making landings easier

[FlyingMonkey]

Hi Andy,

 

Landing with 40 is just like 30.

 

That is true, and when I was trained in the CT we flew them the same.  Still, baby steps!  

[FlyingMonkey]

Hey Andy,

I also "forgot how to land last summer after over 300 landings. What I was doing was flaring too low and bouncing the landing, either going around or adding power, stabilizing the plane and landing farther down the runway.

 

 

 

Ha, you and I have exactly the same problem...only completely opposite.  

 

With these light airplanes it seems flare height is absolutely critical; too high and you drop it in, too low and you bounce.  Aviation certainly finds ways to keep us all humble at regular intervals.  

[FlyingMonkey]

The CTSW actually stalls a little slower at 30 flaps vs 40, the stall speed is a couple knots less and it doesn't drop a wing as much at 30 deg.  Still doable and good to learn, just what I have noticed about the SW.  The CTLS had a flap decrease to 35 deg initially, now 30 deg max in the latest models.

 

That makes some sense, my understanding is that the 40° adds much more drag than lift.  Really good for coming in slow and very steep.

[FlyingMonkey]

Well if that is true for CAS, then I take it all back.

 

The POH I downloaded only goes to 30°, so I'd have to dig up an older one to confirm that.

 

But it does seem odd - across the board usually more flaps = lower stall speed.

 

BTW, when Cessna tweaked the 150 to become the 152, they likewise chose to limit max flaps to 30° (from 40°). Allegedly those "barn door" flaps were causing pilots problems, especially if forgotten on a go around. I was an instructor during that transition, and felt like Cessna had removed a valuable tool from a pilot's toolkit in order to play to the "lowest common denominator".

 

But what do I know?

 

It seems like there would have to be some limit to the more is slower philosophy, or we'd all be flying airplanes with 90° flap settings!  

 

I don't know where the point of drag overcoming lift occurs, it's probably dependent on airfoil shape, area of the flaps, and a bunch of other aerodynamic black magic.

[Tom Baker]

Enhanced skill set?

 

The ability to use ALL of the plane's capabilities?

 

The challenge?

 

That's just me, but I think others may like to explore a plane's performance envelope.

 

If one day forced to land in a 300' long parking lot, the difference between using 30º and 40º could make a big difference in both landing distance and energy carried into the landing.

 

My mantra has always been "maximum flaps as consistent with conditions" - has served me well.

Gosh, I was hoping for your standard answer. "Because that's the way I do it in any other airplane I have ever flown." As a flight instructor with a fair amount of time teaching in CT's I would not recommend someone go and make 40° flap landings without flying with them and knowing their skill set. The CTSW with full flaps can be quite tricky, and early on this caused quite a few accidents.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Near stall at a very high AOA calibrated speed and indicated speed can vary quite a bit.  At cruise and top speed your pitot tube is directly into the wind.  How do you reason there is a 7kt difference? 

[Ed Cesnalis]

Gosh, I was hoping for your standard answer. "Because that's the way I do it in any other airplane I have ever flown." As a flight instructor with a fair amount of time teaching in CT's I would not recommend someone go and make 40° flap landings without flying with them and knowing their skill set. The CTSW with full flaps can be quite tricky, and early on this caused quite a few accidents.

 

Tom I wonder if part of that was FD's training mentality.  I know I wasn't the only one but my checkout included only 30° landings.  I was told to wait 1 month before I used 40°.

 

The plan worked fine but if 40° is tricky advising pilots to learn them on their own after a month might have been the reason.  My checkout pilot told me the last checkout he did went fine but on the way home the new owner tried 40° and bent his gear.

 

A CTSW can abruptly run out of energy during a landing attempt at 30°  and at 40° even more so.

[Tom Baker]

Tom I wonder if part of that was FD's training mentality.  I know I wasn't the only one but my checkout included only 30° landings.  I was told to wait 1 month before I used 40°.

 

The plan worked fine but if 40° is tricky advising pilots to learn them on their own after a month might have been the reason.  My checkout pilot told me the last checkout he did went fine but on the way home the new owner tried 40° and bent his gear.

 

A CTSW can abruptly run out of energy during a landing attempt at 30°  and at 40° even more so.

My check out was 2 or 3 take offs and landings, including one at 40° to make sure I wouldn't tear the airplane up. Back in the early days it was like the wild west, and the right hand didn't know what the left was doing. In 2008 Flight design started developing a transition training syllabus, because of the high accident rate.

