Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:06 AM - Re: minimum turnback altitude (Jeff Boatright)
2. 06:02 AM - Re: Re: minimum turnback altitude (Charles N. Campbell)
3. 06:41 AM - Re: minimum turnback altitude (AircamperN11MS)
4. 06:50 AM - Re: minimum turnback altitude (AircamperN11MS)
5. 07:01 AM - Re: Re: minimum turnback altitude (Steven Dortch)
6. 07:08 AM - Re: minimum turnback altitude (tools)
7. 07:24 AM - Re: Re: minimum turnback altitude (Marcus Zechini)
8. 07:40 AM - Re: minimum turnback altitude (nightmare)
9. 08:40 AM - first flight of 2015! (Douwe Blumberg)
10. 11:27 AM - Re: first flight of 2015! (tools)
11. 12:37 PM - Re: first flight of 2015! (Gary Boothe)
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: minimum turnback altitude |
Hey Steve,
I agree -- the Rogers paper is good for discussion, but I've always mentally noted
that he felt compelled to spend a paragraph justifying the steep turns in
relationship to increased probability of stall-spin accidents. He basically says
that the stats will always be over-reported (possibly true, but still a dangerous
way of thinking about the problem) and that, anyway, we should all be practicing
our steep turns back to runway, thus solving the potential, deadly problem
that his solution creates.
Perfect engineering paper: correct factually, but ignores the realities of human
behavior. [Wink]
Jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441486#441486
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: minimum turnback altitude |
Very frankly, I didn't understand a word of that dissertation! I
instructed primary flight training for 2 years in the Navy and several
years as a civilian. I taught ALL my students that if you have an engine
failure immediately after takeoff, get the nose down so you don't stall,
look to the left and right 45 degrees and pick a location within that arc
to land the airplane. Trying to turn back to the takeoff runway will
PROBABLY end in a stall/spin accident. I not only told them this, we
practiced doing the 45 degrees each way bit every flight before and after
first solo. I was having lunch one day while in the Navy and a group of
pre-solo students were sitting at the next table. They were discussing a
fellow student's demise from a fatal accident doing the "turn back to the
runway" bit. The guy stalled and spun in from about 200 feet. One of the
students said, "Yeah, he didn't turn near steep enough." After my
recovering from a near heart attack at that statement, I went to the table,
introduced myself, and proceeded to have a fairly lengthy ground school
session right there in the club. I hope none of them ever forgot that
session. Experience says, "Don't try to turn back to the takeoff runway on
engine failure after takeoff." I have spoken! Chuck
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Jeff Boatright <jeffboatright@emory.edu>
wrote:
> jeffboatright@emory.edu>
>
> Hey Steve,
>
> I agree -- the Rogers paper is good for discussion, but I've always
> mentally noted that he felt compelled to spend a paragraph justifying the
> steep turns in relationship to increased probability of stall-spin
> accidents. He basically says that the stats will always be over-reported
> (possibly true, but still a dangerous way of thinking about the problem)
> and that, anyway, we should all be practicing our steep turns back to
> runway, thus solving the potential, deadly problem that his solution
> creates.
>
> Perfect engineering paper: correct factually, but ignores the realities of
> human behavior. [Wink]
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441486#441486
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: minimum turnback altitude |
Douwe,
I was part of the video that EAA made about first flights in your homebuilt. There
were several of us from our local area that participated in the filming of
it. My part in the video is engine failure on take off. If you watch it you
will see me in the Piet doing a simulated engine failure. For those who have
not seen it, I will try to explain here. I was asked to do a best angle of
climb for the effect. It is a very steep climb at full power and a very slow
airspeed which contributes to the huge recovery time and altitude needed to recover.
Keep in mind that I was the one who pulled the throttle back, making me
100% prepared for the simulated failure. I was at about 200 feet AGL when I
pulled the throttle. I stuffed the nose down as best I could with barely any
airspeed. The plane pretty fell flat for a long ways (seemed like forever)
then the nose started falling through. At the bottom, just a few feet from the
runway I had just enough energy to flair for landing. It wasn't a smooth one
either.
