Short Field Landing Techniques
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an old wise instructor once told me, 'there's no substitute for aerodynamic braking....'
Grandpa Aerotart
I believe any runway requiring use of brakes is 'short'.
The difference between a 'normal' landing and a 'short field' landing is more a matter of how much braking is required after touchdown than any modified technique on final approach.
Precise speed and flight path control to the correct touchdown zone (between 30 and 60m in from the threshold) and maximum braking short of locking wheels until slowed down to taxi speed is all that is required.
Dumping flaps etc is too aeroplane specific to be of generic value...C206s with some STOL kits had a red 'flap dump' button on the control column but I believe that was as much a crutch for bad technique as anything else...a few knots fast and C206s float...correct speed and they don't....in general terms it's an unwarranted distraction at the worst possible time.
PNG ops were a little different because the strips were often steep, rough, VERY high DAs and surrounded by higher terrain making GA impossible from a mile or so out on finals.
A Twotter (like a 206) is too fast at 1.3 Vs and will float...memory fades but 5 kts under recommended Vat worked well...same thing in a Dash 7 doing full flap landings funnily enough....it's just a big 4 engined Twin Otter (DHC 6) after all.
On steep strips you make a completely normal 3 degree approach but carry extra speed to ensure enough energy to rotate to the higher attitude required to land. Imagine how high the attitude is to flare properly on a 20% slope. From memory 0-5% no extra, 5-10% add 5 kts, >10% add 10kts were ball park figures but also depended on landing weight. One thing which very quickly became ingrained habit on the Twotter was selecting reverse late in the flare..maybe a foot or two above the ground. This became so ingrained from 12-20 sectors a day in the mountains that we'd get chipped for it on 6mthly line checks when landing on long mainport runways like Nadzab and Port Moresby.
This technique overcame the spool up time (very, VERY bad technique to actually end up at idle on approach in a twotter) on the PT6-20 (200 series Twotters)...about 6-8 seconds from memory and the -27 (300 series) was about 4 seconds...a FECKING long time to wait for reverse when landing with a tailwind on <400m of wet grass
...just round out, flare and then cock your wrist and pull...straight from 8-10 PSI in forward to 10 PSI in reverse..the high thrust lines caused a slight pitch up and the grand old girl would rumble the wheels onto the grass in a MOST satisfying manner ...on steep, rough strips you would, of course, then go bounding up the strip and the undercarriage, thrust line, nose oleo geometry could result in a 'hobby horse' action that could rapidly deteriorate into bottoming out the nose oleo so hard you burst the (tubeless) nosewheel tyre off it's rim...dis was bad
The technique to stop this was to stand on the brakes as the nose rose and release them JUST before it stopped rising and started down again...while maintaining/modulating reverse thrust to actually slow down before the end of the strip...this damped out the oscillations very quickly..one or two was all you usually got if awake...the odd fella needed rescuing but it was rare.
I well remember my first landing at a really short strip in the Twotter...Heiweni...after years of Islanders the Otter Felt HUGE!!!...short finals into a tiny grass strip in a dead end, steep sided valley...completely blind approach until short finals and a down hill touchdown zone...that 65' wingspan and 5300kg aeroplane felt like a 747 Little wonder I, with eyes wide and bulging whipped her into reverse about 2 feet up...and she just rumbled onto the grass and gracefully slowed through the muddy flat bit, spraying dirty water all over the place...just fecking wonderfull
The difference between a 'normal' landing and a 'short field' landing is more a matter of how much braking is required after touchdown than any modified technique on final approach.
Precise speed and flight path control to the correct touchdown zone (between 30 and 60m in from the threshold) and maximum braking short of locking wheels until slowed down to taxi speed is all that is required.
Dumping flaps etc is too aeroplane specific to be of generic value...C206s with some STOL kits had a red 'flap dump' button on the control column but I believe that was as much a crutch for bad technique as anything else...a few knots fast and C206s float...correct speed and they don't....in general terms it's an unwarranted distraction at the worst possible time.
