Testing your glide. Are people doing this?

[Montblack]

("Yossarian" wrote in the Catalina Perep thread)
> My first trip I was that low too, but now my FBO insists on a continuous
> climb to the middle of the channel for better glide distance if your
engine
> quits. 4500' in a 172 is only like 7 miles glide.


I wonder how many people have actually glided their planes (rentals or
otherwise) and so know what their real world glide range numbers will be -
from say, 6,000 ft AGL down to 3,000 ft AGL? Into the wind vs tailwind, etc?

I'm under the impression that 5:1 is a good (safety) number to have in your
head for an average 172 flying at 3,000 ft AGL, and below. Gives you some
"what the hey?" room and *some* turning room.

Can't quite make a 3 mile target with exactly 5:1 at 3,000 ft AGL....15,000
ft. Leaves you 840 ft short of 3 miles. Still, (a mile glide per 1,000 ft of
altitude) seems like a good number to keep in your head for lower altitudes.
Almost 5:1.

I wonder how much better (than the made up safety number 5:1) people will
see up at 6,000 ft AGL. Are people getting book numbers, in their planes,
when they go up and practice real world glides - from say 6k down to 3k?


Montblack
Happy Birthday Kristen
October 25

[MLenoch]

>Are people getting book numbers, in their planes,
>when they go up and practice real world glides - from say 6k down to 3k?
>

Folks should go out and practice this a bunch. Early in the morning high above
the airport, they should simulate a glide onto the runway, to get a feel for
the descent rate, speed, angle, etc. etc.
VL

[Montblack]

("MLenoch" wrote)
> Folks should go out and practice this a bunch. Early in the morning high
above
> the airport, they should simulate a glide onto the runway, to get a feel
for
> the descent rate, speed, angle, etc. etc.


Talking to folks at airports, do you get the sense that people are, in fact,
doing what you suggested? Or is it just a good idea ...."I should do that,
one-of-these-days"...kind of thing?

Just curious.

--
Montblack

"Styled by the laws of nature.............Concorde"

[ShawnD2112]

My experience is that most people don't actually know how to fly their
airplanes. They know how to get them off the ground, from Point A to Point
B, but they never do touch and gos, they never go out and do stalls, and
they really don't know how their airplane performs in anything other than
the cruise. Personally, I enjoy simply controlling the machine. Kind of
like racing drivers - they enjoy being in control of the machine, not using
it go to anywhere. Therefore, I get a hell of a kick out of touch and goes,
I stall the airplane all the time simply because it's fun, I do all kinds of
turns and maneuvers just for the hell of it. What this all means is that I
know how my airplane performs at all edges of it's envelope and with the
engine off more than I do in the cruise. Possibly all for fun, but really,
in the back of my mind, it's so I know how to get out of trouble faster than
I got into it.

Shawn
"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("MLenoch" wrote)
> > Folks should go out and practice this a bunch. Early in the morning
high
> above
> > the airport, they should simulate a glide onto the runway, to get a feel
> for
> > the descent rate, speed, angle, etc. etc.
>
>
> Talking to folks at airports, do you get the sense that people are, in
fact,
> doing what you suggested? Or is it just a good idea ...."I should do that,
> one-of-these-days"...kind of thing?
>
> Just curious.
>
> --
> Montblack
>
> "Styled by the laws of nature.............Concorde"
>
>
>
>

[Cub Driver]

>Are people getting book numbers, in their planes,
>when they go up and practice real world glides - from say 6k down to 3k?

Be careful up there! I fly at 2900 feet.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[David Megginson]

(MLenoch) writes:

> Folks should go out and practice this a bunch. Early in the morning
> high above the airport, they should simulate a glide onto the
> runway, to get a feel for the descent rate, speed, angle, etc. etc.

Right, but don't count on the numbers -- a prop hooked up to an idling
engine isn't windmilling as much as a prop hooked up to an engine with
no power. I


All the best,


David

[Jay Honeck]

> Folks should go out and practice this a bunch. Early in the morning high
above
> the airport, they should simulate a glide onto the runway, to get a feel
for
> the descent rate, speed, angle, etc. etc.

Now that we monitor Unicom at all hours, I can tell you that it is VERY rare
to hear someone practicing any "engine out" procedures over our airport.
Even though we have a very active bunch of flight instructors, we almost
never hear anyone announce this extremely important routine.

Now, perhaps they are taking students to a smaller, less busy airport
nearby -- but I doubt it. I think it's just one of those things that new
pilots do with their instructors over rural areas, and then rarely practice
again. And they almost never do it over an airport.

I know I haven't done the "engine out" routine for a looong time -- but I
plan to at our next opportunity. Thanks for the reminder, Montblack!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Megginson]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> Now that we monitor Unicom at all hours, I can tell you that it is
> VERY rare to hear someone practicing any "engine out" procedures
> over our airport. Even though we have a very active bunch of flight
> instructors, we almost never hear anyone announce this extremely
> important routine.

During my training (at controlled airport), a simulated engine failure
on base or final wouldn't generate any radio activity at all; a
simulated engine failure in the downwind would be preceeded by a call
to tower "request direct to threshold." It would be hard for someone
to know what we were practicing simply by monitoring the radio
traffic.

At the flying club where I trained, you cannot get cleared for first
solo by without first demonstrating a good command of engine-out
procedures in the circuit (there's a long checklist of items -- I
think it comes from Transport Canada). I had to demonstrate deadstick
landings from downwind and base again during training for my night
rating.


All the best,


David

[Jay Honeck]

> During my training (at controlled airport), a simulated engine failure
> on base or final wouldn't generate any radio activity at all; a
> simulated engine failure in the downwind would be preceeded by a call
> to tower "request direct to threshold."

Standard practice at an uncontrolled airport here in the U.S. is to announce
"Iowa City Traffic, Warrior 33431 is left downwind for RWY 25, Iowa City,
simulated emergency landing" -- or something to that effect.

I suppose, as with all radio usage, it's entirely optional to announce this
procedure at an uncontrolled airport. I, for one, however, appreciate
knowing when I'm sharing the pattern with someone who may be flying a
potentially unusual pattern.

I hear it announced this way often enough to presume that most people *do*
announce it -- although, of course, there is no way of knowing how many
"NORDO-simulated-engine-out" landings are made every day.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:QHumb.24708$Tr4.49542@attbi_s03...
| > During my training (at controlled airport), a simulated engine failure
| > on base or final wouldn't generate any radio activity at all; a
| > simulated engine failure in the downwind would be preceeded by a call
| > to tower "request direct to threshold."
|
| Standard practice at an uncontrolled airport here in the U.S. is to
announce
| "Iowa City Traffic, Warrior 33431 is left downwind for RWY 25, Iowa City,
| simulated emergency landing" -- or something to that effect.
|

I usually just announce that I am making a 'short approach.' There are
several reasons for making a short approach; engine out practice is just one
of them. I usually take students over to Shelton for engine out practice
because I often have the whole airport to myself.

[C J Campbell]

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
...
| My experience is that most people don't actually know how to fly their
| airplanes.

Really? How do you know that?

As a flight instructor who does a LOT of BFRs I find that the vast majority
of pilots perform emergency procedures, stalls, and other maneuvers quite
well.

[Roger Long]

Good thing to do after you have verified your glide (I found the book
numbers on my 172 quite close) is to go to your typical altitude and pick
out a landmark and appropriate distance away. Hold your arm out, put the
tip of your thumb on the horizon, and note where the landmark falls. With
some correction for wind, you now know that you can glide to anything within
that radius.

--
Roger Long

[David Megginson]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> Really? How do you know that?
>
> As a flight instructor who does a LOT of BFRs I find that the vast majority
> of pilots perform emergency procedures, stalls, and other maneuvers quite
> well.

That's good to know. On balance, do you see any difference between
owners and renters? Does the owner's extra familiarity with the plane
make any practical difference?


All the best,


David

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article >,
>> Really? How do you know that?
>>
>> As a flight instructor who does a LOT of BFRs I find that the vast majority
>> of pilots perform emergency procedures, stalls, and other maneuvers quite
>> well.
>
>That's good to know. On balance, do you see any difference between
>owners and renters? Does the owner's extra familiarity with the plane
>make any practical difference?

LOL, so you think owners make better pilots than renters just because
they own a plane. A fair number of owners fly very little, these lease
back their planes to FBOs so to keep it in the air.
I know this is semi-OT but renter v owner has nothing to do with being
a safe/good pilot. Most people are most familar with cruise because
that's where they spend most of their time during flights. But I would
say that ~50% of the pilots _I_ know (not a random or presentive sample)
go out and do stalls, T&G, slow flight, etc. And they're all renters :)

[Happy Dog]

"Montblack" >

> I wonder how much better (than the made up safety number 5:1) people will
> see up at 6,000 ft AGL. Are people getting book numbers, in their planes,
> when they go up and practice real world glides - from say 6k down to 3k?


"Real world" is with the engine out. Prop stopped or creating drag by
windmilling. (Little low? Just use a slightly more aggressive engine
warming.)Which makes me wonder: What if someone, trying this (and it
doesn't sound completely crazy), couldn't restart the engine? (And had a
less than perfect landing...) Is it just the same as a glider making an off
field landing accident?

le moo

[Greg Esres]

<<good number to keep in your head for lower altitudes.>>

Not sure why you refer to "lower altitudes". The glide angle is
constant with altitude.

[MLenoch]

One of the big problems confronting a pilot in an actual engine out, is getting
over the shock of the reality of the occurance. Some pilots (people in
general) will "choke" or mentally freeze up and not think constructively about
dealing with the situation. ( 'I can't believe my engine quit!' syndrome)
Constantly training/practicing/"rehearsing" will help a pilot get past this
hurdle. By knowing what the next "planned" move will be. That's part of the
value of regular practice.
VL
(Oh gawd, he's on his soapbox again)

[Peter Duniho]

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" > wrote in message
...
> >That's good to know. On balance, do you see any difference between
> >owners and renters? Does the owner's extra familiarity with the plane
> >make any practical difference?
>
> LOL, so you think owners make better pilots than renters just because
> they own a plane. A fair number of owners fly very little, these lease
> back their planes to FBOs so to keep it in the air.

