Bounced landing recovery?

[[email protected]]

When I look at the NTSB reports it seems pretty often a bounced landing and
loss of directional control is cited as a cause of accidents. Many of the
pilots involved were highly experienced. My question is why isn't
recovery from bounced landings stressed more in private pilot training? I
reviewed several of my Private pilot texts and none really had much to say
about bounces. I would be interested in knowing the newsgroup's opinions
on this subject.
Thanks,
Greg M

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> My question is why isn't
> recovery from bounced landings stressed more in private pilot training? I
> reviewed several of my Private pilot texts and none really had much to say
> about bounces. I would be interested in knowing the newsgroup's opinions
> on this subject.

The theory of "anticipated outcome" probably plays a role here. A pilot
makes 700 successful landings and therefore becomes complacent about the
701st landing, expecting that it will also be successful. One bounce and
the pilot insist on recovering to an immediate landing, rather than going
around to try again.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[George Patterson]

wrote:
> When I look at the NTSB reports it seems pretty often a bounced landing and
> loss of directional control is cited as a cause of accidents. Many of the
> pilots involved were highly experienced. My question is why isn't
> recovery from bounced landings stressed more in private pilot training?

They probably figure that normal students will get plenty of practice during the
course of standard training.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[mindenpilot]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>
>> My question is why isn't
>> recovery from bounced landings stressed more in private pilot training?
>> I
>> reviewed several of my Private pilot texts and none really had much to
>> say
>> about bounces. I would be interested in knowing the newsgroup's
>> opinions
>> on this subject.
>
> The theory of "anticipated outcome" probably plays a role here. A pilot
> makes 700 successful landings and therefore becomes complacent about the
> 701st landing, expecting that it will also be successful. One bounce and
> the pilot insist on recovering to an immediate landing, rather than going
> around to try again.
>
> --
> Peter
>


Well said.

[Roger]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:51:31 -0700, "mindenpilot"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> My question is why isn't
>>> recovery from bounced landings stressed more in private pilot training?
>>> I
>>> reviewed several of my Private pilot texts and none really had much to
>>> say
>>> about bounces. I would be interested in knowing the newsgroup's
>>> opinions
>>> on this subject.
>>
>> The theory of "anticipated outcome" probably plays a role here. A pilot
>> makes 700 successful landings and therefore becomes complacent about the
>> 701st landing, expecting that it will also be successful. One bounce and
>> the pilot insist on recovering to an immediate landing, rather than going
>> around to try again.

I haven't had any unsuccessful landings since my first as a student.
An unsuccessful landing is one where you can't reuse the airplane
without at least some maintenance.

I have no idea as to how many landings I have now, but it's a good
many thousand and I still bounce one occasionally. If I do, I don't
have to stop and think, should I add power, when should I add power if
necessary, does this look like I can salvage it? It's all automatic.
If it doesn't look good, I do, if it does I land.

Three weeks ago I was doing some really short field landings after a
long layoff. The first was a steep slipping turn from down wind to
the numbers. I rolled level, but the sink rate was a tad high so I
gave it a touch of power. Unfortunately it was a tad too much. I
could have cleared a bus, but I did not have to add power and it did
not bounce on the next touchdown. Other than being really sloppy and
looking the part it was a gentle landing including the bounce.

OTOH with some nasty, gusty cross winds I have had to go around as
many as 3 times before landing. Friend of mine in an Aerocoupe made
it 5 go arounds the same day.

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

[G Farris]

I never bounced a landing as a student - at least nothing that a touch of
power wouldn't smooth right out. Just luck? When it finally did happen to me
I was certified, with over 100 hours, and I was moving up to a C-182.
Fortunately, I had an instructor with me because I was training in new
equipment. He took the plane after a second hard bounce and did the go-around,
when I was ready to dive for a third bounce. Probably would have ended badly.
Having read about it so much, I was surprised how unprepared I was when it
really happened.

Now I would like to believe I am better prepared.

G Faris

[Roger]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:45:49 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

wrote:
>> When I look at the NTSB reports it seems pretty often a bounced landing and
>> loss of directional control is cited as a cause of accidents. Many of the
>> pilots involved were highly experienced. My question is why isn't
>> recovery from bounced landings stressed more in private pilot training?
>
>They probably figure that normal students will get plenty of practice during the
>course of standard training.

