Flaps on take-off and landing

[Mxsmanic]

At what point does one normally set flaps before take-off? I've been
doing it only when aligning with the runway, on the theory that
extending flaps prior to that would just make me more vulnerable to
wind while on the taxiway or at the gate. Similarly, I retract the
flaps completely as soon as I'm completely on the runway for landing,
so that the wind doesn't push me around. Is this the correct way to
do it?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[jad]

I generally extend flaps as I approach the holding point, stops the wind
grabbing you and better visibility all round (well for the Cessna)

As for retracting, I use them for a drag advantage to slow the aircraft
down and retract when I have full nosewheel steering control of the
aircraft!

This is real world, as for simulator.. just throw them down during the
taxy! Generally, airline drivers have flaps set prior to taxy after
pushback!


Jad


Mxsmanic wrote:
> At what point does one normally set flaps before take-off? I've been
> doing it only when aligning with the runway, on the theory that
> extending flaps prior to that would just make me more vulnerable to
> wind while on the taxiway or at the gate. Similarly, I retract the
> flaps completely as soon as I'm completely on the runway for landing,
> so that the wind doesn't push me around. Is this the correct way to
> do it?
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> At what point does one normally set flaps before take-off? I've been
> doing it only when aligning with the runway, on the theory that
> extending flaps prior to that would just make me more vulnerable to
> wind while on the taxiway or at the gate. Similarly, I retract the
> flaps completely as soon as I'm completely on the runway for landing,
> so that the wind doesn't push me around. Is this the correct way to
> do it?

It depends on the airplane and the pilot.

Personally, for the airplane I am flying the most, I have the flaps down
from preflight to takeoff. This is because the airplane requires flaps for
landings and takeoffs, there is only one "flaps down" setting, and I like
having the flaps down during the preflight as well. So I put the flaps down
before a landing, and they don't come up until after the next takeoff.

For Cessnas, which generally don't require flaps for takeoff, it's a
different matter. I lower the flaps for the preflight inspection so that I
can properly inspect the flap mechanisms, but then retract them after engine
start and before taxiing. Certain takeoffs may dictate lowering them again
prior to takeoff, which I do as part of my pre-takeoff checks, which include
reviewing the takeoff procedure checklist (flap setting is listed with the
checklist items for the takeoff itself).

Some pilots retract the flaps as soon as they touchdown, with the theory
that this will enhance their braking. However, IMHO this ignores the fact
that there is more aerodynamic braking with the flaps down early in the roll
out, and by the time the extra drag is negligible, so is any additional lift
the flaps might be generating. It also ignores the hazard in some airplanes
of accidently retracting the landing gear rather than the flaps.

Other airplanes run the gamut in terms of what's required or desired
operationally, and of course each pilot may have their own preferences as
well.

IMHO, since you're not actually flying an airplane, I wouldn't worry about
it. Put the flaps down whenever you want.

Pete

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Is this the correct way to
> do it?
>

No. But who cares - you're not flying, you're simming.

For take-off, it is usually done as part of the "before take-off"
checklist, which is done at the holding point of the runway, but not on
the runway. You don't want to spend much time sitting on the runway.
Also, many planes do not require flaps for take-off.

For landing, you don't want to accidentally touch the wrong switch
while in a hurry on the runway (e.g. the gear switch - happens often).
Your primary concern is to get off the runway. After that, stop and
complete the after landing checklist, which includes flaps.

Your stall speed is reduced by the flaps by maybe 10 or 20 knots. If
the wind is blowing enough for your stall speed to be a factor - don't
fly.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Mxsmanic,
>
> > Is this the correct way to
> > do it?
> >
>
> No. But who cares - you're not flying, you're simming.
>
> For take-off, it is usually done as part of the "before take-off"
> checklist, which is done at the holding point of the runway, but not on
> the runway. You don't want to spend much time sitting on the runway.
> Also, many planes do not require flaps for take-off.
>
> For landing, you don't want to accidentally touch the wrong switch
> while in a hurry on the runway (e.g. the gear switch - happens often).
> Your primary concern is to get off the runway. After that, stop and
> complete the after landing checklist, which includes flaps.
>
> Your stall speed is reduced by the flaps by maybe 10 or 20 knots. If
> the wind is blowing enough for your stall speed to be a factor - don't
> fly.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In our club Cessna Cardinal I typically touch down, and set a nose high
attitude to get some aerodynamic braking going with the flaps down, as
soon as I feel the brake pedals have effect I'll set flaps to zero, by
the time the flaps are lifted about 15 degrees of deflection the
aerodynamic braking has become negligible and it's all in the pedals
(around 30 KIAS), also Hawai'i has some messed up winds, 0 knot winds
prevail from evening till morning while morning will have around 10
knot winds at 040, while the afternoon will have 15-ish gusting to
30-ish at 030 to 050, so having flaps down on the ground is a negative
because I've seen airplanes start flying halfway through their roll-out
after landing.

[Tod Hennessy]

I agree and consider Flaps a "luxury", to be used only when necessary. Fly
the airplane...
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Mxsmanic,
>>
>> > Is this the correct way to
>> > do it?
>> >
>>
>> No. But who cares - you're not flying, you're simming.
>>
>> For take-off, it is usually done as part of the "before take-off"
>> checklist, which is done at the holding point of the runway, but not on
>> the runway. You don't want to spend much time sitting on the runway.
>> Also, many planes do not require flaps for take-off.
>>
>> For landing, you don't want to accidentally touch the wrong switch
>> while in a hurry on the runway (e.g. the gear switch - happens often).
>> Your primary concern is to get off the runway. After that, stop and
>> complete the after landing checklist, which includes flaps.
>>
>> Your stall speed is reduced by the flaps by maybe 10 or 20 knots. If
>> the wind is blowing enough for your stall speed to be a factor - don't
>> fly.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
> In our club Cessna Cardinal I typically touch down, and set a nose high
> attitude to get some aerodynamic braking going with the flaps down, as
> soon as I feel the brake pedals have effect I'll set flaps to zero, by
> the time the flaps are lifted about 15 degrees of deflection the
> aerodynamic braking has become negligible and it's all in the pedals
> (around 30 KIAS), also Hawai'i has some messed up winds, 0 knot winds
> prevail from evening till morning while morning will have around 10
> knot winds at 040, while the afternoon will have 15-ish gusting to
> 30-ish at 030 to 050, so having flaps down on the ground is a negative
> because I've seen airplanes start flying halfway through their roll-out
> after landing.
>

[Cubdriver]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:55:05 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Similarly, I retract the
>flaps completely as soon as I'm completely on the runway for landing,
>so that the wind doesn't push me around. Is this the correct way to
>do it?

The first plane with flaps that I flew was a PA-18 Super Cub. When I
reached for the flap lever (it has a name, but I forget), what I got
was a rocket from my instructor in the back seat. "Don't touch
anything till you stop rolling!" Of course the PA-18 is a taildragger
and more sensitive to a pilot's inattention.

A year later I took Damian Delgaizo's bush-flying course in Andover
NJ. The plane was an Aviat Husky with a similar flap lever, and we
made much greater use of it. The splendid trick was to fly over a
cornfield (whatever) in ground effect, then dump the flaps as soon as
the mains crossed the threshold of the (grass) field, so that the
Husky stopped within 250 feet.

[Thomas Borchert]

,

> knot winds
> prevail from evening till morning while morning will have around 10
> knot winds at 040, while the afternoon will have 15-ish gusting to
> 30-ish at 030 to 050, so having flaps down on the ground is a negative
> because I've seen airplanes start flying halfway through their roll-out
> after landing.
>

The Cardinal will not fly at gusts of 30 knots - no matter whether the
flaps are down or not.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jim Macklin]

Johnson Bar


You can also use the flaps to "jump over" a fence or ditch
that you see at the last moment before a forced landing if
they are up for the glide.

But the flaps move the center of lift aft on the wing and
you need back elevator pressure to force the main gear
(trike) or tailwheel on the ground to prevent weather vaning
and skidding the wheels under braking. The flaps will tend
to lift the lift the tail and you need to follow through on
the flare to lever the balance point on the main gear.

A tailwheel airplane will use some forward elevator for a
wheel landing, but when the tail comes down [or is lowered]
you still need the stick full aft. Of course during taxi
you must use the ailerons and elevator to control for cross
and tailwinds.


"Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford.net> wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:55:05 +0200, Mxsmanic
>
| wrote:
|
| >Similarly, I retract the
| >flaps completely as soon as I'm completely on the runway
for landing,
| >so that the wind doesn't push me around. Is this the
correct way to
| >do it?
|
| The first plane with flaps that I flew was a PA-18 Super
Cub. When I
| reached for the flap lever (it has a name, but I forget),
what I got
| was a rocket from my instructor in the back seat. "Don't
touch
| anything till you stop rolling!" Of course the PA-18 is a
taildragger
| and more sensitive to a pilot's inattention.
|
| A year later I took Damian Delgaizo's bush-flying course
in Andover
| NJ. The plane was an Aviat Husky with a similar flap
lever, and we
| made much greater use of it. The splendid trick was to fly
over a
| cornfield (whatever) in ground effect, then dump the flaps
as soon as
| the mains crossed the threshold of the (grass) field, so
that the
| Husky stopped within 250 feet.
|

[[email protected]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> ,
>
> > knot winds
> > prevail from evening till morning while morning will have around 10
> > knot winds at 040, while the afternoon will have 15-ish gusting to
> > 30-ish at 030 to 050, so having flaps down on the ground is a negative
> > because I've seen airplanes start flying halfway through their roll-out
> > after landing.
> >
>
> The Cardinal will not fly at gusts of 30 knots - no matter whether the
> flaps are down or not.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Yes, but it will fly if your rolling along at 35 KIAS and a 25+ KIAS
knot gust hits you, anyway it wasn't the Cardinal I saw do it, it was a
piper cub, and yes I realize the chances of me doing that are slim, but
I don't want to be the example/statistic.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> I lower the flaps for the preflight inspection so that I
> can properly inspect the flap mechanisms, but then retract them after engine
> start and before taxiing.

Doesn't flap movement require engine power?

> IMHO, since you're not actually flying an airplane, I wouldn't worry about
> it. Put the flaps down whenever you want.

The idea is to try to approach real life. Additionally, many things
are simulated. If adjusting flaps has a bad effect in real life,
there's a good chance that it has a bad effect in simulation as well.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> No. But who cares - you're not flying, you're simming.

The whole idea of simulation is to approach real life, whence the
name.

> For landing, you don't want to accidentally touch the wrong switch
> while in a hurry on the runway (e.g. the gear switch - happens often).
> Your primary concern is to get off the runway. After that, stop and
> complete the after landing checklist, which includes flaps.

Do aircraft commonly have mechanisms to prevent gear retraction when
the wheels are touching ground, or is it usually up to the pilot not
to do anything unwise?

> Your stall speed is reduced by the flaps by maybe 10 or 20 knots. If
> the wind is blowing enough for your stall speed to be a factor - don't
> fly.

I was under the impression that full flaps is a normal configuration
for landing; is this not true?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> At what point does one normally set flaps before take-off? I've been
> doing it only when aligning with the runway, on the theory that
> extending flaps prior to that would just make me more vulnerable to
> wind while on the taxiway or at the gate. Similarly, I retract the
> flaps completely as soon as I'm completely on the runway for landing,
> so that the wind doesn't push me around. Is this the correct way to
> do it?

I put in 2 notches of flaps when I hit 60MPH on my take-off roll.

[Jim Macklin]

Some airplanes use electric motors to move the flaps, some
use engine driven hydraulic pumps. Some use hand cranks and
some use a lever.

Most light aircraft use either a mechanical human powered
lever or crank or electric motors that will run on the
battery. Heavier airplanes, over 12,000 pounds often use
hydraulics. Sometimes the hydraulic pumps are electric
powered, but engine driven pumps are common.


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
| Peter Duniho writes:
|
| > I lower the flaps for the preflight inspection so that I
| > can properly inspect the flap mechanisms, but then
retract them after engine
| > start and before taxiing.
|
| Doesn't flap movement require engine power?
|
| > IMHO, since you're not actually flying an airplane, I
wouldn't worry about
| > it. Put the flaps down whenever you want.
|
| The idea is to try to approach real life. Additionally,
many things
| are simulated. If adjusting flaps has a bad effect in
real life,
| there's a good chance that it has a bad effect in
simulation as well.
|
| --
| Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Macklin]

Squat switches of some type are common on all retractable
gear airplanes built since WWII. But they can fail for
several reasons.
Some airplanes have a squat switch on only one gear strut,
later models of the same aircraft often added a second squat
switch. A gentle landing with an over-inflated strut might
not compress the strut enough to activate the switch (open)
or a bump can allow the strut to re-extend.

Most gear up landings are just that, the pilot did not put
the gear down. But gear can be retracted while on the
ground if the airplane has the right combination of
"problems" such as over-inflated struts, shorted squat
switches, hydraulic problems, , etc.


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
| Thomas Borchert writes:
|
| > No. But who cares - you're not flying, you're simming.
|
| The whole idea of simulation is to approach real life,
whence the
| name.
|
| > For landing, you don't want to accidentally touch the
wrong switch
| > while in a hurry on the runway (e.g. the gear switch -
happens often).
| > Your primary concern is to get off the runway. After
that, stop and
| > complete the after landing checklist, which includes
flaps.
|
| Do aircraft commonly have mechanisms to prevent gear
retraction when
| the wheels are touching ground, or is it usually up to the
pilot not
| to do anything unwise?
|
| > Your stall speed is reduced by the flaps by maybe 10 or
20 knots. If
| > the wind is blowing enough for your stall speed to be a
factor - don't
| > fly.
|
| I was under the impression that full flaps is a normal
configuration
| for landing; is this not true?
|
| --
| Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Cubdriver <usenet AT danford.net> wrote:

> The first plane with flaps that I flew was a PA-18 Super Cub. When I
> reached for the flap lever (it has a name, but I forget), what I got
> was a rocket from my instructor in the back seat. "Don't touch
> anything till you stop rolling!" Of course the PA-18 is a taildragger
> and more sensitive to a pilot's inattention.

I make the same point of my students transitioning to retracts. I make
them pull off the runway and come to a full stop before cleaning up the
airplane. You really don't want to get confused and pull up the gear
instead of the flaps will you're still rolling out on the runway. Makes
for really impressive short-field performance, but requires a lot of power
to taxi to the ramp.

Think it can't happen? It does. I once had a student who owned a C-206
for umpty years and was learning the Bonanza. Flap and gear levers in
opposite positions on the two models. Damn, am I glad the squat switches
worked.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
> > No. But who cares - you're not flying, you're simming.
>
> The whole idea of simulation is to approach real life, whence the
> name.

Do you guys do simulated ramp checks?

[Peter R.]

Roy Smith > wrote:

> In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> Thomas Borchert writes:
>>
>>> No. But who cares - you're not flying, you're simming.
>>
>> The whole idea of simulation is to approach real life, whence the
>> name.
>
> Do you guys do simulated ramp checks?

I have read of many sim pilots actually drinking alcohol while they fly,
too.

--
Peter

[Stubby]

Jim Macklin wrote:
<...>
> You can also use the flaps to "jump over" a fence or ditch
> that you see at the last moment before a forced landing if
> they are up for the glide.
<...>
Yes and that's one lesson I'll never forget. The instructor had me do a
power-off "short approach" and told me I was *not* allowed to apply
power no matter how bad I thought it was! The pucker factor increased
enormously and I could see the edge of the hill under the runway
looming. Certain that we were going to crash into it, I was begging to
add power. The instructor calmly demonstrated how to use flaps just to
get a few more feet and complete the landing. It was a good lesson but
I think he owes me some new underwear.

[Stubby]

Steve Foley wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> At what point does one normally set flaps before take-off? I've been
>> doing it only when aligning with the runway, on the theory that
>> extending flaps prior to that would just make me more vulnerable to
>> wind while on the taxiway or at the gate. Similarly, I retract the
>> flaps completely as soon as I'm completely on the runway for landing,
>> so that the wind doesn't push me around. Is this the correct way to
>> do it?
>
> I put in 2 notches of flaps when I hit 60MPH on my take-off roll.
>
>
Does your POH describe how to use the flaps for short takeoffs, soft
field takeoffs, etc?

