Flight Design full stall landing

[FastEddieB]

Roger,

 

I agree with much of what you said, and I admire and respect your qualifications.

 

But...

 

 

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.

 

 

I would not trivialize the difference between 40k vs 50k in an aircraft or automobile or motorcycle accident.

 

If we're talking wing scraping, maybe it makes little difference. But if a true impact is involved, that difference in speed could be the difference between minor and major injury, or between major injury and death.

 

It's late, and I'm tired and going to bed, but here's an assignment if anyone's interested:

 

Assume two planes, each loaded to 1,275 lbs. One is at 40k and one at 50k. Use Wolfram Alpha or just math and compute the kinetic energy of each. Then compute the percentage increase in kinetic energy of the faster plane over the slower.

 

If no one's up to it, I'll play with it tomorrow.

 

G'nite!

[Ed Cesnalis]

40 vs 50 when it comes to getting gusted is a huge difference. If you contact at 40 the plane is done flying and subtract from that the energy absorbing event that is the contact, from that perhaps a flap retraction. The point is at 40 and slowing that gust isn't very likely to get you airborne and without directional control but at 50 you are 28% above stall speed, a gust can cause you to fly but you have already touched down. If you have both mains down then your wings leveled so now the gust if crosswind is far more likely to get 'under your wing' than if you were in the air in a side slip at that speed.

 

The gust is not only a threat to get under your wing but also to cause drift and side-loading as well as weather-vaning.

 

The period where your wheels are on the ground and you have flying speed is the period where you are vulnerable to loosing directional control in gusty crosswind situation. If you have only one wheel on then you still have drift control.

[FredG]

Eddie, you are correct. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity (KE= 0.5m*v^2). So, as you indicate, the comparison is 40 squared vs 50 squared, not 40 vs 50. It is a big difference, no matter who says otherwise nor why (50^2=2500, 40^2=1600). The 50 kt aircraft has 56% more kinetic energy than the 40 kt aircraft. Regardless of any other factor, that can be the difference between being uninjured and either injured or dead. It is a fact. (BTW, if the two airplanes are the same weight, then the percent difference in KE does not change as a function of the particular weight, only the speeds matters in your example).

[Roger Lee]

Hi Eddie,

 

.We aren't talking about a head on dead stop crash only control on the roll or scarping a wing or sliding. Huge difference so your numbers are negligible.

Speed does make a difference in cases with cars and motorcycles, but if you personally worried about 10 mph and the affects of 10 mph you would never drive over 30 mph. Do you drive 65-75 on the highway? Why, it's more dangerous than 30 mph. Why do you do it because it's a good calculated risk and chances aren't great that every time behind the wheel you'll die.

 

The other ED,

 

Who cares what the energy is your flying not walking. The energy is different for every plane and so what I get is you don't want to fly anything that has more energy on landing than a CT at 40? You continue to fly until a stop. If you're worried about extra energy then why not go back to Ultralights and reduce it below the CT at 40 even more. My point is how far do you want to take this. Why should anyone fly a twin engine with all the extra energy behind it on landing over a CT. I know this sounds more like a smart ass type comment, but when you show me it has more energy which I have known since 1980 that it is relevant and dangerous to me.

 

Why hasn't it caused me to crash in 33 years? Why hasn't it caused me to put a wing in the ground, ground loop, collapse a front wheel, spin off the runway with a flat tire or loose control in a crosswind?

 

Both of you are giving examples that aren't totally relevant. If I land and stop from 40 and land and stop from 50 what changed? Nothing. You can't say we are going to die if the wing touches the ground or even the nose wheel collapsed because there is absolutely no data to support that and if it were dangerous why haven't a hug majority of LSA and CT's world wide crashed just because they were 5-10 over stall? Once on the ground planes tend to slide and sometimes flip on their top. Pilots don't tend to get more than a few bumps or bruises. Now if it impacts the ground from a height then that's different and not the same as just a touchdown,

 

You guys need to make your arguments real and pertinent to why you believe landing 5-10 over stall is so dangerous or so fraught with peril it isn't safe. As Jim says show me documentation that says landing like this is an absolute no no for aircraft and is dangerous.

While you do that tell me you never land like this too during some situations. If you do your no different than the guy who does it more often.

 

 

I don't see any persuasive arguments for not landing with a few knots over especially since it gets done that way by many world wide.

 

 

We'll have to agree that we will disagree especially since this has been a major aviation debate for many decades.

 

 

It all works and I have never seen why there have been such major debates and picking sides on this subject. I guess you guys like Chevy's and I like everything because they all get you there.

[Ed Cesnalis]

 

You guys need to make your arguments real and pertinent....

 

Maybe you should read my post again? I posted about the fact that at 40 you will remain on the ground while at 50 the very same gust could cause you to fly without adequate directional control.

 

Your lengthy reply seemed to be about excess energy.

 

You brought up 40 vs 50 arguing there isn't a safety difference, my experience is different, my experience is that the extra 10 leaves you at far more risk when there is wind sheer.

 

Been there done that. I used that extra 10 in my Skyhawk because it was turbulent and the landing worked fine but on rollout I soon was in the air with only my nose wheel in contact and I was headed for the highway parallel to the runway. It was difficult to get the nose wheel up enough to avoid a prop strike. You have been asking how you have survived 30 years of aviation if this extra speed is so dangerous and for an answer look to the fatalities in Taos. There is a big 'chance' component and that makes me want to stack the deck and avoid that next wheel barrow ride.

[Roger Lee]

Ed,

 

The reason I always bring up energy with you is because that's what you always use in a discussion and have for 7 years. Energy management to coin your phrase and I always agree, but saying a double edged sword should only be sharp on on side is where I don't agree. If you fail to control the aircraft with a bad enough wind it will move you or pick you up at 40 or 50 or 20. It's the pilots failure to control or use the correct inputs not the planes fault and not the extra 5-10 knots. It's control inputs or lack of that get pilots in trouble. Then after the fact they try and make a correction. Flying is flying whether it's on the ground or in the air. Have you ever seen someone blown off a runway at 20 mph? Sure you have and he was 20 under your 40. You ground roll at take off to 40-50 aren't you worried you'll get out of control and pushed off the runway at take off? So what's the difference? Your thought process for your control input. When we land we aren't thinking of flying any more, just landing. The very single moment at touch down is the same as lift off. Yes we are slowing and one is increasing speed, but that very moment they become the same. Those two speeds cross paths. If something happened at take off at that very moment let's say 12" off the ground are you going to deploy full flaps, are you going to do a full stall landing or are you just going to control the aircraft and set it back down in that configuration and particular speed?

Why haven't I other the many others that may use a little extra speed or throttle to touch crashed and if it really is a problem as you and Eddie point out why can I or all the others tend to be able to do landings in 25-35 winds and not crash? You can't call it luck for me at 33 years and you can't call it luck for the other millions of other landings from people all over the world through the years that have landed this way.

 

You use the word could and if. We deal with those words everyday when we get in our cars, motorcycles, planes when we get married, start a business, ect... Does that mean we are going to automatically fail? If those words never come to volition then it's a lottery game with the odds in the millions or billions. Some times those words are our worst enemy becasue we think in those negative terms.

 

All you have given me is how terrible a little extra speed is, but haven't ever said once when it's a good idea to use it. Give me both sides of the debate and not just take a single negative or positive.

 

Look at the fatalities from going too slow. Low and slow has killed far more than any other single aviation issue

 

You aren't looking at both sides. Bad things can happen when you do things right or wrong and slow or fast. You only want to look at one side. Just look at the jet in SF.

 

You said you can land your plane if there were no instruments. Would you try to come in slow for that landing?

 

 

I'm on both sides of the fence and think they are both okay. You're only on one side of the fence. I prefer to have a broad flight envelope and not a narrow one so unless you practice as you play it becomes a limited memory and skill set when fast recognition and action are called for. Pilots get into trouble because they have narrow techniques and skill sets. Here is a reasonable example. When I drive with someone in town I'm doing it within their norms and they feel safe. Albeit it is a false safety, but it's within their norms. I have taken a few out on the race track and had them turn white, scream, puke and want out. Was it any more unsafe or was it just out of their norm? It was out of their norm, but very normal for me. It may have been even more safe. No other drivers to worry about hitting me like in town, helmets, roll cages, 5 point restraint, protected fuel cells, better tires, ect...

