Kolb-List Digest Archive

Mon 04/26/10


Total Messages Posted: 16



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 05:40 AM - remembering Dave Bigelow (robert bean)
     2. 09:27 AM - 180 turn back to the runway video (Jason Omelchuck)
     3. 09:54 AM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Arksey@aol.com)
     4. 10:07 AM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (John Hauck)
     5. 11:02 AM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Jason Omelchuck)
     6. 11:02 AM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Mike Welch)
     7. 11:51 AM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Jason Omelchuck)
     8. 12:04 PM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Jack B. Hart)
     9. 01:03 PM - Flying the Kolb Ultrastar (Jean PILLAUDIN)
    10. 05:26 PM - Re: Flying the Kolb Ultrastar (Kip)
    11. 05:30 PM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (russ kinne)
    12. 06:36 PM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (cristalclear13)
    13. 06:43 PM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (John Hauck)
    14. 06:43 PM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Larry Cottrell)
    15. 07:38 PM - Re: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Arksey@aol.com)
    16. 08:00 PM - Re: 180 turn back to the runway video (Jason Omelchuck)
 
 
 


Message 1


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message


    Message 2


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message


    Message 3


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message


    Message 4


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message


    Message 5


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message


    Message 6


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message


    Message 7


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message


    Message 8


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message


    Message 9


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message


    Message 10


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:26:39 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Flying the Kolb Ultrastar
    From: "Kip" <klaurie@mindspring.com>
    Cool..... :D -------- 2000 Firestar II R503 DCDI VLS 750 2010 Waiex Jabiru 3300 1980 Quickie 1 Electric? Needs restoration! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295798#295798


    Message 11


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:30:30 PM PST US
    From: russ kinne <russkinne@mac.com>
    Subject: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video
    OK, now you can beat me up too. Esp since I'm a non-Kolb pilot. But all this recent talk about minimum altitude to make a 180 back to the runway after an engine failure on takeoff -- the early posts, at least, and the video, indicate that the trials were done right off the runway, at an altitude of 500' AGL or so. IMHO, THIS IS ASSININE! For the luvva Pete, and your loved ones, do these trials AT ALTITUDE! The graveyard's full of people who didn't. So beat me up if you want to. I only hope this will save a life & avoid a crash or two. Russ K On Apr 26, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Mike Welch wrote: > Jason, > > Very interesting exercise. For you and your plane, under these > identical conditions, > you feel that 500' agl is a safe u-turn height to make it back to > the field. That is good. > > However, I want to point out that these are narrow parameters to > duplicate. For instance; if you add a little headwind (which > would then become a tailwind on a 180 deg turn), or if you add a > passenger, or the density altitude is different, the outcome may be > quite different. > > I'm not trying to rain on your parade, Jason, I just want to make > sure we all remember this particular scenario has limited value. > Being proficient at 180 degree turns (after take-off) is > great!!!! But to be truly proficient, you'd need to practice in > ALL wind conditions, several weight conditions, and various density > altitude conditions, and combinations of all of these. > > Practicing proficient flying techniques is ALWAYS good advice. > Especially those techniques that deal with emergency > proceedures!! But, unless a pilot were incredibly confident he > could make the field on a u-turn landing after an engine failure, > the best advice is to always land straight ahead. > > BTW, keep in mind that practicing low level u-turns amount to > acrobatic flying. More than a few pilots have died finding out > that what they thought would work....didn't!!! > > Okay everybody, now you can beat me up. > > Mike Welch > MkIII > >


    Message 12


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:36:05 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video
    From: "cristalclear13" <cristalclearwaters@gmail.com>
    Jason Omelchuck wrote: > Hello All, > > One of the things I have always wanted to test was the height required to get back to a runway after take off. On Sunday, I got a chance to do some testing and I got a video of it. The runway I am flying from is about 2500 feet long. I found that it required about 500' for me to make the 180 and get back to the end of the runway. I tried it at 400' but the ending was not pretty (nothing bent). The interesting thing is that at 600' I could not make the runway because I had traveled further away from the runway than the extra 100' in altitude allowed me to make up. My engine has a clutch, so the prop windmills at engine idle just like it would windmill if the engine failed. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn6T8ynRDLk > > FWIW > Jason > MKIII Yamaha powered > Portland, OR Wish I had that many open fields to choose from for emergency landing spots. Please be careful. Do you know your stall speed on a steep turn? -------- Cristal Waters Kolb Mark II Twinstar Rotax 503 DCSI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295812#295812


    Message 13


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:43:55 PM PST US
    From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
    Subject: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video
    Esp since I'm a non-Kolb pilot. But all this recent talk about minimum altitude to make a 180 back to the runway after an engine failure on takeoff -- the early posts, at least, and the video, indicate that the trials were done right off the runway, at an altitude of 500' AGL or so. IMHO, THIS IS ASSININE! For the luvva Pete, and your loved ones, do these trials AT ALTITUDE! The graveyard's full of people who didn't. So beat me up if you want to. I only hope this will save a life & avoid a crash or two. Russ K *************************** Russ/Gang: Would be a good idea to get some flight experience in a Kolb. What Jason was doing was normal Kolb flying in my book. I believe he has learned a great deal more about his airplane. john hauck mkIII Titus, Alabama


    Message 14


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:43:55 PM PST US
    From: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell@fmtcblue.com>
    Subject: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video
    Not sure why you want to get beat up, but if it make you feel better have your wife do it for us. In actuality the way that he did it was the safest way to have done it at all. If you recall, he has a clutch, so whether the engine is running or not, and his was, his prop is going to spin and slow him down a lot. All he had to do was to apply throttle and he is running again, so the danger that he put himself into was no worse than any power off landing, whether it be straight in or not. Now I don't have a clutch, but you can be sure that if you are not going to make the runway, you are going to know it a long time before it gets critical. If you have to pull start the engine, then you are engaging in risky behavior, with a starter it is doable without too much risk. Now the following may be only applicable to myself, if you do not react this way, then by all means feel free to disregard the following. I have had at least two situations that could be qualified as an emergency. The first one was an engine malfunction wherein a spark plug cap disengaged from the spark plug. I had noise, but no real power. I reverted to the type of landing that I would normally make. Muscle memory if you will. I picked a spot to land that was the best choice open to me, throttled back and set it down. There was a large rock that I could not see, ended up on my back with gas dripping by my ear. Besides the damage to the landing gear, and a crushed nose cone, I had a prop strike when I flipped, and a bit more damage than necessary. What would have been better would have been to shut off the engine, master switch, and made my approach as slow as I could, even to pancake it in if necessary. I had never faced the possibility of an off field landing, so I reverted to what I did each time I landed. No emergency practice or even thought of what I would do in an emergency, nothing. Now after that and early last year there was the original discussion about how much altitude one needed to make a unpowered turn. I went out, ( I did use more altitude however) and found that I could make a full turn within 200 feet. One of my misadventures with a HAC-man wherein I neglected to turn it off as I was coming in for a landing. ( I ascribe no blame to the HAC-man system. It operated as it was designed to do. The fault was entirely mine.) I was on final approach to my cross wind runway, which is a bit uphill. I was probably under 300 feet, the engine quit. Straight ahead there was nothing but sage about two feet high. Behind me was a clear patch of dirt that was as smooth as one could ask for. It was also on down sloping ground. I knew I had altitude enough to turn, the question was whether I had enough altitude to make the clearing. Well I did, skimming the last piece of sage between me and the clearing. I shut off the HAC-man, started the engine and went home to an ass chewing by the little lady. Now I will not deny that there was a large measure of luck, but I knew how much it would take to turn, I knew what my best glide was, and I pulled it off with no repair, other than my britches. Had I gone straight ahead, I would have been replacing the nose cone, and probably recovering. My point is if you do not know how the plane will react, you will have no other choice than muscle memory. Yes straight ahead is probably safest if you don't know, but its most likely gonna hurt. Any exercise that you are going to attempt should be carried out with as much safety cushion as you can get, but knowing what to expect from your plane and preparing yourself for it is priceless. Now I thought that this should be classified as gentle, but I think he did as he should have done. An emergency is no place for guesswork. Larry Note: If you forward this email, please delete the forwarding history, which includes my email address. ----- Original Message ----- From: russ kinne To: kolb-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 6:25 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 180 turn back to the runway video OK, now you can beat me up too. Esp since I'm a non-Kolb pilot. But all this recent talk about minimum altitude to make a 180 back to the runway after an engine failure on takeoff -- the early posts, at least, and the video, indicate that the trials were done right off the runway, at an altitude of 500' AGL or so. IMHO, THIS IS ASSININE! For the luvva Pete, and your loved ones, do these trials AT ALTITUDE! The graveyard's full of people who didn't. So beat me up if you want to. I only hope this will save a life & avoid a crash or two. Russ K


    Message 15


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:38:34 PM PST US
    From: Arksey@aol.com
    Subject: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video
    good thinking Jason.....let us know your final results i am sure we will find them interesting and helpful.....jswan fly safe ..... do not archive jim swan firestar ll 503 michigan


    Message 16


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:00:58 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: 180 turn back to the runway video
    From: "Jason Omelchuck" <jason@trek-tech.com>
    Hello Crystal, In a descending (power off) turn at constant airspeed your airplane will stall at the same speed it does straight ahead with power off. The risk is keeping the turn coordinated so that remains true for both wings. The tendency is to try to put in too much rudder to tighten the turn and you then run the risk of the inside wing stalling. when I first started practicing at altitude, I noticed I could feel the wing start to bobble at stall and that it would increase the bank and start the beginning of a spiral. It was a little unnerving at first, but I noticed I could keep it from developing by a little opposite rudder and of course getting the nose down ever so slightly to keep the airspeed up. I did practice (at altitude) going from a full throttle climb to a descending 180 turn while trying to keep a constant airspeed. One of the things I think I have learned while doing this close to the ground is that the fear of hitting the ground is a very ingrained in my brain. It is an un-natural act to put the nose down to save yourself from hitting the ground. I believe this has caused many an airplane accident because it is just does not make sense, your instinct really wants to pull back on the stick to extend the glide just that little bit more. This sensation does not get triggered when flying at altitude. I believe this is the reason that many a Kolb landing gear has been bent by people who are used to flying GA aircraft. To the pilot of a faster airplane, the angle of approach that must be kept close to the ground before round out is alarming until you do it many times. My $.02 worth Jason cristalclear13 wrote: > > Jason Omelchuck wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > One of the things I have always wanted to test was the height required to get back to a runway after take off. On Sunday, I got a chance to do some testing and I got a video of it. The runway I am flying from is about 2500 feet long. I found that it required about 500' for me to make the 180 and get back to the end of the runway. I tried it at 400' but the ending was not pretty (nothing bent). The interesting thing is that at 600' I could not make the runway because I had traveled further away from the runway than the extra 100' in altitude allowed me to make up. My engine has a clutch, so the prop windmills at engine idle just like it would windmill if the engine failed. > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn6T8ynRDLk > > > > FWIW > > Jason > > MKIII Yamaha powered > > Portland, OR > > > Wish I had that many open fields to choose from for emergency landing spots. > Please be careful. Do you know your stall speed on a steep turn? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=295828#295828




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   kolb-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kolb-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/kolb-list
  • Browse Kolb-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/kolb-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --