Calculating best glide speed without help from a POH

Huckster79

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Nov 22, 2018
Messages
2,322
Display Name

Display name:
Huckster79
So i fly a 1947 Cessna 140, which can be seen in the March Issue of Flying magazine I might add :). Two shots of her panel, Im pretty proud.

Anyway the 1947 “POH” is nothing like most of you are used to, its more of an owners manual... There is not solid best glide speed, theres several references to landing speed but the same number is not used in any of the different references...

Ive been told by many just use 150 numbers... probably in the ballpark but we dont share the same wing besides the 140A model. Ive been planning out how I could go out and burn some avgas to figure it out... see if the numbers are similar...

what are your thoughts on how to crunch this out?
 
This is what ya get to work with...

frankly our old Air speed indicators are not always spot on lets say, so it may be best to know what actually it is on your airspeed indicator not interpolated off a rather light on details “POH”


image.jpg CFC6B18D-C250-4AC9-B093-8F16BFF8535E.jpeg 3CF5876D-2078-4721-9DC4-35E86BF3B21F.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Take a stop watch and go out smooth air, climb up to something like 3,000' msl, and measure the amount of time in seconds it takes you to lose 200 vertical feet. Maybe start at your minimum controllable airspeed, and work your way up to say 90kts in 5 knot increments.

Plot the data on your knee board like this:

Time to lose 200' x seconds 55 kts
x 60
x 65
x 70
x 75
x 80
x 85
x 90

Do this at least 3 times and back on the ground, average the results. If any data point is way out of line, throw it out and repeat for that data point.

Now's the fun part. You've gotta reduce the data and plot the results.

Compute your glide ratio for each time/speed data point (the 1.689 constant is dependent on using feet/seconds/knots units of measure)


(sink distance in feet / time in seconds ) / (speed in knots X 1.689)


Now, you have a "glide ratio" at each speed. You need to plot those points out on a graph to see how speed affects glide distance.

Let "glide ratio" be the Y (vertical) axis, and speed be the X (horizontal) axis.

Once its plotted out, you have a graphical representation of the effect of speed on glide distance. And, as you've already guessed, the lowest point of the graphed curve is your best glide speed.

This method is from Vaughan Askue in "Flight Testing Homebuilt Aircraft".
 
Last edited:
Take a stop watch and go out smooth air, climb up to something like 3,000' msl, and measure the amount of time in seconds it takes you to lose 200 vertical feet. Maybe start at your minimum controllable airspeed, and work your way up to say 90kts in 5 knot increments.

Plot the data on your knee board like this:

Time to lose 200' x seconds 55 kts
x 60
x 65
x 70
x 75
x 80
x 85
x 90

Do this at least 3 times and back on the ground, average the results. If any data point is way out of line, throw it out and repeat for that data point.

Now's the fun part. You've gotta reduce the data and plot the results.

Compute your glide ratio for each time/speed data point (the 1.689 constant is dependent on using feet/seconds/knots units of measure)


(sink distance in feet / time in seconds ) / (speed in knots X 1.689)


Now, you have a "glide ratio" at each speed. You need to plot those points out on a graph to see how speed affects glide distance.

Let "glide ratio" be the Y (vertical) axis, and speed be the X (horizontal) axis.

Once its plotted out, you have a graphical representation of the effect of speed on glide distance. And, as you've already guessed, the lowest point of the graphed curve is your best glide speed.

This method is from Vaughan Askue in "Flight Testing Homebuilt Aircraft".


Thank you that was the details I knew I was missing
 
Thank you that was the details I knew I was missing
Just be careful of units. That 1.689 constant is for knots and it looks like your airspeed indicator is in mph.

If you’re using mph, the constant will more than likely be 1.467.
 
And, as you've already guessed, the lowest point of the graphed curve is your best glide speed.
...at the weight you were when you tested. Of course, in a 140 that's not going to be a very significant difference.

