I agree with MTV, Headout, and Barnstormer.

As long as the wing is experiencing the same load in the same direction (such as 1800 lbs at 1g perpendicular to the wing, oriented straight downward in reference to the wing's span, at any constant speed where the wing is not stalled) the wing will not stall regardless of bank angle. Change any of those variables in the equation and you change the answer.

But whether it is or is not possible to bank 60 deg in the pattern is not relevant to how appropriate that maneuver might be. I'll say that it's not in most any situation except an emergency of some sort.

Cstol, I'm sure this isn't what you intended when you started this thread but there's goodness here. A bunch of seasoned folks (and some unseasoned ones like me) are reeling you back in from a level of complacency that you seem to have developed. We're doing it because we don't want to see you get hurt.

We've all been there in one way or another - my reeling in wasn't flying related but it made me analyze the way I approach most everything which included flying. It was unexpected and it was hard to swallow my ego when it happened, but I'm glad it did.

Just my two cents.

What MTV, Headoutaplane, Barnstormer and CamTom12 said is true. To put it simply, fly safe.
But, like most topics on BCP, they can and do change.

The thread cstolcraft stared here was in response to a CFI saying you can't make a 60 degree turn at 60 kt/mph. Which it is possible to do, How it became about a 60 degree turn for landing I don't know... but then I did just say topics here do end up changing some times.

Segway onto the practical application.... at the risk of putting myself out there:

I will use a "steep" turn to final when necessary, and even a turn to "crosswind" once during a challenging departure (never again!). I am talking about a backcountry flying situation which requires it due to the environment, not flying in the pattern with other traffic at a certified runway. My instructors have all been big on putting the plane where you want it, proactively, rather than observing arbitrary bank angle limits.
But oh-boy are there some caveats!

Usually its not as steep as 60 degrees - but sometimes you have no choice but to turn pretty steeply in the backcountry environment. I like to practice for the day I need to save my bacon... just like canyon turns. But it's a useful technique in a steep sided valley, where you have to double back on yourself to get onto final. Practically, it works provided you have enough height and want to lose height during the turn.

I get a lot of value and added safety from my audio AoA (+ visual AoA) indication in the cockpit - with the back-up of a good practical feel for the wing and control pressure limits in slow flight. Without both of the above, I would be limiting myself to shallower turns. Really it's the audio which counts, I don't like to look at instruments when doing steep turns.

Also, because making such a turn on approach to land tends to include a descent, I can end up going faster than 60 kts. That's obviously something I need to manage and work at.

I see using a steep turn as just like using a slip, except you are accomplishing the turn at the same time. It's about doing what you need to, to get the plane where you want it.

I don't want to limit it to 1g, there is really no reason for doing that in a practical sense, provided you observe the safe limits of the wing's performance.

As always, YMMV.

ExperimentalAviator wrote:What MTV, Headoutaplane, Barnstormer and CamTom12 said is true. But, like most topics on BCP, they can and do change.

The thread cstolcraft stared here was in response to a CFI saying you can't make a 60 degree turn at 60 kt/mph. Which it is possible to do, but how it become about a 60 degree turn for landing I don't know... But then I did just say topics here do end up changing some times.

haha it has gotten off a bit from OP, but it is all good. I guess some have taken what I have said to mean I am flying around doing all my pattern turns using 60 deg turns, I DO NOT usually make a habit of doing so. I have done it a handful of times to get comfortable if the need arises, and to have an extra tool in the bag. I probably regularly go a bit over 30 deg but probably 95% of the time never go over 40 deg.

Now as for flaps and slips.... I was taught that they where ok, and was also told of what some people have experienced. During my check ride engine out practice I was a bit high over the target field with full flaps and then used a slip to drop in, the DPE who was a cessna test pilot in debriefing commented on my use of the slip and said he was glad that I had used it because not many new pilots do and it is a effective method to loose altitude. We then had a brief discussion on the placard and he said he had tried to replicate what people had claimed happened and was never able get it to, so he felt it wasn't a big deal to preform slips with full flaps. then if memory serves me when on to say something about lawyers... Some say its ok some don't. The only first hand experience that I was told of was with a glider tow line hanging off the tail and that was by my cfi who taught me it was ok.

