I love the leading edge slats

[Colonel Sanders]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ccYFqY4Ymg


Note the consistent tail-first landing technique.

Why does he do that? What are the advantages
(and disadvantages) of a tail-first landing?

People refer to an arbitrary "perfect 3-pt" landing.
Other people strongly prefer a wheel landing.

[PilotDAR]

Why does he do that?

Because he can. The aircraft is capable of controlled flight at the high angle of attack, which will put the tail on first, with the aircraft under control. And, the main landing gear is designed to absorb the forces of the resulting fall onto the mains. Most tail draggers would really protest that fall onto the mains.

This has some similarities to jets making unflared touchdowns on aircraft carrier decks - they have landing gear designed to absorb those forces. Lots of our planes do not - and we have the associated weight, cost, and complexity saving as a result.

What are the advantages (and disadvantages) of a tail-first landing?

The advantage is that you can make use of the very high angles of attack possible with the wing to get very short landings. Most STOL equipped Cessnas I have flown are similarly (though no to this extreme) capable. However, none of them, tricycle or taildragger like having their tail strike the ground first.

The disadvantage is that once the tail touches, the aircraft is going to have a dramatic attitude change, at a phase of flight, where dramatic changes are less desirable. The moment the tail is in contact with the ground, you have lost control of the pitch attitude with the elevator. Aside from your use of power, the plane will do whatever it wants in pitch (and to some degree yaw) and there is little you can do about it. If the landing gear is capable of handling it, okay, but otherwise, it won't turn out well.

This looks like fun, though other than for a few short runways I have seen - mostly in Alaska, where that seems normal - this is more a fun novelty, and risk raiser, than necessity.....

[Colonel Sanders]

you can make use of the very high angles of attack possible with the wing to get very short landings

Yes, but why does a high alpha give you a short landing?

And what are the risks of a high alpha landing, apart from
the shock to the landing gear?

PS Old B.D. Maule use to promote the tail-first landing -
he called it the "double-whomp". The really nice thing
about it, is after the mains come down, the AOA decreases
so no floating.

Note that in this factory video, the stock 180hp Maule
actually touches down slightly tail-first on the ramp:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-CV6WSkd1g

The Pitts POH actually suggests a tail-first landing, for
this reason.

[Colonel Sanders]

This looks like fun, though other than for a few short runways I have seen - mostly in Alaska, where that seems normal - this is more a fun novelty, and risk raiser, than necessity

I personally would agree with you, but the Flight
Training Establishment in Canada would strongly
disagree.

Even before a student has mastered the normal
landing (let alone a crosswind landing), instructors
push them to perform these sorts of drastic short
and soft takeoffs and landings.

The irony, of course, is that when they get their
PPL's, they are totally unable to operate off anything
other than a certified paved runway at least 3000
feet in length.

I would estimate that the average student wastes
around 20 hours (at $200/hr) on completely useless
short/soft takeoffs and landings during their PPL
training - instead of learning to master the normal
and crosswind takeoff.

$4000 out the window.

[rob-air]

TC should take the blame for this, since X-wind is an "optional" evaluation. But evaluation of a soft field on a hard surface is OK.

Higher AOA= slower forward speed

on the down side with thatt extreme nose up att. it must be hard to see what is going on in front, that and the need for power.

[Colonel Sanders]

Higher AOA=slower forward speed

We're almost there. Talk to me about the formula
for kinetic energy. Off the top of your head - no
google, no calculator - tell me the ratio of kinetic
energy at 50 mph vs 70 mph ground speed.

on the down side with thatt extreme nose up att. it must be hard to see what is going on in front

nearly irrelevant, compared to other serious factors.
I have done thousands of blind landings and it just
doesn't matter, trust me.

the need for power

Engine quitting is down around #10.

[CpnCrunch]

Here's an even more insane bush plane that has slats:

http://www.bushplanedesign.com/videos.html
https://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All ... efing.aspx

[Colonel Sanders]

Another question: What actuates the leading edge slats?
Are they electric, hydraulic or manually controlled?

Hint: Pilatus Porter and Sabre work exactly the same way.

Bonus: What certified piston single has leading edge
slats? Hint: I see them parked in the north 40 at OSH.

