Turn backs and Mooneys

[ilovecornfields]

3 hours ago, steingar said:

This is a sort've nutzy cookoo topic.  If you've got farm fields in front of you, why turn back?  Remember, the most you're going to payout in an airplane crash is your insurance deductible.  If you have a field you can land in, the Mooney will protect you.  Keep it under control and you'll be just fine.

What if you haven't a field?  You still don't have to make a runway, the grass next to the runway is likely free of obstructions, at least formidable ones (I really don't care if I take out a landing light crashing the airplane).  Hence you might only have to make a 180. Heck, in the accident animation that started the video there were parallel runways, he only needed 180.

Me, I take off over neighborhoods.  I don't care, I'm turning back.  My thinking is not making it is no worse than landing straight ahead.  I have parallel runways, so I only have a to make 180.  And I usually take off over a farm field.  If I can make that I'll call it a success.  My job in a situation like this is to make certain everyone gets out OK.  The airplane is expendable.  I'll buy another.  Mooney made lots.

Am I practicing this?  Of course not!  Practicing at altitude with no surprise, no stress and no terrain is laughable.  Practicing at low altitude is dangerous at best.  Moreover, my engine might decide to puke at a different altitude than my "practice".  I think the biggest thing we need to do as pilots is brief the takeoff.  "What do I do if the mill takes a dump?".  Whatever that is, do it as quickly, smoothly, and safely as you can when the time comes.  I know I'm turning back from my home drone, I don't care.  There just isn't a down side so long as I keep the speed up.  Other runways may be different.

We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training.

Archilochus
 

I’m going to have to disagree on the “better off by not practicing.” Turning back and using hope as a strategy is exactly what has led to the the high rate of stall/spin accidents and the high fatality rate associated with power loss on takeoff.

 

I’m not advocating it, but I do have a friend I fly with who is a retired airline pilot, bush pilot and current Mooney owner (and a CFI) who likes to teach what I call the “oh sh*t” turn in which he pulls the power to idle, says “oh sh*t!” Then simultaneously drops flaps to full, unloads the wings and does a steep 180 degree turn. He can get the plane turned around in about 200’-300’. It is definitely NOT something I would have tried to do for the first time when close to the ground in an emergency when task saturated.

 

Would I do it if the engine quit? I don’t know. It’s pretty dramatic but it also achieves a course reversal with minimal altitude loss, turn radius and distance traveled away from the runway. 

Would I do it without practicing and expect to survive? Absolutely not.

[A64Pilot]

Why 85 KIAS? Going for min sink?

On edit, to answer the reason to why practice, one reason is to establish an altitude and distance from the airport to where it’s possible. That way you have an idea as to an altitude to where you shouldn’t even try, just have enough altitude practicing to where you could recover from a one turn spin 

Edited June 8, 2021 by A64Pilot

[PT20J]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

Why 85 KIAS? Going for min sink?

 

85 KIAS is my initial climb speed where I raise the flaps and it is about the best glide speed for 2500 lbs. The stall speed at 45 deg and 2500 lbs is 67 KIAS. I would be interesting to try letting the speed bleed off to 75 during the maneuver and see the effect, but that would take more precision than I think I could muster in a real situation. 

If I recall correctly, Don Maxwell was at about 600' when the engine quit during a test flight out of KGGG with only a junkyard ahead. He made the turn and got to a crossing runway. Lowered the gear the last instant (he described it as clunk, chirp).

Skip

[N201MKTurbo]

If you know what you can do, you have the information needed to make proper decisions.

We would all do well to do like I was trained for multi-engine departures.

Before every takeoff recite what you are going to do if you have an engine failure. It goes like this:

”If the engine quits below xxx feet I will land straight ahead. There is a field to the right I will head there. Above xxx feet I will push the nose immediately to xx KTS and start a (L/R) turn back to runway xx. “

Thinking about it before you take off is infinitely better than trying to figure it out with a dead engine on the edge of a stall.

Edited June 8, 2021 by N201MKTurbo

[A64Pilot]

It’s being too close to a stall is what I believe hurts people.

Try this don’t fully stall. but let the stall warning sound while maintaining heading, then while maintaining heading push the nose over and see how many feet of altitude it takes to get back to say 85 KIAS and an established glide at 85 kts

As a aircraft slows, it’s L/D goes to pot, it’s “mushing”, it’s not stalled but it’s glide ratio is terrible.

‘The clip that someone posted with the Mooney making it back in Winter is I think what will happen i’n most cases, watch the clip and see how often you hear the stall warning.

‘I’m not saying anything bad about him, he made it and that’s all that matters, but I think most of us will likely be slower than best glide speed during the maneuver, unless maybe we have practiced to maintain speed.

[Shadrach]

On 6/8/2021 at 3:04 PM, A64Pilot said:

It’s being too close to a stall is what I believe hurts people.

Try this don’t fully stall. but let the stall warning sound while maintaining heading, then while maintaining heading push the nose over and see how many feet of altitude it takes to get back to say 85 KIAS and an established glide at 85 kts

As a aircraft slows, it’s L/D goes to pot, it’s “mushing”, it’s not stalled but it’s glide ratio is terrible.

‘The clip that someone posted with the Mooney making it back in Winter is I think what will happen i’n most cases, watch the clip and see how often you hear the stall warning.

‘I’m not saying anything bad about him, he made it and that’s all that matters, but I think most of us will likely be slower than best glide speed during the maneuver, unless maybe we have practiced to maintain speed.

Agreed, I would add that in my experience best results were attained by performing the coarse reversal quickly and at a speed that provided adequate margin above stall for the bank angle (60-70°) and little more.  Once reversed, best glide speed should be the goal. However, I can envision a scenario with a significant tail wind and obstacles to transition where minimum sink (Vms) might be temporarily prudent.  I think Dave (the video Pilot) would have been better off making a left turn.  As it turned out, his right turn put him over trees. I think his awareness of them was manifested in those stall horn chirps.  He cleared them but not with tremendous margin.  Having done this maneuver as an academic exercise, I can say I'd very likely skip it in the real world unless all other options were really poor.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Shadrach

[N201MKTurbo]

4 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Agreed, I would add that in my experience best results were attained by performing the coarse reversal quickly and at a speed that provided adequate margin above stall for the bank angle (60-70°) and little more.  Once reversed, best glide speed should be the goal. However, I can envision a scenario with a significant tail wind and obstacles to transition where minimum sink (Vms) might be temporarily prudent.  I think Dave (the video Pilot) would have been better of making a left turn.  As it turned out, his right turn put him over trees. I think his awareness of them was manifested in those stall horn Chirps.  He cleared them but not with tremendous margin.  Having done this maneuver as an academic exercise, I can say I'd very likely skip it in the real world unless all other options were really poor.

If you watch the video of the Bo turning back, he actually turned back too soon. He almost ran out of runway. He might have done better to fly a bit outbound first. Only experience will train you to figure that out on the fly.

[A64Pilot]

The wind is something we haven’t really discussed, the “downwind turn” is another killer in aviation, it’s of course the crosswind to downwind, and what gets people is the 10 kt headwind becomes a 10 kt tailwind, meaning of course there is a potential for a loss of 20kts airspeed.

‘But it applies here as well, and even moreso, because we are after a relatively quick, tight radius 180 turn, so that headwind you had at takeoff is very quickly becoming a tailwind and stealing your airspeed, so you need to be accelerating in that turn to maintain airspeed, if you took off into a headwind.

With the Bonanza, for some reason I can’t find an official glide ratio, but most seem to think it’s at least 10 to 1, My J model is 10 to 1.  Something is wrong here.

Bonanza’s do NOT float on final, in fact you can be high and fast and still pull off a nice landing in one, they bleed energy fast.

I believe it may be as simple as their prop min pitch setting, a flat pitched prop is some kind of air brake, ask any turbine guy. But if you watch a Bo taxi, it takes a lot of RPM to get one moving, sure they are heavier, but they have a much bigger motor than I do, so why does my neighbor in his Bo have to have 1600 RPM to pull the same slight rise I do at 1200? Has to be his prop is pitched lower and I believe that’s also why they can have such a steep approach and not float, they slow down.

‘Anyway I think the Bo’s do so poorly in these tests because their prop is so flat and that is a speed brake.

Pure speculation, but something has to explain why they slow down and have so much drag on approach, but still are pretty quick in cruise.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

If you watch the video of the Bo turning back, he actually turned back too soon. He almost ran out of runway. He might have done better to fly a bit outbound first. Only experience will train you to figure that out on the fly.

If I’m high, even pretty stupid high a full rudder deflection slip will lose quite a bit of altitude.

‘I can fix high, I can’t fix low

But to add to it, engine failure is pretty common in the Ag world, and almost always they overshoot and get the fence at the end of the field, I always thought it was the prop feathering, but maybe it’s just our tendency to make sure we make it, that we end up long?

Very few Ag pilots actually feather the prop, they just don’t think about it, and very few ever jettison the hopper, they don’t have enough time to think about it.

‘By the time I Retired from the Army in 02, there had been several wing stores jettisons, but not once when it was needed, everyone rode it in with all that weight on the wings.

‘So we all think we will do this and that, but when it happens very few of us do, unless you have practiced, then it may become automatic.

Edited June 8, 2021 by A64Pilot

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

The wind is something we haven’t really discussed, the “downwind turn” is another killer in aviation, it’s of course the crosswind to downwind, and what gets people is the 10 kt headwind becomes a 10 kt tailwind, meaning of course there is a potential for a loss of 20kts airspeed.

‘But it applies here as well, and even moreso, because we are after a relatively quick, tight radius 180 turn, so that headwind you had at takeoff is very quickly becoming a tailwind and stealing your airspeed, so you need to be accelerating in that turn to maintain airspeed, if you took off into a headwind.

With the Bonanza, for some reason I can’t find an official glide ratio, but most seem to think it’s at least 10 to 1, My J model is 10 to 1.  Something is wrong here.

Bonanza’s do NOT float on final, in fact you can be high and fast and still pull off a nice landing in one, they bleed energy fast.

I believe it may be as simple as their prop min pitch setting, a flat pitched prop is some kind of air brake, ask any turbine guy. But if you watch a Bo taxi, it takes a lot of RPM to get one moving, sure they are heavier, but they have a much bigger motor than I do, so why does my neighbor in his Bo have to have 1600 RPM to pull the same slight rise I do at 1200? Has to be his prop is pitched lower and I believe that’s also why they can have such a steep approach and not float, they slow down.

‘Anyway I think the Bo’s do so poorly in these tests because their prop is so flat and that is a speed brake.

Pure speculation, but something has to explain why they slow down and have so much drag on approach, but still are pretty quick in cruise.

A headwind/crosswind that becomes a tailwind does not “steal” airspeed unless one encounters a wind shear or substantial gust factor (and that’s normally very temporary). I also use full deflection slips from time to time. However, I have found that If one is already on the lower side of the speed spectrum it’s often often more effective to raise the nose and slow to just above stall and maintain just enough back pressure to keep the horn blaring. Like most airframes, the M20 will descend at a steep angle if held on the backside of the drag curve. It does not feel comfortable but it is effective.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Shadrach

[Davidv]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

The wind is something we haven’t really discussed, the “downwind turn” is another killer in aviation, it’s of course the crosswind to downwind, and what gets people is the 10 kt headwind becomes a 10 kt tailwind, meaning of course there is a potential for a loss of 20kts airspeed.

‘But it applies here as well, and even moreso, because we are after a relatively quick, tight radius 180 turn, so that headwind you had at takeoff is very quickly becoming a tailwind and stealing your airspeed, so you need to be accelerating in that turn to maintain airspeed, if you took off into a headwind.

With the Bonanza, for some reason I can’t find an official glide ratio, but most seem to think it’s at least 10 to 1, My J model is 10 to 1.  Something is wrong here.

Bonanza’s do NOT float on final, in fact you can be high and fast and still pull off a nice landing in one, they bleed energy fast.

I believe it may be as simple as their prop min pitch setting, a flat pitched prop is some kind of air brake, ask any turbine guy. But if you watch a Bo taxi, it takes a lot of RPM to get one moving, sure they are heavier, but they have a much bigger motor than I do, so why does my neighbor in his Bo have to have 1600 RPM to pull the same slight rise I do at 1200? Has to be his prop is pitched lower and I believe that’s also why they can have such a steep approach and not float, they slow down.

‘Anyway I think the Bo’s do so poorly in these tests because their prop is so flat and that is a speed brake.

Pure speculation, but something has to explain why they slow down and have so much drag on approach, but still are pretty quick in cruise.

Please explain how a headwind turning into a tailwind affects TAS or IAS (except in a low level wind shear situation) with everything else constant? What am I missing here?

[A64Pilot]

I can find all kinds of internet articles proclaiming it’s a myth, but in a whole lot of low level flying I can attest that a turn into the wind results in a tighter turning radius and a downwind turn results in a larger turning radius when the point is to return to a ground reference point, whether it be the start of the next spray run or the end of a runway. anyone  trying to maintain a tight turn radius when referenced to the ground will be closer to a stall trying to do so in a downwind turn.

‘If you ignore the ground, I agree there is no difference, but the point here is a small diameter, quick reversal to get back to a set point on the ground, if you try to maintain the same diameter turn as measured by a ground reference a down wind turn will have you closer to stall.

Said another way if I’m in a downwind turn to get back to the field for the next spray run, I will cover more ground doing so than I will in an upwind turn, the reason is the difference in ground speed assuming of course the same airspeed.

