A Cessna 172 is too difficult to land...
Cannot agree at all that the 172 has poor aileron response. We who
hold close to our hearts our 172s know better. Sure, the control authority
is not that of a Chippie, a Victa, (or Beagle 206 , memories of which on many
many trips as PIC are held dear) . But, the 172 was a brilliant concept, when Dwane Wallace decided that the C190/195 marques were not going to capture
the market he envisaged. Hence the rapid segue from C140 to C170 to C172.
The joy of the earlier , simpler 172s has to be experienced before passing judgement. Mechanical flaps with that oh so sometimes useful 40 degrees you can apply (or dump) in a trice. The superb stability on a long trip. In smooth air you can be hands off for long periods, and if you have set her up right she will just stay there. A tiny touch of rudder to correct the slightest wing drop. Lean forward a bit or back a bit and you can stay within 50 feet.
And all the time the fascinating Australian countryside rolling past at a leisurely pace. You put your face against the window and see almost vertically down. Farmer Brown's long johns flapping in the wind on the hills hoist out the back, next to the ancient dunny. Mrs Brown's passion-killers likewise.
A bunch of frightened brumbies taking off and running in all directions
The bag of possibilities is bottomless.
Mary M is of course spot on per usual. There is no better place to hone
early handling skills and situational awareness than riding the wind in a
sailplane. The view and the comfort from and in a good one is without compare. (Helios excepted)
Read Philip Wills for inspiration. "On Being a Bird."
or Ann Welch . .. "Happy to Fly."
hold close to our hearts our 172s know better. Sure, the control authority
is not that of a Chippie, a Victa, (or Beagle 206 , memories of which on many
many trips as PIC are held dear) . But, the 172 was a brilliant concept, when Dwane Wallace decided that the C190/195 marques were not going to capture
the market he envisaged. Hence the rapid segue from C140 to C170 to C172.
The joy of the earlier , simpler 172s has to be experienced before passing judgement. Mechanical flaps with that oh so sometimes useful 40 degrees you can apply (or dump) in a trice. The superb stability on a long trip. In smooth air you can be hands off for long periods, and if you have set her up right she will just stay there. A tiny touch of rudder to correct the slightest wing drop. Lean forward a bit or back a bit and you can stay within 50 feet.
And all the time the fascinating Australian countryside rolling past at a leisurely pace. You put your face against the window and see almost vertically down. Farmer Brown's long johns flapping in the wind on the hills hoist out the back, next to the ancient dunny. Mrs Brown's passion-killers likewise.
A bunch of frightened brumbies taking off and running in all directions
The bag of possibilities is bottomless.
Mary M is of course spot on per usual. There is no better place to hone
early handling skills and situational awareness than riding the wind in a
sailplane. The view and the comfort from and in a good one is without compare. (Helios excepted)
Read Philip Wills for inspiration. "On Being a Bird."
or Ann Welch . .. "Happy to Fly."
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard people (and in fact, one otherwise very well written book) advising that the stick should go progressively forward till it is full forward and the tail drops of its own accord. Makes no sense to me to try to keep one wheel airborne until you lose control and it comes crashing down! Hold a constant elevator position and let the tailwheel descend gently as the airspeed reduces. You then have some elevator authority in reserve in case you need to cushion the tailwheel touchdown.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, the tailwheel / nosewheel doesn't "crash down". The opposing force produced by the tail reduces as the speed decreases, but it doesn't suddenly go to zero.
The force produced by the tail reduces to the point where it can no longer balance the weight of the tail / nose, but there is still a force there which acts to oppose the lowering, thereby cushioning the effect of gravity.
In my experience both nose and tail come down very gently of their own accord if the technique is applied correctly.
The force produced by the tail reduces to the point where it can no longer balance the weight of the tail / nose, but there is still a force there which acts to oppose the lowering, thereby cushioning the effect of gravity.
In my experience both nose and tail come down very gently of their own accord if the technique is applied correctly.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Foxmoth,
I understand very well the reasons for using a wheeler technique in relevant circumstances and certainly a high tail can help improve rudder effectiveness in some types. However, holding one wheel airborne (either nose or tail) until one runs out of control authority is not, I believe a sound technique and certainly not something I'd advocate on most types. That was the thrust of my remarks.
Some aeroplanes will run out of rudder authority before they run out of elevator authority, now you have the tail coming down out of control (Taybird, I accept my use of the phrase "crashing down" may not be appropriate to all aircraft types). With the tail falling, out of control and with no rudder authority left you are now at the mercy of any crosswind gusts and, in some types there is even some gyroscopic precession from the propeller to deal with. Some large, heavy and powerful tailwheel types have a lockable tailwheel and benefit from having the tailwheel down (under control of the elevator) before the rudder authority is lost.
Taybird, yes, the tailplane and elevator do still produce some aerodynamic lifting force even at very slow airspeed but this is reducing all the while as the aeroplane decelerates and may reduce (or increase) suddenly and randomly under the influence of gusts. This can make the rate of lowering the tail unpredictable with full forward stick. Also, as the tailwheel lowers the horizontal distance between the mainwheels and the CG increases thereby increasing the nose-up pitching moment caused by the couple of the weight and the mainwheels. This effect increases as the tail gets lower causing the pitch rate to accelerate. With no additional elevator control to cushion the tailwheel touchdown this can cause a harsh landing for the small wheel!
I fly a nosewheel equipped Jet aeroplane at work and the correct technique is to land on the mainwheels and then use elevator to control the nosewheel touchdown. If one were to hold the nosewheel off till one runs out of elevator authority the nose would certainly "crash down".
I stand by my point that a technique which uses 100% of the available control authority prior the aeroplane being fully on the ground is not generally applicable. Although it may work well enough on some aeroplanes and in certain circumstances it leaves nothing in reserve to deal with the unexpected. Aeroplanes are all different and we should all be very careful not to advocate generic techniques which may not be appropriate to all types.
Returning to the thread, perhaps the pilot who found a 172 hard to land was applying generic techniques when they were not appropriate and perhaps his instructor didn't know any better because he, himself had limited experience and knowledge?!?
Happy landings
3 Point
I understand very well the reasons for using a wheeler technique in relevant circumstances and certainly a high tail can help improve rudder effectiveness in some types. However, holding one wheel airborne (either nose or tail) until one runs out of control authority is not, I believe a sound technique and certainly not something I'd advocate on most types. That was the thrust of my remarks.
Some aeroplanes will run out of rudder authority before they run out of elevator authority, now you have the tail coming down out of control (Taybird, I accept my use of the phrase "crashing down" may not be appropriate to all aircraft types). With the tail falling, out of control and with no rudder authority left you are now at the mercy of any crosswind gusts and, in some types there is even some gyroscopic precession from the propeller to deal with. Some large, heavy and powerful tailwheel types have a lockable tailwheel and benefit from having the tailwheel down (under control of the elevator) before the rudder authority is lost.
Taybird, yes, the tailplane and elevator do still produce some aerodynamic lifting force even at very slow airspeed but this is reducing all the while as the aeroplane decelerates and may reduce (or increase) suddenly and randomly under the influence of gusts. This can make the rate of lowering the tail unpredictable with full forward stick. Also, as the tailwheel lowers the horizontal distance between the mainwheels and the CG increases thereby increasing the nose-up pitching moment caused by the couple of the weight and the mainwheels. This effect increases as the tail gets lower causing the pitch rate to accelerate. With no additional elevator control to cushion the tailwheel touchdown this can cause a harsh landing for the small wheel!
I fly a nosewheel equipped Jet aeroplane at work and the correct technique is to land on the mainwheels and then use elevator to control the nosewheel touchdown. If one were to hold the nosewheel off till one runs out of elevator authority the nose would certainly "crash down".
I stand by my point that a technique which uses 100% of the available control authority prior the aeroplane being fully on the ground is not generally applicable. Although it may work well enough on some aeroplanes and in certain circumstances it leaves nothing in reserve to deal with the unexpected. Aeroplanes are all different and we should all be very careful not to advocate generic techniques which may not be appropriate to all types.
Returning to the thread, perhaps the pilot who found a 172 hard to land was applying generic techniques when they were not appropriate and perhaps his instructor didn't know any better because he, himself had limited experience and knowledge?!?
Happy landings
3 Point
Last edited by 3 Point; 18th Sep 2013 at 11:37.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3-point, I hope your username refers to tailwheel flying only! 
I have also not found any problems with holding full forward stick in a wheel landing once the speed is appropriate (i.e do it too early and you'll be tail-high). Like Foxmoth, I find that as the aeroplane slows the tail gracefully descends, and does not 'crash down'. Same on holding off the nosewheel in a fully held-off trike landing.
As for:
I don't think even its mother would go along with that! 
