Always use full flaps on landing..?

douglas393 said:
Yes..
Click to expand...

OK, I imagine you can really bring that baby in slow. I use 65 with 30 as a starting place. I would think you could do much better with your bird. Since you now have a lot more experience in it, let us know what happens when you slow it down.
 
So, it's acceptable practice to go from 1/2 flaps to full flaps at say 200 AGL?

I was taught that was ill-advised.

Dan
 
dans2992 said:
So, it's acceptable practice to go from 1/2 flaps to full flaps at say 200 AGL?

I was taught that was ill-advised.

Dan
Click to expand...
Depends on the airplane, pilot proficiency and comfort with the configuration change, visibility....etc.

A lot if folks don't like the idea and will advise against it, but I wouldn't flat rule it out. I have gone from completely clean (flaps and gear up) at 200 AGL to full flaps and a normal touchdown in a Duchess. Not a real big deal, but not the kind of thing I would recommend a student or new private pilot do.
 
The altitude is not specified, but when landing is assured it's not only acceptable it's SOP in many planes. I usually think I can reach the field from ~500' so that's where I typically go all-in.

dans2992 said:
So, it's acceptable practice to go from 1/2 flaps to full flaps at say 200 AGL?

I was taught that was ill-advised.

Dan
Click to expand...
 
EdFred said:
I ignore the VASI as long as it's not red/red, and fly full flaps and about 10" of MP to the numbers in my Comanche. I've never landed less than full flaps except once just to see what a 0 flap landing was going to be like.
Click to expand...

that's funny I'm kinda on the opposite end, when I first started flying my Comanche I used no flaps every time. It's interesting because the plane has such a shallow pitch when landing, seems to come in very flat no matter what flap setting I use
 
Last edited:
redtail said:
What should I expect with split flaps? I'm guessing a rolling moment toward the wing with the dead flap. I fly a Skyhawk.
Click to expand...
A serious rolling moment. Having your hand on the switch allows you to stop flap movement right away if you notice it. Leaving it split rather than retracting it to match the other may be the best choice, as long as you can control the airplane like that, since you don't know what might happen when you try to retract a broken system.

My advice for the Twin Comanche doesn't mean that's how I'd fly a Skyhawk, btw. A lot depends on the pilot's experience level too. Bouncing around in the pattern, I'm all for incrementally applying flaps for better over-the-nose visibility and settling into a nice not-too-fast airspeed for more sure control. Same goes for working on an instrument rating. You want to establish good habits to fall back on for those days when the weather is right at minimums and a missed approach due to excessive speed could mean you don't make it to a bathroom in time. :redface: Or worse.

dtuuri
 
I had split flaps in a Twin Comanche the one and only time I flew it. It was also my first multiengine lesson. I retracted the flaps after a stall recovery and ended up with a lot of aileron. At first I thought the CFI had pulled an engine even though we had not discussed single-engine work yet. Then I remembered it was supposed to be yaw not roll so my comment to him was, "I think something is wrong." I can't even remember now what he did. I think he recycled the flaps and they came up the next time. In any case it was controllable with aileron, even in the split configuration.
 
Since the ailerons are outboard of the flaps they have a much longer arm, so split flap can be counteracted with aileron.

I land the Cardinal with flaps 20 or 30 (30 is full flaps) in a normal landing. I find timing of the flare is a bit more forgiving with flaps 20 (and my initial transition training we started with flaps 20) so I will use this if I am rusty. I've been trying to get into the habit of going all the way to full flaps on most normal landings.
 
In the 172/152 I've flown I usually make the final at 30 flaps (crosswinds excepted). Technically the 172 had a 40 setting, but there's a reason they removed it in 1980.

I fly fairly short patterns though with power off so they come in high and I need the drag. I did a longer run with 10 flaps in the 152 once without much crosswind and it just felt like it took forever to slow down enough to settle out on the runway.
 
The C172 max flap deflection was changed from 40 degrees to 30 because the newer aircraft are about 250 lbs heavier than the older models. Conducting a go around at the higher max gross weight with 40 degrees of flaps would be challenging. No reason not to use 40 degrees of flaps on the older models even in gusty conditions.
 
vintage cessna said:
No reason not to use 40 degrees of flaps on the older models even in gusty conditions.
Click to expand...
I can think of one....you fly somewhere with a fleet that has a mix of 172s and you only occasionally fly the 40 flaps model. In that case, consistency with the flap setting is better.

