PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Best method of approach and landing a PA28-180 Cherokee
Old 26th Apr 2006, 13:32
  #34 (permalink)  
mad_jock
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Landing turboprops

Its almost exactly the same as your PA28. But you don't want the stall warner going off when you touch down. So you tend to be 10-20 knots above your stall speed. but its all factored into the speed books so you don't have to "think" about it" Just land it at the speeds given and it works.

The points of reference for vision are the same.

The machine obeys the same laws of physics.

The only real difference is that the constant speed props have a tendency to disk at low touque settings and if you have just picked it up out of the hangar and the settings arn't to great they can go into a failed engine mode which cycles them towards feather and back which is a bit of a shock when it first happens. A wee adjustment of what they call the flight idle torque and all is well. So if you go back to flight idle you can get a non-linear increase in drag due to the props turning into air brakes. Which to be honest can be very handy at times. Its pretty easy to spot a TP getting driven into the runway instead of flared to land. The plane will have a very flat attitude with hardly any nose up (a note to add if the aircraft is doing circuits it could just be the examiner doing a Flap 0 which is very flat and fast). A tp which is being landed at the correct speed will have a very similar attitude to A PA28.

A bit like GA there are many theorys about the best method and some people will say leave a bit of power on. Which just makes it easier for them to get a smooth landing but shoots all the performance data to hell. And others which I include myself in who reckon that you don't need to have power on to make a smooth landing. As with all aircraft if you hit the manufactures numbers on the nose and don't try to do anything fancy it will set you up for the potential for a good landing. Which will be within performance limits and is actually easier to control than a high energy drive the thing into the ground type of landing.

And the C172 pilot having problems, I have flown about 4 different makes/ models of C172 with various attachments to the wing tips. I think it was an F with the scoops. It was a bitch to land until I sussed it after about 150 hours.
The thing was nigh on impossible to stall clean or dirty the ASI read zero when it eventually did go, and even then it didn't really do anything apart from stop holding height and start mushing towards the ground.

The trick seemed to be not to let it to land until the back end "sat down" There was a point when there was a noticable increase in elevator input in the flare and the back "sank" only after you feel this could you let the wheels touch the deck. If you touched down before this it would bounce and yaw and do all sorts of horrible things before dropping out of the sky. Wait to long after the back sank and you were deposited on the ground with very little choice in the matter.

MJ
mad_jock is offline