My First CTSW Experience

[Tom Baker]

CT, I'm not talking landing at a higher speed just flying the approach at a higher speed. I don't know the stall speed difference between 15° and 40° flaps, but it can't be much since there is only 3 kts difference between 0° and 40°. I teach and try to land with the nose wheel off the ground. I may not be at stall speed ,but I'm very close to it. A solid foundation is needed to learn to land an airplane. With using a little faster approach speed and 15° flaps it give the student more time with each landing to build his foundation. Making changes to the procedure a little later in training is not that hard as long as it still fits on the foundation. For someone who has been flying that way for a long time it is much harder to change.

[chanik]

I totally agree with ~50kts and a clean, practiced flare with 30deg flaps, but I have to correct the math a bit: 1.2228 22.28% x 22.28% = 496% Your energy increased by a factor of 5.

You don't square the percent. Square the factor 1.2228 and you get 1.495 which is about 50% more energy than at 50kts. The plane has much less drag since it is closer to best glide tough too so bleeding off that energy will eat alot of runway.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Thanks Kurt :blink:

[Ed Cesnalis]

Tom,

 

I think the ( few, old ) full stall guys tend to land pretty close to stall speed where the 'fly it on' guys find more reasons to fly it on with speeds much higher than stall. I don't think the difference in stall speeds equates to the difference in landing speeds.

 

I do my landings at stall with 30 or 40 and when I land with 15 I'm probably not looking for a stall attitude. At what setting does a landing at stall speed put the tail fin at risk?

[FastEddieB]

CT, I'm not talking landing at a higher speed just flying the approach at a higher speed.

 

OK, then - that clarifies.

 

I don't much care what speed a pilot uses on final, within limits. I just look for consistency and the timing necessary to bleed off speed in the roundout so as to arrive in ground effect slow enough so that there's no excessive float. Followed by a touchdown that's as slow as possible.

 

I actually would have to bring up one of my videos to say for sure (I'll try to later), but I think in my Sky Arrow I'm usually about 55k to 60k on final - I obviously don't pay a lot of attention to it, and it's well above whatever 39k x 1.3 is (51? 52?). But I'll repost one of those later and you can see I have very little float and end up where I want to be very close to a full stall.

 

We're not that far apart, other than that I generally like full flaps. Spice of life, and all that!

[FastEddieB]

Thanks Kurt :blink:

 

My mom used to say she'd write a book someday called, "Esta Benson On Everything But Math".

 

She never did, so "CharlieTango On Everything But Math" is probably not plagiarizing!

[WmInce]

Excellent points Tom.

[Roger Lee]

So if I cross the numbers at 100 mph in my CT I can't make the same landing as anyone else or even a stall landing? We know you can and I have done it a couple of times. You just hold the low profile parallel to the runway attitude until the speed bleeds. Yes you glide a little further down the runway, but the landing is the same. Your touchdown speed could easily be the same as mine. You may even land at the same spot on the runway depending on your aim. That landing would be as consistent as the next, it would just be the approach that was different. You can see I'm not a huge believer in using numbers to always land by because they work when things are going good which I agree is the majority of the time, but when things turn to crap you better be able to fly with a lot of mental corrections, by the seat of your pants calculations and numbers tend to go out the window. Usually you aren't in any controlled pattern and or descent at that time.Those individuals that fly strictly by numbers tend to crash a lot more than us old Ultralight pilots that have had numerous engine out scenarios.

 

 

Eddie,

Like you said. you need to have all those tools in your toolbox so learning only one way leads to issues when things change. A student may learn up front as Tom pointed out one solid easy way to land, but as he gets better the instructor needs to give him all the tools and the student or high time transition pilot needs to practice with those tools before it becomes a necessity to use. too many CFI's are too rigid in their instruction. Too many CFI's lack the tools and flexibility to use them. My favorite thing to do is fly with a CFI and shut the engine down. Most just freak out. Not enough mental tools, not flexible and panic to boot. Not someone I would want to teach me or a friend.

[FastEddieB]

I don't much care what speed a pilot uses on final, within limits. I just look for consistency and the timing necessary to bleed off speed in the roundout so as to arrive in ground effect slow enough so that there's no excessive float. Followed by a touchdown that's as slow as possible.

 

I actually would have to bring up one of my videos to say for sure (I'll try to later), but I think in my Sky Arrow I'm usually about 55k to 60k on final - I obviously don't pay a lot of attention to it, and it's well above whatever 39k x 1.3 is (51? 52?). But I'll repost one of those later and you can see I have very little float and end up where I want to be very close to a full stall.

 

I had a chance to look up a video of mine that I've posted before:

 

 

Fast forward to about 4:20 (on full screen and HD if your computer allows). Watch the airspeed and the stick. It appears I settle in about 55k on final with full flaps. But watch what it does in the roundout - it starts smoothly dropping so that once in ground effect there's very little extra kinetic energy. And as the airspeed hits the bottom of the white arc the wheels touch.

 

There's a second landing later, much the same. In neither did I achieve my goal of having the stick ALL the way back, so I could have held either landing off a bit longer.

 

Anyway, those landings are my SOP, and I personally don't see anything in them that screams "DANGER - Full Stall Landings May Be Hazardous To Your Health!"

[Ed Cesnalis]

...In neither did I achieve my goal of having the stick ALL the way back, so I could have held either landing off a bit longer...

 

+1

 

When I get the stick back to the stop I smile. Seeing Woodstock land is beautiful while seeing her fly on in turbulent conditions is a little bit alarming.

[Tom Baker]

Hey guys, a stall occurs when you excede the critical angle of attack. It doesn't have to be related to the position of the stick. Quickly pulling the stick back for landing could cause you to stall at a higher speed, and there for touch down at a higher speed.

[Ed Cesnalis]

... Quickly pulling the stick back for landing could cause you to stall at a higher speed, and there for touch down at a higher speed.

 

Tom,

 

You have to get behind the power curve and slowly pull back. Pulling back quickly while in front of the curve is to be avoided because you will climb, or climb and stall. Pulling back quickly when behind the curve has no purpose unless you are trying to prevent rapid sink and hard landing. This is the hardest call on full stall landing my CT, if sink needs to be arrested and it is causing me to pull back more quickly then I am running out of margin and need some power.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Ed,

 

If your already too slow at stall and screwed up the landing pulling back on the stick may do nothing other than make you drop. It's all a balancing act and the full stall advocates haven't given one negative about a full stall landing and what could happen if you mess it up. You guys have only given negatives about too fast. And why have most under carriage damage been from too slow a flight and drop them in verses a little too fast?t

 

And why are the huge majority here not using full stall landings and keeping the little extra speed?

 

You guys are making us believe there can be no issues at all with full stall landings and all the evils are caused by an extra 5 knots.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Eddie,

 

If your already too slow at stall and screwed up the landing pulling back on the stick may do nothing other than make you drop. It's all a balancing act and the full stall advocates haven't given one negative about a full stall landing and what could happen if you mess it up. You guys have only given negatives about too fast. And why have most under carriage damage been from too slow a flight and drop them in verses a little too fast?t

 

And why are the huge majority here not using full stall landings and keeping the little extra speed?

 

You guys are making us believe there can be no issues at all with full stall landings and all the evils are caused by an extra 5 knots.

 

We know that isn't so or most of the aircraft would be crashing on landing with the extra few knots.

 

I would still like to hear your comments on any problems that may arise out of a botched full stall approach and landing?

[Tom Baker]

Tom,

 

You have to get behind the power curve and slowly pull back. Pulling back quickly while in front of the curve is to be avoided because you will climb, or climb and stall. Pulling back quickly when behind the curve has no purpose unless you are trying to prevent rapid sink and hard landing. This is the hardest call on full stall landing my CT, if sink needs to be arrested and it is causing me to pull back more quickly then I am running out of margin and need some power.

 

I just wanted to point out that having the stick all the way back can make you land at a higher speed, and this is what you say your trying to avoid. I still think touching down slightly above stall speed with the nosewheel off the ground while under control is better than trying to drop it in with a full stall.

[Roger Lee]

I'm on your side Tom and I think most are. In all my years around LSA the full stall, land this way all the time is Ina large minority.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Hi Ed,

 

If your already too slow at stall and screwed up the landing pulling back on the stick may do nothing other than make you drop. It's all a balancing act and the full stall advocates haven't given one negative about a full stall landing and what could happen if you mess it up. You guys have only given negatives about too fast. And why have most under carriage damage been from too slow a flight and drop them in verses a little too fast?t

 

And why are the huge majority here not using full stall landings and keeping the little extra speed?

 

You guys are making us believe there can be no issues at all with full stall landings and all the evils are caused by an extra 5 knots.

 

Roger I have answered that I don't see the downside to landing slowly, only the upside, sorry its my honest answer.

 

You have not replied to me pointing out that most CT pilots fly it on at 15degrees or less so your assertion that the damaged undercarriages are the fault of the full stall guys doesn't fly. You are only proving that landings cause the most damage not that the full stall landing technique used by very few ct pilots is the problem.

 

Don't a lot of the incidents happen in a training environment Aren't the new pilots being taught to fly it on?

 

To be very clear your side is experiencing the landing incidents and you are blaming my side!

 

This is not about an extra 5kts either.

 

Obviously you want me to say there is real danger of stalling 5' in the air and doing damage. I have had this happen probably a hundred times or more but I don't allow it to drop, most of the time I can arrest the unwanted rapid sink by increasing the rate at which I pull back and if there isn't enough energy available I advance the throttle. Works every time.

 

The sequence to learn this is to learn to advance the throttle 1st, increasing the rate of back stick takes more feel.

[Ed Cesnalis]

I just wanted to point out that having the stick all the way back can make you land at a higher speed, and this is what you say your trying to avoid. I still think touching down slightly above stall speed with the nosewheel off the ground while under control is better than trying to drop it in with a full stall.

 

Tom,

 

Everyone will agree that it is better to touchdown on your mains than to drop it in with a full stall. We might have to point out that a short field landing done correctly could be described as dropping it in with a full stall as well so there is a line. You can't have a short field landing at a slower speed with a higher vertical speed and not realize a firmer contact.

 

Maybe I'm missing your point on having the stick full back can make you land at a higher speed? There are ways to accomplish that but it is not the typical result. I don't think anyone is advocating full aft sick prior to contact either, the last phase of aerodynamic braking is done with the mains on the ground.

[WmInce]

Hi Ed,

 

If your already too slow at stall and screwed up the landing pulling back on the stick may do nothing other than make you drop. It's all a balancing act and the full stall advocates haven't given one negative about a full stall landing and what could happen if you mess it up. You guys have only given negatives about too fast. And why have most under carriage damage been from too slow a flight and drop them in verses a little too fast?t

 

And why are the huge majority here not using full stall landings and keeping the little extra speed?

 

You guys are making us believe there can be no issues at all with full stall landings and all the evils are caused by an extra 5 knots.

 

I concur.

Again, it is about energy management. It does not matter whether you are in an LSA or B-747.

Personally, I would rather end up with a little more energy at the bottom of an approach/landing, than no energy left and STILL ABOVE THE GROUND. That height above the ground, with no energy left, will determine how ugly the consequences will turn out. Ideally, we should be ON SPEED. That means touching down right at Vref (no gusts).

The fact is, all pilots are capable of making a mistake or misjudging during the landing. Been there . . . done that.

When a pilot thinks he/she has it all wired and is infallible (complacent), that is usually when it bites him/her.

[Tom Baker]

Tom,

 

Everyone will agree that it is better to touchdown on your mains than to drop it in with a full stall. We might have to point out that a short field landing done correctly could be described as dropping it in with a full stall as well so there is a line. You can't have a short field landing at a slower speed with a higher vertical speed and not realize a firmer contact.

 

Maybe I'm missing your point on having the stick full back can make you land at a higher speed? There are ways to accomplish that but it is not the typical result. I don't think anyone is advocating full aft sick prior to contact either, the last phase of aerodynamic braking is done with the mains on the ground.

 

I don't agree that you must have a firmer contact to have a short field landing, but everything must be done perfectly to prevent it and not have extra floating.

 

If moving the stick back causes you to excede the critical angle of attack you will stall. The speed of the airplane doesn't matter.

 

Your comment in post 69 and the other thred you started about having the stick all the way back for landing would indicate that is what you are saying. If you are now saying you want a nice soft touchdown just above stall with the nose wheel off the ground and then continue to pull the stick back we are in agreement.

[Tom Baker]

I have about 1000 hours of Taylorcraft time compared to 6-700 hours in the CT. A stock Taylorcraft is not stalled while in the three point position on landing prior to touchdown. To get a full stall landing you must touch tailwheel first, and plop the mains down. I would much prefer to touch all three wheels at the same time just above stall speed for a nice smooth landing instead of plopping it down. I try to land the CT the same way just above stall speed, except with the nose wheel in the air.

[Ed Cesnalis]

the term full stall landing is a misnomer, minimum speed landings would probably be better. that doesn't mean we can't have this discussion because there is a wide gulf between the 2 camps.

 

I suspect that instructors that post here are splitting the difference, meaning that they do compromise the flap setting but still land pretty slowly. I think the mentality of the whole CT community, after the student is cut loose allows the student to reduce flap settings and at another 5-10kts for a myriad of reason. In the end we have most people using approach and landing speeds that I would never advocate.

[FastEddieB]

I have about 1000 hours of Taylorcraft time compared to 6-700 hours in the CT. A stock Taylorcraft is not stalled while in the three point position on landing prior to touchdown. To get a full stall landing you must touch tailwheel first, and plop the mains down. I would much prefer to touch all three wheels at the same time just above stall speed for a nice smooth landing instead of plopping it down. I try to land the CT the same way just above stall speed, except with the nose wheel in the air.

 

You beat me to it, but I came to a different conclusion.

 

My Citabrias, if held off long enough, would roll on slightly tailwheel first. Then the mains would drop maybe 6" with what I found a satisfying thump. And the plane was done flying. I even had my students visualize trying to roll the tailwheel on, not even thinking about the mains - and it seemed to work.

 

If they landed 3-point, I found there was almost invariably 2 or 3 seconds following touchdown that were "skittery" and I had to be super alert and ready to jump on rudders if they started to swerve.

 

Anyway, knock on wood about 1,500 tailwheel hours, including a lot of touch and goes, and I've never seen a ground loop. I must be doing something right!

[Roger Lee]

Hi Ed,

 

A full stall landing means to me that the plane is completely done flying when the wheels touch and if you pulled the stick back all the way it won't leave the ground. For the CT it is around 38 knots give or take a knot or two for each aircraft and setup. It has nothing to do with the approach speed. It's what you do at the end when you round out or transition from the approach to a landing scenario and you are settling to the ground and the second before the wheels meet the surface. It means precise timing to make it quit flying at the exact moment the wheels touch. My bet is that most that think they are right at stall on landing are a few knots over and the rest of us are a few knots over you.

 

The problem with so many pilots is judging the ground height. This is the crux of the damage issue, judging ground height and that comes into play with full stall landings or landing with a little extra speed. You and I have been around and seen enough in the CT world that we know ground height on landing has been an issue.

 

My only issue with many pilots is that with the full stall landing it takes more experience, good ground depth perception and timing to make a good full stall landing. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many dropped in smashed gear legs.

[Ed Cesnalis]

...My only issue with many pilots is that with the full stall landing it takes more experience, good ground depth perception and timing to make a good full stall landing. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many dropped in smashed gear legs.

 

You make it sound hard and it isn't. Obvious limitations have to be imposed. In much the same way we don't chop the power prior to the runway being assured we don't stall prior to knowing we are in range (height above runway) and have awareness and control of our vertical speed.

 

As Eddie alluded to gear damage can be the result of a bounce or balloon 1st and then the damaging rapid sink. Those are too fast issues that result in smashed gear legs, it isn't 100% from stalling high.

 

In a CTSW simply running out of energy with some altitude is doable but it doesn't happen all by itself. When a pilot drops it in like you fear there is likely a bleeding off of speed while he is pulling the stick back without awareness, it won't stall unless you pull the stick back. The scenario is likely set up by failing to trim for the approach or a lack of awareness that the pilot is fighting the trim. If you trim for 1.3 VSo and allow it to descend to round out height and ultimately don't pull the stick back for flaring till you are behind the power curve and aware of your sink rate and comfortable with your height, you won't drop it in and you will be set up to land slowly, best of both worlds.

 

The damaging drop that you fear is either because the pilot is unaware of his height, unaware of his sink or unaware that he is stalling or all of the above.