Why not to land downwind

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:50:15 +0200, Stefan
wrote:

Peter Duniho schrieb:

There was enough of a tailwind to add 500 feet to the landing distance, when
the airplane was already going to require more distance to land than there
was runway.

How much did he need? We had a Falcon 900 in here on our 3500 foot
runway. He did use most of it getting stopped and it wasn't wet.


And most probably to shift the touch down point a couple of hundred feet
down the runway, too. Don't ask me why I know this.

I don't have to:-)) I spent some time flying the back course at MKG
(Muskegon) with a 20 knot tail wind and actually landed. I fly the ILS
at 120, plus the 20 knot tail wind was bringing me down to the MM at
140. A VFR final is 80 minus one MPH for each 100# under gross, so I
had to lose almost 60 knots from the MM to the roundout let alone
touchdown. I'd guess it added between 1500 and 2000 feet to my touch
down distance. On a normal VFR final it would have added about 800
feet with 20 knots from the stern.


My guess is that the same water which caused the short circuit by
creeping into the electrics and launched the engine creeped further and
cut the fuel pump. Just my guess, not better nor worse than other guesses.

Stefan
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com