Cstol

If, by "unable to replicate," your CFI was referring to the rumor / fact that a 170B can suddenly feel like it just went nose over onto it's back the first time you experience a certain phenomenon, then he was not trying hard enough. I used to consistently use 40 degrees flaps, hard left aileron, full right rudder, and it would feel somewhat like a nose over stall but able to control descent easily at 1,400 Ft. per min. Easy to EASE out from under it. Takes some practice to know just - [How Low Down Can You Go?.]

W

wannabe wrote:Cstol

If, by "unable to replicate," your CFI was referring to the rumor / fact that a 170B can suddenly feel like it just went nose over onto it's back the first time you experience a certain phenomenon, then he was not trying hard enough. I used to consistently use 40 degrees flaps, hard left aileron, full right rudder, and it would feel somewhat like a nose over stall but able to control descent easily at 1,400 Ft. per min. Easy to EASE out from under it. Takes some practice to know just - [How Low Down Can You Go?.]

W

No that was the norm. Except I remember closer to 2k. He said with the tow line it felt like he just dropped 10ft. I understood it as the placard was placed because the tail stalled... only thing I found was high sink rate and a bit of turbulence on the tail felt through the yoke went away when you added about 50rpm and felt very solid just like with no flaps

Head over to the 170 Association's website and do a few searches for slips and flaps.

Particularly with the 170's stubby round tail feathers and barn door 40 degree flaps, the potential exists to completely stall the tail while slipping with full flaps. The event is not described as a slight pitching down that's 'not so bad' or controllable.
It's described as being thrown into the windscreen and standing vertical on the rudder pedals and has been quite deadly in the past.

172's with higher aspect tail surfaces don't seem to encounter the same and the condition and it disappeared when they cut down the rear fuselage for the omni view window and reduced flaps to 30 degrees.

Bagarre wrote:Head over to the 170 Association's website and do a few searches for slips and flaps.

Particularly with the 170's stubby round tail feathers and barn door 40 degree flaps, the potential exists to completely stall the tail while slipping with full flaps. The event is not described as a slight pitching down that's 'not so bad' or controllable.
It's described as being thrown into the windscreen and standing vertical on the rudder pedals and has been quite deadly in the past.

172's with higher aspect tail surfaces don't seem to encounter the same and the condition and it disappeared when they cut down the rear fuselage for the omni view window and reduced flaps to 30 degrees.

And, as I noted previously, be VERY careful transferring information from one platform to another.....as noted here, there are Cessnas and there are Cessnas. Some are okay to slip with full flaps, some not so much. Liability? Maybe. Or maybe not. Are you a member of the International Association of Experimental Test Pilots?

MTV

Back to the original post, a turn to final from base in a contact environment rather than a turn to final from a procedure turn in an instrument environment is a turn to target and not a turn to heading. I get the comfort of PAX concern that might trigger a go around in a downwind base to final turn, but I have never practiced or taught a restriction of bank in a contact environment. It cannot truly be a turn to target, if we worry about the bank angle. We simply turn to target. When low it is critical to get more of the turn accomplished early rather that late so as not to have a wing down when going over wires or other obstructions. When low it is critical to get all the help we can get. That means wind management is important and that allowing the nose to go down in steep turns is important to keep from overloading the wing.

In normal situations at normal airports laid out to FAA criteria, none of the above is usually critical and is seldom considered. I think the question came from cstolaircraft's discussion with another CFI than his usual one. I think cstolaircraft is well on the way to becoming a good missionary pilot and that his original instructor is a good one.

In my humble opinion conformity to PTS or the school solution has increased safety in some areas and has decreased safety in others. The pilots right to choose, in a bureaucracy with a strong pecking order, does not really exist, however.

