Impossible Turn Is it Simple? Is it Safe?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июл 2024
- Impossible Turn Is it Simple? Is it Safe?
This is the 'Impossible Turn Playlist' I Think they are all in here:
• Impossible Turn Series
FlyWire Store:
flywire-store.creator-spring.com
Patreon FlyWire:
/ flywire
FlyWire is about exploring flight and the freedom this incredible experience brings us on a personal level. Flying has always captured the imagination and excitement of living life to its fullest. Hi, I'm Scott Perdue. In a former life I flew the F-4 and F-15E, more recently I retired from a major airline. I've written for several aviation magazines over the years, was a consultant for RAND, the USAF, Navy, NASA as well as few others, wrote a military thriller- 'Pale Moon Rising' (still on Kindle). But mostly I like flying, or teaching flying. Some of the most fun I had was with Tom Gresham on a TV show called 'Wings to Adventure". We flew lots of different airplanes all over the country. Now with FlyWire I want to showcase the fun in flying, share the joy and freedom of flight and explore the world with you. Make sure you subscribe if you want to go along for the ride!
#Pilot #Fly #Flying #Fly yourself #aviation #FlyingTraining #LearntoFly #adventure #military aviation #aviationhistory
Website: www.flywire.online
Merch Links: flywire-store.creator-spring.com
My Book: Pale Moon Rising tinyurl.com/5abmxxkh
Twitter: @FlyWireO / flywire.online
Facebook: / flywireonline
Not a pilot, but I have to say that this is one the most succinct descriptions and practical demonstrations of what a pilot needs to be cognizant of in case of an engine failure at a critical time.
You are one of the only reliable online sources on this topic. I appreciate your systematic and practical approach using your aircraft and experience. "Energy is a requirement for options. Options are what keeps us alive. Maybe it's just me, but I like to keep my options open." Right again.
Only reliable online source?
What about Juan Browne & Dan Gryder?
You may not like the personality of the latter, but his advice is consistent. Fly the aircraft straight ahead at DMMS right to the end of the crash. Do not turn back.
@@dingerbell100 ONE of the only. Browne is good and Dan is a flake - being unstable reduces his credibility.
I like them all. Dan really says what he feels. He’s a good pilot.
@@dingerbell100Juan is a content creator, who needs to keep his audience entertained. Nothing bad about that, but just not at the same level as Scott.
Dan has his beef with the church of money grabbers and other issues, which sometimes get mixed in and dilute his messages. DMMS is cool, just flying straight in all cases is not necessarily the best option. I was trained differently, where you calculate all your options for every take off and call out the recovery plan at each altitude and speed.
I really miss Richard McSpadden...😢
@@daszieher What about Juan Browne & Dan Gryder? Neither of them can teach turnbacks, even OVER THE SAFE ALTITUDE AND DISTANCE. They cant.
Airline pilots cannot turn well if over 30 degrees of bank and hate turnback practice. We Bush Pilots call them "Mild Maneuvering Pilots".
Scott is a Hard Maneuvering Pilot. Big difference. That is why so many airline pilots crash on small airplanes.
Sometimes you have to turn 45 degrees at Vglide speed like on EFATO Turnbacks, Box Canyon Turnbacks, GRM Turnbacks, Circling Approach Turnbacks. 4 places for Turnbacks.. Do them wrong and you can die.
Ignorance is not the solution. Ignorance is the problem.
Thanks for the great assessment. By now, most of us that incessantly watch safety videos are committed NOT to do turnbacks. We are, however, well indoctrinated in the need to quickly nose over (get light in the seat) to keep the plane flying, after which we can fly to the scene of the crash. On the day that we're going to lose our engine, I would think the fixed variable for various assessments would be the time between liftoff and the engine failure, meaning a question to be answered could be this:
"Assuming an engine failure xx seconds after liftoff, say 30 seconds, what climb rate will result in the best energy state after you've nosed over and arrived at the best glide speed." The higher the altitude when arriving at best glide, the more the energy and the more the available options. Not knowing the failure is coming (like when pulling back the throttle), and given the bias now not to turn back, most pilots will likely react sequentially by nosing down, establishing best glide and then figuring out what to do next. This is certainly not optimal for executing a best achievable turnback, but it is optimal for avoiding an immediate stall/spin.
Flight testing for this could be done just by climbing for various fixed times (20, 30, 40 seconds) at various speeds (Vx, Vy, Vcc), then cutting power, waiting a reasonable startle time, say 3 seconds, then nosing over and recording the altitude when the best glide speed is established.
This would provide insight identifying the climb rate that would provide the highest post engine failure energy state once arriving at a steady state condition (best glide). As compared to testing where the failure always occurs at a particular altitude, these results would converge a bit, meaning there would be less difference between the results for Vx vs. Vy since the Vx will occur at a higher altitude than Vy and Vy at a higher altitude than Vcc.
Thanks for commenting and watching. Actually, you could watch it again. Altitude is not as important at airspeed. I’m going to do another video on this next, a deeper dive into climb speed.
Experience has convinced me that altitude is not as important as airspeed. I think slower deceleration at less pitch angle while accepting the event live is a factor. Eleven of my thirteen engine failures were at 200' or lower crop dusting or on pipeline patrol, but all were at cruise airspeed. The energy management 1 g turn at whatever bank angle was necessary to make a survivable LZ was always a turn to target and less than 180 degrees of heading change. They were six second deals. I was usually high and fast to the available LZ in the very near hemisphere ahead of the wing. I learned to immediately go full rudder forward slip. I think working from energy excess rather than energy deficiency was more comfortable. @@FlyWirescottperdue
@@FlyWirescottperdue The physics / flight mechanics are brutally honest. Accelerate to Vy in ground effect then climb at Vy. That's the fastest way to build total energy during takeoff and climbout. I posted another comment here with the details, so I'm not going to repeat here. The short version is that Vy maximizes specific excess power, and power * time = energy.
The reason they tell you to just go straight ahead is because that's the most appropriate answer for the average pilot and almost always the right answer for a student pilot. Safely executing the maneuver requires practice, skill, familiarization and recent experience with your airplane's capabilities at low speeds, planning for the specific runway, and doing a pre-takeoff briefing to mentally prepare and have the go/no-go altitude number in recent memory. The average pilot is just doing $100 hamburger runs and not practicing maneuvers with the aircraft except at biannual flight reviews. And students don't have the experience and judgment by definition.
And don't forget most pilots' shock and response will be longer than demonstrated, maybe 4-6 seconds at least?
Yes indeed. See the video I did with my A36 for the startle factor
Yeah, I’m a pilot and I don’t have that many hours I, wonder how quick I would react?
The most important thing- I think- is to plan for a land out location, or try to fly that strip on the way out if you can (in uncontrolled airspace).
It is good to be reminded of how much altitude you are going to lose while maneuvering into a turn. This is a big deal. Because you don’t notice that when you are power on. Power on you power through it! I think practicing gliding turns at relatively low altitude, engine idle, probably a pretty good thing to get a feel for it. But only do it in a safe Place where you can actually land in case something goes wrong
@@steveperreira5850 Try it at altitude first. Maneuvering at low altitudes is rarely a good idea, except in controlled conditions (like flying an airshow).
This was fascinating. First time I've seen a hard-data analytical approach to calculating the feasibility of the impossible turn. Several thoughts born from my own power and glider experience:
1. Dale (Fairbanks pilot) did a fantastic job reacting and dealing with his engine out scenario. I like that he allowed plane to drift downwind off runway centerline once airborne (for reasons explained in 2 and 3). I speculate here that the quick bobble to the left (towards river) as the engine quite, before turning right toward open fields around airport) cost him the energy that was the difference between a hard pancake (1500 fpm?) and a more gentle flair at touch down. Too easy to Monday morning quarterback, but interested in other thoughts.
2. In primary glider training, and every flight, 200' is the generally accepted 180 return-to-runway ("RTR" for brevity) magic number. There are variations of course depending upon wing loading (glider competition ballasting) and other performance factors. Below 200', land (mostly) straight ahead. Above 200' can generally execute a RTR. If a student didn't loudly call-out "200 feet" when reaching such altitude, they can usually expect the CFIG to pull the tow release as a reminder. It wasn't fun banking 40-45 degrees close to the ground, but highly doable. The RTR worked best if tow-plane and glider drifted down-wind off the runway centerline such that if there was a rope-break or engine issues at 200 feet, a simple 180 into the wind would line you up with the runway.
3. In my power training in the early 1990s, specifically in a C152 (I never tried this in other powered craft, whether taildragger or tricycle), we practiced the engine-out RTR from 400' (It's possible there was slight cheating: a little extra airspeed, or pulled power at 450'). The first couple times I was nervous about the ground proximity and the physics working out. But we did it, repeatedly. Since my CFI in this instance was a Lear jockey, I brought and applied my glider experience into this practice in two ways: A) demonstrated the greater energy efficiency getting safely onto the ground by drifting downwind off the centerline at lift-off. The subsequent RTR required only a 180 degree turn (sometimes a little more for minor corrections). This sometimes allowed enough extra energy that, with full flaps on short final, we occasionally had too much energy to set down on a "short" runway (even though we practiced on a one-mile length runway), so I B) announced, then demonstrated to CFI an aggressive side-slip, which amusingly puckered his Lear-Jet-driving sphincter, but got us down onto the runway right dam quick.
But to be clear, the purpose of drifting downwind away from runway centerline after lift-off is purely an engine-out, defensive-flying move for that rare critical engine failure. It allows just a little bit more RTR option if the worst thing should happen after take-off. Not drifting downwind means you'll have to fly a button-hook pattern, which involves more like 270 degrees of turning, and often more, to correctly align with the runway you're returning to. The button-hook scenario requires more energy to execute, which could be the critical difference between a disaster and walking away, or even saving the ship.
In every, EVERY, take-off I make, power or glider, I'm thinking through the scenarios if the engine quits at a really bad time. Call it the "wife-and-kids" factor, or "I want to live to fly another day" factor. IMO, power pilots don't think enough about engine failure close to the ground.
Thanks for an excellent approach to the impossible turn.
Great input to the conversation!
Great video, thank you. My friends and I wondered about using "the impossible turn" for both escaping a narrow blind canyon and engine failures about 30 years ago. For the takeoff part we did informal tests in a C-172 using a virtual floor and various engine failure heights. I can't remember the minimum height for success, but it was higher than one would think. I have an aerobatic signoff and my best success was a wingover immediately on engine failure, BUT that's not realistic because it does not include startle time and it requires practice and proficiency. For escaping blind canyons with a running engine, a wingover can be the only hope, but still carries high risk and the need for proficiency.
A wingover can kill you easily on a turnback no power. Quick STALL. Even with power on, it is easy to stall it in case of partial power LOTOT Turnback or Box Canyon Turnback. Why? Because when lower alt above ground, in stress, you tend to pull back more elevator than other relaxed times. Good to practice turnbacks at airport too. At altitude we are all pros until the dam ground gets closer and no margin for student pilot errors. I used to teach 3 kinds of turnbacks in the 1990's. Had to do 2 for real on Cherokees.
What were the three types of turnbacks?@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350
Like your straight talk about when the fan stops making the noise... You have to have a mindset about when the noise maker goes silent and you have very little time to respond... Most airplanes need energy to get airborne, so a low-energy state on or after takeoff is always a critical issue
Which is why I preferred trading altitude for speed. Every airplane is much more manoeuvrable a certain speed a good bit above the stall speed.
An extra couple of 100ft aren't going to help, if all one is going to achieve is to stall and spin 😈
Mr Perdue; I learned turbacks on Cherokee 140 (underpower airplane). That was in 1996. Where you using the Vx, Vy and Vglide speeds precisely for your weight at that moment? That can make a big difference. The better angle you climb, the better chance of turnback.
Also some winds instead of nothing at all can make you reach the runway. Please see that video of a Bonanza Take Off Engine fail practice i posted the link. Dec. 2 2023.
So many airline pilots crash on small airplanes. Sometimes you have to turn 45 degree banks at Vglide speed- like on EFATO Turnbacks, Box Canyon Turnbacks, GRM Turnbacks, Circling Approach Turnbacks. 4 places for Turnbacks.. Do them wrong and you can die. Ignorance is not the solution, Ignorance is the problem my CFI said when i learned them in 1997. He had to do 2 EFATO Turnbacks for real. Cherokees.
People that freeze on airplanes will also freeze on cars and not swerve when needed. That is called Temporary Startle Paralisis. Frozing in place. My 1996 Aerobatics and EFATO CFI taught me that. He also says some even push a pedal when scared, like trying to step back in fear. He called that, the Pilot Panic Pedal. That is why most stalls are to the left and many pilots also land on left side of centerline.
Most times they do Panic Pedal on spins or EFATO practice on runway. He used to tell me to retract the left foot if no left rudder needed on that maneuver.. Im right handed, and most scared right handers push the left pedal. The lefties PUSH THE RIGHT PEDAL instead.. Panic Pedal is no remembered by the pilot later on. Is done, and not remembered later.. Unconsiously..
There ya go…..
Using Math and Logic….
Good Job!!!
I'm not that good at math
Excellent analysis! Of course your numbers will be more favorable than with an actual dead engine, due to your idling engine still producing 40-60 lbs of thrust. Compared to 500-600 lbs thrust in the climb, the idling engine gives a bit of a false sense of how much energy is available in a real forced landing situation. i.e. in a real engine failure, you have even less energy than these practice runs indicate.
True, and success was still in doubt!
So you add 200 feet more to the altimeter indicator. Duhh
Thank you Scott - like I mentioned in my text to you, I actually have an AGL value plackard on the panel, for when to / not to consider a turn back, along with my check lists and critical speeds for easy reference. So appreciate you and the work you do for us.
That is a good idea. Hey go / no go altitude For turnaround
I practiced this today in my light sport at altitude and near gross weight. You gotta push that nose over till your light in the seat. 45 degree bank turn. I lost 300 feet at 180 degrees, 400 feet 270 degrees. So the airplane can do it if I have the presence of mind at the time.
I learned a maneuver to get used TO PUSH NOSE DOWN AT 200 AGL AFTER TAKE OFF. Keep engine at full power, push nose down fast, then bring it up slowly again. My CFI called it "Take off Pushdowns". That was in 1997. No need to cut engine at bad moment like that. You accelerated on the push down, get used to it. Freaky at beginning, but then its fun. And important.
