The impossible turn...

I like the 1000 AGL as the point a pilot may wish to consider a turn of more than 90 degrees. Maybe you make it back, maybe you don't, but 1000 AGL should let you make a turn to a better landing spot while still giving you room to maintain control of the airplane.
 
I like the 1000 AGL as the point a pilot may wish to consider a turn of more than 90 degrees. Maybe you make it back, maybe you don't, but 1000 AGL should let you make a turn to a better landing spot while still giving you room to maintain control of the airplane.

Yep -- it's a good guide -- conditions may certainly alter it.

The only reason I mentioned 700/800' AGL earlier is that within the pattern, you should have started your crosswind turn w/n 300' of pattern altitude.
 
I got into the habit of climbing the full 1000 feet before turning crosswind, partially because my training field recommended it for noise abatement. There are some places where an earlier turn is asked for for noise abatement though, so I turn as directed.

Noise abatement means diddly-squat when there's an emergency though.
 
For me there is a distinction between how much altitude I need to complete a 180 power off and how high I need to be before turning back to land at the airport. The former is fairly constant, the latter is quite variable, depending on a lot of factors that have been discussed above.

As a result of this thread I actually performed the power loss on climbout 180 today in my Fly Baby just to see how much altitude I'd lose.

As a result I'll use a similar pre-takeoff emergency brief I use and teach in gliders. "power failure below 200 feet lower the nose and land ahead, above 200 feet lower the nose and land ahead or behind." I'll probably make the critical altitude 400 ft for the Fly Baby

Where one actually ends up heading towared isn't a function of altitude. The critical altitude determines how many choices you have. Where you end up going will depend on that particular event.

As I often tell glider students, "what if the towplane engine was running on 3 cylinders till it quits and you see the rope go slack (or the towpilot gives you the emergency release signal)? Do you automatically do the 180 just because you are above 200? What if it took the towplane 2 miles to get you to that height?
 
Noise abatement means diddly-squat when there's an emergency though.[/quote]


What noise? There probably wont be much noise anyway unless you crash!
 
I got into the habit of climbing the full 1000 feet before turning crosswind, partially because my training field recommended it for noise abatement. There are some places where an earlier turn is asked for for noise abatement though, so I turn as directed.

Noise abatement means diddly-squat when there's an emergency though.

Right -- I'm just using the AIM recommendation (not a requirement, of course) in [FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL,HELVETICA,GENEVA]4-3-3: "...If remaining in the traffic pattern, commence turn to crosswind leg beyond the departure end of the runway within 300 feet of pattern altitude."[/FONT]
 
Jay... glad things are workign out for your friend..
I've about given up on R.A.S for a while.. so I'm checking out PoA.
Take care...
 
I got into the habit of climbing the full 1000 feet before turning crosswind, partially because my training field recommended it for noise abatement.

The 1000' rule of thumb doesn't work with all planes.

For example, in our Pathfinder we can easily be at 1000' AGL before turning crosswind if we're lightly loaded on a cool day. In the Ercoupe, in the same location, we'd be lucky to be at 300' AGL.

Of course, the dainty Ercoupe will turn on a dime compared to the much heavier wing-loaded Pathfinder, so the prospect of making it back to the runway in the event of a failed engine might actually be about the same, from the same spot, despite the difference in altitude...

That's something I'll have to play around with some more. We're still pretty new to the 'Coupe...
 
Jay... glad things are workign out for your friend..
I've about given up on R.A.S for a while.. so I'm checking out PoA.
Take care...

The interface can be awkward, but the people -- and conversation -- are first rate here.
 
Anyone here read The Possible `Impossible' Turn by David F. Rogers (United States Naval Academy)?

(It's new to me)

Yep, I read it a while back, I think Ron linked to it. It's a good read if you're into techie details. If not, suffice it to say that the first page tells you WHAT to if you don't care to get into the WHY: 45-degree bank at the edge of the stall (you'd better be good!), and direct to the runway (not back onto final).

Sounds like something to practice, at altitude. It also reminds me that I want to do some calculations using some of the equations I learned at the mountain course...
 
