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
What do you mean by "final approach?" FAF to the threshold? No way I'm that slow. Runway made and getting ready to cross the fence? 1.3 is fine in most situations, unless it is particularly gusty. Grummans float as much as Mooneys do, so speed discipline is important - it is also pretty hard to land one smoothly when it has truly quit flying, so you'll often have some sort of speed to burn when the wheels touch - not like a Bonanza.

Plano Pilot said:
It depends. In the Citation yes, Cessna 340 no. At 1.3 in the C340 we are about 30K below blue line.
Click to expand...

Your power is out, so blue line shouldn't be an issue.
 
Martin Pauly said:
A factor of 1.3 gives you enough energy to flare for a smooth touchdown, without being so fast as to float down the runway.
Sure, it can also be a buffer for sudden wind gusts, but it can't achieve both at the same time.

- Martin
Click to expand...
If you arrive at the runway at 1.3 you will float or balloon or end up touching down flat or on the nosewheel. 1.3 is good for the approach, but one should have the power back or at idle and the nose coming up before one gets to within a few feet of the surface. Stall speed and drag decrease in ground effect.
 
Dan Thomas said:
If you arrive at the runway at 1.3 you will float or balloon or end up touching down flat or on the nosewheel. 1.3 is good for the approach, but one should have the power back or at idle and the nose coming up before one gets to within a few feet of the surface. Stall speed and drag decrease in ground effect.
Click to expand...

1.3 for the entire approach is insanely and unsafely slow in many planes.
 
N1120A said:
1.3 for the entire approach is insanely and unsafely slow in many planes.
Click to expand...
Whatever the POH says. Airplanes with short wings typically need more than 1.3. Some STOL airplanes are safe with less. The 1.3 is a general rule. The whole point of this thread was that too many pilots are way beyond any reasonable approach speed, probably because they're afraid of stalling, and yet I bet more airplanes are destroyed due to landing too fast than by approaching too slow.
 
CRQFlier said:
I just bought a plane and over the past few days have been experimenting in the pattern with various speeds and power settings for decent rates, short final speeds, etc. I settled on 69-70 (use 70 as an easy upper visual) short final. Guess what Vso is...69.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
So you come in at stall speed. Sporty.
 
N1120A said:
1.3 for the entire approach is insanely and unsafely slow in many planes.
Click to expand...

I wish they would teach final approach speed a little differently than the current non-wavering 1.3Vso/Vref standard for the entire approach.

For many situations while “on final” that speed is uncomfortable, unnecessary, and a huge inconvenience to atc & others.

It is likely a response to the numerous Unstabilized Approach accidents; there should have been a more finessed solution put forth to us.

It does not take that much skill to slow to your final approach speed in a 172, within a mile of the field. Right now people are slowing to 1.3Vso 10 miles out in 150’s, 172’s. Totally unnecessary and a major aggravation to others.

Larger/faster aircraft, sure.

And it would not be a huge transition for a pilot moving up in aircraft types to shift to getting stabilized earlier.
 
Can the OP clarify if he meant speed on final when ur doing pattern work (which is how I answered it) or on final approach for an instrument approach? Two very different questions.
 
The sink rate on my Zenith CH601 XLB is way too high at 1.3 Vso.
 
Lndwarrior said:
The sink rate on my Zenith CH601 XLB is way too high at 1.3 Vso.
Click to expand...
The sink rate in my Jodel was awesome at 1.3 Vso. Short, low-aspect ratio wings do that. The "stall/spin-proof" Ercoupe had short wings and there were accidents that destroyed airplanes when the sink rate got high and they pancaked in. When a sink rate develops the drag goes way up pretty quickly and the sink rate increases further.

On the other hand, my Auster (36' span) had a stall of 38 MPH at gross and about 35 at typical operating weights. It approached quite happily at 45 and I often came over the fence slower than that. If I carried that 45 into ground effect it would float forever. That airplane had a decently wide speed range, stalling at 38 and cruising at 110-115 quite easily. The 182RG is even better.
 
Sink rate at power off? Use the throttle! I’m not proficient in my Cub yet but over the fence at 30 mph and landing at 22 mph is pretty darn stable. Just bought a GAP26 AOA probe for the G3X. Looking forward to playing with it.
 
Dan Thomas said:
If you arrive at the runway at 1.3 you will float or balloon or end up touching down flat or on the nosewheel. 1.3 is good for the approach, but one should have the power back or at idle and the nose coming up before one gets to within a few feet of the surface. Stall speed and drag decrease in ground effect.
Click to expand...

Agree.

I would never actively discourage any pilot from seeking a “stabilized approach”. It certainly helps students and new pilots and I hear big iron appreciates it as well. And I’d say it’s a good idea on an instrument approach.

But with experience comes flexibility. I try to picture a “key position” on final - a window I want to fly through at about 1.2 to 1.3 Vso or as specified in the POH. That window is roughly 1 wingspan above the ground, or maybe a bit more - 50’ or so works quite well in most small GA aircraft. “The past is prologue”, but any maneuvering or shenanigans prior to that point are irrelevant if you can consistently hit that window “on speed” and properly configured. From there, a roundout/flare should have you arriving in ground effect with little extra speed above the stall and minimal float.

Anyway, works for me.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Whatever the POH says. Airplanes with short wings typically need more than 1.3. Some STOL airplanes are safe with less. The 1.3 is a general rule. The whole point of this thread was that too many pilots are way beyond any reasonable approach speed, probably because they're afraid of stalling, and yet I bet more airplanes are destroyed due to landing too fast than by approaching too slow.
Click to expand...

Go and fly a Bonanza downhill on a long instrument approach at 1.3 (about 71 knots). See how stable that feels.
 
Stewartb said:
Sink rate at power off? Use the throttle! I’m not proficient in my Cub yet but over the fence at 30 mph and landing at 22 mph is pretty darn stable. Just bought a GAP26 AOA probe for the G3X. Looking forward to playing with it.
Click to expand...
Carbon Cub? Super Cub? What type of cub stalls at less than 22 mph?
 
N1120A said:
Go and fly a Bonanza downhill on a long instrument approach at 1.3 (about 71 knots). See how stable that feels.
Click to expand...
Why In the world would anyone do that anyway?

Granted, I haven't regularly flown a Bo, but, when I flew instruments a lot, I always flew the approach at 90 to 95 kts then transitioned to approach speed (80mph) about 3/4 mile from the threshold...if I had broken out.
 
Lndwarrior said:
The sink rate on my Zenith CH601 XLB is way too high at 1.3 Vso.
Click to expand...
Huh? Unless you're extremely underpowered, you can maintain level flight at anything above the stall speed. That's what stall speed is. Now it might require more power than you are comfortable with.
 
flyingron said:
Huh? Unless you're extremely underpowered, you can maintain level flight at anything above the stall speed. That's what stall speed is. Now it might require more power than you are comfortable with.
Click to expand...

All my final approaches are power off.
 
timwinters said:
Why In the world would anyone do that anyway?

Granted, I haven't regularly flown a Bo, but, when I flew instruments a lot, I always flew the approach at 90 to 95 kts then transitioned to approach speed (80mph) about 3/4 mile from the threshold...if I had broken out.
Click to expand...

+1 on this.

I do fly a Bo, and on an instrument approach where the MAP is a timed segment from the FAF, it’s important to keep ground speed under control. It’s easy to get sloppy if we’re relying on GPS, but I typically keep ground speed right around 90 knots until I break out, then we slow to 70-75 knots for the last mile or so of the approach.
 
Vince R said:
+1 on this.

I do fly a Bo, and on an instrument approach where the MAP is a timed segment from the FAF, it’s important to keep ground speed under control. It’s easy to get sloppy if we’re relying on GPS, but I typically keep ground speed right around 90 knots until I break out, then we slow to 70-75 knots for the last mile or so of the approach.
Click to expand...
Hope you don't get a significant tailwind on the approach.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Carbon Cub? Super Cub? What type of cub stalls at less than 22 mph?
Click to expand...
Backcountry Supercub Rev 2. Fun as long as the winds are favorable. A handful when they aren't. ;)

A G3X Touch airspeed indicator doesn't light up until 20 mph. I'm adding a GAP29 AOA probe to make up for it. Garmin's AOA probe is non-electric. All I have to do is connect an AOA pressure line to the existing ADHRS box. I'm looking forward to seeing how it works.
 
