I can see that the big, soft main tires work as shock absorbers and put the prop farther from the ground. I have little experience with them. Using the apparent brisk walk rate of closure, at any angle of descent, allows both the elevator and the throttle to stay dynamic to touchdown. Because we are reducing ground speed the closer we get, we also need the power all the way down. That is if we have not allowed the apparent rate of closure to increase as we get closer, and with the steep approach, lower. This way we can kiss regular tires onto the surface slowly and without a bounce.

The immediate knowledge of results, on every approach, is indicated thus: Did we have to chop the throttle or were we able to use dynamic throttle and dynamic elevator to touchdown? If we had to chop power, most likely on the shallow approach, we were going too fast. In the shallow approach, we could have gotten below stall speed in low ground effect prior to the desired touchdown point. In the steep approach, we could have slowed a bit more and added more power to control the rate of descent so that we held power to touchdown. Bouncing is just bad form in most airplanes. It indicates we were going too fast. If we were going slow enough, we would be able to hold some power to touchdown. On short final, the pitch attitude will allow quite a bit of power both in the hover taxi and in the steep approach.

It seems complicated but, the apparent brisk walk rate of closure keeps more controls and capability in the game and takes the round out and wait for the airplane to, as Cary said, decide when it wants to land. We do need to flair to protect the nose gear or complete the full stall. Once at or below stall speed (hover taxi approach) we can level the nose to wheel land without increasing speed on the surface.

We have been shooting some stuff for and upcoming Stol tips video (for trikes). One of the airplanes we used was a 182 with 8.50s on all three and a Stol kit. Other than that it was stock. Here is a quick video I put together from that shoot. In this case it is a steep approach. But we did some shallow super high drag stuff too. Both worked fine. The real takeaway is stable and comfortable are probably most important. If you aren't stable it's hard to be precise, if you aren't comfortable it's hard to be anything other than behind.

If you are out Denver way shoot me an email, I'd love to go fly. The trike stuff has been really fun for me.

Very nice approach and slow, soft landing. On our next visit to son, grandson, and mother in law, I will get in touch with you. Is apparent rate of closure working for you, or are you using the AS indicator?

I noticed you landed on all three tires. I always hold the nose off on landing (land on the main only) and then let the nose down softly only when I am at the point that I want to stop.

What about the strip at 0:08 seconds? That one looks more interesting .

Liked your video, would like to see more .

The STOL-tips "mush down" approach is easy and works well for landing a Maule over obstacles, but it's not the same as Langewiesche's "stall down" landing (page 302) where the approach glide is only slowed when within "50 feet or so" of the ground. Jim's apparent rate of closure approach is pretty close to Langeweische's, albeit with more emphasis on use of throttle.

learntolandshort's mush-down is the proven way to win STOL competitions.

Where mush-down might not be ideal is in very turbulent conditions, or for airplanes with abrupt stall characteristics, or for steep slopes (say 15% grade or more). For those we come back to the Swiss/French technique used by all European mountain pilots: intercept a visual glide path about 300 ft above the threshold height, maintain airspeed 20-30% above Vso, fly the GP like an ILS (pitch for glide path, power for speed) towards an aiming point short of the threshold so as to arrive at the touchdown point ready to quit flying. Judging the correct offset for the aiming point makes this somewhat more difficult than the other two methods, but it's the only way to get the rating required to use alpine airports like Corlier, Courchevel and Chamois, or any of the glacier landing sites.

Like wheel vs. 3-point, I don't see one "correct" technique for off-airport and mountain landings in all conditions, so maybe it's good to try and practise them all.

Making ones directed course for short of the desired touchdown point is the hardest approach to consistently accomplish accurately. Be careful with the European or FAA 1.3 Vso stabilized approach. Controlling glide angle with elevator and controlling the airspeed power works ONLY ahead of the power curve. Patrick's mush down. the drag it in, and my apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach can easily go behind the power curve. Behind the power curve, adding up elevator will cause descent and adding power will not necessarily increase speed. Power will control glide angle before or behind the power curve. Elevator will control airspeed before or behind the power curve.

I agree with N-Jacko that learning all three techniques would be useful. If you control glide angle with elevator and airspeed with power, however, you need to change your mind set before attempting the mush down, drag it in, or the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach.

Also, I cannot fathom the FAA insisting that elevator control glide angle and power control airspeed and in the same breath cautioning the pilot to control the return to earth (glide angle) on a bounce or balloon with power while never explaining behind the power curve control manipulation. All that power stall practice never explaining that we push forward on the stick to go level or back up as well as to reduce the angle of attack and break the stall. They make ol contact sound like an idiot when he yells at a student trying to climb out with too much pitch attitude, "If pulling back won't make her go up, try pushing forward a bit."

contactflying wrote:Making ones directed course for short of the desired touchdown point is the hardest approach to consistently accomplish accurately.

I agree completely, but difficult doesn't always mean disagreeable and on this side of the pond if we can't do it with moderate (in my case sometimes very moderate...) success, we don't get the chit which allows us to use some of Europe's most interesting mountain landing sites.

Or, put another way, when a taciturn Frenchman with more than 200,000 mountain landings in his flying log says "on fait comme ça", there's not a lot of mileage in arguing.

What really hurts more than being told what to do by a Froggie is that once mastered "his" technique actually works for every landing site - high, low, long, short, flat, sloping, convex, concave, or whatever.

N-Jacko wrote:"on fait comme ça"

I had to Google. "We do it that way" came up. Correct?

CamTom, more accurately would be " that's the way we do it"

Roamer

modern version is "that's how we roll around here"

Good deal, thanks!

Steep and shallow both have their place, depending on approach, obstacles, terrain, wind, air purity and surface conditions. And of course somewhat on the aircraft being flown.

Rather then concerning oneself about the angle of approach flown, IMHO, time is better spent learning to be precise, extremely precise, with your airplane.

First learn where the bottom of your tires are. An excellent exercise for this can be done at any airport, in fact the longer the runway the better. A shallow approach will be best initially. Just before the wheels touch feed in just enough power to keep them off the ground. Fly the length of the runway like this. The goal is to fly the entire runway with the bottom of the tires no more then six inches off the ground. Flying this low for this long in ground effect isn’t easy. Even a teeny bit too much speed or added power will gust you into the air. Let either fall off just the tiniest bit and you’ll touch down. Have a friend with a radio observe and report how high the bottom of your tires are. Once you master this you’ll have a far better feel for flying your plane at the low end of it’s flight envelope.

Now that you know where the bottom of your wheels are you are ready for the second exercise, spot landing.

For off-airport operations the FAA expects you to be able to touch down in the length of your plane. For discussion sake we will call that 25’. Again with a friend observing pick a spot on the runway (preferably not on the end - airport managers have no sense of humor when you take out their runway lights). Once you’ve achieved 25’ consistently try that at different airports, particularly ones with obstacles on the approach. Then cut the distance to ten feet. The to five feet.

Somewhere between the 25’ and 10’ range you’ll automatically know what approach is required, shallow or steep, or somewhere in between. Precision off-airport flying is all calculation and feel, there are no absolutes (other then at some point you’ll bend a plane).

Good point. Good exercise.

That is a good exercise, in fact my first CFI had me do that once very early in training. I've done it with my 182, but need to do it more, the wheels on a 56 182 hang very low.

Flying my RV-9A was good at teaching precision, it was so light and took very little control input, with a delicate nose wheel to protect I really learned to finesse it around with fingertips and toes, dancing in the cross winds and ground effect thermals. You fly those RVs all the way to the hangar, (even the A models) like a TD.