Jump to content

Pattern and landing speeds.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

It sounds like you and I fly our Mooneys the same way. 

And a third landing the same way.   I think it is better to look at it as you have a bag of tricks to get your plane on the ground.   The conditions will always be different.   As PIC it is important to pull out the right trick at the right time when needed.   Having the set formula in your head will lead to different conditions that you planned and not having the right trick at the right time.   I remember a gusty day,  I set up to flare.   The tail got pushed around.  so still had energy, set up again to flare and the tail got pushed around.   So added a blip of power put the windward wing down. and landed one wheel.    Still made the 3000 foot turn off.   The mooney seems to like one wheel landings in gusty cross winds.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2020 at 11:28 PM, PT20J said:

I think it's important to define terms so we all know that we are talking about the same thing. The FAA has refined it's definition of stabilized approach (when referring to piston GA planes -- not jets) several times over the years. I think they've finally got it right: "A pilot is flying a stabilized approach when he or she establishes and maintains a constant angle glidepath towards a predetermined point on the landing runway." https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2018/media/SE_Topic_18-09.pdf

A stabilized approach does not require a constant airspeed -- in fact there are lots of cases where a decelerating approach makes a lot of sense so long as you are controlling the airspeed to make the airplane do what you want. A stabilized approach doesn't have to be three degrees. Lot's of airports have obstructions that require a steeper than 3 degree glidepath. You can change configuration on final and still have a stabilized approach. But, it is very difficult to arrive on speed at the spot of your intended landing consistently if you let the glide angle wander during the approach.

Skip

This.   With the descending U turn I think it is a bit harder to get into the dreaded stall spin.   The angle of descent is the same, the power is only small changes.  flaps are the largest variable.  And they are only good for adding 3-5 knot change to the whole situation.   It's just smoother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Yetti said:

Um no.   I think you are thinking of a different plane.

 

stallangle.jpg

To compare my M20C vs. PA 28181 vs. C172 P which I flew in the past.

 

P.S. the stall/ spin characteristics are another site of the story. 

Lg, m

Austria

Screenshot_20200304-111236_Dropbox.jpg

Screenshot_20200304-112056_Dropbox.jpg

Screenshot_20200304-111634_Dropbox.jpg

Edited by brndiar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi.  Hopefully not off topic to discuss:

1, How much is " best glide speed"  with flaps + gear down   5, 8 knots less than in graph ?

2, What about the FAA preferable method to achieve "stabilised approach" does anyone of you fly that way?

 

Screenshot_20200304-120321_Dropbox.jpg

Screenshot_20200304-114717_Gallery.jpg

Screenshot_20200304-121650_Gallery.jpg

Edited by brndiar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yetti said:

Um no.   I think you are thinking of a different plane.

I think my comment is specific to J & K (ones I flew) maybe this applies to these only? but not much to F?

I think for J&K, the following comment highly applies 

6 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

An easy solution to this whole discussion... no flaps

I also go clean for fast A to B, night, IMC, crosswinds...all those landings are done with no flaps just speed control

Also I found no point slowing down J to VFE just to be able to use flaps to descend it quickly (at least on J & K), you either plan fast 160KTS decent at 50% power cruise with no flaps or slow horse all way down to 60KTS with full flaps and it will drops like brick at 1500fpm on 50% power decent (engine is well managed in both cases)

Joke about quick decent exercise (e.g. cabin fire drill: power off, push stick on full flaps at VFE), with no air-breaks in M20J, you need to open doors, side-slip to right, then use extinguisher as it will take while to reach the ground :( barely see 1500fpm at 110kts on flaps (many other aircraft show beyond VSI in 2000fpm-3000fpm ranges)

 

Edited by Ibra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, brndiar said:

FAA preferable method to achieve "stabilised approach"?

I was taught both schools "point & power" and "speed & power", I think each has it's own merits

For landing & flare (always done visual), I think speed control is preferable to glide path control (it is 2T aircraft not 200T)

Instrument approach, one would chase ILS with stick and power to set 1.3*Vs0 speed (I find it much easier this way)

Visual approach, one could do as they like but if speed is not stable I find it hard to judge glide path angle but if one has a tool (e.g. altimeter/ground marks, advisory glide path, power setting, ground speed...) it may work? I have gliding background: altimeter & power & distance are not mandatory but speed & angles are obligatoire

Edited by Ibra
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ibra said:

I think my comment is specific to J & K (ones I flew) maybe this applies to long body only? but not much to F & E & C?

