Testing your glide. Are people doing this?

That is the problem practicing emergency procedures in the airplane, you can
make a real emergency out of a pretend one.

Mike
MU-2


"Happy Dog" wrote in message
. ..
"Montblack"


"Real world" is with the engine out. Prop stopped or creating drag by
windmilling. (Little low? Just use a slightly more aggressive engine
warming.)Which makes me wonder: What if someone, trying this (and it
doesn't sound completely crazy), couldn't restart the engine? (And had a
less than perfect landing...) Is it just the same as a glider making an
off
field landing accident?

le moo

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
That is the problem practicing emergency procedures in the airplane, you
can
make a real emergency out of a pretend one.

Agreed. But I've heard from more than a few people that their instructor
has done this.

le moo



Mike
MU-2


"Happy Dog" wrote in message
. ..
"Montblack"


"Real world" is with the engine out. Prop stopped or creating drag by
windmilling. (Little low? Just use a slightly more aggressive engine
warming.)Which makes me wonder: What if someone, trying this (and it
doesn't sound completely crazy), couldn't restart the engine? (And had
a
less than perfect landing...) Is it just the same as a glider making an
off
field landing accident?

le moo

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! =-----

Mike Rapoport wrote:
That is the problem practicing emergency procedures in the airplane, you can
make a real emergency out of a pretend one.

Mike
MU-2

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
. ..

"Montblack"


"Real world" is with the engine out. Prop stopped or creating drag by
windmilling. (Little low? Just use a slightly more aggressive engine
warming.)Which makes me wonder: What if someone, trying this (and it
doesn't sound completely crazy), couldn't restart the engine? (And had a
less than perfect landing...) Is it just the same as a glider making an

off

field landing accident?

le moo

When I was 15 or 16, at an Epps family reunion Doug Epps took me up in a
J-3. He said he wanted to practice deadstick landings.

He'd get over the field (2000' grass), shut down the engine, pull the
nose up until the prop stopped, then land. When we stopped, he'd step
halfway out of the cockpit, reach forward and start the engine, and up
we'd go again.

He started out aiming at midfield and slipping like hell on final. He
worked his way back until the last landing I remember we were skimming
across the bean field, and I was wondering whether we'd make it or not.

It was a while before I realized *everybody* didn't do it that way.
--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

good number to keep in your head for lower altitudes.

Not sure why you refer to "lower altitudes". The glide angle is
constant with altitude.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
good number to keep in your head for lower altitudes.

Not sure why you refer to "lower altitudes". The glide angle is
constant with altitude.

Because there's "overhead". Gliding from a higher altitude, one normally
will be able to spend a larger proportion of the glide at the optimal best
glide speed. The glide angle is only theoretically constant with altitude.
In reality, no one goes directly to best glide the instant the engine fails
and the glide angle after engine failure varies as the pilot reacts.

Pete

Because there's "overhead".

Ah, gotcha.

I'd love to try it in my Pa24 but am worried about thermal shock and
would have to make the prop full coarse to get a good idea of things.




On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 23:06:14 GMT, Greg Esres
wrote:

Because there's "overhead".

Ah, gotcha.

OK, this is going to sound really silly, but I'm not a pilot,
If planes glide so well, then how come they crash?
It would seem reasonable, that if they glide, and they have an engine
failure etc. that they'd glide them in, not leave smoking craters like the
news tends to show.
Am I missing something here?

Trentus

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Yossarian" wrote in the Catalina Perep thread)
My first trip I was that low too, but now my FBO insists on a continuous
climb to the middle of the channel for better glide distance if your
engine
quits. 4500' in a 172 is only like 7 miles glide.


I wonder how many people have actually glided their planes (rentals or
otherwise) and so know what their real world glide range numbers will be -
from say, 6,000 ft AGL down to 3,000 ft AGL? Into the wind vs tailwind,
etc?

I'm under the impression that 5:1 is a good (safety) number to have in
your
head for an average 172 flying at 3,000 ft AGL, and below. Gives you some
"what the hey?" room and *some* turning room.

Can't quite make a 3 mile target with exactly 5:1 at 3,000 ft
AGL....15,000
ft. Leaves you 840 ft short of 3 miles. Still, (a mile glide per 1,000 ft
of
altitude) seems like a good number to keep in your head for lower
altitudes.
Almost 5:1.

I wonder how much better (than the made up safety number 5:1) people will
see up at 6,000 ft AGL. Are people getting book numbers, in their planes,
when they go up and practice real world glides - from say 6k down to 3k?


Montblack
Happy Birthday Kristen
October 25

"Trentus" writes:

OK, this is going to sound really silly, but I'm not a pilot,
If planes glide so well, then how come they crash?

If cars steer so well, how come *they* crash? In both cases, the
problem is the usually the squishy part sitting on the seat in front
of the controls, not the metal parts.

It would seem reasonable, that if they glide, and they have an
engine failure etc. that they'd glide them in, not leave smoking
craters like the news tends to show.

The news doesn't typically show the ones that glide in, not to mention
the ones that land without incident (i.e. nearly all of them). Here
are some other headlines you don't see:

80M children arrive home from school safely.

Politician not under investigation for corruption.

U.S. doesn't invade Belgium.

Study links weight loss to moderation and exercise.

No bank robberies in state.

Police treat black suspect politely.

Terrorists do not attack museum.

etc. News is the unusual stuff -- it doesn't represent most of what
is going on.


All the best,


David