Debonair Balked Landing vs. Short field

[jesse]

In preparation for my upcoming CFI ride I've been carefully looking through the AFM.

There really isn't a short field or soft field procedure in it. But there is a general takeoff procedure which reads as:

For a short-field over an obstacle I read it as:
You should rotate at recommended speed which is 80 mph then transition to Vx which would be 85 and the gear up when positive rate and insufficient runway to land remains. Once the obstacle is clear you should then transition to Vy or cruise climb speed.

So then if we go look at the balked landing procedure we see something different:

That seems to imply that you should go to full power, then 81 mph until clear of obstacles (Vx is 85) then pull the gear up then the flaps up.

Now I'm trying to figure out why the procedure is different. The balked landing wants you to wait on the gear and it also has a different Vx speed. I am thinking that different Vx speed is because that is Vx in a dirty configuration versus Vx in a clean configuration as in the takeoff checklist.

Am I thinking right? Why are they different?

 

[John Collins]

I have been a Bonanza owner for the last 32 years and have specialized in type specific instruction and insurance checkouts.

Vx and Vy are dependent on several factors, weight, altitude, and most importantly on configuration. The POH has relatively little information on technique. Before the POH, the manual was called the "Owners Manual" and it has a significant treasure of data and technique. The POH is a minimal set of information, sanitized by the lawyers and has no information on short field performance with flaps.

From the Owners Manual for a C33, the following speeds in MPH are best rate of climb at 5000 ft MSL:

Gear and flaps up ---- 105
Gear down ----------- 88
Gear and flaps down - 69

The best angle of climb speeds are:

Gear and flaps up ---- 86
Gear down ----------- 77
Gear and flaps down - 66

Note the enormous difference between Vy in the clean configuration and in the gear and flaps down configuration, it is 36 MPH, and not even mentioned in the POH.

Short field takeoff recommends use 20 degrees of flaps (the original left flap had markings on it for 10 and 20 degrees), lift off at 62 and 67 at 50 feet.

The balked landing speed of in the Owners Manual is assumed to be gear down, flaps down, best angle. The value in the POH is the same as the heavier F33A (3400 lbs) and corresponds to the best rate of climb speed with the gear and flaps down for the F33A. The speed should be lower, because the C33 has a maximum takeoff weight of 3050 pounds.

If you try to climb at the POH value for Vy, the airplane will barely climb if at all at 104 with the gear and flaps down. However, if you raise the nose attitude to +12 degrees, you will get a climb at 500 to 600 FPM at a speed close to the 81 balked landing speed and will be slightly faster than the true Vy for the configuration.

I would make a few recommendations, fly with an instructor that really knows the airplane such as a BPPP instructor, get a copy of Flying the Beech Bonanza by John Eckalbar, and get a copy of the C33 Owners Manual.

Vx and Vy are meaningless terms in the Bonanza if you don't define the configuration.

 

[dmccormack]

What John Said.

Also, the American Bonanza Society (ABS) is a great source of info and Beech-savvy instructors.

 

[taters]

On the go-around just remember

Cram-Power
Climb-Pitch 10..in the Debby thats about Vy(barring obstacles then pitch a little higher)
Clean-Up-gear up/flaps up

 

[SCCutler]

Jesse:

Get exceptional discussion of this on BeechTalk (although John's comments above are pretty authoritative).

By the way, you can get shorter takeoffs with flaps, but the POH no longer admits it.

 

[kkoran]

On the go-around just remember

Cram-Power
Climb-Pitch 10..in the Debby thats about Vy(barring obstacles then pitch a little higher)
Clean-Up-gear up/flaps up

And be ready to push on the yoke because it will be way out of trim.

 

[wabower]

Jesse, the procedures for balks and missed approaches are different in most Beech products, including King Airs. In most cases, the balk (rejected landing) calls for full power, max angle climb, don't touch nothin' else until clear of obstacles.

 

[Henning]

The main difference I see is that on the balked landing, you'll have full flaps in which explains the different speeds, and you will still be heading down which is why they want you to get speed and climb established before picking the gear up.

