Sporty’s has a good selection, too.
AOPA Pilot is still great. I gave up on Flying ages ago, after a couple of decades of subscriptions. (Like, when I began my lapse.) I’ve seen a couple of issues, but it just doesn’t seem relevant anymore. It’s like they’ve given up on private flying, and are focusing on multi-million dollar machines. I should try them again, though.
Richard P just up thread said:
↑↑↑ This. Still have my first one from 1962. The only one I ever had. That, my headset, brain bag, log books and the actual license’s is all I really keep. :smack:
If looking for flight instruction:
Check ebay.
And avoid the “classic” King videos - they have been selling that stuff (at outrageous prices) to suckers for several decades now.
This is a c.1960 promotional film by Cessna, dramatising how personal flying is good for one’s business.
Awesome! Those guys know how to put on a show!
3 of the Masters of Disaster have crashed since 2005. Dangerous work.
May have mentioned this before. I was at Sun and Fun years ago and had stopped at a port-a-john ant the end of the runway when the B-18 in the video pilot took off. He must have seen me go in. He kept it close to the ground past the end of the runway. Quite the inspiration for the job at hand.
I’d love to see that SNJ/T-6 team in person. And the T-33 Shooting Star is one of my lottery dreams. 
Why does this maneuver work? @LSLGuy, Richard P & anyone else that wants to chime in.
Back story: I was raised in a family of private pilots / General Aviation.
Dad, Mom, older sister, myself.
Started learning in earnest in 1965 and in a year or so I had my Pvt Lic. ( many stories for another time. )
With a total of 54 hours in my log book, I bought a 1946 Swift of 85 HP. So began my lessons in underpowered aircraft that many were unwilling to fly. I went around the patch one time with the guy that brought the plane to Tulsa and that was it. I did have the little pilot manual.
Main point is that I learned a lot about accelerated stalls, wings that stalled suddenly & had some great help from a local pilot who had flown most anything except major airline and the latest military stuff.
The Swift & I survived and so we can jump ahead to the 1980’s and the 1970 C-310 Q TC mapping airplane I flew.
One day after several times when I needed to make a very short close in 180° turn to a landing from a point a little too high & close I chose to try what I learned to do while flying pipeline patrol in old straight back, square tailed C-150’s.
As best as I can describe it:
Power off,
full flaps as I start the turn,
keep the speed about a bit high as I add major nose down, to unload the wings in the turn ( them darn accelerated stalls live in there and I had a very healthy respect for them )
which had the plane coming around quickly and being pointed down at a spot just before end of the runway.*
flair to bleed off the excess airspeed and touch the mains at the runway start.
Brake as hard as needed to, a) show off because the tower asked you to do it to show new controllers, b) just to please me, c) needed to get down fast or for a very short distance to the only taxiway, or any other rationalization I needed to devise for myself.
Now for the Question.
Why does this work?
In a high wing Cessna with barn doors for flaps, it seems to be a reasonable thing to be able to do.
In aircraft with not so great flaps ( C-310, Comanche, etc., the need for a lot of extra drag when dirty which the C-3120 can provide and the Comanche not so much ) is it just the fact that it is an ‘unloaded’ turn because of the forced decent that makes this work. or ???
Question the #2:
How big an aircraft could this be done with? ( proper altitude, speed and distance to fit the aircraft added of course ) A-26, B-737, bigger???
Could this be examined in a really good SIM to see if it would work? Maybe as an emergency maneuver?
I understand the lack of interest in using someone else’s 400,000,00.00 airplane as it is not a good idea to just go see, … but… <VEG>
I began learning to do this because of all the pilots dying from ‘base to final’ turns in the traffic patterns back then. Hotter, heavier aircraft were the usual killers. ( bad pattern work and if following all the correct procedures, those accidents/bad judgements would never happen. But…
In my world back then, like the military, getting the job done was very important. Kind of like AG flying, if a pilot does not want that particular risk reward, don’t do it but it is not going to get 'outlawed because it needs to be done and some pilots are willing to accept that kind of flying. Just like fighter pilots, don’t do it, it is not making some one a lesser pilot, just don’t judge those that do. [/rant] ( where did that come from? )
Anywho, is that some standard maneuver I stumbled into?