@Huckster79, after you do all that, please satisfy my curiosity. Do another test where you simply hold the airplane in a level pitch attitude and see how close the airspeed comes to your calculated best glide. Thinking out loud, I guess you can do that in the opposite direction as well. Use the level "engine out" airspeed as the starting point for the detailed tests. Might cut the amount of test speeds in half.)
 
Last edited:
For most aircraft, best (shallowest) glide speed is pretty close to Vy and min sink speed is pretty close to Vx.
 
I'm digging into long term memory from my aero engineering days at E-RAU, so bear with me...

If you look at a plot induced drag (drag due to production of lift) and parasitic drag (pretty much all other drag, for low speed aircraft where shock and wave drag don't apply) you'll see:
1) Induced drag decreasing as Angle of Attack (AoA) decreases and airspeed increases;
2) Parasitic drag increasing as airspeed increases (and it's a square function with 2 times as much speed creating 4 times as much parasitic drag); and
3) a U shaped curve for total drag, with the bottom of the "U" where the Induced and parasitic drag curves cross, representing the airspeed where you have minimum drag.

Drag_curves_for_aircraft_in_flight.svg.png

That's the area on the curve with minimum drag. Since drag equals thrust in stable flight, it's also the airspeed where you need minimum thrust to stay airborne. In piston engined aircraft, that's also the point where you need minimum power and get minimum fuel burn (it's more complicated than that in turbine powered aircraft, where minimum fuel burn usually occurs at a higher airspeed for reasons we won't get into).

However, when the engine quits, or in a glider where there was no on board power in the first place, the "power" is produced by using gravity to convert potential energy (altitude) into kinetic energy (airspeed) to balance the drag. That means the minimum drag airspeed is also the airspeed where you need minimum loss of altitude per unit of time to maintain airspeed, and thus it's the "minimum sink" airspeed.

Unfortunately, I'm seeing this see this version of the chart in several sources while prepping for my Commercial written. This chart, and all the others like it, refer to that point where the drag curves cross as the "best glide speed" and "L/D max". That's at best over simplified.

L/D max is exactly what it says it is - the point on a plot of coefficient of lift (Cl) and coefficient of drag (Cd) versus airspeed where the ratio (the distance between the 2 curves) between Cl and Cd is at its maximum. That point on the graph is the "L/D max" or "best glide ratio speed" and the L/D max occurs at a specific AoA. The airspeed where it occurs will vary based on the weight of the aircraft. That's why you'll see differences in L/D max / best glide speed between a Schweizer 1-26A and a 1-26E. The E model is heavier, and achieves that optimum L/D max AoA at a slightly higher speed to reflect the slightly higher weight. That's also why they use ballast in higher performance gliders in strong lift conditions. Ballast increases the weight of the glider lets the glider achieve the best L/D AoA at a higher airspeed, without having to pitch down as much to achieve it. That improves penetration for the glider.

More importantly, the best L/D speed / best glide speed is almost always higher than the minimum sink speed, which occurs fairly close to the stall speed. These graphs do a better job of showing the differences between what's common for turbojet aircraft and what's common for propeller driven aircraft:

4-9-1.jpg

In the above graph, you'll note the sharp increases in parasitic drag (more or less a square function), versus the steep decline in induced drag in a jet, and the more gradual decline in the induced drag curve for a propeller driven aircraft. That makes the first graph shown above, and the one everyone (including the FAA) focuses on in the commercial written more emblematic of a jet aircraft, not a propeller aircraft.

In short, using the single graph posted first, and referring to the cross points for induced and parasitic drag as the "best glide speed" is flawed as:

1) it is only considering airspeed and the effect on drag production, not AoA and Cl in addition to Cd; and
2) it only approximates the situation with jet aircraft.

The second graph, does a much better job of showing differences in the induced drag curve, and the relative positions of the "minimum sink" and the "L/D max" / "best glide" speeds.

----

Determining the best angle (Vx) and best rate of climb (Vy) speeds adds another wrinkle. Climb is the result of excess power, so power available (Pa) versus power required (Pr) is what's important.

