The flare
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flare
We've had lots of good talk about landings lately. The flare is a part of the landing, which deserves special mention, and always, more attention.
Nearly all landings are the gentle termination of a descent toward the surface. So we're going down, then we want to pretty well stop going down. Doing this actually requires an acceleration upward, if you think of it, as you were going down at a stable speed, now you don't want to be going down anymore, so accelerate upward a bit.
That acceleration upward will require the application of control, and some energy. That energy usually should come from bleeding off that last bit of airspeed to the point of a stall. So, you have to have the excess speed to bleed off. If you don't, a frantic, and uncool application of lots of power will usually do it too, but that's a messy way, and depends upon your engine jumping to life at the instant you expect. So, let's just focus on the "not adding power" method.
Very simply, you're going to determine the precise moment, and apply some pitch up. As the plane slows, and settles, you're going to apply more and more pitch up, until you run out of control, or flying - ideally, both at the same time!
So the flare, is a deliberate acceleration upward. The pilot will have to command that. To get the acceleration, you'll have to give up energy. You may have read me harping on having a few extra knots on climb away, in case of EFATO. Those extra knots are the energy you would like to have to flare with. Without it, you're not going to achieve the desired acceleration upward, and a expensive thump will result.
On the opposite side, you can use considerable power to stretch a flare into an indefinitely long event - as long as the landing surface gives you room. But, use caution, as this can get you close to banging the tail, or drifting off to the side, if there is any crosswind. You can also stretch a flare, by arriving over the threshold of a long runway with bags of extra speed, and simply reducing any remaining power steadily, as you raise the nose, and hold your position inches above the runway centerline. At some point around the stall, you're going to have a very nice landing - it's the distance down the runway which will be uncertain.
Or, back to the fully power off flare. It's going to happen quickly, and therefore in a pretty predictable place along the runway. As test pilot John Farley has written, "point the plane at the runway, and that's where you'll crash if you do nothing". The flare is just something to prevent the crash!
Give the flare more thought, as its own enjoyable aspect of landing, rather than just that brief scary time between flying and thumping on! If you learn to savour it, you'll get better at it....
Nearly all landings are the gentle termination of a descent toward the surface. So we're going down, then we want to pretty well stop going down. Doing this actually requires an acceleration upward, if you think of it, as you were going down at a stable speed, now you don't want to be going down anymore, so accelerate upward a bit.
That acceleration upward will require the application of control, and some energy. That energy usually should come from bleeding off that last bit of airspeed to the point of a stall. So, you have to have the excess speed to bleed off. If you don't, a frantic, and uncool application of lots of power will usually do it too, but that's a messy way, and depends upon your engine jumping to life at the instant you expect. So, let's just focus on the "not adding power" method.
Very simply, you're going to determine the precise moment, and apply some pitch up. As the plane slows, and settles, you're going to apply more and more pitch up, until you run out of control, or flying - ideally, both at the same time!
So the flare, is a deliberate acceleration upward. The pilot will have to command that. To get the acceleration, you'll have to give up energy. You may have read me harping on having a few extra knots on climb away, in case of EFATO. Those extra knots are the energy you would like to have to flare with. Without it, you're not going to achieve the desired acceleration upward, and a expensive thump will result.
On the opposite side, you can use considerable power to stretch a flare into an indefinitely long event - as long as the landing surface gives you room. But, use caution, as this can get you close to banging the tail, or drifting off to the side, if there is any crosswind. You can also stretch a flare, by arriving over the threshold of a long runway with bags of extra speed, and simply reducing any remaining power steadily, as you raise the nose, and hold your position inches above the runway centerline. At some point around the stall, you're going to have a very nice landing - it's the distance down the runway which will be uncertain.
Or, back to the fully power off flare. It's going to happen quickly, and therefore in a pretty predictable place along the runway. As test pilot John Farley has written, "point the plane at the runway, and that's where you'll crash if you do nothing". The flare is just something to prevent the crash!
Give the flare more thought, as its own enjoyable aspect of landing, rather than just that brief scary time between flying and thumping on! If you learn to savour it, you'll get better at it....
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always split the landing into three parts, the approach, flare and then the hold off. The flare is the bit where, as you say you stop the aircraft descending, yes this takes a little energy and will bleed a little speed off, but normally the approach will be at Vs + 1/3 so once the flare is complete then you will still have plenty of speed in hand above Vs and ideally you will then hold off until Vs+ a couple of knots. Where many pilots go wrong is that they seem to think it is - flare/land and it all happens together, the flare is a very short phase (1sec or less) but the hold off should normally be a number of seconds. IMHO it is by considering flare and landing as one thing where many go wrong.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normally
We fly a VREF speed of 1.3 times the stall speed in a given configuration this allows enough surplus energy over the stall with a closed throttle to transition from a descent to a touchdown.
That could theoretical be 1.4 or 1.2 above the stall speed in a given configuration.
The slower the touchdown speed the shorter the landing distance.
the idea of HOLDING OFF has a question mark over it as in certain situations in crosswinds or down draughts the last thing you want to be doing is holding off 10 feet above the runway.
Often you will fly the aircraft onto the deck with no holding off
the FLARE can be a a large movement yet there again it can be no more than a wrist jerk.
We are taught the conventional landing to land as close to the stall as possible with as smooth a touchdown as possible pulling back and back till eventually the aircraft sinks onto the runway at or near the stall but often this isn't always the best way and may not be the best way on a long runway or the wrong conditions to favour that method.
Landing is to make contact with a hard surface with as little descent rate as possible i.e. so the aircraft remains intact
I posted before about an accident at Edinburgh where a pilot I know had control problems in a Citation! He landed at a radar determined speed of 200 kTS way above the the normal VREF speed of 105 KTS and the tyre limiting speed, but the aircraft stopped and was intact and HE LANDED
i have posted this as there are so many misconceptions about landing and the only way is not the way we are taught as new pilots
Pace
We fly a VREF speed of 1.3 times the stall speed in a given configuration this allows enough surplus energy over the stall with a closed throttle to transition from a descent to a touchdown.
That could theoretical be 1.4 or 1.2 above the stall speed in a given configuration.
The slower the touchdown speed the shorter the landing distance.
the idea of HOLDING OFF has a question mark over it as in certain situations in crosswinds or down draughts the last thing you want to be doing is holding off 10 feet above the runway.
Often you will fly the aircraft onto the deck with no holding off
the FLARE can be a a large movement yet there again it can be no more than a wrist jerk.
We are taught the conventional landing to land as close to the stall as possible with as smooth a touchdown as possible pulling back and back till eventually the aircraft sinks onto the runway at or near the stall but often this isn't always the best way and may not be the best way on a long runway or the wrong conditions to favour that method.
Landing is to make contact with a hard surface with as little descent rate as possible i.e. so the aircraft remains intact
I posted before about an accident at Edinburgh where a pilot I know had control problems in a Citation! He landed at a radar determined speed of 200 kTS way above the the normal VREF speed of 105 KTS and the tyre limiting speed, but the aircraft stopped and was intact and HE LANDED
i have posted this as there are so many misconceptions about landing and the only way is not the way we are taught as new pilots
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 15th Mar 2015 at 09:32.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
holding off 10 feet above the runway.
Often you will fly the aircraft onto the deck with no holding off
Try sitting where you can see the threshold and watch people land, you will see many flare and land instantly, nearly all putting all three wheels on at once or even nosewheel first, it is surprising how few actually land properly on the mains with the nosewheel held off.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try sitting where you can see the threshold and watch people land, you will see many flare and land instantly, nearly all putting all three wheels on at once or even nosewheel first, it is surprising how few actually land properly on the mains with the nosewheel held off.
This has a lot to do with the distance between the nose wheel and mains short coupled and a larger degree pitch up is required to move the nose wheel clear.
longer coupled like the citation and probably only a couple of degrees change is required but even singles like the Saratoga have a decent distance between the nose wheel and mains.
Looking at passenger jets and the distance is obviously huge while some tiny aircraft have hardly any spacing between the two and are not really bad weather aircraft.
The above comments you placed shows how many cannot really land properly and you have to question the instruction and many do sit there in crosswinds holding off at 10 feet
pace
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think one of the big advantages of learning to fly tail wheel aeroplanes is they will not tolerate sloppy flare / hold-off technique. If you bang your C172 into the ground on all 3 at once as many do, it'll just land (until the day the nose-leg gives up the unequal struggle - see the AAIB reports every month). A layman watching might even applaud it as a good landing! A pilot will wince!
Try banging your tail wheel aeroplane down without a full hold-off and it'll bounce nose-high (if a tri-gear is bounced, it bounces nose-low so is self correcting until the nose leg snaps). A nose-high bounce has to be corrected by the pilot, as if he does nothing the second subsequent bounce will be a lot worse, and the third will probably break the aeroplane.
I think of the hold-off (at least in a benign wind) as 'trying not to land'. Just keep easing back until, despite you best efforts, the thing touches down.
Try banging your tail wheel aeroplane down without a full hold-off and it'll bounce nose-high (if a tri-gear is bounced, it bounces nose-low so is self correcting until the nose leg snaps). A nose-high bounce has to be corrected by the pilot, as if he does nothing the second subsequent bounce will be a lot worse, and the third will probably break the aeroplane.
I think of the hold-off (at least in a benign wind) as 'trying not to land'. Just keep easing back until, despite you best efforts, the thing touches down.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: yankton, sd
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that the Handley Page Victor Bomber would flare itself as the wing entered ground effect prior to the high t tail.
And since this is a euro centric sort of forum, I thought that would be amusing to some here.
I look at a FLARE as the same as :
1. Bringing your automobile to a stop at a stop sign.
2. Hopping off an escalator at the bottom of your ride.
Wolfgang Langweishe's discussion of the "Stall Down Landing" in his book ("Stick and Rudder") is perhaps the best understanding of the flare over the larger area.
The flare regime has been noted to be the time the airplane enters its level of ground effect (EG half the wing span). One mistake about the flare is to completely and totally stop the descent. While acceptable in smaller planes, simply reducing the sink rate by 1/2 should allow you to be FLARED while not using the entire runway.
And since this is a euro centric sort of forum, I thought that would be amusing to some here.
I look at a FLARE as the same as :
1. Bringing your automobile to a stop at a stop sign.
2. Hopping off an escalator at the bottom of your ride.
Wolfgang Langweishe's discussion of the "Stall Down Landing" in his book ("Stick and Rudder") is perhaps the best understanding of the flare over the larger area.
The flare regime has been noted to be the time the airplane enters its level of ground effect (EG half the wing span). One mistake about the flare is to completely and totally stop the descent. While acceptable in smaller planes, simply reducing the sink rate by 1/2 should allow you to be FLARED while not using the entire runway.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD
I totally agree and those who fly taildraggers have to know how to land!
Sadly many students and PPLs don't and landings are wishful thinking rather than being in total control and responding to every move with the correct control inputs.
Whether thats poor instruction or a lack of natural ability or a mixture of both I don't know
Pace
I totally agree and those who fly taildraggers have to know how to land!
Sadly many students and PPLs don't and landings are wishful thinking rather than being in total control and responding to every move with the correct control inputs.
Whether thats poor instruction or a lack of natural ability or a mixture of both I don't know
Pace
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: london
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to find landings OK at best....I mean, I was just happy to land rather than relishing the challenge....maybe it is lack of experience more than anything....I, like many, have not flown since getting my licence...long story but there you have it...PPL is still current and I really need to get back up in the air
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dkatwa
And the point when you can land an aeroplane is the point that you can land without thinking about it, the point that you enjoy the procedure rather than seeing it as something which fills you with trepidation. Something which you feel in total control of rather than it being in control of you.
That is partially experience but IMO partially instruction where more should be put into the understanding of controls and your natural input into those controls as well as being made to feel comfortable operating near the ground rather than just churning out standard circuits and landings.
pace
And the point when you can land an aeroplane is the point that you can land without thinking about it, the point that you enjoy the procedure rather than seeing it as something which fills you with trepidation. Something which you feel in total control of rather than it being in control of you.
That is partially experience but IMO partially instruction where more should be put into the understanding of controls and your natural input into those controls as well as being made to feel comfortable operating near the ground rather than just churning out standard circuits and landings.
pace
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is quite simple.
If there are this many pilots that do not understand the basics of how to land an airplane then the only real explanation is the flight training industry needs a complete overhaul, if instructors are ignorant of the subject how in hell can they teach it?
If there are this many pilots that do not understand the basics of how to land an airplane then the only real explanation is the flight training industry needs a complete overhaul, if instructors are ignorant of the subject how in hell can they teach it?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flare is the bit where, as you say you stop the aircraft descending, yes this takes a little energy and will bleed a little speed off, but normally the approach will be at Vs + 1/3 so once the flare is complete then you will still have plenty of speed in hand above Vs and ideally you will then hold off until Vs+ a couple of knots.
The point is to understand that the flare is the portion of the landing where you trade your stored energy into acceleration upward, to arrest the descent. Did you store enough energy for that?
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: LHBS
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you store enough energy for that?
Once I managed to scare myself where the strong headwind on the approach reduced significantly close to the runway threshold. I lowered the nose to keep the airspeed up as before, but this increased my descent rate significantly. As a result, the flare was the shortest ever experienced, pulled the nose up and the wheels contact the ground immediately (tailwheel too). It was quite smooth, but got me thinking about what if I flare a bit higher, there was no energy reserve for correcting anything.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the normal technique for a glide approach is to use a slightly higher speed on approach for just this reason (plus lack of slipstream effect in a glide gives a reduced elevator effectiveness). Quoting aircraft like the Amphibian 182 and Paces Citation is fine, but certainly low hour PPLs and students (which is where most of the discussion you refer to in your origionaly post comes from) are unlikely to be operating these and techniques used there are IMHO not helpful to those pilots!
Last edited by foxmoth; 15th Mar 2015 at 18:10. Reason: Sp.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foxmoth
I didn't think this was the student pilots forum
There are PPLs who vary from those who only fly nice days to those who use their PPL in anger.
we have a number of threads going which basically cover the same subject some by a students and others which have developed into other areas of landing techniques.
There are also misconceptions about landing which should be addressed because some PPLs do fly IMC in anger, i have over 3000 hours in piston twins in some weather I would rather not talk about
I like most here am still learning from the real guys I admire like Chuck BPF and many more including your good self . I am sure we all have things to learn
Its only by dissecting these subjects that we find out things we did not know
Pace
I didn't think this was the student pilots forum
There are PPLs who vary from those who only fly nice days to those who use their PPL in anger.we have a number of threads going which basically cover the same subject some by a students and others which have developed into other areas of landing techniques.
There are also misconceptions about landing which should be addressed because some PPLs do fly IMC in anger, i have over 3000 hours in piston twins in some weather I would rather not talk about
I like most here am still learning from the real guys I admire like Chuck BPF and many more including your good self . I am sure we all have things to learn
Its only by dissecting these subjects that we find out things we did not know
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Step Turn, one phrase you have used does bother me: "you trade your stored energy into acceleration upward, to arrest the descent".....
The image that phrase brings to mind would be a descent to a point where your wheel - or main gear - is two feet above the tarmac. Followed by acceleration upward? now the wheel(s) are say ten feet above the tarmac.... if that happened I would expect a painful arrival. Could you please clarify this point? Sounds like the maneuver, unintentional, that we call a balloon!
The image that phrase brings to mind would be a descent to a point where your wheel - or main gear - is two feet above the tarmac. Followed by acceleration upward? now the wheel(s) are say ten feet above the tarmac.... if that happened I would expect a painful arrival. Could you please clarify this point? Sounds like the maneuver, unintentional, that we call a balloon!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary I would have added your name as pilots I learn from
Really it all comes back to a phrase rarely used by instructors called energy management yet should be the most important phrase in our dictionary and involves a number of control and power inputs all blended to achieve a result.
When those instructors argue pitch for speed or power for speed or holding off till the aircraft stalls onto the runway it bothers me a lot
Pace
Really it all comes back to a phrase rarely used by instructors called energy management yet should be the most important phrase in our dictionary and involves a number of control and power inputs all blended to achieve a result.
When those instructors argue pitch for speed or power for speed or holding off till the aircraft stalls onto the runway it bothers me a lot
Pace
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: yankton, sd
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace, you mention energy management. I mentioned how flaring was like bringing a car to a stop at a stop sign, and it is all about energy.
A graceful stop at a stop sign (in a car), is well planned out to reduce energy (by various means) by a certain point, isn't that what a flare does?
You get rid of the energy for flight and end up with a touchdown at the right place in minimal energy .
Now, sometimes, in drastic conditions (high wind, turbulence, or the myriad of evils we face in the sky) you land with more energy as a reserve for the unknown, or to compensate for the mass of your plane vs the response of the engine. But it is the same sort of thing. timing, energy, skill, and perhaps luck or good fortune in reading the unknowns (as above).
A graceful stop at a stop sign (in a car), is well planned out to reduce energy (by various means) by a certain point, isn't that what a flare does?
You get rid of the energy for flight and end up with a touchdown at the right place in minimal energy .
Now, sometimes, in drastic conditions (high wind, turbulence, or the myriad of evils we face in the sky) you land with more energy as a reserve for the unknown, or to compensate for the mass of your plane vs the response of the engine. But it is the same sort of thing. timing, energy, skill, and perhaps luck or good fortune in reading the unknowns (as above).
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck Ellsworth:
Neglecting complications like wind, etc. it's running out of airspeed and altitude simultaneously with arrival at the intended touchdown zone.
The problem is quite simple.