![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
tony wrote:
As for crosswind landings, the ground effect in a low winged airplane is much more pronounced, I'm not sure they are easier in general to land. The funny thing is that that's not the case for a Cherokee, at least not the ones with the semi-tapered wing. I had some trouble transitioning from the 172 to the Warrior because I was used to the 172 gliding forever in ground effect, while the Warrior will drop like a brick as the airspeed decays. I don't know exactly what the aerodynamic explanation is -- perhaps the Warrior has a slightly higher wing loading -- but I've heard of the same experience from many other first-time Cherokee pilots as well. The solution (for anyone interested) is either (a) add some power in the flare to keep the nose up, or (b) keep your approach speed right to the flare, rather than beginning a gradual roundout higher up like you would in a 172. I wonder if you're noticing the different ground-effect behaviour with the Mooney not because the wings are low, but because the Mooney is such an amazingly clean plane. I personally lust after a Mooney 201, which would give me 165 ktas burning only a couple of GPH more than my Warrior at 126 ktas. All the best, David |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() The solution (for anyone interested) is either (a) add some power in the flare to keep the nose up, or (b) keep your approach speed right to the flare, rather than beginning a gradual roundout higher up like you would in a 172. I wonder if you're noticing the different ground-effect behaviour with the Mooney not because the wings are low, but because the Mooney is such an amazingly clean plane. I personally lust after a Mooney 201, which would give me 165 ktas burning only a couple of GPH more than my Warrior at 126 ktas. David, I think I'm tuned into the ground effect so much because I fly the M20J 150 hours a year or so. If you carry too much airspeed into the flare, you're in for a long, long settling time, and the chances are you'll not hear the stall warning before the mains touch. Lots of Mooney pilots, when in the flare, retract the flaps. that helps the airplane stop flying sooner (and the trailing edge of the flaps are really close to the ground, which makes ground effect issues become GROUND EFFECT issues). The other thing is, what one does when landing is try to burn off the energy the airplane has, and clarn airplanes don't lose energy very quickly. Again, that's an argument for managing airspeed carefully. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
tony wrote:
Lots of Mooney pilots, when in the flare, retract the flaps. that helps the airplane stop flying sooner (and the trailing edge of the flaps are really close to the ground, which makes ground effect issues become GROUND EFFECT issues). I learned that trick in the Cessna 172, but I've never needed it in my Warrior -- it stops flying just fine on its own in the flare, whether I want it to or not. The other thing is, what one does when landing is try to burn off the energy the airplane has, and clarn airplanes don't lose energy very quickly. Again, that's an argument for managing airspeed carefully. I have to think of some reason not to be jealous of your Mooney ... let's see ... with good airspeed control and full flaps in my Warrior, I can often make a turnoff at the approach end of the runway, saving me maybe 5 minutes in taxiing time. That will have to be my compensation for the hour you saved in your Mooney during cruise. Seriously, with all the hype about the Cirrus and Lancair composite planes, I'm still not all that impressed -- for all the new materials and techniques no one (except maybe Diamond with their TwinStar) seems to come close to a 1970's Mooney aircraft's combination of speed and efficiency. All the best, David |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() I have to think of some reason not to be jealous of your Mooney ... let's see ... with good airspeed control and full flaps in my Warrior, I can often make a turnoff at the approach end of the runway, saving me maybe 5 minutes in taxiing time. That will have to be my compensation for the hour you saved in your Mooney during cruise. Seriously, with all the hype about the Cirrus and Lancair composite planes, I'm still not all that impressed -- for all the new materials and techniques no one (except maybe Diamond with their TwinStar) seems to come close to a 1970's Mooney aircraft's combination of speed and efficiency. You may have something, although if one is familiar with the airplane and controls airspeed brfore going into the flare, , Mooneys can stop pretty short too w/o burning up breaks. There aren't too many airports I fly into where the first turn off is less than 1000 feet or so from the approach end. In fact, it's fairly common for me to plan my touchdown pretty far down the runway to get close to the turn off, since I'd rather fly over the centerline than taxi on it. A lot of this discussion isn't really fair, though -- as I mentioned, I'm a fairly high time pilot (for not having been taught to fy in one of the services) and lots of that time is in the same aircraft. I read its mind, and it reads mine, pretty well. You can say the same thing about your airplane, can't you? One thing about the Mooney -- in fairly stiff cross winds, it's easy to run out of rudder authority before you'd like, so sometimes it has to be flown onto the runway. I hate touching down before the airplane doesn't have enough airspeed to fly! OTOH, if you start adding power in the flare, you can actually make the tail skid touch down before the mains. that's won me a few hamburgers when flying with pilots who don't like their tail backwards. But Warrier or M20, we're among the lucky ones. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
tony wrote:
A lot of this discussion isn't really fair, though -- as I mentioned, I'm a fairly high time pilot (for not having been taught to fy in one of the services) and lots of that time is in the same aircraft. I read its mind, and it reads mine, pretty well. You can say the same thing about your airplane, can't you? About my airplane perhaps, but not myself -- I'm still under 300 hours. I agree, though, that after even a couple of hundred hours in the same airplane, you start to know its behaviour very well. All the best, David |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "David Megginson" wrote Seriously, with all the hype about the Cirrus and Lancair composite planes, I'm still not all that impressed -- for all the new materials and techniques no one (except maybe Diamond with their TwinStar) seems to come close to a 1970's Mooney aircraft's combination of speed and efficiency. All the best, David Ouch! Have you seen the single engine ceiling for the Diamond? I'm not impressed. Truely a better way to get to the crash site. -- Jim in NC --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.677 / Virus Database: 439 - Release Date: 5/5/2004 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High wing to low wing converts...or, visa versa? | Jack Allison | Owning | 99 | January 27th 05 11:10 AM |
High wing vs low wing | temp | Owning | 11 | June 10th 04 02:36 AM |
High Wing or Low Wing | Bob Babcock | Home Built | 17 | January 23rd 04 01:34 AM |
End of High wing low wing search for me | dan | Home Built | 7 | January 11th 04 10:57 AM |
Props and Wing Warping... was soaring vs. flaping | Wright1902Glider | Home Built | 0 | September 29th 03 03:40 PM |