Use of Flaps in the Pattern

[[email protected]]

I wonder how other pilots of flapped ships are using their flaps. I don't use any flap till I am aligned with the runway on final approach. Don't like the sluggish aileron control and the forward stick pressure required on the dreaded base to final turn. I switch to positive flap on final. Any comments ?
Dan G

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 10/12/2013 5:56 PM, wrote:
> I wonder how other pilots of flapped ships are using their flaps. I don't
> use any flap till I am aligned with the runway on final approach. Don't
> like the sluggish aileron control and the forward stick pressure required
> on the dreaded base to final turn. I switch to positive flap on final. Any
> comments ? Dan G
>

Ummm...additional context would be helpful, here: ship type; synopsis of your
experience (ships, hours), both overall and in the ship.

That said, I transitioned (1975) into a 15-meter glass, large deflection
landing flapped only (no spoilers) ship (Concept 70) with 128 prior total
hours, entirely in 2-33s, 2-22s and 1-26s; zero power experience.

I wanted a flatter gliding 1-26...as in I didn't want to give up the short
off-field-landing capabilities of a l-26, and considered large deflection
landing flaps just the ticket. Never saw reason to change my opinion in that
regard...flying the C-70 for 48 hours, an HP-14 for 196 hours and a Zuni for
2065 hours. Never had any 2-seat flap training (decades' later exposure to an
L-13 and an IS-28 were irrelevant in "flap use/training" terms in my opinion).

I considered myself a raw beginner, and, I considered the performance increase
step as significant as the change from spoilers to large deflection flaps. My
total knowledge of what to expect from flaps had come from reading ("Soaring"
magazine, various college textbooks).

My 1st-flight initial plan was to use no more than 30-degrees of landing flap,
in order to reduce exposure to "significant pitch changes", a plan based
entirely on book knowledge...and a plan discarded on final approach when it
became apparent an overshoot was in the cards if I didn't come up with lots
more drag, Real Soon Now. Eventually touched down about halfway down a 4,000'
strip, after using all 90-degrees of the flaps, and having zero practical
issues with so doing. I simply flew indicated airspeed (just like with
spoilers), and the pitch attitude fell out in the wash. Later - when I
eventually flew 1-34s and 2-32s (both ships with Vne-limiting dive brakes) -
it became apparent that Joe Pilot (i.e. me) couldn't tell the difference
between pitch changes due to flap pitching moment changes and (lots of) drag:
both require forward stick to maintain airspeed, and in the single-seat
gliders I've flown, stick pitch forces are minuscule...well except for
Schweizers at above trimmed speeds! :-)

As to your wondering "...how other pilots of flapped ships are using their
flaps," I generally used mine just like spoilers. Just as my goal - assuming I
wasn't practicing some specific landing technique - with spoilered ships was
to fly patterns allowing steady-state use of 50% of the spoilers, so it was
with landing flaps. By "50%" I mean I sought to fly my "routine patterns" in
the middle of my ship's descent cone (which isn't necessarily 50% flap
deflection. This conceptual goal was routinely modified for the HP-14, for
reasons noted 4 paragraphs below...but the modifications had zero to do with
flaps per-se, and 100% to do with how that ship's flaps were *actuated*.)

Coupla ship-specific notes here - since you note you're less than
happy/comfortable with the need for forward stick pressure and what seems to
you like sluggish aileron control with flap in...
- the C-70 had "PIK-20-like" rack and pinion actuated flaps, driven by a
multi-turn crank;
- my HP-14 had hydraulicly-actuated flaps, 5 pumps for full deflection;
- my Zuni has flaps actuated by pulling back on a pivoting handle (very little
mechanical advantage) through an arc of perhaps 45-degrees.

In none of those ships are stick pitch forces significant, flaps up or flaps
down. I never felt the C-70 or the Zuni sluggish in roll, regardless of flap
position. The HP *was* a slow roller, regardless of flap position (some HP-14s
have had the outer 3' of flaps turned into ailerons to address this
condition). Both HP and Zuni (side stick) have relatively high (in single-seat
glider terms) aileron forces, IMO, regardless of flap position.

Because my home field - shared with power traffic - has the glider pattern
inside the power pattern, enlarging the pattern to accommodate the HP-14's
slow-rolling, heavy-aileroned, tendencies wasn't an option, so I compensated
by flying a continuously turning pattern, varying the bank angle as required
while performing the 180 from downwind to final...it was a no-brainer and
physically-easier to do so than to horse on the stick for the sake of "a
pretty, textbook, rectangular pattern." Navy pilots do the same thing, though
for different reasons.

Because the HP's flaps were essentially a "one-shot" (a consequence of how its
hydraulic system functioned and was installed), I generally put in one pump on
downwind (to verify they were going to work), a 2nd pump "somewhere on base"
(to bring on sufficient drag to actually begin descending from flap drag), a
3rd pump on longish final, and the last two pumps on short final (the ship
landed most gracefully/easily/shortly with full flaps). With full flaps, that
ship's fuselage angle was ~45-degrees nose down at approach speed...great
view, trivially easy to spot your roundout point, rock stable.

The Zuni's flaps are weenie, compared to the HP-14's, and in it I fly a
rectangular pattern and I really do generally try for the center of the
descent cone all the way down (aka a stabilized descent path), though I
usually wind up biasing that toward the upper half of the cone, since its 50%
approach path is so shallow (compared to the HP's and my "comfort zone"). In
the absence of strong crosswinds, I usually have full flap in on that ship
several hundred horizontal yards short of my roundout point; its fuselage
angle at pattern speeds is probably less than 30-degrees nose down.

Based on your ship, YMMV, of course. FWIW, assuming your ship has sufficient
drag to get you down where you're aiming at when you delay putting in any flap
until final approach, "More power to you!" Do what works.

Personally, If I flew a glider that could land vertically, I wouldn't use my
drag device until I was overhead my intended touchdown point. Why would I want
to? That's by way of suggesting that - assuming so doing doesn't introduce any
site-specific safety issues - "doing what works for you and your ship" is a
perfectly valid methodology for Joe Pilot to adopt. The point, after all, is
to be able to land consistently and safely. "The textbook pattern" is simply a
means to that end. (Flame suit on...)

As to your comment "Don't like the sluggish aileron control (with large
deflection flaps)...", flying the HP-14 with full flaps involved an
interesting (to me) effect (several, actually, but this post is long enough
already!). I was used to, as a glider pilot, seeing and "rating" my aileron
effects with the fuselage more or less horizontal. Pitched significantly nose
low, the visual - and actual - aileron effect on your path over the ground
differs, simply due to geometry. (Imagine descending vertically, rolling
90-degrees, and your new path relative to the ground.) In broad brush terms,
*the horizontal change* induced by aileron input to your path over the ground
reduces as your pitch angle increases, and the effect Joe Pilot perceives is
that his ailerons are becoming less and less effective, since we usually use
aileron to change our path over the ground...or at least that's the way my
thermalling glider brain thinks of aileron use. Aerobatic-rated pilots
probably know well what I'm talking about...

Anyhow...enjoy your landing flaps!

Bob W.

[chuck[_3_]]

For an ASW20:
Thermal flap on downwind.
Landing flap on final.

What does the manual recommend for your glider?

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, October 13, 2013 10:22:16 AM UTC-4, chuck wrote:
> For an ASW20:
>
> Thermal flap on downwind.
>
> Landing flap on final.
>
>
>
> What does the manual recommend for your glider?

OOPs Ship is a Ventus C and the manual talks only about approach flap position which I take to be on Final. It recommends Landing flap or thermal flap. I Wonder why do you use thermal flaps on downwind ?
Dan G

[[email protected]]

Thank you Bob for the detailed post. I am flying a Ventus C with airbrake and flap combination.
Dan G
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:19:29 PM UTC-4, Bob Whelan wrote:
> On 10/12/2013 5:56 PM, wrote:
>
> > I wonder how other pilots of flapped ships are using their flaps. I don't
>
> > use any flap till I am aligned with the runway on final approach. Don't
>
> > like the sluggish aileron control and the forward stick pressure required
>
> > on the dreaded base to final turn. I switch to positive flap on final. Any
>
> > comments ? Dan G
>
> >
>
>
>
> Ummm...additional context would be helpful, here: ship type; synopsis of your
>
> experience (ships, hours), both overall and in the ship.
>
>
>
> That said, I transitioned (1975) into a 15-meter glass, large deflection
>
> landing flapped only (no spoilers) ship (Concept 70) with 128 prior total
>
> hours, entirely in 2-33s, 2-22s and 1-26s; zero power experience.
>
>
>
> I wanted a flatter gliding 1-26...as in I didn't want to give up the short
>
> off-field-landing capabilities of a l-26, and considered large deflection
>
> landing flaps just the ticket. Never saw reason to change my opinion in that
>
> regard...flying the C-70 for 48 hours, an HP-14 for 196 hours and a Zuni for
>
> 2065 hours. Never had any 2-seat flap training (decades' later exposure to an
>
> L-13 and an IS-28 were irrelevant in "flap use/training" terms in my opinion).
>
>
>
> I considered myself a raw beginner, and, I considered the performance increase
>
> step as significant as the change from spoilers to large deflection flaps. My
>
> total knowledge of what to expect from flaps had come from reading ("Soaring"
>
> magazine, various college textbooks).
>
>
>
> My 1st-flight initial plan was to use no more than 30-degrees of landing flap,
>
> in order to reduce exposure to "significant pitch changes", a plan based
>
> entirely on book knowledge...and a plan discarded on final approach when it
>
> became apparent an overshoot was in the cards if I didn't come up with lots
>
> more drag, Real Soon Now. Eventually touched down about halfway down a 4,000'
>
> strip, after using all 90-degrees of the flaps, and having zero practical
>
> issues with so doing. I simply flew indicated airspeed (just like with
>
> spoilers), and the pitch attitude fell out in the wash. Later - when I
>
> eventually flew 1-34s and 2-32s (both ships with Vne-limiting dive brakes) -
>
> it became apparent that Joe Pilot (i.e. me) couldn't tell the difference
>
> between pitch changes due to flap pitching moment changes and (lots of) drag:
>
> both require forward stick to maintain airspeed, and in the single-seat
>
> gliders I've flown, stick pitch forces are minuscule...well except for
>
> Schweizers at above trimmed speeds! :-)
>
>
>
> As to your wondering "...how other pilots of flapped ships are using their
>
> flaps," I generally used mine just like spoilers. Just as my goal - assuming I
>
> wasn't practicing some specific landing technique - with spoilered ships was
>
> to fly patterns allowing steady-state use of 50% of the spoilers, so it was
>
> with landing flaps. By "50%" I mean I sought to fly my "routine patterns" in
>
> the middle of my ship's descent cone (which isn't necessarily 50% flap
>
> deflection. This conceptual goal was routinely modified for the HP-14, for
>
> reasons noted 4 paragraphs below...but the modifications had zero to do with
>
> flaps per-se, and 100% to do with how that ship's flaps were *actuated*.)
>
>
>
> Coupla ship-specific notes here - since you note you're less than
>
> happy/comfortable with the need for forward stick pressure and what seems to
>
> you like sluggish aileron control with flap in...
>
> - the C-70 had "PIK-20-like" rack and pinion actuated flaps, driven by a
>
> multi-turn crank;
>
> - my HP-14 had hydraulicly-actuated flaps, 5 pumps for full deflection;
>
> - my Zuni has flaps actuated by pulling back on a pivoting handle (very little
>
> mechanical advantage) through an arc of perhaps 45-degrees.
