X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 14:41:08 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from n23a.bullet.scd.yahoo.com ([209.73.160.68] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with SMTP id 1113038 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 14 May 2006 13:58:45 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.73.160.68; envelope-from=naf@britevalley.com Received: from [66.218.69.1] by n23.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 May 2006 17:57:53 -0000 X-Original-Date: 14 May 2006 10:57:53 -0700 X-yahoo-newman-property: wss X-yahoo-newman-id: null Received: from [66.218.85.37] by t1.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 May 2006 17:57:53 -0000 Received: from milter2.wss.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.85.49) by mta6.wss.scd.yahoo.com (7.0.042) id 44656174001C968A for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 14 May 2006 10:57:53 -0700 Received: from paul (dpc693571093.direcpc.com [69.35.71.93]) (authenticated bits=0) by milter2.wss.scd.yahoo.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k4EHuWY3005833 for ; Sun, 14 May 2006 10:56:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Nafziger" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: engine failure on TO X-Original-Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 10:56:27 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <00c401c6777f$c08ce950$0402a8c0@paul> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C67745.142E1150" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcZ3bhUOKa1vNF9ATnq20HgH1vh/RQAEYjFw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C67745.142E1150 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I suppose we don't want to start an argument about the "wing-over method". It actually does work. Naf _____ From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of MikeEasley@aol.com Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 8:50 AM To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: [LML] Re: engine failure on TO ellipse@sbcglobal.net I have an ABC Wide World of Flying tape (at least 10 years old) that has a segment on making the turn back to the airport done by Barry Shiff. I think he recommended a 45 degree bank as the optimum for the 180+ turn. Even though steeper was better when it comes to altitude loss, it was too difficult to execute. Another thing to keep in mind is stall speed doesn't increase in a bank IF you let the plane descend and maintain one G. It's not the "tilting" of the wings, it's the G's that increase the stall speed. I know that I have been a little nonchalant about the takeoff. And after reading about the latest accident, I added a "straight ahead vs. turn back" altitude to my pre-takeoff checklist. I just check the altimeter, add 1,000 feet and make a mental note before taking the runway. I hope to never use that altitude to make a life and death decision. More importantly, I hope that a few months from now, when the latest accident is out of mind, that I don't go back to taking a "normal takeoff" for granted. I really feel I had set myself up to be a "statistic" not a "survivor" Mike Easley N815MK Super ES ------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C67745.142E1150 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I suppose = we don't want=20 to start an argument about the "wing-over method". <g>  It = actually=20 does work.
 
Naf

From: Lancair Mailing List=20 [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of=20 MikeEasley@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 8:50=20 AM
To: Lancair Mailing List
Subject: [LML] Re: = engine=20 failure on TO

 
I have an ABC Wide World of Flying tape (at least 10 years old) = that has=20 a segment on making the turn back to the airport done by Barry=20 Shiff.   I think he recommended a 45 degree bank as the = optimum for=20 the 180+ turn.  Even though steeper was better when it comes to = altitude=20 loss, it was too difficult to execute.
 
Another thing to keep in mind is stall speed doesn't increase in = a bank=20 IF you let the plane descend and maintain one G.  It's not the = "tilting"=20 of the wings, it's the G's that increase the stall speed.
 
I know that I have been a little nonchalant about the=20 takeoff.  And after reading about the latest accident, I added a=20 "straight ahead vs. turn back" altitude to my pre-takeoff = checklist.  I=20 just check the altimeter, add 1,000 feet and make a mental note before = taking=20 the runway.  I hope to never use that altitude to make a life and = death=20 decision.  More importantly, I hope that a few months from now, = when the=20 latest accident is out of mind, that I don't go back to taking a = "normal=20 takeoff" for granted.
 
I really feel I had set myself up to be a "statistic" not a=20 "survivor"
 
Mike Easley
N815MK  Super ES
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C67745.142E1150--