[Margy Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>
>>No. But who cares - you're not flying, you're simming.
>
>
> The whole idea of simulation is to approach real life, whence the
> name.
>
>
>>For landing, you don't want to accidentally touch the wrong switch
>>while in a hurry on the runway (e.g. the gear switch - happens often).
>>Your primary concern is to get off the runway. After that, stop and
>>complete the after landing checklist, which includes flaps.
>
>
> Do aircraft commonly have mechanisms to prevent gear retraction when
> the wheels are touching ground, or is it usually up to the pilot not
> to do anything unwise?
>
>
>>Your stall speed is reduced by the flaps by maybe 10 or 20 knots. If
>>the wind is blowing enough for your stall speed to be a factor - don't
>>fly.
>
>
> I was under the impression that full flaps is a normal configuration
> for landing; is this not true?
>

My primary flight instructor had a great saying "Do whatever it takes".
If you are flying into a short field with minimal wind full flaps
would make sense. If you are flying into a long, high-speed runway
(like Dulles or something) a no flap landing can be used. If the wind
is really squirrly you might want partial flaps. Now, what flap setting
is "normal" full flaps. I flew a 172 with 40 degrees of flaps, so is
30 degrees "full flaps"? What if that's all your 172 has? The Navion
has more than 40 degrees, do I need all of that flap? It depends! (BTW
with the old engine take-off in the Navion was 0 flaps, with the new
engine it's half-flaps).

Margy

I have a great idea, why don't you get a few hours in a "real" airplane.

[Bob Moore]

Stubby wrote
> The instructor calmly demonstrated how to use flaps just to
> get a few more feet and complete the landing. It was a good
> lesson but I think he owes me some new underwear.

Best glide distance with flaps is always less that best glide
distance flaps up. Bad demonstration...bad lesson learned.
The reason that most GA airplanes use flaps is to increase
drag and steepen the glide angle without increasing the speed.

Bob Moore

[Mxsmanic]

Roy Smith writes:

> Do you guys do simulated ramp checks?

All sim users are not identical, but it certainly would not surprise
me if some of them are simulating ramp checks, as well as many other
aspects of real-world bureaucracy. Different people are interested in
different aspects of real-world aviation, and simulation generally
allows them to concentrate on the aspects that interest them most,
while letting the rest slide. In theory just about anything can be
simulated.

I personally avoid the paperwork. Sim software itself often makes no
significant provision for paperwork, beyond things like checklists and
the like, so anyone wanting the paperwork side has to pretend on his
own. MSFS allows you to file a "flight plan" for IFR flights and
simulates ATC interaction based on the flight plan, but it doesn't go
much beyond that. Fortunately for me, that's about as far as I'm
interested in going myself. The simulated ATC is limited in what it
can handle and varies from reality in a number of ways, and it
sometimes makes stupid mistakes, but it still enhances realism a great
deal.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Margy Natalie writes:

> My primary flight instructor had a great saying "Do whatever it takes".
> If you are flying into a short field with minimal wind full flaps
> would make sense. If you are flying into a long, high-speed runway
> (like Dulles or something) a no flap landing can be used.

Is there a reason why you'd want to land with no flaps?

> I have a great idea, why don't you get a few hours in a "real" airplane.

Too expensive and too time-consuming. And I seriously doubt that I
would learn much of anything useful in just a few hours. If I had
time and money, I'd much prefer to spend it in certified full-motion
simulators, which would give me essentially all the experience of real
flight with zero risk and maximum flexibility and enjoyment.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Stubby" > wrote in message
. ..


> Does your POH describe how to use the flaps for short takeoffs, soft
> field takeoffs, etc?

Yes it does. Why do you ask?

[Dale]

In article >,
Roy Smith > wrote:


>
> Think it can't happen? It does. I once had a student who owned a C-206
> for umpty years and was learning the Bonanza. Flap and gear levers in
> opposite positions on the two models. Damn, am I glad the squat switches
> worked.

Interesting 206 that had a "gear lever". <G>

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Too expensive and too time-consuming. And I seriously doubt that I
> would learn much of anything useful in just a few hours. If I had
> time and money, I'd much prefer to spend it in certified full-motion
> simulators, which would give me essentially all the experience of real
> flight with zero risk and maximum flexibility and enjoyment.
>

You have already been told numerous times here that you are wrong and it
is not really expensive compared to what you spend on your hobby. Your
allusions to risk, which you have made several times but never
substantiated are quite overblown. As clueless as you are about real
flying, you'd learn a ton in just one hour - if you wanted too. But I
guess you're simply not serious about your simming approaching anything
like reality.

Your problem (one of the many) seems to be that you think only flying
big jets is flying worth to be considered. You're wrong.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Margy Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Margy Natalie writes:
>
>
>>My primary flight instructor had a great saying "Do whatever it takes".
>>If you are flying into a short field with minimal wind full flaps
>>would make sense. If you are flying into a long, high-speed runway
>>(like Dulles or something) a no flap landing can be used.
>
>
> Is there a reason why you'd want to land with no flaps?

Fast approach speed. At Dulles I would take the plane over the numbers
at cruise speed. You have lots of room to slow down as it's 4000' to
the first taxiway. If you learn to do it it's not that hard. If it's
REALLY windy you might want to opt for a no flap landing.

>
>
>>I have a great idea, why don't you get a few hours in a "real" airplane.
>
>
> Too expensive and too time-consuming. And I seriously doubt that I
> would learn much of anything useful in just a few hours. If I had
> time and money, I'd much prefer to spend it in certified full-motion
> simulators, which would give me essentially all the experience of real
> flight with zero risk and maximum flexibility and enjoyment.
>

Take at least an intro flight in a real airplane. I think the enjoyment
will really beat any sim.

Margy

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Peter Duniho writes:
>
>> I lower the flaps for the preflight inspection so that I
>> can properly inspect the flap mechanisms, but then retract them after engine
>> start and before taxiing.
>
> Doesn't flap movement require engine power?
>
Depends on the aircraft. Some planes they are purely mechanical from
the flap handle in the cockpit. In others they are electric. On my
plane they are hydraulic, which is run from the engine if it is running
but has a backup "wobble pump" which I can use to retract them on the
ground if I forget to do so before shutdown.

My plane specs flaps up or 1/2 for takeoff (short field takeoff done
with 1/2). Landing can be done with any setting of flaps.

[Ron Natalie]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> ,
>
>> knot winds
>> prevail from evening till morning while morning will have around 10
>> knot winds at 040, while the afternoon will have 15-ish gusting to
>> 30-ish at 030 to 050, so having flaps down on the ground is a negative
>> because I've seen airplanes start flying halfway through their roll-out
>> after landing.
>>
>
> The Cardinal will not fly at gusts of 30 knots - no matter whether the
> flaps are down or not.
>
BULL****. 20G33 was good student solo weather in Colorado where I
learned. We regularly took the Cardinal RG's out in these conditions.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Do aircraft commonly have mechanisms to prevent gear retraction when
> the wheels are touching ground, or is it usually up to the pilot not
> to do anything unwise?

Some do, but it's best not to rely on it. Getting a good bounce
on rollout can sometimes release the pressure on the switch enough to
get the gear to stop.

On the Navion there is NOTHING to stop this. If the handle is up and
the crakshaft is turning the gear is coming up. It's all hydraulic.
Even the starter motor is enough to get the hydraulic pump to start
the nose gear retracting. I have seen exactly one Navion with a
mechanical interlock that keeps you from moving the handle while the
airplane is on the squat switch.

>
> I was under the impression that full flaps is a normal configuration
> for landing; is this not true?
>
Then why would you you have them? The FAA believes that FULL FLAPS
should always be used for landings (not one that I believe in).

[birdog]

Interesting that no one mentioned airport elevation re; use of flaps on
takeoff. Or we only talking simulators here? Know of one instance where a
PT-19 ended up in a cornfield using full flaps from an elevated airport in
W. Va. Some small craft, such as a Cessna 150, can barely maintain level
flight with full flaps at our local - 1200'.

[Ron Natalie]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Johnson Bar
>
>
> You can also use the flaps to "jump over" a fence or ditch
> that you see at the last moment before a forced landing if
> they are up for the glide.
>
If you have ones that react fast. I loved the "johnson-bar"
flaps in the 170's and early 172's. In the electric flapped
172's it is doubtful you could pull that manouver. The Navion
hydraulic flaps are even slower.

[Peter R.]

Ron Natalie > wrote:

> BULL****. 20G33 was good student solo weather in Colorado where I
> learned. We regularly took the Cardinal RG's out in these conditions.

It was my interpretation of Tom's post that the Cardinal will not fly
*prematurely* when taxiing in those wind conditions.

--
Peter

[Ron Natalie]

birdog wrote:
> Interesting that no one mentioned airport elevation re; use of flaps on
> takeoff. Or we only talking simulators here? Know of one instance where a
> PT-19 ended up in a cornfield using full flaps from an elevated airport in
> W. Va. Some small craft, such as a Cessna 150, can barely maintain level
> flight with full flaps at our local - 1200'.
>
>
I can tell you the Navion is pretty bizarre with full flaps on takeoff.
I made that mistake once. She breaks ground very fast but she won't
climb out worth crap.

This is actually not uncommon. In some planes it's a crapshoot as
to whether flaps help the short field performance. The 172 for instance
breaks ground quicker, but climbs slower to the 50' obstacle so it's
a wash. If you've got one of the old johnson-bar manual flap version
your optimal performance is to start the roll with the flaps up, drop
them to 10 degrees to break ground and once you get to Vx raise them back
up again.

[Jim Macklin]

A friend of mine was a pilot for the State of Illinois.
They were flying the governor to Washington, DC in the King
Air [about 20 years ago]. Somewhere near Cleveland [I
think] they saw a flicker and then had a DC 9 at their
altitude pass right to left a few hundred feet in front.
Turned out the sector controller had forgotten to issue the
higher altitude to the DC 9. The Governor did get a
personal phone call from the Sec DOT ad the Admin at the FAA
with an apology.

The form the pilot filled out had this question, "What the
PICs first action after the near mid-air?"

The pilot wrote down, "Changed shorts"




"Stubby" > wrote in
message . ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| <...>
| > You can also use the flaps to "jump over" a fence or
ditch
| > that you see at the last moment before a forced landing
if
| > they are up for the glide.
| <...>
| Yes and that's one lesson I'll never forget. The
instructor had me do a
| power-off "short approach" and told me I was *not* allowed
to apply
| power no matter how bad I thought it was! The pucker
factor increased
| enormously and I could see the edge of the hill under the
runway
| looming. Certain that we were going to crash into it, I
was begging to
| add power. The instructor calmly demonstrated how to use
flaps just to
| get a few more feet and complete the landing. It was a
good lesson but
| I think he owes me some new underwear.

[Jim Macklin]

Gliding with the flaps up and about 5 knots faster than
"best glide" allows the pilot to "stretch" the glide by a
slight increase in pitch attitude bringing the speed to the
best glide speed. If you fly at best glide you have no
option to stretch the glide since any increase of decrease
in speed will steepen the glide.

Also, if there is any wind, you want minimum sink if flying
downwind and you need a faster speed when flying into the
wind. Extreme example, wind 50 knots, airspeed 50 knots,
flight path vertical with no forward progress.

Flap extension reduces the stalling speed, often only a few
knots, but lift increases as does drag. The airplane will
balloon and slow very fast, the extra distance and altitude
gained is only a few feet, but if all you need is to clear a
5 foot cattle fence or a 10 foot wide ditch, that is a
technique that is useful.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
| Stubby wrote
| > The instructor calmly demonstrated how to use flaps just
to
| > get a few more feet and complete the landing. It was a
good
| > lesson but I think he owes me some new underwear.
|
| Best glide distance with flaps is always less that best
glide
| distance flaps up. Bad demonstration...bad lesson learned.
| The reason that most GA airplanes use flaps is to increase
| drag and steepen the glide angle without increasing the
speed.
|
| Bob Moore

[Jim Macklin]

And a Playboy magazine is safer than sex.



"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
| Margy Natalie writes:
|
| > My primary flight instructor had a great saying "Do
whatever it takes".
| > If you are flying into a short field with minimal wind
full flaps
| > would make sense. If you are flying into a long,
high-speed runway
| > (like Dulles or something) a no flap landing can be
used.
|
| Is there a reason why you'd want to land with no flaps?
|
| > I have a great idea, why don't you get a few hours in a
"real" airplane.
|
| Too expensive and too time-consuming. And I seriously
doubt that I
| would learn much of anything useful in just a few hours.
If I had
| time and money, I'd much prefer to spend it in certified
full-motion
| simulators, which would give me essentially all the
experience of real
| flight with zero risk and maximum flexibility and
enjoyment.
|
| --
| Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Macklin]

I'm not sure about the Navion, but many hydraulic retraction
systems have a valve that blocks fluid flow unless the strut
is compressed.



"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
| Mxsmanic wrote:
|
| > Do aircraft commonly have mechanisms to prevent gear
retraction when
| > the wheels are touching ground, or is it usually up to
the pilot not
| > to do anything unwise?
|
| Some do, but it's best not to rely on it. Getting a good
bounce
| on rollout can sometimes release the pressure on the
switch enough to
| get the gear to stop.
|
| On the Navion there is NOTHING to stop this. If the
handle is up and
| the crakshaft is turning the gear is coming up. It's all
hydraulic.
| Even the starter motor is enough to get the hydraulic pump
to start
| the nose gear retracting. I have seen exactly one Navion
with a
| mechanical interlock that keeps you from moving the handle
while the
| airplane is on the squat switch.
|
| >
| > I was under the impression that full flaps is a normal
configuration
| > for landing; is this not true?
| >
| Then why would you you have them? The FAA believes that
FULL FLAPS
| should always be used for landings (not one that I believe
in).

[Jim Macklin]

True, different airplanes have different characteristics.
The early Helio Couriers had two hand cranks on the ceiling
on a concentric shaft. The small handle was for trim and
the longer handle was for the flaps. The Helio could
take-off with the full span flaps [just a very few feet lost
to ailerons, spoilers being primary roll control]. Helio
even had instructions in their flight manual for the H295 on
how to take-off when the mud was over the top of the tires
[ a real soft field]. Full flaps, full throttle and pump
the elevator full forward and aft would cause the airplane
to climb out of the mud and then take-off.

On dry ground the H295 would take-off in as little as two
airplane lengths. The factory had a grass strip next to the
assembly building. They would land and take-off day in and
out, from the 300 feet of grass, even with straight EDO
floats.



"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Johnson Bar
| >
| >
| > You can also use the flaps to "jump over" a fence or
ditch
| > that you see at the last moment before a forced landing
if
| > they are up for the glide.
| >
| If you have ones that react fast. I loved the
"johnson-bar"
| flaps in the 170's and early 172's. In the electric
flapped
| 172's it is doubtful you could pull that manouver. The
Navion
| hydraulic flaps are even slower.
|

[Skylune[_1_]]

No. You are right. Too expensive, relatively risky, and VFR flying lacks
utility. VFR is a risky and completely unreliable means of
transportation.

You are smart sticking to the sim.

[Chris W]

out of curiosity, when flying the simulators do you use any kind of head
tracking device?

--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Roy Smith wrote:
>
> Do you guys do simulated ramp checks?


How about a simulated IMSAFE or bottle to throttle? <G>

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Peter R. wrote:
>
> I have read of many sim pilots actually drinking alcohol while they fly,
> too.
>

Count me as one. I damn near fell out of the chair after too many
Sierra Nevada Pale Ales while flying MSFS.

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:xXfOg.22647$SZ3.11479@dukeread04...

> And a Playboy magazine is safer than sex.

Indeed; a good trait for any pilot is one that...shall we say....has the
situation "well in hand".
:-))
Dudley

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

I wonder if there's a simulated mile high club?

Simulator pilots can pretend to have a date! <G>

[Ron Natalie]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:xXfOg.22647$SZ3.11479@dukeread04...
>
>> And a Playboy magazine is safer than sex.
>
> Indeed; a good trait for any pilot is one that...shall we say....has the
> situation "well in hand".
> :-))
> Dudley
>
>
What do you log if you are the sole manipulator of the pilot in
command?

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>> news:xXfOg.22647$SZ3.11479@dukeread04...
>>
>>> And a Playboy magazine is safer than sex.
>>
>> Indeed; a good trait for any pilot is one that...shall we say....has the
>> situation "well in hand".
>> :-))
>> Dudley
> What do you log if you are the sole manipulator of the pilot in
> command?

The term "solo stick time" comes to mind here :-))
Dudley

[Jim Macklin]

Safe sex is aural sex, you can talk about all you want, as
long as the audience is over 18.



"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:xXfOg.22647$SZ3.11479@dukeread04...
|
| > And a Playboy magazine is safer than sex.
|
| Indeed; a good trait for any pilot is one that...shall we
say....has the
| situation "well in hand".
| :-))
| Dudley
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

LOL
"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
| Dudley Henriques wrote:
| > "Jim Macklin" >
wrote in message
| > news:xXfOg.22647$SZ3.11479@dukeread04...
| >
| >> And a Playboy magazine is safer than sex.
| >
| > Indeed; a good trait for any pilot is one that...shall
we say....has the
| > situation "well in hand".
| > :-))
| > Dudley
| >
| >
| What do you log if you are the sole manipulator of the
pilot in
| command?

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

Stubby wrote:
>
>
> Jim Macklin wrote:
> <...>
>
>> You can also use the flaps to "jump over" a fence or ditch that you
>> see at the last moment before a forced landing if they are up for the
>> glide.
>
> <...>
> Yes and that's one lesson I'll never forget. The instructor had me do a
> power-off "short approach" and told me I was *not* allowed to apply
> power no matter how bad I thought it was! The pucker factor increased
> enormously and I could see the edge of the hill under the runway
> looming. Certain that we were going to crash into it, I was begging to
> add power. The instructor calmly demonstrated how to use flaps just to
> get a few more feet and complete the landing. It was a good lesson but
> I think he owes me some new underwear.
That is why I like to plan just a little high and slip the last couple
of feet for the runway. During my commerical check ride I was coming up
a little short on a similated engine out and pointed the nose down to
gain airspeed. Work just find and landed right on the numbers. The
examiner said that was great. I passed the check ride.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Jose[_1_]]

> The term "solo stick time" comes to mind here :-))

If you're not any good, is that a dead stick landing?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Moore]

Jim Macklin wrote
> Flap extension reduces the stalling speed, often only a few
> knots, but lift increases as does drag. The airplane will
> balloon and slow very fast, the extra distance and altitude
> gained is only a few feet, but if all you need is to clear a
> 5 foot cattle fence or a 10 foot wide ditch, that is a
> technique that is useful.

Can't create energy out of thin air Jim. You would clear the
same 5 foot fence just by increasing the angle of attack and
in both cases, glide a shorter distance if you were at best
L/D to start with.

Bob Moore

[[email protected]]

Peter R. wrote:
> Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
> > BULL****. 20G33 was good student solo weather in Colorado where I
> > learned. We regularly took the Cardinal RG's out in these conditions.
>
> It was my interpretation of Tom's post that the Cardinal will not fly
> *prematurely* when taxiing in those wind conditions.
>
> --
> Peter

He'd said "halfway through the rollout" it would lift off. If he
still had 30 knots GS and a 30 knot gust, that would easily lift it off
with flap in ground effect.

Dan

[[email protected]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> But the flaps move the center of lift aft on the wing and
> you need back elevator pressure to force the main gear
> (trike) or tailwheel on the ground to prevent weather vaning
> and skidding the wheels under braking. The flaps will tend
> to lift the lift the tail and you need to follow through on
> the flare to lever the balance point on the main gear.

Airplanes like the 150, 172 and 182 will pitch up on flap
application. The downwash off the flaps stikes the stab and pushes the
tail down. A 185 or Glastar will pitch down; I suppose the lower
position of the stab has something to do with it.

I once owned an Auster AOP 6. It had no pitch change with
flap application, and those flaps were serious big Zap flaps. The
elevator had two trim tabs: one was the usual manually-operated tab,
and the other was connected to the flap mechanism to zero out any pitch
changes when the flaps were raised or lowered. That old airplane would
land in 200' (half of book figures) if an approach was made at 1.1 Vso
and the Johnson-bar flaps were suddenly raised just before the wheels
hit the grass. Why did we need to put electric flaps in small
airplanes? Same technique works in the 185.
The Auster's brakes, on the other hand, were less than
enthusiastic, so one could clamp them on before touchdown and really
get ahead of the game.
Not that I'm recommending that Auster owners go try it...

Dan

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> On dry ground the H295 would take-off in as little as two
> airplane lengths. The factory had a grass strip next to the
> assembly building. They would land and take-off day in and
> out, from the 300 feet of grass, even with straight EDO
> floats.



Jungle Aviation and Radio Service has their own field in Waxhaw, NC called
JAARS-Townsend. I used to go over there just to watch the Helio Courier pilots
do their stuff. It was absolutely amazing.

They'd stand on the brakes, go to full power, pop the tail up in one length, and
be airborne in another. I suspect you could sprint alongside it and keep up for
a few seconds.

The Helio didn't just climb out of impossibly short strips... it had six seats
and could carry a load.

JAARS is a missionary outfit, if anybody wonders. They used to have missions in
New Guinea and down in South America... don't know about now. They also
operated DC-3s and some other birds (can't remember now).




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> I lower the flaps for the preflight inspection so that I
>> can properly inspect the flap mechanisms, but then retract them after
>> engine
>> start and before taxiing.
>
> Doesn't flap movement require engine power?

Since I extend them prior to engine start in that case, obviously not.

> The idea is to try to approach real life. Additionally, many things
> are simulated. If adjusting flaps has a bad effect in real life,
> there's a good chance that it has a bad effect in simulation as well.

But if there is a bad effect in simulation as well, you live to tell about
it and you get a brand-spanking-new airplane to try it again. If "a bad
effect in simulation" is your concern, why not just try it in the simulation
and see what happens?

The bottom line here is that there are no hard and fast rules for what
you're asking. Do what you want.

Pete

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Ross Richardson wrote:
>
> During my commerical check ride I was coming up
> a little short on a similated engine out and pointed the nose down to
> gain airspeed. Work just find and landed right on the numbers.

I'm guessing that you were below best glide speed at the time?

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> The idea is to try to approach real life.

Why?

You've stated you don't want to experience real flight, so what's the point?

Just have a good time.

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> The term "solo stick time" comes to mind here :-))
>
> If you're not any good, is that a dead stick landing?
>
> Jose

Is it a rainy day where you are Jose? Its lousy here. My wife is convinced
that these "intellitecual exchanges" we get into on RAP only happen when
we're not flying and all of us are sitting around bored to tears. I'd be
interested in what Margy Natalie thinks about this :-)
Personally, since I'm retired and don't fly much any more , I think this
shoots all kinds of holes in my wife's theory. The truth is that pilots are
most likely and collectively natural born punsters. Maybe Shakespeare was
right!!!
:-))
Dudley Henriques

[Jose[_1_]]

> Is it a rainy day where you are Jose? Its lousy here.

After some really nice days, yes, it's duck weather.

> these "intellitecual exchanges" we get into on RAP
> only happen when we're not flying

Only when we're not using airplanes. :)

> The truth is that pilots are most likely
> and collectively natural born punsters.

Probably, but I wouldn't get in a flap about it.

Jose
--
I fly all the time. Sometimes I use an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Is it a rainy day where you are Jose? Its lousy here.
>
> After some really nice days, yes, it's duck weather.
>
>> these "intellitecual exchanges" we get into on RAP only happen when we're
>> not flying
>
> Only when we're not using airplanes. :)
>
>> The truth is that pilots are most likely and collectively natural born
>> punsters.
>
> Probably, but I wouldn't get in a flap about it.
>
> Jose

Yes, that would most likely prop up the issue wouldn't it?
DH

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Ross Richardson wrote:
>
>>
>> During my commerical check ride I was coming up
>> a little short on a similated engine out and pointed the nose down to
>> gain airspeed. Work just find and landed right on the numbers.
>
>
> I'm guessing that you were below best glide speed at the time?

I was on very short final and didn't look like I would make it
otherwise. That is why I like to plan high now and slip.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Jim Macklin]

Flap extension does cause an immediate (manual flaps)
increase in lift, rotating the aircraft also increases lift
but the flaps seem to work better in the case of just
"jumping" a few feet because they also lower the stall speed
giving a slightly greater margin at the same energy level.



"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
| Jim Macklin wrote
| > Flap extension reduces the stalling speed, often only a
few
| > knots, but lift increases as does drag. The airplane
will
| > balloon and slow very fast, the extra distance and
altitude
| > gained is only a few feet, but if all you need is to
clear a
| > 5 foot cattle fence or a 10 foot wide ditch, that is a
| > technique that is useful.
|
| Can't create energy out of thin air Jim. You would clear
the
| same 5 foot fence just by increasing the angle of attack
and
| in both cases, glide a shorter distance if you were at
best
| L/D to start with.
|
| Bob Moore

[Jim Macklin]

The Beech T tails are very nice to fly, big enough and out
of prop and downwash.


> wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > But the flaps move the center of lift aft on the wing
and
| > you need back elevator pressure to force the main gear
| > (trike) or tailwheel on the ground to prevent weather
vaning
| > and skidding the wheels under braking. The flaps will
tend
| > to lift the lift the tail and you need to follow through
on
| > the flare to lever the balance point on the main gear.
|
| Airplanes like the 150, 172 and 182 will pitch up
on flap
| application. The downwash off the flaps stikes the stab
and pushes the
| tail down. A 185 or Glastar will pitch down; I suppose the
lower
| position of the stab has something to do with it.
|
| I once owned an Auster AOP 6. It had no pitch
change with
| flap application, and those flaps were serious big Zap
flaps. The
| elevator had two trim tabs: one was the usual
manually-operated tab,
| and the other was connected to the flap mechanism to zero
out any pitch
| changes when the flaps were raised or lowered. That old
airplane would
| land in 200' (half of book figures) if an approach was
made at 1.1 Vso
| and the Johnson-bar flaps were suddenly raised just before
the wheels
| hit the grass. Why did we need to put electric flaps in
small
| airplanes? Same technique works in the 185.
| The Auster's brakes, on the other hand, were less
than
| enthusiastic, so one could clamp them on before touchdown
and really
| get ahead of the game.
| Not that I'm recommending that Auster owners go
try it...
|
| Dan
|

[Jim Macklin]

They are an amazing airplane. In some parts of the world,
Helio floatplanes operate as long as the floats are level
and the top is not under water. The level part is a good
idea because it check balance [CG] but the floats are over
sized so they do get a little heavy.


"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > On dry ground the H295 would take-off in as little as
two
| > airplane lengths. The factory had a grass strip next to
the
| > assembly building. They would land and take-off day in
and
| > out, from the 300 feet of grass, even with straight EDO
| > floats.
|
|
|
| Jungle Aviation and Radio Service has their own field in
Waxhaw, NC called
| JAARS-Townsend. I used to go over there just to watch the
Helio Courier pilots
| do their stuff. It was absolutely amazing.
|
| They'd stand on the brakes, go to full power, pop the tail
up in one length, and
| be airborne in another. I suspect you could sprint
alongside it and keep up for
| a few seconds.
|
| The Helio didn't just climb out of impossibly short
strips... it had six seats
| and could carry a load.
|
| JAARS is a missionary outfit, if anybody wonders. They
used to have missions in
| New Guinea and down in South America... don't know about
now. They also
| operated DC-3s and some other birds (can't remember now).
|
|
|
|
| --
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN
| mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
|
|

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:54:28 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Peter Duniho writes:
>
>> IMHO, since you're not actually flying an airplane, I wouldn't worry about
>> it. Put the flaps down whenever you want.
>
>The idea is to try to approach real life. Additionally, many things
>are simulated. If adjusting flaps has a bad effect in real life,
>there's a good chance that it has a bad effect in simulation as well.

Are you aware that you are discussing this with one of the programmers
who wrote MS Flight Simulator?

[[email protected]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

>
> Jungle Aviation and Radio Service has their own field in Waxhaw, NC called
> JAARS-Townsend. I used to go over there just to watch the Helio Courier pilots
> do their stuff. It was absolutely amazing.
>
> They'd stand on the brakes, go to full power, pop the tail up in one length, and
> be airborne in another. I suspect you could sprint alongside it and keep up for
> a few seconds.
>
> The Helio didn't just climb out of impossibly short strips... it had six seats
> and could carry a load.
>
> JAARS is a missionary outfit, if anybody wonders. They used to have missions in
> New Guinea and down in South America... don't know about now. They also
> operated DC-3s and some other birds (can't remember now).

Still doing it. See http://www.jaars.org/aviation04/avia_home.shtml

They use a short-field landing technique in the Helio that
involves a minimum approach speed, touchdown on the mains, raise the
tail high, use a little power to maintain elevator authority and use
heavy braking, keeping the tail way high to get rid of the lift and put
lots of weight on the mains. The prop isn't far off the surface. I was
taught the same thing in the 185, and it'll stop in way under published
figures. Very unnerving the first few times.
Those Helios are pretty old, and JAARS has been
manufacturing parts for them under FAA-PMA approval to keep them alive.
They also have serial number 1 in their fleet. They will soon start
replacing them with the Quest Kodiak.

Dan

Dan

[GeorgeC]

LOL. Good one.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:46:45 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>And a Playboy magazine is safer than sex.

GeorgeC

[kontiki]

Skylune wrote:
> No. You are right. Too expensive, relatively risky, and VFR flying lacks
> utility. VFR is a risky and completely unreliable means of
> transportation.
>
> You are smart sticking to the sim.
>

If that's really what he believes, then yes, he should stick to the sim.

[kontiki]

I'm glad no one mentioned what goes on in the cockpit.

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> I'm glad no one mentioned what goes on in the cockpit.
>

Someone just did :-))
DH

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> Depends on the aircraft. Some planes they are purely mechanical from
> the flap handle in the cockpit.

I'm surprised that a small handle in the cockpit would provide enough
leverage to lower flaps. Isn't there are a lot of aerodynamic
pressure to overcome against them (at least if they are lowered in
flight)?

I'm always surprised by how much is still mechanically linked in
aircraft. I'm not necessarily saying that's bad--simple is reliable,
generally speaking--but somehow I don't picture control surfaces as
something that one could easily move without assistance. I suppose
small planes are lighter than they appear, and just because the wings
look relatively big doesn't mean that they are heavy or hard to move.

> My plane specs flaps up or 1/2 for takeoff (short field takeoff done
> with 1/2). Landing can be done with any setting of flaps.

I've always been landing with flaps down completely, and usually
taking off with some flaps, as I had read that this was necessary (and
I had seen accident reports about pilots who crashed because they took
off without first lowering flaps). But from what you and others here
say it sounds like I have considerably more discretion in whether or
not I lower flaps for both operations.

Are there good reasons to lower flaps in flight, outside take-off and
landing? I've thought that they would be useful for increasing drag
and lowering airspeed, but since they apparently cannot be used at
high speeds I guess this isn't a good idea. Sometimes if one must
descend rapidly just idling the throttle doesn't seem to be enough to
stay below hazardous speeds, and few aircraft seem to have speed
brakes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> But if there is a bad effect in simulation as well, you live to tell about
> it and you get a brand-spanking-new airplane to try it again. If "a bad
> effect in simulation" is your concern, why not just try it in the simulation
> and see what happens?

I like to occasionally verify that what happens in the sim is a
reflection of real life and not an artifact of the simulator.
Nowadays the basic flight models are generally error free, but some
details of behavior for specific aircraft are not necessarily exactly
correct.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Why?
>
> You've stated you don't want to experience real flight, so what's the point?

Approaching real life and experiencing it are two different things.
Simulation offers many of the advantages of real flight (to the extent
that it simulates them) without most of the disadvantages.

This is common to all simulation systems, not just aviation
simulations. It's the reason why full-motion simulators are used to
train pilots, instead of real aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Are you aware that you are discussing this with one of the programmers
> who wrote MS Flight Simulator?

No, but why would that make any difference?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Your problem (one of the many) seems to be that you think only flying
> big jets is flying worth to be considered. You're wrong.

The question of what is worth flying is up to each individual to
decide for himself. Obviously people who are willing to fly tiny
planes feel that tiny planes are worth flying, but that viewpoint is
specific to themselves, and may not be shared by all.

One thing is relatively sure: people who really prefer to fly large
aircraft are pretty much out of luck, unless they are fabulously rich
or decide to devote their entire professional lives to flying large
aicraft. There are not many private pilots with an Airbus of their
own waiting for them at the airport.

I've heard that John Travolta owns a Boeing 707, but that is a bit
behind the times these days.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Margy Natalie]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>>>news:xXfOg.22647$SZ3.11479@dukeread04...
>>>
>>>
>>>>And a Playboy magazine is safer than sex.
>>>
>>>Indeed; a good trait for any pilot is one that...shall we say....has the
>>>situation "well in hand".
>>>:-))
>>>Dudley
>>
>>What do you log if you are the sole manipulator of the pilot in
>>command?
>
>
> The term "solo stick time" comes to mind here :-))
> Dudley
>
>
Not necessarily ;-)

Margy

[Mxsmanic]

Skylune writes:

> No. You are right. Too expensive, relatively risky, and VFR flying lacks
> utility. VFR is a risky and completely unreliable means of
> transportation.

It's an extremely complicated way of getting from place to place. It
does have the advantage of being fairly direct, although small planes
are so slow that this isn't necessarily a significant advantage for
long trips. But that advantage can be lost in the overhead of getting
to and from airports, and other activities. It's difficult to imagine
someone commuting to work in an aircraft under any but very specific
and special conditions.

> You are smart sticking to the sim.

It's not a question of intelligence; it's a question of the right tool
for the right job. Simulation puts an emphasis on the enjoyable parts
and allows other things to be ignored, and it is thousands of times
cheaper and less time-consuming than real flight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Margy Natalie writes:

> Fast approach speed. At Dulles I would take the plane over the numbers
> at cruise speed. You have lots of room to slow down as it's 4000' to
> the first taxiway. If you learn to do it it's not that hard. If it's
> REALLY windy you might want to opt for a no flap landing.

I will try that.

> Take at least an intro flight in a real airplane. I think the enjoyment
> will really beat any sim.

Well, I see two possibilities: I dislike it and waste my time with it,
or I like it and then feel disappointed to not be able to continue. I
rather expect the first result for an introductory flight, since there
isn't much you can do in an hour. And conversely, even if you like
it, you are limited to doing almost nothing more until you spend
thousands of dollars and hours getting a license, at which point
you'll need thousands more just to get a plane to fly.

It just isn't very cost-effective unless you have time and money to
burn on it. These days I can hardly find spare time for simulation.
I don't know how people find time to fly (and indeed I know pilots who
rarely ever fly for exactly the reasons I've given).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Margy Natalie]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>>The term "solo stick time" comes to mind here :-))
>>
>>If you're not any good, is that a dead stick landing?
>>
>>Jose
>
>
> Is it a rainy day where you are Jose? Its lousy here. My wife is convinced
> that these "intellitecual exchanges" we get into on RAP only happen when
> we're not flying and all of us are sitting around bored to tears. I'd be
> interested in what Margy Natalie thinks about this :-)

I think you blew it thinking there was a solo requirement for sole
manipulator of the pilot in command. It's raining here too and I'm
supposed to be painting the study :-), but this is so much more fun!

Margy
> Personally, since I'm retired and don't fly much any more , I think this
> shoots all kinds of holes in my wife's theory. The truth is that pilots are
> most likely and collectively natural born punsters. Maybe Shakespeare was
> right!!!
> :-))
> Dudley Henriques
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> Then why would you you have them? The FAA believes that FULL FLAPS
> should always be used for landings (not one that I believe in).

Hmm ... so in theory I'm always supposed to land with full flaps?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I think you blew it thinking there was a solo requirement for sole manipulator of the pilot in command.

Maybe, but no matter how you handle it, if you can't get the motor
running, you have a dead stick landing. Of course, if there are no
paved runways around, you could end up tumbling in a haystack.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Chris W writes:

> out of curiosity, when flying the simulators do you use any kind of head
> tracking device?

I don't know if such devices are available for commodity simulators
like MSFS; there is no fundamental technical obstacle to employing
them, and perhaps someone out there is building them.

For more advanced simulators, head tracking can be used to selectively
enhance resolution on displays so as to provide extremely
high-resolution images without the need for hardware horsepower to
drive resolution in the entire visual field at once. Some simulators
use head tracking and virtual helmets or eyepieces to provide all
visual input, eliminating the need for screens.

I'd personally prefer a more conventional simulation because wearing a
special headset would be less like real life, althoug I suppose a good
virtual helmet or goggle set could probably do better than screens at
creating realistic visual input.

The main limiting factor is the cost of special hardware.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Margy Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>
>>Depends on the aircraft. Some planes they are purely mechanical from
>>the flap handle in the cockpit.
>
>
> I'm surprised that a small handle in the cockpit would provide enough
> leverage to lower flaps.

Who said the handle is small? Some of these "handles" are 2 - 3 feet long.

Margy
Isn't there are a lot of aerodynamic
> pressure to overcome against them (at least if they are lowered in
> flight)?
>

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Dale > wrote:

> In article >,
> Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Think it can't happen? It does. I once had a student who owned a C-206
> > for umpty years and was learning the Bonanza. Flap and gear levers in
> > opposite positions on the two models. Damn, am I glad the squat switches
> > worked.
>
> Interesting 206 that had a "gear lever". <G>

207? Whichever of that series had folding legs.

[Roy Smith]

In article <xXfOg.22647$SZ3.11479@dukeread04>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> And a Playboy magazine is safer than sex.

Yeah, but the staples in the centerfold can be painful.

[Mxsmanic]

Margy Natalie writes:

> Who said the handle is small? Some of these "handles" are 2 - 3 feet long.

Where are they in the cockpit? I haven't seen many small cockpits; is
there a picture on the Net of one that has this kind of lever? It
sounds like it would be awkward to use in flight.

I go by what I've seen in the handful of pictures of cockpits that
I've encountered. Most of these are of jet aircraft, and the flap
lever is longer than most but hardly long enough to provide much
leverage.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>>>>news:xXfOg.22647$SZ3.11479@dukeread04...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And a Playboy magazine is safer than sex.
>>>>
>>>>Indeed; a good trait for any pilot is one that...shall we say....has the
>>>>situation "well in hand".
>>>>:-))
>>>>Dudley
>>>
>>>What do you log if you are the sole manipulator of the pilot in
>>>command?
>>
>>
>> The term "solo stick time" comes to mind here :-))
>> Dudley
> Not necessarily ;-)
>
> Margy

I think I see the point!!!
:-)))

Dudley

[Jim Macklin]

Every airplane with flaps has speed limits with flaps
extended. If there is a positive stop, they may have a
series of allowable speeds. The same sort of limits apply
to landing gear extension and operation with the gear
extended.

In some airplanes the gear is not to be extended at speeds
above a certain speed because the motor and linkage is not
strong enough, but once fully extended and lock down, the
airplane can be flown at a higher speed. Some airplanes can
have the gear extended at very high speed in an emergency,
but then the gear doors may be damaged and require
replacement or adjustment before the next flight.

Real airplanes and the simulators that exactly duplicate a
particular airplane are flown by the identical procedures.
Table-top PC "simulators" are more properly known as
training devices and they mimic some generic airplanes.

A real simulator costs more than the airplane it is
duplicating, a Beechjet or Boeing simulator can cost $8-10
million dollars or more. It is worthwhile because it
doesn't burn several thousand pounds of fuel per hour, can
be run nearly 24/7, rarely kills anyone and it is a safe
place to do things that can't be done safely in a real
airplane. Also, it allows the airplane to be out earning
revenue.

Even a PC based training device is very useful for learning
and practicing procedures, but you get what you pay for. A
King Air trainer with out full visual and motion still
allows learning all the systems and practicing the various
emergency and abnormal procedures.



"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
| Ron Natalie writes:
|
| > Depends on the aircraft. Some planes they are purely
mechanical from
| > the flap handle in the cockpit.
|
| I'm surprised that a small handle in the cockpit would
provide enough
| leverage to lower flaps. Isn't there are a lot of
aerodynamic
| pressure to overcome against them (at least if they are
lowered in
| flight)?
|
| I'm always surprised by how much is still mechanically
linked in
| aircraft. I'm not necessarily saying that's bad--simple
is reliable,
| generally speaking--but somehow I don't picture control
surfaces as
| something that one could easily move without assistance.
I suppose
| small planes are lighter than they appear, and just
because the wings
| look relatively big doesn't mean that they are heavy or
hard to move.
|
| > My plane specs flaps up or 1/2 for takeoff (short field
takeoff done
| > with 1/2). Landing can be done with any setting of
flaps.
|
| I've always been landing with flaps down completely, and
usually
| taking off with some flaps, as I had read that this was
necessary (and
| I had seen accident reports about pilots who crashed
because they took
| off without first lowering flaps). But from what you and
others here
| say it sounds like I have considerably more discretion in
whether or
| not I lower flaps for both operations.
|
| Are there good reasons to lower flaps in flight, outside
take-off and
| landing? I've thought that they would be useful for
increasing drag
| and lowering airspeed, but since they apparently cannot be
used at
| high speeds I guess this isn't a good idea. Sometimes if
one must
| descend rapidly just idling the throttle doesn't seem to
be enough to
| stay below hazardous speeds, and few aircraft seem to have
speed
| brakes.
|
| --
| Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Macklin]

A joke Rodney Dangerfield could have used...
" I don't get no respect, even my Playboy centerfold
rejected
me."




"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
| In article <xXfOg.22647$SZ3.11479@dukeread04>,
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| > And a Playboy magazine is safer than sex.
|
| Yeah, but the staples in the centerfold can be painful.

[Tom Young[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" <...> wrote in message
...
> I'm surprised that a small handle in the cockpit would provide enough
> leverage to lower flaps. Isn't there are a lot of aerodynamic
> pressure to overcome against them (at least if they are lowered in
> flight)?

In a Beech Sundowner the handle is maybe 18" long and looks like a big
version of a parking brake lever that you might see in a car. There's more
resistance the higher your airspeed, but it pulls up easily enough below the
max flaps speed. Also, it's good to have a bit of mechanical feedback like
that in case you don't have your wits about you and try to pull flaps at too
high an airspeed.

> Are there good reasons to lower flaps in flight, outside take-off and
> landing? I've thought that they would be useful for increasing drag
> and lowering airspeed, but since they apparently cannot be used at
> high speeds I guess this isn't a good idea. Sometimes if one must
> descend rapidly just idling the throttle doesn't seem to be enough to
> stay below hazardous speeds, and few aircraft seem to have speed
> brakes.

Flaps have two main effects, they increase drag, like you said, and they
also increase lift and reduce your stall speed. These two effects can be
useful at different times. For example, if your wing is on fire and you want
to descend quickly, you lower the flaps and descend at Vfe (max speed with
flaps extended, top of the white arc). It's an interesting exercise the
first time you practice it, with the ground filling up your windscreen like
that and all. Another use is when you simply want to fly slower, such as
when you're in the traffic pattern and want to avoid getting too close to
someone in front of you. You can slow down without flaps, but using them
keeps you farther from a stall, which is a good thing at pattern altitude.
I'm sure more experienced pilots can give more interesting ways to use flaps
in normal flight, but those are the ones that come to mind just now.

Tom Young

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> A real simulator costs more than the airplane it is
> duplicating, a Beechjet or Boeing simulator can cost $8-10
> million dollars or more.

Are there full-motions simulators for specific GA aircraft, such as
the Baron 58 that I've mentioned? The aircraft apparently costs about
$1 million to purchase today, so I should think that someone would
have simulators somewhere, but I don't know if a full-motion simulator
would be economical. If one exists, it would be fun to fly it.

> It is worthwhile because it
> doesn't burn several thousand pounds of fuel per hour, can
> be run nearly 24/7, rarely kills anyone and it is a safe
> place to do things that can't be done safely in a real
> airplane. Also, it allows the airplane to be out earning
> revenue.

Very similar to the reasons for using a PC-based simulator. You get
many of the advantages and avoid many of the disadvantages of a real
aircraft.

> Even a PC based training device is very useful for learning
> and practicing procedures, but you get what you pay for. A
> King Air trainer with out full visual and motion still
> allows learning all the systems and practicing the various
> emergency and abnormal procedures.

Are there specific simulator packages for specific aircraft that run
on a PC? I've only used MSFS, mainly because it has a very good
all-around blend of the kinds of features one might want in a
simulator, but I've heard that there are other programs that are very
good for specific purposes, such as very intensive IFR training or
very accurate flight models.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tom Young writes:

> Flaps have two main effects, they increase drag, like you said, and they
> also increase lift and reduce your stall speed. These two effects can be
> useful at different times. For example, if your wing is on fire and you want
> to descend quickly, you lower the flaps and descend at Vfe (max speed with
> flaps extended, top of the white arc). It's an interesting exercise the
> first time you practice it, with the ground filling up your windscreen like
> that and all. Another use is when you simply want to fly slower, such as
> when you're in the traffic pattern and want to avoid getting too close to
> someone in front of you. You can slow down without flaps, but using them
> keeps you farther from a stall, which is a good thing at pattern altitude.
> I'm sure more experienced pilots can give more interesting ways to use flaps
> in normal flight, but those are the ones that come to mind just now.

In simulation it seems that flying slow with flaps extended makes the
aircraft more prone to exaggerated movement for a specific control
input, especially in larger aircraft. Is an aircraft inherently less
stable at slow speeds with flaps extended? If so, is it just because
the flaps are out, or is it the slow speed that does it?

When flying around a city for fun at low altitudes (2000-3000 feet), I
often fly with full flaps and throttles near idle. It makes it easier
to go slow and enjoy the view, but I also get the impression that the
envelope of safe maneuvering is smaller in this configuration. But I
don't know if it's the flaps that do that, or the slow speed, or
perhaps both.

When I first tried simulation (many years ago now), I was surprised by
the drag effect of flaps. I had read about it but I didn't realize it
was so significant. I finally understood why I had heard commercial
pilots increasing engine speed while approaching a runway on landing.
I find myself doing the same thing, to maintain altitude mainly, and
also because it seems to improve flight characteristics if one flies
with more power (?), as opposed to just gliding in at the slowest
possible speed.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Roy Smith]

In article <SwnOg.22694$SZ3.9372@dukeread04>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> Every airplane with flaps has speed limits with flaps
> extended. If there is a positive stop, they may have a
> series of allowable speeds.

Why do you say "positive stop"? I think you're talking about:

*23.1511***Flap extended speed.

(a) The flap extended speed VFE must be established so that it is‹

(1) Not less than the minimum value of VF allowed in 23.345(b); and

(2) Not more than VF established under 23.345(a), (c), and (d).

(b) Additional combinations of flap setting, airspeed, and engine power
may be established if the structure has been proven for the corresponding
design conditions.

I don't see anything there that mandates a "positive stop".

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:16:58 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Sometimes if one must
>descend rapidly just idling the throttle doesn't seem to be enough to
>stay below hazardous speeds,

In those situations, you can descend by flying slowly (slower than Vx)
on the other side of the knee in the curve, but you must remain above
stall speed.

[Jose[_1_]]

> In those situations, you can descend by flying slowly (slower than Vx)
> on the other side of the knee in the curve, but you must remain above
> stall speed.

Try it at altitude first so you get a feel for the impending stall
should it occur. I did this to a landing once in a spot landing contest
where we were not allowed to slip, and I was high. Scared my passenger
(also a pilot) though; apparantly he hadn't really done much full-stall
slow flight.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:20:22 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Are you aware that you are discussing this with one of the programmers
>> who wrote MS Flight Simulator?
>
>No, but why would that make any difference?

It was just a bit of information I offered. I was thinking you might
want to take avail yourself of the opportunity to discuss the product
he helped create and you enjoy so much.

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Are there full-motions simulators for specific GA aircraft, such as
> the Baron 58 that I've mentioned?

Consider making or buying your own.

Google for the keywords "full" "motion" "simulator" - you'll come up with a
bunch of relevant hits. Here's some:

Plans for allegedly building your own for under $350:
http://www.acesim.com/main.html

Another do-it-yourself set of plans:
http://www.simcraft.com/phpPages/products/primusDIY.php

Some vendors, no price info:

http://www.noonco.com/flyer/
http://www.flightmotion.com/home.htm
http://home.claranet.nl/users/wvdlelij/english/index-e.html

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:38:11 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> In those situations, you can descend by flying slowly (slower than Vx)
>> on the other side of the knee in the curve, but you must remain above
>> stall speed.
>
>Try it at altitude first so you get a feel for the impending stall
>should it occur.

Remember, he's flyin' a sim.

>I did this to a landing once in a spot landing contest
>where we were not allowed to slip, and I was high. Scared my passenger
>(also a pilot) though; apparantly he hadn't really done much full-stall
>slow flight.
>

Full-stall slow flight. That's an interesting term; you really mean
partially stalled, right?

[Jose[_1_]]

> Full-stall slow flight. That's an interesting term; you really mean
> partially stalled, right?

Tell you the truth I don't know how much of the airflow had separated
from the wing, but I was pulling up as hard as I could on the yoke, and
the airplane was shuddering and struggling to stay aloft (and sinking).
The nose was bobbing, so it's as full as I could get, steady state.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Tom Young[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" <...> wrote in message
...
> In simulation it seems that flying slow with flaps extended makes the
> aircraft more prone to exaggerated movement for a specific control
> input, especially in larger aircraft. Is an aircraft inherently less
> stable at slow speeds with flaps extended? If so, is it just because
> the flaps are out, or is it the slow speed that does it?

Hm... Slow flight is accompanied by soft-feeling controls and less control
authority (i.e. you have to put in more input to get the aircraft to
respond, not less). By the same token, you have to put in more control to
stop the plane from rolling (or whatever) once started, so that might be
what is giving you that impression. Dunno.

> When flying around a city for fun at low altitudes (2000-3000 feet), I
> often fly with full flaps and throttles near idle. It makes it easier
> to go slow and enjoy the view, but I also get the impression that the
> envelope of safe maneuvering is smaller in this configuration. But I
> don't know if it's the flaps that do that, or the slow speed, or
> perhaps both.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'envelope of safe maneuvering.' You
can't go as fast with flaps extended, because something might break, but you
can fly slower, because of the additional lift.

> When I first tried simulation (many years ago now), I was surprised by
> the drag effect of flaps. I had read about it but I didn't realize it
> was so significant. I finally understood why I had heard commercial
> pilots increasing engine speed while approaching a runway on landing.
> I find myself doing the same thing, to maintain altitude mainly, and
> also because it seems to improve flight characteristics if one flies
> with more power (?), as opposed to just gliding in at the slowest
> possible speed.

I'll have to take your word for it -- I've never flown a big airplane, real
or simulated. In smaller airplanes where the propwash flows over the control
surfaces, your elevator and rudder are more responsive at higher RPMs.

Tom Young

[Jim Macklin]

The application of the rule has required a positive detent
to limit the flap position.



"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
| In article <SwnOg.22694$SZ3.9372@dukeread04>,
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| > Every airplane with flaps has speed limits with flaps
| > extended. If there is a positive stop, they may have a
| > series of allowable speeds.
|
| Why do you say "positive stop"? I think you're talking
about:
|
| 23.1511 Flap extended speed.
|
| (a) The flap extended speed VFE must be established so
that it is<
|
| (1) Not less than the minimum value of VF allowed in
23.345(b); and
|
| (2) Not more than VF established under 23.345(a), (c), and
(d).
|
| (b) Additional combinations of flap setting, airspeed, and
engine power
| may be established if the structure has been proven for
the corresponding
| design conditions.
|
| I don't see anything there that mandates a "positive
stop".

[ET]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Margy Natalie writes:
>
>> Who said the handle is small? Some of these "handles" are 2 - 3 feet
>> long.
>
> Where are they in the cockpit? I haven't seen many small cockpits; is
> there a picture on the Net of one that has this kind of lever? It
> sounds like it would be awkward to use in flight.
>
> I go by what I've seen in the handful of pictures of cockpits that
> I've encountered. Most of these are of jet aircraft, and the flap
> lever is longer than most but hardly long enough to provide much
> leverage.
>

In the StingSport LSA it's right where you would expect to find your
Toyota parking brake handle... in fact, it looks suspiciously like a
Toyota parking brake handle... <grin>

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Nope.

As long as you are flying in the green arc, the wing alone will ALWAYS give
you better lift.


Karl
"Curator" N185KG
screw bottom feeders


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:2njOg.22663$SZ3.21477@dukeread04...
> Flap extension does cause an immediate (manual flaps)
> increase in lift, rotating the aircraft also increases lift
> but the flaps seem to work better in the case of just
> "jumping" a few feet because they also lower the stall speed
> giving a slightly greater margin at the same energy level.
>

[Jim Macklin]

Try it. It is not a long term effect, just a quick change
to get over the short fence or narrow ditch.


"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
| Nope.
|
| As long as you are flying in the green arc, the wing alone
will ALWAYS give
| you better lift.
|
|
| Karl
| "Curator" N185KG
| screw bottom feeders
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:2njOg.22663$SZ3.21477@dukeread04...
| > Flap extension does cause an immediate (manual flaps)
| > increase in lift, rotating the aircraft also increases
lift
| > but the flaps seem to work better in the case of just
| > "jumping" a few feet because they also lower the stall
speed
| > giving a slightly greater margin at the same energy
level.
| >
|
|

[Chris W]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> I don't know if such devices are available for commodity simulators
> like MSFS; there is no fundamental technical obstacle to employing
> them, and perhaps someone out there is building them.
>

Head tracking equipment for the PC that works in MSFS and many other
programs do exist. With out it flight simulators are extremely boring
to me. You really need to look into them, they increase the level of
realism by an order of magnitude. The one I have is called TrackIR.
I'm sure there are others out there, but I don't know what they are.
The TrackIR works by using an inferred camera that you put over your
monitor and point it at your head. The low end version that I use comes
with a set of silver stickers that the inferred camera picks up really
well and tracks. You just stick them on a hat and go. Then it
exaggerates your head movements in the game, so say 10 degrees of
movement of your real head translates to 120 degrees of movement for the
game head. The first 3 or 4 times you use it, you will probably get a
head ache, but after you get used to it, the head aches stop. By the
way, the 10 to 120 degree numbers were just made up, the real ratio is
configurable with a little utility that shows your head on one side and
the game head on the other side so you can see what how much it moves.
They have a higher end version that not only tracks which way your head
is pointing but it also tracks movement from side to side, forward and
backward up and down and side to side tilt (think roll here). The basic
version just does pitch and yaw, which does work well. A friend has the
more advanced version and tells me he has to turn off the roll feature
because it becomes to disorienting while flying, but he does like using
the full functionality in the Nascar simulator.


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Are you aware that you are discussing this with one of the programmers
> who wrote MS Flight Simulator?

Oh, who? The original version or one of the more recent ones? I remember
somewhere around v1 there was this "feature" that if you went inverted and
"dove" towards the sky, you had a *very* good climb rate and speed... Great
"feature" during the dogfight scenario since you could thereby climb
considerably faster than all the other aircraft that were trying to shoot
you down...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> In those situations, you can descend by flying slowly (slower than Vx)
> on the other side of the knee in the curve, but you must remain above
> stall speed.

Kind of depends upon the aircraft, doesn't it? Some aircraft stall so
benignly that you could probably just descend vertically in the stall and
then recover at some point before you become one with the ground... <grin>

I seem to remember a 150 or 152 at one time that when I was flying it solo
and practicing stalls, even with full back yoke and throttle at idle, I
couldn't get a noticeable break... Yeah, the descent rate increased, but it
was very stable in the descent... After awhile, I got bored and just told
myself, "yeah, I guess we can call that a stall"...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Your stall speed is reduced by the flaps by maybe 10 or 20 knots. If
> the wind is blowing enough for your stall speed to be a factor - don't
> fly.

Maybe in *your* plane, but *my* plane only gets a 2-3 kt decrease in stall
speed... Not worth the trouble unless you need to drop into a really short
field with trees or a power line at the approach end of it...

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> > The Cardinal will not fly at gusts of 30 knots - no matter whether the
> > flaps are down or not.
> >
> BULL****. 20G33 was good student solo weather in Colorado where I
> learned. We regularly took the Cardinal RG's out in these conditions.
>

Misunderstanding. See Peter's post.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> It was my interpretation of Tom's post that the Cardinal will not fly
> *prematurely* when taxiing in those wind conditions.
>

You got it. Thanks.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> It's an extremely complicated way of getting from place to place.
>

Oh yes, your sim is much better at that...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Dale > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Roy Smith > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Think it can't happen? It does. I once had a student who owned a C-206
> > > for umpty years and was learning the Bonanza. Flap and gear levers in
> > > opposite positions on the two models. Damn, am I glad the squat switches
> > > worked.
> >
> > Interesting 206 that had a "gear lever". <G>
>
> 207? Whichever of that series had folding legs.

Retractable Cessna singles: 172RG, 177RG, 182RG, 210. Fixed
gear: 120, 140, 150, 152, 172, 177, 180, 182, 185, 190, 195, 205, 206,
207, 208.
The early 210 had struts, four seats, and 260 HP. The 205 was a
fixed-gear version of that airplane.

Dan

[Roy Smith]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Dale > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > Roy Smith > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Think it can't happen? It does. I once had a student who owned a
> > > > C-206
> > > > for umpty years and was learning the Bonanza. Flap and gear levers in
> > > > opposite positions on the two models. Damn, am I glad the squat
> > > > switches
> > > > worked.
> > >
> > > Interesting 206 that had a "gear lever". <G>
> >
> > 207? Whichever of that series had folding legs.
>
> Retractable Cessna singles: 172RG, 177RG, 182RG, 210. Fixed
> gear: 120, 140, 150, 152, 172, 177, 180, 182, 185, 190, 195, 205, 206,
> 207, 208.
> The early 210 had struts, four seats, and 260 HP. The 205 was a
> fixed-gear version of that airplane.
>
> Dan

OK, so maybe it was a 210. Whatever. The point is that he was used to the
levers being in the opposite places and had the location of the flap lever
programmed deep in some sub-conscious neural pathway.

I watched him reach out his hand to operate the flap lever, stop, hesitate,
and then suddenly move his hand to the gear lever and operate that instead.
I couldn't react fast enough to keep it from happening. The gear alarm
went off, the wheels stayed down, and I had a cow. I believe it is the
only time I've ever totally lost my cool with a student.

Moral of the story -- in a retract, get off the runway, come to a full
stop, and then clean up the airplane when you can devote your full
attention to the task at hand.

[Mxsmanic]

Tom Young writes:

> Hm... Slow flight is accompanied by soft-feeling controls and less control
> authority (i.e. you have to put in more input to get the aircraft to
> respond, not less). By the same token, you have to put in more control to
> stop the plane from rolling (or whatever) once started, so that might be
> what is giving you that impression. Dunno.

That sounds like it. I just described it poorly. It feels mushy.

> I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'envelope of safe maneuvering.' You
> can't go as fast with flaps extended, because something might break, but you
> can fly slower, because of the additional lift.

By envelope I mean the area of safety between two extremes, e.g., the
"coffin corner" of some aircraft represents a very tiny envelope,
since more than a slight movement in any direction may result in
irrecoverable instability.

> I'll have to take your word for it -- I've never flown a big airplane, real
> or simulated. In smaller airplanes where the propwash flows over the control
> surfaces, your elevator and rudder are more responsive at higher RPMs.

I'm surprised that propwash would matter, since the airflow from the
prop should stay in roughly the same place no matter what the attitude
of the aircraft. That is, it would be like putting a big fan on a
sailboat to drive it forward.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Remember, he's flyin' a sim.

You can still crash, which ends the flight. The big difference is
that you survive, and you immediately get a brand-new aircraft to
replace the broken one. Just one of many advantages to simulators.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> It was just a bit of information I offered. I was thinking you might
> want to take avail yourself of the opportunity to discuss the product
> he helped create and you enjoy so much.

He might keel over in shock, given the aspersions routinely cast upon
simulation in this group.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Grumman-581" > writes:

> Oh, who? The original version or one of the more recent ones? I remember
> somewhere around v1 there was this "feature" that if you went inverted and
> "dove" towards the sky, you had a *very* good climb rate and speed... Great
> "feature" during the dogfight scenario since you could thereby climb
> considerably faster than all the other aircraft that were trying to shoot
> you down...

It hasn't worked that way in a long time.

I remember when it was impossible to flare on landing. You landed
nose down, and as soon as the gear touched the runway, you were flat
and level. Today, however, it's just about identical to real life,
even down to the inherent bounce in the gear (or the airframe).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Oh yes, your sim is much better at that...

My sim doesn't go anywhere, but that's not the purpose of simulation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Grumman-581" > writes:

> Maybe in *your* plane, but *my* plane only gets a 2-3 kt decrease in stall
> speed... Not worth the trouble unless you need to drop into a really short
> field with trees or a power line at the approach end of it...

Why do large commercial jets seem to have huge flaps with many
settings, whereas small planes have tiny flaps with one or two
settings, or none at all?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Try it. It is not a long term effect, just a quick change
> to get over the short fence or narrow ditch.

So it's like ground effect, right?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Chris W writes:

> Head tracking equipment for the PC that works in MSFS and many other
> programs do exist. With out it flight simulators are extremely boring
> to me. You really need to look into them, they increase the level of
> realism by an order of magnitude. The one I have is called TrackIR.

Sounds interesting, but at $180, it's well beyond my budget at the
moment.

> I'm sure there are others out there, but I don't know what they are.
> The TrackIR works by using an inferred camera that you put over your
> monitor and point it at your head. The low end version that I use comes
> with a set of silver stickers that the inferred camera picks up really
> well and tracks. You just stick them on a hat and go. Then it
> exaggerates your head movements in the game, so say 10 degrees of
> movement of your real head translates to 120 degrees of movement for the
> game head. The first 3 or 4 times you use it, you will probably get a
> head ache, but after you get used to it, the head aches stop. By the
> way, the 10 to 120 degree numbers were just made up, the real ratio is
> configurable with a little utility that shows your head on one side and
> the game head on the other side so you can see what how much it moves.
> They have a higher end version that not only tracks which way your head
> is pointing but it also tracks movement from side to side, forward and
> backward up and down and side to side tilt (think roll here). The basic
> version just does pitch and yaw, which does work well. A friend has the
> more advanced version and tells me he has to turn off the roll feature
> because it becomes to disorienting while flying, but he does like using
> the full functionality in the Nascar simulator.

I'm confused. Exactly what does this device do?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tom Young[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" <...> wrote in message
...
> I'm surprised that propwash would matter, since the airflow from the
> prop should stay in roughly the same place no matter what the attitude
> of the aircraft. That is, it would be like putting a big fan on a
> sailboat to drive it forward.

Propwash matters, and you can definitely feel the effect in the controls. As
for the affect at different airspeeds and a lot of other questions you might
have, a picture tells a thousand words and I'd really recommend reading
"Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewiesche. The book is almost 60 years
old, but his explanations and illustrations are so good at cutting through
misconceptions that it's stood up very well with time.

Tom Young

[Leonard Milcin Jr.]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Grumman-581" > writes:
>
>> Maybe in *your* plane, but *my* plane only gets a 2-3 kt decrease in stall
>> speed... Not worth the trouble unless you need to drop into a really short
>> field with trees or a power line at the approach end of it...
>
> Why do large commercial jets seem to have huge flaps with many
> settings, whereas small planes have tiny flaps with one or two
> settings, or none at all?
>

Isn't it obvious?


L.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I'm surprised that propwash would matter, since the airflow from the
> prop should stay in roughly the same place no matter what the attitude
> of the aircraft.
>

You really need to read a book or two about flying before blathering on
a pilot forum like that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> My sim doesn't go anywhere, but that's not the purpose of simulation.
>

So how the heck would you know

a) how complex a way GA is to go from A to B?
b) how many GA pilots consider that even to be the purpose of their
flying?

You have no clue - and the least you could do is shut up when you
don't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> given the aspersions routinely cast upon
> simulation in this group.
>

Not upon simulation, but rather upon your behaviour in "discussion".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Today, however, it's just about identical to real life,

Says the kid who's never sat in the front seat of an airplane.

> even down to the inherent bounce in the gear (or the airframe).

What 'inherent bounce' is that?

>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Skylune[_1_]]

The sim is better than real life. I've done both. In the little planes,
when u need to urinate, you do it in your pants or into a container. As
for the other bodily functions, you just gotta hold it and hope that there
isn't alot of traffic ahead of you before its your turn to land. (And the
pilots wonder why more women don't want to deal with this).

In the little planes, you are oftentimes dealing with 1960s technology.
The little planes are either too hot or too cold. They can't get you
where you want to go unless you have an IFR license and a capable plane.
In the little planes, you have to worry about other marginally trained
pilots running into you (either on the ground, mid-air, or in the traffic
pattern).

In the little planes, you will waste at least $100K between the training,
equipment, insurance, gas, etc. (Better off buying a really nice BMW or
Audi or Porsche, which will get you where you want in less time, and where
you can pull over at a rest stop when you want).

And, best of all, in the sim world you can fly into and out of Megis Field
to your heart's content!

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:42:33 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>In smaller airplanes where the propwash flows over the control
>> surfaces, your elevator and rudder are more responsive at higher RPMs.
>
>I'm surprised that propwash would matter, since the airflow from the
>prop should stay in roughly the same place no matter what the attitude
>of the aircraft.

Propwash matters for a number of reasons. The more slugs of air
deflected by the control surfaces, the more force they exert, ant thus
the more authority they provide in controlling the aircraft. Propwash
also reduces stalls (wing and elevator) by providing increased airflow
parallel to the aircraft's longitudinal axis.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:44:18 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>You can still crash, which ends the flight.

Right. But there is no need to take the aircraft to altitude when
practicing flying on the back side of the power curve. It would just
be a waste of time, as there are no physical consequences of crashing
a simulated aircraft.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:45:39 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>He might keel over in shock, given the aspersions routinely cast upon
>simulation in this group.

You'll find he's no Milquetoast; he is able to conjure argumentative
points through intelligent analysis of the most obscure information.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:49:12 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>So it's like ground effect, right?

No. It's like increasing the angle of attack on a thicker wing
section which stalls at a lower speed.

Ground effect is completely different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect
The term Ground effect (or Wing In Ground effect) refers to the
increase in lift experienced by an aircraft as it approaches
within roughly 1/4 of a wingpspan's length of the ground or other
level surface (such as the sea)

http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/185905-1.html

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:_ipOg.22703$SZ3.21706@dukeread04...
> The application of the rule has required a positive detent
> to limit the flap position.
>
>
>
Could you elaborate on that, please?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:14:48 -0400, "Skylune"
> wrote in
utaviation.com>:

>(Better off buying a really nice BMW or
>Audi or Porsche, which will get you where you want in less time, and where
>you can pull over at a rest stop when you want).

Granted, one can pull over and stop with an automobile; it's a little
more difficult in a light aircraft, but nowhere near as confining as
being trapped on a boat in high seas. However, unless you relish
being trapped in the quagmire of congestion on today's freeways,
aircraft are a far superior means of transportation for trips longer
than fifty miles or so.

[Jay B]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Well, I see two possibilities: I dislike it and waste my time with it,
> or I like it and then feel disappointed to not be able to continue. I
> rather expect the first result for an introductory flight, since there
> isn't much you can do in an hour.

Dunno about that...

On my intro ride I did everything from preflight to flying the pattern
right down to short final (guided by a CFI of course.)

My first lesson was only .9 which included my 1st landing.

Both experiences were just about all I could take in an hour. Any more
and I might have exploded.

>And conversely, even if you like it, you are limited to doing almost nothing more until >you spend thousands of dollars and hours getting a license, at which point you'll need >thousands more just to get a plane to fly.

How many times will people have to tell you you are wrong about your
assumptions?

Yes, there is a significant outlay up front but there are affordable
ways to fly IF YOU WANT TO.

>It just isn't very cost-effective unless you have time and money to burn on it. These >days I can hardly find spare time for simulation.

If you want to do something bad enough you find the time and a way to
make it so.

>I don't know how people find time to fly (and indeed I know pilots who rarely ever fly for >exactly the reasons I've given).

Not every flight has to be Lindberg crossing the Atlantic. Sometimes
just 45 minutes of going around the patch a few times is sufficient.

Jay B

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>The idea is to try to approach real life. Additionally, many things
>>are simulated. If adjusting flaps has a bad effect in real life,
>>there's a good chance that it has a bad effect in simulation as well.
>
> Are you aware that you are discussing this with one of the programmers
> who wrote MS Flight Simulator?

I cross-checked the names of the posters to this thread with the published
MS FS credits I could find and I still don't know who you're talking about
Larry. Unless Bruce Artwick is posting using a non-obvious handle? :-)

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I'm surprised that propwash would matter, since the airflow from the
> prop should stay in roughly the same place no matter what the attitude
> of the aircraft.

In addition to what's already been written, it's not true that "the airflow
from the prop should stay in roughly the same place". Aircraft attitude
affects relative wind, which in turn affects where the airflow from the prop
goes. This is a significant effect. As well, aircraft attitude affects up-
and down-wash from aerodynamic surfaces which also affects where the airflow
from the prop goes.

Air moving back from the prop doesn't do so independently of all the other
air around the airplane. It mixes with, interacts with, is affected by, and
otherwise reacts to all the other air in response to everything else that is
going on.

> That is, it would be like putting a big fan on a
> sailboat to drive it forward.

Depends. If you put the big fan at the front of the sailboat and direct it
rearward, you can not only propel the sailboat, if you put a sail in the
flow you can redirect the flow to accomplish different things (though why
you'd bother on a sailboat, I don't know).

Likewise, in an airplane you can redirect thrust to provide aerodynamic
control. There is a very minimal reduction in the thrust (as the
redirection creates some drag, offsetting the thrust) while the control
surfaces get more air to work with. You are right to think that you don't
get something for nothing, but in this particular situation, the cost (in
drag) is insignificant compared to the improvement in control effectiveness
(from redirecting the prop thrust).

As an extreme example, consider the airshow pilot who can change the pitch
attitude of his tailwheel airplane on the ground by locking the brakes and
using engine power and elevator control to raise or lower the tail as he
desires. The fact that the engine and prop are attached to the airframe in
no way prevents the thrust from the prop from being used by the elevator to
effect a pitch change.

Pete

[Chris W]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sounds interesting, but at $180, it's well beyond my budget at the
> moment.
>

You don't need the high end version the TrackIR Pro 3 is 120 and that is
all I have. It works great. Once you use it you will wonder why anyone
would bother flying or even driving any simulator with out it. I have
used MSFS back in the days of the 5Mhz 8088 computers on a green screen
monitor. In my opinion the head tracking is as big or bigger of an
improvement than how much graphics have improved since then. Before I
heard about and tried the head tracking equipment, I was totally bored
with flight simulators. Now it is a lot of fun and tons easier to make
smooth landings too. Not to mention being able to make turns in the
pattern at the right time and get lined up with the run way coming out
of the turn to final.


> I'm confused. Exactly what does this device do?
>

I don't think I explained the difference between the 2 versions very
well. First think about all the ways you can move your head or
anything for that mater. There are 6 degrees of freedom. You can move
in x, y or z. That is 3 degrees of freedom. You can rotate about the x
y and Z axis. That is the other 3. The basic tracker assumes you only
have 2 degrees of freedom, rotation about the Z and Y axis. That is
with the Z axis being vertical and the Y axis going from left to right.
In aviation terminology this corresponds to yaw and pitch
respectively. Obviously even with the low end 2 axis version you can
still move your head in any way you want, but the device just senses the
movement of the little silver dot it is looking at, and assumes the
movement is caused by rotation about Z or Y and moves the game head in
that way.



--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Peter Duniho]

Okay, I guess I might as well come clean...

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Are you aware that you are discussing this with one of the programmers
>> who wrote MS Flight Simulator?
>
> I cross-checked the names of the posters to this thread with the published
> MS FS credits I could find and I still don't know who you're talking about
> Larry. Unless Bruce Artwick is posting using a non-obvious handle? :-)

Which "published MS FS credits"?

Did you look here (for example)?
http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/microsoft-flight-simulator-2000/credits

Now, that said, one of the primary reasons I no longer work for Microsoft is
because of the fiasco surrounding the release of MSFS 2000 and the
remarkably low quality of that product. Frankly, I'm a bit embarassed to be
associated with it at all (though I admit to being happy that my final
contribution before leaving was to fix a particularly egregious performance
bug in the coastline rendering code, so at least after the Christmas patch
that year it didn't quite suck as much as it did when it was released to
manufacturing...and no, the bug I fixed wasn't my fault).

My stint with the MSFS team was a last-ditch effort to recapture the joy I
had had in programming, sucked dry from one bad corporate bureaucratic
experience after another. Suffice to say, it didn't work out (well,
actually I guess it did...I'm much happier now that I code for the pure joy
of it, I just don't work for Microsoft anymore :) ).

Anyway, that's a long way of saying I don't generally like to bring up my
involvement with MSFS. IMHO, the product released makes me look bad by
association. :(

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Why do large commercial jets seem to have huge flaps with many
> settings, whereas small planes have tiny flaps with one or two
> settings, or none at all?

Flaps enhance lift at the expense of drag. On a small airplane, large
complex flaps would not produce a significant enough reduction in drag
during cruise flight to justify the cost, complexity, and weight.

However, the larger and faster the airplane, the more there can be
accomplished by reducing drag significantly during cruise, especially
compared to the airfoil required to land such planes safely and within the
runways available to them (generally no longer than a couple of miles or
so).

You could land a 747 without flaps, but you'd use a LOT more pavement (maybe
double?), runway length that just isn't available. On the other hand, you
could design a 747 with an airfoil that allowed for shorter landings, but
cruise speed would suffer. The airplane is large enough and fast enough
that the extra expense and weight of flaps more than makes up for its cost
during cruise, while still allowing for reasonable landing performance.

Hopefully this one example has answered the general question of "why do
large airplanes have features not found on small airplanes?" You could
spend months asking that same question, using different features, and the
answer would always be the same: economics and usefulness.

Pete

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> Which "published MS FS credits"?

I have version 6 and the 2004 version, so I tried to check their credits.

> Did you look here (for example)?
> http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/microsoft-flight-simulator-2000/c
> redits

Nope - didn't see that. Looks like I overlooked the version(s) you worked
on.

> My stint with the MSFS team was a last-ditch effort to recapture the
> joy I had had in programming, sucked dry from one bad corporate
> bureaucratic experience after another.

That's appears to be a common problem. :-(

[Jim Macklin]

Google for "Custer channel wing" to see what extreme effect
prop wash can have.



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
| ...
| > [...]
| > I'm surprised that propwash would matter, since the
airflow from the
| > prop should stay in roughly the same place no matter
what the attitude
| > of the aircraft.
|
| In addition to what's already been written, it's not true
that "the airflow
| from the prop should stay in roughly the same place".
Aircraft attitude
| affects relative wind, which in turn affects where the
airflow from the prop
| goes. This is a significant effect. As well, aircraft
attitude affects up-
| and down-wash from aerodynamic surfaces which also affects
where the airflow
| from the prop goes.
|
| Air moving back from the prop doesn't do so independently
of all the other
| air around the airplane. It mixes with, interacts with,
is affected by, and
| otherwise reacts to all the other air in response to
everything else that is
| going on.
|
| > That is, it would be like putting a big fan on a
| > sailboat to drive it forward.
|
| Depends. If you put the big fan at the front of the
sailboat and direct it
| rearward, you can not only propel the sailboat, if you put
a sail in the
| flow you can redirect the flow to accomplish different
things (though why
| you'd bother on a sailboat, I don't know).
|
| Likewise, in an airplane you can redirect thrust to
provide aerodynamic
| control. There is a very minimal reduction in the thrust
(as the
| redirection creates some drag, offsetting the thrust)
while the control
| surfaces get more air to work with. You are right to
think that you don't
| get something for nothing, but in this particular
situation, the cost (in
| drag) is insignificant compared to the improvement in
control effectiveness
| (from redirecting the prop thrust).
|
| As an extreme example, consider the airshow pilot who can
change the pitch
| attitude of his tailwheel airplane on the ground by
locking the brakes and
| using engine power and elevator control to raise or lower
the tail as he
| desires. The fact that the engine and prop are attached
to the airframe in
| no way prevents the thrust from the prop from being used
by the elevator to
| effect a pitch change.
|
| Pete
|
|

[Margy Natalie]

Skylune wrote:
> The sim is better than real life. I've done both. In the little planes,
> when u need to urinate, you do it in your pants or into a container. As
> for the other bodily functions, you just gotta hold it and hope that there
> isn't alot of traffic ahead of you before its your turn to land. (And the
> pilots wonder why more women don't want to deal with this).

Or you could just land at the next airport. It's just like waiting for
the next freeway exit.
>
> In the little planes, you are oftentimes dealing with 1960s technology.
> The little planes are either too hot or too cold. They can't get you
> where you want to go unless you have an IFR license and a capable plane.
> In the little planes, you have to worry about other marginally trained
> pilots running into you (either on the ground, mid-air, or in the traffic
> pattern).

Never had someone hit me in a plane, in the car is another story. We
fly VFR rather frequently and get where we are going and back.
>
> In the little planes, you will waste at least $100K between the training,
> equipment, insurance, gas, etc. (Better off buying a really nice BMW or
> Audi or Porsche, which will get you where you want in less time, and where
> you can pull over at a rest stop when you want).

On trips shorter than 100 miles I can beat the plane with the Audi.
Longer trips the plane does much better. I also don't risk getting a
speeding ticket with the Navion.
>
> And, best of all, in the sim world you can fly into and out of Megis Field
> to your heart's content!
>

All without leaving your living room :-(

Margy

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:16:10 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>The idea is to try to approach real life. Additionally, many things
>>>are simulated. If adjusting flaps has a bad effect in real life,
>>>there's a good chance that it has a bad effect in simulation as well.
>>
>> Are you aware that you are discussing this with one of the programmers
>> who wrote MS Flight Simulator?
>
>I cross-checked the names of the posters to this thread with the published
>MS FS credits I could find and I still don't know who you're talking about
>Larry. Unless Bruce Artwick is posting using a non-obvious handle? :-)


If you go back through the message thread, you'll see who Mxsmanic was
discussing with at the time I posted the follow-up article..

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:04:42 -0400, Margy Natalie >
wrote in >:

>I also don't risk getting a speeding ticket with the Navion.

That is a significant benefit on Interstate 5 along the California
coast.

The California Highway Patrol runs an aerial speed trap between Paso
Robles and San Luis Obispo. The solo officer (Marlin Verin*) piloting
the C-206 issued ten citations in an hour and forty-five minutes (1
every 10.5 minutes average) on June 8th. He does this by matching his
ground speed to the vehicle he's pacing, and then clocking his time
through a measured mile on the ground. But speed traps, and any
evidence obtained through their use, are specifically prohibited by
several sections of the CVC.**

San Luis Obispo County is sparsely populated (by comparison to LA or
SF), so in order to defend yourself, you have to make long road trips
to the courthouse from the county in which you reside. It's not
difficult to win an acquittal, but the inconvenience is a poppa india
tango alpha.



* http://www.geocities.com/eaa170/nl/October2004Newsletter.pdf

** http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd17c3a1.htm

[Jose[_1_]]

> But speed traps, and any
> evidence obtained through their use, are specifically prohibited by
> several sections of the CVC.**

> ** http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd17c3a1.htm

Speed traps are not defined. How well can they argue that a speed trap
isn't one?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

He does this by matching his
> ground speed to the vehicle he's pacing, and then clocking his time
> through a measured mile on the ground.


What's the point of matching his speed? Just time the car with the
stripes painted on the road.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:05:14 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >:

>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> He does this by matching his
>> ground speed to the vehicle he's pacing, and then clocking his time
>> through a measured mile on the ground.
>
>
>What's the point of matching his speed? Just time the car with the
>stripes painted on the road.

You didn't read the information at the link to the California Vehicle
Code that I provided. It defines a speed trap as what you suggest,
and they have been prohibited since early last century.


http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d17/vc40802.htm
40802. (a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:

(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and
with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in
order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing
the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.



The elements of this section are:

1. A measured section of highway
2. Timing a vehicle over the measured course
3. Calculating the speed from the time over the measured distance

Timing the aircraft is an attempt to circumvent the law, as pacing
automobiles on the road has been done as long as I can remember. But,
an aircraft is also a vehicle, and the other elements are met, so any
rational person can see that the CHP is running a speed trap.

But the magistrate isn't about to set a legal precedent by agreeing
with that argument, however there is a section of evidentiary code
that requires the prosecution to guarantee that a preponderance of the
evidence (testimony in this case) assures that the arresting officer
was able to positively identify the vehicle he is tracking by having
it in sight at all times. If the aerial officer is unable to identify
the driver from 1,000' above, determine the make of automobile, nor
read the licence plate number, and he has to look at his stopwatch and
flight instruments and scan for traffic, the prosecution will fail
that requirement.

[Jose[_1_]]

> You didn't read the information at the link to the California Vehicle
> Code that I provided.

I didn't read it all, but I read the "speed trap prohibition" part, and then since it didn't say anything about what a speed trap was, I looked at the definitions area. It wasn't there.

Is this a speed trap for readers?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Right. But there is no need to take the aircraft to altitude when
> practicing flying on the back side of the power curve. It would just
> be a waste of time, as there are no physical consequences of crashing
> a simulated aircraft.

Part of the motivation for simulation is to approach reality. Without
that motivation, there's no reason for practicing flying in a
simulator, either, since even poor flying will not result in any
physical consequences.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> What 'inherent bounce' is that?

If you hit the ground at just the right speed, you bounce. Hit it any
harder, and you crash. Hit it more softly, and you have a nice
landing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Skylune writes:

> The sim is better than real life. I've done both. In the little planes,
> when u need to urinate, you do it in your pants or into a container. As
> for the other bodily functions, you just gotta hold it and hope that there
> isn't alot of traffic ahead of you before its your turn to land. (And the
> pilots wonder why more women don't want to deal with this).

The Air Force (in the U.S.) did a study on this and did find a way for
female fighter pilots to deal with it. It's not pretty for either
sex.

However, your points are well taken. These are some of the advantages
of simulation. While it is true that no simulation can perfectly
duplicate real life, it's possible to come very close--and at the same
time you can dispense with the parts of real life that don't
contribute to your enjoyment, such as flying around with a bursting
bladder.

> In the little planes, you are oftentimes dealing with 1960s technology.
> The little planes are either too hot or too cold. They can't get you
> where you want to go unless you have an IFR license and a capable plane.
> In the little planes, you have to worry about other marginally trained
> pilots running into you (either on the ground, mid-air, or in the traffic
> pattern).

Why wouldn't collisions be a worry for larger planes? I remember some
PSA pilots who regretted losing track of a small plane (and the small
plane had experienced pilots, too).

> In the little planes, you will waste at least $100K between the training,
> equipment, insurance, gas, etc.

This is one of the key reasons why I do not pursuit flight in real
life.

> And, best of all, in the sim world you can fly into and out of Megis Field
> to your heart's content!

I don't like Meigs Field. I find that I tend to fly around areas that
I've already seen from the air in real life, although sometimes I pick
places I've never been to before.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Granted, one can pull over and stop with an automobile; it's a little
> more difficult in a light aircraft, but nowhere near as confining as
> being trapped on a boat in high seas. However, unless you relish
> being trapped in the quagmire of congestion on today's freeways,
> aircraft are a far superior means of transportation for trips longer
> than fifty miles or so.

How do you get to and from the airports? And if you don't own your
own plane, how do you fly somewhere for the weekend? Can you rent
planes in the same way you rent cars--complete with the option of
dropping the plane off at a different airport from the one where you
picked it up?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Margy Natalie writes:

> Never had someone hit me in a plane, in the car is another story. We
> fly VFR rather frequently and get where we are going and back.

A key difference is that if you had been hit in a plane, you wouldn't
be here to talk about it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> Anyway, that's a long way of saying I don't generally like to bring up my
> involvement with MSFS. IMHO, the product released makes me look bad by
> association.

Was there something specifically bad about FS 2000 that is no longer
present in FS 2002 or FS 2004? I've been playing with MSFS for almost
two decades but I don't recall what FS 2000 was like (or even having
it, although I must have had it at some point).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay B writes:

> How many times will people have to tell you you are wrong about your
> assumptions?