I learned turnbacks in 1995. So Add a buffer of say 100 feet. Mentally reviiew before every take off. lIke "no power turnback to opposite Only if from 500 or turning crosswind. We used to Put an altitude marker on altimeter and a blue line on Vglide. Easier for any maneuvers .
Good for you practicing!
Excellent demonstration of the hazards of the impossible turn. And, you’re a very current, well trained pilot too! So, the average private pilot with likely 1/4 of the yearly hours as you will have a much longer delay. Thanks for doing this!
It is not impossible ffs. Stop calling it that.
Ok, NEARLY impossible
@@adriaba790 iF YOU DO IT WRONG WAY. So learn the right way, Real pilots are not a coward Mild Maneuvering Pilot.
iF YOU DO IT WRONG WAY. So learn the right way, Real pilots are not a coward Mild Maneuvering Pilot. Pilatus Pilots have to do them well on simulator BEFORE they are allowed to fly that aircraft. Cant do it? That is the door, dam coward they say.
I learned a maneuver to get used TO PUSH NOSE DOWN AT 200 AGL AFTER TAKE OFF. Keep engine at full power, push nose down fast, then bring it up slowly again. My CFI called it "Take off Pushdowns". That was in 1997. No need to cut engine at bad moment like that. You accelerated on the push down, get used to it. Freaky at beginning. But needed practice.
An excellent technical presentation. However, may I suggest the average Joe-Pilot would be better advised to be establishing the glide, picking the landing spot, checking for the engine failure, tightening his harness, briefing his passengers and making his Mayday call. His arrival is under control at the lowest ground speed and all checks complete. Turning back has been the demise of so many over the years that I fear this presentation may lead low hours G/A pilots to disaster.
Thirty eight-years experience in the cockpit also suggests that a strong headwind makes the impossible turn even more dangerous. The mass of the machine has to be accelerated to twice the wind speed in this tight turn which trades off energy (height) and the arrival is going to be at high groundspeed and in the face of following traffic. In my opinion, you have to be on-the-ball and pretty slick to get away with this manoeuvre.
Ray, Don't miss the other videos in the Turnback playlist. The brief should happen on the ground and a radio call would be the last thing on my list to accomplish.
Ray, only one of my 11 very low engine failures crop dusting and pipeline patrol at 200' involved a turnback and that was to the adjoining crop field, not the one I was coming out of. They were all six second deals. They were aviate deals...just aviate and a tiny navigate to suitable site and no communicate. Good point on wind which we need to manage in that six seconds to go as much into as possible, but as Scott points out it is all out the window. And the suitable site catches our attention most, not wind management. While airspeed is the most critical low altitude energy condition for maneuverability, time (altitude is time) is simply something that deserves no consideration as we have almost none. For the small amount of altitude to help at all, we must have conditioned ourselves to not pull back on the stick/yoke in turns. That right there is the killer of pilots in these situations. Any amount of turn, any bank of turn, is not a problem if we release back pressure in the turn to turn that altitude into airspeed, which is life down here. No back pressure equals 1 g in a turn of any bank angle.
Where does distance back to the airport factor in? Vx, though requiring a startling attitude delta keeps you closest to the airport. Vy is less startling but you’ve got more distance to travel back to the field. Vcc is the easiest transition but now you’ve got a really long distance to travel back to the field. Your plane has a big engine and I worry someone with a Cherokee 140 will see this and adopt the Vcc climb profile with two passengers on a hot day. I flew exactly one time with a guy who did this routinely and I was alarmed at how long I was uncomfortable climbing at 200 fpm.
As far as the physics of the turn, it doesn't enter into it all. But you can see that energy at the end of the 180 is marginal for Vy and so so for Vcc. The heavier the wing loading the less likely a succesfull Turnback will be made. And that is the important point.
Nice video. Remember, this data is for one aircraft only, not even one type of aircraft. A Piper Cub or a Cessna Cardinal RG will have vastly different results. I believe the main takeaway of this video is KNOW WHAT YOUR AIRCRAFT IS CAPABLE OF. This takes practice. Don't say you can or can't do something unless you practice. And that practice will give you the knowledge of a single aircraft, the one you practiced in.
Excellent comment. With one exception the data from the equation is independent of mass or aerodynamics. The energy loss will vary by airplane.
@@FlyWirescottperdue 100% correct on mass, and there are other significant factors also, such as drag, wing cord profile, roll rates, control effectiveness and resultant glide ratios etc. The disimilarity between aircraft is a significant factor that requires demonstrated experience, not just the energy equation. That is, it is important to know what your airplane can achieve with that energy! Which is why , as you clearly alluded to, a pilot needs to practice and establish physical/aerodynamic empathy with the airplane.
Then there are the external factors; length of runway behind you, wind speed and its direction, along with clearing the 50ft obsticle etc.
Looking forward to your next episode!
Minimum requirements for MY airplane to execute a safe return to the runway would include density altitude, airspeed, gross weight as well as altitude (agl). All such requirements would be on a pre-take off addendum to my checklist, and would be briefed prior to every take-off as part of the emergency considerations.
Walter, how do you quantify those factors?
I won't attempt defining all of the flight parameters required here, but just to indicate my thinking on the matter: a) Density Altitude is an airport local parameter which is derived from temperature, humidity, and physical altitude (MSL) b) Airspeed would be that required for stable level flight at gross weight and density altitude determined for your flight c) Gross weight would be that of your aircraft at takeoff ( Empty weight, passengers, fuel, cargo ).
For the types of flight characteristics I listed, the flight path geometry required for a safe return to the airport can be established, as well as rule out ill-advised attempts to return in the event of power failure during climb-out from the runway.@@FlyWirescottperdue
I'm a pilot with surely less experience than you, but in my opinion I don't even think about turn backs unless I'm at pattern altitude or there are absolutely no options straight ahead
Richard McSpadden did a video for AOPA flight safety institute where he insinuated that the impossible turn was possible in many cases, And then was killed later on apparently in a plane where the pilot was trying to make the impossible turn. I agree with you, It's not Simple, and it's not safe and your math proves it. Another factor is that aircraft at takeoff are normally at their heaviest, before burning off any fuel and adding in the performance factors associated with density altitude which can destroy even more of your energy and you have a really impossible turn
That’s why he made this video…because of Richard’s death.
He mentioned the Cardinal crash in the beginning of the video.
It is possible in many cases. There's RUclips videos of it happening. The problem is that it depends. If you aren't familiar with the aircraft including it's low speed characteristics, if you aren't comfortable flying at the edge, if you haven't done the planning and pre-takeoff briefing, and if the airplane has a higher wing loading, the more difficult it will be to pull it off successfully. The reason the advice is usually to just fly straight ahead is because the average pilot is just doing $100 hamburger runs and didn't build the skills or experience with even basic maneuvers and didn't do the planning. So the safest thing to do is just revert to primacy and go straight ahead. Personally, I think their advice needs to be more nuanced. I've flown at several airports where crashing straight ahead was going to result in a very bad day due to terrain, water, or houses. Sometimes you just need to turn 90 degrees not the full 180-270. But that's why you plan for the specific runway and do a takeoff briefing before pulling out onto the runway. But the average GA pilot doesn't do that. So they take the lowest common denominator approach and recommend everyone crash straight ahead.
there are way too many variables for nearly any pilot to calculate in the time allowed. Weight and balance, Gross weight, Density altitude, Runway length and orientation, Runway obstructions, and all that is before you start determining energy state from primarily outside references. There are a few videos of people making it happen in an unrealistic controlled environment, but the list of people who didn't make it is much longer and far more sad. @@major__kong
At 30 degree bank you will take lots more room and hence altitude to complete the 270 Turnback. It is Hook or Question Mark Shaped. You need 45 degree bank/Vglide speed or a few knots less if no stall warning on. I used to teach them in the 1990's on a houses surrounded airport. Some climbing at over 800 fpm and some wind we used to turnback from 700 agl simulated EFATO. Cessnas, Short wing cherokkes and Grumman Tigers. 4,500 feet long runway. I have videos from 1995 turnbacks & landing with 16 knots quartering TAILWINDS. Im the CFI that taught that other commenter named outwiththem in 1997.