One thing I have noticed about the 172s with 40 degrees of flaps is that there is a noticeable difference in elevator authority at flaps 40 than 30. A lot easier to bang the nose wheel or plant it in a three point with all 40 hanging out. If you are proficient in landing with las 40 no big deal, but if you jump around between planes, it is probably better limit flaps to 30.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Everskyward said:
I had split flaps in a Twin Comanche the one and only time I flew it. It was also my first multiengine lesson. I retracted the flaps after a stall recovery and ended up with a lot of aileron. At first I thought the CFI had pulled an engine even though we had not discussed single-engine work yet. Then I remembered it was supposed to be yaw not roll so my comment to him was, "I think something is wrong." I can't even remember now what he did. I think he recycled the flaps and they came up the next time. In any case it was controllable with aileron, even in the split configuration.
Click to expand...

I think the particularly airplane design has a big determining factor in how much of an effect split flaps is. I have heard of a few fatals in 172s with split flaps.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
A serious rolling moment. Having your hand on the switch allows you to stop flap movement right away if you notice it. Leaving it split rather than retracting it to match the other may be the best choice, as long as you can control the airplane like that, since you don't know what might happen when you try to retract a broken system.

My advice for the Twin Comanche doesn't mean that's how I'd fly a Skyhawk, btw. A lot depends on the pilot's experience level too. Bouncing around in the pattern, I'm all for incrementally applying flaps for better over-the-nose visibility and settling into a nice not-too-fast airspeed for more sure control. Same goes for working on an instrument rating. You want to establish good habits to fall back on for those days when the weather is right at minimums and a missed approach due to excessive speed could mean you don't make it to a bathroom in time. :redface: Or worse.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Oh ok. I was thinking retract back a notch but you're probably right. I'll admit, when I'm short final and dump in the last notch, I never really thought much about keeping my hand on the flap lever for the possibility of split flaps.
 
As others probably have said above, the answer depends on your aircraft. Read the POH, work with an instructor or someone very familiar with the model, and practice what is best for various situations.

It varies so much, that it is hard to generalize. For example, in the C172, I nearly always landed with 40 degrees of flaps and loved the steep approach it allowed me. With the newer C172s, that option was gone. But with both, you could land with little fuss with NO flaps, if you wanted to (for whatever reason).

With the SR20, however, a no-flaps landing is a long, long waiting game and you enjoy thousands of feet of runway sliding by, a tantalizing few inches from the wheels but never in contact with them, until the Cirrus finally decides to stop flying. You MUST land with full flaps on the SR20, unless you're really into low passes.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I think the particularly airplane design has a big determining factor in how much of an effect split flaps is. I have heard of a few fatals in 172s with split flaps.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...
I believe that Part 23 requires that airplanes be controllable with a split flap configuration if the design can allow that to happen. I don't know if CAR 3 had similar requirements but it seem likely.
 
gismo said:
I believe that Part 23 requires that airplanes be controllable with a split flap configuration if the design can allow that to happen. I don't know if CAR 3 had similar requirements but it seem likely.
Click to expand...
Only if there's no mechanical interconnenct. A failure of an interconnect isn't covered by that requirement:
§ 23.701 Flap interconnection.

(a) The main wing flaps and related movable surfaces as a system must—

(1) Be synchronized by a mechanical interconnection between the movable flap surfaces that is independent of the flap drive system; or by an approved equivalent means; or

(2) Be designed so that the occurrence of any failure of the flap system that would result in an unsafe flight characteristic of the airplane is extremely improbable; or

(b) The airplane must be shown to have safe flight characteristics with any combination of extreme positions of individual movable surfaces (mechanically interconnected surfaces are to be considered as a single surface).

(c) If an interconnection is used in multiengine airplanes, it must be designed to account for the unsummetrical loads resulting from flight with the engines on one side of the plane of symmetry inoperative and the remaining engines at takeoff power. For single-engine airplanes, and multiengine airplanes with no slipstream effects on the flaps, it may be assumed that 100 percent of the critical air load acts on one side and 70 percent on the other.
​
I've noticed that some design features billed as preventing split flaps--don't, under all failure modes. The Navajo comes to mind, IIRC. Maybe the Comanche too? Stopping the actuator from causing structural damage due to a faulty limit switch seemed to be the design objective instead, if my memory is right.

dtuuri
 
I go out of my way to fly a different approach every landing. It keeps me agile, and it keeps my brain from engaging the "auto pilot".

Glenn


 
Alexb2000 said:
Try crossing the fence no faster than 65 Knots and work down from there. Lighter weights I might expect to cross the fence at 60.
Click to expand...

Full flaps, engine at idle, and 60 knots over the fence in a 182 (light) will plop you on the runway during the flare. ONE of those has to give in a 182. The one that seems to work best is to keep in a little power until the wheels touch. It doesn't seem to take much.

It works fine in a 172.
 
How far from the fence to the threshold? Would the same technique be applicable for KADS 15 as KGLE 17?

MAKG1 said:
Full flaps, engine at idle, and 60 knots over the fence in a 182 (light) will plop you on the runway during the flare. ONE of those has to give in a 182. The one that seems to work best is to keep in a little power until the wheels touch. It doesn't seem to take much.

It works fine in a 172.
Click to expand...
 
MAKG1 said:
Full flaps, engine at idle, and 60 knots over the fence in a 182 (light) will plop you on the runway during the flare. ONE of those has to give in a 182. The one that seems to work best is to keep in a little power until the wheels touch. It doesn't seem to take much.

It works fine in a 172.
Click to expand...

Not to argue, but I land my heavy T206, full flaps, 65 crossing the fence, near gross, engine at idle all the time and I don't drop it in. If I want to get short 60ish depending on weight. When I had a 182 it was even better. My flair is not just hauling back on the yoke, finesse it a little bit, keep the stall horn going but not too much (don't let it brake and drop). Just as she's about to touch, tease in that last bit of elevator to soften the descent and roll it on. I'll fly exactly the same profile in a stiff crosswind. My goal is to be in the habit of touching down with the least amount of energy, short rolls, easy on brakes and tires, and most importantly in an emergency when I can't choose the winds or runway length I'll be able to put it down in ~500'.
 
dans2992 said:
Wouldn't that be considered to "destabilize" the approach? (A bad thing as I was taught)
Click to expand...

A poorly worded technique for early in the aviation skillset. There's a number of us who'd like to "destabilize" the idiots that started applying that phrase to light aircraft.

Originally intended for Transport Category crews as a sanity check, that phrase has grown more legs than an irradiated rabbit living on the Chernobyl grounds.

If you're "stable" at half flaps and need to slow, you will be "stable" at full flaps.

Jumping Jeebus on a Pogo Stick, I hate the weird training side effects of this silly phrase.

As far as your concern about asymmetric flap deployment, look over the flap system of your aircraft carefully in an exploded diagram or ask your mechanic to show you whether or not it's even possible. On many light aircraft some damn heavy metal stuff would have to break loudly to even make it a possibility.

Knowing your specific system is better than a blanket fear. Grab the books. :)
 
HerrGruyere said:
I fly a 172. I usually select full flaps on short final after I've made my decision to land. Otherwise, it takes forever to get down.
Click to expand...


It really depends for 172 model you fly. N model has 40 degree flaps. 40 degrees flaps in my opinion is more like dive breaks. You either round up quick or stall :)
 
sdflyer said:
It really depends for 172 model you fly. N model has 40 degree flaps. 40 degrees flaps in my opinion is more like dive breaks. You either round up quick or stall :)
Click to expand...

But they sure are handy coming in over an obstacle. Slow down, (60 or less), get all 40 out, and then push over once you clear the obstacle. You won't gather much speed and if you time your pull out properly you dump all the energy in the flare and touch softly with a very short roll out.
 
That method is taught/preferred in some CFI/DPE jurisdictions as best short-field technique. I was never sure about the difference in wear-and-tear absorbed by the trainers in which it was practiced, but it was interesting to say the least.

MAKG1 said:
Full flaps, engine at idle, and 60 knots over the fence in a 182 (light) will plop you on the runway during the flare. ONE of those has to give in a 182. The one that seems to work best is to keep in a little power until the wheels touch. It doesn't seem to take much.

It works fine in a 172.
Click to expand...

Threefingeredjack said:
But they sure are handy coming in over an obstacle. Slow down, (60 or less), get all 40 out, and then push over once you clear the obstacle. You won't gather much speed and if you time your pull out properly you dump all the energy in the flare and touch softly with a very short roll out.
Click to expand...
 
