Pattern and landing speeds.

[brndiar]

Hi,

How do you do an approach without flaps?

With my 1977 M20C  bei approach without flaps nose of mooney always cower the end of the runway. According to attitude indicator such an "stabilised" approach is cca 5 degrees "nose up".

With T/O slightly "up".

 Only with full flaps gives me "nose down" ( see in picture ) so that I can see "aiming point" 

Apropos,  how many degrees is first "down linie" in the attitude indicator?

 

[Shadrach]

17 minutes ago, jlunseth said:

I have to respectfully disagree with some of Don Kaye's approach. I don't disagree with the concept of a stabilized approach, but I disagree with practicing every landing as if it were a short field, and I have a idea why there is a difference between our approaches.  Palo Alto's field is 2,400 and change. The main runways at my home field, KFCM, are 3,800 and 5,000. I live in the midwest.  I travel all over, especially to the Dakotas.  Here in the midwest we get lots of gusty and/or crosswind landings, and Minnesota's winds are tame in comparison to the Dakotas or the western states.  Don't get me wrong, I love landing in mild winds with a ton of flaps out and at low speed, but over time I found that if I habituated myself to that by making that my landing M.O., I put myself in a dangerous position when landing winds are adverse, and they are adverse very often here.  And it is not just here, in the Bahamas, all the islands except perhaps Nassau are long and narrow, there is only one way to put a runway, and that is perpendicular to the winds coming in off the ocean. The runways are cut into the Bahamian pine forests, so on top of constant strong crosswinds, you get a strong wind change at the tree tops and swirling winds after that.  It is a bad place for low speed, full flaps landings.  At least in my aircraft, there is not enough rudder and control surface authority.  Better to habituate oneself to land half or no flaps, with a little more speed, and be prepared to add quite a bit more speed.

As everyone knows, often what appears to be a gusty crosswind will abate in ground effect.  However, we also have days out here in the midwest where it doesn't abate, or the opposite happens, the winds are worse at the surface than at pattern altitude, the problem is you never know which way it is going to be, the METARs won't tell you that.  I have landed in crosswind conditions varying 160 degrees very rapidly, winds in the high 20's, low 30's.  A clue is when the cattails in the slough off the runway are lying flat, all in the same direction, and changing from north to south.

If my home field had a short strip I might practice short field landings a lot.  But out of Minnesota's 138 airfields, only around 10-20% fall into that category, most are 3,000+, and out in the Dakotas the same thing.

I might do one or two true, full flaps, short field landings a year.  I land half flaps all the rest of the time except when I land no flaps. I like landing at 75 KIAS over the fence and do it as much as I can, but there are many times when it is just not a good idea.

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.  If I have a plane full of passengers I will fly a stable, power on approach but a monkey can be trained to do that.  Managing your potential energy in such a way as to hit your TD point without adding power takes practice.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Shadrach

[gsxrpilot]

2 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Well I guess it depends on what you want to see.     RE visibility over the nose.  One can objectively say the following (all other things being equal):

1) Full flaps move the center of pressure (C/P) aft (keep in mind CG is always in front of C/P)

2) Full flaps increase the effective angle of incidence (angle of wing cord line to longitudinal axis of fuselage)

These two things mean that at a given AOA the fuselage (and therefor cockpit) will be pitched further down with full flaps than without.  From final all the way to flare the nose will be oriented more downward with flaps than without.  This is particularly helpful at short fields when using steep approaches.

 

 

 

I would still love the opportunity some day, to fly with you, @donkaye, @mike_elliott, @Parker_Woodruff, or @kortopates. I'm sure I'd learn plenty.

I've landed at KSQL a dozen times or more and find it to be an easy place to land. And many of you have been into 84R to visit JD and SWTA. I've made the 800 ft turn off landing 17, many times. And I learned to land my first Mooney at 5TX0. Short is not difficult, its just that long is easier IMHO.

[Shadrach]

11 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I would still love the opportunity some day, to fly with you, @donkaye, @mike_elliott, @Parker_Woodruff, or @kortopates. I'm sure I'd learn plenty.

I've landed at KSQL a dozen times or more and find it to be an easy place to land. And many of you have been into 84R to visit JD and SWTA. I've made the 800 ft turn off landing 17, many times. And I learned to land my first Mooney at 5TX0. Short is not difficult, its just that long is easier IMHO.

I'd like that as well.   I learn from everyone that I fly with...sometimes it's the illustration of what not to do that I learn most from.  I'm sure that I've done a lot of demonstration in that area as well....

I'll be the first to say that I am outclassed by the individuals above.  I've learned to do a few things reasonably well.  Those guys have a comprehensive knowledge to which I can only aspire.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Shadrach

[jlunseth]

1 hour ago, brndiar said:

How do you do an approach without flaps?

Same way you do an approach with flaps.

@Hank I try to make them all the same, the wind always has its own ideas though.

Edited March 2, 2020 by jlunseth

[Shadrach]

29 minutes ago, brndiar said:

Hi,

How do you do an approach without flaps?

With my 1977 M20C  bei approach without flaps nose of mooney always cower the end of the runway. According to attitude indicator such an "stabilised" approach is cca 5 degrees "nose up".

With T/O slightly "up".

 Only with full flaps gives me "nose down" ( see in picture ) so that I can see "aiming point" 

Apropos,  how many degrees is first "down linie" in the attitude indicator?

 

Cannot see the tach, but it seems unlikely this is sustainable when power off.  What''s your idle speed with the throttle closed?  

Edited March 2, 2020 by Shadrach

[Denver98]

I am new to Mooney forums but not new to Mooneys.  I got away from Mooney flying and GA as I progressed in my career but felt it was time to get back to GA flying.   It is interesting the topics that spark a ferocious debate, lots of personalities here with LOTS of experience.  But I’ll bet that we can all agree on one thing, stabilized approaches lead to good landings and a fewer go-arounds.   

An acceptable flap position for landing the Mooney is “AS DESIRED”, so up to full is an acceptable landing flap condition.  Know your airplane, know your landing field conditions, including NOTAMS, and fly a stable approach.  If the approach is ever not stable, a go-around is the BEST course of action, especially within 500’ AFL.  Each of us has our own technique and procedure for that technique and over time it becomes a “techcedure”.   It is probably what causes such long debates.  

At 500’ each us, regardless of flaps, should be asking “Am I in the window?”.  Target airspeed for desired landing configuration (no more than +10 knots, minus ZERO), on glide path, tracking centerline and gear DOWN.  My first jet airline check airman repeatedly said “on speed, on spot”  and he never said one negative thing about the “firmness” of my landings as long as I was on centerline and in the touchdown zone.  On speed, on spot and if not go-around.  

[brndiar]

5 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Cannot see the tach, but it seems unlikely this is sustainable when power off.  What''s your idle speed with the throttle closed?  

 

Lg,m

[brndiar]

4 minutes ago, brndiar said:

 

Lg,m

 

[Shadrach]

4 minutes ago, brndiar said:

 

Lg,m

Are you always in the the red zone when power off?  I fly an F model but I can say with absolute confidence that power off at 75MIAS would yield much lower RPM in my aircraft.

[Ibra]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

stay cool

I agree on the cool factor and one thing at a time: a slow and smooth go-around is no drama but I don't do anything bellow VY (something roughly 1.3*Vs0)

59 minutes ago, Hank said:

2.Push on yoke, aiming for 100 mph climb

I highly agree on this for any Go-Around, I guess 100mph that is roughly the Vy for your M20C?

Aircraft will naturally accelerate to it's min drag speeds irrespective of config and will climb easily there (sort of definition)

If I can't accelerate to VY with a push on the stick and get a positive climb there then I will not get that anywhere else IMO

Once I am above VY (min clean drag speeds), in theory I can do whatever I wish with elevator, ailerons, stick, flaps, gear, Vx climb, land again, fly level until end of runway...

Actually, VY(flap) = VY(clean)-(VS1-VS0), but above VY(clean) one would expect raising drag flaps in one go to translate into CLIMB rather than SINK

At Vy straight and level at 50ft raising all flaps in one go will not spoil your day

Edited March 2, 2020 by Ibra

[Shadrach]

49 minutes ago, Denver98 said:

An acceptable flap position for landing the Mooney is “AS DESIRED”, so up to full is an acceptable landing flap condition.  Know your airplane, know your landing field conditions, including NOTAMS, and fly a stable approach.  If the approach is ever not stable, a go-around is the BEST course of action, especially within 500’ AFL.  Each of us has our own technique and procedure for that technique and over time it becomes a “techcedure”.   It is probably what causes such long debates.  

Totally agree.  Unfortunately some people confuse their subjective opinions with objective facts.  My glider pilot friends are the most stubborn of all...those guys will do anything to save an approach rather than just buck up and go around like a pro.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Shadrach

[brndiar]

Hi,

The pictures are from training in October 2019.

The goal was to determine "attitude" according to attitude indicator for "stabilized" (500 fpm) decent with:

 1 full flapps,

2,T/O flaps,

3, without flaps (great always down)

In no case was "power off", it was always trottle sufficient enough to sustain 500 fpm down. 

In that case RPM was always in red. 

Lg,m.

 

[Shadrach]

Just now, Ibra said:

I agree on the cool factor and one thing at a time: a slow and smooth go-around is no drama but I don't do anything bellow VY (something roughly 1.3*Vs0)

What do you mean "don't do anything below Vy"?  do you mean you won't reconfigure?  1.3Vso  is 80MIAS (gross) in my bird.  That is the speed that I raise the gear on take off...why would I wait for faster on a go around?

[Shadrach]

2 minutes ago, brndiar said:

Hi,

The pictures are from training in October 2019.

The goal was to determine "attitude" according to attitude indicator for "stabilized" (500 fpm) decent with:

 1 full flapps,

2,T/O flaps,

3, without flaps (great always down)

In no case was "power off", it was always trottle sufficient enough to sustain 500 fpm down. 

In that case RPM was always in red. 

Lg,m.

 

So I would say don't be doing that on a regular basis...

[brndiar]

5 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

So I would say don't be doing that on a regular basis...

Prop was set to "High RPM", that means forward. 

Retrospectively,  and theoretically wit Propeller aft I would be out of "red" + manifold pressure would be higher (mean the some -500 fpm power setting ).

M.

[Davidv]

4 hours ago, donkaye said:

This is the best method described so far.  While most POHs say "Flaps to Approach" first after adding power, that will cause the nose to pitch up immediately and could cause loss of control, especially in the long body Mooneys.  Since drag of full flaps is close to the drag of the gear, raising  the gear first while trimming down lessens the possibility of loss of control as a result of the nose pitching up with flap retraction, while similarly reducing drag for the climb.

Agreed on all of this.  I just don't like changing the lift characteristics by immediately going for the flap switch when I'm low and slow.  It's also too easy to accidently dump all the flaps instead of just full flaps which could result in a very bad situation.  Raising the gear first to reduce drag seems much more natural to me.

[Shadrach]

6 hours ago, Davidv said:

Agreed on all of this.  I just don't like changing the lift characteristics by immediately going for the flap switch when I'm low and slow.  It's also too easy to accidently dump all the flaps instead of just full flaps which could result in a very bad situation.  Raising the gear first to reduce drag seems much more natural to me.

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.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Shadrach

[Ibra]

 

4 hours ago, Shadrach said:

What do you mean "don't do anything below Vy"?  do you mean you won't reconfigure?  1.3Vso  is 80MIAS (gross) in my bird.  That is the speed that I raise the gear on take off...why would I wait for faster on a go around?

Yes the gear has to be raised early, no question about that, the sooner the better (as long as gear up is not a the cost of reduction in speed inadvertent nose up) 

Reasons is stall speeds with gear up or down are barely about 1kts-2kts differences but aircraft min drag value (in fpm) is higher with gear down  

The flaps is the tricky part, you want to raise "drag flaps" first to be able to climb and only raise the rest (1/2) when you have a positive rate of climb but that does not say anything about the speeds where you can raise flaps apart from "higher than VS1"

- If you hang aircraft on it's prop at full power between VS0 and VS1 there is literally no way you can get positive climb by raising drag or all flaps for that matter  

- If you can accelerate level at 50ft on full flaps to VY then you will surely climb not sink when you raise flaps (less drag without flaps at VY than with flaps)

So between VS1 and VY there is a speed where you can fly level and safely just raise flaps and you may get extra lift rather than sinking

The target speed to which you need to accelerate before raising drag flaps is roughly around VY-(VS1-VS0) about 80kts, one will find that raising drag flaps bellow that target speed give a sensation of sink if speed is maintained while above that speed aircraft balloons on flaps up if speed is maintained 

If you can't accelerate and fly level with full flaps to VY in ground effect at 50ft, then you simply picked wrong day to go-around on full flaps  the risks of botched go-arounds does hugely increase with higher density altitude first because of reduction in acceleration/deceleration and second because VY decreases to VS1, so if you float longer on full flaps at 6000ft alt runways, you simply can't go-around on full flaps nor raise them, it has to be a landing... 

