Spitfire Approach's

[cjam]

I was going to put this in the 500ft thread but thought it might be changing the topic a bit much.
any ideas on the pros and cons of curved approaches rather than square base/finals. I prefer the former as you stay closer to the field and it feels better. There are obvious times/places when it shouldn't be done ie busy pattern etc but assuming you are at an ALA out woop woop, which is best?

[compressor stall]

I prefer a curved approach. A steady rate one turn (or maybe a bit more) with a steady descent rate disturbs pax less.

I do recall an accident at a WA flying college that taught curved approaches. The ATSB suggested that the curved apporach training contributed to the accident in the instance of ab initio training.

In a nutshell, for ab-initio, I think it's better to have a square approach. It promotes a stable base leg in which height and speed and width/length can be more accurately judged.

More more experienced pilots, a curved approach is more professional in most situations.

An aircraft is more visible from elsewhere in the circuit when it is in a turn, so a curved base leg actually enhances aircraft visibility to other aircraft earlier in the circuit.

And as for looking for traffic, well draw the a curved approach and a square approach. there is not a lot of horizontal distance really. And a square base is never that anyway - it's usually rectangular or really a trapeziod due to the vagrancies of pilot judgement, wind, other traffic....

CS.

(hey cjam, I was wondering when we should hold the inaugual cjam and stallie atiquated aviation rule reform committee meeting? We seem to be on the same wavelength! :ok: There are a few other rules I would like to see changed, but I won't list them all at once!)

[Spotlight]

My preference has always been for square circuits. I found that for myself, it makes it easier on black hole approaches to be looking at the same numbers every time i.e, rate one 500fpm descending turn to base, eyeball the strip then same again to roll out on centreline at 500'. Very stable and quite satisfying if you have a Bitching Betty announcing 'five hundred'.

[swh]

cjam,

Square circuits are generally preferred by high wing trainers as they cannot make any ref to the runway if in a constant AOB turn to finals.

Also helps the student to have a heading in mind for base, the ability then to make one correction for wind etc.

Downside : approach stall, turning to finals esp if the students keeps a constant ROD for a nil wind situation for the case when the have a headwind on base, lower ground speed may end up getting low raise the nose, you know the rest

Positive : keeps aircraft closer to RW for engine failure situation.

Constand AOB, constant ROD turns to finals are preferred IFR and at night, keep movements small, easier to detect and an engine failure.

Downside : harder for ab-initio students to master, not conforming to the aero club circuits at the gaap

Positive : gets a person in the frame of mind when going to the IFR environement for a constant AoB, RoD turn in the classic tear drop non-prec app.

My preferance : depends on the a/c I am flying, low performance a/c square, med-high a/c perf oval.

[the wizard of auz]

I prefer the spitfire approach, especially when in the twins, as it keeps me closer to the strip (within gliding distance). I have tried the square circuit and find that one cannot stay within reasonable gliding distance in the faster aircraft.
In the single, I fly a slightly square circuit, to stay within the CAR's in regard to distance and height.
At night, I fly a slightly higher approach and usually a square circuit, to avoid the black hole.
when operating in and out of private, work, strips, its usually a straight in approach or a low desending circuit, terminating at the base to final turn and rounding out at the same time.
when I fly into a GAAP, primary controled airport or busy MBZ, I fly whatever the traffic is, unless I'm no1, then I try to stay in close and get on short, so usually a spitenfurer/focker wolfe circuit.
this is just what I do personally, not saying its right or wrong.

[cjam]

CS

As long as we have the final say I'm keen to hold the meeting any time . I'd prefer not to hold it in Boags country though, I might be chased back south when I turn up with me Cascade.

cjam

[currawong]

Curved.

Especially if hot - nothing like loading it up in a turn to wash off speed.

Best to have wings levelish by touchdown though:ok:

[OzExpat]

My personal preference is for a close-in downwind leg, leading to a curved final. Not only is this good in the event of an emergency but, usually, the closer I am to the runway, the further I'm away from the higher terrain. We have a lot of that here, so it makes sense to keep as far away from it as possible. Certainly, it's a lot easier to do this in a low wing aeroplane but it can also work in high-wing types. :ok:

All of that aside, it's pretty much a case of doing whatever is best in the circumstance. We've got a lot of airstrips around here that have lots and lots of big rocks sticking up around them, often very close to and even bordering the airstrips. Thus it's sometimes necessary to fly a circuit that is almost perfectly rectangular because you can be flying the downwind and base legs within the confines of different valleys to the one that contains your destination.

At other times, the whole circuit is basically one continuous curve, to keep the aircraft between the rocks and the airstrip. And, just occasionally, the crosswind, downwind and base are three segments of the same circle! This is most often done when the weather is closing in fast and you need to check the condition of the strip. But there are, of course, other times when one might execute such a manoeuvre... :E

[Curved Approach]

i thought i should post cos my name is getting a raping!!!!

the answer to this thread totally depends on what aircraft your in.....im personally quite partial to the old checkerboard approach into kai tak.

[GrossWeight]

dependent on aircraft type, but personaly prefer the curved approach, a steady rate one seems to work nicely ;)

[AerocatS2A]

Remember that one of the reasons for the "spitfire approach" when you're actually flying a spitfire is that you can't see over the nose on a straight in approach.

My preference is for curved approaches when practical due to the better vis from some aircraft and the ability to remain closer to the airfield for an engine failure.

P.S. I don't mean to imply I fly or have flown a Spitfire, I haven't.

[WhiteRat Wannabe]

Go the curved approach!!

Wiz, you must stay very close to keep a C310 within gliding distance, and have a very high ROD on finals!

How often are you going to be gliding in a twin anyway?

[the wizard of auz]

The mob you used to work for did it once. I got some good photos of the desert three ten. :}

[WhiteRat Wannabe]

Hmmmm, ur too quick for me wiz, i never did get to see the landmark! :(

[compressor stall]

And nor will you get the chance again I hear. Not without a powerful telescope from high FLs.

Congrats! :ok:

[WhiteRat Wannabe]

Thanks Stallie, if you're ever over "that" way, give me a call!:ok:

[compressor stall]

How bout this weekend? I'm off to meet the inlaws :ooh:

[OzExpat]

The "inlaws" Stallie? :eek: Does this mean that congratulations are called for? How soon before you'll be handing the cigars around? :E

[compressor stall]

No no no, it's just a figure of speech.

It sounds a little more poetic than "her parents"!! :E

[OzExpat]

And ya wanted to see how many PMs you'd get from the female membership of PPRuNe about it too, huh... :E