[Davidv]

10 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I can find all kinds of internet articles proclaiming it’s a myth, but in a whole lot of low level flying I can attest that a turn into the wind results in a tighter turning radius and a downwind turn results in a larger turning radius when the point is to return to a ground reference point, whether it be the start of the next spray run or the end of a runway. anyone  trying to maintain a tight turn radius when referenced to the ground will be closer to a stall trying to do so in a downwind turn.

‘If you ignore the ground, I agree there is no difference, but the point here is a small diameter, quick reversal to get back to a set point on the ground, if you try to maintain the same diameter turn as measured by a ground reference a down wind turn will have you closer to stall.

Said another way if I’m in a downwind turn to get back to the field for the next spray run, I will cover more ground doing so than I will in an upwind turn, the reason is the difference in ground speed assuming of course the same airspeed.

You're talking about groundspeed and your relative proximity to objects on the ground, not airspeed.  I don't think anyone disagrees that your turning radius with respect to ground reference points will change with the wind.

[A64Pilot]

12 minutes ago, Davidv said:

You're talking about groundspeed and your relative proximity to objects on the ground, not airspeed.  I don't think anyone disagrees that your turning radius with respect to ground reference points will change with the wind.

Right, correct. in Air work it makes no difference, but if your trying to return to a spot on the ground, particularly if you need to be on a set heading when you do, as in a runway or the next spray pass, the downwind turn is more difficult because it affects your path along the ground so if you maintain the same angle of bank the wind pushes you away as opposed to pushing you tighter. Doing lazy eights, chandels etc it’s irrelevant, but to maintain a ground track you will be varying your angle of bank, like turns about a point. in the upwind section you shallow your bank, and tighten it in the downwind section of the turn. Increasing the angle of bank when your low and slow is more hazardous than decreasing your bank angle, this is a ground referenced maneuver, except for the no engine part, its what a crop duster does at every spray run.

Edited June 9, 2021 by A64Pilot

[DXB]

11 hours ago, steingar said:

 

Me, I take off over neighborhoods.  I don't care, I'm turning back.  My thinking is not making it is no worse than landing straight ahead.  I have parallel runways, so I only have a to make 180.

It's an interesting point - I'm in the same situation as you at my home field, minus the parallel runway; but it's a large airport with intesecting runways, and the grass will do just fine.  But a low altitude turnback that has a chance in the Mooneys (hard pitch down, hard bank) consumes a ton of bandwidth. For a non pro like me, that reduces the chance of finessing into the best off-field option among a bunch of crappy ones in the neighborhoods that lie on all sides.  Still, the chances of making it back are increased by the two long runways, so it's a very tough call.

Edited June 9, 2021 by DXB

[A64Pilot]

You know I just thought of this, if your spraying a field you never just turn one direction and then twice more to get lined up, you would never make it, you would have to be much further away from the field to begin with to start the turn. If you tear drop the turn you can start much closer to the field. 

‘You tear drop the turn if I use the term correctly, you first start with a small right, then a full left turn, that puts you right back where you left, most people instinctively like to turn left, think about how you used to slide your bicycle when you were a kid, you get up on the left side of a horse too.

‘I wonder why they don’t tear drop  in this turn back maneuver?

[Shadrach]

On 6/8/2021 at 9:12 PM, A64Pilot said:

You know I just thought of this, if your spraying a field you never just turn one direction and then twice more to get lined up, you would never make it, you would have to be much further away from the field to begin with to start the turn. If you tear drop the turn you can start much closer to the field. 

‘You tear drop the turn if I use the term correctly, you first start with a small right, then a full left turn, that puts you right back where you left, most people instinctively like to turn left, think about how you used to slide your bicycle when you were a kid, you get up on the left side of a horse too.

‘I wonder why they don’t tear drop  in this turn back maneuver?

There is a drag and energy cost for every maneuver. Probably not very significant but I’m thinking it’s better to  worry about aligning with the runway after entering ground effect.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Shadrach

[A64Pilot]

Just now, Shadrach said:

There is a drag and energy costs for every maneuver. Probably not very significant but I’m thinking it’s better to  worry about aligning with the runway after entering ground effect.

You may be right, plus getting it on a normal airfield is more important than runway alignment.

‘My home field is grass with trees around it and decent forced landing areas pretty much straight ahead, so a turn back unless in the pattern is probably not smart, except 090 runway, there is a lot of water and marsh on that heading.

