Flaps for Landing

[FlyingMonkey]

2 minutes ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

90° at 500' would be excessive silly. 

Agreed.  You have conceded the point, now let's negotiate...at what bank angle and/or altitude does this stop being "excessive silly"?

I think that's the question we're all looking at with this stuff.  Oh, and also, you are picking up speed FAST in an unloaded turn.  How do you manage that with flaps?

[Ed Cesnalis]

2 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Agreed.  You have conceded the point, now let's negotiate...at what bank angle and/or altitude does this stop being "excessive silly"?

I think that's the question we're all looking at with this stuff.  Oh, and also, you are picking up speed FAST in an unloaded turn.  How do you manage that with flaps?

I find 45° to be quite comfortable, even a normal turn for my CTSW.  I'm coasting in at 55kts, I can really bank as steeply as I want if I don't pull back or change the trim.  I don't need to pick up that much speed so I keep my ASI at 62kts if needed.

All in all I find a 40°+ angle to be safer in my CT because I can see again in 10 seconds and it feels right.

[Ed Cesnalis]

17 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

If you only make descending turns, you can keep the stall speed from coming up, that's true.  You made it sound like there was something special about the CT because lower wing loading compared to a Cirrus or other heavy airplane, regarding making steeper turns in the pattern, and there isn't.  

There is and its huge.  Its not wing loading alone, stall speed and wing span and airfoil all play big parts.  There is a wide spectrum with many designs requiring better than average pilots to keep within a safe envelope.  Their speeds are likely 20kts higher and their stall / spin warning perhaps non-existent.  The extra speed alone says the 500' elevation is problematic.

Have you ever been to an ultra light field with a 300' pattern?  You could fly a CTSW into such a field pretty comfortably and a 210 couldn't do it.  AT that 500' point the 210 has the altitude it needs compared to the CTSW could work with a fraction of that, therefore the CTSW's descending turn that loses little altitude fits in nicely.

[Tom Baker]

4 hours ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

I find 45° to be quite comfortable, even a normal turn for my CTSW.  I'm coasting in at 55kts, I can really bank as steeply as I want if I don't pull back or change the trim.  I don't need to pick up that much speed so I keep my ASI at 62kts if needed.

All in all I find a 40°+ angle to be safer in my CT because I can see again in 10 seconds and it feels right.

If you are maintaining a constant speed in your glide when you increase the bank angle, then you are also increasing the loading and stall speed at the same time. Even in a glider the stall speed goes up as you increase the bank angle.

[ct9000]

Another point that has not been raised.

A CT does not need a lot of back stick in a turn because the fuselage is aerodynamically correct and therefore provides a higher percentage of the required lift the steeper the bank angle.

For this reason a pilot new to a CT will instinctively climb in a steep turn because they are used to applying back stick which a CT does not need a lot of.

If you want to prove this effect, go and stall a CT in a steep turn - at a safe altitude of course-. You will find that the increase in stall speed percentage is not as great as you would expect. 

[Tom Baker]

1 hour ago, ct9000 said:

Another point that has not been raised.

A CT does not need a lot of back stick in a turn because the fuselage is aerodynamically correct and therefore provides a higher percentage of the required lift the steeper the bank angle.

For this reason a pilot new to a CT will instinctively climb in a steep turn because they are used to applying back stick which a CT does not need a lot of.

If you want to prove this effect, go and stall a CT in a steep turn - at a safe altitude of course-. You will find that the increase in stall speed percentage is not as great as you would expect. 

In my experience pilots new to the CT will climb in a turn one way and dive the other. It is sight picture related.

[Ed Cesnalis]

1 hour ago, Tom Baker said:

If you are maintaining a constant speed in your glide when you increase the bank angle, then you are also increasing the loading and stall speed at the same time. Even in a glider the stall speed goes up as you increase the bank angle.

this unloaded turn abandons constant glide as needed to keep the wing from loading. it trades some altitude for a low g turn and because its a CT re-establishing the new final is leisurely.

[Tom Baker]

10 hours ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

this unloaded turn abandons constant glide as needed to keep the wing from loading. it trades some altitude for a low g turn and because its a CT re-establishing the new final is leisurely.

So you are letting your nose drop and increasing speed in the turn.

[Ed Cesnalis]

33 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

So you are letting your nose drop and increasing speed in the turn.

Sure, while I"m trimmed for 55 knots that's still stab input and its the biggest variable.  Think little yank but lots of bank.  The extra bank and loss of altitude tighten your turn the lack of yank does it without approaching stall.  When its all done my approach is lower but well within comfort for my slow/nimble CT.

[Runtoeat]

We've arrived at my power off slowly descending tight turn from downwind to over the numbers and touch down with full flaps.

[Tom Baker]

1 hour ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

Sure, while I"m trimmed for 55 knots that's still stab input and its the biggest variable.  Think little yank but lots of bank.  The extra bank and loss of altitude tighten your turn the lack of yank does it without approaching stall.  When its all done my approach is lower but well within comfort for my slow/nimble CT.

