Teaching Incremental Flaps in the Pattern

[[email protected]]

I just read an interesting argument by Lew Gauge in his E-185 Bonanza
book.

Some background -- the older Bonanzas (straight 35) have a "Flap"
switch. There's no increments unless you stop the motor as the flaps
are being dropped. Apparently it's hard on that design to start-stop
the motor.

Lew said there's no reason to teach incremental flaps in small
airplanes -- and that multiple flap applications just add to the
workload with no advantage-- apply 10 degrees, trim, apply 10 more,
trim, etc.

His argument is that if the sequence is always the same -- gear down,
trim, flaps down, trim -- the approaches will be consistent and reduce
the likelihood of a gear-up landing (since the descent profile with
15" MP and full flaps gear up is very close to 15"+ full flaps + gear
down).

The more I think about this the more it makes sense, except in the
partial flap case (though an argument can be made that there's no
reason to ever go partial -- but that's another topic).

I'm sure this will be contentious, but isn't that the point?


Dan

[Darkwing]

> wrote in message
...
>I just read an interesting argument by Lew Gauge in his E-185 Bonanza
> book.
>
> Some background -- the older Bonanzas (straight 35) have a "Flap"
> switch. There's no increments unless you stop the motor as the flaps
> are being dropped. Apparently it's hard on that design to start-stop
> the motor.
>
> Lew said there's no reason to teach incremental flaps in small
> airplanes -- and that multiple flap applications just add to the
> workload with no advantage-- apply 10 degrees, trim, apply 10 more,
> trim, etc.
>
> His argument is that if the sequence is always the same -- gear down,
> trim, flaps down, trim -- the approaches will be consistent and reduce
> the likelihood of a gear-up landing (since the descent profile with
> 15" MP and full flaps gear up is very close to 15"+ full flaps + gear
> down).
>
> The more I think about this the more it makes sense, except in the
> partial flap case (though an argument can be made that there's no
> reason to ever go partial -- but that's another topic).
>
> I'm sure this will be contentious, but isn't that the point?
>
>
> Dan

I think there are advantages to incremental flaps in the pattern because you
are in different phases of flight in speed and angle of turns. By the time
you turn final you need to be at basically landing speed and established on
a stabilized approach, if you jam all the flaps in and try to get a nice
angle for the approach with a stabilized airspeed you are just creating more
work in a shorter amount of time.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 10:57 am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >I just read an interesting argument by Lew Gauge in his E-185 Bonanza
> > book.
>
> > Some background -- the older Bonanzas (straight 35) have a "Flap"
> > switch. There's no increments unless you stop the motor as the flaps
> > are being dropped. Apparently it's hard on that design to start-stop
> > the motor.
>
> > Lew said there's no reason to teach incremental flaps in small
> > airplanes -- and that multiple flap applications just add to the
> > workload with no advantage-- apply 10 degrees, trim, apply 10 more,
> > trim, etc.
>
> > His argument is that if the sequence is always the same -- gear down,
> > trim, flaps down, trim -- the approaches will be consistent and reduce
> > the likelihood of a gear-up landing (since the descent profile with
> > 15" MP and full flaps gear up is very close to 15"+ full flaps + gear
> > down).
>
> > The more I think about this the more it makes sense, except in the
> > partial flap case (though an argument can be made that there's no
> > reason to ever go partial -- but that's another topic).
>
> > I'm sure this will be contentious, but isn't that the point?
>
> > Dan
>
> I think there are advantages to incremental flaps in the pattern because you
> are in different phases of flight in speed and angle of turns. By the time
> you turn final you need to be at basically landing speed and established on
> a stabilized approach, if you jam all the flaps in and try to get a nice
> angle for the approach with a stabilized airspeed you are just creating more
> work in a shorter amount of time.

OK, but the counter argument is -- Why have different airspeeds?

In a model 35, Vle is 100 MPH (pretty slow). So I get the airplane to
90 on downwind, drop the gear midfield. At the numbers drop full flaps
and turn to base at 80, to final at 80, and then slow to 65-70 on
final (depending on winds). The slowdown on final requires very little
power-attitude-configuration change (a little nose up trim), and thus
I can concentrate on good turns and traffic scans during the turn to
base, turn to final critical phases of flight.

The pitch change in the 35 as the flaps drop to full is negligible,
but the descent rate with 15" MAP goes from straight and level to 700
FPM with no speed change. Trim up to a descent rate is 500' FPM and
target airspeed of 80 MPH.

