![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"m pautz" wrote in message
news:7yEzc.44640$0y.5757@attbi_s03... [...] So, the question I have for the group is why are power planes taught to have these wide patterns with low angled turns? Why are the patterns outside the glide angle of a powerless airplane? Have you used Google Groups to review past threads on this contentious issue? It's come up in the past, and there are always the folks who believe there's only one right way, and anyone doing it some other way is a fool. Bottom line: in a perfect world, a powered airplane would always be within gliding distance of an airport, and when it came time to land, whether by design or by accident, it would be a simple matter of just gliding to the runway. But the world's not perfect and powered airplanes spend most of their time not within gliding distance of an airport. As it happens, in the traffic pattern there are, as with other times, issues other than simply being able to land without any power, and at those times, a pattern not within gliding distance to the runway is advised or even necessary. Gliders don't have a choice. If you're going to land on the runway, you need to be within gliding distance, by definition. Of course, gliding distance for a glider is quite a bit farther too. Powered airplanes have a choice, and sometimes that involves choosing not to be within gliding distance of the runway. I had a friend who died because of engine failure. The pilot was within gliding distance of the airport, but he didn’t know how to fly a power-out pattern. They crashed short of the runway on final. Proof that flying within gliding distance of the runway is no panacea. It's much more important that one be able to make a gliding power-off approach and landing to *somewhere* than that they are theoretically within the proper distance to do so on a runway. Pete |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Peter Duniho wrote: It's come up in the past, and there are always the folks who believe there's only one right way, and anyone doing it some other way is a fool. Until they get the acro bug and try to land a Pitts. :-) George Patterson None of us is as dumb as all of us. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Peter Duniho wrote: It's come up in the past, and there are always the folks who believe there's only one right way, and anyone doing it some other way is a fool. G.R. Patterson III wrote: Until they get the acro bug and try to land a Pitts. :-) And as we all know, the airshow begins when the Pitts flares/flairs to land! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Skycraft Landing Light Question | Jay Honeck | Owning | 15 | February 3rd 05 06:49 PM |
"bush flying" in the suburbs? | [email protected] | Home Built | 85 | December 28th 04 11:04 PM |
VW-1 C-121J landing with unlocked nose wheel | Mel Davidow LT USNR Ret | Military Aviation | 1 | January 19th 04 05:22 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Off topic - Landing of a B-17 | Ghost | Home Built | 2 | October 28th 03 04:35 PM |