At 12:16 PM 18/09/2008, you wrote:
The difference between theory and practise is often much greater
than the theory would suggest. IMHO this one such situation.
Amazing!
They do the maths, test on simulators and then back it up with actual
flight tests and you still have doubts.
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.
The old "ski jumping should be banned" argument lest alpine children
throw themselves off cliffs en masse. The articles cover the experience levels.
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.
How about actually reading both articles again, carefully? Most of
your objections have been answered.
Landing off the airfield is unfortunately not an option in lots of
cases and in those cases doing so is very hazardous. The turnback
technique can be effectively practiced in a simulator and then in the
real world by doing it 2000 + feet above the ground. Start at 2200
feet at the right speed and do the turn see what happens. If you do
this just off the end of the runway you'll see what it takes to get
back. I did this with the BD4 and needed 400 feet to get turned
around . I was at 80 knots and the optimum according to the article
was more like 70 knots so I'll try it again soon.
I once read an article by someone who flew with Derek Piggott. On
aerotow launch he used to to call 60 knots while still in ground
effect. The person asked why. Derek's reply was that he could execute
a 180 from there.
Avoiding stalls is easy - just don't pull the stick back so far as to
command the stall. That is what causes them.
Those of you who think that aerotow launch failures are common should
fix the problems. There did seem to be a number after the release
testing/adjustment thing came out. The rings seemed to release rather
easily when the release was adjusted to specification. A failure to
release on aerotow is hardly an immediate emergency as there is a
release on the tug end and a weak link although with poor technique
and communications it is possible to make it so.
Anyway I'm hopeful that in the near future corrective action for a
launch failure will be to secure the failed engine and when
decelerated to best single engine climb speed lower the nose a few
degrees and continue. How many of you 737 drivers practice double
engine failures just after takeoff in the sim?
Mike
Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments
phone Int'l + 61 746 355784
fax Int'l + 61 746 358796
cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784
Int'l + 61 429 355784
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website: www.borgeltinstruments.com
_______________________________________________
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
