2 Dead in Bonanza crash this morning in Buckeye AZ

[Jcmtl]

2 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Well, the POH for the ‘77 M20C says that it’s stall speed in the landing configuration at gross weight is 57 MPH.  1.3 x 57 = 74.1 MPH.  The POH also says that the M20C’s stall speed in the landing configuration at gross weight and at 60 degrees of bank is 90 MPH.  In level flight, I assume, although the POH doesn’t specify that.  That is obviously the key when banking in the last two turns of the pattern.  Keeping the nose down.  

I know they teach people to slow down in the pattern and do something like 100 downwind, 90 base, and 80 final.  I find that just makes for slow patterns and requires checking speeds during the turns.

 

I much prefer flying the entire pattern at 110-120, banking as steep as i want, keeping the pattern tight, and then cutting power to idle on final, putting all of the flaps down in 1 shot, and slowing it down to 80.  Never had a problem.  Faster pattern, no need to worry about stalling, gusts less of a factor, etc..  

If you have passengers, they may not appreciate it.  this is not for everyone.  

[Fly Boomer]

3 minutes ago, Jcmtl said:

I much prefer flying the entire pattern at 110-120, banking as steep as i want

Maxwell once told me that occasionally he likes to drive into the pattern at 180 knots just to wake up the tower people.

[Jcmtl]

24 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Maxwell once told me that occasionally he likes to drive into the pattern at 180 knots just to wake up the tower people.

lol especially if there are a bunch of c172s doing touch and go's.  

[hubcap]

10 hours ago, kortopates said:

Really don't understand your comment but you may mean something different from my interpretation. But Vref, final approach speed, is too slow of speed to use on downwind and base; just on short final. So even with the runway assured on base, I wouldn't want to be at Vref on the base turn.

I would never suggest flying around that slow in the pattern either, but apparently some folks do since these stall/spin accidents continue to occur. I simply mentioned it in response to the original post and the posters comments as a low time Mooney pilot as it is my personal minimum based on the training provided and used by some professional pilots. It wasn't intended to be controversial.

[DCarlton]

8 hours ago, Shadrach said:

At 85 over the fence in an M20F, you’ll be holding a long time…that’s 23mph above or nearly 1.4 x MGW Vso.

I feel like we're talking past each other some how or my airplane actually flies a little different with the three blade.  I've owned it for around 18 years and have never flown it much different than I am now.  I almost always make the first turn off at the airport without heavy breaking.  I'd have to check the distance but it's around 2400 feet I think.  Bleeding off 23 mph doesn't take that long and it's not much margin when it's gusty.  But yeah I've bounced a few times lately which is why I got involved with this discussion.  

Edited June 21, 2022 by DCarlton

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, DCarlton said:

I feel like we're talking past each other some how or my airplane actually flies a little different with the three blade.  I've owned it for around 18 years and have never flown it much different than I am now.  I almost always make the first turn off at the airport without heavy breaking.  I'd have to check the distance but it's around 2400 feet I think.  Bleeding off 23 mph doesn't take that long and it's not much margin when it's gusty.  But yeah I've bounced a few times lately which is why I got involved with this discussion.  

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. If you’re pleased with the results your getting from the numbers you use, fair enough.  I curious at what speed you lift off? I raise my gear at ~80mph.

[A64Pilot]

23 hours ago, DCarlton said:

Thinking the same thing.  Did that a couple of years ago and really explored and documented onset of the stall warning horn and then the buffet.  20 mph bleeds off pretty fast in my airplane though (at least until ground effect); wondering if the three blade prop makes a difference and "helps" in my case.  

The prop certainly can help slow an airplane, without having measured it I believe my two blades min pitch is quite coarse, it may be that way due to the 1500-2000 RPM avoid range. If a three blade has a finer min pitch then it certainly will slow an airplane much more, if you get any turbine time some will surprise you at how hard they decelerate when the power lever is reduced to idle, and it’s one reason why almost all turbines carry power to touch down.

On a Hartzell turbine prop you have “beta” nuts that adjust min pitch setting, they are on threaded rods under the spinner, it’s child’s play to adjust them. So prop braking is an easy adjustment.

