4-place Landing Techniques

whee

whee

Junior Member
I’m curious about your landing techniques used in the Bearhawk. I recall frequently landing tail first in the pervious BH I flew and I find I’m doing the same in my BH. If I land a touch faster it’s not an issue but landing faster isn’t really want I want to be doing in my bush buggy.

I’m sure the quick jab of throttle I use to arrest the decent going into the flair but I’m not sure how else to ease onto the ground.

I’m 65mph and full flaps on short final.
 
whee said:
I’m curious about your landing techniques used in the Bearhawk. I recall frequently landing tail first in the pervious BH I flew and I find I’m doing the same in my BH. If I land a touch faster it’s not an issue but landing faster isn’t really want I want to be doing in my bush buggy.

I’m sure the quick jab of throttle I use to arrest the decent going into the flair but I’m not sure how else to ease onto the ground.

I’m 65mph and full flaps on short final.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, if you want minimum speed at touchdown but want to land on the mains, you need bigger tires. Otherwise, carry a little more energy, or abuse the tailwheel.
 
whee said:
Stuff deleted....

I’m 65mph and full flaps on short final.
Click to expand...

That's EXACTLY what i'm using in my Maule M5-235C. If my Bearhawk winds up being the same, it is going to be a relatively easy conversion :-)
 
Ahhh - this thread I like!! Big tires, slow landings :cool:

First things first, you said 65mph... you could be at least 15 KIAS slower on short finals - but only once you are practised and have VGs installed. Do not try this without VGs and lots of currency in the plane, you will probably stall. The heavier Bearhawk 4-place's I have flown with no VGs also seem to like 55 KIAS (65 mph) on final approach.

Flying slow will really exacerbate the tail-first issue. I can still land on the tail first with the big tires, I need to be going about 34 KIAS. Big tires are not the whole story to fix this problem. Technique is everything.

My technique is based on conventional wisdom and some experience, refer to STOL Tips on YouTube. It goes like this:
  1. Establish finals on a slow stabilised approach with stall warning working over the fence. Nose should be high, view of the airstrip around the side of the nose.
  2. There isn't a conventional round-out at 40 KIAS and below, just arrest the descent with a shot of power and flop onto the ground main wheels's first.
  3. To ensure the mains go down ahead of the tail, I check forward on the stick just after I give the squirt of power. This results in a controlled but deliberate landing, I want no dancing around at the mercy of the wind in the three point attitude. That is how accidents happen, when people relinquish control to the wind.
  4. Once I hit the ground, I push forward for a tail low wheel landing. This increases visibility and braking action.
  5. I brake immediately after I establish steady contact with the ground.
  6. Consider flaps. I dump flaps immediately to kill lift if I need full brakes or have a crosswind at play, but this will make the much tail heavier - so I leave them down if I want the tail to stay up.
 
Great post. I do it very similar but I setup a stable approach at 60mph indicated bleed out a little on the transition over the fence and add power to arrest the descent. Vg’s Are a must as stated above including the horizontal Stab. I’m on 31’s Aswell. I suggest starting at much higher speeds and working your way down slower and slower. Weight is very important so take note of your fuel as you practice as there’s a very big difference in setup when full of fuel.
 
I’m a 55mph approach kind of guy in my Maule MX-7-180A with full flaps. That crazy wing wanted to keep flying at 65mph. It’s a fine line, though. With 850s, three pointers without touching the tail first is a rarity. But I don’t bounce it anymore.

I don’t remember which airfoil the Maule uses, though. I imagine it’s fairly close to the Bearhawk airfoil.
 
Chris In Milwaukee said:
I’m a 55mph approach kind of guy in my Maule MX-7-180A with full flaps. That crazy wing wanted to keep flying at 65mph. It’s a fine line, though. With 850s, three pointers without touching the tail first is a rarity. But I don’t bounce it anymore.

I don’t remember which airfoil the Maule uses, though. I imagine it’s fairly close to the Bearhawk airfoil.
Click to expand...

The Maule uses a modified USA-35B airfoil.
USA_35B_-_All_Rag_Wing_Pipers.jpg
The Model A uses a NACA 4412

553ddf46067d7b4136f8e766.png

The Model B has a Riblett 30-413.5 which I can't find a drawing of, but iirc it's based on the NACA 4412.
 
I’ve been planning to add VGs but want to get familiar with the naked wing so I can tell what the difference is.

I remember being told the tail runs out of authority in a very slow landing but I’m not finding that to be the case with the profiled tail. I’ll probly try VGs on just the wing then add them to the tail so I can see what the difference is.

Battson, your technique is really interesting and obviously works. I can’t imagine what the decent rate must be at that low of an airspeed and I’m not sure I’ll ever be good enough to try it. It sounds a lot like a method a guy on BCP used to talk about years ago.

I’ve got a long ways to go before I’m familiar enough with the plane to make any real changes but hopefully this conversation will help me and others dial in our landings faster.
 
Whee;
I couldn't agree more with trying one thing at a time to tell the difference. I think it has a name, "scientific method".

I have never flown a bush plane, but I learned long ago to land one way, and you can't help but get good at it if you do. A BH has a big weight range, more than most.15 gallons of gas, and you, you will have to fly 7-10 knots slower than you would if you were at 2500 lbs. You should actually be flying AOA, but most pilots weren't taught that. Bigger planes also don't, they fly airspeed, but they have tables, either electronic, or paper, that vary the speed based on weight. At the end of the day, they are flying AOA, but most don't know it.

Your BH weighs about 1400 lbs. Max landing is 2500. You and 15 gallons of gas is probably 1700. So you have an 800 lbs weight range. Just come up with 4 speeds. You can calculate it. 1700 is 50 (or whatever). 2500 lbs would be 61. Nobody can fly a half a knot accuracy unless it is glass smooth and your instruments are that good. And you as well. If you fly 50 IAS at 1700 lbs, just add 3 knots per 200 lb increase in weight. Close enough.

In a former life we had a rule of thumb like this to back up the AOA that we were actually flying. The AOA failed occasionally so we needed a backup.
 
The point about weight is well-made. I fully agree.
The plane is a different animal when heavy, airspeed clearly need to be higher. I find about 7kts higher, but I don't use reference speeds.
 
whee said:
I’ve been planning to add VGs but want to get familiar with the naked wing so I can tell what the difference is.

I remember being told the tail runs out of authority in a very slow landing but I’m not finding that to be the case with the profiled tail. I’ll probly try VGs on just the wing then add them to the tail so I can see what the difference is.

