C-182 Power and Flap Setting For Standard 90kts Final (3deg/450fps) Approach

[fly4usa]

C-182*, IAP, final approach segment (90kts, 470 fps descent),

What power setting do you use (MAP) and flap configuration (Clean, 10 Deg, 20 Deg) ​

Estimating:

IAF & IF segments 16" to 18" clean (90 kts level)​

Final 14" to 15" w/ 10 Deg flaps on final (90 kts, 470 fpm descent)​

* I am flying a C-182K (1967) with Flap Vfe max is 110 MPH. Approach at 90kts (104 mph), fairly close to max flap extended speed.

With the low Vfe of the C-182K considering flying final segment clean. As a reference point, I teach clean final approach in the C-152, Vfe 85kts. I have students do approach at 90kts, clean, and configure when landing. Works great, but takes some practice to slow down 5kts and add flaps while descending, and keeping runway TDZ in sight.

Later models of C-182 have much higher flap extension speeds, Below 140 KIAS, flaps to 10°; below 120 KIAS, flaps 20°; below 100 KIAS, extend to FULL. C-182K has only one Vfe speed.

GM, CFI-I-ME, ATP, CE500, B737, B757, B767

 

[brcase]

I like the no flap approaches in the most Cessna Singles. If you are doing actual IFR approaches at most anything but remote airports you are going to hear "Maintain Max forward Speed" rather frequently.
If you can slow down, 10 degrees and flying at 90 kts will slow the needle swings down for you, but you are still configured for a missed approach if you need it.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[GeorgeC]

@Nelson Ojeda

 

[midlifeflyer]

No flaps for me in a 182.

The use of approach flaps or no flaps on an instrument approach in most piston singles is a matter of personal technique. I’m mainly a no-flapper in the over 30 types of piston singles I’ve flown. Cirrus and some Mooneys are the only ones I use them.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

16” no flaps until 2 miles from FAF.

FAF 13” Flaps 10

Every 1” gives me about 150 fpm descent

My opinion is that flaps are a safety factor, giving you extra cushion in stall speed if airspeed and manuevering ever go wonky, and especially if you need to go missed.

 

[midlifeflyer]

My opinion is that flaps are a safety factor, giving you extra cushion in stall speed if airspeed and manuevering ever go wonky, and especially if you need to go missed.

That's an interesting perspective that I've never heard in the instrument approach context. So you are concerned about stalling with a standard approach speed of 90 in an airplane with a stall speed over 20 KTS slower and feel the extra 5 knots or so makes a big difference?

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

That's an interesting perspective that I've never heard in the instrument approach context. So you are concerned about stalling with a standard approach speed of 90 in an airplane with a stall speed over 20 KTS slower and feel the extra 5 knots or so makes a big difference?

No, not concerned. My stall speed no-flaps is 40 knots. Why was I taught to go flaps 10 just before the FAF? I’m just doing what I learned and didn’t ask why…

 

[kgruber]

I'm in the "no flap" group.
I never used them in my 185.

 

[midlifeflyer]

No, not concerned. My stall speed no-flaps is 40 knots. Why was I taught to go flaps 10 just before the FAF? I’m just doing what I learned and didn’t ask why…

“Why?” Is always a good technique question.

 

[WDD]

10 degree flaps, speed set to 90. Makes the decent a little easier, more settled IMHO than no flaps.

 

[midlifeflyer]

"What I was taught" and "what I am used to" is usually the real answer to the flap vs no-flap technique for approaches. My CFII tried in vain to get me to use approach flaps in the 172 I trained in. But a 90 KT ~500 FPM descent with no flaps was a basic VFR decent I used every time I descended to the traffic pattern. I couldn't figure out a good reason add approach flaps to accomplish the exact same result just because it was an instrument approach.

I just carried that philosophy through to the other singles I've flown.

 

[WDD]

I don't care if it works for you. You have to do it the way I do..........................

 

[Clip4]

10° and 14” is about correct an approach with VNAV. Density altitude and WB will vary the power setting a bit. I suppose zero flaps works, but if you are flying a precision approach to a DH of 200’, do you really want to make big flap changes less than 200’ above the runway and land in 1/2 sm vis.


.

 

[Clip4]

I don't care if it works for you. You have to do it the way I do..........................

Does include the 3 bounce landings?

 

[Brad Z]

No, not concerned. My stall speed no-flaps is 40 knots. Why was I taught to go flaps 10 just before the FAF? I’m just doing what I learned and didn’t ask why…

I can make a good argument for 10 degrees of flaps. The first notch of flaps doesn't hurt your climb performance in the event of a go around, but also sets you up for a good landing configuration in the event of a continued landing. It brings the nose down a bit more than no flaps, so your sight picture is better in low visibility. No config change necessary from FAF to touchdown.

The only thing 10 degrees of flaps hurts is level cruise speed, which is not an issue on approach or departure.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't care if it works for you. You have to do it the way I do..........................

There are way too many discussion where people say that quite seriously. And waaaaaay too many instructors who do the same.

 

[Randomskylane]

I don't care if it works for you. You have to do it the way I do..........................

I started with 40 degree flaps for landing due to this

Then 30

Now 20 for more than a decade

ITT it sounds like 10 is the favorite

 

[fly4usa]

That's an interesting perspective that I've never heard in the instrument approach context. So you are concerned about stalling with a standard approach speed of 90 in an airplane with a stall speed over 20 KTS slower and feel the extra 5 knots or so makes a big difference?

What are you talking about? No where did stall come into it. At no time are you below 1.3 Vso on approach. 90kts clean is 43 mph over Vso of 67mph for C182K (60mph flaps extended). So 90 kts is almost 1.6x Vso!!! Stall is not an issue clean. Once you "break out" on an instrument approach you configure for landing, extend flaps for landing. This is a simple question asking opinion, technique based. I am sure clean is safe and works for final segment on a IAP, but two examples of excellent answers:

@455 Bravo:
16” no flaps until 2 miles from FAF.
FAF 13” Flaps 10
Every 1” gives me about 150 fpm descent

@WDD
10 degree flaps, speed set to 90. Makes the decent a little easier, more settled IMHO than no flaps.

@midlifeflyer
No flaps for me in a 182.

For all the other comments about landing and bouncing, you all did not read the question or understand. It is not about landing but final approach segment. If you are not Instrument rated pilots, let me teach you something. Instrument approaches are LONG straight in approaches and flown well above normal VFR pattern final approach speeds for reasons I will explain. An IAP final can be over 5 miles long, adding the intermediate and/or initial segments the approach can be 12 miles or more from airport. For VFR traffic pattern final approach in this C182K is 70 to 80 mph (60kts to 70kts) with landing flaps on final. You are going to peeve off a lot of people including ATC, any planes holding wanting to land in IMC flying the approach at 75mph (65kts). You are expected to do at least 90 kts. Yes you can fly an approach real slow with full flaps at 65kts technically. Not illegal just not practical or efficient. It is like flying a plane capable of 140kt cruise and going on a long cross country at 70 kts.

Once landing is committed, you "breakout", have "runway environment" in sight, very close to runway, 2 nm or less, may be 200-400 ft above touchdown typically, you bring in landing flaps 10 if not already selected, then flaps 20, 30. In the case of C182K it has flaps 40 degrees. I don't use 40 unless it is max performance (short field). Also this plane in particular has STOL kit, leading edge cuffs and fence (STOL). It does not have droop ailerons. So stall is ridiculously low. In fact power on stall does not exist. We still use book stall number of 60-67 mph for planning. The actual stall is lower but STC does not change that in POH supplement.

You should know that min speed for approach is 1.3 x the stall speed for you configuration. That is a MIN, until landing. People call this DMMS - Defined Minimum Maneuvering Speed or D.M.M.S. This is not new been around forever. However people still stall. The other suggestion I don't make but not a bad idea, is mark your airspeed indicator for DMMS. Of course that changes with flaps. So people put a range. It mirrors bottom of green and bottom of white arcs. When flying IFR you never should be near DMMS unless you are near or over the runway rounding out and flaring for landing.

