KR> Touchdown speed
Well said. ?The single most accurate information as to whether the wing will fly or stall, and tell you best climb, best glide, is Indicated Airspeed. ? I would disagree that gps speed, or anything else is as relevant, even in calm air, for approach and landing.? What does gps tell you? How fast over the ground? So what. I operated from high density altitude airports, my plane indicated the same speed at liftoff and in climb as at sea level, but I was charging doen the runway much faster, and used 5x as much runway to lift up! I suppose the gps said something, but so what, until the ASI said 65, I wasnt going anywhere. ? Maybe I am missing some point here? For short field ops, I would practice my stalls at safe height to see where the safety cutoff is ASI, then conduct short field ops on a longer runway (in calm winds) and determine what my plane and skill level can repeatetly and safely do in terms of feet of runway. That would decide for me the shortest runway to use. Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device ? Indicated airspeed is simply a "reference" number to fly by.? It is a factor of how dense the air is that's rammed in to the tube
KR> Touchdown speed
TAS is great if you happen to be at sea level on a standard day. The rest of us have to deal with IAS. GPS speed at higher elevations really gives no indication of the aircraft's capabilities at sea level. To come up with a sea level equivalent performance number, I use a GPS number, then correct it for performance differences for wind, temperature and altitude. That will extrapolate a reasonably accurate performance number for documenting the aircraft performance, but is relatively meaningless to someone using their IAS to land the plane. To me, the aircraft seems to approach and land painfully slow near sea level altitudes. And my landing speed at 7200' has me smoking past the traffic on the mph highway next to the airport. I'm usually still passing traffic on the highway next to me when the tail stops flying and the tailwheel sinks onto the runway. Searching for the key to the "Real" Pilot's lounge. ;o) -Jeff Scott Los Alamos, NM > > Joe Horton wrote: > > > First off I was just pondering the requirements to get into the "real > pilots" lounge > > Another point on IAS is that if your ASI is off on the low end, there's > often nothing that can be done about it. Mechanical gauges in > particular likely have that limitation, and even the iEFIS in my plane > lacks enough calibration points to deal with the low end adequately. > I'd venture to say that most airplanes are off by 5% or more on the low > end of the ASI scale. Mine's off way more than that. Cosine error of > the pitot tube's angle of attack could account for 3.5% of it at stall.
KR> Touchdown speed
>Keep in mind that the conversation was regarding landing speeds on a >windless runway, and why indicated airspeeds mean nothing from one >guy's plane to another. The context was advice for the appropriate >minimum airspeed one should shooting for. >Mark Langford ++ Indicated airspeed is simply a "reference" number to fly by. It is a factor of how dense the air is that's rammed in to the tube and the accuracy of your individual system. An airplane will fly faster (indicated) at low altitude and cold dense air, and slower (indicated) at altitude and with warmer less dense air. As that is the same air the airplane sees and needs to fly, you fly the same indicated airspeeds regardless of the air mass you're flying in. If you approach at 80mph at see level or on a cool day, you approach at 80 mph (indicated) at Jeff's 7000 foot airport or on a warm day. Your actual speed over the ground will be different in each situation. That's why the ground speed at Jeff's airport gives you a blazing ground speed and the ground speeds Jeff's sees when landing say, at Mt.Vernon, seems so slow. The ground speed in each scenario is actually different. On your first flight do a power off stall and see what the ASI reads. Multiply that by 1.3 and use that for your approach speed. If your airspeed seems to be totally in error, disregard it entirely and fly the airplane by feel. The best approach is to check the accuracy of the system before the first flight using the water tube method. I once did a poor preflight and took off with the pitot / static tubes bent off line by 30 degrees or so. My first glance at the ASI on takeoff was when I