From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re:  overhead approach
To: lml
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:44:57 -0500
Message-ID: <web-2898650@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <LAW15-F102mmRpVgRdc000048a0@hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Andres Katz" <bucker131@hotmail.com>:

on the subject of overhead approaches I agree with all contributors and have 
my 2 cents to add. I have been using this approach frequently and after 800 
hrs on my T-6 have honed the maneuver well. there are some do's and dont's 
that i have accumulated over the years. Having been witness to at least 2 
fatal accidents during airshows while doing formation flying there is one 
major flaw to the overhead approach that no one has discussed. my T-6 in level 
flight stalls at 85 knots, during the brake for the overhead some suggest a 
sharp bank to 80-90 degrees. If the conditions are such that one ends up short 
of the runway due to quartering winds or miscalculation in the turn, loading 
the wing by pulling on the stick will immediately lead to a stall condition. 
Under no circumnstances one should be put in a position to require +G on the 
plane. The T-6 on a 90 degree bank stalls at 240 kts, the maximum cruise speed 
for the airplane is 160 knts full power, therefore there is not enough power 
to prevent a stall if one loads the wing. I have committed this mistake once 
in my life at low altitude during a break and once the knee shaking stopped 
God was kind enough to keep me alive. The stall was vicious and the spin entry 
was prevented by full stick forward and barely avoiding the ground. The IV-P I 
am sure (I have not attempted this maneuver at altitude since I do not like 
the stall characteristics of the IV-P) will also have a vicious entry into 
this maneuver. Therefore when aiming for the high point one preferably will be 
in the initial, lined up with the runway and the break should be gentle, 50-60 
degrees at the most, power off after the turn and the turn should be (in 
practice) 500 feet after the threshold so undershooting does not occur. It is 
preferable to land long than short to avoid getting into the above situation. 
One needs at least 2500 on the IV-P as demostrated by Charlie K who instructed 
me well on this maneuver. The break allows one a great view of the entire 
traffic area and the runway and there is opportunity for avoiding traffic by 
modifying the circle appropiately. I am able to cut the power off on the t-6 
and make a 3 point landing 95% of the time with excellent stability as long as 
the stick is pushed down. (-g). the IV-P needs at least 2500 feet and gear and 
flaps should be up with the prop feathered to make the runway since it glides 
like a brick. The problem is that one cannot practice this unless the field is 
not active. if there is traffic around one gets in the way. Most civilian 
pilots do not understand the concept of an overhead approach. If there is a 
plane waiting to take off they usually will cut on the approach since they do 
not understand that once the break occurs landing will follow almost 
immediately. After multiple encounters with the other guys in my field, 
Mesquite, someone complained to the FAA about my overhead approaches. The 
answer was direct and from the FAA, the letter was posted for along time at 
the field. overhead approaches are safe, they provide an excellent way to land 
and they encourage the use of such technique
andres 18ak close to 200 hrs and still going