Is a normal landing a controlled stall?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I can’t really comment on tail wheel a/c as I have never landed one. But I will have a go at this for nosewheelers:
As I said - a go at explaining things from my view point.
Firstly consider what happens in a normal stall in a normal a/c. The main wings are designed (for safety) to stall before the tail plane. This means they loose lift and the a/c roughly pivots around the tail plane.
Now consider this when the wheels are 1inch above the runway at the stall. The pivot takes place about the tailplane as above until the mainwheels touchdown. At this point a new pivot point is created - the mainwheels themselves. Then as the tailplane is not stalled it can continue to be used to alter the angle of the aircraft about the mainwheels. As the aircraft slows down the power of the tailplane diminshes until it can no longer provide enough downforce to keep the nosewheel off the deck - at which point it will lower, if you have not lowered it already.
Apologies if some techy terms are wrong, but the above seems to make sense to me & I would be interested in views on the principles of the above
However, we all know that when we stall an aircraft, the nose will drop, sometimes sharply, and a wing may drop too. This doesn't usually happen when you land, fortunately. I've never had anyone give me an explaination for this which I like.
Firstly consider what happens in a normal stall in a normal a/c. The main wings are designed (for safety) to stall before the tail plane. This means they loose lift and the a/c roughly pivots around the tail plane.
Now consider this when the wheels are 1inch above the runway at the stall. The pivot takes place about the tailplane as above until the mainwheels touchdown. At this point a new pivot point is created - the mainwheels themselves. Then as the tailplane is not stalled it can continue to be used to alter the angle of the aircraft about the mainwheels. As the aircraft slows down the power of the tailplane diminshes until it can no longer provide enough downforce to keep the nosewheel off the deck - at which point it will lower, if you have not lowered it already.
Apologies if some techy terms are wrong, but the above seems to make sense to me & I would be interested in views on the principles of the above
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D & A the aircraft will pivot around the C of G.
Now back to the stall thing now remember when you all first did your stall recoverys one of the things that the instructor pionted out to you was the pre-stall buffet.
Hands up who has felt that buffet on landing ?............guys without the buffet you wont get the stall.
Now back to the stall thing now remember when you all first did your stall recoverys one of the things that the instructor pionted out to you was the pre-stall buffet.
Hands up who has felt that buffet on landing ?............guys without the buffet you wont get the stall.
Further to my remarks about stalls... I was out doing airwork today in my TR182, and I tried using the ailerons (gently) in a full stall (yoke held fully back). As I expected (I've never tried before) the ailerons work normally. I didn't try full deflection since I didn't want to do a snap roll (or whatever it's called in the UK). In other words, although on aggregate the wings are stalled (past the peak of the C/L curve), the tips are not stalled. This after all is what they are designed to do.
I disagree with SSD's remarks about a stall at altitude - done correctly, you pull back and pull back, nailing the altitude, right up to the break, at which point there is nothing more to be done (except recover of course) - if you hold the stall at that point, you will get a highish sink rate and the nose will bob up and down, stalling and unstalling. But up to the break you can (pretty much by definition) hold altitude. Of course there are planes, such as the Cherokee, which have such a flat C/L curve that you never really experience a break even at full up elevator, so the only indication you have of stall is the sink rate.
n5296s
I disagree with SSD's remarks about a stall at altitude - done correctly, you pull back and pull back, nailing the altitude, right up to the break, at which point there is nothing more to be done (except recover of course) - if you hold the stall at that point, you will get a highish sink rate and the nose will bob up and down, stalling and unstalling. But up to the break you can (pretty much by definition) hold altitude. Of course there are planes, such as the Cherokee, which have such a flat C/L curve that you never really experience a break even at full up elevator, so the only indication you have of stall is the sink rate.
n5296s
Not Good Airline Material
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Airstrip One
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maz,
Remember that stalling with FULL FLAP, as is generally the case for a normal landing in most conventional training a/c, involves a much lower nose attitude due to the change in the effective chord line (i.e.leading edge to trailing edge) in this configuration.