I think for long body Mooney, the following comment highly applies 

I also go clean for fast A to B, night, IMC, crosswinds...all those landings are done with no flaps just speed control

Also I found no point slowing down long body Mooney to VFE just to be able to use flaps to descend it quickly (at least on J & K), you either plan fast 160KTS decent at 50% power cruise with no flaps or slow horse all way down to 60KTS with full flaps and it will drops like brick at 1500fpm on 50% power decent (engine is well managed in both cases)

Joke about quick decent exercise (e.g. cabin fire drill: power off, push stick on full flaps at VFE), with no air-breaks in M20J, you need to open doors, side-slip to right, then use extinguisher as it will take while to reach the ground :( barely see 1500fpm at 110kts on flaps (many other aircraft show beyond VSI in 2000fpm-3000fpm ranges)

 

Your posts are sometimes confusing.   Point of reference for you:

Short Bodies

A, B, C, D, E

Mid Bodies

F, G, J, K

Long Bodies

L, R, S, U, V

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ibra said:

Edited J&K only, thanks for the ref

I can speak from experience here. While a J is typically 5 to 10kts faster than an F. The flying characteristics of each aircraft are almost identical. There is more variation from airframe to airframe then there is between the two models.

Edited by Shadrach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

I can speak from experience here. While a J is typically 5 to 10kts faster than an F. The flying characteristics of each aircraft are identical

On flaps vs stall from their generic POH,

- On F: MTOW = 2740 lbs, VS0 = 53kts, VS1 = 55kts, VS = 59kts

- On J: MTOW = 2740 lbs, VS0 = 55kts, VS1 = 57kts, VS = 63kts

So you are right, flaps have same effect between J & F (flap effect on the backside of drag curve is VS delta, about 6kts for F and 8kts for J) , 2kts spread don't think make much difference to landing but there is 5-10kts diff on clean cruise speeds, it is probably relevant to difference in slowing down to approach on flaps? still not conclusive on "effect of flaps" question, one has to simply compare sink rates near similar VFE with flaps and without between the two types...

Probably "non draggy flaps" is just my perception flaring on sloppy speeds or ending up 4000ft overhead at 150TAS :lol:

Edited by Ibra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember to use calibrated airspeed if you are comparing stall speeds to eliminate instrument error which can be considerable at low speeds. I did this a while back in another post.

POH stall speeds flaps up/flaps down  KCAS

M20J  63/56

PA24-250  62/54

A-36  62/58

C-182T  54/49

C-172S  53/48

PA28-181  59/53

Skip

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ibra said:

Also I found no point slowing down J to VFE just to be able to use flaps to descend it quickly (at least on J & K), you either plan fast 160KTS decent at 50% power cruise with no flaps or slow horse all way down to 60KTS with full flaps and it will drops like brick at 1500fpm on 50% power decent (engine is well managed in both cases)

Joke about quick decent exercise (e.g. cabin fire drill: power off, push stick on full flaps at VFE), with no air-breaks in M20J, you need to open doors, side-slip to right, then use extinguisher as it will take while to reach the ground :( barely see 1500fpm at 110kts on flaps (many other aircraft show beyond VSI in 2000fpm-3000fpm ranges)

I can't speak for a J, but I don't descend like this in my C. Typically I push for 500 fpm and trim forces away; this puts me ~170mph, and I maintain MP and EGT all the way down. I add flaps when inside the white arc, typically 1-2nm from downwind entry.

For emergency descents, try a steep spiral. Cruise speed, clean, 45° bank, I get >2000fpm descents. Need to practice again, it's been a while. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Your posts are sometimes confusing.   Point of reference for you:

Short Bodies

A, B, C, D, E

Mid Bodies

F, G, J, K

Long Bodies

L, R, S, U, V

The K is kind of an interesting cross-over airplane. It has the same fuselage as the J, but it has the elevator bobweight and variable downspring trim system used in the long bodies. Bob Kromer told me that Carl Mittag (engineering test pilot on the M20K) told him that they were surprised during flight testing that the M20K had different stability characteristics, stall characteristics and handling qualities compared to the M20J which has the trim bungees used in all previous designs. The change to the elevator controls and trim system was the solution to meet certification requirements. Classically, a bobweght increases stick force per g and a downspring improves airspeed stability. Perhaps @Blue on Top has some thoughts.

Skip

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, brndiar said:

2, What about the FAA preferable method to achieve "stabilised approach" does anyone of you fly that way?

Depends on what I am trying to accomplish. Really, when power is available, pitch and power are used in concert. But airplane control is quicker and more precise when manipulating the elevator than by adjusting power. So, I use elevator inputs as the primary control for the parameter I want to control most precisely. For instance, on an ILS, I want to be on the glideslope and I don't care if the airspeed wanders around +/- 5 kts, so I fly the glideslope with elevator inputs and adjust airspeed with power. If I am landing on a short runway, I want my speed to be right on target and I control airspeed primarily with elevator and adjust glidepath with power. This is not the only way to do it -- it's just a technique that I find works for me.

Skip

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

The K is kind of an interesting cross-over airplane. It has the same fuselage as the J, but it has the elevator bobweight and variable downspring trim system used in the long bodies. Bob Kromer told me that Carl Mittag (engineering test pilot on the M20K) told him that they were surprised during flight testing that the M20K had different stability characteristics, stall characteristics and handling qualities compared to the M20J which has the trim bungees used in all previous designs. The change to the elevator controls and trim system was the solution to meet certification requirements. Classically, a bobweght increases stick force per g and a downspring improves airspeed stability. Perhaps @Blue on Top has some thoughts.

I will concur with this. The nose is also a bit heavier with an extra row of cylinders, a longer cowl, and therefore the prop out on a longer arm.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hank said:

I can't speak for a J, but I don't descend like this in my C. Typically I push for 500 fpm and trim forces away; this puts me ~170mph, and I maintain MP and EGT all the way down. I add flaps when inside the white arc, typically 1-2nm from downwind entry.

I wish I could fly my C this way.  Problem is if I descend with cruise power I'm well within the yellow arc.  There's almost always turbulence at lower altitudes, and I don't like to be in turbulence in the yellow.  I wind up throttling down.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2020 at 10:29 AM, Shadrach said:

I tend to think the "Stabalized approach" is over rated.  I have become so used to steep power off approaches into short fields that I typically find myself using pitch for both altitude and airspeed.  This is to say that I maintain altitude until the field is made and then  alternate between the front and back side of the drag curve to increase/decrease glide and sink as needed. ....

Do you really do this?  That is, if you find yourself high, you level off until your speed is below minimum drag so that a reduction is speed actually requires ...more... power?  You then drop the nose to maintain that lower speed?  And then when you approach the proper glideslope you lower the nose even further until your speed is above the minimum drag point?  That is, the area of the drag curve where a reduction in speed requires ...less.. power?  And if you do, how do you determine what that speed is?  Are you using AOA?  A calculated speed?  Vy?

I'm less elegant than you.  If I'm already at idle and still too steep I just slip the plane until I'm happy with what I see.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

It sounds like you and I fly our Mooneys the same way. 

Welllll...at least we approach our landings the same but when it comes to the flight levels I'm not in your league. Many of the small fields with close rising terrain that we fly to require a fluid approach sometimes steep descent with a full forward slip and full flaps gets it done others a nice stable procedure is fine. My first instructor retired Air Force pilot that flew both fixed wing and rotors in combat during the Vietnam war really stressed stick and rudder and learning how to control what you want the airplane to do. Was such a joy to fly with him. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob - S50 said:

Do you really do this?  That is, if you find yourself high, you level off until your speed is below minimum drag so that a reduction is speed actually requires ...more... power?  You then drop the nose to maintain that lower speed?  And then when you approach the proper glideslope you lower the nose even further until your speed is above the minimum drag point?  That is, the area of the drag curve where a reduction in speed requires ...less.. power?  And if you do, how do you determine what that speed is?  Are you using AOA?  A calculated speed?  Vy?

I think as long as you consistently keep flying "slow & high" and "fast & low" it will simply work by itself, you will end up "on speed & on glide", the target speed can be Vbg (or VY, Va,...) and the target glide path any conservative one for idle at that speed (say 1:4 instead of 1:8 at Vbg), note that when you are doing that back-and-forth you can always get back on the line (this is unlike undershooting/overshooting a glide where you basically end-up "low & slow" or "fast & high")

"stick only" will do the job pretty well on calm hot days, it serves as good practice for off-field landing with wing level & ball in middle, no crazy steep turns, fast s-turns, fast side-slips trying to dump excess of energy, but I think it has zero chances to work on 20G30 head/cross wind or large wind gradient, one should just go with a fast side-slip all the way, with stick only as you get close to ground you wiggle, so you could end up badly in "low & slow" and "high & fast" boxes...

