making landings easier

[Ed Cesnalis]

I'm open to being wrong here, but...

 

...consider this chart:

 

 

The plane should glide equally well at any altitude*, hence the straight line.

 

It really should not need any more power to maintain 62 kias on base at 10,000' than it does at SL.

 

I think. In fact, I'm pretty sure.

 

Either I'm missing something or we have another "Stick and Rudder" teachable moment.

 

 

*and, counterintuitively, at any weight.

 

62kts IAS @ 10,000' is about 10kts faster than 62kts IAS @ SL when you convert to TAS.

 

The constants are the glide and IAS but as you descend from 10,000' to SL your TAS and Vertical speeds will decrease.

[FastEddieB]

62kts IAS @ 10,000' is about 10kts faster than 62kts IAS @ SL when you convert to TAS.

 

The constants are the glide and IAS but as you descend from 10,000' to SL your TAS and Vertical speeds will decrease.

I think I get what you're saying.

 

Those things are both true.

 

But do you not descend at the same angle?

 

I still don't see why power would be needed on base to maintain the same IAS, which is what I think started this tangent.

 

I have spent very little time at high DA airports, but I do not recall any need for a change in power settings. Or the pattern. My sole impression was the increased groundspeed in the roundout, flare and touchdown.

[Ed Cesnalis]

FE: It really should not need any more power to maintain 62 kias on base at 10,000' than it does at SL.

 

I use idle power on base so same same.  If you were level at 10,000' 62kias vs level at SL 62kias it would take more power.  Keep increasing altitude and at some point it will take full power to maintain 62kias level.

 

FE: But do you not descend at the same angle?

 

Sure, glide is a constant as I said above.

 

FE: I still don't see why power would be needed on base to maintain the same IAS, which is what I think started this tangent.

 

This is the confusion that 100burgers was blaming it on DA when the culprit is more likely instability.  When you have wind shear in the pattern where you are either level or descending at planned speeds wind shear will feel like lift or sink.  If you get lift you will probably control your altitude and just speed up and then bleed it off but when you feel sink you will need your throttle.  

[FastEddieB]

I think we're on the same page.

[fevlok@mmhs.co.za]

I agree with litle power and faster does give better landings, but stil a small window of opertunity for some reason i am never consistent (some people are just better pilots i agree)

The vg's for me took that abrubness away and the plane setle now 100% of times gentle and not say 80% as before

Also our defenition of a good landing differ for me is when you know the wheels toucht when the sound change , i can do that now again, Gues the vg has helped me that is not the best pilot around

I would love to hear if any one else have tried them

[procharger]

Simply put, use throttle when needed every landing is going to be a little different, head wind, cross wind, sometimes tail wind for me, whatever it takes to walk away and fly another day. nuff said, all have good points on landings. Like driving a car some better then others, my wife perfect example, I will not let her drive with me in the passenger seat, dam hope she don't read this.

[Roger Lee]

Procharger,

 

Well said. There is more than one way to skin the cat and it all works and it's all correct. Just different preferences.

[sandpiper]

Yep. Bottom line is to do whatever is required to achieve the desired result.

 

But, IMHO, if you have to consistently add power on base and final, and if the result of not adding power means you will land short, then  you need to practice until you can close the throttle abeam the numbers and hit your intended spot on the runway. If you are too high you can always adjust flaps or slip. Said another way, I would rather be a little high and deal with that then be a little low. Sure, engine failure these days is unlikely but it still happens. Or, in cold weather, the engine may hesitate just enough that you land short

 

This assumes stable conditions. If its turbulent and winds are gusting, etc, all bets are off.

 

CT, I also subscribe to your position about power off abeam the numbers and flaps 30. That's the way Tom Duncan taught me when he delivered my aircraft. Probably half of my landings in stable conditions are done that way. The other half are a mixture of flaps 15 or 40. Again, in stable conditions. When I start having landing issues, I go back to Tom's teachings of flaps 30, power off. That usually solves my problems, at least for a little while. Sure, sometimes I have to add power to make the desired touch down spot, or to cushion the landing. But, I try not to have to do that.

 

I'm not saying my way is the best way or the only way. Sure, I have tried most if not all of the ways discussed on this forum over the years. But I always seem to migrate back to what Tom taught me 7 years ago.

[GravityKnight]

I like 15 deg for a normal landing, power at idle (I like to try to pull the power a-beam, and make it without using any power, doesn't always happen.. but fun to practice). But I do leave just a touch of power in on 30 deg usually. 0 when it's windy and I have the room as mentioned earlier.

 

30 and a bit of power... it's surprising how slow it will fly! but the controls get really unresponsive (as they should next to stall speed).

