Posts
I like your plan. I think I'll try it at altitude. The danger of this
maneuver is not keeping enough airspeed, and stalling in a steep bank.
The 45-degree turn away is to set up so that the airplane will be
lined up with the runway when the maneuver is completed. Your comment
on "just get turned around, quickly" is a good point - the sooner you
get turned around, the less distance you've traveled from the runway.
I'm sure that the teardrop is more commonly recommended is because
it's much less likely to result in a stall/spin accident, which is a
real concern for a pilot inexperienced in the more aggressive
maneuver you've described.
Hugh Sontag
>I have executed power-off 180-degree turns in 300 ft of altitude loss
>(practiced at altitude, of course.) I don't think I'd actually try to
>return with less than 500 ft. I've had 2 engine outs - one on departure
>at about 700 ft (returned to runway) and one at altitude. My procedure
>on the departure engine out wasn't fancy - nose down HARD, turn HARD,
>and then reassess. I'd guess my nose-down attitude was at least 30
>degrees and my bank was around 60. The windscreen was full of ground
>during the maneuver. I had runway overrun directly under me at the time
>(5000+ ft runway, sea level departure) so I knew if I could 180, I'd
>have a landing spot - there would be no need to "stretch" back to the
>airport.
>
>I don't know why you'd start with a 45-degree turn *away* from the
>direction you want to turn. That seems like a significant waste of time
>to me - and you're continuing to head away from the airport during that
>first turn. Every second you're in the air you're falling. So you may
>not be perfectly lined up with the runway when you return - would you
>rather be perfectly lined up with trees short of the runway? I would
>recommend a 210 degree turn immediately, adjusted at the end as required
>to point directly at your planned landing spot. Do the final course
>correction *after* you have the spot made.
>
>Any time I've watched others practice the maneuver, it seems to me they
>always fail to use a steep enough bank. People confuse two needs: the
>need to turn 180 degrees, and the need to conserve as much time as
>possible. The need to conserve time leads them to glide at or under best
>glide even when turning, which limits the amount of bank you can use -
>you're too close to stall - and so the 180 degree turn takes too long.
>GET THE NOSE DOWN, get the plane turned FAST, and then go to best glide.
>You will spend less time turning, and thus have less altitude loss
>during the turn.
>
>That's my .01 cents, yours may differ.
>
>Hugh Sontag wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just curious... do you think that a return to the takeoff runway can
>> be done with less than 600 feet AGL, or that the altitude loss will
>> be more than 600 feet?
>>
>> I suggest that this should be practiced in your airplane. Start at
>> 2000' AGL and find out where you're at when you're back where you
>> started, using your GPS as a reference.
>>
>> When I did this in my Tornado II, I found that the altitude lost was
>> 700 feet. The "return to takeoff runway", for me, starts with a
>> 45-degree turn in one direction, then a 180-degree turn in the other
>> direction, then 45 degrees back to the centerline of the takeoff
>> runway.
>>
>> The really bad problem with trying to do this for the first time when
>> the engine is permanently silent is that if things aren't going well,
>> the tendency is to try to "stretch" the glide by raising the nose.
>> Eventually, the airplane stalls, which is the worst possible
>> situation.
>>
>> Better to establish ahead of time what is reasonable for your
>> airplane. If you don't have enough altitude above the ground, don't
>> even think of returning to the runway. You've already proven it can't
>> be done.
>>
>> Hugh Sontag
>>
>> >I don't buy in to the 600 ft number, but the admonition to keep the plane
>> >flying is right on.
>> >
>> >If you stall close to the ground, that's when you die.
>> >
> > >I've never had an outright engine failure, but I've had engines get
>> sick a
>> >couple of times.
>> >
>> >ALWAYS know where you're going to land, if the engine quits. ALWAYS.
>> >
>> >TCS
>> >
>> >Terry C Savage
>> >
>> >Senior Information Technology Manager
>> >
>> >Science Fiction Author, The End of Winter
>> >
>> ><<<http://tinyurl.
>>
>><<http://tinyurl.
>>
>><<http://tinyurl.
>> ><<http://tinyurl.
>>
>><<http://tinyurl.
>>
>><<http://tinyurl.