Battson, your technique is really interesting and obviously works. I can’t imagine what the decent rate must be at that low of an airspeed and I’m not sure I’ll ever be good enough to try it. It sounds a lot like a method a guy on BCP used to talk about years ago.

I’ve got a long ways to go before I’m familiar enough with the plane to make any real changes but hopefully this conversation will help me and others dial in our landings faster.
Click to expand...

Bad news sorry - at these low speeds you will still run out of authority with the profiled tail. This is common to most aircraft, including Cessna.
This is where the shot of power comes in, you get an instant of full authority while the engine revs up. A carbon prop helps a lot because the engine response is vastly improved.
I am told that gap seals or VGs under the tail make a huge difference. I am trying to find a solution which works for me, I would love cub style foam gap seals. I tried the pits gap seals but sadly they were unsafe on the Bearhawk. Right now the shot of power remains my favourite solution.

My descent rate is fairly typical of any approach. At the risk of preaching to the choir, descent rate is controlled with power, nose attitude for airspeed, whether I descent fast or slow I maintain the same airspeed and a stabilised approach.
 
VG’s on the underside of the ( A-Model) horizontal stab drastically changed its landing capabilities. There a very small investment and the elevator authority you gain at very low approach speeds Will impress you
 
Here are some Back Country stall tips, I tested what they use with a normal C172, it makes a huge difference in approach speeds, and much shorter landing roll, amazing how you are able to hid the same mark every landing. This is the the way my flight instructor taught me, He learned to fly on Tiger moth. no brakes. but we all learn bad habits along the way. this helped me to be focused on the right technique.
https://youtu.be/CrPJac80W9Y
https://youtu.be/J4NnmbbSizQ
 
I saw some pretty slick gap seals on a couple of Carbon Cubs. It looked like it was profiled on both sides for a perfect fit between the elevator and the stab. I should have asked if they were custom made, or if they just got lucky and found something that fit perfect.
 
zkelley2 said:
The Model A uses a NACA 4412



Actually the A model uses a NACA 4412 modified with leading edge droop. You can see the difference if overlying Drawing 7 and an unmodified 4412. This probably makes a somewhat softer stall and maybe a knot or two slower stall than the straight 4412. Apparently there are different mathematical ways to add the leading edge droop. According to Harry Ribblett, Bob did it the correct way. If you believe Harry Ribbletts work, the performance gain of the B model over the A is mainly due to the thicker airfoil.
Click to expand...
 
Isilverone said:
VG’s on the underside of the ( A-Model) horizontal stab drastically changed its landing capabilities. There a very small investment and the elevator authority you gain at very low approach speeds Will impress you
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, this is with the flat horizontal stab, not profiled?
 
Battson said:
Bad news sorry - at these low speeds you will still run out of authority with the profiled tail. This is common to most aircraft, including Cessna.

What is your present stab configuration. Profiled or flat? Are you saying you haven't tried the VGs under the tail yet?
Click to expand...
 
Battson;
You are more into the STOL stuff than most on here. What AOA are you normally at when you are doing your normal STOL type approach? I have read they fly slower than normal, but I never read any specific number.
 
It is likely that since all my prior experience is in a Luscombe, which interestingly also uses a 4412 wing, I have a lot of changes that need to take place in my technique. Flying the plane and getting good performance isn't the issue, maximizing the performance is what I'll be aiming for.

I've never been a fan of landing with power on for most landings which is why I mentioned the fast descent rate I'm currently trying to get used to and figure out how to arrest without landing so significantly tail first. In the Luscombe I found a sweet spot for short landings where the plane would sink quickly, in relation to its typical approach speed descent rate, but still have enough energy that I could arrest the descent with additional elevator as the wing entered ground effect. If I got a just a bit slow I needed a blip of power to arrest the decent. If the engine quite on final I could pitch forward to a slightly faster speed which would extend my glide range if needed. I've began looking for this sweet spot in the Bearhawk but haven't found it yet.

Approaches with power certainly need to be in any pilot's bag of tricks that enjoys STOL flying. It is something I will be exploring and thanks to Battson for already figuring and laying out for us the method he uses.

My EFIS has a calculated AOA feature which apparently works quite well. Problem is I'd have to look/glance at the screen and not out the window. Same deal trying to reference an airspeed. I typically fly approaches based on feel but I've been glancing at the ASI on short final for data collection. I have no idea what my over the fence speed or my touchdown speed is. I'll continue to document my short final speed as we progress into weight and CG testing. I appreciate you guys mentioning the differences in speed you are seeing so I kinda know what to expect.

My BH flies a nice solid approach at 70mph and requires no power in the flair. At 65 I've been giving it a jab of throttle in the flair because the fast decent rate is intimidating to me. It is possible the wing will re-energize enough as it enters ground effect and I add additional up elevator to arrest the descent but I'm not yet willing to try it. Maybe in a dozen or so more hours. Either of these approaches will get me into any of the backcountry strips here in Idaho so its not like the BH is really lacking in performance when using typical techniques. But why would we settle for good enough when we can have excellent.:cool: The previous BH I flew, which had the flat tail, reacted the same at these speeds though I recall the pitch felt a little soft in flair as slow speeds.
 
rodsmith said:
Battson said:
Bad news sorry - at these low speeds you will still run out of authority with the profiled tail. This is common to most aircraft, including Cessna.
Click to expand...

What is your present stab configuration. Profiled or flat? Are you saying you haven't tried the VGs under the tail yet?
Click to expand...
Profiled tail.

I haven't tried VGs under the tail wings because I understand they make the plane very touchy in pitch control at high cruise speeds. At aft CG this would be even further exacerbated, I imagine it would be a pilot's nightmare.
 
When I flew 185 in the mountains of Guatemala I was taught to come in with power and a high angle of attack. When I learned to fly floats in a 172 they taught to approach at 5 kt above landing speed and no power. You lose the speed when you flar on landing. I do all my landings now with no power unless I mess it up and then I drag it in with power.
 
Battson said:
I haven't tried VGs under the tail wings because I understand they make the plane very touchy in pitch control at high cruise speeds. At aft CG this would be even further exacerbated, I imagine it would be a pilot's nightmare.
Click to expand...

I'm running VG's on the bottom of the horizontal stabilizer, a little in front of the hinge line. I also have a tape gap seal. No problems. Improve ability to flare at forward CG's. I wouldn't call it night and day, but a clear imrovement.
 
For clarity, I hardly use any power on my approaches. Normally the throttle is practically closed while we are on finals. There is a little trickle of power, but it's not a "power on" approach.
 
