Mooney down... KC, MO

[fantom]

I think by definition the Impossible Turn means that those factors are not present yet the pilot attempts to do it anyway.

 

I observe too many timid pilots unwilling to push the nose over hard and fast, and roll in 60 degrees of bank at the same time, with one reason being they're never been taught it by their 200 hour, or 60+ year old, CFI's.

 

So, for those pilots, don't even consider turning back into traffic at anything under a 1,000 feet AGL,

even as every fibre of your being wants to do just that.

 

I suspect, that when the plane goes quiet and the chips are down, it's the desire of some of these timid pilots to get back to the safety of the airport, that causes a quick stall/spin demise after a gentle turn and decent maneuver.

 

Hopefully YMMV.

[DaV8or]

My experiments at altitude showed me that at best glide and even as little as 30 degrees bank I was able to consistently turn 180 degrees and only lose 400'. I suspect a steeper bank would lose even less. IMO though and this may only be me, this maneuver is best performed like an instrument maneuver. Stop focusing out the window and fire up the 6 pack scan. Airspeed and bank angle are critical! I think why so many fail at the impossible turn is they start yanking and banking, looking out the window and the airspeed snaps to stall speed in just moments. I believe the key to survival in an engine out scenario is airspeed control and for me, this is best done by flying on instruments.

[201er]

My experiments at altitude showed me that at best glide and even as little as 30 degrees bank I was able to consistently turn 180 degrees and only lose 400'. I suspect a steeper bank would lose even less. IMO though and this may only be me, this maneuver is best performed like an instrument maneuver. Stop focusing out the window and fire up the 6 pack scan. Airspeed and bank angle are critical! I think why so many fail at the impossible turn is they start yanking and banking, looking out the window and the airspeed snaps to stall speed in just moments. I believe the key to survival in an engine out scenario is airspeed control and for me, this is best done by flying on instruments.

NOOO! Don't stare at the ASI! Bury the nose below the horizon as much as you can go and bank it around. If you don't have an angle of attack indicator, do you really know what airspeed you should be doing in an arbitrary hard bank turn? You need a lot of nose down pitch in a steep turn with the engine off. Pointing the nose at the ground is the secret to avoiding stall and possibly making it back.

[flyboy0681]

Once again folks, this is what we all need to avoid should we find ourselves in this situation.

 

http://vimeo.com/26640491

[DaV8or]

NOOO! Don't stare at the ASI! Bury the nose below the horizon as much as you can go and bank it around. If you don't have an angle of attack indicator, do you really know what airspeed you should be doing in an arbitrary hard bank turn? You need a lot of nose down pitch in a steep turn with the engine off. Pointing the nose at the ground is the secret to avoiding stall and possibly making it back.

 

Here's the thinking on my "instrument" approach. My POH states that at max gross weight, power off, flaps up in a 60 degree bank, the wing stalls at 98 mph IAS. The best glide is 104 mph IAS. Not a lot of margin, I know. However, at 45 degrees it's 85 mph IAS and I would never attempt 60 degrees and almost never fly at max gross. A nearly 30 mph margin isn't too bad in an emergency.

 

I might chose 45 degrees because it is clearly marked on my AI. I have always, since student days, done way better at steep turns and maneuvering by instrument than just looking out the window. To me I need to know exactly what's going on and I don't trust my eyes to the horizon to give me the whole story. The other day, calmly under no emergency, I did a 30 degree banking 180 turn maintaining 105 mph IAS no problem and lost only 400 ft after repeated tries using this method. It was easy for me. My guess is, 45 degree bank would be even better. 60 degrees is beyond my comfort level for this.

 

A big problem with my "technique" is, what if the engine failure also causes vacuum pump failure? Would I think to look at the vacuum reading (I have a digital vacuum read out)? I have only tested this at engine idle and the vacuum is fine. (It better be, I just put in a new vacuum pump at annual! ) Without vacuum, the AI is useless and in fact a treacherous adversary.

 

The trouble I see with the "bury the nose and bank it around" solution is, you may well lose precious altitude that you can't make back and the whole point is to safely make it back to the runway. Just short of the runway doesn't always cut it.

 

In an actual emergency, I have no idea what would happen. With my mind racing, heart pounding, I might totally screw the pooch. I don't know.

 

It's all theoretical at this point. If something looks survivable straight ahead, or a little off to one side, I'll do that. I'm not saying I would for sure try this at all and I'm not saying anyone else should either.  In fact, if you're not good at instruments, skip everything I've said here. In addition, if I had and AOA indicator like you do (I hope to get one soon if finances hold up) I would absolutely chose to keep an eye on it instead of the ASI. Still given what I do have and what I've learned and what might be in front of me with a windmilling prop...   ???

