Steep Turn Base to Final

[201er]

You may have noticed in some of my videos that I occasionally make a steep base to final turn. This is an intentional maneuver that I use for dissipating altitude or speed quickly to roll out on a more suitable approach path. Coming from a glider/cub background, I'm no stranger to flying tight patterns. They keep me within easy glide of the airport at all times. I always maintain a reserve of excess potential energy. Since height is pretty much a fixed component in a powered airplane traffic pattern, speed and distance are the two factors that control energy reserve. If you fly a tight pattern fast, you are assured to have enough energy to make a power off glide to the runway.

The problem with carrying excess energy is that when in fact you are ready to land, the plane just wants to glide right past the airport. This is where adjustments in power, pattern distance, and use of drag come into play. Once landing glide is assured, the first way to reduce excess energy is to reduce power. I am usually at idle throttle by about a quarter mile final. I make power reduction as needed throughout the pattern. But my typical pattern entry is 22squared (just easy to remember and set) which keeps me at about 120knots. Perfect for gear extension and will put me into the flap extension speed when the gear is down. On the other hand, I'm going fast enough that I shouldn't be able to forget to put the gear down. Abeam the numbers I drop the gear. I put my finger on the flap switch and wait to get my gear down light before adding flaps half way. Next is the choice of when to turn base. On one hand I want to give myself room to establish on final but on the other hand, I don't want to put myself where the runway headwind will prevent me from gliding to the runway. So I turn a fairly tight base but not too tight that will put me on I'd guess about a 3/4 mile final.

On base I throw the knobs forward and steepen the descent with the added prop drag. This is a good time to check GUMPS. Now to the topic at hand. If I'm low on base, which I rarely am because of my propensity to carry excess energy, I can add power and/or make a premature shallow turn to final. A shallower turn will incur less drag/sink and put me on final higher. I can also delay going to idle on final as well as my final flap extension. So even if the engine quits on base leg, I have a few tricks for stretching the glide. But more likely than not, I'm a little bit high here on base. Even if the engine gives out at this point, I expect to still have to add drag inducing measures to get down to the runway. The only variable is how much drag to add rather than if to add it.

If I'm just a little too high, I can opt to do a normal turn to final and then reduce power sooner and add flaps sooner. Simple. This is usually what I'm going for and usually how it goes. However, sometimes terrain, traffic, or airspace (I am based at Linden afterall), force me to stay high or turn in close. If flaps and power reduction aren't enough, I can use my steep base to final turn to kill a lot of lift!

There's nothing wrong with doing steep turns or doing steep turns down low if you have sufficient angle of attack to complete the turn without stalling. They key here is that I'm talking about angle of attack and NOT about airspeed! You don't know if you have enough airspeed because airspeed is an indirect correlation between speed and angle of attack. The scale shifts relative to the weight, density altitude, and bank angle. While you may be able to make a fairly reasonable guesstimate of stall speed in your head based on weight for straight ahead flight, this all goes out the window when you add a turn. For every added degree of bank angle, the stall speed will change. You can still guesstimate you're way to be far in excess of stall speed by dropping the nose and unloading the wing. You err on the side of (too fast) lower angle of attack so that a stall could not occur. The problem is that doing so puts you back into the more efficient envelope of the wing! While you'd get more drag due to the horizontal component of lift, you would not benefit from also being slow in the turn and building a high induced drag as well.

By making this turn by referencing the angle of attack indicator, I am actually able to keep the turn fairly slow and keep the induced drag high. Furthermore, rather than drop the nose and then turn, I can progressively drop the nose at a rate that matches the change in angle of attack as I turn. In other words, as bank angle increases, angle of attack gets higher. I can infer this from the angle of attack indicator and lower the nose to offset that. Through practice, the angle of attack needle doesn't move as the turn is made. As bank angle increases, the nose is steadily pitched down to keep the angle of attack constant. Meanwhile the airspeed speeds up. So rather than being a constant airspeed maneuver, it is in fact a constant angle of attack maneuver. The airplane drops like a brick. I can get myself down more in this turn than S turns or slips later on on final. It takes more forethought than adding a slip or s turn on final but is extremely effective.

If I'm still too high, I can begin the steep base to final turn even later, overshooting the runway centerline. This creates an even steeper turn and has a mini S-turn built in while regaining centerline. Finally, once wings level on final I put the power idle and add full flaps when desired. Two more tools for inducing more sink are a forward slip or slowing down. During more turbulent conditions, particularly when there is already a crosswind, I prefer to use a slip. When conditions are more smooth, particularly when there's a steady headwind involved, slowing down into induced drag territory can get the plane really sinking. The slow speed coupled with a headwind makes it cover less ground for more sink. I'll hold the high AOA until I'm back on glide path but then drop the nose to get back to a more normal approach for landing.

So there you have it, four half pennies from a glider pilot that flies an airplane by angle of attack and thinks that flying by airspeed is an accident waiting to happen.

Here's an example. I'll see if I can dig up some more:

 

[201er]

And before the dentist jumps all over with criticism, I strive to stay coordinated on the rudders during all phases of flight so not something I even considered worth mentioning. And yes, the angle of attack probe is mounted on one wing but so is the airspeed! So there's no difference there buddy. No difference!

[carusoam]

Mike,

Great conversation points.  Do you have a method of cross checking the AOA to see if it is working properly?  Is it easy to verify against the ASI in the traffic pattern just before depending on it?  Do you see any effects on AOA caused by slipping to the left vs to the right?

I think Peter is going to harass you about not making the turn-off and having to taxi back for it.  

Thanks for sharing the video.  The explanation beforehand, allowed me to visualize what was going to happen, just before watching the video.  Makes me want to try glider flying.  

Best regards,

-a-

[AndyFromCB]

That sounds like a lot of work for an airplane with 5knot difference in stall speed between empty and gross. How about never get slower than 100mph/knots (others/long body) until on final, and you will never stall, up 60 degrees of bank, gear and full flaps down abeam the numbers, and if your engine dies, simply suck up the gear and you have the runway made and insurance company will pay for most of the engine overhaul and a new prop. See, made it much simpler for you. You guys make flying sound so complicated. KA350 has so far achieved a zero fatality rate here in US of A, has a much larger stall speed envelope than a Mooney and does not have an AOA. Amazing they are not falling out of the sky daily.

You are applying "glider think" to a powered aircraft, exactly at the worst possible moment. If that engine quits right at that turn, where you are milking the AOA to max, you're a dead man. Don't believe me? Try it up high, pull the mixture and count to 2 and you'll be in a spin. Ever actually experienced an engine failure? The de acceleration is rapid, especially at high AOA. If you're going to push an aircraft to edge and you're relying on a flimsy AOA sensors available at this price point, you're asking for a lot more trouble than flying by airspeed crowd. I don't recall Bob Hoover using AOA sensors. You either wear the aircraft, or stick good old fashion procedure instead of doing pilot tricks in the pattern. Nobody ever died in a Mooney maintaining 100 thru the turn to final. 

Edited September 4, 2016 by AndyFromCB

[201er]

52 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Great conversation points.  Do you have a method of cross checking the AOA to see if it is working properly?  Is it easy to verify against the ASI in the traffic pattern just before depending on it?  Do you see any effects on AOA caused by slipping to the left vs to the right?

Yes. While I fly by AOA as a concept, I don't solely rely on the AOA indicator for that information. I keep Angle of Attack and Angle of Attack Indicator as separate terms. AOA Indicator is the device that displays measured Angle of Attack. When I talk about flying by AOA, I actually mean by thinking in terms of Angle of Attack. My inference of angle of attack is not only fed by my angle of attack indicator. I also use airspeed, groundspeed, wind noise, pitch attitude, understanding of weight/da, etc for additional feedback to drive my impression of the AOA. Most pilots use those bits of information to derive airspeed and then solely use airspeed to interpret AOA. I on the other hand prefer to go straight to AOA. I cross check AOA and airspeed occasionally. So far I have had three misreadings of airspeed and none of AOA. Using AOA + other factors I was able to diagnose the airspeed indicator being bad. Likewise, I could infer the same of the AOA indicator if this were the case. However, the AOA indicator is actually more reliable than the pitot/ASI system.

AOA seems to be consistent in a slip but this is too minute to be able to discern I think.

 

20 minutes ago, AndyFromCB said:

You are applying "glider think" to a powered aircraft, exactly at the worst possible moment. If that engine quits right at that turn, where you are milking the AOA to max, you're a dead man. Don't believe me? Try it up high, pull the mixture and count to 2 and you'll be in a spin. Ever actually experienced an engine failure? The de acceleration is rapid, especially at high AOA.