He asked a question. He did NOT make an assertion. He didn't say anything
about what he thinks.

But since you got all hot and bothered, I'll go ahead and point out that
I've learned FAR more about my airplane as an owner than I ever would have
as a renter. Being the person who oversees and pays for the maintenance
provides a MUCH better education with regards to aircraft systems than any
renter would get. That's important information that comes in handy if
anything should go wrong while flying (and before flying, for that matter).

As far as your claim that "a fair number of owners fly very little", I guess
you'll just have to define "a fair number". Certainly some owners do lease
back their aircraft and do not fly any more than the typical renter might.
However, that hardly characterizes the majority of owners. When speaking in
generalities (such as I assume David was), a minority -- even if it's a
large one -- isn't really all that relevant to the question.

Finally, the issue of whether a pilot is more familiar with an airplane is
significant, even for planes that are essentially the same. Over the years,
various controls and capabilities of the C172 (for example) have varied
somewhat. A person flying the same C172 (for example) all the time is going
to be much more familiar with where things are and how to react in a given
situation than someone who flies a variety of C172s and has to adjust for
the subtle differences in each airplane.

> I know this is semi-OT but renter v owner has nothing to do with being
> a safe/good pilot.

Nobody said it did. I'm guessing you don't own an airplane, but rather rent
one, given how primed you appear to be for inferring offensive where none
was stated or implied. Next time you think someone's pushed one of your hot
buttons, you might take a look around and see if anyone's standing anywhere
near it first, before flying off the handle.

A relative lack of familiarity does not imply that a pilot is neither safe
nor good. It simply is a relative lack of familiarity. It may or may not
translate into better piloting, but one cannot question the presence of that
difference in familiarity.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<good number to keep in your head for lower altitudes.>>
>
> Not sure why you refer to "lower altitudes". The glide angle is
> constant with altitude.

Because there's "overhead". Gliding from a higher altitude, one normally
will be able to spend a larger proportion of the glide at the optimal best
glide speed. The glide angle is only theoretically constant with altitude.
In reality, no one goes directly to best glide the instant the engine fails
and the glide angle after engine failure varies as the pilot reacts.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> That's good to know. On balance, do you see any difference between
> owners and renters? Does the owner's extra familiarity with the plane
> make any practical difference?

I don't know about anyone else, but I know that as an owner, spending
several hundred hours in the same aircraft, I become MUCH more proficient
with an airplane than I could when I rented a wide variety of aircraft.

An example: When we had our Warrior, I was able to hit my own wake
turbulence in a 360 degree standard rate turn, without reference to the
altimeter, not varying my altitude plus or minus 50 feet. My CFI was pretty
impressed, but it was just a matter of being intimately familiar with the
nuances of a particular bird, after literally spending *years* in the left
seat.

I sure couldn't do that in our Pathfinder when we first got it -- heck, I
doubt I could do it now, after a couple of hundred hours. It's just a
"feel" thing that aircraft owners develop, and renters can't -- UNLESS they
always rent the same plane. (Which I never was able to do.)

Time in type -- especially if it's the same aircraft -- is valuable.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Teacherjh]

>>
A person flying the same C172 (for example) all the time is going
to be much more familiar with where things are and how to react in a given
situation than someone who flies a variety of C172s and has to adjust for
the subtle differences in each airplane.
<<

But would that same person be better equipped to handle a DIFFERENT 172 (for
example one he rents after travelling commercially)?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> But would that same person be better equipped to handle a DIFFERENT 172
(for
> example one he rents after travelling commercially)?

I don't see why he would. But I also don't see how that's relevant to this
particular train of thought. CJ's original comment was specifically
regarding owners flying their own airplanes, and was in response to a person
claiming that "most people don't actually know how to fly THEIR airplanes"
(emphasis mine).

[Teacherjh]

> But I also don't see how that's relevant [...]
> "most people don't actually know how to fly THEIR airplanes"
>(emphasis mine).
>

I didn't take "their" to be that restrictive, and also maintain that flying a
variety of aircraft makes one more able to jump between them. There is an
implication in the quote that "most people don't know how to fly" (to some
standard being presented) and knowing one particular plane is only part of the
picture. One comes to rely on the charactaristics of "their particular plane"
and that may reduce safety outside the envelope.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[EDR]

In article <LNzmb.25594$Fm2.12198@attbi_s04>, Jay Honeck
> wrote:

> It's just a "feel" thing that aircraft owners develop, and renters
> can't -- UNLESS they always rent the same plane.

I liked the way you qualified that statement at the very end. I was set
to challenge you in your own airplane to a series of performance
maneuvers. ;-))
I haven't flown a Dakota in 20 years, but I am confident I could
probably match you maneuver for maneuver, despite all my high-wing
experience. ;-))

> Time in type -- especially if it's the same aircraft -- is valuable.

Not just time in one type. Time in multiple types provides greater
experience since you have something to compare.

Speed control is the key.

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> I didn't take "their" to be that restrictive

There can be no question that CJ's comment was with regards to airplane
owners. I simply referenced Shawn's post for context.

> and also maintain that flying a
> variety of aircraft makes one more able to jump between them.

That's an interesting theory, but not borne out by my own flying, nor those
that I have talked to who fly a variety of aircraft. When I spend time in
other aircraft (mostly C172s and C177s), my performance in my own airplane
as well as those other types suffers.

Likewise, the instructors I've asked about how they handle the variety of
aircraft they fly have told me that a major problem for them is that, while
they are perfectly safe in all of the aircraft they fly, they don't have the
finesse they'd like in any of them, because they're constantly switching
back and forth.

I can't prove that your theory is incorrect, but I doubt you could prove
that it's correct. I do know my own statistically insignificant experiences
argue against the theory.

> There is an
> implication in the quote that "most people don't know how to fly"

The quote is out of context and misrepresented. If you'd like to address a
different issue, that's fine, but your comments so far haven't been relevant
to CJ's original reply.

> [...] One comes to rely on the charactaristics of "their particular
plane"
> and that may reduce safety outside the envelope.

There's no doubt that a pilot who flies a plane with which they are
unfamiliar may well have inappropriate transfer from the plane with which
they ARE familiar. But that's not what is being discussed. The question
here is whether pilots know how to fly the plane with which they are
familiar.

Pete

[David Megginson]

('Vejita' S. Cousin) writes:

>>That's good to know. On balance, do you see any difference between
>>owners and renters? Does the owner's extra familiarity with the plane
>>make any practical difference?
>
> LOL, so you think owners make better pilots than renters just
> because they own a plane.

No. I've heard arguments on both sides -- renters are better because
they fly more different aircraft, owners are better because they know
their specific plane better, etc. I was just curious whether you'd
noticed any difference.


All the best,


David

[Greg Esres]

<<Because there's "overhead". >>

Ah, gotcha.

[Judah]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I didn't take "their" to be that restrictive
>
> There can be no question that CJ's comment was with regards to airplane
> owners. I simply referenced Shawn's post for context.
>

OK, I guess I am in one of those moods... :)


CJ's comments, in context, and in their entirety, read as follows:

>"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
...
>| My experience is that most people don't actually know how to fly their
>| airplanes.
>
> Really? How do you know that?
>
> As a flight instructor who does a LOT of BFRs I find that the vast
majority
> of pilots perform emergency procedures, stalls, and other maneuvers quite
well.

There is absolutely nothing in CJs comments that in any way, shape, or form
even IMPLIES owners. Even renters get BFRs.

The post which CJ quoted began as follows:

>My experience is that most people don't actually know how to fly their
>airplanes. They know how to get them off the ground, from Point A to
Point
>B, but they never do touch and gos, they never go out and do stalls, and
>they really don't know how their airplane performs in anything other than
>the cruise. Personally, I enjoy simply controlling the machine.

It would seem to me that while it is possible that the point Shawn was
making was intended specifically for owners, it is equally plausible that
he intended to say, "My experience is that most people don't actually know
how to fly the airplanes they pilot."

Case in point, an earlier post in the thread by Montblack read as follows:


>I wonder how many people have actually glided their planes (rentals or
>otherwise) and so know what their real world glide range numbers will be -
>from say, 6,000 ft AGL down to 3,000 ft AGL? Into the wind vs tailwind,
etc?

Here renters are specifically included (in an assumptive tonation) in the
term "their planes".

I suspect it is possible that Shawn did not expect either of us to analyze
his post as if it was a legal document, and simply used conversational
language to express his opinion. And in fact, the focus of his post seems
to be on the fact that he practices stalls and touch and goes and other
manuevers and enjoys learning the limits of the plane he flies (which,
based on other language later in the post, he seems to own).


OK. I am finished.

[C J Campbell]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" > writes:
|
| > Really? How do you know that?
| >
| > As a flight instructor who does a LOT of BFRs I find that the vast
majority
| > of pilots perform emergency procedures, stalls, and other maneuvers
quite
| > well.
|
| That's good to know. On balance, do you see any difference between
| owners and renters? Does the owner's extra familiarity with the plane
| make any practical difference?
|

It seems that most owners know a lot more about their airplane and its
systems. A couple of anecdotes:

A pilot who flies a Hyperbipe came to me for a BFR. I asked him to do a
stall and he said, "Uh, and then what?" For him a stall is always a
preliminary maneuver to set up for something more interesting. He actually
has logged more time inverted than right side up.

Beechcraft pilots who fly regularly fly very well. I would not trust a pilot
who does not fly much to do anything approaching a stall in a BE-35.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
| "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
| ...
| > But would that same person be better equipped to handle a DIFFERENT 172
| (for
| > example one he rents after travelling commercially)?
|
| I don't see why he would. But I also don't see how that's relevant to
this
| particular train of thought. CJ's original comment was specifically
| regarding owners flying their own airplanes,

Actually, I did not ask the question about owners. That was a reply to a
post that I made that did not talk about owners specifically.

[Judah]

When I was a student, if we were practicing engine outs in the pattern,
we simply called it a "short approach." There was no details about
whether or not it was for engine out simulation or otherwise. And I had
one instructor that actually liked to do them quite a bit - after all,
unlike on a runway, if you practice an engine out over fields, you can't
REALLY be sure whether you would have made it...

