Michael wrote:

Cub Driver wrote

Personally, I have gone back to power-off landings for just this
reason. And I try, not always successfully, to come in "high, hot, and
slipping like crazy" since I don't have the option of raising the
flaps.


And what happens when you eventually hit an updraft? If you're
already high, hot, and slipping like crazy, that updraft will put you
too high and hot to land, and you will need to go around.

Here's a bit of reality - unless you run out of gas, it is highly
unlikely that an engine that was working just fine when you entered
the pattern will fail so suddenly and so completely that it won't
produce enough power to flatten your glide enough for you to make the
runway given a reasonable pattern. On the other hand, it may well
crap out badly enough that you won't have the power to go around -
especially if you are flying a 65 hp Cub, which is a marginal
performer anyway.

I'm all for keeping the pattern close in, but there are limits to
everything.

Michael


high, hot, and slipping like crazy
High: correct, but as I will explain later high is better than low.
Hot: A normal power-off landing need not be any hotter than than a
powered approach. I was taught to come in with normal approach speed.
Cub D. comes in hot because there is no runway too short for a cub and
he is using the kenetic energy as a safety buffer instead of power. The
same buffer can be provided with potential energy (coming in high)
Slipping: Not needed unless your flaps are boken. Cub driver uses slips
because he is experienced and practices this (Also because he likes
them). Dave already explained how his wife made the runway with an
extemely high approach.

And what happens when you eventually hit an updraft? If you're
already high

On a peice of paper draw a side view of the runway, a high approach and
a low approach. You will see that *minor* changes in the approach angle
with the low approach has a *major* change on your touch-down spot. The
same angle change of a high approach has a *minor* change on the
touch-down spot. For example: presume that you come in with a
powered-approach that has a glide angle of 40:1 and Mr. C150 comes in
with a high approach that has a 10:1 glide angle. If an updraft raises
you 50 feet, your touch down spot has moved 2000 feet. If that same
updraft raises Mr. C150 50 feet, his touch down spot only moves 500 feet.

When I was being taught power-off approaches 30 years ago, I asked my
instructor the same question about getting too high. He setup an
approach that was so high above the numbers, I didn't think we would
make the other end of the runway. He pulled full flaps and I was amazed
at how short we landed.

and you will need to go around.

I have been flying power-off landings and have not done a go-around in
30 years.

Here's a bit of reality - unless you run out of gas, it is highly
unlikely...
I agree with you completely. Due to the unlikely nature of a power
failure, maybe it has been proven that a powered approach is safer;
maybe not. I don't know. That is why I asked the original question.
However, here is another bit of reality from Wolfgang Langewiesche, "But
meanwhile it can't be denied that engine failure, though very
unlikely, is very serious if it does happen, and that the accuracy of
his power-off approach can thus suddenly become the most important thing
in he pilot's life."

Even a 767 was successfully landed with no power because the pilot had
extensive practice in power-off landings.
http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html

My main point is that if you don't practice power-off landings when your
power works, you won't be able to do it when the the power doesn't work.

Marty Pautz
"promote a society that respects its elders; before it is too late."