PNG ops were a little different because the strips were often steep, rough, VERY high DAs and surrounded by higher terrain making GA impossible from a mile or so out on finals.
A Twotter (like a 206) is too fast at 1.3 Vs and will float...memory fades but 5 kts under recommended Vat worked well...same thing in a Dash 7 doing full flap landings funnily enough....it's just a big 4 engined Twin Otter (DHC 6) after all.
On steep strips you make a completely normal 3 degree approach but carry extra speed to ensure enough energy to rotate to the higher attitude required to land. Imagine how high the attitude is to flare properly on a 20% slope. From memory 0-5% no extra, 5-10% add 5 kts, >10% add 10kts were ball park figures but also depended on landing weight. One thing which very quickly became ingrained habit on the Twotter was selecting reverse late in the flare..maybe a foot or two above the ground. This became so ingrained from 12-20 sectors a day in the mountains that we'd get chipped for it on 6mthly line checks when landing on long mainport runways like Nadzab and Port Moresby.
This technique overcame the spool up time (very, VERY bad technique to actually end up at idle on approach in a twotter) on the PT6-20 (200 series Twotters)...about 6-8 seconds from memory and the -27 (300 series) was about 4 seconds...a FECKING long time to wait for reverse when landing with a tailwind on <400m of wet grass
...just round out, flare and then cock your wrist and pull...straight from 8-10 PSI in forward to 10 PSI in reverse..the high thrust lines caused a slight pitch up and the grand old girl would rumble the wheels onto the grass in a MOST satisfying manner ...on steep, rough strips you would, of course, then go bounding up the strip and the undercarriage, thrust line, nose oleo geometry could result in a 'hobby horse' action that could rapidly deteriorate into bottoming out the nose oleo so hard you burst the (tubeless) nosewheel tyre off it's rim...dis was bad The technique to stop this was to stand on the brakes as the nose rose and release them JUST before it stopped rising and started down again...while maintaining/modulating reverse thrust to actually slow down before the end of the strip...this damped out the oscillations very quickly..one or two was all you usually got if awake...the odd fella needed rescuing but it was rare.
I well remember my first landing at a really short strip in the Twotter...Heiweni...after years of Islanders the Otter Felt HUGE!!!...short finals into a tiny grass strip in a dead end, steep sided valley...completely blind approach until short finals and a down hill touchdown zone...that 65' wingspan and 5300kg aeroplane felt like a 747
Little wonder I, with eyes wide and bulging whipped her into reverse about 2 feet up...and she just rumbled onto the grass and gracefully slowed through the muddy flat bit, spraying dirty water all over the place...just fecking wonderfull
Moderator
Several observations, if I may ..
(a) civil aircraft routinely are certificated to the normal approach speed (generally a minimum of 1.3Vso). As an aside, Chuck's tales in the previous post in respect of PNG are relevant to special operations but not for normal standard ops ... as far as I am aware, most of the cited exciting style of operations would have been conducted to the old Developmental Operations ANO standards .. I can't even remember what the number was ... it's just so long since I looked at those.
The military certification folk sometimes go for the serious STOL operation but accept that, in the event of an engine failure or other significantly serious mishap it is acceptable for a risk of peril to exist ... This is not acceptable for civil operations to the normal Regulatory standards.
On the other hand, the usually seen club practice of approaching at a speed very much in excess of the book figure is not to be recommended for operations into critically short (meaning that the available distance approximates that required for the operation) strips ... the aim is to approach at the scheduled target speed, in the scheduled configuration, get onto the ground following a minimalist flare distance, and get onto the brakes .. hard.
Consider whether the OEM might have set out to get the best data reasonably practical .. helps to sell the aircraft .. the club or line pilot is unlikely to come up with a better, yet still reasonably safe, procedure than that scheduled by the OEM.
The advantage of flying book speed is that the book distance bears some relationship to what you might expect to see. If you approach at a higher speed then, unless you have done the homework (not hard at all but most would not have the background) to generate revised P-charts for the non-standard approach speed, you are in no-man's land and might find that the far end fence comes up much quicker than you might have hoped for ...
(b) aiming to land on the strip end invites an undershoot mishap .. in the event that your sums were wrong, it is probably better to roll off the far end (or into the fence) at slow speed .. rather than hit a tree (or the fence) on the approach at POH approach speed.
In any case the manual data is based on the normal approach screen height so you have the basis for a normal approach and touchdown point. Consider where you want to have what level of risk when you consider doing a home-made approach and landing .. also how you might explain your actions either/both in court or to the insurance company.
(c) other things being equal, prefer uphill, into wind
(d) the old DCA Civil Mk II AFM format P-charts (? long time since I have looked at or drafted up one of those) gave distances which were generally reasonable but with not too much fat in their generation (when one considered the unfactored values). The ANO (CAO) distance factors were there to provide a little in the way of fat for the average skill level pilot (believe me .. the average club or line pilot will .. no way ... reproduce the OEM TP's performance landing data - I have had a few frights at the hands of such very focussed gentlemen).
If you are using the GAMA US POH manuals, make sure you know what factors, if any, are included in the data .. and adjust your calculations appropriately, as necessary.
(e) if you are the typical club pilot who has generally operated out of non-critical length strips (BK, MB, etc. come to mind), then be prepared for a whole new ballgame if you contemplate critical length ALA type operations. Suggest you get a good grounding and check out by folk who know what they are doing ... and I suggest that is not the typical flying instructor ... rather the experienced ag (especially) or glider tug pilot (one who has a LOT of paddock retrieve experience) ... and preferably one who holds a relevant instructor rating so that the niceties are observed.
For instance, in a previous towing life, I was required to observe a number of paddock retrieves in the back seat and then do a semi-formal period of instruction and check out by a very experienced ag pilot (took around 2-3 hours as I recall). I learned a LOT which I would never have been exposed to otherwise. This suggestion is not one which you should consider lightly. He who embarks on paddock operations (or very short country strip operations) is foolish not to seek specialist instruction in the hazards .. of which there are more than a few.
(f) regarding "aerodynamic breaking" (and the typo was intentional) I would invite anyone to present verifiable test data which even suggests that that sort of technique is better than a good bootful of braking ... (looking at the serious short strip requirement)
(g) .. and the main thing is .. be conservative ... if you are not comfortable with the approach and landing at any stage, give it away and either try again or divert. Most of us who haven't bent a bird have done both without any second thought as to the possible inconvenience.
The only people who have to push their luck a bit are the military (when operationally necessary) or civil when the alternative presents a higher potential hazard .. and, if the planning and conduct of the operation has been done in a half competent manner, that ought not to occur other than very infrequently.
(a) civil aircraft routinely are certificated to the normal approach speed (generally a minimum of 1.3Vso). As an aside, Chuck's tales in the previous post in respect of PNG are relevant to special operations but not for normal standard ops ... as far as I am aware, most of the cited exciting style of operations would have been conducted to the old Developmental Operations ANO standards .. I can't even remember what the number was ... it's just so long since I looked at those.
The military certification folk sometimes go for the serious STOL operation but accept that, in the event of an engine failure or other significantly serious mishap it is acceptable for a risk of peril to exist ... This is not acceptable for civil operations to the normal Regulatory standards.
On the other hand, the usually seen club practice of approaching at a speed very much in excess of the book figure is not to be recommended for operations into critically short (meaning that the available distance approximates that required for the operation) strips ... the aim is to approach at the scheduled target speed, in the scheduled configuration, get onto the ground following a minimalist flare distance, and get onto the brakes .. hard.
Consider whether the OEM might have set out to get the best data reasonably practical .. helps to sell the aircraft .. the club or line pilot is unlikely to come up with a better, yet still reasonably safe, procedure than that scheduled by the OEM.
The advantage of flying book speed is that the book distance bears some relationship to what you might expect to see. If you approach at a higher speed then, unless you have done the homework (not hard at all but most would not have the background) to generate revised P-charts for the non-standard approach speed, you are in no-man's land and might find that the far end fence comes up much quicker than you might have hoped for ...
