I don't understand this type of landing.

[UnAnswerd]

When attempting to land a small, single-engine airplane, the typical procedure seems to be the "three point landing". Apparently, you decent towards the runway, with your nose pointed more/less right at it with the power eventually cut right out. As you get in closer, you round it out or "flare". Now you might be floating a little, perhaps a few feet above the runway. With no power, you keep the nose held up, you run out of airspeed, the airplanes stops flying, and you hit the runway. The only confusing thing about this is why they call it a "three point landing". That term apparently originated back in the days when tailwheels were the mainstream. The airplane was landed in much the same fashion, and all three wheels would hit at once, hence the term "three point landing". While you basically land a tricycle-gear airplane the same way, you sure as hell don't want all three wheels to hit at once. I've done it, and the results were not pretty.

But this type of landing definitely is not used for large jets and whatnot. I can only guess that it would take up way too much space. Also, large jets appear to descend towards the runway while at the same time having a nose-high attitude. This seems very confusing, almost like it would stall. Can you land a small airplane this way??? I know enough about the three point landing, but if anyone could describe this other, special, apparently magical way to land a large jet, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[avbug]

Flame bait, or too much nitrous oxide as a kid?

When attempting to land a small, single-engine airplane, the typical procedure seems to be the "three point landing".

Only if you're in a light conventional gear airplane, or a very poor pilot. Which one is you?

I've done it, and the results were not pretty.

No doubt.

 

[gkrangers]

Flame bait, or too much nitrous oxide as a kid?



Only if you're in a light conventional gear airplane, or a very poor pilot. Which one is you?



No doubt.

Agree with you on all 3 points.

 

[FN FAL]

a caravan with a pod is not a poverbial barn door with a big engine, it's a proverbial barn door with an engine with the barn door turned 90 degrees.

In a crosswind, say 16 gusting to whatever, you plant the upwind wheel onto the runway, then the the nose wheel. Just about the time you remember there's a third wheel, it hits the pavement. Then you reef on Beta for a while as you continue to wage war on the upwind wheel.

Any questions? Fry an egg and say, "this is your brain on drugs", you'll get it sooner or later.

 

[starchkr]

agree with the above...but there are some light singles you SHOULD NOT flare... AC-112/114.

 

[=w=]

Little planes only have have flaps. Large jets have flaps and slats. When in the landing configuration, with full flaps and slats, the large jet is pretty much in the same attitude it would be in with a clean wing (flaps/slats retracted). The difference is it can make more lift at slower airspeeds with the flaps/slats extended.

With a smaller plane with just flaps, basically what happens is you're changing the angle of the wing chord relative to the longitudinal axis of the plane. Basically you're twisting the wing so the trailing edge is lower than the leading edge relative to the airplane fuselage. A wing with slats/flaps doesnt do this... it only increases the curvature of the wing to produce more lift.

Therefore on landing approach an aircraft with slats/flaps will look more nose high than an aircraft with just flaps. Look on airliners.net at the difference between and CRJ-200 and a CRJ-700 on landing approach. The 200 only has flaps and the nose points down while the 700 has flaps and slats with a much more nose high approach.

And a normal landing in a light trainer is not a "three point landing" That's bad. Land on the mains first as you would on any plane... unless you're landing a tail dragger.

 

[macfly]

Any questions? Fry an egg and say, "this is your brain on drugs", you'll get it sooner or later.

Thats not near as good as the one where the girl whacks the old lady after smoking a joint. Unfortunatly, its not as quoteable.

Hey the guy is confused as to what 3 point means and how it applies to nose bangers.

 

[UnAnswerd]

Flame bait, or too much nitrous oxide as a kid?

No. Maybe I was given erroneous information. Freakin' smart-ass.

Only if you're in a light conventional gear airplane, or a very poor pilot. Which one is you?

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that if you took a conventional geared airplane, and a tricycle-geared airplane, and completely disregarded the configuration of the gear, both airplanes are landed basically the same way....in a nose-high attitude at a speed at or near stalling.

 

[FN FAL]

Thats not near as good as the one where the girl whacks the old lady after smoking a joint. Unfortunatly, its not as quoteable.

Not only that, but the girl can't land a pod laden Caravan.

On that same note, I can only say, "16 gusting to whatever".

And if by saying "16", I meant 20 and by saying "whatever" I meant 30, I didn't mean to imply that "gusting" meant "gusting".

 

[macfly]

No. Maybe I was given erroneous information. Freakin' smart-ass.



