What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Return to runway after engine failure

Here are the videos...

....from Youtube. The resolution ain't the best but you can see if you look carefully, that I had to aggressively slip the airplane with full flaps to get down in the amount of remaining runway. They're titled turnback 250, turnback 400 and so on for the altitudes I pulled the power off at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdZ1s-2uvFo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEzb33C9SmM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU8l7nL7TS8

You couldn't see much at the 800 foot video, so I only uploaded these three. I'm betting that at the 800 AGL point that I could probably do at least a 360 AND a 270 since I would have nearly run off the far end with the 5 knot tailwind I had.

I hope that none of you guys takes these numbers and altitudes seriously if you have a CS prop or a different RV.

I used a pretty aggressive bank angle simultaneously dropping the nose to avoid an accelerated stall down low.....in fact the idea of using a steep bank angle produced the result of the nose dropping, which is what I wanted.

Regards,
 
That looks pretty much identical procedure wise, to what I do in the Cessna. With very similar results, full flaps, full slip to MAKE the runway at 600'. So yes, the butt pucker factor is there at 250' (which is lower than I'd turn back anyway, but obviously still doable). So how is practicing this maneuver after proper instruction, and familiarization dangerous again?

The additional climb rate of the RV allows it to make the runway in spite of additional sink rate. At 800' or higher, it sounds like you could either keep gliding upwind for a hundred feet or so, THEN make the turnback. Much higher than that, and you could probably making it all the way around the patch with no flaps and use a short approach to land into the wind.

CS prop will bring you down much quicker, but either a stopped prop or putting it in high pitch would help tremendously with that.

Thank you Pierre for the testing, and the data that proves aerodynamics still apply to RV's :)
 
!30 MPH...

....or thereabouts, Todd. I encourage the guys I train here to shoot for 130-145 MPH for good visibility, great cylinder cooling and still see over the nose and well in excess of 1200 FPM.

As far as sink rate, Stephen, it's a much better glider than a Skyhawk and yes, I'd go out a little further if it quits at 800 AGL, then turn more gradually to avoid being too high and fast. That's easier said than done because I was anticipating all this and if the engine ever let go for real, it'll be a different scenario for sure but I've learned a lot about what the airplane will do.

We'll try for some in-flight videos later.

Regards,
 
pierre smith said:
....

As far as sink rate, Stephen, it's a much better glider than a Skyhawk. But I've learned a lot about what the airplane will do.

We'll try for some in-flight videos later.

Regards,
Click to expand...

I don't know about a Skyhawk, but my Warrior will way out glide my 6A 320 fp.
 
Glide ratio... vs. altitude gliding from. The RV will be gliding from a MUCH higher altitude (in relation to the runway) than the Skychicken would..
 
Not necessarily

osxuser said:
Glide ratio... vs. altitude gliding from. The RV will be gliding from a MUCH higher altitude (in relation to the runway) than the Skychicken would..
Click to expand...
Any engine can quit at any time so I don't see this as necessarily true.
 
If the fan quits at 500 AGL....according to my calculations you will be approximately the same distance from the ground regardless of your ride. Ok, I knew what you meant:)

Pierre, I am surprised that a short wing RV will outglide a 'Hawk'. I think my old Skyhawk POH give 8:1. I'll have to experiment with my RV8, but I doubt I can beat that even in coarse pitch.. I'll let you know.

I shut the engine and stopped the prop five miles out at 3000' AGL and dead sticked to the runway with air to spare in my Supercub. I don't think my 8 will do that.
 
Best L/D...

steveKs. said:
If the fan quits at 500 AGL....according to my calculations you will be approximately the same distance from the ground regardless of your ride. Ok, I knew what you meant:)

Pierre, I am surprised that a short wing RV will outglide a 'Hawk'. I think my old Skyhawk POH give 8:1. I'll have to experiment with my RV8, but I doubt I can beat that even in coarse pitch.. I'll let you know.

I shut the engine and stopped the prop five miles out at 3000' AGL and dead sticked to the runway with air to spare in my Supercub. I don't think my 8 will do that.
Click to expand...

....according to the CAFE Foundation is around 105 MPH with the engine windmilling. If you use 75 or 80, then yes, the sink rate approaches that of a set of car keys! They also point out around 11:1 glide ratio at that speed.

Capt Avgas....thanks, I've wanted to do this since this discussion started. I found out that the tremendous control response of my -6 instantaneously can snap it around...quite a benefit when time/altitude is short. That being said, since I had this planned, it definitely takes on a different hue than it would in reality. Nevertheless, I didn't have a clue that the airplane was capable at such low altitudes and I repeat for the other guys/gals.....if you're going to try this, start by practicing 180 degree approaches from abeam the numbers on downwind to get a feel for your "glider" first....at idle power all the way to touchdown.

As has been mentioned many times before...the time to find out about your airplane's gliding ability is not the first time the engine pukes...it's before.

The successful outcomes always seem to be preceded by practice....which is often rather neglected by most of us.

Regards,
 
Thanks Pierre!