I have also not found any problems with holding full forward stick in a wheel landing once the speed is appropriate (i.e do it too early and you'll be tail-high). Like Foxmoth, I find that as the aeroplane slows the tail gracefully descends, and does not 'crash down'. Same on holding off the nosewheel in a fully held-off trike landing.
As for:
Cannot agree at all that the 172 has poor aileron response.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi SSD,
Well, that may be the case on many aeroplanes but it's certainly not the case on all. There are some types which do not respond well at all to holding the tail (or the nose) up till you run out of elevator.
That aside, my main point was that generic techniques are by definition not optimal on many aircraft types and I generally don't like them. All aeroplanes are different to a greater or lesser degree and therefore demand different pilot techniques to operate them well. This may be at the root of the problems the subject pilot reported with landing a 172.
Yes, 3 point on a taildragger only!!
Happy landings
3 Point
Well, that may be the case on many aeroplanes but it's certainly not the case on all. There are some types which do not respond well at all to holding the tail (or the nose) up till you run out of elevator.
That aside, my main point was that generic techniques are by definition not optimal on many aircraft types and I generally don't like them. All aeroplanes are different to a greater or lesser degree and therefore demand different pilot techniques to operate them well. This may be at the root of the problems the subject pilot reported with landing a 172.
Yes, 3 point on a taildragger only!!
Happy landings
3 Point
Moderator
As SSD and others, I will generally apply appropriate control in pitch and roll through touchdown, progressing to full control application in the desired direction until there is no detectable aerodynamic affect resulting from that control input (usually about when I stop, or turn off the runway).
I do this for all types I fly, unless there is a reason not to. A reason not to roll in full aileron would likely be that there was no crosswind - sure, central ailerons, but I'll still hold in pitch to unload the nose or tail as much as I can.
I have never had a nose or tail wheel(s) "crash" down while purposefully holding it/them off. To the contrary, I find the the applied control softens the contact of that third or third and forth wheel(s). I don't hold the tail or nose needlessly high off, just enough to reduce wear and tear on the wheel(s). And, if there's a gust, perfect, I already have the control input I need. If too much, I'll let some off, but I can't think of the last time that was a problem...
To support what I say, I present a video of a recent landing I flew - watch the elevator:
I do this for all types I fly, unless there is a reason not to. A reason not to roll in full aileron would likely be that there was no crosswind - sure, central ailerons, but I'll still hold in pitch to unload the nose or tail as much as I can.
I have never had a nose or tail wheel(s) "crash" down while purposefully holding it/them off. To the contrary, I find the the applied control softens the contact of that third or third and forth wheel(s). I don't hold the tail or nose needlessly high off, just enough to reduce wear and tear on the wheel(s). And, if there's a gust, perfect, I already have the control input I need. If too much, I'll let some off, but I can't think of the last time that was a problem...
To support what I say, I present a video of a recent landing I flew - watch the elevator:
Last edited by Pilot DAR; 18th Sep 2013 at 14:20.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi DAR,
Very tidy landing and I agree with all you say ...
"I will generally apply appropriate control in pitch and roll through touchdown, progressing to full control application in the desired direction until there is no detectable aerodynamic affect resulting from that control input (usually about when I stop, or turn off the runway".
That's what I do too and it's what I'm getting at. What you say is not the same as saying that you should always hold the tail or nosewheel off until you run out of elevator authority and then let it fall to earth out of control.
My point remains, generic flying techniques are not, by definition the optimum for many aeroplanes and the wide application of such techniques is not a good thing. Different aeroplanes require different techniques and should be flown using the appropriate techniques.
3 Point
Very tidy landing and I agree with all you say ...
"I will generally apply appropriate control in pitch and roll through touchdown, progressing to full control application in the desired direction until there is no detectable aerodynamic affect resulting from that control input (usually about when I stop, or turn off the runway".
That's what I do too and it's what I'm getting at. What you say is not the same as saying that you should always hold the tail or nosewheel off until you run out of elevator authority and then let it fall to earth out of control.
My point remains, generic flying techniques are not, by definition the optimum for many aeroplanes and the wide application of such techniques is not a good thing. Different aeroplanes require different techniques and should be flown using the appropriate techniques.
3 Point
Last edited by 3 Point; 18th Sep 2013 at 15:31.
Moderator
"I will generally apply appropriate control in pitch and roll through touchdown, progressing to full control application in the desired direction until there is no detectable aerodynamic affect resulting from that control input (usually about when I stop, or turn off the runway".
That's what I do too and it's what I'm getting at. What you say is not the same as saying that you should always hold the tail or nosewheel off until you run out of elevator authority and then let it fall to earth out of control.
That's what I do too and it's what I'm getting at. What you say is not the same as saying that you should always hold the tail or nosewheel off until you run out of elevator authority and then let it fall to earth out of control.
For my taildragger, as soon as I touch down, the stick will go forward smoothly, until fully forward, and it will stay there until the tailwheel settles gently to the ground as the speed reduces. For my nosewheel plane, as soon as I touch down, that control is pulled steadily back, not so as to fly again, but otherwise, as quickly as possible, and held full back, until there is no airflow over the tail.
I think of the elevator as having effectiveness or not, rather than "authority", and it will run out of effectiveness as you slow. This is not a sudden occurrence, so neither is the settling of the held off wheel(s).
Rather, I am occasionally quite alarmed to see a tricycle Cessna landed, and at the moment of touchdown, the elevator is relaxed, the nose drops, and a relatively delicate and maintenance sensitive nose strut is suddenly doing (very needlessly) a lot of work. On a paved runway, this is bad. On an uneven turf or gravel runway it is terrible. If the Cessna shimmy damper system (which includes the torque links) is weak, you can get a shimmy, which will really damage the aircraft.
The nose or tailwheel can touch down at 60-65 knots with "who cares" technique, or 50-40 knots with "I care" technique. That could be a 20 knot difference, and IS with my taildragger. My tailwheel maintenance costs have gone way down since I started doing it right, and not three pointing it. I do accept that other types are best three pointed, and so be it, but not mine, nor other tailwheels I've been trained on. I have never had unusual Cessna strut maintenance costs on my Cessna, as I was taught right the first time, and hold it off.
As long as a plane is moving through the air, it is flying, and the controls work - so I fly it. It may be in contact with the world, but that does not mean it has stopped flying. If you land a floatplane, and fail to hold the pitch control all the way back, you're in for a very unpleasant and wet surprise... You fly it until it stops....
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DAR,
Very nearly agree with all you say but, while I agree that an elevator deflected to full forward or full back still has some aerodynamic effect that does not mean that you have the ability to control the aeroplane.
In some types I have flown the tail will fall rapidly if you hold it off till you run out of elevator and by that time you will already have lost rudder effectiveness and you need to get the tailwheel on the ground for directional control.
My point remains that particular aeroplanes need particualr techniques and they are not all the same. You kind of say the same thing when you describe the requirement to use full up elevator in a seapalne and also when you say "other types are best three pointed, and so be it, but not mine".
In your final paragraph you say "As long as a plane is moving through the air, it is flying, and the controls work" but that's not strictly true. If they are at their maximum deflection you have no ability to exert further control of the aeroplane in one direction. I agree that the controls have an effect while there is any airflow over them but some effect is not the same as having working controls.
Let me give two examples; an Embraer 145 would smack its nose down very hard if I were to hold it off till I run out of elevator authority. Holding the tailwheel of a Sea Fury airborne till the elevator authority is all gone would induce a real risk of losing directional control as the tail falls out of control at about 60 Kts.
Very nearly agree with all you say but, while I agree that an elevator deflected to full forward or full back still has some aerodynamic effect that does not mean that you have the ability to control the aeroplane.
In some types I have flown the tail will fall rapidly if you hold it off till you run out of elevator and by that time you will already have lost rudder effectiveness and you need to get the tailwheel on the ground for directional control.
My point remains that particular aeroplanes need particualr techniques and they are not all the same. You kind of say the same thing when you describe the requirement to use full up elevator in a seapalne and also when you say "other types are best three pointed, and so be it, but not mine".
In your final paragraph you say "As long as a plane is moving through the air, it is flying, and the controls work" but that's not strictly true. If they are at their maximum deflection you have no ability to exert further control of the aeroplane in one direction. I agree that the controls have an effect while there is any airflow over them but some effect is not the same as having working controls.
Let me give two examples; an Embraer 145 would smack its nose down very hard if I were to hold it off till I run out of elevator authority. Holding the tailwheel of a Sea Fury airborne till the elevator authority is all gone would induce a real risk of losing directional control as the tail falls out of control at about 60 Kts.
Last edited by 3 Point; 18th Sep 2013 at 18:34.
Moderator
I am willing to concede to the unique characteristics of the EM 145, or Sea Fury (I have not flown either type). Certainly, what one must do to operate a particular type properly prevails over generalities. I agree there are tailwheel types which must has the tailwheel down to steer, cause the rudder alone won't do it - the SM1019 surprised me unpleasantly a couple of times this way!
That said, those particular types are usually not certified in the Part 23/CAR 3 category, so they could have characteristics which do not represent the normal GA aircraft. For a pilot reading here to surrender control to gravity only, on a light GA aircraft, because that's how it's done in a EM 145, might not entirely meet the best goals.
Pilots should "fly" planes. That's what they're paying for, right? So, why stop flying it, just 'cause it's on the ground? Maintain aerodynamic control until it stops.
I disagree. If I desire to purposefully lighten the load on a nosewheel, and I hold the control wheel fully back, I'll be reducing the load on the nosewheel, as long as there is effective airflow over the tail. Yes, this diminishes to none with decrease in speed. But then the ground shocks I'm trying to prevent into the nosewheel are also lessening as speed reduces.
"Control" does not mean that I am changing the direction of the aircraft, maybe just maintaining it, or maintaining a partly balancing force.
I once had to taxi a 172 through a field which had been plowed up between the hangar and runway, since parking the plane. Owner in the back seat, his daughter in the baggage compartment, flaps 20, full control wheel back, and I waddled the plane out with the nosewheel completely off the ground. No nosewheel or propeller damage risk. I controlled the plane aerodynamically (flew?) on the ground, well below flying speed.
That said, those particular types are usually not certified in the Part 23/CAR 3 category, so they could have characteristics which do not represent the normal GA aircraft. For a pilot reading here to surrender control to gravity only, on a light GA aircraft, because that's how it's done in a EM 145, might not entirely meet the best goals.
Pilots should "fly" planes. That's what they're paying for, right? So, why stop flying it, just 'cause it's on the ground? Maintain aerodynamic control until it stops.
still has some aerodynamic effect that does not mean that you have the ability to control the aeroplane
"Control" does not mean that I am changing the direction of the aircraft, maybe just maintaining it, or maintaining a partly balancing force.
I once had to taxi a 172 through a field which had been plowed up between the hangar and runway, since parking the plane. Owner in the back seat, his daughter in the baggage compartment, flaps 20, full control wheel back, and I waddled the plane out with the nosewheel completely off the ground. No nosewheel or propeller damage risk. I controlled the plane aerodynamically (flew?) on the ground, well below flying speed.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DAR,
I agree that if we restrict the debate to part 23 aeroplanes there is likely to be less variability in their handling characteristics however, the readership here are, I think active on all sorts of aeroplanes (and other flying machines) so I think the wider context is relevant.
I certainly agree that pilots should "fly" planes, I too am frequently appalled when I see pilots relinquish aerodynamic control immediately after touchdown and let the poor thing bump and bounce its way down the runway!
I doubt you and I will agree (and we're not really that far apart) but I'd submit that "control" in this context is the ability to exert influence over the aeroplane in all three axes such that the pilot can cause the aeroplane to behave as desired or can stop it behaving in an undesirable way.
I'd say that once you get to full control deflection holding one wheel off the ground and allow it to drop under the influence of gravity you no longer meet that definition of control! You might counter that by saying that if the pilot's intention is to allow the nose or tail to drop under the influence of gravity then you still meet my definition of control. I'll not argue the point any further.
Appropriate techniques, thoroughly learned, well understood and consistently applied will produce safe and repeatable landings on most aeroplanes - certainly the C172!
Happy landings all
I agree that if we restrict the debate to part 23 aeroplanes there is likely to be less variability in their handling characteristics however, the readership here are, I think active on all sorts of aeroplanes (and other flying machines) so I think the wider context is relevant.
I certainly agree that pilots should "fly" planes, I too am frequently appalled when I see pilots relinquish aerodynamic control immediately after touchdown and let the poor thing bump and bounce its way down the runway!
I doubt you and I will agree (and we're not really that far apart) but I'd submit that "control" in this context is the ability to exert influence over the aeroplane in all three axes such that the pilot can cause the aeroplane to behave as desired or can stop it behaving in an undesirable way.
I'd say that once you get to full control deflection holding one wheel off the ground and allow it to drop under the influence of gravity you no longer meet that definition of control! You might counter that by saying that if the pilot's intention is to allow the nose or tail to drop under the influence of gravity then you still meet my definition of control. I'll not argue the point any further.
Appropriate techniques, thoroughly learned, well understood and consistently applied will produce safe and repeatable landings on most aeroplanes - certainly the C172!
Happy landings all
