Arrow III landing question

[jcc3inc]

Good evening,

My first time flying an Arrow yielded a less-than-perfect landing. The instructor advised me to keep the nose held up just after touchdown, and I did so; then I started to gradually lower the nose but BUMP, the nose came down hard on the front gear. Instructor was unhappy!! The second and third trys were only marginally better. While I have flown little in the past 6 years, landings have never been a problem for me in Bonanzas (have about 2800 hours in them), and everything went well until just after touchdown.

Those of you who regularly fly these may well advise me on techniques I evidently lack. All landings were with second notch of flaps. I can't tell you my exact airspeed at touchdown since I was busy landing. The instructor offered that I should have cut the power to idle after touchdown; but that seems counter-intuitive as that lessens that air over the tail with even less ability to hold the nose up!

Comments? Thank you.

Regards,

jcc3inc

 

[bbchien]

What's your approach airspeed and flap setting?
AND. How much do the 2 of you weight, together (e.g, FRONT of W&B envelope?).

 

[TripleZ]

Ive found the nose heavy on the arrow as well. Check your W&B, if your at the front limit, it's difficult to keep the nose up when on roll out. Can't say it's a big hard drop, but heavier than a 172.

 

[jesse]

The power should be idle before touch down, if you've touched down and you're still not at idle you are landing faster then you need to be and wasting runway. Airplanes make terrible race cars. Same thing applies to Bonanzas.

I suspect the issue is a combination of weight and balance and technique. Did the instructor not have any advice?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Ask the instructor to demonstrate.

 

[Sac Arrow]

You have to pull back a lot to flare on an Arrow, it's nose heavy. Much more so than on a Bonanza, or 172. And you have to be right on the numbers. The tapered wing floats if you carry too much airspeed. You need exactly 70 knots passing the threshold. Any more and you will float.

 

[taters]

Jesse is right on about the power...leaving any in will mess you over every time, in just about every plane I have ever flown.
Be sure to trim trim trim as well (nose should t drop an inch if you let go of the yoke on final), the flare should feel natural...just put that nose up there and fly it till the wheels rub right on.

 

[zaitcev]

Ask the instructor to demonstrate.

I concur.

I have only 3.5 hours in the old Arrow and that is completely benign, exactly like a big Cherokee (they widened the stabilator to offset its longer fuselage). It only likes flat approaches, like the kind instrument pilots do, but the flaring is nothing special. However, I heard the Arrow III (with T-tail, right?) was bad.

Instructor ought to know the trick. He should not just rap the student's balls, but explain what it is.

P.S. Yes, I land with idle power, taking it out gradually when the runway is made. However, I am not an adherent of "full-stall" landing in Arrow (the old one!). I keep an eye on airspeed and leave a few mph above, with which I flare. It's the same technique I was officially told to use in Mooney M20E, if that rings a bell.

 

[Bobcat1]

With just the two of you, you're gonna get a bit of a bump anyway in the Arrow. Put a little weight in the bagage compartment. You'll only be marginally heavier but the CG will move aft a bit more and there will be less of the clunk and bump.

 

[midlifeflyer]

However, I heard the Arrow III (with T-tail, right?) was bad.

The T-tail is the Arrow IV. And I don't think it was that bad. A need to pull harder for the flare, but that's all I ever saw in it.

The Arrow isn't really harder to land than any other PA28. I've landed them both at complete idle and with a little power kept in. Personally, I prefer with power gradually reduced to idle in the flare for smoother touchdowns.

I agree with those who suggested asking for a demonstration by the instructor. This sounds a bit like the expected effects of landing something that behaves differently than what one is used to. I can see that especially if the prior recent experience was in a Bonanza - those are among the easiest airplanes to land smoothly.

then I started to gradually lower the nose but BUMP, the nose came down hard on the front gear.

Don't lower it. The tendency of the airplane to be a bit nose-heavy can mean a bump (I recently rechecked out in one after not flying one for a few years and did that on the first landing). Better off continuing to hold the nose up and let it come down when it's ready and the lift continues to bleed off. There's no hurry in a normal landing to put all three wheels on the ground.

 

[Ranger]

Well, not much useful advice here on landing an Arrow III here so far; just generic landing advice. I've got over a thousand hours in an Arrow III, and banging the nose down is common for most transitioning to Arrows in general.

