In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as slow
as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it to the
ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.

This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
touchdown.

Any comments?

Danny Dot

"Danny Dot" > wrote in message
...
> Any comments?

Yeah, we had this thread already. :)

"Danny Dot" > wrote in message
...
> In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
> least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
> don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as
> slow as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it
> to the ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.
>
> This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
> touchdown.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Danny Dot

Depends on the airplane and the situation. Some aircraft do full stall
landings very well, others don't. Sometimes the way you have the aircraft
loaded makes a difference. Depending on your level of proficiency, you may
be able to land shorter using one technique vs the other.

Bottom line... It depends.

KB

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:36:36 GMT, "Danny Dot" >
wrote:

>In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
>least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
>don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as slow
>as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it to the
>ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.
>
>This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
>touchdown.
>
>Any comments?

I like to get the yoke back to the aft stop. On the PA28, that's mush
country. On the Stinson and the Taylorcraft, I called it a stall.

Don

Learn to fly a real airplane.

Karl;



"Danny Dot" > wrote in message
...
> In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
> least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
> don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as
> slow as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it
> to the ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.
>
> This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
> touchdown.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Danny Dot
>

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
> Learn to fly a real airplane.
>

I don't understand the comment. I don't recall saying what planes I have
flown.

Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org

Danny Dot wrote:
> In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
> least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
> don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as slow
> as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it to the
> ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.
>
> This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
> touchdown.

I full stall my Mooney. Wheels touch when yoke is at stops.

-Robert

Don Tuite wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:36:36 GMT, "Danny Dot" >
> wrote:
>
>> In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
>> least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
>> don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as slow
>> as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it to the
>> ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.
>>
>> This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
>> touchdown.
>>
>> Any comments?
>
> I like to get the yoke back to the aft stop. On the PA28, that's mush
> country. On the Stinson and the Taylorcraft, I called it a stall.
>
In my Maule, the yoke full back is a rough landing or lucky - but a 3
pointer is
practically always desired

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Danny Dot wrote:
> > In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
> > least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
> > don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as slow
> > as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it to the
> > ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.
> >
> > This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
> > touchdown.
>
> I full stall my Mooney. Wheels touch when yoke is at stops.
>
> -Robert

Very few airplanes will reach stall angle in the landing
attitude. The gear won't allow it. Most pilots are seeing sink, or at
most, partiall stall, not full stall. It's proven when a sudden gust
lifts the airplane clear of the pavement just after touchdown even with
the nose all the way up.
The AOA would need to be 17 or 18 degrees to reach stall.
Measure your wing chord against level with the tailwheel on the ground
or the tail of a trike just clear of the ground, and you'll likely find
something like 12 or 15 degrees. Remember, too, that the stall speed
in ground effect is considerably lower than the book value.
I did some quick and dirty chord angle measurements in the
hangar. The Citabria has 12 degrees in the three-point attitude, and
the 172 has 14 at the root and 12 at the tip with the tail right on the
ground. With the flaps down there's 25 degrees at the root. So the wing
would stall inboard if the tail was really close to the runway, but the
rest of the wing is still flying.

Dan

wrote:
> Very few airplanes will reach stall angle in the landing
> attitude. The gear won't allow it. Most pilots are seeing sink, or at
> most, partiall stall, not full stall. It's proven when a sudden gust
> lifts the airplane clear of the pavement just after touchdown even with
> the nose all the way up.
> The AOA would need to be 17 or 18 degrees to reach stall.
> Measure your wing chord against level with the tailwheel on the ground
> or the tail of a trike just clear of the ground, and you'll likely find
> something like 12 or 15 degrees. Remember, too, that the stall speed
> in ground effect is considerably lower than the book value.
> I did some quick and dirty chord angle measurements in the
> hangar. The Citabria has 12 degrees in the three-point attitude, and
> the 172 has 14 at the root and 12 at the tip with the tail right on the
> ground. With the flaps down there's 25 degrees at the root. So the wing
> would stall inboard if the tail was really close to the runway, but the
> rest of the wing is still flying.

In this context I'm not sure what a "full stall" means but the wing is
certainly not without lift. The Citabria is almost a special example
though. In the 3pt position, the Citabria (or at least the Decthalon
that I instructed in) is no where near stall. You fly it right onto the
runway in the 3pt position. If you did full stall it, the mains come
down in a crash.
The J-3 is different. You really need to be pretty close to the stops
to have the tail touch down at teh same time. However, the J-3 is
forgiving and if you touch down with the tail still a foot up, the
plane will be nice to you. However, the wing still does produce lift.
In the Chief, I often had the upwind wing lift up as I pulled off the
runway at about 5mph during a gust (forgetting to set the controls for
the wind). So, if that is your definition of full-stall in this
context, then it certainly isn't.



-Robert, CFII

"Danny Dot" > wrote in message
...
> In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
> least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
> don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as
> slow as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it
> to the ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.
>
> This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
> touchdown.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Danny Dot


I generally prefer wheel landings over three pointers.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Danny Dot wrote:
> In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
> least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
> don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as slow
> as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it to the
> ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.
>
> This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
> touchdown.

I think most people use the term "full stall" with respect to landing
as you got as much lift from he wing as possible. If you define "full
stall" as no lift, then certainly no certified plane lands like that.
In flight "full stall" has a very different meaning, meaning a full
break, but you'd never know that you achieved that on landing.

-Robert

On 10 Nov 2006 08:20:17 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>
>Danny Dot wrote:
>> In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
>> least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
>> don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as slow
>> as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it to the
>> ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.
>>
>> This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
>> touchdown.
>
>I full stall my Mooney. Wheels touch when yoke is at stops.
I full stall the Deb from a few inches. The yoke doesn't make it all
the way back, but you can feel the stall and the quick settle onto the
mains.


>
>-Robert
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

> That's the correct definition of full stall - the point
> where lift is maximized as you increase the angle of attack.

I always thought it was the point at which airflow departs the top of
the wing. Is the airflow still attached at the maximum lift AOA?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I think he thought you were MXManiac.

mike

"Danny Dot" > wrote in message
...
>
> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Learn to fly a real airplane.
>>
>
> I don't understand the comment. I don't recall saying what planes I have
> flown.
>
> Danny Dot
> www.mobbinggonemad.org
>

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> >I think most people use the term "full stall" with respect to landing
> >as you got as much lift from he wing as possible.
>
> That's the correct definition of full stall - the point
> where lift is maximized as you increase the angle of attack.

For landing, I think more people define "full stall" as you can't pull
back any more.

> >In flight "full stall" has a very different meaning, meaning a full
> >break, but you'd never know that you achieved that on landing.
>
> No, it's the same meaning. Just as when landing, the high
> power requirement aloft means a high descent rate.

I don't think most aircraft have the available elevator authority to
achieve your definition of "full stall" while in ground effect. I can
land most SE aircraft with the elevator hitting the stops as the wheel
touch. Most aircraft don't behave that way in flight out of ground
effect. The aircraft will stall break before hitting the stops unless
you yank it into the stall (which you aren't doing during landing
either).


-Robert, CFII

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> Jose > wrote:
> However, loosely speaking, I suppose you would say that the
> airflow is just beginning to depart at the stall.

Its also important to understand that stall is not an event, is a
progression. Different parts of the wing reach their critical AOA at
different times. As the stall gets "deeper and deeper" more parts of
the wing will achieve their critical AOA. In the types of stalls we do
with students, only a small area of the wing near the root ever really
achives that AOA. If the entire wing really stopped producing lift at
the same time, you'd have a pretty wild stall.

-Robert

>However, loosely speaking, I suppose you would say that the
>airflow is just beginning to depart at the stall.

But *precisely* speaking, the airplane stops flying at the moment of
a "full stall" landing.

vince norris

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> >For landing, I think more people define "full stall" as you can't pull
> >back any more.

>
> BTW, there are two things not discussed above 1) the
> possible use of engine to produce the needed extra power
> for a level flight stall landing. But who wants a full
> power on landing? 2) the real effect of ground effect, which
> makes your wings work better.

Ground effect has an effect on the stabilizer/elevator as well
as the wing. Stabs that are close to the ground in landing attitude
lose their effectiveness. I have some time in the Glastar and the 185,
both having rather low-mounted stabs, and both of them lose elevator
effectiveness in the flare, especially at forward CG. They much prefer
wheel landings to three-pointers.
Why this is so, I'm not sure. The AOA of the stab is probably
affected near the ground as the wing's downwash will have less effect
on the stab with the presence of the surface to diminish downwash.
Perhaps the the low-pressure area under the stab is fouled up by the
surface. Dunno. At any rate, there seems to be too little elevator at
that point, while there was plenty aloft.
The early Cardinal had stabilator-stalling problems in the
flare; a few got their nosewheels busted when the nose came down hard.
Cessna slotted the stab to fix it.

Dan

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> >However, loosely speaking, I suppose you would say that the
>>airflow is just beginning to depart at the stall.
>
> But *precisely* speaking, the airplane stops flying at the moment of
> a "full stall" landing.
>

This is my point. If I attempt a "full stall" landing and mis-judge the
highth by a few feet, I can be in an airplane that is a few feet in the air
and is NOT flying anymore. Before I transitioned to "Extreme Slow Flight"
landings, I stalled a few times a few feet in the air and dropped to the
runway out of control. In a Cessna, this results in a bounce due to no
shocks in the landing rear.

Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org


> vince norris

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
>> >I think most people use the term "full stall" with respect to landing
>> >as you got as much lift from he wing as possible.
>>
>> That's the correct definition of full stall - the point
>> where lift is maximized as you increase the angle of attack.
>
> For landing, I think more people define "full stall" as you can't pull
> back any more.

I like this definition. I have the "stick in my lap" at touch down if I am
doing a short field landing.

Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org

snip

> wrote in message
ups.com...
snip
> The early Cardinal had stabilator-stalling problems in the
> flare; a few got their nosewheels busted when the nose came down hard.
> Cessna slotted the stab to fix it.
>

I have always wondered why Cessna slotted the stab on that plane. Thanks
for the information.

Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org


> Dan
>

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
>> >I think most people use the term "full stall" with respect to landing
>> >as you got as much lift from he wing as possible.
>>
>> That's the correct definition of full stall - the point
>> where lift is maximized as you increase the angle of attack.
>
> For landing, I think more people define "full stall" as you can't pull
> back any more.
>
>> >In flight "full stall" has a very different meaning, meaning a full
>> >break, but you'd never know that you achieved that on landing.
>>
>> No, it's the same meaning. Just as when landing, the high
>> power requirement aloft means a high descent rate.
>
> I don't think most aircraft have the available elevator authority to
> achieve your definition of "full stall" while in ground effect. I can
> land most SE aircraft with the elevator hitting the stops as the wheel
> touch. Most aircraft don't behave that way in flight out of ground
> effect. The aircraft will stall break before hitting the stops unless
> you yank it into the stall (which you aren't doing during landing
> either).
>
>
> -Robert, CFII
>

>vincent p. norris > wrote:
>
>>>However, loosely speaking, I suppose you would say that the
>>>airflow is just beginning to depart at the stall.
>>
>>But *precisely* speaking, the airplane stops flying at the moment of
>>a "full stall" landing.
>
>I suppose it depends on what you mean by "stops flying." I
>don't stop "flying" until I climb out of the cockpit.

Read it again. Notice I didn't say anything about *you*. I said the
*airplane* stops flying. In plain English, is it now supported by its
landing gear, not its wings.

The fact that a crosswind gust may tip it over is irrelevant. That
happens to semi's, too, on the Interstates.

vince norris

>> But *precisely* speaking, the airplane stops flying at the moment of
>> a "full stall" landing.
>>
>This is my point. If I attempt a "full stall" landing and mis-judge the
>highth by a few feet, I can be in an airplane that is a few feet in the air
>and is NOT flying anymore. Before I transitioned to "Extreme Slow Flight"
>landings, I stalled a few times a few feet in the air and dropped to the
>runway out of control.

You were making "full stall landings," but you just weren't making
*good* ones! ((:-))

Look at a movie or tape of WWII carrier operations. Flying just above
stall speed, the pilot chops the throttle when he gets a "cut" from
the LSO, dumps the stick and then yanks it back into his gut. Watch
what the airplane does. It makes a "full stall landing."

But unlike your Cessna, it's designed to be landed that way. We were
trained to make full stall landings from our first flight; and nothing
drew more praise from the instructor than to have the tailwheel hit
the ground first.

vince norris

You don't think anyone else here flys a tailwheel airpane?

Karl???


"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
>>> But *precisely* speaking, the airplane stops flying at the moment of
>>> a "full stall" landing.
>>>
>>This is my point. If I attempt a "full stall" landing and mis-judge the
>>highth by a few feet, I can be in an airplane that is a few feet in the
>>air
>>and is NOT flying anymore. Before I transitioned to "Extreme Slow Flight"
>>landings, I stalled a few times a few feet in the air and dropped to the
>>runway out of control.
>
> You were making "full stall landings," but you just weren't making
> *good* ones! ((:-))
>
> Look at a movie or tape of WWII carrier operations. Flying just above
> stall speed, the pilot chops the throttle when he gets a "cut" from
> the LSO, dumps the stick and then yanks it back into his gut. Watch
> what the airplane does. It makes a "full stall landing."
>
> But unlike your Cessna, it's designed to be landed that way. We were
> trained to make full stall landings from our first flight; and nothing
> drew more praise from the instructor than to have the tailwheel hit
> the ground first.
>
> vince norris

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Danny Dot" > wrote:
>
>>This is my point. If I attempt a "full stall" landing and mis-judge the
>>highth by a few feet, I can be in an airplane that is a few feet in the
>>air
>>and is NOT flying anymore.
>
> No you can't. You can be in an aircraft that is descending
> because you are on the back side of the power curve. That
> can cause a hard landing if you haven't given it enough
> engine power or enough elevator to produce the lift and/or
> power needed to stop that descent. But it's *not* a stalled
> wing, and it's *not* a total disappearance of lift due to a
> stall
>
>>Before I transitioned to "Extreme Slow Flight"
>>landings, I stalled a few times a few feet in the air and dropped to the
>>runway out of control. In a Cessna, this results in a bounce due to no
>>shocks in the landing rear.
>
> It's extremely unlikely that you ever actually stalled near
> a runway.

And it is extremely unlikely he bounced as a result.

>
> --
> Rule books are paper - they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and
> metal.
>
> - Ernest K. Gann, 'Fate is the Hunter.'

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:13:14 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:

>"Danny Dot" > wrote in message
...
>> In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
>> least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
>> don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as
>> slow as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it
>> to the ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.
>>
>> This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
>> touchdown.
>>
>> Any comments?
>>
>> Danny Dot
>
>
>I generally prefer wheel landings over three pointers.

You don't do three pointers on the wheels? Tail skid?
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com