High on Final, Summary; was Polar with spoilers extended?

Tim Taylor wrote:

'Maybe, but can you dive, lose the altitude, decelerate
and get it on the ground for a tail wheel first, full
stall landing?'

Don't miss out an a VERY important lesson I nearly
learnd the hard way, on the home field, in front of
many of my friends. And that lesson is:

'NEVER let the disire to make a NICE landing over-rule
the need to make a SAFE one.'

If you are going into a short field, I would suggets
that you NEVER hold it off to get a full stall, tail
first landing. Get over the obstacles and get it
on the ground. A wheel rolling through dirt will slow
you down much faster than just about any set of divebrakes.
And if working in concert with open divebrakes will
stop you that much faster.

My situatuion was a down wind landing after a training
rope break. We had more than enough runway to land
ahead, not quite enough behind to do a 180 and land
back in the other direction, but not really enough
to do a 360 and not end up as far down the runway.
I didn't want to put it all the way at the upwind
end of the field, so I told the instructor I was going
to fly straight ahead to get lower, then turn around
and land downwind. (Yes, you can see mistake number
one, can't you!) We were as something between 300
and 400 feet in a 2-33.

All went well on the upwind glide, good speed established,
and a good turn to downwind. Trouble is, we didn't
get as far upwind as I thought we would be, and we
were going downwind faster than I thought. I (stupidly.
See mistake number two!) was holding it off to get
a smooth landing, with the end of the runway (and the
cars and trees and all my fellow clubmembers) coming
at us rather fast, when the insturctor said 'PUT IT
ON THE GROUND!' Which I promptly did, put the nose
skid on the ground, and started the turn to go off
the side of the runway instead of into the cars and
trees.

We stopped before getting to any of the above (cars,
trees, or the edge of the paved runway).

Emphasis of the above lesson: Landing out, one mile
from the airport, in the outflow of a thuderstorm,
into the corner of center pivot irrigated field. So,
the diagonal is maybe 700 feet, and there are power
lines on the approch end. My last off airport landing
was on a gusty day. The airplane went quiet and pretty
much dropped in from about 50 feet. I grabbed the
last of the flaps, rounded out, and touched down right
at the edge of the field. For a photo from this landing,
see:

http://www.gliderforum.com/photos/sh...umid=122¤tpos=
3

So, I was a bit high, (it was a straight in to the
field, with a 45 degree turn into the wind and to align
with the diagonal of the field), and a bit hot, as
I didn't want to end up in the lines. I rounded out,
felt like the field was going by faster than I wanted,
but knew I needed to stop. I eased the stick forward
and put the nose and wheel into the dirt. The plane
hopped up, and I put it back down. Not hard, but firm.
Stopped, and still had at least 250 feet of field
remaining.

If the field is short, don't hold it off for a slow
touchdown. Get it on the ground so it can get stopped
before you get to trouble.

Sorry, I got a bit away from the topic of the thread,
but I feel it is important to remember that not every
landing should be minimum energy at touchdown. There
are times when you should stick it on, as you will
then be minimum energy where it counts the most: at
the edge of the safe landing and rollout area.

OK, I should have changed this to 'The approach is
important, but so is the landing!'

Steve Leonard
Wichita, KS

Steve Leonard wrote:
Tim Taylor wrote:

'Maybe, but can you dive, lose the altitude, decelerate
and get it on the ground for a tail wheel first, full
stall landing?'

Don't miss out an a VERY important lesson I nearly
learned the hard way, on the home field, in front of
many of my friends. And that lesson is:

'NEVER let the desire to make a NICE landing over-rule
the need to make a SAFE one.'

Details snipped


If the field is short, don't hold it off for a slow
touchdown. Get it on the ground so it can get stopped
before you get to trouble.

Sorry, I got a bit away from the topic of the thread,
but I feel it is important to remember that not every
landing should be minimum energy at touchdown. There
are times when you should stick it on, as you will
then be minimum energy where it counts the most: at
the edge of the safe landing and rollout area.

OK, I should have changed this to 'The approach is
important, but so is the landing!'

Steve Leonard
Wichita, KS


What Steve said...it's ALL important. As a bare minimum, do what you
need to do to get down, and stopped, safely. (I define 'safely' as
being able to fly the same plane again without intervening repairs - to
it OR to me!)

I'm pretty sure the textbook (which we all own, right?) for the Flight
Instruction 101 Course looks askance at newsgroup-originated
instruction, but value can be found in many places. To me, value exists
in threads as these...so long as your Critical Thought button remains
functional. IMHO, so far Tim's numerical-exercise-based-question and
the many responses it's generated, have contained lots of useful food
for thought. Some has been more or less universally useful, some
tending to the ship specific, and some controversial (natcherly each of
us gets to define 'controversial').

It's in those non-universal 'gray areas' that real value can oftentimes
be winnowed out...regardless of which view of the controversy one
presently holds.

My - U.S.-based - soaring experience tends toward the ship-specific
(rather than, say, the ship-generalist). The bulk of my hours are in
but 3 different types, while the rest of my time (in about 9 other
types) totals probably less than 300 hours.

Recognizing that all generalizations are false, including this
one...it's my working conclusion, soaring 'ship-generalists' (often)
tend toward the more dogmatic side of an inherently complex/nuanced
situation, while 'ship-specialists' (often) recognize the presence of
those nuances. I suspect the difference is ship-specific experience.
Regardless, either approach will work...so long as the laws of physics
aren't inadvertently toyed with. That noted, when it comes to trying to
deepen my understanding of (and ability to effectively deal with)
soaring problems, I tend to work from the general to the specific.
Understanding the general helps me internalize underlying beliefs (and
ultimately, actions), while dealing with the specifics requires respect
for 'the devil's in the details.' Soaring by rote isn't something I'm
comfortable with.

Approaches - I fly mine with great faith in my own answer to the
question, "What's more important in the pattern, airspeed or
coordination?" (*That's* pretty general!)

Approach Altitude/Angle - I've yet to encounter a sensible rationale to
NOT make mine on the high side of whatever ship I'm flying's drag cone.
N.B. What's high for one ship may be thoughtlessly low for another
(e.g. unmodified early St'd Cirrus/Libelle vs. 'non-wimpy' AS W-20).

Approach Airspeed - my target airspeed is consistent with field
length/pattern-winds/personal currency...and I work damn hard to
maintain my target airspeed to within a needle's width on the ASI. The
yaw string gets equal respect and attention. Both consistent with
'everything else' that needs to be monitored during each approach...

Real World patterns have included 'back side of the energy curve' final
approaches, S-turn finals, high-speed/parasite drag finals, low
approaches, high approaches...pretty much the gamut of what's been
discussed so far. The only ones that have alarmed *me* (microbursts
aside) were a few low finals (Majorly Stupid for any number of The Usual
Suspect reasons), and one thought-I-might-be-too-high final (in a
new-to-me ship). The rest were merely doing what needed to be done to
get safely down and stopped. The fact others may have believed some of
them occasionally abbie-normal has never been a major concern of mine so
long as I'm not gratuitously putting others at risk by *being* abbie-normal.

Touchdown Technique - mine is consistent with those same three approach
factors. Consequently, I 'routinely' make 2-pointers and lowish-energy
wheel landings, as well as occasional high-speed wheel landings (once at
~70 knots in a tail-dragging single-seat glider in a 25-30-knot direct
crosswind). 'Style points' are nice, but 'safe touchdown/stop' trumps
'beauty.'

My off-field experience seems similar to Tim's (i.e. mostly self-taught
[not to be interpreted as exclusive of voluminous reading and
considerable thought], perhaps 20 [all successful] instances, always
with [at least] a full rectangular pattern). My eyeballs are more
important than the altimeter in gauging height for OFL's, and I believe
it's Highly Personally Risky to not be in a 4-sided pattern by the time
a thermalling save is no longer an option.

I guess my major point in philosophizing like this is to suggest that -
except for the sensibility of not voluntarily tempting fate by
inadvertently marginalizing the laws of physics - no one size fits all,
once you're out there in the Real Soaring World, away from your
instructors' govermentally-blessed hands. I learn (and sometimes
re-learn) something every time I ride and soar with one, and am grateful
for every instructor I've flown with, officially or unofficially.
(Incidentally, that statement is true for all non-instructors I've flown
with, too.)

By way of conclusion, here's a thought problem for some dogmatic
readers. I no longer worry about not having a slip in the landing
arsenal of the ship I have most of my time in. Oh, it'll slip just
fine, but its descent rate in a non-turning slip is significantly less
than what it generates in the slip's absence. How can this be???

Regards,
Bob - ruminatively - W.

Bob Whelan wrote:

By way of conclusion, here's a thought problem for some dogmatic
readers. I no longer worry about not having a slip in the landing
arsenal of the ship I have most of my time in. Oh, it'll slip just
fine, but its descent rate in a non-turning slip is significantly less
than what it generates in the slip's absence. How can this be???

Are you considering the descent rate in the slip *without* flaps all the
way out? If not, then maybe the airspeed gets so low in a slip, because
the Zoo-knee (or is it Zoo-nye?...only in Denver I guess ;-) ), that
the vertical vector is smaller in the slip.


Shawn

shawn wrote:


...its descent rate in a non-turning slip is significantly less
than what it generates in the slip's absence. How can this be?


Your airspeed is too high in the slip, probably because the ship does
not have enough rudder to keep the nose high in the configuration you
are using.

The 2-33 and many other aircraft--both powered and unpowered--have the
same problem.



Jack

"Bob Whelan" wrote in message
...

By way of conclusion, here's a thought problem for some dogmatic readers.
I no longer worry about not having a slip in the landing arsenal of the
ship I have most of my time in. Oh, it'll slip just fine, but its descent
rate in a non-turning slip is significantly less than what it generates in
the slip's absence. How can this be???

Regards,
Bob - ruminatively - W.

Check the LS-4 Pilot Handbook. It says that slips with full airbrake are not
so effective because airbrake causes a strong nose-down pitching moment, and
airspeed increases excessively.

In practice, I have found this to be so---Full airbrake alone produces a
steeper approach than full airbrake plus slip.

Is that the case in your ship?

Hartley Falbaum
"KF" USA