Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Shorten the long landing
Ground effect becomes significant below about one wingspan of height. A Cessna 172, with a 36 ft span, enters ground effect at flare height - the float it feels in the hold-off is ground effect arriving on cue. An A320, with a span around 117 ft, has been in ground effect since before the threshold and there is no sudden cushion to feel, only a gradual reduction in induced drag that lengthens any float you allow.
Read more in Flare TimingStart to finish · 19 stages, 17 scored
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Two stabilised approach gates, each with six checks at 1,000 ft and 500 ft above the runway.
Side view — the last 2,295 ft of the approach.
Plan view — the full 2,295 ft runway, to the same scale as the side view.
The 314 ft touchdown sits inside the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
The flight began with a departure roll from runway 28 at LFPA Persan-Beaumont Airfield, where the Spitfire Mk IX took off with a takeoff distance of 1,624 feet, which was 66% of the runway. The liftoff speed was 103 knots. The local weather conditions at the time of departure were characterized by a temperature of 61°F and a wind speed of 1 knot from 270°, resulting in a negligible crosswind and a slight headwind.
As the aircraft climbed to a higher altitude, it began its enroute climb from 844 feet above sea level (asl) to 2,702 ft asl, an increase of 1,858 feet in just 3 minutes, covering a distance of 1 nautical mile. This climb phase was followed by a series of enroute descents and level cruises, with the aircraft descending from 2,700 ft asl to 1,672 ft asl, a decrease of 1,028 feet in 3 minutes, covering 11 nautical miles. The aircraft then leveled off at various altitudes, including 1,218 ft asl and 297 ft asl, before beginning another climb phase from 297 ft asl to 2,050 ft asl, an increase of 1,753 feet in 3 minutes, covering 10 nautical miles.
The final climb phase began overhead Marolles-en-Hurepoix, where the aircraft climbed from 1,889 ft asl to 3,402 ft asl, an increase of 1,513 feet in 3 minutes, covering 10 nautical miles. The aircraft then began its descent from 3,373 ft asl to 596 ft asl, a decrease of 2,777 feet in 3 minutes, covering 4 nautical miles. The final approach to runway 24L at LFOX Aérodrome d'Étampes-Mondésir was made from the north-east, with the aircraft heading 237.0° at 1 nautical mile and 96 feet above ground level (agl).
The landing on runway 24L was characterized by a threshold speed that was excessively high at 221 knots, and a touchdown point that was excessively long, using more than 75% of the available runway. The touchdown speed of 92 knots was also too fast, and the touchdown rate was fair at -208 feet per minute (fpm). The runway touchdown position was slightly misaligned by 14 feet from the centreline. The local weather conditions at the time of landing were the same as at the time of departure, with a temperature of 61°F and a wind speed of 1 knot from 270°.
The total landing distance was 2,222 feet, which was 97% of the runway length. The runway rollout alignment was perfect. The total flight distance was 58 nautical miles, taking 29 minutes, and the aircraft used 248 pounds of fuel.
The Spitfire Mk IX aircraft successfully landed on runway 24L at LFOX Aérodrome d'Étampes-Mondésir, but the landing was not without its issues. The pilot's final approach to the runway from the north east, heading 237.0° at 1 nm and 96 ft above ground level (agl), was a good start. However, upon landing, the pilot encountered some problems.
The threshold speed was excessively high at 221 kt, which is above the recommended speed for landing. This could have put additional stress on the aircraft and may have affected its stability during the landing. Furthermore, the touchdown point was excessively long, using more than 75% of the available runway. This indicates that the pilot may have been a bit too cautious or may have misjudged the distance to the runway.
The touchdown speed of 92 kt was also too fast, which could have resulted in a longer landing distance and potentially put the aircraft at risk of overrunning the runway. On the other hand, the touchdown rate of -208 fpm was fair, indicating that the pilot was able to control the aircraft's descent effectively.
One of the most notable issues with the landing was the slight misalignment of the runway touchdown position, which was off by 14 ft from the centreline. This could have been due to a variety of factors, including wind or pilot error.
The local weather conditions were relatively calm, with a temperature of 61 °F and a wind speed of 1 kt at 270°. This suggests that the wind was not a significant factor in the landing, and the pilot should have been able to handle it effectively.
In terms of the overall landing distance, the aircraft used 2,222 ft, which is 97% of the available runway. This is a relatively long landing distance, but it was still within the limits of the runway. The runway rollout alignment was perfect, indicating that the pilot was able to control the aircraft effectively during the rollout phase.
Overall, while the landing was not perfect, the pilot was able to bring the aircraft safely to the ground. However, there are some areas for improvement, including reducing the threshold speed and touchdown speed, and improving the accuracy of the touchdown position.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values