I ever met any that didn't<:-)) and that does include me.
At least I never broke anything on landing.

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

>
>George Patterson
> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
> mashed potatoes.

[James]

wrote:
> When I look at the NTSB reports it seems pretty often a bounced landing and
> loss of directional control is cited as a cause of accidents. Many of the
> pilots involved were highly experienced. My question is why isn't
> recovery from bounced landings stressed more in private pilot training? I
> reviewed several of my Private pilot texts and none really had much to say
> about bounces. I would be interested in knowing the newsgroup's opinions
> on this subject.
> Thanks,
> Greg M
Well I was taught that if you bounce then go around, and have another
try. This is a better option than trying to save it and screwing up.

[Rolf Blom]

On 2005-04-21 09:30, Nomen Nescio wrote:

-snip-

> "Bounced landing"?
> What's that?

It's when you land too fast, and the plane still has enough lift to
bounce you back up; you can start oscillating or 'gallop' if you use
elevator to get back down, since lowering the nose adds speed & lift
again. Can be a nasty roller-coaster ride along the runway.

You need to _hold_ a nose-up attitude, and add throttle to stop the
oscillation. Go around if the field is too short for a second touchdown.

/Rolf

[Guy Elden Jr]

My problem is I end up "bouncing" in the flare. I usually come in a
little too hot in the 172SP I fly, and I've never been able to really
master the flare in that thing. It's a very sensitive beast... just a
little too much elevator and it wants to climb like nobody's business,
instead of settle nicely into a flare. A touch of power settles things
out though when that happens, and I usually grease it on in, albeit
several hundred feet down the runway. Fortunately I don't have to land
on short runways much.

[[email protected]]

Greg
In 40 years of instructing, I never had a student pilot that didn't
bounce a few times on landing. When they got upset I told them, Hell if
you made every landing perfectly you wouldn't know how to handle one
that wasn't!
As for professional pilots losing one on landing, without being there
to see it, what do I know about what was going on?
I'm interested to hear the definition of "highly experienced". ??
And, I teach all my students to keep on flying until the dust settles.

[Brian]

Nothing like a little tailwheel training (especially wheel landings) to
help erase that "anticipated outcome" feeling.

I never really learned how to do a go around from a bounce until I
started flying tailwheel.

Brian

[Dan Luke]

"Guy Elden Jr" wrote:
> I usually come in a little too hot

Well, stop doing that! That's your *whole* problem.

> I've never been able to really
> master the flare in that thing. It's a very sensitive beast

No, it isn't.

>... just a
> little too much elevator and it wants to climb like nobody's business,
> instead of settle nicely into a flare.

Too fast, too fast, too fast.

>. Fortunately I don't have to land
> on short runways much.

Indeed. Slow down there, cowpoke. You should be at 70 KIAS max on short
final.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Guy Elden Jr]

I totally agree... my problem is due more to fear of stalling I think,
even though I know from experience that the plane will not stall at 65,
60, even 55 kias.

[Ron McKinnon]

"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I totally agree... my problem is due more to fear of stalling I think,
> even though I know from experience that the plane will not stall at 65,
> 60, even 55 kias.

I remind you that the plane can of course stall at any airspeed. An
abrupt pull-up, for example ...

[Dan Luke]

"Guy Elden Jr" wrote:
> I totally agree... my problem is due more to fear of stalling I think,
> even though I know from experience that the plane will not stall at 65,
> 60, even 55 kias.

Not technically correct, but I know what you mean.

Well, you'll just have to get over it if you want consistently good landings.
Concentrate on getting that short approach speed right and everything else
will start to work a whole lot better.

As for the flare, don't think about it. Rather, as the plane settles,
concentrate on keeping the wheels off the runway. Prevent the airplane from
touching down as long as you can by pulling the yoke back. Don't let the
stall horn scare you--it's supposed to blow if you're doing this right--just
keep easing the nose up until the mains touch. Keep the yoke back as you
roll out. There, you did it!
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[John Galban]

wrote:
> When I look at the NTSB reports it seems pretty often a bounced
landing and
> loss of directional control is cited as a cause of accidents. Many
of the
> pilots involved were highly experienced. My question is why isn't
> recovery from bounced landings stressed more in private pilot
training? I
> reviewed several of my Private pilot texts and none really had much
to say
> about bounces. I would be interested in knowing the newsgroup's
opinions
> on this subject.

