With or Without Flaps?

[Yetti]

If you are still at 105 or 95 over the lights seems a bit fast.  I would say I am always under 80mph at the lights.  I consider best glide speed for enroute.  Landing is what landing needs.   I can come onto downwind at 135knots.  cut the throttle to under 12mp.   do a little pull up to get under the white arc and throw out the speed brakes (gear).   I think your white arc is lower than the F.   From there on it is just descending speed with no particular speed and or point other then the landing point.   Training for this was docking an unpowered sailboat.   Too much energy left and you crash the dock.   Too little and the bow man has to make a jump and risk getting wet.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Yetti

[RobertGary1]

27 minutes ago, Yetti said:

If you are still at 105 or 95 over the lights seems a bit fast.  I would say I am always under 80mph at the lights.  I consider best glide speed for enroute.  Landing is what landing needs.   I can come onto downwind at 135knots.  cut the throttle to under 12mp.   do a little pull up to get under the white arc and throw out the speed brakes (gear).   I think your white arc is lower than the F.   From there on it is just descending speed with no particular speed and or point other then the landing point.   Training for this was docking an unpowered sailboat.   Too much energy left and you crash the dock.   Too little and the bow man has to make a jump and risk getting wet.

It really varies with the airport. Sometimes getting a reputation with tower that you can cross the threshold at 100mph and hit the high speed turn off gets you slotted in the chain rather than sent out to the arrival. 
 

-Robert 

[Yetti]

7 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

It really varies with the airport. Sometimes getting a reputation with tower that you can cross the threshold at 100mph and hit the high speed turn off gets you slotted in the chain rather than sent out to the arrival. 
 

-Robert 

Understand that and can do that, just thinking we are focusing on PO 180 for this exercise which I would assume would be practiced at untowered field till you have it down pat.   I went out and did the 5000 foot slam dunk to the runway.   Seemed easy enough.

[Browncbr1]

I used to always land with TO flaps, but in an effort to increase tire and brake life, I started doing full flap...  I’ve noticed tires and breaks last much longer.  It’s easier to land with TO flaps though

[midlifeflyer]

There's a lot of personal preference built into "as needed." My default is landing with with full flaps for no reason other than it is a consistent SOP and what I am going to need in tight situations. 

[donkaye]

Has anyone ever heard of the term "Stabilized Approach"?   In normal wind conditions, why would you want to land with more energy to dissipate than is absolutely necessary?

For a stabilized approach in a Mooney at mid weight and no wind, if airspeed is in knots, 90 on downwind with gear and approach flaps, 80 on base with full flaps and 3° slope, 70 on final maintaining the 3°slope.  If in MPH, 100 on downwind with gear and approach flaps, 90 on base with full flaps and 3° slope, 80 on final maintaining the 3° slope.

With significant crosswind, meaning lining up on final with a crab angle greater than 15°, reduce flaps and increase airspeed until the crab angle is 15° or less and fly the airplane to the landing with power, reducing power and increasing aileron in to the wind until you come to a stop.  If, while using this technique, the runway cannot be held with full aileron (I've personally never had that happen), then immediately add power and go to an airport where the runway is better aligned into the wind.

Gusty conditions will also alter the use of full flaps, as a gust on touchdown with full flaps can produce very unpredictable results, as I once found out landing at Ogden a number years ago. A 20 knot gust took the plane 20 feet into the air just as I touched down with full flaps.  So I was at stall speed 20 feet above the runway where ground effect had no effect.  It was only through the immediate application of full power and lowering the nose that the day was saved---barely.

Simplicity and common sense about the laws of Physics dictates the above.

[Pilot boy]

5 hours ago, Brian E. said:

I've done a number of p-offs bombing in at mid-90s/almost 100 and can pretty much say that is too fast/too much energy.  That's the game here-energy management.  My technique is similar to Paul's is except I withhold flaps and use flaps only once I know I have enough energy. This Fall I practiced a lot with LLWS and stronger winds (40 downwind push at pattern altitude and 15 - 20 at airport elevation) that required turning base within 3 secs of being abeam the landing point.  Early flap deployment would have precluded from making the runway.  My only absolutes are that I would never turn base without the gear down and I would never pull the prop back to stretch the glide--everything else is fair game.

