Let's talk about the flare

[MAKG1]

You know, I hear people say that about the 182 all the time.

But I make almost every touchdown power off, at full flap.

Generally, I pull the power when the runway is "made."

The only time I have this problem is when I'm really too slow. Like under 60 KIAS.

Not sure what the difference is; maybe it's a higher altitude I pull power at. There is definitely an increase in sink rate, but it's well short of what I'd call "dropping out from under me" and it's easily arrested with a bit more back pressure. Not really much, actually, just enough to keep from gaining airspeed.

I haven't touched down with power in quite a long time in a 182. I was initially trained that way, but I got out of it real fast when transitioning to CAP. This is in N, P, Q, R, and T models, both with two and three blades.

 

[James331]

It makes me think of a taildragger wheel landing vs three point. In a three point landing we're in a full flare and landing very near full stall. In a wheel landing, we are smoothly rolling it onto the runway in a flat attitude at a speed considerably above stall. Could you do that with a tricycle gear? Sure. But you're carrying a lot of excess energy and creating excess wear / stress on the gear, especially the nose gear.

In a tailwheel you're shooting the same approach speed for ether a 2pt or a 3pt, also your touchdown speeds arnt that far off. A good 2pt should be tail low 2pt, nearly a 3 pt. What you don't want to do is be going down the runway with your tail excessively fast or have the touch down "stick forward" mindset, it's all sight picture.

 

[alfadog]

You know, I hear people say that about the 182 all the time.

...

I don't have that much time in a 182, I usually rent a 172. I pulled the power at about 0:24 in that video. I was maybe 15 feet off the ground so the perception of sinking and possibly striking the runway hard would have been exaggerated. Perhaps some more back pressure would have handled it but it was easier and quicker, as far as thought processes, to put the power back in. In my Arrow, which is at least as notorious as a 182, I usually land with power but have some "impossible turn" videos on my YouTube channel where I just save a little extra speed to accomplish a nice flair.

 

[alfadog]

In a tailwheel you're shooting the same approach speed for ether a 2pt or a 3pt, also your touchdown speeds arnt that far off. A good 2pt should be tail low 2pt, nearly a 3 pt. What you don't want to do is be going down the runway with your tail excessively fast or have the touch down "stick forward" mindset, it's all sight picture.

Hmm, I don't consider myself an experienced enough pilot to argue anything with anyone but if you google wheel landing attitude, you'll find plenty of folks that disagree with you on that.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Thanks.

I was pretty sure I was getting those two separate phases right from the AFH, but maybe it was elsewhere - Kirshner?

Not doubting you but let me check my sources and see where I came up with that distinction.

edited to add: it appears you are correct!

I like to be consistent with FAA publications, so I'll keep that in mind.

I did find this image via Google, which corresponds roughly to how I was taught and where the terminology comes from:

yup....that's how I do it.

 

[Sgu2-22]

In a tailwheel you're shooting the same approach speed for ether a 2pt or a 3pt, also your touchdown speeds arnt that far off. A good 2pt should be tail low 2pt, nearly a 3 pt. What you don't want to do is be going down the runway with your tail excessively fast or have the touch down "stick forward" mindset, it's all sight picture.

You describe how my Dad taught me to wheel land, works great, and I do it often. Best way to get a greaser touchdown. However, you gotta admit it's fun and looks cool to add ten knots and fly it on the mains in a level attitude with a touch of power.

Dave

 

[alfadog]

You describe how my Dad taught me to wheel land, works great, and I do it often. Best way to get a greaser touchdown. However, you gotta admit it's fun and looks cool to add ten knots and fly it on the mains in a level attitude with a touch of power.

Dave

Especially when you roll it on on one wheel in a 25 knot crosswind.

 

[PaulS]

Discuss:

 

[James331]

Hmm, I don't consider myself an experienced enough pilot to argue anything with anyone but if you google wheel landing attitude, you'll find plenty of folks that disagree with you on that.

Get on the backcountry sites, check out the Valdez competition, ask AG guys, read up on the MAF technique etc. The slower you touch down the better, besides if stuff goes sideways, best to crash slow

I should really stir the pot here and mention flap retraction on landing roll out (airframe dependent).

You describe how my Dad taught me to wheel land, works great, and I do it often. Best way to get a greaser touchdown. However, you gotta admit it's fun and looks cool to add ten knots and fly it on the mains in a level attitude with a touch of power.

Dave

Indeed.

It does look cool and is a kick, time and a place for everything right!

 

[alfadog]

Get on the backcountry sites, check out the Valdez competition, ask AG guys, read up on the MAF technique etc. The slower you touch down the better, besides if stuff goes sideways, best to crash slow

...

Well, bush flying, and especially take off and landing competitions, are their own thing. I imagine they are holding the tail wheel off not so much to effect a wheel landing as to protect the tail wheel from damage on rough terrain.

 

[drotto]

My biggest adjustment has been going from a Warrior to a Saratoga. The Warrior if you flared to aggressively, you would float. In the Saratoga once you hold that nose up and cut power, that plane is coming down, and does not float much at all. The Saratoga does feel quite nose high however during landing.

 

[James331]

Well, bush flying, and especially take off and landing competitions, are their own thing. I imagine they are holding the tail wheel off not so much to effect a wheel landing as to protect the tail wheel from damage on rough terrain.

There is another methods where you touchdown tail low 2pt, transition the stick all the way back and keep your nose level with a good amount of brake action. Think that got to be known as the MAF method.

 

[alfadog]

There is another methods where you touchdown tail low 2pt, transition the stick all the way back and keep your nose level with a good amount of brake action. Think that got to be known as the MAF method.

Yeah, I just looked at the MAF technique. One description said they briefly bring the tail low on touchdown but then bring it back up with firm braking and another said they hold it level except for a very brief dip to bleed speed before touchdown then level for the actual touchdown. But again, these are bush flying techniques.

 

[James331]

Backcountry ops is important, even on a 10,000' runway, you don't need it till you do, then you really do.

I've had two full engine failures, didn't even scratch the paint. IMHO it's learning this methods of flying (not nesscarly the MAF, but backcountry style in general) will help you greatly, if not for making a first taxiway without needing heroic effort, for when chit hits the fan as well as when you want to go camping and want to land on some field or a beach.

 

[Hank S]

Here is one of my landings, coming back from a breakfast run, that my wife filmed from the right seat. I thought she was taking pictures . . .

Controls are not visible, but you'll notice when I add power to level off until i clear the trees, reduce power to descend again, pull to idle what the runway is made. The round out is gentle, watch the nose raise slightly for the flare, and the stall horn and tire chirps are close together. Looks like almost a 3/4 mile final, I must have been a little high or fast on downwind.

https://vimeo.com/103204671

This is in my Mooney. I would imagine a Warrior would land similarly, except for more drag creating a faster power-off descent.

 

[FastEddieB]

Nice landing!

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

That was Pretty.
And on a baby runway too.


What's she filming with?
Your propeller wasn't doing that bendy, rolling shutter thing...

 

[txflyer]

I try to fly a pattern such that at any point if the fan stops I can make the field. Final included.

Call it a phobia or pet peeve of mine, the thought and embarrasement of my plane sitting in a field just shy of the runway is too much to bear.

It's harder to do than you think without overshooting ala coming in too high and too hot.

 

[edo2000]

I should really stir the pot here and mention flap retraction on landing roll out (airframe dependent).

With your 185, with mechanical flaps, you can even do the flap retraction just before touchdown. As long as it's done right. Great airplanes.

 

[Cpt_Kirk]

Get on the backcountry sites, check out the Valdez competition, ask AG guys, read up on the MAF technique etc. The slower you touch down the better, besides if stuff goes sideways, best to crash slow

I should really stir the pot here and mention flap retraction on landing roll out (airframe dependent).

NOT THE DREADED FLAP RETRACTION ON ROLLOUT. THE HORROR.

My biggest adjustment has been going from a Warrior to a Saratoga. The Warrior if you flared to aggressively, you would float. In the Saratoga once you hold that nose up and cut power, that plane is coming down, and does not float much at all. The Saratoga does feel quite nose high however during landing.

The Saratoga does land nose-high. Look at how it sits on the ground. Add roughly 10 degrees.

Even as tall as I sit in the airplane, I lose sight of the runway well into the flare.

