Lancair crash at SnF

[Big John]

AW&ST today had a small article that a Lancair piloted by Gerand
Schkolnk crashed moments after takeoff during the Sun and Fun AirShow.

He was director of Supersonic Technology Programs at Gulfstream.

Anyone have any data on accident other than what AW&ST had?

Big John

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:53:32 -0500, Big John > wrote:

> AW&ST today had a small article that a Lancair piloted by Gerand
> Schkolnk crashed moments after takeoff during the Sun and Fun AirShow.
>
> He was director of Supersonic Technology Programs at Gulfstream.
>
> Anyone have any data on accident other than what AW&ST had?

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/lancair_legacy_crash_lakeland_sunfun_197685-1.html

Ron Wanttaja

[Shirl]

Big John > wrote:
> AW&ST today had a small article that a Lancair piloted by Gerand
> Schkolnk crashed moments after takeoff during the Sun and Fun AirShow.
>
> He was director of Supersonic Technology Programs at Gulfstream.
>
> Anyone have any data on accident other than what AW&ST had?
>
> Big John

A Lancair crashed just moments after takeoff here in Mesa, Arizona,
today, too. Plane was headed for California. There was smoke trailing
from the plane on takeoff and controllers cleared them to turn back
around and land. They tried -- they made the left turn but crashed into
the orange orchard. Three fatalities, all in their late 20s. Sympathies
and prayers to the families.

[Michael Henry[_2_]]

>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/lancair_legacy_crash_lakeland_sunfun_197685-1.html
>

"Pilots familiar with Lancair designs speculate that an unlatched canopy
introduces a significant distraction to the pilot but should not in and
of itself result in complete loss of controlled flight for the Lancair
Legacy."

I could imagine that there might be some degree of disruption to the
airflow. Maybe this would affect the rudder and/or elevator response?

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 24, 5:43*pm, Shirl > wrote:
> Big John > wrote:
> > AW&ST today had a small article that a Lancair piloted by Gerand
> > Schkolnk crashed moments after takeoff during the Sun and Fun AirShow.
>
> > He was director of Supersonic Technology Programs at Gulfstream.
>
> > Anyone have any data on accident other than what AW&ST had?
>
> > Big John
>
> A Lancair crashed just moments after takeoff here in Mesa, Arizona,
> today, too. Plane was headed for California. There was smoke trailing
> from the plane on takeoff and controllers cleared them to turn back
> around and land. They tried -- they made the left turn but crashed into
> the orange orchard. Three fatalities, all in their late 20s. Sympathies
> and prayers to the families.

When will pilots learn to stop trying to do the impossible turn... and
go for a straight ahead landing on soemthing horizontal?

Cheers

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-24, WingFlaps > wrote:
> When will pilots learn to stop trying to do the impossible turn... and
> go for a straight ahead landing on soemthing horizontal?

Depends on what you mean by "the impossible turn". If you mean turning back
at 200 AGL, yeah, that one's pretty much impossible. If you mean 600 AGL,
it's pretty much possible in the average aircraft. (Hell, that's pattern
altitude at EFD!) The line lies somewhere in between.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-04-24, WingFlaps > wrote:
>> A Lancair crashed just moments after takeoff here in Mesa, Arizona,
>> today, too. Plane was headed for California. There was smoke trailing
>> from the plane on takeoff and controllers cleared them to turn back
>> around and land. They tried -- they made the left turn but crashed into
>> the orange orchard. Three fatalities, all in their late 20s. Sympathies
>> and prayers to the families.
>
> When will pilots learn to stop trying to do the impossible turn... and
> go for a straight ahead landing on soemthing horizontal?

We don't know it was an 'impossible turn'. We don't even know what
altitude they were at, whether the engine was still developing power or
not, or whether the plane caught fire, or ... there simply isn't enough
information to condemn the PIC of this aircraft. There was obviously
enough time for ATC communications, so it's possible they had already
gained reasonable altitude from which turning around was eminently
feasable and not even difficult.

Define impossible turn. A friend of mine turned back from 600 feet in a
C150 after the engine ate a valve. (He kept the battered piston as a
soevenir).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Shirl]

Shirl wrote:
> A Lancair crashed just moments after takeoff here in Mesa, Arizona,
> today, too. Plane was headed for California. There was smoke trailing
> from the plane on takeoff and controllers cleared them to turn back
> around and land. They tried -- they made the left turn but crashed into
> the orange orchard. Three fatalities, all in their late 20s. Sympathies
> and prayers to the families.

WingFlaps > wrote:
> > When will pilots learn to stop trying to do the impossible turn... and
> > go for a straight ahead landing on soemthing horizontal?

In this case, straight ahead would have been into a shopping center,
buildings, houses, etc. Having been through an engine failure, I try
not to second guess, but he *may* have thought he had a better chance to
at least turn away from all that.

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> We don't know it was an 'impossible turn'. We don't even know what
> altitude they were at,

Reports said they were only 400 to 500 feet from the field, but don't
know how high.

> whether the engine was still developing power or
> not, or whether the plane caught fire, or ... there simply isn't enough
> information to condemn the PIC of this aircraft. There was obviously
> enough time for ATC communications, so it's possible they had already
> gained reasonable altitude from which turning around was eminently
> feasable and not even difficult.
>
> Define impossible turn. A friend of mine turned back from 600 feet in a
> C150 after the engine ate a valve. (He kept the battered piston as a
> soevenir).

Weird, the souveniers we keep. I have the two "dead" sticks from my
totaled plane (oil cooler failure resulting in seized engine 6 min into
the flight...just long enough out away from the runways!).

In my checkride, the examiner said many pilots die landing straight
ahead on unsuitable off-field areas because of the "impossible turn"
myth when there is at least one and sometimes two perfectly good runways
right behind them. He advocated pushing the nose over and making the
turn. Of course, this guy was a retired ag pilot, too.
;-)

[Brian[_1_]]

> Depends on what you mean by "the impossible turn". If you mean turning back
> at 200 AGL, yeah, that one's pretty much impossible. If you mean 600 AGL,
> it's pretty much possible in the average aircraft. (Hell, that's pattern
> altitude at EFD!) The line lies somewhere in between.
> --

It is statements like this that get pilots killed.

Your right in that many aircraft it is possible. But the problem is it
isn't possible for many pilots when the engine quits. It is not a
maneuver that is routinly practiced. Any time a pilot askes me about
It I set up a scenerio to let them try it. I have yet to have a pilot
on their 1st try make it back to the runway from 500 feet. After a
couple attempts they usually can just make it back, Most of the time
we try this in a C-170 or C-172.

Then the question is can they do it at any runway under any wind
conditions and can the differentiate between the ones that they can
and can't do it at.

All to often I see pilots miss the runway when the power fails on
downwind. How in the world you expect these pilots to make it from a
climb at the departure end of the runway.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-24, Brian > wrote:
>> Depends on what you mean by "the impossible turn". If you mean turning back
>> at 200 AGL, yeah, that one's pretty much impossible. If you mean 600 AGL,
>> it's pretty much possible in the average aircraft. (Hell, that's pattern
>> altitude at EFD!) The line lies somewhere in between.
> It is statements like this that get pilots killed.

There are lots of true statements that get pilots killed...

> Your right in that many aircraft it is possible. But the problem is it
> isn't possible for many pilots when the engine quits. It is not a
> maneuver that is routinly practiced. Any time a pilot askes me about
> It I set up a scenerio to let them try it. I have yet to have a pilot
> on their 1st try make it back to the runway from 500 feet. After a
> couple attempts they usually can just make it back, Most of the time
> we try this in a C-170 or C-172.

I did this on the first attempt in a Warrior with my CFI from 400 AGL. It's
one of the things I intend to try (at altitude) with a factory CFI when I
get the Zodiac.

> Then the question is can they do it at any runway under any wind
> conditions and can the differentiate between the ones that they can
> and can't do it at.

True. You do have to do it precisely, and even then the conditions may
defeat you.

> All to often I see pilots miss the runway when the power fails on
> downwind. How in the world you expect these pilots to make it from a
> climb at the departure end of the runway.

Even if they miss the runway, would they have landed on the flat part of the
airport? It seems to me that would be a better outcome than crashing into an
office park.

Part of the pre-takeoff mental checklist (hell, part of the written one, if
you're making your own) should be a decision about what happens if an engine
is lost on initial climb, and at what altitude the answer changes. This will
be different for every pilot, every aircraft, and every airport (for an
extreme case, consider an airport with an elementary school a mile off the
end of the runway, as opposed to one with nothing but farmland). Once the
decision is made, stick with it unless you have a VERY good reason to
change, and (this one comes from the Kings) don't change your mind more than
once.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Jay Maynard wrote:
> >
> I did this on the first attempt in a Warrior with my CFI from 400 AGL.

You're good!

Did you know it was coming? A big part of this is the fast transition
from climb attitude to power-off glide.

[Stefan]

Brian schrieb:

> Your right in that many aircraft it is possible. But the problem is it
> isn't possible for many pilots when the engine quits. It is not a
> maneuver that is routinly practiced.

Now this problem could be solved.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-24, B A R R Y > wrote:
> Jay Maynard wrote:
>> I did this on the first attempt in a Warrior with my CFI from 400 AGL.
> You're good!

No, my CFI was.

> Did you know it was coming? A big part of this is the fast transition
> from climb attitude to power-off glide.

This is why I succeeded: because I knew it was coming. It was intended as a
demonstration, not as a test of my abilities. He talked me through it.

Afterward, I set my personal decision height at 600 AGL. Below that, in that
aircraft and under those conditions, I don't attempt it. Above that, it's
possible. That's why I plan to do the same with the Zodiac: so I know where
the line is, and have the decision already made before I take off. Too many
lives are lost to indecision; I do not intend mine to be one of them.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Big John]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:26:44 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:53:32 -0500, Big John > wrote:
>
>> AW&ST today had a small article that a Lancair piloted by Gerand
>> Schkolnk crashed moments after takeoff during the Sun and Fun AirShow.
>>
>> He was director of Supersonic Technology Programs at Gulfstream.
>>
>> Anyone have any data on accident other than what AW&ST had?
>
>http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/lancair_legacy_crash_lakeland_sunfun_197685-1.html
>
>Ron Wanttaja
********************************************

Tnx for info Ron.

To comment about the 180 if engine out after take off.

You cannot make a level turn, engine out, back to field. No way and
better believe it.

If you do not have enough altitude to make a diving 180 degree turn
back to field, don't try it.

If you are not comfortable to make a diving turn close to ground don't
try it.

If you believe in probabilities, then limit yourself to a max of 45
degree turn either right or left to miss any immovable object.

NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS AND WHAT YOU DO,FLY THE AIRCRAFT AND DO NOT
STALL IT.

Fly safe and survive.

Big John

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-04-24, Brian > wrote:
>> Depends on what you mean by "the impossible turn". If you mean turning back
>> at 200 AGL, yeah, that one's pretty much impossible. If you mean 600 AGL,
>> it's pretty much possible in the average aircraft. (Hell, that's pattern
>> altitude at EFD!) The line lies somewhere in between.
>
> It is statements like this that get pilots killed.

It's statements like 'never turn, always land straight ahead' that also
gets pilots killed. There are plenty of airfields where going straight
ahead is quite possibly the worst option, and the best survivability
options are at least a 120 degree turn away from whatever point you're
at when at 600' AGL.

The only thing you can do is use the best judgement at the time. You get
one chance - it may be wrong. Sometimes, trying to turn back might be
wrong. Sometimes doing anything *other* than trying to turn back might
be wrong.

In gliders, every glider pilot is taught "the impossible turnback" from
200 feet (which, in the typical low performance training glider, is
about equal to turning back at 600 feet in a C172). We actually train
for it for real - there's no other way to do it - the instructor will
eventually pull the bung on you at around 200ft. It's an essential skill
because power failures (rope or cable breaks) are a lot more frequent
than engines quitting on a single. Doing it off a simulated winch launch
failure is quite exciting - we tend to do that at about 400 ft though
because it's an extremely critical manoevre, since you're pitched up at
50 degrees or so and any delay equals a low altitude stall. The ground
looks really, really close when you pitch down steeply to quickly regain
your airspeed and can see nothing but green in front of you. The really
important bit about this training though is you're not taught it as an
absolute. The mantra is to first do what it takes to maintain airspeed,
then quickly decide on a course of action. The course of action could be
any of several possibilities - can you get down on the remaining runway?
Can you turn back? Is what's in front of you landable? Land to the side?
Which way is the wind going? (If there's a crosswind aloft, this affects
the decision on which way you're going to turn: you should have already
decided turn direction in the 'eventualities' part of the checklist
before the slack is even taken up on the cable or tow rope).

The answer is as always training, and having a plan. Think of the
eventualities just as you line up - if you lose power at point X, what
should you do. At point Y, what should you do? What about point Z?

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Jay Maynard wrote:
>
>
> Afterward, I set my personal decision height at 600 AGL. Below that, in that
> aircraft and under those conditions, I don't attempt it. Above that, it's
> possible.

I think personal decision height also depends on several other factors.

- Departing from a 5500 (or longer) ft. runway vs. a 2500-3000. You'll
be closer to the threshold as you glide back to a longer runway, because
you were sill over it as you climbed.

- What's at the end of the runway? A flat and open approach area beats
big trees, power lines, factories, a river dike... Coming up short at
one of my local fields puts you in a sewage pond, _if_ you clear the
river dike, at another, a steel mill with large overhead cranes.

In all probability, I'm going straight ahead, but there are individual
circumstances that could sway that. The factors that might have me
attempt the turn would have to be clear, obvious, and pre-planned.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:46:29 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote in
>:

>On 2008-04-24, WingFlaps > wrote:
>> When will pilots learn to stop trying to do the impossible turn... and
>> go for a straight ahead landing on soemthing horizontal?
>
>Depends on what you mean by "the impossible turn". If you mean turning back
>at 200 AGL, yeah, that one's pretty much impossible. If you mean 600 AGL,
>it's pretty much possible in the average aircraft. (Hell, that's pattern
>altitude at EFD!) The line lies somewhere in between.

This subject has been discussed in detail with the assistance of
erudite professor Lowry's input:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_thread/thread/ddc3685b74e5014a/5f1d80a2e846a88b?lnk=st&q=#5f1d80a2e846a88b


John T. Lowry

Best turnaround bank angle phi (least altitude loss per angle turned
through) for a gliding airplane is given by: cos(phi) =
(sqrt(2)/2)*sqrt(1-k^2) where k = CD0/CLmax + CLmax/(pi*e*A) where CD0
is the parasite drag coefficient, CLmax is the maximum lift
coefficient for the airplane's flaps configuration, e is the airplane
efficiency factor, and A is the wing aspect ratio. I know most ng
readers hate those darned formulas, but that's the way the world
works. For GA propeller-driven airplanes, k is a small number (0.116
for a Cessna 172, flaps up) and so the best turnaround bank angle is
very closely the 45 degrees cited by Rogers and, much earlier, by
Langewiesche (Stick and Rudder, p. 358). For the above Cessna, for
instance, it's 45.4 degrees. For a flamed-out jet fighter, however,
things are considerably different. The formulas above, along with
formulas for the banked stall speed, for banked gliding flight path
angle, and for the minimum altitude loss in a 180-degree turn, can all
be found in my recent book Performance of Light Aircraft, pp. 294-296.
The following seven pages then treat the return-to-airport maneuver,
from start of the takeoff roll to contact with the runway or terrain,
in excruciating detail. Including wind effects, the typical
four-second hesitation when the engine stops, etc.

John. -- John T. Lowry, PhD Flight Physics; Box 20919; Billings MT
59104 Voice: 406-248-2606

Nov 1 1999, 1:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.student
From: "John T. Lowry" >
Date: 1999/11/01
Subject: Re: Turn Back Maneuver


Best turnaround bank angle phi (least altitude loss per angle turned
through) for a gliding airplane is given by:

cos(phi) = (sqrt(2)/2)*sqrt(1-k^2)

where k = CD0/CLmax + CLmax/(pi*e*A)

where CD0 is the parasite drag coefficient, CLmax is the maximum lift
coefficient for the airplane's flaps configuration, e is the airplane
efficiency factor, and A is the wing aspect ratio. I know most ng
readers hate those darned formulas, but that's the way the world
works.

For GA propeller-driven airplanes, k is a small number (0.116 for a
Cessna 172, flaps up) and so the best turnaround bank angle is very
closely the 45 degrees cited by Rogers and, much earlier, by
Langewiesche (Stick and Rudder, p. 358). For the above Cessna, for
instance, it's 45.4 degrees. For a flamed-out jet fighter, however,
things are considerably different.

The formulas above, along with formulas for the banked stall speed,
for banked gliding flight path angle, and for the minimum altitude
loss in a 180-degree turn, can all be found in my recent book
Performance of Light Aircraft, pp. 294-296. The following seven pages
then treat the return-to-airport maneuver, from start of the takeoff
roll to contact with the runway or terrain, in excruciating detail.
Including wind effects, the typical four-second hesitation when the
engine stops, etc.

John.
--
John T. Lowry, PhD
Flight Physics; Box 20919; Billings MT 59104
Voice: 406-248-2606





More:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_thread/thread/dfcb5273266262cd/fb4829291b24775f?lnk=st&q=#fb4829291b24775f
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_thread/thread/4cd58366dd59160e/cac37fab40401aba?lnk=st&q=#cac37fab40401aba
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_thread/thread/60c9e0f4c5aee9c0/6273917967e58181?lnk=st&q=#6273917967e58181
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_thread/thread/f5f7f6f1f29812a5/4fb42a74fe660741#4fb42a74fe660741
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_thread/thread/60c9e0f4c5aee9c0/6273917967e58181#6273917967e58181
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=&start=260&sa=N&scoring=d&enc_author=O12N8Q4AAACUTJo2R3-6Xz_qGwWAX-Y_&filter=0&
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.homebuilt/browse_thread/thread/91804a3d7714397a/ec095b7459a04b3a?lnk=st&q=#ec095b7459a04b3a

[buttman]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:05:06 +0200, Stefan sayeth:

> Brian schrieb:
>
>> Your right in that many aircraft it is possible. But the problem is it
>> isn't possible for many pilots when the engine quits. It is not a
>> maneuver that is routinly practiced.
>
> Now this problem could be solved.

You're suggesting instructors practice engine failures with their
students on takeoff? Oh boy, better hope Dudly doesn't see this...

[Stefan]

Buttman schrieb:

> You're suggesting instructors practice engine failures with their
> students on takeoff? Oh boy, better hope Dudly doesn't see this...

Glider pilots do it routinely.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:05:06 +0200, Stefan sayeth:
>
>> Brian schrieb:
>>
>>> Your right in that many aircraft it is possible. But the problem is it
>>> isn't possible for many pilots when the engine quits. It is not a
>>> maneuver that is routinly practiced.
>>
>> Now this problem could be solved.
>
> You're suggesting instructors practice engine failures with their
> students on takeoff? Oh boy, better hope Dudly doesn't see this...

EFATO practice is normal during the PPL in the UK (simulated, obviously).
The instructor chops the throttle and you pick a landing sight and get set
up for it in much the same way as you would a PFL.

You do have a bit of warning when he announces 'fanstop' over the radio
though!

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Buttman > wrote in news:fuqg20$hee$2
@registered.motzarella.org:

> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:05:06 +0200, Stefan sayeth:
>
>> Brian schrieb:
>>
>>> Your right in that many aircraft it is possible. But the problem is
it
>>> isn't possible for many pilots when the engine quits. It is not a
>>> maneuver that is routinly practiced.
>>
>> Now this problem could be solved.
>
> You're suggesting instructors practice engine failures with their
> students on takeoff? Oh boy, better hope Dudly doesn't see this...
>

Good god you're a moron.


No wonder flying skills are going down the toilet.


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 25, 2:06*am, Shirl > wrote:
> Shirl wrote:
> > A Lancair crashed just moments after takeoff here in Mesa, Arizona,
> > today, too. Plane was headed for California. There was smoke trailing
> > from the plane on takeoff and controllers cleared them to turn back
> > around and land. They tried -- they made the left turn but crashed into
> > the orange orchard. Three fatalities, all in their late 20s. Sympathies
> > and prayers to the families.
> WingFlaps > wrote:
> > > When will pilots learn to stop trying to do the impossible turn... and
> > > go for a straight ahead landing on soemthing horizontal?
>
> In this case, straight ahead would have been into a shopping center,
> buildings, houses, etc. *Having been through an engine failure, I try
> not to second guess, but he *may* have thought he had a better chance to
> at least turn away from all that.
>
>

I had a look on Google earth and there seem to be many fields around
the airport what shopping center are you talking about?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 25, 3:12*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-04-24, Brian > wrote:
>
> >> Depends on what you mean by "the impossible turn". If you mean turning back
> >> at 200 AGL, yeah, that one's pretty much impossible. If you mean 600 AGL,
> >> it's pretty much possible in the average aircraft. (Hell, that's pattern
> >> altitude at EFD!) The line lies somewhere in between.
>
> > It is statements like this that get pilots killed.
>
> It's statements like 'never turn, always land straight ahead' that also
> gets pilots killed. There are plenty of airfields where going straight
> ahead is quite possibly the worst option, and the best survivability
> options are at least a 120 degree turn away from whatever point you're
> at when at 600' AGL.
>
> The only thing you can do is use the best judgement at the time. You get
> one chance - it may be wrong. Sometimes, trying to turn back might be
> wrong. Sometimes doing anything *other* than trying to turn back might
> be wrong.
>
> In gliders, every glider pilot is taught "the impossible turnback" from
> 200 feet (which, in the typical low performance training glider, is
> about equal to turning back at 600 feet in a C172).

It's the L/D that makes it much harder in a typical powered plane.
This means that all manouvers lose energy much faster. The turn back
needs at least 2 turns as well as acceleration if there is any wind.
You will note that nearly all the accidents are stall spins -a moments
thought about the situation will make you realize why this is. The
turns are made tight because there is not enough height/time for a
lazy turn.

Let's work some real numbers for a 172 at 500'. Say climb was a Vx 59
knots. The plane must first be accelerated to 65 for best glide. The
pilot carries out some trouble checks say 10s. Calls on the radio =10
s and plans his return. Note that 20s have probably elapsed. The plane
has already travelled ~0.4 miles and at a 10:1 glide ratio has lost
>200' (assuming he did get it to best glide in the first place). Can
he make 2 turns and land back -no way!

Ah you say, I'm a much better pilot, I would loose not more than 10
seconds in starting my turn back., trimming etc.
But how much does the turn back cost? Assuming you keep to <45 degrees
of bank to stay _above_ stall (the stall is now damn close -better
hope there's no significant wind) the turns are still going to cost
you 35 seconds. 45 seconds lost = 450 feet! Now we add in the energy
losses from having to accelerate with the wind and to glide speed.
It's still an impossible turn. Try to tighten that turn more and you
have to dive to accelerate to avoid the stall and what does that do to
your energy management and turn radius?

Now what safety margin is appropriate for you and you PAX? Say 100%
in that case, unless you've climbed to 1000' don't even think about
turning back but practice spotting good landing sites.

I've also heard a lot of BS in this thread about not having good
palces to put the plane. There is nearly always somewhere flat to put
the plane within 90 degrees of the runway centerline -even a road.
Malls have big parking lots! Put it down flat in landing config and
you will probably survive, stall spin and you'll DIE along with your
PAX. A good pilot looks at the airport environs in a strange airport
and may ask about options at the runway end for this emergency.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 25, 6:24*am, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> * * * * * > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:05:06 +0200, Stefan sayeth:
>
> >> Brian schrieb:
>
> >>> Your right in that many aircraft it is possible. But the problem is it
> >>> isn't possible for many pilots when the engine quits. It is not a
> >>> maneuver that is routinly practiced.
>
> >> Now this problem could be solved.
>
> > You're suggesting instructors practice engine failures with their
> > students on takeoff? Oh boy, better hope Dudly doesn't see this...
>
> EFATO practice is normal during the PPL in the UK (simulated, obviously).
> The instructor chops the throttle and you pick a landing sight and get set
> up for it in much the same way as you would a PFL.
>
> You do have a bit of warning when he announces 'fanstop' over the radio
> though!
>

The call here is "simulated failure, call climbing"

Cheers

[Shirl]

WingFlaps > wrote:
> I've also heard a lot of BS in this thread about not having good
> palces to put the plane. There is nearly always somewhere flat to put
> the plane within 90 degrees of the runway centerline -even a road.
> Malls have big parking lots!

I don't know about where you live, but malls here have lots of light
poles, concrete islands, park-and-rest benches and ... and ... vehicles
everywhere. And having gone through it once, I'm no longer fooled by
what *looks* "flat" at 500, or even 50 feet.

[Shirl]

WingFlaps > wrote:
> I had a look on Google earth and there seem to be many fields around
> the airport what shopping center are you talking about?

They took off 22L. I'm talking about the new Walmart shopping center.
Witnesses said had he not turned, that's where he would have gone. That
area *had* many fields that have recently been developed/built-up very
recently. I don't know how old the Google Earth photo is. I'll go have a
look.

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

> (the stall is now damn close -better
> hope there's no significant wind)
....
> Now we add in the energy losses from having to
> accelerate with the wind and to glide speed.

Arrrgh! Not the old "turn into downwind" legend again! Better work out
your understanding of physics before publicly reasoning about turns.

> There is nearly always somewhere flat to put the plane

The operative word in this sentence is "nearly".

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 25, 10:16*am, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
>
>
> > (the stall is now damn close -better
> > hope there's no significant wind)
> ...
> > Now we add in the energy losses from having to
> > accelerate with the wind and to glide speed.
>
> Arrrgh! Not the old "turn into downwind" legend again! Better work out
> your understanding of physics before publicly reasoning about turns.
>

Try reading the statement again, here it is:

"Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
wind and to glide speed."

Now perhaps you would like to revise some physics and try to critcise
it for us?

I await your stumbling analysis of my words with mild amusement.

Cheers

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

> Try reading the statement again, here it is:
>
> "Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
> wind and to glide speed."
>
> Now perhaps you would like to revise some physics and try to critcise
> it for us?

It's the "having to accelerate with the wind" part which is complete BS
unless I completely misunderstand what you are trying to say.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 25, 10:48*am, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > Try reading the statement again, here it is:
>
> > "Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
> > wind and to glide speed."
>
> > Now perhaps you would like to revise some physics and try to critcise
> > it for us?
>
> It's the "having to accelerate with the wind" part which is complete BS
> unless I completely misunderstand what you are trying to say.

The latter I think. The imposed accelerations associated with the
change in direction (from upwind to downwind) require control inputs
that add drag and increased energy loss (from drag).

To summarise your missed point, the pilot control inputs cost energy
that is not factored into simple glide/time analysis.

Cheers

[SR20GOER]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 25, 3:12 am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-04-24, Brian > wrote:
>
> >> Depends on what you mean by "the impossible turn". If you mean turning
> >> back
> >> at 200 AGL, yeah, that one's pretty much impossible. If you mean 600
> >> AGL,
> >> it's pretty much possible in the average aircraft. (Hell, that's
> >> pattern
> >> altitude at EFD!) The line lies somewhere in between.
>
> > It is statements like this that get pilots killed.
>
> It's statements like 'never turn, always land straight ahead' that also
> gets pilots killed. There are plenty of airfields where going straight
> ahead is quite possibly the worst option, and the best survivability
> options are at least a 120 degree turn away from whatever point you're
> at when at 600' AGL.
>
> The only thing you can do is use the best judgement at the time. You get
> one chance - it may be wrong. Sometimes, trying to turn back might be
> wrong. Sometimes doing anything *other* than trying to turn back might
> be wrong.
>
> In gliders, every glider pilot is taught "the impossible turnback" from
> 200 feet (which, in the typical low performance training glider, is
> about equal to turning back at 600 feet in a C172).

It's the L/D that makes it much harder in a typical powered plane.
This means that all manouvers lose energy much faster. The turn back
needs at least 2 turns as well as acceleration if there is any wind.
You will note that nearly all the accidents are stall spins -a moments
thought about the situation will make you realize why this is. The
turns are made tight because there is not enough height/time for a
lazy turn.

Let's work some real numbers for a 172 at 500'. Say climb was a Vx 59
knots. The plane must first be accelerated to 65 for best glide. The
pilot carries out some trouble checks say 10s. Calls on the radio =10
s and plans his return. Note that 20s have probably elapsed. The plane
has already travelled ~0.4 miles and at a 10:1 glide ratio has lost
>200' (assuming he did get it to best glide in the first place). Can
he make 2 turns and land back -no way!

Ah you say, I'm a much better pilot, I would loose not more than 10
seconds in starting my turn back., trimming etc.
But how much does the turn back cost? Assuming you keep to <45 degrees
of bank to stay _above_ stall (the stall is now damn close -better
hope there's no significant wind) the turns are still going to cost
you 35 seconds. 45 seconds lost = 450 feet! Now we add in the energy
losses from having to accelerate with the wind and to glide speed.
It's still an impossible turn. Try to tighten that turn more and you
have to dive to accelerate to avoid the stall and what does that do to
your energy management and turn radius?

Now what safety margin is appropriate for you and you PAX? Say 100%
in that case, unless you've climbed to 1000' don't even think about
turning back but practice spotting good landing sites.

I've also heard a lot of BS in this thread about not having good
palces to put the plane. There is nearly always somewhere flat to put
the plane within 90 degrees of the runway centerline -even a road.
Malls have big parking lots! Put it down flat in landing config and
you will probably survive, stall spin and you'll DIE along with your
PAX. A good pilot looks at the airport environs in a strange airport
and may ask about options at the runway end for this emergency.

Cheers

Why two turns? At 500' why not one turn and land with wind up derriere?
And, at 500 ft I wouldn't be too worried about the radio.
Brian

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Apr 25, 3:12*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> On 2008-04-24, Brian > wrote:
>>
>> >> Depends on what you mean by "the impossible turn". If you mean
>> >> turning
> back
>> >> at 200 AGL, yeah, that one's pretty much impossible. If you mean
>> >> 600 AG
> L,
>> >> it's pretty much possible in the average aircraft. (Hell, that's
>> >> patter
> n
>> >> altitude at EFD!) The line lies somewhere in between.
>>
>> > It is statements like this that get pilots killed.
>>
>> It's statements like 'never turn, always land straight ahead' that
>> also gets pilots killed. There are plenty of airfields where going
>> straight ahead is quite possibly the worst option, and the best
>> survivability options are at least a 120 degree turn away from
>> whatever point you're at when at 600' AGL.
>>
>> The only thing you can do is use the best judgement at the time. You
>> get one chance - it may be wrong. Sometimes, trying to turn back
>> might be wrong. Sometimes doing anything *other* than trying to turn
>> back might be wrong.
>>
>> In gliders, every glider pilot is taught "the impossible turnback"
>> from 200 feet (which, in the typical low performance training glider,
>> is about equal to turning back at 600 feet in a C172).
>
> It's the L/D that makes it much harder in a typical powered plane.
> This means that all manouvers lose energy much faster. The turn back
> needs at least 2 turns as well as acceleration if there is any wind.
> You will note that nearly all the accidents are stall spins -a moments
> thought about the situation will make you realize why this is. The
> turns are made tight because there is not enough height/time for a
> lazy turn.
>
> Let's work some real numbers for a 172 at 500'. Say climb was a Vx 59
> knots. The plane must first be accelerated to 65 for best glide. The
> pilot carries out some trouble checks say 10s. Calls on the radio =10
> s and plans his return. Note that 20s have probably elapsed. The plane
> has already travelled ~0.4 miles and at a 10:1 glide ratio has lost
>>200' (assuming he did get it to best glide in the first place). Can
> he make 2 turns and land back -no way!
>
> Ah you say, I'm a much better pilot, I would loose not more than 10
> seconds in starting my turn back., trimming etc.
> But how much does the turn back cost? Assuming you keep to <45 degrees
> of bank to stay _above_ stall (the stall is now damn close -better
> hope there's no significant wind) the turns are still going to cost
> you 35 seconds. 45 seconds lost = 450 feet! Now we add in the energy
> losses from having to accelerate with the wind and to glide speed.
> It's still an impossible turn. Try to tighten that turn more and you
> have to dive to accelerate to avoid the stall and what does that do to
> your energy management and turn radius?
>
> Now what safety margin is appropriate for you and you PAX? Say 100%
> in that case, unless you've climbed to 1000' don't even think about
> turning back but practice spotting good landing sites.
>
> I've also heard a lot of BS in this thread about not having good
> palces to put the plane. There is nearly always somewhere flat to put
> the plane within 90 degrees of the runway centerline -even a road.
> Malls have big parking lots! Put it down flat in landing config and
> you will probably survive, stall spin and you'll DIE along with your
> PAX. A good pilot looks at the airport environs in a strange airport
> and may ask about options at the runway end for this emergency.

Exactly.

I've practiced turning back. It's difficult, at best, even when you know
it's going to happen. It has to be planned before the departure and the
pilot mjst be very sharp to get away with one. No way is comparable to a
rope break in a glider at 200' unless it's something like a Luscombe.
Even if I went out and practiced them continuously, I don't think I'd
try one on the day unless the outlying terrain was really poor and the
departure field was particularly well suited to me doing so. But doin
git without proficiency is suicide. Better to het something at 55 under
control than to spin from 100 feet.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stefan > wrote in news:9f9a3$481106d6$54487369
:

> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
>> (the stall is now damn close -better
>> hope there's no significant wind)
> ...
>> Now we add in the energy losses from having to
>> accelerate with the wind and to glide speed.
>
> Arrrgh! Not the old "turn into downwind" legend again! Better work out
> your understanding of physics before publicly reasoning about turns.
>
>> There is nearly always somewhere flat to put the plane
>
> The operative word in this sentence is "nearly".


so you've done this, have you?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:80a95935-4492-4d7d-95c1-
:

> On Apr 25, 10:48*am, Stefan > wrote:
>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>
>> > Try reading the statement again, here it is:
>>
>> > "Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
>> > wind and to glide speed."
>>
>> > Now perhaps you would like to revise some physics and try to
critcise
>> > it for us?
>>
>> It's the "having to accelerate with the wind" part which is complete
BS
>> unless I completely misunderstand what you are trying to say.
>
> The latter I think. The imposed accelerations associated with the
> change in direction (from upwind to downwind) require control inputs
> that add drag and increased energy loss (from drag).
>
> To summarise your missed point, the pilot control inputs cost energy
> that is not factored into simple glide/time analysis.

Nope, the wind is going to help you in almost every way if you're
turning back. Firstly, your climnb gradient will have improved from the
headwind, leaving you higher for a given distance from the field. Also,
your glide is going to be improved by the tailwind when you do turn
downwind. also, your best LD speed is going to occur at a lower
airspeed, which will give you a couple of extra seconds if you have the
presence of mind to take advantage of it. You'll probably be a little on
the slow side after having made the turn anyway, so that's a help there.
If there is any crosswind element to the wind, you have another plus if
you turn towards the wind. The x-wind will minimise the radius of the
manuevering turns you will have to make.
There is no inertia involved in making a downwind turn. None. What does
cause trouble during a climbout is twofold. the wind gradient can cause
trouble, as it will for any tailwind/climb situation because inertia
does play a role there, and two, the perceived acceleration to the
eyeball can cause the pilot to do some untoward things. That's how that
particular old wive's tale came about.
However, the gradient is also your friend in the turnback/tailwind on
approach situation. the decreasing tailwind will bump your airspeed up
on approach and cut your G/S as you descend back to the runway.
I'd consider a turnback with some headwind on takeoff and the calmer it
is the less consideration I'd give to that avenue, depending of course
on the other circumstances.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

> Why two turns? At 500' why not one turn and land with wind up
> derriere? And, at 500 ft I wouldn't be too worried about the radio.


When you turn back for the runway, you will not be lined up with it! Still
air, you have to turn in excess of 180 deg to get back on or near the RW
centerline and then, you need to make on in the opposite direction to line
up.


Bertie
>
>
>

[gatt[_3_]]

WingFlaps wrote:

>> A Lancair crashed just moments after takeoff here in Mesa, Arizona,
>> today, too. Plane was headed for California. There was smoke trailing
>> from the plane on takeoff and controllers cleared them to turn back
>> around and land. They tried -- they made the left turn but crashed into
>> the orange orchard. Three fatalities, all in their late 20s. Sympathies
>> and prayers to the families.
>
> When will pilots learn to stop trying to do the impossible turn... and
> go for a straight ahead landing on soemthing horizontal?

What a bummer.

The Jeppeson Instrument/Commercial text has a great illustration of how
turning to land after losing power on takeoff doesn't work.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:

>
> We don't know it was an 'impossible turn'. We don't even know what
> altitude they were at, whether the engine was still developing power or
> not, or whether the plane caught fire, or ... there simply isn't enough
> information to

Except we know they didn't make it. Assuming the pilot was reasonably
proficient, that suggests the turn couldn't be made.

Late '20s, flying a Lancair. Well, at least he seems to have lived well.

-c

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:48:45 +0200, Stefan >
wrote in >:

>WingFlaps schrieb:
>
>> Try reading the statement again, here it is:
>>
>> "Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
>> wind and to glide speed."
>>
>> Now perhaps you would like to revise some physics and try to critcise
>> it for us?
>
>It's the "having to accelerate with the wind" part which is complete BS
>unless I completely misunderstand what you are trying to say.


Here's what a physics professor, pilot and author of Performance of
Light Aircraft* had to say on the subject of downwind turns when he
was active on Usenet:



http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_thread/thread/2cd376f334ead44/b441feb8649bbe12?lnk=st&q=#b441feb8649bbe12
Nov 22 1996, 1:00 am

The Kinetic Energy "Paradox"

Several recent rec.aviation.xx threads have featured or involved the
apparent paradox that an aircraft which turns downwind thereby
undergoes a large gain of kinetic energy (KE) w.r.t. (with respect
to) the earth but no gain of kinetic energy w.r.t. the air mass.
Initial
(incorrect) physical reasoning is often along these lines: there is
only a constant velocity (that of the wind) difference between CSs
(coordinate systems) fixed w.r.t. the earth and w.r.t. the air. Hence
time rates of change of velocities (accelerations) are the same in
the two systems (the derivative of a constant being zero); hence so
are the forces the same in both (the mass never varies). Since it
takes a difference in forces to produce a difference in kinetic
energies, there SHOULD be no such KE difference. But there is.

The error is in the seemingly innocuous statement that two
identical forces F(t), t the time, produce the same KE difference.
The solution is to see that even though the forces, as seen in the
two CSs, are identical, the DISTANCES moved under those
forces, and the parallelism between force and displacement, are
NOT the same. Delta_KE = Int(F dot dr) = Int(F dot v)dt=<F dot
v>delta_t; Int' stands for integral, F and dr and v are vectors and
dot' is that of the dot or scalar product, the product of the two
flankers times the cosine of the angle between them. Angular
brackets, as <X >, stand for the average of quantity X. If one keeps
track of the displacements, and their orientation with respect to the
forces, which is what vector analysis does, then the kinetic energy
difference computes properly and, as always, there is NO
PARADOX. The truth is that the forces ARE the same, but the
kinetic energy changes w.r.t. the two systems are NOT the same.

Here's a simple example. A jet is heading North, unit vector i, at
speed V w.r.t. the earth. The stewardess, Linda, of mass m, is
walking South at velocity -si w.r.t. the jet. V might be 600 mph, s
might be 4 mph. She hands a copy of Mountain Pilot magazine to a
passenger, reverses course, and walks North at velocity +si.

W.r.t. the jet, Linda has undergone a momentum change delta_p =
2msi. And, also w.r.t. the jet, a KE change delta_KE = 0.

W.r.t. the earth, Linda has undergone a momentum change delta_p
= 2msi (the same as w.r.t. the jet). And, also w.r.t. the earth, a KE
change delta_KE = (m/2)*(V+s)^2 - (m/2)*(V-s)^2 = 2mVs. Not at
all the same as w.r.t. the jet.

The force of the deck carpeting on Linda's pumps, F(t), is in the +i
direction during her turnabout maneuver; some sort of Gaussian
peak over a relatively small time interval delta_t. Ignoring the
small walking speed difference, her speed w.r.t. the earth
throughout that maneuver was essentially V. (A relatively tiny bit
less before she got stopped, a relatively tiny bit more afterwards.)
So <F dot V> = <F>V (they're in the same direction). Now her
momentum change is Int(F dt) = <F> delta_t = 2msi. We can use
this fact to evaluate <F>delta_t, plug it in the average of the
integral formulation in the second paragraph, and find that indeed
her delta_KE = 2msV, just as calculated by taking simple
differences.

The short time intervals, integrals approximated as averages, etc.,
are only incidental features which have no bearing on the essential
argument. (Not any more than accelerations at the end and
beginning of one twin's journey at 0.9c has any real bearing on the
twin "paradox" in special relativity.) The only trouble with treating
the original airplane case, which I've done, is that you get two and
a half pages of fairly dense vector calculus and the Internet is not
yet sophisticated enough to let us put that across uniformly in this
kind of forum.

The result: though the forces are the same in the two coordinate
systems (air mass and earth), the greater distance travelled in the
earth-based system, and the fact that those displacements in space
are not perpendicular to the forces (as they always are in the air
mass based system), means that indeed kinetic energy IS gained in
a downwind turn w.r.t. the earth. Here's the final result:
Delta_KE(w.r.t. earth) = -m*omega*R*Vw*(cos(omega*tf)-1),
where omega is the angular speed (yaw rate) in radians/sec, R is
the radius of the turn w.r.t. the air mass, Vw is the wind speed, and
tf is the time of flight. When you do a 180-degree turn, tf = T/2,
where T is the time needed to make a circle w.r.t. the air mass.
Then delta_KE = 2m*omega*R*Vw. If you continue around to
make a 360, you find, as intuition suggests, that delta_KE(w.r.t.
earth) = 0.

NO paradox. There never is. There's only (hopefully, temporary)
CONFUSION. Physics is wonderful.
-------------------------------------


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_thread/thread/221da0e6cbbaab94/97c4f35133062386?lnk=st&q=#97c4f35133062386
Jun 25 1996, 12:00 am

Here's a posting I came up with this afternoon which *SHOULD* excite
some discussion. At the moment, however, it is also
my genuine opinion.
John

You Do Lose Airspeed in a Downwind Turn

John T. Lowry, PhD
Flight Physics
Billings, Montana
(406) 248 2606
>
June 1996

I came across a side reference to the infamous "downwind turn
controversy" in an Internet user group posting. Then I located a
reference to that conundrum, in Joe Christy's "Good Takeoffs
and Good Landings," 2nd edition. On page 11 Mr. Christy writes:

...there is no difference between downwind, upwind, or
crosswind turns in flight. They are all the same to the
airplane.

It seems that beginning flight students think that they will
need to add power or angle of attack when turning from upwind
to downwind because of the loss of airspeed inherent in the
reversal of direction. Later on they learn the more sophisti-
cated "truth." As expressed by Joe Christy farther down the
same page:

Remember, when airborne, you are carried *with* a moving
air mass independently of your movement *through* it.

His italics shown with *XX*. So the conventional wisdom is that
there is no difference, except for the name, between a turn from
downwind to upwind and one from upwind to downwind. Let's leave
it at that for the moment.

And let's change the subject; to that of horizontal wind shear,
or gusts. Say you're heading into the wind at 100 KTAS and at
first (Wind A) the wind is 40 knots. Suddenly (Wind B) there is
a slackening gust to only 10 knots. (All wind speeds are ground
speeds, speeds with respect to the earth just below them.) What
happens? Your airspeed suddenly drops 30 knots to 70 KTAS. (For
the moment, your 60 knot ground speed stays the same.) Let's say
you take no immediate pilot control action. If your airplane is
properly trimmed, the lower airspeed results in the airplane
both losing altitude and nosing over. Airspeed begins to
recover. When the original 100 KTAS is regained, you're back
into trim. Albeit at a lower altitude. The point is: your air
speed really did diminish. In fact there's a caveat to the
conventional wisdom in a figure caption on that same page of
Mr. Christy's book:

To an airplane in flight, there is no difference between
turning downwind, crosswind, or upwind, *except when
flying through a wind shear*.

This time, my (**) italics. So at this point we have it that
turning towards downwind does not result in loss of air speed
but flying into a slackening gust does result in loss of
airspeed.

But here's the kicker. *Turning to downwind is the same thing
as a slow wind shear*. Say you start a coordinated turn from
upwind towards downwind at standard rate, 3ø per second. At the
start, say you have a 30 knot headwind. A second later you have
a 30*cos(3ø) = 30*0.9986 = 29.96 knot headwind. It's not much
less, but it *is* less. After turning for 10 seconds you've
turned 30ø and the headwind has slacked off to "only"
30*cos(30ø) = 30*0.8660 = 25.98 knots. That's getting to be at
least marginally perceptible, but remember the effect has been
continuously spread over ten seconds. After a quarter turn from
headwind to crosswind, 90ø, which took 30 seconds, your relative
headwind has changed by 30 knots.

That 30 knots is almost precisely the size (50 ft/sec) of the
FAA's standard gust. But the FAA takes it that the gust develops
its full force over only one quarter second! There's the
difference. The same wind change, spread over a time interval
30/0.25 = 120 times as long and at a time while you've already
increased angle of attack to counteract your banked and
therefore off-vertical lift vector, and possibly also increased
power a little to counteract increased induced drag and
increased trim drag in the turn, is essentially imperceptible.
The time scales are vastly different.

So you do lose airspeed in a downwind turn. Only, normally, not
much.

I can imagine that students and instructors of aviation have
infused their hangar flying sessions on this subject with
several additional scientific red herrings. The Internet
posting I mentioned even got into general relativity. Here are
the more likely possibilities I can think of.

Possible Red Herrings in the Downwind Turn Controversy

1. The air mass in which the airplane is embedded is an inertial
frame and so . . . .

If the air mass is steady, that's so. But if you fly from Wind A
into slower moving Wind B, you're talking about two *different*
inertial frames. Your air speed is your speed through the air in
which you're currently flying, not your speed relative to the
air a mile back. An airplane can change air speed quite rapidly
because the speeds of air molecules can vary considerably from
one place to another place fairly near by. That is, gusts exist.

2. Air speed is air speed, so . . . .

Air speed is speed through that air *in the direction the
airplane is pointed*. Say I told you an airplane was progressing
northward against a 30 knot wind out of the north and its ground
speed was northward at 70 knots. You'd probably say its air
speed was 100 knots. But what if I told you, in addition, that
that airplane's nose was pointed directly to the *south*. (The
ultimate skidded flat turn.) Tilt! Unfair! Now the air speed has
suddenly become -100 knots. The concept of air speed takes a bit
more refinement than most of us give it.

3. The earth isn't actually an inertial frame of reference
anyway . . . .

True. But the non-inertial terms (due to rotation about its axis
and revolution about the sun) are known. And quite small. So for
all practical intents and short term purposes, the earth is an
inertial frame. Therefore, a force is necessary to change the
speed of the airplane relative to the earth. Even if the
airplane flew into a vacuum, it would *initially* still move at
the same speed in the same direction, just as does a tennis ball
you drop out the window of a speeding car. Then, as the changed
and unbalanced forces took over, the airplane would accelerate.

In summary, my answer to the downwind turn controversy is: You
do lose air speed in a downwind turn, but in a "noisy"
environment and only over a time span that renders that loss
almost imperceptible. Still, I think those beginning students
were right.

COMMENTS? CONTRARY VIEWS?

-------------------------------------

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/7e6e4596b272c874/8c37f136c766e351?lnk=st&q=downwind+turn+author%3AJohn+author%3AT.+author%3 ALowry#8c37f136c766e351
Feb 10 1999, 1:00 am

There is a problem similar to the ball/train/kinetic energy problem in
aviation. When turning from heading upwind to heading downwind, the
airplane apparently has a large gain of kinetic energy (as measured
with respect to the Earth underneath). Even though the forces acting
on the airplane during the turn (aerodynamic + weight) are the same in
both the Air Mass- and the Earth-based systems (uniform motion between
them), the kinetic energies are not. It's because Delta_KE is the
integral of Force dot dr and the space increments dr are NOT the same
in the two systems.

Rather than go into this with pilots I usually simplify to a flight
attendant handing a passenger a magazine, then turning on her pumps
and walking back the way she came from. Similar to the bouncing ball.

John.

John T. Lowry, PhD
Flight Physics; Box 20919; Billings MT 59104
Voice: 406-248-2606
----------------------



http://groups.google.com/group/aus.aviation/browse_thread/thread/22356cfe91e87eb5/bae03975757e040d?lnk=st&q=#bae03975757e040d
Mar 16 1999, 1:00 am

Gavan Cook asked me to address this issue. It's a repost of an older
response on the same subject in rec.aviation.piloting.

For me, the convincing reason there is NO DIFFERENCE
between a downwind turn and an upwind turn is: **all the relevant
FORCES in the turn (except gravity, which doesn't change) are
aerodynamic.** With those forces being only between the airframe
or control surfaces or propeller and the AIR, what possible effect
could anything else have? It's only forces which make
accelerations which are changes in velocity. This of course
assumes the exact same air mass motion (no gusts or wind shear),
the same control inputs, etc., throughout the two (to downwind or
to upwind) turn maneuvers.

Now the airplane DOES slow down (in air speed) in a turn,
due to increased induced drag due to larger lift due to bank, but it
doesn't slow down any MORE in a downwind turn than in an
upwind one.

