Full flap takeoffs: why not?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:45 pm

deleted

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:13 pm

STL

I'm not arguing float etiquette on here. The originalt question pertained to FULL FLAP takeoffs.

I gave my opinion now let it rest.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Deleted

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:40 pm

Double post

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:01 pm

I'm going back to my rule of only one serious post for ever ten smart assed ones.

Cheers CJ

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:35 pm

Cat as ridculous as this banter is and as someone who doesn't have an issue with you and who agrees with almost everything you state regarding flying, you really should take Groupboards advice.

Start a new thread explaining in detail exactly how TC has screwed you. I've listened to everything you've said and I haven't doubted it but having you continuously bring it up in threads that have nothing to do with TC does get tiring. I don't doubt that you've been wronged but to only describe in detail one incident about not approving an aircraft because of a non-certified propeller, doesn't substantiate your claims. I've been on this board for quite a while and I've never once heard the whole story. I'm sure everyone would love to hear the full story and would be a lot more willing to support your cause if they knew exactly what happend. As it stands right now probably 80% of the posters ignore it.

You've probably wrote over 1,000 pages about how TC has wronged you but after reading them all I still don't have a clue what happend. If you want to effect change and rally the masses, instead of writing another 1,000 pages of side remarks, sit down and write 1 of exactly what happend. Until you do that people like groupboard and the majority of AvCanada will just write it off as groundless accusations from someone with a hidden agenda. Unlike groupboard, I'm suggesting this as someone who wants to believe your story and not someone who wants to prove that you're a raving lunatic.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:02 pm

I'm not all that bright (some of you know that already) but this thread started with remarks about full flap take offs.....which are pretty dumb....but it has turned into a hissy-fit between the mighty Cat Driver, and groupboard! It ends, here and now...one more post of this nature, and this thread gets locked. Can we get back on topic? There are times when you could do a full flap take off...but I cant think of any.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:30 pm

No need to lock this Doc.

As you will note I have deleted most of my posts on this.

But JPC has a point here.

" Start a new thread explaining in detail exactly how TC has screwed you. I've listened to everything you've said and I haven't doubted it but having you continuously bring it up in threads that have nothing to do with TC does get tiring. I don't doubt that you've been wronged but to only describe in detail one incident about not approving an aircraft because of a non-certified propeller, doesn't substantiate your claims. I've been on this board for quite a while and I've never once heard the whole story. I'm sure everyone would love to hear the full story and would be a lot more willing to support your cause if they knew exactly what happend. As it stands right now probably 80% of the posters ignore it. "

The propellor incident had nothing to do with my origional problem with TC it happpened after I could not get a FTU-OC .

So I may decide to write up a history of what happened between me and TC.

I guess I could do it in point form and post it in the general forum.

Yeh, I guess it should be documentated and posted so everyone can connect the dots.

Cat

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:19 pm

Ah, good plan. Now, play nice. I'm heading out to do a full flap takeoff in the mighty Beech....I'll report back. Should be a hoot!

groupboard · Post by **groupboard** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:40 am

Getting back to the original thread of this topic, I was just talking to mcrit and he says that takeoff with more than 10 degrees of flap in the 172 is prohibited by the POH. It's not just a recommendation. He had the POH opwn and sitting in front of him. If you PM him I'm sure he'll tell you what page to look at. I don't have a POH for the 172 so I can't comment on who's right.

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:36 am

Is there a seperate POH with limitations for 172s on floats? I think that's where the distinction is being made. As I understand it, the procedure being put forth by some of the float drivers is to use extra flap to get it off the water, stay in ground effect and build speed, retract flap to a suitable climb config, then climb out. Is this correct? I'll admit, I'm filling in alot of blanks with what makes sense to me.

As for full-flap on wheels. Retarded. I can say from personal experience that it's a bad idea in a Katana, 172 and Zlin 242 (pretty much every other type I've flown too). I'll share the stories so other may benefit. The Katana experience was the really bad one. It happened on my first solo x-country so many moons ago. I was rushed in a touch and go because of traffic behind me (my buddy who was kinda racing me, stupid I know, but that's what happens when you send 5 teenagers tear-assing around a set route in airplanes. Kinda makes me cringe to think of it now.) On the clean up for the go, I thought I moved the flap switch to the take-off position. I didn't. The thing barely cleared the trees at the end. (looking back now, I probably cleared by a good 250-300 feet, but it sure didn't feel that way at the time.) After frantically checking the engine instruments, I found the problem (flaps) and corrected it.

After that, pretty much evertime I get checked on a new airplane, I do a climbout with full flap from a landing configuration stall (at altitude ofcourse.) If you haven't done it, I highly reccommend it to illustrate just how uncomfortable it can be. The 172 is terrifying. The Zlin has a lot more power, so it climbs out better (than a Cessna, not better than a regular climb), but it still feels really weird. In my experience it has helped to recognise the configuration, the same way we teach stall recognition.