 

[Jaybird180]

Wouldn't raising the gear (assuming it's not manual) clean the drag on the airframe, thereby allowing better performance?

(I've never flown a retract- just theorizing)

 

[COFlyBoy]

Wouldn't raising the gear (assuming it's not manual) clean the drag on the airframe, thereby allowing better performance?

(I've never flown a retract- just theorizing)

It would, but as Henning pointed out, you are still descending. You leave the gear down so that if you happen to touch the runway it isn't expensive and loud. Raising the gear doesn't cause you to start climbing, it just cleans up the airplane.

 

[dmccormack]

Wouldn't raising the gear (assuming it's not manual) clean the drag on the airframe, thereby allowing better performance?

(I've never flown a retract- just theorizing)

The gear increases drag. But the airplane will fly -- and climb -- sufficiently to clear the FAA 50' barrier with gear down.

 

[Henning]

Wouldn't raising the gear (assuming it's not manual) clean the drag on the airframe, thereby allowing better performance?

(I've never flown a retract- just theorizing)

It depends on the model and type. Some planes will open gear doors or put the wheels in a position that increases drag during the transition so for the few seconds it takes for the gear to come up being in conjunction with the few seconds it takes to clear an obstacle you may be better off leaving the gear down.

 

[Jaybird180]

It depends on the model and type. Some planes will open gear doors or put the wheels in a position that increases drag during the transition so for the few seconds it takes for the gear to come up being in conjunction with the few seconds it takes to clear an obstacle you may be better off leaving the gear down.

Okay, that makes sense.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

Also while you're hanging out at those lower airspeeds parasite drag from the gear is minimal. So don't be in a rush to suck the gear up. Be thankful the gear retracts relatively fast as compared to some Cessna and Piper products. This is where the gear door/wheel position drag becomes the issue as mentioned before.

 

[John Collins]

As others have noted, retracting the gear in a Bonanza, increases drag because the inner gear doors open to make way for the landing gear and increase drag. This is particularly important for a 14 volt Bonanza, as the gear retract time is approximately 11 seconds. It has less of an effect on the 28 volt airplanes as the gear comes up in 4 seconds. Also, even though this sounds counter-intuitive, the stall speed increases when the gear is retracted on a Bonanza. With the gear and flaps down, the airplane will climb quite nicely as long as the speed isn't too fast. Any excess speed will kill the climb performance due to the high parasitic drag. I like to demonstrate a go around without touching anything and have the student accelerate to the POH Vy speed and point out that the airplane will barely climb if at all at this speed in the dirty configuration. But slow it down to the recommended balked landing speed, and it does a remarkable job of climbing.

 

[John Collins]

The main difference I see is that on the balked landing, you'll have full flaps in which explains the different speeds, and you will still be heading down which is why they want you to get speed and climb established before picking the gear up.

Normal approach on the Bonanza is around 80 Kts and the balked landing speed is 71 Kts. A relatively small increase in power to 15+ inches will arrest the descent. It is important not to speed up when doing a go around in the Bonanza, as this will kill climb performance. I would recommend powering up, pitch up to +10 to +12 degrees, climb to clear any obstacle, raise the landing gear, accelerate to 80 Kts and raise the flaps. The flaps will retract slow enough that a pilot will not experience a sink as the speed will continue to accelerates to the normal climb speed even with some additional pitch up to counter the sink.

Most of the Bonanzas do not have a detent in the flap switch and it has three positions, go-up, go-down, stay where you are. Performance in the go around can be enhanced by reducing the flaps from 30 degrees to 20 degrees, but it climbs well enough that this isn't really needed and can be a distraction. For the later model airplanes, there is a detent at approximately 15 degrees of flaps (approach flap setting) and it is worthwhile on those airplanes to move the flap switch to the detent, as this takes minimum effort and distraction.

 

[Henning]

Normal approach on the Bonanza is around 80 Kts and the balked landing speed is 71 Kts. A relatively small increase in power to 15+ inches will arrest the descent. It is important not to speed up when doing a go around in the Bonanza, as this will kill climb performance. I would recommend powering up, pitch up to +10 to +12 degrees, climb to clear any obstacle, raise the landing gear, accelerate to 80 Kts and raise the flaps. The flaps will retract slow enough that a pilot will not experience a sink as the speed will continue to accelerates to the normal climb speed even with some additional pitch up to counter the sink.

Most of the Bonanzas do not have a detent in the flap switch and it has three positions, go-up, go-down, stay where you are. Performance in the go around can be enhanced by reducing the flaps from 30 degrees to 20 degrees, but it climbs well enough that this isn't really needed and can be a distraction. For the later model airplanes, there is a detent at approximately 15 degrees of flaps (approach flap setting) and it is worthwhile on those airplanes to move the flap switch to the detent, as this takes minimum effort and distraction.

Granted that when still a mile+ out in a Bo I'm doing 80kts, but by the time I'm on short final I'm down around 60 and slowing.

 

[jesse]

Granted that when still a mile+ out in a Bo I'm doing 80kts, but by the time I'm on short final I'm down around 60 and slowing.

I am typically around 80 mph short final. Maybe 75 mph if light. Slowing below 60 knots in the Debonair is going to turn you into a brick with no ability to flare without power.

 

[Henning]

I am typically around 80 mph short final. Maybe 75 mph if light. Slowing below 60 knots in the Debonair is going to turn you into a brick with no ability to flare without power.

Only if your pattern is too large. If you have have a proper descent angle then 60kts over the threshold is just fine and you flare into ground effect and settle very nicely onto the end of the threshold.

 

[spiderweb]

Jessie, I think your interpretation is good, and I would bet the examiner (inspector, in this case?) will concur.

In preparation for my upcoming CFI ride I've been carefully looking through the AFM.

There really isn't a short field or soft field procedure in it. But there is a general takeoff procedure which reads as:

For a short-field over an obstacle I read it as:
You should rotate at recommended speed which is 80 mph then transition to Vx which would be 85 and the gear up when positive rate and insufficient runway to land remains. Once the obstacle is clear you should then transition to Vy or cruise climb speed.

So then if we go look at the balked landing procedure we see something different:

That seems to imply that you should go to full power, then 81 mph until clear of obstacles (Vx is 85) then pull the gear up then the flaps up.

Now I'm trying to figure out why the procedure is different. The balked landing wants you to wait on the gear and it also has a different Vx speed. I am thinking that different Vx speed is because that is Vx in a dirty configuration versus Vx in a clean configuration as in the takeoff checklist.

Am I thinking right? Why are they different?

 

[gismo]

On the go-around just remember

Cram-Power
Climb-Pitch 10..in the Debby thats about Vy(barring obstacles then pitch a little higher)
Clean-Up-gear up/flaps up
Cool it. (Open cowl flaps)

Don't forget the last step if it's got cowl flaps (many Deb's don't).

 

[gismo]

Normal approach on the Bonanza is around 80 Kts and the balked landing speed is 71 Kts. A relatively small increase in power to 15+ inches will arrest the descent. It is important not to speed up when doing a go around in the Bonanza, as this will kill climb performance. I would recommend powering up, pitch up to +10 to +12 degrees, climb to clear any obstacle, raise the landing gear, accelerate to 80 Kts and raise the flaps. The flaps will retract slow enough that a pilot will not experience a sink as the speed will continue to accelerates to the normal climb speed even with some additional pitch up to counter the sink.

Most of the Bonanzas do not have a detent in the flap switch and it has three positions, go-up, go-down, stay where you are. Performance in the go around can be enhanced by reducing the flaps from 30 degrees to 20 degrees, but it climbs well enough that this isn't really needed and can be a distraction. For the later model airplanes, there is a detent at approximately 15 degrees of flaps (approach flap setting) and it is worthwhile on those airplanes to move the flap switch to the detent, as this takes minimum effort and distraction.

On many of the Bonanzas with the approach flap setting, moving from full to approach flaps doesn't cause the flaps to move at all. AFaIK the approach setting was only intended to be used when coming from flaps up. With either setup you can remove an adequate amount of flaps for better performance in the go around by moving the switch to the top (UP) position for 5-6 seconds and then putting it back to the center position (approach or off/hold).

 

[gismo]

Only if your pattern is too large. If you have have a proper descent angle then 60kts over the threshold is just fine and you flare into ground effect and settle very nicely onto the end of the threshold.

It's been almost 15 years since I owned a Bonanza but 60 Kt (70 mph) over the threshold sounds about right for a short field landing or any landing with a fairly light airplane. Weight does make a considerable difference.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Don't forget the last step if it's got cowl flaps (many Deb's don't).

Ah, one of my favorites, if the last step is added:

Climb it,
Clean it,
Cool it, and
CALL it.

Works well for both go-arounds and missed approaches.

 

[dmccormack]

I am typically around 80 mph short final. Maybe 75 mph if light. Slowing below 60 knots in the Debonair is going to turn you into a brick with no ability to flare without power.

It feels that way since the CG is far forward with two up and nothing in back.

Add some weight in the back and the elevator regains authority.

 

[jesse]

It feels that way since the CG is far forward with two up and nothing in back.

Add some weight in the back and the elevator regains authority.

Perhaps but I've tried slowing it down to 70 mph and you're going to want some power to keep a reasonable descent rate and to maintain control authority. I can't say I look at the airspeed indicator much once I get established so perhaps I am slowing a little but I doubt by much.

I'm sure having some more aft weight would help. On this particular 'slow bo' with 225 hp, me and another slightly fluffy person with 74 gallons of fuel puts it at gross while being fairly nose heavy.

Once again, since this is a CFI checkride, I'll be flying it precisely to the AFM's instructions, whether or not I agree with all of it.

 

[John Collins]

Granted that when still a mile+ out in a Bo I'm doing 80kts, but by the time I'm on short final I'm down around 60 and slowing.

70 Kts is the recommended short field approach speed for most of the later Bonanzas, assuming that the airplane is at maximum gross weight and it requires carrying some power. For a very light Bonanza, 60 Kts would work on very short final (over the fence), but remember for the C33 in question, that is only 8 knots above the stall speed.

 

[John Collins]

Perhaps but I've tried slowing it down to 70 mph and you're going to want some power to keep a reasonable descent rate and to maintain control authority.

I'm sure having some more aft weight would help. On this particular 'slow bo' with 225 hp, me and another slightly fluffy person with 74 gallons of fuel puts it at gross while being fairly nose heavy.

Once again, since this is a CFI checkride, I'll be flying it precisely to the AFM's instructions, whether or not I agree with all of it.

I fully agree. If you are power off at 70 MPH (61 Kts) from any appreciable altitude (several hundred feet AGL), you will damage the airplane as a fully established sink rate will not be able to be arrested. For a safe power off approach, you should be close to 80 Kts. Approaches at speeds below 80 Kts should carry some power until over the fence.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Just my two cents worth since I've never flown a Bo. I really think you guys are saying the same things but using different units of measure.

Some of you are talking about kts and some are talking about mph. My little calculator says that 60kts is 69mph, close enough to 70 to call it that.

Don't try sending a lander to Mars with that kind of math.

 

[dmccormack]

Perhaps but I've tried slowing it down to 70 mph and you're going to want some power to keep a reasonable descent rate and to maintain control authority. I can't say I look at the airspeed indicator much once I get established so perhaps I am slowing a little but I doubt by much.

I'm sure having some more aft weight would help. On this particular 'slow bo' with 225 hp, me and another slightly fluffy person with 74 gallons of fuel puts it at gross while being fairly nose heavy.

Once again, since this is a CFI checkride, I'll be flying it precisely to the AFM's instructions, whether or not I agree with all of it.

Agreed -- I use 70 knots on final (heck, I've flown the entire pattern at 70 KIAS in an A36 and it flies fine).

But once the runway is made (not necessarily "the fence," since other factors apply) eyes off the ASI, full nose up trim, full flaps -- it typically slows a bit.

