Low energy (full stall) landings: are they safe?

[Tom Serkowski]

If one has nearly full spoiler prior to the flare, a 'wheel' landing is almost
impossible and is a perfect setup for a very nice minimum energy landing.

Think about the situation of being in a tail high attitude, well above stall,
main wheel a few inches above the ground. The CG is behind the wheel, so a
sudden down gust pushes the glider down. When the main wheel hits the ground,
the tail is still high and so the AOA increases and next thing you know,
you're at 10 feet with no airspeed. In a 'nose dragger' such as ASK-21,
DG-505, etc, the nose wheel will hit hard, maybe colapse, but will also cause
the nose to bounce up and again you're left wit altitude and no airspeed.

I fly as steep an approach as I can, then use nearly full spoiler at touchdown
and have never had a problem in over 2000 hours and 27 years of soaring in the
southwestern USA.

Most of the landing incidents in both gliders and airplanes that I've seen
have been due to too much energy at touchdown - not too little. I don't count
landing short of the runway as too little energy, that's a poor approach.

Just my $0.02 worth.

--

T...@Serkowski.com
ASW-20b
http://www.Serkowski.com

[Bill Daniels]

I fly a IS28B2 Lark which certainly qualifies as a "big, heavy taildragger". 

 

"Never ever" is a long time - there's room for both techniques.  I do both "wheel" and "two-point" landings, depending on the conditions.  If the landing is on a smooth surface and reasonably into the wind, I will usually opt for a wheel landing since the touchdown is very soft with the trailing-link suspension main gear.  This also saves wear and tear on the tailwheel. 

 

If the landing is on a rough surface, or with a gusty crosswind, I will land "two-point" since I don't want to be bounced back into the air.  The "two-point" landing has the additional benefit of insuring a straight rollout with the non-swiveling tailwheel firmly on the ground.   I would teach this technique to a new tailwheel pilot since I think it is a safer all-round landing.  If the pilot over-rotates and touches tail-first, this is not a big problem unless it is an extremely nose-up attitude which would stress the main gear when it slammed down.

 

The real excitement is to touch down with the attitude halfway between a wheel landing and two-point.  This will produce a spectacular bounce or two and requires some dexterity transitioning to a two-point touchdown.

 

The above suggests that the Lark is similar to most high performance sailplanes.

 

Bill Daniels

"Don Schroeder" <ron...@uswest.net> wrote in message news:3964B967...@uswest.net...

I am a CFI-A,I,G with about 3500 hours, about 250 in gliders.  I learned to fly gliders in 1975 in Wichita, KS.  As those of you who have flown in the great plains know, it's always windy: 10G20 is a calm day, and any crosswind less than 60 degrees off the runway heading is "right down the runway."  I was taught to never, ever, ever make a full stall landing in a glider; always put it on about 10kts above stall, just like a wheel landing in a tail dragger power plane.  The same logic applied to both categories: better directional control with the higher speed, especially in a crosswind.  In addition, in a glider at full stall, a gust could put you 10 feet in the air, still at a high angle of attack, and when the gust dies, so do you (figuratively speaking).  I.e., the gust will leave you at 10 feet, at stall AOA, and when it quits, you are below stall speed, and will break the ship.  Moreover, if you misjudge the full stall landing in a power plane, you can always add power to recover.  Not so easy to do in a glider.

A couple of our club members returned from Soar Minden, and my stomach churned as I watch them floating, floating, floating their PIK20 down the runway, finally touching down tail first.  An email from Soar Minden, confirmed that they were teaching this technique, because the Grob 102, with 3 pneumatic tires, was very difficult to wheel land and tended to bounce which could lead to pilot induced oscillations.  This sounds reasonable to me, but I am still concerned about the fact that if not done perfectly, or if a gust occurs, there is no means of recovering from a botched full stall landing in a glider.

I have not flown super ships; a Phoebus, is my high performance sailplane.  One of our club members has a Nimbus, and points out that with that big, heavy ship, one wants to touch down at minimum energy.  Another good point, but doesn't address the recovery from botched landing.  He also pointed out that when I check someone out in a taildragger, I want him to demonstrate both 3 point and wheel landings.  True.  The properly executed three point (full stall)  makes for the shortest landing. But if you come across the fence 10kts above stall and then start your flare in a glider, it won't be a very short landing because of the float.  In fact, I'd surmise that "planting" it, getting the nose down and getting on the brake, will make for a shorter landing then holding it off for the low energy landing.  I concede, also, that for an off field landing, the slower, the better, at touchdown on a rough field.

In summary, it still seems to me that the risks of everyday full stall landings outweigh the benefits of the rare rough field landing.  It reminds me somewhat of actually pulling an engine on take off, when doing multi-engine training.  Years ago the FAA nixed that technique, because there were more accidents caused by that training method then real engine failures.

I do not wish to start a raging controversy, but would appreciate some well reasoned arguments on both sides.

Thanks,

Don
 
 

[John Giddy]

I have been taught always to aim for the perfect two-point landing. (i.e. main and tail wheels touch simultaneously). Wheeled-on landings are not considered "good flying" at the clubs I have flown with. 

The wheeled-on landing has a high probability of causing a "balloon", because the C of G of most sailplanes is well behind the main wheel, so that as soon as the main wheel touches, the tail tends to drop, giving an increased angle of attack, and more lift.

We are taught that the pattern speed, and in particular the final approach speed, should be 1.5 x stall speed + 1/2 wind speed.  This can give a bit of float during the landing, but if the pilot is aware of this, he/she just stays patient, and the glider will eventually land. I don't believe this technique is a "full stall landing". At touchdown, the glider is still flying, all be it fairly slowly, as the attitude is set for a reduction of speed as soon as the flare is fully developed.  We also don't like an over-developed flare, in which the tail wheel touches first, as this causes the angle of attack to suddenly reduce, leading to loss of lift, and a hard smack on the tarmac by the main wheel.

I guess, if an outlanding is attempted in a small field, the above will have to be modified somewhat, as that is an emergency situation; but I was talking about landings on the airfield.

John G.
--
John Giddy             Mangalore Gliding Club Inc.
5/287 Barkers Rd.   http://www.gfa.org.au/vic/mgc/
Kew,  Vic.  3101
Australia

Don Schroeder <ron...@uswest.net> wrote in message news:3964B967...@uswest.net...

I am a CFI-A,I,G with about 3500 hours, about 250 in gliders.  I learned to fly gliders in 1975 in Wichita, KS.  As those of you who have flown in the great plains know, it's always windy: 10G20 is a calm day, and any crosswind less than 60 degrees off the runway heading is "right down the runway."  I was taught to never, ever, ever make a full stall landing in a glider; always put it on about 10kts above stall, just like a wheel landing in a tail dragger power plane.  The same logic applied to both categories: better directional control with the higher speed, especially in a crosswind.  In addition, in a glider at full stall, a gust could put you 10 feet in the air, still at a high angle of attack, and when the gust dies, so do you (figuratively speaking).  I.e., the gust will leave you at 10 feet, at stall AOA, and when it quits, you are below stall speed, and will break the ship.  Moreover, if you misjudge the full stall landing in a power plane, you can always add power to recover.  Not so easy to do in a glider.

<<< snip >>>

[Caracole]

Don:

 

You have danced around the answer.

 

On a windy, gusty day, you want control of touchdown.

On a calm day, or into a short place, or an unknown place (outlanding),

you want a "shortest" taxi/roll out.

 

These considerations should determine which technique a pilot

chooses to apply.  A private pilot should be able to do either style

of touchdown,  safely..... or blend them as needed.

 

Don Schroeder <ron...@uswest.net> wrote in message news:3964B967...@uswest.net...