was 20 or 30 feet in the air. I sensed something was wrong and climbed to altitude. Level flight and cruise power only produced 110 mph. I knew I had a system failure so I totally disregarded the instrument on landing. Don't let a single bad instrument indiction cause you to do something your gut says isn't right. Take a flight with an instructor and cover the ASI and see if you can fly the airplane without it's reference. I use my GPS to tell me time and distance to my destination, give me an indicated ground track, and get airport and airspace information. It tells me nothing on what indicated speeds to fly the airplane. It is useful, as Mark indicated, to check / compare actual liftoff and touchdown speeds on a zero wind day with what the ASI reads. With all of todays navigation aids it's still more important to remember your wife's birthday and your anniversary than to know what your true air speed is while flying. :-) Larry Flesner
KR> Touchdown speed
> "Speaking of N891JF, Jim has mentioned "seeing speeds as low as 40 mph" while landing (in his "The Perfect Landing" piece at http://jfaughn.com/other/kr/uniquepartsofmykr/kr_landing.html ), so he's definitely talking about IAS, rather than GPS" I think it's understood (hopefully) by everyone that the airspeed indicator isn't reading accurately at high angles of attack. And when touching down, the wing should be at quite a high angle of attack - as close to stall as is possible. Unless you're 20 feet above the runway as I was that day on the Wyoming border, you can't really get the wing fully stalled in a KR without the tail hitting, so all we can do is get as close to stall as we can. This conversation made me realize I never look at my airspeed indicator except on close final and sometimes on climbout if I'm worried about engine temps on a hot day. I also haven't ever made note of my GPS touchdown speed but I ought to do that. I can't imagine why I never have, but I haven't. I look for the needle to be below 60, the closer to 50 the better as I near the threshold. Otherwise I'm going to float too much once I'm in ground effect. Being careless just a little bit with speed at this point makes the difference between the first turn out or the second turnout. If I have to use brakes to make the first turnout I've been sloppy. I can't remember ever looking at the needle when feeling for the runway but I'm pretty sure if I've kept it as slow as I try to, my needle is going to show somewhere near 40 when the tires touch, as Jim says. It's a constant challenge to get that slow and is why I wish I had a better belly flap. Makes landing short much, much easier as I learned when flying Jim Morehead's plane. Mike KSEE How Old Men Tighten Skin 63 Year Old Man Shares DIY Skin Tightening Method You Can Do From Home http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/54e295c159cff15c10f41st03vuc
KR> Touchdown speed
Sorry Chris, Again i'm fairly inebt. I am pretty sure the plane being a machine knows when it has what it needs to be happy. Transferring that to a language and Quanity that I can understand and repeat is the real trick that we are talking about here. The instrument of choice is the airspeed indicator and a pilot can name his poison from there-- Indicated, calibrated, true corrected for temp and altitude. No, Gps is not airspeed but still usefull if that is what you choose to work with. Maybe I can be "The Plane wisperer" and she will tell me instead. Also to stick with the original thread... My KR would have a tough time landing or taking off on 1200'. A few years ago our runway was rebuilt in stages. We were allowed to land first on a shortened stretch of runway (about 1800') and then on the new narrow taxiway. I practiced for weeks in preperation. Landing the taxiway was a hoot. The short runway was a bit more intimindating As there really was not any decent runoff. The other thing about this and I don't think anyone asked about the 1200' strip. I didn't have any obsticles. If the 1200 has obsticles at either end it will be a great feat once and repeated times nothing short of heroic. IMHO Joe Horton - Original Message - From: "Chris Prata via KRnet" To: krnet at list.krnet.org Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 2:06:43 PM Subject: Re: KR> Touchdown speed The ONLY speed the plane knows or is affected by, for purposes of flying, stalling, control, aerodynamics, is actual AIRSPEED. Period.