 

So is your 5-10 extra knots a real problem or safety issue or is it more of a perceived issue with your skill set and normal landing style?

 

Both styles seem to work for people all over the world and in different aircraft at times and that is hard to dispute.

 

It all works and can expand pilots comfort zones and skill sets. It isn't any more dangerous than that pilot behind the controls.

 

Maybe 5-10 is out of your norm and feels uncomfortable and makes you worry, all speeds are within my norm, stall or more and never think twice about it. I use what is necessary for the conditions on that single sole landing because the next will be different.

 

 

Years ago I had a CTSW couple want to fly into Ryan. They were worried because the winds were 15 -20 and had never really done well in winds. I suggest they try keeping 2700 rpm to touch with zero flaps. They both said it was the best landing ever wind or no wind. They land this way in winds to this day. It isn't about floating which is nothing more than low flying and it isn't about the exact touch speed. It has been and always will be about proper control inputs. With those you should be out of control and off the runway.

[Roger Lee]

This discussion has been going on since the first CT forum started. It has never stopped and there has never been any conclusion or as meeting of the minds. Just one side or the other. This has been the same debate in aviation for decades, flaps no flaps throttle no throttle, stall or a little over stall.

 

I knew the day it started there would never be an end or a meeting of the minds. the best anyone could hope for is people saying like like this style, but recognize there is more than one way, but that hasn't happened. It is really a no win debate because there is no one right or wrong answer, but it does make it fun to debate and make minds ponder.

 

The the paper the "National Enquirer" always said, "Inquiring minds want to know".

[Ed Cesnalis]

Bold = Roger Lee quotes.

 

The reason I always bring up energy with you is because that's what you always use in a discussion and have for 7 years. Energy management to coin your phrase and I always agree, but saying a double edged sword should only be sharp on on side is where I don't agree.

 

Sorry I don't follow the double edge sword.

 

 

If you fail to control the aircraft with a bad enough wind it will move you or pick you up at 40 or 50 or 20. It's the pilots failure to control or use the correct inputs not the planes fault and not the extra 5-10 knots. It's control inputs or lack of that get pilots in trouble. Then after the fact they try and make a correction. Flying is flying whether it's on the ground or in the air. Have you ever seen someone blown off a runway at 20 mph? Sure you have and he was 20 under your 40.

 

There is a huge difference, at 40-50 kts you are neutrally buoyant, you have no weight that isn't being offset by lift, a crosswind gust can have its way with you but at 20kts you have lots of weight on your wheels and the same gust that will cause you to become airborne will lack the energy to do so when you are 20 and heavy.

 

You ground roll at take off to 40-50 aren't you worried you'll get out of control and pushed off the runway at take off? So what's the difference? Your thought process for your control input. When we land we aren't thinking of flying any more, just landing. The very single moment at touch down is the same as lift off. Yes we are slowing and one is increasing speed, but that very moment they become the same. Those two speeds cross paths. If something happened at take off at that very moment let's say 12" off the ground are you going to deploy full flaps, are you going to do a full stall landing or are you just going to control the aircraft and set it back down in that configuration and particular speed?

 

I don't do a takeoff roll to 40-50 so no worries, I roll with a little back pressure and take off at the minimum speed for the weight. Crosswinds can complicate this and will limit me from flying. I do worry when rotating in a big crosswind that I will drift when I get light and therefore use a higher rotation speed for a more positive lift off.

 

My bottom line is this: I choose to minimize the time where I am neither clearly flying or at fast taxi, when both are true I am at risk of being upset by wind sheer. I avoid this condition but taking off as soon as I have flying speed and not touching down until I have bled off my flying speed. This practice minimizes my time in the vulnerable state. If I land or take off faster than needed I instead increase my time in that vulnerable state.

 

Why haven't I other the many others that may use a little extra speed or throttle to touch crashed and if it really is a problem as you and Eddie point out why can I or all the others tend to be able to do landings in 25-35 winds and not crash? You can't call it luck for me at 33 years and you can't call it luck for the other millions of other landings from people all over the world through the years that have landed this way.

