In reply to:
Actually, the POH recommends 80 knots on final for the SR22. I think the strong words in this thread were about flight instructors teaching 80 knots for the SR20. The POH recommends 75 knots for that airplane.
The original post said that the instructor was insisting on 80 knots touchdown speed - there’s nothing wrong with 80 knots on final for a 22 or a 20, but you don’t want to be that fast over the fence or into the flare.
In reply to:
Remember, after you get home, you can fly the airplane any way you deem it safe. When you are getting training, I believe the time is too precious to waste arguing over a few knots.
Respectfully don’t agree with that. I believe learning to land a plane is about learning good habits, sight pictures and muscle memory. Doing it right from the start IMO is very important. Learn how to fly it at the correct speed, flare at the right height above the runway and land safely on the mains. Excess speed is a bad thing. If the factory is going to pay someone to teach, pay them to teach properly.
This is a hot potato for me mostly because of my years of mooney flying. Every single week someone goes and prangs the prop on a mooney and almost every single solitary time it starts because they came in too fast and landed flat. This thread started with a story of a classic porpoise which may not have happened if the poster had been taught a realistic approach speed in the first place.
I don’t think this is something you should have to go out and figure out for yourself after getting your plane, I think it’s a technique which should be taught.
Roland:
You are quite correct… I think your Mooney habits will serve you well for the Cirrus. My suggestion is to work with the UND guy and politely ask him to explain why he wants you at 80 knots. Get him to let you make a landing at 75 to show him it works better. I guarentee it WILL work better at 75. If he/she will not even let you try that approach, then you have a bad instructor.
But your ARE going to Duluth with the right numbers to work with. It just does not land as well at 80 no matter what they tell you out there. You CAN fly and make good landings at 80 but you do so with a VERY LONG FLOAT holding the airplane level streaming down the runway until it slows down.
Maybe you could convince the instructor by starting with a short field landing. That would be impossible at 80 knots.
In reply to: I am afraid, given your attitude going in, you have very little chance of a satisfactory experience. -
quite possibly, with my attitude I am probably going to find training an unpleasant and frustrating experience if I make an issue out of this.
My take:
a) I was shown (in an SR22) how to climb at what I considered a very shallow angle after take-off, accelerating to maybe 120k. That put us VERY low over the houses east of N Perry airport, and a power failure would have left us with VERY limited options. I teach to ALWAYS climb at best rate (or best angle, as appropriate) to at least pattern altitude. That gives the most options if things start to go wrong, and is more polite to residents near the airport besides. Even if you can’t make a return to a runway, the airport environs are usually a lot more friendly that a residential community!
b) I had a demo pilot (in an SR22) apply forward pressure on the stick as I was attempting my first landing. Aside from the fact that “fighting” for the controls is nearly always a bad idea, I think the plane did land at nearly 80k, which I think is maybe 15k faster than necessary. I’ve been left alone to do all my subsequent landings (maybe 7 or 8), and managed to get the stick all the way back AND touch down pretty smoothly. My recent experience in my Tiger definitely helps, since the approach and landing attitudes are very similar.
c) I also often see relatively shallow power-on approaches in single-engine aircraft. If I see a student dragging out an approach or excessively extending a downwind leg, I’ll throttle back to idle and ask the student what our options are. As he looks for the limited options available off-airport, I ask why we didn’t just glide to the airport. The answer is, of course, that we were too low, to which I reply: “exactly!”
When I’m flying with someone else’s student, I ask them up front to please point out to me if I tell them something that’s different from what their instructor told them. If so, the options are usually:
Flight instructors receiving instruction always sets up an odd dynamic. I think it’s largely up to the pilot receiving the instruction to be open to new ideas and have the flexibility to perform maneuvers however they’re requested. Ideally it should be a learning experience for both pilots.
I, for one, am looking forward to my training. I’m boning up by studying the Training Manual I was sent and shooting practice approaches to Duluth and surrounding airports on MSFS 2004.
If all goes well, I’ll be flying up to Duluth on 9/23 with “Trip” Taylor in his SR22. That will give me yet more of an opportunity to get comfortable in a new type.
I had a similar experience on takeoff technique with my demo flight. The salesperson made a big deal out of the need to “fly it off like a twin” and to maintain a low deck angle until at 120kts or so. My UND trainer, however, did not advocate this technique. Rather, he taught a Vr rotation, flaps up at 80 kts, then a Vy climb to 1,000 agl. Once at pattern altitude, and only then, was it ok to transition to the faster 120 kt cruise climb.
See the attached excerpt from the UND courseware, where this exact technique is spelled out.
Similarly, the UND courseware (and my UND instructor) advocated an 80kt approach speed – but not an 80kt touchdown. (see again the attached excerpt for “normal procedures” for a VFR landing. UND recommends 80 knots ON FINAL. As several people have pointed out, this is a slight (and IMHO prudent) “rounding up” from the book numbers when at max gross. One area where UND could certainly do a better job would be to discuss the need to adjust these numbers according to weight. This was a subject that never come up in my training.
Anyway, if anyone has a UND instructor telling them to be at higher than 80 knots on final apprach with 100% flaps, then you should refer the trainer to their own syllabus, or at least get them to explain why they are departing from the “book” on this point.
One can also point out to the trainer that the POH assumes final approach speed at 100% flaps and max gross will be 77kts WITH POWER STILL ON. The POH then assumes a “smooth reduction to Idle at touchdown.” The UND training also assumes approx 11" of power on final with a smooth transition to idle at touchdown. This smooth power reduction will result in a slowing of the aircraft to something less than the power-on approach speed.
Thus, I think it is safe to say that neither the POH nor the UND training materials are advocating touchdown at anything near the speeds reported on this thread.
Bottom line, if you have a UND person pushing higher speeds, pull out the POH and/or the UND courseware and ask them to explain why they want you to depart from the book.
Stephen
FWIW - My UND trainer, Shawn McCauley, was an absolute magician landing the SR-22. He taught me to execute better-than-greased landings in all configurations – full flaps, 50% flaps, 0% flaps, power-off, short field, etc. I only wish I had not forgotten most of it soon after he went back to Duluth.
1-58358-UNDExcerpt.ppt (281 KB)
"Also, the landing distances in the POH were not established by someone landing and holding the nose off so if you do that you are on your own as far as establishing landing distance."As I reread my own post I realized that is probably worth saying the the landing distances in the POH were not established by someone holding 80 knots down to flare. As a matter of fact my POH says 77K at 50 Ft. obstacle - 3400 lb.
I have only rarely seen any shimmy and it has been only modest whenever I see it.
But there is a better reason for holding the nose off. I think that holding the nose wheel off actually decreases the landing rollout. You are presenting a larger cross section to the air with the nose a little higher and the speed drops off quicker than with all three wheels on the ground in my experience.
Until recently I did not know what the “Shimmy” really was. When landing at SCK I thought the plane was going to shake apart. I taxied at the slowest possible speed to Top Gun thinking I had a flat. I did not have a flat tire, just flat washers. Subsequently, I found that by holding the nose off the runway I had no shimmy even with very flat washers which were soon replaced.
I also believe that holding the nose off the runway slows the plane down.
I also believe that holding the nose off the runway slows the plane down.
Not as much as the brakes which is why all short field landings tell you to immediately lower the nose and apply the brakes.
In reply to:
Does UND actually teach 80 knots for an SR20? (not 22???)
Harrell,
Apparently, at least one instructor does worse – looking for a “touchdown speed” of 80 knots… or more. From the post that started this thread: My UND instructor really pushed a minimum touchdown speed of 80 knots.
I don’t believe that is UND policy - I know only that one instructor is reported to have done so.
In reply to:
Do others think this simple but expensive device is necssary?
Like to hear from you.
Harrell,
I don’t think one needs it if you’re flying your own airplane, and you’re comfortable with your landing technique.
OTOH, if I were running a flight school, or rental operation, or Fractional Ownership business using Cirrus airplanes, I’d certainly use it.
Marty,
Your points are well made - but please re-read this statement in the post above. Emphasis is mine. Does speed matter in that context?
“My UND instructor really pushed a minimum touchdown speed of 80 knots”
Beyond that… yes, one should be able to adjust for being too fast or too slow over the numbers, but one needs a reasonable target to aim for, and making those adjustments takes experience and familiarity with the airplane - exactly what a transitioning pilot doesn’t have, which is why… well, you get my drift… (and you’ve corrected for it, so that you landed on the centerline!) [;)]
Merty:
I agree and no need to expect a scolding. When I am flying an instrument approach, or approaching a large airport or various other conditions that warrant a need, I come in much faster than usual on final approach. But over the numbers or at your “landing” area, and certainly in the flare, speed control is much more imporatnt.
But, if you are fast or slow AT THAT POINT, there are ways to compensate as you have said and that is fine.
The problem of discussion is “What is that speed at the point” that is the target. We all agree that 80 is too fastso the question is why does UND teach it that way?
Marty I couldn’t agree with you more. Once one gets comfortable with the entire scenario in a Cirrus SR2X - I believe it’s more a duplicating or trying to duplicate what you did before by sight and feel. I can’t keep my eyes pegged on the ASI while watching my approach - but I do have a sense of how it should look and feel as I get close to the numbers and touchdown, based on learning what it feels like when following the suggested numbers.
Mike: I absolutely agree, it would be very tough to touch down at 80 knots! I would bet that the CFI was misquoted. However, a target of over the numbers at 75 - 78 or even a knot or two more is fine and advisable.
One of my points is that the “less than 80” loyalists may be a bit too rigid. I am sure that you, me or or any other reasonably competent Cirrus pilot can pass the number at 95 knots or even greater, and given enough runway, perform a fine touchdown 2 out of 3 times. I don’t want to do that too often, but it illustrates that the “76 knots over the numbers” is not necessarily required for a good landing. IMHO the proper technique is required. The appropriate airspeed just makes it easier.
For a transitioning pilot, I would recommend trying to get as close a practicable to the target airspeed, which I agree 76 or 77 is probably a lot closer than “>80.” But the speed is no more important than flaring at the right height, the correct attitude at touchdown, etc.
I would like to throw my $0.02 in since I probably have made more bad landings over the last 37 years than all other members combined. (On second thought I was in the right seat when Marty landed once and felt my title might be in jeopardy). In any event I’m a bit of an expert in poor landings. Once I had a tower controller on Kauai comment that after that landing I was current for the next three months!!
I think Marty is right on the money with his airspeed comments. You should certainly shoot for a target speed but if you’re off by a few knots it’s not the end of the world. If you are off you can pull off a better landing if you start too fast rather than too slow although you will use significantly more runway and on short strips that can be a real issue.
The key to a good touchdown is to get to a few feet above the runway at about the correct speed and establish an attitude just minimally nose up. This will bleed off speed until you run out of speed and gently settle. The problem with being too slow is that you’re already in a nose high attitude and if you pull back to arrest the rate of descent you will simply increase your descent as the airplane stalls before you want it to.
The real trick to consistent landings is to approach so that you can cross the threshold at about 75 KIAS (for the 22). When you are almost at the runway - certainly no more that a wing’s length above it and are in ground effect, SLOWLY apply back pressure to arrest the descent and put the plane in the landing attitude (minimally nose up). Then get rid of whatever power is left while you hold the attitude and you will settle right on, usually to the sound of the stall warning horn.
But Marty is right. Whether you’re at 75, 85 or even 100 KIAS a mile from the runway doesn’t make much of a difference as long as you cross the threshold at close to the target speed.
In reply to:
On second thought I was in the right seat when Marty landed once and felt my title might be in jeopard).
I plead: nolo contendre. Guilty as charged!
Why do your bad landings always occur when you have passengers, and why do your worst landings occur with other pilots on board?
Marty,
Happens to me all the time.
“Sub-conscious” (or conscious) pucker factor. It’s easy to grease 9 of 10 by yourself and with your wife (your not trying to impress her and she doesn’t give a #$%^ about your greaser).
A pilot’s passengers (or new girlfriend) and instructor(s) do and its that 5% pucker factor that cause you to sink a bit quicker or float a while longer…your a bit ‘tight’ because your being ‘judged’.
I am sure you know all this but I didn’t have a dam thing better to do at this moment (sad I know) except reply and drink a beer at home with Michelle because of more dam rain in Richmond!.
TC. Back to brew #2!
Marty: That’s not always true! I came back from Palm Springs at the last AOPA convention with not only my CFII in the right seat but another pilot in the back. After a very long negotiation session with the FAA for an IFR clearance without a reservation number we finally got a clearance. It was well after dark and just after a rain storm had passed through our destination area. We were the only aircraft in motion on the Palm Springs airport.
I came into Cable, KCCB. The landing was literally one of those where the only sensation of the transition to being on the ground was the rolling sound of the wheels. I don’t even remember a chirp. There was no sound associated with the nose gear coming down either.
Just to document with two pilot witnesses, I asked over the intercom “are we down yet, did we touch?”
Marty,
In all fairness the landing was a great one. That is we both walked away and the plane was reusable without major repair.
Don’t worry, I’ve done many landings that made yours look like an absolute greaser.