Bonanza (A36) Approach Speeds

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:58:04 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Any other Bonanza pilots have thoughts on Approach Speeds?

Eckelbar posits 105 knots. I've tried it and it works, but is a
handful to reconfigure and slow down in time for a more reasonable 75
KIAS final approach speed.

Dick Collins recommends flying approaches fast ("the runways are
usually long..")


Check with the ABS on this and a quick phone call should suffice. They
have some good advise.
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.

105 is what they had me flying the ILS in the Deb/F33 at Columbus.
As the foggles/break out did not come off until the MM (200 feet) the
reconfiguration was rather short and quick.

Yes, it is a hand full to reconfigure (retrim) while going full flaps.
If the 36 is like the 33 with trim it's dependent on air speed, not
flap settings which means a lot of retrimming from the 105 down to
about 70 in the roundout.

The Deb/33 does not change pitch or trim with changes in flap
settings, but small changes in speed in the 70 to 105 knot range
require substantial trim changes.

Roger (K8RI)

Thoughts?

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

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.

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

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.

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)

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)

Roger (K8RI) wrote:


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.


My book 50 foot speed is 68 MPH(59 KTS) at my typical landing weight.

" wrote in news:3c3cbac8-a160-4bde-
:



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.



Been a while since I've flown a 182 but that doesn't sound right.



Bertie

On Dec 17, 4:26 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
" wrote in news:3c3cbac8-a160-4bde-
:



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.

Been a while since I've flown a 182 but that doesn't sound right.

Bertie

182?