Shortfield landing tecnique

[RIVERFOX]

Okay all of you shortfield landing experts, walk me, er, fly me through your postage stamp landing routine. I could get my "champ" stopped in 200' or less with heavy braking but the KF4 won't let me brake nearly as aggresive as the "champ" and I'm only doing 200'-225' with my KF4. I know its me and not the airplane!

[catz631]

Me too riverfox. I can get off in a "postage stamp" but can't land on one !
Dick

[Newkid]

In the Rans I just hang it on the prop and three point it usually hitting the tailwheel first. Then full aft elevator and heavy breaking with the tail in the air. I balance on the mains during breaking by adding or relaxing pressure on the breaks. I only use this technique when I am landing on a flat "strip" that is 350' to 500' in length. Now If am landing on a hill or a strip with a slope say 10-20 degrees, I add another 5 mph onto my slowest approach speed and usually use very little braking. Typically the slope of the hill slows the plane fast enough. Get good at spot landing your plane, in three point and wheel landings. As long as you can put your plane right where you want it to be there shouldn't be any strip out there that you can't land on. Don't do anything that makes you uncomfortable, and like C-5 said just slow it down.

[RIVERFOX]

Guys,
Thanks for the tips, could you tell me how much flap and power settings as you get down to the last 20'-30' above ground? That last half of flaps really destroys any roll control and I only have tried it with no wind or steady wind straight on. I'm I pushing my luck using full flaps during final approach? I've done lots of slow flight, full flaps and 20-30 degree banks and feel l know when I'm pushing the edge.

[Newkid]

For the serious short field you want to use everything that is at your disposal. If you don't like the way the plane handles with full flaps don't use them but the slower the plane lands the better. I have always used flaps for takeoff and landings in the Rans and my dad used to use them in the kitfox. Experiment figure out what works best for you. Everyone has different opinions so make your own. I know what makes that Rans S-7 with that huge farm implement wing perform best. Alot of what I learned about that plane came from doing touch and goes in the evenings every now and then. I plan on doing the same thing in our new Kitfox IV when it is completed to get a good feel for it. Also if you don't have much time in the Kitfox you may not have the feel for it yet. A close friend told me it takes him about 100 hrs. to truly get the feel for a new airplane, and I would have to agree with him for myself. Another thing is you should be able to feel what the airplane is doing as far as speed. It will speak to you. On final, I don't usually look at the airspeed very often. This lets you focus on your touchdown point more. Anyway like I said before, it is where and how you are comfortable flying your airplane. One other thing in the Rans, I fly her in on the wing until short final then at 100' or so above the ground I start adding power and flying behind the power curve. Don't know how this will work in the Kitfox, but it works well in the Rans.

[sdemeyer]

Last month I did a real short landing. Probably around 75'. Only took a week to repair all the damaged tubing as a result.

200' with a normal approach doesn't sound too bad to me. It is a lot easier on the airplane.

[akflyer]

Guys,
Thanks for the tips, could you tell me how much flap and power settings as you get down to the last 20'-30' above ground? That last half of flaps really destroys any roll control and I only have tried it with no wind or steady wind straight on. I'm I pushing my luck using full flaps during final approach? I've done lots of slow flight, full flaps and 20-30 degree banks and feel l know when I'm pushing the edge.


I use full flaps on the KF and Avid unless it is a very heavy cross wind. With full flaps and power you can really drag it in slow! The rudder is pretty darn powerful and will help alot with roll control also.

I think we get pretty spoiled by the amount of stick movement needed for normal flight, and think that we are running out of roll control when flaps are used. Yes it does take more stick deflection and I have banged the insides of my legs more than once, but I have never run out of roll except on very gusty cross wind days. Try flying a cub in heavy turbulence if you want an excersize in stick movement! After that the Avid or KF will seem like a dream even with full flaps.

[flyingfox]

I just joined the TeamKitfox Forum today! There appears to be a wealth of information and great dialogue from many experienced Kitfox builders.

I have been out of flying for over 10 years now. (I know, what a real waste of one's life!) I just got back into it a couple of weeks ago and I am really excited about getting back into the air. In the past I own a third interest in a J-3 Cub and a Camp.

Now I am looking for a plane that has some of the features as my two past taildraggers but, with a little more speed.

I want to build a hanger and landing strip on my property, but only have 850 feet between some 30 foot tall trees on one end and a 25 foot obstacle on the other end.

