[Toobuilder]

I have a few hours in a -8 now, and I can certainly attest to how slippery these airplanes are! While getting them slowed down to approach speed is not impossible, it does require some significant long range planning. Also, I can see where some situations imposed by ATC or traffic might conflict with your desired engine management process. So has anyone used any Precise Flight (or similar) speed brakes in an RV?

http://preciseflight.com/products/speedbrakes/experimental

A search does not show any hits on the forum.

Yes, they add weight and complexity (both bad things), but is there any increased operational performance to offset? Thoughts?

 

[Danny7]

everyone's just going to say "do an overhead break" and you don't need 'em

 

[RV8RIVETER]

I considered them for a while. Got sticker shock and they won't sell you just one (was going to mount on the belly). One big reason I decided to go with a CS prop, makes one big brake up front.

 

[Toobuilder]

Having never flown an airplane that had them, I'm not completely sure of their value in all phases of flight, but I do think they are used in the descent, setting you up for the pattern more than they are used in the pattern itself. After all, many RV's share the same attributes of those aircraft that have brakes (fast, slippery, CS props, shock cooling issues), so why does the 200 knot Mooney driver need them, while we don't?

 

[Ironflight]

Having never flown an airplane that had them, I'm not completely sure of their value in all phases of flight, but I do think they are used in the descent, setting you up for the pattern more than they are used in the pattern itself. After all, many RV's share the same attributes of those aircraft that have brakes (fast, slippery, CS props, shock cooling issues), so why does the 200 knot Mooney driver need them, while we don't?

Well, we DO have gear hanging out....

I find that the C/S prop has way more ability to slow me down than a typical light speed brake. I can lose a huge amount of speed in a hurry by pullng the power back smoothly with the prop forward. Anote trick is a 2-G pull onto downwind if you are still a little hot.

 

[mburch]

I find that the C/S prop has way more ability to slow me down than a typical light speed brake. I can lose a huge amount of speed in a hurry by pullng the power back smoothly with the prop forward.

I agree - in my experience, the best RV speed brake is made by Hartzell.

mcb

 

[Toobuilder]

Even with the gear hanging out, a RV is still less draggy than many storebought aircraft. Why do these storebought, equally draggy, CS prop equipped aircraft find such utility with speedbrakes? Why don't they simply use the prop or a high g turn to manage energy like this group does? While I agree that a good hard pull in the pattern can scrub a lot of speed, I'm sure that some of my passengers, and most of the feds in the tower don't appreciate such "aerobatic" activity after a nice relaxing cross country.

 

[PCHunt]

....... While I agree that a good hard pull in the pattern can scrub a lot of speed, I'm sure that some of my passengers, and most of the feds in the tower don't appreciate such "aerobatic" activity after a nice relaxing cross country.

A level, 60-degree angle-of-bank, 2 G turn is not an aerobatic maneuver. You may be right about the passengers, however. You don't have to do the 2 G turn at the airport. You can do it 5 miles away to help slow down before you enter the pattern. Or you can ease the nose up with the power off, climb a few hundred feet, guaranteed to slow down. Once slow, stay slow.

 

[Ron Lee]

I have a fixed pitch prop and do not consider it problematic. Plan a bit ahead and do not enter the pattern at full throttle.

A CS prop is even simpler.

 

[Garage Guy]

...so why does the 200 knot Mooney driver need them, while we don't?

I think all the 200 knot (as opposed to 200 mph) Mooneys are turbo'd, which means descents from the flight levels with another layer of power and temperature management to worry about, and speed brakes give you some more flexibility there.

Also, don't discount the "my airplane is so fast it NEEDS SPPED BREAKS!!1!" cachet.

Anyway, I flew a Mooney 201 (M20J, normally aspirated) a bunch back in the day, and I never felt the need for speed brakes on that plane. As PCHunt mentioned above, pull back the power and raise the nose... it works.

As for RV's... I would like a higher flap extension speed. As it is, flaps are pretty useless for slowing (as opposed to staying slow). The gear extension speed on RV's is fine the way it is though .

--Paul

 

[Mel]

It has a lot to do with "Salesmanship"!

You need them if the salesman can convince you that you need them.
I've been flying fixed pitch RVs for over 20 years and don't have a problem slowing down.
I have in the past owned a Mooney and a F/P Swift. I had little trouble slowing them down too. It's a technique you learn.

