Huge circuits
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certain CFI at YMMB regularly asks for circuits on 35L / 17R and the Tower seems to agree most of the time. You get nice, quick, tight circuits usually by yourself, although you will be requested from time to time to make way for "real" traffic inbound from the West.
It beats some of the wider circuits one has to do on 17L/35R, but Hey! I was like that too a short time ago.
It beats some of the wider circuits one has to do on 17L/35R, but Hey! I was like that too a short time ago.
Aren't students taught to fly the pictures out the window? ie the runway centreline should be passing through 'x' point on the wing for a certain height, (glide circuits, normal circuits, and low level circuits) circuit and aircraft type. Then the spacing should always be the same?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying a Pitts S-2C in a circuit full of students is ahh, interesting! The aircraft does a circuit of around 2:15 mins - 30 secs to climb to downwind (climbing turn so you can see ahead); 1 min S&L on downwind; 30 secs base and final descending turn (2000 fpm descent) so you can see the runway; then 15 secs for touch and go.
The Pitts has the gliding characteristics of a manhole cover, and having had one total engine failure and another partial (severe) loss of power, I will not fly further away from the runway than I know I can glide - which makes for very tight circuits at 1000' circuit height. At Camden (1000' AGL circuit heght) I could safely get down even if I come over the fence at 1000'.
Bearing in mind that we climb and descend faster (2000 to 2500 fpm) than just anything else in the circuit, we can usually safely cut off a couple of students on climbout; but it's very difficult to do less than 100kts on downwind without having the nose so high that we lose forward vis - which is not a good idea...So I gets lots of practice at go-arounds and overtaking on the inside of climbs or descents
Fly the circuit for your own aeroplane. If the turkey ahead of you is a student (with or without an instructor) who wants to turn circuits into a navigation exercise, don't let yourself get suckered into flying their circuit. Their engine failure would be their problem, but you'll be on your own with yours...
The Pitts has the gliding characteristics of a manhole cover, and having had one total engine failure and another partial (severe) loss of power, I will not fly further away from the runway than I know I can glide - which makes for very tight circuits at 1000' circuit height. At Camden (1000' AGL circuit heght) I could safely get down even if I come over the fence at 1000'.
Bearing in mind that we climb and descend faster (2000 to 2500 fpm) than just anything else in the circuit, we can usually safely cut off a couple of students on climbout; but it's very difficult to do less than 100kts on downwind without having the nose so high that we lose forward vis - which is not a good idea...So I gets lots of practice at go-arounds and overtaking on the inside of climbs or descents
Fly the circuit for your own aeroplane. If the turkey ahead of you is a student (with or without an instructor) who wants to turn circuits into a navigation exercise, don't let yourself get suckered into flying their circuit. Their engine failure would be their problem, but you'll be on your own with yours...
".... I will not fly further away from the runway than I know I can glide ...."
That would make it difficult to actually go somewhere in the aeroplane, wouldn't it?
Is the aerobatic area within gliding distance of the runway?
Dr
That would make it difficult to actually go somewhere in the aeroplane, wouldn't it?
Is the aerobatic area within gliding distance of the runway?
Dr
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, since you ask, the aerobatic area starts at 2500' over the field and goes to 4500', and is really quite handy since IT IS within gliding distance of the field.
To avoid confusing Bula, I should say that I adopt the approach of staying within gliding distance whilst flying circuits,
By comparison, I was flying circuits the other day in a Tiger Moth and could actually afford to open up the circuit by, oh, another 100m or so since its glide ratio is so much better...
At other times, ie, when not flying circuits, I do go beyong gliding distance. The Pitts does cruise quite nicely at 150kts +, though with a 90L fuel tank, it doesn't do so for very long.Add the wing tank and we get around 111L and can get to, say, Parkes, non-stop.
To avoid confusing Bula, I should say that I adopt the approach of staying within gliding distance whilst flying circuits,
By comparison, I was flying circuits the other day in a Tiger Moth and could actually afford to open up the circuit by, oh, another 100m or so since its glide ratio is so much better...
At other times, ie, when not flying circuits, I do go beyong gliding distance. The Pitts does cruise quite nicely at 150kts +, though with a 90L fuel tank, it doesn't do so for very long.Add the wing tank and we get around 111L and can get to, say, Parkes, non-stop.
I always wonder why the posters on this forum want to stick it up somebody when they post. I couldn't agree more with HappyJack260. If you care to read the post you will find that there is no talk of going anywhere else but in the circuit and therefore, with a safety outcome in mind, the circuit should be flown with a spacing which will allow a safe return to the field in the event of an engine failure, particularly if the airfield is in the middle of suburbia.
