When everyone is an expert, no one is.

Mike,

Keep them coming!

I must be lucky. Our MU-2 cools well on the ground once both engines are running and bleeds on both

I have not spoken to Mike. I have seen him in person and heard him speak. After listening to this video was I the only one thinking “He sounds downright casual and relaxed?” Much different than his online, written persona. I liked it.

Thanks to me lol. What a deal that was. Be glad you have enviro. It’s about $200k to get rid of the ACM these days.

Ah, that's where I got the idea it was electric.

Mike C.

Unless the Schiff turbo has a foil bearing it will have the same oil vapor contamination as bleed air/ACM. Maybe I am missing something.

Vince

FIFY.

Jets can do as you say very easily, and extra speed is a problem for jets.

Turboprops are different. Extra speed is easily dealt with, and being faster enables better OEI climb should it be needed.


You would in a turboprop.


The stabilized approach came from the jet world at first. For them, your numbers make sense. For turboprop or piston twins, it doesn't.


Yes.

That would be no good in a jet, its no problem in a turboprop.

I've run this scenario in the sim, have not had it in real life as of yet.

You will cross the runway threshold at about 115 knots when you got to flight idle at 100 ft. Touchdown will be 1000-1500 ft down the runway at ~95-100 knots. This is not far from normal. In general, you aren't coming in on the shortest runway when facing this situation and you'd rather have a somewhat longer ground roll (and it won't be much longer) in order to preserve good go around performance at the higher speed.

The last thing you want is to be slow and low at 100 ft when doing a go around.

You seem to be advocating unstabilizing the approach at 500 ft. Why not fly the whole approach at one speed/power/slope all the way to MDA?

Mike C.

The mu2 sounds like a lot of work on the approach. It seems like the Cirrus SF50 might be a better fit for your mission. Your passengers can thank me later.
Kevin

The MU2 is no different. You use Vxse only when obstacles are an issue.


The POH recommends no slower than Vxse. That seems obvious. It doesn't say fly AT Vxse.


I'm not sure what planet you are from, but you aren't describing how MU2s fly on this one.

Mike C.

Good thing, too, because the factory system it replaced had two sources of pressurization (two engines) and thus it would be less reliable if it didn't have a backup.

Mike C.

That's not a bad speed. 125 is okay. I choose 135 to have 10 knots I can lose in the transition to climb and still be at Vxse. That is, I have margin. I also find that flying the approach faster is simpler, less wind effect, wind angle for example.

I'd question why you would change speed at 500 ft. Why not establish speed at FAF inbound? At 500 ft, you don't really have enough time to settle out speed if you got a 200-300 ft MDA. Why change things mid slope? Changing speed means new power, attitude, and trim.

Flying a Citation at 100 knots down the slope will be a new experience for me. It will seem glacial.

Mike C.

It isn't a ideal example. I made plenty of small mistakes. I've already learned a lot from this one case, but in reviewing the video and the questions on this thread.


I'd be an idiot if I thought posting a video on BT would result is universal applause.

In other words, I invited the criticism, on purpose. I'm enjoying it.

Mike C.

Mike:

Welcome to the world of flying video posting on the Internet. only about 400 more to go! You post one video and are up to 6 pages of comments already. Pent up demand.

Takes a lot of time to shoot, edit and post. Then you get picked apart on the smallest details. Fact is you will learn a fair amount. Little nuances. People catch everything. Wait until the feds get contacted.

I think your altitude is off because of pressurization. No way to adjust for it on the camera that I have found.

Mine does okay unless the plane has been out in the sun a long time and heat soaked. Then it really takes 100% RPM to get good cooling in that case.

Note that the 3 blade airplanes idle at 65% which reduces ACM quite a lot over a 4 blade idle at 78%. Bleed air volume is proportional to square of RPM, so the 78% idle is 44% more bleed air.

Mike C.

Good thing, too, because the factory system it replaced had two sources of pressurization (two engines) and thus it would be less reliable if it didn't have a backup.

Mike C.