Pitch during touchdown

[aprewett]

Ok, that makes more sence.
With no RW flying experience, I read the 60-70 speed as touch down speed. To me the manual was indicating this (although I dont have it in front of me at the moment, nor looked at it recently).
Be great if they could include a co-pilot instuctor tutorial add on, voiced, with information to setup the landing.
Allan

[Great Ozzie]

Ok Allan,

I made a short video of what I do for the landing process. The final approach speed - 60kias in vid, since I am at gross wt. - is something I use to verify my landing approach attitude. If I hold the attitude and no power change (everything trimmed out) I can just occasionally make a quick glance back in to verify that speed. I am attempting to maintain a certain "picture".

At at certain point - shortly before starting to pull the nose up - I am done with the airspeed indicator reference. I am totally focused on the runway environment. The only way I know what speed I am using then? A fraps playback. Truthfully it doesn't matter. I am carrying that energy into the level off / roundout / flare. What matters is flying the airplane.

You can see I get stopped with plenty of runway ahead of me (only 2100' or so at that airport). So one of the points I am trying to make, from that FAA "On Landings - Part II":

Airspeed control is the most important factor in achieving landing precision. The secret of precise airspeed control begins in the traffic pattern with the stabilized approach.

And another "secret" to maintaining precise airspeed control (imo) is knowing exactly what your pitch attitude should look like based on the airspeed / power setting... "Does my pitch attitude look right?"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVYuKdLcEk4[/youtube]

[kramerdc9]

If you are flaring at 60 kias, you are going too fast. The approach is done at around that speed, but by the time you reduce the power to idle, begin the glide break and level off over the runway, your speed should be down low near the bottom of the white arc. The flare is just scrubbing off the very last bit of that remaining airspeed. At 60 kias the flare will make the 172 climb away.

I want to thank Oracle427 and the rest of the people replying to the OP on pitch to landing. My approach speed has always been around 60kts with full flaps, but I was always thinking of maintaining 60kts when flaring and trying to land. With your guys help of reducing the power to idle just before the threshold, my speed is sinking towards the lower white arc, which makes my flaring and landings much easier. I no longer balloon and float half way over the runway. I'm starting to see that the 172R is nothing like the 152's I flew back in the '90s. Also, I have to fly this aircraft like it's an actual aircraft rather the usual aircraft I've been flying on FSX. If I can just get a couple other issues solved that I've addressed in the forum fixed, I will be smiling ear to ear. Once again thanks for your help.

[taildraggin68]

Great video tutorial Rob. That should help many with the ballooning issues. Almost need to sticky that video somewhere easy to find

[Great Ozzie]

Hi Taildraggin,

Thanks for saying so...

I hear about the different problems people experiencing (ballooning etc.) and wanted to demonstrate something that works for me - that can work for them. Something if someone was sitting in the left seat "for real" I would tell them.

[taildraggin68]

Rob, the visual cues are what really helps people out...when you explain what they are looking at and what they should see (threshold as target, three to four inches above the cowling, runway lined between your legs) and when to transition/ break glide/flare...I really think too many are trying to do the roundout into the flare as soon as they cross the threshold..carrying too much speed and altitude as well as pulling too much nose up because they are mimicking what they see from the ground / videos from the ground of the landing "attitude".

Your video gives that sight picture as well as explanation.......instructional, instead of the other 5 billion this is how I land my A2A cessna videos (some are very interesting landings making me thankful for a licencing system for PPL's)

[flaminghotsauce]

Ozzie's video showed up on the A2A facebook feed and I watched it several times. Then did a few touch and goes using the speeds, power settings etc. It really helps knowing I have to idle the power while on final. I never get a clear runway, always trees, so I am always too fast, but if I pull the power at least as far away as the runway is long, I can glide it all the way in. That helps.

It's radically different from my real life club airplane, so I cannot pretend that it's close. I have to fly the Carenado if I want to simulate the club airplane.

[aprewett]

Thanks every one very much.
Can't wait to get home and play the recording and try some flying.
Allan

[Great Ozzie]

Ozzie's video showed up on the A2A facebook feed and I watched it several times. Then did a few touch and goes using the speeds, power settings etc. It really helps knowing I have to idle the power while on final. I never get a clear runway, always trees, so I am always too fast, but if I pull the power at least as far away as the runway is long, I can glide it all the way in. That helps.

It's radically different from my real life club airplane, so I cannot pretend that it's close. I have to fly the Carenado if I want to simulate the club airplane.

Hi flaminghotsauce,

You're club airplane is an "L" model, correct? I am just curious if you are a comparing 40° flaps landing with that of a 30° flaps landing. I know from instructing in an "N" model there was a big difference when adding that last 10° of flaps... so much so that I opted many times not to use that "extra" setting.

-Rob

[pushpak123]

I've got the 172 since quite some time now and I really like it, but one thing bothered me all the time.

On final I simply get the impression my pitch is too low.
In the real world I fly the 172 down to the runway with a pitch of about 1-3° (depending on the conditions of course) with a flapsetting of 20 and an approach speed of 70kt. Then for the touchdown I reduce the power to IDLE and slowly pull the pitch up to about 10° maintaining a continious descent until I touch down.

In the A2A I have a pitch of about -5° during approach. Crossing the threshhold (of course depending on the exact condition it may vary a bit) I pull the power to IDLE, but if I keep pull the nose up the aircraft immediatly climbs.
I often even do nosewheel landings in the simulated Cessna, while in the realworld this has never happened to me.
All in all I got the feeling the A2A C172 got a very strong ground effect which I honestly never really noticed in the 172 irl at all. The real ones (at least the two in my club) rather want to drop to the ground if I reduce my speed during the flare. I would even say it tends to get a tailstrike during landing while in the sim it will immediatly start to climb again if I pull a positive pitch.

I already checked the forum and found this answer: http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtop ... 07&t=41261
Reading Lewis response in there makes me wonder though.
What are the differences how the 172R should be touched down? If I approach with the typical 70kt and then start to flare until I run out of speed I can easily eat up 500m or more which makes it impossible to land on shorter runways. In the real world I usually set go around power passing the runway half marking without having touched down.
Basically, being at the same weight and flap setting should at least deliver a similar result compared to the model I fly in the real world. A few degrees of pitch difference are ok, but that much? Surely there must be something I miss there.

I practiced several touch and goes over several hours today (arrived at home at 4PM today and flew until about half an hour ago (around 11PM!)), but couldn't get it right.
It surely shouldn't be soo difficould getting used to it, expecially since I have much experience flying simulated aircraft, as well as in the real 172.
With other simulated aircraft, including your PA28, I did never have such problems adapting to their flight dynamics (I of course do not want to say it's your 172's fault here!).

Is there anything special I should keep an eye on in the simulation compared to the real one, or is this behaviour maybe even intended? If so, why?
I have read you did many measurements in the real one, so I wonder if yours was really this different to the ones I fly?
Looking forward to your replies!
With best regards
Emanuel Hagen

I and many others complained about this in here many times, and couldn't get satisfactory answer,
learned it hardway that RW plane and sim plane are not identical twins, only some addons are more
closer(to it's rW cousin) than others. Now one who are closer may not consistently close at all
phases of flight and this is true for A2A plane as well. Their similarity to RW counter part at
cruise stage is at best, take-off and pre-landing approach is ok and below satisfactory at flare
and touchdown, period. The other factor is trimming, trimming rw plane is lot quicker and intuitive, in sim it's eat-up valuable time during approach and affect landing.

I think this due to some limitation of FSX and complexity involved at
this stage. So for RW pilots they have to unlearn something and accept that at this stages sim
planes need to be handled slightly different way. Now here you will get all sort of advices from
all sort of people/sergeants some are good pilots some are good simmer and worst are those who
doesn't fit in any category and is there only to defend product and talk down people who make
complaints about dissimilarity.

[AKar]

A few words that come to mind, disclaimed by stating that I've got no flying experience of any model of 172 in real life.

