Jump to content
Buckaroo

Newbee with landing flap questions.

Recommended Posts

I just received my new to me 2007 CTSW delivered from a great seller Col. Guy Jones out of Albuquerque. What a great person Guy is and very generous to bring my plane out to remote Montana for me! Guy spent time going over the bird and we did a little flying. I'm a flight instructor with 3000 hours but my last time teaching was 30 years ago.

 

I'm going to hire Brent Vetter from Vetter aviation to check me out next week. I'm sure Brent has no time in a CTSW and my little time with two landings with 15 of flap was to say very interesting with a 10 knot cross wind. 15 degrees of flaps is very effective and after takeoff I was advised to wait to 400 feet before flaps to zero.

 

For my question: 1. With full flaps just before touch down what are the abort and go around procedures?

2. Say coming in shallow by mistake with full flaps how does power handle the drag?

3. In general any helpful information concerning full flaps will be appreciated!

 

I'm sure my check out ride will include soft, short and slips so any info I can pass on to my check out pilot will be appreciated by he and I! We don't want to learn the hard way!

 

Thanks for the time!

post-1597-0-71692600-1479862377_thumb.jpeg

post-1597-0-21387100-1479862435_thumb.jpeg

post-1597-0-48295500-1479862494_thumb.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) I don't know if there is a formal 'procedure'.  Advance the throttle, control pitch and yaw, establish a positive rate of climb, clean up flaps when  able...

2.) Power is more than adequate.

3.) Seems like 90% of CT pilots avoid full flaps, almost any excuse will do.  Most claim a pitching moment and a need for positive nose gear steering gets and keeps them forward, they even use forward stick for 'traction'.  I represent the 'full' flaps, minimum landing speed contingent.  Many fear 'dropping a wing' when landing and it happens in shear but a little pressure on the opposite rudder softens it nicely.

 

Its on odd plane to land, you can't see the nose, the approach with flaps is steep. It runs out of energy rapidly so the approach is a bit like playing chicken with the ground attempting to not bleed off speed in the round out and doing it close to the ground.  Lots of adverse yaw and its rudder dominant so you actually have to use your feet to fly it well and even to fly it safely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the full flap camp too.  My experience indicates that CT's can be flown up and away from the runway @ full flaps when full power is applied. All aborted full flap landings I have done have all been successfully carried out by applying full throttle.  I feel bad when I see a landing mishap as a result of letting the CT drop to the runway or bouncing and crashing due to porpoising.  If full power would have been applied, no matter which flap setting, these mishaps most probably could have been avoided by quickly applying power and safely flying up and away from the runway.  They either weren't taught how to do this or perhaps forgot to apply full throttle when they found themselves in trouble?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plane is perhaps best described as "nimble".

 

Short field full 40 degree flaps, but if you get too slow, it will drop.

 

Normal landings is 30 or 15 degrees.  My CT2k like 30 degrees best, but my wings are 3 feet longer than the CTSW and subsequent CTs.  DO NOT push it down on the runway..... simply fly in along the centerline and let it sink.  A little power in short final/landing phase will ease the sink.

 

In a very strong crosswind (15 or + kts) 0 flaps, and increase the landing speed to 60/62 kts.

 

The plane is very forgiving for forgetful people......... the Rotax supplies almost immediate power when called upon, and it will pull you out of trouble if you let it.

 

 In a landing configuration, an application of full power will almost, almost, immediately arrest your sink rate...... at least that's been my experience.

 

 I've even taken off with -12 degree flaps......... but I wouldn't want to do it at max gross (1320) again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't even teach full flaps unless you were fairly proficient in 15 flaps. Big flaps for new people and untrained CFI's in CT's have caused a lot of bent gear. Your CFI needs some transition time too. The pilots that have the most problems in CT's is high time pilots trying to land it like some other plane. I wouldn't even think of turning anyone lose in a CT without some transition time. This very thing is what caused all the CT incidents early on. Over confidence that I can fly anything attitude.

Learn zero and 15 flaps first and they are easier to do a go around in. Land with some power to start as it will slow the descent after round out and give to immediate rpm if need be in a go around situation and the prop wash gives much better tail control due to the prop wash. No mushy controls. If you don't take it slow and in steps including the CFI you may have an expensive fix in your future. I have never transitioned anyone that has had a hard landing after we worked together.

 

Learn the CT in steps and don't go in the deep end for a while. You're welcome to give me a call and talk through different landing scenarios.

 

There may be some here that recommend full flaps and stall landings. You're too new to be attempting those. The slightest miscalculation in full flaps, no safe airspeed and low rpms will leave you no out in case of trouble. There are only a couple people here that use idle, full flaps and full stall landings. Most don't and there's good reason most don't. You can learn more types of landing skills as you learn the CT.

