Perfect Landing C182
Guest
Posts: n/a
(types slowly) how........if the r.a.f is coming from the 'direction you are climbing in', how can you have a high aoa? wouldn't the aoa be low (high forward airspeed), but the ATTITUDE be high? wouldn't a high aoa lead to a stall? 16deg i think you've quoted
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back to the point, I have a lot of sympathy with Double Donk and still have 'whoops' even after 500hrs in the 182.. Yes, I can embarass myself quite easily in a 182. The trick is holding off or getting it to poke its nose up before the mains contact - sometimes that nose wheel just won't come up. I reckon speed is the key but if you are too slow (and some of those saying 60-65 on final might be a tad slow? 80 certainly is far too fast), there is not enough wind going over the elevators and the nose will not come up no matter how hard you pull, especially with full flap and no-one in the back - the result is usually bang or bounce. Rounding out at the correct height is very important with 182's - start pulling too early - and guess what? - bang!
The RG is harder than the fixed version, probably because it has those little wheels, apparently shorter back legs (so harder to keep off the nosewheel) and the bigger heavier (but much better!) Lycoming up front. Bumpy gravel runways certainly exacerbate this situation. Having said all of that, yeah they are easy enough to land safely but personally I find greasers fewer and farer between - However, comparisons above with 152's and 172's are superfluous. The basic technique might be the same but RG's in particular are much heavier and far less forgiving if you don't fly the numbers and round out/hold-off accurately - which of course is why I still have my 'whoopses'.
The RG is harder than the fixed version, probably because it has those little wheels, apparently shorter back legs (so harder to keep off the nosewheel) and the bigger heavier (but much better!) Lycoming up front. Bumpy gravel runways certainly exacerbate this situation. Having said all of that, yeah they are easy enough to land safely but personally I find greasers fewer and farer between - However, comparisons above with 152's and 172's are superfluous. The basic technique might be the same but RG's in particular are much heavier and far less forgiving if you don't fly the numbers and round out/hold-off accurately - which of course is why I still have my 'whoopses'.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: aussie land
Age: 35
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so are you saying nose attitude and angle of attack are the same thing? all theory books i've read on aerodynamics explicitly says it's not.
Last edited by JulieFlyGal; 12th Jan 2007 at 03:27.
It certainly is the case with nearly all C180/185's.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G of G ?
Cessnas engaged in para dropping often have a forwrad Cof G,(outside limits?) due not only to having no weight in the back when landing, but also due to the weight of the seats that have been removed.
It's common.
It's common.
However, it is best not to teach students to "keep raising the attitude in the hold off". It is better to get them to "prevent the aircraft from sinking by looking at the far end of the runway", as this will prevent them thinking about attitude (and sometimes ballooning).
If you watch enough aircraft shooting touch and goes, it becomes obvious after a short period of time that 4 out of 5 pilots in those aircraft weren't thinking about too much of anything at all, certainly not attitude. And that's a shame.