On the full 40 flaps and slips in 172s, I had long been told that it wasn't allowed. But when I took my first CFI checkride (1977, I think), the Inspector wanted me to make the last approach to landing with full 40 flaps and a full rudder slip. When I balked, he said, "look at the placard", which did not prohibit it, so that's what I did. As the airplane slowed to the final approach airspeed, it started a gentle bucking sort of pitch motion. It was totally controllable, but a little disconcerting that close to the ground.

I have since experienced that gentle bucking under similar circumstances, but only with older 172s with the shorter dorsal fin. I believe it was the L model on which Cessna lengthened the dorsal fin, which was first made in 1971. The 30 degree flap restriction didn't occur until much later, and I understand that was associated more with the 180hp engine option than anything else.

My own airplane, although older (1963 P172D), has the longer dorsal fin as a 337 modification done by a previous owner. With all 40 hanging out and in a full rudder slip either direction, there's no bucking at any airspeed. I've brought the airspeed down low enough to stall in that configuration, and there's no bucking at all. When it stalls, of course, it immediately flops to the opposite bank, and the stall is more pronounced than if it was coordinated at the time.

None of this is applicable to a 170, which for all purposes is a quite different airplane. Its wings are similar to the older Cessnas (pre 1973M without any leading edge cuff), but its tail is different from any 172.

But that's why airplanes have flight manuals and POHs on more recent ones, and mandatory placards. Unless as Mike suggested one is a member of the International Association of Experimental Test Pilots, it's best to follow the restrictions as spelled out in those publications.

Incidentally, there is a conflict between the flight manual and the placards on some older 172s, where the flight manual prohibits full flap slips but the mandatory placard recommends against them. In that case, the mandatory placard takes precedence.

Cary

When I bought my 170 I had 75 hrs. I really took this "No slips with full flaps" seriously, and despite failing to make anything nasty happen trying it at altitude just decided never to do it. If you are so high that you can't get down with 40 degrees of flap in a 170 (you can point it at the ground and it hardly accelerates) do everyone a favour and just go around. Or slip it with 20 degrees and get some really impressive rates of descent.

I think the 170 is a really sweet plane to fly, it just wants to help the pilot.

There have been enough scary stories and fatalities doing this that I just don't see any reason do use it except in an emergency.

Just my 2cents. YMMV.

daedaluscan wrote:"full flaps then throwing in a full slip."
I wouldn't slip the 170 with more than 20 degrees of flap. Lots of stuff on this.

Slipping is a necessary tool when flying a flap-less airplane like a Champ or J3, or a small-flapped Cessna like the 140. But I don't understand why anyone would need to slip a Cessna with 40 degree barndoor flaps. One technique I've learned for losing a lot of altitude is pull full flaps & pull the nose up somewhere between your normal approach speed and stall speed-- you will get a high descent rate on in a big hurry. There's been times I got a late start on a descent into an airport, usually when doing a straight in, and didn't think I was gonna be able to make the landing-- then I not only made it, but made the mid-field turnoff to boot.
Better control than a slip, easier on pax, easy to control the descent rate (add throttle or lower nose). It just works real well. You can even hold the nose up all the way into your landing- just be prepared to add power to cushion the landing or lower the nose to regain enough energy to flare.

Hotrod 180,

I very much agree with this method with Cessnas with 40 degree flaps. The slipping turn to final from a low and fast approach is just laziness with we who fly low all the time. The same as pitching a way too fast helicopter up to an extremely high pitch attitude at the bottom. That was used in Vietnam to limit exposure to enemy fire, but became a bad habit with Army helicopter pilots in the mountains here.

Contact

hotrod180 wrote:

daedaluscan wrote:"full flaps then throwing in a full slip."
I wouldn't slip the 170 with more than 20 degrees of flap. Lots of stuff on this.

Slipping is a necessary tool when flying a flap-less airplane like a Champ or J3, or a small-flapped Cessna like the 140. But I don't understand why anyone would need to slip a Cessna with 40 degree barndoor flaps. One technique I've learned for losing a lot of altitude is pull full flaps & pull the nose up somewhere between your normal approach speed and stall speed-- you will get a high descent rate on in a big hurry. There's been times I got a late start on a descent into an airport, usually when doing a straight in, and didn't think I was gonna be able to make the landing-- then I not only made it, but made the mid-field turnoff to boot.
Better control than a slip, easier on pax, easy to control the descent rate (add throttle or lower nose). It just works real well. You can even hold the nose up all the way into your landing- just be prepared to add power to cushion the landing or lower the nose to regain enough energy to flare.