 

Take it slow in steps and don't get in over your head (CFI included).

 

 

p.s.

I just taught a guy in Indiana in a CT. He was always taught idle only landings and low speeds. I taught him to start to leave power in at 15 flaps instead of full 40 degree and he told me it was much easier to land. He ask why don't more people teach things like this to put in your mental toolbox. I just told him many CFI's are just narrow minded and were only taught one way too.

 

 

 

Guys if you recommend full stall high flap landings for this guy right up front you aren't doing him any favors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Guys if you recommend full stall high flap landings for this guy right up front you aren't doing him any favors.

 

Your opinion is noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger, you did everyone a great service by going into the detail you did.  Going in steps and gradually experiencing all of the capabilities our CT's offer is good advice.  Although I use full flaps for landing now, I did not do this initially.  I had no training landing with anything but 15 flaps under power.  Learning to land with full flaps came about after spending many hours of dual training with a CFI who has thousands of hours in low powered fixed wing, rotary wing military and recently business jets.  My CFI encourages me to consistently practice landings and take offs with -6 thru 40 flaps to try to stay proficient with all should the situation require it.  I would encourage all CT owners to explore the various flap settings in both landing and take off situations and under various wind conditions with a CFI who is familiar and experienced with the CT.  It is an amazingly responsive airplane but it is not one to be taken for granted when doing low speed maneuvers close to the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the wonderful information! Thanks for taking the time to explain all this clearly as well!

 

It will be fun to become proficient in this plane and invite my high hour friends to take the stick and watch them bounce that ball around and over control her.

 

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a great plane and there are many good knowledgeable pilots here. Sometimes we forget how we got to the point we are comfortable with our planes. You may develope landing techniques that best fit your own style and maybe try everyones different technique, but to start you need to start in easy steps and work your way up. That may be a quick transition or slow, but do it with the idea I want to save my plane for the next flight and the next one after that. The CT will make you a better technician. 

 

There is more than one way to land. never be narrowed minded and learn them all to have all of them in your mental and muscle memory toolbox. As you go about all this learning you will develop which technique you like the best. 

 

Don't rush into anything if you are too uncomfortable. Indecision and panic cause incidents and they are expensive. Before you fly make sure that your CFI has some transition time with someone that is comfortable in a CT. CT planes are everywhere so that shouldn't be hard to find.

 

The whole idea here is to train the mind and muscle for this aircraft and not think for a second it's like all other aircraft.

 

It isn't hard just don't get over confident to start and gert in past your skill level. Don't let the CFI get into this position either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger,

 

You are giving zero credit to the rule of prime-acy.  If landing flaps is where we end up it is where we should begin.  Look how much work it took Dick to overcome.

 

I transitioned from flying a Cessna/Mooney combination (I know I do have experience in very light aircraft as well).  The 'easy' approach was never mentioned and I was through my transition training in just over an hour.

 

You guys have made landing this plane unnecessarily 'hard and scary'.  My local CFI is high time yet he can't land my CT.  Not because he has to learn without flaps but because he won't adjust his sight picture.  He holds it off 4' too high in the air.  Because pilots often do this at first the rest of you all land without flaps and with too much speed afraid that your planes are going to bite you but the fear is misplaced.

 

Buckaroo will take one approach or the other and almost for sure it will determine how he flies the CT forever.  Pilots don't take the warnings and avoidance of using flaps and just get over it one day, primacy rules.

 

While it is being claimed that I am not doing anyone any favors, it is the new conventional wisdom here that is doing  disservice, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have to chime in and say how much I agree with Roger on this one.  Asking a pilot who is new to the CT to immediately attempt full flap landings is asking for bent gear and total loss of confidence.  I learned to fly on the CT and my instructor was smart enough to start with 0 flap landings and we progressed through to full flaps as comfort and confidence levels rose.  After flying Diamond aircraft (along with my CTSW) over the last 10 years you realize the CT is a different animal when it comes to landing and needs to be treated carefully until you are really familiar with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to learn normal landings with 30* flaps, first so it will be your normal/go to configuration but you are afraid of the possibility of rapid sink prior to contact then begin with partial throttle landings.  This will provide good 'protection' until you can rely on yourself to advance the throttle to counter unwanted sink.

 

Unlike starting without landing flaps the adjustment to idle approaches will be an easy transition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the wonderful information! Thanks for taking the time to explain all this clearly as well!

 

It will be fun to become proficient in this plane and invite my high hour friends to take the stick and watch them bounce that ball around and over control her.

 

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

 

The POH calls for a 15 flap, 55kts over the numbers calm wind landing (62kts 0 flaps).  Less flaps if big xwinds.  The full flap, stall landings are advocated by CT...   Perfect the book landings first, then experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you show  me  where you get '62 kts over the numbers' from the poh?  That's way to fast and I don't believed its published, I would like to see it.  Its sure not in my book.

 

1.3 x Vso is a long standing approach speed that works.  In a CT that runs out of energy so quickly 1.4 makes sense too.  Over the numbers can be slower if that's where you touch down.  

 

At 62 kts over the numbers you are approaching as high as 1.75 x Vso.   Really???????

 

EDIT:  The high approach speed can make a level of sense in Las Vegas when its busy but its a bad idea for normal landings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CT, I saw a guy on TV juggling running chainsaws. If I were to decide to learn to juggle chainsaws would your recommendation be to start out with running chainsaws based on the "Law of Primacy"? I think maybe I should learn to juggle something else that is a little safer first.

 

The "Law of Primacy" doesn't mean that you should jump to full flap landings first. It means you should be taught proper landing technique, such as power at idle, and stick back landing on the main gear. Learning to fly requires that you build a sound foundation before you start adding the more intricate parts. The same would be true when transitioning to a new airplane.

 

You mention the high time CFI who uses the wrong site picture. The only way to get the right site picture is by doing landings. With full flaps the airplane is much less forgiving if you get to slow with the wrong site picture. By starting with 15° flaps and using the same technique, ( this is where the Law of Primacy comes into play), that you use with full flaps he would have time to make the adjustments to get the correct site picture. After the site picture is achieved he can then move to more flaps for landing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,

 

Juggling chainsaws is a really poor analogy.  Landing at minimum speed with landing flaps is a well established procedure in aviation that leads to fewer fatalities due to reduced kinetic energy.  

 

I have already admitted that the rule of primacy doesn't apply to everything (I suggested partial throttle at first) but it does strongly apply to landing configuration, meaning flap settings. It then gets worse when the landing flaps get demonized.  I've been around long enough to see the results, and primacy applies to flaps.

 

I understand how to deal with adjusting sight picture, I don't agree that you go to 15* to do it though.  That flat approach is yet another site picture that is wrong for landing flaps.

 

My point on the sight picture is that transitioning pilots got fooled by it and the flap setting got blamed, and still gets blamed and as a result the whole fleet is afraid of their flaps (exaggeration).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you show  me  where you get '62 kts over the numbers' from the poh?  That's way to fast and I don't believed its published, I would like to see it.  Its sure not in my book.

 

1.3 x Vso is a long standing approach speed that works.  In a CT that runs out of energy so quickly 1.4 makes sense too.  Over the numbers can be slower if that's where you touch down.  

 

At 62 kts over the numbers you are approaching as high as 1.75 x Vso.   Really???????

 

EDIT:  The high approach speed can make a level of sense in Las Vegas when its busy but its a bad idea for normal landings.

 

See above, 55kts over numbers at 15, 62kts at 0 flaps.  52kts at 30 flaps.  I routinely used 62 given the density altitude here in Nevada and the long runways and winds present most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, 

 

I don't see anything above and am curious where those numbers come from.  Those are good numbers for 30 and 15, hard to understand the much bigger bump at zero.

 

Long Runway and winds are reasonable, I question high DA, you use IAS to approach and IAS has DA adjustment built in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a copy of the POH for the CT.  Under Normal and Emergency landing you will find a table with the numbers.   By long runway I refer to Reno's KRNO Class Charlie... 9k and 11k concrete runways.

 

 

POH CTLS.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book numbers from your POH for normal landings are, 52kts and 55kts.  These are the numbers that I use and recommend (full gross).  You have always said 62kts which give a much different impression.  When you just give a speed then landing flaps are assumed.  In our case at least 15 is assumed but that was a zero number and it added 10kts but that 10kts goes away when the whole picture is revealed.  

 

zero and neg six are listed under Emergency Landings at 62kts and 68kts.  We don't know if Normal and Emergency are always the same numbers, it is curious that the approach speeds increase much more than the stall speeds as you go through the flap settings.

 

These are approach speeds.  Over the number speeds are more ambiguous and mean different things to different pilots and planes.  An over the fence or over the numbers speed could very well be slower than approach speed if round out has begun by that point.

 

IOW if your approach speed is 52kts and you touch down on the touch down markers than you would be 52kts over the fence and 52kts over the numbers.  Your flare would begin just prior to the markers much farther down the runway.

