Bonanza (A36) Approach Speeds

On Dec 16, 10:41 pm, "F. Baum" wrote:
On Dec 16, 2:03 pm, " wrote:
:

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

Thoughts?

Dick Collins has been past editor of Flying as well as AOPA Pilot.
He's been a GA fixture for years and I am in no position to gainsay
his extensive experience (10,000 plus in GA airplanes).

There is no specific POH guidance for IAPs.

What specifically his Dick Collins written that is Controversial?

Contriversial was probably not a good word choice. How about
unorthodox. All I can remember from the article is that this Tom B did
most of the series (And not very well ) and there were side bars by
Collins about all of the corners he cuts while flying IFR. If you
consider the fact that there could be some low time pilots reading the
magazine, it is probably not a good idea to brag about how much stuff
you can get away with. It has been awhile since I have done much
teaching and as I recall, I never set out to teach people to cut
corners. This is what I found to be unorthodox. The only other thing I
can remember about the guy was a few less than accurate editorials. I
understand Flying has a new guy in there now, but I would still take
any of these " How To" piloting articles with some healthy sceptisism.
BTW how are you aware of Collins backround and experience. Do you know
him personally ?
FB

Unorthodox is probably a much better word choice. Then we're talking
about differences in practice, not mere right and wrong.

I don't know Dick Collins personally (though I'd like to have lunch
and do a brain dump at some point), but I've read several of his
books. I read Flying when I was a kid (whenever I could scrape
together the $1.50 and had enough time over lunch to run down to the
drug store. Later I learned that the drug store was also popular since
it stocked Playboy -- behind the counter, of course. I still bought
Flying.)

Dick Collins has over 8,000 hours in a 210, plus thousands more in
others. He's been around GA for a long time and his father (Leighton
Collins) wrote a fairly good book about flying (entitled Takeoffs and
Landings but it covers far more than that).

While the article may have suggested cutting corners, I haven't found
that in his books.

What -- In My Humble Opinion -- he does very well is help help the
reader cross the chasm from FAA dogma (read Written and Practical) to
real world practice. While some may say these are shortcuts, I think
instead this knowledge leans towards the art that follows any skill.

While I agree "new pilots" should be wary and perhaps even ignore some
advice, you can't sell magazines (nor should you!) that tiptoes around
every possible item that may screw over a newbie. In fact, at some
point every pilot needs to develop judgment -- and that is the skill
and art of winnowing out the wheat from the chaff.

I'm always wary of protection schemes.

Dan

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

On Dec 16, 10:37 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

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.

So you broke out at minimums and then configured for landing ? If I
were you I would find a different instructor next year.


FB

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.

So you broke out at minimums and then configured for landing ? If I
were you I would find a different instructor next year.


Was this during the ABS Bonanza training??

Does seem like stuffing 10 lbs into a 5 lb bag...

Dan

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 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?

" wrote in
:

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?


Sorry, thought we were talking 182 210


Bertie

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.