Dan



This

[Kobra]

> wrote in message
...
>I just read an interesting argument by Lew Gauge in his E-185 Bonanza
> book.
>
> Some background -- the older Bonanzas (straight 35) have a "Flap"
> switch. There's no increments unless you stop the motor as the flaps
> are being dropped. Apparently it's hard on that design to start-stop
> the motor.
>
> Lew said there's no reason to teach incremental flaps in small
> airplanes -- and that multiple flap applications just add to the
> workload with no advantage-- apply 10 degrees, trim, apply 10 more,
> trim, etc.
>
> His argument is that if the sequence is always the same -- gear down,
> trim, flaps down, trim -- the approaches will be consistent and reduce
> the likelihood of a gear-up landing (since the descent profile with
> 15" MP and full flaps gear up is very close to 15"+ full flaps + gear
> down).
>
> The more I think about this the more it makes sense, except in the
> partial flap case (though an argument can be made that there's no
> reason to ever go partial -- but that's another topic).
>
> I'm sure this will be contentious, but isn't that the point?


Ask yourself this: Why not drop full flaps just as you enter the 45?
Simple. It's inefficient. Why slow the plane down so early? Why add sooo
much drag and increase your time around the pattern and for what gain?

I haven't heard of gear-up landings running rampant due to setting the flaps
more than once. I haven't heard any pilot ever complaining about the
workload in the pattern because of setting the flaps.

With full flaps on the downwind you're dragging the plane around the pattern
at about 70 or 80 KIAS. Everyone behind you is probably at about 90 or 100
on those legs. Seems very inefficient. Other than that I can't think of
any reason not to drop full flaps on the DW.

Kobra

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 11:33 am, "Kobra" > wrote:

> Ask yourself this: Why not drop full flaps just as you enter the 45?
> Simple. It's inefficient. Why slow the plane down so early? Why add sooo
> much drag and increase your time around the pattern and for what gain?
>
> I haven't heard of gear-up landings running rampant due to setting the flaps
> more than once. I haven't heard any pilot ever complaining about the
> workload in the pattern because of setting the flaps.
>
> With full flaps on the downwind you're dragging the plane around the pattern
> at about 70 or 80 KIAS. Everyone behind you is probably at about 90 or 100
> on those legs. Seems very inefficient. Other than that I can't think of
> any reason not to drop full flaps on the DW.
>
> Kobra

I didn't say you should drag it around on downwind.

A few points:

1) An ongoing problem with private pilots in the pattern is flying too
fast. Don't believe it? Go to the local patch and watch touch downs
1/2 way down the pavement followed by a high-speed roll to the last
taxiway.

2) Dropping full flaps at the numbers means you will turn base very
soon after that. This keeps the pattern tight and *reduces* the time
spent in the pattern.

3) Once on final a stabilized speed close to 1.3 Vso ensures a spot
landing, short roll out, and means the a/c is off the runway sooner
rather than later.

Seems reasonable to me...

Dan

[Bob Gardner]

I am reluctant to teach anything that should "always" be used. Flaps are a
tool, and we learn early on in life that there are many ways to use a tool
to achieve different results. If there is a problem with the flap motor in
that specific airplane, why apply the same thinking to all airplanes? Flap
extension is a balance between lift and drag....whether you want more lift
or more drag depends on the situation.

Bottom line: I don't like it.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message
...
>I just read an interesting argument by Lew Gauge in his E-185 Bonanza
> book.
>
> Some background -- the older Bonanzas (straight 35) have a "Flap"
> switch. There's no increments unless you stop the motor as the flaps
> are being dropped. Apparently it's hard on that design to start-stop
> the motor.
>
> Lew said there's no reason to teach incremental flaps in small
> airplanes -- and that multiple flap applications just add to the
> workload with no advantage-- apply 10 degrees, trim, apply 10 more,
> trim, etc.
>
> His argument is that if the sequence is always the same -- gear down,
> trim, flaps down, trim -- the approaches will be consistent and reduce
> the likelihood of a gear-up landing (since the descent profile with
> 15" MP and full flaps gear up is very close to 15"+ full flaps + gear
> down).
>
> The more I think about this the more it makes sense, except in the
> partial flap case (though an argument can be made that there's no
> reason to ever go partial -- but that's another topic).
>
> I'm sure this will be contentious, but isn't that the point?
>
>
> Dan

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 4, 7:22*am, " > wrote:
> I just read an interesting argument by Lew Gauge in his E-185 Bonanza
> book.

When I first started teaching Mooneys I taught the traditional 4
points in the pattern with a different speed/configuration in each
part. After having a couple student pilots in the Mooney (yes its very
possible) I decided that all this configuration requires too much head
down time for the mortal pilot. So now I teach 100 knots on downwind,
flaps up, gear down. Abeam power to 2000 RPM, full flaps, 80 knots.
Short final we do slow to 75 knots though. For older, short body
Mooneys you just change knots for mph and the numbers still work out.
If you are solo with light fuel, just subtract 5 knots.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 12:07 pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> I am reluctant to teach anything that should "always" be used. Flaps are a
> tool, and we learn early on in life that there are many ways to use a tool
> to achieve different results. If there is a problem with the flap motor in
> that specific airplane, why apply the same thinking to all airplanes? Flap
> extension is a balance between lift and drag....whether you want more lift
> or more drag depends on the situation.
>
> Bottom line: I don't like it.
>
> Bob Gardner
>

If I came across as "always in every instance" it was unintentional.

As in any art, it's best to start with simple principles, and then add
the exceptions later.

Dan

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 4, 9:07*am, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> I am reluctant to teach anything that should "always" be used.

I agree with you in principle but from a practical point student
pilots need to start with very, very specific instruction before they
have the tools and expand into these types of judgements. If you don't
give students specific airspeeds to hit in the pattern they will
always have problems with landings. 9 times out of 10 when a student
pilot is having trouble landing all I do is sit in the right seat and
say "ok, what speed are you suppose to be at here?" and let them do
the rest.

-Robert

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Bob Gardner wrote:
>I am reluctant to teach anything that should "always" be used. Flaps are a
>tool, and we learn early on in life that there are many ways to use a tool
>to achieve different results.

I agree. I usually use multiple flap extensions at my home airport. Lots
of student traffic, so there's really no point in slowing down early and
flying a wide pattern behind a bunch of students emulating 747s. On the
other hand, when I fly into small strips with tall obstructions, I drop full
flaps abeam and fly a slow, tight, steep pattern all the way around. It
makes speed control a lot easier in tight places. Different procedures for
different conditions.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200803/1

[Bob Gardner]

Would this specific instruction include full flaps abeam the numbers? With
any airplane? I think the "hard on the motor" argument is bogus. Beech
doesn't build airplanes with pre-loaded failure modes.

Bob Gardner

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 9:07 am, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> I am reluctant to teach anything that should "always" be used.

I agree with you in principle but from a practical point student
pilots need to start with very, very specific instruction before they
have the tools and expand into these types of judgements. If you don't
give students specific airspeeds to hit in the pattern they will
always have problems with landings. 9 times out of 10 when a student
pilot is having trouble landing all I do is sit in the right seat and
say "ok, what speed are you suppose to be at here?" and let them do
the rest.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 1:43 pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> Would this specific instruction include full flaps abeam the numbers? With
> any airplane? I think the "hard on the motor" argument is bogus. Beech
> doesn't build airplanes with pre-loaded failure modes.
>
> Bob Gardner
>

Apparently people with much more Beechcraft experience than I assert
that on-off-on is hard on that flap motor. The piano keys certainly
aren't designed to facilitate that method, either.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 1:11 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:

> I agree. I usually use multiple flap extensions at my home airport. Lots
> of student traffic, so there's really no point in slowing down early and
> flying a wide pattern behind a bunch of students emulating 747s. On the
> other hand, when I fly into small strips with tall obstructions, I drop full
> flaps abeam and fly a slow, tight, steep pattern all the way around. It
> makes speed control a lot easier in tight places. Different procedures for
> different conditions.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Wait -- why would your second method cause you to "Slow down and fly a
wide pattern"?

It seems the second method would suit nearly every condition -- big
airport, lots of traffic -- get down and get off the runway. Small
airport, small runway, get down and stop with room to spare.


Dan

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 5, 4:22*am, " > wrote:
> I just read an interesting argument by Lew Gauge in his E-185 Bonanza
> book.
>
> Some background -- the older Bonanzas (straight 35) have a "Flap"
> switch. There's no increments unless you stop the motor as the flaps
> are being dropped. Apparently it's hard on that design to start-stop
> the motor.
>
> Lew said there's no reason to teach incremental flaps in small
> airplanes -- and that multiple flap applications just add to the
> workload with no advantage-- apply 10 degrees, trim, apply 10 more,
> trim, etc.
>
> His argument is that if the sequence is always the same -- gear down,
> trim, flaps down, trim -- the approaches will be consistent and reduce
> the likelihood of a gear-up landing (since the descent profile with
> 15" MP and full flaps gear up is very close to 15"+ full flaps + gear
> down).
>
> The more I think about this the more it makes sense, except in the
> partial flap case (though an argument can be made that there's no
> reason to ever go partial -- but that's another topic).
>
> I'm sure this will be contentious, but isn't that the point?
>

I think in a 172R Vfe for 10 flaps is 110, and 85 for more. So maybe
stages make sense, in that case?

Cheers

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 4, 10:27 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 4:22 am, " > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I just read an interesting argument by Lew Gauge in his E-185 Bonanza
> > book.
>
> > Some background -- the older Bonanzas (straight 35) have a "Flap"
> > switch. There's no increments unless you stop the motor as the flaps
> > are being dropped. Apparently it's hard on that design to start-stop
> > the motor.
>
> > Lew said there's no reason to teach incremental flaps in small
> > airplanes -- and that multiple flap applications just add to the
> > workload with no advantage-- apply 10 degrees, trim, apply 10 more,
> > trim, etc.
>
> > His argument is that if the sequence is always the same -- gear down,
> > trim, flaps down, trim -- the approaches will be consistent and reduce
> > the likelihood of a gear-up landing (since the descent profile with
> > 15" MP and full flaps gear up is very close to 15"+ full flaps + gear
> > down).
>
> > The more I think about this the more it makes sense, except in the
> > partial flap case (though an argument can be made that there's no
> > reason to ever go partial -- but that's another topic).
>
> > I'm sure this will be contentious, but isn't that the point?
>
> I think in a 172R Vfe for 10 flaps is 110, and 85 for more. So maybe
> stages make sense, in that case?
>
> Cheers

Perhaps, but I think it High Vfe can lead to sloppy piloting (so does
high Vle). Instead of planning the approach and entering the pattern
at the proper airspeed, we depend on the flaps and gear to slow us
down.

