Landing without flaps

Highflyer wrote:

Bertie
The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider some kind
of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so full of
variables it muddies the equation.
Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even make
the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the vertical plane,
(modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up line using the
vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning component)
This is even possible done by such a pilot flying something like a 172 or
a 150, but I would never recommend doing it to anyone.
For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within reasonable degree offset
approach to the engine failure scenario on takeoff is still the safe way
to deal with this issue and probably always will be in my opinion.

--
Dudley Henriques

Hi Bertie, Hi Dudley, ...

I agree that minimum maneuvering is appropriate after low level engine
failure for the average pilot.

The successful turn around procedures put the airplane quite close to the
edge and hamfisted piloting can easily result in a stall or stall/spin
maneuver that will ruin your entire day.

However, on the other hand, in a normal landing the way we used to teach
them years ago, you cut the power on downwind opposite you planned touchdown
point and then proceeded to make a power off 180 degree turn to a landing
for EVERY landing you made. What difference does it make if you shut off
the power, or it shuts off automatically for some reason? :-) And we always
did that from 800 feet AGL.

When I got my seaplane rating from Bob Mills at the Philadelphia Seaplane
Base we had an even lower traffic pattern. Since we were situated
underneath the traffic off the main runway at Philadelphia International we
had to keep our pattern at or below 300 feet AWL.
(That's above Water level ... it's a seaplane base.) I was flying a
Republic Seabee, which is nortorious for having a glide angle somewhere
between that of a bowling ball and a concrete block. I could cut power at
300 feet above the river on downwind opposite my planned touchdown point,
make a leisurely 180 degree turn with clearcut downwind, crosswind, and
final legs and land on the desired spot. All of this with only 300 feet
altitude and no power. In a flying brick. :-)

Clearly there is some altitude where a "turn back" is not unreasonable. The
main requirement would be a long enough runway to allow you to make it to
the runway.

All that being said, the last time I lost an engine on takeoff , a couple of
years ago I didn't put the nose down and glide straight ahead and I didn't
turn back. I had about 1000 feet of a 4000 foot runway in front of me,
although I couldn't see any of it. I had 150 feet of altitude in the bank.
My airspeed was about 140 mph, in an airplane with a stall speed around 50.
My first thought was to dump all that excess speed. How do you do that?
Easy, I honked the yoke back and went straight up. When I got rid of my
airspeed I had lots of altitude but no speed. Now all I had to do was get
back down to the runway without picking up all of the speed I had lost going
up.

I just kicked it halfway around a hammerhead and then let it fall sideways.
I figured that would minimize the speed buildup. It did, and when I got low
enough I kicked it out of the slip and pulled up the nose to kill the
descent rate, which was quite high! :-) I got the nose up and the descent
stopped with an altitude of about 3 feet right over the numbers. I dropped
it on the numbers and rolled about forty feet into the overrun before it
stopped.

No damage to people or airplane. The only thing I did wrong, because I
wasn't thinking too clearly, was maintain a straight slip all the way down
to pull out time. If I had rolled a bit either going up or coming down, I
could have also made a 180 degree turn and landed toward the 3000 foot end
instead of the 1000 foot end. Of course that would have been downwind and
downwind landings are tricky with taildraggers because you are still moving
fairly fast when you lose your aerodynamic directional control.

By the way, if I had just put the nose down and glided it out straight ahead
we would have gone into the woods and a creek. Probably totaled the
airplane and we would likely have taked some small injury. I would still
tell my students "Don't do what I just did!"

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport, PJY


Hi Highflyer; good to see you here again.

I remember the Mills operation down there on the river near the airport.
Do you recall Mills driving an F4U Corsair up the river a bit "low" one
sunny afternoon and Lynn Probst (FAA Chief Echelon Field at the time)
having a bird over it? :-))))))

--
Dudley Henriques

In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Then, a few years ago, I was test flying a homebuilt Pulsar and lost
the engine ( rotax ) just as I crossed over the upwind end of the
runway at abouat 300 feet AGL. In front of me were creek, woods, and
an old coal mine slurry pit. None of which offered attractive landing
possibilities. I opted to try a turn back maneuver. I turned to
downwind and lost about fifty feet. I didn't believe it! I flew the
whole downwind, did a base leg, and a final and would up doing ess
turns down the final so I wouldn't overshoot the airport! I have
flown sailplanes that didn't glide any better than that darn Pulsar!

Wow! i never would have guessed that one of those things would go quite
that far. Long wing version or something? doing a complete pattern in a
1-26 from 300' would be ropey, never mind a powered aircraft.

I'd guess that the 1-26 is one of those sailplanes he's referring to that
didn't glide any better!

In any case, I think you're missing an essential factor in the craziness
of long-time 1-26 drivers. I've seen these guys start out at 3-400ft AGL
from the opposite side of the airport and do something which could at
least be claimed as a full pattern with a relatively straight face.
Meanwhile all the glass fellows are joining midfield at 1000. You can get
away with a surprising amount if you're somewhat insane.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On Mar 7, 9:30 pm, buttman wrote:
On 7 Mar, 19:22, Dudley Henriques wrote:



How's that? Learned something?:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

No because you did not teach anything. "This is how it is" is not
teaching, it's telling.

Anyways, the topic of discussion has never been about "is it OK to
starve fuel on takeoff". Even if it was, its not a matter of "yes" or
"no"

Safety is, in my opinion, never a "yes" or "no" kind of thing. Its
like discussing abortion or something. It's never as simple as "yes"
or "no".

By your logic a driving school should simulate (for training!) how to
handle a blowout by shooting out a tire while on a flyover ramp doing
70.

To make it interesting you could do it in the rain.

