Engine failure on final

"Hilton" wrote in message ink.net...
Ron Garret wrote:

The discussion about cutting power on final reminded me of something
I've been puzzled about for some time now.

If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most people
do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing you
can do about it. Is that true? Or have I missed something? What
should you do if you lose your engine just after turning base to final?

Is that true? Have you missed something? Yes, lots!

0. Airspeed! Best place to land! (Rmember ABC)
1. Raise flaps
2. Prop low RPM
3. Raise gear
4. Then quickly run through obvious engine stuff - don't forget to pump the
primer

Of course, 1-4 apply if you think you're not going to make a runway.

Hilton



Also, lower nose if necessary to get best glide speed...

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:40:33 -0700, "Jay Beckman"
wrote:

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
.. .
I typically pull the throttle all the way back to idle about 1/4 mile
out, Cessna 172.

I suggest that you should not be on final 1/4 mile out. Fly the
pattern so you can make the runway from any point on downwind, base,
or final, if the engine quits.

vince norris

Doesn't 500' AGL at 1/4 mile equal a 3 degree glideslope?
(6076 / 4) / 500 = 3.038

Methinks you forgot to apply the appropriate trigonometric function.
What you should have done is: glideslope angle = arctan(rise/run). In
this case that would be: glideslope angle = arctan(500/1500) = 18.4
degrees. Pretty steep. ;-)

Working it the other way, for a 3 degree glideslope, at 500 ft you'd
still be 1.57 nm from the end of the runway. Unless you're flying a
glider, you need power to hold a 3 degree glideslope.

You don't think you'd hit pavement from 1/4 mile out at 500' AGL?

Do you consider 1/4 mile out turning base to final a "bomber pattern."

What I enjoy doing is flying downwind about 3/4 mile offset from the
runway and if "cleared to land" during the downwind, I go to idle
abeam the numbers and fly a circular arc to touchdown. No flaps
(don't have any) in an Extra 300L. Drops like a rock. Holding 90 kts
to the flare retains plenty of energy for the flare. I'd probably do
it differently in a 172. ;-)

Klein

Cub Driver wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:56:22 -0800, Ron Garret

wrote:

If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most
people
do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing
you
can do about it. Is that true?

Yes, that's true, and it's why the Old Timers taught power-off
landings, and it's why I fly them routinely.

(To tell the truth, I also like the feeling of whooshing down without
that engine blatting away. Perhaps I was a glider pilot in another
life.)

You've got it in one Dan !
Every landing in a glider/sailplane is a forced landing and circuit
planning becomes nearly automatic.
However with all the posters talk of glideslopes and rates of descent
and other esoteric subjects remember there are two laws a pilot has to
follow.
1) Fly the aeroplane
2) For anything else refer to 1
:-)

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:39 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
::

As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off landings
as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it to a runway,
engine or no.

Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at 2,000'
then?

Of course not, one has to use common sense, for example, fly the pattern
slower rather than lower or hold altitude on that "looooong, extended
downwind leg" rather than descend after crossing the usual abeam point and
turn base within gliding range. If you don't guarantee that you can make
the runway, who will? ;-)

Neil

Recently, unicate posted:

neil wrote:
As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off landings
as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it to a runway,
engine or no.

Larry Dighera wrote:
Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at 2,000'
then?

I was about to ask that, too. Depending on the airport, it would be
tricky to make power-off approaches from the downwind *as a rule*. Not
only is there the situation Larry mentioned above (3rd, 4th or 5th
behind who-knows-what), but also airports with two runways that are
staggered by 1500' or so and ATCs frequently instructing you to switch
runways at the last minute.

Well, unless you're based at such an airport, those situations become the
exception, rather than the rule. If you are based at such an airport,
then, simply change the rule, and do power-on approaches. ;-)

The reasons that I prefer not to do that when I don't have to is that I
get lots of "dead stick" practice, which I think is a Good Thing.

Neil

Do you consider 1/4 mile out turning base to final a "bomber pattern."

In the Marines, I spent about two years flying an R5C (what the Air
Force called a C-46). It was the size of WW II heavy bombers. We
routinely flew finals of less than 1/4 mile.

In a Cherokee or C-172, two or three hundred yards are plenty.

vince norris

Not to pick nits... but... doesn't an idle engine put out some thrust? I
suspect (please don't hesitate to correct me if I'm full of it... it happens
with surprising regularity) that if you're making any kind of a short field
landing, you're going to be out of glide range when the engine quits. The
best solution is to land at airports with a really nice safety zone before
the runway.

-Rob
"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:58:29 -0600, David Gunter
wrote:

So what do you do when you are on 1/4-mile final and you spot a coyote
or two playing around in the middle of the runway?

I'd put on power and go around. I didn't say I switched the engine
off, only that I went to idle when abreast the landing spot.

We have some (a few) coyotes in SE New Hampshire. When I first saw
them, on the ice in the moonlight, I thought they were wolves, one
blonde and one dark. Gorgeous animals. Took my breath away.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:31:46 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
::

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:39 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
::

As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off landings
as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it to a runway,
engine or no.

Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at 2,000'
then?

Of course not, one has to use common sense, for example, fly the pattern
slower rather than lower

So your aircraft is slow enough to permit you to remain within gliding
distance of the threshold at normal pattern altitude while four other
aircraft head cross country several miles from the runway? Doubtful.

or hold altitude on that "looooong, extended downwind leg" rather than
descend after crossing the usual abeam point and
turn base within gliding range.

See above.

If you don't guarantee that you can make the runway, who will? ;-)

The power developed by your engine.

At John Wayne airport (a Class C facility) it is not unusual to find
yourself on downwind well outside the surface area during "rush hour"
operations. It's not feasible to remain within power off gliding
distance of the runway threshold at these times. An instrument
approach imposes similar difficulty in maintaining power off gliding
distance to the runway. I can understand how it can reduce exposure
to landing short, but I don't find it often possible except at times
of low traffic density.

Rob Montgomery wrote:
Not to pick nits... but... doesn't an idle engine put out some thrust?

On the ground while taxiing, sure it does, just take your feet off the
brakes and away you go. At flying speed however, it (perhaps surprisingly)
causes drag.

Hilton

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:28:17 GMT, "Hilton"
wrote in . net::

Rob Montgomery wrote:
Not to pick nits... but... doesn't an idle engine put out some thrust?

On the ground while taxiing, sure it does, just take your feet off the
brakes and away you go. At flying speed however, it (perhaps surprisingly)
causes drag.

Do you think that drag caused by an idling engine (and propeller) is
increased or decreased when it is producing zero power instead of idle
power?