A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Testing your glide. Are people doing this?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 25th 03, 06:15 AM
Montblack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Testing your glide. Are people doing this?

("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


  #2  
Old October 25th 03, 10:05 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Are people getting book numbers, in their planes,
when they go up and practice real world glides - from say 6k down to 3k?


Be careful up there! I fly at 2900 feet.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #3  
Old October 25th 03, 02:45 PM
Roger Long
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Good thing to do after you have verified your glide (I found the book
numbers on my 172 quite close) is to go to your typical altitude and pick
out a landmark and appropriate distance away. Hold your arm out, put the
tip of your thumb on the horizon, and note where the landmark falls. With
some correction for wind, you now know that you can glide to anything within
that radius.

--
Roger Long


  #4  
Old October 25th 03, 05:27 PM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Montblack"

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?



"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


  #5  
Old October 25th 03, 05:56 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #6  
Old October 25th 03, 07:34 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #7  
Old October 26th 03, 12:06 AM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Because there's "overhead".

Ah, gotcha.

  #8  
Old October 26th 03, 01:54 AM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #9  
Old October 26th 03, 01:19 AM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Happy Dog wrote:

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?


No. It gets you a suspension for reckless operation of an aircraft. If you
survive.

Oh. By the way. To me, this does sound completely crazy. IMO, someone trying
this should get a revocation, not a suspension.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.
  #10  
Old October 27th 03, 03:19 AM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Good thing to do after you have verified your glide (I found the book
numbers on my 172 quite close) is to go to your typical altitude and pick
out a landmark and appropriate distance away. Hold your arm out, put the
tip of your thumb on the horizon, and note where the landmark falls. With
some correction for wind, you now know that you can glide to anything

within
that radius.


Well, Roger, on a flight to Pella, IA (yep, home of the window manufacturer)
today, I practiced some slow flight and turns around a point, for the first
time in ages.

Not only was it educational for myself and my two young passengers (my son
and his school buddy), but it was fun, too. We were able to do several
turns around a huge fire out in rural Iowa, which gave the kids something to
oooh and aaah about. Seeing a dozen fire trucks from the air is always a
good thing for a couple of 13 year old boys to yack about at school
tomorrow... ;-)

Thanks for the reminder that all of our flights shouldn't be
"droning-to-brunch" flights...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
American nazi pond scum, version two bushite kills bushite Naval Aviation 0 December 21st 04 10:46 PM
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! [email protected] Naval Aviation 2 December 17th 04 09:45 PM
What's Wrong with Economics and how can it be Fixed What's Wrong with Economics and how can it be Fixe Naval Aviation 5 August 21st 04 12:50 AM
What's Wrong with Economics and how can it be Fixed What's Wrong with Economics and how can it be Fixe Military Aviation 3 August 21st 04 12:40 AM
God Honest Naval Aviation 2 July 24th 03 04:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.