Thank you, albravo. That link does not have the emergency section, where the glide ratio is located.

-0-

FWIW here's a C180 glide ratio graphic,
not for a floatplane but at least it's something.
About 8:1 glide ratio-- a mile-and-a-half glide for every thousand feet altitude.
Theoretically(!)
BTW the early 180 owners manuals don't have this info,
someone was kind enough to scan it out of a later model POH and send it to me.

aqua wrote:I
BTW, does anyone have the 185 POH?

Aqua,

I have a couple 185 POHs, one of which is a late model, with seaplane supplement. What do you want from there? It's a one inch thick manual.....unlike the early ones.

I have had zero luck lately trying to post pictures on this forum, so gave up.....too many brain cells already sacrificed. So, tell me what pages you want to see, send me a PM with your email, and I'll forward to you, and you can post here or??

MTV

So I was intrigued with this post, and since I've got glide info in Foreflight for the SQ2 I decided to try it out yesterday.

First, you'd need to be flying at altitude for it to be useful, something I rarely do unless I'm going over mountains or catching a favorable wind.

So assuming one was at a high enough altitude that the glide ring was big enough to supply some actionable data, and after all attempts to get the plane running again had failed, a quick glance at the glide ring could show lakes (if on floats) or airports (probably only useful in the lower 48 where strips are plentiful - or maybe in the Anchorage bowl) that could be a landing area that one might not otherwise consider.

I do see one place up here I can use it, and that is flying across the Cook Inlet at the Forelands. Now I can check, with an alternate source of data, what altitude I really need to be at to safely glide to one shore or the other if the fan on the front quits working.

Just another arrow in the quiver, albeit a very, very small one.

From that it looks like 6:1D/H might work. It's been a few but I recall maybe 1200'/min or more descent power off ??? Mike or others recall it any better?

Gary

One of the many things I learned when I took my seaplane training was how much drag those "dangly bits" (dogpilot's words) do to the airplane. My training airplane was a 1965 172E with the same Avcon engine conversion I have, so it was amazingly similar to fly. But it cruised much slower, and it glided very rock-like at a noticeably steeper descent angle. Mine also has the benefit, such as it is, of the super droopy tips (they really do increase the glide ratio somewhat), which the seaplane didn't have. So with or without the benefit of a 180 or 185 book glide ratio with floats, I think it would be smart to experiment.

Cary

On a related note, there was a pretty sweet podcast recently about using this glide feature in a smart way. The pilot flies a bit differently than most BC pilots, however used this exact feature smartly for his inflight SA, and in doing so saved himself and his plane. Always good to keep learning, and staying proficient with the tools we have available!

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a ... 0517709977

I operated my 185 amphib in the same area as you.

IMHO the glide advisor, I don’t use it, unless it’s also getting air data to match with the GPS and terrain, it’s not showing you a real picture.

For mine

Best glide 70kts and glide ratio 7.6:1
This is on about the slickest amphibs you can get away with on a 185



If you’re flying in the ADK IMC, well there is a small window you can get away with that without being FIKI, but make sure you have a good engine analyzer and be very hands on and proactive with your ships maintenance

Glide just use a under estimate rule of thumb for your glide per 1,000’, if you have a moving map with range rings, keep it ringed to about what that glide for your altitude will give you, always be wind aware.

I like the fact that those glide ratio graphs show different "best glide" airspeeds for different weights.
Most don't.

One thing to point out in this discussion that hasn't been discussed much is wind. As in direction and speed. A well flown off airport landing to even pretty rugged terrain can be survivable IF the pilot reduces the touchdown (impact) speed to the absolute minimum safe speed.

What that means in an emergency to me is that I'd rather land INTO a wind (assuming it's more than a couple knots) in a rockpile than downwind to a somewhat "friendlier" surface. I realize that's pretty hard to define in an engine out scenario, but.....

Point is, ALWAYS try to land into the wind if you're in an engine out situation. It may save your life.

So, how does that relate to the "glide ring" referenced here? If a likely landing spot is even close to the edge of that ring, and the wind is wrong, you're going to have to maneuver to land into the wind there. That glide ring doesn't compensate for that.....so YOU need to.

A good friend parked a Single Otter with nine souls aboard in a tree on the north side of the Yukon River. There was a big sand bar on the south side of the river. When asked by the NTSB why he didn't try for the sandbar, his response was simple: He said he had visions of nine people trying to egress that Otter, while it was sinking in the deep, very cold waters of the Yukon River. One of his passengers suffered a broken ankle. To me, that was a GREAT piece of decision making.

If an engine quits on me, my plan is to find something CLOSE that looks survivable. I'll use up the airplane to keep me and my passengers alive and well if at all possible. Stretching a glide is a recipe for disaster.

After I parked my favorite Cessna 185 on a mountainside, pretty well using up the plane in the process, but only minor injury to me, I was in a funk.

An old timer friend asked me why I was acting so down. I told him that I had picked that plane up new and flown it thousands of hours over the last ten years. He thought about that for a minute, then responded: "You know, I'm like you....I just love the planes that I'm flying......right up to the point where one of them tries to kill me. At that point, I will do everything in my power to survive and protect my passengers, including turning that plane into scrap metal and walk away smiling.

Good attitude, actually.

MTV

hotrod180 wrote:I like the fact that those glide ratio graphs show different "best glide" airspeeds for different weights.
Most don't.

Wonder if it has to do with when the aircraft was certified.

I have recently been teaching speed to fly (Vsf) when considering best glide speed to take into account for the wind - either headwind or tailwind. Below is a great AOPA article that discusses the nuances but essentially one should increase Vg when flying into a headwind and decrease Vg downwind. Speed to fly is used in the glider world and takes into account the effect of ground speed on distance covered horizontally. When faced with a strong headwind increasing Vg by 1/4 of the headwind component and lowering Vg with a tailwind will result in greater horizontal distance traveled. With strong winds it can make a big difference.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... g-up-short

It also gets one thinking about what the wind direction is doing immediately following an engine out. Landing upwind is almost always preferable to landing downwind - a consideration when making a possible turnback to the airport. There are still situations where a turnback may be the best alternative. The issue of training and practicing the impossible turn has been brought up in recent FAA circulars. I started teaching the procedure and would recommend reading the work of Brain Schiff. Good to practice all of these procedures frequent and often.


Josh

mtv wrote:I don’t mean to be harsh here, but in the event of an engine failure, the last thing you should be looking at is your iPad.

Glide range in a seaplane is really pretty simple: Look out the window, find something close and head there. Now, work emergency checklist.

To me, trying to use that iPad feature would take too much time and attention away from primary duties, and perhaps best case, just confuse matters.

Or not. But as you alluded to, there’s no such thing as “standard” glide ratio far any seaplane. Pick a number, a VERY conservative one.

But, me, I’d lose that “feature”. And, that’s based on three power failures in flight.

MTV

Good post, as usual. I’ve only had one engine failure but there wasn’t long to deal with it, helicopter. The only place your eyes should be after the noise stops is out, with quick glances at airspeed being the only exception.