Hard to land
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The early Cessna Cardinals were tricky to land and there were a lot of pilot induced oscillations. Cessna redesigned the stabiliser and put slots in the leading edge to make it easier to control. This was retro fitted free of charge to the earlier models which suggests it was more than just a nicety.
suninmyeyes: The early Cessna Cardinals were tricky to land and there were a lot of pilot induced oscillations. Cessna redesigned the stabiliser and put slots in the leading edge to make it easier to control. This was retro fitted free of charge to the earlier models which suggests it was more than just a nicety.
The early tailplane could also stall before the mainplane causing issues which were addressed by the leading edge slot.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember reading comments by Alan Bramson a long time ago about the Dragon Rapide. He said it was one of the few aircraft where the angle of attack sitting on the ground exceeded the stalling angle. I presume it was therefore hard to land unless you wheeled it on.
It's a general useful principle in life that nothing is hard to do once you know how. Some things require more practice and currency than others to feel comfortable. I love flying autorotations but if I haven't done one for a while, the first couple are pretty rough.
That said, there are types which require more practice or a bit of an unusual technique, and in that sense are harder. If you have 1000 Pitts hours you probably think a Pitts is a pussy cat to land, but to any normal mortal it is a serious challenge. (My aerobatics instructor claims the only thing harder to land, or teach people to land, is the U2 - he has plenty of time in both). There are people who claim a 182 is hard to land because it is "nose heavy" whatever that means. I do have 1000 hours in that and I find it a delight to fly in every regard - but for example you MUST keep it in trim, not the case for a 152 where you can forget that the trim control is there and still fly and land it without problems.
When I flew the Pitts regularly I could land it easily and comfortably, but now I only do it a couple of times a year (with aforementioned instructor) and I certainly would not want to HAVE to land it on my own.
That said, there are types which require more practice or a bit of an unusual technique, and in that sense are harder. If you have 1000 Pitts hours you probably think a Pitts is a pussy cat to land, but to any normal mortal it is a serious challenge. (My aerobatics instructor claims the only thing harder to land, or teach people to land, is the U2 - he has plenty of time in both). There are people who claim a 182 is hard to land because it is "nose heavy" whatever that means. I do have 1000 hours in that and I find it a delight to fly in every regard - but for example you MUST keep it in trim, not the case for a 152 where you can forget that the trim control is there and still fly and land it without problems.
When I flew the Pitts regularly I could land it easily and comfortably, but now I only do it a couple of times a year (with aforementioned instructor) and I certainly would not want to HAVE to land it on my own.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
taildragger problems in a crosswind
Twice in my Supercub I had a problem. In Ireland, ATC told me "Echo Romeo, you are number one to land. Aer Lingus 727, you are number two behind the Super Cub".
Well, that puts a bit of pressure on to expedite, doesn't it? So I didn't linger, nor use flaps, but rolling out at walking pace on the runway after touchdown, inspired by a BLAST of wind from the left - must have been at least 15 mph dead cross, the Supercub decided on its own to taxi off the runway and onto the grass....
Alas, it was not grass, it was a bog. Aer Lingus had to go around, and around and around, while the ground staff (I persuaded them not to spray it with foam as there was no fire!) pushed it back to the apron. Talk about being embarrassed! When inspected the next day, there was NO DAMAGE at all!
Nice soft bog.
The second time I had a crosswind blast after landing that caused a problem was at the gliding club.
There was plenty of room and no traffic, no bog, no obstacles; the cub just taxied round in a circle. Observers thought I was showing off....
Has anyone else had this sort of problem with a taildragger at walking pace?
Well, that puts a bit of pressure on to expedite, doesn't it? So I didn't linger, nor use flaps, but rolling out at walking pace on the runway after touchdown, inspired by a BLAST of wind from the left - must have been at least 15 mph dead cross, the Supercub decided on its own to taxi off the runway and onto the grass....
Alas, it was not grass, it was a bog. Aer Lingus had to go around, and around and around, while the ground staff (I persuaded them not to spray it with foam as there was no fire!) pushed it back to the apron. Talk about being embarrassed! When inspected the next day, there was NO DAMAGE at all!
Nice soft bog.
The second time I had a crosswind blast after landing that caused a problem was at the gliding club.
There was plenty of room and no traffic, no bog, no obstacles; the cub just taxied round in a circle. Observers thought I was showing off....