Last edited:
eman1200 said:
Can the OP clarify if he meant speed on final when ur doing pattern work (which is how I answered it) or on final approach for an instrument approach? Two very different questions.
Click to expand...

OP here. Final approach speed. VFR or IFR I mean the final, stabilized speed you fly before slowing to touch down.
 
Arnold said:
OP here. Final approach speed. VFR or IFR I mean the final, stabilized speed you fly before slowing to touch down.
Click to expand...

Hhmmm, two TOTALLY different things. Sticking with 1.3 Vso on final for a ‘normal’ VFR pattern in every piper/bo/cezzna/mooney I’ve ever flown. An IFR approach I’m 90kts starting at the FAF which is usually miles out. Then at minimums I’m just landing, usually a little chop and drop and slow it down to 80 but it all happens pretty fast and much differently than when flying a ‘normal VFR pattern’.
 
Lndwarrior said:
The sink rate on my Zenith CH601 XLB is way too high at 1.3 Vso.
Click to expand...

Mine too....1.3 Vso in my RV-9A works out to about 51 knots, where she sinks like the Lusitania. I shoot for 65 knots over the fence when it's calm, and bump it a few for gusts.

As for POH values, well, we get to write our own!
 
What do you guys consider an excessive sink rate? A 500 fpm descent to the ground will translate to under 5 mph vertical speed. How much under depends on how the plane reacts to ground effect.
 
Stewartb said:
What do you guys consider an excessive sink rate? A 500 fpm descent to the ground will translate to under 5 mph vertical speed.
Click to expand...

I'd say 6,000 FPM, since my Pitts would come down 3,000 FPM in a full deflection slip to land. :)
 
eman1200 said:
Hhmmm, two TOTALLY different things. Sticking with 1.3 Vso on final for a ‘normal’ VFR pattern in every piper/bo/cezzna/mooney I’ve ever flown. An IFR approach I’m 90kts starting at the FAF which is usually miles out. Then at minimums I’m just landing, usually a little chop and drop and slow it down to 80 but it all happens pretty fast and much differently than when flying a ‘normal VFR pattern’.
Click to expand...

Well I respectfully disagree that they are two "TOTALLY" different things (emphasis in the original).
 
Flying a Cardinal, I like a little extra speed on final as the stabilator feels much more responsive to control input. I can come in slower if needed, but the plane seems happier flying just a bit faster.
 
timwinters said:
Why In the world would anyone do that anyway?

Granted, I haven't regularly flown a Bo, but, when I flew instruments a lot, I always flew the approach at 90 to 95 kts then transitioned to approach speed (80mph) about 3/4 mile from the threshold...if I had broken out.
Click to expand...

The post I was replying to suggested flying the entire final approach at 1.3 Vso, which would be madness, and also fairly terrible for your engine
 
Kevin Eggert said:
Flying a Cardinal, I like a little extra speed on final as the stabilator feels much more responsive to control input. I can come in slower if needed, but the plane seems happier flying just a bit faster.
Click to expand...

My experience when I feel like that is I generally don't have it trimmed exactly right and I'm fighting it on final. Once trimmed I'm much more comfortable on speed. I went out last based on this thread, and the "impossible turn" thread on BT and did a bunch of slow work in the Archer and really surprised myself at how slow I could get and keep full control. I got tired of hearing the stall horn long before I had any issues with control.
 
N1120A said:
The post I was replying to suggested flying the entire final approach at 1.3 Vso, which would be madness, and also fairly terrible for your engine
Click to expand...
Please elaborate on the engine thing.
 
This depends on a lot of things: weight, cg, length of runway, rough vs smooth surface, your wing, deviation from cas to ias at slow speeds...

So kind of like asking: "what mph do you drive around a corner?"

Depends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top