Perfect Landing C182
Wizrad of Auz. Yet another GA myth rears its head.
if what you mean by a "performance landing" is nothing more than the recommended approach speed at 50 ft then by definition you will float as the speed bleeds off. The "performance" landing is carried out by airliners on every landing so there is nothing special about it. Presumably you wish to touch down at the point of stall from the POH recommended speed over the fence then you have no choice except to float some way while holding off to dissipate airspeed. Airliners are landed with flying speed because on touch down they have spoilers that dump weight on the wheels and allow more tyre contact for more efficient braking.
The true "short field" landing is done on aircraft carriers where the over the fence speed aimed at is considerably less than an approach to a long runway.
The short field landing espoused in Cessna POH is a normal 1.3Vs or thereabouts and will involve a float period. If you try and "plant" the aircraft with flying speed then not only will you certainly run the risk of bouncing but the landing run will be longer because of the wheels skidding due to lift still on the wings. The term "performance" landing simply means a normal landing as seen every day with the big jets.
unless your doing a performance landing,
The true "short field" landing is done on aircraft carriers where the over the fence speed aimed at is considerably less than an approach to a long runway.
The short field landing espoused in Cessna POH is a normal 1.3Vs or thereabouts and will involve a float period. If you try and "plant" the aircraft with flying speed then not only will you certainly run the risk of bouncing but the landing run will be longer because of the wheels skidding due to lift still on the wings. The term "performance" landing simply means a normal landing as seen every day with the big jets.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who would have thought you could fill 3 pages with posts on how to land such a simple and easy to fly (and land) aircraft as the C182!
Imagine what we could do if we were dealing with something as compex and difficult to fly as a ....................... ????????????????????
R
Imagine what we could do if we were dealing with something as compex and difficult to fly as a ....................... ????????????????????
R
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus, Mate I don't fly airliners, so I wouldn't know squat about them, although I do fly in conditions that involve me landing on unimproved areas on a pretty regular basis(several times daily, and they aint airstrips). I can assure you there is a method to get a GA type of aircraft on the ground with minimum to no float and stopped in a surprisingly short distance. No its not in the POH, but it can be done, and safely.
Last edited by the wizard of auz; 10th Dec 2006 at 07:50.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4SPOOLED: I am happy to admit it when I have the bull by its dick instead of its horns, but one would hope that your flying is better than your english expression!
".. try not to land her by increasing AOA .."
maybe better put as
".. try to keep her flying by increasing AOA .." (which is what I think you mean)
Cheers
R
".. try not to land her by increasing AOA .."
maybe better put as
".. try to keep her flying by increasing AOA .." (which is what I think you mean)
Cheers
R
When teaching a student to land, you simply first, get them to fly a low approach using coordinated aileron and rudder to maintain a few feet above the runway with 20 flap and 2100 rpm.
Next circuit you get them to do the same thing, but you control the throttle, you then close the throttle slowly while they increase AOA trying to maintain height above the runway. Main wheels touch down aircraft has landed you then say " i have control, brake and congratulate them for just landing the aircraft. Student full of confidence next circuit after just landing aircraft all by themselves repeats having no fear of the ground anymore and lands though a tad rough and has completed their first unassisted landing. We as CPL's still use this technique today, round out, fly level, close throttle, hold off (flare) and main wheels touch, simple! So in in actual fact the way to land an aircraft is to try not to!!!
How does that bull dick feel? i seen a good movie called king ping when he milks a bull thinking it was a cow.....many laughs!
4S
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i never was able to explain a barrell roll without using my hands....
so tell me what happens to aoa for a reduction in airspeed with the same nose attitude? surely if airspeed decays sufficiently with the nose attitude remaining constant, aoa will increase to such an angle that the wing will stall? i always thought that aoa was relative to freestream velocity, therefore reduce freestream velocity, maintain attitude, increase alpha.
so tell me what happens to aoa for a reduction in airspeed with the same nose attitude? surely if airspeed decays sufficiently with the nose attitude remaining constant, aoa will increase to such an angle that the wing will stall? i always thought that aoa was relative to freestream velocity, therefore reduce freestream velocity, maintain attitude, increase alpha.