The reason the nose tends to slam down onto the runway is a combination of 3 factors:

1) NOT landing the nose as you would any other tire. Most pilots I fly with tend to STOP flying when the mains touch down. Somewhere between the flare and the touchdown they hold the yoke where it is and it seems like they wait for the airplane to figure out the rest of the landing for them. Make a special effort to land the nose after you've landed the mains. It takes practice.

2) The Arrow III and IV models are slightly nose heavy with 2 pilots and fuel at or below tabs. THIS SHOULD NOT MATTER, THOUGH, AS YOUR LANDING TECHNIQUE SHOULD ALWAYS BE TO DELIBERATELY CONTROL THE NOSEWHEEL TOUCHDOWN.

3) The main landing gear is made up of oleo struts. When you get the "chirp" of the mains, they are NOT YET FULLY COMPRESSED. If you STOP all control inputs (as most pilots do) when the mains chirp, the Arrow will settle another 6-8 inches, during which the downward motion is converted into forward rotation. This means that if you don't pull back on the yoke an inch or so after the sound of the chirp, the touchdown will impart a forward rotation that isn't countered by pilot input, causing factors 1) and 2) to cause a forward rotation that BANGS the nose gear onto the runway. Cessna pilots tend to become especially lazy in landing techniques because- face it- Cessnas practically land themselves.

Most aircraft without oleos on the mains (Cessnas, Mooneys, etc) instantly transfer downward motion to the airframe causing a physical sensation the pilot reacts to. With oleos, this feeling is replaced by the chirping sound, HOWEVER, the airplane isn't yet fully landed.

Airspeed DOES NOT MATTER. Power at touchdown DOES NOT MATTER. Trim at touchdown DOES NOT MATTER. Full stall landings are a bad idea in any plane ANY TIME. After touchdown the airplane slows down so elevator/stabilator control goes away AS EXPECTED. If you are paying attention to the right indications, none of those things will affect your response to a quickly lowering nose after touchdown.

In short, LAND ALL THREE TIRES.

 

[dmccormack]

Airspeed DOES NOT MATTER. Power at touchdown DOES NOT MATTER. Trim at touchdown DOES NOT MATTER. Full stall landings are a bad idea in any plane ANY TIME. After touchdown the airplane slows down so elevator/stabilator control goes away AS EXPECTED. If you are paying attention to the right indications, none of those things will affect your response to a quickly lowering nose after touchdown.

In short, LAND ALL THREE TIRES.

I was with you until the comments in red.

I have limited time in long Pipers, but have lots of time in 210 series and Bonanzas, each can be "nose heavy" with a light load and two up front.

I suggest the following clarifications:

• Airspeed on landing matters since the kinetic energy must be dissipated. Touchdown attitude is also a function of airspeed.
• Trim at touchdown is a function of airspeed on final. The least possible energy on touchdown consistent with control is always the ideal.
• I think most pilots use the shorthand "full stall" when they actually mean "I heard the stall horn" (Which is usually calibrated 5-10 knots above). I agree we don't actually want a full stall -- unless we want the nose -- and likely a wing -- to drop. We do want to touchdown with the least energy possible that permits airplane control.

 

[yakdriver]

Airspeed DOES NOT MATTER. Power at touchdown DOES NOT MATTER. Trim at touchdown DOES NOT MATTER. Full stall landings are a bad idea in any plane ANY TIME. After touchdown the airplane slows down so elevator/stabilator control goes away AS EXPECTED. If you are paying attention to the right indications, none of those things will affect your response to a quickly lowering nose after touchdown.

In short, LAND ALL THREE TIRES.[/QUOTE]

Please explain why "airspeed and power does not matter" and why are full stall landings a bad idea in any airplane any time?

 

[Sac Arrow]

Airspeed does matter - if you wish to keep your touchdown point somewhere close to the beginning of the runway. Hershey bar Cherokees (and Arrows) are more forgiving of coming in slightly too fast than an Arrow III, as they have a tendency to quit flying sooner once they are in a landing flare. Carrying a slight amount of power in to the flare also helps control the front wheel bounce as you have more elevator authority available to you. I do this if I'm loaded heavy up front. Filling the two rear seats makes that unnecessary.

 

[dell30rb]

I think they are similar airplanes... the Pa-28-161 I fly and the arrow III?

with just 2 passengers in the front the PA 28 is a little nose heavy. Just takes more back pressure to keep the front wheel off the ground. Dont "give up" when your mains touch.