First of all, I find neither of the A2A airplanes that difficult to land - of course, a few bad landings can be made after a long pause for example, but that's expected. I don't chase any specific visual pictures during the flare (I didn't do that in real life either back when having some stick time!), and my technique is rather conventional: standard glide angle on speed, and when reaching of the runway & clearing of the obstacles is assured, I smoothly pull the throttle to idle, let the airplane sink a little to keep up some airspeed, and in one continuous pull (I wish, yeah!) I "extend" the glide to around the original aim point and keep on holding the nose up until touchdown. That's what I was told to do in powered airplanes in normal situations, and it works very well in the sim too. Never really thought it any further. And, to the extend that any 'similarity' is possible in between the real airplanes and the simulated ones flown by PC controllers, I've found that the A2A planes match the descriptions I know of them, but again, I retain from arguing about subtleties as I've not flown either of them in reality.

About the ground effect. I've not really noticed that it has bothered me in A2A products how ever it was simulated or not. Speaking of FSX flight models generally, I've got a feeling in certain flight models that the net effect from the ground's proximity is overdone due to missing a few less-known points. In all cases, the ground effect kills some induced drag as it physically blocks the downwash and alters the wing's flow pattern. It may also increase wing's lift at given AoA for the same reason; it steepens the lift coefficient curve. But this mostly applies to 'clean' wing and when at small AoAs compared to stall angle. When an airplane is at landing configuration, that is, flaps down and at highish AoA, the ground effect may actually reduce the lift at given AoA. It may also increase the stall speed a little bit when flaps are down and/or the AoA is high due to earlier flow separation. Also, one important point is that the ground effect moves the airplane's neutral point aft, causing a similar effect that moving the CoG forward would cause. This is in part caused by the flow pattern from tail plane being affected by ground effect too, and can be somewhat of a significant effect, and I've understood that it is that small bit that makes the original Cherokee series to easily run out of elevator authority during the flare (low-wing airplanes are more affected). I'm tempted to say, that certain flight models lack simulation of these effects; the ground effect apparently just reduces drag (correct), increases lift (comparing the numbers, probably incorrectly) and does not alter the 'trim' (most surely incorrectly). But as said, I speak generally - I've got no reasons to complain about A2A modeling, so I haven't compared against any real data. Just to rise a point to consider - I studied this with numbers when a certain, very finely simulated transport category airplane addon got me to raise my eyebrows.

(Edit: small but important typo fixed....)

-Esa

[Great Ozzie]

I and many others complained about this in here many times, and couldn't get satisfactory answer, learned it hardway that RW plane and sim plane are not identical twins, only some addons are more closer(to it's rW cousin) than others. Now one who are closer may not consistently close at all phases of flight and this is true for A2A plane as well. Their similarity to RW counter part at cruise stage is at best, take-off and pre-landing approach is ok and below satisfactory at flare and touchdown, period. The other factor is trimming, trimming rw plane is lot quicker and intuitive, in sim it's eat-up valuable time during approach and affect landing.

I think this due to some limitation of FSX and complexity involved at this stage. So for RW pilots they have to unlearn something and accept that at this stages sim planes need to be handled slightly different way.

Now here you will get all sort of advices from all sort of people/sergeants some are good pilots some are good simmer and worst are those who doesn't fit in any category and is there only to defend product and talk down people who make complaints about dissimilarity.

I certainly hope you are not referencing me (or others) in that sudden side way movement on flare thread where you felt there was a drift problem.

I know you did not like Lewis' response (either improper technique or a control issue). But from my perspective, I had to agree with that assessment. If I (or any other person) cannot replicate the issue you are describing - and, in fact, give a counter-demonstration, then it is (imo) incumbent on you to present further evidence. Also in my opinion, you were the one "talking down to people" who came to help - with e.g. the snide "I guess you need a special PPL to fly A2A planes".

The experience you describe that certain people are there only to defend product and talk down people who make complaints about dissimilarity has most certainly not been my experience. More than once, I have taken issue with certain aspects of A2A's airplanes. I think they (A2A Team) have done an amirable job of listening to (what I would call) constructive criticism. It does not mean they take my word "as Gospel" and based solely on my word, decide to incorporate a change in their product. They are not "perfect", but neither are we who make the complaints. But they do listen, and they do make changes; this I know from experience as a customer.

