Airspeed

[TonyR]

Why does everyone tell us that a PA28, C172,C182 and many other type float along the runway during the landing??

I hear comments like "the 182 is a big glider" or "I only ever use 2 stages of flap in a PA28 but they do float a bit".

There are a lot of pilots who never use the correct airspeed for the take off, climb, approach & landing.

During the take off and climb, if you fly too fast you may not get to a height where a safe forced landing can be made at or close to the airfield. (where the big red fire engine lives).

If you fly the approach to fast you may end up needing the big red fire engine to pull your pride and joy out of the hedge at the far end of the runway.

There is this "new" school of thought that pilots seem to have adopted, add a few knots for the "crosswind" another few for only "1 stage of flap" and a couple more for your "Granny in the back"

To land any aircraft it MUST be at a speed where it does NOT want to fly anymore.

Any thoughts

Tony

[A and C]

I cant fault that !.

[tacpot]

Thoughts:

Not using the correct speed for take-off is probably due to lack of familiarity with the flight manual figure for the aircraft, lack of recent flying with an instructor, and lack of self briefing regarding the climbout required (is a climb at Vx necessary?)

Not using the correct speed for climbing is probably due to nothing more than a preference for cruise-climb regimes rather than best rate (better vis, engine cooling etc.)

Not using the correct speed for approach is likely to be due to lack of flying with an instructor, but might also be worries about keeping the speed up in a busy circuit.

Not using the correct speed for landing could be due to having trained on long runways. If you learn at Netherthorpe, you are unlikely to land long on a regular basis!

But ultimately, any deficiencies come down to either training or lack of discipline.

I enjoy the fact that I can always improve my flying, and aim to learn and improve on every flight.

[Keef]

There's no substitute for using the right speeds - especially with aircraft prone to floating, or even more with those prone to dropping like a brick.

My sadistic instructor, years ago, made me come over the fence at 100 mph (almost double the normal landing speed), then fly along the runway at 10 feet till the speed had bled off enough to land safely. A few goes at that concentrated the mind a treat. Good job the runway at Southend is nice and long!

The P28R I fly now will land with a satisfying squeak-squeak <pause> squeak accompanied by a burst from the stall warner, if handled right. Get it wrong and it bounces, or floats something rotten. I think most popular singles are pretty similar.

I've sat beside Timothy as he's done the same (every time) with the Aztec. It seems to work.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Spot on, TonyR.

To land any aircraft it MUST be at a speed where it does NOT want to fly anymore.

Certainly true for light aeroplanes. So why do I see so many Cessnas and PA28s banged down level and 3-point, with hardly any flare, then stopped on the brakes? These guys just haven't been taught to fly. Why not?

Teach them in taildraggers? That way, sloppy technique like that would not be tolerated by the aeroplane, and they'd have to learn how to do it correctly.

We'd then all benefit from lower insurance premiums; collapsed noselegs - the result of those trike 3-pointers - are not dramatic, but gthey are very epensive to fix. And every month in the AAIB reports they feature large.

SSD

[Mike Cross]

TonyR I suspect flies tailwheel.

On a tailwheel aircraft the C of G is behind the mains. The result on landing a tad fast is that the mains stop descending but the C of G continues to do so. As a result the Angle of Attack increases and you soar majestically back into the sky.

On a nosewheel aircraft the C of G is forward of the mains so when landing a tad fast the AoA decreases and it doesn't gp back up into the air.

The nosewheel pilot is pleased with his nice smooth landing and uses the same technique next time. However his landing was not made at the correct speed and he won't achieve book figures. This could lead to some unintentional hedge trimming with that big strimmer blade on the front when he goes into a shorter field that is plenty long enough for his aircraft when flown correctly.

Mike

[Keef]

Maybe what's needed is some kind of a nosewheel strain gauge that will detect the three-point trike landing and alert the poor owner. It's usually the next customer who has the nosewheel collapse :(

[TonyR]

I do fly tailwheel, but not at the moment, I have lots of time in Cessna 180 & 185s and some in a Maule, Citabria, Chippe, Cap 10, various Cubs, and a few homebuilts.