Some training experiences (and I really need to get up and work on this when I get my medical back) -

C-172 when I was a student pilot. I don't remember the wind, but we took off from rwy 17 at OLM. At 700 AGL the CFI pulled the power. I cranked it around, kept enough speed to keep the stall horn quiet, and stuck it back on the runway. Now, 17/35 is about 5500 feet long, so there's room to play.

PA-28R-200. Pulled power at 1000 AGL abeam the numbers and turned for the runway. Dropped the gear on short final and landed. Had I been at 1000 AGL on runway centerline when departing I'm not sure it would have made it back to the pavement. Glide characteristics of a brick. We also came in about 3000 AGL and pulled the power when approaching the runway. One 360 degree turn while decending, drop the gear on short final and we were on the ground. An Arrow comes down fast.
 
Some training experiences (and I really need to get up and work on this when I get my medical back) -

C-172 when I was a student pilot. I don't remember the wind, but we took off from rwy 17 at OLM. At 700 AGL the CFI pulled the power. I cranked it around, kept enough speed to keep the stall horn quiet, and stuck it back on the runway. Now, 17/35 is about 5500 feet long, so there's room to play.

PA-28R-200. Pulled power at 1000 AGL abeam the numbers and turned for the runway. Dropped the gear on short final and landed. Had I been at 1000 AGL on runway centerline when departing I'm not sure it would have made it back to the pavement. Glide characteristics of a brick. We also came in about 3000 AGL and pulled the power when approaching the runway. One 360 degree turn while decending, drop the gear on short final and we were on the ground. An Arrow comes down fast.

JOOC, did you 'feather' the prop as much as possible? I've done this in the RV and pulling the prop full back makes a BIG difference in its glide characteristics. Of course this will only work with enough windmilling to keep enough oil pressure to keep it coarse pitch, but every little bit helps sometimes.
 
dont be so sure jay, have you done any gliding in the ercoupe. its a lot lighter than your pathfinder but the wing is also a lot shorter. they glide somewhere between the space shuttle and a steinway.
 
Tony, just one question which had the better L/D the Shuttle or the Steinway?????
 
JOOC, did you 'feather' the prop as much as possible? I've done this in the RV and pulling the prop full back makes a BIG difference in its glide characteristics. Of course this will only work with enough windmilling to keep enough oil pressure to keep it coarse pitch, but every little bit helps sometimes.

I don't believe we did, but that was about 6 years ago when I was getting my complex endorsement. Obviously not an issue in the 172.
 
PA-28R-200. Pulled power at 1000 AGL abeam the numbers and turned for the runway. Dropped the gear on short final and landed. Had I been at 1000 AGL on runway centerline when departing I'm not sure it would have made it back to the pavement. Glide characteristics of a brick. We also came in about 3000 AGL and pulled the power when approaching the runway. One 360 degree turn while decending, drop the gear on short final and we were on the ground. An Arrow comes down fast.

If you want an Arrow to glide, ya gotta leave the gear up as long as possible (having big holes in the wings adds a LOT of drag!) and pull the prop control all the way back. I know in the 182, whose prop only "feathers" to a pitch angle of about 24 degrees IIRC, that makes a HUGE difference.

I wonder... Would pulling up to slow down the plane and stop the prop (I'm sure the speed required would be much closer to the stall than Vg) be advantageous, once you know for sure the engine isn't going to restart?
 
I wonder... Would pulling up to slow down the plane and stop the prop (I'm sure the speed required would be much closer to the stall than Vg) be advantageous, once you know for sure the engine isn't going to restart?
It takes about 55-60 knots in a Cessna 172P to stop the prop. You have to hold it there for awhile as well. It also takes damn near Vne to get it going again (about 10 knots short of it).
 
I wonder... Would pulling up to slow down the plane and stop the prop (I'm sure the speed required would be much closer to the stall than Vg) be advantageous, once you know for sure the engine isn't going to restart?
It depends on your altitude. And I have no idea what altitude is needed to make stopping the prop a good maneuver to extend glide range. Intuitively, I think it is prolly pretty high.

Slowing down to almost stall speed to stop the prop means you are flying below Vg - best glide - for a while - "losing" altitude that could have extended your glide range. After the prop is stopped, you would nose down and accelerate back to Vg. You need a lot of altitude so that the loss of altitude while below Vg can be recaptured by the slower descent rate with the prop stopped.

By the way, Vg with a prop stopped may be different from Vg with the prop windmilling. Anyone know?

-Skip
 
Land straight ahead. A parking lot will do.

SNN1220A_682_579731a.jpg


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1677167.ece
 

Attachments

  • SNN1220A_682_579731a.jpg
    SNN1220A_682_579731a.jpg
    102.1 KB · Views: 2
Actually Dan--
In a high performance airplane--you might be surprised how close you are to the airport when you reach 1000 ft.
My Pitts would reach 1000 feet before the end of a 3000 foot runway with no wind. My Citabria would reach 1000 feet at the end of a 5000 foot runway with no wind. My Lance takes a week to reach 1000 feet if its fully loaded on a hot day.

The one absolute we know about flying is that there are no absolutes except one: Gravity is not just a good idea, it's the law.
 
My Pitts would reach 1000 feet before the end of a 3000 foot runway with no wind. My Citabria would reach 1000 feet at the end of a 5000 foot runway with no wind. My Lance takes a week to reach 1000 feet if its fully loaded on a hot day.

The one absolute we know about flying is that there are no absolutes except one: Gravity is not just a good idea, it's the law.

Yeah. If you stand next to the runway on a cool day you see that 'bout every plane is climbing like a bat out o' hell. On hot days you don't get to see much of the climb. :rolleyes:
 
Personally--I feel it is something you have to try in the proper environment to truly appreciate and understand the complexity of the problem. That said--there are too many idiot CFIs that would kill people trying to teach them.

I've seen a lot of pilots that are out of tricks with no power and full flaps. Few will slip, and even fewer will aggressively slip nose up to lose airspeed and then transition into a slip back down while aggressively doing s-turns or whatever else is needed. I personally don't do a 360 basically ever because I don't like putting my back at a target poweroff.

As far as bank angle. The steeper you go--the better off you'll be.

Can you elaborate on your technique of slipping nose up?
 
Can you elaborate on your technique of slipping nose up?

Sure--which airplane? Lets go with a C172 for this discussion. The idea is simple: If you get the nose up and slip you will lose airspeed rapidly. The goal is to exit the nose up slip *before* you stall--or else you crap your pants.

I would *really* encourage a pilot to become familiar with their airplane before attempting it. Try it with a lot of altitude and try it at all the angles you can think of. Figure out where the airspeed indicator is at when you stall in a nose up slip. As you know, the airspeed indicator is not all that accurate in a slip.

My personal preference in a C172 is to do a nose up slip in a turn. Get the nose down before the horizon around 75 knots. You really have to try hard to get a C172 to do something scary in a slipping turn.

You will not spin from a slip. It is possible to roll past wings level, into a skid, and then into the spin--but if you happen to do this it is a very *slow* process (in a Cessna) that any reasonably competent pilot would see happening and stop way before the spin occurred.

In fact, I've tried many times to get a C172 to spin from a turning slip. So far I haven't managed to do it. It might be possible--but it sure isn't easy. Much easier to spin from wings level.
 
Sure--which airplane? Lets go with a C172 for this discussion. The idea is simple: If you get the nose up and slip you will lose airspeed rapidly. The goal is to exit the nose up slip *before* you stall--or else you crap your pants.

I would *really* encourage a pilot to become familiar with their airplane before attempting it. Try it with a lot of altitude and try it at all the angles you can think of. Figure out where the airspeed indicator is at when you stall in a nose up slip. As you know, the airspeed indicator is not all that accurate in a slip.

My personal preference in a C172 is to do a nose up slip in a turn. Get the nose down before the horizon around 75 knots. You really have to try hard to get a C172 to do something scary in a slipping turn.

You will not spin from a slip. It is possible to roll past wings level, into a skid, and then into the spin--but if you happen to do this it is a very *slow* process (in a Cessna) that any reasonably competent pilot would see happening and stop way before the spin occurred.

In fact, I've tried many times to get a C172 to spin from a turning slip. So far I haven't managed to do it. It might be possible--but it sure isn't easy. Much easier to spin from wings level.


This doesn't sound like a nose up slip as much as a flat slip -- IOW the nose is probably level or nearly so, the speed reduced, and then the nose is allowed to fall forward at the now reduced speed.
 
This doesn't sound like a nose up slip as much as a flat slip -- IOW the nose is probably level or nearly so, the speed reduced, and then the nose is allowed to fall forward at the now reduced speed.

Actually, I generally pull the nose above the horizon. A nose up slip is the appropriate term.

This isn't an *every* landing maneuver. It is simply another trick that can be used to make the airplane go where you need it to go.
 
Yeah. If you stand next to the runway on a cool day you see that 'bout every plane is climbing like a bat out o' hell. On hot days you don't get to see much of the climb. :rolleyes:
Back in Conroe, I had a student I had finally convinced to move from the 150 to the 172. She noted how fast we were climbing so I asked her... "Doesn't this feel a whole lot nicer and safer?" She had no argument. :)

She was the only student I had with a butt small enough to fit in the 150 with me. Climbing out slow isn't a bad thing if you have the distance and clearance. But, letting it be done with a student not in good control of an aircraft is a bad idea. That was the case when I flew with another instructor's student. He scared the bejeebies out of me with an unstable climb speed. Unlike even a beginning student, my hand never left the yoke for an instant.
 
Actually Dan--
In a high performance airplane--you might be surprised how close you are to the airport when you reach 1000 ft. It'll be *really* bad with a headwind. A simply 10 knot headwind will totally ruin your day. It shortens your groundspeed during climb keeping you closer to the airport.. Once you turn back towards the airport you gain that 10 knots in groundspeed. It takes creativity to get down without over running the airport.

Theoretically, one could solve this problem by delaying the turnback, but I don't know whether it's possible to work out a reliable way of determining the optimum turnback point.

Personally--I feel it is something you have to try in the proper environment to truly appreciate and understand the complexity of the problem. That said--there are too many idiot CFIs that would kill people trying to teach them.

The CFI who taught me turnback techniques (and the mathematics to determine when they can be done successfully) says that they should only be practiced at altitude.

A plane in my flying club was recently damaged due to wind shear while a CFI was teaching turnbacks from actual takeoffs.

As far as bank angle. The steeper you go--the better off you'll be.

45 degrees of bank has been mathematically proven to be optimum. The proof is contained in the paper The Possible 'Impossible' Turn on this Web site:

http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/technical_flying.html

Also see Should You Turn Back? on the same Web site for a discussion of the general issues relating to turnbacks.
 
Last edited:
45 degrees of bank has been mathematically proven to be optimum. The proof is contained in the paper The Possible 'Impossible' Turn on this Web site:

http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/technical_flying.html

Also see Should You Turn Back? on the same Web site for a discussion of the general issues relating to turnbacks.
Anything can be mathematically proven on paper. Personally I try it in the airplane--and my experience has been that I can change direction with a steeper turn and less altitude loss.

I've also seen videos and have talked to other pilots that have noticed the same. It probably varies per airplane--but hell if I know--all I know is that I can get around with less loss with 60 degrees then I can with 45 degrees, every single time in the airplane.

When the **** hits the fan am I going to use the angle that I saw in some PDF? Or am I going to use the angle that I've verified works for me with the least loss? I'll take my own experience, thank you.
 
45 degrees of bank has been mathematically proven to be optimum. The proof is contained in the paper The Possible 'Impossible' Turn on this Web site:

http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/technical_flying.html

I'll have to spend more time trying to understand his math, but when I was doing some related calculations the other day, I found that the minimum radius turn happens at a 74-degree bank right on the edge of the stall. It somewhat surprised me as I expected the increasing stall speed to overcome the advantages of a higher bank angle. But, were it possible to do so without ripping the wings off, an 89-degree bank would give the smallest turn radius. However, to keep the stall under Vne and the load factor within normal limits, the best bank angle is 74 degrees.

From the linked paper:

The Possible Impossible Turn said:
A larger bank angle in the gliding turn requires a higher rate of descent to maintain steady conditions. Consequently, minimum time in the gliding turn to a new heading yields the optimum turn conditions.

Using that assumption, it would appear that higher bank angles would be better, since the higher the bank angle, the faster the turn is completed, the less of a turn you'll need to make (lower offset from centerline), and the shorter your path back to the runway is.

Also, if you watch the YouTube video linked earlier in this thread, their experiments came up with the least altitude loss at a 60 degree bank (out of 15, 30, 45 and 60). So, I have to question the math in the paper. (Though Lance Fisher can question it better than any of us! :yes:)
 
To maintain at least 1.2 above stall at a 60 or 89 degree turn would require significantly increased airspeed over Vx or Vy. The push forward to achieve this speed will require loss of altitude until this margin is achieved (straight ahead or in a bank).

I think the 45 degree recommendation is based the more rapid (and less complex) transition from Vx to 1.2-1.2 over stall at 45 (varies by airplane, but will be pretty close IIRC in a C172/C205/6, A36, 35 series).

One assumption of this discussion is that the airplane must be put down on the takeoff runway.

That would be nice, but is not required. An intersecting runway, a taxiway, or even grass or ramp will all serve in an engine out turnback emergency.
 
Last edited:
To maintain at least 1.2 above stall at a 60 or 89 degree turn would require significantly increased airspeed over Vx or Vy. The push forward to achieve this speed will require loss of altitude until this margin is achieved (straight ahead or in a bank).

I think the 45 degree recommendation is based the more rapid (and less complex) transition from Vx to 1.2-1.2 over stall at 45 (varies by airplane, but will be pretty close IIRC in a C172/C205/6, A36, 35 series).

You're not going for 1.2 above stall, you're going for right AT stall. Increasing the speed from 1.0 Vs to 1.2 Vs increases the turn radius and the distance flown in the turn by 44%.

Here's a few screen shots from a spreadsheet I made. This table calculates load factor and turn radius (actually, turn diameter, this is how much room laterally you need to turn around, handy for knowing in a canyon type of situation) for a selected airspeed, Vs and 1.2Vs at the given bank angle:

attachment.php


Here, at 45 degrees bank, notice that 1.2Vs is 81 knots.

attachment.php


Notice that here, at 60 degrees bank, Vs is 81 knots. Now, notice the difference in the turn radius between 45 degrees/81 knots (1.2Vs) and 60 degrees/81 knots (Vs): 587 feet vs. 333 feet. That's a HUGE difference.

Here it is for 74 degrees of bank, which is as far as you can go within normal category limits:

attachment.php


And 76 degrees, the limit to stay within utility category:

attachment.php


That doesn't buy you much! Now, just for fun, here it is for 89 degrees of bank. Notice the load factor and the stall speed!

attachment.php


Notice also, that it doesn't gain you much of an improvement in the turn radius over the previous couple.

Finally, here's the table I originally started with. It's calculating the diameter of the turn for a range of airspeeds and bank angles. The red portion is where the airplane would stall.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Picture 21.png
    Picture 21.png
    21.8 KB · Views: 40
  • Picture 22.png
    Picture 22.png
    22.2 KB · Views: 40
  • Picture 23.png
    Picture 23.png
    21.8 KB · Views: 40
  • Picture 24.png
    Picture 24.png
    21.8 KB · Views: 40
  • Picture 25.png
    Picture 25.png
    22.3 KB · Views: 40
  • Picture 26.png
    Picture 26.png
    94.5 KB · Views: 40
You're not going for 1.2 above stall, you're going for right AT stall. Increasing the speed from 1.0 Vs to 1.2 Vs increases the turn radius and the distance flown in the turn by 44%.

And the advantage to stalling when in a steep turn is...?

1.2 Vs is a reasonable target margin (your numbers seem to imply 1.2 times the load factor stall speed -- not sure how you got that).

In a typical light SEL that stalls at 52 Power off, flaps up, 1.2 gives an indicated airspeed of 62 knots. Given the load factor at =>45 degrees bank, 1.2 is close to stall.

The idea in the turnback is not to nail the stall airspeed (which -- as you demonstrate in the spreadsheet -- varies with bank).

IF
the pilot is familiar enough with the airplane and the airport surroundings and has sufficient altitude (thus potential energy) to warrant a turn back on takeoff power loss, then Best glide + the pilot's own practiced maximum bank would be the better target.

Anyway, the point is simply to point the airplane at ground more friendly to the airplane's undercarriage than houses, highways, or toddler-filled playgrounds. The takeoff runway is rarely the only option.
 
Last edited:
And the advantage to stalling when in a steep turn is...?

I'm not saying to stall it. I'm saying that the tightest turn you can make is right at the edge of the stall, and that's true for any bank angle.

1.2 Vs is a reasonable target margin (your numbers seem to imply 1.2 times the load factor stall speed -- not sure how you got that).

Sorry - I thought that's what you were saying.

If you mean 1.2 times the level stall speed, you're saying the same thing I am, in effect - Stall speed at 45 degrees bank is 1.189 times Vs for a given configuration. That's about 1/2 a knot under 1.2Vs for most singles. So, at 1.2Vs1 and 45 degrees of bank, the stall horn will be screaming, which is exactly what we want.

The idea in the turnback is not to nail the stall airspeed (which -- as you demonstrate in the spreadsheet -- varies with bank).


Is it, or isn't it? At 45 degrees bank, you're saying the same thing I am.

the pilot is familiar enough with the airplane and the airport surroundings and has sufficient altitude (thus potential energy) to warrant a turn back on takeoff power loss, then Best glide + the pilot's own practiced maximum bank would be the better target.

Yup - I'm going with purely mathematics here, and assuming the pilot is good enough to execute the maneuvers described without stalling.

Anyway, the point is simply to point the airplane at ground more friendly to the airplane's undercarriage than houses, highways, or toddler-filled playgrounds. The takeoff runway is rarely the only option.

Yup.
 
I'm not saying to stall it. I'm saying that the tightest turn you can make is right at the edge of the stall, and that's true for any bank angle.

True, since turn radius decreases with a decrease in speed.

But, since load factor increases speed must be sufficient to stay airborne.

If you mean 1.2 times the level stall speed, you're saying the same thing I am, in effect - Stall speed at 45 degrees bank is 1.189 times Vs for a given configuration. That's about 1/2 a knot under 1.2Vs for most singles. So, at 1.2Vs1 and 45 degrees of bank, the stall horn will be screaming, which is exactly what we want.

Is it, or isn't it? At 45 degrees bank, you're saying the same thing I am.

I am, since a 45 degree bank at 1.2 Vs is the best tradeoff between slow speed (thus small radius) turn, manageable airspeed (transition from Vx/ Vy to Vg), and manageable (i.e, practiced) bank to achieve the desired outcome -- return to a more hospitable landing surface.
 
True, since turn radius decreases with a decrease in speed.

But, since load factor increases speed must be sufficient to stay airborne.

You caught me not paying attention to my own advice that anyone might be reading this, including those who do not fully understand what a stall is yet.

Folks, when I say "on the edge of the stall" I do NOT mean "right at a published number on the airspeed indicator." I literally mean "on the edge of an aerodynamic stall" which must be corrected for weight, center of gravity, density altitude, load factor, and probably some other stuff too, to arrive at a number.

Luckily, the stall horn will take all of those things into account, and the feel of the controls will be somewhat familiar.

Don't fly the numbers. Fly the airplane.
 
kent you have discovered the 'cornering speed' that we learned in flight performance class. basically the bank angle is set so that the load factor is right at the load limit, and the airspeed set so that you are a microknot above a stall, and that is your theoretical minimum turn radius.
 
Clothes for Safe Flying

If this has been mentioned, and I missed it, forgive me . . .

Not second guessing, but finding a teaching point in this accident, I'd suggest that folks take a look at what they wear when flying.

I make it a practice to never wear shorts, and always wear cotton or wool.

Long pants, and no synthetics.

This goes for commercial airlines, too, on the rare occasions when I fly on them.

No nylon or synthetic blend fabrics for shirts or pants. This is easier for men than women, I think, since many women's fashions are synthetic fabrics.

The flash fire protection from cotton or (even better) wool is huge compared to what happens when nylon or another synthetic is worn.
 
Back
Top