Couldn't Get it Down

Just a thought: there's no reason to fly a "stabilized" approach in a
piston engine airplane, that is a jet concept developed for the slow
power response of the early jets. It should not be applied rigidly to
piston pounders as it's rarely wise to fly a constant airspeed
throughout the approach (you'll die of old age first g).

That's interesting. From my student days I was always taught to fly a
stabilized approach, from abeam the numbers on crosswind, all the way till
the flare.

As the years have gone by, I've experimented with any number of methods,
and -- while they all work out in the end -- none of them can as easily
yield the consistent greasers of a stabilized approach.

My definition of "stabilized" has evolved over time, however. I used to set
up 80 mph on downwind, and hold that speed precisely all the way around.
Combined with the huge patterns I used to fly as a student, the landing
pattern could become a journey unto itself! :-)

Nowadays, I'll come into the pattern much faster -- at say, 100 knots -- and
stabilize it at 90 knots before I turn base. Then I'll let the speed
gradually erode to 80 or so, and hold it all the way round. My patterns
are MUCH tighter as well.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"