Piper Cherokee 180 vs Challenger
Jim
a Challenger in 1973?
JimB
Jim Fisher
> Does anybody know exactly what the changes to the Piper Cherokee 180 made
it
> a Challenger in 1973?
Five inches and a more-better wing design.
--
Jim Fisher
Cherokee 180
www.EAAChapter615.org
jm...@crosslink.net
: "Jim" <jbu...@uniontel.net> wrote in message
:> Does anybody know exactly what the changes to the Piper Cherokee 180 made
: it
:> a Challenger in 1973?
: Five inches and a more-better wing design.
Wrong, but good try.
It got 5 inches of fuselage, and a little length to the wings and
stabilator, but the wing design remained the same (hershey bar) until,
I believe, 1975, when it was called the Archer II (Archer I being in
1974... still with the hershey bar wing).
-- Jay
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Jay and Teresa Masino __!__ _/
_/ jm...@crosslink.net ___(_)___ _/
_/http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! ! _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
S.B.D.
> Wrong, but good try.
TripFarmer
Trip
In article <3d653535$0$25...@dingus.crosslink.net>, jm...@crosslink.net says...
Roger Halstead
<jm...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:3d653535$0$25...@dingus.crosslink.net...
> Jim Fisher <spam...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> : "Jim" <jbu...@uniontel.net> wrote in message
> :> Does anybody know exactly what the changes to the Piper Cherokee 180
made
> : it
> :> a Challenger in 1973?
>
> : Five inches and a more-better wing design.
>
> Wrong, but good try.
>
> It got 5 inches of fuselage, and a little length to the wings and
> stabilator, but the wing design remained the same (hershey bar) until,
> I believe, 1975, when it was called the Archer II (Archer I being in
> 1974... still with the hershey bar wing).
Hersheybars forever!
They were docile, tremendous lift
Get you in and out of some really short fields
So, maybe they weren't as fast, or sexy looking...Love 'em!
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
Nathan Young
> : "Jim" <jbu...@uniontel.net> wrote in message
> :> Does anybody know exactly what the changes to the Piper Cherokee 180 made
> it
> :> a Challenger in 1973?
>
> : Five inches and a more-better wing design.
>
> Wrong, but good try.
>
> It got 5 inches of fuselage, and a little length to the wings and
> stabilator, but the wing design remained the same (hershey bar) until,
> I believe, 1975, when it was called the Archer II (Archer I being in
> 1974... still with the hershey bar wing).
This info is accurate. I have a '71 180 and love the short wings.
Makes it easier to maneuver on ramps and in/out of the hangar. The
difference in performance is minimal. The Archer II wing may be a
better airfoil, but it is more complex, so more costly to repair, and
(speculating here) due to the complexity and increased size is
(probably) heavier than the short wings. The earlier 180s typically
have better useful loads than the later 180s, Challengers, and
Archers. IMHO, the lighter weight makes up for inefficiencies in the
wing.
Also, there is $5k premium between a '72 180 and a '73/74
Challenger/Archer I. Another $5-10k premium between an Archer I and
Archer II.
-Nathan
Jay Honeck
> So, maybe they weren't as fast, or sexy looking...Love 'em!
Actually, the hershey bar wings were *faster* -- but not as sexy looking.
Our Pathfinder (Cherokee 235) -- with hershey wing -- is faster than a
Dakota (Cherokee 236) with the tapered wing.
But the tapered wing gives the Dakota a higher ceiling...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Jim Fisher
>
> Wrong, but good try.
>
> It got 5 inches of fuselage, and a little length to the wings and
> stabilator, but the wing design remained the same (hershey bar) until,
Hmm. Perhaps "different" wing design would have been a better choice of
words. But if it wasn't more-better than the "old" Hershey bar, why'd they
change it?
--
Jim Fisher
jm...@crosslink.net
: <jm...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
:> It got 5 inches of fuselage, and a little length to the wings and
:> stabilator, but the wing design remained the same (hershey bar) until,
: Hmm. Perhaps "different" wing design would have been a better choice of
: words. But if it wasn't more-better than the "old" Hershey bar, why'd they
: change it?
The eventual change to the tapered wing might be considered "better",
depending on who you ask (I like the hershey bar), but the point was that
the '73 Challenger still had the hershey bar, just a little longer.
I suppose the added length made it "more-better", but it really wasn't
all that significant.
Nick Funk
having flown Piper's tapered wings also, I like their glide ration better in
case of an emergency. Seems like by cherokee glides like a rock compared to the
tapered wings.
Nick
Thomas Lembessis
> Does anybody know exactly what the changes to the Piper Cherokee 180 made it
> a Challenger in 1973?
> JimB
FLYING magazine ran an article on the Challenger in the Feb 1973 issue.
Among the changes:
5 inch stretch in fuselage ahead of the wing spar
Wider front door opening
New wing tips
Larger stabilator
Added wing span (but still the rectangular style)
Air conditioning as an option.
HTH
Thomas Lembessis
ATP, F/E (B727)
Roger Halstead
"Nick Funk" <nf...@rtconline.com> wrote in message
news:3D66A210...@rtconline.com...
> Having a 1968 PA28-180 'D' with the good ole hersey bar wing is great. But
> having flown Piper's tapered wings also, I like their glide ration better
in
> case of an emergency. Seems like by cherokee glides like a rock compared
to the
> tapered wings.
"That", is what makes the 180 "more better". It had a very steep angle of
descent and climed quite steeply as well. It just depends on what you get
used to. If you feel the need to be able to glide to the runway in the
pattern, just fly a tighter pattern. You could pass the numbers outbound,
roll 'er up on edge into a steep slipping turn (keep the nose down) and
still land on the end of the runway with a very short roll out. Surprisingly
many Cherokee pilots do a long, gradual final and use three times the runway
as with a steep approach.
I no longer remember any of the speeds, but it also made a good traveling
plane and handled the bumps quite well.
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
Nick Funk
the proper technique.
Get the plane below 70 and it sinks like a rock!
But flying over a lot of swamps and water here in southern Louisiana, I wished
this had the 30:1 glide ratio of a glider.
Hey how about a variable aspect ration wing (telesopic). Press the panic button
and wing would telescope out another 10 feet on either sides. Any venture
capitalist out there?
Nick
PA28-180 'D;
Roger Halstead
"Jim Fisher" <spam...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:BQq99.20674$%v4.8...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Sex appeal!
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
> --
> Jim Fisher
>
>
>
Richard Kaplan
news:<Dr999.20118$Aw4.8...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> Does anybody know exactly what the changes to the Piper Cherokee 180 made it
> a Challenger in 1973?
This is more a related question than an answer... I flying club I
belonged to once had a Challenger. One of its most notable features
was a visual stall warning light rather than a stall horn.. I never
could understand why the plane was designed like this. I do not
beleive it was a retrofit for a prior deaf pilot. It seems to me that
an audible stall warning is far more likely to be noticed at a
critical time. Besides, the stall warning light was hard to see in
bright daylight.
Is this common to Challangers or was this an unusual plane? Anyone
else out there with a stall warning light? If so, do you like it?
--
Richard Kaplan, CFII
rka...@umrpc.com
www.umrpc.com/p210
Dave Butler
> It seems to me that
> an audible stall warning is far more likely to be noticed at a
> critical time. Besides, the stall warning light was hard to see in
> bright daylight.
>
> Is this common to Challangers or was this an unusual plane? Anyone
> else out there with a stall warning light? If so, do you like it?
The '75 Archer I used to own was like that. I agree an
audible warning is more likely to be noticed. You would have
to have your eyes on the panel to notice this warning light.
If they insist on using an electrical system for stall
warning, I guess I'd rather have a light bulb to maintain
than a buzzer. Mostly I see it as a certification
requirement and just one more system that has to be
maintained. I've never found the stall warning - light or
buzzer - really contributed anything material to my safety.
--
Dane Spearing
believe that this is relatively common in the Cherokee line.
I've never had any problems seeing it, even with sunlight shining directly
on the light. It sits on the far left side of the panel, yet is still
quite visible and noticeable when it lights up.
-- Dane
<><><><><><><><><><><>
Dane Spearing
PA-28-180D, N6328J
KLAM, Los Alamos, NM
jm...@crosslink.net
: belonged to once had a Challenger. One of its most notable features
: was a visual stall warning light rather than a stall horn.. I never
: could understand why the plane was designed like this. I do not
: Is this common to Challangers or was this an unusual plane? Anyone
: else out there with a stall warning light? If so, do you like it?
I believe only the much newer Cherokees had a horn. Most have the light.
Personally, I hated the damn horn, when I flew Cessnas. I found it quite
disconcerting, especially when doing a lot of stalls during a BFR or
something. I couldn't stand that damn buzzer going off constantly. The
red light catches your attention, even if your not looking at it, so I
don't see what the big deal is. The light probably doesn't scare your
passengers as much, during a full stall landing, either.
Jack Cunniff
>Richard Kaplan wrote:
>> It seems to me that
>> an audible stall warning is far more likely to be noticed at a
>> critical time. Besides, the stall warning light was hard to see in
>> bright daylight.
>>
>> Is this common to Challangers or was this an unusual plane? Anyone
>> else out there with a stall warning light? If so, do you like it?
>The '75 Archer I used to own was like that. I agree an
>audible warning is more likely to be noticed. You would have
>to have your eyes on the panel to notice this warning light.
I don't have enough experience with "newer" Pipers, but the '68 140 and
'72 Arrow I've been fortunate enough to own are equipped only with the
stall warning light.
I've never had trouble noticing the light when it comes on.
-Jack
--
jm...@NOSPAMworld.std.com
Ron Natalie
"Jack Cunniff" <jm...@world.std.com> wrote in message news:H1nwx7...@world.std.com...
> I don't have enough experience with "newer" Pipers, but the '68 140 and
> '72 Arrow I've been fortunate enough to own are equipped only with the
> stall warning light.
>
> I've never had trouble noticing the light when it comes on.
My Navion doesn't even have a light. A stall indicator is not strictly required
for certification.
Steve Robertson
see this as a big issue in Cherokees ... If you have flown one, you know that it
doesn't really stall. Seriously. Best you will get is a mush. Probably would be
okay in a Cessna, too, because the stall speed is so slow it probably doesn't
matter. I used to fly a mooney and I have a Musketeer now ... both have, and need,
a loud stall warning. Easy to get too slow and down you go.
Best regards,
Steve Robertson
N4732J 1967 Beech A23-24
Ron Natalie
"Steve Robertson" <ke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3D6FCE1A...@yahoo.com...
> Piper did this on a number of the Cherokee-type models. However, I don't really
> see this as a big issue in Cherokees ... If you have flown one, you know that it
> doesn't really stall. Seriously. Best you will get is a mush. Probably would be
> okay in a Cessna, too, because the stall speed is so slow it probably doesn't
> matter. I used to fly a mooney and I have a Musketeer now ... both have, and need,
> a loud stall warning. Easy to get too slow and down you go.
>
anymore. What it doesn't have is the nice nose down break that the Cessnoids
do.
The speed that the stall occurs isn't as much of an issue as the aerodynamic
feedback (buffeting). The light/horn thing is what the FAA refers to as the
ARTIFICIAL stall warning.
Oddly enough, quickly rechecking the rules, they provide acrobatic planes to have
an snooze alarm on their stall warner.
[Reminds me of the smoke detector that I installed in the kitchet with the snooze alarm
on it so you could silence the thing when cooking].
Ron Rapp
wrote:
My 1963 Cherokee 180 has the stall warn light. I don't care one way
or the other. Even if the light didn't work, I wouldn't really care.
Aside from the legality of needing it to comply with the type
certificate, I don't really need a light to know when the Cherokee is
in a stall. :)
--Ron
Jay Honeck
> certificate, I don't really need a light to know when the Cherokee is
> in a stall. :)
Agreed.
I would really question any pilot's ability if they needed a light to tell
them when their plane was stalling. The whole expensive contraption (just
price one sometime -- I had to replace the sensor switch on my old Warrior!)
is just a silly waste of money and panel space, IMHO.
Richard Kaplan
news:<PqAc9.96655$_91.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
> I would really question any pilot's ability if they needed a light to tell
> them when their plane was stalling. The whole expensive contraption (just
So we should just eliminate stall warning systems?
I think all pilots are human and get distracted sometimes.
Takeoff/landing at high density altitude is certainly one time when
visual illusions may fool a pilot into getting closer to stall than
one realizes.
Flying an airplane at max permissible CG limits (or any legal load
which is not the pilot's usual routine) is another time when a pilot
may misjudge how close he is getting to a stall.
If one flies with an autopilot it certainly is possible to not be as
aware of the stall buffetting; besides, the stall warning horn/light
will warn of an impending stall before the buffet.
When flying close to an aircraft's service ceiling, the margin above
stall speed decreases and it is helpful to have a warning system.
If someone experiences partial engine failure in climb (or even
simpler -- if the throttle friction lock loosens and power is reduced
for that reason) the first warning to a distracted pilot might be
activation of the stall warning system.
There are certainly any number of other scenarios depending on the
airplane involved where the stall warning horn could go off and alert
the pilot to an evolving situation before the margin of error gets
down to an actual stall buffet... however, I think many of these
situations involve distraction and in those cases, a stall warning
horn is more likely to be noticed than a stall warning light.
We are all human, and yes, we all make mistakes sometimes... has
anyone else here experienced a situation where the stall warning went
off in flight and was helpful? I know this has happened to me.
Michael
> anyone else here experienced a situation where the stall warning went
> off in flight and was helpful? I know this has happened to me.
Well, many years ago I was flying a Tomahawk with a young lady who had
never been in a small airplane before. We hit some light turbulence,
the stall warning went off, and she shrieked and tried to climb into
my lap. So yes, it was helpful that one time. No other times,
though.
On a more serious note, I think a stall horn is about as useful as a
gear horn. I suppose it can conceivably alert a pilot to something he
missed, but odds are that if he got into the situation in the first
place, he probably won't notice because he's already got to be way
behind to have missed the aerodynamic cues.
Michael
Richard Kaplan
> On a more serious note, I think a stall horn is about as useful as a
> gear horn. I suppose it can conceivably alert a pilot to something he
> missed, but odds are that if he got into the situation in the first
> place, he probably won't notice because he's already got to be way
> behind to have missed the aerodynamic cues.
I agree that one is probably behind to have missed the aerodynamic
cues.. but this can happen to any of us. Especially in an emergency
situation or with a major weather surprise or with some other cockpit
distraction, even an excellent pilot can "miss the aerodynamic cues"
and be woken up by a warning indicator. Even transport category
airplanes have stick shakers and gear warning horns.
I guess it really comes down to it might do some good and it will not
do harm... so why not?
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>crwd...@hotmail.com (Michael) wrote in message news:<449a3d6e.02090...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> On a more serious note, I think a stall horn is about as useful as a
>> gear horn. I suppose it can conceivably alert a pilot to something he
>> missed, but odds are that if he got into the situation in the first
>> place, he probably won't notice because he's already got to be way
>> behind to have missed the aerodynamic cues.
>
>I agree that one is probably behind to have missed the aerodynamic
>cues.. but this can happen to any of us. Especially in an emergency
>situation or with a major weather surprise or with some other cockpit
>distraction, even an excellent pilot can "miss the aerodynamic cues"
>and be woken up by a warning indicator. Even transport category
>airplanes have stick shakers and gear warning horns.
I think transport category aircraft are a different story. If a
transport category airplane gets into a stall, it can be pretty
serious. If I get my Cherokee into a stall, it's generally no big
thing.
--Ron
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@NOSPAMmchsi.com> wrote in message
>news:<PqAc9.96655$_91.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
>
>> I would really question any pilot's ability if they needed a light to tell
>> them when their plane was stalling. The whole expensive contraption (just
>
>So we should just eliminate stall warning systems?
Well, we could I suppose. I don't think it would make my aircraft
unsafe. I'm not suggesting the stall warning horn has no value.
For a student pilot, it can be worthwhile. If you start picking up
ice, I guess it could be informative, although the tailplane is likely
to stall before the main wing.
>I think all pilots are human and get distracted sometimes.
That's true. But I still am dubious about it's value. I've flown
planes where the stall warning horn didn't work, and I never paid much
attention to the missing item. I believe the Decathlons I fly acro in
don't have a functional stall warning horn, and I don't miss it at
all.
>Takeoff/landing at high density altitude is certainly one time when
>visual illusions may fool a pilot into getting closer to stall than
>one realizes.
>
>Flying an airplane at max permissible CG limits (or any legal load
>which is not the pilot's usual routine) is another time when a pilot
>may misjudge how close he is getting to a stall.
Good points.
>If one flies with an autopilot it certainly is possible to not be as
>aware of the stall buffetting; besides, the stall warning horn/light
>will warn of an impending stall before the buffet.
Don't count on it. The stall warning horn will often go off in
turbulence when you're nowhere near a stall sometimes. Kind of like
crying wolf, one can tend to ignore it after awhile.
>When flying close to an aircraft's service ceiling, the margin above
>stall speed decreases and it is helpful to have a warning system.
Is it that critical though? If I'm flying at FL180 and my aircraft
stalls, I'll lose about 150 feet in altitude, that's about it. For
your typical GA airplane, I don't see it being nearly as necessary as
in larger airplanes which cannot handle stalls as benignly.
>If someone experiences partial engine failure in climb (or even
>simpler -- if the throttle friction lock loosens and power is reduced
>for that reason) the first warning to a distracted pilot might be
>activation of the stall warning system.
>
>There are certainly any number of other scenarios depending on the
>airplane involved where the stall warning horn could go off and alert
>the pilot to an evolving situation before the margin of error gets
>down to an actual stall buffet... however, I think many of these
>situations involve distraction and in those cases, a stall warning
>horn is more likely to be noticed than a stall warning light.
>
>We are all human, and yes, we all make mistakes sometimes... has
>anyone else here experienced a situation where the stall warning went
>off in flight and was helpful? I know this has happened to me.
I can't remember the last time a stall warning was helpful. But
perhaps I'm just tuning it out or something.
Have airplanes always had one? Do Cubs, for example, have stall
warning systems?
--Ron
Michael
> cues.. but this can happen to any of us. Especially in an emergency
> situation or with a major weather surprise or with some other cockpit
> distraction, even an excellent pilot can "miss the aerodynamic cues"
> and be woken up by a warning indicator. Even transport category
> airplanes have stick shakers and gear warning horns.
>
> I guess it really comes down to it might do some good and it will not
> do harm... so why not?
I agree it might (but probably won't) do some good. I disagree that
it does no harm.
First off, it adds weight, cost, and complexity. That's never a good
thing. Since resources are finite, time and money spent maintaining
that system means something else can slip.
Second, a stall horn conditions a pilot to expect a horn right before
landing (assuming he's doing a good job). No big deal in fixed gear
light airplanes, but on something relatively heavy and complex that's
generally brought in with power and only pulled to idle in the flare,
the stall horn can condition the pilot to ignore the gear horn.
Of course these are minor drawbacks - but I think the benefit of a
stall horn is pretty minor too.
Michael
Richard Kaplan
> I think transport category aircraft are a different story. If a
> transport category airplane gets into a stall, it can be pretty
> serious. If I get my Cherokee into a stall, it's generally no big
> thing.
That depends how close to the ground you are.
Richard Kaplan
> light airplanes, but on something relatively heavy and complex that's
> generally brought in with power and only pulled to idle in the flare,
> the stall horn can condition the pilot to ignore the gear horn.
We could (and perhaps should) have a whole thread about that... this
is probably one of the items I stress more than any other when doing
P210 instruction. The above power-on landing technique may be fine
for a twin, but I would discourage this in any single, no matter how
heavy or complex. It is true that learning to finesse the plane in
ground effect can be a bit more challenging on such a plane, but
basically it just takes close attention to pitch attitude on short
final. I teach students to land power-out (power at idle) once
landing is assured for two basic reasons:
(1) The landing roll is substantially shorter if the power is brought
to idle earlier
(2) Practicing regular idle-power landings prepares for the day one
may need to do a true engine-out landing... and there is always the
option of a go-around while practicing this. If one does not do
idle-power landings on a regular basis, then it may be far harder to
judge energy management during the crucial final seconds before an
emergency forced landing when there can be no go-around.
Richard Kaplan
> I can't remember the last time a stall warning was helpful. But
> perhaps I'm just tuning it out or something.
I cannot remember any time my gear warning horn was useful... but I am
glad I have it... it only takes one time for it to save me to make it
worth 100 times its cost.
The same goes for a stall warning system... the one time you climb out
at gross on a really hot day and your throttle friction lock slips so
you have less power and get into a departure stall at 300 feet AGL
you will be very glad the stall warning horn goes off before you get a
stall buffet at low altitude. Even if it happens only once, you will
kiss the stall warning system when you return to the ground.
> Have airplanes always had one? Do Cubs, for example, have stall
> warning systems?
Lots of planes have no pitot heat or alternate static source, but
those certainly are useful.
Michael
> > generally brought in with power and only pulled to idle in the flare,
> > the stall horn can condition the pilot to ignore the gear horn.
>
> We could (and perhaps should) have a whole thread about that...
I'm game.
> this
> is probably one of the items I stress more than any other when doing
> P210 instruction. The above power-on landing technique may be fine
> for a twin,
They are. Remember that even a severely underpowered twin can
generally maintain a 3 degree glideslope with gear and flaps out at
anything even vaguely close to blue line on one engine.
> but I would discourage this in any single, no matter how
> heavy or complex. It is true that learning to finesse the plane in
> ground effect can be a bit more challenging on such a plane, but
> basically it just takes close attention to pitch attitude on short
> final.
I agree. Anything can be landed power off, including a twin. The
reason not to do that on a twin is maintaining a consistent landing
approach for those times you need to land in 200 and 1/2 conditions,
not because it can't be landed at idle. Also, it allows substantially
slower speeds on short final, which makes it easier to mix with other
traffic.
> I teach students to land power-out (power at idle) once
> landing is assured for two basic reasons:
>
> (1) The landing roll is substantially shorter if the power is brought
> to idle earlier
That depends on the airspeed. In many airplanes, final approach can
be flown much more slowly if power is used. This is because at the
lower airspeed, insufficient flare authority will be available to
arrest the descent. Since in any case touchdown is going to be at the
same speed, it is of course possible to simply adjust the power off
final approach speed so that there will be JUST ENOUGH flare authority
to arrest the descent rate. However, a slight misjudgment here can be
very bad. Just a little too much speed will mean a long float, and
not quite enough will mean pounding it in.
It is for this reason that the short field landing is a power-on
landing. Of course even in a short field landing, power is brought to
idle immediately upon crossing the obstacle - but in this case there
is not enough time for a massive sink rate to develop.
Of course lately I've noticed people using power on final without
reducing the airspeed. I find this trend disturbing, both because it
eats runway like there's no tomorrow and because in this case power is
being used not to make a short landing but to compensate for lack of
skill. I've been told that power is necessary on final for a number
of airplanes, including the 182, Arrow, and Bonanza. I've never found
that to be the case, even while making the first landing.
> (2) Practicing regular idle-power landings prepares for the day one
> may need to do a true engine-out landing... and there is always the
> option of a go-around while practicing this. If one does not do
> idle-power landings on a regular basis, then it may be far harder to
> judge energy management during the crucial final seconds before an
> emergency forced landing when there can be no go-around.
I agree completely with this, and my normal landing in a single engine
airplane is power-off. However, this is not always possible, due to
the available runway or traffic conditions. For some airplanes, the
difference between a power-on and power-off approach can be the
difference between flying the pattern at 80 mph and 120, with
reduction to 90 on short final.
Michael
Michael
> > warning systems?
>
> Lots of planes have no pitot heat or alternate static source, but
> those certainly are useful.
On a VFR airplane? Surely you jest.
But to answer the original question - no, not all airplanes had a
stall warning. It was not required. On many of the early Pipers it
was an option. I've never seen a J-3 that had it. The stall warning
on a J-3 is the door. When it starts moving, you are close to stall.
Michael
Richard Kaplan
> That depends on the airspeed. In many airplanes, final approach can
> be flown much more slowly if power is used. This is because at the
In this case, one is flying an approach behind the power curve.
Engine failure in such a situation can definitely be lethal -- flying
low and slow with insufficient energy to arrest the sink rate. If a
runway is so short that this technique is necessary, perhaps an
alternate runway would be a better idea. Or if someone really wants
to get into such a field (such as flying into a very remote, very
short strip) then such an approach should be done with an
understanding of the risk that an engine failure at this time would be
far harder to deal with than at a higher airspeed.
Richard Kaplan
> > Lots of planes have no pitot heat or alternate static source, but
> > those certainly are useful.
> On a VFR airplane? Surely you jest.
No, IFR trainers.
Richard Kaplan
> On a VFR airplane? Surely you jest.
On a basic IFR trainer.
Michael
> > be flown much more slowly if power is used. This is because at the
>
> In this case, one is flying an approach behind the power curve.
Yes, of course.
> Engine failure in such a situation can definitely be lethal -- flying
> low and slow with insufficient energy to arrest the sink rate.
Well, hold on a second. Unless you are flying the approach so slowly
that you are planning to flare with a burst of power (a technique I do
not teach because I believe there is too little margin for error), you
do have the energy available to arrest the descent rate. It's just
not much of a descent rate, because you are using power.
The risk here is catastrophic total power loss. I would argue that if
the engine was showing no signs of ill health when the maneuver was
started two minutes ago (clearly no one would be dumb enough to start
this maneuver when the engine is already showing signs of trouble)
then it is highly unlikely that it will be unable to supply enough
power to hold the glideslope to a landing, other than due to fuel
exhaustion. Even total oil loss gives you about 2 minutes until the
engine seizes.
Even if we do postulate a total power loss, certainly it will result
in a landing short of the planned touchdown point, and, unless the
pilot acts to immediately lower the nose and regain airspeed, it may
occur with a fairly high descent rate. I would say that in anything
above the trainer level, damage to the airplane is assured. However,
if it happens too low to lower the nose (say below 30 ft) the gain in
descent rate will be small and damage to the gear will likely be all.
If it happens higher, the pilot can lower the nose to increase
airspeed and make a power-off touchdown short of the runway - which
may in itself be lethal, but probably won't be.
> If a
> runway is so short that this technique is necessary, perhaps an
> alternate runway would be a better idea. Or if someone really wants
> to get into such a field (such as flying into a very remote, very
> short strip) then such an approach should be done with an
> understanding of the risk that an engine failure at this time would be
> far harder to deal with than at a higher airspeed.
Well, of course. I teach the short field landing, but where the
terrain short of the runway is unsurvivable, I teach it to a
designated point downfield so that in the event of engine failure we
can land on the runway, and I make sure the student understands why we
are doing this and what the risks are.
Michael
Richard Kaplan
> Well, of course. I teach the short field landing, but where the
> terrain short of the runway is unsurvivable, I teach it to a
I think what you say in your post are good points. Most importantly,
as you mention at the end of your post, the terrain on approach to the
runway may have a lot to do with the type of approach one is willing
to fly.
When I learned to fly in Southeastern Minnesota, the terrain was so
flat and most airports had such a margin of error that a short-field
landing on the slow end of the plane's capabilities seemed quite
reasonable. Right now I am based at a paved field of reasonable
length (3500 feet) with steep terrain and trees right off the end of
the prevailing wind runway. If I land power-on at a normal approach
speed, then I float further down the runway than I like. If I land
power-on at a very low approach speed, then there are few options in
the event of power loss on final. If I fly final power-on at a
normal approach speed and do a good job timing the short-final power
reduction to idle, then I can bleed off the remaining speed on very
short final and enter ground effect just over the runway numbers.
Roger Halstead
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@NOSPAMmchsi.com> wrote in message
news:PqAc9.96655$_91.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > certificate, I don't really need a light to know when the Cherokee is
> > in a stall. :)
>
> Agreed.
>
> I would really question any pilot's ability if they needed a light to tell
> them when their plane was stalling.
The point is not to tell them that they are stalling, but rather IF they
don't change whatever they are doing they are GOING to stall.
All airplanes stall differently. The give different warnings as they
approach the stall, although some give little, if any warning. They behave
differently in the stall and their recoveries vary somewhat.
> The whole expensive contraption (just
> price one sometime -- I had to replace the sensor switch on my old
Warrior!)
> is just a silly waste of money and panel space, IMHO.
Maybe, but think of taking of on a short and soft field.
Short field and soft field takeoffs are the antithisis of each other.
Short field is controls neutral up to short filed rotation speed, then
rotate and climb at Vx until above the obstical and then Vy.
Soft field, is yoke back to get the weight off the nose gear, but not
allowing the mains to "pop off" the runway (don't over rotate and dig in the
tail).. Rotate into ground effect, ease the nose back down (but not too
much!) and acellerate to Vy.
With the short field takeoff from a sod strip, it is easy to let your
attention slip to those great big trees coming up ahead. If you have a good
feel, depending on the airplane, the controls will mush just before stall
and well after the stall warning goes off. It's happened to enough pilots
that we now have stall warning lights and horns. The Deb has a horn and a
light. The light is one inch in diameter and stands about one inch high.
Kinda hard to ignore.
BTW, it's also a good gust indicator. When the horn keeps beeping at Vy,
you know it's gonna be a rough ride and maybe a challenging landing.
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
Michael
> length (3500 feet) with steep terrain and trees right off the end of
> the prevailing wind runway. If I land power-on at a normal approach
> speed, then I float further down the runway than I like. If I land
> power-on at a very low approach speed, then there are few options in
> the event of power loss on final. If I fly final power-on at a
> normal approach speed and do a good job timing the short-final power
> reduction to idle, then I can bleed off the remaining speed on very
> short final and enter ground effect just over the runway numbers.
But what this means is that if you should catastrophically lose power
turning base to final, you will land short of the numbers - in the
steep terrain and trees. If you're that concerned with power loss in
the pattern, why not fly the entire pattern power off? Or do you
believe that a power loss at that altitude will allow you to glide to
the runway by retracting flaps, gear, etc?
Michael
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please (Ron Rapp) wrote in message news:<3d7729fe....@news.west.cox.net>...
>
>> I think transport category aircraft are a different story. If a
>> transport category airplane gets into a stall, it can be pretty
>> serious. If I get my Cherokee into a stall, it's generally no big
>> thing.
>
>That depends how close to the ground you are.
That's why I said "generally" no big thing.
As Michael pointed out, a stall warning system is one more thing to
add weight, complexity, and maintenance to an aircraft. A little
thing, to be sure, but it all adds up.
Frankly, I think have a Ryan 9900 series TCAD would be a great thing.
Why not mandate it for all aircraft? Because it's expensive. Yes, it
would save some lives, but it's very expensive. So there are
cost/benefit analyses that we make, and money does come into play even
where safety is concerned. The only people who don't do that kind of
analysis are those rich enough that money is truly no object. Until
such time as aviation becomes elite enough that normal people cannot
fly, I suppose economics will play a part.
--Ron
Roger Halstead
"Richard Kaplan" <rka...@umrpc.com> wrote in message
news:f8550f51.02090...@posting.google.com...
Depends on wht you are flying.
A Bonanza will land far shorter *with* power than without.
A power off landing will take almsot twice the distance over a 50 foot
obstical to a stop than will a power on landing.
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
Richard Kaplan
> But what this means is that if you should catastrophically lose power
> turning base to final, you will land short of the numbers - in the
> steep terrain and trees. If you're that concerned with power loss in
> the pattern, why not fly the entire pattern power off? Or do you
That is a good question and I suppose one could say why not fly all
patterns power off.
The answer at least for me is that if I were to fly the pattern power
off then it would have to be a tighter pattern which would not put me
into the flow of other aircraft.
And yes, there are at least other options for landing sites and
airplane configuration at higher altitude portions of the pattern.
Richard Kaplan
news:<%Kzf9.1734$Xj4.1...@newshog.newsread.com>...
> Depends on wht you are flying.
> A Bonanza will land far shorter *with* power than without.
> A power off landing will take almsot twice the distance over a 50 foot
> obstical to a stop than will a power on landing.
That means your power-on approach is made behind the power curve and
that if you have an engine failure in that configuration at low
altitude, your options are very limited. Like everything else in
aviation, there are tradeoffs to be made.
Richard Kaplan
> Why not mandate it for all aircraft? Because it's expensive. Yes, it
> would save some lives, but it's very expensive. So there are
Agreed.
But we are talking about a stall warning system, not a glass cockpit
EFIS.
How expensive is this as a percentage of the airplane value?
How much maintenance does a stall warning system need? Who here on
this group has had an expensive repair on a stall warning system? Who
has had a repair to the stall warning system at all?
Paul Sengupta
To be fair, they did send me back a brand new one.
The RAF didn't use them, they pulled the wire off the back of
the breaker. In civialian life, the CAA mandates them. So,
connect wire up. Flick switch. Nothing. Bah. Send it off.
Borrow another one off a ground-bound aircraft to enable
plane to pass its C of A while it takes 5 months to get mine
back (or rather the new one).
Oh, and the borrowed one packed up when it was on my
plane! Don't think the owner knows though...
Paul
Richard Kaplan wrote in message ...
Michael
> patterns power off.
And in fact I teach that as the default landing in a single engine
airplane.
> The answer at least for me is that if I were to fly the pattern power
> off then it would have to be a tighter pattern which would not put me
> into the flow of other aircraft.
Yes, I can certainly understand that. In fact, at my home field I
find that I very easily fit into the normal flow of traffic in my twin
- and most of the traffic is C172/Cherokee type traffic, so I know
they are not flying their patterns power off either.
One thing I've noticed is that as you move up to heavier, higher
performance singles the size of the power-off pattern doesn't really
change much. The speed and complexity go up, so of course the
workload does too, but the glide angles and thus the size of the
pattern don't change very much.
So I understand and agree with your reason - certainly flying a
different pattern from everyone else poses a significantly higher risk
than catastrophic engine failure in the pattern - but I have to ask
why everyone else is choosing to fly a power-on pattern.
Michael
Rick Macklem
: That means your power-on approach is made behind the power curve and
: that if you have an engine failure in that configuration at low
: altitude, your options are very limited. Like everything else in
: aviation, there are tradeoffs to be made.
I'll admit I'm confused about why you call a power assisted approach
"behind the power curve". To be "behind the power curve", your airspeed
has to be below endurance airspeed. I suppose some airplanes can do
power assisted approaches that slow, but most I've flown use a higher
speed. (btw: I'm not necessarily against power off approaches. It was
the way I originally learned to fly and I've used them often. It was
the norm when I flew an S1S Pitts, which is towards the high end of the
wing loading spectrum, so I'm not convinced "high performance" airplanes
require a power on approach, either.) It does seem more comfortable to
carry a little power in some airplanes, though.
Anyhow, maybe because I missed the start of the thread, I don' see
the correlation between "power assisted approaches" and "behind the
power curve"?
Have fun flying, rick
Scott Draper
I don' see the correlation between "power assisted approaches" and
"behind the power curve"?
I don't believe they are making that correlation. I think the point
was that for a power-on approach to be able to land shorter than a
power off approach, the airplane must be flown behind the power curve.
dave
approach. If you can't make the airport if your engine crapps out, your
too shallow.
Not sure about the thing of having a shorter landing roll when using power.
In my Bonanza I can typically make the first turn off at my airport if I
put my mind to it (without smoking the brakes). Thats probably 300 feet
or so all power off.
I believe that a power off approach if done properly will land you just
about as short as you can get.
A power on apporach could still land you very short as your hanging off
the prop and may need less critical timing to complete, but then again
there's the "if the engine quits" thing again.
Dave
Dale
> I don't like/do power on approaches EXCEPT when on an instrument
> approach. If you can't make the airport if your engine crapps out, your
> too shallow.
>
> Not sure about the thing of having a shorter landing roll when using power.
> In my Bonanza I can typically make the first turn off at my airport if I
> put my mind to it (without smoking the brakes). Thats probably 300 feet
> or so all power off.
> I believe that a power off approach if done properly will land you just
> about as short as you can get.
> A power on apporach could still land you very short as your hanging off
> the prop and may need less critical timing to complete, but then again
> there's the "if the engine quits" thing again.
You get a Bonanza stopped 300 ft from the approach end of the runway?! I'm
impressed.
--
Dale L. Falk
There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.
http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html
http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/bombers.html
Dennis O'Connor
"Dale" <df...@NOSPAMak.net> wrote in message
news:dfalk-6039DD....@news.gci.net...
Richard Kaplan
> I don't believe they are making that correlation. I think the point
> was that for a power-on approach to be able to land shorter than a
> power off approach, the airplane must be flown behind the power curve.
Exactly.
George R. Patterson III
dave wrote:
>
> I believe that a power off approach if done properly will land you just
> about as short as you can get.
Maybe in the Bo. In my Maule, power-on approaches are flown about 10 mph
slower than power-off. Descent rate is considerably higher. I've been
told that it's similar to carrier landings. From my viewpoint, the plane
is already in three-point position, I can see exactly where we will touch
down (we're headed straight for it), and the only trick is to manage to
get just enough power in just before you hit to arrest the sink rate just
the right amount.
My lack of skill at doing so has resulted in my not performing these any
more.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Michael
> slower than power-off. Descent rate is considerably higher. I've been
> told that it's similar to carrier landings. From my viewpoint, the plane
> is already in three-point position, I can see exactly where we will touch
> down (we're headed straight for it), and the only trick is to manage to
> get just enough power in just before you hit to arrest the sink rate just
> the right amount.
What you are describing is not even a short field landing. It is
what, for want of a better term, I refer to as an extreme short field
procedure. You are so far behind the power curve that even if the
engine doesn't fail, you still don't have enough flare authority to
arrest your descent and must flare with the throttle. If the throttle
coughs, you risk breaking bungees or worse.
This procedure ONLY makes sense if the strip is VERY short AND
obstructed AND you have enough power available to get out again. Most
light airplanes can land shorter than they can take off without
messing around with a procedure like this, but I understand some
Maules are different. Is that the case with your airplane?
Michael
E H Drucker
lowers the stall speed (i.e. "behind the power curve") and thus
touchdown speed. However the real advantage to using power into the
flare is that the lower speed reduces stress to the langing gear on
rough and/or soft fields. There are probably some exceptions, but for
GA airplanes the governing factor for minimum runway length is generally
takeoff rather than landing. Since you are not likely to intentionally
land at an airport from which you can't safely depart, extreme short
field technique seems somewhat moot. Of course, in an emergency there
may be the need to set down in a tight spot off airport, but in such
cases (most likely the result of engine failure) you usually would not
have the benefit of power anyway.
-Elliott Drucker
George R. Patterson III
Michael wrote:
>
> This procedure ONLY makes sense if the strip is VERY short AND
> obstructed AND you have enough power available to get out again.
That's almost correct - it's intended to get you down close over an
obstruction, but it will also result in a much shorter ground roll than
you can get any other way.
> Most
> light airplanes can land shorter than they can take off without
> messing around with a procedure like this, but I understand some
> Maules are different. Is that the case with your airplane?
Nope. Mine has 160 hp, so it has the short landing capability inherent in
the design without the short takeoff capability. At max gross, I'll need
about 700' of runway for takeoff with no wind.
In any case, the topic was landing at speeds behind the power curve. The type of
landing I described is what you get behind the power curve in a
Maule.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Michael
> > This procedure ONLY makes sense if the strip is VERY short AND
> > obstructed AND you have enough power available to get out again.
>
> That's almost correct - it's intended to get you down close over an
> obstruction, but it will also result in a much shorter ground roll than
> you can get any other way.
I bet you can get just as short a ground roll flying the same speed,
using more power for a flatter approach, and just pulling the throttle
to idle in the flare. That would make the timing much less critical,
since you would not have to do a timed throttle burst to arrest the
descent rate.
> > Most
> > light airplanes can land shorter than they can take off without
> > messing around with a procedure like this, but I understand some
> > Maules are different. Is that the case with your airplane?
>
> Nope. Mine has 160 hp, so it has the short landing capability inherent in
> the design without the short takeoff capability. At max gross, I'll need
> about 700' of runway for takeoff with no wind.
Then may I ask - what's the point of the procedure in your airplane?
Surely you don't need it to get less than 700 ft of ground roll?
Michael
Brisbin and Jenneskens
cake then.
"Dennis O'Connor" <doco...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:uo12aip...@corp.supernews.com...
G.R. Patterson III
Michael wrote:
>
> I bet you can get just as short a ground roll flying the same speed,
> using more power for a flatter approach, and just pulling the throttle
> to idle in the flare.
Bet you can't.
> Then may I ask - what's the point of the procedure in your airplane?
> Surely you don't need it to get less than 700 ft of ground roll?
If I'm running by myself with no luggage and 3/8 tanks, I can get off in
under 300'.
The only time the procedure was necessary for me, the plane had to be
landed on the ramp in front of the Maule Air factory. About 200' from the
edge of the pavement was the beginning of the temporary parking for a local
fair (which was the reason we had to land on the ramp). I picked up a Maule
pilot for the landing. That technique let him place the tailwheel within a
few feet of the pavement edge, plant the wheels firmly, get the brakes on
within two seconds, and get the whole thing stopped in about 75'. By the
time I made the takeoff later that day, some cars had left and I had nearly
300' to play with. I had come in light, so it was a piece of cake.
If you want to touch down at a particular point, this is one way to do it
pretty easily. Since my main objective these days is smooth landings, I
bring it in flat, cut the power after the wheels touch, and use up to
1,000' of runway.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Roger Halstead
> "Roger Halstead" <rdha...@tm.net> wrote in message
> news:<%Kzf9.1734$Xj4.1...@newshog.newsread.com>...
>
> > Depends on wht you are flying.
> > A Bonanza will land far shorter *with* power than without.
> > A power off landing will take almsot twice the distance over a 50 foot
> > obstical to a stop than will a power on landing.
>
to". ALWAYS learn how to do these things with an instructor no matter how
many hours you have unless you like being a test pilot. This is in RAO, but
for any students reading, go over short field work throuroughly with your
instructor.
> That means your power-on approach is made behind the power curve and
First, why should I care? The goal here is a "short landing", on a short
field. By the very nature of requiring a short field landing I only have
one choice...Steep, slow, and short. If it were power off it would not be a
short field landing either by nature, or by the figures in the book.
Even normal landings are slower than emergency landings in the Bo. The power
off landing uses more realestate than any other in the Deb so I'm sure not
going to use it in a short field.
One of the things they taught us not only in Bonanza specific training, but
back in primary trainers was that speed is not necessiarily your friend.
Only an extra 5 MPH in a 172 will cause it to float and use a lot more
runway. . If some one is doing power on landings and floating, it is not the
power, but the technique. Power makes it fly, only excess speed makes it
float. Course it only takes a tiny bit of power to fly a 172 just off the
runway so it could easily be mistaken for float. If you don't believe that,
get down to minimum controllable airspeed (at altitude)and pull the power.
Instant stall. Do the same inches off the runway and it'll drop like a rock,
which is why I said inches. Don't do this close to the runway in
Cherokees, or other nose heavy airplanes. They'll drop on the nose gear.
This is generally not considered good.
The engine failure is far less likely than running off the other end of the
runway on a short field.
Yes, engines do quit. I had one do so on climb out about two years ago. Just
plain dead.
That airplanes slows up so fast I didn't think I could coast far enough to
make the next turnoff from some where around 30 to 50 feet up and around 100
MPH on a 3800 foot runway.
I made 30 to 50 feet at 100 MPH and stopped with about 1500 feet out of 3800
left. That means I took off, climbed 30 to 50 feet, reached 100 MPH, landed
and stopped in roughly 2300 feet.
> that if you have an engine failure in that configuration at low
> altitude, your options are very limited.
Not near as limited as coming in faster on a short field.
Look at the odds. How often do engines fail? How often would I be likely to
run off the other end of a short field runway by coming in at power out
speed and nearly doubling the landing distance to a stop over a 50 foot
obstical?
Ask a bush pilot how they'd do it. Of course it's unlikely they'd do it in
a Bo, but still...
You use the least runway with a steep approach, but the only way to get a
Bonanza/Debonair that slow is with power. The American Bonanza society and
the Air Safety Foundation, they teach short field landings that way. They
are the numbers in the POH. They require you to calculate every approach and
take off speed according to weight.
They basically told about 60 pilots that they WOULD fly by the numbers in
the POH. They would not be carying enough speed to glide in and they would
be doing short field landings by-the-book. That was not met with a great
deal of entheusiasm. Actually there was a lot of complaining.
If you have a short field, then your odds are far better (depending on the
obsticals at the approach end) coming in steep and slow, compared to holding
the speed up to 90 for a dead stick landing and running off the other end.
Several of the aviation mags ran articles on this subject over the last 3 or
4 years. The FAA was concerned enough that they had, and maybe still do have
seminars about excess speed when landing. A Bonanza can easily get in and
out of under 1500 feet. With practice you can do it in about 1200 depending
on engine and technique. You can also get into places you'd never get out
of. Deadstick is going to take a good 2000. Almost twice as long.
IF I stay within gliding distance of the runway at all times while in the
pattern I can gurantee you I'll scare the crap out of the passengers once I
start the turn to base and final.
With many high performance planes it just is not pratical to even try to
stay within gliding distance of the runway. You will end up with steep
turns, a steep descent which will make energy management difficult and
you'll have to clean the seats where your passengers sat.
It's also a bear to get them slowed down to the proper landing speed. (I'm a
firm believer in full stall landings...I had them drilled into me for all my
primary days)
For example, once past the end of the runway outbound with the gear down I
know that if the engine quite I could not make the runway. I have to fly an
*extremely* tight pattern with a very steep descent profile. Probably about
half the distance a 172 would normally fly.
NOTE, The following is not a recomendation, or "How to". Get an instructor
that is familiar with the airplane.
I done it. I've dropped the gear, hit the flap switch to full and the power
to idle at the numbers outbound. Followed that with a steep slipping U-turn
to the numbers, gave it a shot of power to flare, planted the mains on, let
the nose gear down, stood on the brakes, and hauled back on the yoke
Again! This is not a "How To". Get an instructor, or bush pilot to
demonstrate.
I've also landed a Piper Colt using pretty much the same technique, but it
was windy and the slip gave me a flight path that was nearly vertical. I
rolled level, hit the power and then back to idle.. That was the shortest I
have ever landed anything with wings. I was still a student too. The
instructor came out and asked where I ever learned how to do that. I told
him "right there". There was a fast moving storm front coming in and I
didn't have time for another go around. The next stop would have been
Canada, if I could have out run the storm, which in the Colt is unlikely,
but with luck, maybe...
> Like everything else in
> aviation, there are tradeoffs to be made.
Yes it is a trade off, but I'll take the ones that put the odds steeply in
my favor.<:-))
If you need to make a short field landing then to do other than the true
short field landing in the POH for the specific airplane is leaving your
butt hanging out over thin air.
I have no qualms about gliding (and slipping) in where it's pratical (I used
to fly a Colt), but IF I need every bit of runway in the Deb, I'll take the
steep power on approach any day and leave my luck with the odds stacked in
my favor.
However It's a real good idea if you are going into such tight places that
you *KNOW* you can get out. Particularly if there are standing obsticals at
the outgoing end of the runway.
>
Each make and model is an individual. Some like the Cherokee 180 make
fantastic short field airplanes. You can get in and out of some almost
unbelieveable places with practice. The 180 doesn't require power for a
steep approach. Pull the power, go full flaps, and you are on the express
elevator down. That big fat hershey bar wing will help get out of nearly
any place you can get in. I found that is was not necessary to take out the
flaps for better braking either. Same approach, mains on, nose gear down,
brakes, and then up elevator. Aerodynamic breaking at the faster speeds
where it's most effective works wonders. (DO NOT hit the brakes BEFORE the
nose gear is down!)
172s OTOH will float, and float, and float, unless the speed is just what
the book says it should be. Surprisingly the 172 which is high wing is much
more susceptible to float than the Cherokee. Plus 40 degrees of flaps in
the Cherokee helps slow it down. My guess on the 172 is the light wing
loading makes it so susceptable to float.
I really think our instructors do our students a disservice by teaching them
to fly "an airplane" instead of prepairing them to "fly airplanes".
Instructors don't need to teach the studenst how to fly every airplane, but
they do need to let the students know that each plane is an individual and
behaves like one. They don't all stall the same, they don't all land the
same, they have different best glide speeds, some are much more difficult to
slow down. Some can come down OR slow down, but not both. We are taught
that we are the ones responsible and in command, but if they are going to be
real pilots they need to learn flexibility. They need to want to expand
their capabilities. They need to continue to practice all the maneuvers
after receiving the PPL. They need to know that the stabilized approach is
the basis for learning landings. It is also the best way to fly the pattern
at night to avoid distractions, but there are places where you can not fly a
stabilized approach. Oshkosh being one and the Circle to land is another.
They need to know how much they can slow to avoid traffic ahead before they
have to do a 180. They also need to know that you can only reply "unable"
just so many times before ATC sends them out to circle endlessly, or until
they think there is a big enough opening in traffic they won't screw up the
spacing again.
Again, for short field landings...Do what the book says for the particular
airplane, not what some one thinks is safer, or better.
The only way to phrase it is that at the Bo specific training they had a
"bitch" of a time getting the pilots to slow down. Even after pointing out
how many had been killed by landing too fast and running off the "other
end".
All of these pilots had been taught to stay within gliding range of the
runway, but couldn't after they moved to the Bo.. They wanted to be able to
"glide to the runway" but couldn't when using the POH, so they were flying
as much as 15 MPH faster than the POH figures on final and using one whale
of a lot of runway. They were flying the "dead stick" figures, instead of
the proper ones.
Actually, you can stay within gliding distance and fly a "normal" pattern IF
you leave the gear up until you have the runway made, but this brings up a
problem as best glide is 120 MPH, dead stick is 90 MPH, and "normal" final
is 80 minus one MPH for each 100# under gross. That means you need a *very*
long runway. Besides, leaving the gear to the last second isn't all that
great an idea either and is reserved for emergency situations.
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
Roger Halstead
"dave" <davec...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D7FFE...@yahoo.com...
> I don't like/do power on approaches EXCEPT when on an instrument
> approach. If you can't make the airport if your engine crapps out, your
> too shallow.
>
> Not sure about the thing of having a shorter landing roll when using
power.
> In my Bonanza I can typically make the first turn off at my airport if I
> put my mind to it (without smoking the brakes). Thats probably 300 feet
> or so all power off.
> I believe that a power off approach if done properly will land you just
> about as short as you can get.
The POH should list the power off landing speed quite a bit higher than the
normal landing speed. It's also in the safety manual put out by the ABS and
Airsafety Foundation.
The extra speed is listed as being needed to give you enough energy to
*safely* flare.
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
> A power on apporach could still land you very short as your hanging off
Roger Halstead
"George R. Patterson III" <grpp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3D80C077...@comcast.net...
>
>
> dave wrote:
> >
> > I believe that a power off approach if done properly will land you just
> > about as short as you can get.
>
> Maybe in the Bo. In my Maule, power-on approaches are flown about 10 mph
> slower than power-off. Descent rate is considerably higher. I've been
> told that it's similar to carrier landings. From my viewpoint, the plane
> is already in three-point position, I can see exactly where we will touch
> down (we're headed straight for it), and the only trick is to manage to
> get just enough power in just before you hit to arrest the sink rate just
> the right amount.
That is just like the Bo if flown by the book.
The touchdown is almost like a three pointer in a tail dragger, but we do
try to keep the tail hook from dragging. <:-))
And there is no way the power off landing over a 50 foot obstical can be as
short as the power on in a *normal configuration*. Power off is at least 10,
if not 15 MPH faster than power on. It's right there in the POH. If it
isn't then there is something serious wrong (or different)
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
Roger Halstead
"G.R. Patterson III" <grpp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3D82952F...@comcast.net...
>
>
> Michael wrote:
<snip>
> If you want to touch down at a particular point, this is one way to do it
> pretty easily. Since my main objective these days is smooth landings, I
> bring it in flat, cut the power after the wheels touch, and use up to
> 1,000' of runway.
I bring it into the flare, cut the power, and keep bringing the nose up (as
needed) until it stalls on ...Bout 8 out of 10 are squeakers and full stall
landings to boot. That cuts the forward visibility to nil with the only
visibility being periphial vision.
Just like landing a tail dragger.
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
> George Patterson, N3162Q.
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
> Ask a bush pilot how they'd do it. Of course it's unlikely they'd do it in
> a Bo, but still...
Off topic to this thread, but at the recent AYA convention there
were a number of pilots who had switched from Grummans to Bo's.
What interested me is that they were all enthusiastic back-country
fliers and actually eloquent about the Bo's desireable characteristics
as a short/rough plane.
Was way news to me and those certainly aren't the characteristics
the local Bonanza pilots manifest with their planes (when I'm
watching anyway). But I'm willing to believe that the local guys
are all "doing it wrong".
> You can also get into places you'd never get out
> of.
That's the main reason I don't worry too much about getting the shortest
possible landing in Tigger. Without working up a sweat or going behind
the power curve I could easily get into places I could sweat plenty
getting out of. Basically if I can get out of it, I can get into it
readily w/out going behind the power curve. (That's in my plane, not
all planes)
Regards,
Sydney
G.R. Patterson III
Roger Halstead wrote:
>
> Just like landing a tail dragger.
Mine _is_ a taildragger, and if I do a full-stall landing, the mains will
still be in the air when the tail touches down. I prefer to fly it on.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Richard Kaplan
> The POH should list the power off landing speed quite a bit higher than the
> normal landing speed. It's also in the safety manual put out by the ABS and
Of course all landings are ultimately power off (actually power to
idle). In this thread I was bringing up the question of whether the
transition to idle power is made on short final or is made in ground
effect.
Regarding your comments about the POH above, is this referring to the
situation I describe above or instead is the "power off" situation
above referring to a simulated engine out with idle power from
altitude?
Richard Kaplan
> "Richard Kaplan" <rka...@umrpc.com> wrote in message
> I have no qualms about gliding (and slipping) in where it's pratical (I used
> to fly a Colt), but IF I need every bit of runway in the Deb, I'll take the
> steep power on approach any day and leave my luck with the odds stacked in
> my favor.
I think that one of the main drawbacks to consistently keeping power
all the way into ground effect has nothing to do with how long the
landing roll takes. Instead, I believe a drawback is that such a pilot
does not get to practice handling energy management in the flare with
no available power.
I am concerned that pilots who regularly land a single-engine plane
with power into ground effect may wind up with a very difficult time
managing the flare in the event of a true engine-out emergency one
day.
Roger Halstead
"Sydney D. Hoeltzli" <hoel...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3D84A6B6...@swbell.net...
> Roger Halstead wrote:
>
> > Ask a bush pilot how they'd do it. Of course it's unlikely they'd do it
in
> > a Bo, but still...
>
> Off topic to this thread, but at the recent AYA convention there
> were a number of pilots who had switched from Grummans to Bo's.
> What interested me is that they were all enthusiastic back-country
> fliers and actually eloquent about the Bo's desireable characteristics
> as a short/rough plane.
>
The Bo makes a very good short field plane.
I think you will find their landing characteristics (book figures) are
shorter than a 172.
> Was way news to me and those certainly aren't the characteristics
> the local Bonanza pilots manifest with their planes (when I'm
> watching anyway). But I'm willing to believe that the local guys
> are all "doing it wrong".
It's 900 feet on 36 to the intersection of 06/24. This time of year with
standard temps, or a bit less and no more than 8 knots of head wind will let
me pull the power at the numbers outbound, do a slipping U-turn to the end
of the runway. Give it a shot of power so I can flare, back to idle, let
the nose gear down, get on the brakes, and pull back on the yoke. 9 times
out of 10 I can turn off at the intersection. However it takes 900 feet to
get the mains off on take off., so I'm guessing, even with the big engine,
it'd take me1200 minimum, and more likely 1500 to clear a 50 foot obstacle
on the way back out. On a cool windy day I could make the 1200, but no wind,
or above standard temp and it'd be 1500 for safety.
>
> > You can also get into places you'd never get out
> > of.
>
> That's the main reason I don't worry too much about getting the shortest
> possible landing in Tigger. Without working up a sweat or going behind
> the power curve I could easily get into places I could sweat plenty
> getting out of.
Flying slow enough to require more power the slower I go has never botherd
me. It's just that for short field the Bo has to be flown by the book.
If I don't have any place to go, I go out and practice. So I know the plane
well enough to tell within feet of how long to get off and how long to land.
I also know that the no power landing uses almost double the distance of the
short field landing.
I also know that book figures are "slightly" longer for landings than I get.
Yes, I beat book figures on landing, but not by a great deal. It's about a
match for take offs.
I also know you aren't gonna get shorter without dragging it in over the
fence.
Basically if I can get out of it, I can get into it
> readily w/out going behind the power curve. (That's in my plane, not
> all planes)
Yup. Each one is an individual.
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
> Regards,
> Sydney
Roger Halstead
>
>
> Roger Halstead wrote:
> >
> > Just like landing a tail dragger.
>
> Mine _is_ a taildragger, and if I do a full-stall landing, the mains will
> still be in the air when the tail touches down. I prefer to fly it on.
I prefer not to get the nose *quite* that high. Otherwise I'd be dragging
the tail hook.
I just keep holding it off the runway, as it slows the stall warning will
go, then I feel the sink and the mains touch down. The tail has plenty of
clearance.
Now, "no flap landings" are a whole nuther animal. You have to be very
careful not to drag the tail hook. I haven't yet, but it's only a couple
inches off the pavement. The nose is so high all you see straight ahead is
the center of the instrument panel. You can only see the edges of the
runway in the lower corners of the windows right by the storm windows using
periphial vision.
I've never dragged a tail, but I've heard a few. Awful sound!
Dennis O'Connor
at a specific point on downwind, and manage the energy to the flare is
great... It teaches them to do just that...
Funny thing that: The engine outs I have had have never, never, never
occurred abeam the numbers on downwind... And spiraling down from directly
overhead and then slipping the plane over the wires into a short, muddy
cornfield was also a maneuver de novo... I have to say Richard, I am not
against teaching students power off landings from a specific point in the
pattern, however I am not sure it has significant relevance other than
enhancing basic flying skills..
Denny
...
"Richard Kaplan" <rka...@umrpc.com> wrote in message
news:f8550f51.02091...@posting.google.com...
Dale
<doco...@chartermi.net> wrote:
> Being fanatical in training students to fly tight patterns, pull the power
> at a specific point on downwind, and manage the energy to the flare is
> great... It teaches them to do just that...
> Funny thing that: The engine outs I have had have never, never, never
> occurred abeam the numbers on downwind... And spiraling down from directly
> overhead and then slipping the plane over the wires into a short, muddy
> cornfield was also a maneuver de novo... I have to say Richard, I am not
> against teaching students power off landings from a specific point in the
> pattern, however I am not sure it has significant relevance other than
> enhancing basic flying skills..
Same for me, of three power losses not one of them was abeam the numbers. But
my plan, which I practice for nearly every flight, is that when an engine fails
I will pick a place to put the airplane, I will manuever the airplane to a point
"abeam" the numbers and then the rest of the landing will be something I have
done hundreds of times. The only tricky part of a power off approach is that
segment from abeam to touchdown. The flight from engine loss to the "abeam"
position can be used for friggin power off acro if you want...just hit your key
position in the configuration you've practiced.
Roger Halstead
> "Roger Halstead" <rdha...@tm.net> wrote in message
> news:<0rVg9.2230$Xj4.2...@newshog.newsread.com>...
>
> > "Richard Kaplan" <rka...@umrpc.com> wrote in message
> > I have no qualms about gliding (and slipping) in where it's pratical (I
used
> > to fly a Colt), but IF I need every bit of runway in the Deb, I'll take
the
> > steep power on approach any day and leave my luck with the odds stacked
in
> > my favor.
>
> I think that one of the main drawbacks to consistently keeping power
> all the way into ground effect has nothing to do with how long the
> landing roll takes.
Actually it does. A steep, slow, power on descent will have considerably
less roll out than a faster, lower angle, or gliding final. The POH is in
the plane, or I'd list the figures, but there is a very large difference in
both the landing over a 50 foot obstical, and the roll out when done power
off and when done "by-the-book" which is much steeper and slower.
The much steeper approach also gives you much more precision in selecting a
touch down point.
>Instead, I believe a drawback is that such a pilot
> does not get to practice handling energy management in the flare with
> no available power.
>
I think this is a valid point.
When I go out and practice I do all variations of landings. Short field,
soft field, power off, power off emergency descent, no flap (now that is one
that uses a *lot* of realestate and you can't see where you are going)
I still practice all the maneuvers I had to do to get the PPL on a regular
basis.
> I am concerned that pilots who regularly land a single-engine plane
> with power into ground effect may wind up with a very difficult time
> managing the flare in the event of a true engine-out emergency one
> day.
Particularly in a Beech Bonanza where the power off landing speed is 10 to
15 MPH *FASTER* than the normal final. To quote the POH, "The extra speed
is maintain enough energy to flare". IOW in a normal landing you are using
the energy from the engine to aid in the flare. Power off at the same speed
and you are likely to stall when you try to flare..
BTW, I have the same thoughts about those who always fly a stabilized
pattern.
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
Roger Halstead
"Dennis O'Connor" <doco...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:uobl7jh...@corp.supernews.com...
> Being fanatical in training students to fly tight patterns, pull the power
> at a specific point on downwind, and manage the energy to the flare is
> great... It teaches them to do just that...
> Funny thing that: The engine outs I have had have never, never, never
> occurred abeam the numbers on downwind...
<:-)) Dennis, are you saying our stall training and engine out training is
unrealistic?
The only complete engine failure I've had was on take off. I was some where
between 30 and 50 feet AGL at roughly 100 MPH. No burp, no rough running,
it just quit instantly.
> And spiraling down from directly
> overhead and then slipping the plane over the wires into a short, muddy
> cornfield was also a maneuver de novo... I have to say Richard, I am not
> against teaching students power off landings from a specific point in the
> pattern, however I am not sure it has significant relevance other than
> enhancing basic flying skills..
>
They need to know that if they move on to a high performance single, or twin
(my reguards to Fat Albert) they probably won't be able to fly them like
they did the 150. <:-))
They need to learn to be flexible and meet the demands of the situation and
not depend on the time honoured "Unable" to make the situation fit them.
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
Richard Kaplan
> cornfield was also a maneuver de novo... I have to say Richard, I am not
> against teaching students power off landings from a specific point in the
> pattern, however I am not sure it has significant relevance other than
> enhancing basic flying skills..
I think the relevance is in acquiring regular practice managing the
flare without adding power. If a pilot cannot confidently do this
then he/she may not be able to successfully manage the last seconds of
an emergency engine-out landing, regardless of where that emergency
engine-out occurs.
I have observed that students who regularly cut the power to idle on
short final do much better in completing simulated emergency
engine-out exercises. Students who regularly keep power into ground
effect more often flare dangerously high in a simulated engine-out
emergency landing.
Dennis O'Connor
I realized what my reluctance to praise that particular method of teaching
is based on...
First, let me say that learning to manage the glide speed, estimate distance
and altitude remaining reflexively, and to put the airplane onto the ground
under some semblance of control is essential... And power off landings will
certainly add to that required skill list... But, and it is a big but, I am
concerned that emphasis on pulling the power on every landing at a
consistent point in the pattern, at a consistent distance from the runway,
and gliding to a consistent touchdown area on the runway will result in a
student who is quite handy at doing exactly that, exactly the same way
every time... Happy instructor - happy student... Well, he will be if the
true power loss occurs at precisely where he has learned to pull the power
off... But as you pointed out, Murphy has a bigger sense of humor than
that...
I strongly suspect that Richard is teaching with lots of unexpected (by the
student) power cuts away from the airport and forcing the student to
maneuver the plane right down over the fence so that the off airport landing
could have been accomplished before putting the power back in, but failed to
mention that in his posts... And, I would be impressed if the students with
basic skills mastered are then using the crosswind runway (winds allowing)
for every TO&L, and even an occasional downwind landing under the right
conditions... (I'm old school and hard nosed about learning to handle the
airplane with what you have, not just when things are perfect)
So, if Richard's preferred power off landings, is the major tool used to
teach airplane handling, it has major flaws... If it is simply part of a
broad range of experiences for the student then it is fine...
nuff said...
Denny
"Roger Halstead" <rdha...@tm.net> wrote in message
news:Blqh9.2966$Se4.2...@monger.newsread.com...
Richard Kaplan
> So, if Richard's preferred power off landings, is the major tool used to
> teach airplane handling, it has major flaws... If it is simply part of a
> broad range of experiences for the student then it is fine...
Agreed... and in fact, I do not provide primary instruction. I
provide recurrent training to students who fly complex/high
performance single-engine piston airplanes. A number of my students
have flown the same plane for 1,000 or 2,000 hours and are seeking a
challenge to expand the envelope with which they are comfortable with
their airplane.