Dragging it in...

timwinters said:
I'm not @Stewartb but I regularly do this in slow flight, and maintain it. That is...When it's cold enough to not have to worry about overheating the engine. It's a good way to get things warm in the winter!
Click to expand...

Looks like you're ready for the STOL competition!
 
Kritchlow said:
I also agree with James. Too much speed yields too much float. I do see that as well.
But they are still aiming for the threshold, where imo that eats up all your margin for the unexpected, or error.

Proper speed, proper angle, proper touchdown target is the best recipe in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Aiming for the threshold won't put you on the threshold. The roundout and flare flattens the glidepath and takes you beyond the aiming point. And that's why aiming for the 1000' landing marks won't get you down at that point, either.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Aiming for the threshold won't put you on the threshold. The roundout and flare flattens the glidepath and takes you beyond the aiming point. And that's why aiming for the 1000' landing marks won't get you down at that point, either.
Click to expand...
It will be darn close if your airspeed is correct.
 
My father in law comes in low where almost every time I tell him we’re going to land in the grass. But every time he lands smack on the numbers. There is not cutting the throttle because the runway is literally never made until he lands. And he doesn’t round out, he flitters the yoke.

I was taught to aim for a spot before your landing point and control altitude with throttle and speed with attitude. Once the runway is made cut the throttle and round out.
 
timwinters said:
I'm not @Stewartb but I regularly do this in slow flight, and maintain it. That is...When it's cold enough to not have to worry about overheating the engine. It's a good way to get things warm in the winter!

0kts-jpg.34988
Click to expand...
What the fuaa?
 
Sometimes you have to drag it in or you'll land too short

 
timwinters said:
Hangin' from the prop, baby! It'll do it all day long if it's cold enough to not overheat things.

Typically 20* of flaps and actual airspeed is likely close to 40mph and it just mushes.
Click to expand...

20* of flap is not nearly as effective as 40* in a Cessna.

Performance STOL split flaps are the rage with Cubs, and now Cub drivers can have flaps that work like a Cessna’s. Game changer.
 
Kritchlow said:
It will be darn close if your airspeed is correct.
Click to expand...

Not really - the typical approach at 1.3 Vso will still carry you a fair distance past your aim point.

As a habit, as a general rule I do try to land on or close to the numbers. I think it’s good practice, and have found no undue risk in doing so. However, I try to do so with little or no power involved, so I’m not “dragging it in” as I understand the phrase.
 
The landings in this video are typical for me:


The last one, with the narrowest field of view, most closely approximates the view in real life. The wider the camera angle, the lower/flatter it makes a normal approach appear.

As an aside, my mantra is “maximum flaps as consistent with conditions”. The 30° available in the Sky Arrow are only moderately effective.
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t “dragging” it in imply high AOA, slow speed, and therefore high drag? Dragging it in is managed with thrust and is usually done with a low approach angle in ground effect. The more thrust available, the higher drag profile you can manage. Chop power and drop it on at your preferred spot. Watch some STOL contest videos if you want to see the technique in action, but consider that STOL contests are usually conducted at big fields with unobstructed approaches. Go try it over a river to a short LZ with a sharp cut bank. Not many guys will drag it in in real life. Go-arounds are a problem if you’re truly behind the power curve and low.
 
Last edited:
Stewartb said:
20* of flap is not nearly as effective as 40* in a Cessna.
Click to expand...

True.

But someone, somewhere (here?) told me that full power slow flight with full flaps can lead to trailing edge cracks. True? IHNFI but it kinda makes sense and why risk it?
 
timwinters said:
True.

But someone, somewhere (here?) told me that full power slow flight with full flaps can lead to trailing edge cracks. True? IHNFI but it kinda makes sense and why risk it?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a problem. In the flight school we taught a lot of slow flight with flaps at various settings and experienced cracking of flap skins as well as of the flap cove skins and the small brackets that attach them at the flap tracks. There are heavier skins available (Airforms, IIRC) and McFarlane has a tapered trailing edge bulb section strip that also reduces the cracking tendency. And it stops some of that famous Cessna "diamond head" forehead tattooing.
 
Dan Thomas said:
and McFarlane has a tapered trailing edge bulb section strip that also reduces the cracking tendency. And it stops some of that famous Cessna "diamond head" forehead tattooing.
Click to expand...

