flyingpilot212121, Many years ago when I began flying, (GA)- L3, Citabria, C150, C182, Commanche 250 (first 100 hrs TT), I never had an instructor say that the stall horn should go off on landing. Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't. Every instructor I had was either a former military flight instructor, military pilot, airline pilot, or a combination. After my Private and while building time, I did a few things which I would explain to these pilots and they would shudder. At the time I thought they were "a bunch of old men". Flying the mail run, solo, at night, winter, had a tendency to knock the cockiness out of me. After going with the airlines for about two years, I began to understand that they were not just "old men", but justified in their admonishments, even though sometimes quite harsh, if not brutal. I would say, supposing someone asked, to take the stall horn out of the (landing) picture. Some of the posters here did a very good job of explaning their position or reasoning for this. I'd say to carry an extra few knots. It won't hurt the airplane, and you can still grease it on. But maybe, just maybe, it will keep you from ending upside down off on the side someday. I've known poor pilots who never had an incident. I've know great pilots who bought the farm. "Fate is the Hunter." At least put the odds on your side.db.

no the horn doesnt have to go off to grease her on, but it doesnt hurt it either as the horn wont go off at the exact point of stall but just prior to a stall. Take slow flight for exmple, i can get the aircraft to fly backwards given the right wind conditions, but the horn is constantly going off. But judging by your experience you know and have done this also, its lots of fun.You do make valid points dickbloom. As I said before i wasnt trying to start an argument, just stating my point of view.

I didn't really see any arguments in your posts. Very well stated positions. Let's get a drink. I mix a mean martini!db.

I didn't really see any arguments in your posts. Very well stated positions. Let's get a drink. I mix a mean martini!db.

Id love to try one of your martini's, heck maybe even 2 of them :)

Where you at?db.Where you at?db.

no the horn doesnt have to go off to grease her on, but it doesnt hurt it either as the horn wont go off at the exact point of stall but just prior to a stall. Take slow flight for exmple, i can get the aircraft to fly backwards given the right wind conditions, but the horn is constantly going off. But judging by your experience you know and have done this also, its lots of fun.You make valid points dickbloom. As I said before i wasnt trying to start an argument, just stating my point of view.

Just prior to the stall really isn't that close, it actually goes off 5-10 knots above stall according to my old Cessna POHs. So if you're in a plane that has a stall speed of 48kts Vso, then it will go off anywhere between 53-58kts. If you fly an approach at a typical 1.3Vso, that means your speed across the threshold is 62kts. That can be as much as 9 to a mere 4 kts above the stall horn trip point. This is one reason why this is something you'll get one landing but not on another. I'm not against carrying a few extra knots for mother and country, but dickblooms' adamant stance without having any specific reasons except for something vague about being upside down besides the runway is a little off. An airplane is an ungainly machine when in contact with the ground. It is really not meant to be on the ground. That is why during landing, you want the moment of contact between you and the ground to be as slow as possible. No, that doesn't mean to be a in a full stall, as that is an out of control situation whereby you are falling, not landing. But it does mean that when you land, once you flare the plane, your goal becomes "hold it off...keep it straight...hold it off...keep it straight...hold it off" until the wheel touches the ground against your will. In trainer planes like a 172, instilling the "hold it off" mindset into students is important because if you allow the student to be impatient with touching down, then they will have a tendency to land fast and flat, which can easily cause damage.Now about the vague notion of being upside down besides the runway, I'm am going to guess that he feels that by prolonging a landing flare and bleeding off speed, he puts himself at risk of losing control in a crosswind and ending up upside down besides the runway. I will proffer to say that if you do end up upside down besides the runway, holding her off the runway would not have made a difference. The reason you ended up upside down besides the runway was not because you tried to hold it off during the flare, but because you failed to keep her straight during the flare. And if you feel uneasy about maintaining centerline during the flare in a crosswind and think the only safe way out is to land fast and flat and get the landing over with, I would suggest additional instruction from a certified flight instructor to build up your skils and confidence, because there is no reason to end up upside down besides the runway in a normal crosswind even if you do flare the plane for landing. If the crosswind is very very strong and you end up upside down beside the runway, the cause for that would not have been holding it off in the flare, but rather, judgement. Why are you landing on that runway? Why did you not make a partial flap approach where you would have been approaching at a higher speed and performing your flare and hold off, at higher subsequent speeds as well?What I am sensing now from those arguing against the "stall horn" is a sense that they are afraid of not being able to control the aircraft during the flare and instead, make fast landings. That's poor practise. It results in dinged props, engine inspections, worn shimmies, and broken nosegears. Fearing the landing flare should not go unchecked. Seriously, if you honestly evaluate yourself and come to the conclusion that you do have a weakness or fear, it really should be corrected with some sessions with your CFI.

2) FS does a poor job of modeling aerodynamics.

