Landing Without Engine Power

[Tom-D]

New term. I have my pencil ready. Can you clarify that one?

It's a term use to describe the process of keeping power on until you have runway under you.

 

[Herman vanOoijen]

There are many of us pilots that were taught to close the throttle at the down wind to base turn and leave it closed for landing.

And are still being taught as evidenced by what my CFI tells me to do. Control speed with elevator and alt. with rpm [if necessary].

 

[jpower]

It's certainly true for the space shuttle orbiters.

15 deg glideslope was SOP for those.

Very expensive bricks. And EVERY landing was a "glide" (well, a controlled fall with a flare at the end).

Ha. Yeah. At the Air and Space Museum, we have a space shuttle sim (we call it the "Mission Trainer" for some silly reason). It's apparently a 100% accurate simulation (though how it can be so accurate without rudder control is a mystery to me...unless they link aileron and rudder in the sim a la Ercoupe). We usually run it for visitors from 16,000 feet to Runway 33 at Kennedy, and the thing really does fall like a rock. A flying grand piano, of sorts. I've flown it down a few times, and the nose-down attitude is really really impressive.

 

[TheTraveler]

It's a term use to describe the process of keeping power on until you have runway under you.

Got it, thanks Tom!

 

[Geico266]

New term. I have my pencil ready. Can you clarify that one?

It just makes sense to me that you should be able to make the runway from anywhere in the pattern. I don't think most CFI's teach it this way, ask your instructor what his thoughts are.

 

[gkainz]

I'm confused, I think we both made a minor mistake. The best glide angle is 79 mph on the 140 and 85 knots or almost 100 mph on the Cherokee 235. mph. According to Piper.org

yeah, corrected my post above. 85 KIAS (not mph) best glide ...

 

[L.Adamson]

Originally Posted by Tom-D
There are many of us pilots that were taught to close the throttle at the down wind to base turn and leave it closed for landing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And are still being taught as evidenced by what my CFI tells me to do. Control speed with elevator and alt. with rpm [if necessary].

__________________

Well, it's not always the best idea. And it's not a good idea at all, for particular back-country landings......where partial power is used quite often. With my plane, it's either a steep approach that bugs some passengers, or a bit of power on. BTW--- it was my CFI for the Arrow, about 25 years ago, that suggested a bit of power to keep the nose up in the flare.

The old saying, of pretending that all landings are without an engine.........is just that. An old saying, and nothing more. If you're convinced that your engine is going to fail on landing..........then don't fly with it. There are just too many variables between aircraft to use single rules.

L.Adamson

 

[timwinters]

The definition of "making power" is to be adding energy. It is simple to measure.... flip the mags off and tell me what you feel.

If I pull the prop at the same time then I don't feel much, if anything, at all...that's exactly what I was trying to convey...

I experimented with that quite a bit after I had my engine failure...

 

[poadeleted20]

Something that I just cannot understand...Pilots running out of fuel.

Before I was even able to ride a bicycle, it was burned into my brain to always know how much fuel you have. My grandfather was and is OCD about this. I could never grasp how others would even chance running out of fuel.

There was I time I felt that way, too, but folks just keep doing the same old dumb things again and again. After 40 years and almost 10,000 hours, I've concluded that there are just some forms of stupidity our training and testing processes cannot detect and eliminate.

That said, it took quite a team effort between the flight and ground crews of the Air Canada 767 to cause the fuel tanks to become empty halfway to their destination. The story makes for great reading on human factors and systems safety. Google around to find it.

 

[poadeleted20]

I read that high wing aircraft have more fuel out landings.

I'd be interested to see the source of that statement.

 

[poadeleted20]

There are many of us pilots that were taught to close the throttle at the down wind to base turn and leave it closed for landing.

I'd like to see you do that in, say, a Baron. Or a King Air. Or an F-16.

Point is that each aircraft type has different flight characteristics, and you have to fly it the way it was designed to be flown if you want to live long and prosper. For some lightly wing-loaded planes, that may mean making power-off approaches your normal procedure. For others, it's flat impossible, e.g., the Glasair III, which loses 2000 feet making a 180 degree turn with power off gear and flaps down (unless you want to fly your traffic pattern somewhere above 2000 AGL, or hold the gear until the flare the way they do in the Space Shuttle).

So, know your plane, and fly it the way the designer intended.