I am a CFI-A,I,G

<snip>

it's always windy: 10G20 is a calm day, and any crosswind less than 60 degrees off the runway heading is "right down the runway."  I was taught to never, ever, ever make a full stall landing in a glider;

<snip>

 

floating, floating, floating their PIK20 down the runway, finally touching down tail first.  An email from Soar Minden, confirmed that they were teaching this technique, because the Grob 102, with 3 pneumatic tires, was very difficult to wheel land and tended to bounce which could lead to pilot induced oscillations.  This sounds reasonable to me, but I am still concerned about the fact that if not done perfectly, or if a gust occurs, there is no means of recovering from a botched full stall landing in a glider.

 

The reason you perceived the PIK as floating longer than needed was either

1)  they brought excess speed to the flare  or

2)  they were in a relatively clean configuration (little spoilers or flaps)  or

3)  they cleaned up configuration in ground effect while bleeding off speed.

Was it windy?  If not, it was a nice time to practice low energy touches.

 

The Grob 102  is not difficult to wheel land if it is flown in medium

dirty configuration.  It is willing to PIO with flying speed, cleaner,

and a pilot who wants to put it on by lowering the nose, as are all gliders.

One of our club members has a Nimbus, and points out that with that big, heavy ship, one wants to touch down at minimum energy.

Why?  Does he prefer a short roll?  Is it a short space to his turn off to

tiedown or trailers?  Does he have only a tail skid and wish to save wear?

Is his wheel brake adjustment/performance less than pleasing to him?

All are reasonable justifications for choosing a minimum energy touch.

 

 The properly executed three point (full stall)  makes for the shortest landing. But if you come across the fence 10kts above stall and then start your flare in a glider, it won't be a very short landing because of the float.  In fact, I'd surmise that "planting" it, getting the nose down and getting on the brake, will make for a shorter landing then holding it off for the low energy landing.  I concede, also, that for an off field landing, the slower, the better, at touchdown on a rough field.

I wonder why you believe that 10 kts above stall will give you a long landing float?

Configuration coupled with speed allow you control of your ground effect distance.

If you choose an approach with big or full spoilers your ground effect float will be much

diminished over a 1/3 spoiler configuration.  And, in my book, the placement of flare

has little to do with the length of my taxi/roll out..... which is the measured length

of my "landing".

 

"Planting it", as you describe lowering the nose, creates sink rate at touch.  This

factor usually is the culprit which creates PIO, unless the pilot can smoothly,

simultaneously create more drag with spoilers/flaps that completely offsets the pogo

stick bounce effect (with now more AOA and lift).  Most singleplace owners of gliders

will report less than satisfied with their ship's braking ability.  Hence, a longer

taxi/roll out with this method.  Try a low energy touch coupled with aggressive brakes

to save your glider on a rough or unknown field.

In summary, it still seems to me that the risks of everyday full stall landings outweigh the benefits of the rare rough field landing.  It reminds me somewhat of actually pulling an engine on take off, when doing multi-engine training.  Years ago the FAA nixed that technique, because there were more accidents caused by that training method then real engine failures.

The risk is in not teaching nor requiring pilots to maintain proficiency in

all styles of touchdowns.  When one skill set gets rusty a pilot loses

confidence to use that tool.  If you fly an approach in medium dirty configuration

on a gusty ( or any) day, you have plenty of tool available to retain energy

when gusted or lifted (by cleaning up), to adjust back to close to touch and making a second

(or third) finishing of flare and smooth touch. Just like a breath of power added...

If the approach config is clean, you have no margin for gusting adjustments, so don't be caught

here by stretching your glide!

I do not wish to start a raging controversy, but would appreciate some well reasoned arguments on both sides.

There will always be strong feelings on what is appropriate for landing styles.

You won't please all ramp watchers all the time.    But the better skilled pilots are

the ones who can smoothly choose either style of touch according to weather

conditions and landing surface.  18 kts and 30 degrees cross here today.

Cindy B

Caracole Soaring

[JohnPegase]

In article <3964B967...@uswest.net>, Don Schroeder <ron...@uswest.net>
writes:

>in 1975...250 hrs...

> I was taught to never, ever, ever make a full stall landing

>in a glider; always put it on about 10kts above stall, just like a wheel

>landing in a tail dragger power plane.&nbsp; The same logic applied to

>both categories: better directional control with the higher speed, especially

>in a crosswind.&nbsp;

This seems to be mainly an american idea. In the UK and many other places,
everyone lands the way you worry about, with none of the problems you imagine.

Lets suppose you touch down at 50 or even 60 (for even "better control"). Have
you not noticed as you slow up to 55, then 50, then 45, then 40, then 35 then
30 and so on that you don't loose control at the lower speeds? Do you
regularly get lifted off again as you slow up and pass through 45 down to 35
just when a gust comes through? Thought not.

Why do you need the good control for a touch down at 50-60? To steer a heavy
fast moving aircraft well enough to avoid an accident such as a wing dropping
or steering into another aircraft AT HIGH SPEED. But you still stay in control
as you deccelerate down through the very speed that seem to worry you. You're
in contact with the ground for longer, with much more energy to disipate, if
you do it your way.

> In addition, in a glider at full stall, a gust could
>put you 10 feet in the air, still at a high angle of attack, and when the

>gust dies, so do you (figuratively speaking).&nbsp; I.e., the gust will

>leave you at 10 feet, at stall AOA, and when it quits, you are below stall
>speed, and will break the ship.

This would only be a problem if you sat there saying hey, a gust has lifted me
10 feet in the air, I'll just sit here and watch what happens next.

And you shouldn't stall it in, you should touch down with a low flying speed,
about 40 for the Grob mentioned, increasing the angle of attack as you slow
down on the ground and generate a bit more drag, with the stick fully back.

>
>A couple of our club members returned from Soar Minden, and my stomach

>churned as I watch them floating, floating, floating their PIK20 down the

>runway, finally touching down tail first

If they float, float, float,then they're not doing it quite right. They are
probably reducing the airbrakes as they flair, or have too little airbrake to
begin with. It should be main and tail together, not tail first, unless there's
something special about Piks.

And haven't you wondered why after a visit to another club, they are now
seriously adopting this method of landing. After just one visit you said?

>down and getting on the brake, will make for a shorter landing then holding

>it off for the low energy landing.&nbsp; I concede, also, that for an off

>field landing, the slower, the better, at touchdown on a rough field.
>

>In summary, it still seems to me that the risks of everyday full stall

>landings outweigh the benefits of the rare rough field landing.&nbsp; It

>reminds me somewhat of actually pulling an engine on take off, when doing

>multi-engine training.&nbsp; Years ago the FAA nixed that technique, because

>there were more accidents caused by that training method then real engine
>failures.

So let's look at the risks of a high speed, high energy landing.

Wing drop - major accident at 50-60 knots!
Hit another aircraft at 50-60 knots - major accident
Hit a bump/pothole/post/landing light at 50-60 - major accident
Land on rough ground at 50-60 - bump, bump, bump in rapid succession on the
nose and main wheel, throwing you around a lot, hand flicking forward and
backwards on the stick, increasing nose impacts. - serious damage.

Now imagine any of these occurring at 40 , on the main and tail wheel.
And you still recommend "planting it" on the ground at high speed??!

Remember, none of the problems you discuss are encountered by the many
thousands of pilots who land fully flaired (not fully stalled) in many other
part of the world.

>I do not wish to start a raging controversy, but would appreciate some
>well reasoned arguments on both sides.

Reasonable enough?

John Wright, 742

[Jean Richard]

JohnPegase a écrit :

> > I was taught to never, ever, ever make a full stall landing

> >in a glider; (...)

> This seems to be mainly an american idea. In the UK and many other places,
> everyone lands the way you worry about, with none of the problems you imagine.

A USA idea. Many countries in America and in some of them, full flaired
landing is seen like the best way to land in most of the situation.

> Wing drop - major accident at 50-60 knots!
> Hit another aircraft at 50-60 knots - major accident
> Hit a bump/pothole/post/landing light at 50-60 - major accident
> Land on rough ground at 50-60 - bump, bump, bump in rapid succession on the
> nose and main wheel, throwing you around a lot, hand flicking forward and
> backwards on the stick, increasing nose impacts. - serious damage.

Gliders with nosewheel (ASK21, Grob Twin II or III) are very vulnerable to
bad habit of fast landing. The nosewheel hit a bump and... You can easily
imagine what happen. I've seen severe bouncing due to that.

Jean

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 09:52:55 -0700, Don Schroeder <ron...@uswest.net>
wrote:

My few points about this topic - there's not much to add to your
points... ;)

A fully stalled glider will stay on the ground once it touched down.
No PIO's, the glider will not climb away significantly with fully
deployed airbrakes if the pilot pulls too hard during the flare.

The still flying glider that balances on the main wheel will bounce
into the air agin if it rolls over a bump or gets a strong gust - this
is the situation that might lead to a stall at a height of 10 ft or
PIO's. Not to mention that it needs very good reactions to recover and
do a second, smooth landing.
Anyway, the elevator is very touchy at higher speeds close to the
ground, and with airbrakes only partialy extended the glider tends to
climb away again if the pilot pulls only a little bit too much -->
PIO's...

>A couple of our club members returned from Soar Minden, and my stomach
>churned as I watch them floating, floating, floating their PIK20 down the

>runway, finally touching down tail first.&nbsp; An email from Soar Minden,

>confirmed that they were teaching this technique, because the Grob 102,
>with 3 pneumatic tires, was very difficult to wheel land and tended to

>bounce which could lead to pilot induced oscillations.&nbsp; This sounds

>reasonable to me, but I am still concerned about the fact that if not done
>perfectly, or if a gust occurs, there is no means of recovering from a

>botched full stall landing in a glider.

Who cares? The float takes place one, two feet high - even if the
plane suddenly stalls, the subsequent landing will only be a little
harder than a "good" one. The perfect flare is even five inches over
the ground...

>But if you come across the fence 10kts above stall and then start
>your flare in a glider, it won't be a very short landing because of the
>float.

I don't know whether you have already seen a fully flared short
landing, but I can assure you that even a heavy double seater like the
ASK-21 needs hardly more than 300 ft to land then... <vbg>

>In fact, I'd surmise that "planting" it, getting the nose

>down and getting on the brake, will make for a shorter landing then holding
>it off for the low energy landing.

... if you can keep the ship on the ground, and if the wheel brake
works, and if you don't float, and if you don't damage your
nose-wheeled glider while doing this too fast. And if you have to go
into a plowed field, the resistance from the ground wants to tip your
plane on the nose - now it makes a difference for your family plans if
you hit the occasional big stone with 55 kts or 30...

>In summary, it still seems to me that the risks of everyday full stall
>landings outweigh the benefits of the rare rough field landing.

Are you sure you want to train your students the one technique to do
the all-day landings on the airfield, but let them have to use the
unknown one for one of the most dangerous situations in thir life, the
outlanding?

The problem of a fully flared landing is the approach speed: Too fast
means a long(er) flare, to slow is dangerous. Therefore you need to
watch your airspeed more carefully, and you also have to adept the
approach speed to the current conditions. But even if you fly faster
at strong winds: The flare will become slightly longer (you don't have
to increase the approach speed that much), but you will still get the
shortest possible ground roll.

Where I live (Germany) we teach ONLY fully flared landings. I have
only seen one real PIO during landing during 15 years and I have never
heard of any broken tail boom due to PIO's during the flare - I have
read of several ones on G103's from the US.

Bye
Andreas

[Mike Lindsay]

In article <3964B967...@uswest.net>, Don Schroeder
<ron...@uswest.net> writes

> I am a CFI-A,I,G with about 3500 hours, about 250 in gliders.  I
> learned to fly gliders in 1975 in Wichita, KS.  As those of you who

> have flown in the great plains know, it's always windy: 10G20 is a

> calm day, and any crosswind less than 60 degrees off the runway

> heading is "right down the runway."  I was taught to never, ever,
> ever make a full stall landing in a glider; always put it on about

> 10kts above stall, just like a wheel landing in a tail dragger

> power plane.  The same logic applied to both categories: better

> directional control with the higher speed, especially in a

> crosswind.  In addition, in a glider at full stall, a gust could

> put you 10 feet in the air, still at a high angle of attack, and

> when the gust dies, so do you (figuratively speaking).  I.e., the

> gust will leave you at 10 feet, at stall AOA, and when it quits,

> you are below stall speed, and will break the ship.  Moreover, if
> you misjudge the full stall landing in a power plane, you can
> always add power to recover.  Not so easy to do in a glider.

> Don
>  
>  
>
>
I was taught to use about half air brake on approach. That way, if you
get a gust which is going to shoot you 10 feet up you can counter it by
deploying a tad more brake.
--
Mike Lindsay

[Ian Johnston]

Andreas Maurer <mau...@funsystem.de> wrote:

: A fully stalled glider will stay on the ground once it touched down.

Most gliders stall with an angle of attack of 18 degrees or thereabouts.
Most gliders are about 5m from mainwheel to tailwheel. That means that to
stall an average glider in level flight, you have to get the tailwheel around
1.5m lower than it is in the zero AOA position, or around 1m lower than in
normal flight. This does not indicate the geometry of any glider I've ever
seen.

In other words - if you want to stall the glider on you need to do it with
significant vertical speed, and if you want to kiss the ground you can't do
it stalled.

Ian

[OEM Installed]

In article <3964B967...@uswest.net>, ron...@uswest.net says...
= <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
= <html>
= I am a CFI-A,I,G with about 3500 hours, about 250 in gliders.&nbsp; I learned
= to fly gliders in 1975 in Wichita, KS.&nbsp; As those of you who have flown
= in the great plains know, it's always windy: 10G20 is a calm day, and any
= crosswind less than 60 degrees off the runway heading is "right down the
= runway."&nbsp; I was taught to never, ever, ever make a full stall landing
= in a glider; always put it on about 10kts above stall, just like a wheel
= landing in a tail dragger power plane.&nbsp; The same logic applied to
= both categories: better directional control with the higher speed, especially
= in a crosswind.&nbsp;

I hope you realize the "full stall" landing does not involve a stall,
and is better described as a "fully held off" landing. The main wheel
is held a few inches to a foot off the ground, generally with half
spoiler (more in some countries), until the glider can no longer fly
and settles on to the ground. The angle of attack is at most only
slightly higher than the angle the glider has when sitting on the
ground. You know from doing straight ahead stalls, that a stall
requires a much higher angle of attack.

If it is windy or very gusty, normal training has you flying and
landing at a higher speed than in calm air. In an unflapped glider,
this will be a wheel landing. A flapped glider can use a less positive
flap setting than normal and still land faster using a fully held off
landing.

How bad the wind has to be before a wheel landing is a better choice
than the fully held off landing depends strongly on the glider, the
pilot, and the turbulence. A pilot should know both techniques.

= But if you come across the fence 10kts above stall and then start
= your flare in a glider, it won't be a very short landing because of the
= float.&nbsp; In fact, I'd surmise that "planting" it, getting the nose
= down and getting on the brake, will make for a shorter landing then holding
= it off for the low energy landing.

Most gliders will not float if you have the normal half spoilers, but
will quickly settle. Applying full brake along with full spoiler will
stop it quickly from the 40 knots or so touch down speed. "Planting"
it at fifty knots will result in a much longer roll unless it has an
incredible brake (50% more energy must be dissipated due to the higher
speed). If it does have a strong brake, the chances are excellent it
will end up on the nose, causing at least minor damage and maybe loss
of control (especially in a cross wind).