I am putting a graph for illustration, it is fair to assume VS/VY are unchanged with gear (+/-2kts), min drag is hugely reduced by gear up (80%), flaps simply shift drag curve by VS1-VS0 and tilt it anti-clockwise in higher speed (min drag changes by 20% as flaps are not spoilers they just reduce stall speeds), VS1-VS0 is roughly 5kts-10kts, VY1 roughly 1.3VS1 and VY0 is roughly 1.3VS0, VS0 on fast single engines is 55kts-60kts

So to "clean aircraft from drag" in an optimal way one has to raise gear ASAP then accelerate to "target Flaps UP speed" between VS1 and VY before raising flaps (the blue line with circles), obviously one can do it in a non-optimal way raising gear ASAP and then drag flaps near VS1 and hope to get a positive rate of climb but may have to wait a lot 

Sorry I am really bad at graphs !  

Edited March 2, 2020 by Ibra

[Shadrach]

On 3/2/2020 at 6:31 PM, Ibra said:

 

Yes the gear has to be raised early, no question about that, the sooner the better (as long as gear up is not a the cost of reduction in speed inadvertent nose up) 

Reasons is stall speeds with gear up or down are barely about 1kts-2kts differences but aircraft min drag value (in fpm) is higher with gear down  

The flaps is the tricky part, you want to raise "drag flaps" first to be able to climb and only raise the rest (1/2) when you have a positive rate of climb but that does not say anything about the speeds where you can raise flaps apart from "higher than VS1"

- If you hang aircraft on it's prop at full power between VS0 and VS1 there is literally no way you can get positive climb by raising drag or all flaps for that matter  

- If you can accelerate level at 50ft on full flaps to VY then you will surely climb not sink when you raise flaps (less drag without flaps at VY than with flaps)

So between VS1 and VY there is a speed where you can fly level and safely just raise flaps and you may get extra lift rather than sinking

The target speed to which you need to accelerate before raising drag flaps is roughly around VY-(VS1-VS0) about 80kts, one will find that raising drag flaps bellow that target speed give a sensation of sink if speed is maintained while above that speed aircraft balloons on flaps up if speed is maintained 

If you can't accelerate and fly level with full flaps to VY in ground effect at 50ft, then you simply picked wrong day to go-around on full flaps  the risks of botched go-arounds does hugely increase with higher density altitude first because of reduction in acceleration/deceleration and second because VY decreases to VS1, so if you float longer on full flaps at 6000ft alt runways, you simply can't go-around on full flaps nor raise them, it has to be a landing... 

I am putting a graph for illustration, it is fair to assume VS/VY are unchanged with gear (+/-2kts), min drag is hugely reduced by gear up (80%), flaps simply shift drag curve by VS1-VS0 and tilt it anti-clockwise in higher speed (min drag changes by 20% as flaps are not spoilers they just reduce stall speeds), VS1-VS0 is roughly 5kts-10kts, VY1 roughly 1.3VS1 and VY0 is roughly 1.3VS0, VS0 on fast single engines is 55kts-60kts

So to "clean aircraft from drag" in an optimal way one has to raise gear ASAP then accelerate to "target Flaps UP speed" between VS1 and VY before raising flaps (the blue line with circles), obviously one can do it in a non-optimal way raising gear ASAP and then drag flaps near VS1 and hope to get a positive rate of climb but may have to wait a lot 

Sorry I am really bad at graphs !  

I appreciate the work you’ve done here but I think you are making some assumptions that are not true. 

1) Flaps are not spoilers as you said but the certainly produce drag. Drag significant enough to be felt at low speed.

2) More than anything, the upwards pitch when raising flaps is due to the nose up trim required for approach when the flaps are deployed. Raising flaps puts the airplane in an out of trim situation. This is should not be a killer nor cause a stall as it is easily overcome. The notion that raising flaps would cause the plane to go from level flight to hanging on the prop exaggeration in the extreme. This is the slaying of a beast that does not exist. It’s a noticeable but easily controllable nose up tendency (caused by a number of factors in addition to trim), it is not a runaway pitch control. It just isn’t that big of a deal.

Been there, done that, shot the video.

Two full stall, full flap T&G take offs and initial climb with full flaps. Gear up at positive rate,  trim, then dump flaps (raise). The notion that the plane becomes a handful is nonsense. Of note in the video is that the landings are full stall but the tail never stops flying (nose wheel never touches).  So twice here I’ve gone from less than stall speed with the airframe fully dirty and reconfigured to completely clean in the air with no drama. The first time took ten seconds from lift off to clean, the second slighty longer. There was no struggle... Yet here we are discussing a go around on approach. A scenario with more energy, more speed and more time to configure...I read all of these opinions about the dangerous tendency of  the airplane to hang on the prop or the potential of departure from controlled flight. Sorry but it’s hyperbole.  When I finish annual I’m going to go out and see if there is any scenario where raising flaps hands off will actually cause a the plane to get within spitting distance of a stall.

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Shadrach

[carusoam]

You guys have all done a great job describing your situations in your own words...

+1 for Describing too late to execute a GA... there comes a point that it becomes too late to accelerate and get off the ground again... we lost a rented Mooney in NJ this way... started with too much speed, landed long... delayed the GA procedure to much... hit trees...

There comes a time to discuss one part of the GA specifically...

1) Full flaps.

2) Full up trim, or nearly so...

3) Full power...?

The full power seems to be a challenge for some...

All Mooneys have plenty of power to Go Around even when fully loaded...and gear and flaps down...

But, under these conditions...

The nose wants to rise...

Pushing the yoke forwards takes a moderate amount of strength...

This force goes right through your core muscles right to the seat...back and bottom...

 

So... it has come as a surprise to some people... or it overwhelmed their strength...

Anyone know how much force is used?   (Skip are you around?)  Max push/pull forces allowed on a Mooney Yoke?

I do know... the force is directly related to power...   

So be sure to modulate the power... don’t put it all in.... unless you can hold the nose down... add enough to be climbing away safely while getting the trim down... add more power as able...

 

There is a machine at the gym that is specific to pushing and pulling on the yoke...  it is like grabbing a ram by the horns...  it makes great Mooney physical therapy...

Also keep in mind....

• while trimming manually you only get one arm to hold the yoke...
• while pushing the throttle in... same one arm challenge....
• Operating electric trim... left arm on the yoke, thumb on the button... right hand verifying trim motion...
• I saw a guy earlier today at the gym... one arm on the ram pull/press... wanted to ask if he was an MSer... 

 

The best part about this conversation... I think an important part of this challenge is knowing what is going to happen...

Sooo... if you are going to practice the GA procedure... see how much force it takes to keep control of the nose...

Use altitude, or a CFI, or an MSer to improve your level of safety...   

PP thoughts only, not a CFI...

Best regards,

-a-

 

[donkaye]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

 

2) More than anything, the upwards pitch when raising flaps is due to the nose up trim required for approach when the flaps are deployed. Raising flaps puts the airplane in an out of trim situation. This is should not be a killer nor cause a stall as it is easily overcome. The notion that raising flaps would cause the plane to go from level flight to hanging on the prop exaggeration in the extreme. This is the slaying of a beast that does not exist. It’s a noticeable but easily controllable nose up tendency (caused by a number of factors in addition to trim), it is not a runaway pitch control. It just isn’t that big of a deal

 

I notice that you are flying an F Model.  I agree with the above for the non long body Mooneys.  The long body Mooney is a different story.  At least one Ovation was totaled at San Carlos a few year ago on a go around, with a newly transitioned pilot after a long day flying from Texas.  Raising the flaps first on a go around with full power can be a handful.  Raising the gear while trimming down, then reducing the flaps makes for a safer go around.

[Shadrach]

9 hours ago, donkaye said:

I notice that you are flying an F Model.  I agree with the above for the non long body Mooneys.  The long body Mooney is a different story.  At least one Ovation was totaled at San Carlos a few year ago on a go around, with a newly transitioned pilot after a long day flying from Texas.  Raising the flaps first on a go around with full power can be a handful.  Raising the gear while trimming down, then reducing the flaps makes for a safer go around.

Indeed I do fly an F. I have no left seat time in any long body so I can’t speak to the differences. What I can say uniquivically is that the danger of the upward pitch tendency with regard to raising flaps on medium and short bodied M20s has been overstated. As has the notion that they climb horribly with the the gear down and the flaps out. These are tribal tails that are easily dispelled in a few circuits around the pattern. As you can see in my video, gear is always first. It’s also apparent in my video that there is almost no pitch deviation when I go from max to no flaps. As you know, the airplane wants to pitch up when the flaps are raised. As you also know, the upward pitch tendency is easily countered.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Shadrach

[PT20J]

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

[M20S Driver]

9 hours ago, donkaye said:

I notice that you are flying an F Model.  I agree with the above for the non long body Mooneys.  The long body Mooney is a different story.  At least one Ovation was totaled at San Carlos a few year ago on a go around, with a newly transitioned pilot after a long day flying from Texas.  Raising the flaps first on a go around with full power can be a handful.  Raising the gear while trimming down, then reducing the flaps makes for a safer go around.

I met Don in Harris Ranch fly-in and we talked about go around procedure in 310HP Mooney Eagle and its challenges.  I practiced Don's recommended method multiple time in Tracy (KTCY) and it is surely much more stable and manageable.  it still require some work out but by far way better than my original method per POH.