  Disappointing that your DPE feels a needs for copilot brakes.  I'd find another DPE before going back to the 172 as the Mooney is way easier to fly.

 

Where are you out of @Pilot boy?

Yeah I think I’m coming too low and too fast on short final then, I’ll go up and try some different numbers for airspeed on final and see if I can include flap usage more often.  I’m going to ask around to the other DPEs and see what they all say about the copilot brakes.  I’ve practiced a lot in the Mooney and am within standards already, just fine tuning.

Im out of Omaha, NE

[Pilot boy]

5 hours ago, Yetti said:

If you are still at 105 or 95 over the lights seems a bit fast.  I would say I am always under 80mph at the lights.  I consider best glide speed for enroute.  Landing is what landing needs.   I can come onto downwind at 135knots.  cut the throttle to under 12mp.   do a little pull up to get under the white arc and throw out the speed brakes (gear).   I think your white arc is lower than the F.   From there on it is just descending speed with no particular speed and or point other then the landing point.   Training for this was docking an unpowered sailboat.   Too much energy left and you crash the dock.   Too little and the bow man has to make a jump and risk getting wet.

Hmm for the power off 180 in my E model, if I come in at 80 mph over the lights I will not make the captain touchdown bars unless I’m high.  Typically at 50 ft and 80 mph at the REILs I will land on the 2nd center stripe.  Which I could use as my 200 ft marker as well.  I’ve just been trying to use the longer touchdown bars as they’re naturally 200 ft long.

[Pilot boy]

3 hours ago, Browncbr1 said:

I used to always land with TO flaps, but in an effort to increase tire and brake life, I started doing full flap...  I’ve noticed tires and breaks last much longer.  It’s easier to land with TO flaps though

Interesting, in the E short body if I use full flaps I come down fairly hard once it decides not to fly. It’s much gentler vertical speed (greasy) with 15 degrees and not much difference in forward speed.

[0TreeLemur]

5 hours ago, donkaye said:

Has anyone ever heard of the term "Stabilized Approach"?  Do you ever see a Commercial Airliner land with partial flaps?  In normal wind conditions, why would you want to land with more energy to dissipate than is absolutely necessary?

For a stabilized approach in a Mooney at mid weight and no wind, if airspeed is in knots, 90 on downwind with gear and approach flaps, 80 on base with full flaps and 3° slope, 70 on final maintaining the 3°slope.  If in MPH, 100 on downwind with gear and approach flaps, 90 on base with full flaps and 3° slope, 80 on final maintaining the 3° slope.

With significant crosswind, meaning lining up on final with a crab angle greater than 15°, reduce flaps and increase airspeed until the crab angle is 15° or less and fly the airplane to the landing with power, reducing power and increasing aileron in to the wind until you come to a stop.  If, while using this technique, the runway cannot be held with full aileron (I've personally never had that happen), then immediately add power and go to an airport where the runway is better aligned into the wind.

Gusty conditions will also alter the use of full flaps, as a gust on touchdown with full flaps can produce very unpredictable results, as I once found out landing at Ogden a number years ago. A 20 knot gust took the plane 20 feet into the air just as I touched down with full flaps.  So I was at stall speed 20 feet above the runway where ground effect had no effect.  It was only through the immediate application of full power and lowering the nose that the day was saved---barely.

Simplicity and common sense about the laws of Physics dictates the above.

This is fantastic Don.  I appreciate the points you make in the first two paragraphs and seems spot-on to me.  Your suggested procedure in the third paragraph makes a lot of sense and I'll try to remember that. 

Thanks!

Fred

[MBDiagMan]

9 hours ago, Yetti said:

Understand that and can do that, just thinking we are focusing on PO 180 for this exercise which I would assume would be practiced at untowered field till you have it down pat.   I went out and did the 5000 foot slam dunk to the runway.   Seemed easy enough.

