PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - John Farley's thoughts on forced approaches
Old 20th Nov 2019, 18:31
  #27 (permalink)  
pchapman
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some good stuff in this thread, contrasting all sorts of different aircraft which may have a low glide ratio -- some military jets, parachutes, lifting bodies, Space Shuttles, ultralights / microlights, helicopters autorotating.

The idea of keeping speed in reserve also works for wingsuit BASE jumpers. They certainly don't want to be at best glide when having to cross obstacles while terrain following. They want to have lift / energy in reserve to pull up (relative to their existing flight path) in case they misjudge their flight path.

Sometimes using all the glide possible is what is needed to get to a good landing spot, while other times carrying extra energy down onto final will give one more options to stretch the glide or scrub energy off with a sideslip. Sometimes I suppose one might shift between multiple strategies -- One could start with lowest rate of descent glide while searching for a good landing spot, go to best glide to get towards the chosen field (modified as needed for wind to optimize the polar over the ground), then carry some extra speed on final approach until certain that one hasn't undershot.

Although it is just one of the types of aircraft mentioned in the thread, I looked up more on the NASA lifting bodies. A couple of them flew approaches at about 280-300kts and touching down at 180-200kts -- thus carrying about 50% more speed on final approach than for touchdown, which should qualify as carrying extra speed into the flare. Some of these 'gliders' had rockets available to assist in the landing, to keep speed from decaying as quickly, allowing more time to get the flare right. [Ref.: Testing Lifting Bodies at Edwards by Robert Hoey]
pchapman is offline