flightlogic wrote:Just to be different here and probably annoy the by the book types......
You are flying cheap. He pays for the brackets and hardware. Fly it his way on those brief times he wants. Then fly it your way the rest of the time. Cheap is good. Caution is good. Too much caution might mean less flying. Flying is important. See ya.

I sometimes fly with a guy who also yanks first notch of flaps on well above the white arc. I never say anything because, well, I'm saving my reprimands for more serious offenses and I don't want the phone to stop ringing. I'm not sure if one notch of flaps 20 knots above the white arc is going to rip the forward spar attach apart, I doubt it. Probably just harder on the flap hardware. Either way, good to know why this limitation exists.

Flightlogic that is the way I am looking at it.

SE6601KF he does have the reinforcement on the flaps. I haven't noticed any cracks in the flaps yet. At this point of something was to happen I am the PIC and I can't say that I was doing what he as the CFI said cause he doesn't have his medical. If a flap was to depart I would be the one in trouble not him.

MTV is absolutely right, and flightlogic made a good point. For most of my flying career I wasn't looking to buy it; I was just looking to fly it. Poor pilots can't always be critical. Judgement come in when we decide which machines we choose to fly and which missions we choose to accept. Because I was poor, I flew some marginal machines and with some marginal pilots on some marginal missions. Perfect judgement, if we can afford it, will cause us to decline many tired machines and dangerous jobs. If we survive, we will learn judgement faster in tired machines and dangerous jobs.

cstolaircraft wrote: If a flap was to depart I would be the one in trouble not him.

I've seen a flap on a 172 badly buckled so that it would no longer extend and retract fully. The airplane obviously made it back to the airport, but I don't know whether it would have stayed attached if someone had taken it flying and tried to extend it fully. Maybe it just would have jammed.

This was on a flying club airplane, and the owner (an individual) had to pay thousands to get it fixed. The "pilot" who last flew it before it was discovered denied noticing anything wrong or overspeeding it, and refused to pay. If a flap did depart, it seems like it would likely happen when you attempted to extend them, which would likely mean in the pattern, close to the ground and slowing down. Not a great setup to deal with a split flap situation. You might not have to worry about being around to explain what happened to anyone one on the ground.

haha you guys are great! yeah I mean what I got into the flying basically trading from tree work, so I think it is worth the risk I have done a couple no flap landing and I am good with slips. I have heard it said if you not on the edge your taking up to much room! just I prefer the other edge. and If I am on the edge let it be a cessna they are pretty tough.

You would probably be dead too….

That being said, a flap departing is unlikely but you are operating outside of the limitations, "careless and reckless" from a fed if they ever found out would be hard to argue against. Remember, YOU are PIC, not him. Tactfully talk to him about this, just tell him yu feel more comfortable operating within the limitations of the airplane.

I always explained to students and during type checkouts on larger aircraft that the bottom of white arc or max flap speed is just that, the fastest speed with flaps at a determined setting. Not necessarily the speed at which you should always lower flaps, 5 knots into the white arc is also good...On the Twin Otter exceeding flap speed was a four hours A&P inspection with associated kick in the butt.

IMHO, just read the POH and abide by it.

Flaps?

Reality Check...

Many many many of the actual realities having to do with procedures, materials and structures allowables, metal fatigue, designer's intentions, sales department influence, aging aircraft fleet, service life, parts cost, and maintenance cost have changed in the 30-50 years since your particular airplane was built.

The POH represents what Cessna certified many years ago. They never claimed that the 172 would last forever, and the POH does not address long-term maintenance or long-term safety. Following the POH will only guarantee safety for some period of time after the airplane is built.

If you look at all the big and small things that Cessna themselves have changed their mind about since the 172 was certified, all the things they thought better of, on second thought, AD's, seat rail problems, thumbscrew seat stops, seat-mounted inertia reel safety safety stops, "killer" fuel caps, selling airplanes with !*$#&% cigarette lighters and ash trays (inside an aircraft cabin that a !*$&% fuel system runs through for chrissakes), inconsistent corrosion protection, and then what Cessna (and the pilot.owner community) has learned over 50+ years of 172 fleet operations... you will realize very clearly that things have changed. What was good enough in the 70's is frequently not good enough today.

In general, if your operational procedures and pilot decisions and maintenance regimen becomes more conservative as time goes by, you will be safer, have fewer maintenance problems, and your airplane will last longer. It is very very rare that some maintenance interval, TBO, or inspection procedure gets longer (less conservative) over time.

Airplanes wear out over time. If i am not mistaken, Cessnas are well known to get "loose" and "tired" over thousands of hours of flight time, training, crop dusting, and bush flying. the same holds true with the flap tracks and rollers. Replacing a worn set of flap tracks is a very expensive, structural-level repair.

I guarantee you, Cessna's sales department, ad agency, and marketing communications department didn't give a shit about the flap rollers and tracks in 1978. They figured you would have the airplane for 5 or 7 years,and trade it in on a new model. Do you think they gave enough of a shit about making your airplane last longer, that their salesmen would have told a prospective buyer to take it easy on the flap tracks so they wouldn't cost you thousands to have a Cessna maintenance facility replace them? Hell no, that would have weakened their sales rhetoric about how tough and heavy duty their airplane is.

Just like a 50 year old person's body cannot withstand the same beating and abuse as he did when he was 20, an older airplane that has seen some fatigue and hard use cannot withstand the same hard service as it could when it was new in Wichita.

There is no reason to needlessly be hard on an airplane.It is stupid from a maintenance point of view, and it is stupid from a potential asymmetrical flap deployment point of view,and it is stupid from a proper pilot technique point of view.

Anyone who cannot plan far enough ahead to get a !*#&% 172 from cruise speed (or even descent speed) down to 70 or 75 MPH before putting the flaps out needs some more dual instruction with a decent instructor.

May I humbly suggest that you read a wonderful (and relevant) short story by the great Richard Bach, called "Steel, Aluminum, Nuts and Bolts".

This thread got me wondering, so I looked up when the 10 degrees of flaps at 110 knots was first approved on the 172. According to the model histories shown on the Cessna Pilots Association web site the extension of 10 degrees at 110 knots was approved on the 1979 model year 172N beginning with serial number 17271035. I do not know if any structural changes took place to allow the increase. I would check the serial number of the 172 you are flying, If 17271035 or later use up to 110 knots, if before use 85 knots. Note, I believe the white arc on the airspeed indicator would still end at 85 knots in either case. You really need to look at the serial number, as the FAA model year, or the year sold do not always match the serial number model year. Remember Vfe is a limitation. Never ever good to ignore a limitation. I know that you are just starting out and that the use of this airplane is important to you just as similar situations were to all of us at one.time You might try researching this thoroughly, then calmly discuss it with the owner, stressing that you are just starting out and want to stay away from deciding which limitations you want to respect and which you choose to ignore. Ask him his reasoning for putting the flaps out at 110. Tell him you want to learn and understand why you do things in an airplane, try not to be confrontational. If it is not unsafe or illegal it is good to operate the way the owner wants. Hope this helps.

Tim

Honestly, I would read the POH and stick by it. If it says no flap extension above 85 then Cessna says that for a reason. Put it this way, if it says a max if 3.4 Gs, would you pull 5Gs just cause the owner says it fine? Or push it to 210mph in a dive if the red line is 190mph?
The high speed flap is probably not as extreme an example as the other 2, but when it comes down to it you are the PIC and responsible for your and others lives. Id hate to lose a flap on one side at low altitude. IMHO, Cessna has limitations on its aircraft for a reason. And I try to follow them as best I can, my plane or not.
David

Rob wrote:Flaps?

Had a feeling that wouldn't last long.

Funny...a C-172 N is ridiculously easy to slow down without the use of flaps anyway. Just pull the power and maintain level flight and you will rapidly slow down. No need to abuse the aircraft at all.

littlewheelintheback I agree pull power and hold level flight you slow down quick. we where pretty high so I think in his mind we weren't going to make the field if I wasn't always going down. I could have landed half way to the runway if I slow down to 55 knts and kept it there I like steep approaches cause if anything goes wrong I KNOW I can make the field just drop flaps and your good. just saying flying final at 78 knts and full flaps won't let you use the drag that the flaps give for a steep approach.

If you can drop 40* of flap at 85, surley you can drop 10* at a much higher air speed.

Zzz wrote:

Rob wrote:Flaps?

Had a feeling that wouldn't last long.

It was a pretty good one

I go more by the feel of the resistance on the flap handle than the air speed. I am sure there is a pretty direct relation between the two, but I don't need to be focused on the airspeed. When I can increase the angle of the flaps w/o much resistance then I do.
Gary

Flaps?

They make planes w/o flaps?