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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
Al wrote:
I was tempted once, but the temptation went away with the altitude...quickly. I lost an engine on a C210 at about 300 ft, on departure. The thing quit like someone had pulled the throttle, which turned out to be very close to reality. In the shock of the moment, I thought about trying a turn, but decided to plant it off the end of my departure runway(I was 3000' down a 4000' runway), instead. The clearway at the end was level and had no large trees. I had already cleaned up the departure flaps, was climbing at 80kts, and the gear doors were just closing when the thing quit. I immediately selected the gear back down, and was flat amazed at the sink rate that developed, no power, windmilling, with the gear in transit. At about 20', still over the runway, I had to hold it off using flaps, to wait for the gear to finish extending. The main gear came over center in the saddles, just as I ran out of elevator, we touched down on the mains, and had to hold the nose gear off long enough for it to extend. I slid onto the numbers at the far end with the gear pump still running to close the doors, and got it stopped. The engine lit off, and we taxied back to the tiedown, and deplaned. It turns out that this aircraft had recently come out of 100hr., and for some reason they had the Airquipt(sp?) hose that runs from the air cleaner to the turbo-charger off. When the mechanic put it back on, he didn't know what to do with the ends of the metal wire that winds around the inside of the hose. He bent each wire end into a little "U" shape, and hooked them together in the middle of the hose. (They should have been placed under the hose clamp at each end) A couple of hours later, with vibration, the glue holding the wire failed, and hooked in the middle the wire collapsed like a slinky, allowing the hose to collapse, shutting off all air to the turbo. What really amazed me was how fast the altitude and airspeed went away. When the thing first quit, I would have sworn I could not get down to my departure runway before going off the end. I was wrong. Wrong by over a thousand feet. Al CFIAMI "kd5sak" wrote in message m... "Dave S" wrote in message link.net... JJS wrote: The SQ2000 guy was flying a rotary (mazda derivative) engine that had what the rotary community believes was an intermittent fuel supply program and was in flight test at the time. The aircraft had made one dead-stick due to what the community assumed was a vapor lock. This was a fairly low altitude turn back and landing on-field but off-runway. After some re-work on the fuel system he went up again, and on one of the subsequent flights weeks later lost power very low, and tried to make another low turn back to the runway. He ended up in trees. Same tactic killed Wiley Post and Will Rogers. Don't fly myself, but in a lifetime of reading I've seen several references to crashes occuring from pilots trying to turn back to a runway I I just read (somewhere fairly recently) that Will & Wileys floats were leaking,took on enough water that ran to the rear on take-off creating a BAD rear CG, that they couldn't recover from. (sounds reasonable to me, they could have been getting by with it, draining the floats after they were airborne each time) when they had a reasonably flat bit of terrain in front of them. It's been said that Post knew better, but had the family fortune tied up in the plane he and Will were traveling in and just let that drive his decision making. What do some of you actual pilots think? Harold KD5SAK |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
Bryan Martin wrote:
It's a good idea as long as you keep in mind that a turn back actually requires way more than 180 degrees of turn to complete the "teardrop" reversal. Thats if you want to land on the runway. In many cases, simply being able to return to within the perimeter of the airport is the object. Landing on the runway you departed from is icing on the cake. Dave |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
"Vaughn" wrote in message ... Aerial tow is hard even when you have an experienced pilot at each end of the rope. Take a couple of glider lessons (at a field where they use aerial tow for launch) and you will quickly see what I mean. Hint: the glider does not willingly follow the tow plane like a trailer follows a car; you gotta fly it every second , and it is a learned skill. Vaughn As Vaughn mentioned, "it is a learned skill." From the gliders viewpoint it is a type of formation flying, or wing-matching-tail-chase. The low tow position (flying below the tow plane's wake) gives a look and feel similar to the U.S Naval aviation version of air-to-air refueling. When you tie two aircraft together both are at an increased risk when the other aircraft has a problem. The tow plane is at a much higher risk than the glider. The glider getting out of position close to the ground can easily put the tow plane in a position from which it can not recover. If the tow plane has a power failure shortly after becoming airborne, again the glider is less at risk. An experienced pilot flying a glider with 35 to 1 or better glide ratio shouldn't have a problem doing a 180 and landing down-wind. (I've done it from 250 feet with room to spare.) Wayne HP-14 N990 "6F" http://www.soaridaho.com |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
--------snip---------
There are two schools of thought on first flights. Both have merit. One is to "go for it!". Take off and climb to altitude where you can become safely aquatinted with her "personality" safely. The other is to make several short hops down the runway to get the feel first. The latter, at first, scared the dickens out of me - just on principle. Going from low and slow lift off to low and slow landing *seemed* like a bad idea. But in the end, I've come to think this is safer than I originally thought, and had become my standard approach to testing a new plane. I like it because 1) we are low and slow and if anything does go wrong, at least we are low and slow. And 2) we are expecting to "abort" the take off soon after lift off. We will not have the danger of the engine possibly quitting on climb out, and the attendant difficulties that presents. And 3!) it let's you skip the first flight! When you finally are comfortable with the plane and take it around the pattern for the first time, it's really not the first flight! (how 'bout that for a plan!) And, frankly, this turned out not to be the pilot challenge that I first thought it would be. Although YMMV? -------snip--------- Personally, I agree and plan to use the aborted take-off method as well. Actually, the plan has had many well known and respected advocates--IIRC, Molt Taylor was among them. Also, if the plan is to