The slam dunk is a whole different situation than flaps or no flaps.  A year or so ago I was headed into Conroe, Tx just under the Houston Bravo.  I had trouble getting Houston to turn me loose.  When they finally did I had to come down from 6500’ from seemingly on top of the airport.  That issue for me was different because of the speed brakes.  I brought it down really fast to a point that I was giving a lot of thought to how gradually I was going to pull out of the dive.  Sure was glad I was in a Mooney rather than a fork tailed devil.

Thanks for all the great discussion.  I think I’m going to continue with my full flap landings and just try to get enough practice to add some grace to them.

[carusoam]

Great details everybody!

Thanks for taking the time to write so clearly this evening that even I can understand everyone.... 

+1 for GSXR... I like the bullet style!   

+1 for DK for braking down the details including variations in kias and mias... 

+1 for the discussion details of energy mangement, how to lose as much as possible... then convert it all gently in a stabilized way all into heat energy...

I’m surprised we don’t have a resident MS physicist... who digs energy conversion from chemical, to potential, to kinetic, and back... and losses due to friction...

Thank you and Best regards,

-a-

[Tcraft938]

A lot of good information in this post, and always good even for the experienced to be posed a question that makes them think through their reasoning.  With 100 hours in my C and a lot of hours in other planes including my last a tailwheel 1946 Taylorcraft, I will refrain from the "do it this way".  Unless a POH says something must be done or should not be done, then it is another tool in your box to get the job done and the Mooney POH seems to say that more clearly than it usually does.  Similar to how we all adjust the throttle on final to adjust glidepath, the flaps are a tool to assist in that endeavor as well.  I think the person that encouraged sticking to one way was likely thinking, since you were transitioning to the plane, a consistent flap setting is one less variable that would change the pitch picture in the flare/roundout.  That seems to be an areas that many newbie Mooney pilots fall prey to.  Roundout too high and or not enough and hitting the nosewheel because not familiar with the site picture and flaring lower to the ground than most planes.  Again, not saying it's a must, but keeping as much consistent as possible helps in the transition and gaining of experience.  At the end of the day flaps or no flaps is not a drastic difference to most of our birds, maybe 10 mph if that.  We're not in a B737 where flap setting can be a 50kt difference and thousands of feet of runway  :-)  

During my transition training the Mooney Instructor had me do both flaps up and down.  During slow flight up high in landing configuration he popped the flaps up so I could see what that felt like.  "It's not unheard of for that hydraulic system to develop an issue and they bleed back up, invariably it is a Mooney rule it will happen on short final".  As a CFI, I knew what that meant and what to expect on one of the landing approaches.  His advice, "if that happens on short final, don't get super busy trying to fix things and potentially botch the landing, power up, go around, figure out and confirm that's what happened and just no from the get go, you're landing flaps up".   Because of my recent Tailwheel time and no flaps, he got a laugh out of me slipping the Mooney and found flaps up no big deal.  "what do you think, this thing has tundra tires on it?!!"   LOL

Lately I have experimented with approach speed.  Even though 80mph is recommended, if I'm rather light in the 63C 75mph or even a little less seems to work better with much less float and a more predictable touchdown.  Perhaps because the pitch change from approach to landing is not as drastic?  Even 70 mph with a touch of power until you are confident the mains are about 12" above the runway and it rolls on nicely (full flaps).

What do you all do on takeoff?  I'm not seeing much of a difference with t/o flaps or no flaps.  Again, I'm light and plenty of runway.  If was short and/or obstacle, then I would use T/O flaps.  

PPL, Commercial, IFR, CFI, Tailwheel and proud convert to the church of Mooney

[Hank]

41 minutes ago, Tcraft938 said:

Lately I have experimented with approach speed.  Even though 80mph is recommended, if I'm rather light in the 63C 75mph or even a little less seems to work better with much less float and a more predictable touchdown.  Perhaps because the pitch change from approach to landing is not as drastic?  Even 70 mph with a touch of power until you are confident the mains are about 12" above the runway and it rolls on nicely (full flaps).

What do you all do on takeoff?  I'm not seeing much of a difference with t/o flaps or no flaps.  Again, I'm light and plenty of runway.  If was short and/or obstacle, then I would use T/O flaps.  

PPL, Commercial, IFR, CFI, Tailwheel and proud convert to the church of Mooney

Welcome to the Mooney world, Taylor!

In my C, I target rolling wings level on final at 85 mph, slowing to 75 mph on short final (minus 5 mph for every 300 lb below gross for that landing, not the takeoff some hours before). For landing flaps, I posted the page from my Owners Manual above; in that respect our Cs are more flexible than many F models--the one I have 8-10 hours and many practice landings had a 3-position flap lever for Up, Takeoff (which I never used) and Landing, while the electric flaps in my C are infinitely adjustable and I generally land somewhere in-between.

Takeoff Flaps will ignite another brushfire here, but I reserve Takeoff Flaps for when I'm loaded close to gross and / or the field is obstructed. Just don't forget to milk them out as you climb away. And I don't waste climb rate leaving the gear down until I'm "out of usable runway" either, as once I'm at 50'agl I will need a lot of runway to land again. Pull yoke, relax slightly, confirm sight picture for climb, check ASI, verify positive rate on IVSI, gear up. If I used flaps, look down at the obstacle and raise them unless I'm heavy, then raise them halfway, adjust and trim, raise them the rest of the way. Just be aware that lowering flaps will lower the nose, and raising flaps will raise the nose . . . .

[PT20J]

The problem with landing Mooneys is ground effect. Some think it’s the laminar flow airfoil, but it’s more likely the short landing gear because ground effects increase exponentially with decreasing distance above the ground plane. 

As you enter ground effect, several thing happen to conspire to mess up your landings:

1. The lift vector tilts forward increasing lift and reducing drag just when you want to decrease lift and slow down.

2. The altered flow over the tail causes a nose down pitching moment just as you are wanting to increase the pitch attitude.

And, when you finally touch down, the pivot point changes from the CG to the main gear. This shortens the moment arm to the tail, but the tail down force hasn’t changed, so the effect is a pitch down moment making it want to come down hard on the nosewheel.

So, the hard part about landing is managing the pitch inputs. Because lesser amounts of flaps require pitch change entering ground effect, there is less pitch change in the flare and many find landings easier with less flaps. 

When learning something new it is best try for consistency until the task is mastered. After that, adding variation improves airmanship.

Skip

Edited December 21, 2020 by PT20J
Clarified statement in second sentence that ground effect increases with *decreasing* distance above the ground. Also clarified that landing with less flaps requires less pitch change entering ground effect.

[Yetti]

I theorized that that full flaps push a great deal of air down on the runway creating a cushion of air in a ground effect environment.   rarely land full flaps But they can make the plane helicopter down when needed.   If you are high and slow and helicoptering down full flaps are not that big of a deal.   If you are fast and full flaps then they seem to create more issues.     And then if you have to go around there is a real risk of nose pitch up if you throw all the ponies into high gear.

[M20S Driver]

21 hours ago, donkaye said:

For a stabilized approach in a Mooney at mid weight and no wind, if airspeed is in knots, 90 on downwind with gear and approach flaps, 80 on base with full flaps and 3° slope, 70 on final maintaining the 3°slope.  If in MPH, 100 on downwind with gear and approach flaps, 90 on base with full flaps and 3° slope, 80 on final maintaining the 3° slope.

With significant crosswind, meaning lining up on final with a crab angle greater than 15°, reduce flaps and increase airspeed until the crab angle is 15° or less and fly the airplane to the landing with power, reducing power and increasing aileron in to the wind until you come to a stop.  If, while using this technique, the runway cannot be held with full aileron (I've personally never had that happen), then immediately add power and go to an airport where the runway is better aligned into the wind.

Thanks Don.  I have been using the first paragraph as a golden advice for many years from your landing CD.  The second one makes perfect sense so I call it another golden advice which is easy to follow 

[Tcraft938]

4 hours ago, Hank said:

Welcome to the Mooney world, Taylor!

