EFATO interesting facts

[englishal]

Did anyone read the article in the AOPA mag this month, on whether or not you should turn back to the runway if you lose you engine on take off?

They did some experiments (at altitude) to determine how much height would be lost during a turn back to the runway, using different angles of bank. They simulated engine loss, and the pilot did nothing for 4 seconds before beginning the turn. The surprising thing was that using a 75° bank angle, the altitude loss was a lot less that a shallow turn, because the time of turn was a lot less.

In a 172, the altitude loss in a 180° turn was 380' in a shallow turn and only 210' in a 75° banked turn. Banking steeply at low altitude can lead to trouble though, the stall speed increases by 97% in a 75° banked turn, leaving little room for error. The conclusion to all of this is to use a 45° banked turn which gives the best results, a moderate turn rate and altitude loss and only a 19% increase in stall speed...Oh and turn into wind, so you don't stray any further than nescessary from the runway.

To determine an exact altitude at which you can attempt a return to the runway, they recommend taking the amount of altitude lost in a turn and add 50% (remember the 4 seconds of nothing). As runway length is a factor, a rule of thumb is that unless 2/3 of the turn around altitude is achieved before crossing the end of the runway then turn around should not be considered.

Pretty interesing stuff, worth going to altitude and experiementing with.

Cheers
EA:)

[QDMQDMQDM]

Ah, the good old turnback debate, hey? ;)

Saw the article. Scary stuff. On glide approaches the other day, the tendency to raise the nose to try and stretch the glide is very hard to resist, especially because you do get a transient increase in lift ('buoyancy' as Langewiesche would call it in Stick and Rudder) as you trade speed for attitude. You rationalise against it, but you feel yourself doing it even so and you understand why even highly experienced pilots stall / spin in.

You really do lose a lot of height in a turn and you have a lot to think about in such a critical turn as a turnback. In particular, if you don't keep the ball in the middle you risk a) Spinning in and b) losing even more height.

Experts only, in lots of practice. Not for your humble, low-time PPL scum like me.

QDM

[skyraider]

As runway length is a factor, a rule of thumb is that unless 2/3 of the turn around altitude is achieved before crossing the end of the runway then turn around should not be considered.
It would've needed to be a helluva long runway for me to have considered turning back yesterday. :eek:

95 F with full tanks and a big lunch does not exactly inspire a 152 to soar like an eagle... :D

Sky

[Julian]

And of course you have to work out all this maths whilst tring to put down an aircraft!

Hang on a mo whilst I just get the airport guide and my calculator out.....

[englishal]

Ah, but the point is that you work all this sh*te out beforehand, so should you get caught by surprise you know that you can either turn back, or not turn back, no indecision.

95 F with full tanks and a big lunch does not exactly inspire a 152 to soar like an eagle

Yea, know what you mean ! I watched a C152 use 4500' of runway to get airborne at Long Beach one day, watched as he flew out over the city, at about 200', not climbing, before doing a nice tear-drop turn and coming back to land on the reciprocal runway. I think I would have aborted take off myself! Scary thing was, the very next day the same aircraft was going for it again, would have thought they would have got the message ;)

Cheers
EA:D

[Fujiflyer]

I have not seen the AOPA article however I believe there may be a further serious flaw here.

Assuming some headwind on T/O as would normally be the case you are going to experience an effect similar to that caused by windshear as your turn progresses. Lets suppose you are climbing out at 75kt IAS with a 15kt headwind (okay - a reasonable breeze but a very common situation). Hence your G/S is 60kt. However once turned through 180 deg your a/c needs to attain a G/S of 90kt (75 + 15)kt in order to still have an IAS of 75kt. Therefore additional height must be traded to get this - assuming perfect height to speed conversion efficiency the extra loss of height works out at about 200ft. :( This is obviously very significant.

Worst still of course, is that if you intend to do a steep turn where as stated the stall speed has nearly doubled (75 deg, AOB)you then need to go from a G/S of (climbout speed - 15kt) up to say (100kt + 15kt) which will cost a much greater loss of height. (Admittedly you could convert the excess speed back to height after the turn assuming you haven't hit the ground by then). Even if you were already climbing at 100kt (which most singles don't) you would pay about 300ft due to the need to increase momentum to maintain IAS.

As the effect of wind speed is "differential" depending whether its a headwind or a tailwind then clearly the height loss due to what I've discussed is sensitive to the actual strength of the wind however it seems clear that for anything other than a gentle breeze that a turn back would cost considerable height.

