What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Airport turnback procedure

Toobuilder said:
According to the report, the engine quit 8 minutes after takeoff. I don't think this is a result of performing "the impossible turn", as much as simply trying to stretch a glide too far.
Click to expand...

What I get from it is that is another example that off airport landings can kill a person. How close does one need to be a deadly berm to recognize it and do something about it? Maybe the berm isn't visible when you commit to the landing site. Pilots skills sharp or not, some of the time, you are just dealt ****ty options, and you won't know it until it is too late.

Stretching the glide in an attempt to return is another killer.
 
My hat is off to the pilot...

yakdriver said:
Here is a very good video on turn backs. It really shows and explains the dynamics. Don
http://www.aerobats.com/seminar_02-07.html
Click to expand...

The pilot is obviously quite proficient. I bet most of us could not make such a nice turn at 60 degrees bank with the horn blasting in our ear, and the earth so near. I know I would need a _bit_ of practice to achieve that, though I would opt for higher agl in any such practice.

Still, I wonder how this experiment would change if the turns were all made at constant aoa. The 45 and 60 turns shown were at or close to mca, as evidenced by the horn sounding. The 30 degree bank turn was probably about 10 knots or so above a stall. Any pilot like that could very easily and safely make the same 30 turn five knots slower which might shave off 100 feet or more on that experiment.

I am not advocating any particular procedure here, other than that we should all have the stick and runner proficiency of the video pilot. Sadly, few of us do.
 
Minimize energy

SpyderMike said:
Excessive is a relative term, no? Excessive relative to what? A gliding decent with horizontal and vertical energy components? If you mean excessive relative to survivability, the facts show otherwise. If you mean excessive realtive to teh falling leaf manuever, I am not sure why you would compare the two for use on an emergency situation?

False sense of security? As opposed to the sense of security that a Falling Leaf Manuever done during an engine out situation gives you?

Is a Falling Leaf Manuever your technique for recovery from any emergency situation?

I don't understand your point. Please enlighten me.

Mike
Click to expand...

If I read the question and point correctly, this is my response. In my airplane, not an RV but experimental, I can hold full aft stick, no power, and descend at a rate less than 500 fpm. If anyone has ever flown a schweizer sailplane, you may be familiar with this sensation. This is a fairly low sink rate, and could be even slower descent than a parachute on Cirrus. I can't begin to say what I would do until it happens, but I can say that I practice various things so I have choices, and expeience with those choices. I could see using that as a last resort if there were no open fields available. I would at least have the option to aim for a spot. With that being said, the plane I am currently building is rigged for a BRS. Having spoken to the testing pilot, and seeing pictures of the bruises that the descellaration gave him, I'll consider options before pulling the chute. good discussion, and thanks to the person that pointed out flaps to simulate the actual descent rate of an engine out. In my airplane, the compression and short arc of the prop mean it may or may not windmill, so I need the starter to work to gauarantee restart. The flap trick will make this more realistic.

KB
 
Hangar tale or life saver??

Here's another wrinkle -- engine out, prop windmilling, close but coming up short of the touchdown zone -- I heard a pilot claim he used his starter to turn the prop long enough to clear the fence and make the landing. He said 'better to burn the starter than crash and burn the plane'.

Believe that?
 
Not really. A starter won't turn the prop as fast as it is already windmilling. I have used the slow application of flaps to help extend the glide when close to the flare. In essence, trading speed for a short term gain in glide range.
 
tejasflyer said:
In my airplane, not an RV but experimental, I can hold full aft stick, no power, and descend at a rate less than 500 fpm.
Click to expand...

you are neglecting the horizontal component of energy. What is your groundspeed?

By the way, the Cirrus is some energy absorption featured designed in for the vertical impact to reduce the affect on the passengers.

I wish I could fit a BRS to my homebuilt, but I don't see it as being viable....I will definitely look into some seatbelt airbags however.
 
Last edited:
DGNAV said:
Here's another wrinkle -- engine out, prop windmilling, close but coming up short of the touchdown zone -- I heard a pilot claim he used his starter to turn the prop long enough to clear the fence and make the landing. He said 'better to burn the starter than crash and burn the plane'.
Click to expand...

