The evils of the Touch and Go

[jetdriven]

27 minutes ago, steingar said:

No one in this thread ever said that.  Learn to read.

 gosh I must've read it on this thread somewhere.but it does not matter who said it the fact is that only someone who doesn't know any better would say that.  I still stand behind the claim that anybody who says an airliner is no more complex than a Mooney is only said by someone who  has never flown an airliner. And the reason for that is The dunning-Kruger effect.  One. Because airline pilots know the difference. And two because somebody who hasn't flown a jet doesn't really know what they're talking about, in that regard. 

 If you think I'm wrong then that is your opinion.  I would also ask how many jet type ratings you have before getting Schooled about relatively how simple or complex they are

Edited September 18, 2017 by jetdriven

[salty]

17 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

 gosh I must've read it on this thread somewhere.but it does not matter who said it the fact is that only someone who doesn't know any better would say that.  I still stand behind the claim that anybody who says an airliner is no more complex than a Mooney is only said by someone who  has never flown an airliner. And the reason for that is The dunning-Kruger effect.  One. Because airline pilots know the difference. And two because somebody who hasn't flown a jet doesn't really know what they're talking about, in that regard. 

 If you think I'm wrong then that is your opinion.  I would also ask how many jet type ratings you have before getting Schooled about relatively how simple or complex they are

You have mightily slain that strawman, my good sir!

[Guest]

I remember when someone here typed that Comanches have a high inflight break up, but was never able to provide any proof.  Lots of people on these forum type stuff they no little about and have no first hand knowledge.  It's just the way it is.  You'll have to sort the good stuff from the BS.

Clarence

[Ned Gravel]

8 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

What is the training benefit of practicing how the aircraft behaves on landing in the take off configuration? I could see practicing no flap landings as an emergency procedure but what is the training benefit of landing with take off flaps?

 

-Robert, CFII

Bob:

The POH for the E model describes the T/O configuration to be exactly the same as the approach configuration that I use for instrument approaches.  No difference.  

The Mooney Caravan procedure is to allow all a/c in the element to be identically configured for both T/O and landing, because we only fly it in VFR conditions and we want to be concentrating on flying the aircraft to maintain position (including both T/O and landing) without the need to touch anything other than control column, throttle, and rudder pedals.

[ryoder]

Is a touch and go about the equivalent of an intersection takeoff risk wise?

I did one in the Skycatcher this weekend but it was just out of laziness.  I didn't want to taxi back.

And yeah I drive my Corvette slow.

[aviatoreb]

8 hours ago, jetdriven said:

I was referrring to the originator of the statement that mooneys are just as complex as airliners. 

As a side note, a 747 is not a complex airplane. It has no controllable-pitch propeller. 

 Not high performance either. It doesn't have more than 200 horsepower. 

Haha- and the 747 isn't a balloon or a seaplane either in FAA speak.

But in what sense does it not have >200hp.  Say something FAA to me to resolve that puzzle because in physics terms, the 747 has more than 200hp.

This looks reasonable (found it somewhere):

Assume:

• Engine thrust = 284 kN
• Takeoff speed = 170 knots
• Takeoff power = 90% max power

Using P=FvP=Fv, converting the variables to SI units, we get

Power=88,948,800WPower=88,948,800W

AND.... does that convert to about 200,000 hp?

[RLCarter]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

Is a touch and go about the equivalent of an intersection takeoff risk wise?

I did one in the Skycatcher this weekend but it was just out of laziness.  I didn't want to taxi back.

And yeah I drive my Corvette slow.

Here comes 8 pages on not having all the runway available during take off

[aviatoreb]

22 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

It is obvious you are a mathematician, Erik, and not a lawyer.

Jim

...I was trying to understand the puzzle from a legal faa-speak perspective.

I mean I get the "not complex" since that is faa/defined as an adjustable prop.

but not high performance if that is defined as >200hp.  I'm stumped.  With my little math pea brain im

stumped.

 

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

Is a touch and go about the equivalent of an intersection takeoff risk wise?

I did one in the Skycatcher this weekend but it was just out of laziness.  I didn't want to taxi back.

And yeah I drive my Corvette slow.

I wouldn't say so. You can take your time configuring before take off and aren't rushed. 

-Robert

Edited September 19, 2017 by RobertGary1

[N201MKTurbo]

Touch and go's are much more fun when you don't know they are coming. It's not unusual for Rene to say something like "oh crap, there is a cow on the runway, go around" right after I touch down. 

Its only fair, I do the same thing to him. 

[Bartman]

Last week this was a nice place to visit, the THIS  happened. 

 

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

...I was trying to understand the puzzle from a legal faa-speak perspective.

I mean I get the "not complex" since that is faa/defined as an adjustable prop.

but not high performance if that is defined as >200hp.  I'm stumped.  With my little math pea brain im

stumped.

 

It's rated in pounds of thrust but there is no shaft to measure horsepower with. Even at full thrust, if the airplane is stationary, equivalent horsepower is zero, since HP is 550ftlb/sec, and the aircraft is not moving so no work is being done. We all know it has plenty of power but just not the horse kind. There is ESHP but it's not exact and requires speed. 

[aviatoreb]

17 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

It's rated in pounds of thrust but there is no shaft to measure horsepower with. Even at full thrust, if the airplane is stationary, equivalent horsepower is zero, since HP is 550ftlb/sec, and the aircraft is not moving so no work is being done. We all know it has plenty of power but just not the horse kind. There is ESHP but it's not exact and requires speed. 

