Slip with full flaps in a B model

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Richard there is never a reason to slip a 170B with the big flaps all the way out at 40 degrees. If you are high just pull the throttle and push the nose over. It takes an extremely steep dive to start picking up airspeed and so what if you do. I will push over and lose 100 feet in a heart beat and maybe pick up 5 mpg depending on how steep I do it and any extra airspeed will bleed of quickly once the nose is backup with the barn doors out. Of course like any slip technique there are limits to the diving technique but I'll bet I can match any 170A slip. Heck a B model can slip just as well as an A model when the flaps aren't deployed. (makes me want to fix mine pronto just to show you)

Once again pilot skills with which ever model is being flown far out weigh any advantage you might think either model has.

[Brad Brady]

Richard there is never a reason to slip a 170B with the big flaps all the way out at 40 degrees. If you are high just pull the throttle and push the nose over. a B model can slip just as well as an A model when the flaps aren't deployed. (makes me want to fix mine pronto just to show you)
Once again pilot skills with which ever model is being flown far out weigh any advantage you might think either model has.

Very well put, Bruce, Really there is no reason to slip a B model with 30 degrees of flap! After a student has gotten a certain amount of skill, I always have them set up a landing, somewhere between 200 and 300 feet higher than their normal approach. Then I pull the engine and say "your a glider, what are you going to do?...." I want to get on that airstrip! We use 40 deg. for speciality landings,(usually with power...short field over an obstacle and such) and I want to see if they will deploy 40 deg. for this landing, or slip (which is acceptable to me , IF DONE CORRECTLY) Normally I teach 30 deg. landings.....Dad never uses more than 20 deg. Which as you mentioned is pilot preference (skill). What ever the outcome, I always take them up for another run, and set the same landing up. I then deploy 40 deg. flaps and say," just point it at the end of the runway". Normally they wind up making the best short field landing they have ever done......Brad

[GAHorn]

A B-model will out-slip any A-model. All one has to do is deploy either 20 or 30 flaps and have at it.

.... I will ...maybe pick up 5 mpg depending on how steep I do it ....

I don't know how Bruce gets 5 more miles per gallon by deploying full flaps unless he's pretty high. (which might explain it, now that I think about it.)

[hilltop170]

Good conversation, I was just dragging a stick down the fence to see if anyone would come out barking.

With all honesty I can say I regularly wish I had big flaps on the 170. After getting used to the 180, they are missed.

But, the 180 WILL get off shorter than it will land. I would think a big-engined 170 would do the same.

[jrenwick]

The '56 170B owner's manual, in various places, says "40 degrees" or "as desired" for flaps on landing. I couldn't find any specific recommendation for landing with less than 40 degrees of flaps out.

Note: for those with STOL wings on 170Bs (I have the Horton version), I've found that the use of full flaps, especially in gusty conditions, will kill the tendency of the airplane to go flying again after landing. Having finally figured that out, I now use full flaps on every landing.

[GAHorn]

I was fairly active as a CFI in the Houston area and clearly recall a GADO inspector lecturing on this subject in 1972. (I seem to recall his primary experience had been in military aircraft, and his previous work-related experience was with TTA (Trans-Texas Airlines, nee Continental.) For many years in the early '70's the FAA made blanket recommendations that ALL landings should be performed in all airplanes with full flaps deployed. This raised quite a stir in some CFI circles who were teaching crosswind techniques in light airplanes. By the later 70's, and after a rash of accidents blamed on pilot error (failure to maintain flying speed / loss of directional control), FAA ceased to make specific recommendations regarding flying techniques and resorted to more generic statements focusing on currency and training, (about the same time as the biennial flight review reg was issued.)

My own preference in the B-model is landing with 30 degrees flaps, unless heavily loaded and then I use 40 degrees. I've found that landing 40/full flaps when lightly loaded makes sweet touchdowns more difficult, as the speed decays so rapidly in the "flare" that I find myself wanting a bit more time to finesse the touchdown. Of course, this makes for slightly longer rollouts but I'm never on runways so short as to make it a problem. (I almost never land on anything less than 3,000' anymore.)

[canav8]

Richard there is never a reason to slip a 170B with the big flaps all the way out at 40 degrees. If you are high just pull the throttle and push the nose over. It takes an extremely steep dive to start picking up airspeed and so what if you do. I will push over and lose 100 feet in a heart beat and maybe pick up 5 mpg depending on how steep I do it and any extra airspeed will bleed of quickly once the nose is backup with the barn doors out. Of course like any slip technique there are limits to the diving technique but I'll bet I can match any 170A slip. Heck a B model can slip just as well as an A model when the flaps aren't deployed. (makes me want to fix mine pronto just to show you)

Once again pilot skills with which ever model is being flown far out weigh any advantage you might think either model has.

Boy I wish I could push the nose over and pick up 5 miles per gallon...LOL Good one Bruce

[170C]

Bruce, a guy just can't get any respect around these folks these days

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Bruce, a guy just can't get any respect around these folks these days

Yea Frank, you'd think anyone who can get 5 mpg just by lowering flaps would be held in higher regard.

[DaveF]

Do you B model guys ever really have the need to slip with full flaps? In the C-180/185, I have never needed to slip with full flaps. Just slow down and they will bring the plane down right now.

There's no need to slip with full flaps. As people here have pointed out, there are other effective ways to lose altitude quickly. I came to the 170 from airplanes that didn't handle nicely at low speeds, so I slipped. Now I either slow down as you said, or point the nose down as Bruce said. Either way the descent rate is high. Each technique takes a different method for getting off the elevator and onto the runway. If descending at low IAS, don't wait too long to get the nose down because descent rate will increase before it decreases. If descending nose-down you can wait to flare until you're in ground effect.

[flyguy]

Good conversation, I was just dragging a stick down the fence to see if anyone would come out barking.

With all honesty I can say I regularly wish I had big flaps on the 170. After getting used to the 180, they are missed.

But, the 180 WILL get off shorter than it will land. I would think a big-engined 170 would do the same.

OK RISHARD, IMA GONNA BARK SUM NOW AN IF U STIK IT THRU THE FENCE I MITE BITE IT OFF - -OKAY THE STIK URE DRAGIN LONG THU FENCE.

I will bet you money that I can land almost any 170B lots shorter than the distance it takes to take off. When we were hangared at K59 in Atchison KS, I had a friend with a J-3. We spent lots of hours "playing" with the planes. At that airport, we had a grass strip right alongside the 3000' paved runway. We would stage side by side and blast off. The J-3 would be airborne in about 200' - 250' but my '52B would take 450' - 500' using the "sock-in -the-flap" technique. Of course as soon as the 170started climbing it would leave the J-3 behind. We then would come round to land and with the 170's barn door flaps hanging out, Clevlands on the mains and the stall horn tweeting < < <, Many times I could be turning around short of the second runway light. I could land and stop about 100' shorter than the Cub. All this is not what a standard approach calls for but the potential is avialable nevertheless. Never got to play with a 180 so you have the edge on me there.

[GAHorn]

Ol' Gar's B-model also lands L O N G E R than anyone else's.

Last time it landed was about 5 years ago and hasn't taken off since!




Paul Wood gives him a close-second, tho'. The other day Jim "Wildman" Wildharber told me he was considering
a project-plane that has sat in a barn for years, and he engaged me in a conversation about how to evaluate it and
estimate how much money it might swallow before it's out of the barn again. I referred him to the guys with the most experience in the club with "barn swallows" .... Ol' Gar and Paul Wood!

[hilltop170]

I will bet you money that I can land almost any 170B lots shorter than the distance it takes to take off.

Right! That's what I said! Referring to a stock engined 170, they all will land shorter than they can take off.

What I also said is I believe a 170 with a big engine could take off shorter. I still think a 210hp Cont. IO-360 or 220 Franklin or maybe even a 180 Lyc could do it. But since I do not have access to one, it's just an opinion. I was hoping someone with the big engine conversion would speak up one way or the other.

[cmsusllc]

I was playing with this a couple of weeks ago, just before I put the new tires on. With 180 horse LYCOMING and less than 1/2 fuel I'm in the 350 foot takeoff range @ 250 foot elevation. I think I've figured out how to improve on that but haven't had the opertunity to try again. Wheel landings with power on and being careful are about 400 feet but those pesky runway end lights buffalo me, I know I can improve on that but heck, I'm still learning. Also I have 800 tires and the brakes don't work as well as 600's. A wheel landing is at least 50 feet shorter than a three pointer cause of the brakes.
Now again i'm still learning so don't pick on me too bad.
Scott.....53B

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Now again i'm still learning so don't pick on me too bad.
Scott.....53B

If your wheel landing shorter than you can three point you need practice. (was that too bad?)