A V- tail bonanza as an example slows down quickly on approach, you can be high and fast and still make it, but they also require a lot of RPM to taxi, my Neighbor’s is at 2,000ish RPM to pull the little hill right at our hangar, where I need only 1400 max. I suspect his prop pitch is much flatter and that’s why they can slow much faster in the pattern, if they were that draggy, then they wouldn’t have good cruise speeds, and they do.

[M20F]

While it is possible to stall an airplane in any attitude it is almost impossible to stall a GA airplane with the nose down.  
 

Make a 89 degree bank to final if need be but let the nose drop.  Line up and forward slip to bleed speed.  Best thing is to go around but if you are going to be aggressive just keep the nose down.

The elevator kills pilots,  not rudders. 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

The prop certainly can help slow an airplane, without having measured it I believe my two blades min pitch is quite coarse, it may be that way due to the 1500-2000 RPM avoid range. If a three blade has a finer min pitch then it certainly will slow an airplane much more, if you get any turbine time some will surprise you at how hard they decelerate when the power lever is reduced to idle, and it’s one reason why almost all turbines carry power to touch down.

On a Hartzell turbine prop you have “beta” nuts that adjust min pitch setting, they are on threaded rods under the spinner, it’s child’s play to adjust them. So prop braking is an easy adjustment.

A V- tail bonanza as an example slows down quickly on approach, you can be high and fast and still make it, but they also require a lot of RPM to taxi, my Neighbor’s is at 2,000ish RPM to pull the little hill right at our hangar, where I need only 1400 max. I suspect his prop pitch is much flatter and that’s why they can slow much faster in the pattern, if they were that draggy, then they wouldn’t have good cruise speeds, and they do.

There may be something to the prop pitch theory but there are other things at play. I only have a handful of A36 time, but my recollection is that the flaps are fairly effective at producing drag compared to those on a Mooney (which is not saying much). As clean as the Bonanza airframe is, it is still larger, thicker and has more drag than an M20 airframe. However, at taxi speed that should not matter much. I did a quick search of V35B W&B info available on line and most of them are ~600lbs heavier than my F model. Most A36s are in excess of 800lbs heavier. That is definitely going to take more thrust to move up hill. I know my plane taxi’s differently at 2600 vs 2000lbs.

[DCarlton]

13 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. If you’re pleased with the results your getting from the numbers you use, fair enough.  I curious at what speed you lift off? I raise my gear at ~80mph.

Appreciate the discussion even though I've gotten us off topic.  As you might expect, I don't fly it off based on a number, I usually lift off when the plane is showing signs of really wanting to fly.  My thought is that it keeps me out of trouble when I'm in hot or high DA situations.  Starting doing that years ago.  I usually look at the airspeed indicator a couple of times; first on the initial roll to make sure it's alive, and then when it's well into flying airspeeds (probably around 80), then lift when it feels ready.  I'm a bit slow to retract both the gear and flaps usually letting things stabilize nicely first; usually the speeds pick up quickly and I have to get them up before exceeding the 100 and 120 mph limits (unless I try to climb steep and keep it below 100).  I'm thinking about getting the gear up quicker but that gets us into the engine out on take off discussion and whether we want the gear up or down.  With the skids on my one piece belly pan gear up might be the way to go... but that's another debate.  

BTW, I'm guessing you're a professional pilot that's flown a lot of different planes by adhering to the numbers.  I tried the M20F POH number for rotating years ago and it seemed way to slow (like most of my more conservative numbers).  Tempted to try that again with my aerospace engineering pilot friend just to see what he thinks.  

I'd like to think my overall approach minimizes risk in many areas other than potentially increasing it slightly due to the potential for RLOC if things get twitchy like you mentioned earlier.  Not too worried about porpoising or prop strikes; I just add a little power to stabilize or go around if/when that happens.  Could be very wrong but sometimes I think the numbers in the POH are intended demonstrate lower limits and sell airplanes (as opposed to providing conservative guidance).  Example...  Whoever reaches advertised cruise speeds?...  

