So this is something I think we'll have to wait for MSFS 2024 to get realistic handling where ground friction and controllability is concerned. Until wheels are 3d physics objects and not points, and until friction scalars are tuned properly, there's just no way to get demonstrably accurate results. On a wet runway at 80 knots with wings still generating lift, you're going to have 0 braking action. You shouldn't be stopping in under 5000 feet, let alone 1000.

 

 

14 hours ago, TacomaSailor said:

TEST Results:

IF I land the Reims Rocket C 172 at 80 knots IAS with a descent rate of less than 50 fpm (hard to do in gusty winds) - I can easily stop in less than 1000' no matter how wet the runway.  My problem was caused by the tendency of the Reims 172 to bounce if the VS at touchdown exceeds 100 fpm.  It REALLY bounces, (VS ~120 fpm at touchdown),  getting back up to 30-feet and then is impossible to settle back to the runway.  My original post was based on landing in very heavy weather with limited visibility.  I did not realize that the plane was bouncing so far off the runway.

Much testing (FStart is great for this type testing) in a standard C-172 and the Reims rocket shows a significant difference in the landing characteristics of the two planes.  The base C-172 does not bounce very much at a touchdown VS of 100 fpm where the Reims bounds back into the sky.

AND, my testing indicates that landing even the standard C172 on a very wet runway results in much longer runouts due to poor braking. 

I'd imagine you are glad you spent your time testing things for yourself instead of reading all of the irrelevant bickering between posters trying to out-theorize each other. Nice work 🙂.

On 6/30/2023 at 5:21 PM, TacomaSailor said:

Flying the Reims Rocket Cessna 172 into KORS (Orcas Island - US San Juan Islands at Canadian border).  The thunderstorm I waited for moved from over the airport but left it soaked.  I landed on Rwy 35 with touchdown @ 80 knots IAS with a 25 knot headwind and mostly clear skies.  That gives me a groundspeed of about 55 knots at touchdown?

In 1900-feet of runway I could only get the IAS down to 47 knots and slid off the runway into the beach and saltwater with a groundspeed of maybe 15 mph.  I was braking heavily but had no indication of hydroplanning - the 172 just would not slow down. It stayed straight  on the runway but brakes seemed worthless.

Is this something that would happen in real life?  

I was afraid to land at a lower speed because I had encountered a lot of windshear on the prior attempt and on final during this failed landing(sudden loss of 20-knots IAS).

Remember 172s and most GA birds don't have anti skid, so more than likely you just locked the wheels up and were skidding on non rolling tires. Even in the airliner I fly for a living landing on wet runways it takes longer to get stopped with anti skid

What bothers me most is that the braking / friction is just all wrong. Yesterday I was able to stop the 737 at 60t landing weight within 3000 feet (!) on a wet runway. That's plain ridiculous.

32 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

What bothers me most is that the braking / friction is just all wrong. Yesterday I was able to stop the 737 at 60t landing weight within 3000 feet (!) on a wet runway. That's plain ridiculous.

We're you standing on the brakes or just on them lightly. I know for a fact a fully loaded E175 will stop in about 2000ft

1 hour ago, z06z33 said:

We're you standing on the brakes or just on them lightly. I know for a fact a fully loaded E175 will stop in about 2000ft

I was standing on the brakes, yes, because it was a 6000ft runway and perf calculations said I should use max manual.