Usually, Vy airspeed occurs fairly close to the "L/D Max" / "best glide speed". However it actually occurs at a point on a plot of the Pa and Pr curves versus airspeed, where the difference between power available and power required is greatest.

However, how the aircraft is propped plays a big role. If you have a climb prop where the flatter pitch allows the engine to achieve maximum horsepower at a lower speed, that moves the hump on the Pa curve back to a lower airspeed, and that then changes the airspeed where maximum difference between Pa and Pr occurs.

The maximum range speed is also normally found near the speed for "L/D max" / "best glide" where you have the most efficient AoA, but actual airspeed and range is again dependent on altitude and aircraft weight and again is dependent on how the aircraft is propped. Ideally for maximum range, the engine will be developing the required cruise power at a low rpm and comparatively high manifold pressure. If it has to turn at high rpm and low manifold pressure to attain the speed needed for that most efficient long range AoA, the increased L/D efficiency will be offset by poor fuel efficiency.

Best angle of climb is usually found close to the minimum sink speed, where the drag curves cross and the power required is at a minimum, giving a maximum angle of climb due to the slower airspeed where this occurs. If all you wanted was maximum climb, you'd prop the aircraft to achieve maximum rated power at this airspeed. It would climb like a rocket, but the engine would overspeed before you reached a normal cruise speed, so you'd have to fly slower in cruise and suffer poor fuel economy. There's no free lunch and fixed pitch props are always a compromise.

In summary then, from lowest to highest, you'll almost always find your:
- Vso
- Vs
- minimum sink and close to it Vx
- best glide and close to it Vy

----

All that said, the short version is that there are a lot of variables and the best way to know your best glide speed and best rate of climb speed is to flight test in your own aircraft.
 
Take a stop watch and go out smooth air, climb up to something like 3,000' msl, and measure the amount of time in seconds it takes you to lose 200 vertical feet. Maybe start at your minimum controllable airspeed, and work your way up to say 90kts in 5 knot increments.

Plot the data on your knee board like this:

Time to lose 200' x seconds 55 kts
x 60
x 65
x 70
x 75
x 80
x 85
x 90

Do this at least 3 times and back on the ground, average the results. If any data point is way out of line, throw it out and repeat for that data point.

Now's the fun part. You've gotta reduce the data and plot the results.

Compute your glide ratio for each time/speed data point (the 1.689 constant is dependent on using feet/seconds/knots units of measure)


(sink distance in feet / time in seconds ) / (speed in knots X 1.689)


Now, you have a "glide ratio" at each speed. You need to plot those points out on a graph to see how speed affects glide distance.

Let "glide ratio" be the Y (vertical) axis, and speed be the X (horizontal) axis.

Once its plotted out, you have a graphical representation of the effect of speed on glide distance. And, as you've already guessed, the lowest point of the graphed curve is your best glide speed.

This method is from Vaughan Askue in "Flight Testing Homebuilt Aircraft".

I'll add a few caveats:

1) If you are flying a clean composite aircraft that might have an L/D max of around 11 to 1, measuring over a 200' loss of altitude is fine. However in a higher drag lower inertia aircraft like a C-140, measuring altitude loss over 500' or even 1000' might give you more discrimination between speeds on the curve.

A hybrid approach works as well, where you identify a general range where glide is longer using a 200' loss, then use a 1000' loss to fine tune the airspeed.

2) Weight makes a difference so keep an eye on the fuel burn and weight of the aircraft if you split it over multiple trials or days, or if you burn significant fuel repeating the trials. I recommend running single trials from 50 to 80 mph, then run a second and third set in the same order, so that the aircraft weight stays similar between speeds to reduce weight as a confounding variable. You should see a pattern across all the data as the weight decreases. You'll also have minimum sink data as a by product which is also useful as discussed above.

3) You'll probably be doing this testing with the power at idle, which isn't the same as engine off with a windmilling propeller or engine off with a stopped propeller. Idle power is still creating some small amount of thrust, or at least less drag. Engine off with a windmilling propeller will create a significant amount of drag as the airflow over the blades is driving the engine. Engine off with a stopped prop will produce significantly less drag and will be closer to the drag with the engine at idle power.

If you really want precision, shut the engine off, pitch up and slow down enough to stop the prop, then establish a stable glide at the target airspeed and start the timing as you pass through the starting altitude. (Just do it over a large open field you can land in if the engine fails to restart.) More realistically, just be aware that in an engine failure where you cannot get a restart, a windmilling prop will add a LOT of drag. There's a strong argument that if a restart is not possible (i.e. no benefit to a windmilling prop) convert the excess speed to altitude, slow enough to stop the prop, then pitch over to your best glide speed.

4) With the prop stopped, the parasitic drag will be reduced, and your actual best glide speed will be a few mph faster than what you determined in testing with the power at idle. In any event, when it comes to best glide, you usually lose less being a few mph fast than you do being a few mph slow, so a few mph faster is usually a safer bet with the prop stopped.
 
So many pilots get very fixated on the book numbers, especially airspeed. Stall speed, Vx, Vy, best glide, all vary based on a lot factors. Thats why I don't preach so much on the actual numbers. So what that the book says the airplane stalls at 56 kts. Today maybe its 54, tomorrow 57. Is your indicator that accurate? Are you perfectly one G. In a real world emergency, are you going to see a large glide performance hit being +/- 5 knots.

Best thing to do is get to know your aircraft. Its talking to you, and you will learn to feel what its telling you.

The only time I really see a need is in flying larger turbine aircraft, but they also compute their numbers a lot more precisely for each flight/weight/CG/density altitude. Bug smashing in a Cessna, not nearly as critical.
 
For most aircraft, best (shallowest) glide speed is pretty close to Vy and min sink speed is pretty close to Vx.

I've often heard a spit-ball estimate of "best-glide" is half way between Vx and Vy. But, if you don't have those numbers to begin with, break out the stop watch and go fly.
 
I'm digging into long term memory from my aero engineering days at E-RAU, so bear with me...
TL;DR all of it, but I think you mixed some apples and oranges, hence my loss of interest in the rest. In piston aircraft fuel flow follows power, with jets it follows thrust. So you can't compare power required charts with thrust required charts, like you did, concluding the aerodynamics are different. They're the same. You need to compare two drag charts side by side to see it.
 
So many pilots get very fixated on the book numbers, especially airspeed.
You have hit on the reason for my request to Huckster. I've seen many pilots during flight reviews stare at the ASI hunting for some exact number which probably doesn't apply to our current configuration. OTOH, maybe 15 years ago I checked out a retired 20,000 hour airline pilot in a rental 172. When I pulled the power, he never even looked at the ASI. Instead, he looked out the window, held a cruise level pitch attitude while locating a field, and was heading toward it at best glide (or a great approximation of it; I didn't weigh us :)) in less than 6 seconds. I started doing that in every airplane I've flown. I haven't found one yet - Cessnas, Pipers, Bonanzas, Mooneys, Cirrus, Diamonds.... - where that wasn't the case. Changed my thinking on the subject forever.
 
Last edited:
At idle with full flaps and nose up trim, my 140A will be in a level pitch attitude at around 65mph.
 
At idle with full flaps and nose up trim, my 140A will be in a level pitch attitude at around 65mph.
I haven't flown any singles in which adding full flaps was part of getting best glide speed. Does the 140A have special flaps?
 
Just to stir the pot a bit, I think the fixation with an exact best glide number is a bit measuring in millimeters to cut with a chainsaw. I have a few hundred hours in an unpowered Hang Glider that has ~15:1 glide ratio, so a bit better than book numbers for a 172 or similar. In the event of an engine out, I'd be focusing on where I'm going to put the plane first. If I need best glide to get there, I'll be looking out the window, not at an airspeed indicator. Let's say book is 10 to 1 and you are at 5,280 feet. You can theoretically glide 10 miles in no wind. That's with 0 room to spare. A more realistic number is about 5 or 6 miles to allow for sink on the way to your target field and spotting something that rules your field out once you get a bit closer (say a high tension line that cuts across the edge of the field you are just barely going to reach. I might need to revert to my second choice.

On glide, you should be looking at your target landing field (airport, road, etc). If there is something tall in front of the field, is more field appearing behind it as you get closer (you'll clear that obstacle) or is it disappearing behind (you aren't going to make it). Here's where you can fine tune your speed, but be careful of momentum making it look like you are improving your glide, when you are only trading airspeed for altitude.

This is something you can practice pretty easily. Fly over some unpopulated areas so you can get down to 500 agl. Start at a few thousand feet and pick a field you think you can make. Cut power to idle and try to "glide" to that field. By the time you are at 500 agl, you should have a pretty good idea if you'd have made it or not. Realize with an engine fully out, the drag might be a bit higher. Over time you'll get a sight picture that will help pick where you can get to and how to fly at best glide.

Not a CFI at all, just SGOTI.
 
I haven't flown any singles in which adding full flaps was part of getting best glide speed. Does the 140A have special flaps?

Nothing special about it, it's just the only data point I could offer. Clean, I suspect it will be a little nose low at Vbg ~70mph.

I think the fixation with an exact best glide number is a bit measuring in millimeters to cut with a chainsaw.
:yeahthat:
 
TL;DR all of it, but I think you mixed some apples and oranges, hence my loss of interest in the rest. In piston aircraft fuel flow follows power, with jets it follows thrust. So you can't compare power required charts with thrust required charts, like you did, concluding the aerodynamics are different. They're the same. You need to compare two drag charts side by side to see it.

If you'd have read it all, instead of just looking at the pictures, you might have noted the caveats, stated or implied.

That stated caveat is there in the form of the stuff I said I was not getting into. I also directly mention the relationship between fuel flow and power for piston engine aircraft, and specifically do not get into the more complicated jet powered thrust issues with both fuel and airspeed, for exactly that reason, but I do mention there is a distinct difference.

I used the second set of two charts solely to show that the chart (figure 1.) being used by the FAA on the commercial pilot exam derives directly from the jet powered chart with a steep induced drag curve that is much more consistent with jet aircraft than it is for propeller driven aircraft (with all due regard to different airfoils, etc), where the resulting total drag curve is much shallower on the back side of the power curve. Incidentally, the two charts in that image are figure 15-12 from the FAA's chapter on transitioning to jet aircraft.

The major point remains that L/D max and the best rate of climb speed for a propeller driven aircraft is not found at the intersection of the induced and parasitic drag curves, but rather is found at a moderately higher airspeed. That's due to the coefficient of lift curve, but also is an artifact of the power available curve for a fixed pitched propeller driven aircraft being a slightly upwardly arched curve, putting the greatest excess of power farther up the total drag curve from the minimum drag position. In contrast the thrust available curve for a jet tends to be slightly pot bellied.

I also clearly mention that the chart used by the FAA on the exam does not consider coefficient of lift or AoA other than indirectly on the induced drag curve, and does not include power available considerations at all, even though the power available curves for piston and jet engines are distinctly different and are distinctly arched for propeller driven aircraft.

---

Simply put, for a propeller driven aircraft, the low point of the curve where parasitic drag and induced drag is equal is the minimum power required airspeed (max endurance, minimum sink and close to Vx). However, when you calculate a power required curve for a propeller driven aircraft, L/D Max (best glide and close to Vy) is not at the low point of the curve, it is instead farther up the curve.

In contrast, in a jet, L/D Max occurs at the low point in the total drag curve, and is also max endurance. However, best range will be found at a tangent to the vertex of the graph and is significantly farther up the curve.
 
OTOH, maybe 15 years ago I checked out a retired 20,000 hour airline pilot in a rental 172. When I pulled the power, he never even looked at the ASI. Instead, he looked out the window, held a cruise level pitch attitude while locating a field, and was heading toward it at best glide (or a great approximation of it; I didn't weigh us :)) in less than 6 seconds.

Until you get a significant headwind or tailwind, then eyeballing it would go out the window
 
Until you get a significant headwind or tailwind, then eyeballing it would go out the window

Not really. If you are looking at your intended landing spot (or more correctly a couple hundred feet in front of it to reflect the distance used in the round out and flare), you will either make that point or you won't. You tell that visually by seeing if that point is falling (good) in the windshield, or rising (bad) in the windshield. If your intended point is rising, you won't make it and you either need to double check your glide speed and optimize it to see if that fixes the undershoot, or you need to select another landing spot that you can make.

Personally, I want to arrive over the intended landing spot at least 500' over the spot and then fly a power out landing pattern, biasing it on the high side and slipping to kill off excess speed when I know I have it made.

Wind affects the glide distance, you can achieve and thus your options, but it has no affect at all on the best glide speed.
 
Headwind is when it helps to remember what you just flew over, your best option might be right behind you.
 
Simply put, for a propeller driven aircraft, the low point of the curve where parasitic drag and induced drag is equal is the minimum power required airspeed (max endurance, minimum sink and close to Vx).
See, this is what I'm disagreeing with. You're comparing a force (drag) with power. Apples to oranges. The "low point of the curve where parasitic drag and induced drag is equal is the minimum power thrust required airspeed [FTFY]." It is not "(max endurance, minimum sink and close to Vx)." Max endurance, etc., would be much closer to stall where drag is higher, but the pace is slower rendering a net reduction in power required. However, what I quoted you saying here is true for a jet where fuel flow follows engine thrust available and is a relatively level value on the charts I've seen. In jets, the max endurance occurs where you say for propeller airplanes—at best L/D.
 
Last edited:
Simply put, for a propeller driven aircraft, the low point of the curve where parasitic drag and induced drag is equal is the minimum power required airspeed (max endurance, minimum sink and close to Vx). However, when you calculate a power required curve for a propeller driven aircraft, L/D Max (best glide and close to Vy) is not at the low point of the curve, it is instead farther up the curve

Very wrongly put. The low point of the curve is the point of minimum drag, which is the definition of L/Dmax (which might be more aptly named Dmin), regardless of whether it's a jet or a prop. Gliding performance and lift/drag ratios don't care about what kind of engine is attached to the airframe.

Where you might be confused is that minimum drag is best range for props, while for jet's that's max endurance, with best range in a jet occurring at a higher speed. That is due to the way a jet converts fuel into thrust versus a propeller converting fuel into power, and has nothing to do with the characteristics of drag curves being different for a jet and a prop (which they aren't).
 
Sounds like Im getting a nice new whole list of excuses I gotta go fly nere! I really appreciate all the input...
 
Little trick that most of you probably know... In the 172/182 at least, trim all the way nose up will get you to your best glide speed, or at least very close.
 
Wind affects the glide distance, you can achieve and thus your options, but it has no affect at all on the best glide speed.

That's not correct. The best glide speed increases in a headwind, and vice versa.. To take an extreme example, say you have a headwind equal to your no-wind best glide speed, your ground speed will be zero unless you speed up. Conversely, slowing to your min sink speed in a strong tailwind will allow the wind to carry you farther. Knowing and using this is an essential part of sailplane flying.
 
That's not correct. The best glide speed increases in a headwind, and vice versa.. To take an extreme example, say you have a headwind equal to your no-wind best glide speed, your ground speed will be zero unless you speed up. Conversely, slowing to your min sink speed in a strong tailwind will allow the wind to carry you farther. Knowing and using this is an essential part of sailplane flying.

To be really exact, both are true. The airplane's best glide through the air is unaffected by wind, but over the ground, you are absolutely right. Having said that, most GA planes glide like crap and L/D max +/- 10 knots just isn't going to be that big of a difference. Nor is trying to fly "speed up in sink and slow down in lift". Tail vs headwind will matter, but more on where you can reach vs speed to fly.