I may be wrong, but it seems to me that if you took a conventional geared airplane, and a tricycle-geared airplane, and completely disregarded the configuration of the gear, both airplanes are landed basically the same way....in an nose-high attitude at a speed at or near stalling.

I agree with you on both counts.

 

[macfly]

Not only that, but the girl can't land a pod laden Caravan.

On that same note, I can only say, "16 gusting to whatever".

And if by saying "16", I meant 20 and by saying "whatever" I meant 30, I didn't mean to imply that "gusting" meant "gusting".

Who ever said that using your own product doesnt produce entertaining products.

 

[FN FAL]

I agree with you on both counts.

Yea, in no wind conditions, I could agree with that statement.

 

[FN FAL]

Who ever said that using your own product doesnt produce entertaining products.

Don't get high from your own supply

It's not my own supply, so I'm cool.

 

[Bandit60]

Little planes only have have flaps. Large jets have flaps and slats. When in the landing configuration, with full flaps and slats, the large jet is pretty much in the same attitude it would be in with a clean wing (flaps/slats retracted). The difference is it can make more lift at slower airspeeds with the flaps/slats extended.

With a smaller plane with just flaps, basically what happens is you're changing the angle of the wing chord relative to the longitudinal axis of the plane. Basically you're twisting the wing so the trailing edge is lower than the leading edge relative to the airplane fuselage. A wing with slats/flaps doesnt do this... it only increases the curvature of the wing to produce more lift.

Therefore on landing approach an aircraft with slats/flaps will look more nose high than an aircraft with just flaps. Look on airliners.net at the difference between and CRJ-200 and a CRJ-700 on landing approach. The 200 only has flaps and the nose points down while the 700 has flaps and slats with a much more nose high approach.

And a normal landing in a light trainer is not a "three point landing" That's bad. Land on the mains first as you would on any plane... unless you're landing a tail dragger.

If what you say is all true then how come a learjet has a high angle of attack when on approach? It doesnt have slats. Come to think of it, the Falcon and Sabre are the only corporate jets that do have slats. (I'm sure there are more that I cant think of at this time.) My point is that most coportate jets do not have slats and most of them land with a high angle of attack

 

[avbug]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that if you took a conventional geared airplane, and a tricycle-geared airplane, and completely disregarded the configuration of the gear, both airplanes are landed basically the same way....in a nose-high attitude at a speed at or near stalling.

Correct...you are wrong.

No. Maybe I was given erroneous information.

Apparently so. Seems that happens to you. A lot.

 

[UnAnswerd]

Correct...you are wrong.

And so sure of this, that you even provided an explanation as to why.

 

[=w=]

If what you say is all true then how come a learjet has a high angle of attack when on approach? It doesnt have slats. Come to think of it, the Falcon and Sabre are the only corporate jets that do have slats. (I'm sure there are more that I cant think of at this time.) My point is that most coportate jets do not have slats and most of them land with a high angle of attack

Cause corporate jets usually have the smallest wings they can put on them. A Lear is like the F-104 of corp jets. Plus a lot depends on the design of the wing... I am pretty sure a Lear's wing doesn't have much curvature to it so therefore it relies on angle of attack mostly to create sufficient lift. Flaps help a bit but it's darn near impossible to make a curved surface out of a flat wing even with flaps.

Remember the whole discussion about Newtonian lift vs. Bernoulli's principle in private pilot ground school? Barn doors can fly just as well as a cambered wing, it just all depends on the angle of attack.

Anyway I was using generalizations to explain myself in the early post. Of course there are always exceptions.

 

[HS125]

And so sure of this, that you even provided an explanation as to why.

Because in a conventional gear (tail wheel) aircraft, you will sometiems do a wheel landing where you land on the mains first and then set the tail down. Most helpful in strong crosswinds and in conventional gear aircraft with limited forward visibility

 

[macfly]

Because in a conventional gear (tail wheel) aircraft, you will sometiems do a wheel landing where you land on the mains first and then set the tail down. Most helpful in strong crosswinds and in conventional gear aircraft with limited forward visibility

Do you land on both mains first or just the upwind wheel, then the downwind then the tail. call it the 123 point landing. Or you could land upwind first, let the tail come down then plant the down wind wheel. Hmmm call it a 132 landing. All of this takes into account that the numo 3 represents the tail wheel, which logically means that would not work for a nose banger.

bah, FN was right; never get high on your own supply!

 

[FN FAL]

Cause corporate jets usually have the smallest wings they can put on them. A Lear is like the F-104 of corp jets. Plus a lot depends on the design of the wing... I am pretty sure a Lear's wing doesn't have much curvature to it so therefore it relies on angle of attack mostly to create sufficient lift. Flaps help a bit but it's darn near impossible to make a curved surface out of a flat wing even with flaps.

