turboplanner Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Potrero talked about the correct technique, but there was a raging fight here a few years ago with several people teaching a point down and shoot technique for landing, using throttle for speed and elevators for rate of descent. That will create regular nose first landings, and even if wheelbarrowing is avoided, will have the nose wheel down at a much higher speed, hitting bumps and potholes for much longer at an exponentially higher speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Potrero talked about the correct technique, but there was a raging fight here a few years ago with several people teaching a point down and shoot technique for landing, using throttle for speed and elevators for rate of descent. That will create regular nose first landings, and even if wheelbarrowing is avoided, will have the nose wheel down at a much higher speed, hitting bumps and potholes for much longer at an exponentially higher speed. I think you still have to flare??? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 I think you still have to flare??? Often they don't and the wheelbarrows are entertaining, or they three point, or they manage to reef it back before touch down but much flatter, so more chance of a high speed hit. A lot of excursions, nose overs and wing touches noted in Pilot Notes over the years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diesel Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Oooh. Dont like that way. Who taught the instructor. No wonder people avoid them. Chas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Oooh. Dont like that way. Who taught the instructor. No wonder people avoid them.Chas It's basically what the big heavy metal guys in the Airlines do I believe (but again they flare). 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sluf7 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 You mean there computer does the Flare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diesel Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Try doing that in the gliders in your pic. Elevators control speed. Always did. To go down fast just pull them hard back. Chas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 You mean there computer does the Flare. Where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 latest info sorry so small cant make it bigger -0:35 [/url] HD Captions More Settings [/url]"}' data-testid="ufi_comment_like_link">Like · Reply · 3 hrs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cscotthendry Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Doesn`t appear to me a small Axe or an even bigger one would have been of any use to the guys inside this one! Edit...From the photo, it looks to me like the main wheels spats wouldn`t allow the front wheel to have much clearance from the ground on landing! It wouldn`t take much for the back end of the spats to drag on the ground. One of the reasons I wouldn't own a low wing bubble canopy airplane. If you ever have to put one in a rough paddock, it will most likely end up like this. Even a tail dragger can end up like this, so that would not save you in that situation. There are other reasons I don't care for these aircraft too, but this is one of the main ones. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEM Posted January 4, 2017 Author Share Posted January 4, 2017 Thread title changed from Donnington to Starke Field John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakej Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Main Wheels are just that, land on mains first. Nose Wheel = for preventing prop from hitting the ground & a turning device when taxiing. In normal landing circumstances, using the technique of holding the nosewheel off so that gravity ONLY causes the nosewheel to touchdown, then there is NOT enough inertia to flip an aircraft on its back - end of story. A heck of a lot of people try TOO hard to get an aircraft onto the runway before its properly configured to land & then also complicate the event by trying too hard to stop as short as possible or turn off at the first exit point - that can set up a bad landing scenario. Seems like a few always want to blame other factors like design to cover up their own failings - there are also many who just seem to let go of the stick after landing & while taxying. As for someone saying they wouldn't have a bubble canopy low wing aircraft ! Are you serious ??? Not having a potshot at you personally however if you are that worried why fly at all - no chance of getting hurt that way:beg: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Main Wheels are just that, land on mains first.Nose Wheel = for preventing prop from hitting the ground & a turning device when taxiing. In normal landing circumstances, using the technique of holding the nosewheel off so that gravity ONLY causes the nosewheel to touchdown, then there is NOT enough inertia to flip an aircraft on its back - end of story. A heck of a lot of people try TOO hard to get an aircraft onto the runway before its properly configured to land & then also complicate the event by trying too hard to stop as short as possible or turn off at the first exit point - that can set up a bad landing scenario. Seems like a few always want to blame other factors like design to cover up their own failings - there are also many who just seem to let go of the stick after landing & while taxying. As for someone saying they wouldn't have a bubble canopy low wing aircraft ! Are you serious ??? Not having a potshot at you personally however if you are that worried why fly at all - no chance of getting hurt that way:beg: Personally I have always wanted to fly since the days I built balsa models ,and having gained my pilots certificate [[in a lightwing] I have taken every opportunity I get to do so. Now not having a go at you personally,But ARE you serious with a comment like that??? I have flown all types of high wing aircraft and some low wing ones too,but the only ones I,ve felt uncomfitable about have been the low wing ones [piper pa 28] and as for me I will continue to enjoy every bit of aviating I can and love every minute of it. But I have decided the risk of an overturn in a low wing aircraft and fire, and being trapped by the canopy is just too high for me to enjoy flight in that sort of aircraft, Now before you jump on the bandwagon and say, but the risk is the same,,NO it is not as in a high wing aircraft you have a lot of strong structure sitting above your head creating a crush zone and natural roll bar ,so i,m not worried myself, just checking the odds. It,s like you saying I,d never drive a car because I don't like convertables your last sentence.And I don't like convertables and don't drive them for the same reason. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Not having a potshot at you personally Do you know in China if you get into someone's car and put your seatbelt on you can actually offend the driver by showing them you don't trust their driving. Your post is at about the same level of logic. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakej Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Hey Bull, recheck your reply to me - surely you meant your reply was to the OP's #35 post ? 'Cause what you quoted doesn't make sense. Like you I learnt on PA 28's etc. Can you pm me please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 And I don't like convertables and don't drive them for the same reason. Convertables are awesome, same as motorbikes, and of course planes. I haven't tried a low wing yet, but I still think they'd be awesome. All these vehicles are perfectly safe if maintained and operated correctly. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Main Wheels are just that, land on mains first.Nose Wheel = for preventing prop from hitting the ground & a turning device when taxiing. In normal landing circumstances, using the technique of holding the nosewheel off so that gravity ONLY causes the nosewheel to touchdown, then there is NOT enough inertia to flip an aircraft on its back - end of story. A heck of a lot of people try TOO hard to get an aircraft onto the runway before its properly configured to land & then also complicate the event by trying too hard to stop as short as possible or turn off at the first exit point - that can set up a bad landing scenario. Seems like a few always want to blame other factors like design to cover up their own failings - there are also many who just seem to let go of the stick after landing & while taxying. As for someone saying they wouldn't have a bubble canopy low wing aircraft ! Are you serious ??? Not having a potshot at you personally however if you are that worried why fly at all - no chance of getting hurt that way:beg: As much as I am nowadays loathe to engage with those who do not wish -or have the understanding - to engage with basic physics and aerodynamics, this is just an offensive post. The idea that 'gravity ONLY causes the nosewheel to touchdown, then there is NOT enough inertia to flip an aircraft on its back', is almost complete nonsense. I would agree, that on a bitumen/concrete strip, the c/f of a noseleg failure would PROBABLY be sufficient to NOT cause an overturn - but that is absolutely invalid for a soft-surface strip / paddock. IF the noseleg folds back, then the force vector of the main drag point is vertically very much closer to the c/g - but horizontally, still well below it. In simple terms: imagine that the overturn moment of the c/g, the main wheels and the noseleg, is a triangle - then if the noseleg has folded back, that triangle is almost inverted. And now, the drag component of the nosewheel has transformed onto a something resembling a plough. In addition - and contrary to the assertion that it is all the PIC's fault rather than design - you have the question of elevator authority to control the attitude of arrival. The RV6 has a known and well-documented lack of elevator authority at low speed/power conditions. In the case of engine-out, it cannot flare at less than about 65 kts. - it flies straight into the ground, and if not the modified version, then folds up around the cockpit and crushes the occupant/s' skulls Look at the fatality statistics. Later VANS aircraft do not have this problem. And, absolutely, VANS aircraft do not unilaterally have elevator authority problems. As for the 'wouldn't have a bubble-canopy low wing aircraft - are you serious??' insult: this is a macabre (and in very bad taste) joke, surely? Who are you channeling? Ettore Bugatti's famous statement that 'brakes are only there to slow you down', or Enzo Ferrari's comment that he didn't fit seatbelts to his cars because a real Ferrari driver would prefer to be killed outright than maimed for life? . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 As for someone saying they wouldn't have a bubble canopy low wing aircraft ! Are you serious ??? Not having a potshot at you personally however if you are that worried why fly at all - no chance of getting hurt that way:beg: This is straight from your post jake,what don't you understand mate, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakej Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Oscar you are guilty of misconstruing what I said. It's the context YOU changed - I did not say gravity ONLY causes the wheel to touchdown. If you had read it more clearly I said " holding the nosewheel off so that gravity ONLY causes the nosewheel to touchdown" . As for the "I wouldn't have a bubble-canopy low wing aircraft" THAT was scotthendry's comment post #35, NOT MINE. IF the RV6 is as bad as you suggest then there would have been a lot more of those type of accidents, not just the group of then some time ago as opposed to very few now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakej Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Bull, please read post #35 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Bull, please read post #35 . Yes you are correct about the [i wouldnt own a low wing aircraft statement that was scott,s]BUT my post was about your insulting last line ie,??? Not having a potshot at you personally however if you are that worried why fly at all - no chance of getting hurt that way:beg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Oscar you are guilty of misconstruing what I said. It's the context YOU changed - I did not say gravity ONLY causes the wheel to touchdown. If you had read it more clearly I said " holding the nosewheel off so that gravity ONLY causes the nosewheel to touchdown" .As for the "I wouldn't have a bubble-canopy low wing aircraft" THAT was scotthendry's comment post #35, NOT MINE. IF the RV6 is as bad as you suggest then there would have been a lot more of those type of accidents, not just the group of then some time ago as opposed to very few now. Show a bit of that intellect that you have us believe you possess and read Oscar,s post and have a little think about it before shotgun replying 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakej Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Bull, as you say, my post was in reply to scotthendry's line but somehow insulting to you - you guys in a relationship or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Is this the post where the RV went bum up or is it a sitting in parliament?? Sure starting to look like parliament discussion time or adult kindergarten Move on and get over it and back to topic please 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakej Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Poteroo's post #22 is also the voice of experience & considered observation IMO, & no I don't who he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now