 

[Sundancer]

Cessna 172, flaps 40; I like to come down like a meteor, and call it a "flare" or whatever, but I gotta pull a good bit right near the end, if we want to use the airplane again. . .

 

[mkosmo]

Cessna 172, flaps 40; I like to come down like a meteor, and call it a "flare" or whatever, but I gotta pull a good bit right near the end, if we want to use the airplane again. . .

You make it sound so dramatic lol. In mine, it's gradual, no good pull at the end.

 

[Hank S]

That was Pretty.
And on a baby runway too.


What's she filming with?
Your propeller wasn't doing that bendy, rolling shutter thing...

3000' x 75' landing on 26, but going the other way the trees are closer and you lose a couple of hundred feet to the displaced threshold.

The camera was a Sony point-and-shoot, a Mothers' Day special from several years ago, anodized pink with a pink leather case. My more recent Sony camera does the same, it's only cell phones and GoPros with the cheap CCDs that mess up propellers.

Or are CCDs the good ones, and CMOS the cheap stuff? I forget . . .

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

3000' x 75' landing on 26, but going the other way the trees are closer and you lose a couple of hundred feet to the displaced threshold.

The camera was a Sony point-and-shoot, a Mothers' Day special from several years ago, anodized pink with a pink leather case. My more recent Sony camera does the same, it's only cell phones and GoPros with the cheap CCDs that mess up propellers.

Or are CCDs the good ones, and CMOS the cheap stuff? I forget . . .

You had me at "pink"


I believe it is the CMOS that give the rolling shutter.




Edit: Really? 75?
That looked much more narrow.
Still, you found the center line like a boss.
I watched that about 6 times.

 

[Hank S]

Edge to edge is 75', but the center part is 50'--it was widened at one point. It's more fun at night,mthe lights are 200' wide, the taildraggers land to the right of 26, still inside the lights.

Aren't we supposed to land on the centerline?? My wife complains that I'm off to the left . . .

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Edge to edge is 75', but the center part is 50'--it was widened at one point. It's more fun at night,mthe lights are 200' wide, the taildraggers land to the right of 26, still inside the lights.

Aren't we supposed to land on the centerline?? My wife complains that I'm off to the left . . .

I'm almost always off to the left.

That is one thing I am consciously working on lately is putting my right leg on the center line. I have gotten sloppy on my 150 foot wide runway and I really need to not be sloppy.

I'm workin on it.

 

[Hank S]

I'm happy if the stripe is between the main wheels. Wifey wants the nose wheel running down it. But she sits on one side, I sit on the other, neither one of us has a perfect view, but I'm frequently off to the left according to her.

At least I get the stall horn before touchdown.

 

[denverpilot]

Flare with flair.

Hit your speed, hold it off, hold it off, hold it off, and it will do all the rest on its own. Then let the nose down gently.

EDIT: Unless you are in a taildragger.

This. And I was going to add...

Sometimes you NEED this...

I'm sure we've all had a few of those! Here I am landing a 182 after not having flown the 182 for a while. I forgot what would happen if I pulled the power out just before touchdown. She dropped out from under me and I got the power back in quick.

But Alfa didn't. I'll use that "remove power" trick in the 182 to absolutely plant the main gear so they won't come off in really gusty conditions. And I mean *really* gusty. Like stall horn coming on and going off gusty.

Just wait to the right moment to stop jockeying the throttle and fighting the gusts and chop it and continue pulling to keep that nose wheel from smacking, and it'll stick right down on the mains and then you can immediately rack the ailerons hard over into the upwind side.

But we're talking really crappy wind conditions for tricks like that. And those tricks are learned the hard way when caught out in gusts that were probably best not landed in anyway, but you had to do it for whatever reason.

Works well in the 150/152 also as I recall but not so well in the 172. 182 done right it'll be "done" flying and planted firmly but not so firm as to break things, if done on speed (or a crazy average thereof in the gusts) and only a foot or so off of the runway.

Plop. Done flying. Put the controls into the wind and figure out if you're going to need wing walkers to get it to the ramp...

 

[TheGolfPilot]

I fly 4 different airplanes regularly and I land them all pretty similarly. (172, Archer, 182, 182RG). Over the threshhold 60-65. Pull power, give a healthy amount of trim, and keep the plane flat. When ground effect is reached I pull back ever so slightly and squeak down on the mains (or main of choice).

The thought of a flare never crosses my mind. If I want to land further down the runway, I add a little bit of power and the plane will float until I either pull the power again or add the power.

I think some people overthink the plane they are flying. I am yet to meet a plane that required some type of extreme maneuver to land. The faster you fly, the lower the nose will have to be to hit your aiming point. If the nose is too low, you bust up your plane or miss your target bleeding off airspeed. The POH gives you the number for a good landing, fly it and let it happen.

 

[denverpilot]

Not nitpicking you but 65 over the threshold in a 182 is wasting a lot of runway. It'll happily do 55 all day long. (The 172 won't like that as much.)

 

[FastEddieB]

You make it sound so dramatic lol. In mine, it's gradual, no good pull at the end.

And yet, if you watch carefully, the need for yoke/stick movement to the rear increases somewhat geometrically as the plane slows.

I have found that if you want to land as slowly as possible, the last little bit is, in fact, a fairly quick movement back against the stop.

Definitely non-linear.

 

[Lachlan]

Here is one of my landings, coming back from a breakfast run, that my wife filmed from the right seat. I thought she was taking pictures . . .

Controls are not visible, but you'll notice when I add power to level off until i clear the trees, reduce power to descend again, pull to idle what the runway is made. The round out is gentle, watch the nose raise slightly for the flare, and the stall horn and tire chirps are close together. Looks like almost a 3/4 mile final, I must have been a little high or fast on downwind.

https://vimeo.com/103204671

This is in my Mooney. I would imagine a Warrior would land similarly, except for more drag creating a faster power-off descent.

Why drag it in over the trees like that? Engine failure on short final = bark in your teeth. An unstable approach is usually defined as one with changes in glide slope and/or power. (PFH). I see how and why you did it, but it was not mandatory to make that strip. Looked cool, though, and was well done.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

Not nitpicking you but 65 over the threshold in a 182 is wasting a lot of runway. It'll happily do 55 all day long. (The 172 won't like that as much.)

I wonder how much your Robertson Stol Kit makes a difference.
I like to think my approach speeds are good as making the taxiway just past the 1000' markers is a light brake make consistently.

I like to think that if the amount of runway you are using to land is less than what you need to takeoff, you are doing it right.

Why drag it in over the trees like that? Engine failure on short final = bark in your teeth. An unstable approach is usually friend as one with changes in glide slope and/or power. (PFH). I see how and why you did it, but it was not mandatory to make that strip. Looked cool, though, and was well done.

I was clenching over the trees

 

[Harold Rutila]

No reason for that.

It may appear flatter from the cockpit, but if done right the landing attitude is quite conventional.

Here's a small screenshot of an achievable Cirrus landing attitude, if held off until at or near the stall speed of 60k:

I agree with the concept. Having never flown a Cirrus, I'm left to observations from my days at the Purdue University Airport where the Cirrus is omnipresent. I'll admit I've wanted to try one of those puppies out to see if I could get it into a real flare. You make me believe it's possible.

 

[Harold Rutila]

Newbie question... but, what about in a Warrior II? I make pretty sweet landings these days... to the point that my instructor gives me major kudos for them. But I rarely hear the stall horn. Honestly, until this thread, I've never even given stall horn much thought during landings or knew they had any indication to a landing's quality. Can someone explain this to me a bit?

I have quite a bit of time in a Warrior II and Warrior IIIs, and I have almost never heard the stall warning horn on landing. I suspect it's that whole low-wing vs. high-wing situation I talked about with the Cirrus vs. Cessna earlier. Long story short: Ground effect, although its presence is evident in both types, positively affects a low-wing aircraft more than a high-wing aircraft.

 

[Cpt_Kirk]

I agree with the concept. Having never flown a Cirrus, I'm left to observations from my days at the Purdue University Airport where the Cirrus is omnipresent. I'll admit I've wanted to try one of those puppies out to see if I could get it into a real flare. You make me believe it's possible.

It is possible.

Land without flaps and its even more apparent.

 

[FastEddieB]

It is possible.

