Can you land shorter with a steep approach and minimal power, or shallow approach dragging it in? (No obstacle)

I'm trying to figure out how best to use my last notch, 40 degrees, of flaps on the old 182. Man that thing can come down like an elevator, which makes for an aggressive flare.

I consistently land shorter with a shallow approach dragging it in. I suppose, in theory in shouldn't make any difference but I'm to clumsy and I don't practice enough to make a steep power-off approach work consistently without bouncing.

In my particular plane, I can land very short by dragging it in. I much prefer the power off stol approach (if there was power failure I can just land with a big flare).. but my planes flaps aren't anything to get excited about, and the vg's really allow a slow stall speed with a high angle of attack.. so draggin it in shallow allows for a super slow touch down.

Dragging it in. Had a 55 model 180 (obviously very similar set up) and could always do book numbers or shorter.

Your shortest landing roll will be determined by two things, your touchdown speed and how hard you brake. If your touchdown speed is the same for both a steep approach and a low, dragging it in, approach, and you brake the same after touching down, your roll out will be the same distance. Either way, you can get any Skylane down and stopped in a much shorter distance than it will use to take off. While it's nice to make short landings, it's not necessary to make them ultra short, unless you plan to truck the airplane out on a flatbed.

Personally I favor a steep approach with minimal power. I also have 40 flaps available in my airplane, and except with significant crosswinds, I typically use all 40. Others may disagree, but I don't like hanging on the prop, because a hiccup will put me in the weeds short of the strip. With a steep approach and minimal power, if the engine quits, I still have a pretty good chance of getting it onto the airstrip. If nothing else, I could reduce the flaps, thereby reducing drag, and drop the nose to build a little more speed to shallow out the descent.

I learned back in the day before Cessna changed to 30 maximum, and back when power off landings were the norm. I still pretty much fly the way I was taught, waiting to extend the full 40 until I know I've got the strip made. If I carry any power on approach, it isn't much.

My suggestion: practice, practice, practice. Try to do it with the load you'll be carrying into wherever you plan to land, because your stall speed will change enough to make a difference. If you're accustomed, for instance, to making a 60 mph approach with just you aboard, that's too slow with a full load. That's also one of the reasons I like having an Angle of Attack indicator, because actual airspeed becomes secondary. But if you don't have one, just be aware that there's quite a difference between a full load and a light load in a Skylane. There's also a huge difference in the amount of effort to flare, because typically a lightly loaded Skylane has a CG very close to the front of the W&B envelope, whereas with a load, the CG moves way back, especially if the baggage area has close to its maximum load.

Cary

Thanks, Cary, I'm planning a trip out to KFNL in May, will have to remember to keep speed up with a full plane, up there. Don't land much at those altitudes and I don't have a AOA. Did my first solo at Erie though[emoji3]

Just remember, your indicated airspeed will be the same as you would use at a lower elevation airport--you don't want to land at a faster or slower indicated speed. What fools some folks coming to higher elevation airports is the apparent much faster ground speed, because their true airspeed is indeed higher. You will touch down at a higher ground speed, but your indicated airspeed will be the same as usual. FWIW, there's roughly a 10% increase in TAS and ground speed, comparing a sea level airport to an airport at 5000' elevation--until you calculate the density altitude. Land at KFNL on an 85 F day, and it's like landing at an airport at 7800' MSL. Now you're talking about a 15% or more increase in TAS/ground speed over a standard day at sea level.

Cary

As Cary said, your 182 with full 40 degree flaps will do so well that little other technique will be necessary to get in shorter than you can get out.

As others have said, dragging it in (still use full flaps if you have them) will get you in slower because you will enter ground effect much sooner before touchdown. In low ground effect, six inches to three feet, you will be able to fly the fully loaded airplane slower than published stall speed. That is because published stall speed is tested out of ground effect. The problem with dragging it in is that, for contest purposes, cutting the power is difficult to do accurately while moving mostly level rather than in a descent. In a descent with power, power can be held to touchdown. That requires controlling the rate of descent accurately with dynamic throttle movement.

The best of both worlds is the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach using this optical magic rather than an airspeed indicator or angle of attack indicator. By maintaining a stable apparent rate of closure with elevator and a stable glide angle with dynamic throttle, we can avoid the round out and hold off that makes many approaches go dangerously long. It is like slowing at an intersection with your automobile. You don't observe the ground speed indicator at all. You just make a stabilized apparent brisk walk rate of closure with the stop sign. In an airplane both lower and closer causes the apparent rate to increase (from 500' and 1/4 mile on in) without an airspeed/groundspeed reduction. The reason you don't get too slow, as with your auto, is that the numers go below the cowling and you have to change your directed course to something on down the runway. At this point you are pretty much feeling it onto the surface anyway. Sight, sound, kinetic feel, etc.

Both the apparent rate of closure and hover taxi approach are in the e-book. Just click below. However, what Cary said will get you there if you just don't start reducing flaps and adding extra speed for the grandkids, etc. In rough air with full flaps, just move the throttle more. Cessna's Fowler flaps are a gift from God himself.

Cary got another post before I got this finished. What he said about higher density altitude groundspeed is true. As with the tailwind approach, the sink rate will be greater (with the apparent rate of closure approach) and the ground speed will be higher at higher density altitude. If the airplane shakes, add some power. That is why we practice slow flight and stalls.

Hoshen

One other thing to learn and get used to is that most of the 182s I have flown do not like to come in steep and slow. They need power - and a fair amount of it - to make the elevator do anything if your are smart assing it around by dropping in at 45 indicated and "believe" it will still FLAIR - you are in for a good launch even if you are young and QUICK with some DYNAMIC addition of throttle.
I was lightly loaded - half fuel and only me and my prettiest CFI.

Now if I should ever need to smack it down on a tennis court !?!?!?!?

Wannabe safer

Steep. I find that dragging it in I start hanging on the prop and my AOA keeps increasing if I slow too much. You have to keep a threshold airspeed to keep the pitch level enough to keep good viz over the nose.

That's why I like the super steep approach now. AOA is still high but it's due to your aggressive sinking. You can get the ground speed so slow and burp throttle just enough to arrest for a smoother landing, and if you don't bounce, on the brakes hard and stopped. I don't dig it as much in wind though.

.

Good point Glacier. You would like John Wooden's, "Be quick, but not hurried. "

If the sink rate is too great, add power to make it what you want. Yes, the pitch component of the extra thrust will bring the nose up a bit more. You want this to prevent an increase in airspeed.

Yes, the drag it in pitch attitude makes it harder to see forward. Try getting on down into low ground effect so you can lower the nose. The difference in low and high ground effect is tremendous. In the desert,where there are no obstacles, go to tumble weed and yucca height. Now you can fly slower than out of ground effect stall speed safely. Or use the apparent brisk walk rate of closure to make a steep approach to the ground. Use a power /pitch combination that makes it both slow and soft. If we have to pull power to touch down on the numbers, we know we were going too fast. If we bounce, we know we either were going too fast or we were not carrying enough power to the ground.

Either the hover taxi to the numbers in low ground effect or the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach seems harder than the 1.3 Vso stabilized approach. Neither are. They are just different. We tend to go with what we have learned. This is fine most places, but less efficient. With heavy loads, high density altitude, and tight tactical situations, it may not be efficient enough. The solution is to not go or to learn more efficient techniques.

i have a 182c, and i like slow steep approach. i come in at 60-65 knots with 30 flap, then on short final i put on 40 and use all your trim in the 182, then like contact says there is no round out, the plane is not on the edge of flying as you get close to the ground it only wants to do one thing and that is land, your simply slowing the decent when you get close so not to bounce. my 182 likes 60-62(i generally have airspeed right at 60, no mods stock wing) knots approach speed, still feels solid but it only wants to go down. if you put 40 on too early, its gonna need power because once you get slow there is way to much drag and your gonna have to put your nose down alot and that then throws the approach out the window

I prefer steep approaches (MT prop helps making them very steep very slow).
Add power for the flare, because the sink rate is high.
If done right its smooth and short and will put a smile on your face.

Good advice from everyone about practice with the weight you will be flying.
Dont have experience with higher elevation airfileds (3,800ft is the higher we have)

http://youtu.be/jXVKyUwF6xw

Shorter or precise? Until your avatar looks like contacts they will not likely be the same…

glacier wrote:...
Landing is an evolution....

THIS…

Don't dwell on steep or lean. dwell on the smooth transition form flying to not. The slowest way to fly a powered plane is with power, figure out how much power you can carry without floating (read: flying) and that is as slow as you can go. As slow as you can go translates to as slow as you can land, which translates to as short as you will roll..
Steep or lean is only relevant to what the terrain requires of you, the rest is on what you and the plane can do. It's all an exercise in energy management, the only difference between steep and lean is what it takes to shift the direction of that energy.

Two more slightly relevant observations… you have a great prop for a 182, and 60-65 knots is incredibly fast in an early 182 if slow is what you're trying to achieve...

Take care, Rob

In the cub with no flaps, a steep approach for me is much more precise, and results in the shortest landings. While staying in ground effect for a while is nice on short final, what it does is reduce induced drag, and make a higher angle of attack necessary to stay in the air, not necessarily decrease overall energy. With a steep approach you can mitigate some of your forward energy into vertical energy, arresting the sink at the last moment with a flare and a shot of power. If you can time all this where the wing totally stalls when your an inch or two off the ground this can result in some shockingly short landings.

The 180 with a sportsman, is a totally different story, and my technique varies greatly depending on what weight I am flying at. With full fuel, and a 200 lb passenger, once you get below about 50-55ish , the airplane will sink like crazy, making a steep approach nearly impossible with a big chance of dropping it in, and possibly bending the airframe, if you do try it. Also in the 180, when I'm light, just me and 20 gallons or so, I can get away with doing a steeper slower approach because I can easily catch the sink with elevator and a tiny bit of power, making a steep approach similar to the cub possible, and therefore shorter landings.

Like other people have said, every landing is different, and every airplane is different. Each technique work better than the other depending on the situation. The key for me is having absolutely minimal energy at touchdown regardless of technique. Just my opinion.

This explains a lot better than I can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrPJac80W9Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4NnmbbSizQ

In my time flying a 170b steep approach base to final turn ias was about 55 when light crossing the fence maybe 50 I really don't know begin a very agressive flair about 5 foot the energy built up in the decent was converted to vertical energy with tons of drag slowing the airplane down to well below stall in ground effect while creating enough drag to prevent floating was told that at touch down the asi wasn't reading anymore so less then 40mph made landing in 300 ft easy with a good amount of brakes. But what's the point of landing shorter then u can take off? So didn't use brakes much.

.

http://www.lepore.ca/Citabria/Bush%20Flying%20Technique.html

I use the technique taught by Above Alaska Aviation, as described by Jonny Seccombe. Similar to what glacier describes. If you're flying a profile based on what happens when the engine quits you're in the wrong game.

You will get the best results with a steep stable approach