M5 180C landing speeds

[DeltaRomeo]

I haven't had any luck finding specific numbers for the M5 180C approach speeds and find a lot of variance between what different Maule drivers find comfortable to use for themselves. I have been using 60-65 with decent results but in a video produced by Patrick Romano (his aircraft and photos are featured on Maule Air, Inc) who has an M7 260 (longer wing and more horsepower than my M5) he uses a 40 indicated approach with a blast of power at touch down to arrest the descent. I'm not sure my plane (or I) can get away with that but willing to learn where in the envelope it can. Any M5 drivers out there can share some experience?

[TomD]

Number one: I do not believe my airspeed indicator at low speeds.

That being said, something around 60 seems to work when not at gross on my M5. The rate of descent at very moderate angle of attack gets pretty high any slower than that and a "burst of power" saves on dental bills to reattach fillings.

The Maule will come down like an elevator in what is essentially a stall, but will arrive with way too high a descent rate for landing. You can make a very short landing this way, but power at the end is essential. Also you can get into a field that you cannot get out of using this method. If you mis-time the burst of power the arrival is "abrupt".

TD

[Rezrider]

My response is similar to Tom's. I use 60-65 MPH indicated on final but stop looking at my ASI the closer I get to the landing site.
I glance at the ground speed on the GPS to verify that the winds are doing what I thought they were.

I've tried slower than 60 but find that the angle of attack is higher and the Maule will tend to touch down tail first.
Also, at slower air speeds, the short wing M5 will tend to 'drop out' on you when you go to flare. A burst of power helps but timing has to be just right.

Patrick is one hell of a good pilot and bare in mind that his M7 also has extended gear and big tires to help with the angle of attack issue and possible firm arrivals. The M7 also has larger flaps which helps with the slower approach speeds. VG's help too from what I hear but I don't have them on my M5.

Go up and keep practicing and see what works for you, try it at different weights too.
Good luck, have fun and be safe.

[Brenton C]

I've watched all of those excellent videos by Pat, and had the good fortune to chat with him a bit, too. Regretably, I forgot to ask how one might use or adapt this back country short strip approach to standard runway conditions.

Why would I want to do that? After 2 ground loops, I like the idea of landing slower and with rapid deployment of brakes... If only for added directional control.

I ha en't ben able to find it since, but another member was a military pilot who also advocated a similar wings-level-with-horizon slow, steepish approach controlling descent with throttle.

If I ever get the chance, I'll bribe Pat to give me a lesson in the method. Meantime, Im using a less drastic version, which is coming in a little bit steep, short finalling at 60, with just a bit of power. Chop the power just before I round out for the wheel landing.

I've practiced it slower...round 55, but instread of a burst of power, I pitched nose down to increase lift that is needed to compensate the loss of power so far on the "back side."

[BamaMaule]

I think the post you may be referring to was written by Bob Bowen in Oct. 2009. I remembered the post and found it by searching posts by RBowen. I couldn't figure out how to copy the link here. Sorry. His post describes the Army short field technique of wings level with the horizon and controlling glide path with throttle. Interesting read.

As with others here, a slightly steeper than standard approach at 60-65mph with a little throttle at round out works for me.

Happy Thanksgiving!!

[Brenton C]

Thanks for that, Greg. That sounds right. I'll have a look.

[DeltaRomeo]

OK. Went out today and did some stall tests (4000') and found that THIS Maule M5 180C stalls at 49 mph, power off, 2nd notch (35 degrees) flaps. Maule Flight indicates this model aircraft stalls at 38 mph . SO, I'm no longer looking at trying to hit the 40 mph approach speed. Did a dozen or so landings and 50 is really pushing my luck; a hiccup in the power application to arrest the descent will produce a hard landing. It really looks like 60 is best to have some margin for a slight flare and relatively short landing. 55 is doable. Unless a better/more experienced Maule driver here can enlighten me... and any thoughts are appreciated.

[VA Maule]

Might be a good idea to have the Airspeed-O-Meator checked out.

[Brenton C]

Hi Dave,

That seems fast for a stall to me too. If you have an iPad, you could download Foreflight for 30 day free trial period-- and use the gps function to have your co pilot confirm your speedo readings.

