shortfielder wrote:Obviously you can say whatever you like, I just fear it can cause problems for someone that relies too much on what is said here.

Definitely, which is why it's good that we bust each others' chops over this stuff, to give perspective. Sobriety check, devil's advocate, balanced argument, whatever you'd like to call it.

I heard that the helio courier is in the world book of records as the only fixed wing aircraft that will turn around in its own wingspan! Dont know if its true guess I should google it.

HERE WE GO

I think the Rans will also. In the proper hands.

shortfielder wrote:And I'm no expert, or even close. I'm pretty far down in the pecking order. I am here mostly to learn from those that DO KNOW, and are willing to share their insight, and to hear about cool airstrips that I haven't been to before.

Gary

And I'm right here behind you, Gary! I just don't care for great threads like this turning into a pissing match. The ones that want to contest each other in a BS kind of way, should do so using the PM feature. But then again, it adds good humor sometimes.

I know it's the way the internet is and I can just bypass this thread and others, but I'm just giving my 2 cents worth.

Come on now........let's get back on track now!!

back on track, 58! how can i do that when i'm seemingly held responsible for flatlanders in 120's?!!!
good grief, over....! i like 120's! some of my best bro's are flatlanders and fly those other Rotax powered things...! hopefully that group of folks will get some dual with someone they trustwhen they come out here...not some "in the weeds" pilot like myself...!

My memory isn't all that great and I think I mentioned this on another thread.

I met this guy who flew a 172 at Arlington, WA EAA fly in about two years ago and all he talked about was wanting to fly over to Idaho and visit some of the bigger easier backcountry strips like JC, Smiley Creek, etc. I asked how much mountain/backcountry flying he has done and his answer was "not much". I then asked if he had planned on getting with a CFI before he would fly into the Idaho backcountry and he said "I don't think I will" . He explained to me that he has been reading every book he can, watching every video he can get his hands on, including Youtube video's, and reading/learning what he can on the internet. I tried like hell to convince him to check in with a CFI in McCall, Boise area or anywhere before he makes his trip into the backcountry. I sure hope this guy got with a CFI before his adventure in the backcountry!!

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:........... but frankly I'm never going to fly my plane into a situation that would require something so ridiculous to get out of. I would rather be putting another log on the campfire than be BarB-Q'd in a bath of 100LL.

No offense, but don't you think everyone feels like this? Nobody is gonna purposely fly themselves into a foolishly dangerous situation-- "it's never ME that screws up, it's always some other guy". Until one day it IS me. Even if you're NEVER gonna do something boneheaded like fly up a one-way canyon, it doesn't hurt to "what if" that scenario, or listen to others do it. Remember, never is a long time.
What's that expression- you should learn from other's mistakes, cause there's not enough time to make them all yourself? I've enjoyed this discussion, but some of the theorized escape maneuvers are not well thought out IMHO. Or maybe TOO thought out, just not practical. (and I'm not dumb enough to indentify which ones I'm talking about)

Eric

EZFlap wrote:
I also pointed out several facts that affect safety in that kind of emergency situation. Not the least of which is the fact that once you start a hammerhead, you are never flying directly toward any of the canyon walls at slow speed.

So please let me know which facts are BS and why. Tell me which parts of what I said are either untrue on a technical or practical level. And you can't just quote someone else, or point to a page in a book. With all humility, and no "Attitude" intended on my part, I challenge anyone hereto show me technically why you disagree with my statements about the hammerhead and specifically how the Canyon turn is safer.

First off, let point out that while you are never headed at a canyon wall in a Hammerhead turn, you are headed at the ground at an increasing speed and you probably dont have much altitude to work with. In order to slow that descent rate and level off at the same altitude you entered the Hammerhead you must first build enough airspeed to make the wing fly again and then pull out of the dive which will undoubetdly exceed 2 g's...try to pull up too early and you have a secondary stall.

In order to do a hammerhead properly you must achieve a vertical attitude and near stall or stall configuration while still maintaining enough airflow over the rudder to swing the tail. Run out of rudder authority and you will tailslide. If you try a Hammerhead without being vertical you only yaw the aircraft...Yaw + Stall = Spin. Lets not forget the cross control inputs needed to hammerhead properly. Forget to push a little at vertical and you could be on your back...forget to add opposite aileron as the wing begins fall through and you could fall on your back...and heaven forbid you pull past vertical and fall into an inverted spin. Needless to say, a hammerhead takes practice to get it right...do it incorrectly and you are in for a "fun" ride...not the ideal situation for a canyon.

So how are you going to have enough airspeed or power to pull vertical and maintain enough rudder authority to correctly do a hammerhead in a canyon situation? Remember, you are most likely starting at slower than cruise speed and already trying to climb, not to mention you are probably loaded pretty heavily. In the Stearman I start a Hammerhead between 110-120 and that is only achieved after trading altitude for airspeed. Even at that entry speed I am into the rudder at about the same time as I reach vertical...that is the point where I am also almost out of airspeed and the 220 does not have the power to pull the tail around on it's own...and don't even think about trying to do one to the right in a true stall hammerhead. Can I recover at the same altitude that I entered? Sure...but remember that I also dove from that original altitude to gain speed to begin the manuver.

Try putting a bit of a load in that J-3 or T-cart and take it up to a DA somewhere around 6,000 - 7,000 feet...now try to do a hammerhead turn from level cruise flight and see how well it works out...how about that same scenario in slow flight as one would likely find themselves in a tight canyon...can you get the nose vertical and make the turn without falling or spinning out of the manuver?

EZFlap wrote: No "flying turn" maneuver can reverse your direction in as little horizontal room as the hammerhead.

Half Cuban, Split S, Immelman...same horizontal room as a hammerhead when done properly, but I am not advocating any of these turns in a canyon either.

I appreciate your expertise and opinion Lowflybye... you sound like you have far more acro experience than I. I'm guessing that the half Cuban and Immelmann will require more energy to "fly" over the top than the hammerhead, all other factors equal. That's why I didn't advocate those maneuvers, as well as the partial or full negative G required to do the rollout correctly.

So if an airplane were in a tight canyon that did not allow enough horizontal room to turn around in level flight, just how would the good people here on BCP advise our poor heroic pilot get the airplane out... if the hammerhead is the wrong choice ?

And before you all fire those "judgment" Sidewinders at me off your wingtips, forgive me for taking it for granted about simply not flying into a stupid situastion in the first place. But that's like the FAA saying spin training isn't necessary because you got training in spin entry. Of COURSE it is wiser to fly overhead, or not go in the canyon, or measure the width first, etc. etc. etc. I assumed this esoteric and academic discussion was about emergencies, which USUALLY happen after the pilot has done a series of stupid things already.

The Canyon Turn is of course the first line of defense if you have the rooom. I would use it, and most of us here would use it... but... somebody point out the right maneuver to use when you don't have the width to turn around using the "canyon turn", or when (more likely) you're not sure you have the width.

EZFlap wrote: I'm guessing that the half Cuban and Immelmann will require more energy to "fly" over the top than the hammerhead, all other factors equal. That's why I didn't advocate those maneuvers, as well as the partial or full negative G required to do the rollout correctly.

So if an airplane were in a tight canyon that did not allow enough horizontal room to turn around in level flight, just how would the good people here on BCP advise our poor heroic pilot get the airplane out... if the hammerhead is the wrong choice ?

The half cuban and the Immelman do require a bit more energy so you were correct in not adding them to the list of options. I was just pointing out that there are other manuvers that require little to no horizontal space along with the Hammerhead.

I am not saying that the hammerhead is not an option...but I would not try it unless there were no other options since it would be very difficult to execute properly (read safely) given the variables. If you have gone that far into a canyon...well...lets just pray you live to tell us how you made it out.

I would compare it to spinning to get down out of IMC...if you are at that point you should have turned around long ago...it can be done, but your rolling the dice on the outcome.

Sorry to jump in here again.

As much as I try and say "Superior judgement avoids... Blah, Blah, Blah" I have to agree with the hammerhead, canyon turn, let's try something crowd.

If you push skills, weather, airplane limits, geography, whatever... Sooner or later you're gonna find yourself in a world of shit, with nothing but your own bag of tricks to get out of it. If this backcountry flying stuff was completely safe and easy, the sky would be full of drooling morons like our highways are. But it's not, and Mother Nature quite readily takes the time and effort to eliminate the weak, foolhardy and unskilled.

It all boils down to you the pilot being in command of your airplane. You make the decisions, you yank, bank, and you make that airplane dance like you want it to. One of the best descriptions I ever heard was by a Viet Nam era helicopter pilot talking about his transformation from "Timid manipulator of the controls," to actually flying his airplane. Big difference.

I have up close and personal experience with being microseconds away from being splattered on the tundra, and know a shitload of old timers who have splattered on the tundra. The difference between the dead ones and live ones, besides just dumb luck and a lot of stress induced talent, is the mind-set that the airplane is still flyable, so by God I'm gonna fly it till it stops moving. Don't quit.

Practice the minimum radius turns. Go get the aerobatic dual to be familiar with the G's and unusual view out the window. Go fly with a wingtip 10 feet off the rocks on a calm day. It all fills that bag of tricks, and it's amazing how much muscle memory you retain from your training sessions when under stress. Plus, it frees the mind from the physical job that needs to be done, so you can work on the mental tasks at hand, and get Plan B, C, and D locked and loaded.

OK, I'm done ranting now. Sorry.

Gump

EZ
In those famous words, "I'll bite". Sounds like saying not enough room to turn around, can't climb out, implying relativly slow speed??, Soundslike you are gonna land. I think the key here is don't panic. As Gump say, fly the plane(don't keep pulling back so far as to stall the plane). I would look for the most favorable spot, if tree, look for the lighter ones, but probably at this point, not much time, so probbly get full flaps, minimum controlable air speed, and take my lumps. If I could go between a couple trees, and let them absorb some energy, I'm there.

Gary

jomac wrote:that scenario is a good one, and easy to pull off on a cloudy day...simply fly south of jc, hit landmark and slightly left, pop over one ridge into the bowl at sulphur, do your left base with a short approach, it is a piece of cake with a little prior instruction. stay inside the bowl and land, don't go clear out to morgan and turn for a long final...master your SLOW flight, and you'll live a long time...

jomac,
I agree with you, my story as I said was a line of BS, but that is how things can start to go wrong, by making a wrong turn. Why set at camp when you can go see what is around the bend, you can always turn around and come back if you are watching your back door and leave yourself room for a 180. When to go or not go is up to you, but it is hard to learn setting at home reading forums.
I would bet that alot of us on this site tend to push the edge a little more than than the people at "lets fly the valley.org"
I would also bet there are plenty of people on this site that fly for a living that have taken off not knowing for sure how far they would get, but were going to find out.

Small Tail Caddy wrote:I would also bet there are plenty of people on this site that fly for a living that have taken off not knowing for sure how far they would get, but were going to find out.

Yeah, no shit. No Fly. No Money.

Gump

shortfielder wrote:Sounds like saying not enough room to turn around, can't climb out, implying relativly slow speed??, Soundslike you are gonna land.

Which is a logical progression of this thread.

At some point you may be forced to admit you're hosed, and that you have absolutely no where to go but straight ahead and into the ground. Much like engine loss after take-off scenarios. Do you risk high speed/high G impact by trying a turning maneuver and failing? Or do you cut your losses, slow down, and get configured to touch the ground, regardless of what it looks like, at minimum speed and G forces.

Most of our little airplanes can get slowed down to a crawl in ground effect. There's a good chance of walking away from landings like that. Even in rocks and trees. I don't know too many people who walk away from crashes.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:

shortfielder wrote:Sounds like saying not enough room to turn around, can't climb out, implying relativly slow speed??, Soundslike you are gonna land.

Which is a logical progression of this thread.

There's a good chance of walking away from landings like that. Even in rocks and trees. I don't know too many people who walk away from crashes.

Gump

Best tangent I've read yet. You might die if you hit the giant deadfall across the strip at 45 mph. You'll definitely die if you fall out of the sky at 200 AGL.

don't know about the rest of you, but i for one appreciate the heck out of gump's voice of reason. one can certainly tell he's walked the walk. my measley 1000+- hours are nothing but the first lap...even growing up here in idaho, i have a ton to learn. gump's knowledge reminds me of our Ray Arnold...

Some of the posts on this thread are worth reading; and top of that list is GumpAir;
Some day I hope to meet you and learn from a pilot that has "been there"

Tom

Take my BS with a big grain of salt. I flew POS airplanes into POS native villages at the ends of the earth with a retarded dog. I was too dumb to do anything else with my flying career. The info provided is strictly for entertainment value.

Gump

Gump
What happened to the dog?
GT