The flare

[9 lives]

We've had lots of good talk about landings lately. The flare is a part of the landing, which deserves special mention, and always, more attention.

Nearly all landings are the gentle termination of a descent toward the surface. So we're going down, then we want to pretty well stop going down. Doing this actually requires an acceleration upward, if you think of it, as you were going down at a stable speed, now you don't want to be going down anymore, so accelerate upward a bit.

That acceleration upward will require the application of control, and some energy. That energy usually should come from bleeding off that last bit of airspeed to the point of a stall. So, you have to have the excess speed to bleed off. If you don't, a frantic, and uncool application of lots of power will usually do it too, but that's a messy way, and depends upon your engine jumping to life at the instant you expect. So, let's just focus on the "not adding power" method.

Very simply, you're going to determine the precise moment, and apply some pitch up. As the plane slows, and settles, you're going to apply more and more pitch up, until you run out of control, or flying - ideally, both at the same time!

So the flare, is a deliberate acceleration upward. The pilot will have to command that. To get the acceleration, you'll have to give up energy. You may have read me harping on having a few extra knots on climb away, in case of EFATO. Those extra knots are the energy you would like to have to flare with. Without it, you're not going to achieve the desired acceleration upward, and a expensive thump will result.

On the opposite side, you can use considerable power to stretch a flare into an indefinitely long event - as long as the landing surface gives you room. But, use caution, as this can get you close to banging the tail, or drifting off to the side, if there is any crosswind. You can also stretch a flare, by arriving over the threshold of a long runway with bags of extra speed, and simply reducing any remaining power steadily, as you raise the nose, and hold your position inches above the runway centerline. At some point around the stall, you're going to have a very nice landing - it's the distance down the runway which will be uncertain.

Or, back to the fully power off flare. It's going to happen quickly, and therefore in a pretty predictable place along the runway. As test pilot John Farley has written, "point the plane at the runway, and that's where you'll crash if you do nothing". The flare is just something to prevent the crash!

Give the flare more thought, as its own enjoyable aspect of landing, rather than just that brief scary time between flying and thumping on! If you learn to savour it, you'll get better at it....

[foxmoth]

I always split the landing into three parts, the approach, flare and then the hold off. The flare is the bit where, as you say you stop the aircraft descending, yes this takes a little energy and will bleed a little speed off, but normally the approach will be at Vs + 1/3 so once the flare is complete then you will still have plenty of speed in hand above Vs and ideally you will then hold off until Vs+ a couple of knots. Where many pilots go wrong is that they seem to think it is - flare/land and it all happens together, the flare is a very short phase (1sec or less) but the hold off should normally be a number of seconds. IMHO it is by considering flare and landing as one thing where many go wrong.

[Pace]

Normally

We fly a VREF speed of 1.3 times the stall speed in a given configuration this allows enough surplus energy over the stall with a closed throttle to transition from a descent to a touchdown.
That could theoretical be 1.4 or 1.2 above the stall speed in a given configuration.

The slower the touchdown speed the shorter the landing distance.
the idea of HOLDING OFF has a question mark over it as in certain situations in crosswinds or down draughts the last thing you want to be doing is holding off 10 feet above the runway.

Often you will fly the aircraft onto the deck with no holding off
the FLARE can be a a large movement yet there again it can be no more than a wrist jerk.

We are taught the conventional landing to land as close to the stall as possible with as smooth a touchdown as possible pulling back and back till eventually the aircraft sinks onto the runway at or near the stall but often this isn't always the best way and may not be the best way on a long runway or the wrong conditions to favour that method.

Landing is to make contact with a hard surface with as little descent rate as possible i.e. so the aircraft remains intact

I posted before about an accident at Edinburgh where a pilot I know had control problems in a Citation! He landed at a radar determined speed of 200 kTS way above the the normal VREF speed of 105 KTS and the tyre limiting speed, but the aircraft stopped and was intact and HE LANDED

i have posted this as there are so many misconceptions about landing and the only way is not the way we are taught as new pilots

Pace

[foxmoth]

holding off 10 feet above the runway.

If you are doing that you are too high

Often you will fly the aircraft onto the deck with no holding off
Whilst in a big aircraft that approaches with a positive nose attitude you will get away with this, most low hour pilots will not and it is often the cause of nosewheel accidents, with practice I agree that it can be a better way in some conditions, and really you are still doing a hold off but with a more positive descision of when to put it on the ground, but to do it properly you need to ensure the correct attitude on touchdown.

Try sitting where you can see the threshold and watch people land, you will see many flare and land instantly, nearly all putting all three wheels on at once or even nosewheel first, it is surprising how few actually land properly on the mains with the nosewheel held off.:eek:

[Pace]

Try sitting where you can see the threshold and watch people land, you will see many flare and land instantly, nearly all putting all three wheels on at once or even nosewheel first, it is surprising how few actually land properly on the mains with the nosewheel held off.

foxmoth

This has a lot to do with the distance between the nose wheel and mains short coupled and a larger degree pitch up is required to move the nose wheel clear.
longer coupled like the citation and probably only a couple of degrees change is required but even singles like the Saratoga have a decent distance between the nose wheel and mains.
Looking at passenger jets and the distance is obviously huge while some tiny aircraft have hardly any spacing between the two and are not really bad weather aircraft.

The above comments you placed shows how many cannot really land properly and you have to question the instruction and many do sit there in crosswinds holding off at 10 feet :ugh:

pace

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I think one of the big advantages of learning to fly tail wheel aeroplanes is they will not tolerate sloppy flare / hold-off technique. If you bang your C172 into the ground on all 3 at once as many do, it'll just land (until the day the nose-leg gives up the unequal struggle - see the AAIB reports every month). A layman watching might even applaud it as a good landing! A pilot will wince!

Try banging your tail wheel aeroplane down without a full hold-off and it'll bounce nose-high (if a tri-gear is bounced, it bounces nose-low so is self correcting until the nose leg snaps). A nose-high bounce has to be corrected by the pilot, as if he does nothing the second subsequent bounce will be a lot worse, and the third will probably break the aeroplane.

I think of the hold-off (at least in a benign wind) as 'trying not to land'. Just keep easing back until, despite you best efforts, the thing touches down.

[skyhighfallguy]

I understand that the Handley Page Victor Bomber would flare itself as the wing entered ground effect prior to the high t tail.

And since this is a euro centric sort of forum, I thought that would be amusing to some here.


I look at a FLARE as the same as :

1. Bringing your automobile to a stop at a stop sign.


2. Hopping off an escalator at the bottom of your ride.

Wolfgang Langweishe's discussion of the "Stall Down Landing" in his book ("Stick and Rudder") is perhaps the best understanding of the flare over the larger area.


The flare regime has been noted to be the time the airplane enters its level of ground effect (EG half the wing span). One mistake about the flare is to completely and totally stop the descent. While acceptable in smaller planes, simply reducing the sink rate by 1/2 should allow you to be FLARED while not using the entire runway.

[Pace]

SSD

I totally agree and those who fly taildraggers have to know how to land!

Sadly many students and PPLs don't and landings are wishful thinking rather than being in total control and responding to every move with the correct control inputs.

Whether thats poor instruction or a lack of natural ability or a mixture of both I don't know :(

Pace

[dkatwa]

I used to find landings OK at best....I mean, I was just happy to land rather than relishing the challenge....maybe it is lack of experience more than anything....I, like many, have not flown since getting my licence...long story but there you have it...PPL is still current and I really need to get back up in the air

[Pace]

Dkatwa

And the point when you can land an aeroplane is the point that you can land without thinking about it, the point that you enjoy the procedure rather than seeing it as something which fills you with trepidation. Something which you feel in total control of rather than it being in control of you.

That is partially experience but IMO partially instruction where more should be put into the understanding of controls and your natural input into those controls as well as being made to feel comfortable operating near the ground rather than just churning out standard circuits and landings.

pace

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The problem is quite simple.

If there are this many pilots that do not understand the basics of how to land an airplane then the only real explanation is the flight training industry needs a complete overhaul, if instructors are ignorant of the subject how in hell can they teach it?

[skyhighfallguy]

Well, I guess we will have to wait for Chuck Ellsworth to write a book to save the whole industry.

[9 lives]

The flare is the bit where, as you say you stop the aircraft descending, yes this takes a little energy and will bleed a little speed off, but normally the approach will be at Vs + 1/3 so once the flare is complete then you will still have plenty of speed in hand above Vs and ideally you will then hold off until Vs+ a couple of knots.

The amount of the flare required to arrest the descent will be to some degree dependent upon the amount of descent. If you have an EFATO, you will be gliding at a steeper approach angle, and perhaps with less opportunity to establish a good glide speed. As I have mentioned, the 182 amphibian, at 3350 GW likes a glide approach at 80 KIAS, and 12 degrees. That's a lot of "down" to accelerate to level. Thus, there could be much more energy used, so you complete the flare much closer to stall speed, which is okay, it'll just result in a rather brief hold off phase. I certainly have done power off landings where no hold off was done, flare, and you've landed.

The point is to understand that the flare is the portion of the landing where you trade your stored energy into acceleration upward, to arrest the descent. Did you store enough energy for that?

[rnzoli]

Did you store enough energy for that?
That also depends on the descent rate, doesn't it?

Once I managed to scare myself where the strong headwind on the approach reduced significantly close to the runway threshold. I lowered the nose to keep the airspeed up as before, but this increased my descent rate significantly. As a result, the flare was the shortest ever experienced, pulled the nose up and the wheels contact the ground immediately (tailwheel too). It was quite smooth, but got me thinking about what if I flare a bit higher, there was no energy reserve for correcting anything.

[foxmoth]

And the normal technique for a glide approach is to use a slightly higher speed on approach for just this reason (plus lack of slipstream effect in a glide gives a reduced elevator effectiveness). Quoting aircraft like the Amphibian 182 and Paces Citation is fine, but certainly low hour PPLs and students (which is where most of the discussion you refer to in your origionaly post comes from) are unlikely to be operating these and techniques used there are IMHO not helpful to those pilots!

[Pace]

Foxmoth

I didn't think this was the student pilots forum :ok: There are PPLs who vary from those who only fly nice days to those who use their PPL in anger.
we have a number of threads going which basically cover the same subject some by a students and others which have developed into other areas of landing techniques.

There are also misconceptions about landing which should be addressed because some PPLs do fly IMC in anger, i have over 3000 hours in piston twins in some weather I would rather not talk about :E

I like most here am still learning from the real guys I admire like Chuck BPF and many more including your good self . I am sure we all have things to learn :ok:
Its only by dissecting these subjects that we find out things we did not know

Pace

[mary meagher]

Step Turn, one phrase you have used does bother me: "you trade your stored energy into acceleration upward, to arrest the descent".....

The image that phrase brings to mind would be a descent to a point where your wheel - or main gear - is two feet above the tarmac. Followed by acceleration upward? now the wheel(s) are say ten feet above the tarmac.... if that happened I would expect a painful arrival. Could you please clarify this point? Sounds like the maneuver, unintentional, that we call a balloon!

[Pace]

Mary I would have added your name as pilots I learn from :ok:
Really it all comes back to a phrase rarely used by instructors called energy management yet should be the most important phrase in our dictionary and involves a number of control and power inputs all blended to achieve a result.
When those instructors argue pitch for speed or power for speed or holding off till the aircraft stalls onto the runway it bothers me a lot :ugh:

Pace

[skyhighfallguy]

Pace, you mention energy management. I mentioned how flaring was like bringing a car to a stop at a stop sign, and it is all about energy.

A graceful stop at a stop sign (in a car), is well planned out to reduce energy (by various means) by a certain point, isn't that what a flare does?

You get rid of the energy for flight and end up with a touchdown at the right place in minimal energy .

Now, sometimes, in drastic conditions (high wind, turbulence, or the myriad of evils we face in the sky) you land with more energy as a reserve for the unknown, or to compensate for the mass of your plane vs the response of the engine. But it is the same sort of thing. timing, energy, skill, and perhaps luck or good fortune in reading the unknowns (as above).