Better to stop the prop entirely. Assuming your engine has completely quit, your glide can be significantly increased if the prop isn't turning. But I wouldn't waste time trying to stop it if I had an engine failure at 400'. That's more of an engine-failure-in-cruise choice.
 
Snowflake said:
Better to stop the prop entirely. Assuming your engine has completely quit, your glide can be significantly increased if the prop isn't turning.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily in the case of a CS prop. In my C182 there is still enough residual oil pressure when the engine has quit (but prop still windmilling) to activate the prop governor enabling the constant speed prop to be set to full coarse.

I did glide tests with the engine developing zero power (mix at idle cut-off). I tested prop full fine, prop full coarse, and prop stopped. There was no measurable improvement in glide range with the prop stopped as compared to full coarse.

Of course pushing the prop to full fine acts like a speed brake. When you go from prop full coarse to prop full fine with the engine developing zero power it literally feels like some-one has thrown out a small drag parachute.

I have now modified my engine out emergency procedures to automatically include prop full coarse to enable me best glide and therefore more options.

I now just look at the blue knob as a glide extender. Pull out to go further :D.
 
The difference in drag between prop forward and back varies greatly between different types of airplanes... It depends on the combination of the glide speed and where the low pitch stops are set on the prop.

Tailwinds
Doug Rozendaal
 
B25Flyer said:
The difference in drag between prop forward and back varies greatly between different types of airplanes... It depends on the combination of the glide speed and where the low pitch stops are set on the prop.

Tailwinds
Doug Rozendaal
Click to expand...

This is exactly true. However if there is enough oil pressure to activate the prop governor with the prop windmilling we can be certain that the aircraft will glide significantly further with the prop set to full coarse than set to full fine regardless of the pitch stop settings. And ANY improvement in glide range may mean the difference between a successful outcome and a not so successful outcome.

What this means is that every pilot with CS should be aware of whether their prop governor will activate in a zero power situation (with prop windmilling). At take-off in particular the prop will usually be at full fine and that is not a good condition either for a straight ahead landing or a turnback in the event of an engine failure (note Dougie that I am not arguing here for either solution...I'm staying out of that debate now ;)).
 
Agreed. My point was, because the difference is dramatic in a Bonanza, it might be marginal in an Arrow... It is HUGE in the Rocket. I have an aerobatic prop that fails to high pitch with very flat low pitch stops, and at low pitch it is like a parachute.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
 
You're right, Bob, there is a small difference between full coarse and stopped on a CS prop. I was thinking of fixed-pitch props specifically, where the difference can be quite significant. And it's good to keep in mind for when you lose that oil pressure and your prop does what it wants to anyway. :)
 
SpyderMike said:
Excessive is a relative term, no? Excessive relative to what? A gliding decent with horizontal and vertical energy components? If you mean excessive relative to survivability, the facts show otherwise. If you mean excessive realtive to teh falling leaf manuever, I am not sure why you would compare the two for use on an emergency situation?

False sense of security? As opposed to the sense of security that a Falling Leaf Manuever done during an engine out situation gives you? You fly a Pitts and I assume do some aerobatics. Does the chute you wear give you a false sense of security? If it weren't required would you not wear it? Does it make you take risks you normally wouldn't?

Is a Falling Leaf Manuever your technique for recovery from any emergency situation?

I don't understand your point. I am not trying to be argumentative. Please enlighten me.

Mike
Click to expand...

Hey Mike....Dont worry about being perceived as being argumentative. On the contrary, I consider debating our different points of views, our understanding of facts, etc, the purpose of this threads...Let's hope we never loose the ability to talk intelligently! Here is my argument as experienced.

let me answer your questions one by one as presented.
" Excessive relative to what?"
Strictly to Vertical descent. a Cirrus with a parachute deployed has a descent vertical rate between 1,600 to 1,800 FPM !!! YIKES! Thats an uncontrolled crash my friend! I cant imagine the spinal chord compression from such a crash!!!! I dont know much about the BRS in other GA or experimental aircraft but I can imagine the decsent rate to be close to the same unless you fly an LSA weight aircraft as we all saw in tha aerobatic Rans 9 wing folding video in argentina. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk

Have we forgotten the basic controll descent when everything else fails? Trim wheel all the way back, let the aircraft fly, stall, fly , stall, fly stall and dance on your feet keeping the aircraft nose wherever you want it to go? thats a 800 fpm descent at the most! They used to teach that technique long time ago...Whatever happened to it?

