Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!wjh12!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!noao!terak!doug
From: doug@terak.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Practical advice from those more exp
Message-ID: <232@terak.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Dec-84 10:21:03 EST
Article-I.D.: terak.232
Posted: Tue Dec 18 10:21:03 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Dec-84 01:18:52 EST
References: <159@gcc-opus.UUCP> <59200009@trsvax.UUCP>
Organization: Terak Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Lines: 14

> Well, I don't know 'bout the pros, but I'd have read my manual and noted that
> the published crosswind component limitation on the 150 (and presumably the
> 152) is around 16mph. Then I would have considered that Cessna published that
> figure for an experienced pilot (to me, that's over 1500 hrs) and that their
> figure didn't take into account gusting or turbulence.

Actually, the Demonstrated Crosswind figure is supposed to be
conservative.  I don't remember the exact definition, but it is
based on "average" pilot technique, and then some percentage
(20% ?) is subtracted.  Further, for some planes the figure is
even lower simply because at the time of certification the test
pilots were unable to find a high crosswind to "demonstrate" in.

Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug