I don't understand this type of landing.

[UnAnswerd]

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.

Well that's kinda what I figured, and I'm glad to see I'm not the only person to think this.

Avbug must be talking about King Airs or something.

The world may never know...

 

[UnAnswerd]

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.

Such details were not evident to me, but no longer. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[UnAnswerd]

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.

I see what you're saying. So would it be correct to say that most jets/swept-wing aircraft fly much "flatter" approaches to land than does the typical 172???

I remember the last landing I did, about a week ago. I apparently lost too much altitude before reaching the runway, and ended up having to fly for quite a distance over the ground, almost level, with power on (obviously). When I was over the runway I cut the power. Even though I didn't intend to approach/land this way, it was without a doubt the shortest landing I ever made. I even got to take taxiway delta back to the ramp, never done it before. Is this basically how a swept-wing airplane lands all the time???

 

[avbug]

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.

Unanswered lumped all aircraft into one, or at least, all light aircraft into one.

Conventional gear aircraft are landed both two point and three point, with two point being just as good as three, and often preferable. When two point, they're not landed nose up, but nose flat, often with forward pressure on the stick.

King Air's are landed just about like anything else with a nosewheel.

Three point landings, generally speaking, for nosewheel airplanes are destructive and poor airmanship.

 

[jknight8907]

I see what you're saying. So would it be correct to say that most jets/swept-wing aircraft fly much "flatter" approaches to land than does the typical 172???

I remember the last landing I did, about a week ago. I apparently lost too much altitude before reaching the runway, and ended up having to fly for quite a distance over the ground, almost level, with power on (obviously). When I was over the runway I cut the power. Even though I didn't intend to approach/land this way, it was without a doubt the shortest landing I ever made. I even got to take taxiway delta back to the ramp, never done it before. Is this basically how a swept-wing airplane lands all the time???

No. What you did is very unsafe, dragging it in with power. If your engine failed, you would end up in the grass. You must learn to recognize any adjustments your glidepath needs early enough that you can make adjustments so as to always be able to reach the runway at idle or no power.

 

[UnAnswerd]

No. What you did is very unsafe, dragging it in with power. If your engine failed, you would end up in the grass. You must learn to recognize any adjustments your glidepath needs early enough that you can make adjustments so as to always be able to reach the runway at idle or no power.

Well I certainly didn't do it intentionally. Funny thing is, instructor claimed it was a good landing...

 

[Kream926]

Well I certainly didn't do it intentionally. Funny thing is, instructor claimed it was a good landing...

then change instructor. if that was a good landing for him then he is probably milkin ya for money/time. has he not taught you how to use a VASI/PAPI??

 

[UnAnswerd]

has he not taught you how to use a VASI/PAPI??

Never heard of it.

















Just kidding! But I thought those were only used at night??? Either way, I don't recall ever seeing the projection units on approach, in all my 20 hours.

 

[gkrangers]

Never heard of it.

















Just kidding! But I thought those were only used at night??? Either way, I don't recall ever seeing the projection units on approach, in all my 20 hours.

Oh for crying outloud, enough people. Nobody is this much of a tool. Just ignore him.

 

[atrdriver]

Well I certainly didn't do it intentionally. Funny thing is, instructor claimed it was a good landing...

It may have been a good landing, but it was a poor approach. They are two different things. And VASI/PAPI units are on all the time, and are used day and night. If you haven't seen them during the day then you are either color blind or fixating.

 

[minitour]

then change instructor. if that was a good landing for him then he is probably milkin ya for money/time. has he not taught you how to use a VASI/PAPI??

And really, who needs those? Just aim at a point on the runway.

If the point goes up, you're going down.
If the point goes down, you're going up.
If the point doesn't move and gets bigger...you're headed right for it.

-mini

 

[nosehair]

Conventional gear aircraft are landed both two point and three point, with two point being just as good as three, and often preferable. When two point, they're not landed nose up, but nose flat, often with forward pressure on the stick.


Three point landings, generally speaking, for nosewheel airplanes are destructive and poor airmanship.

...aahh, I see. You are taking the term "3-point" to mean, as in a tail wheel 3-point landing with both mains and tailwheel touching down at the same time; and you are thinking we mean "3-point" in a tricycle to mean touching the mains and nosewheel at the same time....No,No,No, that is not the dialogue here. We all (I think) are talking about the "attitude" of the nose. The tricycle is landed with the nose up AS IF it were a tailwheel, hence, the term "3-point" attitude.
​

 

[avbug]

"Point" with respect to landing, assuming you aren't going for style points, refers to the number of points that touch down at the same time, or that are intended to touch down at the same time.

A nose high two point landing on the mains is NOT a three point landing. It is a two point landing. A three point landing in a nosewheel aircraft means you land on the nosewheel and the mains.

If you land three point with your nose in the air in a nosewheel airplane, you've just dragged the tail.

 

[nosehair]

you are thinking we mean "3-point" in a tricycle to mean touching the mains and nosewheel at the same time....No,No,No, that is not the dialogue here. We all (I think) are talking about the "attitude" of the nose. The tricycle is landed with the nose up AS IF it were a tailwheel, hence, the term "3-point" attitude.

​

What part of the word "attitude" don't you understand?
​

 

[avbug]

I see unanswered is not the only one who lacks understanding here.

A three point attitude in a tricycle gear airplane is the same as the taxi attitude. A two point normal landing attitude with the nose high and the nosewheel not in contact with the landing surface, is not the same as a three point conventional gear attitude.

In Oklahoma I gave an aviation merit badge class to some boy scounts. As I've always done, I offered each one who completed the merit badge an airplane ride. I borrowed a Cessna 150, and met them at a local grass airstrip. One boy was too short to reach the rudder pedals, and was very exicted about flying. It was the troopmaster's son. I explained to him, as I did each one that I would do the takeoff, and once in flight, he could fly the airplane.

During the takeoff, rolll, he leaned forward, wrapped both arms around the yoke, and then sat back quickly. The nose came up, the tail went down, and we dug a little channel down the runway as sod was scraped up between the empennage and the rudder. I cut the power and we stopped. No damage, but a little rut in the soft runway. After an inspection and a quick talk about our proceedures, we went flying.

If we had been landing, that would have been a three point landing in a tricycle gear airplane.

The tricycle is landed with the nose up AS IF it were a tailwheel, hence, the term "3-point" attitude.

Your terminology is incorrect.

Further the nosewheel airplane may be landed with the nosewheel off the ground, but seldom landed as if it "were a tailwheel."

Funny how insurance companies, rental facilities, and even the FAA distinguish between someone trained in conventional gear, and someone not. If merely having the tail down and the nose up on a typical tricycle gear landing were enough to be the same as a conventional gear landing, what purpose would there be in having any training in conventional gear...folks would be flying one or the other without difficulty.

In the real world, however, that's not the case.