Flapless landing

Your L/D is probably around 100% more efficient than flying with approach flaps set. Extending downwind to take this into account, and ensuring you do not drag it in below the normal glide slope, because of the higher nose attitude without flaps, is the basic technique.

The sideslip is a somewhat neglected technique, possibly because the Acme Flying School is producing wannabe Airbus jockeys and the young FIs are also wannabes. Boeing and Airbus due to under wing engine pods preferring the crab method, kick out to align on the runway optional btw, as can be observed on youtube. Because the sideslip is today neglected, people tend to let speed build up when attempting it, but it is a perfectly good drag inducing technique for managing the approach flapless. You are cross controlled low and at Vs x 1.3 which also is a concept that is counter intuitive at Acme, but you are not in a skidding turn which is the threat turning base to final.

The TBs have electric flaps just like the Cessnas which means probability of a flap system failure is higher than e.g. with a PA28. This is why I regularly practise flapless landings. Doing it in the TB10, I didn’t notice a lot of difference because the TB flaps are rather small. The Cessna fowler flaps (especially the ones with 40°) make a bigger difference but the thick wings have good slow flight characteristics so your flapless approach speed isn’t much different from the standard approach speed. When I landed in Crete earlier this year with a 30kt wind at 90° from the right, I only used 10° flaps and 10kt more speed because I didn’t want to give the wind more surface to attack than necessary. I still don’t know whether that was a good or bad thought.

I still don’t know whether that was a good or bad thought.

The idea (less flaps with more crosswind) is good, but the reason is different. With less flaps you will fly at a faster approach speed, therefore your wind correction angle = crab angle = bank angle (depending on your crosswind landing method) will be smaller. Some aircraft manufacturers recommend less than full flaps in crosswind, but this should be written in the POH somewhere.

Regarding “good technique” for flapless landing: Accurate speed control, apart from that fly a totally normal pattern. Reduce early (before commencing final descent, otherwise the speed won’t bleed off) and on final fly as close to your flapless approach speed as the conditions permit. Fly at normal glidepath angle and – depending on your type or aircraft – don’t flare at all (e.g. the Citation with it’s low wing will fly forever in ground effect on residual power if you try to flare) of flare a little less than you would usually (in high-wing types the ground effect is much less pronounced). Know your runway requirements for flapless landings (again, “my” Citation needs over twice as much runway flapless, the Metroliner I once flew even more than that) and don’t try silly things. If it dosen’t look or feel right, go around or do a touch and go and go somewhere with more runway. Sideslipping might be an option, but it dosen’t work equally well with all types of aircraft, needs practice and will scare your passengers stiff.

The only technique I use is as other have mentioned, and that is just reduce power early. The PA28-181 can float for ever if you dont get the speed back appropriately. With regard to not being able to see the runway over the nose I think its just a case of looking out the side window (flicking the rudder if you need to), or just push the nose down momentarily. I assume that wouldnt constitute a fail on an procedural approach would it? I know you have to keep your heights and headings and stuff, but a deviation for safety reasons must be allowable.

I assume that wouldnt constitute a fail on an procedural approach would it?

Did anybody ever get failed on a (private) checkride? I can’t imagine. Most checkers regard the annual or bi-annual check more as a training flight and will give a thorough debrief in case they don’t like something. Maybe they suggest a little extra training or instantly repeat the unsatisfactory part, but this is about it. Different of course when you apply for an airline and they send you to a screeing in the simulator…

…or just push the nose down momentarily.

It shouldn’t even be necessary to push, releasing the back pressure a little will be all that’s required. At some point, this might even be necessary for landing before too much runway is wasted (but only at the correct speed, otherwise the aircraft will start bouncing).

I did last month a lot of flapless landings with a TB20 and it is verry difficult and much more with no power, it drops like a stone. To land with full flaps is easy going and verry gentel without much more difficult than a 172/210! Maybe no technik would help to fly slow with no flaps a TB20 :-)

On the Mooney with its hydraulic flaps, the chance of failure or of flaps retracting on their own with a leaky valve is quite high, therefore we did practice this quite extensively during transition and do so regularly on the recurrency training. The flaps will reduce stall speed by 10 mph (the performance tables are thus) as a general rule between 0° and 20° bank, with flaps extended the aircraft becomes nose heavy and has to be trimmed backwards. Mooney itself does not give any procedures for flapless landing in its 1965 manual, but from the information given, a normal approach will be flown initially at 100mph clean, 90 mph with intermediate flap setting and 80 mph final with full flaps to aim for a Vref of 70-75mph.

Without flaps, 100 mph is still the initial approach speed (Gear speed is 120), the intermediate approach speed will stay at 90 mph to aim for Vref of 80-85 mph. Pitch will be slightly less in this configuration at touch down. This procedure will ask for about 1-2 " mp less on the engine power than during a normal approach with flaps. Again, Mooney does not provide any LDR figures for landing without flaps but a speed difference of 5 mph between 70 and 75 mph for light or heavy landing weight results in about 50-60 ft more ground roll, so nothing really spectacular. If you apply the EASA CAT.POL.A.330 ff corrections to the minimum LDA, you will be quite safe:

On a dry runway, the minimum LDA you need is 1.44 x the LDR, that is the distance over 50 ft from your AFM. On wet, this increases to 1.6 and if you were to land on compacted snow to 2.3. If I apply this to my aircraft, I get the following values at a realistic landing weight at sea level:

LDR = 416 m. Minimum Runway Lenght dry 595 m, wet 684 m, compacted snow 951 m.
If I now add the 1.2 factor for 10 kts higher approach speed, my 0 flaps runway requirements would be in the same situation:
LDR= 499m. Minimum Runway Lenght dry 713 m, wet 820 m, compacted snow 1141m.

Now clearly, these are commercial limitations you do NOT need to apply. But, they allow a LOT of safety margin, so if you want a quick decision about if your runway is very much likely to be enough, there you go.

Personally, I treat everything below this as a short field ops. That does not mean I won’t do it, but I will exercise extra care.

I found that speed control is everything with a slippery plane like this, there are no barn door flaps to “save” an approach like on the PA28 or the Cessnas. So in preparation for the flapless landings, we did some airwork and trimmed the airplane for these speeds and configurations and took note of the pitch this results in and the power settings. I found that this helps enormeously if you need to do it “for real”. If you then have to fly a circuit without flaps, simply apply this experience and a flapless landing is not a big issue.So as for techniques, that is what I would do, go out there and fly the speeds you need to fly somewhere outside the circuit in landing configuration, then do a few circuits without flaps to get the hang of it. Also, if the manual gives some figures about the increase in landing distance and the speeds involved it is helpful to know them.

This graphic gives a good overview for factors regarding landing distance:

http://www.skybrary.aero/images/Landing_Factors.jpg

Interesting. I have only flown a TB20 once, so practically zero experience with this one.

However, in all the Cessnas I have flown a no-flap landing is a non-event. In any case I hardly ever use full flaps, unless I have to, of course. The 182rg especially is much nicer to land with 10 or 20 deg flaps.

The 182rg especially is much nicer to land with 10 or 20 deg flaps.

Nicer in which way? It has a very steep approach angle with 40° flaps (= 3rd notch) and needs almost no runway but even after 2 years of ownership, I still have hard landings every now and then. Which speed do use in long and short final with a 20° landing? Even though it’s “only” a Cessna, I find the 182 RG to be more difficult to land well than any other airplane I’ve flown. The easiest by far was the Socata (needs a lot of runway).