Is is taught anywhere?
What is it called besides ( dangerous, foolish & stupid ) ?
Aerodynamically, why does it work? ( just because for a given angle of attack the stall speed decreases as the weight is removed for any reason? ??)
Aside: I flew off TUL for many years in many different aircraft, visited APP & TWR a lot, late at night when things were slow, becoming friends with the people, setting up special mapping flights that were going to be a PITA for all concerned, etc.
Biggest thing is I had to refuse nor hesitated to do anything they asked me that would make their job easier, even volunteering to put myself in the less favorable position in their airspace. Major fun making for me over the years.
Turn NOW !!!
Can you delay?
Can you make the approach from there?
You will be # 450 to land. “NO problem says I”
Can you switch runways from there?
Can we use your for a new controller training problem today?You bet, fun stuff." says I.
So I got to play a lot, show off, and save a lot of time using crosswind runways to make it easy to get to the hanger, etc., etc…
I never had to turn down a request ( lucky in that ) but if I was close to the wire, they picked up on it quick and I got the befit of the doubt on how close I was to the edge of the law.
One more thing that made my flying a lot of fun was a gig I was working at night that had me in a Cherokee Arrow, at 2500 AGL at a marked VFR reporting point + or - 2 minutes every morning early. Last flight of the night.
It became this:
They would be watching for me and be the first to transmit.
TWR "08J, squawk 25xx & ident.
O8J “click of the mike.”
TWR "Roger O8J, have you at yyy at3200 with information yyy. I always had it, part of the game.
O8J “click click.”
Minute or two of silence… ( remember, it is early )
TWR “O8J, cleared to land runway 8 ( no matter what the wind was doing ) & cleared to the ramp. Monitor this frequency.”
O8J “three ‘clicks’.”
Sometimes I really miss doing my work.
IMHO: The turn is super tight because you are using the vertical to help achieve the change in direction (ask LSLGuy about yoyos and air combat manoeuvring). You don’t stall, as you’ve said, because you’ve unloaded the wings, but this results in a high rate of descent, a large loss of altitude, and extra speed. Provided you’ve allowed enough height for it, which you obviously did or you wouldn’t still be here, the trickiest bit is probably keeping the speed under control. Drag from flaps and gear is the obvious way this is done, but g loading also has a significant affect on speed, the large angle of attack of the wings acts like a big air-brake. At the right g loading the speed will stabilise where you want it. Less g and the speed goes up, more g and the speed decreases (or you stall).
So I think you’re manoeuvre worked because first you unloaded the wing which allowed you to avoid an accelerated stall while converting what is normally a level/nearly level turn into a semi vertical manoeuvre which means you are trading horizontal for vertical manoeuvring space. You then had the right combination of drag and g loading to keep the speed from getting away from you. If your turn had been even more vertical you’d probably have struggled to keep the speed below your flap limit, but experience led you to using just the right combination of vertical space, speed, and g to make it work.
Something that became apparent to me recently is just how much space a big heavy aeroplane needs to manoeuvre. A few weeks back I went to the local GA airport and went for a fly in a Carbon Cub. I spent the hour with a big grin on my face and was literally laughing out loud at how ridiculously tight we could make our circuits. The difference between flying a base leg at 55 knots vs 160-180 knots is indescribable. I hadn’t been consciously aware of this as I’d gradually progressed to bigger and faster aeroplanes without ever going back to roots for a reality check. I hadn’t flown something like the Carbon Cub for over 15 years.
The problem with this type of manoeuvre in bigger aircraft is that passenger jets are super slippery, heavy, and have low g limits. So they accelerate very quickly, they have a lot of momentum, and you have less available wing loading to help control the speed. That’s not to say it can’t be done, but it might not be as effective because you’d be limited in just how much vertical space you can use. I think the biggest aircraft that could do this in an effective way would be a large turboprop. Those props at fine pitch act as gigantic speed brakes and can give you a super steep approach while keeping the speed in check.
At the risk of sounding like the hammer that treats every problem like a nail, a jet that might do it more effectively than others would be the venerable BAe146 as flown by yours truly. The Dash 8 400 is marketed as a turbo-prop with jet-like performance; I like to say the BAe146 is a jet with prop-like performance. It has a low speed wing with modest sweep and two big barn doors that swing out from the tail cone to fix anything and everything. With gear, full flap, and full airbrake, I think it could come as close to your tight base turn as any jet.
I don’t know that it has a name other than “flying the aeroplane”. Probably not dangerous/foolish/stupid either, done in the right plane in the right way.
The unloading of the wing is taught in jets for unusual attitude recovery. If you get into a situation where you have a very high nose and low airspeed you likely won’t have the control authority to just push the nose forward, but if you push enough to keep the wings unloaded, then gently roll in around 45-60º bank, the nose will drop more readily and you can roll level again once you’ve found the horizon.
Richard, most excellent information.
I admit I had to Google your aircraft to be sure of what it is. This short video I found shows your lovely ( why don’t all airplanes have those? ) speed/fix everything brakes at the tail end so to speak. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exOMjyPQEeM
Even the going back to a C-150 after a few years in the C-310 was always a joy and relearning experience. That Cub you used is a beauty, I can’t afford to pay to just look at one so the picture is much appreciated.
Yes, working out that ‘turn to land’ would best be done in a very good SIM until the parts and numbers are worked out. Still kind of a ‘Hail Mary’ last ditch thing in big iron but Knowing that it should work is a good thing to have in your bag of tricks when the Gremlins are wining.
Thinking on it, I keep the nose down pretty good and use pitch to control target point, speed, altitude & had to adjust prop pitch once to make it work how I wanted. I wanted to float a little farther.
Thanks again.
Was that the right video? It was neither short, nor did I find a view of the speed brake. No harm not knowing what a 146 is. They were never super popular and are a fairly rare sight these days.
The cub is an interesting machine. It’s built by Cubcrafters, who specialise in what are essentially replica Cubs. Most of them are designed to fit into the light sport category, as such I can’t fly it on my ATP licence, I need to do five hours and convert my licence (one down, four to go.) The Carbon Cub has 180 hp, weighs about 1300 lbs at max take-off weight, and has a sea level / ISA take-off roll of 200 feet. Great fun!
I used to see them all the time flying for PSA out of LAX. I always thought they were very pretty/cool-looking airplanes. I don’t think I’ve seen one since that nutter took one down just before PSA went away.
Sorry, I was afraid of that. The one I saw was about a cross wind landing in France? An Air France aircraft?
Those strings of videos I never get to exactly go where I want when linking. :smack:
OK, try this one. 43 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_LPAhkvQv8
Or Google ( CityJet Avro RJ-85 EI-RJE Tough landing at Dublin Airport with ATC!! )
Hope this one works.
That’s a good link. I’ve always enjoyed seeing the -146; it seemed like a cool machine in that slightly impractical and snooty British sense. It’s been a few years since I’ve seen one for real.
IMO **Richard **nailed why your maneuver works. It’s in effect an anti-Chandelle. Or maybe a bastard split-S. Your turn radius stays about the same as a conventional maneuver measured in 3-dimensions. But because you do so much of the maneuver in the vertical, the path of your shadow over the ground (so to speak) makes a much tighter turn in two dimensions across the ground.
I’d bet you started out pretty slow; slow enough to hang full flaps. And you probably had a bit of sideslip going, but with little or no G there was no(t much) stall/spin risk. That’s how the speed stayed low.
As **Richard **says, jets are much more slippery. In fighters we’d have done the same type of thing using G to keep the speed down, so it’d look more like a split S. It’d be bigger of course, but just in proportion to our greater airspeed. In transports that maneuver doesn’t work because we can’t pull enough G and we just don’t have enough drag otherwise.
Thanks for the comments. I am always a bit surprised about how slippery the big iron is and how often commented upon by the pilots. I need to remember that in bigger letters in my mind.
As a little canvas driver I was taught & learned that something like a Comanche, TS 601 Aero Star, Bonanza, etc., you should not plan on ‘slow down’ & ‘go down’ at the same time. Kinda hard to do.
So with the mass of the big iron + ‘slippery’ it must take careful planning to do ‘down’ in a hurry during emergency conditions with limited time and/or room. When slow enough to start things out for drag, then you can get down really quick I would suspect but always with that mass in mind for dealing with…
Extra 300 = Oh my poor tummy. I just wish … Ah well, … 
For those of you who’ve been to Oshkosh and seen the twin engine counter-rotating prop 1938 Bugatti 100P and wondered what it would have looked like flying…
Imagine no more. Some fools of a took went and built aflying replica.. Had a bit of a rough landing but it lives.
You get a good look at that up close and you’ll find my name on the bulkhead somewhere.
Really? Care to share the story, or have you already?
It varies between types I think. I haven’t flown any of those you mention, but I never had any trouble in the Aero Commander or Beech Baron slowing down and going down. That said, I was always taught to plan my descents at 500 fpm in a non-pressurised plane for passenger/crew comfort and at that sink rate the speed washes off ok when you bring the power back. I think a bigger deal is made of it than necessary because with bigger engines you can’t/shouldn’t bring the power back to idle suddenly, so for someone coming from a flying school’s C152 on to their prized charter twin or high performance single, descent planning is emphasised as it is a point of difference. As long as you have some kind of reasonable descent plan it’s not a big deal though.
Turbo-props are really easy. There’s no major engine handling issues with a turbine so you just chop the power when you want to slow down. As they’re not all that slippery, you probably had some power on for the descent anyway so maintaining your descent rate and slowing down is ok. It still takes some planning, from memory the Dash 8 (200/300) took 8 NM to slow from 240 to 150 knots while still descending at 1500 fpm. If you put the props to max RPM it’ll slow down much quicker (not normally done because it sounds horrible so you wait until later in the approach.) If you have a turn and/or are level then you’ll slow down even quicker. We used to join crosswind at 240 knots in the Dash 8 then chop the power initiating the 90º turn to downwind. The speed would be back to 150 knots just after the turn and then you could get gear and flap out etc. A 200 knot speed limit in the circuit at non-towered aerodromes has since been introduced so those shenanigans aren’t possible anymore.
The 146 will go down and slow down but you need to reduce the descent rate a bit and allow some extra space. The crusty old chap who did my command training told me that 10 NM, 2000’, and 700 fpm will work for any passenger jet to slow from 250 to 200 knots IAS. It certainly works in the 146, I don’t have the experience to know if it works in other types.
So for my descent planning, using the above rule of thumb, I want to be at 3000’ AGL at 10 NM from the threshold and 200 knots IAS. From there I can get flap out and slowing down further is easy. So I aim to be at 5000’ AGL at 20 NM, 250 knots, with VS reducing to 700 fpm and idle thrust and I will comfortably make my 10 NM target.
As mentioned earlier, the 146 air-brake is effective so if the profile has been cocked up somehow then it’s easy enough to just get the brake out (the air-brake lever is known as the “fix-it stick”) and then you’ll slow down while maintaining a 1500-2000 fpm descent rate. The brake can be used at any speed. Other jets have lift spoilers that can be used in the same way.
It’s not rocket science at all, but it is the most common thing I see stuffed up, and that is normally because the pilot either doesn’t have a clear plan to begin with or they do have a plan but they don’t recognise they’re not meeting their targets until it is too late. If you leave it too late to fix and you end up high then you run into the problem that in order to fix it you need to bust the company max descent rates at low altitude, then you’re in a bit of a predicament because the aeroplane tells tales on you, and if you break SOPs you get a please explain call from the safety department. The only real option available is to slow right down to minimum approach speed, fly level if necessary to get there, once nice and slow you have a much steeper descent angle and may be able to get back on profile. Otherwise you ask ATC for some extra track miles.
A lot of the guess work is taken out in more modern types by more capable flight management and auto-flight systems that will fly the profile for you and alert you if it’s not able to achieve the required performance. The 146 is old school and takes more work to make it all happen nicely.
By the way, the air-brake was out on that video you linked because it is SOP for landing, I didn’t want you to think the crew were using it to fix a mistake.
