I have been working on how to do short landings. I find that if I slow up to about 65 on a regular final I don't have enough energy for the flare and I just kerplunk in. It seems like the trick is to slow up and keep forward momentum with power. That gives me a smooth landing with little roll but uses up a lot of runway before the plane settles in. That would seem to imply that you have to slow up, get close to the ground significantly before you reach your intended touch down point, hold yourself off with a little power, and then just before the touch down point let her settle.

Does that seem about right to you guys?

Skystrider, you didn't say whether you are doing power-off full flap landings or not. If so, you probably won't have enough energy for a complete flare. Also is that knots or mph?

In the C-180 at heavier weights, 60 knots and full flaps completely power-off will produce a landing hard enough to bend the gear! My technique for consistantly short landings when heavy is to stabilize the approach on base leg at 65 knots with 30 degrees of flaps and power as required to produce no more than a 300-400 fpm descent, then adjust the pattern as needed. After more practice these numbers can be achieved after turning final, but the key is to be controlling the descent and thus the aiming point with power, but to have the pattern worked out so the descent rate stays between 300 and 400 fpm. Neither is it good to drag it in. If you have access to an airport with VASI, that will provide an approximate approach angle.

I usually only add the last notch of flaps on short final, but 30 degrees all the way works very well too. Just before I start the flare I start reducing the power slowly then flare smoothly while continuing to reduce power, hopefully without ever reducing the descent rate completely to zero, which of course means floating. I usually touch three point with a tiny bit of power still on and the scrubbing of the tires is the signal to pull all the rest off quickly. In my aircraft that approach airspeed at 3000 pounds will result in almost no floating, if my power reduction is timed right. In a 180 Maule, the power will most likely have to be reduced to idle to avoid floating.

The key to this type of landing is the timing and the rate of power reduction before and in the flare: too quick and you may drop in and bounce, too slow and you will float. Once you have the technique of a smooth power-on approach to a spot landing down, then you can shorten the flare and rollout by getting even slower on short final so that the airplane stops flying the moment power is reduced. You better not be more than a foot in the air when you do that! This is not a safe procedure to use for normal everyday landings or when it's windy, because if the engine burps or you get wind shear you will hit short with possibly disastrous consequences. Therefore, always practice this using some point a ways down the runway as your imagined threshold.

If you really need to land short, though, some variation of this approach is how to do it. The technique doesn't work well with a taller obstacle on the approach to a short field because it depends on a constant airspeed and constant moderate angle of descent. For an approach over an obstacle you will need a steeper angle with less power and more airspeed to enable the aircraft to flare adequately. The technique also doesn't work in much lighter aircraft because they will just keep flying if there is any power on at all.

This technique is basically how all heavy aircraft are landed. They define an approach airpeed based on weight, then use a power setting that keeps them on the VASI or the ILS glideslope (usually 3 degrees), then pull off power in the flare at just the right rate to achieve a touchdown with about a 100 fpm descent rate and no float (hopefully).

Another interesting thing about this is that it is a good technique for night landings when you can't judge the flare properly...you just smoothly reduce the descent rate on the VSI from 300 to 100 when over the threshold and wait until you hit. (needs a long runway, though)

The problem with the technique Skystrider talked of about aiming short and holding off with power is that most short strips will not allow you to do that because of fences, shrubs, etc. Both that and the above technique are alike in that they intend to get the aircraft to touch at the slowest possible speed on the designated spot, which makes the rollout as short as possible.

Rocky

Skystrider wrote:I have been working on how to do short landings. I find that if I slow up to about 65 on a regular final I don't have enough energy for the flare and I just kerplunk in. It seems like the trick is to slow up and keep forward momentum with power. That gives me a smooth landing with little roll but uses up a lot of runway before the plane settles in. That would seem to imply that you have to slow up, get close to the ground significantly before you reach your intended touch down point, hold yourself off with a little power, and then just before the touch down point let her settle.

Does that seem about right to you guys?

Can't speak about the tail wheel as I'm not a tail wheel pilot. But this is an area where the nose wheel pilot has an advantage. With the 182 I used to have I just set up final at 50-55 MPH IAS. There's no need to flare. At that speed you are slightly nose up. Just fly it into the ground. At about 10 feet AGL, cut the power, pull the yoke the rest of the way back and stomp on the brakes. There's not enough energy to bounce back into the air if you have the right vertical speed. With just me and 40 gallons I could get stopped in 450 feet of total runway used. Now with the Bonanza I do basically the same thing but about 12-15 MPH faster so it needs about 550 feet to land.