Has anyone else had this sort of problem with a taildragger at walking pace?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a general useful principle in life that nothing is hard to do once you know how. Some things require more practice and currency than others to feel comfortable.
Two important considerations are: Does the 'plane (by design) have enough control available for the pilot to maintain control, and, is the rate at which control might have to be applied within the normal observation and reaction time of a pilot? We would always expect a 'plane to have adequate control available, though with any taildragger, there comes a point where it is not possible to have enough control to correct a groundloop, but that's an exception. So the rate at which change could happen, for which pilot control input is required, becomes a prime point for consideration. What type of pilot does it take to stay ahead of the plane?
So if a certified 'plane is "hard to land", it's probably a relationship between the pilot's observation and reaction time, to the handling characteristics. As the 'plane is certified, it is understood to have met the standard of not requiring unusual pilot skill and attention, so, it's up to the pilot to manage the 'plane, rather than the 'plane to be branded "hard to land".
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dragon Lady. - U2.
1. Poor visibility to judge exact altitude above runway
2. Runs out of aileron control as the speed reduces
enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNYg2i9Jgvs
1. Poor visibility to judge exact altitude above runway
2. Runs out of aileron control as the speed reduces
enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNYg2i9Jgvs
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone else had this sort of problem with a taildragger at walking pace?
I presume it was therefore hard to land unless you wheeled it o
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone else had this sort of problem with a taildragger at walking pace?
While flying jumpers in a beaten up (yes, not entirely airworthy) C 185 years ago, I bounced a landing into a setting sun a little. The 'plane gently started to go off to the left as I slowed. I applied and held full right pedal, and some right brake. The 'plane went at a walking pace, very much not under my control, exactly where I wanted it to go. I stopped looking like a pro, but knowing I had just gone for a ride. Curious, as to how I had not had control I had the tail lifted while I examined the tailwheel - it had no steering whatever, warn out pawls.
I landed my taildragger a few years back on a large paved runway I know well, in a high crosswind. I had no problem controlling, though I have full rudder applied quite a lot. As I let down the tailwheel, it unlocked from the steering because the rudder was deflected fully. As the 'plane slowed below a speed where the rudder was effective, it gently ground looped - application of rudder and brake would not prevent it. No harm done, but I felt silly!
I have learned the importance of maintaining the tailwheel, and assuring it does not become unlocked unexpectedly.
He said it was one of the few aircraft where the angle of attack sitting on the ground exceeded the stalling angle.
I gather that once on the ground, you must let the tail settle of its own accord - which can take a while. No attempt at braking must be made until the aeroplane is down to taxying speed, otherwise it might trip up.
DH88 - beautiful in flight, but a real handful on take-off and landing!
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When flying light aircraft, I always have trouble to land if I don't have my seat cushion.
How can you land visually if you don't have proper visual reference ?
All airplane manufacturers should include in their cabin a very simple system such as the airbus red and white balls to indicate what is the optimum pilot eye position.
How can you land visually if you don't have proper visual reference ?
All airplane manufacturers should include in their cabin a very simple system such as the airbus red and white balls to indicate what is the optimum pilot eye position.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that eye position indicators would have the same benefit in a light 'plane as a larger one. Though I'm not a large 'plane pilot, I expect that the light 'plane has more airframe (usually the engine cowl) in the pilot's view by which to judge attitude. A few types I have flown have poor visual cues out front of the windshield, so do require better awareness, I don't know if pre-established eye position would help that.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SEAT CUSHIONS? Beware.
Kay Pam, regarding seat cushions. If you are sitting on a squashy soft cushion it can be dangerous. It may compress under you in unusual attitudes of the aircraft and even make it not possible to reach the controls!
They do sell expensive non compressible cushions, however we have found if you wrap a stack of NEWSPAPERS in plastic tape, to a comfortable fit for yourself or if a lot of people use the aircraft, several cushions of different thickness....and sew a nice cover over the package, you have created a zero cost NON COMPRESSIBLE CUSHION. Even if you stand on it it will not change shape.
They do sell expensive non compressible cushions, however we have found if you wrap a stack of NEWSPAPERS in plastic tape, to a comfortable fit for yourself or if a lot of people use the aircraft, several cushions of different thickness....and sew a nice cover over the package, you have created a zero cost NON COMPRESSIBLE CUSHION. Even if you stand on it it will not change shape.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The owner spent about 15 years on and off restoring a Tiger Moth. He mentioned to me for weeks looking forward to flying his old mount again. While on the phone with him about other flying I was doing for him, he passingly mentioned having me fly the maintenance check flight of the Tiger Moth when I came up. Puzzled, I agreed that I would.
When I arrived, and double checked his request, he walked away from me shaking his head, and said " it seems to have shrunk since I last flew it, just go and fly it.". The maintenance guys told me that he tried to get in, but had put on a few pounds and did not fit.
He'd left me the three thick telephone books that were placed in the seat bottom, in place of a parachute though! Height was just perfect!
When I arrived, and double checked his request, he walked away from me shaking his head, and said " it seems to have shrunk since I last flew it, just go and fly it.". The maintenance guys told me that he tried to get in, but had put on a few pounds and did not fit.
He'd left me the three thick telephone books that were placed in the seat bottom, in place of a parachute though! Height was just perfect!
I think you have to specify what is a "good" landing before deciding when an aircraft type is hard to land.
IMO a " good " landing has very little to do with the perceived force experienced at the moment of touchdown. Instead the elements of a good landing are a touchdown on runway centreline, at the desired pre selected touchdown point with the aircraft's longitudinal axis aligned with the runway and most important at the correct pitch attitude. For tricycle gear aircraft this means a tail low touch down with the nose wheel well clear of the runway.
If there is a bit of a bump that does in not in any way reduce the " goodness" of the landing.
As a general rule "fishing for the greaser" is a fools errand and has turned many landings that would have worked fine if the pilot had simply held the landing attitude until touchdown, into bent metal.
As an instructor I have had numerous pilots come to me to help them land their "hard to land" aircraft. Almost invariably the problem was excessive speed on final. When they flew a stable 1.3 Vso on short final all of a sudden their hard to land airplane became a pussycat.
IMO a " good " landing has very little to do with the perceived force experienced at the moment of touchdown. Instead the elements of a good landing are a touchdown on runway centreline, at the desired pre selected touchdown point with the aircraft's longitudinal axis aligned with the runway and most important at the correct pitch attitude. For tricycle gear aircraft this means a tail low touch down with the nose wheel well clear of the runway.
If there is a bit of a bump that does in not in any way reduce the " goodness" of the landing.
As a general rule "fishing for the greaser" is a fools errand and has turned many landings that would have worked fine if the pilot had simply held the landing attitude until touchdown, into bent metal.
As an instructor I have had numerous pilots come to me to help them land their "hard to land" aircraft. Almost invariably the problem was excessive speed on final. When they flew a stable 1.3 Vso on short final all of a sudden their hard to land airplane became a pussycat.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 22nd Jan 2017 at 21:58.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kay Pam, regarding seat cushions. If you are sitting on a squashy soft cushion it can be dangerous. It may compress under you in unusual attitudes of the aircraft and even make it not possible to reach the controls!
They do sell expensive non compressible cushions, however we have found if you wrap a stack of NEWSPAPERS in plastic tape, to a comfortable fit for yourself or if a lot of people use the aircraft, several cushions of different thickness....and sew a nice cover over the package, you have created a zero cost NON COMPRESSIBLE CUSHION. Even if you stand on it it will not change shape.
They do sell expensive non compressible cushions, however we have found if you wrap a stack of NEWSPAPERS in plastic tape, to a comfortable fit for yourself or if a lot of people use the aircraft, several cushions of different thickness....and sew a nice cover over the package, you have created a zero cost NON COMPRESSIBLE CUSHION. Even if you stand on it it will not change shape.
The kind of cushion that I use will never make it impossible to reach the controls even under 4g. There is a seat under it (you're aware of that), and it just adds something like 5 to 10 cm in height.
Step turn : the easiest machine to land, and that I have flown, was a glider. In two models of gliders, I never did anything else than a kiss landing (over a small total of about 30 landings I think, I did not have time to pursue this activity any further). I'm not sure as to the reason but I believe the features allowing that are the perfect forward and lateral visibility (as well as low cockpit position but you can't do anything about that)
The easiest aircraft to land is the one that will allow the best evaluation of height. Often, I noticed, a position higher up the cockpit will be better.
The easiest aircraft I landed was the Socata Rallye whereas the most difficult one was the Socata TB series (same manufacturer!)
