Teaching Incremental Flaps in the Pattern

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?


Dan

wrote in message
...
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?


Dan

I think there are advantages to incremental flaps in the pattern because you
are in different phases of flight in speed and angle of turns. By the time
you turn final you need to be at basically landing speed and established on
a stabilized approach, if you jam all the flaps in and try to get a nice
angle for the approach with a stabilized airspeed you are just creating more
work in a shorter amount of time.

On Mar 4, 10:57 am, "Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:
wrote in message

...



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?

Dan

I think there are advantages to incremental flaps in the pattern because you
are in different phases of flight in speed and angle of turns. By the time
you turn final you need to be at basically landing speed and established on
a stabilized approach, if you jam all the flaps in and try to get a nice
angle for the approach with a stabilized airspeed you are just creating more
work in a shorter amount of time.

OK, but the counter argument is -- Why have different airspeeds?

In a model 35, Vle is 100 MPH (pretty slow). So I get the airplane to
90 on downwind, drop the gear midfield. At the numbers drop full flaps
and turn to base at 80, to final at 80, and then slow to 65-70 on
final (depending on winds). The slowdown on final requires very little
power-attitude-configuration change (a little nose up trim), and thus
I can concentrate on good turns and traffic scans during the turn to
base, turn to final critical phases of flight.

The pitch change in the 35 as the flaps drop to full is negligible,
but the descent rate with 15" MAP goes from straight and level to 700
FPM with no speed change. Trim up to a descent rate is 500' FPM and
target airspeed of 80 MPH.

Dan



This

wrote in message
...
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?


Ask yourself this: Why not drop full flaps just as you enter the 45?
Simple. It's inefficient. Why slow the plane down so early? Why add sooo
much drag and increase your time around the pattern and for what gain?

I haven't heard of gear-up landings running rampant due to setting the flaps
more than once. I haven't heard any pilot ever complaining about the
workload in the pattern because of setting the flaps.

With full flaps on the downwind you're dragging the plane around the pattern
at about 70 or 80 KIAS. Everyone behind you is probably at about 90 or 100
on those legs. Seems very inefficient. Other than that I can't think of
any reason not to drop full flaps on the DW.

Kobra

On Mar 4, 11:33 am, "Kobra" wrote:

Ask yourself this: Why not drop full flaps just as you enter the 45?
Simple. It's inefficient. Why slow the plane down so early? Why add sooo
much drag and increase your time around the pattern and for what gain?

I haven't heard of gear-up landings running rampant due to setting the flaps
more than once. I haven't heard any pilot ever complaining about the
workload in the pattern because of setting the flaps.

With full flaps on the downwind you're dragging the plane around the pattern
at about 70 or 80 KIAS. Everyone behind you is probably at about 90 or 100
on those legs. Seems very inefficient. Other than that I can't think of
any reason not to drop full flaps on the DW.

Kobra

I didn't say you should drag it around on downwind.

A few points:

1) An ongoing problem with private pilots in the pattern is flying too
fast. Don't believe it? Go to the local patch and watch touch downs
1/2 way down the pavement followed by a high-speed roll to the last
taxiway.

2) Dropping full flaps at the numbers means you will turn base very
soon after that. This keeps the pattern tight and *reduces* the time
spent in the pattern.

3) Once on final a stabilized speed close to 1.3 Vso ensures a spot
landing, short roll out, and means the a/c is off the runway sooner
rather than later.

Seems reasonable to me...

Dan

I am reluctant to teach anything that should "always" be used. Flaps are a
tool, and we learn early on in life that there are many ways to use a tool
to achieve different results. If there is a problem with the flap motor in
that specific airplane, why apply the same thinking to all airplanes? Flap
extension is a balance between lift and drag....whether you want more lift
or more drag depends on the situation.

Bottom line: I don't like it.

Bob Gardner

wrote in message
...
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?


Dan

On Mar 4, 7:22*am, " wrote:
I just read an interesting argument by Lew Gauge in his E-185 Bonanza
book.

When I first started teaching Mooneys I taught the traditional 4
points in the pattern with a different speed/configuration in each
part. After having a couple student pilots in the Mooney (yes its very
possible) I decided that all this configuration requires too much head
down time for the mortal pilot. So now I teach 100 knots on downwind,
flaps up, gear down. Abeam power to 2000 RPM, full flaps, 80 knots.
Short final we do slow to 75 knots though. For older, short body
Mooneys you just change knots for mph and the numbers still work out.
If you are solo with light fuel, just subtract 5 knots.

-Robert

On Mar 4, 12:07 pm, "Bob Gardner" wrote:
I am reluctant to teach anything that should "always" be used. Flaps are a
tool, and we learn early on in life that there are many ways to use a tool
to achieve different results. If there is a problem with the flap motor in
that specific airplane, why apply the same thinking to all airplanes? Flap
extension is a balance between lift and drag....whether you want more lift
or more drag depends on the situation.

Bottom line: I don't like it.

Bob Gardner


If I came across as "always in every instance" it was unintentional.

As in any art, it's best to start with simple principles, and then add
the exceptions later.

Dan

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

Bob Gardner wrote:
I am reluctant to teach anything that should "always" be used. Flaps are a
tool, and we learn early on in life that there are many ways to use a tool
to achieve different results.

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)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200803/1