landing flaps below 200 AGL?

[dmccormack]

Personally I would avoid adding flaps and just land with 20% or even 10%. I don't like to make changes in the landing configuration that late in the flight and full flaps aren't really necessary for a safe landing. Rather than relate my personal experience I'm going to lean on an aviation writer I respect a lot, John Deakin.

You're right -- flaps aren't required for "safe flight."

But airplanes don't roll on the ground all that well, and so the less high-speed rolling on the ground we can do, the better. Flaps allow us to touch down with less energy while still maintaining control. less ebergy equals less bad stuff.

Besides, why not treat every landing like a super-short field landing (minus the screeching brakes, perhaps)? That way when you need to shoehorn it in, you'll know how.

 

[azure]

Besides, why not treat every landing like a super-short field landing (minus the screeching brakes, perhaps)? That way when you need to shoehorn it in, you'll know how.

Personally, I treat every landing as a super-soft field landing, so to speak. There's never (well, rarely) a time when I need to shoehorn it in on the first try. If I can't get touched down gently when I don't have a lot of runway to work with, I'll go around and try again. If it's so short I'm at risk of not having enough room for the go around, I've either waited too long or it's too short. For me in the Cardinal, 2300 feet paved is around the lower limit of what I would be comfortable with, unless there are no obstacles to clear off the departure end.

 

[kgruber]

You're right -- flaps aren't required for "safe flight."

But airplanes don't roll on the ground all that well, and so the less high-speed rolling on the ground we can do, the better. Flaps allow us to touch down with less energy while still maintaining control. less ebergy equals less bad stuff.

Besides, why not treat every landing like a super-short field landing (minus the screeching brakes, perhaps)? That way when you need to shoehorn it in, you'll know how.

Using full flaps on a long runway is a waste of money and wear and tear on the airplane. And if there is any crosswind it is contrary to most POHs.

Flaps are GREATLY over rated on most GA aircraft

 

[dmccormack]

Using full flaps on a long runway is a waste of money and wear and tear on the airplane. And if there is any crosswind it is contrary to most POHs.

Flaps are GREATLY over rated on most GA aircraft

Say WHAT??

Read what I wrote earlier in this thread. I said there is no *need* for full flaps on an ILS because an ILS typically includes a nice long runway.

Now, as far as flaps being "contrary to most POHs..." Which, specific POH, pray tell...?

 

[dmccormack]

Personally, I treat every landing as a super-soft field landing, so to speak. There's never (well, rarely) a time when I need to shoehorn it in on the first try. If I can't get touched down gently when I don't have a lot of runway to work with, I'll go around and try again. If it's so short I'm at risk of not having enough room for the go around, I've either waited too long or it's too short. For me in the Cardinal, 2300 feet paved is around the lower limit of what I would be comfortable with, unless there are no obstacles to clear off the departure end.

Well, typical soft field landing approach requires some power even through the touch down with a nose high attitude (in a trike) to keep the nosegear out of the soft (see PP PTS).

That's different that short field technique, right...?

 

[jesse]

Using full flaps on a long runway is a waste of money and wear and tear on the airplane. And if there is any crosswind it is contrary to most POHs.

I disagree. Landing the airplane at a slower speed with less energy decreases wear and tear. I landed a Cherokee this morning in rather windy conditions and used full flaps as I always do. The last thing I want with a big crosswind is excess energy.

 

[Henning]

Personally, I treat every landing as a super-soft field landing, so to speak. There's never (well, rarely) a time when I need to shoehorn it in on the first try. If I can't get touched down gently when I don't have a lot of runway to work with, I'll go around and try again. If it's so short I'm at risk of not having enough room for the go around, I've either waited too long or it's too short. For me in the Cardinal, 2300 feet paved is around the lower limit of what I would be comfortable with, unless there are no obstacles to clear off the departure end.

