Lessons learned after getting my complex endorsement

FLYGUYRY

FLYGUYRY

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
173
Location
Baltimore
Display Name
Display name:
Ryan_M
1. After going back to a Skyhawk for the first time in about a month, I like low wings a loooot more than high wings. I felt like I couldn't see anything in the C172 yesterday. :eek:

2. The PA28R doesn't quite glide as bad as a brick, but maybe a brick with a parachute that's too small ;)

3. Call me crazy but once you get the feel for it, I think (the PA28R anyways) is easier to land than a Skyhawk. I like carrying power into a landing because I feel like it gives me more control instead of just pulling the throttle all the way out and letting it glide in.

Just the thoughts of a 170ish hour pilot, take them with a grain of salt ;) Next up is some multi time in a Grumman Cougar
 
Glad you had fun. Low wings often touch town easier because you get more of a ground effect cushion, but really it's a matter of which plane fits your flying style more than anything else.

If you think the Arrow glides like a brick, let me take you up in the Navion with full flaps and the gear out :)
 
Not quite. The new engine has been shipped and now we're down to putting that (and the new engine instruments in).

By the way, if you're around this Saturday, the NC26 flyin is happening. Oddly, I have to disappear for a few hours, but if you drop by you can see what's been consuming my time over the past year (My house at midfield is about 80% finsihed).
 
flyingron said:
Glad you had fun. Low wings often touch town easier because you get more of a ground effect cushion, but really it's a matter of which plane fits your flying style more than anything else.

If you think the Arrow glides like a brick, let me take you up in the Navion with full flaps and the gear out :)
Click to expand...

haha well, yeah I'm sure compared to many other aircraft out there it does quite well, but compared to a Skyhawk, the brick comparison seems at least somewhat fitting.
 
FLYGUYRY said:
3. Call me crazy but once you get the feel for it, I think (the PA28R anyways) is easier to land than a Skyhawk. I like carrying power into a landing because I feel like it gives me more control instead of just pulling the throttle all the way out and letting it glide in.
Click to expand...

You're crazy. :) (You asked for it!)

You don't need power to land either one. :)
 
I’ve always liked low wings better than high wings, but am pretty sure it’s mostly because I learned how to fly in a low wing. My time in both is probably about the same, but I may have a bit more hours in high wings.

I agree with @denverpilot. You don’t need power to land either.
 
You guys pull power out before the flare in a PA28? Well, I was taught to slowly ease it out over the numbers and start the flare while at the same time cutting power, seems to work perfect to me (shrug)
 
Cherokees are easier to land than Skyhawks. Biggest thing about transitioning into a complex aircraft (at least from my point of view) is the world goes by much more quickly, so you have to learn not to get behind the aircraft.
 
I tend to land the Arrow with a little bit of power down final and chop it as I round out, but that's not me.
 
FLYGUYRY said:
You guys pull power out before the flare in a PA28? Well, I was taught to slowly ease it out over the numbers and start the flare while at the same time cutting power, seems to work perfect to me (shrug)
Click to expand...

Anyone who's ever done a Commercial rating has pulled the power at pattern altitude, abeam the numbers, and never put it back in, all the way to touchdown, lots and lots and lots of times. ;)

Your instructor has done it. Have them show you one. ;) Try a couple.

It's both fun and educational about energy management... of a brick.. with the landing gear extended just to give you the joy of a little more drag. :)

Thus... "You don't need power to land either one."
 
First thing I "learned" after my complex endorsement is that they'll climb better with the gear up, and if they're not performing as they usually do, check the gear and flaps...
 
denverpilot said:
Anyone who's ever done a Commercial rating has pulled the power at pattern altitude, abeam the numbers, and never put it back in, all the way to touchdown, lots and lots and lots of times. ;)

Your instructor has done it. Have them show you one. ;) Try a couple.

It's both fun and educational about energy management... of a brick.. with the landing gear extended just to give you the joy of a little more drag. :)

Thus... "You don't need power to land either one."
Click to expand...
Of course where you end up landing .....
 
Mistake Not... said:
First thing I "learned" after my complex endorsement is that they'll climb better with the gear up, and if they're not performing as they usually do, check the gear and flaps...
Click to expand...

Probably the one to key in on early is the opposite: Why is this thing so fast and won't slow down? Right after you turn final or get vectored there in some roundabout way that's not the norm.

