Power in the flare

NineThreeKilo said:
POWER OFF

Once you have the runway made, POWER OFF.

same with tailwheel, I can two point or three point without power.

You need to learn to land the plane with out the "training wheels" of power.

If ya want through it out later, just, at least, learn how to do it properly first.
Click to expand...

Now there's a definitive statement. I wanna see this in a Comanche or Bonanza at FWD CG. Should be good for some chuckles.
 
Silvaire said:
It's to keep the tailwheel from getting beaten up over rough ground and rocks. Basically any time you are landing on something that is not an airstrip of one sort or another the tailwheel is vulnerable
Click to expand...

There is no single reason to keep the tail up. Depends on the airplane and what you are trying to achieve. You can do it like you say to keep the tailwheel from getting beat up, or you can do it so that you can achieve max braking (some good videos of short field technique in DC-3s on YouTube for example), or you could have come from a TW instructor who only believed in wheel landings because they one how thought they were 'safer'.
 
docmirror said:
Now there's a definitive statement. I wanna see this in a Comanche or Bonanza at FWD CG. Should be good for some chuckles.
Click to expand...


you guys with the Bo, cirrus, etc mindesets, it aint a completely different animal ya know! :rolleyes:

I've done runway assured -> 0 power on a Comanche 200, never really flown a Bo, but I've done it on a C208B, 207, 206, AG cat, AA1, etc. etc.

Actually I do it almost every landing, 6-7 days a week in the C208B, 206, AA1 and a S108, seems I even manage to keep it smooth.



I'm starting to understand why many on this board say "the insurance company owns the plane if the engine quits", honestly what can you guys do without power... other then bend metal :hairraise: geeeze!
 
Some planes you just have to fly in to the ground. Some you don't. Normally my landings in a 172 are power off, barring a botch that some power will save. Otherwise, in a Bo or an Arrow, we are carrying in some significant power until touchdown unless we are way high
 
Sac Arrow said:
Some planes you just have to fly in to the ground.
Click to expand...

Many who dont know how to fly without power often do that.


My friends and I call them
Lawn-Darts.jpg


:wink2:
 
You should turn in your ticket. After all these years you still haven't seen the "Lock to Idle for Landing" placard on those V-tails?

docmirror said:
Now there's a definitive statement. I wanna see this in a Comanche or Bonanza at FWD CG. Should be good for some chuckles.
Click to expand...
 
Sac Arrow said:
Otherwise, in a Bo or an Arrow, we are carrying in some significant power until touchdown unless we are way high
Click to expand...
Power to touchdown in a Bo?

I don't recall ever needing that. In the Baron I'm at idle crossing the threshold.
 
wabower said:
You should turn in your ticket. After all these years you still haven't seen the "Lock to Idle for Landing" placard on those V-tails?
Click to expand...

Well, I had a few early V-tail. Some call them the 'small tail' for a reason.

Fearless Tower said:
Power to touchdown in a Bo?

I don't recall ever needing that. In the Baron I'm at idle crossing the threshold.
Click to expand...

I don't NEED anything to get down to the ground in a Bo. It'll arrive just fine without it. Not sure if you are aware, but the Air force test for the T-34 was to fill it up to max gross and drop test it from 11 feet. The gear stands up just fine. All the tires popped, but the gear was undamaged. With a small V-tail, and a far forward CG(two big people, plenty of fuel), 20-30deg of flaps the landing without power will definitely be an 'arrival'. I have plenty of practice in that. Similar with a Comanche. Can it be done? Sure, a lot of things CAN be done.... :eek:
 
Ron Levy said:
That's right -- normal landings. However, in a 172, the normal approach to a landing is best made in a partial-power stabilized approach with throttle reduced to idle when the landing is assured.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I am in no way advocating power off approaches all the way through to touchdown. :nono:
 
At my airport the amount of power required on final is often determined by how many of the runway turn-offs are blocked by gliders.;)
 
david0tey said:
Just to make sure everyone understands, I don't ever carry power all the way to touch down. I carry power into the flare to get me level, 5-10 ft above the runway, and then ease back on the power while also finishing the flare and touchdown. By the time the mains touch down, the power is always at idle.
Click to expand...

