What if...

[john smith[_2_]]

I play mental "What if.." games when I fly, trying to imagine the best
way to handle an in-flight emergeny.

One of the aircraft I fly is a 1982 Piper Turbo Arrow IV.
Nowhere in the POH does it mention the emergency procedure for a
turbocharger failure resulting in an oil fed fire in the engine
compartment.

Do you drop the gear or leave it up?

My thinking is to drop it to keep the nose gear tire from being consumed
as additional fuel and to move more air through the engine compartment
while in a dive/steep descent to blow out a fire

Anyone with actual experience?

Other thoughts?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>I play mental "What if.." games when I fly, trying to imagine the best
> way to handle an in-flight emergeny.
>
> One of the aircraft I fly is a 1982 Piper Turbo Arrow IV.
> Nowhere in the POH does it mention the emergency procedure for a
> turbocharger failure resulting in an oil fed fire in the engine
> compartment.
>
> Do you drop the gear or leave it up?
>
> My thinking is to drop it to keep the nose gear tire from being consumed
> as additional fuel and to move more air through the engine compartment
> while in a dive/steep descent to blow out a fire

If your engine is out, why create more drag?

Why put more air into the engine compartment to feed the fire?

Blowing out an engine fire is NOT like blowing out a match.


> Anyone with actual experience?

First - fire extinguisher made ready.

Second - get the plane on the ground PRONTO, but where I want it, not where
a draggy, gear down configuration might put me in a worse spot than I
already am.

>
> Other thoughts?

If the smoke and fire are outside the cabin, KEEP THEM THERE.


--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:30:24 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

> Blowing out an engine fire is NOT like blowing out a match.

Cessna 172 POHs speak of putting out the fire by diving to a given speed,
the goal being to create an incombustible fuel/air mix. If that speed
doesn't work, we're supposed to try various others.

- Andrew

[Maxwell]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why put more air into the engine compartment to feed the fire?
>
> Blowing out an engine fire is NOT like blowing out a match.
>
>
>> Anyone with actual experience?
>

Back in the early 70s, we were taught to dive in the event of an engine
fire.

The rational I was given was that even as slow as 70 mph, the fire would be
getting way too much air, and chances are more will either blow the fire
out, or not do much to fuel the situation.

Second was that it was the closest way to the ground, and you need to get
there NOW.

I'm certainly no expert, and my information could be dated at best. So if
there is something new to be learned here, I would like to hear it too.

Max

[Jim Stewart]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I play mental "What if.." games when I fly, trying to imagine the best
>> way to handle an in-flight emergeny.
>>
>> One of the aircraft I fly is a 1982 Piper Turbo Arrow IV.
>> Nowhere in the POH does it mention the emergency procedure for a
>> turbocharger failure resulting in an oil fed fire in the engine
>> compartment.
>>
>> Do you drop the gear or leave it up?
>>
>> My thinking is to drop it to keep the nose gear tire from being consumed
>> as additional fuel and to move more air through the engine compartment
>> while in a dive/steep descent to blow out a fire
>
> If your engine is out, why create more drag?
>
> Why put more air into the engine compartment to feed the fire?
>
> Blowing out an engine fire is NOT like blowing out a match.
>
>
>> Anyone with actual experience?
>
> First - fire extinguisher made ready.
>
> Second - get the plane on the ground PRONTO, but where I want it, not where
> a draggy, gear down configuration might put me in a worse spot than I
> already am.
>
>> Other thoughts?
>
> If the smoke and fire are outside the cabin, KEEP THEM THERE.

I've been advised to slip if it can keep
the smoke out of the cockpit.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> Second - get the plane on the ground PRONTO, but where I want it, not where
> a draggy, gear down configuration might put me in a worse spot than I
> already am.

One of the things the POH does say, is that the fast way to get down is
to extend the gear and full flaps.
When you are taking advantage of the turbocharger to go higher, getting
down from over 10,000 to lower altitudes while you're on fire becomes
urgent.
The fastest I have descended, intentionally, is 1300 fpm. That is going
to require at least 8 minutes. When you're on fire, that's a LOOOONG
time!
Can I get 2000 fpm or more? I don't know, I haven't tried it.
At 1300 fpm and the power pulled back, I was up into the yellow arc in
smooth air.
What is the airspeed at 2000 fpm? How long can you fly in the red arc
and not exceed V-dive without breaking the airplane? Theoretically, in
smooth air, forever.
But you have to level out gradually to avoid overloading with G's and
bleed off that airspeed to land. Thats going to add more time.

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

I did my commercial work in a 182RG.

I was taught Chop(power), Prop(full), Drop(nose down), Gear (at gear speed),
Flaps (initial, then full when in white arc), 60 degree bank away from the
fire, holding airspeed at the top of the white arc. It would get you down
fast, add rudder and we'd see over 2500 fpm down. After about 2 turns of
that demonstration, my DE said... Ok, good enough.

Commercial students that I taught this method to needed to be eased into it,
but after one or two attempts, most found it fun.

Jim



"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
> > Second - get the plane on the ground PRONTO, but where I want it, not
where
> > a draggy, gear down configuration might put me in a worse spot than I
> > already am.
>
> One of the things the POH does say, is that the fast way to get down is
> to extend the gear and full flaps.
> When you are taking advantage of the turbocharger to go higher, getting
> down from over 10,000 to lower altitudes while you're on fire becomes
> urgent.
> The fastest I have descended, intentionally, is 1300 fpm. That is going
> to require at least 8 minutes. When you're on fire, that's a LOOOONG
> time!
> Can I get 2000 fpm or more? I don't know, I haven't tried it.
> At 1300 fpm and the power pulled back, I was up into the yellow arc in
> smooth air.
> What is the airspeed at 2000 fpm? How long can you fly in the red arc
> and not exceed V-dive without breaking the airplane? Theoretically, in
> smooth air, forever.
> But you have to level out gradually to avoid overloading with G's and
> bleed off that airspeed to land. Thats going to add more time.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
"Jim Burns" > wrote:

> I was taught Chop(power), Prop(full), Drop(nose down), Gear (at gear speed),
> Flaps (initial, then full when in white arc), 60 degree bank away from the
> fire, holding airspeed at the top of the white arc. It would get you down
> fast, add rudder and we'd see over 2500 fpm down. After about 2 turns of
> that demonstration, my DE said... Ok, good enough.
>
> Commercial students that I taught this method to needed to be eased into it,
> but after one or two attempts, most found it fun.

Thanks Jim.
That gets me to wondering... what about a spin?
A spin will give you a high rate of descent at stall speed.
If the aircraft is not approved for spins, that might lead to an
indecisive moment. Just because it is not approved, does not mean it
will not recover. It just means that it might not have been tested.

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Theoretically a spin may get you down faster, but in how many pieces? I'd
hesitate to recommend a spin. The distraction of the fire, smoke, heat,
fear could very easily cause you to forget about the ground rushing up at
you. Properly executed and practiced to proficiency a spin is, of course,
controllable and predictable, but I wouldn't try one blind folded with one
arm tied behind my back.
Jim

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Jim Burns" > wrote:
>
> > I was taught Chop(power), Prop(full), Drop(nose down), Gear (at gear
speed),
> > Flaps (initial, then full when in white arc), 60 degree bank away from
the
> > fire, holding airspeed at the top of the white arc. It would get you
down
> > fast, add rudder and we'd see over 2500 fpm down. After about 2 turns
of
> > that demonstration, my DE said... Ok, good enough.
> >
> > Commercial students that I taught this method to needed to be eased into
it,
> > but after one or two attempts, most found it fun.
>
> Thanks Jim.
> That gets me to wondering... what about a spin?
> A spin will give you a high rate of descent at stall speed.
> If the aircraft is not approved for spins, that might lead to an
> indecisive moment. Just because it is not approved, does not mean it
> will not recover. It just means that it might not have been tested.