I'll repeat my earlier thought, figuring out where I'm going to land and how to get there with enough altitude to keep some options open is way more important than calculating an exact, theoretical number. Learn how to judge and maximize glide from a sight picture and how to assess landing options from normal cruising altitude. Also memorize engine out checklists and drill them from time to time. Switching to the tank with fuel or turning on the electric fuel pump when the mechanical one fails should be automatic.
 
That's not correct. The best glide speed increases in a headwind, and vice versa.. To take an extreme example, say you have a headwind equal to your no-wind best glide speed, your ground speed will be zero unless you speed up. Conversely, slowing to your min sink speed in a strong tailwind will allow the wind to carry you farther. Knowing and using this is an essential part of sailplane flying.
Best glide speed is Max L/D. It doesn't change. You are correctly describing a pilot's decision whether to use best glide or a different speed to gain range based in wind conditions.
 
Also memorize engine out checklists and drill them from time to time. Switching to the tank with fuel or turning on the electric fuel pump when the mechanical one fails should be automatic.
Don't forget carb heat for the airplanes which have it. That can become ineffective if delayed long enough for things to cool off.
 
Don't forget carb heat for the airplanes which have it. That can become ineffective if delayed long enough for things to cool off.

Absolutely - I wasn't trying to describe a full checklist, just the point that your plane's engine out checklist should be a priority and automatic.
 
That's not correct. The best glide speed increases in a headwind, and vice versa.. To take an extreme example, say you have a headwind equal to your no-wind best glide speed, your ground speed will be zero unless you speed up. Conversely, slowing to your min sink speed in a strong tailwind will allow the wind to carry you farther. Knowing and using this is an essential part of sailplane flying.

Obviously. Pilots have been taught to speed up in headwinds and slow down in tailwinds for nearly 100 years. The same concept applies when the engine quits - or isn't there in the first place.

The point was and remains that in the actual air mass, the airspeed at which L/D max is going to occur is unchanged regardless of the velocity of that moving air mass. However, the distance you'll cover at L/D Max is directly dependent on the direction that airmass is carrying the aircraft.

Knowing that, and then choosing to use a higher or lower airspeed than L/D Max, are essential points of sailplane flying, or making it to a suitable field in an engine out event.

Further more, in an engine out event, knowing where the wind is coming from, and using that information in your initial decision to look for a suitable landing spot, will probably improve your chances of making a suitable field. It'll be far more effective than pitching down to increase speed in a strong headwind to try to make more progress toward an upwind field.

I learned to fly in western South Dakota where 15 kt winds are pretty normal and actually on the "light" given that the average wind speed in western SD varies from 18 to 22 kts. Knowing the wind direction was a critical piece of engine out landing practice, especially in a Supercub where the glide ratio is relatively poor.

On the other hand once you are over your intended spot and beginning an engine off approach, turning into the wind lowers your ground speed significantly and improves the odds of a successful landing.
 
Last edited:
I just skimmed the posts above, Tl:DR some of them. But the data in the POH suggests 68-72 mph indicated will get you the best results. There doesn't seem to be much difference if you are in this range of airspeed, the plane is going to be in the bucket. You can do all the testing you want and get some resolution to within 1-2 mph if you want to play that game, but it's not going to matter when you are dealing with real world terrain and winds. Those factors will out perform any dialing in of the glide speed. Aim for this and then aim the plane where it needs to go. The view out the window will mean more than the airspeed once you trim into this range. Just my $0.02
 
I just skimmed the posts above, Tl:DR some of them. But the data in the POH suggests 68-72 mph indicated will get you the best results.
If you go back to the original post, he is dealing with a situation in which his ancient owners manual - not a modern AFM within an even more modern POH - does not have a published best glide. He's not trying to measure a football field with a micrometer. He's trying to determine whether it's a football field or a tennis court.
 
^^^^
He's trying to determine whether it's a football field or a tennis court.

I agree totally, I'm just sayin that 68-72 is in the ball park. Either way it will work out. Planting the plane in a tennis court is gona hurt no matter what. Ball parks and football fields are better.
 
Back
Top