(b) aiming to land on the strip end invites an undershoot mishap .. in the event that your sums were wrong, it is probably better to roll off the far end (or into the fence) at slow speed .. rather than hit a tree (or the fence) on the approach at POH approach speed.
In any case the manual data is based on the normal approach screen height so you have the basis for a normal approach and touchdown point. Consider where you want to have what level of risk when you consider doing a home-made approach and landing .. also how you might explain your actions either/both in court or to the insurance company.
(c) other things being equal, prefer uphill, into wind
(d) the old DCA Civil Mk II AFM format P-charts (? long time since I have looked at or drafted up one of those) gave distances which were generally reasonable but with not too much fat in their generation (when one considered the unfactored values). The ANO (CAO) distance factors were there to provide a little in the way of fat for the average skill level pilot (believe me .. the average club or line pilot will .. no way ... reproduce the OEM TP's performance landing data - I have had a few frights at the hands of such very focussed gentlemen).
If you are using the GAMA US POH manuals, make sure you know what factors, if any, are included in the data .. and adjust your calculations appropriately, as necessary.
(e) if you are the typical club pilot who has generally operated out of non-critical length strips (BK, MB, etc. come to mind), then be prepared for a whole new ballgame if you contemplate critical length ALA type operations. Suggest you get a good grounding and check out by folk who know what they are doing ... and I suggest that is not the typical flying instructor ... rather the experienced ag (especially) or glider tug pilot (one who has a LOT of paddock retrieve experience) ... and preferably one who holds a relevant instructor rating so that the niceties are observed.
For instance, in a previous towing life, I was required to observe a number of paddock retrieves in the back seat and then do a semi-formal period of instruction and check out by a very experienced ag pilot (took around 2-3 hours as I recall). I learned a LOT which I would never have been exposed to otherwise. This suggestion is not one which you should consider lightly. He who embarks on paddock operations (or very short country strip operations) is foolish not to seek specialist instruction in the hazards .. of which there are more than a few.
(f) regarding "aerodynamic breaking" (and the typo was intentional) I would invite anyone to present verifiable test data which even suggests that that sort of technique is better than a good bootful of braking ... (looking at the serious short strip requirement)
(g) .. and the main thing is .. be conservative ... if you are not comfortable with the approach and landing at any stage, give it away and either try again or divert. Most of us who haven't bent a bird have done both without any second thought as to the possible inconvenience.
The only people who have to push their luck a bit are the military (when operationally necessary) or civil when the alternative presents a higher potential hazard .. and, if the planning and conduct of the operation has been done in a half competent manner, that ought not to occur other than very infrequently.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(f) regarding "aerodynamic breaking" (and the typo was intentional) I would invite anyone to present verifiable test data which even suggests that that sort of technique is better than a good bootful of braking ... (looking at the serious short strip requirement)
In general I think the retraction of flap before the aircraft has slowed to taxi speed is poor practice, particularly in a retractable aircraft. But there are situations and aircraft types that may warrant it.
Last edited by Cloud Cutter; 9th Apr 2006 at 04:17.
Have I missed something along the way, or am I just so far out of it that I am no longer qualified to comment?
It has been loooong time so please humour me.
From memory, a 310, (that is what this thread was about) is far more critical on the takeoff. My advice would be to check that you can get out before you have any thoughts about how you will get in. Unless you are taking a full load in and nothing out, your takeoff will in all probability be the more critical. Having checked that, then as has been said before, follow the POH.
Last 310 flight 9/7/73
Maui
It has been loooong time so please humour me.
From memory, a 310, (that is what this thread was about) is far more critical on the takeoff. My advice would be to check that you can get out before you have any thoughts about how you will get in. Unless you are taking a full load in and nothing out, your takeoff will in all probability be the more critical. Having checked that, then as has been said before, follow the POH.
Last 310 flight 9/7/73
Maui
To John at Tullamarine. Very well put I thought - and dead correct.
