Lancair crash at SnF

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

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

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'
\ (
\ \

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!

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-----

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

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

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

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

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