Flight Design full stall landing

[Ed Cesnalis]

Flight Design's CTLS's landing video features steep turns, full flaps and landing near stall speed.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

Very shallow approach though, seemed like forever he was skimming along at ten feet before the runway threshold...

[Ed Cesnalis]

Here's a student doing a 30° landing

 

[FastEddieB]

Very shallow approach though, seemed like forever he was skimming along at ten feet before the runway threshold...

 

As I have noticed and commented upon in my own videos, that's an artifact of the wide angle setting - it makes things seem much farther away, and angles seem much shallower. In some of my videos it looks like I'm coming in very shallow and about to hit the trees on short final, when in fact I was coming in quite steeply power off.

[FastEddieB]

Just watched the second video.

 

I really like the instructor's demeanor. And the way he "covers" the controls without actually touching them. Nice learning environment.

 

I don't like power left on as a matter of course, but if that technique gets the job done, so be it.

[FastEddieB]

OK, I watched the first video second.

 

I do NOT like the fact that both pilots are touching the stick, at least in the beginning and throughout the landing. That is generally to be avoided like the plague, and the FAA makes a big deal about "positive transfer of control" precisely to avoid this sort of thing.

 

"I thought YOU had the plane!" is something you never want to hear!

 

Perfect landing, though!

[Ed Cesnalis]

I like the energy management of the pilot in the LS.

 

What I get out of this pair of videos is the question regarding the difficulty of a full flap landing in a CT. Is it really to be avoided?

[Roger Lee]

Not avoided at all, just practiced and done with the idea that if you aren't up on your game and your attention isn't where it belongs then smacking the gear could happen before you noticed you even messed up. I kind of like 30 when the situation calls for it.

I show people when doing their first few 30 flap landings to keep a little power in then progress to idle. Most decide a little power is much easier and gives a little more solid control.

If you like idle only then by all means use it. I would also rather have a CT pilot with a few behind him to show me 30-40 flap landings than a CFI who hasn't really done any.

[CT2kflyer]

My CT2k has an infinite flap setting between 40 and -12 degrees. With 3 more feet of wing than a CTSW, my published full-stall landing speed at 40 degree flaps is 37 kts. I don't mind doing full-stall landings although prudence generally keeps me in the 30-15 degree flap range.

 

My airspeed on short final I like to keep at 55 kts to 50 kts. That gives me stall X 1.3 at my normal landing speed. There isn't any right answer to how to land - it's what works best for a given day. Gusty days I use 15 degree flaps and keep my speed up a bit. Calm winds and I'll use about 30 degrees.

 

In a 19 knot cross-wing which was exactly 90 degrees off the runway heading, I used 60 kts at touchdown and 0 degree flaps............ it worked. I was less concerned about getting the bird down than I was with keeping my windward wing from lifting up and flipping the plane..... (immediately on wheel contact I moved to go to -12 degree flaps).

 

I don't think one can state what the right configuration and speeds are for landing unless your talking about a perfect day. It depends............... be flexible..... the winds sure are.

[Jim]

The flaps 40 landing in a CTSW is a big pussycat as long as you remember to not pitch the nose up too much. Pitch the nose up excessively and the airplane will abruptly drop a wing and yaw about 30 degrees. The only fix is full throttle and a go-around.

[Ed Cesnalis]

30° deadstick

 

[Ed Cesnalis]

agreed

 

I noticed not long ago you advocated touching down with a closed throttle, now you are agreeing to 30° and 50-55kts? Tell us about the epiphany.

 

I noticed that time and again when I used those same numbers you corrected me and said that 30° is a mess, and that 30 at 55kts was too slow, too close too stall or worse!

 

62kts was the minimum speed, remember? now you agree to 50, that's a big change!

[Ed Cesnalis]

30° deadstick

 

 

Bump In case you didn't notice the student is landing dead stick.

[Jim Meade]

Did one of these the other day. No, that's wrong. Mine was at 40° flaps.

[Doug G.]

"Bump  In case you didn't notice the student is landing dead stick."

 

Is that why the propeller isn't moving?

[paul m]

Curious to know, if the engine stops unexpectedly, is there anyone who would pull the chute even if they thought they could make a runway (not an open landing area but an actual runway)?

[Roger Lee]

Should be no different than landing a glider or your CT at idle. Keep cool, keep the speed up so you don't stall and make a nice controlled landing.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Not avoided at all, just practiced and done with the idea that if you aren't up on your game and your attention isn't where it belongs then smacking the gear could happen before you noticed you even messed up. I kind of like 30 when the situation calls for it.

