Lancair crash at SnF

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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:
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.