Asymmetrical thurst

Jim Carter wrote:
> Watching the videos of the heavies crabbing to a landing in high cross winds
> prompts me to ask: why don't they use asymmetrical thrust instead of
> kicking it straight in the flare?

Too slow and too hard to manage.


> Even in a single, why don't we see more forward slips to a landing instead
> of crab, kick, and pray?

Poor instructors.


> Have these techniques gone the way of the steam gauges?

The first technique (differential thrust) never existed to my knowledge
and the second technique is alive and well with well-trained pilots.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Watching the videos of the heavies crabbing to a landing in high cross winds
>> prompts me to ask: why don't they use asymmetrical thrust instead of
>> kicking it straight in the flare?
>
> Too slow and too hard to manage.


At least in a jet. The time delay involved in spooling up probably has the most
to do with it not being currently used.


>> Even in a single, why don't we see more forward slips to a landing instead
>> of crab, kick, and pray?
>
> Poor instructors.
>
>
>> Have these techniques gone the way of the steam gauges?
>
> The first technique (differential thrust) never existed to my knowledge
> and the second technique is alive and well with well-trained pilots.


I've used differential thrust before so I know the technique exists. However I
was flying something with piston engines which essentially had instant reaction
to throttle inputs. Passengers liked it better than the more usual methods
because it presented them with a more conventional view looking out the window,
hence less anxiety. When you land on just one wheel after a successful slip to
a landing, they think you've screwed up.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.*******

"Jim Carter" <jim.carter@swbell.net> wrote in message news:jAjBj.15285$0o7.14324@newssvr13.news.prodigy. net...
> Watching the videos of the heavies crabbing to a landing in high cross winds
> prompts me to ask: why don't they use asymmetrical thrust instead of
> kicking it straight in the flare?
>
> Even in a single, why don't we see more forward slips to a landing instead
> of crab, kick, and pray?
>
> Have these techniques gone the way of the steam gauges?
>

You want to rethink that a little, Jim?
How would asymmetrical thrust align the aircraft with the runway?

Also, forward slips are used to lose altitude. Sideslips compensate crosswinds.

But to answer that question anyway, neither steam gauges nor sideslips are gone.
I use both of them in my light twin, except that I try to keep my transition from
crab to slip reasonably smooth, and combined with my pre-landing flare.

"Jim Carter" <jim.carter@swbell.net> wrote in message news:zomBj.82$qS5.8@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> John R. Copeland wrote:
>
>> "Jim Carter" <jim.carter@swbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:jAjBj.15285$0o7.14324@newssvr13.news.prodigy. net...
>>> Watching the videos of the heavies crabbing to a landing in high cross
>>> winds prompts me to ask: why don't they use asymmetrical thrust instead
>>> of kicking it straight in the flare?
>>>
>>> Even in a single, why don't we see more forward slips to a landing
>>> instead of crab, kick, and pray?
>>>
>>> Have these techniques gone the way of the steam gauges?
>>>
>>
>> You want to rethink that a little, Jim?
>> How would asymmetrical thrust align the aircraft with the runway?
>>
>> Also, forward slips are used to lose altitude. Sideslips compensate
>> crosswinds.
>>
>> But to answer that question anyway, neither steam gauges nor sideslips are
>> gone. I use both of them in my light twin, except that I try to keep my
>> transition from crab to slip reasonably smooth, and combined with my
>> pre-landing flare.
>
>
> When I went thru multi training we used asymmetrical thrust a lot in
> Oklahoma (cause the wind never stops) to control approach attitudes. I
> hadn't thought the lag time was still that significant on the modern
> turbofans, so I made a bad assumption that the technique would be
> applicable to the heavies.
>
> It's been so long now I'm not sure I remember the technique right off hand,
> but I believe we carried more power on the upwind engine and banked into
> the wind. We didn't have to ride the rudders like in a single engine and it
> was much easier, prettier, and somewhat more stable in a crosswind.
>
> You're right - I got my slips reversed. Side slip into the wind, forward
> slip toward the runway. It's all relative to the line of travel.
>
> I wonder what the response time is for the large modern turbofans.
>

Ah, now I understand you, Jim. Thanks.
I thought you expected the asymmetrical thrust alone to be sufficient.
Yes, you still would sideslip into the crosswind.

On Mar 10, 4:34 pm, Jim Carter <jim.car...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Watching the videos of the heavies crabbing to a landing in high cross winds
> prompts me to ask: why don't they use asymmetrical thrust instead of
> kicking it straight in the flare?
>
> Even in a single, why don't we see more forward slips to a landing instead
> of crab, kick, and pray?
>
> Have these techniques gone the way of the steam gauges?