A little tip on the effectiveness of aerodynamic braking, induced drag and all the jazz. In another era I read of an over-run accident to a Vampire single seat fighter where the pilot used aerodynamic braking in the early part of his landing run but left the wheel braking too late and ploughed into an adjoining field. As he saw the end of the runway looming he rapidly wound back the sliding cockpit canopy in order (in his own words) "to attain more drag" He had read somewhere that driving with a window open in a car causes drag and also increases fuel burn.
The President of the Court of Inquiry (Wing Commander Spry of Air Clues fame) added his own comments, suggesting that a better way of obtaining drag in the case before him, would be to carefully fold a handkerchief at four corners and hold it outside the open canopy to act as a mini-braking parachute....
While so called aero-dynamic braking may be relatively effective at high speeds it is useless at low speeds. And in all cases wheel braking is best of the lot. The drag caused by aerodynamic braking was primarily responsible for two of the DH Comet airliner over-run accidents where the nosewheel was deliberately lifted off the ground early in the take off run as part of then jet take off technique. As the speed increased so did the drag by V squared. Later, Boeing (?) introduced the take off by numbers technique leaving the nose-wheel on the ground until rotation (VR) speed was attained.
A little tip on the effectiveness of aerodynamic braking, induced drag and all the jazz. In another era I read of an over-run accident to a Vampire single seat fighter where the pilot used aerodynamic braking in the early part of his landing run but left the wheel braking too late and ploughed into an adjoining field. As he saw the end of the runway looming he rapidly wound back the sliding cockpit canopy in order (in his own words) "to attain more drag" He had read somewhere that driving with a window open in a car causes drag and also increases fuel burn.
The President of the Court of Inquiry (Wing Commander Spry of Air Clues fame) added his own comments, suggesting that a better way of obtaining drag in the case before him, would be to carefully fold a handkerchief at four corners and hold it outside the open canopy to act as a mini-braking parachute....
While so called aero-dynamic braking may be relatively effective at high speeds it is useless at low speeds. And in all cases wheel braking is best of the lot. The drag caused by aerodynamic braking was primarily responsible for two of the DH Comet airliner over-run accidents where the nosewheel was deliberately lifted off the ground early in the take off run as part of then jet take off technique. As the speed increased so did the drag by V squared. Later, Boeing (?) introduced the take off by numbers technique leaving the nose-wheel on the ground until rotation (VR) speed was attained.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backstick Braking
Suggest that you look carefully through the thread on backstick braking:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=204897
There is a lot of information there by people who have been taught and used it in the military (including Harrier Test Pilot John Farley). Unfortunately there is a lot of dissenting carping and misinformation by one individual in particular (MFS).
Keep in mind that it's a recommended technique on the BAe146 - as a number of operators have pointed out on that thread. From another source I understand that Airbus at least is considering writing software in order to incorporate the technique into its automation.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=204897
There is a lot of information there by people who have been taught and used it in the military (including Harrier Test Pilot John Farley). Unfortunately there is a lot of dissenting carping and misinformation by one individual in particular (MFS).
Keep in mind that it's a recommended technique on the BAe146 - as a number of operators have pointed out on that thread. From another source I understand that Airbus at least is considering writing software in order to incorporate the technique into its automation.
Grandpa Aerotart
Back stick braking is like flap dumping...too aeroplane, and even individual landing, specific to be a valid catch all technique...it could, in many aircraft, lead to tail strike.
TheShadow
Rubbish. A little understanding of the Airbus and in this case the A330/340 flight control system will tell you Airbus aren’t and won’t be considering any changes to the flight control laws. If they were it would require a recertification of the entire flight control system on these aircraft. By the way the flight control laws for all the airbus fly by wire aircraft are essentially the same including the A380.
What this little excerpt from the A330/340 FCOM is saying is that the pilot has direct and full control over the elevator below 100 feet AGL. To even contemplate taking that away is fraught with danger and in most cases if not all certifying authorities around the world would have a problem with it.
