This drivers strike ?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Mike G on 19 Jun 2008 07:34 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4859BAB5.FE4278F4(a)hotmail.com... > > > Mike G wrote: > >> "Eeyore" wrote in >> >> > In a small private aircraft the rudder is used regularly >> >> > in >> >> > turns for example to avoid wing drop. One of the first >> >> > lessons I learnt. >> >> >> >> That was down to your instructor. It's perfectly possible >> >> to >> >> make turns in a light aircraft without losing hight, just >> >> by use of >> >> >> the ailerons and elevator. >> > >> > Yeah but you'll lose energy. >> > >> >> Using the rudder makes a turn more elegant, >> > >> > Damn right. Nicely co-ordinated. >> > >> >> as it can be used to keep the fuselage in line with the >> >> direction of flight. So it's desirable IMO but not >> >> necessary. > > Ummm but I was trying to execute a REALLY sharp turn. I DID say > I was > pushing it ! > > >> > Hmmmm. it's good practice anyway. Esp for PPLs. >> > >> > But I was so seemingly 'over-confident' at the flight I had >> > already conducted already I was pushing it ! Interesting >> > thing ... I >> >> > didn't actually panic at all although I could see I was >> > losing >> > altitude. >> >> Not enough elevator. > > I WISH ! I was pulling back on the wheel like there was no > tomorrow. > Not enough though. Quentin (the instructor) seemed mildly > amused (damn > ex Air Canada know it all - LOL !) . Funny thing is though, I > never > panicked, I knew it simply had to be some incorrect use of > control. I'll tell you what I think probably happened. In normal flight you need very little rudder to make neat turns. A lot too much rudder causes the inside wing to lose lift or it can even even stall. At the same time the lift of the outside wing is increased. The nose then dips and the plane starts to roll. The beginnings of a spin. The elevator on it's own is not enough to stop the nose dipping, as at that point you've already lost airspeed. Take all rudder off, and you can possibly recover after a short shallow dive to regain airspeed. You might need a little opposite aileron as well. Not much as too much will cause even more loss of speed, amd more loss of hight before recovery. >> I gave up power flying after just a couple of lessons in a >> 172. > > I'd have got bored in a 172 probably too. Not exactly an > exciting > aircraft but I was in a Grumman AA4 Traveller. Nice piece of > kit, London > School of Flying, Elstree. VERY nice piece of kit in fact. One > of the > most local really good flying schools. > > >> I could see little fun in just flying around, so carrying on >> to get >> a PPL seemed pointless. But, had a go in a glider and was >> hooked. >> There's much more of a challenge to keeping a glider in the >> air, >> and being in close proximity to several gliders all doing >> tight >> turns in the same thermal can certainly get the adrenaline >> flowing. > > I did consider gliding too. Dunstable's near me too. And > another first > class school. But powered flight was what interested me most. One of the things I didn't like was the noise, but then I prefer sailing boats to motor boats. I also think they're more of a challenge. > Flying is VERY expensive in the UK. Maybe if things improve, > I'll take > it up again. You should try gliding. A bit cheaper and more difficult to do well than power IMO. I think you'd like it. Mike.
From: PM on 19 Jun 2008 08:19 "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:YrOdnZe9FICDhMfVnZ2dnUVZ8tXinZ2d(a)bt.com... > Eeyore wrote: > > Brimstone wrote: > > > >> If flying was more intellectualy challenging than driving a road > >> vehicle then we wouldn't have computers controlling aircraft. > > > > No, that makes no sense at all. > > OK, I'll rephrase it. A computer (or other machine) hasn't yet been offered > commercially that will steer a road vehicle (there have been some > experiments) whereas such devices are used to control the direction, height > and speed of an aircraft. Thus driving a road vehicle is a more complex task > than flying a 'plane. A computer hasn't been offered commercially that can pick your nose for you, doesn't make it more complex than flying a plane.
From: Mike G on 19 Jun 2008 08:35 "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:YrOdnZe9FICDhMfVnZ2dnUVZ8tXinZ2d(a)bt.com... > Eeyore wrote: >> Brimstone wrote: >> >>> If flying was more intellectualy challenging than driving a >>> road >>> vehicle then we wouldn't have computers controlling aircraft. >> >> No, that makes no sense at all. > > OK, I'll rephrase it. A computer (or other machine) hasn't yet > been offered commercially that will steer a road vehicle (there > have been some experiments) whereas such devices are used to > control the direction, height and speed of an aircraft. Thus > driving a road vehicle is a more complex task than flying a > 'plane. Some years ago I seem to recall a passenger jet taking off, flying to New York and landing, all under the control of a computer. Just to prove it could be done. It did have a pilot though, just in case. Mike.
From: Conor on 19 Jun 2008 08:54 In article <Xns9ABF527905A92nospamspamorg(a)66.175.223.2>, Hiram says... > Conor <conor_turton(a)hotmail.com> wrote in > news:6birqhF3b2m4qU50(a)mid.individual.net: > > > You'll need £150 for a medical and provisional licence. > > My doctors always charges me 50 quid for an LGV medical. > > Does he do it cheaper than others then? > Considerably. £89 here. -- Conor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
From: Raymond Keattch on 19 Jun 2008 10:21
On 19/06/2008 02:47:36, Eeyore wrote: > I'd have got bored in a 172 probably too. Not exactly an exciting > aircraft but I was in a Grumman AA4 Traveller. Nice piece of kit, London > School of Flying, Elstree. VERY nice piece of kit in fact. One of the > most local really good flying schools. I learnt at Elstree flying 172s with Fircrest Aviation ;-) -- MrBitsy Rover 75 CDTi |