Bounced landing recovery?

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:36:47 GMT, "Ed H" wrote:



I'm not sure just how serious this is but ... Landings are bounced due
to excessive speed, AND/OR landing on the nose gear first.

Not to be too picky, but I think that bounced landings in a nosegear
aircraft are generally due to too great a sink rate. The gear are not able
to absorb all the energy and the aircraft is literally bounced back into the
air. The airspeed is not the direct problem; it's what you do or don't do

The airspeed is *the* problem. Without excessive airspeed it ain't
gonna bounce much. More than likely it'll hit and go splat.
That is why with the Bo a normal landing takes power and a power off
landing is a fair amount faster. According to the POH the extra speed
is to give enough energy to flare.

True that with excessive forward speed and poor timing at arresting
the rate of descent together can produce a really impressive bounce.
Flown by the numbers, final on the Bo is slow and steep. If the engine
quits you shove the nose down to get enough speed to flare. If it
quits as you are entering the round out you are likely going to be
calling your insurance carrier.

In practicing short field landings I have come in with just a bit too
much sink rate. It set down on the mains with the nose wheel high and
it did not bounce. As the airline pilots say, "It was an arrival".

Many years ago, I took a friend for a rid in the old Cherokee 180. I
asked him how much he weighed as he was a rather hefty guy. He said
240 which put us well within the GC envelope.

When we were coming down final I had reached the point where it was
time to pull the power and glide in. When the power came off the nose
went down and the airspeed headed up. I poured on the power and
brought the nose up. The nose wheel never touched but I'll bet we
bounced 50 feet into the air. The second bounce was only about 10
feet and we didn't bounce at all on the third touch down. He weighed
a *lot* more than 240.

with it in the roundout and flare. Strictly speaking, I could cross the
fence at Vne and still land without bouncing if I had a long enough runway
and enough patience to bleed off all that excess airspeed in ground effect.

As long as the touchdown is not premature. If it is, it is likely to
be on the nose gear which will come up bringing the mains down and we
are off to the beginnings of a beautiful porpoise. Flying on some
nose draggers will result in a beautiful imitation of a wheel barrow
and that can be exciting. I believe the Twin Comanche is prone to
this with an inexperienced pilot. (Any Twin Comanche drivers care to
comment?)


I use the disclaimer "nosegear" because the dynamic is different in a
tailwheel aircraft. In a taildragger, a 3 point landing must be at full
stall.

That's the way I land the Deb. (most of the time)
When I made my first landing at the airsafety foundation training the
CFII asked if I learned to fly in tail draggers. I told him no, it
was just the way I was taught. Main gear is rugged for landing and
nose gear is light, fragile, and expensive and for steering AFTER the
landing.


Anything faster than that will cause the tail to pitch down,
increasing the AoA and lift, and causing the plane to lift off again. A
wheel landing can be at darn near any airspeed above stall if the pilot is
skilled enough. In my Decathlon, which has a stall speed of 54 mph, I can
grease a wheel landing at 70 to 80 mph without trouble, and I'm not
particularly skilled at it.

That is faster than I land the Deb. Alone and with about an hours
worth of fuel burned off, I'd be coming down final around 76 to 78
*MPH* Even at gross it's only 80. Stall with me and partial fuel is
only 55 MPH. So touch down at full stall in ground effect is
probably 40 MPH or less.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

("Roger" wrote)
much good stuff snipped
So touch down at full stall in ground effect is probably 40 MPH or less.


I talked with a guy last week with a beautiful (IFR) 1981 Piper Tomahawk. He
said a lot of people took off the original smaller tires (including flight
schools) and went with a bigger size setup. He said many, many broken engine
mounts later people switched back to the original size tires. Too much
speed, too much bounce...


Montblack

"Montblack" wrote

I talked with a guy last week with a beautiful (IFR) 1981 Piper Tomahawk.
He
said a lot of people took off the original smaller tires (including flight
schools) and went with a bigger size setup. He said many, many broken
engine
mounts later people switched back to the original size tires. Too much
speed, too much bounce...