Thanks 455 Bravo and WDD I will try flap 10 first, I think that will be ideal, unless there is some serious wind and have to fly faster to keep 90 kts ground speed and have margin for gusts.

NOTE: Instrument students who only learn in docile weather, you are going to have a shock when flying IMC in high winds and turbulence. So do some head work on how to handle that. Wind correction angles of 45 degrees? Yep. Adding speed to avoid stall or subtracting speed (below Va or Vno) in gusty conditions good idea? Yep. If weather is that bad stay on ground? Yep. The issue is frontal systems come through with gust fronts. It is best to divert or hold until it passes. Wind shear can take down large aircraft. I am not saying stalling is not a concern in IFR just not on final at 90kts unless you are flying larger twins and , turbine, Cat B, C and D aircraft.

 

[midlifeflyer]

What are you talking about? No where did stall come into it. At no time are you below 1.3 Vso on approach. 90kts clean is 43 mph over Vso of 67mph (60mph flaps extended). So 90 kts is almost 1.6x Vso!!! Stall is not an issue clean.

I agree. Look at what I was responding to.

 

[Roger Wilco]

C-182*, IAP, final approach segment (90kts, 470 fps descent),
What power setting do you use (MAP) and flap configuration (Clean, 10 Deg, 20 Deg)

Just a casual observation, but I couldn't help but notice that you have an impressive list of tickets and ratings appended prominently to the bottom of your original post. It seems curious that someone with so much experience and knowledge couldn't figure this one out for him/herself on the first approach.

Flaps UP/90KIAS/3 deg. glide path: 15" should be a good reference point, depending on conditions and the accuracy of the MP indicator. But then, I'm just some guy on the Internet.

---

This entry edited after I researched your history of posts to PoA. I must say, they do make for an amusing side show. You should include the disclaimer "for entertainment purposes only."

 

[Roger Wilco]

In case there are any reading this thread who are tempted to consider fly4usa's posts as expert advice, caveat emptor. In particular, I wish to call your attention to one statement that's just pure poppycock, blatant balderdash and noxious nonsense:

You are going to peeve off a lot of people including ATC, any planes holding wanting to land in IMC flying the approach at 75mph (65kts). You are expected to do at least 90 kts.

We are NOT "expected to do at least 90kts" unless we tell ATC that we will fly at 90kts. The speed we choose to fly an approach is entirely up to us. ATC is not in command of our aircraft nor are the pilots of other airplanes--we are the PIC. If we fly into an airport that handles a lot of jet traffic, ATC knows (in a general sense) what speeds our aircraft type is capable of and they will adjust spacing accordingly. While they may ask us for our best forward speed on final, or ask for a specific speed, it is up to us to determine what speed we can safely and confidently fly the approach. The reply unable is always our prerogative. The only time ATC has a right to be peeved off (as fly4usa put it) is if we promise them a certain speed but subsequently don't keep that promise.

All that having been said, proficiency in flying approaches at a wide range of speeds is a skillful and useful bit of airmanship that we should all strive to achieve and maintain.

 

[Hang 4]

Dan G, is that you?

You should know that min speed for approach is 1.3 x the stall speed for you configuration. That is a MIN, until landing. People call this DMMS - Defined Minimum Maneuvering Speed or D.M.M.S. This is not new been around forever. However people still stall. The other suggestion I don't make but not a bad idea, is mark your airspeed indicator for DMMS. Of course that changes with flaps. So people put a range. It mirrors bottom of green and bottom of white arcs. When flying IFR you never should be near DMMS unless you are near or over the runway rounding out and flaring for landing.

 

[dmspilot]

Dan G, is that you?

I'm impressed you had the patience to read all that.

 

[WDD]

1) it might be enthusiastic post from an English as a Second Language person with a different cultural way of phrasing

2) The Dan G comment was just plain funny.

3) Per the earlier post, what is the currency requirements to be “internet rated”?

 

[RussR]

Just a casual observation, but I couldn't help but notice that you have an impressive list of tickets and ratings appended prominently to the bottom of your original post. It seems curious that someone with so much experience and knowledge couldn't figure this one out for him/herself on the first approach.

I agree, generating a personalized, airplane-specific P-A-C chart for the student's plane should literally be in Lesson 1 of IFR training. Takes what, 10 minutes? Especially with anything with a constant-speed prop (like the 182 in the OP). Every pilot needs to know how to do this, and any CFII with any experience should know how to do it. I couldn't figure out why the OP was asking (for him/herself, or for a student?) but one way or the other, he/she needs to just go gather that data on their next flight.

 

[brcase]

My opinion is that flaps are a safety factor, giving you extra cushion in stall speed if airspeed and manuevering ever go wonky, and especially if you need to go missed.

To look at this statement as just a general statement and go off topic a bit more. I turns out adding flaps as a safety factor is a bit of a mixed bag in most aircraft.
True, adding flaps lowers the stall speed.
What seems to be less well known is that adding flaps generally tends to make the stall more aggressive when it happens. I.e. the stall happens with nose at a lower attitude making it look like the nose is already down some when it stalls. Also it will typically be more likely to break and roll off to once side or the other rather than a straight ahead mush that many planes exhibit when forward CG and no flaps.

I have ended up vertical in a Spin Entry a surprising number of times after pilots tell me that their airplane has very benign Stall Characteristics. Super Cub pilots seem to be the worst about this. I have them demonstrate a full flap go around and simulate failing to retract the flap. If they let it stall it will often roll off into a spin entry.
I do this exercise especially with Cessna's after have 3 flaps failures to retract within about a 2 month period in 3 different airplanes. The You tube Video's of Cessna go arounds gone bad also seem to make a good case to emphasize how dangerous this can be.

Generally the more flaps added the more aggressive the Stall or break from a Stall is.
For Cessna's it turns out the 1st 10 degrees give the most benefit with a minimal change in the Stall behavior.
The 182 manual I am looking at shows that 20 degrees reduces the stall speed 7mph, while going from 20 to 40 reduces it another 2mph.
my experience is that most of the stall speed reduction is achieved with the 1st 10 degrees of flaps in the Cessna's.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[fly4usa]

Wow PoA never ceases to amaze me. Besides the sarcasm and thread drift*, I have successfully been teaching and flying the said C182K (which has 110 mph Vfe limit unlike late model C-182's) clean as described above on Final Approach Segment very nicely. With my OCD about following rules and aircraft limits in the older C182, indeed I cay sat it works great. BTW flaps 10 works as well, but not needed. There was little doubt, but been awhile (decades) since I flew IAP's in any C-182, much less a "K" model.

90kts approach is less than 110mph Vfe yes. But we (me and my student) fly in turbulent conditions or students can't control airspeed or maintain sub 110mph (95.6 kts) as they are learning, new to high performance. I have to let the make mistakes (within reason). It's just easier to teach clean all the time on IAP. We do flaps 10 as well. Very little difference except a tiny bit more power.

Now my soap box lecture on maintaining limits. FAR's say THOU SHALL. Period! If you you exceed 110 mph with flaps down will they rip off? No but those limits and any margin of safety built into aircraft structure is not for pilots to willy-nilly intentionally abuse or exceed. They are there for manufacturing tolerances, degradation over time and inadvertent (small) exceedance.

In the case C182K flaps Vfe = 96 kts or less (100mph) for flaps 10 thru 40, extended or operating, is one blanket limit for all flap operations and positions. However newer C182's they have several different Vfe limit speeds for 10 degrees to full flaps, with progressively lower Vfe speeds as flaps are extended. Flaps 10 has the higher Vfe than flaps 40 obviously, as a flap further extended out has higher load for a given airspeed. So it is safe to run flaps 10 right up to 110mph (96 kts) on the "K" model? Yes, but in turbulence you may have +/- 10 kts. It may be argued some small inadvertent exceedance not a big deal, OK, but willful intentionally exceeding limits is a no no. Also as stated in training students don't always hold airspeed. If I see they are doing 120 mph with flaps 10 I have to say something a little urgently vs watch your speed casually.

With that said flaps up, CLEAN works great on final, and it allows you to fly faster than 90kts if needed, e.g., 20 kt head wind or ATC says keep your speed up, All the fast movers are doing 100kts or 140kts on final typically. You want 90kt ground speed you have to fly 110 kts (127mph) with a 20kt headwind. Clearly that is Mr. Clean time. So as an instructor I try to use the KISS method that works for most cases and minimizes chance or errors and exceedance, a baseline. However flaps 10 is peachy as well, smooth air, no headwind, not other IFR traffic flying up your tail. You want to fly 30 deg flaps at 70kts go for it. (Note: don't use 40 much as those drag like barn doors, nut great for steep obstacle approach, short field yeah verily, flaps 40.)

Technique. I find students when they transition from Instruments to visual at Mins, as they start to configure flaps, they tend to fixate on the flap indicator 100%. This leads to loss of proper flight path to touchdown. They get distracted staring at the flap indicator which may take over 6 seconds to go from up down to 30. The transition from MINS to touch down while configuring flaps takes my students a little practice and instruction. This is the TIP, don't stare at flap handle while they are extending. Don't take your scan from panel and outside completely. You can extend flaps by feel, muscle memory, knowing where flap handle is. Look using peripheral vision when you reach for it, but stay or go back to flying/Inst scan. The manufactures make the flap selector the shape of a flap for a reason, feel. While keeping outside/on instruments, a slow 1, 2, 3 count for each 10 degrees is all you need. The C182K has flap position indicator but no detents. Staring at the flap indicator move slowly with no scan outside or inside for 9 seconds, low to ground, slowing, low visibility is not good. This tip works for VFR pattern or short final IFR. You can extend the flaps without looking, except to verify final flap position indicator. BY FEEL and COUNT method works, but takes practice. I do prefer aircraft models with flap detents. I have seen new instrument students and Inst pilots on IPC's partly loose control of pitch and/or bank reaching for and staring at flap handle/indicator. In large jets you are FULLY configured by final typically but no lower than 1000 HAT, that is landing flaps gear down, check list complete.

Not a big fan of dumping flaps all at once from up to full, just in case (unlikely) you get flap asymmetry.


* (Dan G. did not invent 1.3 x Vso or Vs1 or AQP nor does he claim to; it has been around GA and Airlines before I have been flying now over 39 yrs. As said before 90kts in a C-182K with leading edge cuff and stall fence, i.e., partial STOL kit minus drooping ailerons, 90kts is way above 1.3. Even without the STOL kit C182K has very low Vso/Vs1. Pilots do stall on IFR approaches, one being with ice on wing and plane stalls on short final. Another is circuiting to land. Last maneuvering during approach. It is OK to carry extra speed for winds or ice contamination.)

 

[fly4usa]

I am the OP, and did not see some of the later comments. Good stuff. To be clear may have drifted we are talking +5 nautical mile straight, FAF to runway at 500 FPM descent. VFR landing 20 going to 30 on final, 40 if needed. (Not needed this C-182 we now have has 3-blade prop and at idle the drag is tremendous.)

As far as dragging flaps 20. 30. 40 in from FAF to runway, typically 5 NM out, or even 30, 20.... not really needed. Also with +2 years of doing a few Instrument Pilots. rating, IPC's and Aircraft checkout, Flaps up is fine.

As far as the comments of configuration change transition, yes that is something I teach my students. When you break out, get to Mins (MDA, DA) you pull the throttle back (as was said 13" which is my normal VFR approach power). Make sure below Vfe, and add flaps, land as normal.

The one comment about looking at the FLAP position indicator, I do not teach that. In the C-182H a TWO COUNT for each 10 degrees. Reach over (while still outside and instruments) with a glance hand on flap lever, back to outside, select flaps down "ONE.. TWO...", and let go of flap selector switch. All the time LOOKING out or at instruments. You can glance over in your scan to confirm you got what you want. This is technique in VFR pattern. Repeat that flap extension as needed, land as normal. It is not difficult (as the C-152).

C-152 Flaps UP?
Yes a must really. Club has IFR C-152 (with two G5's, GNS430W). Vfe was 85 kts. At 90 kts you are at MINS "Landing", you have to slow down first. Idle and raise the nose slightly, than extend flaps. It tales a little practice to transition, but the students get it pretty quick. Again you are NOT staring at the flap selector or indicator, do by feel. It worked fine, and typically you go from flaps 0 to flaps 30 in one go, but taught go 2 count, pause, than all the rest. Depending on distance from VDP to THSHOLD. If approach is Non precision and distance to runway is close, go all flaps. If to high to land first 1/3rd missed or climb and circle to land. C-152 needs all the drag of flaps 30 to land close in from 90kts. Asymmetric extension? Unlikely but have your hand on the flap lever. Raise it immediately. Put in aileron as needed to maintain control, which has been reported to be enough to over come asymmetric flaps. Most asymmetric conditions is one down and other floats. Not sure how rare asymmetric flaps are with the Cessna's. I never experienced that except for flaps failing to extend at all.

GOOGLE:​

Cessna C-152 (and C-182) can experience an asymmetric flap extension. However, it is an exceedingly rare occurrence in general aviation. The flap system utilizes a single electric motor that drives both flaps simultaneously via a mechanical cable and pulley system. An asymmetric or "split-flap" condition only happens if this interconnect breaks, allowing one flap to move while the other remains stuck or free-floating.

(My thought on flap asymmetry, there are risks in flying, beware and manage. If not comfortable do something difference as your SOP. What if you get asymmetry at 3000 agl, IMC over the FAF? It is bad regardless where this happens, especially IMC. I would rather be close into the runway, with visual reference to runway when dropping flaps, than IMC out at the FAF. Again it is rare, so good preflight and continuing maintenance is the key.)​

 

[szwinger]

I didn’t see it mentioned in this resurrected thread but full flaps in a 182 gives a nose down pitch and better visibility over the relatively tall panel. I’ve been taught all the other variants and demonstrated them if asked on a flight review. I’ve made my choice and applaud others for theirs.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I am the OP, and did not see some of the later comments.

That’s ok…I didn’t read most of this one or the one before, so no harm done.

 

[brcase]

I didn’t see it mentioned in this resurrected thread but full flaps in a 182 gives a nose down pitch and better visibility over the relatively tall panel. I’ve been taught all the other variants and demonstrated them if asked on a flight review. I’ve made my choice and applaud others for theirs.

For instrument approaches I prefer 10 degrees flaps, for the most stable slower approach. 20 is ok also as it is a recommended departure configurate so in the event of a missed approach all that is required is to add power, carb heat off (if applicable), retracting flaps is optional. both flaps settings improve visibility at slow approach speeds.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[JVerb]

I'm in a '68 L model, and if I'm at 16" MAP with 10d flaps, I'm likely climbing. I have to drop to 14" and 10d to get the descent stable on glidepath, and at ~95-100 mph IAS.

 

[WDD]

So, on final with prop to max pitch, do you monitor engine RPM or MP?

 

[JVerb]

So, on final with prop to max pitch, do you monitor engine RPM or MP?

For me, I monitor MP but more importantly Vertical FPM and the glide path since that means more to me at that point. RPM is pretty irrelevant by then; it is what it is.

 

[Steamflyer]

Whatever it takes. It's an airplane, adjust throttle, flaps, gear, speed brakes, pitch attitude as needed to derive the performance desired.

Unless the ceilings are at mins, you almost always have enough time on breaking out to transition from a nice clean fast stable approach to whatever landing configuration suits you. Reducing power while pitching up will quickly bleed speed and then you can add all the flaps you want. For 182 usually used 110 knots on the approach.