>
>
>
> In none of those ships are stick pitch forces significant, flaps up or flaps
>
> down. I never felt the C-70 or the Zuni sluggish in roll, regardless of flap
>
> position. The HP *was* a slow roller, regardless of flap position (some HP-14s
>
> have had the outer 3' of flaps turned into ailerons to address this
>
> condition). Both HP and Zuni (side stick) have relatively high (in single-seat
>
> glider terms) aileron forces, IMO, regardless of flap position.
>
>
>
> Because my home field - shared with power traffic - has the glider pattern
>
> inside the power pattern, enlarging the pattern to accommodate the HP-14's
>
> slow-rolling, heavy-aileroned, tendencies wasn't an option, so I compensated
>
> by flying a continuously turning pattern, varying the bank angle as required
>
> while performing the 180 from downwind to final...it was a no-brainer and
>
> physically-easier to do so than to horse on the stick for the sake of "a
>
> pretty, textbook, rectangular pattern." Navy pilots do the same thing, though
>
> for different reasons.
>
>
>
> Because the HP's flaps were essentially a "one-shot" (a consequence of how its
>
> hydraulic system functioned and was installed), I generally put in one pump on
>
> downwind (to verify they were going to work), a 2nd pump "somewhere on base"
>
> (to bring on sufficient drag to actually begin descending from flap drag), a
>
> 3rd pump on longish final, and the last two pumps on short final (the ship
>
> landed most gracefully/easily/shortly with full flaps). With full flaps, that
>
> ship's fuselage angle was ~45-degrees nose down at approach speed...great
>
> view, trivially easy to spot your roundout point, rock stable.
>
>
>
> The Zuni's flaps are weenie, compared to the HP-14's, and in it I fly a
>
> rectangular pattern and I really do generally try for the center of the
>
> descent cone all the way down (aka a stabilized descent path), though I
>
> usually wind up biasing that toward the upper half of the cone, since its 50%
>
> approach path is so shallow (compared to the HP's and my "comfort zone"). In
>
> the absence of strong crosswinds, I usually have full flap in on that ship
>
> several hundred horizontal yards short of my roundout point; its fuselage
>
> angle at pattern speeds is probably less than 30-degrees nose down.
>
>
>
> Based on your ship, YMMV, of course. FWIW, assuming your ship has sufficient
>
> drag to get you down where you're aiming at when you delay putting in any flap
>
> until final approach, "More power to you!" Do what works.
>
>
>
> Personally, If I flew a glider that could land vertically, I wouldn't use my
>
> drag device until I was overhead my intended touchdown point. Why would I want
>
> to? That's by way of suggesting that - assuming so doing doesn't introduce any
>
> site-specific safety issues - "doing what works for you and your ship" is a
>
> perfectly valid methodology for Joe Pilot to adopt. The point, after all, is
>
> to be able to land consistently and safely. "The textbook pattern" is simply a
>
> means to that end. (Flame suit on...)
>
>
>
> As to your comment "Don't like the sluggish aileron control (with large
>
> deflection flaps)...", flying the HP-14 with full flaps involved an
>
> interesting (to me) effect (several, actually, but this post is long enough
>
> already!). I was used to, as a glider pilot, seeing and "rating" my aileron
>
> effects with the fuselage more or less horizontal. Pitched significantly nose
>
> low, the visual - and actual - aileron effect on your path over the ground
>
> differs, simply due to geometry. (Imagine descending vertically, rolling
>
> 90-degrees, and your new path relative to the ground.) In broad brush terms,
>
> *the horizontal change* induced by aileron input to your path over the ground
>
> reduces as your pitch angle increases, and the effect Joe Pilot perceives is
>
> that his ailerons are becoming less and less effective, since we usually use
>
> aileron to change our path over the ground...or at least that's the way my
>
> thermalling glider brain thinks of aileron use. Aerobatic-rated pilots
>
> probably know well what I'm talking about...
>
>
>
> Anyhow...enjoy your landing flaps!
>
>
>
> Bob W.

[Dan Marotta]

Why is the final turn "dreaded"? I find that THE most rewarding part of the
pattern!

I fly a LAK-17a which has flaps and upper surface spoilers/dive brakes. I
have 5 flap positions ranging from -1, 0, 1, 2, and L. Minus 1 is for high
speed cruise, zero is for normal cruise, 1 and 2 are for thermalling, though
there's not much difference in climb, only drag, and 3 is for landing.

It's very hard to slow my ship down from final glide since I'm very
conservative until there's no doubt that I've got the airport made, but I
usually accomplish slowing down with a climbing turn to below the white arc
on the airspeed indicator and then put flaps down to 1 as I enter downwind.
I progressively lower flaps to L (landing) and, just before beginning a
descending 180 to landing, I extend the gear and then open the dive brakes.
I hold a relatively constant airspeed by varying dive brake extension as I
maintain my aim point. I usually roll out on final over the numbers at
about 50 feet and gently modulate pitch and dive brake to achieve my
touchdown point.

On rollout, I relax the dive brakes and keep the flaps down to make it
easier to roll on the main tire. When my stopping point is assured (a wide
taxiway clear of the runway), I move flaps to -1. The tail comes down and
aileron control is improved as I roll to a stop. Dive brakes are now
ineffective and, since my wheel brake is on the stick grip, I leave the dive
brake handle alone.

Of course, your ship will have its own requirements.

> wrote in message
...
I wonder how other pilots of flapped ships are using their flaps. I don't
use any flap till I am aligned with the runway on final approach. Don't like
the sluggish aileron control and the forward stick pressure required on the
dreaded base to final turn. I switch to positive flap on final. Any comments
?
Dan G

[Paul Ruskin[_2_]]

On Sunday, October 13, 2013 3:22:16 PM UTC+1, chuck wrote:
> For an ASW20:
>
> Thermal flap on downwind.
> Landing flap on final.
>
Why would you want thermal flap downwind in a 20? You're probably flying at 55 kts - so neutral flap gives better performance and handling. Thermal flap or landing flap on final, sure, depending on the conditions and desired approach speed.

Personally I almost never use full landing flap - but position 5 instead. Having said that, I fly a 20F, and I think later versions of the 20 had less flap in the landing flap position.

Paul

[Dave Nadler]

On Sunday, October 13, 2013 12:27:30 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Thank you Bob for the detailed post. I am flying a Ventus C with
> airbrake and flap combination.
>
> Dan G

The answer to your original question varies immensely
depending on type of glider.

For your glider, first consult the manual...
Then, it depends on the type of wingtips fitted.
With the original tips you may find roll control
'uncomfortable' in landing configuration and
rough conditions, in which case don't use 'L'.
With winglets fitted (or short tips) this is
less of a problem in your glider...

Hope that helps !
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

[John Firth[_4_]]

At 16:55 13 October 2013, Dave Nadler wrote:

I completely agree with Dave's comments; on the PIK20E ( and
maybe D) the L position (16deg) degrades the roll control so much that I
never use it; landing sequence on downwind is gear down,
flaps to +12, trim for approach speed required.
JMF

>On Sunday, October 13, 2013 12:27:30 PM UTC-4,
wrote:
>> Thank you Bob for the detailed post. I am flying a Ventus C with
>> airbrake and flap combination.
>>
>> Dan G
>
>The answer to your original question varies immensely
>depending on type of glider.
>
>For your glider, first consult the manual...
>Then, it depends on the type of wingtips fitted.
>With the original tips you may find roll control
>'uncomfortable' in landing configuration and
>rough conditions, in which case don't use 'L'.
>With winglets fitted (or short tips) this is
>less of a problem in your glider...
>
>Hope that helps !
>Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"
>

[Peter Higgs]

Hi, I hope your glider has a trim control, as that should be used to trim
off any unnecessary stick pressure after each change of configuration or
speed. You should not need to push the stick on the base/final turn.


At 23:56 12 October 2013, wrote:
>I wonder how other pilots of flapped ships are using their flaps. I don't
>u=
>se any flap till I am aligned with the runway on final approach. Don't
>like=
> the sluggish aileron control and the forward stick pressure required on
>th=
>e dreaded base to final turn. I switch to positive flap on final. Any
>comme=
>nts ?
>Dan G
>

[Mike C]

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 5:56:00 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> I wonder how other pilots of flapped ships are using their flaps. I don't use any flap till I am aligned with the runway on final approach. Don't like the sluggish aileron control and the forward stick pressure required on the dreaded base to final turn. I switch to positive flap on final. Any comments ?
>
> Dan G

I fly my Mini Nimbus with the full thermal flap setting in the pattern at 60 knots always. Good control and plenty of speed turning final, using the trailing edge dive brakes as needed throughout the entire landing cycle. When on final, same thing, adding landing flaps if and as needed. Ground roll-out is with the trailing edge dive brakes off, using the effective wheel brake to modulate speed and to stop. I usually fly a higher, extended pattern than most and set up a fairly long final.