Remember the whole discussion about Newtonian lift vs. Bernoulli's principle in private pilot ground school? Barn doors can fly just as well as a cambered wing, it just all depends on the angle of attack.

Anyway I was using generalizations to explain myself in the early post. Of course there are always exceptions.

There's this chick in my criminal justice class that wins every argument with the comment, "I'm a straight A student!" but she don't know the commerce clause from her ass hole.

 

[macfly]

its your duty to show her. In the end she will thank you.

 

[FN FAL]

In the end she will thank you.

As part of her punishment, she should...she needs the discipline.

 

[sbav8r]

I'm not sure what I just read in this thread. I feel like I just had some of FN FAL's supply. I'm confused.

Only at flight info could a conversation go from 3 point landings to something about Caravan X-wind landings to drug references to sexual innuendo. The worst part is, the poor kid's question was never answered. Gotta love it.

 

[Kream926]

first of all....avbug.....you still are my hero
second.....unanswered...you are a F**KING retard

please stop before you become a statistic


and i will guarantee he will make some fake quote of me saying something stupid of myself


again

UNANSWEred should win a DEE DEE DEE award

 

[Skyline]

Flare

UnAnswered

Big airplanes are basically the same as a 150 except on a larger scale with greater weight and momentum.

A big jet is flown with power on until just before touchdown. It makes for a stable and safer approach. Big planes can't recover very easily from large sink rates or other abnormalities like fast approach speeds or slow speeds.

When you practice a soft field landing it is similar to methods used to land a big jet. Power on throughout the approach untill just before touch down. Most small plane pilots are taught to fly the pattern with lower power settings and some are at idle. That makes for a steeper approach. If you did that with a big plane you would make a big hole on the end of the runway because you wouldn't be able to recover from the high sink rate at the bottom. FedEx lost a 727 due to that very thing.

Adding power will raise the nose of the plane making for a flatter attitude on approach and the "nose high" look that you see big jets have on approach.

Skyline

 

[nosehair]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that if you took a conventional geared airplane, and a tricycle-geared airplane, and completely disregarded the configuration of the gear, both airplanes are landed basically the same way....in a nose-high attitude at a speed at or near stalling.

No, you are not wrong. We are talking a typical tricycle trainer. Nose high near stall landing attitude. If the tricycle had a tailwheel, the tailwheel would be touching down with the mains. This is the correct way to land a light airplane, and keep the nose up as long as possible. The nosewheel is a "Taxi-Gear" not a "Landing Gear".
Avbug must be talking about King Airs or something.
​

 

[TonyC]

Most small plane pilots are taught to fly the pattern with lower power settings and some are at idle. That makes for a steeper approach. If you did that with a big plane you would make a big hole on the end of the runway because you wouldn't be able to recover from the high sink rate at the bottom. FedEx lost a 727 due to that very thing.

That's news to us. Where did you hear about that?




.

 

[starvingcfi]

why not flare an AC 112/114? it's a trike.

 

[mar]

The original question

I know enough about the three point landing, but if anyone could describe this other, special, apparently magical way to land a large jet, I would greatly appreciate it.

I got a little lost there, for a second, but I think this is the original question, no?

The magical way to land a large jet...you're going to be so disappointed when I tell you the secret because like most secrets it's compensating for a weakness....

Actually two weaknesses:

1) The swept wing is very inefficient at low airspeeds and therefore you need much higher angles of attack (compared to straight wing aircraft) to generate sufficient lift.

2) As you know, some turbine engines take a while to "spool up" from idle to "go around" thrust. Therefore, in the interest of safety, it's become a matter of procedure to have the engines spooled up before 500 or 1000 feet. If you didn't, and needed to go around, the power wouldn't be there fast enough.

So, lots of lift required for approach speeds means high angle of attack on swept wing aircraft and the engines "should" be above idle in case of a go around.

Flare, brake, clear the runway, go to the hotel. Repeat tomorrow.

 

[UnAnswerd]

Because in a conventional gear (tail wheel) aircraft, you will sometiems do a wheel landing where you land on the mains first and then set the tail down. Most helpful in strong crosswinds and in conventional gear aircraft with limited forward visibility

Yes, but I wasn't talking about wheel landings. My post specifically referenced three point landings. Whether or not that term can really be applied in any way to an aircraft having a tricycle-gear setup, I don't know. But either way, it's pretty clear that Avbug will take into account every possible exception, every minute variation, and every irrelevant detail for the sake of arguing.