And admittedly, while I have practiced a few engine outs (in fact I did
one in cruise this past Wed. - but not at an airport), reading this
thread makes me realize that I probably don't practice my manuevers
nearly enough... And not just engine outs, but stalls, steep turns,
etc...

I second the motion to thank Montblack! :)


BTW: I'm sorry I didn't reply to your last message on our Newspaper
Memories thread... I was out of town (installing stacker controls,
actually) and when I came back, it got archived off by my news server,
which definitely doesn't keep messages long enough!

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:4Wtmb.25865$HS4.93467@attbi_s01:

>> Folks should go out and practice this a bunch. Early in the morning
>> high above the airport, they should simulate a glide onto the runway,
>> to get a feel for the descent rate, speed, angle, etc. etc.
>
> Now that we monitor Unicom at all hours, I can tell you that it is VERY
> rare to hear someone practicing any "engine out" procedures over our
> airport. Even though we have a very active bunch of flight instructors,
> we almost never hear anyone announce this extremely important routine.
>
> Now, perhaps they are taking students to a smaller, less busy airport
> nearby -- but I doubt it. I think it's just one of those things that
> new pilots do with their instructors over rural areas, and then rarely
> practice again. And they almost never do it over an airport.
>
> I know I haven't done the "engine out" routine for a looong time -- but
> I plan to at our next opportunity. Thanks for the reminder, Montblack!

[G.R. Patterson III]

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" wrote:
>
> >That's good to know. On balance, do you see any difference between
> >owners and renters? Does the owner's extra familiarity with the plane
> >make any practical difference?
>
> LOL, so you think owners make better pilots than renters just because
> they own a plane.

He asks a question and YOU jump to HIS conclusion?

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Teacherjh wrote:
>
> I didn't take "their" to be that restrictive, and also maintain that flying a
> variety of aircraft makes one more able to jump between them.

But as an owner, I don't have to be able to jump between them.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Judah wrote:
>
> And in fact, the focus of his post seems
> to be on the fact that he practices stalls and touch and goes and other
> manuevers and enjoys learning the limits of the plane he flies (which,
> based on other language later in the post, he seems to own).

And, in fact, I enjoyed learning the limits of the aircraft I own back in 1995
shortly after I bought it. Every BFR, we check them out again. They're still
the same.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I don't know about anyone else, but I know that as an owner, spending
> several hundred hours in the same aircraft, I become MUCH more proficient
> with an airplane than I could when I rented a wide variety of aircraft.

There you go!

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Now that we monitor Unicom at all hours, I can tell you that it is VERY rare
> to hear someone practicing any "engine out" procedures over our airport.

Nearly every "engine out" practice I've been handed was off-airport.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[William W. Plummer]

Right. "Short Approach" is one of the 5 landing requests. Full stop, stop
and go, touch and go, go-around, short approach let the tower and other
planes know what's going on. It's generally bad to use "emergency" in any
non-emergency situation -- if the newspapers pick it up, you know what the
result will be.



"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:QHumb.24708$Tr4.49542@attbi_s03...
> | > During my training (at controlled airport), a simulated engine failure
> | > on base or final wouldn't generate any radio activity at all; a
> | > simulated engine failure in the downwind would be preceeded by a call
> | > to tower "request direct to threshold."
> |
> | Standard practice at an uncontrolled airport here in the U.S. is to
> announce
> | "Iowa City Traffic, Warrior 33431 is left downwind for RWY 25, Iowa
City,
> | simulated emergency landing" -- or something to that effect.
> |
>
> I usually just announce that I am making a 'short approach.' There are
> several reasons for making a short approach; engine out practice is just
one
> of them. I usually take students over to Shelton for engine out practice
> because I often have the whole airport to myself.
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Happy Dog wrote:
>
> What if someone, trying this (and it
> doesn't sound completely crazy), couldn't restart the engine? (And had a
> less than perfect landing...) Is it just the same as a glider making an off
> field landing accident?

No. It gets you a suspension for reckless operation of an aircraft. If you
survive.

Oh. By the way. To me, this does sound completely crazy. IMO, someone trying
this should get a revocation, not a suspension.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[William W. Plummer]

If you really like stick-and-rudder flying, look into gliders. I'll bet you
really like it.


"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
...
> My experience is that most people don't actually know how to fly their
> airplanes. They know how to get them off the ground, from Point A to
Point
> B, but they never do touch and gos, they never go out and do stalls, and
> they really don't know how their airplane performs in anything other than
> the cruise. Personally, I enjoy simply controlling the machine. Kind of
> like racing drivers - they enjoy being in control of the machine, not
using
> it go to anywhere. Therefore, I get a hell of a kick out of touch and
goes,
> I stall the airplane all the time simply because it's fun, I do all kinds
of
> turns and maneuvers just for the hell of it. What this all means is that
I
> know how my airplane performs at all edges of it's envelope and with the
> engine off more than I do in the cruise. Possibly all for fun, but
really,
> in the back of my mind, it's so I know how to get out of trouble faster
than
> I got into it.
>
> Shawn
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ("MLenoch" wrote)
> > > Folks should go out and practice this a bunch. Early in the morning
> high
> > above
> > > the airport, they should simulate a glide onto the runway, to get a
feel
> > for
> > > the descent rate, speed, angle, etc. etc.
> >
> >
> > Talking to folks at airports, do you get the sense that people are, in
> fact,
> > doing what you suggested? Or is it just a good idea ...."I should do
that,
> > one-of-these-days"...kind of thing?
> >
> > Just curious.
> >
> > --
> > Montblack
> >
> > "Styled by the laws of nature.............Concorde"
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> There is absolutely nothing in CJs comments that in any way, shape, or
form
> even IMPLIES owners. Even renters get BFRs.

Sorry, you're right. Between Shawn's and David's posts I got a little
confused about who was specifically talking about aircraft owners.

Still, no one was saying that renters are sucky pilots. And I don't think
that a person who is always flying something different is going to do as
well in any given airplane as a person who nearly always flies the same
plane will do *in that same plane* (yes, their flying in other planes
probably will suffer).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, I did not ask the question about owners. That was a reply to a
> post that I made that did not talk about owners specifically.

You're right...sorry for putting words in your mouth.

[Greg Esres]

<<On balance, do you see any difference between owners and renters? >>

My observation is that by far the greatest factor in proficiency is
frequency of flight, regardless of whether the plane is owned or
rented.

[ShawnD2112]

You may be right but there's something about having some power to work with.
I think that's why I enjoy the Pitts so much.

To get back to my original post, which I hadn't realized was causing so much
followon conversation, my point was that most of the activity I see at our
local airport involves people taking off, going away to land somewhere else,
and then coming back. Two flights, two landings, lots of cruise in the
middle. And they usually take the longest and widest runway unless the wind
is dramatically favoring one of the other shorter ones (onto which a local
pilot regularly puts a KingAir!). It's not the same qualified statement
that CJ can make as an instructor, but it's my observation and, based on my
experience, I didn't really learn how to fly properly until I spent hours in
the same plane just practicing various kinds of maneuvers to see how it
performed. I hadn't really been talking about the difference between
renters and owners and my comments could only be speculative about other
pilots, but are based on my observations.

Shawn
"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
news:okFmb.24669$9E1.77470@attbi_s52...
> If you really like stick-and-rudder flying, look into gliders. I'll bet
you
> really like it.
>
>
> "ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
> ...
> > My experience is that most people don't actually know how to fly their
> > airplanes. They know how to get them off the ground, from Point A to
> Point
> > B, but they never do touch and gos, they never go out and do stalls, and
> > they really don't know how their airplane performs in anything other
than
> > the cruise. Personally, I enjoy simply controlling the machine. Kind
of
> > like racing drivers - they enjoy being in control of the machine, not
> using
> > it go to anywhere. Therefore, I get a hell of a kick out of touch and
> goes,
> > I stall the airplane all the time simply because it's fun, I do all
kinds
> of
> > turns and maneuvers just for the hell of it. What this all means is
that
> I
> > know how my airplane performs at all edges of it's envelope and with the
> > engine off more than I do in the cruise. Possibly all for fun, but
> really,
> > in the back of my mind, it's so I know how to get out of trouble faster
> than
> > I got into it.
> >
> > Shawn
> > "Montblack" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ("MLenoch" wrote)
> > > > Folks should go out and practice this a bunch. Early in the morning
> > high
> > > above
> > > > the airport, they should simulate a glide onto the runway, to get a
> feel
> > > for
> > > > the descent rate, speed, angle, etc. etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > Talking to folks at airports, do you get the sense that people are, in
> > fact,
> > > doing what you suggested? Or is it just a good idea ...."I should do
> that,
> > > one-of-these-days"...kind of thing?
> > >
> > > Just curious.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Montblack
> > >
> > > "Styled by the laws of nature.............Concorde"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[David Hill]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>Now that we monitor Unicom at all hours, I can tell you that it is VERY rare
>>to hear someone practicing any "engine out" procedures over our airport.
>
>
> Nearly every "engine out" practice I've been handed was off-airport.
>
> George Patterson
> You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

When I was training for my private, I had the same experience as George.
Every "engine out" was off-airport. Additionally, the procedure was
always the same -- CFI pulled the throttle, said, "you've lost your
engine," and I went through the memorized engine out procedures.

Got to my checkride, and the DPE threw me for a loop (not literally),
first by by pulling the throttle *slightly* back and saying, "suddenly
you can only make 2000 rpm. What are you going to do?" It wasn't how I
trained, and I had to actually stop and think, and I nearly blew it.
Then he said, pulling the throttle back a little more, "you can only
make 1500 rpm."

By this time I had determined the nearest airport, and was heading for
it. He planned it that way, which was the second thing that was
different from my training. He liked to do engine outs where your best
bet was heading for an airport, and let you take it all the way down.

In my case, I was too high and fast. I would have made the runway, but
probably would have run off the end, so we went around. It would have
been a messy but survivable landing.

I passed the checkride, but a big hole in my training had been pointed
out to me. Later, I went to that same airport, which has almost no
traffic, and practiced all sorts of power off approaches to landing,
pulling the power off at various altitudes directly over the runway, at
various points in the pattern, and at various points and altitudes away
from the airport.

I learned a lot from that, but as a renter, not all of it carried over
to the other planes I flew.

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

[Jay Honeck]

> BTW: I'm sorry I didn't reply to your last message on our Newspaper
> Memories thread... I was out of town (installing stacker controls,
> actually) and when I came back, it got archived off by my news server,
> which definitely doesn't keep messages long enough!

No problem! I had actually forgotten all about it. That's why I call
Usenet "Short Attention Span Theater"...

(Uh, what were we talking about again?? ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> My observation is that by far the greatest factor in proficiency is
> frequency of flight, regardless of whether the plane is owned or
> rented.

Amen, brother. The worst pilot I know owns several planes.

Not surprisingly, he rarely flies. When he does -- look out below (and
above!)...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[harper]

I had a partial power failure during cruise climb once. It happens.

Here's another - complete power loss upon initial power reduction.
Insidious because you may not recognize it. This also happened
to me.

Here's another - partial power loss during initial climb. This also
happened. Three times.

Here's another - complete loss of oil on takeoff roll. This also
happened. Tower saved our can.

All different aircraft. All different reasons. One was a brand new
aircraft.

One resulted in landing off field - guess which one. Answer - where
the power failure was not recognized. Had to tow the plane back to
the airport with a car. You ever taxi a taildragger down a road on a rope
behind a car? Kind of fun.




In article >, David Hill
> wrote:
>G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>>
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>Now that we monitor Unicom at all hours, I can tell you that it is VERY rare
>>>to hear someone practicing any "engine out" procedures over our airport.
>>
>>
>> Nearly every "engine out" practice I've been handed was off-airport.
>>
>> George Patterson
>> You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.
>
>When I was training for my private, I had the same experience as George.
> Every "engine out" was off-airport. Additionally, the procedure was
>always the same -- CFI pulled the throttle, said, "you've lost your
>engine," and I went through the memorized engine out procedures.
>
>Got to my checkride, and the DPE threw me for a loop (not literally),
>first by by pulling the throttle *slightly* back and saying, "suddenly
>you can only make 2000 rpm. What are you going to do?" It wasn't how I
>trained, and I had to actually stop and think, and I nearly blew it.
>Then he said, pulling the throttle back a little more, "you can only
>make 1500 rpm."
>
>By this time I had determined the nearest airport, and was heading for
>it. He planned it that way, which was the second thing that was
>different from my training. He liked to do engine outs where your best
>bet was heading for an airport, and let you take it all the way down.
>
>In my case, I was too high and fast. I would have made the runway, but
>probably would have run off the end, so we went around. It would have
>been a messy but survivable landing.
>
>I passed the checkride, but a big hole in my training had been pointed
>out to me. Later, I went to that same airport, which has almost no
>traffic, and practiced all sorts of power off approaches to landing,
>pulling the power off at various altitudes directly over the runway, at
>various points in the pattern, and at various points and altitudes away
>from the airport.
>
>I learned a lot from that, but as a renter, not all of it carried over
>to the other planes I flew.
>

[Jay Honeck]

> All different aircraft. All different reasons. One was a brand new
> aircraft.

You've experienced engine failures (partial or complete) SIX times?

You're either the unluckiest person alive, or you fly jillions of hours.
(Or you need to talk to your A&P...)

Either way, good job walking away from all of 'em...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[EDR]

In article >,
ShawnD2112 > wrote:

> You may be right but there's something about having some power to work with.
> I think that's why I enjoy the Pitts so much. It's not the same qualified statement
> that CJ can make as an instructor, but it's my observation and, based on my
> experience, I didn't really learn how to fly properly until I spent hours in
> the same plane just practicing various kinds of maneuvers to see how it
> performed. I hadn't really been talking about the difference between
> renters and owners and my comments could only be speculative about other
> pilots, but are based on my observations.

Now, you are talking a completely different animal.
Flying a Pitts is not the same as flying a spam can.
Flying unusual attitudes (aerobatics) is not the same as flying
standard Private Pilot maneuvers.
What you have learned is finess and coordination because your aircraft
demands it. The control sesitivity of a Pitts is multiple times, if not
an order of magnitude, greater than that of the average spam can.

"The airshow begins when the Pitts flairs to land." - Norm Crabtree,
Director, Division of Aviation, Ohio Department of Transportation
(retired)

[Judah]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:VUOmb.33298$Tr4.61576
@attbi_s03:
> No problem! I had actually forgotten all about it. That's why I call
> Usenet "Short Attention Span Theater"...
>
> (Uh, what were we talking about again?? ;-)

Hahaha!

I forgot! Something about work!

:)

[mike regish]

Whenever there is somebody holding on the apron, waiting for me to land when
I'm on downwind, I simulate an engine out. Generally these folk would have
plenty of time to takeoff ahead of me, but maybe they're students or just in
no real rush, but I hate to make them wait any longer than necessary. As
soon as I hear them call that they're going to wait for me to land, I pull
the power.

mike regish

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:4Wtmb.25865$HS4.93467@attbi_s01...
> > Folks should go out and practice this a bunch. Early in the morning
high
> above
> > the airport, they should simulate a glide onto the runway, to get a feel
> for
> > the descent rate, speed, angle, etc. etc.
>
> Now that we monitor Unicom at all hours, I can tell you that it is VERY
rare
> to hear someone practicing any "engine out" procedures over our airport.
> Even though we have a very active bunch of flight instructors, we almost
> never hear anyone announce this extremely important routine.
>
> Now, perhaps they are taking students to a smaller, less busy airport
> nearby -- but I doubt it. I think it's just one of those things that new
> pilots do with their instructors over rural areas, and then rarely
practice
> again. And they almost never do it over an airport.
>
> I know I haven't done the "engine out" routine for a looong time -- but I
> plan to at our next opportunity. Thanks for the reminder, Montblack!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

mike regish wrote:
>
> Whenever there is somebody holding on the apron, waiting for me to land when
> I'm on downwind, I simulate an engine out. Generally these folk would have
> plenty of time to takeoff ahead of me, but maybe they're students or just in
> no real rush, but I hate to make them wait any longer than necessary. As
> soon as I hear them call that they're going to wait for me to land, I pull
> the power.

In my aircraft, this results in a faster approach. Is this the case with yours?

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Judah]

(harper) wrote in
ink.net:

<snip>
> You ever taxi a taildragger down a road on a
> rope behind a car? Kind of fun.

Must have generated some GREAT looks from the other guys on the highway
towing boats and U-Haul trailers! :)

[Judah]

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in
:

<snip>

> To get back to my original post, which I hadn't realized was causing so
> much followon conversation, my point was that most of the activity I
> see at our local airport involves people taking off, going away to land
> somewhere else, and then coming back. Two flights, two landings, lots
> of cruise in the middle. And they usually take the longest and widest
> runway unless the wind is dramatically favoring one of the other
> shorter ones (onto which a local pilot regularly puts a KingAir!).

<snip>

I think there are several types of pilots. Some pilots learn to fly with
the intent of obtaining a career in aviation. Others learn to fly with
intentions like what I believe you described in your earlier post - to
learn to control the machine like a racecar. Yet others learn to fly as a
means of transporting themselves further, faster.

I happen to be one of the latter. And so since I got my PPL, it is true
that MUCH of my flying involves takeoff, cruise, and landing. But I would
tend to agree with the poster who said that piloting skill is directly
proportional to frequency. Many pilots fly infrequently and their skills
suffer. Others fly more frequently, and will find "excuses" to fly even if
the flight is not within the scope of their original intentions. (ie: If I
find that I haven't flown in a couple of weeks, I will hop over to the
airport and spend an hour practicing maneuvers or T&Gs.)

But I think some pilots get into a comfort zone, think their skills are OK,
and don't do much practice again until their next BFR, if at all...

Of course, I have no actual evidence of this.. Just personal opinion based
on stories I have been told by instructors, FBO owners, and others that I
have talked to... You know, the stuff urban legend is made of! :)

[Newps]

Judah wrote:
> (harper) wrote in
> ink.net:
>
> <snip>
>
>>You ever taxi a taildragger down a road on a
>>rope behind a car? Kind of fun.

Buddy of mine has welded up a hitch that attaches to the tailwheel.
Hook up the hitch, take off the wings and you can go as fast as you want
down the road.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Newps wrote:
>
> Buddy of mine has welded up a hitch that attaches to the tailwheel.

I built the same sort of thing for my Maule. Hooks to the tailwheel spring and
my trailer hitch.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Jay Honeck]

> Good thing to do after you have verified your glide (I found the book
> numbers on my 172 quite close) is to go to your typical altitude and pick
> out a landmark and appropriate distance away. Hold your arm out, put the
> tip of your thumb on the horizon, and note where the landmark falls. With
> some correction for wind, you now know that you can glide to anything
within
> that radius.

Well, Roger, on a flight to Pella, IA (yep, home of the window manufacturer)
today, I practiced some slow flight and turns around a point, for the first
time in ages.

Not only was it educational for myself and my two young passengers (my son
and his school buddy), but it was fun, too. We were able to do several
turns around a huge fire out in rural Iowa, which gave the kids something to
oooh and aaah about. Seeing a dozen fire trucks from the air is always a
good thing for a couple of 13 year old boys to yack about at school
tomorrow... ;-)

Thanks for the reminder that all of our flights shouldn't be
"droning-to-brunch" flights...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Happy Dog > wrote:
: "Real world" is with the engine out. Prop stopped or creating drag by
: windmilling.

... as was done on my 4th lesson for my PPL with my instructor.
Not only stopped the engine, but made me slow down to actually stop the
prop. Freaked me out, but he said it was to "prove the airplane doesn't
stop flying when the engine quits." Of course I knew that already, but it
was cool nonetheless. Very (ominously) quiet, too.

-Cory



--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Mike Rapoport]

That is the problem practicing emergency procedures in the airplane, you can
make a real emergency out of a pretend one.

Mike
MU-2


"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Montblack" >
>

> "Real world" is with the engine out. Prop stopped or creating drag by
> windmilling. (Little low? Just use a slightly more aggressive engine
> warming.)Which makes me wonder: What if someone, trying this (and it
> doesn't sound completely crazy), couldn't restart the engine? (And had a
> less than perfect landing...) Is it just the same as a glider making an
off
> field landing accident?
>
> le moo
>
>

[mike regish]

Do you mean faster airspeed or faster pattern? Airspeed wise, from where I
usually do them on downwind, which is usually abeam the numbers (I know,
it's easy from there) I don't really need to trim to Vbg. I usually trim to
75 mph, which is my normal approach speed. There is no Vbg published for my
plane, but short wingers who have tested (or tried to) have figured Vbg is
somewhere between 75 and 85 mph. This seems about right to me. Since I'm
usually alone when I do these, I use the lower speed-75-so it works out to
about the same airspeed as a normal approach. Actually, when I'm alone after
burning off some fuel

As for time in the pattern, I usually end up losing a lot of altitude pretty
quickly in the turn folllowed by a pretty healthy slip all the way to the
ground, so my time in the pattern is greatly reduced. I will also, depending
on the wind, either land long so I can get right off the runway at the last
taxiway or, if there is enough wind that I don't have to lay on the brakes
too heavy, land short so I can get off the first taxiway.

mike regish

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> mike regish wrote:
> >
> > Whenever there is somebody holding on the apron, waiting for me to land
when
> > I'm on downwind, I simulate an engine out. Generally these folk would
have
> > plenty of time to takeoff ahead of me, but maybe they're students or
just in
> > no real rush, but I hate to make them wait any longer than necessary. As
> > soon as I hear them call that they're going to wait for me to land, I
pull
> > the power.
>
> In my aircraft, this results in a faster approach. Is this the case with
yours?
>
> George Patterson
> You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the
mud.

[G.R. Patterson III]

mike regish wrote:
>
> Do you mean faster airspeed or faster pattern?

Well, with my plane, it's both. Normally I trim for 80 at the numbers, 0 degrees
of flaps, go to 24 degrees on base (which gives me 75 mph), then maybe flaps 40
and 65 mph on final, with touchdown at about 45 mph. Vbg is 83 mph in my plane,
so I would be doing an engine-out landing with 0 degrees of flaps and about 80
mph pretty much all the way, slipping away any excess altitude, with touchdown
at about 60.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[mike regish]

Renting vs. owning can have a significant effect. Most people I know who
own fly much more often than people who rent. I went from 25 hours a year to
over 80 per year when I bought. Individual planes can vary, too.
Modifications, rigging, weights, equipment all can play a role.

mike regish

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" > wrote in message
...

>
> LOL, so you think owners make better pilots than renters just because
> they own a plane. A fair number of owners fly very little, these lease
> back their planes to FBOs so to keep it in the air.
> I know this is semi-OT but renter v owner has nothing to do with being
> a safe/good pilot. Most people are most familar with cruise because
> that's where they spend most of their time during flights. But I would
> say that ~50% of the pilots _I_ know (not a random or presentive sample)
> go out and do stalls, T&G, slow flight, etc. And they're all renters :)

[Happy Dog]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> That is the problem practicing emergency procedures in the airplane, you
can
> make a real emergency out of a pretend one.

Agreed. But I've heard from more than a few people that their instructor
has done this.

le moo


>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "Montblack" >
> >
>
> > "Real world" is with the engine out. Prop stopped or creating drag by
> > windmilling. (Little low? Just use a slightly more aggressive engine
> > warming.)Which makes me wonder: What if someone, trying this (and it
> > doesn't sound completely crazy), couldn't restart the engine? (And had
a
> > less than perfect landing...) Is it just the same as a glider making an
> off
> > field landing accident?
> >
> > le moo
> >
> >
>
>

[David Hill]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> That is the problem practicing emergency procedures in the airplane, you can
> make a real emergency out of a pretend one.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>"Montblack" >
>>
>
>>"Real world" is with the engine out. Prop stopped or creating drag by
>>windmilling. (Little low? Just use a slightly more aggressive engine
>>warming.)Which makes me wonder: What if someone, trying this (and it
>>doesn't sound completely crazy), couldn't restart the engine? (And had a
>>less than perfect landing...) Is it just the same as a glider making an
>
> off
>
>>field landing accident?
>>
>>le moo

When I was 15 or 16, at an Epps family reunion Doug Epps took me up in a
J-3. He said he wanted to practice deadstick landings.

He'd get over the field (2000' grass), shut down the engine, pull the
nose up until the prop stopped, then land. When we stopped, he'd step
halfway out of the cockpit, reach forward and start the engine, and up
we'd go again.

He started out aiming at midfield and slipping like hell on final. He
worked his way back until the last landing I remember we were skimming
across the bean field, and I was wondering whether we'd make it or not.

It was a while before I realized *everybody* didn't do it that way.
--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

[Trentus]

OK, this is going to sound really silly, but I'm not a pilot,
If planes glide so well, then how come they crash?
It would seem reasonable, that if they glide, and they have an engine
failure etc. that they'd glide them in, not leave smoking craters like the
news tends to show.
Am I missing something here?

Trentus

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Yossarian" wrote in the Catalina Perep thread)
> > My first trip I was that low too, but now my FBO insists on a continuous
> > climb to the middle of the channel for better glide distance if your
> engine
> > quits. 4500' in a 172 is only like 7 miles glide.
>
>
> I wonder how many people have actually glided their planes (rentals or
> otherwise) and so know what their real world glide range numbers will be -
> from say, 6,000 ft AGL down to 3,000 ft AGL? Into the wind vs tailwind,
etc?
>
> I'm under the impression that 5:1 is a good (safety) number to have in
your
> head for an average 172 flying at 3,000 ft AGL, and below. Gives you some
> "what the hey?" room and *some* turning room.
>
> Can't quite make a 3 mile target with exactly 5:1 at 3,000 ft
AGL....15,000
> ft. Leaves you 840 ft short of 3 miles. Still, (a mile glide per 1,000 ft
of
> altitude) seems like a good number to keep in your head for lower
altitudes.
> Almost 5:1.
>
> I wonder how much better (than the made up safety number 5:1) people will
> see up at 6,000 ft AGL. Are people getting book numbers, in their planes,
> when they go up and practice real world glides - from say 6k down to 3k?
>
>
> Montblack
> Happy Birthday Kristen
> October 25
>
>

[David Megginson]

"Trentus" > writes:

> OK, this is going to sound really silly, but I'm not a pilot,
> If planes glide so well, then how come they crash?

If cars steer so well, how come *they* crash? In both cases, the
problem is the usually the squishy part sitting on the seat in front
of the controls, not the metal parts.

> It would seem reasonable, that if they glide, and they have an
> engine failure etc. that they'd glide them in, not leave smoking
> craters like the news tends to show.

The news doesn't typically show the ones that glide in, not to mention
the ones that land without incident (i.e. nearly all of them). Here
are some other headlines you don't see:

80M children arrive home from school safely.

Politician not under investigation for corruption.

U.S. doesn't invade Belgium.

Study links weight loss to moderation and exercise.

No bank robberies in state.

Police treat black suspect politely.

Terrorists do not attack museum.

etc. News is the unusual stuff -- it doesn't represent most of what
is going on.


All the best,


David

[Jay Honeck]

> OK, this is going to sound really silly, but I'm not a pilot,
> If planes glide so well, then how come they crash?
> It would seem reasonable, that if they glide, and they have an engine
> failure etc. that they'd glide them in, not leave smoking craters like the
> news tends to show.
> Am I missing something here?

A few disparate points to help you understand the situation better:

- Little planes tend to glide a lot better than big planes.

- Where you lose your engine is important. A little plane losing its engine
over Iowa might make the local newspaper, but everyone will walk away. The
same engine failure over downtown Chicago is going to make national news.

- Smoking holes are created when planes glide into something -- hard. No
matter how well you can glide, sooner or later Mother Earth reaches up to
smite you. If there is a big building or mountain in the way when you run
out of glide, well...

- Smoking holes happen when a pilot allows the plane to slow to a speed at
which the wing no longer creates lift. This is the "stall" speed. A
wing/plane that is stalled takes on the flight characteristics of a load of
sand, and comes down in a hurry, creating a smoking crater.

Hope this helps.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Trentus wrote:
>
> OK, this is going to sound really silly, but I'm not a pilot,
> If planes glide so well, then how come they crash?

They have to have a relatively safe place to come down, and the bigger the
plane is, the bigger and flatter the area has to be. There aren't a whole lot
of places on Long Island (for example) to set down an airliner, and I'd bet
that every one of those places is an airport.

Light aircraft have glide ratios somewhere around 10:1 or 12:1. My aircraft is
close to the latter. That means that I can glide for about 12 miles if I'm 1
mile above the ground and my engine dies. If I have some wind, it will help
me glide further if I turn in the same direction it's blowing and hurt me if
I don't. So. If I can find a fairly flat field at least 300 feet long with no
obstructions like trees or power lines around it, and it's close enough for me
to reach it, I probably won't make one of those holes for the TV guys.

Now. Let's say I'm 100 feet up and the rubber band breaks. That field had better
be *real* close.

Say a 737 loses all power 1 mile up. That pilot needs to find a field at least
3,000 feet long somewhere within about 10 miles. If you want to read about a
pilot in that position who made it, do a Yahoo search for the "Gimli glider".

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:DLunb.50518$HS4.232034@attbi_s01...
>
> A few disparate points to help you understand the situation better:
>
> - Little planes tend to glide a lot better than big planes.
>
> - Where you lose your engine is important. A little plane losing its
engine
> over Iowa might make the local newspaper, but everyone will walk away.
The
> same engine failure over downtown Chicago is going to make national news.
>
> - Smoking holes are created when planes glide into something -- hard. No
> matter how well you can glide, sooner or later Mother Earth reaches up to
> smite you. If there is a big building or mountain in the way when you run
> out of glide, well...
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>


Big planes glide much better than small planes. An airliner has about twice
the glide ration that your Pathfinder does.

Mike
MU-2

[Paul Sengupta]

Most of mine have been, but on my GFT (General Flight Test)
the examiner pulled the power on me a couple of miles after
we'd passed by an airport. I actually landed it at the airport.

Paul

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> Nearly every "engine out" practice I've been handed was off-airport.

[Paul Sengupta]

On my IMC (instrument flying) rating renewal last year,
I took off (not in my plane, but a rented PA28)... when
I got to cruising altitude I levelled out, brought the throttle
back then leaned the mixture. The examiner said "There's a
man who owns his own plane."...he was referring to leaning
the mixture, something I'd always been taught to do from day
one of my training. He said a lot of renters fly around with
mixture fully rich all the time. Even a pilot friend of mine
commented that he never leans the mixture because he
"never flies above 2000ft".

Paul

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> That's good to know. On balance, do you see any difference between
> owners and renters?

[David Megginson]

"Paul Sengupta" > writes:

> On my IMC (instrument flying) rating renewal last year, I took off
> (not in my plane, but a rented PA28)... when I got to cruising
> altitude I levelled out, brought the throttle back then leaned the
> mixture. The examiner said "There's a man who owns his own
> plane."...he was referring to leaning the mixture, something I'd
> always been taught to do from day one of my training. He said a lot
> of renters fly around with mixture fully rich all the time. Even a
> pilot friend of mine commented that he never leans the mixture
> because he "never flies above 2000ft".

That's an interesting observation. On my first solo cross-country in
a rented 172 during my PPL training, I decided to rent the plane dry.
I made sure the tanks were topped off, leaned properly, filled up
again at my destination (even though I'd used only a few gallons --
school policy for student pilots), then flew back and fueled up again
on landing.

When I arrived back there was some consternation, since it turned out
that the club didn't rent dry to student pilots. They ended up
reimbursing me for the fuel I'd paid for and charging me the wet fee
for the plane. The manager tried to convince me that the wet fee was
a great deal, until I handed him the fuel tickets to show how little
fuel I'd burned on my trip. He asked me how I did it, and I smiled
and answered that I'd discovered a little red knob on the panel. Note
that at that time I would not even have thought of running lean of
peak -- I simply leaned to best power and enriched a bit, like my
instructor had taught me.

I wasn't going to make a big snit, but clearly the club assumes that
renters will always fly full rich. Nowadays, in my own Warrior, I
push the throttle to full for takeoff and don't touch it again until
I'm ready to land; in-between, I set power by adjusting the mixture
only, as recommended by the POH for best economy. I figure that if I
can make my engine run cooler, produce practically no carbon monoxide
(a major issue in a Canadian winter), avoid fouling plugs, *and* save
gas, what's not to love about running LOP WOT?


All the best,


David

[Montblack]

("Trentus" wrote)
> OK, this is going to sound really silly, but I'm not a pilot,
> If planes glide so well, then how come they crash?
> It would seem reasonable, that if they glide, and they have an engine
> failure etc. that they'd glide them in, not leave smoking craters like the
> news tends to show.
> Am I missing something here?

From what I gather, one of the main reasons for some of these smoking hole
crashes is a malfunctioning switch, in the pilot's head, that says "Must
save this
airplane."

That switch needs to be set to, "Where should I put this (insurance
company's) plane down to safely dissipate the most energy, before those
forces get to us people?"

Runways, fields, roads, golf courses, high school soccer field, etc.

The question of coming down ....."is moot." You are coming down - now!

This is when the mental switch needs to be thrown from, "save the plane" to
"put it down safely - the heck with the plane."

The other big problem is "Low and Slow."

Low because you have little time to react. Slow - think your motorcycle
going slow and not being able to put your foot down. First you wobble then
you fall to the pavement.

--
Montblack
"Styled by the laws of nature.............Concorde"

[Jay Honeck]

> Big planes glide much better than small planes. An airliner has about
twice
> the glide ration that your Pathfinder does.

Well, the Pathfinder glides like a rock. ;-)

But is that true of all airliners? I guess I would have thought that a
600,000 pound un-powered jetliner wouldn't glide very well.

Of course, the odds of losing all your engines are slim. But then who would
ever believe that they would run the Boeing 307 out of gas?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Happy Dog]

"Trentus" > wrote in message
...
> OK, this is going to sound really silly, but I'm not a pilot,
> If planes glide so well, then how come they crash?
> It would seem reasonable, that if they glide, and they have an engine
> failure etc. that they'd glide them in, not leave smoking craters like the
> news tends to show.
> Am I missing something here?

Apart from your naivete about the broadcast news industry, yes. Very big
planes are very heavy have a big potential energy load and land at speeds
over 100 miles an hour. Very, very hard to make it look pretty on anything
but a long flat surface. Little planes are very light and land at speeds
under 60 miles an hour. Very little energy to dissipate. A pilot current
in forced approaches can land them without much risk of injury anywhere with
a few hundred yards of relatively flat surface or something soft to absorb
the impact.

le moo

[ShawnD2112]

Careful, Jay. A BA 747 flew into the dust cloud from Mount Pinatubo and all
4 engines flamed out. He glided nicely for about 20 minutes until he got
them all to restart at some ridiculously low altitude.

And remember that glide performance has nothing to do with weight but to do
with wing design. And, if I remember correctly, a 747 or like glides just
about like a 172 does, it just needs a faster airspeed to do it, but does it
at the same kind of angle.

But on the subject of the glide ratios of cars, my Mercedes probably glides
a little better than the Pathfinder cuz it's all sleek and aerodynamic-like.
But the Integra's performance was horrible - it didn't glide worth a damn on
the roof!

Shawn
"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:VNwnb.51170$HS4.234123@attbi_s01...
> > Big planes glide much better than small planes. An airliner has about
> twice
> > the glide ration that your Pathfinder does.
>
> Well, the Pathfinder glides like a rock. ;-)
>
> But is that true of all airliners? I guess I would have thought that a
> 600,000 pound un-powered jetliner wouldn't glide very well.
>
> Of course, the odds of losing all your engines are slim. But then who
would
> ever believe that they would run the Boeing 307 out of gas?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> I got to cruising altitude I levelled out, brought the throttle
> back then leaned the mixture. The examiner said "There's a
> man who owns his own plane."...he was referring to leaning
> the mixture, something I'd always been taught to do from day
> one of my training.

I never leaned as a renter pilot. I thought that red knob was only there so
you could shut the engine down. ;) (I remember my instructor pointing it
out to me, explaining its function, learning about leaning for the practical
test, and then virtually never touching the thing again.)

I also always ran at full throttle. When you're paying by the hour, wet,
there is simply no reason to do otherwise.

Funny how buying your own gas and paying for engine repairs changes your
perspective.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Happy Dog]

"David Megginson" > wrote in

> renters will always fly full rich. Nowadays, in my own Warrior, I
> push the throttle to full for takeoff and don't touch it again until
> I'm ready to land; in-between, I set power by adjusting the mixture
> only, as recommended by the POH for best economy. I figure that if I
> can make my engine run cooler, produce practically no carbon monoxide
> (a major issue in a Canadian winter), avoid fouling plugs, *and* save
> gas, what's not to love about running LOP WOT?

That's one great thing about owning. Lots of time to fool with mixture and
MP and prop settings. I save about 2 - 3 GPH over common "squared" power
and ROP settings. Also, when you fly a rented plane slower, and more
efficiently, you are penalized. The same style in your own plane costs less
while maximizing your PIC time. Dunno about the CO being a major issue
though.

le moo

[Mike Rapoport]

I suspect that the Pathfinder glides about like any fixed gear single and
would be surprised if its glide ratio differed much from a 152 or Cherokee
6.

Jets have glide ratios of up to 20:1. They have no props, dangling gear,
exposed rivits, large openings for cooling ect. The 600,000lb airliner
comes down fast but it goes forward fast too. Remember weight is potential
energy.

My MU-2 has a glide ratio of about 12:1.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:VNwnb.51170$HS4.234123@attbi_s01...
> > Big planes glide much better than small planes. An airliner has about
> twice
> > the glide ration that your Pathfinder does.
>
> Well, the Pathfinder glides like a rock. ;-)
>
> But is that true of all airliners? I guess I would have thought that a
> 600,000 pound un-powered jetliner wouldn't glide very well.
>
> Of course, the odds of losing all your engines are slim. But then who
would
> ever believe that they would run the Boeing 307 out of gas?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:VNwnb.51170$HS4.234123@attbi_s01...

> But is that true of all airliners? I guess I would have thought that a
> 600,000 pound un-powered jetliner wouldn't glide very well.
>
They glide better because they have much less drag. They're slick and don't have
landing gear and other cruft sticking out (and what antennas and stuff they do have
are much smaller in ratio to the overall area).

[Ron Natalie]

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message ...

> And remember that glide performance has nothing to do with weight but to do
> with wing design. And, if I remember correctly, a 747 or like glides just
> about like a 172 does, it just needs a faster airspeed to do it, but does it
> at the same kind of angle.

Actually, it is a function of the lift and drag. While wing design figures into,
the lack of things sticking out of the fuselage like landing gear, big (compared
to the size of the aircraft) antennas, and an overall more streamlined shape
than Jay's Piper yields much less parasitic drag.

[Ron Natalie]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message .. .

>
> That's one great thing about owning. Lots of time to fool with mixture and
> MP and prop settings. I save about 2 - 3 GPH over common "squared" power
> and ROP settings. Also, when you fly a rented plane slower, and more
> efficiently, you are penalized. The same style in your own plane costs less
> while maximizing your PIC time. Dunno about the CO being a major issue
> though.

I'm not sure that MP has much measurable affect on glide, but playing with
the prop control sure does.

[Robert Moore]

"ShawnD2112" > wrote

> And remember that glide performance has nothing to do with
> weight but to do with wing design.

TRUE!!

> And, if I remember correctly, a 747 or like glides just about
> like a 172 does,

NOT TRUE!! A B-747 has about the same glide ratio as the B-707s
that I flew for 17 years, 20:1 or better. From 35-37,000'(6nm),
we could do 125nm easily.

> it just needs a faster airspeed to do it, but does it at the same
> kind of angle.

TRUE!! About 250kts plus or minus depending on weight.

Bob Moore
PanAm (retired)

[ShawnD2112]

Truer point. That's what I was trying to get at from memory while being too
lazy to pull out my books! :-)

Shawn
"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
...
>
> > And remember that glide performance has nothing to do with weight but to
do
> > with wing design. And, if I remember correctly, a 747 or like glides
just
> > about like a 172 does, it just needs a faster airspeed to do it, but
does it
> > at the same kind of angle.
>
> Actually, it is a function of the lift and drag. While wing design
figures into,
> the lack of things sticking out of the fuselage like landing gear, big
(compared
> to the size of the aircraft) antennas, and an overall more streamlined
shape
> than Jay's Piper yields much less parasitic drag.
>
>

[ShawnD2112]

I stand corrected! Didn't realize the glide ratio was that high. Makes my
point even better.

Shawn
"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 7...
> "ShawnD2112" > wrote
>
> > And remember that glide performance has nothing to do with
> > weight but to do with wing design.
>
> TRUE!!
>
> > And, if I remember correctly, a 747 or like glides just about
> > like a 172 does,
>
> NOT TRUE!! A B-747 has about the same glide ratio as the B-707s
> that I flew for 17 years, 20:1 or better. From 35-37,000'(6nm),
> we could do 125nm easily.
>
> > it just needs a faster airspeed to do it, but does it at the same
> > kind of angle.
>
> TRUE!! About 250kts plus or minus depending on weight.
>
> Bob Moore
> PanAm (retired)

[markjen]

> Am I missing something here?

Yes, loss of control. This is the key event in most fatal accidents
involving smoking craters - the pilot lost control of the airplane. From
this, springs the adage: Always, ALWAYS, fly the airplane first. Worry
about the other stuff later, but right now, FLY THE AIRPLANE.

- Mark

[markjen]

> They glide better because they have much less drag. They're slick and
don't have
> landing gear and other cruft sticking out (and what antennas and stuff
they do have
> are much smaller in ratio to the overall area).

I had heard that airliners will generally glide a 3 degree glideslope, clean
and power off. Something that GA airplanes have no hope of doing.

It is a FAST ILS though - less than a minute at 250K.

- Mark

[markjen]

> ... as was done on my 4th lesson for my PPL with my instructor.
> Not only stopped the engine, but made me slow down to actually stop the
> prop.

There is always controversy about how realistic to make emergency training.
I think the risk of doing this training outweighs the benefit.

Engine out and windmilling (low pitch if CS) - yes. Stopping the prop - no.

- Mark

[Robert Moore]

"markjen" > wrote
> I had heard that airliners will generally glide a 3 degree
> glideslope, clean and power off. Something that GA airplanes
> have no hope of doing.

If we were on the glideslope "way out", and clean power off, our
biggest problem in the B-707 was slowing to the "gear/flap" speed
without using the speedbrakes which shook the Pax too much.
In the 727, because of the T-mounted horizontal stabilizer, we just
yanked the speedbrake.

Bob Moore

[Paul Sengupta]

I tried this technique in my Bulldog (IO-360, CS prop). It
shuddered and shook so much I went back to the "normal"
method after 2 or 3 seconds!

Paul

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> Nowadays, in my own Warrior, I
> push the throttle to full for takeoff and don't touch it again until
> I'm ready to land; in-between, I set power by adjusting the mixture
> only, as recommended by the POH for best economy.

[Kevin McCue]

My instructor was one of them. He did it until the day it became a real
emergency. The FAA's reaction was such that he decided not to do it anymore.
On the other hand, I have gone out to a large mudflat near Tucson in my
Rans and shut it down from 2000' or so and dead sticked it in numerous
times. The flat is about a mile in diameter, Rans uses about 200' to land.
Learned that it glided far better than I was led to believe.

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Robert Moore]

"markjen" > wrote

>> . as was done on my 4th lesson for my PPL with my instructor.
>> Not only stopped the engine, but made me slow down to actually
>> stop the prop.
>
> There is always controversy about how realistic to make
> emergency training. I think the risk of doing this training
> outweighs the benefit.

What experience do you have that indicates that this is a risky
maneuver. I made it a point to do it with every one of my students
at 4-5,000' over the not-too-busy airport. With a few hours of
C-172 gliding time, the worst thing that could happen was to land
like any other glider. My homebuilt MiniMax had a 1/2 VW engine
that could not be restarted in-flight. I regularly practiced landing
with the prop stopped in it. Practice builds confidence!
What do glider pilots do when the prop stops? :-) I certainly don't
concede them any basic skills that I don't possess.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI USN
PanAm (retired)

[Jay Honeck]

> NOT TRUE!! A B-747 has about the same glide ratio as the B-707s
> that I flew for 17 years, 20:1 or better. From 35-37,000'(6nm),
> we could do 125nm easily.

Wow -- that's really impressive. (Of course, it's what happens at the END
of the glide that's ulimately the most important, eh? :-)

Thanks for the education, Bob!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[markjen]

> What experience do you have that indicates that this is a risky
> maneuver.

C'mon, common sense says that stopping the prop on an powered airplane is
maneuver that has some risk. As I said there is a tradeoff. Let's not get
into arguing over the tradeoff or what risk is acceptable. This is just a
rehash of the old spin training debate.

And certainly the airplane and environment matters. There is little risk in
practicing very realistic engine-one scenarios in a low-traffic environment
with a plane like a C-172 or VW-powered homebuilt. But it's a whole
different deal in a Bonanza or T210 at a busy field.

You make your own tradeoff, but if I ever have a CFI that wants to practice
the maneuver to the point of stopping the engine, I'll decline and find
another CFI.

- Mark

[David Megginson]

"Paul Sengupta" > writes:

> I tried this technique in my Bulldog (IO-360, CS prop). It shuddered
> and shook so much I went back to the "normal" method after 2 or 3
> seconds!

It sounds like lBad fuel/air distribution among the cylinders. I've
heard from a few other people with carbureted four-bangers who seem to
have some success, though I haven't heard from *anyone* with a
carbureted six-cylinder engine who has managed to fly LOP WOT (anyone
reading?). Perhaps it's because the O-320 (and O-360?) is able to
have all four cylinders equidistant from the carb.

I don't know why things are so bad on your fuel-injected IO-360, but
on the bright side, you have the option of trying Gamijectors if you
want.


All the best,


David

[Paul Sengupta]

Well, normally at low-ish throttle settings I can lean pretty
aggressively and then I start getting power reductions as I
lean further (though the MP and RPM seem to stay the same
so I guess all that changes is the power produced and the
prop pitch). This all happens smoothly. But at wide open
throttle I didn't want to try it for too long or for too much
in case I damaged something. Didn't seem to like it though.
Couldn't swear to it but it seems that fuel distribution is quite
good normally.

Don't think I can use Gamis here in the UK.

Paul

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> It sounds like bad fuel/air distribution among the cylinders.

[Pat Thronson]

Wow, sure did not realize this, thanks
Mike and all.

Pat Thronson PP

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:DLunb.50518$HS4.232034@attbi_s01...
> >
> > A few disparate points to help you understand the situation better:
> >
> > - Little planes tend to glide a lot better than big planes.
> >
> > - Where you lose your engine is important. A little plane losing its
> engine
> > over Iowa might make the local newspaper, but everyone will walk away.
> The
> > same engine failure over downtown Chicago is going to make national
news.
> >
> > - Smoking holes are created when planes glide into something -- hard.
No
> > matter how well you can glide, sooner or later Mother Earth reaches up
to
> > smite you. If there is a big building or mountain in the way when you
run
> > out of glide, well...
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
> >
>
>
> Big planes glide much better than small planes. An airliner has about
twice
> the glide ration that your Pathfinder does.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Robert Moore > wrote:
: NOT TRUE!! A B-747 has about the same glide ratio as the B-707s
: that I flew for 17 years, 20:1 or better. From 35-37,000'(6nm),
: we could do 125nm easily.

I thought I heard somewhere that one of the reasons the "glide
ratio" on the bigguns is so high is that it's tested with the turbine's
power pulled all the way back. The engines, however, have a great deal of
idle thrust, which aids in the glide ratio.

I don't know this for sure, but I've heard it's partially true.
Any thoughts?

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> Perhaps it's because the O-320 (and O-360?) is able to
> have all four cylinders equidistant from the carb.

Doubt it. The carb on *my* O-320 is located behind the engine. No way all four
cylinders are equidistant from the carb. I doubt that Lycoming has set up a
tuned induction system either, but it's possible.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Mike Rapoport]

No, it is because the airframes are designed for high speed which means low
drag.

Mike
MU-2


> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.owning Robert Moore > wrote:
> : NOT TRUE!! A B-747 has about the same glide ratio as the B-707s
> : that I flew for 17 years, 20:1 or better. From 35-37,000'(6nm),
> : we could do 125nm easily.
>
> I thought I heard somewhere that one of the reasons the "glide
> ratio" on the bigguns is so high is that it's tested with the turbine's
> power pulled all the way back. The engines, however, have a great deal of
> idle thrust, which aids in the glide ratio.
>
> I don't know this for sure, but I've heard it's partially true.
> Any thoughts?
>
> -Cory
>
> --
> ************************************************** ***********************
> * The prime directive of Linux: *
> * - learn what you don't know, *
> * - teach what you do. *
> * (Just my 20 USm$) *
> ************************************************** ***********************
>

[Prime]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:DLunb.50518$HS4.232034@attbi_s01:

>> OK, this is going to sound really silly, but I'm not a pilot,
>> If planes glide so well, then how come they crash?
>> It would seem reasonable, that if they glide, and they have an engine
>> failure etc. that they'd glide them in, not leave smoking craters
>> like the news tends to show.
>> Am I missing something here?
>
> A few disparate points to help you understand the situation better:
>
> - Little planes tend to glide a lot better than big planes.
>
Sorry Jay! - you need to clarify this. Most little planes do NOT glide
better than big planes. Modern airliners have much better glide ratios
than our factory riveted aluminum craft.

However, those big planes gliding better also *land* at MUCH higher
speeds, and need more runway. Try that on a golf course!