Land without flaps and its even more apparent.

In my experience, if you try to hold a no flap Cirrus into a full stall on landing you run a real risk of dragging the tail.

As an aside, the Cirrus POH calls for full flap landings under ALL circumstances.

 

[Cpt_Kirk]

In my experience, if you try to hold a no flap Cirrus into a full stall on landing you run a real risk of dragging the tail.

As an aside, the Cirrus POH calls for full flap landings under ALL circumstances.

I agree.

I haven't read that part. I'm still stuck on the CAPS deployment for all circumstances.

 

[denverpilot]

I wonder how much your Robertson Stol Kit makes a difference.

None actually for that number. Where folks usually forget to factor in another number in the 182 in doing it by the numbers is looking up CAS vs IAS. It'll fly slower IAS than most people think.

Usually 55 over the numbers/fence is fine lightly loaded. Vref if there were such a thing for a lightly loaded 182 would be really low.

I don't have my PDF POH handy or I'd shoot a screenshot of the CAS chart. This is also full flap and an airplane not limited to 30, but with a full 40 degrees of flaps. YMMV, of course. Newer ones may not do it as well, I haven't looked at a restart model POH in years.

It'll also sink like a rock if you get slower than that, of course.

(With the STOL kit I can lift off or fly at 35 indicated but it's a bit ridiculous because you add a bunch of power during a landing and you'll drag the tail before you can push the yoke forward quick enough. Have to be ready for that. Usually at our altitude there's not much throttle left to add at that point but at sea level it'll pitch up fairly hard. Especially if you're fully up-trimmed of course.)

I want to land my buddy's later P model with no STOL but he added VGs everywhere during a repaint. Wing, and elevator anyway. Not sure if he did the rudder which is always what us swept tail 182 guys run out of first... Will have to ask him. Be interesting to see how it behaves in a stall too. Probably makes it a total pussycat.

For "faster" landings if you want them flat, the STOL kit on ours droops the ailerons along with the flaps to a point and then pulls them back up. At 20, you have a nice full span "flap" that's 20 degrees all the way across and that configuration is rock solid.

 

[James331]

None actually for that number. Where folks usually forget to factor in another number in the 182 in doing it by the numbers is looking up CAS vs IAS. It'll fly slower IAS than most people think.

Usually 55 over the numbers/fence is fine lightly loaded. Vref if there were such a thing for a lightly loaded 182 would be really low.

I don't have my PDF POH handy or I'd shoot a screenshot of the CAS chart. This is also full flap and an airplane not limited to 30, but with a full 40 degrees of flaps. YMMV, of course. Newer ones may not do it as well, I haven't looked at a restart model POH in years.

It'll also sink like a rock if you get slower than that, of course.

(With the STOL kit I can lift off or fly at 35 indicated but it's a bit ridiculous because you add a bunch of power during a landing and you'll drag the tail before you can push the yoke forward quick enough. Have to be ready for that. Usually at our altitude there's not much throttle left to add at that point but at sea level it'll pitch up fairly hard. Especially if you're fully up-trimmed of course.)

I want to land my buddy's later P model with no STOL but he added VGs everywhere during a repaint. Wing, and elevator anyway. Not sure if he did the rudder which is always what us swept tail 182 guys run out of first... Will have to ask him. Be interesting to see how it behaves in a stall too. Probably makes it a total pussycat.

For "faster" landings if you want them flat, the STOL kit on ours droops the ailerons along with the flaps to a point and then pulls them back up. At 20, you have a nice full span "flap" that's 20 degrees all the way across and that configuration is rock solid.

Indeed.

The Robertson is one of the only STOL kits that actually comes with numbers backing everything up, only two drawbacks are that on some airframe your VFE speed is reduced, and your roll rate gets quite lethargic and sloppy after you start adding flaps and drooping those ailerons, heard some folks fix this by adding VGs. The roll thing can be interesting if you're maneuvering at low speeds, for my landings at the house I come in slow around the bend in the river then set her right down so I can be dirt slow by the house (no brakes in the water), it's uneventful as long as the air isn't too bumpy, correcting for wing drop due to turbulence when you're slow and have a good chunk of ailerons and flaps out can be interesting.