NOPE. The base to final turn is already at very low power. I am flying the wing, not the engine. I have real time AOA information and am following it. It is unlikely for the engine to quit and even less likely for it to quit in the middle of this specific turn. But even if it were, by following AOA, I should be able to continue to adjust my pitch to maintain a consistent AOA even during the power loss. Not necessarily true with airspeed. When I'm doing steep turns down low, the nose is already pointed down at the ground, believe me. Not going to be doing turns like that hanging by the prop. Also, flying an AOA with a reasonable stall margin.

Flying airspeed in the traffic pattern is stupid. It is not the purpose. The purpose is to fly particular angles of attack for particular purposes. Vx, Vy, stall, and best glide are all angle of attack and not airspeeds. But you are going about an old fashioned, illogical, complex mind dance to try to derive or ballpark the information that can be provided most directly by AOA alone. In the world if ipads and precise digital gadgets, it is silly to be relying on en error prone airspeed indicator that doesn't even directly measure the thing that your life/performance depends on: angle of attack.

Who cares about what your airspeed actually is? In the traffic pattern, we are trying to fly angles of attack that relate to efficient climbs, descents, and stall margins. Airspeed is an indirect measure of those. It may be useful for enroute planning/navigation or for not exceeding stress speeds (gear, flaps, vne, etc), however, it is not useful without interpretation on the performance end (low speed). Angle of attack information can be used as the sole source for directly achieving the sole purpose of flying reference angles of attack regardless of weight, bank, da, or if the fan is spinning.

Edited September 4, 2016 by 201er

[N9201A]

"How about never get slower than 100mph/knots (others/long body) until on final, and you will never stall,.."

Uh, were this true no one would ever perish in the classic "base-to-final" cross-control stall ... yet we lose pilots every year to this preventable and foreseeable accident. Speed is not an inoculation against stalling ... understanding how our wings work goes a lot further to preventing such accidents than the "add five knots for Momma" and "five more for each kid" that is overwhelmingly the pilot practice you'll observe at your local airport on a given Sunday.

Interesting techniques, Mike. I use bank angle/g load often to scrub off speed. I'm a big fan of slipping also. Too many pilots do not understand how these things interact and fly by rote as they were taught in a 172 in primary. They've suspended learning.

It's good to have an exchange of these ideas. But before we start firing bullets, let's go out and try some different techniques. I'm always struck on how insistent some even long-time Mooney pilots can be that "can't takeoff/land without flaps" or "HAVE to go to 25 squared at 500/1000 feet" or whatever.

Yes, it's true Bob Hoover didn't have an AoA ... but he also didn't accept rote learning passed along because "that's what I was taught." He went out and FLEW it. And then he shared what he learned. So we should all do the same. Thanks for sharing your experience.

[MyNameIsNobody]

You are just picking a fight.  Fly your steep turns wherever and whenever you want.  Just open the door so the parrot can get out.

There is no necessity to fly a steep bank in the pattern.  Ever.  None.  Even if you have to pee really bad.  A Mooney test pilot with thousands of hours was aboard and stalled turning base to final.  He is dead.  Why?  You sure like your AOA.  Have fun with that.

I wish I was half the pilot you are.  I am not.

[AndyFromCB]

3 hours ago, 201er said:

Yes. While I fly by AOA as a concept, I don't solely rely on the AOA indicator for that information. I keep Angle of Attack and Angle of Attack Indicator as separate terms. AOA Indicator is the device that displays measured Angle of Attack. When I talk about flying by AOA, I actually mean by thinking in terms of Angle of Attack. My inference of angle of attack is not only fed by my angle of attack indicator. I also use airspeed, groundspeed, wind noise, pitch attitude, understanding of weight/da, etc for additional feedback to drive my impression of the AOA. Most pilots use those bits of information to derive airspeed and then solely use airspeed to interpret AOA. I on the other hand prefer to go straight to AOA. I cross check AOA and airspeed occasionally. So far I have had three misreadings of airspeed and none of AOA. Using AOA + other factors I was able to diagnose the airspeed indicator being bad. Likewise, I could infer the same of the AOA indicator if this were the case. However, the AOA indicator is actually more reliable than the pitot/ASI system.

AOA seems to be consistent in a slip but this is too minute to be able to discern I think.

