FSX-MS Any landing tips for the A2A C182 (and 172)?

[CoolP 283]

The value I've posted came from the A2A docs.

Flaps Down, Power Off: 47 kcas (p.43)

I would assume that this is the one their model is aimed at. I was quoting KCAS and asked specifically about your indicated value, yes.

 

 

 

so I am guesstimating the speed close to touchdown is around 35KIAS

Do we agree that focusing on the touchdown speed (as opposed to approach speeds) might be misleading?

[theflyingdutchmen 3]

Approach at about 60-70 knots and as you are about 10 ft above the runway cut the power to idle level off and look at the end of the runway or horizon. Flare and ride the stall horn until you touchdown. I normally only put about 20 degrees of flaps unless I'm landing at a short runway. 

[Humpty 751]

You approach the runway won't the pilot use 3 degrees ? I am confused.  I am not talking about touchdown. But at least on final with the power / trim / flap settings and a 3 deg the correct way ?

[Oracle427 45]

Correct, the KCAS is the published value in both the real and A2A docs. But no pilot can see KCAS on any instrument panel. The manual also includes the 33KIAS full flaps stall speed on page 47.

 

A lot of videos recorded by sim pilots that I have watched show them flying right onto the runway without any attempt to flare at the approach speed and that is not correct. The approach speed is maintained up until the glidebreak beginning roughly one wingspan above the runway at which point the aircraft will progressively slow down until touchdown. The reason I'm calling out the slower speed is because I get a sense that a lot of people feel that the airplane can not or should not be flown slower until touchdown.

 

I must stress that one should just fly the airplane to the proper position and not be watching airspeed at this point in the landing. The airplane will stop flying when it is ready to do so and the pilot should keep it flying just above the runway until the aircraft can't fly anymore. 65KIAS is a documented airspeed for approach for a normal landing that will achieve the documented landing distances in "standard" conditions with a "standard" pilot.

[GHarrall 494]

The technique I learned from my CFI was simple in both the 152 and 172

 

Once you know you will make the runway, power off maintain 65 knots IAS with a fixed frame of reference at the far end of the runway. (the runway end itself works well for this purpose)

 

When you see the fixed ref point start to 'rise' then you know its time to start the flare. Other than maintaining the approach speed of 65 knots, I never needed to know what the speed was going into the flare. At that point the aircraft stops flying and if you have timed it nicely, you will get the stall horn kicking in a fraction before your mains touch down.

 

It takes a while to 'get' it, but eventually you do.

[Oracle427 45]

This is an example of what I mean about flying onto the runway.

 

The airplane is initially at structural cruising speed at the beginning of the approach, and beyond max flap extension speed until short final. Touchdown is at around 60KIAS.

[CoolP 283]

Oracle, I did not intent to cause any trouble for rw flyers. :smile: Although I admit that I would have loved a clear answer on

Do we agree that focusing on the touchdown speed (as opposed to approach speeds) might be misleading?

 

The reasons behind avoiding any 'touchdown' (IAS) values actually got outlined by you, so we seemed to be in agreement, somehow.

 

I was just wondering about the conclusion, namely to aim for an indicated airspeed value, while being at a high aoa (actually, the highest of the complete flight) with lots of workload arising from the fact that you are about to be ground based again.

 

So the other solutions (like the one from Glenn above), with aiming for an approach speed (where time, workload balance and proper indication are given) and then looking for a pitch value and/or observed relationship to the runway seemed more reasonable.

 

I fully agree on your remarks about not wanting to fly on the runway and I certainly welcomed the details about differentiating between the small GA planes and the tubeliners.

 

Oh, I forgot to add that A2A, among only few, surely helps us sim pilots with their way the stall horn got modelled. Unlike the default system variant, it actually activates before you are stalling which is a great help, real and sim-wise.

[Oracle427 45]

I am pretty sure we're in agreement, and I like having this discussion. It's great to see sim technology pushing the boundaries and allowing everyone to hangar fly in this manner.

 

Yes, developing the correct runway visual references is extremely important. I also do not want to suggest that anyone should attempt to fly the aircraft down to Vso by watching the ASI during the landing approach. I do want them to know that they will reach Vso or get very close to it prior to touchdown during a normal landing.

 

A lot of landing issues are due to airspeed control. However, airspeed control doesn't come from monitoring the ASI in this high workload time.

 

One can get all the airspeed information they need by stabilizing and trimming for 65KIAS early in the approach. Remember that pitching up will slow down the aircraft and if power is added the airplane's descent rate will decrease. Small corrections early in the approach keep things nice and stable. Practice makes perfect! In fact non-stop practice is required even in the RW because these skills deteriorate quickly.

[CoolP 283]

It's great to see sim technology pushing the boundaries and allowing everyone to hangar fly in this manner.

 

Very true. Devs like A2A really hit a spot. Or just showed that flightsim is a business full of nerds. ^_^

 

Besides, I read more than once that simple AOA indicators are becoming more available/popular even for the small GA planes. You can even select the type of landing you intend to perform.

 

FAA wants angle-of-attack systems in GA aircraft

 

A system in action. "Fly AoA!"

 

Forgot to add. To add such a simple gauge to any sim plane should be easy to do and might, at least initially, establish a 'feel' on an otherwise vague situation like a simulator landing. The sim constantly puts out AoA data, you just can't see it (yet) in the VC.

 

[realkewl 3]

I also have had issues landing the A2A 172.

 

My issue has always been the ground effect seems off to me. While at the proper approach speed 60-70kias, flaps 20 degrees with a 300-400 fpm descent. Note aircraft is trimmed. About 10 feet above the runway I pull back on the yoke just a little to round out and the A2A 172 seems to pitch down instead of pitch up...which then causes me to pull back on the yoke further into a flare before I wanted to flare...stall horn sounds and touch down...sometimes hard.

 

This has been my experience. What I haven't tried was to round out sooner...but I do not want to develop a bad habit. Note sure about pulling power all the way out on a 172...I have flown these in real life and do not recall having to pull power all the way out until I've round out. But I could be wrong, I'm flying low wings now and you do have to pull power as soon as you know you can make the runway.

 

Also, keep in mind if you're flying a heavy crosswind you do not want to pull power out to soon.

 

-Ray

[Oracle427 45]

Realkewl,

 

I normally pull power at at the abeam point when I fly a 172N and 172S. I'll clear the engine once or twice on the way down to make sure it is okay, but generally I won't add power at all all through the descent from abeam to touchdown unless I'm sinking too soon, I like being within a glide at all times when I am near the airport and down low. Of course, that isn't always the case, but it is my "ideal" in a traffic pattern.

 

The airplane flies the same with our without power, pitching down a tiny bit will give you extra airspeed, pitching up will take it away. Carrying power generally shallows out the approach and means that you will need to fly a larger pattern. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I personally prefer to stay closer at low altitudes as noted earlier.

 

Pitching down before pitching up suggests a hardware issue with your stick. Maybe the potentiometers in your stick are worn out.

[Boeing or not going 578]

I have trouble landing but read their forum about slow trim and how to fix it, now landing is much smoother.

[~Craig~ 10]

I have trouble landing but read their forum about slow trim and how to fix it, now landing is much smoother.

I've done the 'fix' too but even with it, find the trimming painfully slow on all of the A2A GA aircraft.  Much slower than on any other aircraft I have in the sim.

[Boeing or not going 578]

I've done the 'fix' too but even with it, find the trimming painfully slow on all of the A2A GA aircraft.  Much slower than on any other aircraft I have in the sim.

 

if you make the aircraft.cfg change it works

 

elevator_trim_limit     =19.5

[CoolP 283]

elevator_trim_limit =19.5

As per MS doc, this sets the "Angular limit of the elevator trim tab (degrees)."

 

Now I am not necessarely questioning that it alters/affects something but I would envision A2A having set the default value on purpose and also with their external modules in mind.

 

Do they recommend that tweak? Also, does it solve any issues or would it only mask/workaround a possible cause?

 

You guys are up for changing the trim speed, no? Limiting the actual range might not be able to reach that goal and/or might affect other aspects of the detailed FDE unintentionally.

 

I shall revise my sceptical statement if this tweak was recommended by the A2A FDE experts. Then I would expect it to be a part of a future core update though.