Jump to content
2018 Page Fly-in Cancelled! Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
cbreeze

Pattern speeds/power settings

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Roger Lee said:

"Pilot ability doesn't change aerodynamics."

No, but it does change how the plane is handled on the ground fast or slow.

" flaps trying to lift the trailing edge of the wing"

Sensitivity depends on flap settings. Remember you're still flying just touching the ground.  You have the stick to control nose wheel pressure. Good fine experienced motor skills make a big difference on the pedals and the stick.

When I flew helicopters at first I was all over. Poor fine motor skills. When I had lots of time I could knock over a small traffic cone, pick it up with the skid, set it some place else and then tip it back up. It's all fine motor control.

I can change aerodynamics. I have a stick, pedals, flaps and ailerons. That's how we fly is by changing current aerodynamics. Works on the ground as well. 

Anyone can make a slow or fast landing a squirrely mess.

Roger, if I had been talking about how to fly the airplane your rant would have been valid, but that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about design and handling differences between the CTSW and the CTLS.

It was ask if there was a difference between the two airplanes. Bill Ince stated his opinion. I corrected him on the CTSW gear not being a tube, and stated that the CTSW is less stable on the ground than the CTLS, especially at higher speeds.

Per the factory engineers when the airplane was introduced at Sebring in January 2008, one of the design goals of the CTLS was to make it more stable on the ground. Based on my experience flying both the CTSW and CTLS, I feel that they achieved their goal.

BTW, I was there working in the Flight Design booth when the CTLS was introduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're telling me you got off topic. Shame....🤣 😁

Just kidding.

 

I never saw much difference between the two models. You fly one like the other and if you screw up they both cause you issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cub is way easier to land... first, find grass, then, once over the runway put the stick in your lap.  Done...:its_all_good-855:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, EFB said:

I have a question for the experienced folks:  I am hoping to take my checkride on Sept. 1 in a CTLS. I am worried about landing on or within 400 feet of a target (but not before that point) on normal landings and within 200 feet on short field landings.  This is the standard I am supposed to hit.  I find I often float too far to achieve that.  I’ve been trying various things per the POH - flaps 30 degrees, airspeed on final ~53 knots, engine power idle last half of the final (say from 200’ altitude till runway).  When I am flying by myself (say 180 pounds less than max weight) this seems to result in a lot of float.  Even with my instructor in the plane (i.e. - I am at 1,320 pounds, +0/-50), it seems like too much float for the normal landing requirement.  (Of course the plane still lands fine, just not necessarily predictable enough on the touchdown point to hit the standard on the test.)

For short field landings, the requirement is “within 200 feet beyond or on the specified point,...”

My CTLS actually has flap settings of 30 & 35 degrees, by the way.

I am thinking of trying 35 degree flaps, and an airspeed of 48 knots on final for the “normal” landing, and perhaps 45 knots on the “short field” landing.  Although 45 knots is getting a bit close to the stall speed; not much room for error.  This at max weight (i.e. - during test).  Later today I may experiment with these speeds, minus about 2 or 3 knots, by myself (say 180 pounds less than max weight).

So, the question is:  does anyone have advice?  Specifically, at either 30 or 35 degrees of flaps, what airspeeds and power settings on short final at max gross weight do you recommend to achieve the standards?  Or any other advice?  Thank you in advance and best wishes to all.

I have regularly used 48kt at 30° flaps, it works well.  At 46kt the bottom starts to come out and you will get into some pretty epic sink rate.  You can run 46kt with some power in and keep a bit better control and lower sink.  45kt might be a little too slow, but you can try it and just go full power if it doesn't work out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AGLyme said:

The cub is way easier to land... first, find grass, then, once over the runway put the stick in your lap.  Done...:its_all_good-855:

 

The most epic loss of control I even saw was in a J3 Cub.  Scraped BOTH wingtips, went perpendicular to the runway and down a hill.  Onlookers had to scatter to not get hit.  No airplane is immune to mishandling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

Float is a demonstration of too much speed. If you are getting your stick to the aft stop and still floating begin reducing speed.

Good advice . . . I like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Roger Lee said:

So you're telling me you got off topic. Shame....🤣 😁

Just kidding.

 

I never saw much difference between the two models. You fly one like the other and if you screw up they both cause you issues.