Battson said:
For clarity, I hardly use any power on my approaches. Normally the throttle is practically closed while we are on finals. There is a little trickle of power, but it's not a "power on" approach.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification! I made the assumption based on a previous post that you were controlling the descent rate with power. It’s encouraging to know that isn’t the case. I’m still not comfortable with the descent so I’m a little on and off the throttle but I’m getting better.
 
whee said:
Thanks for the clarification! I made the assumption based on a previous post that you were controlling the descent rate with power. It’s encouraging to know that isn’t the case. I’m still not comfortable with the descent so I’m a little on and off the throttle but I’m getting better.
Click to expand...

I am definitely controlling descent rate with power, but only the most minor corrections. I did three flights yesterday from dead empty to quite heavy (whole family aboard), and self-assessed my techniques on each landing. Each time I fully close the throttle on short finals, then add "stabs" of power when required to check the approach profile. I would not consider the approach any steeper than the average aircraft.

Indicated airspeed is well under 40 knots, even fully loaded up. I am loving this new configuration, especially the new wingtips.
 
Battson said:
Stuff deleted.....

Indicated airspeed is well under 40 knots, even fully loaded up. I am loving this new configuration, especially the new wingtips.
Click to expand...

Dammit, Jono, now you're adding more work for me :-) I was going to use the "Bob" tips I bought, but now I'll have to make some like yours.

Sorry we couldn't make the timings work when my wife and I were in Christchurch in March. Would have been great to meet in person and have a look at your 4pl.

Cheers
 
Thanks Battson. Sounds like I’m doing basically the same thing but with less proficiency and more speed. Where on the approach do you get down to the speed you are taking here, (
During my conversation with Bob yesterday we talked about performance landings. He seemed to think I shouldn’t have any problem arresting the descent down into the mid or low 40s mph without having to add power or VGs. I’ll need to fix my heavy wing issue and gain a bunch more proficiency before I get down that low. Him and I were talking ‘over the fence’ speeds but I have know idea what my over the fence speed is.
 
whee said:
Thanks Battson. Sounds like I’m doing basically the same thing but with less proficiency and more speed. Where on the approach do you get down to the speed you are taking here, (
During my conversation with Bob yesterday we talked about performance landings. He seemed to think I shouldn’t have any problem arresting the descent down into the mid or low 40s mph without having to add power or VGs. I’ll need to fix my heavy wing issue and gain a bunch more proficiency before I get down that low. Him and I were talking ‘over the fence’ speeds but I have know idea what my over the fence speed is.
Click to expand...

I am normally down to the low 40 KIAS or below 40 about a quart mile out. Provided the wind isn't presenting a risk of stall because of gusty air. I prefer to hold it stable for the whole approach.

Low 40 mph sounds pretty slow so I am betting that is indicated airspeed. With a stock Bearhawk you would be riding the crest of a stall - definitely an "over the fence" speed without VGs or power, or better yet 12" over the runway. Weight does have an impact, then again so does the accuracy of the instrument... Bob does have a extremely light plane and a simple instrument setup, we are probably not talk TAS in that context. I think he touches down at 35 mph....
 
Last edited:
I haven’t made any changes to my approach technique or speeds but I’ve been doing a bunch of slow flight. This thing is on the cusp of stall but pretty solid at 50mph IAS and whatever power is nesessary to maintain altitude. It’s also pretty solid that speed and power off but the descent rate is just too fast for me. But I can now see how Battson is making slow approaches at around that speed.

I still don’t like landing so significantly tail first but I’m learning that most airplanes do the same during max performance landing. I’ll be installing big tires soon to add prop clearance and reduce the abuse to the tail. I think I’d prefer taller gear because I don’t need bigger tires but right now that’s not an option. I’m also going to install a shorter tailwheel tire. I currently have an 400x4 which is 11” tall and 4” wide. I’m going to install a go-cart racing slick that is 8” tall and 4” wide.

I’m about at the point where I’d be willing to fly into one of the local 800’ strips. I just need a bit more polishing on hitting the landing mark every time.
 
Whee, you built a whole airplane! Building a couple of extended gear legs would be a pleasant little project!

Bill
 
Your right Bill. There is some analysis work that needs to be done to make sure I wouldn’t be over stressing the gear fittings but that’s easy and would be a fun activity on it’s own. In the long run extended gear legs would be a better fit for my mission; skis and moderate sized tires.
 
Isilverone said:
VG’s on the underside of the ( A-Model) horizontal stab drastically changed its landing capabilities. There a very small investment and the elevator authority you gain at very low approach speeds Will impress you
Click to expand...

Some random thoughts/questions related to the landing techniques discussion

Would VG’s on the underside of the Horizontal Stab perhaps provide an unintended consequence of providing enough elevator authority to get into a deeper stall at slow speeds ?

Someone mentioned an increased pitch sensitively at aft CG with VG’s under the Horizontal Stab. I’m wondering if this is amplifying the effect of the anti-servo trim tab. If it was a straight Servo Tab, would the pitch sensitivity increase at increased speeds ? ie is it a consequence of the Anti-servo rather than the VG’s?

I’ve got the Dynon HDX EFIS, with AOA probe. Does anyone know if AOA can be presented on screen (limitations of looking inside the cockpit on approach noted) so that a constant AOA can be flown at all weights ? Is this practical/do-able ?
 
Nev, I heard the planes with the profiled horizontal stabs don't do well with VG's on the tail.
All of the major EFIS's can display AOA. Having not flown light aircraft with AOA I don't know how useful it is when flying visually. I flew a lot with AOA in the military, but they had an old school AOA indicator on the left side of the top of the glare shield (left hand pattern always). Similar to some of the aftermarket types. You could use it with peripheral vision.

Some also have an aural warning, but that only tells you that your are exceeding a certain AOA. If your target and alert is 8 degrees, and the alarm goes off, you could be at 8.3, or 12. I am not sure how useful it is, but some like it.
 
Nev

I don't think the B-model stab is improved by adding VGs.

As for the AoA, not only can you display on the screen (green, yellow, red chevrons) but it also has an aural alert which has increasing "beeps" frequency up to the stall warning where it becomes "solid". And it's dynamic ....
 
Ok this is all good to know. I got to see (hear) Battson’s AOA in action and it seemed intuitive having the audible beeps.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious why people say the profiled tail doesn't do well with VG's on the underside. I have them and it seems to do very well. What is it that people think isn't good?

My tail has always stalled before my wing at typical CG, which is fairly forward. So, making the tail more effective has allowed me to fly slower.
 
I have the same question Bobby. I have 100 hours on her now. I'm still in the early stages of learning. Goal this year is CONSISTENT 500 foot, hard surface landing distance with airframe friendly touchdowns. Like Whee, I can slow it down with plenty of control left. My issue is the high rate of descent and transition at the bottom. I plan to go into some narrow backcountry runways and over nose visibility is a must for my comfort level. VG's are on the short list. Want to establish a baseline first. Lots of slow flight and landing practice to go.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Bcone. Looks like lsilverone has both a patrol and a 4-place. He dislikes the VG's on the tail for the Patrol, but likes them for his 4-place. Interesting!
 
Well... perhaps a test is in order. I put VG's on my wing (A wing) and tail (profiled) at the same time. It reduced my stall by 5 knots or so and made it much much more stable at slow speed. I really liked the results so I just left it that way. But, perhaps it's worth a test to remove them from the profiled tail and see the difference.
 
I really liked the results so I just left it that way. But, perhaps it's worth a test to remove them from the profiled tail and see the difference.
Click to expand...

This would make for a very interesting comparison. Keep us posted if you do it Bobby.
 
swpilot3, we should meet somewhere and do some testing. I don’t have VGs on my plane and haven’t felt the need for them but I’m thinking about adding them. I’ve never noticed my tail stalling either. I’m obviously not pushing the limits of the airplane. A wing and profiled tail.

Mark Patey did an interesting VG test and posted it to YouTube. His method for observing if the tail stalled vs the wing was simple. I’d never though about the mechanics of the tail stalling vs the wing during power off stalls. I thought about doing the same test if I install VGs and a elevator gap seal.

I’m pretty sure lsilverone has a flat tail on his BH.
 
My understanding is lsilverone loved the results of VG's on his Four Place Model A with slab stabilizer. He also has a Patrol. All Patrols have the profiled stabilizer. He had negative VG experience on the Patrol using the Stolspeed VG's that effected both feel and performance.
 
Yeah, whee, I'm up for meeting some where and doing some testing. Perhaps the BH fly-in you're coordinating.
 
I've been reading a lot of articles and trying to deepen my understanding of aerodynamics. I can't for the life of me envision how VGs could make aerodynamics worse. Does anyone have an idea of how VGs could make feel and performance of the horizontal stab worse? Too much adhesion? I can't see a scenario where VG's create less adhesion. Why would a profiled stab make any difference as it relates to VGs?

Does anyone know of any documentation that shows a negative effect of VGs?
 
swpilot3 said:
I've been reading a lot of articles and trying to deepen my understanding of aerodynamics. I can't for the life of me envision how VGs could make aerodynamics worse. Does anyone have an idea of how VGs could make feel and performance of the horizontal stab worse? Too much adhesion? I can't see a scenario where VG's create less adhesion. Why would a profiled stab make any difference as it relates to VGs?

Does anyone know of any documentation that shows a negative effect of VGs?
Click to expand...

if I remember correctly lsilverone felt like VGs on the tail of his Patrol made it very pitchy. I could see that being possible since VGs can improved the effectiveness of flight controls. Making light controls lighter may not be favorable to some.
 
whee said:
if I remember correctly lsilverone felt like VGs on the tail of his Patrol made it very pitchy. I could see that being possible since VGs can improved the effectiveness of flight controls. Making light controls lighter may not be favorable to some.
Click to expand...
I have a different conclusion regarding VGs under the patrol stab. I’ve flown mine for 350 hours now, 300 with VGs, both wing and stab. Everyone flys differently and I’m not one to say that my way is best. My observations are; The airfoil is so efficient that it just doesn’t want to quit flying, it’s best to be done flying when the wheels are rolling down the strip. For me, this means full flaps, every time, to fly the slowest approach speed. That’s a lot of drag and those monsters can generate a huge sink into the flare. My observations were that the patrol ran out of elevator authority rather early in this type of flare. This is obviously par for the course for a slow speed STOL landing but I thought it was more pronounced than other types, thanks to the barn doors. Adding VGs under the stab produced much more control effectiveness in this type of flare. I was still not satisfied and decided to try gap seals on the horizontal stab. Again, a definite improvement, in my opinion. I’ve never been an analytical type of pilot, just an operator, so I can’t give you numbers, charts, graphs, aerodynamic conclusions. All I can say is that my butt has a fair amount of flight time under it and I’m no stranger to precision flying, getting the most out of the aircraft. My butt tells me that VGs and gap seals are outstanding improvements to the Patrol tail and VGs on the wing should be considered mandatory if you intend to get the most out of the wing. It is not too sensitive in pitch, it’s just right. Just an opinion, of course.
Mike
 
I’ve been thinking about elevator authority and how many of you guys say it runs out when doing max performance landings. This isn’t something I’ve noticed and I can only think of two reasons: 1. I’m not flying the airplane close enough to the edge to notice. This is the mostly likely reason. Still, I don’t know how I could land the plane any slower; I already feel like a slatted cub that lands tail first and plops the mains down from 4ft up.

2. My longerons are extended 2” in the tail section. Perhaps this little bit of extra leverage is enough to make a difference in elevator authority?
 
I watched Battson’s video of his Bearhawk performing at a STOL competition last year (and won), and I noticed that on very short finals the elevators appear to be at maximum upward deflection against the stops. This is with the CG at nearly the forward limit (1 POB vs 2 POB). A question in my mind is whether this is the perfect scenario where the elevators lose authority just before the main wings stall. Either way, the fact that the Bearhawk outperformed others on the day implies that even without VG’s, it’s holding enough pitch authority to fly at a slower speed than other STOL aircraft.

I’m very curious to know with VG’s under the tailplane, does it provide enough authority to get into an undesirable pitch attitude at slow speed, or does it just improve the already great slow speed handling ?
 
In my experience, when the elevator is running out of authority, a little bit of thrust brings it back. The flow is in the propwash, so you get some induced flow that is greater than the wing airspeed.
 
I feel that the VGs and gap seals did in fact increase control authority and certainly improved the slow speed handling. I don’t feel that you can get yourself into an undesirable pitch attitude as a consequence of these additions, you simply run out of elevator in most slow landings, even with the VGs. All of these approaches and landings are power on, it’s the only way to make it happen when you’ve run out of elevator, like Jared mentions. As has been discussed elsewhere, the real game changer will be double slotted flaps. I started down the path last fall, after speaking to the gent that just sold the 4 place with them on it. It’s certainly not that difficult to do but it will cost a good chunk of change. Still contemplating it though.
 
