12 Seconds to Pattern Altitude

Jay, if you're still reading, a few more serious thoughts (in no particular order):

I think you might be a little too fixated on the initial climb to pattern time being the "danger time" and trying to minimize that. If engine failures are random, then it can happen at any time after you apply takeoff power. The whole takeoff is inherently dangerous.

Normal checklists call for us to set "takeoff trim" before departure. Whenever I would transition from takeoff climb to cruise, it took a good crank or two of nose down trim. So, in your zoom situation, if you are set to takeoff trim, I imagine you're muscling the yoke forward a bit to accelerate to 140kts. What do you think will happen when the engine quits and you're pushing forward? How quickly will you lose your little bit of altitude and poing into the runway?

Assuming you're lucky and don't poing it, how good are those itty bitty airplane brakes? The ones that can stop us when we're landing at stall speed and not at cruise speed.

Being near the end of the runway at 140kts close to the ground is not a place I'd want to be if the fan quits. Remember, momentum is mass x velocity squared. If there is a problem, you want to hit it at the slowest speed possible.

I hope you'll think about it more.
 
rpadula said:
Jay, if you're still reading, a few more serious thoughts (in no particular order):

I think you might be a little too fixated on the initial climb to pattern time being the "danger time" and trying to minimize that. If engine failures are random, then it can happen at any time after you apply takeoff power. The whole takeoff is inherently dangerous.

Normal checklists call for us to set "takeoff trim" before departure. Whenever I would transition from takeoff climb to cruise, it took a good crank or two of nose down trim. So, in your zoom situation, if you are set to takeoff trim, I imagine you're muscling the yoke forward a bit to accelerate to 140kts. What do you think will happen when the engine quits and you're pushing forward? How quickly will you lose your little bit of altitude and poing into the runway?

Assuming you're lucky and don't poing it, how good are those itty bitty airplane brakes? The ones that can stop us when we're landing at stall speed and not at cruise speed.

Being near the end of the runway at 140kts close to the ground is not a place I'd want to be if the fan quits. Remember, momentum is mass x velocity squared. If there is a problem, you want to hit it at the slowest speed possible.

I hope you'll think about it more.
Click to expand...


I am betting bird strikes happen more often the motor failures... Anyone have any reliable data for that ???:dunno:
 
Jay Honeck said:
Mary and I will be testing both departure methods with a stop watch, next chance we get.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
WRONG JAY.

YOU NEED A MEASURING TAPE, NOT a STOPWATCH. THIS IS ABOUT THE TURNBACK AND YOU WILL BE >1/3 mile out farther from the runway end at your worshipfull 61 seconds.

Plus you will have no early abort option.

Gees at least carry a fire extinguisher for the burning wreck just of the end of the runway.

You never did learn any physics, I see....
 
N801BH said:
I am betting bird strikes happen more often the motor failures... Anyone have any reliable data for that ???:dunno:
Click to expand...

Way more often I've smoked numerous birds, generally just after rotation at about 5 to 10 ft AGL.
 
N801BH said:
I am betting bird strikes happen more often the motor failures... Anyone have any reliable data for that ???:dunno:
Click to expand...

Dunno, but it raises a similar question: would you rather hit a bird at 70 kts Vy or at 140 kts?
 
Jay, many of us are familer with flying planes with performance at least as good as your RV, heck the "light" twin Seneca I used for my multi was typically running at the same power to weight ratio. The 700hp Navajo I've flown (usually about a ton under gross) will happily walk away from it, and I likely have about the least experience with high performance planes of the commenters.

Even in twins where airspeed is your friend and (above blue line) an engine failure doesn't mean you are going down you keep the nose up and get away from the ground.
 
OK, he agrees it is not safer than a Vx or Vy climb.

He feels it is safe enough for him and nothing will change his mind so if he wants to accept the risks involved after all the facts have been hammered into submission, let him enjoy whatever he wants to do with his airplane and the rest of us will avoid unnecessary risks and can quit the lectures. :D

Now maybe he can get back to extolling the infinite superiority of Android over Apple. ;)

Cheers
 
rpadula said:
Dunno, but it raises a similar question: would you rather hit a bird at 70 kts Vy or at 140 kts?
Click to expand...

I'd rather not hit one at all and get away from the ground at best rate.

But if I HAVE to hit one I'll take the strike I had on my last flight lesson, put a small bird through the right prop while starting to turn off the runway:rofl:
 
X3 Skier said:
OK, he agrees it is not safer than a Vx or Vy climb.

