Full Stall Landing?

In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as slow
as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it to the
ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.

This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
touchdown.

Any comments?

Danny Dot

"Danny Dot" wrote in message
...
Any comments?

Yeah, we had this thread already.

"Danny Dot" wrote in message
...
In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as
slow as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it
to the ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.

This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
touchdown.

Any comments?

Danny Dot

Depends on the airplane and the situation. Some aircraft do full stall
landings very well, others don't. Sometimes the way you have the aircraft
loaded makes a difference. Depending on your level of proficiency, you may
be able to land shorter using one technique vs the other.

Bottom line... It depends.

KB

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:36:36 GMT, "Danny Dot"
wrote:

In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as slow
as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it to the
ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.

This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
touchdown.

Any comments?

I like to get the yoke back to the aft stop. On the PA28, that's mush
country. On the Stinson and the Taylorcraft, I called it a stall.

Don

Learn to fly a real airplane.

Karl;



"Danny Dot" wrote in message
...
In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as
slow as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it
to the ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.

This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
touchdown.

Any comments?

Danny Dot

"karl gruber" wrote in message
...
Learn to fly a real airplane.


I don't understand the comment. I don't recall saying what planes I have
flown.

Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org

Danny Dot wrote:
In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as slow
as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it to the
ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.

This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
touchdown.

I full stall my Mooney. Wheels touch when yoke is at stops.

-Robert

Don Tuite wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:36:36 GMT, "Danny Dot"
wrote:

In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as slow
as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it to the
ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.

This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
touchdown.

Any comments?

I like to get the yoke back to the aft stop. On the PA28, that's mush
country. On the Stinson and the Taylorcraft, I called it a stall.

In my Maule, the yoke full back is a rough landing or lucky - but a 3
pointer is
practically always desired

Robert M. Gary wrote:
Danny Dot wrote:
In my opinion the use of the term "Full Stall Landing" is a misnomer. At
least for me the term "Extreme Slow Flight Landing" would be better. I
don't put the wings into a full stall before touch down when I land as slow
as possible. I put the airplane on the edge of the stall and fly it to the
ground. I also use feel of the airplane more that airspeed.

This works for me. Maybe others attempt and get a full stall before
touchdown.

I full stall my Mooney. Wheels touch when yoke is at stops.

-Robert

Very few airplanes will reach stall angle in the landing
attitude. The gear won't allow it. Most pilots are seeing sink, or at
most, partiall stall, not full stall. It's proven when a sudden gust
lifts the airplane clear of the pavement just after touchdown even with
the nose all the way up.
The AOA would need to be 17 or 18 degrees to reach stall.
Measure your wing chord against level with the tailwheel on the ground
or the tail of a trike just clear of the ground, and you'll likely find
something like 12 or 15 degrees. Remember, too, that the stall speed
in ground effect is considerably lower than the book value.
I did some quick and dirty chord angle measurements in the
hangar. The Citabria has 12 degrees in the three-point attitude, and
the 172 has 14 at the root and 12 at the tip with the tail right on the
ground. With the flaps down there's 25 degrees at the root. So the wing
would stall inboard if the tail was really close to the runway, but the
rest of the wing is still flying.

Dan

wrote:
Very few airplanes will reach stall angle in the landing
attitude. The gear won't allow it. Most pilots are seeing sink, or at
most, partiall stall, not full stall. It's proven when a sudden gust
lifts the airplane clear of the pavement just after touchdown even with
the nose all the way up.
The AOA would need to be 17 or 18 degrees to reach stall.
Measure your wing chord against level with the tailwheel on the ground
or the tail of a trike just clear of the ground, and you'll likely find
something like 12 or 15 degrees. Remember, too, that the stall speed
in ground effect is considerably lower than the book value.
I did some quick and dirty chord angle measurements in the
hangar. The Citabria has 12 degrees in the three-point attitude, and
the 172 has 14 at the root and 12 at the tip with the tail right on the
ground. With the flaps down there's 25 degrees at the root. So the wing
would stall inboard if the tail was really close to the runway, but the
rest of the wing is still flying.

In this context I'm not sure what a "full stall" means but the wing is
certainly not without lift. The Citabria is almost a special example
though. In the 3pt position, the Citabria (or at least the Decthalon
that I instructed in) is no where near stall. You fly it right onto the
runway in the 3pt position. If you did full stall it, the mains come
down in a crash.
The J-3 is different. You really need to be pretty close to the stops
to have the tail touch down at teh same time. However, the J-3 is
forgiving and if you touch down with the tail still a foot up, the
plane will be nice to you. However, the wing still does produce lift.
In the Chief, I often had the upwind wing lift up as I pulled off the
runway at about 5mph during a gust (forgetting to set the controls for
the wind). So, if that is your definition of full-stall in this
context, then it certainly isn't.



-Robert, CFII