Is every touchdown a stall?

Greg Farris wrote:
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.

Depends on the year and manufacturer. Ercoupes were made by several
different manufacturers, even Mooney. Some had linked rudders and
ailerons; some did not; and some were modified to have rudder pedals
later. Without a rudder, you had to touch down in a crab in a
crosswind. The Ercoupe's gear was built to take the punishment, but
some pilots didn't like it. Also, the Ercoupe and similar aircraft
(some Lancairs, Cirri, etc.), prevent stalls by deliberately limiting
angle of attack, which hurts short field performance.

Langewische's influence was not limited to the Ercoupe. Some of the
most successful planes in history incorporate many of his ideas,
including the Cessna 150 and its descendants, the 172 and related
types.

I like much of what Langewische says and I like how clearly he says it.
The trouble I have with him is really with just a few short passages
that I think are very misleading.

"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

Montblack wrote:
"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?

It might be possible to force the Ercoupe to spin by really yanking on
the controls in turbulent air and doing everything you could to force
it beyond its stall limitations, but I suspect that you have to be
deliberately trying to crash it.

The NTSB database attributes some Ecroupe accidents to "stall," but the
Ercoupe definitely has different stall characteristics than other
aircraft. Ercoupe fans deny that they are stalls at all. The way pilots
kill themselves on final in Ercoupes is they get real slow and a little
high, so they try to slow some more. The Ercoupe does not stall,
exactly, but it doesn't like that sort of treatment, either. It begins
to descend very rapidly and it takes some time to recover to a normal
rate of descent.

IIRC there have even been a couple of fatalities from spins in
Ercoupes, but control failures were a factor in these. Overall, the
Ercoupe has a *worse* than average fatality rate, which is something
that I doubt Langewische expected. It does show that Langewische was
wrong when he thought that the accident rate would be lowered
significantly if you made it impossible to stall an airplane. All it
really showed was that pilots who were likely to kill themselves in
stalls had to find some other method of committing suicide and murder.

Cubdriver wrote:
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.

Well, you fly them 'dangerous' taildraggers, which in Langewische's not
so humble opinion already marks you as an idiot.

I think it really points up the difference between two schools of
thought in aviation training. The Langewische school wanted to make
flying 'foolproof.' You still see a lot of this in initiatives by NASA
and even in the Moller Sky Car (maybe mxsmaniac should hold off
learning to fly until he can buy one of those :-) ). The other school
of thought, of course, recognizes that no matter how foolproof you make
thing, God always manages to build a better fool. That school of
thought simply says that you improve safety through pilot training and
if the pilot is incapable of being trained you don't let him fly.

In article ,
says...
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.

No, if you carry too much speed onto the ground, you will notice a well
known phenomena occurs - the plane wants to fly, the pilot doesn't want
to let it - and the aircraft will often porpoise. That's a bad
situation and I bet it's seen the demise of many a nose wheel.


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.

You should leave the flaps until yer say 25kts or less, as they will
offer significant drag, a benefit when landing. (Save on the brakepads
too).

--
Duncan

wrote in message
Which is why the typical landings are achieved at about 120% of the
stall speed in landing configuration, with allowances of a minimum of 5
kts or half the headwind + all gusts or 20 kts, whichever is lesser.

The A-320 flies its approaches at 120% Vls (it won't let you reach Vso). It
lands somewhere between Vref and Vls depending on pilot skill and aircraft
weight. Light aircraft fly approaches around 130% Vso and land near or at
Vso.

Full-stall landings aren't recommended unless you're in a tailwheel
aircraft.

Depends on the aircraft. Full-stall landings in a tailwheel Beech 18 with a
heavy load, walking gear, and short tailwheel are NOT recommended for
beginners. Full-stall landings in light nosewheel airplanes are my preferred
method for landing.

D.

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.

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

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.

Yeah. That's the old 200 foot long, 11,000 feet wide runway if I remember
right :-))

Its a great airshow maneuver. In doing a comedy act, I've done it a few
times (cheating with some wind on the nose but don't tell anyone :-)) Put
one down across 200 feet once doing a "bum stole the airplane" routine.
With a "real good sense" for flying behind the curve, a good pilot can plunk
a J3 into a Mason Jar!! :-))
Dudley

Capt.Doug wrote:

Full-stall landings in light nosewheel airplanes are my preferred method for landing.


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

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?

Ramapriya

Dave Doe writes:

No, if you carry too much speed onto the ground, you will notice a well
known phenomena occurs - the plane wants to fly, the pilot doesn't want
to let it - and the aircraft will often porpoise. That's a bad
situation and I bet it's seen the demise of many a nose wheel.

If your rate of descent is constant and very low, you will settle
gently onto the runway.

You should leave the flaps until yer say 25kts or less, as they will
offer significant drag, a benefit when landing. (Save on the brakepads
too).

Hmm ... I'll keep that in mind. I mainly due it immediately because I
don't want to forget to do it and because I don't want to leave the
ground again (since I try not to stall when landing), but you have a
point, so I'll try to wait a bit.

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