CS's point was that a 60 degree bank is safer than skidding at a low altitude
Exactly! Neither is a really good idea, but IMHO a slow
skidding turn is more dangerous than a momentary 60
degree banked turn in a descent with the ball either
centered or sideslipping.
needing to do a 60 degree bank in the circuit represents poor planning and judgement
When a circuit gets that screwed up, I would hope that
an overshoot would be considered.
Never push a bad approach into a bad flare. Never push
a bad flare into a bad touchdown. Never push a
bad touchdown into a bad rollout. There are some Porter
pilots that fly into CYTZ that should think about this.
If you are a really hot stick, yes you can recover. But
if you're such a good pilot, how did you get so screwed
up in the first place?
With the 60 degree level turn you have a much higher stall speed
Congratulations. You have entirely missed the entire point of
this thread. During a turn onto base and final, I hope you aren't
level. You should be descending. Also, you might need to sideslip
to lose altitude during one or both of these turns. A sideslip involves
more than normal bank, and top rudder with the ball falling to the
inside of the turn.
The effect of NOT trying to maintain altitude, and potentially
also doing a sideslip, means that you are not anywhere near
+2G as you assume, with the associated 41% increase in stall
speed. In fact, your G might be slightly less than +1G during
this maneuver, which means that your stall speed is in fact
slightly less than published Vs!
My objective in this thread is NOT to encourage student pilots
to explode with a 90 degree banked singularity in the circuit.
Rather, the objective of this thread is to get people thinking
about the dangers of slow, skidding turns which result from
well-intentioned efforts to reduce bank in the circuit.
I would also hope that people start to realize, as I have
described over and over and over and over and over again
in this thread, that bank angle itself is not evil. It is not
like HepC, HIV, herpes or even genital warts. It doesn't
even make the top three (see page one) in terms of
considerations for a safe turn in the circuit.
It's all about the angle of attack. Think about the relative
airflow over the wing! The wing has no eyeballs. It does
not get scared at 60 degrees of bank. It always responds
exactly the same way, as described by it's Cl and Cd curves.
Limiting bank angle to 30 degrees in the circuit
Sigh. No.
I really, really wish that more aircraft had AOA indicators, because
that is what matters. Everything else is a proxy for AOA. You
will notice that the USN, which does some pretty serious aviating
doesn't care about approach speed on a carrier landing - all aircraft
are equipped with AOA indicators, and approach is flown at a
specified AOA.
When I am flying, I don't care about pitch/bank attitude. I don't
care about airspeed. I don't care where the ball is. I don't care
about control deflection. I don't care about power setting.
The only thing I care about is AOA, because that's the only thing
the wing cares about.
I find it astounding that so many people, who's lives depend on
the correct functioning of the wing, are completely disinterested
in it, and instead focus on all sorts of psychological considerations.