Full flaps or partial flaps on final approach?

[PHXAvi8tor]

If the posts over in the "red forum" are any indication, this topic seems to cause a total division of opinions.

I'm not interested in causing a riot with this thread; rather, to clarify what many POH's mean when their landing checklist merely says "FLAPS" but does not specify how much flaps on final approach.

Here is what I know:

Most POH's state in the amplified procedures that it is ideal to land at the slowest possible airspeed for the given conditions. In other words, whatever it takes -- in terms of flaps -- to get to the slowest airspeed for the conditions at your runway.

For example, if you have a heavy crosswind, you'll land faster and therefore want less flaps. If you have obstacles and a short runway, you'll probably want full flaps.

But, over at the "red forum," (AOPA), some are arguing that if obstacles, wind, runway surface, are non-issues, then don't use full flaps.

Example, if you have a 1-mile-long asphalt runway, on a nice, cool, dry day with no wind, just use 25 degrees of flaps (two notches), instead of full flaps.

However, it seems to me that the argument to use partial flaps for a nice, long, cool dry runway goes against the POH advice in many airplanes.

Why?

The POH says to land at the slowest possible airspeed for the given conditions. If you have a nice long paved runway, then why not take advantage of ideal conditions and use full flaps to land real nice and slow and soft and take your time doing it?

Seems like a no-brainer to me!

But, in the other forum, folks are having conniptions, saying that you put yourself in danger of not being able to do a go around if you are near stall, have full flaps, and forget to take out the first notch of flaps right away, and cannot climb. To that, I say, "Phooey!" All emergency procedures that I've been taught require the student to immediately get the first notch of flaps out on go around. If you aren't doing that, then you aren't following your training.

Anyway, I'm due for my CFI Initial checkride this Thursday, so I need a good distraction in the way of a flaps debate, to keep the nerves at ease.

So, fire away!

 

[Michael]

how many times was the word "idiot" used in those posts? Dont listen to them. Use your POH and what you feel comfortable with. You know every pilot is going to have a different answer, because he has a different plane and feels comfortable in different settings.
There is no stock answer here.

 

[citationxjl]

Full flaps for me, unless there is a reason. Better on brakes, landing gear, etc. I agree with landing at the slowest speed practical for the given conditions. I was taught to touchdown right before stall. Obviously if there is gusting wind or crosswind etc, I would carry some extra speed. But of course, thats just me!

 

[Michael]

wow. was this question only open to AZ residents?

 

[PHXAvi8tor]

wow. was this question only open to AZ residents?

Funny!

Yeah, Arizona pilots are spoiled by perfect weather and great runways!

They get overconfident (remember "macho-ism" is one of the deadly pilot attitudes, by the way).

When reading and reviewing this thread, I suddenly remembered how many great birds land -- they have their wings spread way out, down and low, creating maximum drag with their feet and tails. Their landing configuration is the essence of full flaps.

In any case, full flaps seems like it should be the "default" setting if you have ideal conditions at your landing zone.

What do I know, though? Just a brand-new, soon-to-be CFI, and all these grizzled AOPA-ers at the "red forum" are contending they'd rather come in fast with partial flaps.

Last one who told me about their partial flaps landing also said they had a problem with the nosewheel hitting the runway first -- and hitting it too hard, bouncing and nearly porpoising!

 

[EdFred]

I was a 25 degree guy for a while, now I'm back to 40 degrees regardless of conditions, runway, etc...

 

[Lawreston]

Nope; Maine, here. We don't have but 2 two- mile long runways back here, and they're both former Air Force Bases. We're more into 2000' to 5000'. I'm for slow and easy, full flaps with the Skyhawk; and in doing so I like to shoot for the numbers, sort of practicing for spot landing on a short field(provided there are no adverse wind conditions, of course). I did that one time at BIA(Bangor International Airport[12400+']) and the tower said, "72Golf use Taxiway Mike". That was all well and good, but unlike my usual haunts Taxiway Mike looked and seemed as though it was in the next county. The next time I landed about 1500' down the runway and still had to approach "Mike."

HR

Postscript to above: I do like to practice no flaps landings, however. There may be an occasion, someday, when the necessity shall arise.

 

[SkyHog]

For me, its always full flaps. I'll never say "Those that don't are idiots," but personally, I land as slow as I can everytime unless I'm practicing no flap landings.

To sum - its either full flaps or no flaps, never partial.

