Hello all.

From his book "Stick and Rudder", Mr. Langewiesche's "stall down" procedure is a power off glide to touchdown (no power). In it he states, "The "stall down" landing requires that you blend the approach glide, the flare-out and the slowing up of the airplane all into one maneuver so that when you arrive at ground level, you arrive in three-point attitude, all slowed up and ready to squat".

In his book,"Contact Flying", Mr. Dulin's references Langewiesche's "stall down" procedure in his description of the "Apparent Rate of Closure Approach". He adds that "The throttle must be increased as pitch attitude is increased to slow down and maintain the brisk walk".

My question is, when performing this type of landing, do you typically add power as Mr. Dulin suggests or do you glide to touchdown without power (Langewiesche).

Thanks

Flyer 1 wrote:Hello all.

From his book "Stick and Rudder", Mr. Langewiesche's "stall down" procedure is a power off glide to touchdown (no power). In it he states, "The "stall down" landing requires that you blend the approach glide, the flare-out and the slowing up of the airplane all into one maneuver so that when you arrive at ground level, you arrive in three-point attitude, all slowed up and ready to squat".

In his book,"Contact Flying", Mr. Dulin's references Langewiesche's "stall down" procedure in his description of the "Apparent Rate of Closure Approach". He adds that "The throttle must be increased as pitch attitude is increased to slow down and maintain the brisk walk".

My question is, when performing this type of landing, do you typically add power as Mr. Dulin suggests or do you glide to touchdown without power (Langewiesche).

Thanks

It’s a very dynamic period. In a perfect world, energy is managed flawlessly and the air is absolutely still. If gusty conditions, updrafts, downdrafts, vortices, or imperfect judgment, prevail, never considering the use of power as an option will eventually result in bent metal. I add power if necessary, and pat myself on the back for sticking it without power if not. Be prepared to use all of the tools. We aren’t flying in a lab with tightly controlled conditions.

In perfectly stable conditions, with perfectly executed control inputs, power is not needed. In the real world, utilize all of the control inputs available, throttle included, extremely aggressively if necessary.

Some of the best advice I ever received, shared with me many years ago was; you drive it, don't let it drive you. Regardless of conditions.

UpNorth

As Scolopax points out, elevator as the only control to manage both airspeed (potential energy of gravity become actual kinetic energy of airspeed) requires more skill and better conditions. I don't mind cheating to get better control of all landings except with engine failure. Use of (movable throttle) engine thrust to control altitude and rate of descent and elevator to control airspeed at a pitch attitude where power does not also increase airspeed is much easier, more accurate, and more stable. The prop blast over the main wing root decreases the stall speed and increases the effectiveness of elevator and rudder at an airspeed where ailerons are very ineffective.

In Wolfgang's day engines were less reliable on small airplanes and the Stromberg carb would flood with aggressive use as needed in very gusty conditions with full flaps, which also allow slower stall airspeed. The Stromberg carb still will flood in small Continental engines if the throttle is moved forward very rapidly. So then you have the spot landing again.

Slower touchdown airspeed is much safer and bends less tin. If we use elevator to gradually pitch enough on short final to sink, the throttle becomes a very effective altitude and rate of descent control all the way to touchdown slowly and softly on the numbers. If we have to round out and close throttle, we were going too fast.

As UpNorth points out, the default throttle controlled power/pitch approach will serve well in all conditions all of the time.

Elevator to control both airspeed and altitude (closed throttle) is less control, more speed, less stable, less all round effective.

Welcome Flyer1,

You caught me half asleep and somewhat incoherent there, but that is not unusual. I see you are a fellow admirer of Wolfgang Langewiesche's "Stick and Rudder," and your explanation of his stall down landing is accurate. Notice too that he teaches the apparent rate of closure optical illusion, as do I. He explains it a bit differently than my, apparent brisk walk rate of closure on page 304: "The clue to watch is the intended landing spot and the scenery beyond it and to the sides of it. Once the normal glide has been broken, the process of stalling the airplane down can be gauged entirely by watching the spot and the perspective in which it appears and its apparent motion."

The difference with my elevator pitch to cause deceleration and throttle to control glide angle and rate of descent to touchdown is the advantage of throttle. His guys, and I am old enough to have known some of them, actually pulled the deceleration and sink ("once the normal glide has been broken") off as well as the hold off (last little glide angle and rate of descent) so as to touch down slowly and softly very near the beginning of the rather short runways of the day. This amazing feat, the true spot landing, was the same deceleration on short final as I do, but without power. Very skillful.

We have borrowed his term "round out" as a change from 1.3 Vso at the fence to a level off to allow the hold off to proceed well down the long runway. That was not his intent, but rather to "arrive (beginning of the runway) at a three-point attitude, all slowed up and ready to squat." At the huge difference between 1.3 Vso and the airspeed at which we will actually stall in low ground effect well down a long runway, we are certainly not yet in a three-point attitude, all slowed up and ready to squat.

So your point is well taken. I cheated both with Wolfgang's technique and with the use of a totally active throttle. That very good fourth control is not dynamic at either full or closed. My book, at least the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach, should have been "stick and rudder and elevator and throttle."

Keep the comments, and criticism as needed, coming.

Jim Dulin

On page 294 in "Stick and Rudder," Wolfgang describes the landing that is the school solution today, partly because he said it was the easier one. Easier than stall down without power.

"THE FLOATING LANDING
Now for a close look at the maneuver that brings the ship down to the ground on its three points. This can be done in two different ways--
the 'floating' landing and the 'stall down' landing. To prevent confusion, lets state once more that those are two different ways for getting the airplane down for a three point contact with the ground. The stall-down landing is more difficult, more precise, and more proper--it is the way the Army prefers in primary training. We shall discuss the floating landing first because it is easier to do and much easier to understand."

I am not the only one that cherry picks "Stick and Rudder." The FAA does too. They, like me, have added power to the equation, but to the floating landing not the stall down. This, in my opinion, causes many landing accidents to crunch more tin and skin.

With the addition of dynamic throttle movement to control glide angle and rate of descent, the stall down becomes the easier. It is still the more precise and proper and desired by the Army. And anyone who has read Ernest Gahn's books or talked to a WWII transport or bomber pilot will realize that the Army also preferred the low ground effect takeoff and the power/pitch stall down approach.

Beyond ACS and PPL, we all have the choice between the round out and hold off "floating" landing or the apparent brisk walk rate of closure (Army helicopter primary training) or any power/pitch approach that will get us down slowly and safely on the numbers consistently.

I am of the opinion that if you continuously land without power, it is not because you are good, it is more likely because you either;

A) are too opionated to learn a better technique
B) have yet to master a better technique, or
C) have yet to fly in anything but pristine Wx conditions.

Even glider pilots do not fly a wing to the surface without manipulation of its lift. They do not have engine power to control altitude and decent rate, but do have slats, which are merely taking some lift off instead of stacking it on, use is similar, just reversed.

Having said all that, I believe every pilot should master the engine out landing, I just don't agree that what should be an emergency procedure is what makes the best normal practice. I also don't prescribe to the notion that you can land an airplane as slow without power as you can with, regardless of Wx conditions. So why elect to land faster?
This would all be flying 101 if I were an instructor for the day.

Take care, Rob

To add to my rambling above, I am of the belief that the power off landing stems from a day when engine outs were more likely, and where more likely than in the pattern?

In the year of our lord 2021, I prescribe to the notion that if you don't trust your engine will make the next take off or landing, perhaps you shouldn't.

Take care, Rob

Well put, Rob. I had to get permission from William Langewiesche to quote Wolfgang in "Contact Flying." He also is an interesting character and proficient instrument pilot. He wrote "Inside the Sky" about instrument flying, but the long introductory chapter is an interesting take on how we see the world from a different perspective. He was a long time writer for Atlantic Monthly, now The Atlantic. How is the long drought, global warming being too hot a topic, affecting water availability down there. Most non AG folks don't realize that water has always been rationed to the growers of our fruits and vegetables. Gambling, perhaps, comes first.

"Even glider pilots do not fly a wing to the surface without manipulation of its lift. They do not have engine power to control altitude and decent rate, but do have slats, which are merely taking some lift off instead of stacking it on, use is similar, just reversed"

While I admit to not following sailplane developments in recent year I have yet to read about one that has "slats". For lift enhancement they have flaps, for glide angle control to landing the same flaps have a landing position that further assisted by spoilers in some designs. However "slats" are a leading edge device that enhance lift not reduce and I've not seen them used on sailplanes as of yet. I do have a significant amount of time in various high performance sailplanes in support of my understanding.

I don't know why slats were stuck in my head. Obviously meant spoilers

I imagine you knew where I was going with that, but thank you for catching it.

I may have thrown a leg over a sailplane a time or two as well, and realize you may not agree with my analogy...
That's ok, some people still prefer dead stick landings
Take care, Rob

I'm on board with many of the other posters... My goal is to land without touching the throttle, but I'm not going to be an idiot and crash the plane just to avoid touching that throttle...

If less-than-perfect conditions (or more likely, my less-than-perfect flying skills) mean that I'm going to be a bit short, or my descent rate is too high, I will definitely use the throttle to "fly the plane, rather than the plane flying me."

In practicing for a real power-off emergency (failed engine), I keep a bit of altitude in reserve, and use a slip to lose that excess altitude on very short final – when I'm 100% sure the runway is made. I like the slip because you can bleed off altitude without changing your airspeed, so when you exit the slip, you're right back "in the groove" for the landing.

The thing is, we typically get LOTS of practice for power-on landings, but most of the pilots I know do NOT practice power-off landings (as you would HAVE to do in a true forced landing) nearly often enough. Maybe I overcompensate for that, because I practice "forced landings" every time that traffic density at my airport permits. I occasionally coordinate with our tower to remain VERY high (at pattern altitude) until on final approach, then use a full-deflection slip (allowed in my plane) to drop like a rock and land on my target spot. It's fun to do, and it's good practice for that time when the engine quits when you're almost right on top of the best landing area.

