stick forward for max braking?
Paul Quade
WHERE the heck was this and are you certain you have the story correct?
Do _NOT_ apply forward pressure to the yoke while landing!
Not only will it forward pressure _reduce_ braking effectiveness, there
is a possiblity of excess stress to the nose gear causing nosewheel
shimmy and wheelbarrowing -- maybe a prop strike, nose gear collapse and
a noseover as well.
I find it difficult to believe that a DE would suggest such an action.
Blue skies,
Paul
CFI and skydiver
**********
phil cohen wrote:
> I was always taught to pull the yoke full aft for maximum braking,
> because it transferred the weight to the main wheels, and improved
> aerodynamic braking.
>
> However, a friend recently told me that the inspector on his CFI ride
> screamed at him for doing this and pushed the yoke full forward,
> mutterring something about yoke forward for maximum braking.
>
> Which is correct?
>
> phil cohen
> phi...@worldnet.att.net
Paul Quade
Or . . . is it possible this was a tailwheel aircraft?
Blue skies,
Paul
**********
phil cohen
Charles J. Pearson
examiner to touch the controls on your ride. if I was your friend and he had
done that to me, I would have discontinued the ride right then and there-
I'm the PIC. maybe that's a bit much, but he shouldn't be playing with
things. grant it, it's a CFI ride and that's part of it, but if the examiner
was correcting him. . that's unsat.
as far as braking. . you're right- yoke aft and weight on the mains. if you
look at the short-field takeoff procedures in most trainers, it calls for
stick forward at the beginning of the takeoff roll so you get max
acceleration. . (not to mention that shoving the stick forward as you're
braking in a taildragger would be a no-no. .why should it be different in a
tri-gear?)
just my $.02. .
phil cohen wrote in message <36E605...@worldnet.att.net>...
Mike Wei
practice for the reason you just said. While it's already on the ground
well below flying speed, there's really not much difference between
releasing the stick pressure and pushing it all the way forward.
However, I have heard things like when landing a really big heavy jet,
pilots push yoke foward to "slam" the nose down after main gears touch
down, because only after the nosewheel touches the ground can they
deploy all the spoilers and engage thrust reverser. At 130 knots, an
few extra seconds with nosewheel in the air can use up a lot of runway.
--Mike
was...@my-dejanews.com
phil cohen <phi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I was always taught to pull the yoke full aft for maximum braking,
> because it transferred the weight to the main wheels, and improved
> aerodynamic braking.
>
> However, a friend recently told me that the inspector on his CFI ride
> screamed at him for doing this and pushed the yoke full forward,
> mutterring something about yoke forward for maximum braking.
>
Maybe they were flying an SGS2-33? You can pretty much get it to stop in
it's own wingspan if, immediately after touchdown you fuly open the dive
brakes, lock the wheel brake (interconected with dive brakes) and shove the
nose into the ground. 'Course, there's no prop. ;-) Gus
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Chris
apply nose down elevator (Forward Stick) , what do you think is gonna
happen.
There are two possible outcomes:
1) The pilot will recognise the error of this quickly enough to prevent
the inevitable and only require a change of under-wear.
2) the said taildrager will end up on it's back
Stick in your lap no matter where the third wheel resides ....
St Stephen Ames
forward hard...The prop and/or top of plane won't roll as far as the
wheels will...
Disclaimer: Just being a funny guy, please don't take seriously...
--
Till the next time,
St Stephen Ames
PP-ASEL
56.9 hrs(22.1 solo)
"When my abilities = my desire & commitment,
I will be one hell of a pilot!"
My flying site: http://www.stephenames.com/flying/flying.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
"St Stephen with a rose, in and out of the garden he goes,
country garden and the wind and the rain,
wherever he goes the people all complain!"
Craig
removing weight from the mains and as paul suggested, putting a ton of
pressure on the nose wheel and strut.
To get max braking I think requires a progressively greater force *back* on
the elevator as your speed slows down. If I touch down at 50 kts let the
nose wheel come straight down then apply maximum back elevator isn't there a
chance I could get airborn again in ground effect?
I guess though, that the speed slows down sufficiently quick enough that you
could apply a lot of aft pressure and not risk getting airborn. Imagine how
you'd have to tell your student to perform it though. If you told him/her
to let the nose down immediately then apply hard braking with full aft
elevator it could get a little scary if he/she lands a little fast.
best,
craig
phil cohen wrote in message <36E605...@worldnet.att.net>...
>I was always taught to pull the yoke full aft for maximum braking,
>because it transferred the weight to the main wheels, and improved
>aerodynamic braking.
>
>However, a friend recently told me that the inspector on his CFI ride
>screamed at him for doing this and pushed the yoke full forward,
>mutterring something about yoke forward for maximum braking.
>
George R. Patterson III
>
> (appending my last)
>
> Or . . . is it possible this was a tailwheel aircraft?
Doesn't matter. You run the risk of a prop strike or flipping the plane
if you apply full brakes and forward stick in a taildragger.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
George R. Patterson III
>
> I was always taught to pull the yoke full aft for maximum braking,
> because it transferred the weight to the main wheels, and improved
> aerodynamic braking.
>
> However, a friend recently told me that the inspector on his CFI ride
> screamed at him for doing this and pushed the yoke full forward,
> mutterring something about yoke forward for maximum braking.
>
> Which is correct?
Stick or yoke aft. Putting it forward increases the probability of nose
gear shimmy in a trike or a prop strike in tailwheel aircraft.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Capt. Zombo
+ There are two possible outcomes:
+
+ 1) The pilot will recognise the error of this quickly enough to prevent
+ the inevitable and only require a change of under-wear.
+
+ 2) the said taildrager will end up on it's back
+
+ Stick in your lap no matter where the third wheel resides ....
Absolutely not true. Forward stick alone on a tailwheel
aircraft will not cause it to flip on its back. Even
with heavy braking, the likelihood of flipping over is
quite low. While prop strikes can easily result, flipping
over requires considerably more energy.
There are several valid reasons for using forward
stick pressure in a tailwheel aircraft including
improved visibility, better rudder control, and yes,
improved braking. Greater weight on the mains will
enable heavier braking without wheel lockup and
skidding.
On nosewheel type aircraft, forward stick will reduce
braking by transferring some of the load from the
mains to the nose gear. The reduced weight will
enable the mains to lockup and skid easier. The
effect is called "wheelbarrowing".
H. Adam Stevens
St Stephen Ames wrote:
> Sounds right to me...If you want to stop the quickest, push stick
> forward hard...The prop and/or top of plane won't roll as far as the
> wheels will...
> Disclaimer: Just being a funny guy, please don't take seriously...
snip
was...@my-dejanews.com
ste...@stephenames.com wrote:
> Sounds right to me...If you want to stop the quickest, push stick
> forward hard...The prop and/or top of plane won't roll as far as the
> wheels will...
> Disclaimer: Just being a funny guy, please don't take seriously...
Although the PTS for aircraft such as SGS2-33 requires touchdown and full
stop, aligned with the runway, within 200 ft (private), 100 ft (commercial).
And of course you do have to keep it upright to pass.
Maciej "Smool" Smólski
When yor are landing a glider with a front skid (some do have it) and you
need a short stop, you can push the stick foreward to let the skid touch the
ground. This, however, is very dangerous and used only in emer. Another
situation is when one wing catches ground or plants etc., and it is
circling, you push the stick forward to get the tail up, otherwise it may
break. As for airplanes, I wouldn't try it.
Greetings
Maciej Smólski
sm...@lonet.gdynia.pl
phil cohen wrote in message <36E605...@worldnet.att.net>...
>I was always taught to pull the yoke full aft for maximum braking,
>because it transferred the weight to the main wheels, and improved
>aerodynamic braking.
>
>However, a friend recently told me that the inspector on his CFI ride
>screamed at him for doing this and pushed the yoke full forward,
>mutterring something about yoke forward for maximum braking.
>
>Which is correct?
>
>phil cohen
>phi...@worldnet.att.net
Justin Maas
When landing in the 172 I rent, I HAVE to put back pressure on the yoke
if I don't want the nosewheel to shimmy tremendously. I couldn't imagine
what would happen if I put forward pressure on the Yoke!
Guys, between this and the Pitch vs. Power post, I'm starting to get
scared! It sounds like, if you're ready for the checkride and have mastered
all the manuevers in the PTS, you could fail because of some DE who's had a
little too much nose candy in his day. JEESH!
Justin Maas
43.8 Hours Dual
15(5 months to solo!)
RTWARSHEL
The only aircraft that used forward stick was the A-4 and only on takeoff.
Every other plane uses full aft stick to increase the load on the mains and
aerodynamic breaking due to the limited amount of energy the brakes can absorb
in a heavy aircraft.
RT Warshel
Dave Beal
> >I was always taught to pull the yoke full aft for maximum braking,
> >because it transferred the weight to the main wheels, and improved
> >aerodynamic braking.
> >
> >However, a friend recently told me that the inspector on his CFI ride
> >screamed at him for doing this and pushed the yoke full forward,
> >mutterring something about yoke forward for maximum braking.
> >
I assume that wasn't in a taildragger... :-)
Dave Mould
phil cohen wrote in message <36E605...@worldnet.att.net>...
>However, a friend recently told me that the inspector on his CFI ride
>screamed at him for doing this and pushed the yoke full forward,
>mutterring something about yoke forward for maximum braking.
To get the maximum weight on the wheels, the AoA needs to be reduced ASAP
after landing - maybe this was what he was thinking of. Or maybe he was
used to flying heavy metal - the videos I've seen indicate that stick
forward after touchdown is normal. It's incorrect procedure for most GA
aircraft though, and can lead to wheelbarrowing (trike) if you are too fast.
I've always found that the nose comes down pretty quickly due to the effect
of the brakes alone if I use them on a trike shortly after touchdown -
regardless of the fact that I have the stick all the way back. ISTM that
you are not going to get less AoA after the nosewheel is down (unless you
break something or lift the mains!), and the up-elevator will provide some
increase (probably negligible) in total down force.
Dave Mould
Tom Rassier
Be sure to put it into the log so they will know to look for it..... Don't
worry bout the check ride! the nose candy didn't stop me from passing.... even
after the 3rd go-a-round for my first landing.... <JJ> :-)
Tom Rassier
you can use forward stick and run the aircraft on it's nose wheel for several feet
without biting the prop! :-)
Paul Quade
I'll CERTAINLY agree that full forward stick and full brakes don't mix in a
tailwheel!
Don't get me wrong.
I was just trying to figure out what the deal was on this particular
instance.
Maybe, it was just a misunderstanding, but maybe (if we're talking about
tailwheel aircraft) the DE would have a point about transfering weight to
the mains and getting them to stick firmly instead of lightly bouncing
before applying brakes.
Personally, I wouldn't touch the brakes of a tailwheel aircraft unless it
was traveling at about taxi speed and even then only judiciously.
Blue skies,
Paul
**********
"George R. Patterson III" wrote:
> Paul Quade wrote:
> >
> > (appending my last)
> >
> > Or . . . is it possible this was a tailwheel aircraft?
>
Paul Quade
I was just grasping at straws, but there _is_ sort of a justification to
stick the mains to the ground when first contacting the ground with a
tailwheel under short field conditiions. So I thought maybe that might
be where the confusion was coming from.
Blue skies,
Paul
**********
Mark Chapman wrote:
> Ummmm..... That don't work either.
>
> Paul Quade wrote:
> >
> > (appending my last)
> >
> > Or . . . is it possible this was a tailwheel aircraft?
> >
> > Blue skies,
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > **********
soaring_...@my-dejanews.com
> Although the PTS for aircraft such as SGS2-33 requires touchdown and full
> stop, aligned with the runway, within 200 ft (private), 100 ft (commercial).
> And of course you do have to keep it upright to pass.
>
Actually, the PTS requires for private pilot, glider, requires a full stop
within 200 feet of, and before passing, a mark. This simulates being able to
land off-airport and stop before the ditch/cliff/barbed wire fence/etc.
There is no requirement to land within a specific distance from your touch
down point.
For those of you who use a forward mounted fan to keep cool, the SGS 2-33 is a
two place training glider with a single main wheel, a tail caster for ground
handling, wingtip outrigger 'training wheels', and an iron nose skid.
Because the CG is forward of the wheel, every landing ends up with the skid in
the dirt, sooner or later.
The short field performance of this bird is impressive. I have seen a SGS1-26
(a single-seater cousin) hover to a vertical landing!
BTW, the main purpose of glider wheel brakes is to feed starving A&P
mechanics. One should never count on having them work, especially on a rental
glider. A glider pilot will eventually learn to land within commercial
standards without the use wheel brakes.
Darrell Schmidt
> However, I have heard things like when landing a really big heavy jet,
> pilots push yoke foward to "slam" the nose down after main gears touch
> down, because only after the nosewheel touches the ground can they
> deploy all the spoilers and engage thrust reverser. At 130 knots, an
> few extra seconds with nosewheel in the air can use up a lot of runway.
Actually most heavy jets have their ground spoilers deploy either from WOW
(Weight on Wheels) switches or from wheel spinup. If you "slam" the nose
down you just might break your bird. You want to get your nose gear on the
runway "promptly" so you can use more reverse thrust but you NEVER "slam" it
down.
--
Home Page: "B-58 HUSTLER" http://members.home.net/dschmidt1/
E-Mail: dsch...@home.com
TD2016
Stick back in a tricycle gear airplane puts a lot more weight on the mains
where the breaks are. Heck just try leaving the elevator neutral and press the
pedals almost to lock up then pull back, they stop squealing and stop the
plane.
I understand that retracting the flaps helps also, but I am not that fast on
roll out. :-)
phil cohen
It wasn't a DE, it was an inspector. DEs can no longer do initial CFI
rides.
phil cohen
phi...@worldnet.att.net
Dave Sutton
> I am no expert but have flown a bunch of hours and not bent an airplane yet.