I am looking seriously at the Kitfox 7, equipped with the new Lycoming IO-233 engine.

My question is this: Will this Kitfox 7 be able to safely fly into an out of this proposed runway? MSL: 350 feet

I posted here, due to the subject: shortfield land technique

[Newkid]

The Rans at 100 mph probably has less roll rate than a kitfox with full flaps deployed.:rolleyes: Flyingfox, that Lycoming powered Seven should be able to do it but the lighter the plane the better and the Rotax powered foxes should slow down better. Takeoff shouldn't be a problem though.

[airlina]

I just joined the TeamKitfox Forum today! There appears to be a wealth of information and great dialogue from many experienced Kitfox builders.

I have been out of flying for over 10 years now. (I know, what a real waste of one's life!) I just got back into it a couple of weeks ago and I am really excited about getting back into the air. In the past I own a third interest in a J-3 Cub and a Camp.

Now I am looking for a plane that has some of the features as my two past taildraggers but, with a little more speed.

I want to build a hanger and landing strip on my property, but only have 850 feet between some 30 foot tall trees on one end and a 25 foot obstacle on the other end.

I am looking seriously at the Kitfox 7, equipped with the new Lycoming IO-233 engine.

My question is this: Will this Kitfox 7 be able to safely fly into an out of this proposed runway? MSL: 350 feet

I posted here, due to the subject: shortfield land technique
I have a Continental IO-240 powered Series 5 Kitfox that weighs 950 lbs empty and to be honest, I would feel very uncomfortable using a 850 foot strip especially with obstacles. With the heavier engines your STOL performance will take a hit, but to me it was worth the tradeoff. With lots of practice it could be done solo, but forget it at gross weight. My takeoff ground run off grass at gross is about 700 feet, so clearing an obstacle off of a 850 foot runway would be problematic. At gross I use a personal minimum of 1500' of runway if there are any obstacles and 1000'feet without obstacles. Like the guys are always saying on this forum, if you are looking for STOL build it Light, Light,Light. Bruce Lina N199CL

[flyingfox]

Airlina & Newkid, I want to thank each of you for your responses. Years ago, I flew over my proposed runway in both my Champ and Cub and never did feel comfortable that I could make it work on every take off and landing. One landing or take off failure would be catastrophic and is something that goes against common sense.

I was just hoping that I could rig out a Kitfox S7 that would allow me to keep my plane at home and not have to travel 35 miles to the closest airport to fly. Some of my flying friends have runways on their property and it provides them with the freedom to push their plane out of the hanger and go flying at a moments notice. It looks like I will have to trailer my Kitfox to the New Braunfels, Texas airport or pay $200 per month for a T-hanger, something I was trying to avoid.

[catz631]

How about a Zenith 701/750 or a Savannah for your small strip ? They both takeoff/land on a postage stamp and are used all over the world. Thus the nickname "flying jeep"
I am going to pickup a Savannah for a friend next week and fly it cross country to his home airport so will soon see how it flys.
They are not very fast (neither is my Kitfox) but are probably the best for STOL. Check out YOU TUBE for some videos.
Dick

[MotReklaw]

Hi Flyingfox,
Catz is right about the 701 if you want extreme STOL. The last one I built was sold to a farmer who was flying from a 750 foot strip behind his barn. Worked well. We could get off the ground in less than 100 feet and land in 200 or less. Cruise about 82mph at 4800 rpm with the Rotax 912S.

There are downsides to all that STOL though. That's why I'm building the KFSS. Several 701s are for sale on Barnstormers.

Good luck on whichever you decide to do!

Tommy Walker in Alabama
Inventory Time

[DesertFox4]

I'd rather drive 35 miles one way to fly any Kitfox than a 701 on my own strip. Sorry guys. It's a one trick pony and one butt ugly pony at that. :(
New 701 formula: Ugly=drag. The ones for sale on Barstormer were most likely replaced with Kitfox's. Give me a break!

[akflyer]

I'd rather drive 35 miles one way to fly any Kitfox than a 701 on my own strip. Sorry guys. It's a one trick pony and one butt ugly pony at that. :(
New 701 formula: Ugly=drag. The ones for sale on Barstormer were most likely replaced with Kitfox's. Give me a break!

Gotta agree with you on this one.. The 701 does not fly, it is so friggin ugly the earth repels it!

[flyingfox]

Defining the mission of a plane has always been an issue for me. (I want it all!) The Zenith 750 is definitely a top STOL performer and would meet my need for a home based plane.

However, I too really like the Kitfox S7. It is a great looking plane, it has a wide speed envelope (it is not an RV 7, but) and it looks like something that would be fun to build and fly! I have access to a nice J-3 Cub and a Hatz Bi-Plane that will provide me with my flying fix during the construction phase.

Great Forum! thanks to all you have taken the time to respond. It has given me a chance to look at some of my available options and make an informed decision.

[Av8r3400]

An inexperienced pilot on an 850' strip with obstacles on both ends in a super-heavy 7SS is a one way trip to the morgue, "plane" and simple. This is the scenario that kills and/or maims most experimental pilots and passengers.

I have a 1000' strip on my property that is mostly open on both ends. This is not enough with sufficient safety margins for me, at this time. I have over 150 hours in my (625#, 80 hp) model IV practicing in and out short techniques. Maybe in the future, but not now. And maybe not ever.

[flyingfox]

I agree with you completely and have abandoned the idea of flying any aircraft off of my property. I was unfamiliar with the performance of a Kitfox and that is why I posted here. As I mentioned earlier, I would never landed my Cub or Champ on my property.

I wanted first hand, not advertised, numbers. I can just enjoy the 35 mile ride to and from the airport, rather than risking a dangerous landing or takeoff. The odds are never in your favor when you stake the deck against you. (it usually comes in threes: heavy, low, and slow) Thanks!

[akflyer]

An inexperienced pilot on an 850' strip with obstacles on both ends in a super-heavy 7SS is a one way trip to the morgue, "plane" and simple. This is the scenario that kills and/or maims most experimental pilots and passengers.

I have a 1000' strip on my property that is mostly open on both ends. This is not enough with sufficient safety margins for me, at this time. I have over 150 hours in my (625#, 80 hp) model IV practicing in and out short techniques. Maybe in the future, but not now. And maybe not ever.

yowsers... come on up for a little training camp.. I was just flying out of a slew with 50+' trees on each end that is less than a 1000'... on floats! Safety margin means you only have to pick leaves and twigs out of the tail braces and not actual limbs :D. What was impressive was the Cessna Caravan doing the same thing on amphibs.. But is is the baddest caravan on the planet right now with 1250+ hp in the nose! That thing does not even really get on step, just kind of rotates and as soon as the nose is pointed skywards it leaps out of the water.

[Av8r3400]

Leni-- You and yours have a completely different take on flying than what we have down here in the crowded area of the country.

And your light weight AVID with a hot-rod 582 will do things that a 7SS with a overweight Continental on the nose can only dream of.

[catz631]

Whoa,Whoa I was just trying to help the new guy ! He was looking for a plane that would operate on his small strip. Function is the idea here and the 701 would probably fit the bill. Beauty wasn't mentioned.
I personally think the IVO prop that all you guys use is "butt ugly" but have been somewhat convinced that functionally it is a good prop.( I am keeping my Kiev)
"Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" as the saying goes otherwise,all us ugly guys would never get a good looking women to make us feel bad about flying. (or at least try)
Dick

[MotReklaw]

I'd rather drive 35 miles one way to fly any Kitfox than a 701 on my own strip. Sorry guys. It's a one trick pony and one butt ugly pony at that. :(
New 701 formula: Ugly=drag. The ones for sale on Barstormer were most likely replaced with Kitfox's. Give me a break!


Well, I agree. That's why my 3rd homebuilt is a KF project that I'm still inventorying. The level of workmanship of the parts is hands down better with this KFSS kit.

[DesertFox4]

Whoa,Whoa I was just trying to help the new guy !
If it was the answer you'd be flying one and this would be called Team701.com. We all fly a beautiful looking, flying STOL aircraft called the Kitfox. If you don't think your Kitfox is in the STOL category you haven't learned how to fly it yet or you built it too heavy. Cross country, STOL, baggage capacity, comfortable cabin, endurance, beauty and exciting handling characteristics. It gets an A+ in all categories. I couldn't recommend a 701 to anyone or for that matter most other brands.
Ya, we all know the Kiev is pretty. Glad you like it. Just know it's costing you 15 mph and 300 ft.+ per minute climb. Just trying to help you Dick.:rolleyes:

[cap01]

right on steve , if only the rotax could be made to sound like a turbo compounded R-3350 and ofcourse still burn 4gph .

[Slyfox]

just put a big sound system in and hang a bass in the rear fuse and than cut out slots to let the sound out. Now turn her up and let it rip. Now your in there with the idiots that irritate me at a stop light. Not only that, if you fly low you can now irritate the heck out of the neighbors. :eek:

I love my white and quiet kitfox, I can do whatever I want.

[RIVERFOX]

More landing scenarios and quit telling me what a cool plane I have. More landing facts to get those landing distances to about 150'. Is it generally better to use more RPM and hang it on the prop with power or use closed throttle and flare just before touchdown? You are right though, if the 701 were car, it would be an AMC "PACER" !!!!

[Slyfox]

what an ugly thing that was, my mother use to call it a pregnant mushroom.:D

I've always had better luck with running on the prop to land short.

[Newkid]

Ya hanging it on the prop works better.

[catz631]

Well Flying Fox see what you caused (ha,ha..just kidding) now everyone has the RA (red ass) because I mentioned some other aircraft other than a Kitfox for your use. Don't be so sensitive guys. Having owned over 14 airplanes so far I know the Kitfox is not the only answer to every type of flying(nor is any other aircraft) I like my Kitfox just fine(and no Steve I have not lost any cruise speed with my Kiev) but might I have another aircraft in the future...you bet!..or maybe not,might die first.
Can I land in short areas like you guys do...no. We don't have any cool places to land.(except maybe on an oil slick on the beach) The technique I use at my grass field is pretty much the same as you guys use but as we have no mountains/short strips the motavation is not there to do it "on the gnats ass"
I grew up in the West and I really miss it ! You guys are lucky!
Dick
PS: Ty did you get the spinner ?

[akflyer]

More landing scenarios and quit telling me what a cool plane I have. More landing facts to get those landing distances to about 150'. Is it generally better to use more RPM and hang it on the prop with power or use closed throttle and flare just before touchdown? You are right though, if the 701 were car, it would be an AMC "PACER" !!!!

If you want to come in as short as possible, full flaperons and as much power as it takes to keep the sink rate in check. On landing the elevator controls the speed, the power controls the sink rate. You are only going to be 2-3 MPH above stall (if that) and hanging it all on the line, but it is a lot of fun when you are out on a very small gravel bar or dirt strip fishing away, and there are other planes circling around trying to figure out just how the (bad word) you got to where you are!

[Newkid]

Oh ya! Sorry forgot to tell you, I got about a week and a half ago. It works great. Thanks a ton.

Getting behind the power curve also tends to lower your stall speed a bit.

[jtpitkin06]

We seemed to have gotten away from the original question of short field landing technique for the Kitfox.

It doesn’t matter if you are flying the heavy iron or a 1000 pound rag wing, short field landings should not be out of the ordinary.

Did you know every landing in a B-767 is a short field landing? It just takes more concrete than the dirt required for a Kitfox. But the technique is the same:

Configure for minimum approach speed – Use full flaps.

Use a stabilized approach – In the Kitfox, speed and sink rate should be constant from about 300 agl and below.

Touch down in the intended landing area – if you find yourself floating too far down the runway, go around.

APPROACH SPEED
The best place to practice your technique is at altitude. For the Kitfox, find a chunk of airspace about 2000 to 3000 agl. Slow to approach speed with flaps extended. Begin a descent carrying a little power and stabilize the airspeed. Pick a “landing altitude” and level off at the altitude. Flare the airplane holding altitude until the first indication of a stall. Recover and climb back up for another practice run.

The next time use a slower or faster approach speed noting the amount of elevator you have left in the flare. Note the effect of carrying a small amount of power vs. power off.
Note how far you can slow before the onset of stall. Find the slowest approach speed that still has elevator authority for the flare. Practice several times.


The goal is to get comfortable with a slow approach speeds with flaps extended. Yes, roll rate is decreased with full flaps in the Kitfox. So what? Use lots of aileron and coordinated rudder.

Note: The practice done at altitude has you recovering from the first onset of a stall and climbing back up. That’s a go around!


STABILIZED APPROACH
I cannot emphasize this enough. I see far too many approaches with wild variations in speed and sink. Consistency in stabilized approaches will result in consistently good landings.

Plan to make a stabile approach with no configuration change below 300 feet in the Kitfox, 500 is even better. This gives you time to trim the aircraft, get a feel for the slow speed with full flaps and ensure you are on the proper speed for the landing. If speed and sink are stabile it’s easy to make small power corrections for the landing zone.


If you’ve done the above you will arrive at the touchdown zone at a proper speed with sufficient elevator remaining to flare.

TOUCH DOWN IN THE LANDING ZONE
As you approach, make note of your go around point. If you are not on the ground in the touchdown area, go around. There are far too many accidents where the pilot attempted to land too far down the runway when it would be easy to go around.

If all looks well flare the aircraft and smoothly reduce the power to idle. Do not get in the habit of “chopping power” as it will cause abrupt pitch changes in the flare. Smoothness is the key.

Whether you are landing an F-18 on a carrier deck, driving a 757 into Providenciales or dropping your Kitfox into Uncle Elmo’s farm, the technique is the same. Proper speed, stabile approach and know when to go around.

So go up to altitude where you can’t hit anything and practice some “landings.” Then come down and do some real nice short field landings.

Enjoy.

John Pitkin
Greenville, TX

[akflyer]

John, While I agree with 99% of what you said, There are a few differences that will probably come into play on the landing of the kitfox type AC (atleast for me). Obstacles on approach (be it trees, a sharp turn in the river or a mountain side).

1. It is impossible to keep a steady approach in most of my landings, however; this bring us to your advice on practicing the slow flight right up to stall at altitude so you know exactly how your aircraft will handle and react.

2. Most of my flying is done well below 300' so the landing phase starts at about 15 to 20 AGL unless I am at the home airport.

3. Smooth power reductions.. Well when hanging it on the prop and you only have a couple hundred feet with trees on the end rapidly approaching your aircraft with the intent to destroy it, once across the threshold power is cut in a big way right now as you should only be a foot or two above Terra firma at that point. If you are out of airspeed as you should be, there sill be no big bounce, just a quick settling. I come off the power and the second the wheels touch the flaps are off so she is not going to fly again and I can stand on the brakes!

Everything else you posted is sport on, with more emphasis on being familiar with YOUR air craft! People that ask what approach speed others use is VERY subjective. I would venture to say that all of our ASI are off a pretty good bit from reality, and damn sure off from each other. The weight that you are flying at will drastically affect the approach speed you need to be able to flare should you loose power. Each scenario will require a different approach speed. Are the winds steady? if so drag it in at minimum. If they are gusting, you better leave a buffer there (these planes are so draggy that an extra 5 mph will bleed off in a very few feet of forward movement. Is it a cross wind? if so, keep the speed up a bit so you have better roll control, especially if it is cross wind and gusting.

It can not be stressed enough to know your aircraft! I regularly spent time jumping back and forth between my Avid C HH, a buddies MK IV Speed wing, My brothers KF II or his Pacer and a buddies KF I. All three planes handle similar but each had it's own quirks that can bite you if you are trying to come in super slow and put it on the numbers.

There is no amount of reading you can do in a book or on the internet that will replace or help you out more than getting out and burning gas! Practice at altitude slow flight, very slow flight (and not in a straight line). I do alot of practice with steep turns, full flaps, and a ridiculous deck angle just to keep me on top of the game when I need it down low! I will practice and push it right up to the break (and through the break) when I am at altitude so I know the very bitter edge at which I can fly and still remain in full control.

[Slyfox]

All this in very interesting. the big one is the altitudes we fly. I here guys with the RV's fly at 10000 ft. Nose bleed stuff. Than I here the guys with kitfox's fly 20ft off. Watch out for that bug.

I fly both these machines and many times I fly one and land and jump right into the other one. The RV is nose and the kitfox is tail. You may think this is a real challenge, it ain't. In fact I feel they both fly the same on landing, sure one has a stall of 37mph and the other 50kts. but in reality they are the same. One thing I did is put the IAS in the Rv at knots and the kitfox is mph. I have a constant speed in the RV and with full flaps can be almost landed with a short like the kitfox. I land the kitfox at 60-55 mph for wheel landings and 55-50mph for 3point landings coming over the fence. The RV is 60kts over the fence. With the setup I have I don't have any trouble at all knowing what speeds to land, even if I do 70 on final in either airplane I have a great landing in either, so that is what I do.

I generally put 1000 ft as a cap in both airplanes and I also do the low and slow in both airplanes. The only advantage the RV gives me is to get out of dodge. I can be down to johnson creek in less than 1.5 hrs. kitfox twice that.

