Cmon up to Cascade....I’ll show you around a bit.
Spent a lot of time in your area......our ancestral homeland is Fairfield.

If you're high and/or hot you are too fast and/or too high for the prevailing density altitude and your aircrafts weight and CG. It isn't any more complicated than that.

On short final, test for zoom reserve. If we pull back a bit on the stick and go high on glideslope, we are going too fast. If we pull back and sink, we're good. Add a bit more power and fly even slower.

contactflying wrote:On short final, test for zoom reserve. If we pull back a bit on the stick and go high on glideslope, we are going too fast. If we pull back and sink, we're good. Add a bit more power and fly even slower.

This statement really got me thinking. I may not fully understand this component. So, is it true that reverse command is on a continuum based on airspeed? So, if I'm slightly below L/D Max the reverse command isn't as "strong" as at slower airspeeds?

Jim’s saying that if you pull back on the yoke and climb or reduce your descent rate, then you’re going too fast.

If you pull back on the yoke and rate of descent stays the same or increases, then you’re slow enough.

Yes. Exactly. Stabilized airspeed is fine far out where any speed appears to be a brisk walk. It becomes too fast and apparently too fast on short final. From this point to touchdown, we will need to decelerate from 1.3 Vso through Vso to the actual stall airspeed in low ground effect. As we get comfortable with slower than stabilized airspeed and decreasing airspeed, we may check progress by testing for zoom reserve (which we don't want.) Things appearing to speed up is the best clue that we are going to fast. This test can confirm it..

All this happens quickly on short final to touchdown on the numbers. This means we have to move, but our minds actually adapt to this quick deceleration faster than to the long hold off following a 1.3 Vso to round out. I had much better successful quick solos, especially in tailwheel airplanes, using the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach.

Thank you, that perfectly explained a phenomena that I was having a hard time getting my head around. On final as I try to decelerate by way of elevator pressure it exacerbates my spot overshoot and then I end up chopping power and end up feeling rushed to get the plane on the ground. The "zoom reserve" you speak of explains it perfectly.

Thanks should actually go to Wolfgang Langewiesche's "Stick and Rudder." He didn't lay out the techniques, but certainly the aerodynamics supporting it. Zoom reserve is his term, and a very useful one. On takeoff we gain zoom reserve most efficiently by remaining in low ground effect as long as possible. On landing, however, we want to get rid of zoom reserve both kinetic in airspeed and potential in gravity thrust of altitude.

Actual physicists fuss with potential energy of altitude becoming kinetic energy of what I call gravity thrust of altitude, but I need a way to show that just closing the throttle doesn't solve the too much airspeed problem.

I think if you'll dink around with all this stuff, starting with knowing the indicated stall speed as I suggested, using 1.3 Vso indicated to begin with, and then test for the lift reserve that Jim described, you'll find that you'll probably slow to about 1.2 Vso indicated, maybe 1.1 Vso indicated depending on how much power you're carrying and the angle of your approach, as your slowest safe airspeed.

Initially, all this experimentation should be practiced at a safe altitude. If you can safely do stalls at 2000' AGL, then as I suggested, experiment with "final" starting at 2500' AGL, with 2000' AGL your virtual landing strip. That way, if you stall as you "land", you can safely recover without losing more than 2-300' more. If you feel more comfortable higher, then go higher. But don't do the initial experiments near the ground.

And remember, when it comes time to put all this practice into reality, you have to go through the exercise of determining 1.3 Vso indicated again, because your weight will be different. If you have passengers, or cargo, or full tanks vs. half tanks, it'll be different. That's why picking specific indicated airspeeds is a fools errand.

The other piece of all of this is that as you get more comfortable in your airplane, it'll be much, much easier.

Cary

C Parker,

What Cary, a very good instructors, suggests here is a very good idea. Follow that with some soft field and hopefully sort it out on your own. Blackwater, an instructor, and CFOT are better than me with the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach because they fly regularly. They are N. California. Watch Motoadve and Jughead's videos to get the sight picture. Lots of guys use power pitch to a controlled touchdown point out your way.

Good luck,

Contact

Yep, spot on, fly the plane as needed for that moment

My 182k has some modifications (STOL kit, VGs, Pponk, 3-blade prop, higher nose fork) so don't use my numbers unless your plane is identical, but when I was first learning, I used 80mph abeam the numbers with 10* flaps and enough RPMs to see a stable 450fpm descent, then 75 on base after getting to 20* flaps, then 70 on a stable final, using power to keep me solid on my aimpoint with 40* flaps. For me this is with ~2000 rpm. For most landings, I keep ~1300 rpm in while touching down so I can "grease" it. That usually yields a ~1000 foot touchdown roll with minimal braking.

