Matt Whiting wrote:


I don't know about the Bo in particular, but on some airplanes the flaps
contribute more to drag than to lift. The 182 flaps generate tremendous
additional lift up to 20 degrees or so and then begin to add drag at a
high rate.


While still adding lift. You can see this in your POH because the stall
speed is lowest at 40 degrees of flaps.



I've never flown a Bo so I don't know what is flaps characteristics are,
but if the flaps mainly add drag and don't lower the stall speed
appreciable, then using them for takeoff would make little sense. The
Arrow performed only marginally better when using flaps for takeoff. The
Skylane was a whole different airplane with flaps 20 on takeoff. The
deck angle was amazing and the climb speed substantially reduced.



Cessna flaps are very effective at both adding lift and drag. My 182
had 40 degrees of flaps and it really helped to wedge it in short. My
Bo has 30 degrees of flaps and that combined with a much slipperier wing
allows the 182 to stop in 100 less feet than my Bo with the same load,
not at the same weight.(Myself and 40 gallons). At the same weight the
Bo needs slightly less runway than the 182. Stall speed for my S35 is
63 knots at gross(3300 pounds), flaps up. Flaps down it is 51 knots at
gross. At 2400 pounds it is 55/46 knots. It depends on what you're
trying to accomplish on the takeoff that decides for you if flaps should
be used or not. Just getting off the ground in the minimum distance is
not necessarily the best strategy. A no flap takeoff in any plane will
at some point cross thru the altitude of the climbing aircraft using
flaps, usually between 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile from the start of the
takeoff roll. So while the guy using flaps wows the crowd on takeoff
the guy that takes off without flaps is much farther above the trees one
mile from the takeoff point.