I wise man once told me POF to a pilot is like mortor to a bricklayer, understand whats happening and you can use aerodynamics and your sound knowledge of them to fly the aircraft far better!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=gassed budgie;3010661]Not in my aeroplane you don't. You teach anyone to land a 182 like that, performance landing or not, you'll be paying for the new firewall.
Harder impact........almost all three wheels at once.......I'm whincing whilst I think about. I can almost hear the firewall buckling from here!
Sorry, but no it's not. You can land a 182 (or any other common GA type) successfully whether it's doing 50 kts or a 120 kts over the fence.
[QUOTE]
I will fly an aircraft however my boss tells me to fly it, if i disagree or not, its the bosses aircraft.
On a brighter note, i dont like working for free meatbombing which most 182's are used for, so i doubt ill be flying for you anytime soon and if you think you can land a 182 at 120kts i dont think i want to work for you anytime soon!
Harder impact........almost all three wheels at once.......I'm whincing whilst I think about. I can almost hear the firewall buckling from here!
Sorry, but no it's not. You can land a 182 (or any other common GA type) successfully whether it's doing 50 kts or a 120 kts over the fence.
[QUOTE]
I will fly an aircraft however my boss tells me to fly it, if i disagree or not, its the bosses aircraft.
On a brighter note, i dont like working for free meatbombing which most 182's are used for, so i doubt ill be flying for you anytime soon and if you think you can land a 182 at 120kts i dont think i want to work for you anytime soon!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4SPOOLED
I did eventually figure out what you are trying to say, but you remain blissfully oblivious to the inherant abiguity of your original post which I, like most most other readers (by their responses), read as
"try not to land by (NOT) increasing AOA"
R
I did eventually figure out what you are trying to say, but you remain blissfully oblivious to the inherant abiguity of your original post which I, like most most other readers (by their responses), read as
"try not to land by (NOT) increasing AOA"
R
Guest
Posts: n/a
i have no idea what that means. afaik aoa is a result of r.a.f and chord. chord is naturally relative to the longitudinal axis of the a/c, so i guess by default r.a.f is relative to attitude, but as raf is also relative to airspeed, shouldn't a steady climb at 500fpm and 100kts should have the same (or very similar) aoa as straight and level and 100kts? you haven't changed the speed, just the attitude, so aoa shouldn't change.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have no idea what that means. afaik aoa is a result of r.a.f and chord. chord is naturally relative to the longitudinal axis of the a/c, so i guess by default r.a.f is relative to attitude, but as raf is also relative to airspeed, shouldn't a steady climb at 500fpm and 100kts should have the same (or very similar) aoa as straight and level and 100kts? you haven't changed the speed, just the attitude, so aoa shouldn't change.
L is Lift
CL is Coefficient of lift
P is density of air
V2 is airspeed squared
A is surface area of wing
Density, airspeed and surface area of wing dont change. So climbing compared to level flight you need more lift and to get more lift you need to increase the coefficient of lift. How do you increase the coefficient of lift, you increase the angle of attack (presuming not past the stall).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Secret base in Hoth...
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=4SPOOLED;3011583][quote=gassed budgie;3010661
On a brighter note, i dont like working for free meatbombing which most 182's are used for, so i doubt ill be flying for you anytime soon and if you think you can land a 182 at 120kts i dont think i want to work for you anytime soon![/quote]
Dont assume anything in life, not only can you fly a C182 for meatbombing, but you can also get paid to do it
Happy landings
CMN
On a brighter note, i dont like working for free meatbombing which most 182's are used for, so i doubt ill be flying for you anytime soon and if you think you can land a 182 at 120kts i dont think i want to work for you anytime soon!
[/quote]Dont assume anything in life, not only can you fly a C182 for meatbombing, but you can also get paid to do it
Happy landings
CMN
Grandpa Aerotart
kair1234 aeroplanes climb when they have an excess of thrust over that required for straight and level flight...otherwise service ceilings would be meaningless. An aeroplane wing in a steady climb has pretty much the same AoA as level flight but produces less lift because it is travelling through the air slower... but the vertical componant of thrust works in concert with the lift being produced and the aeroplane climbs...until such time as excess thrust = O and then no matter what you do with the AoA the aeroplane stops climbing.
4spooled AoA is the angle between the chord of the wing and the relative airflow...given the wing has an angle of incidence the chord will never align with 'the nose attitude'.
