N941WR

N941WR

Legacy Member
This is NOT a tricycle vs. tail wheel or RV-xA bashing thread. It is the result of talking to a few pilots.

Back in the dark ages when the Cessna 152 was brand new and I was learning to fly, my instructors (large flight school with multiple instructors) all insisted we do full stall landings with the yoke all the way back. Roll-on landings (with a touch of power) were used for soft field landings and only when the runway was long enough.

If the airplane was moving the yoke had to be held all the way back, landing or taxiing. The only exception to this was when taxiing down wind, then the yoke would go forward (Climb into and dive away from the wind when taxiing).

The question is, where others taught landing techniques other than full stall?

How about on roll out and taxiing? Did your instructors allow you to do anything other than hold the stick full aft?

Just trying to understand what I’ve been observing.
 
Last edited:
I was taught similar stall landings. But where I live, the winds can be gusty and this technique is not useful and take too precise timing to avoid plopping it in. I like to keep a little power on and slowly pull the power as I round out over the numbers. I do keep full up elevator after the wheels touch.

Chuck Olsen
RV-7A
Tehachapi
 
And that's the way Mike Seager teaches as well. Stick full aft on rollout to plant the tailwheel. Not sure about the -A models.
 
N941WR said:
This is NOT a tricycle vs. tail wheel or RV-xA bashing thread. It is the result of talking to a few pilots.

Back in the dark ages when the Cessna 152 was brand new I was learning to fly my instructors (large flight school with multiple instructors) all insisted we do full stall landings with the yoke all the way back. Roll-on landings (with a touch of power) were used for soft field landings and only when the runway was long enough.

If the airplane was moving the yoke had to be held all the way back, landing or taxiing. The only exception to this was when taxiing down wind, then the yoke would go forward (Climb into and dive away from the wind when taxiing).

The question is, where others taught landing techniques other than full stall?

How about on roll out and taxiing? Did your instructors allow you to do anything other than hold the stick full aft?

Just trying to understand what I?ve been observing.
Click to expand...

I was taught what you were taught (late 70's)

What you have likely been observing (I see it all the time too) is a new generation of pilots (and maybe a lot of older ones who have forgotten) that appear to have learned to fly in the Navy :rolleyes: (no offense intended to Navy pilots...they land that way for a reason)
It might even be the cause of some of the A model landing accidents ;)
(Note; I said some, not all)
 
early instruction

Well ya, years ago I was trained in a C152 (boy, looking back, they were fun to fly) All my time is in high wing. Now building a low wing, I understand a slightly different technique is required for RV's. This is why I intend to take some transition training. I was taught full stall landings with a few iterations. In the mountainous Okanagan Valley, the winds can come a go in a moment's notice. It's what we expect. I've flown with a friend in his 7. Full stalls seem to be the way it's done. We'll see.:)
 
Jim P said:
And that's the way Mike Seager teaches as well. Stick full aft on rollout to plant the tailwheel. Not sure about the -A models.
Click to expand...

It is a good technique with the -A model also....any air flow across the tail will reduce weight on the nose gear. And many -A models are heavy up front.

If you've been observing anything different, Bill, they're setting less than good example for anyone not sure what is best technique and what is ho-hum technique. Keeping the stick full aft after landing and taxiing is good technique coming and going.
 
landings

OK, for what its worth, here is what I have learned. I have about 14,000hours total, mostly in jets. My single engine time is about 500 hours, my RV4 logged since Feb of last year is 90 hours. I have other tailwheel time in a Rans S7 so total tailwheel time is about 250 hours. I have dropped, flopped, bounced and scared all aboard my RV4 with full stall landings. I was convinced after much reading that a full stall landing was safer and much less prone to putting the tailwheel ahead of the mains. The fact is, that landing on the mains, tail high, is much more controlable then full stall. I can see the runway the entire time and see instantly what corrections need to be made. With full stall landings there is always a period of time that I lose straight ahead vis, and as a result, find myself playing catch-up. With crosswinds, it is worse. It does not inspire confidence. I can do full stall landings, but prefer seeing the landing surface the entire time. Mike
 
N941WR said:
This is NOT a tricycle vs. tail wheel or RV-xA bashing thread. It is the result of talking to a few pilots.

<SNIP>

If the airplane was moving the yoke had to be held all the way back, landing or taxiing. The only exception to this was when taxiing down wind, then the yoke would go forward (Climb into and dive away from the wind when taxiing).

<SNIP>

How about on roll out and taxiing? Did your instructors allow you to do anything other than hold the stick full aft?

Just trying to understand what I?ve been observing.
Click to expand...

Was taught full-stall landings from a power-off glide here. From what I can tell, others contemporary to me (circa 2002) are sometimes taught to carry a little power further into final, especially if they learn in Hershey-bar Pipers or those horrid little 2-seat Zenith trainers. This can easily translate into "flying it all the way to the ground" and a "carrier landing."

As far as taxiing, you're referring to TW operations, right? I see no reason for full aft stick for taxiing a NW plane upwind; it would reduce the steering effectiveness and is contrary to the manufacturer's recommendations for some certified birds.
 
The Problem with "Absolutes"...

The problem with "Absolutes is that they are NEVER completely true!:rolleyes:

When someone says "This is the ONLY way to do something, I figure that they haven't really figured out just how big the universe is - there are times and places for many different techniques, and in my book, a good pilot uses whatever is most appropriate at the time, place, and circumstances. Those who say that the ONLY way to land any airplane is a full-stall three pointer haven't flown an RV-8 very much (for instance). Just doesn't work very well. And heck, the Pregnant Guppy lands NOSEWHEEL first!

All that aside, I usually taxi with the stick all the way back on a taildragger, and when I flew Grumman singles, I had the yoke all the way back to protect the fragile nose gear as well....

Paul
 
JHines said:
...As far as taxiing, you're referring to TW operations, right? I see no reason for full aft stick for taxiing a NW plane upwind; it would reduce the steering effectiveness and is contrary to the manufacturer's recommendations for some certified birds.
Click to expand...
Jonathan,

Nope, I'm talking about both TW and NW but primarily NW.

I was taught that the Cessna NW was fragil and to protect it at all times by holding it up. (Have you ever landed a Cessna with loose nose gear? Talk about shimmy!) I never once had a problem with with steering effectiveness by holding full back elevator. When moving so slow the flight controls were not effective, there was still enough weight on the NW to provide steering and then there are always the brakes.

Ironflight said:
The problem with "Absolutes is that they are NEVER completely true!:rolleyes:

... there are times and places for many different techniques, and in my book, a good pilot uses whatever is most appropriate at the time, place, and circumstances.
...
All that aside, I usually taxi with the stick all the way back on a taildragger, and when I flew Grumman singles, I had the yoke all the way back to protect the fragile nose gear as well....

Paul
Click to expand...
Paul,

As always, you cut right to the chase and I was striving to write the post to allow for wiggle room.

In fact, when taxiing down wind, I go forward on the stick, as needed, to keep the tail down. Sometimes full forward, other times not.

Now for what prompted this post...

Mostly what I see is Cessna and Cherokee pilots relaxing the yoke on touchdown and when taxiing with the elevator hanging down. Worse is when they taxi across grass, add power, and never pull back on the yoke to lift the NW. Seeing this got me thinking and I wondered if what I have witnessed is pervasive.
 
Good timing, Bill....

.....for this article. So much depends on the type of airplane. e.g. I'd never land my Cessna 310, or a T-28 with full aft stick but rather a nose high main gear first and gently allow the nosewheel to lower and hold aft stick. Same applies to the RV trikes. The gear just isn't designed for the abuse that a Skyhawk or 152 can take. Neither are Citations and Lears. They generally land nose high but not stalled.....it's too risky to drop a big airplane in.

Last week a guy bounced my RV on landing in rather gusty conditions and we ended up 5-10' off the runway, nose high and probably should just have gone around. Any way, we landed with him holding full aft and smacked the rudder onto the pavement. These airplanes have so much elevator authority that I recommend a nose-high landing, near a stall and as the speed burns off, more and more aft stick. This way it's easier to do a grease-on landing where you still can see the runway ahead, barely.

As for the taildraggers, in Ag school, we were taught to just hold the stick back in neutral, off the down stops so it doesn't bang up and down since we were on lumpy grass in Stearmans and Cubs. With the elevator streamlined with the stab, taxiing downwind would naturally hold the tail down. With the elevator in the same position into the wind, you'd have to have a gale blowing to raise the tail.

Regards,
 
N941WR said:
SNIP

Mostly what I see is Cessna and Cherokee pilots relaxing the yoke on touchdown and when taxiing with the elevator hanging down. Worse is when they taxi across grass, add power, and never pull back on the yoke to lift the NW. Seeing this got me thinking and I wondered if what I have witnessed is pervasive.
Click to expand...

Yes, my observation is that it is quite pervasive. Not so much with RV's, but still not uncommon to see an RV trike taxiing in grass with no up elevator (hard to believe given all the discussion!).

I taxi with full up elevator as long as I feel resistance to up elevator. Doesn't matter hard pavement or grass. If the tail wind is strong enough such that I don't feel any resistance to up elevator, then I put them neutral.

As to landing technique, I can only speak to the 6A. I do not do full stall landings any more, for several reasons. One is because the tail is extremely close (haven't hit it yet!) and another is that they will plop down quite hard when it quits flying a foot off the ground. Just not enough margin or I'm not good enough (or both!). I have had consistently good luck with landing quality holding the pitch angle constant for the last couple feet. In my case, I can just see the runway over the nose. I use power to arrest descent if necessary - not pitch.

I have found a very worthwhile practice technique is to fly the plane, in landing configuration, at about 1 foot for 3000' down a 5000' runway. When I do this, I experiment around with deck angles. One pass will give you as much practice as about 20 landings will. It will require larger power changes than one would expect. Weight will greatly affect it also.
 
AlexPeterson said:
I have found a very worthwhile practice technique is to fly the plane, in landing configuration, at about 1 foot for 3000' down a 5000' runway. When I do this, I experiment around with deck angles. One pass will give you as much practice as about 20 landings will. It will require larger power changes than one would expect. Weight will greatly affect it also.
Click to expand...

Excellant post.

I have said many times the nose gear on a RV is like a kickstand on a bike. Use it only to keep the prop off the ground. Flying to a stall in a certified plane may be okay, but IMHO plopping an RV on the ground is bad. Land on the mains and hold the nose off the ground as long as you can. Bring the stick b ack into your gut and hold it until the nose gear is on the ground and then keep the stick in your gut until the engine is shut off. Protect the nose gear, don't use it as a landing gear.

Know where your stall numbers are. When was the last time you stalled your airplane? :confused: IMHO you should do stalls at least once a month along with slow flight to practice landing angles. Set the plane down gently on the mains and hold the nose off the ground as long as you can. Stay off the brakes! Let drag stop you. Then keep the stick in your gut until the engine is stopped.

I realize gas prices are high, but when you go flying have a set objectives to practice flying skills. Log them in your book, keep track of your stalls, & landing practice.

I flew 450 hours in RV-9 with a 220 HP 0-360 on the nose. :eek: I flew off & landed on many grass strips. Know where your stall is and landings are pretty easy. Yes, the wind blows in NE also.
 
Don't full-stall an RV-6 either

Ironflight said:
...Those who say that the ONLY way to land any airplane is a full-stall three pointer haven't flown an RV-8 very much (for instance). Just doesn't work very well...
Click to expand...
I almost always land my RV-6 three point, but three point is nowhere near full stall with this airplane. I don't think I have ever made a full stall landing with this airplane but I have landed tail first with the mains high in the air and it ain't pretty.

I have flown a Luscombe Sedan which is known for not even being able to land three point, much less full stall. There simply isn't enough elevator, at least with a forward CG, you do a wheely every time.

So I agree with Paul's point, you need to account for the individual type.
 
N941WR said:
The question is, where others taught landing techniques other than full stall?

How about on roll out and taxiing? Did your instructors allow you to do anything other than hold the stick full aft?
Click to expand...


Whenever I see threads like this I'm reminded how lucky I was to have a great instructor. I learned to fly at a windy, high density altitude airport with mountains all around. I learned in an old C172. C152's weren't able to fly out of our airport.

My instructor had me really work on control all the way to the tie down. We varied landing techniques depending on the winds and density altitude. Generally he had me carry just a bit of power till the mains touched then pull back the power and hold the nose just off the runway. Once the nose was down full aft yoke. At lower density altitudes I would use little to no power at touch down.

He also had me fly down the runway on windy days with one main on the ground to work on control. That really helped me learn rudder control.

Basically he never would allow me to get in a position that I was giving up control of the airplane, so full stall landings with the nose straight up in the air where avoided.

