![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dylan Smith wrote in
: On 2008-04-25, WingFlaps wrote: On Apr 25, 9:31*pm, Dylan Smith wrote: IIRC, Vy is for a C172 is in the region of 65 knots - or best glide, and I can see you missed the point entirely. By the way, Vy is never at best glide (it is above that ~69knots in a 172) -perhaps you would I never said it was best glide. I said Vy for a C172 is *in the region of 65 knots* (I don't actually remember what it is off the top of my head, it's been 5 years since I flew a C172, but I do remember Vy being close to 65 knots). I do, however, remember that for an 'N' model C172, 65 knots was best glide and Vy was close to that number. (In fact a brief internet search shows it to be 70 knots, so if the pilot recognises an engine failure promptly, should not have to dive to regain airspeed as your scenario stated. In reality, your 'concrete numbers' are just as much handwaving: how many pilots seriously climb out to 600 feet at Vx? How many pilots would seriously spend 10 seconds doing nothing but talking on the radio when the engine has quit cold - instead of looking for a suitable landing site and navigating towards said site?) Good luck on your first engine failure during climb out, if you turn back I hope you make it. but you'll have a better chance going straight ahead... Actually, I did go straight ahead but with 4000 feet of runway remaining and a slow aircraft (C140), it wasn't exactly the hardest aviation decision I've had to make. If it happens again, I'll do what I think is prudent at the time. That might be straight ahead, it might be turn to some amount, and it might even be return to the airfield. I can't say at this point, and I won't be able to say unless it actually happens - just like one of our glider pilots did when the rope really did break at 200 feet: owing to the strong tailwind that he would have had on a downwind landing, he elected to land in a field instead, even though the turn itself was eminently possible and he could have made it to the runway. My friend who did have his engine lunch itself had the choice of a built up area, a busy beach full of people, or the airfield. He was at about 600 feet in a C150. If I had been in the same situation as him, I'd have done the same - try to get back on airfield property because it was the only thing flat not covered in people that was within range. I can not fault his decision. (He did better than airfield property, he did get it onto the runway). What I'm trying to say in a long winded way is that there are no prescriptive solutions. "Always land straight ahead" isn't always the right decision, nor is the decision to turn back even if you really can make the runway safely (in the glider example, the prospect of groundlooping into a barbed wire fence when the glider got below wind speed on the ground was a deciding factor to land in a field rather than on the runway). It depends on conditions at the time, how much altitude and airspeed you have, and what the terrain is like. Actually, if you're light or have a tailwind, best glide will come at a lower airspeed. in a manuever this tight you need every trick in the book at your disposal. Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
lancair crash scapoose, OR | gatt | Piloting | 10 | October 26th 06 03:34 PM |
Lancair IV | Dico Reyers | Owning | 6 | October 19th 04 11:47 PM |
Lancair 320 ram air? | ROBIN FLY | Home Built | 17 | January 7th 04 11:54 PM |
Lancair 320/360 kit wanted!!! | Erik W | Owning | 0 | October 3rd 03 10:17 PM |
Lancair IVP | Peter Gottlieb | Home Built | 2 | August 22nd 03 03:51 AM |