Pitch during touchdown

[taildraggin68]

Yes it totally makes sense as I begin to trade lift for more drag (!!!!). I was curious to see at which point that began to occur as I normally do not come in that slow in a 172 on final, but I got lucky with super nice flying weather yesterday.

I had seen a number of posts crop up again about the 172 floating too much and unrealistically and I wanted to see how short I could land anyway, so I figured I'll kill too birds with one stone.

I didn't really lay into the brakes, but I'm pretty sure I could have stopped in the first 500-600 feet of runway if I needed to thanks to coming in at that low speed. I definitely turned off the runway within 700-800 feet.

The 172 will handle just fine at 50 knots and land quite short.....it's really a matter of understanding the airplane, where your power falls off, and trusting the glide.....elevator mode is what I call it lol, learned a long time ago, due to neighborhood restrictions and steep approaches required as well as short field landings in the North Georgia mountains.....set her up right and you get a nice slow, easy approach at idle power, ease back through the round out and she usually touches about the same time as the stall chirp starts.

Granted it has been a long time since the real one, but I can still make the A2A 172 do the same...it feels "floaty" due to the high wing configuration. Of course my instructor had me fly circuits at 70 knots to learn the slow flight handling....lots of fun that was

[computerflyer]

L.A.'s comments about R/C flying and "...enormous amounts of bi-wing and flying wire drag..." reminded me of my first test flight of a very large R/C Bristol "Brisfit" F-2B Fighter that I had built. The landing approach was going great until I decided to chop the throttle and glide. That idled 24" prop and mass of flying wires brought that plane down fast, landing short in soft dirt and flipping the plane upside down. I wish I had carried some power through the flare. Based on my experience with the A2A C172, however, I cannot imagine carrying power to touchdown with the Cessna. I don't think the C172 would ever come down.

[AKar]

Yes it totally makes sense as I begin to trade lift for more drag (!!!!). I was curious to see at which point that began to occur as I normally do not come in that slow [...]

By design, the approach speeds of typical airplanes are at the high side of the drag polar. If they weren't, the speed control during approach would be quite unstable. An example of an airplane that is a typical exception is the F-18. It rides its approach at around maximum CL, and quite a bit below the maximum L/D. Therefore any significant aft-pull on the stick causes a sink and slowdown instead of an up-maneuver. The thing is ridden on the path using an AoA bracket visible on the HUD using the throttle while the attitude is controlled by the stick. Moreover, you can not traditionally flare such an airplane - the pull just results in the sink and a nozzle strike if it's a bad day.

When flying gliders, the underside of the polar is a rather common place to be. This is due to the fact that the speed of minimum sink (which you'll want to employ to use as much of the rising air as you can) is slower than the one of minimum drag. Therefore, the beginners like me used to just switch in between the slow (min. sink) and the fast (min drag) unless confident enough.

-Esa

[L.A.]

L.A.'s comments about R/C flying and "...enormous amounts of bi-wing and flying wire drag..." reminded me of my first test flight of a very large R/C Bristol "Brisfit" F-2B Fighter that I had built. The landing approach was going great until I decided to chop the throttle and glide. That idled 24" prop and mass of flying wires brought that plane down fast, landing short in soft dirt and flipping the plane upside down. I wish I had carried some power through the flare. Based on my experience with the A2A C172, however, I cannot imagine carrying power to touchdown with the Cessna. I don't think the C172 would ever come down.

I didn't carry power in the 172s, Warriors, or Archers either. Using the RV as an example; those with fixed pitch props are very slippery. They need miles to slow down for the traffic pattern, and they'll float if too high an airspeed. I could charge in there are 120 kias (with the constant speed prop), and easily be at 80 on the base turn. Ground effect didn't exist for me.

[Great Ozzie]

There is an old saying, that goes something like........."treat every landing as a power out, in case the engine fails." My response to that...........is don't fly the airplane then. If you can't trust the engine, why would you want too?

Well there L.A.,

The ME rating is all about learning to fly a twin on one engine. I would ask then... why fly a twin at all if you can't trust both those engines?

-Rob

[EnDSchultz]

The ME rating is all about learning to fly a twin on one engine. I would ask then... why fly a twin at all if you can't trust both those engines?

-Rob

Speed! Power!

[Great Ozzie]

Speed! Power!

Let's fly 'em for all they're worth today... for tomorrow we lose one - and die!

[computerflyer]

I thought it was interesting watching this C172 float down the runway, even with 3 on board.
(At 10:00 on the video).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4mALfn53kI[/youtube]

[Great Ozzie]

I thought it was interesting watching this C172 float down the runway, even with 3 on board.
(At 10:00 on the video).

Yes, true... just a couple comments tho...

He's S-turning on final help lose altitude (i.e. he is high on glidepath). And his airspeed in nearly 80kias (too fast). Check the VSI during his time on final... rate of descent is bracketed between 1000 to 1500fpm. He's at least 70kias / 100'agl coming over the pavement.

Definitely not an attempt at criticism... but it helps to explain why it appears he uses at least half of this 4000' runway.