>But, I don't really feel much of anything. With a heavy wing>loaded small airplane, you can even get the feeling that the>floor is about to fall to the ground; and it can, if you don't>watch it! :DI'm with you on that one. That sudden departure from what was, just a split-second ago, a perfect set-up for a great touchdown, will sure get your attention. You may only be a foot or two off the ground when the bottom falls out, but it will still cause a red face and a load of excuses to your passengers :-lol .Leon

yes, the sudden departure from what was to what is will always get your attention. That's why we do it. You have to check out the video link I posted above, not much of a flare at all, just fly it in. And yes, blood pressure goes up, heart beat goes up, that's why we do it, hehe. As an aside, the apollo astronauts had all kinds of instruments on them, checking out heart beat etc., and I forget which one, but one pilot didn't raise at all as it lifted off, and didn't raise either when he did the re-entry thingy where you either bounce up or burn if you don't do it right. I can be calm if I have to be, but jeeze, my heart would be beating fast. His didn't, his was like he was peeing in the morning. billg

<>But approach speed is one of the factors in the ground effect equation. It is called the "ram effect." For example, there is no ground effect when you are taxiing but lots of pilots, who overload their aircraft or operated at excessive density altitudes, come to grief when the airplane "takes off" but then can't climb because it is the SPEED INDUCED ground effect that caused them to leave the runway...without which, the airplane won't fly and ends up in the weeds.<>Neither will any other aircraft...to any appreciable extent.<>Roger that...but not in the vast majority of FS9 aircraft...in fact, you don't get any appreciable float AT ALL, nor...again in "most not all" aircraft, you don't even bounce if you drive it onto the runway at 400 fpm and at an excessive airspeed. As you know, that IS NOT the way it works ITRW.<>Right, so long...as you stated in your post...that the approach is managed properly with respect to airspeed and deck angle. But my point is that even if you MISmanaged in the sim aircraft (most but not all) you get a "pro landing" anyway.Below is an excellent link for those interested in ground effect.Regards,Jim http://www.se-technology.com/wig/html/main...pen=aero&code=0

<>With respect,L.Adamson, I think you are missing the point.If you are conducting a stablized approach and transition from a nose down deck angle to a level deck angle at, say, 1000 agl then, if you apply only sufficient back pressure to achieve the transition to level then what you will do is simply level out.But under the exact same conditions, if you apply the exact same back pressure within a wingspan of the ground you will balloon upward due to well documented aerodynamic laws.No, it's not felt DRAMATICALLY like bouncing on a trampoline and in fact, ground effect is mostly FELT when when is DISSIPATES and OBSERVED (by ballooning) when it initiates.In landing, ground effect is one of your best friends if the approach is managed properly because that slight but VERY noticeable sinking feeling you get in your butt is what signals that it is time to slightly but steadily increase the back pressure and that you can then do so without inducing an upward balloon. If you continue to raise the nose to touchdown attitude before that sinking feeling (whether you feel it or not...it is there) then you will balloon.The old time flyers weren't kidding when they said they "fly by the seat of their pants." The dissipation of ground effect is one of the things they were taling about.:D>>I may be misunderstanding you but those two sentences seem to be in conflict...except if you are differentiating between heavy and light wing loaded small airplanes...but the aerodynamic effects of ground effect are present in ANY aircraft...just to different degrees...but those without heaviliy calloused buttockses will feel it if they tune in.(:Regards,Jim

my bad, sorry, check this out...http://www.starfighters.nl/then do 104 videos and then Riat_Cottesmore_landing_2_F104S_ASAM_2000 for the video. My bad, argh...EDIT: it's starfighter videos...billg

>in "most not all" aircraft, you don't even bounce if you drive>it onto the runway at 400 fpm and at an excessive airspeed. As>you know, that IS NOT the way it works ITRW.>For non-pilots like me, in this case do you mean bouncing after touching ground with gear, or bouncing solely due to ground effect, without touching at all?

If you saw the bounce, it wasn't very much of one. A little fast, a little low, and stuff happens. If you were the first guy down, you could have taken your hands off. billg

Following up the points made in this thread, I repeated the flight but turned off the autopilot at 100 ft. There was a slight reduction in the rate of descent (not nearly as much as with the autopilot on) and the result was a heavy landing with a bounce. This suggests that most of the effect is due to the autopilot.The glide slope transmitter is modelled as being offset from the centre of the runway to reflect real-life: you can't have a transmitter sitting on the touchdown area for obvious reasons. This means that the distance from the aircraft to the glide slope transmitter can never be zero - its minimum value is the offset.IF FS calculates a target height based on the actual distance of the aircraft from the transmitter, THEN the target height will become too high as the aircraft approaches touchdown and the aircraft will appear to be below the glide slope. For example, when the aircraft is on the ground alongside the transmitter it could appear to be 3 deg and 7m below the glide slope assuming a 3 deg glide slope and a 150m offset. These values are based on ground level and they would be reduced by whatever height FS assumes for the aircraft relative to the bottom of its tyres. The transmitter offset for 08R at Gatwick (EGKK) scales at about 150m from the aerodrome chart.

wow, you're way too smart for me. I think you know what you're talking about, but I'll have to give you credit, I just don't know. The flare? Did you see the video? That was a flare, well, he greased it so well he didn't need to flare, really. But he did. Too bad nobody flies them anymore....billg

To Jim (or indeed anyone)As a matter of interest, what do you think of the Flight1 C172R's landing behaviour? It seems quite good to me, but then I've never flown one in real life (and I can't remember much about my three landings in a Piper Warrior..)ThanksIan

I did my pilot's license on a C172, and to me, it's like the real thing. I get many more hours on FS than I do in rl, so take it with a grain of salt. But you asked, so I answered....billg

><too high approach speed. What I don't feel, is some big>cushion effect, that some might expect by reading about it.>>>>With respect,L.Adamson, I think you are missing the point.>>If you are conducting a stablized approach and transition from>a nose down deck angle to a level deck angle at, say, 1000 agl>then, if you apply only sufficient back pressure to achieve>the transition to level then what you will do is simply level>out.>>But under the exact same conditions, if you apply the exact>same back pressure within a wingspan of the ground you will>balloon upward due to well documented aerodynamic laws.>>No, it's not felt DRAMATICALLY like bouncing on a trampoline>and in fact, ground effect is mostly FELT when when is>DISSIPATES and OBSERVED (by ballooning) when it initiates.>I'm actually aware of the added lift that ground effect provides, since I've had the displeasure of trying to climb out of it with an older gutless Cessna 172 and three aboard. My main point, was that it just wasn't like some big cushion as you neared the runway. L.Adamson

but that's the point, if you're going fast enough you'll create your own cushion. Then you take your hands off of it and show them all that you did it, and let it land itself. Dad was a flight leader on 104's and most of his guys could do a hands off landing. There's always some guys on a squadron that don't want to fly, and no, they never got it. But hey....billg

Just bouncing off the ground...no "bounce" off of ground effect. What ground effect feels like with you encounter it a too fast an airspeed and/or use too much back pressure (i.e. over rotate) is you feel like a "gust of wind" but it was most likely not. It was ground effect.As for "over-rotating" one of the keys to landing is to realize that, because of ground effect, only a fraction of the back pressure that you would normally apply at altitude is necessary or advisable in the landing phase since smaller yolk movements will produce greater results due to the extra lift cause by ground effect.But don't worry about it in simming because the effect is hardly modeled. I am just trying to relate what it's like ITRW and to encourage FS and the developers to work on this phase of flight since in its, far bar, the most unrealistic phase of simulated flight except spins etc. in most models.Regards,Jim

<>There is no mystery re: the a/p trying to round out your flight path. When the glideslope bar starts to rise the a/p will roll in nose up trim. That will create a shallower descent rate until eventually, full nose up trim will be reached.There are examples where, when elevator failure occured, pilots have been able to save their bacon by rolling in maximum nose up trip and the last possible moment but such attempts are "survivable" at best. If that wasn't the case, then we would have "autoland" switches in our Shyhawks. (:As for your heavy landing with a bounce...trust me...I don't for a moment doubt that you experienced what you experienced but the following is what I experience under identical circumstances and have been experiencing since FS98 on a half dozen rigs.172no windILS speed 65 ktsflaps 20rpm 1700descent rate 300-400Disengage a/p as gs bar begins to rise.Maintain airspeed and descent rate to touchdownResult?Chirp and stick...no bounce...and that is in a NOSE DOWN attitude.I have never known a FS 172 and most other SE models to behave the way yours did.Regards,Jim