Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
I got to say , I sent my cylinders out to Harrison and was very pleased with the work and the pricing. Those guys are great. Lycoming O235 C1BJohnSent from my iPhone> On Mar 23, 2015, at 12:23 PM, "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-LME0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]" wrote:> > 17 years ago I first flew my Piet on an A-65 that I overhauled with the oversight of a great A&P/ IA by the name of Don Helmick. Don had> rebuilt lots of these motors and the carbs and mags too so I took Don=99s advice and followed the Continental overhaul manual.> > By God=99s grace and favor and not taking any short cuts on that overhaul I was able to get many years of good flying out of that engine but> in the past year or two the oil pressure has slowly started to drop so time for a major overhaul this past winter.> > I didn=99t overhaul the engine on the plane but bought a no-logs engine from a guy in Michigan for $500 from Barnstormers. Here=99s my costs> so far. The cost to overhaul a small Continental are pretty affordable, even if you go top notch with having all the inspections, magnafluxing,> machining, nitriding, heat treating, resurfacing, and reconditioning done at FAA Certified Repair facilities with all parts coming back yellow tagged.> > Total came to $4,801 not including carb or mag overhauls because I=99ll be transferring those directly from the old engine to the new engine. > > The crankcase halves were in excellent condition so only required a few stud replacements and minor machining so saved a bit there by it not> having any cracks or re-boring issues. > > Mike C.> > > No-log A-65 from Michigan: $500> > Crankcase halves reconditioned,> Crankcase Services, Inc. Oklahoma: $375> > Crank, cam, cam followers, rods, and $1,392> rockers reconditioned, Aircraft Engine> & Accessory, Dallas, TX > > 4 cylinders, complete overhaul to STD $1,150> dimensions, Harrison Engine Service,> LaPorte, IN > > All new hardware, gasket sets rings, $1,384> pistons, valve springs, etc, Fresno> Air Parts, needed exhaust valves,> 1 intake.> > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Who Would Like To Get A Huge Boost In Their Build?
Pietenpol-List: Who Would Like To Get A Huge Boost In Their Build?
Pietenpol-List: Re: Who Would Like To Get A Huge Boost In Their Build?
Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
For those of you considering attending Corvair College #33, William Wynne put anupdate out on changes that sound like it will make it an even better event-http://flycorvair.net/2015/03/29/corvai ... -airport/I believe that sign up ends tonight, so don't miss the deadline if you are thinkingabout going.I look forward to seeing this new location. It sounds great!--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Who Would Like To Get A Huge Boost In Their Build?
For those of you considering attending Corvair College #33, William Wynne put anupdate out on changes that sound like it will make it an even better event-http://flycorvair.net/2015/03/29/corvai ... -airport/I believe that sign up ends tonight, so don't miss the deadline if you are thinkingabout going.I look forward to seeing this new location. It sounds great!--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Who Would Like To Get A Huge Boost In Their Build?
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Who Would Like To Get A Huge Boost In Their Build?
Original Posted By: Tony Crawford
That's a good idea, Steve. I have plenty of spruce cutoffs and it might be ofinterest to have samples to at least do glue tests with.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 20:54:19 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Who Would Like To Get A Huge Boost In Their Build?
That's a good idea, Steve. I have plenty of spruce cutoffs and it might be ofinterest to have samples to at least do glue tests with.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 20:54:19 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Who Would Like To Get A Huge Boost In Their Build?
Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Original Posted By: "Jeff Boatright"
Okay good people,Here's a tricky one. Has anyone experimented with how much altitude isneeded to turn a piet 180 degrees? What I'm asking is what is the minimumheight, AGL that one would feel comfortable turning back to the airport onclimbout rather than just "controlling the crash" straight ahead.I've never tried it at altitude, but I'm curious.Also, what is the best technique for this? Douwe________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Okay good people,Here's a tricky one. Has anyone experimented with how much altitude isneeded to turn a piet 180 degrees? What I'm asking is what is the minimumheight, AGL that one would feel comfortable turning back to the airport onclimbout rather than just "controlling the crash" straight ahead.I've never tried it at altitude, but I'm curious.Also, what is the best technique for this? Douwe________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Re: Pietenpol-List: minimum turnback altitude
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Hi Douwe,Boy, that's a tough on, IMO. Probably will differ with each airplane, pilot, andcircumstance. A lot of effort went into this analysis of that very question:http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdfI have no idea how relevant it is to Piets, though.HTH,JeffRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 23:03:05 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: minimum turnback altitude
Hi Douwe,Boy, that's a tough on, IMO. Probably will differ with each airplane, pilot, andcircumstance. A lot of effort went into this analysis of that very question:http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdfI have no idea how relevant it is to Piets, though.HTH,JeffRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 23:03:05 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: minimum turnback altitude
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
This is EXTREMELY valuable to talk about.I have no clue. I can say as a kerosene burner that I fly very low power on approachesfor a Piet. It has something to do with 8000 plus hours looking at 3degree glide paths at about 150 mph. I'm trying to recover... However, I cansay with pride nearly all my approaches are 3 degrees plus one minus a tenthof a degree without an electronic or visual glide path indicator. Geesh.My second ride ever in a Piet was with Axel. He turned base and I thought therewas no way on earth we were EVER going to make the field. Which of course wedid, easily. I couldn't believe it. I thought we were high by several ordersof magnitude...So here's my take on technique anyway. If you turn with anything less than cruisepower, you have to STUFF the nose until you're wings level. Not ease herdown, not lower it a bit... STUFF it. It's going to feel unnatural, it's goingto KILL a lot of altitude, you're going to be staring at a lot of terra firma.The only reason to slip a Piet is for visibility, not because it won't comedown! The best engine failure scenario is a total failure. It's CLEAR you've got a veryserious problem. "Loss of power" scenarios are insidious. How can you determinehow much you've lost? It's a Piet, we rely on vibration, noise and windblast, which can all increase while our power decreases. On a half millionpound jet, I ONLY rely on my engine instruments to determine engine performancebecause my engines are very far away and I can't hear or feel them at all.Not so in a Piet. I'm pretty certain more folks are hurt in power loss cases due to stalling ratherthan hitting something while maintaining a controllable speed. Keep your speedup and make sure the nose of the plane doesn't hit a tree trunk and a wingdoes... You can only do that if you have enough speed. Otherwise it's up,toNewton to decide what you hit, not you.This is not a trivial decision to make if you're thinking about the ten years tomake the plane you're about to total... Especially if you're thinking you'veengine is merely running bad rather than realizing you've lost more power thanyou really have. I hope a lot of folks chime in on this one. I don't know a single light civilpilot with thousands of hours who haven't lost an engine. I don't know more thana few kerosene burners who have, and they all just ejected... Again not trivial,but not that hard of a decision! Given I only have about 150 light civilhours I assume my turn is still coming, and that scares me, which is fine becauseit keeps me striving to learn from others as much as I can. ToolsRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 23:44:10 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
This is EXTREMELY valuable to talk about.I have no clue. I can say as a kerosene burner that I fly very low power on approachesfor a Piet. It has something to do with 8000 plus hours looking at 3degree glide paths at about 150 mph. I'm trying to recover... However, I cansay with pride nearly all my approaches are 3 degrees plus one minus a tenthof a degree without an electronic or visual glide path indicator. Geesh.My second ride ever in a Piet was with Axel. He turned base and I thought therewas no way on earth we were EVER going to make the field. Which of course wedid, easily. I couldn't believe it. I thought we were high by several ordersof magnitude...So here's my take on technique anyway. If you turn with anything less than cruisepower, you have to STUFF the nose until you're wings level. Not ease herdown, not lower it a bit... STUFF