[barit1]

Chuck Ellsworth:The problem is quite simple.

Neglecting complications like wind, etc. it's running out of airspeed and altitude simultaneously with arrival at the intended touchdown zone.

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Pace,

Now you've got me worried: please enlighten me.

...or holding off till the aircraft stalls onto the runway it bothers me a lot.

I was taught specifically to do this fifty-five years ago by an ex RAF instructor who had spent much of the war flying heavy, multi-engined tail-draggers. (I myself was learning in an Auster Autocrat J1 tail-dragger).

Subsequently, I flew in a Chipmunk on occasion with two or three more ex RAF pilots (although one of these had been trained during the war by the US Navy at Pensacola and another by the USAAF in Arizona). All these guys landed in this fashion. None of them commented when I landed in this fashion.

In fact it was only in the mid naughties that anybody even commented to me on this practice. That was at one specific flying establishment where the chief instructor, who closely controlled training standards, was someone most of whose professional career had been on fast jets.

So is there some objection to holding off, that has only come to light in recent years, that I haven't heard about? What's wrong with holding off until the aircraft stalls onto the runway?

Please advise.

BP.

[Pace]

So is there some objection to holding off, that has only come to light in recent years, that I haven't heard about? What's wrong with holding off until the aircraft stalls onto the runway?

Nothing wrong with holding off on a nice calm day when the birds are singing the sun is shining and you have a nice long runway and it doesn't matter if you hit the numbers:ok:

A bit different when the wind is 90 degrees across 10 KTS gusting 25 KTS with wind shear :E

Horses for courses as they say ;)

whose professional career had been on fast jets. ( I bet that instructor didn't hold those off )

There are many ways to land an aircraft some pretty some not so pretty but as in any aspect of flying you should have the skills to dip into what ever the conditions require not just one and it could be that HOLDING OFF is the very worst thing you can do. We are conditioned to land at or near the stall great the stopping distance will be good but pretty pointless if you have used up 1/3 of the runway getting to that stage or if a down draught means your stall happens sooner than you would like :{

Pace

[foxmoth]

Broomstick,
I think you will find you are not actually stalling it on - I have flown Chippie, Auster a number of Moths and many other taildraggers. If you stall these aircraft you will find that they show the classic stall symptoms of light buffet before the stall, also the nose has been higher at the stall than the three point attitude,on the occasions this has happened on landing it has NOT been a good one but a drop on from a few inches and you certainly notice the difference. A good landing is slightly above the stall, but only just, at this point the drag is increasing more rapidly and lift increasing at a very low rate with increased AoA and if you get it right lets the aircraft descend at just the right rate for a smooth landing.

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Pace,

Thank you for replying so promptly.

A bit different when the wind is 90 degrees across 10 KTS gusting 25 KTS with wind shear

Under those conditions, I was taught to use a wheeler landing following from either a crabwise or a wing down approach.

The ex-fast jets chief instructor by contrast taught me, when landing cross wind, to approach with into-wind wing down and then do a two-point landing onto my into-wind main U/C member and tail-wheel. A method I had never even seen before and now consider safe only for light to nearly moderate cross winds.

I also consider this method to have been largely responsible for the very first ground loop I ever experienced as when doing it I was caught by a cross-wind gust when my tail was down in a landing attitude. This meant I had reduced rudder authority with which to keep straight and I was unable, when power was applied, to accelerate anywhere nearly as quickly as would have been possible had I been tail-up doing a wheeler.

I bet that instructor didn't hold those off

My point precisely Pace. When it comes to the advisability of 'holding off' I prefer to accept what I was taught by a WW2 Wellington pilot rather than someone whose Hunter/Javelin/Lightning didn't need to be held off and who, when I asked to revise wheelers, just walked away.

Foxmoth.

Thank you for your very interesting comment. After careful thought I am beginning to think that perhaps this whole subject is rather a nice point; (using the word 'nice' in its proper meaning). Like you, I too have flown the Tiger Moth and as we both know when landing you release the wing slats so that they can open and allow your wing angle of attack to increase beyond the normal 15 or so degrees at which it should otherwise stall. The slats being effectively sucked out as the stall process commences.

Hitherto I should have said that this proves that the condition of the wing when touching down is stalled. Especially with straight wings (well the upper main-plane anyway) which have a gradual stall characteristic, so perhaps the stall is indeed still incomplete as you first touch down for a three point landing. But this still doesn't dissuade me from holding off when landing as long as the wind is pretty near straight down the runway.

Thanks guys.

BP.

[Pace]

BP

What works for you :ok: In Geneva a few weeks ago flying the Citation I wanted a chairmans landing for the PAX and with that huge runway I too held the jet off to get a touchdown where you could not even feel the aircraft touch. Admiring glances from the PAX on what was great conditions to do that and an easy landing.

Much harder at night with severe windshear and crosswinds and driving rain where a much more skill full landing is required and a firmer arrival with no admiring glances from the PAX :E
Oh well PAX know little and ask why the wings are going up and down on the approach rather than rock steady on the easy day ))

Pace

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Just to confirm that when you 3-point a Chippie (gradually increasing AoA close to the ground until it sinks on gently despite further back stick) the aeroplane is not stalled. It's getting close, hence the sink and the 'no climb with further back stick', but it hasn't reached buffet, let alone departure.

A nose-higher attitude than 3-point is required to achieve that.

I understand not many aeroplanes reach the stall angle at 3-point. One that does is the Rapide, which can tip-stall with its elegant wing shape so is generally wheeled on (never flown a Rapide, but a guy who did told me this).

[foxmoth]

this still doesn't dissuade me from holding off when landing as long as the wind is pretty near straight down the runway.

I should hope not and was certainly not what I was suggesting! A Taildragger properly three pointed will normally be close enough to the stall that it is generally not going to get flying again, that can of course happen in very gusty conditions and as you say is when a wheeler landing that is placed onto the runway when you are ready may be the better option.:ok:

[Discorde]

Just to confirm that when you 3-point a Chippie (gradually increasing AoA close to the ground until it sinks on gently despite further back stick) the aeroplane is not stalled. It's getting close, hence the sink and the 'no climb with further back stick', but it hasn't reached buffet, let alone departure.

A nose-higher attitude than 3-point is required to achieve that.

Correct. Also the stall is delayed by the enhanced lift deriving from ground effect.

[Piper.Classique]

A wheeled on landing with conventional gear happens quite a lot above stalling speed.
Mr Langweisch talks about plastering it on, which is a pretty good description of what you are doing.

[Pace]

We still talk of stalling it on or being just above the stall as if this was a requisite of landing an aircraft? It maybe the norm and I don't dispute that but an aircraft can be flown on!

At or near the stall will obviously use up less of the runway as long as you hit the numbers but there are conditions where you really do not want to be in the air near the stall!

I gave a ridiculous but real situation where a pilot landed a Citation with a radar determined landing speed of 200 KTS when it's normal VREF was 105 KTS
They remained on the runway intact at Edinburgh

Ok ridiculous situation to make a point but one which disaccociates the idea of at or near the stall as the only way to land an aircraft

Pace

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

If you 'wheel' a Chippie on tail high, you are a very long way from stall AoA at the point of touchdown.

[9 lives]

I agree that a "flare" in a taildragger wheel landing, or flying boat landing is a much different event than in a tricycle aircraft. Indeed, in my taildragger, there will be no flare, I will wheel it on every time, and on contact, the stick goes fully forward, and is held there until I taxi off. This does result in a longer rollout, but not so as to be a problem in 1400 feet of runway, without using brakes.

The flare is pronounced, if from a power off approach, but the flare will not be followed through to a stall landing, but rather arrest descent, then fly it on.

Similarly, if you flare and stall on a flying boat, you're in for a ride. It'll work, but it will be messy. Once on the water, the stick goes well forward, and is held until the plane settles into displacement.