This was done flying straight ahead on a runway that was 150' wide and 5000' long.
It was all done by script and I new when the engine was going to fail. If
the engine had failed on me by surprise, I don't think I could have recovered
in time.
My contribution to your question would "It depends" It depends on your airspeed
when the engine quits, it depends on your angle of climb, it depends on your
reaction time to recovery, It depends on density altitude. It depends on everything.
I don't think there is a firm answer for this question.
Like mentioned earlier, Practice it at altitude to get some kind of idea and then
just plan on landing straight ahead or 30 degrees to the left or right of your
flight path.
If you haven't seen this video published by EAA, I highly suggest getting a copy
and reviewing it. It would be a good one to watch at a local EAA meeting.
Fun note: When we did this video, there were no such things as GoPro cameras.
I had about 50lbs and thousands of dollars of big heavy camera equipment in my
plane. It was a big deal back then to do something like this. Gary and the
rest of you get better footage with all the new fancy cameras available today.
Oh, Some years after filming this, I had the exact same thing happen to me for
real. It was in a bi-plane and the crank broke on take off. The prop stopped
instantly and I landed straight ahead on a dirt strip. Didn't hurt the plane
or myself. It turned out to be a good day since I had actually practiced it
and knew what to expect.
Just my two cents on this one guys.
Happy Landings,
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441493#441493
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: minimum turnback altitude |
Here is a link to the video I mention.
http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1381694259
Cheers,
--------
Scott Liefeld
Flying N11MS since March 1972
Steel Tube
C-85-12
Wire Wheels
Brodhead in 1996
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441494#441494
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: minimum turnback altitude |
http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html
Chuck, above is the dumbed down version without the graphs. Much easier to
read.
My experience in practicing both in by Cessna 150 and my Vtail just a few
times, is that by the time you are at an altitude where you can get turned
around, you will be on the edge of being too far from the runway to get
back. Length of runway helps.
Basically It taught me that from ground level to A altitude, all you can do
is go straight ahead +or- 10 degrees, from A to B altitude you can turn 30
degrees off heading, from B to C you can go 90 degrees and above C you can
do a 180.
Don't forget to add in the amount of time when you are surprised at how
loud the Dead engine is. Plus it is guaranteed you will be rusty when it
happens. Oh yeah, it will be a downwind landing, and that can get quite
sporting. in a 10 mph wind, Now your touchdown speed is 20MPH faster ground
speed, so you piet is now going 50+ at touchdown, not 30ish.
Blue Skies,
Steve D
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Charles N. Campbell <
charlescampbell1924@gmail.com> wrote:
> Very frankly, I didn't understand a word of that dissertation! I
> instructed primary flight training for 2 years in the Navy and several
> years as a civilian. I taught ALL my students that if you have an engine
> failure immediately after takeoff, get the nose down so you don't stall,
> look to the left and right 45 degrees and pick a location within that arc
> to land the airplane. Trying to turn back to the takeoff runway will
> PROBABLY end in a stall/spin accident. I not only told them this, we
> practiced doing the 45 degrees each way bit every flight before and after
> first solo. I was having lunch one day while in the Navy and a group of
> pre-solo students were sitting at the next table. They were discussing a
> fellow student's demise from a fatal accident doing the "turn back to the
> runway" bit. The guy stalled and spun in from about 200 feet. One of the
> students said, "Yeah, he didn't turn near steep enough." After my
> recovering from a near heart attack at that statement, I went to the table,
> introduced myself, and proceeded to have a fairly lengthy ground school
> session right there in the club. I hope none of them ever forgot that
> session. Experience says, "Don't try to turn back to the takeoff runway on
> engine failure after takeoff." I have spoken! Chuck
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Jeff Boatright <jeffboatright@emory.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> jeffboatright@emory.edu>
>>
>> Hey Steve,
>>
>> I agree -- the Rogers paper is good for discussion, but I've always
>> mentally noted that he felt compelled to spend a paragraph justifying the
>> steep turns in relationship to increased probability of stall-spin
>> accidents. He basically says that the stats will always be over-reported
>> (possibly true, but still a dangerous way of thinking about the problem)
>> and that, anyway, we should all be practicing our steep turns back to
>> runway, thus solving the potential, deadly problem that his solution
>> creates.
>>
>> Perfect engineering paper: correct factually, but ignores the realities
>> of human behavior. [Wink]
>>
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441486#441486
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> br> enpol-List" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Blue Skies,
Steve D
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: minimum turnback altitude |
Wow, that brings up a great point. We're usually trained to climb like mad at
takeoff, because altitude creates options.
Like most things, as pointed out, well, that depends. If you don't have the airspeed
to use those options, it don't really count.
I've always preached, contrary to policy on occasion, that airplanes don't care
how high they are, but they ALL care how fast they're going. I never even considered
that a possibly normal climb out speed might not be enough to pitch down
quickly enough. Hmmm....
I've read discussions that mention if the dc-10 that lost, as in actually fell
off, an engine over Chicago had maintained their current airspeed rather than
pitching to v2+10, policy, they probably wouldn't have lost control.
Woulda coulda shoulda and there but by the grace of god go I, it's still an important
consideration.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441496#441496
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: minimum turnback altitude |
Many years ago, while working at MCAS New River, NC, I got checked out in a
C-172 at a nearby grass strip.
One subsequent morning the front page of local newspaper had a pic of a
CH-46E Sea Knight sling-loading a crumpled C-172 out of the marshes near
the grass strip (North Topsail - no longer exists).
A newly-minted Private pilot had left Wilmington (KILM) in a C-172 with LR
tanks (filled) and 2 passengers. He headed to Topsail, only a few minutes
away, to pick up a 3rd passenger. On takeoff he noticed the horrible climb
rate and decided to turn back to airport.
My job was modifying USMC helo simulators, hence, I worked with a bunch of
Flight Instructors. ALL said, "If only he had NOT tried to turn..."...
The North Topsail grass strip was parallel to the Intracoastal Waterway.
Not too far away was a bridge over the waterway, which was ahead of the
pilot, so it could have contributed to his decision to turn.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Steven Dortch <steven.d.dortch@gmail.com>
wrote:
> http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html
>
> Chuck, above is the dumbed down version without the graphs. Much easier to
> read.
>
> My experience in practicing both in by Cessna 150 and my Vtail just a few
> times, is that by the time you are at an altitude where you can get turned
> around, you will be on the edge of being too far from the runway to get
> back. Length of runway helps.
>
> Basically It taught me that from ground level to A altitude, all you can
> do is go straight ahead +or- 10 degrees, from A to B altitude you can turn
> 30 degrees off heading, from B to C you can go 90 degrees and above C you
> can do a 180.
>
> Don't forget to add in the amount of time when you are surprised at how
> loud the Dead engine is. Plus it is guaranteed you will be rusty when it
> happens. Oh yeah, it will be a downwind landing, and that can get quite
> sporting. in a 10 mph wind, Now your touchdown speed is 20MPH faster ground
> speed, so you piet is now going 50+ at touchdown, not 30ish.
>
> Blue Skies,
> Steve D
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Charles N. Campbell <
> charlescampbell1924@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Very frankly, I didn't understand a word of that dissertation! I
>> instructed primary flight training for 2 years in the Navy and several
>> years as a civilian. I taught ALL my students that if you have an engine
>> failure immediately after takeoff, get the nose down so you don't stall,
>> look to the left and right 45 degrees and pick a location within that arc
>> to land the airplane. Trying to turn back to the takeoff runway will
>> PROBABLY end in a stall/spin accident. I not only told them this, we
>> practiced doing the 45 degrees each way bit every flight before and after
>> first solo. I was having lunch one day while in the Navy and a group of
>> pre-solo students were sitting at the next table. They were discussing a
>> fellow student's demise from a fatal accident doing the "turn back to the
>> runway" bit. The guy stalled and spun in from about 200 feet. One of the
>> students said, "Yeah, he didn't turn near steep enough." After my
>> recovering from a near heart attack at that statement, I went to the table,
>> introduced myself, and proceeded to have a fairly lengthy ground school
>> session right there in the club. I hope none of them ever forgot that
>> session. Experience says, "Don't try to turn back to the takeoff runway on
>> engine failure after takeoff." I have spoken! Chuck
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Jeff Boatright <jeffboatright@emory.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> jeffboatright@emory.edu>
>>>
>>> Hey Steve,
>>>
>>> I agree -- the Rogers paper is good for discussion, but I've always
>>> mentally noted that he felt compelled to spend a paragraph justifying the
>>> steep turns in relationship to increased probability of stall-spin
>>> accidents. He basically says that the stats will always be over-reported
>>> (possibly true, but still a dangerous way of thinking about the problem)
>>> and that, anyway, we should all be practicing our steep turns back to
>>> runway, thus solving the potential, deadly problem that his solution
>>> creates.
>>>
>>> Perfect engineering paper: correct factually, but ignores the realities
>>> of human behavior. [Wink]
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441486#441486
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> br> enpol-List" target="_blank">
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>>> ==========
>>> FORUMS -
>>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> b Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> *
>>
>> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
>> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Blue Skies,
> Steve D
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: minimum turnback altitude |
Very important in my opinion to figure out your min turn back altitude. It definitely
is sometimes preferred over an off field landing.
I lost an engine at night taking off in a cardinal 177 out of fort laud exec.
Very very congested all around the field. Cranked it around at 700 ft and barely
made it back on the runway.
I used to practice/demonstrate with students what a min altitude would be by
flying over a road at 1,000 ft Agl, then pretend taking off, climb to 1500 or
1800 ft Agl then chop the power and banked around 40 degrees. Try to get the
plane over that road by 1000 ft AGl. Pretty safe way to experiment.
If on takeoff you allow the plane to drift a little downwind of centerline (assuming
a crosswind), and then turn into the wind at engine failure, you'll be
able to get the plane lined up much much faster with less loss of altitude.
--------
Paul Donahue
Started 8-3-12
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441499#441499
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 |
|
Subject: | first flight of 2015! |
Well the weather/schedule Gods finally collaborated and I was able to take
RE-PIET up for the first flight of the season. WX was perfect and though
cool in the low fifties, the thick air made her literally jump into the air.
I had refinished the prop over the winter (don't use poly on a scimitar prop
designed to flex, use spar varnish that can flex.) and had to remove the
vortilator tape from the prop. I haven't replaced it yet, but think I will.
I think I see about 30rpm gain with it and the prop is noticeably quieter.
Flew around for about twenty minutes then came in for a decent asphalt
landing (almost no wind) and gave thanks for being allowed the privilege of
seeing God's creation from such a vantage point.
Keep on building, it's worth it!
Douwe
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: first flight of 2015! |
If ya had come to toolstock you could have flown in the snow with us!
Glad to hear all is working well. The one thing about my job... The view from
my office window. From 30k feet or two hundred, pretty awesome!
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441507#441507
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 |
|
Subject: | first flight of 2015! |
Douwe,
I'm sure we take our weather in the west for granted. Flying season never
really ends.it just gets cooler. I am interested in your leading edge tape.
Gary Boothe
NX308MB
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Douwe
Blumberg
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 8:40 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: first flight of 2015!
Well the weather/schedule Gods finally collaborated and I was able to take
RE-PIET up for the first flight of the season. WX was perfect and though
cool in the low fifties, the thick air made her literally jump into the air.
I had refinished the prop over the winter (don't use poly on a scimitar prop
designed to flex, use spar varnish that can flex.) and had to remove the
vortilator tape from the prop. I haven't replaced it yet, but think I will.
I think I see about 30rpm gain with it and the prop is noticeably quieter.
Flew around for about twenty minutes then came in for a decent asphalt
landing (almost no wind) and gave thanks for being allowed the privilege of
seeing God's creation from such a vantage point.
Keep on building, it's worth it!
Douwe
Other Matronics Email List Services
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! --
|