By not flying through thunderstorms.

For a small aircraft, the lightning is not the most hazardous part of a cumulonimbus (Cb) cloud system.

Mature Cb clouds have huge updrafts underneath them, which can cause enough turbulence to upset most aircraft.

Heavy rain and hail is also commonplace underneath Cb clouds.

Even the rain can be heavy enough to damage wooden propellers and any components on your leading edge (such as the leading-edge slats found on the Tiger Moths I fly).

Hail can put holes in your canvas, which are expensive to repair - if you manage to get the aircraft home at all.

This turbulence and rain persists for a much longer period and across a wider area than the thunderstorm itself.

For these reasons, the chief protection against thunderstorms is by training and procedure: student pilots are taught to avoid Cb clouds when they're visible, and to plan flights to avoid areas where Cb are forecast.

Weather forecasts and reports specially call out Cb clouds to help with this, and ATIS messages often warn of "cumulonimbus cloud in the vicinity of the aerodrome".

Protecting a wooden aircraft specifically against lightning is not hugely worthwhile, because it's unlikely to be able to stay in the vicinity of the Cb cloud for long enough to be at risk of a lightning strike.

It just wooden happen.

Additional physics-y information: trees attract lightning strikes because they are reasonably well conductive, especially the living tissue between the bark and the heartwood.

Also because one end is well-grounded through its roots, which extend down to damp conductive soil.

So they are natural lightning conductors.

Wood once dried and turned into timber is not a good conductor, and a plane in flight is not grounded at one end.

So it's much less attractive to lightning than a living tree.

A metal plane is more likely to be struck than a wooden one because it is a near-perfect conductor and offers the lightning an much easier path than through air.

However, for the same reason, a lightning strike doesn't often cause any damage to a metal plane.

I'd expect that a wooden plane could be downed by a lightning strike, and lightning strikes are not always closely associated with cumulonimbus clouds.

Look up " positive lightning "

(a.k.a. "a bolt from the blue", literal meaning thereof).

This is mercifully rare.

Wikipedia reports that it has downed at least one glider.

I'd also guess that a jet engine's high temperature exhaust creates something of an ionization trail behind it, equivalent to trailing some considerable length of wire behind the plane.

A piston engine, much less so.

Well, first off a wooden aircraft is not totally manufactured from wood; it does have metallic or otherwise conductive components throughout the airframe and is engineered with conductive pathways throughout the airframe for electrostatic dispersion and lightning protection as per the requirements of 14 CFR 23.1306, 25.1316, 27.1316, and 29.1316.

It is undeniable that an airplane manufactured from wood or other materials that are good insulators would probably suffer considerably more damage to the structure from a direct lightning strike but they have been certified as to protect critical structure, fuel tanks and other components from massive electrostatic discharges.

By not building wood aircraft

But there is a way

: build them like a composite aircraft.

There are very few wood airplanes left, for one thing.

So the problem is solved by building mostly metal airplanes for past 70 years or so.

While wood planes are excellent when new (wood is strong, light, and elastic) they have a fatal flaw: they rot on exposure to moisture.

(And, they are expensive to build.)

As it happens, wood planes are still built in tiny numbers, and yes, they are vulnerable to lightning.

But lightning by definition comes from thunderstorms and these must be avoided for other reasons anyway.

The few handmade wooden planes that are registered these days are light planes that rarely fly in instrument conditions and

so the chance of blundering into a storm cell is really low.

It would be possible to build a protected wood plane.

One could laminate a conductive screen on surfaces in the same manner as used on certified glass and other composite aircraft.

However, I would guess that no one has ever done that.

Wood airplanes do have steel control cables and rods, which can conduct a strike through one side of the aircraft to the other if the skin is penetrated, which is still destructive to the wood structure at that point.

Burning or fire?

Possibly if the strike is strong and penetrates the right places.

That's why it's a good idea to install grounded static wicks in proper strategic trailing edge locations.

There are modern and sleek kit planes out there today.

Very sharp-looking, and pretty quick too.

An article from Flying Magazine hints that lightning strikes do not affect wood-and-fabric planes.

That there are almost no reported cases, and the only case they know of, resulted in a damage to a wing-tip.

Source , go to page 6.

It's worth mentioning that big composite (non-conductive) planes (e.g. 787)

could suffer from lightnings if it weren't for special coatings , per Boeing.

There are also conductive paints that cause the skin of the plane to carry the charge regardless of its composition.

I would suspect that conductive paints that lead to static dischargers could also be used on wooden structures with cloth skins.

Question: A wooden aircraft is not conductive and if a lightning hits the wood it will instantaneously ignite. How would you protect a wooden aircraft from this occurrence?

How are wooden aircraft protected from lightning strikes?

Wooden aircraft also have metal in the construction which can conduct the strike. Damage to the hull may nevertheless be caused. Avoiding flying through thunderstorms would be the best way of avoiding a lightening strike.

The easiest way to protect them is by not flying through thunderstorms and the most obvious solution is to not build wooden planes, as is the norm for the last several years. Of course, wooden aircraft are not entirely manufactured from wood and have conductive components and pathways according to certified, standard requirements to protect their most important components. That said, the lamination of a conductive screen on surfaces could protect wooden aircraft. Another solution is to use an appropriate type of conductive paint. However, it can be argued that it is not that useful to take such precautions, because wooden planes are not able to stay close to Cb clouds for long enough to be endangered by lightning strikes. Also, certain resources indicate that lightning strikes do not deal damage to wood-and-fabric planes.

The easiest way to protect them is by not flying through thunderstorms.

It can be argued that it is not that useful to take such precautions, because wooden planes are not able to stay close to Cb clouds for long enough to be endangered by lightning strikes.

Wooden aircraft are not entirely manufactured from wood and have conductive components and pathways according to certified, standard requirements to protect its most important components.

The most obvious solution is to not build wooden planes, as is the norm for the last several years.

The lamination of a conductive screen on surfaces could also protect wooden aircraft.

Certain resources indicate that lightning strikes do not deal damage to wood-and-fabric planes.


A 747 taking off at or near max gross weight will have a flaps up, minimum safe airspeed and climbout airspeed speed greater than 250 knots.

In such cases you didn't notify ATC as they expected it.

I tried to find what the exact numbers would be at 840,000 lbs, but I seem to have thrown out that manual.

I did, however, find a reference for a 747-200 with JT9D-7Q engines that gives the flaps up holding speed at 800,000 lbs as 259 kts at 5,000 feet.

Also, I do remember being on an arrival once, with the weight low enough that we could safely maintain well below 250, but that when we saw we were icing badly, we speeded up to somewhere around 300 to get the ram air temp above freezing.

In that case we notified ATC that we were doing so.

Also, ATC occasionally requests max speed.

For example, on Hajj flights into and out of Jakarta Halim airport in the late 1990s it was common practice for controllers to put you down low to get you under the traffic into Cengkareng airport.

They would then often request max speed.

FAA has letters of agreement with US DOD, which authorizes certain military aircraft to fly faster than 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet.

A good example of this would be the Northrop T-38 Talon , described in FAA JO 7610.4 Special Military Operations : 12-10-11.

AUTHORIZATIONS T-38/T-1 airspeeds in excess of 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet MSL are authorized by competent military authority in accordance with FAA Order 7110.65 and the letter of authorization granted to DOD.

The reason for this waiver is discussed in NTSB report number FTW90FA151 :

THE T-38'S SPD WAS ABOUT 330 KTS; THE SPD LIMITATION OF 250 KTS HAD BEEN WAIVED FOR T-38 ACFT, DUE TO THE ACFT'S LACK OF CONTROLLABILITY AT

THE LOWER SPD.

The relevant letter from forums.jetcareers.com : Also, from AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 13-201 : 14 CFR Part 91.117 covers aircraft speed.

Recognizing that some DoD aircraft performance requirements exceed 250 knots, the FAA issued an exemption to 14 CFR Part 91.117.

The exemption has been claimed for other aircraft too- like F-15 Eagle, for example : ...

climb-out occurs at 350 KCAS for an air-to-air configured jet and 330 KCAS on one with air-to-ground ordnance.

this is significantly higher than the 14 CFR speed restriction of 250 knots below 10,000 feet.

The F-15E, like most fighter aircraft, falls under the Letter of Agreement between the DoD and FAA allowing some military aircraft a waiver to that speed limit.

A number of military aircraft - one that I can cite off the top of my head is the T-38 - have speed restriction waivers from the FAA during operations for safety.

The T-38, for example, flies the traffic pattern at 270 KIAS in order to provide sufficient maneuvering capability without exceeding the AoA limitations of the aircraft and stalling it.

The F-104 probably has similar limitations in performance.

The SR-71 rotated at 230 KIAS and the pilot had to immediately retract the gear after liftoff to prevent structural damage from exceeding Vle of 300 KIAS.

As for commercial and civil aircraft, the speed restriction of 250 KIAS does not present much of an obstacle or impediment to safe operation, albeit it’s a little slow for jets.

777-200 stall speed at max t.o. weight is 192 kts.

1.3 buffer brings that to 252 kts.

777-300 stall speed at max t.o. weight is 207 kts.

1.3 buffer brings that to 269 kts.

Because of the higher stall speeds, especially for the 777-300, ATC knows we'll exceed 250 kts on departure and frequently acknowledges it before we mention it.

On arrival, at lighter weights, it's not an issue.

On the 777-300 you don't have to have Flaps 1 out until approx 220 kts.

at max landing weight.

On the 777-200 it's slightly lower (approx.

215 kts).

So the reduction in weight from max T.O. weight to max landing weight reduces the minimum clean speed by 35 kts (777-200) and 50 kts (777-300).

Most fighters, in normal ops with a clean wing, won't be close to stalling at 250 kts.

But they can pull more G's, thereby having more maneuverability, if they're flying faster.

In the EA-6B we had a waiver to climb out at 300KIAS.

Coming home

we were lighter and could easily make 250, but we were waivered to 300 if we were in formation to have extra margin for the wingman.

Question: 14 CFR 91.117  limits aircraft to 250 knots indicated airspeed below 10,000 feet, but 91.117(d) allows aircraft to fly a higher speed if the minimum safe speed is higher. What aircraft and aircraft conditions might require an indicated airspeed higher than 250 knots?

