Lancair crash at SnF

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:yckQj.67983$y05.63596
@newsfe22.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
WingFlaps wrote in news:ac05ca83-bbc8-4c3b-
9469-
:

On Apr 25, 8:31 pm, Stefan wrote:
WingFlaps schrieb:

Try reading the statement again, here it is:
"Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with
the
wind and to glide speed."
To summarise your missed point, the pilot control inputs cost
energy
that is not factored into simple glide/time analysis.

This is absolutely correct. But then, I dont understand the
connection
to your first statement regarding the wind. Additioinal drag by
control
input is completely unrelated to the presence or non-presence of
wind.


Itls a turn upwind to downwind. That involves 2 direction changes,
one
to reverse course and the the other to line up the runway. If
there's
wind there will be an effect on line up. Try thinking about more
factors that cost altitude OK?


It's not so much the loss of altitude that will get you in this
manuever. it's the probable loss of control trying to manuever around
back towards the field.
Firstly, in any emergency that hasnt been drilled, you will have a
moment where you will be sitting there with your mouth open in utter
disbelief of what has just happened. in fact, even if you have
drilled
for it you will still have this moment, but if it's been practiced
the
moment you begine to do something about it will be sooner coming.
While you're sitting there wondering what's going on, the speed will
be
bleeding off. Not good. Then, you will have to manuever the airplane
around using rapid manuevering at a relatively high bank angle if
you're
going to make it (I'm assuiming you're still pretty low) and if you
aren't 100% au fait with this sort of flying you're going to be very
lucky to be able to maintain control of the airplane before the
ground
reaches up and smites you. This is less about the maths than the
pilot;'s proficiency. The pilot who is proficient enough to do this
will
have determined an altitude above which he knows it is possible to do
it
and so the question will not be one of whether it's within the
performance capabilities of the airplane, but one of whether the
pilot
can accurately control the airplane through the required manuever.
Here is what you'll have to do the instant the engine gives up:
Smooothly lower the nose as you roll just as smoothly, but as quickly
as
possible, towards the crosswind, if any. You will have to continue to
lower the nose as the turn, which should ideally have at least 60 deg
of
bank, is completed. you should be just nibbling the stall during
this,
and , needless to say, perfectly co-ordinated. Pitch control is now
critical as what you're trying to do is cheat physics by offloading
the
wing as you turn. a 60 degree bank in level flight will give you a
stall
speed of 1.4 VSO and you should be below that so you're right on the
edge. This is all about having very good seat of the pants capability
based on experience. As you approach the desired heading to your
landing
spot, you have to smoothly roll out and get the nose up and back to a
good glide attitude. You'll have sacrificed some altitude doing the
sharp turn, but far less than you would have making a wider turn with
a
gentle bank. As you level the wings, you should be on, or close to,
your
desired glide speed. This is a difficult manuever to pull off. Even
practicing at a bit of altitude has some risks. you're going to pull
a
bit of G and it's easy to lose the plot and either spin out of it or
overstress the airframe praciticing it unless you know what you're
doing. It's not really something that most pilots should even
consider.
Someone flying 25 hours a year s unlikely ever to become sharp enough
to
do this reliably. I certainly wouldn't try it now unless there was no
choice.
There's a lot of crap talked about turning back and most of the
accidents occuring as a result of this are because the pilot has
heard
it's possible and decides to learn how to do it when it actually
happens. Most modern flight manuals tell you it isn't possible but
this
advice is ignored by guys who reckon they're a cut above because they
did the math or tried it once or twice at altitude or because they
read
about it here.



Bertie


Now come on, Dudley wrote this for you, didn't he?




Nope.


Bertie

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in newsdkQj.67984$y05.29472
@newsfe22.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
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

Only if you fly as lame a you do.


Snort!

Yeh, my self image as a pilot hinges on the opinion of someone who
counldn't teach a bird to fly.


Bertie

In rec.aviation.student WingFlaps wrote:
On Apr 25, 8:31?pm, Stefan wrote:
WingFlaps schrieb:

Try reading the statement again, here it is:
"Now we add in the energy losses from having to accelerate with the
wind and to glide speed."
To summarise your missed point, the pilot control inputs cost energy
that is not factored into simple glide/time analysis.

This is absolutely correct. But then, I dont understand the connection
to your first statement regarding the wind. Additioinal drag by control
input is completely unrelated to the presence or non-presence of wind.

Itls a turn upwind to downwind. That involves 2 direction changes, one
to reverse course and the the other to line up the runway. If there's
wind there will be an effect on line up. Try thinking about more
factors that cost altitude OK?

A crosswind should only help you line up. If you stay aligned with the
runway and turn into the wind then it will reduce the offset after you
complete the turn. If you allow yourself to drift with the wind then this
will further work in your favor. If you turn into the wind and push upwind
during the takeoff then the wind can make things quite exciting, but don't
do that.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Stefan wrote:
B A R R Y schrieb:

I'd rather hit a bus shelter or light poles @ 40-50 MPH than go in
inverted after a stall/spin @ 200-300 AGL.

But I hope that you rather risk a stall/spin than to hit a crowd of
pedestrians with that meat chopper turning.

If the chopper were turning... G

Stefan wrote:
B A R R Y schrieb:

I'd rather hit a bus shelter or light poles @ 40-50 MPH than go in
inverted after a stall/spin @ 200-300 AGL.

But I hope that you rather risk a stall/spin than to hit a crowd of
pedestrians with that meat chopper turning.

Guys... Take a deep breath, please. Is this the "Argument Room", or what?

In truth, I'm going to aim for the pack of baby joggers, or the senior
citizen walking club, doing laps around the parking lot. Or with better
luck, it'll be recess at the local elementary school... Come on! G

A dead stick spam can, even though quickly descending, is plenty
controllable while still flying. As one gets closer, and options run
out, pilot choices remain to minimize or eliminate collateral damage.
Shopping centers, industrial parks, golf courses, etc... all have
greatly varying "busy" periods. That's all part of the decision at the
actual time of need.

We're talking low altitude, where the population of a landing spot
should be pretty obvious.

As we nit-pick this to death, what are the choices after a stall just a
few hundred feet above the ground while turning?

WingFlaps schrieb:

In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the _magnitude_ of
the vector.

Nope. Not even at high school. The magnitude is "speed".

Maybe where you live. Not where I live.

BS. This is stated in any basic physics text book -even Wiki knows it:

"In physics...The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is
speed."

What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:24:31 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:YbkQj.67982$y05.56887
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
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

One doesn't equal the other moron.





Obviously, fjukktard.


Figured out that maze on the back of your froot loops box yet?


Bertie

lol

Jade

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:15:25 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

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

Is that a good description of how Bob Hoover used to fly his engine
out performance in the Shrike commander?
His energy management routine was one of the best parts of an airshow.
Kirk

Stefan wrote in
:

WingFlaps schrieb:

In everyday's language, the word velocity stands for the
_magnitude_ of the vector.

Nope. Not even at high school. The magnitude is "speed".

Maybe where you live. Not where I live.

BS. This is stated in any basic physics text book -even Wiki knows
it:

"In physics...The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is
speed."

What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?


Who's everyday? is he on first or is he the shortstop?


Bertie

Daedalus wrote in
:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:24:31 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:YbkQj.67982$y05.56887
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
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

One doesn't equal the other moron.





Obviously, fjukktard.


Figured out that maze on the back of your froot loops box yet?


Bertie

lol

Jade



$:*0"


Bertie