Phil's insistence on a **coordinated** turn is very
important in a practical sense. Say you turned by kicking hard
rudder, with a real big rudder, so that you skidded around 180
degrees in (say) two seconds. (Strange to say, one airline pilot told
me another airline pilot told him that this slewing-around skidding
turn is just the thing to do!) THEN you've got a problem all right.
You've then got (almost) your original 50 knots of ground speed,
in the same direction (now backwards), plus a 20 knot tailwind.
Seventy knots air speed, but a NEGATIVE 70 knots air speed with
reference to the direction the airplane is pointed. You'd "fall out of
the sky." However, there is no difference in this foolish maneuver
whether it's a turn to downwind or upwind. In the other case,
where you'd initially have 70 knots air speed and 90 knots ground
speed, an instantaneous skidded reversal would leave you at 90
knots ground speed backwards and a 20 knot headwind, net result
still the exact same negative 70 knots air speed with reference to
the direction the airplane is pointed. So still a real bad idea to
skid around, but the SAME bad idea whether to downwind or upwind.

There's no AERODYNAMIC difference between turns to
dowwind or to upwind. The only differences are between their final
ground speeds, and in the perception of the pilot who unwittingly
slows his air spseed when he notices, by looking at the earth,
increased ground speed during and after his turn to downwind.

Hope this clarifies. Sometime later on I'll address the
question "Where does the additional kinetic energy (with respect to
the earth, an (approximate) inertial frame of reference), after a
downwind turn, come from?" It DOES come, even though all the relevant
forces, as argued above, are the same. It's a subtler issue.

John Lowry.
--
John T. Lowry, PhD
Flight Physics; Box 20919; Billings MT 59104
Voice: 406-248-2606

---------------------

*
http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=u2XmFZCWzWUbkkvJOU3CdJoM,Ek_7135768124_1:6:101&bq=author%3Djohn%2520t%2520lowry%26title%3Dperform ance%2520of%2520light%2520aircraft

[Tman]

Hold on while I try to correct some nits in what Bertie said and see
what happens :)

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Nope, the wind is going to help you in almost every way if you're
> turning back.
[ many good points supporting this assertion, but... ]
> also, your best LD speed is going to occur at a lower
> airspeed,
Well, technically, your best LD speed is related to angle of attack, and
not the groundspeed, so that won't change. Your best glide speed
certainly will be less...

> There is no inertia involved in making a downwind turn. None.

Here's why I wonder about that. Let's suppose 65 KAS before and after a
180 turn from a 10 KT headwind. OK, before the turn, your groundspeed
is 55KTS and after the turn your groundspeed is 75KTS. Your intertial
frame of reference is tied to the g/speed, not the a/speed. So -- the
kinetic energy of the aircraft and contents is about 33% higher
(75/55)^2. That energy is only going to come from one place with no
power -- trading in altitude (potential energy) for kinetic energy.

[gatt[_3_]]

Buttman wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:05:06 +0200, Stefan sayeth:
>
>> Brian schrieb:
>>
>>> Your right in that many aircraft it is possible. But the problem is it
>>> isn't possible for many pilots when the engine quits. It is not a
>>> maneuver that is routinly practiced.
>> Now this problem could be solved.
>
> You're suggesting instructors practice engine failures with their
> students on takeoff? Oh boy, better hope Dudly doesn't see this...

One way to practice this would be to establish a "runway altitude" at,
say, 1000ft AGL, get the airplane into takeoff configuration on heading
at that altitude over a road or something, simulate a failure at a
specified altitude--say, 1,500 feet--and see what altitude you're at
when you get back to your reciprocal heading. If it's above your
starting altitude, you made it.

Wind, density altitude and aircraft weight are significant variables.

Of course, a proficient pilot will have considered all these variables
as well as the terrain downrange before takeoff, so they already know
what they will do if the engine quits at a specific altitude. On
probably as many checkrides and flight reviews as not, the instructor
has asked me what I will do if I lose power on takeoff so I already know
where there transmission lines are, about how far it is to the lake, etc.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Shirl wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote:
>> I've also heard a lot of BS in this thread about not having good
>> palces to put the plane. There is nearly always somewhere flat to put
>> the plane within 90 degrees of the runway centerline -even a road.
>> Malls have big parking lots!
>
> I don't know about where you live, but malls here have lots of light
> poles, concrete islands, park-and-rest benches and ... and ... vehicles
> everywhere. And having gone through it once, I'm no longer fooled by
> what *looks* "flat" at 500, or even 50 feet.

This guy ended up in somebody's yard and missed all the suburban traffic
last year. I drove through the neighborhood (about a mile from my
house) to see if it's where I'd have landed. Hmm.

http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/oregon/stories/NW_013107IDNcrashlandingLJ.3a6a3952.html

" FAIRVIEW, Ore. -- A pilot flying a small plane he had purchased just
minutes earlier crash-landed in a dense suburban neighborhood near the
Troutdale Airport Wednesday after the plane's engine quit. "

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

tman <inv@lid> wrote in
:

> Hold on while I try to correct some nits in what Bertie said and see
> what happens :)
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Nope, the wind is going to help you in almost every way if you're
>> turning back.
> [ many good points supporting this assertion, but... ]
>> also, your best LD speed is going to occur at a lower
>> airspeed,
> Well, technically, your best LD speed is related to angle of attack,
and
> not the groundspeed, so that won't change. Your best glide speed
> certainly will be less...
>
OK, not the LD, you're right. but your best glide speed is realted to
your ground speed. To take an extreme example to illustrate this point,
imagine that your published best glide is 70 and you're trying to glide
into a 70 knot headwind. You're going nowhere. Increase your speed and
you will make headway.
In the tailwind scenario, your best glide distance over the ground will
be better at a lower speed than published. the stronger the wind, the
lower the speed required until you arive at your min sink speed.

>> There is no inertia involved in making a downwind turn. None.
>
> Here's why I wonder about that. Let's suppose 65 KAS before and after
a
> 180 turn from a 10 KT headwind. OK, before the turn, your groundspeed
> is 55KTS and after the turn your groundspeed is 75KTS. Your intertial
> frame of reference is tied to the g/speed, not the a/speed. So -- the
> kinetic energy of the aircraft and contents is about 33% higher
> (75/55)^2. That energy is only going to come from one place with no
> power -- trading in altitude (potential energy) for kinetic energy.

Nope, your inertial frame of reference owes nothing to the ground
whatsoever. None. Zero, nil zilch zippo. You ar entirely a creature of
the air and owe nothing to the ground whatsoever ( except in the
vertical, of course) The earth simply isn't that important in the bigger
scheme of things! If it were, you'd have trouble making left or right
hand tunrs in your car....


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 6:41 pm, tman <inv@lid> wrote:
> Hold on while I try to correct some nits in what Bertie said and see
> what happens :)
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> > There is no inertia involved in making a downwind turn. None.
>
> Here's why I wonder about that. Let's suppose 65 KAS before and after a
> 180 turn from a 10 KT headwind. OK, before the turn, your groundspeed
> is 55KTS and after the turn your groundspeed is 75KTS. Your intertial
> frame of reference is tied to the g/speed, not the a/speed. So -- the
> kinetic energy of the aircraft and contents is about 33% higher
> (75/55)^2. That energy is only going to come from one place with no
> power -- trading in altitude (potential energy) for kinetic energy.

See the previous post. There's a change in kinetic energy, but
very, very little. Many people make the mistake of thinking that the
earth has an effect on the airplane. It does, but only vertically, by
gravity. Gravity has no horizontal Component. Like a gyroscope, which
is rigid with respect to space and cares not one bit about the earth,
the airplane's mass, as it moves in the horizontal, is affected only
by its relationship to space and the air it flies in.
That isn't to say that the earth isn't going to get in the
way a little harder. Landing downwind, as with landing into the wind,
involves transferring the weight from the wings to the wheels, and
downwind means much more groundspeed and maybe loss of control as the
roll continues at higher speed while the flight controls feel a
decreasing airspeed, or maybe the airplane will run out of runway.
Bang.
We do illusions created by drift turns with students, usually
in a strong wind and at around 500 feet, so that they can see that the
ball stays centered in the turn while they get the visual impression
that the airplane is skidding or slipping on the downwind and upwind
sides of the turn. The airspeed does not change. Not so's you could
read it. If we put the student under the hood and make him fly on
instruments while we do this, he can't tell us when he's turning into
the wind or out of it. Can't feel anything, can't see any performance
changes on the gauges.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

gatt > wrote in
news:ru6dnZlbZ5BGu4zVnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@integraonlin e:

> Dylan Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> We don't know it was an 'impossible turn'. We don't even know what
>> altitude they were at, whether the engine was still developing power
or
>> not, or whether the plane caught fire, or ... there simply isn't
enough
>> information to
>
> Except we know they didn't make it. Assuming the pilot was reasonably
> proficient, that suggests the turn couldn't be made.


No, it suggests that he probably wasn't prficient, but we don't know and
are unlikely to ever know. There's always a min height that it can be
performed from and only a lot of practice will tell you what that is for
each departure. As i've said before, only proficiency in handling an
airplane in this situation and a carefully thought out self briefing
before the departure can give even a chance of success in the turnback
manuever. Add in a bit of luck and you have it, but it's almost always
safer to go straight ahead if at all possible.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 6:41 pm, tman <inv@lid> wrote:
> Here's why I wonder about that. Let's suppose 65 KAS before and after a
> 180 turn from a 10 KT headwind. OK, before the turn, your groundspeed
> is 55KTS and after the turn your groundspeed is 75KTS. Your intertial
> frame of reference is tied to the g/speed, not the a/speed. So -- the
> kinetic energy of the aircraft and contents is about 33% higher
> (75/55)^2. That energy is only going to come from one place with no
> power -- trading in altitude (potential energy) for kinetic energy.

In your world, it's gonna be pretty hard for a sailplane to circle in
a drifting thermal. In my world, it's not a problem.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gatt > wrote in
news:T-Sdnb-eo8vLtIzVnZ2dnUVZ_tWtnZ2d@integraonline:

> Buttman wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:05:06 +0200, Stefan sayeth:
>>
>>> Brian schrieb:
>>>
>>>> Your right in that many aircraft it is possible. But the problem is
>>>> it isn't possible for many pilots when the engine quits. It is not
>>>> a maneuver that is routinly practiced.
>>> Now this problem could be solved.
>>
>> You're suggesting instructors practice engine failures with their
>> students on takeoff? Oh boy, better hope Dudly doesn't see this...
>
> One way to practice this would be to establish a "runway altitude" at,
> say, 1000ft AGL, get the airplane into takeoff configuration on
> heading at that altitude over a road or something, simulate a failure
> at a specified altitude--say, 1,500 feet--and see what altitude you're
> at when you get back to your reciprocal heading. If it's above your
> starting altitude, you made it.
>
> Wind, density altitude and aircraft weight are significant variables.
>
> Of course, a proficient pilot will have considered all these variables
> as well as the terrain downrange before takeoff, so they already know
> what they will do if the engine quits at a specific altitude. On
> probably as many checkrides and flight reviews as not, the instructor
> has asked me what I will do if I lose power on takeoff so I already
> know
> where there transmission lines are, about how far it is to the lake,
> etc.
>
> -c
>

More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that if you make nice gentle
turns in an average lightplane, you simply won't make it. You have to
make the turn at a very high angle of bank to have even a hope of making
it in time. If you make it at say, 30 deg of bank at about 65 you're
going to lose the guts of 800 feet just manuevering to line up with the
runway if you fly the airplane accurately. You're going to be very low
at the end of this manuever to say the least. The best way to do it is
with a steep bank. Very steep. This will, of course, mean a high sink
rate, but the time required to make the turn will be cut drastically and
you'll be closer to the centerline when you've come about, so less time
and alt wasted trying to get lined up. To do this you must be absolutely
completely comfortable doing a steep power off turn at a reltively low
airspeed when you do it. Not imagining you can do it based on experience
doing steep turns with the power on, you have to be able to
simultaneously offload the wing at a rate that won't get the nose too
low as to get an excessive alt loss and make this drastic turn at the
same time without stalling. All this while your brain has become akin to
that of a lizard looking a rather big snake. IOW, you have to have
practiced this and other aerobatic manuevers so that they are second
nature. It can be done and it can be done in almost any airplane, but it
requires a lot of practice, experience, careful planning and a lot of
luck. Better to go straight ahead if you can.


Bertie

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 25, 3:12?am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> In gliders, every glider pilot is taught "the impossible turnback" from
>> 200 feet (which, in the typical low performance training glider, is
>> about equal to turning back at 600 feet in a C172).
>
> It's the L/D that makes it much harder in a typical powered plane.
> This means that all manouvers lose energy much faster. The turn back
> needs at least 2 turns as well as acceleration if there is any wind.
> You will note that nearly all the accidents are stall spins -a moments
> thought about the situation will make you realize why this is. The
> turns are made tight because there is not enough height/time for a
> lazy turn.
>
> Let's work some real numbers for a 172 at 500'. Say climb was a Vx 59
> knots. The plane must first be accelerated to 65 for best glide. The
> pilot carries out some trouble checks say 10s. Calls on the radio =10
> s and plans his return. Note that 20s have probably elapsed. The plane
> has already travelled ~0.4 miles and at a 10:1 glide ratio has lost
>>200' (assuming he did get it to best glide in the first place). Can
> he make 2 turns and land back -no way!

It's worse than just the L/D difference would make you expect in a few
ways.

The glider's best glide speed is considerably lower. Typical best glide
speeds are 50-55kts. Also, for best performance while doing a 180 you want
to fly at min sink speed rather than best glide speed, which in a typical
glider will put you down at 40-45kts.

This speed difference has two effects, neither of them good. First, your
sink rate will be considerably higher. At 10:1 and 65kts you're sinking at
650fpm. At 30:1 and 55kts you're sinking at under 200fpm. Second, a turn
done at lower speed is smaller and faster, so you're spending more time at
that 650fpm sink rate than the glider is spending at under 200fpm.

Another speed-related effect is that the glider is taking off much faster
than his best glide speed. A typical glider tow may be at 65kts. The extra
speed is energy to be burned off in the turn. A modern medium-performance
glider will come out of a 180-degree rope-break turn at the same altitude
he started! In the Cessna in your example you have the opposite problem,
you have to trade altitude for speed just to get *up* to best glide, and
then you keep losing it at an extremely high rate.

Rope breaks are also extremely obvious when they happen, so reaction time
is essentially instantaneous. There are other glider launch emergencies
which aren't so obvious, such as the tow plane losing power, where things
can get more difficult. In the case of the piece-of-cake 200' rope break
you'll have the controls deflected in less than a second from the event
unless you really screwed up your pre-takeoff mental preparation.

In conclusion: fly gliders, it's safer!

More serious conclusion: these things are much easier in gliders because
they're basically made for it. Don't carry it over to powered flight.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> A Lancair crashed just moments after takeoff here in Mesa, Arizona,
>> today, too. Plane was headed for California. There was smoke trailing
>> from the plane on takeoff and controllers cleared them to turn back
>> around and land. They tried -- they made the left turn but crashed into
>> the orange orchard. Three fatalities, all in their late 20s. Sympathies
>> and prayers to the families.
>
>When will pilots learn to stop trying to do the impossible turn... and
>go for a straight ahead landing on soemthing horizontal?

I saw the local news report and the suggestion was that he hit where
he did to avoid populated areas. A picture shown did suggest that
straight ahead was problematic.

Ron Lee

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student tman <inv@lid> wrote:
> Here's why I wonder about that. Let's suppose 65 KAS before and after a
> 180 turn from a 10 KT headwind. OK, before the turn, your groundspeed
> is 55KTS and after the turn your groundspeed is 75KTS. Your intertial
> frame of reference is tied to the g/speed, not the a/speed. So -- the
> kinetic energy of the aircraft and contents is about 33% higher
> (75/55)^2. That energy is only going to come from one place with no
> power -- trading in altitude (potential energy) for kinetic energy.

This simply does not make any sense.

Kinetic energy, like velocity, is a relative quantity. You cannot look at
an object and say, "it has X joules of KE". You can only talk about KE
relative to some frame of reference. Just like velocity.

So forget about KE. It's in the same boat as velocity, so look at
velocity. You make a turn and suddenly you gain a bunch of groundspeed.
Where does the extra speed come from? It comes because you're maneuvering
relative to a medium, the air, which is itself moving. Your KE relative to
that medium is exactly the same as it was, so no energy has to come from
anywhere.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote in >:

>The best way to do it is with a steep bank. Very steep.


The bank angle may be quantified:


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_thread/thread/ddc3685b74e5014a/5f1d80a2e846a88b?lnk=st&q=#5f1d80a2e846a88b
John T. Lowry

Best turnaround bank angle phi (least altitude loss per angle
turned through) for a gliding airplane is given by:

cos(phi) = (sqrt(2)/2)*sqrt(1-k^2)

where k = CD0/CLmax + CLmax/(pi*e*A)
where CD0 is the parasite drag coefficient,
CLmax is the maximum lift coefficient for the airplane's flaps
configuration,
e is the airplane efficiency factor, and
A is the wing aspect ratio.

I know most ng readers hate those darned formulas, but that's the
way the world works. For GA propeller-driven airplanes, k is a
small number (0.116 for a Cessna 172, flaps up) and so the best
turnaround bank angle is very closely the 45 degrees cited by
Rogers and, much earlier, by Langewiesche (Stick and Rudder,
p. 358). For the above Cessna, for instance, it's 45.4 degrees.
For a flamed-out jet fighter, however, things are considerably
different. The formulas above, along with formulas for the banked
stall speed, for banked gliding flight path angle, and for the
minimum altitude loss in a 180-degree turn, can all be found in my
recent book Performance of Light Aircraft, pp. 294-296.
The following seven pages then treat the return-to-airport
maneuver, rom start of the takeoff roll to contact with the runway
or terrain, in excruciating detail. Including wind effects, the
typical four-second hesitation when the engine stops, etc.

John. -- John T. Lowry, PhD Flight Physics; Box 20919; Billings MT
59104 Voice: 406-248-2606

[clint]

Senoirs have forulas for breakfast.
Larry Dighera expressed precisely :
> I know most ng readers hate those darned formulas, but that's the
> way the world works.

[clint]

Seniours kiss their arsess aloha!
Dylan Smith formulated the question :
> The answer is as always training, and having a plan. Think of the
> eventualities just as you line up - if you lose power at point X, what
> should you do. At point Y, what should you do? What about point Z?

[clint]

booooooooring
WingFlaps explained on 4/24/2008 :
> Let's work some real numbers for a 172 at 500'.

[clint]

Senoirs think physics is physical booooooring
WingFlaps used his keyboard to write :
> "Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
> wind and to glide speed."

> Now perhaps you would like to revise some physics and try to critcise
> it for us?

[clint]

theyr are ignoring u boooring
Larry Dighera pretended :
> John T. Lowry

[Morgans[_2_]]

"tman" <inv@lid> wrote

> Here's why I wonder about that. Let's suppose 65 KAS before and after a
> 180 turn from a 10 KT headwind. OK, before the turn, your groundspeed
> is 55KTS and after the turn your groundspeed is 75KTS. Your intertial
> frame of reference is tied to the g/speed, not the a/speed. So -- the
> kinetic energy of the aircraft and contents is about 33% higher
> (75/55)^2. That energy is only going to come from one place with no
> power -- trading in altitude (potential energy) for kinetic energy.

You should try to get your money back from your CFI.
--
Jim in NC

[Brian[_1_]]

> One way to practice this would be to establish a "runway altitude" at,
> say, 1000ft AGL, get the airplane into takeoff configuration on heading
> at that altitude over a road or something, simulate a failure at a
> specified altitude--say, 1,500 feet--and see what altitude you're at
> when you get back to your reciprocal heading. If it's above your
> starting altitude, you made it.


Actually this is very similar to how I do have pilots simulate this.
However it is often not quite realistic for a couple of reasons.

1. The illusion of speed. When done for real the airplane will seem to
be fly much faster than when done close to the ground, especially if
there is much wind. I am thoroughly convinced the most stall spin
accidents happen for two reasons. A. is the illusion of speed when the
pilot thinks the are going faster than the are. B. Is the pilot isn't
thinking they are in a situation where a stall is possible, and thus
does not recognize it as a stall when it occurs. (Very similar to A)

2. Decent rate. It may be possible to get back to the runway and line
up on the runway but not arrest the descent rate. This is especially
important in aircraft with higher wing loadings. Make sure that when
you about 100 feet above your runway altitude that you are still at
you minimum (normal) power off approach speed. True this may be a
better option than putting it into the trees but hitting the runway at
a high decent rate because you are too slow to round out and flare
will probably only be a Fair landing. (Good = Airplane will need some
repair, Fair = occupants may need some repair as well)

3. Proficiency. Look back through the group at the arguments for and
against power on landings VS full power off. Also look at the
arguments for Full Flaps vs Flaps as Needed.vs. No Flaps. If you are
one of the pilots where less than 50% of your landings (in the
airplane you are flying(Gliders fit here)) are power off then Land
Straight ahead should be your only option. Same thing applies if you
land with full flaps more that 50% of the time. Again the same should
apply if you are not thoroughly familiar with the airplane you are
flying. Are you beginning to see why as a rule landing straight ahead
is almost always the best option? My mantra to pilots is "an
emergency is not the place to be practicing little used skills, try to
make an emergency landing as normal as possible"

4. Options. One of the biggest problems with trying to go back to the
runway is the commitment to it. Once you commit to it there are
usually little else available for options that will have a good
outcome. If open fields surround the airport you may have the option
of landing somewhere else. But in order to make it back to the runway
you will have little time to evaluate any other options, and by the
time you figure out it isn’t going to work you will likely be out of
airspeed, altitude and ideas.

5. The Pattern. My practice of the maneuver has shown that usually it
can be done from 500 feet in most training aircraft if the pilot is
proficient in the maneuver and the aircraft. This is why I generally
teach to start the crosswind turn at 500 feet. Once you are at 500
feet and have your turn established your chances of making back to the
runway usually change from slim to good and it is much more likely
that you will be able to make the runway as an option. At this point
you are not longer climbing straight ahead and are entering the
crosswind. Usually from this point on the runway should be an option
if you have a power failure in the pattern. Again proficiency and
practice are the key as you will be landing power off, downwind and
using flaps as required.

6. Semantics. We tend to say land straight ahead, But I don’t know of
any flight instructor that does not teach that a 45 degree change in
heading left or right is not appropriate and often desirable when
dealing with a power failure immediately after takeoff to take
advantage of more desirable terrain.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

>>> Try reading the statement again, here it is:
>>> "Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
>>> wind and to glide speed."

> To summarise your missed point, the pilot control inputs cost energy
> that is not factored into simple glide/time analysis.

This is absolutely correct. But then, I dont understand the connection
to your first statement regarding the wind. Additioinal drag by control
input is completely unrelated to the presence or non-presence of wind.

BTW, here's an example of a successful turn back from an engine failure
at 400ft! Mind you, this was *not* in a glider, but in an Antonov An-2,
pretty much a flying airbrake.

And before you ask: Yes, this is an accident report. But it only was an
accident because the ground was covered with soft snow so the plane
flipped over at touch down. Otherwise, the maneuvre would have been
successful. Even so, everybody walked away and the plane is flying again.

Here's the link to the report: http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/1826_e.pdf

[Stefan]

Brian schrieb:

> My mantra to pilots is "an
> emergency is not the place to be practicing little used skills, try to
> make an emergency landing as normal as possible"

I absolutely agree. But my conclusion is: Practice, practice, practice.
Of course this also includes discussing the options during the departure
briefing.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-04-25, tman <inv@lid> wrote:
> is 55KTS and after the turn your groundspeed is 75KTS. Your intertial
> frame of reference is tied to the g/speed, not the a/speed.

That is so wrong it's not even wrong. The ground isn't even relevant.

If it was right, thermalling a glider would be an utter nightmare.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote in >:
>
>>The best way to do it is with a steep bank. Very steep.
>
>
> The bank angle may be quantified:
>


Good grief Larry, you really are an idiot.
Of course it can be quatified, but the numbers only tell a minute part
of the story. I can categorically state that I can do a 180 with 70 deg
bank at VSO 1.2 deadstick and come out the other end in one piece. Can
you? Try it using those figures and send my the answer via my Ouiji
board.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Brian > wrote in news:a4038f02-2e60-474d-81bc-
:

>
>> One way to practice this would be to establish a "runway altitude"
at,
>> say, 1000ft AGL, get the airplane into takeoff configuration on
heading
>> at that altitude over a road or something, simulate a failure at a
>> specified altitude--say, 1,500 feet--and see what altitude you're at
>> when you get back to your reciprocal heading. If it's above your
>> starting altitude, you made it.
>
>
> Actually this is very similar to how I do have pilots simulate this.
> However it is often not quite realistic for a couple of reasons.
>
> 1. The illusion of speed. When done for real the airplane will seem to
> be fly much faster than when done close to the ground, especially if
> there is much wind. I am thoroughly convinced the most stall spin
> accidents happen for two reasons. A. is the illusion of speed when the
> pilot thinks the are going faster than the are. B. Is the pilot isn't
> thinking they are in a situation where a stall is possible, and thus
> does not recognize it as a stall when it occurs. (Very similar to A)

Absolutely. Add to this the very real ( as opposed to illusory) fact
that the climb gradient is much poorer and that the wind gradient (
assuming you're climbing) is also nibbling at both airspeed and climp
performance and...

Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stefan > wrote in news:23401$4811996a$54487369
:

> Brian schrieb:
>
>> My mantra to pilots is "an
>> emergency is not the place to be practicing little used skills, try to
>> make an emergency landing as normal as possible"
>
> I absolutely agree. But my conclusion is: Practice, practice, practice.
> Of course this also includes discussing the options during the departure
> briefing.
>

It's the only way to do it, but you'll still probably break your neck on
the day.


Bertie

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-04-24, WingFlaps > wrote:
> Let's work some real numbers for a 172 at 500'. Say climb was a Vx 59
> knots.

Firstly, I don't know anyone who routinely climbs out at Vx - certainly
not at 500'. Secondly, this is 100 feet below the altitude I stated.
IIRC, Vy is for a C172 is in the region of 65 knots - or best glide, and
many pilots accelerate to around 70-75kts at 500 feet to get a better
view forward, since best rate in many parts of the world isn't critical
to maintain once you're above a couple of hundred feet.

> pilot carries out some trouble checks say 10s. Calls on the radio =10
> s and plans his return.

The sequence is aviate, navigate, communicate. Most pilots I know won't
touch the radio with a problem at low altitude. The pilot I know who did
make the turnback from 600 feet certainly didn't, he just turned back.
However, in his situation it was pretty obvious the engine had lunched
itself so there was no time spent 'debugging' the problem. (For the
record, the only engine stoppage I had on takeoff was at 50 feet - the
decision to land straight ahead was very easy and fast to make).

> Note that 20s have probably elapsed. The plane
> has already travelled ~0.4 miles and at a 10:1 glide ratio has lost
>>200' (assuming he did get it to best glide in the first place). Can
> he make 2 turns and land back -no way!

If the pilot does that, then yes - no way. However, the pilots I've know
who've had low engine failures have never yakked on the radio, nor have
they spent 10s debugging the problem!

> you 35 seconds. 45 seconds lost = 450 feet! Now we add in the energy
> losses from having to accelerate with the wind and to glide speed.

You do NOT have to accelerate with the wind! You are a creature of the
air, turning downwind does not involve a loss of airspeed!

I agree that the primary concern is to not stall. However, pilots must
be prepared to make a decision rather than 'default straight ahead' -
the decision, whatever it is, must be made quickly and you must not
stall. And yes, sometimes, turning back to the runway is possible and
this will depend on the situation - altitude and the suitability of
terrain, pilot proficiency etc.

When you're about to push the throttle forwards, you SHOULD have some
kind of a plan if it goes pear shaped. What's the wind doing? Is there a
crosswind? What's the terrain surrounding the airfield like? If you lose
power at point X what is the best course of action, and at point Y what
is the best course of action? The best courses of action (other than 'do
not stall') may not be a fixed prescription.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 25, 8:31*pm, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> >>> Try reading the statement again, here it is:
> >>> "Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
> >>> wind and to glide speed."
> > To summarise your missed point, the pilot control inputs cost energy
> > that is not factored into simple glide/time analysis.
>
> This is absolutely correct. But then, I dont understand the connection
> to your first statement regarding the wind. Additioinal drag by control
> input is completely unrelated to the presence or non-presence of wind.
>

Itls a turn upwind to downwind. That involves 2 direction changes, one
to reverse course and the the other to line up the runway. If there's
wind there will be an effect on line up. Try thinking about more
factors that cost altitude OK?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 25, 9:31*pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-04-24, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > Let's work some real numbers for a 172 at 500'. Say climb was a Vx 59
> > knots.
>
> Firstly, I don't know anyone who routinely climbs out at Vx - certainly
> not at 500'. Secondly, this is 100 feet below the altitude I stated.
> IIRC, Vy is for a C172 is in the region of 65 knots - or best glide, and
> many pilots accelerate to around 70-75kts at 500 feet to get a better
> view forward, since best rate in many parts of the world isn't critical
> to maintain once you're above a couple of hundred feet.
>

I can see you missed the point entirely. By the way, Vy is never at
best glide (it is above that ~69knots in a 172) -perhaps you would
like to revise what determines Vy? My point was to ilustrate the
impossible turn with some concrete numbers instead of the handwaving
BS that seems pervasive in this topic.

Good luck on your first engine failure during climb out, if you turn
back I hope you make it. but you'll have a better chance going
straight ahead...

Cheers

.

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

> Itls a turn upwind to downwind. That involves 2 direction changes, one
> to reverse course and the the other to line up the runway. If there's
> wind there will be an effect on line up. Try thinking about more
> factors that cost altitude OK?

All good and fine, and I'm thinking about a lot of factors, btw. also
about human ones which are usually the weak link, but you still have not
explained what you meant when you wrote: "Now we add in the energy
losses from having to accelerate with the wind."

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 25, 10:45*pm, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > Itls a turn upwind to downwind. That involves 2 direction changes, one
> > to reverse course and the the other to line up the runway. If there's
> > wind there will be an effect on line up. Try thinking about more
> > factors that cost altitude OK?
>
> All good and fine, and I'm thinking about a lot of factors, btw. also
> about human ones which are usually the weak link, but you still have not
> explained what you meant when you wrote: "Now we add in the energy
> losses from having to accelerate with the wind."

Yes, I did. I'll explain it one last time. A direction change in a
plane is always due to acceleration (and that means more drag). That's
Newtonian physics. You go from up wind direction (takeoff is usually
up wind) to turn in the wind direction to land down wind. There's an
acceleration, it is a change in _velocity_ it creates drag, it costs
height and that's the important bit. Now do you understand -TURNS are
not free, they cost more height than the distance covered. Get it
now?

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:ac05ca83-bbc8-4c3b-9469-
:

> On Apr 25, 8:31*pm, Stefan > wrote:
>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>
>> >>> Try reading the statement again, here it is:
>> >>> "Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with
the
>> >>> wind and to glide speed."
>> > To summarise your missed point, the pilot control inputs cost
energy
>> > that is not factored into simple glide/time analysis.
>>
>> This is absolutely correct. But then, I dont understand the
connection
>> to your first statement regarding the wind. Additioinal drag by
control
>> input is completely unrelated to the presence or non-presence of
wind.
>>
>
> Itls a turn upwind to downwind. That involves 2 direction changes, one
> to reverse course and the the other to line up the runway. If there's
> wind there will be an effect on line up. Try thinking about more
> factors that cost altitude OK?
>

It's not so much the loss of altitude that will get you in this
manuever. it's the probable loss of control trying to manuever around
back towards the field.
Firstly, in any emergency that hasnt been drilled, you will have a
moment where you will be sitting there with your mouth open in utter
disbelief of what has just happened. in fact, even if you have drilled
for it you will still have this moment, but if it's been practiced the
moment you begine to do something about it will be sooner coming.
While you're sitting there wondering what's going on, the speed will be
bleeding off. Not good. Then, you will have to manuever the airplane
around using rapid manuevering at a relatively high bank angle if you're
going to make it (I'm assuiming you're still pretty low) and if you
aren't 100% au fait with this sort of flying you're going to be very
lucky to be able to maintain control of the airplane before the ground
reaches up and smites you. This is less about the maths than the
pilot;'s proficiency. The pilot who is proficient enough to do this will
have determined an altitude above which he knows it is possible to do it
and so the question will not be one of whether it's within the
performance capabilities of the airplane, but one of whether the pilot
can accurately control the airplane through the required manuever.
Here is what you'll have to do the instant the engine gives up:
Smooothly lower the nose as you roll just as smoothly, but as quickly as
possible, towards the crosswind, if any. You will have to continue to
lower the nose as the turn, which should ideally have at least 60 deg of
bank, is completed. you should be just nibbling the stall during this,
and , needless to say, perfectly co-ordinated. Pitch control is now
critical as what you're trying to do is cheat physics by offloading the
wing as you turn. a 60 degree bank in level flight will give you a stall
speed of 1.4 VSO and you should be below that so you're right on the
edge. This is all about having very good seat of the pants capability
based on experience. As you approach the desired heading to your landing
spot, you have to smoothly roll out and get the nose up and back to a
good glide attitude. You'll have sacrificed some altitude doing the
sharp turn, but far less than you would have making a wider turn with a
gentle bank. As you level the wings, you should be on, or close to, your
desired glide speed. This is a difficult manuever to pull off. Even
practicing at a bit of altitude has some risks. you're going to pull a
bit of G and it's easy to lose the plot and either spin out of it or
overstress the airframe praciticing it unless you know what you're
doing. It's not really something that most pilots should even consider.
Someone flying 25 hours a year s unlikely ever to become sharp enough to
do this reliably. I certainly wouldn't try it now unless there was no
choice.
There's a lot of crap talked about turning back and most of the
accidents occuring as a result of this are because the pilot has heard
it's possible and decides to learn how to do it when it actually
happens. Most modern flight manuals tell you it isn't possible but this
advice is ignored by guys who reckon they're a cut above because they
did the math or tried it once or twice at altitude or because they read
about it here.



Bertie

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Shirl wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote:
>> I've also heard a lot of BS in this thread about not having good
>> palces to put the plane. There is nearly always somewhere flat to put
>> the plane within 90 degrees of the runway centerline -even a road.
>> Malls have big parking lots!
>
> I don't know about where you live, but malls here have lots of light
> poles, concrete islands, park-and-rest benches and ... and ... vehicles
> everywhere. And having gone through it once, I'm no longer fooled by
> what *looks* "flat" at 500, or even 50 feet.

I'd rather hit a bus shelter or light poles @ 40-50 MPH than go in
inverted after a stall/spin @ 200-300 AGL.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 25, 8:50*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote :
>
> > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> > wrote in >:
>
> >>The best way to do it is with a steep bank. Very steep.
>
> > The bank angle may be quantified:
>
> Good grief Larry, you really are an idiot.
> Of course it can be quatified, but the numbers only tell a minute part
> of the story. I can categorically state that I can do a 180 with 70 deg
> bank at VSO 1.2 deadstick and come out the other end in one piece. Can
> you? Try it using those figures and send my the answer via my Ouiji
> board.
>

Well I cannot understand you you can load the plane up like that and
not raise stall speed beyond 1.2Vs so you must be using a wing drop to
acclerate the turn? Do you could just stall out of the turn -but how
much height do you loose in the stall and it's recovery?

Cheers

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-04-25, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 25, 9:31*pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> IIRC, Vy is for a C172 is in the region of 65 knots - or best glide, and

> I can see you missed the point entirely. By the way, Vy is never at
> best glide (it is above that ~69knots in a 172) -perhaps you would

I never said it was best glide. I said Vy for a C172 is *in the region
of 65 knots* (I don't actually remember what it is off the top of my
head, it's been 5 years since I flew a C172, but I do remember Vy being
close to 65 knots). I do, however, remember that for an 'N' model C172,
65 knots was best glide and Vy was close to that number. (In
fact a brief internet search shows it to be 70 knots, so if the pilot
recognises an engine failure promptly, should not have to dive to regain
airspeed as your scenario stated. In reality, your 'concrete numbers'
are just as much handwaving: how many pilots seriously climb out to 600
feet at Vx? How many pilots would seriously spend 10 seconds doing
nothing but talking on the radio when the engine has quit cold - instead
of looking for a suitable landing site and navigating towards said
site?)

> Good luck on your first engine failure during climb out, if you turn
> back I hope you make it. but you'll have a better chance going
> straight ahead...

Actually, I did go straight ahead but with 4000 feet of runway
remaining and a slow aircraft (C140), it wasn't exactly the hardest
aviation decision I've had to make.

If it happens again, I'll do what I think is prudent at the time. That
might be straight ahead, it might be turn to some amount, and it might
even be return to the airfield. I can't say at this point, and I won't
be able to say unless it actually happens - just like one of our glider
pilots did when the rope really did break at 200 feet: owing to the
strong tailwind that he would have had on a downwind landing, he elected
to land in a field instead, even though the turn itself was eminently
possible and he could have made it to the runway.

My friend who did have his engine lunch itself had the choice of a built
up area, a busy beach full of people, or the airfield. He was at about
600 feet in a C150. If I had been in the same situation as him, I'd have
done the same - try to get back on airfield property because it was the
only thing flat not covered in people that was within range. I can not
fault his decision. (He did better than airfield property, he did get it
onto the runway).

What I'm trying to say in a long winded way is that there are no
prescriptive solutions. "Always land straight ahead" isn't always the
right decision, nor is the decision to turn back even if you really can
make the runway safely (in the glider example, the prospect of
groundlooping into a barbed wire fence when the glider got below wind
speed on the ground was a deciding factor to land in a field rather than
on the runway). It depends on conditions at the time, how much altitude
and airspeed you have, and what the terrain is like.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> It depends on conditions at the time, how much altitude
> and airspeed you have, and what the terrain is like.

As well as the particular airplane in the situation.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Apr 25, 8:50*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Larry Dighera > wrote
>> innews:3ui2149cg0sac5dsdsi4f05v8t42
> :
>>
>> > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>> > >
>
>> > wrote in >:
>>
>> >>The best way to do it is with a steep bank. Very steep.
>>
>> > The bank angle may be quantified:
>>
>> Good grief Larry, you really are an idiot.
>> Of course it can be quatified, but the numbers only tell a minute
>> part of the story. I can categorically state that I can do a 180 with
>> 70 deg bank at VSO 1.2 deadstick and come out the other end in one
>> piece. Can you? Try it using those figures and send my the answer via
>> my Ouiji board.
>>
>
> Well I cannot understand you you can load the plane up like that and
> not raise stall speed beyond 1.2Vs so you must be using a wing drop to
> acclerate the turn? Do you could just stall out of the turn -but how
> much height do you loose in the stall and it's recovery?

No, you have to lower the nose continuously to offload as you go around
the bend. You will end up fairy nose low at the end of the turn alright
but you can recover that as you level the wings. The turn is pretty
rapid at that speed so you won't be in it too long. It's as about "on
the edge" as you can get. It's the only way it can be done unles you
have an airplane with an outrageous climb. If you're proficient in spins
try it at a bit of altitude and a reduced bank angle. You can increase
the bank in subsequent attempts as you become more comfortable. just
don't get the idea that this will make you good enough to try it in
anger on it's own!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in news:Z%iQj.22374$%41.15539
@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com:

> Shirl wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote:
>>> I've also heard a lot of BS in this thread about not having good
>>> palces to put the plane. There is nearly always somewhere flat to
put
>>> the plane within 90 degrees of the runway centerline -even a road.
>>> Malls have big parking lots!
>>
>> I don't know about where you live, but malls here have lots of light
>> poles, concrete islands, park-and-rest benches and ... and ...
vehicles
>> everywhere. And having gone through it once, I'm no longer fooled by
>> what *looks* "flat" at 500, or even 50 feet.
>
> I'd rather hit a bus shelter or light poles @ 40-50 MPH than go in
> inverted after a stall/spin @ 200-300 AGL.
>

Exactly.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> On 2008-04-25, WingFlaps > wrote:
>> On Apr 25, 9:31*pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>>> IIRC, Vy is for a C172 is in the region of 65 knots - or best glide,
>>> and
>
>> I can see you missed the point entirely. By the way, Vy is never at
>> best glide (it is above that ~69knots in a 172) -perhaps you would
>
> I never said it was best glide. I said Vy for a C172 is *in the region
> of 65 knots* (I don't actually remember what it is off the top of my
> head, it's been 5 years since I flew a C172, but I do remember Vy
> being close to 65 knots). I do, however, remember that for an 'N'
> model C172, 65 knots was best glide and Vy was close to that number.
> (In fact a brief internet search shows it to be 70 knots, so if the
> pilot recognises an engine failure promptly, should not have to dive
> to regain airspeed as your scenario stated. In reality, your 'concrete
> numbers' are just as much handwaving: how many pilots seriously climb
> out to 600 feet at Vx? How many pilots would seriously spend 10
> seconds doing nothing but talking on the radio when the engine has
> quit cold - instead of looking for a suitable landing site and
> navigating towards said site?)
>
>> Good luck on your first engine failure during climb out, if you turn
>> back I hope you make it. but you'll have a better chance going
>> straight ahead...
>
> Actually, I did go straight ahead but with 4000 feet of runway
> remaining and a slow aircraft (C140), it wasn't exactly the hardest
> aviation decision I've had to make.
>
> If it happens again, I'll do what I think is prudent at the time. That
> might be straight ahead, it might be turn to some amount, and it might
> even be return to the airfield. I can't say at this point, and I won't
> be able to say unless it actually happens - just like one of our
> glider pilots did when the rope really did break at 200 feet: owing to
> the strong tailwind that he would have had on a downwind landing, he
> elected to land in a field instead, even though the turn itself was
> eminently possible and he could have made it to the runway.
>
> My friend who did have his engine lunch itself had the choice of a
> built up area, a busy beach full of people, or the airfield. He was at
> about 600 feet in a C150. If I had been in the same situation as him,
> I'd have done the same - try to get back on airfield property because
> it was the only thing flat not covered in people that was within
> range. I can not fault his decision. (He did better than airfield
> property, he did get it onto the runway).
>
> What I'm trying to say in a long winded way is that there are no
> prescriptive solutions. "Always land straight ahead" isn't always the
> right decision, nor is the decision to turn back even if you really
> can make the runway safely (in the glider example, the prospect of
> groundlooping into a barbed wire fence when the glider got below wind
> speed on the ground was a deciding factor to land in a field rather
> than on the runway). It depends on conditions at the time, how much
> altitude and airspeed you have, and what the terrain is like.
>

Actually, if you're light or have a tailwind, best glide will come at a
lower airspeed. in a manuever this tight you need every trick in the
book at your disposal.

Bertie

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-04-25, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 25, 10:45*pm, Stefan > wrote:
>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>> explained what you meant when you wrote: "Now we add in the energy
>> losses from having to accelerate with the wind."
>
> Yes, I did. I'll explain it one last time. A direction change in a
> plane is always due to acceleration (and that means more drag).

But that's got nothing to do with "having to accelerate with the wind",
that's merely the energy cost of making the turn, which will be the same
whether there's no wind on the ground, or if it's blowing 20 knots.
You're not having to "accelerate with the wind", you're just making a
turn and the energy used up in the turn will be the same whether you're
going from upwind to downwind or downwind to upwind.

Perhaps your original phrase was just a little mis-phrased, because it
does make it look like you've fallen for the "dangerous downwind turn"
myth.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

> A direction change in a
> plane is always due to acceleration (and that means more drag). That's
> Newtonian physics.

Right.

> You go from up wind direction (takeoff is usually
> up wind) to turn in the wind direction to land down wind. There's an
> acceleration, it is a change in _velocity_

Wrong.

> it creates drag, it costs
> height and that's the important bit. Now do you understand -TURNS are
> not free,

Right.

Your're mixing up two completely different things. Of course, turns are
never "free". They cost energy due to higher drag, resulting from higher
speed, higher wingload and control deflection.

*But*: It absolutely doesn't matter whether you turn from headwind into
tailwind or vice versa. Your airspeed does *not* change. (Of course the
vector does, but not its magnitude.) Your groundspeed changes, but
that's not relevant. Your sentence "Now we add in the energy losses from
having to accelerate with the wind" can only be interpreted that you
think groundspeed would matter because you somehow had to "acceleerate"
to catch up with the wind speed when turning from head to tail wind.
Which is utter nonsense, Newtonianly spoken.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 25, 11:23*pm, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > A direction change in a
> > plane is always due to acceleration (and that means more drag). That's
> > Newtonian physics.
>
> Right.

Now we are at first base!

>
> > You go from up wind direction (takeoff is usually
> > up wind) to turn in the wind direction to land down wind. There's an
> > acceleration, it is a change in _velocity_
>
> Wrong.
>
I see the problem. You don't know what velocity is. It's a VECTOR. It
changes when you turn. If you don't understand this there's not much
point talking about anything that involves physics....

Cheers

[Shirl]

Shirl:
> > I don't know about where you live, but malls here have lots of light
> > poles, concrete islands, park-and-rest benches and ... and ... vehicles
> > everywhere. And having gone through it once, I'm no longer fooled by
> > what *looks* "flat" at 500, or even 50 feet.

Barry:
> I'd rather hit a bus shelter or light poles @ 40-50 MPH than go in
> inverted after a stall/spin @ 200-300 AGL.

I agree. And it could be a place to go.
I was just saying that a mall/strip center parking lot isn't necessarily
the "ah...I'll go there!" place. Even at 7 a.m., there can be cars and
people everywhere.

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

> I see the problem. You don't know what velocity is. It's a VECTOR. It
> changes when you turn. If you don't understand this there's not much
> point talking about anything that involves physics....

Actually, I know an awful lot about physics.

In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the _magnitude_ of
the vector. Now if you want me to realise outside some technical or
scientific environment that you use the word velocity in the vector
sense, you better say so explicitely. Still easier would be to say
"direction".

[Stefan]

B A R R Y schrieb:

> I'd rather hit a bus shelter or light poles @ 40-50 MPH than go in
> inverted after a stall/spin @ 200-300 AGL.

But I hope that you rather risk a stall/spin than to hit a crowd of
pedestrians with that meat chopper turning.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 25, 11:23*pm, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > A direction change in a
> > plane is always due to acceleration (and that means more drag). That's
> > Newtonian physics.
>
> Right.
>
> > You go from up wind direction (takeoff is usually
> > up wind) to turn in the wind direction to land down wind. There's an
> > acceleration, it is a change in _velocity_
>
> Wrong.
>
> > it creates drag, it costs
> > height and that's the important bit. Now do you understand -TURNS are
> > not free,
>
> Right.
>
> Your're mixing up two completely different things. Of course, turns are
> never "free". They cost energy due to higher drag, resulting from higher
> speed, higher wingload and control deflection.

I'm not mixed up, You wanted to read something into what I wrote that
was not there and try to score some point I think Well you were wrong
and you still are. I never said airspeed did I?

One last time, as succinctly as I can: to change direction requires
more energy as extra drag = k.m.dV/dt. dV/dt is acceleration and that
is precisely the term I used. The aircraft does _accelerate_ into the
downwind direction. Airspeed may not change but _velocity_ sure as
hell does -'cos IT'S A VECTOR. Now, the energy needed for the change
in _velocity_ comes from the loss of height during the turn and that's
easy to calculate. It is much harder to estimate the extra drag loss
as this will depend on pilot skill and aircraft design. I hope you
finally understand, cos I'm really starting to find it tiresome trying
to explain to you some basic physics which you seem intent on mis-
interpreting.

I'll give you this last post, any continuance along your previous
lines of putting erroneous words into my mouth I will take as your
being a troll...

Cheers

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>The best way to do it is with a steep bank. Very steep.
>>
>>
>> The bank angle may be quantified:
>>
>
>
> Good grief Larry, you really are an idiot.
> Of course it can be quatified, but the numbers only tell a minute part
> of the story. I can categorically state that I can do a 180 with 70 deg
> bank at VSO 1.2 deadstick and come out the other end in one piece. Can
> you? Try it using those figures and send my the answer via my Ouiji
> board.
>
>
> Bertie

There ya go, take a lesson from Dudley. If you can't dazzle'm with
brilliance, baffle'm with bull****.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> WingFlaps > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Apr 25, 8:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> Larry Dighera > wrote
>>> innews:3ui2149cg0sac5dsdsi4f05v8t42
>> :
>>>
>>> > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > >
>>
>>> > wrote in >:
>>>
>>> >>The best way to do it is with a steep bank. Very steep.
>>>
>>> > The bank angle may be quantified:
>>>
>>> Good grief Larry, you really are an idiot.
>>> Of course it can be quatified, but the numbers only tell a minute
>>> part of the story. I can categorically state that I can do a 180 with
>>> 70 deg bank at VSO 1.2 deadstick and come out the other end in one
>>> piece. Can you? Try it using those figures and send my the answer via
>>> my Ouiji board.
>>>
>>
>> Well I cannot understand you you can load the plane up like that and
>> not raise stall speed beyond 1.2Vs so you must be using a wing drop to
>> acclerate the turn? Do you could just stall out of the turn -but how
>> much height do you loose in the stall and it's recovery?
>
> No, you have to lower the nose continuously to offload as you go around
> the bend. You will end up fairy nose low at the end of the turn alright
> but you can recover that as you level the wings. The turn is pretty
> rapid at that speed so you won't be in it too long. It's as about "on
> the edge" as you can get. It's the only way it can be done unles you
> have an airplane with an outrageous climb. If you're proficient in spins
> try it at a bit of altitude and a reduced bank angle. You can increase
> the bank in subsequent attempts as you become more comfortable. just
> don't get the idea that this will make you good enough to try it in
> anger on it's own!
>
>
> Bertie

Did you and MX work that out on the sim last night???

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>B A R R Y > wrote in news:Z%iQj.22374$%41.15539
> @nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>> Shirl wrote:
>>> WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>> I've also heard a lot of BS in this thread about not having good
>>>> palces to put the plane. There is nearly always somewhere flat to
> put
>>>> the plane within 90 degrees of the runway centerline -even a road.
>>>> Malls have big parking lots!
>>>
>>> I don't know about where you live, but malls here have lots of light
>>> poles, concrete islands, park-and-rest benches and ... and ...
> vehicles
>>> everywhere. And having gone through it once, I'm no longer fooled by
>>> what *looks* "flat" at 500, or even 50 feet.
>>
>> I'd rather hit a bus shelter or light poles @ 40-50 MPH than go in
>> inverted after a stall/spin @ 200-300 AGL.
>>
>
> Exactly.
>
> Bertie

One doesn't equal the other moron.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> WingFlaps > wrote in news:ac05ca83-bbc8-4c3b-9469-
> :
>
>> On Apr 25, 8:31 pm, Stefan > wrote:
>>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>>
>>> >>> Try reading the statement again, here it is:
>>> >>> "Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with
> the
>>> >>> wind and to glide speed."
>>> > To summarise your missed point, the pilot control inputs cost
> energy
>>> > that is not factored into simple glide/time analysis.
>>>
>>> This is absolutely correct. But then, I dont understand the
> connection
>>> to your first statement regarding the wind. Additioinal drag by
> control
>>> input is completely unrelated to the presence or non-presence of
> wind.
>>>
>>
>> Itls a turn upwind to downwind. That involves 2 direction changes, one
>> to reverse course and the the other to line up the runway. If there's
>> wind there will be an effect on line up. Try thinking about more
>> factors that cost altitude OK?
>>
>
> It's not so much the loss of altitude that will get you in this
> manuever. it's the probable loss of control trying to manuever around
> back towards the field.
> Firstly, in any emergency that hasnt been drilled, you will have a
> moment where you will be sitting there with your mouth open in utter
> disbelief of what has just happened. in fact, even if you have drilled
> for it you will still have this moment, but if it's been practiced the
> moment you begine to do something about it will be sooner coming.
> While you're sitting there wondering what's going on, the speed will be
> bleeding off. Not good. Then, you will have to manuever the airplane
> around using rapid manuevering at a relatively high bank angle if you're
> going to make it (I'm assuiming you're still pretty low) and if you
> aren't 100% au fait with this sort of flying you're going to be very
> lucky to be able to maintain control of the airplane before the ground
> reaches up and smites you. This is less about the maths than the
> pilot;'s proficiency. The pilot who is proficient enough to do this will
> have determined an altitude above which he knows it is possible to do it
> and so the question will not be one of whether it's within the
> performance capabilities of the airplane, but one of whether the pilot
> can accurately control the airplane through the required manuever.
> Here is what you'll have to do the instant the engine gives up:
> Smooothly lower the nose as you roll just as smoothly, but as quickly as
> possible, towards the crosswind, if any. You will have to continue to
> lower the nose as the turn, which should ideally have at least 60 deg of
> bank, is completed. you should be just nibbling the stall during this,
> and , needless to say, perfectly co-ordinated. Pitch control is now
> critical as what you're trying to do is cheat physics by offloading the
> wing as you turn. a 60 degree bank in level flight will give you a stall
> speed of 1.4 VSO and you should be below that so you're right on the
> edge. This is all about having very good seat of the pants capability
> based on experience. As you approach the desired heading to your landing
> spot, you have to smoothly roll out and get the nose up and back to a
> good glide attitude. You'll have sacrificed some altitude doing the
> sharp turn, but far less than you would have making a wider turn with a
> gentle bank. As you level the wings, you should be on, or close to, your
> desired glide speed. This is a difficult manuever to pull off. Even
> practicing at a bit of altitude has some risks. you're going to pull a
> bit of G and it's easy to lose the plot and either spin out of it or
> overstress the airframe praciticing it unless you know what you're
> doing. It's not really something that most pilots should even consider.
> Someone flying 25 hours a year s unlikely ever to become sharp enough to
> do this reliably. I certainly wouldn't try it now unless there was no
> choice.
> There's a lot of crap talked about turning back and most of the
> accidents occuring as a result of this are because the pilot has heard
> it's possible and decides to learn how to do it when it actually
> happens. Most modern flight manuals tell you it isn't possible but this
> advice is ignored by guys who reckon they're a cut above because they
> did the math or tried it once or twice at altitude or because they read
> about it here.
>
>
>
> Bertie
>

Now come on, Dudley wrote this for you, didn't he?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Dylan Smith > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 2008-04-25, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>> On Apr 25, 9:31 pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>>>> IIRC, Vy is for a C172 is in the region of 65 knots - or best glide,
>>>> and
>>
>>> I can see you missed the point entirely. By the way, Vy is never at
>>> best glide (it is above that ~69knots in a 172) -perhaps you would
>>
>> I never said it was best glide. I said Vy for a C172 is *in the region
>> of 65 knots* (I don't actually remember what it is off the top of my
>> head, it's been 5 years since I flew a C172, but I do remember Vy
>> being close to 65 knots). I do, however, remember that for an 'N'
>> model C172, 65 knots was best glide and Vy was close to that number.
>> (In fact a brief internet search shows it to be 70 knots, so if the
>> pilot recognises an engine failure promptly, should not have to dive
>> to regain airspeed as your scenario stated. In reality, your 'concrete
>> numbers' are just as much handwaving: how many pilots seriously climb
>> out to 600 feet at Vx? How many pilots would seriously spend 10
>> seconds doing nothing but talking on the radio when the engine has
>> quit cold - instead of looking for a suitable landing site and
>> navigating towards said site?)
>>
>>> Good luck on your first engine failure during climb out, if you turn
>>> back I hope you make it. but you'll have a better chance going
>>> straight ahead...
>>
>> Actually, I did go straight ahead but with 4000 feet of runway
>> remaining and a slow aircraft (C140), it wasn't exactly the hardest
>> aviation decision I've had to make.
>>
>> If it happens again, I'll do what I think is prudent at the time. That
>> might be straight ahead, it might be turn to some amount, and it might
>> even be return to the airfield. I can't say at this point, and I won't
>> be able to say unless it actually happens - just like one of our
>> glider pilots did when the rope really did break at 200 feet: owing to
>> the strong tailwind that he would have had on a downwind landing, he
>> elected to land in a field instead, even though the turn itself was
>> eminently possible and he could have made it to the runway.
>>
>> My friend who did have his engine lunch itself had the choice of a
>> built up area, a busy beach full of people, or the airfield. He was at
>> about 600 feet in a C150. If I had been in the same situation as him,
>> I'd have done the same - try to get back on airfield property because
>> it was the only thing flat not covered in people that was within
>> range. I can not fault his decision. (He did better than airfield
>> property, he did get it onto the runway).
>>
>> What I'm trying to say in a long winded way is that there are no
>> prescriptive solutions. "Always land straight ahead" isn't always the
>> right decision, nor is the decision to turn back even if you really
>> can make the runway safely (in the glider example, the prospect of
>> groundlooping into a barbed wire fence when the glider got below wind
>> speed on the ground was a deciding factor to land in a field rather
>> than on the runway). It depends on conditions at the time, how much
>> altitude and airspeed you have, and what the terrain is like.
>>
>
> Actually, if you're light or have a tailwind, best glide will come at a
> lower airspeed. in a manuever this tight you need every trick in the
> book at your disposal.
>
> Bertie

Only if you fly as lame a you do.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 26, 12:12*am, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > I see the problem. You don't know what velocity is. It's a VECTOR. It
> > changes when you turn. *If you don't understand this there's not much
> > point talking about anything that involves physics....
>
> Actually, I know an awful lot about physics.
>

So much that you mix up speed and velocity? LOL!

> In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the _magnitude_ of
> the vector.

Nope. Not even at high school. The magnitude is "speed".

> Now if you want me to realise outside some technical or
> scientific environment that you use the word velocity in the vector
> sense, you better say so explicitely.

Gosh, this isn't a technical forum? Was my post not including
"technical" terms like acceleration?

>Still easier would be to say
> "direction".

What does "flying with the wind" imply to you, a direction or a speed?
I'd say the former but I'm only a native English speaker.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 26, 12:18*am, Stefan > wrote:
> B A R R Y schrieb:
>
> > I'd rather hit a bus shelter or light poles @ 40-50 MPH than go in
> > inverted after a stall/spin @ 200-300 AGL.
>
> But I hope that you rather risk a stall/spin than to hit a crowd of
> pedestrians with that meat chopper turning.

I thought the engine had stopped?

Cheers

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-04-25, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 26, 12:18*am, Stefan > wrote:
>> But I hope that you rather risk a stall/spin than to hit a crowd of
>> pedestrians with that meat chopper turning.
>
> I thought the engine had stopped?

The prop will often keep turning after the engine has stopped - unless
you can feather it. (I have flown singles with feathering propellors,
but they are the exception).

There are also degrees of engine failure other than quitting dead -
sometimes, an engine may continue to make a minimal amount of power
after the failure event occurred.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dave[_19_]]

Ummmm............

I think in this example the "meat chopper" is out of service. :)

Valid point tho...

Dave

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:18:19 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>B A R R Y schrieb:
>
>> I'd rather hit a bus shelter or light poles @ 40-50 MPH than go in
>> inverted after a stall/spin @ 200-300 AGL.
>
>But I hope that you rather risk a stall/spin than to hit a crowd of
>pedestrians with that meat chopper turning.

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

>> In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the _magnitude_ of
>> the vector.
>
> Nope. Not even at high school. The magnitude is "speed".

Maybe where you live. Not where I live.

[Dave[_19_]]

Excellent post..

I was taught to normally turn cross wind at 500 ft AGL.. if taking
off on a short single runway.

Long runway - keep it in front of you as long as it is usable..

Dave



On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:17:48 -0700 (PDT), Brian >
wrote:

>
>> One way to practice this would be to establish a "runway altitude" at,
>> say, 1000ft AGL, get the airplane into takeoff configuration on heading
>> at that altitude over a road or something, simulate a failure at a
>> specified altitude--say, 1,500 feet--and see what altitude you're at
>> when you get back to your reciprocal heading. If it's above your
>> starting altitude, you made it.
>
>
>Actually this is very similar to how I do have pilots simulate this.
>However it is often not quite realistic for a couple of reasons.
>
>1. The illusion of speed. When done for real the airplane will seem to
>be fly much faster than when done close to the ground, especially if
>there is much wind. I am thoroughly convinced the most stall spin
>accidents happen for two reasons. A. is the illusion of speed when the
>pilot thinks the are going faster than the are. B. Is the pilot isn't
>thinking they are in a situation where a stall is possible, and thus
>does not recognize it as a stall when it occurs. (Very similar to A)
>
>2. Decent rate. It may be possible to get back to the runway and line
>up on the runway but not arrest the descent rate. This is especially
>important in aircraft with higher wing loadings. Make sure that when
>you about 100 feet above your runway altitude that you are still at
>you minimum (normal) power off approach speed. True this may be a
>better option than putting it into the trees but hitting the runway at
>a high decent rate because you are too slow to round out and flare
>will probably only be a Fair landing. (Good = Airplane will need some
>repair, Fair = occupants may need some repair as well)
>
>3. Proficiency. Look back through the group at the arguments for and
>against power on landings VS full power off. Also look at the
>arguments for Full Flaps vs Flaps as Needed.vs. No Flaps. If you are
>one of the pilots where less than 50% of your landings (in the
>airplane you are flying(Gliders fit here)) are power off then Land
>Straight ahead should be your only option. Same thing applies if you
>land with full flaps more that 50% of the time. Again the same should
>apply if you are not thoroughly familiar with the airplane you are
>flying. Are you beginning to see why as a rule landing straight ahead
>is almost always the best option? My mantra to pilots is "an
>emergency is not the place to be practicing little used skills, try to
>make an emergency landing as normal as possible"
>
>4. Options. One of the biggest problems with trying to go back to the
>runway is the commitment to it. Once you commit to it there are
>usually little else available for options that will have a good
>outcome. If open fields surround the airport you may have the option
>of landing somewhere else. But in order to make it back to the runway
>you will have little time to evaluate any other options, and by the
>time you figure out it isn’t going to work you will likely be out of
>airspeed, altitude and ideas.
>
>5. The Pattern. My practice of the maneuver has shown that usually it
>can be done from 500 feet in most training aircraft if the pilot is
>proficient in the maneuver and the aircraft. This is why I generally
>teach to start the crosswind turn at 500 feet. Once you are at 500
>feet and have your turn established your chances of making back to the
>runway usually change from slim to good and it is much more likely
>that you will be able to make the runway as an option. At this point
>you are not longer climbing straight ahead and are entering the
>crosswind. Usually from this point on the runway should be an option
>if you have a power failure in the pattern. Again proficiency and
>practice are the key as you will be landing power off, downwind and
>using flaps as required.
>
>6. Semantics. We tend to say land straight ahead, But I don’t know of
>any flight instructor that does not teach that a 45 degree change in
>heading left or right is not appropriate and often desirable when
>dealing with a power failure immediately after takeoff to take
>advantage of more desirable terrain.
>
>Brian
>CFIIG/ASEL
>
>
>
>

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 26, 12:57*am, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> >> In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the _magnitude_ of
> >> the vector.
>
> > Nope. Not even at high school. The magnitude is "speed".
>
> Maybe where you live. Not where I live.

BS. This is stated in any basic physics text book -even Wiki knows it:

"In physics...The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is
speed."

Cheers

[Shirl]

> > But I hope that you rather risk a stall/spin than to hit a crowd of
> > pedestrians with that meat chopper turning.

WingFlaps > wrote:
> I thought the engine had stopped?

No, don't think the engine quit. They said it was smoking on takeoff,
and witnesses who saw it come down described how the engine sounded, so
it apparently was still running.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 25, 11:42*am, "SR20GOER" > wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message

>
> Why two turns? *At 500' why not one turn and land with wind up derriere?
> And, at 500 ft I wouldn't be too worried about the radio.
> Brian- Hide quoted text -
>


Well first ya got to turn back and then you have to turn to line up
with the runway...

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:dakQj.67980$y05.66333
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Larry Dighera > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>> wrote in >:
>>>
>>>>The best way to do it is with a steep bank. Very steep.
>>>
>>>
>>> The bank angle may be quantified:
>>>
>>
>>
>> Good grief Larry, you really are an idiot.
>> Of course it can be quatified, but the numbers only tell a minute
part
>> of the story. I can categorically state that I can do a 180 with 70
deg
>> bank at VSO 1.2 deadstick and come out the other end in one piece.
Can
>> you? Try it using those figures and send my the answer via my Ouiji
>> board.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> There ya go, take a lesson from Dudley. If you can't dazzle'm with
> brilliance, baffle'm with bull****.
>

You can, apparently, be dazzled with just about anything.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:tbkQj.67981$y05.60745
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>> news:c92067a2-bb08-4ce3-afab-
:
>>
>>> On Apr 25, 8:50 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> Larry Dighera > wrote
>>>> innews:3ui2149cg0sac5dsdsi4f05v8t42
>>> :
>>>>
>>>> > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>>> > >
>>>
>>>> > wrote in >:
>>>>
>>>> >>The best way to do it is with a steep bank. Very steep.
>>>>
>>>> > The bank angle may be quantified:
>>>>
>>>> Good grief Larry, you really are an idiot.
>>>> Of course it can be quatified, but the numbers only tell a minute
>>>> part of the story. I can categorically state that I can do a 180
with
>>>> 70 deg bank at VSO 1.2 deadstick and come out the other end in one
>>>> piece. Can you? Try it using those figures and send my the answer
via
>>>> my Ouiji board.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well I cannot understand you you can load the plane up like that and
>>> not raise stall speed beyond 1.2Vs so you must be using a wing drop
to
>>> acclerate the turn? Do you could just stall out of the turn -but
how
>>> much height do you loose in the stall and it's recovery?
>>
>> No, you have to lower the nose continuously to offload as you go
around
>> the bend. You will end up fairy nose low at the end of the turn
alright
>> but you can recover that as you level the wings. The turn is pretty
>> rapid at that speed so you won't be in it too long. It's as about "on
>> the edge" as you can get. It's the only way it can be done unles you
>> have an airplane with an outrageous climb. If you're proficient in
spins
>> try it at a bit of altitude and a reduced bank angle. You can
increase
>> the bank in subsequent attempts as you become more comfortable. just
>> don't get the idea that this will make you good enough to try it in
>> anger on it's own!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Did you and MX work that out on the sim last night???
>

oh ouch. Lumping me with Anthony. What's next, hitler?

Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:YbkQj.67982$y05.56887
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>B A R R Y > wrote in news:Z%iQj.22374$%41.15539
>> @nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>>> Shirl wrote:
>>>> WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>>> I've also heard a lot of BS in this thread about not having good
>>>>> palces to put the plane. There is nearly always somewhere flat to
>> put
>>>>> the plane within 90 degrees of the runway centerline -even a road.
>>>>> Malls have big parking lots!
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about where you live, but malls here have lots of
light
>>>> poles, concrete islands, park-and-rest benches and ... and ...
>> vehicles
>>>> everywhere. And having gone through it once, I'm no longer fooled
by
>>>> what *looks* "flat" at 500, or even 50 feet.
>>>
>>> I'd rather hit a bus shelter or light poles @ 40-50 MPH than go in
>>> inverted after a stall/spin @ 200-300 AGL.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> One doesn't equal the other moron.
>
>
>
>

Obviously, fjukktard.


Figured out that maze on the back of your froot loops box yet?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:yckQj.67983$y05.63596
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> WingFlaps > wrote in news:ac05ca83-bbc8-4c3b-
9469-
>> :
>>
>>> On Apr 25, 8:31 pm, Stefan > wrote:
>>>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>>>
>>>> >>> Try reading the statement again, here it is:
>>>> >>> "Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with
>> the
>>>> >>> wind and to glide speed."
>>>> > To summarise your missed point, the pilot control inputs cost
>> energy
>>>> > that is not factored into simple glide/time analysis.
>>>>
>>>> This is absolutely correct. But then, I dont understand the
>> connection
>>>> to your first statement regarding the wind. Additioinal drag by
>> control
>>>> input is completely unrelated to the presence or non-presence of
>> wind.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Itls a turn upwind to downwind. That involves 2 direction changes,
one
>>> to reverse course and the the other to line up the runway. If
there's
>>> wind there will be an effect on line up. Try thinking about more
>>> factors that cost altitude OK?
>>>
>>
>> It's not so much the loss of altitude that will get you in this
>> manuever. it's the probable loss of control trying to manuever around
>> back towards the field.
>> Firstly, in any emergency that hasnt been drilled, you will have a
>> moment where you will be sitting there with your mouth open in utter
>> disbelief of what has just happened. in fact, even if you have
drilled
>> for it you will still have this moment, but if it's been practiced
the
>> moment you begine to do something about it will be sooner coming.
>> While you're sitting there wondering what's going on, the speed will
be
>> bleeding off. Not good. Then, you will have to manuever the airplane
>> around using rapid manuevering at a relatively high bank angle if
you're
>> going to make it (I'm assuiming you're still pretty low) and if you
>> aren't 100% au fait with this sort of flying you're going to be very
>> lucky to be able to maintain control of the airplane before the
ground
>> reaches up and smites you. This is less about the maths than the
>> pilot;'s proficiency. The pilot who is proficient enough to do this
will
>> have determined an altitude above which he knows it is possible to do
it
>> and so the question will not be one of whether it's within the
>> performance capabilities of the airplane, but one of whether the
pilot
>> can accurately control the airplane through the required manuever.
>> Here is what you'll have to do the instant the engine gives up:
>> Smooothly lower the nose as you roll just as smoothly, but as quickly
as
>> possible, towards the crosswind, if any. You will have to continue to
>> lower the nose as the turn, which should ideally have at least 60 deg
of
>> bank, is completed. you should be just nibbling the stall during
this,
>> and , needless to say, perfectly co-ordinated. Pitch control is now
>> critical as what you're trying to do is cheat physics by offloading
the
>> wing as you turn. a 60 degree bank in level flight will give you a
stall
>> speed of 1.4 VSO and you should be below that so you're right on the
>> edge. This is all about having very good seat of the pants capability
>> based on experience. As you approach the desired heading to your
landing
>> spot, you have to smoothly roll out and get the nose up and back to a
>> good glide attitude. You'll have sacrificed some altitude doing the
>> sharp turn, but far less than you would have making a wider turn with
a
>> gentle bank. As you level the wings, you should be on, or close to,
your
>> desired glide speed. This is a difficult manuever to pull off. Even
>> practicing at a bit of altitude has some risks. you're going to pull
a
>> bit of G and it's easy to lose the plot and either spin out of it or
>> overstress the airframe praciticing it unless you know what you're
>> doing. It's not really something that most pilots should even
consider.
>> Someone flying 25 hours a year s unlikely ever to become sharp enough
to
>> do this reliably. I certainly wouldn't try it now unless there was no
>> choice.
>> There's a lot of crap talked about turning back and most of the
>> accidents occuring as a result of this are because the pilot has
heard
>> it's possible and decides to learn how to do it when it actually
>> happens. Most modern flight manuals tell you it isn't possible but
this
>> advice is ignored by guys who reckon they're a cut above because they
>> did the math or tried it once or twice at altitude or because they
read
>> about it here.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Now come on, Dudley wrote this for you, didn't he?
>
>
>

Nope.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:odkQj.67984$y05.29472
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dylan Smith > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On 2008-04-25, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>> On Apr 25, 9:31 pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>>>>> IIRC, Vy is for a C172 is in the region of 65 knots - or best
glide,
>>>>> and
>>>
>>>> I can see you missed the point entirely. By the way, Vy is never at
>>>> best glide (it is above that ~69knots in a 172) -perhaps you would
>>>
>>> I never said it was best glide. I said Vy for a C172 is *in the
region
>>> of 65 knots* (I don't actually remember what it is off the top of my
>>> head, it's been 5 years since I flew a C172, but I do remember Vy
>>> being close to 65 knots). I do, however, remember that for an 'N'
>>> model C172, 65 knots was best glide and Vy was close to that number.
>>> (In fact a brief internet search shows it to be 70 knots, so if the
>>> pilot recognises an engine failure promptly, should not have to dive
>>> to regain airspeed as your scenario stated. In reality, your
'concrete
>>> numbers' are just as much handwaving: how many pilots seriously
climb
>>> out to 600 feet at Vx? How many pilots would seriously spend 10
>>> seconds doing nothing but talking on the radio when the engine has
>>> quit cold - instead of looking for a suitable landing site and
>>> navigating towards said site?)
>>>
>>>> Good luck on your first engine failure during climb out, if you
turn
>>>> back I hope you make it. but you'll have a better chance going
>>>> straight ahead...
>>>
>>> Actually, I did go straight ahead but with 4000 feet of runway
>>> remaining and a slow aircraft (C140), it wasn't exactly the hardest
>>> aviation decision I've had to make.
>>>
>>> If it happens again, I'll do what I think is prudent at the time.
That
>>> might be straight ahead, it might be turn to some amount, and it
might
>>> even be return to the airfield. I can't say at this point, and I
won't
>>> be able to say unless it actually happens - just like one of our
>>> glider pilots did when the rope really did break at 200 feet: owing
to
>>> the strong tailwind that he would have had on a downwind landing, he
>>> elected to land in a field instead, even though the turn itself was
>>> eminently possible and he could have made it to the runway.
>>>
>>> My friend who did have his engine lunch itself had the choice of a
>>> built up area, a busy beach full of people, or the airfield. He was
at
>>> about 600 feet in a C150. If I had been in the same situation as
him,
>>> I'd have done the same - try to get back on airfield property
because
>>> it was the only thing flat not covered in people that was within
>>> range. I can not fault his decision. (He did better than airfield
>>> property, he did get it onto the runway).
>>>
>>> What I'm trying to say in a long winded way is that there are no
>>> prescriptive solutions. "Always land straight ahead" isn't always
the
>>> right decision, nor is the decision to turn back even if you really
>>> can make the runway safely (in the glider example, the prospect of
>>> groundlooping into a barbed wire fence when the glider got below
wind
>>> speed on the ground was a deciding factor to land in a field rather
>>> than on the runway). It depends on conditions at the time, how much
>>> altitude and airspeed you have, and what the terrain is like.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, if you're light or have a tailwind, best glide will come at
a
>> lower airspeed. in a manuever this tight you need every trick in the
>> book at your disposal.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Only if you fly as lame a you do.
>

Snort!

Yeh, my self image as a pilot hinges on the opinion of someone who
counldn't teach a bird to fly.