I reskinned my flaps a few years back and I installed the McFarlane trailing edge bulbs. HIGHLY recommended. They're sweeeet!
 
Jamie Kirk said:
My father in law comes in low where almost every time I tell him we’re going to land in the grass. But every time he lands smack on the numbers. There is not cutting the throttle because the runway is literally never made until he lands. And he doesn’t round out, he flitters the yoke.

I was taught to aim for a spot before your landing point and control altitude with throttle and speed with attitude. Once the runway is made cut the throttle and round out.
Click to expand...

How does one "flitter" a yoke. I may be flittering, I may just call it something else.
 
Kritchlow said:
Why do I see in almost every video guys dragging it in?

I can’t say it more concise... 50’ over the threshold to land 1000’ down, gives you a buffer for sheer or other unforeseen circumstance, yet gives you plenty of runway to roll out.
I realize this may not be wise on every runway, but anything over 3000 feet with most airplanes this is a no brainer.

I cringe when I see approaches way below the normal slope.
Click to expand...

Way to long to land in a 172 IMO. Maybe a larger plane for sure. I do a steeper approach, aim for the threshold, of course float beyond that, and am turning off before the 1000 foot markers at my airport to turn off directly in front of the FBO and the same end of the field the hangar is on.
 
Jamie Kirk said:
Pulls out, push in, pulls out, push in. Over and over and over.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like a landing technique. That sounds more like how to make sweet love to an airplane. But I land completely differently than that, so what do I know? Besides, my airplane and I are both healthy heterosexual males, sooooo...
 
Kritchlow said:
I can’t say it more concise... 50’ over the threshold to land 1000’ down, gives you a buffer for sheer or other unforeseen circumstance, yet gives you plenty of runway to roll out.
Click to expand...

For that its worth, this is what the FAA uses when designing runways and evaluating obstacle clearance. A 3 degree glideslope with touchdown 1,000 down the runway, puts you 50' over the threshold.

I'm not saying it's what I always do either, just the design consideration.
 
Jamie Kirk said:
Pulls out, push in, pulls out, push in. Over and over and over.
Click to expand...

The best Cub pilots I know do that. They can stay aware of control authority as they slow to the minimum landing speed for their current W&B. The action itself doesn’t affect the landing, their ability to land at the slowest manageable speed does. Those same guys don’t use that technique in their Cessnas. There’s no need.
 
Here's today's slow flight...

IMG_20181103_083914577.jpg IMG_20181103_083917866.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20181103_083917866.jpg
    IMG_20181103_083917866.jpg
    130.6 KB · Views: 13
Technically "slow flight" is Minimum Controllable Airspeed meaning straight and level with the ability to maneuver without stalling. Your pictures show you in a 300-500 fpm climb. Also at high angle of attack the airspeed indicator is non functional so what you are looking at is irrelevant. A 172 with full flaps will stall at 40 knots, nothing you can do to prevent that.
 
Silvaire said:
Technically "slow flight" is Minimum Controllable Airspeed meaning straight and level with the ability to maneuver without stalling. Your pictures show you in a 300-500 fpm climb. Also at high angle of attack the airspeed indicator is non functional so what you are looking at is irrelevant. A 172 with full flaps will stall at 40 knots, nothing you can do to prevent that.
Click to expand...
I can (And did) do standard rate turns in this configuration.

And, so you're saying my 182 stalls at the same speed at full power as it does power off? Okay.
 
Silvaire said:
Technically "slow flight" is Minimum Controllable Airspeed meaning straight and level with the ability to maneuver without stalling. Your pictures show you in a 300-500 fpm climb. Also at high angle of attack the airspeed indicator is non functional so what you are looking at is irrelevant. A 172 with full flaps will stall at 40 knots, nothing you can do to prevent that.
Click to expand...

MCA is flight right above a stall, usually 5-10 knots above a stall, while slow flight can be any speed between MCA and cruise speed, as @FastEddieB stated above.

And it’s not just S&L. I have my students climb and descend during slow flight too. Also show them MCA and have them fly that too, even though it’s no longer required but still a good training maneuver.
 
