Hello everyone.Stall horn indicator on, during landings, in light GA, is a many years old debate amongst Pilots and CFIs. The reality is that this is really Not the important factor during landings, in real flying. What is important is the Approach / Threshold speed and configuration, based on the Atmospheric conditions you are dealing with. Stall is defined as "exceeding the Critical angle of attack" and it can happen at any airspeed. If you do not have good control of your performance (Power +Attitude) / airspeed you can fly for hours and never touch down, it's called Slow flight.What does it mean? Control your airspeed, get your Round out and Flare at the proper height above the Runway, no more the 1 Ft., and wait for it, basically try to fly level flight. This will not go on for very long, since you are behind the Power curve. In order to maintain Level you will have to slowly keep pitching up, since power is reduced or off, your only means of holding level is Attitude / pitch. If everything is done correctly you will touch down as soon as the airplane stops flying, which can be above or below the stall horn sound.The reason we tell the students to listen for the Horn is to make sure they have sufficient nose high / pitch attitude, and not land on the nose wheel first. Advanced / experienced, pilots should know / feel the aircraft and not be concerned with the Stall horn, actually the best landings are done when the mains touch down right above Stall and keep coming back on the pitch until the Yoke is in your chest. You can actually fly / taxi (mains down front gear off the ground) the whole length of the Runway, if you just add a bit of power. We teach that for Commercial.That said in MSFS as soon as you hear the Stall horn you will fall out of the sky, which is not very realistic, typically the Horn will sound 5 Kts above the Critical AoA / stall speed. You can fly all day in a C172 at about 35 Kts with the horn on. You cannot do that in MSFS, and that makes for not very realistic landings, if you are looking for the Horn sound. XPlane does a better job in that regime. TV

Lets' cut to the chase: FACT: the stall horn is NOT an airspeed indicator, nor is it a reflection of the actual stall speed of the aircraft, which can vary according to the specifics of the aircraft in question and the dynamic environment it finds itself in. It is not sold, installed or ever TAUGHT as such. And I use the definitive `ever` with confident choice...As the driving force for the stall horn is simply a pressure plate on a switch or a moving metal tab it follows it can be subject to the same `indicator error` as the airspeed indicator, which is, DOH!, why it's called INDICATED airspeed. Crosswinds can blank the stall device, as can angle of attack or flow breakaway from the airfoil caused by rain, hail or ice buildup, out-of-balance flight or incorrect configuration of the control surfaces. Just because the flow is breaking up on the section of wing where the stall indicator is located doesn't mean the wing will stall. Just that it might. Aircraft designers actually aren't as dumb as they look and with a hundred years of practice are aware of this lack of efficacy so, to be on the safe side (which is after all the sole purpose of the stall horn - to warn of an impending change from `safe` to `unsafe` flight) it follows that a properly set-up stall horn will ALWAYS err on the side of caution. Therefore it SHOULD sound as you touch down or else you haven't removed the lift from the wing and you shall not land, you shall float. But the fact is it won't ALWAYS, EVER or MUST for a large number of aerodynamic reasons, none of which have been touched on in this thread...Apart from ground effect, which is just one.FACT 2: The ONLY accurate measure of the arrival of stall is an Angle of Attack indicator. A pressure differential indicator (rather than the pressure absolute indicator that is a stall horn) it instantly and continuously adjusts for the configuration, including aircraft weight, altitude and temperature among many other variables. And again I use the DEFINITIVE with absolute certainty.The sophistication, or lack of, the FS9 dynamics model is simply another red herring in this particularly specious argument. Just because something is in the SDK doesn't mean it is correctly modelled in the sim. Indeed there are many facets of the .air file that, while included for historical reasons in ALL aircraft actually have NO EFFECT in FSX, even though they did in FS2004 or earlier. The stall horn is NOT correctly modelled in the sim, as it is NOT subject to dynamic variation.

Lets' cut to the chase: -snip-

Good post!

