X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 17:04:31 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mta11.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.205] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1113943 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 15 May 2006 09:08:38 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.168.78.205; envelope-from=glcasey@adelphia.net Received: from [70.34.70.106] by mta11.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060515130750.FHSB9009.mta11.adelphia.net@[70.34.70.106]> for ; Mon, 15 May 2006 09:07:50 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--259938747 X-Original-Message-Id: From: Gary Casey Subject: Re: Engine failure on TO X-Original-Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 06:07:49 -0700 X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3) --Apple-Mail-2--259938747 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed I tried the same maneuvers as Paul describes below in my Cardinal RG =20 with the same results. The altitude loss was reduced by increasing =20 the bank angle, but the "degree of difficulty" also increased. The =20 best technique was to use a fairly steep bank angle - at least 45 - =20 and use the back pressure appropriate for the airspeed (you would =20 wish for AOA information about this time!), starting with essentially =20= no back pressure and increasing the G loading as the airspeed =20 increases. The turn ends with a fairly high airspeed and significant =20= G loading. I found that it took about 700 ft to make the turn, and I =20= simulated getting to the runway by turning 225 degrees one way and 45 =20= the other. As the bank angle increases, however, it gets to the =20 point that I can't imagine doing the maneuver close to the ground - =20 no horizon, ground rapidly turning, bank angle changing, airspeed =20 changing, G load changing, all at the same time and all with no room =20 to spare. Sounds like what a profession aerobatic pilot would =20 experience every day. My conclusion is that 1,000 feet would be the =20 logical decision point and the bank angle I would use is between 30 =20 and 45. Problem is, as I'm sure some have found the hard way, that =20 back pressure control is critical. Without an AOA I don't see how it =20= could be done with any precision - at least by someone of my =20 experience and skill. The best method is undoubtedly to make sure ahead of time that the =20 engine will run for at least a minute at full power - but how do you =20 do that? That also has some uncertainty. Gary Casey On May 14, 2006, at 3:00 AM, Lancair Mailing List wrote: > A friend of mine just investigated this in a Cherokee 180 with the =20 > following results: > First, of course, I tried what I was taught: power to idle, 70 =20 > knots, standard rate turn (3=B0 per second). I didn=92t pay any =20 > attention to the bank angle but suffice it to say, it was rather =20 > shallow. The VSI was reading 800 FPM, and of course, after turning =20 > 180=B0, I lost 800 feet. > > Next I tried 45=B0, using the attitude indicator and ignoring the =20 > rate of turn. Holding back-pressure to maintain 70 KTS, the VSI was =20= > indicating 1,000=92 FPM, but as expected, the stall warning horn came =20= > alive with its burbling, not a full horn. I got around the turn in =20 > well under 60 seconds, netting an altitude loss of only 600=92. > > Then I tried the same as above, but I didn=92t hold any back-=20 > pressure. The nose dropped to 95 kts which is a fairly steep nose-=20 > down attitude, one which would alarm anyone who is close to the =20 > ground. VSI jumped to 1,500 FPM, again, something that would freak-=20 > out anyone trying this close to the ground who has never tried it =20 > before. Getting around the turn took very little time, netting only =20= > a 300=92 loss in altitude. I was impressed. > > At a 60=B0 bank with no back-pressure, the ASI jumped to just over =20= > 100 kts (nearing the yellow arc). The nose-down attitude was =20 > uncomfortably steep as I saw through the eyes of someone 700=92 from =20= > the ground trying this maneuver for the first time. My windscreen =20 > was filled with farms, roads and buildings and not much in the way =20 > of a horizon. The 180=B0 turn was accomplished very fast, so fast =20 > that the VSI never stopped moving. It peaked at well over 1,500 =20 > fpm, close to 2,000. As I pulled out of the dive/turn, I picked up =20= > 100=92-150=92 while converting the excess airspeed to altitude, = netting =20 > a total loss of 500=92. Although a 500=92 loss seems ok, I had to lose = =20 > close to 700=92 to get it. If the ground was 600=92 below me when I =20= > started the turn, I would have been a smoking hole in the ground. --Apple-Mail-2--259938747 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252
I tried the = same maneuvers as Paul describes below in my Cardinal RG with the same = results.=A0 =A0The altitude loss was reduced by increasing the bank = angle, but the "degree of difficulty" also increased.=A0 The best = technique was to use a fairly steep bank angle - at least 45 - and use = the back pressure appropriate for the airspeed (you would wish for AOA = information about this time!), starting with essentially no back = pressure and increasing the G loading as the airspeed increases.=A0 The = turn ends with a fairly high airspeed and significant G loading.=A0 I = found that it took about 700 ft to make the turn, and I simulated = getting to the runway by turning 225 degrees one way and 45 the other.=A0 = As the bank angle increases, however, it gets to the point that I can't = imagine doing the maneuver close to the ground - no horizon, ground = rapidly turning, bank angle changing, airspeed changing, G load = changing, all at the same time and all with no room to spare.=A0 Sounds = like what a profession aerobatic pilot would experience every day.=A0 My = conclusion is that 1,000 feet would be the logical decision point and = the bank angle I would use is between 30 and 45.=A0 Problem is, as I'm = sure some have found the hard way, that back pressure control is = critical.=A0 Without an AOA I don't see how it could be done with any = precision - at least by someone of my experience and = skill.

The best method is undoubtedly to make = sure ahead of time that the engine will run for at least a minute at = full power - but how do you do that?=A0 That also has some = uncertainty.

Gary = Casey
On May 14, 2006, at 3:00 AM, Lancair = Mailing List wrote:

A friend of mine just investigated this in a Cherokee 180 with = the following results:

=A0 to 95 kts which is a fairly steep = nose-down attitude, one which would alarm anyone who is close to the = ground. VSI jumped to 1,500 FPM, again, something that would freak-out = anyone trying this close to the ground who has never tried it before. = Getting around the turn took very little time, netting only a 300=92 = loss in altitude. I was impressed.As I pulled out of = the dive/turn, I picked up 100=92-150=92 while converting the excess = airspeed to altitude, netting a total loss of 500=92. Although a 500=92 = loss seems ok, I had to lose close to 700=92 to get it. If the ground = was 600=92 below me when I started the turn, I would have been a smoking = hole in the = ground.


= --Apple-Mail-2--259938747--