Teaching Incremental Flaps in the Pattern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...ation/200803/1

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

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