Full Flap Full Power Stall

If you say so. I've experimented with the effect of power on airspeed hands off in a slow 182. Have you?
Yes, and pretty much every light single there is. We do that demo as part of the pitch/power/trim/airspeed/vertical speed section in our instrument rating syllabus.

I find the "trim airspeed" idea to be simplistic, a decent first approximation to teach a student. Not fundamental.
There may be some small variations in application, but it's a fundamental concept -- just read any aerodynamics book.
 
Henning, 65 knots is a normal approach speed and close to best glide in a 182. Not slow. Try 50.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and pretty much every light single there is. We do that demo as part of the pitch/power/trim/airspeed/vertical speed section in our instrument rating syllabus.

There may be some small variations in application, but it's a fundamental concept -- just read any aerodynamics book.

You mean, like this one? http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoastab.html#sec-basic-stability ?

He argues that trim sets angle of attack, not speed. They aren't the same in a dynamic situation. Pay particular attention to the discussions of stability, because you are assuming inherent pitch stability with statements that the aircraft maintains its airspeed.

Do you really try hands off high power application in slow flight? 'Cause I find I need some forward pressure if I want to avoid slowing further, much more marked at high power than low or medium, especially with flaps. Seems like an odd regime for instrument flight.
 
Last edited:
This discussion has become ridiculous. I've long recommended that anyone interested in STOL flying in a Cessna needs to take an experienced pilot out to show them full flap go-arounds, full flap take-offs, and full flap MCA including steep turns. For Cessna drivers reading this thread? Please go do it. Do not internalize that a full flap/full trim/full power go-around will cause a pitch down or leave you with a level aircraft. It will not. The nose will rise and you'll need to apply significant forward yoke pressure to maintain speed and climb. That is a fact, not a theory. Please go try it for yourselves. This internet flying BS isn't what you'll need when you find yourself in the middle of a balked landing on a short strip with tall trees ahead. Flyer beware. Cheers.
 
Henning, 65 knots is a normal approach speed and close to best glide in a 182. Not slow. Try 50.

She was doing 65, I was demonstrating that wasn't 'slow flight' and how to slow it even further. The point being I had full nose up trim with full power and flaps in and had to pull back for the stall horn. THE TRIM ATTITUDE WOULD NOT STALL THE PLANE!

I understand that if you slam in the throttle on a full power, full flaps, go around the nose is going to pitch up like crazy from your prior nose down approach attitude, and this can be scary, but it is not going to pitch up into a stall on its own, you have to keep pulling.
 
Do not internalize that a full flap/full trim/full power go-around will cause a pitch down or leave you with a level aircraft. It will not. The nose will rise and you'll need to apply significant forward yoke pressure to maintain speed and climb. That is a fact, not a theory. Please go try it for yourselves. This internet flying BS isn't what you'll need when you find yourself in the middle of a balked landing on a short strip with tall trees ahead. Flyer beware. Cheers.

Nobody ever said anything contrary to this. Not sure what all the internet BS is that you refer to. This thread, like many others, has morphed into academia - a discussion of pure mechanics, and whether trim can truly cause a stall...and which airplanes can or can't. In practice, this is not an important point. This has NOT become a discussion on whether or not a pilot should control airspeed and climb during a go-around. You seem to have gotten wadded up and missed that. Countless boring GoPro videos these days of people motoring around in their 172s - someone should easily be able to video a true trim stall in a 172 from a go-around. ;) I'd do it, but I'm not a rental pilot, and don't own a GA trainer type.
 
To the OP:

I am in Western Colorado and my examiner made me do the same. I had NEVER practiced one before...and it totally threw me for a loop. We went from slow flight at 45mph, full flaps...to FULL POWER, full flaps, stall...it was intense. Totally didn't give it enough right rudder and yawed hard left. Asked for one more try, confessing I had never done one before, and then nailed it.

Like you, I checked the PPL PTS and didn't see it in there. Nonetheless, this is what he referred to as the "go around" stall...and it makes sense that we should be able to recover from one!

Perhaps we had the same examiner. Does his name rhyme with Gin Stench?
 
...any time you add power, the airplane will attempt to accelerate, but the trim system will pitch the nose up to try to maintain the trimmed speed...

It will be slower, assuming it didn't stall first...

Why would it stall if you don't pull back from the trim induced pitch?:dunno::confused::dunno:
It will fly slower, i.e., at a higher angle of attack, because the propeller slipstream is somewhat faster than mere indicated airspeed (why they mount pitot tubes outside the prop arc) making the elevator trim tab more effective than during an idle-thrust descent at the same IAS. There wasn't as much difference in your experiment between the relatively high slow flight power setting and full power. Try a go-around again from an idle-power descent. Even if there isn't enough extra slipstream to force a stalling AoA a phugoid could develop which could exceed the critical AoA as the nose pitches over, or not. YMMV. For sure, the AoA will be close enough to critical that any mismanagement could cause a stall whether the plane does it alone or not.

dtuuri
 
This discussion has become ridiculous. I've long recommended that anyone interested in STOL flying in a Cessna needs to take an experienced pilot out to show them full flap go-arounds, full flap take-offs, and full flap MCA including steep turns. For Cessna drivers reading this thread? Please go do it. Do not internalize that a full flap/full trim/full power go-around will cause a pitch down or leave you with a level aircraft. It will not. The nose will rise and you'll need to apply significant forward yoke pressure to maintain speed and climb. That is a fact, not a theory. Please go try it for yourselves. This internet flying BS isn't what you'll need when you find yourself in the middle of a balked landing on a short strip with tall trees ahead. Flyer beware. Cheers.


+1

Botched STOL landing with full flaps and aft trim, you better be ready when you firewall it. :yikes:


cfbdz.jpg
 
This discussion has become ridiculous. I've long recommended that anyone interested in STOL flying in a Cessna needs to take an experienced pilot out to show them full flap go-arounds, full flap take-offs, and full flap MCA including steep turns. For Cessna drivers reading this thread? Please go do it. Do not internalize that a full flap/full trim/full power go-around will cause a pitch down or leave you with a level aircraft. It will not. The nose will rise and you'll need to apply significant forward yoke pressure to maintain speed and climb. That is a fact, not a theory. Please go try it for yourselves. This internet flying BS isn't what you'll need when you find yourself in the middle of a balked landing on a short strip with tall trees ahead. Flyer beware. Cheers.


Even my Robertson STOL equipped Cessna and the associated POH addendum doesn't recommend, nor authorize, a full flap takeoff. It's not particularly smart to do it in my aircraft.

It's a really really dumb idea to show them off in a non-STOL aircraft.

Mine is limited to 30 degrees for takeoff and Robertson (to limit their liability) calls them an "emergency" maneuver only in the POH addendum.

Of course not practicing them would quickly turn them into a real emergency, so I have no problem practicing them.

But I have zero reason to practice full flap 40 degree takeoffs. That's just more drag for very little change in lift.

Also at my typical altitudes for operation, MCA and steep turn combined won't be a level flight operation. Even with two on board and half tanks, you're going down during that.

It's often taught as an escape maneuver by mountain pilots to turn away from a ridge line. It has little to do with STOL unless you're mixing obstructed airports with STOL. Some are. But it'll be a lot more useful to most folks as a way to make a tight radius escape turn away from rising terrain, than useful for an unobstructed approach to a short strip. You typically just don't need to maneuver that much to line up with any but the most challenging backcountry runways.

The rest of the statement above about is correct about pitch and flaps in Cessnas. You'll have to push if you were trimmed for slow speed and add a gob of power.

I don't fly other brands much so I won't comment on those.

Here's a Flap 30 takeoff near sea level on about an 80F day. Trimmed for takeoff, right at the end of the video you can see that I had to push forward on the yoke to level off and gain another ten knots for flap retraction to 20. It would have come off another five knots slower but it leads to PIO when pushing and I hadn't done one in a while. No point horsing it into the air.

http://youtu.be/D01jHXn2q28

The setup for that takeoff was that our own Mr. David White had been doing STOL takeoffs at Gastons during the fly-in and showing off the capabilities of his STOL 172 by lifting off before the windsock. I was bored and felt like doing one. I tossed all the crap out of the 182 into the grass and cheated by going all the way back to the road, and holding the brakes on the grass until a wheel slid.

Me, iPad, headset, and about 40 gallons on board.

As far as STOL takeoffs go, this one was pretty benign and I wasn't trying very hard. I've gotten it off equally short at my home altitude which is a much more aggressive takeoff, and it's a very aggressive pitch up and off and pitch down to stay in ground effect and build speed.

It's always a joy to take the normally aspirated O-470 down near sea level. Lots of power. Fun.

About the only thing I regret about that week was not flying with friends more. The stories of bumming around in airplanes and flying in different types at Gastons from long time PoA folk sound more fun than sitting around talking, but for some reason I left the plane mostly parked. Newbie kinda going with the flow that weekend.

Next time, anyone wants to go try it should just ask. I'd go. No need to be too wild about it either, the airplane really likes it down there. Can go play on asphalt nearby too, if he grass is too wet. That year it was really dry.

Hopefully this year. We'll see.

A hardcore STOL takeoff in my aircraft has the stall horn going until the level acceleration to flap 20 retraction speed. That will kinda pucker you up the first few times and isn't how I like to demo the airplane to new folks. Too much chance their reflexes will trigger and they might help me push... Haha. The one in the video only got a brief buzz of the horn right at rotation. Solidly flying and not operating that far behind the curve for that takeoff.
 
Don't your drooping ailerons retract to normal at 40* flaps?

If your slowest stalling and/or landing speed is at full flaps, why would you believe your slowest takeoff speed would be at some other flap setting? Speaking from the "hard core stol" perspective?
 
Last edited:
Don't your drooping ailerons retract to normal at 40* flaps?



If your slowest stalling and/or landing speed is at full flaps, why would you believe your slowest takeoff speed would be at some other flap setting? Speaking from the "hard core stol" perspective?


They're all the way back up by 30, actually. What's still there are the stall fences. That's really all that's helping for the takeoff.

The problem becomes aileron control at the speeds you could lift off at at flap 40. They're downright floppy. I suspect Robertson found that leaving them drooped made that worse because it limited their travel. Their max deflection is just beyond 20 degrees of flaps and then they start back up.

Note: Aerodynamically floppy. The extra triangle mechanism the aileron cables pass through makes the actual aileron control in my airplane have a bunch more friction than a regular 182. Mostly not noticeable in flight but when you do the walk around and move them by hand you'll think there's an aileron hinge dragging if you're used to how smoothly a regular 182 aileron moves. You'll also hear different noises when moving them.

Add in the (useless) Cessna 200 autopilot servo drag and its a weird feeling moving them. (We've always suspected that one of
reasons our Cessna 200 spends all of its time doing "S-turns about a course, besides the fact that it's a piece of cheap crap, is the extra drag in the system that the servos have to overcome. I've played around with "helping it" with light pressures on the yoke the directional is trying to go, and the theory seems sound. An interesting minor example of how two add-on systems can affect each other in subtle ways.)

Anyway... You really want them up so you have full deflection if needed when that slow. Besides the stall speed change bringing them up to 20, I think the droop is another reason they want you to speed up first. You're going to lose aileron effectiveness in total roll rate available but have a massively stable full chord 20 degree flapped wing as a trade off. Stable as a rock but if you need a stab of full aileron deflection, it's no longer available. Neither the down nor up side can fully deflect at 20 flap.

You can actually see the result in the video. Notice the little left wing dip as it lifted off and sped up? That was the ailerons becoming effective and me not releasing the left aileron pressure as I selected flap 20. You get a little bobbling around during the retraction from 30 to 20 as they droop back down. Very very minor but after over 200 hours in this specific aircraft you notice it and wonder if you'll ever fully "dial in" to it.

You'll also need the usual "right leg is larger than the other and you'll walk in circles the rest of your life ones you become a pilot" massive amount of right rudder for the STOL takeoff. The POH addendum actually calls for full right rudder trim before adding power. This of course leads to an interesting weirdness in that once you level off in ground effect and accelerate you'd technically need to do something that is counter-intuitive for a 182 driver. Left rudder. LOL. I don't roll the trim all the way right for that reason. I just stomp on the thing and let it out as needed as it speeds up.

I suspect another reason they didn't want them fully down at 30 is the weird effects you would get in a significant crosswind if you started the takeoff with full aileron deflection if they were going to move up instead of down when going from flap 30 to 20. Bigger sink than you'd expect doing that, probably. You'd get a third shot at PIO only feet off the ground. The geometry change could make it seem more squirrely than necessary and lower aileron control at a bad time. Or same problem when landing if you delayed the flap extension.

Robertson ain't around to give them a call and ask anymore, so all of the above is educated (or even ignorant - ha) guesswork based on flying it. They seem to have balanced the control changes well enough that even a hamfisted pilot could make a reasonably short STOL departure and arrival. The fences do seem to do the majority of the work in all flight regimes, but I've had some really high time 182 pilots remark at how effective the ailerons feel and how stable it is at low speeds during landings, who have flown it.

I like to get the full 40 out for landings but flap 20 landings with the ailerons drooped are a cheaters way to get a greaser every time. If I have a passenger who I know will only pay attention to one thing, the landing, I'll cheat and leave them at 20 on a long runway. The whole wing is then basically a full chord flap. It'll just float on. Ground effect really shows up well doing that.
 
Robertsons are fairly common up here. Some guys love them. More do not. No biggie. WingX has taken the market for Cessna guys who want more lift and slower ops. I prefer the stock wing and it's ability to get me home in crossing winds. Making airplanes go up is easy. Getting them down can be more difficult and that's what I optimize my airplanes for. On the other hand, I can land an average Cessna on strips that it may not get out of. The best solution for that is horsepower.

A typical STOL operator who's got manual flaps will start a take-off with one or two notches of flaps, primarily to get the flap handle within easy reach. At tail lifting speed they'll grab full flaps and the plane will jump into the air. Keep it in ground effect and nurse a notch or two off, gain some airspeed, and you're outta there. SOP for Cubs and Skywagons, and straight tail 182s. It's also widely used by float operators. Water can be sticky, especially glassy water. A grab on the flaps pops the plane right out of the water and any float pilot is familiar with the acceleration you get once the floats are off.
 
Robertsons are fairly common up here. Some guys love them. More do not. No biggie. WingX has taken the market for Cessna guys who want more lift and slower ops. I prefer the stock wing and it's ability to get me home in crossing winds. Making airplanes go up is easy. Getting them down can be more difficult and that's what I optimize my airplanes for. On the other hand, I can land an average Cessna on strips that it may not get out of. The best solution for that is horsepower.



A typical STOL operator who's got manual flaps will start a take-off with one or two notches of flaps, primarily to get the flap handle within easy reach. At tail lifting speed they'll grab full flaps and the plane will jump into the air. Keep it in ground effect and nurse a notch or two off, gain some airspeed, and you're outta there. SOP for Cubs and Skywagons, and straight tail 182s. It's also widely used by float operators. Water can be sticky, especially glassy water. A grab on the flaps pops the plane right out of the water and any float pilot is familiar with the acceleration you get once the floats are off.


All things I knew already. Was there a question posed that would have argued any of that?

Your assertion was that full flap takeoffs should be practiced by all Cessna drivers in non-STOL aircraft. I disagreed.

What you described is a technique possible in a Johnson bar equipped Cessna, not a good technique in a typical non-STOL Cessna with electric flaps.

That's said, my time in a straight tailed 172 with a Johnson bar and a Mooney with one were fun. Much better feel for what the flaps are doing when you have to pull hard on the lever.

Knowing the force required makes one treat the electric ones with more respect for extension speed. Especially with the price of a flap track replacement these days.

Our aircraft had the Robby on it when we bought it. It wasn't a particular selling point, and we find little use for it on the mostly paved runways of Colorado. It'll mostly just put you in a situation where you're behind the power curve and increases the distance needed to clear an obstacle at takeoff.

It's fun but generally unnecessary on a 182. More useful on a 206. Best use of it on takeoff is getting off of rocks or gravel sooner to quit tossing them into the tail. On landing, it'll definitely land in places it can't get out of again.

A friend recently added VGs to his 182. He will get almost the same
performance for a lot less money.
 
You were the one that talked about hardcore STOL. I was surprised to hear it on this site. I still am.

VGs have some benefits but they will not provide the same performance as a Robertson kit assuming the pilots are going to fly slow enough to recognize what the mods can do. VGs provide a very subtle improvement. No flight manual supplement required.
 
