Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.225.28.227; envelope-from=cardmarc@charter.net
Message-Id: <3k70il$hqvdct@mxip20a.cluster1.charter.net>
From: <cardmarc@charter.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: George Graham glide update
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:52:04 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Well,
I have tested something similiar in a cs prop plane. Yank the prop control out all the way and your glide improves dramatically. It's an emergency landing checklist item for me.
Marc Wiese
> 
> From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
> Date: 2004/12/20 Mon PM 10:07:19 GMT
> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: George Graham glide update
> 
> I would guess toward the lower end (15:1) as an initial guess.  I do 
> believe that a freewheeling prop should give a HUGE improvement in glide 
> range over a windmilling prop driving the engine.  Look at the 
> force/power required to spin your engine at the windmill rpm through the 
> PSRU.  Then look at the tiny force/power required to spin the prop alone 
> if it is freewheeling.  Now, with that differential in power required 
> figure out how much force (drag) it takes to equal that power at glide 
> airspeed.  The difference could nearly be like having the belly board 
> down.  The difference between engine at idle and engine dead IS like 
> having the belly board down.
> 
> Hard to verify.  Nobody has much experience with freewheeling prop.  
> What few data points there are might be suspect on account of the guy 
> too real busy flying to get good data.
> 
> How many people COULD test that condition? ... Jim S.
> 
> 
> Tracy Crook wrote:
> 
> > Happened 2 days ago.  I agree that this is optimistic on glide 
> > ratio.   The starting point and altitude fix were done under the heat 
> > of handling the power failure.  The end point was based on an estimate 
> > of how far the landing was from Leesburg airport.   The glide ratio 
> > could have been anywhere between 15 and 25 depending on how close 
> > these estimates were and wind speed & direction.  Not bad even if it 
> > were at the low end of this range.  My RV-4 is only about 10 : 1 glide 
> > ratio with engine out.
> >  
> > Tracy
> >
> >     ----- Original Message -----
> >     *From:* Perry Mick <mailto:pjmick@mail.viclink.com>
> >     *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft <mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> >     *Sent:* Monday, December 20, 2004 3:31 PM
> >     *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: George Graham glide update
> >
> >     20 miles from 5000 feet.
> >     That is 105600 ft / 5000 ft, or a glide ratio of 21.12 to 1.
> >     That's a little
> >     difficult to believe.
> >     I think the LEZ has a published glide ratio of 13 to 1, but I
> >     still assume
> >     10 to 1 in an actual engine out condition. He must have had a good
> >     tailwind
> >     or maybe some thermal activity?
> >
> >     Is this something that happened long ago or recently?
> >
> >     >>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> >     >>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
> >
> 
> 
>