Pierre,

Now we can discuss how it can be done safely for those of us that don't have your glider pilot skills.

Your airspeeds are higher than what I used in my one test at altitude and on my spread sheet.
-We're in different airplanes. The 6 has higher best glide and stall speeds
-Your flying at a lighter weight with more horsepower, putting you higher, closer to the runway
-Your better at doing this than I am

That last one means I'm never going to make this from 250 feet.

I re-crunched some numbers at higher airspeeds, estimating sink rate, and what I found was that I increase sink with speed, but being able to confidently turn back with 60 degree bank can completely make up for this in terms of altitude lost in the turn.

I need to go back up and do some glide/sink rate testing at higher airspeeds, then try some turn backs at those higher speeds.

I must say, going from 75 kts to 85 kts, or even 90kts, my enthusiasm for practicing this maneuver increases considerably. That allows bank angel to be, as yours, between 45 and 60, without fear of accelerated stall.

Sounds like you were using flaps. Did you use them while turning?
Another angle on this is to use full flaps and tighten the turn by keeping the airspeed low, say 70 kts for me, and using 60 degree bank. Still allows a healthy margin over stall.

As a glider pilot you probably already know whether or not that is viable.

For someone of my very modest stick & rudder skills, I need to reduce this to a procedure that is not a death defying feat and be willing to accept the reduction from best available performance that goes with that.
 
Pierre's accent... and Slipping a Cessna with Full Flaps?

This has been a very interesting thread. Thanks, Pierre, for providing some REAL data...with the appropriate caveats, of course.

I'm a long way from flying my RV-7, but I do have a few hours in a friend's (a CFII) RV-9A and a little unofficial time in another friend's RV-6A.

One thing I learned from this is that your accent wasn't what I expected. I guess I thought that with a name like "Pierre" and with your South African heritage, you wouldn't have the typical Southern accent. I was pleasantly surprised. Being from Alabama, I like the Georgia accent. There is a slight difference.

Another comment...someone in a previous thread referred to slipping a Cessna with full flaps. My CFI demonstrated that once for my BFR and about a week later told me he made a mistake by doing it. He said Cessna doesn't recommend that maneuver for a 172. Their concern is that full flaps can block airflow over the horizontal stabilizer and elevator. Ever heard of that?
Also wondering if that should be a concern for our RV's.

Don
 
Best Sink vs. Best Glide

pierre smith said:
....according to the CAFE Foundation is around 105 MPH with the engine windmilling. If you use 75 or 80, then yes, the sink rate approaches that of a set of car keys! They also point out around 11:1 glide ratio at that speed.
...
Click to expand...


Pierre, thanks very much for doing this - I agree with you 99%. That said..

At best glide, the sink rate in terms of f/m is actually higher. Best sink is at a lower speed but with a reduced glide ratio. Best sink is found at 76% of best glide. In the CAFE 6A that's about 80-81 mph vs. a best glide of 106 mph. The sink rate at best sink/endurance speed for the CAFE 6A is between 666 and 715 fpm depending on which of their observations are taken as primary (they have data which don't match up completely and admit to a 5% fuzziness due to air conditions during the test). Sink rate at best glide speed goes to 815 fpm, an increase of 100 fpm over best sink speed.

So those are some pretty aerodynamic car keys.

However, it is worth noting that for this test, CAFE was using the zero thrust method which could be expected to give a better glide or sink than a stopped prop. That's because a stopped prop must produce some drag - negative thrust - and CAFE's test had zero thrust.

BTW, In my opinion, even the short wing RV can out-glide most fixed gear Cessnas. Here's some logic to consider. If an airplane had no drag it would have an infinite glide ratio. If you add drag it sinks. If you add more drag it sinks faster. Now, which airplane has less drag at its best glide speed? That will be the one with the better glide ratio. It is not a secret that the RV's are much cleaner. How else could we go 100 knots on 3.5 gph? The only flaw in this would be that Cessnas have a lower best glide speed.
 
rv7boy said:
Another comment...someone in a previous thread referred to slipping a Cessna with full flaps. My CFI demonstrated that once for my BFR and about a week later told me he made a mistake by doing it. He said Cessna doesn't recommend that maneuver for a 172. Their concern is that full flaps can block airflow over the horizontal stabilizer and elevator. Ever heard of that?
Also wondering if that should be a concern for our RV's.

Don
Click to expand...

I trained in the 172/T-41 (high performance, stripped out USAF version), and yes, it was in the manual to not slip at full flaps. The large flap area and high wing position don't apply to the RV's, so there shouldn't be the same factors as for the 172 of turbulent air masking for the empennage. In fact, I'm not aware of any low wing aircraft like the Pipers that have any limitation (anyone know of exceptions??).
 
DUH!

Thanks for the reply, Carl.
As I was coming back from lunch just now, I realized I did my usual thing of posting without much thinking. With RV's being low wing, there shouldn't be the same concern with full flap slips as with high wing Cessnas.
Don
 
Actually.......