+1

Botched STOL landing with full flaps and aft trim, you better be ready when you firewall it. :yikes:


cfbdz.jpg

Did the plane crash? That is a pic not a video. As for a Pic, it looks like a normal hight performance climb angle for a high power STOL aircraft. AoA referenced to relative wind is not the same as pitch angle.
 
Don't your drooping ailerons retract to normal at 40* flaps?

If your slowest stalling and/or landing speed is at full flaps, why would you believe your slowest takeoff speed would be at some other flap setting? Speaking from the "hard core stol" perspective?


I read somewhere that your most efficient flap setting is where the flaps match your ailerons at full deflection. In my case, that's only 10 degrees.

The Sportsman STOL papers recommend a 20 degree flap setting for short field take off. But I know for a fact 40 degrees will pop you off the ground quicker. But you're really not flying, you're in ground effect. You have to be prepared for this and push hard to remain in ground effect or you'll sink right back down.

Sometimes I land with only 10 degrees flaps when I'm light because it just feels solid and stable as a brick. :)
 
I read somewhere that your most efficient flap setting is where the flaps match your ailerons at full deflection. In my case, that's only 10 degrees.
Efficient for what? In any event, I know of no light airplane where the L/D ratio increases with the extension of flaps.

The Sportsman STOL papers recommend a 20 degree flap setting for short field take off. But I know for a fact 40 degrees will pop you off the ground quicker. But you're really not flying, you're in ground effect. You have to be prepared for this and push hard to remain in ground effect or you'll sink right back down.
It may be true that 20 flaps does shorten your takeoff roll, but that's not a measure of wing efficiency. And I know plenty of planes where the recommended best short field takeoff flap setting is significantly different than maximum aileron deflection.

Sometimes I land with only 10 degrees flaps when I'm light because it just feels solid and stable as a brick. :)[/QUOTE]
 
Efficient for what? In any event, I know of no light airplane where the L/D ratio increases with the extension of flaps.

It may be true that 20 flaps does shorten your takeoff roll, but that's not a measure of wing efficiency. And I know plenty of planes where the recommended best short field takeoff flap setting is significantly different than maximum aileron deflection.
[/QUOTE]


I don't remember the article but I'm assuming they meant the most efficient flap setting is where they are creating the most lift and the least drag. Or as opposed to drag ... :dunno:
 
Last edited:
I don't remember the article but I'm assuming they meant the most efficient flap setting is where they are creating the most lift and the least drag. Or as opposed to drag ... :dunno:
If you mean max L/D, I've yet to see a light plane where they tell you to extend flaps for better glide ratio in an engine-out situation.
 
Last edited:
I read somewhere that your most efficient flap setting is where the flaps match your ailerons at full deflection. In my case, that's only 10 degrees.

The Sportsman STOL papers recommend a 20 degree flap setting for short field take off. But I know for a fact 40 degrees will pop you off the ground quicker. But you're really not flying, you're in ground effect. You have to be prepared for this and push hard to remain in ground effect or you'll sink right back down.

Sometimes I land with only 10 degrees flaps when I'm light because it just feels solid and stable as a brick. :)

It's a factor of excess horsepower in the launch. The more horsepower you have, the more flap the plane can accelerate and climb with, the more flap, the more lift. Look at the flap settings the WWII carrier pilots were using in the precatapult days, 45°& even 60°. With a catapult you can come full circle on flaps because you have so much excess horsepower you no longer need the extra lift.
 
If you mean max L/D, I've yet to see a light plane where they tell you to extend flaps for better glide ratio in an engine-out situation.

And I'm not sure how you managed to change what I wrote in your quotation of my post, but I'd appreciate it if you'd strike your words from the section indicating it's a quote from me.


O.k. done there Cap'n. I don't know how I did that either ...

Somebody whizz in your wheeties this morning?

I don't like your tone. I'd appreciate it if you'd talk nice to me. :lol:
 
Don't your drooping ailerons retract to normal at 40* flaps?

If your slowest stalling and/or landing speed is at full flaps, why would you believe your slowest takeoff speed would be at some other flap setting?

Stall speeds at idle (landing) power, are significantly higher than stall speeds with full power.
You can't compare landing configurations to T.O. configs .
 
Back
Top