huv wrote:
And while the speed bleeds off, the nose rises, and the tail gets close to the ground.The stall happens at a more nose-up attitude with flaps up than with flaps down – that’s why tailstrikes are often related to flaps-up landings.
You can do the same with a C-172, and it’s done all the time. The tie down hook in the tail hits the ground and is pushed into the fuselage. In any tail wheel aircraft, you can also land it on the tail wheel first by overdoing the flare. It is a simple matter of landing at the right speed. It is nothing special about the Cirrus, it’s just that it has higher wing loading, and the speed at touch down is much faster than in a Cub.
Another thing is that lots of aircraft have a skid in the tail, so it’s not a problem.
huv wrote:
I guess your question explains the common misconception.
I guess so. Even though I certainly understand the difference between power (required) and thrust (drag), it is not intuitive for me to apply that knowledge.
I think this is about definitions and semantics.
Yes, you can let it float to get the speed down, but if you want to touch down at stall speed, or close to it, you will have a higher angle of attack than with flaps. And that’s the reason why many high performance airplanes suffer a tailstrike at no flap landings if the pilot is not very careful.
From the FAA Pilot Training Handbook:
With the flaps retracted and the power reduced for
landing, the airplane is slightly less stable in the pitch
and roll axes. Without flaps, the airplane will tend to
float considerably during roundout. The pilot should
avoid the temptation to force the airplane onto the run-
way at an excessively high speed. Neither should the
pilot flare excessively, because without flaps this
might cause the tail to strike the runway
LeSving wrote:
It only means you have to keep it floating to get the speed down to something you are comfortable with
And while the speed bleeds off, the nose rises, and the tail gets close to the ground.
The stall happens at a more nose-up attitude with flaps up than with flaps down – that’s why tailstrikes are often related to flaps-up landings.
huv wrote:
“And of course a high performance wing like the SR2x’s needs a much higher AOA when you land it without flaps.”Yes, exactly.
Nonsense. It only means you have to keep it floating to get the speed down to something you are comfortable with. The wing is optimized for cruising at high speed at high wing loading (relatively speaking), and is good for nothing else.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
