![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() They do say that *most* Bo pilots land far too fast. With 10 hours of class room (ground school) they drilled into us we would NOT be landing too fast.:-)) You should have heard the complaints when we were informed we'd be calculating the approach and departure speeds (for VFR) based on aircraft weights and flying those within a couple MPH/knots. Most of those pilots had never landed that slow let alone come down final at that speed. :-)) We did short filed landings and takeoffs at book speeds which is a really steep and slow final carrying lots of power. Then we did the notably faster power off landings. They didn't have us do any no flap landings which are a real education in nose high, float forever, use a lot of runway exercises. Interesting! I went flying with my instructor Friday (most of his hours are in T210 and lately a C185). We flew steep slow finals (70 KIAS) as well. What I learned is that excess energy is better dissipated in the air. With a 10 knot headwind component) we could have landed and taken off on the 2400 foot runway (we back taxied, but the numbers worked out). BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent. Dan http://traiingforcfi.blogspot.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 17, 3:05 pm, Newps wrote:
wrote: BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent. What? Did the tail fall off? I have plenty of elevator at 70 kts, no power and a forward CG in a 35 Bo. I fly a 1947 Model 35 as well. Not the same airplane as an A36, the topic of this thread. Dan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 17, 6:01 pm, Newps wrote:
wrote: On Dec 17, 3:05 pm, Newps wrote: wrote: BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent. What? Did the tail fall off? I have plenty of elevator at 70 kts, no power and a forward CG in a 35 Bo. I fly a 1947 Model 35 as well. Not the same airplane as an A36, the topic of this thread. Doesn't matter. Care to elaborate? The A36 and Straight 35 are exactly the same, except for the different wings, different weights, different powerplants, different CGs, different loading envelopes, different gear, different prop governors, different empennage, and a few thousand other minor differences. I guess that doesn't matter? Dan Dan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 17, 10:36 pm, Newps wrote:
wrote: On Dec 17, 6:01 pm, Newps wrote: wrote: On Dec 17, 3:05 pm, Newps wrote: wrote: BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent. What? Did the tail fall off? I have plenty of elevator at 70 kts, no power and a forward CG in a 35 Bo. I fly a 1947 Model 35 as well. Not the same airplane as an A36, the topic of this thread. Doesn't matter. Care to elaborate? The A36 and Straight 35 are exactly the same, except for the different wings, Wings are the same. different weights, The 36 weighs 31 pounds more than the same year model 35. different powerplants, Same powerplant as mine. different CGs, different loading envelopes, Yes and it is beneficial. different gear, Same gear, just heavier duty than the straight 35, exactly the same as mine. different prop governors, Irrelevant. different empennage, Duh. and a few thousand other minor differences. I guess that doesn't matter? No, it doesn't change the fact that at 70 knots you are not out of elevator. I land at less than that speed, power off and it flares just fine. Please re-read the thread an you will see I am referring to a 1947 Model 35, which is significantly different in every respect I mentioned. I have not found that the A36 has enough energy left to flare and arrest the descent at 70 KIAS. Dan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:05:10 -0700, Newps wrote:
wrote: BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent. What? Did the tail fall off? I have plenty of elevator at 70 kts, no power and a forward CG in a 35 Bo. It's not an elevator authority issue, but rather one of energy. Book figures for the 33 are ~ 80 knots (varies a bit from year to year) for a no power landing. It's 78 (90 MPH) for mine. Normal is 70 (80 MPH) minus one mph for each 100# under gross. The POH states the power off landing is faster as there is not enough energy to safely flare at the normal power on landing speed. Depending on the year the 36 is slightly longer than the 35/33 to a fair amount longer (18" IIRC). CG covers a much wider range on the 36. As I recall the wing is the same with some minor differences in the tips, stall strips, and rivet patterns (flush and round head). OTOH they are not interchangeable. Early 33s had a number of variations in the tank arrangement(s). I've had mechanics swear the aux tanks on mine were after market as they are forward of the spar, but it came from the factory that way. The early 35s are considerably lighter than later 33s and 36s. Later 36s are heavy. Roger (K8RI) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The fuselage was repositioned on the 36 wing, by sectioning the cabin,
changing the cabin profile. You will see about 10 inches between the firewall and a 36 wing root and almost none on a 33/35. Early 35s have small engines and later models have the IO520/IO550 engines and about 1,000 pounds more gross weight than the 1948 models. Bonanzas have been modified so much that it is hard to make a general statement, each airplane may have many STC changes in GW, engine, brakes, anything that effects GW. "Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message ... | On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:05:10 -0700, Newps wrote: | | | | wrote: | | BUT -- 70 KIAS is not a power -off landing speed. There's insufficient | energy to flare, so a bit of power is required to arrest the descent. | | | What? Did the tail fall off? I have plenty of elevator at 70 kts, no | power and a forward CG in a 35 Bo. | | It's not an elevator authority issue, but rather one of energy. | | Book figures for the 33 are ~ 80 knots (varies a bit from year to | year) for a no power landing. It's 78 (90 MPH) for mine. Normal is 70 | (80 MPH) minus one mph for each 100# under gross. The POH states the | power off landing is faster as there is not enough energy to safely | flare at the normal power on landing speed. | | Depending on the year the 36 is slightly longer than the 35/33 to a | fair amount longer (18" IIRC). CG covers a much wider range on the 36. | As I recall the wing is the same with some minor differences in the | tips, stall strips, and rivet patterns (flush and round head). OTOH | they are not interchangeable. Early 33s had a number of variations in | the tank arrangement(s). I've had mechanics swear the aux tanks on | mine were after market as they are forward of the spar, but it came | from the factory that way. | | The early 35s are considerably lighter than later 33s and 36s. | Later 36s are heavy. | | Roger (K8RI) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
F-18 Approach and touchdown speeds on runways? | Paul Michael Brown | Naval Aviation | 5 | August 25th 04 04:56 PM |
Approach speeds for ILS | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 73 | March 2nd 04 11:20 PM |
Approach speeds for ILS | C J Campbell | Piloting | 71 | March 2nd 04 11:20 PM |
LSA Approach speeds | Ace Pilot | Home Built | 0 | February 3rd 04 05:38 PM |
Approach speeds for ILS | G.R. Patterson III | Piloting | 0 | January 22nd 04 10:13 PM |