ORIGINAL: MinnFlyer
ORIGINAL: Rob2160
Sorry, I have to disagree... I fly commercial.. we fly a 3 degree approach.. every time.. on autoland or manual, its always smack bang on 3 degrees.. power is usually applied on final when the last stage of flap is selected.. the power is needed to maintain speed when the extra flap increases drag..
Exactly my point. You come in shallow. And, not to contradict you, but as an airplane nut I can't help but pay attention to what's happening when I'm on board and in that last mile or two, the gear are down and the flaps are fully deployed and many's the time when a little power has been added to maintain the approach.
In any case, I'm not trying to disagree with someone who does it for a living, I'm just saying that you want a shallow approach. Three degrees is very shallow. Just take a look at a 3, 6 and 9 degree approach. I would venture to say that more modelers fly closer to a 9 degree approach than a 3 degree approach.
Since the discussion is taking a tangent off the Op's question, I will again insert some 1:1 scale information. The 3 degree glideslope is strictly there for politics and making things easy for some that shouldn't be there. I don't know about Australia but here in the good ol' US of A, the FAA requires that the pilot in command will not fly below the established glideslope for any runway having one, be it ILS (Instrument Landing System Glide Slope) or VASI (Visual Approach Slope Indicator). Having to retire at age 60, 15 years ago, the then mandatory retirement age - now 65 - I am not up-to-date on what they have now.
When Reagan fired all the Air Traffic Controllers, and all the new ones had to be schooled quickly, OJT, things kind of went astray. The ATC quickly brought the long straight-in approaches as their training school, and I don't suppose it has changed. The use of 100% instrument procedure approaches is the worst, ABSOLUTELY WORST, FUEL AND TIME WASTING METHOD OF LANDING CONTROL THAT BUREAUCRATS HAVE EVER ESTABLISHED. Now I can go deep with that statement but it would not be here long. When cleared for a visual approach, I flew more than the established # of °slope, used minimum flap and gear until down to 1000 ft AGL. Yes, when all that drag is added, power has to also be added. The slower you fly the more thrust required. IF YOU FLY COMMERCIAL and you can't do it without established GS, then take a look in the mirror and ask yourself, "Am I a PILOT or just an "airplane driver?"
Any RC pilot should, after soloing with some practice, be able to come in at full power, over the end of the runway, enter into a loop, cut throttle to idle starting about at the top, and land within the first 50 ft. of end of the runway.
CG Retired: "We've all been on commercial flights where the landing was a tad bit less than pleasant. I was on an Air Force C-130 when they did a combat landing. Now that was fun.."
My son, now retired from USAF, designed and got approved a new tactical procedure for MC-130s in-trail Assault Landings. I got to do some of that stuff in a couple years flying the C-123, but nothing like his MC-130 stuff. He also flew the C-5 in his last 4-5 years and their assault landing for Baghdad started at close to a Split-S (NO never really inverted, just steep bank) starting at 15,000 ft. AGL. Don't remember the details but sounded scary. He liked it better at night because then he could see the tracers coming his way.
So for you RC Beginners, learn to fly the model to the ground and runway center. Keep at it and you will get it. One more funny: I was teaching an ex-Navy, now airline pilot, RC. He just kept allowing the nose to drop. SMASH! I ask him if he did that with the airline? I said, "You are not on a carrier now, land like you do with the airliner, hold it off as the power comes back and increase the back pressure to keep the nose moving UP not down. Two landings later he had it down pat and never ever had another problem. YOU can do same, just keep FLYING the machine.