BeechTalk - BT

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

Username Protected wrote:

They all diverted on their first miss and you didn't. Says more about you than the plane.

Mike C.

I never went missed. So clearly his response was not well thought out. There's just no reason to take the tone he takes. Is it so hard to be nice? It was the same crap in the SF50 thread. It gets no fun.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 21:54

Jason, do you use a handler when flying into Cancun? I've never done it and wondering how much of a pain it is without a handler.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 21:56

Username Protected wrote:

Jason, do you use a handler when flying into Cancun? I've never done it and wondering how much of a pain it is without a handler.

I've never used a handler for any foreign country. Just email the FBO's ahead of time. I love flying to Mexico. The only problem with this trip was the 6000 other private plane owners that had the same idea. The FBO was a zoo. It was like flying commercial again.

Baja Bush PIlots has a great APIS tool.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 22:00

Username Protected wrote:

Jason, do you use a handler when flying into Cancun? I've never done it and wondering how much of a pain it is without a handler.

I've never used a handler for any foreign country. Just email the FBO's ahead of time. I love flying to Mexico. The only problem with this trip was the 6000 other private plane owners that had the same idea. The FBO was a zoo. It was like flying commercial again.

Baja Bush PIlots has a great APIS tool.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 22:02

Username Protected wrote:

Exactly what I wanted to hear. The whole handler process seems like a bend over experience.

It's for corporate pilots who are spending their bosses money and don't fell like shooting out a few emails instead.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 22:02

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.

1900", heck that's only 158.3', so it should be low enough to get in. :duck:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 22:07

Username Protected wrote:

I was taught to land the Cirrus in a very flat manor, nose comes up just a couple of degrees. There is no "flare" that most pilots expect. Once the wheels on the ground, you can raise the nose for aerodynamic braking, but that is not a flare. Same method applies to the Aerostar.

The two Mooney flights I have had the privilege of enjoying, and one was a Mooney instructor, flew the plane and landed the plane as I landed the Cirrus and Aerostar.

One of the causes of porpoise landings is hitting the main gear hard enough to bounce up and then dropping the nose. This is often caused by flaring the plane to much, with the wing suddenly stalling (easy to do in ground effect with a laminar wing).

From an aerodynamic perspective this was how it was explained to me. With the low/ laminar flow wings, when you enter ground effect you lose a fair amount of drag. This allows the wing to dramatically increase the lift it creates. As a result, you do not need to flare the plane to any significant degree.

The exception to this short fields or fast vertical descents where you come in faster the a 3 degree downslope.

Tim

Do you not find it advantageous to land whatever airplane you happen to be be flying close to the critical angle of attack? I see lots of corporate guys who hit the ground in an attitude more suited to cruise, but I have never really understood the reasoning why. :shrug:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 22:10

Username Protected wrote:

Exactly what I wanted to hear. The whole handler process seems like a bend over experience.

It's for corporate pilots who are spending their bosses money and don't fell like shooting out a few emails instead.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 22:12

Username Protected wrote:

Jason, did you ever end up doing the flight to Colombia? How did you get by without a handler?

I did not because the company I was going to see felt it was too "suspicious and unusual" to show up in a my own airplane at some of the airports I need to land at where the factories I was touring were. They felt it was too much of a risk and I'd run into problems. So I'll visit in another country instead.

Colombia is on my list though. Easy flight but need to keep it in Medellin.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 22:13

Count me in for one of those guys that come in very fast. I routinely come across the numbers at 90-100 knots in the Bonanza. Why? Well, the hangar is 4000' down the runway. Why not fly to it instead of taxi. Also, engine failure 1/2 mile out @ 70 puts you in the field. At 120 it puts you on the numbers. What really gets my goat is when someone flys an approach at 90 knots in a Bonanza or similar plane.

With all that said, I always land mains first and do not put it down until it is ready. Watched a guy land a Cherokee 6 a few days ago touch down at about 85 knots all three wheels at once. Was not pretty.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 22:26

Username Protected wrote:

Count me in for one of those guys that come in very fast. I routinely come across the numbers at 90-100 knots in the Bonanza. Why? Well, the hangar is 4000' down the runway. Why not fly to it instead of taxi. Also, engine failure 1/2 mile out @ 70 puts you in the field. At 120 it puts you on the numbers. What really gets my goat is when someone flys an approach at 90 knots in a Bonanza or similar plane.

With all that said, I always land mains first and do not put it down until it is ready. Watched a guy land a Cherokee 6 a few days ago touch down at about 85 knots all three wheels at once. Was not pretty.

Todd,

No problem in a Bonanza. If you come across the numbers at 100knots in an Acclaim or Ovation, and your hangar is 4000 feet down the runway, you'll have to back taxi 2000 feet ;-)

To each their own, but I don't have a low altitude waiver, so I have no desire to fly close to the ground any faster than necessary to bleed off speed. You seem a bit of a daredevil and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm too much of a wuss.

I'm not part of the "worry about engine failure in pattern crowd". For each engine failure in the pattern, there is probably 100 bent aircraft due to overrun and/or loss of control during a bounce.

As to approach speed, I'm sorry, but if I'm going down to minimums, it will be 90 for me from FAF. It's called a stabilized approach. No major power or configuration changes for me from FAF to landing. But to each their own.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 22:32

Username Protected wrote:

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.

Yup, just a few degrees.

More of a round out in the descent to a flat attitude, occurs just over the numbers.
Then in the ground effect, you see the descent rate slow.
Then nose up a few degrees (what I assume you call a flare)
Then mains touch.

What is funny, is I then went searching for the technique I see a lot of pilots execute on landing. King Schools, Ron Machiado and all the others use almost exactly the same technique as the Mooney video. I then found a couple examples of what I think of "flare", all given as examples of what NOT to do.

So with that stated, you are right. :cheers:

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 22:33

Username Protected wrote:

Count me in for one of those guys that come in very fast. I routinely come across the numbers at 90-100 knots in the Bonanza. Why? Well, the hangar is 4000' down the runway. Why not fly to it instead of taxi. Also, engine failure 1/2 mile out @ 70 puts you in the field. At 120 it puts you on the numbers. What really gets my goat is when someone flys an approach at 90 knots in a Bonanza or similar plane.

With all that said, I always land mains first and do not put it down until it is ready. Watched a guy land a Cherokee 6 a few days ago touch down at about 85 knots all three wheels at once. Was not pretty.

Todd,

No problem in a Bonanza. If you come across the numbers at 100knots in an Acclaim or Ovation, and your hangar is 4000 feet down the runway, you'll have to back taxi 2000 feet ;-)

To each their own, but I don't have a low altitude waiver, so I have no desire to fly close to the ground any faster than necessary to bleed off speed. You seem a bit of a daredevil and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm too much of a wuss.

I'm not part of the "worry about engine failure in pattern crowd". For each engine failure in the pattern, there is probably 100 bent aircraft due to overrun and/or loss of control during a bounce.

As to approach speed, I'm sorry, but if I'm going down to minimums, it will be 90 for me from FAF. It's called a stabilized approach. No major power or configuration changes for me from FAF to landing. But to each their own.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 22:35

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.

+1

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 22:37

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:

That PC12 is biiiiiiiig.