Airbus’s simple solution would be to make an amendment in the NP section of the FCOM 3 stating that the pilot flying after landing should progressively apply up to full back stick to maximise aerodynamic braking. They haven’t done this and I doubt they will ever do this as it is a very bad technique to use in such a large jet.
From another source I understand that Airbus at least is considering writing software in order to incorporate the technique into its automation.
FLARE MODE A330/340
The flight mode changes to flare mode at landing when passing 100 ft. Flare mode is a direct stick-to-elevator relationship (with some damping provided by load factor and pitch rate feedbacks). In addition, at 50 feet, a slight pitch down elevator order is applied, so that the pilot has to move the stick rearwards to maintain a constant path, so as to reproduce conventional aircraft aerodynamic characteristics.
The flight mode changes to flare mode at landing when passing 100 ft. Flare mode is a direct stick-to-elevator relationship (with some damping provided by load factor and pitch rate feedbacks). In addition, at 50 feet, a slight pitch down elevator order is applied, so that the pilot has to move the stick rearwards to maintain a constant path, so as to reproduce conventional aircraft aerodynamic characteristics.
Airbus’s simple solution would be to make an amendment in the NP section of the FCOM 3 stating that the pilot flying after landing should progressively apply up to full back stick to maximise aerodynamic braking. They haven’t done this and I doubt they will ever do this as it is a very bad technique to use in such a large jet.
short field
DT,
The most important thing wrt short field landing is your groundspeed because the kinetic energy at touchdown and actual landing distance required is a function of mass and groundspeed squared, (all other things being equal ie wind temp alt etc). Any excess speed will have a multiplied/squared effect on actual landing distance required.
Therefore you want minimum speed (reducing to marginally above the stall at touchdown), full flap, little or no flare at all and cut the power immediately before or at touchdown. Dont try or expect to grease it on, rather make a somewhat firm touchdown. You wont be able to hold the nose wheel off with this technique, get on the brakes pronto.
Be aware that wind gust/shear will require prompt and positive power response but is not a problem in propeller driven aircraft. In the unlikley event of an engine failure on short final you will be committed to land unless you have sufficient altitude to reconfigure the aircraft for one engine inop and accelerate to blue line airspeed. Also because you are on the back of the drag curve on short final with power required to hold glideslope you get much more positive control of the touchdown point.
Similarly assuming you need to take off again the most important factor affecting take off distance required (again all other things equal) is to rotate at the correct airspeed as per poh.
Cheers.
The most important thing wrt short field landing is your groundspeed because the kinetic energy at touchdown and actual landing distance required is a function of mass and groundspeed squared, (all other things being equal ie wind temp alt etc). Any excess speed will have a multiplied/squared effect on actual landing distance required.
Therefore you want minimum speed (reducing to marginally above the stall at touchdown), full flap, little or no flare at all and cut the power immediately before or at touchdown. Dont try or expect to grease it on, rather make a somewhat firm touchdown. You wont be able to hold the nose wheel off with this technique, get on the brakes pronto.
Be aware that wind gust/shear will require prompt and positive power response but is not a problem in propeller driven aircraft. In the unlikley event of an engine failure on short final you will be committed to land unless you have sufficient altitude to reconfigure the aircraft for one engine inop and accelerate to blue line airspeed. Also because you are on the back of the drag curve on short final with power required to hold glideslope you get much more positive control of the touchdown point.
Similarly assuming you need to take off again the most important factor affecting take off distance required (again all other things equal) is to rotate at the correct airspeed as per poh.
Cheers.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They haven’t done this and I doubt they will ever do this as it is a very bad technique to use in such a large jet.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elevator & Braking
Getting back on track to GA aircraft types, not Airbus / Boeings.
I think people are missing the point of progressive up (backstick) elevator application during braking. It is NOT used for aerodynamic braking at all.
The reason is to add a tail down moment around the C.G . Aircraft fitted with tricycle undercarriage have the main wheels aft of the C.G., so this has the effect of adding effective weight to the main wheels.