 

[KennyFlys]

I'm puzzled what people's problems are. If they want land with full flaps, let them knock themselves out. But, I'm a lot more comfortable with a little higher speed and only flaps 20 (172s or R182) when I have gusty winds and sufficient runway length.

There is no set rule for any landing configuration. Perhaps a standard practice but certainly no rule. A pilot needs to be proficient in any given configuration. I guess lost electrical issues didn't come up. My 709 ride included only three landings. One had to be with no flaps.

 

[Andy Greever]

Well Ben, after our phone coversation last night, you know how I feel!

But for the record, I use partial flaps most of the time (25 deg.)

And save the last notch in case I'm high on final.

My POH says my stall speed lowers 3mph for every notch used. I just don't see how landing 3mph faster is that much harder on the plane or more dangerous?

Keep in mind I'm just a Rookie, but thats what I've been taught, and thats what I'm comfortable with.

 

[PHXAvi8tor]

Well Ben, after our phone coversation last night, you know how I feel!

But for the record, I use partial flaps most of the time (25 deg.)

And save the last notch in case I'm high on final.

My POH says my stall speed lowers 3mph for every notch used. I just don't see how landing 3mph faster is that much harder on the plane or more dangerous?

Keep in mind I'm just a Rookie, but thats what I've been taught, and thats what I'm comfortable with.

So ...

what is the rationale for using less flaps on a nice, ideal runway on a cool, calm (no-wind) day? Lay it out.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Tailwheel airplane = land as slow as is safe for any given wind condition. Full flaps unless otherwise is needed. Though I do occasionally practice landings in various configurations on nice smooth long runways, even power-on no-flap landings

Something in the original post pricked my attention - crosswinds are not the only wind conditions in which we land a little faster than normal, no?

 

[Andy Greever]

So ...

what is the rationale for using less flaps on a nice, ideal runway on a cool, calm (no-wind) day? Lay it out.

It's a bad habit to get into. How often is it cool in Phoenix?

Also I might add I have an underpowered airplane, the extra approach speed and less flaps will make a possible go around safer.

So far both of my CFI's, and my old gray-haired mentor, have been teaching me to fly this way.

Are they wrong?

 

[CowboyPilot]

I use as much flaps as I need and as much as I can safely get away with.

In the Skyhawk, if I'm battling a really bad crosswind, I'll only use 20 degrees--anything more seems to flatten it out more and I risk a three-point landing (or worse). But, it's gotta be a really BAD crosswind--as in, "I really should look for an alternate airport" kind of crosswind.

Can't remember the last time I landed with anything less than the full 30 degrees in the Cardinal or the full 40 in the RV.

Regards.

-JD

 

[deafsound]

Something in the original post pricked my attention - crosswinds are not the only wind conditions in which we land a little faster than normal, no?

Correct. Gusty wind conditions are also cause for landing a little faster. There may be other instances too, but I'm kinda brain dead right now.

I use anywhere from no flaps to full flaps depending on a variety of factors.

 

[alaskaflyer]

And after my little engine-out-landed-short-of-the-runway experience a few months ago, I always maintain a little extra energy on approach until the landing is truly assured. For me this usually means full forty degrees of flaps with some extra throttle (or height). Those big barn doors get her slowed down pretty fast for the flare once I pull the power out near the numbers. On a short field landing I settle for a more stabilized, slower approach though - always gotta consider the lesser of two evils

I wonder how many pilots ignore the gust spread when deciding on a final approach speed?

 

[gprellwitz]

Correct. Gusty wind conditions are also cause for landing a little faster. There may be other instances too, but I'm kinda brain dead right now.

I use anywhere from no flaps to full flaps depending on a variety of factors.

Not a wind condition, but ice should have you doing a no-flaps landing. You don't know what effect the changing airflow over an iced tailplane will have.

 

[SCCutler]

Full flaps for me, thanky very much, unless there's a good reason not to.

...

I wonder how many pilots ignore the gust spread when deciding on a final approach speed?

Not me- not so terribly interested in dropping onto the runway unscheduled-like.

 

[Steve]

When I picked up the IAR the first instructor had me landing everytime with the full 45 degrees of available flaps regardless of conditions. As soon as the mains touched the nose would fall through. That instructor insisted I was not holding enough back pressure on the stick, even though I had it against the stop. So I fired him and found another instructor who had some actual IAR time and that instructor told me not to use more than 30 degrees unless I had the back seats filled. From that point on I've had no more episodes of firewall integrity testing. And I've had no problem getting into 2000' grass strips using only 30 degrees.

