What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Crosswinds!

UPDATE

I wanted to share my experience early this morning as I?ve gotten more and more XW experience in my RV12.

Today I was able to explore what I think are the upper boundaries of XW?s in my 12. I had 160@41 KT, which presented about 35KT HW and 20.5KT XW in the pouring rain this morning. Aside from being crabbed about 15? to the right and just over 30KT ground speed, it was pretty much a non-event. I find that the rudder has plenty of authority to crab down to the runway and then kick the nose around into alignment and set the upwind gear onto the runway. I then let the left gear down to the runway, set the nose down and then pretty much came to a stop after that without any brakes. I had to power up to get to the turnoff and then had to use power and brakes to finagle my way to the tie-down.

My fellow commuter was laughing and joked that it seemed like an ?austin powers? getaway scene taking so long to get to the runway.

All in all, I?d say that?s about on verge of a limit for the airplane. I think it could handle a couple more knots XW for the landing, but taxiing sucked.

Afterward, I noted that the rain did an excellent job shining up the aluminum.

Separately, there was windshear at 2000? indicated at 55KT; coming down through that was, shall we say, ?bumpy?. 90KIAS worked well, and the stick and rudders got a great work out too. The TAF for tomorrow is a little better with less rain, should be another fun ride.
 
I wanted to share my experience early this morning as I?ve gotten more and more XW experience in my RV12.

Today I was able to explore what I think are the upper boundaries of XW?s in my 12. I had 160@41 KT, which presented about 35KT HW and 20.5KT XW in the pouring rain this morning. Aside from being crabbed about 15? to the right and just over 30KT ground speed, it was pretty much a non-event. I find that the rudder has plenty of authority to crab down to the runway and then kick the nose around into alignment and set the upwind gear onto the runway. I then let the left gear down to the runway, set the nose down and then pretty much came to a stop after that without any brakes. I had to power up to get to the turnoff and then had to use power and brakes to finagle my way to the tie-down.

My fellow commuter was laughing and joked that it seemed like an ?austin powers? getaway scene taking so long to get to the runway.

All in all, I?d say that?s about on verge of a limit for the airplane. I think it could handle a couple more knots XW for the landing, but taxiing sucked.

Afterward, I noted that the rain did an excellent job shining up the aluminum.

Separately, there was windshear at 2000? indicated at 55KT; coming down through that was, shall we say, ?bumpy?. 90KIAS worked well, and the stick and rudders got a great work out too. The TAF for tomorrow is a little better with less rain, should be another fun ride.

Great update Ron, thanks for playing test pilot and sharing the data! You are going to become legend over there at KPAO. Would be funny to see a bunch of Bonanza pilots on the ground, waiting for the weather to improve....and here comes Ron shooting an approach in his little IFR RV-12. (What wind shear??) :D
 
Great update Ron, thanks for playing test pilot and sharing the data! You are going to become legend over there at KPAO. Would be funny to see a bunch of Bonanza pilots on the ground, waiting for the weather to improve....and here comes Ron shooting an approach in his little IFR RV-12. (What wind shear??) :D

Thanks Paul; I'll try to live up to your kind words.

I do want to point out that I take a methodical approach to risk management and careful to flight plan every day (both ways), but one of my main goals is to maximize the use of the RV-12's excellent capability and exploring the full envelope of ability is fun too, however I remind myself daily about "old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots".

I'll share with the group what you and I've discussed previously, and that's that I built my RV-12 purposely for commuting. And for that specific task, I believe it's one of the best use cases for cost and capability. And I get some great views on the way home some days too.

Looking at the recent snow on the Altamont's to the south
gij9hCxl.jpg


Me and my fellow commuter
XnPldWWl.jpg
 
Ron, if you like testing... and I don't doubt you're quite skilled, that you weighed heavily the mission of your personal build AB RV-12, and that uber healthy and peppy UL 350IS, I'd get some flight box orange jackets for visibility, just in case you go down... never know when someone might need to try to find you... make it easy on them.

Personally, I've decided to carry a rather strong green laser that runs on a 18650 LiPo cell, in case of emergencies... any particle matter in the air at night makes it stand out like a spotlight. At night, it would be very, very easy to signal via morse code a ... --- ... the universal distress signal. I am certain if not cloudy, it would carry a long, long ways. That and a good flashlight. YMMV, any better suggestions for worst case scenario, I am all ears... I like the Boy Scout motto, Be Prepared.

It's also OK to become a legend at C83.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I've decided to carry a rather strong green laser that runs on a 18650 LiPo cell, in case of emergencies... any particle matter in the air at night makes it stand out like a spotlight. At night, it would be very, very easy to signal via morse code a ... --- ... the universal distress signal. I am certain if not cloudy, it would carry a long, long ways. That and a good flashlight. YMMV, any better suggestions for worst case scenario, I am all ears... I like the Boy Scout motto, Be Prepared.
.

I guess it might have value if you could get the attention of a random over flying airplane but Search and Rescue rarely fly's at night so it will be of limited value with them.
 
Ron, if you like testing... and I don't doubt you're quite skilled, that you weighed heavily the mission of your personal build AB RV-12, and that uber healthy and peppy UL 350IS, I'd get some flight box orange jackets for visibility, just in case you go down... never know when someone might need to try to find you... make it easy on them.

Personally, I've decided to carry a rather strong green laser that runs on a 18650 LiPo cell, in case of emergencies... any particle matter in the air at night makes it stand out like a spotlight. At night, it would be very, very easy to signal via morse code a ... --- ... the universal distress signal. I am certain if not cloudy, it would carry a long, long ways. That and a good flashlight. YMMV, any better suggestions for worst case scenario, I am all ears... I like the Boy Scout motto, Be Prepared.

It's also OK to become a legend at C83.

I appreciate the feedback. Regarding C83, the airport operation manager jokingly said they've had to cut back on overtime now that I'm no longer fueling the Baron there weekly ;)

I do carry a portable radio and PLB, which I think is very useful for locating and communicating in the event of an off-field landing, but a flashlight is in my bag too.

All of that aside, it's not too far between C83 and KPAO and it's pretty much all over fairly populated terrain. In a worst case scenario, I'm likely a couple miles walk from the nearest Starbucks - unless I'm dead, in which case the satellite based ELT with GPS data can let the insurance company know where their airplane and my body is located.
 
I carry an ACR strobe in addition to the PLB and radio. Supposed to assist in night ID within a few miles.
 
I would like to hear about the other approach to cross-wind landings which is to descend from the last few hundred feet in the "wing-low" configuration all the way to landing, vs the crab method. I find in my ArcherII the wing-low seems to be most consistent and with more stabilized approach all the way to touchdown.
 
I would like to hear about the other approach to cross-wind landings which is to descend from the last few hundred feet in the "wing-low" configuration all the way to landing, vs the crab method. .

I use the "long final in a slip" method to teach students use of the controls in a crosswind landing. However, most pilots find flying the aircraft in a coordinated wings level, crabbed approach to be more natural, less work. So they progressively delay the transition to side slip later and later, eventually combining the whole maneuver (take out the crab, enter side slip) into one, just prior to touchdown (as Rod did). A few reasons to do so: (1) the cross wind is often stronger at anything above 50' agl, and your Archer will run out of rudder in an attempt to side slip only. This may cause you to abandon the approach early, when in fact the wind eases off a bit lower. (2) Even when the cross wind exceeds your slip capability, the "just prior to touchdown" procedure can get you in safely: if you touch down the upwind wheel almost immediately, there is no time for any significant drift to develop.
 
Time for me to be the stick in the mud again.

Unless there's some dire emergency, why push your luck? Suppose you get away with 24 knots xwind, but the next time you try it, you bend your airplane. Is that a win?

And for the rest of the folks who celebrate crosswind machismo, why is that worth celebrating? And will that tempt folks to try things beyond their skill level? Are scared pilots, bent airplanes and occasional bashed pilot worth it?

C'mon, guys, man up.

Ed
 
Time for me to be the stick in the mud again.

Unless there's some dire emergency, why push your luck? Suppose you get away with 24 knots xwind, but the next time you try it, you bend your airplane. Is that a win?

And for the rest of the folks who celebrate crosswind machismo, why is that worth celebrating? And will that tempt folks to try things beyond their skill level? Are scared pilots, bent airplanes and occasional bashed pilot worth it?

C'mon, guys, man up.

Ed

Ed,

I am in your court on this one. With a 30 kt ground speed on final, what is the effect on aircraft performance if the headwind suddenly shifts or drops to lets say 5 kts. Whether you are flying a RV-12 or 747...the negative effects on IAS and lift are the same except the 747 may have more reserve power to recover.

Tom
 
But...

But that 747 has far more inertia, and may NOT be able to recover a 30kt shear...in fact, most carriers have a stabilized approach criteria that mandates a go around if not within specified criteria. We use +/-15 knots for shears...
 
Last edited:
But that 747 has far more inertia, and may NOT be able to recover a 30kt shear...in fact, most carriers have a stabilized approach criteria that mandates a go around if not within specified criteria. We use +/-15 knots for shears...

Agree...just tried to keep it simple.

Tom
 
Ed,

I am in your court on this one. With a 30 kt ground speed on final, what is the effect on aircraft performance if the headwind suddenly shifts or drops to lets say 5 kts. Whether you are flying a RV-12 or 747...the negative effects on IAS and lift are the same except the 747 may have more reserve power to recover.

Tom

Hmm... even though ground speed is 30KT, the aircraft was still flying at 65KIAS and performance is the same relative to the wind it's flying in. And a strong headwind is very different than wind shear. If the headwind was physically able to suddenly stop, the aircraft ground speed would suddenly be 65KIAS and the margin above stall is unchanged. This is very different than varying aircraft approach speed at 1.2 vs 1.3 Vso in KIAS for additional margin above stall, something that you might apply for variations in wind gust - such as the rule of thumb "half the gust". The 747 referenced would still be using KIAS, not ground speed, for regulating approach speed.

When I share my experiences, while they may be perceived as expressions of "machismo", they are really just provided for the edification of the reader.

If you are uncertain of your outcome on final then, by all means, go around - or consider going somewhere else to land. If you land and then look back and say to yourself, "whew, I'm glad I made that one!", then you probably ARE on the verge of bending metal the next time. However, for this recent experience I provided, there was no question on the outcome and I provided detail so that others may be able to use those details as a reference to how their landings are working out and as an update to what I've learned since previous posts in my RV12 - not as a challenge.

Using the crab method, you're able get into ground effect without the cross-controlled effects that a forward slip creates. It does require practice and good timing, but once mastered, is a very effective way to land in XW and reflects my military training. With the heavy XW, when I did insert left rudder to align the aircraft with the runway, effectively forcing the right gear onto the runway, I still had some rudder control remaining (it was not at the stop), which is why I said the aircraft may be able to hand a couple more knots. It's important to know the limits of the aircraft - and the pilot's as well - which may not be the same.

As I stated previously, the landing was really a non-event. Taxiing was much more difficult and likely why Van's recently lowered the total wind max for ground operations from 35 to 30KT.
 
Last edited:
Uh, no...

If you're flying at 65 KIAS, 35 knots headwind component and hence 30 knots ground speed, and the wind abruptly stops, you're suddenly at 30 KIAS. Oops!
 
Uh, no...

If you're flying at 65 KIAS, 35 knots headwind component and hence 30 knots ground speed, and the wind abruptly stops, you're suddenly at 30 KIAS. Oops!

Ed, if you’re in your boat going 20kt downstream and the current is going 5 kt, then you’re going 25KT relative to the shore line - or ground. If you simply turn around and maintain that same 20KT of weigh on the boat, you will now be going 15KT relative to shore - you’re traveling in the current. The same principle is true flying in the air. If you’re flying 65KIAS into a 35KT HW, your ground speed is 30KT. If you turn around, you’re now going 95KT ground speed, but still flying the same 65KIAS within the air. If the wind, or body of air - which is a fluid much like the river, you’re flying in, were to stop, you would still be going 65KIAS within the body of air as your airspeed is relative to the volume surrounding the airframe, not relative to the air volume and the ground.
 
Last edited:
Ed, I?m not sure where to start with this...but here goes... if you?re in your boat going 20kt downstream and the current is going 5 kt, then your going 25KT relative to the shore line - or ground. If you simply turn around and maintain that same 20KT of weigh on the boat, you will now be going 15KT relative to shore - you?re traveling in the current. The same is flying in the air. If you?re flying 65KIAS into a 35KT HW, your ground speed is 30KT, if you turn around, you?re now going 95KT ground speed but still flying the same 65KIAS within the air. If the wind, or body of air you?re flying in, were to stop, you would still be going 65KIAS within the body of air.

Not really. There's momentum to consider. The problem with gusty conditions is that gusts can be sharp enough that your IAS fluctuates almost as much as the gusts do. If we're talking about a 35 knot wind shear (or sudden onset gust), the airplane would have to accelerate 35 knots to maintain airspeed. That's gonna take a few seconds.
 
Not really. There's momentum to consider. The problem with gusty conditions is that gusts can be sharp enough that your IAS fluctuates almost as much as the gusts do. If we're talking about a 35 knot wind shear (or sudden onset gust), the airplane would have to accelerate 35 knots to maintain airspeed. That's gonna take a few seconds.

It’s all about the relative wind. I included a link below for discussion. However, wind shear and wind gusts are different than a steady head wind. These topics are being merged and should not be.

Speaking relative to the wind, regardless of how the wind speed slows or increases, the aircraft speed within the volume of that wind will be unchanged. Relative to the ground, it has changed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_wind

When you’re on final and you see IAS fluctuating, that is because the aircraft speed itself is fluctuating within the wind, most likely due to pitch or power changes, but not a result of the wind speed changes.
 
Last edited:
Time for me to be the stick in the mud again.

Unless there's some dire emergency, why push your luck? Suppose you get away with 24 knots xwind, but the next time you try it, you bend your airplane. Is that a win?

And for the rest of the folks who celebrate crosswind machismo, why is that worth celebrating? And will that tempt folks to try things beyond their skill level? Are scared pilots, bent airplanes and occasional bashed pilot worth it?

C'mon, guys, man up.

Ed

Rongawer, thank you for posting your experience. Unfortunately, some keyboard cowboys like to ironically create machismo posts criticizing your valuable input. Despite his very clear intent on doing so, I hope Ed's post doesn't discourage any future posts of anyone.
 
It?s all about the relative wind. I included a link below for discussion. However, wind shear and wind gusts are different than a steady head wind. These topics are being merged and should not be.

Speaking relative to the wind, regardless of how the wind speed slows or increases, the aircraft speed within the volume of that wind will be unchanged. Relative to the ground, it has changed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_wind

When you?re on final and you see IAS fluctuating, that is because the aircraft speed itself is fluctuating within the wind, most likely due to pitch or power changes, but not a result of the wind speed changes.

You're right about there being a difference between steady winds and variable winds. With a 30 knot steady wind, it might just be easier to land across the runway. With gusts, you're subject to the vagaries of the winds. They may drop you, balloon you, or whatever. Windshear is probably the most extreme example of rapidly changing winds.

Think about why Delta crashed an L-1011 at DFW in windshear.. The wind changed from a headwind to a tailwind almost instantly and the aircraft couldn't accelerate quickly enough to avoid sinking into the ground despite using maximum power. Clearly, airspeed changed substantially because of the changing winds.
 
Speaking relative to the wind, regardless of how the wind speed slows or increases, the aircraft speed within the volume of that wind will be unchanged. Relative to the ground, it has changed.

.
Sorry for the thread drift, but, Ron, the above quote is just not correct.
Imagine that you're landing to the west, and above 20' the wind is out of the west at 40 knots. Below 19' the wind is calm. At 21' your airspeed is 60 knots (20 knots over the ground). If you lose 3' of altitude, your ground speed is still 20 knots (imagine an observer on the ground - he won't see you suddenly accelerate). Your airspeed will be 20 knots, too, until the plane can accelerate back to 60 - which it will do, if it doesn't hit the runway first.
 
When's the last time all of you went out and flew your 3x touch and goes to stay current?

Don't get rusty, and keep in mind, rongawer flies pretty much close to an hour, daily, during the work week, weather permitting, commuting to and from work.

Stay sharp and proficient! Is it just me, or is anyone else getting cabin fever too, and needs to go fly some?
 
Sorry for the thread drift, but, Ron, the above quote is just not correct.
Imagine that you're landing to the west, and above 20' the wind is out of the west at 40 knots. Below 19' the wind is calm. At 21' your airspeed is 60 knots (20 knots over the ground). If you lose 3' of altitude, your ground speed is still 20 knots (imagine an observer on the ground - he won't see you suddenly accelerate). Your airspeed will be 20 knots, too, until the plane can accelerate back to 60 - which it will do, if it doesn't hit the runway first.

Bob, in your example, you’ve defined a tremendous transition air layer boundary change of 40 knots that would likely present itself as wind shear for the landing pilot. But let’s use your example. Noting that airspeed is based on the wind relative to the airframe and measured by a pitot tube, if the wind speed above 20’ increased in speed to 45 knots, assuming you stayed level and made no power changes, how fast would you now being going in KIAS? What would your ground speed now be?

In reference to my original post of landing previously this week, I spoke of landing with 30KT ground speed, and that discussion has now morphed into landing in wind sheer (more than one volume of air interfacing at differing speeds and generally right angles) and compensating for gust (when one volume of air changes directions or roils within another), a diversion from the point of the my post. However, you’re speaking of multiple volumes of air and the transition from one volume to another and effects on the airframe when doing so - which is different than my original post as well.

What I said is accurate for a specific volume of wind and for the example I provided. If it were possible, imagine flying inside a very large box of air, now assume someone picks up the box and carefully carried it and then placed it in another location - did your speed inside the box change? No, it did not, however the speed and direction of the body of fluid you were flying in changed dramatically.

Understanding that wind sheer and wind gusts are a large part of landing, especially with crosswinds, they certainly belong in this discussion - they simply were not part of the actual landing I relayed.

EDIT: thanks for the support guys
 
Last edited:
Bob, in your example, you?ve defined a tremendous transition air layer boundary change of 40 knots that would likely present itself as wind shear for the landing pilot. But let?s use your example. Noting that airspeed is based on the wind relative to the airframe and measured by a pitot tube, if the wind speed above 20? increased in speed to 45 knots, assuming you stayed level and made no power changes, how fast would you now being going in KIAS? What would your ground speed now be?

In reference to my original post of landing previously this week, I spoke of landing with 30KT ground speed, and that discussion has now morphed into landing in wind sheer (more than one volume of air interfacing at differing speeds and generally right angles) and compensating for gust (when one volume of air changes directions or roils within another), a diversion from the point of the my post. However, you?re speaking of multiple volumes of air and the transition from one volume to another and effects on the airframe when doing so - which is different than my original post as well.

What I said is accurate for a specific volume of wind and for the example I provided. If it were possible, imagine flying inside a very large box of air, now assume someone picks up the box and carefully carried it and then placed it in another location - did your speed inside the box change? No, it did not, however the speed and direction of the body of fluid you were flying in changed dramatically.

Understanding that wind sheer and wind gusts are a large part of landing, especially with crosswinds, they certainly belong in this discussion - they simply were not part of the actual landing I relayed.

EDIT: thanks for the support guys

Say, how does one discern wind sheer vs gusts unaided when planning a short/local flight around the patch, other than stepping outside and saying, ?dang it?s pretty breezy out? ! I think sheer falls into the ?expect the unexpected risk category or stay on the ground?. Sorry, .....but the foregoing thread discussion has this astronaut wanting to go back to school.
 
If it were possible, imagine flying inside a very large box of air, now assume someone picks up the box and carefully carried it and then placed it in another location - did your speed inside the box change? No, it did not, however the speed and direction of the body of fluid you were flying in changed dramatically.
ys

Okay, lets say you?re flying trimmed at 70 kias, west, inside the box, which is at rest. Your ground speed is obviously 70 knots. At time 0, you rapidly accelerate (lets say over 0.1 sec) the box to 10 knots toward the west. If we treat the air as incompressible it accelerates to 10 knots as well. The airplane, having finite mass, cannot accelerate instantaneously. At time 0.1 it is still very close to 70 knots ground speed, but now close to 60 kias. Over the next 5 - 10 seconds the plane will accelerate to 70 kias; its ground speed is now 80 knots. At time 100, the box is stopped, and by 100.1, the air in the box is at rest with respect to the outside. However, the airplane continues west at nearly 80 knots, at 80 kias. Over the next ten or so seconds, the plane slows to 70 knots ground speed and kias. Did your speeds inside the box change? Yes they did.
 
For a while there I thought this discussion was going to reveal the secret of the dreaded "downwind turn"... :eek:
 
I've had landings where there's a significant headwind, until there isn't -- yes, airspeed drops sharply (of course), as does the airplane. It's why we add 1/2 the reported gust speed to our speed on final, right? And how do I know that I can expect the wind at the airport to be, say, 12G20? Because I get the weather via AWOS/ATIS and know the reported conditions. On top of that, I'm a little bit pessimistic and assume the wind is going to try to kill me. I would assume that Ron was aware of the reported conditions at the destination and planned his speed and approach accordingly.

I'm a 200-something hour, strictly VFR guy; I essentially know just enough to be dangerous. Nearly everyone here has far more flying experience than I do, and are far better at it than I am or probably ever will be. I'm certainly not going to plan to fly somewhere that I know will have a 30 knot crosswind. If I get where I'm going and there is a 30 K crosswind, I'm going to make an attempt or two before calling it off and going somewhere else. I'm always willing to try to incrementally expand my personal envelope through experience, as long as I can do it safely, and stay within what I'm confident I can do. The fact that Ron was able to land in those conditions doesn't mean I'm going to just blithely assume that I can, too. That said, given the limited experience I do have in the RV-12, I'm not surprised that he was able to do it.
 
Uh, no...

If you're flying at 65 KIAS, 35 knots headwind component and hence 30 knots ground speed, and the wind abruptly stops, you're suddenly at 30 KIAS. Oops!

Ed, you are spot on and I've had it happen, during a BFR, too boot. Stabilized approach, speed spot on, dropped below the tree line and the bottom fell out.

The power came up just as the mains touched the ground and we bounced hard on the mains (Thank GOD I don't have a nose wheel!) and flew away.

The AOA went from nothing to full scale stall instantly. (I was already pushing the throttle in before the AOA went off.)
 
Okay, lets say you’re flying trimmed at 70 kias, west, inside the box, which is at rest. Your ground speed is obviously 70 knots. At time 0, you rapidly accelerate (lets say over 0.1 sec) the box to 10 knots toward the west. If we treat the air as incompressible it accelerates to 10 knots as well. The airplane, having finite mass, cannot accelerate instantaneously. At time 0.1 it is still very close to 70 knots ground speed, but now close to 60 kias. Over the next 5 - 10 seconds the plane will accelerate to 70 kias; its ground speed is now 80 knots. At time 100, the box is stopped, and by 100.1, the air in the box is at rest with respect to the outside. However, the airplane continues west at nearly 80 knots, at 80 kias. Over the next ten or so seconds, the plane slows to 70 knots ground speed and kias. Did your speeds inside the box change? Yes they did.

Bob, noting that this is far afield from the original post, I was trying to make a simplified example of the mass of the air, that the aircraft is flying in, is a volume that has its own course and speed. Your post attempts to explain one of the forces, acceleration, on the mass of aircraft, but if you're going to do that, then you should also talk about the air's mass and density and the reaction it as on the airfoil. The air volume (the wind) changes the acceleration of the aircraft, not the other way around, which is why I was trying to explain the effect of currents on a boat - which has the same physics as an airframe in air. If the fluid was truly incompressible and under pressure, then the airframe's speed would be exactly the same as the fluids as it is fully entrained. But air is not incompressible, so for the fluid (air) to accelerate and have a greater speed than the aircraft in that fluid would essentially mean the aircraft is going in reverse relative to the fluid and substantial cavitation forward of the leading edge of the wing (that would result in substantial buffeting and likely a stall).

However, you've pretty well answered what I was trying explain earlier - so, to tie this back into the example discussed earlier - if the box came to an immediate stop, as in "the wind went from 30KT to 0KT immediately", what would be the airspeed of the aircraft within that volume of air?

To recap, I was flying into wind with a 35KT headwind component and just over 20KT crosswind. I was not flying in a 30KT crosswind or into a 30KT gust. I do not for a moment believe the 12 will handle a 30KT crosswind, nor do I advocate that it will.

Dale, I agree with you - do go explore your aircraft and make "an attempt or two". This is why we do stall practice and slow flight and steep turns. Doing crosswind landings is just another skill that expands our knowledge of the aircraft and makes us better pilots. Just don't forget to account for half that gust... ;)
 
Last edited:
I think the 12's controllability in a crosswinds can vary a great deal depending on buildings, trees and terrain on the upwind side. I made several approaches to runway 22 at KBVS with a steady wind 13 kts from 280, 60 degrees from my right. I flew along the runway getting thrown every which way gaining and loosing what seems to be 5-15' in a split second. The plane also rotated maybe 30 degrees back and forth like a top. Severe rotors are much different than a steady cross. I had rudder authority sort of but the row of trees on my right the entire length of the runway were more exciting than I wanted. I made three passes and decided I would definitely break something if I actually tried to land. I'm convinced that if I were in the flatlands with just fields and farms I could have handled 13 kts cross ok but at KBVS more like 8-10 kts on 22 when the wind is 280.
 
Back
Top