Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Boeing Bobby (or anyone else) Turning into a tailwind after take off.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
    ... a good number, 738.

    Are you sure? I mean, how do you know that, he is a 747F pilot, i.e. no pax, no windows, no customers who could be able to complain, if...
    yes if not a horse or a Lamborghini is on board...

    I assume that you haven't been yet a passenger with #11 in the cockpit, or have you?

    With a glimpse on our watches, it is... 2056 z, 2156 DUS time, or 1656 in Buenos Aires? So let me take the chance, before you take dinner.

    What is a 'strong tailwind'? As long as I use umbrellas, I have found out that 17 (Bft 5) sometimes is too much.

    And what is a 'light plane'? Probably even lighter than a Baron 58, MTOW 5,524 lb.

    If the wind becomes stronger and the plane becomes even lighter than a B58, it depends, imho. On the wind speed.

    Greetings to Argentina.

    A: Atlas also fly's passengers (although I am senior enough to bid out of it most of the time)

    B: My Cub only weighs a whopping 710 pounds empty.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
      A: Atlas also fly's passengers (although I am senior enough to bid out of it most of the time)

      B: My Cub only weighs a whopping 710 pounds empty.
      ...a good number, 742, (soon).

      Yes. I have seen it, as a free gift on top of some simulator add-ons, and rather not on my home airport...
      I'd think we talk about the same tiny bird, so to speak, a hummingbird, or a bee, compared to our avatars ...

      Piper_J-3_Cub --- en wiki says 765 lb or 345 kg, for an aircraft without pilot, but with engine, and wheels, and...
      wow.

      I have never sat in such a light plane, not since more than 38 years...

      A wonder has happened. We don't argue for a second. I like to take a photo, pls wait.

      5Y-B744, passenger version. And I learn, every day. 474 seats. I always like to be honest but sometimes I try to be polite and I don't say how 474 seats sound like if I try to imagine all seats occupied...
      Can you imagine a LH-B744 and a 100 seat longhaul jet (quite rare I know) that take off on parallel rwys, to replace one 5Y passenger Jumbo?

      But you say, you try to avoid that. We don't have to discuss reasons...
      The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
      The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
      And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
      This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
        Could you give an example? Or let me try that....
        Let's assume 194 @ 6 . They see who requests t/o, and they give you the KJFK 22R . I admit, that's not really a 'light plane' example. But, as in #11, we don't really talk about light planes.
        You see the lights of the rwy (if it is a night flight), and you check your own lights, I like to have all lights on: both landing lights, both turn lights, taxi light, nav light, strobe light, and logo light.
        Rotate. And on that rwy, I don't need a 180° (left) turn, but let's assume that. That means, you should expect 6 that blew right into 'the left side of your face', and after a 180° turn, it becomes a tailwind with 6, into your right tail fin.

        A tailwind with 6 should be manageable even with a Baron 58. Imho, no problem.
        What?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
          What?
          ... a good number, B744. And due to a principle that number shouldn't be wasted. But he makes me curious:

          Hm. Since I read you, since ... 2013, I wonder what is your role in this play. You seem like an ATC controller at KATL, or, at least like somebody who knows that wild 5-rwy-intercontinental airport at least as good as two or three LH pilots...

          I'll not ask for detail, but, between
          DUS,
          Buenos Aires
          and
          Miami, there has not been one question, until you showed up.

          PS: Some men admit that they provide less than 20 hours of flight experience. That's not a shame for a Super Moderator. I only show one or two lightnings in my eyes if I could come across boys like Lubitz.
          I own clearly more flight hours than this freak, and nevertheless the kid killed his CAPTAIN.

          So, WHAT do you wanna tell me.

          So, what?
          Last edited by LH-B744; 2016-09-25, 01:56. Reason: The more flight hours the more relaxed... like Sully.
          The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
          The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
          And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
          This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

          Comment


          • #20
            Ok, LH-B744. Let's put some hard data on the puzzle.

            You are flying a Cessna 152, which is a two seat, high wing, single-engine piston airplane with a 110 HP and a maximum take-off weight of about 750 kg.
            The stall speed is 48 kts.
            You are at 1000ft flying heading 090 (due East) at 80 kts indicated airspeed (which, given the atmospheric conditions, let's say that equals 80 kts true airspeed) into a 70 kts headwind, so your ground speed is just 10 kts.
            Then you do a 55 degrees bank right turn to heading 270 (due West), what will put you in a tailwind of 70 kts. If/when you are at 80 knots of true airspeed, this will put you in a ground speed of 150 knots.
            At this true airspeed and bank angle, this 180 degrees turn that takes you from a 10kt ground speed East to 150kt ground speed West has a turn rate of 20 degrees per second, so it will take 9 seconds to do all the 180 degrees.

            Is this turn any more dangerous than an identical turn done in identical conditions except that there is no wind?

            Further more, can you tell at all, while doing this turn, if there is a 70 kts head wind (that becomes tailwind as you turn) or zero wind, if you only refer to the FLIGHT instruments? (6 pack: airspeed, artificial horizon, altimeter, turn coordinator, directional gyro, vertical speed).

            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

            Comment


            • #21
              747 is also a good number...! Ok, now I read your entry, or at least the first five lines.

              I know what a single-engined Cessna without retractable gear is. Thus,

              Would you try to take off in a nutshell (compared to the avatars that jet through this topic) if you have been so CLEVER to read
              a) the complete spec sheet of the a/c that you sit in
              b) the complete METAR TAF of the rwy which you or somebody else has chosen for take off
              ?