This is hard on the gear and can be downright ruinous in an airplane
that is not so forgiving.

Dan

[Denny]

My Apache does not have fixed flap positions, and full down flap
results in such an exteme nose down attitude that it makes the
passengers think you are dive bombing the airport <I kinda like it>...
As a result I routinely use partial flaps... A little bit on downwind
to help slow the fatboy to 110 indicated, a bit more on base to give
me 100 on the speedo, and final depends on the amount of wind and the
angle to the runway... There is a flap position indicator on the
panel but it is just this side of useless - besides being 3 feet away
on the other side of the cockpit... I look over my shoulder as I lower
the flap and set it by eyeball and feel... On a dark night I set it by
the feel and experience...

I agree that students and low time pilots need fixed flap settings at
specific points int he pattern...

denny

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 5, 7:51 am, Denny > wrote:
> My Apache does not have fixed flap positions, and full down flap
> results in such an exteme nose down attitude that it makes the
> passengers think you are dive bombing the airport <I kinda like it>...
> As a result I routinely use partial flaps... A little bit on downwind
> to help slow the fatboy to 110 indicated, a bit more on base to give
> me 100 on the speedo, and final depends on the amount of wind and the
> angle to the runway... There is a flap position indicator on the
> panel but it is just this side of useless - besides being 3 feet away
> on the other side of the cockpit... I look over my shoulder as I lower
> the flap and set it by eyeball and feel... On a dark night I set it by
> the feel and experience...
>
> I agree that students and low time pilots need fixed flap settings at
> specific points int he pattern...
>
> denny

Twins are a little different as you have the approach speed argument
to settle first -- do you want enough speed/energy to maintain Vmc? If
so, full flaps will likely require a steep descent as you're
describing.

Besides, if you're flying a twin you're beyond student pilot days and
thus are working on art -- adapting the rules to fit the situation.


Dan

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

wrote:
>
>Wait -- why would your second method cause you to "Slow down and fly a
>wide pattern"?
>

The traffic at the airport necessitates flying a relatively large crowded
pattern. There's no real point dropping full flaps and slowing down to
approach speed if you're going to be flying a big pattern behind several
other aircraft. For me, it works out better to keep the speed up and slow
incrementally, depending on what the traffic ahead is doing.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200803/1

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 5, 1:29 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >Wait -- why would your second method cause you to "Slow down and fly a
> >wide pattern"?
>
> The traffic at the airport necessitates flying a relatively large crowded
> pattern. There's no real point dropping full flaps and slowing down to
> approach speed if you're going to be flying a big pattern behind several
> other aircraft. For me, it works out better to keep the speed up and slow
> incrementally, depending on what the traffic ahead is doing.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200803/1

In that case, I see the point. "Extend your final" means I'm
maintaining my downwind airspeed and altitude until I hear "Follow the
Mooney on Final."

I'm no longer in a standard pattern, and so the full flaps come later
-- probably on final. The question remains -- why not full flaps
instead of incremental flaps?


Dan

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:22:36 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>I just read an interesting argument by Lew Gauge in his E-185 Bonanza
>book.

My contentions after 1300 hours in one.
>
>Some background -- the older Bonanzas (straight 35) have a "Flap"
>switch. There's no increments unless you stop the motor as the flaps
>are being dropped. Apparently it's hard on that design to start-stop
>the motor.

1300 hours and two sets of tires. No problem yet.
(second set is still in good shape)
>

Old Wives Tale

>Lew said there's no reason to teach incremental flaps in small
>airplanes -- and that multiple flap applications just add to the
>workload with no advantage-- apply 10 degrees, trim, apply 10 more,
>trim, etc.

Why trim after each flap change? You aren't flying a Cessna.

Lew's eyes are brown and he's not advocating what the Air Safety
Foundation says.

I find the incremental changes much less work than one major change.
10 to 15v degrees change is barely noticeable in a Bo. 40 degrees is
likely to be so.

I use 110 slowing to 100 on downwind. Bout 15degrees of f laps,
Base, 90 with about 20 to 25 degrees of flaps. Final 80 MPH minus 1
MPH for each 100# under gross. Additional flaps as/if needed until the
runway is made where I just go full flaps.

Someone mentioned 100 on final being slow. That's 20 MPH over the POH
on mine. Fly the POH figures, not what any one of us or a book says.
The ASF made us calculate every take off and landing speed based on
weight, then fly it within a couple MPH.