Hi snave and everyone."Therefore it SHOULD sound as you touch down or else you haven't removed the lift from the wing and you shall not land, you shall float."This is an incorrect analysis and an over simplification. You can land perfectly fine without exceeding the angle of attack and or the stall horn being on.The definition of AoA is angle between Chord and Relative wind, you do Not have to exceed the critical angle to create sufficient drag to slow you down and land. As a matter of fact in most of light GAs you may not be able to even fly level with full power.Again Stall horn on during landing should Not and Must not be used as an indicator of a good, or necessary, element during landing. As a matter of fact there are many newer aircraft that can get you in a lot of trouble if you land, or flare with the horn on. There are many advantages to Not having the attitude necessary to produce a stall sound.Some of the reasons you should Not have use it as a reference, you mentioned in you own post. Most of the experienced CFIs do Not recommend using the Stall horn on during landing. Again, what keeps you from floating, ballooning and other undesirable situations, are proper airspeed and configuration. You can very easily float and or balloon with the horn blarring."FACT: the stall horn is NOT an airspeed indicator, nor is it a reflection of the actual stall speed of the aircraft, which can vary according to the specifics of the aircraft in question and the dynamic environment it finds itself in. It is not sold, installed or ever TAUGHT as such. And I use the definitive `ever` with confident choice...As the driving force for the stall horn is simply a pressure plate on a switch or a moving metal tab it follows it can be subject to the same `indicator error` as the airspeed indicator, which is, DOH!, why it's called INDICATED airspeed. Crosswinds can blank the stall device, as can angle of attack or flow breakaway from the airfoil caused by rain, hail or ice buildup, out-of-balance flight or incorrect configuration of the control surfaces. Just because the flow is breaking up on the section of wing where the stall indicator is located doesn't mean the wing will stall." TV

Same. I prefer to go by seat of the pants. Not to say waiting for the horn is a bad thing. I just know that where I learned to fly, they didn't teach you to listen for the horn, but to go by feel.

And I don't go by feel either. I do just what I do with a desktop flightsim.................... and that is by "sight". With my eyes closed, I doubt my landings would be very good in either flight simming or real life! :( I have a plane, that doesn't seem to know what ground effect supposeably is. I usually do very steep approaches, as my power off descent rate is about double of a Cessna 172. I can either go power off, with a roundout/flare at the precise moment, or carry a bit of power through the flare. It's my choice. What I do know, is that I need to be very close to the ground when the airspeed diminishes to 60 kias. I have a constant speed prop that is acting like an airbrake, and once below 60, the airspeed diminishes very fast. There is no "float". If I let the speed decay, the plane simply falls through the flare in a stall. Never the less, it's all a sight picture. The runway, the planes attitude over the nose, and the airspeed indicator. So now that I've talked about my landings, if anyone cares, I much prefer AOA indicators over stall horns. With a good AOA, the airspeed is of much less importance.L.Adamson

And I don't go by feel either. I do just what I do with a desktop flightsim.................... and that is by "sight". With my eyes closed, I doubt my landings would be very good in either flight simming or real life! :( I have a plane, that doesn't seem to know what ground effect supposeably is. I usually do very steep approaches, as my power off descent rate is about double of a Cessna 172. I can either go power off, with a roundout/flare at the precise moment, or carry a bit of power through the flare. It's my choice. What I do know, is that I need to be very close to the ground when the airspeed diminishes to 60 kias. I have a constant speed prop that is acting like an airbrake, and once below 60, the airspeed diminishes very fast. There is no "float". If I let the speed decay, the plane simply falls through the flare in a stall. Never the less, it's all a sight picture. The runway, the planes attitude over the nose, and the airspeed indicator. So now that I've talked about my landings, if anyone cares, I much prefer AOA indicators over stall horns. With a good AOA, the airspeed is of much less importance.L.Adamson

I didn't think that I actually had to say that I used sight as well. Since I guess I apparently do, then yes, I use eyes as well. I thought it was obvious that if you do everything right, then the stall horn really isn't needed, and you shouldn't be waiting for it.

