Landing without flaps

On Mar 8, 1:57 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:00 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))

--
Dudley Henriques

Not so fast -- you have the best platform for FSX AND SimCity at the
same time...

Have all your simulated people flying on your simulated airplanes.
Load o' fun!

Dan

I actually quit working with Microsoft on their sim program
this year.
PLEASE don't tell me that you're one of these people who believe I'm a
"simulator" pilot because they have discovered I have advised on the
program :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

Come on, now...

Though I disagree with folks but bright and not so, surely you give me
more credit than that....


Dan

On Mar 9, 8:29*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:53 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
:
On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Glide back to the runway
Ken
*Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose, reducing
speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten the turn
using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and spin.
* * Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
airports.
Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be done. The
guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is probably
right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field in standard
lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors where I worked
agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you were proficient and it
was planned before the takeoff roll started. We knew they couldn't
neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in all situations. The wind had
to be considered as well as traffic ( bad idea to turn back toward a
runway with something rolling on it) and so on. We had it sussed.
then one of the guys had one one day. Very good stci as well. Better
than me back then anyway. He had a good bit of altitude, too 50 or so,
he turned around and made the runway but stalled coming across the
threshold and cartwheeled donw the runway. He and his father in law
survived, but they were lucky. They would definitely have been better
off going straight ahead.
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.

I'm not a n acro pilot so I'd like you (or some other pilot) to try
that manouver power off from the glide and see how much altitude they
loose. I'm guessing 200' minimum.

Cheers

Depends on the airplane and the pilot combination. Such a maneuver
assuming a normal climb speed at entry of 80mph as the engine quits
would require an immediate aggressive pull into accelerated stall
followed by aggressive pro spin rudder to induce a required yaw rate.
The trick is to catch the spin entry on the first half turn nose down.
200 feet could easily be required in some airplanes.
This isn't something you argue on the specifics. The variables are just
too vast.
Put it this way. If I had 200 feet in a 172 with an engine failure, I'd
be looking for a landing area straight ahead, or more properly I'd
already know if such an area existed for the runway I was using since I
would have asked :-) (There are runways where no such landing is
possible of course)
On the other hand, in a Pitts or an Extra in the same scenario, I
wouldn't hesitate to attempt what I have described here.
I've done this easily in the Pitts with under 100 feet lost and a 180
change in the flight path.
--

Controlling the spin sounds like a real problem -get it wrong and you
are ....

Cheers

On 2008-03-08, wrote:
Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it.

While folks will disagree with several things my primary instructor did,
and I'm not sure about a couple of them, this is one he did with me that I
agree with. We demonstrated a return to the runway and an opposite direction
landing from 400 AGL in a Warrior. I'm not going to try it that low, but I'd
be comfortable doing it from 600 AGL - which happened to be the pattern
altitude of the airport I flew out of (EFD) while I was doing my primary
training.

Now, I will say that you should not attempt this on your own the first time.
Go over it with your CFI, and see what he says about the subject.
--
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 (getting ready to order)

WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Mar 8, 10:47*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WingFlaps wrote
innews:bdf80955-b25f-47b5-91ed-17d86
:





On Mar 7, 11:24*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WingFlaps wrote
innews:a529f378-4eb7-42f4-b8eb-5fce8
:

On Mar 6, 8:49*am, "Ken S. Tucker"
wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:35 pm, george wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the
extra weight he
lps
to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining
runway when you

pull that ole mixture back on a student right after
rotation
:-))))
I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot
made the 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still
here

What's a typo, or it there a reason?

BTW, here's a video of that x-wind landing...
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309221
(It ****es me off it's an amateur video, for the price
of a bit of tape, one would think all landings should
be properly video taped, cheap ****in' ****s).

Anyway, the rudder steering seems odd to me,
based on squinty frame advance...grrrr.
Ken

Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway
be subject to a walk down before every take-off?

For major airports, radar is being developed,
but I think dogs could do it faster and better.

Hey that was my idea! Do you like it really? I worry though,
will dog **** on the airport runway be a problem when projected
by jet blast? What do you think?

Well, obviously they would wear diapers.

Damn, you are smart. Depends or huggies?

We'll have to get a $4,000,000 research grant and try both.


Great idea. You deal with the **** side and I'll fly the planes!

Oh it's Ken's idea. We should let him have the glory.



Bet he can make 6 maybe 7 bucks an hour with this one.



Bertie

george wrote in news:2ce339e1-c3c6-4319-bda3-
:

On Mar 8, 10:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Hey, maybe buttboi will pull the cotter pins on the elevaotr hinges
to
help you get over it.

Great fan club you got there Buttboi.

Anyway ken and buttman are going to pass their next checkride with
their 'knowledge' exhibited here?
Unless of course they are not pilots


Well, if buttman is he's a ****poor one. Ken definitely isn't. Best
guess is he's a perrenial student who drives his local instructors nuts
with his blather.



Bertie

Dan wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:57 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:00 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
--
Dudley Henriques
Not so fast -- you have the best platform for FSX AND SimCity at the
same time...
Have all your simulated people flying on your simulated airplanes.
Load o' fun!
Dan
I actually quit working with Microsoft on their sim program
this year.
PLEASE don't tell me that you're one of these people who believe I'm a
"simulator" pilot because they have discovered I have advised on the
program :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

Come on, now...

Though I disagree with folks but bright and not so, surely you give me
more credit than that....


Dan
I don't mean anything personal at all Dan. Just seems every time someone
associates me with Microsoft, somebody suggests I don't fly or haven't
flown in real life. In fact, this thread has been full of just that type
of accusation by two individuals.
No big deal by a long shot. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

WingFlaps wrote:
On Mar 9, 8:29 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:53 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
:
On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Glide back to the runway
Ken
Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose, reducing
speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten the turn
using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and spin.
Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
airports.
Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be done. The
guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is probably
right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field in standard
lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors where I worked
agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you were proficient and it
was planned before the takeoff roll started. We knew they couldn't
neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in all situations. The wind had
to be considered as well as traffic ( bad idea to turn back toward a
runway with something rolling on it) and so on. We had it sussed.
then one of the guys had one one day. Very good stci as well. Better
than me back then anyway. He had a good bit of altitude, too 50 or so,
he turned around and made the runway but stalled coming across the
threshold and cartwheeled donw the runway. He and his father in law
survived, but they were lucky. They would definitely have been better
off going straight ahead.
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.
I'm not a n acro pilot so I'd like you (or some other pilot) to try
that manouver power off from the glide and see how much altitude they
loose. I'm guessing 200' minimum.
Cheers
Depends on the airplane and the pilot combination. Such a maneuver
assuming a normal climb speed at entry of 80mph as the engine quits
would require an immediate aggressive pull into accelerated stall
followed by aggressive pro spin rudder to induce a required yaw rate.
The trick is to catch the spin entry on the first half turn nose down.
200 feet could easily be required in some airplanes.
This isn't something you argue on the specifics. The variables are just
too vast.
Put it this way. If I had 200 feet in a 172 with an engine failure, I'd
be looking for a landing area straight ahead, or more properly I'd
already know if such an area existed for the runway I was using since I
would have asked :-) (There are runways where no such landing is
possible of course)
On the other hand, in a Pitts or an Extra in the same scenario, I
wouldn't hesitate to attempt what I have described here.
I've done this easily in the Pitts with under 100 feet lost and a 180
change in the flight path.
--

Controlling the spin sounds like a real problem -get it wrong and you
are ....

Cheers


Absolutely. No argument from me there :-)) As I've said, I'd never
advocate doing this to anyone else. I personally would feel confident to
do it under specific circumstances with specific parameters in place.
Well.....let me rephrase that a bit. There was a TIME when I would have
done this. No longer I'm afraid. The days of being that sharp are long
gone. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

WingFlaps wrote in news:2e98a96c-168e-4484-ac42-
:

On Mar 9, 5:32*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
. Better
than me back then anyway. He had a good bit of altitude, too 50 or
so,
he turned around and made the runway but stalled coming across the
threshold and cartwheeled donw the runway. He and his father in law
survived, but they were lucky.

They did a 360 with 50' altitude? Is this a typo? You need a lot of
altidude for the impossible turn maybe curcuit height?

Sorry. Typo, he had around 500 feet. Runway length was about 2700 feet
and there were two converging runways at the airport this episode
occured so it couldn't have been a better setup. I don't know what the
wind was doing at the time. This place was a gliderport and it's normal
to turn back in a glider if you get a rope break once you're over 200'
below that you go stright ahead. You take a similar tack when you plan a
turnaound on an engine failure after takeoff.
If it didn't come across in my previous post, though,. I'll state it
clearly here. I am not advocating anyone does this. At that time I'd
practiced them and so did the guy who crashed, but on the day it didn't
work out for him.
The reason I mentioned this is that guys will hear that it is possible,
and the guy telling you may well have done it, maybe even in anger. I
read a magazine article about it years ago and the author was advocating
it. He'd tried it and got it to work out just fine, "so why don;t we
teach this?" he asked.
On the day, however, you stand a really good chance of spinning in out
of the turn even if you've praciticed it and have briefed yourself prior
to departure. Even when we were what we considered to be proficient we
never, ever would suggest to a student that this was something that they
should consider doing. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't chance it
myself nowadays even if I were as sharp as I was then which i'll prolly
never be again.




Bertie

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
:

On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Glide back to the runway
Ken
Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose,
reducing speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten
the turn using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and
spin.
Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
airports.


Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be done.
The guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is
probably right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field
in standard lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors
where I worked agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you were
proficient and it was planned before the takeoff roll started. We
knew they couldn't neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in all
situations. The wind had to be considered as well as traffic ( bad
idea to turn back toward a runway with something rolling on it) and
so on. We had it sussed. then one of the guys had one one day. Very
good stci as well. Better than me back then anyway. He had a good bit
of altitude, too 50 or so, he turned around and made the runway but
stalled coming across the threshold and cartwheeled donw the runway.
He and his father in law survived, but they were lucky. They would
definitely have been better off going straight ahead.



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.

Exactly. This guy was way above average and he didn;t manage it... I
don't mean to muddy the waters by bringing it up, but the notion is out
there. Of course that fjukkwit Ken latched onto it as soon as he heard
it.


Bertie

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

WingFlaps wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:53 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
:
On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Glide back to the runway
Ken
Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if
you
are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You
lose considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose,
reducing speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten
the turn using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall
and spin.
Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your
flight
path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
airports.
Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be
done. The guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is
probably right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field
in standard lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors
where I worked agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you
were proficient and it was planned before the takeoff roll started.
We knew they couldn't neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in
all situations. The wind had to be considered as well as traffic (
bad idea to turn back toward a runway with something rolling on it)
and so on. We had it sussed. then one of the guys had one one day.
Very good stci as well. Better than me back then anyway. He had a
good bit of altitude, too 50 or so, he turned around and made the
runway but stalled coming across the threshold and cartwheeled donw
the runway. He and his father in law survived, but they were lucky.
They would definitely have been better off going straight ahead.
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.


I'm not a n acro pilot so I'd like you (or some other pilot) to try
that manouver power off from the glide and see how much altitude they
loose. I'm guessing 200' minimum.

Cheers
Depends on the airplane and the pilot combination. Such a maneuver
assuming a normal climb speed at entry of 80mph as the engine quits
would require an immediate aggressive pull into accelerated stall
followed by aggressive pro spin rudder to induce a required yaw rate.
The trick is to catch the spin entry on the first half turn nose down.
200 feet could easily be required in some airplanes.
This isn't something you argue on the specifics. The variables are
just too vast.
Put it this way. If I had 200 feet in a 172 with an engine failure,
I'd be looking for a landing area straight ahead, or more properly I'd
already know if such an area existed for the runway I was using since
I would have asked :-) (There are runways where no such landing is
possible of course)
On the other hand, in a Pitts or an Extra in the same scenario, I
wouldn't hesitate to attempt what I have described here.
I've done this easily in the Pitts with under 100 feet lost and a 180
change in the flight path.


One of the problems is you need to do more than 180 degrees, of course.
This can be minimised by turning into wind if you have some across and
if your runway is wide you've saved a bit of turn that way as well, but
you're probably going to have a bit of 'essing' to do on finals and
that's going to cost. That's where my friend lost it.


Bertie