What aircraft fly faster than 250 knots indicated airspeed under 10,000 feet for safety reasons?

Many military aircraft fly at speeds greater than 250 knots. The 747 and 777 also take off at a greater speed when they are at or near max. gross weight.

There are many aircraft that will exceed this limit: 747, the F-15E,  the T-38, the 777-300, the EA-6B and others have a waiver from the FAA.


Yes, Lufthansa flight training in Bremen uses the Cessna Citation CJ1

D-ILHA D-ILHB D-ILHC D-ILHD D-ILHE

The KLM flight academy used to have Cessna Citations, but I think they no longer use them as part of the training.

It's rare (and EXPENSIVE) but there are a few flight schools which offer primary flight training in the Embraer Phenom 100 and Citation Mistang aircraft.

Angel City Flyers in Long Beach, CA (KLGB), is one such flight school.

Bring your banker; it's going to cost $1000+ per flight hour plus fuel and instructor fees!

Another place is the National Test Pilot's School in Muroc, CA.

Their 11 month Masters of Science in Test Piloting course will make you an accredited test pilot and log flight time in over 30 aircraft, including jet fighters like the Saab 35 Drakken.

Tuition is $960,000!!!!!!

FlightOptions at the Sunshine Coast in Australia have a Level D Citation Mustang simulator, and a real Mustang as well.

The facility used to be used by Singapore Airlines for their pilot training.

Great location!

The Swedish Air Force uses the Sk 60 jet (Saab 105) as its only trainer , including initial training.

For initial training, I don't think there is any flight school or Air Force in the world that will let you begin in a jet.

At the later stages however there are some programs that incorporate jet time.

I believe Lufthansa's ab initio course uses a Citation as the final stage before joining the airline.

But generally speaking most pilots in training programs don't fly jets until joining the airline.

Question: Is there any flying school out there that use "jets" as part of their training program? I mean like a Cessna Citation or Phenom.

Is there any flight school that uses jets as part of their training program?

There are a few flight schools that include jets as part of the training. These can be found in the US, Australia and Sweden. Lufthansa also allegedly uses jets in its ab initio course.

Although it is rare and costs a lot, there are some schools that use jets in their training program: Angel City Flyers in Long Beach, FlightOptions  at the Sunshine Coast in Australia, the Swedish Air Force and Lufthansa. That said, usually pilots fly jets when they join the fleet of the airline and only sometimes are they trained in jets at the later stages of training.

At the later stages however there are some programs that incorporate jet time.

Usually pilots fly jets when they join the fleet of the airline and only sometimes are they trained in jets at the later stages of training.


Using a HUD, an airliner can take off with visibility as low as 300’, and land with visibility as low as 600’.

Without a HUD, you need 500’ (and appropriate runway lights/markings, plus regulatory approval) for takeoff, and whatever your autopilot Cat III autoland system (along with the landing runway) is approved to for landing.

(Or 1800’ for cases of no Cat II / Cat III capability.)

As noted, a pure “zero visibility” landing (a Cat IIIc) doesn’t yet exist, because while the autopilot can bring the aircraft to a stop on the runway, some visibility (300’) is still required to taxi clear and get to the parking spot.

Thankfully, visibilities below 500-600’ are pretty rare in most places.

Not all airports have the taxiway lighting required for low-visibility (typically, below 1200’ lateral visibility) taxi operations.

That is an airport limitation, not an aircraft limit.

Talking about so many feet of lateral visibility, the actual nomenclature is Runway Visual Range, or RVR.

That is reported in feet in the U.S., and often in meters elsewhere.

Though your question does not explicitly say so, it implies that you're talking about flights that are carrying passengers or cargo for hire, and other answers address that.

However, taking your question as explicitly stated, in other words not just air carrier operations, and applying it to U.S. operations, the phrase: cannot take off without a minimum visibility is not always correct.

There is no takeoff minimum required for Part 91 operations (private aircraft if you will).

In the 2017 edition of https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/instrument_procedures_handbook/media/FAA-H-8083-16B.pdf , you will find on page 1-8 the following: Aircraft operating under 14 CFR Part 91 are not required to comply with established takeoff minimums.

Legally, a zero/ zero departure may be made, but it is never advisable.

Takeoffs by corporate and personal aircraft without established takeoff minimums were common, though not frequent, in the rainy and foggy U.S. Pacific Northwest weather prior to my retirement, and I have no doubt Part 91 operators still take advantage of that regulatory flexibility.

I made many such takeoffs without incident as did fellow corporate and personal pilots at my home field.

By the way, while everyone I think understands what they're saying when they say zero visibility, you can always see something, especially if you're sitting down low in a small aircraft.

They can take off at very limited visibility, and they do.

Key is then of course to make sure that no other aircraft are on the runway, and this is in fact how the deadliest crash in aviation history happened: the collision between two B747s at Tenerife Airport in 1977.

The accident was not caused by the reduced visibility alone, but as usual by a long chain of individual factors.

If all proper infrastructure and procedures are in place, take-off can take place in very low visibility.

When an aircraft lands in near zero visibility, it is a fully automated process that is actually done without input from the pilot.

The pilots are only needed to taxi off the runway and park the aircraft.

It is called "Autoland" and many of today's aircraft have it.

As of today no manufacturer has designed an aircraft with "Auto Takeoff" but I suppose it is not impossible.

I have departed in zero-zero conditions (twice.)

In both cases, there was another airport very nearby without this problem

and I was operating under Part 91.

The biggest danger in a zero-zero takeoff, after unseen planes/objects on the runway, is what are you going to do if the aircraft decides to malfunction on liftoff?

Lose and engine (or the only engine.)

Commercial operations have limits for this, and other, reasons.

Under Part 91 operations an aircraft can takeoff with zero visibility (however dangerous that might be).

It all depends upon the equipment the aircraft has board, the infrastructure at the airport that is landing on, and the regulations under which the flight is being conducted under.

Aircraft can, under certain circumstances, land in zero visibility conditions.

But this requires both the aircraft be equipped to fly a Cat IIIc ILS, approach.

The aircrew must have undergone specific training and certification to fly Cat IIIc instrument approaches, and the airport must be equipped with the infrastructure on the ground to support a Cat IIIc ILS approach.

As for conducting a zero zero take off, for revenue carrying commercial and charter flights conducted under parts 121 and 135, this is not allowed; minimum visibilities are 1 sm with 2 or less engines and 1/2 sm with more than 2 engines.

You may, however, conduct zero zero departures while operating under Part 91 regulations.

Zero

zero instrument landings are flown by specifically designed auto pilot for this purpose.

Question: After waiting hours for a flight departure delayed because of heavy fog, I wonder why planes can perform an instrument landing with no visibility, but cannot take off without a minimum visibility.

Why can a plane land in zero visibility conditions but not take off in zero visibility?

Aircraft can and do take off in very poor visibility but it is not advisable. Landing in zero visibility is a fully automated process and this process has not been developed for take-off. There are no regulations stating take-off in zero visibility is not permitted.

Planes do take off at zer/zero visibility, especially under Part 91 operations. That said, one difficulty is often the infrastructure of the airport, which may be lacking in terms of facilitation of low-visibility take-off. Also, while there is an automated process for zero visibility landing, there is no such process for zero visibility take-off. Finally, the biggest risk in this kind of take-off, apart from unseen obstacles, is the fear of a malfunction during take-off.

One difficulty is often the infrastructure of the airport, which may be lacking in terms of facilitation of low-visibility take-off.

Planes take off at zer/zero visibility, especially under Part 91 operations.

While there is an automated process for zero visibility landing, there is no such process for zero visibility take-off.

The biggest risk in this kind of take-off, apart from unseen obstacles, is the fear of a malfunction during take-off.


Yes, The HMS M2 had a single seaplane aboard that it was capable of launching.

Her 12-inch gun was removed, replaced by a small aircraft hangar, the work being completed in 1927.

This could carry a small Parnall Peto seaplane, specially designed for the M2, which, once its wings had been unfolded, could be lowered onto the sea alongside by a derrick for take off.

On landing, the aircraft was hoisted back onto the deck and replaced into the hangar. ...

In October 1928, a hydraulic aircraft catapult was fitted, to enable the seaplane to take off directly from the deck.

The I-400 class submarine was also capable of aircraft launches .

The type name was shortened to Toku-gata Sensuikan (特型潜水艦 Special Type Submarine).

They were submarine aircraft carriers able to carry three Aichi M6A Seiran aircraft underwater to their destinations.

They were designed to surface, launch their planes, then quickly dive again before they were discovered.

There are some more info blurbs here worth checking out about various submarine/aircraft creations.

Also consider the Japanese I-400 class submarine, that carried three Aichi M6A Serian bombers.

Probably the most advanced aircraft carrying submarines ever built.

They entered service too late to have any meaningful impact, but the engineering that went into them was amazing for its time.

Just designing a submarine that could carry a watertight aircraft hangar without the topside weight capsizing the submarine was no simple feat.

They built preheaters for the aircraft engines into the submarine, so the submarine didn't have to linger on the surface while the aircraft warmed their engines.

There was a plan to attack the Panama Canal locks with torpedos launched from the Serian aircraft, but it was never carried out.

If you allow "airplane" = "unmanned aircraft"...

then, jets!

There was Regulus 1 Submarine testing was performed from 1947 to 1953 at the Navy's facility at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, with USS Cusk (SS-348) and USS Carbonero (SS-337) converted as test platforms, initially carrying the missile unprotected, thus unable to submerge until after launch.

And Regulus II ...

the only submarine launch was carried out from USS Grayback in September 1958

The air inlet on Regulus II always makes me think it's laughing for joy to be launched.

If a kite rather than an aircraft qualifies: German U-boats used a towed autogyro to lift a lookout/pilot to a more advantageous altitude (about 120 m). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Achgelis_Fa_330 .

The strategy increased the visible range from 5 nautical miles to 25 nautical miles.

There is one recorded instance of a submarine detecting, attacking and sinking the Greek steamer Efthalia Mari on 6 August 1943.

If a hostile vessel was seen, If the U-boat captain were forced to abandon it on the surface, the tether would be released and the Fa 330 descend slowly to the water.

I believe this might discourage reports of enemy warships by the pilot/observer.

(Wikipedia)I got beat to mentioning Regulus, but the Tomahawk cruise missile has been launched from a submerged sub.

A rocket is used to initially launch the missile.

( reference )

Yes.

Here is a wikipedia article about many of the designs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier Most seem to have gone out of service before the end of WWII, but a German submarine, the Type 212, is being designed to launch UAVs out of its mast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine

(see the last paragraph in the "Weapons" section).

Question: Airplanes are routinely launched from  ocean going vessels , namely carriers.    Missiles are routinely launched from  submarines .   Has an airplane ever been launched from a submarine?  From questions about what qualifies:   Manned or unmanned is ok, but payload mass has to approximate a least a small person  One way trip is ok  Airboat dropped in the water is ok  Airbreathing primary propulsion required, rocket assist for takeoff is ok  Wings for lift are required, control fins alone do not qualify

Has an airplane ever been launched from a submarine?

An airplane has been launched from a submarine. The HMS M2 has a single seaplane aboard. The I-400 class submarine was also capable of launching aircraft.

The answer is yes and there some examples from the past that confirm this possibility, such as the  HMS M2 and the I-400 class submarine.


Can you take off over gross weight?

Yes, it's possible on any airplane, dependent on how far over the weight limit you are, the density altitude, how much runway you have, what obstacles are in the area and other factors.

It's very easy to go above gross in a Cessna 152 with full fuel and 2 passengers, and probably happens more often than people realize or own up to.

That doesn't make it a good idea, which is why pilots are trained to do weight and balance plus performance calculations before every flight.

Besides the safety angle, taking off over gross weight could land you in trouble with the FAA even if nothing goes wrong, you can lose your ticket for that.

If there was an incident your insurance may not cover damage or litigation costs.

Are you a qualified Test Pilot with insurance covering you for crashing this aircraft?

The Max Gross Weight quoted in the POH tells you how far the factory Test Pilots have taken the airplane - any further and you are doing the experimenting.

(An obvious concern is that with too much weight, the wings will fold in flight.

But there are other concerns.)

There are margins, but you don't know what they are.

So you might already have been flying within those margins, and thus got away with it.

But if you don't know what the margins are then you can't guarantee to stay within them.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is CG.

Often CG is what will get you.

On many aircraft the places that you are putting the weight has considerable arm from CG.

This means that you are also shifting the CG.

I have seen for instance Cessna 402 loaded amazingly over gross with the load as far to the front as possible.

However Google Aaliya death and

you will see what happens when the CG is too far aft.

All in all

it's a bad idea to fly over gross, and it is death to fly out of CG especially aft.

Physically, yes the aircraft can take off at or above MTOW - and depending on the aircraft and ambient atmospheric conditions, can takeoff and fly at a considerably greater weight than MTOW.

The problem becomes that the values for MTOW were decided upon during design and flight test, taking into consideration a wide range of operating conditions plus design structural static and maneuvering loads on the airframe and landing gear.

Unless you are very familiar with these numbers, you can risk structural damage to the aircraft during ground roll, stability during ground movement operations, maneuvering and landing the airplane.

In addition, you have no known values for performance data on the airplane in terms of length of ground roll, takeoff distance to clear obstacles, maneuvering load limits, rates of climb and and climbing distances, stall recovery characteristics, etc.

Therefore, in loading an airplane beyond what the manufacturer states for an acceptable weight and balance envelope, you are now swimming in unknown and potentially very dangerous, waters.

Otherwise smart and rational people die all the time doing stupid things like this in airplanes.

Additionally, intentionally operating an airplane outside of its weight and balance envelope is illegal, as it violates §§91.9(a), No person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft flight manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

Overloading also could easily be cited as a violation of §§91.13 Careless and Reckless Operation and §§91.7 Civil Aircraft Airworthiness.

The bottom line: Don't try it.

You don't want to break the law or worse, find out the hard way that your guestimates on the plane's performance were incorrect.

This is a bad idea for a host of reasons, but structural failure is one of the worst.

Sensitivity to gust load is increased when overweight, reducing the designers G load margin.

source from Mountain Flying Consider an airplane that has a maximum allowable gross weight of 3,000 pounds.

If it encounters a +30 fps gust that results in an additional 2-g load factor, the airplane experiences a total of 3 Gs load factor.

Multiply the 3-g load factor by 3,000 pounds and the wings are supporting 9,000 pounds.

Assume the airplane is loaded to 1,500 pounds and that it is subjected to the same gust.

With half the inertia, the gust acceleration is doubled, causing the airplane to experience a 5-g load factor (4-g force plus 1-g level flight).

Multiply 1,500 pounds by 5 gs and the wings are supporting 7,500 pounds.

The lightly loaded airplane is subjected to 1,500 pounds less load when encountering the same gust.

Even though the heavy airplane realizes less load factor, it incurs more strain.

The pilot recognizes load factor; the airplane recognizes load.

Question: I wonder if I could take off with weight more than the gross weight stated in the POH of my aircraft as long as I take off with a higher speed?  I think I have done it once by mistake.

Is it okay to take off with weight more than the POH max gross weight?

It is possible to take off above MTOW however it is a bad idea. Intentionally doing this is illegal as it violates  §§91.9(a). It could result in structural failure or the wings folding in flight.

There are two different approaches to thiw issue. On the one hand, the answer is that it is physically possible to do so, but depending on a number of factors. On the other hand, the answer is that it is a bad idea, since there are many dangers, possible structural failures and unpredicted results.

The answer is that it is physically possible to do so, but depending on a number of factors.

The answer is that it is a bad idea, since there are many dangers, possible structural failures and unpredicted results.


Which fuel tanks are used in order of priority in aircraft?

What you're talking about, in large aircraft, is often referred to as the fuel burn schedule.

Light aircraft generally do not have a fuel burn schedule though they may have have minimal requirements.

The fuel burn schedule is dictated by the aircraft design and is thus different for different aircraft designs.

Is there a sequence of priority?

Yes, and if you don't observe the fuel burn schedule

you risk exceeding the structural limitations of the aircraft, and in particular wing bending moments.

Or the pilot decides?

No, the pilot does not decide usually.

While there may be some leeway in the fuel burn schedules of large aircraft, the pilot or a flight engineer (old aircraft) or an automated system does not decide but rather implements a preset protocol.

As an example, here's a general outline of the fuel burn schedule for 747-100/200 aircraft.

This is from memory so might not be entirely correct but is sufficiently so for example purposes:

On start, taxi, and takeoff burn tank to engine.

In other words, route the fuel from main tank 1 to engine 1, main tank 2 to engine 2, etc.

Once you're established in your cruise climb, all engines burn out of the center tank if there is fuel in the center tank until the center tank fuel is exhausted (but don't burn any fuel in the center tank that is there for ballast).

Burn engines 1 & 2 from main tank 2 and engines 3 & 4 from main tank 3 until the amount of fuel in main tank 2 matches that in main tank 1 and the amount of fuel in main tank 3 matches that in main tank 4.

Main tanks 2 & 3 are larger than 1 & 4.

When parity is reached, burn tank to engine.

At some point transfer the fuel in reserve tank 1 to main tank 1 and reserve tank 4 to main tank 4.

Likewise, if you have them, from reserve tank 2 to main tank 2 and reserve tank 3 to main tank 3.

Most 747-100/200 aircraft didn't have reserve tanks 2 & 3.

You have to get the fuel out of the reserve tanks before landing.

Be aware that just as there is a fuel burn schedule, there may also be a fuel loading schedule.

In the 747-100/200 that schedule dictated that no fuel goes into the center tank until all other tanks are full.

As I remember, the largest center tank available held 114999 lbs of fuel at 6.7 lbs/gal fuel density.

Center tank size varied as ordered by the airline and changed through the production run of the aircraft.

There is a sequence of priority and it is spelled out in the Aircraft Operations Manual (or similar).

For example, in a B757/767 fuel is loaded into the wing tanks first and then if more fuel is required fuel is added to the center tank.

During the flight the fuel is used from the center tank first and then the wing tanks.

Some light aircraft, e.g. Cessna 310, 402, etc., may have auxiliary fuel tanks in addition to main tanks that are designed to be used in accordance with procedures in the aircraft's flight manual/pilot operating handbook.

My G35 Bonanza (and many other, older aircraft) used a pressure carburetor that would return excess fuel to the left main fuel cell.

This meant that no matter what fuel cell the engine was consuming fuel from, the carburetor would always be sending the fuel it did not feed to the intake manifold back to that particular fuel cell.

If the left main fuel cell were full of fuel, the returned fuel from the carburetor would be vented overboard.

The workaround for this behavior of the fuel system was to consume fuel from the left main fuel cell for at least the first hour of the flight before consuming fuel from the other fuel cells/tanks.

This would leave space in the left main fuel cell for the the carburetor return unused fuel without it being vented overboard.

As others have already alluded, this really depends on the aircraft.

Your question does not specifically state fixed wing - so here is my $.02

I know from flying Robinson model helicopters, specifically the R22 and R44, the main and auxiliary fuel tanks are actually tied together

- you burn from both at all times; there is only a master shutoff, there is no tank selector.

Yes there is often a prescribed sequence.

Sometimes it has to do with wing bending moments; often it has to do with the fore-and-aft location of the CG.

For example my understanding is that the P-51D (and C?)

Mustangs were rather unpleasant to fly while the aftmost tank was full of fuel, so some fuel from that tank would typically be consumed even before using any fuel from the drop tanks.

And sometimes it just has to do with the plumbing of the fuel system.

For example if only tank A is directly connected to the engine, you wouldn't want to forget to transfer some fuel from tank B to tank A before

tank A runs dry.

Sometimes one tank feeds more reliably than others due to where the boost pump is located so it is wise (and prescribed in the manual) to use that tank for take-off.

Etc.

Question: Is there a tank priority sequence for using the fuel tanks, or does the pilot decide?

Is there a tank priority sequence for using the fuel tanks?

There is a sequence of priority and it is spelled out in the Aircraft Operations Manual (or similar) so the pilot does not normally decide. Not following the burn schedule puts the structure of the aircraft at risk. Light aircraft generally do not have a fuel burn schedule though they may have have minimal requirements.

Some answers support the fact that there is a sequence of priority for the use of tanks and that the pilot has to pay attention so as not to exceed the limitations. However, some other answers support that light aircrafts do not have a sequence of priority and the pilot does not decide rather than implements the protocol.

There is a sequence of priority for the use of tanks and the pilot has to pay attention so as not to exceed the limitations.

Light aircrafts do not have a sequence of priority and the pilot does not decide rather than implements the protocol.


Fighter jets are very maneuverable, so they may make anything from a shallow bank to a breakaway maneuver .

The breakaway is a standard way for fighter jets to exit a formation.

It provides a way to safely and quickly gain separation from the other aircraft.

In this case the bank is fairly shallow, but when the aircraft disconnects they are already in a shallow right turn, so the total bank angle is a bit larger.

Doesn't really look all that aggressive to me, either way the fighter and the tanker are very vulnerable while refueling.

Usually there is more than one aircraft waiting to refuel, so the goal of this game is to run as many of the aircraft in formation through refueling as quickly as possible.

In order to do that, you need to get your wake out of the way for the next guy to get a smooth approach to the basket.

As Fooot says in his answer , the pilot is using a standard "breakaway" maneuver to get out of the formation and wait for the other pilots in the flight to get the fuel and continue with the mission.

Plus you just got a full tank of fuel in the world's funnest military equipment...

Different air forces may operate with different conventions, but right from basic flight training the RAF classifies banked turns of 20 degrees as "gentle," 40 as "medium" and 60 as "steep," and the most commonly used are "medium".

Ref: The RAF Basic Flying Manual (1952 edition) - https://www.t6harvard.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Chapter-3.pdf page 26-27.

The video is just a 40 degree banked turn.

The aircraft have no problem handling the G loads in 60 degree banked turns, and there are not going to be any complaints from passengers in Business Class that the flight crew spilled their gin and tonic!

They do this because there are 3 main parts to an air to air refuel: port observation where they wait to be refueled in a line.

refuel area where they actually get refueled. reform area where they wait for the rest of the squadron.

After the refuel, they will bank the right to go to the reform area and will wait for the rest of there squadron.

Once everyone is refueled then they break from the tanker.

A jet joins on one side of the tanker then when its turn comes moves behind to tank then when finished, clears off to the other side.

Bear in mind a whole formation may be tanking and need to flow through the same process.

The turn after tanking is not a hard turn in fast jet terms.

Others seem to have answered the why such a sharp maneuver part of the question, so I will answer the why to the right part.

Collision avoidance in aircraft is always by turning to the right when possible.

Keeping the formation in such a way that the pilot can always escape to the right is probably done to ensure safety, as it lines up with the engrained training.

Two aircraft must either be flying in formation, or be far apart, to be safe.

While the fighter is in the process of leaving the tanker, it is neither.

It therefore moves away quickly using the standard breakaway manoeuvre.

Bank really sharply?

The video showed a positively leisurely turn in the circumstances.

Why to the right?

It's standard to approach on the left side of the tanker.

That's where other fighters waiting and approaching to refuel will be, so the left is a good side to avoid.

Question: Whenever I see videos on YouTube they bank really sharply to the right after disconnecting from the tanker. Why wouldn't they do a more shallow 30-degree bank?  See this video for reference:

Why do airplanes bank sharply to the right after air-to-air refueling?

Usually there is more than one aircraft waiting to refuel, so the goal of this game is to run as many of the aircraft in formation through refueling as quickly as possible.  Banking to the right is the standard way for a fighter jet to exit a formation.  If this is a passenger aircraft, there will be no complaints from passengers as the banked turn is not very aggressive.

The breakaway maneuver used is standart practice for fighter jets when exiting a formation and when they need to gain distance from the other aircraft to avoid collision, the standard way is to turn right. Also, when refueling, both aircraft are vulnerable and usually the other jets of the formation are waiting to refuel as well, so the jet needs to be quick for efficiency and go straight to the reform area after the refuel.

Usually the other jets of the formation are waiting to refuel as well, so the jet needs to be quick for efficiency and go straight to the reform area after the refuel.

This is not a particulary sharp turn for a fighter jet.

When refueling, both aircraft are vulnerable.


If no, why not?

While I can't say categorically that it's not happened, I'm pretty sure.

Solar radiance is approx.

A 737 has approximately 100m^2 wing area .

Solar cells are approximately 20% effective .

If you covered the entire wings in solar panels, that would work out to 20kW of electrical power at best.

At night, it would be close to zero extra power.

Jet fuel contains ~43MJ/kg of energy.

20kW is 20kJ/s.

For a 2 hour flight, the total energy produced would be 144MJ, or comparable to energy in 3-4 kilograms of jet fuel.

Turbines is not 100% efficient, so let's say that with all losses in engine, 25% of the power in the fuel is available as electricity.

That means you'd need 12kg of fuel to provide the same amount of electricity as the solar panels.

12kg of fuel.

That's probably far less than the solar cells will weigh, probably by a factor of at least ten.

In addition, the you don't have to carry around already burnt fuel, unlike solar cells, which you will have to carry around.

Edit: I found another answer on this site, that claims extra fuel use is on the order of 0.125kg/kWh.

I don't know if that's correct or not, nor do I really care.

It doesn't change the conclusion, it only makes jet fuel even more favorable.

In short the amount of power provided by solar cells is tiny compared to the energy contained in jet fuel.

And that doesn't even touch on the mechanical requirements of a wing...

No, there are several reasons: Fragility v

Efficiency

v Weight:

the most efficient solar panels are rigid and heavy, which is bad for a wing structure.

Flexible and light panels do exist, but they are half the efficiency.

They also have limitations to how much flexing they really can take, the constant flexing of a wing, vibrations, cycles between hot and extreme cold at altitude all make it a punishing environment for that kind of technology.

Covering the fuselage would mean less flexing, but then you'd only have a few panels positioned right at any one time to create electricity Weight:

In addition to the weight of the panels themselves you have all the other technology to make them work, like regulators, power conditioners, power storage, delivery wiring Complexity: This is yet another system to maintain, and it would be complicated to do so.

If a panel breaks you'd have to take apart the wing to get at it

Cost: you'd need solar panels that are efficient, flexible, durable and light.

That all adds up to expensive panels, far more than is worth it Limited window of use: Obviously solar panels are no good at night, but they are also only generate electricity when they are oriented at least partly towards the sun.

If you're going to cover the wing then the sun must be a good 30-40° up before you'll get appreciable power from them

So it's a lot of weight and cost for a technology that isn't going to generate power for much of the time the airplane is in use.

Not purely on topic

but there is a solar airplane.

Solar supported airliner isn't out of the realm of possibilities, just solar tech isn't there yet.

Also it would have to be economically feasible to even be considered.

Here's an article from 2016 about a solar airplane that traveled the globe.

I once worked for a company that made electronics for commercial aircraft (flight deck printers, Ethernet switches, digital chart recorders).

In addition to what others have mentioned on this thread, you also have to account for the fact that if a product is manufactured for aircraft in the US, it must comply AS9100 and FAR, and whatever standard the EU is using nowadays.

This includes rigorous testing to ensure that, not only is the device safe, but also that the device will not interfere with any of the critical systems of the aircraft.

One consideration that makes solar aircraft less feasible is that the figure of 1kw/m2 is for sunlight striking the solar panel square on - i.e. perpendicular to the panel.

Unless you're flying in the tropics at noon, an aircraft's wings won't meet that.

Their insolation (the amount of power from sunlight) drops with the cosine of the angle from vertical incidence.

Regarding doubling 747 wingspan for two seats - how many passengers will settle for a 45 MPH / 39 knot / 72 kph flight speed (i.e. New York to London in 77 hours if no headwind)?

Question: Has there ever been a trial/project/design, in which solar panels were incorporated in the design of a commerical airliner (e.g. on the wings), with the aim to reduce fuel consumption by lowering the generator workload?  If no, why not?

Has there ever been an airliner design involving reducing generator load by installing solar panels?

Solar panels on plane wings are impractical and inefficient. Firstly, they are heavy and unlike jet fuel the weight does not reduce during the flight. Secondly, the amount of energy they would generate wouldnot be sufficient for most flights and does not compare to the energy generated by jet fuel.

The efficiency of the solar cells is easily compromised by weather conditions and the amount of power generated is more often than not insignificant, thus the more an aicraft relied on it, the slower it would fly. Also, the weight of solar panels is proportionate to their efficiency but even the efficiency of rigid solar panels does not justify the extra stress on the aircraft due to the weight of the solar cells and their equipment. Jet fuel is by far more efficient. The cost would be too high as well, and the results not that impressive. Finally, whether the aircraft is manufactured in the US or the EU, there are multiple requirements and standards with which it must comply, which makes this even more challenging.

The weight of solar panels is proportionate to their efficiency but even the efficiency of rigid solar panels does not justify the extra stress on the aircraft due to the weight of the solar cells and their equipment. Jet fuel is by far more efficient.

The cost would be too high and the results not that impressive.

Whether the aircraft is manufactured in the US or the EU, there are multiple requirements and standards with which it must comply, which makes this even more challenging.


Yes, indeed the plan to build a hydrogen-powered jet laid the groundwork for using hydrogen in the Centaur rockets and the upper stages of the Saturn 5 .

While hydrogen was used only experimentally in test rigs , the Soviet Union built a derivative of a regular airliner, the Tupolev 155 , for testing hydrogen and natural gas in flight.

EDIT:

NACA also did in-flight testing.

Please see @jayhendren's answer for details.

So yes, the Tu-155 was indeed flown on several occasions with one hydrogen-powered turbofan.

While the left and center engine remained NK-8 s, the right engine was replaced by a NK-88 which was adapted for LNG and hydrogen.

Other projects like one for a hydrogen-powered supersonic airliner sadly ended with the Soviet Union itself.

Tu-155 Cutaway view (picture source ) Hydrogen is also the prime propellant in hypersonic ramjets , but those are not turbines.

Hydrogen has a wide mixing ratio with air where it will burn.