As long as I don't exceed the operating limits of the aircraft I'd use what ever flap setting gets the job done. It's not going to be the same every time.

 

[SCCutler]

Well, that's a danged commie plane, it don't count, do it?

 

[Steve]

Well, that's a danged commie plane, it don't count, do it?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But for the record, I use partial flaps most of the time (25 deg.)

And save the last notch in case I'm high on final.

Why not just use all your flaps, and slip if you're high on final? (Or go around)

 

[KennyFlys]

Why not just use all your flaps, and slip if you're high on final? (Or go around)

Why not just establish a stable approach unless there is a special need for losing that altitude?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Why not just establish a stable approach unless there is a special need for losing that altitude?

That was my point. Full flaps should be a given in most planes, not something you only use if you happen to be high on final.

 

[Henning]

When reading and reviewing this thread, I suddenly remembered how many great birds land -- they have their wings spread way out, down and low, creating maximum drag with their feet and tails. Their landing configuration is the essence of full flaps.

This is an excellent observation, and I'd like to add further observation to add to another point of contention in the subject of final and landing. If you observe a bird landing you'll notice they add power on short final to arrest their sink rate, effectively, they are "On the backside of the power curve" coming in on landing. I've often been chided for being nose high with the power on on landing, yet I nearly always make the first turnoff in a couple hundred feet without standing on the brakes and without bending the airplane. Granted I'm counting on the engine to be there on very short final, but, how often have you had an engine failure in the last 100 feet of a flight?

 

[KennyFlys]

If you observe a bird landing you'll notice they add power on short final to arrest their sink rate, effectively, they are "On the backside of the power curve" coming in on landing.

Henning, now that you've mentioned it I have noticed that. I just never applied the idea before.

In the 182RG, you've just about gotta roll in a little power in that last hundred feet and be sure its rolled out before flare. Two things I run into are the engine takes time to spin up when adding power and time again to spin down. I've learned timing is nearly critical if you want a smooth landing. And, if you don't add that touch of power while keeping a slow speed on short field or soft field, you'll be sinking below the intended surface. That'll be the result on an actual softfield or harder than desired touch on pavement. As I've said before, the difference between 65 kts and 63 kts is the difference between a powered glide and a refrigerator. That bit of power rolled in helps dampen the effects of the slower, desired speed.

Kent, sorry... I'd misunderstood your earlier statement as intended.

 

[Andy Greever]

That was my point. Full flaps should be a given in most planes, not something you only use if you happen to be high on final.

My Cherokee has up to 40deg of flaps. 25deg seems like plenty to me?

I might add some planes have no flaps, how in the world do those pilots land those planes?

How often should you practice no-flap landings?

Again, I've only had 2 CFI's so far, and have an old grey haired flying mentor. They have all taught me to fly this way. Are they wrong?

I read a post by Tristar, where she said, "Flying isn't so much a Science, but an Art". I agree with that statement. I think the fact that there is no hard fast rule drives the "Do it by the book types" nuts!

I'm going to my bird after work and pick up my POH. I think I'm going to need it!

 

[jesse]

I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about why people have all of these accidents with loss of directional control during the landing phase. Sometimes when I get bored and I don't want to waste all kinds of money flying an actual airplane I'll be perfectly content going to the airport and just watching them. My favorite time to watch these airplanes is on a day with a gusting crosswind. Perhaps I'm evil--But to be honest I am a little entertained. You have two types of pilots that land. The first type of pilot comes in landing with about half flaps--sometimes even no flaps. They'll be landing with a little extra speed than they normally do. Their approach looks good and you eventually see them touchdown on the runway with a pretty flat attitude after an easy 1,000 ft of float. This is when I get to watch quite a dance.

The airplane will generally bounce up a little bit and sort of hop around the runway. Eventually the gear settles down onto the runway and I get to watch them dart back and forth on the runway eventually coming to a stop and pulling off. By the time this is done they have used up almost the entire runway.

You'll see another kind of pilot land. This pilot will come in with full flaps. You'll watch them touchdown in about the first 500 feet followed by turning off the runway. These pilots don't really entertain me that much. It almost looks like they are using cheat codes. You'd think these pilots turned the wind off while they landed. But I'll take a glance at the windsock to see that it looks the same as the previous pilot. It’s even the same model of airplane.

