Pilot_DAR wrote:
The flaps on a 172 create both drag and lift. Yes, they will act as brakes, and while doing that, create more lift, particularly if you’re carrying extra speed. It’s no wonder that 172’s are labeled as “floating” planes, ‘cause pilots keep approaching too fast, and then wondering why it does not want to land!
Yes, but if you can bleed off speed quickly using the flaps by reducing power and/or diving. Of course not during the flare, but certainly on short final.
Airborne_Again wrote:
you can bleed off speed quickly using the flaps by reducing power and/or diving
It’s difficult to bleed off speed by diving a plane. Yes, you can (and probably should have already) reduce power, I generally fly power low, or off approaches if they are high, or were fast to begin with. My discussion of speed control is from the aerodynamic perspective only. Indeed, on very cold winter days, I’ll often fly a fully slipped approach and keep the power up, to prevent shock cooling, and keep the engine warm – just in case!
But, in the mean time, I discourage varying pitch attitude more than needed for speed control. Yes, a gradual pitch up is required to slow and flare, and the pitch attitude will vary with flap position, but other than that. I don’t want to see the nose bobbing up and down, it’s poor glidepath control discipline. Also, there are inertial delays in speed change, which will lead to chasing pitch to achieve the desired speed, and too much eyes in trying to read the ASI to see what’s going on. On the other hand. while slipping, the pitch view remains mostly constant, speed generally unchanged, and the required correction to exit the slip is entirely obvious. If the crosswind has been considered well, and the slip direction is correct, you will have built in crosswind control. This builds confidence in handling crosswind landings.
I find that pilots often fly a plane within a seemingly self imposed “box” of handling limitations. That’s okay, and it’s wise to know one’s limitations, but hopefully, a pilot will cautiously, and with mentoring, expand out their personal limitations to be close to those of the aircraft they fly. Many’s been the time while I’ve been flying with/mentoring/flight testing with another pilot in a single Cessna, the other pilot has exclaimed “I didn’t know it would do that!”, while I flew the plane within it’s limitations. A few of these were effective sideslips right onto the surface during a landing, straightening out, only after the first mainwheel touched. The airplane certainly did not bounce! It seems weird to touch down with the rudder hard to a stop, but in wet grass, it’s not a problem. I’ve also had to do that crosswind testing. The most rigorous testing was two different Cessna Caravan projects on wheels. In a 19G25 direct crosswind one day, and another time 40kts at 45 degrees, with external additions to the aircraft, when I landed multiple times with full rudder, full flaps, and keeping the wings level as I touched, I was sideslipped! I chirped tires, but did not bounce! This may similarly be the case landing a floatplane or ski plane in a crosswind, where the plane must be aligned with the direction of landing, but landed on one float/ski first, so held wing low cross controlled.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
It’s difficult to bleed off speed by diving a plane.
Drag increases as speed increases. When you dive a C172 speed will increase, of course, but with full flaps not that much and it will bleed off very quickly as you regain your descent path.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Drag increases as speed increases. When you dive a C172 speed will increase, of course, but with full flaps not that much and it will bleed off very quickly as you regain your descent path.
Is true, though that is a demonstration of an unstable approach. If the approach is being continued from poor positioning already, that’s one thing, destabilizing it more, will not improve the safety of the approach. It is possible to exceed Vfe in a 172 if you’re not attentive, and destabilizing an approach is a good way to reduce attention to details in the approach.
In a C172, 3 flaps and 80kts should get you back to the glide path but not sure if you want that configuration when flat in ground effect just passing the threshold on a small runway?
What I found is that you tend to bleed a lot of speed when flaring from a steep and descent descent without power or cutting power before entering ground effect, any other techniques after will not allow you to bleed that much later at 10ft while on ground effect
On a flapless C172, you only need 1200rpm to maintain level flight in ground effect while you will probably need 2/3 of max power to maintain S&L in cruise, so if your aircraft idles at 1000rpm you probably need to shutdown the engine to land flapless/sideslipping
80kts and 100fpm will not end well, 80kts and 800fpm should be ok !
“demonstration of an unstable approach”
“A stable approach is when the aircraft energy (kinetic, gravitational potential, with chemical/electrical available) at any point is what the pilot planned at that point.”
Discuss 
Ibra wrote:
On a flapless C172, you only need 1200rpm to maintain level flight in ground effect while you will probably need 2/3 of max power to maintain S&L in cruise, so if your aircraft idles at 1000rpm you probably need to shutdown the engine to land flapless/sideslipping
Puzzled look on my face….
I was just referring to the case where you find it hard to land without flaps/side-slipping?
Probably, you did not check well where it does idle when doing power checks 
Maoraigh wrote:
“A stable approach is when the aircraft energy (kinetic, gravitational potential, with chemical/electrical available) at any point is what the pilot planned at that point.”
You mean “the right mix at that point”, the total should be roughly the same, if you mix/transfer too much you may need to add a bit of luck as well
Probably, you did not check well where it does idle when doing power checks Quote
Still puzzled face….
A C 172 will not fly in stable flight in ground effect at 1200RPM with any flap setting, it’ll settle. A landing with zero flaps, and no sideslip will work fine, though will be best with a more shallow approach, slightly faster speeds, and take more ground run. No problem, if you plan for it.
A 172 engine turning at 1000 RPM in flight is not producing any appreciable power, so it’ll be about the same as having the engine not running.
Ibra wrote:
You mean “the right mix at that point”, the total should be roughly the same,
During an approach, I would rather that the total energy would be deceasing at a rate I intend, terminating in it being insufficient for sustained flight, a couple of inches above the ground, at my intended touchdown zone. If the total energy were to be the same during the approach the plane will only touch down too fast, and forced on. Doing that is the main cause of bounces.