Also, being gaseous, it mixes much more quickly with air, so the combustion chamber can be small.

When a converted J-57 was experimentally run on hydrogen in 1957, The test engineers were agreeably surprised by the ease of engine operation.

They ran it at full power and throttled back so far that the air fan was revolving so slowly the individual blades could be counted.

Under this latter condition, the throttle could be opened and the engine would quickly and smoothly accelerate to full power.

They found that the temperature distribution was good and there were no major problems.

But Niels is correct - its low density makes hydrogen problematic.

As Alexis W. Lemmon, Jr., reported in May 1945 in his report on possible jet fuels (from history.nasa.gov ): "

Although the liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen system has by far the highest specific impulse performance of any system considered in this report, the low average density of the fuel components almost completely eliminates this system from all but very minor applications."

For fuels intended for use in aircraft, the key performance parameter is the energy density of the fuel: how much potential work is stored in how many liters of stuff.

High energy density means the fuel tanks will be small and the energy released upon burning a liter of it will be large.

The problem with using hydrogen as aircraft fuel is that its energy density is way lower than that of kerosene or diesel (because a liter of hydrogen at atmospheric pressure contains far less chemical potential energy than does a liter of kerosene), and squeezing it down to reduce its volume requires cryogenic refrigeration which hugely increases cost and weight, and the octane rating advantage of H2 is not balanced by these disadvantages.

Specifically regarding burning hydrogen in brayton cycle turbines, this is possible but economically impractical because the cost to make a liter of hydrogen is far greater than the cost to refine a liter of jet kerosene from crude oil.

Von Ohain's first prototype of his HeS 3 turbojet, the HeS 1, burned hydrogen in the first runs.

Only after some modifications was he able to make it work with a liquid fuel.

This is not fully on topic ('Aviation'), but answers the question in some way: Hydrogen is currently considered the 'fuel of the future' for existing and new gas turbines in power plants, for small and large gas turbines equally.

The industry is working to enable all existing turbine lines to handle that, and the modifications are minor (well, minor compared to the complexity of a modern gas turbine).

Many models are already successfully enabled and proven, and the market is expecting to get the first requests soon.

Overall, it is quite easy to use hydrogen - just maybe not on an airplane.

The main reason to go for hydrogen burning is that it enables hydrogen storage as a battery - when there is extra power available (preferably solar or wind), it gets converted to hydrogen, and when the power is needed, it gets burned in existing gas turbines.

This would allow to save trillions of existing investments in power plants by converting them into zero-emission hydrogen-burning plants.

[Disclaimer: I have a professional relationship to such a company; however, this is not restricted information]

NACA (the predecessor to NASA), has burned hydrogen in a turbojet engine in flight.

There is an extensive history of NACA's and NASA's experimentation with hydrogen as a fuel on the NASA history website .

In the 1950s NACA burned hydrogen in a turbojet engine on a modified B-57 aircraft as part of Project Bee: A technical report on the in-flight performance of the hydrogen-powered turbine was published and is available for download on the NASA website .

The experiments with hydrogen as a fuel source for turbine engines were successful enough that the Lockheed CL-400 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft was designed to use hydrogen fuel: Ultimately, however, the CL-400 was cancelled, although some of the research for this project made its way into the now-famous SR-71.

Question: I am just wondering if supplying compressed hydrogen to a turbine would be a better fuel as it has three times the octane rating of kerosene. It just seems better all around.

Has anyone burned hydrogen in a turbine?

S1: While hydrogen was used only  experimentally in test rigs , the Soviet Union built a derivative of a regular airliner, the  Tupolev 155 , for  testing hydrogen  and natural gas in flight. NACA (the predecessor to NASA), has burned hydrogen in a turbojet engine in flight. However, the problem with using hydrogen as aircraft fuel is that its energy density is way lower than that of kerosene or diesel (because a liter of hydrogen at atmospheric pressure contains far less chemical potential energy than does a liter of kerosene), and squeezing it down to reduce its volume requires cryogenic refrigeration which hugely increases cost and weight, and the octane rating advantage of H2 is not balanced by these disadvantages.

It is entirely possible to fly a plane on hydrogen and it has been done many times in the past, with many models being designed for this purpose, like the Soviet Union's Tupolev 155, the HeS 3 turbojet and many turbojets of NACA and NASA. It has also been used in rockets and the Saturn 5. However, the low energy density of hydrogen makes it less efficient and less economically preferable than kerosene.

The low energy density of hydrogen makes it less efficient and less economically preferable than kerosene.


Cyclists shaving their legs is more tradition than anything else--there is a whole industry around creams, soaps, and salves.

However, I'll defer to Sheldon Brown 's explanation for a few acceptable reasons why they do it: To prevent infection when crashing.

To pull off bandages more painlessly after dressing a wound.

To get a massage of the legs without hair pulling.

One reason I've often heard is 'To be more streamlined in the wind'--but

I don't believe it!

It's the best way to show off the hard work you've put into developing all those muscles :)

I've never seen a noticeable difference in wind resistance whenever I've shaved my legs for cycling, though I was never competitive to the point of measuring time in hundredths of a second.

I have found, from painful personal experience

, that road rash from a crash heals much more nicely on shaved skin than hairy legs, mostly because bandages and tape become much easier to remove!

So you can get razor sharp tan lines.

Pesky hair can result in migrating shorts which leads to blurring of the tan line.

And really ... if you are going to look foolish, you might as well just jump RIGHT in.

I agree with Dustin's answer as the putative reasons usually cited, but I think at some level, it's a mark of the tribe .

Guys figure "if I shave my legs, other cyclists (and even some non-cyclists) will recognize me as a fellow cyclist."

If being a cyclist is an important part of your identity, that'll be important to you.

It is kind of cool to be able to pick someone out and strike up a conversation about cycling just based on their weird tan lines and/or shaven legs.

Aesthetical reasons trump all else.

Hairy limbs peeking out of tight lycra just look nasty.

Contemplate attached picture to see what looks better, Astarloa's legs or arms?

One reason not yet mentioned is that in summer your legs feel cooler.

But I think the No. 1 reason is psychological

- it looks good and all the fast guys do it (sorry ladies, the shaving legs things for girls is so not an issue).

There are two additional things that haven't been mentioned yet.

First, road rash is actually made worse by hairy legs.

We all know that when you hit the pavement it acts like sandpaper scraping a layer off your skin.

However, if you have hairy legs the hairs get pulled out by the root as well.

This makes the road rash deeper where your skin actually comes into contact with the ground as well as making the surface area of the wound larger because of hairs that get pulled out around the actual contact area.

And second, while road rash isn't as much of a concern for mountain biking, there's an additional advantage there too.

It's easier to wash the crud off after a ride.

You can just hose your legs off out of your water bottle and watch the dirt come off in rivers.

In addition to the previously mentioned benefits, recent wind tunnel testing performed by Specialized has shown that shaved legs will save about 50 to 82 seconds over a 40km TT...certainly not an inconsequential amount.

Turns out the oft-cited study from 1987 that many use to say that leg hair doesn't affect aerodynamics was performed in a miniature wind tunnel using a fake leg with or without hair glued onto it .

Hardly comprehensive, but only recently challenged.

Interestingly, shaving your arms could save about 19 seconds over 40k, while shaving the beard will only save about 1 second.

Allegedly, shaved legs make it much easier to apply and remove embrocation, increases it effectiveness, and eliminates the "bugs crawling on skin" feeling when hairs pop back into position.

FYI:

embrocation is an ointment used to heat muscles & joints on chilly days.

Common, Am I the only one whose thigh hairs gets pulled while cycling.

Or when cycling on jeans(I know its horrible thing), the ups and downs of hair is just kills me.

Thats the reason I shave.

To be pretty, when I am cycling, no way.

I am cycling, not modeling for the cycles.

(Sorry, guys if I have offended you.)

Cyclists shave their legs for three reasons:1.

To avoid any insect clings in their feet hair2.

Get a better massage3.

For a cool feel during the ride

Question: Why do cyclists shave their legs? Is it because of wind resistance?

Why do cyclists shave their legs?

The consensus seems to be that the main reason male cyclists shave their legs is aesthetic: it looks good, they get a more even tan and they are recognised as cyclists. However, there may be more serious reasons, such as the chafing caused by hair and to feel cooler, especially in summer. Moreover studies show there is a very small aerodynamic advantage.

Shaving is mostly due to tradition and aesthetic reasons. Shaved legs display muscle better, allow for a better tanning and are among the distinguishing marks of the cycling community. In the event of a crash or fall, shaved legs may prevent infection. Using bandages is also easier. Moreover, shaving your legs may prevent hair pulling when you are riding or getting a massage. You could also avoid getting insects on your legs. Shaved legs also offer a cooler sensation. Arguably, shaved legs may make you faster, as is decreases wind resistance.

Pesky hair can result in migrating shorts which leads to blurring of the tan line.

Shaving your legs may prevent hair pulling when you are riding or getting a massage. You could also avoid getting insects on your legs.


First, replace the missing spokes with properly sized spokes.

Next, on the drive side of a rear wheel with derailleur gears you will need to remove the cassette, insert the new spoke(s), then replace it.

That requires a special tool (there are several variations for different cassettes and freewheels).

A bike shop can do this or sell you the correct tool.

You will always need the next special tool: a spoke wrench that fits the size of spokes you have.

While a truing stand is great, you can do some basic truing of a bike with rim brake by simply putting the bike on a stand.

With disk brakes a cable tie round the bike frame or fork can be turned so the free end is almost (but not quite) touching the rim.

Anything similar will work, you just need something close to the rim that lets you see the gap between that and the rim.

Let the air out of the tire.

Air pressure in the tire will push the tube against the turning top of the spoke head, and can puncture the tube.

Spin the wheel slowly and watch the space between the rim and the brake pad.

When you have found the centre of a an area that is listing to one side, use your truing wrench to loosen the spoke nearest to it on that side ¼

to ½ turn, and tighten the spokes on the opposite side an equivalent amount.

As long as you work in small steps and work slowly, it is safe to play around and figure out how truing works.

Patience is required.

If the rim itself is bent, it may be hard or impossible to true.

