![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Le vendredi 29 juillet 2016 16:33:21 UTC+2, a écritÂ*:
The majority of gliders are more stall and spin resistant at medium to steeper banks than at shallower bank angles. (This is aerodynamically different than most airplanes). I'm sure you can elaborate on this... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Some of the reasons for standard patterns rather than 180:
- it's what other traffic at airports expects. It's what most instructors checking you out on their planes, airports, BFRs, or FAA examiners expect. - it gives you good time to look from base to see if there is other traffic on final - many stall spin accidents come from overshooting base to final, then ham-handed corrections. That's more likely from a 180 - many off field accidents come from being too close to the field. planning a 180 puts you close automatically - less adjustment room if things go wrong. - A test: try doing your no-spoiler approach that way. John Cochrane BB |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() We [British] divide the downwind to base turn into two approximately 45 degrees turns, to insert a 'diagonal leg'. I'm going to give this a try. I don't like the "wait until the touchdown point is 45 degrees behind you before turning base" part of the square pattern training...I can't see the touchdown point then. This BGA method seems like better training for XC outlandings than a square pattern |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sorry to be so flip with my first response, however subjects like this keep coming up. Bottom line - there is a best practice technique for most tasks. Many of these best practices are designed to result in the safest methods.
From this "best practice" there develops alternative methods. Some of these other methods are for good reason, but they do not supplant the reasons for the best practice method. This is a big subject, and I have submitted a lengthy article regarding landings for publishing in Soaring Magazine - probably after the first of the year. Gather your stones for throwing. Tom Knauff |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Whatever method you use, if you don't make a controlled arrival to the ground, you still broke something.
Even a "normal day at normal field" can bring surprises.......... Have a plan, make adjustments as required...... Don't break the glider, you won't likely break yourself. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 5:43:41 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Sorry to be so flip with my first response, however subjects like this keep coming up. I tried the 'Inverted Flight Landing Pattern' and I DID NOT LIKE IT. Looking forward to your article on landings. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Another advantage of a standard-ish circuit, is that the focus is on preparing for the final turn -- you aim to have your final turn completed at a safe height (and speed) in a reasonable place.
There's no reason you can't do this in a 180 deg turn too, but my guess it that it somewhat reduces this focus if it's not trained well. It could potentially have you focusing on your reference point too early, flying more cramped-in circuits as a result? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
my $.02:
First, the beauty of the 360 "Overhead" pattern is that it makes it really easy to fly exactly the same pattern at ANY airfield. As long as you come up initial at the same speed, and pitch out at the same bank angle, you will end up at the same place on downwind (adjusted for x-wind, of course). The, you just configure, motor to the perch, and roll into your easy 180 turn to line up on final. Done well, it's one of the most satisfying maneuvers in aviation. And it has the advantage of being a really quick way to enter the pattern, slow down, and land - useful for towplanes. BUT - it's meant for relatively fast movers with bigger turn radius's; works fine in a Pawnee at 120 mph, no so good in a J-3 at 65 mph, and not at all in most gliders (yes I've tried). So, for gliders, all that is really useable is the second half - the continuous 180 degree turn to final. As others mention, that is not what is normally taught, and has some limitations that need to be taken into consideration; the main one is that it has to be done from a low downwind, and it happens fast. And that is why I think it is actually a useful skill to practice: If you end up low and tight, you should be able to fly a safe 180 (or 270, or 90) pattern and land out of it - because you don't have the option of going around! Just realize that most other traffic will not be expecting it and fly accordingly. In regards to you question about the military's track record - I don't have numbers but would bet an expensive bottle of whiskey that it's a LOT better than that of GA - after all a military pilot is better trained, flies more often, gets lots of check rides, etc. That being said, modern military jets are more susceptible to high-sink rate problems in the pattern that stall/spins; look up almost any T-38 accident and getting low and slow on final will pop up often. For a supersonic jet, it is really a dog when slow! Kirk 66 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 7/29/2016 1:10 PM, kirk.stant wrote:
