Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:38 PM - Re: Three point landings - update from Lee Taylor (Morgan Hetrick)
2. 09:23 PM - Re: Three point landings (Harry Paine)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Three point landings - update from Lee Taylor |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Morgan Hetrick" <morgan@heifercreek.com>
Angle of attack indicator?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@idcomm.com>
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Three point landings - update from Lee Taylor
> --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@idcomm.com>
>
>
> This is fun! Hope you guys know that you have touched on one of
> my favorite career topics, landings. The only consistent point in
> flying where you are really REQUIRED to demonstrate your piloting
> ability.
>
> To go a little further in the landings discussion, let's review
> exactly what happens in a full three-point landing.
> First, very rarely does a plane COMPLETELY STALL on an initial
> touchdown. Those of you that have pointed out that the stall angle is
> higher than the ground sitting angle are correct. What we arrive at in
> a full three-point attitude landing is an AIRSPEED at which the plane
> will no longer sustain the LIFT to keep the plane airborne, hopefully
> 1-2" above the ground. Since this is usually a PARTIAL STALL of part of
> the wing, (usually starting at the tips working inward), this PARTIAL
> loss of lift is dramatic enough to cause a "good, solid arrival" if not
> properly timed.
> This can be easily felt in most taildragger planes because the
> initial rollout is frankly a little flaky, until enough speed is bled
> off that the wing actually does fully stall. In a plane like the
> Citabria or my Cessna 180, there is a definite point in the rollout when
> the plane actually settles its weight fully onto the gear after
> touchdown. In a low-wing plane like the Rocket, this bleed-off can be
> even more impressive, because the ground effect on a high-speed rollout
> is very highly pronounced.
>
> O-K, how can the landing be fine-tuned? First off, lets assume
> for now that we are only going to talk about the full three-point
> landing. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING to take into consideration is
> AIRSPEED CONTROL. Do you have, and tightly control, the EXACT airspeed
> that is proper for your plane and landing situation? HOW DO YOU KNOW
> what is proper? Did someone tell you, or are you analyzing exactly how
> your plane performs to arrive at the proper airspeed FOR YOUR PLANE?
> (and load, and CG condition, and wind conditions, and a dozen other
> affecting considerations).
> This really is fairly simple. If your landings tend to be
> flare-and-plop arrivals, with very little float in the flare, you are
> probably a little too slow on very short final. If you tend to
> flare-and-float, then that final speed is a little too high. Neither is
> a good thing! The slower than desired speed gives you very little
> leeway in adjusting your flare, sink rates tend to be high, (which urges
> you to pull the nose up a little higher to "slow the sink", DEFINITE
> OUCH!), there is very little leeway to fine-tune the flare, and it takes
> very little judgment mistake to turn a slow approach into a disaster.
> The higher than desired speed sets you up for ballooning tendencies
> which will get you into situations where you have lost too much speed,
> TOO HIGH! And OUCH! Is the proper statement when that happens.
> Remember that the landing is a fine demonstration (or,
> sometimes, an embarrassing demonstration!), of Aircraft Inertial Energy
> Control. Get too slow, the energy is too low to be able to effect a
> good landing. Too fast, and there is TOO MUCH energy. You are trying
> to arrive at that perfect balance that will give you exactly the right
> amount of energy/control to allow the perfect landing.
> In high-performance planes like the Rocket, control of that
> energy is much more critical than most planes. That's why they are more
> fun.
>
> The point has been made that other types of landings can be made
> more consistently in a smoother manner. Yes, that is true, but my point
> is that the full three-point landing is the most demanding of piloting
> ability, the most efficient in making the flying/rolling transition, and
> therefore is the one that is the most fun. It is the one that I practice
> most commonly. I KNOW I can do the other kinds satisfactorily!
>
> Having said that, I also want to make the strong point that
> THERE IS NO "BEST" WAY to make a landing. You need to know ALL the
> various techniques, be PROFICIENT in all the techniques, and USE THE ONE
> THAT IS BEST for your immediate needs. Only by knowing and practicing
> all the techniques are you fully familiar with your plane and its/your
> abilities. Once you are proficient in ALL of the techniques,
spend
> a lot of time sorting out exactly what works best for you, and you are
> most comfortable with, and develop your own technique, unique to you and
> your plane, and KNOW that you can use the other techniques whenever you
> want, then you are a pilot.
> Most importantly, whenever you "bobble" something, SIT DOWN AND
> ANALYZE OUT exactly WHAT, HOW and WHY it happened. The same analytical
> thinking should follow something that worked out well. "WHY did it
> happen that way?" Only by thoroughly understanding the fine details of
> why something happens can you arrive at comprehension. Comprehension is
> what gives you control. If you are just "rote flying" the way that
> someone told you was the "right way", then you really don't understand
> what you are doing. And lack of understanding is the only really
> dangerous thing in flying.
>
> Lee Taylor
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Three point landings |
--> Rocket-List message posted by: Harry Paine <hpaine@earthlink.net>
At 03:57 PM 5/15/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Rocket-List message posted by: "Tom Martin" <fairlea@execulink.com>
>
>
> Three point landings
> Good topic, with 500 hours I still do not have the absolute
> answers to that
>question. What I can tell you is that this plane has negligible ground
>effect and the sink rate at the lower, almost stall speeds are, how do I
>phrase this, impressive?
As in why the heck did I land from 10 feet high?? Why I will never attempt
a 3 wheeler at hi density altitudes (6,000) & up
I think one of the big problem nobody addressed is how much the elevator is
blanked out if you attempt a three wheeler without power!!!!!!! yikes! good
thing that titanium absorbs a lot of shock!!
Tom ya know its interesting I had a t-18 for 12 years and could 80 - 90% of
the time do a real good 3 pointer but then I flew a friends with a
different gear set up and engine and couldn't do it at all!!
>Yes it is important that you have the stick all
>the way back at the right time but the key is the flare, too early and you
>will bounce, too late on the flare and, well, you will bounce even more. I
>make better three point landings with a passenger. I am not ashamed of
>wheel landings, I like them in this airplane and they can be very pretty and
>a LOT easier on the gear than a blotched three point. But sometimes you need
>to land in a shorter distance than a wheel landing permits so three pointers
>are a necessary. If for no other reason, then three pointers will bring a
>rocket guy down to earth, (pun intended), and humble him a little.
> I am going to continue practising for as long as I own one of
> these things.
>
>Tom Martin
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|