> Stick back in a tricycle gear airplane puts a lot more weight on the mains
> where the breaks are.
Not.
Now, technique needs to be modified according to the
aircraft flown (IE: what works in a Falcon 50 may not be the
proper technique in a J-3) but the following still applies:
To obtain maximum friction for braking, angle of attack must
be reduced to minimum. This -does not- mean that you need to
wheelbarrow the thing with forward pressure, just that you do
-not- want to raise the nose either. This causes the wing to produce
lift thus reducing weight-on-wheels and thus reducing braking
efficiency.
You may -feel- like you are settling the weight on the mains when
pulling back on the yoke, but what you are -really- doing is to reduce
the total weight held by the tires and are transferring some of the weight
to a still partially-flying wing, thus -reducing- the effective frictional
potential of your tire/brake/runway system.
The best method of increasing the friction is to use neutral to
sight forward pressure on the elevator once the aircraft is on the runway.
BUT!! In light aircraft of the nosewheel variety, this stresses the
relatively weak nosegear assy. In Cessna's it leads to premature
wear of the shimmy dampener, and will accentuate the shimmy that
is found in many semi-worn-out nosewheel assemblies.
> Heck just try leaving the elevator neutral and press the
> pedals almost to lock up then pull back, they stop squealing and stop the
> plane.
What you just describe is -reducing- the squeal by -reducing- the weight
on the tires, thus -reducing- the braking efficiency. Thus you are actually
taking the airplane into maximum braking and then -limiting- the braking by
deliberately reducing weight on wheels thus reducing the friction, and thus
making the squealing sound go away.
Actually, the technique of raising the nose and maintaining it there is known
as 'aero braking' and uses aerodynamic forces to add drag and thus slow the
airplane. But aero braking and maximum stopping power are mutually exclusive.
When tire and brake wear (as well as babying the airplane)are issues, aero
braking provides an effective way to minimize the stresses involved. It does,
however, -increase- stopping distance. BUT:: the bottom line is that light
aircraft -never- need to use maximum braking if they are landed where they
belong (on the forst 1/3 of the runway in a full flare flown from a normal approach
speed). Thus, your -normal- technique is to keep the nose high and use the
drag to slow you down, then use -appropriate- braking techniques to stop
the airplane. This DOES NOT mean that you use maximum braking in
a normal landing BUT if you ever -need- maximum braking (which means that
you have already screwed up somewhere else on your approach) the technique
of neutral elevator, with -maybe- a bit of forward travel, couples with enough braking
effort that you are near a skid, but not quite at one, is the proper method. If you
skid, you get into reverted rubber hydroplaning, which means in essence that
you are greasing the tire patch between the tire and the runway with a thin
film of melted rubber, and greasing this area is not the way to live long and prosper
when trying to do a max effort stop action.
This stuff is all based on what we teach on transport category aircraft, but applies
to any tire/runway combination. The bottom line is that you shoudl use the
technique that is appropriate to the situation. This requires judgement, and thus
is not a rote answer. Thus -maximum- braking technique and -normal- braking
technique are two VERY different issues and are almost diametrically opposed.
> I understand that retracting the flaps helps also, but I am not that fast on
> roll out. :-)
Any lift-spoiling action will help, flap retraction, (speedbrake or spoiler action in
larger airplane), and CERTAINLY not raising the nose to obtain max brakes......
These issues are well addressed by a series of engineering papers and studies
done to support business and transport category aircraft where the total weight
that they can carry is based upon their ability to either accelerate/go or
accelerate/stop when confronted with an engine failure on takeoff. To say that
in these circumstances maximum braking is required would be an understatement.
Thus, these stop-actions have been designed to STOP the airplane, but not
to pamper it. I teach this subject in the classroom, and we rest the safety of airplanes
worth many millions of dollars on the results achieved.
Dave Sutton pil...@planet.net
Yak-50, Fouga Magister, DeHavilland Vampire, MiG-17
"There is no substitute for horsepower...."
Bill
> I was always taught to pull the yoke full aft for maximum braking,
> because it transferred the weight to the main wheels, and improved
> aerodynamic braking.
>
> However, a friend recently told me that the inspector on his CFI ride
> screamed at him for doing this and pushed the yoke full forward,
> mutterring something about yoke forward for maximum braking.
>
> Which is correct?
>
> phil cohen
> phi...@worldnet.att.net
If you rent your plane, I'd go talk to the FBO about that. I'd guess
he'd be getting a new instructor.
Not only does it cause undo stress on the nosewheel....but depending on
the groundspeed.....you could end up wheelbarrowing and then doing that
all unintentional wingover. ;) Ground loops are no fun.
This is especially dangerous in a high-wing airplane.......
Pulling the wheel "AFT" while braking actually deflects more air than
pushing it forward anyway as most aircraft have more movement in the "up"
position on the elevator.
Next time he tells you to do that......just keep repeating these two
words....outloud if you want. "GROUND-LOOP"! ;)
Take care...
Brian E. O'Neil
>Absolutely not true. Forward stick alone on a tailwheel
>aircraft will not cause it to flip on its back. Even
>with heavy braking, the likelihood of flipping over is
>quite low. While prop strikes can easily result, flipping
>over requires considerably more energy.
>
>There are several valid reasons for using forward
>stick pressure in a tailwheel aircraft including
>improved visibility, better rudder control, and yes,
>improved braking. Greater weight on the mains will
>enable heavier braking without wheel lockup and
>skidding.
Very experienced tailwheel pilots are said to be able to stop in extremely
short distances be landing on the mains, applying some power and some
forward stick and actually stopping the aircraft still on the mains only,
then pulling the power and the stick to drop the tailwheel. Mind you, I've
never seen this actually done. It certainly doesn't justify any DE or
inspector reccomending stick forward for braking effectiveness.
rsto...@west.net
phil cohen <phi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I was always taught to pull the yoke full aft for maximum braking,
> because it transferred the weight to the main wheels, and improved
> aerodynamic braking.
>
> However, a friend recently told me that the inspector on his CFI ride
> screamed at him for doing this and pushed the yoke full forward,
> mutterring something about yoke forward for maximum braking.
>
> Which is correct?
>
> phil cohen
> phi...@worldnet.att.net
Tricycle gear airplanes -- keep as much weight on the mains as possible by
easing the elevator control progressively *aft* as speed dissipates.
Don't pull so hard that you raise the nosewheel off the ground, though, as
the wing may start lifting, transferring weight off the mains. Pushing
forward onto the nosewheel also can transfer weight off the mains -- don't
want to do that, either!
Tailwheel airplanes -- keep the stick back.
Rich
Rich Stowell's Aviation Learning Center
http://www.west.net/~rstowell
George R. Patterson III
>
> Very experienced tailwheel pilots are said to be able to stop in extremely
> short distances be landing on the mains, applying some power and some
> forward stick and actually stopping the aircraft still on the mains only,
> then pulling the power and the stick to drop the tailwheel.
And in "You Want to Build and Fly a What?", you can read about Dick
Stark (the author) putting his Cessna 120 onto its nose attempting this.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Peter D. Brown
> Very experienced tailwheel pilots are said to be able to stop in extremely
> short distances be landing on the mains, applying some power and some
> forward stick and actually stopping the aircraft still on the mains only,
> then pulling the power and the stick to drop the tailwheel.
Brian...I think you are a bit confused here. This is not the technique
used here in Alaska. Guys who need to land short do so by landing with
minimum energy (ie. minimum speed), in the classic three point, stall
at touchdown, landing.
At touchdown, the wing is stalled and all the weight is born on the
gear.
Power is brought off completely, the stick is held full back to keep the
tail down, and brakes are applied as necessary.
If the field is soft (mud or snow) power is sometimes applied with the
stick held full aft to keep the tail down and to prevent nosing over.
Braking is NOT the issue here.
--
Peter D. Brown ASEL/CFIG C-170b N4563C
8731 Sultana Dr. SGS-123G N3964A
Anchorage, Ak 99516
907-345-7529 (home) 907-564-0223 (fax) F
to reply delete "IHATESPAM"
Dave Mould
Dave Sutton wrote in message <7c8lbr$9...@jupiter.planet.net>...
>> Heck just try leaving the elevator neutral and press the
>> pedals almost to lock up then pull back, they stop squealing and stop
the
>> plane.
>
>
>What you just describe is -reducing- the squeal by -reducing- the weight
>on the tires, thus -reducing- the braking efficiency. Thus you are actually
>taking the airplane into maximum braking and then -limiting- the braking by
>deliberately reducing weight on wheels thus reducing the friction, and thus
>making the squealing sound go away.
Possibly, but not likely. Granted (and I posted this point before), you
need to keep the AoA as low as possible so that the wings are supporting the
minimum weight of the aircraft, but *also* keep the weight off the nosewheel
so that this weight is taken by the mainwheels and not the nosewheel. IME
full back elevator will not be sufficient to keep the nose off the ground
once the aircraft is fully settled and brakes are applied, because the
brakes are trying to throw the aircraft forward onto the nosewheel with a
stronger force than the elevator can counteract (unless you came in way too
fast). So IMHO, the technique is first to get the nosewheel on the ground
*lightly* ASAP immediately after touchdown, maybe this requires a bit of
forward stick movement - then apply brakes, and *pull back* to take the
resulting load off the nosewheel and get the weight back onto the mains.
Unless the nosewheel actually leaves the ground again, pulling back will not
make any difference to the AoA, but will favorably affect the distribution
of weight between the nosewheel and the mains.
In the scenario cited, the most likely reason is that without aft stick, the
aircraft is thrown forwards so that the nosewheel takes the weight off the
mains. Aft stick pulls the weight back from the nosewheel onto the mains,
and also provides an additional overall downforce.
It's why aggressive braking in a taildragger at high speed is very
"twitchy". If the braking action is enough to lift the tail, it both
decreases the AoA and removes weight from the tailwheel, both actions
placing more weight on the mains. This in turn *increases* the braking
efficiency and leads to an unstable nose-over situation. It's the most
effective braking method if the pilot can hold it, but is not forgiving of
errors, and so something that I do not attempt. Overly aggressive braking
in a trike OTOH is self-limiting. As soon as it starts to "wheelbarrow",
braking action is lost, and this tends to keep the mains at least on the
ground.
=========
Dave Mould
Not a QFI
=========
Brian E. O'Neil
I didn't say it was a good idea, I've just heard that it's been done.
Michael
> IME
> full back elevator will not be sufficient to keep the nose off the ground
> once the aircraft is fully settled and brakes are applied, because the
> brakes are trying to throw the aircraft forward onto the nosewheel with a
> stronger force than the elevator can counteract (unless you came in way
too
> fast).
Or unless the brakes are crap and the elevator is very large and
effective. Aircraft differ. I happen to own one with a very large and
effective tail and a very antiquated, ineffective brake system. In
addition, I have a gas strut nosewheel that allows the nose to go
up several inches before the nosewheel comes off the ground.
I can effectively lift the nose to some extent at taxi speed, and I
can't hold the aircraft in place with the brakes at pattern power
settings on pavement. Still think what you said above applies?
> Unless the nosewheel actually leaves the ground again, pulling back will
not
> make any difference to the AoA, but will favorably affect the
distribution
> of weight between the nosewheel and the mains.
This is incorrect for many (maybe most) tri-gear aircraft. A gas
strut has quite a range of motion - you can lift the nose 5 inches
or so while still keeping the nosewheel on the ground. That can
have quite a significant effect on the lift generated by the wing.
Paul Quade
> DEs can no longer do initial CFI rides.
This might be a supply and demand thing that varies from FSDO to FSDO.
I'm almost certain there is at least one DE in the LBG FSDO (near LAX) area
giving CFI rides.
I got my CFI ride from a DE that was also getting his checkout to give CFI
rides from an FAA Inspector. So I had both for my oral and ride. Talk
about a grilling! Of course, that was a few years back.
Blue skies,
Paul
CFI and skydiver
TMetzinger
<grpp...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Stick or yoke aft. Putting it forward increases the probability of nose
>gear shimmy in a trike or a prop strike in tailwheel aircraft.
I think the significant question is whether the nosewheel (in a tricycle
airplane) is on the ground yet. keeping in mind the soft field technique of
holding the nose off for as long as possible, you certainly do not want to slam
on brakes with the nose in the air.
Of course, once the nosewheel is down, brakes, yoke aft.
Clear skies!
Timothy Metzinger
Private Pilot - ASEL - IA!!!! AOPA Project Pilot Mentor
DOD # 1854 '82 Virago 750 - "Siobhan"
TB-9s, TB-10s, C172Rs at FDK (No Names)
PGP Public Key Available on Keyservers
HLAviation
>screamed at him for doing this and pushed the yoke full forward,
>mutterring something about yoke forward for maximum braking.
>
This examiner is a kook. The only time you'll use forward elevator for
maximum braking, and it won't be full forward, is with a float plane to dig the
pontoons. You only do this in very desperate situations and it's a very dicy
move as if you dig too far you go over. I'd love to see the examiner do that
trick in a Stearman!
highflyer
>
> >aircraft will not cause it to flip on its back. Even
> >with heavy braking, the likelihood of flipping over is
> >quite low. While prop strikes can easily result, flipping
> >over requires considerably more energy.
> >
> >There are several valid reasons for using forward
> >stick pressure in a tailwheel aircraft including
> >improved visibility, better rudder control, and yes,
> >improved braking. Greater weight on the mains will
> >enable heavier braking without wheel lockup and
> >skidding.
>
> short distances be landing on the mains, applying some power and some
> forward stick and actually stopping the aircraft still on the mains only,
> never seen this actually done. It certainly doesn't justify any DE or
> inspector reccomending stick forward for braking effectiveness.
I guess I am a very experienced tailwheel pilot. I have many times
used forward stick to increase braking effectiveness. However, it is
a technique that is not without risk. To use it properly, you have
to have VERY effective brakes and a VERY short strip. I have seen
bushplanes modified for this technique by adding a SECOND set of
brake calipers on the brake disk.
It is best used when you are heavy, and face a short strip with a
good surface for braking. Make your approach at 1.2 to 1.3 Vso and
round out to a tail low wheel landing. Use forward stick, even to
a negative angle of attack and get on the brakes HARD immediately.
Then release pressure on the brakes gradually as the tail rised to
keep the prop from hitting the runway. It is important to brake
hardest while you are going fast enough for the elevators to be
effective in preventing the tail from rising. If you continue the
brake pressure past the point where the airflow over the stabilizer
keeps the tail down, you will eat the prop and go up on your nose.
Do NOT use this technique on a soft field. For a some or rough
field the best approach is 1.2 Vso, full flaps, roundout to a
three point landing and full back stick until the airplane slows.
That put minimum weight on the wheels. Brakes would be ineffective
at that attitude and speed and would, at best, wear flat spots on
the wheels.
HF
highflyer
>
> >
> > Very experienced tailwheel pilots are said to be able to stop in extremely
> > short distances be landing on the mains, applying some power and some
> > forward stick and actually stopping the aircraft still on the mains only,
> > then pulling the power and the stick to drop the tailwheel.
>
> Stark (the author) putting his Cessna 120 onto its nose attempting this.
>
> George Patterson, N3162Q.
That is the most common outcome if the braking is continued too long
in the landing roll. Although I use either technique as appropriate
and have found both effective, the tailhigh, heavy brakes landing is
a very easy way to bend an airplane if it is done incorrectly. I do
NOT recommend "self instruction" for this technique. I don't think
Dick does any longer either! :-)
HF
highflyer
>
> Yeah, I already explained my views on this . . .
>
> I was just grasping at straws, but there _is_ sort of a justification to
> stick the mains to the ground when first contacting the ground with a
> tailwheel under short field conditiions. So I thought maybe that might
> be where the confusion was coming from.
>
> Blue skies,
>
> Paul
>
I don't think there was any confusion here. You do not want the
yoke all the way back in a tricycle gear airplane if you want
effective braking. That unloads the gear and carrys the weight
of the airplane on the wings. Push the yoke back forward to the
nuetral position. You don't want to ride up on the nosewheel and
wheelbarrow and you don't want to pick up the nose and transfer
weight to the wings. Leave the weight on the wheels and use the
brakes if you want effective braking in a tricycle gear aircraft.
Technique is slightly different with a tailwheel.
HF
highflyer
HL is the kook. The examiner is exactly correct. As is to be
expected.
HF
Dale
> I don't think there was any confusion here. You do not want the
> yoke all the way back in a tricycle gear airplane if you want
> effective braking. That unloads the gear and carrys the weight
> of the airplane on the wings. Push the yoke back forward to the
> nuetral position. You don't want to ride up on the nosewheel and
> wheelbarrow and you don't want to pick up the nose and transfer
> weight to the wings. Leave the weight on the wheels and use the
> brakes if you want effective braking in a tricycle gear aircraft.
>
> Technique is slightly different with a tailwheel.
In my experience it takes all the UP elevator you have to counter the nose
dip from braking in a trike...at least the singles I've flown.
--
Dale L. Falk
Cessna 182A
N5912B
Darrell Schmidt
As you apply brakes on a tricycle aircraft your nose will begin to lower and
more weight will be on the nose wheel and less on the mains. You should apply
up elevator, not to raise the nose, but only to stop the nose from dropping.
That way you maintain maximum weight on the mains for optimum braking. As you
apply heavier braking you should pull back further on the elevator. If you do
so without raising the nose you actually gain braking weight due to the down
force on the elevator. Try it that way sometime. It works fine.
highflyer wrote:
> I don't think there was any confusion here. You do not want the
> yoke all the way back in a tricycle gear airplane if you want
> effective braking. That unloads the gear and carrys the weight
> of the airplane on the wings. Push the yoke back forward to the
> nuetral position. You don't want to ride up on the nosewheel and
> wheelbarrow and you don't want to pick up the nose and transfer
> weight to the wings. Leave the weight on the wheels and use the
> brakes if you want effective braking in a tricycle gear aircraft.
>
> Technique is slightly different with a tailwheel.
>
> HF
Dave Beal
highflyer wrote:
You lost me there, HF. It seems to me that the examiner is only
correct if he's referring to a tailwheel plane flown by a very skilled
pilot. Is that what you mean?
N29348
taildraggers and live on a grass strip. i have a stinson 108 with cleveland
brakes. with moderate forward stick and a wheel landing with heavy braking i
can slide the the wheels like snow skis in wet grass. i think i could put it on
it's nose on dry pavement. yes, i avoid brakes mostly--but i believe in an
emergency short field situation i would use forward stick and heavy braking to
get it stopped in 250-400 ft. of course, this is not a normal event, and it is
a taildragger.
highflyer
No. With tricycle gear, you do NOT want the yoke all the way back
before applying the brakes. Return it forward to the nuetral position.
As you apply the brakes you will transfer load to the nosewheel,
which doesn't have a brake on it. THEN and ONLY THEN, do you apply
the backpressure to the yoke to unload the nosewheel and keep the
weight of the airplane on the mains to keep the brakes effective.
If you flare to your landing with the yoke all the way back, as YOU
SHOULD, and then immediately slam on the brakes without transferring
the weight from the wings to the wheels, you will wear flat spots
through your tires and shorten you tire life by YEARS.
HF
highflyer
Right. In a normal landing you are always better off to get the
AOA up close to stall before you touch down and then use the
aerodynamic drag of the wing and flaps to slow you down quickly.
This is much easier on the airplane and on the pilot, than the
bush technique, which has only specialized application.
Of course, my Stinson lands a bit faster than yours and has more
energy to dissipate. However, it runs out pretty fast with the
flaps down and the nose up! :-)
HF
md
phil cohen wrote:
> I was always taught to pull the yoke full aft for maximum braking,
> because it transferred the weight to the main wheels, and improved
> aerodynamic braking.
>
> However, a friend recently told me that the inspector on his CFI ride
> screamed at him for doing this and pushed the yoke full forward,
> mutterring something about yoke forward for maximum braking.
>
> Which is correct?
All you folks talking about taildraggers landing stick back only should
read Stick and Rudder pp 305-309. Its called a "wheel landing" and its
the best way to land a tail dragger. You come in fast, well below stall
AOA and well above Vso, and you force it on. As soon as its on, push the
stick forward and brake hard. It won't flip. The wind on the tail keeps
it down. When the speed is well below Vso lighten up on the stick. It
shortens the landing run, and you are on the pavement when you get close
to Vso.
Actually, I would recommend reading the whole book. Its a classic (circa
1944).
Marc Donovan
m.donovanREM...@bigfoot.com
Brandon Cook
insult at you, no sense in calling him names.
St Stephen Ames
said the only time they would ever push forward on the yoke is during
takeoff, and just a little, and never on landing...They try to not do
wheel landings as opposed to full stall landings so there is never a
need for braking anyway...Most were in agreement as to never using their
brakes or needing to...
--
Till the next time,
St Stephen Ames
PP-ASEL
59.5 hrs(23.1 solo)
"When my abilities = my desire & commitment,
I will be one hell of a pilot!"
My flying site: http://www.stephenames.com/flying/flying.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
"St Stephen with a rose, in and out of the garden he goes,
country garden and the wind and the rain,
wherever he goes the people all complain!"
Peter D. Brown
there could be (but I doubt it) some theoretical advantage to breaking
with the tail up, the fact is that most bush pilots, when landing on a
short strip, are doing so landing on an unimproved surface, not
pavement.
When doing so, you are going to be concerned about holes, bumps, and
soft spots so you are going to try to touch down at minimum energy
(read, at stall speed) and hold the stick back to avoid nosing over if a
wheel hits a soft spot or hole and to maintain directional control with
the tailwheel.
Pete
St Stephen Ames wrote:
>
> I asked this question to a bunch of Cub pilots today at the FBo and they
> said the only time they would ever push forward on the yoke is during
> takeoff, and just a little, and never on landing...They try to not do
> wheel landings as opposed to full stall landings so there is never a
> need for braking anyway...Most were in agreement as to never using their
> brakes or needing to...
Peter D. Brown
8731 Sultana Dr.
Anchorage, Ak 99516
907-345-7529 (home) 907-564-0223 (fax)
to reply delete "IHATESPAM"
dhs...@my-dejanews.com
because you can slow a Cub faster by sticking your hand out the window than
by using the brakes. Then agan seeing as how they land at 30 to 35 MPH there
isn't much use for brakes and many people just ignore them. All in all the
most docile and fun plane to fly ever built.
Dave S.
C120 N2904N
In article <36F683...@stephenames.com>,
ste...@stephenames.com wrote:
> I asked this question to a bunch of Cub pilots today at the FBo and they
> said the only time they would ever push forward on the yoke is during
> takeoff, and just a little, and never on landing...They try to not do
> wheel landings as opposed to full stall landings so there is never a
> need for braking anyway...Most were in agreement as to never using their
> brakes or needing to...
> --
> Till the next time,
> St Stephen Ames
> PP-ASEL
> 59.5 hrs(23.1 solo)
> "When my abilities = my desire & commitment,
> I will be one hell of a pilot!"
> My flying site: http://www.stephenames.com/flying/flying.html
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> "St Stephen with a rose, in and out of the garden he goes,
> country garden and the wind and the rain,
> wherever he goes the people all complain!"
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Jim Smolen
>All you folks talking about taildraggers landing stick back only should
>read Stick and Rudder pp 305-309. Its called a "wheel landing" and its
>the best way to land a tail dragger. You come in fast, well below stall
.....^^^^^^^^..........
Is this a troll?
Jim
Dave Stadt
Some taildraggers are almost always wheeled on. And yes you can push
forward and brake hard during the first part of the roll out.
Dave S.
C120 N2904N
md
Jim Smolen wrote:
> md <m.donovanRE...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >All you folks talking about taildraggers landing stick back only should
> >read Stick and Rudder pp 305-309. Its called a "wheel landing" and its
> >the best way to land a tail dragger. You come in fast, well below stall
> .....^^^^^^^^..........
>
> Is this a troll?
No Jim. Just read the book and make up your own mind. I'm not about to spend
an hour typing the text here.
md.
Rick Macklem
: Don't have the book? It's in there and who's to argue with wolfgang.
: Some taildraggers are almost always wheeled on. And yes you can push
: forward and brake hard during the first part of the roll out.
: Jim Smolen wrote:
: >
: > md <m.donovanRE...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: >
: > >All you folks talking about taildraggers landing stick back only should
: > >read Stick and Rudder pp 305-309. Its called a "wheel landing" and its
: > >the best way to land a tail dragger. You come in fast, well below stall
: > .....^^^^^^^^..........
It might be worth mentioning that, after describing why it should be nearly
impossible to get the airplane to nose over with forward stick early in the
landing rollout, he doesn't recommend trying it "since you might end
up dinging your prop", or thereabouts. He also doesn't say you can push the
stick forward and use heavy braking without running a risk of nosing over.
(He does have some neat diagrams that show that the horizontal stabilizer
resists a nose over, when there's lots of airflow over it.)
Anyhow, just thought I'd mention that, since the original topic was forward
stick and hard breaking early in the landing roll (probably referring to
tricycle gear, too, but lets not stay right on topic:-).
Have fun flying, rick
ps: Personally, I'm terrified of using brakes on a landing rollout in a
taildragger and avoid using both brakes together like the plague.
md
Rick Macklem wrote:
> Dave Stadt (dhs...@ameritech.net) wrote:
> : Don't have the book? It's in there and who's to argue with wolfgang.
> : Some taildraggers are almost always wheeled on. And yes you can push
> : forward and brake hard during the first part of the roll out.
>
> : Jim Smolen wrote:
> : >
> : > md <m.donovanRE...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > >All you folks talking about taildraggers landing stick back only should
> : > >read Stick and Rudder pp 305-309. Its called a "wheel landing" and its
> : > >the best way to land a tail dragger. You come in fast, well below stall
> : > .....^^^^^^^^..........
> It might be worth mentioning that, after describing why it should be nearly
> impossible to get the airplane to nose over with forward stick early in the
> landing rollout, he doesn't recommend trying it "since you might end
> up dinging your prop", or thereabouts.
No, that's not the intended meaning. "... In a "wheel" landing, the airplane is
in fast forward motion--rolling on the ground at approximately take-off speed?
And in that condition, you probably couldn't nose over even if you rammed the
stick all the way forward! You might however dig your propeller tips into the
ground--so don't try it. ..."
The key point here is "...all the way forward!" not just forward.
> He also doesn't say you can push the
> stick forward and use heavy braking without running a risk of nosing over.
> (He does have some neat diagrams that show that the horizontal stabilizer
> resists a nose over, when there's lots of airflow over it.)
You should also read the text after looking at the neato diagrams:
"... There is no reason then not to put a distinct forward pressure on the stick
and force the ship into a slightly nose-down attitude in which the wings can
develop no lift or actually develop downward (negative) lift, and bouncing
becomes physically impossible.
Nor is there any reason not to get on the brakes quite heavily. Immediately
after contacting the ground at a speed, say, 20 m.p.h. faster than stalling
speed, most airplanes will skid their tires rather than nose over ... "
>
>
> Anyhow, just thought I'd mention that, since the original topic was forward
> stick and hard breaking early in the landing roll (probably referring to
> tricycle gear, too, but lets not stay right on topic:-).
RightyO. Forward stick - hard braking. I'll keep that in mind then.
md
St Stephen Ames
on this...;-)
--
Till the next time,
St Stephen Ames
PP-ASEL
Rick Macklem
: No, that's not the intended meaning. "... In a "wheel" landing, the airplane is
: in fast forward motion--rolling on the ground at approximately take-off speed?
