"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