Cheers,
After shooting off my mouth about the 'step', I now find this
Linda person debunking my carefully-worded and authoritative outpourings.
Amongst other things, she draws a comparison between "we working stiffs" and
the olde pharts. I guess with only ten thousand hours, she can stop learning
and aging now.
SECOND: In one section her magic page of learning says the legal
eagles at the engine shop won't let you run an engine beyond what they say -
and towards the end says the engineers know what they write so do what they
say. WHICH?
THIRD: She admonishes us not to apply the procedures of one aircraft
to those of another, and then proceeds to apply the 'step' argument to the
sparest range of aircraft.
FOURTH: Who in Heaven's name could present themselves as professors
with a mere 10,000 hours? I know a guy with 25,000 hours in DC-3's!
(Admittedly over 52 years in Namibia and predecessors). Get some time in,
Linda.
FIFTH: Never fly 'oversquare' was perfectly valid in a number of
airforce Flying Training Schools, and what Linda heard was probly
fourth-hand spouts from those days. It applied then to the predominantly
round engines seeing 4-5 hours per working day at the hands of
indistructible teenagers. That was in the 40's and 50's.
If I have to, I'll find the olde handebooks and quote, but in the
interim Linda, "Check your six".
happy Landings
Ferg A064
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Housman <robh@hyperion-ef.com>
Subject: RE: Inflight Variable Pitch Props
> Here's the URL for Linda Pendleton's article:
> http://www.avweb.com/articles/myths/
>
> There is no "authoritative source" on this subject because by definition
one
> can not prove a myth.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob Housman
> A070
>
> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of Fred Fillinger
> Subject: Re: Inflight Variable Pitch Props
>
> I'm forever curious about that "on the step." Is there an
> authoritative source that documents the aerodynamics involved?
> Anybody? Three texts I have (Hoerner, Raimer, and Strojnik) don't
> cite it at all.
>
> A Google.com internet search I did only debunks it, if one ignores the
> positive comments on non-authoritative pages like discussion group
> archives (and floatplanes of course). Avweb.com has an article by
> Linda Pendleton, who works for King Schools (videotape flight
> training) and author of "Flying Jets." Myth she says, and proves so
> in a Mooney. A paper by Jim Irwin, V.P. S-Tec Systems (the autopilot
> people) says "old wives tale." Another posits a possible source for
> this "urban legend," namely inefficient designs from the "old days"
> where cruise wasn't too far along the front side of power curve, and
> it seemed you couldn't get there unless you zoomed down at it.
>
> Can't afford to bet on the issue, though. Homebuilt aircraft builder,
> you know.
>
> Regards,
> Fred F., A063
>
> > Tony Krzyzewski wrote:
> > ...
> > UBD maxes out at 137kias, 65% cruise is 120kias though you
> > can get her onto the step a bit more if you are lucky and
> > it'll creep up closer to 125kias.
> > ....
>
>
|