Landings

[Marauder]

The only thing I don't like about my F model is the low gear speed. Requires a good amount of forethought to plan the descent. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

[Seth]

This is especially true at altitude, as well. If you're used to flying at or near sea level and then go land in Denver, it's going to seem like you're going very fast...

 

+1 You are indeed correct.  When I flew accross the country in 2010, I landed in Montana for a refuling stop, and I was amazed at the speed on landing and takeoff, and lesser climb.  Hot day on a 4000 msl strip.  Glad for the long runway as DA had to be in the 7-8000 range.

[Oscar Avalle]

I do too, more so as I got older

[scottfromiowa]

I don't know about my ASI; the plane is mid-1970, I bought her in 2007, and had to send out the ASI and Altimeter in 2009. There were no circles before that, either.     I think there were across-the-board structural changes at some point, just like the rudder was lengthened in 65/66 to be the full height of the empennage instead of stopping at the elevator. My [electric] Vfo is 125 MPH; my [electric] Vg is 120 MPH. On instrument approaches, I slow to ~120, Takeoff Flaps, trim level, and crossing FAF or 1½ dots above glideslope throw out the wheels and start down.

If anyone knows if/what structural chanes took place post '66 in short body I would be very interested. I have never read or found specifics.

[N201MKTurbo]

5012TT 4900 in Mooneys

Hope the fog clears early tomorrow need to be in KSOW at 1800 from KHIO

[Hank]

Robert--

 

Enquiring minds want to know!! Did you take your checkride? How did it go???

[yvesg]

I like the circles. It gets hard to see the numbers when you need glasses, and I know where  the 60-80-100 circles are. I can just use those.  Park that needle between the 60 and 80 and land that thing. Then I pull the freaking wingtip through a chainlink fence when pulling it by hand to the gas pump.  My mechanic asked "Who's fault is that?".  OF course it is the SOB who put the fence there in 1980.....

 

Long story short, I like the circles.  I also like Journey and Boston, maybe I am stuck in the 70s myself.

Byron, you have always impressed me with your flying knowledge (flying stuff, maintenance, the large birds etc.) so here is something your above answer makes me believe that you are not aware of: There is no need to know the approach speed numbers for any production aircraft; The approach speed is always the airspeed that is indicated when the needle is exactly horizontal... for any airplane.

Now don't ask me for my source or if this is with flaps or not cause I do not remember the details. I always used that rule in Mooney's or Cessna's and never got any shit from any instructor.

Yves

C-FQKM

[DonMuncy]

Byron, you have always impressed me with your flying knowledge (flying stuff, maintenance, the large birds etc.) so here is something your above answer makes me believe that you are not aware of: There is no need to know the approach speed numbers for any production aircraft; The approach speed is always the airspeed that is indicated when the needle is exactly horizontal... for any airplane.

Now don't ask me for my source or if this is with flaps or not cause I do not remember the details. I always used that rule in Mooney's or Cessna's and never got any shit from any instructor.

Yves

C-FQKM

Everyone is uncommonly quiet about this. I have never heard of this before and wondered if anyone else had. It is an interesting idea and I figured a bunch of you would have had opinions.

[carusoam]

Don,

It's true. Byron impresses people with his knowledge all the time.

The other half of the statement was not clear enough for me to understand. Approach speed is whatever you feal like and that's OK? Because your flight instructor doesn't argue the point any longer?

Maybe I just didn't get it.

Best regards,

-a-

[DonMuncy]

My post was not about Byron's knowledge. Apparently I don't know how to work the "quote" thing.

I was wondering about the horizonal needle equating to approach speed. I haven't looked at my plane or any pictures. What speed are most of our planes at that horizonal spot. And has anyone looked at other planes to compare.

[yvesg]

Carusoam: My quote about the instructor was probaly not best worded... here is another way to describe this: By always setting my approach speed in such a way that the airspeed indicator would have the needle perfectly horizontal, It seems I was always at the right approach speed in normal landing configuration, regardless of the aircraft type I was flying. i do not recall where I learned this however I will do a bit of a research to find out if there is anything on this on he net. This might be from reading one of the tens of aviation books I read in the last few years.

Yves

C-FQKM

[M016576]

In the older jets I used to fly, the AOA indicator would indicate On-Speed at the 90 degree position on the gauge. I've heard of some aircraft that stray from this convention, although cant think of any off the top of my head.

As far as the airspeed indicator showing your landing speed at the 90 degree point: that's most likely coincidence and could be very dangerous. The reason why? Airspeed is a bad way to calculate your approach speed, as it changes based on gross weight. Not as big a deal in a light GA aircraft, as the approach margines are only +/- 5 or so kts. Much bigger deal in a 22 ton fighter where you burn 30% of your gross weight in fuel and expend another 10% in ordnance.

In either instance, the better way to solve the approach speed issue is just to use AOA- only one number to remember- on speed AOA. As soon as I scrounge up some cash, I'll be buying an alpha systems AOA.... (I know, I'm a squeaky wheel with this AOA stuff!)

[yvesg]

In the older jets I used to fly, the AOA indicator would indicate On-Speed at the 90 degree position on the gauge. I've heard of some aircraft that stray from this convention, although cant think of any off the top of my head.

As far as the airspeed indicator showing your landing speed at the 90 degree point: that's most likely coincidence and could be very dangerous. The reason why? Airspeed is a bad way to calculate your approach speed, as it changes based on gross weight. Not as big a deal in a light GA aircraft, as the approach margines are only +/- 5 or so kts. Much bigger deal in a 22 ton fighter where you burn 30% of your gross weight in fuel and expend another 10% in ordnance.

In either instance, the better way to solve the approach speed issue is just to use AOA- only one number to remember- on speed AOA. As soon as I scrounge up some cash, I'll be buying an alpha systems AOA.... (I know, I'm a squeaky wheel with this AOA stuff!)

I believe most flyers here would use airpeed indication for their approach. Not to be a spoiler, check this video where Chuck Yaeger talks about the AOA instrument. Of course he is from another era.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=mcbMm5ArrlQ

Check around 2:00 minutes in the video.

Thanks for the insight about AOA.

Yves

[M016576]

What Yeager meant by that comment was that he feels AOA through buffet on the aircraft. IE in a turning fight, he's not looking at gauges, he's feeling the aircraft's response to his pull. What's a mooney feel like to you when you're pulling for a guns track?

Why do most pilots fly airspeed on the board? Simple: they don't have an AOA probe and they are comfortable with flying a sloppy approach. They'd rather have a 10k aspen that provides no new info (just a fancy glass display) than an instrument that costs $800 and can show you A) max efficiency for your airfoil and your stall margin at any time. Airspeed is a "comfortable" gauge for those used to driving cars... One problem though: your wing stalls at different speeds, depending on weight and in a way, angle of bank. Even your best calculated approach speed is not going to be the exact number (weight and balance is off, math is off, etc etc). You fly exactly 72 mph every landing? Based on what? Your factory weight and balance plus estimates of your baggage and weight? Even if you could hold that exact approach speed you calculated, your number is probably not percise. AOA is the truth data, because your wing stalls at a given AOA every time, regardless of weight, angle of bank, or anything else.

When landing you can fly by airspeed, calculating your gross weight and coming up with an estimate of what you think is your final approach speed, or you can go straight to the truth data on how your airfoil is performing: AOA.

AOA approaches and landings are the going in answer in both the F-15 and F-18. No good reason why they shouldn't be in a mooney or any other aircraft either (other than the fact you don't have a stock gauge).

Then again, what do I know... I've only landed on a moving carrier deck 355 times...

[jetdriven]

If you are unfamiliar with the airplane, bottom of the white arc plus 10-15 knots will get you by with a full-flap landing in a small piston plane. Thats how we did it at the aircraft dealer. Many times I would go out to pick up an airplane and the only way I knew what it looked like is after I saw the N-number on the side. 

[AndyFromCB]

What Yeager meant by that comment was that he feels AOA through buffet on the aircraft. IE in a turning fight, he's not looking at gauges, he's feeling the aircraft's response to his pull. What's a mooney feel like to you when you're pulling for a guns track?

Why do most pilots fly airspeed on the board? Simple: they don't have an AOA probe and they are comfortable with flying a sloppy approach. They'd rather have a 10k aspen that provides no new info (just a fancy glass display) than an instrument that costs $800 and can show you A) max efficiency for your airfoil and your stall margin at any time. Airspeed is a "comfortable" gauge for those used to driving cars... One problem though: your wing stalls at different speeds, depending on weight and in a way, angle of bank. Even your best calculated approach speed is not going to be the exact number (weight and balance is off, math is off, etc etc). You fly exactly 72 mph every landing? Based on what? Your factory weight and balance plus estimates of your baggage and weight? Even if you could hold that exact approach speed you calculated, your number is probably not percise. AOA is the truth data, because your wing stalls at a given AOA every time, regardless of weight, angle of bank, or anything else.

When landing you can fly by airspeed, calculating your gross weight and coming up with an estimate of what you think is your final approach speed, or you can go straight to the truth data on how your airfoil is performing: AOA.

AOA approaches and landings are the going in answer in both the F-15 and F-18. No good reason why they shouldn't be in a mooney or any other aircraft either (other than the fact you don't have a stock gauge).

Then again, what do I know... I've only landed on a moving carrier deck 355 times...

 

You know what you're talking about but you're comparing apples to oranges. My approach speed range is 5knots (75 to 80) and quite frankly 75knots will work just fine no matter what my weight is as long as not over gross. The run of the mill GA AOA sensors do not sense true AOA, they just approximate it, so they about as accurate as your good old fashioned airspeed. 75knots always works for me, but then I fly from one 5000+ foot runway to another 5000+ foot runway, so if I float a bit, I don't care. 

 

As to the 3 o'clock rule, I don't think it works. The the Bravo, that's 70 knots, a bit too slow for my taste.

[Hank]

In my plane, horizontal ASI needle is 80 mph [see photos on p.3]. I typically roll wings level on final at 85, and decelerate to 70-75 mph over the numbers, depending on weight. So 80 is in the right range, but a tad slow. It works, though, I've done it.

[RJBrown]

"Then again, what do I know... I've only landed on a moving carrier deck 355 times..." Arrogance personified!!

Like the man said Apples to oranges. This pilot is trying to transfer something VERY important on a small wing, fast, turbine aircraft that "crashes" into the deck on a plane with 62 pounds per square foot of wing at 25000 pounds to our planes. Our planes are under 14 pounds per square foot of wing. To land we actually get below stall speed. Our problems come from being too fast and floating on landing where yours come from being too slow. Your too slow in relation to your stall speed is too fast in relation to ours. The reason we like glass panels is unrelated to an OAO instrument.

 There are a few "discussions" that come up on this site that annoy the hell out of me. The main thing that annoys me is the self righteous preaching. The LOPers are like the JWs of the aircraft world. When it gets like a religion leave it in its own thread. Every time there is a landing/approach thread some preacher pulls the thread off tangent and into a AOA thread. Just like the LOPers try to pull their religion into any engine management thread. Let other topics be discussed. Once off topic I quit reading what COULD have been interesting information had the zealots stayed home. 

 In this thread we want to discuss landings using STOCK instrumentation. We don't want to be preached AT by some zealot pushing an instument we will NEVER consider. Leave your oldtime religion at home when it is not the topic. Any time you use you "shaming" consider it a red flag and just dont post it. Things like "Airspeed is a "comfortable" gauge for those used to driving cars..." and " are comfortable with flying a sloppy approach" are just rude.

 If you want to talk about AOA gauges start a thread about them.

Leave your arrogant "do it my way cause I'm better than the "little" people BS" on your computer not mine. 

[M016576]

That's valid on the AOA sensors- I haven't flown with a GA AOA sensor yet, and the margins of approach speed are relatively small (as I mentioned earlier) in a Light GA aircraft. Flying true degrees of AOA in a non fly-by-wire jet would be an exercise in frustration: your control inputs would not be linear with the true degrees of AOA scale, that's partly why aircraft use "cockpit units" of AOA as the scale. I will look at the AOA systems sensor again, but it appeared to measure AOA using a fixed probe, vice a mechanical one: that shouldn't make a difference in the result, although the calibration process might.

Any gauge is only as good as its calibrated and error range allows.

I was thinking about this a little more- since certificated GA aircraft must meet FAA minimums for stall speed, ALL GA piston singles are going to be able to be flown on approach safely within a relatively narrow band of airspeeds (within 10-15 kts of each other). 75-80 kts seems about right. (Yes, I know, I know- "my C would float 1 million NM down the runway that fast!" I'm assuming you hopped into a light piston you know nothing about and don't have a POH for.). With good patient flare technique shouldn't be a problem to land any of them. Now a max performance landing (ie as short as possible) requires precision. Airspeed is an estimation. AOA is the number that airspeed is based on- a more precise way.

I think the 3 o'clock or 90 degree rule of thumb would probably land most airspeed indicators of GA aircraft in that realm. But probably wouldn't work for all aircraft, since landing airspeed changes vastly for larger aircraft based on gross weight. (Which is why I brought up AOA... Again...)

Each to their own.

[M016576]

RJ- sorry if I offended you, it wasn't my intention. Re-read my initial post, you'll find I was offering the why's behind the ASI = horizontal = probably coincidence question. Aerodynamics dictates stall speed. Those principles hold true for all aircraft, big or small. The wing only cares about critical angle of attack, the speeds in your POH are derived from this. Wrap up a turn on a hot day at high altitude and you'll find that you'll be at a higher stall speed than if you're straight and level at low altitude on a cold day. But the AOA is the same at stall every time. With that out of the way...

I did write some condescending remarks in my earlier post, I felt that was warranted based on Yves reply to my well intentioned post: I was wrong, clearly I went over the top. I apologize for hurting anyone's feelings.

I'm not saying you should do anything "my way", but that there are other ways out there, that's all. If you understand where these numbers are coming from, and recognize what they mean, it will make you a better, safer pilot, IMHO.

Again sorry for offending anyone.