 

NOPE. The base to final turn is already at very low power. I am flying the wing, not the engine. I have real time AOA information and am following it. It is unlikely for the engine to quit and even less likely for it to quit in the middle of this specific turn. But even if it were, by following AOA, I should be able to continue to adjust my pitch to maintain a consistent AOA even during the power loss. Not necessarily true with airspeed. When I'm doing steep turns down low, the nose is already pointed down at the ground, believe me. Not going to be doing turns like that hanging by the prop. Also, flying an AOA with a reasonable stall margin.

Flying airspeed in the traffic pattern is stupid. It is not the purpose. The purpose is to fly particular angles of attack for particular purposes. Vx, Vy, stall, and best glide are all angle of attack and not airspeeds. But you are going about an old fashioned, illogical, complex mind dance to try to derive or ballpark the information that can be provided most directly by AOA alone. In the world if ipads and precise digital gadgets, it is silly to be relying on en error prone airspeed indicator that doesn't even directly measure the thing that your life/performance depends on: angle of attack.

Who cares about what your airspeed actually is? In the traffic pattern, we are trying to fly angles of attack that relate to efficient climbs, descents, and stall margins. Airspeed is an indirect measure of those. It may be useful for enroute planning/navigation or for not exceeding stress speeds (gear, flaps, vne, etc), however, it is not useful without interpretation on the performance end (low speed). Angle of attack information can be used as the sole source for directly achieving the sole purpose of flying reference angles of attack regardless of weight, bank, da, or if the fan is spinning.

If the engine is so unlikely to quit, then why the hell are you flying tight patterns requiring you to use your AOA in order not to stall. IAS not useful? Amazing how many pilots have managed their entire life, flying by referencing to IAS, before the gizmos came out. Amazing how many little jets/turboprops still don't AOA. My head is out of the cockpit, looking for other aircraft, not looking at some gizmo on the panel. Quite frankly, I don't even need to look at the airspeed until on final because I know it will be well above any possibility of stalling, in any configuration up to 60 degrees of bank. How do you do that in the Bravo? By keeping power at about 20 inches. Once I turn, I lower it to 17 inches, cross the fence around 75knots, like clockwork. I don't need an AOA. There is no guess work. Cross the fence at 75knots, you will come to a stop at 2500ft max or so, no matter what the weight, wind, etc. I don't calculate weights, speeds because I don't fly on the edge. AOA to me is another gizmo waiting to break. Don't need it, don't want it. It buys me nothing for my flights from one precision approach equipped airport to another with 4000ft plus runways. 

I'll bet you that if we film your fancy panel, with your fancy AOA, doing your fancy pattern work, the IAS will be within few knots, always at the same AOA. Explain to me how you can stall a Mooney during base to final turn doing 100knot (or 20" of MP). You cannot without performing an acrobatic maneuver.

And if I was flying right on the edge of performance, then I assure you, I would not be flying based on some $800 gizmo assembled in a third world country. I would know the yoke/control pressures within an ounce and could tell you my AOA with eyes closed like every bush pilot I've ever meet in Alaska on fishing and hunting trips does. Those guys don't need airspeed or AOA, they feel it. For flying GA aircraft with approach speed range of 5knots or less, to long, wide runways, I don't need one either. I need a MP gauge.

Edited September 4, 2016 by AndyFromCB

[gsengle]

Could we all take the bickering tone down a notch? What are we, Cirrus pilots?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AndyFromCB]

14 minutes ago, gsengle said:

Could we all take the bickering tone down a notch? What are we, Cirrus pilots?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last but not least, your wing mounted AOA device suffers from same measurement error issues as your airspeed indicator due to its location. Until you move on up to turbine equipment, where take off weight and landing weight can vary by 40% or so and that AOA probe upfront is heated, runs on ceramic bearings and costs more than average Mooney, you're talking about a fairly useless gizmo, at least my airspeed indicator is TSOed. But we're all pilots and we love our gizmos. For me, I will not depart cross country without a functioning stormscope, a device called useless here and on many other forums. Never even came close to dying in the pattern, but I have sure felt the end was near inside a stormy cloud once or twice.

Edited September 4, 2016 by AndyFromCB

[201er]

19 minutes ago, AndyFromCB said:

How do you do that in the Bravo? By keeping power at about 20 inches. Once I turn, I lower it to 17 inches, cross the fence around 75knots, like clockwork. I don't need an AOA. There is no guess work. Cross the fence at 75knots, you will come to a stop at 2500ft max or so, no matter what the weight, wind, etc. 

Power doesn't control AOA. 

[N9201A]

Easy to stall at 100 knots in pattern, here are two ways:

Load aircraft more than 1G.

Overshoot, need a little more bank, hold top rudder, oops not too much bank is what that expert on MooneySpace said...stall/spin.

Try it at altitude, your speed will decrease at idle very quickly with even unnoticeable cross-control in, and pilots watching runway aren't staring at ASI.

There are some truly chilling videos illustrating this. Happens every year and it's preventable.

As far as all of you angry people ... Can't explain that.

[N9201A]

"Leave door open for parrot"...that's funny, I don't know anything about birds but a dog wouldn't leave its owner. Would a parrot?

Actually if the bird is in flight in the cabin, does it count towards gross weight?

[AndyFromCB]

Just now, N9201A said:

Easy to stall at 100 knots in pattern, here are two ways:

Load aircraft more than 1G.

Overshoot, need a little more bank, hold top rudder, oops not too much bank is what that expert on MooneySpace said...stall/spin.

Try it at altitude, your speed will decrease at idle very quickly with even unnoticeable cross-control in, and pilots watching runway aren't staring at ASI.

There are some truly chilling videos illustrating this. Happens every year and it's preventable.

As far as all of you angry people ... Can't explain that.

In order to stall at 100knots in a Bravo, you have to be at gross, flaps up, over 60 degrees of bank and over 2Gs. I'm sorry, but if you're doing that in a pattern, well, no gizmo is going to help you. I do not G load aircraft in pattern. I hold no back pressure.

[201er]

What Mr I-Dont-Need-No-Fancy-Stinkin-AOA fails to understand is that final approach speed (nor any other low speed performance speed) is not a rigid airspeed number. It is a rigid angle of attack value that can be used every time. If you fly by reference to  speed may vary but your performance will be comparable. However, if you fly by airspeed, your actual AOA will be inconsistent.

Coming in at 75 knots heavy isn't the same as coming 75 knots light. Aerodynamically it puts you at a lower angle of attack and means the wing will continue to fly for longer than that same wing heavy at 75 knots. Simply put, 75 knots light may well burn more runway than 75 knots heavy!

Looking outside and ignoring airspeed/AOA is a recipe for death. So many people get tricked by sloping terrain or tailwinds into stalling! Don't get me wrong, I'm not shivering staring at my AOA indicator the entire approach. I am mainly looking outside and flying by pitch attitude. However, I choose the pitch attitude to fly by reference to AOA!

[AndyFromCB]

1 minute ago, 201er said:

Power doesn't control AOA. 

 It controls the angle I care about, the one between me and terra firma. 20 inches of manifold pressure in a Bravo, flaps down, 3 degrees down on flight director and I don't care about AOA. The aircraft will not stall under this condition, I don't care what you do it. It will be doing about 100knots descending at about 500fpm. It will not stall if you don't G load it. So don't G load it. 

[201er]

Just now, AndyFromCB said:

 It will not stall if you don't G load it. So don't G load it. 

Once is once too many.

[AndyFromCB]

22 minutes ago, 201er said:

Once is once too many.

So let me get this straight, you will be flying by AOA, so that means you will be doing the turn at around 68 to 75knots. I will be flying by MP, so that means I will be doing the turn at about 100knots. How is your AOA sensor going to help you remove your head from your ass if you are G loading the aircraft? At least I stand a small chance at 100knots that my head will suddenly slip out from my posterior as I lose 25knots loading the plane. The truth is, that neither of us is going to die, because our heads are not in our asses during the turn from base to final. And if you head is already in your posterior, then no gizmo will help you. Well, that a lie, Garmin's ESP will. But that's because it will perform the removal all by itself. Gizmos are fine, basic airmanship is better. Basic airmanship, combined with ESP is even better. It's already been proven that Glass and Gizmos don't do anything unless they simply remove the pilot from the equation as and when needed. Good pilot doesn't need the gizmos, and the gizmos give false sense of security to crappy pilots. What happens if the display suddenly burns out mid turn ;-) What's your AOA then? As long as I have power available, it really doesn't matter to me. I don't fly pitch, I aim for a touchdown point and if need be, I'll drag it in with power. I fly every approach like I fly an ILS, with power. I have flown a sudden glider 3 times in my life, cannot say I was a fan. 

So AOA allows you to be more precise and fly more efficiently, which is great, if that's what's required in a specific situation, such as short runways, obstacles, etc. But it still requires you not keep your head in your behind. But for an average pilot, flying an average GA aircraft, from a 5000 foot runway that's clear on both ends, to another one just like that, it doesn't buy much. No Mooney pilot ever died maintaining 1G, flying 75knots and keeping the turns under 30 degrees in the pattern. If you can't remember that, them how are you going to remember what the various colors on your AOA mean?

Anyways, time for me join the Cessna forum. I have yet to find a way to stall the 206 with VGs. Just won't happen, it just mushes down hill.

Edited September 4, 2016 by AndyFromCB

[gsengle]

Ms. Congeniality's crown remains safe...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mooneymite]

6 hours ago, 201er said:

You may have noticed in some of my videos that I occasionally make a steep base to final turn. This is an intentional maneuver that I use for dissipating altitude or speed quickly to roll out on a more suitable approach path.

Duplicated post.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Mooneymite

[Mooneymite]

Just now, Mooneymite said:

I hesitate to post in this thread because I'm not sure there's any benefit.

If 201er wants to fly closer to the edge of the envelope, that is certainly his right.  Stunt pilots, test pilots, and risk takers do exactly this on a frequent basis and not all of them kill themselves, or others, but some do.

Long ago, the criteria were established for a "stabilized approach".  The military, the airlines, commercial operators all adhere to them, because strict adherance makes for a safe approach and landing....and an overall safer operation.  I don't care if you have precise airspeed measurement, a well calibrate AOA, a HUD, or god-given talent....adhering to stabilized approach criteria just makes good sense.

Some pilots like to push the limits, but just remember the famous adage:  There are no old, bold pilots.

 

Edited September 4, 2016 by Mooneymite

[ArtVandelay]

....and pilots watching runway aren't staring at ASI.

They're not looking at the AOA indicator either....

[Piloto]

I always carry some extra speed and extend flaps before turning base to final. If I find I am too fast or too high I retract the flaps to avoid floating or overshoot. It works pretty well for me.

José 

[AndyFromCB]

1 hour ago, 201er said:

What Mr I-Dont-Need-No-Fancy-Stinkin-AOA fails to understand is that final approach speed (nor any other low speed performance speed) is not a rigid airspeed number. It is a rigid angle of attack value that can be used every time. If you fly by reference to  speed may vary but your performance will be comparable. However, if you fly by airspeed, your actual AOA will be inconsistent.

Coming in at 75 knots heavy isn't the same as coming 75 knots light. Aerodynamically it puts you at a lower angle of attack and means the wing will continue to fly for longer than that same wing heavy at 75 knots. Simply put, 75 knots light may well burn more runway than 75 knots heavy!

Looking outside and ignoring airspeed/AOA is a recipe for death. So many people get tricked by sloping terrain or tailwinds into stalling! Don't get me wrong, I'm not shivering staring at my AOA indicator the entire approach. I am mainly looking outside and flying by pitch attitude. However, I choose the pitch attitude to fly by reference to AOA!

Correct,

But light or heavy, you will be at complete stop somewhere around 2500ft mark without heavy breaking, even with 30gallons of fuel and just the pilot. I never flew the Bravo into shorter runway, so 75knots just works in the airplane, 1500 feet heavy, 2500 feet light. The less thinking that I do about basics of flying, the higher my survival chances as a pilot, I like expand my energy on navigation, weather, traffic, etc. Have I adjusted the speed before, of course, depending on conditions, but I still fly stabilized ILS like approaches, because I'm a crappy pilot, I know I'm a crappy pilot. Airlines have a lot of crappy pilots and yet they manage, because they don't play tricks on final. They fly vRef, 3 degrees down. If I have to fly a pattern, I'll fly it the same way, each time, not play tricks with AOA and energy management. I'm not that quick on my feet, at least I don't like playing that game in real life (that's for simulators). I watched your video, I don't fly enough to fly like you do, and even if I did fly enough, I still wouldn't fly like you do. Too steep, too close to the ground, too sudden power changes, this is not an approach any of my passengers would appreciate. If I have to steepen an approach, I'll use speed brakes. Like I said, I know I'm a crappy pilot all the time, but you know what, even the greatest pilots have crappy days.

If I want to play bush pilot, I'll do it in a fat, light loaded wing, like a Husky where mistakes close to the ground don't mean instant death in a fireball.

Edited September 5, 2016 by AndyFromCB

[Guest Mike261]

2 hours ago, gsengle said:

Could we all take the bickering tone down a notch? What are we, Cirrus pilots?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bickering? no matter what YOUR opinion...some think his margins are too tight...

mike