KR> Touchdown speed
Hi Mike, How would that help? When landing an aircraft, surely the appropriate reference for airspeed (apart from the feel of the aircraft in flight) is the instruments fitted in the aircraft? IAS is what you'll have in front of you when landing. As long as it's the ASI the aircraft was tested with, and it hasn't changed much since it was tested, inaccuracy due to pitot angle or other causes shouldn't matter. It might be interesting to know (from a comparison with GPS) that the ASI reads low or high or whatever, but will it make landings any safer? Cheers, Tony On 16 February 2015 at 15:10, Mike T via KRnet wrote: > All this talk about landing speeds makes me wonder whether everyone is > using true airspeeds. At landing, IAS can be off by quite a bit because the > pitot isn't parallel to the airstream. If you don't have a GPS, it would be > worthwhile to try some landings (on a windless day) with a car GPS in the > plane to see if the speed check out. > > Mike Taglieri >
KR> Touchdown speed
Jeff, I can not honestly say what speed I was doing at your airport for landing. I am probably a lousy technical pilot as I only glance at the airspeed 2 or 3 times during a landing and that is usually because something does not feel right (too fast or too slow) I know I was a bit fast by feel as that quartering tail wind at 19 kts had all my spiddy senses tingling a bit. Still no problem stopping well short on your runway. The takeoff the next day was noticably and painfully lng. I know where the key is but it will cost ay a beer Joe Horton - Original Message - From: "Jeff Scott via KRnet" To me, the aircraft seems to approach and land painfully slow near sea level altitudes. And my landing speed at 7200' has me smoking past the traffic on the mph highway next to the airport. I'm usually still passing traffic on the highway next to me when the tail stops flying and the tailwheel sinks onto the runway. Searching for the key to the "Real" Pilot's lounge. ;o) -Jeff Scott Los Alamos, NM
KR> Touchdown speed
Keep in mind that the conversation was regarding landing speeds on a windless runway, and why indicated airspeeds mean nothing from one guy's plane to another. The context was advice for the appropriate minimum airspeed one should shooting for. If we start throwing African Swallows into the mix, "your mileage will vary"... Mark Langford ML at N56ML.com http://www.n56ml.com
KR> Touchdown speed
Joe Horton wrote: > First off I was just pondering the requirements to get into the "real pilots" lounge Sorry about that. That sounded a bit pretentious. I think most folks on this list, and certainly Joe Horton, qualify as real pilots. My point was that just because a guy managed to get a pilot's license, doesn't necessarily mean that he managed to assimilate the differences in IAS, TAS, and GPS speed. I'm not even sure the acronym GPS is even allowed in the standard version of flight instruction. I plowed through my FAA written exam by buying a Gleim manual and cramming for three straight nights, and taking the test on the fourth day. It's not that I'm a procrastinator, but I got wind of the written test being given four days later, and I only had that much time to study. I made a 98 on it, and the only question I missed was the most obvious...something like "the AWOS is reporting wind at 195 degrees, so do you take off on runway 180 or 360?" I'll chalk that one up to checking the wrong box. But my point is that I managed to get all the way through flight training in a C-172 and the subject of TAS vs IAS never came up. So during first flights I too wondered why the airspeed indicator was reading slow at higher altitudes. I was not a "real pilot" yet, and had (still have) a lot more to learn. Anybody that's flown with me knows that I still have a problem figuring out the runways when I arrive at a new airport, although I now have a lot more information at my fingertips while airborne, and make a point of studying the runways while planning a flight. Another point on IAS is that if your ASI is off on the low end, there's often nothing that can be done about it. Mechanical gauges in particular likely have that limitation, and even the iEFIS in my plane lacks enough calibration points to deal with the low end adequately. I'd venture to say that most airplanes are off by 5% or more on the low end of the ASI scale. Mine's off way more than that. Cosine error of the pitot tube's angle of attack could account for 3.5% of it at stall. OK, I'm back to brakes, wheels, and tires... Mark Langford ML at N56ML.com http://www.n56ml.com
KR> Touchdown speed
Morning Guys First off I was just pondering the requirements to get into the real pilots lounge. But anyway I rarely use indicated airspeed anymore (for years in fact) The Dynon with the gps slaved to it and the AHRS make it a no brains situation and is really the quicker number to see on the D10A. Anything that I have reported wether it is at altitude or in the pattern to touch down is true air speed. I have seen the actual touch down number as low as 56 mph but as stated that can change with the weather. Joe Horton, Looking for the lounge ... I want to turn in some of my air miles... Subject: Re: KR> Touchdown speed Mike Taglieri wrote: >>All this talk about landing speeds makes me wonder whether everyone is using >>true airspeeds. At landing, IAS can be off by quite a bit because the pitot >>isn't parallel to the airstream. If you don't have a GPS, it would be >>worthwhile to try some landings (on a windless day) with a car GPS in the >>plane to see if the speed check out.<< Mark Langford wrote: >>I'm pretty sure the "real" pilots on the list use GPS speed when reporting >>something like landing speed.
KR> Touchdown speed
> When I talk about landing speeds, it's something that's > universal across the planet...GPS speed. >Mark Langford, ++ As the subject indicates, Mark is talking about "touchdown" speed. I certainly hope there is no one out there flying the landing approach using GPS speeds. Larry Flesner
KR> Touchdown speed
Mike Taglieri wrote: >>All this talk about landing speeds makes me wonder whether everyone is using >>true airspeeds. At landing, IAS can be off by quite a bit because the pitot >>isn't parallel to the airstream. If you don't have a GPS, it would be >>worthwhile to try some landings (on a windless day) with a car GPS in the >>plane to see if the speed check out.<< And "Tony" wrote: >> How would that help? When landing an aircraft, surely the appropriate >> reference for airspeed (apart from the feel of the aircraft in flight) is >> the instruments fitted in the aircraft? IAS is what you'll have in front of >> you when landing. << I'm pretty sure the "real" pilots on the list use GPS speed when reporting something like landing speed. I certainly do, and am pretty sure others do as well. IAS is quite valid when you or someone else is flying your plane, but any time you are trying to convey an ACTUAL touchdown speed, GPS speed is way more helpful than the speed somebody else gets on their airspeed indicator on who knows what kind of day. When I talk about landing speeds, it's something that's universal across the planet...GPS speed. Granted there are small variations on what your landing speed will be depending on altitude of the runway, temperatures, wind (although it should be calm) and air density (probably phase of the moon...to some extent), at least GPS speed is a whole lot closer to consistent (given than the vagaries of the poorly calibrated Indicated Air Speed. I think most of us know that, so GPS or True Air Speed (which should be pretty dang close to each other) would normally be associated with a speed used for landing when talking between pilots of different airplanes. Having said that, I'll repeat again that my GPS speeds when landing N56ML were right at 60 mph at touchdown. This is "definitely done flying" in landing configuration, full flaps. About half the time the tailwheel hits first, the other half the mains hit first. Either way, it's not going to bounce back off the ground and start flying again...it'd done. N891JF is pretty much the same way, which is not surprising. It doesn't have the extra lift from the flaps, but has a little lower wing loading. Speaking of N891JF, Jim has mentioned "seeing speeds as low as 40 mph" while landing (in his "The Perfect Landing" piece at http://jfaughn.com/other/kr/uniquepartsofmykr/kr_landing.html ), so he's definitely talking about IAS, rather than GPS. I can assure you that plane will not be flying at 40 mph airspeed! He's excused, because they didn't even have GPS back when he wrote that, and doing any kind of stopwatch trial over a known distance is iffy, and downright dangerous as absolute minimum speed. For this reason, be careful when reading old newsletters touting speeds, and certainly view promotional KR stuff written in the 70's with that in mind. While I'm on my high horse, it's worth mentioning that True Airspeed (TAS ) is the universal language for comparing performance in general. In N56ML I used to spend a lot of time (and mental gymnastics) doing that in my head while flying, but the iEFIS in N891JF has a continuous display of TAS (as well as ground speed and indicated airspeed), so two guys flying in formation (or trying to rendezvous) should be reading exactly the same TAS while side by side, assuming they're TAS has been correctly calibrated through flight testing. I've spent a lot of time calibrating mine, and I make a point of doing that kind of thing on 29.92" / 59 degree days to ensure accuracy, so I have a lot of faith in my numbers. Beginning pilots may wonder why they appear to by flying slower as they gain altitude. Your plane is probably no slower, maybe even faster. It's all about true airspeed vs indicated airspeed. There's a huge difference at higher altitudes Mark Langford, Harvest, AL ML at N56ML.com www.N56ML.com
KR> Touchdown speed
Sorry if this is a duplicate but the last few days my postings don't show up in my daily digest mode email from KRNET as they always have, unless I re-send them. Mark Jones said, > "That first landing was absolutely the worst landing I have ever made (except when I hit a deer) and by being so slow it almost caused me to crash my KR on touchdown." I did the same thing when leaving Omaha after picking up my new KR from Steve Bennett. I hadn't flown a KR in many years and was dressed in shorts since it was the middle of July but ran into rain and cold temps and was shivering and somehow landed downwind at my first gas stop, although didn't mean to. I was too addled by the unfamiliar plane, abundant gas fumes from leaking line connections, and being chilled and very uncomfortable that I mistakenly assumed the wind was from the west - the usual direction out there on the Wyoming border. But the wind was from the east that day. I stalled it above the runway at what seemed and felt like at least 20 feet and came slamming straight down and was sure I must have broken something or blown a tire. The engine died and I was pretty stunned at what I'd done. But the engine started right up. The tires rolled. I was amazed. That was by far the worst landing I've ever made with this plane. These kinds of things happen when we are going through the survival process of learning to land our KR's. It takes a few landings and s*** sometimes happens in the process. We get better quickly or we damage or destroy our planes. You just got too slow, and I did the same thing. I think it's significant that we both made horrible landings but didn't damage anything. More common with initial KR flights (other airplanes too) is touching down too fast, bouncing, then touching down and bouncing again and then panic sets in because the end of the runway is coming up so guys try and force it onto the runway and if lucky nothing gets broken but usually something does. Best thing to do after bouncing badly is going around and touching down slower on the next pass but many bashed wing tips, broken props and nose gears, etc. testify to to the fact that guys on their first flights often don't do that (go around). Anyway, once we have a feel for our planes we can land at any speed we want. Someone in the process of developing that feel though needs to read Jim Faughn's article and take it to the bank. Going into a 1200 ft. strip is a whole 'nother subject. I think it's super important to do first flights on the longest uncontrolled runway you can find that's reasonably close. Mike How Old Men Tighten Skin 63 Yr Old Husband Uses Wife???s Wrinkle Cream, His Results? Amazing http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/54e1256aef863256a4f42st03vuc
KR> Touchdown speed
This for Takeoff:http://youtu.be/JlZ0wo_pTxg And this for landing:http://youtu.be/etzqmtYcpCQ?t=57s put a net at the end of the runway, we could operate out of a 1200 foot strip > > Anybody think that it can't be done? Is so then I need to know so that I can > start building another hanger on a bigger runway before my KR2 is ready to > fly. >
KR> Touchdown speed
John asked about how far the airplane will have traveled down the runway at different touchdown speeds. The best way to determine that is to find videos of KRs landing on hard-surfaced runways that have standard runway markings. Better yet, see if you can find videos that KR pilots may have posted where they have a camera mounted on the airplane or elsewhere, looking out at the runway as the approach and landing are made. Best of all would be if you could see the instrument panel (airspeed indicator) as well as the runway markings during the approach and landing. I'm sure there are some out there, but I'm not sure where. There are many places on the web (and in the AIM) where you can find the spacing and length of standard runway markings and get a good idea of distances covered during the approach and landing. Oscar ZunigaMedford, OR
KR> Touchdown speed
Mike,? We knew what you meant.? "Yesterday after sending off my brief and unhelpful comment on this subject,?" Joe Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: Mike Stirewalt via KRnet Date:02/14/2015 2:31 PM (GMT-06:00) To: krnet at list.krnet.org Subject: KR> Touchdown speed Yesterday after sending off my brief and unhelpful comment on this subject, I followed up with a second response about 30 minutes later. It went out just fine but didn't for some reason show up in my digest-mode KR newsletter today. So here it is below. I think it's important to explain why I would 43 ** > "Touchdown should be at about 70 mph" For a KR that's just plain ridiculous. * Sorry that was rather blunt. Most KR's stall around 50 MPH or a little under. Unless countering strong crosswinds, touchdown should be as close to the stall as possible. Excessive speed at touchdown is the primary reason for bounced landings and the various accidents which follow as the pilot tries to force an airplane back onto a runway after bouncing when, due to excessive speed, it wants to keep flying. That results in bent nosegears, groundloops, stalling out of one of the bounces and all sorts of other possible bad en ndings - all of which will ruin