 

CT's like to float, just a little extra speed really will carry them a long ways. I think CT landing quality has quite a bit to do with this... Too fast and the controls become touchy and it wants to balloon easier as well.

[FastEddieB]

As an aside, it is possible to land more slowly with a little power left in.

 

We used to leave a smidgen of power in on soft field landings, and it was stunning how slow a C150 could get with full flaps and some power left in.

 

Still don't think it accomplishes much in a normal landing, but some seem more comfortable with it.

 

As a caveat, it also becomes much easier to strike the tail, especially with partial flaps.

[fevlok@mmhs.co.za]

It is so easy to loose perspective

The CTSW is a lovely plaine and all this talk to make landings esier is just that, in case guests get the idea it is a dificult plaine

 

 I can remember a rally were a cesna 150 loss direction control because of  a x wind , and we have no trouble with the CT

 

 I have landed the CT in worst wind's and espesialy cross winds than the Mooney 205 that i have flown for 14 years ,so i trust the CT when the cips are down , my frustration was with my self not able to grease her in always in calm conditions , that is proberbly flying , will keep you humble

 

 For instance  the CT's ability

Just this week end The strip on our Farm at Prieska is between mountians up hill and over power lines and always a cross wind , but low on the runway shielded by the hils.and closing up in front (so wind shear is a given  ) and game could also suprise one at any moment on the runway 

This weekend we had a 19 knots gusting cross wind  I had to make the trip  (a badly injured horse )

 

I use a combination method of crab and  translate to wing down on flair 

 

so on short finals the side post was in the way and lining up the runway through the side window 15 degr flap and 64 knots   at about  about 50 feet  The bucking bronco ride starts  Airspeed drop from 64  to 49 and a sudden sink rate ad a lot of power wing lower to 30 degrees   and osilating between wing level but 30 degrees nose of centre  and as always  a good landing but with a lot of adrenelin and looks like playng fidle with the yoke. What is also great is  I  can abort the landing safely at any stage of the landing

 

Back home with the vg's  for the first time in a longwhile I could land her on the back weels and keeping the nose in the air for about 500m of the runway 

 

So vg's not nessary but i start to love them

 

 

 In South Africa there is properly not more than 15 flying ,so expierce is limited and one is very much on your own

This forum has helped me and my wife tremendisly when we stared of in 2007 

 

Thanks  all the forum members with advice

 

Kiewiet

[FlyingMonkey]

All my approaches (unless I'm experimenting) are power off abeam the numbers.  A few months ago I "forgot" how to land and have been trying to get my mojo back and using only 15° flaps to make easier landings.  I figured out with help from other pilots I was just flaring too high and then dropping it in for a "carrier-style" landing.  I have since started really playing chicken with the ground and flaring just a couple of feet AGL as I should do, and my landings are MUCH improved.

 

I have started adding 30° flaps landings back into the repertoire with the appropriately low flare height, and the results are encouraging.

[FastEddieB]

Good for you.

 

Once 30° is easy, I'd love to have you add 40° flaps to your repertoire (pardon my French!)

[Tom Baker]

Good for you.

 

Once 30° is easy, I'd love to have you add 40° flaps to your repertoire (pardon my French!)

Why?

[FastEddieB]

Why?

 

Enhanced skill set?

 

The ability to use ALL of the plane's capabilities?

 

The challenge?

 

That's just me, but I think others may like to explore a plane's performance envelope.

 

If one day forced to land in a 300' long parking lot, the difference between using 30º and 40º could make a big difference in both landing distance and energy carried into the landing.

 

My mantra has always been "maximum flaps as consistent with conditions" - has served me well.

[FlyingMonkey]

I will add some 40° at some point.  The only time I would imagine using that flaps setting is if the engine quits and the field I picked looks a lot smaller from 500ft than 3000ft.  

[FastEddieB]

I will add some 40° at some point.  The only time I would imagine using that flaps setting is if the engine quits and the field I picked looks a lot smaller from 500ft than 3000ft.  

 

Yes!

 

And then it would sure help if it was something you had practiced extensively enough to be comfortable with.

 

Its at that point that some, not all, pilots may make that their standard landing. Or not!

[Roger Lee]

Hi Andy,

 

Landing with 40 is just like 30.

[Dan Kent]

All my approaches (unless I'm experimenting) are power off abeam the numbers.  A few months ago I "forgot" how to land and have been trying to get my mojo back and using only 15° flaps to make easier landings.  I figured out with help from other pilots I was just flaring too high and then dropping it in for a "carrier-style" landing.  I have since started really playing chicken with the ground and flaring just a couple of feet AGL as I should do, and my landings are MUCH improved.

