Jump to content

iaw4

Members
  • Content Count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About iaw4

  • Rank
    Master Crew Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    90049
  • Interests
    N86FT
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2017/05/16/rogue-gusts-wind-can-scare-even-most-experienced-pilots-especially-landings/326416001/
  2. thx, ed. I just want to learn. overthinking it again, I should conclude that faster speed is a tradeoff. in windier and gustier weather, extra energy adds safety above/before the runway but costs safety just after touchdown, especially with respect to quartering or uplifting tailwind gusts on the runway. although the optimal tradeoff solution can vary with pilot skill, these are the main safety-related issues on long runways. in thinking about the tradeoff, consider also: too little energy before landing can be catastrophic for plane and pilot; too much energy after landing can be catastrophic but more likely just for the plane. tailwind gusts seem rare. usually, my gusts have come from roughly the same direction as the wind (ie, from the front, but up to quartering from left, right, above, and below). (Q: in what types of airports and weather condition should I expect to encounter significant tailwind gusts?) my technique critically depends on lots of runway available. it also leaves me less prepared for short strip and emergency landings. as specific pilot skill increases, I may want to reduce fast low-flap landings from about 1.4 x Vso to about 1.30 x Vso over the threshold, and from 1.35 to 1.20 (or lower) on touchdown. good summary? anything else I am missing?
  3. well, I fly 1.35 x Vso, so I am not far off from 1.3 x Vso. bob hoover loved to fly along runways at full speed with one wheel kissing the ground. I am no bob hoover. I want the extra energy until I am practically over the runway. safety margin. ok, agreed, then it may actually no longer be a benefit, but a cost. in principle, I should be able to bleed off speed from 55 down to 45 on long enough runways while flying along the runway. (any guess how much runway this slowing will take?) on my own home runway, this means that I have already left the "approach trees" behind me and I am no longer subject to the mountain gust and windshear surrounding my airport (but not the runway). and, eventually, I will probably work my way down with 55 over threshold, 50 on landing zone, and 45 wheels down. yes, still fast. ed---where can I read up more about "vulnerable speed zones" while flying? I have never heard of this before.
  4. an airplane can be landed in many ways. it can be slipped down from pattern altitude, it can be landed all the way from 1000' in stall or near-stall. it can be flown at 45 knots and landed in full stall. it can be flow in slow flight all the way. all good (or better). BUT there are some advantages to my method. I would argue that they are more forgiving FOR ME. They trade off some extra wear for some extra safety margin. here is what I mean: the advantage is that my technique maintains full ordinary flight control all the way down to the runway. the wind is my friend. my prop makes it. in general, lesser-flap and faster landings are less sensitive to gusts from random directions. after touchdown, I have the two ground wheels plus the rudder for lateral control. most important, if a sudden downshear pushes me down before the runway (and we have a few trees right in front of our threshold!), then I can quickly trade speed for altitude. together with the fast rotax spoolup, I am out of trouble in no time. the disadvantage of my method is that it is unsuitable to short (and soft) airports. I land fast and long. note that my technique does not put more stress on the wheel struts or on the front wheel. I don't push down the controls down to put stress on my front wheel. if it appears as if the airplane wants to hop, I just relax the stick. can hopping be avoided with slower landings? yes! landing fast puts a little more wear on the tire, but these tires are used in planes landing much faster than the ctsw. my method is also suitable for eventual pilot adjustment into slower landing speeds. my plan is to land slower and slower over time, by holding it off longer just before touchdown. I don't want to be slower over the threshold. it will still be for long runways only. it is safer to fly a little too high and fast than too low and slow. if you are never at risk for the latter, then yes, you are perfect. for me, the penalty function is very asymmetric here. for the same reason, I am not fond of sideslips with the nose up...uncoordinated airplane with steep angle of attack?! if you are good at it, great. but if you or your student makes a mistake here, near the ground, you have a lot to lose. I don't mind sideslips with the nose down. but it is those sideslips that are not as effective in CTSWs as they are in other airplanes. PS: part of my description was wrong. I am not looking out the side-window. I am looking out the front window, but diagonal left corner thereof, towards the lower part of the mushroom. somehow, it helps me understand the sensitivity and instantaneity of the ctsw inputs more. when I used my "other airplane" technique of looking over the nose and out the window, I was more tempted to yank the stick than to do just the many delicate adjustments that I now use to keep the airplane just off the ground. not sure why. just works like this for me. I also still have near perfect lateral direction now. came automatically. (not at the start of my flying, but now.) (CTSW stall characteristics are indeed fine. not what I meant. what I meant is that I like to see what's ahead, and not point up 45 degrees.)
  5. I know we have different perspectives on landing techniques on this forum. different techniques are preferred by different people. here is my own. I hope it will help other newbies. landing technique pattern distance on downwind: about 0.75nm to runway cut power abeam the numbers. completely. (on my airplane, idle us about 1800rpm.) all landings are basically power-off landings. 15 degrees of flaps soon after, before turning base. on base, speed will bleed to about 60 knots to about 500fpm descent rate recommended for all airplanes: not one 90 degree turn to final, but two 45 degree turns to final. side-slipping works, but not as well as in airplanes with a fatter side profile. energy management is more important in a ctsw. about 60 knots over the threshold about 55 knots typical landing speed --- note: this is never really true slow flight until the very end. keep eyes firmly on the ground through the left side window. (in other planes, I look over the noise down to the runway end to judge altitude and continually hold off the airplane. not in this one.) just hold off the runway. if too fast, you may flare twice. power to smooth the flare is usually not necessary. just keep your eyes firmly on the ground through the side window. don't yank the stick, just fly the airplane with soft inputs. the ctsw is very responsive even to very soft touch, esp in ground effect. when wheels touch down, immediately relax the stick. holding the stick back will make the airplane do bunny hops. yes, the ctsw can fly at 40 knots! if need be, very slight stick pressure forward to keep the airplane on the ground 30 degree flaps or lower speeds are possible, but not necessary. other observations the CTSW is very light. almost twitchy, halfway between an airplane and a helicopter. this can be a problem for pilots coming from other airplanes. it takes getting used to. even after having gotten used to this, it is *very* difficult to be perfect on the speeds. every little wind gust makes a difference and can throw the airplane off (or even around). I live in a mountainous region, with constant sudden draft reversals and wind gusts. the ctsw would have been a better airplane for my region if it had had less wing. its wing loading is super-low. I know the LSA requirement is 45 knots stall speed. the FDCT could have sawed off some wing to up the stall speed in exchange for less sensitivity IMHO. add one category on turbulence. what is light chop for a standard 4-seater can easily become moderate turbulence for the ctsw. I would not fly it into known moderate turbulence, which can become severe turbulence for a ctsw. the airplane is also rudder sensitive. some linkage to ailerons would have made it more pleasant. the ctsw has more than enough control surface to deal with wind of any kind...as long as it is steady and expected. (stalling the airplane is also more unpleasant because one really has to point the nose far towards the moon to make it happen. it's hard to get a CTSW into a stall...heck, we ditzed around near-stall at what our speed indicator claimed was 35 knots airspeed. of course, any wing gust near a stall is then double nasty.) the ctsw is a wonderful fun flier. however, it does require adjustment. safe and easy for me to fly in normal weather, but not a good flier into known turbulence. more other observations the rotax powerplant is wonderful, but it overheats on the ground in hot weather. (strangely, only two of my four cylinders.) I updated to the lithium battery. highly recommended. the overhead window is stupid. who wants to be fried by the sun? the cockpit visibility and size is great.
  6. where can I buy a version *with* the placard for $100k less?
  7. hi roger----I believe you that oil does not evaporate. If it does not show under the airplane, it's likely mostly still in the engine. :-). will a functioning dynon d120 (oil pressure or temperature) give me good hints/advice when I need to pour more oil into the engine?
  8. has anyone done this? I wonder how long it should take an avionics shopt to replace this.
  9. found the answer on vans airforce: No, because the GTR 200 is several inches shorter, doesn't plug into the same rack, and supports quite different wiring including stereo headsets and stereo music.Yes, because it has a similar height, and especially if your SL40 is just being used as a COM radio, it would be quite easy to remove the SL40 and rack and move the wiring functions onto new pins on the GTR 200 connector. You would probably want to install stereo headphone jacks and wire those up instead of the mono jacks you were probably using with the SL40. They both use essentially the same serial interface, so even retaining the ability to remote tune the radio from an external system would still work if you just connect the wires to the right pins.We are happy to get into as much detail as you like. Thank you for your interest.
  10. I have an SL40 installed. It may just be seated incorrectly, or it may need repair. alas, avionics shops labor is expensive, so I am wondering whether I may as well replace it with a newer GTR 200. this makes sense only if this is a slide-in replacement, rather than a rewire. has anyone done this?
  11. I know. I was just dreaming. the Vans RV-12iS is about $100,000 and $150,000 assembled/built. I wonder at what wholesale price dealers are receiving CTLSi's. of course, they take quite a bit of risk and have to invest into showrooms, etc. I am going to guess that a large aspect of the reasonable prices of cessna and pipers 50 years ago was that they could be mass-produced on assembly lines. it had to be two for some competition. it couldn't have been 100 to fragment the market into so many small vendors that none had great economies of scale. I hope to be able to buy a used F2 in about 10 years. The more new ones get sold, the better it is. /iaw
  12. will the F2 still be LSA in the US? seems like a bigger airplane. I wonder what the price per unit would be if 20 of us were to go buy F2s or F4s in one batch order... lack of volume is what keeps prices so high. /iaw
  13. so, I have had a few more days practicing. (unfortunately, Southern Cal has seen lots of rain and wind over the last three weeks.) here are my experiences and impressions so far. they are personal---your's may be very different. I am posting them here to help some future startup pilots. I am also ok being corrected if I am making judgment mistakes. for a pilot used to a "standard" airplane, the CTSW is a difficult airplane to land. I can see why the the ground accident rate was pretty high for PPs. A sports-licensed pilot trained in a CTSW will beat a PPL pilot any day in terms of CTSW safe and competent flying. I have personally seen pilots with 5,000+ hours struggle. it is not that the CTSW is intrinsically more difficult to fly than other airplanes. But it is different. Very different. One's piloting skills do not transfer as easily to a CTSW than to another 1,500 lbs airplane. the biggest differences from a Vans or Piper or Cessna are the need to become a good rudder pilot (stick alone is not enough most of the time); the perspective from the cockpit is quite different (don't look towards the spinner, but straight); and the airplane is very light and clean and does not want to slow down easily. (the kind of slips that may work are a bit scary, in that they require a slow-flight nose-up attitude, obviously uncoordinated. a little wind gust, and it may drop left or right, dependent on where it comes from. probably quite safe, but I would rather not err and find out the hard way.) the "easy" way to land the CTSW is to use 15 degrees flaps. At 30 degrees flaps, the ailerons lose their "normal" characteristics and feel really mushy. Almost like a different airplane. Unpleasant. Unfun. (Not impossible, but just no longer crisp.) I now want to fly the pattern no faster than about 60 knots. Abeam the numbers, I don't throttle back to 3000rpm. Instead, I begin a throttle-off approach and set 15 degrees flaps. Really. Most of the time, with just a little rear wind (on downwind), it takes a long time to start losing altitude. I don't even fly a particularly close-in pattern now. Even on a normal pattern distance, the power-off approach feels almost always just right. On occasion, If I am getting a little slow and low on final near the runway, I add a little bit of power. The Rotax engine is incredibly quick---nearly instant---in spinning up. On final, I want to be at an airspeed of no more than 55 knots. I would like 50 knots, but the airplane does not easily slow down to it even with a power-off approach. At 50 knots, I am not in slow flight and the (throttle-off) airplane handles just like it always handles...nice and crisp. With 50 knots speed over the threshold, I probably would get to 45 knots landing speed, which is just beautiful. I have yet to determine how quickly the airplane bleeds off speed, at 15 degrees flaps and 50 knots (down to 45 knots), near the ground and in slow or near-slow flight. I am still cautious. However, I suspect that a CTSW would bleed energy so slowly on descent to final and the nose would point so high into the sky that I could not miss noticing when I get down to a slow 45 knots (10% above stall speed). Right now, half of my attention has to be focused on the numeric display of the airspeed on the Dynon (which is way too busy in those moments for my taste). It will become a lot easier if I knew that I did not need to watch the numeric airspeed as carefully. [Anyone have a good guess? How many seconds should it take to bleed speed from 50 to 45 knots, power-off, 15 degrees flaps, descending at a constant rate of 200-300 fpm on final?] Single-pilot behavior is even more extreme than dual-pilot behavior. The airplane becomes even lighter. Very noticeable...not like a 1,500 lbs airplane. Power off, power off, power off. The rest the same. regards, /iaw PS: If they did not exist in real life, I would guess "motorized kite" would be good joke to make about a CTSW. It is 100hp bolted on a sailplane without speed brakes.
  14. https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/slip-skid-stall/ (however, the slip-skid difference seems to matter in turns, not on final when my direction is straight ahead and I want to lose altitude and speed in a hurry.) I find the Dynon a bit too busy for taking a quick glance to get the airspeed and vertical speed. This would make it safer/easier. I wish I had a HUD with those two pieces of information---or be able to see it much more quickly---or have audible speed or AoA alerts. This is why I am trying to build in more safety margin against a worst-case scenario than I should. I don't believe the CTSW lends itself to stabilized approaches the same way that heavier airplanes do. but I want to fly (smaller) corrections to the basis, not (bigger) corrections from start to end. This is why I started this thread. And everyone's point of view is highly appreciated. For one, I have learned that there are many approaches to landing.
×
×
  • Create New...