>> >
>> ><<http://tcsendofwint
>>
>><<http://tcsendofwint
>> <<http://tcsendofwint
>> >
>> ><<<http://tcsendofwint
>>
>><<http://tcsendofwint
>> <<http://tcsendofwint
>> >
>> >===========
>> >
>> >_____
>> >
>> >From:
>> ><mailto:Titanaircr
>> <mailto:Titanaircra
>> >[mailto:<mailto:
>> <mailto:Titanaircra
>> >On Behalf Of Hugh Sontag
>> >Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 7:14 PM
>> >To:
>>
>><mailto:Titanairc
>> <mailto:Titanaircra
>> >Subject: [Titanaircraft] Re: Fly the airplane
>> >
>> >An airplane "nose dives" when it stalls.
>> >
>> >When I've practiced a sudden loss of engine power, I don't find that
>> >the airplane is hard to get into a 60 mph glide.
>> >
>> >You do need to react, by moving the stick forward, but it's not hard,
>> >if you're convinced that it's the right thing to do.
>> >
>> >I think that in an engine-out situation, you have to know that the
>> >only thing that will work is to keep your airspeed at best glide. If
>> >you try to "stretch" the glide and let the airspeed bleed away, the
>> >airplane will stall.
>> >
>> >If the airplane stalls, and you're close to the ground, you have no
>> >options. There isn't enough altitude to recover flying speed, so the
>> >airplane "noses over" and plummets to the ground.
>> >
>> >So it's crucial to keep the airplane flying, right back down to the
>> >ground, even if you don't like where you're going to have to land it.
>> >Better to have control as you approach the ground. Better to put it
>> >between two trees than let it fall from the sky.
>> >
>> >That's what the phrase "fly the airplane" is all about. Maintain
>> >flying speed, keep control of the airplane. Don't even try to turn
>> >back to the runway if you're 600 feet or less, it can't be done.
>> >You'll survive a controlled landing onto a poor surface, but you
>> >won't survive a stall at 100 feet or more.
>> >
>> >Hugh Sontag
>> >
>> >>If this is true it is very concerning, how can an airplane exibit
>> >>these flight characteristics of rolling over with an engine failure
>> >>and then nose diving. I know the pusher configuration naturally
>> >>pushes the nose forward at wot and the nose will pop up when the
>> >>throttle is pulled back, but the roll over and nose dive? Did the
>> >>nose pop up so hard that his angle of attack put him in a stall with
>> >>a low climb out speed?
>> >>
>> >>--- In
> > >><mailto:Titanairc
>> ><mailto:Titanaircr
>> >>"rico11b" <rico11b@...
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi everyone,
>> >>>
>> >>> I was a friend of Shannon's. I joined your group this morning to
>> >>>post about his passing, but Daleandee beat me to it. Thanks
>> >>>Daleeandee, for getting the word out. I hate this too.
>> >>>
>> >>> The wake will be held Monday night from 7pm to 9pm, and the
>> >>>funeral will be Tuesday at 2 pm. It's at a Babtist church somewhere
>> >>>in Whiteville NC, but I'm not sure of the address at the moment.
>> >>>Once I know I'll post it, if anyone is interested.
>> >>>
>> >>> We still don't have all the details about what happened, but thus
>> >>>far is looks like the engine failed just after takeoff. After that
>> >>>I'm told the plane nosed up and quickly rolled over, and hit nose
>> >>>first from 300 feet or so. I'm still trying to learn more about
>> >>>what happened so this may change some, but that's the latest as I
>> >>>understand it. I'm sorry this had to be my first post to your group.
>> >>>
>> >>> R
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --- In
>> >>><mailto:Titanair
>> ><mailto:Titanaircr
>> >>>"daleandee" <daleandee@> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I hate to share such extremely sad news ...
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>><<<http://www.whitevil>http://www.whitevil><http://www.whitevil>http://www.whitevil
>> ><<<http://www.whitevil
>>
>><<http://www.whitevil
>>
>><<http://www.whitevil
>> >5.txt>
>> >le.com/articles/
>> >tevil
>> ><<<http://www.whitevil
>>
>><<http://www.whitevil
>>
>><<http://www.whitevil
>> >5.txt> le.com/articles/
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Please keep this family in your prayers ...
>> >>> >
>> >> > > Dale
>> >
>> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
No comments:
Post a Comment