 

I have started adding 30° flaps landings back into the repertoire with the appropriately low flare height, and the results are encouraging.

Hey Andy,

I also "forgot how to land last summer after over 300 landings. What I was doing was flaring too low and bouncing the landing, either going around or adding power, stabilizing the plane and landing farther down the runway.

 

What I did was go out and do a bunch of slow flight to get more comfortable with the low speed attitude. I think I was not letting the plane slow enough to settle, so this really helped.

 

I had about 150 hours then and expected some regression, as that is how I tend to learn physical/mental activities. I don't know if this makes sense, but whenever I have ever started a new sport/activity I start out pretty fast then plateau and maybe regress some and then start progressing again.

 

Anyway, this year my landings are quite a bit more consistent than last year, although the winds have been very benign this year.

[Doug G.]

Over 500 here and I went through a similar thing this summer. My problem was coming in too fast/high.

I did two things , 1) I practiced slow flight and stalls in different flap configurations, 2) I widened my pattern and am slowly shortening it since I often need to add power on final. My landings have been good to great since. (Not sure if my muscle memory went back to my training in the Skycatcher or what. It was frustrating when every other landing on shorter fields was a go around.)

[coppercity]

The CTSW actually stalls a little slower at 30 flaps vs 40, the stall speed is a couple knots less and it doesn't drop a wing as much at 30 deg.  Still doable and good to learn, just what I have noticed about the SW.  The CTLS had a flap decrease to 35 deg initially, now 30 deg max in the latest models.

[fevlok@mmhs.co.za]

Standard landings  (Roger help if anything is risky )

 

Back in 2007 2 pieces of advice from this forum  helped me a lot:  1 litle bit more than idle power into landing  2  to land straigt is to use  a dot in the front in the windshield (it is stil there )

 

 Here is my normal landing at home  ( not controled field ):

 I fly a tight semisircle aproach

 slow down overfield to 90 knots 0 flaps to see better  Down wind 70 knots  base 65  15 degrees  Final 55 -60 fine pitch

 into the flair slowly take all power away  (if there was any , if low aproach ) in hold of ad a "tad" of power  and let the plaine setle , be ready on power if i misjudge and she sink sudenly ,a short burst of power

 

Heigth ? one day i was flying with a glider pilot he decided i am to dependend on Key hights in the patern and what happen in a of field landing  ? so he close my altimeter with a piece of paper , in the beginning it was weird , now I cannot tell you my key  heights in the patern  

 

Exercises I do or playing around  with

:

 1    Pull the power  and do a sumilated force landing start with 0 degree flaps   normily i am high on finals and use flaps as nesserary not scare to go even to 40

2     will now and then use 30  and 40 degree flaps on normal landings  , i find that i use then a litle more power in hold of

3     My faverate : In the hold of ,you get a feeling that the plaine is in the landing attitude so i hold her there and  as she sink slowly add power till  the sink is so slow that the wheels touch and then keep her there with the front wheel of till near the turn of  

 some times doing short hops by playng with the power

 

Kiewiet

[FastEddieB]

The CTSW actually stalls a little slower at 30 flaps vs 40...

Well if that is true for CAS, then I take it all back.

 

The POH I downloaded only goes to 30°, so I'd have to dig up an older one to confirm that.

 

But it does seem odd - across the board usually more flaps = lower stall speed.

 

BTW, when Cessna tweaked the 150 to become the 152, they likewise chose to limit max flaps to 30° (from 40°). Allegedly those "barn door" flaps were causing pilots problems, especially if forgotten on a go around. I was an instructor during that transition, and felt like Cessna had removed a valuable tool from a pilot's toolkit in order to play to the "lowest common denominator".

 

But what do I know?

[Ed Cesnalis]

On my normal landings I used to add a little power if my flare was high or if my sink rate began to increase.  Eventually I began to realize that I am adding power when I have stick left so I waited on the power and moved the stick to the aft stop.  When I move the stick to the aft stop I never need that power and I get a better result.

[Jim Meade]

The CTSW actually stalls a little slower at 30 flaps vs 40, the stall speed is a couple knots less and it doesn't drop a wing as much at 30 deg.  Still doable and good to learn, just what I have noticed about the SW.  The CTLS had a flap decrease to 35 deg initially, now 30 deg max in the latest models.

I've gone out with a fellow pilot and done several hours of replicated stalls at various bank angles and power and flap settings over the entire range of operation of the CTSW and found the POH stall speeds were very close.

 

Specifically, I found the 40° stall speed was lower than the 30° speed.

 

I know there was a discussion on this site a couple of years ago about stall speeds and that is the reason I went out and tested them.

 

Perhaps there is a difference in stall technique that accounts for the apparent disagreement with the POH.