VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 06-22-2019, 02:21 PM
RogerH's Avatar
RogerH RogerH is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 36
Default RV Fiske Arrival Question

Having flow the Fisk arrival in several slower aircraft I was looking forward to flying this year at the higher 135kt/2,300ft MSL level with a recently acquired RV-4.

This discussion chain is based on a statement that it's preferred in the NOTAM that RV's fly the slower 90kts/lower 1,800ft MSL arrival. Can someone clarify where that's in the NOTAM? I don't see that noted as a requirement.

It seems odd to me that it would be a safer practice to maintain unusual slower cruise speeds from Ripon to KOSH, with other aircraft that might be struggling to maintain 90kts, if I can stay "above the fray" at a comfortable 135kts.

Am I missing something here?
__________________
RV-4, N-655BB
SLC, UT
2019 Dues Paid
Previous:
C-172
Rockwell Commander 112 Hotshot
Super Decathlon
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-22-2019, 02:28 PM
Kyle Boatright Kyle Boatright is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerH View Post
Having flow the Fisk arrival in several slower aircraft I was looking forward to flying this year at the higher 135kt/2,300ft MSL level with a recently acquired RV-4.

This discussion chain is based on a statement that it's preferred in the NOTAM that RV's fly the slower 90kts/lower 1,800ft MSL arrival. Can someone clarify where that's in the NOTAM? I don't see that noted as a requirement.

It seems odd to me that it would be a safer practice to maintain unusual slower cruise speeds from Ripon to KOSH, with other aircraft that might be struggling to maintain 90kts, if I can stay "above the fray" at a comfortable 135kts.

Am I missing something here?
Doesn?t the notam say ?if able? fly the 90 knot stream? That?s cut and dried to me. Beyond that, flying the higher stream creates one more merge point on final where all the aircraft have to congregate to land.
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Marietta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB
2019(?) RV-10
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-22-2019, 02:37 PM
RogerH's Avatar
RogerH RogerH is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 36
Default

I'm looking at it and it says:

"Arrive at Ripon at 90 knots and 1,800'...faster aircraft use 135 knots and 2,300'"

It goes on to make suggestions about aircraft unable to maintain 90 knots flying at their maximum and recommends an early AM arrival.

It does not appear to stipulate that aircraft must fly 90 knots if they're capable of higher performance.
__________________
RV-4, N-655BB
SLC, UT
2019 Dues Paid
Previous:
C-172
Rockwell Commander 112 Hotshot
Super Decathlon
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-22-2019, 07:28 PM
DanH's Avatar
DanH DanH is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 10,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerH View Post
It does not appear to stipulate that aircraft must fly 90 knots if they're capable of higher performance.
Capable of higher performance is irreverent. The NOTAM is specific...the high approach is for aircraft unable to operate comfortably at 90 knots. All RV's operate just fine at 90 knots.

Here's the problem. You whiz along overhead, then descend into the pattern, blind as a mole. You can't see the slower airplanes on the same track under you. The vertical merge is entirely reliant on the tower controllers. Errors aside, they tend to turn out the low aircraft if there is a conflict. If it happens, and the high bird is your RV, you will definitely be "that guy".
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-22-2019, 08:25 PM
donaziza's Avatar
donaziza donaziza is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 811
Default

Referencing Post 18, I had been to Oshkosh many times back in the 70ties, and 80ties, but I've only "flown" there once in 2015. So I thought I'd better practice this 90 Kt stuff at home for extended distances. I wasn't real happy with 90 Kts and zero flaps, not that it can't be done, but--------

So I started practicing at 1/2 flaps. That worked out quite well. My flaps take 6 seconds to go full down, so I just counted 1001, 1002, 1003.

Last edited by donaziza : 06-22-2019 at 08:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-22-2019, 09:13 PM
rightrudder rightrudder is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Laguna Hills, CA
Posts: 1,853
Default

If there are four abreast in the holding patterns at 1800', I'm **** sure that I'm unable to comfortably maintain 90 kts!! It's a wonder there wasn't a mid-air last year.

Of course my aircraft can fly at 90 kts, but with 2018 as an example, I think the risk of descending on a plane from 2300' was far less than tangling with the maelstrom 500' below.

Went out today and did some runs today at both speeds, with the aircraft loaded up to get used to the farther-aft cg. With a Catto FP prop and IO-320, 90 kts worked out to 1550 rpm; 135 kts, 2500 rpm.
__________________
Doug
RV-9A "slider"--sold in July 2021
Flew to Osh in 2017, 2018 & 2019!
Donation made for 2021
You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky -- Amelia Earhart

Last edited by rightrudder : 06-22-2019 at 09:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-23-2019, 08:23 AM
DanH's Avatar
DanH DanH is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 10,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rightrudder View Post
Of course my aircraft can fly at 90 kts, but with 2018 as an example, I think the risk of descending on a plane from 2300' was far less than tangling with the maelstrom 500' below.
You will be descending into the maelstrom, and the people below you are robbed of see-and-avoid.

The practical reason for the 135 knot approach is so typical light twins can stay above Vsse, or in some cases even Vso, not so RV owners can be line-jumpers.
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-23-2019, 08:41 AM
Plummit's Avatar
Plummit Plummit is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanH View Post
Capable of higher performance is irreverent. The NOTAM is specific...the high approach is for aircraft unable to operate comfortably at 90 knots. All RV's operate just fine at 90 knots.
Since an aircraft has no feelings, doesn't the word "comfortably" refer to the pilot? I can certainly operate my -10 at 90kts, but 135 kts is more comfortable. FWIW

-Marc
__________________
RV-10
N814RV
2021 Donation Made
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-23-2019, 08:53 AM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 2,533
Default So...

This reminds me of those guys on the highway that just HAVE to get there a minute earlier...and end up becoming a danger to everyone else.

As has been stated earlier, the RV's fly just fine at 90 kts. If everyone followed the procedure instead of thinking they know better, the arrival would work much better.

...and as stated earlier, if YOU are not comfortable flying your RV at 90 kts, it is time to practice...
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10
N464RL

Dues+ Paid 2020,...Thanks DR+
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-23-2019, 08:58 AM
Carl Froehlich's Avatar
Carl Froehlich Carl Froehlich is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dogwood Airpark (VA42)
Posts: 3,048
Default

As always Dan is technically on point.

I offer that the NOTAM is long overdue to update the 1800' and 90 knot guidance. Considering the plethora of RVs flying in each year, and that such a long run at slow speed is not a routine evolution for most RV guys, I fear the addition of being directed behind a 70 knot weak sister, or other unexpected stuff to the pilot workload might lead to inadvertent stalls. Looking back at last year's problems we were lucky.

There has to be a better option. Perhaps a controlled "merge" procedure?

In the meantime, as has been suggested use half flaps to gain a little speed margin, and practice.

Carl
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:11 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.