Stall landing/Slow landing
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also a Cirrus I went in the other day must be flown gently on to the runway in this way otherwise there will be a tail strike.
The big problem is people landing them to fast when they either float for ages or bounce. If the pilot then slams the throttle open to go around, the torque from the engine (especially on an SR22) can cause you to lose directional control. There have been several accidents caused by this.
Recommended best practice when landing with full flaps and no significant crosswind (for an SR22) is 80 KTS on final, 75 - 77 over the fence and hold it off and wait for the stall horn (59) on landing.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a hole somewhere
Age: 46
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stall landing/Slow landing
I dont do any equations i just "fly the plane" you can feel it...... Never had a problem yet!
However, I was taught not below 65kts in a Cessna 152 but my examiner told me to do a shortfield at 50kts and that worked fine too
I was always taught to "just fly the plane" and i know what he meant and it works
However, I was taught not below 65kts in a Cessna 152 but my examiner told me to do a shortfield at 50kts and that worked fine too
I was always taught to "just fly the plane" and i know what he meant and it works
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont do any equations i just "fly the plane" you can feel it...... Never had a problem yet!
However, I was taught not below 65kts in a Cessna 152 but my examiner told me to do a shortfield at 50kts and that worked fine too
However, I was taught not below 65kts in a Cessna 152 but my examiner told me to do a shortfield at 50kts and that worked fine too
If your short field speed is 50KTS which which would represent a multiple of 1.25 of stall ( more experienced pilots use 1.2 but i am not there yet) would mean a stall of 40KTS, so a normal landing should be flown at no more than 1.3 of stall which is 52k. I would assume that anything north of that speed and especially 65kts which is a significant addition would be unnecessary and may in fact provide a greater chance of a long a float or ballooning in less experienced flyers.
Edit: I just thought i would add the reason i do those calcs is not because i am a mathematics genius ( far from it) it is because if and when i fly planes where the POH does not list approach speeds (like my POH does not), but always lists a stall and gross weight I can figure out a guide for my speeds prior to take off and without feeling its a trial and error thing especially if its the first time i have flown the plane
Last edited by piperboy84; 14th Apr 2013 at 07:54.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a hole somewhere
Age: 46
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stall landing/Slow landing
Thats probably what people are talking about when they say schools add to the figures (probably to reduce problems/risks on final)
Maybe the 50kts has had some added to it too then... I don't know. All i do is fly it, feel it and i have never had a problem yet.
I did have a ballooning/floating problem whilst learning so that would confirm what you just said
Maybe the 50kts has had some added to it too then... I don't know. All i do is fly it, feel it and i have never had a problem yet.
I did have a ballooning/floating problem whilst learning so that would confirm what you just said
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some years ago we were taught 70/65knots in the 152 on 700ish metre tarmac, I believe, for safety? This practice was trodden on by the CFI after a while but several students had learned to fly using this method for some time. It is still quite amusing entertainment to watch the wheelbarrowing antics, though it does lead me to worry about flying the 172, am I going to bounce all the way down the runway or are 172s really that bad?
Also during gliding years ago it seemed to be +5 for the wind shear +another 5 for the wife & kids & you ended up heading for the far end at an alarming rate & had to stuff the nose skid into the ground before reaching the workshops.
Also during gliding years ago it seemed to be +5 for the wind shear +another 5 for the wife & kids & you ended up heading for the far end at an alarming rate & had to stuff the nose skid into the ground before reaching the workshops.
Last edited by Crash one; 14th Apr 2013 at 16:08.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seldom post here anymore because having retired from aviation I now have a different life style.
However sometimes these discussions make me wonder how aviation never seems to evolve in an upward trend......especially when it comes to how to hand fly an airplane.
Logic tells me flight training should have evolved upward, reading these forums tells me it is evolving downward when it comes to flight training generally speaking.
The cause is not difficult to determine though, because you can not evolve upward using flight instructors who have not only been taught improperly generally they have never worked in commercial aviation.
As to the following comment.....
For decades the Americans flew the space shuttle with zero landing incidents or accidents, the space shuttle had a high wing loading and a high rate of descent on approach and the landings were hand flown with no incidents.
However sometimes these discussions make me wonder how aviation never seems to evolve in an upward trend......especially when it comes to how to hand fly an airplane.
Logic tells me flight training should have evolved upward, reading these forums tells me it is evolving downward when it comes to flight training generally speaking.
The cause is not difficult to determine though, because you can not evolve upward using flight instructors who have not only been taught improperly generally they have never worked in commercial aviation.
As to the following comment.....
Aircraft with high wing loadings typically need to be flown onto the runway as they tend to drop like a stone when power is removed.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could write a volume on the art of landing...but
someone already has. Dear Original Poster...go out and BUY, yes BUY a book called: Stick and Rudder by Wolfgang Langweische.
He discusses fully the types of landing...the most amazing is the ''stall down' landing, starting your flare prior to the airport fence.
It is all about energy management...you would like to touchdown with no energy...but you must have some for unexpected things in flying.