Leaving the circuit area for another destination should trigger another frame of mind where you spend time considering fields suitable for a forced landing.
No conflict really is there?
Leaving the circuit area for another destination should trigger another frame of mind where you spend time considering fields suitable for a forced landing.
No conflict really is there?
Ravan
It was NOT my intention "to stick it up" anyone.
I do however challenge the dogma that when flying circuits in a modern, certified, well maintained aircraft, one should always try to remain within gliding distance of the runway.
If the chance of having an engine failure is so great, how the hell can you justify leaving the "safety" of the aerodrome.
As for aerodromes surrounded by suburbia, if you have so little faith in your powerplant, surely the takeoff and climbout over the houses (when the chances of being able to make the runway in the event of an engine failure are generally zero) poses an unacceptable risk to the community, if not yourself.
The vast majority of engine failures in the circuit area are from fuel starvation. Keep "fat" in the tank and flowing to the engine and the "fire" will continue to burn.
Fly your circuits to suit the particular aircraft you are flying.
Cheers
Dr
It was NOT my intention "to stick it up" anyone.
I do however challenge the dogma that when flying circuits in a modern, certified, well maintained aircraft, one should always try to remain within gliding distance of the runway.
If the chance of having an engine failure is so great, how the hell can you justify leaving the "safety" of the aerodrome.
As for aerodromes surrounded by suburbia, if you have so little faith in your powerplant, surely the takeoff and climbout over the houses (when the chances of being able to make the runway in the event of an engine failure are generally zero) poses an unacceptable risk to the community, if not yourself.
The vast majority of engine failures in the circuit area are from fuel starvation. Keep "fat" in the tank and flowing to the engine and the "fire" will continue to burn.
Fly your circuits to suit the particular aircraft you are flying.
Cheers
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 25th Apr 2007 at 01:35.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question, presumably, is how you define "a modern, certified, well maintained aircraft". The Pitts is certified and well maintained, as are the Tiger Moth and the Chipmunk I also fly. However, the design of the Lycoming/Continental powerplant on most modern aircraft dates back to the 1940's, apart from modern conveniences such as fuel injection. The Pitts is only 6 years and 300 hours old, but the average GA aircraft, especially a trainer, has probably 30 years, 5000 hours and 2-3 engine overhauls behind it. Perhaps we should therefore specify one circuit for aircraft under and another for aircraft over, say, 10 years old?
The other factor is the difference between straight and level flight and the sort of strains imposed on aircraft, engine and systems by circuit work (or aerobatics). There seems to be an increased risk of failure when there are major power changes - such as in circuits - and at the same time the consequences of that failure are dramatically increased.
In aviation, it seems to me, it's always worth keeping a few options up your sleeve. At height in the cruise you have a few options as to where you'll put down; at 1000' in the circuit your options are limited. Both my experiences of engine failure were in the circuit - one was an engine failure after take-off at 100', in a supposedly well-maintained Marchetti SF-260. It turned out later that the operator had been significantly under-recording the hours on his entire fleet, but I didn't know that at the time. And once in the Chipmunk, on reducing power for the downwind leg when I re-entered the circuit, the whole magento housing sheared, turning the engine into a close approximation (in sound and power) to a cement mixer.
Incidentally, following the same logic, I generally prefer to conduct aeros within gliding range of a suitable landing place.
Also for the sake of clarification, my 2500 fpm (2900 fpm on a good day) climb rate is at take-off power, which I reduce to around 60% around 30 seconds after take off. What do you do in a single-engine prop? And how does the rate of climb, which a function of power (260hp) to weight (570kgs) within the circuit affect engine longevity? The same engine at the same power settings in, say, a C182 will give you around 1400fpm, but I don't suppose the lesser climb rate reduces the strains much.
The other factor is the difference between straight and level flight and the sort of strains imposed on aircraft, engine and systems by circuit work (or aerobatics). There seems to be an increased risk of failure when there are major power changes - such as in circuits - and at the same time the consequences of that failure are dramatically increased.
In aviation, it seems to me, it's always worth keeping a few options up your sleeve. At height in the cruise you have a few options as to where you'll put down; at 1000' in the circuit your options are limited. Both my experiences of engine failure were in the circuit - one was an engine failure after take-off at 100', in a supposedly well-maintained Marchetti SF-260. It turned out later that the operator had been significantly under-recording the hours on his entire fleet, but I didn't know that at the time. And once in the Chipmunk, on reducing power for the downwind leg when I re-entered the circuit, the whole magento housing sheared, turning the engine into a close approximation (in sound and power) to a cement mixer.
