Practice Engine-Out Landings

[Jay Honeck]

The other night, when we were working the pattern as an excuse to watch the
sunset from 1000 AGL, it dawned on me that I hadn't practiced any emergency
procedures since my last biennial. I like to do these things once in a
while, in an effort to remain sharp, and now seemed like a good time.

With the kids in the back, and Mary to my right, I asked if anyone wanted to
see a practice "engine-out" emergency landing -- to which my bored kids
shouted "Sure!"

So, I reached over and chopped the throttle, and announced my intentions on
Unicom. The winds were calm and the pattern was empty, so we immediately
started downhill, and I made the required immediate turn toward the
airport...

I was on mid-field downwind for Rwy 07, but it soon became apparent that our
Cherokee 235 was living up to it's reputation for being a "gliding anvil" --
we weren't *ever* going to make it all the way around. With Runway 12
falling beneath me, I announced our intention of switching runways, and
started an immediate turn onto final for Rwy 12...

Now high, I had to put a smidge of a slip, and drop that third notch of
flaps -- but not too soon! Had to make sure I had the runway made, and
then dumped that third notch....

With the runway coming up at remarkable speed, I flared and put her down
just past the numbers -- arriving like the proverbial load of sand. It was
a perfect "3-point landing" -- except you don't *ever* want to land that
nose-heavy 6-cylinder on the nosewheel!

The kids exclaimed "that was worse than Mom's landing!" (which earned them
both "the Mom Look", instantly sun-burning the sides of both of their
faces), and I was glad that Mr. Piper had built some fudge-factor into that
landing gear... Gotta remember to pull harder next time, for sure...

Of course, it turned out that a group of the usual airport bums were
watching, and had to drop by the hangar to congratulate me on my landing
prowess. (They would hear NOTHING of my lame "power off landing" excuses,
naturally... :-)

Great fun, good practice, and it sure reinforced the reason we land our
Pathfinder with a smidge of power at touchdown...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul kgyy]

I just did a bunch of these with my recent BFR on the Arrow - like a
brick. The only positive thing you can say about these glide
characteristics is that it makes it easy to avoid wake turbulence by
staying well above a normal glidepath.

[Jay Honeck]

>I just did a bunch of these with my recent BFR on the Arrow - like a
> brick. The only positive thing you can say about these glide
> characteristics is that it makes it easy to avoid wake turbulence by
> staying well above a normal glidepath.

The really amazing thing is that many other planes have *worse* glide
characteristics than our Cherokees.

I've got a friend with a Swearingen SX-300, which is basically a rocket,
with stubby little wings. He says when you chop the throttle you are
landing NOW, coming down at something like 3000 fpm.

Another friend just finished building his Glasair III, and he says his isn't
much better. That's the price you pay for all that speed, I guess.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:xJTye.138628$xm3.92446@attbi_s21...
> >I just did a bunch of these with my recent BFR on the Arrow - like a
>> brick. The only positive thing you can say about these glide
>> characteristics is that it makes it easy to avoid wake turbulence by
>> staying well above a normal glidepath.
>
> The really amazing thing is that many other planes have *worse* glide
> characteristics than our Cherokees.
>
> I've got a friend with a Swearingen SX-300, which is basically a rocket,
> with stubby little wings. He says when you chop the throttle you are
> landing NOW, coming down at something like 3000 fpm.
>
> Another friend just finished building his Glasair III, and he says his
> isn't much better. That's the price you pay for all that speed, I guess.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Actually thats backward. Faster planes generally have much better glide
ratios than slower ones. A 747 has a much better glide ration than your
Cherokee and it also has 10X the wingloading. Glide ratio is a drag
problem. You start with a certain amount of potential energy and it is
consumed by drag.

Mike
MU-2

[Denny]

Piper builds the big indians nose heavy and skimps on elevator
authority.... Fat Albert is the same way... Flying solo with full fuel,
a forward limit CG condition in an Apache, either power or speed is
needed to flare it at all... But load the back seats and/or the baggage
compartment enough so the CG is somewhere to the South and he is a
different critter... Then the nose comes up enthusiastically and a
light touch is needed; compared to the usual 'grab yoke with both
hands, hollar yeehaaawww, and pull'... That fat piper wing will lift
like a homesick angel, but you gotta be able to get the nose up...

Try an experiment today... Use the POH to determine how load the CG to
near the rear limit and go fly (solo)... Bring it over the numbers with
the usual smidgen of power until the wheels are ~6 inches up, then cut
the power and simply refuse to let it sink - just keep raising the nose
as your butt tells you it's sinking... You will be amused at how high
the nose is pointed into the sky before the wing finally gives up
flying...

denny

[Jim Burns]

Next time, for a more challenging approach, try the engine out spiral to
land from several thousand feet over the field, attempting to set yourself
up at one of the key positions at the proper altitude for a "near as
possible" normal final approach to landing. Also knowing exactly the proper
amount of nose up trim to dial in to achieve your best glide speed should
help you with your flare to landing. That best L/D speed should leave you
with ample control authority to flair.

Another maneuver that is fun is the commercial maneuver of a 180 degree
power off landing initiated abeam the numbers and landing not short, but
within 200 feet of your landing spot. With practice these can become
extremely fun and accurate. Speed control and position "tweaking" are the
keys.

One trick to use, if needed, when you find yourself just a little short but
still in a safe position, is to pull the prop into high pitch, low rpm.
This will decrease your drag and extend your glide just a tad.

Of course remember to cool your engine before chopping the power to prevent
or minimize shock cooling.

Have fun!!

Jim

[Denny]

Jay, friends don't let friends get in widow makers like the two you
mentioned...

denny

[Jose]

> Glide ratio is a drag
> problem. You start with a certain amount of potential energy and it is
> consumed by drag.

No, it's a lift problem (also). A rocket has very little drag, and the
glide ratio of a brick.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> Of course remember to cool your engine before chopping the power to
> prevent
> or minimize shock cooling.

Hey -- let's start a new endless thread!

Can you shock-cool an engine in summer?

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

In a glide lift=weight and the production of that lift causes some amount
of induced drag. Again faster airplanes are going to have less total drag,
both induced and parasitic than slower airplanes. I don't have numbers
handy but a Bonanza or Mooney (or Baron) is going to glide better than an
Arrow.

Mike
MU-2


"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Glide ratio is a drag problem. You start with a certain amount of
>> potential energy and it is consumed by drag.
>
> No, it's a lift problem (also). A rocket has very little drag, and the
> glide ratio of a brick.
>
> Jose
> --
> You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you
> get.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Icebound]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
.....
>
> One trick to use, if needed, when you find yourself just a little short
> but
> still in a safe position, is to pull the prop into high pitch, low rpm.
> This will decrease your drag and extend your glide just a tad.
>

.... if I panic and overshoot, will I forget that the blue lever goes in
first??... and if I *do*, what is the usual consequence, say on the average
non-turbo 6-banger?

[Dave Butler]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Of course remember to cool your engine before chopping the power to
>>prevent
>>or minimize shock cooling.
>
>
> Hey -- let's start a new endless thread!
>
> Can you shock-cool an engine in summer?

If you start with the assumption that shock-cooling is a real phenomenon(?),
just play with some numbers. Say a typical summer temp is 80 degF and winter is
30 degF, and your cylinders are typically at 350 degF. So the delta-T is 270
degF in summer and 320 degF in winter. The summer delta-T is about 85 percent of
the winter delta-T. Not that much different.

Before someone complains, yes, of course, my choice of numbers is arbitrary. You
can pick different numbers and make it come out any way you like. Plug in the
numbers you think are typical.

DGB

[Dave Butler]

Jim Burns wrote:

> One trick to use, if needed, when you find yourself just a little short but
> still in a safe position, is to pull the prop into high pitch, low rpm.
> This will decrease your drag and extend your glide just a tad.

In the Mooney it's more than a tad.

[Dale]

In article >,
"Icebound" > wrote:


>
> ... if I panic and overshoot, will I forget that the blue lever goes in
> first??... and if I *do*, what is the usual consequence, say on the average
> non-turbo 6-banger?

If you're prone to panic perhaps you should stick with you Ford Falcon.
<G>

You should never "forget" the blue lever. A power increase should
always be mixture, prop, throttle.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Dale]

In article et>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> In a glide lift=weight and the production of that lift causes some amount
> of induced drag. Again faster airplanes are going to have less total drag,
> both induced and parasitic than slower airplanes. I don't have numbers
> handy but a Bonanza or Mooney (or Baron) is going to glide better than an
> Arrow.

Here's some numbers that I have handy.

Cessna 152 can glide for 16 miles from 10000 feet.

Cessna 208 (Caravan) can glide for 22 miles from 10000 feet.

The 152 is doing 60 knots, the 'van is doing 96 kts.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Jim Burns]

Ewwwwwwwwww!:)
Jim


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:3eUye.138671$xm3.126079@attbi_s21...
> > Of course remember to cool your engine before chopping the power to
> > prevent
> > or minimize shock cooling.
>
> Hey -- let's start a new endless thread!
>
> Can you shock-cool an engine in summer?
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
"Paul kgyy" > wrote:

> I just did a bunch of these with my recent BFR on the Arrow - like a
> brick. The only positive thing you can say about these glide
> characteristics is that it makes it easy to avoid wake turbulence by
> staying well above a normal glidepath.


I do it all the time in my Johnson Rocket -- overhead approach at
cruise; break over the numbers, slow to gear/flap speed (100 mph) in the
turn (it will be at the correct speed at the 180 point); continue
turning and land at the 360 point, on the numbers. I have done this with
a T-34 and a Zlin 242 -- all to 3-point attitude "squeakers". When
dirty, these planes have about a 3:1 glide ratio.

The 360 overhead allows you to monitor standard traffic and keeps you in
tight, so you can control your glide.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <xJTye.138628$xm3.92446@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> >I just did a bunch of these with my recent BFR on the Arrow - like a
> > brick. The only positive thing you can say about these glide
> > characteristics is that it makes it easy to avoid wake turbulence by
> > staying well above a normal glidepath.
>
> The really amazing thing is that many other planes have *worse* glide
> characteristics than our Cherokees.
>
> I've got a friend with a Swearingen SX-300, which is basically a rocket,
> with stubby little wings. He says when you chop the throttle you are
> landing NOW, coming down at something like 3000 fpm.
>
> Another friend just finished building his Glasair III, and he says his isn't
> much better. That's the price you pay for all that speed, I guess.


I have landed a friend's SX-300 from the overhead also. Glide is about
100 kt, but you have complete control over the plane -- it does roll out
for awhile, though.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Icebound]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Icebound" > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> ... if I panic and overshoot, will I forget that the blue lever goes in
>> first??... and if I *do*, what is the usual consequence, say on the
>> average
>> non-turbo 6-banger?
>
> If you're prone to panic perhaps you should stick with you Ford Falcon.
> <G>
>

Well, okay, sure....

But the question really was: what are the consequences?

Does it typically lug and die, or will it lug and lumber upward slowly, or
do I get one of the above plus twist the crank, etc.???

Do I get away with it? None of the time? Most of the time? Once in while?

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:xJTye.138628$xm3.92446@attbi_s21...
> The really amazing thing is that many other planes have *worse* glide
> characteristics than our Cherokees.

Yup. In my Lake Renegade, if you are abeam the runway pavement, and if you
*turn immediately* to the runway (forget base and final), you can make the
pavement. Otherwise, you won't.

On top of that, the flare happens very quickly, because of the rapid rate of
descent. You can increase the airspeed to give you more time for the flare,
but that of course steepens your descent angle even more.

> I've got a friend with a Swearingen SX-300, which is basically a rocket,
> with stubby little wings. He says when you chop the throttle you are
> landing NOW, coming down at something like 3000 fpm.
>
> Another friend just finished building his Glasair III, and he says his
> isn't much better. That's the price you pay for all that speed, I guess.

Heh. Speed. I wish.

Pete

[Nathan Young]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:05:39 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>With the runway coming up at remarkable speed, I flared and put her down
>just past the numbers -- arriving like the proverbial load of sand. It was
>a perfect "3-point landing" -- except you don't *ever* want to land that
>nose-heavy 6-cylinder on the nosewheel!

Jay,

Do you have any speed mods? I have K2U's mods on my PA28-180 and the
stabilator seal greatly improves pitch authority. It is easy to hold
off the nose during landings (even power off).

-Nathan

[Jay Honeck]

> Do you have any speed mods? I have K2U's mods on my PA28-180 and the
> stabilator seal greatly improves pitch authority. It is easy to hold
> off the nose during landings (even power off).

Yep. A previous owner installed every speed mod available on our Cherokee
235.

I didn't run out of elevator -- I just blew the flare, plain and simple. If
I had pulled harder, the nose would've come up, but I am so used to the
flare with power that the descent rate caught me by surprise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dale]

In article >,
"Icebound" > wrote:


>
> But the question really was: what are the consequences?
>
> Does it typically lug and die, or will it lug and lumber upward slowly, or
> do I get one of the above plus twist the crank, etc.???
>
> Do I get away with it? None of the time? Most of the time? Once in while?

I suppose it depends. <G> Pressures in the cylinder will be higher than
normal, if taken to extremes you might crack a cylinder.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Nathan Young]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 04:23:28 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Do you have any speed mods? I have K2U's mods on my PA28-180 and the
>> stabilator seal greatly improves pitch authority. It is easy to hold
>> off the nose during landings (even power off).
>
>Yep. A previous owner installed every speed mod available on our Cherokee
>235.
>
>I didn't run out of elevator -- I just blew the flare, plain and simple. If
>I had pulled harder, the nose would've come up, but I am so used to the
>flare with power that the descent rate caught me by surprise.

Gotcha. Easy to do, which is why we need to practice these things...

[Brian]

Next time you might try adding about 10 kts to you final approach speed
when power off. The extra speed will help compensate for the lack of
power and make your flare easier. You also wont' need as much flap to
get down.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Jay Honeck]

> and drop that third notch of flaps !!!!!!
>
> Flaps with engine-out emergency landing ????????

Yeah, I've pondered that. I was too high, so I dropped the third notch --
which on my plane we NEVER do, when landing with power, unless we're going a
short-field landing.

Next time, I'll stick with two notches and land long(er)...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>and drop that third notch of flaps !!!!!!
>>
>>Flaps with engine-out emergency landing ????????
>
>
> Yeah, I've pondered that. I was too high, so I dropped the third notch --
> which on my plane we NEVER do, when landing with power, unless we're going a
> short-field landing.
>
> Next time, I'll stick with two notches and land long(er)...

That's one reason I always land without power and with full flaps in
normal wind conditions. That way if (when?) I have an engine failure
and have to do it for real, it won't be a surprise. I've yet to fly an
airplane that won't flare just fine without power, with full flaps and
at the minimum airspeed recommended for approach in the POH.


Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> That's one reason I always land without power and with full flaps in
> normal wind conditions. That way if (when?) I have an engine failure and
> have to do it for real, it won't be a surprise. I've yet to fly an
> airplane that won't flare just fine without power, with full flaps and at
> the minimum airspeed recommended for approach in the POH.

Well, it's not that it can't be done with our Pathfinder -- we did it that
way for the first year or two we owned the plane.

Then we were shooting the breeze with a previous owner of the plane (the guy
who put all the speed mods on), and he told us his "two notches of flaps and
roll the electric trim back as you're flaring" landing technique that he
always used when he owned the plane.

We tried it, loved it, and never went back.

It's a landing technique that simply produces superior results on
medium-length runways in our (somewhat) nose-heavy airplane. As an owner,
I've decided that whatever produces the most consistent, smoothest landings
is what we will use, in the interest of keeping maintenance costs (I.E.:
Tires, brakes, struts, etc.) to a minimum.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> It's a landing technique that simply produces superior results on
> medium-length runways in our (somewhat) nose-heavy airplane. As an owner,
> I've decided that whatever produces the most consistent, smoothest landings
> is what we will use, in the interest of keeping maintenance costs (I.E.:
> Tires, brakes, struts, etc.) to a minimum.

This technique may result in increased tire wear from higher landing
speeds and increased rolling distances.
Depending on runway length and conditions, you may also have increased
brake wear.
Strut wear shouldn't matter because, performed properly, the touchdown
speed/rate of descent shouldn't be excessive at minimum airspeed.

[Jay Honeck]

> This technique may result in increased tire wear from higher landing
> speeds and increased rolling distances.
> Depending on runway length and conditions, you may also have increased
> brake wear.
> Strut wear shouldn't matter because, performed properly, the touchdown
> speed/rate of descent shouldn't be excessive at minimum airspeed.

Something worth considering.

However, all it takes is one really bad full stall landing on the nose wheel
to make that excessive tire wear seem pretty inconsequential.

;-)

Hasn't happened yet (Mr Piper built some pretty stout landing gear) -- but
it's always something to consider.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> However, all it takes is one really bad full stall landing on the nose wheel
> to make that excessive tire wear seem pretty inconsequential.

.... and one electric trim failure to cause a nose hit if you aren't
extra vigilant.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> ... and one electric trim failure to cause a nose hit if you aren't extra
> vigilant.

Nah. It just makes the flare easier, rolling in the trim during the flare.

In fact, our electric trim is becoming sluggish in cold weather (gotta
clean/lubricate something, I'm sure), so until April or so we had gotten
away from using that little addition to our landing technique. And we
didn't bust anything all winter.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>That's one reason I always land without power and with full flaps in
>>normal wind conditions. That way if (when?) I have an engine failure and
>>have to do it for real, it won't be a surprise. I've yet to fly an
>>airplane that won't flare just fine without power, with full flaps and at
>>the minimum airspeed recommended for approach in the POH.
>
>
> Well, it's not that it can't be done with our Pathfinder -- we did it that
> way for the first year or two we owned the plane.
>
> Then we were shooting the breeze with a previous owner of the plane (the guy
> who put all the speed mods on), and he told us his "two notches of flaps and
> roll the electric trim back as you're flaring" landing technique that he
> always used when he owned the plane.
>
> We tried it, loved it, and never went back.
>
> It's a landing technique that simply produces superior results on
> medium-length runways in our (somewhat) nose-heavy airplane. As an owner,
> I've decided that whatever produces the most consistent, smoothest landings
> is what we will use, in the interest of keeping maintenance costs (I.E.:
> Tires, brakes, struts, etc.) to a minimum.

OK, different philosophy. I was taught to land the way that I'd have to
land if things got unusually quiet. I've flown that way since 1978 in
probably six different models of Cessna and Piper airplanes. I find it
results in smooth landings, at minimum airspeed (less tire and brake
wear), and with minimal runway use. It probably is a harder technique
to learn and execute consistently, but I find once learned it isn't that
hard to maintain proficiency.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>This technique may result in increased tire wear from higher landing
>>speeds and increased rolling distances.
>>Depending on runway length and conditions, you may also have increased
>>brake wear.
>>Strut wear shouldn't matter because, performed properly, the touchdown
>>speed/rate of descent shouldn't be excessive at minimum airspeed.
>
>
> Something worth considering.
>
> However, all it takes is one really bad full stall landing on the nose wheel
> to make that excessive tire wear seem pretty inconsequential.

That is true. In 27 years of flying and probably close to 1,000
landings (I'm guessing about that amount in ~600 flying hours), I've
never yet done that so I don't much worry about it anymore. :-)


> ;-)
>
> Hasn't happened yet (Mr Piper built some pretty stout landing gear) -- but
> it's always something to consider.

As did Cessna. I've seen some landings in C-150s that were simply
amazing, yet the airplane seemed none the worse for wear.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>... and one electric trim failure to cause a nose hit if you aren't extra
>>vigilant.
>
>
> Nah. It just makes the flare easier, rolling in the trim during the flare.
>
> In fact, our electric trim is becoming sluggish in cold weather (gotta
> clean/lubricate something, I'm sure), so until April or so we had gotten
> away from using that little addition to our landing technique. And we
> didn't bust anything all winter.

How does it affect you on a aborted landing? Seems like you'd end up
with a lot more nose up trim than desirable in that case. I always trim
for approach speed which is, in the airplanes I've flown, typically
pretty close to Vy. That way if I need to go around, the trim isn't too
far off.


Matt

[Darrel Toepfer]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> That is true. In 27 years of flying and probably close to 1,000
> landings (I'm guessing about that amount in ~600 flying hours), I've
> never yet done that so I don't much worry about it anymore. :-)

1.5 years and I've got half as many landings and less than 1/3 of the
time... <G>

[john smith]

>> Hasn't happened yet (Mr Piper built some pretty stout landing gear) --
>> but it's always something to consider.

That's an interesting comment.
I have seen pictures of Piper landing gear struts protruding through the
tops of the wing after botched landings.
I have also seen pictures of Cessna O-1/L19's with tire marks on the
bottoom of the wing and the gear splayed out to the side of the aircraft.

[Matt Whiting]

Darrel Toepfer wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> That is true. In 27 years of flying and probably close to 1,000
>> landings (I'm guessing about that amount in ~600 flying hours), I've
>> never yet done that so I don't much worry about it anymore. :-)
>
>
> 1.5 years and I've got half as many landings and less than 1/3 of the
> time... <G>

You are doing well for 1.5 years. Unfortunately, I've had several
multi-year absences from flying during my career such as 4 years during
college, a couple of years when I was working out of the country and/or
on the road a lot, and then four more years recently when my employer
suffered through the telecomm collapse and flirted with bankruptcy (I
sold my airplane and was hoarding money just in case).


Matt

[Darrel Toepfer]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> You are doing well for 1.5 years. Unfortunately, I've had several
> multi-year absences from flying during my career such as 4 years during
> college, a couple of years when I was working out of the country and/or
> on the road a lot, and then four more years recently when my employer
> suffered through the telecomm collapse and flirted with bankruptcy (I
> sold my airplane and was hoarding money just in case).

Okay, I thought I was just taking too many short flights... ;)

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <pwIze.137926$x96.55823@attbi_s72>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > This technique may result in increased tire wear from higher landing
> > speeds and increased rolling distances.
> > Depending on runway length and conditions, you may also have increased
> > brake wear.
> > Strut wear shouldn't matter because, performed properly, the touchdown
> > speed/rate of descent shouldn't be excessive at minimum airspeed.
>
> Something worth considering.
>
> However, all it takes is one really bad full stall landing on the nose wheel
> to make that excessive tire wear seem pretty inconsequential.
>
> ;-)
>
> Hasn't happened yet (Mr Piper built some pretty stout landing gear) -- but
> it's always something to consider.


If you are making full stall landings, the nosewheel *ain't* going to
touch first!

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Jay Honeck]

> >> Hasn't happened yet (Mr Piper built some pretty stout landing gear) --
> >> but it's always something to consider.
>
> That's an interesting comment.
> I have seen pictures of Piper landing gear struts protruding through the
> tops of the wing after botched landings.

Damn, you'd have to drop it in from 40 feet in the air to do that!

I was a passenger in a Cherokee 180 that was dropped in from 30 feet,
with no apparent damage. Scared the crap outta me, though!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article <pwIze.137926$x96.55823@attbi_s72>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>
>>>This technique may result in increased tire wear from higher landing
>>>speeds and increased rolling distances.
>>>Depending on runway length and conditions, you may also have increased
>>>brake wear.
>>>Strut wear shouldn't matter because, performed properly, the touchdown
>>>speed/rate of descent shouldn't be excessive at minimum airspeed.
>>
>>Something worth considering.
>>
>>However, all it takes is one really bad full stall landing on the nose wheel
>>to make that excessive tire wear seem pretty inconsequential.
>>
>>;-)
>>
>>Hasn't happened yet (Mr Piper built some pretty stout landing gear) -- but
>>it's always something to consider.
>
>
>
> If you are making full stall landings, the nosewheel *ain't* going to
> touch first!
>

He said a really bad landing, which implies stalling a fair bit higher
than what you intended. :-) If you do that, then you can definitely
give the nosewheel a really bad day.


Matt

[vincent p. norris]

>> I've yet to fly an airplane that won't flare just fine without power.......

I think it's safe to say there is no airplane that will not flare
without power, if flown properly. Even the space shuttle does it!

vince norris

[Jay Honeck]

> I think it's safe to say there is no airplane that will not flare
> without power, if flown properly. Even the space shuttle does it!

That's true, IF you keep your airspeed up. Something I clearly didn't do!

Which, of course, was why I decided to practice the maneuver in the first
place -- I knew I was getting rusty at emergency procedures...

That's the trouble with owning the plane. Lessons learned can be expensive!
Luckily, it appears that I am able to re-use the plane...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Paul kgyy wrote:
> I just did a bunch of these with my recent BFR on the Arrow - like a
> brick.

A friend of mine did all his training in Pipers. I took him up once in my Cessna
150 and he was amazed at the distance we could glide.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Lynne]

Better go get your firewall checked.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I think it's safe to say there is no airplane that will not flare
>>without power, if flown properly. Even the space shuttle does it!
>
>
> That's true, IF you keep your airspeed up. Something I clearly didn't do!
>
> Which, of course, was why I decided to practice the maneuver in the first
> place -- I knew I was getting rusty at emergency procedures...
>
> That's the trouble with owning the plane. Lessons learned can be expensive!
> Luckily, it appears that I am able to re-use the plane...
>
> ;-)

Just means you have to practice more often, which means flying more
often ... bummer, eh? :-)


Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> Better go get your firewall checked.

It wasn't *that* bad!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay
Some 15 years ago, I was flying back to the base in a helicopter, and
asked my self, "Self, when was the last time you did a practice
autorotation?" and when my slow moving brain was trying to figure it
out, I rolled off the throttle and did one. well, it was so ugly that I
decided I'd better get some practice before I ruined my reputation. Did
5-6 of them until I was satisfied that I met minimums (my minimums).
damned if I wasn't faced with an actual within the next day or two!! I
have often wondered if that wasn't some kind of prescient thought?
In ag flying the thought of an engine failure is never far from the
front of my thought process and I don't have any room for discussion or
cogitation. When it happens I damned sure better have my plan all
thought out and follow it because it will all be over in less than :10
seconds. I am frequently making my turns over tall trees and no place
to go that is friendly except back into the field I am spraying. My
plan is to make it back into that field! So far I've done OK with at
least 5 engine failures while in the middle of a spray turn.
For the average pilot who doesn't fly that often, or do the hairy stuff
that ag pilots do, regular practice of emergency procedures is an
excellent idea and one to be practiced from time to time. As I have
said many times, I will risk MY life but not the lives of others. That
requires me to pay attention and do some hard corps practice from time
to time even though I fly as much as ten hours a day.
Cheers
Rocky

[vincent p. norris]

>Paul kgyy wrote:
>> I just did a bunch of these with my recent BFR on the Arrow - like a
>> brick.

At best glide speed, the Arrow-- a clean airplane with the gear up--
has a very good glide ratio.
>
>A friend of mine did all his training in Pipers. I took him up once in my Cessna
>150 and he was amazed at the distance we could glide.
>
>George Patterson

I can think of no reason a 150 would glide farther, from a given
altitude, than an Arrow.

Glide ratio is equal to lift divided by drag. Are you trying to say a
150 has a better L/D ratio than an Arrow? What evidence can you
offer?

vince norris

[George Patterson]

vincent p. norris wrote:
>
> I can think of no reason a 150 would glide farther, from a given
> altitude, than an Arrow.

How 'bout a Hershey-bar Cherokee?

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[vincent p. norris]

>vincent p. norris wrote:
>>
>> I can think of no reason a 150 would glide farther, from a given
>> altitude, than an Arrow.
>
>How 'bout a Hershey-bar Cherokee?
>
>George Patterson

Well, the post said the Arrow glud like a rock; that's what I was
responding to. A Cherokee, with the gear hanging down, would
obvioiusly not do so well.

But I recall reading somewhere it gets around 8 to 1.

I would not bet more than a dime on the outcome of a Cherokee vs. 150
glide contest.

vince norris

[Matt Whiting]

vincent p. norris wrote:

>>Paul kgyy wrote:
>>
>>>I just did a bunch of these with my recent BFR on the Arrow - like a
>>>brick.
>
>
> At best glide speed, the Arrow-- a clean airplane with the gear up--
> has a very good glide ratio.

Unless it has a three-blade prop.


Matt