Patrol with no flaps

[bergy]

Many Bearhawkers were at OSH last week, so they may not have seen my posting asking if anyone has experimented with landing the Patrol without using flaps.
I am considering turning my Patrol project into a Patrol/LSA hybrid, just to make sure it falls well beneath the 1320# gross weight with two reasonable passengers and some useful fuel.
By eliminating the flaps I could save quite a few pounds. Has anyone landed their Patrol without flaps? If so, how difficult is it?
Your comments are appreciated/

[CharlieZulu]

I can't comment on the flying characteristics, but Merv Hargraves who built my 4 place and has just finished his Patrol did exactly what you are saying. It's flying now, so he could probably fill you in. I don't know if he has an email address, but have his number (in Australia) if you want to get in touch

[bergy]

Thanks ... It might be interesting to chat with him; I can call him on Skype, I think. You can email me directly at bergy@poplar.us if you wish.

[Av8rPaul]

Other than slightly higher speeds with longer take off and landing rolls it shouldn't be any more difficult. I used to own a Citabria 7ECA and flew all over Alaska with it, with some pretty good loads in it too and still went everywhere I wanted to go. I always wanted flaps and a bigger motor, and bigger fuel tanks, but in reality the little bird did just great.

[JimParker256]

I'm flying an older (1965) 7ECA now - the one with the Continental O-200 - and I don't really miss having flaps all that much... Bottom line - I can 3-point the 7ECA and stop within 400 feet from the runway threshold, not quite every time, but about 9 out of ten times. And that's after ~20 hours of tailwheel time... She's still teaching me something on every circuit!

Not sure how much better I might do with flaps... Without them, you learn to slip the plane when you need the steeper approach angle, without gaining too much airspeed when you align it for landing. And it seems that I'm almost always landing in a slip around here - because we ALWAYS seem to have cross-wind...

As a better "apples to apples" comparison, we can look at the results from the Llano, TX STOL competition, Wayne Massey flew both the Patrol (180 hp, CS prop, flaps) and the LSA (100 hp, fixed pitch, no flaps). IIRC, Wayne said he hadn't flown the Patrol for a while, but spent a good bit of time practicing with the LSA prior to the competition. That, and the fact he was flying OPA (Other People's Airplanes) probably caused him to be a bit more conservative than the guys flying their own airplanes with lots of practice time... But at least it was the same guy (albeit a very skilled pilot!) flying both airplanes, on the same day, within a few minutes of each other, so very little "variability" in the results. Here are the results:

Aircraft	Takeoff	Normal Landing	Obstacle Landing
Bearhawk Patrol	189, 210, 234, 246 Average = 220 ft	273, 537 Average = 405 ft	690, 750 Average = 720 ft
Bearhawk LSA	216, 240, 249, 267 Average = 243 ft	321, 348 Average = 335 ft	561, 645 Average = 603 ft

As you can see, even without a lot of practice in the Patrol, Wayne did amazingly well in both airplanes. The additional power of the Patrol gave it a slight edge on the takeoff portion, even though Wayne was a bit more "smooth" in the LSA. When it came to the "normal" landings, the Patrol did a lot better on one landing, but the LSA showed more consistent results. Part of that was a nasty gust that hit just before Wayne touched down on his second landing, requiring adding some power to avoid landing short (and disqualifying) which in turn caused a slight balloon which added at least 150 feet to that landing distance. The interesting part to me was how well the flap-less LSA did over the 50-foot obstacle, with both landings over 50' obstacles shorter than the Patrol's distance. I think Wayne may have been a bit more conservative with the Patrol in this situation, but it goes to show that good technique and consistency is more important than the airplane itself.

In looking at those numbers, I don't think that you would give up little by building without flaps. The weight you save might or might not offset the gains from additional lift & drag the flaps can provide. In either case, both airplanes provide a heck of a lot of performance! I was extremely impressed!

[bergy]

I have very little tailwheel time, some of it 45+ years ago. In the past couple of years I have flown two Citabrias, one with flaps, one without. I did my best landings with the no-flaps aircraft. Admittedly, I had 3000' of runway ahead of me, so I was not worried about keeping things short.

[Av8rPaul]

Generally speaking, no flap landings work very well in a crosswind.

I would think a light Patrol would still be a really good performer without flaps. Here's a video of a Patrol taking off in the bush with little or no flaps.
​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km5HAb1l0kA

[Patrol28]

Jumping on this thread a little late. The flaps was one of the primary reasons I went with a Patrol way back. Now that I'm older my needs have changed and an LSA with a good C-90 is more desirable to me. I owned a flap less PA18-95 in the early '90's and it was a nice airplane but too small for camping gear inside without a lot of mods. I'm going to send for LSA plans and proceed but I know my stock Patrol fuselage is quite a bit heavier than the LSA fuselage. I'm a slow builder, bought my Patrol plans in february, 2002. I do have an Aeronca to fly.