 

[poadeleted20]

That is VERY late. I would think you are not getting full benefits of flaps unless aircraft fully stabilized to the new pitch/speed and that probably takes circa 5-10 sec (aircraft dependent of course), plus I would think you are lowering flaps and almost immediately transitioning to the flare - too many things going on at once. Not for me - a low hour pilot

Given that it takes the average light plane about 45 seconds to get from DH to touchdown, 5-10 seconds is nothing to sweat. You do that every time you go full flaps after turning final in the VFR pattern.

 

[poadeleted20]

First, my disclaimer. I don't have an IR and I don't have a ton of hours making airplane sounds (127 FWIW).

Well, I do have a bit more than that, and...

Personally I would avoid adding flaps and just land with 20% or even 10%. I don't like to make changes in the landing configuration that late in the flight and full flaps aren't really necessary for a safe landing. Rather than relate my personal experience I'm going to lean on an aviation writer I respect a lot, John Deakin.

...it's my opinion that on this issue, John Deakin is all wet. Inexperienced pilots and those new to a type do best when they get one configuration down pat and practice it a lot before trying others, and even then, they still do best doing what they do most often. I routinely fly with "weekend warriors" who get fewer landing in a year than I sometimes get in a month, and I see the effect of trying to do things they don't do often.

While Mr. Deakin is correct that it isn't necessary for performance reasons to use full flaps, if you do it the same way every time, all of your landings will be better, especially if you don't fly every day. A lousy, rainy, crosswindy day breaking out at mins is not a good time to be trying to land in a configuration you don't often use.

 

[Bob Noel]

When I do an ILS approach in my 172M, I fly it with 20 degrees of flaps. I also land with 20 degrees for all instrument approaches where I brake out at less than 300 feet. Everything stays stabilized and there are no major pitch changes close to the ground. Going to full flaps (40 degrees on the 172M) produces a sizable pitch change and adds to my workload during an approach. Most of my IFR flying is done single pilot, so I try to make things as simple and consistent as possible.

Ryan

I like to fly the ILS in my cherokee 140 at cruise speeds/configuration. It's a nice easy 90-100 knots. If I go around it's simply add power. If I break out, in the 140 it is really easy to put in the flaps, cut the throttle, and land. I guess there isn't much pitch change with the 140. This is the way I was trained (did my instrument training in the cherokee 140) and I'm quite comfortable with my cherokee 140.

As someone posted earlier. It is aircraft dependent.

 

[poadeleted20]

Using full flaps on a long runway is a waste of money and wear and tear on the airplane.

Actually, the reverse is true -- the less flap you use, the faster you're going, the more wear and tear (and expense) for brakes and tires.

And if there is any crosswind it is contrary to most POHs.

Could you list the AFM/POH's you've seen which prohibit full flaps for crosswind landings? I've read a lot of light plane POH's, and the only one I've seen that says do not use full flaps in a crosswind is the Flight Design CTsw, which also recommends against full flaps for anything other than an off-airport emergency landing (and if you've flown one, you'll know why it says this, but keep in mind this plane doesn't meet Standard airplane certification standards, either).

 

[dmccormack]

Well, I do have a bit more than that, and...

...it's my opinion that on this issue, John Deakin is all wet. Inexperienced pilots and those new to a type do best when they get one configuration down pat and practice it a lot before trying others, and even then, they still do best doing what they do most often. I routinely fly with "weekend warriors" who get fewer landing in a year than I sometimes get in a month, and I see the effect of trying to do things they don't do often.

While Mr. Deakin is correct that it isn't necessary for performance reasons to use full flaps, if you do it the same way every time, all of your landings will be better, especially if you don't fly every day. A lousy, rainy, crosswindy day breaking out at mins is not a good time to be trying to land in a configuration you don't often use.

Do you read previous posts before replying, Ron?

 

[azure]

Well, typical soft field landing approach requires some power even through the touch down with a nose high attitude (in a trike) to keep the nosegear out of the soft (see PP PTS).

That's different that short field technique, right...?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I do use some power through the flare and touch down though it does cause me to float longer than I would want to for short fields. I've yet to do a short field landing in my airplane and I'm not sure it's completely safe because the controls feel quite mushy at the recommended final approach speed. 70 kts is about the optimum final approach speed with 20 or 30 degrees flaps, even 65 feels mushy.

 

[flyersfan31]

The answer is:

It depends. On the airplane, that is (as Jesse mentioned, others may have as well).

When the chips are down, it is good to have a routine ingrained. That is what Ron is pushing. I agree.

Just make sure your routine is appropriate for the aircraft.

 

[nyoung]

Do whatever makes you comfortable. 99% of ILS runways are greater than 4000 ft long, so for light GA planes, flaps or no flaps doesn't matter.

I shoot ILS Cat I to minimums and not knowing whether I will ultimately land and will be forced to go missed I fly most of the approach using only partial flaps. When I finally break out of the clouds at 200 AGL I am finally committed for landing and deploy the last notch of flaps.

 

[Air_Ogre]

You're right -- flaps aren't required for "safe flight."

But airplanes don't roll on the ground all that well, and so the less high-speed rolling on the ground we can do, the better. Flaps allow us to touch down with less energy while still maintaining control. less ebergy equals less bad stuff.

Besides, why not treat every landing like a super-short field landing (minus the screeching brakes, perhaps)? That way when you need to shoehorn it in, you'll know how.

So much of this depends on the aircraft. In many (most?) light airplanes the difference between full flaps and half flaps is 1-3 miles per hour, not enough of a difference as far as I'm concerned to make a difference in wear and tear.

If you do need to go around you are going to be able to get back up to speed that much quicker without having the barn doors hanging down.

 

[olasek]

so for light GA planes, flaps or no flaps doesn't matter.

From the energy point of view probably doesn't matter but one thing does matter in my opinion - more flaps gives you (most often) better pitch and normally better over the nose visibility so to speak. This is actually for me the main advantage of flaps in small GA aircraft.

 

[Air_Ogre]

Well, I do have a bit more than that, and...

...it's my opinion that on this issue, John Deakin is all wet. Inexperienced pilots and those new to a type do best when they get one configuration down pat and practice it a lot before trying others, and even then, they still do best doing what they do most often. I routinely fly with "weekend warriors" who get fewer landing in a year than I sometimes get in a month, and I see the effect of trying to do things they don't do often.

While Mr. Deakin is correct that it isn't necessary for performance reasons to use full flaps, if you do it the same way every time, all of your landings will be better, especially if you don't fly every day. A lousy, rainy, crosswindy day breaking out at mins is not a good time to be trying to land in a configuration you don't often use.

I'd rather have everything done and ready when I'm at 200' AGL then I can focus on nailing the landing. I understand where you are coming from with regards to doing things the same every time but by the time you've hit 200' AGL at a different configuration you've already violated that.

I guess what it boils down to is I am personally more comfortable just finishing the landing with half flaps than I am dumping flaps in at the last minute. To me adding flaps at the last minute adds to my workload at the wrong time.

 

[kgruber]

Actually, the reverse is true -- the less flap you use, the faster you're going, the more wear and tear (and expense) for brakes and tires.

).

Nope. Tires and brakes are MINOR, and there is little difference in 1-3 MPH at touchdown.

What IS expensive is the replacement of flap tracks and rollers, which take a beating with full flaps, especially at speed. Most Cessnas have an AD on their flap tracks, since they are often overstressed.

Like I say, flaps are greatly overrated on most light aircraft.

 

[kgruber]

Could you list the AFM/POH's you've seen which prohibit full flaps for crosswind landings? I've read a lot of light plane POH's, and the only one I've seen that says do not use full flaps in a crosswind is the Flight Design CTsw, which also recommends against full flaps for anything other than an off-airport emergency landing (and if you've flown one, you'll know why it says this, but keep in mind this plane doesn't meet Standard airplane certification standards, either).

Have you EVER read a Cessna POH?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Nope. Tires and brakes are MINOR, and there is little difference in 1-3 MPH at touchdown.

If you are making a no flap landing vs full flap, the diff is going to be a bit more than 1-3 MPH.

 

[dmccormack]

Have you EVER read a Cessna POH?

You still haven't listed a single certificated airplane with a POH that prohibits full flaps at any time.

 

[dmccormack]

So much of this depends on the aircraft. In many (most?) light airplanes the difference between full flaps and half flaps is 1-3 miles per hour, not enough of a difference as far as I'm concerned to make a difference in wear and tear.

If you do need to go around you are going to be able to get back up to speed that much quicker without having the barn doors hanging down.

A go around or missed approach is a separate procedure. I carry approach flaps until I have the runway made. IF I want full flaps (let's say I was given "no delay" or some such and there's a jet following my tiny self (it happens) I'll drop them and handle it.

If a baby water buffalo strolls onto the runway, I'll decide if it's a fly-over or swerve around. If it's a fly over, full power, pitch up, speed up, going up, flaps up.

You should be practicing this and it should be automatic.

I am not in the "let me hedge all my bets by compromising on this in case of that" crowd.

 

[azure]

Have you EVER read a Cessna POH?

I'm sure Ron has. :wink2: And I own a Cessna Cardinal RG and have flown every extant Cessna trike up to a 182RG. So I gotta ask, which model's POH prohibits full flaps in crosswind landings?

 

[Air_Ogre]

If you are making a no flap landing vs full flap, the diff is going to be a bit more than 1-3 MPH.

My impression was we were talking about going from 1/2 flaps to full which would generally be 1-3 mph. You get most of your lift in the first half, after that it's mostly adding drag.

 

[dmccormack]

So I gotta ask, which model's POH prohibits full flaps in crosswind landings?

I'll toss in a T182RG and whisper the answer (None). :wink2:

 

[kgruber]

I'm sure Ron has. :wink2: And I own a Cessna Cardinal RG and have flown every extant Cessna trike up to a 182RG. So I gotta ask, which model's POH prohibits full flaps in crosswind landings?

Use the "search" function. Every Cessna high wing recommends minimum flap setting for Xwind landings. I think I've flown them all. Many extensively and in the bush.

With Ron's and your failed logic you would fly below 2000' over national parks, monuments and recreation areas. Since it's not prohibited, only recommended.

There are good and valid aerodynamic reasons to limit flaps in Xwinds. Like I say, this has been beaten to death on these forums. Search Google for Cessna test pilots affirming recommendations as well.

 

[Pilawt]

You still haven't listed a single certificated airplane with a POH that prohibits full flaps at any time.

I don't know of any that "prohibit" it, but there are quite a few that recommend against it. The usual language is, "When landing in a strong crosswind, use the minimum flap setting required for the field length."

There seems to be a variety of interpretation of that one sentence amongst the assembled multitudes here; I prefer the plain English version.

Of the seven airplanes I've owned, five of them had that or similar language in the owners manual or POH (C-150E, C-150F, C-172N, PA-28-140, AA-5A); one said nothing about the use of flaps for landing (Sport Cub), and one just said "Flaps - Down" (Beech K35 revised POH).

The old Owners Manual that came with the K35 in 1959, however, did say, "If the wind is strong and gusty, flaps-up landings are preferable."

 

[dmccormack]

My impression was we were talking about going from 1/2 flaps to full which would generally be 1-3 mph. You get most of your lift in the first half, after that it's mostly adding drag.

Right, and drag helps do what?

 

[kgruber]

You still haven't listed a single certificated airplane with a POH that prohibits full flaps at any time.

