What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Max Crosswind Component

[email protected]

I'm New Here
Can anyone tell me the maximum crosswind that is safe for an RV-9A on take-off and landing? I've had a lot of different answers so I am hoping you builders will know what is safe. Thanks.

PJ:confused:
 
That's entirely dependent on pilot skill.

For any aircraft, there is no "maximum crosswind component" - only a "maximum DEMONSTRATED crosswind component". That doesn't mean the airplane can't handle more, only that this is the maximum that has been done by a test pilot under controlled conditions.

What is a SAFE crosswind component is another animal entirely and depends heavily on pilot skill.
 
Since it is a "demonstrated" number...

...there is really not a fixed one for the RVs...

A certified plane needs 20% of Vso, but a test pilot can demonstrate a higher number for the Manual...

Here is the text...

AC 23-8B http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...469CD77D24955F4E86256DA60060C156?OpenDocument

107. SECTION 23.233 DIRECTIONAL STABILITY AND CONTROL.

a. Explanation.

(1) Crosswind. This regulation establishes the minimum value of crosswind that must be demonstrated. Since the minimum required value may be far less than the actual capability of the airplane, higher values may be tested at the option of the applicant. The highest 90- degree crosswind component tested satisfactorily should be put in the AFM as performance information. If a demonstrated crosswind is found limiting, it has to be introduced in Section 2 of the AFM.

b. Procedures.

(1) Crosswind.

(a) The airplane should be operated throughout its approved loading envelope at gradually increasing values of crosswind component until a crosswind equivalent to 0.2 VSO is reached. All approved takeoff and landing configurations should be evaluated. Higher crosswind values may be evaluated at the discretion of the test pilot for AFM inclusion.


A "generic" number for you to use might be the 20% of your stall speed at the lightest flying weight of your plane in a landing configuration.
 
Mine

Well,
I've demonstrated 18knots gusting to 23 dead across the runway. It was a bit of work but not scary (memorable though!). Your mileage may vary. :D



Can anyone tell me the maximum crosswind that is safe for an RV-9A on take-off and landing? I've had a lot of different answers so I am hoping you builders will know what is safe. Thanks.

PJ:confused:
 
I have demonstrated 22 kt landing and 19 takeoff, but only from the right on takeoff. You may well have a lower max xwind component from the left on takeoff due to the added P-factor. Takeoff is more difficult for me, but it may well be just my abilities or technique.

Bob Kelly
 
My GRT efis has said, with a straight face, that I've landed with a 115 knot crosswind. Really :).

If I had a 115 knot crosswind, I would land across the runway; but then I would have to touch down at 115 knots to "hover". I think I would try an alternate!

Ever consider re-calibrating your EFIS?
 
Crosswind

LOL. Thanks everyone. Believe it or not, you actually gave me some really good advice. (I don't know about the 115 K crosswind, though).
 
I go by what was said by John King, of King Schools. If the rudder authority isn't enough to keep the nose aligned with the runway, then land somewhere else!

L.Adamson --- RV6A with the shorter "classic tail"
 
Max x-wind component

I have demonstrated 24 mph left cross at Stead-Reno for my -9A. For those who believe their is no limit, the left wing was about 4" above the runway and nearly full right rudder to hold centerline on the left main. Good news is the landing roll was about 200' with no braking, most of which was on the left tire. In fact I remember being taught that that is the max cross wind limit for an aircraft, upwind wing a low as possible without tip or engine contacting the runway surface and max rudder to maintain centerline. The demonstrated limit for the KC-10 was 31 kts, that's the most flight test could find during certification testing. Dan.
 
Not trying to pound my chest, but last winter I landed at Alamogordo NM with a direct X-wind and the AWOS was saying 35 a minute or so before I landed. Like Bob, I'm better one way than the other (in my case L XW is easier because that's what we almost always have at RTS). I don't recall the winds on departure, but they were not much different. Scarier thinking about it than doing it.

greg
 
Okay, not to "one up" everyone, but you can use this as an example of what's possible if you "have" to come down.