 

Again look to the fatalities at Taos for an indication of the nature of 'chance' or 'luck', I disagree.

 

 

You use the word could and if. We deal with those words everyday when we get in our cars, motorcycles, planes when we get married, start a business, ect... Does that mean we are going to automatically fail? If those words never come to volition then it's a lottery game with the odds in the millions or billions. Some times those words are our worst enemy becasue we think in those negative terms.

 

Landing and taking off at stall speed is a safety precaution there is no automatic pass/fail.

 

All you have given me is how terrible a little extra speed is, but haven't ever said once when it's a good idea to use it. Give me both sides of the debate and not just take a single negative or positive.

 

As you know I started a new thread 2 days ago to address this complaint. I laid out 3 conditions where I choose to employ additional speed in landings. The thread isn't very popular but I laid it out there as I had a number of times in the past.

 

Look at the fatalities from going too slow. Low and slow has killed far more than any other single aviation issue

 

Stalling in cruise flight is another subject. I advocate flying above stall speed in cruise.

 

You aren't looking at both sides. Bad things can happen when you do things right or wrong and slow or fast. You only want to look at one side. Just look at the jet in SF.

 

That 777 crashed prior to arriving at the runway, I advocate at least 1.3VSo for normal landings, the Koreans issue was an inablility to fly a visual approach and a lack of CRM leading to an approach that needed to be aborted. Their election to approach 40+kts slow and not go-around isn't a good example.

 

 

You said you can land your plane if there were no instruments. Would you try to come in slow for that landing?

 

I have had a stuck pitot cover once and a failed ASI twice. All 3 times I used my wing tip ( level and closed throttle indicate 55kts ) and did normal landings, not slow not fast just a 1.4VSo approach.

 

I'm on both sides of the fence and think they are both okay. You're only on one side of the fence. I prefer to have a broad flight envelope and not a narrow one so unless you practice as you play it becomes a limited memory and skill set when fast recognition and action are called for. Pilots get into trouble because they have narrow techniques and skill sets. Here is a reasonable example. When I drive with someone in town I'm doing it within their norms and they feel safe. Albeit it is a false safety, but it's within their norms. I have taken a few out on the race track and had them turn white, scream, puke and want out. Was it any more unsafe or was it just out of their norm? It was out of their norm, but very normal for me. It may have been even more safe. No other drivers to worry about hitting me like in town, helmets, roll cages, 5 point restraint, protected fuel cells, better tires, ect...

 

I explore the edges and corners of my CTs envelope more than most, remember the thread that concluded that I was violating when I practiced wing-overs and got inverted? I'm not much of an explorer when my wheels are in contact with the ground though. As I pointed out I started a new thread 2 days ago to address your complaint. I use additional speed to address crosswind gusts and conditions that might tail wind me.

 

So is your 5-10 extra knots a real problem or safety issue or is it more of a perceived issue with your skill set and normal landing style?

 

5-10 is not my number and it often is not the total number. You start with +5-10 ( for safety ) then add 5-10 for crosswind, then 5-10 for gusts, then 5-10 for the kitchen sink. Excess energy is a negative even if it is the lesser of 2 evils.

 

Both styles seem to work for people all over the world and in different aircraft at times and that is hard to dispute.

 

As I watch people land most have good control but a surprising number are surviving on luck to a degree. We have a 7,000' runway and I watch planes with stall speeds a few knots faster than ours use up most of it, I see this on most days. Do they survive because they fly safe or because they are lucky? Bad technique is often so bad that these discussions seem important to me.

 

It all works and can expand pilots comfort zones and skill sets. It isn't any more dangerous than that pilot behind the controls.

 

When wind sheer is part of the equation the pilot isn't in complete control, conditions can override all tools and techniques at the pilots disposal. Minimizing energy and minimizing risk comes into play when you screw up or things beyond your control happen.

 

 

Maybe 5-10 is out of your norm and feels uncomfortable and makes you worry, all speeds are within my norm, stall or more and never think twice about it. I use what is necessary for the conditions on that single sole landing because the next will be different.

