle is 1240' @ 60F sea level, calm wind, gross weight and average pilot competency. The ground run is not given in the data, sorry.

I can tell you from experience that with Cleveland brakes, and a quick finger on the flap switch I can put the Bo down very, very short for a HP plane @ 2650Lbs. I tested it and was pleasantly surprised. :drink:
 
Just to add my 2c to this informative discussion:

I'd like to point out the two sections in the Airplane Flying Handbook that address the slip:

In Chapter 4, Stalls, on page 4-10, Cross-Control Stalls, this description of a cross-controlled stall is in a skidding turn where the pilot increases inside rudder to increase turn rate. This is how you enter a spin - inside rudder. That is not a slip.

Next, in Chapter 8, Approaches and Landings, page 8-10, under Intentional Slips, it discusses all the points that have been mentioned here, including thus paragraph:
"Unlike skids, however, if an airplane in a slip is made to stall, it displays little of the yawing tendency that causes a skidding stall to develop into a spin."

You have to be skidding (yawing) to spin. You cannot spin if the nose is not allowed to yaw.

I point this out because we all, as pilots, should have been trained in all aspects of the Flight Training Handbook. The PTS references it. FAA-H-8083-3A.

Every Private Pilot is supposed to be taught the maneuvers and procedures in this book. 61.87(d)(10)"Stalls from various flight attitudes and power combinations...", and 61.87(d)(14) is 'slips', the stall training should include stalls from slips.

That is how it used to be before the PTS.

The examiner would just ask for a sample of maneuvers from the AFH, so you had to be proficient at all of them.

Now, the examiner has to be confined to power off and power on stalls, and so the instructor doen't teach x-control stalls, and from what I see, examiners don't require a slip, even though it is on the PTS, so instructors don't even teach normal forward slips.

So, again, we are losing the technology due to dis-use. Like spins. Like tailwheel landings. Like manual navigation.
 
nosehair said:
Just to add my 2c to this informative discussion:

I'd like to point out the two sections in the Airplane Flying Handbook that address the slip:

In Chapter 4, Stalls, on page 4-10, Cross-Control Stalls, this description of a cross-controlled stall is in a skidding turn where the pilot increases inside rudder to increase turn rate. This is how you enter a spin - inside rudder. That is not a slip.

Next, in Chapter 8, Approaches and Landings, page 8-10, under Intentional Slips, it discusses all the points that have been mentioned here, including thus paragraph:
"Unlike skids, however, if an airplane in a slip is made to stall, it displays little of the yawing tendency that causes a skidding stall to develop into a spin."

You have to be skidding (yawing) to spin. You cannot spin if the nose is not allowed to yaw.

I point this out because we all, as pilots, should have been trained in all aspects of the Flight Training Handbook. The PTS references it. FAA-H-8083-3A.

Every Private Pilot is supposed to be taught the maneuvers and procedures in this book. 61.87(d)(10)"Stalls from various flight attitudes and power combinations...", and 61.87(d)(14) is 'slips', the stall training should include stalls from slips.

That is how it used to be before the PTS.

The examiner would just ask for a sample of maneuvers from the AFH, so you had to be proficient at all of them.

Now, the examiner has to be confined to power off and power on stalls, and so the instructor doen't teach x-control stalls, and from what I see, examiners don't require a slip, even though it is on the PTS, so instructors don't even teach normal forward slips.

So, again, we are losing the technology due to dis-use. Like spins. Like tailwheel landings. Like manual navigation.
Click to expand...

Agreed, except the part about the PTS, since Slips are listed in the PTS:

K. TASK: FORWARD SLIP TO A LANDING (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3; POH/AFM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to forward slip to a
landing.
2. Considers the wind conditions, landing surface and obstructions, and
selects the most suitable touchdown point.
3. Establishes the slipping attitude at the point from which a landing
can be made using the recommended approach and landing
configuration and airspeed; adjusts pitch attitude and power as
required.
4. Maintains a ground track aligned with the runway center/landing path
and an airspeed, which results in minimum float during the roundout.
5. Makes smooth, timely, and correct control application during the
recovery from the slip, the roundout, and the touchdown.
6. Touches down smoothly at the approximate stalling speed, at or
within 400 feet (120 meters) beyond a specified point, with no side
drift, and with the airplane's longitudinal axis aligned with and over
the runway center/landing path.
7. Maintains crosswind correction and directional control throughout the
approach and landing sequence.
8. Completes the appropriate checklist.
Click to expand...
 
nosehair said:
Just to add my 2c to this informative discussion:

I'd like to point out the two sections in the Airplane Flying Handbook that address the slip:

In Chapter 4, Stalls, on page 4-10, Cross-Control Stalls, this description of a cross-controlled stall is in a skidding turn where the pilot increases inside rudder to increase turn rate. This is how you enter a spin - inside rudder. That is not a slip.

Next, in Chapter 8, Approaches and Landings, page 8-10, under Intentional Slips, it discusses all the points that have been mentioned here, including thus paragraph:
"Unlike skids, however, if an airplane in a slip is made to stall, it displays little of the yawing tendency that causes a skidding stall to develop into a spin."

You have to be skidding (yawing) to spin. You cannot spin if the nose is not allowed to yaw.

I point this out because we all, as pilots, should have been trained in all aspects of the Flight Training Handbook. The PTS references it. FAA-H-8083-3A.

Every Private Pilot is supposed to be taught the maneuvers and procedures in this book. 61.87(d)(10)"Stalls from various flight attitudes and power combinations...", and 61.87(d)(14) is 'slips', the stall training should include stalls from slips.

That is how it used to be before the PTS.

The examiner would just ask for a sample of maneuvers from the AFH, so you had to be proficient at all of them.

Now, the examiner has to be confined to power off and power on stalls, and so the instructor doen't teach x-control stalls, and from what I see, examiners don't require a slip, even though it is on the PTS, so instructors don't even teach normal forward slips.

So, again, we are losing the technology due to dis-use. Like spins. Like tailwheel landings. Like manual navigation.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. But on short final, a stall in a slip could be as bad as a spin from a skidding turn to final. In general, I like to avoid stalling unless it's intended. :D

I do wish I'd received proper spin-recovery training (I intend to rectify that eventually), but I was shown slips and "departure" stalls (full power in a climbing turn), and most of my instructors seemed quite aware of the importance of rudder awareness in general.

But that was over ten years ago...and already spin training had fallen out of favor.
OK... time to put the lid back on the can of worms... :rolleyes:
 
rottydaddy said:
Excellent point. But on short final, a stall in a slip could be as bad as a spin from a skidding turn to final
Click to expand...
Not unless you were terrible at recognizing the stall. A stall in a slip in a stable airplane is generally extremely benign and can be recovered with very little altitude loss. Obviously you don't want it to happen when its not intended. A spin from the skid on the other hand--you're going to be dead before you have a chance to think 'power off, ailerons neutral, opposite rudder, stick/yoke forward'.
 
rottydaddy said:
Excellent point. But on short final, a stall in a slip could be as bad as a spin from a skidding turn to final. In general, I like to avoid stalling unless it's intended. :D

:
Click to expand...

Might I respectfully add a slightly different point of view on this.

On a short final, any stall, especially cross controlled COULD be nasty assuming the pilot involved was slow on the recovery, and again assuming a pilot who allowed a stall on short final, a slow reaction time might just be an issue :)

But the slip vs the skid cross control stall scenario is quite different as both address spin entry. A full stall from a skid is extremely pro spin but from a slip, the wing will break down toward level flight and this is actually anti spin as coupled with angle of attack reduction constitutes an anti spin environment.
Bottom line on cross control stalls is that the skid is much higher on the pro spin requirement of stall and a yaw rate than a slip.

It's for this reason that I never compare the two scenarios as being equal pro spin.

I do agree whole heartedly that ANY stall, especially cross controlled, should be avoided at all cost in the pattern :)
 
rottydaddy said:
Excellent point. But on short final, a stall in a slip could be as bad as a spin from a skidding turn to final.
Click to expand...

As others have pointed out, this is not generally true. Stalling in a slip is far more benign and much easier to recover from than a stall in a skidding turn. IME, many airplanes simply won't stall in a slip, they just mush so recovery needn't be anything more than coming out of the slip which is pretty much any pilot's instinctive reaction to excessive vertical speed in a slip. I'd even wager that a stall in a slip is less dangerous than a stall in coordinated flight if the plane is 50-150 ft AGL.

I do wish I'd received proper spin-recovery training (I intend to rectify that eventually), but I was shown slips and "departure" stalls (full power in a climbing turn), and most of my instructors seemed quite aware of the importance of rudder awareness in general.

But that was over ten years ago...and already spin training had fallen out of favor.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I don't think spin training has ever "fallen out of favor", it was simply removed from the (American) requirements for a PPL flight test and I agree with the reasons it was dropped. Statistics (hopefully not the lying kind) showed that more pilots were being lost in spin training accidents than in unintentional spins. And that makes sense when you think in terms of students practicing 3 turn spins solo. I can recall my mother talking about having spent several hours trying to perfect her spins and IIRC there was even a requirement that the exit be on the entry heading. Seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

But I strongly recommend that any pilot who's never had the training find a way to do so. Such experience in an airplane with predictable recovery characteristics and a qualified instructor along is as safe as any other form of training IMO and at the very least will remove the common fear of spins that too many pilots have while simultaneously increasing pilot's respect for the issues of a spin near the ground.
 
dmccormack said:
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).
Click to expand...

I think there's tears forming in my eyes. That's the first time I ever heard that a Bo's throttle worked well in the "other" direction. I just knew someday if I lived long enough, someone would try it and do well.
 
Training in slips is also stipulated by 61.87 - Solo requirements for student pilots:

(d) Maneuvers and procedures for pre-solo flight training in a single-engine airplane. A student pilot who is receiving training for a single-engine airplane rating must receive and log flight training for the following maneuvers and procedures:
(1) Proper flight preparation procedures, including preflight planning and preparation, powerplant operation, and aircraft systems;
(2) Taxiing or surface operations, including runups;
(3) Takeoffs and landings, including normal and crosswind;
(4) Straight and level flight, and turns in both directions;
(5) Climbs and climbing turns;
(6) Airport traffic patterns, including entry and departure procedures;
(7) Collision avoidance, windshear avoidance, and wake turbulence avoidance;
(8) Descents, with and without turns, using high and low drag configurations;
(9) Flight at various airspeeds from cruise to slow flight;
(10) Stall entries from various flight attitudes and power combinations with recovery initiated at the first indication of a stall, and recovery from a full stall;
(11) Emergency procedures and equipment malfunctions;
(12) Ground reference maneuvers;
(13) Approaches to a landing area with simulated engine malfunctions;
(14) Slips to a landing; and
(15) Go-arounds.
Click to expand...

I've also collected information about slips, skids, and related phenomena on a page at my Web site.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Yes, you're obviouisly not the run of the mill Bo driver...
Click to expand...

Whew!

:)

Thanks.. though I'll give credit to the CFI who prepped me for the Commercial checkride. He and I did a couple of hours of slow flight, stalls, and short field landings in the Bonanza.

We worked out the numbers together and came to the best Power-Attitude-Configuration to arrive on the ground with the least amount of energy -- consistent with conditions of flight.

I've since absorbed that credo, and pass it on to my students.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Yes, you're obviouisly not the run of the mill Bo driver...
Click to expand...

