C-182 Power and Flap Setting For Standard 90kts Final (3deg/450fps) Approach

[fly4usa]

C-182*, IAP, final approach segment (90kts, 470 fps descent),

What power setting do you use (MAP) and flap configuration (Clean, 10 Deg, 20 Deg) ​

Estimating:

IAF & IF segments 16" to 18" clean (90 kts level)​

Final 14" to 15" w/ 10 Deg flaps on final (90 kts, 470 fpm descent)​

* I am flying a C-182K (1967) with Flap Vfe max is 110 MPH. Approach at 90kts (104 mph), fairly close to max flap extended speed.

With the low Vfe of the C-182K considering flying final segment clean. As a reference point, I teach clean final approach in the C-152, Vfe 85kts. I have students do approach at 90kts, clean, and configure when landing. Works great, but takes some practice to slow down 5kts and add flaps while descending, and keeping runway TDZ in sight.

Later models of C-182 have much higher flap extension speeds, Below 140 KIAS, flaps to 10°; below 120 KIAS, flaps 20°; below 100 KIAS, extend to FULL. C-182K has only one Vfe speed.

GM, CFI-I-ME, ATP, CE500, B737, B757, B767

 

[brcase]

I like the no flap approaches in the most Cessna Singles. If you are doing actual IFR approaches at most anything but remote airports you are going to hear "Maintain Max forward Speed" rather frequently.
If you can slow down, 10 degrees and flying at 90 kts will slow the needle swings down for you, but you are still configured for a missed approach if you need it.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[GeorgeC]

@Nelson Ojeda

 

[midlifeflyer]

No flaps for me in a 182.

The use of approach flaps or no flaps on an instrument approach in most piston singles is a matter of personal technique. I’m mainly a no-flapper in the over 30 types of piston singles I’ve flown. Cirrus and some Mooneys are the only ones I use them.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

16” no flaps until 2 miles from FAF.

FAF 13” Flaps 10

Every 1” gives me about 150 fpm descent

My opinion is that flaps are a safety factor, giving you extra cushion in stall speed if airspeed and manuevering ever go wonky, and especially if you need to go missed.

 

[midlifeflyer]

My opinion is that flaps are a safety factor, giving you extra cushion in stall speed if airspeed and manuevering ever go wonky, and especially if you need to go missed.

That's an interesting perspective that I've never heard in the instrument approach context. So you are concerned about stalling with a standard approach speed of 90 in an airplane with a stall speed over 20 KTS slower and feel the extra 5 knots or so makes a big difference?

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

That's an interesting perspective that I've never heard in the instrument approach context. So you are concerned about stalling with a standard approach speed of 90 in an airplane with a stall speed over 20 KTS slower and feel the extra 5 knots or so makes a big difference?

No, not concerned. My stall speed no-flaps is 40 knots. Why was I taught to go flaps 10 just before the FAF? I’m just doing what I learned and didn’t ask why…

 

[kgruber]

I'm in the "no flap" group.
I never used them in my 185.

 

[midlifeflyer]

No, not concerned. My stall speed no-flaps is 40 knots. Why was I taught to go flaps 10 just before the FAF? I’m just doing what I learned and didn’t ask why…

“Why?” Is always a good technique question.

 

[WDD]

10 degree flaps, speed set to 90. Makes the decent a little easier, more settled IMHO than no flaps.

 

[midlifeflyer]

"What I was taught" and "what I am used to" is usually the real answer to the flap vs no-flap technique for approaches. My CFII tried in vain to get me to use approach flaps in the 172 I trained in. But a 90 KT ~500 FPM descent with no flaps was a basic VFR decent I used every time I descended to the traffic pattern. I couldn't figure out a good reason add approach flaps to accomplish the exact same result just because it was an instrument approach.

I just carried that philosophy through to the other singles I've flown.

 

[WDD]

I don't care if it works for you. You have to do it the way I do..........................

 

[Clip4]

10° and 14” is about correct an approach with VNAV. Density altitude and WB will vary the power setting a bit. I suppose zero flaps works, but if you are flying a precision approach to a DH of 200’, do you really want to make big flap changes less than 200’ above the runway and land in 1/2 sm vis.


.

 

[Clip4]

I don't care if it works for you. You have to do it the way I do..........................

Does include the 3 bounce landings?

 

[Brad Z]

No, not concerned. My stall speed no-flaps is 40 knots. Why was I taught to go flaps 10 just before the FAF? I’m just doing what I learned and didn’t ask why…

I can make a good argument for 10 degrees of flaps. The first notch of flaps doesn't hurt your climb performance in the event of a go around, but also sets you up for a good landing configuration in the event of a continued landing. It brings the nose down a bit more than no flaps, so your sight picture is better in low visibility. No config change necessary from FAF to touchdown.

The only thing 10 degrees of flaps hurts is level cruise speed, which is not an issue on approach or departure.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't care if it works for you. You have to do it the way I do..........................

There are way too many discussion where people say that quite seriously. And waaaaaay too many instructors who do the same.

 

[Randomskylane]

I don't care if it works for you. You have to do it the way I do..........................

I started with 40 degree flaps for landing due to this

Then 30

Now 20 for more than a decade

ITT it sounds like 10 is the favorite

 

[fly4usa]

That's an interesting perspective that I've never heard in the instrument approach context. So you are concerned about stalling with a standard approach speed of 90 in an airplane with a stall speed over 20 KTS slower and feel the extra 5 knots or so makes a big difference?

What are you talking about? No where did stall come into it. At no time are you below 1.3 Vso on approach. 90kts clean is 43 mph over Vso of 67mph for C182K (60mph flaps extended). So 90 kts is almost 1.6x Vso!!! Stall is not an issue clean. Once you "break out" on an instrument approach you configure for landing, extend flaps for landing. This is a simple question asking opinion, technique based. I am sure clean is safe and works for final segment on a IAP, but two examples of excellent answers:

@455 Bravo:
16” no flaps until 2 miles from FAF.
FAF 13” Flaps 10
Every 1” gives me about 150 fpm descent

@WDD
10 degree flaps, speed set to 90. Makes the decent a little easier, more settled IMHO than no flaps.

@midlifeflyer
No flaps for me in a 182.

For all the other comments about landing and bouncing, you all did not read the question or understand. It is not about landing but final approach segment. If you are not Instrument rated pilots, let me teach you something. Instrument approaches are LONG straight in approaches and flown well above normal VFR pattern final approach speeds for reasons I will explain. An IAP final can be over 5 miles long, adding the intermediate and/or initial segments the approach can be 12 miles or more from airport. For VFR traffic pattern final approach in this C182K is 70 to 80 mph (60kts to 70kts) with landing flaps on final. You are going to peeve off a lot of people including ATC, any planes holding wanting to land in IMC flying the approach at 75mph (65kts). You are expected to do at least 90 kts. Yes you can fly an approach real slow with full flaps at 65kts technically. Not illegal just not practical or efficient. It is like flying a plane capable of 140kt cruise and going on a long cross country at 70 kts.

Once landing is committed, you "breakout", have "runway environment" in sight, very close to runway, 2 nm or less, may be 200-400 ft above touchdown typically, you bring in landing flaps 10 if not already selected, then flaps 20, 30. In the case of C182K it has flaps 40 degrees. I don't use 40 unless it is max performance (short field). Also this plane in particular has STOL kit, leading edge cuffs and fence (STOL). It does not have droop ailerons. So stall is ridiculously low. In fact power on stall does not exist. We still use book stall number of 60-67 mph for planning. The actual stall is lower but STC does not change that in POH supplement.

You should know that min speed for approach is 1.3 x the stall speed for you configuration. That is a MIN, until landing. People call this DMMS - Defined Minimum Maneuvering Speed or D.M.M.S. This is not new been around forever. However people still stall. The other suggestion I don't make but not a bad idea, is mark your airspeed indicator for DMMS. Of course that changes with flaps. So people put a range. It mirrors bottom of green and bottom of white arcs. When flying IFR you never should be near DMMS unless you are near or over the runway rounding out and flaring for landing.

Thanks 455 Bravo and WDD I will try flap 10 first, I think that will be ideal, unless there is some serious wind and have to fly faster to keep 90 kts ground speed and have margin for gusts.

NOTE: Instrument students who only learn in docile weather, you are going to have a shock when flying IMC in high winds and turbulence. So do some head work on how to handle that. Wind correction angles of 45 degrees? Yep. Adding speed to avoid stall or subtracting speed (below Va or Vno) in gusty conditions good idea? Yep. If weather is that bad stay on ground? Yep. The issue is frontal systems come through with gust fronts. It is best to divert or hold until it passes. Wind shear can take down large aircraft. I am not saying stalling is not a concern in IFR just not on final at 90kts unless you are flying larger twins and , turbine, Cat B, C and D aircraft.

 

[midlifeflyer]

What are you talking about? No where did stall come into it. At no time are you below 1.3 Vso on approach. 90kts clean is 43 mph over Vso of 67mph (60mph flaps extended). So 90 kts is almost 1.6x Vso!!! Stall is not an issue clean.

I agree. Look at what I was responding to.

 

[Roger Wilco]

C-182*, IAP, final approach segment (90kts, 470 fps descent),
What power setting do you use (MAP) and flap configuration (Clean, 10 Deg, 20 Deg)

Just a casual observation, but I couldn't help but notice that you have an impressive list of tickets and ratings appended prominently to the bottom of your original post. It seems curious that someone with so much experience and knowledge couldn't figure this one out for him/herself on the first approach.

Flaps UP/90KIAS/3 deg. glide path: 15" should be a good reference point, depending on conditions and the accuracy of the MP indicator. But then, I'm just some guy on the Internet.

---

This entry edited after I researched your history of posts to PoA. I must say, they do make for an amusing side show. You should include the disclaimer "for entertainment purposes only."

 

[Roger Wilco]

In case there are any reading this thread who are tempted to consider fly4usa's posts as expert advice, caveat emptor. In particular, I wish to call your attention to one statement that's just pure poppycock, blatant balderdash and noxious nonsense:

You are going to peeve off a lot of people including ATC, any planes holding wanting to land in IMC flying the approach at 75mph (65kts). You are expected to do at least 90 kts.

We are NOT "expected to do at least 90kts" unless we tell ATC that we will fly at 90kts. The speed we choose to fly an approach is entirely up to us. ATC is not in command of our aircraft nor are the pilots of other airplanes--we are the PIC. If we fly into an airport that handles a lot of jet traffic, ATC knows (in a general sense) what speeds our aircraft type is capable of and they will adjust spacing accordingly. While they may ask us for our best forward speed on final, or ask for a specific speed, it is up to us to determine what speed we can safely and confidently fly the approach. The reply unable is always our prerogative. The only time ATC has a right to be peeved off (as fly4usa put it) is if we promise them a certain speed but subsequently don't keep that promise.

All that having been said, proficiency in flying approaches at a wide range of speeds is a skillful and useful bit of airmanship that we should all strive to achieve and maintain.

 

[Hang 4]

Dan G, is that you?

You should know that min speed for approach is 1.3 x the stall speed for you configuration. That is a MIN, until landing. People call this DMMS - Defined Minimum Maneuvering Speed or D.M.M.S. This is not new been around forever. However people still stall. The other suggestion I don't make but not a bad idea, is mark your airspeed indicator for DMMS. Of course that changes with flaps. So people put a range. It mirrors bottom of green and bottom of white arcs. When flying IFR you never should be near DMMS unless you are near or over the runway rounding out and flaring for landing.

 

[dmspilot]

Dan G, is that you?

I'm impressed you had the patience to read all that.

 

[WDD]

1) it might be enthusiastic post from an English as a Second Language person with a different cultural way of phrasing

2) The Dan G comment was just plain funny.

3) Per the earlier post, what is the currency requirements to be “internet rated”?

 

[RussR]

Just a casual observation, but I couldn't help but notice that you have an impressive list of tickets and ratings appended prominently to the bottom of your original post. It seems curious that someone with so much experience and knowledge couldn't figure this one out for him/herself on the first approach.

I agree, generating a personalized, airplane-specific P-A-C chart for the student's plane should literally be in Lesson 1 of IFR training. Takes what, 10 minutes? Especially with anything with a constant-speed prop (like the 182 in the OP). Every pilot needs to know how to do this, and any CFII with any experience should know how to do it. I couldn't figure out why the OP was asking (for him/herself, or for a student?) but one way or the other, he/she needs to just go gather that data on their next flight.

 

[brcase]

My opinion is that flaps are a safety factor, giving you extra cushion in stall speed if airspeed and manuevering ever go wonky, and especially if you need to go missed.

To look at this statement as just a general statement and go off topic a bit more. I turns out adding flaps as a safety factor is a bit of a mixed bag in most aircraft.
True, adding flaps lowers the stall speed.
What seems to be less well known is that adding flaps generally tends to make the stall more aggressive when it happens. I.e. the stall happens with nose at a lower attitude making it look like the nose is already down some when it stalls. Also it will typically be more likely to break and roll off to once side or the other rather than a straight ahead mush that many planes exhibit when forward CG and no flaps.

I have ended up vertical in a Spin Entry a surprising number of times after pilots tell me that their airplane has very benign Stall Characteristics. Super Cub pilots seem to be the worst about this. I have them demonstrate a full flap go around and simulate failing to retract the flap. If they let it stall it will often roll off into a spin entry.
I do this exercise especially with Cessna's after have 3 flaps failures to retract within about a 2 month period in 3 different airplanes. The You tube Video's of Cessna go arounds gone bad also seem to make a good case to emphasize how dangerous this can be.

Generally the more flaps added the more aggressive the Stall or break from a Stall is.
For Cessna's it turns out the 1st 10 degrees give the most benefit with a minimal change in the Stall behavior.
The 182 manual I am looking at shows that 20 degrees reduces the stall speed 7mph, while going from 20 to 40 reduces it another 2mph.
my experience is that most of the stall speed reduction is achieved with the 1st 10 degrees of flaps in the Cessna's.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL