Landing without flaps

I've done all my training in a C 172M, a plane with as much as 40º of
flaps. I know there are planes that don't have flaps and while I
don't plan on flying one I am still curious about landing a plane
without flaps. Drawing from my current knowledge, flaps serve two
purposes: they increase lift and increase drag. This has the effect
of slowing the plane but also keeping it aloft at lower speeds thanks
to the increased lift. Now I'm thinking about landing the plane in a
situation wherein my flaps don't extend. Sans flaps a few things are
going to happen. The first is that I will come in faster, just like
when I do crosswind landings with only 15º of flaps, only even faster
relative to my sink rate. The second is that my descent rate won't be
quite as high. In summary the landing will be at the same speed but
slightly flatter. In the event I did find myself in this situation
then the correct action would be to extend the downwind a little (my
initial guess would be about twice as far out to give myself time) and
then use the throttle to control my descent rate until I have what
appears to be a good glideslope to land at my desired distance down
the runway.

Did I get all this right?

On Feb 26, 6:50 am, es330td <es33...@> wrote:
> I've done all my training in a C 172M, a plane with as much as 40º of
> flaps.  I know there are planes that don't have flaps and while I
> don't plan on flying one I am still curious about landing a plane
> without flaps.  Drawing from my current knowledge, flaps serve two
> purposes: they increase lift and increase drag.  This has the effect
> of slowing the plane but also keeping it aloft at lower speeds thanks
> to the increased lift.  Now I'm thinking about landing the plane in a
> situation wherein my flaps don't extend.  Sans flaps a few things are
> going to happen.  The first is that I will come in faster, just like
> when I do crosswind landings with only 15º of flaps, only even faster
> relative to my sink rate.  The second is that my descent rate won't be
> quite as high.  In summary the landing will be at the same speed but
> slightly flatter.  In the event I did find myself in this situation
> then the correct action would be to extend the downwind a little (my
> initial guess would be about twice as far out to give myself time) and
> then use the throttle to control my descent rate until I have what
> appears to be a good glideslope to land at my desired distance down
> the runway.
>
> Did I get all this right?

Firstly , beware I am not an instructor, but since I just did a
flapless landing in the 172N a couple of weeks back( you should
practise them occaisionally ) I can make a few comments. For one
thing the speed you come in at is your choice. Remember attitude
controls speed. But since you dont have flaps out you will have a
higher stall speed so you should be adding a bit extra speed
( allowing for your weight and wind gusts as usual ). but the
striking difference is that you will have a very nose high attitude
relative to a flapped landing, and you will definately need to extend
the circuit, twice as far out sounds about right to me. I totally
misjudged my first effort, overshooting , even though I had extended
both the downwind and base legs and had to go around for a second
try. If you are use to landing a 172 with 40 degrees of flaps a
flapless will not just be slightly flatter it will be MUCH flatter
approach.
As an aside I never use the 40 degree flaps unless I really have to
( which is never) I find that in the event of having to do a go around
with 40 degrees of flap, the nose down trim makes it really difficult
to get the nose back up in a hurry. I believe they actually reduced
flap extension to 30 degrees on later models, for this reason.( but
thats only what i heard from other pilots, so dont quote me on it)
Terry
PPL Downunder


.

On 02/25/08 11:50, es330td wrote:
> I've done all my training in a C 172M, a plane with as much as 40� of
> flaps. I know there are planes that don't have flaps and while I
> don't plan on flying one I am still curious about landing a plane
> without flaps.

Your training didn't include any no-flap landing?

You should definitely go out and practice these. If you're uncomfortable
with it, grab an instructor and make a lesson out of it.


> Drawing from my current knowledge, flaps serve two
> purposes: they increase lift and increase drag. This has the effect
> of slowing the plane but also keeping it aloft at lower speeds thanks
> to the increased lift. Now I'm thinking about landing the plane in a
> situation wherein my flaps don't extend.

Planning for this is an excellent idea, IMHO.

> Sans flaps a few things are
> going to happen. The first is that I will come in faster, just like
> when I do crosswind landings with only 15� of flaps, only even faster
> relative to my sink rate. The second is that my descent rate won't be
> quite as high. In summary the landing will be at the same speed but
> slightly flatter.

No, it won't be at the same speed. You will be going faster. This needs
to be recognized, as you don't want to slow the plane down to the point
where it stalls.


