12 Seconds to Pattern Altitude
- Thread starter Jay Honeck
- Start date
nddons
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ok, that's funny right there.
LOL, what a tidal wave of agreement on the internet...and then there's Jay. When you start feeling like you're one man against a hurricane, it may be time to reconsider your stance. I get it, you're flying a fun airplane, and are now subject to that initial irrational exuberance that comes with making this type of transition. Careful you don't kill yourself. You're like the 16 year old who's been driving mom's wagon, and daddy just bought you a Camaro. The temptation is to do stupid stuff before developing decent skill and experience. 51 hours in type?? Having trouble understanding how you think that's "so much time", especially when it seems you have no previous experience with HP sport/aerobatic types. The rationale against your "zoom climb is safer" thing has pretty well been covered.
Last edited:
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Wow! Talk about a mass arrival of aviators with a reading disability! I heard these were more common amongst pilots, but this thread is proof positive.
If you actually READ all the posts, instead of playing pile on, I believe I conceded the "more safe" issue about fifty posts ago. A zoom climb to pattern altitude is not safer than a standard departure.
The argument is now whether the zoom climb to pattern altitude is LESS safe. To this contention, I call complete, utter, unadulterated bull****. There is nothing -- NOTHING -- "unsafe" or (the latest bull****) "aerobatic" about a +1G pull to 1000' AGL in an RV-8.
Anyone who thinks it is an unsafe maneuver has clearly never flown anything with the performance and handling capabilities of an RV-8. It is a trivial maneuver to perform, neither difficult nor dangerous.
Nor is it "aerobatic", nor is it "illegal". I have seen bizjets perform more radical climbouts.
I'm truly starting to question the supposedly stellar credentials of some regular posters. The ignorance displayed here regarding one of the most basic maneuvers in aviation is frightening.
If you actually READ all the posts, instead of playing pile on, I believe I conceded the "more safe" issue about fifty posts ago. A zoom climb to pattern altitude is not safer than a standard departure.
The argument is now whether the zoom climb to pattern altitude is LESS safe. To this contention, I call complete, utter, unadulterated bull****. There is nothing -- NOTHING -- "unsafe" or (the latest bull****) "aerobatic" about a +1G pull to 1000' AGL in an RV-8.
Anyone who thinks it is an unsafe maneuver has clearly never flown anything with the performance and handling capabilities of an RV-8. It is a trivial maneuver to perform, neither difficult nor dangerous.
Nor is it "aerobatic", nor is it "illegal". I have seen bizjets perform more radical climbouts.
I'm truly starting to question the supposedly stellar credentials of some regular posters. The ignorance displayed here regarding one of the most basic maneuvers in aviation is frightening.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Wasting energy during your departure is indeed less safe Jay. You're givin up precious altitude for fun. That's less safe. Someone might be flying a crosswind that doesn't expect you to go from 10 ft to blowing through their altitude in 10 seconds. That's also less safe.
I could careless if you want to fly in a less safe manner. Sometimes I cruise across Kansas in the Flybaby at 300 agl. It's less safe. I admit that. It's also fun, worth the trade to me. It's also at no risk to anyone but me. I would argue that your departure may put others at risk. But I wouldn't tell you not to do it.
I could careless if you want to fly in a less safe manner. Sometimes I cruise across Kansas in the Flybaby at 300 agl. It's less safe. I admit that. It's also fun, worth the trade to me. It's also at no risk to anyone but me. I would argue that your departure may put others at risk. But I wouldn't tell you not to do it.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's now at 60 hours in the RV, in 42 days. Five of those hours were sweating it out with a professional transition trainer.
This is on top of 19+ years of flying, with 1700+ hours and owning four aircraft. Oh, and being co-pilot with my wife for another 900 hours.
Tell you what -- you go fly your plane every day for 40+ days, practicing every maneuver in the book, and report back. Let us know if your proficiency doesn't improve, and if you're able to thread the needle with your plane in every situation.
