Landing Problem

[asechrest]

The problem when you say VSO in a small plane, is most pilots just look up the max gross VSO which is in their POH.

On something small like a 172/152/PA-XX you should be able to feel it out.

Also a balloon or bounce still isn't speed related

Does't that sort of depend on what you mean by "related"?

Certainly you could fly a low approach at 120 knots and potentially not balloon. But the fact is that excessive speed on landing will increase your tendency to balloon if you don't have the ability to handle the much finer control inputs you'd need to prevent it when you're much too fast. And given that a student is still learning the finer points of aircraft control, excess speed is typically bad news. Consider that PP PTS altitude standards are +/- 100 feet. A typical student doesn't have the skill to come screaming into the level-off and fix his "chitty control inputs". Hell, I don't even have the ability to do that, and I'm not a student.

So an admonishment that its not his speed, but his crappy controlling of the A/C, seems a bit misplaced.

 

[LauraE51]

Are we sure the POH numbers are that far off?

I just found a 1978 C172 POH online, and it specifies 55-65k w/flaps.

I would set 55k as a hard minimum for a student. A 172 should land just fine approaching between 55-65k and holding off until at or near the stall.

Later, one could go into how approach speeds can be modified at lighter weights, but I still would not want to see much less than 55k.

BTW, Vso shows as 41k IAS. 1.3 times that is about 53k. Probably Cessna rounded up to that 55k number for simplicity's sake.

Well, our FBO does have 172Ms and the POH for the M shows a landing speed of 65-75mph or 56kts. It sounds like your pretty close to that at 53. if the P model states 60-70kts, perhaps i should aim for 60kts instead of 65.

 

[James331]

Does't that sort of depend on what you mean by "related"?

Certainly you could fly a low approach at 120 knots and potentially not balloon. But the fact is that excessive speed on landing will increase your tendency to balloon if you don't have the ability to handle the much finer control inputs you'd need to prevent it when you're much too fast. And given that a student is still learning the finer points of aircraft control, excess speed is typically bad news. Consider that PP PTS altitude standards are +/- 100 feet. A typical student doesn't have the skill to come screaming into the level-off and fix his "chitty control inputs". Hell, I don't even have the ability to do that, and I'm not a student.

So an admonishment that its not his speed, but his crappy controlling of the A/C, seems a bit misplaced.

I you don't pull back, she ain't going to balloon. It's really all the same most times, just a different way to look at it.

With what I'm saying, if you're comming too fast you'll just eat up more real estate, but you shouldn't balloon or PIO or any other nonsense.

 

[jspilot]

The key to landing I found is to let the plane land when it's ready. I look at landing like this. First, we want to slow the plane down. So any plane pitched down is not going to slow down naturally. The plane needs to level off first. So leveling the plane a few feet above the runway is step one. Then, the plane starts to sink. As some have mentioned, this is when you should gradually start to pull back just enough to return the plane to about the same angle as on initial take off. Don't jerk on the controls just gradually pull back. I think of this part as all I'm doing is ensuring the main wheels touch first. After pulling back the plane does the rest and touches down on the mains in a slight nose up attitude approximately the same attitude as initial climb out.

Planes are designed to fly and that's what they want to do. So I just think of the landing part as an agreement between me and the plane that we are done flying for today but just like anything else in life, both parties have to agree for the outcome to be successful!

 

[Clark1961]

I you don't pull back, she ain't going to balloon. It's really all the same most times, just a different way to look at it.

With what I'm saying, if you're comming too fast you'll just eat up more real estate, but you shouldn't balloon or PIO or any other nonsense.

As a counter consider that as the aircraft slows, the controls become less effective so that more control movement is required for a pitch change. The pitch change at low speed produces less lift than an equivalent pitch change at high speed so there is less tendency to balloon at low speed.

Just like incest, it's relative....

 

[Sac Arrow]

Lord knows, CTLSi has given us all plenty of reason to jump on many of his posts.

But not this one.

To become a private pilot, one must meet certain standards. For landing, he or she must demonstrate:

"Touches down smoothly at approximate stalling speed"

That's right from the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards.

Conditions permitting, in most of the planes I've flown my goal is to get the stick to the aft stop at touchdown. I may or may not succeed, and the wing may not technically be in a full stall, but it think that's what is generally meant by a "full stall landing".

I think someone owes CTLSi an apology.

Agreed.

 

[murphey]

Just a reminder, i'm not a student pilot. i earned my PPL in 1969 when i was 17. Flew during college, including the C150, taildraggers and sailplanes.

You may have the PPL but we are all students forever. As Bob points out, published airspeeds are with pristine aircraft and pilits who intimately know what the engineers designed. Over 30, 40, 50 years, that aging airplane cannot always meet those exact published numbers.

 

[FastEddieB]

As Bob points out, published airspeeds are with pristine aircraft and pilits who intimately know what the engineers designed. Over 30, 40, 50 years, that aging airplane cannot always meet those exact published numbers.

Obviously true statements and something that every pilot should keep in mind.

But we're talking approach speeds here, tied to stall speeds.

I would NOT expect those to change appreciably over the years.

BTW, I was never an "airspeed Nazi". If the book says "55-65k" then anything in that range is fine with me. But I do set a lower limit - pilots do manage to stall/spin in the pattern, and as long as a pilot stays within the range suggested in the POH, he or she should have a pretty decent cushion built in - as long as the wings are not loaded excessively.

 

[bobmrg]

Bob: how do you handle this with, say, a 2-hour student or one who has just earned solo privilege? Do you go up very early on and figure out true Vso for the weight, and the 1.3 Vso approach speed?

This question is not relevant to a two-hour student, who should just be assimilating control functions and doing basic maneuvers (turns, climbs, descents). Before the pilot who has "just earned solo privilege" achieved that status, we would have gone up and stalled the airplane enough times for him/her to get a feel for just what the ASI shows at the stall...wings level, straight ahead, which would be the situation on final.

I am a proponent of the concept of energy management: you have so much total energy, comprising potential and kinetic, and a student needs to know the tradeoffs. John Denker does a better job of explaining this (www.av8n.com/) than you will find anywhere, including Stick and Rudder.

Bob

 

[peerlesscowboy]

How much does gross weight effect stalling speed? My guess is the typical POH for light single engine airplanes only show figures for full gross weight, in something like a 150 you're prob'ly flying pretty close to full gross most of the time but as the airplane gets bigger (think 172 or 182) flying with just the pilot aboard and maybe 40 gallons of fuel or less you're significantly under full gross with the corresponding decrease in stall speed making the approach to landing recommended speed in the "book" more of a topside reference than a hard figure.

 

[alfadog]

Congratulations, you have my 34 year hiatus beat!

What I learned is that, after that 8-hour BFR, you need to consider yourself a pilot with 8 hours. You have a lot to learn. And a lot of time to make up for if you want to be proficient. Myself, I made up for lost time by amassing a cheap library of over 400 VHS tapes on flying. Then I went out and practiced my ass off. I still practice about one hour per week.

Re the landing issue, I agree that a lot of it is where you are looking. Practice more and force yourself to roll your gaze forward down the runway as you round out. I also recommend you get some tailwheel instruction, it will sharpen your skills.

 

[MAKG1]

How much does gross weight effect stalling speed? My guess is the typical POH for light single engine airplanes only show figures for full gross weight, in something like a 150 you're prob'ly flying pretty close to full gross most of the time but as the airplane gets bigger (think 172 or 182) flying with just the pilot aboard and maybe 40 gallons of fuel or less you're significantly under full gross with the corresponding decrease in stall speed making the approach to landing recommended speed in the "book" more of a topside reference than a hard figure.

Vs is proportional to sqrt(M). Reduce gross weight by 10%, Vs goes down by 5%.

 

[LauraE51]

Congratulations, you have my 34 year hiatus beat!

What I learned is that, after that 8-hour BFR, you need to consider yourself a pilot with 8 hours. You have a lot to learn. And a lot of time to make up for if you want to be proficient. Myself, I made up for lost time by amassing a cheap library of over 400 VHS tapes on flying. Then I went out and practiced my ass off. I still practice about one hour per week.

Re the landing issue, I agree that a lot of it is where you are looking. Practice more and force yourself to roll your gaze forward down the runway as you round out. I also recommend you get some tailwheel instruction, it will sharpen your skills.

Thank you John. I do agree and plan to continue my practice until i feel more perfect. thinking about taking a CFI up on the next round of T&Gs.

 

[flyingron]

I call BS! How fast are you landing? Using arresting wires to stop?

You tell me what attitude you are if you SLOW down to stalling speed you are at level flight. If you hold that attitude while you tough down I GUARANTEE it won't be the main gear that hits first.

 

[WakeNCAgent]

Slow down. What are the posted speeds for landing with flaps? Take a look in the POH. RPM should be in the neighborhood of 2000 and over the numbers at 65 kts.

I fly a 172S (Skyhawk SP) and I usually have 1500RPM from abeam the numbers until I am assured of reaching the runway. At that point, usually just before crossing the threshold, I reduce power to idle and let the airspeed bleed off until touchdown.

I'm always wary of ballooning during the flare, so I quickly, yet smoothly, make corrections all the way to touchdown. I, too, am flying now after a 20 year hiatus. It's amazing how much you remember. My landings aren't perfect, either. I'm working on training myself to maintain back pressure after touchdown. I tend to release pressure too soon and prolong my rollout.

Technique is something you have to learn for your specific circumstances (runway grade, surface, weight, etc.) but keep it up and you'll eventually get it. More importantly, welcome back to flying!

 

[MAKG1]

I don't think any of the airplanes I've flown descend at 65 knots and 2000 RPM. You'll be close to level with full flap and climbing with no flap.

A nominal 172 descent is at 1500 RPM. 2000 RPM is appropriate for downwind, and you'll be around 85 knots for that to work. Of course, it takes what it takes. Maybe this 172 is towing a banner….

60 knots and full flap works better in a 172 unless you have some reason to be faster (e.g., gusty winds). Even slower if you're not close to max gross.