Landings
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll tell you what i think has really helped me, buy FS2000, download a goad 150/152 find your airsrip, put in some realistic weather i.e a bit of turbulence, crap vis, and some wind and keep going its not exactly realistic but its a damn sight cheaper and after doing it and doing it you'll find it may help a little.
See ya.
See ya.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Milliways
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like many others and yourself, I had problems with this too. The trick that finally made it click for me was a different instructor getting me to fly the length of the runway *without* touching down. This had the second benefit of saving a landing fee, but in any case, as it got me to land more consistently afterwards, I would have happily paid double.
See what your instructor thinks - after all you rely on them until you get this right to avoid bending the a/c!
[ 08 August 2001: Message edited by: IFollowRoads ]
See what your instructor thinks - after all you rely on them until you get this right to avoid bending the a/c!
[ 08 August 2001: Message edited by: IFollowRoads ]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, kind of like whirlybird, I thought I was the worst student for this ever... In fact I packed in flying the 172 and went and flew gliders for a bit.
Best thing you could do is rule out the most obvious faults :
1. Keep the speed, rate of descent under control. Nice smooth approach, and you can sometimes get good landings by accident. I used to drive my instructor mad by doing 2 brill landings, 2 average ones and 1 dicey one.
2. Flare at the right point. I try and flare 2 seconds before I would otherwise crash into the runway. 1 second before is just too late... The two second thing seems to work well in any situation.
3. Make sure you have a good enough view of the runway once you've flared. Get a couple of cushions or something and improve your view. This was the key to fixing my problems. You can't land on something you can't see, at least not at this point.
4. Be calm, relax, have the instructor follow you through on the controls, rather than being poised to takeover if you mess it up. Make you know who **is** flying.
5. Don't practice more than about five or six landings without a good break and discussion. Land and talk about it, if it is not going well. Get another instructor to help, if yours is at a loss.
Anyway, hope this helped. I am solo in a taildragger now, and pulled off a couple of nice wheel landings the other day. So, whatever happens, it **can** get better, if you let it!!!
GOOD LUCK !!
[ 09 August 2001: Message edited by: kabz ]
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 52
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank God I'm not the only one ... I'm reading this after last night's two hours spent trying to perfect this in a Grob. First few landings I flared too early after a perfect 65kt approach; then one where I didn't flare until too late (if at all) and almost dropped it nosewheel first. It's bloody difficult. Evo, I'm about at the same stage as you hours-wise, and having the same gripes - but I reckon a few more hours practice and it'll get better. Keep on trying!
As a postscript - the student who took the aircraft up immediately after me yesterday evening had a total engine failure and ended up on a golf course minus the nosewheel and with a bent prop ... so at least my landing was smoother than that!!!
As a postscript - the student who took the aircraft up immediately after me yesterday evening had a total engine failure and ended up on a golf course minus the nosewheel and with a bent prop ... so at least my landing was smoother than that!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Humble suggestion from ancient ex military instructor. Request your instructor to demonstrate the approach and landing from early base leg to touch-down. Get him to do this three times in a row with you just watching. Ask him to patter what he is doing. Ask him to do the lot - including the radio, while you sit back and absorb what he is doing.
Note his flare technique and then try and photograph that in your mind. Ensure no cross-wind as this makes early landings difficult to judge if the aircraft is also drifting. If you are still having problems after one more session, then it is your right to politely request a change of instructor. That is no reflection on your current instructor, but a change can sometimes do wonders. It can go the other way, too. But it must be an experienced instructor - not one straight out of CPL training.
Note his flare technique and then try and photograph that in your mind. Ensure no cross-wind as this makes early landings difficult to judge if the aircraft is also drifting. If you are still having problems after one more session, then it is your right to politely request a change of instructor. That is no reflection on your current instructor, but a change can sometimes do wonders. It can go the other way, too. But it must be an experienced instructor - not one straight out of CPL training.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: PGWT
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was leaning to hang-glide my instructor (a bit pissed that I'd just crunched two uprights in seperate "landings") said "look.. the aircraft will not fly at a constant height, it sinks at a rate of about one metre for twelve flown forward, if you hold a constant height the speed will bleed off, when you get close to the ground... fly it level! your airspeed and height will decrease, the more the airspeed decreases the more height you will lose and the more you'll have to push out (it's a hang-glider remember) in an attempt to maintain height, just as your feet are about to touch the ground push out fully and the aircraft will stall and you'll land on your feet"
Translated into light aircraft speak: attempt to fly along the runway at a contant height without power, as the airspeed bleeds off the aicraft will start to sink, the more airspeed that is lost the more you'll have to pull back to maintain height, which will slow you down so you'll sink even more, there'll be a point when the aircraft will no longer fly and this will hopefully be when the main gear are a couple of inches off the hard stuff.