You say, "I and many others complained about this in here many times". Where btw? Many others many times? I see in your thread you pointed out two. One - Oracle thought it was a training issue (I happen to agree... it was technique). The one other person you pointed to (bakima) never said where (what phase of flight) and did not open a thread on the issue. Even now, you quote Emi, yet his issue seems completely different than the issue you were having.

Oracle mentioned in your drift thread how complex the wind patterns can be near the surface. If I was trying to replicate this, I would zero out the weather, as Oracle suggested, and start from there. But there was no follow up from you.

One thing I do not do - is come in here with an attitude. I do not say... "Well, I have this many flight hours in this many make & models of airplanes... and I have a such & such pilot license with these ratings... an Instructor license with these ratings etc... so you really ought to stop and think about who I am before you reply in such a way...". No... I tell them what I observe and how I can replicate it under what conditions. It is up to "them" to decide if I am whack, or am I onto something - and if is it something that could be adjusted in the software.

Your trimming example. Me? I disagree with it. I have a controller where the trim button sits under my right thumb. Nothing could be simpler (and quicker) than that except e.g. in a C172R where one might have a trim button under the left thumb. I can guarantee you that I would rather have a trim button on the control wheel, rather than having to bend toward the panel, reach down and start whizing the trim wheel fore or aft. Or with the Cherokee. I'd have to check my logbook as offhand I cannot remember having raise an arm up and over my head to trim an airplane - all the Cherokees I have flown (whether slab wing or semi-taper, from 140hp to 300hp, retract or fixed) had the trim between the seats. Easier than a 172, but no way (imo) easier than having a button under the thumb.

As for "unlearning" RW techniques, I do not feel for a moment I have had to "unlearn" some things to use FSX. The fact of the matter is, I use real world techniques and apply them in FSX. That was the point of the video... the same techniques I would be telling anyone sitting in the (left) seat next to me. And whether it is real world or sim, you learn how each airplane handles and adjust accordingly. Nothing is identical. In terms of FSX, you do have to compensate based on the system components, the controls one has purchased and the limitations of FSX itself. And no... not on your life is *any* airplane in FSX is going be "identical" to its real world counterpart. That's a proverbial pipe dream. The closet you will get will be a Level C or D simulator (those are truly "sims"). But there can be a very decent - a very good approximation using what we have.

-Rob

[Oracle427]

If I may add that one time I wrote a "bug" report because I felt that the 172 climbed unrealistically well with flaps fully extended at full power. I felt it could not maintain a 700fpm climb in this configuration.

Just to prove how wrong A2A was I went and tried this very manuever in a RW 172N after performing a landing configuration stall at altitude. The plane climbed away at 700fpm much to my surprise. I closed down my bug report later that day.

[DHenriques_]

If I may add that one time I wrote a "bug" report because I felt that the 172 climbed unrealistically well with flaps fully extended at full power. I felt it could not maintain a 700fpm climb in this configuration.

Just to prove how wrong A2A was I went and tried this very manuever in a RW 172N after performing a landing configuration stall at altitude. The plane climbed away at 700fpm much to my surprise. I closed down my bug report later that day.

I would as well add to this that a HUGE majority of the "complaints" we receive at A2A concerning "improper performance" from an A2A Accusimmed aircraft can be traced directly to sim pilots who mean well but not having actual experience in the real airplane are basing their judgment on prior experience with add on airplanes developed for flight simulator that exhibit improper flight model behaviors and fidelity.
There ARE naturally cases where bugs and glitches are properly presented. When they are, the team makes every effort to correct these as time and FSX (now P3D as well) will allow as it's in A2A's direct interest as well as the customer's interest to do that.

Dudley Henriques

[pushpak123]

I and many others complained about this in here many times, and couldn't get satisfactory answer, learned it hardway that RW plane and sim plane are not identical twins, only some addons are more closer(to it's rW cousin) than others. Now one who are closer may not consistently close at all phases of flight and this is true for A2A plane as well. Their similarity to RW counter part at cruise stage is at best, take-off and pre-landing approach is ok and below satisfactory at flare and touchdown, period. The other factor is trimming, trimming rw plane is lot quicker and intuitive, in sim it's eat-up valuable time during approach and affect landing.