Personally I think if I was at much less than about 700ft I would concentrate on landing the plane straight ahead. Least if you do bodge it you'll be travelling with a lower G/S & probably wings level. A bodged attempt at a turn back is unlikely to be so forgiving. As has also been pointed out there is the issue of the need to keep the a/c in balance through the turn whilst flying under much pressure.


Fujiflyer :)

[bookworm]

FujiFlyer

I'm afraid that your argument is the classic downwind turn misconception, and neglects the fact that velocity, and therefore momentum, is a vector quantity.

Turning from a groundspeed of 75 knots (say) eastward to 105 knots westward requires no different aerodynamic forces from 90 knots westward to 90 knots eastward. In both cases the change in velocity is 180 knots to the west. There is no height loss associated with it, or at least no more in one case than the other.

A headwind may help or hinder depending whether you're in danger of landing short or overrunning once the turnaround is complete. I think it will usually help, though it does make the landing a downwind one, which may be difficult.

[Fujiflyer]

Agree as for as aerodynamic forces go but the point I was making was that to maintain a given IAS the a/c would have to increase its speed (as measured with respect to the Earth - ie ground speed) when turning downwind. Hence in the EFATO situation potential energy needs to be converted into kinetic in order to achieve this.

Put another way imagine a plane taking off into a very strong wind. It would do so easily - little effort would have to be expended by the engine prior to rotation. If you now had to land this plane downwind you would find that much energy had to be dissipated before it came to a halt. This energy has come from that associated with the huge increase in groundspeed which of course would have to be "found" during our EFATO turn.


Fujiflyer

:)

[ShyTorque]

I think it's worth saying again.

A turnback is a last-ditch manoeuvre and needs to be thought about before each takeoff.

RAF teaching is (or was in my day) that all options be considered as part of a pre-takeoff safety brief. Some days a turnback might be the best option, but another day, on the same runway, the conditions might favour not attempting this manoeuvre.

[logie_bear]

ShyT,

Not just in the RAF, I was taught the same thing at a civil school....admittedly by ex-military pilots;)

l_b

[Chimbu chuckles]

To that I would add 'if you haven't been taught how and practiced it don't even think about it'.

FujiF

My memory of this area of aerodynamics is rusty but I don't think wind affects the aircraft as you say. There will be an optical illusion associated with turning downwind but in terms of aerodynamic effects on the aircraft?

The aircraft cares not for GS only IAS...if the body of air in which you are flying happens to be moving back towards the airfield then that is only a help...and believe me guys a downwind landing is not that big a deal.

What always leaves me wondering is why none of these articles talk about using flap to reduce stall speed...that's how I was taught to do it...and I've done it for real once.

The biggest danger of this manouvre is that it is not taught and practiced...except in gliders.

It is a 'no other options manouvre'...most of the time your best option is more or less straight ahead...it is NEVER a spur of the moment descision.


Chuck.

[bookworm]

Agree as for as aerodynamic forces go but the point I was making was that to maintain a given IAS the a/c would have to increase its speed (as measured with respect to the Earth - ie ground speed) when turning downwind. Hence in the EFATO situation potential energy needs to be converted into kinetic in order to achieve this.

But the problem is that speed with respect to the earth is not a good choice of reference frame for such an energy argument. Newtonian mechanics is blind to the reference frame that is chosen, but when considering energy some choices are more helpful than others. Since the air is moving with respect to the earth in that frame, it can easily do work.

Put another way imagine a plane taking off into a very strong wind. It would do so easily - little effort would have to be expended by the engine prior to rotation. If you now had to land this plane downwind you would find that much energy had to be dissipated before it came to a halt. This energy has come from that associated with the huge increase in groundspeed which of course would have to be "found" during our EFATO turn.

If I release a balloon in a 15 knot wind, the balloon will end up with considerable kinetic energy in the earth's reference frame, as it drifts off, eventually reaching 15 knots downwind. Where did the balloon get the energy from?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Do a search back about 4 months on Tech Log and you can see that we worked out you could do it in a B737 from 1,900ft....

I've been taught turnbacks, taught them, and once did one for real.

They have their place but only with experience, practice, pre-briefing and often there are better options.

WWW

[englishal]

Of course it depends on the other options. At somewhere like Bournemouth for example, you are surrounder by fields, and unless you really are certain you will make it back, then you best option is probably to opt for a field.