[DaV8or]

Once again folks, this is what we all need to avoid should we find ourselves in this situation.

 

http://vimeo.com/26640491

 

And then there is the tale of this Mooney...

 

http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pilotstories/impossibleturn/

 

Notice, no crazy steep turns. The usual advise of just land straight ahead is fine, unless the view ahead looks like a certain trip to the hospital, or morgue. There might be a day when a turn back is the better option... if you have the altitude, if you have thought it out and if you practiced some before hand.

[jetdriven]

There are a few things working for the pilot in that video. If you notice, it is quite cold outside, and the density altitude, if accounting for a 919' field elevation and 15F temperature, was 2000' below sea level. This may have even contributed to his engine failure, as the engine was making more than rated engine power, and more than rated cylinder pressure.  As soon as the engine quit the stall warning sounded, which says he was climbing at a speed near Vy. (How many of us are at Vy at 500'?) At any rate, he was likely higher at that point in time and downrange distance than almost any other day.  Looking at the video again, it looks like he was at 500' AGL only a mile from the end of the runway.  So, advantage, extra altitude.

 

Additionally, an engine that blows a cylinder head still has 3 functioning cylinders, and it is still making significant power.  It was until the point he pulled the mixture.  Note, if the engine is still making power, let it run. As a friend of mine said, "Do not think about money or life, just fly the airplane."

 

The impossible turn is not just 180 degrees, its more like 270 degrees.  For those of you practicing these maneuvers, turn 180 degrees one way, pause a second, then turn 90 degrees the other way, extending the gear midway through the 90 degree portion and report back with the altitude loss.

 

Another thing, the video incorrectly states it is the landing gear warning tone sounding, but it is the stall warning.  It sounded 5 or six times.  Once for over 5 seconds.  Their explanation is that it is because of the low manifold pressure due to the failed engine, but that is complete hogwash. Go up to altitude sometime and shut off the fuel or mixture. Manifold pressure and RPM function normally. That was the stall warning going off.

 

He also had two runways to choose from.  A few more options there. The interesting thing is there were two nice landing spots in the field of view as he did the first turn which didnt involve such extreme maneuvering.

 

He admitted in the video he was concerned about causing more damage to his engine. I think he was also concerned about damaging his airplane, but this stunt almost cost him his life. He was lucky. The statistics dont bear that out.

[bumper]

Most planes have a built in 45 degree bank indicator, no vacuum needed, assuming you have an outside horizon reference. When the diagonal mounting screws on any standard instrument line up with the horizon, that's a 45 degree bank.

 

I suppose it's rare to have excess airspeed to trade for altitude during a departure power failure, but maybe in cruise. When trading speed for altitude the rule is 1 knot gets you 9 feet per 100 knots speed (e.g. 1 knot gains 18' at 200 knots). This is the "roller coaster rule" and generally holds true for clean airframes. It works the other way when trading altitude for speed.

 

If the engine is windmilling and there's oil pressure, pull the prop to coarse pitch for less drag. If you have a long way to glide and not much excess altitude, consider pulling the nose up to stop the prop as that presents lower drag than a prop windmilling, then go back to best glide (or faster depending on headwind etc). Leave the gear and flaps up until you know you've got your landing spot made. 

 

If it becomes obvious you are not going to make your intended landing spot, don't press on towards it anyway. Choose a closer spot you can reach.

 

bumper

[N9201A]

Regarding 60 degree bank stall speeds, remember, that is in LEVEL FLIGHT!  The reason stall speeds increase in a steep bank is G-loading increasing the aircraft's weight;  unloading the wing counteracts this.  Airspeed means nothing without G-loading - at 1G, your stall speed is unchanged whether in level flight or a 90 degree bank (of course you can exceed the critical angle of attack in any attitude, including a steep dive).  

 

Trying to maintain level flight with not enough power while ALSO turning is what causes accidents like the chilling stall-spin captured above.  DON'T try it.

IMHO, pointing the nose at the ground (as suggested above) will rarely kill you;  pulling back on the yoke (even subconsciously) while trying to stretch a glide WILL.  

 

Ask yourself:  What stall/spin accident would have come out worse if the pilot had simply trimmed the airplane for slowest RATE of descent (usually trim max aft) and left pitch ALONE?  Remember a stall/spin is CAUSED by the PILOT.  If we can CAUSE it, we can AVOID it.  Let's train ourselves to push forward, trim for best glide/best rate of descent, and leave pitch ALONE.  

 

Think about this fact:  If our airframes can protect us (assuming proper belt use) in a 9G frontal impact, one doesn't need a runway or even a long field;  one needs to put the airplane into a small zone -- maybe even only a few fuselage lengths -- at as SLOW a speed as possible AND under control.  Let the airframe absorb the energy, and save your life.  Think softest/least hazardous first, then cheapest, and only last most convenient.  Way too many people die trying to get the insurance company's airplane safely back to the runway and total it anyway, at the cost of their lives.  

 

All of the scuttlebutt regarding no good emergency landing options reminds me the importance of identifying said options BEFORE taking off;  if they don't exist (we have all flown out of a field like that sometime) understand that BEFORE you take the runway, and have your course of action planned.  That sudden silence of engine failure is not the time to be contemplating landing options.  In most of these cases, the pilots would have made an acceptable alternate had they planned it in advance;  alternatively, don't let a controller take the option away with intersection take-offs or hurried take off clearances and the like.  "Unable" is a powerful tool, use it.

[flyboy0681]

Not having been in a situation like this myself, I'm wondering if the first thought to go through people's minds is saving the plane from certain destruction. Landing straight ahead will probably almost always result in major damage in urban areas so I'm wondering when the adrenaline is at peak levels whether that's the train of thought and not self preservation.

[N9201A]

An excellent take-off planning practice:

http://www.donkaye.com/donkaye.com/Single_Engine_Preflight_Briefing.html

[N9201A]

Not having been in a situation like this myself, I'm wondering if the first thought to go through people's minds is saving the plane from certain destruction. Landing straight ahead will probably almost always result in major damage in urban areas so I'm wondering when the adrenaline is at peak levels whether that's the train of thought and not self preservation.

 

Below is a fascinating example of how flying the airplane averted tragedy in urban Los Angeles:  A Cessna 402 on final experiences fuel exhaustion -- in BOTH engines!  The pilot glides to a harrowing, but controlled, forced landing on a busy city street.  As he runs a red light at an intersection in his rollout at high speed, two school buses happen to be crossing his path, one from each side.  The buses slam on the brakes, but the gap left is too narrow and each of the Cessna's tip tanks strike the bus on that tank's side, and the tanks are knocked off.  Fortunately, they are bone dry!  

 

No one was injured.  I recall a picture at the time with the plane just beyond and between the buses, with tanks on the ground.  See:  http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jun/25/local/me-49934

[Cruiser]

Not having been in a situation like this myself, I'm wondering if the first thought to go through people's minds is saving the plane from certain destruction. Landing straight ahead will probably almost always result in major damage in urban areas so I'm wondering when the adrenaline is at peak levels whether that's the train of thought and not self preservation.

Not necessarily "saving" the plane but in my case, certainly I was focused on correcting the problem. I truly never gave a thought to my personal safety. (for those of you that don't remember, I was in a landing accident last January that totalled my M20J.

 

One point no one is recognizing here at least in the conversation is the speed and brevity at which these incidents occur. For me it was "all over" in 17 seconds. Not a lot of time to think about what you are going to do, let alone what you are actually doing.

[FlyDave]

One point no one is recognizing here at least in the conversation is the speed and brevity at which these incidents occur. For me it was "all over" in 17 seconds. Not a lot of time to think about what you are going to do, let along what you are actually doing.

 

Very very interesting distinction and food for thought!

[Parker_Woodruff]

I observe too many timid pilots unwilling to push the nose over hard and fast, and roll in 60 degrees of bank at the same time, with one reason being they're never been taught it by their 200 hour, or 60+ year old, CFI's.

Best post in this thread.

[Seanhoya]

I agree with N9201A above - think about it before taking the runway....

[Yetti]

So as a low time pilot, I think the training and the PTS standards that we are tested to is silly.  Not once, did we set up landing configuration and turn to base stall.   Doing the nose up in the air is not when you are going to kill yourself.  Most people will figure to push down.

With some access to a RedBird full motion simulator (Microsoft Flight Simulator based)  and a really nice MS FS set up at home, I did some testing at Loss of Power at Takeoff.   250, 500, 750 feet.   We are thinking of making up a simulator course.

 

After bending some virtual sheet metal..  Some of the learning.

 

All the engine out  training is done with the fan at idle.  The 172 is very different with the fan stopped.  we are taught steep turns with the fan going at regular power.  I think I did one engine idle, count to three (oh the fan stopped, what do I do?)  And then made a < 500 foot loss steep turn.