1000+ hours sitting in the right seat teaching people how to fly CT's gives a person plenty of time to pick up on the differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just your right hand. 😉 

I don't have 1000 in the right seat, but some, but, close to 2000 combined in both models. I get to fly owners planes all the time. What I find different is trim, not model big differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have mentioned this before. If you see in excess of 120 kts indicated in cruise you most likely have an open static. I have checked this with my test equipement. The CT with good door seals has a 10kt increased indicated airspeed on approach with an open static.  If you see 60kts you are actually doing 50kts. That turn to final might ruin your day. Recent FAA statistics have the highest GA fatalities occurring on the turn to final. Skidding the tail a little makes it worse, the CT is very yaw sensitive as everyone knows. There is no recovery at this point. Everyone be carefull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Madhatter said:

I have mentioned this before. If you see in excess of 120 kts indicated in cruise you most likely have an open static. I have checked this with my test equipement. The CT with good door seals has a 10kt increased indicated airspeed on approach with an open static.  If you see 60kts you are actually doing 50kts. That turn to final might ruin your day. Recent FAA statistics have the highest GA fatalities occurring on the turn to final. Skidding the tail a little makes it worse, the CT is very yaw sensitive as everyone knows. There is no recovery at this point. Everyone be carefull.

I use 30* and a closed throttle from abeam the numbers.  If my ASI lied to me by 10 knots I would know by my wingtip, it wouldn't be level.  I would also know by the pain in the ass it would be to get slow enough for flaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Madhatter said:

I have mentioned this before. If you see in excess of 120 kts indicated in cruise you most likely have an open static. I have checked this with my test equipement. The CT with good door seals has a 10kt increased indicated airspeed on approach with an open static.  If you see 60kts you are actually doing 50kts. That turn to final might ruin your day. Recent FAA statistics have the highest GA fatalities occurring on the turn to final. Skidding the tail a little makes it worse, the CT is very yaw sensitive as everyone knows. There is no recovery at this point. Everyone be carefull.

I can easily see 120+ indicated 2000ft msl, and confirmed the speed against GPS ground speed in no wind conditions.  A CT set up well will do it, though mine has the small wheels and I can only speak to that configuration.

Unless my airplane a actually stalls at 28kt with full flaps, I don’t have a static leak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will never know if there is a static leak but for a few exceptions without a test box . I have done hundreds . Its not just lines but also instrument case leaks as I found in my Ct. Over years of tests done on all aircraft I worked on, the failure rate was over 50%. Some owners complained of stall warnings going off on final. VFR aircraft are not required to have static checks and because of that many begin to leak over time. I am only stating my experiences in this area, people can do what they want with it. I look at this forum for information that I may not know, and then research it further, some have all the answers, I do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Madhatter said:

You will never know if there is a static leak but for a few exceptions without a test box . I have done hundreds . Its not just lines but also instrument case leaks as I found in my Ct. Over years of tests done on all aircraft I worked on, the failure rate was over 50%. Some owners complained of stall warnings going off on final. VFR aircraft are not required to have static checks and because of that many begin to leak over time. I am only stating my experiences in this area, people can do what they want with it. I look at this forum for information that I may not know, and then research it further, some have all the answers, I do not.

I understand static leaks are common, but a static leak causing a 10kt change is pretty major, and it seems that would quickly become obvious.  The only statement I took issue with is that if you can see over 120kt indicated, you probably have a static leak.  I don't think it's as simple as that.  In my case, I can pretty easily get to 125kt indicated at 2000ft, and my airplane stalls within a knot or two of book speeds.  But again, I have the small wheelpants and have spend a fair amount of time tweaking the prop pitch, keeping the carbs closely in sync, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had Arian fix a static leak on my CTsw. Afterwards, wide open throttle at 1000’ was 124 knots indicated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KentWien said:

Just had Arian fix a static leak on my CTsw. Afterwards, wide open throttle at 1000’ was 124 knots indicated. 

Sounds like your speeds are similar to mine.  Do you have standard or tundra wheels?

I wonder if the speeds on the CTSW and CTLS are a little different or the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have flown many SW's and LS's side by side and tested 14 different props. The deciding factor is rpm and at its best and most efficient rpm they are all the same.

 

It is rpm, trim and pilot dependent for those couple of extra knots, but a couple of knots isn't worrying about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My speeds are based on 5650 WOT. Roger is correct, to make comparisons everytbing has to be the same , altitude, RPM, OAT, propeller type, etc. When I tested turbines for GE and Lycoming everything had to be calculated to standard temp and pressure, even humidity made a difference. I can get higher airspeed in my ctsw but at higher manifold pressures which could be detrimental to engine longevity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should practice flying just a foot off the ground and see what speed it takes to do that

then you will get experience and know when to flare and or back off throttle maybe someone

already said that I did not read the whole post. my 2 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×