Bounced landings - aft CG ?

[PT20J]

33 minutes ago, exM20K said:

The video below is somewhat similar - note that the plane, with the wings providing no lift at all, does bounce.  Now imagine a wing providing some lift.  Boing!

Well, I guess we have to define how high it has to be to be called a bounce. When people talk about bouncing an airplane it's usually several feet -- not a little bounce like you get in a drop test. 

 

[PT20J]

15 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I am way more adept at landing a Mooney than a Decathlon but still trying!

A Decathlon is "bouncy" -- especially wheel landings. Three things work against you: 1) The landing gear is ahead of the CG, so any vertical velocity at touchdown pitches the nose up increasing the AOA, 2) The tail down force is acting with a moment arm from the stabilizer to the CG until the instant of touch down at which point it acts about the main gear which is a longer arm and this causes a pitch up moment, 3) the spring steel gear is much springier than the original Aeronca bungees. The trick is to fly it down very close to the runway, level off somewhat nose high (the old timers call it "landing on the back side of the mains") so it is slow, and then either roll it onto the runway with a slight forward movement of the stick, or be primed to move the stick forward immediately when it touches on it's own. The forward movement of the stick holds it on the runway so it can't fly and also overcomes the natural instinct to flinch and pull back slightly when it touches down.

Skip 

[81X]

For what it’s worth, my factory airspeed indicator indicates 5-9 kts faster than my G5’s which agree with each other.  

I was wondering what the big fuss was when I can come over the fence at 85kts, when in reality I was doing about 79. 

That said, bounces mean you’re still at flying speeds when ground contact occurs, I prefer full stall landings, yes even in a Mooney. 

[Shadrach]

6 hours ago, PT20J said:

A Decathlon is "bouncy" -- especially wheel landings. Three things work against you: 1) The landing gear is ahead of the CG, so any vertical velocity at touchdown pitches the nose up increasing the AOA, 2) The tail down force is acting with a moment arm from the stabilizer to the CG until the instant of touch down at which point it acts about the main gear which is a longer arm and this causes a pitch up moment, 3) the spring steel gear is much springier than the original Aeronca bungees. The trick is to fly it down very close to the runway, level off somewhat nose high (the old timers call it "landing on the back side of the mains") so it is slow, and then either roll it onto the runway with a slight forward movement of the stick, or be primed to move the stick forward immediately when it touches on it's own. The forward movement of the stick holds it on the runway so it can't fly and also overcomes the natural instinct to flinch and pull back slightly when it touches down.

Skip 

My first experiences with “conventional gear” aircraft were the 7AC and 11AC. My primary instructor had one of each. The difference in the landing characteristics of the airframe with spring steel is significant. When getting checked out in the Decathlon I was taught the stick forward to “pin it” method for wheel landings. I was also told the same thing that I’m am preaching in this thread “it won’t bounce if it’s not flying”. My take away from that was that I was being asked to do full stall wheel landings. I was able to do that a several times but it was awkward like setting up for a 3 point but changing your 3/3rds of the way through. I find carrying just little extra energy into touchdown makes it easier to do wheel landings. I only get to fly the 8KCAB once every 6-8 months. I’m safe in it, but I’ll never achieve the kind of proficiency I want at those intervals.

[midlifeflyer]

9 hours ago, anthonydesmet said:

Hope this helps...just felt like pontificating......

LOL! Me, I just sit back in threads like this and eat popcorn.

Should I mention I land all the tricycle singles I fly pretty much the same way?

Edited May 15, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[Shadrach]

 

2 hours ago, 81X said:

For what it’s worth, my factory airspeed indicator indicates 5-9 kts faster than my G5’s which agree with each other.  

I was wondering what the big fuss was when I can come over the fence at 85kts, when in reality I was doing about 79. 

That said, bounces mean you’re still at flying speeds when ground contact occurs, I prefer full stall landings, yes even in a Mooney. 

Whether it’s 85 or 79, both seem fast over the fence. 

Edited May 15, 2019 by Shadrach

[anthonydesmet]

8 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Anthony, I agreed with the rest of your post, but not the above sentence.  Just because the guy could "drive" an A-4 over Vietnam doesn't lend all that much credence to his statement.  It counts about as much as the fact that I "drive" an Airbus.

