BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 19:41

Tim,

Long body mooneys require at least 5 degrees nose up, as that is their "level" attitude on the ground. Which means that more or less every landing is a full stall landing as touching down with any excess speed (I mean any), it will simply fly right off again. I've had the pleasure of porpoising a mooney twice, both caused by landing on all 3s with too much speed. As to the laminar wing stalling in ground effect, never had that issue. Quite the opposite due to the aspect ratio.

Here is a good video of proper way to land a Mooney.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC9hPzKUUko

Watch how much that nose comes up after leveling off and then the drop.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 19:42

I think you guys need to define "flare" because I think you flare every airplane to one degree or another.

In nose gear airplanes you want to land on the main gear first to avoid the possibility of pilot induced oscillation (porpoising). This requires some degree of nose up at the moment of touchdown in any airplane I'm familiar with including the Cirrus. I agree with Tim that the Cirrus does not require much of a nose up attitude in landing - but it is a flare in my opinion - just not as much as you would use in a Cessna or Beechcraft.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 19:47

Username Protected wrote:

Tim,

I'm seriously not a good pilot, but I land good

Cirrus and the Mooney can be flared like a 172. Mooney is an incredibly easy plane to land if you control the speeds and flare. Most of the Cirri landings I see the folks land to fast and too flat. It seems that is how it is taught.

I flare the Baron too. That thing is a brick compared to the Mooney or the Cirrus.

It's all the AeroStar time making you bring it in like a fighter pilot :pilot:

However, as long as you walk away, the plane flies the next week, then from what I've read, you've done good!!

Yeap,

I see Cirrus pilots coming in 80knots, 90knots over the fence all the time. Scares the crap out of me. If not terrible windy, in the Acclaim, I'm aiming for 70knots or so over the fence, level off, bleed of 5knots over next 3 miles (feels like it sometimes), about when she is done flying, big tug on the yoke to about 6 degrees nose up, for a very gentle touchdown. The tug occurs around 60 knots or so.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 19:52

Username Protected wrote:

Boasters seek attention so they shouldn't be upset when they get it.

Mike C.

HA! So anyone telling a story on BT is "boasting"?

Also, your motivation to look up my tail number and then track my flights is above and beyond creepy. It's stuff like this that will eventually kill BT.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 19:56

Username Protected wrote:

[
Yeap,

I see Cirrus pilots coming in 80knots, 90knots over the fence all the time. Scares the crap out of me.

Why?

The Cirrus Flight Operations Manual calls for 80 knots on final for the SR22 and 78 for the SR20. I find that 80 over the numbers works very well. 90 knots would be too fast unless you had a terrific gust factor.

Now, I do see a bunch of pilots of all kinds of planes that seem to come in too hot and float forever.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 20:01

Username Protected wrote:

[
Yeap,

I see Cirrus pilots coming in 80knots, 90knots over the fence all the time. Scares the crap out of me.

Why?

The Cirrus Flight Operations Manual calls for 80 knots on final for the SR22 and 78 for the SR20. I find that 80 over the numbers works very well. 90 knots would be too fast unless you had a terrific gust factor.

Now, I do see a bunch of pilots of all kinds of planes that seem to come in too hot and float forever.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 20:20

Username Protected wrote:

Something about coupled approach not working below 200'. It gets all wishy washy. I think I read it a week ago. Maybe a month or 3. Go back and check the notams over the last few months and see what you see.

Surely you mean 2000 ft?

There is a note on the plate saying "Glideslope unusable for coupled approach below 1900". But you only get to 1900 (about 900 AGL) well inside the FAF, and you didn't get there on the two apparent attempts shown on the FA track. I am curious what caused the inability to complete the approaches and how that was rectified on the third attempt.

No NOTAMs that I can find otherwise.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 20:26

Username Protected wrote:

Boasters seek attention so they shouldn't be upset when they get it.

Mike C.

HA! So anyone telling a story on BT is "boasting"?

Also, your motivation to look up my tail number and then track my flights is above and beyond creepy. It's stuff like this that will eventually kill BT.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 20:52

Username Protected wrote:

I was taught to land the Cirrus in a very flat manor ...

Tim

That must have been a very skilled instructor

or a chute pull :peace:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 21:06

Username Protected wrote:

Mike,

I'm not followin ya here bud!

I don't understand the tone and intent of your antagonistic posts.

Don't get me wrong, Jason's a big boy and can take care of himself, doesn't need me running in here to rescue him.

No, what I'm having a hard time with is the fact that you've been a member here all of 1 month and 3 days and you're clearly calling someone out and basically calling em a liar.

That behavior is not something we're accustomed to seeing here with great frequency.

Spirited debate on singles vs twins, sure!

Heated discourse on the fallacy of ManMadeGlobalWarning? You bet!

But your posture is that more along the line and maturity of some gaming forum where everyone has some kind of CB handle like "parum magnus morbus mans"

just my $.02 :shrug:

Masters in Electrical Engineering from MIT. Born in France. Any more questions??

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 21:24

Username Protected wrote:

Surely you mean 2000 ft?

There is a note on the plate saying "Glideslope unusable for coupled approach below 1900". But you only get to 1900 (about 900 AGL) well inside the FAF, and you didn't get there on the two apparent attempts shown on the FA track. I am curious what caused the inability to complete the approaches and how that was rectified on the third attempt.

No NOTAMs that I can find otherwise.

Mike C.

When you start answering my questions, I'll start answering yours.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 21:35

Quote:

Something about coupled approach not working below 200'. It gets all wishy washy. I think I read it a week ago. Maybe a month or 3. Go back and check the notams over the last few months and see what you see.

It is a CAT I ILS - it shouldn't be working below 200'.
There are a few restrictions on it in the AF/D.
It looks like a fairly restricted system. There must be quite a bit of signal interference, and the non coupled approaches below a certain altitude is usualy caused by a change rate reversal - meaning the glideslope is going down, then back up and then backdown, etc... and outside of the tolerance.
It also has pretty high mins for a CAT I system.
I can't look at the reports now, but I'll look into it later if you'd like.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 21:36

Mike C taking the Beechtalk creep factor to a whole new level! Seems like more and more of these trolls are popping up.....While temporarily amusing, I agree with JC that they are detrimental to the site.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 21:47

Username Protected wrote:

:popcorn: Mike C taking the Beechtalk creep factor to a whole new level! Seems like more and more of these trolls are popping up.....While temporarily amusing, I agree with JC that they are detrimental to the site.

BS, every post of his has valid points and is very well thought out. I may not agree with his views at all times, but a troll he his not. My personal feeling is that he adds tremendous value to BT.

Show me one of his posts that are not a valid response?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 21:53

Username Protected wrote:

Show me one of his posts that are not a valid response?

Laughed out loud when I read this one. Classic troll.

A PC-12 is like a Ford Econoline Van. You buy it for the cabin. A lottery winner can find a better choice, one would think, a jet for example.

That PC12 is biiiiiiiig.