If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
Blueskies wrote:
Why are you beating up the plane? I was taught and used to teach that any landing without full flaps was an 'emergency' landing. The airplane has a landing configuration and the performance in the book is based on that configuration... It is good to practice emergency landings every so often. Beating up my plane? Have you ever flown a Comanche? All you need is 20 degrees for smooth and graceful landings in a PA24. If I'm going into a really short field (2000 feet?) then I'll use full flaps. All the 182's I've ever flown only need 20 degrees of flap for nice landings too. Go full flaps and its like an anvil with a parachute. The 182 is a great short field airplane. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
Al G wrote:
Never the less, it is left to me to decide, and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO. It is up to you to decide *while adhering to the FARs*, I think you're missing that point. Hilton |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:02:51 -0700, "Al G"
wrote: FWIW, the latest Cessna 182T POH shows the flap motor and indicating system as required in the KOEL for day/night/ifr/vfr. If I read that correctly, technically departing with the flaps known inop in one without a special airworthiness certificate would be a violation.... I would go along with that, depending on the operation. It may be that a steep instrument approach is easier with flaps, and then I would insist they work. The 182 is also a bit heavier than the 172 and the flaps help slow the touchdown. Never the less, it is left to me to decide, and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO. Maybe I'm just not as intimidated by them as I used to be. I have flown the '66 172 I rent without flaps, and would do it again. KOEL=?? Kinds Of Operations Equipment List. It's contained in Section 2 of the POH (AKA Operating Limits) and is prefaced: "The Cessna 182T Nav III airplane is approved for day and night, VFR and IFR operations. Flight into known-icing conditions is prohibited. The minimum equipment for approved operatons required under the Operating Rules are defined by 14 CFR Part 91 and 14 CFR Part 135, as applicable. The following Kinds of Operations Equipment List (KOEL) identifies the equipment required to be operational for airplane airworthiness in the listed kind of operations." Basically, the lawyers have set it up so that Nav III aircraft have stricter limits on what equipment is required than in the older aircraft that you're used to by creating a KOEL (effectively a MEL). The way it was explained to me is that just like a MEL, in these ones (and I'm pretty sure the 172 Nav III has it as well but don't have a POH or IM handy) since the flap motor and indicator are listed as required by the table in the limitations section, they have to be working or you're not in fact airworthy - regardless of the operation. The POH has effectively removed the decision from you in an aircraft with a MEL or KOEL. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
"Hilton" wrote in message t... Al G wrote: Never the less, it is left to me to decide, and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO. It is up to you to decide *while adhering to the FARs*, I think you're missing that point. Hilton (b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur Nothing in the "regs" says I have to use flaps in a C172. Al G |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
"Peter Clark" wrote in message ... On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:02:51 -0700, "Al G" wrote: FWIW, the latest Cessna 182T POH shows the flap motor and indicating system as required in the KOEL for day/night/ifr/vfr. If I read that correctly, technically departing with the flaps known inop in one without a special airworthiness certificate would be a violation.... I would go along with that, depending on the operation. It may be that a steep instrument approach is easier with flaps, and then I would insist they work. The 182 is also a bit heavier than the 172 and the flaps help slow the touchdown. Never the less, it is left to me to decide, and for a 172 I stand by my statement, even to a FSDO. Maybe I'm just not as intimidated by them as I used to be. I have flown the '66 172 I rent without flaps, and would do it again. KOEL=?? Kinds Of Operations Equipment List. It's contained in Section 2 of the POH (AKA Operating Limits) and is prefaced: "The Cessna 182T Nav III airplane is approved for day and night, VFR and IFR operations. Flight into known-icing conditions is prohibited. The minimum equipment for approved operatons required under the Operating Rules are defined by 14 CFR Part 91 and 14 CFR Part 135, as applicable. The following Kinds of Operations Equipment List (KOEL) identifies the equipment required to be operational for airplane airworthiness in the listed kind of operations." Basically, the lawyers have set it up so that Nav III aircraft have stricter limits on what equipment is required than in the older aircraft that you're used to by creating a KOEL (effectively a MEL). The way it was explained to me is that just like a MEL, in these ones (and I'm pretty sure the 172 Nav III has it as well but don't have a POH or IM handy) since the flap motor and indicator are listed as required by the table in the limitations section, they have to be working or you're not in fact airworthy - regardless of the operation. The POH has effectively removed the decision from you in an aircraft with a MEL or KOEL. So if the flap switch is inop, you're good to go? Al G |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
