Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site laidbak.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!laidbak!jeq
From: jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: re:spins
Message-ID: <202@laidbak.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 7-Sep-85 21:37:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: laidbak.202
Posted: Sat Sep  7 21:37:25 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Sep-85 01:44:08 EDT
References: <1841@bmcg.UUCP>
Reply-To: jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist)
Organization: LAI Chicago
Lines: 23
Summary: 

In article <1841@bmcg.UUCP> fredc@bmcg.UUCP (Fred Cordes) writes:
>The main point is that 40 degres flaps on a C150
>supposedly blocks the tailplane and can cause loss of control authority.

This is also true of 172's.  I recall reading that this
is the reason that newer 150's, 152's and 172's have
only 30 degrees of flaps available.
I believe it was the 172-N that first had the restricted flaps;
I'm pretty sure I've flown that version both ways.
I just purchased a 172-B (1961 model).
At the end my first flight in the beast, I pulled
flaps as usual (with the exception that it has manual
flaps, not electric) on approach.  I was a little high
on short final, so I pulled the last 10 degrees (to 40).
The immediate reaction was that the tail kicked off to one side.
I had no desire to experiment with rudder authority at 150' AGL,
so I went back to 30 degrees and suddenly everything
straightened right out...
The Moral:  *Always* learn the craft's behavior at altitude.
(Full flaps stalls was the one thing I hadn't tried.)

Jonathan E. Quist
ihnp4!laidbak!jeq