Storehouse of knowledge helping aviators through time. Thank you.
Scott, if you have a Garmin G5 in your panel take a look at Section 11.4 (RS-232 Text Output Format) for an RS-232 interface which gives a plethora of Attitude/Air data (10 hz) and GPS data, 1 hz). This is in the the "G5 Electronic Flight Installation Mannual for Experimental/LSA aircraft. You probably would need some sort of an FAA approval to install the RS232 serial cable. I'm running an RV7-A so the interface is my primary flight test data colleciton source. One work around would be if you had a second, non "installed" G5 with a separate battery to run the device and an small arduinno or Raspberry Pi to read the serial interface and store the information. Great video, Thanks.
Phillip, I don't have to do that. My G3X records a very large number of data points every second. It is a fantastic Flight Test support feature!
Hi Scott. As you know, this is a favourite subject of mine. Your video is excellent and very enlightening. Thank you.
This is a complicated subject to say the least. E (total)= KE + PE is true, and it's pretty straight forward if we want to describe the path of a ballistic object (cannonball). If we add wings, control surfaces, and a power plant to our cannonball, and ask the question, "If the cannonball looses power, at what altitude (PE) and velocity (KE), would it be possible to utilize the control surfaces to return my cannonball to its starting point, then, as you suggest, the variables are so manifold that only empirical data collected by testing the specific cannonball under real conditions can answer that question.
It is also worth noting that in the equation E (total) = (mV(2)/2) + mgh, g is gravity (9.8m/s(2)), so it is also an accelerating force. Also, maximum PE is achieved at the apex (highest altitude h), after that, assuming no other energy, then PE becomes KE as the object falls.
I’m not a pilot but I enjoy watching how you approach your story lines. I think that you have a distinct advantage over a pilot encountering an engine out unexpectedly, in that you know when it’s coming and aren’t focusing on anything else at the time, a pilot not expecting an engine out would spend some amount of time trying to troubleshoot the problem before deciding what course of action to take, so have even less chance than you had of making it work.
Altitude is your friend, lots of potential, airspeed is nice but the higher it is the faster it bleeds off. Like a pitch out to a closed pattern it is coming down like a cook stove but flyable. Good presentation Scott. As they say,Fly the airplane.
Another excellent video Scott,thank You .
I took off on 22 runway in Tomahawk, 600 feet engine lost power, i took control from student, stuffed nose down, banked 20 degrees at 80 kts and landed back on runway 34.
i LEARNED turnbacks on a Tomahawk 2 kinds. 1997. climbing at 700 fpm, 700 agl, power off, nose down to 45 degree bank at Vglide 70 knots. Made it to the 4,000 feet long runway if winds of 10 knots helped.
You have to keep it simple. Fanstop! Push nose down; can only turn 15 degrees right or left; land under CONTROL. Every 3 flights, practise, again and again. "Do NOT try and turn back. Sod the aeroplane; it has betrayed you; smash it up and survive. Ex RAFVR.
KISS and live to tell the tale!
Royal Air Force... Volunteer Reservist? Practice yes. High speed departures, cruise and approaches don't teach much about brain, eye, hand, airframe coordination in a slow near-earth experience.
Given a Permanent Commission in GD(P), one of 20 from 4,000 applicants. Your point? It is essential to train hard, so when an emergency happens, it is not a big deal. We expected 100% or get chopped. Turning back is SO stupid - wind now behind you; air speed decreasing BECAUSE you are going he other way. Civilians need to pull their sox up - flying will kill the mediocre.@@willnelson5692
Yes! You you got it. Flying is WORK - always waiting for something to go wrong. CAVU skies to you!!@@FlyWirescottperdue
Thanks for mathing it out for us Scott. While cruise was only 90 in a loaded Pawnee, I wanted this much energy to maneuver to something like in Dale's video. The big Bonanza is really fast. I never got that far in the Pawnee.
Is that why they went to turboprops?
Its a Farm Tractor that flies. Best pilots ever. Low slow precision flights many times a day.
@@davidking1460 Turboprops, while I never flew them, didn't change the math, which Scott points out, in the energy management of safe maneuvering flight. The bigger engine you get, the bigger the hopper and load. So whether a 235 hp Pawnee with 150 gallons in the hopper or 1700 hp AT-802 with 800 gallons, we both want to come out of low ground effect on the runway or in the crop field at Vcc. We also do not want to trade any airspeed for altitude more than necessary to just clear the obstruction and the end of runway or crop swath. Like Scott pointed out with his fine math, which is Greek to me, and flight test, which made sense, we want airspeed kinetic energy more than altitude potential energy when we are working low. And from a couple hundred feet max in Pawnee or even 400' in Air Tractor, we react to engine failure with an aggressive turn at little more than 1 g because we allow the airplane to do what it wants to do naturally in a turn...it wants the nose to go down and not to stall. We want that too so we do not try to increase rate of turn and reduce radius of turn with elevator. We increase rate of turn with bank angle...lots of bank angle if needed to make a survivable landing zone in the very near horizon in front of the wing. And we use the potential energy of that 200' or 400' to prevent stall in a turn of perhaps 80 degree bank angle.
Without altitude and engine we are not going to do the impossible turn that we do thousands of times a day with power. We are going to manage all the energy available (lots of kinetic and some potential) to safely survive the engine failure. In 17,000 hours crop dusting and patrolling pipeline at 200' with wavier, I had nine complete engine failures and two partial engine failures. The partials are a bit more dangerous, I think, as with McSpaddens.
Thank you so much as always Scott. Usable advice presented clearly.
An important element in my decision making about turning back to the departure runway rather than landing straight ahead is what the tailwind component will be for the landing. The runway at my home base is less than 2500' with a dike at each end. That will disappear pretty quickly with even a 10 knot tailwind. So even if I can make the turn, can I make the landing? A downwind landing on a short runway in the heat of an emergency is risky business.
Absolutely!
Would be great IF someone could build a Computer crunching the Numbers and saying "(Airfield Name) - Unable". Well done, Scott!
Thanks for these videos! Apologies if you addressed this, but I think you need more than 180° if you plan on making the runway, more like 270° (unless you have a nice x-wind). I'm still in the land/crash straight ahead camp.
I covered it in my first videos on the subject. From this video Vy did NOT have the energy to turn anymore after 180 degrees.
@@FlyWirescottperdue Mr Perdue, Did you turn at the required 45 bank and REAL Vglide speed weight for the weight. And just over TPA?. Those things have to be done right of BUST THE MANEUVER. Me and outwiththem were students of Emergency LowManeuvering Channel CFI. He was an experts on turnbacks. 1996.