So the big question is why one pilot is able to land without an issue while the other pilot makes you hold your breath. After quite a bit of thought I think it comes down to energy management. The primary purpose of an airplane is to take man up into the sky. They want to fly--they are built to fly. They don't really like it when you stop them from flying and try to turn them into a car. The people that dart all over the runway and do an impressive dance are trying to force the airplane to become a car while it is still flying. As these pilots touch down on the runway their wings are still generating a very respectable amount of lift. The reason they are bouncing is because the plane is still flying. If they were to pull back on the yoke after they touchdown they would shoot right back into the sky. Why is this a problem you ask? It's a problem because if the wings are still generating lift they are taking weight off of your wheels. So now these pilots gave up on flying it and are simply trying to drive it. The airplane is essentially flying itself and the wheels are trying to force it to go somewhere. Sometimes these pilots get away with it and sometimes these pilots don't get away with it.

I have tried my best to be the kind of pilot that lands during these conditions in a very controlled state with no drift, no float, and no bounce, while holding the centerline the whole time. It was not easy at first and took a significant amount of unlearning what I was taught. But the more I did it the more I discovered how much easier it really is. As I flare the stall warning will blare. I will have the yoke back to the stops with full aileron into the wind and there simply will be no bounce. The nose wheel will come down nicely and I will have full directional control. Keep in mind that I completely eliminated the problem with the airplane trying to fly during the landing rollout. I let the airplane be an airplane until it didn’t want to be one anymore. Even after the airplane quit being an airplane I still kept flying it. Just in case Mother Nature decides to throw a huge gust of wind at me. It takes more work. You will have to respond faster if a gust of wind hits you. But you will get good at it and will not have problems landing anymore. This is how you really have to do it in the light trainers we all fly.

After putting a bunch of thought into this and watching all of these pilots. I finally wanted to know why some pilots come in slow and land nicely while way too many pilots comes in fast and cause a problem. Do they not watch the other guy landing ever? Don't they wonder why he can do it with such precision? I don't think they really notice. They must not notice. Or they do notice and they are too stubborn to admit that they can't do it.

Some pilots do have a fear of flying slow. They are afraid of the airplane stalling. They are not comfortable with the way that the controls feel at slower speeds. I'm not exactly sure what the best way to fix this is other than fly with another competent pilot that can help one learn how it's supposed to feel. If you are flying slow and a gust hits you it WILL take a faster more aggressive control movement to counteract it. With time you will get used to making control movements like this. The most important thing is never quit flying the airplane you need to be flying it throughout the landing. You need to keep doing this as you rollout, turn off the runway, and even as you taxi to your hangar. This is something you really tend to only see tail wheel pilots do. Every pilot learns it in training--but most of them just don't do it. These tail wheel pilots have discovered the hard way if they do not do it they will be busting up an airplane. Just because your nose wheel plane is more stable does not mean that the same rules don't apply. There is a twin pilot I have flown with that I have observed moving the controls fully to the stops while taxing even though there was almost no wind. It becomes second nature.

I feel that the fear of flying slow is generally instructor induced or caused by lack of currency. If you do not keep using your skills, if you do not make every landing a challenge you will start to lose all of those skills you worked so hard for. Don't do this to yourself. I wish every pilot was motivated enough to make themselves the best pilot they could possibly be. Every single time you land--Why not pick a spot on the runway and try to hit it. If you don't hit it--Why not taxi back and do touch and go's until you do. All of us get to choose our fate in aviation. I think that's why so many of us are so attracted to it and why we enjoy talking about it so much.

I'm going to be perfectly honest. It is more work to land at a slow speed with a crosswind. You will be slamming controls around sometimes. You will have to be on top of your game. But the end result is the airplane will touchdown in a controlled state-- you won't bend any metal and you'll look good doing it. Best of all it will be better on the airplane and you won't have to post about how you bent your baby.

 

[Henning]

My Cherokee has up to 40deg of flaps. 25deg seems like plenty to me?

I might add some planes have no flaps, how in the world do those pilots land those planes?

How often should you practice no-flap landings?

Again, I've only had 2 CFI's so far, and have an old grey haired flying mentor. They have all taught me to fly this way. Are they wrong?

I read a post by Tristar, where she said, "Flying isn't so much a Science, but an Art". I agree with that statement. I think the fact that there is no hard fast rule drives the "Do it by the book types" nuts!