I show people when doing their first few 30 flap landings to keep a little power in then progress to idle. Most decide a little power is much easier and gives a little more solid control.

If you like idle only then by all means use it. I would also rather have a CT pilot with a few behind him to show me 30-40 flap landings than a CFI who hasn't really done any.

 

I underlined a portion of Roger's quote that is a focal point when trying to understand our different approaches to landings.

 

1st let me point out that in most cases this difference is the result of the law of primacy, what you learn first does matter.

 

Is this concern that you can damage your gear before you even know that there is an issue a reason to only use landing flaps when you are 'on top of your game'? I have 1,000 full stall landings on my CTSW and my opinion is that this is not a real world concern. You do have to have a good idea of where the ground is and you do have to have control of your vertical speed but you need those things even if you don't land at or near stall speed so how is that a reason to avoid flaps/slow?

 

I agree that a little power makes a big difference but not because the controls are more solid instead because of the less radical change in pitch attitude. Look at the video of the student doing a deadstick, on approach there is no horizon and on touchdown there is plenty. Add some power and this rotation is lessened to a big degree.

 

I'm not saying I'm right and Roger's wrong, I am saying that this difference is a good focal point. I will agree that if you stall from more than a couple of feet because you don't know your height that there is a risk but it is also true that when you have good visibility that you don't have to feel for the ground you can flare for it.

[FastEddieB]

Curious to know, if the engine stops unexpectedly, is there anyone who would pull the chute even if they thought they could make a runway (not an open landing area but an actual runway)?

 

paul,

 

I would say it largely depends on how comfortable one is with making power-off landings from directly over a field.

 

Ideally, it's something one practices to the point where it's just another maneuver and the outcome is never in doubt. If one does not have that confidence, I'd recommend practicing it every few landings - arrive over your destination at a safe altitude, pull the power back to idle, the spiral down so as to arrive abeam your intended touchdown point at about 1,000'. From that point it should be pretty straightforward to fly a tight pattern and land in the first third of the runway.

 

BTW, precision power-off accuracy landings are part if the Commercial Pilot syllabus.

[FastEddieB]

 

I agree that a little power makes a big difference but not because the controls are more solid instead because of the less radical change in pitch attitude. Look at the video of the student doing a deadstick, on approach there is no horizon and on touchdown there is plenty. Add some power and this rotation is lessened to a big degree.

 

Agreed, and whatever works, but...

 

...if a pilot gets accustomed to a touch of power on nearly every landing, when faced with a true power-off emergency, he or she may not be up to the task of flaring properly sans power. And a botched or bounced arrival without the option of going around can be ugly.

 

Again, no problem with some power carried into the flare, but as in my post above, one should still be capable of, and comfortable with, landing with no power. If not, then maybe some practice, maybe with an instructor, would be in order.

 

And then, once comfortable with power-off landings, one can reconsider exactly why power seems to "help" with some pilots, while others get along just fine with power-off landings as the norm.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Agreed, and whatever works, but...

 

...if a pilot gets accustomed to a touch of power on nearly every landing, when faced with a true power-off emergency, he or she may not be up to the task of flaring properly sans power. And a botched or bounced arrival without the option of going around can be ugly.

 

Again, no problem with some power carried into the flare, but as in my post above, one should still be capable of, and comfortable with, landing with no power. If not, then maybe some practice, maybe with an instructor, would be in order.

 

And then, once comfortable with power-off landings, one can reconsider exactly why power seems to "help" with some pilots, while others get along just fine with power-off landings as the norm.

 

I was offering clarification not advocating power as the norm.

[paul m]

Article in this month's AOPA Flight Training Mag--thought it would be interesting in light of all the landing technique discussion on this forum.

 

TWO TOUCHDOWN TECHNIQUES

 

‘Fly it on’ versus ‘hold it off’

 

» By Russell Smith

 

AS I SOUGHT THE PERFECT TOUCHDOWN, MY TECHNIQUE CHANGED. NO LONGER WAS I ALLOWING THE AIRPLANE TO SETTLE ONTO THE RUNWAY. I HAD BEGUN TO ACTUALLY FLY IT ONTO THE RUNWAY.