Read the book...memorize the book...teach the techniques to others. The only thing is the author uses a term for elevators that has fallen out of favor, the term is : flippers....you see he doesn't want you to think that elevators elevate...read it and enjoy it.
He discusses fully the types of landing...the most amazing is the ''stall down' landing, starting your flare prior to the airport fence.
It is all about energy management...you would like to touchdown with no energy...but you must have some for unexpected things in flying.
Read the book...memorize the book...teach the techniques to others. The only thing is the author uses a term for elevators that has fallen out of favor, the term is : flippers....you see he doesn't want you to think that elevators elevate...read it and enjoy it.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes - Stick and Rudder is the best "how to" guide there is. Written in the 1940s when rather a lot of young men were being taught to fly, it still reads well and offers great insight. When you read it you find yourself saying "yes, of course, it MUST be like that, why didn't anyone else explain things that way?" Thats when you know you really understand something.
I rather like "flippers".
Also his emphasis on Angle of Attack and always knowing what it is, is really good. He calls it the "relative wind", which is another better name. If you don't understand AoA (the relative wind), you don't understand how an aircraft flies or how to control it well.
Edited to add: Chuck E has assumed that everyone reading this will know that the space shuttle had no power at all during approach and landing - a big heavy glider with a high wing loading...
I rather like "flippers".
Also his emphasis on Angle of Attack and always knowing what it is, is really good. He calls it the "relative wind", which is another better name. If you don't understand AoA (the relative wind), you don't understand how an aircraft flies or how to control it well.
Edited to add: Chuck E has assumed that everyone reading this will know that the space shuttle had no power at all during approach and landing - a big heavy glider with a high wing loading...
Last edited by Heston; 14th Apr 2013 at 19:07.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The space shuttle was an awesome machine, I had the privilege of flying with one of the space shuttle pilots for two years.
I never tired of his stories of flying it.
The initial approach speed for re-entry was over 17,000 mph and the final approach speed at gear extension was 270 mph with touch down at 215 mph.
The rate of descent during the final approach was close to 10,000 feet per minute.
The latter part of the approach and landing was generally hand flown.
So from that we can be certain that landing without power is actually normal procedure in some cases.
I never tired of his stories of flying it.
The initial approach speed for re-entry was over 17,000 mph and the final approach speed at gear extension was 270 mph with touch down at 215 mph.
The rate of descent during the final approach was close to 10,000 feet per minute.
The latter part of the approach and landing was generally hand flown.
So from that we can be certain that landing without power is actually normal procedure in some cases.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the stuff I've read here now scares me quite a bit to be honest, but I see where it's coming from. I did my initial training on 152s and 172s, later twins, later instruction, the turboprop, and now jets.
Perhaps the most important thing I've picked up from this progression, it's the following: do what it says in the book.
There is a very good reason why the aircraft manufacturer has given you the required procedures, speeds, charts and described the techniques for operating the airplane. They built it, they know how it works, and their test pilots found out what it will and won't do. It does what it says on the tin, it really is that easy.
Now this does of course not exempt you from using airmanship, knowledge and sound judgment to fly the aircraft according to the conditions and your own skill level. Obviously, smaler aircraft do not have the same comprehensive manuals larger aircraft have. However, the manufacturer's procedures should be your starting point, not some made-up procedures that your 300-hour GA instructor told you, because that's what his instructor told him, and that's what his instructor told him before that. (I myself have been that instructor, because I did not know any better at the time.)
As you gain experience in a type, you will learn what the results of procedural deviation will be. As an example, you will learn that it is certainly possible to land a C172 with an approach speed of (let's say) 80 knots, but you will also learn that the landing attitude, the timing and feel for the flare, and the landing distance will be very different. My point is that this should not be your starting point - start by doing it the way Cessna (or whoever designed the plane) wants you to do it, then go from there. Not the other way around.
Perhaps the most important thing I've picked up from this progression, it's the following: do what it says in the book.
There is a very good reason why the aircraft manufacturer has given you the required procedures, speeds, charts and described the techniques for operating the airplane. They built it, they know how it works, and their test pilots found out what it will and won't do. It does what it says on the tin, it really is that easy.
Now this does of course not exempt you from using airmanship, knowledge and sound judgment to fly the aircraft according to the conditions and your own skill level. Obviously, smaler aircraft do not have the same comprehensive manuals larger aircraft have. However, the manufacturer's procedures should be your starting point, not some made-up procedures that your 300-hour GA instructor told you, because that's what his instructor told him, and that's what his instructor told him before that. (I myself have been that instructor, because I did not know any better at the time.)
As you gain experience in a type, you will learn what the results of procedural deviation will be. As an example, you will learn that it is certainly possible to land a C172 with an approach speed of (let's say) 80 knots, but you will also learn that the landing attitude, the timing and feel for the flare, and the landing distance will be very different. My point is that this should not be your starting point - start by doing it the way Cessna (or whoever designed the plane) wants you to do it, then go from there. Not the other way around.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following is one of the best pieces of advice on this thread.....
All instructors should follow it.
All instructors should follow it.
However, the manufacturer's procedures should be your starting point, not some made-up procedures that your 300-hour GA instructor told you, because that's what his instructor told him, and that's what his instructor told him before that.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed it does.
I've flow aircraft where the book says use an approach speed of 45-50knots depending on the likelihood of wind gradient. Instructors then tell students to approach at 55knots. Someone tells an early hours pilot that adding "5knots for the wife and kids" is a good idea and you end up with an approach flown at 60knots when it should have been 45knots! And they are surprised by how far it floats, or they get caught out by a big ballooned landing...
Stick and Rudder has a whole chapter about why it is important to fly at the right speed for the particular phase of flight and condition of the aircraft.
I've flow aircraft where the book says use an approach speed of 45-50knots depending on the likelihood of wind gradient. Instructors then tell students to approach at 55knots. Someone tells an early hours pilot that adding "5knots for the wife and kids" is a good idea and you end up with an approach flown at 60knots when it should have been 45knots! And they are surprised by how far it floats, or they get caught out by a big ballooned landing...
Stick and Rudder has a whole chapter about why it is important to fly at the right speed for the particular phase of flight and condition of the aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will just add one small point which is not relevant to student pilots learning to land but it is a misconception that stall speed and landing are part of the same!
It does for the shortest landing with full flap but remember land with partial or even clean and those speeds will increase!
Taking clean speeds they could be fixed at 1.3 times the stall speed in clean configuration but you could make that 1.5 times the stall speed or more!
The biggest restriction for high speed landings is the distance between. Main and nose gear!
Long coupled the nose will be well clear even at high speed.
Short coupled and a much larger chance of doing an all point landing !
It takes skill and fine movements too land fast but it can be done
Pace
It does for the shortest landing with full flap but remember land with partial or even clean and those speeds will increase!
Taking clean speeds they could be fixed at 1.3 times the stall speed in clean configuration but you could make that 1.5 times the stall speed or more!
The biggest restriction for high speed landings is the distance between. Main and nose gear!
Long coupled the nose will be well clear even at high speed.
Short coupled and a much larger chance of doing an all point landing !
It takes skill and fine movements too land fast but it can be done
Pace
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another reccomendation for 'Stick & Rudder'. Never mind the dated pictures, it's the best book on how to fly you can buy.
I agree with Chuck that it's dissappointing that things in flight training don't seem to be getting any better. I think this might be beciase some (by no means all) instructors are low-houred and of narrow experience, focussed on an airline job. When I did my PPL in the '70s many were ex-services guys of vast experience who did it becuase they enjoyed it.
And of course the almost universal training fleet of nose-wheel aeroplanes might be a factor. Now I was taught to fly on the C150, but almost immediately converted on to my beloved Chipmunk with not too much difficulty, so my basic training in landing the C150 must have been reasonably OK. The problem is that one can get away with some awful landing techniques in a nosewheel aeroplane that a tailwheel one will simply not tolerate. And standing alongside the runway at any GA field watching the non-held-off and far too fast landings typical there, one can see this for onself any day of the week.
Perhaps everyone interested in developing a good landing technique should get a tailwheel conversion? Or read and digest Stick & Rudder!
I agree with Chuck that it's dissappointing that things in flight training don't seem to be getting any better. I think this might be beciase some (by no means all) instructors are low-houred and of narrow experience, focussed on an airline job. When I did my PPL in the '70s many were ex-services guys of vast experience who did it becuase they enjoyed it.
And of course the almost universal training fleet of nose-wheel aeroplanes might be a factor. Now I was taught to fly on the C150, but almost immediately converted on to my beloved Chipmunk with not too much difficulty, so my basic training in landing the C150 must have been reasonably OK. The problem is that one can get away with some awful landing techniques in a nosewheel aeroplane that a tailwheel one will simply not tolerate. And standing alongside the runway at any GA field watching the non-held-off and far too fast landings typical there, one can see this for onself any day of the week.
Perhaps everyone interested in developing a good landing technique should get a tailwheel conversion? Or read and digest Stick & Rudder!
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 16th Apr 2013 at 09:38.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck it on hard for an accurate touchdown point that's what I say.
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/u...ps44ee14cd.png
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/u...ps44ee14cd.png
The tyres did not last long indeed.
Bear in mind that a gentle "kiss the runway" landing wears out tyres faster due to the longer spin-up (hence slip) time, and that generally applies to all aeroplanes.
The worst was with large amounts of crosswind. The Lightning did not have nosewheel steering and there was a pronounced weathercock effect when the 'chute deployed.
Differential braking under such conditions meant a wheel change every landing.
Tyre pressures were 300psi btw.
Bear in mind that a gentle "kiss the runway" landing wears out tyres faster due to the longer spin-up (hence slip) time, and that generally applies to all aeroplanes.
The worst was with large amounts of crosswind. The Lightning did not have nosewheel steering and there was a pronounced weathercock effect when the 'chute deployed.
Differential braking under such conditions meant a wheel change every landing.
Tyre pressures were 300psi btw.
