Rob wrote: 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.

Take care, Rob

For me - this ^ pretty much covers it.

My extra 2c donation:
Approaches should be stabilised, if at all possible.
Most places I go, the terrain dictates your approach path / angle. Crazy low or crazy steep are both much harder than a conventional to slightly lower profile with power on.

Ha ha!

Terrain and getting back in the air safely is always THE BIGGEST issue with our seaplane. Touchdowns (alighting) are easy! We do not even use brakes!

We fly mostly in the Cascade Mountain "Lakes", which generally have rising terrain.

Karmutzen wrote:If you're flying a profile based on what happens when the engine quits you're in the wrong game.

And at the wrong forum.

Barnstormer wrote:

Karmutzen wrote:If you're flying a profile based on what happens when the engine quits you're in the wrong game.

And at the wrong forum.

Case in point...

In several Coastal British Columbia routes a few seconds after takeoff until touchdown the hostile terrain is pretty much freezing water/ice, rocks and trees! Add a bunch of 1000' granite cliffs too.

No second chances!

I prefer steep, but use all (steep, medium, or low) depending on circumstances. This is not a text book landing or necessarily stabilized like akflyr182b's excellent approach and landings, but is a steep approach using a slip to put it where I wanted to land so I could stop before the parking area.



Lately, I've been practicing hover taxis so the bushwheels don't wear as fast, but that is an entirely different subject. Fun to play with, though. I think that is the key, lots of practice and trying different techniques until I'm proficient/comfortable with them. Then it's easier to use what works best for a specific circumstance.

"Makes my heart proud." Quote from "Little Big Man."

contactflying wrote:"Makes my heart proud." Quote from "Little Big Man."

That one was for you alright Jim! I have a lot of fun with it. I come into land like everyone else a mile from the FBO but then hold low ground effect and taxi in. I've gotten some great comments from the fire station guys watching that for 5,000 feet. They love it!

Army medevac pilots love the guys at airport fire stations, both military and civilian. You can always get a quick shower there. Much better than the field showers in the desert. However, there was a West Virginia Reserve Field Shower Unit, a couple times, at big exercises at Ft. Irwin that were excellent. Always had hot water and plenty of it.

Show and tell time, here is a landing spot that is down slope, the steep approach is awkward, so I drag it in. Also have to pick up the left wing during the approach to avoid the upslope terrain

handsrdirty wrote:Show and tell time, here is a landing spot that is down slope, the steep approach is awkward, so I drag it in. Also have to pick up the left wing during the approach to avoid the upslope terrain

If I may,

What was the approximate Density Altitude? Looks like the air was pretty solid, i.e. slow approach. Would you try it in the afternoon at 110F. Looks like you have it "Wired" pretty well.

Nice place.

Nicely done!!

I agree a steep approach is awkward when landing anything other than a flat area. When landing uphill, my approaches are usually flat...it adds a constant to the approach/landing. Enough recons to the area will identify the feasibility of the landing and a good estimate of the area necessary for landing and, sometimes more importantly, the subsequent takeoff or go-around. How can you really judge an accurate approach angle in the hills/mountains anyway!?!?

To clarify, I'm talking about off-airport or off-runway landings

"Normal" ops: I agree pretty much that planning a takeoff is (possibly more) important because fix wing aircraft can land steeper than departure. Unless you have a Carbon Cub.

Very loose ideas below (just my basic theory)...here goes...

I like to be solidly in ground effect before touch down if, possible. Zero or little vertical Gs. That's ideal for short field in my little ship.

"Dumping" through ground effect is sometimes OK too if, you "Got to get her down" with a bump. Adding verticals Gs, however.

On amphibs my tires are very small and normally would not be approved for their size on a regular aircraft (of same GW). I always drag her in and touch down very lightly (zero Gs). Not to say I will not make steep approaches and slips. Just want that ground effect feel before the tires touch.

Also, amphibs are so dragging on the roll out, brakes are sometimes not needed turning off the RWY. An amphib blew tires in Honolulu just from being over gross on a delivery flight taxing down the ramp.

Battson wrote:

Rob wrote: 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.

Take care, Rob

For me - this ^ pretty much covers it.

My extra 2c donation:
Approaches should be stabilised, if at all possible.
Most places I go, the terrain dictates your approach path / angle. Crazy low or crazy steep are both much harder than a conventional to slightly lower profile with power on.

x2 on both of these guys.

