Agree Terry.
Mike Valentine would have said 'This type of maneuver should always be
watched from a safe distance'
Terry Neumann wrote:
Texler, Michael wrote:
To throw the cat amongst the pigeons.
Thanks Michael, This pigeon admits to being quite alarmed by some
aspects of these papers =-O .
Here are some links with attached research, regarding the best way to do a 180
(if required).
Any comments or disagreements?
OK, if people want to poo-poo this, please provide a rational and reasoned explanation why (i.e. use a scientific and objective argument).
I certainly won't poo-poo it, because I'm not strong on scientific and
reasoned discussions with professors who are clearly expert in their
field. As Mike says ".....They did the math.". Therefore as an
exercise on paper it is quite credible.
Unfortunately however, math or not, the history is that a lot of
people who have attempted this option died in so doing. This
suggests that whatever the math might say, it's a helluva risky
manoeuvre which frequently fails to work out as the theory
suggests. The concept might be plausible, even convincing, but this
is no consolation if you are in the wreckage, or perhaps worse, if you
are one of those who is put in the dreadful position of being the
second or third person on the scene of the accident. (The first
person BTW is the pilot - the second may be the instructor who was
demonstrating the exercise).
The difference between theory and practise is often much greater than
the theory would suggest. IMHO this one such situation.
As for turnbacks at 200 ft? Not if I'm around thank you! Especially
if I'm on the inside of the aircraft.
The other problem with a theoretical approach to a situation like this
is that it might indeed be achievable with an above average pilot, but
a pilot with lesser ability (or experience - probably both) sees it
done once effectively by the club hotshot, programs himself to
consider the same option if it happens to him, but when it does, he is
50 feet lower, 5 knots slower in speed, about the same number of
seconds behind what the aircraft is thinking, and a tad excessive with
the rudder....... You can guess the rest.
It's usually much easier and quicker to derig the aircraft in the next
paddock than to have to pick up all the pieces on the airfield.
That's still how I would prefer to approach an event like this. I'm
not sure if this is sufficiently rational or reasoned, but wreckage on
the ground has a way of re-evaluating theoretical argument - often
very dramatically.
Terry
(With apologies for possibly excessive cynicism, but pigeons can be
like that if the cat is significant ....)
http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html
http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf
"Conclusions A simplified model of the turnback maneuver after engine failure during the take-off climb segment has been developed. The model shows that optimum conditions for returning to the departure runway result from climbing at Vmax , executing a gliding turn through a 190-220deg heading change, using a 45deg bank angle at 5% above the stall velocity in the turn using a teardrop shaped flight path."
P.S. Thanks to Daryl McKay for providing these links.
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