your day and damage the airplane. This isn't true just of KR's. Excessive speed on landing when doing first flights is a perennial major problem and is almost always the reason for the landing accidents that occur. Since I've never gone into a 1200 ft. strip with a KR I'd certainly be using brakes on roll-out as well - but that would be after touching down in as close to a full stall as possible. Truly full stall landings are difficult and perhaps impossible with KR's since the tail droops way down and hits first, even with tri-cycle gear KR's. The optimum KR landing procedure is best described in Jim Faughn's article on the subject found on KRNET. If one is very familiar with their conventional gear KR, doing a wheel landing at 70 MPH and using brakes against the aerodynamic forces you are keeping balanced with the stick can be done with time and practice but is more an exercise than it is a practical procedure. There's no real-world reason other than very strong crosswinds that anyone would ever land this way. Builders are not going to be doing their first flights with strong crosswinds. Suggesting to builders that 70 MPH is an appropriate touchdown speed is really irresponsible. Sorry. Mike KSEE How Old Men Tighten Skin 63 Year Old Man Shares DIY Skin Tightening Method You Can Do From Home http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/54dfb0de8cd4230de19ddst04vuc ___ Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change options
KR> Touchdown speed
>Original Message from Mike: > "Touchdown should be at about 70 mph" >For a KR that's just plain ridiculous. >If one is very familiar with their conventional gear KR, doing a wheel >landing at 70 MPH and using brakes against the aerodynamic forces you are >keeping balanced with the stick can be done with time and practice but is >more an exercise than it is a practical procedure. There's no real-world >reason other than very strong crosswinds that anyone would ever land this >way. Builders are not going to be doing their first flights with strong >crosswinds. Suggesting to builders that 70 MPH is an appropriate >touchdown speed is really irresponsible. Sorry. >Mike >KSEE I have to disagree with the above statements. I made my first flight March 20, 2005. Back then everyone had drilled into my head that the KR had to be landed just above stall speed especially on your first landings in order to make a safe first landing. Taking everyone's advice, I made some practice approaches at altitude and then headed in for my first landing. The first landing will be your second most intensive pucker factor after the first takeoff. Your adrenaline will be pumping and you will be tense. Since I was told by many to make a high approach just above stall speed that is exactly what I did. That first landing was absolutely the worst landing I have ever made (except when I hit a deer) and by being so slow it almost caused me to crash my KR on touchdown. Everything was going well until I got too slow. Have you ever seen a duck making an approach to land and it's wings start rocking back and forth as it prepares for touchdown? That is the way I felt as my KR quickly lost lift and slammed down on the runway. Fortunately I did not do any damage but that was as close as I have ever come to making a crash landing. I am not saying that you must do 70 mph at touchdown but you better make sure you have sufficient speed to maintain a safe flight throughout the landing process. For me, I find that touchdown at 70 mph is ideal and I consistantly make baby butt smooth landings at that speed. The following is a post I recently made on December 26, 2014 on a "Belly Board" thread. - YHa. I just returned from a 1.2 hour flight around Steven Point, WI. This was my first flight since 10/25 due to our shi& weather we have up here. So what does this have to do with belly boards? Here is how I use mine in the landing sequence. I called left downwind 21 Stevens Point and reduced my speed to 125 MPH. Next I called turning left base 21 Stevens point and am now at 120 MPH. I maintain that speed through base and call turning final 21 Stevens Point. I pull back the power to slow her to 115 and drop the belly board to full down position. At this point I would estimate I am now at 1/4 mile final and slowing fast. I cross the numbers looking at 80 MPH and when the wheels touch the pavement I am doing 70 MPH and she sets down smooth a silk. The following are two links. The first is the web link to the construction of my solid belly board. The second is a landing video on runway 21 Stevens Point and note you can see the speed brake being lowered. Also note the minor deflection of the gear with touchdown and that is loaded up with two people on board. Belly Board web link: http://www.flykr2s.com/bellyboard.html Landing video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfXagjar5IE - Mark Jones (N886MJ) Stevens Point, WI E-mail: flykr2s at charter.net Web: www.flykr2s.com
KR> Touchdown speed
> > So, if we use 70 mph low over the numbers to minimize ground role, brakes on > touchdown, get big tires for traction, ?a belly board or airbrakes, ?flaps, > land into the wind, ?use a go around when things are not right, ?and put a > net at the end of the runway, we could operate out of a 1200 foot strip > > Anybody think that it can't be done? ?Is so then I need to know so that I can > start building another hanger on a bigger runway before my KR2 is ready to > fly.? > > > Joe Just add a beta mode prop and a tail hook and you'll be all set. Distances at lower altitudes always seem really short to me since all my time is spent at airports well above 5000', but; while I think I could get my KR in and out of a 1200' strip under the right conditions near sea level with a bit of practice, I don't think I would want that to be my normal operation. I don't think take off would be a problem at all, but it would be challenging to hit the front edge of the runway every time. Eventually, you'll end up in the position where you're too fast to stop and too slow to get back off for a go around. I'd opt for keeping the plane at a longer runway if that's a viable option. As always, your mileage may vary, and my opinion may be skewed by the conditions I normally fly in. -Jeff Scott Los Alamos, NM
KR> Touchdown speed
Depending on the wind, but probably about 500 ft. I am off the runway to the taxiway by 2000 to 2500 ft, no issues. I have neither flaps nor belly board. -Original Message- From: John Bouyea To: robert7721 ; 'KRnet' Sent: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 9:49 am Subject: RE: KR> Touchdown speed Rob, This data is very helpful to me, thanks. I see the same thing; especially pitch stability decreasing rapidly with slower indicated airspeed. Question: If you cross the numbers @ 80, what distance passes from the numbers to your touchdown point? John Bouyea/ N5391M/ KR2 OR81/ Hillsboro, OR is 2000' grass... -Original Message- From: KRnet/Rob Schmitt Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 6:04 AM ... I use 80 mph over the numbers, and then flare. I really am not exactly sure the exact landing speed, but it is probably closer to 70, then 60. This is how I was taught by Terry Chezik and it works well. If you run below that speed, the airplane get more unstable and is harder to control. It works well for me on my Trigear. ... Over 620 hours now. No crashes, replaced landing gear, or other damage to me or airplane. I don't think I'm going to change anything I'm doing now. Rob Schmitt
KR> Touchdown speed
At 08:47 AM 2/14/2015, you wrote: >So, if we use 70 mph low over the numbers to minimize ground role, >brakes on touchdown, get big tires for traction, I don't think you need bigger tires for traction but for the better brakes. I went with the 500X5's over the original 600X6's low profile tires to get a wheel pant that covered the entire wheel and brake assembly that was proportional in size to the KR. I'm using the RV pressure recovery pant. If you're needing the extra braking power of the 600X6's you're flying too close to the edge. Larry Flesner
KR> Touchdown speed
Yesterday after sending off my brief and unhelpful comment on this subject, I followed up with a second response about 30 minutes later. It went out just fine but didn't for some reason show up in my digest-mode KR newsletter today. So here it is below. I think it's important to explain why I would 43 ** > "Touchdown should be at about 70 mph" For a KR that's just plain ridiculous. * Sorry that was rather blunt. Most KR's stall around 50 MPH or a little under. Unless countering strong crosswinds, touchdown should be as close to the stall as possible. Excessive speed at touchdown is the primary reason for bounced landings and the various accidents which follow as the pilot tries to force an airplane back onto a runway after bouncing when, due to excessive speed, it wants to keep flying. That results in bent nosegears, groundloops, stalling out of one of the bounces and all sorts of other possible bad en ndings - all of which will ruin your day and damage the airplane. This isn't true just of KR's. Excessive speed on landing when doing first flights is a perennial major problem and is almost always the reason for the landing accidents that occur. Since I've never gone into a 1200 ft. strip with a KR I'd certainly be using brakes on roll-out as well - but that would be after touching down in as close to a full