How does larger tires cause too much speed?
--
Jim in NC

("Morgans" wrote)
How does larger tires cause too much speed?


I think the speed is sometimes a given - flight schools. Bigger tires then
caused (or resulted in) more bouncing ...which was exasperated by the speed.
Sound logical??

I'm thinking he said he has 5.00x5 tires on now, and that Tomahawk owners
were putting 6.00x6 tires on, but started having those engine mount
problems - guessing at the sizes from what I remember.

Would be nice to hear if someone else has heard of this in Tomahawks.


Montblack

"Montblack" wrote


I think the speed is sometimes a given - flight schools. Bigger tires then
caused (or resulted in) more bouncing ...which was exasperated by the
speed.
Sound logical??

I knew that, but I was fishin'! I thought someone might pipe up on how
bigger tires cause less drag, and you reach the ground sooner than expected,
and ...yada,yada,yada. Come'on, Montbwack! Get with the program!
(vbg)
--
Jim in NC

("Morgans" wrote)
snipping his line(s)
I knew that, but I was fishin'!


Did I get hooked ...or just noodled?

http://petesbait.com/articles/noodling.php


Montblack
You're gonna need a bigger boat, if you were trying to net me - unless you
have the the formula to "transparent aluminum" and access to a transporter.
g

"Montblack" wrote

Did I get hooked ...or just noodled?

Nah, not really. I was looking for someone to have a bunch of BS to say.
But in a way, this link covers it! :-)

I guess in a way, that is what I was doing. No way, though! I've met you,
and you aren't half of some of those fish!

http://petesbait.com/articles/noodling.php

Damn, *that* is some fishin' !
--
Jim in NC

I knew that, but I was fishin'! I thought someone might pipe up on how
bigger tires cause less drag, and you reach the ground sooner than expected,
and ...yada,yada,yada. Come'on, Montbwack! Get with the program!
(vbg)

Well, they weigh more!

I'm told that tundra tires take a bit of spooling up, and that they
have sufficient mass to launch a Super Cub or Husky back into the air.
It's called slingshotting.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:36:47 GMT, "Ed H" wrote:



I'm not sure just how serious this is but ... Landings are bounced due
to excessive speed, AND/OR landing on the nose gear first.

Not to be too picky, but I think that bounced landings in a nosegear
aircraft are generally due to too great a sink rate. The gear are not
able
to absorb all the energy and the aircraft is literally bounced back into
the
air. The airspeed is not the direct problem; it's what you do or don't
do

The airspeed is *the* problem. Without excessive airspeed it ain't
gonna bounce much. More than likely it'll hit and go splat.
That is why with the Bo a normal landing takes power and a power off
landing is a fair amount faster. According to the POH the extra speed
is to give enough energy to flare.


I agree that excessive airspeed plus excessive sink rate probably gives the
most spectacular bounces. But excessive sink rate at the correct approach
speed can also lead to a damaging bounce, especially in aircraft with spring
steel gear like old Cessna 172s and 152s. That springy gear flings the bird
back up into the air a few feet. The pilot shoves the stick forward,
increasing the impact of the second bounce and throwing the plane even
higher. On the second or third bounce, the plane rises out of ground
effect, stalls, and drops all the way to the runway. At least that's the
way it has been explained to me (never experienced it). I suppose you would
need a few knots over stall speed to get that bounce, but you wouldn't
really have to be that hot.

I only have a few hours in a Deb, and only 2 landings, but I found it an
easy plane to land. I just drove it onto the runway.

For a really fun bounce, nothing quite compares with your first few wheel
landings when you're getting your TW endorsement. I'm in the market for a
Pitts. I'm looking forward to learning to fly it, but not looking forward
to learning to land it.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 03:05:36 GMT, "Ed" wrote:

For a really fun bounce, nothing quite compares with your first few wheel
landings when you're getting your TW endorsement. I'm in the market for a
Pitts. I'm looking forward to learning to fly it, but not looking forward
to learning to land it

We had a Pitts at Hampton airfield, but he rented a hangar somewhere
else and decamped. It seems that his paint job cost more than most
small airplanes, and he didn't want to ding it with pebbles and mud.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com