 

Not only is 62kts fast when you don't include the zero flaps part it sound much faster (10kts) and when you do include the over the numbers it sound faster yet because in a CT you are quite likely slower than approach speed when over the numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book numbers from your POH for normal landings are, 52kts and 55kts.  These are the numbers that I use and recommend (full gross).  You have always said 62kts which give a much different impression.  When you just give a speed then landing flaps are assumed.  In our case at least 15 is assumed but that was a zero number and it added 10kts but that 10kts goes away when the whole picture is revealed.  

 

zero and neg six are listed under Emergency Landings at 62kts and 68kts.  We don't know if Normal and Emergency are always the same numbers, it is curious that the approach speeds increase much more than the stall speeds as you go through the flap settings.

 

These are approach speeds.  Over the number speeds are more ambiguous and mean different things to different pilots and planes.  An over the fence or over the numbers speed could very well be slower than approach speed if round out has begun by that point.

 

IOW if your approach speed is 52kts and you touch down on the touch down markers than you would be 52kts over the fence and 52kts over the numbers.  Your flare would begin just prior to the markers much farther down the runway.

 

Not only is 62kts fast when you don't include the zero flaps part it sound much faster (10kts) and when you do include the over the numbers it sound faster yet because in a CT you are quite likely slower than approach speed when over the numbers.

 

The book says 52kts for full flaps, 55kts for 15 flaps.  and 62kts for 0 flaps.  Just as I said above.  Approach speed is over the numbers speed.  Once the runway is made, then speed bleed off in level out.  I never landed in calm winds at stall speed.  Never heard a buzzer or dropped to the runway.  In the Cirrus turbo I have to keep 10 to 20% throttle in on approach, 80kts over the numbers.  Once level I pull to idle and wait for the stall horn before touching down.  It is a different beast in that I need power on approach, the CT can do the approach with throttle at idle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not to argue, but you always said 62kt and I never heard you say zero flaps too, it never sound right to me.  Also approach speed is not over the numbers speed.  I have already explained the difference.  

 

In your Cirrus I hope you do have approach speed over the numbers.  In the Kitfox thing not so much at all.  They are not always the same.  

 

It makes little sense to land far down the runway in a CT, I sometimes touchdown on the numbers and taxi back, its the fastest way to clear the runway.  I will touch down on the numbers but I won't do it at approach speed I do it at stall speed.  That puts me over the numbers at 39kts when I flew a 55kt approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In landing any airplane, proficiency will be directly proportional with how much pratice you do.

 

Really good point, in fact the most important point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,

 

Juggling chainsaws is a really poor analogy.  Landing at minimum speed with landing flaps is a well established procedure in aviation that leads to fewer fatalities due to reduced kinetic energy.  

 

 

I used that analogy on purpose. You have to learn the technique first before you add complexity. When I teach landings in the CT I want the student to learn speed control on final. Next get the airplane aligned with the runway. Thirdly judge their height on landing, so not to drop it in. All this before adding the complexity of full flaps.  

 

As for landing at minimum speed that is what I teach for the flap setting that is being used. In the CT there is a 2 knot difference between stall speed with 15° flaps and full flaps. The actual landing touchdown site picture is basically the same with 15° flaps compared to full flaps. The only real difference is the site picture on final and the round out and flare happening much quicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not to argue, but you always said 62kt and I never heard you say zero flaps too, it never sound right to me.  Also approach speed is not over the numbers speed.  I have already explained the difference.  

 

In your Cirrus I hope you do have approach speed over the numbers.  In the Kitfox thing not so much at all.  They are not always the same.  

 

It makes little sense to land far down the runway in a CT, I sometimes touchdown on the numbers and taxi back, its the fastest way to clear the runway.  I will touch down on the numbers but I won't do it at approach speed I do it at stall speed.  That puts me over the numbers at 39kts when I flew a 55kt approach.

 

I did use 15 and 62....but you asked what the POH says, and I gave that.  Faster over the numbers was since my home field was KRNO and i needed to use more runway anyway to get off of it when asked by ATC.  And the only other airfields we used in the CT were also long and paved...since as KVGT in Vegas.  The runways are over 9k and 11k feet.  and yes, I needed to fly in at least a third to make a taxiiway in a reasonable length of time on such a busy airfield.

 

Faster over the numbers is really never a problem as long as you have the runway length.  It just means flying level a bit longer.  Flying too slow is a big problem esp in gusty conditions.

 

The Cirrus power and numbers are by the book.  FastEddie was flying older versions not turbo and argued with me....but the book and experience prove the new turbo Cirrus cannot land without power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×