12 Seconds to Pattern Altitude

I am still trying to digest the fact that Hoover can make a LOW pass at twice his take off speed... Just like Jay is twice his take off speed entering his climb.. And ol Hoover can climb, do a full roll, venture out to the edge of the traffic pattern, land safely and have enough momentum to taxi up to the announcers stand ..:dunno::dunno:..

And Poor Jay cannot zoom climb to a safe altitude to make the "impossible" turn.... :dunno::dunno:
 
N801BH said:
I am still trying to digest the fact that Hoover can make a LOW pass at twice his take off speed... Just like Jay is twice his take off speed entering his climb.. And ol Hoover can climb, do a full roll, venture out to the edge of the traffic pattern, land safely and have enough momentum to taxi up to the announcers stand ..:dunno::dunno:..

And Poor Jay cannot zoom climb to a safe altitude to make the "impossible" turn.... :dunno::dunno:
Click to expand...
So how much momentum does Hoover have. How much momentum does an RV have?

Is Jay actually Hoover?

How can a zoom climb be near as efficient as getting to the max efficiency airspeed and maintaining it?

Are we doing geometry on a nonlinear surface or something?

Jay can do anything he wants. But I'll be laughing at him....he been totally overwhelmed by "fighter" syndrome.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I'm not so sure about that. When we level off at pattern altitude, I am still at 100 knots plus. That's certainly well above Vy. Hmmm... :idea:
Click to expand...
But when you do this zoom climb and level off at pattern altitude you still have your one engine running, don't you? I agree with those who think you are being fooled by the relatively powerful engine on a light airframe.
 
bbchien said:
So how much momentum does Hoover have. How much momentum does an RV have?

Is Jay actually Hoover?

How can a zoom climb be near as efficient as getting to the max efficiency airspeed and maintaining it?

Are we doing geometry on a nonlinear surface or something?

Jay can do anything he wants. But I'll be laughing at him....he been totally overwhelmed by "fighter" syndrome.
Click to expand...

For a doctor, you certainly get emotional about these things!. :lol:

("Dammit, Jay, I'm a DOCTOR, not a flight suit salesman!")

I AM a bit confused by your approach as well. I am zooming to 1000' AGL in 12 seconds. I am still over 100 knots when I level out. It seems pretty simple for me to (in an emergency) turn around and land back the other way.

Of course, earlier we were talking about much lower altitudes (600' AGL), so perhaps that is what we're conflating here? Dunno.

Either way, the RV-8A is fully aerobatic, and flies like a dream. If enjoying the rush of a zoom climb means I've succumbed to "fighter syndrome", I'm afraid I must plead guilty on all counts! :goofy:

But that doesn't change the fact that I came here thinking that I'd actually discovered a SAFER way to climb out, with less time exposure at low altitude in case of engine loss. On that point, I am not ready to admit defeat, nor am I convinced that I am right. I think the answer is "it depends".
 
Everskyward said:
But when you do this zoom climb and level off at pattern altitude you still have your one engine running, don't you? I agree with those who think you are being fooled by the relatively powerful engine on a light airframe.
Click to expand...

True. If the engine quits going uphill during that 12 seconds, I am sure the light airframe will stop accelerating pretty quickly.

HOWEVER -- I am still exposed to less time in the climb, which is the critical period where engine failure is disastrous.
 
Shaking head.

Sure, people do this stuff all the time. I've done plenty of zooming take-offs. But Jay is the first dude on the Internet justifying doing them for the sake of safety. Not sure why you guys bother arguing with him--he's not going to back off of his absurd theory.
 
Hank S said:
Your exposure is from lift off to pattern altitude, not from when you haul back into the zoom. Make two departures, Vy and zoom, and time from rotation to TPA. I'd bet your zoom climb is longer. Time both to low-level cruise, say 3500 feet, too, just for fun.

Impossible Turn practice should include at least a 2-second delay before you do anything, to simulate recognizing the problem and choosing an appropriate action. Nose down to Best Glide, 45 degree bank into the wind. Do this at a safe altitude over straight shoreline, road, power lines, etc., to see how far you went sideways while turning, correct back, then see how much altitude you lost. It'll be more than 500 feet.