The result is the braking effort can be increased and the tyres will resist lockup better. It also keep undue weight off the nose wheel as some aircraft (C210) have a relatively weak nose leg anyway, so you don't want it bashing through the rocks with lots of weight on it.
It is true dumping the flaps reduces lift and puts weight on the tyres/brakes. It also removes lots of drag early in the landing which is detrimental to effective aerodynamic braking. Which is the greater effect? At what speed? Who knows, it probably depends on aircraft type/design.
The DANGER in flap dumping is reaching for the gear instead of the flap lever. I would not recommend the flap dump technique for this reason alone. (ask any Bonanza/Baron pilot).
Z.
I think people are missing the point of progressive up (backstick) elevator application during braking. It is NOT used for aerodynamic braking at all.
The reason is to add a tail down moment around the C.G . Aircraft fitted with tricycle undercarriage have the main wheels aft of the C.G., so this has the effect of adding effective weight to the main wheels.
The result is the braking effort can be increased and the tyres will resist lockup better. It also keep undue weight off the nose wheel as some aircraft (C210) have a relatively weak nose leg anyway, so you don't want it bashing through the rocks with lots of weight on it.
It is true dumping the flaps reduces lift and puts weight on the tyres/brakes. It also removes lots of drag early in the landing which is detrimental to effective aerodynamic braking. Which is the greater effect? At what speed? Who knows, it probably depends on aircraft type/design.
The DANGER in flap dumping is reaching for the gear instead of the flap lever. I would not recommend the flap dump technique for this reason alone. (ask any Bonanza/Baron pilot).
Z.
Originally Posted by desmotronic
DT,
Therefore you want minimum speed (reducing to marginally above the stall at touchdown), full flap, little or no flare at all and cut the power immediately before or at touchdown. Dont try or expect to grease it on, rather make a somewhat firm touchdown. You wont be able to hold the nose wheel off with this technique, get on the brakes pronto.
Therefore you want minimum speed (reducing to marginally above the stall at touchdown), full flap, little or no flare at all and cut the power immediately before or at touchdown. Dont try or expect to grease it on, rather make a somewhat firm touchdown. You wont be able to hold the nose wheel off with this technique, get on the brakes pronto.
I think you know youve nailed the approach speed when you flare and the mains touch down with minimal float/flare - it all happens sort of in one action. I naturally land tail low (i think due to previous tailwheel experience), which im sure has its pros and cons, but at least it guarantees a minimal speed at touchdown - just judging the point where the aircraft will cease flying is the main challenge, i recon.
DT
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NZ
Age: 50
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need for heaving braking during short landing, as I do it all day when ag flying.Unless you really need to! I teach the most important things are to land at right airspeed at the right point and if not go around.
I was once told by an experienced instructor that for a short field landing you should come in at your short field airspeed & in addition to this you should have a slightly nose high attitude.
the idea being you raise the nose a little higher than normal on approach, the airspeed will bleed off a little, so you add a little more power to keep your approach speed, while at the same time continuing your descent to your aiming point (its quite tricky because if you add too much power or your attitude varies you wont have the correct descent gradient or you wont maitain the correct airspeed). then simply cut the power when you reach your aiming point & the extra induced drag created by your increased AoA makes the aircraft drop onto the rwy (not really a smooth landing).
I have only tried it in a mooney and it worked quite well. however, in the real world you shouldnt have to use it (if you cant land on a strip due to length, you definately wont be taking-off from it)
the idea being you raise the nose a little higher than normal on approach, the airspeed will bleed off a little, so you add a little more power to keep your approach speed, while at the same time continuing your descent to your aiming point (its quite tricky because if you add too much power or your attitude varies you wont have the correct descent gradient or you wont maitain the correct airspeed). then simply cut the power when you reach your aiming point & the extra induced drag created by your increased AoA makes the aircraft drop onto the rwy (not really a smooth landing).
I have only tried it in a mooney and it worked quite well. however, in the real world you shouldnt have to use it (if you cant land on a strip due to length, you definately wont be taking-off from it)
