I'm looking into a particular Cherokee 180, and the gentleman said he uses 80 kts on final. To me, that sounds really fast. I think I use to approach in a Cherokee 140 I rented around 65 knots. May have even been 65 mph, was a while ago. It would usually be me, the wife, and 50-100% fuel and we are light, so we would be quite a bit off from gross.

The best part about the Cherokee, is that I looked into insurance, and I would still be covered to rent so that I can keep up my tailwheel skills while building.

That sounds really fast, even clean. The Archer I used to rent was 50 knots on the bottom of the white.

Your thinking sounds right. His sounds like a recipe to float down the runway.

I had a 1968 Cherokee 180. The Owner's handbook Lists best approach speed as 85 MPH with flaps up and speed can be reduced 3 MPH for each notch of flaps. I suspect the guy meant 80 MPH not Knots. Us old guys use MPH because when we learned to fly they hadn't started putting Knots on the Airspeed indicators.

Even 80 mph sounds way fast. Just go up and do some flaps-down stalls, multiply your stall speed by 1.3 and you'll have a good starting point. POH's are usually pretty conservative. Sounds like the owner is adding quite a few knots onto the POH as well.

Conducting flight reviews in Tri-Pacers, Cherokees, and Grumman AA-1/AA-2 aircraft over the years has convinced me that the owners or renters don't like the rate of descent at slower approach speeds and think adding enough power to manage the glide slope will cause them to float. Talking them through the apparent rate of closure approach usually convinces them that this power/pitch approach can put them onto the numbers slow every time. The shorter the wing, the more power required to control the descent rate at slow speeds. Keeping the apparent rate at a brisk walk all the way down controls speed by gradual reduction as we get nearer and lower.

80mph indicated is about right. You can get them down to 70 but the controls get a little soft. At that speed it doesn't float...its a Hershey bar wing not a Cessna wing, it falls out of the sky. I've never flown one with a Horton Cuff but I heard it makes a Hershey Bar wing fly like a tapered wing.

I know a guy who did some flying in a fixed gear Saratoga (tapered wing) and he said he much preferred the Hershey bar wing of the earlier Cherokee Six.

hotrod180 wrote:I know a guy who did some flying in a fixed gear Saratoga (tapered wing) and he said he much preferred the Hershey bar wing of the earlier Cherokee Six.

Up here in AK the Saratogas are popular along the Peninsula, it's the opposite, they all like the tapered wings because they can land slower. I've flown both and the tapered wings takes some getting used to when you have flown Hershey bar wings.

I have only flown a PA28 with the Hershey Bar wing once so long ago that I don't remember much about it, but I have some 65-75 hours or maybe more in a PA32-260 with that wing, both teaching its owner instruments and borrowing it to take the family on trips, carrying a nearly gross load. I don't recall any issues that required any excessive airspeed. Choice: either slow down and maintain the shallower glideslope with a touch of power, or come down steeply without power at a similarly slow airspeed. Yeah, not a Cessna, but a pretty easy airplane to fly at reasonable speeds. I routinely used 70 mph light, 75 mph heavy--never once fell out of the sky!

Cary

Cary,

I just looked at my old checklist for a Ch140, and I used those same numbers, 59kts (69mph) on short final. I believe except for the engine these planes are almost exactly the same, so I'll probably use those same numbers when its just me and the wife, maybe a little more if heavily loaded.

Thanks!

As others have said, go to altitude and get a feel for your comfort zone in various configurations.

Those are GREAT airplanes....much tougher than Cessnas in many ways, and nice, solid cruisers.

I taught in a University flight program where we used Warriors and Arrows. It was a constant battle trying to convince students (and instructors) to SLOW DOWN on approaches.

Here's one issue with these kinds of dpiscussions: When someone says "I use 80 on final (or on approach)", you should be asking two questions: First, as others have noted, are we talking knots or mph? Second, WHERE on final or on approach are you flying that speed? Are we talking 70 knots (or mph) on half mile final? Or at the threshold?

The speed that really matters on landings is the speed you're flying when you initiate the flare to land, and that's seriously affected by what speed you're carrying as you cross the "threshold". And, bear in mind, the "threshold" may in fact be the end of the runway, or some other point further down the runway.....for example if you're intentioally landing long to clear the runway and minimize your taxi distance.

For me, a Cherokee or Warrior....(those are the model names for the "Hershey bar" or "tapered wing" variants respectively) is very happy at 70 mph out there at a half mile. Or 70 knots if you prefer. These airplanes slow down nicely....flaps are very effective drag devices. Over the threshold, I wouldn't want to see more than 60 mph, and, that's assuming flaps are deployed for landing.

Great airplanes.

MTV

PilotRPI wrote:I'm looking into a particular Cherokee 180, and the gentleman said he uses 80 kts on final. To me, that sounds really fast. I think I use to approach in a Cherokee 140 I rented around 65 knots. May have even been 65 mph, was a while ago. It would usually be me, the wife, and 50-100% fuel and we are light, so we would be quite a bit off from gross.

