Landing flaps cross post

[Ed Cesnalis]

I'm posting this here too because I have done a better job at debunking your no flaps higher speed landings.

 

My first plane and my current plane both had/have flaperons. I have always used full or 30 degree flaps for landings. I get that roll authority diminishes with higher flaperon settings but that is true with higher flap settings as well. Nothing new because we have flaperons.

It's not a big deal because we as pilots don't move the stick into the wind just a small amount and fail to counter the drift or fail to keep the low wing down. Like any other input when our stick's become sluggish we still move them far enough to get the desired result.

More flaps = less speed = less roll authority = more stick travel required.

Here's why this is smarter than landing fast: If your roll authority is inadequate when attempting to land at minimum speed you can simply fly away and land on a different runway. If instead you land fast but in the same conditions, with more roll authority and more ease you will more likely be able to land but still run out of needed authority as speed decays when you are on the ground and even more vulnerable. Result is the mishap is now more likely.

 

I have always said that landing fast just postpones the vulnerable period but above I think I put it better.

 

----------------------------------

 

Do every landing as though you know that you have a flat tire.

[Runtoeat]

CT, good to see a post from you - (and the support for full flap landings)

[Buckaroo]

I went out yesterday and for the first time I did some touch and goes with zero flaps. I felt in more control of the aircraft in all parts of the pattern and landings compared to the 15 degree flap operation. With the higher speeds the aircraft is more precise and more fun to fly. I like the flatter attitude on final and the quicker stick responses and higher speeds in the pattern.

 

I'm still not sure which flap settings will be my go to flaps with normal operations but am leaning towards 15 to 0 degrees. I'm a fan of airspeed taking in considerations for wind sheer, wake turbulence, go arounds, down drafts etc.

 

The CTSW seems friendly to operate with any flaps and the techniques, tho are different seem easy to handle.

[Ed Cesnalis]

I went out yesterday and for the first time I did some touch and goes with zero flaps. I felt in more control of the aircraft in all parts of the pattern and landings compared to the 15 degree flap operation. With the higher speeds the aircraft is more precise and more fun to fly. I like the flatter attitude on final and the quicker stick responses and higher speeds in the pattern.

 

I'm still not sure which flap settings will be my go to flaps with normal operations but am leaning towards 15 to 0 degrees. I'm a fan of airspeed taking in considerations for wind sheer, wake turbulence, go arounds, down drafts etc.

 

The CTSW seems friendly to operate with any flaps and the techniques, tho are different seem easy to handle.

 

Here's 2 flies in your ointment:

• Landing on a flat tire (including nose wheel - the zero flap high speed landings in gusty conditions often advocate nose wheel steering ASAP too.) - the extra speed with a flat is more likely to result in a loss of control.
• Using that speed in a high wind sheer environment to get on the ground easily only to be overcome by a gust or lack of authority as you slow down. - An alternative approach at minimum speed and landing flaps is likely to show you that you don't have enough authority to maintain control all the way to stopping or turning off the runway and you can easily abort  before touchdown and before a mishap. Note it is possible to only experience the sheer that does you in after you are on the ground but landing a minimum speed with flaps makes this less likely as well.

In the prior century small light aircraft were common at Mammoth and so where landing mishaps. Loss of control on rollout was most common and it happened to those that landed above minimum speed without landing flaps.

 

Approaching with flaps at minimum speed means you are far more likely to abort the landing before touchdown.

[Roger Lee]

I'm certainly in a different camp on windy days and high flap settings. I see them as big pieces of plywood hanging out there in the wind  waiting for the wind to push on them and get a wing low. This happened to me several times in the 1980's, but I quit fighting the wind and learned to work within it. Personally I think some worry way too much about a few knots of speed that any pilot should be able to control. I'm up around 2K hrs. in a CT and have never landed at full stall or 30-40 flaps in high winds and have never tweaked a landing gear, lost control or gone off a runway.

 

It isn't about those few knots of speed, but what you do with it and how you handle it.

 

I've had 5 people land with a front flat at the airport from low tire pressure and pulled the stem. They all just had wobble, but no loss of steering. I've two land with flat mains. That pulled hard to that one side, but was controllable with the front nose steering.

There have been several here over the years with a flat front tire and all landed okay. A flat tire coupled with brakes brings you to a quick stop.

[FlyingMonkey]

I went out yesterday and for the first time I did some touch and goes with zero flaps. I felt in more control of the aircraft in all parts of the pattern and landings compared to the 15 degree flap operation. With the higher speeds the aircraft is more precise and more fun to fly. I like the flatter attitude on final and the quicker stick responses and higher speeds in the pattern.

 

I'm still not sure which flap settings will be my go to flaps with normal operations but am leaning towards 15 to 0 degrees. I'm a fan of airspeed taking in considerations for wind sheer, wake turbulence, go arounds, down drafts etc.

 

The CTSW seems friendly to operate with any flaps and the techniques, tho are different seem easy to handle.

 

That's hilarious, because I feel like I have *less* control at 0° than at 15° flaps.  Not hilarious because I think you are wrong, but because different pilots experience things so differently.  At 0° I feel like the airplane always wants to sink too fast and I have to keep the speed uncomfortably high.  

 

Just goes to show, as Roger says, that cat can be skinned in numerous ways.  And you are right, the CTSW can land well at any flap setting.  The senior instructor at Lockwood even likes landing at -6° in very windy conditions.  

[FlyingMonkey]

Here's 2 flies in your ointment:

• Landing on a flat tire (including nose wheel - the zero flap high speed landings in gusty conditions often advocate nose wheel steering ASAP too.) - the extra speed with a flat is more likely to result in a loss of control.
• Using that speed in a high wind sheer environment to get on the ground easily only to be overcome by a gust or lack of authority as you slow down. - An alternative approach at minimum speed and landing flaps is likely to show you that you don't have enough authority to maintain control all the way to stopping or turning off the runway and you can easily abort  before touchdown and before a mishap. Note it is possible to only experience the sheer that does you in after you are on the ground but landing a minimum speed with flaps makes this less likely as well.

In the prior century small light aircraft were common at Mammoth and so where landing mishaps. Loss of control on rollout was most common and it happened to those that landed above minimum speed without landing flaps.

 

Approaching with flaps at minimum speed means you are far more likely to abort the landing before touchdown.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said in principle, Ed.  Good stuff.  I'm going to re-think some of my landing assumptions based on it.

 

For *me*, I am unlikely to land in areas where direct crosswinds or very strong gusts are likely to overpower my controls on roll out or taxi.  The simple reason is that I simply won't fly if conditions are that dicey.  I grant that at your home field this is all standard stuff, and that if you want to fly at all, you have to make do with the conditions at your airport.  But most of us don't have to fly in those kinds of gusty/windy/shear.

 

You are right, there is always some window of vulnerability, and as pilots we do get a say on when that window occurs based on how we configure the airplane.  That is a very astute observation, that I for one am taking to heart and will be thinking about going forward.

[FlyingMonkey]

 

 

It isn't about those few knots of speed, but what you do with it and how you handle it.

 

 

 

Also true.  I find that the CTSW in windy or gusty conditions requires *constant* use of both hands and feet to keep straight.  It's not that difficult with practice, but you have to make small corrections all the way down to a stop.  If you stop moving your feet once you are on the ground you will get in trouble; the narrow gear track and efficient wings will get you squirrelly fast.  Right down at the last ten feet before touchdown you are "stirring the stick" pretty aggressively when it's really gusty.  

 

If you work the approach landing like a 182, expecting similar stability, you are going to get a quick education on LSA handling.  