> In the event I did find myself in this situation
> then the correct action would be to extend the downwind a little (my
> initial guess would be about twice as far out to give myself time) and
> then use the throttle to control my descent rate until I have what
> appears to be a good glideslope to land at my desired distance down
> the runway.
>
> Did I get all this right?

Don't underestimate the effects of a good slip while on final. This will
increase your descent rate without increasing your airspeed.

I don't think you'll need to extend your downwind leg all that far. Remember
that you need to stay in the traffic pattern, so other airplanes will be able
to spot you. If you go out too far, you may not get noticed.

You'll find that with no flaps, your pattern won't really have to change all
that much. Less power will be required, and perhaps a slip once on final. The
flare and touchdown will be more than a little different, however, and this
will require a little practice.

Best Regards,

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Feb 26, 8:50 am, es330td <es33...@> wrote:
> I've done all my training in a C 172M, a plane with as much as 40º of
> flaps.  I know there are planes that don't have flaps and while I
> don't plan on flying one I am still curious about landing a plane
> without flaps.  Drawing from my current knowledge, flaps serve two
> purposes: they increase lift and increase drag.  This has the effect
> of slowing the plane but also keeping it aloft at lower speeds thanks
> to the increased lift.  Now I'm thinking about landing the plane in a
> situation wherein my flaps don't extend.  Sans flaps a few things are
> going to happen.  The first is that I will come in faster, just like
> when I do crosswind landings with only 15º of flaps, only even faster
> relative to my sink rate.  The second is that my descent rate won't be
> quite as high.  In summary the landing will be at the same speed but
> slightly flatter.  In the event I did find myself in this situation
> then the correct action would be to extend the downwind a little (my
> initial guess would be about twice as far out to give myself time) and
> then use the throttle to control my descent rate until I have what
> appears to be a good glideslope to land at my desired distance down
> the runway.
>

Don't forget the nose will be higher too. In my limited experience,
flapless is not a problem at all, you just have to get used to a
flatter approach angle. On calm days you may have to extend downwind
to make a flapless.

Cheers

Cheers

On Feb 25, 11:50 am, es330td <es33...@> wrote:
>  In the event I did find myself in this situation
> then the correct action would be to extend the downwind a little (my
> initial guess would be about twice as far out to give myself time) and
> then use the throttle to control my descent rate until I have what
> appears to be a good glideslope to land at my desired distance down
> the runway.

That is good advice for any landing. In the old days we used to teach
students to perform every landing as if it were an engine out. That is
no longer the case. Today we realize that there are far more accidents
as a result of unstable approaches than engine out. As a result, your
examiner today will expect you to line up on final and have a very
stable approach (including the use of power throughout final as
necessary to stablize). Many examiners call this the "hands off
approach" because the plane should fly (in clam air) right down to the
fence with minimum pilot input. If you are yanking and banking on a
normal landing your examiner will be most unhappy.

-Robert, CFII

es330td wrote:
> I've done all my training in a C 172M, a plane with as much as 40º of
> flaps. I know there are planes that don't have flaps and while I
> don't plan on flying one I am still curious about landing a plane
> without flaps. Drawing from my current knowledge, flaps serve two
> purposes: they increase lift and increase drag. This has the effect
> of slowing the plane but also keeping it aloft at lower speeds thanks
> to the increased lift. Now I'm thinking about landing the plane in a
> situation wherein my flaps don't extend. Sans flaps a few things are
> going to happen. The first is that I will come in faster, just like
> when I do crosswind landings with only 15º of flaps, only even faster
> relative to my sink rate. The second is that my descent rate won't be
> quite as high. In summary the landing will be at the same speed but
> slightly flatter. In the event I did find myself in this situation
> then the correct action would be to extend the downwind a little (my
> initial guess would be about twice as far out to give myself time) and
> then use the throttle to control my descent rate until I have what
> appears to be a good glideslope to land at my desired distance down
> the runway.
>
> Did I get all this right?

I think Mort Schnerd and the others just about covered it for you. His
post is about what I would have said to you.
There's nothing all that unusual about a no flap landing. Stabilized
approach is a must for predictability over the fence. It's not as steep
as a flapped approach but nose attitude and throttle are still played as
always for attitude and altitude control.
Slips are an excellent tool to scrub off any excess altitude and can be
used as well to scrub off some airspeed if needed.
The idea is always the same on any landing. Place the airplane through
an imaginary window at the end of the runway at the right airspeed and
altitude for the flare transition. With practice you can get a no flap
landing to be as routine as a flapped landing.
The Decathlon for example has no flaps. You can put it over the fence
ready to land just as nicely as you can it's close cousin; the Citabria.
No big deal at all really, and if you are flying a bird with flaps, by
all means get used to landing it both with and without flaps. I'd
suggest as well that you practice power OFF approaches without flaps.
On extension of the downwind; I've never deemed this to be necessary.
Just set it up on downwind, raise the nose and get rid of the airspeed
down to your stabilized approach airspeed and truck it on in normally.