At the moment I mostly fly a TB20 and a Rallye 100.

Each aircraft has a "minimum drag speed", This is the slowest speed that the aircraft will mantain level flight at a given power setting, (just before the drag curve beats you)

If you know this speed for your aircraft then it can also become your minimum approach speed.

Take the Rallye, 2 up half fuel, MDS = 53mph at 2200 rpm, full flap. If I reduce power I decend, increase power again I stop the sink. With the combined use of stick and power to maintain that AIRSPEED all the way to the roundout, the aircraft is ready to land, no float and no brakes necessary.

Do any of you go out and practice "slow flying"?

You will be suprised how slow your aircraft will fly!

Tony

[Mike Cross]

It's a favourite trick at Old Sarum. At a safe height, reduce power to below that needed to maintain level flight. Attempt to maintain level flight. As the speed decays feed in more power to achieve a target speed while still maintaining level flight.

In something like a C152 try doing it with a target speed of 60 kt, then 55, 50, 45 kt.

I doubt this is accurate but I seem to remember getting it down to about 42kt with pretty near full power applied.

You need to do some clearing turns to make sure there's nothing underneath you.

The exercise is very similar to doing a power-on stall but with more accurate height and speed control.

Mike

[TonyR]

At full power this does become a bit difficult and can result in a full power on stall, on a couple of occaisions I have had a cessna engine turn the airframe as well as the prop, (not for the faint hearted).

Pick a power setting about 75% and see how slow you can fly, this will usually give you a similar attitude to your landing roundout.

Tony

[locksmith]

Tony

Where do you get this speed and power setting from, I cant find it in the PA28 or 172 flight manual

Ken

[High Wing Drifter]

TonyR,

Each aircraft has a "minimum drag speed", This is the slowest speed that the aircraft will mantain level flight at a given power setting, (just before the drag curve beats you)
I don't understand why you say this. Vimd (min drag) is the best glide, best range and best rate of climb speed for a prop a/c! It is the point on the drag curve where power available it at its most over power required.

If you know this speed for your aircraft then it can also become your minimum approach speed.
Mind drag speed (Vimd) has nothing to do with approach speeds! Vimd on the AA5 is 80kts, approach is 70kts with 20 flap. 75kts with no flap. Vimd for a C152 is 65kts, approach is 65kts with 20 flap and 70kts clean –c oincidence.

Also what do you mean by beats you? Vimp (min power) is the best angle of climb speed for a prop and it is slower than Vimd. I assume you mean that aircraft speed becomes more unstable when slower than Vimd?

The CAA recommends that the minimum approach speed is 1.3 x stall speed for your configuration. For PT flights that figure is the mandatory minimum! But that may not be the best approach speed when matched with the correct speed over the threshold (Vat). These figures are in the POH and surely should be understood and followed??

The point of increase by the 1.3 factor is to increase safety margins. This accounts somewhat for static port/pitot port errors due to the a/c attitude and configuration as you only see IAS and not corrected airspeed as well as unexpected small variations in wind direction/speed. Also, if the wind is a significantly variable or wind shear is possible I think you would be bonkers not to add a bit extra on.

[DubTrub]

Didn't Nevil Shute design the Airspeed?

...or am I in the wrong forum?

[TonyR]

HWD,

What I am trying to say is that each aircraft has a "minimum speed at a given power setting". Take the rallye aircraft again, it will fly at full power in level flight at 110 mph, but it will also fly at 50 mph using full power in level flight.

I don't want to get into the whole "drag curve" bit as all I am seeking to do is encourage pilots to fly better and get more satisfaction from doing it properly. Somewhere at less than full power a "safe" minimum speed can be found, this may be used as a FINAL approach speed and will avoid the unnecessary floating along the runway and may open up a lot of "new" shorter airfields to pilots (where most of the "nice" pilots live)

Regular and structured slow flying practice will enhance your skills as a pilot and increase your safety during take-offs and landings, particularly from short strips. Just a few minutes at a safe altitude spent brushing up on your slow speed flying skills is better use of your flying time than bumbling around looking at the scenery.

This will teach you to avoid the traps waiting during a go-around from a botched landing attempt. You will learn to safely control the aircraft close to the stall and to recognise the early symptoms. You will learn to avoid an unplanned spin due to lack of appreciation of what the aircraft is trying to tell you during a low speed manoeuvre.

Your actual flight profile for practicing slow flying should be provided by your qualified flying instructor and should certainly begin with a HASELL check, every time.

Stay safe

Tony

[englishal]

Maybe what's needed is some kind of a nosewheel strain gauge that will detect the three-point trike landing and alert the poor owner.
Put a load cell in each wheel and you can have a graphic display of W&B :D

On my CPL check ride, the examiner told me to do a flapless landing just as I had turned a tightish base for normal full flap landing (in a 172). Even after slipping the thing in, the result was crossing the threshold at 100kts.....and did I float....for 5500 feet to be exact :D I would have gone around early but he wouldn't let me, and afterwards he gave me a lecture on the importance of using correct approach speed, which was what this demonstration was all about (and that he wanted a long landing to get back to the flying club quickly as he needed a piss..still I passed).

He also made me do a SF landing, but coming in at 50kts, and dumping it right on the end of the runway. The result was we stopped in about 300'.

EA

[Final 3 Greens]

TonyR

I believe that some of the problem comes from SOME flying instructors teaching approach speeds that are too high. Why do they do this? I don't know.

But when you read on other threads of people flying short final at 75kts on a Warrior, because their instructor told them to, it does make you wonder. Presumably this is 2 up, whereas the Warrior POH suggests 63kts at gross - thats a lot of excessive energy and if you don't get it off by the threshold, landing is going to be troublesome, for sure.

I was taught to land with full flap initially, but my instructor (who was a recent arrival at the school) was then directed by the CFI to teach me to land with only 25 deg. Why? I don't know, but when I flew solo I found it much easier to control the landings with full flap.

Its been my experience that if you fly a PA28 taper wing at the POH speeds and use the appropriate amount of flap (usually full), then it pretty much lands itself - all you have to do is be prepared to puuuuulllll the yoke back during the flare ;)

[IO540]

I've never known anyone being taught that the Vref varies with loading.

[locksmith]

My Instructor was making the comment that, I and other pilots seem to be concerned about "slow flying", He said "you appear to be worried about this", and he was right.

I think it was the fact that some of us being taught over the last few years in PA28s and 172s have never done anything other than level flying. I have never been in a spin, let alone been upsidedown.

Perhaps I should go on an advanced flying course, if there is such a thing.

At least I now know that a PA28 160 will still fly at 55 knots, 2 up and half fuel.

Ken

[TonyR]

I had a conversation with an instructor friend yesterday about airspeed.

He was concerned that this thread will have pilots going out and flying too slow,

I ask him his reason for this PA28 / 75 knot approach speed and this use of only 2 stages of flap for landing.

His reply was "thats what I was told this on the instructor course", and that many pilots would not be able to judge when to raise flap during a go-around.

This seems to be a "new"(over the last five years or so) instructor thing.

May I suggest that we have people with PPLs, who should not have them, as they have never really learned to fly.

If this is the level of the "new instructors" we now have, where are we going with flight trainning??

Tony

[Gertrude the Wombat]

many pilots would not be able to judge when to raise flap during a go-around Did he explain why this was thought to be the case? Are there occasions when "200', positive rate of climb, adequate speed" gives the wrong answer?

[Evo]

May I suggest that we have people with PPLs, who should not have them, as they have never really learned to fly.