When you touch down, you should come over the threshold at 65-70 kts. I like to use full flaps as they are not so effective and the extra drag helps kill the float that these low - tapered wing airplanes like to do. Reduce power to idle just before round out, then continue to pull back on the yoke and when you approach stall speed, let the mains touch. Then continue pulling back on the yoke for a few seconds to keep the nose wheel off while you bleed down some more speed. You have to keep increasing back pressure after your mains touch - this is the key. After you've been riding this "wheelie" for a few seconds just quit increasing back pressure and let the nose gear settle down to the runway on its own. Don't reduce back pressure - hold it there- until you feel the nose gear chirp.

Oh - and make sure the yoke shaft is nice and lubricated! It will help with your touchdown

 

[Fearless Tower]

I think they are similar airplanes... the Pa-28-161 I fly and the arrow III?

Comparatively, the Arrow does indeed feel much more nose-heavy than the standard PA28 - if it is your first time in a PA28R, you WILL notice a difference.

You'll also notice a difference in a simulated engine failure/power off 180 - a Warrior or Archer will seem like it can glide forever. The Arrow (with the gear out) will drop like a rock.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Jesse is right on about the power...leaving any in will mess you over every time, in just about every plane I have ever flown.

Not sure that's entirely true....while I don't do it very often in most of the planes I fly, I've made some really smooth soft-field landings with a touch of power on.

Believe it or not, in the 170, if I am doing a wheel landing, I'll almost always land power on.

 

[dmccormack]

Not sure that's entirely true....while I don't do it very often in most of the planes I fly, I've made some really smooth soft-field landings with a touch of power on.

Believe it or not, in the 170, if I am doing a wheel landing, I'll almost always land power on.

Power = energy.

Steeper descent angle = more speed = Xenergy
OR
Shallow descent angle + power = Xenergy

Except when prop blast increases tail effectiveness.

 

[taters]

Not sure that's entirely true....while I don't do it very often in most of the planes I fly, I've made some really smooth soft-field landings with a touch of power on.

Believe it or not, in the 170, if I am doing a wheel landing, I'll almost always land power on.

Yes but that technique is germane to soft-field landings...the discussion is centered around a normal landing technique.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Yes but that technique is germane to soft-field landings...the discussion is centered around a normal landing technique.

True...I was just commenting on your blanket statement.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Power = energy.

Steeper descent angle = more speed = Xenergy
OR
Shallow descent angle + power = Xenergy

Except when prop blast increases tail effectiveness.

I assume your Xenergy is short for excess energy?

If so, yes, keeping power on can result in excess energy. But, depending on what you are intending to do, having the excess energy may not be a bad thing - commercial checkride soft field landing for example.

Although I am not sure I'd agree that a shallow descent and power (ie 'hanging on the prop/dragging it in') is excess energy.

 

[dmccormack]

I assume your Xenergy is short for excess energy?

If so, yes, keeping power on can result in excess energy. But, depending on what you are intending to do, having the excess energy may not be a bad thing - commercial checkride soft field landing for example.

Although I am not sure I'd agree that a shallow descent and power (ie 'hanging on the prop/dragging it in') is excess energy.

It's potential excess energy -- notice I did not specify a landing point.

 

[RoscoeT]

Power equals glide path, it does not equal energy. Airspeed equals energy. Of course, this assumes you pull power off the instant you touchdown. If you don't, then you have excess energy. You can have too much energy at too high a power-off airspeed, or you can have too little energy with power on if your airspeed is too slow. Except for SERIOUS short field work, power-on during landing in most singles, IMO, is a crutch and a pilot comfort factor, rather than something that is truly needed.

 

[gismo]

Not sure that's entirely true....while I don't do it very often in most of the planes I fly, I've made some really smooth soft-field landings with a touch of power on.

Believe it or not, in the 170, if I am doing a wheel landing, I'll almost always land power on.

Leaving power in doesn't "mess with" the landing in the sense of making it more difficult to control, it just adds to the floating and eats runway. Of course if you spend more time floating there are more opportunities for the wind to mess up your landing. IME, pilots who favor touching down with power simply haven't learned to delay their flare until they are appropriately close to the ground.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Leaving power in doesn't "mess with" the landing in the sense of making it more difficult to control, it just adds to the floating and eats runway.

No, not necessarily. As Roscoe just mentioned, the airspeed is the issue.

Yes, if your approach speed is 5-10 kts fast and you leave the power in, you are going to float/eat up alot of runway.

On the flip side, if you are 1 kt above a stall going into the flare, you could be darn near full power and you probably aren't going to float too much.