We had several Bonanza's on our line at various times and used them for charter consistently. I liked the airplane.

In checking pilots out in the Bo, I never had to deal with anything out of the ordinary with short or soft field technique . The bird flew solidly, performed well, and we found it very easy to handle throughout it's envelope.
 
Fly an airplane with no flaps for a while and you _will_ learn to slip. Do it in a taildragger and learn two things at once.

A Cessna 120 is pretty easy to learn in.
 
tonycondon said:
i think nick makes an excellent point, since when does everyone agree with jesse!?
Click to expand...

Without question! Power on, power off, high, low, the slip is a wonderful maneuver. At 1.3 you can fall like a rock if need be, and do so safely.

On the Tomahawk - I thought the problem with those little birds was CG, and that the FAA had said something about recertification. No?
 
Last edited:
Dave Krall CFII said:
I think there's tears forming in my eyes. That's the first time I ever heard that a Bo's throttle worked well in the "other" direction. I just knew someday if I lived long enough, someone would try it and do well.
Click to expand...
I don't know this other direction you're talking about. I find that full throttle works quite well from takeoff until 20' above the runway. It's all about mixture...unless you like making your engine less efficient.
 
2256Q said:
On the Tomahawk - I thought the problem with those little birds was CG, and that the FAA had said something about recertification. No?
Click to expand...
The issue on Tomahawks and spins had to do with changes to the aircraft design between the prototype article used for the certification spin testing and the actual production aircraft -- the number of wing ribs was reduced and the wing skin was thinned. Dr. John Lowery, an aerophysics guy, examined the changes and concluded that the reduced torsional stiffness of the production wing adversely changed the spin recovery characteristics which could result in potentially unrecoverable spins. The FAA did not agree. YMMV.
 
sba55 said:
I don't know this other direction you're talking about. I find that full throttle works quite well from takeoff until 20' above the runway. It's all about mixture...unless you like making your engine less efficient.
Click to expand...

That was in reference to reducing power to the point where the prop adds drag, and helps provide a steeper descent.
 
Great! Someone resurrected this thread, so I can shamelessly share a video!

 
2256Q said:
Without question! Power on, power off, high, low, the slip is a wonderful maneuver. At 1.3 you can fall like a rock if need be, and do so safely.

On the Tomahawk - I thought the problem with those little birds was CG, and that the FAA had said something about recertification. No?
Click to expand...


When I started instructing in the Tomahawk I did a fair amount of research looking at NTSB reports. My conclusion was the biggest problem with the Tomahawk was CFI's and Examiners that hadn't flown them before saying "Let me show you something"

I never found any reason why I thought I wanted to do any more than a 1/2 turn spin in the Tomahawk.

My discussions with pilots that have spun it lead me to believe the problem was more from the fact that it came out of the spin almost too easily but in a very nose low condition. It would develep into a spiral before the pilot realized it was out of the spin, and then it accelerated very fast. This made it very easy to overspeed the aircraft and thus separate the tail from fuselage.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL (400+hrs in PA38's)
 
OK, someone resurrected this thread, so I can add MY new comments too!:goofy:

Forward slips are fun. They are also useful. I'd do 'em in a Tomahawk now (of course, I'm about to cross the 500hr mark, so i'll wait until then!B)).

This past weekend I put my family through the wringer on their first foward slip adventure. ATC, of course, left me pretty high close to home. I compounded the problem when I said "Hmm, no traffic in the pattern, let's just do a left base entry and get home." Since I was in the stratosphere on short final, idle, with full flaps, I had 2 choices: 1) go around and 2) slip 'er on in. I wasn't in the mood for (1), so I announced to the Pax (primarily for my wife's benefit) what I was going to do, what it was going to look and feel like, then started on down. She said her heart started beating normally again once we were on the taxiway.:redface:

My copilot, my almost 8yr old daughter, said "Great landing daddy!!" (and it was, a greaser!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top