If you were flying along in your C182 and reduced the power to idle while holding the aircraft attitude unchanged the aircraft would descend...that descent would change the vector (give it a verticle component) of the relative airflow and you would have an increased AoA.
rat**** is not alone in wondering HTF the subject of landing a C182 could be so complex as to require several pages.
Sweet Jesus
Edit:
You never 'stall' an aeroplane landing it unless you **** up...if you time it right you will have the stall warning sound as you touchdown but that occurrs 5kts or so before the actual stall AoA is reached. What you are doing is trying to achieve the correct landing attitude at an altitude of a few inches coincident with the speed being so low that the wings can no longer support the aircrafts weight at 1g and the aircraft settles gently onto the ground. If you actually stall the nose drops and you will likely damage the nosewheel. Even landing taildraggers in what is known as a 'full stall' landing you don't actually stall...it's a missnomer.
To answer the original question what works in every aeroplane is to approach at the correct speed, reduce the power to idle at the correct altitude, round out and flare the aircraft to the correct attitude and hold that attitude until the aeroplane lands...the skill comes from being able to put all that together consistantly in varying conditions. Cessnas particularly do NOT like excess speed. Anything more than 65kts in a C182 is asking for trouble...55-60kts lightly loaded.
If you actually read the POH you will see that the speeds quoted are those to be acheived at 50 feet. The expectation is you would, at 50', smoothly reduce the power to idle, fly down and gently roundout before flaring into the correct landing attitude...and landing. What causes so much anxst is that people insist on being at 1.3Vs speed at 5' rather than 50'. That is what leads to excess floating and forcing the aeroplane onto the ground causing the firewall damage someone alludes to above.
I actually find it difficult to believe you ever instructed 4spooled.
4spooled AoA is the angle between the chord of the wing and the relative airflow...given the wing has an angle of incidence the chord will never align with 'the nose attitude'.
If you were flying along in your C182 and reduced the power to idle while holding the aircraft attitude unchanged the aircraft would descend...that descent would change the vector (give it a verticle component) of the relative airflow and you would have an increased AoA.
rat**** is not alone in wondering HTF the subject of landing a C182 could be so complex as to require several pages.
The AOA is always relative to your Nose attitude no matter where the relative airflow is coming from,If you are in a nose dive or climbing vertically as the airflow is relative to the chord and the nose attitude dictates your AOA.....
I wise man once told me POF to a pilot is like mortor to a bricklayer, understand whats happening and you can use aerodynamics and your sound knowledge of them to fly the aircraft far better!
I wise man once told me POF to a pilot is like mortor to a bricklayer, understand whats happening and you can use aerodynamics and your sound knowledge of them to fly the aircraft far better!
Edit:
You never 'stall' an aeroplane landing it unless you **** up...if you time it right you will have the stall warning sound as you touchdown but that occurrs 5kts or so before the actual stall AoA is reached. What you are doing is trying to achieve the correct landing attitude at an altitude of a few inches coincident with the speed being so low that the wings can no longer support the aircrafts weight at 1g and the aircraft settles gently onto the ground. If you actually stall the nose drops and you will likely damage the nosewheel. Even landing taildraggers in what is known as a 'full stall' landing you don't actually stall...it's a missnomer.
To answer the original question what works in every aeroplane is to approach at the correct speed, reduce the power to idle at the correct altitude, round out and flare the aircraft to the correct attitude and hold that attitude until the aeroplane lands...the skill comes from being able to put all that together consistantly in varying conditions. Cessnas particularly do NOT like excess speed. Anything more than 65kts in a C182 is asking for trouble...55-60kts lightly loaded.
If you actually read the POH you will see that the speeds quoted are those to be acheived at 50 feet. The expectation is you would, at 50', smoothly reduce the power to idle, fly down and gently roundout before flaring into the correct landing attitude...and landing. What causes so much anxst is that people insist on being at 1.3Vs speed at 5' rather than 50'. That is what leads to excess floating and forcing the aeroplane onto the ground causing the firewall damage someone alludes to above.
I think you need to go back to flying school mate because the technique i explained is how WE TEACH STUDENTS TO LAND IN THE FIRST PLACE
Glad i dont have to instruct now ay!