I think this due to some limitation of FSX and complexity involved at this stage. So for RW pilots they have to unlearn something and accept that at this stages sim planes need to be handled slightly different way.

Now here you will get all sort of advices from all sort of people/sergeants some are good pilots some are good simmer and worst are those who doesn't fit in any category and is there only to defend product and talk down people who make complaints about dissimilarity.

I certainly hope you are not referencing me (or others) in that sudden side way movement on flare thread where you felt there was a drift problem.

I know you did not like Lewis' response (either improper technique or a control issue). But from my perspective, I had to agree with that assessment. If I (or any other person) cannot replicate the issue you are describing - and, in fact, give a counter-demonstration, then it is (imo) incumbent on you to present further evidence. Also in my opinion, you were the one "talking down to people" who came to help - with e.g. the snide "I guess you need a special PPL to fly A2A planes".

The experience you describe that certain people are there only to defend product and talk down people who make complaints about dissimilarity has most certainly not been my experience. More than once, I have taken issue with certain aspects of A2A's airplanes. I think they (A2A Team) have done an amirable job of listening to (what I would call) constructive criticism. It does not mean they take my word "as Gospel" and based solely on my word, decide to incorporate a change in their product. They are not "perfect", but neither are we who make the complaints. But they do listen, and they do make changes; this I know from experience as a customer.

You say, "I and many others complained about this in here many times". Where btw? Many others many times? I see in your thread you pointed out two. One - Oracle thought it was a training issue (I happen to agree... it was technique). The one other person you pointed to (bakima) never said where (what phase of flight) and did not open a thread on the issue. Even now, you quote Emi, yet his issue seems completely different than the issue you were having.

Oracle mentioned in your drift thread how complex the wind patterns can be near the surface. If I was trying to replicate this, I would zero out the weather, as Oracle suggested, and start from there. But there was no follow up from you.

One thing I do not do - is come in here with an attitude. I do not say... "Well, I have this many flight hours in this many make & models of airplanes... and I have a such & such pilot license with these ratings... an Instructor license with these ratings etc... so you really ought to stop and think about who I am before you reply in such a way...". No... I tell them what I observe and how I can replicate it under what conditions. It is up to "them" to decide if I am whack, or am I onto something - and if is it something that could be adjusted in the software.

Your trimming example. Me? I disagree with it. I have a controller where the trim button sits under my right thumb. Nothing could be simpler (and quicker) than that except e.g. in a C172R where one might have a trim button under the left thumb. I can guarantee you that I would rather have a trim button on the control wheel, rather than having to bend toward the panel, reach down and start whizing the trim wheel fore or aft. Or with the Cherokee. I'd have to check my logbook as offhand I cannot remember having raise an arm up and over my head to trim an airplane - all the Cherokees I have flown (whether slab wing or semi-taper, from 140hp to 300hp, retract or fixed) had the trim between the seats. Easier than a 172, but no way (imo) easier than having a button under the thumb.

As for "unlearning" RW techniques, I do not feel for a moment I have had to "unlearn" some things to use FSX. The fact of the matter is, I use real world techniques and apply them in FSX. That was the point of the video... the same techniques I would be telling anyone sitting in the (left) seat next to me. And whether it is real world or sim, you learn how each airplane handles and adjust accordingly. Nothing is identical. In terms of FSX, you do have to compensate based on the system components, the controls one has purchased and the limitations of FSX itself. And no... not on your life is *any* airplane in FSX is going be "identical" to its real world counterpart. That's a proverbial pipe dream. The closet you will get will be a Level C or D simulator (those are truly "sims"). But there can be a very decent - a very good approximation using what we have.

-Rob

Thank you Great Ozzie
Your post has already proved what I have written earlier.
I have great regards for A2A product and that is why I bothered to post my opinion so it may be used to make this great product even better. I stopped commenting on my post because I thought it was not going into positive direction, I may do same thing here as well, stop after this.


Here is my post which describe exactly same problem as Emi has pointed out.
http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtop ... 08&t=38489