Bertie

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 25, 8:31?pm, Stefan > wrote:
>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>
>> >>> Try reading the statement again, here it is:
>> >>> "Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
>> >>> wind and to glide speed."
>> > To summarise your missed point, the pilot control inputs cost energy
>> > that is not factored into simple glide/time analysis.
>>
>> This is absolutely correct. But then, I dont understand the connection
>> to your first statement regarding the wind. Additioinal drag by control
>> input is completely unrelated to the presence or non-presence of wind.
>
> Itls a turn upwind to downwind. That involves 2 direction changes, one
> to reverse course and the the other to line up the runway. If there's
> wind there will be an effect on line up. Try thinking about more
> factors that cost altitude OK?

A crosswind should only help you line up. If you stay aligned with the
runway and turn into the wind then it will reduce the offset after you
complete the turn. If you allow yourself to drift with the wind then this
will further work in your favor. If you turn into the wind and push upwind
during the takeoff then the wind can make things quite exciting, but don't
do that.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Stefan wrote:
> B A R R Y schrieb:
>
>> I'd rather hit a bus shelter or light poles @ 40-50 MPH than go in
>> inverted after a stall/spin @ 200-300 AGL.
>
> But I hope that you rather risk a stall/spin than to hit a crowd of
> pedestrians with that meat chopper turning.

If the chopper were turning... <G>

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Stefan wrote:
> B A R R Y schrieb:
>
>> I'd rather hit a bus shelter or light poles @ 40-50 MPH than go in
>> inverted after a stall/spin @ 200-300 AGL.
>
> But I hope that you rather risk a stall/spin than to hit a crowd of
> pedestrians with that meat chopper turning.

Guys... Take a deep breath, please. Is this the "Argument Room", or what?

In truth, I'm going to aim for the pack of baby joggers, or the senior
citizen walking club, doing laps around the parking lot. Or with better
luck, it'll be recess at the local elementary school... Come on! <G>

A dead stick spam can, even though quickly descending, is plenty
controllable while still flying. As one gets closer, and options run
out, pilot choices remain to minimize or eliminate collateral damage.
Shopping centers, industrial parks, golf courses, etc... all have
greatly varying "busy" periods. That's all part of the decision at the
actual time of need.

We're talking low altitude, where the population of a landing spot
should be pretty obvious.

As we nit-pick this to death, what are the choices after a stall just a
few hundred feet above the ground while turning?

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

>>>> In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the _magnitude_ of
>>>> the vector.

>>> Nope. Not even at high school. The magnitude is "speed".

>> Maybe where you live. Not where I live.

> BS. This is stated in any basic physics text book -even Wiki knows it:
>
> "In physics...The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is
> speed."

What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?

[Daedalus]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:24:31 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:YbkQj.67982$y05.56887
:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>B A R R Y > wrote in news:Z%iQj.22374$%41.15539
>>> @nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>>
>>>> Shirl wrote:
>>>>> WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>>>> I've also heard a lot of BS in this thread about not having good
>>>>>> palces to put the plane. There is nearly always somewhere flat to
>>> put
>>>>>> the plane within 90 degrees of the runway centerline -even a road.
>>>>>> Malls have big parking lots!
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know about where you live, but malls here have lots of
>light
>>>>> poles, concrete islands, park-and-rest benches and ... and ...
>>> vehicles
>>>>> everywhere. And having gone through it once, I'm no longer fooled
>by
>>>>> what *looks* "flat" at 500, or even 50 feet.
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather hit a bus shelter or light poles @ 40-50 MPH than go in
>>>> inverted after a stall/spin @ 200-300 AGL.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> One doesn't equal the other moron.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Obviously, fjukktard.
>
>
>Figured out that maze on the back of your froot loops box yet?
>
>
>Bertie

lol

Jade

[KAE]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:15:25 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>WingFlaps > wrote in
:
>
>> On Apr 25, 8:50*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> Larry Dighera > wrote
>>> innews:3ui2149cg0sac5dsdsi4f05v8t42
>> :
>>>
>>> > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > >
>>
>>> > wrote in >:
>>>
>>> >>The best way to do it is with a steep bank. Very steep.
>>>
>>> > The bank angle may be quantified:
>>>
>>> Good grief Larry, you really are an idiot.
>>> Of course it can be quatified, but the numbers only tell a minute
>>> part of the story. I can categorically state that I can do a 180 with
>>> 70 deg bank at VSO 1.2 deadstick and come out the other end in one
>>> piece. Can you? Try it using those figures and send my the answer via
>>> my Ouiji board.
>>>
>>
>> Well I cannot understand you you can load the plane up like that and
>> not raise stall speed beyond 1.2Vs so you must be using a wing drop to
>> acclerate the turn? Do you could just stall out of the turn -but how
>> much height do you loose in the stall and it's recovery?
>
>No, you have to lower the nose continuously to offload as you go around
>the bend. You will end up fairy nose low at the end of the turn alright
>but you can recover that as you level the wings. The turn is pretty
>rapid at that speed so you won't be in it too long. It's as about "on
>the edge" as you can get. It's the only way it can be done unles you
>have an airplane with an outrageous climb. If you're proficient in spins
>try it at a bit of altitude and a reduced bank angle. You can increase
>the bank in subsequent attempts as you become more comfortable. just
>don't get the idea that this will make you good enough to try it in
>anger on it's own!
>
>
>Bertie

Is that a good description of how Bob Hoover used to fly his engine
out performance in the Shrike commander?
His energy management routine was one of the best parts of an airshow.
Kirk

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stefan > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
>>>>> In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the
>>>>> _magnitude_ of the vector.
>
>>>> Nope. Not even at high school. The magnitude is "speed".
>
>>> Maybe where you live. Not where I live.
>
>> BS. This is stated in any basic physics text book -even Wiki knows
>> it:
>>
>> "In physics...The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is
>> speed."
>
> What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?
>

Who's everyday? is he on first or is he the shortstop?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Daedalus > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:24:31 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:YbkQj.67982$y05.56887
:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>B A R R Y > wrote in news:Z%iQj.22374$%
41.15539
>>>> @nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Shirl wrote:
>>>>>> WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>>>>> I've also heard a lot of BS in this thread about not having good
>>>>>>> palces to put the plane. There is nearly always somewhere flat
to
>>>> put
>>>>>>> the plane within 90 degrees of the runway centerline -even a
road.
>>>>>>> Malls have big parking lots!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know about where you live, but malls here have lots of
>>light
>>>>>> poles, concrete islands, park-and-rest benches and ... and ...
>>>> vehicles
>>>>>> everywhere. And having gone through it once, I'm no longer fooled
>>by
>>>>>> what *looks* "flat" at 500, or even 50 feet.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather hit a bus shelter or light poles @ 40-50 MPH than go in
>>>>> inverted after a stall/spin @ 200-300 AGL.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> One doesn't equal the other moron.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Obviously, fjukktard.
>>
>>
>>Figured out that maze on the back of your froot loops box yet?
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
> lol
>
> Jade
>
>

$:*0"


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

KAE > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:15:25 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>WingFlaps > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Apr 25, 8:50*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> Larry Dighera > wrote
>>>> innews:3ui2149cg0sac5dsdsi4f05v8t42
>>> :
>>>>
>>>> > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:27:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>>> > >
>>>
>>>> > wrote in >:
>>>>
>>>> >>The best way to do it is with a steep bank. Very steep.
>>>>
>>>> > The bank angle may be quantified:
>>>>
>>>> Good grief Larry, you really are an idiot.
>>>> Of course it can be quatified, but the numbers only tell a minute
>>>> part of the story. I can categorically state that I can do a 180
with
>>>> 70 deg bank at VSO 1.2 deadstick and come out the other end in one
>>>> piece. Can you? Try it using those figures and send my the answer
via
>>>> my Ouiji board.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well I cannot understand you you can load the plane up like that and
>>> not raise stall speed beyond 1.2Vs so you must be using a wing drop
to
>>> acclerate the turn? Do you could just stall out of the turn -but
how
>>> much height do you loose in the stall and it's recovery?
>>
>>No, you have to lower the nose continuously to offload as you go
around
>>the bend. You will end up fairy nose low at the end of the turn
alright
>>but you can recover that as you level the wings. The turn is pretty
>>rapid at that speed so you won't be in it too long. It's as about "on
>>the edge" as you can get. It's the only way it can be done unles you
>>have an airplane with an outrageous climb. If you're proficient in
spins
>>try it at a bit of altitude and a reduced bank angle. You can increase
>>the bank in subsequent attempts as you become more comfortable. just
>>don't get the idea that this will make you good enough to try it in
>>anger on it's own!
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
> Is that a good description of how Bob Hoover used to fly his engine
> out performance in the Shrike commander?
> His energy management routine was one of the best parts of an airshow.
> Kirk

Well, in many ways this is a lot more demanding. he would have had a lot
of energy in sotre for that dispaly, doing this, you're relatively low
and you have no speed to spare bar what you can make for yourself by
getting the nose down. I'm not saying you have to be a flying god to do
it, but you do have to be able to do this sort of manuever accurately
without even thinking about it, and that isn't part of any syllabus I
know of.


Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

On Apr 25, 7:11 am, WingFlaps > wrote:

> "In physics...The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is
> speed."
>
> Cheers

But it's relative to space, not the earth, as I posted earlier.
Earth pulls straight down, nothing more. Do this, as we have done many
times: Go out and fly on a day when the upper winds are at 30 or 40
knots and get under the hood, do 30 degree banked turns, maintaining a
constant altitude and power setting, and see if the airspeed changes.
Got to be done over flat land, BTW. Any orographic lift will screw up
the altitude. You won't see any performance changes, but the
airplane's flight path over the ground sure isn't circular. Try 45
degree banked turns. Try it in a glide. See if you can prove me wrong.

Dan

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 26, 5:45*am, wrote:
> On Apr 25, 7:11 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > "In physics...The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is
> > speed."
>
> > Cheers
>
> * * * *But it's relative to space, not the earth, as I posted earlier.
> Earth pulls straight down, nothing more. Do this, as we have done many
> times: Go out and fly on a day when the upper winds are at 30 or 40
> knots and get under the hood, do 30 degree banked turns, maintaining a
> constant altitude and power setting, and see if the airspeed changes.
> Got to be done over flat land, BTW. Any orographic lift will screw up
> the altitude. You won't see any performance changes, but the
> airplane's flight path over the ground sure isn't circular. Try 45
> degree banked turns. Try it in a glide. See if you can prove me wrong.
>

WTF? I wasn't talking about speed over the ground...

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 26, 3:48*am, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> >>>> In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the _magnitude_ of
> >>>> the vector.
> >>> Nope. Not even at high school. The magnitude is "speed".
> >> Maybe where you live. Not where I live.
> > BS. This is stated in any basic physics text book -even Wiki knows it:
>
> > "In physics...The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is
> > speed."
>
> What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?

I can see you have trouble with English too.

Cheers

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

>>>>>> In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the _magnitude_ of
>>>>>> the vector.
>>>>> Nope. Not even at high school. The magnitude is "speed".
>>>> Maybe where you live. Not where I live.
>>> BS. This is stated in any basic physics text book -even Wiki knows it:
>>> "In physics...The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is
>>> speed."
>> What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?

> I can see you have trouble with English too.

If my mediocre English is offending you, then feel free to converse in
German, French, Italian or Spanish with me. I know all those languages
better than English, which obviously isn't my native language. How many
languages do _you_ speak?

Nevertheless I know English good enough to know that in general use
velocity is synonymous to speed. I don't expect you to agree with me,
but maybe you accept an excerpt from the OED:


velocity

1. a. Rapidity or celerity of motion; swiftness, speed.

1849 Macaulay Hist. Eng. iii. I. 379 The flying coaches are extolled as
far superior to any similar vehicles ever known in the world. Their
velocity is the subject of special commendation.

c. In scientific use, speed together with the direction of travel, as a
vector quantity.


So again: If, outside a strictly scientific or technical environment,
you choose to use a technical term which has a different meaning in
general use than in scientific use, then better advise it.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 25, 3:43 pm, Stefan > wrote:
> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> >>>>>> In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the _magnitude_ of
> >>>>>> the vector.
> >>>>> Nope. Not even at high school. The magnitude is "speed".
> >>>> Maybe where you live. Not where I live.
> >>> BS. This is stated in any basic physics text book -even Wiki knows it:
> >>> "In physics...The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is
> >>> speed."
> >> What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?
> > I can see you have trouble with English too.
>
> If my mediocre English is offending you, then feel free to converse in
> German, French, Italian or Spanish with me. I know all those languages
> better than English, which obviously isn't my native language. How many
> languages do _you_ speak?
>
> Nevertheless I know English good enough to know that in general use
> velocity is synonymous to speed. I don't expect you to agree with me,
> but maybe you accept an excerpt from the OED:
>
> velocity
>
> 1. a. Rapidity or celerity of motion; swiftness, speed.
>
> 1849 Macaulay Hist. Eng. iii. I. 379 The flying coaches are extolled as
> far superior to any similar vehicles ever known in the world. Their
> velocity is the subject of special commendation.
>
> c. In scientific use, speed together with the direction of travel, as a
> vector quantity.
>
> So again: If, outside a strictly scientific or technical environment,
> you choose to use a technical term which has a different meaning in
> general use than in scientific use, then better advise it.

Stefan, this English speaker understands you (both your grammar and
your arguments) perfectly. I can't say the same of the gibberish
posted by Wingflaps.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 26, 10:38*am, wrote:
> On Apr 25, 3:43 pm, Stefan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > >>>>>> In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the _magnitude_ of
> > >>>>>> the vector.
> > >>>>> Nope. Not even at high school. The magnitude is "speed".
> > >>>> Maybe where you live. Not where I live.
> > >>> BS. This is stated in any basic physics text book -even Wiki knows it:
> > >>> "In physics...The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is
> > >>> speed."
> > >> What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?
> > > I can see you have trouble with English too.
>
> > If my mediocre English is offending you, then feel free to converse in
> > German, French, Italian or Spanish with me. I know all those languages
> > better than English, which obviously isn't my native language. How many
> > languages do _you_ speak?
>
> > Nevertheless I know English good enough to know that in general use
> > velocity is synonymous to speed. I don't expect you to agree with me,
> > but maybe you accept an excerpt from the OED:
>
> > velocity
>
> > 1. a. Rapidity or celerity of motion; swiftness, speed.
>
> > 1849 Macaulay Hist. Eng. iii. I. 379 The flying coaches are extolled as
> > far superior to any similar vehicles ever known in the world. Their
> > velocity is the subject of special commendation.
>
> > c. In scientific use, speed together with the direction of travel, as a
> > vector quantity.
>
> > So again: If, outside a strictly scientific or technical environment,
> > you choose to use a technical term which has a different meaning in
> > general use than in scientific use, then better advise it.
>
> Stefan, this English speaker understands you (both your grammar and
> your arguments) perfectly. *I can't say the same of the gibberish
> posted by Wingflaps.- Hide quoted text -
>

Bwhahahhahaha. Stefan's got a TROLL fwend.

Cheers

[[email protected]]

On Apr 25, 5:09 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 26, 10:38 am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 3:43 pm, Stefan > wrote:
>
> > > WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > > >>>>>> In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the _magnitude_ of
> > > >>>>>> the vector.
> > > >>>>> Nope. Not even at high school. The magnitude is "speed".
> > > >>>> Maybe where you live. Not where I live.
> > > >>> BS. This is stated in any basic physics text book -even Wiki knows it:
> > > >>> "In physics...The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is
> > > >>> speed."
> > > >> What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?
> > > > I can see you have trouble with English too.
>
> > > If my mediocre English is offending you, then feel free to converse in
> > > German, French, Italian or Spanish with me. I know all those languages
> > > better than English, which obviously isn't my native language. How many
> > > languages do _you_ speak?
>
> > > Nevertheless I know English good enough to know that in general use
> > > velocity is synonymous to speed. I don't expect you to agree with me,
> > > but maybe you accept an excerpt from the OED:
>
> > > velocity
>
> > > 1. a. Rapidity or celerity of motion; swiftness, speed.
>
> > > 1849 Macaulay Hist. Eng. iii. I. 379 The flying coaches are extolled as
> > > far superior to any similar vehicles ever known in the world. Their
> > > velocity is the subject of special commendation.
>
> > > c. In scientific use, speed together with the direction of travel, as a
> > > vector quantity.
>
> > > So again: If, outside a strictly scientific or technical environment,
> > > you choose to use a technical term which has a different meaning in
> > > general use than in scientific use, then better advise it.
>
> > Stefan, this English speaker understands you (both your grammar and
> > your arguments) perfectly. I can't say the same of the gibberish
> > posted by Wingflaps.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Bwhahahhahaha. Stefan's got a TROLL fwend.
>
> Cheers

Yep, I'm someone who recognizes the futility of arguing with an
arrogant, clueless blowhard. But as long as you're critiquing the
grammar of non-English speakers, critique this from a self-declared
English speaker:

> Well I cannot understand you you can load the plane up like that and
> not raise stall speed beyond 1.2Vs so you must be using a wing drop to
> acclerate the turn? Do you could just stall out of the turn -but how
> much height do you loose in the stall and it's recovery?

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Stefan > wrote:

> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> >>>>>> In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the _magnitude_ of
> >>>>>> the vector.
> >>>>> Nope. Not even at high school. The magnitude is "speed".
> >>>> Maybe where you live. Not where I live.
> >>> BS. This is stated in any basic physics text book -even Wiki knows it:
> >>> "In physics...The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is
> >>> speed."
> >> What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?
>
> > I can see you have trouble with English too.
>
> If my mediocre English is offending you, then feel free to converse in
> German, French, Italian or Spanish with me. I know all those languages
> better than English, which obviously isn't my native language. How many
> languages do _you_ speak?

There are those who might argue that he doesn't actually speak any
competently.

Your English is just fine.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 26, 11:30*am, wrote:
> On Apr 25, 5:09 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 10:38 am, wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 25, 3:43 pm, Stefan > wrote:
>
> > > > WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > > > >>>>>> In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the _magnitude_ of
> > > > >>>>>> the vector.
> > > > >>>>> Nope. Not even at high school. The magnitude is "speed".
> > > > >>>> Maybe where you live. Not where I live.
> > > > >>> BS. This is stated in any basic physics text book -even Wiki knows it:
> > > > >>> "In physics...The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is
> > > > >>> speed."
> > > > >> What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?
> > > > > I can see you have trouble with English too.
>
> > > > If my mediocre English is offending you, then feel free to converse in
> > > > German, French, Italian or Spanish with me. I know all those languages
> > > > better than English, which obviously isn't my native language. How many
> > > > languages do _you_ speak?
>
> > > > Nevertheless I know English good enough to know that in general use
> > > > velocity is synonymous to speed. I don't expect you to agree with me,
> > > > but maybe you accept an excerpt from the OED:
>
> > > > velocity
>
> > > > 1. a. Rapidity or celerity of motion; swiftness, speed.
>
> > > > 1849 Macaulay Hist. Eng. iii. I. 379 The flying coaches are extolled as
> > > > far superior to any similar vehicles ever known in the world. Their
> > > > velocity is the subject of special commendation.
>
> > > > c. In scientific use, speed together with the direction of travel, as a
> > > > vector quantity.
>
> > > > So again: If, outside a strictly scientific or technical environment,
> > > > you choose to use a technical term which has a different meaning in
> > > > general use than in scientific use, then better advise it.
>
> > > Stefan, this English speaker understands you (both your grammar and
> > > your arguments) perfectly. *I can't say the same of the gibberish
> > > posted by Wingflaps.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Bwhahahhahaha. Stefan's got a TROLL *fwend.
>
> > Cheers
>
> Yep, I'm someone who recognizes the futility of arguing with an
> arrogant, clueless blowhard. *But as long as you're critiquing the
> grammar of non-English speakers, critique this from a self-declared
> English speaker:
>

I declare you're a troll.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 26, 11:41*am, Steve Hix >
wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Stefan > wrote:
> > WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> > >>>>>> In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the _magnitude_ of
> > >>>>>> the vector.
> > >>>>> Nope. Not even at high school. The magnitude is "speed".
> > >>>> Maybe where you live. Not where I live.
> > >>> BS. This is stated in any basic physics text book -even Wiki knows it:
> > >>> "In physics...The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is
> > >>> speed."
> > >> What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?
>
> > > I can see you have trouble with English too.
>
> > If my mediocre English is offending you, then feel free to converse in
> > German, French, Italian or Spanish with me. I know all those languages
> > better than English, which obviously isn't my native language. How many
> > languages do _you_ speak?
>
> There are those who might argue that he doesn't actually speak any
> competently.
>

Stefan was doing quite well actually, I realized that his problem was
in understanding that the magnitude of velocity is called speed. Do
you?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 26, 3:16*am, B A R R Y > wrote:

>
> As we nit-pick this to death, what are the choices after a stall just a
> few hundred feet above the ground while turning?

In a 172 in a gliding steep (>=45 degree bank) turn at 65 knots? Very
high I'd say and I've done it at altitude as a demonstration. But
there are those who just don't believe/know it and it happens with
depressing frequency. This why I argue against the "impossible
turn"...

Cheers

[Hilton]

Hi,

OK, too much noise here, let's just refrain from replying to personal
attacks shall we.

Anyway, speed is the magnitude of the velocity vector. In a constant speed
turn, speed is (obviously) constant, but the velocity is continuously
changing. This is by definition. It doesn't matter how you or anyone else
uses these terms. Speed is just a number, Velocity is speed plus a
'direction' variable. Since acceleration is the rate of change of velocity
(dv/dt), the above mentioned aircraft in the constant speed turn is
accelerating.

Hilton

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 26, 12:37*pm, "Hilton" > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> OK, too much noise here, let's just refrain from replying to personal
> attacks shall we.
>

OK but sometimes you have to paint the troll for the peanut gallery.

> Anyway, speed is the magnitude of the velocity vector. *In a constant speed
> turn, speed is (obviously) constant, but the velocity is continuously
> changing. *This is by definition. *It doesn't matter how you or anyone else
> uses these terms. *Speed is just a number, Velocity is speed plus a
> 'direction' variable. *Since acceleration is the rate of change of velocity
> (dv/dt), the above mentioned aircraft in the constant speed turn is
> accelerating.
>

Yes. I just hope you don't have to explain it again and again like I
had to because it got really tedious.

Cheers

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student WingFlaps > wrote:
> Technical comment :
>
> Is there anyone here who thinks velocity is not used by pilots as a
> vector (apart from Stefan)? I say the common parlance for the
> magnitude of velocity is SPEED that is why you have an ASI in your
> plane and a speedometer in your car. Anyone disagree?
>
> I suggest that we are in a piloting forum, a technical environment,
> and pilots do know the difference, e.g. they understand and use basic
> physics and vector addition all the time... But I could be wrong and
> if so I apologize for using technical terms correctly.

I have never heard the term "velocity" used to explicitly indicate speed
and direction outside of a physics classroom. The pilots I talk to almost
never use the word at all. Stefan is absolutely correct that in
non-technical discussion the word is synonymous with speed. Until Stefan
mentioned that he was not a native English speaker I would not have
guessed.

I'd also like to suggest that from my point of view your reaction to the
confusion was *way* out of line. The correct response is simply to note
that you are using "velocity" in its technical sense as a vector and not
its lay sense as a synonym for speed, then continue the discussion from
there. Berating him for bad English is simply uncalled for, although it is
of course par for the course on Usenet.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[clint]

Senoirs manage energy cuz they dont have nuch!
KAE has brought this to us :
> His energy management routine was one of the best parts of an airshow.

[clint]

Senoirs live in bus shelters we hate U!
B A R R Y wrote on 4/25/2008 :
> I'd rather hit a bus shelter or light poles @ 40-50 MPH than go in inverted
> after a stall/spin @ 200-300 AGL.

[clint]

duh wing flaaper!

It happens that Dylan Smith formulated :
>> I thought the engine had stopped?

> The prop will often keep turning after the engine has stopped

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 26, 12:58*pm, Michael Ash > wrote:

>
> I'd also like to suggest that from my point of view your reaction to the
> confusion was *way* out of line. The correct response is simply to note
> that you are using "velocity" in its technical sense as a vector and not
> its lay sense as a synonym for speed, then continue the discussion from
> there. Berating him for bad English is simply uncalled for, although it is
> of course par for the course on Usenet.
>

I simply started getting ****ed off when I had to state it for the
third time and he continued to try to put words into my mouth. Go back
over the thread and see it. Also I did not berate him, if you read the
thread you would see the following exchange

Stefan: What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?
Me: I can see you have trouble with English too.

Is that what you call berating him? Perhaps you did not read the
thread ?

