Landing airplanes

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

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

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

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

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
With all the recent discussion about the landing quirks of various
aircraft, I've started to feel I must be missing something.

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

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

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

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

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

"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

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


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

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

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


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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

In article et,
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

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

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

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

-Robert, CFI

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

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

Dan Luke wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


Matt

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

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

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

Monk

Flyingmonk wrote:

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

Matt Whiting wrote:

The issue is energy management and the
source of energy can be airspeed or power.


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

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


Matt

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



"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Flyingmonk wrote:

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

Matt Whiting wrote:

The issue is energy management and the
source of energy can be airspeed or power.


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

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


Matt