Having said that, take a typical airport in a city, where you are surrounded by built up areas. Your options are a lot more limited, you either land on the highway, or crash. So if there is a possibility of making back to the airport, even if you don't make the runway, but land on a taxy way, mid field, etc, then your survival chances are better.....crash rescue teams will be on scene faster as well.

One thing I neglected to mention was that in the AOPA article, they didn't recommend this precedure in a strong headwind (unless no other choice of course), and suggest that you may be better accepting a relatively slow crash landing.

Slightly off topic....there is a turn back procedure which can be used by the space shuttle if they have problems. It consists of getting rid of the SRBs, turning 180° and using the main engines to slow the shuttle down, then a glide back to the Cape. Never been tried of course, but in theory it should work ;)

Cheers
EA:)

[StrateandLevel]

Most people who try turnbacks almost make it!

[Fujiflyer]

Chimbu C

The aircraft cares not for GS only IAS...if the body of air in which you are flying happens to be moving back towards the airfield then that is only a help...

The aerodynamics only "care" for IAS but the point I am trying to make is that in the transient case of a sudden change of direction out of wind momentum must be gained to maintain IAS. Obviously in normal flight once this has been done then the a/c proceeds above the ground at a faster rate for a given IAS & therefore fuel consumption.

Bookworm, in the case of the balloon the energy comes from the air mass (ie it gives up a tiny proportion of its, to the balloon which sees viscous & frictional forces exerted on it until it has accelerated). However in the case of the sudden 180 deg turn our a/c needs to do, we are making a sudden change where surely we are not expecting to wait for these forces to accelerate us back up to the original IAS. (Guess the steep turn into wind would give us some of the required momentum though, but not all of it). I understand what you mean about the air mass's frame of reference and how it can do work but my problem is that when it attempts to do so by imparting momentum that initially the a/c will tend to "slip" within it (and therefore cannot quickly gain that required). If the air was a solid mass like a road surface, and moving then I would totally agree with what you've said.


FujiF :confused: :confused:

[bookworm]

The aerodynamics only "care" for IAS but the point I am trying to make is that in the transient case of a sudden change of direction out of wind momentum must be gained to maintain IAS.

But that was the point of my first response -- momentum is a vector: it's no harder or more "sudden" to go from +75 to -105 than it is to go from +90 to -90. The acceleration required is identical.

[englishal]

I remember my first (and only) radio controlled glider. Took bloody hours to build, and my first flight was going well, until I turned downwind. The thing just dropped out of the sky, and landed on the only rock in the huge field, nose first. Typical. Was a complete write off.

Think this was the point you were making wasn't it BW? In this case, height was traded for IAS, unsucessfully as it turned out:D

Cheers
EA;)

[Nostone]

Kinetic energy and aircraft performance.
You are airborne in a B747 at 35,000 feet with a groundspeed of 500 kts. Inside the cabin is therefore an airmass travelling across the earth at 500 kts.
You tear a page from the in-flight magazine and fold it carefully to make a model aircraft. You stand up and throw it with a slight bank so that it flies in a circle. Its kinetic energy relative to the earth has absolutely no effect on its flightpath within its airmass.
A Cessna 172 in a 15 knot airmass behaves in exactly the same way.
What do you think Fujiflyer?

[Fujiflyer]

What do you think Fujiflyer?

Bookworm & Nostone:

I think it looks like you're both right. I guess, as Bookworm says you need to consider momentum conservation rather than energy conservation as the moving air mass is able to give up a (small) amount of its energy to the aircraft in order to give it greater net energy with respect to the Earth.

Never the less I have noticed a tendency to sink sometimes when turning downwind in a strong wind. I suppose this is maybe due to not flying a perfectly balanced turn? (Englishal, perhaps this is what also happened to your model)

I have found this a very thought provoking discussion - my problem was that I failed to appreciate the forces which the a/c would experience when in the turn which would of course enable the direction of the momentum to be reversed whilst maintaining its magnitude wrt the airmass.

