With all due respect, Ozzie (and I'm not going to quote it all again), it is indeed one of those 100 pilots-100 opinions things. I've been flying since I was 16. I'm not going to tell you how long ago that was, but it was plenty long ago! It's long enough ago to know that 1000 landings is not that many. I've never become a CFI because I just wasn't interested, but I fly with quite a few of them, and quite a few of them, some of them FAA examiners themselves, will tell you just exactly what I described as the way to "flare" to land. I wasn't offering some made-up personal perspective. As Alec says, the Airplane Flying Handbook from the FAA is golden, and most of the CFIs I know treat it as the bible.

 

But we are in danger of turning the thread into a typical hangar argument, or worse, a "who has more real world expertise" pissing contest. So I'm going to leave your final comments to Alec alone, although I think they clearly betray some significant confusion on your part.

 

The OP asked about the realism of FSX modeling of landing physics. The majority of my response was about that. I also offered some advice, from years of experience, which many, many RW pilots would agree with and practice, that might help him land better. He's not actually flying an actual Legacy. You guys know that, right? Why not let him try the advice and see if it helps him land his Legacy in FSX? If not, nothing is lost. As for the real world, I'll keep landing the way I land and greasing them on and won't worry too much about which of you think that I'm doing it wrong.

Thanks for the replies, lot's of food for thought.

 

 

Anthony1968, I wonder if maybe you should raise or widen your viewpoint in the sim so that you can get a better view of the runway.

 

That's a good point and I'm currently fiddling with EZCA to get a decent perspective, I'm finding it difficult to find that "realistic" pilot viewpoint though. It was easy with the C172 as I fly it for real, though not as often as I would like :( . Does anybody have good EZCA camera profiles for the Legacy that they would be willing to share????

 

 

An easy solution is to use the freeware FLUSIFIX program to install altitude callouts on the Legacy then practice your landings and get used to the view from the aircraft at approx 10 ft up. Then when you are confident of your flaring height remove the callouts again using FLUSIFIX.

 

 

Great idea, cheers.

 

Getting the proper perspective (judgement) when to start the roundout takes some time. Practice practice practice.

 

I think part of the problem is the difference between strips. Wide/long runways look different in the final moments to narrow/short ones. I also feel that flying the plane level until it lands itself can waste runway, I've let this happen for real during my current PPL training. Having said that my technique in the real world needs some serious practice as well so I'm in no position to say which is best/correct.

 

It's amazing how a lot of the techniques required to fly an airplane can be picked up quite easily (RW). I can instinctively pitch up/balance with rudder correctly in a turn or recover from turbulence quite quickly but the landing phase can be very elusive. As someone said..................practice,practice,practice.

I think part of the problem is the difference between strips. Wide/long runways look different in the final moments to narrow/short ones. I also feel that flying the plane level until it lands itself can waste runway, I've let this happen for real during my current PPL training. Having said that my technique in the real world needs some serious practice as well so I'm in no position to say which is best/correct.

 

 

This is a classic gotcha in the real world. We learn to judge our approach and landings by visual cues without even knowing it, and when we throw a monkey wrench in by changing the physical size and shape of the runway we are approaching, then judgement does indeed become tricky. The only cure for this problem, as you say, is to practice a lot at different sized strips and keep this phenomenon in mind always as you are approaching. Think about the size of the strip relative to your usual home runway and adjust mentally accordingly. This is something FSX can really teach you well by allowing such practice at visual training.

 

As for the using up too much runway canard, I'll break my vow of silence and say that this is just silly. The way you use up more runway is by being at a higher airspeed. If you approach the runway at the same approach speed, and then fly level at idle, while holding off by gently raising the nose to keep the wheels from touching as long as possible, you will float no longer than if you approach, level, and then "aggressively flare" as you approach stall speed (which you will need to be close to while flaring to avoid ballooning). You will be bleeding airspeed the whole time. The only thing that will make a difference is wind changes or flaring too soon, stalling, and plopping her in. That will indeed use less runway. I don't recommend it. A good gust while flying basically level, will cause you to float a little longer. A good gust while "aggressively" flaring will cause you to balloon because of your higher angle of attack at greater airspeed. This is basic aerodynamics. I can't believe your instructors have not taught this to you. Get a copy of Stick and Rudder and read it carefully.

 

It's possible that the issue here is semantics. Perhaps those talking about "aggressive" flaring really mean basically the same thing as I do: rounding out, leveling, and then raising the nose, without ballooning, while holding off for a two point landing (or three point if a taildragger). I've found that pilots that think they have to "flare" rather than just hold the plane off as long as possible balloon much more often, as the OP described, and land less well.

Get a copy of Stick and Rudder and read it carefully

 

Have it, with a bookmark on page 11. Time to dust it off. I also have "Making perfect landings in light airplanes" by Ron Fowler. Part of my problem ( and not just with flying) is I am MUCH more interested in doing than reading.

Alex...

 

I did my entire commercial / instrument in a PA-28-161s save 35hrs done in a C172RG.

 

I have signed off (and had people pass) checkrides.... in a Warrior... whatever...

 

What you described above did not sound like what is in the AFH.

 

I wasn't offering some made-up personal perspective. As Alec says, the Airplane Flying Handbook from the FAA is golden, and most of the CFIs I know treat it as the bible.

 

What you described above did not sound like what is in the AFH.

 

Wasn't around when I was actively instructing to "treat it as the bible". Having read it... I agree with what's in there.

 

 

I've been taught you don't brake much these GA airplanes

 

I was from the "school" brakes just weren't to be used unless absolutely necessary e.g. short-field landings.

 

Btw... 400 landingd in 60 hrs??? You have any time to do X-C?

 

It's long enough ago to know that 1000 landings is not that many.

 

I said it wasn't... I had about 500 (according to my logbook) by commercial / instrument. Maybe I have more... who knows...

 

It's possible that the issue here is semantics.

 

Must be.

 

But we are in danger of turning the thread into a typical hangar argument, or worse, a "who has more real world expertise" pissing contest. So I'm going to leave your final comments to Alec alone, although I think they clearly betray some significant confusion on your part.

 

:rolleyes: yeah... I hear one thing... then another... so you could say I am confused.

 

(btw Larry... no confusion about what you said)

My suggestion about reading Stick and Rudder was that I don't think there's a better analysis of the aerodynamics of flight out there. Must read for everyone, I think. Would help clear up some of the confusion here.

Have it, with a bookmark on page 11. Time to dust it off. I also have "Making perfect landings in light airplanes" by Ron Fowler. Part of my problem ( and not just with flying) is I am MUCH more interested in doing than reading.

 

Those are both good books... one more (if interested) is Leighton Collin's Takeoff & Landings. I like that one too.

 

Yeah... more fun doing than reading.... and certainly no substitute for "correct" experience.

But "doing" without "understanding" is a recipe for trouble. You don't have "correct" experience if you don't understand the forces at work on the aircraft. "Correct" flying isn't done by following a recipe, or by doing what you're told, but by understanding aerodynamics enough to know how to control the airplane to make it do what you want it to do.

But "doing" without "understanding" is a recipe for trouble.

 

:Sigh:

For a normal tricycle landing in a 172 or a taildragger 3-point landing in a J-3, I was taught that you land with the stick/yoke all the way back and not one millimeter forward of that point at the time the wheels make contact with the ground. When you run out of stick travel, the airplane will settle down on it's own and is least likely to get gusted back into the air.

 

I was also taught to never pump the stick/yoke forward and back. You pull smoothly back as they transition from glide to level off and then continue to pull back as needed to hold the airplane just a few inches off the runway. If at any point the airplane begins to rise, just hold the position of the yoke/stick until the airplane begins to settle again and then resume pulling back to arrest the sink. If necessary add a touch of power to smooth out a bigger balloon, but if it is really serious then it's time to execute a go around.