I didn't think that I actually had to say that I used sight as well. Since I guess I apparently do, then yes, I use eyes as well. I thought it was obvious that if you do everything right, then the stall horn really isn't needed, and you shouldn't be waiting for it.

Maybe there's some difficulty with language here. This is what was said way back up in post #3. Let's look at the words in detail."A perfect landing in a small GA plane would have the horn just starting to sound as you touch down."The phrase "would have the horn just starting to sound as..." does not mean or imply that the horn is something that is a primary instrument indication for you to take action to commence a touchdown. The phrase means, or at least I meant the phrase to mean, that the horn would so happen to sound as the aircraft touches down, if the aircraft had been held off the runway sufficiently long enough to call your landing a full stall landing. The horn is not needed, nor is it something you should be "waiting for." It is however, something that would make its existence known if everything had been done right. And it is an indication that would only be apparent, in an after the fact manner. I do not understand where you get the notion that people are actually "waiting" for the horn.

Maybe there's some difficulty with language here. This is what was said way back up in post #3. Let's look at the words in detail."A perfect landing in a small GA plane would have the horn just starting to sound as you touch down."The phrase "would have the horn just starting to sound as..." does not mean or imply that the horn is something that is a primary instrument indication for you to take action to commence a touchdown. The phrase means, or at least I meant the phrase to mean, that the horn would so happen to sound as the aircraft touches down, if the aircraft had been held off the runway sufficiently long enough to call your landing a full stall landing. The horn is not needed, nor is it something you should be "waiting for." It is however, something that would make its existence known if everything had been done right. And it is an indication that would only be apparent, in an after the fact manner. I do not understand where you get the notion that people are actually "waiting" for the horn.

You're absolutely right Kevin, I do think the words we are using are confusing each other. The way I'm reading your posts, which I'm thinking I'm reading incorrectly, is that you're saying that you can't have a proper, correct, or whatever you want to call it landing without the stall horn going off. And I just don't think that's really true. I guess the sentence that I tend to focus on is the, "something that would make its existence known if everything had been done right." It seems like you're implying that I'm doing something wrong, which I really don't think I am. And I've flown with some extremely experienced guys that would have told me that I was. All I'm saying is that hearing the stall horn isn't an indicator of a proper, correct, or whatever you want to call it landing. Like I said before, every once in awhile I will set off the horn. Naturally, it happens a lot in the PA18 since I prefer to do 3-point landings rather than wheel landings. I very rarely float in the tricycle gear aircraft, and rarely do I not have a great, smooth touchdown...in other words, I have textbook landings. Where I tend to float is at high altitude airports. Mainly, Sedona. But that's a whole other topic! :(

You're absolutely right Kevin, I do think the words we are using are confusing each other. The way I'm reading your posts, which I'm thinking I'm reading incorrectly, is that you're saying that you can't have a proper, correct, or whatever you want to call it landing without the stall horn going off. And I just don't think that's really true. I guess the sentence that I tend to focus on is the, "something that would make its existence known if everything had been done right." It seems like you're implying that I'm doing something wrong, which I really don't think I am. And I've flown with some extremely experienced guys that would have told me that I was. All I'm saying is that hearing the stall horn isn't an indicator of a proper, correct, or whatever you want to call it landing. Like I said before, every once in awhile I will set off the horn. Naturally, it happens a lot in the PA18 since I prefer to do 3-point landings rather than wheel landings. I very rarely float in the tricycle gear aircraft, and rarely do I not have a great, smooth touchdown...in other words, I have textbook landings. Where I tend to float is at high altitude airports. Mainly, Sedona. But that's a whole other topic! :(

I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong. After all the students and FOs I've flown with, any landing on a runway, on the mains, in the touchdown zone, without damage, is a proper landing as far as I'm concerned. That's all it takes to keep me happy. However, there is such thing as "better." Think of it not as the difference between right or wrong, but the difference between an A and an A+. Don't close your mind or get defensive when it comes to possibly something that could make your flying better. If a landing in something like a Cessna 152, is made on the runway, on the upwind main, softly, on the chosen touchdown point, and you heard the horn just before you felt the wheel touch pavement, then you can put the plane away with the smile that you just made an A+ landing. After all, if doing all that was easy, they could just hand out pilot licenses the way they hand out driver's licenses, right?