MAKG1 said:
Full flaps, engine at idle, and 60 knots over the fence in a 182 (light) will plop you on the runway during the flare. ONE of those has to give in a 182. The one that seems to work best is to keep in a little power until the wheels touch. It doesn't seem to take much.
Click to expand...

I missed this one.

For slow approaches in the 182... Steeper. The answer is steeper. No plop necessary. Just pull the yoke for the flare at the right time. Maintain energy and flare at the right height. Land it on the mains, don't plop it. The 182 with her bigger wing chord and area will fly a lot slower than anyone trained in 172s is comfortable with.

But I'll show you why it has this undeserved reputation of "plopping" on. It isn't the airplane.

Cessna says 60 knots and 40 deg flap, right in the POH for short-field landings.

vudege7y.jpg


atejagaz.jpg


Another hint in the POH is the Airspeed calibration table. Flaps 40, KCAS 50 is KIAS 40. Hmm... Oh yeah, that pitot tube is sticking up at a funny angle... ;)

e2a8e2eb.jpg


If you're at Flaps 40 and flying it 60 knots indicated you're probably fast.

Here's one of the traps that causes folks to not have consistent landings in the 182...

Note the huge difference between full rear center of gravity and full forward...

ehe2abyv.jpg


There's almost a ten knot difference between stall speeds as you move CG rearward.

Most folks train with themselves and a CFI up front and they're way forward on the CG envelope graph. Then they wonder why they float and float and float when they finally haul some more humans and stuff, using the 182 in its intended dump truck role, hauling stuff.

They're flying the same approach speed they always have, 60 or even 65 indicated (remember the error gets greater at higher angles on attack...) and they need to slow at touchdown to 40 indicated, at touchdown. That's a lot of energy to slough off on short final.

Note if you limit the bank angle to 30 degrees as you slow up on final and don't horse around and it's a calm day, at full forward CG stall is 52 indicated. Full aft is 43 indicated.

Now, what the table doesn't say is how fast you'll scrub off energy at those low speeds and lots of drag hanging out if you're power-off, and Flaps 40. And, that's where I believe folks get the impression the 182 likes to "plop" on. The plop is flaring at the wrong height (too high) and often just not aggressive enough to both arrest the sink-rate and get down to landing speed. You want to be done flying at touchdown.

Not being ready with immediate power to catch the huge increase in drag, as the huge barn doors suck away airspeed in mere moments, is also a common mistake. Just don't get wild with it. Power when trimmed for landing in the 182 will almost always cause a pitch up and can be accidentally tuned into a full-grown. The more pitch oscillations and power changes, the more hints screaming you should go around.

But done right, you really can make a very steep power off approach and flare just a few inches above the runway, and you're instantly done flying and you're rolling on the mains. (Keep Mr. Yoke coming back or the nose gear isn't going to so much land, as it will "arrive" and near the crap out of you and the airframe.

--- STOL kit side notes ---

The Robertson addendum for our little beastie says 65 MPH/56 knots for final approach speed. It also specifically calls out a touchdown speed of 54 MPH/46 knots. She'll fly even slower than her sisters without the STOL kit on them.

Flaps 40 stall speed, wings level, is 50 MPH/44 knots.

She'll fly really slow, and we have to watch it when flying normal 182s that we don't slow up quite that much.

(By the way the Robertson STOL takeoff is "Begin liftoff at 45 MPH, flaps 30. Initial climb, 50 MPH while clearing obstacles. Retract flaps to 20 and accelerate to 75 MPH. I usually get it off by about 50 MPH and don't try to horse it off and it comes off nose-flat with almost no upward deck angle at first.).

STOL landing, touchdown speed is 49 MPH. It says, "Flare with elevator AND power to arrest rate-of-sink, main wheels first."
 
dans2992 said:
So, it's acceptable practice to go from 1/2 flaps to full flaps at say 200 AGL?

I was taught that was ill-advised.

Dan
Click to expand...
For the Commercial and Flight Instructor Certificate PTS power off 180 approach, and for any emergency approach training, you will, or should, learn to put flaps on during short short finals, even into the flare, to get the airplane on the spot with no power. The very discrete use of flaps during the last 200 feet is what makes the spot every time.
 
I have no problem with adding full flaps late in the approach. Whatever it takes to hit the spot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top