Marc wrote:...Judging from my flight school having had multiple tail strikes (presumably from excessively nose high take offs or landings)...

That actually seems like a good thing- at least they're learning to flare. Assuming you're talking about nose-draggers, I mainly see flat attitude "three point" landings from most flight school aircraft, maybe with some wheelbarrowing from trying to force the airplane onto the ground at too high a speed-- NOT "tail strikes". Don't think I've ever seen a tail strike from an overly enthusiastic rotation at too low a speed, but I guess it is possible. Maybe a good high-performance short-field takeoff in a nosedragger should almost result in a tail strike if done properly. I can't really say, nosewheel airplanes kinda scare me so I don't fly one myself...

Hotrod - They all happened on 172SPs. Since no one admitted to them, I think they assumed some was accelerating and then reefing back on the yoke for a "short/soft" field take off (although it could have been a high power landing as well). I liked the N models more, but I know several people were annoyed at the loss of the more comfortable automobile style seats, GPSs, and on one plane autopilot for their cross countries.

Gump - I realize a proper landing would be better when you are smooth with getting the mains down due to the lower speed. I guess I was more trying to ask if it was normal to drag the tailwheel down the strip first and then lower the mains with power, and if there was much danger of the tailwheel being torn off on any types or damaging the mains/airframe when I do pooch the last bit and let the mains come down a "little" hard.

Marc wrote: guess I was more trying to ask if it was normal to drag the tailwheel down the strip first and then lower the mains with power, and if there was much danger of the tailwheel being torn off on any types or damaging the mains/airframe when I do pooch the last bit and let the mains come down a "little" hard.

Ya gotta work real hard to get so nose high that you're dragging the tailwheel. Just me, but I like to use tailwheel low wheel landings when it's rough, and keep the tail up till I've stopped.

Gump

Marc wrote: ....or damaging the mains/airframe when I do pooch the last bit and let the mains come down a "little" hard.

That's where the big pillow tires come in.

If you can't best this guy with your 2000 lb aircraft, time to find a new hobby...

NM, How do you get such a steep glide angle out of your Cherokee? I fly a Cherokee C and do most of my approaches at idle power with full flaps. When I need a steeper glide angle, I just slow down a bit and add in a slip to supplemen the flaps and steepen the angle some. Glide angle is pretty flat at idle power with only full flaps.

JimC wrote:NM, How do you get such a steep glide angle out of your Cherokee? I fly a Cherokee C and do most of my approaches at idle power with full flaps. When I need a steeper glide angle, I just slow down a bit and add in a slip to supplemen the flaps and steepen the angle some. Glide angle is pretty flat at idle power with only full flaps.

You're flying too fast to start with. You need to be about 1.1 Vso.

When you say 1.1 VSO is it the VSO of the POH or the VSO of the day with the actual weight?
My 182 with 2 people and half tanks. I do slow flight at 40 mph, even less.
That doesnt mean Im going to approach at 44mph. Im still learing and try 60mph most of the time.

VSO the POH says 57 mph means at full gross I can approach at 62 63mph

motoadve wrote:When you say 1.1 VSO is it the VSO of the POH or the VSO of the day with the actual weight?
My 182 with 2 people and half tanks. I do slow flight at 40 mph, even less.
That doesnt mean Im going to approach at 44mph. Im still learing and try 60mph most of the time.

VSO the POH says 57 mph means at full gross I can approach at 62 63mph

I think a good short field landing is more of a FEEL maneuver then a text book math operation.

On my most of my landings after I line up on final and have the runway made, i dont find myself looking at my panel until I am wheels down and cutting the strobes, xpdr, and switching to ground, taxi lights etc.

Yeah, the book numbers are nothing but a rough guide. There is no "Cessna Number" to use as airspeed for every landing.

Your airplane is rigged differently, engine and prop aren't brand new, CG is always changing, airspeed indicator is who knows how accurate... The POH was written with brand new airplanes and Cessna test pilots wringing the things out. Your V speeds change each and every airplane you fly, and each and every day you fly your own.

You trim to get close to the indicated airspeed you want, then fine tune it with how the airplane feels and sounds. It just takes time and practice, and paying attention to what the airplane is telling you through the seat of your pants. You will get there.