He feels it is safe enough for him and nothing will change his mind so if he wants to accept the risks involved after all the facts have been hammered into submission, let him enjoy whatever he wants to do with his airplane and the rest of us will avoid unnecessary risks and can quit the lectures. :D

Now maybe he can get back to extolling the infinite superiority of Android over Apple. ;)

Cheers
Click to expand...

:yes::yes:
 
bbchien said:
Gees at least carry a fire extinguisher for the burning wreck just of the end of the runway.
Click to expand...

I should have taken a photo of this. I saw an RV at Oshkosh with a fire extinguisher mounted to the bulkhead behind the pilot's seat. I could tell just by looking that it would be utterly inaccessible to the pilot during an flight operations unless the pilot had arms the size of King Kong.

I always thought a fire extinguisher aboard an aircraft was rather a bad idea. Discharging one in flight seems far more dangerous than the fire itself, ejecting chemicals into the air you're trying to breath and see through. And if I am in a burning airplane on the ground my first priority will be exit, not fire fighting.

Just my thoughts, worth what you paid to read them.
 
Wrong thread
 
Last edited:
Evidently not to him. He keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper.

steingar said:
Not at all. Just intentional thread drift. Beating Jay to death over his takeoffs was getting boring.
Click to expand...
 
Zzzzzzz. Wow, this old thread is still active? Don't you guys have ANYTHING productive to do?
:rolleyes: :cool:
 
steingar said:
Discharging one in flight seems far more dangerous than the fire itself, ejecting chemicals into the air you're trying to breath and see through. ....
Click to expand...

That is why "most" aircraft owners/pilots use Halon....
 
N801BH said:
That is why "most" aircraft owners/pilots use Halon....
Click to expand...

Last time I was in the fire suppression area in Aircraft development, Halon was going to be outlawed since it attacked the ozone layer but that was a couple of decades ago. I send a request up to Fort Fumble for a recommended replacement and was met with silence so we ignored the "ban". Don't know if it ever was outlawed or the hysteria subsided and reality intervened.

Since this thread on fun/dumb flying has been replaced by a couple of others, thought I would ask the question. :D

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
Last time I was in the fire suppression area in Aircraft development, Halon was going to be outlawed since it attacked the ozone layer but that was a couple of decades ago. I send a request up to Fort Fumble for a recommended replacement and was met with silence so we ignored the "ban". Don't know if it ever was outlawed or the hysteria subsided and reality intervened.

Since this thread on fun/dumb flying has been replaced by a couple of others, thought I would ask the question. :D

Cheers
Click to expand...

Illegal to manufacture, but not to use IIRC, price goes up every year
 
Skylane81E said:
Illegal to manufacture, but not to use IIRC, price goes up every year
Click to expand...


Taken from the EPA Website......................


"
Ban on Halon Blends
A halon blend is any mixture or combination of substances that contains two or more halons (i.e., Halon 1211, Halon 1301, or Halon 2402). As of the effective date, it is unlawful to newly manufacture any halon blend. Existing stores of halon blends are not affected by the ban. An exemption is provided for halon blends manufactured solely for the purpose of aviation fire protection, provided that blends produced under this exemption are recycled to meet the relevant industry purity standards for each individual halon."
 
FWIW I just discovered that the automatic Halon 1301 system on my boat had the bottle develop a leak due to dissimilar metal corrosion and it lost all it's charge. I guess the ozone layer will have to take one for the team. The replacement environmentally safe bottle is half an AMU.
 
FWIW I was doing a taxi test on our Navajo this afternoon.

Lined it up on 29 and felt a twinge of temptation to see how fast I could get going before pulling up for a zoom at the far end.

But then I wouldn't have a job when the boss found out, so I decided it wasn't worth it :rofl:
 
Skylane81E said:
FWIW I was doing a taxi test on our Navajo this afternoon.

Lined it up on 29 and felt a twinge of temptation to see how fast I could get going before pulling up for a zoom at the far end.

But then I wouldn't have a job when the boss found out, so I decided it wasn't worth it :rofl:
Click to expand...

Obviously your boss has never flown an RV!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
RotorAndWing said:
Obviously your boss has never flown an RV!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...

Heh, would have been fun, but while I am now rated for the thing I don't think the insurance company would be too keen on my flying it solo with about 11hrs multi and maybe an hour in type:D
 
Skylane81E said:
Heh, would have been fun, but while I am now rated for the thing I don't think the insurance company would be too keen on my flying it solo with about 11hrs multi and maybe an hour in type:D
Click to expand...

Which model? I was owned a '77 PA31-325CR that had the Colemill Panther conversion.
 
Skylane81E said:
Heh, would have been fun, but while I am now rated for the thing I don't think the insurance company would be too keen on my flying it solo with about 11hrs multi and maybe an hour in type:D
Click to expand...

I got a 1.5-hour checkout in the Navajo followed by about 1.5 hours solo before filling it with 7 passengers and flying to middle of nowhere Canada gravel strips.

Although I also had probably about 800 hours of multi time. ;)
 
Which is all you need to know about why to avoid 135 jobs.

Ted DuPuis said:
I got a 1.5-hour checkout in the Navajo followed by about 1.5 hours solo before filling it with 7 passengers and flying to middle of nowhere Canada gravel strips.

Although I also had probably about 800 hours of multi time. ;)
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Which is all you need to know about why to avoid 135 jobs.
Click to expand...

I wasn't particularly thrilled with the way the checkout worked for a number of reasons, but in the end it worked out.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I got a 1.5-hour checkout in the Navajo followed by about 1.5 hours solo before filling it with 7 passengers and flying to middle of nowhere Canada gravel strips.

Although I also had probably about 800 hours of multi time. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't even have that, at least not in my log book, I have flown the thing as sole manipulator but due to the usage of the plane and a lack of a commercial certificate, or any other multi at the time...

What I have logged is a couple of cases of "hey, you me and the plane all have to go to the same place..."
 
Good work! We all gotta start somewhere.
Skylane81E said:
I don't even have that, at least not in my log book, I have flown the thing as sole manipulator but due to the usage of the plane and a lack of a commercial certificate, or any other multi at the time...

What I have logged is a couple of cases of "hey, you me and the plane all have to go to the same place..."
Click to expand...
 
The Navajo is a nice plane to fly. More than anything, it hauls a load and has good short field capability. It also will show some benefits speed wise at 10-14k if you're Part 91.

The paradox is its OEI performance, which was so poor that it was given counter-rotating props because it needed them, and Piper pushed Lycoming to increase the CHT redline since the one engine needed to be at full power and, despite the some 50 GPH flowing through it at full power/full rich, it just didn't have enough to cool it. If you're light, it's fine. For my Canada trips, I knew I was basically flying a glorified single. There's been more than one Navajo that did a precautionary shutdown and crashed because of insufficient single engine service ceiling... in the flatlands.

But when solo and light? Man it's fun. :)
 
The Navajo is the only twin I've had my hands on beyond the Seneca I got my rating in. Having 2 turbocharged 540s is pretty cool... and hot.

Makes a great family van if you have the means, "what's that rolling around back there?" "It's that darn little Hess truck! Johnny, go pick up your toys"

It's sad to watch an owner give it up when a 5 figure annual ends with a, "do not fly the plane, we found another crack in number 2"
 
Bill Watson said:
The Navajo is the only twin I've had my hands on beyond the Seneca I got my rating in. Having 2 turbocharged 540s is pretty cool... and hot.

Makes a great family van if you have the means, "what's that rolling around back there?" "It's that darn little Hess truck! Johnny, go pick up your toys"

It's sad to watch an owner give it up when a 5 figure annual ends with a, "do not fly the plane, we found another crack in number 2"
Click to expand...

The Navajo is a good family plane, but the Twin Cessnas have proven more popular, especially because of pressurization. The Chieftain I used to fly was used for Part 91 family/corporate. With the two grandparents, kid/wife, and two grandkids, there was still enough room for me as PIC, luggage, and everyone was comfy.

But the annuals can be expensive.
 
Honestly it is the easiest thing to fly I've ever been in. The only thing that will be just where you left it when you had to look away to do something else. The only tricky part is coming down final at almost the cruise speed of my Skylane and trusting that yes, it will slow down and land
 
I found that it was quite easy. The speed was easy for me to handle since it was more or less what I was used to in the 310.

Don't know if yours has 40 degree flaps or not, but if so, it will be an even better brick than the Aztec.
 
And with the Mighty Hammer of Thor, I Godwin this thread!!!!


(I didn't proofread, there is a spelling mistake or two)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top