Is every touchdown a stall?

A normal approach is at 1.5 Vs until on final approach to
allow for maneuvering flight. Once on final, where bank
angles will be less than 15 degrees, with little effect on
stall speed/load factor, speed will be 1.3 Vs until
beginning the flare or round out. Actual touchdown will
happen at 1.1 to 1.01 Vs. On really short fields that are
not "soft" actually stalling at 1 to 2 feet AGL and dropping
it in is well within the design limits of the landing gear
and wing.

Real airplanes and real simulators "care" about such
details, desktop PC games and simulators don't, which is why
you can log take-offs and landings in an airplane or a $20
million full motion/visual sim.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...
| Mxsmanic wrote:
|
|
| You don't need to stall the aircraft to descend. It can
fly and
| descend at the same time. If you do this above a
runway, you end up
| landing. If the rate of descent is gentle, you land
very gently.
|
| It's easy to "land" with a minimum rate of descent by
carrying extra
| power. This is however, not advisable. As I pointed out
earlier
| you're going to have to disapate that energy (and may not
be able to
| before you run out of runway). Further, you'll have a
lower pitch
| attitude and in most planes it's the mains you want to
take the
| brunt of the landing force with, not the nosewheel.
|
| Flying into the ground with excess energy is *NOT* good
technique.
|
|
| As I understand it, a stall is a sudden change in the
aerodynamics of
| the aircraft.
|
| Your understanding is as usual, incorrect.
| This would be all the more true
| under rough landing conditions, when you need to have
precise control
| of the aircraft at all times. Y It doesn't sound like
something you'd want when you are
| only a few feet above the runway. es, I can see how
you'd need a longer
| runway, but if you're in a small aircraft, very often
you have runway
| to spare, anyway.
|
| Again you persist to think that stalls somehow destroy
controllability,
| which is not the case.
|
| I don't know if my techniques are valid, but I seem to
be having more
| luck with safe landings since I started watching
airspeed carefully to
| avoid anything like a stall.
|
|
| No you have had good luck playing games on the computer.
You have
| not demoonstrated squat with regard to airplanes.

karl gruber wrote:
"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dudley Henriques wrote:
I love that act. It is absolutely my favorite.


Chris,

I used to watch you instruct. I always thought you were training your
students for that role!!!:}

That's what you get for watching the parts where I am flying. My
students are always better.

Ron Natalie wrote:
cjcampbell wrote:


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.

Depends on the year and manufacturer.

It's not so much the linked ailerons and rudders that made it hard
to spin, it's the fact you don't have enough elevator authority to
stall it.

Yes. And that was also the thing that hurt short field performance the
most.

Still, you gotta like the Ercoupe, it being so cute and all.

wrote in message
Are there reasons and circumstances, other than when you've a short
runway, to recommend full-stall landings?

There is less wear and tear on brakes and tires. You are traveling slower if
a loss of directional control occurs. Brakes have been known to fail. It
shows mastery of the aircraft. You can turn off the runway sooner for a
potentially shorter taxi time. Turning off the runway sooner is a courtesy
to those waiting to use the runway.

And one more thing... if we assume that the stall occurs at about 20
degrees, won't the ensuing nose-down thwack on to the runway do the
nosewheel strut any harm?

Your assumption would be correct except that 'full-stall landing' is
(usually) a misnomer. The aircraft (usually) doesn't reach critical angle of
attack for a full stall before the wheels touch down. The pilot tries to
reach as high an angle of attack as s/he can before the wheels touch the
ground. This results in low landing speeds and shorter roll-outs.

D.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
news
[...]
You excerpted that context and created a truncated statement from my reply
that changed the meaning, and you are still arguing the merits of that
comment *out of context*.

Actually, just as your reply truncated the thread to the point at which you
felt a need to interject, so did mine. My reply was not intended to address
the earlier post you quote, nor did it.

It *did* however address statements such as "if the aircraft is flying, it
is not landing" (yours, and incorrect) and "If the aircraft is flying and
descending, it is landing" (Mxsmanic's, and basically correct, even if he
does misunderstand other aspects of landing).

The absence of a stall warning does not in and of itself suggest an
unsafe landing.

No one claimed that it does, as yet.

True. It's hard to know WHAT you and Dave Doe are claiming, since you
refuse to pin down your ambiguous statements.

You guys are engaged in a blatant double-standard in which your own
ambiguous terminology is apparently acceptable, while someone else's
is grounds for abuse.

What "double standard" might that be?

Go back and read the post that you quoted. You'll find the answer there.

Example of such an assumption that I have made, please?

For one, whatever assumption it is that makes you think that "Wrong" is a
correct and valid reply to "If the aircraft is flying and descending, it is
landing".

[...]
I am not "predisposed to attacking the guy", yet another presumption that
you are making that is completely unsubstantiated.

