Is every touchdown a stall?

On 30 Sep 2006 01:27:18 -0700, "cjcampbell"
wrote:

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

Yes! Yes!

I spent weeks trying to make my approach to the airport resemble that
shown in Stick & Rudder. Only after decided that it was impossible did
I realize that Langewische was advocating approaching the airport on
the base leg instead of downwind.

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:



In a Cub, which of course has no horn,


The new Dakota Cub does have a stall horn. In certification testing now.

"Ron Natalie"
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.


Unspinnable?


Montblack

In article ,
says...



"Ron Natalie"
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.


Unspinnable?

If you can't stall it, you can't spin it.
It also had the rudder connected to the aileron controls, so you "steer"
it like a car. If I recall correctly, it had no rudder pedals.

There are plenty of them still flying - or more like restored and flying
again, and they can often be had at reasonable prices too. It was a flop
in its day - perhaps pilots felt it was belittling to have a machine
that purported to correct their mistakes - sort of like an Airbus,
except that the latter makes mistakes of its own.

GF

Greg Farris writes:

If you can't stall it, you can't spin it.
It also had the rudder connected to the aileron controls, so you "steer"
it like a car. If I recall correctly, it had no rudder pedals.

There are plenty of them still flying - or more like restored and flying
again, and they can often be had at reasonable prices too. It was a flop
in its day - perhaps pilots felt it was belittling to have a machine
that purported to correct their mistakes - sort of like an Airbus,
except that the latter makes mistakes of its own.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ercoupe

Quite an extensive article.

It's rather depressing to see how many technologically sound designs
fall by the wayside for purely political and business reasons.

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

..... As long as the aircraft
hasn't stalled, the descent rate is constant in a given configuration;
if it stalls, it suddenly descends much more quickly, which seems
risky so close to the runway.

Near the runway you are in ground effect and not likely to stall the
same way as at heights.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

No, airplane wings almost never reach stall AOA on landing.

Well, now I'm seeing two conflicting opinions. Should the aircraft
stall above the runway, or shouldn't it? Should I be hearing a stall
warning when making a correct landing?

You need to read the responses you got more closely. They are not in
conflict.

1) If an aircraft stalls an inch above the runway, then the only thing
that will happen is that it will land softly.

2) The stall warning signals that the aircraft is approaching critical
AOA, not that the aircraft has already stalled.

You always have lift while landing, and you'd have lift even
if fully stalled.

No doubt, but my concern is that a stall is a rapid and significant
loss of lift, and it seems that this would be dangerous with so little
space for maneuvering beneath the aircraft. As long as the aircraft
hasn't stalled, the descent rate is constant in a given configuration;
if it stalls, it suddenly descends much more quickly, which seems
risky so close to the runway.

Neither of your above notions are true.

1) Some aircraft behave with a benign but increasing loss of lift up until
the point of the stall, while others behave quite violently prior to the
aircraft being stalled.

2) The descent rate depends on many factors, but if the aircraft is
flying, it is not landing. If you are below the speed at which the
aircraft can fly, you are effectively stalled. If you are close to the
runway, you are in ground effect, and thus the aircraft does not
"...descend much more quickly". It is riskier to be rolling along the
runway above stall speed after touchdown.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

2) The descent rate depends on many factors, but if the aircraft is
flying, it is not landing.

If the aircraft is flying and descending, it is landing.

It is riskier to be rolling along the runway above stall speed after touchdown.

I retract flaps and set throttles to idle as soon as the wheels are on
the runway.

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

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.