These techniques are standard glider practice developed over decades
of experience (which include many windy, gusty places worse than you
describe, like some hill sites in England and elsewhere). I suggest
you talk to some good pilots, and maybe try some of these things
yourself if you still aren't convinced.
--
>>Delete the "REMOVE" from my e-mail address to reply by e-mail<<

Eric Greenwell

[BAToulson]

In article <39672894....@news.t-online.de>, mau...@funsystem.de (Andreas
Maurer) writes:

>Where I live (Germany) we teach ONLY fully flared landings.

Also in my Club in the UK.

I have never come across any club teaching "flown on " landings, even those on
hilltops and in cross wind conditions.

When landing normally (to the UK), the glider is held off and the stick
progressively eased back until the glider will no longer fly. At that point it
settles on the ground and will not bounce. Immediately on touch down, open the
airbrakes fully and the stick should be eased on to the back stop on most
gliders to prevent the nose wheel / skid / nose banging down, particularly if
the ground is soft.

With many flapped gliders, the flaps should be moved into negative as the
glider slows to maintain level wings.

Applying hard brake should only be done in emergencies. Bear in mind that full
brake at fairly high speed can a) cause the nose to drop severely with possible
damage and b) possibly induce a ground loop (think about that one - if the
glider is slightly out of alignment, the "negative" g induced by the brake
means that an "off centre" tail can be inclined to try to overtake the nose
hence a ground loop!).

Furthermore, with skill and once in the hold off position, the airbrakes can be
opened further (preferably not fully if they also control the wheel brake see
above paragraph.) to quicken the landing and shorten the flare.

Barney
UK

[Chris Rowland]

On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 09:52:55 -0700, Don Schroeder <ron...@uswest.net>
wrote:

><p>A couple of our club members returned from Soar Minden, and my stomach

>churned as I watch them floating, floating, floating their PIK20 down the
>runway, finally touching down tail first.

Is this a Pik20C with flaps as the approach control, not airbrakes?

I ask because these seem to be greatly affected by ground effect and
will float along with the nose down, just airbourne before touching
down. It is a strikingly different flare to other gliders - and I am
talking about British type approaches with fairly low energy landings.

I don't think it is a problem, even in gusty conditions, because the
ground effect will stop working as soon as a gust tries to lift the
glider.

The PIK finally touches down at a remarkably low speed.

I must stress that - unfortunately - I haven't flown a PIK but I have
seen a number approach.

Chris Rowland.

[Andreas Maurer]

On 8 Jul 2000 15:46:42 GMT, Ian Johnston <engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Most gliders stall with an angle of attack of 18 degrees or thereabouts.
>Most gliders are about 5m from mainwheel to tailwheel. That means that to
>stall an average glider in level flight, you have to get the tailwheel around
>1.5m lower than it is in the zero AOA position, or around 1m lower than in
>normal flight. This does not indicate the geometry of any glider I've ever

Ah - you are right of course. I used the expression "fully stalled" as
a description for the stick being pulled back fully in comparison a
touchdown with neutral elevator, referring to the poster's own words.

Bye
Andreas

[John Giddy]

Eric,
I don't agree with you that a faster approach in a strong wind will
inevitably lead to a wheel landing.
One of the main reasons for the higher approach speed is to be able to
cope with the wind gradient near the ground, and as you are touching
down your airspeed is probably no higher than in the calm air
conditions. A fully held-off landing is just as easy in this case.
The wheel landing always has the potential to cause a bounce as the
tail drops as soon as the main wheel touches, causing a sudden
increase in angle of attack. (I know: been there done that
)
Cheers, John G.

--
John Giddy Mangalore Gliding Club Inc.
5/287 Barkers Rd. http://www.gfa.org.au/vic/mgc/
Kew, Vic. 3101
Australia

OEM Installed <egree...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.13d05fd76...@news.prodigy.net...
> <<<snip>>>

[John Giddy]

Hi Barney,
Your statement below to fully open the airbrakes when on the ground is
fine for most gliders, but I found to my embarrassment that you don't
do it in a Hornet which has trailing edge air brakes. These also give
a noticeable flap effect, so if you open them fully on touchdown, you
can get a bounce. Very embarrassing !!
Likewise, you shouldn't put them away close to the ground, or you will
drop like a stone. Also embarrassing !
Still learning... John G.

--
John Giddy Mangalore Gliding Club Inc.
5/287 Barkers Rd. http://www.gfa.org.au/vic/mgc/
Kew, Vic. 3101
Australia

BAToulson <bato...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000708142702...@nso-fp.aol.com...
><<<snip>>>

[vaughn simon]

As far as I can remember, not one post in this thread makes reference to any glider's flight manual.  I find that odd.  Should we not listen to the people who design our gliders?   The 1-26 manual suggests a landing speed considerably above the stall.  It warns against slower touchdowns because of tail-first landings.  As I recall, the 1-34 manual is even more specific.  It recommends a tad of stick-forward just before the touchdown to lift up the tail.  Looking over my tiny library, I find considerable difference in manufacturer's recommendations.  The L-13 manual is silent on the issue, while the G-109 manual (not surprisingly) specifies a 3-point touchdown.  I have at least two more here, but they don't come to hand right now.  Is it too radical to suggest that we should follow the POH and not argue about these things?  

 

In general, I think the landing characteristics of the Schweizers (which most Americans cut their teeth on) helps to explain the difference in landing styles between European and American pilots.

 

Regards:

Vaughn

 

Don Schroeder wrote in message <3964B967...@uswest.net>...

I am a CFI-A,I,G with about 3500 hours, about 250 in gliders.  I learned to fly gliders in 1975 in Wichita, KS.  As those of you who have flown in the great plains know, it's always windy: 10G20 is a calm day, and any crosswind less than 60 degrees off the runway heading is "right down the runway."  I was taught to never, ever, ever make a full stall landing in a glider; always put it on about 10kts above stall, just like a wheel landing in a tail dragger power plane.  The same logic applied to both categories: better directional control with the higher speed, especially in a crosswind.  In addition, in a glider at full stall, a gust could put you 10 feet in the air, still at a high angle of attack, and when the gust dies, so do you (figuratively speaking).  I.e., the gust will leave you at 10 feet, at stall AOA, and when it quits, you are below stall speed, and will break the ship.  Moreover, if you misjudge the full stall landing in a power plane, you can always add power to recover.  Not so easy to do in a glider.

A couple of our club members returned from Soar Minden, and my stomach churned as I watch them floating, floating, floating their PIK20 down the runway, finally touching down tail first.  An email from Soar Minden, confirmed that they were teaching this technique, because the Grob 102, with 3 pneumatic tires, was very difficult to wheel land and tended to bounce which could lead to pilot induced oscillations.  This sounds reasonable to me, but I am still concerned about the fact that if not done perfectly, or if a gust occurs, there is no means of recovering from a botched full stall landing in a glider.

I have not flown super ships; a Phoebus, is my high performance sailplane.  One of our club members has a Nimbus, and points out that with that big, heavy ship, one wants to touch down at minimum energy.  Another good point, but doesn't address the recovery from botched landing.  He also pointed out that when I check someone out in a taildragger, I want him to demonstrate both 3 point and wheel landings.  True.  The properly executed three point (full stall)  makes for the shortest landing. But if you come across the fence 10kts above stall and then start your flare in a glider, it won't be a very short landing because of the float.  In fact, I'd surmise that "planting" it, getting the nose down and getting on the brake, will make for a shorter landing then holding it off for the low energy landing.  I concede, also, that for an off field landing, the slower, the better, at touchdown on a rough field.

In summary, it still seems to me that the risks of everyday full stall landings outweigh the benefits of the rare rough field landing.  It reminds me somewhat of actually pulling an engine on take off, when doing multi-engine training.  Years ago the FAA nixed that technique, because there were more accidents caused by that training method then real engine failures.