 

[N282RV]

I happen to know that a company in Redmond Or IS doing experimental speed brakes and you can get them from them. The Company is RDD enterprise. www.rddent.com and I just checked the speed brakes are 4K on a RV10. these are very usefull on the columbia/cessna 400s that we fly at work. We also have a cirrus that doesnt have them and I wish it did. Im not saying you have to have them but if they are there they are very usefull. Sometimes I deploy them if I catch some unexpected float on landing or you can use them all the way in for a nice short field landing. Not to mention if you want to slow/descend without a big power reduction or gain alot of speed , they work very well.

 

[David-aviator]

Even with the gear hanging out, a RV is still less draggy than many storebought aircraft. Why do these storebought, equally draggy, CS prop equipped aircraft find such utility with speedbrakes? Why don't they simply use the prop or a high g turn to manage energy like this group does? While I agree that a good hard pull in the pattern can scrub a lot of speed, I'm sure that some of my passengers, and most of the feds in the tower don't appreciate such "aerobatic" activity after a nice relaxing cross country.

Much of the economy in this country is based on marketing products no one really needs. Advertising designed to make one think he would be better off with a product is part of the game we play. Speed brakes on these small airplanes is one such commodity. How fast does the Mooney fly? Two of their models it is less than 200 knots and the third is 242 knots.

The guy who has lots of money will go for it, not because he needs it but because he has been duped into thinking he needs it....lots of stuff is sold that way.

Slowing to landing speed is a challenge relative to the airplane and subject to operating techniques easily mastered. I was totally challenged on the first flight going from a constance speed prop to a fixed pitch unit. Today it is a total non event as anyone with a little FP time will tell you. Slowing with a CS prop is a total-total non event.

We do not fly fast enough to warrant speed brakes.

 

[rbibb]

I agree that we don't need speed brakes on an RV or any other light plane for that matter. However, on my Mooney 201, there were a lot of times when it would have been nice to have them. ATC tends to keep one higher than you like until close to the airport and, when "cleared for the visual" I often found myself, 3 miles from the airport, 2-3000 feet above TPA, and having to cut the power to nil, hold up the nose until I could slow to gear speed (it was low in model I flew), and then descend at something like 1,500 fpm to get down in time.

I could descend, I could slow down, I just could not do both at the same time and I wished I had an anchor to throw out on more than just a few occasions.

Did I need them? No. Would they have been nice to have, Certainly. Would I have shelled out the bucks to buy them. Not when there were other things more pressing and with a bigger perceived payback............

 

[Ron Lee]

Advise the tower that you are too high to land.

 

[islandmonkey]

I agree that we don't need speed brakes on an RV or any other light plane for that matter.

I agree with you that speed brakes are not needed on any current RVs but I have to respectfully disagree with you on the sweeping "any other light plane" statement. Speed brakes or air brakes or lift dumpers are fitted to many motor gliders. There is usually not enough room to fit a decent flap system in some high aspect ratio wings without compromising strength, so air brakes are employed to kill some lift and make the aircraft more controllable on landing. I had a share in a Grob 109b that had air brakes fitted and very useful they were too. The Grob has a 32:1 glide ratio and would be tricky to land without air brakes. If Vans ever resurrects the motor glider project and it has a high aspect ratio wing and a greater than 20:1 glide ratio, then I can see air brakes being used on an RV.

 

[Toobuilder]

From what I understand, the value of speedbrakes is more to go down than to slow down, such as illustrated by rbibb above - they're an "anchor to throw out" when needed. After two hours at WOT, the last thing you want to do in any airplane is pull all the power out of it so you can start downhill. If you know you can descend at your leisure and you have total control over power management all the way to the pattern, fine, speed brakes have little use. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case out here in the wild west. My regular trip into the Phoenix area has me going over class D airspace, then quickly sneaking under the overlying Class B shelves. There's also some airports "just" on the other side of mountain peaks I routinely visit - It's tough keep the temps up and the speed down when you have 6000 feet to shed in 10 miles. Even in the draggy Hiperbipe, keeping the power up to prevent shock cooling means the speed is way up there trying to husstle down to the next altitude. I can see that a slippery airplane would easily be at redline.

As for "ramp presence" or marketing, I'm not buying that one at all. First off, unlike the much admired "sexy" 3 bladed prop, you can't even see speedbrakes - so what is there to brag about? Second, everyone who has actually flown with them sees great value in the capability offered. These are not marketing people, these are fellow pilots, product reviewers (magazine flight test, etc.). Heck, even people on this board wish for this capability; "drop an anchor", "higher flap extension speed"... Lastly, I'm not going to "buy" any speedbrake... If I decide the capability is needed, I'd build my own.

Finally, I'm having a hard time accepting that some of you guys advocate chopping power as a means of controlling speed in a descent. The -8 that I fly builds up smash in a hurry with the nose pointed down, and I'm not about to pull 10-15 inches of MP out all the way down from 9500 feet.

I guess speed brakes are like autopilots, GPS, or 3 axis trim - not really required, but nice to have when you need them.

 

[Ron Lee]

Any reason for not using a slip?

 

[Toobuilder]

Any reason for not using a slip?

From the start of descent?

 

[L.Adamson]

You need them if the salesman can convince you that you need them.
I've been flying fixed pitch RVs for over 20 years and don't have a problem slowing down.
I have in the past owned a Mooney and a F/P Swift. I had little trouble slowing them down too. It's a technique you learn.

He,he......

I bought one of those Zaon MRX traffic systems because you said so..

I put my fuel flow meter in the cockpit because you said so...

And both work great!

And yes, using a F/P prop is certainly a technique you learn. You learn that it's impossible to slow down like a C/S can.............. so just start slowing down waaaaaaaaaaaay back!

L.Adamson ---- RV6A 0360/Hartzell CS

 

[Ironflight]

Finally, I'm having a hard time accepting that some of you guys advocate chopping power as a means of controlling speed in a descent. The -8 that I fly builds up smash in a hurry with the nose pointed down, and I'm not about to pull 10-15 inches of MP out all the way down from 9500 feet.

Personally, I never "chop" the power in anything - abrupt control use is the sign of power planning, or an emergency action. I pull power off slowly as required. I also never make long power-off descents - I come down at the TAS redline (200 knots true in the -8), and ease off power as required. i can slow down in a big hurry at the bottom of the descent with the prop when I need to. I don't want to turn your thread into an argument on shock cooling, but frankly, there isn't a lot of evidence that damage due to shock cooling occurs very frequently on the engines we use in RV's.

In the end, I wonder if what you really want are spoilers, not speed brakes - they are two different things. One kills lift and allows you to drop like a stone without increasing speed, and the other will slow you down, but can lead to a balloon. If you DO decide to modify your RV, make sure you add the right thing. Maybe you said if the RV-8 you fly has a C/S prop, but I don't remember it - if not, then obviously, you have a different situation than many of us. If it does, try braking with it. I wrote a post a couple weeks back about crossing the fence at 150 knots, and making the first turn-off, and I only write what I know to be true. It works.

Paul

 

[Toobuilder]

Yes, it does have a C/S prop. And most of my modest flying time has been behind a 360 Lyc and a C/S prop, so I understand how to kill the smash if I need to... And yes, I'm talking about instant drag (speedbrakes). However, there is a big difference between me flying alone and me flying with my wife (or a non-pilot passenger). The situation I'm talking about is a true "airliner" profile - fast and high for most of the flight, then a steady descent to the pattern for landing... No "S" turns 10 miles from the airport to kill speed, no overhead breaks at 2-3 G's, no major power reductions in the descent, no "leaning on" the prop at 2700 RPM approaching the airport; none of that nonsense... I'm talking about a climb, cruise, and descent profile, in as straight and most direct route possible.

I also realize that there are many ways to mitigate the speed build up... just none of them listed so far on this board are acceptable to me and how I manage a flight - and that's fine; do whatever works for you all.

I have yet to take the thing cross country, so it is certainly possible that my "ideal" profile is perfectly doable with the limits that I set for myself... We'll see. Just doesn't seem like it with the flying I have done so far. It's a slippery little sucker!

 

[Ron Lee]

I don't understand your concern. I fly higher than many folks cross-country and getting to the airport environment at a suitable speed for a fixed pitch prop is NOT a problem. With a C/S prop I would have more energy management flexibility.

Power reductions during descent are gradual to keep CHT drops reasonable..whether shock cooling is real or not, it does not take much effort to do it.

 

[Ironflight]

I have yet to take the thing cross country, so it is certainly possible that my "ideal" profile is perfectly doable with the limits that I set for myself... We'll see. Just doesn't seem like it with the flying I have done so far. It's a slippery little sucker!