Still I may play with it just to get an idea. I think if I’m above 500 AHO and 110 kts I can do it, I’ll see. I cruise climb at 110 KIAS, engine seems to like it better.

[carusoam]

If able...

Be thinking out your departure course...

If you can leave the runway angled away from the centerline....

That. Would give you more space and fewer turns to get back on the runway’s surface after your 180°...  before the engine croaks...

 

This doesn’t work very well at busy airports... it is a non-standard traffic pattern.

PP thoughts only, not a CFI... something discussed around here before...

Best regards,

-a-

+1 on practice the parts you can, at altitude... to better know your plane...  

+1 Plan A: land straight ahead...

[Shadrach]

15 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

You may be right, plus getting it on a normal airfield is more important than runway alignment.

‘My home field is grass with trees around it and decent forced landing areas pretty much straight ahead, so a turn back unless in the pattern is probably not smart, except 090 runway, there is a lot of water and marsh on that heading.

Still I may play with it just to get an idea. I think if I’m above 500 AHO and 110 kts I can do it, I’ll see. I cruise climb at 110 KIAS, engine seems to like it better.

I too like to climb at higher speeds. Mid body birds easily make 1000 ft./min. at what feels to be a relatively flat pitch angle. After watching the bonanza in the first video, I’m considering revising my SOP when climbing out of densely populated areas. If I climb at 120mph, I can be nearly a mile from a shortish runway’s threshold by the time I hit 500 feet. Reducing forward speed to 100mph would put me at a safe “return to base” altitude sooner and closer to the airport.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Shadrach

[Hank]

39 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I too like to climb at higher speeds. Mid body birds easily make 1000 ft./min. at what feels to be a relatively flat pitch angle. After watching the bonanza in the first video, I’m considering revising my SOP when climbing out of densely populated areas. If I climb at 120mph, I can be nearly a mile from a shortish runway’s threshold by the time I hit 500 feet. Reducing forward speed to 100mph would put me at a safe “return to base” altitude sooner and closer to the airport.

Exactly what I thought watching the video, and just what Bob Kromer has encouraged at Mooney Summits:  climb at Vy for at least the first thousand feet, so you don't end up miles away from the runway before reaching a safe turnbuckle altitude.

I climb at Vx until above all obstacles, then Vy to altitude. Our engines are built for it. At least the first 1000' all. It can be a lifesaver.

[PT20J]

Here's another point of view -- of course it's from a couple of Bonanza guys so...

https://www.advancedpilot.com/articles.php?action=article&articleid=1842

[A64Pilot]

On 6/9/2021 at 8:03 PM, PT20J said:

Here's another point of view -- of course it's from a couple of Bonanza guys so...

https://www.advancedpilot.com/articles.php?action=article&articleid=1842

Interesting and I agree with most of it, unfortunately as with many of these things some things are posted as facts, with no substantiation, such as his attempt at a height / velocity diagram for a fixed wing which I’ll attach as a screen shot.

It’s not that I disagree with it, I agree and attempted to explain it earlier in the thread, it’s just as far as I know, there has been no test flights to substantiate it, so I wonder where he came up with his data.

‘But I agree if your climbing hard with your nose high (Vx) and the engine quits, unless you have superhuman reaction time, it’s most likely the aircraft will be “mushing” with the ground rapidly approaching and you don’t have the altitude to gain airspeed, even with an instantaneous reaction, the altitude to gain airspeed just isn’t there.

 

[hammdo]

My Vy is 105 mph. I get the gear up once positive rate of climb (Johnson bar), pitch for Vy and when I approach max flap speed (100), raise flaps and continue to Vy. I use Don Kaye's approach doing pattern work but if on CC, once I'm 1000 ft AGL, transition to cruise climb (115-120 mph).

I'll follow Vx if there is an obstacle then Vy etc...

-Don.

[JohnB]

I just posted about this, but here is a more appropriate place.

 I tried and practiced the impossible turn in a simulator (one of the full motion redbird ones), and was VERY educational.   It is an uncomfortable, acrobatic maneuver that has to be done essentially immediately on noticing engine failure at low altitude. When I first practiced this maneuver,  I was able to successfully get back to the runway environment in the sim 50% of the time at 500 feet, all of the time at 800 feet, and around 70% of the time at 600-800 feet. I got better as I practiced more.  Note I said runway environment not the actual lined up for the reverse runway, as if I can land normally anywhere on the flat airport/ grass/ taxiway in this emergency, that's something you have a better chance of walking away from. Note that this is a sim and I knew it was coming so I didn't spend any time going "WT..." which is a factor. But I think it is a good idea to practice so you know your limitations in case this ever happens.