I've found that those lessons I learned translated very well to my 9A and now my 9. I'm back at a high density airport that is generally gusty, so wheel landings seem to work better for me than three point landings.
 
Not that it matters to most of you, but a full-aft stick landing in one of the smaller (235; 320/360) Lancairs would likely be disastrous. Due to part of the wing stalling early in the flair, the center of lift shifts so that at the last moment you could find yourself ballooning followed almost immediately by a catastrophic stall. See this article on Lancair handling qualities.

Point being, the "correct" landing technique depends upon the aircraft handling characteristics; the type of landing being performed (soft / short field, etc.); the prevailing conditions (strong/gusty winds, etc.); and pilot proficiency / currency. Fail to account for any of these at your peril.
 
breister said:
...Point being, the "correct" landing technique depends upon the aircraft handling characteristics; the type of landing being performed (soft / short field, etc.); the prevailing conditions (strong/gusty winds, etc.); and pilot proficiency / currency...
Click to expand...
OK, but what about taxiiing?
 
Back when I flew cessna's, I found a good landing, on the mains with the nose off. It went like this, flew in with 60kts on final all the way in with 400ft drop, then I would wait until about 20ft. off and start the flair, not all the way back on the yoke, what this did was put the aircraft in nose high and make the mains kiss the runway. Than I would maintain the nose high (maybe only a foot off)until it came down on it's own, generally nice and smooth. I flew with a guy in his 9A and he did this, except in a RV you want a step decent, worked out really nice.
 
AlexPeterson said:
I have found a very worthwhile practice technique is to fly the plane, in landing configuration, at about 1 foot for 3000' down a 5000' runway. When I do this, I experiment around with deck angles. One pass will give you as much practice as about 20 landings will. It will require larger power changes than one would expect. Weight will greatly affect it also.
Click to expand...

that's what my CFI made me do, when i was learning to land.. now i love to do it... it's still quite a challenge for me.. :eek: but i love to do it.. :D
 
Cessnas

I agree with the post that said that 152s are fun - They are! I flew one for a BFR just the other day just for fun. Haven't done that in years.

The problem with Cessnas (the typical nosewheel trainers, anyway. Cherokees, too) is that they are so forgiving of sloppy and lazy flying. You can ignore correct control positions and get away with it. You can land too fast and get away with it. You can ignore the rudder pedals and not even know. That is, until you are in a situation one day that is a little closer to the extreme - hot, high, windy, short, etc.

Insurance companies don't agree, but harder to fly airplanes make better trainers. ...If you survive the lessons!
 
My first flying was done in an early Cherokee 140--when it was new. My instructor was delighted if you could get the tail skid to touch first. To him, it was the only way to land. My next flying was done in sailplanes and that taught me there were other ways to land. So far, I think they were the only thing I have flown where you pushed forward to slow down (nose skid.)

I will admit to getting sloppy while I owned a Cessna, but still I KNEW how to do it right. The 9A has made a better pilot of me. I don't full stall, but land fairly nose high. I can't remember the last time I dropped the nose before I had bled off the proper amount of speed. One thing I have found that helps; I hit "up" on the flap switch as soon as the mains are on. It reduces the chance of a gust doing something unexpected, seems to give better directional control, and allows the nose to stay up quite a bit slower. It doesn't hurt aerodynamic braking much, and allows braking as there seems to be more weight on the mains. YMMV.

Bob Kelly
 
Tailwheel first

The Maule I used to fly liked to touch the tailwheel just an instant before the mains. It's stall was at such a high angle of attack that touching the mains first - for a three point landing - meant that you were too fast and resulted in a bounce / balloon. Yes - the yoke was in your gut, if done properly.

It also wheel landed very well with full flaps and could be braked heavily with the tail in the air. But that's another discussion!
 
Nothing wrong with a little power on landing

RV's aren't Cessna's. If you want to fly an RV slow, you need power. Otherwise, you're coming down at 1000 fpm, which makes for ugly landings. Without power, you need a lot of finesse and a little luck to flare at exactly the right time to arrest that manly descent rate without dropping it in.