Bookworm - I bet you had no problem with Lorentz transformations and S.R. :D

Thanks for the discussion, great that we can have this sort of thing here,

Fujiflyer :) :o

[Nostone]

I think that because we live on the surface we see wind as a dynamic thing. For something that is airborne, though, wind does not exist so there is no head wind cross wind or tail wind. The only airflow is generated by the aircraft itself in flight and, assuming in balanced flight, will always be from 12 o'clock at the indicated airspeed.
Imagine you are airborne in a hot air balloon and not in sight of the surface, above cloud say, so that you are not influenced by your "ground" perspective. Without reference to electronic gadgets you would have no sensation of movement or of any wind. You could light a candle.
You have no idea of any wind velocity, if any, as observed by a ground observer.
You decide to hand launch a model glider. It would not matter in which direction you threw it it would fly equally well.
A powered aircraft orbiting your balloon at a constant distance would have a constant angle of bank, constant airspeed, constant power and constant height and like the balloon crew would have no concept of wind, without reference to gadgets.
So an aircraft can only turn "downwind" to a ground observer. To an airborne observer there is no wind, so there is no "downwind".
The only time a wind exists for an aircraft is on the ground. Immediately prior to touchdown and immediately after take of there is no apparent wind.

[englishal]

For something that is airborne, though, wind does not exist so there is no head wind cross wind or tail wind

I know what you're saying, and you're right in the ideal world....(but tell that to the captain of a 747 at 300' on final that experiences windshear !!!;)...wind exists to him)

If you turn downwind with a fast rate of turn, then I'm convinced the strong headwind you're experiencing on the climbout will have an adverse effect on your flight performance in the real world, maybe it leads to initial loss of altitude becasue you have to put the nose down to keep IAS....

Maybe not in the perfect world, but remember a 75° turn will result in a 180 in around 3 seconds.....

Cheers
EA :)

[foxmoth]

Windshear has NOTHING to do with the previous points, with windshear it is the change in wind velocity with respect to the aircraft that makes the difference, when turning in a costant moving mass of air, the velocity change with respect to the aircraft is the same whether the mass of air is stationary w.r. to the ground or not. The thing to watch is the PERCIEVED speed- from looking at the ground.

[englishal]

Yea I know, my point was that wind can appear to a pilot, and in the case of an engine failure at take off, I'm sure the pilot is not going to make the best, coordinated turn of their life, and therefore wind WILL have an affect on aircraft performance.

In a situation like this it is NO GOOD talking about the ideal world, and 'air masses moving around, no preceived wind to a pilot'. Once the pilot has turned down wind, his next phase is to make contact with the earth again. Now all this tail wind leads to excessive ground speed, possible runway overshoot etc etc...

[Paul Boath]

As a glider pilot flying in hilly country I frequently make thermal turns at low level. If there is any significant wind blowing the apparent speed change when turning into and downwind is very marked and I have had to abandon thermals as a result of disorientation.
For launch failures in a glider I do not usually consider turning back to the reciprocal unless above 300' with calm winds.
In the case of EFATO I would not be thinking about turning back. The visual effects of low level turns and possible gusts make the situation much more interesting than it need be. Use the height you have to gain distance and don't use it up turning.

[bertiethebadger]

One point that hasn't been mentioned. A 180deg will not only lose you height but leave you x meters from the runway in a parallell direction.

I don't off hand know the turning circle of a popular GA type ac but I'm pretty sure it's more than the width of a runway!

Surely the height you should allow for is a 270 deg turn followed by 90 the other way to get you onto the runway. Of course, if the airfield is quite spacious, 180 deg will be enough, but you could end up parking in a hanger!

[fireflybob]

Remember that kinetic energy is a function of the square of the speed! - 0.5 x m x v (squared).

Let's say you glide at 60 kt and there is a 30 kt wind blowing down the runway. If you land straight ahead given an EFATO your groundspeed is 30 kt; do a turn back and your groundspeed is 90 kt so if you end up hitting anything you have a lot more energy to lose!

Everything tends to favour not attempting a turn back unless there really is no other choice (housing estates etc.)

Hard aviation experience has shown that you are far more likely to die attempting a turn back than crashing into wind - even the military have come to grief and they have had specific training in turn backs.

My father was a veteran light aircraft instructor and he always used to advise that if you have to crash make sure the wings are level and you are under control (ie not stalling/spinning). He was vehemently against turning back and I think he was right!

[englishal]

One point that hasn't been mentioned. A 180deg will not only lose you height but leave you x meters from the runway in a parallell direction

In fact the turn should be continued a further 30 degrees to compensate for this, and this is what AOPA used in their experiments, a 210 degree turn to determine height lost.

Interesting debate, I don't think I would turn back either, unless I had no other option, or a lot of height . Like FFB points out, its better to be in control and land level with relatively low energy, that either hit uncontrolled, or with high speed.

Lets hope we never have to find out !