A buddy in his -6 and me in my -6 once landed in Show Low, AZ in a 35 kts crosswind. That was the direct component, the actual wind was 38 gusting to 45. :eek: I kid you not. We were sick, it was bumpy, and I wanted to be anywhere but in the air at the time.

Final approach was at a 45 degree angle to the runway and I didn't straighten it out until the wheels touched. My landing roll was less than 100'. It was so windy (How windy was it?), that when we were taxiing in to the FBO, our airplanes were hopping sideways as the wind rocked our wings. Even when we shut down, it would rock and walk sideways.

I wouldn't recommend it but there is enough rudder there to get it on the ground in a near hurricane if necessary.

BTW, I'm not that great of a pilot either but if you practice enough and get the techniques down, these airplane are very capable.
 
Okay, not to "one up" everyone, but you can use this as an example of what's possible if you "have" to come down.

A buddy in his -6 and me in my -6 once landed in Show Low, AZ in a 35 kts crosswind. That was the direct component, the actual wind was 38 gusting to 45. :eek: I kid you not. We were sick, it was bumpy, and I wanted to be anywhere but in the air at the time.

Final approach was at a 45 degree angle to the runway and I didn't straighten it out until the wheels touched. My landing roll was less than 100'. It was so windy (How windy was it?), that when we were taxiing in to the FBO, our airplanes were hopping sideways as the wind rocked our wings. Even when we shut down, it would rock and walk sideways.

I wouldn't recommend it but there is enough rudder there to get it on the ground in a near hurricane if necessary.

BTW, I'm not that great of a pilot either but if you practice enough and get the techniques down, these airplane are very capable.

Hey, that wasn't a "one up" that was a 10 up! I was sweating just reading that.
 
Okay, not to "one up" everyone, but you can use this as an example of what's possible if you "have" to come down.

A buddy in his -6 and me in my -6 once landed in Show Low, AZ in a 35 kts crosswind. That was the direct component, the actual wind was 38 gusting to 45. :eek: I kid you not. We were sick, it was bumpy, and I wanted to be anywhere but in the air at the time.

Final approach was at a 45 degree angle to the runway and I didn't straighten it out until the wheels touched. My landing roll was less than 100'. It was so windy (How windy was it?), that when we were taxiing in to the FBO, our airplanes were hopping sideways as the wind rocked our wings. Even when we shut down, it would rock and walk sideways.

I wouldn't recommend it but there is enough rudder there to get it on the ground in a near hurricane if necessary.

BTW, I'm not that great of a pilot either but if you practice enough and get the techniques down, these airplane are very capable.

Now for the real question - wheelie or 3-pt? :) I would assume wheelie if you literally didn't straighten out until the wheels touched.

Curious about the numbers, though....a 38KT wind with a 35KT crosswind component results in a headwind component of only 14.8KT. Even if you touched down at stall speed (no less than 48KT), which is not really practical in a RV-6, you'd still have a 33KT groundspeed, and to scrub even that off in under 100' would require some monster braking ability. More likely you landed faster than this, and especially if you wheeled it on, a less than 100' rollout would seem to involve more like a 35KT headwind component and a 14.8KT crosswind component.
 
Last edited:
Not trying to pound my chest, but last winter I landed at Alamogordo NM with a direct X-wind and the AWOS was saying 35 a minute or so before I landed...
When I read this I wondered why the crosswind runway was not used? I thought maybe it was closed. I went to the AFD and it says Runway 16-34 is in fair condition but is "not available for aircraft operations." Odd, I have landed on that runway several times and it seemed fine. Why would it not be NOTAMed closed but would not be available? My guess is because the transition at the intersection with the paved runway is abrupt.

If it was me under those conditions I would have a look at the crosswind runway and use it if that looked like the safest option. I sure wouldn't need to use so much of the runway that I would have to cross the paved one at high speed.

Sometimes I think we get a little too fixated on pavement or long flat official places that must have numbers. I have used taxiways, ramps or other suitable areas on an airport for landing when that seemed to be the best thing to do. You may be braking some sort of rule when you do that but I have not seen anything in the FARs about it. As far as the catchall reckless and unsafe deal, it can sometimes be more reckless to use the runway.
 
Now for the real question - wheelie or 3-pt? :) I would assume wheelie if you literally didn't straighten out until the wheels touched.

Curious about the numbers, though....a 38KT wind with a 35KT crosswind component results in a headwind component of only 14.8KT. Even if you touched down at stall speed (no less than 48KT), which is not really practical in a RV-6, you'd still have a 33KT groundspeed, and to scrub even that off in under 100' would require some monster braking ability. More likely you landed faster than this, and especially if you wheeled it on, a less than 100' rollout would seem to involve more like a 35KT headwind component and a 14.8KT crosswind component.

It was a three pointer :D and I'm sure I had my feet on the brakes. Everything else was puckered up pretty good.

Actually, my forward speed was very, very slow and when I hit, I planted it and it stopped in seconds. IIRC, my approach speed was around 70 kts indicated. I may have rolled out longer but I don't think so. I wasn't really paying attention because the airplane immediately began to head for the weeds. The rudder was not enough to hold it in the wind once I was on the ground and I needed the tailwheel steering to hold it on the runway. I remember stopping and then taxiing very slowly with a lot of rudder.

When I read this I wondered why the crosswind runway was not used?

In my case, the other runway at Show Low was closed due to re-surfacing and we didn't have any choice but to land on 27 or keep going. In fact, the closed runway had been re-paved but the marking had not been painted and we used the closed runway to depart into the wind once the airport manager went to lunch. His assistant was kind enough to remove the taxi barricaides for us so we could leave. Otherwise, we were stuck there until the wind subsided.
 
Last edited:
When I read this I wondered why the crosswind runway was not used? I thought maybe it was closed. I went to the AFD and it says Runway 16-34 is in fair condition but is "not available for aircraft operations." Odd, I have landed on that runway several times and it seemed fine. Why would it not be NOTAMed closed but would not be available? My guess is because the transition at the intersection with the paved runway is abrupt.

If it was me under those conditions I would have a look at the crosswind runway and use it if that looked like the safest option. I sure wouldn't need to use so much of the runway that I would have to cross the paved one at high speed.

Sometimes I think we get a little too fixated on pavement or long flat official places that must have numbers. I have used taxiways, ramps or other suitable areas on an airport for landing when that seemed to be the best thing to do. You may be braking some sort of rule when you do that but I have not seen anything in the FARs about it. As far as the catchall reckless and unsafe deal, it can sometimes be more reckless to use the runway.

Larry,

As I recall, winds were from about 300 degrees, almost straight across. My thought was that 1) the unpaved (and supposedly closed) runway is considerably shorter, and I had no idea of the condition. In addition, it is still considerably crosswise to the wind (RWY 34). The main runway is long, wide and of more certain condition (better the devil you know....). I am comfortable doing XW landings in the RV, particularly with a L XW (we get a lot of that at RTS), so my choice was rwy 03. I also had sufficient fuel that, if I found it necessary, I could go around and land somewhere else.

Although a puckering experience, it is good for me to know that such a landing is possible for future reference. I'm not claiming to be a better pilot, in fact I know there are lots of better pilots out there than me. I was just adding to the database - indeed it is not impossible to land a 9 with a very stiff XW. I think that the big rudder probably really helps compared to the other models.


cheers,
greg
 
27 knot crosswind landing

During Young Eagles Rally in Kemmerer Wyoming. I landed my RV-9A in a steady 27knot direct crosswind as measured by the weather station at the airport. I didn't know how hard it was blowing, until I landed and the folks in the office asked how I liked the "sporty" crosswind landing. Then they told me how hard it was blowing. It did take my full attention, but the plane handled it well.
 