Cheers

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 26, 12:58?pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
>
>> I'd also like to suggest that from my point of view your reaction to the
>> confusion was *way* out of line. The correct response is simply to note
>> that you are using "velocity" in its technical sense as a vector and not
>> its lay sense as a synonym for speed, then continue the discussion from
>> there. Berating him for bad English is simply uncalled for, although it is
>> of course par for the course on Usenet.
>
> I simply started getting ****ed off when I had to state it for the
> third time and he continued to try to put words into my mouth. Go back
> over the thread and see it. Also I did not berate him, if you read the
> thread you would see the following exchange
>
> Stefan: What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?
> Me: I can see you have trouble with English too.
>
> Is that what you call berating him?

Yes.

> Perhaps you did not read the
> thread ?

I read it. It is possible in this case to disagree for reasons other than
ignorance.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Apr 26, 12:58*pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd also like to suggest that from my point of view your reaction to
>> the confusion was *way* out of line. The correct response is simply
>> to note that you are using "velocity" in its technical sense as a
>> vector and not its lay sense as a synonym for speed, then continue
>> the discussion from there. Berating him for bad English is simply
>> uncalled for, although it is
>
>> of course par for the course on Usenet.
>>
>
> I simply started getting ****ed off when I had to state it for the
> third time and he continued to try to put words into my mouth. Go back
> over the thread and see it. Also I did not berate him, if you read the
> thread you would see the following exchange
>
> Stefan: What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?
> Me: I can see you have trouble with English too.
>
> Is that what you call berating him? Perhaps you did not read the
> thread ?

Actually, though I'm too lazy to go look it up, in your original post I
also got the impression that you were talking about having to accelerate
with the wind.. Much as I hate to agree with the clockwork ****. ( Stefan)



Berti

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 27, 3:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 12:58 pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
>
>
> Actually, though I'm too lazy to go look it up, in your original post I
> also got the impression that you were talking about having to accelerate
> with the wind.. Much as I hate to agree with the clockwork ****. ( Stefan)
>

Yes, I was and that was the point. You do have to accelerate and it
does cost some energy -but the cost is not due to the change in ground
speed (I never mentioned the change in ground speed you will note).
What is interesting is how quickly people grabbed the idea
incorrectly, and how willling they were to strut their limited
understanding without giving some careful thought as to what might be
going on.

I feel quite passionate about safety (or rather the avoidable lack
thereof). It is illuminating that a post designed to (re)open minds
to the danger of the turn back on engine failure (the "impossible
turn") by giving some concrete glide numbers should have met such
visceral response (was it was mostly macho and invulnerability errors
in behaviour coming through?). For some reason many pilots here seem
to think an airport is the only safe place to put a plane down. Even
if EFATO landing zones include a school, mall and residential housing
there are always places to put a light plane within 90 degrees of
runway centerline that will allow a proper landing without huge
carnage.

What may be even more critical is how inflated some people think their
ability will be in an actual emergency. I have been in "extreme
danger" with other people so I can speak with some authority on how
people actually behave in life threatening situations.

For some (most?) pilots, when the fan stops there will be several
seconds of disbelief. Then they start to muddle through some checks -
taking more time than they should as they try to make sure they've got
the reason. The practised slick response becomes slowed or not carried
out correcly (e.g. the fuel valve is not turned to another tank or the
boost pump is not selected). Some panic will bite, the pilot knows
he's low and slow, away from the runway and the safety of "home". Even
if the turn might have just have been made by a very slick coordinated
pilot, in the actual event that option moves quickly out of the realm
of possibility. Then the pilot realizes that he's running short on
time and tries to turn tightly for "home" at low airspeed. The (nearly
always) fatal stall spin crash that results is a preventable event if
that turn is not made -so why do so many pilots try it and die? Is it
possible that they have become so conditioned to the idea that the
airport is the only place where a plane can land that no other options
can exist?

Sorry for the long post but here's a final thought: It is well known
that in emergency situations that infantile response patterns can
reappear. Look at how slowly a baby pilot works checks in EFATO (even
if they can rattle the FMI parts off on the ground). I suggest that in
a real emergency the PIC might take just as long... So I suggest that
a way to train EFATO properly might be to look at the height loss in
training and then double it and state that unless you are at least at
twice that altitude don't turn back. Make that decision point a part
of training, much in the same was as you clear forward at 400-500'
after T/O. What do you think of this idea, Dudley too?

Cheers

[My Cat's Pink Dick]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:05:22 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

> I simply started getting ****ed off when I had to state it for the
> third time and he continued to try to put words into my mouth. Go back
> over the thread and see it. Also I did not berate him, if you read the
> thread you would see the following exchange
>
> Stefan: What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?
> Me: I can see you have trouble with English too.
>
> Is that what you call berating him? Perhaps you did not read the
> thread ?

Yikes! I just had a horrible thought. What if DanMc (may he rot in
hell) and Wingflapper should get together and procreate? I would think
the result would be quite horrid, all ass and no forehead, three balls
and a blue cravat.
--
pLeEsE mEaT mY oWNer; sEnDs MoNIeS
http://s7y.us/32o

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 27, 2:55*am, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 12:58?pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
>
> >> I'd also like to suggest that from my point of view your reaction to the
> >> confusion was *way* out of line. The correct response is simply to note
> >> that you are using "velocity" in its technical sense as a vector and not
> >> its lay sense as a synonym for speed, then continue the discussion from
> >> there. Berating him for bad English is simply uncalled for, although it is
> >> of course par for the course on Usenet.
>
> > I simply started getting ****ed off when I had to state it for the
> > third time and he continued to try to put words into my mouth. Go back
> > over the thread and see it. Also I did not berate him, if you read the
> > thread you would see the following exchange
>
> > Stefan: What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?
> > Me: I can see you have trouble with English too.
>
> > Is that what you call berating him?
>
> Yes.
>

Here's what berate means:

"to scold or condemn vehemently and at length"

Is that what I did -come on be honest!

Sheesh.

[Highest Quality Squack]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

> I declare you're a troll.

http://www.silverraven.com/fy.htm

[Naked Gonad]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:37:39 -0700, Hilton wrote:

> Hi,
>
> OK, too much noise here, let's just refrain from replying to personal
> attacks shall we.

Two and two is four.

There, we've now exchanged platitudinous truisms. Are we bonding yet?

--
Gonad

[Alric Knebel's Rack]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:06:42 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> It's not so much the loss of altitude that will get you in this
> manuever. it's the probable loss of control trying to manuever around
> back towards the field.
> Firstly, in any emergency that hasnt been drilled, you will have a
> moment where you will be sitting there with your mouth open in utter
> disbelief of what has just happened. in fact, even if you have drilled
> for it you will still have this moment, but if it's been practiced the
> moment you begine to do something about it will be sooner coming.
> While you're sitting there wondering what's going on, the speed will be
> bleeding off. Not good.

Nothing you do is useful. You very rarely even come up with a good
idea, and when the blind squirrel principal does kick in (astoundingly,
you've seem to even defeat random chance with your incompetence), you
manage to cock it up so badly that what might have been a useful thing
in a normal person's hands turns to low-grade fertilizer.

Those are your two claims to fame. Being a complete flake who can't
keep even the simplest of things on track for any significant period of
time, and being an absolute moron when it comes to understanding what's
useful to the piloting community, and implementing it.

--
____________________
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

[Linton Yarbrough]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:33:52 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:33:52 GMT,*Larry Diarrhea* wrote:

> The Kinetic Energy "Paradox"

Larry, there's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet
innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'.

You¢re the latter.

[I Speak White]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:45:41 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

> I can see you missed the point entirely.

DickHead:

This is kind of like teasing you, a retarded kid, until he gets so
angry you **** yourself. Sure, in a perverse way, it's funny to watch
you stand there and scream and deny, all red-faced with **** dripping
from your cuffs of your shorts and down your pasty white legs. But,
still, I feel bad for you in a way, too. It's worse than shooting fish
in a barrel, it's just too easy.
--
http://tinyurl.com/ysv7sz

[Mxsmanic]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:59:19 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

> WTF?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F48eTMgqF2w
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2
iQA/AwUBR/qGPRv8knkS0DI6EQLqQQCfYI/+jhW28/0AaBVgq58mnuYYo2AAnRMP
r/ChOzrJkKnGHZcngwRffPMG
=2EPt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 27, 5:40*am, I Speak White > wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:45:41 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:
> > I can see you missed the point entirely.
>
> DickHead:
>
> This is kind of like teasing you, a retarded kid, until he gets so
> angry you **** yourself. Sure, in a perverse way, it's funny to watch
> you stand there and scream and deny, all red-faced with **** dripping
> from your cuffs of your shorts and down your pasty white legs. But,
> still, I feel bad for you in a way, too. It's worse than shooting fish
> in a barrel, it's just too easy.

What a vivid little imagination you have, with just a hint of
pedophilia.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 26, 12:56*pm, Robert Moore > wrote:

>
> Hmmmm.....I wonder why we have "V" speeds, you know V1, Vso, etc.?
>

Some German origin?

Cheers

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 11:18 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 27, 3:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > WingFlaps > wrote :
>
> > > On Apr 26, 12:58 pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
>
> > Actually, though I'm too lazy to go look it up, in your original post I
> > also got the impression that you were talking about having to accelerate
> > with the wind.. Much as I hate to agree with the clockwork ****. ( Stefan)
>
> Yes, I was and that was the point. You do have to accelerate and it
> does cost some energy -but the cost is not due to the change in ground
> speed (I never mentioned the change in ground speed you will note).
> What is interesting is how quickly people grabbed the idea
> incorrectly, and how willling they were to strut their limited
> understanding without giving some careful thought as to what might be
> going on.

Lots of people had the impression you were talking about the
dreaded downwind turn, with all the talk about the energy required to
accelerate to maintain airspeed. The energy required, as pointed out
in a much earlier post with several very good references, is so tiny
that it's not worth fooling with at all. Other factors, such as the
increase in stall speed that comes with a turn, along with the
increased drag that costs altitude if the speed is kept up, along with
the lack of practice, along with the sweaty-palms fear that make
accurate judgement all but impossible, along with the normal desire to
avoid breaking the airplane at *any* cost hence the reason for turning
around even when there's nothing but small trees ahead, are going to
end up in disaster in many cases.

Dan

[Ted Sherman]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:57:13 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

> Yes. I just hope you don't have to explain it again and again like I
> had to because it got really tedious.

http://tinyurl.com/3ywonc

[vern]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:26:58 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

> I'm not mixed up,

http://tinyurl.com/6gxx3n
--
R.I.P to Dead Tull Morons
http://www.tullzine.org/Jc/tribute.html

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 27, 6:04*am, wrote:
> * * * * Lots of people had the impression you were talking about the
> dreaded downwind turn, with all the talk about the energy required to
> accelerate to maintain airspeed. The energy required, as pointed out
> in a much earlier post with several very good references, is so tiny
> that it's not worth fooling with at all.

Perhaps you could put a number on that? Could you try a gliding turn
with stopwatch and altimeter and compare that to a straight glide?

Cheers

[Tauno Voipio]

Robert Moore wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote
>
>>Is there anyone here who thinks velocity is not used by pilots as a
>>vector (apart from Stefan)? I say the common parlance for the
>>magnitude of velocity is SPEED that is why you have an ASI in your
>>plane and a speedometer in your car. Anyone disagree?
>
>
> Hmmmm.....I wonder why we have "V" speeds, you know V1, Vso, etc.?


Quite simple: In physics, the abbreviation of 'velocity'
has been 'v' for a long time. The indices then describe
which speed it is.

Velocity is the value of speed vector without direction
information.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Tauno Voipio > wrote:

>Velocity is the value of speed vector without direction
>information.

Incorrect. It is the other way around (Velocity includes speed and
direction).

Ron Lee

[tyreah]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:50:43 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

> What a vivid little imagination you have, with just a hint of
> pedophilia.

It's not ambiguous no matter how hard you try and wriggle out of your
own imbecility by pretending it is. It's a clear statement of fact that
proves you unequivocally wrong, made by the people you were "citing" in
an attempt to prop up that imbecility.

Sorry about your luck, sucks to be you, have a nice day.

--
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Jean O'Boyle]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:50:43 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

> On Apr 27, 5:40*am, I Speak White > wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:45:41 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:
>>> I can see you missed the point entirely.
>>
>> DickHead:
>>
>> This is kind of like teasing you, a retarded kid, until he gets so
>> angry you **** yourself. Sure, in a perverse way, it's funny to watch
>> you stand there and scream and deny, all red-faced with **** dripping
>> from your cuffs of your shorts and down your pasty white legs. But,
>> still, I feel bad for you in a way, too. It's worse than shooting fish
>> in a barrel, it's just too easy.
>
> What a vivid little imagination you have, with just a hint of
> pedophilia.
>
> Cheers

Maybe after a bit. That crunching sound of you under my heel is just too
attractive at the moment. Sorta like a little symphony, being backed up
your squealing and all.

*snicker*

Don't worry little one, I know how important it is for people like you
to get the last word in. When I decide that time has come, I'll let you
know. :)

--
skype:mranep
cell:813-610-2978; work:813-386-4500; work2:813-915-1663
Motto: Why face the world myself when my wife's skirt, it is so dark and
comfy under it?
Proclamation: "A man can have sex with sheep, cows and camels and so on.
However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should
not sell the meat to the people in Nepal; Ok I did so beat me with a
Yeti dick.

[Anthony Atkielski]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:45:41 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

> Good luck on your first engine failure during climb out, if you turn
> back I hope you make it. but you'll have a better chance going
> straight ahead...

Wow, the last time that I checked, I didn't need to have the permission
of the Imperial Asshole to post here, and since it wasn't in response to
one of your posts, I have to assume that you just enjoy randomly
editorializing on posts or posters that are not to your liking.

(Translation) Eat me.

--
http://tinyurl.com/38zr4j

[Help! I Need SomeBooty!]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:00:45 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

> I see the problem. You don't know what velocity is. It's a VECTOR. It
> changes when you turn. If you don't understand this there's not much
> point talking about anything that involves physics....

Talk about thick... you don't even have the slightest clue what velocity
really is.

*snicker*

You've been making a supreme fool of yourself all this time, puffing
your chest and calling other people stupid in your usual self
aggrandizing way. Read this and weep, bitch. Maybe some day you'll learn
to not be such an arrogant jackass. :)
--
John

[Carolyn Blevins]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:17:22 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

> I've also heard a lot of BS in this thread about not having good
> palces to put the plane. There is nearly always somewhere flat to put
> the plane within 90 degrees of the runway centerline -even a road.
> Malls have big parking lots! Put it down flat in landing config and
> you will probably survive, stall spin and you'll DIE along with your
> PAX. A good pilot looks at the airport environs in a strange airport
> and may ask about options at the runway end for this emergency.

You're a sick, putrid excuse for human life. The lowest form of ****.
The professional help you deserve is a slow death at the hands of a
highly
skilled marksman. Knees first, then go to work on the shoulders
and elbows. Maybe an ear. Then when you've started confessing your sins
and begging for that telling shot to the head, you should be left to
bleed
out in agony.


>>> _
>>> /'_/)
>>> ,/_ /
>>> / /
>>> /'_'/' '/'__'7,
>>> /'/ / / /" /_\
>>> ('( ' **** /' ')
>>> \ You' /
>>> '\' _.7'
>>> \ (
>>> \ \

[Ron Rechtum]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:49:11 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

> I thought the engine had stopped?

Just out of morbid curiosity, how do you even manage to get yourself
motivated to post? It can't be fun for you any more after making a fool
of yourself so many times, can it? In fact the last two days have been
so horrible for you, you just had to dig back to Tuesday to find a post
you could reply to without embarrassing yourself so much even you can't
stand it. Pretty sad considering your lack of self respect.

Seriously. Why do you bother? You can't honestly believe anyone sees you
as anything but a clown any more, can you? Don't you have anything you
could be doing that would be a bit less of a nightmare for you, like
burning yourself with lit cigarettes or finger painting with your own
feces?
--
My father was the architect for the Entebbe raid. I love Israel.
Excuse me? **** you in your non-Jew nose, Entebbe was NOT a fiasco!

[w]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:09:17 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

> Well I cannot understand you you can load the plane up like that and
> not raise stall speed beyond 1.2Vs so you must be using a wing drop to
> acclerate the turn? Do you could just stall out of the turn -but how
> much height do you loose in the stall and it's recovery?

In my own professional experience, I usually encounter associates who
are mostly overbearing type A alpha-male contestants who spend more time
trying to undermine one another than providing good service. They think
the job description is being able to look good in a suit and know what a
gun looks like. Beyond that, they try to insure their positions by
slandering whoever they can, in order shift attention away from the fact
that they can't find their own asses with both hands and radar. Their
method doesn't work.

Your's is equally ignorant.
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQEVAwUBR9vpSyJ1c2yWnmsPAQEobwf+LzJFrH3kZI4VjKC+NP w0dUgHylaT9LQR
DjzsT8ZRU1yEXHIlBrfkDfDc5FikyhGyHi5Vxt4RwQKKTsPpor 3mMjWqLVw2b+zM
gvg7QXpf5vRDOzamTx0LNRgrroXV1UXF6wT/SYmpqj1ply4btn8O+wOmEXwyT6DB
vxjj++NnSgEfHyfCHdZ4R6DT379dfGef0Mrm1mbMwreVccJJFa 4e+Np3Mxl0xtxa
k3bazfAQ4p4EdypQMvOIQyhyJn3unr4BuSIqINCCq6m+hYnGub A+mKZqfsGgx5kT
QPuSoRvZefMDA21QJa6BR6wfnJNStVTm7BajgfrTl6jwxM5dOY 4yXQ==
=KY0b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Apr 27, 3:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:f230e253-83e0-439a-91ef-084d138a1c07
@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 26, 12:58 pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Actually, though I'm too lazy to go look it up, in your original post
>> I also got the impression that you were talking about having to
>> accelerate with the wind.. Much as I hate to agree with the clockwork
>> ****. ( Stefan)
>>
>
> Yes, I was and that was the point. You do have to accelerate and it
> does cost some energy -but the cost is not due to the change in ground
> speed (I never mentioned the change in ground speed you will note).
> What is interesting is how quickly people grabbed the idea
> incorrectly, and how willling they were to strut their limited
> understanding without giving some careful thought as to what might be
> going on.
>
> I feel quite passionate about safety (or rather the avoidable lack
> thereof). It is illuminating that a post designed to (re)open minds
> to the danger of the turn back on engine failure (the "impossible
> turn") by giving some concrete glide numbers should have met such
> visceral response (was it was mostly macho and invulnerability errors
> in behaviour coming through?). For some reason many pilots here seem
> to think an airport is the only safe place to put a plane down. Even
> if EFATO landing zones include a school, mall and residential housing
> there are always places to put a light plane within 90 degrees of
> runway centerline that will allow a proper landing without huge
> carnage.
>
> What may be even more critical is how inflated some people think their
> ability will be in an actual emergency. I have been in "extreme
> danger" with other people so I can speak with some authority on how
> people actually behave in life threatening situations.
>
> For some (most?) pilots, when the fan stops there will be several
> seconds of disbelief. Then they start to muddle through some checks -
> taking more time than they should as they try to make sure they've got
> the reason. The practised slick response becomes slowed or not carried
> out correcly (e.g. the fuel valve is not turned to another tank or the
> boost pump is not selected). Some panic will bite, the pilot knows
> he's low and slow, away from the runway and the safety of "home". Even
> if the turn might have just have been made by a very slick coordinated
> pilot, in the actual event that option moves quickly out of the realm
> of possibility. Then the pilot realizes that he's running short on
> time and tries to turn tightly for "home" at low airspeed. The (nearly
> always) fatal stall spin crash that results is a preventable event if
> that turn is not made -so why do so many pilots try it and die? Is it
> possible that they have become so conditioned to the idea that the
> airport is the only place where a plane can land that no other options
> can exist?
>
> Sorry for the long post but here's a final thought: It is well known
> that in emergency situations that infantile response patterns can
> reappear. Look at how slowly a baby pilot works checks in EFATO (even
> if they can rattle the FMI parts off on the ground). I suggest that in
> a real emergency the PIC might take just as long... So I suggest that
> a way to train EFATO properly might be to look at the height loss in
> training and then double it and state that unless you are at least at
> twice that altitude don't turn back. Make that decision point a part
> of training, much in the same was as you clear forward at 400-500'
> after T/O. What do you think of this idea, Dudley too?
>

I completely agree with your notion that most people will not be able to
handle turning around for exactly the reasons you mentioned. Even if
they take immediate action, the turnaround is hairy for those who cannot
fly right on the edge with 100% accuracy and confidence.

I'm still not sure what you mean when you say the aircraft has to
accelerate. Are you saying that turning downwind will cost more in
acceleration than any other type of turn?


Bertie

[Fartacus]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

> I had a look on Google earth and there seem to be many fields around
> the airport what shopping center are you talking about?

Gee, I dunno. Maybe we give a **** about being accurate. And maybe
we don't much care about know-nothing blowhards who throw bad advice
and accusations around because they're too emotionally stunted to admit
they're just too damned stupid to know what the **** they're talking
about.

Ever stop to think for a second that sometimes when it seems like
everyone is on your ass there's a reason for it? And that reason is you?
--
G

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 27, 6:04?am, wrote:
>> ? ? ? ? Lots of people had the impression you were talking about the
>> dreaded downwind turn, with all the talk about the energy required to
>> accelerate to maintain airspeed. The energy required, as pointed out
>> in a much earlier post with several very good references, is so tiny
>> that it's not worth fooling with at all.
>
> Perhaps you could put a number on that? Could you try a gliding turn
> with stopwatch and altimeter and compare that to a straight glide?

In the optimal 45-degree-banked turn the load factor will be about 1.4.
Your best glide speed and min sink speed will increase by the square root
of that, or 20%. The glide angle remains the same if you increase your
airspeed appropriately, so your sink rate will also increase by 20%. So
instead of 650fpm you'll be coming down at 780fpm. At 78kts (65kts best
glide speed from previous post plus 20%) and a 45 degree bank you're
making a circle a bit over 500ft across which will take you 13 seconds to
complete half of. The extra sink rate from the turn will therefore cost
you 30 feet over what you would have experienced in a straight glide for
the same amount of time.

You'll also lose about 80 feet to accelerate from 65kts to 78kts. But
you'll gain this back at the end, so as long as the end of your turn ends
at a reasonable height it can be ignored.

The numbers will, of course, vary between aircraft but it would appear
that the extra energy loss due to the turn itself isn't all that
significant. If 30 feet is the difference between making it and not making
it you probably should not be turning around in the first place.

Did I miss anything?

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Michael Ash > wrote in
:

> In rec.aviation.student WingFlaps > wrote:
>> On Apr 27, 6:04?am, wrote:
>>> ? ? ? ? Lots of people had the impression you were talking about the
>>> dreaded downwind turn, with all the talk about the energy required
>>> to accelerate to maintain airspeed. The energy required, as pointed
>>> out in a much earlier post with several very good references, is so
>>> tiny that it's not worth fooling with at all.
>>
>> Perhaps you could put a number on that? Could you try a gliding turn
>> with stopwatch and altimeter and compare that to a straight glide?
>
> In the optimal 45-degree-banked turn the load factor will be about
> 1.4. Your best glide speed and min sink speed will increase by the
> square root of that, or 20%. The glide angle remains the same if you
> increase your airspeed appropriately, so your sink rate will also
> increase by 20%. So instead of 650fpm you'll be coming down at 780fpm.
> At 78kts (65kts best glide speed from previous post plus 20%) and a 45
> degree bank you're making a circle a bit over 500ft across which will
> take you 13 seconds to complete half of. The extra sink rate from the
> turn will therefore cost you 30 feet over what you would have
> experienced in a straight glide for the same amount of time.
>
> You'll also lose about 80 feet to accelerate from 65kts to 78kts. But
> you'll gain this back at the end, so as long as the end of your turn
> ends at a reasonable height it can be ignored.
>
> The numbers will, of course, vary between aircraft but it would appear
> that the extra energy loss due to the turn itself isn't all that
> significant. If 30 feet is the difference between making it and not
> making it you probably should not be turning around in the first
> place.
>
> Did I miss anything?
>



45 degrees isn't enough unless you have a very nice gliding airplane or
are starting from a good height to begin with.