False sense of security? You bet! I rather fly the aircraft and leave the BRS to the absolutelly last resource if I am faced with a complete uncontolled situation where everything else fails....Same reason I wear a parachute in my Pitts.

As for the Pitts....I have several emergency procedures that I fly and practice constantly in the event of power loss. The Falling leave is one I have in my pocket if I ever need to put the aircraft on a very short field or over a tree canopy since my descent rate is close 900 FPM. In reality, if I ever ready to crash over a tree top canopy, I just keep pulling the stick back until completelly stalling over it and try to enter as vertical as possible! I can tell of you many more emergency procedures I practice thanks to passed knowledge from other Pitts owners.

In regards to this particular Thread, I have managed to practice and complete at altitude in the Pitts a simulated after take off engine out and turn 180 to land safely....all using stall and the falling leave manuever while d tap dancing on the pedals keeping the wings level and pointing the nose where I wanted to go...If you can do that in the Pitts, you can do it almost on any other GA aircraft!

The Pitts is a flying brick....It does not glide at all...100 mph is all the speed you need to know...20 mph below and it falls like a rock.... Therefore once again, I practice for the unknown all the time. Using head wind is always a welcomed savior!

one last thing unrelated to turns after take off but worth mentioning since we are talking about emergencies.. When I fly a Single engine my state of mind is that I am flying on an emergency. I know all the time where the nearest airport is, what vector to FLY TO I need if I loose power, what my Vertical navigation is, etc, etc...(I personally learned this from my father flying in the Andes of Peru where your resources are a lot limited than in the US. Always, always when flying a SE, know you are flying one step away from not having an engine!

Sorry if my grammar and english is not good! this is my third language skill and as with any other foreign language impossible to command at 100%...

Happy flying!
 
Last edited:
Say what??

mv031161 said:
. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk

.........Have we forgotten the basic controll descent when everything else fails? Trim wheel all the way back, let the aircraft fly, stall, fly , stall, fly stall and dance on your feet keeping the aircraft nose wherever you want it to go? thats a 800 fpm descent at the most! They used to teach that technique long time ago...Whatever happened to it?

Happy flying!
Click to expand...

Mitch, with all due respect, I have several thousand hours instructing and have done a fair share of "gentleman's" aerobatics but I have never read about or taught, rolling the trim wheel all the way back and stall..fly...stall...fly. It seems like a recipe for disaster, if not a snap roll!

Where did you learn this?

Best,
 
pierre smith said:
Mitch, with all due respect, I have several thousand hours instructing and have done a fair share of "gentleman's" aerobatics but I have never read about or taught, rolling the trim wheel all the way back and stall..fly...stall...fly. It seems like a recipe for disaster, if not a snap roll!

Where did you learn this?

Best,
Click to expand...

Called "Volplaneing" if I recall correctly.
 
Mitch,

I don't understand how you can just look at vertical decent and not address the horizontal energy component. Yes, 1600 fpm vertical decent is higher than 800 or 900, but that is the total energy component that must be absorbed and the airframe is designed for this.

In your Pitts, you may be doing only 800 or 900 fpm down, but at 100 mph you are doing 8,800 fpm forward (at 80 mph you are doing you are doing 7040 fpm forward) IN ADDITION TO the 800 - 900 fpm down. That is a heck of a lot more energy to take to the airframe and passengers.

I can't imagine that anyone, other than the purely lucky, can manage the situation in such an emergency so as to negate the horizontal energy component. In all cases, my simple calculations tell me that the total energy to be dissipated by the same type of aircraft in a forward crash is much higher than a vertical decent under chute in the type of planes we are talking about here.

Having met a couple of "survivors" of Cirrus chute pulls and having heard their recollections of the event, and knowing where I fly usually (LA Basin, west Sierra foothills and Siskiyou Montains), I will take the vertical decent any day. By the way, neither one of them suffered spinal injuries.

I have gotta look into airbags for the homebuilt...

Full disclosure, I am an Engineer by schooling (longer ago than I care to admit), but I don't know squat about crash dynamics. I may be looking at this too simplistically, but energy is energy, it has to be dealt with.


Mike
 
Last edited:
SpyderMike said:
Mitch,

I don't understand how you can just look at vertical decent and not address the horizontal energy component. Yes, 1600 fpm vertical decent is higher than 800 or 900, but that is the total energy component that must be absorbed and the airframe is designed for this.

In your Pitts, you may be doing only 800 or 900 fpm down, but at 100 mph you are doing 8,800 fpm forward (at 80 mph you are doing you are doing 7040 fpm forward) IN ADDITION TO the 800 - 900 fpm down. That is a heck of a lot more energy to take to the airframe and passengers.

I can't imagine that anyone, other than the purely lucky, can manage the situation in such an emergency so as to negate the horizontal energy component. In all cases, my simple calculations tell me that the total energy to be dissipated by the same type of aircraft in a forward crash is much higher than a vertical decent under chute in the type of planes we are talking about here.

Having met a couple of "survivors" of Cirrus chute pulls and having heard their recollections of the event, and knowing where I fly usually (LA Basin, west Sierra foothills and Siskiyou Montains), I will take the vertical decent any day. By the way, neither one of them suffered spinal injuries.

I have gotta look into airbags for the homebuilt...

Full disclosure, I am an Engineer by schooling (longer ago than I care to admit), but I don't know squat about crash dynamics. I may be looking at this too simplistically, but energy is energy, it has to be dealt with.


Mike
Click to expand...

hey Mike...my horizonal speed at 800 fpm using the stall or falling leave is less than 50 mph therefore the prefered method for me if needed. I agree with your assesment if I am travelling at 100 MPH. BTW, my 100 mph descent rate is close to 1200 fpm on approach...I drop fast!.
 
Last edited:
Flyfalcons said:
Here's what happens with a fly-stall-fly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JsSbGdIDzE&feature=related

That's a hard hit. He was banked 60+ in the turn around, and I thought for sure he was going to spin right into the Boeing building. The landing wiped the gear out.
Click to expand...

Thats a succesfull save of life if you ask me...he did use the manuver as designed and the banking was controlled all by yaw....Perfect crash if there is ever one! they lived to tell about it!

what do you gesstimate his final descent rate was? and is this a good example of horizontal move after impact? Pancaking the aircraft at the very last minute flat into the goround/water is the savior here.
 
Last edited:
pierre smith said:
Mitch, with all due respect, I have several thousand hours instructing and have done a fair share of "gentleman's" aerobatics but I have never read about or taught, rolling the trim wheel all the way back and stall..fly...stall...fly. It seems like a recipe for disaster, if not a snap roll!

Where did you learn this?

Best,
Click to expand...

Pierre...I dont know whats going on with my resposes to you...this is the third time and hope this one will show.

I was tought that technique by a cessna Salesman back in the 60's when he was showing a 180 to my dad. we always made sure we knew how to use it if needed or one became incapacitated. that was the sales pitch....Amazingly. lots of other people including my CFI's Young and Old knew about it and they do practice it all the time showing what will happen if.....

you may want yo try and let us know your findings...make sure you are high and know your stall and spin recovery before....
 
Last edited:
mv031161 said:
Pierre...I dont know whats going on with my resposes to you...this is the third time and hope this one will show.

I was tought that technique by a cessna Salesman back in the 60's when he was showing a 180 to my dad. we always made sure we knew how to use it if needed or one became incapacitated.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see where it is referenced in any recognized training manuals/curriculum. I understand what you're describing, I just have never heard of it being formally taught in any civil or military program. "Taught it by a salesman" does not meet my criteria for authority, unfortunately.

Like Pierre, I would be very concerned about touching down in the wrong part of the phugoid - the descent rate at impact could certainly reduce your spinal dimensions pretty fast!
 
Ironflight said:
I'd like to see where it is referenced in any recognized training manuals/curriculum. I understand what you're describing, I just have never heard of it being formally taught in any civil or military program. "Taught it by a salesman" does not meet my criteria for authority, unfortunately.

Like Pierre, I would be very concerned about touching down in the wrong part of the phugoid - the descent rate at impact could certainly reduce your spinal dimensions pretty fast!
Click to expand...

I know you did not mean to, but I do take offense in your salesman comment. I do sale aircraft for a living (2nd generation), represent the Cessna Aircraft company in two countries exclusevelly (Peru and Bolivia) and never ever in the past, present or in the future will use snake skills to sell our products. We are technical sales, we show performance and capabilities and thats what it was used then and still used today...Thats why I mentioned it.

I dont think you will find this anywhre. Unfortunatelly since the standarization of the PTS, we have lost lots and lots of good flying knowledge....Including but not limited to spinning! (biggest mistake) have you ever stall and spin? if the answer is yes, How many rotations? you might be surprised to know that if you have not been in at least 3 rotations, you've never been in a spin.

This particular salesman we are refering to, became a well respected member and a contirbutor to aviation. a well known WWII pilot.... His contributions to aeronautics are well recorded. We trusted him then, and i still do today...He taught me something very usefull
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but he got lucky. He was out of control. If he had kept his airspeed up, he could have actually "landed" on the water. I'd be willing to be that they would have come to a much softer stop. Instead, they hit the water and BAM! They were stopped.

I honestly can't believe how many people would rather just give up and hope for the best!
 
mv031161 said:
hey Mike...my horizonal speed at 800 fpm using the stall or falling leave is less than 50 mph therefore the prefered method for me if needed. I agree with your assesment if I am travelling at 100 MPH. BTW, my 100 mph descent rate is close to 1200 fpm on approach...I drop fast!.
Click to expand...

so 4400 fpm forward and 800fpm down...keep in mind that the force of energy is a factor of velocity squared! Still much more energy than a vertical decent. The hope is that you get to dissipate it over distance and not abruptly!

Mike
 
mv031161 said:
I know you did not mean to, but I do take offense in your salesman comment. I do sale aircraft for a living (2nd generation), represent the Cessna Aircraft company in two countries exclusevelly (Peru and Bolivia) and never ever in the past, present or in the future will use snake skills to sell our products. We are technical sales, we show performance and capabilities and thats what it was used then and still used today...Thats why I mentioned it.

I dont think you will find this anywhre. Unfortunatelly since the standarization of the PTS, we have lost lots and lots of good flying knowledge....Including but not limited to spinning! (biggest mistake) have you ever stall and spin? if the answer is yes, How many rotations? you might be surprised to know that if you have not been in at least 3 rotations, you've never been in a spin.

This particular salesman we are refering to, became a well respected member and a contirbutor to aviation. a well known WWII pilot.... His contributions to aeronautics are well recorded. We trusted him then, and i still do today...He taught me something very usefull
Click to expand...

I'm glad that you didn't take it as an insult - the salesman part was actually irrelevant - I simply wanted to know if this was one piece of data from one pilot, or a consensus from the 110 years of powered flight pilots/knowledge base. The VAF membership can draw their own conclusions based on how widespread it's use might be.

Also irrelevant to the issue - yes, I have stalled/spun airplanes, many more types and times than I can recount. I have been flying all types of aircraft for close to 40 years now, and my profession is aerospace flight operations and testing. I do aerobatics in my RV almost every day. I believe it is a great experience for pilots to feel and understand spins, and would like to see it in the private pilot curriculum. It's not, but I still recomend it to folks that are learning to fly.

Paul
 
mv031161 said:
Thats a succesfull save of life if you ask me...he did use the manuver as designed and the banking was controlled all by yaw....Perfect crash if there is ever one! they lived to tell about it!

what do you gesstimate his final descent rate was? and is this a good example of horizontal move after impact? Pancaking the aircraft at the very last minute flat into the goround/water is the savior here.
Click to expand...

If I were to guess I would say 1000+fpm. By keeping his speed up, he would have A) been able to glider further and B) been able to arrest his descent rate when he got close to the water. Additionally, he was on the verge of dropping a wing fully and killing everyone on board.
 
Flyfalcons said:
If I were to guess I would say 1000+fpm. By keeping his speed up, he would have A) been able to glider further and B) been able to arrest his descent rate when he got close to the water. Additionally, he was on the verge of dropping a wing fully and killing everyone on board.
Click to expand...

But he managed to keep the wings level by pure yaw since aileron effectiveness is long gone in a stall situation. Just remember...yaw controlls everything on a stall...nothing else and where you put tha big vane will determine your bank and you turn. Thats why it is imperative to learn to dance those pedals if the teqnique is used
 
mv031161 said:
But he managed to keep the wings level by pure yaw since aileron effectiveness is long gone in a stall situation. Just remember...yaw controlls everything on a stall...nothing else and where you put tha big vane will determine your bank and you turn. Thats why it is imperative to learn to dance those pedals if the teqnique is used
Click to expand...