 

Try a 45 degree turn at no power.    You have to point the nose at the ground.  Who has the fortitude to do that at 500 feet?

 

What I learned was for the  C172 at 250 straight ahead is your only option. 500 straight ahead is the only option (unless the airport is a better place to crash)   750 feet is the minimum that you may get back to the airport and probably crash. But probably a survivable crash.

 

MS Flight simulator has a Mooney as one of the planes, so I will try that.   Also I want to go do some engine idle steep turns in the c172

[carusoam]

MSFS has a Bravo (M20M). It's a good example of a the heavier long body.

I'm interested in what you find with that, compared to what you have studied already.

Best regards,

-a-

[Yetti]

So in learning to fly the Mooney on the sim. Realize my real pilot experience is a C712 and a Searey.  On a straight or angled (to fly noise reduction path) it looks like the Mooney gets you really far down range of the airport.   From 1000 feet, I have not gotten close to making it back to the airport.  750 most of your speed and elevation is used to make the turn.  I want to read the miracle turn again and see what the parameters were there.   You definitely need to be ready to point the nose down when the engine stops turning the fan.  

[Hank]

If I recall, nose over to best glide, bank 45-60 degrees, and turn really fast.

The key is climb rate after rotation, and cleaning up the plane. Raise gear before 50' agl, raise flaps when clear of obstacles, then lower the nose from Vx to Vy. I normally turn crosswind about 500' agl to avoid Class D, and am above 1000' agl before turning downwind 1/2 mile out.

I would be shocked if an M did not out-climb my little C . . .

[jetdriven]

If I recall, nose over to best glide, bank 45-60 degrees, and turn really fast.

The key is climb rate after rotation, and cleaning up the plane. Raise gear before 50' agl, raise flaps when clear of obstacles, then lower the nose from Vx to Vy. I normally turn crosswind about 500' agl to avoid Class D, and am above 1000' agl before turning downwind 1/2 mile out.

I would be shocked if an M did not out-climb my little C . . .

 

The M20E is the best climbing Mooney, the C, J, and F are next, the long-bodies take a while to get up and go.  Now Vy in all the models may be a different order, but the angle of climb at Vy and especially Vx, the smaller airplanes win.

[Shadrach]

The M20E is the best climbing Mooney, the C, J, and F are next, the long-bodies take a while to get up and go.  Now Vy in all the models may be a different order, but the angle of climb at Vy and especially Vx, the smaller airplanes win.

 

Seconded.  My F will out climb my neighbors Bravo through 4000 outright on a standard day (though his forward speed is substantially more. Things start to even out around 5K but he has to step climb to keep it cool.  I have been bugging him for years to look at the baffling.  It's a fast plane, but he has to puke copious amounts of fuel through it. I think he told me at alt they run it at around 29"/2300 with a fuel burn of about 21gph. 

[aviatoreb]

The M20E is the best climbing Mooney, the C, J, and F are next, the long-bodies take a while to get up and go.  Now Vy in all the models may be a different order, but the angle of climb at Vy and especially Vx, the smaller airplanes win.

 

Rocket.

[PMcClure]

The M20E is the best climbing Mooney, the C, J, and F are next, the long-bodies take a while to get up and go.  Now Vy in all the models may be a different order, but the angle of climb at Vy and especially Vx, the smaller airplanes win.

I am not sure I can agree with that. In My Ovation, If I hold Vx or VY, I would be several 000 feet above the field by the time I was at the numbers on downwind. I bet I would be twice as high as my old F model.  I can easily make pattern altitude by the time I turn downwind if I want in the Ovation. 

 

 

I'll organize a test comparison with my old partner and let you know the results. Or, if you are ever in town......

[jetdriven]

I am not sure I can agree with that. In My Ovation, If I hold Vx or VY, I would be several 000 feet above the field by the time I was at the numbers on downwind. I bet I would be twice as high as my old F model.  I can easily make pattern altitude by the time I turn downwind if I want in the Ovation. 

 

 

I'll organize a test comparison with my old partner and let you know the results. Or, if you are ever in town......

 

I'd believe you. I have never done or seen a Vx takeoff in an ovation, only that that put the wheels up and aim for "trees plus 30 feet". Of course they are going fast.

 

Eric is right, that Rocket and the Missile probably whip them all.   But consider acceleration from the brake release point, and height gained from there as well. The M20E may still be better. I could get to pattern altitude at the departure end of a 6000' runway, or at least it felt that way.  no way my M20J could touch it.