It has been argued here and elsewhere that wheel landings with disciplined approach speeds, no flare and judicious braking will actually land you shorter than three pointing.

Since my wheel landings pretty much suck it isn't true for me - yet Been trying the MAF technique, one day it will hopefully "click."

For my two cents worth (and you'll get lots of change back with that) go out with an instructor, or someone you trust, who is VERY comfortable with flying the backside of the power curve, where elevator controls airspeed and throttle your rate of descent. You'll find airspeed super critical, where 1 to 2 MPH too fast means a whole lot of extra landing distance, and your flare is done with just throttle, and lots of it. Also, ground effect means less airspeed, and once you get in to it, you'll be amazed at how slow (and how little room you need) when wheels touch.

My super-duper short landing technique:

First figure out what your 1.3 Vs is. My Vs is about 38mph so 1.3 is 50mph. Fly this on final and, like Gump said, use power for glideslope/rate of descent and nose attitude for speed. If you've never practiced this before, get an instructor. Also, my guess is that the Maule bleeds off speed quickly so you will get from 1.3 to stall speed quickly especially considering you are on the back side of the power curve. Be careful.

Remember, the slower you go, the less ground effect your plane will produce. To counter this I will roll on a few hundred rpm right when I reach my normal flare transition point. Kind of an artificial ground effect. Once I'm in a low flare (tires 1-2' off the deck) I pull power off because I'm now in real ground effect and the added power will float me.

I've put my Kitfox down in less than 100' with this technique but it takes a lot of concentration...I wouldn't do it every time, but it's something to be practiced frequently on smooth days.

Uh, 1.3 Vs is waaaayyy too fast for any kind of serious short field work. So is 1.3 Vso. That may work in a Kitfox, but those kinds of speeds in a Maule or Cessna will equate to very long landings.

Every model of airplane is a bit different, and demands different technique to achieve good performance, though.

Find a good Maule instructor, and get some good quality dual with someone who really knows your airplane, cause it is not going to fly like a Cessna, and you'll have a tough time learning to fly it over the internet.

No offense intended, cause you can get some good tips on these forums, but it sounds to me as if you really need to get with someone who really knows Maules to take it to the next step.

MTV

mtv wrote:Uh, 1.3 Vs is waaaayyy too fast for any kind of serious short field work. So is 1.3 Vso. That may work in a Kitfox, but those kinds of speeds in a Maule or Cessna will equate to very long landings.

Every model of airplane is a bit different, and demands different technique to achieve good performance, though.

Find a good Maule instructor, and get some good quality dual with someone who really knows your airplane, cause it is not going to fly like a Cessna, and you'll have a tough time learning to fly it over the internet.

No offense intended, cause you can get some good tips on these forums, but it sounds to me as if you really need to get with someone who really knows Maules to take it to the next step.

MTV

MTV is right... You can get some good pointers on a forum like this (and a whole lot of bad ones too) but you really need to find an instructor who knows your type airplane, and who really knows how to fly it. And that is hard to do.

I flew Part 135 for a good chunk of my adult life, most of that in AK, and this past Spring found me Lower 48, doing my first civilian BFR in many, many years. It was, to say the least, an eye opening experience. Flying an empty C172 around the pattern is not real life, and the techniques my young CFI wanted me to use would have lasted all of about 30 seconds up in the Great White North before the engine was busting cylinders off at the base, and the landing gear was scrubbed off. And conversely, when he wanted short field, you shoulda seen his eyes open and voice raise a whole lotta octaves when we floated along in ground effect with ASI bled off to nothing before we touched. He could do all the fancy radio talk and had memorized all the FAR's and numbers, but a conventional gear, dirt flyin' pilot he was not.

GumpAir
when he wanted short field, you shoulda seen his eyes open and voice raise a whole lotta octaves when we floated along in ground effect with ASI bled off to nothing before we touched. He could do all the fancy radio talk and had memorized all the FAR's and numbers, but a conventional gear, dirt flyin' pilot he was not

I always get a good laugh when I hear these kind of stories, because as a controller I can tell a lot of times by the voice if they are an experienced confident pilot or just someone who has a lot of book knowledge about to run out of talent.

mtv - you hit the nail on the head.
I use 1.3Vs (about 46mph) because at 1.2Vs:
1. I'm really dragging along behind the power curve
2. an 8 knot gust could stall me, especially if wings aren't level and
3. I run out of energy too quickly in the flare
Of course the slow flight characteristics of a Maule will be different than a 1200lb, 80 hp Kitfox. You need to know the nuances of slow flight in your airplane and get instruction from somebody that knows your airplane.

It took me a long time before I could make a good short field landing. As others have said being good at slow flight is good and sometime if you have your plane slowed down real good it will fall out from under you when you flare. I found that a shot of power and then back off the throttle will help this problem. I am not saying I do it every time successfully but I try. I will try to post a video of a landing at Owyhee Res. state. ( vid) Bob
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BNXoI480BI__

Here's an interesting factoid that I got from Jeppesen's IFR gradient to rate table: Descent rate in feet per minute vs Groundspeed in knots at a 3 degree glide angle:

40 50 60 70 kts
213 266 320 373 fpm

3 degrees is definitely shallower than most of us approach at, but it does produce a good short field approach with power. This is why I recommended 300-400 fpm earlier. Since many of us approach at more like 50 kts or less groundspeed the rate would be more like 200-300 fpm. Practice with a VASI known to be set at 3 degrees (some are steeper) at 1.2 Vso will substantiate these numbers, then when you get in the boonies you can estimate and fly a 3 degree slope fairly accurately (in calm conditions, naturally).

One caveat about this whole thead that bears repeating is that once good short field technique is mastered most airplanes we fly WILL land shorter than they can take-off again! So it may not be be a good trade-off to slow that last 3 or 4 mph and bring it in on the edge of a stall except as training for an emergency.

Rocky

RockyTFS wrote:One caveat about this whole thead that bears repeating is that once good short field technique is mastered most airplanes we fly WILL land shorter than they can take-off again!

Rocky

That is a big 10-4!!!! Especially for those of us flying behind O-300's. Getting in is not the problem, it's getting back out.

RockyTFS, Sorry it took me a day to get back to you. It was my 30th wedding anniversary so my bride and I were out on the town!

On final it is 65 mph, a little power, and full flaps. The Maule I have has only two flap settings. I pull on full flaps after turning final. I find I have to add about 100 rpm just before the flare to keep forward momentum and smooth out the landing. If I come in at idle it is a definite landing gear stress test!

Jr.CubBuilder, there is no acceleration at flare that I can feel. Maules seem to be real sensitive and definitely handle differently at 65 vs 70 mph. At least the ones with the 32 ft wings. Maybe the guys with the longer winged Maules have a different experience. The Luscombe I had was a real floater with 35 ft wings and no flaps. I got so I could land that thing on a dime but it was a real flat approach. Not the approach to use with the Maule.

No offense taken MTV. I have, in fact been working with a good instructor who owns a Maule himself. I am getting better on short field but am always interested in other guy's experiences. And you guys sure have a lot of good perspectives! It never stops amazing me how many techniques there are to learn in just one aircraft and then you multiply that by any number of aircraft we all fly. I think I am going to need my toes to help with the calculations!

Skystrider:

On final it is 65 mph, a little power, and full flaps. The Maule I have has only two flap settings. I pull on full flaps after turning final. I find I have to add about 100 rpm just before the flare to keep forward momentum and smooth out the landing. If I come in at idle it is a definite landing gear stress test!

Aha! A short wing Maule! It sounds to me like you are using slightly too slow of an airspeed for your approach angle and power setting. If you use 70 mph I presume you will have enough energy for a complete flare but you will float a little. Try using 65 and 100 more RPM from base leg, which will mean a shallower approach. What you are doing sounds just like what I would do if I had to make a steeper appoach into a short field: come in slow and steep with full flaps and use power to flare. However, this is a more difficult thing to do perfectly.

There is no doubt that a shallower approach relying on a power setting to achieve the desired 300 fpm is not a good normal landing procedure to use all the time because you are at risk of a power loss due to carb ice, too rich mixture, etc. However, it is a trade-off that may make sense if you want to learn consistent good short field performance.

Another aspect of these landings is that it is a real help to get so familiar with your aircraft that you know exactly how high you are and exactly when you are going to touchdown. A very common issue, even with high time pilots, is not to be able to flare to the preferred 3 inch height every time. Hell, I can't even do that every time, but when I go out to practice in the spring I try to concentrate on predicting the tire chirp to get that sense of height tuned up. Sometimes I'll cluck my tongue or say "NOW" to myself and if the chirp is within a second of that I know I'm right on. This eyeheight sense and precise airspeed control are the two first things to go away from lack of practice.

One other thing I didn't really elaborate on is that this technique lends itself to wheel landings, the goal is not to float but to touch very gently in almost a three point attitude then raise the tail for braking effectiveness. That's where the subtle reduction of power comes in. You only need to reduce the descent rate from 300 fpm to 50 fpm at touchdown in the flareing process, and the attitude change is pretty slight compared to the 15 or more degree change in a normal flare.