Slipping has been used for crosswind technique long before crab&kick.
The crab&kick was only made possible by the invention of the
nosewheel.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" <N7093v@**********> wrote in message news:ed29f852-5a9d-4ea0-9364-c140a92943ed@e10g2000prf.************.com...
>
>

Slipping has been used for crosswind technique long before crab&kick.
The crab&kick was only made possible by the invention of the
nosewheel.

-Robert

No, I learned about both methods in my primary training,
all of which was on what was then called "conventional-gear".
That was even before the Tri-Pacer, to sort of put a date to it.

Of course, the Ercoupe did have tri-gear then, but no rudder pedals,
so slipping was not an option for it.
Maybe that's why you associate "crab & kick" with nosewheels?
(Except that would be kind of an odd description of "kick". :-)

The most fun was my time in Cessna 180s and 195s with crosswind gear.
We could land them in astounding crab angles and still roll along centerline.

John R. Copeland wrote:

> The most fun was my time in Cessna 180s and 195s with crosswind gear.
> We could land them in astounding crab angles and still roll along centerline.
>
One of my earliest airport watching memories was of a large taildragger
(Beaver perhaps or a 195) taxiing out from AGC's ramp with what looked
like broken landing gear. I remember him disappearing into the fog and
listening to him take off.

Many years later I realized I had seen some of that weird looking
crosswind gear rolling a large 'dragger around the ramp, and then
witnessed something close to a zero vis, zero ceiling takeoff. Whew!

The only mitigating factor was that the wind was probably zero too.

Big Fun.

"Bill Watson" <Mauledriver@nc.*******> wrote in message news:47d708f8$0$6489$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> John R. Copeland wrote:
>
>> The most fun was my time in Cessna 180s and 195s with crosswind gear.
>> We could land them in astounding crab angles and still roll along centerline.
>>
> One of my earliest airport watching memories was of a large taildragger
> (Beaver perhaps or a 195) taxiing out from AGC's ramp with what looked
> like broken landing gear. I remember him disappearing into the fog and
> listening to him take off.
>
> Many years later I realized I had seen some of that weird looking
> crosswind gear rolling a large 'dragger around the ramp, and then
> witnessed something close to a zero vis, zero ceiling takeoff. Whew!
>
> The only mitigating factor was that the wind was probably zero too.
>
> Big Fun.

Crosswind gear can be "kicked out" while taxiing,
by using a short burst of power against a fully deflected rudder.
The big round engines of 195s and Beavers block taxiing visibility,
so the crosswind gear gave a huge benefit to those airplanes.
Without crosswind gear they usually are taxied in a series of S-turns.

John R. Copeland wrote:
> "Bill Watson" <Mauledriver@nc.*******> wrote in message news:47d708f8$0$6489$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> John R. Copeland wrote:
>>
>>> The most fun was my time in Cessna 180s and 195s with crosswind gear.
>>> We could land them in astounding crab angles and still roll along centerline.
>>>
>> One of my earliest airport watching memories was of a large taildragger
>> (Beaver perhaps or a 195) taxiing out from AGC's ramp with what looked
>> like broken landing gear. I remember him disappearing into the fog and
>> listening to him take off.
>>
>> Many years later I realized I had seen some of that weird looking
>> crosswind gear rolling a large 'dragger around the ramp, and then
>> witnessed something close to a zero vis, zero ceiling takeoff. Whew!
>>
>> The only mitigating factor was that the wind was probably zero too.
>>
>> Big Fun.
>
> Crosswind gear can be "kicked out" while taxiing,
> by using a short burst of power against a fully deflected rudder.
> The big round engines of 195s and Beavers block taxiing visibility,
> so the crosswind gear gave a huge benefit to those airplanes.
> Without crosswind gear they usually are taxied in a series of S-turns.
>
Wow! I actually get that. You can roll straight with the a/c yawed over
for visibility. That's exactly what I think I saw that day. What was
weird was the tilt in the wheels - they look like they are about to fall
off.

I do tailwheel but I don't think I'll get a chance to do xwind gear.

"Jim Carter" <jim.carter@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:jAjBj.15285$0o7.14324@newssvr13.news.prodigy. net...
> Watching the videos of the heavies crabbing to a landing in high cross
> winds
> prompts me to ask: why don't they use asymmetrical thrust instead of
> kicking it straight in the flare?
>
> Even in a single, why don't we see more forward slips to a landing instead
> of crab, kick, and pray?

I see no reason to pray. There's little difference in out come with the
crab technique or the forward slip. One you put the plane in a slip early
and keep constant control pressures thru-out your approach and the other you
put the plane in a crab, relax your control inputs and put the plane in a
slip in the last 10 seconds or so. Either the plane has enough rudder
authority or it doesn't in either situation. Neither is superior IMO and
definitely neither makes one a super pilot over the other. Seems to be
personal preference.

If you are proficient at one of these techniques you've got it covered. I
don't think that there is any situation when one of these crosswind landing
techniques is the preferred and only safe way to land over the other.

Kobra