Landing Without Engine Power

Tom-D said:
Turbofan engines will not turn the accessory section when the fan wind mills.
Click to expand...
The ones in the F-111 did, as long as we maintained something like 250 KIAS, which was a bit below best glide speed, depending on wing sweep.
 
Always heard that the glide ratio of the F4 Phantom was similar to that of a brick.
 
tmyers said:
Always heard that the glide ratio of the F4 Phantom was similar to that of a brick.
Click to expand...

It's certainly true for the space shuttle orbiters.

15 deg glideslope was SOP for those.

Very expensive bricks. And EVERY landing was a "glide" (well, a controlled fall with a flare at the end).
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I think we are talking two different incidents here. There was a 747 that lost all engines over the Pacific due to flying through a volcanic ash cloud. They eventually got at least one engine, maybe all engines, (Don't recall) back online and landed with power.
Click to expand...
That was BA9 -- discussed above, over Indonesia. They had three out of four engines running on landing.

There was an A-330 that had a dual flameout over the Atlantic in August of 2001. They glided for over 65 miles, starting from about 34,000 feet to a safe landing on the runway at Lajes.
Click to expand...
That was the Canadian one (Air Transat 236) in which a fuel leak developed in the right engine and the crew transferred all their fuel from the good left side to the leaking right side and ran themselves out of gas. The "Gimli Glider" was a 767 operating as Air Canada 143 in which the ground crew short-fueled the jet due to confusion over English vs Metric units, and the fuel was exhausted about halfway to the destination. Both were "dead stick" landings with zero fuel aboard.
 
tmyers said:
Always heard that the glide ratio of the F4 Phantom was similar to that of a brick.
Click to expand...
Actually, it was pretty good -- much better than light GA (like 18:1 clean, IIRC), but you were going something north of 250 KIAS, so the rate of descent was eye-watering.
 
I was in the AF near the end of their use. We had two on ready alert off the end of the runway at Eielson to play with the Russians when they made their weekly overflights.
 
tmyers said:
How do you get that glider in the air?

Anyway glad to hear my Arrow doesn't glide like a rock, I didn't remember that information in the POH.
Click to expand...

They are talking mostly about static gear and static pitch props.

On one hand your R is heavier than the Cherokee's but then it has complex prop to windmill and landing gear to keep up till you make the runway.

I am thinking my Comanche has a 20x 1 glide ratio.
 
Last edited:
murphey said:
I would guess that things are kinda slow around your airport this time of the year (or maybe not, I dunno. They sure are around here!) Might be a great time to get a CFI and learn more about power-off landings.
Click to expand...

It never seems slow at LZU. I was just out there for lunch, and there were only a handful still tied down, and three departed while I was sitting there, including an absolutely beautiful Warrior III. I don't know who's bird that is, but it's gorgeous!

But it is something I plan on bringing up and doing with my CFI. I'm not quite there yet, but plan to be soon enough. I do however enjoy the input before the practice though.

An ounce of prevention, right? The knowledge of others (everyone posting) greatly contributes to that, so thank you all.
 
gkainz said:
The Dakota (PA28-236) AIM glide chart shows about 7:1
Click to expand...

power loaded wing. That is basically a Cherokee with 235hp so the GW is 2900 lbs where as the identical plane in a Cherokee 140 has a 2150 GW. So that extra 750 lbs tends to bring you down a good deal faster.

Best glide on the Cherokee is 83-84mph. I suspect it is 105-110 on the Dakota.
 
Ron Levy said:
The lesson to be taken from that one is not so much one of engine-out landing proficiency but rather making sure that your fuel tanks never fill with air.
Click to expand...

Something that I just cannot understand...Pilots running out of fuel.

Before I was even able to ride a bicycle, it was burned into my brain to always know how much fuel you have. My grandfather was and is OCD about this. I could never grasp how others would even chance running out of fuel.
 
Geico266 said:
Even at idle the engine is making power. It is close, but not the same as no engine. If you lose the engine altogether keep an eye on the airspeed. You will definitely need to put the nose down more to keep AS up. The prop is real draggy when not turning. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know if I'd use the term "making power". "Reducing drag" maybe. To me "making power" means propelling the aircraft. I don't *think* an engine idling at 500rpm is propeling an aircraft doing 80kts. All I *think* it's doing is helping to spin the prop so the air doesn't have to do it alone...hence reducing drag.

With that said. I have CS prop and, when I "pull" the prop with a dead engine, the glide ratio is almost identical to that of when the engine is idling and the prop set to high RPM...as is the case when flying the pattern.
 
TheTraveler said:
Something that I just cannot understand...Pilots running out of fuel.