Done correctly, it's an effective technique with a long enough runway.  Done incorrectly, its a recipe for a porpoise down the runway or an overrun off a short field.  If the intent behind the statement was that you don't flare as much as in a Cessna, then sure, I'll get on board with that.

I've got 2200' useable landing distance at my airport and I make the turnoff after about 1100 so I don't have to taxi through potholes and gravel.  No way can you do that if you don't flare.  A friend flew his Ovation out of the same strip- the only reason he didn't flare as much as me was to keep from hitting the tail on his long body.

Thought it would be obvious to most but guess not......I did not imply that an A-4 is the same as flying a Mooney....just meant to be a funny scene setter from an experience in my flying career from a guy that fly anything and land anything he got his hands on....

and yes.....the intent was you don’t land the Mooney like a Cessna as my friend stated....

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, anthonydesmet said:

Thought it would be obvious to most but guess not......I did not imply that an A-4 is the same as flying a Mooney....just meant to be a funny scene setter from an experience in my flying career from a guy that fly anything and land anything he got his hands on....

and yes.....the intent was you don’t land the Mooney like a Cessna as my friend stated....

Spoken like a man who has had the privilege of an arresting cable for most of his flying career... 

Flying it on can work fine with 3000 or more. At 2000’ and under, no bueno.

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

LOL! Me, I just sit back in threads like this and eat popcorn.

Should I mention I land all the tricycle singles I fly pretty much the same way?

I agree, save for some small nuances. However, I think it’s a bit of a simplistic view. If this approach worked for everyone, these threads would not exist and no one would need to perform landings during transition training. As you know I’ve a good friend that swears his Comanche 250 requires power on deep into the flare. More than once when sitting right seat in my plane I’ve heard him mutter “you’d never get away with that in a Comanche”.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Shadrach

[Hank]

38 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I agree, save for some small nuances. However, I think it’s a bit of a simplistic view. If this approach worked for everyone, these threads would not exist and no one would need to perform landings during transition training. As you know I’ve a good friend that swears his Comanche 250 requires power on deep into the flare. More than once when sitting right in my plane I’ve heard him mutter “you’d never get away with that in a Comanche”.

I've heard the same thing from other Piper pilots. After landing, one told me with wide eyes that if he'd pulled power where I did, his Cherokee would have been in the trees, "but un your plane, nothing happened!"

It's the same way I was taught to land a Cessna:  aim where yiu want to go, maintain correct speed and pull power when you have the field made. The difference with the Mooney is that speed control needs to be more exact, correct speed varies by actual weight for each landing, the Mooney floats a lot more, and you MUST WAIT for the Mooney to land. Ain't no forcing a Mooney to land before it's ready . . . .

[Shadrach]

11 minutes ago, Hank said:

I've heard the same thing from other Piper pilots. After landing, one told me with wide eyes that if he'd pulled power where I did, his Cherokee would have been in the trees, "but un your plane, nothing happened!"

It's the same way I was taught to land a Cessna:  aim where yiu want to go, maintain correct speed and pull power when you have the field made. The difference with the Mooney is that speed control needs to be more exact, correct speed varies by actual weight for each landing, the Mooney floats a lot more, and you MUST WAIT for the Mooney to land. Ain't no forcing a Mooney to land before it's ready . . . .

I was able to really grease them on during my transition training but was always way above stall speed. At some point my instructor pulled the yoke on roll out and we were airborne again with enough energy to flare. He complimented my touchdown but asked me to try it again without enough energy to take off again.

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

I agree, save for some small nuances. However, I think it’s a bit of a simplistic view. If this approach worked for everyone, these threads would not exist and no one would need to perform landings during transition training. As you know I’ve a good friend that swears his Comanche 250 requires power on deep into the flare. More than once when sitting right seat in my plane I’ve heard him mutter “you’d never get away with that in a Comanche”.

Funny, I used to pull power before the flare when I flew a Comanche 250 for a number of years.

But yes, I didn't mean I landed an LSA at the same airspeed, for example, as an A36. Of course there are nuances.  I just meant that the similarities among types in the singles world  far outweighs their differences, yet the discussions seem to focus on those few differences as though the similarities did not even exist - "this airplane is sooooooo different; forget everything you learned before" rather than "here are three things to watch for compared with what you are used to, " which is the way I tend to approach transitioning pilots (and myself when flying a new to me model).

Conceivably, my view may be precisely because I have flown multiple types. I've found some (emphasize the "some") type-specific instructors with limited experience outside their type to be a little myopic. 

[Davidv]

10 hours ago, PT20J said:

Well, I guess we have to define how high it has to be to be called a bounce. When people talk about bouncing an airplane it's usually several feet -- not a little bounce like you get in a drop test. 

 

Exactly, I’ve only flown my Mooney for about 75 hours so I don’t have a sliver of the experience as most people in this thread.  However, I’ve been able to feel when there the energy level during the bounce is enough where I can keep a nose up attitude and let it settle.  90% of the times this is the case and it settles on the next touch.  In the 1-2 landings I’ve had where the bounce has put me “airborne”, it’s been an automatic go around.  

Not making excuses, but my runway is about 3k feet with a 60 ft building 1k from runway centerline so the visual illusion of being too low sometimes has me high on short final.  This causes a quick acceleration of 3-5 knots if I change my attitude if pulling power doesn’t get me low enough or removes too much energy.  I’m still working on perfecting the speed...

[Shadrach]

7 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Funny, I used to pull power before the flare when I flew a Comanche 250 for a number of years.

But yes, I didn't mean I landed an LSA at the same airspeed, for example, as an A36. Of course there are nuances.  I just meant that the similarities among types in the singles world  far outweighs their differences, yet the discussions seem to focus on those few differences as though the similarities did not even exist - "this airplane is sooooooo different; forget everything you learned before" rather than "here are three things to watch for compared with what you are used to, " which is the way I tend to approach transitioning pilots (and myself when flying a new to me model).

Conceivably, my view may be precisely because I have flown multiple types. I've found some (emphasize the "some") type-specific instructors with limited experience outside their type to be a little myopic. 

Agree that they are 90% similar. Agree about myopia. I once had a Mooney specific instructor insinuate to me that the tower would know the difference between a C model and a Bravo on an approach and would likely favor the Bravo over the C model for blending with jet traffic... I’ve spent enough time in the tower to know that most non-flying controllers don’t know an Executive from an Ovation. They understand T and P and they couldn’t care less in the approach environment.   

We could go out on a limb and say that any competent private pilot ought to be able to land any light single without damaging it, yet folks who know their aircraft manage to bend them.

I would love to get some left seat time in a Comanche 250 after listening to my buddy and reading posts by the Comanche FB group. From my readings it seems that consistent landings require tea leaves and animal sacrifices...oh and some power all the way into the flare.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Shadrach

[gsxrpilot]

56 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

Funny, I used to pull power before the flare when I flew a Comanche 250 for a number of years.

But yes, I didn't mean I landed an LSA at the same airspeed, for example, as an A36. Of course there are nuances.  I just meant that the similarities among types in the singles world  far outweighs their differences, yet the discussions seem to focus on those few differences as though the similarities did not even exist - "this airplane is sooooooo different; forget everything you learned before" rather than "here are three things to watch for compared with what you are used to, " which is the way I tend to approach transitioning pilots (and myself when flying a new to me model).

Conceivably, my view may be precisely because I have flown multiple types. I've found some (emphasize the "some") type-specific instructors with limited experience outside their type to be a little myopic. 

This is my experience exactly. I've never flown jets or anything big. My experience is across a range of piston singles and other small aircraft, including the Comanche 250, Bonanza F33A, 7AC, Cherokee's, of course all the different Mooney bodies, and even gliders, weight shift trikes and Hang Gliders. The all land the same. Get into ground effect and hold it off until it quits flying. I got transition training from a very experienced Mooney CFI and when I asked him about landing speeds, technique, etc, he just said to just "look out the window and land the plane". It seems to work well for every aircraft I've flown.

Speed is certainly important. Even with hang gliders. My "floater" with the loose sail and all the wires exposed, stops in a lot less distance than my cross country wing with the tight mylar sail and fully enclosed wing hiding all the wires, frame, etc. 

So go practice on a long runway where if you're a bit too fast, it's not catastrophic. I learned on a 4000 ft runway with a turn off at 800 ft. It took some practice before I could consistently make the turnoff. That was in the M20C. With my 252, I gotta have a pretty good wind to make that turn. I obviously need to practice more. I find a common issue with Mooneys is the sight picture and the low stance. I find it's easier to sneak up on that ground effect sight picture with a long runway rather than dropping in over a 75 ft. obstacle into a 2000 ft. strip.

