Simviation Forum - LANDING IN 717 , 727, 737, 747 ,A330 AND A330 A330

Apr 4^th, 2005 at 1:44am

cobzz Offline
Colonel
Melbourne, Australia

Gender:
Posts: 406

how fast do planes hit the runway when landing?????(in vertical speed)?
I normally land 50fpm to a max of 300fpm and i am sure that they are soft.

how fast do they do it in real life???

BYE

« Last Edit: Apr 30^th, 2005 at 12:47pm by cobzz »

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Apr 4^th, 2005 at 6:03am

beaky Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA

Gender:
Posts: 14187

Not sure about heavies, but in RL flying light singles, I'm usually looking for about 500fpm on final, then as little sink as possible during the flare. Can't say how much fpm it takes to bounce, 'cuz I've never made a hard landing Wink

.... Seriously, offhand I'd say 100fpm at touchdown would be about the limit for small planes. Of course that also depends on how far you sink at that rate...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Apr 4^th, 2005 at 6:13am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Don't know about heavies but the idea on aircraft I've flown is not to hit the ground at all but touch down as lightly as possible. When it's done properly you don't feel the bump. A great feeling when it comes off. I'm sure it's the same for any aircraft.

PS. I don't how that relates to fpm as I've never looked at my instrument panel while landing.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Apr 4^th, 2005 at 6:56am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

The safest way is to hit the ground with some force at least - if there's any standing water on the runway the you'll break though the layer and contact the runway - if not you may end up aquaplaning and being in very little control... Shocked

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Apr 4^th, 2005 at 7:13am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

The safest way is to hit the ground with some force at least - if there's any standing water on the runway the you'll break though the layer and contact the runway - if not you may end up aquaplaning and being in very little control... Shocked

Ah OK. I don't think you can aquaplane on grass. Wink

Shows how out of date I am. Also how good the shock absorbers must be nowadays. Roll Eyes

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Apr 4^th, 2005 at 7:29am

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

last thing you want to do on wet grass is land hard. Would make a carrier landing look long:)

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Apr 4^th, 2005 at 3:54pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Quote:

Ah OK. I don't think you can aquaplane on grass. Wink

You just slide naturally... Wink

...and you're quite right, I was talking about those silly concrete runways someone invented. Personally a proper aerodrome should have runways, but a nice big omni-directional grass field.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Apr 4^th, 2005 at 5:54pm

beefhole Offline
Colonel
common' yigs!
Philadelphia

Gender:
Posts: 4466

Not at 300 kts, that much I'm sure of. Tongue

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Apr 4^th, 2005 at 6:41pm

Saratoga Offline
Colonel
757/767 Captain Major,
USAF
Dallas-Ft. Worth Intl. (KDFW)

Gender:
Posts: 571

Well the thought is, you should stall onto the runway. Obviously this doesn't work for all airplanes.
Small planes, just get really low, let the speed slide off, it should settle pretty nicely into the runway.
With larger planes, suddenly it might be that you need to make it off on a certain taxiway, stop near your gate, or stop before the end of the runway, and a "firm" landing might become necessary. Normally though, at large airports (for example, when I take a 767 into DFW), it is standard to just glide along, the mains just a few feet off the runway, until the speed is so low the tail will drag if we don't touch down soon, then lightly allow the plane to sink down. Done correctly, no violent bump, and if you have a long enough runway, reverse not needed. Not hard to use more runway floating along killing speed than actually stopping on the tarmac if you have the space. Traffic can create problems though. Roll Eyes

Pilot for a major US airline certified in the: EMB-120, CRJ, 727, 737, 757, 767, and A-320 and military, T-38, C-130, C-141, and C-5 along with misc. other small airplanes. Any questions, I'm here for you.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Apr 4^th, 2005 at 7:31pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Imagine landing this baby. Cheesy

OR this one.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Apr 5^th, 2005 at 12:49am

Rocket_Bird Offline
Colonel
Canada

Gender:
Posts: 1214

If those are flare angles... then wow!

Cheers,
RB

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Apr 5^th, 2005 at 2:27am

ChrisM Offline
Colonel
Home Airport: YTHG, Thangool
Biloela, Australia

Gender:
Posts: 257

Do you flare in concordes?? i've heard that you are meant to keep about 300fpm till you hit the runway as to keep the angle down. That seems a little extreme tho Roll Eyes

I have a question. How high do you start your flare? I watched a Cockpit DVD and in a 737 they didn't flare till about 10 feet. They quickly pulled it back just above the runway.

&&Computer Specs: P4 2.8GHz, 512MB RAM, NVIDIA 6600GT 128MB Graphics Card

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Apr 5^th, 2005 at 4:35am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

Do you flare in concordes?? i've heard that you are meant to keep about 300fpm till you hit the runway as to keep the angle down. That seems a little extreme tho Roll Eyes

The landing procedure for delta-winged aircraft is completely different from conventional aircraft. The high angle of attack is necessary to keep the speed down. Delta wings are very stable at slow speeds & high angles of attack & will not stall in the usual sense. The Concorde had no flaps & I'm not sure it has airbrakes. The Vulcan has airbrakes (not sure about flaps) but unlike the Concorde normally deploys a braking chute after touching down.

I read an interesting article on flying the Vulcan some years ago. The author said that when landing it was like no other aircraft. You throw the book out of the window & start learning all over again.

<sp>

« Last Edit: Apr 5^th, 2005 at 3:06pm by Hagar »

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Apr 5^th, 2005 at 5:35am

beaky Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA

Gender:
Posts: 14187

Landing either of those big d-wings must be a real nail-biter, esp. since the engines are underslung at the trailing edge of the wing... a very expensive boo-boo just waiting to happen! Lips Sealed

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Apr 5^th, 2005 at 5:42am

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

Concordes engines came within inches of the ground on landing and takeoff however those who are observant will notice the small wheel on the tail, that was used incase someone thought they were in a fighter aircraft and pulled up a little to hard, thus saving the engines. The higher angle also worked as a speed brake when landing.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #15 - Apr 5^th, 2005 at 5:48am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

Landing either of those big d-wings must be a real nail-biter, esp. since the engines are underslung at the trailing edge of the wing... a very expensive boo-boo just waiting to happen! Lips Sealed

It might look a tad dodgy to the unitiated eye but I don't recall a single landing incident with Concorde over almost 30 years it was in regular service. A RAF Vulcan crashed many years ago during the approach to Heathrow. This was on its return from Australia after setting a new world record & it had special permission to land at Heathrow. As I recall the fatal accident was due to the very senior but inexperienced (with the Vulcan & the airport) pilot making basic flying errors. Not being familiar with Heathrow wouldn't have helped but there was a reception committee laid on which might have influenced his decision to attempt the landing.

Delta winged aircraft usually have very stable flying characteristics at extremely high angles of attack & low airspeed with no tendency to tip-stall. I've flown delta-winged model gliders & found them impossible to stall, even with full up elevator. In most cases they mush while gradually losing altitude.

PS. Quote:

In 1956, with the introduction of the V-Bombers and the rapid response needed to effect a creditable deterrent, it was decided to staff Bomber Command with personnel having some ex-Fighter Command experience. Harry Broadhurst therefore found himself appointed AOC in C, tasked with creating a force capable of reacting rapidly in the event of a nuclear attack. In Oct 1956 it was decided to show off Britain's latest V-Bomber, the Vulcan, by sending one on a world tour. As AOC in C, Harry Broadhurst took part as the co-pilot. After a successful tour the aircraft, XA897, ran into fog on it's return to Britain, but instead of diverting to a different airfield, the pilot elected to attempt a landing at Heathrow where the reception party was laid on. Unfamiliar with Heathrow which was not the large airfield it is today, the aircraft landed short ripping off it's undercarriage. The pilot and Broadhurst were able to eject but unfortunately the remaining four crew members perished in the ensuing crash. A year later, Broadhurst was again in the co-pilot's seat of a Vulcan captained by Wg Cdr F L Dodd, OC - No 230 OCU. Taking off from Waddington at 2:30pm they touched down in Naples at 4:37pm having covered the 1,121 miles in 1 hour 50 minutes at an average speed of 615 mph. Another aspect of Broadhurst's tenure as AOC in C, was the introduction of the Quick Reaction Alert, in which V-Bombers were held at readiness and capable of being airborne within four minutes of receiving the 'scramble' signal.
http://www.rafweb.org/Biographies/Broadhurst.htm

Not sure how true it is but I heard at the time that Harry Broadhurst was flying the aircraft when it crashed.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Apr 5^th, 2005 at 2:57pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Quote:

The Concorde had no flaps & I'm not sure it has airbrakes.