Actually, I do know what I'm talking about, however, I'm not going to argue the point. I've seen pilots who fly for airlines, including myself, comment concerning discrepencies about some of the better pay-ware a/c, and invariably, some simmer comes on crying saying "it flies just like the real airplane". I've seen simmers argue techniques with pilots who actually fly the real airplane. MSFS doesn't even model CG correctly in its basic code. But if you have fun with FS, and I do, and if you believe its real, which I know otherwise, then have fun. :( db.

You are grossly mistaken. You are equating the flight dynamics written by a person into an .air file as the 'authority' of the accuracy of FS itself. Flawed approach, honest.

I am not grossly mistaken. Any PM's here? PM me your real world qualifications, and I'll send you mine.db.

just to let you know dickbloom it is perfectly fine to land with the stall horn going off in small GA aircraft. Not trying to start an argument but just pointing that out, it is perfectly fine to hear the stall horn going off when landing. (imnot talking 50 feet off the ground however)\I am a real world pilot but there is no need to be sending each other's qualifications.

I am not grossly mistaken. Any PM's here? PM me your real world qualifications, and I'll send you mine.db.

It doesn't matter. In the first place, you made too many general statements about the sim as a whole. Since I've beta tested for numerous addonsas well as MSFS, I'm well aware that blanket statements mean nothing. The only statements I'd really believe, is that desktop flying is NOT real flying, or that X-Plane isn't as good as it's promoted to be...As to real world qualifications, what does that really mean. I know high time commercial pilots that have little or none aerobatic experience. I knowcommercial pilots who wouldn't have a clue about constructing a high performance aircraft. But then I share a hangar with a commercial airline pilot who builds aerobatic aircraft, as well being a long time aerobatic instructor. The same applies to designing a flight sim aircraft. Producing realistic sim airplanes has become an art, which is requiring years of dedication. A high time pilot wouldn't have any better luck or know how, when it comes to programming these planes, than trying to fly an aerobatic competition with no prior experience.One thing is for sure. Having lots of hours doesn't necessarily mean that a pilot has a lot of experience in everything to do with flight. I've been around too long, and know better.L.Adamson

Many well-taken points here. Some points not worth reading. I think if you go back and read my first post on the subject you'll see that I will stand behind my statements fully. Again, 1) I would not fly with a pilot who always, or consistently, lands with the stall horn going off. 2) FS does a poor job of modeling aerodynamics. 3) Okay, MSFS knows the word ground effect. But, their modeling of it is terrible. You are correct- a pilot is not necessarily a flight sim designer. 3) An fs "pilot" who has 20 thousand hrs and flown around the world numerous times ( those are from various forums) is in no position to argue dynamics nor techiniques concerning the ops of real airplanes. Which I stated, probably in my second post. When a pilot who actually flies a particulrar a/c that is sold as an add-on program for MSFS poinnnts out discreppencies, the programers of that a/c should aknowledge that, rather than complaning about the pilot's comments. Which I also stated, probably also in my second post. I've actually only come across one developer who accepts the critisism and he responds very effectively. I responded legitimately to a posted question, and rather quickly the flaming started. Obviously, I also play with MSFS. It's fun, especially if you have all the right add-ons. But, I can also see it for what it really is.db.

dickbloom, when you say you would not fly with a pilot who always or consistently lands with the stall horn going off, are you talking about an airliner or GA aircraft.what worries me is that if you are a real world pilot and are unaware that in a light G/A aircraft it is perfectly fine to land with the stall horn, what else are you unaware of.I have no problem with comments 2 and 3 of your last post, but your number one comment is just not right.p.s are you a student pilot or have you already received your licence, honest question.