Why it's so hard to land a fast business jet

[oneleg]

The mantra is to "go fast and slow".

On Xtreme Prototype's Learjet 25: you need to go FAST, rpm has to be at least 70% and maneuvering speed is 160 KIAS. But, at the same time; you also need to go SLOW, the landing approach speed is 112 KIAS (flaps at 40 deg)

[mrzippy]

I barely would land the -172 at 112 KIAS....actually around 65-70 KIAS.  Any of the Lear jets I would land around 135-140 KIAS.

[PhrogPhlyer]

I don't totally understand your topic question "Why it's so hard to land a fast business jet."

As long as the approach is stabilized (gear/flaps/speed/decent) the landing should not be difficult.

Minor power changes to adjust if high or low.

The issue then becomes do you have enough runway to stop, based on touch down speed and brakes,  plus thrust reversers if so equipped.

What exactly is your issue? Line up, touch down zone, rate of decent, maintaining airspeed?

That will help guide appropriate response.

[oneleg]

Sorry for the late reply. The main issue is lack of experience or practice, and knowledge on when to start final after flying a pattern (using a1000 ft altitude), when landing on an airport that does not have navaid. 

 

(in a related message thread here in the forum you mentioned a typical military pattern is generally 800 ft AGL and distance from runway is a visual reference to the wing tip  -- I can't see the wingtip on the Learjet)

Landing with props on the airport is relatively easy and the same is true with business jets on airport with navaids such as an ILS.  But for me, landing on an airport without navaid in a fast jet is a different story. In a pattern, I attempt the turn from base leg to final 5 miles out, but I find that 5 miles at approximately 1000 ft AGL may not be enough. It's a challenge and I'm wondering how that could be done in real life for the Learjet 25 which performs like a fighter jet. 

[mrzippy]

@oneleg  For great Learjet landing practice I highly recommend the "Telluride Landing"  Mission!  That'll frost yer doughnuts!

 

 

[lnuss]

21 minutes ago, oneleg said:

, but I find that 5 miles at approximately 1000 ft AGL may not be enough.

Or maybe it's too much? That's a loooonngg final, and 1,000 AGL is awfully low for that far out. With a wide downwind and a turn on base around a mile or so beyond the numbers (probably a bit further at first), if you're at a reasonable approach speed, then you need to learn to see your approach path while on final -- this can certainly be practiced by being maybe 1500 to 2000 ft AGL at 4 or 5 miles, then looking at the numbers of the runway to discover the one spot on the runway that stays at the same spot on the windshield during descent, that is, the spot that doesn't move up or move down in the windshield. Learning to see this is very important.

 

It will take practice, and more practice.

 

However I think it would be best if you learn that technique in a light aircraft (Cessna or such) at much slower speeds until you can do it almost without thinking, then gradually move up in speed and complexity of aircraft. You can even slew out a mile or so from the runway at 800-1000 ft AGL and hold your 70 or 80 kts (in a Cessna) all the way down final while learning to judge that spot- any other spot will be moving up or down in the windshield, so at first pick out the one that is stationary on a spot in the windshield (that's the spot you'd hit if you do nothing) and adjust your descent (power a little up or a little down) until the spot remaining still is where you want to land -- actually where you want to start your flare -- and practice will let you adjust it until you get what you want.

 

But first you have to learn to identify that spot. Of course you also must be very gentle on the controls, making gentle corrections -- correct in too much of a hurry, or corrections that are too large will leave you behind the aircraft, and frustrate you badly.

 

If this doesn't make much sense to you yet, get in a Cessna at 1,000 AGL a mile out and at 70-80 kts (depending on the Cessna) with half flaps, and just set up a 300-400 foot per minute descent, keeping airspeed and rate of descent steady (don't chase the rate of climb gauge, though -- it lags) and look carefully at the runway to identify the spot that doesn't move up or down in the windshield.

 

Hope this helps...

[oneleg]

1 hour ago, mrzippy said:

For great Learjet landing practice I highly recommend the "Telluride Landing" 

Thank you. It looks like his final turn is about 17 miles from the airport (@2:55 in the video).   I'm not sure what I can learn from the video? 

[PhrogPhlyer]

11 minutes ago, oneleg said:

I'm not sure what I can learn from the video? 

If you truly desire to improve your pattern flying and landing, I'd reread the comments by lnuss above.

Many id flight simming are drawn to the shiny fast electronics of the large or corporate jet cockpit.

Best to start with basics and grow from there a step at a time once mastered.

 

47 minutes ago, lnuss said:

It will take practice, and more practice.

 

However I think it would be best if you learn that technique in a light aircraft (Cessna or such) at much slower speeds until you can do it almost without thinking, then gradually move up in speed and complexity of aircraft. You can even slew out a mile or so from the runway at 800-1000 ft AGL and hold your 70 or 80 kts (in a Cessna) all the way down final while learning to judge that spot- any other spot will be moving up or down in the windshield, so at first pick out the one that is stationary on a spot in the windshield (that's the spot you'd hit if you do nothing) and adjust your descent (power a little up or a little down) until the spot remaining still is where you want to land -- actually where you want to start your flare -- and practice will let you adjust it until you get what you want.

 

But first you have to learn to identify that spot. Of course you also must be very gentle on the controls, making gentle corrections -- correct in too much of a hurry, or corrections that are too large will leave you behind the aircraft, and frustrate you badly.

 

If this doesn't make much sense to you yet, get in a Cessna at 1,000 AGL a mile out and at 70-80 kts (depending on the Cessna) with half flaps, and just set up a 300-400 foot per minute descent, keeping airspeed and rate of descent steady (don't chase the rate of climb gauge, though -- it lags) and look carefully at the runway to identify the spot that doesn't move up or down in the windshield.

 

[Lazerson]

I plane spot often at a corporate-heavy airport. The jets I see tend to start their final 7-8 miles out, with incredibly shallow descents.

[oneleg]

1 hour ago, lnuss said:

Or maybe it's too much? That's a loooonngg final, and 1,000 AGL is awfully low for that far out. With a wide downwind and a turn on base around a mile or so beyond the numbers (probably a bit further at first), if you're at a reasonable approach speed, then you need to learn to see your approach path while on final -- this can certainly be practiced by being maybe 1500 to 2000 ft AGL at 4 or 5 miles, then looking at the numbers of the runway to discover the one spot on the runway that stays at the same spot on the windshield during descent, that is, the spot that doesn't move up or move down in the windshield. Learning to see this is very important.

Hmmmm, 5 miles is too much for a jet traveling at 160 kts?  The problem is if I'm lower than that speed, I get a really loud continuous aural alert when RPM gets lower than 70% (about 160 kts). There is a toggle switch called Horn Silence in the Learjet 25 but I can't seem to get it to work.  Vref with full load at 15,000 lbs at standard temperature and sea level is about 140 kts. The runway is 5000 ft which is a little short for the fully loaded plane but probably do-able. The problem is it gets really busy when I hit the threshold mark since I have to deploy the spoilers and reversers, retract flaps, brakes, etc..

[oneleg]

20 minutes ago, PhrogPhlyer said:

Many id flight simming are drawn to the shiny fast electronics of the large or corporate jet cockpit.

Best to start with basics and grow from there a step at a time once mastered.

I actually started learning the basics on and off with the default Cessna 172 in FSX and moved on to Alabeo's 172 RG in P3D and then Milviz's 310R.  After a while I thought I'd move up to something more challenging and got into business jets using Flysimware's Learjet 35 and their Falcon 50. I also played around a bit with DCS's A-10s.  If I remember correctly, I don't think I had problems landing those unlike what I'm experiencing now with the Learjet 25. I think the main issue is that the Learjet is different since it was designed as a fighter jet whose main attraction as the first jet for business use was speed.

[jgf]

24 minutes ago, oneleg said:

The problem is if I'm lower than that speed, I get a really loud continuous aural alert when RPM gets lower that 70%

 

Many planes I fly will give me a constant warning beep if I throttle back "too much" with the gear up.

[oneleg]

29 minutes ago, jgf said:

 

Many planes I fly will give me a constant warning beep if I throttle back "too much" with the gear up.

That happens in Just Flight's Arrows. If I remember correctly, there is a toggle on the center 'console' that can turn the alert off (or maybe the auto gear down function).  

[lnuss]

1 hour ago, oneleg said:

Hmmmm, 5 miles is too much for a jet traveling at 160 kts?

1000 feet AGL is too low for 5 miles out under most conditions, and that's much further than should be needed for the final approach leg if you are VFR trying to fly the traffic pattern. That aural alert may well be the landing gear warning, which is easily silenced by slowing to gear speed and dropping the gear, since more power is needed withe the extra drag from gear and flaps. Did you ever watch a fighter plane doing an overhead approach? How long was their final approach leg? They've long since mastered the "unmoving" spot in the windshield, among other things.

 

45 minutes ago, oneleg said:

I actually started learning the basics on and off with the default Cessna 172 in FSX and moved on to Alabeo's 172 RG in P3D and then Milviz's 310R

OK, but did you learn to see your approach path? Did you learn to gauge where the spot is on the runway that, during descent, doesn't move up or down in the windshield with a steady, stabilized approach at a constant airspeed and rate of descent? That is the key to judging your approach path under various conditions, and can allow you to not have to do things by rote, but rather to use judgement of changing conditions to still allow you to touch down where and when you want. If you've not mastered that (and you didn't say), then go back to the Cessna and learn it and learn small, gentle corrections.

 

There is a reason that we flight instructors teach some of these very basic things (and this IS basic) and ensure that the students master them.

 

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

42 minutes ago, oneleg said:

I think the main issue is that the Learjet is different since it was designed as a fighter jet whose main attraction as the first jet for business use was speed.

No matter what aircraft you fly, the approach speed (V Ref) is defined as 1.3 time the stall speed in the landing configuration.

And you will need a longer final for a higher V Ref (visual approach).

You might want to fly a basic ILS, first with a single engine prop aircraft, then a twin (such as a Baron of KingAir), then a small jet (Cessna Citation), then Lear Series, then jet airliner,

The approach remains the same, the time it takes to complete the approach is less with a higher V Ref.

[ViperPilot2]

1 hour ago, oneleg said:

I actually started learning the basics on and off with the default Cessna 172 in FSX and moved on to Alabeo's 172 RG in P3D and then Milviz's 310R.  After a while I thought I'd move up to something more challenging and got into business jets using Flysimware's Learjet 35 and their Falcon 50. I also played around a bit with DCS's A-10s.  If I remember correctly, I don't think I had problems landing those unlike what I'm experiencing now with the Learjet 25. I think the main issue is that the Learjet is different since it was designed as a fighter jet whose main attraction as the first jet for business use was speed.

 

The most boring thing in FlightSim is practicing Landings in a Cessna 172. It's also the most important thing to master in FlightSim before moving on.

 

Whether it's a 172, Lear 25 or a slobbering Warthog... the Procedures are the Same. What changes are the Altitudes, Speeds and Glide Slopes.

 

I haven't flown a Lear in some time, but I seem to have APP @ 140, 3.5° GS, & Across the Threshold @ 110 kts. stuck in me wee pea brain... I don't fly Lite/Heavy Iron much though.

[PhrogPhlyer]

1 hour ago, Lazerson said:

with incredibly shallow descents.

This may just be a visual perception issue.

The approach, whether published or visual are basically around 3 degrees (+ or -).

[oneleg]

19 minutes ago, lnuss said:

Did you ever watch a fighter plane doing an overhead approach? How long was their final approach leg?

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any and I have more or less given up hope that a real-life fighter pilot would do a YouTube tutorial on how to land a fighter plane. I've seen one or two landing on aircraft carriers in YouTube but that's about it, and that doesn't apply to what I'm trying to do. Please let me know if you come across any. I'd love to see a tutorial on how a Learjet pilot would land their plane (from a pattern and on an uncontrolled airport without navigational aids).  

Btw, thank you much for taking the time to reply to my post. Very much appreciated.

 

23 minutes ago, lnuss said:

OK, but did you learn to see your approach path? Did you learn to gauge where the spot is on the runway that, during descent, doesn't move up or down in the windshield with a steady, stabilized approach at a constant airspeed and rate of descent? That is the key to judging your approach path under various conditions, and can allow you to not have to do things by rote, but rather to use judgement of changing conditions to still allow you to touch down where and when you want. If you've not mastered that (and you didn't say),

 

 

Sorry, yes I think so.  I should have mentioned it. I viewed quite a few videos on the topic including these among many others on YouTube:
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

[oneleg]

16 minutes ago, ViperPilot2 said:

The most boring thing in FlightSim is practicing Landings in a Cessna 172. It's also the most important thing to master in FlightSim before moving on.

Yup, I know what you mean by boring (one reason I'll probably never do a transatlantic flight on an airliner --although the idea of an around-the-world flight on a really really fast jet and see interesting POIs in MSFS sounds interesting).  To be honest, I don't know if I've "mastered" landings.  I've landed planes no problem and since I don't fly for a living I've moved on without really knowing if I've 'mastered' landing a plane. How does one know if he or she has mastered something anyway?  I guess one way is when it gets boring.

On the Learjet 25, unlike in other planes I crash land more often than not but that's very likely because I'm trying to do it based on unrealistic conditions and expectations eg. landing fully loaded from an abbreviated traffic pattern on an uncontrolled airport. But .... I make successful landings too under those same conditions so I know it's possible.  The trick is to be able to do it consistently without luck.

[lnuss]

34 minutes ago, oneleg said:

Sorry, yes I think so.  I should have mentioned it. I viewed quite a few videos on the topic including these among many others on YouTube:

None of those videos you showed discussed the unmoving spot, though in the first one** you can see that, when they get to the runway (without mentioning the spot)  that the VASI lights are approximately unmoving, and everything else is either moving up or down, and you seemed a little vague on your answer. Note that he comes down final a little to the right of the centerline until he finally lines up in the flare. This "sight picture" is extremely important for each aircraft -usually a little different for each type, as well as a change in the sight picture as you change airspeed or flaps.

 

But regardless, once you've identified the unmoving spot and mastered using it, you'll reach the point where you just automatically recognize whether you're high or low and how to correct for it to reach the intended spot, rarely needing to consciously think about it- but that's only after enough practice using that spot.

 

So just in case you're still not quite sure about seeing that spot, I'll reiterate what I said above;

Quote

If this doesn't make much sense to you yet, get in a Cessna at 1,000 AGL a mile out and at 70-80 kts (depending on the Cessna) with half flaps, and just set up a 300-400 foot per minute descent, keeping airspeed and rate of descent steady (don't chase the rate of climb gauge, though -- it lags) and look carefully at the runway to identify the spot that doesn't move up or down in the windshield.

 

And as for the overhead approach that I mentioned, if you've ever been to an airshow with the Thunderbirds or Blue Angels or other demonstration teams, you've seen the jets come overhead, then one by one make a right or left break (always away from the audience) to a downwind, the a (often) circular base leg, then to final approach. That's what I mean by the longer finals being unneeded when in the pattern.

 

BTW, this link lets you see a diagram and explanation of the overhead approach: https://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/aircraft-operations/approaches/overhead-approach-maneuver

 

It's far from a military only maneuver, though, and many people use it when appropriate, usually in getting a formation to land close together.

 

 

====================================================

** I love the comment by the narrator in that first video that we teach people to land by teaching them not to land. Hold it 6" off the ground and let the aircraft decide when to touch is really a great way to look at it, for the actual flare and touchdown, but that doesn't help you judge how to get the aircraft to that point.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

1 hour ago, lnuss said:

It's far from a military only maneuver, though, and many people use it when appropriate

Understanding an overhead approach can be quite beneficial for landing after power loss. One many not have the altitude to set up a traditional square pattern. The best field to land in may be directly under you. And extension of the 180 abeam is setting up a 360 (or more) pattern from a "key" position approximately 1 turn for 1000 feet of altitude to descend.

 

https://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/maneuvers-and-procedures/emergency/emergency-approach-and-landing

 

I still prefer a close downwind that allow for a 180 and roll wings level at touchdown. After flying into the break to downwind and then 180 and land, flying the rectangular pattern feels like I'm purposely being farther from the runway than I needed to be. It took a while to adjust to a rectangular pattern.

 

For any California pilots, Mohave has no problems if you request "the break."

[ViperPilot2]

All I'm saying is that Landing Procedures are a Perishable skill; if you're not doing it the right way to begin with, then it affects everything down the road.

 

I botch Landings all the time, even in Helicopters. I'm no Master at Landing... not by a long shot.

 

All this talk about Landing has me thinking... after the AU Rally is over, it's time for a Refresher. Back to School, and Landing practice!

[lnuss]

1 hour ago, PhrogPhlyer said:

For any California pilots, Mohave has no problems if you request "the break."

There are many other places that will allow that, too, traffic permitting, including the former Jefferson County, now Rocky Mountain Metropolitan near Denver.

[PhrogPhlyer]

55 minutes ago, ViperPilot2 said:

Back to School, and Landing practice!

Touch and goes (or circuit and bounces) are the staple of basic airmanship.

So many thing happening in a short period, then repeat.

[oneleg]

5 hours ago, lnuss said:

None of those videos you showed discussed the unmoving spot, though in the first one** you can see that, when they get to the runway (without mentioning the spot)  that the VASI lights are approximately unmoving, and everything else is either moving up or down, and you seemed a little vague on your answer.

You're probably right.  This is probably too much of an ask but wishing you can do a screen video cap to post on YouTube and show how you'd do it with Xtreme Prototypes' Learjet 25.

Two things I learned in this post so far:

1. Without realizing it, I now have a name for what I'm trying to do. I just don't know if the 'overhead approach' can be successful performed consistently in the game on a fully loaded business jet (which evolved from a fighter jet and needs to go fast to be maneuverable) flying a tight pattern and landing on a short runway (requires 5500 ft fully loaded but the runway is only 5000 ft).

2. The mention of the gear warning horn made me check the manual again. It turns out that while the switch *looks* like a non-animated 2-position toggle switch which only has two labels ('test' and 'mute'), it is actually a 3-position switch ('test', 'off', and 'mute').