Did you really mean a round to itWe haven’t gotten around to it yet!
ICBM pilot?I prefer elliptical.
No, but the laws of aerodynamics do not favor flying above the critical AOA in the pattern.I can't believe there is no regulation against flying above the critical angle of attack in the pattern. That's the simple solution.
Show me a bird He created with low wings…
You just configure before you start the turn.
Which definition of “stable” are you using?I'm not a big fan of straight and level or "stabilized" approaches. I'm sure they're a requirement for some types of flying, but I prefer to cut power abeam the numbers, make a 180* turn to final from a close-in downwind, and be parked and shut down before the Mooney crosses the threshold.
Long-nosed and blue?
Ron Wanttaja
Here is some more info added after the initial post:
- the main advantage of the oval pattern is low bank angles and earlier turn towards final, both of which reduce the risk of a stall
- oval patterns still have all legs except the base and crosswind. However, you can still call them while you are making the long 180 turn
- oval patterns still have downwind and same entries as the current one. You simply turn continuously from downwind to final.
- there is still a final. You don't have to start your base turn while abeam the numbers and complete the turn right over the runway. Start making the turn where you would normally make your base turn; by the time you complete it, there will be 1/4 mile final still there
Oval pattern should save many lives. Stall-spins in the pattern are responsible for many fatal accidents, and oval patterns reduce the risk, without any downsides.
Here is a recent article on the pattern stall-spins:
https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to...idents-happen-the-most-often-in-flight-phase/
Thoughts?
Anything other than "do what needs to be done."Which definition of “stable” are you using?
I watch the fish spotters do that more often than not at KIYA .Well, you could be in a stable descending turn that terminates on the runway, couldn’t you? But it’s more difficult.
According to some studies, it's not even a big issue. Takeoffs are much more dangerous. The oval pattern seems to be a solution working hard to find a problem.Agree with all of that. Why do we have to change the pattern shape to keep people from stalling and spinning on the base-to-final turn? Isn't that a training issue, a defect in the pilot's skill level? Dumbing things down to accommodate incompetence doesn't seem wise at all.
In a low wing, you can lose sight of conflicting traffic while banked. This has been discussed as a contributing factor to the recent horrific airshow accident.In a high wing, you can lose sight of the runway while banked.
(Just one more good reason to fly low wings like the good Lord intended.)
Also, I've heard that a curving final makes it easier to land a Corsair on an aircraft carrier.For us WW2 pilots, it's recommended to fly a curved approach as our huge 1900hp engines block forward view at high AOAs. You try flying a straight in to the short field at Tatsinskaya after a harrowing bombing run on Stalingrad in a FW190, you'll understand.
I thought that was when you came in low and snagged the telephone wires with the tail wheel?My old instructor called a gradual turn from downwind to final a " carrier landing ".
Or to practice for the time when your engine cuts out while flying cross country and you got to plunk it into a postage stamp sized field. Good luck dragging it in with power when you don't have power.To me, the tighter pattern is there in case your engine cuts out.
Anecdotally, the only two times a student put us in danger in the pattern were on takeoff.According to some studies, it's not even a big issue. Takeoffs are much more dangerous. The oval pattern seems to be a solution working hard to find a problem.
View attachment 113831
Stall speed in a 30° bank goes up about 8%, or about 4 MPH on a 50 MPH stall. If you're flying that close to the stall you have much bigger problems. Stall speeds increase a lot more as bank angle increases.I can get behind this. The biggest advantage I can see is that a constanly banked airplane will be easier to spot. A shallower bank also has a better stall margin but I am not sure if that is really significant.
As I've posted before, the base-to-final turn stall-spin scenario isn't the most prevalent in the homebuilt accidents I've looked at...about twice as many stall accidents happen on the initial climb or go-around.
Kinda wonder about that myself. As the data/graph Mark posted shows, the fact that the true danger zone is the initial climb is known in the industry.I learned about this some years ago and still find it quite sobering as we tend to focus so much on stall/spins happening in the base to final turn ...
Reminds me of the circular-runway proposal in that regard....The oval pattern seems to be a solution working hard to find a problem.
Oh, are you one of the pilots that like to put all the flaps in at once? I'd read before starting training that some pilots put them in incrementally like I learned, but some like to just dump them all in and I've always wanted to talk to someone who does that and ask about it.
I guess the FAA moves too fast for us…departure stalls get equal treatment in the ACS.I learned about this some years ago and still find it quite sobering as we tend to focus so much on stall/spins happening in the base to final turn ...
Oh, are you one of the pilots that like to put all the flaps in at once? I'd read before starting training that some pilots put them in incrementally like I learned, but some like to just dump them all in and I've always wanted to talk to someone who does that and ask about it.
And fly a 65kt downwind? I’d be run over.
Sure, the 180-degree power off landing is a procedure that should be learned. Abeam the touchdown point, reduce power to idle, put in full flaps, and manage the energy by adjusting pitch. It's challenging and fun, and could be very useful in an emergency landing.