: And in that condition, you probably couldn't nose over even if you rammed the
: stick all the way forward! You might however dig your propeller tips into the
: ground--so don't try it. ..."
: The key point here is "...all the way forward!" not just forward.
Yep, I agree. However, in my mind "hard forward" is close to "full
forward". A recent post was about a Citabria prop strike while training
for a tailwheel checkout, by using too much forward stick.
: You should also read the text after looking at the neato diagrams:
: "... There is no reason then not to put a distinct forward pressure on the stick
: and force the ship into a slightly nose-down attitude in which the wings can
: develop no lift or actually develop downward (negative) lift, and bouncing
: becomes physically impossible.
: Nor is there any reason not to get on the brakes quite heavily. Immediately
: after contacting the ground at a speed, say, 20 m.p.h. faster than stalling
: speed, most airplanes will skid their tires rather than nose over ... "
I did read it last night. (And this argument is good example of why
paraphrasing a book can be risky and result in mis-interpretation.) For
example, he goes on to mention that "wet grass won't be a problem" but
"dry asphalt could be". (Now I'm guilty, because the book is at home,
so I can't easily quote it.)
: RightyO. Forward stick - hard braking. I'll keep that in mind then.
I'm not sure what you are implying here, but I should clarify that I am
not advocating the combination of "forward stick - hard braking". I
honestly don't know if it works and have no intention of experimenting
to find out.
rick
Jim Smolen
>
>
>Jim Smolen wrote:
>
>> md <m.donovanRE...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>> >All you folks talking about taildraggers landing stick back only should
>> >read Stick and Rudder pp 305-309. Its called a "wheel landing" and its
>> >the best way to land a tail dragger. You come in fast, well below stall
>> .....^^^^^^^^..........
>>
>> Is this a troll?
>
>No Jim. Just read the book and make up your own mind. I'm not about to spend
>an hour typing the text here.
Don't bother. I've read the book and it has an honored place on my
bookshelf. I consider the book to be one of the finest ever written
about flying in general and taildraggers in particular.
HOWEVER, let's not make a demi-god out of Wolfgang or treat his
writing as scripture.
My point is that each landing type has it's advantages and I would
NEVER say that there is one BEST way to land. When I land a Pitts,
it's 3-point only. When I want to land short, it's 3-point only. When
I land a heavy taildragger in a gusty crosswind, it's a wheely.
There's a time and place for everything.
And unfortunately, Wolfgang's advice is not entirely accurate. I had a
student who took completely to heart the admonition that you can't
ding the prop with too much forward stick. He shoved the stick to the
stop and buried 3 inches of prop tips in the grass! His protests that
Wolfgang said it was OK just didn't wash come repair-time.
Jim
highflyer
>
> I asked this question to a bunch of Cub pilots today at the FBo and they
> said the only time they would ever push forward on the yoke is during
> takeoff, and just a little, and never on landing...They try to not do
> wheel landings as opposed to full stall landings so there is never a
> need for braking anyway...Most were in agreement as to never using their
> brakes or needing to...
> -
Now ask the same question of a bunch of Beech D-18 pilots. You will
get a very different answer.
HF
md
Jim Smolen wrote:
I already posted what he says about "shoving it to the stop," but again,
"... In a "wheel" landing, the airplane is in fast forward motion--rolling on the
ground at approximately take-off speed? And in that condition, you probably
couldn't nose over even if you rammed the stick all the way forward! You might
however dig your propeller tips into the ground--so don't try it. ..."
Your student was guilty of misunderstanding the text. The human memory will tend
to justify the deeds -and misdeeds- of its host.
So your example is flawed, but you are right that he is not a demi-god. No
offense folks, but I would tend to believe Wolfgang before I would believe a
bunch of usenet authors.
md
highflyer
>
> I think this has become one of those useless NG discussions. I suppose
> there could be (but I doubt it) some theoretical advantage to breaking
> with the tail up, the fact is that most bush pilots, when landing on a
> short strip, are doing so landing on an unimproved surface, not
> pavement.
strip. It is necessary to get down and stopped when the airplane
is heavy in less than six or seven hundred feet. This is for an
airplane that may weigh 4500 pounds and touchdown at 70 or so.
>
> When doing so, you are going to be concerned about holes, bumps, and
> soft spots so you are going to try to touch down at minimum energy
> (read, at stall speed) and hold the stick back to avoid nosing over if a
> wheel hits a soft spot or hole and to maintain directional control with
> the tailwheel.
>
not steerable. It is just a caster. A big caster, but a caster.
If the field is soft you use a soft field technique which is full flaps
and nose high. Perhaps even tailwheel first. I studiously avoid a
tailwheel first landing with my airplane, because it is likely to
leave me unable to take off again.
My normal landing, and indeed the normal landing for any HEAVY
taildragger, is probably what is best called a "tail low" wheel
landing. You land with the tailwheel just barely clear of the
runway and immediately go forwarn on the controls to hold the
airplane on the ground and reduce the angle of attack. Then you
gently set the tail down and go to full back, full flaps for max
aerodynamic braking. You will likely have to tap the brakes a little
to slow down enough to safely turn off because the aerodynamic
braking goes away quickly as your speed goes away. Such landings
are generally quite smooth and please passengers as well.
However, I can and will do a "full stall" landing if I must. The
"full stall" landing really isn't full stall, but is rather near
full stall. The trick is to keep the tail from comeing down any
further after the mains hit the runway. If it does, the AOA will
increase and you will fly away. It is called a bounce or balloon.
The real thing to remember, is you have extra energy stored as
altitude and as airspeed. You have to get RID of all of your
stored energy if you intend to remain on the ground. Ideally,
exactly when you arrive at the ground! <g>
HF
> Pete
>
> St Stephen Ames wrote:
> >
> > I asked this question to a bunch of Cub pilots today at the FBo and they
> > said the only time they would ever push forward on the yoke is during
> > takeoff, and just a little, and never on landing...They try to not do
> > wheel landings as opposed to full stall landings so there is never a
> > need for braking anyway...Most were in agreement as to never using their
> > brakes or needing to...
>
highflyer
>
> If they were Cub drivers the reason they don't use brakes or need to is
> because you can slow a Cub faster by sticking your hand out the window than
> by using the brakes. Then agan seeing as how they land at 30 to 35 MPH there
> isn't much use for brakes and many people just ignore them. All in all the
> most docile and fun plane to fly ever built.
>
> Dave S.
Not only all that, which is true, but the brakes on the cub are little
pedals hidden under your heels where you can never find them when you
need them. It is much easier to just ignore them. You don't really
need them on a cub anyway.
HF
highflyer
>
> md <m.donovanRE...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >All you folks talking about taildraggers landing stick back only should
> >read Stick and Rudder pp 305-309. Its called a "wheel landing" and its
> >the best way to land a tail dragger. You come in fast, well below stall
> .....^^^^^^^^..........
>
> Is this a troll?
>
No, it is the truth. Sorry.
HF
highflyer
>
> Don't have the book? It's in there and who's to argue with wolfgang.
> Some taildraggers are almost always wheeled on. And yes you can push
> forward and brake hard during the first part of the roll out.
>
> C120 N2904N
>
However, don't push forward and brake hard during the LAST part of
the roll out. It only works well when there is plenty of airflow
over the tail to keep the tail from coming up. The airplane can not
go up on its nose until it is almost stopped. THEN it can without
much difficulty if you have good brakes.
HF
highflyer
> : in fast forward motion--rolling on the ground at approximately take-off speed?
> : And in that condition, you probably couldn't nose over even if you rammed the
> : stick all the way forward! You might however dig your propeller tips into the
> : ground--so don't try it. ..."
>
> Yep, I agree. However, in my mind "hard forward" is close to "full
> forward". A recent post was about a Citabria prop strike while training
> for a tailwheel checkout, by using too much forward stick.
>
You usually get the prop, if you allow it to bounce and THEN go
forward on the stick. Then you can dive to the runway and get the
tail quite high. That usually happens when you delay going forward
when the mains touch. It is a common mistake for new tailwheel
pilots.
Timing is quite critical here.
HF
highflyer
>
> Rick Macklem wrote:
>
> > : Don't have the book? It's in there and who's to argue with wolfgang.
> > : Some taildraggers are almost always wheeled on. And yes you can push
> > : forward and brake hard during the first part of the roll out.
> >
> > : >
> > : > md <m.donovanRE...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > : >
> > : > >All you folks talking about taildraggers landing stick back only should
> > : > >read Stick and Rudder pp 305-309. Its called a "wheel landing" and its
> > : > >the best way to land a tail dragger. You come in fast, well below stall
> > : > .....^^^^^^^^..........
> > impossible to get the airplane to nose over with forward stick early in the
> > landing rollout, he doesn't recommend trying it "since you might end
> > up dinging your prop", or thereabouts.
>
> in fast forward motion--rolling on the ground at approximately take-off speed?
> And in that condition, you probably couldn't nose over even if you rammed the
> stick all the way forward! You might however dig your propeller tips into the
> ground--so don't try it. ..."
>
> The key point here is "...all the way forward!" not just forward.
>
> > stick forward and use heavy braking without running a risk of nosing over.
> > (He does have some neat diagrams that show that the horizontal stabilizer
> > resists a nose over, when there's lots of airflow over it.)
>
> "... There is no reason then not to put a distinct forward pressure on the stick
> and force the ship into a slightly nose-down attitude in which the wings can
> develop no lift or actually develop downward (negative) lift, and bouncing
> becomes physically impossible.
> Nor is there any reason not to get on the brakes quite heavily. Immediately
> after contacting the ground at a speed, say, 20 m.p.h. faster than stalling
> speed, most airplanes will skid their tires rather than nose over ... "
>
> >
> >
> > stick and hard breaking early in the landing roll (probably referring to
> > tricycle gear, too, but lets not stay right on topic:-).
>
>
Perhaps if I go through a normal landing procedure in my airplane.
My airplane weighs two tons, and has a nine foot diameter prop.
When I enter the downwind leg from a forty five degree entry, I
push the prop control into minimum pitch as I make the turn to
downwind. Then I throttle back to about 20 inchs of MP. ( Cruise
is 22 inchs of MP ) The prop in flat pitch quickly slows the
airplane to about 90. I trim for 90 on downwind. This allows
me time to let my speed decay while adjusting the trim to the
new speed before I reach my "key" position opposite the numbers.
Opposite the numbers I start twisting my vernier throttle back from
20 inches toward 15 inches. By the time I reach 15 inches of MP,
I am about 45 degrees from the numbers, I start a turn to base.
I have a brace in the windshield that represents about a 35 or 40
degree bank. I just lay that brace on the horizon.
During this turn I am scanning the airport looking for aircraft on
the ground. In this turn I can see the airport easily. If all
is clear on the ground, I roll level on base, and switch my scan
to the final approach course. I am careful to look to my right
for any people doing a "straight in" approach. I am still holding
the 90 that I trimmed for on downwind.
As I approach the extended centerline my right hand is on the
throttle and my left is on the yoke. I start my turn to final
with the brace laid on the horizon again. During this turn I
flip the flap switch to down and adjust the yoke pressure to
give me an airspeed of about 85. The flaps are two position,
either UP or DOWN, and they drastically lower the nose. In
the turn I make a quick check of the runway to make sure nothing
has changed, because once I am established on final I cannot see
the airport. I also start winding the throttle back to 10 inches
of MP. That is approximately an idle.
When I drop below about 100 feet AGL I ease back
a little and start a round out. I want to wind up flying about
a foot above the runway. At this time I also pull the throttle
all the way out if I haven't done that when I turned final.
As I come level I can see the end of the runway go by out my
side window and I see the edge of the runway on the left side.
I tend to land on the left edge of a wide runway so that I have
a reference in my side window that I can see to manage my rollout
direction. I cannot see anything over the nose, or to the right.
When I come level I start coming back on the yoke as my airspeed
pays out. With the prop in flat pitch and the flaps down I lose
airspeed quite rapidly. When I reach the proper pitch attitude
I merely hold that attitude and let the airplane settle onto the
runway. It usually does this in the first couple of hundred feet.
I usually relax the backpressure as soon as the mains touch and
this lets the tail come up. With the tail up I can actually see
some of the airport and runway ahead of me. I hold it up until
I am quite slow and then I gently set the tailwheel down onto the
runway. This minimizes the stress on the tailwheel and saves me
a lot of rebushing.
Touchdown seems to happen around 75. I normally wait until 75 or
so on takeoff before I rotate also. The tail will usually start
to come up and get the tailwheel off the runway at about 40 or so.
The airplane won't climb worth a darn below 85 and climbs best at
about 90 indicated. If I slow to 80 I am behind the power curve
and am coming down fast.
HF
Dale
> Perhaps if I go through a normal landing procedure in my airplane.
> My airplane weighs two tons, and has a nine foot diameter prop.
What airplane do you have?
--
Dale L. Falk
Cessna 182A
N5912B
highflyer
> > My airplane weighs two tons, and has a nine foot diameter prop.
>
>
on a grass strip in western Kentucky on top of the rec.aviation
fly-in web page at http://aviator.cwis.siu.edu/john/
HF
Todd W. Deckard
that in an airplane like a champ wheel landing was an imprudent
crosswind tool as the elevator had much more authority
than the rudder and you could wind up with your tail in
the air and your foot against the stop and wish you had
that stearable tailwheel helping out ...
Now of course, even in a wheel landing you can
assume a three point landing attitude when you get to
the same speed as you'd have assumed it during the
landing flare (if that makes sense). However the learned
council from the lawchair contingent was that if the
wind necessitated a wheellie you should use the road
and not tell anyone ...
opinions?
highflyer wrote in message <36F810...@alt.net>...
>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>
>> Don't have the book? It's in there and who's to argue with wolfgang.
>> Some taildraggers are almost always wheeled on. And yes you can push
>> forward and brake hard during the first part of the roll out.
>>