In my C, I target rolling wings level on final at 85 mph, slowing to 75 mph on short final (minus 5 mph for every 300 lb below gross for that landing, not the takeoff some hours before). For landing flaps, I posted the page from my Owners Manual above; in that respect our Cs are more flexible than many F models--the one I have 8-10 hours and many practice landings had a 3-position flap lever for Up, Takeoff (which I never used) and Landing, while the electric flaps in my C are infinitely adjustable and I generally land somewhere in-between.

Takeoff Flaps will ignite another brushfire here, but I reserve Takeoff Flaps for when I'm loaded close to gross and / or the field is obstructed. Just don't forget to milk them out as you climb away. And I don't waste climb rate leaving the gear down until I'm "out of usable runway" either, as once I'm at 50'agl I will need a lot of runway to land again. Pull yoke, relax slightly, confirm sight picture for climb, check ASI, verify positive rate on IVSI, gear up. If I used flaps, look down at the obstacle and raise them unless I'm heavy, then raise them halfway, adjust and trim, raise them the rest of the way. Just be aware that lowering flaps will lower the nose, and raising flaps will raise the nose . . . .

Good points.  I explained to my wife that I was flying the approach 5 mph faster for safety with me because Hank says "5 mph for every 300 lbs".  The doctors say I will walk again but with a limp.   :-)

[donkaye]

It's really important when flying a Mooney to nail your approach speed within a knot.  Fly 5 knots too fast and your landing distance will extend an extra 500 feet.  The rule of thumb is for evey knot you are over the recommended speed for your weight add 100 feet to your landing distance.  

Regarding takeoff flaps, every Mooney Model I have ever flown (and that's all of them except the D and G) says use takeoff flaps.

[Immelman]

23 hours ago, donkaye said:

Do you ever see a Commercial Airliner land with partial flaps?  In normal wind conditions, why would you want to land with more energy to dissipate than is absolutely necessary?

Yup. Depends on the airplane.

And the reasons for using partial flaps in the Airbus are much the same as in the Mooney: Heavy, gusty winds, windshear, high crosswind, and runway to spare. Also saves a bit of fuel, and some operators have advocated for that in the past when every drop or kerosene was being carefully counted. It is another tool in the toolbox.

With that said, its maybe 1 landing in 10 done that way.

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Immelman

[midlifeflyer]

23 hours ago, donkaye said:

Has anyone ever heard of the term "Stabilized Approach"?  Do you ever see a Commercial Airliner land with partial flaps?  In normal wind conditions, why would you want to land with more energy to dissipate than is absolutely necessary?

For a stabilized approach in a Mooney at mid weight and no wind, if airspeed is in knots, 90 on downwind with gear and approach flaps, 80 on base with full flaps and 3° slope, 70 on final maintaining the 3°slope.  If in MPH, 100 on downwind with gear and approach flaps, 90 on base with full flaps and 3° slope, 80 on final maintaining the 3° slope.

With significant crosswind, meaning lining up on final with a crab angle greater than 15°, reduce flaps and increase airspeed until the crab angle is 15° or less and fly the airplane to the landing with power, reducing power and increasing aileron in to the wind until you come to a stop.  If, while using this technique, the runway cannot be held with full aileron (I've personally never had that happen), then immediately add power and go to an airport where the runway is better aligned into the wind.

Gusty conditions will also alter the use of full flaps, as a gust on touchdown with full flaps can produce very unpredictable results, as I once found out landing at Ogden a number years ago. A 20 knot gust took the plane 20 feet into the air just as I touched down with full flaps.  So I was at stall speed 20 feet above the runway where ground effect had no effect.  It was only through the immediate application of full power and lowering the nose that the day was saved---barely.

Simplicity and common sense about the laws of Physics dictates the above.

It was during my training for the CFI back in 1998 or 1999 that I gave up reducing flaps for a crosswind. I remember the day well. We had a substantial crosswind, an almost daily occurrence at my then home base. My instructor asked, how will you land today?" I replied, "never with full flaps." "Let's do some full-flap landings."  

[Bunti]

Here are some Airline insights:

As a pilot and instructor on the Airbus A320 series, I can confirm that we do have a 1000 feet gate. That means, everything has to be set and stabilized for landing: Gear, flaps, approach speed and the required power setting. The SOP from the Airbus company requires that in 500 feet in VMC and in 1000 feet in IMC conditions. A lot of airlines want you to be stabilized in 1000 feet also in VMC.

With the Airbus, we have 2 landing flap options: Flaps full  and flaps 3. This are the notches on the handle. Depending if you are flying an Airbus A319, A320 or A321, the resulting degrees are a little different. Both options are approved for normal operations. The pilot can decide for every landing. With 3, you have less drag and you are flying 5 knots faster, need a little more runway and save some fuel. Your pitch during approach and landing/flare will be higher.  On short runways, you would need more brakes / reverse.  3 is recommended in gusty/windshear conditions.

Before, I was flying the MD80 series. Same thing here: Flaps 28 and flaps 40 were approved for landing. The pilot had to decide in accordance to his preference  and the general circumstances.

On the Airbus and the MD80, I prefer to land with flaps full because of the slower speed and the better forward visibility due to less pitch than with reduced flaps.

Both, the Airbus and the MD are flying awful fast in the approach with no flaps.  This is only possible during emergency ops.

I would compare landing my Mooney M20F with only partial or no flaps with landing the Airbus or the MD with reduced flaps.

Until now, I landed most of the time my Mooney M20F with full flaps. In gusty winds, I used  no flaps because the gusts are able to increase my speed very fast into an area above my white arc.  On an  instrument approach, I usually start with gear down (104 knots) when I start  the final descent. When passing 91 knots (flap speed), I add some flaps (takeoff). And when landing is assured (at about 500 feet or so), I add more flaps, usually to full. I do not like this configuration change at low altitude. In the last weeks, I did some flights with only approach flaps to the landing. That worked fine too and eliminated the last minute configuration change. I think, in the future, I will fly with approach flaps to 1000 feet or even  a little higher, add flaps for the landing configuration and make sure that everything is stabilized  above 500 feet.

 

 

 

 

[donkaye]

6 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

It was during my training for the CFI back in 1998 or 1999 that I gave up reducing flaps for a crosswind. I remember the day well. We had a substantial crosswind, an almost daily occurrence at my then home base. My instructor asked, how will you land today?" I replied, "never with full flaps." "Let's do some full-flap landings."  

I would like to be out watching you make a full flap landing in a 35 knot direct crosswind, no headwind component.  I only have 9,800 hours of Mooney time and to make that landing I needed to fly the plane on with no flaps at 105 knots.  One of the benefits of no flaps is a higher stall speed by almost 10 knots, something very desirable in a heavy crosswind because the plane is done flying at a higher speed.

I know Barry Schiff in one of his books discusses doing it in a Piper Cherokee out at KSMO, but those planes are draggy dogs and are pretty much done flying when on the ground.  Not so the Mooney.

[donkaye]

2 hours ago, Immelman said:

Yup. Depends on the airplane.

And the reasons for using partial flaps in the Airbus are much the same as in the Mooney: Heavy, gusty winds, windshear, high crosswind, and runway to spare. Also saves a bit of fuel, and some operators have advocated for that in the past when every drop or kerosene was being carefully counted. It is another tool in the toolbox.

With that said, its maybe 1 landing in 10 done that way.

 

Thanks, I updated my post to reflect that.

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, donkaye said:

I would like to be out watching you make a full flap landing in a 35 knot direct crosswind, no headwind component.  I only have 9,800 hours of Mooney time and to make that landing I needed to fly the plane on with no flaps at 105 knots.  One of the benefits of no flaps is a higher stall speed by almost 10 knots, something very desirable in a heavy crosswind.

I know Barry Schiff in one of his books discusses doing it in a Piper Cherokee out at KSMO, but those planes are draggy dogs and are pretty much done flying when on the ground.  Not so the Mooney.

I wouldn't want to see 90% of the pilots I know try to make a full, partial, or no flap landing in a 35 kt direct crosswind.