Sport Pilot Talk

3Dreaming wrote: Andy, I was right over the airport. I had climbed up to 5 or 6000 before shutting the engine down. I circled around playing in the lift on clear fall afternoon. When I was 2000 AGL I put the nose down to restart, knowing if it didn't I still had 1000 feet to set up for landing.

I wasn't being critical, I'm sure you were safe with the Taylorcraft. I was just saying in the 912-powered airplane I fly, I'd hesitate to burn up a bunch of useful altitude for the vague *possibility* of a windmill restart that is in no way guaranteed. I'd rather have the extra time and glide in that circumstance. Unless I was right over the airport like you were!

MrMorden wrote:

3Dreaming wrote: Andy, I was right over the airport. I had climbed up to 5 or 6000 before shutting the engine down. I circled around playing in the lift on clear fall afternoon. When I was 2000 AGL I put the nose down to restart, knowing if it didn't I still had 1000 feet to set up for landing.

I wasn't being critical, I'm sure you were safe with the Taylorcraft. I was just saying in the 912-powered airplane I fly, I'd hesitate to burn up a bunch of useful altitude for the vague *possibility* of a windmill restart that is in no way guaranteed. I'd rather have the extra time and glide in that circumstance. Unless I was right over the airport like you were!

Andy, as you know I also fly a CT among others. I would only try it in a CT as an experiment at a much higher altitude than the Taylorcraft. Allowing time for the air start, electric start, and if all else fails set up for a dead stick landing

RTK wrote:... Beautiful photo! Minarets / Crystal Crag?

You can see lots of Minarets on my website, maybe you missed my post in the Eye Candy forum? http://www.edcesnalis.com/

On the left is Mt Baldwin and on the right you see some of 'White Fang'. These are up McGee Canyon visible from 395 with White Fang prominent farther back and left of Mt Morrison.

Thinking back, the airport was not in sight but it was about 6 miles away and I was 5,000' ARL (above runway level ) I bet few of you could climb 5,000 within 6 miles and not see your field?

Anyway, thinking back, when the power/noise stopped I rolled into an opposite bank and got coordinated and put my nose down 30 degrees before I had any conscious thought. A moment later my first conscious thought was: 'ah power is back' so that was all there is, better go land.

Because I was in the terrain and in an aggressive slip and in a marginal energy state and was dealing with occasional upsetting turbulence my instincts had nothing to do with setting up a glide I was first going to get in a good energy state and where the big north wind couldn't drift me into the canyon wall.

If restarting had failed I would have been fine dead sticking it on the runway.

Sounds like you could have made the runway unless the winds were very unfavorable. It would only have taken about a 6:1 glide ratio.

MrMorden wrote:Sounds like you could have made the runway unless the winds were very unfavorable. It would only have taken about a 6:1 glide ratio.

When I bought my CTSW the marketing was 15:1. I'm sure I had the field made without the engine and if not at least I could glide all the way to the crash/emergency landing site.

Usually I have to get down around to 60-70 knots to get the prop to stop when dead stick. If I don't slow down the prop just windmills, but not at full speed. Going dead stick and gliding around a while is fun. landings are no different than at idle except there is no go around or adding rpm if you make a big mistake. Gliders do it everyday.

eyeflygps wrote:Gliders have spoilers.

So do airplanes. They're called flaps (or slips).

You're right; dumping flaps doesn't improve glide. In fact, I teach my students that, once flaps go down, they stay down until either you're clear of the runway, or you've established a good climb on the go-around. The idea is to set power to idle, fly a close-in pattern, nail the best glide speed, and then bring in flaps as necessary to nail the desired touchdown spot (but only after the field is made).

Come to think of it, that's kind of how I use spoilers in a glider, too (except for the go-around part).

CharlieTango wrote:

MrMorden wrote:Sounds like you could have made the runway unless the winds were very unfavorable. It would only have taken about a 6:1 glide ratio.

When I bought my CTSW the marketing was 15:1. I'm sure I had the field made without the engine and if not at least I could glide all the way to the crash/emergency landing site.

Yeah, I read that too...I don't believe it.

I have Garmin Pilot's glide rings set for a 10:1 glide. It may be conservative, but based on my observations 15:1 is not realistic under any condition I have tested. BTW, my testing seems to show I get better glide from 78kt and -6° flaps than the POH best glide of 63kt at 15° flaps.

drseti wrote:You're right; dumping flaps doesn't improve glide. In fact, I teach my students that, once flaps go down, they stay down until either you're clear of the runway, or you've established a good climb on the go-around. The idea is to set power to idle, fly a close-in pattern, nail the best glide speed, and then bring in flaps as necessary to nail the desired touchdown spot (but only after the field is made).

It took me a long time to figure out the best way to use the big, effective flaps on my CTSW. In calm conditions I like to land at 30° flaps, but when I'd put them in on base I'd very rarely ever make the runway without adding some power because they add a lot of drag at that setting and the low inertia of the CTSW causes a pretty quick sink.

Now I only go from 15° to 30° when established on final. That keeps my glide up and reasonable so I can actually have a final instead of basically have to turn base at the end of the runway. If my approach is high I will add the flaps on base just before turning final, but adding on final instead of earlier really helped me. YMMV and other aircraft may have different characteristics, of course.

MrMorden wrote: BTW, my testing seems to show I get better glide from 78kt and -6° flaps than the POH best glide of 63kt at 15° flaps.

That does not surprise me, Andy. In glider training I was taught there are really two "best glide" speeds. One maximizes the time aloft, and the other maximizes distance traveled in the glide. The latter is used to get from one thermal to the next, and is a faster speed. The other, a much slower speed, is used to stay in the thermal (or area of ridge lift) as long as possible, circling to gain altitude before making a dash to the next patch of lift.

drseti wrote:

MrMorden wrote: BTW, my testing seems to show I get better glide from 78kt and -6° flaps than the POH best glide of 63kt at 15° flaps.

That does not surprise me, Andy. In glider training I was taught there are really two "best glide" speeds. One maximizes the time aloft, and the other maximizes distance traveled in the glide. The latter is used to get from one thermal to the next, and is a faster speed. The other, a much slower speed, is used to stay in the thermal (or area of ridge lift) as long as possible, circling to gain altitude before making a dash to the next patch of lift.

You are confusing minimum sink and best glide. They are not 2 versions of the same thing. Best glide is best l/d ratio and min sink is min vert speed.

drseti wrote:

MrMorden wrote: BTW, my testing seems to show I get better glide from 78kt and -6° flaps than the POH best glide of 63kt at 15° flaps.

That does not surprise me, Andy. In glider training I was taught there are really two "best glide" speeds. One maximizes the time aloft, and the other maximizes distance traveled in the glide. The latter is used to get from one thermal to the next, and is a faster speed. The other, a much slower speed, is used to stay in the thermal (or area of ridge lift) as long as possible, circling to gain altitude before making a dash to the next patch of lift.

That makes sense, thanks!

CharlieTango wrote:

drseti wrote: You are confusing minimum sink and best glide. They are not 2 versions of the same thing. Best glide is best l/d ratio and min sink is min vert speed.

What I am talking about is maximum distance over the ground before running out of altitude to make a landing, regardless of sink rate. In an engine out situation, that is all I care about. The low inertia of the CT seems to work better with higher speeds in the glide. At lower speed and higher flaps the airplane just seems to sink faster with less progress over the ground. This is also the reason the standard PAPI/VASI glideslopes are too shallow for a normal approach with flaps in most LSA.