X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:40:19 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-db02.mx.aol.com ([205.188.91.96] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.2) with ESMTP id 4106746 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:24:55 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.91.96; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from imo-ma02.mx.aol.com (imo-ma02.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.137]) by imr-db02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o11FOFSq006118 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:24:15 -0500 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-ma02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.d4b.619b575b (43838) for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:24:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtprly-dc02.mx.aol.com (smtprly-dc02.mx.aol.com [205.188.170.2]) by cia-dc03.mx.aol.com (v127.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIADC033-d2f44b66f20b282; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:24:08 -0500 Received: from webmail-stg-d13 (webmail-stg-d13.sim.aol.com [205.188.185.226]) by smtprly-dc02.mx.aol.com (v127.7) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDC023-d2f44b66f20b282; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:23:55 -0500 References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Engine out gear down Issue/The procedure! This was a wake up call for me.. X-Original-Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:23:55 -0500 X-AOL-IP: 32.177.129.11 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CC7169B399BC8A_1584_23477_webmail-stg-d13.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 30603-STANDARD Received: from 32.177.129.11 by webmail-stg-d13.sysops.aol.com (205.188.185.226) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:23:55 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CC7169B1FDEDFD-1584-11478@webmail-stg-d13.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: VTAILJEFF@aol.com ----------MB_8CC7169B399BC8A_1584_23477_webmail-stg-d13.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" the deployment of all your drag deevices should be dependent on your abili= ty to make the runway,=20 dump full flaps, drop gear, prop flat pitch, 30 degree roll left. -----Original Message----- From: Ted Noel To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Sun, Jan 31, 2010 10:58 pm Subject: [LML] Re: Engine out gear down Issue/The procedure! This was a wa= ke up call for me.. It may not be exact, but I've done some live simulations. In a demo flight= of a IV-P we saw 1,600 fpm down at 100 kts clean with a windmilling prop.= I rented a Hershey-bar wing Arrow and did the following: =20 3,000' AGL, crosswind over the center of the active runway Chop to idle, dump full flaps, drop gear, prop flat pitch, 30 degree roll= left. Maintain 100 kts -> 1,600 fpm down. 270 degree turn, flare over the numbers, nice landing. =20 It's unusual to say the least, but it worked well in the Arrow. I'm sure= one could argue that 100 kts with a 30 degree bank might lead to an accel= erated stall in the IV-P, but I'm not trying to maintain altitude. I'm all= owing the plane to fall in a controlled manner to the threshold. =20 It was actually quite fun. But be careful if there's traffic in the patter= n. It's really easy to overtake them. I waved off twice due to traffic bef= ore I was able to complete the maneuver. =20 Ted Noel N540TF ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Gary Casey=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:57 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Engine out gear down Issue/The procedure! This was a wa= ke up call for me.. I ran through some numbers regarding Michael's comments below. Starting= with the sailplane comment, he says that slowing from 135kts to 65 in a= zoom can result in a gain of 800 feet. If all the energy were converted= to altitude(no drag) the gain would be 1,276 ft, so a gain of 800 ft seem= s reasonable for a very low-drag airframe - 2/3 of the energy can be conve= rted to altitude. In the case mentioned of 120 kts to 75 kts the number= comes out to a gain of 765 ft. How much of that is eaten up by drag? Ce= rtainly compared to the sailplane, a lot. Would the altitude gain be half= ? I doubt it. 1/4? Maybe, so as a guess you could count on perhaps a 20= 0 ft altitude gain. How much do you need to flare? Depends on the descen= t rate. I calculated it based on 2,000 ft/min - arresting that is equival= ent to an altitude gain of 34.5 ft, much lower than the 200 ft mentioned= above. It would be good if someone measured the actual no-power descent= rate with gear and flaps down. In summary, the math suggests that a no-power approach speed of 120 kts sh= ould leave more than enough energy to flare. How much more? I'll bet not= a lot, but still more. I don't have an answer to the question, but this= is how the numbers work out. I have done a full-flap no-power descent wi= th my ES (gear down, of course :-) at 105 kts and the descent rate was ove= r 2,000 ft/min with a frighteningly high negative deck angle. Flaring fro= m that condition would be interesting, to say the least. My conclusion is= that Randy's warning is well founded. I would, perhaps, disagree with the admonition that retracting flaps when= on final will result in a guaranteed disaster. Certainly any change in= configuration at the last second creates a high work load, but at least= in my airplane, the difference in behavior between 20 degrees and 40 degr= ees of flaps is 90% drag. So, if one were to think he was high for the la= nding, added full flaps and then discovered he was now low, I see no probl= em with then retracting the flaps to 10 or 20 degrees. Assuming the speed= were high (120?) the flaps could even be retracted all the way without pr= oblem except for the pitch change required. And then dropping the flaps= during the flare is a good way to arrest the descent. I'm a little reluc= tant to post this last paragraph as I have no credentials (no military fig= hter jet experience, no instructor rating, no multi-engine jet time, and= no stays in Holiday Inn Express) except for a modest understanding of the= engineering principles involved. Gary ----------MB_8CC7169B399BC8A_1584_23477_webmail-stg-d13.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" the deployment of all your drag deevices should be depen= dent on your ability to make the runway,
dump full flaps, drop gear, prop flat pitch, 30 degree roll= left.




-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Noel <tednoel@cfl.rr.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Sun, Jan 31, 2010 10:58 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: Engine out gear down Issue/The procedure! This was a wa= ke up call for me..

It may not be exact, but I've done some live simul= ations. In a demo flight of a IV-P we saw 1,600 fpm down at 100 kts clean= with a windmilling prop. I rented a Hershey-bar wing Arrow and did the fo= llowing:
 
3,000' AGL, crosswind over the center of the activ= e runway
Chop to idle, dump full flaps, drop gear, prop fla= t pitch, 30 degree roll left.
Maintain 100 kts -> 1,600 fpm down.
270 degree turn, flare over the numbers, nice land= ing.
 
It's unusual to say the least, but it worked well= in the Arrow. I'm sure one could argue that 100 kts with a 30 degree bank= might lead to an accelerated stall in the IV-P, but I'm not trying to mai= ntain altitude. I'm allowing the plane to fall in a controlled manner to= the threshold.
 
It was actually quite fun. But be careful if there= 's traffic in the pattern. It's really easy to overtake them. I waved off= twice due to traffic before I was able to complete the maneuver.
 
Ted Noel
N540TF
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Casey
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:57= AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Engine out gear= down Issue/The procedure! This was a wake up call for me..

I ran through some numbers regarding Michael's comments below.  = Starting with the sailplane comment, he says that slowing from 135kts to= 65 in a zoom can result in a gain of 800 feet.  If all the energy we= re converted to altitude(no drag) the gain would be 1,276 ft, so a gain of= 800 ft seems reasonable for a very low-drag airframe - 2/3 of the energy= can be converted to altitude.  In the case mentioned of 120 kts to= 75 kts the number comes out to a gain of 765 ft.  How much of that= is eaten up by drag?  Certainly compared to the sailplane, a lot. &n= bsp;Would the altitude gain be half?  I doubt it.  1/4?  Ma= ybe, so as a guess you could count on perhaps a 200 ft altitude gain. &nbs= p;How much do you need to flare?  Depends on the descent rate.  = I calculated it based on 2,000 ft/min - arresting that is equivalent to an= altitude gain of 34.5 ft, much lower than the 200 ft mentioned above. &nb= sp;It would be good if someone measured the actual no-power descent rate= with gear and flaps down.

In summary, the math suggests that a no-power approach speed of 120= kts should leave more than enough energy to flare.  How much more?=  I'll bet not a lot, but still more.  I don't have an answer to= the question, but this is how the numbers work out.  I have done a= full-flap no-power descent with my ES (gear down, of course :-) at 105 kt= s and the descent rate was over 2,000 ft/min with a frighteningly high neg= ative deck angle.  Flaring from that condition would be interesting,= to say the least.  My conclusion is that Randy's warning is well fou= nded.

I would, perhaps, disagree with the admonition that retracting flaps= when on final will result in a guaranteed disaster.  Certainly any= change in configuration at the last second creates a high work load, but= at least in my airplane, the difference in behavior between 20 degrees an= d 40 degrees of flaps is 90% drag.  So, if one were to think he was= high for the landing, added full flaps and then discovered he was now low= , I see no problem with then retracting the flaps to 10 or 20 degrees. &nb= sp;Assuming the speed were high (120?) the flaps could even be retracted= all the way without problem except for the pitch change required.  A= nd then dropping the flaps during the flare is a good way to arrest the de= scent.  I'm a little reluctant to post this last paragraph as I have= no credentials (no military fighter jet experience, no instructor rating,= no multi-engine jet time, and no stays in Holiday Inn Express) except for= a modest understanding of the engineering principles involved.

Gary
----------MB_8CC7169B399BC8A_1584_23477_webmail-stg-d13.sysops.aol.com--