Full Flap Landings

[bagarre]

With just under 100 hours in a 172 and 10 hours in my 170B, I am a no time pilot and I don't pretend to know the best way to do much of anything in an airplane.

I'm noticing that I have to carry power until I'm on the ground when using all 40 degrees of flap. The plane lands in an incredibly short length of runway but it just doesnt feel right to have to keep power in until the wheels are on the ground.

I haven't had the chance to land with only 30 degrees in the 170 but I remember in the 172 you could grease it on with no power.

How are other people landing their 170Bs? Do you use full flap all the time?

Cheers.

[cessna170bdriver]

I rarely use full flaps on landing, but there's no real reason not to, other than maybe the necessity to reconfigure for a go-around. Sounds like you're too low on final. A 170B with full flaps and power off comes down quite steep, so try turning base a bit sooner to shorten up the final approach leg, or fly the pattern a bit higher. It should work about the same for you as it did in the 172. Go to altitude and try some full-flap power-off descents to get a feel for the attitude required to maintain, say 60 mph. The old timers (I'm not there yet! ) will tell you that if you fly the pattern correctly, you shouldn't have to add power once you pull it off for landing.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

As Miles has said you are probably to low or flat on your approach for full flap landings. You can shorten up the pattern and steepen the approach so airspeed is maintained with decent rather than power.

Of course you don't have to land with full flaps and many don't. I almost always did because with my helicopter background I have a natural tendency to be high and steep on approach.

Just keep practicing and trying new things you figure it out.

[jrenwick]

You didn't say whether you have the stock wing or not; but my experience with a Horton STOL wing is that with partial flaps, the airplane may lift off during roll-out after a 3-point landing. I've learned to use full flaps on every landing. (I have not had this problem with the stock wing.)

The wording about flap use in the Cessna owner's manual gives me the impression that the writers believed landing with full flaps would be the "normal" landing. The chief advantage of full flaps, it seems to me, is that it gets you on the runway at a lower airspeed than with partial flaps. If you should happen to get in trouble after landing, a lower speed will help to minimize the damage.

As others have said, you'll become accustomed to a steeper approach with full flaps. The view from the front seat of a 170 exaggerates the feeling of steepness (vs. a later 172 and some other types), because the cowling slopes down so much more. As an instructor, I've noticed that if I don't point this out to a pilot who's used to flying 172s and new to the 170, they'll always tend to climb while trying to maintain a constant altitude. Once they understand why the view from a 170 looks so different, maintaining altitude gets much easier.

Happy landings!

[GAHorn]

To each, His own technique... but I've found that when lightly loaded full flaps are too much for a wheel landing, and therefore unless I"m heavy I use 30-degrees when wheel landing. I only use 40 flaps when 3-point/full-stall, and then usually only on grass.

Full flaps decelerates the airplane too quickly for my tastes when the airplane is light. I want a few more seconds to "grease" it on...so I use 30 flaps. If the airplane is heavy however, 40 flaps works just fine, as the aircraft has more momentum and the deck-angle at touchdown is more to my liking. (These are wheel landings...the predominate type of landing I make on pavement and in gusty crosswinds on pavement. Grass runways usually get a 3-point/full-stall landing with full flaps regardless of weight or wind, as my choice.)

[W.J.Langholz]

If you think you are coming in flat or too low try picking out a spot farther down the runway and land long.


w.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

W, I don't follow that logic. If your low or flat and you pick a spot even further down the runway that would make you even lower and flatter.

[W.J.Langholz]

One of the things that helped me was to find out that I had all kinds of runway left after I landed wether I used flaps or not. In my old 172 I was a "No Flapper" most of the time. When I went to the 206 and the use of full flaps power on landings it was a big change and I found myself focused on the very end of the runway (as they say "put it on the numbers") and I was getting to flat to low too early. Even though I got smoother at it, it did not feel right. Then on my flight review, the CFI is a "taildragger" and he set a cone up down the runway and had me shoot for it. We did several (spot) landings first, as we came in on the (flare) he want me to see how far after the cone I could keep it just several inches off the runway. I soon found out even at POwer on full flaps "In a controlled aproach" 2 things happened, the plane would come down and I always had plenty of runway left. Then we did 1 more thing we practice the very same landing imagining a 50' obstacle to clear that was on the numbers. I think I was so worried about too much power coming in on a power on landing that I thought that I had to get it on the ground and was "Rushing" my approach and landing once I figured out "in my thick head" that I had LOTS of runway left and I picked out a spot farther down the runway I could still let it come down on it's own and be safe. Since then I have practice my short field landing and do just fine there also.

Just some thoughts that I found myself fighting with that might help


W.

[Robert Eilers]

Each landing is different. The airport (short, soft, obstacles) and current conditions (wind speed, direction, steady or gusting) should determine the type of approach and flap settings. I believe It is a mistake to use a standard landing technique every time a landing is attempted. The size of the pattern (log or short downwind leg), flap settings and final approach speeds are tools available to the pilot to fly the airplane respecting the conditions present. As suggested earlier in this forum, practicing power off accuracy landings is a great way to develop the ability to anticipate and adjust in response to current conditions. As the pilot approaches the airport, having previously studied the recommended pattern and pattern altitudes, surrounding hazards and having considered where he/she wishes to exit the runway, should determine the wind conditions (either through ATIS, AWOS, or overflying and looking at the wind sock) and then consider the best way to fly the pattern, the use of flaps and final approach airspeeds. Approach every landing as a new experience.

[GAHorn]

Dubya, when I owned a 206, I found that landing with ANY power "on" was a mistake. The 206 has such a wide CG-envelope, that when lightly loaded ...it has a tendency to "wheel-barrow", or land on the nose gear, especially if too much speed/or power was left on. Only a full-stall, power-off would prevent that. (Being prepared to really get the yoke back in that flare is paramount, and that may mean landing with less nose-down trim than in other models of aircraaft.)
When medium-to-heavily loaded, the 206 was just fine and touched down on the mains without concern of wheel-barrowing.

Try landing power-off, full flaps, ...and holding the airplane off the ground until a full stall/nose up attitude develops from holding it in the flare...before letting it touch down. IMO

... I believe It is a mistake to use a standard landing technique every time a landing is attempted. ....

I'm thinking that may simply be an unfortunate choice of words...?? It's my opinion that it's a mistake NOT to have a standard technique.... which is modified to accomodate differing situations.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Robert Eilers wrote:
... I believe It is a mistake to use a standard landing technique every time a landing is attempted. ....

I'm thinking that may simply be an unfortunate choice of words...??

It may not have been exactly what Robert meant but I tend to agree with what he said. Maybe it's my helicopter back ground but I believe you've got to do what you have to do in any given circumstance and not get raped up to much in numbers. Explaining that a little further. Yes there is a bases of numbers or performance that you would start with and you need to now them. You also need to know the edge of the aircraft envelope so that you can adjust to what is required for the situation at hand and remain safely within the edge of that envelope.

There is the edge of the aircraft envelope and there is the edge of the pilots envelope and they are two different things. All to often in my opinion the pilots envelope is to narrow for the aircraft they are flying and no where close to the edge of the envelope of the aircraft. One must start with the numbers and be able to fly them repeatedly. And the numbers are also a good thing to return to while trying to figure out and expand your envelope.

Perfect conditions by the number rarely exist and if one never ventures from the numbers their flying capability will be limited.

[canav8]

So W, he was trying to cure your flat approaches correct? I encourage all landings to be spot landings. You are not truely in command of your aircraft till you can put where you want. I had a student that was a lurker on these forum message boards come to me to fly the 170 out here in the desert. He told me of his goals was to grade a strip on his farm to fly in and out of and then buy a 170. He came out to try the 170 since he had been convinced that the 170 was the perfect aircraft for the job. I told him, I couldnt agree more. Before he came out to the desert, he went and got a tail wheel endorsement in a Citabria from an instructor at his local flying field.

I ran him through my tailwheel short course. He proceeded to tell me of his ideas and plans, so I took him out to do some short field and soft field work. He never had a problem flying the pattern but he could never land the aircraft where we mutually agreed to aim for in the begining. It was always a different outcome. I explained to him when you have a fixed short distance you are trying to land on, that it is imperative to place it where you aim for or at least a short distance past the aim point. His previous instructor did not place any emphasis on spot landing. We spent two days and 40 landings to try to hammer this out. He walked away with thinking he was a helicopter pilot. (No offense Bruce) for emphasis only. Glad your instructor had the creativity to see your problem and fix it. Those individuals are a dying breed.

My .02 on the subject of full flaps is this. On non runway length concern landings I will use 30 degrees for a normal landing with little wind or headwind. When I am concerned about landing distance, I will land with full flaps. The biggest reason why I prefer to land with less then full flaps is twofold.
1.Because a go around with full flaps is a lot more work. (ie.configuration change)
2.Because of the power required to maintain stabilized approach. Now you might ask why power? Well when you have other aircraft in the pattern or you are at a busy airport, you may not have the luxury of the traditional chop and drop. You may be number two or three in the pattern or at a towered field where you must make turns in the pattern farther out.

The emphasis I place on an approach for landing is on a stabilized approach. Without that I have proven time and time again to students that your landing will not be pretty. Even seasoned veterans have had this point proven.
I operate in the desert. I land on asphalt, on dirt and gravel. It is always windy. X-winds are the norm. If the wind conditions are x-winds I will favor less flaps. The ultimate goal is to use as much flaps as possible to reduce speed,wear and tear on the aircraft. This is only restricted by the amount of control input I have to make. If the ailerons are 1/2 travel in the direction of crosswind to maintain the drift from centerline, I will opt to use one less notch of flaps thereby increasing the control effectiveness of the ailerons. I will do this all the way to the point where I will land with flaps up. Contrary to what people believe, you will run out of Aileron way before you run out of Rudder! The max x-wind that the 170B can maintain centerline is 29 knots landing on asphalt. That is a direct 90 degree x-wind. At 30 knots, I get an acceptable amount of side drift, that I do not consider safe to put the wheels on the asphalt. I will not say everyone should use this as a limitation but I am stating the aircraft limitation with the 170B I currently care for. These types of landings are hard on sidewalls of tires. It is worth noting that evry aircraft is different. Even like 170B's are different in their handling characteristics. Approaching these types of aircraft capabilities should be made cautiously with options to get out of trouble should you reach your pilot abilities. Doug

[c170b53]

I do have the Horton stall kit, full flap landings are very slow as our air temps above the 49th tend to be cool allowing lots of lift. As silly as this sounds, I'm not concerned about landing rather I'm always concerned about shock cooling. Thus I like to land with a small amount of power and I seldom use more than one notch of flap.

[GAHorn]

... Contrary to what people believe, you will run out of Aileron way before you run out of Rudder! ...

This is especially true of ragwing Cessna 170 aircraft which have less effective ailerons (than 170 A/B models in which I have not personally found this to be true. For me, running out of A/B model rudder has been the limiting factor in strong crosswinds. Also, Dubya is presently flying a 206 which, in my experience, does not have aileron/rudder issues, but does have flap/elevator-effectivity issues.)

[W.J.Langholz]

Not to take away from "bagarre" transition from the 172 to the 170 so I will try to stay on topic.

But George thanks for the tip, I will try it out and let you know.

Robert, I agree with you on being prepared for a different landing each time that does have some merrit however I agree with George that you need a check list of sorts to set up the same way each time and have a "Stabalized Aproach" also. The only thing that I would add to yours Robert is to be prepare for a go around, and with the power of the 206 it is much easier at full flaps than the o-300 was in the 172.

Canav8 you probably hit it on top of the head on doing "Spot Landings" especially if you have a "seasoned" pilot sitting in the right seat to help and coach you while you are doing it. It was alot of fun and I learned alot about the aircraft while doing it. One thing I learned about the 206, THe Stall Horn can be screeming at me for quite awhile before it will actually stall in the ground effect.

Our temps are dropping too now and boy do airplanes love cooler air

Good topic and is always fun to learn more.

Well "bagarre" I hope we didn't take you too far away from you thoughts.


W.