Flaps-down G limits?
Thread Starter
Flaps-down G limits?
I could have posted this on the Questions forum, but I figured that there are enough knowledgeable people on this forum and that the answer would be of interest to PPLs.
Why is the flaps-down G limit for most (all?) aircraft restricted to +2.0 to 0.0 G? I am particularly interested in the reason for prohibiting negative G.
These limits apply to all the light aircraft that I have flown and I see that it also applies to transports - the 737 for example. I have done some Internet research, but haven’t found any conclusive information.
Another related question concerns the ASI white arc. Is the flap limiting speed (Vf?) applicable to all flap deflections? I have always assumed it is.
Why is the flaps-down G limit for most (all?) aircraft restricted to +2.0 to 0.0 G? I am particularly interested in the reason for prohibiting negative G.
These limits apply to all the light aircraft that I have flown and I see that it also applies to transports - the 737 for example. I have done some Internet research, but haven’t found any conclusive information.
Another related question concerns the ASI white arc. Is the flap limiting speed (Vf?) applicable to all flap deflections? I have always assumed it is.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
If the flaps are up, they can flex across their chord, along with the wings and their associated hinge points because they all lie in the same orientation. If they are down, when the wings flex, the hinge points will move with the wing but the flaps won't bend because they are not in the same orientation. This will put a big load on the hinge points.
Try simulating this using a sheet of paper. It all flexes very easily. If you crease a third of it, lengthways to make a "flap" and then "lower" the flap and try flexing it again, the paper will crumple along the bend.
P.S. EMUAS Rule OK!
Try simulating this using a sheet of paper. It all flexes very easily. If you crease a third of it, lengthways to make a "flap" and then "lower" the flap and try flexing it again, the paper will crumple along the bend.
P.S. EMUAS Rule OK!
Moderator
The plus 2, minus zero G limits for flaps extended are based upon the certification requirement. I'm sure that a wise aeronautical engineer back in the day realizes that there is no plausible reason to deliberately enter negative G with the flaps extended, nor be pulling more than 2G. That said, the airframe will withstand more, it is just not needed for certification.
The plus 2, minus zero G limits for flaps extended are based upon the certification requirement. I'm sure that a wise aeronautical engineer back in the day realizes that there is no plausible reason to deliberately enter negative G with the flaps extended, nor be pulling more than 2G. That said, the airframe will withstand more, it is just not needed for certification.
G
Originally Posted by India Four Two View Post
Another related question concerns the ASI white arc. Is the flap limiting speed (Vf?) applicable to all flap deflections? I have always assumed it is.
Vfe is the limit with (full) flaps extended. Many aircraft allow partial flaps at higher speeds. Those limits will be on a panel placard.
Another related question concerns the ASI white arc. Is the flap limiting speed (Vf?) applicable to all flap deflections? I have always assumed it is.
Vfe is the limit with (full) flaps extended. Many aircraft allow partial flaps at higher speeds. Those limits will be on a panel placard.
EASA Certification Specifications provide for multiple markings on the white arc to show Vfe for different flap settings.
Last edited by Jim59; 27th Jun 2020 at 11:03.
Sensible answers so far, although nobody has mentioned spanwise lift distribution, which gives a discontinuity (stress concentration) at the flap end. Multiple stress cases are a bore....
I haven't seen the term spanwise load distribution in a while...some old stuff I wrote about spanwise load distribution hopefully nothing is wrong and maybe a little helpful
Effect of Span-Loading on Aircraft Performance
Effect of Span-Loading on Aircraft Performance
[QUOTE]With the large nose down pitching moments from the flaps the tail balancing loads are increased. Can be a critical design case for the tail structure.[/QUOTE]
If you’ve ever flown an Aztec or a Cessna 152, you’ll be surprised that they both pitch up quite strongly when the flaps are initially extended.
If you’ve ever flown an Aztec or a Cessna 152, you’ll be surprised that they both pitch up quite strongly when the flaps are initially extended.
Not really a surprise, just the transient vs the steady-state case. Flaps mostly (nearly always) produce a steady-state nose-down trim change, but in some aircraft there is a transient nose-up trim change due to a combination of a variety of factors ranging from the changing downwash over the tailplane to the different pitching moment of the flapped airfoil. The transient effects are (as always) less noticeable on larger aircraft because the greater moments of intertia damp the transient before it can do much.
I was always taught to hold the pitch attitude with stick pressure and then retrim once the transient had subsided - I always assumed this was universal.
PDR
I was always taught to hold the pitch attitude with stick pressure and then retrim once the transient had subsided - I always assumed this was universal.
PDR
wave turbulence. Often needed to get rid of flaps fast - those cantilevered flap hinges produced large twisting loads.
I also get those flaps retracted at the speed of light as soon as I recognize it.
Thread Starter
Lots of interesting input. This was obviously a question that was lurking and just waiting to be asked!
Thanks Pilot DAR (and GTE for the follow up). There is an analogous situation with demonstrated crosswind velocity in gliders. The regulations require demonstration of satisfactory landing characteristics up to 0.2 Vso. Given the generally low stall-speeds of gliders and the unwillingness of manufactures to spend more money than is necessary during certification, we end up with ludicrously low demonstrated crosswind values in the POHs. For example, the Flight Manual of the DG1000S that I fly has this in the Limitations section:
However, later on in the Normal Procedures section, we have this informative but at the same time useless wording:
PDR1 wrote:
The C182 that I used to fly required a strong push and lots of nose-down trimming when going from zero to 40º flap. Are you saying that if I didn't push, it would have eventually stabilized in a nose-down attitude? I can't do a test, because it was written off last year.
I'm sure that a wise aeronautical engineer back in the day realizes that there is no plausible reason to deliberately enter negative G with the flaps extended, nor be pulling more than 2G. That said, the airframe will withstand more, it is just not needed for certification.
2.12 Crosswinds
The demonstrated crosswind velocity is 15 km/h (8 kts.) according to the airworthiness requirements.
The demonstrated crosswind velocity is 15 km/h (8 kts.) according to the airworthiness requirements.
4.5.1 Launch
... Take-off with strong crosswind is possible.
... Take-off with strong crosswind is possible.
Not really a surprise, just the transient vs the steady-state case. Flaps mostly (nearly always) produce a steady-state nose-down trim change, ...
Moderator
Are you saying that if I didn't push, it would have eventually stabilized in a nose-down attitude?
Though some Cessna POH's state that it is possible to actually flare and land without an elevator input, I've only once done this, while flying with a skilled safety pilot, who was about to take over and land, as I did not have my hands on the control wheel at all. Getting to the top of the flare with no elevator control is relatively easy, flaring not so easy....
The C182 that I used to fly required a strong push and lots of nose-down trimming when going from zero to 40º flap. Are you saying that if I didn't push, it would have eventually stabilized in a nose-down attitude? I can't do a test, because it was written off last year.
PDR