There are a number of cases where jet airliners lost all power and glided
to a perfectly save landing:
- Gimli glider (Air Canada 767)
- A 737 in the south landed on a grass levee when both engines flamed out
after ingesting hail
- A 767 being hijacked glided fine to a water ditching, until the
hijackers attacked the pilots and one of the engines made contact with
the water

> - Where you lose your engine is important. A little plane losing its
> engine over Iowa might make the local newspaper, but everyone will
> walk away. The same engine failure over downtown Chicago is going to
> make national news.
>
> - Smoking holes are created when planes glide into something -- hard.
> No matter how well you can glide, sooner or later Mother Earth
> reaches up to smite you. If there is a big building or mountain in
> the way when you run out of glide, well...
>
> - Smoking holes happen when a pilot allows the plane to slow to a
> speed at which the wing no longer creates lift. This is the "stall"
> speed. A wing/plane that is stalled takes on the flight
> characteristics of a load of sand, and comes down in a hurry, creating
> a smoking crater.
>
> Hope this helps.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Prime" > wrote in message
...
> >
> Sorry Jay! - you need to clarify this. Most little planes do NOT glide
> better than big planes. Modern airliners have much better glide ratios
> than our factory riveted aluminum craft.
>
Airliners glide better than composite light airplanes too.

Mike
MU-2

[John Galban]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> David Megginson wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps it's because the O-320 (and O-360?) is able to
> > have all four cylinders equidistant from the carb.
>
> Doubt it. The carb on *my* O-320 is located behind the engine. No way all four
> cylinders are equidistant from the carb. I doubt that Lycoming has set up a
> tuned induction system either, but it's possible.
>

It seems to vary from one installation to the next. My carburated
O-360 will not run LOP. Well, it runs, but not very smoothly. My
flight manual lists a procedure for LOP (called economy cruise), but
my engine goes rough approximately 10 degrees LOP.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Robert Moore]

"Michael Nouak" > wrote
> I'm not saying you're wrong, however I am curious: You "could do
> 125nm easily" how? With the engines shut down? 'Cause that's
> what a glide is to me. At idle you're still producing thrust,
> even more so a flight idle.

Based on the chart numbers for an idle thrust descent,(about 1200#
total for all 4 engines) there wasn't much thrust being developed.
In the old days, our standard descent speed was probably 50-60 kts
above the speed for best L/D and we still flight planned for a
descent distance of 120 nm from FL370 at idle thrust.

Bob Moore

[David CL Francis]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 at 16:27:33 in message
<VNwnb.51170$HS4.234123@attbi_s01>, Jay Honeck
> wrote:

>But is that true of all airliners? I guess I would have thought that a
>600,000 pound un-powered jetliner wouldn't glide very well.

The weight makes a difference to the rate of sink but I see no obvious
reason why it should make a big difference to the glide angle. After
all, airliners need good lift drag ratios to make them economical.

The BOAC 747 that lost all engines due to volcanic ash expected to be
able to glide 141 nm from 37,000 ft taking 23 minutes. That's a glide
ratio of over 20 to 1 and around 1600 ft a minute and 240 knots.

They did worse than that because they did not know the best speed and
they needed to maintain the engine start speed. Not only that but they
had no reliable speed measurement either. One pilot had 320knots and the
other had 270 knots on their ASIs - 50 knot difference!. Then they had
to sacrifice height because of loss of pressurization. Of course when
they passed out of the ash they were able to restart.

Ref: Air Disaster Volume 2 by Macarthur Job
--
Francis E-Mail reply to >

[David Megginson]

"Michael Nouak" > writes:

>> NOT TRUE!! A B-747 has about the same glide ratio as the B-707s
>> that I flew for 17 years, 20:1 or better. From 35-37,000'(6nm),
>> we could do 125nm easily.
>
> I'm not saying you're wrong, however I am curious: You "could do 125nm
> easily" how? With the engines shut down? 'Cause that's what a glide is to
> me. At idle you're still producing thrust, even more so a flight idle.
>
> So, how did you achieve this ratio? In a true glide (presumable tried out in
> a sim), or at flight idle? And if the latter, what would be the difference
> in glide ratio compared to a true glide?

A real life example:

http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html

They managed about an 11:1 glideslope, but the flight crew had no
documentation on optimal glide speed for a 767 (they just guessed 220
kias), and they left the engines windmilling.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

"Paul Sengupta" > writes:

> Don't think I can use Gamis here in the UK.

In Canada, I think, U.S. approvals (STC, TSO, etc.) are acceptable for
U.S.-certificated planes. Is that not the case in the U.K.?

Uneven fuel distribution is the only reason I can think of that you
would get the shudder during leaning. In an ideal engine with perfect
fuel distribution, as you lean, the engine would simply produce more
power, then less power, then quietly shut off. The shuddering is from
different cylinders being at different parts of that progression
instead of all in sync.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

"G.R. Patterson III" > writes:

> Doubt it. The carb on *my* O-320 is located behind the engine. No way all four
> cylinders are equidistant from the carb. I doubt that Lycoming has set up a
> tuned induction system either, but it's possible.

Is that a Continental O-320 (if such a thing exists)? The Lycoming
O-320 operator's manual suggests that all Lycoming O-320's have the
carb underneath:

Avco Lycoming O-320 series engines are equipped with a float type
carburetor. Particularly good distribution of the fuel-air mixture
to each cylinder is obtained through the center zone induction
system, which is integral with the oil sump and is submerged in oil,
insuring a more uniform vaporization of fuel and aiding in cooling
the oil in the sump. From the riser the fuel-air mixture is
distributed to each cylinder by their individual intake pipes.

Putting the carb back by the accessory drive would probably mess up
the distribution quite a bit. How well does your engine run lean of
peak?


All the best,


David

[Ron Natalie]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message ...

> They managed about an 11:1 glideslope, but the flight crew had no
> documentation on optimal glide speed for a 767 (they just guessed 220
> kias), and they left the engines windmilling.
>
Can you feather or otherwise stop a turbofan? The compressor seems
to spin around by itself even in a slight breeze on the ground.

[Robert Moore]

David Megginson wrote

> They managed about an 11:1 glideslope, but the flight crew had
> no documentation on optimal glide speed for a 767 (they just
> guessed 220 kias), and they left the engines windmilling.

There is no way that the engines can be prevented from windmilling.
In fact, depending upon altitude, 220 kts should provide enough
engine rpm to do an "air start" if required.

Bob Moore

[David Megginson]

"Paul Sengupta" > writes:

> I think some things are accepted by the CAA, but I'm not
> sure what. As an added complication to your question, my
> plane isn't certificated in the US...

Ahh -- that's a whole different game, then. Your engine is
certificated in the U.S., though, isn't it?


All the best,


David

[Paul Sengupta]

Expect so. It's a Lycoming IO-360-A1B6, converted by the RAF to
an AEIO (added an oil tank thing with a ball in it that blocks off
different bits depending on which way up you are). Of course if I did
put them on, no one would ever find out I guess...but I'd rather not if
it's not "proper".

I tend to do ok running less than 75% power...actually I normally
potter around at maybe 50%...it's a 2 seater with 200hp...and I can
lean to about 5 gallons an hour. If I'm going somewhere I use more
power, maybe 7 gallons an hour. UK gallons that is. I lean until the
power starts reducing. I don't seem to get high CHT (only one gauge).

Paul

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> Ahh -- that's a whole different game, then. Your engine is
> certificated in the U.S., though, isn't it?

[Dashii]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael Nouak" > writes:
>
> >> NOT TRUE!! A B-747 has about the same glide ratio as the B-707s
> >> that I flew for 17 years, 20:1 or better. From 35-37,000'(6nm),
> >> we could do 125nm easily.
> >
> > I'm not saying you're wrong, however I am curious: You "could do 125nm
> > easily" how? With the engines shut down? 'Cause that's what a glide is
to
> > me. At idle you're still producing thrust, even more so a flight idle.
> >
> > So, how did you achieve this ratio? In a true glide (presumable tried
out in
> > a sim), or at flight idle? And if the latter, what would be the
difference
> > in glide ratio compared to a true glide?
>
> A real life example:
>
> http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html
>
> They managed about an 11:1 glideslope, but the flight crew had no
> documentation on optimal glide speed for a 767 (they just guessed 220
> kias), and they left the engines windmilling.

Great story and outcome, I sure hope that they didn't violate any aviation
regulations though, wouldn't want them to be accussed of being "law
breakers"! LOL

That helicopter story was great also, it took real courage to do that.

Dashii
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> Is that a Continental O-320 (if such a thing exists)? The Lycoming
> O-320 operator's manual suggests that all Lycoming O-320's have the
> carb underneath:

My Lycoming has the carb behind the engine. It is nearly directly underneath
the oil filter. The induction pipe runs forward from there into the sump.

> Putting the carb back by the accessory drive would probably mess up
> the distribution quite a bit. How well does your engine run lean of
> peak?

Not real well. Once you get lean of peak, the engine gets real sensitive to the
mixture. Very slight adjustments make for very large rpm changes. It doesn't
shudder so much as just die.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[David Lesher]

David CL Francis > writes:


>The weight makes a difference to the rate of sink but I see no obvious
>reason why it should make a big difference to the glide angle. After
>all, airliners need good lift drag ratios to make them economical.

Bingo. Less drag == more glide == lower fuel consumption == fewer $$ losses..

Add to the list of "gliders" the one that deadsticked into the Canary Islands
recently after a big fuel leak..


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[David Megginson]

"G.R. Patterson III" > writes:

> Not real well. Once you get lean of peak, the engine gets real
> sensitive to the mixture. Very slight adjustments make for very
> large rpm changes. It doesn't shudder so much as just die.

My experience with sensitivity is the same as yours. The hardest part
of setting power with mixture only is that the mixture is at least an
order of magnitude more sensitive than the throttle -- there's only a
tiny range of movement between full power and cutoff. I generally
take the throttle friction lock off while very gently nudging the
mixture lever, then put it back on when I have the right setting.

If it dies without much shuddering, then the distribution is
probably pretty good, I'd guess (as a non-technician).


All the best,


David

[vincent p. norris]

>Add to the list of "gliders" the one that deadsticked into the Canary Islands
>recently after a big fuel leak..

Since the past tense of "stick" is "stuck,"
shouldn't the past tense of "deadstick" be "deadstuck"?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

vince norris