Full flap ILS

I flew safety for a friend in his Bonanza A36 w/ IO-550 yesterday. He
hand flew a perfect ILS, but it was with full flap and gears down at
around 22 in power. In my E35 Bonanza with E225 engine and low flap
and gear speeds, I almost always fly ILS with flap up, gears down at
around 17 in power. We both fly ILS at around 105 to 115 knots.

During lunch, we discussed the pros and cons of full flap ILS. My
friend's arguments were that with full flap, when breaking out at
minimum for landing, all you have to do is to pull back on the power
and land ("get dirty early"). And with higher power setting, less
stress is on the engine when going full power for miss and quicker
power application (especially when one gets into turbo, turboprop or
jet).

My argument against full flap ILS is that that less initial climb
performance would be available during miss approach. I feel the time
required to retract full flap to approach flap then to no flap would
significantly reduce your climb gradient. Going full power with full
flap requires a large change in pitch, but climb rate is not better at
full flap because the added drag. In addition, between landing after
breaking out at minimum and executing a miss approach, I prefer less
workload during the miss.

What are your opinions?

For me. landing is easy and go arounds in IMC are hard (and dangerous
statistically). I favor setting up for the go around. However you guys
have proven it can be done both ways. Pick the way that is most
comfortable for you.

wrote:

What are your opinions?

I go flapless. However, thats more due to the fact that my A35 only has
20 degrees of flaps and so they really do not add much drag to the
situation.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

All the runways with an ILS are long. The Bonanza can be
landed with approach flaps, full flaps or no flaps at all.

I don't like to go to full flaps in any aircraft until
landing. But you can fly many profiles, one is not easier
or more correct than the other if you have a reason.
Crosswinds are easier at higher speed.

Systems play a part too. The E35, unless modified didn't
have a flap detent (if I recall) but the newer airplanes do.
The airplane should be configured prior to GS intercept to
17-20 In. MAP and if desired approach flaps. Gear down as
the GS is intercepted from below. Gear does not cause a
ballooning effect and the extra drag allows just a slight
pitch down and the GS will track. If you are extending
flaps at GS int. you will have a bigger change in drag and
more difficulty hold the GS.

As long as power is in the 17-18 inch range or higher, there
is little strain change on the engine as long as the prop
gov. is still in control.

If you break out at 200 feet, just land, if you don't break
out, a MAP is easier if you don't have the drag of full
flaps. A miss calls for power/pitch change and gear up
when you have a positive rate of climb, Full flaps will
delay that. If the flap motor fails you have just increased
your problems.

I like to keep 120-140 knots on any approach until the FAF,
for several reasons. It helps ATC with traffic sequence at
busy airports. Being faster is required in icing conditions
so the ice would try to form on the boots and not under the
wing or on the flaps.

Turbo-charged airplanes seem to work well with the same
basic power plus 5 inches, that keeps the turbo spooled up
and the engine ready for full power if needed. Remember, a
turbo needs to idle and cool down and have the turbo cool
and spool down so it isn't damaged due to spinning at high
rpm without oil [same on your turbo sports car].


" wrote in message
oups.com...
|I flew safety for a friend in his Bonanza A36 w/ IO-550
yesterday. He
| hand flew a perfect ILS, but it was with full flap and
gears down at
| around 22 in power. In my E35 Bonanza with E225 engine
and low flap
| and gear speeds, I almost always fly ILS with flap up,
gears down at
| around 17 in power. We both fly ILS at around 105 to 115
knots.
|
| During lunch, we discussed the pros and cons of full flap
ILS. My
| friend's arguments were that with full flap, when breaking
out at
| minimum for landing, all you have to do is to pull back on
the power
| and land ("get dirty early"). And with higher power
setting, less
| stress is on the engine when going full power for miss and
quicker
| power application (especially when one gets into turbo,
turboprop or
| jet).
|
| My argument against full flap ILS is that that less
initial climb
| performance would be available during miss approach. I
feel the time
| required to retract full flap to approach flap then to no
flap would
| significantly reduce your climb gradient. Going full
power with full
| flap requires a large change in pitch, but climb rate is
not better at
| full flap because the added drag. In addition, between
landing after
| breaking out at minimum and executing a miss approach, I
prefer less
| workload during the miss.
|
| What are your opinions?
|

wrote:
=
My argument against full flap ILS is that that less initial climb
performance would be available during miss approach. I feel the time
required to retract full flap to approach flap then to no flap would
significantly reduce your climb gradient

The aircraft had to demonstrate during certification a reasonable
climb rate either with the flaps down or where they will be in
short order if the retract is commanded on the go around. I can't
believe it makes much of a difference in the BO, they don't that
long to come up after the pilot hits both the gear and flap switches.