Also, by attempting to continue to fly the a/c only a couple of feet above the ground with little or no power and NOT allowing it to sink onto the deck by raising the nose until the airspeed reduces to stalling speed, a fully developed stall can never really happen, since the aircrafts weight will simply settle on to the main wheels due to the negligible vertical velocity being attained by such a "stall", whilst the elevator should maintain enough authority - although some a/c require more than a trickle of power to achieve this - to gently lower the nosewheel onto the runway due to sufficient horizontal velocity being maintained.
Perhaps it may therefore be more appropriate to refer to an incipient stall on landing, since the stall has no chance to develop properly unless such a flare is attempted too high above the runway.
I think that the fear of this may be what encourages some instructors to let students and even PPL's away with shoddy fast three wheeler aircraft carrier type "arrivals". Sometimes the nosewheel is raised only very slightly for appearance just before impact - often resulting in the instant aversion therapy of an unwanted climb due to excessive speed, followed by hasty juggling of the controls to point the aircraft back in the right direction. So the student learns to fear the flare and just clatters onto the runway instead, sort of giving up and hoping for the best at the last moment, simply relieved that the runway finally appears to be in roughly the right place beneath and in front of him.
I have seen this very often, and not only with students.
Although not usually life-threatening, this is not exactly kind to the airframe, undercarriage, tyres and brakes - it is also a waste of perfectly good runway and often not very comfortable for passengers.
I once conducted a PPL check flight where the pilot did not appear to understand the concept of the hold off and flare at all, and was extremely resentful of my suggestion that his fast and flat landings could be improved upon, complaining that I was trying to re-teach him to land using some advanced technique as opposed to this method which he claimed to have been taught - but I suspect he had so far simply got away with.
Remember that stalling with FULL FLAP, as is generally the case for a normal landing in most conventional training a/c, involves a much lower nose attitude due to the change in the effective chord line (i.e.leading edge to trailing edge) in this configuration.
Also, by attempting to continue to fly the a/c only a couple of feet above the ground with little or no power and NOT allowing it to sink onto the deck by raising the nose until the airspeed reduces to stalling speed, a fully developed stall can never really happen, since the aircrafts weight will simply settle on to the main wheels due to the negligible vertical velocity being attained by such a "stall", whilst the elevator should maintain enough authority - although some a/c require more than a trickle of power to achieve this - to gently lower the nosewheel onto the runway due to sufficient horizontal velocity being maintained.
Perhaps it may therefore be more appropriate to refer to an incipient stall on landing, since the stall has no chance to develop properly unless such a flare is attempted too high above the runway.
I think that the fear of this may be what encourages some instructors to let students and even PPL's away with shoddy fast three wheeler aircraft carrier type "arrivals". Sometimes the nosewheel is raised only very slightly for appearance just before impact - often resulting in the instant aversion therapy of an unwanted climb due to excessive speed, followed by hasty juggling of the controls to point the aircraft back in the right direction. So the student learns to fear the flare and just clatters onto the runway instead, sort of giving up and hoping for the best at the last moment, simply relieved that the runway finally appears to be in roughly the right place beneath and in front of him.
I have seen this very often, and not only with students.
Although not usually life-threatening, this is not exactly kind to the airframe, undercarriage, tyres and brakes - it is also a waste of perfectly good runway and often not very comfortable for passengers.
I once conducted a PPL check flight where the pilot did not appear to understand the concept of the hold off and flare at all, and was extremely resentful of my suggestion that his fast and flat landings could be improved upon, complaining that I was trying to re-teach him to land using some advanced technique as opposed to this method which he claimed to have been taught - but I suspect he had so far simply got away with.
Last edited by Blackshift; 18th Apr 2005 at 06:05.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackshift
If the aircraft is about to stall do you feel the pre-stall buffet ? if on landing you dont the aircraft is not about to stall after all you teach buffet as one of the things that warns the student about aproaching the stall in the slow flight leasons.
Yes the aircraft may well be below stalling speed just before landing but this is due to ground effect IN MY OPINION the air that is accelerated between the ground and the bottom of the wing results in a low pressure area just aft of the trailing edge that "Sucks" the airflow down on the upper surface and prevents the break down of the upper surface laminer flow hence no buffet and no stall.
n5296s
Try the aileron thing with a PA38 and the roll responce will be quite different !
Yes the aircraft may well be below stalling speed just before landing but this is due to ground effect IN MY OPINION the air that is accelerated between the ground and the bottom of the wing results in a low pressure area just aft of the trailing edge that "Sucks" the airflow down on the upper surface and prevents the break down of the upper surface laminer flow hence no buffet and no stall.
n5296s
Try the aileron thing with a PA38 and the roll responce will be quite different !
Not Good Airline Material
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Airstrip One
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C,
Buffet, stall warner, low speed, unusually high aoa are all warnings of an impending or incipient stall - if the flare was too high there would undoubtedly be a perceptible buffet before the greatest loss of lift would be experienced. However, the buffet is surely at that stage of the stall-break where the airflow begins to seperate from the upper-surface and the lift threatens to decrease even more rapidly than before.
It has nevertheless decreased initially only slightly just at the back end of the lift/aoa curve in the case of a well executed landing, just enough to allow the mainwheels to settle on the runway - otherwise we would still be up there two feet above the runway.
In this case the stall simply doesn't have time to develop fully, due to the wheels taking the weight at almost the instant the aircraft reaches the back end of the lift/aoa curve, which is after all a curve, thus indicating a progressive rather than an instant occurance as the aoa is altered in the flare.
I suspect that we are not entirely in disagreement here, because I have already suggested that this is effectively reduced to an incipient more than a developed stall when done properly.
This is of course a matter of degree, rather than an absolute distinction:-
At the desirable end of the scale "greaser" is attained towards (but crucially just beyond - otherwise no descent!) the incipient side of the stall. I fully agree that ground effect might be of assistance in this process, especially in low wing a/c (the down side being that low wing a/c also have a greater tendency to "float" when the approach speed is too high), but that does not stop this from being a stall - it just becomes an even more progressive stall due to the delay in the breakdown of airflow above the wing, hence no buffet.
And at the less-than-desirable end of the scale, a collapsed undercarriage, or worse, would result from a fully developed stall with all the associated buffet and subsequent downwards acceleration you might expect as much of the lift is dumped from the wings after a continued attempt to flare too high above the runway.
Buffet, stall warner, low speed, unusually high aoa are all warnings of an impending or incipient stall - if the flare was too high there would undoubtedly be a perceptible buffet before the greatest loss of lift would be experienced. However, the buffet is surely at that stage of the stall-break where the airflow begins to seperate from the upper-surface and the lift threatens to decrease even more rapidly than before.
It has nevertheless decreased initially only slightly just at the back end of the lift/aoa curve in the case of a well executed landing, just enough to allow the mainwheels to settle on the runway - otherwise we would still be up there two feet above the runway.
In this case the stall simply doesn't have time to develop fully, due to the wheels taking the weight at almost the instant the aircraft reaches the back end of the lift/aoa curve, which is after all a curve, thus indicating a progressive rather than an instant occurance as the aoa is altered in the flare.
I suspect that we are not entirely in disagreement here, because I have already suggested that this is effectively reduced to an incipient more than a developed stall when done properly.
This is of course a matter of degree, rather than an absolute distinction:-
At the desirable end of the scale "greaser" is attained towards (but crucially just beyond - otherwise no descent!) the incipient side of the stall. I fully agree that ground effect might be of assistance in this process, especially in low wing a/c (the down side being that low wing a/c also have a greater tendency to "float" when the approach speed is too high), but that does not stop this from being a stall - it just becomes an even more progressive stall due to the delay in the breakdown of airflow above the wing, hence no buffet.
And at the less-than-desirable end of the scale, a collapsed undercarriage, or worse, would result from a fully developed stall with all the associated buffet and subsequent downwards acceleration you might expect as much of the lift is dumped from the wings after a continued attempt to flare too high above the runway.
Last edited by Blackshift; 18th Apr 2005 at 07:32.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was out doing airwork today in my TR182, and I tried using the ailerons (gently) in a full stall (yoke held fully back). As I expected (I've never tried before) the ailerons work normally.
Just to add, I witnessed the result of what I understand to be a stall in the flare this weekend - a PA38. Nose drop in flare, collapsed nose wheel...prop strike. Comments were made about the T-tail (not flown the type), beyond a certain AoA, being completely ineffective.
Last edited by High Wing Drifter; 18th Apr 2005 at 08:09.
Not Good Airline Material
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Airstrip One
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C,
Having just thought about this a little more I think you might be right about the a/c not being stalled...
It is of course the Coefficient of Lift versus Angle of Attack curve to which we are properly referring here. Lift is itself a function of air speed and density as well as CL.
It is in fact nonsense for me to suggest that it is necessary to achieve stalling speed for an a/c to descend onto its mainwheels.
I might well land a few kts too fast, not flaring as fully as I could and therefore allowing the flight path of the aircraft to descend such that although the main wheels make contact before the nosewheel, the downward momentum of the airframe is sufficient to cause the nosewheel to touch down immediately thereafter perhaps a bit more firmly than necessary or ideally desirable. Although not a "greaser" this might well be judged to be a fairly competent and safe landing.
However, a well executed "greaser" would involve flying just above (an inch/foot or whatever) the runway and gently easing the mainwheels onto the r/w in the following manner - the reduction in speed is hastened by increasing drag as aoa is increased to maintain just enough lift to maintain this marginal height until it begins to decrease gently at around stalling speed, due to the continuing reduction of airspeed for the max CL achievable as we approach the stall - there is therefore a small reduction of lift just at the instant we get to the top of the cl/aoa curve.
The buffet may begin to appear, albeit imperceptibly, as soon as the curve begins to descend. For some aircraft this can of course be a very sudden and perceptible occurrance, whilst others require stall strips to make it more obvious to the pilot. The point is that the rapidly reducing airspeed ensures sufficient loss of lift for such a landing before this occurs, therefore the aircraft cannot be said to be stalling.
It is however an incipient stall by every measure other than the buffet, which could be argued to be an initial symptom of a developing stall.
An aircraft can of course be stalled by attempting to flare at an unsafe height above the runway i.e. a height sufficient for the stall to develop.
HWD,
The PA38 does need a bit of power to maintain adequate elevator authority when landing. But elevator authority would surely be needed to stall the a/c, and as discussed above, if flared at a safe height a stall cannot develop.
If the accident was due to lack of elevator authority would it not be more likely to have simply been a nosewheel landing, perhaps following ballooning on finals and chopping the power?
Having just thought about this a little more I think you might be right about the a/c not being stalled...
It is of course the Coefficient of Lift versus Angle of Attack curve to which we are properly referring here. Lift is itself a function of air speed and density as well as CL.
It is in fact nonsense for me to suggest that it is necessary to achieve stalling speed for an a/c to descend onto its mainwheels.
I might well land a few kts too fast, not flaring as fully as I could and therefore allowing the flight path of the aircraft to descend such that although the main wheels make contact before the nosewheel, the downward momentum of the airframe is sufficient to cause the nosewheel to touch down immediately thereafter perhaps a bit more firmly than necessary or ideally desirable. Although not a "greaser" this might well be judged to be a fairly competent and safe landing.
However, a well executed "greaser" would involve flying just above (an inch/foot or whatever) the runway and gently easing the mainwheels onto the r/w in the following manner - the reduction in speed is hastened by increasing drag as aoa is increased to maintain just enough lift to maintain this marginal height until it begins to decrease gently at around stalling speed, due to the continuing reduction of airspeed for the max CL achievable as we approach the stall - there is therefore a small reduction of lift just at the instant we get to the top of the cl/aoa curve.
The buffet may begin to appear, albeit imperceptibly, as soon as the curve begins to descend. For some aircraft this can of course be a very sudden and perceptible occurrance, whilst others require stall strips to make it more obvious to the pilot. The point is that the rapidly reducing airspeed ensures sufficient loss of lift for such a landing before this occurs, therefore the aircraft cannot be said to be stalling.
It is however an incipient stall by every measure other than the buffet, which could be argued to be an initial symptom of a developing stall.
An aircraft can of course be stalled by attempting to flare at an unsafe height above the runway i.e. a height sufficient for the stall to develop.
HWD,
The PA38 does need a bit of power to maintain adequate elevator authority when landing. But elevator authority would surely be needed to stall the a/c, and as discussed above, if flared at a safe height a stall cannot develop.
If the accident was due to lack of elevator authority would it not be more likely to have simply been a nosewheel landing, perhaps following ballooning on finals and chopping the power?
Last edited by Blackshift; 18th Apr 2005 at 09:30.
Spicy Meatball
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Liverpool UK
Age: 41
Posts: 1,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am starting to come to the conclusion that the a/c is not stalled during landing. I have to admit though, I have had a couple of stalls where I didn't feel any buffet. Whether or not this was due to the fact that I was not performing it properly (is there a proper way? After all, a stall is something that is unwanted, and can happen if we dont pay attention). And what about the fact that the aeilerons dont produce much roll in a cross wind landing? (i.e. left rudder for direction, right aeileron for drift), they simply stop the aircraft from rolling?
Hope you can forgive my somewhat in-experienced knowledge
Hope you can forgive my somewhat in-experienced knowledge
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It only isn't (a controlled stall) when I land too hard and too fast!
It also isn't when it the "controlled" stall occurs too high above the runway!!! In that case it's a controlled stall leading to a hard landing!
Andy
It also isn't when it the "controlled" stall occurs too high above the runway!!! In that case it's a controlled stall leading to a hard landing!
Andy
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a good pub (I wish!)
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOST DEFINITELY NOT STALLED!!!
It is one of the most common errors people have about flying, including many who should know better.
As the above post re: Alan Bramson, very few tailwheel aeroplanes are in a stalled attitude on the ground. Just think how dangerous it would be if you did stall on landing, get it wrong by a few feet and a wing can drop, dig in and .... etc.
Do you honestly think a Jumbo (or any other airliner) has the stall warning going on landing? No is the answer. Stick shakers and stick pushers would be going mad, and positively stopping any pilot from trying to stall. They are flown on, then lift dump devices used, which put greater weight on the wheels for better braking, but still not stalling the wing.
How many pilots actually hear the stall warner going on a trike, C152, etc. when landing? Not many, and even if they do, they're still not stalled, only close to it.
So your landings are not controlled stalls, just a case of not providing enough combination of speed/lift to maintain horizontal flight, so you're descending at a slow enough rate for the gear to take the load, then roll out.
It is one of the most common errors people have about flying, including many who should know better.
As the above post re: Alan Bramson, very few tailwheel aeroplanes are in a stalled attitude on the ground. Just think how dangerous it would be if you did stall on landing, get it wrong by a few feet and a wing can drop, dig in and .... etc.
Do you honestly think a Jumbo (or any other airliner) has the stall warning going on landing? No is the answer. Stick shakers and stick pushers would be going mad, and positively stopping any pilot from trying to stall. They are flown on, then lift dump devices used, which put greater weight on the wheels for better braking, but still not stalling the wing.
How many pilots actually hear the stall warner going on a trike, C152, etc. when landing? Not many, and even if they do, they're still not stalled, only close to it.
So your landings are not controlled stalls, just a case of not providing enough combination of speed/lift to maintain horizontal flight, so you're descending at a slow enough rate for the gear to take the load, then roll out.
Again, this is my understanding of the ATPL text. The ailerons may still work; straight wings generally stall at the root first. Generally speaking swept and taper wings stall tip first. I can imagine the problems created by a tip stall in the flare. Regardless, there is a theoretical danger (not managed to experience this yet) that the down going aileron will take the angle of attack beyond crit and stall the up going wing. May I refer you to my earlier comment on wing down landings?
While swept wings naturally stall at the tips first (for reasons I honestly can't remember), designers go to a lot of trouble to avoid this. That's why airliners have such huge amounts of washout (differential inboard aoa) together with various other tricks such as stall fences.
As for the Tomahawk, what can I say. Sounds like Darwin will soon have dealt with the fleet. I've never heard anything about it that would make me want to fly one.
