It's pretty amazing to anyone who's flown a jet or large, heavy aircraft, too, and if you study the record, it rarely ends well. While you've heard of two incidents above (Air Transat Airbus and Air Canada 767) with a good outcome, there are many more which ended badly, like Avianca 018, the United DC-8 in Oregon, etc.
It is not, in the FAA's eyes or mine. Just imagine what would happen if some dodo pulled out on the runway in front of you.
It is not, in the FAA's eyes or mine. Just imagine what would happen if some dodo pulled out on the runway in front of you.
I'm happy to do it in a twin, above 3000 AGL or so, but below that, mixture or throttle, and throttle only if really close to the ground or slow. In a single, it's throttle only. Note that restart should be nearly instantaneous with mixture, but may be delayed considerably if the fuel lines are sucked dry downstream of the valve.
Yes it is and its a good one too.
Yes. There is the chance that the crash will warp the frame of the aircraft enough that the door(s) or canopy will not open, and getting out in that case becomes tricky. In the Grumman community, many folks carry a piece of PVC pipe slit lengthwise so they can open the canopy before impact and lay the pipe on the canopy rail to lock it open so it doesn't slide closed on impact. Other people carry various canopy/window breaking tools so they can get out of the door/canopy is jammed shut. It's definitely a survival consideration in light planes.
Not true. Plenty of examples to the contrary if you review the data.
Assumes facts not in evidence, starting with the nose gear breaking off, which the accident data do not support as a routine occurrence. However, if it does go on its back with the canopy open, the structure is strong enough that it won't collapse, and you'll have plenty of room to crawl out the side. If that fails, there's always the baggage door which an be opened from the inside and though which a 270 lb friend once passed.
Actually it often isn't adding any energy to the airplane.
A few years ago a study was done (I forget by who) where they wanted to evaluate to glide performance of several airplanes. Rather than stopping the prop, which does add some drag, they devised a switch on the crank the could detect the small movement of the crankshaft being pulled forward or pushed back. With this switch they could then determine what power setting was required to produce near zero drag or thrust.
The point is if the propellers not turning fast enough to produce an positive airflow vs the speed of the airplane then it is producing drag. True with the engine idling it probably produces slight less drag than a dead engine, however my experience suggests that most pilots can not tell the difference between a windmilling prop and an idling engine.
if your a bit of a math wiz and know the pitch of your prop you can probably determine about what RPM is needed for zero thrust at a given speed. The RPM required is probably higher than your in flight idle speed.
Oh, OK. Thank you guys. I feel kind of stupid now since there's going to be a MT prop going on my build once I get to that point.
Shipping is kinda pricey, and Germans don't do anything fast.
To sum up everything, know 'your' airplane
-VanDy
I think every one will agree they are not off field aircraft, otherwise there would be a bush wheel kit for them.
or not. On some designs the door is part of the structure, open it and you weaken the fuselage against collapsing and crushing you. On others the door might as well be made of paper so do whatever you want.