At the risk of using slightly artificial language, I think many flying schools teach people to operate an aeroplane rather than really fly it. Mine did, and I don't think it's really such a bad thing (although I agree that departing too far from the POH is stupid). Remember that the average PPL will probably fly a dozen hours in spamcans over one summer, and then let the licence lapse after the first spell of bad weather takes them outside club currency rules. I'll be sunny days only from licenced airfields, nothing too demanding, and learning a set of rules about how to do it is fine.

Those that keep using the licence can start learning how to really fly an aeroplane - the old "licence to learn" cliché. If I compare myself against someone who really knows how to fly my aeroplane, then there is no doubt that i've got a long way to go, but i'm learning. If I had stuck with PA28s then I would probably still be flying for the most part in the way I was taught. Quite safely too.

[M14P]

I cannot see any arguement that promotes any kind of 'two tier' level of training. You either learn to fly - properly - or you do not. Why complicate things with "only use this amount of flap" blah blah? Good gracious! Take the Warrior situation as an example - it is widespread mainly because Hershey Bar winged Cherrytrees used slightly higher speeds AND you can dissapate energy more easily in them.

The use of lesser flap settings (as described by the neophyte instructor) probably makes up for the fact that full flap and a huge surfeit of speed makes it near impossible to land tidily. Therefore first principles are totally ignored and another 'wrong' is added.

Adding speed is also used - I feel - to homogeonise handling feel from take-off to touchdown. The aircraft never actually feels much different throughout the flight whereas a Warrior (qv) at 65kt feels a little porridgy compared to the same machine at 75kt. I've no idea why this practise has occurred but I'm convinced that this 'smoothing' of handing response is partially behind it.

Utter disregard of appropriate speeds - however they are rooted - are usually covered up by the 'adding some for safety' maxim. There is never a situation that might warrant adding a greater than 10 knot margin to an approach speed for any light aircraft. 20% of the stall speed.

Sadly, the instructor base in this country (don't hate me for saying this) is very badly off for experience. Reason: the self-improver route as was actually promotes the emptying of experience from light aviation instructing. Now we are in a similar position whereby instructing serves only as a waiting room prior to entering the airlines. Because of this woeful lack of experience and interest in the subject there is very little to build on during what are usually short and rather narrow instructing careers.

I have been told by a flying club that to give me any part time instructing would be 'taking jobs away from the new guys'. I can understand that but it would seen that there is a philanthropic rationale behind employing instructors. It's a shame really. I'd like a part-time instructing position!

I think that one way of dealing with 'excess speed' and other rumours and wives' tales is to allow more non-professional instructors.

Just my 3.5 eurocents' worth

[BEagle]

POH speeds and flap settings are those which should be used at all times. True whether Cherokee 140, Warrior - or any other aeroplane for that matter.

The excessive speeds, incorrect flap settings and the myth that there are different techniques for PPL and CPL holders must be firmly knokced on the head. THEY ARE UNACCEPTABLE!

[TonyR]

G the W

This instructor was just doing what he was told to do by the more experienced person who ran the FI course, it was simply this nonense of "keep the speed up and the flap up to keep them out of trouble".


I think that one way of dealing with 'excess speed' and other rumours and wives' tales is to allow more non-professional instructors.

M14P, you are back to the having "real pilots" instruct, and I fully agree.

Tony

[Lowtimer]

When I did my PPL I had several problems which combined to give me an excellent illustration of the problems of excessive approach speed on the taperwing PA-28.
1. The flying school was wedded to the idea of 80 knots round the final turn and on an early lesson I was told "70 knots on final, reducing to 65 over the threshold"
2. I was a former glider pilot, and had learned to fly in a glider-like way on windy hilltops, where you accelerate rather than slow down to your approach speed, and you aim to hold that speed all the way down final, rounding out only at the very last moment. So once I was trimmed and stable in the approach at 70 knots, it was against all my ingrained instincts to slow down deliberately just at the point where I was subconsciously expecting the wind gradient to take away half my speed anyway
3. A nice sporting downhill runway...
4. No recognition or teaching at all of the very important point that stall speeds vary with weight.

