Testing your glide. Are people doing this?

mike regish wrote:

Do you mean faster airspeed or faster pattern?

Well, with my plane, it's both. Normally I trim for 80 at the numbers, 0 degrees
of flaps, go to 24 degrees on base (which gives me 75 mph), then maybe flaps 40
and 65 mph on final, with touchdown at about 45 mph. Vbg is 83 mph in my plane,
so I would be doing an engine-out landing with 0 degrees of flaps and about 80
mph pretty much all the way, slipping away any excess altitude, with touchdown
at about 60.

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

Renting vs. owning can have a significant effect. Most people I know who
own fly much more often than people who rent. I went from 25 hours a year to
over 80 per year when I bought. Individual planes can vary, too.
Modifications, rigging, weights, equipment all can play a role.

mike regish

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" wrote in message
...


LOL, so you think owners make better pilots than renters just because
they own a plane. A fair number of owners fly very little, these lease
back their planes to FBOs so to keep it in the air.
I know this is semi-OT but renter v owner has nothing to do with being
a safe/good pilot. Most people are most familar with cruise because
that's where they spend most of their time during flights. But I would
say that ~50% of the pilots _I_ know (not a random or presentive sample)
go out and do stalls, T&G, slow flight, etc. And they're all renters

"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

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

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

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?

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...

- Smoking holes happen when a pilot allows the plane to slow to a speed at
which the wing no longer creates lift. This is the "stall" speed. A
wing/plane that is stalled takes on the flight characteristics of a load of
sand, and comes down in a hurry, creating a smoking crater.

Hope this helps.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Trentus wrote:

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

They have to have a relatively safe place to come down, and the bigger the
plane is, the bigger and flatter the area has to be. There aren't a whole lot
of places on Long Island (for example) to set down an airliner, and I'd bet
that every one of those places is an airport.

Light aircraft have glide ratios somewhere around 10:1 or 12:1. My aircraft is
close to the latter. That means that I can glide for about 12 miles if I'm 1
mile above the ground and my engine dies. If I have some wind, it will help
me glide further if I turn in the same direction it's blowing and hurt me if
I don't. So. If I can find a fairly flat field at least 300 feet long with no
obstructions like trees or power lines around it, and it's close enough for me
to reach it, I probably won't make one of those holes for the TV guys.

Now. Let's say I'm 100 feet up and the rubber band breaks. That field had better
be *real* close.

Say a 737 loses all power 1 mile up. That pilot needs to find a field at least
3,000 feet long somewhere within about 10 miles. If you want to read about a
pilot in that position who made it, do a Yahoo search for the "Gimli glider".

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

"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

Most of mine have been, but on my GFT (General Flight Test)
the examiner pulled the power on me a couple of miles after
we'd passed by an airport. I actually landed it at the airport.

Paul

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
Nearly every "engine out" practice I've been handed was off-airport.