Jeebus.

Wow. Need to see a picture of your right arm now.

akavidflyer wrote:
Yep.. I see now, its your short arms that keep ya from dumping the flaps and seeing over the panel LOL Talk to EZflap for help on that one. LOL

Oh what the hell, I'm bored. One of the most obvious things about those gorgeous Cessna flaps is that they are pretty damn big. And slotted. I hope all you 50,000 hour Alaska guys don't mind a 1500 hour city boy from Los Angeles reminding you about basic aerodynamics...

Great big slotted flaps create one hell of a nose-down pitching moment. This is the reason that the 180's have the main gear so far forward - they are mounted as far forward as they can be while still enabling the pilot to keep the thing from groundlooping on every landing. This is also the reason they needed to create the trimmable tail on the 180.

The more flap deflection on the wing, the greater the nose-down pitching moment. You can prove this to yourself by trimming the airplane for level flight at 70 or 80 mph with no flaps, then progressively applying flaps and seeing the nose come down hard.

So now let's go to a short field landing strip with our 180. We want to get as slow as possible, and make a steep approach over the trees. We are also benefiting greatly by having geometric "washout" or wing twist, which is keeping our wingtips flying safely and our ailerons solid during those 45 knot base to final turns. So we probably want to use all 40 degrees of flap.

As most of you 50K hour 180 drivers know, this will require absolute full nose-up (tail down) trim, because of the strong pitching moment from the flaps. (For the moment, let's forget about using opposite trim to increase the elevator power. 'nother subject altogether.)

The point is, that to fly this slow with full flap, you are using almost everything you have available to push the tail down to counteract the tail-up pitching moment caused by the flaps.

Now you touch down on your short strip, and hit the brakes to stop the 180 before you run into the trees on the end of the strip. The braking force creates even a stronger tail-up / nose-down force on the airplane. At this point, you have very little elevator authority left to increase the tail-down force.

So what are your best options? You can get off the brakes, keeping the tail on the ground, but possibly running off the end of your strip. You can move the main landing gear forward, until it's under the propeller, which will keep the tail on the ground but also make the airplane completely divergent in the yaw axis (this means your tail will swap ends with the nose in a yaw axis groundloop, instead of a pitch axis nose-over).

Or, you can be smart and DUMP the !(#*$@ flaps and get rid of half that tail-up / nose-down pitching moment that is trying to put you over on your nose..... without losing your brake authority.

Now, as for dumping the flaps safely and quickly and fully, in that kind of a stressful situation? Well, that's another story that I shall not delve into here, because I can already hear shotgun breeches clicking and clacking, and the sound of a rope being thrown over a tree branch.

But to the nice fellow who mentioned that flap-dumpers help create all sorts of salvage parts for him.... perhaps you might elaborate on WHY this makes salvage parts for you

elgoatropo wrote:Wow. Need to see a picture of your right arm now.

Pretty sure the flaps on a super cub are on the left side... been wrong before though.

EZFLAP,

Good points on the design choices for the 180 including the best flaps. The point some of us were trying to make, and you alluded to, is that using all of those fine flaps to arrive at the desired touchdown point at or below POH stall speed can eliminate the need for a dump and brake technique. If landing much faster, the technique becomes more useful and even necessary.

Best regards,

Jim

Well said EZ. Bottom line is dump the flaps to make the tail heavier. Now you can brake harder with less chance to nose over. Contact, we are talking about getting max performance out of the airplane at short strips. Not regular runways, of course this technique is not necessary under normal circumstances. And anyone landing at a short strip, or off airport I hope they air landing at a minimum airspeed and at their aim point. If not they need more practice. But this flap dumping technique in my opinion WILL allow you to stop shorter without putting it on the nose for all the reasons EZ stated better than I can.

robw56 wrote:Well said EZ. Bottom line is dump the flaps to make the tail heavier. Now you can brake harder with less chance to nose over. Contact, we are talking about getting max performance out of the airplane at short strips. Not regular runways, of course this technique is not necessary under normal circumstances. And anyone landing at a short strip, or off airport I hope they air landing at a minimum airspeed and at their aim point. If not they need more practice. But this flap dumping technique in my opinion WILL allow you to stop shorter without putting it on the nose for all the reasons EZ stated better than I can.

Yep, what he said....

Also, Buy an MT and dump 30lbs off the nose...

Kev,

I can understand your enthusiasm with the MT Propeller, but…
30 Pounds off the nose is great if you're not hauling any weight. If you were, weight on the nose would be a good thing, or for the most part, a non-issue.
My little thing is, why go somewhere if you can't haul in some camping gear, booze, firewood, kitchen sink.…
MT propellers have issues! McCauleys(solid) and Hartzells(to some extent) don't.
If I didn't have to haul any gear, I'd own a Cub.
Now, back to the topic of dumping flaps…. which to me is a no-brainer….

237

Zzz wrote:

elgoatropo wrote:http://joshoverturf.blogspot.com/2013_09_01_archive.html

Note flap position

Also, the baggage door is open. Coincidence? Or another failed "bush pilot" technique????

You mean, Zzz, that you've been running this site for how long, and you've never heard of the old baggage door - speed brake trick?

SkyTruck wrote:Kev,

I can understand your enthusiasm with the MT Propeller, but…
30 Pounds off the nose is great if you're not hauling any weight. If you were, weight on the nose would be a good thing, or for the most part, a non-issue.
My little thing is, why go somewhere if you can't haul in some camping gear, booze, firewood, kitchen sink.…
MT propellers have issues! McCauleys(solid) and Hartzells(to some extent) don't.
If I didn't have to haul any gear, I'd own a Cub.
Now, back to the topic of dumping flaps…. which to me is a no-brainer….

237

Mark, Mark, Mark-

Every time I drive around lake hood the number of MT props increase.

Having the extra trim is worth everything to me when flying around light. With the big engine and the mods she is still nose heavy but not near what she was with the big 401.

During the fly-in I made more trips than I can count at gross (full of firewood, kegs of beer and such) with the ability to trim. For that mission the extra 27lbs did not matter on the nose. It matters when flying light as I do most of the time, and not running out of elevator trim. Honest.

Almost 400 hours on the MT and I could not be happier. Not boasting at all here but willing to bet I fly that plane into more stupid places than most and the MT still looks brand new aside from the green grass stains. So, yes I am still waiting for a problem to arise with the MT however I have yet to find one.

We can agree to disagree...

Akt

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin,…
The 'Ol McCauly has been doing fine since 1980.
Haven't been anywhere where performance was an issue that the insurance company has allowed.
$13,000 divided by $5.50 a gallon goes a long ways.
In Idaho last week, an experimental RV type clone had a prop strike.
He, with a hacksaw, worked his magic, and flew home to KSTS.
I wouldn't have done that, but at least he had the option.
An MT would have disintegrated leaving no option other than ???
We're having fun here, right?

SkyTruck wrote:Kevin, Kevin, Kevin,…
The 'Ol McCauly has been doing fine since 1980.
Haven't been anywhere where performance was an issue that the insurance company has allowed.
$13,000 divided by $5.50 a gallon goes a long ways.
In Idaho last week, an experimental RV type clone had a prop strike.
He, with a hacksaw, worked his magic, and flew home to KSTS.
I wouldn't have done that, but at least he had the option.
An MT would have disintegrated leaving no option other than ???
We're having fun here, right?

Unless they are giving the Mac away your math is bad
No engine damage with a MT prop strike?
If you are going to play like some of us like to play you will want to shit can your insurance company.
Just having fun!

Talk about a thread hijacking...

Well, I guess after 2500 reviews and 70 replies, the dumping of the flaps thread is pretty dead now anyhow. Hpw much more can that get beat up

I still think your the man Mark even if you like that big heavy Mac!

What else can we beat up on or discuss until we are run out of things to debate?

AKT

And another thing…
The reason you see more MT Propellers around Lake Hood is, you can't buy a two blade propeller over 82 Inches anymore due to noise.
Gotta love the Greenies!
So, do I buy the 83" MT three blade or the tried and true, field repairable, 86" 401.
Depends on who's CoolAid you prefer
You can see which way I lean
Less expensive too!
Maybe some day we can evaluate the McCauley Carbon Fibre Prop at $18K ???
My sources say termites don't like Carbon Fibre. Picky bastards!

237

aktahoe1 wrote:What else can we beat up on or discuss until we are run out of things to debate?

I saw you wheel land once when I really was of the opinion that you should have three-pointed.

SkyTruck wrote:My little thing is, why go somewhere if you can't haul in some camping gear, booze, firewood, kitchen sink.…

The man speaks truth!

He "Wheel Landed" because he was running 100LL.
To 3 Point, you have to be running MoGas
Basic tailwheel ops!
Part of the MoGas STC I believe

237

Zzz wrote:

aktahoe1 wrote:What else can we beat up on or discuss until we are run out of things to debate?

I saw you wheel land once when I really was of the opinion that you should have three-pointed.

He was practicing for how to hydroplaning the wheels

That was how do tails up taxing...

EZFlap wrote:

akavidflyer wrote:[url][url][url]



But to the nice fellow who mentioned that flap-dumpers help create all sorts of salvage parts for him.... perhaps you might elaborate on WHY this makes salvage parts for you

Because it reduces aerodynamic drag, which could contribute to skidding tires and a landing rollout overrun on loose ground or ice, where you can't trailer your wrecked airplane out. AKA Alaska Bush Yard Sale.

I have a different experience with the 180 tail. Generally my trim is 3/4 towards full aft on base leg at 80 kts with a light load, closer to 1/2 back with a gross load. I usually don't mess with the trim after base leg, because I find a little back pressure on touchdown feels better.

Your mileage may vary. Ours has a leading edge cuff. I land behind the curve, with the stall warning horn going all the way down, and power on. I almost never brake except for steering.

http://www.backcountrypilot.org/me/my-p ... toid=24064

Here, I got stopped in 3-400' without brakes. Had I applied brakes, the mains would have dug in. Had I dumped flaps, the fragile tailwheel would have been overstressed, and the nose would have blocked my view of the rollout ahead. Again, every situation is different, as is every airplane. I just think the situations that call for flap dumping are pretty rare, and people need to know the downside.