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