Jon - all.
Hear -hear, wise words Jon! Your statements are all correct.
One thing though: It's a good practice to build up a little more speed on
initial climb. After lift-off fly level to about 75 kts, then start your
climb. Then you have gotten yourself some margins for unexpected happenings.
OK - your initial climbs want be as spectacular as you may like, but it's a
small price to pay!!!
Best wishes
Hans
----- Original Message -----
From: "JonSmith" <jonsmitheuropa@tiscali.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:10 PM
Subject: Europa-List: 180 degree turn back
> <jonsmitheuropa@tiscali.co.uk>
>
> Hi everyone! It's not often I'm moved to write here - I don't have any
> technical skills to offer (I just very gratefully make use of other
> people's knowledge by reading this forum!)
>
> However, regarding this "180 degree turning back" issue I'm absolutely
> appalled at some of the comments I'm reading here.
>
> I can't say this loudly enough - or type it big enough: !!!DO NOT TURN
> BACK!!! It's a killer. It always has been and always will be. There's
> no big mystery about it - the SAFEST option will always be to land
> somewhere that's reasonably in front of you.
>
> That's it said really; the rest of this message is just supporting
> material. Sure, landing ahead may well result in damage to the plane.
> But with a little skill and a little luck you should come away unscathed,
> and maybe the plane will too. Depends on the local situation. This is
> far far better than entering the roulette wheel of turning back, from
> which the consequences of losing...well we know that don't we?
>
> Let's look at Mr Average (me, you, all of us) in a worse case scenario.
> Climbing out at 60 kts - flaps still down (high drag) - nose well up cos
> it's a nice powerful plane with the latest prop, when the unthinkable
> happens - at say 500 feet and totally unexpectedly the engine stops. By
> the time we've reacted to it the speed will have dropped to 55 kts or
> probably less. Then the penny drops and we smartly poke the stick forward
> and the nose thankfully starts to go down. Speed will still be lost as
> the nose is going down until some sort of gliding attitude is attained;
> only then will the speed loss trend be halted. If you're a "switched on
> cookie" and you reacted well to the surprise the speed will now be steady
> at about 50 kts - but a lot less if you're not so sharp - it might be 40
> kts or less. Remember, nose high and power off - rate of speed loss will
> be tremendous. What speed should we be aiming for in the subsequent
> glide? I don't know - 60 kts seems a reasonable
> safe approach and landing speed. More if you need to manoeuvre
> significantly. To increase speed in order to obtain a safe gliding speed
> with the engine off, (and especially if the flaps are down) will need a
> much lower nose attitude - lower than we would EVER use in normal
> circumstances and will use up a very great deal of height - probably most
> of your original 500 feet. Just to get the plane flying safely again.
> Still going to turn back?? I promise you - you will not make it!!
>
> The first golden rule is to get the bl**dy nose well down, keep it well
> down and monitor the speed carefully before any sort of manoeuvring is
> attempted. In the worse type of critical situation you can still achieve
> a lot with the plane under good control. If you lose control by not
> achieving and maintaining a safe speed everything will be lost.
>
> Incidently, this entire posting is not aimed at the Europa. It's relevant
> to every aeroplane there is. We're fortunate with the Europa in that we
> are slightly better off than many other planes because it's such a great
> design with super easy handling and does have some degree of glide
> performance which might help reach a landing/ controlled crash site that
> many other planes wouldn't have the legs to reach. All aeroplanes glide
> like bricks, the Europa is just a slightly more streamlined brick. The
> Europa will stall and spin if badly handled, say in an unwise and badly
> managed turn back. It's only an aeroplane after all and all aeroplanes
> will stall and spin, at least every one I've ever flown.
>
> Just a few comments on postings I've read recently: First the most
> serious:
> Someone wrote that during their conversion training they were advised and
> demonstrated (BY A PFA COACH for goodness sake!!) that a turn back is
> possible in the Europa from 300 feet. If people are being taught things
> like this then it is of no surprise at all to me that these sorts of
> accidents are still happening - as they have been for nearly 100 years. I
> don't know the person who advocates this practise and I don't really want
> to, but I feel this sort of advice has no place in modern day coaching.
> The person who wrote this post went on to say he intends to practise the
> manoeuvre again. PLEASE DON'T. It sounds most dangerous. Firstly,
> heaven forbid, you might be tempted to attempt it for real, secondly just
> doing it under controlled simulated conditions sounds fraught with danger.
> It would be a real shame to become a statistic trying to practise this
> dangerous exercise. JUST LAND AHEAD!
>
> A real engine failure after take off will be totally unexpected and will
> place even the most experienced pilot ever in a totally alien environment
> with a huge workload. There will be a fraction of the normal human
> resources available to control the plane - that's why any action taken
> must be kept as simple as possible. Incidently, pilot experience does not
> necessarily seem to be a factor. In fact a newly qualified PPL maybe
> "safer" because hopefully he will rely on his recent training and put the
> thing down straight ahead. An "old hand" may be more likely to "think" he
> is able to turn back where in reality - he can't.
>
> I've read discussion about how individual aircraft of the same design (ie
> the Europa) have different stall/ spin characteristics from others of the
> same mark. Maybe, in fact quite probably, but irrelevant to this "turn
> back" discussion. Throughout any manoeuvring near the ground, whether
> during an unwise turn back or whatever you should be nowhere near
> stalling!! That's just basic skill and handling. If the difference
> between one variant or another determines the possible successful outcome
> or otherwise of a situation - DON'T GO THERE!! Fly the aircraft properly;
> well balanced and at a safe speed and you will stay safe. People talk
> about slipping or skidding turns near the stall. DO NOT DO THIS NEAR THE
> GROUND. If you cannot manoeuvre near the ground without slipping or
> skidding and/or stalling then don't do it - you've guessed it .. Land
> ahead!!
>
> I've read about Europa fuel tanks and their survivability. I don't know
> any of the technical bits but it seems to me to be an excellent, strong
> and well - positioned design. I've flown a Piper Pawnee with the fuel tank
> sandwiched between the engine and the pilot, just ready for the engine to
> be pushed back into the tank. The Super Cub has the left wing tank header
> tank just above your toes. I've flown the Falke motorglider with the tank
> just behind your head! It's got to go somewhere and the Europa seems to
> be at least as good as any of those! If an aircraft is to sadly stall/
> spin into the ground then I don't think any type of fuel tank will survive
> this. Don't worry about the tank - concentrate on flying safely instead
> and you'll be fine!
>
> The Europa is a fine aircraft but it will bite back if mis-handled- just
> like any other aircraft will. We must all strive to be safe and sensible
> and try not to let a plane bite us.
>
> Best wishes, sorry to ramble on - got carried away!
> Jon Smith
> G-TERN
>
>
> Visit - www.EuropaOwners.org
>
>
>
|