short field landings

It's called a slip Tim ;-) - Either a forward slip or a side slip. You start with aileron (roll) and use rudder to control the flight direction.

Sheesh, it not complicated. Float = too hot on approach. Solution slow down.

Short field problem because you must stay high to clear the trees? Solution = side slip or forward slip allows you to maintain desired approach airspeed while increasing your rate of descent. (or if you want a very effective crutch, deploy a drag chute) .

Full scale taidragger pilots were taught by competent (military) instructors to execute 3-point or wheel landings. There is no more danger of ground looping in one vs. the other because you are also taught how to avoid a ground loop (kicking the rudder as necessary to keep it going straight). It's only difficult in the initial learning phase. You don't solo until you've got it down pat. After about 30 (or maybe 50 :)) hours in type you don't even think about it. It becomes a reflex action.

BTW, slipping in RC is something that good sport pilots have a bit of trouble with initially and a newbie is better off practicing straight and level flight, figure 8s and landing approaches. Flying straight horizontal and vertical lines is extremely difficult but it's not important to the average sport pilot. Practice slips on a sim so you don't embarrass yourself at the field . Before you begin practice ask an experienced pilot how they're done or read a bit.

I don't believe a full scale Cub has enough rudder authority to snap out of a slip and after flying a buddy's RC Cub, I *know* it doesn't.

Tim, you're right on. A scale Cub (must be yellow) slipping over the tree line at sunset will bring tears to any *pilot's* eyes!

Ok, what's the different between a forward slip and a side slip? The only one I can visualize is a side slip (crossed aileron and rudder).

Yes, the trees prevent me from starting way out and coming in very flat. My other planes can handle a steep approach, but the Cub just floats on through,. I've been slipping (I think side slipping...) it in but I was looking for some alternatives. It's an interesting technique and requires a little thought, standing off to the side of the field and landing the plane where it's not pointing...

At least it's not just me....

Thanks for the info, if the sun stays out for awhile I'll be out there slipping and air braking later today....

Thanks, Steve

On my Magnum 61 with the APC 12x6 I can get down to about 2250 and still have it come up reliably when I open the throttle. Is there much room to shoot for a low idle speed? I haven't tried the MAA 13x5 yet.

Steve

Y'all REALLY like Cubs???? Here's the greatest story you'll ever read about one (and it's family).. Has a few beautiful pix, too....

Bill

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 12:44:17 -0700, Steve wrote in :

This page talks about the theoretical differences (link to a neat video at the very bottom):

This page says that the theoretical differences between the two are neligible:

Here is the best short definition I saw in a quick search:

"The forward slip is used to lose altitude rapidly, and the side slip is used to remain aligned with the runway during a crosswind landing."

Some wonderful footage of Boeing test flights:

The forward slip was used in a multitude of early aircraft because it allows the pilot to get the nose of the airplane out of the way (it is yawed away from the runway) so that they could see the runway after they turned to final. I think I remember seeing a lot of that at Old Rhinebeck.

A Super Cub touching down in a comedy routine (one of the "flying farmer" variants--I've seen two of them):

Video, probably from a fun-fly competition:

This guy doesn't lose enough airspeed, but he uses the same technique:

Marty

Thanks for that story, Bill.

Harlan

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote

------------

If you learned something from the experience that was helpful later on, I can not see that as a defeat.

My CGM Cub, my favorite version because of the strip ailerons, was a fantastic learning experience. Mine was not the slightest bit over weight, fortunately, although it did weigh-in at over seven pounds.

It was great for side-slipping in for a landing. It also turned out to be a great fun fly (old style of fun flies) and a great exhibition aerobatic type of model.

My only regret was that I did not utilize separate aileron servos in each wing and ended up using the factory torque rods, which wore out the hole in the ailerons. It could have been repaired, but I did a quicky fix up and then traded it off for a friend's Yaesu ham radio.

I now have the NIB ARF version and might pick up another kit or two before they disappear.

Ed, NM2K

A forward slip is used to lose altitude without gaining airspeed. A sideslip is used to maintain runway centerline in a crosswind. The techniques are the same, but in the forward slip the fuselage isn't lined up with the runway, while in the sideslip the fuselage IS lined up.

Dan

"Ed Forsythe" wrote

Ever have that happen to you, Ed?

How about anyone else. Ever lose a wing in flight?

I'll tell one on myself.

I had just progress in my learning to fly, that I was ready for something without a flat bottom wing. I like to design and build my own creations, ( I've only ever bought two kits in over 15 years) so I went to work. I came up with a clipped wing, H-tail model, and I added an extra feature. I made a full plane parachute, to let the whole plane down slowly if I got out of control.

On my maiden flight, I was on my second or third circuit of the field, and had it trimmed out, so I went for a loop.

BAMMM ! ! ! What the h*ll happened?

The wing came fluttering down rather slowly, and the rest of the plane, not so much so ! ;-(

Upon closer inspection, I saw that the block that held the wing bolts did not hold onto the fuselage as I had hoped. Not enough doublers, or triangle stock, or something. Unfortunately, the parachute was in the same area, so it did not deploy as I had designed it. I don't even know if I had time to try it, since the loss of control was so sudden, and the fuselage came down so quickly.

I learned something from that plane, though. Make sure the wing mounts are twice as strong as you think they need to be!

ROFLOL!

Remind me never to hang around with the folks you fly with when they are playing with 30-40% IMAC birds . The possibility of structural failure should not be a factor, unless the aircraft is poorly built or the control throws are well outside any semblance of normal. I guess if you had a 40%er with 10 inch chord elevators that would go 90 degrees, you would build for the expected loads or eat airframe sooner rather than later. I strongly suspect that if he were flying a 30 or 40% bird, this entire question would not have come up since most of those types understand speed control and slow flight better than the average modeler. The point is to use all the elevator throw in the system abruptly to see if the aircraft will track through the loop and adjust the throw as needed.

Other than that Ed, you do it your way and I will do it my way. I might be wrong, but my anecdotal evidence indicates otherwise. I have to admit that my largest is only 33% but I also have wrung out a Telemaster. Even flew it at weights over 20 pounds so I have a clue of what that kite is capable of both in load and control response.

Jim Branaum AMA 1428