Some serious food for thought. Thanks for making these videos.
This old aero engr/flight test guy loved this video.
Thanks Scott...always an interesting delve into the impossible turn.
The startle factor and possible need to do something rather than initiating nose down and turn could be huge losses in the bank.
Scott you nailed it. Energy is paramount to flight. Your mathematical analysis is spot on. Do not try the impossible turn. If Richard MacSpadden could not do it then why do pilots even consider it. AOA and stall speeds will greatly increased with engine out on take off or slow flight. Pilots seem to know this so does is come down to aeronautical decision making?
A maneuver to get used TO PUSH NOSE DOWN AT 200 AGL AFTER TAKE OFF. Keep engine at full power, push nose down fast, then bring it up slowly again. My CFI called it "Take off Pushdowns". That was in 1997. No need to cut engine at bad moment like that. You accelerates on the push down, so get used to it. Freaky at the beginning. THEN FUN TO DO.
om glad you uploaded. ive already watched all your videos multiple times lol.
Glad you like them!
First, Thank You!, Second, I would like to see vx, and vy tried at higher altitudes to compare overall altitude loss for a 180 and 270 turn. To take it further various bank angles . I assume there has to be a best average turn just like there is a best glide. I recently practiced turning back using box turn techniques in a 150, altitude loss was about 300' at at the 180 point.
If the engine quits, does your calculator stop working. Hence always carry a spare pencil and paper!😁
Great information, much appreciated.
I watched the math section again, and I agree with the 52%, 64%, and 80% KE’ for each speed compared to the others. What I still don’t understand is how you got the earlier numbers for 84% and 111% for E’t compared to baseline. What did you use for PE’ to get these numbers?
Thanks again. Keep them coming.
Just like I said in the video. I used the speeds I mentioned, and the altitudes, converted them all to metric because slugs don't make sense to me. Ran the equation for each altitude and made a table... created a percentage of baseline for each altitude and then took the average of the energy at those altitudes.
@@FlyWirescottperdue I was also a bit confused about your calculations there... So you calculate KE for the different speeds and add the PE for heights between 100ft and 1300ft. And then you take the average of the Total Energies for the different heights for every speed setting? If I do this (actually you would have to take the integral, but a reasonable step size of 100ft for the heights is good enough), I get 86% and 109% for the average energy of the v_x and v_cc case with respect to the v_y case. The difference to your numbers is not too big but either one of us has the numbers wrong or you calculated the numbers differently.
Well done Scott, subscribed!
Doc
Hi Scott - Really appreciate your dedication this and other safety topics. I get the energy equation. Maybe I am missing something on the time to engine failure? More time=More altitude at Vx, Vy or Vcruise. More altitude = more potential energy. What I am missing is the apples to apples for when the engine fails after takeoff.
No, you are expecting that and that is not a valid metric. I said I would do another video where I'll take a deeper dive into Vy and Vcc, with time to climb, turn results and reasonable decision points. You have to look at it from the opposite perspective. Physics is physics. Essentially, each maneuver is independent of any other, except for the resulting energy state. The altitudes chosen for the simulated cut have nothing to do with each other, but everything to do with the energy available to make the 180 turn. If it barely makes the 180 it won't make the 270 and will need a higher minimum altitude as a decision point to turn back. The speeds require different decision points. I chose 800' for Vy because I hear that claimed all over the interweb. So, the results showed it can make the 180, but really nothing further. As for Vcc, that altitude was derived from a previous video I did on this subject. Don't forget that wing loading is a controlling factor.
You have no control over an actual engine failure. What we are looking for is decision points we can figure out on the ground so we don't have to make it up in the air.
And unfortunately from your comment is seems you missed the point on Vx, Vy and Vcc. Velocity has a bigger impact on energy than altitude.
@@FlyWirescottperdue You are correct - I did miss this, which is likely why I was confused. At the point of takeoff, all of the speeds are the same - the rotate speed. One will then accelerate to different speeds depending on AOA. Since I am still a bit confused about your approach to this, I guess I will await your findings. (I would think that while Vcc gives you the highest energy state/minimum energy loss - it would also result in you being so far away from the runway as to prevent the return)
Great numbers! Thx
Simulating from altitude (obviously for safety) is nice but probably not as bad of numbers if it were the real deal, mainly because an actual engine failure with a nose high attitude has you way more on the back side of the power curve, hence eating up more energy just to get to best glide speed. Just another variable that makes it sketchy to turn back. Good job explaining it and demonstrating it. A cub is way different than a bonanza. Hate that mcspadden demonstrated it in a cub.
Mac Spadden was killed by a big body but bad pilot. He knew that maneuver, but that guy didnt. Not the first good pilot killed by the many errors of a bad pilot.
So you think that he just sat there and watched? He and the other pilot believed they could make it back.
The impossible turn is exactly that, a set of factors that make a successful return the the airport not able to be completed.
He and the other pilot believed the bullshit he was peddling. How many others have to die for clickbait?
@@PilotCFIWesHead WHAT IS IMPOSSIBE YOU SAY? The problem was the bonehead owner that popped out that draggy landing gear at the end. The other alternative was to hit the other hills or trees in front. The were going to be fucked anyway there.
@@PilotCFIWesHead I learned EFATO Turnbacks in 1996 as CFI and taught to about 6 just before airlines called me in 1997. But they were total power lost EFATO, from 700-800 agl on Cherokee short winger. The partial power much later.
The partial power LOTOT kind can be very tricky. I practiced them i think 2004 and it depends on if holding altitude or not wit partial power only.
You have to troubleshoot as you turn away from the wind if crosswind or to the right if not. I did them from as low as 300 "The 300 AGL LOTOT" but you take a chance if engine dies just before the second turn into the wind or left if not. And that is what happened to them i think. The turn was made well, no stall and they aligned it, but i think engine died all and they got bit low.
Then THE OWNER POP OUT THAT DRAGGY GEAR AND that made them hit 15 feet under the airport hill.
Scott, I didn't notice any delay (surprise factor) at your 800' and 1100' cuts. Did I miss them or were they edited out for brevity? Thanks, & love your videos. Keep 'em coming.
I talked about it in the video.
Video and comments from others are very interesting and informative. I don't think I would ever try and turn back unless I was sure I had enough altitude and energy to more than make it. Buddy of mine tried it years ago with a plane he had just rebuilt and bought the farm. I was kinda surprised at the sink rate of the plane in the Hennen video. Gonna watch that some more.
What Hennen video ?
Incredible video, thank you
Scott I have data of an actually engine out at 450ft, at night in a Cessna 150f I uploaded to cloudAhoy we did the impossible turn
The 150 has a pretty low wing loading, so I can see that. My Husky will d oit under 500'. But success is totally airplane dependent!
Thanks for sharing Scott.
Simulated engine failure , push yoke forward, do you push left rudder all the way down? ( if you’re turning left).
Use the rudder to stay coordinated... unless you are doing a spin recovery you probably don't need full rudder.
Scott love your videos. I read the comments but I am still wondering why you started the engine failure at different altitudes? I would have thought you would start the failure at the same total energy state which means higher altitude for the slower speeds instead of the opposite like you did. Please help me understand your point.