 

I have posted multiple times and reminded you recently that I have landed above 70kts with my throttle wide open to fully closed in the landing sequence. I have done this about 4 times in 7 years, it is not normal.

 

 

Years ago I had a CTSW couple want to fly into Ryan. They were worried because the winds were 15 -20 and had never really done well in winds. I suggest they try keeping 2700 rpm to touch with zero flaps. They both said it was the best landing ever wind or no wind. They land this way in winds to this day. It isn't about floating which is nothing more than low flying and it isn't about the exact touch speed. It has been and always will be about proper control inputs. With those you should be out of control and off the runway.

 

I think you mean to say, with proper control inputs you should never be out of control on the runway. Lets explore that we are landing at Mammoth and the west end through mid field is wind sheer with winds and rotors coming from west, south, and north. We are touched down, 15 flaps full aileron into the wind, sufficient rudder to track the centerline and sufficient stabilator to maintain level, ( light on the nose ) attitude.

 

So the control inputs are right and we are on the runway and not that big gust comes from the south / south-east snapping fore and aft of our wing. Its a matter of wind velocity and direction at this point. It is not simply a matter of correct inputs it is also a matter of authority available, if you don't have enough authority to counter the gust you will fall victim to it even with the correct inputs.

[Mick]

Energy as a risk -- more energy at touchdown is potential additional damage in the event of a crash. But think of the energy inherent in a 1300 lb. A/C at 40 kt vs. 50 kt and then think of the energy in a 172 at full stall speed (or better yet a Bonanza or Barron). Are we over thinking this compared to the much more common situation (and remember the difference in the injury resistant cockpit we enjoy)

[WmInce]

I smell complacency.

[Roger Lee]

I smell fun. These conversations are like Ed's coffee in the morning.

Although I'm afraid it may cause him to double up on Valium.

Sorry Ed, cheap shot, but fun just the same.

 

We have been over thinking and discussing this on the forum for 7 years and it has never nor will ever have a conclusion. If the rest of the aviation world can't agree then I have always doubted we would, but it makes sitting in front of the computer much more fun.

 

I've been stuck sitting around the house for a surgery recovery and I had to get back into some discussion.

[sandpiper]

I'm not sure, but I think most of those in the "full stall" camp, including me, are not doing "full" stall landings. This is the first plane I have owned in a long time that has no stall warning device. But, when I did have one, my so called full stall landing was usually one with max flaps for the conditions and touching down with the stall horn chirping. In other words, maybe 5-6K above stall. Maybe a touch of power, maybe not depending on how I was doing and where. Take off is similar with max T/O flaps and the horn chirping for a second or two as I left the ground.

 

Why? Most of my operations away from home plate were gravel with some off airport for fun. Didn't want any more gravel thrown in the tail feathers than necessary. Off airport - well, some of those places could be a little rough plus the unknowns so speed on the ground needed to be minimized.

 

In the CT most of my approaches are flaps 15 with final at 55K in normal conditions. If I use flaps 30-40 then I will usually use 50K, no slower. In all conditions I may touch with a little power, or not. Again depending on how it's going. In other words, don't just lock on to something and ride it down hoping it will be OK. If conditions are nasty, I'll do what I need to do speed, flaps and RPM wise to ensure a safe arrival. I usually don't use more than flaps 15 with non pilots because the nose down attitude can be unpleasant for them.

 

I also feel that new pilots, and those new to the CT should master flaps 15 before going for more.

 

So, this is how I do it. It works for me. Others may do it differently. That's fine as long as the operation is safe and doesn't put undue stress on the plane - or passengers.

 

My two cents.

[sandpiper]

I smell fun. These conversations are like Ed's coffee in the morning.

Although I'm afraid it may cause him to double up on Valium.

Sorry Ed, cheap shot, but fun just the same.

 

We have been over thinking and discussing this on the forum for 7 years and it has never nor will ever have a conclusion. If the rest of the aviation world can't agree then I have always doubted we would, but it makes sitting in front of the computer much more fun.

 

I've been stuck sitting around the house for a surgery recovery and I had to get back into some discussion.

 

If you are sitting around, why don't you answer your FT??

[Roger Lee]

face Time. Sorry john I didn't have it on. I'll turn my Ipad back on.