The reason transition trainers teach glide-in, power-off, full-stall landings is because that's what you need to know how to do if your engine quits -- which is a fairly common occurance during the first few hours of a new experimental. When my 6A was new, that's all I did during phase 1. But later on, as I was learning to perfect my landing technique, I found that I made much better, gentler landings, in a shorter distance if I used a little power on final, and gave it a little burst right as I flared. That little blast right at the end avoids dropping it in when you lift the nose high to protect the "taxi wheel".

My point is that you need to know how to fly your plane when everything isn't working right, so definately practice your engine-out procedure regularly. But for normal landings, there's no point in giving up one entire control mechanism -- the throttle -- just because your instructor wanted to make sure you could land without it. Go ahead and use it, especially for difficult landings and definately in the grass when you need to land short and soft.

And taxiing? Unless you've got a 30 knot tailwind, the stick is in your lap at all times.
 
jonbakerok said:
RV's aren't Cessna's. If you want to fly an RV slow, you need power. Otherwise, you're coming down at 1000 fpm, which makes for ugly landings. Without power, you need a lot of finesse and a little luck to flare at exactly the right time to arrest that manly descent rate without dropping it in.

The reason transition trainers teach glide-in, power-off, full-stall landings is because that's what you need to know how to do if your engine quits -- which is a fairly common occurance during the first few hours of a new experimental. When my 6A was new, that's all I did during phase 1. But later on, as I was learning to perfect my landing technique, I found that I made much better, gentler landings, in a shorter distance if I used a little power on final, and gave it a little burst right as I flared. That little blast right at the end avoids dropping it in when you lift the nose high to protect the "taxi wheel".

My point is that you need to know how to fly your plane when everything isn't working right, so definately practice your engine-out procedure regularly. But for normal landings, there's no point in giving up one entire control mechanism -- the throttle -- just because your instructor wanted to make sure you could land without it. Go ahead and use it, especially for difficult landings and definately in the grass when you need to land short and soft.
Click to expand...

When I transitioned from the Piper Archer to the Arrow, I was taught the same thing, The Arrow was the same basic airframe, but had a heavier prop, engine, and added weight from the retractable landing gear. The idea was to use power to keep the nose up, and not drop through in the flare. Otherwise, you just had to keep approach speeds higher, to guarentee elevator authority.

Back country pilots will often use power on approaches to keep approach speeds slower, while hitting the prefered touchdown point. The Pitts M12 radial that shares my hangar, and the single seat Pitts in the hangar next door, are also flown with power to a landing, for flatter landing attitudes. Otherwise, the pilots can hardly see the runway at all.

And yes, the 6 lands much better with a bit of power, versus the 9, which usually doesn't need it.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
NW Taxiing

Can we talk about "full stick back except for a tailwind" in relation to 2 separate issues, specifically for NW taxiing?

1. Keeping the load off the NW to either baby it or avoid heavy loads when taxiing over grass, gravel, dirt, etc. or transitioning between two different surfaces.

2. "Flying her all the way back to the tiedown". In other words applying appropriate control inputs so that whatever aerodyamic forces are present, ground control is enhanced, and you do not lose control if the wind is gusting.

I understand "full stick back" for #1 but I still think it isn't appropriate for #2. If you are taxiing too slowly for any aerodynamic control, stick back isn't doing anything other than preventing the elevator from banging. If you're taxiing faster or the (up)wind picks up it's going to apply a pitch-up force that unloads the NW and reduces steering authority. We don't taxi taildraggers upwind with full forward stick, do we?

At least that's how it it with Cessnas. They have pretty tough nosewheels. Yeah sometimes they shake but that is a harmonics problem - and it's not a problem if they're properly maintained. Now, maybe for an RV -A model issue #1 overrides all other considerations.
 
JHines said:
... We don't taxi taildraggers upwind with full forward stick, do we?...
Click to expand...
Sometimes, we (I) do. It all depends on how strong the tailwind is. Yes, you lose a little control effectiveness but you should be taxiing slow enough that this isn't a real concern.

I was also taught not to taxi faster than a "fast walk", which means even with little weight on the nose wheel of a 152/172 you still have enough steerage to keep it on the center of the taxi way.

Jonathan, I need to get you in the -9 again and let you taxi it around, say at Monroe.
 
N941WR said:
Sometimes, we (I) do. It all depends on how strong the tailwind is. Yes, you lose a little control effectiveness but you should be taxiing slow enough that this isn't a real concern.