Good point, Jim, about most of us not getting much spot (throttle idle) landing practice. With pipeline guys and crop dusters like Rob, we are already low and fast right up to a quarter mile, so we use a power/pitch deceleration. Forward slip, with rudder to the stop, is a good technique to get rid of potential energy (altitude) and kinetic energy (airspeed) as well. On nearly all of the many engine failure spot landings (I guess I did get some practice) I made, I started at 1'-200' AGL with cruise airspeed. But after zooming up in the energy management turn to a landing zone, I usually was high and fast to the landing zone. Only close ones are visible or available. So with Cessna it is full flaps and full slip. Pawnee's PA-22 flaps, don't bother, just slip. Anyway, good points.

Hi JP,

I agree with your thought process that we must practice, A LOT, which is why the vast majority of my landings are power on until the wheels roll.
My reasoning for taking the other side of the coin is because although I have had engine failures, partial and complete, the number of landings that I have made inconsequential (engine wise) outnumber them by something like 32,000:1.... and in my opinion (which is not worth much) not a single of those was more valuable in terms of successful outcome than the next. Sure some may have been less forgiving for an error, but most every single one needed to end up reasonably safe and sound.

Fact is, by the grace of God the power failures I have had, were really benign, and many landings that were not forced but just recreational in nature, were far less forgiving, should they had not been completed successfully.

Having said that I would like to add two more thoughts.

One is that there is a world of difference between a precision approach / landing with power, than cobbing the throttle to save a mistake. In fact if I were instructor for the day, good precision landings would come after you could manage a successful power out.

And secondly, like you, I practice power outs, complete with feathered prop in a turbine.... I just don't let it take me away from the more likely landing of the day.

YMMV

PS, I am not tech or search savvy.... but I imagine, someone can put numbers to the percentage of landing accidents that occur with a running engine vs those that occur power out. I'm chicken, so I'd play the odds

Don't let Rob fool you, 99.9% of those 32,000.1 landings touched down on the first foot of the numbers slowly and softly with power. With that many landings, it would be boring to do otherwise. And to do otherwise would be unsafe since speed is a factor in most bent metal and especially in fatalities. If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right. Right being safest. A lot of practice can make the idle power spot landing close to the beginning of the runway and pretty slow. No, not as slow as with pitch enough to sink and power enough to manage the sink. All that extra relative wind over the main wing root and empinage allows the slowest, softest (soft field on the numbers), and safest landing. Unlike the fast approach using the effective ailerons to wag the wings in continuous coordinated turns to finally round out in the vicinity of the numbers and hold off an uncontrolled amount of time, the outcome of the maneuver is never in doubt.

Happy landings.

The glideslope of the ILS does not take us to numbers or touchdown zone, as does the computer in the big airplanes. It takes us to decision height on short final. At that point we make a contact approach to landing. Airports with ILS also have long runways, but that does not prevent our switching from stabilized airspeed (way too fast to land) to the apparent brisk walk rate of closure (deceleration to maintain what appears to be a brisk walk) the rest of the way down to land slowly and softly on the numbers with power.

It might be helpful to notice that it is around decision height that the numbers "appear" to speed up in their closure with us. This is a good indication/reminder that we are going way too fast to safely land in the beginning of the landing zone. This is also true with closed throttle, zero engine thrust, as well. Potential energy of gravity converted to kinetic energy of airspeed kills as many pilots as engine thrust.

contactflying wrote:The glideslope of the ILS does not take us to numbers or touchdown zone, as does the computer in the big airplanes. It takes us to decision height on short final. At that point we make a contact approach to landing. Airports with ILS also have long runways, but that does not prevent our switching from stabilized airspeed (way too fast to land) to the apparent brisk walk rate of closure (deceleration to maintain what appears to be a brisk walk) the rest of the way down to land slowly and softly on the numbers with power.

It might be helpful to notice that it is around decision height that the numbers "appear" to speed up in their closure with us. This is a good indication/reminder that we are going way too fast to safely land in the beginning of the landing zone. This is also true with closed throttle, zero engine thrust, as well. Potential energy of gravity converted to kinetic energy of airspeed kills as many pilots as engine thrust.

You lost me on this one, an ILS doesn't have a speed component only lateral and vertical guidance. Your welcome to fly it at what ever speed is suitable to your aircraft type. A standard 3 degree ILS slope does in fact take you to the 1000' mark and in the touchdown zone regardless of aircraft type unless at the publish minima you "chop & drop" which thereby becomes a unstable approach.

An ILS approach has a visual maneuvering segment below the published minima to facility a landing, A contact approach is a complete separate category of approach that may be offered under specific weather criteria. An ILS approach could be utilized to "cloud break" to contact minima. It's in some ways not unlike a circling approach however typically flown straight in to a landing without the circling component. In the event "sufficient visual reference" is lost during a contact approach the published missed approach for the associated approached used is flown.

contactflying wrote: So with Cessna it is full flaps and full slip.

DO NOT do this in a Cessna 170B.