And Someone asked about it being differant to a performance landing? well a performance landing you close the throttle in the flare and try for a more positive landing (ie harder impact) almost touching all three wheels at once.
If you dont land rat**** how i explained in the above post, i would love to hear your technique, would be interesting to talk about it with the boys over a few beers tonight!
Glad i dont have to instruct now ay!
And Someone asked about it being differant to a performance landing? well a performance landing you close the throttle in the flare and try for a more positive landing (ie harder impact) almost touching all three wheels at once.
If you dont land rat**** how i explained in the above post, i would love to hear your technique, would be interesting to talk about it with the boys over a few beers tonight!
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 10th Dec 2006 at 16:25.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: new zealand
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu, "aeroplanes climb when they have an excess of thrust over that required for straight and level flight" at the same airspeed. I had these four words pointed out to me during my instructors flight test.
scroogee
scroogee
To complete this thread you need a comment from a pratt like me, who is now an expert in how not to land a Cessna. I can absoluteley confirm that if you are above the reference sped in the POH by more than about five knots you will bounce, or float and bounce.
As for the idea that if you can land a C150 you can land any Cessna, its BS. The C150 has very little momentum, and its easy for a student to slow it up and get the right reference speed, just close the throttle and she slows down quite quickly. It didn't want to bounce much at all (perhaps because it was very tired, arthritic and worn out
)
The C172 and 182 are a different matter they will always bounce if you get to the threshold at more than about five knots above Vref.
I love this quote from Mr. Budgerigar:
Let me tell you a story. I did my C172 endorsement in very few hours in nice windy weather. Previous experience was the C150 and "landomatic" Warrior.
The following week, being a conscientous so and so, I decided to do an hours circuits to hone my C172 technique. Now flying school SOP's add a few knots to whats in the POH, and then being new to the game and totally unaware of the C172 "bouncability" I came over the fence at a good 70+ knots, blissfully unaware of what I was setting myself up for.
The first bounce was about twenty feet skywards. The resulting series of three bounces, each one bigger than the last are not caused by stupidity, but by a terrified pilot attempting to compensate, resulting in whats called PIO - pilot induced oscillation, the pilots reactions being about half a second behind the aircraft - however I only discovered this afterwards. And no, I didn't think of doing a go around after the first bounce because I was completely taken by surprise. And no, I didn't simply hold the nose up to "protect the nosewheel" twenty feet in the air.
After three determined attempts to tame the beast, each one worse than the last, a very kind tower controller ordered me in on a pretext, hoping I suspect to preserve the integrity of the runway. I'd creased the firewall below the battery box.
The only consolation after paying the $1500 excess, was that there were three more C172's in the repair facility damaged far worse than mine from doing the same thing. One even had the floor pushed up. I have since watched with incredulity a C172 preserve it wheels and tyres by floating almost the entire length of YMMB 17R (1240m)
The combination that caught me was too much speed on threshold - which was masked in my endorsement by a nice headwind to some extent (less kinetic energy), and the size of the bounce, which overcame the training of never letting the yoke go forward, as practiced on the docile C150.
Of course after considerable retraining, landing one now is positively pleasurable - keep the elevator coming back and hold off. The best way to land the C172 is to try and keep it flying.
All right, tear me apart.
As for the idea that if you can land a C150 you can land any Cessna, its BS. The C150 has very little momentum, and its easy for a student to slow it up and get the right reference speed, just close the throttle and she slows down quite quickly. It didn't want to bounce much at all (perhaps because it was very tired, arthritic and worn out
)The C172 and 182 are a different matter they will always bounce if you get to the threshold at more than about five knots above Vref.
I love this quote from Mr. Budgerigar:
We're establishing how high or low the nose might be i.e. the attitude of the aircraft. If it's not where it needs to be, you as the PIC should be and most definitely have to do something about it.
We've probably all seen at some stage an aircraft porpising down the runway, with every bounce getting higher and nastier, it usually being about the fifth impact where the nose wheel comes off.
So why this example ? Because it demonstrates the absolute lack of any sort of attitude control by the pilot. What was he thinking ? What was he doing to resolve the situation ? Not a lot, he was just along for the ride.
We've probably all seen at some stage an aircraft porpising down the runway, with every bounce getting higher and nastier, it usually being about the fifth impact where the nose wheel comes off.