You're quite right Doug. Instead of having airbrakes like the Vulcan, the Concorde did have reverse thrust. I can imagine they had those instead of a braking parachute to keep turn-around times to a minimum, and decrease labour costs too (retrieving and packing parachutes)...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Apr 6^th, 2005 at 4:03am

ChrisM Offline
Colonel
Home Airport: YTHG, Thangool
Biloela, Australia

Gender:
Posts: 257

Hagar
Quote:

The landing procedure for delta-winged aircraft is completely different from conventional aircraft. The high angle of attack is necessary to keep the speed down. Delta wings are very stable at slow speeds & high angles of attack & will not stall in the usual sense. The Concorde had no flaps & I'm not sure it has airbrakes. The Vulcan has airbrakes (not sure about flaps) but unlike the Concorde normally deploys a braking chute after touching down.

Yeah i knew that but 300-500fpm at touchdown is a bit rought isn't it.

&&Computer Specs: P4 2.8GHz, 512MB RAM, NVIDIA 6600GT 128MB Graphics Card

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Apr 6^th, 2005 at 4:23am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

Hagar

Yeah i knew that but 300-500fpm at touchdown is a bit rought isn't it.

Chris. I know very little about heavies as I've aready demonstrated in an earlier reply. Embarrassed

I have no idea of the vertical speed of Concorde or any other delta-winged aircraft during approach & landing. I expect it's much the same as any other heavy airliner, whatever that might be.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Apr 6^th, 2005 at 4:24pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Quote:

I have no idea of the vertical speed of Concorde or any other delta-winged aircraft during approach & landing

This just occured to me. Surely when landing, the vertical speed is in fact 0 fpm*, unless you're on a soft surface or water... Wink

*instantaneously... Wink

« Last Edit: Apr 7^th, 2005 at 3:33pm by C »

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Apr 6^th, 2005 at 5:12pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

This just occured to me. Surely when landing, the vertical speed is in fact 0 fpm, unless you're on a soft surface or water... Wink

Clever clogs. Tongue

That's what I was trying to point out in my first reply. Roll Eyes

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Apr 6^th, 2005 at 10:09pm

beaky Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA

Gender:
Posts: 14187

Not to be "that way" but even the most gentle landing has a sinking component to it, however small. That's why landing gear always has some springiness to it- to absorb the energy. There's always that moment when the mass of the plane is still coming down, even after the wheels touch. And if the nosewheel oleo is going south, that moment occurs again and again, until you climb out! Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Apr 6^th, 2005 at 11:05pm

Saratoga Offline
Colonel
757/767 Captain Major,
USAF
Dallas-Ft. Worth Intl. (KDFW)

Gender:
Posts: 571

Two things. a) delta wings do not stall under any conditions. They just run out of lift. No shaking or sudden drop like for example, a Cessna.
b) Concorde's inboard two thrust reverses were deployable in flight (would rip the engines off any modern plane) to allow for some airbraking. Imagine that! Shocked

Pilot for a major US airline certified in the: EMB-120, CRJ, 727, 737, 757, 767, and A-320 and military, T-38, C-130, C-141, and C-5 along with misc. other small airplanes. Any questions, I'm here for you.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Apr 6^th, 2005 at 11:52pm

OTTOL Offline
Colonel
Fintas, Kuwait (OKBK)

Gender:
Posts: 918

"O, the Lord of Law on the Throne of Thought........."
....you might wanna rethink that one ?.?. Roll Eyes

.....so I loaded up the plane and moved to Middle-EEEE..........OIL..that is......

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Apr 9^th, 2005 at 6:27am

cobzz Offline
Colonel
Melbourne, Australia

Gender:
Posts: 406

SOZ people, i am talking about conventional Airliners like
717 , 727, 737, 747 ,A330 AND A330

thanks for the replys Kiss

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - May 20^th, 2005 at 3:30am

Alphajet_Enthusiast Offline
Colonel
Belgae Gallorum Fortissimi

Gender:
Posts: 3144

I was in the cockpit of a 737 thanks to a pilot friend of ours... I think we landed at 134 kts. Didnt concentrate on the v/s though...

Macbook Pro | Nvidia Geforce 8600M GT | 2GB Ram | 2.6GHz Intel Core 2 Duo | Mac OSX 10.5 Leopard

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #26 - May 21^st, 2005 at 9:05pm

jknight8907 Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 723

Your average airliner doesn't flare more than a few degrees. And touchdowns are intentionally made a bit firm. That's so that all the squat switches contact, and ensures that spoilers and autobrakes will deploy, and that the reversers will unlock. A greased-on landing may not unlock reversers or spoilers, which would be very bad.

&&It is better to remain silent and be considered a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.&&&&There were once four people named Everybody, Somebody, Nobody and Anybody. Somebody had to do a job, but Nobody wanted to do it. Nobody could see that Anybody could do it, and Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job. Nobody ended up doing it, and it so happened that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: