Landing with approach flaps

[74657]

I am working on finishing my IR training this week and spent 4 hours in the plane today.  There were some gusty winds today, 40 degrees off my right @ 11 gusting to 18.  I brought the plane in using approach flaps only and loved the way the plane felt on short final/roundout/flare.  It seemed to settle in much more smoothly with no float vs. using full flaps.  Is there anything wrong with using approach flaps only on final as SOP?

My CFII instructed me that when flying an approach it is best not to go full flaps in case of a missed approach.  Maybe he meant until short final.  He did mention however that the FAA recommends full flap landings to save on tires, brakes and the amount of runway used.  I figure that I used about 250 feet less runway with my landings today using approach flaps only.

I might be missing something but I fly my patterns @ 100kts on downwind, 90kts base, 80 on final, 70 over the fence.

I have heard of some guys raising flaps from full to approach during the roundout/flare but never on flying the entire base/final @ approach flaps only.

Thanks.

[johnggreen]

74657,

I've got to get off this site, but first.

I rarely use full flaps on my Bravo.  I don't like the idea of being in landing configuration with so much trim that should you have to go around, you could find it almost impossible to keep the nose from pitching up to the point of a stall.  You can time it in your own airplane, but if I remember correctly, it takes 27 seconds for the electric trim on my Bravo to move from full up (about where it will be with full flaps) to take off/climb position.  That could be the longest 27 seconds of your life.  Yes, if there are runway constraints, I use full flaps.  I know one Ovation owner, a man of small stature, who almost lost it on go-around once.  His passenger had to help push on the yoke to keep the Ovation from stalling when the pilot added full power.

I never, never, never use full flaps on an instrument approach.  Should you have to do a go around, you will have your hands full, no pun intended, applying power, richening mixture, raising flaps, raising gear, establishing a proper climb pitch and positive rate of climb, holding your runway heading, contacting approach, and reaching for the approach plate for your missed approach sequence.  You certainly don't need to be wrestling with the yoke or waiting on the trim to catch up.  Get my point.

I try, in any airplane, to set it up on the glide slope, or controlled descent where there is no GS, in such a configuration that if I have to shoot a missed approach, all I have to do is add power and raise the gear and the airplane is already trimmed/configured for the climb out.  In my Bravo, this works perfectly if I have 1/2 flaps, and 15 inches of manifold pressure.  My approach speeds are high, probably 90-95 knots, but who cares,  when is the last time you shot an approach to a runway of less than 4,000'.  Remember the secret to safe IFR flying is keeping your work load as low as possible.

One more point and I will shut up.  A few years back, I took a radar gun and got a friend to help me.  He sat at the edge of the runway about 1,000' from the threshhold.  I shot ten landings in the Bravo, five with full flaps and five with half.  He would hit the radar gun the second that the mains touched the pavement.  There was an average 4.5 mph difference in touchdown speeds from full to half.  Never less than four or more than 6.  With half flaps, I add five knots to the approach speed if I am heavy, maybe two if light.

If I have not fully explained something, send me a pm.  I'll be glad to try to explain anything I didn't make completely clear.  I am a CFII and I do fly a lot of IFR in my Bravo, and as my signature says, "even a fool will say something right every now and then."

 

[M016576]

Use half flaps in high wind scenarios.  It will be easier to control.

During instrument approaches, in just about every prop and jet aircraft I've flown that doesn't have auto-scheduling flaps and FCC's, I've been instructed to use half flaps until you break out, then go full, unless A) the ceilings are below 1000' (not enough time to transition to full... so just keep half) or the winds are so high that it you should be landing with half flaps anyway.

Do what you want for normal "SOP" flying... you're the PIC.  Just make sure you have a reason for your actions.  If you are flying half flaps for your normal approaches, your approach speed WILL be higher than a full flap landing. take that into account... don't fly the "book" numbers for full flaps with half flaps selected, or you run the risk of departing the aircraft.

You may find that it takes a more delicate touch to grease the aircraft onto the runway with full flaps.  This is true with (just about) any GA airplane.  The mooney seems to be particularly sensative to this "phenomenon."  Most likely due to the nice, smooth, sleek and efficient laminar flow wing.  Don't let this dissuad you from performing full flap landings.  Once you have the feel for full flap landings, you'll find that you can fly (and more importantly land) the aircraft better.  Consider it a mark of professionalism.  JMHO....

[sreid]

Quote: M016576

...don't fly the "book" numbers for full flaps with half flaps selected, or you run the risk of departing the aircraft.  

[Ned Gravel]

I learned some time ago that (using the manual flaps) the first two pumps will actually increase the slow speed lift of the Mooney airfoil.  The last two only increase drag (to help slow things down).  Just a few more reasons to only use two pumps of flaps on instrument approaches.  Two pumps is also my takeoff settings (as per the POH).

Keeping that level of clean on an instrument approach is the best way to be prepared for the missed approach.  And..... it handes way better in crosswinds than with full flaps. 

I do have one or two scenarios where full flaps are very useful - short field, soft field landings and takeoffs.  But not on instrument approaches.

JMO.  YMMV.

[rob]

I was taught not to use flaps on an instrument approach, in the interest of simplifying the procedures and reducing workload.

[Bob]

Boy, your Mooney sure looked sweet departing LWA this morning.  Sorry I did not come over to say high when you were filling the tanks.

[ScubaMan]

What speeds are you using on final and over the fence when using just approach flaps?

[Shadrach]

Landing 1/2 flaps is fine if you feel you need more control authority for crosswind. However if you flew the same speeds with 1/2 that you do with full, then what have you gained? Increased control authority comes from increased air flow over the control surfaces.  

Here is what I think you're missing. The likely reason that 1/2 flaps "felt better" is that you're typically too fast on approach. By going 1/2 flaps you effectively increased your stall speed (I disagree with Ned's assertion above).  I assure you that Mooneys don't float more with full flaps, it's just that pilots flying Mooneys too fast, float less with 1/2 flaps. I routinely fly into an 1800 and a 1600ft (dsp thrshld) strips, and I'd never go into either with 1/2 flaps. 

Visability over the nose is also significantly improved with full flaps.

Your Missile will climb just fine on a missed with full flaps, but this matters little, as most instrument approaches end at runways of sufficient length to fly no flap approach.  What you do when IMC on an approach has little to do with how you ought to fly patterns and approach when VFR. 

[74657]

With approach flaps only I was coming in about 10 kts faster on short final and 5 kts faster over the fence.  I will try slowing the plane down a touch more using full flaps to see if that makes a difference.

Bob - Small world.  Next time you are planning on coming over give me a heads up.  We had to fill up @ LWA because BEH's FBO is closed on sunday.....and the gas @ LWA is .75/gallon cheaper.

 

[jetdriven]

In the 201, a go around with full flaps, VFR, was a non-event.  I do not trim below 80 knots, reason being if a go around is warranted and the trim is full nose up from "trimming in" the flare, yeah its going to be a handful. If you trim to 80, and use your arm to land the airplane, a go around doesnt require much forward force, if any.  This is for a 201, a Bravo may be different.

 

Half flaps for a crosswind landing on a long runway as Ross says.

 

Every jet and turboprop airplane I have ever flown is full configured at the FAF or before.  This means full flaps as well.  landing is a landing, and a missed is max power, pitch up, flaps to (20, half, takeoff depending on airplane)

All that said, I use 90 knots and half flaps for an approach in a 201 and after breaking out, go full flaps and land.  Less pitch forces and conficuration changes while IMC the better.  An ILS is more like cruise flight than a VFR landing pattern.  A missed is as well.

 

 

[Immelman]

I'd say that if you're only a few days from your instrument checkride, go with what you know. Now is not the time to change procedure, provided whatever method you were taught is safe and not in contradiction with Mooney limitations.

With that said, my personal preference is to fly approaches fast. I learned this early on with getting my instrument rating in a C172, that loafing along at 70-80 knots made flying a precise approach more difficult as the airplane bobbed around. Our Mooneys are great IFR platforms because they're more stable than the 'brand C' and 'P' products, but I still notice the same thing: the faster I fly the approach, the easier it is.

This has to be balanced with runway length, and where you expect to break out (if at all). If I know I'm not going to ILS minimums, I'm pretty comfortable flying an approach at 120mias (maximum speed with the gear down in my old E model), with flaps up and deceleration to final approach speed after going visual. This is my personal preference, i.e. not necessarily what is FAA-approved in the context of a stabilized approach (note, I'm not a CFII, yet).

If it is going to be a straight-in approach where I ancicipate a high final descent gradient, or an ILS to near minimums, then I will change this procedure, and slow to flap deployment speed at the FAF, and use half-flaps for the duration of the approach. I see no issue with landing a Mooney with the flaps set for takeoff (i.e. 2 pumps in a vintage Mooney); as others have pointed out the additional deployment beyond this increases drag, but doesn't provide much reduction in stall speed.

A final note is that if you do use full flaps, and trim properly, then on a missed approach your hands will be considerably more full as considerable nose-down trim will be required once you bring the flaps up. This is another point in favor of making an approach with partial flaps... you can delay retraction a bit on the missed, saving retraction and trimming for another 10-20 seconds after initiating the missed when things are more under control.

 

[N33GG]

Jetdriven:  well said, IMHO.