One can still do "stick only" landing in windy days, if he can guess where safe glide paths sit, for a short landing: they are no longer straight lines but similar to throwing a brick from aircraft nose to the runway numbers, for a long landing: straight line to 1/2 of the runway will do the job on a windy day,

For a stick only short landing on windy days, the landing exercise does gets confused, ironically, with projectile free-fall: one has to get the throw right on the runway numbers and still not done: he has to push to flare (if you have any 200ft hight left) or arrest decent rate by power (you need lot of it), so at some point it is hard to know if one is doing flying (straight 1G lines) or ballistics (curved 0.5-1.5G lines), I personally think Mooney is built for straight line flying to runway numbers or slightly further ahead (the curved line thingy is more suited for gliders/cubs with low wing loading, low stall speeds and 5-point harness :))

Edited by Ibra
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2020 at 5:43 PM, Bob - S50 said:

Do you really do this?  That is, if you find yourself high, you level off until your speed is below minimum drag so that a reduction is speed actually requires ...more... power?  You then drop the nose to maintain that lower speed?  And then when you approach the proper glideslope you lower the nose even further until your speed is above the minimum drag point?  That is, the area of the drag curve where a reduction in speed requires ...less.. power?  And if you do, how do you determine what that speed is?  Are you using AOA?  A calculated speed?  Vy?

I'm less elegant than you.  If I'm already at idle and still too steep I just slip the plane until I'm happy with what I see.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Yes I do have AOA system, it’s what drives the stall horn;) (it would be nice to have an indicator but I really don’t care that much).  I know my particular airplane well. It is not going to stall accidentally in power off, level flight.  Having done hundreds of stalls in various configurations, the airplane has never surprised me with an unexpected break. On the contrary, it requires intent. First the horn...then the buffet...then after about about 3 discernible burbles, it breaks.  Many cues and plenty of notice.  It is quite easy (it a little unnerving for the uninitiated) to practice taking the airframe to buffet/recovery, buffet/recovery repeatedly during slow flight without ever departing controlled flight (stalling). In a short field scenario a power off descent at 65MIAS is actually relatively steep. It’s steep enough that it allows you to stay higher for longer and gives you more options and more time to take corrective action on the way down then say dragging it in at 70MIAS behind both the power and drag curves over the trees. Arriving at the threshold in a steep descent at 60-65 MIAS requires an aggressive flare but the cushion from ground effect usually makes for a very gentle arrival if more nose high than usual.

Slips are a good tool but I’m not comfortable cross controlling  at <80mph. They are good for preventing the build up of additional energy during descent.  I find that when I've arrived at desired altitude and resume coordinated flight my speed is very similar to when I began the slip. This can be useful but not always optimal.

I’m not saying anyone should fly like I do but I think most of us benefit from practicing slow flight.

If I have passengers on board my goal is to minimize discomfort and maximize smoothness. If I’m alone, my goal is to challenge myself frequently in order to stay as sharp as possible. I only fly ~70 hours a year. If I chose to do all of my flying into 4000+ foot strips without bank angle never exceeding 30° I think I would be truly ill prepared for a power plant emergency.  As I get older, I think more about going from single engine to 0 engine and how I would fare in such a situation.This has inspired me to do all sorts of flying that is fun yet unconventional. I do several engine out landings every year (power at idle until needed for taxi) sometimes from altitude as high as 9000 feet or as low as 3500. The guys in the tower are always happy to oblige. Practicing best glide and wind analysis to get to a landing spot is relatively easy. Managing energy in such a way as to complete the landing without bending anything is more challenging. About three years ago I started practicing high key/low-key approaches with the engine at idle. It’s a lot of fun and it builds confidence. During my last FR my instructor had me do a racetrack at 65 MIAS around the Linden VOR. He then instructed me to do a full break power off stall. As soon as the airplane broke he put his hand over the throttle and said you just lost your engine. I recovered power off and made a dead stick approach into Front Royal (3007’). We broke the approach off at 150’agl as it was obvious that the field was made with plenty of margin to get down and stopped. Huge confidence builder.

I know for a fact that there is NFW I would’ve been able to do that 10 years ago. If I had it would have been dumb luck.
 

Edited by Shadrach
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2020 at 4:51 PM, Shadrach said:

I can't speak to long bodies, but the mid and short bodies will climb quite well with full flaps under most conditions (I've never tried at or near gross).  Climbing gear up, full flaps results in what appears to be a very flat attitude.  When climbing with full flaps the pilot needs to mind  airspeed and not sight picture.  On a standard day with me and say half tanks I would bet that I can easily get >750fpm with full flaps at my sea levelish drome.  I'll have to test this when the weather warms.

hot day fullish tanks one pax but well under gross @2k density alt my J did not want to climb gear up full flaps - maybe 300 fpm. Retracted flaps more like 800 fpm. .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think I'm caught up on everything … ha, ha.

1. Go-arounds (and takeoffs) are killers.  Practice, practice, practice.  I can't say that enough.  Fatality numbers are very high for these maneuvers - much, much higher than the base-to-final (if those are even stalls … more likely just no stall spirals).  In the go-around scenario, the airplane is trimmed for 1.3Vso (or lower depending on the pilot and how they were taught).  The trim speed doesn't change with power (and some Moonies have a lot more power than others).  IOW, the airplane will seek 1.3Vso with 310 Hp pulling on the nose or a windmilling propeller pushing on the nose.  The pilot will have to supply the yoke push to prevent the airplane from stalling.  It comes quickly if one is not expecting it (practice, practice, practice - at a safe altitude).  If you have not done this before, the first one will surprise you.

2. Yes, the longer nose and further forward plane of the propeller of the "K" is destabilizing (both in pitch and yaw).  The propeller slip stream is probably slightly different between the two airframes also.  It will also matter how the longer engine was physically located into the airframe.  It is typical today to cant the engine 2 degrees to the right and 2 degrees down.  There are pros and cons on every way to do it.   And, yes, the engine cowling is typically not symmetrical.

3. For the person/people practicing engine out procedures, my hat goes off to you.  On takeoff, if one doesn't know where they are going to fly the airplane to if the engine quits at any point, one shouldn't advance the throttle.  This is an area we should learn from our sailplane pilot friends.  PS. Yes, I am also a glider pilot.

4. Also for those practicing engine out procedures with an idle/windmilling propeller, the glide gets a little better when the propeller is actually stopped.  Less pilot cooling, too.

Hoping to help  -Ron 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Blue on Top said:

I think I'm caught up on everything … ha, ha.

1. Go-arounds (and takeoffs) are killers.  Practice, practice, practice.  I can't say that enough.  Fatality numbers are very high for these maneuvers - much, much higher than the base-to-final (if those are even stalls … more likely just no stall spirals).  In the go-around scenario, the airplane is trimmed for 1.3Vso (or lower depending on the pilot and how they were taught).  The trim speed doesn't change with power (and some Moonies have a lot more power than others).  IOW, the airplane will seek 1.3Vso with 310 Hp pulling on the nose or a windmilling propeller pushing on the nose.  The pilot will have to supply the yoke push to prevent the airplane from stalling.  It comes quickly if one is not expecting it (practice, practice, practice - at a safe altitude).  If you have not done this before, the first one will surprise you.

2. Yes, the longer nose and further forward plane of the propeller of the "K" is destabilizing (both in pitch and yaw).  The propeller slip stream is probably slightly different between the two airframes also.  It will also matter how the longer engine was physically located into the airframe.  It is typical today to cant the engine 2 degrees to the right and 2 degrees down.  There are pros and cons on every way to do it.   And, yes, the engine cowling is typically not symmetrical.

3. For the person/people practicing engine out procedures, my hat goes off to you.  On takeoff, if one doesn't know where they are going to fly the airplane to if the engine quits at any point, one shouldn't advance the throttle.  This is an area we should learn from our sailplane pilot friends.  PS. Yes, I am also a glider pilot.

4. Also for those practicing engine out procedures with an idle/windmilling propeller, the glide gets a little better when the propeller is actually stopped.  Less pilot cooling, too.

Hoping to help  -Ron 

As mentioned above, and with previous posts, the long body go around can be quite an experience!

I learned that early on in the Ovation.   I was full flap configuration, gear extended, full nose up trim, adding full power.  It was quite exciting and required instant major muscle force on the yoke! 

Going forward, I never used full power again on a go around.  However, I did learn I could execute in that landing configuration with full power, if needed.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Blue on Top said:

4. Also for those practicing engine out procedures with an idle/windmilling propeller, the glide gets a little better when the propeller is actually stopped.  Less pilot cooling, too.

It can be quite difficult stopping the prop when the engine isn't seized. But pulling the prop control all the way out to low pitch will significantly increase the gliding range. You can feel the airplane accelerate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Hank said:

It can be quite difficult stopping the prop when the engine isn't seized. But pulling the prop control all the way out to low pitch will significantly increase the gliding range. You can feel the airplane accelerate.

@Hank Yes.  Minor typo.  Pulling the propeller control all the way back will: 1) bring the propeller to low RPM, high pitch stop (closer to "feather" position) and reduce drag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.