On Mar 10, 9:10 am, wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:30 pm, buttman wrote:



On 7 Mar, 19:22, Dudley Henriques wrote:

How's that? Learned something?:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

No because you did not teach anything. "This is how it is" is not
teaching, it's telling.

Anyways, the topic of discussion has never been about "is it OK to
starve fuel on takeoff". Even if it was, its not a matter of "yes" or
"no"

Safety is, in my opinion, never a "yes" or "no" kind of thing. Its
like discussing abortion or something. It's never as simple as "yes"
or "no".

By your logic a driving school should simulate (for training!) how to
handle a blowout by shooting out a tire while on a flyover ramp doing
70.
To make it interesting you could do it in the rain.

I'm enjoying this thread now, it's stimulating.
The fellas were discussing flying in the rain last
week. Shooting out tires, I'm placing that on next
weeks agenda.
Ken

Michael Ash wrote in
:

In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Then, a few years ago, I was test flying a homebuilt Pulsar and lost
the engine ( rotax ) just as I crossed over the upwind end of the
runway at abouat 300 feet AGL. In front of me were creek, woods,
and an old coal mine slurry pit. None of which offered attractive
landing possibilities. I opted to try a turn back maneuver. I
turned to downwind and lost about fifty feet. I didn't believe it!
I flew the whole downwind, did a base leg, and a final and would up
doing ess turns down the final so I wouldn't overshoot the airport!
I have flown sailplanes that didn't glide any better than that darn
Pulsar!

Wow! i never would have guessed that one of those things would go
quite that far. Long wing version or something? doing a complete
pattern in a 1-26 from 300' would be ropey, never mind a powered
aircraft.

I'd guess that the 1-26 is one of those sailplanes he's referring to
that didn't glide any better!

In any case, I think you're missing an essential factor in the
craziness of long-time 1-26 drivers. I've seen these guys start out at
3-400ft AGL from the opposite side of the airport and do something
which could at least be claimed as a full pattern with a relatively
straight face. Meanwhile all the glass fellows are joining midfield at
1000. You can get away with a surprising amount if you're somewhat
insane.


Oh yeah, depends on the size, of course. 500 feet was standard for
students even in the 2-33 to do a complete pattern. The pulsar must be
some airplane to approach a 20/1 L/D, though.

Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:e17d1d43-2aa8-
:

On Mar 10, 9:10 am, wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:30 pm, buttman wrote:



On 7 Mar, 19:22, Dudley Henriques wrote:

How's that? Learned something?:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

No because you did not teach anything. "This is how it is" is not
teaching, it's telling.

Anyways, the topic of discussion has never been about "is it OK to
starve fuel on takeoff". Even if it was, its not a matter of "yes"
or
"no"

Safety is, in my opinion, never a "yes" or "no" kind of thing. Its
like discussing abortion or something. It's never as simple as
"yes"
or "no".

By your logic a driving school should simulate (for training!) how to
handle a blowout by shooting out a tire while on a flyover ramp doing
70.
To make it interesting you could do it in the rain.

I'm enjoying this thread now, it's stimulating.
The fellas were discussing flying in the rain last
week. Shooting out tires, I'm placing that on next
weeks agenda.


I've little doubt.



bertie

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 19:54:37 -1000, Owner wrote:

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:37:55 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
but what should you do if your engine sputters
and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.
Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).
Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
safe alternative and use it.
Ken
Wow, Ken, even *I* know this is idiotic.
My thoughts a Given no good alternative aside
from the runway, know the x-wind at T-O, do max
ascent into the wind as is normal, then if the engine
quit's (do radio) do a descending gentle 20 into the
x-wind, and come back and set the ship down.
I think the key is max ascent rate, that's insurance.
Ken
Ken, the simple geometries don't work. Regardless of aircraft
characteristics. Are you willing to bet your life on these false
assumptions?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
No worries, I don't believe anyone has ever been injured or killed using MS
Flight Simulator

I know a guy that nearly poked his eye out with a controller, does that
count?

Must have been about as coordinated as this guy:

http://www.wyff4.com/news/15478240/detail.html

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:17:23 -0500, Rich Ahrens wrote:

I know a guy that nearly poked his eye out with a controller, does that
count?

Must have been about as coordinated as this guy:

http://www.wyff4.com/news/15478240/detail.html

lol
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:01:16 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:


"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...

My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
Ken

It isn't all that rare. However, it normally isn't too difficult either. I
always demonstrate to my students a landing using only elevator trim
controls.

You demonstrate? You are oh, so kind!
After a brief practice I was expected to (and did) land the Deb using
only ailerons, rudder, and trim.
It aint all that difficult EXCEPT it'd be nice if some one 5'7" (just
happens to be my height) could see the runway while adjusting the
trim:-)) Ah well, I just thought of it like a no flap landing where
the only view of the airport is out the side windows.:-))


Of course, that wouldn't have helped Alaska Air because what caused the
problem was running the elevator trim off the end of the trim jackscrew.
That was on an airplane where the trim is so powerful that you cannot
override it.

A friend of mine ran that event in the 737 sim when he did his flight check
for American and said he was able to fly it that way by doing a continuous
string of lazy eights. The would certainly have the passengers upset
though! :-)

My wife hard me talking about lazy eights so she wanted to see one.
After the first 180 she said, "that's enough".


Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport, PJY


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mar 11, 4:53 am, Roger wrote:

After a brief practice I was expected to (and did) land the Deb using
only ailerons, rudder, and trim.
It aint all that difficult EXCEPT it'd be nice if some one 5'7" (just
happens to be my height) could see the runway while adjusting the
trim:-)) Ah well, I just thought of it like a no flap landing where
the only view of the airport is out the side windows.:-))

Roger -- any idea why Beech out the trim where it did? It's probably
the worst location in any airplane I've been in (except maybe the
overhead thing in a Cherokee (IIRC).


Dan