Is every touchdown a stall?

[Mxsmanic]

Listening to the radio transmissions of a VFR pilot who had a panic
attack in a cloud of IMC, I heard him mention to a controller that
"the stall horn goes off every time I land." I thought that was
bizarre. Is a touchdown supposed to be a stall? My stall horn
doesn't sound on landing.

When I first started landing in the sim (after it had advanced enough
to allow realistic landings), I sometimes stalled the aircraft (but
without an alarm). Later I came to the conclusion that this might not
be good. If the aircraft stalls, you lose control of it right above
the runway. You can't pitch down to pick up speed and restore lift,
and the engines cannot speed up quickly enough to pull you out of the
stall, either. Unless you are inches above the runway, you come
banging down onto it, and in my case I've collapsed the gear many
times this way. So I figured that stalling on landing might not be
the way to do.

These days I try to stay above stall speed throughout the landing,
even during the flare. The flare arrests my descent, but does not
stall the aircraft. I reduce throttle at the same time as the flare
so that I naturally tend to begin a gentle descent, and this seems to
set me down very nicely on the runway, although it takes longer this
way (but small aircraft usually don't need the whole runway, anyway).
And if anything goes wrong, I can power up and pull away without
delay, since I haven't stalled.

So, which is the preferred way to land, and why?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:

You know, you might go out and get a book on actual flying (like
Stick and Rudder by Langewiesche or Kirschner's Student Pilot Manual)
rather than basing your entire view of aerodynamics on how a game
behaves.

> Listening to the radio transmissions of a VFR pilot who had a panic
> attack in a cloud of IMC, I heard him mention to a controller that
> "the stall horn goes off every time I land."

The stall horn goes off BEFORE the stall. That's it's whole point.
It's a stall WARNING horn.

> I thought that was
> bizarre. Is a touchdown supposed to be a stall?

Most light aircraft are touched down as close to a stall
as you can manage. The idea is to bring the nose up until
the lift peters out about the time the wheels touch.

> My stall horn
> doesn't sound on landing.

You need a better simulator.

> If the aircraft stalls, you lose control of it right above
> the runway.

Stalling is NOT lost of control. You certainly can control
an aircraft in a stall. If you couldn't you would never be
able to recover. A stall is the breakdown in lift that occurs
when the angle of attach exceeds a critical angle. The airplane
is still flying, controllable, and even producing some lift during
a stall.

> You can't pitch down to pick up speed and restore lift,

That's the whole point. You need neither speed nor lift at this
point. The idea is to land with the minimum energy. The wheels
are on the ground so you don't need lift, and any excess speed you
have will just have to be bled off with the brakes. This means you
need more runway, which you might not have.

> and the engines cannot speed up quickly enough to pull you out of the
> stall, either.

Engines do not pull you out of a stall. Speed does not pull you out
of a stall. Getting the angle of attack below the critical angle
gets you out of a stall.

> Unless you are inches above the runway, you come
> banging down onto it, and in my case I've collapsed the gear many
> times this way. So I figured that stalling on landing might not be
> the way to do.

It's a good thing you aren't flying real airplanes. But the trick
in learning how to really land is getting close to that.
>
> These days I try to stay above stall speed throughout the landing,
> even during the flare.

Aircraft can stall at any speed.

[Robert M. Gary]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> So, which is the preferred way to land, and why?

No, you are landing too fast. A stall is not lose of control. In a real
plane you would go up and do all kinds of stalls with your instructor
before you soloed.

-Robert, CFII

[Stefan]

Wolfgang Schwanke schrieb:

> Of course there are several definitions of a good landing. A more
> common one is: Any landing which the pilot can walk away from by
> himself.

I've always thought that this was a very bad joke which just honours
lazyness.

Stefan

[houstondan]

it might help if you were to specify what kind of airplane you're
asking about but here i'll guess light single.

stall at landing?

sorta depends on what the wind is doing. in chop i'll probably hold
more speed till i can get a wheel down then unload flap to firm it up.
in decent air i usually get just a squeek at touchdown. honestly, i
don't really like the horn as i trained a lot without one and got more
used to testing the control authority as i went along. you should be
able to feel it getting mushy as you get close.

i remember one day in my training, in a plane with a working horn, in
chop; i knew that i had some time after the horn started so i kept
dicking with it and kept listening to the horn till finally, it broke
hard. i doubt i was 6-inches but man!

i'm also not fond of the fact that the horn sounds like farting thru a
cheap clarinet and scares the passengers.

dan


Mxsmanic wrote:
> Listening to the radio transmissions of a VFR pilot who had a panic
> attack in a cloud of IMC, I heard him mention to a controller that
> "the stall horn goes off every time I land." I thought that was
> bizarre. Is a touchdown supposed to be a stall? My stall horn
> doesn't sound on landing.
>
> When I first started landing in the sim (after it had advanced enough
> to allow realistic landings), I sometimes stalled the aircraft (but
> without an alarm). Later I came to the conclusion that this might not
> be good. If the aircraft stalls, you lose control of it right above
> the runway. You can't pitch down to pick up speed and restore lift,
> and the engines cannot speed up quickly enough to pull you out of the
> stall, either. Unless you are inches above the runway, you come
> banging down onto it, and in my case I've collapsed the gear many
> times this way. So I figured that stalling on landing might not be
> the way to do.
>
> These days I try to stay above stall speed throughout the landing,
> even during the flare. The flare arrests my descent, but does not
> stall the aircraft. I reduce throttle at the same time as the flare
> so that I naturally tend to begin a gentle descent, and this seems to
> set me down very nicely on the runway, although it takes longer this
> way (but small aircraft usually don't need the whole runway, anyway).
> And if anything goes wrong, I can power up and pull away without
> delay, since I haven't stalled.
>
> So, which is the preferred way to land, and why?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[RK Henry]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:51:59 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>Wolfgang Schwanke schrieb:
>
>> Of course there are several definitions of a good landing. A more
>> common one is: Any landing which the pilot can walk away from by
>> himself.
>
>I've always thought that this was a very bad joke which just honours
>lazyness.

I've wondered where the line originated. I found this quote. I wonder
if it's the root of it.

A good landing was a landing in which the pilot could walk away from
the airplane.
Maj Gen Benjamin D. Foulois,
US Army Air Corps

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> What kind of airplane?

Baron 58 or A36. Previously I had come in at idle, but I found that
sometimes I stalled too early (whence the gear collapse previously
mentioned, or sometimes worse).

> With small aircraft you usually pull throttle to
> idle during the entire final, and you only pull it up in case something
> goes wrong. With big jets it's probably different.

In large aircraft in the sim I don't set throttles to idle until I'm a
few feet above the ground.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

> No, airplane wings almost never reach stall AOA on landing.

Well, now I'm seeing two conflicting opinions. Should the aircraft
stall above the runway, or shouldn't it? Should I be hearing a stall
warning when making a correct landing?

> You always have lift while landing, and you'd have lift even
> if fully stalled.

No doubt, but my concern is that a stall is a rapid and significant
loss of lift, and it seems that this would be dangerous with so little
space for maneuvering beneath the aircraft. As long as the aircraft
hasn't stalled, the descent rate is constant in a given configuration;
if it stalls, it suddenly descends much more quickly, which seems
risky so close to the runway.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

houstondan writes:

> it might help if you were to specify what kind of airplane you're
> asking about but here i'll guess light single.

The ones in the sim, mainly Beechcraft Baron 58 and A36, and a
737-800. I don't know if the principles are different for the
different types of aircraft.

> sorta depends on what the wind is doing. in chop i'll probably hold
> more speed till i can get a wheel down then unload flap to firm it up.
> in decent air i usually get just a squeek at touchdown. honestly, i
> don't really like the horn as i trained a lot without one and got more
> used to testing the control authority as i went along. you should be
> able to feel it getting mushy as you get close.
>
> i remember one day in my training, in a plane with a working horn, in
> chop; i knew that i had some time after the horn started so i kept
> dicking with it and kept listening to the horn till finally, it broke
> hard. i doubt i was 6-inches but man!

That's what I worry about.

> i'm also not fond of the fact that the horn sounds like farting thru a
> cheap clarinet and scares the passengers.

I think it's designed to do that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> Any landing which the pilot can walk away from by himself.
> I've always thought that this was a very bad joke which just honours lazyness.

Actually, I think it dates from the time in early aviation when it was
much more true than it is now.

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.

[cjcampbell]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Listening to the radio transmissions of a VFR pilot who had a panic
> attack in a cloud of IMC, I heard him mention to a controller that
> "the stall horn goes off every time I land." I thought that was
> bizarre. Is a touchdown supposed to be a stall? My stall horn
> doesn't sound on landing.

I gather you are using a toy flight simulator.

Okay, in a real airplane the stall warning horn does not go off every
time, either, but many pilots consider it the ideal. It means that you
are landing at the slowest possible speed. Or it at least is supposed
to.

My opinion, that of most manufacturers, and of many commercial pilots,
is that the stall warning horn is a very poor indicator of proper
landing speed. Cessna does not say in their operating handbooks to land
with the stall warning horn blaring. It does not say it on their
checklists. Cessna says to land at, say, 50 KIAS. No mention is made of
the stall warning horn except in the section on stalls. There. I said
it. I know it goes against the deepest heart of hearts of some people
here, including those I greatly respect or even admire, but there it
is. They are wrong. And we would have a lot fewer Cessnas and other
airplanes with broken tail cones if they would admit it. You would not
believe the number of tail strikes I have seen generated by these guys.