Even if standing still it is still moving air - alotta allotta air - measurable mass of air- and that takes power to move a mass of air through a resistance (force) at a certain speed.

but besides that normally one speaks of power it is capable asking how powerful is your (car)(airplane)(boat).  Not how much power when it's standing still - so I consider that semantics anyway.

fun physics computation - given a 1,000,000lb airplane at sea level.  What units does one describe to lift it to 35000 ft in 25 minutes. (Guessing performance figs).  It's a unit of power.  How much power then convert to horse power for discussion.

so I declare Faa mumbo jumbo on this one.

[aviatoreb]

32 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

It's rated in pounds of thrust but there is no shaft to measure horsepower with. Even at full thrust, if the airplane is stationary, equivalent horsepower is zero, since HP is 550ftlb/sec, and the aircraft is not moving so no work is being done. We all know it has plenty of power but just not the horse kind. There is ESHP but it's not exact and requires speed. 

It IS the horse kind of power.  Just like a horse straining against a plow but not moving creates no power if it can't move (breaks on) (it is creating force) but once it breaks out and starts moving now that force times velocity is power.  One horsepower.   When the horse is asleep in the barn I still say it's powerful.  When your m20j is asleep in the hangar engine off and cold I still say it's 200hp (capable of potential).  When your 747 is asleep in its hangar, or on the runway position and hold with engines at full thrust, or rolling at full take off power, the whole time I describe that airplane as (capable of) 200,000hp.

Your honor I rest my case.

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by aviatoreb

[jetdriven]

It's really making fun at the FAA's absurd definition of complex or high performance airplanes. A F15 Streak Eagle isn't a high performance airplane but it can climb to 26,600' in 122 seconds. Perhaps they should make high performance defined by, IDK, the performance of the airplane?

complex airplane same thing. The only thing with more gauges and switches than this thing is a nuclear reactor.  

 

[aviatoreb]

8 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

It's really making fun at the FAA's absurd definition of complex or high performance airplanes. A F15 Streak Eagle isn't a high performance airplane but it can climb to 26,600' in 122 seconds. Perhaps they should make high performance defined by, IDK, the performance of the airplane?

complex airplane same thing. The only thing with more gauges and switches than this thing is a nuclear reactor.  

 

Where does the celestial nav guy sit?

yeah looks complex to me.

now let me see if I got this straight.  According to the Faa, a nuclear reactor is not complex because it has no flaps, no retractable gear and no adjustable prop.  And a nuclear reactor power plant  "has" no power because it is not moving so it only creates static thrust!

great - im ready for my FAA check ride!

just don't sent me to a DOE check ride with that.  :-0

[RobertGary1]

30 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

It's really making fun at the FAA's absurd definition of complex or high performance airplanes.

But it makes sense from a practical perspective. There is no reason to classify a 747 as complex or high performance because it already requires a type rating. No reason to require a high performance  log endorsement. 

-Robert

[PTK]

I would say that a jet produces zero hp. Or at least its meaningless to talk about hp in a jet. Thrust is what's important. Performance parameters are measured not by power but by thrust. That's also true in our pistons. 

 Power is the product of thrust and velocity, TAS in our case: P=Thrust x Velocity.

Without thrust we have no power. A jet sitting still at full thrust produces "zero" power. And because, unlike our pistons, thrust is constant its available power is directly proportional to its speed. In our pistons thrust varies with speed.

[Wayne Cease]

Nah....
We'll have to agee to disagree....
 

I'm not we can all agree on that.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[ryoder]

14 hours ago, Wayne Cease said:

I'm not we can all agree on that.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Not sure I'm ready to agree to disagree...

Can we agree to not agree to disagree? At least for a little while?

[MyNameIsNobody]

On 9/17/2017 at 7:41 AM, PTK said:

We do have verifiable statistics that our collective insurance premiums unfortunately increase each and every time a very expensive mishap happens. All because someone decided to save the few minutes it takes to properly land, exit the runway, taxi back and reconfigure by properly performing the checklists. Nothing anecdotal there! 

Instead of focusing on t&g's it is, imo, a lot more valuable and practice time is better spent performing full landings and aborted landings. Full landing from beginning to end. Proper approach speeds, reproducibly touch down on a predetermined touch down zone on the runway, exit and reconfigure. 

The argument often given that you may need a t&g due to insufficient rw length to stop is, again imo, poor planning and/or lack of practice the skills required to accomplish a full landing.

I would also like to see those statistics, as provided by insurance carriers, that T&G GU incidents are driving insurance premiums higher.  Not holding my breath...

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

I would also like to see those statistics, as provided by insurance carriers, that T&G GU incidents are driving insurance premiums higher.  Not holding my breath...

Perhaps those who have had the misfortune of a gear up landing as a result of a Touch & Go would tell us how much their insurance went up and for how many years.  

A $100,000 hull loss, less the salvage value divided by the total insured fleet of say 250,000 airplane wouldn't be noticeable.

Clarence

[jetdriven]

Every claim, regardless of cause, gets added into the premiums of everyone. Take a look at the Lancair IV-P market.  

[ragedracer1977]

2 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

Every claim, regardless of cause, gets added into the premiums of everyone. Take a look at the Lancair IV-P market.  

Then we should probably not allow anyone to fly a Lancair IV-P, if doing so increased everyone's premiums.

[jetdriven]

Well when the premium is 10 or 15k a year or more  and you have to have a lot of experience, I'd say they are restricting the IV-P market, and keeping a lot of pilots out. The Cirrus has a terrible loss history until COPA got involved.  Point is the more claims they pay the more we all pay. The less claims and accidents the better.