Cheers
EA;)

[Nostone]

I know what you're saying, and you're right in the ideal world....(but tell that to the captain of a 747 at 300' on final that experiences windshear !!!...wind exists to him)

I have been a 747 captain for 11 years and before that military fast jet for 20 years.

[slim_slag]

QDM

Experts only, in lots of practice. Not for your humble, low-time PPL scum like me.

You don't need to be an expert to perform a turnback, nor do you need lots of practice. (As an aside, I notice UK PPL's seem to have an inferiority complex which does not exist in other places). Flying is not intuitive to most people, and so most people need to be trained how to do weird things, but you should be able to learn how to safely perform a turnback maneuver in less than an hour.

45 degrees bank, just above stall speed, and COORDINATED.

See, easy huh?

I bet the hardest thing is teaching spam-can pilots how to fly coordinated when performing this maneuver, rudders pedals are so misunderstood :D It's also the uncoordinated bit which will kill you, trying to tighten the turn with rudder when you are already close to the stall, and skidding into an unrecoverable spin.

The clever bit is to know when to land "sort of ahead", and when to land "not sort of ahead". As WWW said, it helps to know what you are going to do before you begin your roll, so self brief. I depart from some runways where I would not be happy if I had an EF below 300ft, and would definitely perform a turn as described above if any higher. Other places where I would not be too bothered at any altitude. Know this before you head off.

(Nostone has got it right with planes flying in an airmass).

[englishal]

I have been a 747 captain for 11 years and before that military fast jet for 20 years.

Good for you, I'm not doubting your abilities, I'm making the point that although in the ideal world, there is no 'wind' to someone airborne flying through an airmass, in the real world, things can appear different. I think those most quaified to talk about air masses and their apparent effect on flying, is a Glider pilot, who, lets face it, land every time without an engine....

[Nostone]

Quote
Good for you, I'm not doubting your abilities, I'm making the point that although in the ideal world, there is no 'wind' to someone airborne flying through an airmass, in the real world, things can appear different. I think those most quaified to talk about air masses and their apparent effect on flying, is a Glider pilot, who, lets face it, land every time without an engine....

Evan a glider pilot cant change physics. :-)
The facts are that whether you are flying a glider or a space shuttle any turn made in a steady airmass is not affected by the velocity of that airmass relative to the ground. I only have to harp back to my analogy of flying a model glider in the cabin of a B747 travelling at 500 kts.
Where this "downwind turn" myth came from I don't know. I did not come across it in the military but was amazed to hear it from some very senior, civilian trained, airline pilots.
Sorry to harp on about this subject but it is not good to have such a misconception being accepted as fact. I only mentioned my experience in an effort to show that I might know what I am talking about. :) :)

[englishal]

Evan a glider pilot cant change physics

True :) (Though apparently in the remaining 7 spacial dimensions, which are curled up into an incredibly small space, the laws of Phisics apparently break down :p)...or something like that, seem to remember having a conversation to this effect while sitting in a coffee shop in Amsterdam;))

I Know what you're saying Nostone, and I know you're right ;) However, I'm still peeved about my radio controlled glider which fell out of the sky and landed nose first on that rock :p :p

Cheers
EA:)

[QDMQDMQDM]

As an aside, I notice UK PPL's seem to have an inferiority complex which does not exist in other places

slim_slag,

No, that should read 'UK people'. ;)

45 degrees bank, just above stall speed, and COORDINATED.

Stall speed increases in the bank and with increasing weight. This is a manoeuvre that needs a lot of practice at low level to get right. Not getting it right = dying.

I bet the hardest thing is teaching spam-can pilots how to fly coordinated when performing this maneuver, rudders pedals are so misunderstood It's also the uncoordinated bit which will kill you, trying to tighten the turn with rudder when you are already close to the stall, and skidding into an unrecoverable spin.

Quite so.

QDM

[slim_slag]

QDM

Stall speed increases in the bank and with increasing weight.Yep. This is usually quoted in the context of maintaining altitude in the turn. We are engine out and not maintaining altitude, so how does stall speed change now? I need more coffee to work that out......

Can you spin if you are beyond the stall, yet remain coordinated????? You can certainly turn a plane to where you want it to go when on the 'wrong' side of the critical AOA!


This is a manoeuvre that needs a lot of practice at low level to get right.Should you turnback (http://web.usna.navy.mil/~dfr/possible.html) has probably been cited before, and excuse my rough extracting. I think this says that 19 of 20 pilots, of varying experience including students, can be taught how to succesfully turn back to the runway in fewer than ten attempts on a sim. Some a lot less. Do you mean high level?