We had one particular Warrior that was a real paper bag, very little equipment, light as a feather, and lovely to fly, and this bird was my personal swallow. For ages as a solo student I was landing safely enough but well down the runway and floating a long way, even with full flap. I was sure the speeds were excessive based on 1.3vs, remember I'd been told 65 KIAS "threshold", when actually it's 63KIAS at max gross for final according to the POH. One up with part fuel in that particular aeroplane, and 55 would have been safe in non-gusty conditions, with 50 over the fence. Tackled an instructor about it and gained the impression that, yes, I was floating beacuase I was going much faster than he would personally have done at that stage of flight, and thenext week when I asked him to demo one for me" just to remind me how it looks when an expert does it" he used near enough those speeds, and a very pretty landing with a 200 metre roll. But he would not utter any numbers other than the 80 / 70 / 65 that were written on the "official" club numbers sheet for the type. So in the end I adopted a technique of "do as I do, not as I say" and have not had any trouble with a PA-28 floating again, nor that dreadful feeling that the wheels aren't touching the ground properly after landing. It feels so much better when you drop he last inch at the lowest possible speed with the aeroplane feeling quite exhausted, it lands so easily, so slowly and so short.

[Final 3 Greens]

I've never known anyone being taught that the Vref varies with loading.
Officially, it doesn't on the Warrior, since only one speed is quoted in the POH, unlike, say, the Bulldog, where it says reduce Vref by so many kts for every so many kgs under gross (can't remember the numbers.)

[Capt. Manuvar]

I totally disagree with this nonsense about minimum drag speeds and minimum flying speeds.
A good landing (tricycle) is one in which the flare begins at the right height, at the right speed (Vref) and the aircraft touches down on or within a reasonable distance of the intended touchdown point, main(s) first with no drift, followed by gentle lowering of the nosewheel. Anything else is unnecessary "flying club heroics" in airline pilot speak. The touchdown speed is irrelevant. I'm reading a book on a/c design at the moment. It says that the rule of thumb for main gear length is that is prevents a tailstrike at the AoA that produces 90% lift. A lot of spamcans give more gear clearance than that but it might explain why Vref may be higher than 1.3Vs in some cases.
The POH has Vref speeds and perf. charts. If the figures in the POH don't suit you, maybe you need another plane or more training. In the event of an accident, any heroics outside of what is recommended by the POH could lead to insurance problems if an accident occurs.
A lot of the techniques describes here may work in a taildraggers and the smaller range of aircraft but in a lot of the larger a/c with longer tails you'll be asking for trouble. Attempting some of the techniques mentioned previously in the larger high perf. a/c used in professional environment will end with " tea-no-biscuits" with the Chief Pilot. This probably explained a lot of the loss of control accidents during Approach in high performance GA aircraft flown by PPLs.
Most flight test tolerances for Vref are -0/+5KIAS.
Flying schools should students to follow the POH, the figures given there have been tested by test pilots with higher skill and experience than 99%of us. I would be very wary of any instructor who thinks he/she knows better than the aircraft designers and test pilots.
I think its safer (even though i don't approve) to teach people to come in 5kts faster that 5kts slower. Below Vref the aircraft is less stable and L/D ratio is lower, making harder to go-around.
I just wish that light A/C manufacturers could provide more Vref speeds for different weights and configurations.
Capt. M

[TonyR]

Capt M

The touchdown speed is irrelevant.

Try that at on my 400 yard farm strip, the touchdown speed is very relevent.

Most of us are talking about the "smaller range of aircraft"

I also fly multi engine high perf a/c and I do follow the POH.

