Odd? landing technique (PA28) wanted by school
Specifically, 1.3Vs is the slowest that the regulations permit the manufacturer to use in defining the landing distance.
Most microlights use higher, as I said. For example, the Sky Ranger, which is a similar shape to your Rans - but approved through the BMAA so it has a proper manual which I can look up, has Vs = 33kn.CAS and a final approach speed of 55 kn.CAS - so the final approach is recommended to be flown at 1.67VSo.
G
Most microlights use higher, as I said. For example, the Sky Ranger, which is a similar shape to your Rans - but approved through the BMAA so it has a proper manual which I can look up, has Vs = 33kn.CAS and a final approach speed of 55 kn.CAS - so the final approach is recommended to be flown at 1.67VSo.
G
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ghengis
That is really interesting that they recommend 1.67 x stall in given config as that fits my thinking albeit I didn't know the figure
On the flip side on a very slippery airframe is it worth looking at below 1.3Vs even though 1.3 VS is the lowest permitted as below maybe more reflective on a slippier airframe
Ultimate would be an AOA gauge and use that
Pace
That is really interesting that they recommend 1.67 x stall in given config as that fits my thinking albeit I didn't know the figure
1.3Vs is the slowest that the regulations permit the manufacturer to use
Ultimate would be an AOA gauge and use that
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 14th Jul 2015 at 21:51.
P.S.
G, Not my heavy old S6-116: I was referring to my miniature Cub 'look alike' Rans S4. Now that is a real microlight, max AUW with fuel and driver is 587 lbs.
e.g. On take-off, if not held down to nearly 30 mph, it can float off far too slow to be safe & where any light side wind component has a disproportional effect. Much the same as when landing.
A glide approach is of course possible, but means quite a steep dive & isn't so easy to make the desired touch down spot. In all instances with a ridiculously short landing roll a regular powered approach offers much better aerodynamic control and the rudder/directional control.
In fact all I'm saying is that for the P1 to operate safely & in the sweet spot of best control there's no sense in discarding the benefits of power.
mike hallam.
G, Not my heavy old S6-116: I was referring to my miniature Cub 'look alike' Rans S4. Now that is a real microlight, max AUW with fuel and driver is 587 lbs.
e.g. On take-off, if not held down to nearly 30 mph, it can float off far too slow to be safe & where any light side wind component has a disproportional effect. Much the same as when landing.
A glide approach is of course possible, but means quite a steep dive & isn't so easy to make the desired touch down spot. In all instances with a ridiculously short landing roll a regular powered approach offers much better aerodynamic control and the rudder/directional control.
In fact all I'm saying is that for the P1 to operate safely & in the sweet spot of best control there's no sense in discarding the benefits of power.
mike hallam.
I'll certainly not dispute that an S4 is a real microlight - but I don't see why that can't be flown routinely on a steep glide approach. I've not flown an S4, but for example that works fine for an MW5 or the venerable TST.
G
G
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 30W
Age: 40
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with a lot of the comments here and also agree with your new landing method.
The reason floating down a runway at 50-60kts sounds crazy to me is because you are floating down and using up runway at 50-60kts, in no way is that sensible. Some may say stalling the airfcraft onto the runway improves braking efficency. I would say if you do a textbook float and bleed the speed to the stall landing and land in the second half of a short runway with maximum braking avail and go off the end, one will look like a complete bell
.
The counter agrument will be that if a pilot does not bleed the speed back on a small single in gusty conditions the aircraft is likely to bounce or skid on touchdown. I would say that is easier to control for the split second before the friction of the wheels kicks in with the aerodynamic drag and slows the aircraft below VStall.
I would also say flying a small aircraft down even the longest runway at a foot or two in gusty condition hoping that all the lift will evenly fall off the wings allowing a comfortable landing would always be a risk, even for the best pilots.
One question, when a pilot does landing calculations to land at a short airfield do the calcs take into account using up runway at 50kts while waiting for the stall?
Just put it down on the aptly named 'touchdown zone' at a sensible speed and allow the friction and braking to slow the aircraft, much easier to manage, control and plan for.
Best of luck with the flying.
CABUS
The reason floating down a runway at 50-60kts sounds crazy to me is because you are floating down and using up runway at 50-60kts, in no way is that sensible. Some may say stalling the airfcraft onto the runway improves braking efficency. I would say if you do a textbook float and bleed the speed to the stall landing and land in the second half of a short runway with maximum braking avail and go off the end, one will look like a complete bell
.The counter agrument will be that if a pilot does not bleed the speed back on a small single in gusty conditions the aircraft is likely to bounce or skid on touchdown. I would say that is easier to control for the split second before the friction of the wheels kicks in with the aerodynamic drag and slows the aircraft below VStall.
I would also say flying a small aircraft down even the longest runway at a foot or two in gusty condition hoping that all the lift will evenly fall off the wings allowing a comfortable landing would always be a risk, even for the best pilots.
One question, when a pilot does landing calculations to land at a short airfield do the calcs take into account using up runway at 50kts while waiting for the stall?
Just put it down on the aptly named 'touchdown zone' at a sensible speed and allow the friction and braking to slow the aircraft, much easier to manage, control and plan for.
Best of luck with the flying.
CABUS
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is where some are getting it totally wrong Other than minimum stopping distance what has the stall got to do with landing an aircraft ?
This is a misleading presumption from the training pilots receive.
Why do you have to wait for the aircraft to stall or be near the stall to land it? If some are taught one way in training then its wrong there are other methods other than stalling it on
pace
Other than minimum stopping distance what has the stall got to do with landing an aircraft ?This is a misleading presumption from the training pilots receive.
Why do you have to wait for the aircraft to stall or be near the stall to land it? If some are taught one way in training then its wrong there are other methods other than stalling it on
pace
Last edited by Pace; 16th Jul 2015 at 19:09.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 30W
Age: 40
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Pace,
I agree and have obviously misunderstood this or have badly worded my previous message.
I agree the stall should have nothing to do with landing and bleeding the speed off at a few inches off the ground until stalling is crazy. A landing should be performed by landing at the correct part of the runway at a sensible speed.
Thanks for the comment.
C
I agree and have obviously misunderstood this or have badly worded my previous message.
I agree the stall should have nothing to do with landing and bleeding the speed off at a few inches off the ground until stalling is crazy. A landing should be performed by landing at the correct part of the runway at a sensible speed.
Thanks for the comment.
C
Not many aircraft (only one comes to my mind,anyway) have the wings anywhere near the stalling angle when the main wheels are on the ground. That said, it is kinder to the aircraft to land slowly....where not contra-indicated by factors such as gusting winds, limiting runway length etc.
Taildraggers don't have to be landed three point, either. Despite which, there is something very satisfying in a real greaser. Funny how my roughest landings are always in front of a large crowd, and the really sweet ones at the end of a long flight when I am tired and everyone else has gone home
Taildraggers don't have to be landed three point, either. Despite which, there is something very satisfying in a real greaser. Funny how my roughest landings are always in front of a large crowd, and the really sweet ones at the end of a long flight when I am tired and everyone else has gone home
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cabus apologies again I have adjusted that message
One thing which will limit flying it on rather than stalling it on or even banging it on which in extreme conditions maybe required is the distance between the main wheels and the nose wheel.
On short coupled aircraft where that distance is minimal unless you are a brilliant pilot it is hard to not three point it or worse land nose wheel first.
On very long aircraft where there is a large gap between the mains and nose sometimes only a pitch change of a few degrees is required to take the nose well clear.
as stated in a previous posting in this thread a friend with control problems who felt he could not reduce below 200 KTS landed a Citation at Edinburgh with a radar estimated touch down speed of 200 KTS.
The tyre limiting speed was around 165 KTS and a typical VREF of 105 KTS so he landed and safely stopped intact at nearly twice the normal VREF speed and more than twice the stall speed.
Part of that was the huge distance from the mains to the nose.
How the tyres held together God knows and even at a VREF of 105 KTS that is still approx 1,3 times the stall unbelievable but it shows how landing and stall are not really that connected
Piper Classique
its not very kind to the aircraft if you stall it on from six feet
Take your point on greasers I find sometimes if its dead calm its hard to grease it on but sometimes when your challenged you get greasers Also at night for some reason you can also grease it on Maybe it takes more concentration ?
Pace
One thing which will limit flying it on rather than stalling it on or even banging it on which in extreme conditions maybe required is the distance between the main wheels and the nose wheel.
On short coupled aircraft where that distance is minimal unless you are a brilliant pilot it is hard to not three point it or worse land nose wheel first.
On very long aircraft where there is a large gap between the mains and nose sometimes only a pitch change of a few degrees is required to take the nose well clear.
as stated in a previous posting in this thread a friend with control problems who felt he could not reduce below 200 KTS landed a Citation at Edinburgh with a radar estimated touch down speed of 200 KTS.
The tyre limiting speed was around 165 KTS and a typical VREF of 105 KTS so he landed and safely stopped intact at nearly twice the normal VREF speed and more than twice the stall speed.
Part of that was the huge distance from the mains to the nose.
How the tyres held together God knows and even at a VREF of 105 KTS that is still approx 1,3 times the stall unbelievable but it shows how landing and stall are not really that connected
Piper Classique
its not very kind to the aircraft if you stall it on from six feet
Take your point on greasers I find sometimes if its dead calm its hard to grease it on but sometimes when your challenged you get greasers
Also at night for some reason you can also grease it on Maybe it takes more concentration ?Pace