Last edited:
The argument for slow flight demonstration (ACS Standards) at just above the Stall warning is that it seems like a bad idea to be teaching students to Ignore the Stall Warning.
The Compromise is that we still require students to demonstrate a Power on and Off Full Stalls. Actually just a bit more than the old PTS required which was recover at 1st Aerodynamic indication of a stall. The ACS now says "recovers promptly after a full stall"

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Silvaire said:
Technically "slow flight" is Minimum Controllable Airspeed meaning straight and level with the ability to maneuver without stalling. Your pictures show you in a 300-500 fpm climb. Also at high angle of attack the airspeed indicator is non functional so what you are looking at is irrelevant. A 172 with full flaps will stall at 40 knots, nothing you can do to prevent that.
Click to expand...

Tim's setup looks like what we would do on high wind days to fly/move backwards in the 152's.
 
Silvaire said:
Technically "slow flight" is Minimum Controllable Airspeed meaning straight and level with the ability to maneuver without stalling. Your pictures show you in a 300-500 fpm climb. Also at high angle of attack the airspeed indicator is non functional so what you are looking at is irrelevant. A 172 with full flaps will stall at 40 knots, nothing you can do to prevent that.
Click to expand...

Would be easy to take your quote out of context, I get the point the airspeed indicator is not indicating your actual stall speed.

Lots of things will change the speed at which a 172 with full flaps will stall.

a. change the flying weight of the aircraft.
b. change the CG location of the aircraft
c. Vortex Generators
d. control Surface Gap Seals
e. Changes to airfoil shape (lead edge modifications)
f. Power setting.
g. Change Load Factor (G-load)
 
I didn’t say that nothing would alter the stall speed, only that a stock 172 isn’t going to fly under about 40 knots. Keep in mind that if you are in a steep full power climb there is a vertical element to your speed so even if your gps ground speed were to show below 40 knots (assuming no wind) your airspeed will be more and the relative wind is not parallel to the ground as you are in a climb.

As for “slow flight” it used to just mean MCA but apparently over the decades it has expanded to include anything below cruise speed. To be honest I can’t remember if the term “MCA” even existed way back then, we just called it slow flight.

Anyway Tim I wasn’t trying to diminish your impressive demonstration, just pointing out the nuances and that you weren’t actually flying your 182 at 15 mph as the picture appears to show :)
 
Silvaire said:
. . . even if your gps ground speed were to show below 40 knots (assuming no wind) your airspeed will be more and the relative wind is not parallel to the ground as you are in a climb.
Click to expand...

Just a brief reminder to everyone that "GPS groundspeed" is unrelated to flight performance, and only applies to the time and fuel required to reach your destination.

With approximately the same power settings, typically 145-148 KTAS, I've had groundspeeds range from 68 knots to 186 knots. In the former, I was not about to stall (58 mph clean, power on), and in the latter I was in no danger of structural failure (Vne = 200 mph = 174 knots).
 
Silvaire said:
As for “slow flight” it used to just mean MCA but apparently over the decades it has expanded to include anything below cruise speed. To be honest I can’t remember if the term “MCA” even existed way back then, we just called it slow flight.
Click to expand...

At least going back to 1975, I don’t have the same recollection. I learned, and later taught, “minimum controllable airspeed” back then. As I said, both then and now, slow flight encompassed a much broader range of flight slower than cruise.

Not official, but Wikipedia says: “Slow flight is a portion of an airplane's performance envelope above the speed at which the plane will stall, but below the aircraft's endurance speed.”

That substitutes “endurance speed” for the “normal cruise speed” that I recall, but encompasses the same general idea.
 
Last edited:
Slow flight is indeed above stall but below endurance. Endurance speed is the speed you will get when you can maintain altitude with the lowest power setting, thereby staying airborne the longest for the fuel aboard. To fly slower than that and not lose altitude you have to add power, and now you're in slow flight.
 
FastEddieB said:
At least going back to 1975, I don’t have the same recollection. I learned, and later taught, “minimum controllable airspeed” back then. As I said, both then and now, slow flight encompassed a much broader range of flight slower than cruise...
Click to expand...

You're probably right, it was 1969 and I was 15 years old. Just wanted to fly the J3 and probably wasn't paying as much attention to the details as I should have. I just remember "slow flight" as hanging on just above stall and making turns. The way Dan describes it, the point where you cross over the power curve and flying slower requires more power. But every time I've done it in training or for a checkride the object seems to always be to get it as slow as possible which equates to MCA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top