The best part about the Cherokee, is that I looked into insurance, and I would still be covered to rent so that I can keep up my tailwheel skills while building.

Wow, that's super fast. Perhaps the current owner really enjoys floating down a few thousand feet of runway prior to landing (we all want to fly just a little more, but there are much better ways to do it!). 65 MPH (or even a touch slower) is fine if you're light, maybe 70 at gross, but certainly not much more than that. One important thing to be aware of is that Hershey Bar Cherokees develop prodigious rates of sink with the power off at slow speed. At low speeds they can also lack pitch authority (later models had a wider stabilator to attempt to correct this), this is compounded by the generally forward CG that most Cherokees have. I've found that flying a power on approach yields much better results than a power off approach. I only fully close the throttle just prior to touch down.

Should you buy this airplane (and I hope you do, the Cherokee 180 is an incredibly capable airplane for the money), I would definitely recommend spending some time exploring the bottom end of the flight envelope. I know that my approaches and landings improved markedly after spending a couple hours with the stall warning light almost continuously on.

Absolutely right MTV and BCPilotGuy,

Back when most trainers had 65-90 hp Continental engines with Stromberg carburetors, many instructors and pilots preferred dead stick approaches. This was because of carb ice or flooding problems (when the throttle was opened too fast) with the Stromberg carburetor. Dead stick spot landings are good practice for possible engine failure. They are difficult, however, without variable power or variable spoilers to control glide slope. If we try to control both ground speed, or rate of closure, and glide slope with elevator (no throttle), we are going to have to slip when high and hope to get some ground effect when low to make it. Or like you said, go way, way down the runway in low ground effect on the hold off after a high speed round out.

The solution is some kind of dynamic power/pitch approach that allows us to slow down before the desired touchdown spot so that we can land on that spot rather than an uncontrolled fly over the spot in ground effect. The standardized 1.3 Vso approach that has been taught as the school solution since the seventies works reasonably well, but doesn't guarantee touchdown on the numbers and doesn't prevent the need to round out, hold off, and some uncontrolled ground effect flight. Especially since pilots are discouraged from using the throttle dynamically. In gusting conditions, only dynamic throttle use to control glide slope will allow a slow enough approach to get down where we want.

An illustration of the power off lack of control problem would be to make a power off approach in an Ercoupe. Because they also had the little Continental engine with the Stromburg carburetor, the dead stick approach was common. Also the up travel of the elevator was limited enough to make stalling impossible. This combination spread the very strong gear on Ercoupes too often.

I had a student, in a CAP C-172, who had no depth perception whatsoever. He couldn't land the thing without flying into the ground or stalling high, even with the power/pitch apparent rate of closure approach. I put him in my Ercoupe, had him pull the control wheel all the way back to the stop on short final, and use power to gently bring it down until it touched and then close the throttle. The throttle would be almost full in on touchdown at Gallup, NM on summer afternoons. I soloed him in the Ercoupe and that was the only airplane he flew.

Whatever slow power/pitch approach style we use, we know we are on the right track when we don't have to reduce power until just before touchdown. If we have to round out to keep from hitting the ground at high speed and then start the actual approach to landing, we have approached much, much too fast. Of course that is ground speed I am talking about. I don't ever use the airspeed indicator on any contact approach, but I assume the airspeed is quite high in a strong headwind or headwind component of a strong crosswind. I control the apparent rate of closure, much closer to ground speed, with elevator looking out the window the entire time. To keep this apparent brisk walk rate of closure stabilized, I have to slow the actual ground speed (yes airspeed also) as I get closer and lower. Sounds crazy but it is much easier than the round out, hold off, and flair of the standardized 1.3 Vso approach.

If we control the ground speed and arrive at the desired touchdown point slow enough to land, only a flair and reduction of power is needed to kiss down every time on the numbers.

Contact Flying uses no instruments. Near the ground, they call it maneuvering flight, takeoff and landing fall in the definition, any instrument requires attention we cannot safely devote. If we are hitting the ground at high speed or stalling high after a long uncontrolled float, we are probably not looking outside enough. Try looking outside all the time. When you practice slow flight and stalls are you flying by reference to instruments or to the ground, ie. contact flight. Even after an instrument approach, the actual landing needs to be contact. Unless we have a computer to fly the airplane for us.

1.1Vso over the fence.

We used to approach dead on 60kts

tcj wrote:I had a 1968 Cherokee 180. The Owner's handbook Lists best approach speed as 85 MPH with flaps up and speed can be reduced 3 MPH for each notch of flaps. I suspect the guy meant 80 MPH not Knots. Us old guys use MPH because when we learned to fly they hadn't started putting Knots on the Airspeed indicators.

I would go with what the HANDBOOK says, especially in any wind. I don't see the need in flying a 60-65mph approach on a long runway, after all it will land way shorter then what it will T/O. Airspeed is what keeps you alive especially if you ever get carb ice, I would rather be approaching at 80, it's doesn't float like a Cessna. Now 60-65mph over the fence is about right, but 60-65mph when your on approach is asking for trouble. A Cherokee isn't known for its STOL capabilities.

Following this discussion, a conclusion has come to me. Everybody has had an instrument number (airspeed) or a 1 point something of Vso number as an approach speed solution. I have contended that it should not be an instrument approach but rather a contact approach ie. no number just power to control glide angle and elevator to control ground speed by maintaining an apparent brisk walk rate of closure at least from about a quarter mile out and 400' up. At the same time, I know from videos and other discussions and flying with one BCP pilot that many pilots here land on or very near the numbers all of the time. My conclusion is that they are subconsciously using the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach, even when they think they are using and instrument number.

We all have thousands of hours of experience slowing our automobiles to a stop at a stop sign. We do not make this approach by reference to an instrument, the ground speed indicator or speedometer. We notice at a distance that we are approaching the stop sign at what, because of the distance, appears to be a brisk walk. If we continue the approach at that same ground speed, the apparent rate of closure will increase alarmingly. The closer we get at the same too high to stop ground speed, the more alarming will be the apparent rate of closure. We know, through bad experience perhaps when distracted or incapacitated, that this can result in running the stop and/or hitting something. Thus we learn to desire and affect a speed reduction at an actual rate that will stabilize the apparent brisk walk rate of closure to the stop sign. When get there we either come to a complete stop or look both ways and hover taxi through the intersection.

This knowledge and experience has to be in the back of our minds when we land. We desire to touch down somewhere and come to a stop or slow taxi before concern about the end of the runway closing at faster than an apparent brisk walk. We want to keep looking outside as much as possible because all earthly situational awareness is lost looking at instruments inside the cockpit.

Will we not stall on short final? No! Not if we have practiced and are comfortable with contact (no instrument) slow flight, both at altitude and in low ground effect. If the airplane is sinking too fast, we add power. If it is shaking, making almost no relative wind noise, the control wheel is feeling floppy, and the pitch attitude seems really high, add more power and lower the nose a bit. You know, that stuff. Do you only practice slow flight under the hood?

One more thing: we can't still see the numbers or desired touchdown spot on very short final. We have to pick up the same apparent brisk walk rate of closure further on down the runway.

I think all pilots use this apparent rate of closure to some extent. I know the pilots who get down on the numbers every time use it, whether or not they express it or even realize it.

Contact,

I'm trying to picture how your brisk walk theory works with wind. In theory, if a 60 knot approach looked like a brisk walk in calm wind, then a 90 knot approach would look the same in a 30 kph headwind, no? , .

Nosedragger,

That is correct. By maintaining what appears to be a brisk walk, our airspeed will automatically be higher in a headwind and will automatically be lower in no wind and even lower yet in a tailwind.

If we are maintaining what appears to be a brisk walk in a 30 knot headwind, however, most pilots and all aircraft would want to take advantage of an even slower ground speed on touchdown. So we would use even a bit more elevator to slow both apparent rate and ground speed even more. Realize that the pitch attitude will still be less than in the no wind because the headwind is automatically slowing our ground speed. The airplane is feeling just fine with all that 30 knots extra kinetic energy of pressure airspeed over and under the wing so why not take advantage of the help?

There are some things we have to watch for, however, on this pleasantly slow and easy to control approach into the strong headwind component. First, we are very level so we will want to cut the power just before touchdown and flair a bit to protect the nose gear which hangs down lower than the mains. Also we want to guard against becoming so enamored with our slow, controlled approach that we allow the aircraft to drift backwards. Zero ground speed at touchdown is fine. -3 knots ground speed at touchdown is not fine. The apparent rate of closure approach, in a strong headwind, is like target fixation on a gun or rocket run. It just gets better and better and you have to snap out and say, "we need to finish this." Finally, we have to deal with gust spread, which usually accompanies a strong headwind component. We will have to move the throttle quickly and as much as necessary to get ahead of any shear or updraft or downdraft. We don't want to forfeit our very useful, for low ground speed on touchdown, flaps just because we have a headwind. I use full flaps on all approaches. When sinking fast, we need to put the throttle full in and then adjust. When rising fast, we need to pull the throttle full back and then adjust. In mild gusting we need to move, not adjust, the throttle as necessary to maintain the desired glide angle and desired rate of descent.

Downwind landings can get a little exciting. To get the same apparent brisk walk rate of closure, and the same ground speed, we would have to slow the airspeed more than our engine could handle in a 30 knot tailwind. However, crop dusters often set the auger truck up midway down a three thousand feet runway so ag planes can come from both ways to load dry material. Dry fertilizer will not weigh as much as a full liquid load and it is put out at hundreds of pounds per acre so there will be many takeoffs and landings. And the reason they are spreading instead of spraying is that the wind had gotten up. So how does the one landing downwind and then taking off upwind get it down in fifteen hundred feet in a ten to fifteen knot downwind? He will be using a lot of power to hold the very high pitch attitude necessary to slow the airplane down enough that he is approaching at what appears to be a brisk walk. And the loader up there doesn't want him to round out, hold off, float in low ground effect, and finally flair.