PilotEdge Forums

Keith Smith wrote:.......and which way did they used to land and takeoff?!

No one will ever know at this point. Norm and his wife are both gone. I would say that if we had someone who lived in the area, they might be able to canvas the streets of Julian for an old timer that might know. No one at the ranch has any idea. I'll post something more if I get another call.

In reality, this airport shouldn't even exist on the charts anymore. It's now a candidate for this guys site:

http://www.airfields-freeman.com/

Peter Grey wrote:You can slip in X-plane.

Note that if you can't slip the aircraft in the real world without aerodynamic consequences (dutch roll) you won't be able to in x-plane.

Ok. I have been reading some of the real world posts about why one should or should not slip various aircraft with/without full flaps.

So that I can understand what some of the issues are, I recall reading an item in the Barron 58 POH stating not to slip longer than 30 seconds. I always assumed there were two reasons for this limitation:

• Ovoids unloading fuel in the header from negative G's
• Ovoids motor oil starvation and windage loss from the oil not remaining in the oil sump (wet sump). Again from the negative G's

To me that made sense that one should not perform and extended slip maneuver in an effort to burn off a ton of altitude. But short duration slips are OK.

Reading some of the other references about slips seems to indicate there's a difference between doing in a high wing verses low wing aircraft. Something about tail buffeting from the disturbed airflow off of the wing affecting the tail.

Others seem to imply that it's the combination of slip with FULL flaps.

Others seem to imply that it's purely aircraft related. Others say it's OK as long as the airplane's POH doesn't prohibit it.

I once took a discovery flight in a real Cessna 152. I heard on the radio there was another airplane on final behind us. As we were closing in on the runway, the pilot when into a slip to drop down on the runway. I was proud of myself because I recognized what the pilot was doing. The "feeling" of the slip to me being a non-pilot was an experience. At the time I couldn't explain the feeling.

When on the ground I asked the pilot to confirm the slip and why. The pilot stated that he knew someone was behind him and that by slipping he could make a shorter taxiway and thus clear the runway sooner. At the time it made sense to me as part of a short field landing and the short duration of the slip made it OK.

Looking up "Dutch Roll" I came across this video. Quite dramatic. Is this what is meant by a "Dutch Roll" but on steroids?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky3gB0VOph0

So that I can understand what some of the issues are, I recall reading an item in the Barron 58 POH stating not to slip longer than 30 seconds. I always assumed there were two reasons for this limitation:
Ovoids unloading fuel in the header from negative G's
Ovoids motor oil starvation and windage loss from the oil not remaining in the oil sump (wet sump). Again from the negative G's

A stable slip is not a negative G maneuver. An aggressive entry to the slip could result in momentary negative G forces but once established it is a positive G maneuver.

The most likely reason for the Baron limitation is to prevent un-porting of the fuel tank due to the sideways force. I assume the fuel line is on 1 side of the tank and a slip could move fuel away from that line resulting in a single engine failure.

To me that made sense that one should not perform and extended slip maneuver in an effort to burn off a ton of altitude. But short duration slips are OK.

Reading some of the other references about slips seems to indicate there's a difference between doing in a high wing verses low wing aircraft. Something about tail buffeting from the disturbed airflow off of the wing affecting the tail.

Others seem to imply that it's the combination of slip with FULL flaps.

Others seem to imply that it's purely aircraft related. Others say it's OK as long as the airplane's POH doesn't prohibit it.

I have only done slips in high wing aircraft (mainly because I've never flown a single engine low wing airplane and you don't generally slip twins as it's not needed with proper use of the prop lever to create drag).

In my research I've found that there are 2 distinct "problems" relating to the tail in slips.

The first is a tail buffet due to disturbed airflow. I've experienced this many times in a C-150 and it's a non event (and requires a very aggressive turning slip to induce). These aircraft tend (but don't always) have a note saying to "avoid slips with full flaps".

Some aircraft however can stall out the tail resulting in a severe nose drop which may not be recoverable in the altitude allowed. These aircraft have the prohibition on full flap slips (or slips at all).

In simple terms, follow the POH. If it says no slips, then no slips.

Looking up "Dutch Roll" I came across this video. Quite dramatic. Is this what is meant by a "Dutch Roll" but on steroids?

That's a regular dutch roll. On steroids the plane would nearly invert. In a CRJ Level D sim we did dutch roll recoveries and let's just say 3 inches of improper rudder = 90 degree bank.

I'm wondering if this is all getting a bit too far from reality now? Next it will be SIDs and STARs into 46CA.

David Gilbert wrote:I'm wondering if this is all getting a bit too far from reality now? Next it will be SIDs and STARs into 46CA.

I started this because flying VFR into 46CA at night (in X-Plane) is like flying in space with no stars--a black hole. I was trying to come up with a way get to an pseudo initial approach fix, then time a leg to fly until I can see the field and get into a pattern for landing. Since Rancho is in a valley, if you're coming in from the north or northwest, you won't even see the beacon unless you're at 5,000 feet or so.

What I've been doing is fly to the Julian VOR, turn southeast at 134-140 heading for 12 miles and that should put me to a point where I can see the airport. Overfly the airport, descend to pattern altitude and do a descending left turn to base and final for runway 10.

Using a radial and distance from a VOR to locate an airport is good stuff. As long as you maintain VFR, you're fine. Chris and I flew a psuedo DME arc into Borrego Valley in the MU-2 a little while ago in shared cockpit just for practice, also using JLI VOR.

stevekirks wrote:

David Gilbert wrote:I'm wondering if this is all getting a bit too far from reality now? Next it will be SIDs and STARs into 46CA.

I started this because flying VFR into 46CA at night (in X-Plane) is like flying in space with no stars--a black hole. I was trying to come up with a way get to an pseudo initial approach fix, then time a leg to fly until I can see the field and get into a pattern for landing. Since Rancho is in a valley, if you're coming in from the north or northwest, you won't even see the beacon unless you're at 5,000 feet or so.

What I've been doing is fly to the Julian VOR, turn southeast at 134-140 heading for 12 miles and that should put me to a point where I can see the airport. Overfly the airport, descend to pattern altitude and do a descending left turn to base and final for runway 10.

Ah fair enough, I was getting the impression people were trying to come up with ad hoc instrument approaches.