I was also taught not to taxi faster than a "fast walk", which means even with little weight on the nose wheel of a 152/172 you still have enough steerage to keep it on the center of the taxi way.

Jonathan, I need to get you in the -9 again and let you taxi it around, say at Monroe.
Click to expand...

Bill, that's why I asked about UPWIND. For this specific situation I'm just not sold on the arguments for "mandatory full stick back", not to mention it's contrary to the aircraft manual. As I noted above, maybe it's a must for RV's. It's moot because I'm building a taildragger, anyway.:p
 
JHines said:
Bill, that's why I asked about UPWIND. For this specific situation I'm just not sold on the arguments for "mandatory full stick back", not to mention it's contrary to the aircraft manual. As I noted above, maybe it's a must for RV's. It's moot because I'm building a taildragger, anyway.:p
Click to expand...


I've heard it called a few things but the hat rule was the best. If while taxiing your hat flew off, which way would it go? That's the way you push the stick.
 
N941WR said:
I was also taught not to taxi faster than a "fast walk", which means even with little weight on the nose wheel of a 152/172 you still have enough steerage to keep it on the center of the taxi way.
Click to expand...


Sure we were "taught" that. However, would you really taxi no faster than a "fast walk", if you need to taxi a half or a whole mile, which is quite common? Not usually! :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
I think Bill's point here is that the rule is "taxi no faster than a fast walk". If you do not follow this rule, you're on your own.
Just like, most people speed. Because most people do it doesn't make it right.
When you speed, if you don't get caught, you luck out!
When you taxi fast, if you don't flip over, you luck out!
 
I figure that I?ve made at least 2,800 actual tail dragger takeoffs and landings since 1964 in various airplanes: Luscomb, Aeronca, J-3, Cessna 140-180, Citabria, Maule, L-19, T-6, Pawnee, Ag Cat, and a few more that don?t immediately come to mind. (still slowly working on the RV) Every one of those airplanes had a slightly different landing characteristic. I don?t believe that any one method of landing applies to all airplanes. Of course we all know that the wind conditions set the rules for any particular landing technique. However, in a ?normal? wind condition, (with the exception of the Maule M-5) I prefer to do a slightly tail low wheel landing and very lightly touch down on the mains first, then forward stick and maintaining directional control, and then let the tail settle down when it?s ready. Everybody does it differently, but with a tail dragger, you have to be one-with-the-airplane. You cannot do a tail wheel landing by the nmbers?well, maybe some people can?

Re: Taxi no faster than you can walk. That would be pretty tough to do if a 737 or larger was following behind you on a 7,000 foot taxiway to the active?
 
We have a non movement area that is a main taxi way. Most Cessna's go down this taxi way at about 35 plus. I think if they were to pull back on the yoke they would be airborne, no lie. I think this is a desaster waiting to happen. Take a tail plane and he can't see to the right and forward, have a Cessna coming tward you or around a corner and bam.

Now this is a story, just happened a couple days ago. I was taxi'n to my hanger, I need to go through an area that is pretty tight with holes in between hangers that a car can get through. I generally go pretty slow, it was a good thing this time because as I was taxi'n, out of one of these spots was an older gentaleman on a moped, no it wasn't dr, I hit the brakes(stopped in about 1ft) He hit the brakes and turned at the same time, he was going pretty fast, than, timber. He fell over, I felt bad, I wanted to help, but I was in my plane. I sat there until he was back on his mopad and on his way.

I think the main taxi way, open and can see for a long distance, it's ok to do about 15, I don't think it should be any faster, after all that is the speed limit for cars, why not airplanes.
 
Taxiing

A couple thoughts -

A fast walk would be around 4 knots - I don't think I've ever seen anyone taxi that slow - really - unless the surface was veryrough. On pavement, it would take constant braking with idle 700 rpm on my plane to taxi that slow. In grass, if the taxi was anything other than a very short one, the engine would get quite hot taxiing at only 4 knots, depending on turf condition. Additionally, at 4 knots, there is no relieving of any weight from the nose gear. If you can't feel any resistance in the elevator on the stick, it is not "flying", meaning it is not relieving any nose wheel weight.

On good pavement, I taxi around 15 - 20 knots. Based upon fitting in with other traffic at my busy towered home base, I'd say that is very typical.

On grass, it completely depends on the condition, but I average around 10 knots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.