Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

kuffel(at)cyberport.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

Larry,



A different approach path than the official FAA approved method 

might work better for you.



Instead of circles off the end of the runway, set yourself up 

perpendicular to the runway about the distance you fly your base 

leg.  Fly away from the centerline and start a series of 180 

degree turns.  Always make your turns on the side toward the 

runway.   On the crossleg, aim slightly away from or toward the 

runway if needed to maintain your distance.  When you judge the 

altitude is correct, turn 90 degrees to final.



This method has the advantages of twice as many opportunities to 

be at a good approach altitude, a longer time to decide this is 

the leg to turn final and never turning your back to the runway.



Very few of my fellow CFIs teach this method but every one I've 

shown it to has adopted it.  Try it and let us know what you think.



Tom Kuffel

Whitefish, MT

Building Original FireStar

lcottrell

Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 1494
Location: Jordan Valley, Or

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

Tom,

   Thanks I will, however what I was attempting to duplicate is a engine 

failure on take off. You know the routine, stay over the runway until you 

have enough altitude to return. Any way, the education that I was attempting 

was not skill, more like how much air did I lose with a 360. The dead stick 

was the result of increased confidence in my planes handling since 

tightening the elevator cables. Or cockiness which ever you prefer.

Larry C

do not archive



---

_________________
do not archive

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

Larry for what it's worth, I've flown hundreds of dead stick approaches with this method. Well, okay, there was no stick, and no engine either for that matter, but I never failed to make the field. The only thing I would add is that if there is any crosswind, stay on the upwind side of the runway. 



Rick



On Jan 19, 2008 5:38 PM, The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net (kuffel(at)cyberport.net)> wrote:

[quote] --> Kolb-List message posted by: The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net (kuffel(at)cyberport.net)>



Larry,



A different approach path than the official FAA approved method

might work better for you. 



Instead of circles off the end of the runway, set yourself up

perpendicular to the runway about the distance you fly your base

leg.  Fly away from the centerline and start a series of 180

degree turns.  Always make your turns on the side toward the 

runway.   On the crossleg, aim slightly away from or toward the

runway if needed to maintain your distance.  When you judge the

altitude is correct, turn 90 degrees to final.



This method has the advantages of twice as many opportunities to 

be at a good approach altitude, a longer time to decide this is

the leg to turn final and never turning your back to the runway.



Very few of my fellow CFIs teach this method but every one I've

shown it to has adopted it.  Try it and let us know what you think.  [quote][b]

jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:34 am Post subject: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

Tom,



I want to be sure I understand what you are describing.  Are you talking 

about long and tight "S" turns starting at off your normal base leg and 

approaching the runway?



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN

kuffel(at)cyberport.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

Jack,



<< Are you talking about long and tight "S" turns starting at off 

your normal base leg and approaching the runway? >>



Not sure.  In no wind your flight path resembles a narrow 

figure-8 perpendicular to the runway, like the symbol for 

infinity.  The object is to keep a constant average distance from 

your intended landing point.  Some people prefer to use their 

normal base leg distance and turn final at a higher than normal 

altitude.  Others use a shorter distance and turn final at their 

normal altitude.  This is an issue of personal preference after 

some practice.



In any event, the decision that you are starting your final cross 

leg begins about half way through the 180 turn at the end of the 

previous cross leg.  If half way through the reverse turn you 

decide you are low, head straight toward your touchdown point at 

an angle.  If you seem "about right" finish your reversing turn 

and head cross leg.  As you approach the centerline and still 

seem about right, turn 90 degrees to final.  If you are high but 

not high enough for a full cross leg and reversing turn, continue 

past the centerline then turn 3/4 of 180 degrees (135 degrees) 

back toward the centerline and then a 1/4 of 180 degrees (45 

degrees) turn to final.



It is important to remember to maintain a constant airspeed 

throughout the entire maneuver.  If you do this you will not 

increase your load factor in the turns.  However steep, you are 

simply trading more altitude for turning force which means your 

stalling speed will *not* go up with bank angle.  This helps you 

avoid the tendency to "help" a turn with excess rudder, which 

usually is a fatal error.  But that is another saga.



Hope this makes clear what I teach.