it. It's going to feel unnatural, it's goingto KILL a lot of altitude, you're going to be staring at a lot of terra firma.The only reason to slip a Piet is for visibility, not because it won't comedown! The best engine failure scenario is a total failure. It's CLEAR you've got a veryserious problem. "Loss of power" scenarios are insidious. How can you determinehow much you've lost? It's a Piet, we rely on vibration, noise and windblast, which can all increase while our power decreases. On a half millionpound jet, I ONLY rely on my engine instruments to determine engine performancebecause my engines are very far away and I can't hear or feel them at all.Not so in a Piet. I'm pretty certain more folks are hurt in power loss cases due to stalling ratherthan hitting something while maintaining a controllable speed. Keep your speedup and make sure the nose of the plane doesn't hit a tree trunk and a wingdoes... You can only do that if you have enough speed. Otherwise it's up,toNewton to decide what you hit, not you.This is not a trivial decision to make if you're thinking about the ten years tomake the plane you're about to total... Especially if you're thinking you'veengine is merely running bad rather than realizing you've lost more power thanyou really have. I hope a lot of folks chime in on this one. I don't know a single light civilpilot with thousands of hours who haven't lost an engine. I don't know more thana few kerosene burners who have, and they all just ejected... Again not trivial,but not that hard of a decision! Given I only have about 150 light civilhours I assume my turn is still coming, and that scares me, which is fine becauseit keeps me striving to learn from others as much as I can. ToolsRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 23:44:10 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Original Posted By: "Jeff Boatright"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitudethe articlehttp://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying ... le.htmlthe serieshttp://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flyingOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Steven Dortch wrote:> Jeff, the article I referenced is by the same team. The one I referenced> has much less math.> Both articles discuss the best technique to perform the 180 degree turn> back.> The most efficient technique is to do a 45 degree turn just above stall> speed. On completion of the turn, a dive to best glide speed was> performed. However, this technique introduces a high probability of a stall> spin. A 30 degree turn just above stall speed was not as tight and> efficient but virtually eliminated stall spin incidences.>> I practiced at altitude in my old Cessna 150 and in my Vtail a couple of> times. You do get much better with practice.>> Blue skies,> Steve D.> On Apr 28, 2015 9:38 PM, "Jeff Boatright" wrote:>>> jeffboatright(at)emory.edu>>>>> Hi Douwe,>>>> Boy, that's a tough on, IMO. Probably will differ with each airplane,>> pilot, and circumstance.>>>> A lot of effort went into this analysis of that very question:>>>> http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf>>>> I have no idea how relevant it is to Piets, though.>>>> HTH,>>>> Jeff>>>>>>>>>> Read this topic online here:>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... >>>>>>>>-- Blue Skies,Steve D________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitudethe articlehttp://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying ... le.htmlthe serieshttp://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flyingOn Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Steven Dortch wrote:> Jeff, the article I referenced is by the same team. The one I referenced> has much less math.> Both articles discuss the best technique to perform the 180 degree turn> back.> The most efficient technique is to do a 45 degree turn just above stall> speed. On completion of the turn, a dive to best glide speed was> performed. However, this technique introduces a high probability of a stall> spin. A 30 degree turn just above stall speed was not as tight and> efficient but virtually eliminated stall spin incidences.>> I practiced at altitude in my old Cessna 150 and in my Vtail a couple of> times. You do get much better with practice.>> Blue skies,> Steve D.> On Apr 28, 2015 9:38 PM, "Jeff Boatright" wrote:>>> jeffboatright(at)emory.edu>>>>> Hi Douwe,>>>> Boy, that's a tough on, IMO. Probably will differ with each airplane,>> pilot, and circumstance.>>>> A lot of effort went into this analysis of that very question:>>>> http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf>>>> I have no idea how relevant it is to Piets, though.>>>> HTH,>>>> Jeff>>>>>>>>>> Read this topic online here:>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... >>>>>>>>-- Blue Skies,Steve D________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Original Posted By: "Charles N. Campbell"