The simple answer is the altitudes were chosen because this airplane can make the 180 degree Turnback (not necessarily 270) from those points. Two things: I said I was going to do a deeper dive into Vx and Vy and I also said I'd done many other videos on this topic. So I've experimented with these altitudes and speeds... this is not a stand alone video. It looked at Energy in this video. You want more, watch the previous videos, the Playlist is in the description and the next video will dive into Vx and Vy nuances. If I tried to cram everything into one video it would be more than an hour long and no one would watch it.
Not a pilot. Never been up
In a GA plane, but I find your material fascinating. Dad was a mechanical engineer and he told me (when I was a kid) that someday, some MIT student with a slide rule (that’s how long ago) was going to discover that the basic underpinnings of aeronautics were fallacious and every plane aloft would fall instantly. Engineer humor, the best I can figure.
Some people who do this their math isn't mathing. Your math math's out. I love to see the theoretical worked through in a practical application.
EXCELLENT,
G'day Scott,
Great stuff...
Ab-Initio should be mandated to occurr in
Sailplanes...;
That would stop
A lot
Of the rot...(!).
My pet Hobbyhorse...
Of course...
Such is life,
Keep on keepin' on...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
TBH, the engineering analysis isn't correct or, at a minimum, confusing. Using the energy maneuverability method by creating Ps (specific excess power) plots, the fastest way to build energy is an acceleration in ground effect to Vy and then a climb at Vy. By definition, Vy is the fastest way to climb. Why? It's where you are maximizing the specific excess power, which is the fastest way to build energy (power * time = energy). Vx gets you a steeper angle but at a slower rate. Vcc gets you a shallower angle for better visibility and engine cooling but a climb at a slower rate. Also remember that it takes more time to accelerate to Vcc than Vy. It's about what builds the most energy the fastest. That's accelerate to Vy and then climb at Vy.
The sink rate in the turn is a red herring. What you want to minimize is the altitude loss for a given amount of turn. That happens at 45 deg of bank at stall. It doesn't happen at minimum sink rate. It doesn't matter that the sink rate is high if the time to complete the turn is very short. Expect to not be able to hold your airplane in a 45 deg bank at stall. The turn rate is amazingly fast, and that introduces something most pilots don't ever experience - an increase in AoA at the tail (reduced elevator effectiveness) due to the tail "swooshing" through the air because of the high pitch rate in the turn and the tail being at the end of the lever arm. The first time I tried this, I had the yoke in my chest and couldn't hold her at stall. The airplane was accelerating like there was no tomorrow and turning its head like Linda Blair with full aft yoke, and that's about as far as I wanted to be a test pilot that day. I had to back off to 30-35 deg of bank. And I felt a lot more comfortable with the lower turn rate. But even then it was amazingly fast.
My recommendations as someone who has practiced this are: 1) If you are a student pilot or only fly to seek out the $100 hamburger, just go straight ahead. You most likely don't have the skills to safely execute this. But the less turn required the better. 2) Successfully executing this maneuver requires skill, familiarization and recent experience with the airplane especially at slow speeds, planning for the specific runway you will be using (which way to turn, will it be 90 deg or the full 180-270, what minimum altitude is required, etc) - and a pre-takeoff briefing to mentally prepare yourself and go over the numbers and actions again 3) The higher the wing loading on your plane, the more skill and practice you need and the less able this maneuver can successfully be executed. 4) Don't be flying near stall if you plane has bad stall characteristics. Keep the speed up a bit. 5) The only way to spin is to aggravate the stall with ailerons or rudder. Don't be using them in the turn.
Kong, thanks for watching and commenting. But to be honest I think you absolutely missed the point I was making. Vy and height is not the best way to acquire energy. Did you even watch the video? Or any of the other ones in the Impossible Turn Playlist? Go back to the description under the video and watch them. If you spend the time to do that you can refine your understanding of the maneuver.
Some of your points are close to truth, but you miss important factors. Your 'swooshing' observation describes a spiral dive, your aerodynamics are wrong.
You lose kinetic energy at a high rate until you get from cruise-climb speed to best glide speed, at the same time starting a steep turn to get turned around. Seems most lose it while trying to make that last 45* if they do make it back to the runway. I personally like to make a prompt crosswind turn after takeoff, then to base, and if the engine is still running, leave the pattern for my destination. If the engine quits before my crosswind turn, there's no turning back..
Pretty good picture, except for the part at losing energy at a high rate from cruise-climb to Best Glide.... that applies to Vy to Best Glide.
@@FlyWirescottperdue That's essentially what I meant. You're going up hill, and forcing the airplane nose down creates a good amount of drag for a few moments. Cheers
I think we're talking about the same data as the G5 is part of the Garmin can bus system. Phil
If the probability of a flight having an engine failure is proportional to the elapsed flight time, then in Scott's exercises climbing at Vcc for 65 seconds has almost 11 times the probability of an engine failure after climbing at Vx for 6 seconds. I would have thought the optimal climb tactic should be to fly at whatever airspeed minimises the flight time required to reach the minimum altitude that permits a successful turnback in that flight condition.
Also, climbing at Vcc at a shallow angle, to maximise energy, achieves nothing if that angle is shallower than the best glide angle that can be flown after turning back towards the departure runway.
I think you are over generalizing the issue and cherry picking several things. You obviously don't want elucidation. Believe what you like, MIB is real.
Hi Scott, in the 60s and 70s we flew A36s and engine failure was always on my mind on takeoff.
I never considered using full coarse for improving glide angle…….(not taught) but then, if the engine has stopped turning there’s no oil pressure to change the prop angle (there is no accumulator)…….right?.
Correct. The difference is 1500 FPM with fine pitch and 1000 FPM with coarse... big difference.
@@FlyWirescottperdue but you need oil pressure to change the prop angle……..at 100-110kt the prop will likely stop turning and not delivering oil pressure required. Ceasure/loss of oil pressure might be the very symptom related to the engine ‘failure’ and thus no ability to get coarse pitch…….? Spring loading (overcome by oil pressure) for full coarse would be an asset ?.
Can you share your thinking in the next video about flaps on a fixed gear plane as well? I usually wait for 500 feet before touching anything. My fear is that one retract but the other does not. Not seen something like this just that they potentially don’t respond at all.
That topic will probably be in the third video in the series. Don't overspeed your flaps. Consider how the flaps in your airplane operate. Split flaps in mechanically driven systems rarely fail with a split.
Great stuff Scott. Thank you.
An action can be technically possible and extremely stupid all at the same time; and the line between optimisim and stupidity is razor thin.
Absolutely, and that comment applies to life in general!
DID YOU TURN HEADWIND OR DID TAILWIND TURNBACKS?
Pretty near calm winds.
@@FlyWirescottperdueIt can make a significant difference.
Ok. After repeating your math, I see the 84% and 111% were calculated at a height of 400ft! So I think I get your message, the lower to the ground you are, the more of your energy is KE (eg h=0). But as you go higher, PE is much larger than KE and these E’t percentages get closer! Yea, the his makes sense. I didn’t get this from the video based on your explanation… sorry. But I think you are on to something and look forward to seeing if we can even trade some of the higher climb speed to for a tighter turn without stalling? Or do you lose too much altitude in the slow tight turn?
You don't lose as much energy in a tight turn if you are near Vcc.