Once you roundout you'll probably be at 62-64 or so. Will float a few feet then settle nicely.

If you're squeezing it in, then 65 on short final works -- but arrival will be abrupt.

In a straight -35 (1947) everything is MPH and drops by 10.

 

[Henning]

70 Kts is the recommended short field approach speed for most of the later Bonanzas, assuming that the airplane is at maximum gross weight and it requires carrying some power. For a very light Bonanza, 60 Kts would work on very short final (over the fence), but remember for the C33 in question, that is only 8 knots above the stall speed.

That's just it, in the real world, how many times do you land at gross? That's the whole problem with teaching "The Numbers" when you only use one set of numbers typically generated for gross weight. If you're gonna teach the numbers, then you need to teach a minimum of three sets of numbers: gross weight, solo + 25lbs aft in luggage + 1 hr fuel, max cabin load with full fuel and subtrct all but an hour of that fuel. For a Bonanza, typical use will see the solo scenario 70+% of the landings, the third scenario 29.*% of the time and the first Gross scenario only in emergencies.

You should either teach to the feel of the airplane or teach to a more accurate set of numbers. The Bo is such a forgiving plane it will allow you to make a pretty landing even 10 or more knots fast (I landed my Travel Air at 170 once loaded with ice), but it costs you runway performance. You'd be surprised at just how short you can land and of that gen of airframes, 33, 35, 95, 95-55, 95-56. Understanding of that is a safety issue since it allows the to accurately asses what is a viable emergency landing site.

Jesse is flying one of the lightest models with that airframe, and they all fly the same by feel. BTW Jesse, I bet if you teach them how to calculate a speed card off the information given, your examiner isn't going to have any issue with a deviation from max gross number values on a smooth short landing.

BTW, can anyone tell me a reason every landing shouldn't be a short field landing?

 

[dmccormack]

BTW, can anyone tell me a reason every landing shouldn't be a short field landing?

Yep.

:wink2:

 

[gismo]

That's just it, in the real world, how many times do you land at gross? That's the whole problem with teaching "The Numbers" when you only use one set of numbers typically generated for gross weight. If you're gonna teach the numbers, then you need to teach a minimum of three sets of numbers: gross weight, solo + 25lbs aft in luggage + 1 hr fuel, max cabin load with full fuel and subtrct all but an hour of that fuel. For a Bonanza, typical use will see the solo scenario 70+% of the landings, the third scenario 29.*% of the time and the first Gross scenario only in emergencies.

You should either teach to the feel of the airplane or teach to a more accurate set of numbers. The Bo is such a forgiving plane it will allow you to make a pretty landing even 10 or more knots fast (I landed my Travel Air at 170 once loaded with ice), but it costs you runway performance. You'd be surprised at just how short you can land and of that gen of airframes, 33, 35, 95, 95-55, 95-56. Understanding of that is a safety issue since it allows the to accurately asses what is a viable emergency landing site.

Jesse is flying one of the lightest models with that airframe, and they all fly the same by feel. BTW Jesse, I bet if you teach them how to calculate a speed card off the information given, your examiner isn't going to have any issue with a deviation from max gross number values on a smooth short landing.

+1. The adjustment for all published speeds for weight is something that ought to be part of the HP endorsement process IMO. For a 172 the need isn't great but in something like a Bonanza, landing weight can vary enough to make a big difference in optimal operating speeds. Also important is how fast an airplane sheds excess speed. A Bo when dirty is pretty good at this although IME the lighter it is the less this is true. But in any case one also needs to understand that your speed "over the threshold" (i.e. into the flare) can and should be considerably closer to stall than what's best when 2 miles out on final.

BTW, can anyone tell me a reason every landing shouldn't be a short field landing?

I can give you a few depending on what you mean by a short field landing.
1) Waste's brakes and tires.
2) Touching down close to the threshold gives up some safety margin vs landing further down a sufficiently long runway.
3) Not much point in landing short on a 6000 ft runway when your hangar is at the far end.
4) It's easier to make ego boosting greasers if you're willing to waste a lot of runway.

