Landing airplanes

[Dan Luke]

With all the recent discussion about the landing quirks of various aircraft,
I've started to feel I must be missing something.

In every airplane I've ever landed, including the "notorious" Mooney and
Twin Commanche, I've used the same technique: pull the power off and round
out close to the runway, increase back pressure to hold it off as long as it
will keep flying, hold the back pressure on roll out.

The amount of power I carry might vary a bit, but one airplane lands pretty
much like another, it seems to me; I've never had trouble with any of them.

I am certainly no great stick-and-rudder man. Am I just too insensitive to
detect the differences every one talks about?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dudley Henriques]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> With all the recent discussion about the landing quirks of various
> aircraft, I've started to feel I must be missing something.
>
> In every airplane I've ever landed, including the "notorious" Mooney and
> Twin Commanche, I've used the same technique: pull the power off and round
> out close to the runway, increase back pressure to hold it off as long as
> it will keep flying, hold the back pressure on roll out.
>
> The amount of power I carry might vary a bit, but one airplane lands
> pretty much like another, it seems to me; I've never had trouble with any
> of them.
>
> I am certainly no great stick-and-rudder man. Am I just too insensitive
> to detect the differences every one talks about?
>
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

Don't know about your sensitivity, :-))) but thinking about landing
airplanes in general terms like this is not the best way to go.
It's true that there will be a great many airplanes in a specific category
that might fit into your scenario; many light general aviation aircraft for
example; but even there, you might run into specific airplanes that require
specific technique. As soon as you start talking high performance airplanes,
this line of thinking goes right out the window. For example, landing a T38
Talon or an F16 as you have described can most certainly get you killed, as
would landing any aircraft requiring touchdown angle of attack vs controlled
sink rate parameters.
For 172's and the like, generally you are right, but there's a whole new
world of airplanes out there that require extremely specific handling
skills.
The bottom line on all this would be that generalization of ANY kind, is not
the way to go in aviation.
My advice to every pilot I've ever trained is to treat flying in specifics
as those specifics relate to the exact airplane being flown, and avoid
generalization of any kind when it comes to handling an airplane.
Dudley Henriques

[Dan Luke]

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

>
>> In every airplane I've ever landed, including the "notorious" Mooney and
>> Twin Commanche, I've used the same technique: pull the power off and round
>> out close to the runway, increase back pressure to hold it off as long as
>> it will keep flying, hold the back pressure on roll out.
>>
>> The amount of power I carry might vary a bit, but one airplane lands
>> pretty much like another, it seems to me; I've never had trouble with any
>> of them.
>>
>> I am certainly no great stick-and-rudder man. Am I just too insensitive
>> to detect the differences every one talks about?

>
> Don't know about your sensitivity, :-))) but thinking about landing
> airplanes in general terms like this is not the best way to go.
> It's true that there will be a great many airplanes in a specific category
> that might fit into your scenario; many light general aviation aircraft for
> example; but even there, you might run into specific airplanes that require
> specific technique. As soon as you start talking high performance
> airplanes, this line of thinking goes right out the window. For example,
> landing a T38 Talon or an F16 as you have described can most certainly get
> you killed, as would landing any aircraft requiring touchdown angle of
> attack vs controlled sink rate parameters.

Oh, no doubt! But that's another world of flying I'll probably never
experience. I probably should have better qualified the type of aircraft I
was talking about: light GA.

[snip]

> My advice to every pilot I've ever trained is to treat flying in specifics
> as those specifics relate to the exact airplane being flown, and avoid
> generalization of any kind when it comes to handling an airplane.
> Dudley Henriques

Well, my point is that there doesn't seem (to me) to be much difference in
the world of Bonanzas, Mooneys, Skylanes, Cherokees, Cirruses, Comanches,
etc., yet I keep reading and hearing about all their peculiar landing habits.
Perhaps I am paying more attention to specifics than I realize.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Dudley Henriques]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" wrote:
>
>>
>>> In every airplane I've ever landed, including the "notorious" Mooney and
>>> Twin Commanche, I've used the same technique: pull the power off and
>>> round out close to the runway, increase back pressure to hold it off as
>>> long as it will keep flying, hold the back pressure on roll out.
>>>
>>> The amount of power I carry might vary a bit, but one airplane lands
>>> pretty much like another, it seems to me; I've never had trouble with
>>> any of them.
>>>
>>> I am certainly no great stick-and-rudder man. Am I just too insensitive
>>> to detect the differences every one talks about?
>
>>
>> Don't know about your sensitivity, :-))) but thinking about landing
>> airplanes in general terms like this is not the best way to go.
>> It's true that there will be a great many airplanes in a specific
>> category that might fit into your scenario; many light general aviation
>> aircraft for example; but even there, you might run into specific
>> airplanes that require specific technique. As soon as you start talking
>> high performance airplanes, this line of thinking goes right out the
>> window. For example, landing a T38 Talon or an F16 as you have described
>> can most certainly get you killed, as would landing any aircraft
>> requiring touchdown angle of attack vs controlled sink rate parameters.
>
> Oh, no doubt! But that's another world of flying I'll probably never
> experience. I probably should have better qualified the type of aircraft
> I was talking about: light GA.
>
> [snip]
>
>> My advice to every pilot I've ever trained is to treat flying in
>> specifics as those specifics relate to the exact airplane being flown,
>> and avoid generalization of any kind when it comes to handling an
>> airplane.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Well, my point is that there doesn't seem (to me) to be much difference in
> the world of Bonanzas, Mooneys, Skylanes, Cherokees, Cirruses, Comanches,
> etc., yet I keep reading and hearing about all their peculiar landing
> habits. Perhaps I am paying more attention to specifics than I realize.

