What if...

I did my commercial work in a 182RG.

I was taught Chop(power), Prop(full), Drop(nose down), Gear (at gear speed),
Flaps (initial, then full when in white arc), 60 degree bank away from the
fire, holding airspeed at the top of the white arc. It would get you down
fast, add rudder and we'd see over 2500 fpm down. After about 2 turns of
that demonstration, my DE said... Ok, good enough.

Commercial students that I taught this method to needed to be eased into it,
but after one or two attempts, most found it fun.

Jim



"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Second - get the plane on the ground PRONTO, but where I want it, not
where
a draggy, gear down configuration might put me in a worse spot than I
already am.

One of the things the POH does say, is that the fast way to get down is
to extend the gear and full flaps.
When you are taking advantage of the turbocharger to go higher, getting
down from over 10,000 to lower altitudes while you're on fire becomes
urgent.
The fastest I have descended, intentionally, is 1300 fpm. That is going
to require at least 8 minutes. When you're on fire, that's a LOOOONG
time!
Can I get 2000 fpm or more? I don't know, I haven't tried it.
At 1300 fpm and the power pulled back, I was up into the yellow arc in
smooth air.
What is the airspeed at 2000 fpm? How long can you fly in the red arc
and not exceed V-dive without breaking the airplane? Theoretically, in
smooth air, forever.
But you have to level out gradually to avoid overloading with G's and
bleed off that airspeed to land. Thats going to add more time.

In article ,
"Jim Burns" wrote:

I was taught Chop(power), Prop(full), Drop(nose down), Gear (at gear speed),
Flaps (initial, then full when in white arc), 60 degree bank away from the
fire, holding airspeed at the top of the white arc. It would get you down
fast, add rudder and we'd see over 2500 fpm down. After about 2 turns of
that demonstration, my DE said... Ok, good enough.

Commercial students that I taught this method to needed to be eased into it,
but after one or two attempts, most found it fun.

Thanks Jim.
That gets me to wondering... what about a spin?
A spin will give you a high rate of descent at stall speed.
If the aircraft is not approved for spins, that might lead to an
indecisive moment. Just because it is not approved, does not mean it
will not recover. It just means that it might not have been tested.

Theoretically a spin may get you down faster, but in how many pieces? I'd
hesitate to recommend a spin. The distraction of the fire, smoke, heat,
fear could very easily cause you to forget about the ground rushing up at
you. Properly executed and practiced to proficiency a spin is, of course,
controllable and predictable, but I wouldn't try one blind folded with one
arm tied behind my back.
Jim

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Jim Burns" wrote:

I was taught Chop(power), Prop(full), Drop(nose down), Gear (at gear
speed),
Flaps (initial, then full when in white arc), 60 degree bank away from
the
fire, holding airspeed at the top of the white arc. It would get you
down
fast, add rudder and we'd see over 2500 fpm down. After about 2 turns
of
that demonstration, my DE said... Ok, good enough.

Commercial students that I taught this method to needed to be eased into
it,
but after one or two attempts, most found it fun.

Thanks Jim.
That gets me to wondering... what about a spin?
A spin will give you a high rate of descent at stall speed.
If the aircraft is not approved for spins, that might lead to an
indecisive moment. Just because it is not approved, does not mean it
will not recover. It just means that it might not have been tested.

john smith wrote:
That gets me to wondering... what about a spin?
A spin will give you a high rate of descent at stall speed.

A descent rate in a spin is not that great. You can get down much faster
in a steep spiral dive.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200704/1

flynrider via AviationKB.com wrote:
john smith wrote:
That gets me to wondering... what about a spin?
A spin will give you a high rate of descent at stall speed.

A descent rate in a spin is not that great. You can get down much faster
in a steep spiral dive.


Particularly after the wings separate. As an aside, back in the old days before
IFR, the poor slobs flying the mail would spin down through an overcast
intentionally, assuming they'd break out high enough to recover before they went
splat. Some won, some lost.

It seems to me that the thing to do with trying to get down rapidly is drop the
gear and the flaps, no power and the prop set full forward for maximum drag (or
at least to max rpm but not over redline), then dump the nose at the maximum
gear extended speed or top of the white, whichever is the lower of the speeds.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:54:18 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote:

It seems to me that the thing to do with trying to get down rapidly is drop the
gear and the flaps, no power and the prop set full forward for maximum drag (or
at least to max rpm but not over redline), then dump the nose at the maximum
gear extended speed or top of the white, whichever is the lower of the speeds.

Flaps down? Emergency descent procedure in a Malibu is to chop the
throttle, prop full forward, pop the speed breaks (if equipped), drop
the gear below 165, then go down at max gear extend (up to 195
depending on how rough it is). Top of the white arc is 116. Wouldn't
you get a significantly greater descent rate at near Vne than top of
the white arc?

john smith wrote:
That gets me to wondering... what about a spin?
A spin will give you a high rate of descent at stall speed.

flynrider via AviationKB.com wrote:
A descent rate in a spin is not that great. You can get down much faster
in a steep spiral dive.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
Particularly after the wings separate. As an aside, back in the old days before
IFR, the poor slobs flying the mail would spin down through an overcast
intentionally, assuming they'd break out high enough to recover before they went
splat. Some won, some lost.

It seems to me that the thing to do with trying to get down rapidly is drop the
gear and the flaps, no power and the prop set full forward for maximum drag (or
at least to max rpm but not over redline), then dump the nose at the maximum
gear extended speed or top of the white, whichever is the lower of the speeds.

The spin is not the problem. The spin is a low speed maneuver as the
inside wing is stalled while the outside wing is flying.
The steep spiral dive at high speed can lead to airframe damage.

This was a topic in the acro community a couple of years ago.
Many pilots believed that the airframe g-loading ratings applied to all
attitudes of flight. It was the T-34 the accident that that had the
Baron wing replacement that set off the discussion.
From that we learned that the g-loadings only applied to wings level
flight.

High angle of bank and high airspeed will result in wing failure below
the manufacturers publish g-loading limit.

On 2007-04-26, john smith wrote:
From that we learned that the g-loadings only applied to wings level
flight.

High angle of bank and high airspeed will result in wing failure below
the manufacturers publish g-loading limit.

Almost but not quite - it wasn't bank angle but roll rate. You can't
pull as many Gs while rolling at the same time.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote:

On 2007-04-26, john smith wrote:
From that we learned that the g-loadings only applied to wings level
flight.

High angle of bank and high airspeed will result in wing failure below
the manufacturers publish g-loading limit.

Almost but not quite - it wasn't bank angle but roll rate. You can't
pull as many Gs while rolling at the same time.

I stand corrected. Thank you Dylan.
That is what I meant.

john smith wrote:


The spin is not the problem. The spin is a low speed maneuver as the
inside wing is stalled while the outside wing is flying.
The steep spiral dive at high speed can lead to airframe damage.

This was a topic in the acro community a couple of years ago.
Many pilots believed that the airframe g-loading ratings applied to all
attitudes of flight. It was the T-34 the accident that that had the
Baron wing replacement that set off the discussion.
From that we learned that the g-loadings only applied to wings level
flight.

High angle of bank and high airspeed will result in wing failure below
the manufacturers publish g-loading limit.

I was suggesting a steep spiral dive within reasonable flight parameters.
I practice these occasionally and I haven't bent the plane yet. In a
stabilize spiral, the G-loading on the wings should be the same as Gs applied
in level flight.

The reason I prefer the manuever is that it gets you down faster than a
lower airspeed descent (i.e. flaps out). Plus, there is the possibility the
that the higher airspeed could over-oxygenate the fire and put it out.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200704/1