As per the other responses, the main tool you need is a spoke wrench.

You can use the frame itself as a truing stand.

Other things to note are: Deflate the tyre before performing the re-truing.

If you don't do this, you can end up drilling a hole through the rim tape with your spoke nipple.

Look at the way the other spokes are laced to get the lacing of your new spokes correct.

Consider buying a few extra spokes from your local bike store when you get the replacements.

I find that once a wheel reaches the stage where a spoke or two breaks, it is common for a few other spokes to break not long after.

The basic tool you would need is a spoke wrench .

This will allow you to pull the rim (by the spokes) back into true.

The spoke wrench is actually turning the spoke nipple out at the rim.

The tool you would need in order to tell if it is true is a truing stand .

The tool you will need to make it all work is your brain.

For your wheel, you'll want to get spokes cut to the length of your wheel by a local bike shop.

The length depends on the rim size, the hub size, and the spoke pattern, so the best way to do this is to bring the wheel in yourself.

Bringing the wheel in will also help the mechanics to tell you if it is beyond repair - once wheels have bent more than an inch or so, they rarely can be trued to be as strong as they were.

Once you have the spokes and the nipples to attach them to the rim, you can tighten them with a spoke wrench.

Once you have the new spokes tightened down, work your way around the hub, tightening spokes to adjust the rim position.

Keep in mind that you are tightening the spoke into the nipple, so if you are looking from hub to rim, you want to turn left to tighten and right to loosen.

There's a more in depth explanation of this up on wikibooks, as well: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bicycles/Maintenance_and_Repair/Wheels_and_Tires/Truing_a_bicycle_wheel

Yet another very-slightly different answer follows below.

I never owned a stand, and don't have the space for one in my apartment.

Plus I prefer to do it in the park in clear air with a beer in hand.

My procedure: (0)

This answer concerns only the in-frame method, that is, when you have V-brakes.

Why would you true a wheel on which the rim is not rubbing against any pads?

(1) Turn the bike upside down.

(2) Check if there are any very loose or very tight spokes.

Your wheel is already out of true, it won't hurt to correct problems.

Overtightened spokes may break, while loose ones might rattle when they become even more loose.

(3)Tighten your brakes excessively.

That is, unscrew this so that the wheel barely turns and rubs most of the time: (4) Turn the tire and find the place where it rubs the most.

Identify which side it rubs and correct it as others have noted.

(5) Repeat 4.

lots of times.

(6) Finish your beer and get another.

Question: I broke a couple of spokes on my wheel, now it's all bent, how can I align it back again? What kind of tools do I need to do a good job?

How do I align a wheel?

S0: The basic tool needed to balance a bike wheel is a  spoke wrench .   Turn the bike upside down. Check if there are any very loose or very tight spokes. Tighten your brakes excessively. Unscrew this so that the wheel barely turns and rubs most of the time. Turn the tire and find the place where it rubs the most. Identify which side it rubs and correct it.

The basic steps to align your wheel are the following. First, you should get some replacement and spare spokes at the length of your wheel. Turn the frame upside down, deflate the tires and remove the cassette. Attach the spokes to the rim, tight them with a spoke wrench and perform the re-truing with necessary adjustments. Most testimonies agree that the tool necessary is a spoke wench,


A Bit More Than Basic Bicycle Maintenance for the Average Cyclist , at the How to Fix Bikes Sheldon Brown's site has articles on many aspects of bike maintenance The Park Tool website has instructions for most basic repair operations, and their handy bike map is great when you don't know a headset from a handlebar.

Bicycle Tutor has videos demonstrating many repair jobs Beachbike's Youtube channel has a lot of information specific to beach cruisers.

The videos on internally geared hubs are helpful and clear.

These two books came highly recommended to me, and together they cover about every bike part your bike may have.

(The road bike book doesn't cover "V" style brakes, since they're considered mountain bike parts).

Zinn and the Art of Road Bike Maintenance Zinn and the Art of Mountain Bike Maintenance

I'd recommend Park Tool's Big Blue Book of Bike Repair .

Plenty of pictures and good explanations.

This book has made a number of things seem a lot less intimidating.

(Moved over from a duplicate question.

I can't vote on comments yet, or I'd just +1 to Gabe .)

This one is pretty good: T

he Bicycling guide to complete bicycle maintenance & repair : for road & mountain bikes / Todd Downs.

( 6th edition out soon)

I personally have Zinn and the Art of Road Bike Maintenance as mentioned above.

I use a combination of: The Haynes Bike Book which is like a standard Haynes Manual but for bikes.

The Complete Do It Yourself Bike Book by Mel Allwood

The Internet Between them the two books tend to give me a thorough step by step breakdown of what needs to be done and what tools I might require, whilst the internet just pads this out (and can occasionally be either difficult to search or confusing with it's results).

This website if you've got a more specific question about which bit of your bike you want to maintain!

Look for courses at your local bike store.

In the UK Edinburgh bike coop do excellent basic and more advanced course, as do MEC in Canada - both also do women only courses.

Most local bike advocacy groups will do something similar, sometimes it's helpful to see how to do it.

If we're sticking with websites, I also like Thomas Driemeyer's site .

I also use Todd Downs "Bicycle Maintnenance & Repair" book as it has great pictures and really explains things well.

Question: If there is a good book what would it be? I'm pretty sure I can find stuff on YouTube (any particular user?).  Any blogs out there?

Where to find good bicycle maintenance info?

Numerous books and websites are available providing information and guidance on bike maintenance. Websites include Sheldon Brown's site, Thomas Driemeyer's site, Bicycle Tutor. Many books are also available including Zinn and the Art of Road Bike Maintenance,  Zinn and the Art of Mountain Bike Maintenance and the Complete Do It Yourself Bike Book. Local bike stores also run courses.

You can find maintenance information mostly online. There are many websites, forums and video tutorials readily available. It is a good idea to advise books and manuals, which might be more illustrative and explanatory. You could also try taking courses at a bike store.


Answers for a typical 21-speed commuter I could find specs on: 20 , 19 , 15 , 12 .

20 is the technically right answer, 19 is a slightly more technically right answer, 15 is if you take into account gears that are nearly identical, but 12 is the practical usable answer.

Really, it's going to depend on your exact gear setup.

At the very least, you really should avoid the big-front:big-back gear, since that's hardest on your derailer.

So, if you take @jensgram's answer and work it out on a typical bike similar to what you describe ... I'll take the Trek 7.1FX for my example.

The chainrings in front are 48-38-28t.

In the back it's 14-16-18-20-22-24-34r.

(Numbers are the number of teeth).

I don't know if it's typical on other hybrids, but that jump from 24 to 34 is a little unusual and they market it as a special "megarange" feature.

If you work out all the ratios (I wrote a sort of little computer program up real quick to do it), the only exact duplicate ratios this gear setup has is 28:14 and 48:24, one of which is one of those extreme ranges it's suggested to avoid.

So this bike actually has 20 unique gear ratios, but since one of those unique ranges is 48:34 that you should avoid, it's 19 usable unique gear ratios.

If you round to only one digit after the decimal to give you the nearly identical ratios, you get 15 gears: 0.8 28:341.1 28:24 or 38:341.2 28:221.4 28:20 or 48:341.5 28:18 or 38:241.7 28:16 or 38:221.9

38:202.0 28:14 or 48:242.1 38:18 or 48:222.3 38:162.4 48:202.6 48:182.7 38:143.0 48:163.4 48:14

But look carefully at what front chainrings you use to get those...

If you use the smallest front chainring with only the 3 biggest rear cogs, the middle front chainring with all but the biggest and smallest rear, and the big front chainring with only the four smallest rear cogs, you get your whole range of gears in a way you can comprehend, but it's 12 really usable gears (you skip 1.4, 2.0 and 2.7 in my above chart; all close enough to another gear) How many rear cogs it makes sense to use on each front chainring will depend on the exact gearing setup.

But if you play around with it a little you can probably just feel it.

Switch the front chainring to the middle, switch the back to the smallest and feel that gear; then switch the front to the biggest, switch the back in by 2 or 3 gears and see if it feels about the same.

Do the same thing with the low-end.

Excluding the two extremes (see Scott Robinson's answer ), you have 19 ratios.

Some of these may be very close to each other.

The easiest way (although a little cumbersome) is to count the number of teeth ( n ) on all gears (three in front, seven rear) counting from the centerline of the bike (outwards).

The ratio is given as n(front) / n(rear) ,

e.g.: 1st =

n(front1) /

n(rear1)2nd = n(front1)

/ n(rear2)...

8th =

= n(front3) / n(rear7)

Now you may find identical (or nearly identical) ratios.

The number of unique ratios is the number of effective gears.

There's no way to calculate the actual gear ratio unless you know the sizes of the cassette and chainrings.

But, you do have 19 effective gear ratios since you shouldn't shift into the two extremes.

(Low front/low back, high front/high back)

I've heard that the you should only use all the rear chain rings when using the middle chain ring on the front.

When using the largest front chain ring, you should only use the bottom 2 or 3 chain rings, and when using the smaller chain ring on the front, you should only use the top 2 or 3 chain rings.

This is to prevent having too much of and angle between in the chain.

Also, you generally don't need to use those gears anyway, since they are usually the same, or in between the range of the other gears, which means they won't help you much.

Here's a good explaination of how to change gears.

So while you may effectively have 21 gears, you shouldn't use them all, as the extremes can cause your chain to strech.

Mostly, you'll use only 3+7+3, giving you 13 gears.

Some people even say to keep you chain really straight really straight, and you should only use 3+3+3 = 9.

Just try to keep your chain as straight as possible.

Since there is a lot of overlap, you'll want to shoot for a straight chain as much as possible , over trying to use all the gears.

Here is an excellent gear calculator.

You just need to know a few basic things like crank length, wheel size, etc.

and then it will figure everything out for you.

Sheldon Brown's Bicycle Gear Calculator

There is just another thing to mention.

You can't use all combinations else there is too much strain on the system.

With my 3x8

I just ignore the extremes: Front 1: Back 1-6 Front 2: Back 2-7 Front 3: Back 3-8 You loose some combinations, but they are not very useful anyway.

Note: I once had an accident.

