Air Safety Institute Senior Vice President...
Drain Bamaged
I have taught engine fail turn backs and you really have to know the aircraft to know if it is possible. In the PA-28-180 and AA-5A I have done them from 300 ft AGL with engine idle. In my constant speed prop Carbon Cub 500 ft was the absolute minimum. I would not attempt a real turn back with much less than twice those altitudes.
It requires flight test to know how a windmilling or stopped prop compares with idle prop and the results are likely to vary considerably for different aircraft and propeller types.
Moderator
It requires flight test to know how a windmilling or stopped prop compares with idle prop and the results are likely to vary considerably for different aircraft and propeller types.
I changed from a two blade Hartzell to the three blade MT on my O-360 powered plane, and the gliding characteristics were changed considerably.
It is possible (though I speculate) that the Cardinal RG involved in this accident had a different propeller that original? I've seen a few three blade conversions on Cardinals. That could affect how the airplane glided, and would not be accounted for in the original POH. It is less common for prop change STC's to be accompanied with a flight manual supplement describing different glide, but it sure would be a good idea! And, as great an airplane as the Cardinal is, their wing airfoil is not the most ideal for low speed increased G maneuvering, it's just not what the Cardinal was designed to excel at...
It's hard on the airframe, but a controlled landing in trees is survivable.
I don't know the winds at the time, but turning from a headwind into a tailwind can produce a loss of airspeed. Putting the nose down to maintain airspeed puts you closer to the ground and increases your descent rate at an inopportune time.
I would have much preferred to hear that they chose the trees and walked away.
I don't know the winds at the time, but turning from a headwind into a tailwind can produce a loss of airspeed. Putting the nose down to maintain airspeed puts you closer to the ground and increases your descent rate at an inopportune time.
I would have much preferred to hear that they chose the trees and walked away.
Blancolirio on three fatal GA accidents this past weekend - Lake Placid accident is #2, starting at ~03:30 in the video.
Mostly posting because his analysis seems to contradict everything I posted - he says the TO was to SE (where there is another gully and heavy forest, not town). In light of recent posts, some interesting notes on 180° returns, aircraft performance, and trees.
Mostly posting because his analysis seems to contradict everything I posted - he says the TO was to SE (where there is another gully and heavy forest, not town). In light of recent posts, some interesting notes on 180° returns, aircraft performance, and trees.
So he nearly made it from about 100 ft agl and I said I could do it from 300 ft agl in a similar aircraft. All he had to do was forget the runway and go wings level at 50 ft and he would have had a safe landing on the airport. I'd say this video makes a good case for the turn back NOT being impossible. With the same technique (actually using 45 deg bank) he would have made the runway easily from 300 ft agl.
Please note that I'm not suggesting that anyone should turn back after engine fail. Very few pilots are comfortable making 45 degree bank turns just above stall speed because they never go there.
Please note that I'm not suggesting that anyone should turn back after engine fail. Very few pilots are comfortable making 45 degree bank turns just above stall speed because they never go there.
I don't know how 10 deg flap compares with clean for glide angle but extended gear isn't going to help.
I would have expected the Cardinal to have been fitted with at least one camera to document the photo shoot but I saw no mention of cameras being recovered from either aircraft.