stall as possible. Truly full stall landings are difficult and perhaps impossible with KR's since the tail droops way down and hits first, even with tri-cycle gear KR's. The optimum KR landing procedure is best described in Jim Faughn's article on the subject found on KRNET. If one is very familiar with their conventional gear KR, doing a wheel landing at 70 MPH and using brakes against the aerodynamic forces you are keeping balanced with the stick can be done with time and practice but is more an exercise than it is a practical procedure. There's no real-world reason other than very strong crosswinds that anyone would ever land this way. Builders are not going to be doing their first flights with strong crosswinds. Suggesting to builders that 70 MPH is an appropriate touchdown speed is really irresponsible. Sorry. Mike KSEE How Old Men Tighten Skin 63 Year Old Man Shares DIY Skin Tightening Method You Can Do From Home http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/54dfb0de8cd4230de19ddst04vuc
KR> Touchdown speed
Joe; Didn't a group agree that the limiting runway length for the KR is takeoff, not landing? I think the ratio is 2:1 takeoff distance to landing. Peter
KR> Touchdown speed
"Peter" wrote: >Didn't a group agree that the limiting runway length for the KR is takeoff, not landing? Maybe some group somewhere, but not the pilots on KRnet. It's exactly the opposite. You can get off the ground in probably half the distance of the landing ground roll. Otherwise we wouldn't be debating about flaps and belly boards all the time... Mark Langford ML at N56ML.com http://www.n56ml.com
KR> Touchdown speed
I use 80 mph over the numbers, and then flare. I really am not exactly sure the exact landing speed, but it is probably closer to 70, then 60. This is how I was taught by Terry Chezik and it works well. If you run below that speed, the airplane get more unstable and is harder to control. It works well for me on my Trigear. On the other end, takeoff that it is, I do rotate at 60 mph and bring the airplane up into ground effect, level off until it reaches 80 mph, and then climb out. Once again the airplane is more stable that way and you are not pushing the danger envelope. Over 620 hours now. No crashes, replaced landing gear, or other damage to me or airplane. I don't think I'm going to change anything I'm doing now. Rob Schmitt -Original Message- From: KRnet [mailto:krnet-bounces at list.krnet.org] On Behalf Of Tony King via KRnet Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 9:18 PM To: Virgil N.Salisbury; KRnet Subject: Re: KR> Touchdown speed That's approach speed, not touchdown. TK Sent from my iPad > On 14 Feb 2015, at 8:28 am, Virgil N.Salisbury via KRnet wrote: > > >Touchdown should = 1.3xVstall. 52 X 1.3 = 67.6 > > >On 2/13/2015 3:25 PM, Mike Stirewalt via KRnet wrote: >>> "Touchdown should be at about 70 mph" >> For a KR that's just plain ridiculous. > > > ___ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. > To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to > KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org please see other KRnet info at > http://www.krnet.org/info.html see > http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change > options ___ Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change options
KR> Touchdown speed
Rob, This data is very helpful to me, thanks. I see the same thing; especially pitch stability decreasing rapidly with slower indicated airspeed. Question: If you cross the numbers @ 80, what distance passes from the numbers to your touchdown point? John Bouyea/ N5391M/ KR2 OR81/ Hillsboro, OR is 2000' grass... -Original Message- From: KRnet/Rob Schmitt Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 6:04 AM ... I use 80 mph over the numbers, and then flare. I really am not exactly sure the exact landing speed, but it is probably closer to 70, then 60. This is how I was taught by Terry Chezik and it works well. If you run below that speed, the airplane get more unstable and is harder to control. It works well for me on my Trigear. ... Over 620 hours now. No crashes, replaced landing gear, or other damage to me or airplane. I don't think I'm going to change anything I'm doing now. Rob Schmitt
KR> Touchdown speed
Touchdown should = 1.3xVstall. 52 X 1.3 = 67.6 On 2/13/2015 3:25 PM, Mike Stirewalt via KRnet wrote: >> "Touchdown should be at about 70 mph" > For a KR that's just plain ridiculous. >
KR> Touchdown speed
> "Touchdown should be at about 70 mph" For a KR that's just plain ridiculous. How Old Men Tighten Skin 63 Yr Old Husband Uses Wife???s Wrinkle Cream, His Results? Amazing http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/54de5e451dace5e4577d3st04vuc
