Um… that’s not the way I do it… (Well, I do touch down nose up…)
First of all, small airplanes are not somehow deficient in lifting surfaces - they weigh a LOT less and need less wing area. In fact, sometimes small airplane pilots use techniques like slips which reduce lift.
Lowering the nose actually maintains airspeed at low power, it does not reduce lift.
Fowler flaps as seen on Cessna 150’s and 172’s (as examples) they increase the wing area so yes, they do have devices to increase lift at low speeds.
Actually, if you didn’t reduce lift from what is being produced at climb or cruise you won’t come down, and coming down is an important part of landing, the trick being to do it in a controlled manner.
(As I am posting this at 2am I have a dreadful feeling this post won’t look nearly as clear by light of day…oh well…)
There is no fundemental difference between how a large aeroplane and a small aeroplane is landed. They both need to be flown towards the ground and then “flared” so as to land a little nose up. Most common small aircraft have flaps that provide for plenty of lift, they also already have relatively high lift wings compared to a jet airliner. It happens that commercial pilots are generally taught to fly a 3 degree approach which is somewhat flatter than what a single engine pilot might fly, but a Cessna 172 can be flown on a 3 degree approach and many probably are. Another factor is that wing flaps alone will result in a lower nose attitude because they effectively increase the angle of incidence which is the angle of the wing against the fuselage, slats on the other hand result in a higher nose attitude because, although they increase lift like flaps do, they actually lower the angle of incidence. For this reason, a jet with a high speed wing that requires a lot of high lift devices including slats for approach and landing, does have quite a high nose attitude on approach compared to a light single engine aircraft with flaps only.
So your basic premise is correct, a normal approach in a light aircraft may feel steep compared to a larger aircraft, but it is not because the headwind is holding it airborne like a kite and it is not because they need to lower their nose to maintain lift at a lower speed (that’s contrary, the nose needs to be raised to increase lift, not lowered.)
It’s true that you briefly reduce lift to start a descent. But during a normal descent, lift is exactly the same as during cruise or a steady climb - it’s equal to the weight of the aircraft.
When used during landing, the principal purpose of a slip is to increase drag, yielding a steeper approach.
Despite the other replies to this statement, I know what you mean. If the pilot of a small plane is approaching a runway in the presence of high and gusty headwinds, he rightfully SHOULD be flying much faster than a normal approach speed.
If I’m flying a “normal” approach speed of 65 knots in these conditions, what would happen if the wind speed dropped 20 - 30 knots (“gusty”, remember?)? All of a sudden, I’m falling, not flying: I’ve stalled because my airspeed has just fallen below my stall speed. So I’m GOING to come in hot and steep and only reduce air speed when I’m over the runway.
I learned to fly in Sedona, AZ where strong winds are common. There were many times when I had to apply lots of power on final approach, where, in calmer wind conditions, I’d have had the engine at idle.
I work near the airport, and pretty much watch airplanes land all day long, and without a doubt the smaller planes (business jets and smaller) have a nose down attitude on approach. They are still nose down as they pass over Hwy 13 (Autoroute Chomedy: seen here The Q-series Bombardiers tend to look relatively level or slightly nose-up, and CRJs, Airbuses and Boeings are definitely nose up.
A Bombardier employee (retired engineer) also once told me that the lack of slats is why the Challenger 605s and 300s approach nose-down.
I just put that together and wrote my above post. Clearly incorrectly, but still based on some facts! I think it does explain the feeling of “diving” towards the runway, though.
Thanks (and to the other posters too!) for the clarifications… I love learning about this stuff, but I admit I really don’t know much!
No worries. Some small aircraft do have slats by the way. This NZ built de Havilland Tiger Moth* has leading edge slats on the outboard sections of the top wing that deploy automatically at low speeds.
*Tiger Moths were built by several countries during WWII including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and of course the United Kingdom.
Years ago I took some flying lessons with an eye toward getting my private pilot license. I started off flying a Piper Tomahawk which is a very small, low-wing aircraft. Landing it pretty much involved cutting power, lifting the nose to scrub speed and drop like a rock, then levelling off to touch down for the landing.
Sometime later I switched to a high-wing Cessna 172. I tried to land it the same way, but it just would not come down with a nose-up attitude. Those things generate so much lift, you have to point the nose at the ground and fly it all the way down, then level off to land. Different planes, different configurations, totally different approach techniques.
The thing is, in all cases, your landing speed depends on the flight characteristics of your aircraft (ie stall speed) plus current wind conditions. Your airspeed as you come in for landing MUST be a little bit above your stall speed+maximum headwind gust speed because, as mentioned above, any slower than that and if the wind suddenly dies down, you fall out of the sky.
My dad was once flying into New Orleans just ahead of an incoming hurricane. Windspeeds were in the 50-60mph range at the time with higher gusts, and he was on a jet with a normal landing speed in the 150mph range. They had to land at over 200mph indicated airspeed just in case they hit a sudden calm. He claims it was rather exciting to come in that hot.