Jeff,
Thank you for your kind words. Saying things like that lowers your credibility. But I appreciate it.
Yeah, now that you mention it, I guess I have sunk to an all time low......
Jeff,
Thank you for your kind words. Saying things like that lowers your credibility. But I appreciate it.
for that brief moment the aircraft loses a slight bit of airspeed in the downwind turn while the inertia of the weight of the aircraft equalizes with the new direction of mass of air.
Keep in mind that the aircraft isn't being carried inside of a total mass of moving air until the turn is completed and that no attempt to refer to ground reference is made. You're going to land on a point on the ground, therefore your maneuvers have to relate to your position over the ground and not simply doing maneuvers with the aircraft drifting along with the mass of air/wind irrelevant to any ground position.
You're going to land on a point on the ground, therefore your maneuvers have to relate to your position over the ground and not simply doing maneuvers with the aircraft drifting along with the mass of air/wind irrelevant to any ground position.
Okay, so lets say that you're heavily loaded. *The key term is HEAVILY LOADED. You crank that airplane into a tight turn. The centrifugal force increases, but with a dead engine you'll have to nose down even more.
My question is: is there an altitude beyond which you won't have the horizontal distance to cover the loss in that altitude? Really, the question seems to be related to your climb angle like others have said. Heavily loaded, high density altitude your climb angle is gonna be pretty shallow so your 600' rule isn't going work, especially on a short runway. So do you have a different turn back altitude for different loading/performance combinations?
But let me pose a question to Captain Avgas or anyone else. You had a couple of examples to try at 3000' agl or 1000' agl. Depending on many different factors (obviously) at 3000' agl or 1000' agl, do you have enough glide capability to cover the horizontal from that high up? Let me rephrase. Captain Avgas, you countered the debate with "are you telling me that you wouldn't make a return attempt if you were at 3000' agl?" My question is: is there an altitude beyond which you won't have the horizontal distance to cover the loss in that altitude? Really, the question seems to be related to your climb angle like others have said. Heavily loaded, high density altitude your climb angle is gonna be pretty shallow so your 600' rule isn't going work, especially on a short runway. So do you have a different turn back altitude for different loading/performance combinations?
Good stuff guys/gals. This is what forums are for, but real-life proof is what really counts.
"Pounder"
Hopefully I can get out the airport this weekend and practice some simulated engine outs in the pattern. One of these days I'll work up the courage to bring along a CFI and pull that red knob all the way back.
I have flown a -6 with CS prop and my 7A with FP. It's a big difference. My FP prop is pitched for best cruise at 8500' which results in an inability to get max power at first on TO. I find that my best angle of climb and my best rate of climb speeds are very close. That's not the case with CS prop for obvious reasons. The issue is the need for RPM's to get power for climb. I find I can climb better if I let the speed build up first. What's your experience? BTW - the GRT flight path marker allows you to directly fly the best angle of climb for any given day and conditions. All of this is important in trying to answer your question.Keepup (posts 54 and 57) raised the issue about climb angle. I would be interested in opinions on this issue. For the first 50 hours or so most of my climb outs from the runway were relatively steep, it was neat to feel the excellent T/O and climb performance and put on an impressive show for the passenger and observers on the ground. I have calmed down a bit and now tend to climb out at a more leisurely angle by letting the airspeed build up first. Should I revert back to the initial steep climb out till I get to a safe altitude where a turn back could be accomplished?
Fin
9A
I have flown a -6 with CS prop and my 7A with FP. It's a big difference. My FP prop is pitched for best cruise at 8500' which results in an inability to get max power at first on TO. I find that my best angle of climb and my best rate of climb speeds are very close. That's not the case with CS prop for obvious reasons. The issue is the need for RPM's to get power for climb. I find I can climb better if I let the speed build up first. What's your experience? BTW - the GRT flight path marker allows you to directly fly the best angle of climb for any given day and conditions. All of this is important in trying to answer your question.
My question is: is there an altitude beyond which you won't have the horizontal distance to cover the loss in that altitude? Really, the question seems to be related to your climb angle like others have said. Heavily loaded, high density altitude your climb angle is gonna be pretty shallow so your 600' rule isn't going work, especially on a short runway. So do you have a different turn back altitude for different loading/performance combinations?
"Pounder"
Condensed to: My mind is already made up, don't confuse me with the facts!Eric Hoffer (the Longshoreman Philosopher) wrote a short book (The Ordeal of Change) on man's resistance to change, which may apply to many of our opinions expressed in this thread, to wit: that most of us will hold to previously held opinions and continue to defend them in light of facts that would obviously disprove them; this writer is not immune from such.
Ok, so I can't give it up.
As you practice the turnback you will also discover another very interesting phenomenon.....you need MASSIVE and IMMEDIATE forward stick as soon as the power quits. The loss of speed when the engine dies on steep climb-out is staggering....get that nose down fast and recoup some speed to start the turn.
For thousands of years people believed that the earth was flat and that if you sailed too far and arrived at the edge you would fall off. And despite the fact that each year hundreds of ships returned, the flat earth prophets pointed to the few that did not and said: "We warned them".
And many mariners who were fixated on the few failures rather than the successes were duly impressed with the knowledge of the flat earth prophets and subsequently vowed never to venture too far in their ships. And for good measure, and in good conscience, they also warned others of the terrible danger.
But there were probably a number of astute observers who couldn't help but notice that the seafarers who did not return were generally those with the lowest levels of maritime skills.
Today we understand that warnings about sailing off the edge of the earth probably served no more purpose than to stress out our entrepid ancient mariner....and that what would have been considerably more beneficial to his prospects for survival would have been some better instructions in seamanship and basic navigation.
The fact that pilots kill themselves doing turnbacks is not an indictment of the maneouvre....it is an indictment of a flying training system that provides zero instruction in performing the maneouvre safely (outside of the very sensible gliding fraternity of course).
Sure, a number of pilots have killed themselves attempting a turnback on engine failure..but I'll bet London to a brick that NONE of them had ANY experience or proficiency in the manouevre. In other words their first attempt was their last.
In that regard it is probably no different from a pilot needing to recover from a real and unexpected spin when he has had no spin recovery training. These things are extremely difficult to deal with from pure theory when the ground is looming large.
What would be an interesting thing to know, for unsuccessful attempts at return to airport, is whether it was unsuccessful because of departure from controlled flight, or because the airplane hit the ground before it got turned back.
Spending training time working on power off spot landings so you can park it on the spot power off is a much better use of time and effort. Until that skill is ABSOLUTELY MASTERED, I mean on the spot, on the airspeed, everytime, with the power back, talking about a training for a turnback is crazy.
....that I take to heart. The very next time I fly my RV, I'll take it upon myself to practice turnbacks at altitude and begin teaching them as well.
BTW, I have a coarsely pitched three bladed Catto and have a wonderful glide ratio...around 11:1 but the last two C/S equipped-7A's I flew (one yesterday) have a lousy glide when the power is pulled and the blades go flat....man do they brake hard and lose speed fast. So if you're in a C/S equipped plane, you'll be surprised at the rapid deceleration and glide degradation too. One had a two-bladed Sensy , the other a three bladed MT.
Regards,
Hi Pierre, One of first things we were taught in the T-28 in case of engine failure was to pull the prop lever immediately into high pitch (low RPM) to extend the glide. I had never heard this discussed or taught before on any other complex single with a non-feathering prop. It does work, and maybe it's time to look at this technique here in regards to this discussion on making it back to the airport.
Regards
A T-28 falls like a greased anvil.
"
Sorry can't quit....
Someone tried that at KLVK last year.... They are not here to talk about it.I've got a quick question....
Is there ANYONE participating in this discussion who has actually had an engine out in an RV (or equally performing airplane) on takeoff, done a turn back and is here to talk about it? ...
Stein
Many years ago, the Pitts S1S was the most popular airplane for competition aerobatics. In that era, the majority these airplanes did not have an electrical system. At a contest where the aerobatic area was over a mostly wooded area I witnessed the following: Pitts S1S, no starter, engine quit during a tailslide,VERY low, prop stopped. Base leg was direct to the center of a runway approximately 4000' long. The rollout from the 90 degree turn and the flare occurred at the same time. Incredibly, on his next flight the same pilot did the same thing again. Why was this sucessful? The pilot was very used to looking at the ground going straight down at well under 1000', he didn't panic and he flew the airplane instead of letting it fly him. My belief is that Patty "Who" and her colleagues who fly airshows and or compete at the Unlimited level are very capable of turning back 100% of the time with an engine failure on takeoff, without loosing control. For the rest of the world, the results are likely to be stall/spin /crash. Another factor that hasn't been discussed enough, is the almost overwhelming desire to "save the airplane" The builder pilot in his/her brand new homebuilt simply cannot mentally cope with sacrificing the airplane.
Yes, indeed. Gliders and their 200ft DH have been discussed at length (well, gliders designed without engines - when the fan stops, everything is a glider, even Air Canada 767s at Gimli). A -9 will be different from a -8, a Cirrus different from a Cub, etc.I'm quite sure that a standard run of the mill Cessna or Piper wouldn't have fared as well; and that probably applies to RV's too.
Without doubt, the design of the aircraft has much to do with what's possible.
L.Adamson
Pretty much sums up this thread.
If I remember right, 80% of pilots die when trying to get back to the runway after loosing an engine on take off.