Random Griz Aviation Musings

[Gatordev]

More musings, and not meant to be for or against anything specific...

We do 4 SFL profiles - and none are to a specific spot

Something that I saw in Las Cruces with the Corpus studs was that they weren't trained to HAPL/LAPL to a spot, so if they were sloppy with procedures or airwork and they missed, studs would just say, "okay, now I'm going to that area over there..." Depending on where you fly, that may not be a survivable technique. The counter argument is that these guys were never going to solo this plane again, and southern NM is so forgiving with flat areas, it probably didn't really matter much.

For an aviator that is in a different situation and may have to xAPL to a field or runway, being able to pick and then fly to your area seems like a smart thing to practice, and as you said, Chuck, using the ELP helps with that. Add in the drag of a constant speed prop, and it's even more important to learn that ELP for your aircraft. The slip can only fix so much, and only when you're high.

That's why I asked, Chuck. And maybe it's a difference of having more experienced aviators that the AF doesn't worry about "to a spot" because of course you're trying to get to a spot...how else would you do it?

 

[ChuckMK23]

I understand the earlier 172s have a weird interaction with the airflow around the tail feathers when slipping with full flaps, but during the production run they changed the flaps by simply deleting that last notch of flaps and keeping the other choices as they always were- so full flaps is no longer 40° but 30 instead (which is still generous). Climb performance on full flaps was the main reason for the change (i.e. there was no climb with flaps 40 unless it was a cold day, down low, and light). I don't know if the flaps in the 206 line are similar, or how much the wing and tail aerodynamics have in common with the 172. That looks like a lot of flap in the picture in the hangar and that airplane being a turbo addresses the climb issue.

Just some random musings, as the thread title suggests.

Lowering flaps for inspection is your standard Cessna preflight. Full flaps in Cessna products are generally reserved for short field or soft field landings. Takeoff with Flaps 10 in a 172 is for short field/soft field, Flaps 20 in a 182/206 also for short/soft field.

There have been some notable mishaps of pilots new to high wing Cessna airplanes attempting to take off with full flaps - big no no - in one case the airplane stalled, rolled over and the pilot lost control - 4 people died in post crash fire (pilot was transitioning from a Cirrus).

Go around in the case of a full flaps approach is to go immediately to flaps 20.

In older C-172 aircraft there was a placard "Avoid Forward Slips With Full Flaps"

 

[ChuckMK23]

More musings, and not meant to be for or against anything specific...



Something that I saw in Las Cruces with the Corpus studs was that they weren't trained to HAPL/LAPL to a spot, so if they were sloppy with procedures or airwork and they missed, studs would just say, "okay, now I'm going to that area over there..." Depending on where you fly, that may not be a survivable technique. The counter argument is that these guys were never going to solo this plane again, and southern NM is so forgiving with flat areas, it probably didn't really matter much.

For an aviator that is in a different situation and may have to xAPL to a field or runway, being able to pick and then fly to your area seems like a smart thing to practice, and as you said, Chuck, using the ELP helps with that. Add in the drag of a constant speed prop, and it's even more important to learn that ELP for your aircraft. The slip can only fix so much, and only when you're high.

That's why I asked, Chuck. And maybe it's a difference of having more experienced aviators that the AF doesn't worry about "to a spot" because of course you're trying to get to a spot...how else would you do it?

Great points! It was fun observing the AFSOC Pilatus folks fly their SFL's - I suspect their margin for error was even less. I saw a number of different techniques this past week - from our former VT-3 IP skipper who was a fan of "riding the elevator" (slow to below Vx, increase rate of descent, then once spot made, lower the nose regain energy, lower AOA, flare and land) to another guy who would do the calculus problem of radius of turn, rate of descent, to someone else who was like "get it over the pavement and do whatever it takes to arrive at low key at 700' AGL". But to your point, have a spot in mind and manage to that - your life may require you to do so!

 

[Jim123]

different techniques this past week - from our former VT-3 IP skipper who was a fan of "riding the elevator" (slow to below Vx, increase rate of descent, then once spot made, lower the nose regain energy, lower AOA, flare and land)

I wonder if he's a glider guy.


Sometimes we'd show IUTs something similar in the helicopter during an autorotation from high altitude (well... a few thousand feet for a typical practice instrument auto profile). From pattern altitude there's not a huge difference in best glide, slowest rate of descent, or minimum airspeed (72, 50-55, and 40 in the mighty TH-57), not unless it's a really tight spot with trees at the end. The "pick a field" routine starting at 3,000 feet made the difference pretty noticeable though.

 

[wink]

I understand the earlier 172s have a weird interaction with the airflow around the tail feathers when slipping with full flaps...

Different tail feathers, but same wings on my old C-170B. No full flap slip on that plane as well. I almost never landed with full flaps. Mostly created drag that required a higher power setting, which was nice for short field landings.

There have been some notable mishaps of pilots new to high wing Cessna airplanes attempting to take off with full flaps - big no no - in one case the airplane stalled, rolled over and the pilot lost control - 4 people died in post crash fire (pilot was transitioning from a Cirrus).

