PDA

View Full Version : just a landing thing



M2morris
09-14-2008, 03:35 AM
No big deal,
I'm not trying to start some big discussion,
I just thought there might be some pilots in here who might be able to tell me why my right-patern is always better than my left. Maybe it's a brain-lobe thing or something.
I always have a bounce on my left-hand patern ground landings. It's something I have always been curious about.

Oh, as you can see in this video I don't have trac IR. I still fly fairly primitive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVJVyRs6UHY

M2morris
09-14-2008, 03:35 AM
No big deal,
I'm not trying to start some big discussion,
I just thought there might be some pilots in here who might be able to tell me why my right-patern is always better than my left. Maybe it's a brain-lobe thing or something.
I always have a bounce on my left-hand patern ground landings. It's something I have always been curious about.

Oh, as you can see in this video I don't have trac IR. I still fly fairly primitive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVJVyRs6UHY

P.FunkAdelic
09-14-2008, 03:55 AM
I would think that it would have to be a brain lobe thing. Though torque might be a factor even though when you touch down you should be level and that would have nothing to do with your direction of approach unless it has to do with how you bleed the energy.

I know I'm better at turning counter-clockwise on most things for whatever reason. I go skating and left turns are easier as are the spins. I know for sure thats a brain thing. Flying obviously ought to be just as susceptible.

M2morris
09-14-2008, 04:06 AM
Hmm, skating, interesting analogy.
I am right handed, however, when I go fishing I have to left-hand crank and I hold the rod with my right.
When ever I have flown a Cessna 172 or similar I have found right paterns easier, except for the visibility.
And when I land an RC model-plane I like a right patern. People think its wierd.
Maybe I was dropped as a baby.

K_Freddie
09-14-2008, 04:07 PM
I take it you sleep on your right side more than your left.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mortoma
09-14-2008, 08:18 PM
In game, personally I don't use a pattern. I RL I did most of the time when I used to fly in RL.

M2morris
09-14-2008, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
I take it you sleep on your right side more than your left.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldnt know. That makes me want to video myself sleeping now. That would probly reveal some sleep apnia or something too I bet, and a snoring issue, and I am possibly a starboard sleeper as well.

Altamov_Steppes
09-14-2008, 09:02 PM
In this ntrk there was no ground landing final approach. One does not have to create a final approach which is straight perpendicular to the threshold but one ought to do that on ground landings if one wants to be orthodox about the matter. This ntrk was essentially a carrier approach; left and right.
While the lining up was good standard on the down leg before turning onto approach leg (i.e. lining up the threshold at a ~45 degree angle behind the wing), the final approach was curved not straight (this is no criticism in itself for this is the normal Navy at-sea combat operation to merge with the carrier, get on deck quicker and save fuel). But in this ground landing the whole setup was not square as is usual for ground landings.
Because it was not square it gave less time to setup the approach and execute the landing. The F4U is fast and heavy so the 'rule' of threshold at 45 degrees behind wing before turning onto approach leg could be extended to say 60-90 degrees. This would give room to create a straight final approach (and if, at the last moment, you had to use rudder to compensate for the turning moment or the elevator to lose height to get onto the threshold you could have expected a rougher than normal landing).
In addition, I could not make out the speed bar readings, but it seemed as if - because the short curved approach was taken - the glide path was a little too fast and a little too high before the need to 'flare out'.
Nevertheless, the landing looked competent, and as a passenger I enjoyed it. Quite comfortable.

The other thing about the F4U is that it has a tall undercarriage to accomodate the large propellor (that's one of the reasons why it also has a gull wing - so that the prop has adequate ground clearance). Considering that you were always in control of the bounce; this bounce was nothing.
You executed a perfectly acceptable landing...and you walked away from it.

Regards KT

M2morris
09-14-2008, 09:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
In game, personally I don't use a pattern. I RL I did most of the time when I used to fly in RL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, how do you land then?
In what manner I mean.

M2morris
09-14-2008, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Altamov_Steppes:
In this ntrk there was no ground landing final approach. One does not have to create a final approach which is straight perpendicular to the threshold but one ought to do that on ground landings if one wants to be orthodox about the matter. This ntrk was essentially a carrier approach; left and right.
While the lining up was good standard on the down leg before turning onto approach leg (i.e. lining up the threshold at a ~45 degree angle behind the wing), the final approach was curved not straight (this is no criticism in itself for this is the normal Navy at-sea combat operation to merge with the carrier, get on deck quicker and save fuel). But in this ground landing the whole setup was not square as is usual for ground landings.
Because it was not square it gave less time to setup the approach and execute the landing. The F4U is fast and heavy so the 'rule' of threshold at 45 degrees behind wing before turning onto approach leg could be extended to say 60-90 degrees. This would give room to create a straight final approach (and if, at the last moment, you had to use rudder to compensate for the turning moment or the elevator to lose height to get onto the threshold you could have expected a rougher than normal landing).
In addition, I could not make out the speed bar readings, but it seemed as if - because the short curved approach was taken - the glide path was a little too fast and a little too high before the need to 'flare out'.
Nevertheless, the landing looked competent, and as a passenger I enjoyed it. Quite comfortable.

The other thing about the F4U is that it has a tall undercarriage to accomodate the large propellor (that's one of the reasons why it also has a gull wing - so that the prop has adequate ground clearance). Considering that you were always in control of the bounce; this bounce was nothing.
You executed a perfectly acceptable landing...and you walked away from it.

Regards KT </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks

Good observation: There was a downwind leg but no base or final. I suppose that comes from me doing too-many carrier based missions in the Corsair in the game.
I thought I was the only one who would notice, so, in actuallity, there was no real ground landing pattern.

However, I have always had a habit on ground landings of leaving enough altitude while in the pattern to glide-in in the event of engine failure.

Altamov_Steppes
09-14-2008, 10:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
However, I have always had a habit on ground landings of leaving enough altitude while in the pattern to glide-in in the event of engine failure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's airmanship.

Regards KT

M2morris
09-15-2008, 12:45 AM
I tightened up that patern,

same Island airstrip.

In this video I came in with a more pronouced patern with 90* turns,
but who really gave a crap in those days anyway.
I mean, it was probably like:

Hey! get the hell off the strip!!!

I'm comin in!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt5Su4RKkw0

WTE_Galway
09-15-2008, 12:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M2morris:
I tightened up that patern,

same Island airstrip.

In this video I came in with a more pronouced patern with 90* turns,
but who really gave a crap in those days anyway.
I mean, it was probably like:

Hey! get the hell off the strip!!!

I'm comin in!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt5Su4RKkw0 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In actuality bombers did a straight in approach and single seaters were required to do circuits.

I actually had a similar problem when first learning to fly. the weird thing was I could land in a heavy crosswind perfectly and could sideslip in like a pro but kept stuffing up simple approaches. My instructor worked out it was because for some unknown reason (too many flight sims?)on the straight in approaches I was lining up the center-line of the runway on finals with the center of the aircraft, which in a Cessna just does not work.

Once he pointed out I should be lining up the centreline with the center of the yoke my landings improved 1000 %.

M_Gunz
09-15-2008, 06:35 AM
You greased the right but on the left you cut it a bit short, about 200 yards or so shorter.
If you had touched that much farther down the runway you might have had the rest just so.

I also noticed the prop slowed down as you made approach. It's best to keep your rpms up and
maybe use a bit more power. It helps control speed tighter esp when at low throttle and you
have full rpms if you do need to abort. Full rpms at low power forces CSP to flat pitch so
be prepared to run more power until you're ready to touch down.