For an experienced pilot, a regular bounce (off the mains) should be
no big deal. You have the option of adding a touch of power,
restabilizing, then flaring again, or you can just take it around.

Most of the bounced landing accidents I'm aware of involved a
porpoise. Once the bounce/pitch up/pitch down/bounce cycle gets
started it is much more difficult to "save" the landing. For most
tri-gear light singles, the third or fourth bounce in the porpoise will
relieve the plane of its nosegear.

The first time I performed a porpoise, I attempted to fix it like a
regular bounced landing. After the second bounce, I knew something
was seriously not right, so I firewalled the throttle and took it
around. Turned out to be a real smart move, although I didn't know it
at the time. I hadn't ever encountered a porpoise during my training,
so I was just makin' it up as I went along.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Newps]

John Galban wrote:


> For an experienced pilot, a regular bounce (off the mains) should be
> no big deal. You have the option of adding a touch of power,
> restabilizing, then flaring again, or you can just take it around.

In a 182 if you bounce back in the air you do not move the controls,
stay in your landing attitude, increase RPM by 50-100 and let it land.
You start rowing the controls is when you start losing parts.

[john smith]

The problem is most people add too much power to recover. It only takes
100-200 rpm to stabilize and arrest the descent.

wrote:
> When I look at the NTSB reports it seems pretty often a bounced landing and
> loss of directional control is cited as a cause of accidents. Many of the
> pilots involved were highly experienced. My question is why isn't
> recovery from bounced landings stressed more in private pilot training? I
> reviewed several of my Private pilot texts and none really had much to say
> about bounces. I would be interested in knowing the newsgroup's opinions
> on this subject.
> Thanks,
> Greg M

[john smith]

Solid advice, on the mark.

Newps wrote:
> In a 182 if you bounce back in the air you do not move the controls,
> stay in your landing attitude, increase RPM by 50-100 and let it land.
> You start rowing the controls is when you start losing parts.

[Mike W.]

Yup, keep that nosewheel off the ground!
--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> In a 182 if you bounce back in the air you do not move the controls,
> stay in your landing attitude, increase RPM by 50-100 and let it land.
> You start rowing the controls is when you start losing parts.

[Roger]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:40:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
]> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>From: Rolf Blom >
>
>>> "Bounced landing"?
>>> What's that?
>>
>>It's when you land too fast, and the plane still has enough lift to
>>bounce you back up; you can start oscillating or 'gallop' if you use
>>elevator to get back down, since lowering the nose adds speed & lift
>>again. Can be a nasty roller-coaster ride along the runway.

I'd really not call that a bounce as it's usually referred to as a
porpoise.
>
> Thanks for taking the trouble to offer an answer, but I was trying to make
>a (obviously poor) joke.
> In 30 years I've never bounced a landing. Not even as a student.

I've had some I'd call ricochets<:-))

>I've "skipped" a couple of landings where the wheels lightly graze the
>the runway a couple of times. And I've done, um, let's say 1 or 2 landings
>where I thought about visiting a dentist to see if I loosened a couple of fillings
>on touchdown. But I've never contacted the runway hard and fast enough to
>put the plane back in the air.

That makes you a very rare individual indeed.

> This thread actually has me a bit concerned that I'm destined to become
>one of those "experienced" pilots that finds themselves in an NTSB
>report the first time they DO bounce a landing! How the hell do you practice
>a bounced landing if you've never done one?

This is my opinion.

I'm not sure just how serious this is but ... Landings are bounced due
to excessive speed, AND/OR landing on the nose gear first.
There are also gusty winds where you touch down nicely and then get
hit by a strong gust that lifts the plane as much as 10 feet. There
are some who wouldn't call this a bounce, but it will be if not
properly handled.

If the bounce is due to a gust, REMEMBER you are flying but you do not
have enough speed to keep flying and that gust will not last forever.
It the gust only lifted you a little, set it back down, but anything
more than a little is time for power. If it's high enough that
dropping in from that height is going to break or bend something
important put the power in and go around.
"When in doubt, go around!"

In many planes it is very difficult to get it on the mains first when
you have excessive speed. In this case the pilot recognizes the
excess rate of descent and pulls the nose up and the plane contacts on
the mains. Unfortunately he now has the nose up and when it rebounds
off the mains plus the lift it's back up and sometimes for quite a
distance. *Typically* easing the nose into the proper position at the
proper time will fix it as there is still enough energy to flare.
_BUT_NOT_ALWAYS! They sometimes do take just a shot of power.
"When in doubt, go around!"

If the plane is coming in at a too high a speed in a normal attitude
the nose gear will contact first, bringing the nose up as the mains
are continuing down. This results in a rather steep nose up rebound.
Instinct is to get the nose down, but usually too much and there is
not enough energy left to flare which makes the next bounce even
higher. This is called a "Porpoise" as it imitates the actions of
one. Usually they end up busting the nose gear on #3. Every one I've
seen did 3 and broke the gear.

The remedy is a timely application of power.
A Porpoise is *dangerous* and it's better to swallow one's pride and
just go around. Those of us who have done enough of them (yes I admit
it) can often apply power and controls in such a manner as to salvage
many of these, but the old adage still holds true:
"When in doubt, go around!"

I fly in just about any kind of weather except ice and in
thunderstorms. I've flown in strong, gusty winds, and even gusty
cross winds since early on as a student. That being the case, I've
bounced, porpoised, and ricoched my way down many a runway.

I also practice right up to the airplane's limits(and mine) for cross
winds which are over double the "demonstrated cross wind component" in
the POH.

I also like to practice short field landings using everything from a
stabilized pattern to a steep slipping U-turn to the runway. This too
has resulted in a few rather un elegant landings, some of which even
the term *arrival* is a bit kind.

I was watching some crop dusters yesterday. The winds were picking up
and gusty. One made three landings before it was down to stay. Those
guys have experience most of us will never approach.



>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: 2.6.2
>
>iQCVAwUBQmiVhZMoscYxZNI5AQHL+AP6A3hB7PIGBhERdi2CQU yrvYANl+MByrGS
>ddVs2jWw0YmBfGxCvlGQAYRCw6bz/KtKld2nBNGsRh5iHglyxHqx0y2+XvIp6PKx
>B89m0UPCo2Op9zOAGl0/VJ9KB5v6nVkB2GYhCVm29wxQ06ojRNt/sUDipbSrIrcd
>D0O5mL0aXX8=
>=gb4r
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

Roger

[Ed H]

>
> I'm not sure just how serious this is but ... Landings are bounced due
> to excessive speed, AND/OR landing on the nose gear first.

Not to be too picky, but I think that bounced landings in a nosegear
aircraft are generally due to too great a sink rate. The gear are not able
to absorb all the energy and the aircraft is literally bounced back into the
air. The airspeed is not the direct problem; it's what you do or don't do
with it in the roundout and flare. Strictly speaking, I could cross the
fence at Vne and still land without bouncing if I had a long enough runway
and enough patience to bleed off all that excess airspeed in ground effect.

I use the disclaimer "nosegear" because the dynamic is different in a
tailwheel aircraft. In a taildragger, a 3 point landing must be at full
stall. Anything faster than that will cause the tail to pitch down,
increasing the AoA and lift, and causing the plane to lift off again. A
wheel landing can be at darn near any airspeed above stall if the pilot is
skilled enough. In my Decathlon, which has a stall speed of 54 mph, I can
grease a wheel landing at 70 to 80 mph without trouble, and I'm not
particularly skilled at it.

[Roger]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:36:47 GMT, "Ed H" > wrote:

>
>>
>> I'm not sure just how serious this is but ... Landings are bounced due
>> to excessive speed, AND/OR landing on the nose gear first.
>
>Not to be too picky, but I think that bounced landings in a nosegear
>aircraft are generally due to too great a sink rate. The gear are not able
>to absorb all the energy and the aircraft is literally bounced back into the
>air. The airspeed is not the direct problem; it's what you do or don't do

The airspeed is *the* problem. Without excessive airspeed it ain't
gonna bounce much. More than likely it'll hit and go splat.
That is why with the Bo a normal landing takes power and a power off
landing is a fair amount faster. According to the POH the extra speed
is to give enough energy to flare.

True that with excessive forward speed and poor timing at arresting
the rate of descent together can produce a really impressive bounce.
Flown by the numbers, final on the Bo is slow and steep. If the engine
quits you shove the nose down to get enough speed to flare. If it
quits as you are entering the round out you are likely going to be
calling your insurance carrier.

In practicing short field landings I have come in with just a bit too
much sink rate. It set down on the mains with the nose wheel high and
it did not bounce. As the airline pilots say, "It was an arrival".

Many years ago, I took a friend for a rid in the old Cherokee 180. I
asked him how much he weighed as he was a rather hefty guy. He said
240 which put us well within the GC envelope.

When we were coming down final I had reached the point where it was
time to pull the power and glide in. When the power came off the nose
went down and the airspeed headed up. I poured on the power and
brought the nose up. The nose wheel never touched but I'll bet we
bounced 50 feet into the air. The second bounce was only about 10
feet and we didn't bounce at all on the third touch down. He weighed
a *lot* more than 240.

>with it in the roundout and flare. Strictly speaking, I could cross the
>fence at Vne and still land without bouncing if I had a long enough runway
>and enough patience to bleed off all that excess airspeed in ground effect.

As long as the touchdown is not premature. If it is, it is likely to
be on the nose gear which will come up bringing the mains down and we
are off to the beginnings of a beautiful porpoise. Flying on some
nose draggers will result in a beautiful imitation of a wheel barrow
and that can be exciting. I believe the Twin Comanche is prone to
this with an inexperienced pilot. (Any Twin Comanche drivers care to
comment?)

>
>I use the disclaimer "nosegear" because the dynamic is different in a
>tailwheel aircraft. In a taildragger, a 3 point landing must be at full
>stall.

That's the way I land the Deb. (most of the time)
When I made my first landing at the airsafety foundation training the
CFII asked if I learned to fly in tail draggers. I told him no, it
was just the way I was taught. Main gear is rugged for landing and
nose gear is light, fragile, and expensive and for steering AFTER the
landing.


>Anything faster than that will cause the tail to pitch down,
>increasing the AoA and lift, and causing the plane to lift off again. A
>wheel landing can be at darn near any airspeed above stall if the pilot is
>skilled enough. In my Decathlon, which has a stall speed of 54 mph, I can
>grease a wheel landing at 70 to 80 mph without trouble, and I'm not
>particularly skilled at it.

That is faster than I land the Deb. Alone and with about an hours
worth of fuel burned off, I'd be coming down final around 76 to 78
*MPH* Even at gross it's only 80. Stall with me and partial fuel is
only 55 MPH. So touch down at full stall in ground effect is
probably 40 MPH or less.

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

[Montblack]

("Roger" wrote)
<much good stuff snipped>
>So touch down at full stall in ground effect is probably 40 MPH or less.


I talked with a guy last week with a beautiful (IFR) 1981 Piper Tomahawk. He
said a lot of people took off the original smaller tires (including flight
schools) and went with a bigger size setup. He said many, many broken engine
mounts later people switched back to the original size tires. Too much
speed, too much bounce...


Montblack

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote

> I talked with a guy last week with a beautiful (IFR) 1981 Piper Tomahawk.
He
> said a lot of people took off the original smaller tires (including flight
> schools) and went with a bigger size setup. He said many, many broken
engine
> mounts later people switched back to the original size tires. Too much
> speed, too much bounce...

How does larger tires cause too much speed?
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
> How does larger tires cause too much speed?


I think the speed is sometimes a given - flight schools. Bigger tires then
caused (or resulted in) more bouncing ...which was exasperated by the speed.
Sound logical??

I'm thinking he said he has 5.00x5 tires on now, and that Tomahawk owners
were putting 6.00x6 tires on, but started having those engine mount
problems - guessing at the sizes from what I remember.

Would be nice to hear if someone else has heard of this in Tomahawks.


Montblack

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote

>
> I think the speed is sometimes a given - flight schools. Bigger tires then
> caused (or resulted in) more bouncing ...which was exasperated by the
speed.
> Sound logical??