>
>His argument is that if the sequence is always the same -- gear down,
>trim, flaps down, trim -- the approaches will be consistent and reduce

You trim a Bo with airspeed changes, not flap settings.
And the incremental changes/sequence are always the same too.

>the likelihood of a gear-up landing (since the descent profile with
>15" MP and full flaps gear up is very close to 15"+ full flaps + gear
>down).

Ahhhh...Normally the gear goes down at the end of the runway on down
wind. Full flaps at that point can make the runway just a U-turn
away. Following that full flaps, gear down and 15 " puts you out of
gliding distance almost as soon as you pass the end of the runway
outbound. Best glide is close to 120 "clean" What he's advocating
would increase the chances of a gear up in case of an engine failure.

At altitude, fly a simulated pattern, dump the gear and go full
flaps. Now pull it back to idle and make the simulated runway.
Even at 100 you are well below best glide in most of them. However
the really old V35s were quite light so they'd be slower still.
>
>The more I think about this the more it makes sense, except in the
>partial flap case (though an argument can be made that there's no
>reason to ever go partial -- but that's another topic).
>
>I'm sure this will be contentious, but isn't that the point?

It shouldn't be. As I said earlier. Just fly the figures in the POH as
far as final and sign up for a pilot proficiency course through the
American Bonanza Society and Air Safety Foundation. Then you will be
receiving the training from the proper people. That'll be 10 hours of
class room, 4 or 5 of dual, and at least a couple with a mechanic
going over systems and care of the aircraft.


>
>
>Dan
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:43:58 -0800, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>Would this specific instruction include full flaps abeam the numbers? With
>any airplane? I think the "hard on the motor" argument is bogus. Beech
>doesn't build airplanes with pre-loaded failure modes.

Agreed.
As I said in another post. 1300 hours, two sets of tires and no
problems with the flap motor. Nor have I ever seen any bulletins on
flap motor problems. At one time there was an AD about split flaps
but it was rescinded as they have more than enough aileron authority
to overcome a full split flap situation. (Might be exciting
though<g>)

>
>Bob Gardner
>
>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
>On Mar 4, 9:07 am, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>> I am reluctant to teach anything that should "always" be used.
>
>I agree with you in principle but from a practical point student
>pilots need to start with very, very specific instruction before they
>have the tools and expand into these types of judgements. If you don't
>give students specific airspeeds to hit in the pattern they will
>always have problems with landings. 9 times out of 10 when a student
>pilot is having trouble landing all I do is sit in the right seat and
>say "ok, what speed are you suppose to be at here?" and let them do
>the rest.
>
>-Robert
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 13:33:14 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>On Mar 4, 1:43 pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>> Would this specific instruction include full flaps abeam the numbers? With
>> any airplane? I think the "hard on the motor" argument is bogus. Beech
>> doesn't build airplanes with pre-loaded failure modes.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>
>Apparently people with much more Beechcraft experience than I assert
>that on-off-on is hard on that flap motor. The piano keys certainly
>aren't designed to facilitate that method, either.

You get used to it. The switch will probably fail long before the
flap motor.


>
>Dan
>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:11:59 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com"
<u32749@uwe> wrote:

>Bob Gardner wrote:
>>I am reluctant to teach anything that should "always" be used. Flaps are a
>>tool, and we learn early on in life that there are many ways to use a tool
>>to achieve different results.
>
> I agree. I usually use multiple flap extensions at my home airport. Lots
>of student traffic, so there's really no point in slowing down early and
>flying a wide pattern behind a bunch of students emulating 747s. On the
>other hand, when I fly into small strips with tall obstructions, I drop full
>flaps abeam and fly a slow, tight, steep pattern all the way around. It

Why? The Bo is a great short field airplane that can slow rapidly. I
fly down wind pretty much the same. If it's tight, I dump the gear at
the end of the runway. From that point I use the appropriate amount of
flaps and size my pattern accordingly.(With full flaps it'll be short
and close) If necessary I can go full flaps (40 degrees on those big
barn doors is EFFECTIVE) right after gear down as it'll slow so
quickly with the gear down the flap speed is no problem. At that point
I can simply make a slipping U-turn from pattern altitude on a *close*
down wind to the end of the runway and my speed will be down to less
than 80 at the round out. With practice I can make it over the so
called 50 foot obstacle, at the end of the runway and still make the
first turnoff at 800 feet when alone. That PA28-180 can do it in
even less distance with those Johnson bar flaps.