[ChrisV]

This is my doodle of where I was bouncing.  the threshold is about 700' from the 50' trees.

[steingar]

All I can say is for the first year or so my landings all sucked.  Oh, I had some good ones, but I think those were mostly accidental.  I know you come over rate numbers at 75 mph, hold it off and let it land.  That's what I'd been trying to do since I started.  Fro whatever reason it seems to be working these days.  I bounce the occasional landing, but not by much, and most are greasers.  I have no idea what changed or why. But if an ugly bald old fat greaseball like me can land a Mooney well, I'm certain anyone reading this can do so as well given a bit of time.

[jaylw314]

13 minutes ago, ChrisV said:

This is my doodle of where I was bouncing.  the threshold is about 700' from the 50' trees.

 

Yeah, that does seem kind of a set up psychologically for pushing the nose down to get the plane on the ground.  2200' should be plenty of room, but it doesn't feel like it with the trees and displaced threshold.

FWIW, if you cross the trees at 75', that's about a 5 degree glideslope from there to the threshold

Edited May 15, 2019 by jaylw314

[Shadrach]

11 minutes ago, ChrisV said:

This is my doodle of where I was bouncing.  the threshold is about 700' from the 50' trees.

So where were you bouncing? How long is the runway minus the DT?

[ChrisV]

I don't recall exactly where I bounced, but It was well before my go around point.  Probably around the middle of all the asphalt, near the "n"s in remaining.

[carusoam]

That’s a lot of runway used up for the displaced threshold....

Being close to the trees can become challenging when the winds are blowing...

There is a lot of opportunity to work on improving the stabilized approach...

Look up the rules for that specific DT... why it’s there.  When it can be used... what it can be used for...

 

Lots of room to practice balancing power in ground effect...

Thanks for sharing the runway pic.

Best regards,

-a-

[gsxrpilot]

43 minutes ago, steingar said:

All I can say is for the first year or so my landings all sucked.  Oh, I had some good ones, but I think those were mostly accidental.  I know you come over rate numbers at 75 mph, hold it off and let it land.  That's what I'd been trying to do since I started.  Fro whatever reason it seems to be working these days.  I bounce the occasional landing, but not by much, and most are greasers.  I have no idea what changed or why. But if an ugly bald old fat greaseball like me can land a Mooney well, I'm certain anyone reading this can do so as well given a bit of time.

I would wager that what changed is your sight picture. Coming in over the numbers on speed and trying to hold it off at 20 ft above the runway is a lot different than coming in on speed and holding it off at 5 ft above the runway. And that just takes practice to get it right and get comfortable with the sight picture. 

[skydvrboy]

1 hour ago, gsxrpilot said:

Get into ground effect and hold it off until it quits flying.

This is how I was taught to land in a Piper Warrior and it seems to work well in the Mooney.  I don't have enough experience in any other flying contraption to know if it works the same, but my hunch is that it does (obvious exception for carrier landings, etc.) 

My instructor's advice on how to land... "Try to fly the full length of the runway just above the surface with the power at idle. It will land when it's ready."  Fast or slow, I can't remember the last time I bounced a landing when following that advice.

[Bravoman]

 My fixed gear Saratoga will fly like a refrigerator if I  completely chop the power once  over the fence and need to keep power into the flare. In my opinion, it is a much harder plane to grease on. In the Mooney, I shoot for 75 to at most 80 if I am heavy over the fence, and then pull the power when I know I have the runway made.   I do the best in the Mooney compared to any other aircraft I have ever owned or flown for consistently good landings, although I will say that I have no experience other than in my long body. Don’t know how the others compare. FWIW, the owner of my MSC, Joe Cole, who has flown them all, thinks that the long bodies are the best landing of the Mooneys because of additional rudder authority.

[Bob - S50]

Ok, I'll share my 'they all fly the same way' history.

I've got at least 300 hours in each of these aircraft: M20J, T37, T38, F106, F15, DC9, 757 and 767.

I landed them all the same way.  Fly final on speed, gradual flare, hold it off until I reach the proper landing attitude.  The only difference was what speed to fly on final (62 - 202 KIAS), when to start the flare, and when to pull the power (between 50' in the air and descent rate stopped).  Although, to be honest, on the DC9-30 and larger, I got smoother landings if I was just inches above the ground and started to lower the nose just as the mains were touching down.

They all land just fine when they are ready.