RobertL18C wrote:
@Neil correct 43 CAS flaps down, 47 CAS flaps up – although no IAS/CAS table in most PA-18 types.
Mine doesn’t have a stall warner, but will gently nod at 35 mph IAS, and below with power, usually with a gentle wing drop.
Can I ask 35mph is with window open or closed? before or after lunch? 
‘95’ is about 40-45mph, I recall mixing that as 45kts (did not believe it was 37kts)
@Neil correct 43 CAS flaps down, 47 CAS flaps up – although no IAS/CAS table in most PA-18 types.
Mine doesn’t have a stall warner, but will gently nod at 35 mph IAS, and below with power, usually with a gentle wing drop.
On the shorter farm strips on a calm day 45 mph IAS is a comfortable approach speed, but am guessing CAS is probably 50 mph plus.
The ‘95’ Vs is 42 MPH no flaps by virtue of the lower MAUW.
RobertL18C wrote:
The Super Cub Vx is 45 mph IAS, 5 mph above Vs on a nice day
I thought Vs was 43mph? Anyway, I find climbing at less than 50mph in a Super Cub to be such a steep nose up attitude it scares me a little 
Some aircraft Vx is such a steep climb attitude that recovery from an EFATO is unlikely. At best you might push the nose over bringing the stall speed to below Vs due to approaching zero G, only to stall/lose control as gravity re establishes itself.
The Super Cub Vx is 45 mph IAS, 5 mph above Vs on a nice day.
Airborne_Again wrote:
If you are taking off in a SEP towards a wall — as you put it — and the engine quits it doesn’t really matter if you’re flying at Vx or Vy. It’s going to end badly either way.
In engine failure scenario, yes it does not matter which one you fly but I think I am better staying in between, the initial point was on excess of speed to flare or recover from a stall, I really don’t think Vx = 56kts on a C172 does give any of that
Airborne_Again wrote:
But if you’re making a deadstick landing your expectation is to do a normal touchdown. In that situation you need enough energy to flare and with 60 kt nose down at 300 ft you may not have that.
Yes maybe 300ft is not enough to break 1200fpm rate of decent at 60kts power-off but then I was not that high enough to slow down that much?
Short field approach speed for 40deg flaps on a C172 is done at 60kts but obviously breaking the rate of decent with the power not extra height or flaring
magyarflyer wrote:
On the brake I lower the gear first and second the flaps but my then the engine has been at landing power which already is cooling down the engines, in the rv-8 you have to slow down to 80 Its, in the Evo 110 but the turbines are not affected by shock cooling
(Joke) I was told to warm up engine in PFLs anytime there are serious doubts we are not making the selected field, it helps keeping engine temps and pilot moral up
On PFL techniques, my guess all of them should reasonably work when you have sufficient height/runway, say 3000ft agl/3000ft runway in hands of an average pilot, but all of them will miserably fail with no exception when you don’t have that even in experts hands, I would be impressed if someone can show consistency for 500ft agl/500ft runway even in STOL Super Cubs (anything bellow 500ft is dead ahead for me with same chances as CAPS), any pilot should just find his technique limits on his aircraft, I am personally not happy about less than 1500ft agl/1500ft runway on touring machines on any “prescribed technique”, engine failure 500ft-1500ft with 1500ft length patch does keep me awake during the night, mostly excess of energy when high on final and stall under tight maneuvering to get there, but it still not worth buying CAPS for me
I found it difficult to make 2500ft HK from a downwind engine failure at 1000ft
Ibra wrote:
So you think flying a C172 at 56kts nose 12deg up high power when low at 50ft is a great idea (what if the engine quits?) while flying at 60kts nose down power off when you are at 300ft is dangerous, I really fail to see the logic ?
If you are taking off in a SEP towards a wall — as you put it — and the engine quits it doesn’t really matter if you’re flying at Vx or Vy. It’s going to end badly either way.
But if you’re making a deadstick landing your expectation is to do a normal touchdown. In that situation you need enough energy to flare and with 60 kt nose down at 300 ft you may not have that.
So I am flying along in a DA40 at 3000 ft and suddenly the engine goes pop, bang, nothing. I immediately trim for Vbg around 70knts. According to the POH my glide ratio is approx 10 to 1 therefore I can glide at Vbg for around 5nm. But I strike lucky and there is a field immediately ahead into wind of around 10knts. I am over the beginning of the field and start my stopwatch, 30 seconds later I reach the end of the field, I now know that this field is approx 1000metres long, I am now still above 2500 ft at Vbg, I turn crosswind then onto downwind I am now at 2000 ft. As the aircraft is trimmed I have the brain space to take a good look at the field surface and check for obstacles. I choose an aiming point some 100 metres into the field, to make allowance for the wind. At halfway along the downwind my brain starts questioning whether or not I can make it although I am still at around 1500ft. But despite or because of having trained at an airfield where I have started and engine off at 1500 to 2000 ft vertical the midway point, instead of continuing the downwind on the reciprocal of the QFU, I turn 30 degrees towards the runway/field.Are there any power lines, telephone lines trees to hamper my approach. If so I can adapt my aiming point . As my aiming point appears at the trailing edge of the wing I turn base I am at around 1000ft, if I am higher I will do a proper base leg, if lower I will continue the turn onto final. First stage flap might help here. My normal approach speed with full flaps is 70knt, but I will delay adding full flaps until the earliest short final as on the Da40 full flaps is like hard braking. If full flaps are not enough to lose enough height to land at my aiming point, I will S or sideslip. Which depends on how I see the situation on the day, I’m not sure myself why I choose one over the other on the day.
Basically this was the way I was trained, in both SEP taildraggers and tricycle gear. And also precautionary landings MEP, although in this case it is not power off and choose normal approach speeds.
I don’t see anything wrong with it, its the same as Pooleys and the description by Capitaine and has served me well on the 2 occasions when it was needed.
Some of the figures above may not be totally accurate they are off the top of my head I have not consulted the POH before writing.
Minimum sink is very close to Vs and in modest turbulence you will be exploring the stall regime. Minimum sink and 60 degree bank as described in the article is a contradiction in terms, at least in our current understanding of aerodynamics:)
/#100 The 360 Degree Overhead Approach – TailWheelersJournal.com.html
a visual description of the above
to Peter regarding reciprocating engine cooling down
except for the warbird landing technique (we recovered close to 200 T-6 SNJ-5’s at Oshkosh for the 50 anniversary of this tranining plane and we did in about 30 minutes for the entire flight) where we are using 2000 RPM to make a lot of noise, and then cut the power, the general aviation airplanes benefit from having the airplane in landing configuration that is slow enough to come and land. On the brake I lower the gear first and second the flaps but my then the engine has been at landing power which already is cooling down the engines, in the rv-8 you have to slow down to 80 Its, in the Evo 110 but the turbines are not affected by shock cooling. But the point is that you have to slow down to be able to put it in the numbers, othwerwise you find overshooting the point of touch down which should be the numbers on the airport giving you plenty of time to round out for the landing. I always end up modifying the turn based on winds. Another benefit is that you get great visualization of the traffic since you are doing an 180 degre turn to see all traffic around you.
