Is every touchdown a stall?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Listening to the radio transmissions of a VFR pilot who had a panic
attack in a cloud of IMC, I heard him mention to a controller that
"the stall horn goes off every time I land." I thought that was
bizarre. Is a touchdown supposed to be a stall? My stall horn
doesn't sound on landing.

I gather you are using a toy flight simulator.

Okay, in a real airplane the stall warning horn does not go off every
time, either, but many pilots consider it the ideal. It means that you
are landing at the slowest possible speed. Or it at least is supposed
to.

My opinion, that of most manufacturers, and of many commercial pilots,
is that the stall warning horn is a very poor indicator of proper
landing speed. Cessna does not say in their operating handbooks to land
with the stall warning horn blaring. It does not say it on their
checklists. Cessna says to land at, say, 50 KIAS. No mention is made of
the stall warning horn except in the section on stalls. There. I said
it. I know it goes against the deepest heart of hearts of some people
here, including those I greatly respect or even admire, but there it
is. They are wrong. And we would have a lot fewer Cessnas and other
airplanes with broken tail cones if they would admit it. You would not
believe the number of tail strikes I have seen generated by these guys.

And I also think Langewische was wrong about some things. He was not
God. Some of the things he asserts in "Stick and Rudder" are downright
idiotic. Among other things, he advocates a "stall-proof" airplane,
which may not be possible and which certainly is not desirable. He
perpetuates certain myths about the cause of lift. I simply cannot
recommend this book for the student pilot, although it is a step above
"Junior Birdman" kits. Langewische should be used judiciously by flight
instructors who have a thorough grounding in the principles of flight,
if at all.

The ONLY time you should consider it absolutely necessary to land at
the slowest possible airspeed is when you are performing short field
landings. Higher airspeeds are helpful, and possibly even necessary, in
crosswinds, gusty conditions, soft field operations, or when you just
want an especially gentle landing and you have a long runway.

The best speed at which to land the airplane is the one recommended
(adjusted for local conditions) by the manufacturer, who presumably
knows something about the airplane's envelope. The manufacturer, after
all, designed the plane, did the engineering, and flew the
certification tests. The manufacturer knows what angle of attack will
cause you to bang the tail on the runway. The manufacturer knows what
rate of descent will smash the gear. The manufacturer knows what angle
of attack will lift the nose enough to keep you from banging the nose
wheel.

cjcampbell writes:

I gather you are using a toy flight simulator.

It's a program that simulates a toy plane (i.e., a Baron 58).

My opinion, that of most manufacturers, and of many commercial pilots,
is that the stall warning horn is a very poor indicator of proper
landing speed. Cessna does not say in their operating handbooks to land
with the stall warning horn blaring. It does not say it on their
checklists. Cessna says to land at, say, 50 KIAS. No mention is made of
the stall warning horn except in the section on stalls. There. I said
it. I know it goes against the deepest heart of hearts of some people
here, including those I greatly respect or even admire, but there it
is. They are wrong. And we would have a lot fewer Cessnas and other
airplanes with broken tail cones if they would admit it. You would not
believe the number of tail strikes I have seen generated by these guys.

Well, then, I'm not so far off the mark.

And I also think Langewische was wrong about some things. He was not
God. Some of the things he asserts in "Stick and Rudder" are downright
idiotic.

I haven't been able to find his book yet, anyway. It may not be
findable in Paris.

Among other things, he advocates a "stall-proof" airplane,
which may not be possible and which certainly is not desirable.

Years ago I read of NASA having developed a stall-proof wing, but I
don't know what became of that, or if it ever was incorporated into an
aircraft.

He perpetuates certain myths about the cause of lift.

About the same time ago, I recall reading that NASA had found that the
standard theory of lift in an airfoil was incorrect (after they came
up with a wing that generated the same lift both in its normal
position and when flying inverted).

I simply cannot
recommend this book for the student pilot, although it is a step above
"Junior Birdman" kits. Langewische should be used judiciously by flight
instructors who have a thorough grounding in the principles of flight,
if at all.

I've never heard of Junior Birdman kits.

The ONLY time you should consider it absolutely necessary to land at
the slowest possible airspeed is when you are performing short field
landings. Higher airspeeds are helpful, and possibly even necessary, in
crosswinds, gusty conditions, soft field operations, or when you just
want an especially gentle landing and you have a long runway.

That's kind of what I figured. With 11,000 feet of runway and only
3000 necessary to touchdown, what's the rush?

The best speed at which to land the airplane is the one recommended
(adjusted for local conditions) by the manufacturer, who presumably
knows something about the airplane's envelope. The manufacturer, after
all, designed the plane, did the engineering, and flew the
certification tests. The manufacturer knows what angle of attack will
cause you to bang the tail on the runway. The manufacturer knows what
rate of descent will smash the gear. The manufacturer knows what angle
of attack will lift the nose enough to keep you from banging the nose
wheel.

I don't have the manual for a Baron 58, although the sim model manual
includes extracts from it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article ,
says...


It's a program that simulates a toy plane (i.e., a Baron 58).



That's kind of what I figured. With 11,000 feet of runway and only
3000 necessary to touchdown, what's the rush?



Toy plane - Baron 58? 11,000ft runway?

I think some real flying, in a real plane (try a C-152 for starters) would
be helpful in correcting your attitude problem.

GF

Greg Farris writes:

Toy plane - Baron 58?

Yes. You see, real planes have jet engines, and carry 100 or more
passengers, and can fly above 30,000 feet. Anything else is a toy.

I think some real flying, in a real plane (try a C-152 for starters) would
be helpful in correcting your attitude problem.

A C152 is no more a real plane than a Baron 58.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

It's comments like this that make mxsmanic a troll. He admits to never
having flown anything other than an armchair, and asks questions about
flying techniques, but then makes idiotic pronouncements like his previous
post.

Why bother answering him and offer advice when all you'll get is an idiotic,
illogical, and argumentative response?

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:33:26 +0200, Greg Farris
wrote:

Toy plane - Baron 58? 11,000ft runway?

I think some real flying, in a real plane (try a C-152 for starters) would
be helpful in correcting your attitude problem.

No, a real plane is a J-3 Piper Cub. The runway should be 2,000 feet
or shorter. 1,000 feet is better. 500 feet -- now that's a challenge!

Cubdriver wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:33:26 +0200, Greg Farris
wrote:

Toy plane - Baron 58? 11,000ft runway?

I think some real flying, in a real plane (try a C-152 for starters) would
be helpful in correcting your attitude problem.

No, a real plane is a J-3 Piper Cub. The runway should be 2,000 feet
or shorter. 1,000 feet is better. 500 feet -- now that's a challenge!

Or, heck, just turn off at the first taxiway -- the one that is at the
end of the runway where you land.

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...

Cubdriver wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:33:26 +0200, Greg Farris
wrote:

Toy plane - Baron 58? 11,000ft runway?

I think some real flying, in a real plane (try a C-152 for starters)
would
be helpful in correcting your attitude problem.

No, a real plane is a J-3 Piper Cub. The runway should be 2,000 feet
or shorter. 1,000 feet is better. 500 feet -- now that's a challenge!

Or, heck, just turn off at the first taxiway -- the one that is at the
end of the runway where you land.

Nah.......land it 90 degrees ACROSS the runway, not ON it!!! :-))))
Dudley

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...

Cubdriver wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:33:26 +0200, Greg Farris
wrote:

Toy plane - Baron 58? 11,000ft runway?

I think some real flying, in a real plane (try a C-152 for starters)
would
be helpful in correcting your attitude problem.

No, a real plane is a J-3 Piper Cub. The runway should be 2,000 feet
or shorter. 1,000 feet is better. 500 feet -- now that's a challenge!

Or, heck, just turn off at the first taxiway -- the one that is at the
end of the runway where you land.

Nah.......land it 90 degrees ACROSS the runway, not ON it!!! :-))))
Dudley

I always just thought of that as a very wide runway.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Among other things, he advocates a "stall-proof" airplane,
which may not be possible and which certainly is not desirable.

Years ago I read of NASA having developed a stall-proof wing, but I
don't know what became of that, or if it ever was incorporated into an
aircraft.

There is a light aircraft called the Ercoupe. It's pretty much
unstallable. As a matter of fact, it's design fits Langewiesche's
musings on the "ideal" airplane.

You should be able to order the book from Amazon's european outlets.
I again would recommend Kerschner's book as also pratical. He goes
through a lot of flight trainning concepts with enough aerodynamics
to satisfy the how and why questions.