Perfect Landing C182
With the greatest of respect, there is "learning" and there is "learning". Knowing how little I know, I now try and seek out the great and good among the instructor community and never pass up an opportunity to fly with a different instructor when chance offers it.
I still find flying educational, delightful, useful, and my only regret is that I didn't start about 30 years ago. I used to sit in the cockpits of B727's, 767's during overhaul at lunchtime looking blankly at the controls (when I wasn't bowling awfully to wombat). It was a good thing for AN that I was not learning to fly at the time.
I still find flying educational, delightful, useful, and my only regret is that I didn't start about 30 years ago. I used to sit in the cockpits of B727's, 767's during overhaul at lunchtime looking blankly at the controls (when I wasn't bowling awfully to wombat). It was a good thing for AN that I was not learning to fly at the time.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will agree with you Sunfish that a 172 can be a tad more "floaty" than a 152. It can catch you by surprise if you let it, however its just a big 152 plus 5knots.
I still fly them regulary myself and after usually flying heavier types, it spins me out still how much they get affected by a little bit of wind. I still occasionaly get caught if i smoke it in a tad fast trying to save some time on the switch!
Safe flying Sunfish, at least someone is prepared to admit they were not born an aviation prodigy that could do no wrong
Im also glad you learnt from it and it didnt scare you off!
I still fly them regulary myself and after usually flying heavier types, it spins me out still how much they get affected by a little bit of wind. I still occasionaly get caught if i smoke it in a tad fast trying to save some time on the switch!
Safe flying Sunfish, at least someone is prepared to admit they were not born an aviation prodigy that could do no wrong
Im also glad you learnt from it and it didnt scare you off!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look at this article from Flight Safety Australia;
http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2000/sep/FSA34-35.pdf
Angle of attack is not nose attitude. It is the angle formed between the chord line of an aerofoil and the relative airflow or relative wind.
Cheers and safe flying
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Paradise
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Angle of attack is not nose attitude. It is the angle formed between the chord line of an aerofoil and the relative airflow or relative wind"
"No matter what the attitude or airspeed, if you pull on the stick to the critical angle, you will stall"
"Although most people associate stalling with high attitudes and low speeds a stall can occur in a 45-degree descent at 200kt, and yet an aircraft can be unstalled in a vertical climb at 5kt as long as the angle of attack is less than the critical angle"
"No matter what the attitude or airspeed, if you pull on the stick to the critical angle, you will stall"
"Although most people associate stalling with high attitudes and low speeds a stall can occur in a 45-degree descent at 200kt, and yet an aircraft can be unstalled in a vertical climb at 5kt as long as the angle of attack is less than the critical angle"
Stalling myths
Impress your friends with these simple stalling one liners.
1. Friend: “Don’t bank too steep! You increase the risk of stalling!”You: Bank is unrelated to stalling. Stalling is a function of angle of attack. Pulling, in the turn causes the stall.
2. Friend: “What speed does she stall at, mate?”
You: Any speed you like! But always at the critical angle of attack.
3. Friend: “If you cross the controls you will increase the danger of stalling!”
You: Crossing the controls cannot possibly, on its own, stall the aeroplane. If that was the case sideslipping approaches would be impossible. However, if you increase the angle of attack to around 16 degrees, you will stall and that’s where there’s trouble: yaw + stall = spin.4. Friend: “How can you tell me that you can pull the nose up 45 degrees above the horizon when it stalls at a lower angle?”
You: Angle of attack and nose attitude are not the same. Think about a loop. We point in every direction in pitch, but we do not stall unless we pull to the stall position.5. Friend: How fast do you have to go to get into a high speed stall?
You: A high speed stall occurs any time when you pull to the stalling angle above the published power-off 1G stalling speed. So, how fast? Just about any speed you like up to and beyond Vne.
FLIGHT SAFETY AUSTRALIA, SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2000
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry mate, not having a go at ya as we all do indeed make mistakes, but this ain't true either. You can have a low nose attitude and still have a high enough angle attack to invoke a stall. Nose attitude is not the same as AoA.
Take a look at this article from Flight Safety Australia;
http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2000/sep/FSA34-35.pdf
If you were an instructor, then check out your briefing notes on "stalls". This point shoud have been covered in the "stalls" brief.
Cheers and safe flying
Take a look at this article from Flight Safety Australia;
http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2000/sep/FSA34-35.pdf
If you were an instructor, then check out your briefing notes on "stalls". This point shoud have been covered in the "stalls" brief.
Cheers and safe flying
If you want to also get smart a dynamic stall when you exceed the critical angle usually on a high speed decent followed by an abrupt pull up, the nose attitude and AOA in relation the the relative airflow is still at or exceeding the 16 degree angle of attack required for a stall.
A stall is not an airspeed problem but rather a AOA problem, and AOA is still relative to nose attitude!!
We could debate this crap all day really!
