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