And I'll bet that one way or another #4 is the most common reason for pilots who come in a little hot and land long.

 

[dmccormack]

I can give you a few depending on what you mean by a short field landing.
1) Waste's brakes and tires.
2) Touching down close to the threshold gives up some safety margin vs landing further down a sufficiently long runway.
3) Not much point in landing short on a 6000 ft runway when your hangar is at the far end.
4) It's easier to make ego boosting greasers if you're willing to waste a lot of runway.

And I'll bet that one way or another #4 is the most common reason for pilots who come in a little hot and land long.

5) Gusty conditions
6) Heavy (near gross) with aft CG
7) Suspect tires
8) Suspect soft surface
9) Unfamiliar airplane

 

[Henning]

BTW, can anyone tell me a reason every landing shouldn't be a short field landing?[/QUOTE]
I can give you a few depending on what you mean by a short field landing.
1) Waste's brakes and tires.
2) Touching down close to the threshold gives up some safety margin vs landing further down a sufficiently long runway.
3) Not much point in landing short on a 6000 ft runway when your hangar is at the far end.
4) It's easier to make ego boosting greasers if you're willing to waste a lot of runway.

And I'll bet that one way or another #4 is the most common reason for pilots who come in a little hot and land long.[/QUOTE]

5) Gusty conditions
6) Heavy (near gross) with aft CG
7) Suspect tires
8) Suspect soft surface
9) Unfamiliar airplane

1. true, but if operated properly according to the runway length, then it actually has less impact on brakes and tires as you minimize the spin up speed and you lessen or eliminate the use of brakes.

2&3. Never said you have to land at the threshold, though the safety margin you buy landing further down a runway is minimal and dubitable. At LGB I used to turn abeam the tower for midfield 25L and turn off 7R for the ramp. Still same thing, less time interfacing the ground at high speed. It's the high speed interface with the ground where things go really ugly.

4. Not really, IMO it makes it more difficult. The best landings in them I do and see are the ones that round out smoothly right on the ground into the stall and they make the first turn off without touching the brakes.

5. Not really. Figure half a pretty heavy gust is 7.5 knots. even with a slow plane say a 40kt Vso will have an 8kt factor above stall which is greater than carrying half the gust strength. Also, the slower the speed you land at, the less time it takes to transition most of the weight onto the wheels. When you land fast, the plane is light on the ground so you stand a greater chance of being screwed up by a gust landing with extra speed.

6. Weight is already compensated for by calculating the proper speed for Vso and multiplying from there.

7. Suspect tires means you want to be as slow as possible to reduce the forces involved.

8. Soft surface... You want to be doing an extra 5 knots when the wheels dig in? If you can fly your airplane, there is no reason you cannot make a smooth transition from 1.2 Vso onto the runway.

9. ??? Make yourself familiar.... First time you fly a plane you do some slow flight, some steep turns and a stall series. Now you are as familiar as you have to be.

 

[gismo]

BTW, can anyone tell me a reason every landing shouldn't be a short field landing?

I can give you a few depending on what you mean by a short field landing.
1) Waste's brakes and tires.
2) Touching down close to the threshold gives up some safety margin vs landing further down a sufficiently long runway.
3) Not much point in landing short on a 6000 ft runway when your hangar is at the far end.
4) It's easier to make ego boosting greasers if you're willing to waste a lot of runway.

And I'll bet that one way or another #4 is the most common reason for pilots who come in a little hot and land long.

1. true, but if operated properly according to the runway length, then it actually has less impact on brakes and tires as you minimize the spin up speed and you lessen or eliminate the use of brakes.

A real short field landing requires maximum braking effort. That's why I said "depending on what you mean...". It sounds like what you were really asking was "When wouldn't you want to use short field techniques and speeds in the air?" and my answers to that would have been fewer and different.

2&3. Never said you have to land at the threshold, though the safety margin you buy landing further down a runway is minimal and dubitable. At LGB I used to turn abeam the tower for midfield 25L and turn off 7R for the ramp. Still same thing, less time interfacing the ground at high speed. It's the high speed interface with the ground where things go really ugly.