N.B. Don't try this at 150 feet on final, the wheels will get shoved through the wings in the resulting merger of aeroplane and Earth. Choose a more appropriate height, as previously posted 4-5 feet would be perfect
Happy flying.... and landings!
BOTR
Translated into light aircraft speak: attempt to fly along the runway at a contant height without power, as the airspeed bleeds off the aicraft will start to sink, the more airspeed that is lost the more you'll have to pull back to maintain height, which will slow you down so you'll sink even more, there'll be a point when the aircraft will no longer fly and this will hopefully be when the main gear are a couple of inches off the hard stuff.
N.B. Don't try this at 150 feet on final, the wheels will get shoved through the wings in the resulting merger of aeroplane and Earth. Choose a more appropriate height, as previously posted 4-5 feet would be perfect
Happy flying.... and landings!
BOTR
Guest
Posts: n/a
BlipOnTheRadar,
Exactly my point in my earlier post. It is a guaranteed way to ensure it works EVERY time. There really is no standard way to approach each landing because every landing is differnt (wind, weight, surface, a/c etc.)
By using this method the a/c literally stops flying and "gives up" being airborne. All the pilot has to do is make sure it is at the right height above the ground when this stage happens.
Exactly my point in my earlier post. It is a guaranteed way to ensure it works EVERY time. There really is no standard way to approach each landing because every landing is differnt (wind, weight, surface, a/c etc.)
By using this method the a/c literally stops flying and "gives up" being airborne. All the pilot has to do is make sure it is at the right height above the ground when this stage happens.
Dir. PPRuNe Line Service
I'm a PPL student and I found the following advice for the final hold-off phase of landing very useful:
"The trick is not to try to land. It's to keep flying for as long as you can six inches above the runway with no power."
As I'm learning to fly in Warriors this has the advantage that if my speed control on the final approach wasn't good, i.e. I was too fast, it becomes very apparent here and really enforces the importance of a good stabilized approach!
I also found Alan Bramsom's book "Make Better Landings" very useful. It's also very entertaining, I like the bit on "Use of brakes" : "1. Never apply the brakes until the nosewheel has lowered to the runway unless you want to see the nosestrut make a sudden, spectacular appearance through the top of the nose."
--Mik Butler
aka PPRuNe Dispatcher
[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Dispatcher ]
"The trick is not to try to land. It's to keep flying for as long as you can six inches above the runway with no power."
As I'm learning to fly in Warriors this has the advantage that if my speed control on the final approach wasn't good, i.e. I was too fast, it becomes very apparent here and really enforces the importance of a good stabilized approach!
I also found Alan Bramsom's book "Make Better Landings" very useful. It's also very entertaining, I like the bit on "Use of brakes" : "1. Never apply the brakes until the nosewheel has lowered to the runway unless you want to see the nosestrut make a sudden, spectacular appearance through the top of the nose."
--Mik Butler
aka PPRuNe Dispatcher
[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Dispatcher ]
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a tip that was given to me and I find it works perfectly for any normal landing (not short field which is a different technique).
If you have your glide path right (hey use the PAPI that's what they are there for or numbers constantly in lower half of the screen. As you go over the numbers round out and close throttle. Then put the top part of thenose of the cowling in the line that is the end of the runway. Keep this flare position and it will settle down nice and neatly. My landings improved tremendously after that and it works just as well if not better at night as you simply use the line of red lights which mark the runway end.
I see you are using 70kts over the fence, I guess flying schools vary because I was taught 65kts and full flaps in the Warrior for finals
edited for typos
[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: Richard49 ]
If you have your glide path right (hey use the PAPI that's what they are there for or numbers constantly in lower half of the screen. As you go over the numbers round out and close throttle. Then put the top part of thenose of the cowling in the line that is the end of the runway. Keep this flare position and it will settle down nice and neatly. My landings improved tremendously after that and it works just as well if not better at night as you simply use the line of red lights which mark the runway end.
I see you are using 70kts over the fence, I guess flying schools vary because I was taught 65kts and full flaps in the Warrior for finals
edited for typos
[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: Richard49 ]
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAPIs are there for people sitting in the cockpits of big things with spare engines. They are not there to permit elastic-powered puddle jumpers to be dragged in from 97,000 miles out, having called final just after re-entering the Solar System despite the 3 aircraft just about to call ready at the hold. Will the airfield management or, indeed, your mum be pleased with you if you collide with a gildeslope indicator in the undershoot after your engine quits, when you are there in your C150 perfectly on the slope intended for all those nice Airbuses?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FNG
If ever you've flown into an Airfield with 2 set's of PAPI's the ones nearest to us are for poor wee puddle jumpers and the ones behind are for the big beasties - I fly out of Dublin Airport (Runway 29) and am more than happy to use the PAPI as they are in peripheral vision but if there are none, then I use the numbers. The only point I was trying to make was that a good steady approach makes for an easier landing - the problem that most of us have is with the flare
If ever you've flown into an Airfield with 2 set's of PAPI's the ones nearest to us are for poor wee puddle jumpers and the ones behind are for the big beasties - I fly out of Dublin Airport (Runway 29) and am more than happy to use the PAPI as they are in peripheral vision but if there are none, then I use the numbers. The only point I was trying to make was that a good steady approach makes for an easier landing - the problem that most of us have is with the flare
Victim of Blackmailing Scouser
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Zürich, Switzerland (But a Brit)
Age: 59
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All,
I'm with FNG on this one.
I did the first half of my PPL at Speke, where they have nice PAPI's on either runway for the big chaps. I have to say that they really took the work out of the approach, which was nice, seeing as I was a wee bit busy there coping with the eternal crosswind.
Work moved me to Peterborough, so I finished my PPL at an airfield in East Anglia. Nice place. Smaller than Speke. No PAPI's. Now what?
Well, during my first circuit there, how about overshooting the runway during my first approach by over 400 feet. Not a mistyping, my height judgement really was that far off. PAPI's, you see.
Next, my instructor (bless him) pointed out that my power management during the approach was a sort of death struggle between maximum flaps and oodles of power. Why was that? 'Cos to maintain an approach down a 3 degree PAPI in a C152 you've got to drag it in. This results in low, flat approaches, a bad weather circuit, if you see what I mean.
Using PAPI's during my early training probably knocked my PPL back by about 5 hours all told.
TW
I'm with FNG on this one.
I did the first half of my PPL at Speke, where they have nice PAPI's on either runway for the big chaps. I have to say that they really took the work out of the approach, which was nice, seeing as I was a wee bit busy there coping with the eternal crosswind.
Work moved me to Peterborough, so I finished my PPL at an airfield in East Anglia. Nice place. Smaller than Speke. No PAPI's. Now what?
Well, during my first circuit there, how about overshooting the runway during my first approach by over 400 feet. Not a mistyping, my height judgement really was that far off. PAPI's, you see.
Next, my instructor (bless him) pointed out that my power management during the approach was a sort of death struggle between maximum flaps and oodles of power. Why was that? 'Cos to maintain an approach down a 3 degree PAPI in a C152 you've got to drag it in. This results in low, flat approaches, a bad weather circuit, if you see what I mean.
Using PAPI's during my early training probably knocked my PPL back by about 5 hours all told.
TW
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tricky Woo
did I read you correctly? - maximum flap on an aproach in a C152? no wonder you were having problems - that's a configuration for short field landing - you should have been at 54kts and would have had a distinct nose down attitude and required a greater flare than normal. It wasn't your power manegment that was at fault it was your landing configuration and at a guess I'd say you were still using a normal approach speed of around 65kts - there's nothing maigical about PAPI or even VASI all they do is act as an indicator that you maintaining a 3 degree glidescope - most of the time I find that if I turn onto final in the C152 at 500' set the flaps to 2 stages of flap and IAS at 65kts it will just naturally set itself up and glide right down - I can then glance at the PAPI to check occasionaly - it works the same for me even if I just set the numbers in the bottom half of the windshield - was I taught how to fly differently from everyone else - because if so it works just fine - the main problem I always had was flaring to high and too early that was put right by an instructor who simply said close the throttle as you pass over the nunbers and point the top of the nose cowling to be in line with the end of the runway since that time (X-winds excepted) I've had no particular problems with landings perhaps not always a greaser but no dramas or whoops that was a bit heavy - okay short grass fields are a little bit different but not a lot because you just get used to pulling the nose up just a little bit higher but you are much more nose down in the first place and the lower speed means that you might settle with a little bit more of a bump
rereading Tricky Woo's post - I see he startd at Speke what he could have found that was that the one set of PAPI's that were there were set up oonly for large Aircraft, in that case they woould have set further down the runway as for most large aircraft adopt a nose high attitude on approach and the Pilot's simply can't see them if they are set directly on the 3 degree glidscope a sort of offset to compensate for that.
I started my flying at Gloucester Airport and was intially always taught to fly down to the numbers, then on one approach I noticed these lights at the side of runway and asked my instructor what they were - PAPI he replied and explained their use since that time I've used them as an aid - have no great love or dislike for them they are just a convenience, the main thing is to arrive over the numbers at around 20' above ground to give a nice round out and allow the aircraft to settle smoothly - the method I've adopted works for me and it means I don't have too look out the side of the Aircraft to judge my height above ground and can concentrate on keeping on the centre line - especially important if there's any sort of a X-wind
[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: Richard49 ]
did I read you correctly? - maximum flap on an aproach in a C152? no wonder you were having problems - that's a configuration for short field landing - you should have been at 54kts and would have had a distinct nose down attitude and required a greater flare than normal. It wasn't your power manegment that was at fault it was your landing configuration and at a guess I'd say you were still using a normal approach speed of around 65kts - there's nothing maigical about PAPI or even VASI all they do is act as an indicator that you maintaining a 3 degree glidescope - most of the time I find that if I turn onto final in the C152 at 500' set the flaps to 2 stages of flap and IAS at 65kts it will just naturally set itself up and glide right down - I can then glance at the PAPI to check occasionaly - it works the same for me even if I just set the numbers in the bottom half of the windshield - was I taught how to fly differently from everyone else - because if so it works just fine - the main problem I always had was flaring to high and too early that was put right by an instructor who simply said close the throttle as you pass over the nunbers and point the top of the nose cowling to be in line with the end of the runway since that time (X-winds excepted) I've had no particular problems with landings perhaps not always a greaser but no dramas or whoops that was a bit heavy - okay short grass fields are a little bit different but not a lot because you just get used to pulling the nose up just a little bit higher but you are much more nose down in the first place and the lower speed means that you might settle with a little bit more of a bump
rereading Tricky Woo's post - I see he startd at Speke what he could have found that was that the one set of PAPI's that were there were set up oonly for large Aircraft, in that case they woould have set further down the runway as for most large aircraft adopt a nose high attitude on approach and the Pilot's simply can't see them if they are set directly on the 3 degree glidscope a sort of offset to compensate for that.
I started my flying at Gloucester Airport and was intially always taught to fly down to the numbers, then on one approach I noticed these lights at the side of runway and asked my instructor what they were - PAPI he replied and explained their use since that time I've used them as an aid - have no great love or dislike for them they are just a convenience, the main thing is to arrive over the numbers at around 20' above ground to give a nice round out and allow the aircraft to settle smoothly - the method I've adopted works for me and it means I don't have too look out the side of the Aircraft to judge my height above ground and can concentrate on keeping on the centre line - especially important if there's any sort of a X-wind
[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: Richard49 ]
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The fairy tale Land of Uk
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPL students shouldn't be using the Approach Indicators. 3 deg. is far too low, (especially at Speke where you could end up in the river, a market garden or someone's swimming pool!) and you are too far out. Use the numbers and the runway perspective. That will work everywhere.
Landings: I've posted this before but it is always worth a laugh. At least make sure your landings are not like this:
A man suspected his wife of seeing another man. So, he hired a famous Chinese detective, Ram Pam Sim Wimm, to watch and report any activities that might develop.
A few days later, he received this report:
Most honorable sir,
You leave house.
He come house.
I watch.
He and she leave house.
I follow.
He and she get on train.
I follow.
He and she go in hotel.
I climb tree – look in window.
He kiss she.
She kiss he.
He strip she.
She strip he.
He play with she.
She play with he.
I play with me.
Fall out of tree.