Gump

The V speeds published are for flying at max gross weight. Besides that, staring at the airspeed indicator on takeoff or landing is somewhat distracting. With time you won't need it anymore, you feel when the plane is at the best speed for what you're doing. It's best to keep your eyes forward on very short/rough strips, especially with any sort of obstacles ahead you might be close to on the approach-landing and takeoff-climbout.

And my plane has Horton STOl kit and VGs on top, I think makes a difference too.

Nine, are you sure you're doing slow flight at 40?
Is it possible that you might be doing slow flight at 40 indicated instead?

Bonanza, you're probably right. In the Cherokee, no wind, on grass I'm having trouble getting stopped in much under 550 feet, and I'm not at gross. (I'm a lot clumsier in it than in the J3

I was practicing with my instructor yesterday, and he made me come high and steep, from that angle to the flare was very abrupt, and didnt feel very smooth and the landings where not as short as I practiced before. (this time we were full of fuel so heavier).
Is this techinque the one you guys use?

I have found that the gear geometry has a large effect if you land tailwheel first and then the mains on some taildraggers. For example, the AC Scout I used to own, would fly slower/higher angle than the gear angle, with 8.50's on the mains. Same on the takeoff. So if I did a power-on max performance landing I would hit tailwheel first. Fly the same plane with 31" ABW's it didn't happen again. Takeoff's were similarly shortened because the wing angle was higher, rather than forcing it off with the smaller tires.

Now with my C180 the same thing happens. With a Horton STOL and 8.50's I can fly it slower/higher angle of attack than the gear geometry. Put the 26" ABW on and its just about perfect.

I have talked to several other pilots who have found the same characteristics, it just depends upon the plane.

You should see what a C-182 with 29x10 mains and big 206 nose fork does... once the big mains grab they require a alot of momentum to spin up, the nose wants to pitch down immediately, almost overcoming the elevator force. Little power/air over the tail helps.

Not much you can do about it if you can fly your plane slower than the gear angle, unless you pony up some $$$ for bigger tires.

Zane wrote:If you can't best this guy with your 2000 lb aircraft, time to find a new hobby...

OK maybe; but even a constant speed prop won't go beta.

.......and lookin' at the chop on the water there is a pretty good wind, plus the carrier is steaming 'ahead full' into the wind......

lc

I liked the rocket assist stops on the other vid, too!

GumpAir wrote:

Marc wrote: guess I was more trying to ask if it was normal to drag the tailwheel down the strip first and then lower the mains with power, and if there was much danger of the tailwheel being torn off on any types or damaging the mains/airframe when I do pooch the last bit and let the mains come down a "little" hard.

Ya gotta work real hard to get so nose high that you're dragging the tailwheel. Just me, but I like to use tailwheel low wheel landings when it's rough, and keep the tail up till I've stopped.

Gump

One of the "keep myself sharp" exercises I do from time to time is to drag my tailwheel as accurately as possible. With 31's it's not easy and once you touch it becomes very challenging to keep the tail on and mains from touching. A dry lake or apron at the airport with a skiff of snow is a fun place to practice cause you can come around and inspect your tracks. I look forward to having extended gear so I can wheel it on at those speeds.

Splashpilot wrote:
Not much you can do about it if you can fly your plane slower than the gear angle, unless you pony up some $$$ for bigger tires.

You didn't think I have 6" ext gear and 31s on the cub for looks did you? But.....

Actually there is, and has been another way for quite some time. RSTOL, etc... I didn't bring this up initially because there have already been volumes written here and elsewhere on the merits and faults of drooping aileron systems. But, for those who don't understand what the best part of these set ups is I will point it out.

Look at the SQ2, Dakota cub, Helio, or any other slatted / slotted plane out there. In extreme landing / T/O scenarios they are pointed at the moon. That is because the extra lift generated by slats/slots moves the CL fwd... conversely the change in the wing when dropping flaps (and ailerons in this case) in our airplanes moves the CL rearward... Pull flaps on your 180 and the nose pitches down... Pull flaps on a RSTOL and the nose pitches more down (for the same speed) in fact RSTOL even offered as an option, an extra belcrank to assist with elevator forces (nice, but gets in the way of tail pulls)

Speed for speed an RSTOL plane is always flatter approaching.... and if you are really landing in the sticks flatter yields visibility, and vis is good

caveat: I am not a rocket scientist, nor an aerodynamicist, sooo if you are and don't agree, maybe you can explain the flatter approach better.

Take care, Rob