I had a discussion with a pilot that has spent much more time than I flying different aircraft types. Some are said to "fly by the wing" and others are said to "fly by the prop". I would like to know your experience with this and possibly list which group you believe your own aircraft, or the aircraft you have flown, to be in.

To clarify, I am looking at aircraft comparison, not a comparison of pilot technique.

I fall into the "fly by the paycheck" category

I've seen an airplane fly without a prop, but have yet to see one fly without a wing. Not very far, or oher than straight down anyways.

Hmmmm, I just had a 8400' mountain top landing where I definitely was coming in behind the power curve and "hanging on the prop" in order to keep my rollout as short as possible. Then when I took off I killed the engine and glided at 650 FPM and 46 MPH until I restarted at 5800'. (Rans S-7S one notch of flaps, a little slow for best glide ratio but seems to be best sink rate at that speed, at least today) So I guess I do/fly both? Does it have to be either or?

My $.02
When you are required to make a choice!!
Maule-Prop
Cub-wing
Cessna- judicious use of both
RV6- prop
Skybolt- Throttle
Stearman- Rudder/Elavator

GT

I fly a 52 HP Kitfox, definitly by the wing.

dirtstrip wrote:I had a discussion with a pilot that has spent much more time than I flying different aircraft types. Some are said to "fly by the wing" and others are said to "fly by the prop". I would like to know your experience with this and possibly list which group you believe your own aircraft, or the aircraft you have flown, to be in.

To clarify, I am looking at aircraft comparison, not a comparison of pilot technique.

From my discussion with a friend which inspired this thread...

"What would happen if the wing were designed to lose lift at a rate more closely matching the rate of the throttle reduction at flare? The pilot's focus just ahead of touchdown, even in short final would change. He would focus instead on managing the throttle since bleeding float off the wing has been accomplished by design change and the float would disappear with the throttle reduction. This describes a small group of aircraft with a different wing design where, at the flare, the pilot will not fly the wing out or dump flaps to get the plane on the chosen spot. Instead, since the float has been reduced by wing design he will be left to "fly the prop" (or throttle) as the tool of choice.
Since these aircraft are different by design from those that "fly by the wing," it changes the balance of the forces left for the pilot to manage in the few seconds before touchdown and changes the pilot technique used. The "float" in flare follows the throttle change quickly and will feel more like you are "flying the prop" or throttle. "

This "flies by the prop" quality describes for sure my experience in the CH 701. The Slepcev Storch and the Helio Courier have to be two of the more extreme examples. Others will be one way or another by degree and it doesn't mean that these planes can't be landed safely without power but in an emergency does require steeper nose down approach with more airspeed than on normal approach to carry through flare (than those flying by the wing) since during flare their wing is built to lose lift more rapidly for short landing. I am trying to pigeon hole our BCP planes as to which group their characteristics lean more toward.

Stinson?
Mooney?
Bearhawk?
Highlander?
Wilga?
Beaver?
Others.

deleted a double post

The Luscombe 8 is "by the wing." Takes a lot of practice to consistently spot land, at least for me. Just couple mph to fast and the thing will float several hundred feet down the runway.

T-Craft, for sure the wing is the thing.

Maybe it is a factor of the amount of drag created in the landing configuration. A Helio Courier has a tremendous amount of drag with full flaps and when slow. A PA-12 with no flaps has considerably less drag on final.

My Cessna 180 with less than full flaps is usually a wing airplane, with full flaps it really becomes a prop airplane.

Stickman wrote:Maybe it is a factor of the amount of drag created in the landing configuration. A Helio Courier has a tremendous amount of drag with full flaps and when slow. A PA-12 with no flaps has considerably less drag on final.

My Cessna 180 with less than full flaps is usually a wing airplane, with full flaps it really becomes a prop airplane.

I have no time in a 180 so I have this question. Full flaps, do you have float in the normal flare beyond closing the throttle or does closing the throttle abruptly end the flight?

Bearhawks are prop airplanes. I'm guessing glide ratio gives a good indication of wing vs prop.

With full flaps and on speed (62-65) pull the power and it will have minimal float and pretty much land right there.

It is a 1955 with stock wing.

blackrock wrote:Bearhawks are prop airplanes. I'm guessing glide ratio gives a good indication of wing vs prop.

I agree. These planes tend to have a lower glide ratio followed by predictable but high enough sink rate well before stall to be of use with a light throttle adjustment providing a lot of control over length of flare or none.

The Tundra is a prop airplane also and goes deep in the sink rate well before it stalls.

I'm going on record to say that I'm not a fan of these evaluative descriptions of aircraft: "Flies by the wing," and "Flies by the prop." I think it's oversimplifying a beautiful and complex design relationship of the performance of an aircraft, and only a glider or a helicopter really qualify for either. To assign these boolean characteristics to any fixed wing aircraft in between is like saying "he lives by beef," or "he lives by salad."

I think there's a continuous spectrum of aerodynamic "efficiency" for lack of a better word; The potential of a particular aircraft to produce induced drag and thus need more or less power to overcome that drag. Whether this produces amazing STOL performance, or simply speed or load capacity, is a snowflake.

I do, however, like to hear/read about how one aircraft compares to another within our little realm of flying. The Pacer vs a 170 for instance-- Very similar power and weight, and yet we all know how they compare.

I am going to second Zane's sentiment...trying to over simplify flying is usually not going to work. All aircraft can be flown in a different manner depending on where in the lift/drag curve you are. Know your aircraft. Fly safe.

Zane I agree, all this speculation and drivel goes out the door about a 500' above your touch down point because you head should be focused on what your doing, your ass and ears telling your hands n feet what they should be doing!
How it was designed about that time makes no where with all!!
Just go out and fly the bird!!
That's BCP flying.
GT

What about stuff that generates thrust by flapping the wing?

Zane wrote:I'm going on record to say that I'm not a fan of these evaluative descriptions of aircraft: "Flies by the wing," and "Flies by the prop." I think it's oversimplifying a beautiful and complex design relationship of the performance of an aircraft, and only a glider or a helicopter really qualify for either. To assign these boolean characteristics to any fixed wing aircraft in between is like saying "he lives by beef," or "he lives by salad."

I think there's a continuous spectrum of aerodynamic "efficiency" for lack of a better word; The potential of a particular aircraft to produce induced drag and thus need more or less power to overcome that drag. Whether this produces amazing STOL performance, or simply speed or load capacity, is a snowflake.

I do, however, like to hear/read about how one aircraft compares to another within our little realm of flying. The Pacer vs a 170 for instance-- Very similar power and weight, and yet we all know how they compare.

Right on!

MTV