X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 18:38:51 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from bay0-omc2-s30.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.166] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.3) with ESMTP id 2921822 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 14 May 2008 12:26:46 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.246.166; envelope-from=bill_kennedy_3@hotmail.com Received: from BAY128-W28 ([65.55.133.63]) by bay0-omc2-s30.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 14 May 2008 09:26:09 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: bill_kennedy_3@hotmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_31d41619-084b-4268-bdfa-9b6ddf764d4f_" X-Originating-IP: [71.111.143.173] From: Bill Kennedy X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Crash, fueling nozzles and training X-Original-Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 09:26:08 -0700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 May 2008 16:26:09.0045 (UTC) FILETIME=[37510450:01C8B5DF] --_31d41619-084b-4268-bdfa-9b6ddf764d4f_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I practice these simulated engine failure turns from time to time. I'd far = rather land on or parallel to the runway than in the whatever off the ends = of the runway. There is a big difference between a maximum performance turn= at 100 KIAS and a 60 degree bank turn. My experience suggests that the tur= n rate is so fast at max performance, that timing the rollout becomes a pro= blem. Max performance puts you on the edge of a stall, so brain overload is= a problem too. However, a 60 degree bank produces a very brisk turn rate w= ithout overtaxing my brain. I can still hold my 100KIAS and time my rollout= perfectly. To reiterate: 1. Max performance turns at low altitude suck. 2. 60 degree bank turns are easy if you maintain your airspeed. 3. Practice, or don't plan to do it for real. The key things are to maintai= n your airspeed and keep the ball in the middle. Almost all say they'd land "straight ahead". Almost all attempt to return t= o the airport when it actually happens. The one's who don't practice often = die. To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 11:35:42 -0400 From: tom.gourley@verizon.net Subject: [LML] Re: Crash, fueling nozzles and training =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= "check this out =0A= for training..... http://www.aerobats.com/seminar_02-07.html " =0A= =0A= I can't dispute the results shown in the video, but =0A= I gotta wonder. I understand that a steep bank with low airspeed results = =0A= in a high turn rate, i.e. completes the turn in the least amount of =0A= time, but it leaves no margin for error. In a real engine out =0A= situation, high pucker factor, probably distractions, maybe some =0A= turbulence, lots of adrenaline, is a 60 degree bank with the stick =0A= pulled back so that you're getting some stall buffeting really a good =0A= idea? I don't think so; especially not in a Lancair, and probably not =0A= in several other types of aircraft. A few years ago I watched the pilot of= =0A= a Mooney 231 attempt to make a steeply banked turn to a runway after loss o= f =0A= power at low altitude. (Yes, it turned out to be fuel exhaustion.) =0A= He was trying to turn a total of 120 - 135 degrees. He had turned about 90= =0A= degrees when the right wing and nose dropped noticeably; a stall-spin =0A= entry. He stopped the rotation immediately with opposite rudder =0A= but was too low to fully recover. The impact was fatal. I think =0A= an off airport landing with the aircraft under control would always be bett= er =0A= than an uncontrolled descent.=0A= =0A= Yes, I realize an AOA would help tremendously in =0A= this situation, assuming the pilot isn't completely paniced and is capable = of =0A= flying the AOA accurately. Training and practice sounds like a good =0A= idea.=0A= =0A= Tom Gourley=0A= =0A= =0A= --_31d41619-084b-4268-bdfa-9b6ddf764d4f_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I practice these= simulated engine failure turns from time to time. I'd far rather land on o= r parallel to the runway than in the whatever off the ends of the runway. T= here is a big difference between a maximum performance turn at 100 KIAS and= a 60 degree bank turn. My experience suggests that the turn rate is so fas= t at max performance, that timing the rollout becomes a problem. Max perfor= mance puts you on the edge of a stall, so brain overload is a problem too. = However, a 60 degree bank produces a very brisk turn rate without overtaxin= g my brain. I can still hold my 100KIAS and time my rollout perfectly.
<= br>To reiterate:
1. Max performance turns at low altitude suck.
2. 60= degree bank turns are easy if you maintain your airspeed.
3. Practice, = or don't plan to do it for real. The key things are to maintain your airspe= ed and keep the ball in the middle.

Almost all say they'd land "stra= ight ahead". Almost all attempt to return to the airport when it actually h= appens. The one's who don't practice often die.



To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 14= May 2008 11:35:42 -0400
From: tom.gourley@verizon.net
Subject: [LML]= Re: Crash, fueling nozzles and training

=0A= =0A= = =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A=
"check this out =0A= for training.....
http://www.aerobats.com/seminar_02-07.html "
=0A=
 
=0A=
I can't dispute the results shown in t= he video, but =0A= I gotta wonder.  I understand that a steep bank with low airspeed resu= lts =0A= in a high turn rate, i.e. completes the turn in the least amount of =0A= time, but it leaves no margin for error.  In a real engine out = =0A= situation, high pucker factor, probably distractions, maybe some =0A= turbulence, lots of adrenaline, is a 60 degree bank with the stic= k =0A= pulled back so that you're getting some stall buffeting really a good =0A= idea?  I don't think so; especially not in a Lancair, and probabl= y not =0A= in several other types of aircraft.  A few years ago I watched the pil= ot of =0A= a Mooney 231 attempt to make a steeply banked turn to a runway after loss o= f =0A= power at low altitude.  (Yes, it turned out to be fuel exhaustion.)&nb= sp; =0A= He was trying to turn a total of 120 - 135 degrees.  He had turned abo= ut 90 =0A= degrees when the right wing and nose dropped noticeably; a stall-spin =0A= entry.  He stopped the rotation immediately with opposite ru= dder =0A= but was too low to fully recover.  The impact was fatal.  I = think =0A= an off airport landing with the aircraft under control would always be bett= er =0A= than an uncontrolled descent.
=0A=
 
=0A=
Yes, I realize an AOA would help treme= ndously in =0A= this situation, assuming the pilot isn't completely paniced and is capable = of =0A= flying the AOA accurately.  Training and practice sounds like a good = =0A= idea.
=0A=
 
=0A=
Tom Gourley
=0A=
 
=0A=
 
=0A= = --_31d41619-084b-4268-bdfa-9b6ddf764d4f_--