I suspect your skills will be honed quite nicely. It's been a good experience for Mary and me.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
How is zooming to pattern altitude, versus grinding up to pattern altitude at Vy, "wasting" energy?
In theory, the energy needed is exactly the same.
Bill Watson
En-Route
Uh, no. Just enjoy the zoom and try not to dig the hole any deeper.
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Negative, time spent at a speed other than L/D max is wasting energy, either to parasite drag at speeds faster than, or induced at slower speeds. For light planes Vy will be quite close. That difference in drag is NOT small.
Have your wife hop in the back with a stop watch and time you from brake release to TPA using your zoom climb and again at Vy.
So yes, it is "less" safe. I won't go so far as to say "unsafe" however, if you keep your situational awareness high.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Seriously, from standing start to pattern altitude, is not the "energy" used exactly the same in either departure method?
You're at full throttle in either departure method, which means it's simply a matter of which method gets you to altitude faster. The one that gets you to 1000' in the shortest number of seconds uses the least energy.
I don't know which method is quicker to altitude, but the amount of fuel burned per second (aka: "energy") should be the same.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Sounds like fun.
I agree.
I'm confident that if tested accurately you will see how much of an affect having nearly 4 times the parasite drag makes when you are blasting down the runway at 140
denverpilot
Tied Down
Sigh. I was going to say we'd beat on Jay enough, but it hasn't clicked yet that Vy is best vertical distance divided by time, and you can't beat that hard physical fact.
What you need for a return to the runway is altitude, and anywhere else on the graph gives you less of it over the time from when your wheels leave the ground to when you lose thrust. Period. Even Vx. Sigh.
Jay it may be only a slight difference, it may be a big difference. I haven't seen the curve for any RV aircraft, but the curve is usually a parabola shape and even a small error results in a difference that gets worse the further off of Vy you go.
What you need for a return to the runway is altitude, and anywhere else on the graph gives you less of it over the time from when your wheels leave the ground to when you lose thrust. Period. Even Vx. Sigh.
Jay it may be only a slight difference, it may be a big difference. I haven't seen the curve for any RV aircraft, but the curve is usually a parabola shape and even a small error results in a difference that gets worse the further off of Vy you go.
That pretty well sums it up. Jay does seem to eventually have the capacity to admit learning on his part, even if his natural inclination is to be Yosemite Sam-like in his often naive opinions...shootin' from the hip and guns-a-blazin'. This was evidenced by his comments on aerobatics on this forum.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
I understand that Vy is optimal. In a low performance aircraft, the difference between a Vy departure and any attempt at a zoom climb is substantial. But, of course, neither can you actually perform a zoom climb to altitude in (for example) a Skyhawk without using a very substantial amount of runway.
In something like an RV-8, however, the difference narrows substantially, simply because we are able to accelerate so quickly. The time it takes to accelerate to 140 KIAS is quite small, which means we are able to zoom climb quite quickly as well.
I don't have the numbers -- and won't until Mary and I go out with a stopwatch -- but I will bet the difference in time between a Vy climb and a zoom climb is inconsequential.
If nothing else, it will be fun to see.
poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
I understand that Vy is optimal. In a low performance aircraft, the difference between a Vy departure and any attempt at a zoom climb is substantial. But, of course, neither can you actually perform a zoom climb to altitude in (for example) a Skyhawk without using a very substantial amount of runway.
In something like an RV-8, however, the difference narrows substantially, simply because we are able to accelerate so quickly. The time it takes to accelerate to 140 KIAS is quite small, which means we are able to zoom climb quite quickly as well.
I don't have the numbers -- and won't until Mary and I go out with a stopwatch -- but I will bet the difference in time between a Vy climb and a zoom climb is inconsequential.
If nothing else, it will be fun to see.
At what point on the runway should the F-22 just pull up into a vertical climb?
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
If his thrust-to-weight ratio is such that he can climb straight up, I suppose he should pull into a vertical climb while parked on the ramp.
Skylane81E
Final Approach
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
And even more fun--for bystanders--if some guy is on final to the other end of the pavement.
I understand that Vy is optimal. In a low performance aircraft, the difference between a Vy departure and any attempt at a zoom climb is substantial. But, of course, neither can you actually perform a zoom climb to altitude in (for example) a Skyhawk without using a very substantial amount of runway.
In something like an RV-8, however, the difference narrows substantially, simply because we are able to accelerate so quickly. The time it takes to accelerate to 140 KIAS is quite small, which means we are able to zoom climb quite quickly as well.
I don't have the numbers -- and won't until Mary and I go out with a stopwatch -- but I will bet the difference in time between a Vy climb and a zoom climb is inconsequential.
If nothing else, it will be fun to see.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ooooo, scary.
I'll bet you're good to have around the campfire, flashlight shining up on your face from beneath your chin, scaring the kids...
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,278
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
"A steep climbout after takeoff and a left turn at a very low altitude has been viewed as aerobatic because it was abnormal and not necessary for normal flight. And, a steep dive and pullout has been determined to constitute aerobatic flight because it involved an abrupt change in attitude that was not necessary for normal flight. Similarly, an accelerated pass down a runway may be viewed as aerobatic flight. "
Not saying I agree with the FAA's definition on aerobatics, but I'd say holding the aircraft at 10 ft and accelerating to 140 kias, then pulling up into a 5,000 fpm "zoom climb" would fall under their definition.
Not saying I agree with the FAA's definition on aerobatics, but I'd say holding the aircraft at 10 ft and accelerating to 140 kias, then pulling up into a 5,000 fpm "zoom climb" would fall under their definition.
The preferred departure procedure for the airlines out of Jackson Hole for noise abatement is to stick the nose REAL high and bank to the left about 30 degrees.. In fact the pilots usually brief the passengers not to freak out during the departure... United flys a mundane departure,,, Continental is a bit more agressive... There is a top notch Delta crew that can fly a 57 just short of a Sean Tucker routine and make it look normal.... Those guys are GOOD !!
And then there is Cap't Tim in the American 757.... That guy is the Alpha male of the pilots ....
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
I would agree with that. That's not what we're discussing here.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
The preferred departure procedure for the airlines out of Jackson Hole for noise abatement is to stick the nose REAL high and bank to the left about 30 degrees.. In fact the pilots usually brief the passengers not to freak out during the departure... United flys a mundane departure,,, Continental is a bit more agressive... There is a top notch Delta crew that can fly a 57 just short of a Sean Tucker routine and make it look normal.... Those guys are GOOD !!
And then there is Cap't Tim in the American 757.... That guy is the Alpha male of the pilots ....
FWIW, the departure for jets are the same whether noise abatement or normal.
When I say the same I am referring to rotation, takeoff and pitch which is normally V2+10 to 20. Pitch will be determined by GW but usually somewhere between 15 to 20 degrees. In a "normal" departure the jet will lower the pitch at 1000' AGL and accelerate, retract flaps and go to 250 kts climb speed.
In a noise abatement departure the thrust is reduced to climb at 1000' agl but the pitch is maintained (15 to 20 degrees) as well as flap configuration and speed (V2+10 to 20) until 3000', then pitch lowered and acceleration/clean up. If there are terrain considerations in either departure procedures then it's used (left or right turns).
The 757 will appear to be more aggressive in it's departure more to do with engine thrust than technique.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
But the amount of recoverable energy is less because you wasted it an NOT max efficiency speed- you accelerated well above Vy.
What's available to you when the mill quits is actually less than if you had done a Vy climb. Worse, you're farther from the return threshold.
Jay, you've lost it. You're like the cow in the Larson cartoon, "maybe it's not me, it's the rest of the herd". If got some pretty high performance time, Jay. Turbines. Any pretense that an RV can compete with a T37 is.... hysterical.
"Oh those dangerous low powered Wichita spam cans..." Yeah I've heard that one before.... I'm thinking, "Oh that super low performance RV(compared to a turbine)....." You know not much about which you speak.
