![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Harold" wrote in message
... [...] If my best glide is 85 KTAS and it loses 700 fpm at that speed, shouldn't I be guaranteed I can make it back if I climb at 84 KTAS and 701 fpm ? Do you descend at 700fpm gliding at 85 knots (which you should reference as *indicated* airspeed, not true) with the wings level? Or did you verify that descent rate in a turn? Several factors prevent the simplistic analysis you've made from being valid: * The turn itself increases descent rate * You need to turn a net of closer to 270 degrees: 225 to get you on an intercept course back to the runway, then another 45 degrees the other direction to align yourself for touchdown. * Typically you are climbing into a headwind; that becomes a tailwind halfway through your turn and through the remainder of the descent. The tailwind will either push you past the runway, or you need to steepen your descent by increasing the descent rate. Either way, that interferes with the basic "if I climb at such-and-such a rate, then instantly turn 180 degrees and descend at a different rate, can I make it back to the runway" simplification. Assuming "no wind" conditions doesn't make sense, because that assumption is almost never correct and the consequence is significant. Don't forget the reaction time it takes to start the turn, and the time spent at something other than best glide airspeed. For the vast majority of pilots, a large proportion of the post-engine-failure flight will be done quite a bit away from optimally. If you have a hard time believing this, it's easy enough to experiment. Find yourself a nice quiet airport where you can depart straight out. Climb straight out to 2000' AGL, then cut the power. Wait a second or two (since you won't be surprised by the power cut), then go ahead and start your turn back to the runway. Note the altitude loss at the point at which you are back aligned with the runway. This will give you the absolute *minimum* altitude you might successfully attempt such a turn-back. For extra credit, time the post-power-cut flight, noting your airspeed as well. This will allow you to figure out how far you actually flew during the descent, which will give you an idea of whether you'd have actually had enough runway left to land on by the time you got all set up. For extra accuracy, take someone along to keep track of the actual airspeed, or use a GPS to track the experiment (to get distance directly, rather than depending on speed over time). Finally, keep in mind that not all airplanes have the characteristic yours does. In fact, I'd say it's unusual to find an airplane that climbs and descends at exactly the same airspeed and vertical speed. Especially powerful aircraft will climb more steeply than they descend, while slower, lower-powered airplanes will climb less steeply than they descend. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Historic Helsinki-Malmi Airport in trouble - please read | Seppo Sipilä | General Aviation | 0 | December 24th 04 09:04 AM |
STAR to nearby airport | Viperdoc | Instrument Flight Rules | 33 | May 13th 04 10:48 PM |
The battle for Arlington Airport begins? | Paul Adriance | Home Built | 45 | March 30th 04 11:41 PM |
Here's the Recompiled List of 82 Aircraft Accessible Aviation Museums! | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 18 | January 20th 04 04:02 PM |
Student Pilot Stories Wanted | Greg Burkhart | Piloting | 6 | September 18th 03 08:57 PM |