              GS of not more than 10? Here we again come back to the famous 1981 movie by Petersen:
              Wir machen kaum Fahrt über Grund.

              And we can talk about bank angles. Probably I'll have to turn my question from a few entries before by 180°...

              Would you dare to try a bank angle of 55 degrees (?!) if not a horse or a Lamborghini, but
              me
              is on board?

              Vertical speed is zero, if you are a perfect pilot. But my avatar has a bank angle limiter on board, so that you don't have to expect a bank angle of 55 if you were on board a 744...

              I like to leave my entry # 747 like that. Next to that comes, of course, 748. But not this sunday morning.
              See you soon.
              Last edited by LH-B744; 2016-09-25, 06:09. Reason: Bank angle.
              The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
              The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
              And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
              This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
                747 is also a good number...! Ok, now I read your entry, or at least the first five lines.

                I know what a single-engined Cessna without retractable gear is. Thus,

                Would you try to take off in a nutshell (compared to the avatars that jet through this topic) if you have been so CLEVER to read
                a) the complete spec sheet of the a/c that you sit in
                b) the complete METAR TAF of the rwy which you or somebody else has chosen for take off
                ?

                GS of not more than 10? Here we again come back to the famous 1981 movie by Petersen:
                Wir machen kaum Fahrt über Grund.

                And we can talk about bank angles. Probably I'll have to turn my question from a few entries before by 180°...

                Would you dare to try a bank angle of 55 degrees (?!) if not a horse or a Lamborghini, but
                me
                is on board?

                Vertical speed is zero, if you are a perfect pilot. But my avatar has a bank angle limiter on board, so that you don't have to expect a bank angle of 55 if you were on board a 744...

                I like to leave my entry # 747 like that. Next to that comes, of course, 748. But not this sunday morning.
                See you soon.
                Nice way not to answer.
                I didn't say anything about take off.
                And yes, I've done 55 deg bank turns and more. 720 spiral descent (a maneuver practiced in the PPL course and demonstrated to the inspector of requested in the check ride) uses 60 deg. Steep banks typically are done at 45 and 60 deg, and I've gone past that to something like 70 deg (there is no 70 deg mark so it's just an approximation). Note that all these maneuvers (spiral descents and steep turns) require either holding the altitude or descend at constant vertical speed, as well as a good control on airspeed.
                The only reason why I put 55 deg and not 60 is because at 60 deg you may have the stall warning sounding if you keep the altitude (or descent rate) constant and keep the proposed 80 kts.
                I've done those in the Piper Tomahawk instead of the Cessna 152, but despite a radically different design look, quite different handling qualities, 1 kt of difference in stall speed and 2 HP of difference, they are very similar airplanes.

                I wonder, though, if any of all that maters for the 70kts vs 0kts wind comparison. (In fact, I don't wonder, I know the answer).

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  ...Is this turn any more dangerous than an identical turn done in identical conditions except that there is no wind?...
                  Yes...because I think it would give me motion sickness.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    Yes...because I think it would give me motion sickness.
                    Not even that...

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Ok, I give up...Busted for trolling.

                      The fact is that if you are flying in a steady wind and turn from a crosswind heading to a downwind heading you do not lose airspeed because you pick up a tailwind. The plane is 'oblivious' (if you will) to the steady wind.

                      Now, there are some hazards that:

                      1) In any 'normal level' turn, you lose some airspeed (and potentially stall if you are critically slow).
                      2) Light plane pilots not paying proper attention may see visually that they are going faster over the ground, and then try to slow up (and potentially stall if they are critically slow).
                      3) A "steady wind" is not realistic, and therefore if you do turn downwind in a strong cross wind, a wind gust may cause a speed loss (and potentially a stall if you are critically slow).

                      And add all of that together for a light plane, slowed up, and maneuvering just before landing or just after takeoff and crashes have indeed occurred.

                      All that being said, a long time ago, in a forum not too far away, a dearly-departed aviation mechanic insisted that the downwind turn did have an airspeed loss due to the plane picking up a tailwind.

                      There was much discussion.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I have an issue with #3. Unsteady wind causes variation in airspeed no matter if it is headwind or tailwind.
                        Yes, a gust of increased tailwind speed will reduce the airspeed.
                        The same will do a "gust of calm" of decreased headwind speed.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          I have an issue with #3. Unsteady wind causes variation in airspeed no matter if it is headwind or tailwind.
                          Yes, a gust of increased tailwind speed will reduce the airspeed.
                          The same will do a "gust of calm" of decreased headwind speed.
                          Didn't say it didn't...

                          However, the question is 'if you turn into a tailwind' and yes, a gust can affect that, and probably had something to do with Don's video of the guy stalling out of a downwind turn.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            Didn't say it didn't...

                            However, the question is 'if you turn into a tailwind' and yes, a gust can affect that, and probably had something to do with Don's video of the guy stalling out of a downwind turn.
                            But it's not different than if you turn into a headwind instead.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              But it's not different than if you turn into a headwind instead.
                              Please show me where I said it was different.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                You didn't. What you said is:

                                a wind gust may cause a speed loss (and potentially a stall if you are critically slow) if you turn downwind in a strong cross wind, .
                                Objectively, you didn't say whether the same consequence can happen if you don't turn downwind in a strong crosswind.

                                You know, if I say "If it's raining I'll take my umbrella" doesn't mean that I will not take it anyway if it is not raining.

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X