I dont know about your engine, but a member here advised me that my 210 hp conti is prone to hesitate a bit when adding power from idle, so it was advised to keep just a tad of power all the way down, just incase of a need for instant-on rpms for the go-round.

[DeltaRomeo]

We do have ForeFlight (great app) and monitored our groundspeed against the winds aloft and the airspeed indicator was accurate at cruise speeds on a recent trip. Will be taking another trip this Friday and can check it again. I sure would like to pick Ray Maule's brain to see what I could be doing better; since he developed the chart I've been referring to. I can say all the other data on that chart I've been able to verify. I also noticed the stall horn/light never activated during my stall tests, but I did see it a couple times when landing between 50 and 55 mph but was at a high angle of attack at flare , , so I know it works.

[Mike Furcolow]

I'm all in with TomD; I don't rely too much on what the airspeed indicator says at low airspeeds/high angle of attack. What do ya do?--learn to feel that big lifty wing and what it's telling you.

How do you learn that? Lots of practice at slow flight--(at altitude of course). Take 'er up and slow 'er down to 70 w twenty degrees flap with just enough power to hold altitude. Look outside, not at the airspeed. Do a few turns, both ways, and feel that wing. Then slow it to 60 and full flaps, and do the same thing. It will take more throttle to hold a steady altitude, so be active with the throttle control. And here's the drill--control the sink rate with the throttle, and control the perceived airspeed with the elevator--forward lightly on the stick if it's getting mushy. This "behind the power curve" condition in what you are trying to learn to enable controlled flight at very low airspeed. You will also be learning to use your rudder for directional control proportionally much more that your ailerons in this condition. You must have some power on to control your descent rate or maintain altitude in this condition.

Do this, then do it some more, then go do it again and again until you can fly around confidently, feeling the lift in the wing and feeling when it's getting "soft" , automatically lowering the AOA for airspeed control and boosting or reducing power to maintain altitude. Now and only now, you are ready to try slower approach speeds.

Next, try lowering your "indicated" speed to 55, and use the throttle to let the plane descend at 300fpm on the VS indicator. Simulate an approach descent at 300fpm, then at the "flare point", boost in some more power to slow the descent rate right at the "touchdown". Do this a few times to get an idea of what kind of power input you need to round out the descent. Then when you go to the runway, you'll have a feel for it.

On the landing field, you may find that the plane will want to touch down tailwheel first at this high AOA. That's OK, but can result in a firm "slapdown" of the main gear. You can negate this (with practice) by pushing the nose down just a little as you are adding roundout power. Done perfectly, you'll touch down on the maingear first in a barely wheel-landing configuration. This allows better visibility over the nose, too. Don't jam the brakes just yet, let it roll on out. You'll be going so slow that brakes are just an added cushion at this point. Just always remember, use that rudder for directional control. When you get lots of hours, it'll be natural to you.

This is the drill that you need to learn before you go onto the "dark side" of very slow approach speeds. Don't get in a hurry to try it out before you feel your confidence in what you're learned. And, too, some pilots never get it. So be careful out there.

[DeltaRomeo]

Mike,

I suspect this technique would be good only in calm conditions. If the wind were gusty or crosswind, what modifications would you make in this approach?

[John Ashcroft]

I have been playing around with the approach speeds for a while now and have found the sweet spot to be just over 50kts just under 60mph and a steep low power approach and just feed in a little power in the flare this has produced the best reasonably short landings for me

[DeltaRomeo]

John,
What you said is what has been working for me too but what Mike is proposing is a little slower. My issue is that when I try this technique (at altitude) the target landing spot is visually through the floorboard between my feet because the nose is so high. Developing the skill to get the nose down at "roundout" altitude will take some practice. I just haven't developed the confidence to operate the plane to a target I can't see

I see highly modified bush planes doing this technique but they also have stall speeds in the 25 to 30 mph range whereas this M5 stalls at 49 mph. Thats a lot of forward energy.

[Brenton C]

Dave,


Unless I'm mistaken, I think you actually want to have a nose-down or even wings-near-level with the horizon attitude as you do this. So as you slow down, I guess you want to use power and flaps, rather than pitching up to avoid losing altitude right away.