You haven't listed a SINGLE Cessna high wing that recommends landing with full flaps in Xwinds. None!

 

[Pilawt]

Right, and drag helps do what?

What drag does not help you do is to fly slower than stall speed at touchdown, which in a high-wing Cessna is usually only 1-2 mph more at flaps 20 than it is at flaps 40.

Then, once you are rolling on the ground in a crosswind in a high-wing airplane, flaps create asymmetric drag (downwind flap being shielded from the crosswind by the fuselage). So in answer to your question, at least in a high-wing taildragger, drag can help you groundloop.

 

[nosehair]

You haven't listed a SINGLE Cessna high wing that recommends landing with full flaps in Xwinds. None!

Ditto! I'm waiting for it too.:wink2:

 

[azure]

With Ron's and your failed logic you would fly below 2000' over national parks, monuments and recreation areas. Since it's not prohibited, only recommended.

Okay, I don't have "a dog in that fight" as they say. All I was getting at is that it isn't a prohibition, only a recommendation against. Personally, in gusty winds I rarely if ever use full flaps, whether it's a crosswind or right down the runway. But that's just a personal preference, and in some situations (e.g. short field) I could see at least trying full flaps if I needed to get in.

And yes, if there were a good reason to fly below 2000 AGL over a national park or a wilderness area, I would do it -- but there would have to be a good reason.

 

[dmccormack]

You haven't listed a SINGLE Cessna high wing that recommends landing with full flaps in Xwinds. None!

So.. maybe we'll learn something today.

Landing full flaps in any Cessna single is not not prohibited in any POH or owner's manual (what they were called before Pilots Operating Handbook).

You are confusing someone's technique with a manufacturers' recommendation or prohibition. These words have meaning in aviation.

Back to the original point -- less energy at touchdown is a good thing, period.

 

[dmccormack]

What drag does not help you do is to fly slower than stall speed at touchdown, which in a high-wing Cessna is usually only 1-2 mph more at flaps 20 than it is at flaps 40.

Then, once you are rolling on the ground in a crosswind in a high-wing airplane, flaps create asymmetric drag (downwind flap being shielded from the crosswind by the fuselage). So in answer to your question, at least in a high-wing taildragger, drag can help you groundloop.

Hunh?

Who recommended flying "slower than stall speed?"

I don't have flaps on my high wing taildragger.

Anyway -- When did groundloops become part of the thread?

 

[dmccormack]

I don't know of any that "prohibit" it, but there are quite a few that recommend against it. The usual language is, "When landing in a strong crosswind, use the minimum flap setting required for the field length."

There seems to be a variety of interpretation of that one sentence amongst the assembled multitudes here; I prefer the plain English version.

Of the seven airplanes I've owned, five of them had that or similar language in the owners manual or POH (C-150E, C-150F, C-172N, PA-28-140, AA-5A); one said nothing about the use of flaps for landing (Sport Cub), and one just said "Flaps - Down" (Beech K35 revised POH).

The old Owners Manual that came with the K35 in 1959, however, did say, "If the wind is strong and gusty, flaps-up landings are preferable."

And so there are no POHs that prohibit full flaps in crosswinds, such as asserted earlier.

 

[Fearless Tower]

My impression was we were talking about going from 1/2 flaps to full which would generally be 1-3 mph. You get most of your lift in the first half, after that it's mostly adding drag.

Ok, in my example, I was referring to going from zero flap and gear down to full around 200'

 

[Air_Ogre]

Right, and drag helps do what?

Isn't it funny how leading questions add nothing to a conversation?

 

[dmccormack]

Isn't it funny how leading questions add nothing to a conversation?

Isn't it funny how little you've added to this thread?

 

[poadeleted20]

Have you EVER read a Cessna POH?

Only those for the 150, 152, 172, 172RG, 177, 177RG, 182, 182RG, 210, and 401, and none of those prohibit full flaps in crosswinds. Can you tell us which ones do?