Re: Three take offs = three landings at Newton MS and Madison MS - Video
WingFlaps
> In this video in 3 minutes you will have endured 3 takes offs and 3
> landings.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCYjZ-XkPTk
>
> Short field relative to pilot experiences I guess. Figured to go to
> Newton and work on a 3000 runway with large trees on the arrival end.
> Only thing I can think that triggered the stall horn on short final
> for the first approach was windshear which was easily fixed by
> dropping the nose.
Looks more like a gliding approach really. Try practicing using the
backside of the power curve (use an instructor if you are not
comfortable with this). It is also a good exercise to pick a point on
the runway by which you are stopped (imagine if there were a fence
there). Don't lock the wheels but use maximum braking -there should be
wheel squeal. I know it wears out rubber faster but its all a part of
doing it properly/well. In good conditions on seal you should easily
meet the POH short field numbers.
Cheers
Mark Hansen
> On Nov 22, 2:02 pm, WingFlaps <morefl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't lock the wheels but use maximum braking -there should be
>> wheel squeal. I know it wears out rubber faster but its all a part of
>> doing it properly/well. In good conditions on seal you should easily
>> meet the POH short field numbers.
>
> and run a high risk of wheel barrowing. I probably had a good 2500
> foot of runway left in this video so while heavy braking was applied,
> I really didn't need to.
How does heavy braking run the risk of wheelbarrowing?
Mark Hansen
> think would heighten the risk for wheelbarrowing.
How?
Mark Hansen
> stop, you are too hot and shouldn't even be on the ground. Ground
> speed is too high and that's what I understand to cause
> wheelbarrowing.
Having weight on the nose wheel and not on the main wheels causes
wheelbarrowing. Speed can be a factor here, but it's not the
determining factor.
Locking up the main wheels does nothing to induce wheelbarrowing.
Skidding is the result of over-aggressive brake use, regardless of
the speed of the airplane (as long as it is moving, of course).
They are different topics. I don't understand why you would draw
a conclusion the way you have. I felt it was important to point
that out.
>
> I don't know about you, but I have never had the need to lock brakes
> or squeal tires for any landing.
Maximum braking is the point just before the tires break loose from
the landing surface. Of course, there is a gray area between solid
contact and skidding - in this area you'll get squealing.
Maximum braking is needed in some circumstances, such as true short-
field landings. Some time with a qualified instructor can teach you
the proper techniques.
> If I am that long down the runway
> and having any doubt I can't make it stopped before the end comes up I
> am going around.
Well, that's fine. However, if you're ever forced to land on a short
runway, you need to be able to get the plane stopped. You may not
always have the luxury of a long runway or the ability to go around.
If you practice for this (isn't short-field landings in the PTS for
PP-ASEL?) you'll be better prepared when it comes up.
Mark Hansen
> On Nov 23, 7:20 pm, Mark Hansen <m...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> Having weight on the nose wheel and not on the main wheels causes
>> wheelbarrowing. Speed can be a factor here, but it's not the
>> determining factor.
>
> wheelbarrow. What is the determining factor? Quite obvious you won't
> wheelbarrow until the nose comes down, but you won't be hitting brakes
> while on the mains either.
>
>> They are different topics. I don't understand why you would draw
>> a conclusion the way you have. I felt it was important to point
>> that out.
>
> that's what I understand to cause wheelbarrowing"
No. You said locking the wheels up causes wheelbarrowing.
>
> While I do agree, braking itself, skidding isn't wheel barrowing and
> yes, you are right won't cause wheelbarrowing itself.but if you are
> already landing hot, as soon as your nose wheel touches before you
> even touch your brakes you put yourself in a wheelbarrowing
> situation.
You said locking the wheels. You don't need to be landing hot to
lock the wheels. You just need excessive brake pressure. Are you
not able to see that?
>
>> Maximum braking is the point just before the tires break loose from
>> the landing surface. Of course, there is a gray area between solid
>> contact and skidding - in this area you'll get squealing.
>
> Only time I ever hear anything from the tires is the chirp on
> landing. If I hear anything on rollout, then there has to be a tire
> or wheel locked, would you not agree?
Of course not. Re-read my post.
> Maybe type of runway surface
> (grooved) I have never landed on may cause what you talk about this
> squealing, but I have never heard it on any hard braking I have done.
> (maybe I never hit that threshold, dunno so I won't rule it out)
Perhaps some more training would help you here.
>
>> Maximum braking is needed in some circumstances, such as true short-
>> field landings. Some time with a qualified instructor can teach you
>> the proper techniques.
>
> Absolutely agree but a lot of braking can be reduced if you planted
> early on the runway in the first place. Again, short field is defined
> in my eyes by pilots experience, not necessarily 3000 feet or less..
Since you're reciprocating, I'll assume you've realized your mistake,
and I'll drop this one.
Best Regards,
WingFlaps
> On Nov 22, 2:02 pm, WingFlaps <morefl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > wheel squeal. I know it wears out rubber faster but its all a part of
> > doing it properly/well. In good conditions on seal you should easily
> > meet the POH short field numbers.
>
> and run a high risk of wheel barrowing. I probably had a good 2500
> foot of runway left in this video so while heavy braking was applied,
> I really didn't need to.
No, try it in your car (turn ABS off if you have it). The wheels
really squeal before they lock on seal. A good fast stop has wheel
squeal without locking -just like your wheels squeal when you corner
hard without skidding. (You can't hear this on grass tho so you need
to develop a feel for the brakes). If only your mains are down and the
stall warning is going off hard you can't wheel barrow -the wing can't
lift the plane at a lower AOA.
Cheers
WingFlaps
> speed is too high and that's what I understand to cause
>
> I don't know about you, but I have never had the need to lock brakes
> and having any doubt I can't make it stopped before the end comes up I
> am going around.
I think you've missed the point, you are doing a real short field -
there may be no go around available. The exercise is to get the plane
down and stopped in minimum distance (think about a MUCH shorter strip
what's the minimum in the POH -a 1000' strip? Now cut that by 30% as a
real training target).
Cheers
WingFlaps
> On Nov 22, 2:02 pm, WingFlaps <morefl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > wheel squeal. I know it wears out rubber faster but its all a part of
> > doing it properly/well. In good conditions on seal you should easily
> > meet the POH short field numbers.
>
> and run a high risk of wheel barrowing. I probably had a good 2500
> foot of runway left in this video so while heavy braking was applied,
> I really didn't need to.
As I saw it you used about half the 3000' runway... I know you can do
better :-)
Cheers
Since you passed the turn off at a good clip I'd guess you used nearly
half the runway.
WingFlaps
Mark Hansen
> On Nov 24, 4:31 am, WingFlaps <morefl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think you've missed the point, you are doing a real short field -
>> there may be no go around available.
>
> don't go there. Preflight prevents this error.
>
> If it's an emergency where I have doubt about a safe outcome on
> landing at the airport, then I just may elect an off airport landing.
You would rather land off-airport than execute a short-field landing?
You really should take the contents of this thread to a competent
instructor and ask for some help. Seriously.
Jim Logajan
> Careful flight planning will never put me at a field where I have
> doubt about shoehorning my plane in on a short runway. Very simple as
> that.
That's not only careful planning, in the U.S. a PIC can't legally make a
flight until the PIC has become familiar with both the runway lengths of
the airports of intended use and the aircraft's takeoff and landing
distance requirements. See FAR 91.103, Preflight action.
Jeffrey Bloss
> On 11/24/2009 7:48 AM, A Lieberman wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 4:31 am, WingFlaps <morefl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think you've missed the point, you are doing a real short field -
>>> there may be no go around available.
>>
>> No, like I said earlier, if it's that short where I have doubt, I just
>> don't go there. Preflight prevents this error.
>>
>> If it's an emergency where I have doubt about a safe outcome on
>> landing at the airport, then I just may elect an off airport landing.
>
> You would rather land off-airport than execute a short-field landing?
Doesn't that depend on a shitload of factors including what shape and
obstacles are off-field (or not), pilot experience with SF landings, how
short and a gaziilion other things where an OF landing would make a
hyooooge amount of better sense?
> You really should take the contents of this thread to a competent
> instructor and ask for some help. Seriously.
He would agree with me, why should I?
Jeffrey Bloss
> On Nov 24, 1:18�pm, A Lieberman <atl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 10:32�am, Mark Hansen <m...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You would rather land off-airport than execute a short-field landing?
>>
>>> You really should take the contents of this thread to a competent
>>> instructor and ask for some help. Seriously.
>>
>> NO!!!!
>>
>> I said if I dont' feel the outcome of a shortfield landing is doable
>> then yes, I will excecute an off field landing.
>>
>> Since I am PIC, that's what I stick by. �Don't like it, maybe you need
>> training on what PIC really is..
>
> Let me add, just to be very clear because it appears my message is
> being lost on Mark.
>
> Careful flight planning will never put me at a field where I have
> doubt about shoehorning my plane in on a short runway. Very simple as
> that. Going to M23, I had no doubt about me making a safe approach
> and landing with the added benefit to working on short field landings
> "in actual conditions" vs using KMBO 4444 foot runway.
>
> If an emergency came up and I was over a field that had a field where
> I did not know if the outcome was safe and it was 2500 foot runway
> with 50 foot obstacles at the approach end of the runway (short field
> for me), I will elect an off field landing without hesitation. If I
> am high enough, I will seek an airport that meets my limits for
> safety. This is why I am PIC.
>
> At this time, and thus I even went to M23, my short field limits are
> 3000 and I went to M23 to work on my short field landings. If others
> can shoe horn it in on a shorter runway, good for them but short field
> is relative to a pilots experience not a set runway length number.
And a myriad of other considerations like what is at the end of the
field (ocean, concrete wall, trees, 10,000 feet of well manicured
grass..), these decisions as all flying are entirely situational.
Jeffrey Bloss
It's still careful planning regardless of the law, you duplicious ass.
WingFlaps
> On Nov 24, 1:18 pm, A Lieberman <atl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 10:32 am, Mark Hansen <m...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> > > You would rather land off-airport than execute a short-field landing?
>
> > > You really should take the contents of this thread to a competent
> > > instructor and ask for some help. Seriously.
>
>
> > I said if I dont' feel the outcome of a shortfield landing is doable
> > then yes, I will excecute an off field landing.
>
> > Since I am PIC, that's what I stick by. Don't like it, maybe you need
> > training on what PIC really is..
>
> Let me add, just to be very clear because it appears my message is
> being lost on Mark.
>
> doubt about shoehorning my plane in on a short runway. Very simple as
> and landing with the added benefit to working on short field landings
> "in actual conditions" vs using KMBO 4444 foot runway.
>
> If an emergency came up and I was over a field that had a field where
> I did not know if the outcome was safe and it was 2500 foot runway
> with 50 foot obstacles at the approach end of the runway (short field
> for me), I will elect an off field landing without hesitation. If I
> am high enough, I will seek an airport that meets my limits for
> safety. This is why I am PIC.
>
> At this time, and thus I even went to M23, my short field limits are
> 3000 and I went to M23 to work on my short field landings. If others
> can shoe horn it in on a shorter runway, good for them but short field
> is relative to a pilots experience not a set runway length number.
Good lord, are you seriously suggesting 3000' is a short field for a
Sundowner?
Cheers
Jim Logajan
> Careful flight planning [...]
Jim Logajan wrote:
> That's not only careful planning [...]
Jeffrey Bloss <jeffre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's still careful planning [...]
Reading comprehension problem noted. Sorry, not much I can do to help you
overcome it.
Jeffrey Bloss
Nice snipping of the truth there, Jimmie, you disingenuous asshole.
WingFlaps
> On Nov 26, 2:21 am, WingFlaps <morefl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > At this time, and thus I even went to M23, my short field limits are
> > > 3000 and I went to M23 to work on my short field landings. If others
> > > can shoe horn it in on a shorter runway, good for them but short field
> > > is relative to a pilots experience not a set runway length number.
>
> > Good lord, are you seriously suggesting 3000' is a short field for a
> > Sundowner?
>
>
> No, I said NOTHING about airplane performance. Read my FIRST
> sentence. Read my LAST sentence (more importantly).
>
> When you say crap like the above, you really show your lack of
> understanding of flying in the real world.
What is your point, that you can't achieve the short field performance
figures of your plane? Read my advice and you will get to be a better
pilot.
Cheers
Morgans
are not worth the time. They are here to disrupt, and/or feel like they
belong to something far greater than they ever will be a part of.
I am gooing to do my very best to not respond to them, no matter how tempted
I am. I hope that others come to this conclusion and do the same, before
the group goes dowwn the same path as they did with mxsmaniac.
I am not totally convinced that one or both of the before mentioned trolls
are NOT mxsmaniac. I sure fits the pattern, doesn.t it?
Whatever Allen, but you don't need the approval of these bozos to work on
improving your craft and posting about it here. Keep up the good work and
posts.
Dirty side down!
--
Jim in NC
WingFlaps
> it in 2000 feet or 3000 feet on a 4444 foot runway? What difference
> does it make when 99.9 percent of my airports I fly to have 4000 foot
> or longer runways on routine cross country flights.
>
> The entire runway in front of me is mine until I clear it. Anybody
> behind me will just have to go around if I am not cleared it. I don't
> need to be a hero for anybody behind me in preventing a go around.
> This privilege is backed by FARS / AIM even at airports with LAHSO
> operations where I don't have to accept them.
Personally I like to exit the runway as soon as possible to facilitate
landing operations but if you want to float/roll past exits it's your
choice -but I wouldn't call it good airmanship.
>
> Most importantly, why should I push the safety envelope THAT I
> DETERMINE as PIC, The aircraft manufacturer determines the aircraft
> minimums, NOT THE PIC's minimums.
Well you got that right
> I determine as PIC what is
> safe, not the manufacturer.
and now you got it wrong.
> There is no room for error when you final
> approach speed is faster then most highway speeds.
>
Yawn. Actually give the learning process I'd say there's quite a bit
of room for error in landing a plane normally. For many aircraft touch
speed is lower than highway speeds. Sound like you are not comfortable
with short landings, OK get a lesson or two.
> If you think MSFX simulates short field landings, you are sadly
> mistaken. You apparently haven't been near a tree in a real plane to
> understand exactly what I am talking about. You can't die from coming
> up short in MSFX, you can in a real plane. What part of that do you
> seem not to understand?
Don't be silly, is an ad hominem the only way your ego can stand
critique? This is not a good mode of behavior for a pilot. Two real
pilots here have told you you don't *seem* to know how to do a short
field properly. Go take a lesson as its a skill you need to practice
for safety reasons -you can't bank on being able to reach/find 4000'
strips. By the way, MSFX doen't run on a MacBook does it?
Cheers
WingFlaps
> On Nov 27, 10:45 am, "Morgans" <jsmor...@charterJUNK.net> wrote:
>
> > I am not totally convinced that one or both of the before mentioned trolls
> > are NOT mxsmaniac. I sure fits the pattern, doesn.t it?
>
>
> Your thought crossed my mind this morning when I made my reply. Good
> minds think alike even if I didn't type out my thoughts :-)))
>
> You are right, pattern is not far from Mx no doubt about it and I will
> do my part not to contribute to any more downhill spiral.
The only downhill spiral was your pitiful display of what you claim
was a short field landing. When it is pointed out you develop a hissy
fit. I suggest you and your buddy Jimboy should put you egos on one
side and learn from other pilots who have greater flying skills -or at
least address why the posted comments are wrong. Otherwise your
bluster and braggardly nature does nothing but amuse the peanut
gallery.
Cheers
WingFlaps
Good lord, all that was posted was practical advice on how to improve
his landing skills. Somehow you and he turn that into a question of
"approval from bozos"? Stop acting like a child, it's you that is
disrupting the flow of good advice.
Cheers
Mike Ash
<e7be936d-6118-460f...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
WingFlaps <more...@gmail.com> wrote:
Everything in this paragraph after the first sentence applies directly
to you. This train of insults aimed at someone for simply posting a
video is completely unwarranted and says nothing good about the ones
posting them. I want more people to share their flying experiences, not
less, but jerks such as yourself are helping to ensure that anyone with
interesting experiences to talk about is going to take them elsewhere.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Jim Logajan
> On Nov 27, 10:45�am, "Morgans" <jsmor...@charterJUNK.net> wrote:
>
>> trolls are NOT mxsmaniac. �I sure fits the pattern, doesn.t it?
>
>
> Your thought crossed my mind this morning when I made my reply. Good
> minds think alike even if I didn't type out my thoughts :-)))
>
> You are right, pattern is not far from Mx no doubt about it and I will
> do my part not to contribute to any more downhill spiral.
The person using the handles "Flaps_50!" and "WingFlaps" (he uses same e-
mail address for both and posts from the same IP address using Google
Groups - so he's hardly hiding anything) is posting from New Zealand.
Mxsmanic posted from France.
While the "flaps" person is strongly opinionated, the amount of hubris he
exudes appears to me to be close to typical for Usenet. Of course your
mileage may vary.
Jeffrey Bloss
WingFlaps
> In article
> <e7be936d-6118-460f-8c69-ec7a695b1...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> WingFlaps <morefl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 6:33 am, A Lieberman <atl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 27, 10:45 am, "Morgans" <jsmor...@charterJUNK.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I am not totally convinced that one or both of the before mentioned trolls
> > > > are NOT mxsmaniac. I sure fits the pattern, doesn.t it?
>
> > > Dang Jim,
>
> > > Your thought crossed my mind this morning when I made my reply. Good
> > > minds think alike even if I didn't type out my thoughts :-)))
>
> > > You are right, pattern is not far from Mx no doubt about it and I will
> > > do my part not to contribute to any more downhill spiral.
>
> > The only downhill spiral was your pitiful display of what you claim
> > was a short field landing. When it is pointed out you develop a hissy
> > fit. I suggest you and your buddy Jimboy should put you egos on one
> > side and learn from other pilots who have greater flying skills -or at
> > least address why the posted comments are wrong. Otherwise your
> > bluster and braggardly nature does nothing but amuse the peanut
> > gallery.
>
> Everything in this paragraph after the first sentence applies directly
> to you. This train of insults aimed at someone for simply posting a
> video is completely unwarranted and says nothing good about the ones
> posting them. I want more people to share their flying experiences, not
> less, but jerks such as yourself are helping to ensure that anyone with
> interesting experiences to talk about is going to take them elsewhere.
>
you have a point but it should be directed to those that can't take
any critique of their flying -and that is hubris.
Cheers
Morgans
"Jim Logajan" <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote
> The person using the handles "Flaps_50!" and "WingFlaps" (he uses same e-
> mail address for both and posts from the same IP address using Google
> Groups - so he's hardly hiding anything) is posting from New Zealand.
>
> Mxsmanic posted from France.
>
> While the "flaps" person is strongly opinionated, the amount of hubris he
> exudes appears to me to be close to typical for Usenet. Of course your
> mileage may vary.
Thanks for the heads-up on that one. That they are the same is no surprise.
That it is not Mx only means that there is yet another idiot out there that
only wants to bait people and tear down what we have had here. I still say
he doesn't know a flap from an aileron.
Sad.
--
Jim in NC
Jeffrey Bloss
> The person using the handles "Flaps_50!" and "WingFlaps" (he uses same e-
> mail address for both and posts from the same IP address using Google
> Groups - so he's hardly hiding anything) is posting from New Zealand.
>
> Mxsmanic posted from France.
You know, for a techie IT geek, you're dumber than a bucket full of
shite.