I knew that, but I was fishin'! I thought someone might pipe up on how
bigger tires cause less drag, and you reach the ground sooner than expected,
and ...yada,yada,yada. Come'on, Montbwack! Get with the program!
(vbg)
--
Jim in NC

[Ed]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:36:47 GMT, "Ed H" > wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure just how serious this is but ... Landings are bounced due
>>> to excessive speed, AND/OR landing on the nose gear first.
>>
>>Not to be too picky, but I think that bounced landings in a nosegear
>>aircraft are generally due to too great a sink rate. The gear are not
>>able
>>to absorb all the energy and the aircraft is literally bounced back into
>>the
>>air. The airspeed is not the direct problem; it's what you do or don't
>>do
>
> The airspeed is *the* problem. Without excessive airspeed it ain't
> gonna bounce much. More than likely it'll hit and go splat.
> That is why with the Bo a normal landing takes power and a power off
> landing is a fair amount faster. According to the POH the extra speed
> is to give enough energy to flare.
>

I agree that excessive airspeed plus excessive sink rate probably gives the
most spectacular bounces. But excessive sink rate at the correct approach
speed can also lead to a damaging bounce, especially in aircraft with spring
steel gear like old Cessna 172s and 152s. That springy gear flings the bird
back up into the air a few feet. The pilot shoves the stick forward,
increasing the impact of the second bounce and throwing the plane even
higher. On the second or third bounce, the plane rises out of ground
effect, stalls, and drops all the way to the runway. At least that's the
way it has been explained to me (never experienced it). I suppose you would
need a few knots over stall speed to get that bounce, but you wouldn't
really have to be that hot.

I only have a few hours in a Deb, and only 2 landings, but I found it an
easy plane to land. I just drove it onto the runway.

For a really fun bounce, nothing quite compares with your first few wheel
landings when you're getting your TW endorsement. I'm in the market for a
Pitts. I'm looking forward to learning to fly it, but not looking forward
to learning to land it.

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
<snipping his line(s)>
> I knew that, but I was fishin'!


Did I get hooked ...or just noodled?

http://petesbait.com/articles/noodling.php


Montblack
You're gonna need a bigger boat, if you were trying to net me - unless you
have the the formula to "transparent aluminum" and access to a transporter.
<g>

[Morgans]

"Montblack" < wrote >

> Did I get hooked ...or just noodled?

Nah, not really. I was looking for someone to have a bunch of BS to say.
But in a way, this link covers it! :-)

I guess in a way, that is what I was doing. No way, though! I've met you,
and you aren't half of some of those fish!

> http://petesbait.com/articles/noodling.php

Damn, *that* is some fishin' !
--
Jim in NC

[Cub Driver]

>I knew that, but I was fishin'! I thought someone might pipe up on how
>bigger tires cause less drag, and you reach the ground sooner than expected,
>and ...yada,yada,yada. Come'on, Montbwack! Get with the program!
>(vbg)

Well, they weigh more!

I'm told that tundra tires take a bit of spooling up, and that they
have sufficient mass to launch a Super Cub or Husky back into the air.
It's called slingshotting.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 03:05:36 GMT, "Ed" > wrote:

>For a really fun bounce, nothing quite compares with your first few wheel
>landings when you're getting your TW endorsement. I'm in the market for a
>Pitts. I'm looking forward to learning to fly it, but not looking forward
>to learning to land it

We had a Pitts at Hampton airfield, but he rented a hangar somewhere
else and decamped. It seems that his paint job cost more than most
small airplanes, and he didn't want to ding it with pebbles and mud.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Nukemjoe]

"Guy Elden Jr" wrote:
I totally agree... my problem is due more to fear of stalling I think,
even though I know from experience that the plane will not stall at 65,
60, even 55 kias.

Not technically correct, but I know what you mean.

Well, you'll just have to get over it if you want consistently good landings.
Concentrate on getting that short approach speed right and everything else
will start to work a whole lot better.

As for the flare, don't think about it. Rather, as the plane settles,
concentrate on keeping the wheels off the runway. Prevent the airplane from
touching down as long as you can by pulling the yoke back. Don't let the
stall horn scare you--it's supposed to blow if you're doing this right--just
keep easing the nose up until the mains touch. Keep the yoke back as you
roll out. There, you did it!
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Hey Dan,

I've got kind of the same issue - coming in too hot and have an innate fear of the super sink.
NukenJoe