And, FWIW, the rate of landing accidents has dropped significantly since we stopped teaching the 180 power-off approach as "normal" in favor of the partial-power stabilized VFR approach, even in light singles.

 

[brcase]

Always heard that the glide ratio of the F4 Phantom was similar to that of a brick.

Well almost same wing span as a 172 but fully loaded weighs 31 Tons.

Brian

 

[RotorAndWing]

I am assuming from TheTraveler's posts that he is referring to single-engine planes. If there is a non-turboprop single with a feathering prop I am unaware of it.

Bob

T-34's had a full feathering prop.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

How about a full power off engine failure glide in a resulting in 0 loss of life in a Boeing 767

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

 

[NineThreeKilo]

And, FWIW, the rate of landing accidents has dropped significantly since we stopped teaching the 180 power-off approach as "normal" in favor of the partial-power stabilized VFR approach, even in light singles.

Because engines dont fail?

I still teach it, chit happens, be prepared

I can teach a spider monkey to milk power all the way through a landing, landing with no power requires a little more skill.

 

[poadeleted20]

T-34's had a full feathering prop.

Only the turboprop C-models, not the piston powered A's and B's.

 

[poadeleted20]

Because engines dont fail?

Engine failure is not a "normal" procedure.

I still teach it, chit happens, be prepared

I teach emergency procedures, too. But I teach the partial power stabilized VFR approach recommended by the FAA as the "normal" way to approach a landing.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Only the turboprop C-models, not the piston powered A's and B's.

The -B's I flew had them.

 

[poadeleted20]

The -B's I flew had them.

Then they were modified after the Navy sold them. The ones in VT-1 were not full feathering, and yes, even though I was an NFO, I went through VT-1 in 1973.

 

[RotorAndWing]

even though I was an NFO, I went through VT-1 in 1973.

As most NFO's of that time did. What's your point?

After 40 years and almost 10,000 hours, I've concluded

Like the almost daily reminder of your resume?

 

[Silvaire]

The prop is real draggy when not turning.

As noted, a windmilling prop will create more drag than one that is fully stopped because it takes energy to rotate the internal components of the engine. The only energy you have in this scenario is the potential energy that your altitude provides for you. The windmilling engine will use up some of this energy and you won't glide as far as you would have if the propeller were stopped.

As for the gliding airliners, they all have about 2 to 3 times the glide ratio of our puddle-jumpers. Some of them are nearly 30:1

 

[Geico266]

As noted, a windmilling prop will create more drag than one that is fully stopped because it takes energy to rotate the internal components of the engine. The only energy you have in this scenario is the potential energy that your altitude provides for you. The windmilling engine will use up some of this energy and you won't glide as far as you would have if the propeller were stopped.

You missed the point. An idling engine is still adding thrust or energy to the airplane. They is a difference in performance in gliding an airplane idling and an airplane with a dead engine.

 

[bbchien]

I am assuming from TheTraveler's posts that he is referring to single-engine planes. If there is a non-turboprop single with a feathering prop I am unaware of it.

Bob

Darwin Conrad's Mooney Missile conversion, I believe puts one of the C414 engines, with full feathering, up front.....

 

[poadeleted20]

As most NFO's of that time did.

Actually, they all did. And no T-34B left the factory with a full-feathering prop.

 

[poadeleted20]

Darwin Conrad's Mooney Missile conversion, I believe puts one of the C414 engines, with full feathering, up front.....

The problem with that is if you have an oil pressure loss, the prop feathers and you're at zero thrust, without the option of keeping the engine running as long as possible, an option most SE pilots would probably want to have.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The problem with that is if you have an oil pressure loss, the prop feathers and you're at zero thrust, without the option of keeping the engine running as long as possible, an option most SE pilots would probably want to have.

And how long do you suppose an engine with zero oil pressure will continue to operate before a seizure and no possibility of a feather much less selecting low pitch?

Have you ever flown a twin? Do you suggest to your multi engine students to keep an engine running with no oil pressure?

 

[RotorAndWing]

The problem with that is if you have an oil pressure loss, the prop feathers and you're at zero thrust, without the option of keeping the engine running as long as possible, an option most SE pilots would probably want to have.

And how long do you suppose an engine with zero oil pressure will continue to operate before a seizure and no possibility of a feather much less selecting low pitch?

Have you ever flown a twin? Do you suggest to your multi engine students to keep an engine running with no oil pressure?

BTW, how much total time do you have and how long have you been flying??? Sorry, I forgot.

 

[poadeleted20]

And how long do you suppose an engine with zero oil pressure will continue to operate before a seizure and no possibility of a feather much less selecting low pitch?

Have you ever flown a twin? Do you suggest to your multi engine students to keep an engine running with no oil pressure?

Have you ever flown a single? Do you tell your SE students to shut down the engine immediately on loss of oil pressure? And why do you think every production piston single has a prop which goes low pitch rather than high if oil pressure is lost? Could it be that some power is better than none when you only have one engine to start with? And that trading what's left of your only engine in order to make it to a suitable field might be better than having a salvageable engine at the crash site?

Or did you think the Mooney Missile is a twin?

 

[Silvaire]

You missed the point. An idling engine is still adding thrust or energy to the airplane. They is a difference in performance in gliding an airplane idling and an airplane with a dead engine.

I didn't miss any point, I'm talking about a dead engine. For one thing, how could you have a stationary propeller with an idling engine? Doesn't make sense.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Have you ever flown a single? Do you tell your SE students to shut down the engine immediately on loss of oil pressure? And why do you think every production piston single has a prop which goes low pitch rather than high if oil pressure is lost? Could it be that some power is better than none when you only have one engine to start with? And that trading what's left of your only engine in order to make it to a suitable field might be better than having a salvageable engine at the crash site?

Or did you think the Mooney Missile is a twin?

Sorry, I keep forgetting about your limited experience outside of small SE GA airplanes.

Carry on......

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Its been a while and surely a corner case, but I believe the Seebee by Republic offered a featherable and reversible prop. Allowing one to back out of a dockage, if one were so brave.

Beta prop pitch is a much desired option for seaplane pilots that can afford it. Reverse taxiing cautiously, it is not excessively risky when executed properly.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

That's a good point, in my opinion a fair assumption, and is completely related to the post I just made about fuel.



Can you elaborate? Meaning that...typical training aircraft are not as suitable for this?



As long as occupants are not significantly damaged, I don't care about the plane.

It's mostly because of power loading and wing loading, so even a trainer with relatievely high lift will benifit from the technique at higher gross weights and high DA that yield a higher stall speed. It's fun to practice it with higher weights in high DA on a long runway and work towards shorter RWYs.

I care about damage to the aircraft both becau$e of co$t I will pay, and because lesser damage, hopefully means lesser injuries to people.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

And how long do you suppose an engine with zero oil pressure will continue to operate before a seizure and no possibility of a feather much less selecting low pitch?

Have you ever flown a twin? Do you suggest to your multi engine students to keep an engine running with no oil pressure?

There probably is some solid data somewhere on those run times with zero oil pressure on various engines. It depends on what environment the failure takes place as to what pilot action follows.

For now, I prefer the story I've read of a Subaru auto conversion flying without oil pressure for some unbelievable amount of time, like 20 minutes or an hour, at reduced power, in the pilot's efforts to fly out of mountainous terrain after the failure.

If it's true, I bet he had what was left of the engine bronzed and placed on his fireplace mantel.

 

[Tom-D]

The problem with that is if you have an oil pressure loss, the prop feathers and you're at zero thrust, without the option of keeping the engine running as long as possible, an option most SE pilots would probably want to have.

The only twin I knew of that was dependent upon hydraulic power and electrical power for safe flight was the E-2, it has a feature that prevents the last prop to be feathered to not go below 25 degrees of blade pitch. That will keep one engine turning to provide rotation of the Alternator and both hydraulic system pumps.

All other recip. twins I've dealt with (S2/E1) that require hydraulic power to fly, you can feather one, but not both.

Can you name 1 light civil twin that requires hydraulic/electrical power to fly safely?

the TC-4C did not need either to fly safe.

There are probably some light jets that do, But I'm not familiar with them.

 

[Silvaire]

Reverse taxiing cautiously, it is not excessively risky when executed properly.

I remember from my seaplane training, there wasn't that much material concerning the flying part or even the take-off and landing parts, aside from glassy water operations. A great deal of it was about sailing which involved taxiing the aircraft on the water with wind. With significant wind you are going to be pointed mostly in to it regardless of what direction you want to go. You want to try plan ahead so as not to have to taxi backwards but there are situations where that is not possible.

It was a nice challenge and a lot of fun. One of the other challenging seaplane maneuvers was doing step turns in a good wind. If you don't nail it right the wind catches the tail and you spin right back around to where you started. If you do nail it you can keep it on a downwind course.

I know my tongue was sticking out as I tried to master that thing but eventually I did nail it. Lots of fun doing that SES course, I highly recommend it even if you'll probably never do it again.

 

[SteveinIndy]

Can you name 1 light civil twin that requires hydraulic/electrical power to fly safely?

This is going to sound like a stupid question but is there such a thing as an electrically controlled pitch mechanism for props? I have never heard of nor seen one but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Dead Stick]

This came up in a conversation recently, and it's something that I have been extremely curious of...landing without engine power. Engine failure, out of fuel, or whatever the reason, as far as I've been told, it should technically be possible to glide, and land, any airplane without power.

What I would like to know is not in theory, but in practice and reality, how difficult is this to do?

I'm sure the debate could go on and on about where to actually land the aircraft if there isn't an airport or landing strip nearby. There's also the conversation about doing this at night, hoping that dark spot isn't a lake. I don't want to avoid those debatable variants, but the main question, making a few assumptions...

1. Controls are still intact, but engine has failed
2. It's daytime
3. You are in a relatively flat area, with few obstructions
4. You are in very reasonable weather

-How practical, and how difficult is it to actually land the plane without engine power?

-Does this differ with high-wing vs. low-wing?

-If you have done this, has it been a scary situation, trying to keep control without power? Or a calm, quiet situation, just kind of minding your own business, and gliding back down to land?

I am really interested in hearing what everyone says about this.

I can tell that this is something that bothers you. Yes, even jets can land without power. Several years ago, Neal Armstrong set some time-to-climb records in a Lear 28. In order to minimize their weight, they only carried enough fuel to get to their desired altitude. Their engines flamed out and they glided back and did it again, and again and again. Think about the space shuttle or do a google search on the "Gimli Glider". I would also recommend that you, as part of your training, go take a few flights in a glider. You'll quickly figure out that (excuse the paraphrasing) "Engine? We don't need no stinking engine." As the others have pointed out, it's all about training and proficiency. It's a skill that you will develop before solo and demonstrate many times during your training. It's also perishable, so you'll want to get periodic recurrent training along the way. Have fun and enjoy the process.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

This is going to sound like a stupid question but is there such a thing as an electrically controlled pitch mechanism for props? I have never heard of nor seen one but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

The IVO prop has one for experimentals that's popular and there is or was a Curtis Electric prop to name two.

 

[poadeleted20]

The only twin I knew of that was dependent upon hydraulic power and electrical power for safe flight was the E-2, it has a feature that prevents the last prop to be feathered to not go below 25 degrees of blade pitch. That will keep one engine turning to provide rotation of the Alternator and both hydraulic system pumps.

All other recip. twins I've dealt with (S2/E1) that require hydraulic power to fly, you can feather one, but not both.

Can you name 1 light civil twin that requires hydraulic/electrical power to fly safely?

the TC-4C did not need either to fly safe.

There are probably some light jets that do, But I'm not familiar with them.

The subject was the Mooney Missile, a single. Twins would be another story. That is why piston twins are built with props that feather on loss of oil pressure, and piston singles are built with props that go low pitch. In fact it was the use on that single of an engine/prop off a twin on that triggered my comment, which I thought was clearly limited to SE airplanes, although in retrospect, I suppose some might have thought "SE" stood for "spare engine."

 

[TheTraveler]

I can tell that this is something that bothers you. Yes, even jets can land without power.

I wouldn't say that it bothers me, I have no phobia of an engine suddenly cutting out. I would call it more of a severe interest for the sake of safety and preparation. I just can't help but think that had some been better prepared for this, they may still be with us today.

So again, while I have no lingering fear of having to use this skill, it is something in my training that I consider extremely important and I'd like to keep honed and stay prepared, hence the reason I was seeking everyone's feedback, and has so far been great, and very insightful.

I should note that there is also a hint of amazement and fascination as well. To think of someone safely landing a jet or any large, heavy aircraft without running engines is really amazing to me.

What is the largest aircraft that anyone here has done this with? I was hoping that Fearless Tower would chime in if he's done it with a DC, but I haven't seen him. I read about the other big ones, but I want to hear personal experiences if you'd like to share.