I do not wish to start a raging controversy, but would appreciate some well reasoned arguments on both sides.

Thanks,

Don
 
 

[Ian Johnston]

BAToulson <bato...@aol.com> wrote:
: In article <39672894....@news.t-online.de>, mau...@funsystem.de (Andreas
: Maurer) writes:

:>Where I live (Germany) we teach ONLY fully flared landings.

: Also in my Club in the UK.

: I have never come across any club teaching "flown on " landings, even those on
: hilltops and in cross wind conditions.

Unfortunately I am a few hundred miles from my gliding book shelf so I can't
give an exact attribution, but... I have a gliding book from the 50's or early
60's which insists that proper landings are flown on, and that fully holding
off is something so be avoided. Of course, these were much lower energy times
than today.

Ian

[Ian Strachan]

In article <8k9f1t$l3o$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Ian Johnston
<engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes

snip

>proper landings are flown on, and that fully holding
>off is something so be avoided.

snip

I agree. One thing in this thread which I have not detected so far is a
reasonable compromise. Either people seem to be in favour of "fully
holding off" or "flying it on at a higher speed". Not sure the choice
is really that simple.

Might I suggest that as in most things in life, an intermediate position
may be a reasonable one. Depending always on the exact characteristics
of the glider concerned, of course. And the circumstances. Landing on
a large airfield with your Chief Instructor watching may be a different
situation to an awkward field landing in a small field with trees at the
end.

Myself, I have never been in favour of the ultimate "fully held off"
landing in a glider. As an instructor for some 35 years I have seen
this lead to all sorts of problems with pre-solo pilots and after solo
as well. To achieve a "fully held off" landing requires quite a lot of
skill and judgement and can often go wrong such as "ballooning", PIO, or
stalling from a few feet above the ground. Due to over-use of the
elevator to keep the glider airborne when it really wants to simply sink
into the ground.

Just allowing the glider so sink naturally on to the ground would be
both easier, safer and, in my opinion, better technique. Make a
reasonable round-out to kill the rate of descent and then just allow the
glider to sink naturally on to the ground without being too pro-active
in "holding it off" until the last moment. You are flying a glider, not
a Spitfire!

I was trained on powered aircraft which were "tail draggers" and so I
have experienced a lot of landings with the tail down (ie fully held-
off). An Auster (awful aircraft for landing in my opinion) needed a
full hold-off or it would bounce back into the air. Whereas you can
"wheel land" a Harvard, Chipmunk or Tiger if you are careful (yes, I
have flown these but not (yet) a Spitfire). Indeed with a Harvard in my
opinion a so-called "tail-down wheeler" is the only way to safely land
on a hard surface such as a tarmac runway. So called "three pointing"
in such aircraft may be traditional but has its hazards such as ground-
looping, particular on hard surfaces (it was decades of flying tail-
draggers before I found this out, fortunately without damage to an
aircraft).

Look at your local airport and see what the airline pilots do. I think
that standard FAA/JAA procedure is to approach 15 knots over Vat (Vref
if you like), aiming to be at Vat/Vref at the runway threshold. Vat
stands for speed at threshold and is the aerodynamic energy needed to
rotate in pitch to convert the descent flight path into a level flight
path, the so-called round-out.

I see no reason why the same theory is not applicable to gliders, the
basic physics is the same. In a glider, we put speed up on the approach
to allow for wind gradient, but when rounding-out, like the 747 we are
through the wind gradient but must ensure that we have the aerodynamic
energy (IAS) to change the flight path from descending to level. Having
done that, in my opinion it is best to simply let the glider gently sink
to the ground by itself rather than applying excessive control movements
which can lead to problems (PIO, ballooning, stall at a few feet above
the ground, etc).

As with most things in flying it is generally better to allow the
natural characteristics of the aircraft to work for you, rather than
trying to combat them in an effort to achieve an ideal which in the end
may not be either desirable or suited to the glider or the conditions
concerned.

Question: In an awkward field landing (aux vaches) with a hedge or tree
looming up and the glider being rocked in turbulence, would you "hold
off" to the last, or allow the glider to gently sink on to the ground
and allow it to decelerate on the ground rather than in the air? I know
what I do.

--
Ian Strachan

[Jean Richard]

BAToulson a écrit :

> >Where I live (Germany) we teach ONLY fully flared landings.
>
> Also in my Club in the UK.

Germany + UK + France + part of Canada...

[Jean Richard]

Ian Johnston a écrit :
>

> Unfortunately I am a few hundred miles from my gliding book shelf so I can't
> give an exact attribution, but... I have a gliding book from the 50's or early
> 60's which insists that proper landings are flown on, and that fully holding
> off is something so be avoided. Of course, these were much lower energy times
> than today.

Habit from old days maybe.

With some gliders, landing on the mainwheel can be prefered.

Too many US Americans learned with Schweizer. A two point landing with
a 2-22 or 2-33 Schweizer means that the nose is very high in the sky
and the pilot doesn't see ahead.

Even with the relatively more modern (than Schweizer) Blaník L13/L23,
landing on the mainwheel is often prefered due to the poor tailwheel
system.

Jean

[mil...@cgpp.com]

Jean Richard <j.ri...@sympatico.ca> writes:

> Habit from old days maybe.
>
> With some gliders, landing on the mainwheel can be prefered.
>
> Too many US Americans learned with Schweizer. A two point landing with
> a 2-22 or 2-33 Schweizer means that the nose is very high in the sky
> and the pilot doesn't see ahead.

Yes, it's so easy to grease on a 2-33 on its main wheel. So that's
what we were tought to do. Nothing wrong with that, if that's what
you're flying.

Over time I developed the habit of holding off the 2-33 a bit like
with a modern machine, and it always worked out nicely. The tailwheel
is so high, it seems unlikely that you'll put the tailwheel on the
ground at all, though I did see a student manage to do it once (not
sure how). Don't recall having trouble seeing over the nose, even from
back seat. After you fly Cubs and Champs you discover that's optional
anyway.

>
> Even with the relatively more modern (than Schweizer) Blaník L13/L23,

(History trivia: the L-13 predates the 2-33, and even, I suspect, the
2-32)

By the way, I'll be curious to see if your campaign to rename citizens
of the USA as "US Americans" actually takes hold. If it happens, I'll
say, with much pride, that I heard it here first :)

J.

--
Judah Milgram mil...@cgpp.com
P.O. Box 8376, Langley Park, MD 20787
(301) 422-4626 (-3047 fax)

[Neilimaclean]

In article <m2zonqa...@tcraft.cgpp.com>, mil...@cgpp.com writes:

>Too many US Americans learned with Schweizer.

I was taught to do only fully held-off landings (in the UK). Since then I have
flown at many sites in the UK, Australia and the US and the only place which
has insisted on "flown -on" landings was the Schweizer School in Elmira, where
I was told off for doing a held off (not full stall) landing in a 2-32. It does
seem to be mainly a Schweizer habit.

Neil MacLean (SZD-55, Std Cirrus)

[Jean Richard]

mil...@cgpp.com a écrit :

> By the way, I'll be curious to see if your campaign to rename citizens
> of the USA as "US Americans" actually takes hold. If it happens, I'll
> say, with much pride, that I heard it here first :)

America is a wide continent and everybody living in America should have
the right to be named American, just like people living in Europe are
Europeans. Then, we need to make a difference between an American of
Argentina and an American from USA. Is it not ?

