Landing patterns

dave wrote
However rare an engine failure in the pattern might be we've all read
about them.

Actually, the only ones I know of where there wasn't enough power left
to limp to the runway were indeed fuel exhaustion.

I can't recall anyone ever hitting an updraft in a cub,
citabria, etc. on final that pushed them so high they missed the field.
Where have you seen this?

In Texas, where we routinely see 500 fpm updrafts in the summer. I
was in a Cub. I knew I was a little high and a little hot and I was
already slipping - and then I hit an updraft and nothing I did was
good enough to get down. Oh, I suppose I might have managed a landing
well past midfield but at that point a go-around seemed like the hot
tip.

I also try to be high on final and then
slip if needed.

There's a difference between a little high on final and slip off the
altitude if need be, and being high, hot, and slipping like crazy on
every approach. I favor the former, but not the latter.

In a glider, the ideal approach is one where you fly your pattern with
half spoilers - in the middle of your range. That allows you to
flatten the glide if you hit sink or steepen it if you hit lift.

By the same token, in a no-flaps airplane I favor an approach that
puts me about 1/3 of the way down the runway without slipping, and a
medium slip to scrub off the altitude on short final - all of this at
normal approach speed. I believe that if you need close to a
maximum-effort slip on final, then one of two things happened - either
you set up too high and too hot, or you hit a serious updraft on
final. If you're consistently slipping hard down final, you're not
leaving yourself an out against the day you have to fly short final
over a hot parking lot.

My objection is not to power-off patterns, which I favor. I also do
not object to slipping down final a little, especially in a no-flaps
airplane. I'm just saying that you can overdo it. Too much speed and
altitude can be as bas as too little.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
dave wrote
However rare an engine failure in the pattern might be we've all read
about them.

Actually, the only ones I know of where there wasn't enough power left
to limp to the runway were indeed fuel exhaustion.

I can't recall anyone ever hitting an updraft in a cub,
citabria, etc. on final that pushed them so high they missed the field.
Where have you seen this?

In Texas, where we routinely see 500 fpm updrafts in the summer. I
was in a Cub. I knew I was a little high and a little hot and I was
already slipping - and then I hit an updraft and nothing I did was
good enough to get down. Oh, I suppose I might have managed a landing
well past midfield but at that point a go-around seemed like the hot
tip.

In IL we get 1000 fpm thermals. Not sure why but at low altitudes, such as
on final, they have little effect. They need altitude to develop or some
such thing. As someone else explained, thermals have very little effect on
touchdown point when flying a steep approach. Had you stayed with it you
would have found you would have touched down very near your original
touchdown point. Sink sems to be a much bigger issue than lift. The
antidote for sink is high and slipping like crazy if you have to.

"Dave Stadt" wrote
In IL we get 1000 fpm thermals. Not sure why but at low altitudes, such as
on final, they have little effect.

I once saved a flight (in a glider) by working one of those thermals
that have little effect at low altitude - starting at about 400 ft.
Every glider pilot I know has a story like that.

As someone else explained, thermals have very little effect on
touchdown point when flying a steep approach. Had you stayed with it you
would have found you would have touched down very near your original
touchdown point.

My instructor felt otherwise. We were already close to midfield and
still not down when he called the go-around.

Sink sems to be a much bigger issue than lift. The
antidote for sink is high and slipping like crazy if you have to.

In my experience the magnitude of sink and lift tends to be about the
same. Conservation of mass, I suppose...

Michael