And I also think Langewische was wrong about some things. He was not
God. Some of the things he asserts in "Stick and Rudder" are downright
idiotic. Among other things, he advocates a "stall-proof" airplane,
which may not be possible and which certainly is not desirable. He
perpetuates certain myths about the cause of lift. I simply cannot
recommend this book for the student pilot, although it is a step above
"Junior Birdman" kits. Langewische should be used judiciously by flight
instructors who have a thorough grounding in the principles of flight,
if at all.

The ONLY time you should consider it absolutely necessary to land at
the slowest possible airspeed is when you are performing short field
landings. Higher airspeeds are helpful, and possibly even necessary, in
crosswinds, gusty conditions, soft field operations, or when you just
want an especially gentle landing and you have a long runway.

The best speed at which to land the airplane is the one recommended
(adjusted for local conditions) by the manufacturer, who presumably
knows something about the airplane's envelope. The manufacturer, after
all, designed the plane, did the engineering, and flew the
certification tests. The manufacturer knows what angle of attack will
cause you to bang the tail on the runway. The manufacturer knows what
rate of descent will smash the gear. The manufacturer knows what angle
of attack will lift the nose enough to keep you from banging the nose
wheel.

[Greg Farris]

The question of the landing being a stall just inches above the runway has
been debated for decades. I believe it would be fair to say that the
"every landing should be a stall" theory is old school, and more modern
training eschews this belief. This may also have something to do with
today's reality, where there is a high chance you will be trying to make
the best time possible on approach, without getting in everyone's way, so
you will not be on two-mile finals at 60Kt with full flaps. As a result,
it is likely you will cross the threshold with a comfortable margin above
your Vso.

As for the stall horn, as posted above, it is set to sound above the
actual stall AoA. After thousands of landings in small planes, both by
myself and with other pilots, I'd say I hear it about one in three or four
landings. If you have it while you're in the flare, close to the ground,
it's a gooid indication you're at about the right speed. If you don't have
it, but everything else looks good, than so what....

GF

[Mxsmanic]

cjcampbell writes:

> I gather you are using a toy flight simulator.

It's a program that simulates a toy plane (i.e., a Baron 58).

> My opinion, that of most manufacturers, and of many commercial pilots,
> is that the stall warning horn is a very poor indicator of proper
> landing speed. Cessna does not say in their operating handbooks to land
> with the stall warning horn blaring. It does not say it on their
> checklists. Cessna says to land at, say, 50 KIAS. No mention is made of
> the stall warning horn except in the section on stalls. There. I said
> it. I know it goes against the deepest heart of hearts of some people
> here, including those I greatly respect or even admire, but there it
> is. They are wrong. And we would have a lot fewer Cessnas and other
> airplanes with broken tail cones if they would admit it. You would not
> believe the number of tail strikes I have seen generated by these guys.

Well, then, I'm not so far off the mark.

> And I also think Langewische was wrong about some things. He was not
> God. Some of the things he asserts in "Stick and Rudder" are downright
> idiotic.

I haven't been able to find his book yet, anyway. It may not be
findable in Paris.

> Among other things, he advocates a "stall-proof" airplane,
> which may not be possible and which certainly is not desirable.

Years ago I read of NASA having developed a stall-proof wing, but I
don't know what became of that, or if it ever was incorporated into an
aircraft.

> He perpetuates certain myths about the cause of lift.

About the same time ago, I recall reading that NASA had found that the
standard theory of lift in an airfoil was incorrect (after they came
up with a wing that generated the same lift both in its normal
position and when flying inverted).

> I simply cannot
> recommend this book for the student pilot, although it is a step above
> "Junior Birdman" kits. Langewische should be used judiciously by flight
> instructors who have a thorough grounding in the principles of flight,
> if at all.

I've never heard of Junior Birdman kits.

> The ONLY time you should consider it absolutely necessary to land at
> the slowest possible airspeed is when you are performing short field
> landings. Higher airspeeds are helpful, and possibly even necessary, in
> crosswinds, gusty conditions, soft field operations, or when you just
> want an especially gentle landing and you have a long runway.

That's kind of what I figured. With 11,000 feet of runway and only
3000 necessary to touchdown, what's the rush?

> The best speed at which to land the airplane is the one recommended
> (adjusted for local conditions) by the manufacturer, who presumably
> knows something about the airplane's envelope. The manufacturer, after
> all, designed the plane, did the engineering, and flew the
> certification tests. The manufacturer knows what angle of attack will
> cause you to bang the tail on the runway. The manufacturer knows what
> rate of descent will smash the gear. The manufacturer knows what angle
> of attack will lift the nose enough to keep you from banging the nose
> wheel.

I don't have the manual for a Baron 58, although the sim model manual
includes extracts from it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>It's a program that simulates a toy plane (i.e., a Baron 58).


>
>That's kind of what I figured. With 11,000 feet of runway and only
>3000 necessary to touchdown, what's the rush?
>


Toy plane - Baron 58? 11,000ft runway?

I think some real flying, in a real plane (try a C-152 for starters) would
be helpful in correcting your attitude problem.

GF

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> Among other things, he advocates a "stall-proof" airplane,
>> which may not be possible and which certainly is not desirable.
>
> Years ago I read of NASA having developed a stall-proof wing, but I
> don't know what became of that, or if it ever was incorporated into an
> aircraft.

There is a light aircraft called the Ercoupe. It's pretty much
unstallable. As a matter of fact, it's design fits Langewiesche's
musings on the "ideal" airplane.

You should be able to order the book from Amazon's european outlets.
I again would recommend Kerschner's book as also pratical. He goes
through a lot of flight trainning concepts with enough aerodynamics
to satisfy the how and why questions.

[Mxsmanic]

Greg Farris writes:

> Toy plane - Baron 58?

Yes. You see, real planes have jet engines, and carry 100 or more
passengers, and can fly above 30,000 feet. Anything else is a toy.

> I think some real flying, in a real plane (try a C-152 for starters) would
> be helpful in correcting your attitude problem.

A C152 is no more a real plane than a Baron 58.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

It's comments like this that make mxsmanic a troll. He admits to never
having flown anything other than an armchair, and asks questions about
flying techniques, but then makes idiotic pronouncements like his previous
post.

Why bother answering him and offer advice when all you'll get is an idiotic,
illogical, and argumentative response?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> As long as the aircraft
> hasn't stalled, the descent rate is constant in a given configuration;
> if it stalls, it suddenly descends much more quickly, which seems
> risky so close to the runway.


Which is why the typical landings are achieved at about 120% of the
stall speed in landing configuration, with allowances of a minimum of 5
kts or half the headwind + all gusts or 20 kts, whichever is lesser.

Full-stall landings aren't recommended unless you're in a tailwheel
aircraft.

Ramapriya

[Cubdriver]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:13:35 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke >
wrote:

>> Is a touchdown supposed to be a stall?
>
>Ideally, yes. A good landing should end in a stall just a few
>millimiters above ground.

Hmm. No, I don't think so. I fly a taildragger, and I do wheelies. I
think that entails flying the plane onto the ground--what a non-flyer
would imagine that a flyer does.

It's true that there is a moment just before touchdown where I feel
that I am floating. Is that a stall? I don't think so.

[Cubdriver]

On 30 Sep 2006 01:27:18 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> wrote:

>My opinion, that of most manufacturers, and of many commercial pilots,
>is that the stall warning horn is a very poor indicator of proper
>landing speed

In a Cub, which of course has no horn, the stall indicator is when the
door (the lower half of the door, which folds down) begins to float
upward.

[Cubdriver]

On 30 Sep 2006 01:27:18 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> wrote:

>And I also think Langewische was wrong about some things. He was not
>God. Some of the things he asserts in "Stick and Rudder" are downright
>idiotic

Yes! Yes!

I spent weeks trying to make my approach to the airport resemble that
shown in Stick & Rudder. Only after decided that it was impossible did
I realize that Langewische was advocating approaching the airport on
the base leg instead of downwind.

[Cubdriver]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:33:26 +0200, Greg Farris >
wrote:

>Toy plane - Baron 58? 11,000ft runway?
>
>I think some real flying, in a real plane (try a C-152 for starters) would
>be helpful in correcting your attitude problem.

No, a real plane is a J-3 Piper Cub. The runway should be 2,000 feet
or shorter. 1,000 feet is better. 500 feet -- now that's a challenge!

[Newps]

Cubdriver wrote:

>
>
> In a Cub, which of course has no horn,


The new Dakota Cub does have a stall horn. In certification testing now.

[Montblack[_1_]]

"Ron Natalie"
> There is a light aircraft called the Ercoupe. It's pretty much
> unstallable. As a matter of fact, it's design fits Langewiesche's
> musings on the "ideal" airplane.


Unspinnable?


Montblack

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>
>"Ron Natalie"
>> There is a light aircraft called the Ercoupe. It's pretty much
>> unstallable. As a matter of fact, it's design fits Langewiesche's
>> musings on the "ideal" airplane.
>
>
>Unspinnable?
>
If you can't stall it, you can't spin it.
It also had the rudder connected to the aileron controls, so you "steer"
it like a car. If I recall correctly, it had no rudder pedals.

There are plenty of them still flying - or more like restored and flying
again, and they can often be had at reasonable prices too. It was a flop
in its day - perhaps pilots felt it was belittling to have a machine
that purported to correct their mistakes - sort of like an Airbus,
except that the latter makes mistakes of its own.

GF

[Mxsmanic]

Greg Farris writes:

> If you can't stall it, you can't spin it.
> It also had the rudder connected to the aileron controls, so you "steer"
> it like a car. If I recall correctly, it had no rudder pedals.
>
> There are plenty of them still flying - or more like restored and flying
> again, and they can often be had at reasonable prices too. It was a flop
> in its day - perhaps pilots felt it was belittling to have a machine
> that purported to correct their mistakes - sort of like an Airbus,
> except that the latter makes mistakes of its own.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ercoupe

Quite an extensive article.

It's rather depressing to see how many technologically sound designs
fall by the wayside for purely political and business reasons.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[abripl[_1_]]

>..... As long as the aircraft
> hasn't stalled, the descent rate is constant in a given configuration;
> if it stalls, it suddenly descends much more quickly, which seems
> risky so close to the runway.

Near the runway you are in ground effect and not likely to stall the
same way as at heights.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> T o d d P a t t i s t writes:
>
>> No, airplane wings almost never reach stall AOA on landing.
>
> Well, now I'm seeing two conflicting opinions. Should the aircraft
> stall above the runway, or shouldn't it? Should I be hearing a stall
> warning when making a correct landing?
>
You need to read the responses you got more closely. They are not in
conflict.

1) If an aircraft stalls an inch above the runway, then the only thing
that will happen is that it will land softly.

2) The stall warning signals that the aircraft is approaching critical
AOA, not that the aircraft has already stalled.

>> You always have lift while landing, and you'd have lift even
>> if fully stalled.
>
> No doubt, but my concern is that a stall is a rapid and significant
> loss of lift, and it seems that this would be dangerous with so little
> space for maneuvering beneath the aircraft. As long as the aircraft
> hasn't stalled, the descent rate is constant in a given configuration;
> if it stalls, it suddenly descends much more quickly, which seems
> risky so close to the runway.
>
Neither of your above notions are true.

1) Some aircraft behave with a benign but increasing loss of lift up until
the point of the stall, while others behave quite violently prior to the
aircraft being stalled.

2) The descent rate depends on many factors, but if the aircraft is
flying, it is not landing. If you are below the speed at which the
aircraft can fly, you are effectively stalled. If you are close to the
runway, you are in ground effect, and thus the aircraft does not
"...descend much more quickly". It is riskier to be rolling along the
runway above stall speed after touchdown.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> 2) The descent rate depends on many factors, but if the aircraft is
> flying, it is not landing.

If the aircraft is flying and descending, it is landing.

> It is riskier to be rolling along the runway above stall speed after touchdown.

I retract flaps and set throttles to idle as soon as the wheels are on
the runway.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[cjcampbell]

Cubdriver wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:33:26 +0200, Greg Farris >
> wrote:
>
> >Toy plane - Baron 58? 11,000ft runway?
> >
> >I think some real flying, in a real plane (try a C-152 for starters) would
> >be helpful in correcting your attitude problem.
>
> No, a real plane is a J-3 Piper Cub. The runway should be 2,000 feet
> or shorter. 1,000 feet is better. 500 feet -- now that's a challenge!

Or, heck, just turn off at the first taxiway -- the one that is at the
end of the runway where you land.

[cjcampbell]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> >
> >
> >"Ron Natalie"
> >> There is a light aircraft called the Ercoupe. It's pretty much
> >> unstallable. As a matter of fact, it's design fits Langewiesche's
> >> musings on the "ideal" airplane.
> >
> >
> >Unspinnable?
> >
> If you can't stall it, you can't spin it.
> It also had the rudder connected to the aileron controls, so you "steer"
> it like a car. If I recall correctly, it had no rudder pedals.

Depends on the year and manufacturer. Ercoupes were made by several
different manufacturers, even Mooney. Some had linked rudders and
ailerons; some did not; and some were modified to have rudder pedals
later. Without a rudder, you had to touch down in a crab in a
crosswind. The Ercoupe's gear was built to take the punishment, but
some pilots didn't like it. Also, the Ercoupe and similar aircraft
(some Lancairs, Cirri, etc.), prevent stalls by deliberately limiting
angle of attack, which hurts short field performance.

Langewische's influence was not limited to the Ercoupe. Some of the
most successful planes in history incorporate many of his ideas,
including the Cessna 150 and its descendants, the 172 and related
types.

I like much of what Langewische says and I like how clearly he says it.
The trouble I have with him is really with just a few short passages
that I think are very misleading.

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Cubdriver wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:33:26 +0200, Greg Farris >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Toy plane - Baron 58? 11,000ft runway?
>> >
>> >I think some real flying, in a real plane (try a C-152 for starters)
>> >would
>> >be helpful in correcting your attitude problem.
>>
>> No, a real plane is a J-3 Piper Cub. The runway should be 2,000 feet
>> or shorter. 1,000 feet is better. 500 feet -- now that's a challenge!
>
> Or, heck, just turn off at the first taxiway -- the one that is at the
> end of the runway where you land.

Nah.......land it 90 degrees ACROSS the runway, not ON it!!! :-))))
Dudley

[cjcampbell]

Montblack wrote:
> "Ron Natalie"
> > There is a light aircraft called the Ercoupe. It's pretty much
> > unstallable. As a matter of fact, it's design fits Langewiesche's
> > musings on the "ideal" airplane.
>
>
> Unspinnable?

It might be possible to force the Ercoupe to spin by really yanking on
the controls in turbulent air and doing everything you could to force
it beyond its stall limitations, but I suspect that you have to be
deliberately trying to crash it.

The NTSB database attributes some Ecroupe accidents to "stall," but the
Ercoupe definitely has different stall characteristics than other
aircraft. Ercoupe fans deny that they are stalls at all. The way pilots
kill themselves on final in Ercoupes is they get real slow and a little
high, so they try to slow some more. The Ercoupe does not stall,
exactly, but it doesn't like that sort of treatment, either. It begins
to descend very rapidly and it takes some time to recover to a normal
rate of descent.

IIRC there have even been a couple of fatalities from spins in
Ercoupes, but control failures were a factor in these. Overall, the
Ercoupe has a *worse* than average fatality rate, which is something
that I doubt Langewische expected. It does show that Langewische was
wrong when he thought that the accident rate would be lowered
significantly if you made it impossible to stall an airplane. All it
really showed was that pilots who were likely to kill themselves in
stalls had to find some other method of committing suicide and murder.

[cjcampbell]

Cubdriver wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2006 01:27:18 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >And I also think Langewische was wrong about some things. He was not
> >God. Some of the things he asserts in "Stick and Rudder" are downright
> >idiotic
>
> Yes! Yes!
>
> I spent weeks trying to make my approach to the airport resemble that
> shown in Stick & Rudder. Only after decided that it was impossible did
> I realize that Langewische was advocating approaching the airport on
> the base leg instead of downwind.

Well, you fly them 'dangerous' taildraggers, which in Langewische's not
so humble opinion already marks you as an idiot.

I think it really points up the difference between two schools of
thought in aviation training. The Langewische school wanted to make
flying 'foolproof.' You still see a lot of this in initiatives by NASA
and even in the Moller Sky Car (maybe mxsmaniac should hold off
learning to fly until he can buy one of those :-) ). The other school
of thought, of course, recognizes that no matter how foolproof you make
thing, God always manages to build a better fool. That school of
thought simply says that you improve safety through pilot training and
if the pilot is incapable of being trained you don't let him fly.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Neil Gould writes:
>
> > 2) The descent rate depends on many factors, but if the aircraft is
> > flying, it is not landing.
>
> If the aircraft is flying and descending, it is landing.

No, if you carry too much speed onto the ground, you will notice a well
known phenomena occurs - the plane wants to fly, the pilot doesn't want
to let it - and the aircraft will often porpoise. That's a bad
situation and I bet it's seen the demise of many a nose wheel.

>
> > It is riskier to be rolling along the runway above stall speed after touchdown.
>
> I retract flaps and set throttles to idle as soon as the wheels are on
> the runway.

You should leave the flaps until yer say 25kts or less, as they will
offer significant drag, a benefit when landing. (Save on the brakepads
too).

--
Duncan

[Capt.Doug]

> wrote in message
> Which is why the typical landings are achieved at about 120% of the
> stall speed in landing configuration, with allowances of a minimum of 5
> kts or half the headwind + all gusts or 20 kts, whichever is lesser.

The A-320 flies its approaches at 120% Vls (it won't let you reach Vso). It
lands somewhere between Vref and Vls depending on pilot skill and aircraft
weight. Light aircraft fly approaches around 130% Vso and land near or at
Vso.

> Full-stall landings aren't recommended unless you're in a tailwheel
> aircraft.

Depends on the aircraft. Full-stall landings in a tailwheel Beech 18 with a
heavy load, walking gear, and short tailwheel are NOT recommended for
beginners. Full-stall landings in light nosewheel airplanes are my preferred
method for landing.

D.