I generally use flat turns for the kitfox when landing(use of rudder only) what that does is allow me to turn around trees without banking the aircraft, these airplanes do this very well, I say it again, I hate the kitfox flaps, just to much to do on landing, I have everything set up so all I have to do is move the aircraft throught the trees and land it with touching nothing but throttle and stick. I've had to dodge big birds and other things on landing, just want all the controll the kitfox gives, I hang on the prop and have VG's so flaps are just not needed.

[ackselle]

I was just cruising the site looking at various old posts when I came upon this thread...... As per john's post, I spend man Sunday afternoons practicing my "landings" at 4500' AGL. I've found that practice has helped me build My landing skill far quicker than circuits because mistakes don't hurt, and I can do 10 "landings" in the same time as a normal circuit.

Just my $0.02.... For what it's worth.

[SkySteve]

Ackselle,
I totally agree with you. I continually spend hours and hours in slow flight at 3,000 AGL without flaps, 1/2 flaps and full flaps practicing flat turns, banked turns, 360's, S turns, 180's, slow descents, flairs, etc. Why? Two reasons: One, I like to fly into and land in places, as they say, "Boeing doesn't go". And two, if I ever have to set my plane down in an ugly place due to an in-flight emergency I want as many odds as possible on my side.

However, as some here do, I do not. I read about those who land short by hanging on the prop. Personally I think this is just asking for a future landing crash. Our planes will land very short when flown at a proper angle, which varies in multiple situations, using flaps as the situation and winds require and, of course pilot skill (provided by learning and practicing proper techniques).

Did I mention I love this plane?

[awi55]

I like these comments. I am looking to buy a kitfox. The speed is critical. I had a mooney super 21 and any extra speed would place you well down the runway. I flew it out of 1600 ft grass strip and the approaches were not great. My first plane there was a PA-22 with 150hp great for this type of flying. I really want something back to just flying and the kitfox super sport seems to fit the bill. Trying to decide between radial, 912s or 914. Really enjoy all of the good info from this site. Keep it up all.

[SkySteve]

Here is a technique I copied from a backcountry site long ago. I liked it enough that I copied it into the Notes section of my iPhone so I could re-read it multiple times when I would go out for practice flights. It was written for heavier planes than ours but the technique works and I like it/use it:

"Short Field Landing Techniques:

|: I have a lot of 180 time and have landed it in less than 300 ft over 1000 times with this safe and consistent technique. Go fly your 182 at 50 mph with full flaps and hold altitude and you will notice that it is flying fairly level. Now reduce your manifold pressure to get a 500 ft per min decent and get the feel of that. Now pull back on the yoke just enough to reduce your decent to 200 ft. Now this is the amount of yoke movment "from 500ft to 200ft" that you MUST remember, more later on this. Now go to a airport with a marked threshhold or numbers ect to focus on. Here we go , get out on a little bit on a high final and settle into that 50 mph no decent attitude and "DO NOT" move your yoke for pitch "At All" then pull your power back to 500 ft drop per min as practiced , still not moving the yoke. You want to pretend that you are on a string aimed for 75ft before the intended touchdown area. Adjust to stay on the string with throttle only. At 20 ft AGL pull your yoke back that amount that you practiced for the 200 ft then freeze your yoke again and let the airplane fly gently onto the ground right where you wanted to. Dont chase the flare around. You wont believe now consistent this technique is and the airplane will never bounce. You need to get on the brakes right away and pull back on the yoke all the way below about 30 mph . Bet you use less than 400 ft the first try.


||: Take your aiming point and make sure it doesn't move up or down on the wind screen. It should stay put, no movement. If it does that then you're stabilised. As for descent rate you want a 3 degree path. Take your ground speed, add a zero and divide by 2. ie, if you come in at 50 mph add a zero and you get 500. Divide by 2 and you should descend at 250 fpm to maintain a 3 degree. If you're high notch it up and if you're low shallow out. Like I said, you DO NOT want to be staring at the VSI. Look outside the whole time. In the beginning you can sneak a peek at it every now and again just to see how your doing. Once you can get on glide and make it stable (remember that aiming point not moving) then you simply need to adjust speed to hit your mark. Fly at 1.3 Vref til over the numbers and then let it bleed to Vref in the flare. With practice you can time it to where you are out of lift right in the flare and the plane will fall out right on your mark."

[ackselle]

Thanks Steve.... I know what I'm doing next time I'm "landing" up at 5000 AGL.

Like you, I just copied the text to my phone for reference. I'll report after I try.