In watching all of the discussion regarding the glide ratio, I think we are missing the point on glide ratios. First, it is a hypothetical calculation
that is/was determined under reasonably ideal conditions with a new engine. The point of the ratio is to give the pilot a thumbnail calculation on the linear miles of travel in a forward direction that the pilot might expect in the event of an engine failure. In the overall scheme of things, in a true engine-out scenario, it is of little value, and sometimes can work against the pilot. One of the major contributors of injury accidents occurs when the pilot starts looking out on the horizon for a place to land, proceeds toward that spot, gets closer to that spot then selects another spot that appears better and begins to head there all the while losing altitude. Finally, because of the mind changes, he ends up taking what is available. So, the glide ratio operated against him/her, not for them. The best approach is to look down, not out and select the best site available. That gives you the most time to setup a landing that is as close to a normal landing as possible. Remember, when you are on final on a normal landing, and the power is out, you are already in a "dead stick" situation and you know that glide is just fine. So, why make it any different in an engine out? Having walked away with no injuries, and no damage to the airplane, in 2 engine out scenarios, I can tell you that once I picked my landing field, my mind treated it like a normal landing. The shakes did not start until afterwards and only a slightly larger amount of Chlorox was required for the subsequent laundry. I don't think the glide of the coupe is any worse than most of the airplanes flying. The bottom line in these situations is always the same, try to re-start, communicate and always...... FLY THE AIRPLANE! Just some grist for the mill. Keith Portland, OR N5663F
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