[chuck[_3_]]

>Why would you want thermal flap downwind in a 20?<

Thermal flap makes it a little less slippery in the pattern. Gives a little better visibility out the front. I generally use landing flap on final so the transition is not quite so large. Glider handles just fine so far as I can tell. Not a big deal either way.

Glider is a b with winglets. I prefer landing with full flaps. Glider lands better, and the rollout is easier.

[[email protected]]

Dave,
I wonder about the use of positive flaps in my Ventus C during downwind and base legs.
Dan

On Sunday, October 13, 2013 12:55:19 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Sunday, October 13, 2013 12:27:30 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>
> > Thank you Bob for the detailed post. I am flying a Ventus C with
>
> > airbrake and flap combination.
>
> >
>
> > Dan G
>
>
>
> The answer to your original question varies immensely
>
> depending on type of glider.
>
>
>
> For your glider, first consult the manual...
>
> Then, it depends on the type of wingtips fitted.
>
> With the original tips you may find roll control
>
> 'uncomfortable' in landing configuration and
>
> rough conditions, in which case don't use 'L'.
>
> With winglets fitted (or short tips) this is
>
> less of a problem in your glider...
>
>
>
> Hope that helps !
>
> Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

[Del Copeland]

I am the former owner of a flapped Nimbus 2 and have also
flown Ventus B and C models, ASW20, ASH25 and Janus. I
generally flew the circuits in zero or the first stage of positive
flap, and only selected landing flap once lined up on approach. If
I was landing into wind in turbulent condition I would use one
stage less. Also, once safely planted on the ground I would
select negative flap to give good aileron control for the rest of
the ground run. Hope this helps.

Derek Copeland


At 20:51 13 October 2013,
wrote:
>
>Dave,
>I wonder about the use of positive flaps in my Ventus C during
downwind and
>base legs.
>Dan
>
>On Sunday, October 13, 2013 12:55:19 PM UTC-4, Dave
Nadler wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 13, 2013 12:27:30 PM UTC-4,

>wrote:
>>
>> > Thank you Bob for the detailed post. I am flying a Ventus
C with
>>
>> > airbrake and flap combination.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Dan G
>>
>>
>>
>> The answer to your original question varies immensely
>>
>> depending on type of glider.
>>
>>
>>
>> For your glider, first consult the manual...
>>
>> Then, it depends on the type of wingtips fitted.
>>
>> With the original tips you may find roll control
>>
>> 'uncomfortable' in landing configuration and
>>
>> rough conditions, in which case don't use 'L'.
>>
>> With winglets fitted (or short tips) this is
>>
>> less of a problem in your glider...
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope that helps !
>>
>> Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"
>
>

[Peter Purdie[_3_]]

No reason not to have the right flap setting for the speed up until you are
lined up on the approach, then (assuming you are flying below the 'L' flap
speed) applying landing flap and modulate the approach with brakes - at
least that's what I did when I had a Ventus CT, in either span
configuration. In extremely rough conditions (e.g. below rotor at a wave
site) I left flaps in zero and approached faster, accepting a higher
touchdown airspeed.

If high on the base leg, use brakes to turn final at an appropriate
height.

Come to think of it, I do the same in the ASH25 I fly at present.

I'd be interested to hear a justification to do anything different.

At 20:51 13 October 2013, wrote:
>
>Dave,
>I wonder about the use of positive flaps in my Ventus C during downwind
and
>base legs.
>Dan
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, October 13, 2013 10:56:00 AM UTC+11, wrote:
> I wonder how other pilots of flapped ships are using their flaps. I don't use any flap till I am aligned with the runway on final approach. Don't like the sluggish aileron control and the forward stick pressure required on the dreaded base to final turn. I switch to positive flap on final. Any comments ?
>
> Dan G

My weapon of choice is a PIK 20B. Usual circuit procedure is neutral flap on downwind with speed trimmed for wind conditions expected on final. Base leg is diagonal,requiring an approx. 135 degree turn onto final. This maintains an excellent view of the landing area. Half-way down base I select 30 deg flap, maintaining selected airspeed, which provides an extra margin over stall speed in the final turn. On final I increase (or vary) flap setting to control descent rate as appropriate, never going below 30 degrees unless speed is at least 60 kts. Usually select -8 as soon as possible after touch-down to improve aileron authority. The process has worked very well during 2500 hrs in the ship.

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 00:13 14 October 2013, wrote:
>On Sunday, October 13, 2013 10:56:00 AM UTC+11,
>wrote=
>:
>> I wonder how other pilots of flapped ships are using their flaps. I
>don't=
> use any flap till I am aligned with the runway on final approach. Don't
>li=
>ke the sluggish aileron control and the forward stick pressure required
on
>=
>the dreaded base to final turn. I switch to positive flap on final. Any
>com=
>ments ?
>>=20
>> Dan G
>
I flew an ASW17 (Big ASW20) for many years and have flown other flapped
gliders. I have used 1 stage positive on the downwind leg where I needed to
have a clearer view to the front and below or where I was forced to fly a
circuit close in to the airfield. I did not pull stage 2 or 3 until I was
certain to make the landing area. Having to reduce flap is not something
that is very pleasant. Where flying a wide circuit in non busy situations
or where there was significant turbulence I would not use any flap until
the final approach. I do not think there is a right and wrong method, both
are equally valid. Neither the 17 or 20 had any significant trim change
with the application of flaps in my experience.
I also flew a Kestrel which had a land flap completely separate from the
flying flap system. I definitely did not use any land flap until I was
absolutely certain I was going to make the landing area, people who have
flown Kestrels will understand why.

[[email protected]]

I had a Ventus C and logged about 380hours in it.

My memory is that it had 4 settings in positive, 1, 1.5, 2, and L however, i may be wrong about the 1.5.


At my home field I would almost always set flaps in the 1, 1.5, or 2 at start of downwind and leave them there until stopped (setting depended on wind.. Higher winds=1 because of turbulance near that ground at our field.)

The spoilers on the Ventus C are massivily effective and not using "L" still gave me more than enough glide path control. I did, of course use "L" for practice many times. However, in the entire time I owned it, I used "L" in an actual "non-practice" landing maybe twice.

I, like you, just didn't think the loss of roll control was a fair tradeoff when I had more than enough glidepath control in hand.

Also, for background you should know that I fly almost exclusively cross-country for about 150-170hr/year and average 2 landouts/yr.

Terry

[jfitch]

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 7:56:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> I wonder how other pilots of flapped ships are using their flaps. I don't use any flap till I am aligned with the runway on final approach. Don't like the sluggish aileron control and the forward stick pressure required on the dreaded base to final turn. I switch to positive flap on final. Any comments ?
>
> Dan G

Depends greatly on the glider doesn't it? On my ASH26E (and I believe the 25 and 27 also) Landing flaps droop the inboard flaperon further, but raise the outboard aileron back to about neutral. I don't notice any loss in roll control. The increase in washout makes the glider very stable in this configuration, and also seems to make the spoilers more effective (due to increased loading on the inboard wing). I fly the pattern in thermal flap setting, the pull it back to L usually on base or the turn to final, depending on wind. The only reason I have to fly the downwind in thermal is lower stall speed, and smaller change to L on final.

On the PIK D78 that I use to fly, Landing flaps were a modest angle (not the near 90 degrees of the earlier PIKs). Roll control was reduced a little, but not excessively. I did reflex them on roll out as they lost effectiveness as speed decayed - never have to think about that with the Schleicher system.

Those of you who don't use landing flaps when landing: Would you if you were trying to fit into a tight out landing? and would you then have enough practice to be confident?