Nose Up/down Attitude On Final.What Do You Prefer?

Mastropiero · Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:26 pm

Hi everyone!

I know that, just as it happens with going from yoke to sidestick or vice-versa, pilots would get used to this difference between different type of airplanes pretty quick. However, I wanted to ask you what do you prefer? How are you more comfortable, in a nose down attitude having a good visual of the runway up until flare, or in a nose up attitude?

DashTrash · Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:08 pm

I'm most comfortable with whatever pitch attitude holds my approach speed for the given flap setting.

Fly2HMO · Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:38 pm

Quoting Mastropiero (Thread starter):
How are you more comfortable, in a nose down attitude having a good visual of the runway up until flare, or in a nose up attitude?

Nose up. If you botch a landing in a plane that lands flat or with a low nose attitude, chances are you'll bust the nose gear, or a prop. Unless of course you're flying an IL-76 or any other plane that can take that abuse.

But in your everyday airliner or single engine plane, nose high for me.

Mir · Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:07 am

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 2):
But in your everyday airliner or single engine plane, nose high for me.

How many single-engine planes fly nose-high on approach, though?

-Mir

Alias1024 · Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:15 am

Whichever one pays more.

Goldenshield · Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:42 am

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 2):
But in your everyday airliner or single engine plane, nose high for me.

That's how they're designed to land.

While many planes approach nose down, they don't flare that way, and if you can't see the runway when you are flaring, and either you or the aircraft aren't cat III certified, you shouldn't be flying that plane in the first place.

Also, in the west, only the MU-2 (that I can think of) intentionally lands nose first.

Fabo · Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:50 pm

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 5):
and if you can't see the runway when you are flaring,

Why? You would not get to flaring without being sure you are above the runway anyway.

2H4 · Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:13 pm

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 5):
if you can't see the runway when you are flaring, and either you or the aircraft aren't cat III certified, you shouldn't be flying that plane in the first place.

I suspect the tailwheel community would take issue with that.

readytotaxi · Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:13 pm

As a passenger I don't mind, which ever gets me to the gate the quickest. ÃÂ

Mir · Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:46 pm

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 7):
I suspect the tailwheel community would take issue with that.

Hell, I've been in that position in a 172 (albeit briefly). One of my smoother landings, I have to admit.

-Mir

Mastropiero · Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:59 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 7):
I suspect the tailwheel community would take issue with that.

Hell, I've been in that position in a 172 (albeit briefly). One of my smoother landings, I have to admit.

-Mir

Care to elaborate on that?

tb727 · Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:59 pm

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 5):
Also, in the west, only the MU-2 (that I can think of) intentionally lands nose first.

I tended to land with Flaps 20 whenever I flew it, never full flaps. I made for a slightly faster approach but the picture looked better. Not to mention I'd rather have a few more knots if we lost a motor in that POS. Thank God we got rid of that thing for a nice, reliable King Air 200.

Goldenshield · Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:25 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 10):

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 7):
I suspect the tailwheel community would take issue with that.

Hell, I've been in that position in a 172 (albeit briefly). One of my smoother landings, I have to admit.

-Mir

Let me rephrase that: When you are about to flare, i.e.; you can't see what's ahead of you while still in approach attitude.

tb727 · Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:16 am

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 12):

Let me rephrase that: When you are about to flare, i.e.; you can't see what's ahead of you while still in approach attitude.

Along the same lines, I have heard in the 747 you can't see much of the runway in the flare, any whale drivers wanna confirm that? The guy I heard it from tells great stories, just never sure how sensationalized they are, but he said when you land at YIP you can't even see the runway until you let the nose down after touchdown because the runway is fairly short at 7526'.

lowrider · Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:35 am

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 7):
I suspect the tailwheel community would take issue with that.

You might not be able to see the runway ahead, but you look along side the fuselage for reference.

Quoting tb727 (Reply 13):
I have heard in the 747 you can't see much of the runway in the flare,

You can't see much of the runway close into you, but if your seat is adjusted properly, you have a good view of the far half of the runway. Even on the ground anything within about 50 feet of the nose is invisible.

As for preference of nose high or low, I haven't found that I have one. Just give the plane what it needs.

Fly2HMO · Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:02 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
How many single-engine planes fly nose-high on approach, though?

Seems like I neglected the word approach and was thinking more in terms of flare, silly me ÃÂ

ÃÂ

I wanna say the older C182RGs tended to have a flat-ish approach, more so than a 172 at least, been a while since I flew the RG though. I also recall the Seminoles being rather flat as well, specially when doing a long, shallow, power on approach.

ThirtyEcho · Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:54 am

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 5):
and if you can't see the runway when you are flaring, and either you or the aircraft aren't cat III certified, you shouldn't be flying that plane in the first place.

I always landed my Luscombe 8E CATIIIc. That took quite a bit of skill, considering that the airplane didn't have an electrical system.

musang · Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:51 pm

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 5):
Also, in the west, only the MU-2 (that I can think of) intentionally lands nose first.