There are certain "differences" even in this category as that definition
relates to ground effect, clean wings etc. The differences aren't as
extensive as are the differences I gave you, but they are just different
enough that each aircraft type should be treated as an individual handling
situation.
As you say, if you are thinking more in specifics than you realize, you are
on the right track and thinking correctly in my opinion anyway :-))
Dudley Henriques

[john smith]

In article t>,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> The bottom line on all this would be that generalization of ANY kind, is not
> the way to go in aviation.
> My advice to every pilot I've ever trained is to treat flying in specifics
> as those specifics relate to the exact airplane being flown, and avoid
> generalization of any kind when it comes to handling an airplane.

What Dudley said!
A good example is the Bonanza. The fuel, particulary on the older
models, is stored in the front of the wing. As fuel is burned, the CG
moves aft. It is very important that the Bo driver calculate both the
takeoff and landing CG and adjust the leg length and/or aircraft loading
accordingly.
The Piper Warriors also may have a CG issue with two large passengers in
the front seats. This is a forward CG problem as fuel is burned.
Flying a C172RG, I took my father to OSH with me one year. On the trip
home, I found that the aircraft was loaded in such a manner that with
the two of us in the front seats and all our gear in the rear, the
simple motion of either one us leaning fore or aft would cause the nose
to drop or rise.
A Piper PA32-300 will use 25% more runway without using 10-deg of flaps
for takeoff roll.
As I mentioned in another posting, many pilots of retractable gear
airplanes do not know that Vx and Vy will be different, depending on
whether the gear are up or down.
The more different kinds airplanes you fly, the more attuned you become
to each airplanes "personallity".
The common thread is knowing the numbers for each airplane and flying
them accordingly.

[Robert M. Gary]

As a Mooney instructor I can tell you the Mooney is not hard to land.
However, I'm not a big fan of the "dive and hold off" method you
described in any plane. It does work, but its not my favorite method. I
teach to begin the flare as soon as you cross over the fence with very,
very light back pressure on the yoke, gradually increasing. The result
is arriving at the runway with the nose already in landing position and
a smooth round out through the last part of the flight. If you've ever
watched airlines land, this is what they do, rarely do you see them fly
down all they way to the runway in a nose low attitude.
This technique allows you to arrive at the runway much slower and use
less runway. The plane will not stall or drop out of the sky as long as
you ensure you keep it coming down. Leveling off is what causes planes
to drop out of the sky for an early arrival.

-Robert, CFI

Dan Luke wrote:
> With all the recent discussion about the landing quirks of various aircraft,
> I've started to feel I must be missing something.
>
> In every airplane I've ever landed, including the "notorious" Mooney and
> Twin Commanche, I've used the same technique: pull the power off and round
> out close to the runway, increase back pressure to hold it off as long as it
> will keep flying, hold the back pressure on roll out.

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:

> With all the recent discussion about the landing quirks of various aircraft,
> I've started to feel I must be missing something.
>
> In every airplane I've ever landed, including the "notorious" Mooney and
> Twin Commanche, I've used the same technique: pull the power off and round
> out close to the runway, increase back pressure to hold it off as long as it
> will keep flying, hold the back pressure on roll out.
>
> The amount of power I carry might vary a bit, but one airplane lands pretty
> much like another, it seems to me; I've never had trouble with any of them.
>
> I am certainly no great stick-and-rudder man. Am I just too insensitive to
> detect the differences every one talks about?

Dan, I'm with you. I've had folks tell me that a given airplane had to
be landed with power otherwise it would crash onto the runway. Except
for a few designs that use engine thrust to move air over the wing to
provide extra lift, or use vectored thrust to provide lift, this simply
makes no sense aerodynamically. The issue is energy management and the
source of energy can be airspeed or power.


Matt

[john smith]

In article . com>,
"Michael" > wrote:

> > hold the back pressure on roll out.
>
> How much? As much as you had on touchdown? More? Does it matter?

Any good taildragger pilot can tell you the correct answer... the stick
should be sucked all the way back into your gut on roll out. :-))

[Dan Luke]

"Michael" wrote:

>> In every airplane I've ever landed, including the "notorious" Mooney and
>> Twin Commanche, I've used the same technique: pull the power off and
>> round
>> out close to the runway,
>
> How close is close? How fast are you going before you start the
> roundout? How much do you lift the nose in the roundout, and how
> quickly?

I think what I'm doing is feeling for ground effect. As the ground effect
increases, I'm increasing AOA, managing sink with power if necessary.
Ground effect is a very palpable thing to me.

> How quickly do you preduce the power?

Depends on how much energy I have arriving at the roundout point and on the
sink rate.

> And most importantly,
> what cues are you using to judge all these things?

Runway picture, seat-of-the-pants sink rate, deck angle, elevator feel.

>> increase back pressure to hold it off as long as it will keep flying
>
> How do you know when it won't keep flying anymore?

I don't. I'm hoping to be within inches of the runway when it gives up.

>> hold the back pressure on roll out.
>
> How much? As much as you had on touchdown? More? Does it matter?

More; it's what I was taught.

>> The amount of power I carry might vary a bit
>
> That's only one variable. There are others. Really, the principal
> variables are speed, height, power, and pitch (assuming for the moment
> a constant configuration) - and the rates of change on all of them -
> throughout the landing maneuver. There is a relationship between them
> - you need to keep the variables within the acceptable envelope for the
> airplane to make a good landing. There are tradeoffs involved - after
> all, you're really just managing energy and there are many acceptable
> solutions.
>
>> but one airplane lands pretty
>> much like another, it seems to me; I've never had trouble with any of
>> them.
>
> If you're consistently making good landings, you're getting the
> variables all right (or close enough, anyway) so you must understand
> the relationships involved (primarily energy management) - but maybe
> only implicitly, the way an outfielder understands the differential
> equations that govern the path of the ball so as to consistently put
> his glove where the ball will be without ever having taken a calculus
> class.
>

It certainly seems intuitive in my case. I don't know what I'm doing; I
just do it.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Michael" wrote:
>
>
>>>In every airplane I've ever landed, including the "notorious" Mooney and
>>>Twin Commanche, I've used the same technique: pull the power off and
>>>round
>>>out close to the runway,
>>
>>How close is close? How fast are you going before you start the
>>roundout? How much do you lift the nose in the roundout, and how
>>quickly?
>
>
> I think what I'm doing is feeling for ground effect. As the ground effect
> increases, I'm increasing AOA, managing sink with power if necessary.
> Ground effect is a very palpable thing to me.

Yes, I can generally feel it also.


>>How quickly do you preduce the power?
>
>
> Depends on how much energy I have arriving at the roundout point and on the
> sink rate.

I reduce the power to idle on downwind and generally leave it at idle.
Saves having to reduce it later. :-) This, is for visual approaches,
not instrument approaches. For the latter, I pull the power to idle
just before crossing the runway threshold.

The only airplane I don't do this with is the club Arrow I now fly as
with the three blade prop that was installed two years ago, the
power-off glide is abysmal. I generally carry 15" or so until just shy
of the threshold and then reduce to idle.


>>And most importantly,
>>what cues are you using to judge all these things?
>
>
> Runway picture, seat-of-the-pants sink rate, deck angle, elevator feel.

Yep, that's about how I do it as well. The rate at which your
passengers or instructor tenses up can also be an indication of when to
flare. :-)


>>>increase back pressure to hold it off as long as it will keep flying
>>
>>How do you know when it won't keep flying anymore?
>
>
> I don't. I'm hoping to be within inches of the runway when it gives up.

Most airplanes I've flow will begin to feel mushy as the stall nears,
but as you say, I try to be within 6" of the runway such that the stall
let's me settle on quite nicely most of the time.


>>>hold the back pressure on roll out.
>>
>>How much? As much as you had on touchdown? More? Does it matter?
>
>
> More; it's what I was taught.

I was taught to pull the wheel all the way back prior to touchdown and
hold it there until the nosewheel settles to the runway. This worked
great in Cessnas, but doesn't work well in Pipers with the stabilator
tail. The Arrow I now fly will drop the nosewheel with a thud if I do
this. So, in it, I pull the wheel all the way back and then as soon as
the mains touch, I start lowering the nose before the airspeed bleeds
off to avoid the thud.


>>>The amount of power I carry might vary a bit
>>
>>That's only one variable. There are others. Really, the principal
>>variables are speed, height, power, and pitch (assuming for the moment
>>a constant configuration) - and the rates of change on all of them -
>>throughout the landing maneuver. There is a relationship between them
>>- you need to keep the variables within the acceptable envelope for the
>>airplane to make a good landing. There are tradeoffs involved - after
>>all, you're really just managing energy and there are many acceptable
>>solutions.
>>
>>
>>>but one airplane lands pretty
>>>much like another, it seems to me; I've never had trouble with any of
>>>them.
>>
>>If you're consistently making good landings, you're getting the
>>variables all right (or close enough, anyway) so you must understand
>>the relationships involved (primarily energy management) - but maybe
>>only implicitly, the way an outfielder understands the differential
>>equations that govern the path of the ball so as to consistently put
>>his glove where the ball will be without ever having taken a calculus
>>class.
>>
>
>
> It certainly seems intuitive in my case. I don't know what I'm doing; I
> just do it.

It sounds to me from your description above that you know what you are
doing. I do what I was taught. I was taught by a very good flight
instructor (he was written up a few years back in AOPA Pilot) who has
more flight hours than all but a handful of pilots in the USA. Every
landing was a power-off spot landing so the whole concept of carrying
power through the approach and then cutting it back before landing was
foreign to me until I started my instrument training and flying into
more larger airports.

It really felt odd at first flying those long, shallow approaches, but I
still was taught even then to pull the power at or slightly before
threshold crossing. Even most airline pilots seem to do this even with
the large jets. I doubt they pull back completely to idle, but they
sure pull back the power after crossing the threshold. And these jets
don't just fall with a thud either.


Matt

[Flyingmonk]

After so many hours in the ultra sensitive R22, airplanes are a cinch.

Matt Whiting wrote:
>The issue is energy management and the
>source of energy can be airspeed or power.

Your statement above reminds me of that great video of Hoover doing
aerobatics in with power off. What a pilot huh?

Monk

[Matt Whiting]

Flyingmonk wrote:

> After so many hours in the ultra sensitive R22, airplanes are a cinch.
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>The issue is energy management and the
>>source of energy can be airspeed or power.
>
>
> Your statement above reminds me of that great video of Hoover doing
> aerobatics in with power off. What a pilot huh?

Yes, absolutely. Bob was a joy to watch. He didn't believe all of this
crap about needing power to do stuff, even in fairly high performance
airplanes. He just went out and did it. Energy is energy, doesn't
matter if it is provided by the engine(s) or by airspeed or by altitude.
All can be used to achieve the desired outcome.


Matt

[Dudley Henriques]

Bob is absolutely one of the world's finest pilots, and probably the
smoothest aerobatic pilot I have ever known.
You are correct about the Shrike routine. It was indeed a study in EM
(energy management).
It's interesting to note for the group at large, that 500RA (Bob's Shrike)
was maintained by Byerly Aviation in Florida for the 20 years Bob had the
airplane.
Byerly made several modifications to the bird that made Bob's wonderful
routine possible.
500RA had an accumulator that stored hydraulic pressure that allowed Bob to
lower the gear inverted with both fans feathered, and also a special setup
for unfeathering both props. Bob would pull both fans back into feather
without having to idle back the throttles and mixtures. The restart was made
possible by micro-switches that triggered electric pumps that unfeathered
the props for him.
The accumulator also stored enough pressure to give Bob nosewheel steering
for his "dead stick landings".
Bob, by his very survival in the low altitude aerobatic environment for as
long as he was in it, and flying a variety of airplanes to boot, has
established himself as truly one of the world's all time best in the
business.
Bob was one of the initial charter members of the International Fighter
Pilots Fellowship that I founded in 1971. In every contact I have had with
him through the years, he has always been a gracious friend and a quiet
force in our community.
Dudley Henriques



"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Flyingmonk wrote:
>
>> After so many hours in the ultra sensitive R22, airplanes are a cinch.
>>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>The issue is energy management and the
>>>source of energy can be airspeed or power.
>>
>>
>> Your statement above reminds me of that great video of Hoover doing
>> aerobatics in with power off. What a pilot huh?
>
> Yes, absolutely. Bob was a joy to watch. He didn't believe all of this
> crap about needing power to do stuff, even in fairly high performance
> airplanes. He just went out and did it. Energy is energy, doesn't matter
> if it is provided by the engine(s) or by airspeed or by altitude. All can
> be used to achieve the desired outcome.
>
>
> Matt

[Jim Macklin]

I saw Mr. Hoover and the Shrike at Salina, KS many years
ago. It is very impressive in person, but he missed the
spot on the ramp when he rolled back in, by about 6 inches.
Thanks for the info on the modifications to the Commander.

Jim


"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
link.net...
| Bob is absolutely one of the world's finest pilots, and
probably the
| smoothest aerobatic pilot I have ever known.
| You are correct about the Shrike routine. It was indeed a
study in EM
| (energy management).
| It's interesting to note for the group at large, that
500RA (Bob's Shrike)
| was maintained by Byerly Aviation in Florida for the 20
years Bob had the
| airplane.
| Byerly made several modifications to the bird that made
Bob's wonderful
| routine possible.
| 500RA had an accumulator that stored hydraulic pressure
that allowed Bob to
| lower the gear inverted with both fans feathered, and also
a special setup
| for unfeathering both props. Bob would pull both fans back
into feather
| without having to idle back the throttles and mixtures.
The restart was made
| possible by micro-switches that triggered electric pumps
that unfeathered
| the props for him.
| The accumulator also stored enough pressure to give Bob
nosewheel steering
| for his "dead stick landings".
| Bob, by his very survival in the low altitude aerobatic
environment for as
| long as he was in it, and flying a variety of airplanes to
boot, has
| established himself as truly one of the world's all time
best in the
| business.
| Bob was one of the initial charter members of the
International Fighter
| Pilots Fellowship that I founded in 1971. In every contact
I have had with
| him through the years, he has always been a gracious
friend and a quiet
| force in our community.
| Dudley Henriques
|
|
|
| "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Flyingmonk wrote:
| >
| >> After so many hours in the ultra sensitive R22,
airplanes are a cinch.
| >>
| >> Matt Whiting wrote:
| >>
| >>>The issue is energy management and the
| >>>source of energy can be airspeed or power.
| >>
| >>
| >> Your statement above reminds me of that great video of
Hoover doing
| >> aerobatics in with power off. What a pilot huh?
| >
| > Yes, absolutely. Bob was a joy to watch. He didn't
believe all of this
| > crap about needing power to do stuff, even in fairly
high performance
| > airplanes. He just went out and did it. Energy is
energy, doesn't matter
| > if it is provided by the engine(s) or by airspeed or by
altitude. All can
| > be used to achieve the desired outcome.
| >
| >
| > Matt
|
|

[karl gruber]

I had the pleasure of flying with Bob about 4 months ago, to a dedication of
a new airport in Idaho.

http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//cimg5780__medium_.jpg

Karl
"Curator"
N185KG

We discussed his straw hat
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Bob is absolutely one of the world's finest pilots, and probably the
> smoothest aerobatic pilot I have ever known.
> You are correct about the Shrike routine. It was indeed a study in EM
> (energy management).
> It's interesting to note for the group at large, that 500RA (Bob's Shrike)
> was maintained by Byerly Aviation in Florida for the 20 years Bob had the
> airplane.
> Byerly made several modifications to the bird that made Bob's wonderful
> routine possible.
> 500RA had an accumulator that stored hydraulic pressure that allowed Bob
> to lower the gear inverted with both fans feathered, and also a special
> setup for unfeathering both props. Bob would pull both fans back into
> feather without having to idle back the throttles and mixtures. The
> restart was made possible by micro-switches that triggered electric pumps
> that unfeathered the props for him.
> The accumulator also stored enough pressure to give Bob nosewheel steering
> for his "dead stick landings".
> Bob, by his very survival in the low altitude aerobatic environment for as
> long as he was in it, and flying a variety of airplanes to boot, has
> established himself as truly one of the world's all time best in the
> business.
> Bob was one of the initial charter members of the International Fighter
> Pilots Fellowship that I founded in 1971. In every contact I have had with
> him through the years, he has always been a gracious friend and a quiet
> force in our community.
> Dudley Henriques
>
>
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Flyingmonk wrote:
>>
>>> After so many hours in the ultra sensitive R22, airplanes are a cinch.
>>>
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>>The issue is energy management and the
>>>>source of energy can be airspeed or power.
>>>
>>>
>>> Your statement above reminds me of that great video of Hoover doing
>>> aerobatics in with power off. What a pilot huh?
>>
>> Yes, absolutely. Bob was a joy to watch. He didn't believe all of this
>> crap about needing power to do stuff, even in fairly high performance
>> airplanes. He just went out and did it. Energy is energy, doesn't
>> matter if it is provided by the engine(s) or by airspeed or by altitude.
>> All can be used to achieve the desired outcome.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
>I had the pleasure of flying with Bob about 4 months ago, to a dedication
>of a new airport in Idaho.
>
> http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//cimg5780__medium_.jpg
>
> Karl
> "Curator"
> N185KG
>
> We discussed his straw hat

God, I hope that isn't the same Plantation hat he's been sitting on in the
P51 for the last 30 years. That thing must be falling apart by now. I think
he's worn it since day one. Some of us even had a bet going at one time that
he wore it to bed at night!! :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Jay Beckman]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> God, I hope that isn't the same Plantation hat he's been sitting on in the
> P51 for the last 30 years. That thing must be falling apart by now. I think
> he's worn it since day one. Some of us even had a bet going at one time that
> he wore it to bed at night!! :-))
> Dudley Henriques

Dudley,

FWIW, they have "a" Panama Hat of Bob's at the NASM Udvar-Hazy
facility.

Dunno if it's "the" hat or if he just donated one from his collection.

Jay B

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Bob is absolutely one of the world's finest pilots, and probably the
> smoothest aerobatic pilot I have ever known.
> You are correct about the Shrike routine. It was indeed a study in EM
> (energy management).
> It's interesting to note for the group at large, that 500RA (Bob's Shrike)
> was maintained by Byerly Aviation in Florida for the 20 years Bob had the
> airplane.
> Byerly made several modifications to the bird that made Bob's wonderful
> routine possible.
> 500RA had an accumulator that stored hydraulic pressure that allowed Bob to
> lower the gear inverted with both fans feathered, and also a special setup
> for unfeathering both props. Bob would pull both fans back into feather
> without having to idle back the throttles and mixtures. The restart was made
> possible by micro-switches that triggered electric pumps that unfeathered
> the props for him.
> The accumulator also stored enough pressure to give Bob nosewheel steering
> for his "dead stick landings".
> Bob, by his very survival in the low altitude aerobatic environment for as
> long as he was in it, and flying a variety of airplanes to boot, has
> established himself as truly one of the world's all time best in the
> business.
> Bob was one of the initial charter members of the International Fighter
> Pilots Fellowship that I founded in 1971. In every contact I have had with
> him through the years, he has always been a gracious friend and a quiet
> force in our community.
> Dudley Henriques

Yes, I'd love to have the chance to fly with him, but know that will
never happen. I got to shake has hand and chat VERY briefly with him
after an airshow at ELM, probably in the late 70s. I likely will never
get closer to him that that, but watching him fly was simply awesome.
He obtained every bit of performance that was available from the
airplane while remaining within its structural envelope.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> I saw Mr. Hoover and the Shrike at Salina, KS many years
> ago. It is very impressive in person, but he missed the
> spot on the ramp when he rolled back in, by about 6 inches.

Oh, the shame if it all. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

karl gruber wrote:

> I had the pleasure of flying with Bob about 4 months ago, to a dedication of
> a new airport in Idaho.
>
> http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//cimg5780__medium_.jpg

The picture is nice, but tell us more!

Matt

[Michael]

Dan Luke wrote:
> I think what I'm doing is feeling for ground effect.

Of course you are. But you can't tell someone to feel for ground
effect. I mean you can, but if he's not already doing it, telling him
to do it won't get him any closer. And that's really the issue. When
you have to teach someone to land a new flavor of airplane and you're
not dealing with someone who can feel these things well, you have to
start out procedurally to some extent, to get him close to the right
way. Otherwise you either have to help him on the controls (which
damages confidence and slows the learning process), or there's an awful
lot of wear and tear on the airplane. The people I check out generally
maintain their own airplanes, and don't appreciate the excess wear and
tear.

> > How much? As much as you had on touchdown? More? Does it matter?
> More; it's what I was taught.

There are airplanes where that won't work so well. The most common
example are the Pipers with stabilators (all-flying tails). Too much
back pressure and you stall, banging down the nosewheel. Not awful,
but suboptimal. On the other hand, there are airplanes where you
better apply all the back pressure there is for the rollout (and some
of them are also Pipers).

> It certainly seems intuitive in my case. I don't know what I'm doing; I
> just do it.

And that's fine until you have to teach someone else to do it.

One of the more challenging things to do in aviation is to check
yourself out in a new aircraft that has handling characteristics
significantly different from any you've flown before. It's certainly
possible to do this - test pilots do it for a living - but it's not
trivial. That's why when I have to check myself out in something new,
I try to talk to as many people who have flown it as possible.
Sometimes that works out well, and sometimes I get bad information.
Usually the bad information comes from some like you - he can fly it,
but he can't really verbalize what he does to make it happen. Got
pretty scary once.

Michael

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Yes, I'd love to have the chance to fly with him, but know that will never
>>happen. I got to shake has hand and chat VERY briefly with him after an
>>airshow at ELM, probably in the late 70s. I likely will never get closer
>>to him that that, but watching him fly was simply awesome. He obtained
>>every bit of performance that was available from the airplane while
>>remaining within its structural envelope.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> The only thing I ever worried about with Bob's routines was his one wheel
> landings. He did them as his "Tennessee Waltz" bit using a variety of
> airplanes. He was extremely good at doing it. Performing this maneuver is a
> combination of dead accurate drift correction married to a virtual symphony
> of cross control flying. It ain't easy to do in any airplane without side
> loading the main gear struts. Bob was smooth as butter doing this, but I
> have to admit, he raised a lot of eyebrows from some of the P51 guys paying
> for their own maintenance :-)
> I remember down at Transpo in 1972 at Dulles. I was there taking care of
> Miss America for the week when Bob had to make an emergency landing in his
> own 51. He put it down on one foot and hardly dinged it, but it wasn't
> flyable for the week and this was one HUGE airshow!
> I offered Bob the use of Miss A for his demonstration and he gratefully
> accepted, but not until I passed on to him a "fervent request" from Howie
> Keefe who owned Miss A at the time, for Bob to NOT do any 1 wheel landings
> in Miss America!!!
> Bob of course complied without question, and I agreed with Howie on this, as
> we had just finished a cross country record setting flight in the airplane
> and the fuel load was not optimum for Bob's usual performance. The finesse
> required to do the 1 wheel landings in a different P51 with a different fuel
> load on board might have taxed even the talents of Bob Hoover.
> Bob flew a perfect demonstration in Miss A without the 1 wheel landing. :-))
> A wonderful guy, and one hell of a P51 driver!!
> Dudley Henriques

I think Bob could fly a sheet of plywood. :-)


Matt

[Dudley Henriques]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>Yes, I'd love to have the chance to fly with him, but know that will
>>>never happen. I got to shake has hand and chat VERY briefly with him
>>>after an airshow at ELM, probably in the late 70s. I likely will never
>>>get closer to him that that, but watching him fly was simply awesome. He
>>>obtained every bit of performance that was available from the airplane
>>>while remaining within its structural envelope.
>>>
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>
>> The only thing I ever worried about with Bob's routines was his one wheel
>> landings. He did them as his "Tennessee Waltz" bit using a variety of
>> airplanes. He was extremely good at doing it. Performing this maneuver is
>> a combination of dead accurate drift correction married to a virtual
>> symphony of cross control flying. It ain't easy to do in any airplane
>> without side loading the main gear struts. Bob was smooth as butter doing
>> this, but I have to admit, he raised a lot of eyebrows from some of the
>> P51 guys paying for their own maintenance :-)
>> I remember down at Transpo in 1972 at Dulles. I was there taking care of
>> Miss America for the week when Bob had to make an emergency landing in
>> his own 51. He put it down on one foot and hardly dinged it, but it
>> wasn't flyable for the week and this was one HUGE airshow!
>> I offered Bob the use of Miss A for his demonstration and he gratefully
>> accepted, but not until I passed on to him a "fervent request" from Howie
>> Keefe who owned Miss A at the time, for Bob to NOT do any 1 wheel
>> landings in Miss America!!!
>> Bob of course complied without question, and I agreed with Howie on this,
>> as we had just finished a cross country record setting flight in the
>> airplane and the fuel load was not optimum for Bob's usual performance.
>> The finesse required to do the 1 wheel landings in a different P51 with a
>> different fuel load on board might have taxed even the talents of Bob
>> Hoover.
>> Bob flew a perfect demonstration in Miss A without the 1 wheel landing.
>> :-))
>> A wonderful guy, and one hell of a P51 driver!!
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I think Bob could fly a sheet of plywood. :-)
>
>
> Matt

Not sure if he's flown the Mosquito, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if
he had :-))))
Dudley Henriques

[GeorgeC]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 20:03:11 GMT, "Dudley Henriques" >
wrote:

>Not sure if he's flown the Mosquito, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if
>he had :-))))
>Dudley Henriques>

LOL

FYI: My CFI and I were do a run up a few week ago at Wiley Post (KPWA), when I
saw Miss America come in for a landing and taxied off between some hangers. She
seem in good health and petty as ever.

GeorgeC

[.Blueskies.]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message ...
>I had the pleasure of flying with Bob about 4 months ago, to a dedication of a new airport in Idaho.
>
> http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//cimg5780__medium_.jpg
>
> Karl
> "Curator"
> N185KG


The FAA registry lists that Lear as 'experimental' R&D...???...

[Jim Macklin]

Factories move airplanes in and out of "experimental"
airworthiness all the time. An aircraft that is used for
R&D (research and development) could be operated on a
Standard airworthiness certificate, but using an
Experimental certificate allows them to exceed gross weight,
CG limits or operate with uncertified systems, as part of
getting certification at higher weights. It gives a "free
hand" to the engineers and sales people.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

".Blueskies." > wrote in
message
y.com...
|
| "karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
| >I had the pleasure of flying with Bob about 4 months ago,
to a dedication of a new airport in Idaho.
| >
| >
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//cimg5780__medium_.jpg
| >
| > Karl
| > "Curator"
| > N185KG
|
|
| The FAA registry lists that Lear as 'experimental'
R&D...???...
|
|

[Michael]

john smith wrote:
> > How much? As much as you had on touchdown? More? Does it matter?
>
> Any good taildragger pilot can tell you the correct answer... the stick
> should be sucked all the way back into your gut on roll out. :-))

I fancy myself at leat a minimally competent taildragger pilot (at
least I've managed to land a few of them, 500 times or so, without
going for a ride) and I agree that at least in the taildraggers I've
flown, that is the way. On the other hand, I've flown a few airplanes
where doing that is a recipe for banging the nosewheel on the ground -
hard.

