"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
With all the recent discussion about the landing quirks of various
aircraft, I've started to feel I must be missing something.

In every airplane I've ever landed, including the "notorious" Mooney and
Twin Commanche, I've used the same technique: pull the power off and round
out close to the runway, increase back pressure to hold it off as long as
it will keep flying, hold the back pressure on roll out.

The amount of power I carry might vary a bit, but one airplane lands
pretty much like another, it seems to me; I've never had trouble with any
of them.

I am certainly no great stick-and-rudder man. Am I just too insensitive
to detect the differences every one talks about?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Don't know about your sensitivity, :-))) but thinking about landing
airplanes in general terms like this is not the best way to go.
It's true that there will be a great many airplanes in a specific category
that might fit into your scenario; many light general aviation aircraft for
example; but even there, you might run into specific airplanes that require
specific technique. As soon as you start talking high performance airplanes,
this line of thinking goes right out the window. For example, landing a T38
Talon or an F16 as you have described can most certainly get you killed, as
would landing any aircraft requiring touchdown angle of attack vs controlled
sink rate parameters.
For 172's and the like, generally you are right, but there's a whole new
world of airplanes out there that require extremely specific handling
skills.
The bottom line on all this would be that generalization of ANY kind, is not
the way to go in aviation.
My advice to every pilot I've ever trained is to treat flying in specifics
as those specifics relate to the exact airplane being flown, and avoid
generalization of any kind when it comes to handling an airplane.
Dudley Henriques