At Sault C, they teach full-power, landing config stalls. (ie stall after aggressive overshoot) One of the best manouvers I've done in terms of understanding the envelop of an airplane. Very fun, very uncomfortable the first time.

I've heard arguments that you get a better angle of climb full-flap, but I haven't seen any #s to back this up. Either way, I'd avoid it personally.

I'm also making the assumption that we're limiting this discussion to light a/c. I'm sure a fighter or unlimited aerobatic aircraft (if it had flaps) could climb nicely due the the power availible.

groupboard · Post by **groupboard** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:40 pm

If you have a look earlier in this thread, you'll see Cat and justplanecrazy are saying that you should deviate from the POH regarding takeoff flap, so it isn't an issue of floatplane versus landplane. And I would imagine that it would depend on what engine you've got up front as to whether there would be a change in the POH to specify takeoff with greater than 10 degree of flap in your 172 floatplane.

And it's not just touch-and-goes where you could be in the situation of taking off with full flap (if you forget to retract it) . If you do an overshoot you will be starting off at your approach flap setting, and if it's a hot day and your plane is fully loaded you could find yourself in a dangerous situation if you have full flap on a 172. Have a look at Scott Meyer's experience (the last one):

http://www.x-plane.com/myths.html

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:58 pm

I thought the deviate advice was float specific. And no, I'm not going to bother going through the whole thread, it's really not worth the re-hash.

Ya, the overshoot stall is freakin' nuts. Try it in the Zlin.

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:36 pm

What the hell, won't this thread ever die??? Groupboard what exactly does it say in the POH? I don't have one in front of me. Don't write what you understand it to say, write what it says word for word and what section its in.

No-one here is suggesting a climbout with full flaps. We are suggesting 20 degrees initially for floats or even full depending on the water conditions and take off distance available. Depending on the scenario, you'd retract them to 10 or even 0 for the climbout. The same can apply to land planes. Ever try and depart a really mucky dirt/grass field? Your performance standards in take off distance and maybe even obstacle would be better if you put in more flap. You'd get off a lot sooner, just like on a rough water scenario, then you could milk the flaps and start the climb out. Don't ever try full flaps with an obstacle in close proximity, 20 sure, depending on what you're flying and where. If its a wheeled plane, using what's suggested in the POH would probably give you your best obstacle clearance configuration.

From what I can remember the POH's short field take off procedure is the same regardless of whether there's an obstacle or not. If you simply want a short take off run and have no obstacles, just rough ground beyond the end of the strip, put in more flap then suggested. 20 degrees in a C172 and 10 in a C150, will make it shorter on any surface. If you have to clear an obstacle right off the end, I would say the POH is correct in saying 10 for the C172 and 0 for the C150 on a hard surface.

As far as a float plane, unlike a land plane on pavement, you're take-off run is going to be significantly longer with 10 degrees vs. 20 degrees of flaps. The sooner you can get airborne, the quicker you can start climbing, even if you have to milk the flaps to get a good climb performance.

Please do not take this advice to apply for every situation. Full flaps, can be beneficial in a very unique situation, such as rough water or deep mud. 20 degrees can be beneficial in a number of situations. Following the POH will usually be the most beneficial for the most common situation.

groupboard · Post by **groupboard** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:21 pm

JPC, as I said it is mcrit who is saying that the POH forbids you to take off with any more than 10 degrees of flap. I don't have access to the POH so I can't say where it says this. You'll need to PM him to get the details. I agree with you that it is certainly safe to take off with 20 degrees of flap providing the conditions are suitable, and the pilot knows what he is doing. However if the POH forbids it then you are certainly flying illegally, and your insurance will be void.

The reason this thread won't die is because this is a very basic thing that some very experienced instructors on this forum are arguing about. JPC and Cat say that the take off flap is only a recommendation, mcrit says it is forbidden to take off with more than 10 degrees. Clearly you both can't be right. I'm starting to agree with Cat: what is the point of this forum if the experienced instructors can't even agree on such an incredibly basic thing?

Kilo-Kilo · Post by **Kilo-Kilo** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:13 pm

Here's a video of a take off with "full flaps". Note the crash at the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-qS7oN-3tA

buck82 · Post by **buck82** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:01 pm

Naw.. that crash had nothin to do with flaps... it was that VW vanload of terrorists that caused it to crash!!

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:03 pm

When the van went by all I could think of was Back to the Future... the Lybian terrorists.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:13 am

JPC and Cat say that the take off flap is only a recommendation, mcrit says it is forbidden to take off with more than 10 degrees

I suspect that not too long from now, mcrit will begin a very successful career at Transport.

I'm in the former camp. I'm not sure anyone here cares much about the facts, but amongst other pieces of paper, I hold a class one instructor rating, and I did a full flap takeoff last week.

It was in a 210 hp IO-360 Maule w/constant speed prop. Normal takeoff is 15 degrees. Johnson bar between the seats, notches at 15 (takeoff) and 35 (landing) degrees.

With 15 degrees of flaps as per normal takeoff, I accelerated briefly down the runway with the tail up, then pulled on the johnson bar to drop full flaps, and up it went into the air like a bloody elevator.

Worked fine for me. I will await a registered letter from my fan club, as per usual. Same day I will fax over a letter of request for review to Mary at the Tribunal, as usual.

Bottom line: if you know what you are doing, there is no problem with a full flap takeoff, which in some circumstances has great operational advantages. If you don't know what you're doing, you shouldn't be flying an airplane or operating motorized equipment like a tractor, lawn mower or weed eater.

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:00 am

Hedley, did you decide to do this once on the roll, or had you planned it in advance?

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:56 pm

The (momentary) application of full flaps in the recent Maule takeoff was quite planned. As I stated when this bizarre discussion started, that is a technique used before almost everyone here was born.

However, I once (accidentally) tried to take off with full flaps in a 160hp Apache. It was after midnight, I was tired, and I had assumed the pilot that had landed it had retracted the flaps - we hadn't even shut the engines down, we just did a pilot switch. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Takeoff was normal, but after establishing the normal climb angle, the airspeed started to decrease, so I had to drop the nose. I thought I must have lost an engine, but both were merrily chugging away, so I went back to basics and did:

Control (yup)
Power (m/p/t)
Drag (gear was up, HOLY SHIT the flaps are all the way down!)

Raised the flaps, everything was back to normal.

Now, it shall be interesting, after this admission of mine above, if my fan club at Transport decide to send me a registered letter for this, too.

It should be very interesting at the Tribunal, because not only did it occur BEFORE the current CARs were enacted, it occurred in a foreign country, me flying a foreign-registered aircraft, using my foreign pilot licence.

Transport has successfully argued at the Tribunal before, that a pilot does not need to be exercising his pilot licence to be charged and convicted with contravening the CARs. I was wondering this summer if they were going to come after me with a CAR 602.01 for being a throttle guy in the Poker Runs held on St Lawrence River this summer. Given that there is NO statute of limitations on the CARs, I suppose I shall have to wait a very, very long time to find out.

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:27 pm

Well Hed, you pass my litmus test. The way I figure it, if an abnormal procedure does not affect safety and has been planned and thought out (and doesn't break the law, too much

), and is beneficial in terms of expanded experience, it's ok.

Everyone I've ever spoken to has gone lower than 500' over a deserted logging road (or similar) while practicing a forced approach. If you're not endangering anyone, including yourself, i think that's ok.

This doesn't mean you do touch and goes in the US without clearing customs, or land on the 401.

This means that you carefully considered the situation before starting the manouvre. This doesn't mean you just decide to 'go a little lower' once on the approach. If you consider the approach, the overshoot, possible obstacles, contingincies incase of engine failure, proximity to rescue, persons/property on the ground, set a hard number below which you will not descend, etc, etc, and decide that there is no extra-ordinary danger and the benefit of training warrants the risk... well then that's your choice.

The way I figure it, I'd rather be along for the ride with someone who has proved (at least to themselves) that they can go all the way down (not necessarily touch down, but to the point where you know you made the field, than someone who guesses they made it at 500.

Obviously this may not be black and white legal. The point, there is always and exception to every rule. Just don't make a habit of finding exceptions where they don't exist.

I'm gonna go have another drink, flame away.

groupboard · Post by **groupboard** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 pm

There is no rule that says you can't fly below 500 feet. If there was, all the training schools doing practise forced approaches would be breaking the law.
CAR 602.14(1) states that you cannot fly "at a distance less than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure." Other rules apply in controlled airspace and in built-up areas, but elsewhere you can fly as low as you want as long as you're 500 feet away from any object.

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:24 pm

Hedley, for what it's worth, the Be 200 takes off great with full flap as well (unplanned), at least when you do it indoors at DFW. Things only went for shit when the critical engine took the rest of the day off. Then they really went for shit in a hurry.

BTW anybody got a 172 POH with the float plane supplement? I'd be interested to see what it says about flap selection. Just out of curiosity of course.

BTD · Post by **BTD** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:29 pm

You can also fly less than 500 feet from the nearest person, vessel etc if in certain cirumstances as long as you do not create hazard to persons or property. What hazard is defined as who knows.

(b) in circumstances other than those referred to in paragraph (a), at a distance less than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure

2) A person may operate an aircraft, to the extent necessary for the purpose of the operation in which the aircraft is engaged, at altitudes and distances less than those set out in

(b) paragraph 602.14(2)(b), where the aircraft is operated without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the aircraft is operated for the purpose of

(i) aerial application or aerial inspection,

(ii) aerial photography conducted by the holder of an air operator certificate,

(iii) helicopter external load operations, or

(iv) flight training conducted by or under the supervision of a qualified flight instructor.