Hey Steve,I agree -- the Rogers paper is good for discussion, but I've always mentally notedthat he felt compelled to spend a paragraph justifying the steep turns inrelationship to increased probability of stall-spin accidents. He basically saysthat the stats will always be over-reported (possibly true, but still a dangerousway of thinking about the problem) and that, anyway, we should all be practicingour steep turns back to runway, thus solving the potential, deadly problemthat his solution creates. Perfect engineering paper: correct factually, but ignores the realities of humanbehavior. [Wink] JeffRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:01:50 -0400Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Hey Steve,I agree -- the Rogers paper is good for discussion, but I've always mentally notedthat he felt compelled to spend a paragraph justifying the steep turns inrelationship to increased probability of stall-spin accidents. He basically saysthat the stats will always be over-reported (possibly true, but still a dangerousway of thinking about the problem) and that, anyway, we should all be practicingour steep turns back to runway, thus solving the potential, deadly problemthat his solution creates. Perfect engineering paper: correct factually, but ignores the realities of humanbehavior. [Wink] JeffRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:01:50 -0400Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Original Posted By: "AircamperN11MS"
Douwe,I was part of the video that EAA made about first flights in your homebuilt. Therewere several of us from our local area that participated in the filming ofit. My part in the video is engine failure on take off. If you watch it youwill see me in the Piet doing a simulated engine failure. For those who havenot seen it, I will try to explain here. I was asked to do a best angle ofclimb for the effect. It is a very steep climb at full power and a very slowairspeed which contributes to the huge recovery time and altitude needed to recover.Keep in mind that I was the one who pulled the throttle back, making me100% prepared for the simulated failure. I was at about 200 feet AGL when Ipulled the throttle. I stuffed the nose down as best I could with barely anyairspeed. The plane pretty fell flat for a long ways (seemed like forever)then the nose started falling through. At the bottom, just a few feet from therunway I had just enough energy to flair for landing. It wasn't a smooth oneeither. This was done flying straight ahead on a runway that was 150' wide and 5000' long.It was all done by script and I new when the engine was going to fail. Ifthe engine had failed on me by surprise, I don't think I could have recoveredin time. My contribution to your question would "It depends" It depends on your airspeedwhen the engine quits, it depends on your angle of climb, it depends on yourreaction time to recovery, It depends on density altitude. It depends on everything.I don't think there is a firm answer for this question.Like mentioned earlier, Practice it at altitude to get some kind of idea and thenjust plan on landing straight ahead or 30 degrees to the left or right of yourflight path. If you haven't seen this video published by EAA, I highly suggest getting a copyand reviewing it. It would be a good one to watch at a local EAA meeting.Fun note: When we did this video, there were no such things as GoPro cameras. I had about 50lbs and thousands of dollars of big heavy camera equipment in myplane. It was a big deal back then to do something like this. Gary and therest of you get better footage with all the new fancy cameras available today.Oh, Some years after filming this, I had the exact same thing happen to me forreal. It was in a bi-plane and the crank broke on take off. The prop stoppedinstantly and I landed straight ahead on a dirt strip. Didn't hurt the planeor myself. It turned out to be a good day since I had actually practiced itand knew what to expect.Just my two cents on this one guys.Happy Landings,--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Douwe,I was part of the video that EAA made about first flights in your homebuilt. Therewere several of us from our local area that participated in the filming ofit. My part in the video is engine failure on take off. If you watch it youwill see me in the Piet doing a simulated engine failure. For those who havenot seen it, I will try to explain here. I was asked to do a best angle ofclimb for the effect. It is a very steep climb at full power and a very slowairspeed which contributes to the huge recovery time and altitude needed to recover.Keep in mind that I was the one who pulled the throttle back, making me100% prepared for the simulated failure. I was at about 200 feet AGL when Ipulled the throttle. I stuffed the nose down as best I could with barely anyairspeed. The plane pretty fell flat for a long ways (seemed like forever)then the nose started falling through. At the bottom, just a few feet from therunway I had just enough energy to flair for landing. It wasn't a smooth oneeither. This was done flying straight ahead on a runway that was 150' wide and 5000' long.It was all done by script and I new when the engine was going to fail. Ifthe engine had failed on me by surprise, I don't think I could have recoveredin time. My contribution to your question would "It depends" It depends on your airspeedwhen the engine quits, it depends on your angle of climb, it depends on yourreaction time to recovery, It depends on density altitude. It depends on everything.I don't think there is a firm answer for this question.Like mentioned earlier, Practice it at altitude to get some kind of idea and thenjust plan on landing straight ahead or 30 degrees to the left or right of yourflight path. If you haven't seen this video published by EAA, I highly suggest getting a copyand reviewing it. It would be a good one to watch at a local EAA meeting.Fun note: When we did this video, there were no such things as GoPro cameras. I had about 50lbs and thousands of dollars of big heavy camera equipment in myplane. It was a big deal back then to do something like this. Gary and therest of you get better footage with all the new fancy cameras available today.Oh, Some years after filming this, I had the exact same thing happen to me forreal. It was in a bi-plane and the crank broke on take off. The prop stoppedinstantly and I landed straight ahead on a dirt strip. Didn't hurt the planeor myself. It turned out to be a good day since I had actually practiced itand knew what to expect.Just my two cents on this one guys.Happy Landings,--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Here is a link to the video I mention.http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=13 ... -----Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Here is a link to the video I mention.http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=13 ... -----Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Original Posted By: "tools"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitudehttp://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying ... .htmlChuck, above is the dumbed down version without the graphs. Much easier toread.My experience in practicing both in by Cessna 150 and my Vtail just a fewtimes, is that by the time you are at an altitude where you can get turnedaround, you will be on the edge of being too far from the runway to getback. Length of runway helps.Basically It taught me that from ground level to A altitude, all you can dois go straight ahead +or- 10 degrees, from A to B altitude you can turn 30degrees off heading, from B to C you can go 90 degrees and above C you cando a 180.Don't forget to add in the amount of time when you are surprised at howloud the Dead engine is. Plus it is guaranteed you will be rusty when ithappens. Oh yeah, it will be a downwind landing, and that can get quitesporting. in a 10 mph wind, Now your touchdown speed is 20MPH faster groundspeed, so you piet is now going 50+ at touchdown, not 30ish.Blue Skies,Steve DOn Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Charles N. Campbell wrote:> Very frankly, I didn't understand a word of that dissertation! I> instructed primary flight training for 2 years in the Navy and several> years as a civilian. I taught ALL my students that if you have an engine> failure immediately after takeoff, get the nose down so you don't stall,> look to the left and right 45 degrees and pick a location within that arc> to land the airplane. Trying to turn back to the takeoff runway will> PROBABLY end in a stall/spin accident. I not only told them this, we> practiced doing the 45 degrees each way bit every flight before and after> first solo. I was having lunch one day while in the Navy and a group of> pre-solo students were sitting at the next table. They were discussing a> fellow student's demise from a fatal accident doing the "turn back to the> runway" bit. The guy stalled and spun in from about 200 feet. One of the> students said, "Yeah, he didn't turn near steep enough." After my> recovering from a near heart attack at that statement, I went to the table,> introduced myself, and proceeded to have a fairly lengthy ground school> session right there in the club. I hope none of them ever forgot that> session. Experience says, "Don't try to turn back to the takeoff runway on> engine failure after takeoff." I have spoken! Chuck>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Jeff Boatright > wrote:>>> jeffboatright(at)emory.edu>>>>> Hey Steve,>>>> I agree -- the Rogers paper is good for discussion, but I've always>> mentally noted that he felt compelled to spend a paragraph justifying the>> steep turns in relationship to increased probability of stall-spin>> accidents. He basically says that the stats will always be over-reported>> (possibly true, but still a dangerous way of thinking about the problem)>> and that, anyway, we should all be practicing our steep turns back to>> runway, thus solving the potential, deadly problem that his solution>> creates.>>>> Perfect engineering paper: correct factually, but ignores the realities>> of human behavior. [Wink]>>>>>> Jeff>>>>>>>>>> Read this topic online here:>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 486#441486>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==========>> br> enpol-List" target="_blank">>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>> ==========>> FORUMS ->> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com>> ==========>> b Site ->> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution>> ==========>>>>>>>>> *>>> *>>-- Blue Skies,Steve D________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitudehttp://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying ... .htmlChuck, above is the dumbed down version without the graphs. Much easier toread.My experience in practicing both in by Cessna 150 and my Vtail just a fewtimes, is that by the time you are at an altitude where you can get turnedaround, you will be on the edge of being too far from the runway to getback. Length of runway helps.Basically It taught me that from ground level to A altitude, all you can dois go straight ahead +or- 10 degrees, from A to B altitude you can turn 30degrees off heading, from B to C you can go 90 degrees and above C you cando a 180.Don't forget to add in the amount of time when you are surprised at howloud the Dead engine is. Plus it is guaranteed you will be rusty when ithappens. Oh yeah, it will be a downwind landing, and that can get quitesporting. in a 10 mph wind, Now your touchdown speed is 20MPH faster groundspeed, so you piet