I've been meaning to get out and practice the steep approach method from the YouTube vids at altitude. That looks like a good tool to have in the bag for some situations.

Would you try it in the afternoon at 110F

Never, mainly because of the take off, the over run area is not very friendly. DA was about 4500'. I don't use that spot unless I have favorable winds at around 10 kts or greater.

Back to the original post, I prefer the steep and slow approach in a larger plane like a C182. Get everything configured for slow flight way early and just enjoy the slow ride to the runway. If you practice landing configuration stalls a lot, it makes that end of the flight envelope more comfortable.

I can generally get a shorter roll-out doing a steep approach. I figure it this way-- for any given wind conditions and airspeed, I feel that you have less forward speed doing a steep approach as some of your speed is actually on a vertical plane. A flat drag-it-in approach, all of your speed is forward speed. Doing a steep approach, you flare, add power, or otherwise arrest your sink rate as you arrive into low ground effect so that all you have left is the forward speed. Flat approach, you have excessive forward speed arriving into ground effect which you must bleed off before landing.

This is another of those "it depends" things.

In general though, I prefer steep-ish approaches. Most backcountry strips I enjoy camping at have either a creek at the approach end, trees, terrain or all of the above. The relatively cold air over the creek will usually induce some sink, trees are both obstacles and turbulence creators, etc. By coming in steeper, my approaches are more consistent in those situations, and I'll "hit my spot."

For me, backcountry landings are more about hitting your spot at a slow speed under full control than optimizing for the shortest possible roll out.

That said, since the OP asked about shortest possible landing roll -- sure, if you don't have any obstacles, getting really slow in ground effect will allow you to land even slower, resulting in a shorter roll. It's just not usually possible where I fly.

hotrod180 wrote:I can generally get a shorter roll-out doing a steep approach. I figure it this way-- for any given wind conditions and airspeed, I feel that you have less forward speed doing a steep approach as some of your speed is actually on a vertical plane. A flat drag-it-in approach, all of your speed is forward speed. Doing a steep approach, you flare, add power, or otherwise arrest your sink rate as you arrive into low ground effect so that all you have left is the forward speed. Flat approach, you have excessive forward speed arriving into ground effect which you must bleed off before landing.

I feel the same especially in windy conditions with lots of orographic turbulence and/or wind shears. Better to get thru the hot spots fast.

There is generally (not always) less wind on the surface. Sailboat racers actually use a formula to calculate wind speed increase in minute intervals with height, just like pilots do with DA etc.

Getting down fast is what I do when flying in the semi-gales on the Coast (PNW). Less exposure to the "Danger Zone" during wind shears. Sometimes, the wind sock is pointing the opposite direction on the other end of the field during a front. get down fast or go around do not play with a long fast draggy approach. If air is unstable, think fast! and do the dance

Going back to my original response, when I said practice, practice, practice, I should have added "until you can consistently hit the same spot that you want to hit every time." The mistakes I see most often, regardless of what type of landing it is, all fall in the category of the airplane landing where it wants to land, rather than where the pilot wants it to land. While it's true that every runway/strip is different and every landing is different, even on the same runway/strip only a few minutes apart, learning to land consistently using the same methods is important. In other words, get to know the airplane--and that takes consistent practice.

Personally, I'm not hung up on the "stabilized approach" mantra that the FAA is pushing these days, at least for the size airplanes we fly. It may be necessary for airliners, but that's not us. Some of the places we fly don't allow for a stabilized approach that is a mile long, because we can't use a 1000' standard rectangular pattern, and it's not necessary anyway. Yeah, if you're still jockeying around trying to get lined up and on speed at 20' in the air, that's pretty late and you'll be lucky to salvage the landing--might oughta go around and try again. But if we're pretty stabilized by a quarter mile out or 200' or 300' in the air, that works pretty well.

Cary

80 on downwind, 20* flaps, 70 on base and final, 30* flaps, 60 over the fence 40* flaps, flare, bounce get solid, dump flaps, brake hard.
Head to hangar drink beer, brag.

Assuming obstacles are not a factor (which is how the original question was posed), drag it in with power. The less vertical component you have to arrest, the less excess energy you have to carry. Also the extra thrust allows the aircraft to fly at a lower ground speed. Chop it, plop it and stop it. Your mileage may vary.