So I went to the local FBO and rented a Piper Tomahawk (the same model of plane I learned to fly) and climbed to 5,000’ ASL (about 4,750 AGL).  It was a “normal” central California spring day, pretty close to standard, so I felt comfortable that weather wasn’t going to skew my attempts to find my own answer to this “controversy”.

All maneuvers were executed a total of 4 times, twice to the left and twice to the right. All turns were 180°, using roads as my reference. The plane was trimmed to 70 kts and flown S&L for several seconds after returning to 5,000’ before entering each turn, to allow all the instruments to quiet down and to make sure I wasn’t in an inadvertent climb or dive. Carb heat was used as a precaution when the throttle was reduced to idle.

 First, of course, I tried what I was taught: power to idle, 70 knots, standard rate turn (3° per second). I didn’t pay any attention to the bank angle but suffice it to say, it was rather shallow. The VSI was reading 800 FPM, and of course, after turning 180°, I lost 800 feet.

 The second test was exactly the same except I did not add any back-pressure to maintain speed. As I turned, the nose dropped and the ASI indicated 75 KTS. VSI was reading 1,000 FPM, and since I was maintaining a standard rate turn (bank angle again ignored) I lost 1,000’ making the 180° turn.

 Next I tried 45°, using the attitude indicator and ignoring the rate of turn. Holding back-pressure to maintain 70 KTS, the VSI was indicating 1,000’ FPM, but as expected, the stall warning horn came alive with its burbling, not a full horn. I got around the turn in well under 60 seconds, netting an altitude loss of only 600’.

 Then I tried the same as above, but I didn’t hold any back-pressure. The nose dropped  to 95 kts which is a fairly steep nose-down attitude, one which would alarm anyone who is close to the ground. VSI jumped to 1,500 FPM, again, something that would freak-out anyone trying this close to the ground who has never tried it before. Getting around the turn took very little time, netting only a 300’ loss in altitude. I was impressed.

 So now it was on to the 60° bank that was recommended in the letter I responded to. Let me tell you, that was one wild ride, certainly not one that anyone would want to try for the first time during an engine-out emergency. It was also difficult for me to execute the maneuver exactly the same way during each of the four attempts (I’m not an aerobatic pilot), so my reporting on the numbers contains a few ambiguities.

 At (or about) 60°, there was no maintaining 70 kts. Had I tried it, I’m sure I would have entered a full stall. And this basically proved my point, that of someone melded the two practices, one being maintain a specific speed as trained, but adding in the suggested 60° bank, bad things would happen if not experienced with this maneuver, but I digress. About the best speed I could maintain while at the 60° bank angle was 80 kts, with the stall warning horn blaring. I totally gave up on the idea of controlling airspeed at 60°, it was just too dangerous, so I went on to just letting the nose drop.

 At a 60° bank with no back-pressure, the ASI jumped to just over 100 kts (nearing the yellow arc). The nose-down attitude was uncomfortably steep as I saw through the eyes of someone 700’ from the ground trying this maneuver for the first time. My windscreen was filled with farms, roads and buildings and not much in the way of a horizon. The 180° turn was accomplished very fast, so fast that the VSI never stopped moving. It peaked at well over 1,500 fpm, close to 2,000.  As I pulled out of the dive/turn, I picked up 100’-150’ while converting the excess airspeed to altitude, netting a total loss of 500’. Although a 500’ loss seems ok, I had to lose close to 700’ to get it. If the ground was 600’ below me when I started the turn, I would have been a smoking hole in the ground.