[FlyingMonkey]

Tom I wonder if part of that was FD's training mentality.  I know I wasn't the only one but my checkout included only 30° landings.  I was told to wait 1 month before I used 40°.

 

The plan worked fine but if 40° is tricky advising pilots to learn them on their own after a month might have been the reason.  My checkout pilot told me the last checkout he did went fine but on the way home the new owner tried 40° and bent his gear.

 

A CTSW can abruptly run out of energy during a landing attempt at 30°  and at 40° even more so.

 

My instructor did 15° and 40° flaps landings, but no 30°.  If you can do 40 you can do the 30, they are very similar.  I'm glad he had me do the 40° landings, it's an eye opener how different it is from 15° and you need to see max flaps in a CTSW under controlled conditions.

 

I agree totally with your last statement, you have to round out at just the right altitude and with the correct rate of pitch, or you will balloon and then very quickly run out of lift and drop in.  I'm still learning how to judge that just right, and have to be ready to be johnny-on-the-spot with the throttle to cushion the sink if I misjudge it a little. 

[fevlok@mmhs.co.za]

The topic to make landings esear

 

''With these light airplanes it seems flare height is absolutely critical; too high and you drop it in, too low and you bounce.  Aviation certainly finds ways to keep us all humble at regular intervals. '' 

 

This was the reason for me trying out the  the  " Stolspeed vortex generators "  and it was  also cheap (under $200)

I normally don't work on my own plaine because of the sying ""Fidle, fidle , FU......." but it took me less than 3 hours to put them on  and to remove it : just slowly pull it of and rub the 3m tape of the wing

 

So it is realy easy it did wonders for me  Roger or any one out there  i would love if you can test them and give me a verdick

 

or if any one plan a holiday in RSA let me know in advance and we can do a bit of flying and hunting

 

Kiewiet

 

[Roger Lee]

I have no doubt they would work, we just aren't allowed to use them.

[FlyingMonkey]

I read an article on landings the other day that I found enlightening.  The author contends that the term "flare" is a misnomer in light singles that creates misperception and thus poor landings.  His idea is that while some airplanes *do* flare, they are mostly very heavy, fast airplanes like airliners.  When discussing light singles, he contends that instead of a "flare" it is more helpful to think of the technique as a "transition".

 

A transition to what?  To slow flight just above the runway surface.  The hold off that we practice is not really a flare, but instead an attempt to maintain slow flight as long as possible before wheel contact with the runway surface.  The decaying airspeed through a typical power-off landing requires increasing angle of attack throughout the maneuver, but that is really just a byproduct of the attempt to maintain slow flight.  If the technique is done perfectly, the wheels make contact just as slow flight is no longer possible, resulting in the "full stall" landing.

 

Anyway, just a different way of looking at things that I found helpful.  Before the inevitable harsh critique ensures, please remember I didn't write this, I'm only repeating it.  

[Doug G.]

Totally agree. It is also a good argument for practicing slow flight at altitude on occasion.

[Ed Cesnalis]

... if you are flaring near stall speed, something below 55kts over the threshold at 15 flaps you will definitely 'drop' into the landing and likely feel that 'thump' instead of softer touchdown the higher speeds (62kts over threshold) gives using the wings as a brake.

 

I can cross the threshold below 50kts without the 'definite drop into a thump'.  The 2 are not really related.

 

What you call a 'thump' is unwanted vertical speed at contact. 

• The easiest way to control the vertical speed is with the throttle but that is a bit of an aid or a crutch and not the best technique if you are always practicing for an engine out.
• Good energy management without the throttle requires you to get a few inches above the runway before you run out of energy and sink rapidly.
• The slowest contacts come from a full aft stick. Prior to getting slow enough (behind the power curve) a full aft stick or anywhere close will cause you to climb, you have to wait until it won't climb.

Waiting seems to be the key, wait until you are close enough to the ground before you round out, wait until you can raise the nose for a landing attitude until it won't climb, wait unitl you are behind the power curve to slowly raise the nose and find the stick's aft stop.

 

My take on the common method used is:

• Round out can be high because throttle is open
• Landing attitude is easy to achieve with flaps minimized
• After sinking to a couple of feet the pilot does nothing but wait for contact

[FlyingMonkey]

 

I can cross the threshold below 50kts without the 'definite drop into a thump'.  The 2 are not really related.

 

What you call a 'thump' is unwanted vertical speed at contact. 

• The easiest way to control the vertical speed is with the throttle but that is a bit of an aid or a crutch and not the best technique if you are always practicing for an engine out.
• Good energy management without the throttle requires you to get a few inches above the runway before you run out of energy and sink rapidly.
• The slowest contacts come from a full aft stick. Prior to getting slow enough (behind the power curve) a full aft stick or anywhere close will cause you to climb, you have to wait until it won't climb.

Waiting seems to be the key, wait until you are close enough to the ground before you round out, wait until you can raise the nose for a landing attitude until it won't climb, wait unitl you are behind the power curve to slowly raise the nose and find the stick's aft stop.

 

My take on the common method used is:

• Round out can be high because throttle is open
• Landing attitude is easy to achieve with flaps minimized
• After sinking to a couple of feet the pilot does nothing but wait for contact

 

 

I agree.  My standard approach is 55-57kt, this has no effect on whether I drop it in or not, faster just means if you drop it in you will do it farther down the runway.    In fact, if I'm a little high but not enough to bother with a slip I will sometimes pitch back to ~52kt and let the airplane start to sink, then pitch forward again for 55-57kt when I have lost a little altitude.

 

All of my "drop-ins" have happened because of what happens in the last ten feet, not because of approach speed...you can drop it in at 50kt or at 60kt.  It almost always happens because I get impatient, as you suggested.  As Tom Petty tried to warn us, the waiting really *is* the hardest part.  If that song is now stuck in your head, you are welcome.  

[fevlok@mmhs.co.za]

All of my "drop-ins" have happened because of what happens in the last ten feet,

 

I am going to contras the CT expierince to the Mooney expierince and hopefully I can learn from it : 

 

The Mooney

 

1Although the plaine is fast nothing change fast so stay ahead of the plaine

use of rudder is  minimal  also power 

Power: take power  fast  and take power away very slowly

Yoke is speed  power is height even in unstable air always small changes

Fly on trim  (even land some time on trim)

 

 If Power is need in the hold off it translate normaly in a go around

 

 A good stable aproach translate to a good landing   ( consitency is everything)

 

I start to land the Mooney consistantly good if i stick to the numbers

 

The ct

Still air (mornings/late afternoon )

Good stable consistent aproach trancelate most of the time in n good landing

If I am consitent x (30) feet x (60) knots, no power,  over the fence  it is easy to make corections and to land like Charley Tango describe

 

 When it comes to the use of power in the hold off  for me with the vairible pitch on fine it does't float as much wth a burst than with a constant speed prop ?, that was the feeling i got when i change to a constant speed neuform prop?or is it that i am already sligtly behind the drag curve ?

 

Here is were every thing change: in hot unstable gusty  air

 

 To Be consistent in your numbers is  not so easy and  in hot unstable gusty  air it is like playing fidle flying paralele close to the runway way and waiting for the right opertinty to land 

Here I get a feeling of holding her with the yoke in the landing atitude and using the throtle to keep her just above the runway till the opertinty to lower her in  for touch down , add fancy footwork to stay on centre line and wing as needed for x wind

 

I was very lazy using my feet  and even worse on the throtle  and picking that up i think that made a single big diferance in flying the CT 

One has to be on the ball with your feet and throtle  not over controling but to be sure you are flying the plaine and not a passenger

 

Does that sound confusing ? or what ?  

[FastEddieB]

Just repeating myself but...

 

... I still hold that using and manipulating power in the landing process in general makes things more difficult overall, not easier. That's both for myself and my students. Landing with power at idle is just one less thing to worry about and futz with.

 

But whatever works for you!

[WmInce]

. . . "If I had tried to land the plane with that kind of wind, and those convective bumps on final with flaps I would have not been able to get down, nor been able to reach the runway without a ton of rudder and stick." . . .

 

Man . . . you've got to learn to FLY the airplane! . . . .

Hang in there.

[Doug G.]

Man . . . you've got to learn to FLY the airplane! . . . .

Hang in there.

I agree, and I live in one of the windiest non-mountain places in the country.

[FlyingMonkey]

When you get to Vs0 and you are still above the runway you will drop if you pull the nose up and have any kind of headwind and are at 1100 pounds or more.  All of which can easily happen crossing the threshold with 15 degree flaps under 58kts. 

 

58 knots is nowhere near Vso.  More like 45 knots or less depending on configuration.  I have done full rudder slips with 15° flaps, one of the draggiest configs you can get, at 56 knots in my CTSW, and never approached stall.

 

IMO, if you are over the runway threshold at >58kts with 15° flaps in a CT, you are setting yourself up for a long, floaty trip down the runway.  I'm usually 52 knots or less when I'm over the runway.  Have you ever landed your CT on a 1800ft or less runway?  Those kinds of speeds would make that pretty hairy. 

 

And more to the point, what does your speed over the threshold have to do with it?  The transition to landing attitude is what matters, and for that to work out requires that speed (near stall speed), height above the runway, pitch attitude, and rate of pitch change all be correct.  The "drop in" does not happen because speed is too low (hard to do in a CT, you'd have to be *really* slow and you'd just fall through ground effect and be unable to really get a flare going); it is because you either flare too high or you pitch back too fast and balloon a little.  They both end the same way, too much height above the runway with a high sink rate causing a firm to hard landing.  Either can be corrected with a little throttle to arrest the descent, but it's much better to get it right in the flare. 

[coppercity]

When you get to Vs0 and you are still above the runway you will drop if you pull the nose up and have any kind of headwind and are at 1100 pounds or more.  All of which can easily happen crossing the threshold with 15 degree flaps under 58kts. 

 

Charlie is using 30 flaps which lets him cross at lower speeds but also with greater drag, so he has a smaller margin for leveling out, flaring and touching the mains.  And he chances a problem with gust or headwinds of 5kts or greater.

 

Today, on my way back from 100nm bumpy, convective winds trip, I came in straight (no one was in pattern or in the air), hit big bumps on final approach, dropped the nose with 0 degree flaps and pulled the nose up and reduced from 90kts to 70kts, crossed the threshold with an 8kt quartering headwind, leveled out and got to 62kts over the numbers, put in 15 degree flaps and took another 200 feet runway float before soft touchdown. 

 

If I had tried to land the plane with that kind of wind, and those convective bumps on final with flaps I would have not been able to get down, nor been able to reach the runway without a ton of rudder and stick.

In general its not a good practice to make configuration changes after short final.  Ideally you want to be on speed, on glide slope, on centerline and in your selected landing configuration on final then don't change it from there. If you had 0 flaps during your approach there is no problem landing with that configuration vs changing flaps over the runway as you described, that can lead to a big balloon and lots of work getting stabilized again for landing.  Seems you made it work, I just caution making that your routine approach.

[fevlok@mmhs.co.za]

FastEddieB  You are 100 % right reminding us  keep it simple and stick to the basics , and in training you see the commen mistakes  we made 

 

I agree the basis must be right sollid and reprodusable

 

I wonder if the diference is not like me landing comperring to the aerobatic guys landing after there routine , man can they fly !!

May be  some of the stuff we talking about is "advance flying / dificult conditions , not for the low time pilots to try

bottom line  I love this quet   "Man . . . you've got to learn to FLY the airplane!" maybe add and keep it save

But we all start with the basics agree 

 

Kiewiet

[FastEddieB]

FastEddieB  You are 100 % right reminding us  keep it simple and stick to the basics...

May be  some of the stuff we talking about is "advance flying / dificult conditions , not for the low time pilots to try...

 

Thank you.

 

On the one hand, an instructor needs to start with the basics as building blocks.

 

On the other hand, instructors also have to be aware of thr Law of Primacy - the way you learn something first tends to stick with you.

 

Learn to land with power, or with partial flaps, and these habits may always seem "more natural" to a pilot in his or her career.

 

I learned full flaps and power off in a 150 about 40 years ago, and to this day anything else feels a bit "unnatural".

 

An instructor spends a lot of time correcting bad habits, and some of those habits do trace back to primary training.

[Jim Meade]

I have no doubt they would work, we just aren't allowed to use them.

Aren't allowed to use what? The context is lost in the thread drift.

[FlyingMonkey]

Aren't allowed to use what? The context is lost in the thread drift.

 

I think he was referring to the vortex generators mentioned in the post right before he wrote that.

 

Of course the E-LSA guys could certainly try it...it would be interesting to see if there was a real benefit.