Steve Brown said:
Pierre,

Now we can discuss how it can be done safely for those of us that don't have your glider pilot skills.




Sounds like you were using flaps. Did you use them while turning?

.
Click to expand...

My glider skills are probably very rusty since it's been 20 years or more since I've flown one.

Flaps...Negative...I did start putting them down right after I'd turned around to see the runway and that I was high.

I'd credit my 38 years of Ag experience more than my glider skills though....making a living at 250' or so during turnarounds over trees near a stall and sometimes a wing "burble".

You should do whatever your comfort level needs. You could go to 2000' over an open area and use that number as your "floor" for the runway. Climb from there to 800' higher, for example, then pull the power, do a 180 or 240 but over a road or big powerline so you can simulate a runway and get back to it on a simulated final. Keep lowering your "climb to" altitude and practice your turnarounds. You'll be surprised at what you learn in a very short time. Then as your skill and ability improve, go lower, to maybe 1000 or 1500 feet and repeat the maneuvers until you're comfortable. Work progressively lower but don't get ahead of yourself.

Regards,
 
hevansrv7a said:


Pierre, thanks very much for doing this - I agree with you 99%. That said..

At best glide, the sink rate in terms of f/m is actually higher. Best sink is at a lower speed but with a reduced glide ratio. Best sink is found at 76% of best glide. In the CAFE 6A that's about 80-81 mph vs. a best glide of 106 mph. The sink rate at best sink/endurance speed for the CAFE 6A is between 666 and 715 fpm depending on which of their observations are taken as primary (they have data which don't match up completely and admit to a 5% fuzziness due to air conditions during the test). Sink rate at best glide speed goes to 815 fpm, an increase of 100 fpm over best sink speed.

So those are some pretty aerodynamic car keys.

However, it is worth noting that for this test, CAFE was using the zero thrust method which could be expected to give a better glide or sink than a stopped prop. That's because a stopped prop must produce some drag - negative thrust - and CAFE's test had zero thrust.

BTW, In my opinion, even the short wing RV can out-glide most fixed gear Cessnas. Here's some logic to consider. If an airplane had no drag it would have an infinite glide ratio. If you add drag it sinks. If you add more drag it sinks faster. Now, which airplane has less drag at its best glide speed? That will be the one with the better glide ratio. It is not a secret that the RV's are much cleaner. How else could we go 100 knots on 3.5 gph? The only flaw in this would be that Cessnas have a lower best glide speed.
Click to expand...

No way I'm anywhere close to the CAFE figures. These tests are at zero thrust which is a lot different drag than a windmilling prop and a dead engine. The sink rate is dramatically higher on my 6A below 70-75 knots power off. CAFE should shut the engine down to give us some useful real world data in this area.
 
rv7boy said:
He said Cessna doesn't recommend that maneuver for a 172. Their concern is that full flaps can block airflow over the horizontal stabilizer and elevator. Ever heard of that?
Don
Click to expand...
Don,
I think this "rule" is a carryover from the C-170B. I tried it at altitude in my 170B and found that a very extreme slip with full flaps did indeed blank the horizontal and the nose pitched down violently. In all honesty, I have not been able to repeat this phenomena in a 172. I believe it is because the 172 doesn't have the rudder authority of the 170.
 
Thanks, Mel
He demonstrated it in my 172 but did not ask me to do it for the BFR. I've never tried it since.
Don
 
You are right but I'm still right, too

rv6ejguy said:
No way I'm anywhere close to the CAFE figures. These tests are at zero thrust which is a lot different drag than a windmilling prop and a dead engine. The sink rate is dramatically higher on my 6A below 70-75 knots power off. CAFE should shut the engine down to give us some useful real world data in this area.
Click to expand...

The speed for best sink is just a hair above where the drag and sink increase suddenly and in a 6 or 7 that's around 75 kts. You can test this easily, working your way down 1 kt at a time. You can make it an easier test to perform by using partial power. The speed will be the same for both best glide and best sink; only the sink rates will vary with power.

I agree about CAFE's zero thrust being a better-than-best case. It's academically interesting but not something we can achieve with a dead engine. It's a better, more consistent way to compare airframes independent of the many variations in propulsion setups but does not predict engine out behavior.
 
rv7boy said:
Another comment...someone in a previous thread referred to slipping a Cessna with full flaps. My CFI demonstrated that once for my BFR and about a week later told me he made a mistake by doing it. He said Cessna doesn't recommend that maneuver for a 172. Their concern is that full flaps can block airflow over the horizontal stabilizer and elevator. Ever heard of that?
Also wondering if that should be a concern for our RV's.

Don
Click to expand...

My instructor said the same thing about the full-flap slip, so I read the 172 book, which said that you may experience some difficulty with control. I tried it but it didn't seem to be a problem!
 
rv7boy said:
Another comment...someone in a previous thread referred to slipping a Cessna with full flaps. My CFI demonstrated that once for my BFR and about a week later told me he made a mistake by doing it. He said Cessna doesn't recommend that maneuver for a 172. Their concern is that full flaps can block airflow over the horizontal stabilizer and elevator. Ever heard of that?
Also wondering if that should be a concern for our RV's.
Click to expand...
Before using full flap sideslips at low altitude, do a good flight test at altitude. Try full flap, full rudder sideslips at altitude at different speeds. Assess the controlability in pitch and roll. Try the slips with constant heading, and in a turn.
 