Your own actions justify the presumption. If you weren't predisposed to
attacking him, you would have given him the benefit of the doubt when
interpreting his ambiguous statement.

Or on a related note: if you feel my inference of your meaning is
incorrect, then correct it.

See above. It's not only "incorrect", it's completely fabricated by you.

Fabricated? It's an inference. How can an inference NOT be "fabricated"?
It is, by definition, an assumption made by the inferrer to compensate for
insufficient clarity of an original statement.

So again...if you feel my inference is incorrect, feel free to provide a
correction. That would involve clarifying your previous, ambiguous
statement.

Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find your "descriptions" to
be much more than obfuscation and generalization,

If you're having so much trouble understanding my posts, I'm amazed you even
know the word "obfuscation".

and appear to be both
off the mark in some cases and off-topic in other cases.

For example?

And, of course, I
think I've been pretty clear about both those points and the reasons why I
think so.

In which posts? I've yet to see any that were clear on either point. Feel
free to post a message ID, or Google Groups link, or even just quote the
text you feel substantiates the above claim.

I've made clear the context in which my statements are made,
including stating the inferences of the meaning of others' ambiguous
statements. There's nothing wrong with my statements as is, so if
you want to disagree, you need to clarify the meaning of your own
ambiguous statements.

And, of course, you don't find such comments as the above "ambiguous",
even though there is not one specific reference in the entire paragraph.

You should look up the word "ambiguous". It doesn't mean "without
references".

Pete

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
[...]
You excerpted that context and created a truncated statement from my
reply that changed the meaning, and you are still arguing the merits
of that comment *out of context*.

Actually, just as your reply truncated the thread to the point at
which you felt a need to interject, so did mine. My reply was not
intended to address the earlier post you quote, nor did it.

It *did* however address statements such as "if the aircraft is
flying, it is not landing" (yours, and incorrect)

So, you think context is unimportant, and that the changing of context to
create a different meaning is valid. We disagree about that, so there is
nothing more to discuss, here.

Neil

Capt.Doug wrote:

wrote in message
Are there reasons and circumstances, other than when you've a short
runway, to recommend full-stall landings?

There is less wear and tear on brakes and tires. You are traveling slower
if a loss of directional control occurs. Brakes have been known to fail.
It shows mastery of the aircraft. You can turn off the runway sooner for a
potentially shorter taxi time. Turning off the runway sooner is a courtesy
to those waiting to use the runway.

another good reason is: practice. It is a good idea to try to make
every landing a good training opportunity; for instance, try to make
it a precision landing every time, or practice short field or soft
field landing techniques, so that when you really have to get it right,
for instance during an emergency landing, you'll be well prepared.

--Sylvain

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
m...
So, you think context is unimportant, and that the changing of context to
create a different meaning is valid.

You are assigning to me a statement of belief I never made. If anything, my
point was the opposite of what you claim it to be.

We disagree about that, so there is nothing more to discuss, here.

I can certainly agree that if you are going to continue making false
attributions to me, there's not any point in continuing the discussion.

On 2006-10-02, Mxsmanic wrote:
Dylan Smith writes:

There's more than one way to land an aircraft, though. Take, for
example, a tailwheel aircraft. You can land it in the 'three point'
attitude (the mains and tailwheel touching down pretty much
simultaneously) - which is often called a 'stall landing'. You're not
quite actually stalled when this happens - the three point attitude in
all the tailwheel planes I've flown has been slightly below the stall
angle of attack.

It sounds very difficult. I take it this is where the expression
"three-point landing" for a difficult task successfully accomplished
came from?

It's trivially easy, and back in the day when tailwheel aircraft were
used as primary trainers, it's how newly soloed pilots with 8 hours of
flight time did their landings.

Wheel landings tend to be more tricky, because you have to touch down
with virtually nil rate of descent, and add the little bit of forward
stick at just the right time. Get the timing wrong, and you bounce.
However, once mastered it's kind of like 'riding a bike'.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:41:26 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

RK Henry writes:

Of course you can put the airplane on the runway at 100 knots. It's
just bad practice. Tires and brakes are expensive. Excess stress on
the landing gear can cause expensive damage.

Stalling 20 feet above the runway can do lots of damage, too. I
suppose that a stall six inches above the runway is harmless, but if
it's only six inches, why bother? And it cuts things really close to
try to get a stall only within the last six inches above the runway,
no more and no less.

Do the math. Flying onto a runway at 100 knots as opposed to say, 60
knots, means that the airplane has to absorb a LOT more energy than
dropping it from just 20 feet.

E = 1/2 MV^2
vs.
E = MGH.

Admittedly, airplanes are better able to absorb energy along their
longitudinal axis than along their vertical axis, but a semi-stalled
airplane isn't going to just fall right down, so 20 feet won't be
quite so painful. A mercy for hapless students and the airplanes that
they rent. You can even mitigate an incipient stall from that height
with a little power, or even initiate a go around.

RK Henry