I really don't think elevator authority is ever the issue. It's the tail first landings and high pitch where you can't see anything on touchdown, or alternatively the relatively high airspeed required for a wheel landing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nev
whee said:
if I remember correctly lsilverone felt like VGs on the tail of his Patrol made it very pitchy. I could see that being possible since VGs can improved the effectiveness of flight controls. Making light controls lighter may not be favorable to some.
Click to expand...

I flew a Bearhawk 4-place on Sunday with VGs under the tail wings.
It was a Bravo with the profiled stabilizer.
It was not pitch sensitive at a middling CG location, in fact I didn't even realize there were VGs installed until after the flight. We did not get a chance to fly with full aft CG.
 
You need power on to keep the tail down, in that configuration with CG hard forward. If you close the throttle, the nose drops and airspeed increases, limiting the performance of the aircraft.
It would be hard to fly into a stall for this reason.
 
Battson said:
You need power on to keep the tail down, in that configuration with CG hard forward. If you close the throttle, the nose drops and airspeed increases, limiting the performance of the aircraft.
It would be hard to fly into a stall for this reason.
Click to expand...

This is the thing I’m wondering about. I don’t need power on to keep the tail down. With just me and minimum fuel I can still land tail first with no power on and the stick not quite full back. Significant factors are likely my lighter engine so not as forward CG and approach speed is faster. Other contributing factors could be my non-servo trim tabs (more effective surface area), and 2” longer tail cone (longer moment arm).
 
I think CG is a factor, with aft CG I don't even need to trim up - let alone use any aft elevator. It's just throttle and landing. Speed is also a big factor. I can't comment on fuselage length, sounds reasonable.
 
Well, I've just passed the 100 flight hour mark, with 150 landings. Still have a long way to go. I'm not one of those "natural born aviators". I have to work extra just to get to the "average" threshold.
I'm still groping at approach speeds and techniques. I started with 50 KIAS (57 mph) approach speeds and 3 notches of flaps. I worked my way down to 46 KIAS (~53mph) to try to shorten my landing distances. That was ok but every now and I would experience big sink in close, that could only be resolved with a huge burst of power. That was kinda like a bird landing on a wire and missing the wire!

Just recently I've gone back to 50 KIAS approach speed and and trying full flaps. It is like starting over again.
If you are weathered in, bored and need a Bearhawk flying fix, here is a short video of my recent landing practice session. I was experimenting with small speed changes to increase sink rate. Didn't work out and landed long way too much.

https://youtu.be/EkMVaq4OgcQ
I'm hoping this video will provide a "before" reference to post VG installation. There is very little or no braking on the rollouts. The takeoffs are standard and extended for spacing with other pattern traffic. Field Elevation = 5220 ft Density Altitude was about 6300 ft.


I'm about to pull the trigger on ordering some Stolspeed VG's. I have a VG installation question for Battson. Did you install your VG's at the spacing recommended by John G? I think it is 60 mm spacing for first 3 feet from the wing tip, then 90 mm spacing.

Stalls on this day:

3 notches of flaps Idle - 37 KIAS 1500 rpm - 37 KIAS
4 notches of flaps Idle - 35 KIAS 1500 rpm - 37 KIAS
 
John, firstly I enjoyed your video... I am an aviation youtube junkie. Your landings are nice and smooth.

I am a low time Rans S-20 pilot but my instructor would tell you that you are stirring the pot with the stick on short final. There should be no need for that.

I assume (always dangerous) that your stalls are in level flight/zero VS attitude, so my question is why are your doing approaches 13-15 knots faster than your stall speed? With your hand on the throttle it seems to me you could be coming in Vso (Stall with flaps) plus 4-5 knots (Vs1.2) over your stall and be in a very safe zone.

Keep the videos coming
 
Last edited:
I did mention that I'm barely average! I'm not qualified address your points or your CFI's comment. I am probably not using the correct terminology. I will only mention that determining stall speed in my Bearhawk is very technique dependent. It doesn't want to break. There can be pretty high angles of attack and very high descent rates (mush?) before I can make the thing break. Not my intent to make suggestions on speeds and techniques. Just sharing my baby stepping to hopefully better and shorter landing distances in the future. Fly safe.
 
Last edited:
The non-break of the stall is related to the flow separation at the horizontal stabilizer. Adding power will make it break. If you'll be flying an approach speed at 4-5 knots over Vso in a Bearhawk, you'll either be carrying some power, or you'll have some pucker-generating descent rates. Proceed carefully!
 
You are right about that. Personally I really like that we have the high-sink option with the Bearhawk. It's a great tool in the toolbox for getting in over a tall obstacle and a great demonstration of the "region of reverse command." Some airplanes don't show it as well. But like all of flight testing, proceed incrementally.
 
I could never get a hard break or wing-drop with the stock wing, even with full opposite rudder. It just slid smoothly into a power-on stall in my case, and it would fly in the stall indefinitely. Fully controllable throughout. I could get a break with an accelerated power-off stall, still with total control over the aircraft.
 
I did a little flying yesterday which included landing practice. I get bored pretty quickly and I was feeling bad about beating up the bushweels on the pavement so I didn’t practice as much as I should have.

I’ll convert all my speeds from mph to kts so we all speak the same language. I’ve been thinking about changing the plane over but I haven’t convinced myself to do so.

Speeds I’m currently at: 60kts downwind to base, 56kts base to short final (bit less than 1/2mile) and slowing, 45kts over the fence and slowing. There is somewhat of a flair which I mostly mush through to a comfortable touchdown.

I leave the throttle cracked, 12” mp ish and adjust as necessary. As I pull back into the flair the throttle is closed. Occasionally I feel the need to give a quick blip of throttle to arrest the sink in the flair but this almost always result in ballooning. I’m still working on recognizing when power is actually needed in the very last moments of the landing.

This method seems to work pretty well and consistently produces a 300-350ft landing roll with moderate braking. As if a 50ft variance is consistent.

Summary of the stuff that somehow got cut off from the original post:

If the situation is such that I fly a longer final then I fly much of it at 50kts then slow to 45 over the fence and continue slowing as above. I'm still pretty uncomfortable at 50kts but the airplane is solid, I'm just not used to such slow speeds.

The airplane has more to give, both is flying slower and harder braking.

For takeoff: No fancy pilot stuff and no spectacular results. Two notches of flaps. Brakes are only held until the throttle is on its way in. The tail is lifted until the tailwheel is just barely off the ground and held there. This produced a consistent, easy to obtain 400ft ground roll.

Conditions: Zero wind, 4500msl, 30 degrees F, airplane loaded to about 1700lbs.
 
Last edited:
This is all very helpful Whee. I'm also practicing when I get the chance. At present I'm flying final approach at 50kts - that's probably due to mine being heavier and the CG further forward.
 
Whee and Nev
I have yet to fly a BH, but can’t wait. I fly slow, and typically only Vso 1.1 on short final. Obviously Vso changes with weight and CG, but the plane should settle nicely at that speed. I really think most fly way too fast. From my experience, limited as it may be, it is pretty easy to maintain a nice stabilized approach with a bit of throttle when needed and of course pitching for air speed
 
Well, bummer. part of the post is missing. I've noticed that happens occasionally and sometimes the rest will show up later. I hope that happens here.
 
Nev, If I'm flying a longer final 50kts is what I use. I'm still uncomfortable at that speed but the plane is solid and could fly slower.
 
That all sounds like you're on the right track to me. The timing with the throttle will come, just keep practicing - find a grass strip, please! :)

Better change to knots before everyone starts changing to kilometres per hour!
 
Utah-Jay said:
Whee and Nev
I have yet to fly a BH, but can’t wait. I fly slow, and typically only Vso 1.1 on short final. Obviously Vso changes with weight and CG, but the plane should settle nicely at that speed. I really think most fly way too fast. From my experience, limited as it may be, it is pretty easy to maintain a nice stabilized approach with a bit of throttle when needed and of course pitching for air speed
Click to expand...

In my airplane 1.1 VSO is real close to 45kts at the weights I do this kind of flying. For me the difference is the BH glides like a lead brick when compared to what I'm used to and it is heavier. This means the ground comes up faster and it takes more energy to arrest the decent. I'm getting used to it and feel like things are coming together. Now I need to resist the "good enough" urge that come from knowing a 400ft takeoff and 350ft landing will take me anywhere I'm wanting to go.
 
This is a very interesting discussion.

I'm flying my approaches very similar to Whee (and John Bickham) - 50 kts IAS works well for my stage. I've flown a couple of approaches at around 45 kts, but in hindsight I think my safety margin was uncomfortably low. During the test flying phase I decided to raise my approach speeds back to 50kts. Obviously there's a higher chance of an engine issue during these early flights and I didn't want to discover one with F4 and a low speed that I couldn't recover from and still make the runway.

Also there aren't many B model Bearhawks flying yet, at least not in the same numbers as the A model.

The B model differences are: 4 stages of flap, larger flaps, a different wing profile, increased wing area, and the leading edge datum may have changed a small amount, giving CG numbers that may not compare directly. The point in my mind is that while I was lucky to get some flying practice on a couple of other Bearhawks (huge thanks to Battson and others), there are enough differences that I don't feel comfortable going straight to a high AOA approach on mine because there are too many unknowns.

Currently I don't know how much position error I have, and how much position error is present on other Bearhawks when we compare approach speeds.
The majority of my landings have been done at light weight and forward CG. However I've got the additional weight of an IO540 and 3 blade prop, so "lightweight" for me is roughly 200lbs heavier than a similar airframe with an IO360, most of the weight difference being on the nose. Someone with an IO360 will see a (real) stall speed lower than mine due to the weight difference, and an even lower stall speed perhaps due to a more favourable (aft) CG and therefore increased position error so that the IAS displays a significantly lower speed. In other words, the IAS that we're comparing between our individual aircraft is what we're reading from our screens, but I'm not sure yet if we're talking the same CAS. There could be significant differences, hence I'm exercising caution when comparing approach speeds.

My initial stalls showed 38kts at F3 & F4 (power on) and 41kts (power off), so (coincidentally) my approach speed of 50kts equates to 1.2 VS. This is what we used to teach in a previous life for a generic short landing technique. The Bearhawk flap limit speed for F4 is 55kts, so it becomes quite difficult to fly a F4 approach at 50kts with only a 5kt margin, particularly with any gusts. The other thing I've found consistently with F4 is how easy it is to get a very high sink rate going (due to the added drag and already being on the back of the drag curve), and it happens quickly. So I've been flying with a small amount of power on until ready to touch down. When I reduce the power to idle, the aircraft stops flying almost immediately, whether the ground is there or not.

This all makes sense because even at 50 kts, I'm flying on the back of the drag curve. (The concord from memory did the same thing - though not sure why I just added that). Obviously speed control becomes more demanding because on the back of the drag curve, speed is no longer stable. (A small decrease in IAS increases drag, and further reduces IAS v.v.). I'm reluctant at this stage to move further up the back of the drag curve because I'm certain it'll get a lot more exciting, and quickly. But I also think the STOL landing capability of the Bearhawk doesn't necessarily depend on how close I can fly to the stall speed, but from the ability to fly easily on the back of the drag curve - hence the huge flaps.

At F3, I'm finding I have a little more margin all round. The F3 limit speed is 65kts, so I now have a 15kt buffer. I can select F3 turning finals and it's done. Because there's slightly less drag, the speed control is easier and more stable. And when I reduce power to idle, it seems slightly more forgiving.

All of this still equates to very short landings. I don't know how short, but definitely much shorter than anything I've flown before, and I'm not really using a lot of braking yet either. Anyway, hope this explains why I'm being conservative at this stage.

Feel free to add comment and thoughts, and critique my logic too. It's a very interesting discussion.
 
Last edited:
I've definitely found the same thing. The Bearhawk doesn't land like most other aircraft at the higher flap settings, which is great for STOL but it's taking me time to get accustomed to.
 
Don't laugh Jon - they used to give us meters and kph in China. Took a huge amount of mental capacity (I didn't have much to start with) to keep doing the conversions.
 
That's very interesting to listen to. They were using the same numbers. I was interested to hear how they were managing risk - around the 9:00 mark.
 
Gerhard Rieger said:
On the Bearhawk Aircraft page there are a couple of good reports from professionals bush pilots about landing technique.
http://bearhawk.wpengine.com/?attachment_id=3125
Click to expand...

Good stuff, thanks for posting that link. What he is describing is exactly what I'm trying to accomplish. I just need to figure out the "pitch" portion at the end.

My airplane is rock solid at 50kts and 4 notches of flaps (50deg). Once I figure out how to arrest the descent at touchdown I'm confident I could slow the airplane down a fair amount more. But what's the point if I'm already landing shorter than I can takeoff.

