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