1.3 Vso for final?

No wind do you fly your final approach speed based on 1.3 Vso?

  • Yes

    Votes: 54 50.9%

  • Faster

    Votes: 21 19.8%

  • Slower

    Votes: 10 9.4%

  • Sometimes one, sometimes the other.

    Votes: 13 12.3%

  • If it feels good I do it.

    Votes: 8 7.5%
  • Total voters
    106
If I were not a pilot and read threads like this I would wonder how anyone managed to fly a plane without dying.
 
Not dead after 43 years. Probably just good luck.

Is it still the case that GA and Motorcycle accident rates are comparable?
 
dmspilot said:
Unless you're extremely underpowered, you can maintain level flight at anything above the stall speed. That's what stall speed is.
Click to expand...
What?
Click to expand...
EH? The stall speed is the speed where you will exceed the critical angle of attack trying to maintain altitude by holding the nose up. If you are above the stall speed, there must be some attitude that is before the critical angle that will keep you level. You may be way nose up and behind the power curve, but being able to maintain level flight is the definition of the stall speed.
 
flyingron said:
being able to maintain level flight is the definition of the stall speed.
Click to expand...

EH? back at you. No it isn't. Steady-state level flight is determined by thrust available being greater than or equal to thrust required, and has absolutely nothing to do with stall speed. According to you a twin drifting down after an engine failure above its SE absolute ceiling, or a descending glider, would be stalled the entire time.
 
A aircraft is stalled when you exceed the critical angle of attack. It has nothing to do with aircraft attitude, rate of climb or descent, or airspeed. I have stalled a aircraft more than once going straight down.
 
dmspilot said:
EH? back at you. No it isn't. Steady-state level flight is determined by thrust available being greater than or equal to thrust required, and has absolutely nothing to do with stall speed. According to you a twin drifting down after an engine failure above its SE absolute ceiling, or a descending glider, would be stalled the entire time.
Click to expand...
I qualified it with power availability. I stand by my original statement. A properly powered plane (i.e. the engines running normally), will be able to maintain altitude anywhere above stall speed because that's how stall speed is determined. AIRSPEED doesn't make planes stall, exceeding the critical angle of attack does. The stall speed is a crutch that says if you try to matain level flight below this speed you're going to exceed that angle.
 
flyingron said:
I qualified it with power availability. I stand by my original statement. A properly powered plane (i.e. the engines running normally), will be able to maintain altitude anywhere above stall speed because that's how stall speed is determined. AIRSPEED doesn't make planes stall, exceeding the critical angle of attack does. The stall speed is a crutch that says if you try to matain level flight below this speed you're going to exceed that angle.
Click to expand...

Your statement is incorrect. You are conflating two entirely different things and then accusing me of conflating them. No. Not being able to maintain level flight and being stalled are entirely different things and have no relationship to each other at all. Your "properly powered" qualification is a cop-out and also nonsensical as power available also has nothing to do with stalling.
 
dmspilot said:
All stalls are descents? How insightful.
Click to expand...

It’s not actually even correct, I watched many stall going up in a rolling scissors when they pulled to hard in the reversal. A second or two after the stall you will however be going down!
 
dmspilot said:
Your statement is incorrect. You are conflating two entirely different things and then accusing me of conflating them. No. Not being able to maintain level flight and being stalled are entirely different things and have no relationship to each other at all. Your "properly powered" qualification is a cop-out and also nonsensical as power available also has nothing to do with stalling.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything like you are asserting. I didn't say "maintaining level flight" was the opposite of being "stalled." The question was with regard to the so-called STALL SPEED. It's predicated on level (or at least unaccelerated) flight. As you slow down in level flight, you have to increase AOA to maintain sufficient lift. The stall speed is the point where you slow down to the point where you exceed the critical AOA trying to do so (at which point further increase of AOA yields less lift, rather symmetrically). The context I made the original statement was that at 1.3Vso he had an exessive rate of descent. What he meant was with power off that was the case (but he didn't mention power off). Most aircraft have sufficient power to maintain level flight down to the stall speed. If the didn't, there wouldn't be much point in defining a stall speed as you could never get there. You can indeed fly lower than the published stall speed, if you don't care to maintain 1g of lift. The so-called hammerhead stall is a drastic example. Airspeed is zero, but in fact, the airplane isn't stalled at all.
 
flyingron said:
You can indeed fly lower than the published stall speed, if you don't care to maintain 1g of lift.
Click to expand...

You can fly well below the published stall speed in straight and level 1G flight with power on.
 
Three (3) pages on how to land 1.3 Vso ... I just pull power abeam the numbers, announce practice power off base to final, and grease the "B" onto the runway:p
 
flyingron said:
The question was with regard to the so-called STALL SPEED. It's predicated on level (or at least unaccelerated) flight. As you slow down in level flight, you have to increase AOA to maintain sufficient lift. The stall speed is the point where you slow down to the point where you exceed the critical AOA trying to do so (at which point further increase of AOA yields less lift, rather symmetrically).
Click to expand...

Sorry but your argument is all over the place and it's hard to make a counter point when I don't know what version of your explanation to respond to. The above is correct, but now you're talking about converting airspeed to altitude. Your original statement was not predicated on "slowing down in level flight", but emerged from a discussion about maintaining a constant airspeed (1.3 Vso).

flyingron said:
Unless you're extremely underpowered, you can maintain level flight at anything above the stall speed. That's what stall speed is.
Click to expand...

The ability to maintain a constant airspeed at a constant altitude/vertical speed is 100% dependent upon the thrust available vs. thrust required relationship and 0% dependent on stall speed.

flyingron said:
The context I made the original statement was that at 1.3Vso he had an exessive rate of descent.
Click to expand...

Descending at 1.3Vso means he is maintaining a constant speed. Not converting airspeed to altitude. I don't understand the problem with his statement. You've never heard of the region of reverse command?
 
I'm not talking about converting airspeed to altitude. My problem with his statement is that he says that he can't maintain a reasonable rate of descent at 1.3 Vso.
That statement was nonsensical until he clarified it to say he was talking about an artificially power restricted regime (power off approach). Above the stall speed you should be able to pitch up and maintain any rate of descent (including zero) because stall speed is defined as the point that you can no longer pitch up to increase the lift. The fact that you are in reverse command just means that you need to increase power to go slower because you've greatly increased the induced drag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top