Incidentally, following the same logic, I generally prefer to conduct aeros within gliding range of a suitable landing place.
Also for the sake of clarification, my 2500 fpm (2900 fpm on a good day) climb rate is at take-off power, which I reduce to around 60% around 30 seconds after take off. What do you do in a single-engine prop? And how does the rate of climb, which a function of power (260hp) to weight (570kgs) within the circuit affect engine longevity? The same engine at the same power settings in, say, a C182 will give you around 1400fpm, but I don't suppose the lesser climb rate reduces the strains much.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FTDK - I see you've edited your post to remove the reference to the impact that rate of climb has on engine longevity - which is fine by me, though it does leave my comments in response hanging in the air slightly.
Perhaps you might now like to edit and remove the rest of your post so that you don't look so much like a wannabe "bold pilot". I know I wannabe an "old pilot". I may have been a bold pilot once too, but surviving a crash (albeit with serious mainspar damage to me and the plane) does have a lasting effect, somehow.
Risk is a combination of probability and outcome...
Perhaps you might now like to edit and remove the rest of your post so that you don't look so much like a wannabe "bold pilot". I know I wannabe an "old pilot". I may have been a bold pilot once too, but surviving a crash (albeit with serious mainspar damage to me and the plane) does have a lasting effect, somehow.
Risk is a combination of probability and outcome...
HappyJack
I only pulled the PS because on further reflection I thought it added a degree of negativity to the post that I did not particularly intend.
My inference was not that a high rate of climb might reduce engine life, but rather the High Power/Low Power cycle every 2.5 min with its concurrent high heat production-low cooling/low heat production-high cooling effect will have a deleterious effect on the metal up front.
The inference being that a little less power on climb out (and therefore a lesser rate of climb) and a little more power on descent (and therefore a lower rate of descent) may prolong engine life and therefore obviate, to some extent, the need to hug the runway margins in the circuit.
I was taught to fly "tight" circuits, and I do so in the V-tail, but how I fly my circuits is not predicated by thoughts that the noise might stop. None-the-less, apart from the first 750' on climb and the last 750' on descent, I could make the runway in the remote possibility of suffering an engine failure in the circuit.
I just cannot see how you can use a SE aircraft for cross-country flying, and certainly not IFR as I do, if your hung up on having an engine failure in the circuit.
I suspect nobody in their right mind would take off in a single or light twin in either direction from 11/29 at YTWB, for example, if the likelihood of having an engine failure in the circuit area is as high as your original post might suggest - cause there ain't nowhere to go.
Dr
I only pulled the PS because on further reflection I thought it added a degree of negativity to the post that I did not particularly intend.
My inference was not that a high rate of climb might reduce engine life, but rather the High Power/Low Power cycle every 2.5 min with its concurrent high heat production-low cooling/low heat production-high cooling effect will have a deleterious effect on the metal up front.
The inference being that a little less power on climb out (and therefore a lesser rate of climb) and a little more power on descent (and therefore a lower rate of descent) may prolong engine life and therefore obviate, to some extent, the need to hug the runway margins in the circuit.
I was taught to fly "tight" circuits, and I do so in the V-tail, but how I fly my circuits is not predicated by thoughts that the noise might stop. None-the-less, apart from the first 750' on climb and the last 750' on descent, I could make the runway in the remote possibility of suffering an engine failure in the circuit.
I just cannot see how you can use a SE aircraft for cross-country flying, and certainly not IFR as I do, if your hung up on having an engine failure in the circuit.
I suspect nobody in their right mind would take off in a single or light twin in either direction from 11/29 at YTWB, for example, if the likelihood of having an engine failure in the circuit area is as high as your original post might suggest - cause there ain't nowhere to go.
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 25th Apr 2007 at 04:20.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Students are being trained to be pilots - not bloody priests.
You lot sure can turn something as simple as a circuit into a moonshot!
Small planes, small circuits; big planes, big circuits. Adapt to each other, play nice, go to the pub, go home, pat the dog, kiss the missus, watch some telly, go to sleep.
It's really not that difficult: Unless you want it to be!
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Last edited by Mr.Buzzy; 26th Apr 2007 at 01:11.
I like to equate the circuit to being as quick as your slowest aircraft. We know by talking to each other we can adjust our circuit as we see fit and overtake if safe. I wasn't laughing at flying the aircraft close to the runway "if possible" .. thats your parogative , but the no hold bars approach that people take with complete disregard to lower performance training aircraft operating in the circuit. Its quite ammusing... and disconcerting.
I think A37575 has hit the nail quite promptly on the head.
I think A37575 has hit the nail quite promptly on the head.