 

You eyes must be looking in the right places at all times or else the landing simply isn't going to go well. You have to acquire the sight picture for the airplane and I prefer to look at 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock as I transition into the level off even when flying the 172. That way I never lose the cues I need to tell where I am relative to the ground and if I am aligned with the runway.

 

I keep Stick and Rudder on my nightstand and I like to go back to it every now and then for some enlightenment.

Griphos,

 

Good you remind me I have to read my Stick and Rudder book one more time, it's been a long time, and I wasn't flying at the time. That book should be mandatory for all pilots to read, it's that good!!

I agree with everything Griphos said so far, I have experienced a lot with flaring techniques because my landings weren't good for a long time, took me some time to solo, and his technique is the one I use and I feel very safe because gives me time to react to any downdraft, and during a crosswind I can easily see if I'm drifting, I have time to kick the rudder to correct it, where in this "active" flare you won't have this notion because everything will happen too fast, and before you know it the gust is blowing you away from the centerline, the aircraft is ballooning, well, that's my opinion, and also of my Flight Instructors, and I have to believe them more than anyone.

 

Great Ozzie

 

 

Well, I don't know what exactly you're talking about, and it's hard to explain talking through a forum, there are things that can only be shown on the real thing, so I'll leave it at that. I told you how my airplane reacts, I have only flown it so far, so I don't know about others.

 

About 400 landings, well what happened is I started flying in 2007, stopped, then 2008, stopped again, and now I went back, this time to complete my PPL. So I ended up doing a lot of the basic trainings when I returned, because I spent 4 years away from an airplane. And also many of those landings were done by an instructor, as you well know, in the beginning the instructor will do manu landings to show the student what;'s the correct way, where he's making a mistake, but I have done a lot more landings than usual, that's for sure.

For starters, I said I agressively think about the flare. I DO NOT agressively flare. I also won't be doing any landings with all three gear contacting the runway at once........in a single engine nosewheel airplane. The nose gear just isn't designed for it. It's either mounted to the firewall, or the engine mount. It can't take near the stress, that the mains do, which are usually mounted to the main spar.

 

My definition of a round out, is the transition from a nose down attitude, to a slightly high one, usually around the height of ground effect. The plane will descend in this attitude, until you're close to the runway. At that point, the flare is used just to keep the nose off. As speed diminishes, as well as elevator authority, I'll just keep pulling gently back. At times, depending on load, the "stick", may be almost full back.

 

Remembering back to my Piper Warrior student days, I had an instructor that told me time after time to stop landing flat.

I've read that the Lancair is going to be landing with a less angle of attack than a Cessna. I also seen some good Cirrus landing photo's, in which it was stressed to keep the nose off, while putting the landing weight on the mains. What I have not seen anywhere.........is to try to land on all three at once.

 

I know from personal experience, that landing a Van's RV...........isn't good, when you let the nose wheel touch at the same time. It's downright terrible, if the nosewheel happens to land first. It can bounce, it can wheelbarrow, it can easily turn into a case of PIO, with "expensive" repair results. It's often stressed on our Van's RV forums, that the nose wheel is to taxi with, not to land with.

 

L.Adamson

 

edit: I've attached a pic. This is what can happen, when the nose wheel touches first. This is a result of PIO, after a second "small" bounce. A bounce that "I", didn't think I needed to worry about.

<br />I think the best practice is to NOT try to flare. Let the flare sort of happen automatically as you level to fly right above the ground, and as you work to keep it off as long as possible. Fly it on while trying not to touch. That way you just work not to balloon, and slowly "feel" for the ground. <br />

 

Just re-reading this again. Assuming that power is pulled back to land, how can you technically not have the nose raise, and stay off the runway at the same time. As airspeed diminishes, the angle of attack will have to increase........which raises the nose, which is the flare.