Go out and try it a little Michael - I think that you'll find that the profile works just fine - I routinely fly long, straigt, direct routes at altitude, and come down right into the pattern at a comfortable speed. It just isn't a problem, but you will have to go prove that to yourself.

(As for slippery, I used to think that I'd never get used to the way the RV-8 accelerates on the down-line during acro....now it's pretty "ho-hum, keep it coming around..." You just get used to what is "normal" for it.)

Paul

 

[L.Adamson]

No "S" turns 10 miles from the airport to kill speed, no overhead breaks at 2-3 G's, no major power reductions in the descent, no "leaning on" the prop at 2700 RPM approaching the airport; none of that nonsense... I'm talking about a climb, cruise, and descent profile, in as straight and most direct route possible.

I never approach the airport with the prop knob full forward (2700RPM) unless I've just been flying a once around pattern & didn't bother with it. The blue knob only goes full forward on the final approach, which is usually quite short, since my base turns are tight. Yet the C/S at coarser settings will still slow you down quickly as throttle is decreased. You can tell when it's time to push that blue knob fully in; otherwise it's like jamming a high revving engine into low gear, and you feel it in your stomach as well. I too, see no need at all for speed brakes with an RV C/S combo.

L.Adamson --- RV6A Hartzell C/S

 

[Caveman]

I also realize that there are many ways to mitigate the speed build up... just none of them listed so far on this board are acceptable to me and how I manage a flight - and that's fine; do whatever works for you all.

I have yet to take the thing cross country, so it is certainly possible that my "ideal" profile is perfectly doable with the limits that I set for myself... We'll see. Just doesn't seem like it with the flying I have done so far. It's a slippery little sucker!

Mike,
My 496 is set up to reach the targeted decent altitude, 1000' agl 3 miles from the airport. When on the map page, I have the "v.s. to target" displayed in the lower left corner. I glance at it as I near the destination and when it indicates the rate I want to decend at, say 500 fpm, I begin coming down and try and hold the GPS indicated profile. If I want a steeper profile due to obstructions or terrain or traffic, I just wait and descend steeper, later. Even if I'm over 200 mph when I level out, at three miles away I am at or near traffic pattern altitude and have time to use the cs prop to slow down, run the gmps check and enter the pattern at 100-110 mph. I believe many GPS's are capable of this. It is just one more way to manage the flight profile. I tend to agree with the others. Once you've made a few cross country trips, it just isn't a problem. BTW, I consider blasting into an airport at that rate of speed poor airmanship on my part unless there is a darn good reason to do so, such as an ATC request to keep my speed up.

 

[SteinAir]

After many years of building and flying these things in various configurations (both FP and C/S) I can say that I rarely have desired to have speed brakes or spoilers installed. The only time I can think of is on long XC's where I'm up high (like here in the midwest) to avoid bumpy air below. In that case, I try to stay high because it's smooth and cool. Down low sometimes it's HOT and extremely rough...so it'd be nice to stay up high and then dump down through the garbage really fast. That being said, it's not often I've been in those situations, but occasionally I have had the holy **** beat out of me letting down through bumpy stuff.

I guess that this is one of those things that to me adds weight, time, money, and complexity. None of which I wanted added to my planes.

The FP/CS debate has been hashed over many times and it's well proven that either one is easily manageable with some time so no need to rehash that debate.

My 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein

 

[RV8RIVETER]

It is definitely "your" airplane and it appears you have already made up your mind.

Just make sure you plan things out thoroughly and consider all possible ramifications. Weight, location, load imposed, and failures such as, what if the brakes/spoilers don't retract.

Good Luck.

 

[David-aviator]

It is definitely "your" airplane and it appears you have already made up your mind.

Just make sure you plan things out thoroughly and consider all possible ramifications. Weight, location, load imposed, and failures such as, what if the brakes/spoilers don't retract.

Good Luck.

AMEN to that.

The number one thing about doing an experimental airplane is you can follow your impulse on the matter. You don't need a government investigation on the subject nor the approval of anyone here. Just go ahead, do it, and report the results.

Back in '02 there were a number of friends who said I was nuts to do an auto engine with the RV. They were correct, it took a while for those messages to sink in and it cost a lot of money.

With regard to speed brakes, make darn sure it does not screw up structurally and aerodynamically an otherwise very fine airplane.

 

[cropdusterengineer]

speed brakes

To me, not worth the weight, cost, complexity IN THESE AIRPLANES.

so why does the 200 knot Mooney driver need them, while we don't?

Mooneys, 400s, etc have a much higher aspect ratio wing than our RVs.....ie, the slope of the induced drag curve isn't nearly as steep in those airplanes.

In an RV, you get a little more drag per knot of speed reduction than those guys do.

Go fly an RV7 and then get out and fly an RV9 and you'll see the difference a little bit of aspect ratio makes.

CDE

 

[Toobuilder]

...It is definitely "your" airplane and it appears you have already made up your mind...

Far from it. We're just talking here...

...and it wasn't until the last few posts that people started offering resonable experience that the airplane could handle a "transport" mission profile. I already knew it could be a "fighter".

Next step is to get some real world x country time and see how it works out. If speed brakes are not needed, then they are not going on my airplane. I don't add weight and complexity unless there is a real payoff.

Thanks for the info everybody.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Almost every glider has spoilers or "speed brakes". These aren't to reduce speed, they are to spoil lift and add drag to allow for steeper decents; otherwise, you're going to have a hard time landing with a 35:1 glide ratio. The higher wing loading also helps with the flare and landing - otherwise you're very succeptable to bouncing.

You can (and are sometimes required to) demonstrate a landing without spoilers, just slipping. It's entirely possible to do a complete pattern using just the slip. Slips are effective in airplanes like RVs, which are very dragy compared to gliders. The CS prop seems to work well as a speed brake for most RVs.

Are spoilers required for flight? No. But neither are engines.

TODR

 

[Bubblehead]

As for RV's... I would like a higher flap extension speed. As it is, flaps are pretty useless for slowing (as opposed to staying slow). The gear extension speed on RV's is fine the way it is though .

--Paul

I agree with Paul. Higher flap extension speed would be helpful. Sometimes it's hard to loose the last 5 or 10 kts to get to flap ext speed.

I've flown about 80 hours this summer, with most of it long cross country flights. IL to TX and back multiple times, TX to Alabama, TX to Wyoming and back to name a few. Most of the time I am at least 6000 ft AGL. I'm not having any trouble getting down and slowing down. I use the decent profile on the GPS 496 as someone else suggested, and start lowering power a bit before descending. I may come back to 20" or so and maintain altitude to slow a bit. When I'm ready to descend I trim for 500 fpm which is a comfortable rate of descent for me and any passengers. I try to get to pattern altitude 5 miles from the destination, although sometimes that is not possible due to traffic or other airports. I'm generally at 110 kts 5 miles out, 100 kts 2 miles out and just about at flap speed as I enter the pattern. A slightly steep turn bleeds off the rest of the speed and then the flaps come out 20 degrees and I trim for 80 kts. Plenty of time to get everything stabilized and to run the checklist for landing.

Maybe a speed brake or spoiler would allow staying faster longer but I think it would only save a couple of minutes, which is minuscule compared to 3 or 3-1/2 hour legs of a flight.

 

[Bob Kuykendall]

Almost every glider has spoilers or "speed brakes"...

My last two sailplanes didn't have or need airbrakes, just 90-degree flaps. In the HP-11 I could cross the airport at 100 kts and 10000 ft AGL, and be on the ground and stopped three minutes later. I haven't tried it in the HP-18.

Thanks, Bob K.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

My last two sailplanes didn't have or need airbrakes, just 90-degree flaps. In the HP-11 I could cross the airport at 100 kts and 10000 ft AGL, and be on the ground and stopped three minutes later. I haven't tried it in the HP-18.

10,000 feet in 3 minutes? That's averaging 33kt of sink (3,330 fpm for the non-soaring folk). At a 4:1 glide ratio (full "spoilers", maybe a little slip), that'd be a 132kt dive all the way to the flare. I don't think I want to try that in anything except maybe a parachute.

TODR

 

[Ron Lee]

I take the difference between my cruise altitude and destination pattern altitude (in thousands) and multiply by 2. That is the number of minutes out that I need to start descending at 500 FPM. Actually you should add 3-5 minutes to that number.

Example: Cruise 12,500'. Pattern altitude 1,500'. Difference is 12.5 - 1.5 or 11. 11 x 2 is 22 minutes. So about 25 minutes out start descending.

Adjust power as required. As pattern altitude is neared speed is gradually reduced to enter the airport area at a reasonable rate.

 

[Bob Kuykendall]

10,000 feet in 3 minutes? That's averaging 33kt of sink (3,330 fpm for the non-soaring folk). At a 4:1 glide ratio (full "spoilers", maybe a little slip), that'd be a 132kt dive all the way to the flare. I don't think I want to try that in anything except maybe a parachute.

TODR

Actually, at around 70 knots it's a bit less than 1:1, yielding over 50 kts of vertical rate and leaving some margin for a semi-normal looking pattern and landing.

Thanks, Bob K.

 

[Ron Lee]

I just landed after a short test flight. Five miles out I was 500' above pattern altitude at 160 MPH indicated. When I rolled out on downwind I was around 105 MPH. Fixed pitch prop. No problem.

 

[Toobuilder]

I just landed after a short test flight. Five miles out I was 500' above pattern altitude at 160 MPH indicated. When I rolled out on downwind I was around 105 MPH. Fixed pitch prop. No problem.

I'd have no problem with that either... How about 4,000 above the pattern at 180 knots... at 5 miles! What do you do then?

 

[Rick6a]

I'll Second That.

I just landed after a short test flight. Five miles out I was 500' above pattern altitude at 160 MPH indicated. When I rolled out on downwind I was around 105 MPH. Fixed pitch prop. No problem.

Ron,

There are some VAF members through lack of operational experience really don't seem know any better and are sure to doubt you. I certainly do not. I have demonstrated as much to more than one RV builder in my fixed pitch Sensenich equipped RV. One RV builder/passenger even posted his eyewitness account on another thread. See post #112:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=39323&page=6

Still, some naysayers continue to doubt. The scenario goes like this: Approaching from the North at pattern altitude and only when crossing the directly over the runway pavement below me at 180-195 MPH do I reduce power to enter downwind for landing on 27. Never ranging outside a normal traffic pattern, no 2g turn, no slipping, the full flap landing is perfectly normal. The only thing I still have to work out is turning naysayer doubt into my profit. Any ideas?

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

I'd have no problem with that either... How about 4,000 above the pattern at 180 knots... at 5 miles! What do you do then?

How about a lazy, standard rate turn 360 to bleed off speed and altitude?

TODR

 

[terrykohler]

Traffic Pattern Entry

Rick:
You've got my attention on this one. Please clarify. You're going to fly a left hand pattern for 27 coming in from the North. You cross over the center of the airport at pattern altitude at just under 200 and roll a left turn to enter the downwind. Any concerns about traffic coming in from the South that might be belly to belly with you with the same vis. limitations?
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

 

[Toobuilder]

How about a lazy, standard rate turn 360 to bleed off speed and altitude?

TODR

Kind of defeats the purpose of a fast, efficient airplane, doesn't it?

Going cross country is all about getting there fast. Going high and fast, running LOP only to spend the last 10 minutes of the flight doing circles does not compute with me.

Point to point... Sometimes that's the name of the game.

 

[Rick6a]

Rick:
You've got my attention on this one. Please clarify. You're going to fly a left hand pattern for 27 coming in from the North. You cross over the center of the airport at pattern altitude at just under 200 and roll a left turn to enter the downwind. Any concerns about traffic coming in from the South that might be belly to belly with you with the same vis. limitations?
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

Terry,

Some argue against practicing the overhead break for reasons similar to what you seem to be suggesting.
The best clarification I can give you is to not confuse operations at our small out of the way semi-private airport having no services and is home to maybe 22 or so airplanes and may not see a single operation for several hours at a stretch to other busier uncontrolled airports we are all familiar with. Almost all operations, when they do occur are locally based ones. Nevertheless, at any airport you never really know who's out there so frequent radio contact announcing position and intentions continues to be paramount, regardless of where you are operating from.

 

[flytoboat]

plan your flight and fly your plan

Kind of defeats the purpose of a fast, efficient airplane, doesn't it?

Going cross country is all about getting there fast. Going high and fast, running LOP only to spend the last 10 minutes of the flight doing circles does not compute with me.

My old CFI called it flight planning and staying ahead of the airplane. Know where you want to be and plan to get there at the right time.

 

[Ironflight]

Kind of defeats the purpose of a fast, efficient airplane, doesn't it?

Going cross country is all about getting there fast. Going high and fast, running LOP only to spend the last 10 minutes of the flight doing circles does not compute with me.

Point to point... Sometimes that's the name of the game.

Michael,

You asked a very reasonable question about the need for speed brakes on the RV-8 (specifically asking how you slow down on an efficent, straight-line trajectory on long cross-country flights), and you have gotten numerous responses from what is probably a combined total of ten's of thousands of hours of flying experience in these airplanes. Yet you obviously aren't convinced, so I am not sure what more you expect from the forum.

Build your airplane with speed brakes if you like. You're probably not going to change the minds of pilots that already know how these airplanes fly, and do (every day) exactly what you say you want to do.

Paul

 

[terrykohler]

Rick:
Thanks for clarifying. Lots of low timers reading these posts, and it's important they not start thinking about trying this at a public airport. Regarding radios, three weeks ago had a J3 cut in front of me while on a 3/4 mile final to a GA airport. He had decided to fly a right hand pattern and was facing into the sun on base. He was also NORDO, so my call-ins at pattern entry and the turns had no effect. We did a go-around. Lets all be safe.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Kind of defeats the purpose of a fast, efficient airplane, doesn't it?

I'd rather do a 2-minute, standard rate 360 to loose the extra energy than come down into the pattern at 2400 fpm and 180kt as your scenario suggests (180 kt, 4000 ft above pattern, 5nm out). If 2 minutes is that important to you, why not then just do a straight-in approach or just turn direct to final? It's perfectly legal, probably saves you another minute.

Playing well with others is important (to me anyway). We aren't the fastest airplanes out there, and I sure don't want some L-39 driver to come into the pattern behind me at 250kt in a 5000 fpm decent just because they can.

There are airplanes both faster and slower than us that we have to share the airspace with.

TODR

 

[Toobuilder]

My old CFI called it flight planning and staying ahead of the airplane. Know where you want to be and plan to get there at the right time.

The might be considered rude, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt until you prove otherwise.

Anyway,

I understand that many of you can plan a nice long straight in descent to the pattern from any direction you desire. I also understand that many of you consider 3,500 feet "high altitude". But in my neck of the woods, you don't go anywhere at less than 7500 feet because the ground is in the way if you do. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but many of you are offering suggestions to manage a flight that are just not applicable to the terrain, airspace, or mission profile that I fly.

Perfect example: I live 4 miles west of the massive Edwards AFB complex. coming back from the east on the weekends, I can often fly through (over) but the altitude restriction is 6,000 feet minimum. So here I am at 6,000+ feet, with my destination airport essentially lost under the nose 3500 feet below. If I cut across Edwards to save time, but have to circle for 10 minutes on the other side, what is the use?

Seems like I could pop the boards and have a nice ride downhill straight into the pattern. If saving time is the goal, isn't this a reasonable capability?

Now you guys play nice or I'm going to take my ball and leave.

 

[Ron Lee]

I'd have no problem with that either... How about 4,000 above the pattern at 180 knots... at 5 miles! What do you do then?

The only place where that is even close to likely for me is going over Denver Class B to Greeley. Even then I can be at 150-160 knots or slow down a bit. I would divert to the east to lose altitude/speed in a manner that is easy on the engine. Usually I get cleared through Class B on the north end so it is not an issue.

I am guessing that most (high 90s percentage) of my cross countries this is not an issue. Had I arrived at the energy state you mention that would most likely have been gross incompetence (piloting ability) on my part. Some contrived ATC routing does not justify having to make an unreasonable descent.

Six years ago I could not have spoken on this with any authority. After 1600 hours in my fixed pitch propeller 6A, I think I speak with some level of experience...as do others.

If you need speed brakes/belly flap (eg Long EZ) or whatever, so be it.

OK, now I read your real-life example. First off, do you need to be at 180 knots when you start your descent? Slowing down a few minutes early then descending at 1000 FPM or better is hardly ten minutes. If you are going to Rosamond, seems like you could fly a short distance to the south and descend outside of R-2515. Maybe that will add three minutes as opposed to an ideal path unconstrained by anything. If coming from the east that is what I would do.

I do something similar flying into Leadville. I fly towards a point ten miles south so that I have a leisurely descent in the valley once I cross the mountains.

Fact is that sometimes I have to take a longer routing due to restricted areas. You may have to modify your approach (last part of en route flight), accept a 2-4 minute longer flight than ideal, or add speed brakes which may cut that minimal "delay" in half.