Before I was even able to ride a bicycle, it was burned into my brain to always know how much fuel you have. My grandfather was and is OCD about this. I could never grasp how others would even chance running out of fuel.
Click to expand...

I read that high wing aircraft have more fuel out landings. It is easier to check your fuel visually with a low wing. I would have to install those clear glass fuel gauges if I had a high wing and i would be too lazy to climb up every single time to visually check the fuel level.
 
TheTraveler said:
I'm glad that Cherokee thing got sorted out. If someone actually had the numbers it would be interesting to see.

I wasn't assuming that there was a difference in high wing vs low wing, but after the Cherokee comments I was just beginning to wonder.

My other suspicions seem to be confirmed...altitude is your friend, keeping up airspeed, most efficient glide speed, etc.

What stands out now is the comment about just one more pilot being able to do it, and one of the reasons I wonder about this so much...there was just another thread started a little while ago about a pilot who ran out of fuel, resulting in a fatal crash, which seems like something that happens a little more than it should.

I just don't understand why or how they cannot land the airplane if it's out of fuel, one of the reasons I brought this up.
Click to expand...

The common pilot error of running out of fuel is about 1/3 of all GA accidents, last I checked in the Nall Report. If a pilot is negligent enough to do that, then I suggest he may be negligent and deficient in other simple skills of piloting expertise, such as gliding in an airplane to a relatively flat landing in a good spot, rather than at a more accute angle or in a bad spot.

These skills are reviewed in ground school and practiced many times in flight training and are always then tested to FAA PTSs. Some airplanes land much better with power, with those models having an engine out glide, a "swooping down" towards the ground (pitching down) to get into ground effect with sufficiently more airspeed will provide a smoother, more survivable landing at a suitable spot, often with no damage or injury. Typical training aircraft are not like that.

Some routes demand flight over hostile terrain, where there are simply no good off-airport landing sites. Good engine out landing skills are even more important in that environment to prevent or reduce injury, even though the aircraft will be significantly damaged.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
power loaded wing. That is basically a Cherokee with 235hp so the GW is 2900 lbs where as the identical plane in a Cherokee 140 has a 2150 GW. So that extra 750 lbs tends to bring you down a good deal faster.

Best glide on the Cherokee is 83-84mph. I suspect it is 105-110 on the Dakota.
Click to expand...

Nope, 85mphKIAS (thanks for pointing that out) for best glide in our Dakota
 
Last edited:
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I read that high wing aircraft have more fuel out landings. It is easier to check your fuel visually with a low wing. I would have to install those clear glass fuel gauges if I had a high wing and i would be too lazy to climb up every single time to visually check the fuel level.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I mean no offense here, but if I had a lazy day where I didn't climb up and look at the fuel, it may not be a good idea to fly that day.

Going a step further...do you not fill the tanks? Are you not aware of how much fuel you have prior to takeoff? Do you not know the capacity, the GPH, the range of your aircraft, and think about these things quite often while flying?

If you fly for an hour and the gauge doesn't move, that wouldn't alarm you? Or vice versa...you fly for an hour and the gauge drops to empty?

Say your plane burns 8GPH at X speed. With a stiff headwind, lower than normal airspeed, and really working it to move along, wouldn't you be curious if the gauge wasn't dropping faster?

These are things that are always in the back of my mind, and I don't even have my ticket yet. I don't understand why they wouldn't be in the back of others minds as well with even more experience.

Again, I mean no offense to anyone, these are really just my thoughts from what I've learned from others so far. I don't think its over analyzing, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
 
gkainz said:
Nope, 85mph for best glide in our Dakota
Click to expand...

I'm confused, I think we both made a minor mistake. The best glide angle is 79 mph on the 140 and 85 knots or almost 100 mph on the Cherokee 235. mph.:) According to Piper.org
 
Last edited:
Dave Krall CFII said:
The common pilot error of running out of fuel is about 1/3 of all GA accidents, last I checked in the Nall Report. If a pilot is negligent enough to do that, then I suggest he may be negligent and deficient in other simple skills of piloting expertise, such as gliding in an airplane to a relatively flat landing in a good spot, rather than at a more accute angle or in a bad spot.
Click to expand...

That's a good point, in my opinion a fair assumption, and is completely related to the post I just made about fuel.

Dave Krall CFII said:
These skills are reviewed in ground school and practiced many times in flight training and are always then tested to FAA PTSs. Some airplanes land much better with power, with those models having an engine out glide, a "swooping down" towards the ground (pitching down) to get into ground effect with sufficiently more airspeed will provide a smoother, more survivable landing at a suitable spot, often with no damage or injury. Typical training aircraft are not like that.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate? Meaning that...typical training aircraft are not as suitable for this?

Dave Krall CFII said:
Some routes demand flight over hostile terrain, where there are simply no good off-airport landing sites. Good engine out landing skills are even more important in that environment to prevent or reduce injury, even though the aircraft will be significantly damaged.
Click to expand...

As long as occupants are not significantly damaged, I don't care about the plane.
 
timwinters said:
Well, I don't know if I'd use the term "making power". "Reducing drag" maybe. To me "making power" means propelling the aircraft. I don't *think* an engine idling at 500rpm is propeling an aircraft doing 80kts. All I *think* it's doing is helping to spin the prop so the air doesn't have to do it alone...hence reducing drag.

With that said. I have CS prop and, when I "pull" the prop with a dead engine, the glide ratio is almost identical to that of when the engine is idling and the prop set to high RPM...as is the case when flying the pattern.
Click to expand...

The definition of "making power" is to be adding energy. It is simple to measure.... flip the mags off and tell me what you feel. ;)

:rofl:
 
tmyers said:
ROFLMAO, Imagining the exhaust port from the two horses polluting your flying air.

The prop on the Arrow is like a speed break. Lots of drag.
Click to expand...


Flat plate drag applies to all aircraft with controllable speed props, not just Arrows.

Bob Gardner
 
Geico266 said:
Even at idle the engine is making power. It is close, but not the same as no engine. If you lose the engine altogether keep an eye on the airspeed. You will definitely need to put the nose down more to keep AS up. The prop is real draggy when not turning. ;)
Click to expand...

A prop that is not turning has very little drag. A windmilling prop has quite a bit of drag, proportional to the area of it's swept disc.
 
I've made two engine out landings, first was in a Citabria and I lost power at about 4200 msl when doing acro. I was about 6 miles from a runway and was able to glide easily to a landing. It was aided by a modest tailwind which is something to consider when gliding. The second was in a Vargas 2150 about 2500 msl more than 15 miles from an airport. I chose a small road and set up for a long final so I could see anything ahead of me very well. The most dangerous part IMO is the altitude from about 300 down to 100 msl, as I was very concerned about utility wires. Sure enough, I passed over a set of electric wires when I was about 300 off. From there I decided to dive through the bad zone and I slipped to keep the speed down. It was uneventful except for steering around mail boxes. I didn't own the plane so the owner decided to demate the wings and haul it out.
 
Geico266 said:
Unless those props have full feathering capability. ;)
Click to expand...

I am assuming from TheTraveler's posts that he is referring to single-engine planes. If there is a non-turboprop single with a feathering prop I am unaware of it.

Bob
 
slacktide said:
A prop that is not turning has very little drag. A windmilling prop has quite a bit of drag, proportional to the area of it's swept disc.
Click to expand...

You have defined flat plate drag.

Bob Gardner
 
Last edited:
bobmrg said:
I am assuming from TheTraveler's posts that he is referring to single-engine planes. If there is a non-turboprop single with a feathering prop I am unaware of it.

Bob
Click to expand...

I wasn't planning for the prop conversation, but yes, I had single engine models in mind when I posted. That's not to say if someone had an engine out landing in a twin that I wouldn't want to hear about it, and get some feedback on the experience.

Is Fearless Tower around today? I wonder if he's ever glided a DC-3. I couldn't imagine gliding a U-Haul truck.
 
TheTraveler said:
Fair enough. I mean no offense here, but if I had a lazy day where I didn't climb up and look at the fuel, it may not be a good idea to fly that day.
faster?

These are things that are always in the back of my mind, and I don't even have my ticket yet. I don't understand why they wouldn't be in the back of others minds as well with even more experience.
Click to expand...

First, things look different a few years and hundreds of hours out of flight school.

Second, if every pilot flew the way your preach there might be less accidents.

Third, we always think they other guy is an idiot for his failings but expect to get away with our own.

Micheal Jackson "if you want to change the world, look at yourself and change."

I have only owned low wing aircraft because

1. I think they look better than high wing.
2. They are easier to land in high cross wind situations.
3. It doesn't hurt that they are easy to visually check the gas every preflight.

High wing fuel check is PITA. I would hate to have to take a stool with me everywhere just so I could check my gas. If I didn't get the glass visual check stc I would probably sooner or later fall victim to not checking before every flight in a high wing....thus it is a smart decision for me not to own one.
 
Last edited:
Tony_Scarpelli said:
First, things look different a few years and hundreds of hours out of flight school.
Click to expand...

I would not and could not disagree with that, and I can't even see that period of time from where I am now.

Tony_Scarpelli said:
Second, if every pilot flew the way your preach their would be less accidents.
Click to expand...

I have nothing to preach, I'm probably one of the least experienced on this board. But as a student and someone who grew up around GA, I'm just stating what I personally feel comfortable with, what I think and have been taught are best practices for safety.

Tony_Scarpelli said:
High wing fuel check is PITA.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But I think the possible alternatives are worse.
 
Its been a while and surely a corner case, but I believe the Seebee by Republic offered a featherable and reversible prop. Allowing one to back out of a dockage, if one were so brave.
 
TheTraveler said:
Something that I just cannot understand...Pilots running out of fuel.

Before I was even able to ride a bicycle, it was burned into my brain to always know how much fuel you have. My grandfather was and is OCD about this. I could never grasp how others would even chance running out of fuel.
Click to expand...

Ask any pilot who has run out of fuel. They will tell you they didn't plan on it. Headwinds, getthereitis, relying on fuel gages, trying to save $.50 a gallon, having a mag go bad in flight, forgetting to lean the engine, fuel leak, broken fuel line, and simply misjudging distance.

Rather than try any figure out why pilots run out of fuel, recognize it happens. I think the stats are 50% of off field landings are caused by fuel exhaustion. Eliminate the possibility of running out of fuel (as best you can) and you have eliminated 50% of the risk. :yes:
 
Last edited:
A few more differences between the Arrow & Archer/Warrior. The Arrow has a constant speed prop & heavier landing gear (retracts). It simply won't float along like an Archer, because the constant speed prop is offering more drag. BTW--- you can always pull out the prop knob to extend the glide.

I landed the Arrow, like I did the Vans RV (also a C/S prop). Either a steeper descent to make sure I had enough elevator & airspeed in the flare........or add a bit of power in the flare. If you don't, you'll fall through the flare.

Note: C/S props do vary on "braking" ability. My two-blade Hartzell on the RV, is quite remarkable..........with the way it allows you to enter the pattern, with precision.

L.Adamson
 
Geico266 said:
Ask any pilot who has run; ut of fuel and they will tell you they didn't plan on it. Headwinds, getthereitis, relying on fuel gages, trying to save .50 a gallon, having a mag go bad in flight, forgetting to lean the engine, fuel leak, broken fuel line, and simply misjudging distance.
Click to expand...

I'm absolutely sure of this. But of course these aren't all of the same situations. What happened to the ounce of prevention?

Please correct me if I'm wrong with any of these classifications, but...

Running out of fuel because of headwinds, get-there-itis, relying on fuel gauges, trying to save .50 a gallon, forgetting to lean the engine, and misjudging distance are human errors that could have been prevented with attention, planning, etc.

While a bad mag in-flight, fuel leak, and broken fuel lines are mechanical errors that even with a proper pre-flight, can still happen even with prevention.

My reference to running out of fuel was strictly focused on the human error part.
 
Well stated. My Arrow III isn't as bad about falling through the flair as the older Arrow or Arrow II was (hershey bar wing), but I have noticed just a touch of power while extending the landing does make it more of a greaser. Otherwise it plops down solidly. Yes "plop" is an acceptable aviation term.

When I pull back power coming over the fence and the prop rpm drops it almost feels like stepping on the brakes. That is what it sounds like you are describing with the RV.
 
TheTraveler said:
This came up in a conversation recently, and it's something that I have been extremely curious of...landing without engine power. Engine failure, out of fuel, or whatever the reason, as far as I've been told, it should technically be possible to glide, and land, any airplane without power.

What I would like to know is not in theory, but in practice and reality, how difficult is this to do?

I'm sure the debate could go on and on about where to actually land the aircraft if there isn't an airport or landing strip nearby. There's also the conversation about doing this at night, hoping that dark spot isn't a lake. I don't want to avoid those debatable variants, but the main question, making a few assumptions...

1. Controls are still intact, but engine has failed
2. It's daytime
3. You are in a relatively flat area, with few obstructions
4. You are in very reasonable weather

-How practical, and how difficult is it to actually land the plane without engine power?

-Does this differ with high-wing vs. low-wing?

-If you have done this, has it been a scary situation, trying to keep control without power? Or a calm, quiet situation, just kind of minding your own business, and gliding back down to land?

I am really interested in hearing what everyone says about this.
Click to expand...

There are many of us pilots that were taught to close the throttle at the down wind to base turn and leave it closed for landing.
 
TheTraveler said:
My reference to running out of fuel was strictly focused on the human error part.
Click to expand...

That is the part only you can control. :yes:

And yet, no matter how much we try and point this out to every pilot, fuel exhaustion is still the leading cause of off field landings. :dunno:
 
Tom-D said:
There are many of us pilots that were taught to close the throttle at the down wind to base turn and leave it closed for landing.
Click to expand...

Dragging a plane across the numbers never made sense to me either. You should be able to reach the runway from base in small plane VFR.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top