I don't remember the details, but a few years back there was a bad Mooney accident, not sure... I think it was a Bravo, definately a newer model, that was the result of a go-around and/or missed approach that was attributed to being more than the pilot could handle with the trim.  Whether you are an IFR or VFR pilot, it would be wise to go out in your Mooney on a sunny day with a few thousand feet to play with, maybe with a CFI, and see what happens with various configurations during a go-around or missed approach.

Be careful out there!

[flyboy0681]

Quote: rob

I was taught not to use flaps on an instrument approach, in the interest of simplifying the procedures and reducing workload.

[RJBrown]

I set the plane up for a take off on approach. Makes the transition to a go around a non event. Later Mooneys have an extra position on the flap switch that allows you to go to take off position without looking at the indicator. On my plane you have to watch the needle come up to get it where you want it. Something you dont have time for on a go around. Untill I am sure there will be no go around I don't add more flaps. Both in the pattern and on an instrument aproach I go to take off flaps as I drop the gear. Only one spot to retrim/reconfigure the plane.

One of the highest workload events while flying is the go around. To try and find take off flaps at that point takes too much attention in my plane. Keep that transition as smooth as possible, it is one of the most dangerous points while flying. With take off flaps and close to takeoff trim the go around is barely more than push the throttle and pull up the gear.

[M016576]

The Go-Around...

It doesn't have to be a high workload event.  Just take things one step at a time and try not to feel like you have to "rush".  The biggest mistake that I see people make is that they try to do too much too quickly.  Once you make the decision to go around (MDA/DH, etc), then it's easy.  Arrest the rate of descent.  Breathe.  get your climb going. Breathe. Configure (if necessary).Breathe. Talk.  Breathe. fly the procedure.  It all goes back to aviate, navigate, communicate... and just taking things one step at a time (and don't feel rushed... 80kts is actually really slow in the "scale" of an instrument approach.. you've got time!). 

The best thing you can do to improve your missed approach (IMHO) is to study the missed approach procedure closely prior to shooting the approach.  As long as you know that, or at least the first moves, then you won't be trying to climb, configure and squint at your chart for the procedure all at the same time.  Regardless, the first big steps are always the same:  power, arrest the sink rate, start a climb, then go from there...

Of course, it's easy to say that here in my 1G chair in front of a computer screen as the sun shines brightly outside!!!!

[Shadrach]

Quote: M016576

The Go-Around...

It doesn't have to be a high workload event.  Just take things one step at a time and try not to feel like you have to "rush".  The biggest mistake that I see people make is that they try to do too much too quickly.  Once you make the decision to go around (MDA/DH, etc), then it's easy.  Arrest the rate of descent.  Breathe.  get your climb going. Breathe. Configure (if necessary).Breathe. Talk.  Breathe. fly the procedure.  It all goes back to aviate, navigate, communicate... and just taking things one step at a time (and don't feel rushed... 80kts is actually really slow in the "scale" of an instrument approach.. you've got time!). 

The best thing you can do to improve your missed approach (IMHO) is to study the missed approach procedure closely prior to shooting the approach.  As long as you know that, or at least the first moves, then you won't be trying to climb, configure and squint at your chart for the procedure all at the same time.  Regardless, the first big steps are always the same:  power, arrest the sink rate, start a climb, then go from there...

Of course, it's easy to say that here in my 1G chair in front of a computer screen as the sun shines brightly outside!!!!

[PTK]

Quote: Shadrach

+1...I practice them regularly and I also do (parish the thought) full flap touch and gos...go-arounds are no biggee at all. Why people feel the need to firewall everything and then wrestle with the beast they've created is beyond me. It just does not need to be that dramatic. A Mooney will arrest descent and hold altitude at pretty low power levels. Done step by step it's no problem at all.  If one needs to abort a landing, well that can be more interesting, which is why I parctice full flap T & Gs. Even those are not that big of a deal. Perhaps it's that I can dump the manual flaps quickly and spin the trim wheel quickly enough to equalize the significant but far from overwhelming control forces. Personally, I think that this subject is over dramatized.

[Hank]

Several comments:

I read somewhere recently that the electric trim takes ~25 seconds to raise from full-flap/full UP trim to proper go-around position. Those of us with manual trim only need a few seconds [5? 8?] to move the full range. Thus the continuing discussion about go-around technique and trim. There's no free lunch, and this is the price to pay for having the trim available at your left thumb.

Also, for a normal IAP, I put in Takeoff Flaps whenever I slow to 90 knots; when I am 1-1½ dots high on the glideslope, I drop the gear but make neither power nor trim changes, and that will bring me down the glideslope. With no vertical guidance, I drop the gear at the FAF and make no power nor trim changes except as needed to reach 500 fpm down to minimums or breakout. From breakout/visual acquisition, it's a normal landing.

My normal procedures are no-flap takeoffs except when loaded heavy, with Trim set at the top of the Takeoff mark; and Takeoff-flaps for landings, varying flaps & power on final to maintain desired visual glide angle. (I.e., Takeoff flaps during the IAP or on downwind; on final, manage yoke, throttle & flaps together for desired descent.) Your POH may have different procedures, but this matches my Owner's Manual, my CFI and my CFII, and it works well. Often as I taxi in, I notice that my trim indicator is pretty close to the Takeoff position.

If you need to go faster during the approach, flaps and gear need to go away--you can always bring them back later, say around the FAF, to slow down [just don't forget!]. Just as "no two landings are ever the same" because the wind and descent angle vary every time even when just doing laps around the pattern, "no two landing configurations can be the same." They all start out the same, Takeoff flaps and Gear Down, but I do what needs to be done on final to reach my desired landing spot. And yes, I fly a short-body from a 3000' runway that is obstructed at both ends, with no difficulty.

[jlunseth]

As several people have said, I also use half flaps or no flaps, depending on wind.  Full flaps does seem to promote ballooning, but full flaps are needed to slow the aircraft for a short field. 

I think I did my all time record gusty crosswind landing on Tuesday.  Runway was 28L, our long runway.  Reported winds approaching the airport were 240 15G25, which are within my personal envelope, but it got windier.  On short final the tower announced "winds now 230 37 gusting to 45."  I ordinarily would have gone around, but there was no guarantee it would get better, and a Citation made it in without problems right in front of us.  Windsock was straight as a steel rod.  Not an outflow boundary, so no shear. 

I used half flaps and speed between 90 and 100 knots (it varied quite a bit because of the wind).  Best thing to do in windy conditions is drive it right on to the runway, which was my strategy. 

Landing went well, the Mooney ailerons held the center line.  It was a little difficult to keep the centerline when the plane started to slow down on the runway, but it worked out.

When we parked it, I had my passenger get out and chock the plane while I stayed in the cockpit and held the brakes.

Yes, you can land with approach flaps or with no flaps at all.  Keep your speed up though.  Less stall margin.

[xftrplt]

Just a few thoughts.  1.  Did you have the option of a RW (regardless of length) better aligned with the wind?  If so, I suggest it would have been a wise® choice.  With headwinds 37G45, you can land on a postage stamp, but your X-W component was 34k--150% of demonstrated.  2.  That "a Citation made it with no problem" could be filed under the rubric of Famous Last Words.  Turbine equipment flown by pros is just not comparable to a M20K.  PS:  I, too, fly an '81 231, with 20k+ hours in GA, fighters, and heavy jets.

[jlunseth]

Quote: xftrplt

Just a few thoughts.  1.  Did you have the option of a RW (regardless of length) better aligned with the wind?  If so, I suggest it would have been a wise® choice.  With headwinds 37G45, you can land on a postage stamp, but your X-W component was 34k--150% of demonstrated.  2.  That "a Citation made it with no problem" could be filed under the rubric of Famous Last Words.  Turbine equipment flown by pros is just not comparable to a M20K.  PS:  I, too, fly an '81 231, with 20k+ hours in GA, fighters, and heavy jets.

[Shadrach]

J,

Full flaps do not increase balloning, in fact they help minimze it when the proper threshold speed is maintained... This is not opinion, it is fact, as long as the ratio of stall speed to approach speed is held constant. The only reason to appraoch with reduced flaps is to increase approach speed which increases airflow over the control surfaces therby giving more control authority.

Do you really think that Al went to the trouble to design the airframe and then just arbitrarily designed the flaps and there position as an after thought?  It's human nature to try and figure out a better way then the book way.  Sometime we figure out that the book can be improved on, unfortunately, this is not one of those cases. 

If you are balloning with full flaps in 0 to light winds, the problem is technique, not flap position...

 

[John Pleisse]

On a real approach, I am so busy and focused, I don't fuss with the flaps. I land with them at half and don't really notice. Flying a VFR pattern, I dump all the flaps. I think half flaps make you a ltille heavier on the mains and can help in Xwinds. I have heard of people retracting flaps from half on Xwind flares. I see no point to this. I also find with half flaps in general, a go around requires less muscle and clean up.

[Shadrach]

Quote: N4352H

On a real approach, I am so busy and focused, I don't fuss with the flaps. I land with them at half and don't really notice. Flying a VFR pattern, I dump all the flaps. I think half flaps make you a ltille heavier on the mains and can help in Xwinds. I have heard of people retracting flaps from half on Xwind flares. I see no point to this. I also find with half flaps in general, a go around requires less muscle and clean up.