At about 100 feet AGL, my eyes move to the runway only, and I ignore the airspeed, but since my stratus 3 captures everything, this is what I have seen in hundreds of landings. My gradual round out started out 100 feet agl but is now much lower with experience, but I lose about 10 mph in rounding out to about 1' above the runway when I pass my aimpoint. This is done by slowly pulling the power the whole roundout while gently increasing pitch until I end up in level flight somewhere under a foot agl.

Then I wait until I know seat of pants I am going to sink (less than a second usually), and then I pull back enough to hold a 5* or so flare (not looking at the angle during flight mind you - this is recorded by the stratus 3) which means increasing the yoke pressure more and more rapidly until I'm stalled, regardless of when I touch down, because I usually touch down while holding a flare.

My data shows that I consistently touch down at ~45 mph using this approach.

Steep approaches I use 60 mph for final a=wtih 40* flaps and no throttle, pre-roundout, and at the end of the roundout finds me at 50 mph, and that puts me on the ground about 100' from my touch down point max, and stopped within 400' consistently with firm braking but no heroics.

I get on the brakes asap because this reduces my angle of attack dramatically and "instantly" stops the plane from flying. I also raise my flaps as soon as I touch down.

The "backcountry" approach method is different - some people fly final near the onset of stall, keeping the plane level but with no throttle. That requires a strong blast on the throttle and a firm touchdown. I highly suggest picking a good agl where you can try this with a lot of cushion and picking an altitude to be your "runway" until you can nail this, or gradually decreasing speeds of final so you can learn to adapt.

I can do a short field near gross with 20* flaps in about 5-600', so in my case landing technique really could matter, but I'm not experienced enough to land shorter than 400' and I also haven't seen many strips where I would need to, so I've stuck with 60 mph to provide safety margin. But that gives me a 200' touchdown fudge on a strip I could leave under my own power. Keep in mind almost all of this is around 3,000 DA. Winter is a much better picture! Same thing with headwinds, which are AWEsome! This week I had a 28kt headwind on takeoff, which allowed me to have a helicopter ride in my 182.

on the 1.3 X Vs0 advice: My measured VS0 is 38 IAS mph. Given the 1.3 advice, 1.3 X 38 = 50 mph, but there's little chance of me doing short final at 50 until I gain lots more experience and instead of a nose-down descent do a steep level approach with an intention to blip the throttle hard on flare. even then, I'm not sure I need to slow down that much. I'm much more comfortable doing my descent and base to final at speed, and dissipate the speed in the last 50' AGL.

That said, if there are no obstacles in the approach, you should practice approaching at 80 or even 120 mph during final and then doing a power pull and roundout to get you to 30' AGL at 60 mph - that's what I have to do many times at larger airports and with some practice it becomes very simple to hit your mark - and this kind of variation, when you have enough experience to do it safely, will give you what you need to be fluid and adapt to the situation safely.

BTW I also have a 60-lb weight in my baggage compartment, in addition to 45 lbs in the extended baggage! This really matters for elevator authority in the flare! If you're anywhere in the first 30% of your CG envelope, add some weight aft. I'm at about 40-42" consistently.

Hope some of that helps. Again don't just use these numbers, they are just food for thought unless you're in my plane.

Whether power pitch to touchdown or round out and hold off, we all should touchdown slowly and softly well below Vso. The full stall landing means stalling from low ground effect either three point, almost stalled three point and then level to wheel land, or in three point attitude in the 182.

The advantage of the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach, or any power pitch to touchdown approach, is that we have descent control with throttle all the way to touchdown exactly on the desired spot (usually the numbers.) If we have to round out, we haven't pitched sufficiently to require power all the way down.

We have to work at this and stay current, but when flying regularly, touching down slowly and softly on the numbers every time is not a pipe dream. Regardless of wind conditions, any headwind component helps not hurts, the numbers can be default. The only disadvantage is that we get very little actual go around practice. If we need to get off at the last taxiway, put a little more power in and hover taxi down there.

I agree with Contact and find the numbers in the thread above absolutely bewildering. Why complicate rather simplify? My 77Q with Petersen canard is kinda like a simple pickup truck.

By downwind abeam stable at 20 deg flaps and 60 knots. Descend normally when/after turning base, turn final drop full flaps and be at 45 knots about 300ft. AGL on short final (1/4 mi) with full flaps. Conventional speed control via trim/elevators. Altitude via power. All the way down... From this point no more numbers, use Jim’s Brisk Walk Rate of Closure technique. Usually touch (stall) at 28 knots. This allows me to look outside most all the time. At most just two or three quick glances at panel.

The difference is that you have to be more pro-active with the controls and practice. But you can do this on practically every takeoff and landing.

I can also land at 100 knots at Class B airports but prefer my old pickup truck approach.

When I had my 1st 182 25 years ago, I did the numbers thing. Works until it doesn’t. Simple is better.

Just one opinion. YMMV

Best,

Tom