The Airbus Industrie Guppies used to be landed nose first when loaded with a forward C of G. There wasn't any choice. For that reason the original C-97 nose gears were replaced with 707 units.

As regards the original question, one doesn't have much choice as to pitch angle on the approach or in any phase of flight, if its flown by the book. Generally we fly a certain speed at a certain thrust setting, so the pitch angle is dictated by that. In case we lose airspeed indications we fly a thrust setting and a pitch angle, knowing that this will produce a certain speed. For this reason one has a general idea of what the pitch angle should be for any phase of the operation (i.e. initial climb, intermediate climb, cruise etc. etc. (And if it actually happens, we consult tables showing the pitch/speed/thrust relationship for the phase of flight. There are tables for various weights and altitudes.)

A different flap setting will produce a different pitch atitude on approach but only by a couple of degrees. Its noticeable (i.e. using flap 40 as opoosed to the usual 30 in a 737), but doesn't make any difference to the view.

With one exception. If the visibility is below 300 meters and we are autolanding, we use flap 40 so as to slightly increase the amount of runway visible close in when the surface finally comes into view. This helps orientation with the centreline. In good vis., one is never looking at the runway just in front of the nose so using flap 40 for the above reason is pointless.

Regards - musang

2H4 · Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:31 pm

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 15):
I wanna say the older C182RGs tended to have a flat-ish approach, more so than a 172 at least

As I recall, some of the older 182s had a flap setting of 40 degrees, which further flattened the deck angle on approach. When flying with an empty cabin, the resulting nose-heavy configuration has combined with unsuspecting pilots to claim many nose gears and firewalls over the years.

Fly2HMO · Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:13 pm

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 18):

As I recall, some of the older 182s had a flap setting of 40 degrees, which further flattened the deck angle on approach. When flying with an empty cabin, the resulting nose-heavy configuration has combined with unsuspecting pilots to claim many nose gears and firewalls over the years.

Ours had 40 degrees. And yes it was tricky to land as the elevator authority was very very poor. Several times I landed with the yoke full back and that was barely enough to get it out of a flat attitude. So you either had to land faster, resulting in a long float, or, my preferred method, which was to bump the power right as you flare. Worked beautifully.

2H4 · Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:20 pm

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 19):
So you either had to land faster, resulting in a long float, or, my preferred method, which was to bump the power right as you flare.

My preferred method was to use 30 degrees of flaps.

Mastropiero · Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:38 pm

Quoting Musang (Reply 17):

Thank you for that Musang, that was very interesting.

I was fully aware that it is the aircraft itself who dictates its own attitude in the different phases of flight rather than the pilotÃÂ´s preferences.... my question was more addressed to what you guys prefer/feel more comfortable with or what would you pick given the choice.

Thanks anyway, it was good read!

Fly2HMO · Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:14 pm

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 20):

My preferred method was to use 30 degrees of flaps.

Pfssh! Where's the skill in that?

Goldenshield · Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:38 pm

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 22):
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 20):

My preferred method was to use 30 degrees of flaps.

Pfssh! Where's the skill in that?

How about 90 degrees? The plane I'm looking at has such a feature.

lowrider · Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:34 am

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 23):
How about 90 degrees?

What are you looking at, a Helio Courier? A Hawker? What ever it is it sounds very interesting.

Goldenshield · Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:46 am

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 24):
What are you looking at, a Helio Courier? A Hawker? What ever it is it sounds very interesting.

HP-18. No engine, but sporty as hell.

(Not the one I'm looking at, but similar paint.)

ThirtyEcho · Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:42 am

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 18):
As I recall, some of the older 182s had a flap setting of 40 degrees, which further flattened the deck angle on approach. When flying with an empty cabin, the resulting nose-heavy configuration has combined with unsuspecting pilots to claim many nose gears and firewalls over the years.

ALL Cessna singles used to have 40 degree flaps and they were wonderful in backwoods or short strips, especially if they were manual. As for the nose heaviness, drop by and I'll show you where to find the trim wheel.

bri2k1 · Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:17 pm

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 26):

I'm not positive, but I think it was an AD that eliminated the last notch, at least on some 172s I've flown. Something about lots of flutter during a cross-controlled approach. Apparently, the flaps blocked so much airflow to the horizontal stab that it kept going in and out of stall.

Aaron747 · Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:46 pm

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 26):
As for the nose heaviness, drop by and I'll show you where to find the trim wheel.

Classic response, that's why I absolutely adore these threads

2H4 · Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:18 pm

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 26):
ALL Cessna singles used to have 40 degree flaps and they were wonderful in backwoods or short strips, especially if they were manual. As for the nose heaviness, drop by and I'll show you where to find the trim wheel.

Thank you, ThirtyEcho....I'm quite familiar with the function and use of elevator trim.

The fact is, compared with a comparison group comprised of the Cessna 177 Cardinal, Cessna 205, Cessna 206, Cessna 207, Gulfstream American AA-5, and Piper PA-28, the 182 is much more likely to be involved in an accident resulting from a hard landing.

The data (and my personal experience in the type) indicate that landing this airplane in a consistently safe manner requires more attention to detail than simply adding more trim.

From AOPA:

Landing is the most accident-prone phase of flight for Cessna 182s and comparison aircraft, with 39 percent and 29 percent, respectively. For the 182, landing hard was the leading transgression.

The Skylane had considerably more accidents landing hard than did the comparison group (12.7 percent of pilot-related C-182 accidents, compared to 5.7 percent). (See Figure 10). This may be due to the heavy feel of the elevator control, especially for pilots transitioning to the Skylane from lighter airplanes.

Substantial trim is required during landing, but donÃÂÃÂ¢ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt trim so much that you will not be able to handle a go-around. Trimming for 75 knots will require you to hold back pressure during landing, but wonÃÂÃÂ¢ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt require so much forward pressure on the controls during a go-around.

Note: Improper speed control and a forward CG (full fuel and two occupants) results in bent firewalls being very common during 182 landings, especially for pilots transitioning from lighter airplanes. Hard landing forces are transmitted through the gear and engine support structure to the firewall. ASF recommends a full load checkout as part of your Skylane familiarization. Pre-purchase inspections should include a close look at the firewall.

[Edited 2010-02-09 15:38:09]

Fly2HMO · Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:42 pm

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 26):
As for the nose heaviness, drop by and I'll show you where to find the trim wheel.

Oh yes that's very smart. Fiddling with the trim wheel while flaring when you already have your hands full with the throttles and yoke.

And in the 182RG, there was a couple of times where I ran out of up trim on approach, and that was barely enough to help. And yes. We were within the certified CG range, thank you.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 29):

Landing is the most accident-prone phase of flight for Cessna 182s and comparison aircraft, with 39 percent and 29 percent, respectively. For the 182, landing hard was the leading transgression.

I wonder if the new (2000 and later) 182s have better elevator authority? Haven't flown those newer models...

[Edited 2010-02-09 15:42:38]

Aaron747 · Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:20 am

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 30):
I wonder if the new (2000 and later) 182s have better elevator authority? Haven't flown those newer models...

IIRC they do indeed have a larger horizontal stab. A few other aerodynamic mods were made on the 2000-on builds as well...I recall reading in FLYING that they have increased flap span and cuffed ailerons.

bri2k1 · Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:37 pm

We have a 1979 RG, a 1980 Q, and a 2006 T Skylane in my club. Of them, I think the T has the heaviest control forces. I don't find any of them particularly harder to land with a positive attitude (arharhar) than the others.

lowrider · Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:03 am

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 25):
HP-18. No engine, but sporty as hell.

Beautirful. Not much glider action here in the flatlands, but I have thought about going after the ticket just for the experience. I have a little expierence with hang gliders and enjoyed that. Good luck with your purchase, no matter what you decide on that particular airframe.

rcair1 · Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:26 am

Quoting bri2k1 (Reply 27):
Something about lots of flutter during a cross-controlled approach. Apparently, the flaps blocked so much airflow to the horizontal stab that it kept going in and out of stall.

Also posed problems with control when you slipped. Wanna go down fast, full flaps and side slip.

BTW - i was watching the video on the Gimli Glider and they stated:

1) He was too high - so he slipped the 767 (wow, slipping a 767).

2) He had never done a slip.

What? Isn't a slip pretty normal training (certainly was for me)?

Poll - have you ever slipped your plane to loose altitude?

Alias1024 · Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:05 am

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 34):
Poll - have you ever slipped your plane to loose altitude?

Slipped an aircraft to lose altitude, yes. Slipped the CRJ, no.

Aaron747 · Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:30 am

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 34):
Poll - have you ever slipped your plane to loose altitude?

Yes, but only when asked to by an instructor or examiner. The other times I've thought about it, I abandoned the approach because I was too damn high and/or hot.

Goldenshield · Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:22 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 34):
Poll - have you ever slipped your plane to loose altitude?

Many times. As long as you don't exceed the limitations for a slip on a given aircraft, it's a non issue. Just watch it, as many aircraft aren't certified to slip with flaps extended past a certain degree, or at all.

bri2k1 · Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:01 pm

When I was first learning to fly, I relied pretty much on pilotage and dead reckoning to get where I was going. Soon after I got my private, I began flying bigger and more complex airplanes, and when I first started using GPS for navigation, I often found myself 2 miles from the airport with 5000 feet to lose. I got lots of utility out of the slip. The trick for me was making sure to use enough forward elevator pressure to keep the airspeed up. That, and letting the passengers know it was OK to see the runway out the side windows.

lowrider · Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:21 pm

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 34):
Poll - have you ever slipped your plane to loose altitude?

Yes. So long as it wasn't prohibited for that aircraft. Done correctly it is a great tool. I haven't tried it in a swept wing aircraft, though. Haven't had a reason to.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net