Edited June 21, 2022 by DCarlton

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, M20F said:

The elevator kills pilots,  not rudders. 

Well, that skidding turn thing may not be as much fun as everyone thinks at low altitude and low speed.

[Shadrach]

16 hours ago, DCarlton said:

Appreciate the discussion even though I've gotten us off topic.  As you might expect, I don't fly it off based on a number, I usually lift off when the plane is showing signs of really wanting to fly.  My thought is that it keeps me out of trouble when I'm in hot or high DA situations.  Starting doing that years ago.  I usually look at the airspeed indicator a couple of times; first on the initial roll to make sure it's alive, and then when it's well into flying airspeeds (probably around 80), then lift when it feels ready.  I'm a bit slow to retract both the gear and flaps usually letting things stabilize nicely first; usually the speeds pick up quickly and I have to get them up before exceeding the 100 and 120 mph limits (unless I try to climb steep and keep it below 100).  I'm thinking about getting the gear up quicker but that gets us into the engine out on take off discussion and whether we want the gear up or down.  With the skids on my one piece belly pan gear up might be the way to go... but that's another debate.  

BTW, I'm guessing you're a professional pilot that's flown a lot of different planes by adhering to the numbers.  I tried the M20F POH number for rotating years ago and it seemed way to slow (like most of my more conservative numbers).  Tempted to try that again with my aerospace engineering pilot friend just to see what he thinks.  

I'd like to think my overall approach minimizes risk in many areas other than potentially increasing it slightly due to the potential for RLOC if things get twitchy like you mentioned earlier.  Not too worried about porpoising or prop strikes; I just add a little power to stabilize or go around if/when that happens.  

I'm actually not a pro.  I have about a dozen GA planes in my log book, mostly low performance singles and a few tail draggers.  I've been flying the Mooney since I could see over the glare shield but did not officially get a check out and insured in it until about 20 years ago.  I'm still learning.  The reason I asked about lift off and gear retraction is because it occurred to me that your gear is likely electric.  I say that because most of us that fly manual gear birds try to have the gear up by about 80-85mph as the effort to move the Jbar to the up position increases considerably with airspeed. I don't pay much attention to the ASI on take off other than a quick glance to ensure it's working.  With 5lbs or so of back pressure, I'd guess it lifts off ~70 and will start to wheel borrow if held on much longer.  

Margins are a good thing. It's a matter of perspective. From mine, energy management is where we as a group have the most problems.  The accident in this thread being just one example.  I'm sure you'll work through whatever is causing your recent challenges.  I was not trying to offend. Just trying to help. 

[Shadrach]

17 hours ago, M20F said:

While it is possible to stall an airplane in any attitude it is almost impossible to stall a GA airplane with the nose down.  
 

Make a 89 degree bank to final if need be but let the nose drop.  Line up and forward slip to bleed speed.  Best thing is to go around but if you are going to be aggressive just keep the nose down.

The elevator kills pilots,  not rudders. 

I agree, wing loading is the issue, not the angle. But...there are circumstances where you can skid your way into a problem. Some of the low level stall footage that I've seen looks like the break occurs when the pilot attempts to level the wings in a tight, possibly skidding turn thereby increasing the AOA of wing that's flying on thin margins. In my primary training, I had a bad habit of unconsciously over ruddering into turns. My instructor helped cure me of that by having me skid into stalls at altitude. I don't recall ever recovering before the insipient stage when doing skidding stalls  I think the reason most stall warning devices are on the left wing is because it's typically on the inside of pattern turns.  I am extra aware of the ball when flying non-standard patterns.  It's conceivable to me that one might be able to stall the right wing with little to no warning from the horn, especially if they attempt to roll level from a slow, skidding, right hand turn without correcting the yaw before adding aileron.

[DCarlton]

29 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I'm actually not a pro.  I have about a dozen GA planes in my log book, mostly low performance singles and a few tail draggers.  I've been flying the Mooney since I could see over the glareshield but but did not officially get check out and insured in it until about 20 years ago.  I'm still learning.  The reason I asked about rotation and gear retraction is because it occurred to me that your gear is likely electric.  I say that because most of us that fly manual gear birds try to have the gear up by about 80-85mph as the effort to move the Jbar to the up position increases considerably with airspeed. I don't pay much attention to the ASI on take off other than a quick glance to ensure it's working.  With 5lbs or so of back pressure, I'd guess it lifts off ~70 and will start to wheel borrow if held on much longer.  

Margins are a good thing. It's a matter of perspective, From mine, energy management is where we as a group have the most problems.  This accident in this thread being just one example.  I'm sure you'll work through whatever was causing your recent challenges.  I was not trying to offend. Just trying to help. 

I'm not the best communicator or the best writer.  It's very easy to talk at each other with short sound bites on Facebook.  This forum is much better and facilitates discussion but even then communication is challenging.  Aviation terminology usually has specific definitions but during casual discussion, words can mean slightly different things to different people (short final, fence, threshold, etc).  Anyway, appreciate the discussion.  Interesting about the manual gear; yes mine is electric.  I think I'll consider saving my precious gear motor by getting the gear up a little sooner now.  :>  

Edited June 21, 2022 by DCarlton

[M20F]

5 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

It's conceivable to me that one might be able to stall the right wing with little to no warning from the horn, especially if they attempt to roll level from a slow, skidding, right hand turn without correcting the yaw before adding aileron.

I can’t conceive of that happening if the nose is below the horizon.  
 
I am certainly not advocating stomping on rudders and flying inverter in the pattern.  If folks decide to though (and they do) then as long as they keep the nose down they have nothing to worry about other than CFIT.

The elevator kills, not the rudder. 

[Ragsf15e]

5 hours ago, M20F said:

I can’t conceive of that happening if the nose is below the horizon.  
 
I am certainly not advocating stomping on rudders and flying inverter in the pattern.  If folks decide to though (and they do) then as long as they keep the nose down they have nothing to worry about other than CFIT.

The elevator kills, not the rudder. 

There’s a NAFI video I just watched that was ok, but it did have some good videos.  They were myth busting and talking about slips and skids.  Now i use to teach spins in a high performance aerobatic ac and I still learned something… they stalled a C-172 in a full slip several times.  Lots of buffet, stall warning, etc. plenty of warning.  Then stall… wait, no spin??  I thought for sure it would try to go, but no.  Then they showed a skidding stall (in a citabria).  It had zero warning and rolled over rapidly.    They claim it had nothing to do with tge airframe, just skid vs slip.  I’m gonna go try a slip stall in my Mooney and report back.

https://www.nafinet.org/mentorlive
 

theres a link to it on this page, then you’ll have to give name/email, but the hour long video is free.

[M20F]

54 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

There’s a NAFI video I just watched that was ok, but it did have some good videos.  They were myth busting and talking about slips and skids.  Now i use to teach spins in a high performance aerobatic ac and I still learned something… they stalled a C-172 in a full slip several times.  Lots of buffet, stall warning, etc. plenty of warning.  Then stall… wait, no spin??  I thought for sure it would try to go, but no.  Then they showed a skidding stall (in a citabria).  It had zero warning and rolled over rapidly.    They claim it had nothing to do with tge airframe, just skid vs slip.  I’m gonna go try a slip stall in my Mooney and report back.

https://www.nafinet.org/mentorlive
 

theres a link to it on this page, then you’ll have to give name/email, but the hour long video is free.

You are missing my point.  If you don’t load the wing up you won’t stall.  The point is keep the nose below the horizon and other then actually flying into the ground you really don’t have anything to worry about.  The rudders certainly depending on aircraft type can add to the problem but if you avoid the root cause it is a moot point. 

[Ragsf15e]

29 minutes ago, M20F said:

You are missing my point.  If you don’t load the wing up you won’t stall.  The point is keep the nose below the horizon and other then actually flying into the ground you really don’t have anything to worry about.  The rudders certainly depending on aircraft type can add to the problem but if you avoid the root cause it is a moot point. 

Nah, I agree with your point, you’re missing mine.

If you don’t “load it up”, it won’t stall, but there’s no good gage for “load it up” except an AOA indicator.  Buffet and stall warning work really well too, but my point was that you shouldn’t expect much/any warning prior to being upside down if you stall in a skid.

[M20F]

2 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

Nah, I agree with your point, you’re missing mine.

If you don’t “load it up”, it won’t stall, but there’s no good gage for “load it up” except an AOA indicator.  Buffet and stall warning work really well too, but my point was that you shouldn’t expect much/any warning prior to being upside down if you stall in a skid.

If you let go of the yoke you won’t stall.  Pulling the yoke induces the stall.  It’s a GA plane not a jet, there really isn’t anyway to load it up short of pulling back.  The forward slip is the perfect maneuver to demonstrate this as you do the opposite of everything you are told, the key part of the maneuver is nose down. 
 
Obviously a AOA indicator lets you forward slip with an aggressive upward pull and you can ride that baby like a rock onto the runway.  In the absence of that though just keep the nose beneath the horizon. 

[Ragsf15e]

5 minutes ago, M20F said:

If you let go of the yoke you won’t stall.  Pulling the yoke induces the stall.  It’s a GA plane not a jet, there really isn’t anyway to load it up short of pulling back.  The forward slip is the perfect maneuver to demonstrate this as you do the opposite of everything you are told, the key part of the maneuver is nose down. 
 
Obviously a AOA indicator lets you forward slip with an aggressive upward pull and you can ride that baby like a rock onto the runway.  In the absence of that though just keep the nose beneath the horizon. 

I think the point people are talking about though is the base to final stall/spin scenarios.  And then bringing in uncoordinated flight.

I totally agree that you won’t stall these airplanes without pulling on the yoke, and it’s pretty hard to stall them with the nose down.  I don’t even mind if people bank a bit aggressively to let the nose down while turning as long as they don’t “load it up”.  But if they want to turn, they have to pull at least a little.

But if we’re discussing base to final turn, not pulling on the yoke (to some extent) means not turning.  I think people are gonna be pulling at least somewhat.  In almost all cases, I think they’ll feel a buffet and probably hear the stall warning and be slow before stalling.  That video made me think that you might not get all that warning if you do happen to pull in a skid.  Even with the nose down.

[IFLYIFR]

VRef is a speed based on calculated weight. It can be 1.3Vso or some other multiple or multiple plus gust factor.  I’m not so sure that you’re actually using Vref given that you reference a “slow down to cross the numbers at 70kts ish”. You fly a 231 with a Vso of 57kts at MGW. So at MGW 1.3Vso is 74kts. However, presumably you don’t land at max gross very often so you likely fly at the many useable weights at which a Vref of 1.3Vso would be less than the 70ish kts you reference for crossing the numbers. To each their own. I find that most Mooney pilots carry more speed into the flare than is necessary. I used to be one of them. 
 
If you go to the downloads section you’ll find a spreadsheet that I uploaded back in 2015 that calculates threshold speeds (VRef) by weight. It could easily be adapted to the 231’s 2900lb MGW.

Shadrach, could you post a link to the spreadsheet you uploaded in 2015. Thanks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, IFLYIFR said:

Shadrach, could you post a link to the spreadsheet you uploaded in 2015. Thanks.

Not Shadrach, but this is what I found:

 

[Shadrach]

34 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Not Shadrach, but this is what I found:

 

I wonder who gave it two stars. My feelings are hurt … Oh we’ll one hater out of a few hundred downloads isn’t bad.

spreadsheet is adaptable to other models by changing base speed and weight values.  
 

 

 

 

[DCarlton]

6 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I wonder who gave it two stars. My feelings are hurt … Oh we’ll one hater out of a few hundred downloads isn’t bad.

spreadsheet is adaptable to other models by changing base speed and weight values.  

 

 

Does it allow you to add 20 mph to the results?  ;>  

[Shadrach]

5 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

Does it allow you to add 20 mph to the results?  ;>  

Absolutely! However there is no table to display the associated increase in float and landing distance associated with said speed increase.