Which is easier to land?

[spiderweb]

And why?

Sight picture easier to establish?

Not squirrely in a crosswind?

Ground effect takes care of gradual flare?

 

[Fearless Tower]

I will admit that I have never flown a Cirrus or 182, but flown alot of different Beech products and they were all relatively easy to make consistently nice landings.

I suspect that it is a combination of the ground effect advantage of the low wing and the Beech landing gear.

 

[poadeleted20]

I've flown them all -- at least 40 hours in each. The Cirrus is probably easiest to land well, although the Bonanza is close. The C-182 is probably easiest to get on the ground without breaking anything.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The C-182 is probably easiest to get on the ground without breaking anything.

Really? What about the firewall issues that I have heard about from hitting the nose too hard?

Unless I'm mistaken, the Bonanza has essentially the same landing gear as the T-34. If you can break them on landing.....you might want to rethink the whole aviation thing...

 

[poadeleted20]

Really? What about the firewall issues that I have heard about from hitting the nose too hard?

You've got that with any of them, but it's easier to just plunk a Cessna on the runway than any of the others. That's one of the issues with transitioning many 150/152/172-trained pilots to other types.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Bonanza has essentially the same landing gear as the T-34.

Not sure about the T-34A, but the T-34B has Baron landing gear so it can withstand Navy-style landings.

 

[Tracey]

I see that my little 172 isn't even an option. Boy that plane sure takes a beating 'round here. Good thing it's got thick skin.

Anyway, that's my vote! (Course, I've never landed anything else, so there's that).

 

[Sac Arrow]

I would agree Bonanzas are easiest to land well. I find low wings in general to be easier to land that high wings due to the increased ground effect. Of the choices, I haven't flown a Cirrus so I can't compare.

 

[Tracey]

I find low wings in general to be easier to land that high wings due to the increased ground effect.

This is what I've heard. I'm looking forward to trying this one day.

 

[steingar]

According to everyone, their airplane is the easiest.

 

[N801BH]

I pick the Bo... The gear has a wider track...

 

[poadeleted20]

I see that my little 172 isn't even an option.

Probably because it's in a performance class below the ones listed. Even the 182 is sort of out of its league, unless we're talking 182RG.

 

[Tracey]

Probably because it's in a performance class below the ones listed.

(Well, don't say that too loudly, it might hear you, and it thinks it's wonderful).

Just kidding... thanks for that clarification, I didn't know that.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

According to everyone, their airplane is the easiest.

Cause and effect?

I think mine is easy to land, because I went shopping for something easy to land (seeing as I am lazy).

I didn't answer the poll because the list just includes hard to land airplanes with those flap things and the wheel up front that makes it more difficult.

 

[Geico266]

What! No RV's?

 

[Tarheel Pilot]

I have not flown any of these aircrafts, so I have no idea.

 

[Fearless Tower]

What! No RV's?

They aren't easier to land....just easier to do OBs in!

 

[Jaybird180]

I only have 182 and Cirrus experience. I think the Cirrus is easier between the two.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

I see that my little 172 isn't even an option. Boy that plane sure takes a beating 'round here. Good thing it's got thick skin.

Anyway, that's my vote! (Course, I've never landed anything else, so there's that).

Some really nice pilot told me on Saturday that if I can land a 150 that is tougher than most of the other planes (to land it well). They were all flying Beechcraft, they are called the Beech Boys. They flew 4 ship formations, precise flying, loads of experience, what a fun day.

 

[Pa28-140]

I have a few hundred hours in the Cirrus SR22 and it is BY FAR the easiest airplane to fly and land. Like the Grumman Tiger, it has a free castering nose wheel that really helps with control when landing in strong crosswinds. Being cross controlled that much in my Cherokee means I have to be careful not to take off into the weeds because the nose wheel steering is tied to the rudder. With the Cirrus, if you are lined up straight with centerline......you stay on centerline.

 

[Jaybird180]

I have a few hundred hours in the Cirrus SR22 and it is BY FAR the easiest airplane to fly and land. Like the Grumman Tiger, it has a free castering nose wheel that really helps with control when landing in strong crosswinds. Being cross controlled that much in my Cherokee means I have to be careful not to take off into the weeds because the nose wheel steering is tied to the rudder. With the Cirrus, if you are lined up straight with centerline......you stay on centerline.

I once somehow managed to goof it up.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I can't stand castering nosewheels. PITA to taxi with at low speeds.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I can't stand castering nosewheels. PITA to taxi with at low speeds.

If you wanna see a PITA, watch some of the old WWII videos of B-25s taxiing. Free castering nose-wheel and touchy as hell brakes. Hardest part about operating a B-25 is taxiing the sumbitch.

 

[poadeleted20]

Some really nice pilot told me on Saturday that if I can land a 150 that is tougher than most of the other planes (to land it well).

I'd say that of the whole high-wing Cessna single-engine line, with the possible exception of the Cardinal, whose stabilator provides more precise pitch control through the flare than the elevators on the rest of the line (although easier to overcontrol if you hamfist it). Easy to plant on the ground, hard to land well (nice mains-first, tail-low controlled touchdown, with the nose under control and nosewheel lowered only at pilot's discretion). Planes like the Cirrus and the Tiger are harder to land, but easier land well.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

I'd say that of the whole high-wing Cessna single-engine line, with the possible exception of the Cardinal, whose stabilator provides more precise pitch control through the flare than the elevators on the rest of the line. Easy to plant on the ground, hard to land well (nice mains-first, tail-low controlled touchdown, with the nose under control and nosewheel lowered only at pilot's discretion). Planes like the Cirrus and the Tiger are harder to land, but easier land well.

My biggest gripe is I rarely hear the stall horn. Had nice landings on Sunday in a 172 and even heard it briefly, once, but I've found I can have a very good landing, just like the one you describe, without the horn.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Some really nice pilot told me on Saturday that if I can land a 150 that is tougher than most of the other planes (to land it well).

There is actually alot of truth to that. I have found that once you get used to the initial step up in performance of heavy high performance airplanes, that they are really alot easier and much more stable to fly and land than the smaller 2 and 4 seat trainers.

 

[poadeleted20]

My biggest gripe is I rarely hear the stall horn. Had nice landings on Sunday in a 172 and even heard it briefly, once, but I've found I can have a very good landing, just like the one you describe, without the horn.

If you're not hearing the stall horn, you're getting lazy with trim or holding it off. Work, lady, work!

 

[kimberlyanne546]

If you're not hearing the stall horn, you're getting lazy with trim or holding it off. Work, lady, work!

Darn it I was afraid you would say so. Back to training then. We couldn't go to the tiny airport as planned, due to weather issues, so I will work on this next month when I see him. I plan to fly the 150 sooner than that, and I'll try then too.

 

[Anthony]

I can't stand castering nosewheels. PITA to taxi with at low speeds.

Really? I've never had a problem in my Tiger, but then again, I don't hang out with guys in the shower at the gym.

 

[denverpilot]

Really? What about the firewall issues that I have heard about from hitting the nose too hard?

As long as you know that main gear are for landing and nosegear are just to hold the nose up and the engine weight after it stops flying, you won't prang the firewall in the 182. Do not land on the nosegear.

 

[Tarheel Pilot]

There is actually alot of truth to that. I have found that once you get used to the initial step up in performance of heavy high performance airplanes, that they are really alot easier and much more stable to fly and land than the smaller 2 and 4 seat trainers.

Heh, I actually had the opposite experience. I went from a Cherokee 180 to a SportCruiser and I found the SportCruiser easier to land than the 180.

 

[gismo]

I think it depends on what is meant by "easier to land". I've had enough landings in all the choices that I feel I'm at least minimally qualified to describe the differences but "easier" could have different meanings.

In order of my experience with them:

A Bonanza is definitely one of the easiest airplanes to land in a crosswind and the combination of long stroke, soft spring force that increases with compression, and very good damping tends to produce more greasers and fewer "arrivals" than something with a flexible fixed gear like a Cessna or Cirrus. The nosegear of a Bonanza will tolerate flat or even nose first landings far better than any of the other airplanes in the poll and the relatively wide stance of the mains coupled with a fairly low CG makes it more resistant to side loads than the 182. I've also found that it's common to experience a significant reduction in turbulence as the low wing gets close to the ground making it easier to control during the most critical part of the landing just before touchdown. The stick force required to properly flare a Bonanza is less than half what's needed in a 182 or Cherokee Six (I don't recall how it compares with the SR22) making it easier to finesse the plane onto the runway if you can manage to avoid overcontrolling. Probably the only vices it has WRT landing are the potential to do so with the wheels in the well and the tendency for the tail to wag making it a little more difficult to determine if it's pointed down the runway.

The 182 is very stable and pretty tolerant of landing in a crab, IMO the main detriment it has WRT "easy" landings is that it requires a pretty hefty pull on the wheel to touch down in a sufficiently nose high attitude and it reacts very badly to a flat or worse yet nose first touchdown. The high wing does tend to catch gusty winds more, probably just because gusts tend to be strengthen rapidly within 5-10 feet of the ground. The high wing and CG coupled with a relatively narrow stance (IIRC the wheelbase was widened in later models) does make it feel a bit "tippy" in a tough crosswind but there's plenty of aileron authority to deal with this even well below stall speed. The landing gear will absorb significant vertical speed at smashdown without damage but the legs are fairly stiff and lack any sort of damping so it's not all that difficult to generate a bounce.

The Six has adequate ability to absorb vertical speed at touchdown but IMO it's not in the same class as the Bonanza in that regard and they tend to be pretty nose heavy so holding the nosewheel off can be difficult and AFaIK (no personal experience with this) firewall damage is a definite possibility if you're lazy when pulling back on the wheel. I also remember a tendency for the airplane to dart off to the side if your holding rudder against a crosswind when you let the nosewheel touch.

The SR22's wing seems to run out of lift fairly abruptly compared to the others and the "sidestick" gave me some trouble with roll control at low speeds (that might have been due to my lack of experience with it although I've flown other side and center sticks without that feeling). It seemed to me that asymmetrical braking was often required during the later stages of the rollout in significant crosswinds and that's another thing I never got quite comfortable with. Finally, I believe the landing speed of the SR22 is a bit higher than the others and I think it's less forgiving of high or low airspeed than the others.

So bottom line, I think the 182 and Bonanza are pretty close unless you are in a big crosswind (I've landed a Bonanza in 25G35 conditions many times without sweating it) or you don't have strong arms. I'd rank the Six and the SR22 about equal to each other but well below the 182 and Bo except that I believe it's less likely that you'll get as many attaboys for smooth landings in the Six as you would in a SR22.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Heh, I actually had the opposite experience. I went from a Cherokee 180 to a SportCruiser and I found the SportCruiser easier to land than the 180.

I would not call anything with 180 hp a heavy, high performance aircraft....

 

[poadeleted20]

I would not call anything with 180 hp a heavy, high performance aircraft....

It is if all you've flown is LSA's. Like Einstein said, it's all relative to your vantage point.

 

[Anthony]

I have only flown a V-tailed, V35B Bonanza, which is a very nice plane to fly and land. Do the straight tailed Bo's handle crosswinds the same? I would imagine they may be better in a crosswind.

 

[gismo]

I have only flown a V-tailed, V35B Bonanza, which is a very nice plane to fly and land. Do the straight tailed Bo's handle crosswinds the same? I would imagine they may be better in a crosswind.

Actually I believe the reverse to be true but only just barely. Many folks think the V-tail has less rudder authority than the straight tail since the feathers are doing double duty but that's simply not the case. The one exception is that with a very forward CG (pretty rare in Bonanzas but it does happen with some), "rudder" travel is restricted when the wheel is close to fully aft so there's some loss of crosswind ability when performing a soft field landing with that kind of loading in a model 35. Even the longer model 36 has less rudder authority than the 35 because the lengthening occurred forward of the main wing so the arm to the rudder is unchanged.

 

[Anthony]

Great info. Thanks Lance. I always thought the F33, and 36 would have a little more rudder authority. Guess there is really no downside to the 35 once the AD's on the ruddervators happen.

 

[denverpilot]

Someone was pointing out to me the other day that with the Robertson STOL, since the ailerons droop until the flaps go beyond 30 degrees then they start back up...

Landing an R/STOL 182 in a crosswind you're limiting the up aileron travel on the upwind wing by approximately 20 degrees if you play the "partial flaps" game. You could rack the yoke to full left/right and not get that upwind aileron up much above the wing.

Interesting point, and confirms my desire not to land my aircraft with partial flaps in crosswinds. It's either no-flap (not preferred) or 30+.

Another one to file under "know thy airplane's systems." I assume other R/STOL equipped aircraft are similar.

 

[edmeis3]

None are very hard to land except maybe the Cirrus. Cherokee 6 is kind of truckish, 182 has a heavy nose (206 lands easier IMO,) embarrassed myself in the Cirrus Sim at Oshkosh. In contrast, the Bonanza is lively but very controllable in an xwind, the gear sits relatively high off the ground to minimize ground effect and it has the sturdiest, most supple gear of any airplane I've flown. The ability to get a Bonanza on the ground in a hurry is particularly appreciated by rear-seats passengers suffering from ruddervator oscillation syndrome...

 

[DouglasBader]

They're all about the same; none are difficult to land, but like any aircraft, one should fly them until they're in the tie downs. A cub is the easiest thing in the world to fly, but it will hurt you just as much as anything else. Make a good approach, and nearly anything lands nicely.

If you wanna see a PITA, watch some of the old WWII videos of B-25s taxiing. Free castering nose-wheel and touchy as hell brakes. Hardest part about operating a B-25 is taxiing the sumbitch.

Expander tube brakes...not really touchy, especially when warm. If you want to try touchy, try carbon brakes when they're hot.

The WWII era airplanes with castering nosewheels (B24, B25, etc) aren't difficult to taxi at all. Just a little braking on one side, then release. With a little wind over the rudders, it can be taxied without much brake at all, so long as there's not a strong crosswind.

 

[poadeleted20]

The WWII era airplanes with castering nosewheels (B24, B25, etc) aren't difficult to taxi at all. Just a little braking on one side, then release. With a little wind over the rudders, it can be taxied without much brake at all, so long as there's not a strong crosswind.

The singles like the Grumman and Cirrus are even easier, since you have the propwash over the tail adding effectiveness.