However it works out, do the tests safely. Your nice new plane deserves to be treated well. And you deserve to fly her proudly for years to come.
Click to expand...

In transition training we practiced a lot of stalls, and deadstick spirals to a spot landing, from as high as 6500'. I'm pretty well versed in how the RV-8A performs with the engine at idle, which I'm sure isn't quite the same as when it's totally dead.

Which is why I added 100' to my required altitude estimate -- simply to make up for less thrust.
 
Brad Z said:
Shaking head.

Sure, people do this stuff all the time. I've done plenty of zooming take-offs. But Jay is the first dude on the Internet justifying doing them for the sake of safety. Not sure why you guys bother arguing with him--he's not going to back off of his absurd theory.
Click to expand...

I will "back off my absurd theory" only after practicing both methods, with a stop watch. Until then, unless you've got time in an RV-8A and have actually flown the flight regime we're discussing, I'm calling bull**** on your "opinion".
 
Engine failures are serious but seldom disastrous if the pilot can be prevented from doing a Darwin. For those who consciously choose a "thinning of the herd" mentality, all bets are off. Based on the increased scrutiny now being brought to bear on the EAB group, it appears that the FAA has already broken the code.



Jay Honeck said:
True. If the engine quits going uphill during that 12 seconds, I am sure the light airframe will stop accelerating pretty quickly.

HOWEVER -- I am still exposed to less time in the climb, which is the critical period where engine failure is disastrous.
Click to expand...
 
Everskyward said:
But when you do this zoom climb and level off at pattern altitude you still have your one engine running, don't you? I agree with those who think you are being fooled by the relatively powerful engine on a light airframe.
Click to expand...

It is all physics....

I fly a light airframe that is highly overpowered.. During any of my climbs I constantly monitor the airspeed and engine performance.. If the fan quits, I will continue the climb till I get to the point in the apogee where airspeed degrades to the point of stall+ 5.. It is then I will push the nose over and let gravity take me back to earth..... With constant awareness of my situation I should be able to get back down safely.... If not all you gays/gals can post on a new thread... N801BH was an idiot...;)...

I am betting there will not be a thread like that..:nonod::dunno:


Time will tell...:rolleyes:
 
You are doing it because it's fun, stop trying to rationalize it.
Not going to repeat the whole thing about sticking to Vy, because
N801BH said:
...There is not ONE of us reading this thread that has not done a zoom climb.....
Click to expand...

A couple of words of caution though.
Last time I did this I enjoyed climb of 2800 fpm, which isn't much compared to you RV, but still more than plenty for a 180hp four-seater. However, I just about floated through the level-off at Vs1. The level off is where you have to move your feet some and stalling there might yield bad unexpected results. Made me think and review the data log picking it apart second by second.

Second word of wisdom - http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20111107X85529&key=1
Contributing to the accident was the ... ostentatious display close to the ground.
Click to expand...
That's the official name for your zoom climb safety maneuver.
Enjoy the -8, they are very fun airplanes. Matter of fact, of all things RV that's the only one that I might get at some point.
Be safe
 
Jay Honeck said:
...unless you've got time in an RV-8A and have actually flown the flight regime we're discussing, I'm calling bull**** on your "opinion".
Click to expand...

Laws of physics don't apply to those? How about RV-8? Same? Different? RV-7A?
 
Jay Honeck said:
True. If the engine quits going uphill during that 12 seconds, I am sure the light airframe will stop accelerating pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

By definition it'll stop accelerating altogether unless you get the nose down. Acceleration will be only via gravity when the mill quits.
 
N801BH said:
It is all physics....

I fly a light airframe that is highly overpowered.. During any of my climbs I constantly monitor the airspeed and engine performance.. If the fan quits, I will continue the climb till I get to the point in the apogee where airspeed degrades to the point of stall+ 5.. It is then I will push the nose over and let gravity take me back to earth..... With constant awareness of my situation I should be able to get back down safely.... If not all you gays/gals can post on a new thread... N801BH was an idiot...;)...

I am betting there will not be a thread like that..:nonod::dunno:


Time will tell...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I guess the question would be, starting level at your entry airspeed then bringing the engine to idle (which is a better situation than killing it) how many feet can you climb nose up, opposing gravity, before you get to stall + 5? I think that's too slow to try to turn back anyway.
 
