SonexFlight Episode 75 - Pattern Precision

[WesRagle]

Hi Mike,

Wes,
I’m in that excessive heat area. Must be near each other

Mike

I'm in north central Texas. Our "Excessive Heat Warning" was downgraded to a "Heat Advisory" today. Tuesday and Wednesday highs down to around 97. I'm ready for October :-)

Wes

[caveman371]

114 today in Vegas through Wednesday at least
Everyone goes out on the dawn patrol here!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rmtrudeau]

I'm glad precision pattern flying has come up.

I am wondering who here has flown a partial panel approach with ASI covered? I think as a whole we need to get back to pitch and power = performance flying.

This is something I have done with my students as a CFI as well as was done to me. If you know what your pitch attitude and power should be for any given situation...there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't know your airspeed (while covered) +/- 5 knots. No AOA needed (although I am a huge fan on AOA indicators.)

Additionally, I have seen just sloppy airspeed management as a whole. People accepting the 5-10 knots mentality with lots of fluctuations. Aim for precision! If you want 65 mph on final...aim for 65. Don't accept any tolerance. That's what I love about flying...challenging myself to be perfect, even though I know it is not possible.

Anyway...off my soapbox! Great episode. Thank you for the work!

[builderflyer]

Unless flying a rental aircraft, there will be no power off approaches for me. Shock cooling an air cooled engine is a bad thing and I won't do that to an aircraft engine that I own and from which i want to achieve a long life . Unless run out of fuel, these engines of ours almost never fail at the low power settings used during a typical power approach to land. In fact, if we don't have the appropriate mixture dialed in at idle, the engine is more likely to die at idle than when carrying some power. I believe that many of us have had that happen during our early testing. Of course, those of you who do regular sessions of aerobatics would consider a power off approach to be "babying" your engine. Just my humble opinion.

Art,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Sonex taildragger #95,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Jabiru 3300 #261

[WesRagle]

Hi Art,

Shock cooling an air cooled engine is a bad thing and I won't do that to an aircraft engine that I own and from which i want to achieve a long life .

I understand that you can find someone on the internet who supports any position/notion you want, no matter how ridiculous. Having said that, there does seem to be considerable difference of opinion on shock cooling. Google "shock cooling myth" to get a sampling. It obviously doesn't hurt to avoid shock cooling.

During my training the argument for power off landings was that every landing should be considered practice for a forced landing. That advice was first given by a WWII vet (CFI) who during the war flew reconnaissance in a cubish type aircraft. He also advised that radio communication was to be avoided as it was a distraction from the real task at hand, flying the airplane. Oh well, times change I guess.

Maybe it's one of those "Pick your Poisson" situations. As I work my way toward what will become my standard landing technique one thing I know is that the power will not be at idle until I know the runway is made. I just hope I don't mess up before I figure out what that technique is :-)

Wes

[N190YX]

As time goes on, best practices evolve based on science and data. The notion of "Shock Cooling" an engine has essentially been debunked. Read on, though. Think about the temperatures and what happens when the throttle is advanced from ground operations power to takeoff power, temperatures spike rapidly. Shock heating an engine has never been an issue for an engine with oil temperature in the operating range. For me, particularly in larger engines, I avoid reducing the throttle so much that the air stream is now turning the engine instead of engine power. This results in reverse pressure on the crankshaft than when the propeller is pulling on the crankshaft. This is strictly not allowed in large radial engines like on a DC-3 where the manifold pressure in inches must never be less then the engine RPMs in hundreds, i.e. on approach the lowest power setting allowed is 17 inches and 1,700 RPM. This may not be an issue on the smaller displacement engines on Sonex/Waiesx aircraft. An example (not applicable here but an example of changing best practices) of another best practice that has evolved is pre-takeoff cycling a constant speed propeller during run up. We used to think we needed to cycle the propeller several times to make sure it is working and get warm oil into it. Now (but many pilots are not yet aware of this) it has become known that warm oil is not needed for the propeller to function properly and the propeller should only be cycled once on run up to make sure it is working and get oil to it through the governor. Then on successive flights on the same day, the propeller need not be cycled at all prior to takeoff. One of the reasons I love aviation is the challenge of constantly learning new things, of better ways do accomplish things, etc., and I attempt to make every flight as perfect as I can. I take a few moments after every flight and assess what was good, and what could have been better.

[builderflyer]

During my training the argument for power off landings was that every landing should be considered practice for a forced landing. That advice was first given by a WWII vet (CFI) who during the war flew reconnaissance in a cubish type aircraft. He also advised that radio communication was to be avoided as it was a distraction from the real task at hand, flying the airplane. Oh well, times change I guess.

Wes

Hi Wes, Your CFI would not have been able to teach where I learned to fly in the mid 1960s; and that was Santa Monica Airport (KSMO) in California. KSMO was the busiest single runway airport in the country and Cessna was literally building thousands of 150's a year in Kansas back then. It wasn't uncommon to be number 13 or even number 15 to land and our pattern would sometimes extend 7 or more miles downwind to follow traffic. If that wasn't bad enough, our radios left a lot to be desired. Many aircraft had the old coffee grinders in which you'd turn the dial to receive the tower frequency (like an old am radio) but your transmitter transmitted on a different frequency which meant that you didn't hear the transmissions of many of the other aircraft in the pattern with you and they didn't hear you either. And, of course, transponders were yet to be commonplace, even if flying IFR, which made little difference in the pattern since the towers didn't have radar anyway.

So the point of my long winded introduction is that in that learning environment, there was little opportunity for a power off approach to landing and learning how to communicate on the radio was nearly as important as learning how to fly the airplane. You're right, times change, however my story is from 55 years ago and, in many ways, it is easier to learn to fly in today's world than it was back then.

Regarding "shock cooling".........this is one of those things the effect of which can be difficult to assess one way or another given all the variables involved. Regarding "shock heating", Jabiru does provide minimum oil and cylinder head temps to be observed before applying full throttle. Anyway, since its my engine that I'm not anxious to replace, I'll stick wth the concept that whether advancing or retarding the throttle, slow movements promote less wear and tear on the engine than do rapid movements over the life of the engine.

Art,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Sonex taildragger #95,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Jabiru 3300 #261