The next chance I get to fly a CT I will check it out, but I don't think you can increase the bank angle and tighten the turn without also increasing the load factor and stall speed.

[Ed Cesnalis]

32 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

The next chance I get to fly a CT I will check it out, but I don't think you can increase the bank angle and tighten the turn without also increasing the load factor and stall speed.

I do it more at cruise speed then at pattern speed. (Its my most common canyon exit).  I'm either trimmed for level cruise or 55kts,  in either case its mostly a matter of no back pressure (let the trim fly)  The nose drops on its own seeking trim speed when you are in a steep bank, the turn radius is minimal for the bank angle but its smaller and adjustable. In almost all cases you can let the trim handle the speed and attitude while you increase bank to needed radius, when done resume normal cruise or approach.

I don't think you can increase the load factor and stall speed without pulling back on the stick.  If you let the nose fall to trim speed it feels as the load factor doesn't increase at all.  In a CT you don't have to pull back much for that to change big time of course.

[FlyingMonkey]

Ed, have you considered that an unloaded turn at 45° bank angle might not have any greater turn rate than a normally loaded, level turn at 30° ?  After all, the higher the load put on the wing (by increasing AoA), the greater the turn rate...

I bet if an aerodynamicist (Houston Andy, where are you?!?) did the math, the two bank angles would have the exact same turn rate at the exact same stall speed.  In other words, if your unloaded wing at 45° bank stalls at 40kt and gives you a 15°/sec rate of turn, then a loaded wing at 30° bank that also stalls at 40kt would give the exact same 15°/sec turn rate.  Assuming the entry into the turn were both performed in the same configuration and at the same speed.

If my hypothesis is correct, then the sharper bank is not buying you anything (except enjoyment, if you like it)...your bank is higher, but your turn rate is the same.  Thus there really "ain't no such thing as a free lunch" (TANSTAAFL).

[Ed Cesnalis]

1 hour ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Ed, have you considered that an unloaded turn at 45° bank angle might not have any greater turn rate than a normally loaded, level turn at 30° ?  After all, the higher the load put on the wing (by increasing AoA), the greater the turn rate...

Sure but there are 2 places I use it and one where I use it often and the proof is in the pudding.

• Occasionally (perhaps a north wind at our field)  I'll have an overshoot final issue in the pattern and I do solve it with this technique.
• Often when I'm flying in a canyon, usually after I fire my camera it is time to exit.  If a level turn will do it I use one because I don't give up altitude for no reason but in most cases as I sense the drift into the canyon wall is a concern I use a steep descending turn to get out.  The proof is in the fact that it works.

It takes lateral distance to make a turn but in 3 dimensions you can roll that a bit and climb for a chandelle / wing over or descend for a steep turn, same principal.

[FlyingMonkey]

40 minutes ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

Sure but there are 2 places I use it and one where I use it often and the proof is in the pudding.

• Occasionally (perhaps a north wind at our field)  I'll have an overshoot final issue in the pattern and I do solve it with this technique.
• Often when I'm flying in a canyon, usually after I fire my camera it is time to exit.  If a level turn will do it I use one because I don't give up altitude for no reason but in most cases as I sense the drift into the canyon wall is a concern I use a steep descending turn to get out.  The proof is in the fact that it works.

It takes lateral distance to make a turn but in 3 dimensions you can roll that a bit and climb for a chandelle / wing over or descend for a steep turn, same principal.

I can see in a narrow but deep canyon where that has value, but I'm not getting how turning and losing altitude on an overshoot in the pattern is better than just a turn at the same rate to get back to center line.  Unless you are very high anyway and need the altitude loss.

[Ed Cesnalis]

3 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I can see in a narrow but deep canyon where that has value, but I'm not getting how turning and losing altitude on an overshoot in the pattern is better than just a turn at the same rate to get back to center line.  Unless you are very high anyway and need the altitude loss.

In most cases there is no value because for most aircraft turning short final their altitude is critical to a stable approach.

If you overshoot at 30 it takes 2 more turns at 30 to get back and your getting down to the last minute.

If you prevent the overshoot at 50 and loose extra 75' doing it its not an issue for my CTSW and I don't have to make those last 2 turns.  Stabilized approaches don't mean much at all to me in the CT.  Wind shear at home means they are often not possible and often when I do I get disturbed as I'm rounding out anyway.

[FlyingMonkey]

Ah, you are talking about preventing an overshoot with a steeper turn, not correcting one that has happened.

[Ed Cesnalis]

31 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Ah, you are talking about preventing an overshoot with a steeper turn, not correcting one that has happened.

totally

I've had this come into play at fields with parallel runways, crosswinds and judgement errors.   What are you going to do at that moment when you realize you are going to drift into the parallel's short final?