If you want to also get smart a dynamic stall when you exceed the critical angle usually on a high speed decent followed by an abrupt pull up, the nose attitude and AOA in relation the the relative airflow is still at or exceeding the 16 degree angle of attack required for a stall
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it is fair to assume that the angle of incidence is fixed during your flight (excluding flaps or other moveable surfaces that may effectively alter the incidence angle), that still leaves means that AOA vs Attitude will vary with the flight path.
Am I missing something?
Last edited by Miraz; 12th Dec 2006 at 05:47.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the nose of the aircraft is connected to the damn wing isnt it? so its fair to assume that what ever the nose does the wing will also do. Once you grasp that concept, you consider where the relative airflow is coming from! if you are in a nose dive the relative air flow is now coming at you from the ground!, pitch the nose up to hard and fast to return to straight and level, or try and climb and the wing exceeds the critical angle, usually around 16 degrees and you have a stall!
Whatever the nose is doing the wing is also doing right? just as in effects of controls you demonstrate that you have full control of roll pitch and yaw in any attitude.
Whatever the nose is doing the wing is also doing right? just as in effects of controls you demonstrate that you have full control of roll pitch and yaw in any attitude.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
consider where the relative airflow is coming from! if you are in a nose dive the relative air flow is now coming at you from the ground! Whatever the nose is doing the wing is also doing right? just as in effects of controls you demonstrate that you have full control of roll pitch and yaw in any attitude.
Consider the following simplified situations:-
Scenario 1 - Nose on the horizon(zero pitch), airspeed low - hence the wing is generating relatively little lift and accordingly the aircraft is descending
Scenario 2 - Nose on the horizon (zero pitch), airspeed high - wing is generating lots of lift and accordingly the aircraft is ascending
The AOA is higher in the first scenario, although the nose is pointed in the same direction in both cases.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Tasman Sea
Age: 66
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spent a few years doing joy flights in a 172 and para drops in a 182. The easy way to land them is to do a proper hold-off, and let the stall do the actual landing for you. The way to know you've held off enough is to hear the stall warning. Keep pulling till you hear it, then a bit more! And yes, pax would sometimes ask what the noise was, so I'd tell them.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Secret base in Hoth...
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spent a few years doing joy flights in a 172 and para drops in a 182. The easy way to land them is to do a proper hold-off, and let the stall do the actual landing for you. The way to know you've held off enough is to hear the stall warning. Keep pulling till you hear it, then a bit more! And yes, pax would sometimes ask what the noise was, so I'd tell them.
Only heard it once
CMN
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err...no - your argument only holds true whilst the aircraft is on the ground.
Consider the following simplified situations:-
Scenario 1 - Nose on the horizon(zero pitch), airspeed low - hence the wing is generating relatively little lift and accordingly the aircraft is descending
Consider the following simplified situations:-
Scenario 1 - Nose on the horizon(zero pitch), airspeed low - hence the wing is generating relatively little lift and accordingly the aircraft is descending
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Tasman Sea
Age: 66
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I, and I think most others here, think that 'nose attitude' is the angle between the longitudinal axis and the horizontal???? ie. the attitude as seen looking out the front window.
What say you, 4S?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the problem in this discussion is that 4SPOOLED knows what's going on, but thinks that 'nose attitude' is measured against relative airflow, as AoA is.
I, and I think most others here, think that 'nose attitude' is the angle between the longitudinal axis and the horizontal???? ie. the attitude as seen looking out the front window.
What say you, 4S?
I, and I think most others here, think that 'nose attitude' is the angle between the longitudinal axis and the horizontal???? ie. the attitude as seen looking out the front window.
What say you, 4S?
But its just a differant spin on the same ****! but most of the time you refer to the attitude against the horizon just as the little instrument called the AH does!
Play around with aeros though and you realise that attitude can mean a whole lot more than the horizon!
Safe flying Guys and Gals!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the good old days there used to be a highly sophisticated instrument called a "wool tuft". If you attached it to a scrap of wire out in front of the leading edge (maybe 6"-12" fwd) it could give you an INTERACTIVE AERO LESSON (at least that's what I think they called it).
I bet if I started making them I could sell them for $500 or more - the lessons learned would be worth many times that, so it should be a real bargain, don't you think?
I bet if I started making them I could sell them for $500 or more - the lessons learned would be worth many times that, so it should be a real bargain, don't you think?
A UK AAIB bulletin published today on a landing accident to a 182 said:
"The AOPA study showed that landing was the phase of flight when most Cessna 182 accidents occurred, and that the type had a greater proportion of hard landing accidents relative to other comparable types. The study noted that common factors in accidents were: pilots transitioning from types of aircraft with lighter elevator controls; a forward centre of gravity, which typically occurred with two persons on board, and poor speed control on short finals."
"The AOPA study showed that landing was the phase of flight when most Cessna 182 accidents occurred, and that the type had a greater proportion of hard landing accidents relative to other comparable types. The study noted that common factors in accidents were: pilots transitioning from types of aircraft with lighter elevator controls; a forward centre of gravity, which typically occurred with two persons on board, and poor speed control on short finals."