Who does flight plans?

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
George Patterson wrote:
I have never seen anyone do a greaser full-stall landing; the two are
contradictory. If you have enough speed to grease it on, you're not even
close to a stall. Most people rarely do full-stall landings, and nobody
I know teaches students to stall the plane in. You touch down with some
flying speed.

Not at all. You come in and level out an inch or less above the runway
and then bleed off speed until you stall and settle onto the runway. It
is very smooth when done correctly.

Maybe nobody you know does, but R.C. Johnston at N38 taught his students
this way for probably 50 years.

An inch or two? Chuck Yeager should be so good.

Matt Whiting wrote:

Not at all. You come in and level out an inch or less above the runway
and then bleed off speed until you stall and settle onto the runway. It
is very smooth when done correctly.

The plane isn't stalling.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

George Patterson wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:


Not at all. You come in and level out an inch or less above the
runway and then bleed off speed until you stall and settle onto the
runway. It is very smooth when done correctly.


The plane isn't stalling.

True, it is just the wing that is stalling. At the onset of stall the
airplane will settle very smoothly to the runway assuming that the
wheels are very close when the stall occurs.

You somehow seem to think that you can let the airplane down more
gradually using elevator while at a higher speed than what occurs when
the wing stalls. This simply isn't the case in most airplanes. When
the wing stalls, the lost of list is fairly dramatic, but it still takes
time for the airplane to accelerate downward. If you are within inches
of the runway, this will set you onto the ground very gently. Few
pilots can do a more gently touchdown using elevator control alone.

It is obvious that you weren't taught full-stall landings (by that I
mean having the control wheel full-aft and the stall horn blaring at the
moment of touchdown) and don't know how they are done or how good the
results can be when done properly.

You should find an instructor competent in this area and take a lesson
or two. It will be both fun and enlightening.

Matt

I do greaser full-stall landings just as I was taught.

I have never seen anyone do a greaser full-stall landing; the two are
contradictory. If you have enough speed to grease it on, you're not even
close to a stall. Most people rarely do full-stall landings, and nobody
I know teaches students to stall the plane in. You touch down with some
flying speed.

Not at all. You come in and level out an inch or less above the runway
and then bleed off speed until you stall and settle onto the runway. It
is very smooth when done correctly.

Maybe nobody you know does, but R.C. Johnston at N38 taught his students
this way for probably 50 years.

Talking about taildraggers here? I greased the three-point landing on
my check-flight, but rarely since. Even on grass, there's generally a
rumble. Perhaps it can be done consistently, but I've never met anyone
who does, not even my instructor.

Wheelies, now ....


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Cub Driver wrote:

I do greaser full-stall landings just as I was taught.

I have never seen anyone do a greaser full-stall landing; the two are
contradictory. If you have enough speed to grease it on, you're not even
close to a stall. Most people rarely do full-stall landings, and nobody
I know teaches students to stall the plane in. You touch down with some
flying speed.

Not at all. You come in and level out an inch or less above the runway
and then bleed off speed until you stall and settle onto the runway. It
is very smooth when done correctly.

Maybe nobody you know does, but R.C. Johnston at N38 taught his students
this way for probably 50 years.


Talking about taildraggers here? I greased the three-point landing on
my check-flight, but rarely since. Even on grass, there's generally a
rumble. Perhaps it can be done consistently, but I've never met anyone
who does, not even my instructor.

Nope, Cessna 150s, 172s and 182s. He flew them all pretty much the same
way. Dick could do them very consistently, but then he probably
averaged 20+ landings per day for something close to 50 years. He's
retired now, but still flies his 150 for fun.

I can't do them consistently, but probably hit what I'd call a greaser
about 40% of the time. Most folks I've flown with or watched, don't do
greasers any more than that during a "flown on" landing.

I didn't say it was EASY to do full-stall greasers, I just said it was
possible. I believe the OP asserted it wasn't possible. That is simply
not true.


Matt

On 2005-06-11, George Patterson wrote:
I remember a thread a year or more back in which this technique was discussed. A
few posts claimed (and, IIRC, proof was presented) that stalling an aircraft
into the trees would usually result in such a strong decelleration force when
you hit that compression of the spine would result. This would frequently
produce paralysis or death.

We had an aviation doctor come to our flying club for one of our monthly
safety meetings. His talk was basically how to properly crash a plane.

The salient points are that the body (and the restraint systems) are
extremely well equipped to take enormous momentary decelerations in
the normal direction of travel, but very poorly equipped to take side
loadings or loadings from underneath. You can survive momentary
decelerations over 100G if you're going forwards, but going sideways
or down, only a tiny fraction of that. Sideways in particular, what
happens is that rescuers get to the crash scene to find a seemingly
unscathed but very dead person - the heart and other organs can get
torn from their 'mountings' in that direction (which is very bad juju)
and the person has died from internal injuries.

From what I've seen, I'm firmly convinced that so long as the angle
of arrival isn't too steep and I keep going forwards until everything
stops, I've got a decent chance of escaping from a really bad day.
Keep flying it until you're done crashing was the lesson.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2005-06-11, George Patterson wrote:
I remember a thread a year or more back in which this technique was
discussed. A
few posts claimed (and, IIRC, proof was presented) that stalling an
aircraft
into the trees would usually result in such a strong decelleration force
when
you hit that compression of the spine would result. This would frequently
produce paralysis or death.

We had an aviation doctor come to our flying club for one of our monthly
safety meetings. His talk was basically how to properly crash a plane.

The salient points are that the body (and the restraint systems) are
extremely well equipped to take enormous momentary decelerations in
the normal direction of travel, but very poorly equipped to take side
loadings or loadings from underneath. You can survive momentary
decelerations over 100G if you're going forwards, but going sideways
or down, only a tiny fraction of that. Sideways in particular, what
happens is that rescuers get to the crash scene to find a seemingly
unscathed but very dead person - the heart and other organs can get
torn from their 'mountings' in that direction (which is very bad juju)
and the person has died from internal injuries.

From what I've seen, I'm firmly convinced that so long as the angle
of arrival isn't too steep and I keep going forwards until everything
stops, I've got a decent chance of escaping from a really bad day.
Keep flying it until you're done crashing was the lesson.


I would echo that. I was involve in a car accident where I was T Boned.
Apart from the head going through the driver door window and requiring 43
stiches the medics were more concerned about any internal injuries from the
side impact. Whilst covered in blood on the outside it was the possibility
of bloodloss on the inside which was the issue.

Fortunately for me the worst of the injury was a couple of cracked ribs and
a cracked vertebrae between the shoulder blades as well as the cut.

What was impressive though was how far the glass penetrated the skin and I
would be finding glass fragments coming to the top of the skin for months
after the accident, usually whilst in the shower.

Was back flying with the medical ok after 4 months.