 

[jesse]

IME, pilots who favor touching down with power simply haven't learned to delay their flare until they are appropriately close to the ground.

+1 I tend to start the flare slower and lower then some, it requires a little more precision, but I like the result. This finally "clicked" for one of my students last night.

There are valid reasons to land with power in some scenarios but the people I see landing with power aren't doing it because they have a valid reason. They're doing it because they need practice and they're eating up thousands of feet of runway.

On the flip side, if you are 1 kt above a stall going into the flare, you could be darn near full power and you probably aren't going to float too much.

If you're going into the flare at full power 1 kt above stall good chance you'll be striking your tail in many aircraft. Yes there are some valid reasons to do it, but most doing it aren't doing it for a valid reason.

 

[dmccormack]

Power equals glide path, it does not equal energy. Airspeed equals energy. Of course, this assumes you pull power off the instant you touchdown. If you don't, then you have excess energy. You can have too much energy at too high a power-off airspeed, or you can have too little energy with power on if your airspeed is too slow. Except for SERIOUS short field work, power-on during landing in most singles, IMO, is a crutch and a pilot comfort factor, rather than something that is truly needed.

Power is fuel converted to what?

In other words -- if you are on short final at 120 mph in a PA-28, do you have an energy surplus or deficit?

 

[Sac Arrow]

+1 I tend to start the flare slower and lower then some, it requires a little more precision, but I like the result. This finally "clicked" for one of my students last night.

There are valid reasons to land with power in some scenarios but the people I see landing with power aren't doing it because they have a valid reason. They're doing it because they need practice and they're eating up thousands of feet of runway.


If you're going into the flare at full power 1 kt above stall good chance you'll be striking your tail in many aircraft. Yes there are some valid reasons to do it, but most doing it aren't doing it for a valid reason.

I agree with you jesse, but an Arrow III is the one plane I will carry a little bit of power in to the flare in a normal landing, although I only do that if I'm loaded nose heavy. It's a piece of cake otherwise with the back seats occupied.

 

[gismo]

On the flip side, if you are 1 kt above a stall going into the flare, you could be darn near full power and you probably aren't going to float too much.

Au contraire. In ground effect most airplanes will float forever at about 50% power, even with full flaps. And just leaving in an extra few hundred RPM as you fly down the runway near the ground can add several hundred feet in most airplanes I've flown. IMO, this practice ranks nearly as high as the "extra 10 Kt for mom and kids" on final WRT long landings and overshoots.

 

[dmccormack]

I agree with you jesse, but an Arrow III is the one plane I will carry a little bit of power in to the flare in a normal landing, although I only do that if I'm loaded nose heavy. It's a piece of cake otherwise with the back seats occupied.

But you could achieve the same tail effectiveness with power-idle, yet higher approach speed, correct?

 

[RoscoeT]

Power is fuel converted to what?

Not sure your point, but of course the answer is energy. Energy allows an airplane to sustain level flight and climb. But it is pretty insignificant when it comes to controlling airspeed. Gravity is FAR stronger than a Continental or Lycoming. When we say "landing with excess energy", what we're really talking about is excess airspeed. Power is irrelevant.

In other words -- if you are on short final at 120 mph in a PA-28, do you have an energy surplus or deficit?

Again, not sure the point you're arguing or concurring with, but I thought we were talking about excess energy on landing. If you scrub your airspeed to just above stall and still manage to touchdown on your desired spot, then I guess being at 120 mph at some point on final doesn't really matter one way or another.

 

[Sac Arrow]

But you could achieve the same tail effectiveness with power-idle, yet higher approach speed, correct?

Sure, and it works fine if you're loaded near max gross, otherwise you balloon if you flare with too much airspeed. So you end up burning it off in float and flaring at normal landing speed anyway.

 

[dmccormack]

Not sure your point, but of course the answer is energy. Energy allows an airplane to sustain level flight and climb. But it is pretty insignificant when it comes to controlling airspeed. Gravity is FAR stronger than a Continental or Lycoming. When we say "landing with excess energy", what we're really talking about is excess airspeed. Power is irrelevant.

Again, not sure the point you're arguing or concurring with, but I thought we were talking about excess energy on landing. If you scrub your airspeed to just above stall and still manage to touchdown on your desired spot, then I guess being at 120 mph at some point on final doesn't really matter one way or another.

I'm clarifying the point that a landing has two energy sources -- gravity and engine thrust.

A power-idle (few of us practice power OFF) landing uses gravity. The pilot must judge the glide angle and touchdown point and adjust airspeed within a certain envelope.

A power-on approach adds a vector to the landing equation. Even my little antique 65 HP Lycoming can let me climb so I actually can counteract gravity.

So it all comes down to energy management. You have some from being up and you have some in the tank.

 

[dmccormack]

Sure, and it works fine if you're loaded near max gross, otherwise you balloon if you flare with too much airspeed. So you end up burning it off in float and flaring at normal landing speed anyway.

You only balloon if you apply excessive up elevator. If you transition from descent to level at any airspeed you will not balloon.

You will float, however.

 

[Fearless Tower]

If you're going into the flare at full power 1 kt above stall good chance you'll be striking your tail in many aircraft. Yes there are some valid reasons to do it, but most doing it aren't doing it for a valid reason.

Of course....I am not suggesting that anyone DO that, just using that as an example that the airspeed is the real factor in excess energy.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Au contraire. In ground effect most airplanes will float forever at about 50% power, even with full flaps. And just leaving in an extra few hundred RPM as you fly down the runway near the ground can add several hundred feet in most airplanes I've flown. IMO, this practice ranks nearly as high as the "extra 10 Kt for mom and kids" on final WRT long landings and overshoots.

Disagree.....if you are truly that close to the stall, when you start pulling the nose up in the flare, the airplane is not going to float, even in ground effect....at least an Arrow certainly won't.

And let's clear something up - I am not a big advocate of power on landings. As I mentioned before, I was merely addressing a blanket statement implying that ALL power on landings are bad.

 

[Sac Arrow]

You only balloon if you apply excessive up elevator. If you transition from descent to level at any airspeed you will not balloon.

You will float, however.

Yes - but if you're lightly loaded, forward CG, your AOA may not be enough to prevent a nosewheel bounce or a three pointer when you do touch down, even with the yoke full aft.

 

[dmccormack]

Yes - but if you're lightly loaded, forward CG, your AOA may not be enough to prevent a nosewheel bounce or a three pointer when you do touch down, even with the yoke full aft.

Really? I thought that was a certification requirement...?

 

[Sac Arrow]

Really? I thought that was a certification requirement...?

I'm sure it is, I'm just telling you my experience in them (800 hours in a Turbo Arrow III.) You can land it properly, it's just hard to do under certain loading conditions if you don't have your airspeed nailed exactly. Just less forgiving than most other airplanes. And I've never flown a normally aspirated Arrow III, but I suspect a TA carries more weight up front from the turbo and a heavier nose gear than the NA III so that may factor in as well. I have have flown Arrow II's, and find them to be very easy to land in comparison.

And that said, bouncing the nosewheel slightly as a some landings end up isn't going to result in a prop strike or bend metal, it's a pretty sturdy airplane.

 

[denverpilot]

If you're going into the flare at full power 1 kt above stall good chance you'll be striking your tail in many aircraft. Yes there are some valid reasons to do it, but most doing it aren't doing it for a valid reason.

That's what (rightly) caused me to seriously chicken out after doing some slow approaches in the STOL Skylane the last weekend, well below "normal" approach speed.

The sink rate meant that a) I'd have to time the flare EXACTLY dead-nuts on, or I'd either be a few feet in the air with ZERO energy left over, or I'd whack the airplane onto the ground REALLY hard... and b) I was seriously concerned about a tail strike.

It's all PoA's fault... folks pointing out that a much higher sink rate could be had by just pulling the nose up on our slow-slow-slow bird. I had to go find out. Winds were not gusty, so here I am, dropping in like a rock... heh heh...

Half tanks, just me, 40 knots *indicated* and Flaps 40 isn't even chirping the stall horn yet. I knew this from having done it at altitude many times, and having done some STOL technique takeoffs in the bird... but I hadn't applied it to what it would look like to do a ridiculously steep approach angle at that speed, 100% power off.

I chickened out, added a handful of power, and destabilized the crap out of the flare, twice. Still landed them, since fighting with a flaps 40 go-around wasn't as smart as just finishing the landing, even if it was a tad wobbly/ugly, but after two, I decided I was done messing with that for the day and went back to more "normal" approaches.

More practice needed. I'm good at big slips with or without the flaps hanging out, and finishing those off, but the ground comes up quite a bit faster this way... my eyeballs were triggering "whoa! Sink rate!!!" thoughts in my head about 20' up.