Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: re:spins
Message-ID: <4285@alice.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Sep-85 10:20:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.4285
Posted: Mon Sep  9 10:20:33 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Sep-85 04:24:15 EDT
References: <307@gcc-bill.ARPA>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 21

>>Sorry about that last. The main point is that 40 degres flaps on a C150
>>supposedly blocks the tailplane and can cause loss of control authority.

>Hummmm... This might explain why some of the 152's I've flown lately only
>have 30 degrees of flaps (an ECO? ;-). I could have sworn I'd flown 150's with
>a full 40 degrees....

I have never seen a 152 with 40 degrees of flaps.  Nor have I seen
anything in the 150 flight handbook that mentions any problem
with using full flaps.

However, a 150 with full flaps does not climb terribly well; I wouldn't
be surprised if that was the real reason for reducing the maximum
flap extension.  For instance, I was once doing some landings at
Caldwell airport (NJ) when I heard a 172 call in and get clearance
for a tough-and-go.  After the 172 left the ground again, the pilot
discovered he couldn't get the flaps up.  There were four on board.

There were a few rather tense minutes as I circled over the airport
at pattern altitude+800 and the pilot nursed the 172 around the
pattern at treetop level.  This was at night, by the way.