If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Sarangan wrote: Every landing involves a stall. Almost all of my landings do not involve a stall. The aircraft is flown onto the ground in a three-point attitude just above the stall. That's if I do it right. In the last couple of years I owned my 150, none of my landings in that plane involved a stall. George Patterson If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have been looking for it. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I have to respectfully disagree. A short field landing is where you plonk the airplane on the runway while it still has some flying speed. If the airplane is slow enough, the landing impact will absorb enough energy to prevent a bounce back into the air. On a normal landing, it is quite possible to squeeze out every bit of excess airspeed in the flare. When the airplane starts to descend despite the pilot's attempts is what we normally consider as the onset of stall. Perhaps the word 'fall' is a bit too strong for this situation because you are not falling more than a few inches. If you are only inches above the runway, the vertical speed will be virtually zero, and the touchdown should be smooth. However, it is quite possible to land an airplane in flying speed as you described as long as it is not too fast. I believe in this case you are using the energy dissipation due to the touchdown to prevent the airplane from bouncing back. "Peter Duniho" wrote in : "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message 7... Every landing involves a stall. No, not every landing does. In fact, preferably few do. But that is not the same as a stall during flight because you don't fall more than a few inches. IMHO, it is generally poor technique to "fall" at all during a landing. One exception is a short field landing where minimum airspeed is the highest priority, even if it means a "firm" landing. There may be other exceptions, but otherwise the landing should be a smooth, controlled descent with the airplane still flying when the tires touch the pavement and vertical speed as close to zero as possible. Pete Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Duniho wrote: IMHO, it is generally poor technique to "fall" at all during a landing. One exception is a short field landing where minimum airspeed is the highest priority, even if it means a "firm" landing. And, even with a short field landing, my aircraft is not stalled when flown properly. I am likely to have a high enough descent rate for it to be a "firm" landing; however, if I time the last burst of throttle correctly, even that won't be the case. George Patterson If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have been looking for it. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
G.R. Patterson III wrote: Peter Duniho wrote: IMHO, it is generally poor technique to "fall" at all during a landing. One exception is a short field landing where minimum airspeed is the highest priority, even if it means a "firm" landing. And, even with a short field landing, my aircraft is not stalled when flown properly. I am likely to have a high enough descent rate for it to be a "firm" landing; however, if I time the last burst of throttle correctly, even that won't be the case. When I want to wedge my 182 into a short space I fly the plane at about 45 mph indicated on very short final and land like a Navy pilot. No real flare, just hold attitude and smash into the ground. Not enough energy to bounce back in the air. Brakes semi-locked, pull the power, stopped in 400 feet. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Gardner wrote:
You will never experience a stall in a "commercial" aircraft. I wouldn't be too complacent about this. There were some articles about the American crash in New York shortly after 9/11 that were discussing why the rudder had apparently torn off of the aircraft. At least one of those articles discussed another incident involving the same type of plane, in which the stress of the incident _almost_ tore off it's rudder. No one paid much attention to the fact at the time, though, because they were more concerned with figuring out why the pilots had allowed the plane to stall. Rich Lemert |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote in message
... G.R. Patterson III wrote: Peter Duniho wrote: IMHO, it is generally poor technique to "fall" at all during a landing. One exception is a short field landing where minimum airspeed is the highest priority, even if it means a "firm" landing. And, even with a short field landing, my aircraft is not stalled when flown properly. I am likely to have a high enough descent rate for it to be a "firm" landing; however, if I time the last burst of throttle correctly, even that won't be the case. When I want to wedge my 182 into a short space I fly the plane at about 45 mph indicated on very short final and land like a Navy pilot. No real flare, just hold attitude and smash into the ground. Not enough energy to bounce back in the air. Brakes semi-locked, pull the power, stopped in 400 feet. When I got my first taste of short field landings, I was too fast and too flat which left me floating beyond the target. I finally turned to my CFI and said..."Should I just be trying to catch a "three wire?"" "EUREEKA!!!" I pictured what an F/A18 looks like on short final and saw myself trapping aboard the "USS Coolidge Muni" and nailed the next three just past the runway end lights. Used the same mental imagery on my checkride and planted that F-172 right on the second runway centerline stripe...right where the DPE wanted it! Jay Beckman KCHD PP-ASEL Still nowhere to go but up! |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
Every landing involves a stall. Nope. Besides, spins are aerobatic maneuvers and you are required to have parachutes unless you are doing it as part of a certificate or rating. Nope - you don't need to be "doing it as part of a certificate or rating". Hilton |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Besides, spins are aerobatic maneuvers and you are required to have
parachutes unless you are doing it as part of a certificate or rating. Nope - you don't need to be "doing it as part of a certificate or rating". Hilton Cites please? -- Jim in NC --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/12/2004 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
7... I have to respectfully disagree. A short field landing is where you plonk the airplane on the runway while it still has some flying speed. Sorry...weren't you the guy who just today posted "every landing involves a stall"? Usenet's going to be just that much less fun if you picking apart your *own* posts. Anyway, to each their own regarding technique. However, with a nice steep approach and low airspeed, you can have both minimum flying speed (or even a stall), and still have a rapid flare with no float. It's all about keeping your approach speed sufficiently slow. Yes, if you fly your approach at 1.3 Vs0, a full stall landing will mean a nice long float. But that's not the correct airspeed for a short field landing. Anyway, I take it you now agree with what was my main point: that it's NOT true that "every landing involves a stall". Thank you for your cooperation. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
All I Wanted For Christmas Were Inverted Spins | [email protected] | Aerobatics | 3 | December 29th 04 07:40 PM |
Spin Training | Captain Wubba | Piloting | 25 | April 12th 04 02:11 PM |
Cessna 150 Price Outlook | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 80 | October 16th 03 02:18 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |