I think it has to be a reflex you build into yourself-- "engine dead--> immediately push stick forward." Otherwise you're probably going to stall, as the upward momentum keeps the plane climbing (and airspeed falling) after the engine quits.
...any one you can walk away from
- Thread starter FritzW
- Start date
Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:
Or the left wing simply tip-stalled and he spun in. Unless the observer actually saw the ailerons move it might be hard to tell.
I sure can't make any sense of the GPS log in the report. It looks like the plane never exceeded 24 kts (ground speed?). Winds were 9 kts right down the runway, but still, the plane wouldn't climb at 33 kts airspeed even if someone tried to (for whatever reason). I'm guessing something is wrong with the data or there's a unit conversion issue.
It depends on the airplane and its airspeed. An airplane whose momentum is high relative to its drag has much greater time to change pitch before stalling. (Recall that force is the rate of change of momentum.) An airplane whose airspeed is high relative to its stall speed has much greater time to change pitch before stalling.
An experienced pilot, with adequate experience in a particular airplane, monitors indicated airspeed and altitude on departure, and knows when a straight ahead landing on the remaining runway is possible, when a turn to a better off-airport landing area is possible, and when a return to a landing back on the runway is possible.
BTW, I was taught not to make any engine power adjustments until at a “safe” altitude, because engine failures were believed to occur more frequently during changes in power settings. Is that still being taught? Is there data to support that supposition?
BJC
TarDevil
Well-Known Member
I always adhered to this. Additionally (subsequent to an article by Richard Collins a lifetime ago), I always used best angle of climb to at least 500 feet.
People used to think I was showing off in my Bonanza. Since I typically flew alone and about half fuel, it was a sweet trip to that 500 feet.
I think that's frequently a good technique, in general, but it does require a concomitant dedication to act promptly to get the nose down if things get quiet.
Regarding the case in Florida: That Sonex had a VW engine (as mine does). Many folks who fly these planes climb out a bit flatter and at higher airspeeds (above Vx or even above Vy) due primarily to engine cooling considerations. Also, the wing isn't particularly long, and the rate of increase in airspeed decay appears (to me, anyway) to pick up at higher AoA, so having the nose down and a little more smash might reduce the aggressiveness of the required pitch adjustment if the engine does crump. The negative side, obviously, is that a lower climb angle and higher airspeed makes it less likely you'll be able to get back to that nice piece of asphalt you just left.
Last edited:
Doesn't best rate get you to a more survivable altitude quicker and with more stall margin, in case the engine quits and you're slow to push the nose over?
From my view, again, it depends on the aircraft. In something like an ultralight, I would rather have altitude and be close to the runway, but in something like my Sportsman, I would rather have airspeed, so my initial climb is at best rate, which is, with TO flaps, about 35 knots above stall.
BJC
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,641
Agreed, Fritz chose wisely. Even if a return might have been possible, no one can say, but picking a suitable off field site within range is never a wrong decision.
We had an Onex go down here similar to the accident you cited above. It was a maiden flight. There were large expanses of open fields just beyond the perimeter fence, but the pilot chose to turn around; he impacted nose low on the airport but appeared to be fine, only to die the next day of unknown internal injuries. The outcome could have been different had he chosen to continue on beyond the airport fence.
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/07/sonex-onex-n1950j-accident-occurred.html?m=1
I do this too. After rotation for takeoff, I continue to pitch for Vx and then hold that until I am past the trees at the end of the runway and high enough to set up a glide to the fields just beyond the houses and river, then I lower the nose to Vy. No point in holding Vx beyond that because I have to remain below the Class C shelf for about two miles.
if I sense engine trouble, I can push over to best glide, and if I do it fast enough to unload the wings, I can maximize my energy retention.
rick9mjn
Active Member
.FritzW.....thanks,, for posting..your good post action report.....
.........Thanks to you, for having the personal courage to put your experience out there.
You exemplify the best in a positive safety culture.
Many will learn from your event,
and you can rest easy at night knowing that,
while it may have been painful for you,
you've given back to others
and they will hopefully avoid the same pain ,thanks to you....................................
thought of the day....... if only 99.999 % --"14 nines""more of the internet was as good
.........Thanks to you, for having the personal courage to put your experience out there.
You exemplify the best in a positive safety culture.
Many will learn from your event,
and you can rest easy at night knowing that,
while it may have been painful for you,
you've given back to others
and they will hopefully avoid the same pain ,thanks to you....................................
thought of the day....... if only 99.999 % --"14 nines""more of the internet was as good
I was taught never move the fuel selector at runup or takeoff.
Does the FAA require a full power fuel flow test before first flight?
Does the FAA require a full power fuel flow test before first flight?
Last edited:
It took me quite a few flights before I got accustomed to the airspeeds. I can aggressively rotate and pull full flaps and fly away at around 42 to 45 KIAS. With normal takeoff flaps, I fly off at around 50 to 52, and best RoC is 85 K, flaps retracted. Best angle is around 75 K.
BJC
TarDevil
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but I want most altitude in the shortest distance. Personal preference. And I practiced a lot of slow stuff with my best flying buddy. We liked to challenge each other - safely.
The rule for low level aerobatics: If you are low, you better be fast; if you are slow, you better be high.
BJC
BJC
Thanks, interesting. In a nutshell (per memory, might be a bit off):
- Each tip is 2 ft long, so a total of 4 additional feet of span (22 ft-> 26ft)
- Based on recent NASA research
- Considerable washout (6 deg), the tips have a very low incidence and generate approx zero lift in climb. Their purpose is to reduce TE downwash -->> lower induced drag. Result: The stock 98sft of wing is more efficient/gets better l/d with these tips in place.
- Claims: Improved climb esp at high DA/weights, lower stall speed, slightly improved cruise and max speeds. Impetus for the project was the stock acft's marginal climb performance at 7k ft field elevation with two 200+ lb occupants and a NA VW 2180cc engine.
- Has not been spin tested yet.
- Reduces roll rate "about 6%"
For those interested, IMO the podcast is worth a listen.
Last edited:
PiperCruisin
Well-Known Member
On my recent flight review, the CFI wanted me to switch fuel tanks before takeoff so he could set the fuel timer. I agree with your CFI. I'm a CFI also. I select the fullest tank as part of my pre-flight.
radfordc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,416
Not explicitly, but it may be up to the DAR's discretion. I don't recall if my DAR asked about it or not.
