Slowing down...

[wjb]

I've been having a great time working on my IFR ticket in my 7 .. but am finding that during approaches to ILS/LPV minimums (~200 AGL), I have a hard time getting the plane to slow to a good landing config. And them my landings are c**p.

Current setup is to come down the glideslope at 100 kias, no flaps, at about 10 - 10.5 MP. Makes for a very nice approach. However, when flipping off the hood at mimimums and trying to get the plane slow is difficult .. even with power out, full flaps, it's too hot. FLOATS.... yea! Forever.

What techniques do you use? Slow earier? Partial flaps approach?

Share the wisdom!

 

[blaplante]

100 knots?
Try 100 mph

 

[MikeinPhoenix]

+1

115 Kts seems somewhat fast (especially if you’re flying a real ifr approach in the soup).

100 MPH would be preferable.

 

[Taltruda]

Fixed pitch? CS prop? What is your idle RPM set to?

 

[PilotjohnS]

Funny thing happened on the way to the forum….

I was coming back from grand canyon last weekend and decided to do a practice approach down the localizer. Me and Otto were in hand to hand combat the whole localizer. ( it seems my roll gain is too high, need to fix that).
But after fighting with otto, i discovered I was 5 miles out, 1000’, and 100 knots. Yikes.

I gave up on the localizer, went visual. I tried to fly at max flap speed with full flaps and that wasnt working. So I flew a minimum speed (with AoA) and I was able to make runway.

Lessons learnt: need to fly approaches at 70 to 80 knots. Planes angle of descent is greatest at slow speeds ( opposite from cessna 172s). Need to calibrate otto pilot per Garmin manual. Need to find IFR instructor versed in Garmin G3x.

I could only find a few videos on line on the Garmin g3x button pushing during ifr approaches. If anybody can direct me too more, that would be appreciated.

 

[airguy]

When it's truly low like that, I like to carry 90 knots with the first notch of flaps into the bottom 500 feet.

 

[sailvi767]

A constant speed prop really simplifies approaches from a speed standpoint. With a fixed pitch prop I would get slowed prior to the FAF with the flaps out for drag.

 

[lr172]

I like flying the approach at 100-110 kt for stability. However, you can't carry that speed all the way to 200 AGL in all cases. First, know your runway. If landing on a 7000' runway, no big deal; plenty of time to slow down in the flare. My SOP for approaches to minimums is to start pulling power back and slowly slowing down to 90 knots around 6-700' AGL. I will add first notch of flaps (20* in the 10) when I break out at 200 and don't bother with the last notch. I have never done an approach to a runway less than 4000' and would reconsider my SOP if I did. I am also not afraid to slip to lose altitude and speed once I break out, assuming it's not 1/2 mile vis or something.

If I break out at 400' or better, I just pull the power then, hold the nose level to bleed speed, add flaps and continue with typical VFR landing. If that left me a bit too high, then I slip to lose it. My VFR SOP is always relatively short steep approaches, so no issue for me.

Obviously this takes practice and don't recommend it to folks who always do stable approaches and not comfortable dealing with the gyrations of managing approaches on rough Wx days. That said, if you can handle the task saturation of hand flying rough Wx approaches and the near constant adjustments that they require, my SOP should be no issue. I don't really use standardized MAP on my approaches. Maybe I just did a lot of my training in rougher winds, but I just mix the throttle movements in with my checking of airspeed, vertical speed, and glideslope. Throttle goes wherever it needs to go to maintain the above targets. Strongly recommend folks work on this, as some day you are going to have to land in rough Wx and a constant power setting just won't work there, whether or not you or the AP is flying.

I remember coming into DPA during some pretty nasty wx. The guy behind me kept getting warnings from approach and the tower that he was off course. Guy finally replies he is having issues with his localizer instrument. I kind of chuckled, as I was getting a serious workout trying to stay on course myself, as I was hand flying for practice and the winds just kept changing. Not saying I am superman here. I was fortunate to have an EFIS with a velocity vector tool and ground track data. That poor guy was in a 172 and likely flying behind a 6 pack, which is WAYYYY more work on a day like that.

 

[Brantel]

I liked to have at least 10deg of flaps and 90 knots.

 

[rocketman1988]

approach

RV-10, 90 knots and half flaps...solid as a rock.

 

[Flying Canuck]

9A with C/S. I approach at 90 KTS with 5 degrees of flag, pull the throttle back to 12-13" when capturing the glideslope and aim for 80-85 KTS, 15 flaps with the a/p controlling pitch. If I've got too much speed, I'll disconnect the a/p and pitch up slightly to bleed off a few knots. If I go missed, I plan 95 KTS. If I'm landing it's a/p disconnect, full flaps and pitch for 65, throttle to control descent rate. This works quite well for me, but the 9 is a few knots slower than the 7.

Full disclosure, I don't have my IFR ticket, plane is equipped and I've got most of my time, but written test lapsed. I also haven't flown a practice approach in quite some time. Numbers are from my checklists.

 

[BobTurner]

A few comments.
Background: I’m an active cfii.
Yes, we all preach to find ‘the one configuration’ that works for you. But that’s not the real world. Go anywhere where you mix with jets, ATC will be begging you for best possible speed, etc. I suggest:
For routine practice approaches ending in a miss, 100 kias works fine. It also works fine when the wx is well above minimums so you have more time to re-configure.
For 200 OVC into good visibility, you need to slow a bit. Maybe 95 kias with flaps at 10 deg.
For approaches into 1/2 mile vis, especially at night, you need 75-80 kias, flaps 20 deg. Do not reconfigure with approach lights in sight, just slow in the flare and land.
Also, a lot of people make crummy landings coming out from under the hood. I think it takes a minute or two to re-adjust to visual flying, but by then you’re down. Practice helps.

 

[lr172]

A
Also, a lot of people make crummy landings coming out from under the hood. I think it takes a minute or two to re-adjust to visual flying, but by then you’re down. Practice helps.

Glad to hear it is not just me. Once I realized this flaw, I try to do a T&G at the end of practice approaches.

Larry

 

[dmattmul]

+1

I liked to have at least 10deg of flaps and 90 knots.

Without flaps almost impossible to slow down on a glideslope. Garmin 507 performs very well.

 

[Carl Froehlich]

Here is the Approach Phase of the checklist I used during my IFR training (RV-10). While I've since been places where they wanted a faster approach, I have been able to coordinate with ATC to retain the 85kt FAF target.

It comes in very handy to know the Prop and MP settings to achieve your target speeds at your anticipated rate of decent. Setting a known engine power eliminates the "throttle hunting" alternative.

BEFORE THE APPROACH
ATIS & Altimeter
Airspeed - 120 knots or as directed
Set the Navaid(s)
Radios (set up Tower & Ground)
Brief the approach
• Missed Approach Procedure
• Initial Altitude
• Decision Height or MDA
• Timing

Arrival at IAF
Check Time
Slow to 100 knots
Call out Altitudes during decent

Arrival at FAF
Check Time
Slow to 85 knots
Full Flaps
Landing check:
• Fuel
• Boost pump
• Prop
• Mixture
• Lights (as needed)

Missed approach
Pitch and power
Climb rate
Flaps up
When to turn
Call missed

 

[Walt]

Get a 3 bladed prop, pulling the power is like throwing out a drag chute.!

 

[tom_AZ]

Approach Configuration

I liked to have at least 10deg of flaps and 90 knots.

Pretty close to +1 for me. I target 90 KIAS and 10 degrees of flaps. I'm less comfortable getting much slower--losing 5 knots from a little wind shift or ??? isn't a big deal when it just drops me to 85--controls are nice and solid, and if using the AP, it's still happy. When tracking down the glideslope, if at low-mid weights that might be 9.5-10" MP. The flaps help with the subsequent need to slow further, and also reduce the deck angle so that you're not trying to look way over the nose when you break out. Love my -10, but I do wish that the flap speed for 10 degrees were a little higher--110 KIAS or so v. 96, both to make it easier to slow down and to keep the power up a bit more while sliding down the GS. I sometimes wonder if putting in 10 degrees while a little faster would really be a problem, but absent data supporting that, I'll follow what the engineers at Vans publish.

At mins, power comes to idle and flaps to 20 degrees as I slow down. I may or may not need to add just a bit of power back at that point, but usually not if it's an ILS or GPS with LPV mins. I land with 20 degrees. As best I can tell from stall testing, although full flaps steepens the descent (not really what I'm looking for at that point), it only further reduces stall speed by ~2 knots. A go-around or missed approach is also lower workload at 20 degrees than it is with full flaps.

Like some others, if I'm in an environment mixing with faster traffic (think airliners and F-16s at KTUS) and it's just a "practice approach", I may fly it at 120 or 130 KIAS. Some may argue that every approach should be flown like it's the "real deal", but I don't think that's always necessary--we're supposed to be able to make the aircraft do what we want it to. Although the runway is almost certainly long in those scenarios, I'm not going to land out of that--at best a LOT of runway would be behind me. When the Wx is really skunky and I'm landing, I can only recall being asked to maintain "best forward speed" once. Replying "unable" was all that was needed--the KingAir in sequence was delayed by just a couple of minutes...and the runway wasn't closed because of an incident. Like Larry, if I don't have pressure to mix with faster traffic, I like to do a TnG if I'm cleared for the option. Occasionally, that will need a little clarification with the controller if I've also requested the published miss, but it's never been a problem.

 

[Tankerpilot75]

I try to fly a couple of practice ILS and a RNAV approaches at least once a month (my two GNS 430s are non-WAAS). The first one is usually a coupled approach and the second uncoupled. The RNAV usually includes one turn in holding and is a hybrid in that holding and the RNAV course are coupled but altitude is controlled by EFIS changes.

Typically in holding and/or vectors to the FAF, I’ll fly to 1/2 mile of the FAF at 120 to 130 kts (keeps Approach happy). Approaching FAF I’m slowing down to 95 kts. As I ready to intercept the GS (RNAV FAF) I configure to 10 degrees and continue slowing to 85 kts keeping my power back. Approaching DH (MDA/VDP) I configure to 20 degrees (and sometimes continue to 40 degrees) slowing to 75 kts and will stay there for either a T&G or MAP depending on clearance. GS is flown at a MP target of around 14.2” to 14.8” (decent to MDA on the RNAV at 13.0” to 13.5”) however, my MP does read high right now and needs recalibration.

The goal of all my approaches is to place the aircraft in a position to make a normal landing at either the DH/VDP depending on the approach I’m flying.

One of the best things I did was install auto trim on my Vizion 385. This helps significantly during configuration changes on coupled approaches since you can’t feel the needed trim changes. When the A/P is punched off, the aircraft is in trim.

 

[BobTurner]

One of the best things I did was install auto trim on my Vizion 385. This helps significantly during configuration changes on coupled approaches since you can’t feel the needed trim changes. When the A/P is punched off, the aircraft is in trim.

Same thing for my Trio Pro w/ autotrim. I always feel like I’m somehow cheating.

 

[ronrapp]

A constant speed prop really simplifies approaches from a speed standpoint. With a fixed pitch prop I would get slowed prior to the FAF with the flaps out for drag.

Spot on.

The difference between flying an instrument approach procedure with constant speed prop and fixed pitch are like night and day. They're literally two different airplanes.

Pretty much everyone with an RV and a fixed pitch propeller has the thing pitched for cruise rather than climb. If you've got a CS prop, try shooting the ILS with the propeller set at 2000 RPM and you'll understand what those of us flying fixed pitch are dealing with.

--Ron

 

[wjb]

Great info all; thank you!! Good techniques here to work on with my CFII (and fellow 7-driver).

My plane has a IO-360 with a Hartzell 2 blade C/S; idle RPM is around 650. I haven't really felt the "big drag" from the C/S when you pull power on my 7 that folks here (and other places) talk about. I did fly a SuperD for a while, and the slowdown was noticiable when throttling back from climb to level flight -- a firm "hitting the brakes" feel. Anyone have thoughts on why the difference?

 

[alcladrv]

My -7A lives at an airport where I mix it up with everything from 172s to airliners to military jets. The plane has an O-360 with a fixed pitch Sensenich prop.

On precision approaches, ILS or LPV, I fly a decelerating approach. I’m typically flying at 140 kts. prior to the FAF, a speed we used when I flew jets. One mile prior to the FAF, power is reduced to 1600-1800 rpm, slowing the plane to 100 kts. for glide slope intercept. When GS is captured, power is reduced to 1400-1600 rpm to maintain 100 kts. on the GS. At 500 above DA, power is reduced to idle and airspeed is slowed to max flap speed. Power is added as necessary to maintain GS. When reaching DA and the runway environment is in sight, the flaps go full down and airspeed is slowed to 1.3 Vso, or 65 kts. final approach speed. Power is reduced to idle when beginning the flare. Power settings are approximate and vary with weight. I can’t remember the last time, if ever, ATC asked me to keep my speed up or directed following traffic to slow down.

Faster approach speeds with my fixed pitch prop really lengthen the landing rollout, because the prop has virtually no breaking effect even at a 600 rpm idle speed.

 

[alcladrv]

duplicate post

 

[Ed_Wischmeyer]

What's implicit in all of the previous responses is that the approach needs to be "stable" from way, way, way far away. However, the real question is not whether stable approach is a good idea, it's how long the approach has to be stable that is the crux of the matter.

Here's what I do in the RV-9A, constant speed prop, 87 knot flap speed: I'll fly the approach at whatever speed works for ATC. Usually, those speed instructions are up until the FAF. Left to my own devices, I'd fly inside the FAF at 100 knots, but I practice flying faster sometimes, just in case.

Two miles before touchdown, I'll start slowing to 80 knots and get out flaps ten. This configuration (1) makes it easy to slow down for touchdown after breaking out and, just as important (2) be configured for a go around.

By the way, I spent a full year at Boeing studying unstable approaches, and wound up debunking industry standards. Twenty years later, those standards were no longer in play. https://asasi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Wischmeyer_Unstable-Approach_ISASI04.pdf

Here's a more recent article with a GA emphasis: https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/12/unstable-final-approaches-history-fiction-and-fact/

It's all doable...

 

[rocketman1988]

Interesting

What's implicit in all of the previous responses is that the approach needs to be "stable" from way, way, way far away. However, the real question is not whether stable approach is a good idea, it's how long the approach has to be stable that is the crux of the matter.

Here's what I do in the RV-9A, constant speed prop, 87 knot flap speed: I'll fly the approach at whatever speed works for ATC. Usually, those speed instructions are up until the FAF. Left to my own devices, I'd fly inside the FAF at 100 knots, but I practice flying faster sometimes, just in case.

Two miles before touchdown, I'll start slowing to 80 knots and get out flaps ten. This configuration (1) makes it easy to slow down for touchdown after breaking out and, just as important (2) be configured for a go around.

By the way, I spent a full year at Boeing studying unstable approaches, and wound up debunking industry standards. Twenty years later, those standards were no longer in play. https://asasi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Wischmeyer_Unstable-Approach_ISASI04.pdf

Here's a more recent article with a GA emphasis: https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/12/unstable-final-approaches-history-fiction-and-fact/

It's all doable...

Interesting paper. Not sure, at the airlines at least, it was received. Been doing this for over 30 years and the “stable approach” has been preache for every one of those years, at every airline. It would be interesting to see an updated report based on the real time FOQA data but that will never happen…

That said, I have and still do teach stable approach criteria.

 

[Jerry Fischer]

I concur

I liked to have at least 10deg of flaps and 90 knots.

Took the words right out of my mouth Brian...

 

[sailvi767]

Great info all; thank you!! Good techniques here to work on with my CFII (and fellow 7-driver).

My plane has a IO-360 with a Hartzell 2 blade C/S; idle RPM is around 650. I haven't really felt the "big drag" from the C/S when you pull power on my 7 that folks here (and other places) talk about. I did fly a SuperD for a while, and the slowdown was noticiable when throttling back from climb to level flight -- a firm "hitting the brakes" feel. Anyone have thoughts on why the difference?

If you are not already there on approach bring the prop up to 2700 RPM and you will see a noticeable difference in decel rate verses 2400.

 

[mmcmanus]

Stabilized Approach

CFIs always preach a stabilized approach. That's what I do, at FAF have the airplane configured for landing. 85-90 knots, whatever flaps are appropriate for landing, and fly the glideslope. Keep it simple. Works just fine. At DH or MDA there's plenty of time to slow down for touch down.
Matt
RV7A
fixed pitch

 

[penguin]

Find what works for you.

For me in an RV-6 (7 is very similar) I never lower flap until I can see the runway as the airplane is speed unstable with the flaps down. It is much more difficult to hold speed with the flap down. I use 110kt as any slower means you are close to min drag speed. I also don't try to land if the weather is below 500', just my own limit.
We're not flying airliners so I don't see the need to configure for landing at the top, if I am going to break out at 500' I will have plenty of time to lose speed.

Lots of opinion, no one correct way.

 

[Lucmac]

One thing is for sure, it would be awesome & entertaining to put out the popcorn and watch new 4K level recordings of pilot actions and avionics panel video of different IFR approach types flown to both landing and missed approaches in various RVs with narrative added. Not just picking up from the IAF but even further out than that.