[Buckaroo]

Here's 2 flies in your ointment:

• Landing on a flat tire (including nose wheel - the zero flap high speed landings in gusty conditions often advocate nose wheel steering ASAP too.) - the extra speed with a flat is more likely to result in a loss of control.
• Using that speed in a high wind sheer environment to get on the ground easily only to be overcome by a gust or lack of authority as you slow down. - An alternative approach at minimum speed and landing flaps is likely to show you that you don't have enough authority to maintain control all the way to stopping or turning off the runway and you can easily abort before touchdown and before a mishap. Note it is possible to only experience the sheer that does you in after you are on the ground but landing a minimum speed with flaps makes this less likely as well.

In the prior century small light aircraft were common at Mammoth and so where landing mishaps. Loss of control on rollout was most common and it happened to those that landed above minimum speed without landing flaps.

 

Approaching with flaps at minimum speed means you are far more likely to abort the landing before touchdown.

I agree on the first fly.

 

Not totally sold on the second one.

 

I have lots of hours in Cessnas and Pipers at a field elevation of 6572' with major crosswinds and high DA's of 9500 plus. My fellow instructors and me always came in clean and a little hot testing the waters as we kicked out the crab and threw the upwind wing low and into the wind. Go around we're common place as the first pass was a evaluation pass.

 

Having the no flap weight on landing and extra speed with better control authority always seemed to make sense. Using 20 degrees or more of flaps was almost never done.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Maneuvering speed is very similar. When complying, your aircraft's structure is protected by physics.  Using VA will cause a stall to happen prior to structural damage occurring.  

 

The long standing requirement to land at minimum speed is based on physics as well. Using minimum speed landings will minimize kinetic energy. Minimum speed landings also force you to become vulnerable due to lack of speed earlier in the landing sequence when you likely still have the option of a go-around.

 

Both of these issues are based on physics and are not addressed by the above responses.

• A few knots doesn't hurt - physics says otherwise, energy rises at the square of the speed increase plus 'few' is in this case ambiguous and meant to 'minimize' the danger not address it. The flat tire and mishap could still happen, the gust at vulnerable speed could still happen.
• We came in hot without flaps for control authority -  This is obviously true but doesn't address the physics. Landing hot still elevates the risk of being overcome when slow and on the ground.
• I don't fly in those conditions - again not addressing the physics but relying on continuing luck. Once you are in the air you no longer get to choose and once on approach the flat or likely gust at an unfortunate moment may be missed. I do applaud your willingness to re-think.

Landing incidents in small planes have declined because general aviation, especially small aircraft have declined.  

 

The ultimate question regarding landing hot becomes 'Are the crisper controls and simpler roundouts worth the risk experienced later in the landing sequence as well as the tire failure risk?'  Before answering consider that the approach with flaps at minimum safe speed can serve to warn you off while still in the air. And also consider what is the big problem with sluggish controls?  I want the sluggish controls because when they go to the stop I know I have a control problem in current conditions but If I'm hot and don't experience the stop, all feels fine.

 

When landing hot in big winds you lose your early warning to go elsewhere.

[Buckaroo]

Maneuvering speed is very similar. When complying, your aircraft's structure is protected by physics. Using VA will cause a stall to happen prior to structural damage occurring.

 

The long standing requirement to land at minimum speed is based on physics as well. Using minimum speed landings will minimize kinetic energy. Minimum speed landings also force you to become vulnerable due to lack of speed earlier in the landing sequence when you likely still have the option of a go-around.

 

Both of these issues are based on physics and are not addressed by the above responses.

• A few knots doesn't hurt - physics says otherwise, energy rises at the square of the speed increase plus 'few' is in this case ambiguous and meant to 'minimize' the danger not address it. The flat tire and mishap could still happen, the gust at vulnerable speed could still happen.
• We came in hot without flaps for control authority - This is obviously true but doesn't address the physics. Landing hot still elevates the risk of being overcome when slow and on the ground.
• I don't fly in those conditions - again not addressing the physics but relying on continuing luck. Once you are in the air you no longer get to choose and once on approach the flat or likely gust at an unfortunate moment may be missed. I do applaud your willingness to re-think.

Landing incidents in small planes have declined because general aviation, especially small aircraft have declined.

 

The ultimate question regarding landing hot becomes 'Are the crisper controls and simpler roundouts worth the risk experienced later in the landing sequence as well as the tire failure risk?' Before answering consider that the approach with flaps at minimum safe speed can serve to warn you off while still in the air. And also consider what is the big problem with sluggish controls? I want the sluggish controls because when they go to the stop I know I have a control problem in current conditions but If I'm hot and don't experience the stop, all feels fine.

 

When landing hot in big winds you lose your early warning to go elsewhere.

Physics also states that the slower you go the higher angle of attack equals the wing is closer to stall. So on short final or rounding out when on the edge one wing can stall and drop causing a quick roll over. Coming in with 0 to 20 degrees of flaps and higher speeds to ground effect minimizes the stall roll situation.

[Roger Lee]

here's the thing. This argument has been around since flying. There has always been one camp for and one against flaps in high winds. It will never won by either side. If one works for you use it.

 

 

"A few knots doesn't hurt - physics says otherwise".

 

With tens of thousands of hours by CT pilots and other light aircraft I would say real life experience says physics doesn't play that big a part here. See first sentence in this post.

 

Everyone here has probably held a big flat piece of cardboard or plywood on a windy day. Hold it perpendicular (Flaps down) to the wind and it gets yanked out of your hands. 

 

​Hold it horizontal (zero flaps) to the in and walk unimpeded where you want to go.

 

What gets a wing high and one low real fats is giving the wind something to act against or push against.

 

Since some of us can land in 25-30 knot crosswinds with zero flaps and we've done it several times then it must work.

 

If you want to land with a lot of flaps in high winds then no problem.

 

 

What would be an interesting research project is to see how many that has had a wing lifted and touched the low wing had flap use or no flap use.

[Roger Lee]

This debate has been around 10 years here on the forum. Nothing gets solved because there are two camps of ideas and always will be. No big deal.

The big flap users in high winds have tended to be a small few in comparison to the whole community.

 

It has worked for everyone that has a plane so we all do something right.

 

But the reduced or no flap guys are right.     

 

Smile it's all fun. Just go fly and enjoy.

[Anticept]

I think I'm missing something here. Trying to figure out what the mishap is.

 

>  but still run out of needed authority as speed decays when you are on the ground and even more vulnerable. Result is the mishap is now more likely.

 

If you're on the ground, what roll authority are you referring to? Countering wind from getting up under one wing and flipping?

[ausctls]

When landing with 30deg flap, if it's windy or gusty, the first thing I do during rollout is lift the flaps back up.

This just feels safer to me.

[FlyingMonkey]

 

When landing hot in big winds you lose your early warning to go elsewhere.

 

I don't think anybody is saying "come in hot"...we are talking 2-4 knots difference here, not 10-20.

[FlyingMonkey]

When landing with 30deg flap, if it's windy or gusty, the first thing I do during rollout is lift the flaps back up.

This just feels safer to me.

 

Damn straight.  I know some hate reconfiguring the airplane on the runway, but I personally have had control issues with gusts if this is not done.  The airplane noticeably "plants" on the gear when you take the flaps from 30 to 0 while rolling out.

[Ed Cesnalis]

When landing with 30deg flap, if it's windy or gusty, the first thing I do during rollout is lift the flaps back up.

This just feels safer to me.

 

I do the same, lift is destroyed and the chances of a mishap diminish drastically. [retractable gear issues aside]

[Ed Cesnalis]

I don't think anybody is saying "come in hot"...we are talking 2-4 knots difference here, not 10-20.

 

I don't mean anything more by hot than faster.  2-4 knots is barely perceptible and I don't think that's what we are talking about here.  Comparing stall speeds between flap settings can lead you to that conclusion but try comparing techniques instead. 

 

On your CTSW with 30* flaps a safe approach speed results in a level wingtip, the part that is normally drooped becomes level and at that pitch attitude you can glide to the ground throttle closed and have a safe margin over stall.  This is probably in the 55kt indicated range. This configuration results in a steep approach and a dramatic round out.

 

Think about what happens at this dramatic round out that only exists at 30* or 40*.  Our trimmed, throttle closed approach goes from a forward stick position (caused by the trim setting) to an aft stick position. This large amount of travel exists for sure with landing flaps and throttle closed so in this case we know that we are for sure touching down at a high angle of attack, otherwise we would have hit our nose wheel. Personaly I know I'm at a high AOA because I have my stick at the aft stop.

 

Now think about a zero flap landing with the throttle closed.  You now have a flat deck angle and a pretty neutral stick.  You don't need a lot of aft travel to clear the nose wheel in fact you probably don't need to round out at all.  You can't really stall the plane because the tail would be too low. Even if the book says speeds are similar we have a much lower AOA resulting in a higher speed with more energy.  This type of landing is truly flying it on, instead of trying to attain minimum forward speed (stick full back) you settle for minimum vertical speed (soft contact). This routinely works fine but the risk is increased and the flat tire or well timed gust scenarios are why.

[Ed Cesnalis]

I think I'm missing something here. Trying to figure out what the mishap is.

 

>  but still run out of needed authority as speed decays when you are on the ground and even more vulnerable. Result is the mishap is now more likely.

 

If you're on the ground, what roll authority are you referring to? Countering wind from getting up under one wing and flipping?

 

Early in the landing sequence rudder controls heading and is used to maintain the runway heading while roll controls drift and is used to maintain the centerline.

 

Once we get a main on the ground we are clearly talking control authority, rudder and flaperons, not just roll authority. Rolling out on one wheel allows you to counter the crosswind with flaperon resulting in a low wing.  It is not until the downwind main settles that skipping sideways (as a CT is prone to do) becomes the problem.

 

So the mishaps are loss of control on rollout due to learning you have a lack of authority only after you are on the ground.  Failure to maintain runway is the common mishap as well as prop strikes due to wheel barrowing.  Wind under your low wing is probably from failing to land on the upwind main first and move from that balance to full deflection as speed decays.

 

I'm arguing it's better to run out of control authority before touch down when a go-around is easier.

[Buckaroo]

I don't mean anything more by hot than faster. 2-4 knots is barely perceptible and I don't think that's what we are talking about here. Comparing stall speeds between flap settings can lead you to that conclusion but try comparing techniques instead.

 

On your CTSW with 30* flaps a safe approach speed results in a level wingtip, the part that is normally drooped becomes level and at that pitch attitude you can glide to the ground throttle closed and have a safe margin over stall. This is probably in the 55kt indicated range. This configuration results in a steep approach and a dramatic round out.

 

Think about what happens at this dramatic round out that only exists at 30* or 40*. Our trimmed, throttle closed approach goes from a forward stick position (caused by the trim setting) to an aft stick position. This large amount of travel exists for sure with landing flaps and throttle closed so in this case we know that we are for sure touching down at a high angle of attack, otherwise we would have hit our nose wheel. Personaly I know I'm at a high AOA because I have my stick at the aft stop.

 

Now think about a zero flap landing with the throttle closed. You now have a flat deck angle and a pretty neutral stick. You don't need a lot of aft travel to clear the nose wheel in fact you probably don't need to round out at all. You can't really stall the plane because the tail would be too low.

 

Even if the book says speeds are similar we have a much lower AOA resulting in a higher speed with more energy. This type of landing is truly flying it on, instead of trying to attain minimum forward speed (stick full back) you settle for minimum vertical speed (soft contact).

 

This routinely works fine but the risk is increased and the flat tire or well timed gust scenarios are why.

My flying experience has been up to lately heavier general aviation aircraft. I think this is why I'm leaning towards minimum flap landings as you feel more control and energy

with the aircraft. The cleaner and faster handling of no flap flight in the pattern and landing gives me a more familiar feel that heavier planes exhibit.

[Ed Cesnalis]

My flying experience has been up to lately heavier general aviation aircraft. I think this is why I'm leaning towards minimum flap landings as you feel more control and energy

With the aircraft. The cleaner and faster handling of no flap flight in the pattern and landing gives me a more familiar feel that heavier planes exhibit.

 

I totally agree that you can mimic a heavier feel with more knots.  In my opinion the lighter the plane the more the landing departs from the normal landing of heavier aircraft with more kinetic energy. Especially when you close the throttle the approaches get steeper, the roundouts get more dramatic, and the minimum speeds get lower. 

 

The familiar feel comes at a cost of increased kinetic energy and therefore increased risk.

[Ed Cesnalis]

This debate has been around 10 years here on the forum. Nothing gets solved because there are two camps of ideas and always will be. No big deal.

The big flap users in high winds have tended to be a small few in comparison to the whole community.

 

It has worked for everyone that has a plane so we all do something right.

 

But the reduced or no flap guys are right.     

 

Smile it's all fun. Just go fly and enjoy.

 

The landing speed / landing configuration debate is not ford vs chevy at all.  Your everybody's right, it's just ford vs chevy implies equivalent levels of risk. Landing speed equates to risk, that is why the LSA stall speed limitation exists. Speed determines energy which determines risk.

 

The other argument that many higher speed landings have been safely made therefore that method works just as well is like saying that you never have complied with seatbelt laws and have never crashed your car so it works just as well.

[Roger Lee]

Stall speeds equate to risk too if you make a mistake. No different than a few knots of speed. More people stall their aircraft and prange the gear than land a few knots too fast and prange the gear.

 

With the hundreds of LSA that I have seen land at Ryan over the last 14 years you and fast Eddie may be the only two I know that use a lot of flaps in high winds.

That means you guys must drive a Fiat.    Sorry I just couldn't resist. 

 

This is still a time old debate and neither side can win because neither side has a compelling and proven argument. 

 

This debate isn't winnable from either side. People have been doing it both ways since the begining.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Stall speeds equate to risk too if you make a mistake. No different than a few knots of speed. More people stall their aircraft and prange the gear than land a few knots too fast and prange the gear.

 

With the hundreds of LSA that I have seen land at Ryan over the last 14 years you and fast Eddie may be the only two I know that use a lot of flaps in high winds.

That means you guys must drive a Fiat.    Sorry I just couldn't resist. 

 

This is still a time old debate and neither side can win because neither side has a compelling and proven argument. 

 

This debate isn't winnable from either side. People have been doing it both ways since the begining.

 

 

Stall speed?  hmmmmmmm,  Is the reason for the faster landings changing from crisp controls to margin above stall speed?

 

Or is it a combination of crisper controls plus additional margin above stall speed?

 

I have 2 responses for you:

 

1. Extra Kinetic energy represents more risk but stall speeds do not.  All fixed wing airplanes have stall speeds.  1.3 x VSo has held up as adequate safety margin since before 'Stick and Rudder' and our CT slow approach speeds are even higher than 1.3 as they should be for a very light class aircraft. The high approach speeds you guys use are 1.4+. High approach speeds lead to PIO, fast landings and other issues and don't result in any extra margin of safety.
2. Your claim that more people stall their aircraft and prange the gear than land a few knots too fast and prange the gear is wrong in my opinion. These pilots are failing to control their vertical speed, its an energy management issue that is corrected either with the throttle or more aft stick or go around. There is no clear distinction here, the CT just isn't very likely to realize a deep stall and nose in, if it did you would have prop damage and injuries too.  The high vertical speed is generally just poor light aircraft landing technique especially failure to notice the too high sink rate and counter it before contact. Is it flying and sinking fast or stalling and mushing and sinking fast?  Doesn't matter the fix is the same, manage the energy available prior to the hard contact.  The comparison to 'a few knots too fast' continues to pretend that there is no real speed difference between the techniques.  The too fast incidents are more rare but more severe, like Roger Hellers.