That, my friend, has got to be one of the best and most informative responses I’ve received so far.
Thank you very much for explaining the differences in the planes to me.
I will, however, most definitely try the technique when I get my SR20 and report back my findings.
Don’t worry about insurance premiums, (I’ve already seen mine). I’m an extremely cautious pilot. I just don’t accept things at face value because “that’s the way it’s always been done”. I like to try new techniques under carefully controlled conditions to find out if there’s a better, safer way.
Of course. It’s just that your statement “this is not a technique that should be used by low time pilots” is rather more negative than your earlier statement “this technique might add to the workload of a relatively new pilot, so it might not be for everybody.” So it’s still a bit unclear whether you are or are not recommending this rather iconoclastic method of landing to low-time pilots. Can you clarify?
You’ll also find that the SR20 is far less sensitive to gusts and crosswinds than the 172, so there is no need to carry extra speed on final “for safety”.
I also think it would be quite easy to inadvertently move the flap lever to 0 rather than 50%, and you definitely do not want to dump all the flaps in an SR20 when you’re close to the ground.
Jerry:
I am in the position now of having over 100 hours flown in the SR22 and many hundreds of hours in Cessnas over the years. There is a BIG difference in flying the two in gusty conditions. The Cessna clearly lands better in gusts with a higher approach speed and fewer flaps. With a long runway, you are BETTER off in the Cessna coming in with 10-20% of flaps and 5-10 knots higher speed over the numbers. The plane will have more authority to fight the gusts and you will have more control. If the headwind component is fairly strong, you will not even use that much runway. So your technique for that is ideal.
You will find the Cirrus much different. First of all, it has more resposiveness and authority at ANY speed compared to the Cessna. It is far easier to deal with gusts because the plane responds fast to any stick pressure so compensation for the gust happens faster. In a strong crosswind, the Cirrus is infinitely more stable and easier to land. Just bank into the wind and hold runway heading with rudder and it does what you ask. A Cessna flops around a lot in these conditions.
The flap issue is a bit more individual preference. In the Cessna, I have always done it your way; fewer flaps as the the Cessna rides the wind more in gusts and is harder to “pin down” with max flaps. Since I have graduated to the Cirrus I have adopted Gordon’s model of full flaps all the time mostly because the Cirrus just handles it better and float is not as much an issue with flaps as it is speed. So full flaps allows a slower approach speed and you are generally on the ground faster not fighting the wind.
Now I have an SR22 so the issue of full flaps for a go around is moot as this plane climbs like a bat out of hell even with full flaps initially.
Jerry: I think what Roger is trying to do is to make it very clear that the technique of dumping the flaps near the ground just before or as a part of the flare is not a good technique to recommend.
Perhaps the use of the term “iconoclastic” was not the best. However, I think his concern is with safety of the fleet and not in any personal attack.
Like I said, using lower flaps is what I used to do in the Cessna. The Cirrus flies justy as well at 100% and I will use 50% just to practice but 100% works for all situations.
Bats climb at at least 1500 fpm. I do not know their TAS.
http://www.americanbear.org/Other%20Mammals.htmThe fastest flight speed measured for a bat is 40 mph (35 KTAS) for the North American big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus). I imagine 100 mph may be more than their Vne.
In Reply To:
Also, how fast do bats fly out of hell? You think they can fly 100 kts?
Ask Meatloaf. Apparently, he’s been there, done that…[:)]
FWIW, I also was taught to land with 50% flaps (and slightly faster touchdown speed) in extreme crosswinds…however, I’ve experimented with both 50% and 100% flaps in crosswind components up to 12G18 kts, and can’t tell an appreciable difference in handling.
Ah, Shirley, with all due respect, that’s a load of s**t.
I never mentioned “dumping” of flaps on a normal approach. Only raising them from 100% to 50%. I wouldn’t call that “dumping”, would you?
As far as Roger is concerned, defend him if you will, but his posts were, in direct and undeniable contrast to virtually all others, a very obvious and poorly concocted attempt to try to somehow corner me into contradicting myself in an effort to show me up, or something to that effect.
Most everyone else, pro or con, at least appeared to be on-subject and not trying to prove anything about me or themselves. His Perry Mason act was transparent and low-rent.
Since you appear to be speaking for him at the moment, you might advise him that I’ll ignore his posts from now on if he continues with his most recent approach to my musings.
For another perspective, I looked into what F.E. Potts’ Guide to Bush Flying has to say on the subject.
The only circumstance he recommends this technique is when landing a taildragger in gusty conditions on a short field. Normally one would deal with gusts with a wheel landing, but with a short field he suggests adding a couple of extra knots of airspeed for the gusts, and then dropping full flaps right to 0 in the flare to 3-point it.
For tricycle gear he recommends retracting flaps right at touchdown, with the caveat that this could be a dangerous habit for those moving to complex airplanes.
Now for really advanced techniques, he discusses the use of flaps for short&soft-field takeoffs. Here his idea is to keep the flaps up for the initial roll to minimize drag, and then as the airplane gets ready to fly to add flaps (gradually via a Johnson bar) to lift it into ground effect. He keeps feeding in flaps until reaching maximum lift (determined by feel), then bleeds them back off as the airplane accelerates to Vx. He then starts the climb.
His simplified method could be used with our flaps, which is to add 50% flaps at the liftoff point, and retain that setting until leaving ground effect.
His caveat: This is a pro’s technique that has the potential to get the amateur who does not understand how it works into trouble … lack of understanding leads to operation behind the power curve with the resultant … “mushing” into trees.
My goodness! Such a strong response to a perfectly wonderful word.
Merriam-Webster defines iconoclast as “one who attacks settled beliefs or institutions.” In my book, that’s a good thing! After all, the success of Cirrus is due in no small measure to the Klapmeiers’ willingness to attack the “settled beliefs and institutions” of general aviation. And Nobel prizes are often awarded to those who adopted an iconclastic stance in approaching scientific problems. The idea of raising the flaps in ground effect may not merit a Nobel, but it’s different enough from most pilots’ landing technique that it merits the noble and honorable adjective iconoclastic>.
It just seemed to me that your ideas were evolving (as all good ideas should!) as this discussion has gone on, and I wanted to make sure that we all understood your current thoughts on this subject.
Now for really advanced techniques, he discusses the use of flaps for short&soft-field takeoffs. Here his idea is to keep the flaps up for the initial roll to minimize drag, and then as the airplane gets ready to fly to add flaps (gradually via a Johnson bar) to lift it into ground effect
This is an interesting point. The SR20 is not brilliant on soft-field takeoffs due to the high tyre pressures, and I have wondered about using FULL flaps for soft-field takeoff, on the theory that the prop slipstream might provide more lift and reduce the load on the tyres. I would have thought that using no flaps during the initial takeoff roll would decrease the aerodynamic drag, but increase the rolling (tyre) drag. Anyone want to do some experiments?
Well, wise or not for my hours, I tried this yesterday after a series of 10 great landings at KDET.
I did not come in hot; I merely wanted to see to what degree it would settle me down faster once I was already in ground effect.
I came over the fence at 75 (just me and 3/4 fuel in my 20), and over the numbers at 72, and into ground effect at about 70-71. I let it settle for a second or two and went to 50% flaps.
I had expected some gradual pitch down and had prepared myself to make sure I wouldn’t jerk back in response, risking a tail strike or stalling and dropping the next few feet.
The nose did pitch down and the plane settled down quickly (but not abruptly) into the typical attitude of touchdown with 50% flaps. The landing was uneventful, but I still found it a bit uncomfortable. I prefer the more gradual decent through ground effect in a typical 100% flaps configuration.
Perhaps a more skilled and seasoned pilot would be able to integrate this approach into a useful short-field strategy, but for my skill level, I’d prefer not to add another variable into the equation.
I also was taught to land with 50% flaps (and slightly faster touchdown speed) in extreme crosswinds…
In the SR22 I prefer to land full-flaps with high crosswinds. The reason is my homefield is short (2600’) and when it has high crosswinds there generally is zero headwind component. So, with no headwind and gusty crosswinds I need all the runway I can get and opt for the slower stall speed and full flaps.
Mark,
It’s not only Cessna retracts that have a problem. It is depressingly common for a pilot of a retract to land, raise what he thinks are the flaps only to find he raised the gear instead.
Pilots of Beech products are particularly prone to this since in early Beech planes the flap/gear swithced were exactly opposite where they are in Pipers and Cessnas.
Good technique is not to raise anything until you are off the runway and stopped.
My experience mimics Bill’s. In the Cirrrus, I do not think the degree of flaps makes as big a difference in winds as it clearly does in the Cessna.
As far as dumping the flaps is concerned from 100% to 50% right before landing, I also see that as an extra step that you do not need to do at the last minute. If you think about what the additional 50% of flaps accomplishes, you would be better off leaving 100% flaps in place and lowering the speed by about 5 knots and the same result will occur with fewer steps involved.
using no flaps during the initial takeoff roll would decrease the aerodynamic drag, but increase the rolling (tyre) drag.
Clyde,
The quoted technique was for short fields, where he suggests using the flaps dynamicly to find the best L/D (air). You are talking about using them to find the best L/D (ground). Great idea, but it will probably be a different mix for every surface. A Johnson bar would definitely be a plus in figuring out the puzzle, as it would give you more feel of what was happening.