test a "custom built", or if there is any other reason to question the weight and balance envelope, I plan to first test a thrown model--prior to investing time in actual construction of a "real" airplane. I would first re-read all of part 23 to glean any insight to accumulated experience in defining the balance envelope. (I know, I really have no intention to follow everything in part 23 either--for example, there are specifications for the undercarriage and/or prop clearance that I may find inappropriate for my application--experimental really is where we plow the new ground!) Next, would construct a model of the wing only (with dihedral, and a handle) and throw it with various weights and CG positions. An excessive variation of airspeed and altitude due to fugoid oscillation, as subjectively observed, would initially define the "natural" aft CG limit of the wing by itself. The forward limit would be even more subjective--but the basic objective of initial testing with something safe, light, simple, and cheap should be fairly obvious. That should give some indication whether the design actually has promise. If so, I would add a stick fuselage and an empennage, and continue my subjective testing. If satisfied, I could proceed with the main project; otherwise it might be time to change the design and/or seek assistance. The reason for this treatise is that I believe a lot really can be gained from unmanned testing, and that it can be accomplished inexpensively and with negligible risk of collateral damage. However, (warning ... warning) the above applied only to conventional aircraft, and even then does not address the required size of tail surfaces. I am still looking for a "cheap and dirty" way to accept or reject a design with regard to the tail's contribution to pitch and yaw stability. Also, I also have NO intention of designing or building a canard aircraft because I don't feel that I understand their principals well enough! Peter |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
Thanks for the link, Marc..
For the record I will state that my post regarding this was unresearched, and from memory alone. I am actually thankful for the time and work that the rotary community put into investigating his accident. Dave |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
"Dave S" wrote in message ink.net... Bryan Martin wrote: It's a good idea as long as you keep in mind that a turn back actually requires way more than 180 degrees of turn to complete the "teardrop" reversal. Thats if you want to land on the runway. In many cases, simply being able to return to within the perimeter of the airport is the object. Landing on the runway you departed from is icing on the cake. Dave Bryan, You must also keep in mind that the turn radius of a 45 degree bank at 50 kts is only 250 feet. If there is any cross wind and you make your turn into the wind the effective radius is even less. A five knot cross wind will cause an aircraft to drift 500 in about one minute. Turning into the wind is critical to performing the maneuver successfully. Wayne HP-14 N990 "6F" http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N990/N990.html |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
I am still looking for a "cheap and dirty" way to accept or reject a design
with regard to the tail's contribution to pitch and yaw stability. www.X-plane.com Also, I also have NO intention of designing or building a canard aircraft because I don't feel that I understand their principals well enough! Other than making sure that the "elevator" stalls before the main wing the principals are the same. The final pitch/yaw stability derivative doesn't care if the numbers came from a canard, a conventional plane , or a flying wing. IMHO the stall resistance of a canard doesn't offset it's other disadvantages so your not going to miss too much. ============== Leon McAtee Quickie builder ........... former Q-2 builder |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:12:53 -0600, "Tater Schuld"
wrote: "J.Kahn" wrote in message . .. For powerplanes, it would be prudent to go to a safe altitude and practice 180s upon chopping power and noting the altitude loss with optimum You need to do more than reverse direction. You need to get back on the original centerline. Me? I'll take anything big enough and flat enough, otherwise I'll take what's there. technique (although it's murder on the poor cylinders, best to use a renter...). The least loss is with a hard 45 deg banked turn. If with some practice you can confidently complete a 180 with say a 400 ft So you aren't going to try for the runway you just left which is pretty much the equivalent of a 270. A 180 might get you to the airport if it's big enough. altitude loss you can set a defined go-nogo limit of say 500 ft for turnbacks and you've removed the guesswork from it. I dont know. doing this at altitude makes the manuver safe, and learning to perfect it that way can give the pilot overconfidence. best to make sure your'e never in the situation that call for such a The only way to do that is to never get in an airplane. Here we only have one runway out of four that really gives you an out and even then you are looking at merging with express way traffic, IF you can make it over, or under the over pass. manuver, and take the taime to make sur the plane works rather than building confidence that you can do what others haven't Engines quit, even new ones. Some times they give warning and a lot of times they don't. Mine quit on take off with no warning, not even a hiccup. It went from full power to silence all of a sudden. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
Dave S wrote:
Thanks for the link, Marc.. You bet. ...... I am actually thankful for the time and work that the rotary community put into investigating his accident. Just for the record, the "rotary community" didn't contribute to the independent investigation - it was the "canard community" that did the work and wrote up the report. And we appreciate the thanks. -- Marc J. Zeitlin http://www.cozybuilders.org/ Copyright (c) 2006 |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?
"Wayne Paul" wrote:
You must also keep in mind that the turn radius of a 45 degree bank at 50 kts is only 250 feet. But how many aircraft will continue flying at 50 kts in a 45 degree bank? Not many, I'd wager... Mark Hickey |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Lancaster California: Another Fatal Cirrus Crash | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 63 | March 31st 06 09:34 AM |
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p? | Montblack | Piloting | 81 | February 12th 06 08:54 AM |
1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p? | Montblack | Piloting | 38 | February 9th 06 02:00 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |