Three take offs = three landings at Newton MS and Madison MS - Video

[[email protected]]

In this video in 3 minutes you will have endured 3 takes offs and 3
landings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCYjZ-XkPTk

Short field relative to pilot experiences I guess. Figured to go to
Newton and work on a 3000 runway with large trees on the arrival end.
Only thing I can think that triggered the stall horn on short final
for the first approach was windshear which was easily fixed by
dropping the nose.

[Flaps_50!]

On Nov 22, 4:24*am, " > wrote:
> In this video in 3 minutes you will have endured 3 takes offs and 3
> landings.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCYjZ-XkPTk
>
> Short field relative to pilot experiences I guess. *Figured to go to
> Newton and work on a 3000 runway with large trees on the arrival end.
> Only thing I can think that triggered the stall horn on short final
> for the first approach was windshear which was easily fixed by
> dropping the nose.

If you want to make a short field you need to get your touchdown point
much closer to the end of the runway and get that float under control.
You seem to be in a low power steady approach but you should be aiming
to lose speed on short final. This can be achieved by making use of
the back side of the power curve. Try to really land within the short
field specs of the plane i.e. to get her down and stopped by a certain
point on the runway.

Cheers

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 22, 2:21*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> On Nov 22, 4:24*am, " > wrote:
>
> > In this video in 3 minutes you will have endured 3 takes offs and 3
> > landings.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCYjZ-XkPTk
>
> > Short field relative to pilot experiences I guess. *Figured to go to
> > Newton and work on a 3000 runway with large trees on the arrival end.
> > Only thing I can think that triggered the stall horn on short final
> > for the first approach was windshear which was easily fixed by
> > dropping the nose.
>
> If you want to make a short field you need to get your touchdown point
> much closer to the end of the runway and get that float under control.
> You seem to be in a low power steady approach but you should be aiming
> to lose speed on short final. This can be achieved by making use of
> the back side of the power curve. Try to really land within the short
> field specs of the plane i.e. to get her down and stopped by a certain
> point on the runway.
>
> Cheers

The wrong place to lose energy on a short field is in the flare. Get
it slow on short final. Also, although probably not in your manual,
once on the ground get the flaps up -- it puts more weight on the
landing gear and braking is more effective. When I want the wheels on
the runway quickly I bring up the flaps late in the flare (verify
three times you're touching flaps, not gear!). In the Mooney the
flaps are good for reducing stalling speed, they are not like the barn
doors that a 182 has that increase drag, so once they've served their
purpose -- getting me close to the ground with minimal velocity
squared energy -- it's ok to bring them up so as to get down out of
ground effect and be able to use the brakes.

If you want to really polish short field stuff, make a pass or two
over the runway in slow flight, within a foot or so of touchdown. . If
you do that and feel comfortable, cut the power. The airplane will
touch down right now, and you'll probably drag the tail skid a bit.

What I've suggested is not conventional, but it works for us.

[D Ramapriya]

On Nov 23, 1:10*am, a > wrote:
>
> The wrong place to lose energy on a short field is in the flare. Get
> it slow on short final. Also, although probably not in your manual,
> once on the ground get the flaps up -- it puts more weight on the
> landing gear and braking is more effective.

One of my abiding mysteries (probably my first ever post on RAP was on
this yonks ago)... why don't pilots retract flaps immediately
following touchdown and increase weight on the tires for better
braking? Over the years, I've been told that (a) the flaps take far
too long to retract to be beneficial and (b) the drag they produce is
generally more efficient than the corresponding tire braking benefit.

IIRC Bob Moore once told me that on the 727, he always retracted flaps
upon touchdown at the head of the landing roll.

> *When I want the wheels on
> the runway quickly I bring up the flaps late in the flare (verify
> three times you're touching flaps, not gear!)

In the aircraft flight decks I've seen, the landing gear is amid the
glare shield and flaps abeam to the pilot on the pedestal!

Ramapriya

[[email protected]]

On Nov 22, 3:10*pm, a > wrote:

> The wrong place to lose energy on a short field is in the flare. Get
> it slow on short final. Also, although probably not in your manual,
> once on the ground get the flaps up -- it puts more weight on the
> landing gear and braking is more effective. *When I want the wheels on
> the runway quickly I bring up the flaps late in the flare (verify
> three times you're touching flaps, not gear!).

Agree A. I do get flaps up right away after landing and BEFORE
braking. This is actually in the POH. Stopping, I had tons of runway
remaining

My problem I believe is that I was somewhat "intimidated" by the
closeness of trees (not well seen as I cut out that part of the
approach) and need to work on that as well as put it closer to the
numbers like Flaps50 indicated. The video has me higher then normal
on approach then I am used to.

With regards to retracting flaps before touchdown, I won't do this. I
did this once and the plane simply dropped like a rock. My guess is
the I lost the effectiveness of ground effect. Fortunately my gear is
fixed and welded!

[[email protected]]

On Nov 23, 6:05*am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
> Over the years, I've been told that (a) the flaps take far
> too long to retract to be beneficial and (b) the drag they produce is
> generally more efficient than the corresponding tire braking benefit.

The Sundowner has "manual" flaps and retract instantly.

I can see what you say on a Cessna since they take some time to go up,
but my POH actually has the instructions after landing, flaps up, then
braking.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 22, 1:21*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> This can be achieved by making use of
> the back side of the power curve. Try to really land within the short
> field specs of the plane i.e. to get her down and stopped by a certain
> point on the runway.

Not sure how much further I could have gone on the back side of the
power curve flaps. Stall horn was going strong on both landings. Any
slower airspeed and I would have plunged to the ground.

I think your second sentence is the answer, NOT the first one to
correcting the problem I encountered in the video. Problem as I
replied to A was that I was intimidated by the real deal 50 foot
obstacle (AKA trees) causing me to make a steeper then normal descent.

I plan to go back and try this again to keep practicing :-)

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
D Ramapriya > wrote:

> On Nov 23, 1:10*am, a > wrote:
> >
> > The wrong place to lose energy on a short field is in the flare. Get
> > it slow on short final. Also, although probably not in your manual,
> > once on the ground get the flaps up -- it puts more weight on the
> > landing gear and braking is more effective.
>
> One of my abiding mysteries (probably my first ever post on RAP was on
> this yonks ago)... why don't pilots retract flaps immediately
> following touchdown and increase weight on the tires for better
> braking? Over the years, I've been told that (a) the flaps take far
> too long to retract to be beneficial and (b) the drag they produce is
> generally more efficient than the corresponding tire braking benefit.

The only reason I don't retract flaps after touchdown is because I
constantly forget to....

It's very helpful in my glider to do this. Not only does it put weight
on the tire and prevent lifting off again, but it also greatly improves
roll control due to how the flaps and ailerons are linked, which is
important on the ground roll for something with just one tire. And it's
effective immediately because the flaps are directly actuated by the
flap handle, so it takes literally half a second to put them all the way
up. Trouble is, most of the time I don't remember to do this until long
after I've rolled to a stop.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 23, 11:21*am, " > wrote:
> On Nov 22, 1:21*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > This can be achieved by making use of
> > the back side of the power curve. Try to really land within the short
> > field specs of the plane i.e. to get her down and stopped by a certain
> > point on the runway.
>
> Not sure how much further I could have gone on the back side of the
> power curve flaps. *Stall horn was going strong on both landings. Any
> slower airspeed and I would have plunged to the ground.
>
> I think your second sentence is the answer, NOT the first one to
> correcting the problem I encountered in the video. *Problem as I
> replied to A was that I was intimidated by the real deal 50 foot
> obstacle (AKA trees) causing me to make a steeper then normal descent.
>
> I plan to go back and try this again to keep practicing :-)

The thing you may be missing is you are used to flying a certain glide
slope, probably defined by the VASI. On a short field for me at least
the final approach over the obstruction to flare is MUCH steeper. I'm
trading off comfort and some margin for a very short roll-out.

About early flap retraction -- you may have been higher than me when
you brought them up -- also mine are powered, it takes seconds for the
Mooney's to retract, and the M20's wings are very low, ground effect
is there even with flaps up. Doing it my way may only buy 50 feet of
runout -- never tested that, but I know now the nature of the next
flying skills wager that'll happen between me and my flying buddies.
It will have to do with how close to the runway turnoff can we land
and still make the turn. I can see myself dragging it in, hanging on
the prop way on the back side of the power curve, touching down on the
tail skid. I guess we'd have to agree the airplane should be usable
after the landing for the landing to be valid, and no swing wings or
arresting cables allowed (one buddy is ex Navy, he misses the tail
hook).

It could be an expensive way to win a 'burger and a coke.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 23, 11:43*am, a > wrote:

> The thing you may be missing is you are used to flying a certain glide
> slope, probably defined by the VASI. On a short field for me at least
> the final approach over the obstruction to flare is MUCH steeper. I'm
> trading off comfort and some margin for a very short roll-out.

I bet you are right on what I am used to for glide. Instrument world
does make a mess of visual approaches and it's nuances.

Generally I don't miss the VASI or PAPI, as that is how I learned )
keeping the bug spot on the numbers), but what I haven't had much
practice "for real reasons" is that 50 foot obtacle clearance.

Imaginary trees not quite as "intimidating" when the real deal trees
tend to block the lights at approach end of the runway on a low glide
path. :-) and I really didn't feel that low coming into M23 as I would
have made the runway (without the trees) had the fan quit. The last
short field airport I went to was 2700 foot and it was much easier
since there were no obstacles.

So in a nutshell, short fields I can hang with, it's that extra
variable having trees :-) that give it a little extra slam dunking
challenge for me.

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 23, 4:19*pm, " > wrote:
> On Nov 23, 11:43*am, a > wrote:
>
> > The thing you may be missing is you are used to flying a certain glide
> > slope, probably defined by the VASI. On a short field for me at least
> > the final approach over the obstruction to flare is MUCH steeper. I'm
> > trading off comfort and some margin for a very short roll-out.
>
> I bet you are right on what I am used to for glide. *Instrument world
> does make a mess of visual approaches and it's nuances.
>
> Generally I don't miss the VASI or PAPI, as that is how I learned )
> keeping the bug spot on the numbers), but what I haven't had much
> practice "for real reasons" is that 50 foot obtacle clearance.
>
> Imaginary trees not quite as "intimidating" when the real deal trees
> tend to block the lights at approach end of the runway on a low glide
> path. :-) and I really didn't feel that low coming into M23 as I would
> have made the runway (without the trees) *had the fan quit. *The last
> short field airport I went to was 2700 foot and it was much easier
> since there were no obstacles.
>
> So in a nutshell, short fields I can hang with, it's that extra
> variable having trees :-) that give it a little extra slam dunking
> challenge for me.

I can pretty much assure you if you get slow with a steep approach
angle the trees will be less a mind games problem. Come in at a
steeper approach angle, aim for touchdown 1200 feet short of the
turnoff -- you'll be surprised at how easy the short field technique
is. 2700 feet is simply not a short field, I'd be aiming to touch down
1500 feet from the turn off in a routine landing. If you go slower in
effect you'll be flying an approach angle a 172 with some flaps
deployed flies, and if it feels dicey the first couple of times
there's plenty of room for pitching down a bit. Try it at 2000 feet
agl, get a bit slower, then watch airspeed and rate of descent. You're
apt to be surprised at how comfortable you'd be at something a lot
more than 3 degrees.

A final not-in-the-book technique is to carry a bit of a slip down the
center line -- much easier if there's a cross wind -- but the Mooney,
normally a very clean airplane, turns into a pig when flown a bit
sideways.

All of this, of course, assumes one is very familiar with the
airplane. I am very comfortable closer to the edge in my airplane than
I would be in something like a 172, which is a much more forgiving
airplane, unless I had a bunch of recent hours in it. I would not do
any of the things I mentioned with a non pilot aboard, and even with
one who's not a CFI I'd be doing a lot of talking to avoid having the
right hand seat badly stained. After all, I have to get out of the
airplane over that seat.

Had a thought -- be fun to do some of those things with some of the
pseudo pilots who post here aboard. My pre flight check list would
include the challenge "Depends?" with the required response "On".

[[email protected]]

On Nov 23, 3:53*pm, a > wrote:

> A final not-in-the-book technique is to carry a bit of a slip down the
> center line -- much easier if there's a cross wind -- but the Mooney,
> normally a very clean airplane, turns into a pig when flown a bit
> sideways.

I actually considered this slip method and probably would have tried
it had I had some time for a third or fourth approach. I can get
outstanding sink rate with my Sundowner slipping, just seems it's all
or nothing. Either it doesn't want to stop flying (as in the video)
or drops like a man hole cover.

Looking at the raw video, on my taxi back to 13, I counted 7 white
centerline stripes of which 5 were before the taxiway turnoff. Maybe
somebody can calculate the actual distance it took me to do a 180 in
the middle of the 7th stripe? http://www.airnav.com/airport/M23 has a
good picture of the airport and 13 is the left side of the airport
where I landed.

Second landing took longer to stop but I landed pretty close to where
the first landing was.

For me.....

It's finding that happy medium with power adjustments for me. Nose
probably like your Mooney points down with flaps deployed so balancing
that heavy nose with my stabilator at slow speeds gets rather dicey as
when I get behind the power curve, I start losing that stabilator
authority.. Not sure about Mooneys, but I am very forward CG so when
I deploy flaps, my ASI actually will increase slightly due to the
pitch down movement until drag kicks in..

I agree 2700 really not short but it's short relative to this pilots
experience. :-) and even in the video, I had it stopped well within
2000 feet (or less). I just need much more practice around trees!

Never thought of depends as a preflight checklist! I should add it LOL

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 23, 6:04*pm, " > wrote:
> On Nov 23, 3:53*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > A final not-in-the-book technique is to carry a bit of a slip down the
> > center line -- much easier if there's a cross wind -- but the Mooney,
> > normally a very clean airplane, turns into a pig when flown a bit
> > sideways.
>
> I actually considered this slip method and probably would have tried
> it had I had some time for a third or fourth approach. *I can get
> outstanding sink rate with my Sundowner slipping, just seems it's all
> or nothing. *Either it doesn't want to stop flying (as in the video)
> or drops like a man hole cover.
>
> Looking at the raw video, on my taxi back to 13, I counted 7 white
> centerline stripes of which 5 were before the taxiway turnoff. *Maybe
> somebody can calculate the actual distance it took me to do a 180 in
> the middle of the 7th stripe? *http://www.airnav.com/airport/M23has a
> good picture of the airport and 13 is the left side of the airport
> where I landed.
>
> Second landing took longer to stop but I landed pretty close to where
> the first landing was.
>
> For me.....
>
> It's finding that happy medium with power adjustments for me. *Nose
> probably like your Mooney points down with flaps deployed so balancing
> that heavy nose with my stabilator at slow speeds gets rather dicey as
> when I get behind the power curve, I start losing that stabilator
> authority.. *Not sure about Mooneys, but I am very forward CG so when
> I deploy flaps, my ASI actually will increase slightly due to the
> pitch down movement until drag kicks in..
>
> I agree 2700 really not short but it's short relative to this pilots
> experience. :-) and even in the video, I had it stopped well within
> 2000 feet (or less). *I just need much more practice around trees!
>
> Never thought of depends as a preflight checklist! *I should add it LOL

Not wanting to abuse dead horses here, but may I suggest you think a
little bit differently about runways? Don't consider them starting on
the numbers, think about them starting a comfortable distance from
your turn off point -- say, 2000 feet short of it. Then all runways in
your mind's eye are 2000 feet long, with perhaps a mile of over- run
or lead in. You'll fly more and taxi less. More importantly, you'll be
getting off the active sooner, which once every 500 years might save
your life. One caution -- if you're landing at an uncontrolled airport
with a long runway and there's someone at the threshold, be careful. I
tend to fly the approach in that circumstance so that my airplane is
where that pilot might be looking (rather than much higher), then add
power and fly the extra 500 feet (or whatever) down the runway before
touching down.

These are all really minor things, it's asking the usual questions
about what might be done better, and refining techniques. That is
really are what we should look for on RAP: Dudley was the model for
giving that kind of information.

[Mark]

On Nov 24, 3:53*am, a > wrote:
> On Nov 23, 6:04*pm, " > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 3:53*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > > A final not-in-the-book technique is to carry a bit of a slip down the
> > > center line -- much easier if there's a cross wind -- but the Mooney,
> > > normally a very clean airplane, turns into a pig when flown a bit
> > > sideways.
>
> > I actually considered this slip method and probably would have tried
> > it had I had some time for a third or fourth approach. *I can get
> > outstanding sink rate with my Sundowner slipping, just seems it's all
> > or nothing. *Either it doesn't want to stop flying (as in the video)
> > or drops like a man hole cover.
>
> > Looking at the raw video, on my taxi back to 13, I counted 7 white
> > centerline stripes of which 5 were before the taxiway turnoff. *Maybe
> > somebody can calculate the actual distance it took me to do a 180 in
> > the middle of the 7th stripe? *http://www.airnav.com/airport/M23hasa
> > good picture of the airport and 13 is the left side of the airport
> > where I landed.
>
> > Second landing took longer to stop but I landed pretty close to where
> > the first landing was.
>
> > For me.....
>
> > It's finding that happy medium with power adjustments for me. *Nose
> > probably like your Mooney points down with flaps deployed so balancing
> > that heavy nose with my stabilator at slow speeds gets rather dicey as
> > when I get behind the power curve, I start losing that stabilator
> > authority.. *Not sure about Mooneys, but I am very forward CG so when
> > I deploy flaps, my ASI actually will increase slightly due to the
> > pitch down movement until drag kicks in..
>
> > I agree 2700 really not short but it's short relative to this pilots
> > experience. :-) and even in the video, I had it stopped well within
> > 2000 feet (or less). *I just need much more practice around trees!
>
> > Never thought of depends as a preflight checklist! *I should add it LOL
>
> Not wanting to abuse dead horses here, but may I suggest you think a
> little bit differently about runways? Don't consider them starting on
> the numbers, think about them starting a comfortable distance from
> your turn off point -- say, 2000 feet short of it. Then all runways in
> your mind's eye *are 2000 feet long, with perhaps a mile of over- run
> or lead in. You'll fly more and taxi less. More importantly, you'll be
> getting off the active sooner, which once every 500 years might save
> your life. One caution -- if you're landing at an uncontrolled airport
> with a long runway and there's someone at the threshold, be careful. I
> tend to fly the approach in that circumstance so that my airplane is
> where that pilot might be looking (rather than much higher), then add
> power and fly the extra 500 feet (or whatever) down the runway before
> touching down.
>
> These are all really minor things, it's asking the usual questions
> about what might be done better, and refining techniques. That is
> really are what we should look for on RAP: Dudley was the model for
> giving that kind of information.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I find this type of information to be very useful,
and enjoyable to read...at 4 in the morning when
I'd like to be in the air.

Thnx, Mark

[Flaps_50!]

On Nov 24, 5:21*am, " > wrote:
> On Nov 22, 1:21*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > This can be achieved by making use of
> > the back side of the power curve. Try to really land within the short
> > field specs of the plane i.e. to get her down and stopped by a certain
> > point on the runway.
>
> Not sure how much further I could have gone on the back side of the
> power curve flaps. *Stall horn was going strong on both landings. Any
> slower airspeed and I would have plunged to the ground.

Try this: get the nose way up and add say 1/2 power. You've trimmed
for airspeed now with this high attitude so control airspeed with
power and aim point with elevator. You'll be amazed at your approach
angle in this very high drag config. If the stall peeps just open the
throttle a bit and keep that aim point fixed all the way down. Get
used to flying on the throttle with almost second by second subtle
power changes. Now you drop speed by reducing throttle on very short
final to say 10k over Vs. As you round out/flare you will shed energy
very fast as you simultaneously chop the throttle - you should be less
than 3' AGL. The plane will settle firmly onto the mains in a _very_
high nose angle but that's what you want -all the weight on the mains
and no energy left.

Lots of drag is here to slow you down:
The wing really is deeply stalled.
Nose super high adding fuse drag
Lots of elevator trying to keep nose wheel off (the elevator should
end up all the way back -adding even more drag)
With all weight on the mains make those wheels squeal (but don't lock
up)!
The nose wheel only touches when YOU can't keep it off but don't relax
that back elevator -think drag and weight on the mains.

When you do this a few times you will realize that all sorts of new
places are potential landing spots. If you are not comfortable with
the backside of the power curve practice this type of descent at
altitude and note the VSI. Gradually get lower as you get used to the
method and the way your baby responds to throttle.

I'm not an instructor so I could be talking rubbish (perhaps I'm not a
real pilot ;-) One last thing: I learnt from tail dragging -the
landing is NOT over 'til the plane is stopped.

YMMV

Cheers

>
> I think your second sentence is the answer, NOT the first one to
> correcting the problem I encountered in the video. *Problem as I
> replied to A was that I was intimidated by the real deal 50 foot
> obstacle (AKA trees) causing me to make a steeper then normal descent.
>
> I plan to go back and try this again to keep practicing :-)

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 24, 4:43*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> On Nov 24, 5:21*am, " > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22, 1:21*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > > This can be achieved by making use of
> > > the back side of the power curve. Try to really land within the short
> > > field specs of the plane i.e. to get her down and stopped by a certain
> > > point on the runway.
>
> > Not sure how much further I could have gone on the back side of the
> > power curve flaps. *Stall horn was going strong on both landings. Any
> > slower airspeed and I would have plunged to the ground.
>
> Try this: get the nose way up and add say 1/2 power. You've trimmed
> for airspeed now with this high attitude so control airspeed with
> power and aim point with elevator. You'll be amazed at your approach
> angle in this very high drag config. If the stall peeps just open the
> throttle a bit and keep that aim point fixed all the way down. Get
> used to flying on the throttle with almost second by second subtle
> power changes. Now you drop speed by reducing throttle on very short
> final to say 10k over Vs. As you round out/flare you will shed energy
> very fast as you simultaneously chop the throttle - you should be less
> than 3' *AGL. The plane will settle firmly onto the mains in a _very_
> high nose angle but that's what you want -all the weight on the mains
> and no energy left.
>
> Lots of drag is here to slow you down:
> The wing really is deeply stalled.
> Nose super high adding fuse drag
> Lots of elevator trying to keep nose wheel off (the elevator should
> end up all the way back -adding even more drag)
> With all weight on the mains make those wheels squeal (but don't lock
> up)!
> The nose wheel only touches when YOU can't keep it off but don't relax
> that back elevator -think drag and weight on the mains.
>
> When you do this a few times you will realize that all sorts of new
> places are potential landing spots. If you are not comfortable with
> the backside of the power curve practice this type of descent at
> altitude and note the VSI. Gradually get lower as you get used to the
> method and the way your baby responds to throttle.
>
> I'm not an instructor so I could be talking rubbish (perhaps I'm not a
> real pilot ;-) One last thing: I learnt from tail dragging -the
> landing is NOT over 'til the plane is stopped.
>
> YMMV
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> > I think your second sentence is the answer, NOT the first one to
> > correcting the problem I encountered in the video. *Problem as I
> > replied to A was that I was intimidated by the real deal 50 foot
> > obstacle (AKA trees) causing me to make a steeper then normal descent.
>
> > I plan to go back and try this again to keep practicing :-)


Coming down on the back side of the power curve works -- what I'm not
sure about is if aerodynamic losses are as effective as braking once
the airplane has weight on the mains. The more weight the more
effective are the brakes. In the end, we may be talking talking about
a difference of 10 or 20 feet in rollout one way or the other. For
what it's worth, powered slow flight deep in the flare ALWAYS drags
the Mooney's tail skid, then that contact pitches the mains down very
firmly! It feels as if it's dropped on from a foot above the runway.
I'd rather land with the nose still coming up with some elevator left,
but on the other hand never had land off field. I suppose if some
condition forced that I'd do what I had practiced rather than
experiment with something else. The theme of this thread has changed
into encouraging us all to do that practice.

You hinted at tail dragger experience so you would NOT be welcome to
take part in that short field hamburger bet I mentioned earlier
unless your taildragger is a DC 3. . It would be a lot easier just to
send you a gift certificate to Ruby Tuesday's.

[Flaps_50!]

On Nov 25, 1:45*am, a > wrote:
> On Nov 24, 4:43*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 5:21*am, " > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22, 1:21*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > > > This can be achieved by making use of
> > > > the back side of the power curve. Try to really land within the short
> > > > field specs of the plane i.e. to get her down and stopped by a certain
> > > > point on the runway.
>
> > > Not sure how much further I could have gone on the back side of the
> > > power curve flaps. *Stall horn was going strong on both landings. Any
> > > slower airspeed and I would have plunged to the ground.
>
> > Try this: get the nose way up and add say 1/2 power. You've trimmed
> > for airspeed now with this high attitude so control airspeed with
> > power and aim point with elevator. You'll be amazed at your approach
> > angle in this very high drag config. If the stall peeps just open the
> > throttle a bit and keep that aim point fixed all the way down. Get
> > used to flying on the throttle with almost second by second subtle
> > power changes. Now you drop speed by reducing throttle on very short
> > final to say 10k over Vs. As you round out/flare you will shed energy
> > very fast as you simultaneously chop the throttle - you should be less
> > than 3' *AGL. The plane will settle firmly onto the mains in a _very_
> > high nose angle but that's what you want -all the weight on the mains
> > and no energy left.
>
> > Lots of drag is here to slow you down:
> > The wing really is deeply stalled.
> > Nose super high adding fuse drag
> > Lots of elevator trying to keep nose wheel off (the elevator should
> > end up all the way back -adding even more drag)
> > With all weight on the mains make those wheels squeal (but don't lock
> > up)!
> > The nose wheel only touches when YOU can't keep it off but don't relax
> > that back elevator -think drag and weight on the mains.
>
> > When you do this a few times you will realize that all sorts of new
> > places are potential landing spots. If you are not comfortable with
> > the backside of the power curve practice this type of descent at
> > altitude and note the VSI. Gradually get lower as you get used to the
> > method and the way your baby responds to throttle.
>
> > I'm not an instructor so I could be talking rubbish (perhaps I'm not a
> > real pilot ;-) One last thing: I learnt from tail dragging -the
> > landing is NOT over 'til the plane is stopped.
>
> > YMMV
>
> > Cheers
>
> > > I think your second sentence is the answer, NOT the first one to
> > > correcting the problem I encountered in the video. *Problem as I
> > > replied to A was that I was intimidated by the real deal 50 foot
> > > obstacle (AKA trees) causing me to make a steeper then normal descent..
>
> > > I plan to go back and try this again to keep practicing :-)
>
> Coming down on the back side of the power curve works -- what I'm not
> sure about is if aerodynamic losses are as effective as braking once
> the airplane has weight on the mains.

Initiatially the aerodynamic factoers are more important, but keeping
the nose wheel off for as long as possible maximizes braking. Then
again I would bow to higher authority.

>The more weight the more
> effective are the brakes. In the end, we may be talking talking about
> a difference of 10 or 20 feet in rollout one way or the other. For
> what it's worth, powered slow flight deep in the flare ALWAYS drags
> the Mooney's tail skid, then that contact pitches the mains down very
> firmly! It feels as if it's dropped on from a foot above the runway.
> I'd rather land with the nose still coming up with some elevator left,
> but on the other hand never had land off field.

OK. An additional factor is on a rough field the nose wheel is a weak
point so keeping it off may prevent firewall damage.

> I suppose if some
> condition forced that I'd do what I had practiced rather than
> experiment with something else. *The theme of this thread has changed
> into encouraging us all to do that practice.
>

As I see it, being good at short field is a good idea. The iron fairey
can quit at any time... Being able to drop the plane into a small area
adds a lot to my confidence...

> You hinted at tail dragger experience so you would NOT be welcome to
> take part in that short field hamburger bet I *mentioned earlier
> unless your taildragger is a DC 3. . It would be a lot easier just to
> send you a gift certificate to Ruby Tuesday's.

AlI can say is that tail dragging turned my landings from average into
much better than that. I recommend it!

Cheers

[[email protected]]

On Nov 25, 3:31*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> AlI can say is that tail dragging turned my landings from average into
> much better than that. I recommend it!

You cannot compare flight simulation landings with landing a plane in
the outside world. I have done both and speak from experience.

Please preface statements like the above with such caveats as I don't
think A is aware you are not talking from experience of flying a real
plane nor hold a PPL.

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 25, 8:26*am, " > wrote:
> On Nov 25, 3:31*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > AlI can say is that tail dragging turned my landings from average into
> > much better than that. I recommend it!
>
> You cannot compare flight simulation landings with landing a plane in
> the outside world. *I have done both and speak from experience.
>
> Please preface statements like the above with such caveats as I don't
> think A is aware you are not talking from experience of flying a real
> plane nor hold a PPL.

I have no way of knowing the credentials of anyone who posts here, but
we should be intelligent enough to decide if suggestions make sense to
us, even if coming from non-pilots. There are zip lock bags in my
airplane because they are great for people who unexpectedly get motion
sick, and that idea came from a pax who carried some of those, just in
case.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 25, 9:54*am, a > wrote:
> On Nov 25, 8:26*am, " > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 3:31*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > > AlI can say is that tail dragging turned my landings from average into
> > > much better than that. I recommend it!
>
> > You cannot compare flight simulation landings with landing a plane in
> > the outside world. *I have done both and speak from experience.
>
> > Please preface statements like the above with such caveats as I don't
> > think A is aware you are not talking from experience of flying a real
> > plane nor hold a PPL.
>
> I have no way of knowing the credentials of anyone who posts here, but
> we should be intelligent enough to decide if suggestions make sense to
> us, even if coming from non-pilots. There are zip lock bags in my
> airplane because they are great for people who unexpectedly get motion
> sick, and that idea came from a pax who carried some of those, just in
> case.

Suggestions are one thing as he has been giving all along

Saying that he has landed a tail dragger is another or that his
landings have improved without full disclosure is a diservice to those
who may not "know the full story" (readers coming to here for the
first time). :-) How can he recommend something he has never done in
real life? One shoe doesn't fit all.

I have landed tail draggers in a sim with no problems but you wouldn't
want to put your life in me landing a tail dragger in real life. I
can't feel the plane in the seat in of my pants in MSFX which is
paramount for in my eyes for flying and landing a tail dragger. My
tail dragger experiences amounted to turns and straight and level
flight and I barely could maintain coordinated flight without looking
at the TC. He makes it sound in what I quoted that he flies a plane
in real life and it's just as simple as ABC.

As you know, book smarts and street smarts are two different things.
It appears to me flaps has the book smarts but his street smarts are
not up to snuff and sims just don't get him up to speed when sitting
in less then sterile conditions of a desktop computer.

Yes, actually I am a pro sim person, but not for learning how to land
a plane. Mouse inputs don't give you that feel you need before
meeting terra firma.

[Flaps_50!]

On Nov 26, 12:03*pm, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:43:54 -0800 (PST), Flaps_50! wrote:
> > Try this: get the nose way up and add say 1/2 power. You've trimmed
> > for airspeed now with this high attitude so control airspeed with
> > power and aim point with elevator. You'll be amazed at your approach
> > angle in this very high drag config. If the stall peeps just open the
> > throttle a bit and keep that aim point fixed all the way down. Get
> > used to flying on the throttle with almost second by second subtle
> > power changes. Now you drop speed by reducing throttle on very short
> > final to say 10k over Vs. As you round out/flare you will shed energy
> > very fast as you simultaneously chop the throttle - you should be less
> > than 3' *AGL. The plane will settle firmly onto the mains in a _very_
> > high nose angle but that's what you want -all the weight on the mains
> > and no energy left.
>
> > Lots of drag is here to slow you down:
> > The wing really is deeply stalled.
> > Nose super high adding fuse drag
> > Lots of elevator trying to keep nose wheel off (the elevator should
> > end up all the way back -adding even more drag)
> > With all weight on the mains make those wheels squeal (but don't lock
> > up)!
> > The nose wheel only touches when YOU can't keep it off but don't relax
> > that back elevator -think drag and weight on the mains.
>
> > When you do this a few times you will realize that all sorts of new
> > places are potential landing spots. If you are not comfortable with
> > the backside of the power curve practice this type of descent at
> > altitude and note the VSI. Gradually get lower as you get used to the
> > method and the way your baby responds to throttle.
>
> > I'm not an instructor so I could be talking rubbish (perhaps I'm not a
> > real pilot ;-) One last thing: I learnt from tail dragging -the
> > landing is NOT over 'til the plane is stopped.
>
> > YMMV
>
> You need to STFU, Mr. Flight Sim King with no certification.
> --

You are clearly below average intelligence because you presume I'm not
a qualified pilot. A real pilot would know that my advice doesn't come
from simming.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Nov 26, 5:53*am, " > wrote:
> On Nov 25, 9:54*am, a > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 25, 8:26*am, " > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 25, 3:31*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > > > AlI can say is that tail dragging turned my landings from average into
> > > > much better than that. I recommend it!
>
> > > You cannot compare flight simulation landings with landing a plane in
> > > the outside world. *I have done both and speak from experience.
>
> > > Please preface statements like the above with such caveats as I don't
> > > think A is aware you are not talking from experience of flying a real
> > > plane nor hold a PPL.
>
> > I have no way of knowing the credentials of anyone who posts here, but
> > we should be intelligent enough to decide if suggestions make sense to
> > us, even if coming from non-pilots. There are zip lock bags in my
> > airplane because they are great for people who unexpectedly get motion
> > sick, and that idea came from a pax who carried some of those, just in
> > case.
>
> Suggestions are one thing as he has been giving all along
>
> Saying that he has landed a tail dragger is another or that his
> landings have improved without full disclosure is a diservice to those
> who may not "know the full story" (readers coming to here for the
> first time). :-) *How can he recommend something he has never done in
> real life? *One shoe doesn't fit all.
>

Well I think that makes me a more experienced pilot that you 'cos I do
fly a real aerobatic tail dragger and my landing are really quite good
-even tho' I do say so myself (but I still think there's room for
improvement). Listen to my advice -there's real world knowledge
there.

Cheers

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Flaps_50!" > wrote

You are clearly below average intelligence because you presume I'm not
a qualified pilot. A real pilot would know that my advice doesn't come
from simming.

What you have written here has made it painfully obvious that you are not a
real qualified pilot. Quit trying to impress everyone, and fess up.

Better yet, just move on to some other group.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Nov 26, 2:10*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> Well I think that makes me a more experienced pilot that you 'cos I do
> fly a real aerobatic tail dragger and my landing are really quite good
> -even tho' I do say so myself (but I still think there's room for
> improvement). *Listen to my advice -there's real world knowledge
> there.

I'll call you on this.

Why don't you post some of your real world landings outside a desktop
computer so we can give you our analysis since you think you have room
for improvement. Any $50 digital camera will do the trick and You
Tube offers free hosting.

[Franklin[_19_]]

Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:08 -0800 (PST), Flaps_50! wrote:
>
>>>> I'm not an instructor so I could be talking rubbish (perhaps I'm not a
>>>> real pilot ;-) One last thing: I learnt from tail dragging -the
>>>> landing is NOT over 'til the plane is stopped.
>>>
>>>> YMMV
>>>
>>> You need to STFU, Mr. Flight Sim King with no certification.
>>> --
>>
>> You are clearly below average intelligence because you presume I'm not
>> a qualified pilot. A real pilot would know that my advice doesn't come
>> from simming.
>>
>> Cheer
>
> Here's the way this works. When you post, you expose yourself.

Please stop exposing yourself.

> You're so exposed I afear that you will die from it.
>
> Now toddle on back to your joystick and up up and away, FX King!

[Flaps_50!]

On Nov 26, 10:55*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote
>
> You are clearly below average intelligence because you presume I'm not
> a qualified pilot. A real pilot would know that my advice doesn't come
> from simming.
>
> What you have written here has made it painfully obvious that you are not a
> real qualified pilot. *Quit trying to impress everyone, and fess up.
>
>

You ARE AN IDIOT.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Nov 27, 2:50*am, " > wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2:10*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > Well I think that makes me a more experienced pilot that you 'cos I do
> > fly a real aerobatic tail dragger and my landing are really quite good
> > -even tho' I do say so myself (but I still think there's room for
> > improvement). *Listen to my advice -there's real world knowledge
> > there.
>
> I'll call you on this.
>
> Why don't you post some of your real world landings outside a desktop
> computer so we can give you our analysis since you think you have room
> for improvement. *Any $50 digital camera will do the trick and You
> Tube offers free hosting.

I'll think about it, but my ego doesn't reside in posting videos. As
for analysis of my short field I have nothing to learn form you, quite
the opposite really. Can you tell us all why a 3000' sealed runway is
a short field for a sundowner?

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Nov 27, 6:49*am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:08 -0800 (PST), Flaps_50! wrote:
> >>> I'm not an instructor so I could be talking rubbish (perhaps I'm not a
> >>> real pilot ;-) One last thing: I learnt from tail dragging -the
> >>> landing is NOT over 'til the plane is stopped.
>
> >>> YMMV
>
> >> You need to STFU, Mr. Flight Sim King with no certification.
> >> --
>
> > You are clearly below average intelligence because you presume I'm not
> > a qualified pilot. A real pilot would know that my advice doesn't come
> > from simming.
>
> > Cheer
>
> Here's the way this works. When you post, you expose yourself.
>
> You're so exposed I afear that you will die from it.
>
> Now toddle on back to your joystick and up up and away, FX King!
> --

Troll troll troll your boat fat boy.

Cheers

[[email protected]]

On Nov 27, 2:27*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> I'll think about it, but my ego doesn't reside in posting videos.

You are a bunch of horse**** now. Your ego is bigger then the dayem
Good Year blimp If your ego is big enough to make comments on my
short field landings, then you should be good enough to demonstrate to
the readership your skills. After all you said.

>Well I think that makes me a more experienced pilot that you 'cos I do
>fly a real aerobatic tail dragger and my landing are really quite good
>even tho' I do say so myself

Put up or shut up. Show me where the rubber meets the road.
Otherwise you really don't know, and YOU DON'T fly a real plane, do
you? Your landings are not quite good since you don't land a real
airplane.

>As for analysis of my short field I have nothing to learn form you, quite
> the opposite really. Can you tell us all why a *3000' sealed runway is
> a short field for a sundowner?

AS I posted in RAS

Because I don't need to. What difference does it make whether I land
it in 2000 feet or 3000 feet on a 4444 foot runway? What difference
does it make when 99.9 percent of my airports I fly to have 4000 foot
or longer runways on routine cross country flights.

The entire runway in front of me is mine until I clear it. Anybody
behind me will just have to go around if I am not cleared it. I don't
need to be a hero for anybody behind me in preventing a go around.
This privilege is backed by FARS / AIM even at airports with LAHSO
operations where I don't have to accept them.

Most importantly, why should I push the safety envelope THAT I
DETERMINE as PIC, The aircraft manufacturer determines the aircraft
minimums, NOT THE PIC's minimums.

You apparently fail to understand the human nature of flying so you do
have LOTS TO LEARN FROM ME. As an example, everybody can swing at a
90 mph fast ball, but not everybody will hit the ball. Same with
landing an airplane. Everybody can try
to shoe horn a plane into the minimums that the manufacturer
determines but not everybody can do it. I determine as PIC what is
safe, not the manufacturer. There is no room for error when you final
approach speed is faster then most highway speeds.

If you think MSFX simulates short field landings, you are sadly
mistaken. You apparently haven't been near a tree in a real plane to
understand exactly what I am talking about. You can't die from coming
up short in MSFX, you can in a real plane. What part of that do you
seem not to understand?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Flaps_50!" > wrote

> You ARE AN IDIOT.

Really good comeback.

You are a troll, a non-pilot, and a nusance in this newsgroup. Go play
somewhere else.
--
Jim in NC

[Flaps_50!]

On Nov 28, 3:09*am, " > wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2:27*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > I'll think about it, but my ego doesn't reside in posting videos.
>
> You are a bunch of horse**** now. Your ego is bigger then the dayem
> Good Year blimp *If your ego is big enough to make comments on my
> short field landings, then you should be good enough to demonstrate to
> the readership your skills. *After all you said.
>
> >Well I think that makes me a more experienced pilot that you 'cos I do
> >fly a real aerobatic tail dragger and my landing are really quite good
> >even tho' I do say so myself
>
> Put up or shut up. *Show me where the rubber meets the road.
> Otherwise you really don't know, and YOU DON'T fly a real plane, do
> you? *Your landings are not quite good since you don't land a real
> airplane.
>
> >As *for analysis of my short field I have nothing to learn form you, quite
> > the opposite really. Can you tell us all why a *3000' sealed runway is
> > a short field for a sundowner?
>
> AS I posted in RAS
>
> Because I don't need to. *What difference does it make whether I land
> it in 2000 feet or 3000 feet on a 4444 foot runway? *What difference
> does it make when 99.9 percent of my airports I fly to have 4000 foot
> or longer runways on routine cross country flights.
>
> The entire runway in front of me is mine until I clear it. *Anybody
> behind me will just have to go around if I am not cleared it. *I don't
> need to be a hero for anybody behind me in preventing a go around.
> This privilege is backed by FARS / AIM even at airports with LAHSO
> operations where I don't have to accept them.
>
> Most importantly, why should I push the safety envelope THAT I
> DETERMINE as PIC, The aircraft manufacturer determines the aircraft
> minimums, NOT THE PIC's minimums.
>
> You apparently fail to understand the human nature of flying so you do
> have LOTS TO LEARN FROM ME. *

I don't think so. You can't do aerobatics, land a tail dragger or even
do a good short field landing. You are just looking foolish. If you
had the smarts you would realize I don't play with MSX -the evidence
is actually here...

As an example, everybody can swing at a
> 90 mph fast ball, but not everybody will hit the ball. *Same with
> landing an airplane. *Everybody can try
> to shoe horn a plane into the minimums that the manufacturer
> determines but not everybody can do it. *I determine as PIC what is
> safe, not the manufacturer.

I think you should think about that statement. Why is a POH required
and what are operating limitations?

>*There is no room for error when you final
> approach speed is faster then most highway speeds.
>

Aha the macho complex emerges!

> If you think MSFX simulates short field landings, you are sadly
> mistaken. *You apparently haven't been near a tree in a real plane to
> understand exactly what I am talking about. *

Don't be a twit, you have no idea of the surroundings and conditions I
fly in. Look, wipe the spittle of your screen and take advice and
learn to do a short field landing properly, it may save your life. A
good pilot does not assume that the only place to land is a 4000'
strip or a field of similar dimensions. You may get EF anywhere and
may only have a parking lot or football field available. Take some
short field lessons.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Nov 28, 5:26*am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:27:11 -0800 (PST), Flaps_50! wrote:
> >>> Well I think that makes me a more experienced pilot that you 'cos I do
> >>> fly a real aerobatic tail dragger and my landing are really quite good
> >>> -even tho' I do say so myself (but I still think there's room for
> >>> improvement). *Listen to my advice -there's real world knowledge
> >>> there.
>
> >> I'll call you on this.
>
> >> Why don't you post some of your real world landings outside a desktop
> >> computer so we can give you our analysis since you think you have room
> >> for improvement. *Any $50 digital camera will do the trick and You
> >> Tube offers free hosting.
>
> > I'll think about it, but my ego doesn't reside in posting videos.
>
> lol
>
> OK, OK, you're certificated...but you don't know how to use a camera. I
> got it now.
>

No, I don't own a video camera and don't want one. I'd rather have
another helicopter lesson.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Nov 28, 5:27*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote
>
> > You ARE AN IDIOT.
>
> Really good comeback.
>
> You are a troll, a non-pilot, and a nusance in this newsgroup. *Go play
> somewhere else.
> --

Hey Jimmy, why do you keep making errors of judgment?

Cheers

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Flaps_50!" > wrote

Hey Jimmy, why do you keep making errors of judgment?

Last comment.

Prove me wrong. You can't.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Flaps_50!" > wrote

Hey Jimmy, why do you keep making errors of judgment?

Last comment.

Prove me wrong. You can't.
--
Jim in NC

[Flaps_50!]

On Nov 28, 8:15*am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:13:39 -0800 (PST), Flaps_50! wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 5:26*am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:27:11 -0800 (PST), Flaps_50! wrote:
> >>>>> Well I think that makes me a more experienced pilot that you 'cos I do
> >>>>> fly a real aerobatic tail dragger and my landing are really quite good
> >>>>> -even tho' I do say so myself (but I still think there's room for
> >>>>> improvement). *Listen to my advice -there's real world knowledge
> >>>>> there.
>
> >>>> I'll call you on this.
>
> >>>> Why don't you post some of your real world landings outside a desktop
> >>>> computer so we can give you our analysis since you think you have room
> >>>> for improvement. *Any $50 digital camera will do the trick and You
> >>>> Tube offers free hosting.
>
> >>> I'll think about it, but my ego doesn't reside in posting videos.
>
> >> lol
>
> >> OK, OK, you're certificated...but you don't know how to use a camera. I
> >> got it now.
>
> > No, I don't own a video camera and don't want one. I'd rather have
> > another helicopter lesson.
>
> > Cheers
>
> No need, Flappers, you and Franklin are *OWNED*
>

Only in your (wet) dreams. LOL

Cheers

[Franklin[_19_]]

Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:27:11 -0800 (PST), Flaps_50! wrote:
>
>>>> Well I think that makes me a more experienced pilot that you 'cos I
>>>> do fly a real aerobatic tail dragger and my landing are really
>>>> quite good -even tho' I do say so myself (but I still think there's
>>>> room for improvement). *Listen to my advice -there's real world
>>>> knowledge there.
>>>
>>> I'll call you on this.
>>>
>>> Why don't you post some of your real world landings outside a
>>> desktop computer so we can give you our analysis since you think you
>>> have room for improvement. *Any $50 digital camera will do the trick
>>> and You Tube offers free hosting.
>>
>> I'll think about it, but my ego doesn't reside in posting videos.
>
> lol
>
> OK, OK, you're certificated...but you don't know how to use a camera.
> I got it now.
>

Blossom, your games are becoming too obvious.

First find someone on the group who seems to know only a flight
simulator. Then blast them for no real life experience. Repeat
endlessly until everyone gets the impression you're a real pilot who is
angry at sims.

Surely it is time for you to post under a different nym.

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 28, 12:54*pm, Franklin >
wrote:
> Jeffrey Bloss wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:27:11 -0800 (PST), Flaps_50! wrote:
>
> >>>> Well I think that makes me a more experienced pilot that you 'cos I
> >>>> do fly a real aerobatic tail dragger and my landing are really
> >>>> quite good -even tho' I do say so myself (but I still think there's
> >>>> room for improvement). Listen to my advice -there's real world
> >>>> knowledge there.
>
> >>> I'll call you on this.
>
> >>> Why don't you post some of your real world landings outside a
> >>> desktop computer so we can give you our analysis since you think you
> >>> have room for improvement. Any $50 digital camera will do the trick
> >>> and You Tube offers free hosting.
>
> >> I'll think about it, but my ego doesn't reside in posting videos.
>
> > lol
>
> > OK, OK, you're certificated...but you don't know how to use a camera.
> > I got it now.
>
> Blossom, your games are becoming too obvious.
>
> First find someone on the group who seems to know only a flight
> simulator. *Then blast them for no real life experience. *Repeat
> endlessly until everyone gets the impression you're a real pilot who is
> angry at sims.
>
> Surely it is time for you to post under a different nym.

Here, he and others can pretend to be superior but "By their content
ye shall know them". The demonstrated aviation knowledge to blabber
ratio is pretty low in the opinion of -- let me check; yes!, here it
is --someone who has a piece of plastic issued by the FAA that says I
hold a pilot's certificate with appropriate ratings.

RAP had been on its last legs but was showing signs of gaining some
reasonable content then it attracted the usual 'look at me, I can
spell airplane' jerks. Oh well, some of us are lucky enough to have
real pilots with real life experiences we can talk with.


I'll save the ingnoranus a post:

lol

[Nicodemus]

Jeffrey Bloss > wrote in news:hes4u1$o1d$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> You two will get along together just dandy. lol

I wonder

[Franklin[_19_]]

a wrote:

> On Nov 28, 12:54*pm, Franklin >
> wrote:
>> Jeffrey Bloss wrote:
>> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:27:11 -0800 (PST), Flaps_50! wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Well I think that makes me a more experienced pilot that you
>> >>>> 'cos I do fly a real aerobatic tail dragger and my landing are
>> >>>> really quite good -even tho' I do say so myself (but I still
>> >>>> think there's room for improvement). Listen to my advice
>> >>>> -there's real world knowledge there.
>>
>> >>> I'll call you on this.
>>
>> >>> Why don't you post some of your real world landings outside a
>> >>> desktop computer so we can give you our analysis since you think
>> >>> you have room for improvement. Any $50 digital camera will do the
>> >>> trick and You Tube offers free hosting.
>>
>> >> I'll think about it, but my ego doesn't reside in posting videos.
>>
>> > lol
>>
>> > OK, OK, you're certificated...but you don't know how to use a
>> > camera. I got it now.
>>
>> Blossom, your games are becoming too obvious.
>>
>> First find someone on the group who seems to know only a flight
>> simulator. *Then blast them for no real life experience. *Repeat
>> endlessly until everyone gets the impression you're a real pilot who
>> is angry at sims.
>>
>> Surely it is time for you to post under a different nym.
>
> Here, he and others can pretend to be superior but "By their content
> ye shall know them". The demonstrated aviation knowledge to blabber
> ratio is pretty low in the opinion of -- let me check; yes!, here it
> is --someone who has a piece of plastic issued by the FAA that says I
> hold a pilot's certificate with appropriate ratings.
>
> RAP had been on its last legs but was showing signs of gaining some
> reasonable content then it attracted the usual 'look at me, I can
> spell airplane' jerks. Oh well, some of us are lucky enough to have
> real pilots with real life experiences we can talk with.
>
> I'll save the ingnoranus a post:
>
> lol

Blossom probably wheedled his way into getting rides in a private plane
but AIUI his aviation is largely confined to radio-controlled model
aircraft. A Google on posts by "Bob Adkins" can confirm it.

He seems a reasonably good hobby mechanic but forgets to contain his
expertise to where it belongs.

The poor sock seems to have missed his chances in life. So now we get
his overblown stuff about how great he is, what he's done, what he
thinks, who he hates and so on.