Impossible Turn Testing

[FredG]

Andy, IMHO, you done good starting this thread.  Comments by thoughtful and experienced pilots have added to my understanding of the topic.  I plan on spending more time practicing the maneuvers you described in your first post.  

[FlyingMonkey]

Thanks FredG...I think some healthy debate is a good thing. As I said, I'm not necessarily promoting the turn as a first option, but just something to consider if the altitude, distance, wind and other conditions support it. Landing straight ahead or using the BRS will remain better options in many if not most situations.

[Ed Cesnalis]

The CTSW especially is a very short coupled, highly maneuverable very light aircraft with a pretty good glide ratio.  How many of us utilize this maneuverability and how many fly it like a 172 with 30 degree banks, patterns too big to glide to the field and then fly it on?

 

For my money this plane  can approach or return to a runway without dependence on the throttle far more so than any other thing I have flown.  For me there is more to practice than a teardrop return where the biggest challenge will be to get back while not being able to see where I am going.  In stead of just flying from A to B i often maneuver for the joy of it.

 

When my CT was delivered and I got checked out I flew the first pattern like a 172 and then the CFI suggested I bank more than 40 degrees for the purpose of regaining my view quickly.  I've always done the steeper banks and as a result a 45 when returning to the field is quite normal.

 

I do intend to practice this, when the weather improves,  I want practice to help with judging when I have a window to get back and when I have to extend to avoid overshooting the downwind landing.

[Runtoeat]

I went out  to try some of the suggest maneuvers.  A method that seemed to work was to make an approach to the runway at various altitudes that simulated where I might experience engine outs.  At a simulated climb out speed of 60 kts with flaps at 15 and at various altitudes and at distances of 1/2 or greater down the 8,000' runway, my passenger - a certified CFI - pulled power.  With a delay to a count of 5 seconds, I practiced "breaking right and left" to circle back to the runway.  No conclusions yet for a "safe" altitude which might allow me to get back on the ground until some more practicing is done with various wind conditions.  This method seemed to provide a safe method to investigate. When bank or pitch was screwed up and position wasn't correct to allow either upwind or down wind landing, power was applied and this pattern was repeated to set back up.  This does require good radio contact with airport traffic and a spotter in your plane when at public airports.  FWIW, my current "Plan A" for engine failure on takeoff at less than 700' AGL is to scan 60 degrees each way and look for a place where I might land.  If there's obstacles preventing a landing, the chute will be pulled, seat belts pulled tight and transponder and radio will be set to emergency. 

[Tom Baker]

I went out  to try some of the suggest maneuvers.  A method that seemed to work was to make an approach to the runway at various altitudes that simulated where I might experience engine outs.  At a simulated climb out speed of 60 kts with flaps at 15 and at various altitudes and at distances of 1/2 or greater down the 8,000' runway, my passenger - a certified CFI - pulled power.  With a delay to a count of 5 seconds, I practiced "breaking right and left" to circle back to the runway.  No conclusions yet for a "safe" altitude which might allow me to get back on the ground until some more practicing is done with various wind conditions.  This method seemed to provide a safe method to investigate. When bank or pitch was screwed up and position wasn't correct to allow either upwind or down wind landing, power was applied and this pattern was repeated to set back up.  This does require good radio contact with airport traffic and a spotter in your plane when at public airports.  FWIW, my current "Plan A" for engine failure on takeoff at less than 700' AGL is to scan 60 degrees each way and look for a place where I might land.  If there's obstacles preventing a landing, the chute will be pulled, seat belts pulled tight and transponder and radio will be set to emergency.

If you are not all of the way down the runway I think I would try a 360° turn instead of the right and left with a downwind landing.

[FastEddieB]

If you are not all of the way down the runway I think I would try a 360° turn instead of the right and left with a downwind landing.

How much altitude does your plane lose in 360° of turn at your preferred bank angle?

[Tom Baker]

How much altitude does your plane lose in 360° of turn at your preferred bank angle?

Eddie, Your question is not something that can be answered with a simply. There are far to many factors to consider. My point is if you are high enough and still over the runway to think about making a course reversal and landing downwind a 360° turn landing into the wind might be a better option. Making the course reversal will require 270° of turn and switching direction. Because of the course reversal the altitude lost will be very close to that of a 360° turn.

 

I know you say that when you learned to fly and were instructing this was not something that was taught. The same goes for me, but the airplanes we were flying then didn't have the same kind of performance that these new airplanes do. I don't know how your Sky Arrow flies, but the CT doesn't perform anything like the aircraft I grew up flying. Its take off and climb performance in relation to the low drag design allows it to do things that can only be dreamed about while flying Cessna and Piper aircraft that were used when we learned to fly. The other day I made a solo flight in my CT after some work had been performed. It was cold, a little headwind, and I was light on fuel, but I was 1,000 feet just passing the end of our 4,100 foot runway. I have only flown one other airplane besides the CT that would have done that.