While driving, the bike suddenly stopped with a metallic klunc.

The rear derailleur was caught between the spokes.

Ruining about everything.

The bike just had its maintenance (replacement of chain and cassette)

so it was probably a mistake of the bicycle repairshop.

And they agreed).

Athough they said that it was because of the extreme settings (Front 3, Back 1).

But that was a result of the accident.

So they fixed it for free.

Question: I have a 21 speed bike (a hybrid commuting bike). But AFAIK, this does not mean that I have 21 different gear ratios. Is there any way to calculate the different gear ratios?

How many effective gears do I have on a 21 speed bike?

20 is the technically right answer, 19 is a slightly more technically right answer, 15 is if you take into account gears that are nearly identical, but 12 is the practical usable answer.

While there are 19-20 gear ratios in absolute terms, the number actually used is a lot smaller. To calculate the gear ratio you would need to count the teeth on all gears, however you would also need to check your bike's technical specifications to find how many gears are practically used.


Best? Doesn't seem like there's any one right answer.

Pros for carrying on bike:

Weight is on the bike, not you Doesn't make your back all sweaty

No adjustments necessary Generally easier to clean Easier to choose alternate beverage options (with the right bottle) Easier to just always have a water bottle on the bike (one less thing to worry about remembering to bring) Pros for carrying in a hydration pack: Easier to drink from (so you drink more often in little sips) Can drink without waiting for smooth riding (don't necessarily need to remove a hand from the handlebars)

Less likely to pick up dirt (cleaner; but see comment about flip-top for bottles) Seems like the kind of cycling you're doing makes a big difference.

Mountain biking has more dirt and more rough terrain where your water bottle nozzle could pick up trail dirt and be hard to reach down and grab to drink from.

Road biking tends to have plenty of smooth pavement allowing for drinking from a bottle and not as much dirt to worry about.

I mostly ride on the road and generally use a water bottle (or two or three; or a water bottle and a coffee travel mug), but if I'm going for a long ride (especially in hot weather), I'll use the hydration pack (and probably have a bottle in all 3 cages, maybe with juice or something like that in one) just to be sure I keep well-hydrated.

The core of this question seems to be the following:

Where do you keep your water to optimize speed/agility/enjoyment?

Disclaimer: I've never had a Camelbak, but I do drink water!

Speed : If you mean speed of access, keeping water in a bladder is obviously the winner.

If you're concerned with aerodynamics, I'd think the answer is a toss-up.

Agility :

Water higher up on your back will make the bike a little more top-heavy.

I know that carrying a half-gallon of milk in a backpack throws me off, particularly on a road bike.

Enjoyment

: It depends what you mean by enjoyment.

For a short ride, having something on my back isn't a big deal, unless the day is very hot indeed.

Judging by the price, this water bottle holder must be the best option.

I prefer it on my back in a hydration bladder, that way, it is easily accessible and out of my way.

Regardless of the type of biking I am doing...

For MTB The camelbak is very nice, since it is cleaner, and easier to drink.

But I prefer to fill it with only water because it is harder to clean.

So I take a bottle with sportdrink to get some sugar on longer trips.

For the road Bottles are good, but on longer trips I like to have some extra water with me.

So I also take my Camelbak with me.

Conclusion

On longer trips (3 hours or more) I take bottles of sportdrink and a Camelbak with water, both on my MTB and on my road bike.

I have a Camelbak Razor which I do use for road cycling.

However, I am selective about when I use it.

In general, it does not have detrimental effects on agility, but no doubt somewhat on aerodynamics.

For rides less than 4 hours, I go with water bottles in the bottle cages.

For longer rides, especially in remote areas where I won't have easy access for refilling water bottles, I've found the Razor to be quite useful.

If riding in generally "civilized" areas, I tend to just go with the water bottles.

I decided on a compromise I was looking for water after the ride that wasn't warm and had a powder or energy thing in it to replenish

so I put a bottle in the camelpak so it was kept cold by the condensating ice and the energy supplements in another pocket

Question: Where do you prefer to carry your water?  I find when I am mountain biking I prefer to carry my water in a hydration pack on my back (easier to rock the bike).  When road biking on flat ground I prefer to have it on the bike.    Where do you keep your water to optimize speed/agility/enjoyment?   Edit: It seems to me that road bikers never use camelbacks.  Is there a reason for this?

Where is the best place to carry water (back or bike)?

Most riders seem to prefer carrying water on their back, in a bladder or Camelbak as this creates less drag and is easier to access. However, these should be carried low on the back to prevent the bike becoming top heavy.

You can adopt different strategies depending on the duration of your trip. For short rides, water bottles in cages suffice, for longer routes you could consider a hydration pack. Moreover, if you want to save on weight, you could discard your empty bottles. You can also try keeping your water bottles on your back if you want to access them easily, even though that might increase your upper body weight. Camelbak is a clean and easy alternative, especially for mountain biking.

If you want to save on weight, you could discard your empty bottles.

You can try keeping your water bottles on your back if you want to access them easily, even though that might increase your upper body weight.


Lightweight polyester or microfiber materials do the job.

Pearl Izumi is my favourite.

Bike specific rain jackets are a must if you are looking for comfort.

Generally they are very thin and have air vents in them.

There is no reason to wear heavy rain jackets.

Instead, layer up up with a base layer (often merino wool or synthetic thermals) + mid layer + the shell (which is the jacket).

That is probably the most common layup for cyclists and it will keep you warm.

I bicycle year round in the Pacific Northwest and follow the mantra: there is no inappropriate weather, only inappropriate clothing.

(Well, snow and ice may be inappropriate weather for bicycling)

Despite commuting daily, I only purchased dedicated cycling rain gear yesterday -- and only did that for better visibility and more convenient pocket locations.

Generally: Layer so that you have options.

Start out bundled up.

After 5-10 minutes, you'll be warm and want to remove some clothes.

When you do, outer layers should pack well.

Alternately, you can just slow down.

Some commuting days, I will just ride slow enough that I don't sweat.

Riding a little slower only makes 10 minute difference in my commute time.

I could often spend more time fine tuning my gear (and much more time parking a car).

Specifics:

For raincoats, something that vents well is essential and will minimize sweat.

No fancy fabric will do as much for sweat reduction as a zipper under the armpit and zippers that can open the coat from the bottom.

I used a multi-purpose Marmot rain coat in this configuration for a decade with very little sweat.

You will also use the raincoat on cold days to cut down on wind-chill.

Visibility: If you use a general purpose rain jacket, it may not be bright.

You can get reflective vests of various styles from bicycle shops.

These have the advantage that you can use the vest when it is too hot to wear your high-visibility rain jacket.

Gloves are essential on days below 50F.

I just used ski gloves in the winter.

I got some waterproof cycling gloves that I'll try this winter.

Long underwear (as used for skiing) will extend your cycling season by months.

My legs and feet usually warm up fast.

As noted by Kibbee , make sure your socks are not cotton.

They will stay warm even if wet.

I bring an extra pair of socks for the way home to avoid the yucky feeling of putting on wet socks.

Much cheaper than waterproof booties.

You are getting some good advice here on rain jackets, but the part of the accessory for cycling in rain that I find critical are a good quality overshoes - especially for commuting.

There is nothing more annoying for me that arriving to work and have the shoes and socks wet, there is no chance for them to dry completely before the journey back home

so you will end up putting the wet stuff on.

I tried some cheap waterproof overshoes first but they did not really work in any heavier rain wet conditions, basically after 10 minutes you were the same as not wearing them at all.

Then I bought overshoes made of neoprene, and they seemed to work a bit better, but again after about 15 minutes in the heavy rain the shoes were all wet - to be fair

they kept the feet warm

, so were better then nothing in the winter but still did not serve well the purpose of keeping the feet dry.

2 years ago I eventually invested in the Gore Tex overshoes and finally it is something that actually works.

I have about 35-45 minutes commute journey and so far they kept me dry.

So my advice would be to invest in a quality gear from start-

it will save you the annoyance and in the long run the money as well.

Rainclothes designed for cycling, preferably in a material that "breathes" (Goretex being the best known, I think).

You will still get wet from the inside if you go too fast, but this type of material is way better than "non-breathing" varieties.

I have a Gore Bike Wear Path jacket and pants that I am pretty happy with.

Rainclothes for biking is essential in rainy Denmark :-)

Biking raingear is always a compromise.

Do you want to get wet from the rain or from sweat, or a little bit of both?

I use a Foxwear jacket and pants, and I stay dry if I go slowly and don't work up a sweat.

The material is warm but somewhat wicking and water resistant.

In the summer I'll be more likely to change into lycra for the ride and just get wet, changing when I get to my destination.

I usually just put up with the wetness.

The best are clothes that don't absorb water, and therefore don't get heavy when they get really wet.

If I'm going to work, I have a change of clothes anyway, and otherwise I'm usually just going out on a recreational ride, and will be back home after I'm done.

One thing I would recommend is a pair of gloves with good grip.

Personally, I use MEC CyclPad gloves, as they are quite cheap, and provide quite a bit of grip from the rubberized palms.

And, of course, once you've got where you're going, you'll feel a lot better about yourself if your belongings are dry.

I have an excellent Ortleib, courier style bag, which is totally waterproof, sealed by folding over the top.

If you can change into dry clothes (in particular dry socks and shoes), embracing the wet is a lot easier.

Question: I tried wearing a raincoat to keep out the rain, but find I get hot and sweaty inside. So my question is, what clothing do you find works best for you when cycling in wet weather?  Thanks.

What clothing is best for wet weather/cycling in the rain?

For riding in the rain, lightweight polyester or microfiber materials are preferred. Choose bike-specific jackets for comfort and ensure they are well vented. Layering is recommended with a base layer of wool, a mid layer and then the jacket. A reflective vest is good if the rain jacket is not a bright colour. A good waterproof courier's bag and some overshoes complete the outfit.

A good option would be wearing lightweight polyester or microfiber clothes. More to the point, it is recommended that you use a water- and windproof rain jacket or raincoat, preferably one that vents to avoid sweating. Layering is also a good way to keep warm and manage your temperature. On a different note, it is a good idea to get a reflective vest or jacket to increase your visibility. Finally, you should consider carrying a change of clothes in a waterproof bag or using long underwear to cycle in adverse weather conditions.