Snip... So, for gliders, all that is really useable is the second half - the continuous 180 degree turn to final. As others mention, that is not what is normally taught, and has some limitations that need to be taken into consideration; the main one is that it has to be done from a low downwind, and it happens fast. I don't comprehend why a circle-from-downwind-to-final landing pattern in a glider "...has to be done from a low downwind, and it happens fast." I understand it CAN be done that way, but not why it MUST be done that way. If Joe Glider Pilot is aiming to produce a threshold landing directly from the 180-degree turn, I suppose an overall lower flight path compared to the case where he seeks to achieve the same "no straight final leg" threshold landing directly from the base-to final turn would be the case, simply because the latter/"tangencies-to-the-circle" flight path pattern would be longer due to the "uncut corners," and hence the "rectangular path" pattern has greater distance over which spoilers can be modulated. (The preceding scenario assumes a "normal downwind offset distance;" the closer in the final, the less additional distance flown, of course.) But if the goal is "simply" to hit a pre-selected landing spot on a runway, he can also do "the circling thing" to final, rolling out short-of and "normally above" the runway onto his final approach path...which is what all of my "circling patterns" sought to achieve. IOW, my circling-to-final in the HP allowed me to be able to use less bank angle-per-unit-time (aka lower roll rate/stick forces) to a high, straight, final approach path; I wasn't trying to emulate Joe Carrier Pilot in any way beyond borrowing his 180-degree downwind-to-final turn. Likewise, the microburst-influenced "fully circling pattern" described in another post, in actuality, by design, resulted in a (very) short straight final. Tangentially and as noted elsewhere, for whatever reason, I found no difference in difficulty judging "howzitgoing" with respect to my glider's status "in the descent cone" whether circling from downwind to final or using separate, distinct, 90-degree turns to get there...if anything, the circle seemed "more natural" to me..but then I preferred playing outfield to infield as a kid! Either way, every pattern's goal: to arrive on a straight final "somewhere on the high side" of my ship's theoretical descent cone. Back to my original puzzlement...am I correct in believing "military approved" circling approaches essentially do NOT include "a straight final" portion, a-la the "immediately before touchdown" curving flight path understandably employed by (e.g.) Pitts biplane pilots as a means of retaining over-the-nose vision for as long as possible until the runway edges appear on either side of the nose? And that is why I think it is actually a useful skill to practice: If you end up low and tight, you should be able to fly a safe 180 (or 270, or 90) pattern and land out of it - because you don't have the option of going around! "Roger that!" on the go-around-impossible bit. (No mulligans in sailplane landing patterns!) When I blundered into the sport, the concept of being unable to "re-do a poor pattern" by going around was a new/completely-foreign/ignorantly-scary concept to my "power-polluted" (in the reading sense of things) brain. Upon becoming "stick-time/usefully familiar" with the flight physics of sport sailplanes, the no-go-around reality quickly mentally-morphed into "entirely normal and not a big deal"...so long as reasonable and continuing assessment of "minding the approach store" was part of the piloting package. It was immediately clear to me "an easily repeatable" landing pattern was the primary tool in minding the store. And "Roger that!" on being able to safely do (or more accurately, salvage, if previous inattention/screwups have contributed, sardonic chuckle) low patterns. Following "licensure," safely expanding one's flight envelope surely is the name of the aviation game! So - where do I go to practice departures from controlled flight *in* my landing pattern? ![]() Bob W. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Downwind to final turns | Jonathan St. Cloud | Soaring | 18 | June 7th 15 02:19 PM |
Base to Final - Fatal | Orval Fairbairn[_2_] | Piloting | 0 | August 8th 10 03:23 AM |
The Art of Racing - Final Turn.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman[_4_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | February 27th 10 12:42 PM |
Final Approach, pt 3 - KFME final.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman[_3_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | April 8th 09 12:56 PM |
Turn to Final - Keeping Ball Centered | skym | Piloting | 224 | March 17th 08 03:46 AM |