[PilotDAR]

We'll leave H.C. for someone else to name, and similarly the actuation system for some slats, including those under discussion.

However, it must be noted that an icing encounter demands the need to fly the aircraft so as to maintain the slats retracted, all the way to the ground. How, and why?

A fatal Sabreliner crash on approach to Toronto fell victim to this nasty disadvantage of "simple" slat actuation...

[trampbike]

Another question: What actuates the leading edge slats?
Are they electric, hydraulic or manually controlled?

None of the above. They magically extend and retract because of airflow sorcery.

What certified piston single has leading edge
slats? Hint: I see them parked in the north 40 at OSH.

This guy

[I_Drive_Planes]

I don't think the AN-2 is certified, however this one is:

[ahramin]

The slats? I'm pretty sure they work like this right?

[Shiny Side Up]

Higher AOA=slower forward speed

We're almost there. Talk to me about the formula
for kinetic energy. Off the top of your head - no
google, no calculator - tell me the ratio of kinetic
energy at 50 mph vs 70 mph ground speed.

From high school, KE = 1/2 m v^2.

Suprised an uneducated person like myself would beat pf to this.

Maules are fun, though no slats.

The Bf-109 has automatic spring loaded slats. Not sure if that's considered "certified piston single" though.

[Colonel Sanders]

I wish the AN-2 was certified! Helio Courier
is what I was fishing for. Trivia: there is a
nosewheel version of the HC. No idea why.

Some Sabres had slats, some didn't. My father
preferred the hard wing at high altitude, IIRC -
the slats would automatically open and you'd
be screwed.

[Shiny Side Up]

Trivia: there is a
nosewheel version of the HC. No idea why.

Sure you do, same reason there are Maules with nose wheels. It just hurts your soul thinking about it. People want performance but don't want themselves to perform for it.

Just be thankful someone hasn't put a nosewheel on a Pitts yet. Or if they have it will be better to remain ignorant of it.

[Colonel Sanders]

Someone could put a nosewheel on a Spitfire
or P-51, too. I'm just not sure why they would.

[Shiny Side Up]

As above, so you can say you fly a Spitfire so you don't have to learn how to fly a Spitfire. Best not to think about it though, like I said, it might not be good for your piece of mind.

[Big Pistons Forever]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ccYFqY4Ymg


Note the consistent tail-first landing technique.

Why does he do that? What are the advantages
(and disadvantages) of a tail-first landing?

People refer to an arbitrary "perfect 3-pt" landing.
Other people strongly prefer a wheel landing.

The part I don't get is why he lands consistently in the last quarter of a not very long strip ?

[ahramin]

Shorter taxi.

[pelmet]

I wish the AN-2 was certified! Helio Courier
is what I was fishing for.

What about DH.82A Tiger Moth?

[Big Pistons Forever]

All of the Socata Rallye series have automatic leading edge slats. They are certified by the FAA,TC and EASA

[Big Pistons Forever]

Shorter taxi.

That is pretty dumb reason to land long on a short strip......

[5x5]

Long or short, it's all a matter of relative judgement I guess. Personally, with that aircraft and its capabilities I don't think he's landing particularly long. He has plenty of time to stop with ease and there is very little risk. Land any earlier and he has to apply significant power to taxi up the hill - why do that?

[CpnCrunch]

Another one (check out the insane takeoff):

[Colonel Sanders]

a nosewheel on a Spitfire ... so you can say you fly a Spitfire but don't have to learn how to fly a Spitfire

Been thinking about what you said. I think
you're right - there are plenty of posers who
would like to say they can fly a Spitfire, and
wouldn't have to master a taildragger.

But there's a flaw in that reasoning (which at
first looks sound).

Jets have nosewheels. They are really easy
to fly, despite what various BS artists will tell
you.

Yet, people think that jets are hard to fly - even
with a nosewheel. And no finicky piston engine
to fuss over.

So, even with a nosewheel on a Spitfire, the
posers still couldn't fly it.

In retrospect, there is so much BS and incompetence
in aviation, it's surprising that there aren't a lot
more crashes.

Every airplane that I fly, has a wing that pushes
air down. See F=MA. And, it has an engine that
pushes air back. See F=MA. That's really all there
is to it.