[sandpiper]

Roger - no joy.

[Roger Lee]

From what I can gather from email and calls it looks like the Ed's and Rog are getting close for a guest appearance on SNL. :lol:

[FastEddieB]

Eddie, you are correct. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity (KE= 0.5m*v^2). So, as you indicate, the comparison is 40 squared vs 50 squared, not 40 vs 50. It is a big difference, no matter who says otherwise nor why (50^2=2500, 40^2=1600). The 50 kt aircraft has 56% more kinetic energy than the 40 kt aircraft. Regardless of any other factor, that can be the difference between being uninjured and either injured or dead. It is a fact. (BTW, if the two airplanes are the same weight, then the percent difference in KE does not change as a function of the particular weight, only the speeds matters in your example).

 

Fred,

 

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting for me. My autobiography will be called "Fast Eddie On Everthing But Math".

 

Roger,

 

1) Both Ed and I have repeatedly stated situations where we feel "flying it on" with extra speed is appropriate and proper. To avoid repitition, anyone is free to search my posts - I believe in one I actually put those situations in a list format.

 

2) I will stipulate that for any given landing, the chances of 50k instead of 40k (and the 56% additional kinetic energy that entails) causing a problem is extremely small.

 

3) That chance is SO small, I will further stipulate that many pilots could fly their entire careers landing 10k fast and never have an accident nor a single issue associated with it.

 

BUT...

 

...ever single year excess speed on landing will maim or kill a certain number of pilots. It's an odds game.

 

Sometimes a deer or a moose (or a pony*) will just dash out right into a pilot's path with no time for evasive action. BAM! Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather not be carrying 56% extra energy if and when it happens.

 

Sometimes a nose gear will collapse, due to unseen damage or a mistimed flare - there's been a video of one posted here. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather not be carrying 56% extra energy if and when it happens.

 

Sometimes a tire will blow or an axle break or a brake seize, swerving the airplane into a solid object - a sign, a VASI installation, another plane, whatever. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather not be carrying 56% extra energy if and when it happens.

 

And I'm sure others can conjure up a list of other eventualities where a pilot might later reflect that he wished he had had a bit less energy to dissipate when the highly unlikely becomes a reality in a heartbeat.

 

Like Roger, I really can't think of a time when a little extra speed would have been a big deal in my flying career. And between us, we've got a bunch of hours. But, as I said, it's an odds game, and by looking at landing accidents over the years, I'd just as soon stack the odds in my favor going forward.

 

No one here is my student, but I just try to articulate my position along with the rationale (and even the math) for it as clearly as possible. What anyone does with it is their own business.

 

 

*photo and expounding to follow!

 

 

[Roger Lee]

"But, as I said, it's an odds game, and by looking at landing accidents over the years, I'd just as soon stack the odds in my favor going forward".

 

You know I feel the same way on this side of the fence.

 

For what it's worth I doubt you guys are doping true full stall landings which was brought to my attention by several. A full stall landing by definition would mean your wheels touch at the exact moment that your plane would fall out of the air. Some how I don't see you guys cutting it that close. If you are ever off just 12" you would drop it. Your both too old to have that good of eyesight. I would bet you guys are anywhere from 2-5 over a true and real stall. And that would put you guys in the same ball park as many of us. Hmmmmmmmmmm, I'll be darn, who would have thought. So our 5-10 over isn't that far over after all. Son of a gun and I was worried about you guys all this time.

 

Boy I bet you guys are going to be glad when I can get out of the house and away from this computer.

[Ed Cesnalis]

'Full stall landing' has a number of definitions, what they have in common is a goal to land at or near stall speed. The process is aft stick travel to the stop to bleed of as much speed as possible. A landing flap setting and closed throttle goes along with this mentality and when you combine the 3 you have a very different result than landing with take-off flaps, partial throttle, a centered/steady stick, and an extra 5-10 kts.

 

The level flight stall characteristics demonstrate that FD has located the aft stop at a conservative location. I have to stall in a nose high attitude to get more than a mild mush. Our full stall landings are limited as well, I have had my stick at the stop while several feet in the air and found no need for throttle because the sink was well controlled.

 

Its noteworthy that the rhetoric changes when the argument comes to full stall landings. The fast guys use far higher numbers when advocating certain landings but in this argument it is reduced to 5-10. Remember that is 5-10 over a book value where stick to the stop is allowing the plane to demonstrate at what speed it stalls at the current conditions and weight. Right of the bat its 5-10 above stall plus another number.

[FastEddieB]

 

I would bet you guys are anywhere from 2-5 over a true and real stall. And that would put you guys in the same ball park as many of us.

 

Very often that is true. Look at my recent GoPro video - the one with the three GoPro fields of view. On an off day it looked like wheels were generally touching down at an indicated 45k or so, about 6k over the ideal (for me) 39k IAS the plane is capable of. Like I said, I was rusty after about a month off. But note I did not come anywhere near dropping it in from a foot - though my vision and depth perception are probably not what they once were, I still know my height pretty accurately.

 

But as Ed said, it's a goal. It's a goal the FAA recommends. It's a goal a Private Pilot applicant has to demonstrate. When I can no longer accurately judge my height, I guess I'll be forced to start flying it on. Either that, or give up my wings.

[Roger Lee]

"a goal to land at or near stall speed." seems like that still puts you in the same bal park even by that definition.

 

I know and I have been having fun with word definitions which make the speed issue seem cavernous, but in truth we all are in the same area. Some may be closer than others to what you want to define as a full stall landing , but a few knots over is tiny compared to our word war, but I'm still having a good time.

 

With what you just said I seriously doubt anyone here is truly touching wheels at the moment of a stall and our instruments aren't even that accurate so it becomes just what the pilots thinks is a true stall landing. They have nothing to truly back it up. With the error in all of the numbers and guesswork and your comments looks like we all touch wheels between a real stall and up to 10 over and after watching both of your landing videos I'm pretty convinced you guys are just a couple knots or more over a full stall which puts you in with everyone else. Some are just a little more than others.

 

Ed probably touches at 40 and I touch at 45. Is his instrumentation more accurate than mine or vise verse? Or his your or his perception of that landing or speed or stall different than mine?

 

 

Who knows.

The difference is just too small to quibble over and in truth it makes no difference because no one is a machine and can pull off a perfect full stall landing 100% of the time. Everyone is variable just some more than others. You could prove it with a radar gun on 10 of your own landings.

 

So our war of the words has been fun and kept me going this week since I was bored to tears being forced to just hang out. wasn't even supposed to lift 2 lbs. Yeah right, that didn't work out either.

[FastEddieB]

As promised:

 

A real pony on the runway at Copperhill, TN:

 

 

NOT Photoshopped - a friend who was waiting for us tried to wave us off in my Cirrus. As it was I just landed beyond him and had plenty of runway.

 

More currently - today, as a matter of fact:

 

Flew with Karen to Hawkins County airport in NE TN - beautiful flight.

 

Under remarks, they warn of deer on and about the runway.

 

Did not see any, but on return to Copperhill, this monster was waddling across the runway:

 

 

Sure would not want to hit HIM at 50k!!!

[Roger Lee]

It's a goal and only that, but you're in the same speeds we are because no one can do it all the time. So why didn't you crash or loose control or get pushed off the runway because it really wasn't that bad after all. Why would it be bad to land over all the time since you made it 1 time, a 100 or 2000 times. We can't play what if and could have other wise we might as well hide in our homes and never come out. Seems like the guys in the CT's have a much greater chance of a flat on landing than they are having landing issues with speeds over stall. They are all surviving and all still flying and all those bad things aren't happening. Just with CT's alone without any other LSA, pilot accumulated total hours probably number in the hundreds of thousands of hours or more and no one is suffering the what if's or could have's.

[FastEddieB]

I guess there comes a point in any "trial" where each of the parties has to be able to say it's time to "rest" their case and hand the decision over to the jury.

 

For me, I think that time has come, since I can't think of anything meaningful to add to the case I've presented.

[sandpiper]

Until next time. It always resurrects itself periodically, goes hot & heavy for awhile, then hides in the bushes until it comes out again. Mostly good natured and most people learn something even if they don't admit it.