Oh and one other thing... the buffet thing. High wing Cessnas show almost no stall buffet, so it\'s not surprising that you don\'t feel it on landing. However the Pitts has LOTS of buffet close to the stall, and you don\'t feel it even on a tailwheel landing. Which tends to suggest that even that isn\'t stalled at landing.
n5296S
Not Good Airline Material
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Airstrip One
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the Tomahawk, what can I say. Sounds like Darwin will soon have dealt with the fleet. I've never heard anything about it that would make me want to fly one.
The PA38 recorded a fatal accident rate of 0.55 per 100,000 hours between 1980 and 1999, which is better than any other single engine aeroplane, so it can hardly be considered to be some sort of deathtrap.
The next best was the PA28 at 0.76, followed closely by the C172 at 0.79.
The C150/152 comes in behind the PA25 Pawnee (0.85) at 0.94 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours.
This came as quite a surprise to me, having flown a PA25 as a glider tug (probably its most common role in the UK) and considering this to be perhaps a bit more dangerous than most of the other flying I have done.
Having instructed on both types, I think it is possible that the more pronounced stall/spin characteristics of the PA38, compared to the 152, encourage people to treat it with a bit more respect, and accordingly to fly more safely.
Aeroplanes bite fools irrespective of how benign their stall characteristics might be, or how difficult they are to spin.
In any case, as well as having much better visibility in the turn, the Tomahawk is also much more comfortable than the 152 for the more generously proportioned amongst us.
Think again.
Last edited by Blackshift; 18th Apr 2005 at 22:07.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
n5296s
I should be a bit carefull about what you read in the ATPL books while being not untrue the facts are so genralised by the burocrats that they have only a passing resmbelence to the real world once you have your licence to learn the real education will start.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It was me who mentioned that my 'knowledge' is from an ATPL course and that is why I mentioned it - to ensure that it was in context and that I wasn't writing above my station (so to speak). However, so far experience has, more or less, matched the course. I remain open minded (honest).
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD&H
Airliners do not normally carry out fully held-off landings. We are talking about light aircraft here.
If I hold off a tad high in the Chippy, the aeroplane reaches the 3-point attitude and then (despite my still holding the stick back)drops onto the ground with a jolt. What's that but a stall?
The moment the wing stops flying can be felt, and swift application of a trickle of power will cushon the impact. But if you just sit there it can be quite teeth-jarring.
SSD
Airliners do not normally carry out fully held-off landings. We are talking about light aircraft here.
If I hold off a tad high in the Chippy, the aeroplane reaches the 3-point attitude and then (despite my still holding the stick back)drops onto the ground with a jolt. What's that but a stall?
The moment the wing stops flying can be felt, and swift application of a trickle of power will cushon the impact. But if you just sit there it can be quite teeth-jarring.
SSD
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bournemouth, Blighty
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have always found the Tomahawk to be a great aircraft to fly, very reponsive and far easier to land well than high wing Cessnas. But maybe that's just me.
Regarding the stall warning horn, very rarely with the Tomahawk and semi-regularly for a 172 if there's a nice smooth touchdown involved, you seemingly have to hoik the nose a lot higher in that type to avoid a hard landing. By stall warning I mean just a little chirrup from the thing a fraction before the wheels touch.
When practicing stalls in either type it seems as though the warning sounds a long way before a proper stall develops so I doubt I've ever been close to touching down in a properly stalled condition.
But then I could be wrong, interesting posts in this thread from those wiser than oneself!
Cheers, SSS
Regarding the stall warning horn, very rarely with the Tomahawk and semi-regularly for a 172 if there's a nice smooth touchdown involved, you seemingly have to hoik the nose a lot higher in that type to avoid a hard landing. By stall warning I mean just a little chirrup from the thing a fraction before the wheels touch.
When practicing stalls in either type it seems as though the warning sounds a long way before a proper stall develops so I doubt I've ever been close to touching down in a properly stalled condition.
But then I could be wrong, interesting posts in this thread from those wiser than oneself!
Cheers, SSS