@Aviathor
of course, and that is what I wanted to say. But it can easily happen that you are a bit too slow and at 10.5 degrees AOA you will have a tailstrike. Just ask an experienced Cirrus mechanic. One of the first things they do when they get a new plane in the shop – they check the tail.
Flyer59 wrote:
Just ask an experienced Cirrus mechanic.
I’ll ask @Michael
Flyer59 wrote:
One of the first things they do when they get a new plane in the shop – they check the tail.
I do that as part of the preflight regardless of the type and amazingly I find it scratched on many airplanes, although I am not sure how those scratches actually got there.
But it can easily happen that you are a bit too slow
Yeah, excessively low speed is not a good thing. Get a bit too slow in cruise and you will plummet, all the way down. Got to watch the speedo when flying a plane 
As they say, don’t run out of speed and height at the same time. When landing, running out of the latter is the intention, so you have to look after the former!
Is it difficult to read the ASI in an SR22? If not, why are these hypothetical pilots doing tail strikes?
Aviathor wrote:
I do that as part of the preflight regardless of the type and amazingly I find it scratched on many airplanes, although I am not sure how those scratches actually got there.
Maneuvering the airplane while pushing down on the stab?
172driver wrote:
Maneuvering the airplane while pushing down on the stab?
That certainly is a very plausible explanation on the DA40, although the scratches are longitudinal. Less so on the DA42 although I never tried 
I have a hard time to imagine this can be due to a tail strike though, because in my mind that would create additional damage.
Peter wrote:
Is it difficult to read the ASI in an SR22? If not, why are these hypothetical pilots doing tail strikes?
My guess is that some CRI taught the pilots that they needed a higher AOA when carrying out a flapless landing
Seriously, I think it may reflect that some airplanes are more forgiving of high pitch attitudes on landing and some pilots have gotten used to saving a bad landing by pitching up and pancaking.
yes, that’s a bad habit, but fun to try:and some pilots have gotten used to saving a bad landing by pitching up and pancaking.
The PC12 has decreasing demonstrated crosswind with flaps. This is from the /47E series.
Maximum Demonstrated Crosswind for Takeoff and Landing (not a limitation):
Flaps 0° 30 knots
Flaps 15° 25 knots
Flaps 30° 20 knots
Flaps 40° (landing only) 15 knots
Flyer59 is correct if your aim is to approach the stall on touchdown, and not park it on. The critical AoA reduces with camber, ie flaps, and therefore a flapless landing would require a higher AoA to approach the stall in the flare.
On whether flaps improve climb, the general statement is that they shorten take off roll but degrade rate of climb. However on propeller types, take off flaps will improve obstacle clearance gradient: Vx climb improves, Vy deteriorates.
Airborne_Again wrote:
That means that drag is less with partial flaps than with no flaps. How is that possible?
No. Climb rate is directly proportional to excess power, not to excess thrust. Partial flaps lowers the speed for minimum drag, reducing the power required to overcome drag. (Power = drag x speed.) Thus more power is left for climb performance, even if the drag is increased a little.
I guess your question explains the common misconception.
“So, either the POH is inadequate or pilot training is inadequate.”
It is only partly type specific. In a fully stalled condition, any type will be much closer to tailstrike attitude without flaps than without.
Yes tailstrikes can generally be avoided by not landing to slow if landing flapless. It is a matter of geometric attitude, not of running out of lift and “plummet down”.
On the other hand, tailstrikes can also be avoided by landing flaps down.
“And of course a high performance wing like the SR2x’s needs a much higher AOA when you land it without flaps.”
Yes, exactly.