Sure, similar issues as #1, a "real" short field landing dictates using as much of the runway for the rollout as safely practical and often this means touching down much closer to the threshold than one would normally do with room to spare. Nothing wrong with using short field speeds with an intended touchdown point further down the runway though.

4. Not really, IMO it makes it more difficult. The best landings in them I do and see are the ones that round out smoothly right on the ground into the stall and they make the first turn off without touching the brakes.

I don't normally stall the Baron on any landing, the penalty for being a bit too aggressive in the roundout is severe, although I understand what you're saying. But for many pilots in their own airplane and most pilots in an unfamiliar airplane, coming in a little hot and wasting more runway slowing to touchdown speed/attitude is easier and more forgiving as long as a gusty wind isn't blowing them all over the runway.

 

[Henning]

I don't normally stall the Baron on any landing, the penalty for being a bit too aggressive in the roundout is severe, although I understand what you're saying. But for many pilots in their own airplane and most pilots in an unfamiliar airplane, coming in a little hot and wasting more runway slowing to touchdown speed/attitude is easier and more forgiving as long as a gusty wind isn't blowing them all over the runway.

I pretty much am landing right at stall in anything including my 310, I try to keep my gear stress as low as possible.

 

[John Collins]

That's just it, in the real world, how many times do you land at gross? That's the whole problem with teaching "The Numbers" when you only use one set of numbers typically generated for gross weight. If you're gonna teach the numbers, then you need to teach a minimum of three sets of numbers: gross weight, solo + 25lbs aft in luggage + 1 hr fuel, max cabin load with full fuel and subtrct all but an hour of that fuel. For a Bonanza, typical use will see the solo scenario 70+% of the landings, the third scenario 29.*% of the time and the first Gross scenario only in emergencies.

I don't disagree with your comments on teaching the numbers at different weights, but your one number of 60 is not close to the proper one for flying the airplane. You will note that unlike your post where you didn't state your assumptions, I did note the weight I was talking about. In my insurance initial type transition training, I go thru the process of determining the appropriate numbers at three weights, as you note performance varies with weight. I carry my own weight adjusted cheat sheet for my own Bonanza.

You should either teach to the feel of the airplane or teach to a more accurate set of numbers. The Bo is such a forgiving plane it will allow you to make a pretty landing even 10 or more knots fast (I landed my Travel Air at 170 once loaded with ice), but it costs you runway performance. You'd be surprised at just how short you can land and of that gen of airframes, 33, 35, 95, 95-55, 95-56. Understanding of that is a safety issue since it allows the to accurately asses what is a viable emergency landing site.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised by the short field landing capability of the Bonanza, I have owned one for 32 years and have specialized in instructing in the type. I agree it has a great range of performance.

Jesse is flying one of the lightest models with that airframe, and they all fly the same by feel. BTW Jesse, I bet if you teach them how to calculate a speed card off the information given, your examiner isn't going to have any issue with a deviation from max gross number values on a smooth short landing.

Of the 33's with the small engines, the 33, A33, B33, C33, E33, and F33, it ties for the heaviest airframe, with the 33 being the lightest at 2900, then the A33 and B33 at 3000, and finally the C33, E33, and F33 at 3050. If you include the 285 HP IO520 models, the C33A (3300) and the F33A (3400), then it is in the middle of the weight spectrum for the 33 line. It would be considered heavy compared to the early V tails starting at the 35 at 2550 and growing in weight thru the A,B,C, D, E, F,G,H, J,K and the M model at 2950. Regardless, it is a relatively light airframe.

BTW, can anyone tell me a reason every landing shouldn't be a short field landing?

No.

 

[jesse]

Well I'm no expert like Henning, all I can say is that I've put some time on this airplane and I know how slow I can take it.

Regardless, I passed my initial CFI checkride in it today so all is good in my world.

 

[Richard]

Oh dear God...no wait, I mean CONGRATULATIONS Jesse!