Is every touchdown a stall?

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
If the stall warning horn is not sounding (a precondition from earlier
posts), it can be presumed that the aircraft is "well above stall" speed.

Not without a clear definition of "well above" (so far, none has been
offered). And even if your own personal definition of "well above" is any
airspeed at which the stall warning isn't sounding, any airplane can be
landed safely without the stall warning going off, and many airplanes
*should* be landed without the stall warning going off.

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

"Descending" is uninformative about the actual attitude or speed of the
aircraft,

It's about as uninformative as phrases like "well above" and "good flying
speed". So what?

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.

and whether one is landing or crashing depends at least to some
degree on those other factors. It's valuable to read the entire thread if
you wish to object to some response to it.

I have read through the entire thread, and the assumptions you and others
have made about statements made by Mxsmanic are just that: assumptions. You
have no reason for making the inference that you have, other than to find a
point of leverage for criticism. If you weren't so predisposed to attacking
the guy, you never would have made such assumptions.

Ironically, in making those assumptions, you are also posting your own vague
and potentially incorrect statements. Those statements are the ones to
which I'm responding. If it's fair game for you to infer arbitrary meaning
in someone else's ambiguous terminology, why is it not fair for me to do so?

Or on a related note: if you feel my inference of your meaning is incorrect,
then correct it. So far, neither you nor anyone else has, in spite of my
clear description of the inference that I've made. 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.

Pete

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
If the stall warning horn is not sounding (a precondition from
earlier posts), it can be presumed that the aircraft is "well above
stall" speed.

Not without a clear definition of "well above" (so far, none has been
offered). And even if your own personal definition of "well above"
is any airspeed at which the stall warning isn't sounding, any
airplane can be landed safely without the stall warning going off,
and many airplanes *should* be landed without the stall warning going
off.

I agree; I *usually* land before the stall warning goes off. However, that
is not the point, nor does it address the issues raised in this thread in
the context that they were raised.

To keep things simple, the response to the question of the thread -- "Is
every touchdown a stall" is "no". However, I didn't enter the thread at
that stage, and the point where I did enter it was discussion of landing
in a different context. Specifically, I responded to:

Mxsmanic:
" 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."

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*.

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

No one claimed that it does, as yet.

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?

and whether one is landing or crashing depends at least to some
degree on those other factors. It's valuable to read the entire
thread if you wish to object to some response to it.

I have read through the entire thread, and the assumptions you and
others have made about statements made by Mxsmanic are just that:
assumptions.

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

If you
weren't so predisposed to attacking the guy, you never would have
made such assumptions.

I am not "predisposed to attacking the guy", yet another presumption that
you are making that is completely unsubstantiated. If you followed other
threads in this newsgroup, you would know that I've "known" Mxsmanic for
years. In other newsgroups, and in other contexts I have agreed with him
on many occassions. If he has any integrity, he'll confirm this for you if
he reads this. My complaints are specific to some posts that he has made
here, and I have not generalized those complaints into an "attack", as you
are implying.

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.

So far, neither you nor anyone else has,
in spite of my clear description of the inference that I've made.

Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find your "descriptions" to
be much more than obfuscation and generalization, and appear to be both
off the mark in some cases and off-topic in other cases. And, of course, I
think I've been pretty clear about both those points and the reasons why I
think so.

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.
So, I don't have a clue as to what you are referring to, just a general
notion that you are objecting to something or other and think you're right
about it.

Neil

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
If the stall warning horn is not sounding (a precondition from
earlier posts), it can be presumed that the aircraft is "well above
stall" speed.

Not without a clear definition of "well above" (so far, none has been
offered). And even if your own personal definition of "well above"
is any airspeed at which the stall warning isn't sounding, any
airplane can be landed safely without the stall warning going off,
and many airplanes should be landed without the stall warning going
off.

I agree; I usually land before the stall warning goes off. However, that
is not the point, nor does it address the issues raised in this thread in
the context that they were raised.

To keep things simple, the response to the question of the thread -- "Is
every touchdown a stall" is "no". However, I didn't enter the thread at
that stage, and the point where I did enter it was discussion of landing
in a different context. Specifically, I responded to:

Mxsmanic:
" 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."