The argument I could give for using less than full flaps in my plane
(admittedly not a bonzana), is that she wallows around a bit in
gusty conditions with it all hanging out.

And the permissible G loads are lower, maybe only 2 instead
of 3.8.



"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...
| wrote:
| =
| My argument against full flap ILS is that that less
initial climb
| performance would be available during miss approach. I
feel the time
| required to retract full flap to approach flap then to
no flap would
| significantly reduce your climb gradient
|
| The aircraft had to demonstrate during certification a
reasonable
| climb rate either with the flaps down or where they will
be in
| short order if the retract is commanded on the go around.
I can't
| believe it makes much of a difference in the BO, they
don't that
| long to come up after the pilot hits both the gear and
flap switches.
|
| The argument I could give for using less than full flaps
in my plane
| (admittedly not a bonzana), is that she wallows around a
bit in
| gusty conditions with it all hanging out.

wrote:
My argument against full flap ILS is that that less initial climb
performance would be available during miss approach. I feel the time
required to retract full flap to approach flap then to no flap would
significantly reduce your climb gradient. Going full power with full
flap requires a large change in pitch, but climb rate is not better at
full flap because the added drag. In addition, between landing after
breaking out at minimum and executing a miss approach, I prefer less
workload during the miss.

What are your opinions?

Have you done a go around in his plane or an A-36 in the scenario you
are describing to quantify the differences between what you advocate and
what he is doing?

If you are doing an ILS to minimums you've likely got a 5,000 ft runway
or so... and a large protected area associated with it. You've got
plenty of room and time to make the transition.

My A-36 checklist states Flaps are acceptable in the approach position
for a short field departure, and thats an acceptable intermediate
position for a bit while you stabilize the climb, then retract fully
when you have a positive rate and good airspeed established.

Your friend is doing what is acceptable, and works well for him.. and
his plane. If it aint broke, dont fix it.

Dave

,

What are your opinions?


I fly with 10 degrees of flaps. The reasoning:

- you get the added lift, but much of the added drag. Good for the
approach, good for the go-around
- Handling is much better than with full flaps. It is (in our plane)
quite easy to get behind the power curve with full flaps
- Landing on a non-short runway (i.e. one with an instrument approach)
with only 10 degrees is a non-issue. You just don't need full flaps in
that situation.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

wrote:
I flew safety for a friend in his Bonanza A36 w/ IO-550 yesterday. He
hand flew a perfect ILS, but it was with full flap and gears down at
around 22 in power. In my E35 Bonanza with E225 engine and low flap
and gear speeds, I almost always fly ILS with flap up, gears down at
around 17 in power. We both fly ILS at around 105 to 115 knots.


Back when I was flying every day, I used to regularly make no flap approaches
(Piper Lance) into RDU at 130 knots or so, not for any particular operational
need of my aircraft, but rather to fit in better with all the airliners. I'd
never get any "keep the airspeed up" messages, nobody ever had to go around, and
I had plenty of runway to get things sorted out after I broke out of the crap.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Landing on a non-short runway (i.e. one with an instrument approach)
with only 10 degrees is a non-issue. You just don't need full flaps in
that situation.

Most of the time, that's true. Most ILS's are to runways that are 7000
feet or more. But, there are some that are as short as 5000, and those
tend to be at airports that don't have approaches to both ends so you might
be flying a downwind approach. At a place like that, speed control on the
approach becomes more of an issue.

Even more interesting is the issue of LNAV/VNAV GPS approaches -- the ones
where the GPS gives you a synthetic 3 degree glide slope to follow, just
like an ILS. Lots of these are to short runways. You really don't want to
fall into the trap of thinking that just because it looks and feels like an
ILS, you can fly it like an ILS.