Not getting it right = dying. Indeed, landing ahead when you could have turned back can also kill. The hard part is knowing when to do it. But knowing "I need to turn back, but I don't know how to" is a fat lot of good.

No, that should read 'UK people'.

:D :D I actually find UK people have a superiority complex, just like all countries do. I get the feeling that many PPLs in the UK don't think they are real pilots, you need to be an almighty CPL to be one of those, which is absolute nonsense. All part of the class system I guess :D

[Tinker]

On the subject of stall speed...it increases with angle of bank as has been said. Up to 45 deg the increase is quite small (less than 20%). After that it increases fairly dramaticly and at 60 deg it increases by 40% (like wise with load factor 60 deg angle of bank = 2g's).
(assuming you keep the turn perfectly coordinated)

I think personaly unless there is no other option I would land straight ahead making shallow turns to avoid objects as per my trainning.

I did once have to make a couple of drastic turns on final at approach speed, with a rough running engine due to an aircraft dawdling about on the runway despite the fact he knew my situation (before turning final there was in my opinion more than adequate spacing but you live and learn). It's not something I'd like to do on a regular basis.

Being close to the ground in a butt clenching situation may focus the mind but doesn't necessarily improve your flying ability. (IMHO)

[QDMQDMQDM]

We are engine out and not maintaining altitude, so how does stall speed change now? I need more coffee to work that out......

slim_slag,

It will be a function of G, whether you're losing height or not.

Can you spin if you are beyond the stall, yet remain coordinated

An interesting question, but not one to consider at under 500 ft agl. ;) In practice, I think it's irrelevant.

Do you mean high level?

Yep, sorry -- poor wording.

Indeed, landing ahead when you could have turned back can also kill. The hard part is knowing when to do it. But knowing "I need to turn back, but I don't know how to" is a fat lot of good

Yes, one must never be too dogmatic about things and one thing not to be too dogmatic about is the circuit / pattern. Don't climb straight ahead if the terrain straight ahead is rubbish. Make a turn after take-off at 50 feet if need be, or 20 feet, to have you climbing over somewhere a bit more hospitable or where it's easier to turn back to the runway, i.e. less than 60 degrees heading change.

QDM

[slim_slag]

Stall speed can increase if you bank, definitely if you maintain altitude, but as QDM said, it's a totally related to the (small) g you experience, and you can turn/bank a plane and experience less than 1g. i.e you descend.

I said Can you spin if you are beyond the stall, yet remain coordinated

QDM said An interesting question, but not one to consider at under 500 ft agl. In practice, I think it's irrelevant.

I'ts totally relevant, it's the skid/stall/spin that will kill you. To answer my own question, I don't believe you can, but in a 45 deg bank where each wing is "doing its own thing" wrt AOA, you would be very clever to pull it off. I defer to those with expertise I do not posess.

Yes, one must never be too dogmatic about things

Indeed!

So from another thread, I see you are a GP in Devon. Heard of the Spirochaetes?

[Paul Boath]

Not building g when entering a turn is a good spiral dive entry and therefore a good way of losing height.

If you climb away at 500fpm and 60kt you would be 1 mile away from your takeoff point if the fan stopped at 500feet assuming still air. The experiments noted in the thread suggest a 380foot loss in a 180 turn which would put you a mile from your start point at 120feet. This would require a 1/50 glide to get back which is a figure only reached by very goo sailplanes. Cessna/Piper figures are about 1/10. OK on big airfields but very marginal anywhere else.

If you have GPS why not try the following on a still day away from traffic, probably also above 2000' agl. Set the aircraft up in a takeoff configuration at about normal climb speed. When ready set a waypoint into the GPS and initiate a climb as if the waypoint was you take off point. Climb 500', pull the throttle to simulate EFATO and try to turn back to your waypoint. Note height passing the waypoint, if less than your initial height, you've crashed. You could note how far short you came down.

[Croqueteer]

At a safe hight try climbing at initial climb speed, chop the throttle, stuff the nose down at the same time rolling on about 60 deg bank, and pulling enough to just blink the stall warning and when you are coming to 180 heading, roll level and you should have lost 180 to 200ft. Look out all the time. You would only be doing a 180 if you had nothing but houses ahead, and it is not fair to the unsuspecting public to have an aircraft in their bedroom window, or worse still to have their children wiped out as the play in the back yard.
PS this even works with a Pitts.