[cjcampbell]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "cjcampbell" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Cubdriver wrote:
> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:33:26 +0200, Greg Farris >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Toy plane - Baron 58? 11,000ft runway?
> >> >
> >> >I think some real flying, in a real plane (try a C-152 for starters)
> >> >would
> >> >be helpful in correcting your attitude problem.
> >>
> >> No, a real plane is a J-3 Piper Cub. The runway should be 2,000 feet
> >> or shorter. 1,000 feet is better. 500 feet -- now that's a challenge!
> >
> > Or, heck, just turn off at the first taxiway -- the one that is at the
> > end of the runway where you land.
>
> Nah.......land it 90 degrees ACROSS the runway, not ON it!!! :-))))
> Dudley

I always just thought of that as a very wide runway.

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> "cjcampbell" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Cubdriver wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:33:26 +0200, Greg Farris >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Toy plane - Baron 58? 11,000ft runway?
>> >> >
>> >> >I think some real flying, in a real plane (try a C-152 for starters)
>> >> >would
>> >> >be helpful in correcting your attitude problem.
>> >>
>> >> No, a real plane is a J-3 Piper Cub. The runway should be 2,000 feet
>> >> or shorter. 1,000 feet is better. 500 feet -- now that's a challenge!
>> >
>> > Or, heck, just turn off at the first taxiway -- the one that is at the
>> > end of the runway where you land.
>>
>> Nah.......land it 90 degrees ACROSS the runway, not ON it!!! :-))))
>> Dudley
>
> I always just thought of that as a very wide runway.

Yeah. That's the old 200 foot long, 11,000 feet wide runway if I remember
right :-))

Its a great airshow maneuver. In doing a comedy act, I've done it a few
times (cheating with some wind on the nose but don't tell anyone :-)) Put
one down across 200 feet once doing a "bum stole the airplane" routine.
With a "real good sense" for flying behind the curve, a good pilot can plunk
a J3 into a Mason Jar!! :-))
Dudley

[[email protected]]

Capt.Doug wrote:
>
> Full-stall landings in light nosewheel airplanes are my preferred method for landing.


Are there reasons and circumstances, other than when you've a short
runway, to recommend full-stall landings?

And one more thing... if we assume that the stall occurs at about 20
degrees, won't the ensuing nose-down thwack on to the runway do the
nosewheel strut any harm?

Ramapriya

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> No, if you carry too much speed onto the ground, you will notice a well
> known phenomena occurs - the plane wants to fly, the pilot doesn't want
> to let it - and the aircraft will often porpoise. That's a bad
> situation and I bet it's seen the demise of many a nose wheel.

If your rate of descent is constant and very low, you will settle
gently onto the runway.

> You should leave the flaps until yer say 25kts or less, as they will
> offer significant drag, a benefit when landing. (Save on the brakepads
> too).

Hmm ... I'll keep that in mind. I mainly due it immediately because I
don't want to forget to do it and because I don't want to leave the
ground again (since I try not to stall when landing), but you have a
point, so I'll try to wait a bit.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

cjcampbell writes:

> I like much of what Langewische says and I like how clearly he says it.
> The trouble I have with him is really with just a few short passages
> that I think are very misleading.

Which ones?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > No, if you carry too much speed onto the ground, you will notice a well
> > known phenomena occurs - the plane wants to fly, the pilot doesn't want
> > to let it - and the aircraft will often porpoise. That's a bad
> > situation and I bet it's seen the demise of many a nose wheel.
>
> If your rate of descent is constant and very low, you will settle
> gently onto the runway.

No as I said, if you try to land (with good flying speed up your sleeve
which is what you're suggesting) you will porpoise along the runway,
possibly agravating the effect by pushing down to stay on the ground -
and bust the nosewheel and crash. That's what will happen.

--
Duncan

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Doe" > wrote in message
. nz...
> No as I said, if you try to land (with good flying speed up your sleeve
> which is what you're suggesting) you will porpoise along the runway,
> possibly agravating the effect by pushing down to stay on the ground -
> and bust the nosewheel and crash. That's what will happen.

Neil's original statement was simply "if the aircraft is flying, it is not
landing". This is not true. As near as I can tell from the quoted thread,
this was the point Mxsmanic was addressing. There is nothing fundamentally
incorrect about the statement "If the aircraft is flying and descending, it
is landing" (assuming we're talking about airplane flight near a runway,
which seems like a reasonable inference in this context...obviously aircraft
fly and descend without landing all the time in other contexts).

I'm unclear as to the official definition of "with good flying speed up your
sleeve", the phrase you use. IMHO, it's exactly that sort of ambiguous
statement that results in far too many Usenet arguments (or perhaps
arguments in general, for that matter). That said, if you simply mean
"enough speed for the wing to not be stalled", you are incorrect, and if you
mean "a speed tens of knots above the stall speed" then I don't see how you
inferred that from anything Mxsmanic posted. So either way, you've got an
error in your post.

As far as the specific question of stalling while landing goes...

It is true that if you attempt to land with *far* too much airspeed, it is
*possible* that you will strike the nosewheel hard enough to begin a
pilot-induced-oscillation. That is, porpoising.

But that is hardly the same as showing that the airplane must be stalled in
order to land, and in fact that's just not true at all. It is quite common
to land airplanes without actually stalling the wing. Any reasonably
nose-high attitude can result in a comfortable, porpoise-free landing, and
it is possible to have a reasonably nose-high attitude without stalling the
airplane.

Whether this is desirable, I leave to the individual pilot. Different
airplanes require different techniques. Even in absence of any porpoising,
there is still the issue of landing distance. A touchdown at an airspeed
higher than necessary uses more runway than is necessary, and in some cases
uses more runway than is available. Obviously, that would be a bad thing.

But nonetheless, pilots can and do land airplanes without stalling the wing.
It happens all the time, and without undue risk of porpoising, landing long,
or whatever.

Pete

[cjcampbell]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >> > Or, heck, just turn off at the first taxiway -- the one that is at the
> >> > end of the runway where you land.
> >>
> >> Nah.......land it 90 degrees ACROSS the runway, not ON it!!! :-))))
> >> Dudley
> >
> > I always just thought of that as a very wide runway.
>
> Yeah. That's the old 200 foot long, 11,000 feet wide runway if I remember
> right :-))
>
> Its a great airshow maneuver. In doing a comedy act, I've done it a few
> times (cheating with some wind on the nose but don't tell anyone :-)) Put
> one down across 200 feet once doing a "bum stole the airplane" routine.
> With a "real good sense" for flying behind the curve, a good pilot can plunk
> a J3 into a Mason Jar!! :-))

I love that act. It is absolutely my favorite.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> "Dave Doe" > wrote in message
> . nz...
> > No as I said, if you try to land (with good flying speed up your sleeve
> > which is what you're suggesting) you will porpoise along the runway,
> > possibly agravating the effect by pushing down to stay on the ground -
> > and bust the nosewheel and crash. That's what will happen.
>
> Neil's original statement was simply "if the aircraft is flying, it is not
> landing". This is not true. As near as I can tell from the quoted thread,
> this was the point Mxsmanic was addressing. There is nothing fundamentally
> incorrect about the statement "If the aircraft is flying and descending, it
> is landing" (assuming we're talking about airplane flight near a runway,
> which seems like a reasonable inference in this context...obviously aircraft
> fly and descend without landing all the time in other contexts).

<snip>

The original point was ('in reply to'txt also shown):
"
> 2) The descent rate depends on many factors, but if the aircraft is
> flying, it is not landing.

If the aircraft is flying and descending, it is landing.
"

It was my aim to point out that this is not correct - in the sense and
context that I read it (which is that the plane has good flying speed
(is well above stall)).

While the poster can probably put the C182 in MSFS on the ground at
100kts, or even 75kts - this doesn't happen in the real world.

BTW, most of your post, Pete, was totally unecessary and well off topic.
However you read it the way you like, just don't expect another reply
ok.

--
Duncan

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> 2) The descent rate depends on many factors, but if the aircraft is
>> flying, it is not landing.
>
> If the aircraft is flying and descending, it is landing.
>
Wrong.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dave Doe > posted:

> In article >,
> says...
>> "Dave Doe" > wrote in message
>> . nz...
>>> No as I said, if you try to land (with good flying speed up your
>>> sleeve which is what you're suggesting) you will porpoise along the
>>> runway, possibly agravating the effect by pushing down to stay on
>>> the ground - and bust the nosewheel and crash. That's what will
>>> happen.
>>
>> Neil's original statement was simply "if the aircraft is flying, it
>> is not landing". This is not true. As near as I can tell from the
>> quoted thread, this was the point Mxsmanic was addressing. There is
>> nothing fundamentally incorrect about the statement "If the aircraft
>> is flying and descending, it is landing" (assuming we're talking
>> about airplane flight near a runway, which seems like a reasonable
>> inference in this context...obviously aircraft fly and descend
>> without landing all the time in other contexts).
>
> <snip>
>
> The original point was ('in reply to'txt also shown):
> "
>> 2) The descent rate depends on many factors, but if the aircraft is
>> flying, it is not landing.
>
> If the aircraft is flying and descending, it is landing.
> "
>
> It was my aim to point out that this is not correct - in the sense and
> context that I read it (which is that the plane has good flying speed
> (is well above stall)).
>
> While the poster can probably put the C182 in MSFS on the ground at
> 100kts, or even 75kts - this doesn't happen in the real world.
>
I agree. This is also the context in which I made my comment
distinguishing between "flying" and "landing".

Mxsmanic has two misimpressions in this case; that the stall horn
indicates that you have already stalled, and thus if it is going off when
you land you are touching down in a stall (hence the topic of this
thread); that descending is the same as landing, i.e., if you continue
your descent (regardless of speed) then you will eventually land. Well,
you may eventually hit Earth, but that would not necessarily be a landing
as we have come to know and love them. Speed is an important factor here,
and my comments were intended to call attention to that.

Neil

[Ron Natalie]

Cubdriver wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2006 01:27:18 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> > wrote:
>
>> My opinion, that of most manufacturers, and of many commercial pilots,
>> is that the stall warning horn is a very poor indicator of proper
>> landing speed
>
> In a Cub, which of course has no horn, the stall indicator is when the
> door (the lower half of the door, which folds down) begins to float
> upward.

Navions don't have a stall horn either. They buffet enough to warn
you and then very benignly drop the nose down.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-09-29, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> attack in a cloud of IMC, I heard him mention to a controller that
> "the stall horn goes off every time I land." I thought that was
> bizarre.

No, it's correct technique in many light aircraft (as other responses
have already noted).

There's more than one way to land an aircraft, though. Take, for
example, a tailwheel aircraft. You can land it in the 'three point'
attitude (the mains and tailwheel touching down pretty much
simultaneously) - which is often called a 'stall landing'. You're not
quite actually stalled when this happens - the three point attitude in
all the tailwheel planes I've flown has been slightly below the stall
angle of attack.

The other way to land a tailwheel aircraft is called a wheel landing,
where you touch down on the main wheels with the tail still up. Wheel
landings can be done in anything from a completely level attitude (where
you touch down, and 'stick it on' with a judicious amount of forward
stick), to tail-low wheel landings, where the mains touch down first,
with the tail a little off the ground. This is the way most of the big
old tailwheel piston airliners were landed.

Some tailwheel aircraft tend to land tailwheel first (indeed, it's
recommended practise to land some this way, I think Maule call it the
'double whomp' landing or something like that - tail touches down
quickly followed by the mains). In this case, it's likely the plane is
very close to the critical angle of attack. My old Cessna 140 tended to
land like this when you did a 'stall landing' - the tail wheel would
touch down first, then the mains would touch down - the 140 has quite a
flat attitude when sitting on the ground, certainly way below the
critical angle of attack.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Ron Natalie]

Montblack wrote:
>
> "Ron Natalie"
>> There is a light aircraft called the Ercoupe. It's pretty much
>> unstallable. As a matter of fact, it's design fits Langewiesche's
>> musings on the "ideal" airplane.
>
>
> Unspinnable?
>
>
You gotta stall to spin.

[Ron Natalie]

cjcampbell wrote:

>>>
>> If you can't stall it, you can't spin it.
>> It also had the rudder connected to the aileron controls, so you "steer"
>> it like a car. If I recall correctly, it had no rudder pedals.
>
> Depends on the year and manufacturer.

It's not so much the linked ailerons and rudders that made it hard
to spin, it's the fact you don't have enough elevator authority to
stall it.

[Maule Driver]

Don't forget CG. A rearward CG tends to make planes easier to spin...
loading aft of the limit can obviously cause behavior outside of the
envelope.

cjcampbell wrote:
>
> It might be possible to force the Ercoupe to spin by really yanking on
> the controls in turbulent air and doing everything you could to force
> it beyond its stall limitations, but I suspect that you have to be
> deliberately trying to crash it.
>
> The NTSB database attributes some Ecroupe accidents to "stall," but the
> Ercoupe definitely has different stall characteristics than other
> aircraft. Ercoupe fans deny that they are stalls at all. The way pilots
> kill themselves on final in Ercoupes is they get real slow and a little
> high, so they try to slow some more. The Ercoupe does not stall,
> exactly, but it doesn't like that sort of treatment, either. It begins
> to descend very rapidly and it takes some time to recover to a normal
> rate of descent.
>
> IIRC there have even been a couple of fatalities from spins in
> Ercoupes, but control failures were a factor in these. Overall, the
> Ercoupe has a *worse* than average fatality rate, which is something
> that I doubt Langewische expected. It does show that Langewische was
> wrong when he thought that the accident rate would be lowered
> significantly if you made it impossible to stall an airplane. All it
> really showed was that pilots who were likely to kill themselves in
> stalls had to find some other method of committing suicide and murder.
>

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> Neil's original statement was simply "if the aircraft is flying, it is not
> landing". This is not true. As near as I can tell from the quoted thread,
> this was the point Mxsmanic was addressing. There is nothing fundamentally
> incorrect about the statement "If the aircraft is flying and descending, it
> is landing" (assuming we're talking about airplane flight near a runway,
> which seems like a reasonable inference in this context...obviously aircraft
> fly and descend without landing all the time in other contexts).

Yes.

You don't need to stall the aircraft to descend. It can fly and
descend at the same time. If you do this above a runway, you end up
landing. If the rate of descent is gentle, you land very gently.

> I'm unclear as to the official definition of "with good flying speed up your
> sleeve", the phrase you use.

I'm not sure what that means, either, but in my case, "flying speed"
means perhaps five or eight knots above stall, depending on many
things. I'm not talking about high-altitude cruise speeds, but a
speed high enough to avoid an accidental or deliberate stall above the
runway.

As I understand it, a stall is a sudden change in the aerodynamics of
the aircraft. It doesn't sound like something you'd want when you are
only a few feet above the runway. This would be all the more true
under rough landing conditions, when you need to have precise control
of the aircraft at all times. Yes, I can see how you'd need a longer
runway, but if you're in a small aircraft, very often you have runway
to spare, anyway.

I don't know if my techniques are valid, but I seem to be having more
luck with safe landings since I started watching airspeed carefully to
avoid anything like a stall.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> While the poster can probably put the C182 in MSFS on the ground at
> 100kts, or even 75kts - this doesn't happen in the real world.

I'm certain that it can be done in the real world. Are you saying
that a C182 cannot be made to descend at 100 kts? That the only
directions it can go at that speed are straight ahead or up? I find
that hard to believe.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Wrong.

I've already demonstrated that this works.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dylan Smith writes:

> There's more than one way to land an aircraft, though. Take, for
> example, a tailwheel aircraft. You can land it in the 'three point'
> attitude (the mains and tailwheel touching down pretty much
> simultaneously) - which is often called a 'stall landing'. You're not
> quite actually stalled when this happens - the three point attitude in
> all the tailwheel planes I've flown has been slightly below the stall
> angle of attack.

It sounds very difficult. I take it this is where the expression
"three-point landing" for a difficult task successfully accomplished
came from?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Doe" > wrote in message
. nz...
> The original point was ('in reply to'txt also shown):
> "
>> 2) The descent rate depends on many factors, but if the aircraft is
>> flying, it is not landing.
>
> If the aircraft is flying and descending, it is landing.
> "
>
> It was my aim to point out that this is not correct - in the sense and
> context that I read it (which is that the plane has good flying speed
> (is well above stall)).

You inferred quite a lot in the point to which you replied that simply
wasn't there, IMHO. No one said anything about the plane's airspeed being
"well above stall".

> While the poster can probably put the C182 in MSFS on the ground at
> 100kts, or even 75kts - this doesn't happen in the real world.
>
> BTW, most of your post, Pete, was totally unecessary and well off topic.

Even if one accepts your obviously strict concept of "on topic", the only
reason you think my reply was "off topic" is that you didn't understand the
original statement to which you were replying.

> However you read it the way you like, just don't expect another reply
> ok.

Why would I expect another reply? Frankly, I'm always surprised at how deep
other people feel it necessary to dig their holes. Fewer replies would be a
blessing.

Pete

[RK Henry]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:34:05 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Dave Doe writes:
>
>> While the poster can probably put the C182 in MSFS on the ground at
>> 100kts, or even 75kts - this doesn't happen in the real world.
>
>I'm certain that it can be done in the real world. Are you saying
>that a C182 cannot be made to descend at 100 kts? That the only
>directions it can go at that speed are straight ahead or up? I find
>that hard to believe.

Of course you can put the airplane on the runway at 100 knots. It's
just bad practice. Tires and brakes are expensive. Excess stress on
the landing gear can cause expensive damage. Some runways are not as
long as might be desired. When you're barrelling down the runway at
100, the airplane is going to take longer to slow down. Maybe
especially because of ground effect. The tires get shredded from
touching down so fast. The brakes get burned up trying to stop. And
you may have that much farther to taxi back to the ramp. Some pilots
have touched down going so fast that they couldn't get stopped before
running off the end of the runway, damaging a perfectly good airplane.

It's generally better to touch down as slowly as practicable. And
what's the slowest speed you can touch down? While touchdown speed may
need to be adjusted slightly for conditions such as wind or
turbulence, it's generally better to do your slowing down while on
approach instead of carrying so much energy all the way to the runway.
A good reference is the aircraft's POH, or the guidance of an
instructor. But then, you don't get either of those with a simulator,
do you?

RK Henry

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Wrong.
>
> I've already demonstrated that this works.
>
You have "demonstrated" nothing at all. It's irrelevant that it might work
in your sim.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Dave Doe" > wrote in message
> . nz...
>> The original point was ('in reply to'txt also shown):
>> "
>>> 2) The descent rate depends on many factors, but if the aircraft is
>>> flying, it is not landing.
>>
>> If the aircraft is flying and descending, it is landing.
>> "
>>
>> It was my aim to point out that this is not correct - in the sense
>> and context that I read it (which is that the plane has good flying
>> speed (is well above stall)).
>
> You inferred quite a lot in the point to which you replied that simply
> wasn't there, IMHO. No one said anything about the plane's airspeed
> being "well above stall".
>
If the stall warning horn is not sounding (a precondition from earlier
posts), it can be presumed that the aircraft is "well above stall" speed.
"Descending" is uninformative about the actual attitude or speed of the
aircraft, and whether one is landing or crashing depends at least to some
degree on those other factors. It's valuable to read the entire thread if
you wish to object to some response to it.

Neil

[Peter Duniho]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. ..
> If the stall warning horn is not sounding (a precondition from earlier
> posts), it can be presumed that the aircraft is "well above stall" speed.

Not without a clear definition of "well above" (so far, none has been
offered). And even if your own personal definition of "well above" is any
airspeed at which the stall warning isn't sounding, any airplane can be
landed safely without the stall warning going off, and many airplanes
*should* be landed without the stall warning going off.

The absence of a stall warning does not in and of itself suggest an unsafe
landing.

> "Descending" is uninformative about the actual attitude or speed of the
> aircraft,

It's about as uninformative as phrases like "well above" and "good flying
speed". So what?

You guys are engaged in a blatant double-standard in which your own
ambiguous terminology is apparently acceptable, while someone else's is
grounds for abuse.

> and whether one is landing or crashing depends at least to some
> degree on those other factors. It's valuable to read the entire thread if
> you wish to object to some response to it.

I have read through the entire thread, and the assumptions you and others
have made about statements made by Mxsmanic are just that: assumptions. You
have no reason for making the inference that you have, other than to find a
point of leverage for criticism. If you weren't so predisposed to attacking
the guy, you never would have made such assumptions.

Ironically, in making those assumptions, you are also posting your own vague
and potentially incorrect statements. Those statements are the ones to
which I'm responding. If it's fair game for you to infer arbitrary meaning
in someone else's ambiguous terminology, why is it not fair for me to do so?

Or on a related note: if you feel my inference of your meaning is incorrect,
then correct it. So far, neither you nor anyone else has, in spite of my
clear description of the inference that I've made. I've made clear the
context in which my statements are made, including stating the inferences of
the meaning of others' ambiguous statements. There's nothing wrong with my
statements as is, so if you want to disagree, you need to clarify the
meaning of your own ambiguous statements.

Pete

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> If the stall warning horn is not sounding (a precondition from
>> earlier posts), it can be presumed that the aircraft is "well above
>> stall" speed.
>
> Not without a clear definition of "well above" (so far, none has been
> offered). And even if your own personal definition of "well above"
> is any airspeed at which the stall warning isn't sounding, any
> airplane can be landed safely without the stall warning going off,
> and many airplanes *should* be landed without the stall warning going
> off.
>
I agree; I *usually* land before the stall warning goes off. However, that
is not the point, nor does it address the issues raised in this thread in
the context that they were raised.

To keep things simple, the response to the question of the thread -- "Is
every touchdown a stall" is "no". However, I didn't enter the thread at
that stage, and the point where I did enter it was discussion of landing
in a different context. Specifically, I responded to:

Mxsmanic:
"> No doubt, but my concern is that a stall is a rapid and significant
> loss of lift, and it seems that this would be dangerous with so little
> space for maneuvering beneath the aircraft. As long as the aircraft
> hasn't stalled, the descent rate is constant in a given configuration;
> if it stalls, it suddenly descends much more quickly, which seems
> risky so close to the runway."

You excerpted that context and created a truncated statement from my reply
that changed the meaning, and you are still arguing the merits of that
comment *out of context*.

> The absence of a stall warning does not in and of itself suggest an
> unsafe landing.
>
No one claimed that it does, as yet.

> You guys are engaged in a blatant double-standard in which your own
> ambiguous terminology is apparently acceptable, while someone else's
> is grounds for abuse.
>
What "double standard" might that be?

>> and whether one is landing or crashing depends at least to some
>> degree on those other factors. It's valuable to read the entire
>> thread if you wish to object to some response to it.
>
> I have read through the entire thread, and the assumptions you and
> others have made about statements made by Mxsmanic are just that:
> assumptions.
>
Example of such an assumption that I have made, please?

> If you
> weren't so predisposed to attacking the guy, you never would have
> made such assumptions.
>
I am not "predisposed to attacking the guy", yet another presumption that
you are making that is completely unsubstantiated. If you followed other
threads in this newsgroup, you would know that I've "known" Mxsmanic for
years. In other newsgroups, and in other contexts I have agreed with him
on many occassions. If he has any integrity, he'll confirm this for you if
he reads this. My complaints are specific to some posts that he has made
here, and I have not generalized those complaints into an "attack", as you
are implying.

> Or on a related note: if you feel my inference of your meaning is
> incorrect, then correct it.
>
See above. It's not only "incorrect", it's completely fabricated by you.

> So far, neither you nor anyone else has,
> in spite of my clear description of the inference that I've made.
>
Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find your "descriptions" to
be much more than obfuscation and generalization, and appear to be both
off the mark in some cases and off-topic in other cases. And, of course, I
think I've been pretty clear about both those points and the reasons why I
think so.

> I've made clear the context in which my statements are made,
> including stating the inferences of the meaning of others' ambiguous
> statements. There's nothing wrong with my statements as is, so if
> you want to disagree, you need to clarify the meaning of your own
> ambiguous statements.
>
And, of course, you don't find such comments as the above "ambiguous",
even though there is not one specific reference in the entire paragraph.
So, I don't have a clue as to what you are referring to, just a general
notion that you are objecting to something or other and think you're right
about it.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> If the stall warning horn is not sounding (a precondition from
>> earlier posts), it can be presumed that the aircraft is "well above
>> stall" speed.
>
> Not without a clear definition of "well above" (so far, none has been
> offered). And even if your own personal definition of "well above"
> is any airspeed at which the stall warning isn't sounding, any
> airplane can be landed safely without the stall warning going off,
> and many airplanes should be landed without the stall warning going
> off.
>
I agree; I usually land before the stall warning goes off. However, that
is not the point, nor does it address the issues raised in this thread in
the context that they were raised.

To keep things simple, the response to the question of the thread -- "Is
every touchdown a stall" is "no". However, I didn't enter the thread at
that stage, and the point where I did enter it was discussion of landing
in a different context. Specifically, I responded to:

Mxsmanic:
"> No doubt, but my concern is that a stall is a rapid and significant
> loss of lift, and it seems that this would be dangerous with so little
> space for maneuvering beneath the aircraft. As long as the aircraft
> hasn't stalled, the descent rate is constant in a given configuration;
> if it stalls, it suddenly descends much more quickly, which seems
> risky so close to the runway."

You excerpted that context and created a truncated statement from my reply
that changed the meaning, and you are still arguing the merits of that
comment out of context.

> The absence of a stall warning does not in and of itself suggest an
> unsafe landing.
>
No one claimed that it does, as yet.

> You guys are engaged in a blatant double-standard in which your own
> ambiguous terminology is apparently acceptable, while someone else's
> is grounds for abuse.
>
What "double standard" might that be?

>> and whether one is landing or crashing depends at least to some
>> degree on those other factors. It's valuable to read the entire
>> thread if you wish to object to some response to it.
>
> I have read through the entire thread, and the assumptions you and
> others have made about statements made by Mxsmanic are just that:
> assumptions.
>
Example of such an assumption that I have made, please?

> If you
> weren't so predisposed to attacking the guy, you never would have
> made such assumptions.
>
I am not "predisposed to attacking the guy", yet another presumption that
you are making that is completely unsubstantiated. If you followed other
threads in this newsgroup, you would know that I've "known" Mxsmanic for
years. In other newsgroups, and in other contexts I have agreed with him
on many occassions. If he has any integrity, he'll confirm this for you if
he reads this. My complaints are specific to some posts that he has made
here, and I have not generalized those complaints into an "attack", as you
are implying.

> Or on a related note: if you feel my inference of your meaning is
> incorrect, then correct it.
>
See above. It's not only "incorrect", it's completely fabricated by you.

> So far, neither you nor anyone else has,
> in spite of my clear description of the inference that I've made.
>
Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find your "descriptions" to
be much more than obfuscation and generalization, and appear to be both
off the mark in some cases and off-topic in other cases. And, of course, I
think I've been pretty clear about both those points and the reasons why I
think so.

> I've made clear the context in which my statements are made,
> including stating the inferences of the meaning of others' ambiguous
> statements. There's nothing wrong with my statements as is, so if
> you want to disagree, you need to clarify the meaning of your own
> ambiguous statements.
>
And, of course, you don't find such comments as the above "ambiguous",
even though there is not one specific reference in the entire paragraph.
So, I don't have a clue as to what you are referring to, just a general
notion that you are objecting to something or other and think you're right
about it.

Neil

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Peter Duniho writes:
>
> > Neil's original statement was simply "if the aircraft is flying, it is not
> > landing". This is not true. As near as I can tell from the quoted thread,
> > this was the point Mxsmanic was addressing. There is nothing fundamentally
> > incorrect about the statement "If the aircraft is flying and descending, it
> > is landing" (assuming we're talking about airplane flight near a runway,
> > which seems like a reasonable inference in this context...obviously aircraft
> > fly and descend without landing all the time in other contexts).
>
> Yes.
>
> You don't need to stall the aircraft to descend. It can fly and
> descend at the same time. If you do this above a runway, you end up
> landing. If the rate of descent is gentle, you land very gently.
>
> > I'm unclear as to the official definition of "with good flying speed up your
> > sleeve", the phrase you use.
>
> I'm not sure what that means, either, but in my case, "flying speed"
> means perhaps five or eight knots above stall, depending on many
> things. I'm not talking about high-altitude cruise speeds, but a
> speed high enough to avoid an accidental or deliberate stall above the
> runway.
>
> As I understand it, a stall is a sudden change in the aerodynamics of
> the aircraft. It doesn't sound like something you'd want when you are
> only a few feet above the runway. This would be all the more true
> under rough landing conditions, when you need to have precise control
> of the aircraft at all times. Yes, I can see how you'd need a longer
> runway, but if you're in a small aircraft, very often you have runway
> to spare, anyway.
>
> I don't know if my techniques are valid, but I seem to be having more
> luck with safe landings since I started watching airspeed carefully to
> avoid anything like a stall.

There is an excellent manual, IIRC, in MSFS, and I'd suggest you read
it, in particular the pattern work - flying by the numbers in MSFS is
definately the way to go (as you have little to 'feel' by).

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > While the poster can probably put the C182 in MSFS on the ground at
> > 100kts, or even 75kts - this doesn't happen in the real world.
>
> I'm certain that it can be done in the real world. Are you saying
> that a C182 cannot be made to descend at 100 kts? That the only
> directions it can go at that speed are straight ahead or up? I find
> that hard to believe.

I'm saying you'll find landing very bloody difficult at that speed -
hang on, that's what I said. Are you reading properly.

--
Duncan

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> I love that act. It is absolutely my favorite.
>

Chris,

I used to watch you instruct. I always thought you were training your
students for that role!!!:}


Best,
Karl (Just kidding Chris, couldn't resist!!)

[Mxsmanic]

RK Henry writes:

> Of course you can put the airplane on the runway at 100 knots. It's
> just bad practice. Tires and brakes are expensive. Excess stress on
> the landing gear can cause expensive damage.

Stalling 20 feet above the runway can do lots of damage, too. I
suppose that a stall six inches above the runway is harmless, but if
it's only six inches, why bother? And it cuts things really close to
try to get a stall only within the last six inches above the runway,
no more and no less.

> It's generally better to touch down as slowly as practicable. And
> what's the slowest speed you can touch down? While touchdown speed may
> need to be adjusted slightly for conditions such as wind or
> turbulence, it's generally better to do your slowing down while on
> approach instead of carrying so much energy all the way to the runway.
> A good reference is the aircraft's POH, or the guidance of an
> instructor. But then, you don't get either of those with a simulator,
> do you?

There's a POH of sorts of 100 pages or so, part of which comes from
the real aircraft, and part of which is written for the simulated
aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> There is an excellent manual, IIRC, in MSFS, and I'd suggest you read
> it, in particular the pattern work - flying by the numbers in MSFS is
> definately the way to go (as you have little to 'feel' by).

The problem with the documentation in MSFS is that you can't read it
and fly at the same time. Even looking at a map requires that the
simulation be halted.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> You have "demonstrated" nothing at all. It's irrelevant that it might work
> in your sim.

There's a reason why it's called a simulator.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> You don't need to stall the aircraft to descend. It can fly and
> descend at the same time. If you do this above a runway, you end up
> landing. If the rate of descent is gentle, you land very gently.

It's easy to "land" with a minimum rate of descent by carrying extra
power. This is however, not advisable. As I pointed out earlier
you're going to have to disapate that energy (and may not be able to
before you run out of runway). Further, you'll have a lower pitch
attitude and in most planes it's the mains you want to take the
brunt of the landing force with, not the nosewheel.

Flying into the ground with excess energy is *NOT* good technique.

>
> As I understand it, a stall is a sudden change in the aerodynamics of
> the aircraft.

Your understanding is as usual, incorrect.
This would be all the more true
> under rough landing conditions, when you need to have precise control
> of the aircraft at all times. Y> It doesn't sound like something you'd want when you are
> only a few feet above the runway. es, I can see how you'd need a longer
> runway, but if you're in a small aircraft, very often you have runway
> to spare, anyway.

Again you persist to think that stalls somehow destroy controllability,
which is not the case.
>
> I don't know if my techniques are valid, but I seem to be having more
> luck with safe landings since I started watching airspeed carefully to
> avoid anything like a stall.
>

No you have had good luck playing games on the computer. You have
not demoonstrated squat with regard to airplanes.

[Jim Macklin]

A normal approach is at 1.5 Vs until on final approach to
allow for maneuvering flight. Once on final, where bank
angles will be less than 15 degrees, with little effect on
stall speed/load factor, speed will be 1.3 Vs until
beginning the flare or round out. Actual touchdown will
happen at 1.1 to 1.01 Vs. On really short fields that are
not "soft" actually stalling at 1 to 2 feet AGL and dropping
it in is well within the design limits of the landing gear
and wing.

Real airplanes and real simulators "care" about such
details, desktop PC games and simulators don't, which is why
you can log take-offs and landings in an airplane or a $20
million full motion/visual sim.



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

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
| Mxsmanic wrote:
|
| >
| > You don't need to stall the aircraft to descend. It can
fly and
| > descend at the same time. If you do this above a
runway, you end up
| > landing. If the rate of descent is gentle, you land
very gently.
|
| It's easy to "land" with a minimum rate of descent by
carrying extra
| power. This is however, not advisable. As I pointed out
earlier
| you're going to have to disapate that energy (and may not
be able to
| before you run out of runway). Further, you'll have a
lower pitch
| attitude and in most planes it's the mains you want to
take the
| brunt of the landing force with, not the nosewheel.
|
| Flying into the ground with excess energy is *NOT* good
technique.
|
| >
| > As I understand it, a stall is a sudden change in the
aerodynamics of
| > the aircraft.
|
| Your understanding is as usual, incorrect.
| This would be all the more true
| > under rough landing conditions, when you need to have
precise control
| > of the aircraft at all times. Y> It doesn't sound like
something you'd want when you are
| > only a few feet above the runway. es, I can see how
you'd need a longer
| > runway, but if you're in a small aircraft, very often
you have runway
| > to spare, anyway.
|
| Again you persist to think that stalls somehow destroy
controllability,
| which is not the case.
| >
| > I don't know if my techniques are valid, but I seem to
be having more
| > luck with safe landings since I started watching
airspeed carefully to
| > avoid anything like a stall.
| >
|
| No you have had good luck playing games on the computer.
You have
| not demoonstrated squat with regard to airplanes.

[cjcampbell]

karl gruber wrote:
> "cjcampbell" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > I love that act. It is absolutely my favorite.
> >
>
> Chris,
>
> I used to watch you instruct. I always thought you were training your
> students for that role!!!:}

That's what you get for watching the parts where I am flying. My
students are always better.

[cjcampbell]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> cjcampbell wrote:
>
> >>>
> >> If you can't stall it, you can't spin it.
> >> It also had the rudder connected to the aileron controls, so you "steer"
> >> it like a car. If I recall correctly, it had no rudder pedals.
> >
> > Depends on the year and manufacturer.
>
> It's not so much the linked ailerons and rudders that made it hard
> to spin, it's the fact you don't have enough elevator authority to
> stall it.

Yes. And that was also the thing that hurt short field performance the
most.

Still, you gotta like the Ercoupe, it being so cute and all.

[Capt.Doug]

> wrote in message
> Are there reasons and circumstances, other than when you've a short
> runway, to recommend full-stall landings?

There is less wear and tear on brakes and tires. You are traveling slower if
a loss of directional control occurs. Brakes have been known to fail. It
shows mastery of the aircraft. You can turn off the runway sooner for a
potentially shorter taxi time. Turning off the runway sooner is a courtesy
to those waiting to use the runway.

> And one more thing... if we assume that the stall occurs at about 20
> degrees, won't the ensuing nose-down thwack on to the runway do the
> nosewheel strut any harm?

Your assumption would be correct except that 'full-stall landing' is
(usually) a misnomer. The aircraft (usually) doesn't reach critical angle of
attack for a full stall before the wheels touch down. The pilot tries to
reach as high an angle of attack as s/he can before the wheels touch the
ground. This results in low landing speeds and shorter roll-outs.

D.

[Peter Duniho]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. ..
> [...]
> You excerpted that context and created a truncated statement from my reply
> that changed the meaning, and you are still arguing the merits of that
> comment *out of context*.

Actually, just as your reply truncated the thread to the point at which you
felt a need to interject, so did mine. My reply was not intended to address
the earlier post you quote, nor did it.

It *did* however address statements such as "if the aircraft is flying, it
is not landing" (yours, and incorrect) and "If the aircraft is flying and
descending, it is landing" (Mxsmanic's, and basically correct, even if he
does misunderstand other aspects of landing).

>> The absence of a stall warning does not in and of itself suggest an
>> unsafe landing.
>>
> No one claimed that it does, as yet.

True. It's hard to know WHAT you and Dave Doe are claiming, since you
refuse to pin down your ambiguous statements.

>> You guys are engaged in a blatant double-standard in which your own
>> ambiguous terminology is apparently acceptable, while someone else's
>> is grounds for abuse.
>>
> What "double standard" might that be?

Go back and read the post that you quoted. You'll find the answer there.

> Example of such an assumption that I have made, please?

For one, whatever assumption it is that makes you think that "Wrong" is a
correct and valid reply to "If the aircraft is flying and descending, it is
landing".

> [...]
> I am not "predisposed to attacking the guy", yet another presumption that
> you are making that is completely unsubstantiated.

Your own actions justify the presumption. If you weren't predisposed to
attacking him, you would have given him the benefit of the doubt when
interpreting his ambiguous statement.

>> Or on a related note: if you feel my inference of your meaning is
>> incorrect, then correct it.
>>
> See above. It's not only "incorrect", it's completely fabricated by you.

Fabricated? It's an inference. How can an inference NOT be "fabricated"?
It is, by definition, an assumption made by the inferrer to compensate for
insufficient clarity of an original statement.

So again...if you feel my inference is incorrect, feel free to provide a
correction. That would involve clarifying your previous, ambiguous
statement.

> Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find your "descriptions" to
> be much more than obfuscation and generalization,

If you're having so much trouble understanding my posts, I'm amazed you even
know the word "obfuscation".

> and appear to be both
> off the mark in some cases and off-topic in other cases.

For example?

> And, of course, I
> think I've been pretty clear about both those points and the reasons why I
> think so.

In which posts? I've yet to see any that were clear on either point. Feel
free to post a message ID, or Google Groups link, or even just quote the
text you feel substantiates the above claim.

>> I've made clear the context in which my statements are made,
>> including stating the inferences of the meaning of others' ambiguous
>> statements. There's nothing wrong with my statements as is, so if
>> you want to disagree, you need to clarify the meaning of your own
>> ambiguous statements.
>>
> And, of course, you don't find such comments as the above "ambiguous",
> even though there is not one specific reference in the entire paragraph.

You should look up the word "ambiguous". It doesn't mean "without
references".

Pete

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> [...]
>> You excerpted that context and created a truncated statement from my
>> reply that changed the meaning, and you are still arguing the merits
>> of that comment *out of context*.
>
> Actually, just as your reply truncated the thread to the point at
> which you felt a need to interject, so did mine. My reply was not
> intended to address the earlier post you quote, nor did it.
>
> It *did* however address statements such as "if the aircraft is
> flying, it is not landing" (yours, and incorrect)
>
So, you think context is unimportant, and that the changing of context to
create a different meaning is valid. We disagree about that, so there is
nothing more to discuss, here.

Neil

[Sylvain]

Capt.Doug wrote:

> > wrote in message
>> Are there reasons and circumstances, other than when you've a short
>> runway, to recommend full-stall landings?
>
> There is less wear and tear on brakes and tires. You are traveling slower
> if a loss of directional control occurs. Brakes have been known to fail.
> It shows mastery of the aircraft. You can turn off the runway sooner for a
> potentially shorter taxi time. Turning off the runway sooner is a courtesy
> to those waiting to use the runway.

another good reason is: practice. It is a good idea to try to make
every landing a good training opportunity; for instance, try to make
it a precision landing every time, or practice short field or soft
field landing techniques, so that when you really have to get it right,
for instance during an emergency landing, you'll be well prepared.

--Sylvain

[Peter Duniho]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
m...
> So, you think context is unimportant, and that the changing of context to
> create a different meaning is valid.

You are assigning to me a statement of belief I never made. If anything, my
point was the opposite of what you claim it to be.

> We disagree about that, so there is nothing more to discuss, here.

I can certainly agree that if you are going to continue making false
attributions to me, there's not any point in continuing the discussion.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-02, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dylan Smith writes:
>
>> There's more than one way to land an aircraft, though. Take, for
>> example, a tailwheel aircraft. You can land it in the 'three point'
>> attitude (the mains and tailwheel touching down pretty much
>> simultaneously) - which is often called a 'stall landing'. You're not
>> quite actually stalled when this happens - the three point attitude in
>> all the tailwheel planes I've flown has been slightly below the stall
>> angle of attack.
>
> It sounds very difficult. I take it this is where the expression
> "three-point landing" for a difficult task successfully accomplished
> came from?

It's trivially easy, and back in the day when tailwheel aircraft were
used as primary trainers, it's how newly soloed pilots with 8 hours of
flight time did their landings.

Wheel landings tend to be more tricky, because you have to touch down
with virtually nil rate of descent, and add the little bit of forward
stick at just the right time. Get the timing wrong, and you bounce.
However, once mastered it's kind of like 'riding a bike'.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[RK Henry]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:41:26 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>RK Henry writes:
>
>> Of course you can put the airplane on the runway at 100 knots. It's
>> just bad practice. Tires and brakes are expensive. Excess stress on
>> the landing gear can cause expensive damage.
>
>Stalling 20 feet above the runway can do lots of damage, too. I
>suppose that a stall six inches above the runway is harmless, but if
>it's only six inches, why bother? And it cuts things really close to
>try to get a stall only within the last six inches above the runway,
>no more and no less.

Do the math. Flying onto a runway at 100 knots as opposed to say, 60
knots, means that the airplane has to absorb a LOT more energy than
dropping it from just 20 feet.

E = 1/2 MV^2
vs.
E = MGH.

Admittedly, airplanes are better able to absorb energy along their
longitudinal axis than along their vertical axis, but a semi-stalled
airplane isn't going to just fall right down, so 20 feet won't be
quite so painful. A mercy for hapless students and the airplanes that
they rent. You can even mitigate an incipient stall from that height
with a little power, or even initiate a go around.

RK Henry

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Real airplanes and real simulators "care" about such
> details, desktop PC games and simulators don't, which is why
> you can log take-offs and landings in an airplane or a $20
> million full motion/visual sim.

PC simulators do, too.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

RK Henry wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:34:05 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
> >Dave Doe writes:
> >
> >> While the poster can probably put the C182 in MSFS on the ground at
> >> 100kts, or even 75kts - this doesn't happen in the real world.
> >
> >I'm certain that it can be done in the real world. Are you saying
> >that a C182 cannot be made to descend at 100 kts? That the only
> >directions it can go at that speed are straight ahead or up? I find
> >that hard to believe.
>
> Of course you can put the airplane on the runway at 100 knots. It's
> just bad practice. Tires and brakes are expensive. Excess stress on
> the landing gear can cause expensive damage. Some runways are not as
> long as might be desired. When you're barrelling down the runway at
> 100, the airplane is going to take longer to slow down. Maybe
> especially because of ground effect. The tires get shredded from
> touching down so fast. The brakes get burned up trying to stop. And
> you may have that much farther to taxi back to the ramp. Some pilots
> have touched down going so fast that they couldn't get stopped before
> running off the end of the runway, damaging a perfectly good airplane.
>
> It's generally better to touch down as slowly as practicable. And
> what's the slowest speed you can touch down? While touchdown speed may
> need to be adjusted slightly for conditions such as wind or
> turbulence, it's generally better to do your slowing down while on
> approach instead of carrying so much energy all the way to the runway.
> A good reference is the aircraft's POH, or the guidance of an
> instructor. But then, you don't get either of those with a simulator,
> do you?

Touching down at 100 knots in the average light
tricycle-geared airplane will result in "wheelbarrowing" and probably
an accident. The AOA of a wing at that speed is very low, and with
flaps deployed the nose will be well down at touchdown, placing the
nosewheel on the runway with the mains still well above the runway. Now
you have a really nasty taildragger, with the CG a LONG way behind the
landing gear, and it's not controllable.
We land our 172s with the stall horn blaring before touchdown.
The stall horn will sound at 5 to 10 knots above the stall, and if it's
not sounding the touchdown is too fast and flat. The only time any
student here has struck the tail on landing was in soft-field practice,
where too much power was carried into the flare and the nose was raised
too high so that the tail hit when the wing finally gave up. Most light
airplanes are nowhere near stall angle in the max nose-high landing
attitude. The L-19 and maybe the Zenair 701 and 801 might achieve it.
You need long gear legs or really high tail clearance.
Too much speed is often more dangerous than too little.
Porpoising can start if the nosewheel hits first. The airplane can run
off the end of the runway since it spends so much time floating in
ground effect, and with flaps down and too much speed the brakes are
useless. A bounce or a sudden flare often results in ballooning, and
the airplane is likely to run out of airspeed far above the runway and
end up busted.

Dan

[mike regish]

I try to get my stall with the wheels barely touching the pavement. A really
good landing is one where you can't even tell you've touched down.

There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows what
they are.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Stalling 20 feet above the runway can do lots of damage, too. I
> suppose that a stall six inches above the runway is harmless, but if
> it's only six inches, why bother? And it cuts things really close to
> try to get a stall only within the last six inches above the runway,
> no more and no less.

[Jose[_1_]]

> There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows what
> they are.
>
> mike

Snarfed into my sig file. :)

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.

[news.charter.net]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
>I try to get my stall with the wheels barely touching the pavement. A
>really good landing is one where you can't even tell you've touched down.
>
> There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
> what they are.
>
> mike

1. Fly really low.
2. Fly really slow.
3. Keep flying until it stops.

Al G