Pitched up but descending?

The Caribou transport has such a flap configuration that it can climb in a nose down attitude. There is a video of one doing a touch and go with only the nose gear contacting the runway.

I'm too lazy to find it right now.

The other thing to note is where you are on the power curve. One way to descend very quickly is to slow down and pitch up to the back side of the power curve, e.g. slow flight without the power. You will then descend in a very nose high attitude.

Pitch controls the airspeed. Power controls the ascent and descent rate.
 
Weight/gravity is greater than lift.?

If that was the case, the airplane would be accelerating downward. The VSI would show an increasing rate of descent.

Once the flight path has been established in a straight-line descent, the airplane is at 1 G. The descent provides some of the thrust to maintain this path.
 
Some, if not all of the DC-9 series ... don't have leading edge devices so they have a nose down attitude on final.
The DC9-10 series were the only ones without leading-edge devices. From the DC9-20 series on through the MD80s/90/B717 they all had full-length leading-edge slats. Big difference in attitude on final. IIRC, +3° with slats vs. -5° without.

Where I flew them we had 72 airplanes with slats and only 2 without so you'd go a long time without flying the DC9-10. Made for an interesting first approach!

Pitch controls the airspeed. Power controls the ascent and descent rate.
That works really well in GA airplanes but it is not how we typically fly transport jets. As a general rule of thumb we'll pitch for flight-path and power for airspeed. That technique works well in GA airplanes as well though it is not widely used there.
 
I would hope that this is a place where a person could ask a aviation related question and not get ridiculed.

Oh, yes, i totally get what ever is coming to me on here.
I like that its to the point that posting a legit aviation question is perceived as trolling for me LOL

It was a totally legit question and I understand what is going on a bit better now.

I will let y'all know when I'm trolling.
 
The DC9-10 series were the only ones without leading-edge devices. From the DC9-20 series on through the MD80s/90/B717 they all had full-length leading-edge slats. Big difference in attitude on final. IIRC, +3° with slats vs. -5° without.

Where I flew them we had 72 airplanes with slats and only 2 without so you'd go a long time without flying the DC9-10. Made for an interesting first approach!


That works really well in GA airplanes but it is not how we typically fly transport jets. As a general rule of thumb we'll pitch for flight-path and power for airspeed. That technique works well in GA airplanes as well though it is not widely used there.

Understood, just trying to put forth a simplified explanation for 6PC's benefit.
 
Stick & Rudder, Chapter 2, pages 30-31 (Mushing Glide) and pages 41-42 (Power Descent), to answer the original question?
 
Oh, yes, i totally get what ever is coming to me on here.
I like that its to the point that posting a legit aviation question is perceived as trolling for me LOL

It was a totally legit question and I understand what is going on a bit better now.

I will let y'all know when I'm trolling.
Did that "wind tunnel" video help at all?
 
The Caribou transport has such a flap configuration that it can climb in a nose down attitude. There is a video of one doing a touch and go with only the nose gear contacting the runway.
.

I was stationed at a base or two that had some Caribous. Pretty cool plane to watch. Takeoff roll very short too.

At ASA (regional airline) we had 5 DH-7s, 50 passenger turboprop w/ 4 engines, and those pilots pretty much never used full flaps for landing. If they did, that thing came in steep and slow, I mean like a C172 speed from what I was told.

1020242_orig.jpg
 
Last edited:
Stab trim, all GA aircraft have it too, right? I don't believe airliners on approach have the yoke held back...
No. We trim--a lot! Particularly in jets with under-wing mounted engines where any change in power affects pitch trim.

On Final I like to have a slightly nose-up trim so that I'm holding a slight amount of forward pressure. I find it prevents over controlling, but that's just a personal preference.
 
I was stationed at a base or two that had some Caribous. Pretty cool plane to watch. Takeoff roll very short too.

At ASA (regional airline) we had 5 DH-7s, 50 passenger turboprop w/ 4 engines, and those pilots pretty much never used full flaps for landing. If they did, that thing came in steep and slow, I mean like a C172 speed from what I was told.

1020242_orig.jpg

Love love love the Dash-7. Such a cool plane. Sloooooooooow.

@SixPapaCharlie an additional thought to your "STOL planes" observations at OSH:

Propellers blow over the wing too, besides the relative wind from the aircraft moving through the airmass. The faster flow in the center of the wing tends to "attach" the airflow to the center of the wing in a single, and the area behind the engines in a light twin. It even adds lift in that area.

The turbofan airliners don't get nearly the benefit from this effect as their propeller-driven smaller cousins, but in the case of those STOL landings, a pretty significant amount of the total lift being generated is from airflow caused by the prop flowing over portions of the wing.

Technique-wise, this means that when you chop the throttle in those when you're way on the back side of the power curve and shooting for a very short landing, enough lift is also "dumped" by doing that, that you'll be "done" flying at that point or very nearly so, depending on airspeed. That will tend to "plant" the wheels and maximum braking can be applied because the aircraft isn't "light" at that point and there's more weight on the tires -- more available friction on whatever surface they landed on.

In the twin, mixing a throttle chop with multi-blade propellers going "flat" when you pull off the power both removes a large amount of lift from both wings and also acts as a drag brake. If you're ready for it and only a couple feet in the air, and flare hard, you can nail an exact landing spot and still land smoothly. If you don't realize it's going to be a double aerodynamic whammy when you chop the throttle, you're going to "arrive" quite solidly. Thump. Or maybe Wham... if you did it too high off the ground.

Thus... the tendency to teach to land with some power in a twin... because it also weighs a lot more... triple whammy really.

In a single like mine with a STOL kit on it, modulating throttle when way behind the power curve with the nose way in the air and changing the airflow over the middle of the wing inside the stall fences (which help keep that airflow attached and organized) can really be used well to make extremely slow spot landings.

Think of those RC planes where they literally hang them from the prop or thrust vectored fighters. A propellor, a turbofan, whatever, may also be a significant part of "lift" depending on angle of where the thrust is going -- besides the lift created by the wing -- because of good old Newton and every action having an equal and opposite.

I hear tell that you Cirrus guys can't quite get that nose up very high because you run the risk of a tail strike. Haven't flown one, but there's folks here who've mentioned it. If you can find someone with an airplane with some lift devices that can fly really slow with tons of power, they can demonstrate the tail low nose high power on landing method to ya, and it's kinda fun, done right.

Risks involved: A go-around late with the nose in the air and perhaps pushing against tons of nose up trim can be a handful. You're too slow to climb out of ground effect and need to push to level off and wait for some airspeed to build before partial flap retraction to help speed up.

The Robertson Flap 30 takeoff procedure in the POH Addendum that gets added when the kit is added to the aircraft POH is essentially this in reverse. High (full) power, hard pull to get the nose up, liftoff in ground effect at about 40 knots indicated, and then relax a tiny bit of back pressure and wait ... flying about three to five feet above the runway surface until the excess horsepower has a chance to accelerate your draggy butt to a speed more consistent with a non-STOL departure.

If you removed some power right at that point of liftoff, you'd make a perfect main gear landing as long as you pulled again on the yoke because elevator is also in the propwash and becomes instantly less effective at holding the nose up when power is reduced.

Fun stuff.
 
I found the DC-9-10 not quite as bad to land, in terms of round out and flare as the CRJ-200 is. Neither one of which are difficult, just different.
 
I guess the point I'm trying to get across is that you have to completely forget about the cabin and just try to isolate the wing in regards to the aerodynamics. The wings are flying (clearly). As the additional lift devices are deployed (flaps and slats), they change the camber and ah, f*ck it. I understand it, but not enough to explain it simply.
You are right about leading edge devices having an effect on the pitch attitude, but you can fly a straight wing, piston single in a nose-high approach as well.

Just look at WWII carrier landing videos. They are all flying in approximately a three point attitude. Like Nate mentioned, on the back side of the power curve, controlling vertical descent entirely with power.

Cirrus pilots just don't like to fly slow...
 
Cirrus pilots just don't like to fly slow...

I tired not to say they don't "like" it with the info that the airplane might tend to tailstrike easily. That adds a bit of negativity that isn't deserved if you're told "don't do that" in training. :)
 
the airplane might tend to tailstrike easily
The airplane has NO tendency to tailstrike with full flaps. The problems will present itself more openly in a no-flap approach and landing.
 
The airplane has NO tendency to tailstrike with full flaps. The problems will present itself more openly in a no-flap approach and landing.

Fair enough. Wouldn't know. But ain't never seen one enter a STOL landing competition and hang it on the prop, which was something 6PC has seen, so was working from his known to his unknown. :)
 
Nice thread. The concise answer about the positive deck angle question is slats; while obvious to some, I commend that the question was asked and (thoroughly) examined. I'll throw the Fokker 100 into the mix as a transport category airplane with a "clean" leading edge; it once bothered me that they landed "flat" as a result. Nice discussion of induced-lift from prop-wash. The old L88 Electras were able to use the induced-lift over a large portion of the span quite effectively ( same goes for the P-3, Herc., etc.), timing of the final "over-concrete" power reduction was everything to make it all work. In light aircraft, I find it preferable to have the speed dead-on in the final approach followed by closed throttles over the threshold and a transition to a flare and pay-off -- I can't think of many situations where a nose-high, drag-in and drop-it-on is preferable.

Refreshing, too, is consideration of the DHC-4 Caribou. A colonel I knew said he took a Caribou off in 1000 feet of soft sand (don't try this with a Cirrus). I'd love to read a thread pertaining to the Caribou/Buffalo from pilots that have flown them. Have a great weekend, everybody.


b
 
Propellers blow over the wing too, besides the relative wind from the aircraft moving through the airmass. The faster flow in the center of the wing tends to "attach" the airflow to the center of the wing in a single, and the area behind the engines in a light twin. It even adds lift in that area.
Yup. A few prototypes running around with multiple motors/props on leading edge for just this reason. Allows wing/airfoil to be optimized for cruise, while generating extra lift for short takeoff and landing capability. Not cited in this article, but there was another similar plane (electric) that had larger motors on the wingtips for thrust in cruise flight; the leading-edge props inboard would fold for drag reduction.

https://www.wired.com/2015/03/nasa-straps-18-propellers-wing-science/
 
Pick up a copy of "Stick and Rudder" by Langweische. It's all about angle of attack, and the various devices that alter the airfoil. All will become clear.

You can find it on Amazon for a few bucks.
 
They must not do drug testing at your company?

Did you attend any if the ground school when in flight training? You must have been texting and facebooking when they were talking about this during the first meeting during the first five minutes.

 
Pick up a copy of "Stick and Rudder" by Langweische. It's all about angle of attack, and the various devices that alter the airfoil. All will become clear.

You can find it on Amazon for a few bucks.

And you get to learn what flippers are. :)
 
Back
Top