Turbo 210 forced landing at Bankstown
Doesn't matter if he had any power left on the approach. He very nearly blew it when he pushed the nose down instead of pitching for best glide. Look at him screaming along low and level for the last 500 metres. Wasted energy that could have been preserved by approaching at best glide speed. He didn't sound competent from the start with his inbound call at Prospect. Hangar talk this morning was that he ran out of fuel, which was why he was so crap on the radio. I'm not saying that was the case, but if he DID realise that he was low on fuel at Prospect he should have declared emergency fuel and gone for a straight in on 11 ...
No, a rotating fixed-pitch propellor has less drag than a stopped one. On a stopped propellor the airflow is hitting the prop at 90º to the plane of rotation, when it's rotating that rotation means the relative airflow is at a lessor angle of attack (so less drag)
The USA EAA did an experiment with a typical light aircraft decades ago (forget type used) and found a stopped prop gave better glide performance. A look at a graph from "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" explains all.
The following users liked this post:
No, a rotating fixed-pitch propellor has less drag than a stopped one. On a stopped propellor the airflow is hitting the prop at 90º to the plane of rotation, when it's rotating that rotation means the relative airflow is at a lessor angle of attack (so less drag).
Here are some better-informed statements:
There has to be more to the story for sure. Comms definitely point to familiarity and/or recency seeming poor. He descended without a clearance too which didn’t help his cause.
I suppose you could put that down to distraction or stress but that does raise more questions. I still think it would seem unusual at best to fly an overly wide and low downwind if you knew you had a problem.
99 times out of 100 (and I’ve done it many hundreds of times) you have excess energy to what’s required here. You rarely get cleared to descend from 1500 until mid and sometimes late downwind. When I think of what I’d do in this situation it would be an exercise in track miles and/or slipping to get in from there unless there was a howling southerly.
I guess we will find out soon enough what happened. If there’s some learning for everyone then at least we get the benefit of that without anyone being hurt this time.
I suppose you could put that down to distraction or stress but that does raise more questions. I still think it would seem unusual at best to fly an overly wide and low downwind if you knew you had a problem.
99 times out of 100 (and I’ve done it many hundreds of times) you have excess energy to what’s required here. You rarely get cleared to descend from 1500 until mid and sometimes late downwind. When I think of what I’d do in this situation it would be an exercise in track miles and/or slipping to get in from there unless there was a howling southerly.
I guess we will find out soon enough what happened. If there’s some learning for everyone then at least we get the benefit of that without anyone being hurt this time.
If you wish to believe that “a rotating fixed-pitch propellor has less drag than a stopped one” Cloudee, have at it. I have the laws of physics on my side.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 1st Jun 2024 at 06:27.
Richard Collins, famed 210P operator and aviation author, tried the stopped prop routine in a 182, findings were a stopped prop increased glide range, but with the necessity to get the aircraft slow enough to get the prop stopped, and then accelerate to best glide speed, he figured you were wasting your time if below 8,000 when the engine quit.
The following 5 users liked this post by megan:
The following users liked this post:
You quote one unscientific article saying what you believe. I can quote another unscientific you tube video demonstrating the opposite. Doesn’t really prove much although the youtuber at least explained what he did.
I first heard about this many years ago when Bill Thompson, the chief flight-test engineer for Cessna, told me that stopping the propeller of a Cessna 172 improved its glide ratio by 20 percent.
Do not attempt to stop the propeller when flying IMC with vacuum-powered, gyroscopic instruments. Stopping the prop also stops the vacuum pump (and the alternator).
So to sum it up; when gliding, Coarse pitch (Low RPM) is better than Fine (High RPM) and stopped is better than windmilling. However there are a lot of considerations when thinking about stopping a propeller, the maneuver to stop it, height loss during the maneuver and the proximity to stall, the loss of systems, do you need the extra glide range or is it better to focus on landing and preparation for it and so on.
When applied to this scenario, the pilot was too low to consider stopping the propeller, selecting coarse pitch would have given them better glide range. We don't know if the pilot did so, or even maintained a glide speed to start with. If they didn't do either then it's quite possible that they could have made the runway with the gear down and avoided significant damage. However from the limited evidence I can't say what the pilot did and did not do. Radio calls generally don't tell much about a pilots flying ability, application of rules and procedures maybe, but nothing really about stick and rudder skills.
One thing I was mulling over was the comment on he should have opted for a straight in approach. I'm in two minds about this, if the fuel gauge is near empty there is no real idea of when it will quit. There is a train of thought that maybe keeping altitude and joining overhead so that you maximize your options should the engine fail until you can keep close to the field for a circuit. Opting for the straight in and the engine fails on long final you might find yourself short of the runway, with no options, or stuff it up under stress and arrive too fast or too high. There's no doubt if he knew he was low on fuel (if this was indeed the cause) then he should have told the tower and declared an emergency. It reminds me of NNN at Moorabbin, low on fuel, didn't tell the tower, engine started to falter so they aimed for the grass, tower told them to go-round because they were not runway aligned, pilot complied and crashed into the factories adjacent due to an engine quitting in the go-round and not being feathered. By sheer luck they all survived.
Last edited by 43Inches; 1st Jun 2024 at 10:23.
The following users liked this post:
When the instructor demonstrated the stopped prop routine to this pre solo student some sixty years ago in the Chipmunk with a metal prop it took some considerable effort to get the prop stopped, he was in and out of the stall buffet for considerable time in the effort to fly as slowly as posible to get it stopped ie if it's a genuine failure you have a lot of faffing about and losing altitude at a sub optimum speed, hence Collins 8,000 feet. A subject of cerebal interest that has little to no practical application.
The following 3 users liked this post by megan:
A subject of cerebal interest that has little to no practical application.
So how were you trained to carry out an engine failure on downwind??
He should have managed his energy better so as to touchdown with gear down and with enough speed to roll off at the appropriate taxiway and continue rolling up to the front door of the maintenance hangar and gently coming to a stop,
Extra points for not using brakes.
Extra points for not using brakes.
Funny you say that, I managed to do exactly that at Ballina 30 years-ish ago, though didn't quite make it to the hangar ...
The ATSB have started investigating: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...rt/ao-2024-033
I can't help wondering if the unfortunate pilot in this case wasn't trying to emulate Harrison Ford...
I can't help wondering if the unfortunate pilot in this case wasn't trying to emulate Harrison Ford...
The following users liked this post:
The ATSB have started investigating: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...rt/ao-2024-033
I can't help wondering if the unfortunate pilot in this case wasn't trying to emulate Harrison Ford...
I can't help wondering if the unfortunate pilot in this case wasn't trying to emulate Harrison Ford...
The following users liked this post:
Back to what we were saying before, today I tried some glides in my PA28 Dakota with the pitch at full fine and full course and it made absolutely no difference whatsoever...because the spring is doing its job.
Nah, that wasn't a proper test. You have to cut the engine, see? (no oil pressure, windmilling prop) ..and be on short final also (low DA) ..and be lined up on a taxi-way (because)..
Evidently there's not enough oil pressure to make a difference in that engine/propeller combination. What was the oil pressure during the glide test, as compared with normal cruise?