Michael

[karl gruber]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>> God, I hope that isn't the same Plantation hat he's been sitting on in
>> the
> P51 for the last 30 years. That thing must be falling apart by now. I
> think he's worn it since day one. Some of us even had a bet going at one
> time that he wore it to bed at night!! :-))
> Dudley Henriques
>
He told me that he now auctions them off and the proceeds go to charity.

Best,
Karl
"Curator"
N185KG

[Dudley Henriques]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>>> God, I hope that isn't the same Plantation hat he's been sitting on in
>>> the
>> P51 for the last 30 years. That thing must be falling apart by now. I
>> think he's worn it since day one. Some of us even had a bet going at one
>> time that he wore it to bed at night!! :-))
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
> He told me that he now auctions them off and the proceeds go to charity.
>
> Best,
> Karl
> "Curator"
> N185KG

Classy touch from a classy guy :-))
I'm just glad he made it through the gauntlet and can now rest easy out
there in Palos Verdes and enjoy life :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques]

Yes, Brent Hisey owns her now. She's been banged up a bit, but I understand
she's ok and doin fine. :-))
Dudley Henriques

"GeorgeC" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 20:03:11 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> >
> wrote:
>
>>Not sure if he's flown the Mosquito, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if
>>he had :-))))
>>Dudley Henriques>
>
> LOL
>
> FYI: My CFI and I were do a run up a few week ago at Wiley Post (KPWA),
> when I
> saw Miss America come in for a landing and taxied off between some
> hangers. She
> seem in good health and petty as ever.
>
> GeorgeC

[Michael Ware]

Sorry to get in on this late.
I was hanging out at the flying club Sunday after a flight, discussing
commercial certificates with one of the instructors. The only retract the
club has is a Turbo Arrow, with the high T-tail. He was describing how
challenging it is to do a nice soft or short field approach and landing in
this a/c, and how little elevator authority you have in the flare.
Any comments or experiences with this plane?

Mike

[john smith]

In article >,
"Michael Ware" > wrote:

> Sorry to get in on this late.
> I was hanging out at the flying club Sunday after a flight, discussing
> commercial certificates with one of the instructors. The only retract the
> club has is a Turbo Arrow, with the high T-tail. He was describing how
> challenging it is to do a nice soft or short field approach and landing in
> this a/c, and how little elevator authority you have in the flare.
> Any comments or experiences with this plane?

We will go flying in it and I will demonstrate for you!

[Michael Ware]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Michael Ware" > wrote:
>
> > Sorry to get in on this late.
> > I was hanging out at the flying club Sunday after a flight, discussing
> > commercial certificates with one of the instructors. The only retract
the
> > club has is a Turbo Arrow, with the high T-tail. He was describing how
> > challenging it is to do a nice soft or short field approach and landing
in
> > this a/c, and how little elevator authority you have in the flare.
> > Any comments or experiences with this plane?
>
> We will go flying in it and I will demonstrate for you!
You are talking about 920DM, I presume?

[john smith]

In article >,
"Michael Ware" > wrote:

> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Michael Ware" > wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry to get in on this late.
> > > I was hanging out at the flying club Sunday after a flight, discussing
> > > commercial certificates with one of the instructors. The only retract
> the
> > > club has is a Turbo Arrow, with the high T-tail. He was describing how
> > > challenging it is to do a nice soft or short field approach and landing
> in
> > > this a/c, and how little elevator authority you have in the flare.
> > > Any comments or experiences with this plane?
> >
> > We will go flying in it and I will demonstrate for you!
> You are talking about 920DM, I presume?
Correct. It looks like it is scheduled Friday through Sunday.

[Jim Macklin]

Piper used off the shelf parts when they built their
T-tailed airplanes, the surfaces are just a little
under-sized.


"john smith" > wrote in message
...
| In article >,
| "Michael Ware" > wrote:
|
| > Sorry to get in on this late.
| > I was hanging out at the flying club Sunday after a
flight, discussing
| > commercial certificates with one of the instructors. The
only retract the
| > club has is a Turbo Arrow, with the high T-tail. He was
describing how
| > challenging it is to do a nice soft or short field
approach and landing in
| > this a/c, and how little elevator authority you have in
the flare.
| > Any comments or experiences with this plane?
|
| We will go flying in it and I will demonstrate for you!