Mitch, I'd be willing to bet that he wasn't using any training at that moment. He was in a panic. If that airplane had more elevator authority, he would have spun it to the ground.

Do you disagree that keeping his flying speed up, he would could have done everything that FlyFalcons said?
 
mv031161 said:
But he managed to keep the wings level by pure yaw since aileron effectiveness is long gone in a stall situation.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you would mention this------go back to post 2, and read the linked story by Barry Schiff.

He was in a Stinson Voyager. I flew one for over 20 years, and I can tell you for a fact this plane retains aileron authority through the stall. Washout, dihedral, and most importantly, leading edge slots keep things working.

I wonder how much of the current discussion is affected by the different flying/stalling characteristics of the various RV designs???

Not to mention all the different planes referred to in this thread.

This is not a "one size fits all" situation.

We all need to know what our own plane will do, and more importantly, what WE will do in case this happens to us.
 
Last edited:
Some times knowing a little more, could make one even more dangerous. I hope I am never in his situation, but should I ever find myself there, I will be [trying] to do what I have learned, that is to fly the plane. I think having a bit of speed and trying to stall it just a few feet off the water would yield a better result for me then finding myself in a situation to try to keep it from stall & spin, while I am searching for other options (i.e. a crashing site)
 
Mike S said:
Interesting that you would mention this------go back to post 2, and read the linked story by Barry Schiff.

He was in a Stinson Voyager. I flew one for over 20 years, and I can tell you for a fact this plane retains aileron authority through the stall. Washout, dihedral, and most importantly, leading edge slots keep things working.

I wonder how much of the current discussion is affected by the different flying/stalling characteristics of the various RV designs???

Not to mention all the different planes referred to in this thread.
Click to expand...

isnt amazing how much good/bad/ half way true information you get once you open a post...

Lets go back to " making a 180 turn after take off".....is it safe? Only if you practice in the particular aircraft and you know your own capabilities and aircraft flying carachteristics....if not, look for a field preferably as close as straight ahead as reccomended by most experts


BTW....Selling my Pitts and under contract....She is going Down Under soon.....Looking for a nice RV8 at the moment. Project too......
 
Yep....

steve91t said:
I'm sorry, but he got lucky. He was out of control. If he had kept his airspeed up, he could have actually "landed" on the water. I'd be willing to be that they would have come to a much softer stop. Instead, they hit the water and BAM! They were stopped.

I honestly can't believe how many people would rather just give up and hope for the best!
Click to expand...

...like Sully did on the Hudson:)..no BAM!

Best,
 
mv031161 said:
But he managed to keep the wings level by pure yaw since aileron effectiveness is long gone in a stall situation. Just remember...yaw controlls everything on a stall...nothing else and where you put tha big vane will determine your bank and you turn. Thats why it is imperative to learn to dance those pedals if the teqnique is used
Click to expand...

I think we all have an understanding of what controls what in a stall. Whether to ride a stall all the way down to the surface is an entirely different matter.
 
falling leaf

First off a falling leaf is an intentional spin entry with the heading change stopped at a predetermined point, lets say 45 degrees. The rudder is then reversed to take the heading 45 degrees the other side of original heading. Back and forth as desired. An inverted falling leaf is an interesting airshow maneuver rarely seen in this era of 9000 diferent ways to tumble and too frequently not much other than tumbles. The PittsS1S does a very nice inverted falling leaf and control is much more positive inverted than upright. This is NOT a maneuver that I would want to use(upright) in an engine failure situation.
The maneuver that will work very well and very consistently in a Cherokee 140: slow the airplane almost to a stall, apply full flaps and run the trim full nose up. Release the yoke and keep the wings level with rudder. The rate of descent is less than 600 ' min and the airspeed is at or near the bottom of the scale.The airplane will ossilate very gently in pitch but the vertical speed does not change much. The actual forward speed is probably around 50 statute. The Cherokee 140 in this configuration is typically at the forward cg limit. I am comvinced that this will not work with the cg near the aft limit. With the two seat 140(as opposed to 4 seat) it would be nearly impossible to get the cg near the aft limit. This is not true of any of the other Cherokee/Arrow etc here it would probably not work because of much further aft cg. However if you have just the front seats occupied and no baggage, most of the Cherokee series are nose heavy. I have a vague recollection of this being discussed a LONG time ago regarding the V tail Bonanza, but I think this was in the context of an emergency descent thru the clouds and NOT for an engine failure landing.
Regarding prop pitch(constant speed) I have found dramatic differences between different props on the Pitts S1. Hartzell two blade has the least drag in flat pitch, the MT's and earlier Hoffmans have a lot more drag. The three blade MT seems to have the most drag. The Pitts with the three blade will slow from 200 to stall in approximately 1/4 mile horizontal distance. Blade planform seems to be a factor with the MT aerobatics having a very wide blade chord.
 
stall

I have been an avid reader of most anything aeronautical since I was 10 or 11 years old. One of my favorites is Air Facts, started in 1938 by Leighton Collins. The pre WW2 issues were devoted mostly to accident reporting and analasis. Mr. Collins never gets very far away from the subject of aileron control or lack of. He considered the horrid ailerons of most airplanes in the cub class to be one of the major causes of accidents. People spun Cubs, Aeroncas, Taylorcrafts etc into the ground with amazing regularity. Certainly a contributing factor was that many of these airplanes were 40 or 50 hp. The situation improved dramatically by 1946 when most of these airplanes were converted to friesse ailerons. 65 hp came at about the same time and also helped. The exception to this was the original Stinson Voyager, not the 108, but the prewar 2/3 seat "baby" Voyager. Mr. Collins talked very favorably of the excellent ailerons on the Voyager
 
Flyfalcons said:
I think we all have an understanding of what controls what in a stall. Whether to ride a stall all the way down to the surface is an entirely different matter.
Click to expand...

Sorry if you personally felt patronized...but you will be surprised how many people dont undestand what controls what during a stall.......I see them and their blank fave every year at every during the spin and emergency recovery class I have put together for the last 4 years at KLKR and provided by Bill Finagin.
Many RV flyers included...
 
Are you kidding me! that guy was OOC and got lucky. No way this is better than maintaining a smooth glide path with airspeed and having full control to manuever the plane where you want. Once in ground effect slow the aircraft and settle into the ground/water. Pure luck - good for him!
 
I think we need to get back to the original topic of turnback procedures here...so lets discuss the pluses and minuses of the power off hammerhead maneuver.


GO!.....


:D
 
Ironflight said:
I'd like to see where it is referenced in any recognized training manuals/curriculum. I understand what you're describing, I just have never heard of it being formally taught in any civil or military program. "Taught it by a salesman" does not meet my criteria for authority, unfortunately.

Like Pierre, I would be very concerned about touching down in the wrong part of the phugoid - the descent rate at impact could certainly reduce your spinal dimensions pretty fast!
Click to expand...


I was taught something similar to this when starting out in 172's. The difference was that you got just to a stall and trimmed it there. Once stable, you let go of the yoke and kept the ball centered with the rudder. Apparently, this was the "last ditch" effort to get through a cloud deck if the engine quit over hostile terrain- Essentially committing to a crash with the lowest forward speed possible (and hope you survive)


?Not sure that I agree with the technique, but I did hear it from at least one flight instructor.
 
Accident on return

Tim, I'm sorry for the terrible accident that you were witness to. My old flight instructor, asked me for a letter reccommending him for the Wright Brothers Award. I was glad to oblige since his words "Fly the **** Plane" rang in my ears in 1992 when I had to land in a clearcut pine forest in SW Alabama. The 3 SOB walked away from the wreckage with just a sprained wrist by one of the passengers as PA-28-260's don't have shoulder harnesses.
His other words of wisdom: Land straight ahead or as nearly so as possible on take-off loss of power. Just a thought
 
Flyfalcons said:
I think we all have an understanding of what controls what in a stall. Whether to ride a stall all the way down to the surface is an entirely different matter.
Click to expand...

Depends on the airplane.

Back when Danny Maher was stall testing the original Velocity, they loaded it too far aft one day and when the main wing stalled the test pilot could not get the nose down to regain flying speed. It was in a flat slow rotating spin. He was wearing a parachute and at some predetermined altitude opened the canopy, stood up, was about to leave and noticed a dead calm around the airplane as it was descending at a very modest rate. He could have just stepped off the wing and opened the chute but instead decided to have a seat and ride it down into the ocean just off Vero Beach which he did.

The airplane plopped into the water and came back to the surface with little damage. The pilot was totally not injured. Maher ran a boat out to the sight and towed it back to shore where it was loaded on a truck and hauled back to Sabastian.

I happened by the Sabastian airport a day or two later as I was interested in the airplane at the time. There stood this guy with a garden hose washing down the airplane. It was Danny Maher. He was not in a very good mood but we talked about the event and the airplane, which did fly again not much later. It did prove that there was an aft cg limit that needed to be observed with that particular airplane and others like it.

It also proved you don't need a ballistic chute with all airplanes, just make sure it is loaded far, far aft and get the main wing to fully stall. :)
 
isnt amazing how much good/bad/ half way true information you get once you open a post...

Lets go back to " making a 180 turn after take off".....is it safe? Only if you practice in the particular aircraft and you know your own capabilities and aircraft flying carachteristics....if not, look for a field preferably as close as straight ahead as reccomended by most experts


BTW....Selling my Pitts and under contract....She is going Down Under soon.....Looking for a nice RV8 at the moment. Project too......
Click to expand...

Like I keep saying know your aeroplane!

As for only landing straight ahead.....I am sure there are 150 or so folk pretty glad that Mr Skiles did not try to convince Mr Sully to just land straight ahead :eek:

Turning back does not have to mean back to the same runway, it could be anywhere from 0-180 degrees, maybe the best option is another runway at right angles, a farm paddock at 60 degrees? Who knows. It means think about your surroundings not only as you line up and do a "by rote" brief, but all the way up the climb, while looking out for traffic, loook for paddocks.

This is what a good friend of mine who happened to be the pilot flying in my earlier video has to say....(and he probably stole it from someone famous).......... A good pilot is never surprised when an engine fails, he is surprised when it does not!

DB :cool:
 
RV10inOz said:
As for only landing straight ahead.....I am sure there are 150 or so folk pretty glad that Mr Skiles did not try to convince Mr Sully to just land straight ahead :eek:

Turning back does not have to mean back to the same runway, it could be anywhere from 0-180 degrees, maybe the best option is another runway at right angles, a farm paddock at 60 degrees? A good pilot is never surprised when an engine fails, he is surprised when it does not!

DB :cool:
Click to expand...

Absolutely right! But a good head wind will always help with your posibilities therefore the reason every one reccomends straight ahead...

To the person wanting a hammerhead return..... I feel welcomed! Good job!
 
Phlyan Pan said:
I think we need to get back to the original topic of turnback procedures here...so lets discuss the pluses and minuses of the power off hammerhead maneuver.


GO!.....


:D
Click to expand...

Power off hammerheads are difficult given that you have to skid your upline to get any sort of rudder effectiveness during the pivot. :) I would prefer a 1/2 turn spin for the turnback. :) I've tried it in the Pitts at altitude...used up 400' to reverse course and level out...which incidentally is the same amount of altitude it took me to do the turnback using a normal turn at a 60 degree bank close to an accelerated stall, and then maneuvering back to get re-aligned with the runway. Of course it would be extremely foolish to actually spin the plane for an emergency turnback. I just did it out of curiosity. But I think the reason it didn't use up more altitude than the turn is that it doesn't displace the airplane from the runway centerline like the turn does.
 
sandifer said:
Power off hammerheads are difficult given that you have to skid your upline to get any sort of rudder effectiveness during the pivot. :) I would prefer a 1/2 turn spin for the turnback. :) I've tried it in the Pitts at altitude...used up 400' to reverse course and level out...which incidentally is the same amount of altitude it took me to do the turnback using a normal turn at a 60 degree bank close to an accelerated stall, and then maneuvering back to get re-aligned with the runway. Of course it would be extremely foolish to actually spin the plane for an emergency turnback. I just did it out of curiosity. But I think the reason it didn't use up more altitude than the turn is that it doesn't displace the airplane from the runway centerline like the turn does.
Click to expand...

Eric: Shall we talk our spinning approach as well? Hope the weather hold this weekend..family in Atlanta...riding SOLO all weekend! need to come see you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top