Last edited:
I've only got 115-ish hours in my RV, and I teach in a lot of Cessna bugsmashers.

The RV is FAR easier to handle in gusty crosswinds than a 172 or, really, anything else I've flown. My home field - VKX - is the only field I've been to where the AWOS, the windsock and the flags on the hangars will indicate three different directions, making the reported wind more guesswork than anything. We're oriented 6-24, and this time of year, 31015G25 is the most normal. Anytime a cold front comes through, 290 through 320 at 25G35 is the norm for about 18-24 hours after passage.

I've found that mild crosswinds - up to about 10-12 knots - are non-events in the RV. 15 and up, you pay attention without much difficulty, and anything over 20 requires paying a lot of attention and/or bringing your A-game.

I am an average pilot, I would say, and the RV makes me look better than I am. :)
 
I must be a baby cat because I wont go up in 10mph crosswind. Im still getting my license and venturing into stronger winds but I cant imagine a 20mph crosswind. I had no idea that was even possible.

Even when I get better at crosswind landings, I dont enjoy bumping all over the place in the wind.
 
I find using the published wind speed and direction to be about useless. I have had times I landed easily in mid 20's and had tough times in the mid teens. Close to the ground, behind trees, behind hangers and during lulls or gusts things change a lot.
 
I find using the published wind speed and direction to be about useless. I have had times I landed easily in mid 20's and had tough times in the mid teens. Close to the ground, behind trees, behind hangers and during lulls or gusts things change a lot.

Exactly. You just gotta "do some of that pilot sht," Maverick.

For today's last landing, at a field with sketchy AWOS, I took FOREVER to get from my rounded base to final. Once on final, the nose was no kidding 45* right of centerline in a crab, and I felt I was not even moving towards the threshold. Okay, time to hone my forward slip skills, but by golly, I nearly ran out of rudder in a -9a pointing the nose down the runway at 300' or so.

But, once I got towards the end of the runway, ready to think about flaring, things got settled, rudder inputs were not that much, and I (no ess, REALLY) squeaked it on, and made the first, short, turnoff.

Fly the plane, friends.
 
This thread is so old that I'd never even heard of RVs when it started up. But a wonderful subject. I'm not the most experienced of pilots, next flight puts me over 400 hr PIC, I fly out of an airport with a crosswind runway so I don't get a lot of need to handle crosswinds. I've managed a couple of good experiences though.

Last July I dropped into a nearby airport for cheap fuel and timed it perfectly to a gust front. My EFIS was reading 27 KT XW component right past the time the left wheel made contact. My right and nose wheels came down about 15 seconds later - that was the worst part as the wind had canted my nosewheel over and it made for a lot of shaking while it straightened out. Good thing I'd bled off a bunch of speed by then. It was still pretty fierce when I took off 15 minutes later, but the locals tell me it started just a few minutes before I arrived and ended not long after I left.

A couple of years back I flew up to an ice landing event, picked a bad day for my first ice landing. Only 12 KT XW for the landing, managed that okay, but when I taxied out to leave I had to come to a stop on the ice taxiway and my plane immediately turned about 70 degrees right. I had no room in front to straighten it back out and had to wait for a few guys to come out and swing me back straight. The takeoff had a bit of cross, a bit nerve wracking. I quickly realized once airborne that it would have been less stressful if I'd crabbed into the wind for my ground slide, I mean roll.

Really, the 9 with the massive VS is a great crosswind handler. I don't give crosswinds much thought, I try to approach every landing the same regardless of winds and treat them all as landing that I might need to add wind correction to.
 
Now that it is revived . .

Since a cross wind landing in a -7 is technically a cross controlled slip, could we pick a direct head wind or calm day, hold a heading in a full cross controlled slip, at landing speed, then simply read the cross wind from the EFIS?