N801BH said:
I am still trying to digest the fact that Hoover can make a LOW pass at twice his take off speed... Just like Jay is twice his take off speed entering his climb.. And ol Hoover can climb, do a full roll, venture out to the edge of the traffic pattern, land safely and have enough momentum to taxi up to the announcers stand ..:dunno::dunno:..

And Poor Jay cannot zoom climb to a safe altitude to make the "impossible" turn.... :dunno::dunno:
Click to expand...

Back in post 8 I showed that the height an object can climb with an initial vertical velocity V is given by this equation:

h = V2/(2*g)

Notice that the mass of the object cancelled out so it isn't a factor - and that the height attained increases with the square of the initial speed. It is clear that when Bob Hoover shuts down his engines his Shrike (or P-51) is flying at the highest speed possible. He can double his final altitude by only a 41% increase in speed.

Jay could do the same maneuvers as Bob, but he couldn't do them with an initial starting speed of only 140 kts. An RV-8 and a Shrike Commander appear to have similar top speeds. So Jay would need to accelerate up to 180 kts or more. That takes time, defeating the whole point of his efforts.
 
I get a scant 870ft of altitude gain with no drag, so in reality you will end up much lower.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I will "back off my absurd theory" only after practicing both methods, with a stop watch. Until then, unless you've got time in an RV-8A and have actually flown the flight regime we're discussing, I'm calling bull**** on your "opinion".
Click to expand...

Looks like you're fitting in with the RV crowd quite well. That didn't take long.
 
This thread reminds of the "debates" over Apple vs Android except it involves physical laws than can be measured and verified rather than metaphysical discussions over the essence of a hand held tablet. :D

Cheers
 
"I have met the enemy and he is us."

And no, I'm not talking about Jay.

Why all the hating and put-downs? We treat family worse than we treat enemies some times.
 
bartmc said:
Looks like you're fitting in with the RV crowd quite well. That didn't take long.
Click to expand...
Just astonishing and you gotta love the spirit!

The physics are simple and immutable but nothing like a little testing to imprint the right brain cells. Go to it.

Back in old skool glider racing, the best part of a successful trip around the course was a worm burner pass down the runway thru the finish gate followed by a chandelle and landing, all with the water ballast streaming behind. Oh yeah!! The 'safe' way to do this was to manage that final glide so that you could do the worm burner at redline (say 150) and maximum energy.

But the optimal way was to arrive at the day's 'speed to fly' which would be above Vy but well below redline. Done optimally, it could be a challenge to manage the energy so that a 'safe' landing was accomplished... times 50 sailplanes.

Anyway, zoom climbs are never optimal but are so much fun it's worth figuring out how to do them well. A crisp pull into a <1G zoom climb works better than most alternatives. Gliders specialize in steeper turns but power guys really need to work on power-off steep turns to get them right. The optimal turn back to a runway is steeper than most are comfortable with and you gotta use your feet.

Jay is a baaad mutha... shut your mouth! Tear it up Jay!
 
The true mark of a pro is how smooth she is, not how jerky. It is hilarious to defend poor piloting as a safety measure.
 
Sorry Jay for getting you in trouble, but maybe it was for the best and we could learn something.
 
At which point while accelerating in ground effect, considering velocity and runway remaining, does a landing on the runway cease to become an option? Is that the point climb and stopwatch are started?
 
How does this work in the experimental world - if you can put one of several engines in the thing, who or what determines Vx and Vy? Wouldn't that change based on the build configuration? Are there really "factory numbers" for Vx and Vy?
 
Matthew said:
How does this work in the experimental world - if you can put one of several engines in the thing, who or what determines Vx and Vy? Wouldn't that change based on the build configuration? Are there really "factory numbers" for Vx and Vy?
Click to expand...

I determined mine via flight testing.
 
A "zoom climb" almost sounds abrupt, possibly unusual and maybe even abnormal. :)
 
KA550 said:
Will not be surprised. Accident waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

You guys are...remarkable. And ignorant in the extreme.

There is nothing -- NOTHING -- "unsafe" about flying a high performance plane within its envelope. The RV-8A is fully 60 knots under Vne at the 140 knot target speed I am using, and fully 45 knots above stall speed when we level off at 1000' AGL.

If you find that in ANY way "unsafe", please turn in your wings at the exits. You're not up to the task.

A 1G pull up is not only fun, its eminently safe. It may not be safER than a standard Vy departure, but to call anything I've discussed here as "unsafe" is absurd.

If you have ever wondered why the ONLY healthy and growing segment of GA is the homebuilt experimental category, some of you guys need only look in the mirror for the answer. You're embarrassing.
 
Jay Honeck said:
You guys are...remarkable. And ignorant in the extreme.

There is nothing -- NOTHING -- "unsafe" about flying a high performance plane within its envelope. The RV-8A is fully 60 knots under Vne at the 140 knot target speed I am using, and fully 45 knots above stall speed when we level off at 1000' AGL.

If you find that in ANY way "unsafe", please turn in your wings at the exits. You're not up to the task.

A 1G pull up is not only fun, its eminently safe. It may not be safER than a standard Vy departure, but to call anything I've discussed here as "unsafe" is absurd.

If you have ever wondered why the ONLY healthy and growing segment of GA is the homebuilt experimental category, some of you guys need only look in the mirror for the answer. You're embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Yep, 140 knots, no usable runway and 3' AGL to work with is the definition of safe.
 
bartmc said:
Yep, 140 knots, no usable runway and 3' AGL to work with is the definition of safe.
Click to expand...

I worry more about bird strikes. There are a lot of birds at 10' AGL. At that speed, even a little bird will make a mess of a canopy or leading edge.
 
"Safe" is relative term. To many of us, screaming down the entire length of the runway at 140 kts in ground effect with poor straight ahead landing spots might not be "safe". What if you engine quit 3/4 of the way down? Would you even have the time to react before bouncing off the surface? Would you enter that life-saving climb you speak of barely above 1G or would you overreact like many people do and let the adrenaline rush turn that into a 3g climb, or an accelerated stall.

It's one thing to understand the risk and accept it, it's another to underestimate or ignore it. Put yourself in the first category.

Jay Honeck said:
There is nothing -- NOTHING -- "unsafe" about flying a high performance plane within its envelope. The RV-8A is fully 60 knots under Vne at the 140 knot target speed I am using, and fully 45 knots above stall speed when we level off at 1000' AGL.
Click to expand...

You're grasping at straws now. You and everyone else here knows that there's a lot more to safety of flight than margin above stall and margin below Vne.
 
It has to be more than 1G, since that is what we have just sitting on the ground with gravity.

There was a guy our towered field you used to do the high speed acceleration and then a pull up in his new Cirrus every take off.

He was called "Super Pull Up" by most of the rest of us, as in the baby diapers. Once he heard his nickname, he stopped.

Not sure of the physics, but every time a plane is accelerated (as in a hard pull up) it is going to lose energy faster compared to a steady state climb. Also, drag will go up with the square of the velocity, so it might take more energy doing a zoom climb compared to climbing to the same altitude at Vy or Vx. Just my guess. Easy experiment to do from some stop and goes.
 
kyleb said:
I worry more about bird strikes. There are a lot of birds at 10' AGL. At that speed, even a little bird will make a mess of a canopy or leading edge.
Click to expand...

Really? REALLY?

Using the departure method I've described, you will be at 10' AGL for at MOST 15 seconds.

As opposed to a normal Vy climb out, the difference is, um, a few seconds?

And birds don't fly above 10'?

Honestly, I worry about undetected asteroids, sometimes. :D
 
It is aerobatics in the traffic pattern, and only for showing off, not any safety benefit.

I forget the rules but I think it's 30° pitch is aerobatics, requiring special equipment and airspace.

Face it, it is just being a damned fool.
 
kgruber said:
It is aerobatics in the traffic pattern, and only for showing off, not any safety benefit.

I forget the rules but I think it's 30° pitch is aerobatics, requiring special equipment and airspace.

Face it, it is just being a damned fool.
Click to expand...


If the pull up is 29 degrees and any bank turn is less then 59 degrees then what is the problem ?:dunno::dunno:
 
30 and 60 are parachute requirements not the definition of aerobatics.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top