"kontiki" wrote in message news Blueskies wrote: Why are you beating up the plane? I was taught and used to teach that any landing without full flaps was an 'emergency' landing. The airplane has a landing configuration and the performance in the book is based on that configuration... It is good to practice emergency landings every so often. Beating up my plane? Have you ever flown a Comanche? All you need is 20 degrees for smooth and graceful landings in a PA24. If I'm going into a really short field (2000 feet?) then I'll use full flaps. All the 182's I've ever flown only need 20 degrees of flap for nice landings too. Go full flaps and its like an anvil with a parachute. The 182 is a great short field airplane. So, what is the expected landing performance for the Comanche, landing with 20° flaps? Tires and brakes at least are taking more than they need to. Wheel bearings too. Struts and oleos thumping over the expansion joints, etc... Always landed the PA32-300 with full flaps, nice and slow. And that was in HI with screwy cross winds pretty much always blowing 15-20 knots. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:40:28 -0700, "Al G"
wrote: Basically, the lawyers have set it up so that Nav III aircraft have stricter limits on what equipment is required than in the older aircraft that you're used to by creating a KOEL (effectively a MEL). The way it was explained to me is that just like a MEL, in these ones (and I'm pretty sure the 172 Nav III has it as well but don't have a POH or IM handy) since the flap motor and indicator are listed as required by the table in the limitations section, they have to be working or you're not in fact airworthy - regardless of the operation. The POH has effectively removed the decision from you in an aircraft with a MEL or KOEL. So if the flap switch is inop, you're good to go? If you can somehow prove it's the switch and not the motor without being an A&P and re-rigging the electrical wiring to show the motor and indicator are both working, I guess. The intent of the limitation - flaps have to be working - is obvious. They don't say you have to actually use them, but they do have to be in working order. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
kontiki wrote:
Blueskies wrote: Why are you beating up the plane? I was taught and used to teach that any landing without full flaps was an 'emergency' landing. The airplane has a landing configuration and the performance in the book is based on that configuration... It is good to practice emergency landings every so often. Beating up my plane? Have you ever flown a Comanche? All you need is 20 degrees for smooth and graceful landings in a PA24. If I'm going into a really short field (2000 feet?) then I'll use full flaps. All the 182's I've ever flown only need 20 degrees of flap for nice landings too. Go full flaps and its like an anvil with a parachute. The 182 is a great short field airplane. I can make nice landings with 0 or 40 degrees of flaps. The flaps don't land the airplane. A 182 with full flaps still glides just fine. The Arrow I now fly which has a 3-blade prop is much worse than my 182 in the glide ratio department. I can barely make a 180 power-off landing with it. You have to turn base as soon as you cut power abeam the landing spot or you'll never make it! Matt |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
"Matt Whiting" wrote: The Arrow I now fly which has a 3-blade prop is much worse than my 182 in the glide ratio department. I can barely make a 180 power-off landing with it. You have to turn base as soon as you cut power abeam the landing spot or you'll never make it! As a CFI giving me a checkout in an Arrow put it: "You can cut the power and glide a Cessna in, but a Piper comes down like dropped car keys." -- Dan T-182T at BFM |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
flaps
Dan Luke wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote: The Arrow I now fly which has a 3-blade prop is much worse than my 182 in the glide ratio department. I can barely make a 180 power-off landing with it. You have to turn base as soon as you cut power abeam the landing spot or you'll never make it! As a CFI giving me a checkout in an Arrow put it: "You can cut the power and glide a Cessna in, but a Piper comes down like dropped car keys." The Arrow wasn't all that bad with the original two-blade prop. But when the hub failed inspection requiring prop replacement, a decision was made to go with the 3-blade as it was cheaper (go figure). What a mistake. The 3-blade vibrates much more, doesn't perform any better on takeoff, climb or cruise, and performs MUCH worse during glide. Matt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cowl Flaps | N114RW | Home Built | 0 | June 27th 07 09:25 PM |
What are cowl flaps? | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 31 | October 27th 06 04:28 PM |
Fowler flaps? | TJ400 | Home Built | 20 | May 19th 06 02:15 AM |
FLAPS | skysailor | Soaring | 36 | September 7th 05 05:28 AM |
FLAPS-Caution | Steve Leonard | Soaring | 0 | August 27th 05 04:10 AM |