---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 04/29/15: 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:06:23 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude From: "Jeff Boatright" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:02:27 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude From: "Charles N. Campbell" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:41:33 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude From: "AircamperN11MS" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:50:28 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude From: "AircamperN11MS" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:01:52 AM PST US From: Steven Dortch Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:08:07 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude From: "tools" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:24:06 AM PST US Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude From: Marcus Zechini 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 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 >> 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 >> tp://forums.matronics.com >> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> >> * >> >> > > > -- > Blue Skies, > Steve D > > * > > > * > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:40:36 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude From: "nightmare" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:40:26 AM PST US From: "Douwe Blumberg" 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 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 11:27:30 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: first flight of 2015! From: "tools" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:37:58 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message pietenpol-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-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.