RV-9A 180 degree turnback performance

This is what I found for my -9A, fixed pitch. I tried 180-degree turns after simulated power losses. If I was climbing at 85 mph, I would typically lose 250-350 feet. If I was climbing at 110 mph, I could lose as little as 50 feet.

AIRSPEED is your friend. If you are close to stall, your drag goes way up and you performance goes way down. Also, if you are operating close to stall; a small moment of inattention will get you killed.

I chose a nominal 80 mph and a 45 degree bank to buy a lot of stall margin. I?ll explain why I picked those two numbers. When we plan for and practice an engine out, one thing we can do is buy stall margin. Part of that plan is to have a minimum target AIRSPEED and a maximum target bank angle

Let?s use a stall speed of 50 mph for talking. Mine is actually a bit higher. A 45 degree bank and 1.4 G level turn results in a 60 mph stall speed (that is true for level turns OR constant rate-of-descent turns). A 60 degree bank and 2 G level turn results in a 70 mph stall speed.

So if I am around 45 degrees of bank at 80 mph, I have a 20 mph stall margin or I can pull 2.6 Gs before stall. If I get a little slow, say 75, I ease the stick forward to pick up AIRSPEED - that also lowers the Gs slightly. I am more careful when slowing down (pulling).

A typical scenario - I was climbing at 85 mph, pulled the power, let the speed and nose drop for several seconds (hands off), then roll into a 40-50 degree bank while PUSHING first and then pulling to maintain 75 to 85. I made a 180 degree turn then rolled level still at 75 to 85. I used ground references for the turns because the compass is really spinning. Your eyes need to be outside except for the AIRSPEED. The nose did not go very far below the horizon. When I started with a 110 mph climb, I again banked immediately and then let the speed bleed off to 80 mph. From either climb speed, the real trick is to bank immediately to get the turn going. Then let the AIRSPEED bleed down to about 80 mph and then chase AIRSPEED.

If you want to turn back below 1000 feet, your risk of losing control most likely increases. You have to balance that risk with the risk posed by obstacles that may be ahead of you (forward of the wing). A turn back is a very dynamic operation: pucker factor, the view of the ground close by, maneuvering to align with the runway, wind effects on the ground track ground speed (visual cue), AIRSPEED, Gs, heading, altitude, visual scene, stick forces, landing options, and more can be changing, many at the same time. Two of the main problems are that we don?t know the AOA or have an adequate stall warning.

It is very easy to lose track of the stall margin. When you can only manage one or two of the variables at a time, AIRSPEED has to be the one to manage. When landing straight ahead, maintaining AIRSPEED can be a saturating task.

I have some of glider time, so steep banks at low speeds and low altitudes are the norm. Auto tows or winch launches in gliders also leave you at low altitudes at release and often require a turn back from 200 feet. You have to be fast at the controls to make a tight pattern or turn and land down wind. Remember that gliders have excellent glide path control and very low sink rates. Also, you get comfortable making off field landings in gliders.

Another thread pointed out that you may get turned around too soon and not be able to get down. For example, if you were climbing out on a 5,000 feet runway, one could be 1000 feet high at the departure end. A 50-350 feet loss in a turn back would leave you going downwind perhaps too high to get down.

So, I have my plan, I practice (both left and right), I am used to maneuvering close to the ground off airport. Regardless, I?ll probably still land reasonably ?straight ahead? as Mike advises unless I have 800 to 1000 feet at my 5,000-feet runway. If I lose and engine at 200 hundred feet, I can most likely land ?straight ahead? on the runway with some substantial S turns. Doug talked about maneuvering for a landing anywhere forward of the wings. That is ok because only small bank angles are required. But even then, if you do not focus on AIRSPEED but focus on what you may hit, you still can very easily stall the airplane.

I do let the airplane drift down wind from the runway centerline with cross wind takeoffs unless I am watching for the wake of a larger airplane ahead of me. If I lose an engine and start a turn to the upwind, it will take less maneuvering to get back to the runway if I have the altitude.

I would suggest that practicing a couple of times a month at altitude is NOT sufficient to safely turn back to the runway. However, it is great practice.
 
rv6ejguy said:
No way I'm anywhere close to the CAFE figures. These tests are at zero thrust which is a lot different drag than a windmilling prop and a dead engine.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. I did some glide tests recently in my C182 (CS prop). I did tests at a) engine at idle b) engine stopped but prop windmilling c) engine stopped prop NOT windmilling.