I agree. Although I've slipped both directions with full flaps at altitude to experiment with the airplane's handling, I think the only time I've slipped to a landing in my airplane was during a BFR some years ago, at the request of the CFII.

Otherwise, raising the nose with 40 hanging out creates an enormous rate of descent. On a different BFR but with the same CFII, he asked me to maintain pattern altitude at KFNL (Fort Collins/Loveland) until over the numbers, then land as short as possible "but don't stall". So I pulled off all the power, dropped 40 flaps, raised the nose to reduce the airspeed (don't now recall what the ASI showed), and we went down very quickly. I lowered the nose to gain a little speed at the end to flare, and we set down somewhere midway between the first hashmarks and the second ones on 33. Sort of elevatorish.

But generally speaking, slipping to a landing in a flap-equipped airplane, or pulling the nose up to go down, should be unusual maneuvers, because they indicate poor planning by the pilot in most cases, and in all cases they're uncomfortable for passengers.

Cary

Great opinions here, as usual.

I always figured I was in the majority with my typical technique, which involves slipping in (to some degree) almost every landing with 20 or 30 degrees of flaps depending on gust conditions. I'm starting now to get the impression that this is sloppy practice.

I think I may just be lazy and the rudder is closer to my foot than the flap handle is to my hand.

Crenshaw wrote:Great opinions here, as usual.

I always figured I was in the majority with my typical technique, which involves slipping in (to some degree) almost every landing with 20 or 30 degrees of flaps depending on gust conditions. I'm starting now to get the impression that this is sloppy practice.

I think I may just be lazy and the rudder is closer to my foot than the flap handle is to my hand.

Well that makes two of us. If I am a little high slip a little low add a hair of power. I have always favored high steep approaches. My motto is engine out you can fix too high you can't fix too low. To this day ever time I fly with a cfi that hates steep slow approaches I can get ok landings. But I am floating 1500 ft down the runway when I could be hitting the numbers flying like I did through my training.

While the stabilized approach is my ideal, the air we fly through isn't static. Sometimes some slip, more or less flap, a touch of power, nose up nose down -- whatever is just the ticket -- it's just about using the options available to us, one of which is to go around if that feels necessary.

With regards to the original point about wing loading/stall -- nothing will bring that lesson home more than some basic aerobatics training. Once you've entered a stall/spin inverted at the top of a loop you pulled too tight, the whole idea of loading/unloading the wing and attitude vs angle of attack becomes a lot more clear.

Oregon 180,

You make a good point about training in unnatural attitudes to emphasize the naturalness of how the airplane responds. It is good to know all the possibilities.

While crop dusting involves only natural attitudes, it may appear acrobatic. The real advantage here, however, is that energy management turns become the normal turn. While this may get the crop duster in trouble around the airport, in the turn to final, it helps out greatly in the low altitude forced landing. It makes either slipping in the turn to get down quicker or skidding in the turn to get the airplane going the right way with the now just available landing zone a nada.

Concurrent, recurrent, normal and specialty training are very helpful, but we generally fly, in an emergency, like we normally fly. This makes it harder to choose our normal procedures. My suggestion, along with the training you suggest and other training, is to investigate different techniques when no PAX are along and it doesn't conflict with traffic. There is no need to stop learning, as you say.

Contact

On my commercial check ride the examiner (who had forgotten more about flying than I will ever learn) asked me during the oral portion "what causes a plane to stall?" If I gave an answer other than "uncoordinated flight" I would have failed the oral.

whynotfly wrote:On my commercial check ride the examiner (who had forgotten more about flying than I will ever learn) asked me during the oral portion "what causes a plane to stall?" If I gave an answer other than "uncoordinated flight" I would have failed the oral.

I would have failed with my answer to that question. Can you elaborate?