Big Pistons Forever : most aeroclubs in France will require pilots to use a Vapp that is quite larger than 1.3 Vs. Some will go up to 1.5 or even 1.6Vs of maximum takeoff mass ! That's up to 1.7 Vs if you're well under takeoff mass.
However that should not be a problem at all. It should just make your landing longer. You can just lose your speed progressively above the runway and land when at appropriate speed. Obviously it requires proper assessment of height and pitch attitude. But it is standard training in my country to do approaches up to VFE (part of forced landing training)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
most aeroclubs in France will require pilots to use a Vapp that is quite larger than 1.3 Vs. Some will go up to 1.5 or even 1.6Vs of maximum takeoff mass ! That's up to 1.7 Vs if you're well under takeoff mass.
However that should not be a problem at all. It should just make your landing longer. You can just lose your speed progressively above the runway and land when at appropriate speed.
However that should not be a problem at all. It should just make your landing longer. You can just lose your speed progressively above the runway and land when at appropriate speed.
That should be a problem.... A couple of possible problems:For most light GA planes, you'll need a runway about twice the length as you might for a landing from a 1.3Vs approach speed, and the landing distance information in the performance section will no longer be applicable. If you run off the far end, it will be very hard to explain to the insurer.
I might fly a faster high approach (though 1.7 Vs still sounds fast!) in a forced approach, as it does allow for a nicely precise landing, when you finally slow to less than 1.3Vs, maybe by sideslipping as needed on short final, to get just the right "over the fence" speed. But, I still aim to be at 1.3Vs as I cross the threshold.
If you're burning up the first few hundred meters of runway simply slowing to the speed you should have been flying over the fence, you're inviting a drift off the runway centerline, or begin a pitch porpoise, if you contact the surface unexpectedly early. The aerobatics needed to get back to where you should have been over the fence will be very distracting, and demand skill. A go around would be better.
I am very suspicious of "clubs" who suggest or dictate "normal" procedures which differ from the flight manual procedures. A new pilot learning that, let alone getting used to it would have some unlearning to do when they moved onward into a professional flying environment.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Step turn : the pilot in this video demonstrated pure incompetency.
Actually, the reasoning behind these approaches at 1.5Vs is to easily avoid stall in final approach. Why wouldn't one do this, provided the runway is long enough ?
If all runways were 20km long, we would most probably approach at much higher speeds (something like 2Vs) because this would allow for faster traffic, and very reduced risk of stall/spin during the final stages of the flight.
One day I was on final and the controller asked me to expedite 'cause there was a liner behind me. I expedited. Cruise power down to 500ft (giving me 110kt), then a pull/push maneuver to safely extend the flaps and landed without any problem whatsoever on the runway.
The runway was 3km long. I obviously would never do that on a 700m runway.
Airmanship over SOPs.
As I said, if you're too fast at the threshold, basic airmanship dictates you're going to resorb your speed just above the runway and not try to force your aircraft to the ground like this guy in the video did.
Yes it will use much runway, but if you have very much runway like it is very often the case with small a/c, what's the problem ?
As long as you train for short field landings as well.
It is very standard for clubs to create their own checklists with the parameters they assume best fit the operations of this airclub.
It takes however more than a very young PPL pilot to question these procedures in the unfortunate event they were not adapted to this or that specific case.
Actually, the reasoning behind these approaches at 1.5Vs is to easily avoid stall in final approach. Why wouldn't one do this, provided the runway is long enough ?
If all runways were 20km long, we would most probably approach at much higher speeds (something like 2Vs) because this would allow for faster traffic, and very reduced risk of stall/spin during the final stages of the flight.
One day I was on final and the controller asked me to expedite 'cause there was a liner behind me. I expedited. Cruise power down to 500ft (giving me 110kt), then a pull/push maneuver to safely extend the flaps and landed without any problem whatsoever on the runway.
The runway was 3km long. I obviously would never do that on a 700m runway.
Airmanship over SOPs.
As I said, if you're too fast at the threshold, basic airmanship dictates you're going to resorb your speed just above the runway and not try to force your aircraft to the ground like this guy in the video did.
Yes it will use much runway, but if you have very much runway like it is very often the case with small a/c, what's the problem ?
As long as you train for short field landings as well.
It is very standard for clubs to create their own checklists with the parameters they assume best fit the operations of this airclub.
It takes however more than a very young PPL pilot to question these procedures in the unfortunate event they were not adapted to this or that specific case.