No fee.
Hee Hee.
Landings: I've posted this before but it is always worth a laugh. At least make sure your landings are not like this:
A man suspected his wife of seeing another man. So, he hired a famous Chinese detective, Ram Pam Sim Wimm, to watch and report any activities that might develop.
A few days later, he received this report:
Most honorable sir,
You leave house.
He come house.
I watch.
He and she leave house.
I follow.
He and she get on train.
I follow.
He and she go in hotel.
I climb tree – look in window.
He kiss she.
She kiss he.
He strip she.
She strip he.
He play with she.
She play with he.
I play with me.
Fall out of tree.
No fee.
Hee Hee.
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evo7. I’m at a similar stage to yourself, 17 hours in the C152, with 3 hours of solo circuits. In at least 50 touch & goes, I’ve managed 1 greaser (I never even felt the mains touch), about half a dozen bounced go-arounds (3 of them on my first solo!) and a similar number of crunchers. The rest were somewhere in the middle. The one thing common to all of them was that the wheels stayed on.
The problem - as others have said - is that however many books you read, its still a completely new experience that can only be learnt by practice. My favourite trick was aiming at the numbers then starting the flare at either 150’ or 2’ – interesting, either way. I think I was a bit unnerved, firstly by what looked like this very short piece of tarmac rushing up at me, and every instinct screaming ‘pull up, you’re going to crash’, and secondly the urge to land and stop as quickly as possible. (After about the 10th time I touched down convinced we were going to go off the end, only to stop with half the runway remaining, I started to relax a bit).
As you work at it though, you’ll start to develop a picture of what looks right, and particularly the knack of transferring your aiming point from the numbers to the far end of the runway, then flying just above the surface until you hear rubber on tarmac. (i.e. Don’t try and fly it onto the runway – fly it along the runway & it’ll land itself).
One more point – watch your approach speed. I was initially using 70kts, which keeps you miles away from the stall, but ensures you arrive at the threshold with loads of unwanted energy. Reducing it to 65kts on finals and 55-60kts in the flare will make life a lot easier.
I’ll leave the last word to a KLMUK F100 captain who kindly let me have the jumpseat; “This one won’t be a good landing – I’m doing it."
The problem - as others have said - is that however many books you read, its still a completely new experience that can only be learnt by practice. My favourite trick was aiming at the numbers then starting the flare at either 150’ or 2’ – interesting, either way. I think I was a bit unnerved, firstly by what looked like this very short piece of tarmac rushing up at me, and every instinct screaming ‘pull up, you’re going to crash’, and secondly the urge to land and stop as quickly as possible. (After about the 10th time I touched down convinced we were going to go off the end, only to stop with half the runway remaining, I started to relax a bit).
As you work at it though, you’ll start to develop a picture of what looks right, and particularly the knack of transferring your aiming point from the numbers to the far end of the runway, then flying just above the surface until you hear rubber on tarmac. (i.e. Don’t try and fly it onto the runway – fly it along the runway & it’ll land itself).
One more point – watch your approach speed. I was initially using 70kts, which keeps you miles away from the stall, but ensures you arrive at the threshold with loads of unwanted energy. Reducing it to 65kts on finals and 55-60kts in the flare will make life a lot easier.
I’ll leave the last word to a KLMUK F100 captain who kindly let me have the jumpseat; “This one won’t be a good landing – I’m doing it."
Victim of Blackmailing Scouser
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Zürich, Switzerland (But a Brit)
Age: 59
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Richard49,
I have to (nicely) differ with you regarding flap settings on a C152. I warrant that full flaps might be a bit over the top on a 2.5 kilometer runway, but might seem a little more reasonable on the many, many shorter runways that I've subsequently landed on. Ever been to Fenland? Sibson? Headcorn? Or that stumpy bit of tarmac that's used at Leicester from time to time? Believe me, short-fields are the norm, it's the long-fields that are at a premium.
Next point: the only way to maintain a 3 degree glideslope in a C152, with even a whisker of the barn-doors showing, is to make a more shallow approach than would be advisable, with more power than is healthy.
This boils down to a shallow approach with plenty of power.
Since completing my PPL, etc, I've adopted the principle that each approach should be made on the assumption that the donkey will quit. (Blow me, not just the approach, I work with that assumption all the way around the circuit). How does a shallow approach fit into this strategy? It doesn't. How does a unnecessarily higher-powered approach fit? It doesn't either. Either could lead to embarrassment if the engine stops.
It's probably just me that thinks like this.
TW
I have to (nicely) differ with you regarding flap settings on a C152. I warrant that full flaps might be a bit over the top on a 2.5 kilometer runway, but might seem a little more reasonable on the many, many shorter runways that I've subsequently landed on. Ever been to Fenland? Sibson? Headcorn? Or that stumpy bit of tarmac that's used at Leicester from time to time? Believe me, short-fields are the norm, it's the long-fields that are at a premium.
Next point: the only way to maintain a 3 degree glideslope in a C152, with even a whisker of the barn-doors showing, is to make a more shallow approach than would be advisable, with more power than is healthy.
This boils down to a shallow approach with plenty of power.
Since completing my PPL, etc, I've adopted the principle that each approach should be made on the assumption that the donkey will quit. (Blow me, not just the approach, I work with that assumption all the way around the circuit). How does a shallow approach fit into this strategy? It doesn't. How does a unnecessarily higher-powered approach fit? It doesn't either. Either could lead to embarrassment if the engine stops.
It's probably just me that thinks like this.
TW
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's one other thing to add to this:
Carrying a smidge of power to the ground can help offset the drag of the prop if you are completely at idle. Just a hair of throttle 'just' prior to touchdown may do the trick.
I just got through doing five complete greasers in the 'other' citabria at the school I fly out of. An almost unbelievable experience for me, as I normally 'drop in' from about a foot or so.
I have been thinking about this, and the only thing I can think of, is that, the idle speed is a teeny bit higher on the 'easy to land' Citabria, and that this made it sink a tiny bit more gently after the flare.
Worth a try !! To much throttle may cause a go-around if you as ham-fisted as me though...
Carrying a smidge of power to the ground can help offset the drag of the prop if you are completely at idle. Just a hair of throttle 'just' prior to touchdown may do the trick.
I just got through doing five complete greasers in the 'other' citabria at the school I fly out of. An almost unbelievable experience for me, as I normally 'drop in' from about a foot or so.
I have been thinking about this, and the only thing I can think of, is that, the idle speed is a teeny bit higher on the 'easy to land' Citabria, and that this made it sink a tiny bit more gently after the flare.
Worth a try !! To much throttle may cause a go-around if you as ham-fisted as me though...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Given that I quite regularly (Not as regularly as I'd like,) comfortably land a 152 with 2 stages on the first 600m of EGPD runway 34 after a 3şish approach, I think there may be a good many more airfields out there where a standard-configuration approach will work very well than TW indicates. I am sure 600m of tarmac is still luxury to some :-)
Sure, you get a nicer view on the approach with full flaps but it makes a go-around harder work.
On the flipside, how many 152 pilots would use 1 stage of flap on takeoff from the end of a runway with 2Km+ of TORA in front of them?
Sure, you get a nicer view on the approach with full flaps but it makes a go-around harder work.
On the flipside, how many 152 pilots would use 1 stage of flap on takeoff from the end of a runway with 2Km+ of TORA in front of them?
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the PAPI, 3 degree thing, as Langewische says, speed is money in your hand, height is money in the bank, and the pilot who is low on both is, in aviation terms, bankrupt. Why put yourself in this situation if you don't have to?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TW - you are thinking of runway 28 at EIDW, runway 29 is 1367m - I do agree though not a short field, funnily enopugh losing the engine in circuit and on approach has never particurly bothered me, as all you can really do is to lose any flaps and set for best glide - losing engine on take off does!! and to take up on someone elses point we take off with 10% of flap but that's just to give ourselves the best chance of landing back on the runway in the event of an engine failure and hmmpphhh must admit, our C152 weighs in at 1282lbs unladen weight add a couple of pilot's and some fuel and you are easily over the MTOW so some assist in climb rate is always handy - I really didn't intend to start an argument (sorry discussion - maybe someone should start a new topic to PAPI or not to PAPI) over the use of PAPI but a 3 degree approach will always give you a consistent view of a field - I must admit though unlike the previous contributor going into Abbeysrhule (575m) I am not as brave as he and it's full flaps, nose down and definitely a steeper approach
[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: Richard49 ]
[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: Richard49 ]
[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: Richard49 ]
[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: Richard49 ]