This blanket and very generalized statement just doesn't fly....You come in here as an "airline pilot"................. and throw out these words as though they have a great meaning of importance. As if, "this is just how it is!", but with no specifics.Let's go back a few years. Somewhere around 2002, MSFS decided to eliminate some of the effects over the tail surfaces, mainly the horizontal stab for an apparent increase in needed frame rates. I didn't especially like it, but I can live with it. Apparently, X-Plane fakes the downwash over the horizontal stab, as well as using a formula of wing span to fake ground effect............so it's not exactly realistic physics either.But what MSFS does well, and especially with third party intervention, is duplicating real world numbers when it comes to air speeds when modeling flap/gear extension, throttle, and more. I'm not yet pleased with the effects of constant speed props when it comes to real life "braking effects" on the approach to landing. However, MSFS models can work very well for IFR practice, and the airspeeds you'd expect with throttle and drag effects from the gear and flaps.But taking a 3rd party example of the RealAir Spitfire, it's a nicely modeled aircraft. The plane requires lots of left rudder on takeoff & initial climb ( prop spinning counter-clockwise) from the cockpit. You can really sense the power to weight, and it's a joy to land properly without a bounce. This is a good example of modeling aerodynamics well......................instead of "poor" as your statement. In fact, I read a letter from a former Spit pilot who was very pleased with the RealAir adaptation. I've been up in a P-51D myself, which gives me a good sense of feel of these fighters. I also own and fly a Van's RV6 which gives me a good basis to judge other models, as well as flight time in a Marchetti SF260 which RealAir has also released for FS9/FSX. Wouldn't you know it, many airline pilots as well as military pilots own and build Van's airplanes. They are just fun to fly! A Baron owner who also moderates these forums gives a thumbs up to the RealAir Duke as being quite realistic. I've also beta tested for various other 3rd party addons that released very credible models.So basically, your blanket statement of " FS does a poor job of modeling aerodynamics." means very little. You go into no specifics at all. And if you spell out deficiencies here and there, then so what, as every desktop sim has it's bad points as well as full blown professional simulators. But please point me out to a better desktop sim. And I hope it's not that other one that starts with an "X". I find just too many faults with that one. L.Adamson

I responded legitimately to a posted question, and rather quickly the flaming started.

You brought the flames on yourself with your generalized and highly opinionated statements which were said very much like a fact. Comparing whos 'log book' is bigger through PMs? You've got to be kidding me :( ...I truly hope you're a young student instead of an old pompous airline captain who gives all of aviation a bad name. Basicly my question had to do with coding for the stall horn in FS, and not your opinion on my friends, or my, safety.Besides that, im glad your comments have sparked very informative posts (read, objective vs subjective) from others and have enjoyed reading them.

oh. My goodness, son.db.

Hello everyone.This will be my last post on this issue, just for the people that will listen to logic. You have some people that will carry on forever. One simple statement for the people that think Stall / Stall horn is an indicator of the proper Speed / Configuration / Good landing attitude. Read my previous posts and stop trying to convince people, or getting them to use the Stall horn as a good, and or a must indicator. Learn the definition of Stall and think about what you are trying to say. You can Stall / Stall horn on, at ANY airspeed, if this does not get it for you are beyond the reach of normal logic and eventually, if you are a real pilot, you will learn this fact the hard way. Many have ignored it and are not around to accept it. TV

I agree with db on his point 1.JimCYWG

I can't get ahold of Snave so I hope he/she will get this or someone else might be able to comment:Snave,I am instructor up here in Canada. I'm looking to find an answer to a question my student asked me, specifically "how does ground effect influence your stall warning horn". You were the only person I could find that eluded to this topic in your following post: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.Any info you're willing to share would be greatly appreciated. Even a reference or a book I can try to order. Cheers.Tyler

Tyler,Ground effect predominately increases lift, for a given angle of attack, It will not change the AOA at which the airplane stalls. However due to decreased drag, and increased lift, it will cause the airplane to stall at a lower indicated airspeed. Stall speed goes down in Ground effect. and the buzzer will sound at a lower indicated airspeed. In the 172SP it's not uncommon to have the Airspeed indicator Show below the white arc (Basically, it doesn't show a speed, it shows zero) during the flare and landing. This is the main effect on the stall warning (Very low IAS for stall AOA). This is also the reason a lot of pilots are now Deceased (You should tell him this) - Takeoff in ground effect (Where Stall IAS is low), Everything looks good, accellerate in ground effect, Climb up to 50-100 feet out of ground effect on residual airspeed gained inside of ground effect (As they bleed what little speed they have)........and then they get the stall warning and end up falling like a rock..It's something I remember my Check Airman showing me, He had a list of pilots he went to a fly in with some years ago. He informed me that two pilots on that list (of about 50 or so) where dead because they didn't properly check their weight and balance. It's such an easy thing to do, but many times it seems to be ignored.Regards,Ryan. (FAA PPL)

I can't get ahold of Snave so I hope he/she will get this or someone else might be able to comment:Snave,I am instructor up here in Canada. I'm looking to find an answer to a question my student asked me, specifically "how does ground effect influence your stall warning horn". You were the only person I could find that eluded to this topic in your following post: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.Any info you're willing to share would be greatly appreciated. Even a reference or a book I can try to order. Cheers.Tyler