I did do testing in a modified Caravan, which required three point landings, so there was little flare. That was rather uncomfortable, and I eventually demonstrated that a stall landing was possible without banging the protruding mod, so the original landing technique was specified.

But, in the context of improving landing technique, getting to know the flare better, an being comfortable there is a good thing. For me, in any single Cessna, the landing will be full flap, an as close to full stall as I can get, regardless of the wind. If the crosswind is so strong that I cannot hold position as intended during landing, I won't land. I have no recollection of ever given up a landing due to a crosswind.

[mary meagher]

The flare. or roundout, some calls it. Aim at the ground but don't bend the aircraft! Taildraggers vs nosewheel, landing on water, managing microlights...

This critical maneuver need practice, lots of practice. It is a LOT easier to manage now they have stuck the little wheel on the front instead of the back!
So Piper and Cessna and most airliners could then install, instead of a stick attached to ailerons and elevator, a WHEEL - or yoke - so the nervous pilot could imagine it was as simple as driving a car, and felt more at ease.

The more landings the better, so the cheapest way to become proficient is to learn at a gliding club with winch launches costing as little as £8 each. I couldn't even imagine how many landings I have carried out over the past 38 years....and yet in my dear old Supercub taildragger, still got it wrong on my very last power flight, when delivering it over to White Waltham. In front of the entire congregation there, with the WW CFI sitting in the back seat, something went wrong with the flare, or whatever, and it BOUNCED.

As I learned on gliders, going around is not an option in my kinetic memory, so I just kept things more or less level and waited until GOFER settled down in a reasonable fashion. The CFI in the back seat refrained from comment.
The critics sitting round in the sunshine smiled knowingly. How embarassing.

All those landings and still bounced the last one!

[Pilot DAR]

All those landings and still bounced the last one!

That's just 'cause the sky was not ready to give you up yet Mary! ;)

[Big Pistons Forever]

All those landings and still bounced the last one!

That is because airplanes have a sense of humour.........Unfortunately it is a cruel sense of humour. :ouch:

[skyhighfallguy]

another way of looking at the flare:


OFF of a stablized power on approach, as the plane's wings are entering ground effect, reduce power , but pitch to maintain the desired flight path, trading speed for the distance you need to cover. The nose is coming up and if properly timed you touch down in the proper attitude.

for this purpose, half the wingspan should be considered the distance where ground effect comes into play.

[9 lives]

Ground effect often comes into play. I generally see it as being something which has to be dealt with, rather than being beneficial - sort of like a crosswind.

If you have chosen to carry power into the flare, closing the throttle as you enter ground effect for that aircraft type can have pleasing results, but takes good familiarity with the type. The purist in me says that carrying power down the latter stages of final approach will distract the pilot from learning the feel of that aircraft. Certainly some approaches call for power, usually based on traffic, and the traffic pattern, but don't overlook the benefits in skill development from practicing power off final and flare, when the operating environment permits.

The differences in the response of a type to ground effect are worthy of awareness. Types like a Tomahawk, Ercoupe and light Cherokees react to it, for obvious reasons. This may make bounced landings more common in these types. On the other end of the scale, in a heavy Cessna amphibian on a runway, there is little effect - perhaps part of the reason these types seem to suffer more hard landings.

[mary meagher]

Flying a rented 3 seat Piper (so not exactly a Cub, but sort of looked like one)
with an instructor to check me out in it, on approach in a 20 mph wind to a short runway at the local Annapolis Maryland Airport, a few years back....

Whichever model Cub it was, the speed was stately, to put it mildly. Possible ground speed say 50 mph? Cars on the road below passing us in droves.
And suddenly so did a US Navy trainer, fed up with hanging on the prop behind such slowpokes. Rather rude, I thought, cutting in front of somebody on final without warning!

Anyhow the Navy plane planked it, slammed down on the Annapolis tarmac....and his main wheels collapsed!

Somehow we were not upset to fly elsewhere for a while while they cleared up the runway. Carrier landings indeed!

[barit1]

rented 3 seat Piper

Could be the J-5 (prewar, open cylinders like the Cub), or PA-11 or PA-12 Super Cruiser.