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:15:08 -0400, john smith >
wrote:

Once-upon-a-time I allegedly was asked to bid an insurance job on a
Turbo Arrow IV.

The airplane involved was on it's way to the East Coast to cross the
big pond.

Was cruising around 10,000 ft msl over a local rural county airport
with a 4200 ft runway (750 ft msl) when a fitting failed on top of the
turbo.

The fitting had apparently been added to tee an hourmeter oil pressure
switch into the oil pressure supply line to the turbo. If I remember
correctly, this supply line is also tee'd to the oil pressure gage in
the cabin.

When the fire erupted, the pilot secured the engine (fuel selector
prop mixture mags master), dropped the flaps and gear, and descended
in a slipping circular pattern to the field, and landed/rolled out on
the runway.

Being a single-engine constant-speed NON-feathering propeller, the
engine continued to windmill, the engine-driven oil pump emptied the
engine sump oil though the failed fitting, feeding the fire.

The first thing that I noted when examining the 'plane was that the
bracket that the extend retract cylinder mounts to on the bottom of
the firewall/belly angle was only attached by a small portion of the
firewall. the belly skin behind it was burnt/virtually gone. The
bracket was rotated down/forward approximately 60 degrees from it's
"normal" position.

Damage forward of the firewall was localized "below" and "aft" of the
broken fitting. I do not recall the firewall being perforated, but the
upholstery material/insulation blanket on the cabin side of the
firewalll showed signs of some serious heat.

The belly skin was rippled from the firewall to where the fuselage
bottom "breaks" upward to the empennage, between the center hat
sections that run longitudinally on the belly. The belly skin was
perforated immediately behind the firewall, but only (only??!!) had a
couple of small holes in it. The carpet/tunnel trim down the center of
the cabin had evidence of overheating, and several burnt spots.

As I recall, the bottom cowling was heat-damaged, but the only place
the fire exited the cowling was out the center nose gear opening.

IMHO, the pilot did exactly the right thing. I would "dirty-up" the
airplane with whatever I could hang out in the breeze so I could
descend at the highest rate.

Have never experimented with time to descend dirty vs. clean, but I do
know that it takes f-o-r-e-v-e-r to come back down clean after doing a
turbo critical altitude check.

Have also allegedly burned a couple of brush piles, and there ain't
nuthin that burns quite like an old tire...

Long story short, haven't been there done that, but I've seen it done.

TC

>One of the aircraft I fly is a 1982 Piper Turbo Arrow IV.
>Nowhere in the POH does it mention the emergency procedure for a
>turbocharger failure resulting in an oil fed fire in the engine
>compartment.
>
>Do you drop the gear or leave it up?
>
>My thinking is to drop it to keep the nose gear tire from being consumed
>as additional fuel and to move more air through the engine compartment
>while in a dive/steep descent to blow out a fire
>
>Anyone with actual experience?

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

john smith wrote:
>That gets me to wondering... what about a spin?
>A spin will give you a high rate of descent at stall speed.

A descent rate in a spin is not that great. You can get down much faster
in a steep spiral dive.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200704/1

[Morgans[_2_]]

"john smith" < wrote

> What is the airspeed at 2000 fpm? How long can you fly in the red arc
> and not exceed V-dive without breaking the airplane?

If the airplane is trying to kill you, it does not belong to you any more,
but to the insurance company. If it is a severe fire, you probably don't
want the airplane anymore, anyway.

I guess what I'm saying, is don't worry about breaking the airplane. It is
already broke, and on fire. Just don't break it so bad that you lose
control of landing in your own terms.
--
Jim in NC

[Dan Luke]

"Jim Burns" wrote:

>I did my commercial work in a 182RG.
>
> I was taught Chop(power), Prop(full), Drop(nose down), Gear (at gear speed),
> Flaps (initial, then full when in white arc), 60 degree bank away from the
> fire, holding airspeed at the top of the white arc. It would get you down
> fast, add rudder and we'd see over 2500 fpm down. After about 2 turns of
> that demonstration, my DE said... Ok, good enough.
>
> Commercial students that I taught this method to needed to be eased into it,
> but after one or two attempts, most found it fun.

I've done it in my airplane.

Mighty rough on the ears.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Blueskies]

"john smith" > wrote in message ...
:
: One of the things the POH does say, is that the fast way to get down is
: to extend the gear and full flaps.
: When you are taking advantage of the turbocharger to go higher, getting
: down from over 10,000 to lower altitudes while you're on fire becomes
: urgent.
: The fastest I have descended, intentionally, is 1300 fpm. That is going
: to require at least 8 minutes. When you're on fire, that's a LOOOONG
: time!
: Can I get 2000 fpm or more? I don't know, I haven't tried it.
: At 1300 fpm and the power pulled back, I was up into the yellow arc in
: smooth air.
: What is the airspeed at 2000 fpm? How long can you fly in the red arc
: and not exceed V-dive without breaking the airplane? Theoretically, in
: smooth air, forever.
: But you have to level out gradually to avoid overloading with G's and
: bleed off that airspeed to land. Thats going to add more time.



This is what the steep spiral is for...

Also, there is no such thing as 'the red arc', it is red line Vne, don't wanna exceed it...

[Peter R.]

On 4/25/2007 6:08:03 PM, "Blueskies" wrote:

> What is the airspeed at 2000 fpm? How long can you fly in the red arc
>: and not exceed V-dive without breaking the airplane? Theoretically, in
>: smooth air, forever.

I have been able to get over 2000 fpm and without going into yellow or red in
my Bonanza V35 with gear down, RPMs back to around 2100, and MP back to 15
inches. The trick in the Bonanza is to slow it up first while level (RPM and
throttle back, drop gear), then begin the descent.

--
Peter

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:

> On 4/25/2007 6:08:03 PM, "Blueskies" wrote:
>
>
>>What is the airspeed at 2000 fpm? How long can you fly in the red arc
>>: and not exceed V-dive without breaking the airplane? Theoretically, in
>>: smooth air, forever.
>
>
> I have been able to get over 2000 fpm and without going into yellow or red in
> my Bonanza V35 with gear down, RPMs back to around 2100, and MP back to 15
> inches. The trick in the Bonanza is to slow it up first while level (RPM and
> throttle back, drop gear), then begin the descent.

Me too. I can peg the VSI and never get near the yellow line in my S35.

[john smith[_2_]]

Thank you, gentlemen!
This is the kind of information I was looking for.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

flynrider via AviationKB.com wrote:
> john smith wrote:
>> That gets me to wondering... what about a spin?
>> A spin will give you a high rate of descent at stall speed.
>
> A descent rate in a spin is not that great. You can get down much faster
> in a steep spiral dive.


Particularly after the wings separate. As an aside, back in the old days before
IFR, the poor slobs flying the mail would spin down through an overcast
intentionally, assuming they'd break out high enough to recover before they went
splat. Some won, some lost.

It seems to me that the thing to do with trying to get down rapidly is drop the
gear and the flaps, no power and the prop set full forward for maximum drag (or
at least to max rpm but not over redline), then dump the nose at the maximum
gear extended speed or top of the white, whichever is the lower of the speeds.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mike Beede]

In article >,
john smith > wrote:

>
> One of the aircraft I fly is a 1982 Piper Turbo Arrow IV.
> Nowhere in the POH does it mention the emergency procedure for a
> turbocharger failure resulting in an oil fed fire in the engine
> compartment.
>
> Do you drop the gear or leave it up?

It seems like the first question you have to answer is "how
would you tell that was the failure?" If you can't answer that,
then the question is the same as "what do you do if you have an
engine fire?"

Having said that, I guess if you *knew* that an oil leak was
feeding the fire, you'd have to decide whether shutting down
the engine would stop it or not.

Mike Beede

[Jose]

> Back in the early 70s, we were taught to dive in the
> event of an engine fire.
> Second [reason] was that it was the closest way to the ground,
> and you need to get there NOW.

Another quick way down is to pull back the power and hold the yoke full
back (controlling bank with the rudders). This takes you down in a
stall, with not much forward speed. Depending on where the fire is, I
speculate that it might be better to have the relative wind blowing from
below than in front.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Maxwell]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>> Back in the early 70s, we were taught to dive in the event of an engine
>> fire.
>> Second [reason] was that it was the closest way to the ground, and you
>> need to get there NOW.
>
> Another quick way down is to pull back the power and hold the yoke full
> back (controlling bank with the rudders). This takes you down in a stall,
> with not much forward speed. Depending on where the fire is, I speculate
> that it might be better to have the relative wind blowing from below than
> in front.
>

What aircraft are you flying, and what kind of sink rate does it yeild?

I remember doing that years ago during flight trainning for some reason, but
I don't recall the sink rate was all that good.

I flew a jump plane back in the late 70s, and the owner always insisted on
bringing it down with full flaps, near max flap speed, 60 degree bank and
full opposite rudder.

[Jose]

> What aircraft are you flying, and what kind of sink rate does it yeild?

A Dakota. I don't remember the sink rate, but the sink angle was
terrific. I'll have to go up and try it again.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:54:18 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:

>It seems to me that the thing to do with trying to get down rapidly is drop the
>gear and the flaps, no power and the prop set full forward for maximum drag (or
>at least to max rpm but not over redline), then dump the nose at the maximum
>gear extended speed or top of the white, whichever is the lower of the speeds.

Flaps down? Emergency descent procedure in a Malibu is to chop the
throttle, prop full forward, pop the speed breaks (if equipped), drop
the gear below 165, then go down at max gear extend (up to 195
depending on how rough it is). Top of the white arc is 116. Wouldn't
you get a significantly greater descent rate at near Vne than top of
the white arc?

[john smith]

>> john smith wrote:
>>> That gets me to wondering... what about a spin?
>>> A spin will give you a high rate of descent at stall speed.

> flynrider via AviationKB.com wrote:
>> A descent rate in a spin is not that great. You can get down much faster
>> in a steep spiral dive.
>
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Particularly after the wings separate. As an aside, back in the old days before
> IFR, the poor slobs flying the mail would spin down through an overcast
> intentionally, assuming they'd break out high enough to recover before they went
> splat. Some won, some lost.
>
> It seems to me that the thing to do with trying to get down rapidly is drop the
> gear and the flaps, no power and the prop set full forward for maximum drag (or
> at least to max rpm but not over redline), then dump the nose at the maximum
> gear extended speed or top of the white, whichever is the lower of the speeds.

The spin is not the problem. The spin is a low speed maneuver as the
inside wing is stalled while the outside wing is flying.
The steep spiral dive at high speed can lead to airframe damage.

This was a topic in the acro community a couple of years ago.
Many pilots believed that the airframe g-loading ratings applied to all
attitudes of flight. It was the T-34 the accident that that had the
Baron wing replacement that set off the discussion.
From that we learned that the g-loadings only applied to wings level
flight.

High angle of bank and high airspeed will result in wing failure below
the manufacturers publish g-loading limit.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> Second - get the plane on the ground PRONTO, but where I want it, not
>> where
>> a draggy, gear down configuration might put me in a worse spot than I
>> already am.
>
> One of the things the POH does say, is that the fast way to get down is
> to extend the gear and full flaps.

Does it specify with the engine running? If you've got an engine fire, that
option _maybe_ out.

> When you are taking advantage of the turbocharger to go higher, getting
> down from over 10,000 to lower altitudes while you're on fire becomes
> urgent.

Agreed.

With the gear down, however, you've narrowed your options. Over the midwest,
it's not likely a problem. Over rougher terrain it's a different story.

Maybe I'm just used to flying over rough terrain, so I'm averse to dropping
the gear until I'm "good n' ready".

I've never measured, but I wonder how much a side slip would help dump
altitude.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
>I did my commercial work in a 182RG.
>
> I was taught Chop(power), Prop(full), Drop(nose down), Gear (at gear
> speed),
> Flaps (initial, then full when in white arc), 60 degree bank away from the
> fire, holding airspeed at the top of the white arc. It would get you down
> fast, add rudder and we'd see over 2500 fpm down. After about 2 turns of
> that demonstration, my DE said... Ok, good enough.
>
> Commercial students that I taught this method to needed to be eased into
> it,
> but after one or two attempts, most found it fun.
>


Did he have you pick a landing site?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Jim Burns" > wrote:
>
>> I was taught Chop(power), Prop(full), Drop(nose down), Gear (at gear
>> speed),
>> Flaps (initial, then full when in white arc), 60 degree bank away from
>> the
>> fire, holding airspeed at the top of the white arc. It would get you
>> down
>> fast, add rudder and we'd see over 2500 fpm down. After about 2 turns of
>> that demonstration, my DE said... Ok, good enough.
>>
>> Commercial students that I taught this method to needed to be eased into
>> it,
>> but after one or two attempts, most found it fun.
>
> Thanks Jim.
> That gets me to wondering... what about a spin?
> A spin will give you a high rate of descent at stall speed.
> If the aircraft is not approved for spins, that might lead to an
> indecisive moment. Just because it is not approved, does not mean it
> will not recover. It just means that it might not have been tested.

A little something baout spin tested aircraft:
http://www.flycolumbia.com/.docs/_sid/cf9be179d119a46e07ae7a9d8a5b345f/pg/400/rid/10208/f/Spin_Certification.pdf

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-04-26, john smith > wrote:
> From that we learned that the g-loadings only applied to wings level
> flight.
>
> High angle of bank and high airspeed will result in wing failure below
> the manufacturers publish g-loading limit.

Almost but not quite - it wasn't bank angle but roll rate. You can't
pull as many Gs while rolling at the same time.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

I honestly don't remember, all I remember is that he called off the maneuver
while we were still pretty high.

I used to practice them over the airport and finish with the power off 180
degree spot landing.
Jim

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Burns" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I did my commercial work in a 182RG.
> >
> > I was taught Chop(power), Prop(full), Drop(nose down), Gear (at gear
> > speed),
> > Flaps (initial, then full when in white arc), 60 degree bank away from
the
> > fire, holding airspeed at the top of the white arc. It would get you
down
> > fast, add rudder and we'd see over 2500 fpm down. After about 2 turns
of
> > that demonstration, my DE said... Ok, good enough.
> >
> > Commercial students that I taught this method to needed to be eased into
> > it,
> > but after one or two attempts, most found it fun.
> >
>
>
> Did he have you pick a landing site?
>
>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
>I honestly don't remember, all I remember is that he called off the
>maneuver
> while we were still pretty high.
>
> I used to practice them over the airport and finish with the power off 180
> degree spot landing.
> Jim

While it's flat as a pancake east of here (okay, from a warped skillet), to
the west, one of your first thoughs, in an emergency, would be "Where am I
gonna put this thing down".

Question: If you had to put it down in a muddy or fresh plowed field, would
you want the gear down where it could snag something?

One thing about this thread, it's got me (and I'm sure a bunch of others)
asking some questions we haven't asked ourselves in a long time, if ever.
--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> >
>> > Commercial students that I taught this method to needed to be eased
>> > into
>> > it,
>> > but after one or two attempts, most found it fun.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Did he have you pick a landing site?

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

john smith wrote:

>
>The spin is not the problem. The spin is a low speed maneuver as the
>inside wing is stalled while the outside wing is flying.
>The steep spiral dive at high speed can lead to airframe damage.
>
>This was a topic in the acro community a couple of years ago.
>Many pilots believed that the airframe g-loading ratings applied to all
>attitudes of flight. It was the T-34 the accident that that had the
>Baron wing replacement that set off the discussion.
> From that we learned that the g-loadings only applied to wings level
>flight.
>
>High angle of bank and high airspeed will result in wing failure below
>the manufacturers publish g-loading limit.

I was suggesting a steep spiral dive within reasonable flight parameters.
I practice these occasionally and I haven't bent the plane yet. In a
stabilize spiral, the G-loading on the wings should be the same as Gs applied
in level flight.

The reason I prefer the manuever is that it gets you down faster than a
lower airspeed descent (i.e. flaps out). Plus, there is the possibility the
that the higher airspeed could over-oxygenate the fire and put it out.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200704/1

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> On 2007-04-26, john smith > wrote:
> > From that we learned that the g-loadings only applied to wings level
> > flight.
> >
> > High angle of bank and high airspeed will result in wing failure below
> > the manufacturers publish g-loading limit.
>
> Almost but not quite - it wasn't bank angle but roll rate. You can't
> pull as many Gs while rolling at the same time.

I stand corrected. Thank you Dylan.
That is what I meant.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote

> With the gear down, however, you've narrowed your options. Over the
midwest,
> it's not likely a problem. Over rougher terrain it's a different story.
>
> Maybe I'm just used to flying over rough terrain, so I'm averse to
> dropping the gear until I'm "good n' ready".

How about the option to put the gear back up, after the majority of the
altitude has been lost, and a landing site has been chosen that dictates the
gear up decision?
--
Jim in NC

[Blueskies]

"Peter R." > wrote in message ...
: On 4/25/2007 6:08:03 PM, "Blueskies" wrote:
:
: > What is the airspeed at 2000 fpm? How long can you fly in the red arc
: >: and not exceed V-dive without breaking the airplane? Theoretically, in
: >: smooth air, forever.
:
: I have been able to get over 2000 fpm and without going into yellow or red in
: my Bonanza V35 with gear down, RPMs back to around 2100, and MP back to 15
: inches. The trick in the Bonanza is to slow it up first while level (RPM and
: throttle back, drop gear), then begin the descent.
:
: --
: Peter

That is a bad quote, not what I said above...

[Peter R.]

On 4/26/2007 8:09:18 PM, "Blueskies" wrote:

> That is a bad quote, not what I said above...

You are correct. Sorry about that. I normally do not make such mistakes.

In all honesty I believe I failed to catch the fact that it was a quote,
given that the colons you use are hard to see in my newsreader. I'll try to
pay better attention next time.


--
Peter

[john smith]

Mike Beede wrote:
It seems like the first question you have to answer is "how
> would you tell that was the failure?" If you can't answer that,
> then the question is the same as "what do you do if you have an
> engine fire?"

When a turbocharger fails , the manifold pressure drops to what it would
be for a normally aspirated engine.

[Blueskies]

"Peter R." > wrote in message ...
> On 4/26/2007 8:09:18 PM, "Blueskies" wrote:
>
>> That is a bad quote, not what I said above...
>
> You are correct. Sorry about that. I normally do not make such mistakes.
>
> In all honesty I believe I failed to catch the fact that it was a quote,
> given that the colons you use are hard to see in my newsreader. I'll try to
> pay better attention next time.
>
>
> --
> Peter

That should be better, using the > now. It does show up better...

[K Baum]

On Apr 26, 2:37 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote
>
> > With the gear down, however, you've narrowed your options. Over the
> midwest,
>
>
> How about the option to put the gear back up, after the majority of the
> altitude has been lost, and a landing site has been chosen that dictates the
> gear up decision?
> --
> Jim in NC

Jim, this is exactly how the airline guys are taught. The emergency
decent is done with the gear down in most situations. I would imagine
that the POH in most GA planes states something similar.

[Peter R.]

On 4/27/2007 5:51:12 PM, "Blueskies" wrote:

> That should be better, using the > now. It does show up better...

Nice. Thanks for considering an alternative.

Another advantage of using the ">" character is that many of the more modern
newsreaders will automatically color code the quoted text when it detects a
line that starts with it (some even provide user-configurable quoting
characters for color coding), as seen in the screenshot below:

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/1156/04282007110254qa6.jpg

--
Peter