'Coupers: I might as well put my 2 cents in too. My basic instruction was in a two-control 'coupe on a grass field with perpetual cross wind. I now have about 35 hours in my own three-control Alon plus 1400 hours in Cessnas.
My own technique for xwind landings is to treat the Alon as
a normal airplane and land straight ahead to minimize the
side load on the gear. An Alon benefit is that you can
deflect the ailerons into the wind while steering down the
runway. (Does that mean that a three-control coupe has an
even higher crosswind capability?) When an xwind is strong
enough you run out of rudder (thanks to spin-proofing) and
you end up landing crabbed which all on this list seem to
agree works well. I often land on one (upwind) wheel which
results in uncoordinated flight a foot or two above the
ground, but again results in the slowest touchdown speed and
least side load.
There's no question in my mind about the trailing link gear
on a low-wing plane which due to geometry, also dumps lift
after touchdown, making landings very easy. I believe that
much of the talk about which way to hold the wheel on a
two-control coupe after touchdown is moot - you have to
steer down the runway and there is little actual deflection
of the wheel after touchdown, only pressure. At landing
speed, the wheel (and therefore the ailerons too) can't be
turned more than a few degrees from straight or you would be
steering into the weeds.
Speaking of geometry and trigonometry, I've been trying to
come to grips with the 45 knot direct cross-wind claim. To
use a simple example with a 45 knot direct crosswind, if the
touchdown (actual hitting the runway) speed was 45 knots in
the direction of the runway, the indicated airspeed would be
1.4 x 45 = 63 knots (72.5 MPH) which is not far off what
some also claim to be a good touchdown speed. At that speed,
the crab angle would be 45 degrees. I maintain that
touchdown at a 45 degree crab angle would instantly collapse
the nosegear (if the mains didn't collapse first) as it
slammed down and the coupe would be reduced to a ball of
aluminum. If landed slower, the crab angle would be even
more extreme. Can anyone find fault with the above trig?
I'm not knocking the coupe. I LIKE flying and landing it. I
just worry about novices trying something dangerous after
reading anecdotal data. If anyone can point me to the
certification document which claims a very high crosswind
component, I'd like to see it (and like to meet the person
who demonstrated it to the FAA).
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
David Smoler | __ |
|==/__ยค_\==|
*==========|==| () |==|===========*
Alon A-2 | \____/ | N6359V
s/n A35 () () () based at RHV
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Spike/Linda Kavalench wrote:
>
> Keith:
> Now I don't have a lot of time in Ercoupes, actually never even landed
one.
> But I do have about 3500 hours...
> The only
> possible reason that I can see that steering away from the wind will
help in
> this instance is possibly by causing a ground steering rolling moment
> opposite to the direction your turn.
> I would suggest that this airplane
> is so bulletproof that even the wrong inputs on landing makes you look
good!
> (no offence)
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