--
Dudley Henriques

terry wrote:
I actually asked the instructor if I could try
> a sideslip in the 172 which we did on a glide approach, and whilst we
> certainly lost altitude quckly I also gained a lot of speed which
> wasnt real helpful in the situation of being too high. ( from a 65 kt
> glide I pulled out of the sideslip at about 85 kts ) That was the one
> and only sideslip I have done in just over 200 hrs of flying. Having
> said that I know the sideslip should do exactly what you pointed out,
> and I am certainly not disagreeing with you Mort, its just a
> different way of doing things.


I'm not worried about you giving me an argument... that's most of what we do
here anyway. I just think you ought not form a judgement based on a single
sideslip in your entire career. Go find an older instructor and get him to
drill you on how to do them for an hour or so... you ought to be able to get
half a dozen done in that time... and see if he can show you how to do it
without picking up airspeed.


> For me extending the circuit is not a
> big deal. Plenty of wide open fields and not much traffic around my
> neck of the woods. I would just make a courtesy radio call to let
> any traffic know I was making a wider than normal circuit.


That's fine for where you fly now, but don't you ever go anywhere else? Most of
my flying is TO somewhere else; not just around the same old patch.

I had an old chief pilot who taught me to make *every* landing a short field
approach. That way, when I'm presented with a real short field, I don't have to
do anything different. It becomes just another landing. I fly steep approaches
and chop the power totally a little further out than most, to judge from the
reactions of various instructors over the years. But I'm not interested in
flaring over the numbers and then floating down the runway. If obstacles
permit, I may start the flare very shortly before I cross the threshold. I want
to *touch down* on or just past the numbers. So far it's worked for me... I've
yet to touch down prematurely and yet I don't float either.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.

On Feb 26, 10:45 pm, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.> wrote:
 I just think you ought not form a judgement based on a single
> sideslip in your entire career.  Go find an older instructor and get him to
> drill you on how to do them for an hour or so... you ought to be able to get
> half a dozen done in that time... and see if he can show you how to do it
> without picking up airspeed.

I was told that it is correct to build some (10k) speed. You are
flying with crossed controls on final so you want to keep airspeed up -
is is that wrong?

Cheers

On Feb 26, 3:00 am, WingFlaps <Morefl...@> wrote:

> I was told that it is correct to build some (10k) speed. You are
> flying with crossed controls on final so you want to keep airspeed up -
> is is that wrong?
>
> Cheers

Don't need extra speed. The airspeed indicator might read
wrong, though, making some pilots nervous. If it's a 172,, with the
static port on the left side, a slip to the left will drive up static
pressure and make the ASI read lower. Some pilots will lower the nose
to counter that, and then find, when they straighten out, that they've
picked up speed.

Dan

terry wrote:
> So I guess the only time I might really need to
> sideslip is when I have an engine failure and lose my flaps and
> totally screw up my approach so badly I overshoot and have nowhere
> safe to put down. I supose it could happen if I have a really bad
> day.


Frankly, it's not something I do myself regularly. I just consider it another
tool in the toolbox. I have on occasion performed a forward slip with flaps on
in order to lose an ungodly amount of altitude in a very short time. This is
generally frowned upon by the manufacturer because the elevator may get blanked
out by the flaps. So I don't use full flaps and I don't crank in as aggressive
a slip as I might normally.


>> That's fine for where you fly now, but don't you ever go anywhere else? Most
>> of my flying is TO somewhere else; not just around the same old patch.
>
> I do fly other places Mort, have you ever been to Australia ? Its not
> much smaller than the US, with 20 million people , nearly half of
> those are in Sydney and Melbourne, which dont interest me much
> anyway. It is very open down here, particularly down south where I
> live.


I hadn't considered where you lived and hadn't picked up to the fact you were an
Aussie. I live in an area that is slightly hilly but very heavily treed. If
you fly too wide a pattern and lose it around here, you're pretty much
guaranteed a very bad day. But if it's flat in Australia, then carry on without
worry. If I had a bunch of fields around here like they do down at our coast
(200 miles to the east of me), I might well have a more casual attitude about
big patterns, too.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.