I am not a pilot but one thing that I wonder about is that there seem to be small fields in heavily built up areas. So do people fly out of strips which have no clear ground straight ahead or within say +/- 20 degrees of runway alignment ?
70% of the airports in my area have no safe landing zone within miles of the runway. Trees, houses, and cliffside in order of prevalence.
@@diveforknowledge That's interesting, must encourage the thought of a 180.
That looked like a Panic Pull on take off and too much AOA cut the climb. He stalled it into that field.
Would it be feasible to have a JATO bottle mounted properly to assist with the turnaround? A 20-25 second blast of thrust could be worth the few extra pounds to carry.
My friend Todd Falconer thought so about 10 years ago and developed a solid rocket using wax as the propellant. Primarily for twins. Regulatory issues could not be overcome with the capital available.
So, does the formula suggest it is better to use your power to get faster, more so than higher to have the most options? I'm just guessing because you pointed out that velocity was squared in the formula.
No. You want to accelerate to Vy in ground effect and then climb at Vy. That's the fastest way to build total energy. I posted a comment here somewhere with the details of why.
That is exactly the point. Velocity gives you more total energy to deal with a power loss.
Pilatus Pilots have to do EFATO Turnbacks well on simulator BEFORE they are allowed to fly that aircraft. From 1,300 agl. Afraid to do it? That is the door, dam coward they say. The have to do EFATO Turnbacks well or the company block that pilot from flying their airplane.
I’d like to practice engine out emergencies. Is there a risk of damaging my engine due to shock cooling? I fly a Cherokee 6 with a 300 hp io 540.
Shock cooling is largely a myth. What you don't want to do is quickly cram in full power after idling for quite awhile.
I’d love to hear you elaborate on this topic. Maybe you could in a future video.
Drive a Chevy Corvair for awhile and test that..
8:30 I expected 77kts/96kts= 0.80. But I will keep watching, if maybe the explanation is right around the corner.
Edit: And indeed it was, the 64pct is 0.80^2, so just a typo, the energy percentage is correct.
The numbers I talked about were from the energy equation. I would expect it would run the same with the actual speeds I flew though.
During your engine failure after takeoff, I keep thinking: turn on the Boost Pump on that Continental (in case it’s the engine driven pump that failed). Not something I see or hear very often, but something to remember. I would hate to do an emergency landing after an engine failure after takeoff only to discover that I could have prevented the experience by turning on the boost pump…
How do you suppose Beechcraft determined the Vcc? It’s not mentioned in my 185 Owner’s Manual. I use 500 FPM and take the resulting speed, which averages ~130 MPH TAS on the G5 to TOC (I have a 350 HP IO-520). 500 FPM after TP altitude in my airplane works well all the way to 12,500’, if I need to go that high.
Hey, Manny! I haven't heard from you in awhile. The simple answer is Vcc is pretty much Best Glide Speed.
@@FlyWirescottperdue Best glide is 80 MPH in my airplane, which is between Vx and Vy. That wouldn’t work and I wouldn’t be able to see traffic ahead as I climb due to the high pitch attitude. Vcc 500 FPM with a speed beyond Vy works great for me. The cylinder heads in the summer heat like it better, too. I guess there’s math in there somewhere…😎
What's needed is a emergency mini jet engine on the belly to get you a elevation boost at the push of a button. Maybe 30 seconds of fuel. Or some small atomic reactor to provide the energy.
There is one glaring error in your calculations: you use the time to turn 180 degrees; a 180 will only get your course reversed, it will NOT get you back to the runway. Doing that requires 270 degrees of turning, 225 to get you pointed back to the runway, and another 45 to realign with the runway. Basically, you just can't do it because you need more altitude and speed to make the 270 and as you get higher you also get further away from the airport. The best strategy applies to airports with a crosswind runway. After breaking ground begin a turn (traffic permitting) that keeps you close to the airport. As you climb and turn you are, at most, a 90-degree turn away from a runway. This dramatically reduces the amount of altitude required to complete the turn. Flying out of airports with only one runway forces you to use your altitude to find the best possible crash site. Note: you can try all the possibilities in the comfort of your own home using Microsoft Flight Simulator (or a similar program). I tried it with the 172 and couldn't make it back with any engine failure point.
Not an error at all. I guess you’ve missed all the other videos I did on this subject. Check them out in the Impossible Turn Playlist.
I'm confused... how did we arrive at these engine failure altitudes for the varying climb speeds - 237ft, 800ft, 1100ft? Clearly you didn't assume the same time to failure, as times are different as well. What was the constant assumption?
No, why would it be? Vx should only be used to clear an obstacle... flying it to 200' (where I planned to pull it, but missed) is the wrong usage of the speed. But you can see it is VERY risky. At low altitudes it would be fatal. Watch my other videos to see why I choose these altitudes. But, if you were aying attention you would easily see anything lower would not result in success. In this airplane. Wing Loading plays a huge factor.
What good does time to failure do... an engine failure is completely arbitrary anyway.
@@FlyWirescottperdue well isn't the idea behind trying different climb speeds to see what position it puts you in relative to the field? If you climb at Vx your pitch is higher and airspeed is lower, which is bad, but on the bright side you're closer to the field, etc. Isn't that the point? If so, we need to develop a theory when the engine quits - in a fixed time or in a fixed number of revolutions, or something. Otherwise you're only comparing the ease of recovery from an engine out during a climb, and of course it's obvious that the slower you go the more difficult it is. You're just ignoring the other side of the medal it seems.
So I always climb out about 10kts faster than recommended. At a minimum... so I can carry extra energy to have for maneuvering if engine stops.... and also to make some safety margin for wind gusts, especially in the mountaon flying I do
Good on ya!
For wind gusts and wind shear, that's what you want to do. But the fastest way to build total energy is to accelerate in ground effect to Vy then climb at Vy. It's basic flight mechanics.
@major__kong ya, I know. The same old dogma. Tha KS for reiterating the same crap. I think that you are correct in a static environment amd I also think your ass better be faster than 1 second in processing the engine out, executing a pitch down that is perfectly.on point otherwise you will lose EVERY single foot altitude you gained over using my approach of climbing at a slightly faster airspeed, slightly lower pitch up and with me carrying enough extra energy to stay on a parabolic path, versus the cliff you potentially are going to fall from.
Granted of you can see the engine out, process that, get light in the seat, not overshoot in the dive, congratulations.
I have experienced departure issue first hand, and it was my speed not my altitude that saved me.
Thanks Scott, the possible “impossible turn” folks are guilty of trying to simplify a very dynamic and difficult situation. The difficulty of managing any decisions in such a high stress, high threat and high consequence critically short time frame is immense. Your presentation show really well the complexity of the aircraft capability and has not even yet added the complexity of the environmental dynamic. Those that say, from xxx feet I can safely return are probably mis calculating their piloting, aircraft capability at best and delusional at worst. The environmental conditions are always going to change any xxx feet calculation I.e. cross wind, which way to turn? Take off with a 20 knot headwind, how’s landing now with a 20 knot tailwind going to affect the calculation? What about a sea level calculation and then operating at high elevation and or high DA? The impossible turn Rule of Thumb was written in blood however it could be updated to the improbable turn. I don’t recall where I heard it first but the statement ‘once the engine has failed, the only job the airframe has is to keep the meat bags alive because the insurance already owns the wreck’. Keep up the great work.
My CFI in 1995 used to teach power off turnbacks on my field surrounded by houses all over. He said to only plan about power off turnback only if you were climbing well or over 700 fpm and some wind to help you come back. And if over 700 agl. We did about 6 of them. Cherokees. 4,600 feet runway. I know about 4 turnbacks on that airport with only minor gear damages. I know about a Cessna 172 with partial power loss on crosswind leg,. The dummy Keep going forward and away and crashed on a place with big pipes 4 miles out, lol. Pipes were Propane Gas. Im serious. No bullshit. He could have turnback from the crosswind leg, or maybe turnaround the airport. Crashed BY KEPT GOING FORWARD as told, 4 MILES AWAY. ON A PROPANE FARM. GREAT DECISION. HIS LIFE and his beautiful Cessna DESTROYED.
Is it possible? Yes. Is it safe? Maybe. Depends. Does it bias our judgement when it happens? I think it does. Forced landing needs only to be survivable for the occupants. It does not need to save the airframe. Have a workable plan B before your takeoff every time and stick with it when it happens. Don't try to wing it at the last minute.
V^2 is key
Am I wrong that the turn back is actually greater than 180?
If you want to lineup with the runway it would be about 270 degrees.
I think the most critical dangers of the impossible turn, are people overestimating their skills and the planes performance. You train the hell out of yourself...for fun and safety. Most people don't. They should...but they don't, so when the engine goes quiet after takeoff, the monkey brain takes over, they yank back and...well...you know. The other thing is people don't know what their plane can really do because they have never explored its limits.
The thing is, this kind of training is fun. Most pilots dream of being fighter pilots...so why not do some fighter pilot stuff like this? In training, stalls, spins, etc, were never initiated lower than 4000' agl. Cool...so 4000' is your 'runway'. Stay close to a good landing spot, just in case practice goes real...and have some fun. That hamburger will taste even better, I reckon.
A while back, Scott responded to one of my comments with the 5 P's: Practice Prevents P*ss Poor Performance. I'm pretty sure he's right.
Exactly. I think the typical advice, which is to just crash straight ahead, is the right thing to do for the average GA pilot and all students because they don't develop even basic maneuvering skills after their test and don't do any takeoff planning and briefings. But I think the advice needs to be more nuanced like also use your brain. Sometimes crashing straight ahead is surely going to kill you because of terrain, water, or houses. But maybe 90 left or right is all you need not the full 180-270.
If Scott gives a physics lecture, which results in an aneurysm and no one notices you're dead...are you really dead, or is this like boldly proclaiming you understood Hume's "A Treatise of Human Nature" in graduate school?
Nobody, does it better.
Thanks, Scott. You're THE best.
Dale Hemman unfortunately, wasn't so lucky a few years later.
Dang, I just looked that up. Looks like a weather accident. It was a year after the F33A.
If I was rich I would go with a friend to a dry salt lake and practice landing and the impossible turn and stuff.
Don't have to be rich.
Science!
True application! How many folks do you think I'll piss of if I talk about CO2;)
Logic dictates each event is unique. Any report on the successful turn backs that weren't reported?
No one collects that data.
@@FlyWirescottperdue That is the point.
😎
Crop Dusters do tight turns hundreds of times a day sometimes. But they know how to turn tight well. The safest one is the Teardrop Turnback . With some power kind.
With power? I think you are missing the point here.
is it simple , NO. is it safe, NO.
I wish folks would see it that way...
No, it isn’t that simple.
As someone else said in these comments, it's not the "impossible" turn it's the "my skills suck and I don't know my airplane" turn. I think most GA pilots fall into this category. It's more nuanced than a simple don't do it. If I told you death were straight ahead like it is at some airports I've flown out of but all you had to do was turn 90 deg left or right for a suitable field, you wouldn't turn left or right? Ah, but that requires planning and a pre-takeoff briefing, which most GA pilots don't do.
@@major__kong Yes, the key things are decent piloting skills and deciding before liftoff what you will do if the engine conks at X altitude.
First, Vx, Vy, and Vcc are all in speeds. You FLY by SPEED! What's up with all of the stupid people with their "startle factor"? You adjust your pitch by airspeed... You shouldn't even notice if your engine stops, if you were only looking at airspeed.
It's not the "impossible turn", it's the "I don't know how to fly my airplane and make judgments" turn.
I use sticknrudder to change my pitch. I’d never let airspeed change my pitch without my approval. Even smart people like you have a startle factor. Have you ever learned any kinetic activities that may be dangerous to life and limb? That startle factor is a step in the process preps the mind and body for fight, flight, or freeze.
Lol - you got me with "repeatable truth". Go figure. Would like to clarify especially how you define "potential energy". A little confusing b/c your equation equates to Energy/mass, but you wind up relating to that term as if it was simply energy. How do you account for the mass? It kind of looks like you pulled it out of your hat 🙂 It's a little bit fuzzy. Also, is there a difference between climbing from takeoff and a consistent climb at altitude, or the climb rate the same regardless? If you're climbing from takeoff you're increasing your velocity, right? Or momentum. Not sure that's accurate. But if you are at altitude would that still be the same, b/c you aren't just taking off anymore - you've already gained momentum? Maybe I just need some sleep - getting late for me.
Thanks for sharing. Hope things go well -
In flight mechanics, you can divide by mass to get specific energy or specific excess power. That's what matters for the physics. Takeoff or already in a climb doesn't matter. Pitch for Vy. That's the fastest way to build total energy.
Absolutely wrong, Mr Kong (except for the part about Specific Energy).
Nancy, If I wanted to look at Total Energy for a specific airplane I'd have to include the mass. Here I wanted to drill down to the energy alone due to velocity and height. I want to show the relative importance of velocity over height. What is more important is that this 'energy' I derived is independent of mass or aerodynamics... it applies to any airplane, or helicopter for that matter. To do that I just did algebra. To make my point I looked at the issue without mass. To do anything else with that equation I'd have to consider mass again. It's not fuzzy math, it is just algebra.
I don't fully understand your question about climbing from takeoff or at altitude... is that a reference to where I did the flight test? The pressure drop at 2000' AGL was minimal (therefore having a marginal impact on power... and a minimal impact on climb rate). Typically in a climb you don't increase your velocity, you convert excess power to climb... gaining altitude. You climb at a particular speed. Momentum relates to your mass at a specific speed/ velocity... inertia (which implies direction). I started the experimental conditions with the same velocity and configuration as if the airplane had just broken ground on a takeoff from a runway. The only variable was how much excess power I had.
I hope this answers your questions.
@@FlyWirescottperdue 🙂 Very good. Thanks for your response. Didn't mean to imply your math was fuzzy per se, only meant it in a more general sense. Just kidding a little. I liked math and was beginning to head into physics back in the day, but unfortunately life is what happens while you're making other plans. At least for me at the time.
Appreciate your patience with me. Always like to learn. Enjoyed the video. Thanks for sharing.
Stop calling things impossible that isn't. If it can be done, then it is not impossible. Read a dictionary to learn what words mean.
Are you a Pilot?
Pay attention to the energy at the end. The Turn IS Impossible for heavier airplanes. Pilots kill themselves when they wish a different outcome. That is the point.
It’s pretty sketch what they had. You sounds like a lot of trying.