My takeoff is pretty much as he describes. I know for sure when I was on 850x6 tires my EFIS would show real close to 36mph as the wheels broke the ground. I'm on 31s now and when I tried to glance at the ASI during the takeoffs to note the speed at which the mains left the ASI was not indicating anything. More data needs to be collected to know if that was a fluke.
 
whee said:
In my airplane 1.1 VSO is real close to 45kts at the weights I do this kind of flying. For me the difference is the BH glides like a lead brick when compared to what I'm used to and it is heavier. This means the ground comes up faster and it takes more energy to arrest the decent. I'm getting used to it and feel like things are coming together. Now I need to resist the "good enough" urge that come from knowing a 400ft takeoff and 350ft landing will take me anywhere I'm wanting to go.
Click to expand...

Hold the phone -

Attitude controls airspeed, power controls descent rate.

If you are descending too fast, add power.

If you are dropping below 1.1 Vso, lower the nose.

Being at 1.1 Vso has nothing to do with descent rate, provided you are still above stall speed. You should be able to slam it on, or kiss it on, at any airspeed above the stall.

Edit to add, general comments not specific to you Whee -
During a stabilised approach, on any day except a gusty one, airspeed control should be within 2kts, it does not take lots of active control - you just have to set the aircraft up correctly with trim and power. More flap makes this easier, as it is possible to use more power - larger forces make the system more robust, and less easily upset by small outside changes - such as wind or control stick inputs. With less drag, you have less power - resulting in a finely balanced system. This means you have a smaller window to fly in, to avoid accelerating unintentionally.

If flying within 5kts proves difficult on a stabilised approach, then it would be worth doing more practice at stabilised approaches before flying at 1.1 Vso. Flying with full flap at 50 knots for instance, this does not take much work - just set the plane up correctly. A higher stall speed means a heavier Bearhawk, so you have more momentum and the airspeed and vertical speed should be nice and steady.
 
Last edited:
Minor technicality, both models have the same number of notches of flap.

I also think it's worthwhile being clear whether we are talking KIAS, KTAS, or GS - and the weight. There can be a meaningful difference.
 
Battson said:
Hold the phone -

Attitude controls airspeed, power controls descent rate.

If you are descending too fast, add power.

If you are dropping below 1.1 Vso, lower the nose.

Being at 1.1 Vso has nothing to do with descent rate, provided you are still above stall speed. You should be able to slam it on, or kiss it on, at any airspeed above the stall.

Edit to add, on a stabilised approach on any day except a gusty one, airspeed control should be within 2kts, it does not take lots of active control - you just have to set the aircraft up correctly with trim and power. More flap makes this easier, as you have more of a power range to play with. With less drag, you have a smaller power window to avoid accelerating unintentionally. If you are having trouble keeping it within 5kts, then it would be worth doing more practice before flying at 1.1 Vso
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to find the right words to explain what I'm doing/thinking here but I'll give it a try anyway.

During the flair phase of landing the flair is used to use up the excess airspeed (energy, zoom reserve, or whatever you want to call it) and slow the decent rate. Too much excess airspeed and the plane floats, flair too fast with too much energy and the plane balloons, not enough energy or not enough pitch increase and the decent rate stays too high so the plane slams into the ground. Say you come it at 1.1 Vso, this means you have .1 Vso units of excess airspeed that needs be used before the plane touches down at the perfect airspeed. Ideally that excess speed is exactly the amount of energy required to arrest the decent when you pull back on the stick. Your trading airspeed for altitude...but instead of gaining altitude your stopping the decent. No engine power used.

I prefer to avoid adding a blip of throttle in the flair because even though that blip arrests the decent it also adds forward speed. Minimizing forward speed is what we are really after for short landings. I fully recognize that flying a slower approach that requires a blip of power in the flair might be the best way to gain max performance in a Bearhawk.

If I were to execute what I currently perceive as a perfect approach and landing: I'd fly a stabilized approach at a minimum airspeed that has exactly enough excess energy to arrest the decent without requiring any engine power to arrest the decent. Based on my current experience 1.1 Vso has enough excess energy to arrest the decent if you do it right. Even slower is doable but it requires a better pilot than me.
 
Another data point or two from todays flying. I did quite a few stalls both into wind, and downwind, then downloaded the data and averaged the groundspeed to establish position error. It looks like my power off stall speed is around 39-40 kts IAS with about 2 kts position error at 3000 ft with ambient conditions being very close to ISA, and ballasted to about 15" CG at 2000lbs . (I used average groundspeed and TAS to compare with indicated stall speed).

The elevator broke first most of the time. If I do them power on, I can get back to 38 kts IAS (40 kts TAS) and fly at that speed in a reasonably controlled manner, though there's a fairly defined break from the power on stalls with the nose pitching down, but no wing drop so far.

I then downloaded the data from 15 approaches, which showed 10 with an approach speed of 50-52kts IAS, and 5 approaches at 55kts IAS (when the winds increased). The average speed at 10 ft was 42 kts IAS and average touchdown speed from all approaches was 35 kts IAS. The speed reduction from 50 kts was occurring in the final few feet, with no float, it's all happening rather quickly.

At this stage I'm having to keep power on almost until touchdown, and often a small burst at the end. I noticed too that I'm giving the occasional burst during final approach and I assume that it's because of the speed instability on this part of the drag curve. None of them are smooth or even close to it. I'll settle for consistency if I can achieve it, but even that's a struggle right now! Anyway, I need tons more practice.
 
Last edited:
whee said:
I'm struggling to find the right words to explain what I'm doing/thinking here but I'll give it a try anyway.

During the flair phase of landing the flair is used to use up the excess airspeed (energy, zoom reserve, or whatever you want to call it) and slow the decent rate. Too much excess airspeed and the plane floats, flair too fast with too much energy and the plane balloons, not enough energy or not enough pitch increase and the decent rate stays too high so the plane slams into the ground. Say you come it at 1.1 Vso, this means you have .1 Vso units of excess airspeed that needs be used before the plane touches down at the perfect airspeed. Ideally that excess speed is exactly the amount of energy required to arrest the decent when you pull back on the stick. Your trading airspeed for altitude...but instead of gaining altitude your stopping the decent. No engine power used.

I prefer to avoid adding a blip of throttle in the flair because even though that blip arrests the decent it also adds forward speed. Minimizing forward speed is what we are really after for short landings. I fully recognize that flying a slower approach that requires a blip of power in the flair might be the best way to gain max performance in a Bearhawk.

If I were to execute what I currently perceive as a perfect approach and landing: I'd fly a stabilized approach at a minimum airspeed that has exactly enough excess energy to arrest the decent without requiring any engine power to arrest the decent. Based on my current experience 1.1 Vso has enough excess energy to arrest the decent if you do it right. Even slower is doable but it requires a better pilot than me.
Click to expand...

