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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
flaps again
In the 172 POH it says that minimum flap setting should be used
(consistemt with runway length) in strong crosswinds. I think control surface authority is what is being sought here. In a crosswind, the wind vector is larger at lower aircraft speeds, so a higher landing speed reduces the relative wind angle and makes the initial touchdown more controllable. The thing to remember is that the flight isn't over until the airplane is tied down, so be wide awake in the rollout and use all the controls to manage the airplane. Like LOTS of aileron into the crosswind. Other advantages of using partial flaps in a strong crosswind: - Higher pitch attitude on approach, so flare is easier - not as much pitch change required - Plane is already configured for a go around if needed. Related to this - less drag means faster response to throttle if needed in the flare to counter a gust. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
flaps again
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 10:02:47 -0400, Dave
wrote: OK, so I am missing something.. In large , more complex aircraft, I can see the difficulty landing without flaps. But in a 172 or a Warrior? .....with sufficient runway, and in strong winds, I sometimes prefer no flaps. My Warrior POH indicates flaps are to be used as needed, no flap landings are not indicated as requiring an emergency procedure... In training aircraft? Dave I was thinking the same thing, in a PA28-140 anyway,was like a 50-50 with me Daveb |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
flaps again
I've often met pilots who use no flaps on landing in very gusty conditions or stiff crosswinds. I've tried this and don't really see the benifits. Like a lot of things it's probably mostly in the head. I think the higher touchdown speeds invovlved and the resultant float only prolong the agony. Do large jets ever land without flaps for any reason? I have never seen big jets landing without flaps.. so I have often wondered if it is something not recommended. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
flaps again
"Matt Whiting" wrote That is amazing. The only emergency associated with flaps is asymmetric deployment! :-) So perhaps that is what he was shooting for. An asymmetrical deployment, followed by a no flap landing. Well, maybe? g -- Jim in NC |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
flaps again
Rich Ahrens wrote in
et: Hilton wrote: Dudley wrote: No flap landings should be handled by instructors as simply another procedure to be learned. There's nothing earth shattering about a no flap landing, BUT and this is a BIG BUT HERE......there are aspects of a no flap landing that are very different from a landing using "flaps as required", so all CFI's should demonstrate no flap landings and go over the aspects of no flap landings with every student. I don't treat this situation as an emergency; simply something the student must be completely familiar with before solo. I was in the pattern at night with a student in a C172 at RHV and we had a total electrical failure. No lights, no flaps, ... I had him hold a flashlight at the ASI and call out airspeeds, I then did a glassy water landing - worked perfectly! I had a complete electrical failure in a C177RG at night on the way from Duluth to Minneapolis back in 2003. Not wanting to fly into either the Class B or the Mode C veil without radio contact, I elected to put down at an uncontrolled field north of the Cities. A buddy was flying a 182 on the same trip a mile or so ahead of me, so I got him on my handheld and told him the plan. He went in ahead of me, assuring the pilot-controlled runway lights got turned on and handling any radio comms that might be needed if any other traffic showed up, while I circled to make sure I got the gear down. Took a bit of pumping to get it locked - it was reassuring that the tiny amount of remaining power was enough to get a green light when it locked. So then it was just a matter of landing NORDO, no lights, no flaps, in the dark. What fun! I was sure glad I had practiced all of those, albeit not all at once. My buddy was waiting on the ramp and said the only thing he saw as I came in was the runway edge lights blinking out as I rolled past them. Mm, that's a good adventure. I don't remember readig about it before 1 Bertie |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
flaps again
snip
* *It is amazing how attitudes change over time and how certain flying procedures become part of our culture. * *If I recall correctly, it was some time back in the 70's when some FAA bureaucrat made a PTS change decreeing that a normal landing was to be with full flaps. *Before that, flap use was taught as something that was much more at the pilot's option. *The change caused quite a furor at the time. *Some instructors thought that full flap landings were much too advanced for mere student pilots! Vaughn My observation on this is that there are instructors that learned to fly at large flight schools catering to teaching airline pilots. The thing to remember is that these flight training schools are not teaching these pilots to fly single pilot single engine airplanes. Instead they use a Cessna 172 as a 737 simulator and teach their students to fly a C-172 like it was a 737. The result is that these pilots do learn to make full flap landings every time and no flap landings are an emergercy procedure as they would be in a Boeing 737. This is an excellent and efficient method to train airline pilots. (As a side thought I wonder if this may have been some of the motivation behind Cessna removing the 40 degree flap setting, Since about the time they did that some of thier biggest customers were these flight schools) The problem comes when these pilots decide they want to teach General Avation pilots to fly single engine airplanes. They will often tend to teach they way they were taught. These instructors may start teaching their students to fly 172's like it was a 737 and we see things transfered from the 737 to the c-172 that really don't apply to the C-172. For the pilot training to fly small single engine airplanes they really should learn to use the flap as needed instead as just a checklist item. Brian CFIIG/ASEL |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
flaps again
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: On 1 Jan, 17:14, Dudley Henriques wrote: Roy Smith wrote: In article , Dudley Henriques wrote: No flap landings should be handled by instructors as simply another procedure to be learned. There's nothing earth shattering about a no flap landing, BUT and this is a BIG BUT HERE......there are aspects of a no flap landing that are very different from a landing using "flaps as required", so all CFI's should demonstrate no flap landings and go over the aspects of no flap landings with every student. I don't treat this situation as an emergency; simply something the student must be completely familiar with before solo. The issue with no flaps landings is not that the landing itself is an emergency, but that the pilot should recognize that the flaps didn't extend and adjust his plan accordingly. And understand the performance implications. Like many CFI's who came up during my period, (old people :-) I much preferred to teach no flap landings to students as BOTH a possible emergency AND an option that could be used by a good pilot who for a viable and safe reason wanted to land long for a far end turnoff on an exceptionally long runway for example. Many of the airplanes we flew as trainers had no flaps; i.e. Cubs, Colts, etc. You learned early on in these airplanes to fly the approach properly and with no "devices" to help you control the landing speed. These airplanes are still in use today and in many cases are priced low enough that many students becoming aircraft owners for the first time will end up purchasing an aircraft with no flaps. I personally know two pilots who own a J3 and a Piper Colt; each have no flaps. Flaps and their use are VERY aircraft specific. In some airplanes a POH might define a no flap landing as an emergency. Others simply alter the approach profile a bit. In the T38 Talon for example, (I use this as the airplane is extremely high performance and landing cfg is critical for the Talon) the procedure for a no flap landing is to add 15kts to the normal landing speed...period! No big deal at all. Landing a normal GA airplane with no flaps should not pose a good pilot any problems at all, and training should reflect this. The bottom line is that instructors should teach landings in a way that defines every one of them as a unique experience dealing with a unique and ever changing dynamic. No two landings that a pilot will make during an entire career will ever be exactly the same. Each landing carries its own individual fingerprint. No flaps can be an emergency landing or it can simply be a pilot's option. Either way, the pilot should be on top of it and have each individual landing planned based on current conditions existing for any given instant in time that pertain to THAT landing. Hear hear. I've often met pilots who use no flaps on landing in very gusty conditions or stiff crosswinds. I've tried this and don't really see the benifits. Like a lot of things it's probably mostly in the head. I think the higher touchdown speeds invovlved and the resultant float only prolong the agony. Having said that, any pilot should be able to fly his airplane in any reasonable configuration it might end up in and this should be taught as a matter of course. I did some instruction in Cherokees(most of my instruction was in Cubs) and found the flaps were confusing the issue when the students were learning landings. I opted to do most of them flapless and this porved quite productive. the problem was, none of the other instructors were teaching this and it was off the page for the school, so I kept it to a minimum. Bertie I'm short enough that even sitting on a seat chute, in the Mustang, I lowered 20 degrees of flap on downwind just to see over the damn nose :-)) Doesn't adjust vertically? I would have assumed it followed just about every other US military airplane of the period and had a vertically adjustable seat and horizontal rudder pedals. Bertie Bertie Oh the 51 had adjustments of sorts for both the seat and the pedals. The seat had two pins you could adjust with a lever on the right side of the seat in vertical mode only. There were nine holes you could set the seat for but the damn things always got hung up and were a royal pain in the butt to deal with. The pedals could be adjusted back and forwards by hitting a lever on the inboard side of each pedal and matching the locking pins on each side to get them together and straight. Mine were in close to me as I needed to know I had a full throw for rolls as well as on takeoff. All in all, they weren't enough for my 5'6" frame. The truth is I didn't use a seat chute. I was always leary of the 28 foot military canopy as a means of getting me down with a reasonable descent rate if I needed to use it and besides, I liked the back pack I had better anyway. Always thought that if I had to get out, the scenario would be a pull from somewhere on the deck where something went wrong to an altitude where I could go over the side. If that happened to me, I didn't want a seat pack getting hung up on the canopy crank on the right side or the throttle quadrant on the left, so hence the back pack :-) -- Dudley Henriques |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
flaps again
My observation on this is that there are instructors that learned to
fly at large flight schools catering to teaching airline pilots. The thing to remember is that these flight training schools are not teaching these pilots to fly single pilot single engine airplanes. Good point. I once checked out in a Piper Arrow a pilot who had been trained at a place like that. He extended one notch of flaps before the landing gear, because that's the way they do it in big airplanes. But it didn't make any sense in the Arrow, as the max speed for gear extension is 150 mph, but for flaps is only 125. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
flaps again
On Jan 1, 10:05*pm, wrote:
Do large jets ever land without flaps for any reason? I have never seen big jets landing without flaps.. so I have often wondered if it is something not recommended. Large jets never land without flaps. There are backup systems for the flaps and LEDs in the event of a failure. FB |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
flaps again
On Jan 1, 10:48*pm, Brian wrote:
My observation on this is that there are instructors that learned to fly at large flight schools catering to teaching airline pilots. The thing to remember is that these flight training schools are not teaching these pilots to fly single pilot single engine airplanes. Instead they use a Cessna 172 as a 737 simulator and teach their students to fly a C-172 like it was a 737. The result is that these pilots do learn to make full flap landings every time and no flap landings are an emergercy procedure as they would be in a Boeing 737. This is an excellent and efficient method to train airline pilots. (As a side thought I wonder if this may have been some of the motivation behind Cessna removing the 40 degree flap setting, Since about the time they did that some of thier biggest customers were these flight schools) This procedure would be incorrect. About 99% of landings in a 737 are done at flaps 30. Full flap is rarely used. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
flaps | Kobra[_4_] | Piloting | 84 | July 16th 07 06:16 PM |
flaps | Kobra[_4_] | Owning | 85 | July 16th 07 06:16 PM |
Britney's flaps | Michael Baldwin, Bruce | Products | 0 | December 9th 06 12:34 AM |
FLAPS | skysailor | Soaring | 36 | September 7th 05 05:28 AM |
f-84G Flaps question | Frederico Afonso | Military Aviation | 0 | September 8th 04 05:58 PM |