 

WHEN I STARTED flying in 1966 at the age of 13,1 flew a 1960 Cessna 150 with a straight back, a square tail, manual flaps, a venturi tube mounted on the side, and a coffee-grinder radio. The single runway was short and very narrow; if you did not land on the centerline, you were in the grass.

 

My instructors had taught me to land using a technique that is generally taught today, in which the airplane is flown close to the runway, with the tires a few inches above the ground, and then held off until it settles onto Mother Earth of its own accord as airspeed bleeds off. It was the only method I knew, and I wanted to perfect the technique. But, without knowing or understanding, as I sought the perfect touchdown, my technique changed. No longer was I allowing the airplane to settle onto the runway, but I had begun to actually fly the airplane onto the runway. It is a subtle difference: Coming over the fence out of a stabilized approach was the same; airspeeds were the same; touchdown attitude was very close to the same; but I wasn't waiting for the touchdown any longer—I was continuing my descent to the runway for those last few inches of altitude.

 

The technique involves a continuous descent with a decreasing rate from the beginning of the leveling-off process—the flare—until touchdown on the runway, with the rate of descent at touchdown approaching zero. The closer to zero, the softer the contact of the wheels on the runway. The landing must occur in the touchdown zone or, in the case of a longer-than-required runway, in the targeted touchdown zone.

 

A related landing concept is eyeball height above the runway at touchdown, in the landing attitude, as it varies from one aircraft type to another. I make a point to notice the perspective from the cockpit window during the taxi outbefore every takeoff, and visualize what that might look like in the landing attitude. A pilot flying a Boeing 747 might want to start a landing flare a little higher than a pilot flying a Cessna 150. Airline pilots can be more difficult to check out in small, single-engine aircraft because they have a tendency to flare high (and vice versa).

 

For many years I used my own technique, completely unaware that I was landing differently than originally taught. As I starting flying jets, I continued to fly the airplane onto the runway without any change to my technique, touching down in the touchdown zone of the runway in a seamless transition (of course, every jet pilot does this, nothing new here). With greater inertia and higher landing speeds, a jet must touch down in the touchdown zone of a runway during every landing to guarantee its stopping performance. Jet engines produce thrust even at idle power, so that when flown in ground effect during a landing, enough thrust can be produced to cause the airplane to float for some distance. Every pilot transitioning to jets should know this.

 

It wasn't long before I started flying with co-pilots who were accustomed to flying lighter aircraft. A number of these pilots were holding the jet off, attempting to allow it to settle onto a runway naturally. On one of these occasions we were rapidly running out of available runway while floating less than a foot over the surface. I had to bump the yoke to get on the ground and on the brakes or go around. I began to consider why these pilots were doing this, and why I had not encountered this issue. It became standard practice each time I flew with someone new to ask, “How much jet time do you have?” If the pilot had very little time in jets, a discussion on landing technique followed (along with cockpit resource management and other subjects), which eliminated any future adrenaline-filled landings. Granted, it is a subtle difference, but also a significant philosophical issue that can have a profound effect on runway safety.

 

The technique of flying an airplane onto a runway works well in any airplane, and makes for better-controlled and safer landings, particularly in a crosswind. The same is not always true of letting an airplane settle onto a runway, particularly for a pilot flying heavier aircraft. A good argument can be made for instructors teaching their students from the beginning the “fly-the-airplane-on” technique, rather than the more traditional “hold-it-off” technique.

[Roger Lee]

Paul, got a love ya buddy :wub: ,Thanks for the article.

 

The "you know who's" (first names start with an ) now have a softened approach (pun intended) and Paul M and Russell Smith are on board.

 

There has always been more than one way to land calm or not so don't get bogged down and loose sight of learning and practicing it all. If one way works better than another for someone then more power to you for making nice landings. Saying 5 or even 10 knots more above stall is dangerous isn't real world because it really isn't dangerous or many of us would already be dead. If it was true none of us should ever drive again on the road more than 40 mph, but we do anyway because we have all been told speed kills. If you want to understand the other side of the approach (another pun, yug) you'll just have to fly there more often to truly understand both sides. No one should jab the other side because there has always been more than one way to land whether you wanted to admit it or not and not acknowledging that makes for a very narrow approach. (enough with the approaches, but I am having fun ) It's like saying we should only drive Ford's.

 

It does show that their are slightly different ways to land and that no way is the absolute right way so the other guy may have never been wrong to start with (stall or no stall landing). (who says stuff like this ) This debate has gone on since flying began and articles were written and you know what, both sides are right and both are wrong. Both ways have worked for many decades.

