The name of the thread of course describes an oversimplification in classification. The terms were stated to me in response to a question and I had not heard it before concerning aircraft handling at either end of the spectrum between aircraft high glide ratios and high sink rates. I could change the title to those terms but the discussion would be the same. The qualities I found in the glide ratios and sink rate differences on the few planes I have owned and flown vary greatly and particular combinations of those qualities are generally pointed to as "the reason pilots either love or hate a Maule". (Quote is from Budd Davisson).

In my own limited experience, management of power in the normal landing changes immensely from one end of this spectrum, (high glide ratio) aircraft to the other, (high sink rate). My experience ranges at either end from no more than a hundred hours in PA 18 to three times that in the CH 701. In earlier posts by a 701 builder I was asked to describe the details of normal take off and landing for that aircraft and they were of help to the pilot/builder. Knowing that particular quality of the aircraft before hand is a very important thing. It saves quashing the gear in a surprise attack from gravity.

With the PA-18, the wing continued to glide long after the power was cut and I found different pilot technique was required to reduce it to stall either by speed changes in approach speed or flaps and had I continued learning techniques for that plane I would have mastered dumping flaps to make touchdown point. It just wants to keep flying. In the 701, with high sink rate, I managed much less for the wing and much more by throttle adjustment at landing, hardly ever using flaps. That wing will stop flying in flare with no more than closing throttle. Most planes flown by pilots on this board will fall in between these two extremes for the two qualities of glide and sink that seem to be on opposite ends of the range of lift. I had hoped to speak to those design differences by eliminating the pilot experience difference as much as possible. Of course either of these aircraft can perform in a given situation with adjustment by the pilot. I wanted to point to the reason for those adjustments from the point of view of design. I thought it to be a worthwhile discussion and useful for those with less experience. My bad?

Lynn, your topic is great and certainly worthy of discussion. I enjoy a nearly neurotic analysis of those subtleties as well. I just think the title betrays that as a sort of layman's oversimplification. That's all.

For those who are too lazy to look it up:

BOOLEAN=PERTAINING TO OR BEING A DEDUCTIVE LOGICAL SYSTEM

But we all knew that right? Hey Zane, I think my earlier post made the same point as you did, you just did it prettier and used bigger words, but I had pictures Back in the '80s and during the ultralight mania, I attended a couple fly-ins where you got a pre measured (1/2 gallon or so) amount of fuel, and then you and your competitor both launched. The last to land won, simple and great fun. Cut right to the chase also as far as what design FLEW best, not which had the biggest engine etc.

So to add to my neurotic discussion of design characteristics I would like to post this observation of the Ercoupe. I only know one in this area and it is has been mothballed since my childhood. I have never flown one but it sounds similar those that speak of the qualities of the RV-6 and even several backcountry aircraft. I thought it to be an informative and interesting posting on sink and glide ratio, unlike this one.

http://www.mail-archive.com/ercoupe-tec ... 18342.html

Whew, way to many and way to big of words!!!!
I don't want to sound like a smart ass, but just go fly the plane.
Load it up forward, stall it, load it up towards the rear, stall it, stall it light, with power, without, take off into the wind, take off with the wind, try a little down hill, uphill, fly it the length of your local runway in ground affect at 2' ago, try it again at 10', now try it at 20'
If your floating down the runway, your going to fast, if you land hard and early, your going to slow!!!
How do you know how to land the plane if you don't know how to stall it?
Take it up and pull the power back above the airport and land with out touching it again, on the second hash mark for safety.
If your feeling really balsy go up above the airport and shut the fan off and do it again, use the second set of hash marks again. Way different animal WhitHorsee the prop stopped!!
L oved the air coupe article, just was not an air coupe story, that's what a person should do with any bird, fly it the way it needs to be flown, not how you fly!!!
Old rule of thumb was told to me, most certified airplanes, trim all the way nose up with power off, pretty close to best engine out descent speed, try it, works pretty good, your going to be way to busy trying to figure out what's wrong to be looking at the airspeed!
Take a day, go to the airport and learn what your does.
Think I'll go to work now
GT