Sign in to follow this  
jamesnixon197

Heavy Landing Configuration?

Recommended Posts

Hi, say if for example we planed our fuel incorrectly and we were landing quite heavy.

Would I use flaps 40 to slow my landing down to make it smoother or would I use flaps 30 to lessen (if that's a word) then amount of lift on the aircraft?

 

Or does it depend on the landing weight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hey James!

 

Personally I would say yeah use 40 flaps! Just also take into consideration what the length of the Runway that your landing on as you may be able to make it on 30 :)

 

Best Wishes

James Diossy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey James!

 

Personally I would say yeah use 40 flaps! Just also take into consideration what the length of the Runway that your landing on as you may be able to make it on 30 :)

 

Best Wishes

James Diossy

Well the runway I'm landing on is 27L at KORD with a size of 2420 m or 7939 ft. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are very heavy and landing distance could be a problem, go flaps 40 for less speed at touchdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use whatever flap setting your performance situation requires.  My personal preference, along with the vast majority of the pilots I fly with, is to land flaps 30 if the situation allows it.  Flaps 40 is recommended if the runway is less than 7000 feet, is wet or you have a tailwind for landing.

 

I landed on 27L at ORD this morning at 142,000 pounds using flaps 30 and easily made the A1 turnoff.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the airport of landing.

 

A common problem with the -800/-900 is being above the approach & landing climb weight limits on arrival at high altitude airports (e.g. Jackson Hole WY - KJAC).  While landing climb is not a limitation with two-engine aircraft, the approach climb requirement with one engine inoperative can limit the landing weight and/or the flap setting used.  These airplanes may need to use Flaps 30 for dispatch and landing in order to meet the performance requirement.  At KJAC, using flaps 30 and at some of the heavier weights used on landing due to fuel tinkering, these aircraft are bumped into approach CAT E for which there are no landing minimums published.

 

Of course, if you have to use flaps 30 it will increase landing distance and required field length.  It is a balancing act between these two weight requirements. 

 

Rich Boll

Wichita KS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the airport of landing.

 

A common problem with the -800/-900 is being above the approach & landing climb weight limits on arrival at high altitude airports (e.g. Jackson Hole WY - KJAC).  While landing climb is not a limitation with two-engine aircraft, the approach climb requirement with one engine inoperative can limit the landing weight and/or the flap setting used.  These airplanes may need to use Flaps 30 for dispatch and landing in order to meet the performance requirement.  At KJAC, using flaps 30 and at some of the heavier weights used on landing due to fuel tinkering, these aircraft are bumped into approach CAT E for which there are no landing minimums published.

 

Of course, if you have to use flaps 30 it will increase landing distance and required field length.  It is a balancing act between these two weight requirements. 

 

Rich Boll

Wichita KS

Interesting take. Is this more inline with the BBJ version ? I ask because the airports mentioned and fuel tankering--does not sound like airline operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting take. Is this more inline with the BBJ version ? I ask because the airports mentioned and fuel tankering--does not sound like airline operations.

No, it is more an airline issue. Airlines tanker fuel quite often especially where fuel cost are high, like JAC. Surprisingly, I hear that SWA tankers quite a large amount of fuel into the hub at MDW because of its high fuel price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about performance requirements. If you can land flaps 30, do that. If you can't, due to runway length and condition, go flaps 40. Topcat should help with this.

 

I have always landed with flaps 30 as my first choice. I'll only use flaps 40 if I have to. Why use extra thrust and fuel just to drag an extra flap setting around when it's not needed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is more an airline issue. Airlines tanker fuel quite often especially where fuel cost are high, like JAC. Surprisingly, I hear that SWA tankers quite a large amount of fuel into the hub at MDW because of its high fuel price.

Thanks good to know !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real airplane handles much better on approach and landing with flaps 30 than it does with flaps 40.  There is a lateral shift in the center of lift as the flaps extend beyond 15.  This combined with the roll spoilers makes the airplane less stable in roll with the flaps at 40.  It's easy to get the airplane into a pilot induced oscillation in roll during a full flap approach, especially if its gusty.

 

At my company we can land with the flaps at 15, 30, or 40.  30 is my normal go-to setting.  40 is when the runway is shorter than 7000 feet, or it's wet, or braking action is less than good, or there is a tailwind.  On the really gusty days if the runway is long enough to allow it I will use flaps 15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this