I discovered that with the engine producing zero power (mix at idle cut-off) there was still sufficient oil pressure developed by the windmilling prop (15psi) to activate the prop pitch. So instead of going to the default full fine on the prop as one might expect (and producing a lot of resultant drag) with the engine producing no power I was able to pull out the prop control knob and go to full coarse. WOW.....huge and immediately noticeable increase in glide range.:D

I then did further glide test with the prop fully stopped. In that condition it simulates a seized engine failure (and prop stopped at full fine).

My conclusions based on my simple testing indicated that if the engine quits (and the CS prop is still windmilling) then opting for full coarse gives just as good glide range as the prop stopped scenario...... or the engine at idle scenario. In honesty there may be some difference between the three scenarios but I was unable to detect any with my admittedly crude testing. My personal conclusion therefore is that if there are any differences then they're not enough to worry about relative to the turnback manoeuvre we're discussing.

In other words if the engine quits on take-off and it is cataclysmic (prop seizes) then you should get pretty good glide.

On the other hand if the prop is windmilling (and it's CS) then pulling out the prop knob greatly extends the range and should give roughly equivalent range to that achieved when practicing with the engine at idle (the supposed "zero thrust" situation).

Of course this does not apply to fixed pitch props.

So I have now adopted the "prop knob full out" as part of my engine failure procedure if extended glide is advantageous.
 
My point was typically that CAFE does their aerodynamic testing with a reasonably high power setting to simulate zero thrust (and zero prop drag). They establish this figure by using a device to measure prop flange movement.

Their numbers would closely resemble an airplane's glide performance with the propeller removed. It is a valid way to quantify airframe performance between designs but not real world performance with the propeller attached.

A prop, whether stationary or windmilling in full coarse presents substantial drag, reducing glide performance and increasing descent rates from CAFE's published numbers.
 
Captain Avgas said:
I discovered that with the engine producing zero power (mix at idle cut-off) there was still sufficient oil pressure developed by the windmilling prop (15psi) to activate the prop pitch.
Click to expand...

Hi Bob,

Interesting that it can still go coarse at only 15 psi. I presume the engine is a Continental. You may recall from an earlier thread that the oil pressure in my Lycoming drops to 50 psi with the mixture at idle cut-off and the prop coarse. Suggest you give it a try with the prop coarse AND the throttle in. This takes about 100 ft/min off the descent rate in my 9A.
Fin
9A
 
Finley Atherton said:
Hi Bob,

Interesting that it can still go coarse at only 15 psi. I presume the engine is a Continental. You may recall from an earlier thread that the oil pressure in my Lycoming drops to 50 psi with the mixture at idle cut-off and the prop coarse. Suggest you give it a try with the prop coarse AND the throttle in. This takes about 100 ft/min off the descent rate in my 9A.
Fin
9A
Click to expand...

Hi Finley, in fact it was your excellent glide report that prompted me to go out and do some glide tests myself.

I'll try the throttle-fully-in trick next time.

In terms of a turnback it is worthwhile for all pilots with a windmilling CS prop to know that pulling the prop knob right out can REALLY stretch the glide if they're threatening to undershoot. And pushing it right in will act like an airbrake if they're overshooting.
 
Last edited:
Wise words....

Captain Avgas said:
Hi Finley, in fact it was your excellent glide report that prompted me to go out and do some glide tests myself.

I'll try the throttle-fully-in trick next time.

In terms of a turnback it is worthwhile for all pilots with a windmilling CS prop to know that pulling the prop knob right out can REALLY stretch the glide if they're threatening to undershoot. And pushing it right in will act like an airbrake if they're overshooting.
Click to expand...

......and the bigger the engine/prop combination, the more substantial the braking and also the added glide. The 110" Hartzell on my Air Tractor will put me into the shoulder harnesses at flat pitch/zero thrust!

Regards,
 
Its all about the turn

If you make the turn you can make the runway.

Today I actually got in a little practice flying. Some stalls, steep turns, and some "turn backs" at altitude.

What I found was that its pretty forgiving with airspeed and bank. A few times I let my airspeed and bank creep up pretty high, pulling over 1.5 Gs, but still managed the turn in less than 500' of loss.

Afterwards I went to KCVH, did a touch & go runway 24, climbed to 770' AGL, pulled the power, waited for 3 seconds, then turned back for runway 6

No problem making the runway but I didn't land. Too high and I wasn't in the mood for drama. Some slipping and S turns would have fixed it. In an emergency, I would definitely have landed - or if I had to pee.

One thing, the pucker factor in the turn is way more higher when your close to the ground. That tells me I'm going to have to practice to make it work when it counts.
Based on the altitude I had left, I think I can get this down to 600' with some margin, maybe lower, but for now that's my target.
 
Cessna's verbage is "Avoid slips with flaps extended".

In the 172 with 40? of flap, the wash limits rudder authority anyway, so there isn't much slip. With 30? of flaps not so bad. You can get into a situation where the flaps blanks the elevators, which to a small degree, will drop the nose a bit. In the Cardinal this is a little more pronounced.

Know the airplane you fly. Learn about how it handles on the low end before you do this kind of stuff at low altitudes.
 
