FLYBE EMB195 Flapless landing
 

EMB195 made a '0' Flap landing into Blefast Aldergrove last night, after TOTAL flap failure. Diverted into Aldergrove en-route to the city airport.
Apparently relatively fast approach (170kts ish), no tyres burst though!!
Well done to the crew:}

I am only a Cessna and Cherokee driver and practise flapless landings all the time. They are not a big deal

I'd be seriously worried if a flapless landing taxed these guys too much.

May a greater expert than I correct me if I am wrong.

DGG

Dave,
The swept back wing on jets is designed for high speed flight and not so suitable for the slower approach speeds. A compromise must be reached for the approach speed, high enough to keep away from the stall, lower than the tyre limiting speed and low enough to avoid the brake energy limits. A flap failure can also be one of the effects of a larger systems problem e.g. a hydraulic system failure. The formula 1/2mv^2 should give you an idea of the increased energy taken onto the ground. 35000kg and 87.5 m/s (170knots) if you want to throw some figures together, takes a fair amount of stopping

Cyclone

Thank you for the helpful comments following my post.

Bearing in mind the hilarious "Pilots Only Forum" thread that has been running thse last few days, you reminding me of the excellent reasons why we should all be able to post together.

As the difference between the "correctly flapped" and unflapped landing speeds is probably nearly the entire clean stall speed of my steed (circa 50 kts), then runway length is obviously far more critical.

I guess from a piloting perspecive, assuming you can find a strip long enough, the landing isn't any more taxing though ????

DGG

Dave, it depends:ok:
It is different thought, and by definition, not normal....so it is more of a challenge..with the added bonus of a lot more energy to get rid off before running of the end of the smooth concrete bit.

Well done to the Flybe chaps/chap'es's

Not to mention the high body angle in that configuration, making the runway rather difficult to see during the latter stage of the approach.

yeah,
You sure as hell don't want to flare much and the 'hold off' is non existant as you are eating runway at a most impressive rate !

does the emb 195 have leading edge devices of any sort? were they working?

never been to the UK, but surely there must be some military bases which have extra long runways...over 10,000 feet?

the first time I saw an emb 170/95 series plane was in Virginia...demo for a big airline and yes, the flaps were broken. I said: we shouldn't buy this thing if the demonstrator breaks down like that...of course the big wigs bought it anyway.

sevenstrokeroll,
Google gives Heathrow runway length at 12800 ft and Boscombe at about 10500 ft, there are another couple of airfields approaching that length, but no guarantee that you'll get the crash cover you need for pax flights at a military airfield

Landing distance as per the QRH ?
It would be interesting to know how "actual" event compared to the sim exercises prior to LST etc.
EGAA a better option than EGAC. Nearest really long runway EGPK of course.
:)

Runway 22(BHD).....about 5994
Runway 25(BFS)..............9120

Over run at BHD and paddle home, think I'd take BFS and a taxi...

I know this is slightly of topic of E170 flap failures, but during the early years of CRJ200 operation, I did more 0 flap landings than I care to remember. The CRJ is a little dinky toy compared to the bigger iron (21.3 ton MLW), but it has no LE devices, so Vref(flap0) @ MLW is 178kts.

Two most difficult things about the landing is keeping the speed down with no drag while staying on the slope and then getting the bloody thing to touch down. It would float till tomorrow if you didn't force it onto the tar.

Landing distances for the CRJ were as advertised in the books, but I can't comment on Embraer figures.

Here's the 195 on approach (to JER); you can see the LEs quite clearly.

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6100190&nseq=3

Just for interest: in normal landing configuration (as in this photo), what would the landing speed be, assuming a full load, zero wind?

As a PA28 pilot, 25 at BFS has lots of room for a flapless landing...;)

However in an E195, at 180kts, and probably a twitchy bum (we're all human after all), I have to say a big well done to the crew...

I know you're all "trained to do it" but nonetheless, a fine display of airmanship from all involved. Well done indeed!

I remeber many years ago watching an Air France 74' land flapless at EGLL - don't know what the speed over the threshold was, but it looked bloody scary :eek:

Also an AOM DC10 at EGKK, remember wondering how the drivers could see the runway, such was the landing attitude.

Flappless
 

Hi Friends,
a flappless landing is a "normal" procedure within the abnormal procedures.
You have to check:
-Landing distance required
-increased speeds
-weather and RWY condition


It is easy to check with the QRH/Emergency checklist.


Take care


(Airline CPT, 8.000hrs)

Embraer 195 has leading edge slats.
If landing was No Flaps then Vref would probably be +30 knots or there abouts. If No Flaps and Stats then much faster, maybe +60 kts.
Much longer runway required, at least double, and then tyre limit speed becomes a problem. Most jets have 195.5 kts (225mph) tyres so if normal Vref is around 130kts then no Flaps and Slats gets a bit close to the limit.
The figures I have used are for A300 but most swept wing Airliners have similar numbers regardless of size.

Hope this helps

I'm trying to see the logic of a Cherokee pilot commenting in a thread about jet flapless landings in a Professional Pilots forum. What relevance is it?

Nope- not there yet. Weird

Well, hopefully they have discovered something about the different aerodynamic characteristics to the straight and swept wing. Not a lost effort after all.