In case it's interesting, when I am going for absolute max performance I use a slightly shallower approach and just let the plane 'flop' onto the ground, the opposite of a flair. No blip of power. Close the throttle and release back pressure on the stick from about 1ft up.... let the gear legs and bushwheels do their thing. Brakes applied as it touches down. That only works when the plane is very light, when it's heavy it's necessary to finesse it on.
 
Thanks to everyone for their input on this thread. I enjoy the sharing of experiences and it has helped me a lot.

Today marks 16 months since my first flight in my Bearhawk 4A with 320 plus hours and over 500 landings. I'm not saying that to brag, just the opposite, that is what it takes for me to come close to reaching an "average" proficiency level. Jon (Battson) has said over and over, practice is the key. In that time, there has been a learning curve for me that continues each and every flight. That is what makes it fun for me!

I'll just try to throw out some thoughts here that I have learned rather slowly over the last 16 months.

My Bearhawk landing strategy stages goes as follows so far:
  1. GA primary training stage - Just carry extra speed, aim for the big old runway, don't bend anything! Phase 1 initial hours.
  2. I wanna be a STOL Competitor - I tried to work my approach speeds down and tried to get my landing distances down to competition level. I fly with Carbon Cub drivers and they could do it. I could get slow and short at impractically low payload weights. I couldn't do ten 1.1 VSo approaches without at least two of those being way two firm, or long due to timing and magnitude of power burst to save a landing.
  3. Wing VG's installed phase - this was a huge step forward to landing shorter. It made the approaches much more stable and helped do it slower. Thought I was on my way to competition. I really started preparing for trips to Canyonlands, UT about this time. That meant I had to start practicing at what I call "day trip" weight. That is full fuel, all backcountry tools and survival gear, chairs, table, extra stuff to account for ice chest and "cold" drinks. The full fuel is to account for my flight deck commanders weight. The difference between 2 hours of XC fuel burn and the weight she last told me when I married her some 43 years ago!!! Whee has kinda mentioned this, at those practice weights and slow approach speeds close to 1.1 VSo, it took way to much nose high flare and power burst to arrest the downward inertia (weight). It could be short but teeth would click, eyebrows would raise sharply and the flight deck commander would use bad words.
  4. Made several actual backcountry trips - this is the fun phase. Made several trips, had a blast and realized I didn't have be able to do STOL competition level landings to be safe. The other thing I learned was there was always wind which never blew on the nose. That means landing in a cross wind or a quartering tailwind on a narrow two track wide strip. For control and visibility I had to land a little faster anyway most of the time. Even at those slightly higher approach speeds I hardly use 25% of the runway if I consistently hit my aim point. I found that if I landed at STOL competition speeds and got a little bounce in a crosswind, I was at the edge of a runway (12 foot wide) at the mercy of the breeze.
  5. Current landing strategy - Canyon speed on downwind - 65 KIAS, flaps 2. This is practice for canyon maneuvering configuration. Abeam the numbers - reduce throttle (full prop, about 1300 rpm), trim for 50 KIAS, flaps 3. I did try to do full flaps right off the bat but found speed control within 2 knots was too difficult and draggy in the turns. As turn into final, pull latch knots of flaps, and start concentrating on the aim point. Usually a high start and idle throttle now. Power if the aim point starts to rise. Slow a bit (nose up) if the aim point goes down. With the VG's this is safer than it sounds in my Bearhawk. I can slow up and descend pretty steeply as the speed goes down into the low to mid 40's KIAS. Actually, I've gotten to where I don't really pay attention to the airspeed once I finish my base to final turn. As aim point passes under the nose, start the round out with a little power going in. Lately, this is really nice chirp, chirps and a rollout of about 450 feet. Oh, for visibility reasons, which I need on two track wide runways with prairie dog holes, I land tail low, wheel landings with braking to almost walking speed before the tailwheel goes down. This is good for the passengers and my airframe. I know the guy that welded the fuselage/landing gear and he is an amateur for sure!!!!
Sorry this so long but just one more point. Nev's data driven approach is the only way I can really know how I'm doing. I use EFIS data and cameras to really judge how I'm doing and improving. There are mainy times that I landed 10 feet short (fireball) and never knew it. Video don't lie.

My new challenge - in all this time, I neglected doing any engine out practice. Recent attempts at this have revealed that I suck at it. It is a whole different game to clean up the flaps and lower the nose with no option for use of power. A lot of times I would either eat trees on approach or run off the butte on the far end of the back country runway. Try it. I'm learning a lot about landing the BH in engine out simulation. got a long way to go.

Fly safe! Practice hard, fly easy!
 
If F3 & F4 give the same stall speed, then F4 is drag only and no lift. The only use it has at that point is to steepen the approach, should you actually need that. I find I rarely need very steep approaches due to obstacles.
If you're uncomfortable with the 5kt margin, just use Flaps 3. In gusts, this is a common thing. We even run into it on the 74. Ref speed will commonly be in the 160s, with wind gust additive, you end up in the 170's. Flaps 30 limit is 180. Having 5kts to flap overspeed in gusts isn't acceptable. So we land flaps 25 with about a 5kt higher ref speed.

Also, just about everything I've flown bigger than a 172 or cub requires power all the way to the flare, or even into touchdown. From a 206 to the 74, it's power on. This is normal for aircraft with utility.
 
Last edited:
...for visibility reasons, which I need on two track wide runways with prairie dog holes, I land tail low, wheel landings with braking to almost walking speed....
Click to expand...
John, can you tell me what speed and flap setting you would use on final approach for this ?
For a wheel landing, I'm finding so far that with F3 or F4 I'm resorting to a 3-pointer, then pushing it up onto the mains. It probably means that I'm too slow. Tomorrow I'll try F2 with say 60kts and see what difference it makes. I'm thinking it might help me to keep the tail up. I'd like to find a couple of techniques that are more airframe friendly (and flight commander friendly :)
 
Once upon a time engine out spot landing completion was a thing. An exact and deliberate amount of energy (altitude and power) is set on downwind. Then abeam the numbers power is brought to idle. The the key decision is the altitude of your base turn due to variable of wind....a strong headwind will need a sooner, higher turn. AN 800' base turn on a calm wind day in a C-150 with a 1000' pattern worked well. Then its airspeed and flap adjustment to touchdown on your spot. Success is to land within 100' of the touchdown point on speed. With practice you can do +/-25. The next evoltion is to bring the power to idle at 3000' and maneuver so you position your self abeam the numbers at 1000'. That is a very easy transition to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top