>makes speed control a lot easier in tight places. Different procedures for
>different conditions.
>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
BTW the Deb has the same wing loading as the PA28-180 give or take
change (17#/ ft^2. The earlier V35s had even less.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:26:34 -0800 (PST), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 5, 1:29 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Wait -- why would your second method cause you to "Slow down and fly a
>> >wide pattern"?
>>
>> The traffic at the airport necessitates flying a relatively large crowded
>> pattern. There's no real point dropping full flaps and slowing down to
>> approach speed if you're going to be flying a big pattern behind several
>> other aircraft. For me, it works out better to keep the speed up and slow
>> incrementally, depending on what the traffic ahead is doing.
>>
>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>
>> --
>> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200803/1
>
>In that case, I see the point. "Extend your final" means I'm
>maintaining my downwind airspeed and altitude until I hear "Follow the
>Mooney on Final."
>
>I'm no longer in a standard pattern, and so the full flaps come later
>-- probably on final. The question remains -- why not full flaps
>instead of incremental flaps?

For one, the airplane glides a whole lot better clean. Two,it's a
whole lot more efficient and three: if there are planes flying a two
mile down wind to base and a mile wide base there is no rule you have
to follow them if you can make final before any one else turns final.
That close in you can be down and clear the runway before any one is
even close to the airport. It becomes a necessity when sharing the
airport with crop dusters and students.

>
>
>Dan
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:02:34 -0800 (PST), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 5, 7:51 am, Denny > wrote:
>> My Apache does not have fixed flap positions, and full down flap
>> results in such an exteme nose down attitude that it makes the
>> passengers think you are dive bombing the airport <I kinda like it>...
>> As a result I routinely use partial flaps... A little bit on downwind
>> to help slow the fatboy to 110 indicated, a bit more on base to give
>> me 100 on the speedo, and final depends on the amount of wind and the
>> angle to the runway... There is a flap position indicator on the
>> panel but it is just this side of useless - besides being 3 feet away
>> on the other side of the cockpit... I look over my shoulder as I lower
>> the flap and set it by eyeball and feel... On a dark night I set it by
>> the feel and experience...
>>
>> I agree that students and low time pilots need fixed flap settings at
>> specific points int he pattern...
>>
>> denny
>
>Twins are a little different as you have the approach speed argument
>to settle first -- do you want enough speed/energy to maintain Vmc? If
>so, full flaps will likely require a steep descent as you're
>describing.
>
>Besides, if you're flying a twin you're beyond student pilot days and
>thus are working on art -- adapting the rules to fit the situation.

I would hope students are too. At least well before the checkride. My
instructors had me weaned off the stabilized pattern before they let
me solo. Good thing too.


>
>
>Dan
>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 6, 1:50 am, Roger > wrote:
>
> It shouldn't be. As I said earlier. Just fly the figures in the POH as
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

Thanks for the good feedback based on experience.

But I have a few questions/comments ---

1) We replaced the flap actuator assembly this November (last
replacement was ~400 hours ago), so I'm sensitive to breaking it.

2) There is no POH for the '47. There is an "Owner's Manual" that
looks like something you used to get with a new Ford. There is scant
data on takeoff and landing configurations, only speeds.

3) How do you know you have 15 degrees of flaps? Sure you can "Compare
to aileron travel" to get an idea on the ground, but you cannot be
that precise in flight.

4) I don't know what you mean by "Why trim after each flap change? You
aren't flying a Cessna". I find (as expected) that after each Power/
Attitude/Configuration change, there's a subsequent trim adjustment --
in any airplane.

5) 80 MPH on final seems fast, when 1.3 Vso = 62 MPH (flaps down,
power off stall speed = 47 MPH). I target 65 on short final and
usually land and stop within 1500'.


Dan

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 04:25:36 -0800 (PST), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 6, 1:50 am, Roger > wrote:
>>
>> It shouldn't be. As I said earlier. Just fly the figures in the POH as
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Thanks for the good feedback based on experience.
>
>But I have a few questions/comments ---
>
>1) We replaced the flap actuator assembly this November (last
>replacement was ~400 hours ago), so I'm sensitive to breaking it.

In 1300 hours I've had no problems and IF the airframe log is
correct it's still original.
>
>2) There is no POH for the '47. There is an "Owner's Manual" that
>looks like something you used to get with a new Ford. There is scant
>data on takeoff and landing configurations, only speeds.
>
>3) How do you know you have 15 degrees of flaps? Sure you can "Compare
>to aileron travel" to get an idea on the ground, but you cannot be
>that precise in flight.

Lay a straight edge on the top of the wing. Lower the flaps while
measuring the change with a protractor. Using a straight edge and
felt marker, place the appropriate marks on the leading edge of the
flap on the pilot's side. You'll soon find you can count one
thousandone, one thousand two...etch and come out within a couple of
degrees.

>
>4) I don't know what you mean by "Why trim after each flap change? You
>aren't flying a Cessna". I find (as expected) that after each Power/
>Attitude/Configuration change, there's a subsequent trim adjustment --
>in any airplane.

Not in the Bo. In the ones I've flown you can go from no to basically
full (40 degrees) with no trim change required. HOWEVER when slowing
down substantial trim changes are required with airspeed changes, so
if there is an airspeed change coupled with the flap change then yes
retrimming is required. Normally I find no need to change trim on
down wind (unless slowing from a fast entry) and base. On final, I
know I was flying the right speeds for the loading if the trim ends up
against the up stop.

>
>5) 80 MPH on final seems fast, when 1.3 Vso = 62 MPH (flaps down,
>power off stall speed = 47 MPH). I target 65 on short final and
>usually land and stop within 1500'.

The older ones are much lighter and can be flown slower., I think I
mentioned that. With mine stall in the landing configuration is 63 at
gross which works out to about 80 MPH on final. With just me and half
fuel it's about 75 to 76 MPH. That ends up with land and roll out of
about 1200 feet and little if any use of the brakes. With short field
technique it'll easily stop in 800 or less (IF the pilot is up-to-date
and proficient<g>). That also results in a steep final with
substantial power. Power out landings are faster at 90 MPH and take
considerably more runway.

Gross is 2950 or 3100# when the tip tanks are full.
>
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Dan wrote:
>
>I'm no longer in a standard pattern, and so the full flaps come later
>-- probably on final. The question remains -- why not full flaps
>instead of incremental flaps?
>

I suppose I could pop out all of the flaps at once, but as I said above, I
base it on what the traffic (ahead and behind) is doing. Traffic ahead is
generally slowing down in increments, so I use my flaps to do the same. For
following traffic I don't want to slow down too early in the pattern. There
are a lot of students and they tend to start crowding my tail if I do.

On those rare occasions when the pattern ahead is empty, I do drop full
flaps abeam and make a tight pattern.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200803/1

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 6, 1:10 pm, Roger > wrote:

> In 1300 hours I've had no problems and IF the airframe log is
> correct it's still original.

Is the flap actuator/motor the same in a Deb as a '47 V tail?


> Not in the Bo. In the ones I've flown you can go from no to basically
> full (40 degrees) with no trim change required. HOWEVER when slowing
> down substantial trim changes are required with airspeed changes, so
> if there is an airspeed change coupled with the flap change then yes
> retrimming is required. Normally I find no need to change trim on
> down wind (unless slowing from a fast entry) and base. On final, I
> know I was flying the right speeds for the loading if the trim ends up
> against the up stop.



OK, that explains it. When I apply full flaps, I'm also pitching and
trimming to attain my turn to base speed of 70 MPH in the '47 V, and
80 KIAS in the A36.
>
> >5) 80 MPH on final seems fast, when 1.3 Vso = 62 MPH (flaps down,
> >power off stall speed = 47 MPH). I target 65 on short final and
> >usually land and stop within 1500'.
>
> The older ones are much lighter and can be flown slower., I think I
> mentioned that. With mine stall in the landing configuration is 63 at
> gross which works out to about 80 MPH on final. With just me and half
> fuel it's about 75 to 76 MPH. That ends up with land and roll out of
> about 1200 feet and little if any use of the brakes. With short field
> technique it'll easily stop in 800 or less (IF the pilot is up-to-date
> and proficient<g>). That also results in a steep final with
> substantial power. Power out landings are faster at 90 MPH and take
> considerably more runway.
>

Right -- the '47 V is very light, and bounces like a cork in the
smallest breeze. The A36, however, is like an airliner -- it grosses
at 3780 with full tip tanks.

My 1500' figure is 50' obstacle clearance -- not ground roll. I'm
guessing I'm at about 800' ground roll with heavy braking, but I
rarely need to do that.

Thanks for the feedback! I like to disagree if the contrary opinion
can be explained rationally. I'm more than happy to have my mind
changed if my knowledge/skills improve!

Dan

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:21:37 -0800 (PST), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 6, 1:10 pm, Roger > wrote:
>
>> In 1300 hours I've had no problems and IF the airframe log is
>> correct it's still original.
>
>Is the flap actuator/motor the same in a Deb as a '47 V tail?

According to my manual the actuator motor assembly is 35-080109 for
both models, BUT and I emphasize that BUT in capital letters I have
found the occasional discrepancy in those shop manuals. One, with
which I am intimately familiar is the routing of the Throttle, prop,
and mixture controls which were replaced (died of old age) so although
my manual lists it as the same, "like anything on the web" I'd take
that with a grain of salt<:-)) I'd really expect better from Beech
though.

Like the old 35s the switch is a momentary one, but unlike you guys
flying the "expensive planes", with the "piano key switches, my
economy class Deb only has a momentary toggle switch with a handle
shaped like a flap.<:-))

>
>
>> Not in the Bo. In the ones I've flown you can go from no to basically
>> full (40 degrees) with no trim change required. HOWEVER when slowing
>> down substantial trim changes are required with airspeed changes, so
>> if there is an airspeed change coupled with the flap change then yes
>> retrimming is required. Normally I find no need to change trim on
>> down wind (unless slowing from a fast entry) and base. On final, I
>> know I was flying the right speeds for the loading if the trim ends up
>> against the up stop.

The early Debs (a V35 with a conventional tail grafted on - Designator
is 35-33) had a very coarse manual trim with the trim wheel hidden up
behind the panel. There's a white stripe painted on the panel to show
you where you should reach to try to find it<:-)) OTOH there is no
mistaking it, but less than half an inch travel can shove you right
down in the seats or leave *things* floating around the cabin. It is
coarse in the extreme. They fixed that in the first year or early on
into the second. At 5'7" my eyes are just peaking over the edge of
the glare shield when adjusting the trim. That makes the adjustment
from 120 on the ILS at DH to landing speed ... interesting. Tis a
good thing they slow quickly, but that means some major trim changes
in just a few seconds.

However, after well over a 1000 hours I just automatically reach for
it any time I find myself holding forward or aft pressure on the yoke.
Even coming down final I find myself retrimming with out conscious
thought as the Deb slows.

>
>
>
>OK, that explains it. When I apply full flaps, I'm also pitching and
>trimming to attain my turn to base speed of 70 MPH in the '47 V, and
>80 KIAS in the A36.
>>
>> >5) 80 MPH on final seems fast, when 1.3 Vso = 62 MPH (flaps down,
>> >power off stall speed = 47 MPH). I target 65 on short final and
>> >usually land and stop within 1500'.
>>
>> The older ones are much lighter and can be flown slower., I think I
>> mentioned that. With mine stall in the landing configuration is 63 at
>> gross which works out to about 80 MPH on final. With just me and half

Book figures for short field landing are still better than a lot of
172s though.

>> fuel it's about 75 to 76 MPH. That ends up with land and roll out of
>> about 1200 feet and little if any use of the brakes. With short field
>> technique it'll easily stop in 800 or less (IF the pilot is up-to-date
>> and proficient<g>). That also results in a steep final with
>> substantial power. Power out landings are faster at 90 MPH and take
>> considerably more runway.
>>
>
>Right -- the '47 V is very light, and bounces like a cork in the
>smallest breeze. The A36, however, is like an airliner -- it grosses
>at 3780 with full tip tanks.
>
The Deb and F-33 is in between and a joy to fly even in weather. OTOH
if flying in IMC an autopilot is almost a necessity for the workload.
It may have a big wing light loading at 17# (give or take change),
but it's slipperier than snot on a doorknob.

I've never had a chance to fly one of the later F-33s after the 40%
increase in useful load. Mine has the 260 HP IO-470N STC with the big
3-blade Hartzell prop, gap seals, 1/2" thick speed sloped windshield,
and tip tanks. http://www.rogerhalstead.com/833R/833R_frame.htm That
prop made a tremendous difference in energy management.

> My 1500' figure is 50' obstacle clearance -- not ground roll. I'm
>guessing I'm at about 800' ground roll with heavy braking, but I
>rarely need to do that.

The heavier weight, a slow, steep descent and lots of power will yield
between 800-1200 over that 50 footer on a cool day with a light head
wind, but that's with lots of practice. I'm no where near that
proficient at present.

>
>Thanks for the feedback! I like to disagree if the contrary opinion
>can be explained rationally. I'm more than happy to have my mind
>changed if my knowledge/skills improve!
>
>Dan
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 6, 7:45 pm, Roger > wrote:
>
> According to my manual the actuator motor assembly is 35-080109 for
> both models, BUT and I emphasize that BUT in capital letters I have
> found the occasional discrepancy in those shop manuals. One, with
> which I am intimately familiar is the routing of the Throttle, prop,
> and mixture controls which were replaced (died of old age) so although
> my manual lists it as the same, "like anything on the web" I'd take
> that with a grain of salt<:-)) I'd really expect better from Beech
> though.

Perfection eludes, but they came close with these birds!

> Like the old 35s the switch is a momentary one, but unlike you guys
> flying the "expensive planes", with the "piano key switches, my
> economy class Deb only has a momentary toggle switch with a handle
> shaped like a flap.<:-))

The A36 is same. It's hidden under the yoke arm and therefore you have
to be very careful if you actually want just Approach flaps, otherwise
it drops to full (though not that big a deal).


>
> The early Debs (a V35 with a conventional tail grafted on - Designator
> is 35-33) had a very coarse manual trim with the trim wheel hidden up
> behind the panel. There's a white stripe painted on the panel to show
> you where you should reach to try to find it<:-)) OTOH there is no
> mistaking it, but less than half an inch travel can shove you right
> down in the seats or leave *things* floating around the cabin. It is
> coarse in the extreme. They fixed that in the first year or early on
> into the second. At 5'7" my eyes are just peaking over the edge of
> the glare shield when adjusting the trim. That makes the adjustment
> from 120 on the ILS at DH to landing speed ... interesting. Tis a
> good thing they slow quickly, but that means some major trim changes
> in just a few seconds.
>

That's my experience in the A36 -- though I've learned how to trim
that airplane. The electric trim is available but never used -- the
adjustments are far too gross and I end up reaching underneath the
yoke anyway. Flying right seat that big dual yoke makes trimming a
dexterity event.

Dan