Tom Kuffel

Whitefish, MT

Building Original FireStar

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

 	  kuffel(at)cyberport.net wrote: 	
		  Jack,



  However steep, you are 

simply trading more altitude for turning force which means your 

stalling speed will *not* go up with bank angle.  This helps you 

avoid the tendency to "help" a turn with excess rudder, which 

usually is a fatal error.  But that is another saga.



Hope this makes clear what I teach.



Tom Kuffel

Whitefish, MT

Building Original FireStar 	


I like your technique for keeping the runway right where you need it with figure 8's while practicing landings engine off.  It sounds by far the best and safest way to do it if there is not other traffic to worry about on final.   The runway is always within about a 90 degree turn or less if you get to low need to land quick.



The one thing you are very wrong about is you saying that turning steeply will not put additional load on the plane and not increase stall speed.  It does not matter weather you turn with power, or with altitude, it takes energy AND increased load on the wings to change the direction of the plane.   There is just no way around it, going up, down or sideways, to change the direction of the plane, you must create additional lift on the wings to change the direction of the plane, which will increase the stall speed.   To teach otherwise is possibly dangerous to someone that might take it to literally.   



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:28 am Post subject: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

At 09:23 PM 1/20/08 -0800, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



The one thing you are very wrong about is you saying that turning steeply will not put additional load on the plane and not increase stall speed.  It does not matter weather you turn with power, or with altitude, it takes energy AND increased load on the wings to change the direction of the plane.   There is just no way around it, going up, down or sideways, to change the direction of the plane, you must create additional lift on the wings to change the direction of the plane, which will increase the stall speed.   To teach otherwise is possibly dangerous to someone that might take it to literally.   




	


Mike,



Just think about it.  The engine is out and you are flying at best glide speed.  Since you are gliding the wings are not generating enough lift to support the aircraft.  If you enter a gliding turn at the same speed the load on the wings remains constant and you lose altitude t a faster rate than before because the lift is not perpendicular to the ground.  As Tom as said the only danger is to tighten the turn with rudder until you stall the inboard wing and intiate a spin, but if the speed is constant the wing load remains constant until the spin starts.



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:14 am Post subject: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

[quote="jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne"]At 09:23 PM 1/20/08 -0800, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Since you are gliding the wings are not generating enough lift to support the aircraft.



	
  



Hi Jack,



It does not matter if the plane is decending in a glide, or in level flight, there the same amount of load on the wings.  Or in other words, a stable glide or level powered flight = same 1 G load on the wings.  

 	  Quote: 	
		  



If you enter a gliding turn at the same speed the load on the wings remains constant and you lose altitude t a faster rate than before because the lift is not perpendicular to the ground.  As Tom as said the only danger is to tighten the turn with rudder until you stall the inboard wing and intiate a spin, but if the speed is constant the wing load remains constant until the spin starts.



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN 	




You can use that technique, and not load the airplane up much in a turn, but if you maintain only 1 G in the turn, your descent angle and descent rate will increase as long as you are in a 1 G banked condition, you wont be able to maintain just 1 G loading for long before you have to either level out or start pulling more G's.  In all likelyhood, you would start to put some extra loading on the wings during the turn even if you dont realize you are doing it.



Either way, when you level out, you will have a descent rate greater than what you started with, which will take more wing loading to arrest, AND you will be wasting more alitude by letting the nose fall and getting fast in the turn and then using that energy to stop the extra descent rate you now have going.   But bottom line is, sooner or later, to change the direction of the plane, you will have to put extra loading on the wings, there is no way around it.  It takes energy and lift to change the direction of a moving airplane no matter how you fly the turn.



I do understand Toms point, which is to do a turn without loading up the plane to much, use the rudder correctly, and you will minimize the impact of the turn on stall speed.  But in the end you never get something for nothing, and will have to put extra load on the wings to accomplish this, weather do you it durring the turn, or put the extra load  on the wings while pulling out at the bottom, there has to be more than 1 G on the wings at some point to accomplish this.



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

lucien

Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 721
Location: santa fe, NM

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

 	  Quote: 	
		  

Mike,



Just think about it.  The engine is out and you are flying at best glide speed.  Since you are gliding the wings are not generating enough lift to support the aircraft.  If you enter a gliding turn at the same speed the load on the wings remains constant and you lose altitude t a faster rate than before because the lift is not perpendicular to the ground.  As Tom as said the only danger is to tighten the turn with rudder until you stall the inboard wing and intiate a spin, but if the speed is constant the wing load remains constant until the spin starts.



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN 	




On thing we should reemphasize here is that stall is determined by angle of attack, not airspeed. True, we think in terms of airspeed when it comes to stall, because we're often discussing the limits of lift available from the wing in lower energy situations like low airspeeds with the engine power reduced (or absent) such as during landing.



So, Jack is quite right here. If the loading on the wing remains constant, there won't (need to) be any change in the AOA. In fact, no matter what lift or airspeed conditions prevail, if the wing is below the critical AOA, it is not stalled. If it is above the critical AOA, it will be stalled.



Again, under landing conditions, our airspeed is typically low enough that we're near the maximum available lift from the wing to keep the airplane at the desired sink rate (in turn meaning that we're flying very close to the critical AOA). In a turn, of course, the vertical lift vector is reduced in magnitude, so the amount of actual lift required to maintain the same sink rate goes up. You have 2 choices in that situation - either generate more lift from the wing to maintain the same sink rate or keep the generated lift the same and simply accept the resulting higher sink rate induced with the turn.



If you're high enough, the latter choice is perfectly acceptable. Putting it another way, going into a turn at a low airspeed does NOT mean that you're going to stall. As long as you don't exceed the critical AOA, the wing won't stall no matter what the airspeed or angle of bank is. 



However, if you're too low and can't afford a higher sink rate, then you have to either conserve energy or add more back - shallower bank in the turn to keep the vertical component of lift higher to prevent loss of too much altitude or adding power while in the turn to increase lift without exceeding the critical AOA.



FWIW, all this is why we go out and practice steep turns, descending/ascending turns, slow flight and minimum controllable airspeed on a regular basis, so that we maintain a feel for maintaining our angle of attack in as many conditions as possible.



LS

_________________
LS
Titan II SS

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

Jack, I've been flying with the invisible engine for 35 years. It's the only one that never ever fails. When the mechanical engines goes kaput, the invisible engine takes over. It works by way of two forms of energy. Kinetic energy, your movement through the air, and potential energy, the altitude you have available before the gentle touchdown or the impact. The speed required to keep flying at a given bank angle doesn't give a whit which engine is driving the plane. Increased bank angle requires more speed. A perfectly coordinated turn at too slow an airspeed will move toward an incipient spin just as well as a badly coordinated turn. 



Rick Girard



On Jan 21, 2008 7:31 AM, Jack B. Hart <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net (jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net)> wrote:

[quote] --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net (jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net)>



At 09:23 PM 1/20/08 -0800, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> Kolb-List message posted by: "JetPilot" < orcabonita(at)hotmail.com (orcabonita(at)hotmail.com)>




	


 	  Quote: 	
		  The one thing you are very wrong about is you saying that turning steeply will not put additional load on the plane and not increase stall speed.  It does not matter weather you turn with power, or with altitude, it takes energy AND increased load on the wings to change the direction of the plane.   There is just no way around it, going up, down or sideways, to change the direction of the plane, you must create additional lift on the wings to change the direction of the plane, which will increase the stall speed.   To teach otherwise is possibly dangerous to someone that might take it to literally. 




	




Mike,



Just think about it.  The engine is out and you are flying at best glide speed.  Since you are gliding the wings are not generating enough lift to support the aircraft.  If you enter a gliding turn at the same speed the load on the wings remains constant and you lose altitude t a faster rate than before because the lift is not perpendicular to the ground.  As Tom as said the only danger is to tighten the turn with rudder until you stall the inboard wing and intiate a spin, but if the speed is constant the wing load remains constant until the spin starts.  [quote][b]

kuffel(at)cyberport.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:10 pm Post subject: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

Mike,



Sigh.  I said this was another saga.  In fact, this point is 

number 1 in the series of articles I keep threatening to write 

entitled "The FAA Is Trying To Kill Me".  The source of the worry 

that "increased bank angle means increased stall speed" is the 

diagram in the AIM, copied in every student pilot ground school 

book, showing increased bank angle equals increased load factor 

equals increased stall speed.  The flaw in this diagram is 

insufficient emphasis that it only applies *if you maintain 

constant altitude*.  Look at the vectors in the diagram.  The 

total load increases to keep the vertical component constant 

(i.e. constant altitude).



Now all this is before we are established on final so we are not 

talking about very low altitude maneuvering.  And, for all 

practical purposes, keep bank angles below 90 degrees, better yet 

below 60 degrees to avoid aerobatic flight.  With constant (here 

zero) power if you maintain a constant airspeed then you are 

maintaining a constant 1 g load on the wing no matter what your 

bank angle.



With wings level you are descending at a stable rate, trading the 

potential energy of altitude for the energy needed to overcome 

your drag.  Roll into a stable bank angle and your rate of decent 

will increase but then stabilize again.  The change is not 

instantaneous because your roll is smooth (right?) and because of 

something called inertia.



Rolling level again is the same process in reverse.  You end up 

at the same wings level rate of decent as before.  And if you've 

maintained a constant airspeed throughout, the load on the wings 

has stayed at 1 g throughout and the margin between your airspeed 

and stall speed has not changed.



While it is true there is an additional transient load caused by 

changes in decent rate, it's magnitude is a secondary effect, 

particularly if your rolls are smooth, and your margin above 

stall is essentially unchanged.  And the same situation applies 

to one or more changes in bank angle during the turn.



Safety statistics say the misconception that increasing bank 

angle always means increasing stall speed kills a lot more people 

than holding a constant airspeed turing a turn.  For example, 

look at turn-to-final spin fatalities.  As a student pilot I kept 

trying to sneak the airplane around to final with excess rudder. 

  Fortunately I had a very alert instructor who kept me from 

premature spin practice.  Still, it took quite a while to figure 

out why I was afraid to steepen my bank angle and how to properly 

and safely increase my turn rate.



But forget theory and logic, go out and try it yourself.  At 

altitude and constant power set up your normal glide speed. 

Smoothly enter, wait and then exit turns of increasing bank while 

staying obsessed with maintaining your glide speed.  You will get 

increasing but stable rates of decent with increasing bank but 

nary a stall buffet.



Tom Kuffel

Whitefish, MT

Building Original FireStar

jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

.................

Jack, I've been flying with the invisible engine for 35 years. It's the only 

one that never ever fails. When the mechanical engines goes kaput, the 

invisible engine takes over. It works by way of two forms of energy. Kinetic 

energy, your movement through the air, and potential energy, the altitude 

you have available before the gentle touchdown or the impact. The speed 

required to keep flying at a given bank angle doesn't give a whit which 

engine is driving the plane. Increased bank angle requires more speed. A 

perfectly coordinated turn at too slow an airspeed will move toward an 

incipient spin just as well as a badly coordinated turn. 



................



Rick,



I agree with what you have said.  If you fly at constant best glide speed it 

limits your rate of bank and you will never stall or spin, and you have the 

longest, except for a straight line, glide path from were the engine quit to 

the flare and touch down.  This is converting the potential energy or 

altitude into kinetic energy at an almost uniform or constant rate.  One of 

the most difficult things I had to learn flying sailplanes and when I 

thought I was too low to make it back to the airport was to push the stick 

forward and to maintain best glide. 



Flying a sailplane was good training, in that, if something did not feel 

right, you learned to always let the stick go forward a little while you 

were figuring out what was going on.



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

Tom,



Your advice on how to fly the turn without loading up the plane to much is a very good technique to avoid a stall spin while in the turn.  It is exactly what I would do in that situation.



My point here is purely technical.  If you are banked lets say at a very reasonable 45 degrees at 1 G loading on the wings, you will be falling into the turn at a pretty good rate.   IF you never load the plane to more than one G during a 45 degree turn, or after the turn, your descent rate would be so high that it would be fatal to hit the ground at that rate.  What is happening is that you are doing your pullout so smoothly, you are probably not aware of the increased G loading, which is exactly the way you should do it.   But in the end, you are putting more than the 1 G load on the wing either during the turn, or during the pull out to arrest your descent, even if its so smooth and gradual that you are not aware of it.  



Like I said, this is purely a technical point.  Your technique  sounds good to me.   Engine shut off is something everyone should practice while you are ready for it and over a long runway, rather than practice for the first time when the engine fails.   A cold hard facts of ultralights and experimental airplanes is that our engines are far more likely to fail than Certified aircraft.  We should all be proficient in real engine out landings.



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

Ed in JXN

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 122

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

Hi Tom,



        I'm afraid the FAA isn't 'trying to kill' us.  The diagram you 

reference does emphasize 'constant altitude'.

---

Thom Riddle

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1597
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA (9G0)

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:48 pm Post subject: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

Tom,



I'm so glad you have cleared up this issue for the list. For years  

I've been telling other pilots that maintaining constant airspeed in a  

turn, even steep turns, while descending at idle/no power increases  

descent rate but not the stall speed. I discovered this myself while  

practicing the "turn back to airport" practice at safe altitudes with  

sudden loss of engine power. I do this on every "new to me" airplane  

so I know how much time and altitude it costs me to do that. Once that  

is determined I know before take-off what AGL altitude I need as a  

minimum to even consider turning back in the event of a power failure  

during initial climb. The slower your airspeed (but safely above stall  

speed/aoa) the faster you can turn with least altitude loss. As you  

noted, coordinating the turn is very important to avoid nasty surprises.



I've attached an image of a table I created showing the time to make a  

270 degree turn at various bank angles and airspeeds. It also gives  

the amount of altitude loss assuming a 600 fpm descent rate.



Thom in Buffalo

Turn_Back_Data.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

122.6 KB

Viewed:

538 Time(s)

_________________
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)

Don't worry about old age... it doesn't last very long.
- Anonymous

Dana

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1047
Location: Connecticut, USA

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

At 04:07 PM 1/21/2008, The Kuffels wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  ...The source of the worry that "increased bank angle means increased stall speed" is the diagram in the AIM, copied in every student pilot ground school book, showing increased bank angle equals increased load factor equals increased stall speed.  The flaw in this diagram is insufficient emphasis that it only applies *if you maintain constant altitude*.  Look at the vectors in the diagram.  The total load increases to keep the vertical component constant (i.e. constant altitude)... 	


 It's not only valid at constant altitude, but constant acceleration (or rather, unaccelerated flight, but not necessarily level unaccelerated flight).  You don't descend because you have less lift; you START decending because you (momentarily) have less lift, causing the aircraft to accelerate downward... then as your speed (or AOA) increases you stabilize in a descent (an unaccelerated descent, where lift (or the vertical component of lift) again equals the weight of the aircraft.



 If you are in a coordinated turn in either level flight OR a constant descent, your g-load will correspond to the bank angle in the normal manner (1.4g for 45°, 2g for 60°, etc.), and you stall speed increases in the normal manner.  Any less g's and you are either accelerating downward, i.e. increasing your rate of descent, or your turn is not coordinated (i.e. ball not centered, as in a slipping turn).



  	  Quote: 	
		  Safety statistics say the misconception that increasing bank angle always means increasing stall speed kills a lot more people than holding a constant airspeed turing a turn.  For example, look at turn-to-final spin fatalities.  As a student pilot I kept trying to sneak the airplane around to final with excess rudder... 	


 It's not a misconception about bank angle versus stall speed that kills them, it's being more afraid of increased bank angles than they are of a skidding turn at low speed.



 -Dana



 

 --

  And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, for if you hit a man with a plowshare, he'll know he's been hit!    [quote][b]

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

You guys keep talking about overuse of the  rudder.  

  

 From my experience flying Kolbs, once in the air  there is very little use of rudder.  The Kolb model aircraft are  aileron airplanes.  For the most part, they don't much care if they are  trimmed up or not, they still fly the same way.

  

 I can turn a Kolb on a wing tip, the rudder is not  involved.  It is all aileron and elevator.

  

 Takes a tad of rudder to maintain a coordinated  turn, but not enough to really be aware of.

  

 True, they do not like to fly below stall speed, no  matter what bank angle is being used.

  

 If I am in doubt, I always carry a little extra  airspeed.  I also keep a continuous cross check on my airspeed  indicator.  I know, some you more experienced pilots don't need one, but I  fly with mine.

  

 As far as engine outs and making your forced  landing area, be it airstrip or a deer feeding patch in the woods or a Walmart  parking lot, if I keep the touch down point on a spot on my windshield and it  does not move up or down, I am going to make my spot.  If the spot moves  down the windshield, I am going to overshoot. If it moves up the windshield, I  am going to come up short.  We learned to shoot approaches in Primary  Rotary Wing Training in the Army this way.  John W will have to help me  now.  I can not remember for sure, but.........I think once we turned base  from downwind we obtained our approach speed, kept it constant, and maintained  our approach angle with collective (the up and down stick).

  

 john h

 mkIII

  

  

  

  

   For example, look at turn-to-final spin fatalities.  As a  student pilot I kept trying to sneak the airplane around to final with excess  rudder...

 [quote]    -Dana

[b]

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

 	  John Hauck wrote: 	
		  



From my experience flying Kolbs, once in the air  there is very little use of rudder.  The Kolb model aircraft are  aileron airplanes.  For the most part, they don't much care if they are  trimmed up or not, they still fly the same way.

  

 john h

 mkIII

  

	




This is one thing I love about the Kolb, it turns with ailerons like a " Real " airplane.  Most ultralight guys use a whole bunch of rudder when they first get in my Kolb,  I tell them to keep their feet on the floor, and then try a turn.  They are very surprised to find a plane of this class that does not require a whole bunch of rudder to turn.



This makes the Kolb a heck of a lot more enjoyable and nicer to fly than the more primitive designs ( Im not trying to knock the flying qualities of the Qucksilvers, Challengers, etc. )  Wait a minute.... yes I am !!!



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

kuffel(at)cyberport.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:46 pm Post subject: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

Dana, all,



I'm trying to shut up about this topic since it has been beaten 

to death.  Still I'm compelled to comment where I think Dana has 

misunderstood what I said.



<< "increased bank angle means increased stall speed"



It's not only valid at constant altitude, but constant 

acceleration (or rather, unaccelerated flight, but not 

necessarily level unaccelerated flight).  You don't descend 

because you have less lift; you START decending because you 

(momentarily) have less lift, causing the aircraft to accelerate 

downward... >>



Actually, you start and continue descending because the vertical 

component of your constant 1g lift vector is less.  The 

horizontal component correspondingly increases from zero to 

effect the turn.



<< then as your speed (or AOA) increases you stabilize in a 

descent >>



But this is exactly what I'm saying *not* to do.  Keep your speed 

constant, it keeps your total load constant and keeps your stall 

margin constant.  We are talking about 90 or 180 degree turns 

here.  In theory your decent rate will continue to increase at 

constant airspeed in a bank.  In practice the increased vertical 

component of drag slows the increase in decent rate and things 

remain nicely stable on rollout.  Doing 60 degree bank turns for 

a full circle or more will make the vertical situation 

interesting but that is not the problem we are discussing.  Go 

out and fly it for yourself.



<< If you are in a coordinated turn in either level flight OR a 

constant descent, your g-load will correspond to the bank angle >>



But that is not what I am saying.  Maintain a constant *airspeed* 

and you then maintain a constant wing loading which maintains a 

constant stall margin.  Go out and fly it for yourself.



<< It's not a misconception about bank angle versus stall speed 

that kills them, it's being more afraid of increased bank angles 

than they are of a skidding turn at low speed. >>



And what makes us afraid of increased bank angles at low speeds 

at pattern altitudes is the AIM diagram and associated training.



Go out and fly it for yourself.



Tom Kuffel

Whitefish, MT

Building Original FireStar

Possums

Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 247

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:26 pm Post subject: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)

At 12:43 AM 1/23/2008, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Dana, all,



I'm trying to shut up about this topic since it has been beaten to 

death.  Still I'm compelled to comment


	


I should show you guys what you can do with the engine off  & vg's & 

no one watching.

But - I would get in trouble---------I'm legal now after 24 yrs.

Like they say in the song. "Dance like no one is watching".

I've got a one-seater - and an "iPod" tied into my  helmet.

_________________
Possum

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum