Yes

&

YES


As a comparison, going down the GS, gear down, flaps 20 both engines running 17-18" at 2550 - 2700 gives about 125-130kts.

Jason,

Actually the issue is going missed and then losing an engine. Losing an engine on approach, should be a non-event as you state.

Tim

Brad,

For the 601P, I am 99% positive that is true.
But for the larger 700, you can climb full flaps, gear down if not at the MTOW with the gross weight increase (6800lbs).
In fact on the 700, I recall rather well being light, about 1000lbs under gross on my first transition training. Simulated engine out, 20 degrees of flaps, gear down, and the plane climbs on ~65% power. It really is an amazing plane.

I am pretty positive none of the models will climb single engine with full flaps and gear.

Tim

All of this simply supports the point that the only safe approach is one where you can go-around. Give up on the "stable approach" concept. It's all about the transition at the decision point... and I don't mean IFR minumums - there are lots of reasons not to land.

Supporting data comes from the airline world that promotes stable approaches. Since the 70's, airliners have been designed such that those huge spoilers are partially deployed on approach, spoiling a large percentage of the lift. The reason is simple - when the pilot pushes the GA button (go around for Jason) - the spoilers instantly retract - giving the wing an instant bump in lift capacity.

I recall that early adapters would descend just 6-10 feet after button press. A lot can be learned from military carrier landings as well.

Bob

To add to Bob's post.

Back in the day (20 years ago), in the Saab 340, on an approach to minimums, I remember calling for landing flaps, with the runway in sight.

We were stablized (no configuration or big speed changes) on the approach, but we changed configuration for landing.

I fly the Aerostar the same way.

10 degrees getting vectored around, for a real no-kidding ILS/LPV approach with the weather at (or close to) minimums (where a last minute go-around was a real possibility).

I have the mixtures full rich and the props up (sync - off) with a stabilized airspeed (125-130), before the FAF.

Crossing the FAF or at GS intercept, gear-down, Flaps - 20.


Back in the day: "Gear -Down, prop sync - off, condition levers -max, flaps -approach, Landing Checks"

(Where did that come from....?)


Back to Aerostars:

Unless there is a significant wind shift on the way down, power doesn't change until the landing. Of course there usually is a wind shift, so power might change by as much as couple inches MAP, to maintain airspeed. (16"-20")

Plane is solidly on the normal or forward side of the power / lift curve at 120-135kts.
Pull back or push forward on the yoke a tad to get back on the glide slope and the plane recovers without much change in airspeed.

When John refers to going down the GS like it's on rails, this is what he's referring to.

Jason did use green font in that line btw....I think it was rhetorical.

Bob If I remember bits of long ago posts you have made, you had some association with Lockheed ( ? )... which is why you are confusing the rest of commercial aviation with the finest flying machine ever built (Lockheed L-1011). Other than that piece of pure awesomeness, commercial airliners do NOT have partially deployed spoilers in landing configuration. Lockheed had a "Direct Lift Control" system which when past 22 degrees of flap deployment locked the tailplanes and used a null point of about 10 degrees spoiler deflection. Within a certain range of control yoke movement the spoilers would raise and lower to control glideslope. No other commercial airplane was made with that feature. Boeing, Airbus and Douglas all use wheel spin-up to trigger auto spoilers on landing, or can be manually controlled from the cockpit (that was just one of the cool things the L-1011 had that should have been incorporated into all airplanes since then, but never were).

BTW.... airliners aren't going to climb on a single engine and full landing flaps either. The go-around maneuver is designed assuming you will not be positive climb until you have added maximum power on the good engine and reconfigure flaps for climb. It is assumed you continue descent until that energy is arrested and at that constant airspeed the added power and wing reconfiguration will produce a climb. I have found that holds true for Aerostar go-arounds as well. In fact it is a slick, smooth maneuver (obviously assuming you use appropriate control inputs for the adverse yaw, but the jet is the same way).

I wouldn't advocate deploying landing flaps 20 miles out, but using some reference "gate" such that the final portion of the aproach is flown at a stable configuration and speed is far safer IMHO for most of the same reasons it is so for the commercial transport world. This is more applicable to an Aerostar than to a 172 for a full beer's worth of discussion.

I think your statement that the only safe approach is one from which you can go-around is absolutely correct. Why do you think you can not go-around from full landing flaps on final? You add full power, flaps up, positive rate / gear up. I am never below about 110 until over pavement or within power-off glide to the touchdown spot, there is plenty of speed for the airplane to do this and it's a far less hairy maneuver than dealing with an engine failure shortly after liftoff (but there seems to be a lot less compliance with accelerate-stop parameters than the concern here shows for the dreaded full-flap final approach).

Forrest - if you are descending from an MDA on a dive-and-drive non-precision approach, you are probably going to be at an altitude of at least 400, usaully 500 ft. I would concur that especially in that circumstance flaps 20 is the appropriate setting until on the glidepath for the runway - but you're not talking about a re-combobulation at tight minimums on a precision approach with limited visual cues.

If you're that worried about it, the airplane lands just fine with flaps 20 - just a little more speed.

Other day going into Danbury the ceiling was right at the MDA, visibility was 10 miles.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1708/05272L8.PDF

On the drive portion of the approach we were definitely in cloud more than not, and I was thinking go-around when we got the runway in sight. (We were cleared to land)

Power to idle, landing flaps.

We were stabilized, like a safe.

I wouldn't have done it if visibility was restricted.

Agreed on the L-1011, others have yet to catch up with the Tri-Star. Are there even any airliners with 3-spool engines?

No, I was never associated with Lockheed - like you, I just appreciate true design excellence - like a Tesla "S-Model" say. Aerostars come close, but for different reasons.

The problem is in naming - the same wing-top surfaces are spoilers, speed brakes, lift dumpers, spoilerons, ground spoilers, roll spoilers, flight spoilers and other names. I group these all as spoilers - one of those self-descriptive terms. They have been in use since 1948.

Ground spoilers (to hard-set the AC on the ground and make the brakes work) are triggered by the ground shift mechanism, often more than WOW sensor - and yes, sensors are sometimes on non adjacent gear trucks with multiple "at speed" sensors.

Here is a Wikipedia quote: Airbus aircraft with fly-by-wire control utilise wide-span spoilers for descent control, spoilerons, gust alleviation, and lift dumpers. Especially on landing approach, the full width of spoilers can be seen controlling the aircraft's descent rate and bank.

Spoilers affect the CL in half-rho vt2 x cl - just saying

Bob

When certifying a gross wt. increase you have to publish new performance charts if the performance is worse than on the same airplane before the increase in weight. An FAA DER test pilot flight tested the go around from a full flap gear down configuration and the results are shown on the Balked Landing chart in the flight manual supplement for the 6850 max gross wt. 700 hp Aerostar. The max certified landing weight is actually 6508 lbs. ( by regulation it has to be within 5% of the max gross wt.) and at sea level, standard day, the twin engine rate of climb is about 600 ft./min. At 4,000 ft. standard day the rate of climb is about 475 ft./min. Since drag increases with the square of the velocity, you use 101 KIAS for the Balked Landing climb speed. The objective, of course, is to gain altitude as fast as possible. If you tried to use 125 knots or so the climb rate is going to be a lot less. As soon as you are comfortable with the height above terrain you can raise the flaps and gear then transition to the blue line.

Jim,

Interesting, I do not recall it being that good. but then that could have been my technique!

Tim

Speed is very important. Just using the blue line of 117 KIAS vs. 101 gives you an increase in drag of about 34%.

Bob,

The RB211 is still in use on a variety of other craft including some B757, B767, and B747. Probably others I'm not familiar with. The 757-200 with the Rolls 211 is a beast.

Stewart

101 kts in an Aerostar! (wait... translation for my indicator 116 mph)

I always thought that speed was best observed with the wheels on the ground - like during taxi to the hangar. Of course most of my experience is in a 601P as opposed to the 700.

If you love your AEST buy her P&W engines - right?

Bob

Bob,

The RB211 is still in use on a variety of other craft including some B757, B767, and B747. Probably others I'm not familiar with. The 757-200 with the Rolls 211 is a beast.

Stewart

Ok, so you go missed, then lose an engine. What configuration are you in at that point? My guess is Flaps 20, gear up. What configuration are you in when you lose an engine at 50' on takeoff? My guess is Flaps 20, gear up. Either way, you will still be at Vref/Vxse.. So, where's the problem with flying a stabilized approach?

Jason