There is NO reason for a PPL in a PA28 to come over the fence at 75 knots or above when the POH at max weight is about 63 knots and in most cases 60 or less is OK

Tony

[M14P]

A lot of spamcans give more gear clearance than that but it might explain why Vref may be higher than 1.3Vs in some cases

Unlikely in a light aircraft - Vref is much more likely to be linked to the drag characteristics in the flare. One aircraft that I fly must be flown significantly above 1.3Vs in order to give adequate energy in the flare when the propeller is windmilling (idle) as per certification schedule. Another has unusual drag characteristics (particularly in ground effect) as well as exceptional control response which makes approaching at anything above 1.15Vs undesirable.

the figures given there have been tested by test pilots with higher skill and experience than 99%of us

True but the whole point of certification is that the AVERAGE pilot can achieve SCHEDULED performance in the NET aircraft. Book figures are therefore achievable by you and me.

Tailscrape is generally not an issue in light types - especially when landing flap is used. The aircraft will usually stall first. Power on, however, it may be possible to reach a higher pitch attitude but still not significant enough to cause a strike.

Capt. M what specific loss of control accidents are you referring to?

Even your mention of 'gently lowering the nosewheel' whilst a nice thought is sadly impractical with most light types since the main gear/cp geometry tends to smash the nosewheel into the pavement without significant up elevator once the mains are on (the only exception being the 112/114 series which I've found to be perfect for 'landing the nosewheel').

I think that you are falling into the trap which causes these poor techniques to develop: treat every aircraft like an airliner. Let me tell you that just about any fully certificated straight-winged piston aircraft can be flown 'properly'. I know of no 'club' type which has any significant handling deficiency in the low speed regime. Whilst Arrows, Bonanzas, Saratogas, Comanches, 210s and all that stuff has higher performance than other types their speeds and weights do not vary significantly from lesser types and they are subject to all of the same laws of physics. Some wing sections can be dragged along in the flare to reach an exhausted climactic touchdown and others sink a little too heavily onto rather-too-firm undercarrige legs to make this a sensible idea.

Being below Vref will have negligable effect on aircraft stability - most of which is fixed due to the physics of the design anyway. All certificated aircraft will exhibit positive stabitily down to the stall. I feel that you are misusing the term. Going around will not be 'harder'; it might take a little more altitude (10 feet or so) to reach a desirable speed but it will be no more or less difficult. Although a range of speeds is not supplied for the Warrior an educated guess will reveal that a variance of 2 knots from the speed quoted at gross weight will not make all the difference whereas being 12 or 15 knots above this figure (as some flying instructors will teach) most certainly will.

Keep it simple - we're flying light aircraft

[Capt. Manuvar]

I wasn't aware this was a discusion that only concerned smaller aircraft. I am a regular FLYING reader so my picture of GA and private flying is more of an american one: a Citation parked next to a stearman.
M14P
Thanks for pointing out other factors used in determining Vref that i wasn't aware of, I'm still learning :ok:
I agree that most club aircraft exhibit docile low speed handling traits. But popular trainers such as the 152 and the Traumahawk can bite if care is not taken especially in a landing configuration. While a proficeint pilot may be able to keep the airspeed within the required tolerances, your average "weekend warrior" may struggle to keep within +/- 5kts. Also, and i stand to be corrected on this one, I doubt if there are any aircraft that are more controllable below than above Vref. Workload is highest during landing, so a Keeping-it-Simple approach will be to fly at or slightly above Vref.
This debate is a similar to the speeding debate, alot of people think it safe to drive at 80mph on the motorway. maybe the CAA should fit speed cameras near the threshold and charge people for coming in too slow :}.
TonyR,
400m, piece of cake :E

Capt. M

[FNG]

By the way, DubTrub was right: Neville Shute did design the Airspeed:
http://www.nevilshute.org/PhotoLine/PLD-1931-1940/pl-1931-1940-02.php

I am intrigued to learn that all GA in the US consists of flying in either Citations or Stearmans (Stearmen?). Is that why they off-loaded all those old spam cans on the UK?

[englishal]

My dad went to school with his daughter apparently and knew the man.

Love the sort of flying they do in "Marazan"

[FNG]

Shame about the spiritualism, though. The same can be said same of Conan Doyle.

[TonyR]

Capt M

How many times have you read an AAIB report that begins like this

"The pilot of the PA28 was visiting a shorter strip than his home base, he looked up the POH and the 600 M was well within limits.......................... after the aircraft floated 2/3 along the runway before touchdown the pilot braked hard but was unable................ the aircraft hit the fence at the end of the airfield"

"The AAIB considered that excess SPEED on approach was the main cause"

I read such reports far too often.

And yes 400 yards is a piece of cake if you land at the beginning at the correct speed.

Tony

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Neville Shute Norway's company was called Airspeed. Airspeed wasn't an aeroplane, it was a company that built aeroplanes.

SSD

[FNG]

Shaggy, if you go on like that you'll be offered a job as Chief of the Spotter Patrol.

[M14P]

your average "weekend warrior" may struggle to keep within +/- 5kts

Apart from being frightfully condecending the simple answer is that pilots should learn to be hard on themselves and try to achieve exactly the right speeds/altitudes whatever. Set some targets and keep to them. That is part of the challenge of flying.

Terrorhawks and 152 cannot bite unless grossly mishandled (they are aircraft that can only just kill you!). They are nothing other than massively docile trainers - that applies to the whole flight envelope. Bar stories spring up about "...there I was, this dratted 152 was evil, I tell you..." - For goodness' sake!

This discussion is nothing like m/way speed limits. What a perverse way of describing it. We are not specifically talking about flying accurately - more about using the correct speeds in the first place (before any sloppiness is accounted for).

Stearmen (?) and Citations, indeed! Help me, please. I want a flying club where we teach people to fly the aeroplane that they are actually sitting in rather than the one the instructor wants to be sitting in. Arrrgh!

[locksmith]

I think because of this thread and the sideslipping one, I have actually become a better pilot in just 2 1/2 hours flying at the weekend.

I have just sold my own aircraft and am back to renting PA28s, I went out with an instructor at the weekend and learned to fly at the correct speed. I was able to stop the warrior in about 250M with very little use of the brakes.

We were 2 up and not much fuel, I approached at 60 knots with full flap and then to 55 over the fence.

We had gone up and stalled the aircraft and then did some very slow flying.

I was orginally taught to approach nearly 20 knots faster in the same PA28.

The instructor has only recently become convinced that we all fly the approach too fast.

When we need to land short we need to know the minimum speed to approach.

Ken

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

FNG

Not a chance.:)

Spotters only know about registrations; they know nothing of aeroplanes and aviation and are interested in neither. If they are interested in the objects that the registrations are painted on, they are enthusiasts, and therefore disqualified from joining the ranks of the spotter.:E

SSD

[ROB-x38]

Along the same lines as some of the earlier posts I found that doing some hours in a taildragger really highlighted the importance of flying an accurate approach and nailing the speeds down base and final for a good landing.

And one of the most important things i've learnt to date when it comes to mastering 'the landing' is to keep flying the plane! - don't give up a few feet above the runway and leave it to your karma/fate/god etc... - 'fly it' til you're stopped.

[FNG]

The current edition of Today's Pilot contains an interesting article on using Alpha instead of airspeed, with some discussion of the sort of Alpha indicators that might be fitted to GA types.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Ken,

Nice to read that you had so much success in applying what you gleaned from here.

Before I fly a new aeroplane I read the POH and take note of the figures there but as soon as I have been up for a few minutes and am comfortably 'in the saddle' I will do some slow flying and stalls (both clean and in the landing configuration)

I use the figure of the stall in the landing configuration and multiply by 1.3 to get a sensible approach speed.

For most aeroplanes I fly that is a good ballpark figure to go by.

May not work for some more esoteric types as others have professed on here.

Have fun.

FD

[stiknruda]

Some years ago now, I was asked to fly a hot little homebuilt monoplane WWII replica taildragger. The only other UK example had been extensively campaigned by Rod Dean, head of CAA GA dept in those days.

I rang him and explained that the purpose of the call was to glean sufficient data from him to preclude me featuring prominently in the next edition of GASIL!

He was v enthusiastic and gave me a thorough briefing, at the end he asked if I had any questions.