 

Edit: after re-reading all of your comments, what I see, is that you're describing what I call the flare. Note, that my definition of roundout & flare, are two different things. By trying to keep the plane flying, that nose wheel should contact the runway after the mains.

I had an instructor that told me time after time to stop landing flat.

 

See... this is what I was hearing from the Alex / Griphos in their initial posts.

 

It's got to be very gentle, you make the aircraft flight level as much as you can, it will land when it can't keep flying anymore.

 

Now you see why Alex? Keeping the "aircraft level" is how I read that. I did not see anything about a flare (paraphrasing - "nose high ok for a 737 but not for a GA plane). This just sounded like a "flat" landing. Why I responded with what I said. Larry posted a pic of a minor thing that could happen. It can be much, much worse.

 

 

I was taught that you land with

 

All good stuff Oracle. Yoke in the lap (sound familiar?). A/C rise? - Hold the stick or relax a bit. Depends. But all good.

 

10 & 2? Ok, whatever works for you... I use normally 12 to whatever side I am on (12 to 10 or 12 to 2) transitioning further aft as the nose comes up (and blocks the view over the hood). I like to have some point on the cowling directly in front of me (with a somewhat imaginary line) or the hinge on the cowling in front of me to use as an alignment aid.

 

 

As airspeed diminishes, the angle of attack will have to increase........which raises the nose, which is the flare.

 

Yep...

 

You eyes must be looking in the right places at all times or else the landing simply isn't going to go well.

 

And Anthony... they (eyeballs) have to be kept moving. It is work. I think there is a tendency toward the end (sometimes) to stop working... stop those roving eyeballs and let nature (gravity) take over while hoping for the best.

 

I keep Stick and Rudder on my nightstand

 

Mine same same but second level down. Along with a few others.

Yes, Larry, I think we're probably talking about the same thing. As you said, from reading all my comments, you can see that holding the airplane off once level above the runway means slowly increasing the nose high attitude until the plane settles on the runway. As you emphasize, doing so will keep the nosewheel from contacting until the planes slows in roll-out. One should always land nose high. I just think most pilots will get to that correct nose-high attitude best and have better landings if they think about flying level and holding the airplane off from landing than if they think about leveling out and then "flaring" by pulling back on the yoke/stick at some opportune moment.

 

What I was saying to the OP is that trying intentionally to "flare" once you are in a basically level attitude above the runway will often cause problems for pilots. It's the intentionally pulling back in order to "flare" that is the problem. As Oracle said, ideally the stick will be pretty far back at the point you settle on if you just keep gently pulling back in order to hold her off as long as possible. In our old taildraggers, it should basically be in the lap, as he said, and his description of how to hold it if ballooning and then continue to pull is classic and standard taildragger technique.

 

And, Larry, just to clear up any possible confusion I may have caused, when I refer to a three-point landing, I mean in a taildragger, like that cute little yellow bird to the left which is my main ride.

 

Ozzie, if you had read our posts with any attention at all, you would realize that landing flat is impossible if you land as we describe. You can only land flat if you fly the plane onto the runway. If you try to hold the aircraft off from the runway as long as possible from a level attitude it is impossible to land flat. You will constantly be increasing the back pressure on the stick to hold off, and that will increase your nose-high attitude. Sometimes, in some planes, it doesn't increase it much, but you still get a two-wheel landing. Other planes, like the Chief, you get quite nose high by the end and basically stall on if you're a little high, and settle on if closer to the runway. It's the difference between "holding off" and an intentionally performed "flare" where the pilot tries to put the plane in a nose high attitude regardless of whether it's the right point and speed to do so that results in so many sloppy landings.

 

You all do what you want, but I'm willing to bet you'll get more consistent and good landings by thinking "hold off...hold off" rather than "flare."

 

I'm done.