 

BTW, My post was in relation to Dick's post about practicing the turn, and specifically to the conditions he described. When looking at it quoted in your post the statement looks out of context.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Eddie, Your question is not something that can be answered with a simply. There are far to many factors to consider. My point is if you are high enough and still over the runway to think about making a course reversal and landing downwind a 360° turn landing into the wind might be a better option. Making the course reversal will require 270° of turn and switching direction. Because of the course reversal the altitude lost will be very close to that of a 360° turn.

 

I know you say that when you learned to fly and were instructing this was not something that was taught. The same goes for me, but the airplanes we were flying then didn't have the same kind of performance that these new airplanes do. I don't know how your Sky Arrow flies, but the CT doesn't perform anything like the aircraft I grew up flying. Its take off and climb performance in relation to the low drag design allows it to do things that can only be dreamed about while flying Cessna and Piper aircraft that were used when we learned to fly. The other day I made a solo flight in my CT after some work had been performed. It was cold, a little headwind, and I was light on fuel, but I was 1,000 feet just passing the end of our 4,100 foot runway. I have only flown one other airplane besides the CT that would have done that.

 

BTW, My post was in relation to Dick's post about practicing the turn, and specifically to the conditions he described. When looking at it quoted in your post the statement looks out of context.

 

 

Tom,

 

I totally agree, the way I might put it, if there is runway in front of you then land on it, if you are too high 360 and then land in front of you.  Its even possible to extend the downwind portion of your 360 and increase the amount of runway to land on.

[FastEddieB]

I think a lot was read into my question.

 

I was honestly curious about how much altitude would be lost in a 360° turn at the "optimum" bank angle.

 

It does sound like it should have a simple answer.

 

I know at one extreme, doing steep spirals for Commercial we would lose a LOT of altitude with each turn.

 

At the other extreme, at standard rate, it would take two minutes to turn 360°, during which it seems a LOT of altitude would be lost, albeit at a slower rate.

 

Somewhere inbetween there must be a "sweet spot", and I think a linked article might have referenced one.

 

Next nice day I may go up in the Sky Arrow and my GoPro and try descending 360's at various bank angles and I'll report the results.

 

If any forum member wants to play, I'd be willing. I will be out of town until at least Wednesday.

[Jim Meade]

The CTSW especially is a very short coupled, highly maneuverable very light aircraft with a pretty good glide ratio.

As I recall, the glide ratio is about 9:1 at best L/D for POH listed best glide speed when I tested it with engine off from 10,000 feet down to 4,000 one day.

[FastEddieB]

To be fair, the Citabria that came to a bad end in a prior link is not exactly chopped liver.

[Ed Cesnalis]

As I recall, the glide ratio is about 9:1 at best L/D for POH listed best glide speed when I tested it with engine off from 10,000 feet down to 4,000 one day.

 

When I bought my CT it was advertised as 16:1  

[Runtoeat]

I have just started working on engine outs and it will be a work in progress.  I've tried the method of going to a safe altitude and simulating engine outs on climb out but without the visual cues of the landing area available I'm never sure if I have ended up where I need to be for the final recovery.  Consequently, this method doesn't seem to work for me. Regarding doing a 360 turn, to start out, I have only done a few at higher speed and altitude than what would be considered a climb out speed and altitude.  Before I continue on with actual climb out speed and altitude practice, I'll need to discuss with my mentor whether or not he thinks this practice will be safe. The great videos and comments by the experienced members does make it pretty clear to me that is there really isn't time to figure out "what's next" while at low altitude.  It appears that one must develop a reflex action to successfully do the IT at less than 700'.  For many, including me, 700'  may not be sufficient if this is attempted without some sort of practice.  It sure would be nice to have access to a flight simulator to work on this.

[Tom Baker]

To be fair, the Citabria that came to a bad end in a prior link is not exactly chopped liver.

Having a fair amount of time in a Citabria and it is a great airplane, it is not a good comparison to the CT.

[Jim Meade]

When I bought my CT it was advertised as 16:1

I did a search on "glide" and found a number of thread references, some with the engine off and some at idle.

 

9:1 is in the range of experience for several responses. Another example was in the 12:1 range. It seems safe to say that 16:1 is not supported by any actual experiences as reported here on this forum and anything over 10:1 gets only a couple of votes.

[Anticept]

It really depends on how ladened the CT is. 9:1 is the safe bet, as they very likely use that in reference to MTOW.

 

14:1 isn't unheard of in the airlines, and obviously gliders are ridiculous

 

EDIT: Whoops, as eddie made me re-examine my thought process, I remember a faint memory about weight having nothing to do with L/D, so weight has nothing to do with glide.

[FastEddieB]

It really depends on how ladened the CT is.

Does it?

 

Which has a better glide ratio, a light CT or a heavy CT?

 

Maybe I misunderstood your post, or maybe it was a slip.

 

But otherwise, do we maybe have a "Stick And Rudder Moment" which can help edify us all?

[FastEddieB]

Having a fair amount of time in a Citabria and it is a great airplane, it is not a good comparison to the CT.

Maybe not, but you can horse it around pretty well. I'm not sure a CT is significantly more maneuverable, but I have zero time maneuvering a CT at its limits, so if it's head and shoulders more maneuverable than a Citabria I'll have learned something.

 

But having higher g limits and aerobatic capability in a Citabria, it may even open up options not legally available to a CT.

 

For instance, a hammerhead stall for a REAL quick 180° return!*

 

*NOT advocating this in the real world for a normal pilot. Ever!

[Anticept]

Does it?

 

Which has a better glide ratio, a light CT or a heavy CT?

 

Maybe I misunderstood your post, or maybe it was a slip.

 

But otherwise, do we maybe have a "Stick And Rudder Moment" which can help edify us all?

 

Hey, you know what, I'm derping . Long forgot that weight has nothing to do with L/D!

[Ed Cesnalis]

Maybe not, but you can horse it around pretty well. I'm not sure a CT is significantly more maneuverable, but I have zero time maneuvering a CT at its limits, so if it's head and shoulders more maneuverable than a Citabria I'll have learned something.

 

But having higher g limits and aerobatic capability in a Citabria, it may even open up options not legally available to a CT.

 

For instance, a hammerhead stall for a REAL quick 180° return!*

 

*NOT advocating this in the real world for a normal pilot. Ever!

 

 

My CT is quite capable of a 180 return using a wing over which I would use to exit a canyon where I could maintain more energy and enter at 90kts and climb with power.

 

Not so good for a power failure at a lower speed.  The citrabria might have trouble getting into the hammerhead without a motor too.

 

Isn't the CT shorter coupled with shorter wings?  It might be able to switch ends as fast?  Doesn't it have a slower stall perhaps allowing a tighter turning radius?

[FlyingMonkey]

I did a search on "glide" and found a number of thread references, some with the engine off and some at idle.

 

9:1 is in the range of experience for several responses. Another example was in the 12:1 range. It seems safe to say that 16:1 is not supported by any actual experiences as reported here on this forum and anything over 10:1 gets only a couple of votes.

 

I don't know the exact real-world glide ratio of the CT, but mine seems to come down pretty steeply with the power at idle.  Most of my experience with this is in the pattern though...maybe I need to go up and do some glide tests with flaps at -6° at various speeds.  Has anybody done this testing and have a suggested speed to use at -6° for best glide range?

 

I know that I have taken to flying very tight patterns because using 30°, 15°, or even 0°, once the power is pulled out the CT comes down pretty readily at normal approach speeds of 50-60kt.  I would believe 9:1 sooner than I would expect 16:1.  12:1 or higher might happen at best speeds and flap settings.

[Ed Cesnalis]

When I said they were advertising 16:1 I didn't say that I believe it.

[FlyingMonkey]

Maybe not, but you can horse it around pretty well. I'm not sure a CT is significantly more maneuverable, but I have zero time maneuvering a CT at its limits, so if it's head and shoulders more maneuverable than a Citabria I'll have learned something.

 

But having higher g limits and aerobatic capability in a Citabria, it may even open up options not legally available to a CT.

 

For instance, a hammerhead stall for a REAL quick 180° return!*

 

*NOT advocating this in the real world for a normal pilot. Ever!

 

Hey Eddie, you just gave me a GREAT idea...400' AGL Split-S to return to the field when engine out!  (KIDDING KIDDING KIDDING!!!)  

 

One thing I find weird about the CT:  It is much more maneuverable than it *feels*.  The centering springs (plus servo drag from autopilot, if equipped) makes the stick feel heavy, especially at higher speeds.  But if you are willing to put the force in to overcome all that resistance, it will pitch and roll quite quickly.  All other LSA I have flown (Tecnam, Zenith Zodiac, SportCruiser) lack the springs and feel very light on the controls.  Fingertip control forces are plenty in most phases of flight.  In the CT I actually lightly grip the stick because of the greater required forces.  You can use fingertips for small changes in cruise, but it's not ideal (for me, anyway) for rolling into a 30° turn. 

 

I doubt a CT is nearly as maneuverable as a Citabria.

[FlyingMonkey]

When I said they were advertising 16:1 I didn't say that I believe it.

 

Fair enough...I think I saw that 16:1 number in a few publications as well.  Who knows, under idea conditions with a perfectly rigged airplane, it might be possible.  Or they just tested with a tailwind...  

 

EDIT:  It's also possible that number is from the CT2K with the longer wing, and they just never revised it.

[Tom Baker]

Maybe not, but you can horse it around pretty well. I'm not sure a CT is significantly more maneuverable, but I have zero time maneuvering a CT at its limits, so if it's head and shoulders more maneuverable than a Citabria I'll have learned something.

 

But having higher g limits and aerobatic capability in a Citabria, it may even open up options not legally available to a CT.

 

For instance, a hammerhead stall for a REAL quick 180° return!*

 

*NOT advocating this in the real world for a normal pilot. Ever!

Eddie, I didn't mean to challenge the Citabria's abilities in maneuvering or doing aerobatics. While the controls are not as balanced I would bet that the CT's rate in roll, pitch, and yaw are very close to those of the 7 series Citabria. As for higher G limits the Citabria has a 1 G advantage on the plus side and is even on the negative side. For what we are talking about I think the difference between +4 and +5 is moot.

My original point was I think the CT has better take off and climb performance as well as a better glide ratio than the 7 series Citabria, and that is what is important in this discussion.