"Only one, Sir, you haven't mentioned approach speeds - what speed do you approach at and what speed do you come over the fence at?"

"Ah, nine alpha dear boy! Same as the Jag"

"Very well, except all I have is an ASI calibrated in mph and I never flew the Jaguar!"

"In that case 90mph should give you about 9A!"

Well 90mph worked well on 6,000' of tarmac but by the time I had to take it somewhere softer and far shorter, it was 1.1Vs which must have had me nearer 13Alpha.

However, I think that discussions about flying Alpha should not detract from the main topic of this thread as I have NEVER been in a light aircraft with an AoA indicator and would worry how accurately calibrated post-production mods are.

Stik

[TonyR]

I had an instructor who "made me" fly circuits with everything covered up, would not even let me see the RPM, nothing but a big map over the panel.

"Just fly attitude" he said.

One night just as I became visual on an ILS, I switched on the landing light and all the panel lights went out.

Nothing to look at but the R/W lights and too close to the ground to think about the torch,

"just fly attitude"

Tony

[Timothy]

TonyR

With respect, if you are on the ILS and still need IAS and engine parameters as you become visual you are flying the ILS wrong!

I would not expect any correction to the attitude or power between 200' and the flare, provided you have been stable on the ILS for the last four miles, and if you haven't you should be going around anyway.

Regarding the rest of this thread, there seems to me to be a missing element. You can control the nature of the landing very largely with speed. I fly an Aztec, mostly out of long paved runways. I adopt an approach speed which gives me a short but noticeable flare, during which I can ensure that the mains touch down gently, I can hold the nose up for aerodynamic braking, then lower it and be at taxi speed for a convenient turn off.

However, I sometimes operate into a 470m strip, which is no joke in an Aztec in anybody's money. I arrive there a full five knots slower, haul back on the stick just before...well just before where the numbers would be if there were any...the mains thump down, I pull on the stick but the nose goes down almost immediately, I brake and stop in 370m. This performance is not going to get any awards for finesse, is not nice for inexperienced pax and probably doesn't increase the life expectancy of the airframe. But it gets the job done.

So there is an element of horses for courses on the landing speed. But this comes with experience and especially experience on type...I probably have 1500 hours on Aztecs with 1200 on my particular aircraft, I wouldn't mess the same way with an aircraft I am new to.

So I do agree that people should continue to learn how to fly after they leave their instructors...how many of us drive like BSM or our dads taught us? 2nd gear on roundabouts? 29mph?

Timothy

[TonyR]

Timothy,

I think you misunderstood me

My point is that you don't need anything to look at, if the aircraft is set up.

I also fly an Aztec and have flown it into very short strips, but I only have 600 hours in them, if I did not hate the sight of the Aztec, I might even catch up with you.

You should try a Cessna 340, not much good on 500 M but more of a "babe"

Tony

[Sliding member]

When I learn't to fly it was drummed into me about keeping the approach speeds correct, inital @65kt reducing to 55kt over the hedge with full flap (in a C152). I started my flying from a bumby grass airfield so touching down fast was not a good idea. Since moving on to different airfields and instructors techniques have differed and I feel that long tarmac runways don't help. Ill admit myself that occasisnally I would come in about 85kt then just hold above the rwy 'till the speed bled right off, saved taxying but not good if you do it that way all the time. One day I'll get to fly tail draggers, then I can learn all over again;)

[englishal]

One night just as I became visual on an ILS, I switched on the landing light and all the panel lights went out.
Hmm, similar thing happened to me once. Except it was on take off in a twin, at night in fog / very low marine layer (which had rolled in damn quick). Down the runway, rotate and into the fog, gear up, and the panel lights went out.

The moral of that story is always have a torch very ready! By the time we got some light onto the instruments we were banked 30 or so degrees to the left...

Now I carry one clipped to my headset, and always on for critical phases of flight at night:D

EA

[TonyR]

Thats two of us who will never forget to bring a torch, or two.