It's a BIG hint if your three other checks somehow missed it before your final over the numbers check. Airspeed fast and it won't slow up... maybe take a peek at that gear indicator...

Might save someone a gear up someday to mention it. So there ya go.
 
FLYGUYRY said:
You guys pull power out before the flare in a PA28? Well, I was taught to slowly ease it out over the numbers and start the flare while at the same time cutting power, seems to work perfect to me (shrug)
Click to expand...

I owned a 1965 Cherokee 180 for about a year. And yes, carrying power to the flare is what you "typically" do for a stabilized approach. But it's not necessary. Leading up to my commercial I'd often just pull power abeam and it taught me a lot about energy management.

You would be surprised how far they can actually go, even when you think there is nothing left.

But yeah, a hershey-wing Cherokee is gonna definitely have a smaller glide range then a Skyhawk, or even a tapered wing Cherokee. I flew a tapered wing Archer/Cherokee and man, it's pretty amazing how wing shape changes things.
 
Last edited:
murphey said:
Of course where you end up landing .....
Click to expand...

Dead center of the point you called out when you pulled the power... if you did it right. :)

Don't know these guys from Adam but here's someone who did it to ACS standards on what sounds like their first attempt at it. Maybe. He may have squeaked a little past 200' but his instructor is doing good praising him on the first one.

Also looks like they're flying one of those goofy low-wing airplanes y'all are talkin' about. :)


"Comes down quick..." :)

He didn't need flaps but I'd have snuck just a touch of slip in there to kill about 5 knots of speed on that one to hit the marker. Because you can always take a slip back out. If you commit to the flaps you'll need to leave them in.

I say that now, but I wouldn't have thought of it during my first one, either. :)

Juuuuuuuust a touch more drag in short final and he had that absolutely nailed. But better to be a little long and fix that, than a whole lot short.
 
Different techniques for landings, and they're all fine as long as one touches down (and stays down:)) within the first third of a runway. But all planes can be landed with power, some glide like a crowbar, others almost like a feather. As Denverpilot mentioned, the 180* Accuracy Approach and Landing is required training and tested on the commercial check ride. Good maneuver to know your airplanes characteristics.

From Comm ACS:
Power Off 180° Accuracy Approach and Landing (ASEL, ASES)
References
FAA H8083
- POH/AFM
Objective
To determine that the applicant exhibits satisfactory knowledge, risk management, and skills
associated with a power-off 180° accuracy approach and landing.
 
The biggest difference I found happened when I went back to an Archer after getting hours in an Arrow: I realized I was a lot more ahead of the airplane.
 
FLYGUYRY said:
easier to land than a Skyhawk
Click to expand...
I honestly find all the low wings I've flown to be easier to land than a Skyhawk. The Skyhawk just feels very "dumpy" on final and loose, whereas the low wings, even the Cirrus, feel more stabilized on the approach and settle into a smooth flair and touch down much more "professionally"

I don't think it's a rigging issue as I have time in many many Skyhawks and they all feel the same

Having said that, they're good docile trainers and for first time pax the two doors and wider feeling cabin make this a great plane to bring someone up in who's never been in a GA plane before
 
In my last flight review the CFI was having me do short field landings. He kept telling me to pull the power out way too early and I straight up told him that you can't really do that in this plane. He didn't believe me, so he did the next one and dropped the plane in so hard, it was one of the scariest moments I've had while flying. He apologized profusely and said "you know your plane better than I do". I think, in part, it has something to do with the three blade prop, which not all Sierra's have...when you pull the prop back it's like releasing a speed brake. It'll float in okay with the prop back, but I keep ~ 40% power until I'm over the numbers if I have the prop full forward on landing.
 
Challenged said:
In my last flight review the CFI was having me do short field landings. He kept telling me to pull the power out way too early and I straight up told him that you can't really do that in this plane. He didn't believe me, so he did the next one and dropped the plane in so hard, it was one of the scariest moments I've had while flying. He apologized profusely and said "you know your plane better than I do". I think, in part, it has something to do with the three blade prop, which not all Sierra's have...when you pull the prop back it's like releasing a speed brake. It'll float in okay with the prop back, but I keep ~ 40% power until I'm over the numbers if I have the prop full forward on landing.
Click to expand...
Even a Sierra with a three-bladed prop doesn't require power...you just have to know how to manage your energy.
 
It can be done...it ain't comfortable. I should go up and take a video, because other pilots seem to have a lot of difficulty believing it (including my CFI).
 
Challenged said:
It can be done...it ain't comfortable. I should go up and take a video, because other pilots seem to have a lot of difficulty believing it (including my CFI).
Click to expand...
If you hit the elevator stop in the flare, you're too slow. But beyond that, for a short field landing, "comfortable" isn't a criteria. ;)
 
I guess the best way to demonstrate the difference between aircraft would be descent rate while in landing configuration at approach speed?
 
Challenged said:
It can be done...it ain't comfortable. I should go up and take a video, because other pilots seem to have a lot of difficulty believing it (including my CFI).
Click to expand...

What's uncomfortable about it? Honestly curious.

I wouldn't be uncomfortable even riding in a C-130 doing a tactical approach with all of its flaps hanging out and the props in beta... or whatever they do with the props in those when doing that.

Steep descents are required when drag is high. Sometimes even desirable. Trade altitude for airspeed. Totally normal for all airplanes.

And they're even "stabilized", for that particular methodology crowd. They're just steep.

No reason to feel "uncomfortable" about it, as long as the ASI isn't headed for the bottom peg. Maybe a little surprised the first time as you realize the seat belt is actually keeping you from sliding forward out of the seat... :)
 
All just energy mgmt

My first job was in a turbo arrow 4, really liked that plane.
 
The higher the descent rate in landing, the smaller the flare window, correct? Or am I missing something. For exaggerated effect, surely an aircraft with a 5,000 fpm rate of descent would be more difficult to land than one with a 500 fpm rate of descent, no?
 
Challenged said:
The higher the descent rate in landing, the smaller the flare window, correct? Or am I missing something. For exaggerated effect, surely an aircraft with a 5,000 fpm rate of descent would be more difficult to land than one with a 500 fpm rate of descent, no?
Click to expand...
Not sure. The Shuttle guys seemed to do a nice job. Extremely steep and no power.
 
Dunno, maybe I would be more comfortable if I flew more than twice a month. My CFI botching the landing when he tried it without power solidified my thinking on the issue, but maybe I should practice it some more.
 
Some of these techniques may not work for something a Mooney. Not sure, I own but by no means am an expert in, flying one.

For one thing, if you land too hard, the shock disks are going to bounce you. Very little dampening going on there. And if you don't keep the nose up during, it'll hit hard, and I have less prop clearance than most. And, it's slick, so it's sensitive to approach speed.

It's been a while since the flight review, but seemed like the best short field landings were done at minimum airspeed and a shallow descent angle. Short field over an obstacle is just no fair. :)
 
FLYGUYRY said:
I like carrying power into a landing because I feel like it gives me more control instead of just pulling the throttle all the way out and letting it glide in.
Click to expand...

Most new pilots develop that habit. I know I did. The controls "feel better" because of the extra speed. When I started instructing in a 172 I learned power management. When I started doing short soft field landings in bigger planes I really learned energy management.

I haven't flown a 172 in almost 20 years, but I remember that it felt top heavy to me.
 
Mistake Not... said:
Some of these techniques may not work for something a Mooney. Not sure, I own but by no means am an expert in, flying one.

For one thing, if you land too hard, the shock disks are going to bounce you. Very little dampening going on there. And if you don't keep the nose up during, it'll hit hard, and I have less prop clearance than most. And, it's slick, so it's sensitive to approach speed.

It's been a while since the flight review, but seemed like the best short field landings were done at minimum airspeed and a shallow descent angle. Short field over an obstacle is just no fair. :)
Click to expand...
If you only do them every couple minutes of years, proficiency isn't going to happen. Keep in mind that a lack of proficiency isn't the same as an airplane that can't do it. ;)
 
Awesome. Come fly it. Show me sitting it down hard on the mains and not bouncing. I'd love to see the technique. We couldn't figure it out.
 
For what its worth guys, my own prop strike in my own Mooney was because I came in over trees power-off. I was right on the money speed wise, but the aircraft didn't have enough energy to arrest the sink in the flair. A few mph more airspeed or 12" of manifold pressure would have saved it. Expensive lesson. I should learn to do power off 180s in the aircraft though, to get a better handle on energy amazement
 
Love flying low wing. Just really hate getting in and out of a low wing. That's where Cessna wins for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top