I'm going to my bird after work and pick up my POH. I think I'm going to need it!

At 25* of flaps you are barely out of the "High Lift Device" mode and just coming into the "High Drag" phase. You're increasing your chances of bouncing and porpoising over no flaps or full flaps. You can make the landing lighter and smoother, but you have to be more precise and are more prone to get ugly. Full or no flaps gets you a better "plant" on the runway. Full gets you there at minimum speed using the least runway, and most importantly with the least kinetic energy. As an aside, 25* of flaps is going to require the largest pattern.

As to flying being an art, I fully agree, but remember, even art has rules of proportion, perspective and composition which if aren't followed, leads to crappy art. Practice no flap landing until you are comfortable with them and then do one every 20 or so landings. Either runway at DVT is plenty long enough.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

There are some planes that are very forgiving when it comes to flap/no flap deployments; others that really benefit from the use of flaps.

On my P-Baron, flaps make a pretty large difference in my touch down speed and the length of my landing roll. Of course, on a short runway, I always use full flaps. But there are other considerations. Last weekend, I landed at a 4,000 foot runway, but the approach was over high tension power lines. I passed at least 50 feet above those which gave me a steeper than optimum approach angle. Definitely a full flaps approach.

On landing at many runways, even with long runways, one wants to plan a turn off. Flap considerations play a significant role here. The P-Baron is hard on brakes; so, landing slower and allowing the plane to roll before braking is important. With a demonstrated cross wind landing component of 25 knots, I can get down in pretty strong wings.

What I've found is if one gets the proper pitch setting in, and keeps just a bit of power in, the touch down can be very predictable.

Best,

Dave

 

[flyingcheesehead]

My Cherokee has up to 40deg of flaps. 25deg seems like plenty to me?

As Henning noted, you're getting lots of lift but not much drag. Good for short/soft takeoffs, but not really doing you much good on landing. Try using full flaps for landing and see how your landings improve - You won't have to dance around so much in the flare. You might need to change your technique just a bit, so don't give up if the first full-flap landing isn't as good as you're used to.

Also, you'll touch down a bit slower and save wear on your tires and brakes.

I might add some planes have no flaps, how in the world do those pilots land those planes?

With no flaps.

Most planes with no flaps are already capable of flying very slow, and are also very light. Thus, they already touch down slower than your bird, and they don't take much in the way of braking to stop, if anything.

Your plane DOES have flaps, for a reason.

How often should you practice no-flap landings?

Every third Thursday after a full moon. Naah, just practice them as often as you need to to stay proficient. The reason to practice them is if you have some sort of flap failure. You may also end up doing some no-flap landings out of instrument approaches when you get to that point.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You'll see another kind of pilot land. This pilot will come in with full flaps. You'll watch them touchdown in about the first 500 feet followed by turning off the runway. These pilots don't really entertain me that much. It almost looks like they are using cheat codes. You'd think these pilots turned the wind off while they landed. But I'll take a glance at the windsock to see that it looks the same as the previous pilot. It’s even the same model of airplane.

That would be me.

I had a lot of trouble landing the 182 at first, it's quite a bit different than most other planes I've flown. I asked people in my club and here on the board what techniques they used, and a LOT of them said "It's easier to land with partial flaps." They're right. It is easier. It's probably also why we replace a lot of tires on that bird, and it puts us at an increased risk for porpoising and a prop strike. In fact, "risk" is probably not the best word, as we've already had a prop strike in the 182.

Last weekend, I flew the 182 to RAC. The winds were 12G24 at 40 degrees off the runway. I used all 40 degrees of those barn-door flaps, too, and managed to grease it on. Return to MSN, 9G16 at 50 degrees off the runway. Greased it again.

It's taken me two years to get to this point with the 182, but I'm glad I did it the right way rather than the "easy" way.

 

[Anthony]

I use full flaps for ALL landings in my Tiger in all conditions. However, this is plane specific. The Tiger's flaps are more low speed attitude changers and drag inducers. They don't create much lift as the stall speed clean is 56 knots and full flaps is 53 knots, only a 3 knot difference. YMMV on other planes, as the POH may recommend different techniques.

 

[ejensen]

I use full flaps for ALL landings in my Tiger in all conditions. However, this is plane specific. The Tiger's flaps are more low speed attitude changers and drag inducers. They don't create much lift as the stall speed clean is 56 knots and full flaps is 53 knots, only a 3 knot difference. YMMV on other planes, as the POH may recommend different techniques.

Pretty much the same with the simple flaps in my Mooney. Book difference is 5 knots. I use'em all every time.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Unless I intend to hold more airspeed on final than normal (ie, gusty), then it's full ... once I know I have the field "made".

My routine my Cherokee 180 was ... midfield downwind, first notch, base to final, 2nd notch, established final, field made, 3rd notch. Control airspeed with pitch ... rate with power.

If the posts over in the "red forum" are any indication, this topic seems to cause a total division of opinions.

I'm not interested in causing a riot with this thread; rather, to clarify what many POH's mean when their landing checklist merely says "FLAPS" but does not specify how much flaps on final approach.

Here is what I know:

Most POH's state in the amplified procedures that it is ideal to land at the slowest possible airspeed for the given conditions. In other words, whatever it takes -- in terms of flaps -- to get to the slowest airspeed for the conditions at your runway.

For example, if you have a heavy crosswind, you'll land faster and therefore want less flaps. If you have obstacles and a short runway, you'll probably want full flaps.

But, over at the "red forum," (AOPA), some are arguing that if obstacles, wind, runway surface, are non-issues, then don't use full flaps.

Example, if you have a 1-mile-long asphalt runway, on a nice, cool, dry day with no wind, just use 25 degrees of flaps (two notches), instead of full flaps.

However, it seems to me that the argument to use partial flaps for a nice, long, cool dry runway goes against the POH advice in many airplanes.

Why?

The POH says to land at the slowest possible airspeed for the given conditions. If you have a nice long paved runway, then why not take advantage of ideal conditions and use full flaps to land real nice and slow and soft and take your time doing it?

Seems like a no-brainer to me!

But, in the other forum, folks are having conniptions, saying that you put yourself in danger of not being able to do a go around if you are near stall, have full flaps, and forget to take out the first notch of flaps right away, and cannot climb. To that, I say, "Phooey!" All emergency procedures that I've been taught require the student to immediately get the first notch of flaps out on go around. If you aren't doing that, then you aren't following your training.

Anyway, I'm due for my CFI Initial checkride this Thursday, so I need a good distraction in the way of a flaps debate, to keep the nerves at ease.

So, fire away!

 

[gprellwitz]

I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about why people have all of these accidents with loss of directional control during the landing phase.

Good post, Jesse! (I've been giving you a lot of "guff" lately, so I wanted you to know that you are truly appreciated here!)

I might add some planes have no flaps, how in the world do those pilots land those planes?

With no flaps.

or with FULL flaps. Pilot's choice. Makes no difference (literally!)

Unless I intend to hold more airspeed on final than normal (ie, gusty), then it's full ... once I know I have the field "made".

My routine my Cherokee 180 was ... midfield downwind, first notch, base to final, 2nd notch, established final, field made, 3rd notch. Control airspeed with pitch ... rate with power.

That was my training in the ubiquitous 172 also, and it's stood me in good stead so far.

 

[poadeleted20]

For example, if you have a heavy crosswind, you'll land faster and therefore want less flaps.

Why land faster in a crosswind unless the crosswind is so strong you run out of control authority trying to hold the plane in a stable slip over the runway? And I'm here to tell you that at least in a Grumman AA-5A, a direct 46-knot crosswind isn't enough to do that (I'm also here to say that I ain't never gonna do that again).

Therefore, I ask: Has anyone ever flown a light single engine airplane in which the normal landing speed (corrected, as applicable, for gusts with half the gust factor) full flaps left them unable to compensate for a crosswind? If so, what type plane and how much crosswind? My personal experience (which includes all the Grummans, every tri-gear Cessna from 150 to 210, Piper's Tri-Pacer and about every PA-28/32 ever built, and Beech Models 19/23/24/36/45 in up to 30 knot crosswind components) is that I've never found that situation.

 

[Henning]

Therefore, I ask: Has anyone ever flown a light single engine airplane in which the normal landing speed (corrected, as applicable, for gusts with half the gust factor) full flaps left them unable to compensate for a crosswind? If so, what type plane and how much crosswind? My personal experience (which includes all the Grummans, every tri-gear Cessna from 150 to 210, Piper's Tri-Pacer and about every PA-28/32 ever built, and Beech Models 19/23/24/36/45 in up to 30 knot crosswind components) is that I've never found that situation.

Nope, can't say that I have. When the cross wind gets bad enough, I land on a taxiway or a ramp lined up with the wind.

 

[Pilawt]

I use full flaps for ALL landings in my Tiger in all conditions. However, this is plane specific. [snip] YMMV on other planes, as the POH may recommend different techniques.

Indeed they do, such as the POH's of many Cessnas, which say normal landings are made with "any flap setting"; and in the case of strong crosswinds use "minimum flap setting necessary for the field length." Bill Thompson, Cessna's former Manager of Flight Test & Aerodynamics, said that was "for better rudder control."

Cherokee manuals say,

"The amount of flap used during landings and the speed of the aircraft at contact with the runway should be varied according to the landing surface and existing conditions, both windwise and loadwise. It is generally good practice to contact the ground at the minimum possible safe speed consistent with existing conditions.

"[...] In high wind conditions, particularly in strong crosswinds, it may be desirable to approach the ground at higher than normal speeds or with partial or no flaps."
​

I agree with all those who say that in most circumstances in tricycle-gear airplanes touchdown should be at or very close to the lowest possible airspeed (wheel landings in tailwheel airplanes are another kettle of fish altogether). By definition stall speed is the lowest possible airspeed. In most airplanes, full flap gives the lowest stall speed by a significant margin compared to partial flap; and in those, full flap should be the normal procedure. In a Cessna 150, however, the difference in stall speed between 20 degrees and 40 degrees of flap is one mile per hour -- 0.87 knot.

For the steepest approach and shortest possible rollout, the drag of full flap is helpful. But if your C-150 touches down in a full stall with 40 degrees of flap (at same slow speed as you would be at 20 degrees) and you have to roll out another 1,000 feet down the runway to the first turnoff with a King Air on a one-mile final behind you, how are full flaps helping? As another poster said above, the key here is energy management. Also, once on the ground the C-150 manual recommends retracting flaps "to increase brake effectiveness" (don't do this in a retractable). It'll take that leisurely Cessna flap motor a lot less time to raise the flaps to effective-braking configuration from 20 than from 40.

In calm or steady light wind down the runway, normal approach, and where no turnoff is available in the first 1,500 feet of runway (as at my home field, where we just have one mid-field turnoff), I prefer landing with 20 degrees of flap in a Cessna 150. It provides a moderate power-off glide angle; there's less change in deck angle in the flare to a nose-high arrival that will be kind to the nose gear; there's less to do in transitioning to a go-around if necessary; and subjectively it just feels better. Less wear on the flap motor, tracks and bushings, too. I'll be at a fast walk when the nose gear finally touches and ready to make the turnoff with no braking or power at all.

Most planes with no flaps are already capable of flying very slow, and are also very light. Thus, they already touch down slower than your bird, and they don't take much in the way of braking to stop, if anything.

Your plane DOES have flaps, for a reason.

Agreed, and it is important to consider that reason in the context of your specific type, as it might be incorrect to assume the engineers put the flaps there because they need to be used at full deflection every landing.

A Cessna 150 is just a Cessna 140A with tricycle landing gear. The 140A, and the rag-wing 140 before it, had small, plain flaps, less than half the size of the 150's barn doors. The bare-bones version of the 140, the C-120, had no flaps at all. So the design, for the reasons Kent states, doesn't have to have them. Cessna's engineers and test pilots were, as Bill Thompson wrote, "unenthusiastic" about the idea of such huge flaps on a light, low-performance airplane like the projected Model 150.

So why did Cessna put the big flaps on the C-150?

"Our experience with tricycle gears on other airplanes, indicated that most low-time pilots use about 10-mph excess speed in the approach glide, and then they would float many hundreds of feet before touching down. Thus the C-150 would need lots of drag with big flaps."
[Thompson, Cessna -- Wings for The World, The Single-Engine Development Story, p. 8]
​

And I think it's telling that the factory limited flap travel to 30 degrees in the latest verstion of the design, the C-152. That the 30-degree limit was needed in order to allow gross weight to be raised by just 70 lb -- even with a 10% increase in horsepower -- suggests that the 150's performance with full flap was on the ragged edge to begin with.

-- Pilawt

 

[AirBaker]

Just to toss this into the mix:
-Typically its Full flaps- again after the field is made.
-No flaps when doing element landings
-Partial flaps? Not often at all. But hey, might as well know what your plane is gonna do.