Testing your glide. Are people doing this?

My instructor was one of them. He did it until the day it became a real
emergency. The FAA's reaction was such that he decided not to do it anymore.
On the other hand, I have gone out to a large mudflat near Tucson in my
Rans and shut it down from 2000' or so and dead sticked it in numerous
times. The flat is about a mile in diameter, Rans uses about 200' to land.
Learned that it glided far better than I was led to believe.

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"markjen" wrote

. as was done on my 4th lesson for my PPL with my instructor.
Not only stopped the engine, but made me slow down to actually
stop the prop.

There is always controversy about how realistic to make
emergency training. I think the risk of doing this training
outweighs the benefit.

What experience do you have that indicates that this is a risky
maneuver. I made it a point to do it with every one of my students
at 4-5,000' over the not-too-busy airport. With a few hours of
C-172 gliding time, the worst thing that could happen was to land
like any other glider. My homebuilt MiniMax had a 1/2 VW engine
that could not be restarted in-flight. I regularly practiced landing
with the prop stopped in it. Practice builds confidence!
What do glider pilots do when the prop stops? :-) I certainly don't
concede them any basic skills that I don't possess.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI USN
PanAm (retired)

NOT TRUE!! A B-747 has about the same glide ratio as the B-707s
that I flew for 17 years, 20:1 or better. From 35-37,000'(6nm),
we could do 125nm easily.

Wow -- that's really impressive. (Of course, it's what happens at the END
of the glide that's ulimately the most important, eh? :-)

Thanks for the education, Bob!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

What experience do you have that indicates that this is a risky
maneuver.

C'mon, common sense says that stopping the prop on an powered airplane is
maneuver that has some risk. As I said there is a tradeoff. Let's not get
into arguing over the tradeoff or what risk is acceptable. This is just a
rehash of the old spin training debate.

And certainly the airplane and environment matters. There is little risk in
practicing very realistic engine-one scenarios in a low-traffic environment
with a plane like a C-172 or VW-powered homebuilt. But it's a whole
different deal in a Bonanza or T210 at a busy field.

You make your own tradeoff, but if I ever have a CFI that wants to practice
the maneuver to the point of stopping the engine, I'll decline and find
another CFI.

- Mark

"Paul Sengupta" writes:

I tried this technique in my Bulldog (IO-360, CS prop). It shuddered
and shook so much I went back to the "normal" method after 2 or 3
seconds!

It sounds like lBad fuel/air distribution among the cylinders. I've
heard from a few other people with carbureted four-bangers who seem to
have some success, though I haven't heard from *anyone* with a
carbureted six-cylinder engine who has managed to fly LOP WOT (anyone
reading?). Perhaps it's because the O-320 (and O-360?) is able to
have all four cylinders equidistant from the carb.

I don't know why things are so bad on your fuel-injected IO-360, but
on the bright side, you have the option of trying Gamijectors if you
want.


All the best,


David

Well, normally at low-ish throttle settings I can lean pretty
aggressively and then I start getting power reductions as I
lean further (though the MP and RPM seem to stay the same
so I guess all that changes is the power produced and the
prop pitch). This all happens smoothly. But at wide open
throttle I didn't want to try it for too long or for too much
in case I damaged something. Didn't seem to like it though.
Couldn't swear to it but it seems that fuel distribution is quite
good normally.

Don't think I can use Gamis here in the UK.

Paul

"David Megginson" wrote in message
...
It sounds like bad fuel/air distribution among the cylinders.

Wow, sure did not realize this, thanks
Mike and all.

Pat Thronson PP

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsLunb.50518$HS4.232034@attbi_s01...

A few disparate points to help you understand the situation better:

- Little planes tend to glide a lot better than big planes.

- Where you lose your engine is important. A little plane losing its
engine
over Iowa might make the local newspaper, but everyone will walk away.
The
same engine failure over downtown Chicago is going to make national
news.

- Smoking holes are created when planes glide into something -- hard.
No
matter how well you can glide, sooner or later Mother Earth reaches up
to
smite you. If there is a big building or mountain in the way when you
run
out of glide, well...
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"



Big planes glide much better than small planes. An airliner has about
twice
the glide ration that your Pathfinder does.

Mike
MU-2

In rec.aviation.owning Robert Moore wrote:
: NOT TRUE!! A B-747 has about the same glide ratio as the B-707s
: that I flew for 17 years, 20:1 or better. From 35-37,000'(6nm),
: we could do 125nm easily.

I thought I heard somewhere that one of the reasons the "glide
ratio" on the bigguns is so high is that it's tested with the turbine's
power pulled all the way back. The engines, however, have a great deal of
idle thrust, which aids in the glide ratio.

I don't know this for sure, but I've heard it's partially true.
Any thoughts?

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

David Megginson wrote:

Perhaps it's because the O-320 (and O-360?) is able to
have all four cylinders equidistant from the carb.

Doubt it. The carb on *my* O-320 is located behind the engine. No way all four
cylinders are equidistant from the carb. I doubt that Lycoming has set up a
tuned induction system either, but it's possible.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

No, it is because the airframes are designed for high speed which means low
drag.

Mike
MU-2


wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Robert Moore wrote:
: NOT TRUE!! A B-747 has about the same glide ratio as the B-707s
: that I flew for 17 years, 20:1 or better. From 35-37,000'(6nm),
: we could do 125nm easily.

I thought I heard somewhere that one of the reasons the "glide
ratio" on the bigguns is so high is that it's tested with the turbine's
power pulled all the way back. The engines, however, have a great deal of
idle thrust, which aids in the glide ratio.

I don't know this for sure, but I've heard it's partially true.
Any thoughts?

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************