Flaps Up on T & G

[MAKG1]

I trained in a 150 and I rarely used full 40 degree flaps. One day I was coming in for a landing while training. CFI was on board..Full flaps out set up nicely on final. Just as the wheels were about to touch he yells go around..I jammed the throttle in and wouldn't you know the nose pitched up like mad! It took everything I had to push the nose forward. I had to lock my elbows so I would go nose high. I said at that point I wont use full 40 degree flaps. That's just me.

I've done go-arounds in older 182s, which also have 40 deg electric flaps. Except the yoke pressures are quite a lot higher.

Just about every Cessna requires significant forward pressure during a full flap go-around while trimmed for a low power approach, to avoid a trim stall. It's manageable even in a 182.

Cessna seems to have eliminated 40 deg flaps along with the transition to 180 HP engines in 172s. It may have to do with liability -- that's also when they raised the number of sump ports from 3 to 13 (3 for the pilot, 10 for the lawyers). But given that 180 HP STCs on older 172s seem to require limiting flaps to 30, I suspect it just means the pitch up is that much more pronounced with the stronger engine.

 

[warthog1984]

The plane will fall out from under you. If you don't have sufficient altitude to recover, or you panic and pull back on the stick, it's over. Just like a departure stall.

You don't need altitude to "recover". Even if you raise the flaps all at once (like if the Johnson bar on the early 172s doesn't catch), the plane will still fly & you are on a runway. All you have to do is get the nose down and concentrate on *flying the darn plane*. If it sinks, it sinks. If you touch down, guess what- you can touch down in a 2-point attitude on... a runway.

Only tricky part may be if you took off with no runway left and there's an obstacle; but if that's the case than you shouldn't be doing T&Gs anyway.

 

[drgwentzel]

lethargic climb. So worst case depends on how long the runway is and whats at the end of it.

In an older one w/ 40 degree it might be really lethargic
And I believe the retract 10 degrees at a time just like in a go around is the solution.

I believe the POH on the N model says to retract from 40 to 20 immediately if going around. I would then take the last 10 out once stabilized and clear of obstacles.

Gene

 

[FastEddieB]

For a historical perspective...

I learned to fly in 1975 in a C150.

The mantra back then was: "Land with the maximum flaps consistent with conditions." That meant, all thing being equal, 40° unless there were reasons not to.

I was teaching at Burnside Ott at Opa Locka when the transition to the new 152 was going on. With them, the mantra was still the same, but I recall missing that last "notch" on final. On an 8,000' runway, not a big deal, but since my goal was to always land as slowly as possible, I still felt deprived of that last 10° I had become accustomed to.

BTW, nearly 40 years later, guess what? I still tend to land with the maximum flaps consistent with conditions.

And it still works for me, though of course YMMV!

 

[Dan Thomas]

Cessna seems to have eliminated 40 deg flaps along with the transition to 180 HP engines in 172s. It may have to do with liability -- that's also when they raised the number of sump ports from 3 to 13 (3 for the pilot, 10 for the lawyers). But given that 180 HP STCs on older 172s seem to require limiting flaps to 30, I suspect it just means the pitch up is that much more pronounced with the stronger engine.

I think they just dumbed-down the airplane by limiting flap to 30 degrees. Those last ten degrees were handy for making steep approahces over obstacles.

The 13 sump drains are there for good reason. Lawyers have nothing to do with it. The old Cessnas had aluminum tanks that fit into the wing, and their bottoms were smooth enough that water could find its way to the sump drain in the inboard aft corner. When Cessna started maing the R and S models, they just sealed off the cavity in the wing that the old tank used to sit in, and it became an integral tank. But the hat-section stringers that gave stiffness to the bottom skin were still there--they had to be--and they would trap water in numerous places and it could accumulate to the point that some turbulence or a slip could send a large amount of water to the tank's outlet to the engine and make things get real quiet. They put drains in every low point to prevent that.

The three drains on the belly: One is the bottom of the selector valve, where the old airplanes just had a plug and where some nasty crud used to accumulate. Another is in the bottom of the header tank, to prevent water accumulation there. The third is the strainer.

Every one of them is a good idea.

Dan

 

[Dan Thomas]

As far as touch-and-goes, at my last instructor recurrency seminar the Transport Canada people told us that T&Gs were the single biggest cause of accidents in flight schools.

If that doesn't say something...


Dan

 

[James331]

As far as touch-and-goes, at my last instructor recurrency seminar the Transport Canada people told us that T&Gs were the single biggest cause of accidents in flight schools.

If that doesn't say something...


Dan

All that says is instructors need to step their game up.

 

[Pilawt]

Cessna seems to have eliminated 40° flaps along with the transition to 180 HP engines in 172s.

No, it was with the increase in MGW from 2300 to 2400 lb with the 1981 C-172P (160 hp). It just won't meet the FAA climb requirement for balked landing with flaps 40 at the higher weight.

There is an STC to increase the MGW of an older 150/160 hp 172 to 2400 lb, simply by limiting flaps to 30°.

Likewise, the pre-production C-177 Cardinal was flown with 40° flaps, but production models from 1968 onward only have 30°. And when the C-150 morphed into the C-152 for 1978, flaps were limited to 30° because of higher gross weight and a more forward CG.

But given that 180 HP STCs on older 172s seem to require limiting flaps to 30, I suspect it just means the pitch up is that much more pronounced with the stronger engine.

Not quite. The Air Plains conversion is two independent STCs - one installs the 180 hp engine, but doesn't change MGW or flaps. The other allows increasing MGW to 2550 lb with the 180 hp engine by limiting flaps to 30°.

We bought both STCs for our 172N. We installed the one, but not the other. The flap limit hardware is in my desk drawer and can be installed any time I want. Maybe someday, but not now. So for now I have a 180 hp 172N with 2300 lb gross weight and 40° of flap.