is now going 50+ at touchdown, not 30ish.Blue Skies,Steve DOn Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Charles N. Campbell wrote:> Very frankly, I didn't understand a word of that dissertation! I> instructed primary flight training for 2 years in the Navy and several> years as a civilian. I taught ALL my students that if you have an engine> failure immediately after takeoff, get the nose down so you don't stall,> look to the left and right 45 degrees and pick a location within that arc> to land the airplane. Trying to turn back to the takeoff runway will> PROBABLY end in a stall/spin accident. I not only told them this, we> practiced doing the 45 degrees each way bit every flight before and after> first solo. I was having lunch one day while in the Navy and a group of> pre-solo students were sitting at the next table. They were discussing a> fellow student's demise from a fatal accident doing the "turn back to the> runway" bit. The guy stalled and spun in from about 200 feet. One of the> students said, "Yeah, he didn't turn near steep enough." After my> recovering from a near heart attack at that statement, I went to the table,> introduced myself, and proceeded to have a fairly lengthy ground school> session right there in the club. I hope none of them ever forgot that> session. Experience says, "Don't try to turn back to the takeoff runway on> engine failure after takeoff." I have spoken! Chuck>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Jeff Boatright > wrote:>>> jeffboatright(at)emory.edu>>>>> Hey Steve,>>>> I agree -- the Rogers paper is good for discussion, but I've always>> mentally noted that he felt compelled to spend a paragraph justifying the>> steep turns in relationship to increased probability of stall-spin>> accidents. He basically says that the stats will always be over-reported>> (possibly true, but still a dangerous way of thinking about the problem)>> and that, anyway, we should all be practicing our steep turns back to>> runway, thus solving the potential, deadly problem that his solution>> creates.>>>> Perfect engineering paper: correct factually, but ignores the realities>> of human behavior. [Wink]>>>>>> Jeff>>>>>>>>>> Read this topic online here:>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 486#441486>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==========>> br> enpol-List" target="_blank">>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>> ==========>> FORUMS ->> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com>> ==========>> b Site ->> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution>> ==========>>>>>>>>> *>>> *>>-- Blue Skies,Steve D________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Original Posted By: Marcus Zechini
Wow, that brings up a great point. We're usually trained to climb like mad attakeoff, because altitude creates options. Like most things, as pointed out, well, that depends. If you don't have the airspeedto use those options, it don't really count. I've always preached, contrary to policy on occasion, that airplanes don't carehow high they are, but they ALL care how fast they're going. I never even consideredthat a possibly normal climb out speed might not be enough to pitch downquickly enough. Hmmm.... I've read discussions that mention if the dc-10 that lost, as in actually felloff, an engine over Chicago had maintained their current airspeed rather thanpitching to v2+10, policy, they probably wouldn't have lost control. Woulda coulda shoulda and there but by the grace of god go I, it's still an importantconsideration.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:21:52 -0400Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Wow, that brings up a great point. We're usually trained to climb like mad attakeoff, because altitude creates options. Like most things, as pointed out, well, that depends. If you don't have the airspeedto use those options, it don't really count. I've always preached, contrary to policy on occasion, that airplanes don't carehow high they are, but they ALL care how fast they're going. I never even consideredthat a possibly normal climb out speed might not be enough to pitch downquickly enough. Hmmm.... I've read discussions that mention if the dc-10 that lost, as in actually felloff, an engine over Chicago had maintained their current airspeed rather thanpitching to v2+10, policy, they probably wouldn't have lost control. Woulda coulda shoulda and there but by the grace of god go I, it's still an importantconsideration.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:21:52 -0400Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Pietenpol-List: Re: first flight of 2015!
Original Posted By: "tools"
Well the weather/schedule Gods finally collaborated and I was able to takeRE-PIET up for the first flight of the season. WX was perfect and thoughcool in the low fifties, the thick air made her literally jump into the air.I had refinished the prop over the winter (don't use poly on a scimitar propdesigned to flex, use spar varnish that can flex.) and had to remove thevortilator tape from the prop. I haven't replaced it yet, but think I will.I think I see about 30rpm gain with it and the prop is noticeably quieter.Flew around for about twenty minutes then came in for a decent asphaltlanding (almost no wind) and gave thanks for being allowed the privilege ofseeing God's creation from such a vantage point.Keep on building, it's worth it!Douwe________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: first flight of 2015!
Well the weather/schedule Gods finally collaborated and I was able to takeRE-PIET up for the first flight of the season. WX was perfect and thoughcool in the low fifties, the thick air made her literally jump into the air.I had refinished the prop over the winter (don't use poly on a scimitar propdesigned to flex, use spar varnish that can flex.) and had to remove thevortilator tape from the prop. I haven't replaced it yet, but think I will.I think I see about 30rpm gain with it and the prop is noticeably quieter.Flew around for about twenty minutes then came in for a decent asphaltlanding (almost no wind) and gave thanks for being allowed the privilege ofseeing God's creation from such a vantage point.Keep on building, it's worth it!Douwe________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: first flight of 2015!
Original Posted By: "Gary Boothe"
If ya had come to toolstock you could have flown in the snow with us!Glad to hear all is working well. The one thing about my job... The view frommy office window. From 30k feet or two hundred, pretty awesome!ToolsRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
If ya had come to toolstock you could have flown in the snow with us!Glad to hear all is working well. The one thing about my job... The view frommy office window. From 30k feet or two hundred, pretty awesome!ToolsRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: first flight of 2015!
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Douwe,I'm sure we take our weather in the west for granted. Flying season neverreally ends.it just gets cooler. I am interested in your leading edge tape.Gary BootheNX308MB
Douwe,I'm sure we take our weather in the west for granted. Flying season neverreally ends.it just gets cooler. I am interested in your leading edge tape.Gary BootheNX308MB
Re: Pietenpol-List: turnback and vortelator tape
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
The "leading edge tape" I mentioned is called vortelator tape. It's beendiscussed a few times here. You put it on the high point of the prop camberand it supposedly reduces drag a bit allowing some extra rpms, or a slightlylower power setting for the same rpms. take your pick. Bill Rewey did anarticle about his and I think he saw a 50rpm static increase. I figuredthat was truthful so I put some on mine. I have a little electronic tachand it's hard to read small differences like that, but I'm pretty sure I sawabout a 30rpm increase. I did for sure notice the prop was quieter. Sheflies fine without it, so I'm not sure if I'll do it again, but I figureevery little bit helps. You can get it from ACS, I think they sell a"ultralight/homebuilt" kit for prop vortelator tape. It's like 30 bucks todo a prop. Mine stayed on fine with the adhesive backing, but Bill put afine line of crazy glue around the edges and had it on for years. He ran itthe whole length of the prop, the ACS kit says just the inner 10-12" or sowhich is what I did. I think it's like VG's. it makes a small improvement,but if it's enough is a personal decision. I mainly appreciated the quieterprop.RE turnback altitude. I'm really appreciating all the helpful input. Icompletely understand that if an engine konks on takeoff, get the nose downand fine a place to "land" straight ahead or thereabouts. However, asyou're climbing and gaining altitude, there certainly comes altitudes atwhich one has more options, including getting it back on the runway andthat's what I'm curious about. Is that 500', 700', 1,000'? I have no idea.I think I'll go out and try it over a road at altitude and see what happens.Sounds like something we should all practice while we can.Douwe________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:31:15 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: turnback and vortelator tape
The "leading edge tape" I mentioned is called vortelator tape. It's beendiscussed a few times here. You put it on the high point of the prop camberand it supposedly reduces drag a bit allowing some extra rpms, or a slightlylower power setting for the same rpms. take your pick. Bill Rewey did anarticle about his and I think he saw a 50rpm static increase. I figuredthat was truthful so I put some on mine. I have a little electronic tachand it's hard to read small differences like that, but I'm pretty sure I sawabout a 30rpm increase. I did for sure notice the prop was quieter. Sheflies fine without it, so I'm not sure if I'll do it again, but I figureevery little bit helps. You can get it from ACS, I think they sell a"ultralight/homebuilt" kit for prop vortelator tape. It's like 30 bucks todo a prop. Mine stayed on fine with the adhesive backing, but Bill put afine line of crazy glue around the edges and had it on for years. He ran itthe whole length of the prop, the ACS kit says just the inner 10-12" or sowhich is what I did. I think it's like VG's. it makes a small improvement,but if it's enough is a personal decision. I mainly appreciated the quieterprop.RE turnback altitude. I'm really appreciating all the helpful input. Icompletely understand that if an engine konks on takeoff, get the nose downand fine a place to "land" straight ahead or thereabouts. However, asyou're climbing and gaining altitude, there certainly comes altitudes atwhich one has more options, including getting it back on the runway andthat's what I'm curious about. Is that 500', 700', 1,000'? I have no idea.I think I'll go out and try it over a road at altitude and see what happens.Sounds like something we should all practice while we can.Douwe________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:31:15 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: turnback and vortelator tape
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Original Posted By: "Gary Boothe"
Great video Scott! Thanks for sharing. Scott's segment starts at 16:47.Sent from my iPadJack Textor> On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:50 AM, "AircamperN11MS" wrote:> > > Here is a link to the video I mention.> > http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1381694259> > Cheers,> > --------> Scott Liefeld> Flying N11MS since March 1972> Steel Tube> C-85-12> Wire Wheels> Brodhead in 1996> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 494#441494> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Great video Scott! Thanks for sharing. Scott's segment starts at 16:47.Sent from my iPadJack Textor> On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:50 AM, "AircamperN11MS" wrote:> > > Here is a link to the video I mention.> > http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1381694259> > Cheers,> > --------> Scott Liefeld> Flying N11MS since March 1972> Steel Tube> C-85-12> Wire Wheels> Brodhead in 1996> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 494#441494> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
...and not nearly long enough!Gary BootheNX308MB-----Original Message-----
...and not nearly long enough!Gary BootheNX308MB-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Original Posted By: "dgaldrich"
Yes it is a good flick. Even though it is about 20 years old, it still applies. I was asked if I would consider shutting the engine off for the shoot. I saidno thank you. As it was, I almost need to add throttle to arrest the sink rate.In the end, it was a power off landing. I haven't seen the video in about 15 years. It was good to see it again.Happy landings everyone,--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Yes it is a good flick. Even though it is about 20 years old, it still applies. I was asked if I would consider shutting the engine off for the shoot. I saidno thank you. As it was, I almost need to add throttle to arrest the sink rate.In the end, it was a power off landing. I haven't seen the video in about 15 years. It was good to see it again.Happy landings everyone,--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
Original Posted By: "taildrags"
A couple of things...1. Kevin Purtee wrote an interesting aftermath report on his accident departingBrodhead. One of the things he mentioned was that he didn't push the nose overany where near far enough to avoid loss of airspeed and the resulting spin/stall.Also touches on the partial power failure topic tools brought up. Worthrereading. Aug 6, 2012 post.2. Doing a 30 degree bank left 270/right 90 to get back to the runway will takeapproximately 30 seconds at 60 mph. If your power off sink rate at 60 is 1500fpm, you're gonna need 750 ft AGL if you do everything perfectly.3. Years ago, I lost an engine in a 152 and landed straight ahead without a problem.It was a 12,000 ft runway so I could have climbed to 1,000 ft and stilllanded straight ahead on concrete. The moral is intersection takeoffs leavea lot of options behind you.DaveRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude
A couple of things...1. Kevin Purtee wrote an interesting aftermath report on his accident departingBrodhead. One of the things he mentioned was that he didn't push the nose overany where near far enough to avoid loss of airspeed and the resulting spin/stall.Also touches on the partial power failure topic tools brought up. Worthrereading. Aug 6, 2012 post.2. Doing a 30 degree bank left 270/right 90 to get back to the runway will takeapproximately 30 seconds at 60 mph. If your power off sink rate at 60 is 1500fpm, you're gonna need 750 ft AGL if you do everything perfectly.3. Years ago, I lost an engine in a 152 and landed straight ahead without a problem.It was a 12,000 ft runway so I could have climbed to 1,000 ft and stilllanded straight ahead on concrete. The moral is intersection takeoffs leavea lot of options behind you.DaveRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: minimum turnback altitude