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.

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

No one claimed that it does, as yet.

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?

and whether one is landing or crashing depends at least to some
degree on those other factors. It's valuable to read the entire
thread if you wish to object to some response to it.

I have read through the entire thread, and the assumptions you and
others have made about statements made by Mxsmanic are just that:
assumptions.

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

If you
weren't so predisposed to attacking the guy, you never would have
made such assumptions.

I am not "predisposed to attacking the guy", yet another presumption that
you are making that is completely unsubstantiated. If you followed other
threads in this newsgroup, you would know that I've "known" Mxsmanic for
years. In other newsgroups, and in other contexts I have agreed with him
on many occassions. If he has any integrity, he'll confirm this for you if
he reads this. My complaints are specific to some posts that he has made
here, and I have not generalized those complaints into an "attack", as you
are implying.

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.

So far, neither you nor anyone else has,
in spite of my clear description of the inference that I've made.

Clarity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find your "descriptions" to
be much more than obfuscation and generalization, and appear to be both
off the mark in some cases and off-topic in other cases. And, of course, I
think I've been pretty clear about both those points and the reasons why I
think so.

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.
So, I don't have a clue as to what you are referring to, just a general
notion that you are objecting to something or other and think you're right
about it.

Neil

In article ,
says...
Peter Duniho writes:

Neil's original statement was simply "if the aircraft is flying, it is not
landing". This is not true. As near as I can tell from the quoted thread,
this was the point Mxsmanic was addressing. There is nothing fundamentally
incorrect about the statement "If the aircraft is flying and descending, it
is landing" (assuming we're talking about airplane flight near a runway,
which seems like a reasonable inference in this context...obviously aircraft
fly and descend without landing all the time in other contexts).

Yes.

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.

I'm unclear as to the official definition of "with good flying speed up your
sleeve", the phrase you use.

I'm not sure what that means, either, but in my case, "flying speed"
means perhaps five or eight knots above stall, depending on many
things. I'm not talking about high-altitude cruise speeds, but a
speed high enough to avoid an accidental or deliberate stall above the
runway.

As I understand it, a stall is a sudden change in the aerodynamics of
the aircraft. It doesn't sound like something you'd want when you are
only a few feet above the runway. This would be all the more true
under rough landing conditions, when you need to have precise control
of the aircraft at all times. Yes, 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.

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.

There is an excellent manual, IIRC, in MSFS, and I'd suggest you read
it, in particular the pattern work - flying by the numbers in MSFS is
definately the way to go (as you have little to 'feel' by).

--
Duncan

In article ,
says...
Dave Doe writes:

While the poster can probably put the C182 in MSFS on the ground at
100kts, or even 75kts - this doesn't happen in the real world.

I'm certain that it can be done in the real world. Are you saying
that a C182 cannot be made to descend at 100 kts? That the only
directions it can go at that speed are straight ahead or up? I find
that hard to believe.

I'm saying you'll find landing very bloody difficult at that speed -
hang on, that's what I said. Are you reading properly.

--
Duncan

"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!!!:}


Best,
Karl (Just kidding Chris, couldn't resist!!)

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.

It's generally better to touch down as slowly as practicable. And
what's the slowest speed you can touch down? While touchdown speed may
need to be adjusted slightly for conditions such as wind or
turbulence, it's generally better to do your slowing down while on
approach instead of carrying so much energy all the way to the runway.
A good reference is the aircraft's POH, or the guidance of an
instructor. But then, you don't get either of those with a simulator,
do you?

There's a POH of sorts of 100 pages or so, part of which comes from
the real aircraft, and part of which is written for the simulated
aircraft.

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

Dave Doe writes:

There is an excellent manual, IIRC, in MSFS, and I'd suggest you read
it, in particular the pattern work - flying by the numbers in MSFS is
definately the way to go (as you have little to 'feel' by).

The problem with the documentation in MSFS is that you can't read it
and fly at the same time. Even looking at a map requires that the
simulation be halted.

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

Neil Gould writes:

You have "demonstrated" nothing at all. It's irrelevant that it might work
in your sim.

There's a reason why it's called a simulator.

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

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.