Jean

[Tony Verhulst]

> Most gliders stall with an angle of attack of 18 degrees or thereabouts.
> Most gliders are about 5m from mainwheel to tailwheel. That means that to
> stall an average glider in level flight, you have to get the tailwheel around
> 1.5m lower than it is in the zero AOA position, or around 1m lower than in
> normal flight. This does not indicate the geometry of any glider I've ever

I don't think so. You are assuming that a level fuselage means zero
angle of attack. In fact, the wing chord is NOT parallel to the
longitudinal axis. Most gliders have a positive "angle of incidence".
A level fuselage means that you still have a positive angle of attack.

Tony

[Tony Verhulst]

> Myself, I have never been in favour of the ultimate "fully held off"
> landing in a glider. As an instructor for some 35 years I have seen
> this lead to all sorts of problems with pre-solo pilots and after solo
> as well. To achieve a "fully held off" landing requires quite a lot of
> skill and judgement and can often go wrong such as "ballooning", PIO, or
> stalling from a few feet above the ground. Due to over-use of the
> elevator to keep the glider airborne when it really wants to simply sink
> into the ground.

And the fact that a "fully stalled" landing means hitting tail wheel
first on a lot of gliders. This is especially not a good idea for
glider with weak tail wheels (Blaniks come to mind). I don't like
driving a glider onto the ground either. After sitting in the back seat
of one such landing, I said to the student "let me take it for a bit".
I picked the glider up about 20 feet and flew it another 1000 feet down
the runway before making a preferable (IMHO) "slightly nose up"
touchdown.

Tony V.

[Ian Johnston]

Tony Verhulst <verh...@zk3.dec.com> wrote:

:> Most gliders stall with an angle of attack of 18 degrees or thereabouts.

:> Most gliders are about 5m from mainwheel to tailwheel. That means that to
:> stall an average glider in level flight, you have to get the tailwheel around
:> 1.5m lower than it is in the zero AOA position, or around 1m lower than in
:> normal flight. This does not indicate the geometry of any glider I've ever

: I don't think so.

I do!

: You are assuming that a level fuselage means zero
: angle of attack.

No I am not. That is specifically why I wrote (see above) "than the zero AOA
position" and "than in normal flight". I'd like to see a glider which flies
normally with the tail 1m higher - relative to the main wheel - than its
position on the ground.

: In fact, the wing chord is NOT parallel to the

: longitudinal axis. Most gliders have a positive "angle of incidence".
: A level fuselage means that you still have a positive angle of attack.

Of course, but it's not a high enough AOA to stall the glider *in level
flight*. As Andreas Maurer has helpfully pointed out, the stall attitude (*)
of a glider in the air is very much more nose up than the landing attitude.

Ian

* Unaccelerated, slow approach to stall etc etc etc.

[mil...@cgpp.com]

Jean Richard <j.ri...@sympatico.ca> writes:

> America is a wide continent and everybody living in America should have
> the right to be named American, just like people living in Europe are
> Europeans. Then, we need to make a difference between an American of
> Argentina and an American from USA. Is it not ?

Sure, both are Americans. But like you say, if the context is
nationality, we have to differentiate them. The convention (in
English, or should I say USA-English) seems to be

The American from the Argentian we call an "Argentinian" (=Argentina +
"n" + a bit a vowel modification to make it sound right)

The American from the USA we call an "American" (=United States of
America + "n" + trim the first two words to keep it from sounding
awkward). [1]

Of course, if two or more nations choose to put the word "America" in
their names, then you have a conflict.

Anyway, if you prefer "US-American" I'm sure no one will take offense,
you've just got a lot of work ahead of you.

Judah

[1] Someone wrote me that in parts of Mexico they say "United
Statesian". Almost has a nice ring to it.

[mil...@cgpp.com]

mil...@cgpp.com writes:

> The American from the Argentian we call an "Argentinian" (=Argentina +
> "n" + a bit a vowel modification to make it sound right)

errr, obviously I meant "The American from Argentina". too much
cutting and pasting and fingers crashing into each other going on
here.

J.

[Jean Richard]

mil...@cgpp.com a écrit :

> [1] Someone wrote me that in parts of Mexico they say "United
> Statesian". Almost has a nice ring to it.

In French dictionaries, you can find « Étasuniens or États-Uniens »,
which comes from the French name « États-Unis d'Amérique ».

Unitedstatesians would be nice then ;-))

Jean

[W. Oliver]

All: Sorry for this off-subject post.

Jean, it is interesting to note that in my international travels I am
introduced as coming from "America" while I introduce myself as coming from
"The United States". Perhaps the reason is rooted in the fact that there
is no convenient derivative of United States that means "citizen of the
United States of America" (United Statian? United Statite?).

Further, may I point out the error in your logic? Europeans are so called
because the continent on which they reside is Europe, right? Please find a
globe or map and locate the continent of "America", we'll wait . . . . .
What's that? You can't find it? That's because there is no "American"
continent but rather two continents; North America and South America.
Therefore citizens of Argentina are correctly referred to as "South
Americans" while citizens of Canada are referred to as "North Americans".

For these two reasons the term "American", unless otherwise noted, is
understood to mean "citizen of the United States of America" and it is
redundant to add "US".

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
W. Oliver

Jean Richard wrote:

> mil...@cgpp.com a écrit :
>
> > By the way, I'll be curious to see if your campaign to rename citizens
> > of the USA as "US Americans" actually takes hold. If it happens, I'll
> > say, with much pride, that I heard it here first :)
>

> America is a wide continent and everybody living in America should have
> the right to be named American, just like people living in Europe are
> Europeans. Then, we need to make a difference between an American of
> Argentina and an American from USA. Is it not ?
>

> Jean

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Jean Richard" <j.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:396A53...@sympatico.ca...

So, Jean, you are then a french.canadian.american? We have Texans, but they
need no other modifiers;^)

Frank 'TexaCanadian' Whiteley

[csoa...@my-deja.com]

Could someone please clearly definine what Low
energy means. Is this based on airspeed, ground
speed or pitch attitude at touchdown?

Why is it that main wheel landings are espoused
by many as dangerious. When everyone routinely
makes main wheel takeoffs?

Are glider pilots considered inept in comparrison
to conventional gear airplane pilots? Tailwheel
pilots in airplanes are taught to be proficient
at wheel landings for high wind conditions and
full stall and three point landings for short
and soft field landings.
csoaring

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

[Jean Richard]

csoa...@my-deja.com a écrit :

>
> Could someone please clearly definine what Low energy means.

Speed is energy. Then, low energy means low speed.

> Why is it that main wheel landings are espoused
> by many as dangerious. When everyone routinely
> makes main wheel takeoffs?

Quite different.

> Are glider pilots considered inept in comparrison
> to conventional gear airplane pilots? Tailwheel
> pilots in airplanes are taught to be proficient
> at wheel landings for high wind conditions and
> full stall and three point landings for short
> and soft field landings.

Last saturday, on the parallel runway of our aerodrome,
we have seen the result of too fast landing habits.
It was an aeroplane, not a glider.

Touching fast, bouncing, bouncing, and bang ! The nosewheel
collapsed. Broken propeller, broken engine, broken airframe,
broken gear...

Engine or not, lower landing speed is better in all, except
a few situations.

Jean

[Wilhelm Holtmeier]

Jean Richard <j.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Unitedstatesians would be nice then ;-))

"Amis" is good and short enough in German. ;-)
--
Blue skies!
Wilhelm Holtmeier
PGP ID 0x5DBFFD54
http://www.trustcenter.de/cgi-bin/Search.cgi

[Bill Daniels]

I can't accept that either wheel or tail-first landings are ALWAYS better
than the other. Which to choose depends on a lot of things including the
abilities of the pilot, the characteristics of the glider, the field and
wind conditions, etc...

I will choose one or the other from time to time depending on the aircraft
and/or field conditions. I once flew a Howard DGA regularly. Wheel
landings were the order of the day since the DGA's big round engine blocked
all forward visability in a three point attitude. On the other hand, I
found wheel landing a Cessna 170 to be almost impossible due to the bouncy
main gear.