What configuration are you using on final? I fly final at 1500rpm 30* flaps and trim for 60KIAS. Power to idle, there is still sufficient elevator authority to make a nice stall horn landing....in fact, if I don't hear the stall horn go into it's high pitched wail, the landing wasn't good enough.
 
docmirror said:
Now there's a definitive statement. I wanna see this in a Comanche or Bonanza at FWD CG. Should be good for some chuckles.
Click to expand...
Commanches, or at least twin Commanches can run out of elevator landing at the fwd CG limit but I've flown several Bonanzas including old and newer V-tails, Debs, and 36s and all could easily be landed smoothly with power off over the threshold even with two guys up front and no baggage in back.
 
gismo said:
Commanches, or at least twin Commanches can run out of elevator landing at the fwd CG limit but I've flown several Bonanzas including old and newer V-tails, Debs, and 36s and all could easily be landed smoothly with power off over the threshold even with two guys up front and no baggage in back.
Click to expand...

Um - congratulations?
 
docmirror said:
Um - congratulations?
Click to expand...

Why the attitude? When you say things like, "I wanna see this in a Comanche or Bonanza at FWD CG", it means you haven't actually done it. When someone else states their actual experience doing it, man up and admit that you were mistaken.
 
RoscoeT said:
Why the attitude? When you say things like, "I wanna see this in a Comanche or Bonanza at FWD CG", it means you haven't actually done it. When someone else states their actual experience doing it, man up and admit that you were mistaken.
Click to expand...

Whut? You're funny. PM me with your contact info, I'll have you come down and we can go through my logbook.

Plan on spending - oh, 5-6 hours.

Man up,,, good one. :lol:
 
docmirror said:
Whut? You're funny. PM me with your contact info, I'll have you come down and we can go through my logbook.

Plan on spending - oh, 5-6 hours.

Man up,,, good one. :lol:
Click to expand...

LOL. I don't care about your logbook, and it's funny you even mention it like that. So you still haven't answered the question - why is a power-off landing in a Comanche or Bonanza at fwd CG so good for "chuckles"? Maybe when YOU do them? Others don't seem to find them so entertaining.
 
RoscoeT said:
LOL. I don't care about your logbook, and it's funny you even mention it like that. So you still haven't answered the question - why is a power-off landing in a Comanche or Bonanza at fwd CG so good for "chuckles"? Maybe when YOU do them? Others don't seem to find them so entertaining.
Click to expand...


Yep

And I'll take the pepsi challenge with doc mirror :)

How many hours you log a month? How much of that is turbine or tailwheel, max gross or unimproved strips?
 
Well sports fans, lets investigate shall we? 1947 the Bo came out with ruddervator deflection from elev of 20deg and total of 35 with rudder. Flew fine right? All is good? So, in 1950, the Y brace inside was re-designed, and the trim tabs were flipped upside down so the camber side is reversed? Hmmmm, why would an engineer do that? All is good right? Seems not. 1951 brought about 20 changes to the ruddervator. It now had 22% larger surface area. The moveable part was bigger too? What could they be trying to tell us? Oh-ko, look here, the elevator travel has moved to 22.5deg up travel? Total rudder plus elev is still 35deg. My, lets think about where one would want to use max up rudder travel? Can you groc me? So, it's all good now, we have plenty of elevator travel and rudder travel to handle anything right? Well, guess what - I'm afraid not. Finally, in the K model, 12 years after the original design, they landed on the sweet spot with a total travel of 44 and 42 combined up travel with the 22.5 elevator only.

I'm sure all these changes were to sell more aluminum. Or, maybe make the plane slower? Surely they had no effect on the slow speed handling during the flare, which is where you would find a pilot all the way back on the controls.

CAN it be done without power? Of course, there's two ways to put energy into the system. Either use some power in the flare, or increase the glide angle a little bit. Way back to the OP, he asked which was right. Both are right. In the Comanche, and the Bonanza, either is right depending on how you manage the energy. I stand by my many, many landings on my home strip of 2600' grass where I take off and land on hot TX days, sometimes with fwd CG, sometimes full gross, sometimes things in between. Its a nice change to the 2400 x 20 I used to be at for YEARS.

I hope this little journey into the history of the Bo clears up the reason for the application of a little power on flare. It's not required, it's not mandatory, it's not going to break the plane. But - it will make for a nicer touchdown. Either that, or turn the fan all the way off and increase the glide angle a bit when at fwd CG. That's all I've been saying. You have other opinions, I've got no problem with that. But - the engineers at Beech seemed to have a problem, cause they kept changing the ruddervator geometry for some reason. Or, maybe it was all just voodoo.....
 
docmirror said:
Well sports fans, lets investigate shall we? 1947 the Bo came out with ruddervator deflection from elev of 20deg and total of 35 with rudder. Flew fine right? All is good? So, in 1950, the Y brace inside was re-designed, and the trim tabs were flipped upside down so the camber side is reversed? Hmmmm, why would an engineer do that? All is good right? Seems not. 1951 brought about 20 changes to the ruddervator. It now had 22% larger surface area. The moveable part was bigger too? What could they be trying to tell us? Oh-ko, look here, the elevator travel has moved to 22.5deg up travel? Total rudder plus elev is still 35deg. My, lets think about where one would want to use max up rudder travel? Can you groc me? So, it's all good now, we have plenty of elevator travel and rudder travel to handle anything right? Well, guess what - I'm afraid not. Finally, in the K model, 12 years after the original design, they landed on the sweet spot with a total travel of 44 and 42 combined up travel with the 22.5 elevator only.

I'm sure all these changes were to sell more aluminum. Or, maybe make the plane slower? Surely they had no effect on the slow speed handling during the flare, which is where you would find a pilot all the way back on the controls.

CAN it be done without power? Of course, there's two ways to put energy into the system. Either use some power in the flare, or increase the glide angle a little bit. Way back to the OP, he asked which was right. Both are right. In the Comanche, and the Bonanza, either is right depending on how you manage the energy. I stand by my many, many landings on my home strip of 2600' grass where I take off and land on hot TX days, sometimes with fwd CG, sometimes full gross, sometimes things in between. Its a nice change to the 2400 x 20 I used to be at for YEARS.

I hope this little journey into the history of the Bo clears up the reason for the application of a little power on flare. It's not required, it's not mandatory, it's not going to break the plane. But - it will make for a nicer touchdown. Either that, or turn the fan all the way off and increase the glide angle a bit when at fwd CG. That's all I've been saying. You have other opinions, I've got no problem with that. But - the engineers at Beech seemed to have a problem, cause they kept changing the ruddervator geometry for some reason. Or, maybe it was all just voodoo.....
Click to expand...

OK, so after all that you admit there is no drama in making a power-off landing at fwd CG in a Bonanza. Still don't see where the chuckles are, but you provide good Bonanza history.

And are you trying to brag about flying a Bonanza off 2400', and a tricycle gear airplane off 20' wide? I've seen a Bonanza make a landing on a 2300' grass strip with trees on both ends, slightly downhill, no significant wind, and come to a stop about HALFWAY down the runway. But of course, he displayed a lot more skill than your average Bonanza driver. Most approach and land them like they're a jet.
 
Last edited:
Oye vey. If I say you win, will that satisfy?

You win, congrats. I take it all back, you are completely correct and I was completely incorrect. All the Bonanza engineers were just fiddling around, increasing the authority for giggles. Everyone from the first noob in a Comanche and Bonanza can make perfect landings with no power, every time, every strip, and I can't match any landing that you've seen on days ending in "Y". Whew, glad I got that off my chest, now I can sleep tonight.
 
FWIW, if we're talking about Bonanzas, it might be worth it to observe that practically every year from 1947 to 1970 they rolled out a new model designation. They used just about every letter in the alphabet that couldn't be misread as a one or a zero until they got to V.
 
All this talk about reducing power to idle when "landing is assured" makes me wonder. If you're in the traffic pattern, what excuse is there for your landing to ever NOT be assured? Any proficient pilot could fly an extremely stable approach all the way from downwind with power at idle in a light GA single. I see way too many light GA pilots stretched out on 2 mile finals and airliner spaced downwinds. I don't think the the FAA guidance on flying stabilized approaches should be interpreted as justifying flying outside power-off gliding distance of the runway while in the pattern.

As for the OPs question: If you're flying a 172 you should absolutely train to land proficiently with power at idle before touchdown. Most of the students I've seen who've built the habit of landing with power also tend to land flat and fast. They're usually uncomfortable with the high deck angle on a proper low energy/high AoA power idle landing. It's definitely a crutch.
 
Meet me in Amarillo. Bring all you want to bet.
matthammer said:
All this talk about reducing power to idle when "landing is assured" makes me wonder. If you're in the traffic pattern, what excuse is there for your landing to ever NOT be assured? Any proficient pilot could fly an extremely stable approach all the way from downwind with power at idle in a light GA single. I see way too many light GA pilots stretched out on 2 mile finals and airliner spaced downwinds. I don't think the the FAA guidance on flying stabilized approaches should be interpreted as justifying flying outside power-off gliding distance of the runway while in the pattern.

As for the OPs question: If you're flying a 172 you should absolutely train to land proficiently with power at idle before touchdown. Most of the students I've seen who've built the habit of landing with power also tend to land flat and fast. They're usually uncomfortable with the high deck angle on a proper low energy/high AoA power idle landing. It's definitely a crutch.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Whatever he wants if it's power-off from the downwind.

In April.

In his plane.
Click to expand...

Still don't get it. Are you offering to outfly him in his own airplane? If that's the case, can I bring mine? That should be fun. :)
 
No, I'm going to bet he can't do it power-off the first time. And happily offer anybody else the same wager. That's not to say that there aren't some days when it's cave-man simple, but quite a few aren't like that. Hence my participation in this discussion.

RoscoeT said:
Still don't get it. Are you offering to outfly him in his own airplane? If that's the case, can I bring mine? That should be fun. :)
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
No, I'm going to bet he can't do it power-off the first time. And happily offer anybody else the same wager. That's not to say that there aren't some days when it's cave-man simple, but quite a few aren't like that. Hence my participation in this discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know what the basis for your confidence is. If it's because of gusty Amarillo winds, I'm fairly certain you'd lose the bet. :)
 
It wouldn't be the first time, but I like the odds.

matthammer said:
I'm curious to know what the basis for your confidence is. If it's because of gusty Amarillo winds, I'm fairly certain you'd lose the bet. :)
Click to expand...
 
A simulated engine out emergency looks way different than a normal approach in my aircraft.
 
matthammer said:
If you're in the traffic pattern, what excuse is there for your landing to ever NOT be assured?
Click to expand...

Because there is someone ahead of you in the pattern with a better gliding or much slower aircraft. Or maybe because Tower tells you to extend downwind for departures. Staying within gliding distance of the field in the pattern is not always a safe thing to do. The risk of a midair or ground collision can far outweigh the risk of an engine failure on base.
 
That's what happen when you assume facts not in evidence. If somebody says "meet me in St. Louis" does that mean you'll be staying there?

denverpilot said:
A 13,000' runway and folks can't pull the power abeam and end up somewhere on it? Good lord.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
That's what happen when you assume facts not in evidence. If somebody says "meet me in St. Louis" does that mean you'll be staying there?
Click to expand...

Actually if it was you, yes. I ain't following you off somewhere in the desert somewhere without adult supervision. You're a stranger. :) :) :)

Haha. ;)

"You said we're meetin' here, I have a hotel room already. You like golf, and I hear they have tee times. See ya at the bar at 5:30 for cocktails."

:) :) :)
 
And I'll be down at Castle Pines while you're parked at the local Muni.:D

denverpilot said:
Actually if it was you, yes. I ain't following you off somewhere in the desert somewhere without adult supervision. You're a stranger. :) :) :)

Haha. ;)

"You said we're meetin' here, I have a hotel room already. You like golf, and I hear they have tee times. See ya at the bar at 5:30 for cocktails."

:) :) :)
Click to expand...
 
Ahhh jeez. Just land the damned thing - and don't ask this crowd for advice.
They will start out arguing about Brownian Movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top