Sport aviation is growing rapidly. But the new sport pilot / light-sport aircraft rules are still a mystery to many flight schools and instructors. To locate a flight school offering sport pilot training and/or light-sport aircraft rentals, click on the "Flight School And Rental Finder" tab above. This is a great place to share ideas on learning to fly, flight schools, costs and anything else related to training.
It's long since been stipulated that different conditions require different techniques. That's what your post restated, very well mind you, and we're all in agreement.
Yet, it's often painted that Ed and I and others are advocating a "one size fits all" approach, and that's just not true. It seeks to make a caricature of our position, making it easier argue against - hence my reference to a "straw man argument".
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
CFI, CFII, CFIME [email protected]
Absolutely agree! But to make a blanket statement, in an aviation publication, that LSAs need power to overcome a lack of inertia in order to make a smooth landing is questionable.
Guess I must have really blown it last week and didn't know it. Landed without power and had the mains touch down such that my passenger asked if we were on the ground yet
But I find that the ratio between forward/horizontal momentum and downward/vertical momentum needs to be managed ever so slightly, so that there is a bit more forward momentum than there would be in a stall landing.
It just makes landings smoother.
In the Allegro I fly, with 15% flaps, trimmed for 58-66, and the power to idle, the plane will lose altitude with the nose pitch 10% up; and it won't land with a thud. I try to land it slower than that, but I don't feel I need to be near 43.
What am I missing?
I understand the 1.3Vso + 1/2 gust factor. I think I'm advocating for a few more KT's because LSA'a are a bit squirrelly.
Absolutely agree! But to make a blanket statement, in an aviation publication, that LSAs need power to overcome a lack of inertia in order to make a smooth landing is questionable.
Guess I must have really blown it last week and didn't know it. Landed without power and had the mains touch down such that my passenger asked if we were on the ground yet
But I find that the ratio between forward/horizontal momentum and downward/vertical momentum needs to be managed ever so slightly, so that there is a bit more forward momentum than there would be in a stall landing.
It just makes landings smoother.
In the Allegro I fly, with 15% flaps, trimmed for 58-66, and the power to idle, the plane will lose altitude with the nose pitch 10% up; and it won't land with a thud. I try to land it slower than that, but I don't feel I need to be near 43.
What am I missing?
I understand the 1.3Vso + 1/2 gust factor. I think I'm advocating for a few more KT's because LSA'a are a bit squirrelly.
Frank,
Instead of thinking about a ratio of forward vs downward momentum think about controlling the amount of each individually. To land smoothly simply control your sink, In my CT I can do that by moving my stick aft. That generally works fine and of course I can advance my throttle if I run out of stick or if the amount of sink warrants.
Control forward momentum by limiting your airspeed.
Take control of your sink rate and you won't have to add speed for smooth landings.