For those of us who can win power-off abeam on the downwind full stall spot landing competitions, good for you! This is one of THE most difficult techniques to learn, so for the rest of us in real world short field ops, I think my technique is more likely to result in consistent landings, perhaps not in the absolute shortest distance, but in plenty short enough distance.

Regards,

Rocky

Thanks for the insight Rocky! I will work that into my practice.

Your comments about knowing precise height are very true. To do that I find I have to have a very stabilized approach starting down final. One of the things that prevented that was reaching for the flap lever handle. On the M5's it is a long handle (for leverage) and quite far forward and close to the floor. That required large body movements in order to reach and manipulate the lever. (I like to think I am evolved very far from monkeys as my arms are short!) You end up bobbing your head below the panel reaching for that handle.

I happen to see someone elses later model Maule on the forum and it was sporting a lever bent about 20 to 30 degrees up! Well, that looked like just the solution. So I contact Maule and what do you know, I can retro-fit mine with one of their newer handles! So that is in the process of being put in. I am betting that will help a lot on finals and throughout the rest of the take off and landing sequences.

The short wing Maule has its own idiosyncracys. As a pilot of an M-5, I would suggest it is not a faster but a slower approach speed that is necessary. If I remember correctly: a 10% ground speed decrease translates into a 20% landing distance decrease.

I fly my approaches on short final on the edge of a stall with full flaps. It is more about feel than reading the airspeed, but I know I am under 65 mph. It is very important to have access to all your flaps. A little extra energy in the form of altitude or power re-energizes, for lack of a better term, the wing immediately before touchdown. Either push the nose forward or juice the power or combine both to arrest the descent rate. The nose forward option helps set up the wheel landing, which, though I had a hard time believing it, helps ensure shorter landings --definitely under 150'.

Lots of practice at slow flight. Touch and go with just the left main, just the right main, and both with all possible flap settings.

The real pros at these techniques in the Maule are Jeremy Ainsworth of Maule AK Worldwide and Greg Miller of Big Rocks Long Props. I have been fortunate enough to fly with Greg, and Jeremy has patiently and persistently answered more than a few of my queries about the particulars of his infamous 86' landing in a Maule.

Keep flying it slow and only where you are comfortable.
Chet

i agree, 65 is a bit fast. i typically use 60 mph with 2 or 3 aboard, 65mph is reserved for gross weight operations. and if i am alone i use 55 mph. this is for typical full stall stuff. (these numbers are approx, over the fence)
i have used 50mph with 2 people and half fuel, this takes a very keen "seat of the pants" feel for your airspeed. the maule gives a very noticeable dropping feeling in the tail. wheather this becomes a crash or a very short landing depends on pitch control and a "cushion" of power juuuuust before touchdown. ps- there is NO ground efect.
this is, of course, just my experience. which has only been in my airplane. i have a heavier nose, 1450 empty weight, no VG's, elevator gap seals, and a well tuned 2nd notch of flaps. all of which can change things.
take this for what its worth.... but just git out and practice. i used to practice in the grass next to the runway, and count how many runway lights i could get down and stopped by its always fun

UP

I can not recommend the VGs and gap seals enough. The VGs lower the stall speed, and more importantly add to controllability at slow speeds. The gap seals seem to keep the tail end flying longer. Tuning those flaps for maximum extension is crucial.

As UP and others said practice. Also experiment.

Chet

I've seen some short landing contests, including at last years NW Supercub fly-in in Snohomish WA. I noticed that everyone was doing a long,flat, drag-her-in type of slow approach to a landing at the line marked out at midfield. Not a real life-usable method, with the exception of landing on a river bar or something like that-- where you can make that flat approach along the river. Also kinda dangerous in real life, if the engine pukes down you'll go, into that river or whatever.
I kinda like a high steep slow approach. I pull the nose up to get slowed down (55-ish), and really increase sink rate. I add some power as necesary to regulate descent. This is also operating on the backside of the power curve, but if the engine pukes, I can push the nose down to the normal approach speed (65-ish),which reduces the descent rate so that I can still glide to a safe landing on the runway (or whatever).
I like doing it like this-- slow airspeed for a short landing,yet I can still clear obstacles like the proverbial 50' tree off the runway's end. Alot easier to see the runway environment too ("is that a deer out there?"), and easier to aim your descent by putting the touchdown spot at a certain point in the view thru the windshield and keeping it there.

Eric