Would that tell us what the ideal airframe capability is eliminating trickery of landing angles, and pilot skills?
 
How Much Rudder Do You Have?

I've never seen an Official Posted Max Crosswind Component for an RV. In fact, I've only seen max demonstrated crosswind component for any airplane. I'd think an RV-9A should be able to handle a gigantic crosswind. I've landed in some pretty heavy crosswinds in our RV-6 although sorry, I don't have any reliable numbers. My main thing is, in any airplane, if I get on final and use the wing down with rudder to align to the runway thing and find I can't stay lined up with a bit of rudder in reserve, then it's time to start thinking about landing diagonally across the runway or go looking for a shinier runway somewhere else. I take comfort in the fact that our RV-6 can handle a lot of crosswind. The RV taildraggers all seem to share some characteristics that make them great in crosswinds, to wit: relatively high wing loading, good power to weight ratios, low wings, low CGs, great visibility out of the cockpits, lots of control authority in all three axes and they sit a bit heavy on their tailwheels. The tricycle airplanes share all those characteristics, plus the nosewheel. Yeah, Total Performance!
 
My RV-6 with the small rudder is pretty much out of rudder at 15 kts direct crosswind. I landed once at our airport with 19G26 crosswind rotoring over the college campus, trees and hangars and decided that was the last time I want to go there. The landing was safe but it was noisy.......several bumps and tire chirps....not enough rudder to stay aligned with the centerline.
 
Last edited:
My RV-6 with the small rudder is pretty much out of rudder at 15 kts direct crosswind. I landed once at our airport with 19G26 crosswind rotoring over the college campus, trees and hangars and decided that was the last time I want to go there. The landing was safe but it was noisy.......several bumps and tire chirps....not enough rudder to stay aligned with the centerline.

Interesting, my 6A has the small rudder and yesterday I went out to practice x-wind landings. at one point it was up to 20k direct cross wind and I had enough rudder, not much left, but enough to stay aligned. I've flown 15k cross quite a few times. Was the issue the ground handling with the 6 or alignment in the air?
 
I was just thinking about this today for some reason, driving home and the winds were kicking up pretty stiff on the highway.

In the 900+ hours I put on the RV-6A, I became quite comfortable landing in crosswinds on my narrow turf strip out back. It required the usual dip of the upwind wingtip and compensatory opposite rudder to hold alignment with the centerline.

So far in 75 hours flying the RV-10, I cannot recall a single time where I had to add any crosswind correction in the flare. It just... lands. And perfectly almost every time. I swear the plane seems built to make me look better than I am.

Is it just me, or is this thing uncommonly immune to crosswind drift? I know that's physically impossible. Maybe I'm putting the correction in and don't even think about it. Anyone else noticed this?

Just realized I'm drifting a thread in a -9/9A specific sub-forum. :-(
 
Last edited:
I did a gusty 26 kt x-wind in my -9A several years back. You know, younger and stupider, the plane handled it ok, but about 10-15 seconds on the left main only before the right main touched down, then the nose gear. For a couple of seconds there I thought the left wing tip might touch, it looked much worse from my vantage point than actually was, according to observers. Would not attempt again. Dan from Reno
 
Interesting, my 6A has the small rudder and yesterday I went out to practice x-wind landings. at one point it was up to 20k direct cross wind and I had enough rudder, not much left, but enough to stay aligned. I've flown 15k cross quite a few times. Was the issue the ground handling with the 6 or alignment in the air?

It doesn’t matter…..looks like you are comfortable with your proficiency.
 
High x-wind discussions are fairly pointless considering gusts, trees, 30 ft. high anemometers, etc. Nobody really ever has a good idea on the actual wind they are touching down in - maybe just approx. what they might have flown short final in. If x-wind tales seem too high to be true, they are.
 
During Phase 1 (RV-14A) I was looking for cross winds that would not only test the airframe but me. Would land purposely at not the best wind runway and could only get 15 knots with 20 knot gusts and documented that in my POH. At the time did not feel like pushing the envelope. Now at 600 hrs. today was the day to see if I could increase this and get back to my home airport. (There is another airport 15 miles away with 3 runways if I was not comfortable with the approach) Today Garmin's weather showed 17 gusts to 23. Used 15 degrees of flaps and was not an issue landing. (I did use full flaps earlier at a nearby airport that was more aligned with the wind and that was a handful) Obviously flap position and runway length make a difference. (I've got 3,700 ft at my home airport, good surface) The rudder on a 14 seems very effective. Using an anemometer went out to the runway after landing and verified the Garmin numbers where close but landed slightly downwind. Any others insight to their max cross wind in a 14A?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-03-25 151742.jpg
    Screenshot 2024-03-25 151742.jpg
    105.1 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
High x-wind discussions are fairly pointless considering gusts, trees, 30 ft. high anemometers, etc. Nobody really ever has a good idea on the actual wind they are touching down in - maybe just approx. what they might have flown short final in. If x-wind tales seem too high to be true, they are.
Actually, the current winds are available on my g3x...
 
Actually, the current winds are available on my g3x...


I'm with Luddite42 on this. The G1000 has this feature as well, but I suggest that nobody is looking at it during the roundout and flare, or at least they shouldn't be. If I had a student who was doing that I would beat him with a bag of doorknobs. Plus, what's the refresh rate on it? I have to confess I have no idea, but my impression is that it's not instantaneous.

Is that parameter something that can be downloaded afterward on the G3X? it would be cool data to trend.
 
Last edited:
I'm with Luddite42 on this. The G1000 has this feature as well, but I suggest that nobody is looking at it during the roundout and flare, or at least they shouldn't be. If I had a student who was doing that I would beat him with a bag of doorknobs. Plus, what's the refresh rate on it? I have to confess I have no idea, but my impression is that it's not instantaneous.

Is that parameter something that can be downloaded afterward on the G3X? it would be cool data to trend.
Why would you be looking at it during roundout and flare?

It is there as a TOOL that can be used. How many people request a "wind check" on short final? Same idea but it is always right in front of you, for reference. As far as refresh rate is concerned, the winds are being computed based on air data, gps position, heading, and track...it is not slow.

The point is, there is a tool available that provides data for your current position and time, why wouldn't you use it? Would you rather believe an anemometer that may be located 1/2 mile from where you are?

Just saying...
 
Why would you be looking at it during roundout and flare?
Seems like you and I are largely saying the same thing here. You wouldn't, That was my point.

I was mostly responding to your comment that the G3X has the ability to display actual real time crosswind, which I though was in rebuttal to the comment a couple of posts up where somebody said that in a lot of cases the wind reported is probably higher than the reality at touchdown. I evidently did a poor job of explaining what I meant.

To clarify, I think that just because tower or ATIS or my G1000 says X knots at 50' agl or whatever, I may or may not have that much at touchdown, depending on quite a few external factors, and the best most real time tool, the onboard magic box, isn't something that people are looking at during that moment.

This isn't in reference to any of teh comments on tis thread, but in general and regardless of what kind of airplane it is, it seems to me that a non-zero percentage of the "I landed in 30g50 kts direct crosswind" comments that people tend to make have to be based on what the wind was doing well above touchdown elevation. Either because the anemometer is on top of a tower or they (very correctly) stop looking at the displayed x/wind vector somewhere out on final.

I can tell you for a fact that a Citation VII can't effectively do a wing low landing in a 35-ish kt direct crosswind, because we had to replace the wingtip on the prototype when the pilot (who was a graduate of the Air Force test pilot school) tried it and had such a large roll angle that he smacked it on the runway :)

Maybe I'm wrong, it's just my opinion.

Sorry for the thread drift. I can totally believe that a RV14 can land in 23 kts, as verified by an anemometer on the ground as reported above. I suspect it could handle more than that, but as to dmattuls question, I suspect that there are enough factors involved her that there's not going to be one ultimate number due to things like varying aircraft weight and density altitude.
 
Last edited:
Seems like you and I are largely saying the same thing here. You wouldn't, That was my point.

I was mostly responding to your comment that the G3X has the ability to display actual real time crosswind, which I though was in rebuttal to the comment a couple of posts up where somebody said that in a lot of cases the wind reported is probably higher than the reality at touchdown. I evidently did a poor job of explaining what I meant.

To clarify, I think that just because tower or ATIS or my G1000 says X knots at 50' agl or whatever, I may or may not have that much at touchdown, depending on quite a few external factors, and the best most real time tool, the onboard magic box, isn't something that people are looking at during that moment.

This isn't in reference to any of teh comments on tis thread, but in general and regardless of what kind of airplane it is, it seems to me that a non-zero percentage of the "I landed in 30g50 kts direct crosswind" comments that people tend to make have to be based on what the wind was doing well above touchdown elevation. Either because the anemometer is on top of a tower or they (very correctly) stop looking at the displayed x/wind vector somewhere out on final.

I can tell you for a fact that a Citation VII can't effectively do a wing low landing in a 35-ish kt direct crosswind, because we had to replace the wingtip on the prototype when the pilot (who was a graduate of the Air Force test pilot school) tried it and had such a large roll angle that he smacked it on the runway :)

Maybe I'm wrong, it's just my opinion.

Sorry for the thread drift. I can totally believe that a RV14 can land in 23 kts, as verified by an anemometer on the ground as reported above. I suspect it could handle more than that, but as to dmattuls question, I suspect that there are enough factors involved her that there's not going to be one ultimate number due to things like varying aircraft weight and density altitude.
Most of that I agree with. One thing is certain, the max crosswind will be determined by the person in the box…
 
I'm curious what part you don't agree with. I've been doing this for a long time, but I suspect you have as well and I'm always open to looking at something differently...
 
I flew with Gene Littlefield a few times. He is the one who flew his Stearman at Airventure many times. The trick he showed me was to line up far out and see if you can hold the centerline. If not, go find a different field, preferably one with coffee and pie!

Paul
 
I flew with Gene Littlefield a few times. He is the one who flew his Stearman at Airventure many times. The trick he showed me was to line up far out and see if you can hold the centerline. If not, go find a different field, preferably one with coffee and pie!

Paul
I actually prefer the crab into the roundout, and decrab in the flare technique; not really a fan of an extended cross controlled approach. Either way works, just personal preference.
 
I actually prefer the crab into the roundout, and decrab in the flare technique; not really a fan of an extended cross controlled approach. Either way works, just personal preference.
In a taildragger, that puts your decision point pretty late. I crab down to maybe 200’. The worse the wind, the earlier the slip starts. If I have don’t have enough rudder at say 400’, I assume I’ll go around in a moment. If I haven’t gained enough rudder by maybe 100, I push the power in and go somewhere to think. This is in the 185. My RV experience is more limited, but I’m still not trying to land if one rudder pedal is against the firewall.

So far, even though the RV has a tailwheel, it seems to handle crosswinds more like my previous Bonanza, which landed well regardless of technique.
 
In a taildragger, that puts your decision point pretty late. I crab down to maybe 200’. The worse the wind, the earlier the slip starts. If I have don’t have enough rudder at say 400’, I assume I’ll go around in a moment. If I haven’t gained enough rudder by maybe 100, I push the power in and go somewhere to think. This is in the 185. My RV experience is more limited, but I’m still not trying to land if one rudder pedal is against the firewall.

So far, even though the RV has a tailwheel, it seems to handle crosswinds more like my previous Bonanza, which landed well regardless of technique.
That is why it is personal preference; I use the crab technique in everything from my challenger LSA to my work aircraft, currently the 737.
 
Back
Top