flaps

Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said
aircraft un-airworthy.
This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself to
runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for

Al,
I agree that inoperative flaps do not render certain aircraft
unairworthy. During my primary training, one day the C150 flaps
stopped to operate due to a weak battery. The chief instructor who
was also an AP and DE told me that I should go out and practice
landings without flaps. I had great fun that day practicing slipping
to see how short that I could land without 40 degrees flaps.

Hai Longworth

Al G wrote:
Ok, IMHO, inoperative flaps on a C-172 do not in any way render said
aircraft un-airworthy.
This airplane can be operated safely without flaps. I may limit myself to
runways longer than 800', but un-airworthy? They are not recommended for
takeoff, optional for landing, and not used enroute. Now if it were a
Lear...

Define "airworthy"; hint it does not mean "flyable". Ask Roy Smith about an
'energetic' FAA inspector.

Hilton

Roy Smith wrote:


10 kts too fast over the threshold is pretty significant. I don't fly the
177RG, but I found a checklist on the net that lists normal landing speeds
at 60-70 kts and Vfe (top of the white arc, which is what you said you were
doing on final) as 95. That's 25-35 kts too fast to land.


35 knots too fast isn't a flap issue. That's a serious training issue.
At least he wouldn't have been hurt in the wreck since he was so far
behind the airplane.

Kobra,
I have not flown a C177RG but have often practiced landings with
different flap configurations in my C177B. Being 5'2", it is
impossible for me to see over the cowling when landing with no flaps
in a Cardinal. I have to rely on peripheral vision for such landings.
We had problem with our flaps once but it was the opposite with the
flaps stuck at 10 degrees position. As I recalled, it was a broken
wire inside the plane. The switches in the wings were OK. You can do
a search for flap problem in the Cardinal Flyers Virtual Digest. The
Tech section also have some information on flaps.

Hai Longworth

IMHO, full flaps are called for on a normal landing...it is only when gusts
or crosswinds raise their ugly heads that lesse deflections should be used.
The goal is minimum speed at touchdown, and you are depriving yourself of a
huge energy sink.

Spend an hour or two landing on the numbers with the stall horn squalling.

Bob Gardner

"Kobra" wrote in message
. ..
Aviators,

My wife and I flew to Williamsburg (JGG) in our 177RG on Sat. and stayed
until Sunday.

On base at Williamsburg I noticed that the airspeed was really high. I
raised the nose and pulled some power. I had 20 degrees of flaps in and
that is what I usually land with. On final the airspeed was just coming
out of the green and touching the white arc with only 15 inches manifold
pressure. On short final I dropped the last 10 degrees, but despite that,
man I came across the threshold like a bat-out-of-hell.

The runway was only 3000 feet, but somehow I got it down and stopped after
heavy brake burning. I just figured I used some really bad technique or
picked up a tailwind.

I looked at the wind sock and it was stone dead and limp.

On my pre-flight for the trip home I found out why all this happened.
Sometime after lift-off to JGG the flaps went TU. I had no flaps on
landing and I never noticed!! I can hardly believe I don't consciencely
or unconsciencely look to see if the flaps are deploying. Why didn't I
notice that the flap indicator didn't move or that the plane didn't change
pitch or that it didn't push me against the shoulder harness as usual. I
just didn't catch the fact that no flaps came out.

Now I had to get home. I called my mechanic and he said it could be many
things (it wasn't the breaker). He also said I was a complete wimp (he
used a different word that began with a p) if I couldn't land that plane
without the flaps on our 3,500 feet of runway.

I took off and started to ponder the situation:

No flaps
No daylight with 3 miles vis. in haze and mist (ASOS said 10 miles but no
way could you see more than 3 miles)
No landing light (it burned out two weeks ago)
No wind (so no headwind to help slow the airplane's ground speed on
landing)
and I've done a grand total of two no-flap landings in my life. One with
my primary CFI and one during my check out when I bought the plane. Both
during the day with a headwind.

Well, obviously everything went fine and I exited on the second taxiway
off 19 at N14, my homebase. I landed as slow as I could, but the nose was
so high that seeing ahead of the airplane was almost impossible.

I used runway 19 because runway 1 has trees on the approach and I wanted
to come in as flat as possible.

Anyway...how many different things can cause this? Where should I start
looking?

I also recommend that everyone do some no flap landings each year.

Kobra

Spend an hour or two landing on the numbers with the stall horn squalling.

It's funny how much easier this was to do when I was renting
airplanes. Heck, I'd routinely drag it in at minimum forward air
speed and plunk it on the numbers, just to see how short I could land.

When you own an aircraft -- especially one with a big, heavy 6-
cylinder engine that is slightly nose-heavy -- you think twice before
"practicing" such things. Tires, struts, brakes, firewalls, props,
and engines all become HUGE impediments to "practicing" landings with
the stall horn squalling, since you're paying for them all.

This post, IMHO, above all else, is a real tribute to the utility of
manual, Johnson-bar flap actuators. Hard to miss when THOSE don't
work.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Jul 10, 3:38 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
Spend an hour or two landing on the numbers with the stall horn squalling.

It's funny how much easier this was to do when I was renting
airplanes. Heck, I'd routinely drag it in at minimum forward air
speed and plunk it on the numbers, just to see how short I could land.

When you own an aircraft -- especially one with a big, heavy 6-
cylinder engine that is slightly nose-heavy -- you think twice before
"practicing" such things. Tires, struts, brakes, firewalls, props,
and engines all become HUGE impediments to "practicing" landings with
the stall horn squalling, since you're paying for them all.


Jay,
I fly my own plane the same way that I flew rental planes. Every
so often, Rick and I would try to do some basic maneuvers such as slow
flight, steep turns, stalls, soft and short field landings. We have
the tires and brakes replaced about every 250 or so hours. I have no
ideas how much money we would have saved if we had 'babied' our plane.
IMHO, being proficient at short field landings may save my skin
someday and no amount of money is worth my life.

Hai Longworth

I fly my own plane the same way that I flew rental planes. Every
so often, Rick and I would try to do some basic maneuvers such as slow
flight, steep turns, stalls, soft and short field landings. We have
the tires and brakes replaced about every 250 or so hours. I have no
ideas how much money we would have saved if we had 'babied' our plane.
IMHO, being proficient at short field landings may save my skin
someday and no amount of money is worth my life.

Oh, we practice all the other stuff -- but short-short-short field
landings are NOT one of them. Botching a power-off, let's-plant-it-on-
the-numbers landing is just too potentially expensive, since Atlas'
nose will slam down like Thor's hammer if you let him get too slow.

Which isn't to say we shy away from short fields. We routinely fly
into 2200 foot grass strips, so we're fairly proficient at it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:



Which isn't to say we shy away from short fields. We routinely fly
into 2200 foot grass strips, so we're fairly proficient at it.

You should have no problem using a strip half that length with two of
you on board. Is your nosewheel/strut/firewall that delicate? That's
not Pipers reputation, that's Cessna's. Piper's rep is building planes
that are overweight, not fragile.

Longworth wrote:
I fly my own plane the same way that I flew rental planes. Every
so often, Rick and I would try to do some basic maneuvers such as slow
flight, steep turns, stalls, soft and short field landings. We have
the tires and brakes replaced about every 250 or so hours. I have no
ideas how much money we would have saved if we had 'babied' our plane.
IMHO, being proficient at short field landings may save my skin
someday and no amount of money is worth my life.

Hai Longworth


Couldn't have said it better myself.