Landing a light twin
Joined: Oct 2008
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 223
From: UK
EXDAC
please tell what Aircraft you fly that you need to add power in the flare? If you mean flying a stabilised approach (dragging it in) not sure what difference that makes. In fact on a steep glide approach flying light aircraft, with idle power I seem to have no need to add power in the flare, as well as regularly landing an Airbus on glide paths exceeding 4 degrees. Genuinely interested in the operating technique you are following?
please tell what Aircraft you fly that you need to add power in the flare? If you mean flying a stabilised approach (dragging it in) not sure what difference that makes. In fact on a steep glide approach flying light aircraft, with idle power I seem to have no need to add power in the flare, as well as regularly landing an Airbus on glide paths exceeding 4 degrees. Genuinely interested in the operating technique you are following?
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 180
From: USA
That’s interesting. I fly IAE for over 10 years and I have no clue about EPR value. Lol. I will have a look on my next flight. I’m 90% of the time landing A/tHR off on NEO and CEO ( with EPR) I only use the N1 and speed trend for reference. It’s always around 45/50% on all A320/321. And in the cruise above FL300 pitch 2 degrees N1 80 % you will always be above GD and below VMAX. The only time I used EPR is in cruise with ATHR off to match the thrust on both engines since it’s supposed to give a more accurate thrust value than N1.
I did not fly twin pistons for a while but I remember cutting the power too early was much less forgiving than A320.. But like pizza express says, as long as you flare at the right time, cutting the power during flare like any plane should work just fine. Only practise on type you will find what is more appropriate. On Airbus I do exactly as per fcom and it works like a charm. 30 feet RA I flare and cut the power. But in reality they behave slightly differently: on A320 with IAE, you could cut the power at 100 feet and still not worry about the energy; the idle thrust is quite high and I believe since the engines are much smaller they create less parasite drag. Do that on a CFM or NEO especially with flaps full … It might be another story…
I did not fly twin pistons for a while but I remember cutting the power too early was much less forgiving than A320.. But like pizza express says, as long as you flare at the right time, cutting the power during flare like any plane should work just fine. Only practise on type you will find what is more appropriate. On Airbus I do exactly as per fcom and it works like a charm. 30 feet RA I flare and cut the power. But in reality they behave slightly differently: on A320 with IAE, you could cut the power at 100 feet and still not worry about the energy; the idle thrust is quite high and I believe since the engines are much smaller they create less parasite drag. Do that on a CFM or NEO especially with flaps full … It might be another story…
Joined: Apr 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,601
Likes: 704
From: DM33
EXDAC
please tell what Aircraft you fly that you need to add power in the flare? If you mean flying a stabilised approach (dragging it in) not sure what difference that makes. In fact on a steep glide approach flying light aircraft, with idle power I seem to have no need to add power in the flare, as well as regularly landing an Airbus on glide paths exceeding 4 degrees. Genuinely interested in the operating technique you are following?
please tell what Aircraft you fly that you need to add power in the flare? If you mean flying a stabilised approach (dragging it in) not sure what difference that makes. In fact on a steep glide approach flying light aircraft, with idle power I seem to have no need to add power in the flare, as well as regularly landing an Airbus on glide paths exceeding 4 degrees. Genuinely interested in the operating technique you are following?
Unlike an Airbus, a light taildragger flown at minimum safe approach speed has no excess energy and stops flying when flared to 3 point attitude. Of course, if you flare perfectly every time from an idle power approach that 100 rpm over idle is not needed.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 79
From: Denver
One element missing so far in this discussion. In most** light twin-prop aircraft, the propellers are "blowing the wing" and adding some lift directly via propwash flow (in addition to overall airspeed).
One can be adding (or losing) lift directly by throttle setting, not just by prop pitch and IAS changes.
That cuts both ways - in such a twin-prop, leaving a little power in during the flare can cause more "float" — but chopping the throttle too fast can cause the twin to flop onto the runway as that "propwash lift" around the wings vanishes instantaneously, even before the IAS changes much.
In the C172, that will not happen much (if at all). Its propwash mostly impacts the fuselage, and the remainder is passing under the high wing-roots.
**There are exceptions - Cessna Skymaster, Dornier Do28 Skyservant, all-pusher-prop configurations that at most "suck" the wing - (no remarks from the peanut gallery!
), etc.)
One can be adding (or losing) lift directly by throttle setting, not just by prop pitch and IAS changes.
That cuts both ways - in such a twin-prop, leaving a little power in during the flare can cause more "float" — but chopping the throttle too fast can cause the twin to flop onto the runway as that "propwash lift" around the wings vanishes instantaneously, even before the IAS changes much.
In the C172, that will not happen much (if at all). Its propwash mostly impacts the fuselage, and the remainder is passing under the high wing-roots.
**There are exceptions - Cessna Skymaster, Dornier Do28 Skyservant, all-pusher-prop configurations that at most "suck" the wing - (no remarks from the peanut gallery!
), etc.)Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 180
From: USA
One element missing so far in this discussion. In most** light twin-prop aircraft, the propellers are "blowing the wing" and adding some lift directly via propwash flow (in addition to overall airspeed).
One can be adding (or losing) lift directly by throttle setting, not just by prop pitch and IAS changes.
That cuts both ways - in such a twin-prop, leaving a little power in during the flare can cause more "float" — but chopping the throttle too fast can cause the twin to flop onto the runway as that "propwash lift" around the wings vanishes instantaneously, even before the IAS changes much.
In the C172, that will not happen much (if at all). Its propwash mostly impacts the fuselage, and the remainder is passing under the high wing-roots.
**There are exceptions - Cessna Skymaster, Dornier Do28 Skyservant, all-pusher-prop configurations that at most "suck" the wing - (no remarks from the peanut gallery! ), etc.)
One can be adding (or losing) lift directly by throttle setting, not just by prop pitch and IAS changes.
That cuts both ways - in such a twin-prop, leaving a little power in during the flare can cause more "float" — but chopping the throttle too fast can cause the twin to flop onto the runway as that "propwash lift" around the wings vanishes instantaneously, even before the IAS changes much.
In the C172, that will not happen much (if at all). Its propwash mostly impacts the fuselage, and the remainder is passing under the high wing-roots.
**There are exceptions - Cessna Skymaster, Dornier Do28 Skyservant, all-pusher-prop configurations that at most "suck" the wing - (no remarks from the peanut gallery!
), etc.)
Joined: Jun 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,698
Likes: 1,305
From: Australia
Flying the 737 what I found annoying because it was so unnecessary, were pilots who had the habit of giving a "burst" of power at the flare. Their excuse was it made for a smoother touch-down. I called it a 'nervous Nellie' technique.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
From: Europe