51 hours in a RV doesn't cut much.....ROTFLMAO but really, it's sad.
Last edited:
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,923
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I am not arrogant enough to make such a statement, and I have had a number of 42 day periods where I've flown far more than 60 hours, plus I have more time than you and most of the planes I fly have a good amount in common.
moonshine
Line Up and Wait
I understand that Vy is optimal. In a low performance aircraft, the difference between a Vy departure and any attempt at a zoom climb is substantial. But, of course, neither can you actually perform a zoom climb to altitude in (for example) a Skyhawk without using a very substantial amount of runway.
In something like an RV-8, however, the difference narrows substantially, simply because we are able to accelerate so quickly. The time it takes to accelerate to 140 KIAS is quite small, which means we are able to zoom climb quite quickly as well.
I don't have the numbers -- and won't until Mary and I go out with a stopwatch -- but I will bet the difference in time between a Vy climb and a zoom climb is inconsequential.
If nothing else, it will be fun to see.
Highlights by me.
You used to drive a boring Piper, now you have a cool RV. Awesome, good for you man. However, as someone who doesn't know you personally, the impression I get is of a very arrogant, opinionated, **** poor attitude character. The kind where you show that to your kids and say "See that? Don't be like that or I'll strike you off my will and you won't be welcome for Thanksgivings".
PS See attached and play that on your high performance homebuilt
Attachments
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,565
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
There is this new thing called Physics. Ask someone about it if you get a chance.
Bill
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,113
- Location
- Southeast Tennessee
- Display Name
Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
I guess I'm just a p***y, as I like to fly standard Vy and GTF away from the runway environment.
...
PS See attached and play that on your high performance homebuilt
OUTSTANDING TAILWIND...!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Jaysus, Jay. you're totally lost it.
While your out proving to yourself how "safer" the zoom climb is, take note also of how much farther the end of the runways when you pull that throttle to idle after 12 seconds.
sigh....
While your out proving to yourself how "safer" the zoom climb is, take note also of how much farther the end of the runways when you pull that throttle to idle after 12 seconds.
sigh....
Last edited:
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,923
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Me too. We're both in the club. That means you get a free beer on me next time our paths cross, which is hopefully soon!
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
Safety question:
If I want to cross a runway to enter the downwind leg on the far side of the airport, Where and at what altitude should I cross the runway if there is an RV about to take off?
Seems like I may be doing something wrong assuming predictable departures in an airport environment.
If I want to cross a runway to enter the downwind leg on the far side of the airport, Where and at what altitude should I cross the runway if there is an RV about to take off?
Seems like I may be doing something wrong assuming predictable departures in an airport environment.
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,565
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
RV's are like electrons - small and fast. Also, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to RV's. You can only know how fast they are or where they are. Not both.
I suggest calling ATITPPA...
denverpilot
Tied Down
Can we just add "RV invincibility" to the list of dangerous pilot attitudes?
Jay, you're headed down a path that keeps the Experimental accident rate significantly higher than the Certified rate. Further that cause if you like.
You're ignoring folk who've sat through days and days of math and training on the topic, and either got paid to do so, or were serving in the military and the military wanted to know for damn sure they knew how to get maximum performance out of the aircraft when the world turned to crap.
It's a light aircraft. It has far less inertia stored when the mill quits than some of the stuff people fly who've replied and said they're not buying the story.
PLEASE listen to them. They're offering up advice that will keep you from becoming another statistic. Sure you might measure only one more second to climb with a zoom climb. Sure you may feel it's safer.
But you've seen the accident reports. Sometimes all you needed was that additional 100' or one second to make a choice that might save your butt at low level. **** happens fast with no margin for error.
Don't be "that guy we all knew was going to bite it someday". How many RV drivers "convinced themselves" and had no friends to say "STOP! THINK!"? Or any aircraft type for that matter.
Think hard about this: You fit the profile. The one we've all seen over and over. Successful businessman. Buys hot airplane. Flies it beyond capabilities. Crashes and dies.
Fly CONSERVATIVELY. No one gets extra points for just barely surviving vs surviving with ease. And only airshow pilots get paid to look cool at 25' AGL. How many FAST cards are issued and how many performers died last year? Did they start learning their aircraft at altitude and work their way down with more skilled people evaluating their performance at every step-down... Or did they just decide one day to start doing low-level high-speed pop-up departures and got lucky enough to later get instruction from people who are at the very top of the game?
Save the aerobatics for altitudes where they're fun AND safe. And buy a chute. If you want a low-level waiver, you can earn one. It's out there. Chase that goal if you've just figured out you like low-level Mach 12 with your hair on fire.
Is it better to say "I did everything possible to make this a safe flight," or better to say, "I took unnecessary risks for an adrenaline rush."
But hey, I've only been on three search missions that ended in Experimentals splattered across the Eastern Plains of Colorado in 20 years or so. "Looks like they didn't make it all the way around the loop." And CAVU every damn time.
What would I know about it?
I'm done. Good luck. Make sure you have life insurance that allows for low level aerobatics without a waiver. (AFAiK it doesn't exist. Mary will be seriously poor after the insurance company surrogates against the Estate and plays the tourist's cell phone video in Court.)
This isn't Top Gun, and Goose didn't just die. You don't have anything to prove to anyone at low-level.
Jay, you're headed down a path that keeps the Experimental accident rate significantly higher than the Certified rate. Further that cause if you like.
You're ignoring folk who've sat through days and days of math and training on the topic, and either got paid to do so, or were serving in the military and the military wanted to know for damn sure they knew how to get maximum performance out of the aircraft when the world turned to crap.
It's a light aircraft. It has far less inertia stored when the mill quits than some of the stuff people fly who've replied and said they're not buying the story.
PLEASE listen to them. They're offering up advice that will keep you from becoming another statistic. Sure you might measure only one more second to climb with a zoom climb. Sure you may feel it's safer.
But you've seen the accident reports. Sometimes all you needed was that additional 100' or one second to make a choice that might save your butt at low level. **** happens fast with no margin for error.
Don't be "that guy we all knew was going to bite it someday". How many RV drivers "convinced themselves" and had no friends to say "STOP! THINK!"? Or any aircraft type for that matter.
Think hard about this: You fit the profile. The one we've all seen over and over. Successful businessman. Buys hot airplane. Flies it beyond capabilities. Crashes and dies.
Fly CONSERVATIVELY. No one gets extra points for just barely surviving vs surviving with ease. And only airshow pilots get paid to look cool at 25' AGL. How many FAST cards are issued and how many performers died last year? Did they start learning their aircraft at altitude and work their way down with more skilled people evaluating their performance at every step-down... Or did they just decide one day to start doing low-level high-speed pop-up departures and got lucky enough to later get instruction from people who are at the very top of the game?
Save the aerobatics for altitudes where they're fun AND safe. And buy a chute. If you want a low-level waiver, you can earn one. It's out there. Chase that goal if you've just figured out you like low-level Mach 12 with your hair on fire.
Is it better to say "I did everything possible to make this a safe flight," or better to say, "I took unnecessary risks for an adrenaline rush."
But hey, I've only been on three search missions that ended in Experimentals splattered across the Eastern Plains of Colorado in 20 years or so. "Looks like they didn't make it all the way around the loop." And CAVU every damn time.
What would I know about it?
I'm done. Good luck. Make sure you have life insurance that allows for low level aerobatics without a waiver. (AFAiK it doesn't exist. Mary will be seriously poor after the insurance company surrogates against the Estate and plays the tourist's cell phone video in Court.)
This isn't Top Gun, and Goose didn't just die. You don't have anything to prove to anyone at low-level.
poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
Me too. We're both in the club. That means you get a free beer on me next time our paths cross, which is hopefully soon!
I'll fly Vy for free beer.