I don't know how this happens. Full 40 flaps on the older production runs are like barn doors. You can't get in the plane without noticing and in my experience, they can hardly be ignored once in the cockpit. If one did a control check and looked at the aileron or cranked your head looking for a deflected rudder, could not go unseen. I guess you file this with the C-337 mixmaster mishaps where guys tried to take off without the rear engine turning.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Different tail feathers, but same wings on my old C-170B. No full flap slip on that plane as well. I almost never landed with full flaps. Mostly created drag that required a higher power setting, which was nice for short field landings.

I don't know how this happens. Full 40 flaps on the older production runs are like barn doors. You can't get in the plane without noticing and in my experience, they can hardly be ignored once in the cockpit. If one did a control check and looked at the aileron or cranked your head looking for a deflected rudder, could not go unseen. I guess you file this with the C-337 mixmaster mishaps where guys tried to take off without the rear engine turning.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Full flaps in Cessna products are generally reserved for short field or soft field landings.

I flew C150, C152, C172, C182, C206 and C207 pretty regularly from 1983 through 2000 and never heard of this. Full flap landings were the norm everywhere. You could land with less but no one did unless it was a really strong crosswind. Is this something with newer Cessnas?

We slipped with full flaps too whenever we needed to. No restrictions.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Filing at base ops at KMXF, there's Bruce hiding under a few layers of zaps...

 

[Pags]

Filing at base ops at KMXF, there's Bruce hiding under a few layers of zaps...

View attachment 29736

BRUCE!

 

[taxi1]

Full flaps in Cessna products are generally reserved for short field or soft field landings.

Roll the wayback machine.

Out of the Navy in 1992, here in Central PA, went out to the university-owned FBO to get checked out in the C-172 fleet. I expected the instructor to do a "watch me then do it" thing, maybe a couple of flights, but he was like, "Let's just call this a checkride and see how it goes."

Oh it went.

I remember doing the start checklist and getting to the "Check for oil pressure within X seconds" and spending a minute looking for the gauge. It was like that.

We departed, and it felt like we'd been flying long enough, seemed like hours, that I ought to raise the flaps by now, so up they went. Wrong! Too low.

I crushed the airwork and especially stalls, having spent the last year flying OCF flights daily. Feather in the cap.

Got back to the pattern and he's just sitting on his hands next to me. Smiling, because by that time he'd adjusted his expectations.

So I set up what looks to be about a half standard rate turn's distance abeam (like...flying over the taxiway), dropped flaps to full, and start my carrier approach, flying the approach speed around the turn, fiddle-fucking with the throttle like I was back in the Buckeye. I touched down (I did flare it, to my credit), and went to full power immediately and clawed my little full flap Cessna to an altitude of 20' and trundled along waiting for some climb rate.

"What are you doing?"

"I don't know!"

We agreed that he should show me a lap around the pattern, and I was fine after that, but yeah...waving off in a Cessna with full flaps and two moderately stout lads does not give you much excess power.

 

[ea6bflyr]

Filing at base ops at KMXF, there's Bruce hiding under a few layers of zaps...

View attachment 29736

@ChuckMK23, I'm not familiar with Bruce...care to elaborate for those of us in the dark?

 

[Pags]

@ChuckMK23, I'm not familiar with Bruce...care to elaborate for those of us in the dark?

The old HC-6 patch had Mercury on it carrying an anchor over his shoulder. But no one called him Mercury, they called him Bruce. Since he was not wearing any clothes sometimes adjectives got added but these day's Bruce's purported lifestyle would be acceptable. When HC-6 became HSC-26 Bruce went away and became a stupid cartoon bull. Sure, no one made fun of you for wearing a naked guy on your chest but there was no character or history to the bull (I'm obviously biased).

 

[ChuckMK23]

@ea6bflyr The official heraldry of HC-6 was a figure we so fondly nicknamed "Gay Bruce" - it was acceptable from the 60's well into the 2000's

 

[taxi1]

We were whipping up a Silver Surfer-ish design for a patch, which led to discussions of whether he was wearing silver undies or what. You guys seemed to have already resolved it.

 

[Pags]

The old HC-6 patch had Mercury on it carrying an anchor over his shoulder. But no one called him Mercury, they called him Bruce. Since he was not wearing any clothes sometimes adjectives got added but these day's Bruce's purported lifestyle would be acceptable. When HC-6 became HSC-26 Bruce went away and became a stupid cartoon bull. Sure, no one made fun of you for wearing a naked guy on your chest but there was no character or history to the bull (I'm obviously biased).

Correction: bruce did make the transition to HSC (with a sword and some killer abs) but only for a bit before the patch was changed. The change happened when I was a JO and we tried a "JOPA throwback jersey day" a year or so later but Mom and Dad weren't amused. But we still had a JO who would wear a silver body suit and run around with a sword and anchor. The guy who bought the body suit said he had to go to some interesting webpages to find it.