[Jim Meade]

If you have enough runway you can land anyway you want. If you have to put it in a short space, you'd better be slow when you touch down.

I have about 600 hours in Citations and they would only float if you came in too fast. If you come in too fast and have to stop, especially with no reverser, you do need to plant the airplane and get on the brakes. If you come in at the right speed they will settle like a C172. So will a King Air or piston twin. We did not land those with power on. We carried a little power almost to the flare in the twins and they settled fine.

Most jets have enough weight that crosswinds are not nearly so much of a problem (popular youtube videos notwithstanding) as a CT.

My disagreement with landing faster than @stall speed is that when you are floating down the runway, you are subject to cross winds that can push you off the center line and even off the runway. If you have an accident, you are going faster (let's say 50 kias versus 40 kias) and that means more energy to bend airplanes and people.

If you fly in a saccharine environment you can drive it on but if you want to fly at the (safe and legal) edges of the planes performance window you must be able to land full stall in the CT.

[Roger Lee]

CTLSi,

 

If a full stall landing is done properly there is no more problems with that over any other landing. My only issue with it is it seems too many have done their full stall landing too high off the runway and smashed the gear. That was just pilot error and not the planes fault. You can get in trouble over any landing. There is a place for all styles of landings. It's just some of us just prefer a slightly different style which in reality is fairly subtle, just as the article suggested. Just too many are trying to make it look like a Grand Canyon gap. If we really went out and watched all of us land it would be so close it would be laughable that we have spent years debating this. When we were at the Columbia CT Fly-In and were doing our spot landings we were all doing things about the same way. Some were just more accurate than others, but the landing techniques were so close.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim,

 

So your saying if you land at 40 verses 50 that same wind can't get under a wing or push you off a runway just as you touch or you can't get in trouble at 40 verses 50?

So your saying your on the full stall side and never land any other way? Never with any speed over stall and never with throttle? If you ever do then your landing is no different than the other guy he just does it more often.

We all need to change our phrasing, we don't float down the runway we are flying and still under control. The issue at hand is who has more control?

 

 

Quote:

"My disagreement with landing faster than @stall speed is that when you are floating down the runway, you are subject to cross winds that can push you off the center line and even off the runway. If you have an accident, you are going faster (let's say 50 kias versus 40 kias) and that means more energy to bend airplanes and people.

If you fly in a saccharine environment you can drive it on but if you want to fly at the (safe and legal) edges of the planes performance window you must be able to land full stall in the CT."

 

Who would you say has more rudder, stab and aileron control the guy who doesn't have controls any more because he is under 40 and stalled or the guy who may still have prop wash or a tad of flying speed? Who of the two can still make a correction with a tad of throttle and control input? Not the guy under 40 he's done. If you ever flew tail draggers very long then you know throttle and prop wash are your friend in maneuvering.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After 30 years as a fire fighter and 30 years as an evasive / defensive driving instructor for public safety plus race time on the track the difference in a wing scraping the ground at 40 verses 50 won't be any different to two strapped in occupants in a strong as steel carbon fiber aircraft. I would rather debate real dangers verses perceived ones. Flat tires at 40 verses 50. Been there, done that in a CT (front and main). It is more a perceived problem of danger than any real one. Most CT pilots depending on flap setting and outside conditions touch wheels between 40-50. There aren't any REAL dangers between the two speeds.

 

 

We have a CTSW (1400+ CT hrs) owner here that flies King Air's for a living. He lands both planes totally different. Comparing Cirrus, Cessna's, Piper's and the lot to an LSA doesn't work because they are different. Every one here has said so when they first took the controls in hour#1 of their CT. I have flown a King Air and it isn't even on the same ballpark as a CT. The controls, the weight, the hull composite even the full stab compared to many planes. It's like people trying to compare Rotax to Continental and Lycoming. Everyone shouldn't always compare one plane to the other because they do have different handling properties. If they didn't no one would ever have to get transition training. You can't compare because that would lend credence to why most of all the CT incidents have come from high time pilots and CFI's and low time pilots and students.

They want to fly a CT or LSA like another plane.

 

The arguments for years over the merits that all normal landings be at full stall and if you are 5-10 over is dangerous, incomprehensible, poorly trained, irresponsible, foolish, ect... has all been for not and perceived problems from some have never come to volition in the CT community.