I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about, concerning the so-called "Impossible Turn". Professor Dave Rogers at the USN Academy wrote a paper about this, decades ago, which I guess no one bothers reading.

I demonstrate this regularly from 500 feet in a C172. The turnback is easy. Making the runway is harder, because most aircraft glide steeper than they climb. Long runways, headwinds and Vx climbs help.

A friend of mine did this for real in a T-6 from 400 feet, but he is a professional test pilot, and as such is a pretty good stick.

The turnback is like anything else. If you get training and practice it, you can do it. If you don't get training and don't practice it, don't do it.

This is really not rocket science.

Most pilots don't have very good stick & rudder skills, IMHO. They struggle with cross-wind landings, which for me is a red flag. Typical of nosewheel pilots.

I frequently fly surface-level aerobatics. In formation. Under negative G. If you can do that, the turnback (an upright, descending, light +ve G turn) really doesn't pose an insurmountable problem. I can eat a sandwich during one.
 
You DA man!

bow_down_together-966.gif
bow_down_together-966.gif

bow_down_together-966.gif
bow_down_together-966.gif
 
practice for vertical and horizontal travel

I went up with an instructor to test some of the "turn back to runway" recommendations. We climbed to about 3000 ft and did some tests. We discovered an interesting fact. Both the instructor and I were consistently turned around within 300 ft and in some tests, less.

... BUT ...

When we did the same test down at runway altitude at the airport we discovered that, while we had the plane turned around and headed back to the runway, we were still downwind off the end of the runway.

When you setup your tests "up at altitude", you need a GPS marker or some accurate ground reference to insure that you not only have completed the turn back but have also arrived back at the runway.
 
we were still downwind off the end of the runway
Click to expand...

Right - see above. The 210 degree turnback (you need more than a 180 degree turn) is actually pretty easy.

Turn immediately to 45 to 60 degrees of bank, the max you are comfortable with. Don't push down to a -ve AOA - just let the nose fall gently, very light G, maintaining your trimmed climb speed. During the steep descending turn, all you concentrate on is airspeed and ball, airspeed and ball. I use 80 mph in the 172.


The hard part is making it back to the runway. To do so, you need:

1) a long runway (and it use it!)
2) a headwind
3) a steep climb angle (think Vx)

Also, when the engine fails, turn into any crosswind to minimize lateral displacement. This is part of your pretakeoff brief.

This really isn't rocket science, people. I am amazed at all the nonsense that gets repeated about this very simple maneuver, by supposedly reputable sources such as FLYING magazine, AOPA, etc. Dave Rogers had it right, all those years ago, but he was a USN Admiral, so go figure.

You want to try something challenging, try an outside loop at the surface in line abreast formation. The turnaround is dead nuts simple. My 18 year old kid can do it.

PS If you are at all interested in thsi subject, please read this:

http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf
 
Last edited:
Caution guys!

Andrew, you must be a fine stick, doing low level, formation outside and ground level....however, there are many young, low-time guys on here.

I'm sincere and not insulting your post but I have to warn the lower time guys that this can be a very dangerous maneuver, so don't make it sound so incredibly easy, just for safety's sake...no flame intended, really. I'm also a very high time pilot (18,500?) and it makes it difficult to fill a 100 hour pilot's shoes.

I've done it in my -6A from 250, 350 and 500' and twice, almost overshot the far end of the runway because of such a high climb rate of the RV's and their excellent glide ratio. I can just about assure you that if you do a quick turnaround from 500' ASL, you'll go off the far end. My runway is 5,000' long but I still had to go around.

Best,
 
this can be a very dangerous maneuver
Click to expand...

Of course - any time you are 100 feet in the air, or going 100 mph, there is the distinct possibility of injuring your pink body if you do something wrong.

Motorized equipment must be respected. Heck, you can kill yourself by climbing up and falling off a ladder.

However, there is nothing inherently evil in the turnback. I compare it to flying in cloud. If you try to teach yourself to do it on the spur of the moment, it probably isn't going to work out very well.

But with training and practice, you can safely fly inside a cloud. Same thing for the turnback. Not sure why the turnback gets such horrid PR. Hand-flying in cloud is a lot more work.
 
pierre smith said:
Andrew, you must be a fine stick, doing low level, formation outside and ground level....however, there are many young, low-time guys on here.

I'm sincere and not insulting your post but I have to warn the lower time guys that this can be a very dangerous maneuver, so don't make it sound so incredibly easy, just for safety's sake...no flame intended, really. I'm also a very high time pilot (18,500?) and it makes it difficult to fill a 100 hour pilot's shoes.

I've done it in my -6A from 250, 350 and 500' and twice, almost overshot the far end of the runway because of such a high climb rate of the RV's and their excellent glide ratio. I can just about assure you that if you do a quick turnaround from 500' ASL, you'll go off the far end. My runway is 5,000' long but I still had to go around.

Best,
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with all the thing you said Pierre. For those who flying is second nature, this maybe of a routing task but for those of us who are new to flying it can be nerve racking to do such simple turn yet so close to the ground.

During my practice from 600' I would have gone off the far end if I had not done a go-around. So, I am not sure Vx is the best strategy if you are flying a RV. Keep in mind that you will be closer to the stall speed and less time to react, should she let go of her power.
 
turn back turn

pitts quote "PS If you are at all interested in thsi subject, please read this:

http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf" its like reading the prefight briefing for a space launch :eek: lol
 
What?

After reading the report, I am pretty sure it says that there may be a better option than landing straight ahead if you have an engine failure at a lower altitude than previously considered. How about one of you engineers that can explain it break it down for the rest of us!

Even with the limited flying I have done, the one thing drummed into my head was land straight ahead if I had engine failure shortly after takeoff. "Don't be afraid to bend the metal". A controlled crash is survivable. If you stall, you die. I guess it boils down to knowing your aircraft. What I need is a large parking lot - about the size of a Disneyland parking lot to take off, climb to 500' and see if if you can do the teardrop pattern and do a 180 degree turn to land. I remember learning canyon flying in McCall ID and being taught how to do a 180 degree turn in about 3 windspans. I don't know if it was 3 windspans, but I couldn't believe how fast I was going the other way! I think I will head back to McCall when I finish my -9.
 
rockwoodrv9 said:
After reading the report, I am pretty sure it says that there may be a better option than landing straight ahead if you have an engine failure at a lower altitude than previously considered. How about one of you engineers that can explain it break it down for the rest of us!

Even with the limited flying I have done,I guess it boils down to knowing your aircraft. .
Click to expand...

Much has been made ,in this thread, of knowing your airplane, frequent practice and the aircrafts ability to do the job from an altitude of XXX?.

An elegant discussion of how to do it by Pierre with excellent factual data. Reference to a Navy Professors article on how to do it, practice makes perfect, etc.

The common thread in most examples are constant conditions and environment.

After reading this thread, AOPA articles, and Navy professorial writings, a young inexperienced pilot may conclude that all he has to do to make the turn successfully is go out and practice it.


Practice??..

How often and how recent? If you haven?t practiced ?the turn? in the last 30, 60, 90 days is it still OK to try it?
Environment??
What is the impact of density altitude? If you can do it from 500? on a cold winter day can you do it from 500? on a hot summer day. How far are you from the airport on a hot vs cold day when you reach your ?critical altitude??

If you have a stiff quartering crosswind which direction do you start your turn? Into the wind or with the wind? Does wind velocity or relative direction make a difference in this decision?


Weight and Balance???
Is your critical altitude, when fully loaded with fuel, baggage and a passenger the same as the altitude you used during ?practice? when it was just you and half tanks? Do you use the same bank angle and airspeeds fully loaded vs the conditions you practiced under? How far will you be from the airport when you reach your critical altitude when fully loaded vs when you practiced?



The airport????
If you decide to turn back and are close but ain?t gonna make it, what are your options? Will you be looking at a nice flat golf course, rocks and trees, a granite quarry?

At your home airport I would expect everyone knows what their best options are for off field landings if the engine quits and what their options are if they make the turn but can?t quite make the field. But what about on the road, a new airport. How many of you scan a sat photo of your destination before embarking on a trip? If you do, do you scrutinize it with the thought of ? what if my engine quits while departing runway XY?? And do you think that through for every runway, for every density altitude for every set of weight and balance possibilities?
I do not know about all the RV models but in my F1 and Radial Rockets the difference relative to lightly loaded and fully loaded was huge.

There is more to this decision than just knowing your airplane and having practiced a few times a month ago.

Remember when your engine quits at 800? on takeoff and you decide to make the turn instead of landing on the nice golf course straight ahead, the decision becomes irreversible, the moment you yank the stick and it is a decision you have just made for yourself as well as anyone else in the plane.

You are the PIC it is your decision to make.

It is sobering that many try and many fail. Many try and a few succeed.
 
N395V said:
Much has been made ,in this thread, of knowing your airplane, frequent practice and the aircrafts ability to do the job from an altitude of XXX?.

After reading this thread, AOPA articles, and Navy professorial writings, a young inexperienced pilot may conclude that all he has to do to make the turn successfully is go out and practice it.


Practice??..

How often and how recent? If you haven?t practiced ?the turn? in the last 30, 60, 90 days is it still OK to try it?
Click to expand...

Also, keep in mind that the aircraft performance with an actual engine failure will be quite different from what it is with the engine at idle during practice. So, all that practice may lead you to believe the aircraft performance is actually better than it would be once that engine has failed.
 
Many try and succeed but don't make headlines.

If you're not incredibly practiced or talented stick to 30 degree bank angle. 45-60 will get you turned quicker but not much quicker. The risk to reward beyond 30 degrees (especially if you turn into the crosswind when present) isn't worth it unless you are good and can maintain airspeed under great stress and crazy views of grass.

When I practiced in the 4, stopping on the runway was all I had trouble with. I usually climb out at 120kt as I like airspeed just as much as altitude.
 
Sorry for the thread creep, but ... when will I ever hear the end of the "crosswind turn" myth? As long as we're not talking about wind shear - the sudden, abrupt change in wind speed or direction - the airplane doesn't know anything about the wind. Turning into the wind or downwind or whatever does not have any effect on stall speed.
In fact, you do want to turn into a cross wind, as it will tend to blow you back toward the runway after a 180 (lessen the need for a teardrop).
 
BobTurner said:
Sorry for the thread creep, but ... when will I ever hear the end of the "crosswind turn" myth? As long as we're not talking about wind shear - the sudden, abrupt change in wind speed or direction - the airplane doesn't know anything about the wind. Turning into the wind or downwind or whatever does not have any effect on stall speed.
In fact, you do want to turn into a cross wind, as it will tend to blow you back toward the runway after a 180 (lessen the need for a teardrop).
Click to expand...

When talking about the impossible turn, the crosswind direction has absolutely nothing to do with stall speed or aerodynamic performance. The reason that turning into a crosswind, if present, is important for the turn back maneuver is because you want to reduce your actual turn radius (over the ground) and hence lateral displacement from the runway. In other words, when taking off from a single runway airport, a 180 degree turn will not get you back to the runway, because at the end of a 180 degree turn, you will be offset laterally from the runway centerline a distance equal to your turn radius. If your goal is to actually make it back to the runway, you will have to continue turning beyond 180 degrees to get pointed back towards the runway, then straighten to runway heading once you get there. Now, if you have a crosswind and you make your initial turn away from the wind, your lateral displacement from runway centerline after a 180 degree turn will be the turn radius plus the crosswind drift encountered during the turn, meaning you have more distance to glide to get back to the runway. Of course, if you make your initial turnback into an available crosswind, your actual turn radius over the ground will be less than the calm wind scenario (or when making the turn downwind), thus after turning 180 degrees, you will be closer to the runway centerline and thus you have last distance to glide to make it back.

Skylor
 
Ask an Ag pilot.

BobTurner said:
....- the airplane doesn't know anything about the wind. Turning into the wind or downwind or whatever does not have any effect on stall speed.
(lessen the need for a teardrop).
Click to expand...

Guys, this is a myth perpetrated by textbook!

The airplane DOES in fact, know about the wind! Many of our guys have stalled and busted their tails during an abrupt turn to downwind with a loaded airplane! The airplane has to "catch up" with the wind and can't do it instantly. Turning into the wind immediately adds lift AND airspeed, regardless of what the textbooks say. I learned this the hard way during 41 years/15,000 hours of ag work in Agwagons to Air Tractors.

At 7,500' feet and a 3 minute turn, you won't feel or see any difference in airspeed or stall speed turning either into or downwind.

Do the same thing near the ground and it's a whole 'nuther story!

Best,
 
pierre smith said:
Guys, this is a myth perpetrated by textbook!

The airplane DOES in fact, know about the wind! Many of our guys have stalled and busted their tails during an abrupt turn to downwind with a loaded airplane! The airplane has to "catch up" with the wind and can't do it instantly. Turning into the wind immediately adds lift AND airspeed, regardless of what the textbooks say. I learned this the hard way during 41 years/15,000 hours of ag work in Agwagons to Air Tractors.

At 7,500' feet and a 3 minute turn, you won't feel or see any difference in airspeed or stall speed turning either into or downwind.

Do the same thing near the ground and it's a whole 'nuther story!

Best,
Click to expand...

Pierre is alive and can talk about it, there are many who are not as fortunate. On another scale, many people were killed near Dallas years ago when a Lockheed 1011 got caught on the wrong side of a wind shear, also a case where the airplane could not adjust to a change in wind speed. Same thing happens when turning, the steeper the turn, the more pronounced its effect can be.

This thread is alive and well because there are those who believe "return to runway after engine failure" is a good everyday idea. It isn't - except maybe for the stunt pilot who practices when he isn't performing and the ag pilot who does it for a living.

Once you've thought it through and decide for yourself to land straight ahead, the subject of the thread becomes not very interesting.
 
Pierre is correct, If you are making a very rapid turn the wind will effect the airspeed. Even a gradual turn with the engine out will change your glide distance because again the aircraft has to make a ground speed change to maintain the same indicated airspeed. I once lost 40 knots of airspeed in a 757 descending into SLC due to a turn and sheer. The more rapid the turn the greater the impact from the wind on indicated airspeed.
As far as turning back to the airport I would practice and find a altitude you think you are comfortable with. Then take that altitude and double it for the real thing and use that as your go no go point. If you think your going to perform the same when the engine actually quits verses practice its highly unlikely and there will be differences from practice such as the wind that will effect the outcome.
There is another thing to consider here also. Many pilots have little or no practice with true accelerated stalls. The aircraft may behave quite differently then a simple straight ahead stall. Try practicing 2 G stalls at 60 degrees angle of bank at altitude. How the aircraft stalls in that regime may surprise you. It might also convince you that straight ahead is the best answer to this entire question until you have a big cushion on the turn back.

George
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top