So why this example ? Because it demonstrates the absolute lack of any sort of attitude control by the pilot. What was he thinking ? What was he doing to resolve the situation ? Not a lot, he was just along for the ride.
The following week, being a conscientous so and so, I decided to do an hours circuits to hone my C172 technique. Now flying school SOP's add a few knots to whats in the POH, and then being new to the game and totally unaware of the C172 "bouncability" I came over the fence at a good 70+ knots, blissfully unaware of what I was setting myself up for.
The first bounce was about twenty feet skywards. The resulting series of three bounces, each one bigger than the last are not caused by stupidity, but by a terrified pilot attempting to compensate, resulting in whats called PIO - pilot induced oscillation, the pilots reactions being about half a second behind the aircraft - however I only discovered this afterwards. And no, I didn't think of doing a go around after the first bounce because I was completely taken by surprise. And no, I didn't simply hold the nose up to "protect the nosewheel" twenty feet in the air.
After three determined attempts to tame the beast, each one worse than the last, a very kind tower controller ordered me in on a pretext, hoping I suspect to preserve the integrity of the runway. I'd creased the firewall below the battery box.
The only consolation after paying the $1500 excess, was that there were three more C172's in the repair facility damaged far worse than mine from doing the same thing. One even had the floor pushed up. I have since watched with incredulity a C172 preserve it wheels and tyres by floating almost the entire length of YMMB 17R (1240m)
The combination that caught me was too much speed on threshold - which was masked in my endorsement by a nice headwind to some extent (less kinetic energy), and the size of the bounce, which overcame the training of never letting the yoke go forward, as practiced on the docile C150.
Of course after considerable retraining, landing one now is positively pleasurable - keep the elevator coming back and hold off. The best way to land the C172 is to try and keep it flying.
All right, tear me apart.
Last edited by Sunfish; 11th Dec 2006 at 02:58.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish
I see nothing in your post that moves me to resile from my view that anyone who has been taught to land a C150 properly should have little difficulty with the rest of the Cessna SE trikes.
Cheers
R
PS: Yes, I do understand that the target appr speed may differ slightly - but the rest of it is just the same.
I see nothing in your post that moves me to resile from my view that anyone who has been taught to land a C150 properly should have little difficulty with the rest of the Cessna SE trikes.
Cheers
R
PS: Yes, I do understand that the target appr speed may differ slightly - but the rest of it is just the same.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did my C172 endorsement in very few hours in nice windy weather.
if it took you a few hours to master the 172 after flying anything else, I would strongly suggest you take up stamp collecting.
Just for the record, I did one circuit in a 172, at about three hours after my GFPT and then was signed out to use it.
What was your throttle hand doing while you were bouncing down the runway?. could be you need to change instructors and find one that will teach you the correct bounce recovery procedure other than hold your attitude. that will most likely cause you to stall a few feet high and the nose wheel will suffer far worse than it did.
I guess your coming out of retirement now sunfish.
Four bent 172's in the hangar at the same time, all with firewall damage. Who is teaching these people? What a reflection on the industry as a whole if training standards are so abysmal. How can anybody be so cruel to a perfectly good aircraft. Jesus wept. John 11-35
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I give up
Your nose attitude dictates the AOA and the AOA is the angle between the chord and the relative airflow.......
We climb because of excess thrust as weight is more than lift in a climb due to the vertical component of lift reducing in the climb as lift is perpendicular to the relative airflow, and the more excess thrust we have the steeper we can climb, ie a FA18 climbing near vertical.
Stick to the numbers in your 182 POH, you will land it well with time on type as we all do, and its fruitless debating it, because nothing beats practise in the aircraft.
Safe flying boys and girls
4S
Your nose attitude dictates the AOA and the AOA is the angle between the chord and the relative airflow.......
We climb because of excess thrust as weight is more than lift in a climb due to the vertical component of lift reducing in the climb as lift is perpendicular to the relative airflow, and the more excess thrust we have the steeper we can climb, ie a FA18 climbing near vertical.
Stick to the numbers in your 182 POH, you will land it well with time on type as we all do, and its fruitless debating it, because nothing beats practise in the aircraft.
Safe flying boys and girls
4S