doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (09/27/85)
> As for the fact that the new 172 and the 152 have only 30 degrees of > flap is because of the high accident rate with the 40 degree flap. > Not in the landing phase, but in go arounds. It seems that very few > people know that the airplane WILL climb with full flaps, but that you > need to hold your speed at the BOTTOM of the green arc. The climb > is sluggish and you may need to land off airport (assuming a flap > retraction failure), but you will not have an airplane that will > refuse to climb. (This, of course, depends on density altitude, engine > condition, and pilot technique. There are some density altitudes that > the airplane will not climb no matter what you do. Like above the > service ceiling altitude.) Out here in "da desert", we often get density altitudes of 5000' or more at surface level. Which brings up an interesting dilemma -- does one land with full flaps, to steepen the descent angle and decrease the roll-out, or does one forgo the more extreme flap settings to insure climb capability in the event that both 1) a go-around is needed, and 2) the flaps quit moving. The "obvious" solution is to go to full flaps only after "landing is assured". The descent angle suffers, but slipping can fix that (on planes which can slip with flaps partially extended). This seems to require some discipline, though. There's a lot of temptation to dial in some more flap if the approach is too high. Of course, such an approach is more likely to end in a go-around... Side issue: Using carb heat on an approach in 110 degree temps is silly, and reduces power on go-around until it's shut off. (Disclaimer: my plane doesn't _have_ flaps) -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug