Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Pilot Training' started by RonP, May 2, 2019.
I just round out, close the throttle and hope for the best
In my 67' PA28-180C............I do the same thing...........except I also close my eyes!!
If that’s the case, why do we have this exact discussion regarding landing jets?
Because pilots like to argue?
Let's see, the T-tail's out of the jet wash either way so there's no advantage there. With inop brakes and no other means of stopping, the plane won't decelerate below about 50 kts, probably, due to residual thrust, so landing with thrust doesn't help get stopped. My guess is, keeping in mind I never heard this discussion myself, the drag devices are so effective and the engines need to be kept so spooled up for quicker thrust response to downdrafts that if you cut the thrust in the air the high drag will cause a sudden drop in altitude—kerplunk.
No, it’s “landings are better with thrust kept in until touchdown,” or “I’m not comfortable landing at idle.”
The last guy who told me the second one bent the gear doing 3-point landings in a 30-knot crosswind.
I’ve never flown an airplane, whether single engine, multiengine, taildragger, turboprop, or jet, that “required” power to land smoothly under most conditions. Some of them carried tremendous drag when configured to land...try 52 degrees of Fowler flaps.
I’ve flown with a lot of pilots I respect who normally carry a little power to landing in these same airplanes, and pilots for whom I believe power was a crutch. The difference is that the ones for whom it wasn’t a crutch put the airplane on the runway where they wanted to, at a reasonable speed and attitude, where the “crutch” pilots touched down with no positive control over where and how they touched down.
In extreme cases, damaging the airplane (see my post #46) or flying past 3000-4000 feet of runway before touching down.
I find that landing a Hershey Bar Arrow with a touch of power in is definitely the way to go. In a Hershey Bar fixed gear Cherokee, it isn't really necessary for a smooth landing.
If you learned in a Cessna, there are very good reasons for that. They are pretty awful in crosswinds to begin with and the wing low technique that is often best for landing a Cessna in a crosswind works best with less flaps.
In a Cherokee, I've been told different things by different instructors. I really think it depends on how comfortable you are using your feet. I personally like to land full flaps in most situations in Cherokees, but there are times where I'll consider only being a the second notch.
Uh, why? I had to do a full flap go around just over the threshold on my PPL checkride in a Cherokee. Handled it like a dream. You just throttle up and dump the first notch - same procedure as a power off stall, only the wing is still flying, so you will absolutely climb.
That's also a recipe for a tail strike if your hand-eye coordination isn't excellent.
A 172 is a completely different thing.
The Cessna high wing catches a little more wind, making them bit more squirrely in cross winds. Cherokees not so much. Don't recall using partial flaps in a crosswind. If it's that bad I'll go find a runway better angled into the prevailing wind. Isn't that important to land my home dome, we all have cars, or Uber. If the crosswind is that bad speed up a bit, more air over the control surfaces will give you more control authority. Cherokee is nice and draggy, it'll slow itself down when the time comes.
If you've two big guys in front you'll want some power on landing, you'll be out of the forward CG range unless you stow something heavy in the back. Other than that power off for landing. If you can't land a Cherokee, time to take up another hobby, knitting perhaps. Nothing easier to land than a Cherokee.
dtuuri nailed it without using the phrase "flat plate drag." Get out your Airplane Flying Handbook and look at Figure 12-3, which shows drag vs blade angle. A windmilling prop creates a lot of drag and, as dtuuri points out, disturbed airflow over the horizontal stabilizer. Just a tad of power puts the blade angle in the sweet spot between adding thrust and too much drag....putting it in neutral, in automotive terms.
Wind is wind. The Cessna has a higher center of gravity is a little less stable. And no you don’t have to carry power to properly land an H-bar Piper.
The plane will "stop flying" and land with power in. Its a question of how much power. I look at seaplane landings as the best example of this... In most conditions the conventional teaching is to cut the power to idle once landing is assured but there are 2 instances in which this does not work. Rough water landings where it is necessary to land more nose up than normal in order to avoid burying the float into a swell and glassy water landings where the loss of depth perception over the water due to the reflectiveness of the water makes it difficult to properly set the plane down on the water with the tendency being to flare too high and dropping the plane in from a high altitude or to miss the flare altogether and crash into the water.
The solution developed particularly for glassy water landings is to set yourself up in the landing attitude over something that provides good depth perception (pretty much anything other than the reflective surface of the water), add a bit of power and then wait for it. There's no flare involved; you literally fly the plane onto the water. They call it the 3 P's, Pitch, Power, Patience. The aircraft will continue to fly at the speed you set and will continue to sink but at a much slower rate than it would at power idle. You will take longer getting down but eventually the plane meets the water at the reference attitude initially set without having to flare and you are then able to reduce power to idle. The power involved in the glassy water landing is also typically going to be higher than the power settings being discussed here of 100-rpm above idle.
The solution developed for rough water is somewhat similar except you are at a lower altitude since you're over the water, it requires less power since you dont have to worry about get out over the water and can flare and it requires much less patience and distance due to the lower altitude and lower power but also due to the higher pitch involved. For rough water, you setup for landing normally and as you get closer to the water and begin your round-out and flare, you increase the RPM and continue to increase the pitch up of the flare so that you are "hanging the plane off the prop." It's not enough power to take you back into the air but it is enough to give you the pitch attitude to set the plane down slowly and on the back half of the floats without stalling.
Power is similarly used in tailwheel flying for wheel-landings to control the rate of descent as you literally fly the airplane onto the ground.
Why was he doing 3-pt landings in a 30-kt crosswind? That sounds less like a "gee maybe I would have avoided damaging my plane had I not kept the power in" and more like a "gee maybe I would have avoided damaging my plane if I had selected the correct landing type for the conditions, assuming I should have been flying in those conditions at all." The typical recommendation I've seen for wheel landings is to keep some amount of power in and to transition to idle when you are on the ground and in control enough to transition through the squirrely moments between low-pitch, tail-high, steering through rudder and the high-pitch, tail-low, steering primarily through grounded tailwheel and/or differential braking.
Power to me is more useful than flaps in controlling your glide because you have more finite control and you have the option to reduce power whereas flaps are very coarse and once they're in, you typically would not reduce them. The pilots you describe as using power as a "crutch" sound more like pilots who dont know how to use the application of power appropriately whereas the pilots who are successfully using power correctly are, to me at least, the one's using it as a "crutch" in that its used for support of their landings.
Carrying power into a landing can and often does make landing more difficult, especially if you dont have the patience to let the plane settle itself and lack the skill to pitch for the right spot and put in the right amount of power. You'll have a tendency to come in too fast, flare too fast, balloon and land long, if not also hard and if you force it onto the runway, you're likely to break something.
Wind is wind but the aerodynamics of a Cessna vs a Piper are different. At the low altitudes being discussed, a high wing airplane is more likely to catch that wind across more surface area of the wing causing it to want to lift that wing more aggressively than it would a low wing aircraft. This is compounded by the higher CG which makes the plane more susceptible to toppling. You need comparatively more aileron into the wind with a high wing as you would with a low wing aircraft with the same sized wing and control surfaces.
Because he “wasn’t comfortable” landing wing low in a crosswind, “wasn’t comfortable” landing power off, and “wasn’t comfortable” slowing to an appropriate speed.
This was a jet, but as I said previously, I’ve never felt the need to carry power to touchdown for a normal landing in a taildragger, either.
And here I always thought the control feature determining ability to make crosswind landings was rudder. The amount of movement of the control wheel differ between a Warrior and a 172, but that is a function rigging and not as much about aileron effectiveness.
Sounds like this guy had a lot more issues with his flying than just landing with power but I'm a bit confused... you said "bent the gear doing 3-point landings in a 30-knot crosswind" but I'm reading now this was done in a jet and your comment about a taildragger (together with the fact that there were not many jet tailwheels ever built, let alone still in existence) also seems to imply it was a tricycle gear?
If it were a tricycle gear aircraft, I'm not sure what you mean by 3-point landings but it still sounds like an issue of not knowing and using proper crosswind landing technique more than an issue of carrying power in his landing.
How'd this guy get himself into a jet?
As to not carrying power to touchdown for a normal landing in a taildragger, so in a crosswind situation, particularly a gusty one, you let the plane decide when the tail comes down? That kind of sounds like the reverse of the people who use power and dont maintain positive control of the aircraft; I dont mean that as a passive-aggressive critique on something I've never seen and seems to work for you but just letting you know what your comment sounds like to me so you can help me understand what you're saying/doing better because I'm guessing that's not really what you meant.
I didn't say you use aileron to "control" the airplane, I said you use aileron to keep the wing from being lifted by the wind which applies in more than just crosswind landings such as crosswind taxi where rudder is not generally used/required but ailerons are to help keep the wing down.
I also will maintain you need more aileron in a high wing than a low wing to keep the wing from lifting on or near the ground and its not a function of rigging or a function of control surface effectiveness but rather the amount of force you need to counteract.
If you want to talk about the specifics of the crosswind landing, you use ailerons to crab into the wind and rudder to correct alignment. You require both. If you dont use aileron or rudder at all, you are going to get pushed sideways by the wind and while you could just line up off the center line to account for this and land once the wind pushes you over the centerline, this is rather difficult to do "right" (in so far as there is a right way to do it meaning spacing your drift and timing your landing just right to land on the center line) and you are going to side load your landing gear as badly, if not worse, than you would had you used an insufficient amount of aileron/bank/crab angle or used insufficient rudder to keep alignment as you've done nothing to correct for the sideways movement of the airplane.
Using only rudder to counteract a crosswind is possible but the amount of crosswind you can correct for is greatly diminished and this procedure is significantly more advanced as you need to apply just the right amount of opposite rudder just before landing to align the aircraft with the runway; too little or too much and you've just sideloaded the landing gear again.
As to why rudder is the "control feature determining ability to make crosswind landings," the rudder is the control feature discussed most often in landing in a crosswind because it is the limiting control feature as the rudder has a finite amount of movement and control authority it can exert over the airplane which is a function of airspeed/flow over the rudder. By contrast, while ailerons have a limit to their movement too and become more or less effective as a function of airspeed/flow over them, the amount of control they can exercise is theoretically unlimited as long as the wing is producing lift (practically it is limited to the point at which the plane is flying a knife edge beyond which the controls and the plane are just inverted and on landing it has a practical limitation that varies from airplane to airplane which is the point at which the wing tip is at or below the horizontal plane created by the bottom of the main gear on that side of the aircraft as this is the point in which the wing tip will touch the ground before the main gear does likely causing the aircraft to cartwheel).
In most aircraft, I will run out of rudder (and probably guts too) long before I run out of aileron/bank/crab angle, thus rudder is the limiting factor and the "most important" control surface to discuss in the ability to successfully make a crosswind landing. Doesn't change the fact that ailerons are just as critical to the equation of the successful crosswind landing, particularly at higher wind speeds.
It is vital to understand the difference between power and speed (3 pointing is due to speed, and reduction in AOA). You CAN be at low speed (1.1 Vso) with propeller wash over the rudder for directional control. Anyone landing a nose pusher in a three point doesn't understand the difference.
Turbines, now that's different.....
Yes, it was.
Touching down on all three gear at once.
Improper crosswind technique combined with too much speed. Too much speed was exacerbated by not reducing thrust.
There are quite a few people flying jets that probably shouldn’t be allowed within 50 feet of an airplane, but I don’t make the rules.
No, I decide when the tail comes down. How long do you think it’s supposed to stay off the ground?
So 3-pt landings in a tricycle? I'd say I never heard of such a thing but I had a tendency to land pretty flat at one point... Still dont know that I've heard of such a thing being practiced as a normal procedure; seems hard on the nose gear and an unnecessary risk of wheelbarrowing.
So improper weather assessment with an improper crosswind technique with an improper flare and improper speed control independent of power management (pitch for airspeed, power for altitude and all that) which was arguably also improperly controlled. Again, how'd this guy get into a jet! I want to be that guy (only in the sense that someone lets me fly the jet despite an apparent lack of... experience/skill)
Re: tail coming down. Not long but I personally find it easier to manage when I'm good and ready; sometimes that's further down the runway than others, particularly on gusty days. Having a little bit of power helps me keep the tail up until I want and am ready for it to come down (and in a position to reject the final transition to landing and take back to the air should a gust catch me).
The jobs are out there. For a while we were seeing a lot of 1000-hour pilots with not much more than a rating in the multiengine column of their logbooks.
We really need better ways to gauge experience.
...and better ways to get experience, and better instruction, and...
as the late great bob hoover said, its all about energy management.... what gives you energy to flair? speed or power. being on speed at idle requires that the flare be right on, to high it sinks, to low crunch. if your carrying some power you have a little more energy to work with, but that will generally cost you runway. if its there no problem nice smooth but longer landing. if its not there, maybe you should have taken the firm landing........ one way does not cover all things. have all the tricks in your bag and practice all of them.
My opinion/thoughts are probably worth even less than anyone has paid for them..
Having said that... why would you want to get in the habit of landing a Cherokee, or any other aircraft where an option presented itself.. using a technique that required power? It's only smoother if you need to fix a less-than-acceptable approach (and most of mine are.. definitely not playing a "superiority chip," because as a pilot I'm superior to pretty much nobody). The most rewarding landings I've had have been with power off after a well-executed approach. The use, or necessity, for power just tells me I've screwed up.
Your username is (presumably) named after a taildragger, and 3-point landings are usually only discussed in terms of taildraggers, so it was reasonable to think you were talking about a taildragger. You might want to include the aircraft type next time you tell that story.
Yeah, I guess it’s unreasonable to expect people to actually read the post that one is responding to.
Did you write your post with invisible ink, because I still don't see where you mentioned what kind of aircraft you're talking about in the post I quoted.
Seems kinda obvious the discussion was about jets...here’s the entire post that you quoted a snippet of...
Which, of course, were responses that quoted these...
I didn't quote a "snippet", I quoted your entire post. The thread discussion was about using power during landing. Just because jets were brought up doesn't automatically mean every post from that point onward is assumed to be about jets, quoted or not.
What makes you think that response was for you?
All I'm saying is that your post was potentially ambiguous and misinterpreted by multiple people. Otherwise this discussion is a waste of time.
I guess it’s “otherwise”.
The only Cherokee I've flown is an Arrow. Specifically, a 1969 200 hp Arrow. With the Hershey Bar wings. A little power on landing greatly improved control response. Now, once the mains touched the ground that thing was finished flying. I never bounced a landing in the Arrow. I can't make the same claim on the Cessnas I've flown.
I fly a Hershey bar Cherokee 180. Normal technique I was taught was to keep around 1600 RPM and crab into the crosswind all the way until ground effect and then smoothly enter the sideslip and pull the power out during the round out.
If there's any crosswind at all, the extra drag from the sideslip puts the plane right down with no floating just about as soon as you pull the power.
Of course, pulling the power as soon as you turn final also works just fine if you need the steeper approach. The trick with no power is to just be sure to carry enough airspeed into the slip and the flare. Go just a little too slow, and the Hershey bar wing drops right through ground effect and slams into the runway. A bit too much speed isn't so much of a problem as it really doesn't like to float. In that regard it's exactly the opposite of the tapered-wing Archers I originally learned in.
Also, I'll second the observation of whoever mentioned the benefit of some prop wash over that little stabilator, especially on the older Cherokees from before the fuselage was stretched.