Various gliders, like powered craft, have their idiosyncracies. I agree
that in MOST cases, a SLIGHTLY tail first touchdown is better in tailwheel
equipped gliders since a mostly straight, mostly bounce free roll-out
ensues.

Gliders with nose skids or nosewheels are probably better landed softly on
the main wheel alone with the nose held off as long as possible. Tail first
landings work, but they are much less graceful.

I like wheel landing my Lark on paved runways since it is easy, quiet,
smooth and saves wear on the tailwheel. The huge rudder on the Lark
provides ample directional control during a tail-up rollout even in modest
crosswinds. If the winds kick up or the landing surface is rough, I will
opt for a tail first touchdown.

Last Sunday, Gary Odehnal graciously offered me the chance to fly his LS4.
(My first flight in an LS4.) After a beautiful two hour flight the landing
was on slightly rough grass into a gusting wind. I opted for a tail first
touchdown since it was the best option given the field conditions and the
LS4's landing characteristics (which are excellent). It worked out just
fine.

Thanks again, Gary.

Bill Daniels

[mil...@cgpp.com]

w.hol...@bigfoot.com (Wilhelm Holtmeier) writes:

> Jean Richard <j.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Unitedstatesians would be nice then ;-))
>
> "Amis" is good and short enough in German. ;-)

Heard that one often enough!
But then you get back into the same problem. Maybe the Canadians
will also want to be called Amis :)

[John Giddy]

The main difficulty with "wheel landings" is the propensity for the
tail to drop as soon as the main wheel touches the ground, because the
C of G is behind the main wheel. The tail drop immediately gives a
sharp increase of angle of attack, and hence increased lift, leading
to a bounce.
The difference between takeoff and landing is that for the takeoff the
speed is increasing, so requiring reducing angle of attack, which you
get as the tail lifts, whereas when landing the speed is decreasing,
and when you bounce, you find yourself several feet in the air with
very low speed. The result is inevitable :-)

John G.
--
John Giddy Mangalore Gliding Club Inc.
5/287 Barkers Rd. http://www.gfa.org.au/vic/mgc/
Kew, Vic. 3101
Australia

<csoa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8kffpl$oav$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
><<<snip>>>

[andrew...@cas.honeywell.com]

I do not agree that the result is inevitable. Just as with wheel landings
in tail wheel airplanes it just takes appropriate forward stick movement
at the moment of main wheel contact.

Having said that I should point out that 99.9% of my landings in any of
the many glider types I have flown are held off low energy landings. (yes
even in 2-33s)

I do not agree with the argument (in a previous posting) that wheel
landings should be used to save the tail wheel. I routinely land my ASW
19 slightly tail first on rough runways then raise the tail for the
rollout to prevent rock damage. I used the same technique in the L13, much
better than grinding the nose in the rocks.

BTW the manual for the ASW19 specifies that TAKEOFFs should be made 2
point. My preference when flying ballasted is still to raise the tail.

Andy

[Brent Sullivan "PQ"]

That's right Frank. I was the one who told Judah about folks in Chiapas
calling people from the US United Statesians (Estados Uni-somethingorother).

When people ask me where I'm from, I say Texas. 'Course if you're from east
Texas you say "teh ex sus"--due to the ubiquitous east Texas dipthong, or
dee ipthong if you're from there. :-)

Interesting to note that until the Civil War, there were no US citizens.
There were only citizens of the various states.

Brent

"F.L. Whiteley" <gre...@greeleynet.com> wrote in message
news:DLya5.83$Ji.188...@news.frii.net...

>
> "Jean Richard" <j.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:396A53...@sympatico.ca...
> > mil...@cgpp.com a écrit :
> >
> > > [1] Someone wrote me that in parts of Mexico they say "United
> > > Statesian". Almost has a nice ring to it.
> >
> > In French dictionaries, you can find « Étasuniens or États-Uniens »,
> > which comes from the French name « États-Unis d'Amérique ».
> >

> > Unitedstatesians would be nice then ;-))
> >

[Eric Greenwell]

In article <3969C3...@sympatico.ca>, j.ri...@sympatico.ca
says...
= mil...@cgpp.com a écrit :
=
= > By the way, I'll be curious to see if your campaign to rename citizens
= > of the USA as "US Americans" actually takes hold. If it happens, I'll
= > say, with much pride, that I heard it here first :)
=
= America is a wide continent and everybody living in America should have
= the right to be named American, just like people living in Europe are
= Europeans. Then, we need to make a difference between an American of
= Argentina and an American from USA. Is it not ?

I've never heard a Canadian or a Mexican refer to themselves as
"Americans", and I think they would be insulted if anyone else said
they were "Americans"! I suspect no one in South America considers
themselves "American" either. Every European I've talked to knew which
country I was from when I told them I was an American. People do call
themselves "North Americans" at times, but "Americans" seems to be
universally reserved for citizens of the USA.

North America and South America (collectively called "the Americas")
are two quite different continents, and it seems pointless to lump
together the citizens of these countries with the term "American",
just because "America" is part of the name for each continent.
--
Remove REMOVE from my e-mail address to reply

Eric Greenwell

[Eric Greenwell]

In article <8k8hbs$b3h$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au>, jgi...@melbpc.org.au
says...
= Eric,
= I don't agree with you that a faster approach in a strong wind will
= inevitably lead to a wheel landing.
= One of the main reasons for the higher approach speed is to be able to
= cope with the wind gradient near the ground, and as you are touching
= down your airspeed is probably no higher than in the calm air
= conditions. A fully held-off landing is just as easy in this case.

I agree. I was thinking of the times the "windy, gusty" conditions
existed below the flare altitude. If I know the flare will be in
steady enough air, I will do a normal held-off landing.

Knowing the site, the glider, and your skills is needed to make a good
choice. Our club Blanik could be wheel landed very easily, even by
students not ready for solo, while my ASH 26 E (with the axle 2" ahead
of the leading edge at the root), is much more difficult to wheel
land.

= The wheel landing always has the potential to cause a bounce as the
= tail drops as soon as the main wheel touches, causing a sudden
= increase in angle of attack. (I know: been there done that

I'll have to try a wheel landing next time I fly the 26. My
recollection is a wheel landing at, say, 10 knots over the normal
touch down speed of a held-off landing isn't too prone to bouncing,
since the extra speed makes the elevator so much more effective.

I've noticed the ease of landing (especially a wheel landing) a
flapped glider varies with the flap position: the more positive the
flap setting, the more difficult it is to do a smooth landing, because
the glider becomes more sensitive to angle of attack changes (I.e.,
more pitch sensitive).

[Brent Sullivan "PQ"]

Amerigo's mom would have never believed so many would be called by her map
maker son's name.

"Eric Greenwell" <REMOVEeg...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.13d9274eb...@news.prodigy.net...

[Larry Kubicz]

"Bill Daniels" <wdan...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:tTRa5.2589$4l6.9...@news.uswest.net...

> I can't accept that either wheel or tail-first landings are ALWAYS better
> than the other. Which to choose depends on a lot of things including the
> abilities of the pilot, the characteristics of the glider, the field and
> wind conditions, etc...

Re: characteristics of the glider -- to me, the critical factor is the
placement of the main wheel relative to the CG. If the main wheel is
forward, touchdown (without a timely application of nose-down force) will
tend to lower the tail/raise the nose, resulting in a bounce into the air.
Conversely, if the main wheel is aft of the CG, touchdown will tend to force
the nose lower, completing the touchdown.

Re: wind conditions -- with a crosswind, the pilot will want to maintain
good rudder effectiveness (i.e., higher airspeed), calling for a "wheel"
landing.

> I will choose one or the other from time to time depending on the aircraft
> and/or field conditions.

Exactly.

> I found wheel landing a Cessna 170 to be almost impossible due to the
bouncy
> main gear.

I used to have a C-170, and found wheel landings to be no problem, EXCEPT
with passengers in the rear seat. Then, with the CG moved farther aft, the
tendency to bounce was exceedingly hard to overcome. I learned this the
hard way (fortunately with no damage to the aircraft).

Final note: I interpret "low energy" landings to refer to low TOTAL energy,
meaning low kinetic energy (airspeed) plus low potential energy (height
above the ground). Allowing the plane to stall in from a foot or so is no
problem. Adding potential energy by attempting a three pointer from high
above the ground will frequently lead to something being bent or broken.

Larry Kubicz
lku...@earthlink.net

[nsur...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 6, 2000 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Tom Serkowski wrote:
> If one has nearly full spoiler prior to the flare, a 'wheel' landing is almost
> impossible and is a perfect setup for a very nice minimum energy landing.
>
> Think about the situation of being in a tail high attitude, well above stall,
> main wheel a few inches above the ground. The CG is behind the wheel, so a
> sudden down gust pushes the glider down. When the main wheel hits the ground,
> the tail is still high and so the AOA increases and next thing you know,
> you're at 10 feet with no airspeed. In a 'nose dragger' such as ASK-21,
> DG-505, etc, the nose wheel will hit hard, maybe colapse, but will also cause
> the nose to bounce up and again you're left wit altitude and no airspeed.
>
> I fly as steep an approach as I can, then use nearly full spoiler at touchdown
> and have never had a problem in over 2000 hours and 27 years of soaring in the
> southwestern USA.
>
> Most of the landing incidents in both gliders and airplanes that I've seen
> have been due to too much energy at touchdown - not too little. I don't count
> landing short of the runway as too little energy, that's a poor approach.
>
> Just my $0.02 worth.
>
>
> --
>
> T...@Serkowski.com
> ASW-20b
> http://www.Serkowski.com

Ajajaj! reading these posts it seems like there is more misconceptions about landings as there is stars in the sky. I learned to fly in Croatia on an L-13. Full flaps and you bleed out airspeed right above the runway until you do not hear the wind noise and at that point you are on the ground. You start your flare with full spoilers and then you smoothly retract them as you keep the glider right above the ground. Once on the ground, you either pop them out again to shorten your rollout or keep them in to go a little farther. How you land depends on the glider type. I miss flaps on L23 and that does not allow me to slow down as much as L13 and rollout is longer. Anyhow, the wing is STALLED if you do it right and there is no returning back in the air at that point. Spoilers out make it impossible to become airborne again after a full stall landing. I landed L23 in some pretty stiff crosswinds and never had control issues.
Jantar Standard is a special case. It was designed to be landed on tailwheel as the angle of incidence of the wing is very low. As long as one does not go crazy on lifting the nose too high and slamming the main wheel down from 4 ft.
Every type has it's own special flavor for landings but if you land wheel or both at the minimum speed possible for that attitude and get the spoilers out, you are staying down. Touch down too fast in anything and you just became a test pilot. Add a sudden gust to the tire bounce and leave your spoilers in and you are in for some interesting times.
Proper training and repetition of things forgotten is the key.
FAA cutting out spins and engine failures in takeoff is a testimony to what is wrong with flight training not what is better. Not training pilots for something that WILL happen to them sooner or later is insane.
Making a 3deg approach on a VFR flight is another insanity I will never get. You are dragging on the engine power for 3-5 miles and if it quits, you will never make the runway. You could have come high within gliding distance and practice gliding to a landing every time to prepare for that day when the engine does quit. I had five of those and not a scratch on the planes.
Proof is in the pudding.

[Eric Greenwell]

Where do these old posts come from, like Serkowski's? Are they doomed to
roam the Internet until someone responds to them, like a frog prince,
whose spell can only be broken by a kiss from a young maiden?

You'll be interested to know Tom Serkowski is still flying gliders
successfully, 14 years after the post you to which you responded. I
don't know if he has the same opinions about full stall landings, however.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[John Firth]

Eric always has something sensible to say! I always read his posts and
agree 99% of the time.
JMF
an old, no longer bold pilot.

[t...@serkowski.com]

> merkaba@ wrote, On 7/27/2014 3:29 PM:
> > Ajajaj! reading these posts it seems like there is more
> > misconceptions about landings as there is stars in the sky.

I think it would help if Robert were to quote something he doesn't like. My message pretty much aligns with his thoughts. Several other posts might fit his critique, but I don't think mine did.

Of course, we never see completely irrelevant and inappropriate quoting on RAS. ;-)

On Sunday, July 27, 2014 9:03:00 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> You'll be interested to know Tom Serkowski is still flying gliders
> successfully, 14 years after the post you to which you responded. I
> don't know if he has the same opinions about full stall landings, however.

Still flying and still doing full stall landings. Now more than 300 flights and over 1300 hours in my ASH-26E and every landing has been full flaps, lots of spoiler and held off as long as possible. I've landed in 20+ knot crosswind and lots more headwind, and very gusty as well - never a problem. I do fly a faster approach as needed, but by the time I complete the round out, I'm at minimum energy.

-Tom

[Chris Snyder]

Please forgive me for replying to a long-dead thread, but there is a lot of good information in this conversation and I'm looking to improve my landings in my new-to-me DG-200.

I'm only on my 4th flight, but the last two landings have had very noticible bounces as I attempted to do a wheel landing. I modified my landing style after my first flight where I landed tail first and was surprised by how much it thumped the main.

I've been landing with full flaps and my airbrakes about half open since the DG POH recommends not increasing brake position low to the ground as you may "fall". The bounces have only been 1-2', but I'd like to avoid any bouncing if possible as it really livens up the rollout. The conditions have been very benign with almost no wind, so I'd like to work this out before fall arrives (with more wind).

FWIW, I'm a power pilot and tend to get almost but not quite stall horn landings in Cessnas.

My takeaway so far from the thread is:
1. My bounce is caused by aft-CG causing increased AoA during my wheel landing
2. Probably should be holding off longer, going for a 2-point landing and maybe slowly increasing my airbrakes while in flair to reduce float/rollout.

Thanks for any advice,
Chris Snyder (RW)
Merlin Soaring Association

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

You want to be in between the extremes.
The "perfect" landing will be tail low enough that tail wheel touches just before the main. Low energy but not banging the main on. Most of these ships will hold an attitude, with brakes out, that puts the main a foot or more above ground when the tail wheel touches. Try to look at the attitude of the glider on the ground and get a mental picture of that, then go do a landing as close to that attitude as you can.
I suggest not messing with the brakes as it adds another variable. Brakes control rate of descent on final and rate of deceleration after the round out(flair). I normally land with brakes pretty much full out, but not on the wheel brake.
Good Luck
UH

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:43:11 AM UTC-4, Chris Snyder wrote:

While trying to troubleshoot inconsistent landings with a student, I suggested "forget about landing. Stabilize the approach with 1/2 spoilers, round out, fly parallel (and close to) to the ground, let the glider land itself". This worked out well, I now teach this routinely. Ideal landing in glass ship is 2 points or just slightly tail first.

Practically speaking, no one "forgets about the landing". But we can shift our focus to what happens immediately before touch down, and the experience is (of course) that if you succeed in rounding out/flying parallel to and low to the ground, with some reasonable amount of drag, you are almost guaranteed a nice touchdown.

In my ASW-20B, my most common approach / landing in benign conditions is landing flaps (38 degrees iirc) + full spoilers, 48 kts (yellow triangle). This gives just enough energy to flare / fly parallel to the ground and grease the tail wheel on with main wheel about 6" off the turf. Important to know: the 20B has big flaps and small-ish single panel spoilers.

best regards,
Evan Ludeman

It's an easy transition from this slightly held off landing to nice spot landings at near minimum energy.