It is recommended that you use a water- and windproof rain jacket or raincoat, preferably one that vents to avoid sweating. Some users suggest specific brands, like Marmot and Goretex.

Layering is a good way to keep warm and manage your temperature depending on the weather.

It is a good idea to get a reflective vest or jacket to increase your visibility.

You could try long underwear to cycle in adverse weather conditions.

Carrying an extra pair of socks or wearing overshoes is important for keeping your feet dry.

You should consider carrying a change of clothes in a waterproof bag.


Yes you can ride home with a broken spoke.

I'd probably unscrew the spoke from the nipple before doing so, so that it doesn't wobble around and get caught in other bits of the bike.

Bike wheels are wonderful things that can easily put up with having a few spokes missing.

You can even ride home with several broken spokes ; )

It's not exactly great for your wheels

but if you take it easy (no jumps!)

they'll be fine.

I have done this many times without any permanent damage to my wheels.

But do take Deemar's advice about unscrewing the spoke.

I'm doing bicycle touring, and we do end up with broken spokes, with sometimes no place to fix it.

I think the longest stretch was 120km in the South of Chile, on bad roads (gravel and dirt) with one and then two broken spokes.

Even with the bicycle load (due to the luggage)

the wheel handled that, although I've just been straightening it a bit from time to time.

So sure, you should be fine on a commuting bicycle with almost no load.

Just take care of the bumps on the road (esp.

when going on a sidewalk, if it's a shared one) as you might put pressure on the wheel which could bend a bit ==

> the wheel could then touch the brakes if you don't have disks ones.

But don't wait too long.

It's not because it's possible that it doesn't harm the rim to have broken spokes, eventhough

I saw bikes in the Netherlands with quite a few broken spokes, still cycling and sometimes with 2 people on it!

Crazy Dutch ;-)

I rode a whole summer of commuting with a broken spoke.

You'll be alright. :)

While riding with broken spokes is possible, I have started to keep a pair of spare spokes taped down low on the seat tube mostly out of view.

I typically only seems break spokes on the rear wheel and then on side away from the gears.

So it's a quick fix to pull out the broken spoke and thread in a spare.

The wheel is far truer that with the broken spoke.

I only need this trick every two years or so

and I feel a lot better riding on and then home.

You should be fine as long as you can secure that broken spoke to the nearest spoke either by twisting it around the good spoke, or securing it with a piece of duct tape or bandaid which all bikers should carry.

As long as you're sure it won't get loose and get into the derailleur or brake.

You can losen it up to make the twisting job easier, but that usually isn't necessary.

Just take it easy on the ride home.

Question: I noticed a wobble in my back wheel while commuting in this morning. Broken spoke. Is this a problem that I should take care of before my 7 mile commute home, or can I pick up a spoke and repair it at home?

Can I ride home with a broken spoke?

Iy is possible to ride home with more than one broken spoke. The best thing to do is secure the broken spoke to the nearest spoke.

It is possible to ride with one or more broken spokes for an extended period of time without many problems. However, it would be a good idea to keep spare spokes on your bike. You could also try securing the broken spoke by means of twisting it or ducktaping it.

It would be a good idea to keep spare spokes on your bike. You could also try securing the broken spoke by means of twisting it or ducktaping it.


I've used a Brooks saddle in a similar climate (Vancouver, BC) without any major issues.

Treat the topside with Proofide every 6-12 months and keep the underside dry (fenders, wedge bag, etc).

Store the bike in a dry place between rides so that the leather can dry out naturally.

A saddle cover would probably help

but I've never used one.

I have a Brooks, properly treated with Proofide, and I use full fenders, but major rides while raining make the saddle so soft that it bends all the way down.

That is a problem that can be partially avoided with rain covers, but you cannot forget yours never!

Also, if the saddle keeps wet when you arrive, you can pull it to original shape and wait for it to dry again.

It becomes even more comfortable after that.

The only problem is the case where you need to keep riding (for example, on a holiday tour) and the saddle is STILL wet from yesterday.

I don't know what to do then...

Amazingly, though, even all the way down it is still comfortable and pretty rideable.

Once, a dutch guy was crossing my town on a long tour, with his brooks fully stretched down, and he only complained from sore hands, not from sore bum.

It was incredible!

So, I would say: "Yes, go for it, but you have been warned!"

;o)

I've been riding an old Ideale saddle for a while now in all weather in New england with a year round commute for several years with no problems.

The secret is as others have said- FENDERS and treatment.

I treated the saddle with proofide for break in, and once the saddle had more or less molded to me, I treated the whole saddle top and bottom with sno-seal, which is a wax based waterproofer for leather used in winter conditions.

Its semi-solid so apply with a hairdryer to heat the leater and let it melt and soak in.

I reapply the sno-seal as needed (when water gets absorbed) or sometime in the winter, and the leather practically beads water off now.

Still lets it be soft enough to continue to adjust to my bum as well.

If it works on a 50+ year old piece of leather its got to work on a new one!

In your case I would say that you can use a Brooks-style leather saddle with two recommendations: Fenders - having fenders on your bike will keep much of the water and gunk off the underside of your seat.

Find a waterproof seat cover.

Velox used to make a great one, which you can still find sometimes online.

Rivendell sells one that looks very similar

but I have not used it.

If you have used a leather saddle before and want to make it work in your climate, I would give it a try with those two changes.

If you are just considering switching, I would probably stick to a modern style saddle like the Specialized Body Geometry series.

I ride my B-17 in the rain, on the trail, through the mud, rivers, and streams.

I don't apply Proofide and it stays in great shape.

It was worn in about a 2 years ago

and I tightened the spanner bolt about 1 full turn and it hasn't moved since.

I even branded the leather with my initials and it hasn't changed the way it feels on my bum.

I cant imagine a better saddle to ride.

With not having any trouble out of mine in all weather/all mountain riding, I say go for it, just keep an eye on it to make sure its not doing something crazy.

I'm a recent Brooks convert and have a B17 on my road bike.

A great hack for riding in the rain is to use a plastic carrier bag.

Simply put it over the saddle and wind each handle loop around your seatpost in opposite directions and tie the ends together.

This protects the top of your saddle from rain and the bottom of it from road spray.

i have been using proofide on my champion flyer for about four years now.

it works great.

it absorbs better in warm weather, not really in cold winter months.

i would not use any thing else, period!

Not everyone thinks that a leather saddle, i.e. 'Brooks', is necessarily suited to year round riding.

Hence there is an aftermarket saddle cover specifically designed for 'Brooks' saddles: https://www.randijofab.com/products-page/bicycle-accessories/saddle-cover If you are concerned about your 'Brooks' seat holding up over winter then you might want to get one.

I got a cover for my girlfriend, its well constructed and seems like it should hold up very well.

I've ridden mine in the rain (and after being parked in the rain), and everything has worked out.

I treat with proofide regularly, and the water beads up and slides off, even after 8 hours in light rain.

I recently bought a Team Pro, and they seem to come with rain covers now.

So if you get a new Brooks and have fenders, your saddle won't even be exposed to water while riding in the rain.

I still suggest proofide after each ride for a week after getting a new saddle, and then at least monthly.

The stuff is cheap: just use it.

Question: In our climate, it rains pretty steadily for 3 seasons. Would a leather saddle (like a Brooks) be appropriate for my bike, or should I look for a different material?

Is a leather saddle appropriate for all-weather riding?

Everyone agrees that leather saddles are fine for use in wet climates. To afford a little protection a fender can be used to reduce splash and a waterproof seat cover to keep the seat dry.

Most testimonies agree that a leather saddle is indeed appropriate for all-weather riding and does not require much maintenance, even though using fenders and a waterproof cover is recommended. However, some people claim that long distance riding in the rain can damage the saddle, even after appropriate treating.

Some people claim that long distance riding in the rain can damage the saddle, even after appropriate treating.


This image has kicked around the net for a while - IDK what the original source was: Otherwise, I second the guidance and link provided by @fady.

Snug!

It wont work if the helmet is not securely strapped to your head.

Here is a good article/post about wearing helmets.

You want the helmet to be comfortably touching the head all the way around, level and stable enough to resist even violent shakes or hard blows and stay in place.

It should be as low on the head as possible to maximize side coverage, and held level on the head with the strap comfortably snug.

My summary of helmets.org 's fitting tips: Size the shell to your head by using/removing the (comfort) pads.

Different helmets are made in different sizes.

Place your helmet level on your head.

Typically the front rim of your helmet sits two fingers' width above your eyebrows.

Raise the Y connection of the side straps up to just below your ears

Tighten the chin strap until you know the helmet can not move or rotate without your head coming along for the ride

(but make sure you can still speak, drink from your water bottle, and so on)

Coincidentally I brought my kids to a local bike safety event this weekend.

The rules they prescribed were: (1) If you look up you should be able to see the front of your helmet, (2)

The straps should form a "V" around your ears, and (3)

When you open your mouth you should feel the helmet push down on the top of your head.

First, buy a helmet of a size that fits your head (you should not be able to put a finger between your head and helmet).

Then adjust the straps binding just below the ears and then adjust the length of the strap under your chin so that you are able to move your head comfortably without tightening. is important that your front is not see, even when trying to move the helmet forward and back (Gary's picture).

-- google translated

Question: I see enough folks wearing helmets in such a manner that they might as well not be.  What is the proper way to fit & wear a bicycle helmet?

How should a bicycle helmet fit?

You want the helmet to be comfortably touching the head all the way around, level and stable enough to resist even violent shakes or hard blows and stay in place. It should be as low on the head as possible to maximize side coverage, and held level on the head with the strap comfortably snug. Typically the front rim of your helmet sits two fingers' width above your eyebrows.  The rules prescribed by helmet.org are: (1) If you look up you should be able to see the front of your helmet, (2) The straps should form a "V" around your ears, and (3) When you open your mouth you should feel the helmet push down on the top of your head.

Helmets vary in size, so you should buy a helmet that fits your head without any leeway. The helmet should be a stable but comfortable fit, set low to facilitate coverage, and strapped securely according to the instructions, so that it does not move independently of the head.