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 27, 8:22*am, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 6:04?am, wrote:
> >> ? ? ? ? Lots of people had the impression you were talking about the
> >> dreaded downwind turn, with all the talk about the energy required to
> >> accelerate to maintain airspeed. The energy required, as pointed out
> >> in a much earlier post with several very good references, is so tiny
> >> that it's not worth fooling with at all.
>
> > Perhaps you could put a number on that? Could you try a gliding turn
> > with stopwatch and altimeter and compare that to a straight glide?
>
> In the optimal 45-degree-banked turn the load factor will be about 1.4.
> Your best glide speed and min sink speed will increase by the square root
> of that, or 20%. The glide angle remains the same if you increase your
> airspeed appropriately, so your sink rate will also increase by 20%. So
> instead of 650fpm you'll be coming down at 780fpm. At 78kts (65kts best
> glide speed from previous post plus 20%) and a 45 degree bank you're
> making a circle a bit over 500ft across which will take you 13 seconds to
> complete half of. The extra sink rate from the turn will therefore cost
> you 30 feet over what you would have experienced in a straight glide for
> the same amount of time.
>
> You'll also lose about 80 feet to accelerate from 65kts to 78kts. But
> you'll gain this back at the end, so as long as the end of your turn ends
> at a reasonable height it can be ignored.
>
> The numbers will, of course, vary between aircraft but it would appear
> that the extra energy loss due to the turn itself isn't all that
> significant. If 30 feet is the difference between making it and not making
> it you probably should not be turning around in the first place.
>

I make the turn diameter bigger than that using the formula
rad=(knots^2)/(11.26 x tan(bank)) (assuming it's right) or about
1080'? So, what would you consider the minimum height taking decision
time into account and a 225 degree turn followed by a 45 to line up
back on the runway?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 27, 8:18*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> I'm still not sure what you mean when you say the aircraft has to
> accelerate. Are you saying that turning downwind will cost more in
> acceleration than any other type of turn?
>
No, that's not what I'm saying.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:167e4f31-1a4a-4bfa-98d0-
:

> On Apr 27, 8:18*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm still not sure what you mean when you say the aircraft has to
>> accelerate. Are you saying that turning downwind will cost more in
>> acceleration than any other type of turn?
>>
> No, that's not what I'm saying.
>

OK

Bertie

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> 45 degrees isn't enough unless you have a very nice gliding airplane or
> are starting from a good height to begin with.

A 45 degree bank will give you the minimum turn radius and thus minimum
altitude lost for any heading change done with a steady state turn. Are
you suggesting that there are more... interesting techniques which can be
used to turn around, or just that sometimes you are doomed?

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 27, 8:22?am, Michael Ash > wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.student WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 27, 6:04?am, wrote:
>> >> ? ? ? ? Lots of people had the impression you were talking about the
>> >> dreaded downwind turn, with all the talk about the energy required to
>> >> accelerate to maintain airspeed. The energy required, as pointed out
>> >> in a much earlier post with several very good references, is so tiny
>> >> that it's not worth fooling with at all.
>>
>> > Perhaps you could put a number on that? Could you try a gliding turn
>> > with stopwatch and altimeter and compare that to a straight glide?
>>
>> In the optimal 45-degree-banked turn the load factor will be about 1.4.
>> Your best glide speed and min sink speed will increase by the square root
>> of that, or 20%. The glide angle remains the same if you increase your
>> airspeed appropriately, so your sink rate will also increase by 20%. So
>> instead of 650fpm you'll be coming down at 780fpm. At 78kts (65kts best
>> glide speed from previous post plus 20%) and a 45 degree bank you're
>> making a circle a bit over 500ft across which will take you 13 seconds to
>> complete half of. The extra sink rate from the turn will therefore cost
>> you 30 feet over what you would have experienced in a straight glide for
>> the same amount of time.
>>
>> You'll also lose about 80 feet to accelerate from 65kts to 78kts. But
>> you'll gain this back at the end, so as long as the end of your turn ends
>> at a reasonable height it can be ignored.
>>
>> The numbers will, of course, vary between aircraft but it would appear
>> that the extra energy loss due to the turn itself isn't all that
>> significant. If 30 feet is the difference between making it and not making
>> it you probably should not be turning around in the first place.
>
> I make the turn diameter bigger than that using the formula
> rad=(knots^2)/(11.26 x tan(bank)) (assuming it's right) or about
> 1080'?

You're right, I gave the radius, not the diameter, but worded it as though
it were the diameter. My 13 seconds is based on v/(pi*r) though so it
ought to be correct.

On a side note, these equations are generally vastly more comprehensible
if you leave out unit conversions altogether. Turn radius in any circle
caused by acceleration is v^2/a, and here the acceleration is
9.8m/s^2*tan(bank). Anyway, the result is the same, I just find it easier.
Moving on....

> So, what would you consider the minimum height taking decision
> time into account and a 225 degree turn followed by a 45 to line up
> back on the runway?

I really haven't a clue. I don't fly these things and thus don't have the
experience to comment on this. I've heard that you need to be quite high
to be reasonably safe doing it. The physics only gives you a raw minimum.
You need a hefty safety margin on top of that, plus knowledge of your
personal ability to perform close to the ideal, obstacles which may modify
your options, and other such things. Wind, density altitude, engine
performanc, aircraft weight, and other such things will all contribute as
well to change the answer.

My personal decision height for the analogous glider launch emergency is
*usually* a shade under 200 feet. Conditions, performance, obstacles, and
landing opportunities ahead can all modify this value. The physics would
tell you that the altitude required is around 35% of your wingspan,
because the energy from the extra speed you carry is theoretically
sufficient to zoom slightly, make the turn at min sink speed, and roll out
lined up with the adjacent taxiway at the same altitude you started. (If
you don't lose altitude then you just need to be high enough to avoid
hitting your wingtip on the ground, thus the 35%.) In reality you'd have
to be completely nuts to try this maneuver starting from an altitude of
20ft at normal takeoff speeds. And as I mentioned before, this has very
little bearing on the options available to a typical powered airplane.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Michael Ash > wrote in
:

> In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> 45 degrees isn't enough unless you have a very nice gliding airplane
>> or are starting from a good height to begin with.
>
> A 45 degree bank will give you the minimum turn radius and thus
> minimum altitude lost for any heading change done with a steady state
> turn. Are you suggesting that there are more... interesting techniques
> which can be used to turn around, or just that sometimes you are
> doomed?
>

Sure, a steeper bank than will get you around more quickly and the altitude
loss will be lower, mostly because the displacement form the centerline
will be minimal. I'm not theorising here. I used to do it as did most
people at the place. This was what worked from the lowest altitudes, but it
was dangerous and when one of the more experienced guys actually had an
engine failure and crashed badly turning around, we decided it might not be
such a good idea after all..
Typically I considered about 300' minimum for things like a T-cart or my
Luscombe, and about 400' for a Cherokee or 172 or something. In excess of
60 degrees is neccesary to do that. That, of course, is going to bring you
over the stall speed if you allow the wing to load up, so a brisk lowering
of the nose is required as you come around. The situation has to be assesed
moment to moment as you come around and you will be absolutely on the edge
of stalling the whole way. If you screw it up you will hit the ground hard.
Same is true of the 45 deg method you're proposing. In my experience that's
not going to be enough unless you're high enough to have turned crosswind
anyway. Most guys aren;t even proficient at doing steep turns at a constant
altitude with the power on. Also, probably few turnbacks are planned before
departure, that's why the tiny success rate..


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 27, 11:23*am, Michael Ash > wrote:

>
> My personal decision height for the analogous glider launch emergency is
> *usually* a shade under 200 feet. Conditions, performance, obstacles, and
> landing opportunities ahead can all modify this value.

What's your glide ratio? If it were 40:1 would that equate to 800' in
a 10:1 Cessna?

Cheers

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 27, 11:23?am, Michael Ash > wrote:
>
>> My personal decision height for the analogous glider launch emergency is
>> *usually* a shade under 200 feet. Conditions, performance, obstacles, and
>> landing opportunities ahead can all modify this value.
>
> What's your glide ratio? If it were 40:1 would that equate to 800' in
> a 10:1 Cessna?

The things I fly regularly range from 20:1 on the low end to 37:1 on the
high end. The 200ft number remains the standard for all of them. Glide
ratio can adjust it but it's more a matter of having a comfortable safety
margin. I once talked to an instructor who did a 180 in a 34:1 machine at
only 100ft, and he said it was a piece of cake. With that kind of
performance the turn costs no altitude at all so the decision height is
basically all safety margin. Flying something with reasonable performance
out of an airport where the landing sites ahead look deadly then I
probably would reduce the decision height to something like 100ft.

A direct multiplication isn't going to work here for several reasons.

First because of the safety margin. You don't need four times as much of
that.

Second because of speed differences. The power plane needs to go
significantly faster to maintain best glide or min sink, resulting in a
larger turn, more altitude lost in that turn, and more corrective action
to regain the runway centerline after it. The power plane starts out
either around best glide or slower than it, whereas the glider generally
has extra speed which means extra energy. (This will of course depend on
the performance speeds of the plane in question, but most power planes
have faster performance speeds.)

Third, reaction time. When you hear a bang and your rope goes away it
makes the situation obvious instantly. Engine trouble can take more time
to diagnose. (One of the more difficult scenarios for a glider is when
this happens to the tow plane. You could end up low and slow before
realizing what's going on and 200ft may very well not be enough in that
case.)

Overall I don't think it makes sense to extrapolate from the glider case.
From what the power guys are saying, it sounds like you want at least
several hundred feet, with the exact number depending heavily on the skill
of the pilot and the performance of the airplane.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Big John]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:40:55 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> wrote:

>On Apr 25, 10:16*am, Stefan > wrote:
>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>
>>
>>
>> > (the stall is now damn close -better
>> > hope there's no significant wind)
>> ...
>> > Now we add in the energy losses from having to
>> > accelerate with the wind and to glide speed.
>>
>> Arrrgh! Not the old "turn into downwind" legend again! Better work out
>> your understanding of physics before publicly reasoning about turns.
>>
>
>Try reading the statement again, here it is:
>
>"Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
>wind and to glide speed."
>
>Now perhaps you would like to revise some physics and try to critcise
>it for us?
>
>I await your stumbling analysis of my words with mild amusement.
>
>Cheers
*****************************************
Long time ago in the 30's I saw on a couple of occasions a Cub take
off in a strong head wind 25+ mph and make a 180 degree turn to down
wind. They then started losing altitude and mushed into the ground
nose high. Any idea why? Pilot's said they had full throttle and
proper RPM showed on engines until impact.

Big John
Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:40:55 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> > wrote:
>
>>On Apr 25, 10:16*am, Stefan > wrote:
>>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > (the stall is now damn close -better
>>> > hope there's no significant wind)
>>> ...
>>> > Now we add in the energy losses from having to
>>> > accelerate with the wind and to glide speed.
>>>
>>> Arrrgh! Not the old "turn into downwind" legend again! Better work
out
>>> your understanding of physics before publicly reasoning about turns.
>>>
>>
>>Try reading the statement again, here it is:
>>
>>"Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
>>wind and to glide speed."
>>
>>Now perhaps you would like to revise some physics and try to critcise
>>it for us?
>>
>>I await your stumbling analysis of my words with mild amusement.
>>
>>Cheers
> *****************************************
> Long time ago in the 30's I saw on a couple of occasions a Cub take
> off in a strong head wind 25+ mph and make a 180 degree turn to down
> wind. They then started losing altitude and mushed into the ground
> nose high. Any idea why? Pilot's said they had full throttle and
> proper RPM showed on engines until impact.
>


Wind gradient. As they climbed, the wind would increase and they'd lose
some airspeed until they were on the backside of the power curve.same
thing would happen if you took off with strong tailwind in the first
place. Also, the poorer climb angle even without the wind gradient would
cause many to get the nose up a bit too much as well if they were not
used to it.

Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Alric Knebel's Rack" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:06:42 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> It's not so much the loss of altitude that will get you in this
>> manuever. it's the probable loss of control trying to manuever around
>> back towards the field.
>> Firstly, in any emergency that hasnt been drilled, you will have a
>> moment where you will be sitting there with your mouth open in utter
>> disbelief of what has just happened. in fact, even if you have drilled
>> for it you will still have this moment, but if it's been practiced the
>> moment you begine to do something about it will be sooner coming.
>> While you're sitting there wondering what's going on, the speed will be
>> bleeding off. Not good.
>
> Nothing you do is useful. You very rarely even come up with a good
> idea, and when the blind squirrel principal does kick in (astoundingly,
> you've seem to even defeat random chance with your incompetence), you
> manage to cock it up so badly that what might have been a useful thing
> in a normal person's hands turns to low-grade fertilizer.
>
> Those are your two claims to fame. Being a complete flake who can't
> keep even the simplest of things on track for any significant period of
> time, and being an absolute moron when it comes to understanding what's
> useful to the piloting community, and implementing it.
>

No, actually he has proven himself a failure and dozens of things, wannabe
troll, pilot, motorcycle mechanic, and others. I think it might be fair to
label him a "complete" or "master" failure.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Alric Knebel's Rack" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:06:42 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> It's not so much the loss of altitude that will get you in this
>>> manuever. it's the probable loss of control trying to manuever
>>> around back towards the field.
>>> Firstly, in any emergency that hasnt been drilled, you will have a
>>> moment where you will be sitting there with your mouth open in utter
>>> disbelief of what has just happened. in fact, even if you have
>>> drilled for it you will still have this moment, but if it's been
>>> practiced the moment you begine to do something about it will be
>>> sooner coming. While you're sitting there wondering what's going on,
>>> the speed will be bleeding off. Not good.
>>
>> Nothing you do is useful. You very rarely even come up with a good
>> idea, and when the blind squirrel principal does kick in
>> (astoundingly, you've seem to even defeat random chance with your
>> incompetence), you manage to cock it up so badly that what might have
>> been a useful thing in a normal person's hands turns to low-grade
>> fertilizer.
>>
>> Those are your two claims to fame. Being a complete flake who can't
>> keep even the simplest of things on track for any significant period
>> of time, and being an absolute moron when it comes to understanding
>> what's useful to the piloting community, and implementing it.
>>
>
> No, actually he has proven himself a failure and dozens of things,
> wannabe troll, pilot, motorcycle mechanic, and others. I think it
> might be fair to label him a "complete" or "master" failure.
>
>


You can label me what you like, sunshine. You'll never get it.



Bertie
>

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Big John > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:40:55 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 25, 10:16 am, Stefan > wrote:
>>>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > (the stall is now damn close -better
>>>> > hope there's no significant wind)
>>>> ...
>>>> > Now we add in the energy losses from having to
>>>> > accelerate with the wind and to glide speed.
>>>>
>>>> Arrrgh! Not the old "turn into downwind" legend again! Better work
> out
>>>> your understanding of physics before publicly reasoning about turns.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Try reading the statement again, here it is:
>>>
>>>"Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
>>>wind and to glide speed."
>>>
>>>Now perhaps you would like to revise some physics and try to critcise
>>>it for us?
>>>
>>>I await your stumbling analysis of my words with mild amusement.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>> *****************************************
>> Long time ago in the 30's I saw on a couple of occasions a Cub take
>> off in a strong head wind 25+ mph and make a 180 degree turn to down
>> wind. They then started losing altitude and mushed into the ground
>> nose high. Any idea why? Pilot's said they had full throttle and
>> proper RPM showed on engines until impact.
>>
>
>
> Wind gradient. As they climbed, the wind would increase and they'd lose
> some airspeed until they were on the backside of the power curve.same
> thing would happen if you took off with strong tailwind in the first
> place. Also, the poorer climb angle even without the wind gradient would
> cause many to get the nose up a bit too much as well if they were not
> used to it.
>
> Bertie

Turn your head 90 degrees and it will change the dynamics of all of it.
That's the way wind tunnels work, child.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Alric Knebel's Rack > wrote in news:fuvp16
:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:06:42 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> It's not so much the loss of altitude that will get you in this
>> manuever. it's the probable loss of control trying to manuever around
>> back towards the field.
>> Firstly, in any emergency that hasnt been drilled, you will have a
>> moment where you will be sitting there with your mouth open in utter
>> disbelief of what has just happened. in fact, even if you have
drilled
>> for it you will still have this moment, but if it's been practiced
the
>> moment you begine to do something about it will be sooner coming.
>> While you're sitting there wondering what's going on, the speed will
be
>> bleeding off. Not good.
>
> Nothing you do is useful. You very rarely even come up with a good
> idea, and when the blind squirrel principal does kick in
(astoundingly,
> you've seem to even defeat random chance with your incompetence), you
> manage to cock it up so badly that what might have been a useful thing
> in a normal person's hands turns to low-grade fertilizer.
>
> Those are your two claims to fame. Being a complete flake who can't
> keep even the simplest of things on track for any significant period
of
> time, and being an absolute moron when it comes to understanding
what's
> useful to the piloting community, and implementing it.
>

Uh, yeh, sure..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:3jcRj.58626$QC.41863
@newsfe20.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Big John > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:40:55 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Apr 25, 10:16 am, Stefan > wrote:
>>>>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > (the stall is now damn close -better
>>>>> > hope there's no significant wind)
>>>>> ...
>>>>> > Now we add in the energy losses from having to
>>>>> > accelerate with the wind and to glide speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Arrrgh! Not the old "turn into downwind" legend again! Better work
>> out
>>>>> your understanding of physics before publicly reasoning about
turns.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Try reading the statement again, here it is:
>>>>
>>>>"Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
>>>>wind and to glide speed."
>>>>
>>>>Now perhaps you would like to revise some physics and try to
critcise
>>>>it for us?
>>>>
>>>>I await your stumbling analysis of my words with mild amusement.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers
>>> *****************************************
>>> Long time ago in the 30's I saw on a couple of occasions a Cub take
>>> off in a strong head wind 25+ mph and make a 180 degree turn to down
>>> wind. They then started losing altitude and mushed into the ground
>>> nose high. Any idea why? Pilot's said they had full throttle and
>>> proper RPM showed on engines until impact.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wind gradient. As they climbed, the wind would increase and they'd
lose
>> some airspeed until they were on the backside of the power curve.same
>> thing would happen if you took off with strong tailwind in the first
>> place. Also, the poorer climb angle even without the wind gradient
would
>> cause many to get the nose up a bit too much as well if they were not
>> used to it.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Turn your head 90 degrees and it will change the dynamics of all of
it.
> That's the way wind tunnels work, child.




Yeh, sure fjukktard.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in news:Xns9A8DE8C88AADEE817AC3D8380227
@127.0.0.1:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fv3jdr$13s$14
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Alric Knebel's Rack" > wrote in
message
>>> ...
>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:06:42 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's not so much the loss of altitude that will get you in this
>>>>> manuever. it's the probable loss of control trying to manuever
>>>>> around back towards the field.
>>>>> Firstly, in any emergency that hasnt been drilled, you will have a
>>>>> moment where you will be sitting there with your mouth open in
utter
>>>>> disbelief of what has just happened. in fact, even if you have
>>>>> drilled for it you will still have this moment, but if it's been
>>>>> practiced the moment you begine to do something about it will be
>>>>> sooner coming. While you're sitting there wondering what's going
on,
>>>>> the speed will be bleeding off. Not good.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing you do is useful. You very rarely even come up with a good
>>>> idea, and when the blind squirrel principal does kick in
>>>> (astoundingly, you've seem to even defeat random chance with your
>>>> incompetence), you manage to cock it up so badly that what might
have
>>>> been a useful thing in a normal person's hands turns to low-grade
>>>> fertilizer.
>>>>
>>>> Those are your two claims to fame. Being a complete flake who can't
>>>> keep even the simplest of things on track for any significant
period
>>>> of time, and being an absolute moron when it comes to understanding
>>>> what's useful to the piloting community, and implementing it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, actually he has proven himself a failure and dozens of things,
>>> wannabe troll, pilot, motorcycle mechanic, and others. I think it
>>> might be fair to label him a "complete" or "master" failure.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> You can label me what you like, sunshine. You'll never get it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You fail as a troll because nobody ever responds to your posts.
> Especially Maxwell. He's waaaaaaay too smart for that.
>

i know. i feel so , foolish... He'd probably kick my ass in a game of
hangman as well.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Apr 27, 3:43 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Big John > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:40:55 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> > > wrote:
>
> >>On Apr 25, 10:16 am, Stefan > wrote:
> >>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>
> >>> > (the stall is now damn close -better
> >>> > hope there's no significant wind)
> >>> ...
> >>> > Now we add in the energy losses from having to
> >>> > accelerate with the wind and to glide speed.
>
> >>> Arrrgh! Not the old "turn into downwind" legend again! Better work
> out
> >>> your understanding of physics before publicly reasoning about turns.
>
> >>Try reading the statement again, here it is:
>
> >>"Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
> >>wind and to glide speed."
>
> >>Now perhaps you would like to revise some physics and try to critcise
> >>it for us?
>
> >>I await your stumbling analysis of my words with mild amusement.
>
> >>Cheers
> > *****************************************
> > Long time ago in the 30's I saw on a couple of occasions a Cub take
> > off in a strong head wind 25+ mph and make a 180 degree turn to down
> > wind. They then started losing altitude and mushed into the ground
> > nose high. Any idea why? Pilot's said they had full throttle and
> > proper RPM showed on engines until impact.
>
> Wind gradient. As they climbed, the wind would increase and they'd lose
> some airspeed until they were on the backside of the power curve.same
> thing would happen if you took off with strong tailwind in the first
> place. Also, the poorer climb angle even without the wind gradient would
> cause many to get the nose up a bit too much as well if they were not
> used to it.
>
> Bertie

I think someone screwed up. As he turned, his airspeed would
remain constant and in the turn he would begin to move sideways over
the ground, and as he completed the turn his groundspeed would be much
higher but his airspeed the same as before. The airplane has lots of
time to make the shift in direction and it's not an instantaneous
change in vectors.
The sideways drift over the ground (which is mentioned here
only as a reference for visual flying, not that the airplane cares
about the earth's mass) might have caused him to think he was slipping
big time, so he pumped in a bunch of rudder, skidding it badly and
spun it in. And that's the reason we teach "Illusions Caused by
Drift."

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Apr 27, 3:43 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Big John > wrote
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:40:55 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> >>On Apr 25, 10:16 am, Stefan > wrote:
>> >>> WingFlaps schrieb:
>>
>> >>> > (the stall is now damn close -better
>> >>> > hope there's no significant wind)
>> >>> ...
>> >>> > Now we add in the energy losses from having to
>> >>> > accelerate with the wind and to glide speed.
>>
>> >>> Arrrgh! Not the old "turn into downwind" legend again! Better
>> >>> work
>> out
>> >>> your understanding of physics before publicly reasoning about
>> >>> turns.
>>
>> >>Try reading the statement again, here it is:
>>
>> >>"Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
>> >>wind and to glide speed."
>>
>> >>Now perhaps you would like to revise some physics and try to
>> >>critcise it for us?
>>
>> >>I await your stumbling analysis of my words with mild amusement.
>>
>> >>Cheers
>> > *****************************************
>> > Long time ago in the 30's I saw on a couple of occasions a Cub take
>> > off in a strong head wind 25+ mph and make a 180 degree turn to
>> > down wind. They then started losing altitude and mushed into the
>> > ground nose high. Any idea why? Pilot's said they had full throttle
>> > and proper RPM showed on engines until impact.
>>
>> Wind gradient. As they climbed, the wind would increase and they'd
>> lose some airspeed until they were on the backside of the power
>> curve.same thing would happen if you took off with strong tailwind in
>> the first place. Also, the poorer climb angle even without the wind
>> gradient would cause many to get the nose up a bit too much as well
>> if they were not used to it.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I think someone screwed up. As he turned, his airspeed would
> remain constant and in the turn he would begin to move sideways over
> the ground, and as he completed the turn his groundspeed would be much
> higher but his airspeed the same as before. The airplane has lots of
> time to make the shift in direction and it's not an instantaneous
> change in vectors.
> The sideways drift over the ground (which is mentioned here
> only as a reference for visual flying, not that the airplane cares
> about the earth's mass) might have caused him to think he was slipping
> big time, so he pumped in a bunch of rudder, skidding it badly and
> spun it in. And that's the reason we teach "Illusions Caused by
> Drift."


Yeah, that's a big factor in the downwind turn scenario, but I also find
few really appreciate the wind gradient element as well. It's quite
significant close to the ground and it's a big problem with downwind
takeoffs as well.


Bertie

[clint]

yeah but you got creamed in this thread! :-? :/ :') :oÞ lol
WingFlaps expressed precisely :
> Stefan was doing quite well actually,

[Brian[_1_]]

Just quick addition to Michaels comments about why the 180 turn is
much easier in the sailplane.

1. is we do practice it with some frequency. We seldom get by a Flight
review with out doing at least one.

2.Guess what glider pilots typically do for about 50% of their flight.
We call it thermalling but it is really a steep (usually 40 to 60
degrees) turn at the minimum sink speed which is usually only a few
knots above stall speed, often in gusty conditions.. We also don't
have stall warnings (as it would be going off continously during this
maneuver) so we know the aerodynamic stall characteristics of the
glider in a steep turn intimently.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Brian[_1_]]

> I can see you missed the point entirely. By the way, Vy is never at
> best glide (it is above that ~69knots in a 172) -perhaps you would
> like to revise *what determines Vy? My point was to ilustrate the
> impossible turn with some concrete numbers instead of the handwaving

If I read my aerodyamics book correctly my summary is Vy = the Best L/
D Speed Corrected for the affect of the engine running. The Correction
is usually small. So Vy is often very close to the Best Glide speed.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL