Bo down Pembroke Pines, FL

That wasn't among the options considered.

As an aerobatic pilot, is irresistible to ponder whether a suitably aggressive maneuver might solve the impossible turn problem.

A hammerhead is a non-starter, because you are nowhere near the entry speed required for a pull to vertical.

I am intrigued about the possibility of a half turn spin in an aircraft with sufficient rudder authority. One of these days I am going to go out and fly 10 half turn spins in my decathlon and record the maximum altitude loss.
 
As an aerobatic pilot, is irresistible to ponder whether a suitably aggressive maneuver might solve the impossible turn problem.

A hammerhead is a non-starter, because you are nowhere near the entry speed required for a pull to vertical.

I am intrigued about the possibility of a half turn spin in an aircraft with sufficient rudder authority. One of these days I am going to go out and fly 10 half turn spins in my decathlon and record the maximum altitude loss.

The question was somewhat made tongue in cheek; even I'll admit that such a maneuver is a terrible idea even if it was optimal mathematically.
 
Okay, as promised I did some sperimentin'. Here is my flight test report for a Super Decathlon.

1. Chopping power while trimmed for hands-off climb at Vx results in the nose immediately dropping into a dive. No airspeed was lost; In fact, my aircraft picked up about 20 knots. Pushing forward is not necessary; all you have to do is resist pulling back. I doubt you could react faster than the plane does already.

2. My altitude loss on a 180 turn was just under 500 ft. That included letting the nose drop, waiting a few seconds to simulate decision time, a 45-degree bank angle turn at best glide, and rolling wings level. I'm comfortable I could do that in a real situation. Below 500, straight ahead or possibly a 90 degree turn to favorable terrain.

3. A half turn spin loses 600 feet. Clearly not a good option.
 
Last edited:
Okay, as promised I did some sperimentin'. Here is my flight test report for a Super Decathlon.

1. Chopping power while trimmed for hands-off climb at Vx results in the nose immediately dropping into a dive. No airspeed was lost; In fact, my aircraft picked up about 20 knots in the dive. Pushing forward is not necessary. In fact, I doubt you could react faster than the plane does. You just have to resist the urge to fight the nose dropping by pulling back.

2. My altitude loss on a 180 turn was just under 500 ft. That included letting the nose drop, waiting a few seconds to simulate decision time, a 45-degree bank angle turn at best glide, and rolling wings level.

3. A half turn spin loses 600 feet. Clearly not a good option.
I’m not an aerobatic guy, so perhaps I’m way off base here, but.... if a half turn spin is what I am imagining, why would anyone in their right mind recommend this at low altitude?

In addition, if you are gaining 20kts in the dive (30%??) why wouldn’t you want to ease back a bit??
 
I’m not an aerobatic guy, so perhaps I’m way off base here, but.... if a half turn spin is what I am imagining, why would anyone in their right mind recommend this at low altitude?

Nobody recommended it. I wondered if it might be a viable technique. It is not. You would not be the first to question my state of mind. o_O

So you don't have to imagine, a half spin is the following maneuver:
1. Stick back to stall.
2. Full left rudder.
3. Rotate 1/4 turn.
4. Full right rudder to slow rotation.
5. Stick forward at 1/2 turn to break stall.
6. Recover from dive.

It's #6 that is the problem. As a spin develops and stabilizes over the first 3 turns, the pitch oscillates between about 45 degrees nose down and dead vertical. In my aircraft, at 180 degrees rotation you are pointed straight down at the ground. That would indeed be disconcerting at 500 AGL.
 
Last edited:
Nobody recommended it. I wondered if it might be a viable technique. It is not.
Okay. By throwing it out there as a possibility on the forum it certainly came across, at least to me, as a viable option.

Thanks for clarifying.
 
Okay, as promised I did some sperimentin'. Here is my flight test report for a Super Decathlon.

1. Chopping power while trimmed for hands-off climb at Vx results in the nose immediately dropping into a dive. No airspeed was lost; In fact, my aircraft picked up about 20 knots. Pushing forward is not necessary; all you have to do is resist pulling back. I doubt you could react faster than the plane does already.

2. My altitude loss on a 180 turn was just under 500 ft. That included letting the nose drop, waiting a few seconds to simulate decision time, a 45-degree bank angle turn at best glide, and rolling wings level. I'm comfortable I could do that in a real situation. Below 500, straight ahead or possibly a 90 degree turn to favorable terrain.

3. A half turn spin loses 600 feet. Clearly not a good option.
I am glad my thought was at least partly correct about trim having faster and better reactions then us pilots. A little extra airspeed is never bad, and could even compensate to the natural pilot instinct to pull back once your hands are firmly on the controls and you start to fly to the emergency landing spot.

I too will try this out tomorrow at altitude and see what happens in my crappy training airplane as opposed to a finely tuned machine.
 
I am glad my thought was at least partly correct about trim having faster and better reactions then us pilots. A little extra airspeed is never bad, and could even compensate to the natural pilot instinct to pull back once your hands are firmly on the controls and you start to fly to the emergency landing spot.

I too will try this out tomorrow at altitude and see what happens in my crappy training airplane as opposed to a finely tuned machine.

You were entirely correct. I knew in theory what would happen, but was surprised at how abruptly the aircraft reacted.

Worrying about "getting the nose forward quickly" is a total non-issue IMHO.
 
As an aerobatic pilot, is irresistible to ponder whether a suitably aggressive maneuver might solve the impossible turn problem.

A hammerhead is a non-starter, because you are nowhere near the entry speed required for a pull to vertical.

I am intrigued about the possibility of a half turn spin in an aircraft with sufficient rudder authority. One of these days I am going to go out and fly 10 half turn spins in my decathlon and record the maximum altitude loss.

A spin kills your airspeed/energy. I would think a nose down turn would retain whatever KE you have to help in returning to the runway environment.
 
In addition, if you are gaining 20kts in the dive (30%??) why wouldn’t you want to ease back a bit??

The speed increase was due to the sudden nose drop. Were I to continue to fly hands off, speed would stabilize at the original trimmed airspeed, as pitch oscillation damped out.
 
The speed increase was due to the sudden nose drop. Were I to continue to fly hands off, speed would stabilize at the original trimmed airspeed, as pitch oscillation damped out.
It’s conceivable that the speed could settle out higher. Without the prop wash blowing over the tail it may be less effective and result in a lower angle of attack. Depending on the design and rigging of your aircraft, of course.
 
The speed increase was due to the sudden nose drop. Were I to continue to fly hands off, speed would stabilize at the original trimmed airspeed, as pitch oscillation damped out.
And how much extra altitude loss was that?? 100’ perhaps?? What’s the glide ratio on your airplane?
 
You were entirely correct. I knew in theory what would happen, but was surprised at how abruptly the aircraft reacted.

Worrying about "getting the nose forward quickly" is a total non-issue IMHO.

In a Decathlon......I think it’s dangerous to say that is the case in all airplanes.
 
You were entirely correct. I knew in theory what would happen, but was surprised at how abruptly the aircraft reacted.

Worrying about "getting the nose forward quickly" is a total non-issue IMHO.

I gather it doesn't take much encouragement to get you to try something new....... any excuse to fly will do. How about use that extra 20kt to do the hammerhead? Like someone mentioned, the spin is a huge drag producer which gobbles up energy. A hammerhead, very efficiently converts kinetic energy to potential energy and back again, with very little high speed drag. I seriously bet its the best way to reverse course with minimal net loss of altitude.
 
It may work for some, but statistically, we’ve seen this maneuver kill more pilots than we can count. This is bad advice and I would not be suggesting this to anyone.
Statistically it actually pretty easy to count roughly how many have been killed doing it. But Statistically that only tells us that they can go badly. So statistically we can just make up a number and say it kills 1 in 10 pilots that attempt it. We can't prove that number right or wrong simply because we don't know how many pilot successfully perform the maneuver.

Brian
 
Below anything close to 1000ft, straight ahead down 9th is probably what I'd plan. No power lines but its narrow with lots of trees so probably wouldn't be pretty. But better to try to fly it between the trees than stall/spin into whatever spot you happen to run out of speed over IMO.

just wild speculation at this point, looking at the options available going straight ahead may have been a very similar outcome only on a different door camera. From the photos it does not look like stall spin accident to me, way to much horizontal energy for that. I think he came very close to making it to an open area, or it is possible he either did not see the obstruction he hit or was trying to maneuver to avoid the oncoming vehicle when he hit it. Again mostly speculation until we can obtain more evidence like possible flight path and information about how, what and where it initially collided.
 
The article that really sealed the deal for me was in Sport Aviation. Most discussions go around distance, bank angle and distance to glide with the turn at the end. BUT, the gist of this article was if your rate of climb is not significantly better than your best glide in FPM, it's mathematically impossible to get back to where you want to be. The best rate of climb in the 65 hp Chief is somewhere around 400 fpm in real world conditions at gross. Best glide is conservatively close to 500 fpm in real world conditions with 57 mph, no engine, dead prop. Makes it easy to say that until you get altitude in the bank and have made a turn to crosswind to cut the distance to the runway, it's going to be tough shedding to do the impossible turn.
 
Last edited:
Short runway? 3200' is a short paved runway now? Ok, but only accounting for the houses all round.

And why not fly Vx to maximize altitude and minimize distance from the runway when having to try to impossible turn? It would mean a harder push over to maintain airspeed, but also keeps you higher and closer to the runway.

I always questioned why we don't have an aspect of training that includes climbing out at a trim setting that allows for hands off the yoke. If trimmed for Vy (or VX) and hands off the yoke (or very very lightly), in the case of power failure, the airplane would hold Vy and not stall (please correct this is wrong). Kind of like how navy pilots have to keep their hands off the controls when launching off a carrier, you can't trust the pilot to do the right thing. Would this not get the nose down and back to flying speed and allow the pilot do do their 2-3 seconds of dumb brain freeze without causing any issues?

I suggest you get your instructor and try some power failure from a Vx climb at various altitudes. Most airplanes below about 200 feet it is going to be very challenging to put the nose down fast enough to have enough energy for a successful landing. You may walk away from it if you got the nose down quick enough, But I think there a good chance the plane will likely need some major repair work before it flys again. Above 200 feet at Vx the problem is still when the engine quits you have very little energy or time to get the nose down and most people have a natural tendency to pull back in disbelief for a second or two when the engine quits unexpectedly. Vy climb + 5 or 10 kts give you a better margin, more time to react and energy to land with if it occurs at a very low altitude.
 
You were entirely correct. I knew in theory what would happen, but was surprised at how abruptly the aircraft reacted.

Worrying about "getting the nose forward quickly" is a total non-issue IMHO.
As others have pointed out, this varies from airplane to airplane. Even in the same airplane, though, CG can have a huge effect on 'abruptness'.

Nauga,
who deleted a misleading pun
 
I suggest you get your instructor and try some power failure from a Vx climb at various altitudes. Most airplanes below about 200 feet it is going to be very challenging to put the nose down fast enough to have enough energy for a successful landing. You may walk away from it if you got the nose down quick enough, But I think there a good chance the plane will likely need some major repair work before it flys again. Above 200 feet at Vx the problem is still when the engine quits you have very little energy or time to get the nose down and most people have a natural tendency to pull back in disbelief for a second or two when the engine quits unexpectedly. Vy climb + 5 or 10 kts give you a better margin, more time to react and energy to land with if it occurs at a very low altitude.
The question wan not whether I can put the nose down fast enough. It was - can the airplane’s trim system do it for me automatically? That was proven in a decathlon, I’ll test it in my C150.
 
As others have pointed out, this varies from airplane to airplane. Even in the same airplane, though, CG can have a huge effect on 'abruptness'.

Nauga,
who deleted a misleading pun
Very good point. Way to go using your noggin. I’ll have to redo the test with some heavy bags in the back sometime.
 
What a terrible idea. I hope you two are just doing this for giggles and don’t actually think it’s an appropriate plan for managing an engine out.
You have plenty of terrible ideas too, but we don’t complain. So has Cessna and Burt Rutan.

I guess the only idea you have is everyone just be better pilots, but without any new information to help anyone. That seems not to have helped anyone over the last 50 years. Thanks.
 
If trimmed for Vy (or VX) and hands off the yoke (or very very lightly), in the case of power failure, the airplane would hold Vy and not stall (please correct this is wrong).
I’m not following. How would the airplane hold Vy after a power loss and not stall?
Statistically it actually pretty easy to count roughly how many have been killed doing it. But Statistically that only tells us that they can go badly. So statistically we can just make up a number and say it kills 1 in 10 pilots that attempt it. We can't prove that number right or wrong simply because we don't know how many pilot successfully perform the maneuver.

Brian
I don’t need to know how many successfully performed it. The statistics show that those who tried to make the turn back, most commonly, ended up in a fatal situation. That’s enough evidence for me to avoid it. I realize that there’s plenty of individuals who think they’ll be able to beat the odds, and for those people, I say more power to them.
 
I’m not following. How would the airplane hold Vy after a power loss and not stall?.
Trim holds airspeed irrespective of power. That is why you can trim for 100mph and add power to ascend or reduce power to descend without your speed changing. The question I had was whether that held up not just in the cruise realm of 40-100% power but also in the 0-100% power realm. One member tested it in a decathlon and elevator trim (alone without pilot input) did indeed allow the nose to drop quickly enough to prevent a stall from Vx at full power engine out.
 
just wild speculation at this point, looking at the options available going straight ahead may have been a very similar outcome only on a different door camera. From the photos it does not look like stall spin accident to me, way to much horizontal energy for that. I think he came very close to making it to an open area, or it is possible he either did not see the obstruction he hit or was trying to maneuver to avoid the oncoming vehicle when he hit it. Again mostly speculation until we can obtain more evidence like possible flight path and information about how, what and where it initially collided.

It looked to me like the plane was falling out-of-control as it was descending into the vehicle. I recall reading in one of the articles that a power line got taken out in the process, which could well have caused an out-of-control condition.
 
Trim holds airspeed irrespective of power. That is why you can trim for 100mph and add power to ascend or reduce power to descend without your speed changing. The question I had was whether that held up not just in the cruise realm of 40-100% power but also in the 0-100% power realm. One member tested it in a decathlon and elevator trim (alone without pilot input) did indeed allow the nose to drop quickly enough to prevent a stall from Vx at full power engine out.
I’m very skeptical of that, very.

I would wager that most all of us fly the initial climb in a trimmed configuration at or near Vy. If it was that easy to prevent a departure stall, the accident statistics would look a bit more rosier. I suggest you go out with an instructor and have them do some simulated power loss on departure scenarios at altitude and just watch how fast the airspeed and energy decays - it’s an eye opener.
 
I’m not following. How would the airplane hold Vy after a power loss and not stall?

I don’t need to know how many successfully performed it. The statistics show that those who tried to make the turn back, most commonly, ended up in a fatal situation. That’s enough evidence for me to avoid it. I realize that there’s plenty of individuals who think they’ll be able to beat the odds, and for those people, I say more power to them.
"Most commonly" implies that more people fail than succeed. In order to know that, we would have to know how many people succeed, but we don't have that information.
 
"Most commonly" implies that more people fail than succeed. In order to know that, we would have to know how many people succeed, but we don't have that information.
Yep. Same with single engine stoppage with a twin. It's supposedly dangerous, but as you don't have to report successes, the numbers are skewed.
 
I’m very skeptical of that, very.

I would wager that most all of us fly the initial climb in a trimmed configuration at or near Vy. If it was that easy to prevent a departure stall, the accident statistics would look a bit more rosier. I suggest you go out with an instructor and have them do some simulated power loss on departure scenarios at altitude and just watch how fast the airspeed and energy decays - it’s an eye opener.
All I know is that it worked in the one data point we have so far. So 1-0 in favor of the airplane being smarter than us pilots. And this was in a decathlon, not a docile trainer. Think about how we are taught that in most training airframes, it is pilots that cause most of the accidents with improper control inputs. Recovering from a spin is often just as easy (but not most correct) hands off as it is PARE in a C150. Pilots cause a lot of problems with our brains working too hard.

I made it clear that is was a question, not an absolute. And it would require testing, and then possibly incorporating it into primary training. Brain storming, not pontificating.
 
...Honestly in just about any airplane it's a safe idea to do a max performance climb until at a reasonable altitude

Be very careful about following this in a twin.

I never do Vx climbs in my Aztec except when I have a short field obstacle clearance.

My Vyse (blue line at gross) is 88 knots. Vmc is 64 knots. Vx with both mills running is 89 knots.
Some other twins have an even narrower range between Vmc and blue line.
If you are pitched up for Vx and grenade an engine low to the ground on climb out you are guaranteed to be well below blue line and highly likely to fall below Vmc by the time you recognize and respond.

This may be what happened to the pilot of the Beech Duke at Fullerton in 2019. That sobering video shows how fast it happens.

My normal climb out airspeed in the 'Truk is 105 knots. Keeps the engines cooler too. :)
 
Last edited:
I’m very skeptical of that, very.

I would wager that most all of us fly the initial climb in a trimmed configuration at or near Vy. If it was that easy to prevent a departure stall, the accident statistics would look a bit more rosier. I suggest you go out with an instructor and have them do some simulated power loss on departure scenarios at altitude and just watch how fast the airspeed and energy decays - it’s an eye opener.

I don't think it's as simple as being purported. What works for some airplanes may not work for others.

The trim detail is correct, an airplane, in steady state, will maintain its trimmed airspeed. In other words, an airplane that is not accelerating (+/-) will maintain it's trimmed airspeed. If you reduce power the nose will drop to maintain its airspeed. If you increase power, the nose will rise to maintain trimmed airspeed (and you climb). Of course nothing is perfect, but it is generally true.

The issue I see is with high powered, heavier airplanes. In the 22, you apply full power, accelerate to 73 to 77 knots depending on model, lift off, the airplane continues to accelerate, in other words, the trim state is constantly changing. You take off with 50% flaps, the airplane accelerates to 90 knots, at that airspeed and clear of obstacles, you go to 0 flaps, another trim state change. You accelerate to Vy (98 knots), more trim change, you stay there until you are comfortable with your altitude, then accelerate to 115 or so knots, another trim state.

I just trim away excessive pressure during this phase, how much changes depending on fuel load or passenger load.

So being trimmed correctly and "allowing" the plane to save itself may work for some airplanes, but I'm thinking it probably won't work for most. Being low, with a dead engine, is not a good time to find out. Better to be proactive imo and make sure the nose goes down and the plane reaches best glide.
 
I gather it doesn't take much encouragement to get you to try something new....... any excuse to fly will do. How about use that extra 20kt to do the hammerhead? Like someone mentioned, the spin is a huge drag producer which gobbles up energy. A hammerhead, very efficiently converts kinetic energy to potential energy and back again, with very little high speed drag. I seriously bet its the best way to reverse course with minimal net loss of altitude.

You can absolutely reverse in a hammer with no altitude loss. The issue is entry speed. In my aircraft a hammer requires 140mph. If I am climbing at 85mph I would have to dive close to 1000' to get enough airspeed.

The most efficient reversal maneuver would actually be an Immelman. But again, entry speed is the constraint.

For those objecting this sidebar discussion is silly, you are 100% right. Of course I would not perform an aerobatic maneuver at low altitude.

But it is also silly to fly an airplane and not know how much altitude you lose in a power-off 180, or what happens when you cut power in a trimmed climb. Go out and try it and let us all know!
 
Last edited:
You can absolutely reverse in a hammer with no energy loss. The issue is entry speed. In my aircraft a hammer requires 140mph. If I am climbing at 85mph I would have to dive close to 1000' to get enough airspeed.

The most efficient reversal maneuver would actually be an Immelman. But again, entry speed is the constraint.

For those objecting this sidebar discussion is silly, you are 100% right. Of course I would not perform an aerobatic maneuver at low altitude.

But it is also silly to fly an airplane and not know how much altitude you lose in a power-off 180, or what happens when you cut power in a trimmed climb. Go out and try it and let us all know!

An informative post, but wouldn't "no energy loss" require drag to be zero?
 
Worrying about "getting the nose forward quickly" is a total non-issue IMHO.
A more realistic test IMO would have been to set trim to takeoff position and hold stick pressure for Vy, Vx or some other arbitrary climb attitude which is what quite a few pilots are doing just off the runway below pattern altitude. If you did it that way, I suspect getting the nose quickly would become something much more than the total non-issue you saw in your test.
 
I suggest you go out with an instructor and have them do some simulated power loss on departure scenarios at altitude

Why would a certified pilot need an instructor to do a completely benign maneuver?
 
Back
Top