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

In article .com,
"Michael" wrote:

hold the back pressure on roll out.

How much? As much as you had on touchdown? More? Does it matter?

Any good taildragger pilot can tell you the correct answer... the stick
should be sucked all the way back into your gut on roll out. :-))

"Michael" 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,

How close is close? How fast are you going before you start the
roundout? How much do you lift the nose in the roundout, and how
quickly?

I think what I'm doing is feeling for ground effect. As the ground effect
increases, I'm increasing AOA, managing sink with power if necessary.
Ground effect is a very palpable thing to me.

How quickly do you preduce the power?

Depends on how much energy I have arriving at the roundout point and on the
sink rate.

And most importantly,
what cues are you using to judge all these things?

Runway picture, seat-of-the-pants sink rate, deck angle, elevator feel.

increase back pressure to hold it off as long as it will keep flying

How do you know when it won't keep flying anymore?

I don't. I'm hoping to be within inches of the runway when it gives up.

hold the back pressure on roll out.

How much? As much as you had on touchdown? More? Does it matter?

More; it's what I was taught.

The amount of power I carry might vary a bit

That's only one variable. There are others. Really, the principal
variables are speed, height, power, and pitch (assuming for the moment
a constant configuration) - and the rates of change on all of them -
throughout the landing maneuver. There is a relationship between them
- you need to keep the variables within the acceptable envelope for the
airplane to make a good landing. There are tradeoffs involved - after
all, you're really just managing energy and there are many acceptable
solutions.

but one airplane lands pretty
much like another, it seems to me; I've never had trouble with any of
them.

If you're consistently making good landings, you're getting the
variables all right (or close enough, anyway) so you must understand
the relationships involved (primarily energy management) - but maybe
only implicitly, the way an outfielder understands the differential
equations that govern the path of the ball so as to consistently put
his glove where the ball will be without ever having taken a calculus
class.


It certainly seems intuitive in my case. I don't know what I'm doing; I
just do it.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:

"Michael" 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,

How close is close? How fast are you going before you start the
roundout? How much do you lift the nose in the roundout, and how
quickly?


I think what I'm doing is feeling for ground effect. As the ground effect
increases, I'm increasing AOA, managing sink with power if necessary.
Ground effect is a very palpable thing to me.

Yes, I can generally feel it also.


How quickly do you preduce the power?


Depends on how much energy I have arriving at the roundout point and on the
sink rate.

I reduce the power to idle on downwind and generally leave it at idle.
Saves having to reduce it later. :-) This, is for visual approaches,
not instrument approaches. For the latter, I pull the power to idle
just before crossing the runway threshold.

The only airplane I don't do this with is the club Arrow I now fly as
with the three blade prop that was installed two years ago, the
power-off glide is abysmal. I generally carry 15" or so until just shy
of the threshold and then reduce to idle.


And most importantly,
what cues are you using to judge all these things?


Runway picture, seat-of-the-pants sink rate, deck angle, elevator feel.

Yep, that's about how I do it as well. The rate at which your
passengers or instructor tenses up can also be an indication of when to
flare. :-)


increase back pressure to hold it off as long as it will keep flying

How do you know when it won't keep flying anymore?


I don't. I'm hoping to be within inches of the runway when it gives up.

Most airplanes I've flow will begin to feel mushy as the stall nears,
but as you say, I try to be within 6" of the runway such that the stall
let's me settle on quite nicely most of the time.


hold the back pressure on roll out.

How much? As much as you had on touchdown? More? Does it matter?


More; it's what I was taught.

I was taught to pull the wheel all the way back prior to touchdown and
hold it there until the nosewheel settles to the runway. This worked
great in Cessnas, but doesn't work well in Pipers with the stabilator
tail. The Arrow I now fly will drop the nosewheel with a thud if I do
this. So, in it, I pull the wheel all the way back and then as soon as
the mains touch, I start lowering the nose before the airspeed bleeds
off to avoid the thud.


The amount of power I carry might vary a bit

That's only one variable. There are others. Really, the principal
variables are speed, height, power, and pitch (assuming for the moment
a constant configuration) - and the rates of change on all of them -
throughout the landing maneuver. There is a relationship between them
- you need to keep the variables within the acceptable envelope for the
airplane to make a good landing. There are tradeoffs involved - after
all, you're really just managing energy and there are many acceptable
solutions.


but one airplane lands pretty
much like another, it seems to me; I've never had trouble with any of
them.

If you're consistently making good landings, you're getting the
variables all right (or close enough, anyway) so you must understand
the relationships involved (primarily energy management) - but maybe
only implicitly, the way an outfielder understands the differential
equations that govern the path of the ball so as to consistently put
his glove where the ball will be without ever having taken a calculus
class.



It certainly seems intuitive in my case. I don't know what I'm doing; I
just do it.

It sounds to me from your description above that you know what you are
doing. I do what I was taught. I was taught by a very good flight
instructor (he was written up a few years back in AOPA Pilot) who has
more flight hours than all but a handful of pilots in the USA. Every
landing was a power-off spot landing so the whole concept of carrying
power through the approach and then cutting it back before landing was
foreign to me until I started my instrument training and flying into
more larger airports.

It really felt odd at first flying those long, shallow approaches, but I
still was taught even then to pull the power at or slightly before
threshold crossing. Even most airline pilots seem to do this even with
the large jets. I doubt they pull back completely to idle, but they
sure pull back the power after crossing the threshold. And these jets
don't just fall with a thud either.


Matt