I'm not assuming. I priced it. I stopped when it exceeded my budget,
which it did almost immediately.

> Yes, there is a significant outlay up front but there are affordable
> ways to fly IF YOU WANT TO.

What kinds of flight? Just flying around the airfield? Cross-country
flights for real transportation? Flights of commercial jetliners?

I suppose if all you want is touch-and-go between two tiny airfields
for a few hours a month, it might not break the bank (at least not
some banks--it would bankrupt me). But if you want to use an aircraft
as a practical means of transportation, or if you're interested in
anything other than the tiniest tin can of an aircraft, big money
problems loom.

> If you want to do something bad enough you find the time and a way to
> make it so.

Not if you don't have enough money.

That's one reason why some people starve. It's not as though they
don't want to eat badly enough.

> Not every flight has to be Lindberg crossing the Atlantic. Sometimes
> just 45 minutes of going around the patch a few times is sufficient.

For some lucky pilots, yes. But someone who is interested in other
types of piloting may not find this worthwhile.

The piloting you describe might please someone whose primary purpose
in flying is to feel the sensations of being in the air. However,
someone who wants to use aircraft as practical transportation wouldn't
be happy. And someone who prefers sensations other than those of a
tiny private plane would also be unhappy.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Leonard Milcin Jr. writes:

> Isn't it obvious?

If it were obvious, I wouldn't ask.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> Flaps enhance lift at the expense of drag. On a small airplane, large
> complex flaps would not produce a significant enough reduction in drag
> during cruise flight to justify the cost, complexity, and weight.
>
> However, the larger and faster the airplane, the more there can be
> accomplished by reducing drag significantly during cruise, especially
> compared to the airfoil required to land such planes safely and within the
> runways available to them (generally no longer than a couple of miles or
> so).
>
> You could land a 747 without flaps, but you'd use a LOT more pavement (maybe
> double?), runway length that just isn't available. On the other hand, you
> could design a 747 with an airfoil that allowed for shorter landings, but
> cruise speed would suffer. The airplane is large enough and fast enough
> that the extra expense and weight of flaps more than makes up for its cost
> during cruise, while still allowing for reasonable landing performance.

Thanks. That makes sense.

> Hopefully this one example has answered the general question of "why do
> large airplanes have features not found on small airplanes?" You could
> spend months asking that same question, using different features, and the
> answer would always be the same: economics and usefulness.

You're saying that there really isn't any technical, aerodynamic
reason why a large aircraft would require extensive flaps while a
small aircraft would not? That is, the advantages and disadvantages
from a flying standpoint are the same in both cases?

I know there are economic considerations, but since small private
planes seem to handle quite differently from large planes I was
wondering if there are fundamental differences in the aerodynamics
that might be related to scale (physical dimensions). That is, would
a giant version of a small plane, three times as big but with
identical proportions and size-to-weight ratio, fly in the same way?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> No. It's like increasing the angle of attack on a thicker wing
> section which stalls at a lower speed.
>
> Ground effect is completely different:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect
> The term Ground effect (or Wing In Ground effect) refers to the
> increase in lift experienced by an aircraft as it approaches
> within roughly 1/4 of a wingpspan's length of the ground or other
> level surface (such as the sea)
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/185905-1.html

But if you are hopping over small obstacles near the runway, you're
probably very close to being within the distance influenced by ground
effect, aren't you?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

> It lets you look out the side window of the sim aircraft by
> turning your head to the side. The device tracks your head
> motion to the side then slews the screen display to show the
> side view instead of the view straight out over the nose of
> the aircraft. In a real landing, you are often looking out
> the side to check your position relative to the runway. In
> a sim, it's harder to do that. You can hit a key to show a
> side view, but it doesn't feel as realistic as just turning
> your head.

How large a field of view do you have at any given instant?

It seems that you could improve frame rates with a system that
provides the highest detail only for the specific spot in the visual
field at which the pilot is looking (since visual acuity is extremely
localized in human vision), but it's not clear to me if this system is
doing that, although apparently some advanced simulators use
variations on this technique. I'm not clear on how the system you
describe works--if you turn your head to look out the side window, but
you are using a monitor instead of a built-in screen inside some
goggles, how can the displayed view track your gaze?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Chris W writes:

> I don't think I explained the difference between the 2 versions very
> well. First think about all the ways you can move your head or
> anything for that mater. There are 6 degrees of freedom. You can move
> in x, y or z. That is 3 degrees of freedom. You can rotate about the x
> y and Z axis. That is the other 3. The basic tracker assumes you only
> have 2 degrees of freedom, rotation about the Z and Y axis. That is
> with the Z axis being vertical and the Y axis going from left to right.
> In aviation terminology this corresponds to yaw and pitch
> respectively. Obviously even with the low end 2 axis version you can
> still move your head in any way you want, but the device just senses the
> movement of the little silver dot it is looking at, and assumes the
> movement is caused by rotation about Z or Y and moves the game head in
> that way.

But when you rotate your head in any direction, you turn your gaze
from the screen (unless you rotate your eyes to compensate). So how
do you see the updated display? The Track IR seems to be just a
tracking device, not a display device.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Was there something specifically bad about FS 2000 that is no longer
> present in FS 2002 or FS 2004? I've been playing with MSFS for almost
> two decades but I don't recall what FS 2000 was like (or even having
> it, although I must have had it at some point).

I haven't had enough time to use the subsequent products to do a fair
comparison, so I can't answer that question. Also, it's hard to make a good
comparison since the hardware I was running FS2000 on was different from
what I'd run the later versions on now.

Mainly, it's just that the FS2000 that was released initially was still full
of bugs. Rendering problems, performance problems, and general UI problems.
Much of the most important things were fixed in the subsequent patch
(released three months later), and I assume that someone got around to
fixing up the rest afterwards, before Combat Flight Sim 3 came out (the CFS
line shares a lot of code with MSFS).

FS2000 got rushed out the door because of fears that the product "Fly!"
(announced for release in the summer of 1999) would beat Microsoft,
especially for the "Christmas rush". In truth, there was no evidence a
from-scratch, brand-new flight-sim could make such a dramatic break in the
market, and it's not like MSFS has as seasonal a market as other computer
games anyway. In the end, when "Fly!" was released it was also full of bugs
and other problems, and frankly the only reason it did as well as it did
against MSFS was because Microsoft rushed MSFS out, buggy and missing
important forward-looking features (*).

The attitude was that it was more important to get a physical box on the
shelves of Walmart than to have something *in* the box that was worthy of
being proud of making. That's just not an attitude I am capable of
condoning, or being associated with (and frankly, as much as people like to
bitch and moan about Microsoft software, it is NOT the attitude that I was
accustomed to dealing with at that company...in every other group I worked,
there was a lot of pride taken in how the software was designed and written,
and most people worked carefully to try to make the software as good as they
could).

Pete

(*) One particular point of bitterness for me at the time was that I joined
the MSFS team *specifically* to write the ATC simulation feature. I told
the hiring manager that I would *only* come to work for the team on the
condition that I would work on that feature, and that feature only. Just
when I was getting to the point of having a good core design and some
working components in the implementation, management decided to shift gears
to respond to the "threat" of "Fly!", and cut that feature so I could be
"redeployed" on other areas that were behind schedule.

To add insult to injury, I was offered the opportunity to provide input on
what behind-schedule feature I would work on. I gave my manager a list of
three things that interested me, and named a fourth thing that I
specifically did not want to work on. You can guess which one I was
assigned to.

As you know, the ATC feature did eventually get done. I have no idea if any
of the code that I originally wrote survived. Probably not, but at least
they finally have the feature.

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> You're saying that there really isn't any technical, aerodynamic
> reason why a large aircraft would require extensive flaps while a
> small aircraft would not? That is, the advantages and disadvantages
> from a flying standpoint are the same in both cases?

Not really, no. It's mainly just that with the larger, faster airplane the
effects of the more complex flaps are more easily seen. The same effects
would apply to a smaller airplane, it's just that normally it's not
considered worthwhile given the relatively lesser degree of effect.

Which is not to say that there aren't smaller airplanes with complex
lift-enhancing devices. In fact, there are a number of designs that DO
include complicated flaps, leading-edge slats ("flaps" on the front of the
wing...the 747 has those too), slotted wings, and other features designed to
enhance landing performance. In those cases, short takeoff and landing
distances are the highest priority, and usually those devices on the smaller
airplanes are not designed to retract as completely as they would on a
commerical airliner. The improvement in cruise speed just wouldn't justify
the extra cost, weight, and complexity. But when you have to land as short
as possible and be able to take off again in the same space, those devices
*are* noticeable improvements even for small airplanes.

> I know there are economic considerations, but since small private
> planes seem to handle quite differently from large planes I was
> wondering if there are fundamental differences in the aerodynamics
> that might be related to scale (physical dimensions). That is, would
> a giant version of a small plane, three times as big but with
> identical proportions and size-to-weight ratio, fly in the same way?

For the most part, yes. Handling differences are mainly a matter of
differences in power and inertia, along with differences in the usual
airfoil and wing designs used in each kind of airplane (for example,
swept-wing airplanes handle differently than straight-wing airplanes...but a
small swept-wing airplane will handle very similarly to a large swept-wing
airplane).

Google "Reynolds number". Extreme differences in size do produce noticeable
differences in aerodynamic qualities. But relative to air molecules, a
small airplane is dealing with pretty much the same effects as a large
transport airplane. There are only minor differences related to aerodynamic
and scale, and they don't affect anything significant with respect to
actually operating to the airplanes.

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

FS2000 had the WTC.



"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
| Peter Duniho writes:
|
| > Anyway, that's a long way of saying I don't generally
like to bring up my
| > involvement with MSFS. IMHO, the product released makes
me look bad by
| > association.
|
| Was there something specifically bad about FS 2000 that is
no longer
| present in FS 2002 or FS 2004? I've been playing with
MSFS for almost
| two decades but I don't recall what FS 2000 was like (or
even having
| it, although I must have had it at some point).
|
| --
| Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay B]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:xXfOg.22647$SZ3.11479@dukeread04...
>
> > And a Playboy magazine is safer than sex.
>
> Indeed; a good trait for any pilot is one that...shall we say....has the
> situation "well in hand".
> :-))
> Dudley

What about "Hood Time?"

;O)

Jay B

[Margy Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Margy Natalie writes:
>
>
>>Never had someone hit me in a plane, in the car is another story. We
>>fly VFR rather frequently and get where we are going and back.
>
>
> A key difference is that if you had been hit in a plane, you wouldn't
> be here to talk about it.
>
Not always, there have been cases of planes landing together after a
mid-air and many accidents happen on the ground also. I know a gentleman
who flew in WWII and tells a great story of his first mid-air where the
opponent removed half his wing. Listeners often ask how he managed to
get back to the field and he explains it was going just fine when he was
jumped again and had to dogfight with half a wing. He managed to get
back to base and flew for many, many years after.

Margy

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:58:33 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> You didn't read the information at the link to the California Vehicle
>> Code that I provided.
>
>I read the "speed trap prohibition" part, and then since it didn't say
>anything about what a speed trap was, I looked at the definitions area.
>It wasn't there.

The link I provided
<http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd17c3a1.htm> shows a page that
has six references to speed traps. The definition of a speed trap is
given under "40802 Speed Traps."

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:38:09 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Granted, one can pull over and stop with an automobile; it's a little
>> more difficult in a light aircraft, but nowhere near as confining as
>> being trapped on a boat in high seas. However, unless you relish
>> being trapped in the quagmire of congestion on today's freeways,
>> aircraft are a far superior means of transportation for trips longer
>> than fifty miles or so.
>
>How do you get to and from the airports?

Personally, I chose to reside ten minutes from the airport, so the
drive is not too bad.

>And if you don't own your own plane, how do you fly somewhere for the weekend?

Generally the air time used exceeds the minimum daily flight time the
FBO charges, so it's a non issue.

>Can you rent planes in the same way you rent cars--complete with the option of
>dropping the plane off at a different airport from the one where you
>picked it up?

Arrangements can be made to do that, but why would one want to? For
extended stays?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:39:15 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Margy Natalie writes:
>
>> Never had someone hit me in a plane, in the car is another story. We
>> fly VFR rather frequently and get where we are going and back.
>
>A key difference is that if you had been hit in a plane, you wouldn't
>be here to talk about it.

On average, 50,000 die annually in US automobile accidents. How many
MAC occur annually, and how many result in death for their occupants?
The military just ejects or continues flying after impact. And the
recent airline/glider MAC left all safe.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:53:53 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> No. It's like increasing the angle of attack on a thicker wing
>> section which stalls at a lower speed.
>>
>> Ground effect is completely different:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect
>> The term Ground effect (or Wing In Ground effect) refers to the
>> increase in lift experienced by an aircraft as it approaches
>> within roughly 1/4 of a wingpspan's length of the ground or other
>> level surface (such as the sea)
>>
>> http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/185905-1.html
>
>But if you are hopping over small obstacles near the runway, you're
>probably very close to being within the distance influenced by ground
>effect, aren't you?

That's a reasonable assumption, but I believe you'll find that the
technique described will work at altitude as well, so it's not
dependent on ground effect.

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> What 'inherent bounce' is that?
>
> If you hit the ground at just the right speed, you bounce. Hit it any
> harder, and you crash. Hit it more softly, and you have a nice
> landing.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Definitions of inherent on the Web:

a.. built-in: existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; "the
Ptolemaic system with its built-in concept of periodicity"; "a
constitutional inability to tell the truth"
b.. implicit in(p): in the nature of something though not readily
apparent; "shortcomings inherent in our approach"; "an underlying meaning"


A bounce in not inherent in a landing. It's a mistake.

[Jose[_1_]]

> The link I provided
> <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd17c3a1.htm> shows a page that
> has six references to speed traps.

Yes, you are right. I picked "40801 speed trap prohibition" then when I wanted the definition, went to the table of contents (displayed right on the 40801 page) as the most logical place to look, and figuring it would bring me back if that was the right spot.

I think you set it up as a speed trap for reading. Fortunately I only got a warning, not a ticket. :)

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>Can you rent planes in the same way you rent cars--complete with the option of
>>dropping the plane off at a different airport from the one where you
>>picked it up?
>
> Arrangements can be made to do that, but why would one want to? For
> extended stays?

I've never heard of such arrangements (except perhaps internally in a club, when another member comes along and uses it in the meanwhile). Where have you? I'd imagine insurance and checkout requirements would nix that.

The one exception I can think of is the FlexJet type operations, but that's hardly an FBO rental.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Chris W]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Chris W writes:
>
>
>>I don't think I explained the difference between the 2 versions very
>>well. First think about all the ways you can move your head or
>>anything for that mater. There are 6 degrees of freedom. You can move
>>in x, y or z. That is 3 degrees of freedom. You can rotate about the x
>>y and Z axis. That is the other 3. The basic tracker assumes you only
>>have 2 degrees of freedom, rotation about the Z and Y axis. That is
>>with the Z axis being vertical and the Y axis going from left to right.
>> In aviation terminology this corresponds to yaw and pitch
>>respectively. Obviously even with the low end 2 axis version you can
>>still move your head in any way you want, but the device just senses the
>>movement of the little silver dot it is looking at, and assumes the
>>movement is caused by rotation about Z or Y and moves the game head in
>>that way.
>
>
> But when you rotate your head in any direction, you turn your gaze
> from the screen (unless you rotate your eyes to compensate). So how
> do you see the updated display? The Track IR seems to be just a
> tracking device, not a display device.
>
That is why it exaggerates your head movements. You rotate your head
just a little, and the game head rotates a long way. You never are
looking very far off the center of the monitor. For me the farthest I
rotate my head, is so my head is pointing to the edge of my monitor.
That way I don't need to move my eyes very far at all to keep them on
the center of the screen. It is amazingly natural. If you try it, you
will never go back to not using it. It really is that good.

--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:53:20 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>I think you set it up as a speed trap for reading.

I included the link to the six references to speed trap, so that you
would see that they are not permitted in California, and the evidence
obtained from them nor any court that hears evidence obtained from
them is permitted.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:55:21 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>Where have you?

Most FBOs will gladly arrange to accommodate one-way flights (for a
price).

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Personally, I chose to reside ten minutes from the airport, so the
> drive is not too bad.

A good solution if you have the option. But most people are
constrained to live far from airports. The closest airport for me is
about 12 miles away, as the crow (er, aircraft) flies.

The ideal would be to live in one of those cool airparks where
everyone has a driveway in front and a taxiway out back, but how many
people can afford to do that?

> Generally the air time used exceeds the minimum daily flight time the
> FBO charges, so it's a non issue.

But what about the time the aircraft is on the ground, away from its
home base, over the course of the weekend?

> Arrangements can be made to do that, but why would one want to? For
> extended stays?

If you are actually using an aircraft as transportation, chances are
that you won't just be turning around and flying back once you arrive
at your destination. Chances are, in fact, that the aircraft will be
sitting at the destination airport for one or more days, just like a
rental car.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Margy Natalie writes:

> Not always, there have been cases of planes landing together after a
> mid-air and many accidents happen on the ground also. I know a gentleman
> who flew in WWII and tells a great story of his first mid-air where the
> opponent removed half his wing. Listeners often ask how he managed to
> get back to the field and he explains it was going just fine when he was
> jumped again and had to dogfight with half a wing. He managed to get
> back to base and flew for many, many years after.

In the old days, when planes were simple, slow, and relatively sturdy,
things were very different. When I read Lindbergh's account of his
New York-Paris flight and related stories, I was struck by how simple
aviation was in those days. No licenses, no navaids beyond a compass
or maybe a simple radio homing device, land anywhere it's flat, etc.
He used to fly by just looking down out the window, even in bad
weather. And his most famous flight was accomplished with a maritime
chart he found in a San Diego shop, a compass, and a watch.

Unfortunately, aviation is much more complicated, restrictive, and
expensive now, even for private pilots. Never mind about flying
something bigger than a tiny private plane.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> A bounce in not inherent in a landing. It's a mistake.

It's inherent in the design of the landing gear and the aircraft, in
order to spare the rest of the airframe on hard landings.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> The attitude was that it was more important to get a physical box on the
> shelves of Walmart than to have something *in* the box that was worthy of
> being proud of making. That's just not an attitude I am capable of
> condoning, or being associated with ...

All companies are like that today.

> ... and frankly, as much as people like to
> bitch and moan about Microsoft software, it is NOT the attitude that I was
> accustomed to dealing with at that company...in every other group I worked,
> there was a lot of pride taken in how the software was designed and written,
> and most people worked carefully to try to make the software as good as they
> could).

Clearly, you left Microsoft a while ago, probably in the Era of Bill,
rather than the Era of Steve. All the company cares about now is
money. It has always been a problem (as it is in every other
company), but it's a lot worse now, as there's a quarterly dividend to
chase.

> As you know, the ATC feature did eventually get done. I have no idea if any
> of the code that I originally wrote survived. Probably not, but at least
> they finally have the feature.

The ATC in FS2004 works quite well, although it works best only with
the aircraft supplied with the simulator. That's often sufficient for
flights, as long as you don't run any of the hyperreal third-party
aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Emily[_1_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:55:21 GMT, Jose >
> wrote in >:
>
>> Where have you?
>
> Most FBOs will gladly arrange to accommodate one-way flights (for a
> price).
>
Granted, I'm not reading the entire thread, but that would not appear to
be legal.

[Mxsmanic]

Chris W writes:

> That is why it exaggerates your head movements. You rotate your head
> just a little, and the game head rotates a long way. You never are
> looking very far off the center of the monitor. For me the farthest I
> rotate my head, is so my head is pointing to the edge of my monitor.
> That way I don't need to move my eyes very far at all to keep them on
> the center of the screen. It is amazingly natural. If you try it, you
> will never go back to not using it. It really is that good.

It would have to have incredibly high framerates and response time,
otherwise I'd probably get motion sickness, just as I did with Doom
long ago.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Macklin]

I still prefer to look out a real window and follow rivers
and streams. Roads and railroads are to straight.



"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
| Margy Natalie writes:
|
| > Not always, there have been cases of planes landing
together after a
| > mid-air and many accidents happen on the ground also. I
know a gentleman
| > who flew in WWII and tells a great story of his first
mid-air where the
| > opponent removed half his wing. Listeners often ask how
he managed to
| > get back to the field and he explains it was going just
fine when he was
| > jumped again and had to dogfight with half a wing. He
managed to get
| > back to base and flew for many, many years after.
|
| In the old days, when planes were simple, slow, and
relatively sturdy,
| things were very different. When I read Lindbergh's
account of his
| New York-Paris flight and related stories, I was struck by
how simple
| aviation was in those days. No licenses, no navaids
beyond a compass
| or maybe a simple radio homing device, land anywhere it's
flat, etc.
| He used to fly by just looking down out the window, even
in bad
| weather. And his most famous flight was accomplished with
a maritime
| chart he found in a San Diego shop, a compass, and a
watch.
|
| Unfortunately, aviation is much more complicated,
restrictive, and
| expensive now, even for private pilots. Never mind about
flying
| something bigger than a tiny private plane.
|
| --
| Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Macklin]

There was a company many years ago, now out of business,
that planned to rent airplanes for trips. You could fly
from their bases and leave the airplane and do your local
business. Then when you wanted to fly home, an airplane
would probably be there you would fly.
Checkouts were national, each FBO that signed up and the
insurance company only had to be annually in the aircraft.

But all this was before the PC and Internet, it didn't work.
But it was completely legal.



"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Larry Dighera wrote:
| > On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:55:21 GMT, Jose
>
| > wrote in
>:
| >
| >> Where have you?
| >
| > Most FBOs will gladly arrange to accommodate one-way
flights (for a
| > price).
| >
| Granted, I'm not reading the entire thread, but that would
not appear to
| be legal.

[Peter Duniho]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Most FBOs will gladly arrange to accommodate one-way flights (for a
>> price).
>>
> Granted, I'm not reading the entire thread, but that would not appear to
> be legal.

No, you obviously did not bother to read the entire thread. Try that. It
will help you compose replies that actually make sense.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>I think you set it up as a speed trap for reading.
> I included the link to the six references to speed trap, so that you
> would see that they are not permitted in California...

"It was a joke, son."

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Most FBOs will gladly arrange to accommodate one-way flights (for a
> price).

Oh, ok. That price is probably going to be the price of a ferry pilot and the hobbs time for the return trip. Sort of like a charter, where you get to fly one leg.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:48:57 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Personally, I chose to reside ten minutes from the airport, so the
>> drive is not too bad.
>
>A good solution if you have the option. But most people are
>constrained to live far from airports.

Most people are not pilots.

>The closest airport for me is
>about 12 miles away, as the crow (er, aircraft) flies.

Le Bourget is only abut half that far from the center of Paris. It's
a choice.

>The ideal would be to live in one of those cool airparks where
>everyone has a driveway in front and a taxiway out back, but how many
>people can afford to do that?

I like aviation, but I'm not fond of noise. The _ideal_ would be to
reside on enough acreage to have your own private runway and hangar on
your property:

http://www.cassandramerrill.com/mediterranean%20.htm
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230029621494
http://www.ntcallaway.com/ftp/listings/pennsylvania/6759Laurel.html

http://www.luxuryranchrealestate.com/listing_detail.cfm?listing_guid=803FC0C6-E21A-431D-B169-72E49B958D82
http://www.ncreis.com/DisplayAd.asp?id=85
http://www.viviun.com/AD-58209/

http://www.sharondurdel.com/Nav.aspx/Page=%2fListNow%2fProperty.aspx%3fPropertyID%3d891 842
http://www.richardhild.com/aboutRichardHild.html

>> Generally the air time used exceeds the minimum daily flight time the
>> FBO charges, so it's a non issue.
>
>But what about the time the aircraft is on the ground, away from its
>home base, over the course of the weekend?

What about it? If the FBO requires a minimum two hours daily flight
time, and it is more than two hours to your destination, you will
clock more than four hours over two days.

[Thomas Borchert]

Skylune,

You forgot: In the little planes - you fly!

> In the little planes, you will waste at least $100K between the training,
> equipment, insurance, gas, etc.

Care to back up those numbers (which are completely bogus)?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Unfortunately, aviation is much more complicated, restrictive, and
> expensive now, even for private pilots
>

You couldn't be more wrong. Back then, flying airplanes was
unaffordable for the vast majority of the population. Not the case
today.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> If you hit the ground at just the right speed, you bounce. Hit it any
> harder, and you crash. Hit it more softly, and you have a nice
> landing.
>

Only in simulation...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:16:56 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>>>I think you set it up as a speed trap for reading.
>> I included the link to the six references to speed trap, so that you
>> would see that they are not permitted in California...
>
>"It was a joke, son."

I saw little humor in it. Sorry.

[Margy Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>
>>Personally, I chose to reside ten minutes from the airport, so the
>>drive is not too bad.
>
>
> A good solution if you have the option. But most people are
> constrained to live far from airports. The closest airport for me is
> about 12 miles away, as the crow (er, aircraft) flies.
>
> The ideal would be to live in one of those cool airparks where
> everyone has a driveway in front and a taxiway out back, but how many
> people can afford to do that?
>
>
>>Generally the air time used exceeds the minimum daily flight time the
>>FBO charges, so it's a non issue.
>
>
> But what about the time the aircraft is on the ground, away from its
> home base, over the course of the weekend?

You aren't getting it. If the FBO has a 2 hr. per day minimum and you
take the airplane for a week you are expected to put 14 hours flying
time on it. So, for example, if you want to take a week long jaunt you
can fly 4 hours the first day, 0 the second, 6 the third, 0 the fourth,
0the fifth, 2 the sixth and two the seventh. The plane sits like the
rental car.

You pay your 14 hours and you are good.

Margy
>
>
>>Arrangements can be made to do that, but why would one want to? For
>>extended stays?
>
>
> If you are actually using an aircraft as transportation, chances are
> that you won't just be turning around and flying back once you arrive
> at your destination. Chances are, in fact, that the aircraft will be
> sitting at the destination airport for one or more days, just like a
> rental car.
>

[Chris W]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Chris W writes:
>
>
>>That is why it exaggerates your head movements. You rotate your head
>>just a little, and the game head rotates a long way. You never are
>>looking very far off the center of the monitor. For me the farthest I
>>rotate my head, is so my head is pointing to the edge of my monitor.
>>That way I don't need to move my eyes very far at all to keep them on
>>the center of the screen. It is amazingly natural. If you try it, you
>>will never go back to not using it. It really is that good.
>
>
> It would have to have incredibly high framerates and response time,
> otherwise I'd probably get motion sickness, just as I did with Doom
> long ago.
>

I always got motion sickness with doom too, but not with this thing in
MSFS. If you are like me you will get a head ache the first 3 or 4
times you use it but once you get used to it, that stops happening.
Even if I haven't used in a long time I don't get the head ache I got
when I first got it. A friend of my reports pretty much the same thing,
getting a head ache for the first 3 or 4 times.

--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Dave Stadt]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:55:21 GMT, Jose >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>> Where have you?
>>
>> Most FBOs will gladly arrange to accommodate one-way flights (for a
>> price).
>>
> Granted, I'm not reading the entire thread, but that would not appear to
> be legal.

Whay's not to be legal? I have knowledge of numerous such flights.

[Chris W]

Chris W wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Chris W writes:
>>
>>
>>> That is why it exaggerates your head movements. You rotate your head
>>> just a little, and the game head rotates a long way. You never are
>>> looking very far off the center of the monitor. For me the farthest
>>> I rotate my head, is so my head is pointing to the edge of my
>>> monitor. That way I don't need to move my eyes very far at all to
>>> keep them on the center of the screen. It is amazingly natural. If
>>> you try it, you will never go back to not using it. It really is
>>> that good.
>>
>>
>>
>> It would have to have incredibly high framerates and response time,
>> otherwise I'd probably get motion sickness, just as I did with Doom
>> long ago.

If you live anywhere near Oklahoma City, you are welcome to come over
and try mine. Just be warned if you do, you will never want to fly with
out it again.

--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Most people are not pilots.

Even those who are pilots are rarely in a position to choose to live
close to an airport, unless they pilot planes for a living.

> Le Bourget is only abut half that far from the center of Paris. It's
> a choice.

None of them are close in time. It can take three hours to drive out
to an airport. I could be on the coast of the Atlantic in 45 minutes
or so of air time, even in a private plane, but it would take two or
three hours to get to the departure airport and another two hours to
get out of the destination airport. So that's six hours for a trip
that can be done in about two hours by car.

> I like aviation, but I'm not fond of noise.

Just install ANR windows. Although, if you live next to John
Travolta, that might not be enough.

> The _ideal_ would be to
> reside on enough acreage to have your own private runway and hangar on
> your property:

Ideal, yes, but it does illustrate how impractical flying can be for
transportation.

> What about it? If the FBO requires a minimum two hours daily flight
> time, and it is more than two hours to your destination, you will
> clock more than four hours over two days.

How much does it cost per hour?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> I still prefer to look out a real window and follow rivers
> and streams. Roads and railroads are to straight.

What's wrong with being straight?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Margy Natalie writes:
>
>> Not always, there have been cases of planes landing together after a
>> mid-air and many accidents happen on the ground also. I know a gentleman
>> who flew in WWII and tells a great story of his first mid-air where the
>> opponent removed half his wing. Listeners often ask how he managed to
>> get back to the field and he explains it was going just fine when he was
>> jumped again and had to dogfight with half a wing. He managed to get
>> back to base and flew for many, many years after.
>
> In the old days, when planes were simple, slow, and relatively sturdy,
> things were very different. When I read Lindbergh's account of his
> New York-Paris flight and related stories, I was struck by how simple
> aviation was in those days. No licenses, no navaids beyond a compass
> or maybe a simple radio homing device, land anywhere it's flat, etc.
> He used to fly by just looking down out the window, even in bad
> weather. And his most famous flight was accomplished with a maritime
> chart he found in a San Diego shop, a compass, and a watch.
>
> Unfortunately, aviation is much more complicated, restrictive, and
> expensive now, even for private pilots.

Not true. In most places not much has changed.

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho writes:
>
>> The attitude was that it was more important to get a physical box on the
>> shelves of Walmart than to have something *in* the box that was worthy of
>> being proud of making. That's just not an attitude I am capable of
>> condoning, or being associated with ...
>
> All companies are like that today.

Not even close to being true.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> You couldn't be more wrong. Back then, flying airplanes was
> unaffordable for the vast majority of the population. Not the case
> today.

I couldn't be more right. Flying airplanes was much more affordable
back then, as there was almost no overhead beyond the price of the
plane and some minimal maintenance. There were no licenses,
certificates, lessons, airport fees, regulations, terrorist hysteria,
etc., and fuel was cheap. Piloting was available to practically
anyone who wanted to try it. Flying real planes was similar to flying
hang gliders today. It was a hobby, mostly. Today it's a business,
mostly.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Allen[_1_]]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Larry Dighera writes:
> >
> >
> >>Personally, I chose to reside ten minutes from the airport, so the
> >>drive is not too bad.
> >
> >
> > A good solution if you have the option. But most people are
> > constrained to live far from airports. The closest airport for me is
> > about 12 miles away, as the crow (er, aircraft) flies.
> >
> > The ideal would be to live in one of those cool airparks where
> > everyone has a driveway in front and a taxiway out back, but how many
> > people can afford to do that?
> >
> >
> >>Generally the air time used exceeds the minimum daily flight time the
> >>FBO charges, so it's a non issue.
> >
> >
> > But what about the time the aircraft is on the ground, away from its
> > home base, over the course of the weekend?
>
> You aren't getting it. If the FBO has a 2 hr. per day minimum and you
> take the airplane for a week you are expected to put 14 hours flying
> time on it. So, for example, if you want to take a week long jaunt you
> can fly 4 hours the first day, 0 the second, 6 the third, 0 the fourth,
> 0the fifth, 2 the sixth and two the seventh. The plane sits like the
> rental car.
>
> You pay your 14 hours and you are good.
>
> Margy

Or you fly two hours there, two hours back amd also pay for the 10 hours you
did not fly. That reimburses the FBO for possible lost revenue while you
have sole posession of the plane.

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Only in simulation...

If you can walk away from it, it's acceptable.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Margy Natalie writes:

> You aren't getting it. If the FBO has a 2 hr. per day minimum and you
> take the airplane for a week you are expected to put 14 hours flying
> time on it. So, for example, if you want to take a week long jaunt you
> can fly 4 hours the first day, 0 the second, 6 the third, 0 the fourth,
> 0the fifth, 2 the sixth and two the seventh. The plane sits like the
> rental car.
>
> You pay your 14 hours and you are good.

How much does it cost per hour?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Stadt writes:

> Not true. In most places not much has changed.

Most places meaning where? Can I buy a plane for $30,000 and take it
up for a spin from the nearest strip with no further formalities?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Chris W writes:

> If you live anywhere near Oklahoma City, you are welcome to come over
> and try mine. Just be warned if you do, you will never want to fly with
> out it again.

I'm a couple of thousand miles away, alas!

I'm rather conservative with sims. I ran plain vanilla Flight
Simulator for fifteen years, without even a joystick. I bought a
joystick a week ago, for the first time. I've added a few airports
and some Dreamfleet and PMDG aircraft, but FS rapidly turns into a
fragile house of cards when you add things, and the framerates
plummet, especially during takeoff and landing when you need them
most.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>
>> I still prefer to look out a real window and follow rivers
>> and streams. Roads and railroads are to straight.
>
> What's wrong with being straight?

Not enough distinguishing features to make them useful landmarks.

Though, that said, they can still be quite useful if you are in an area with
only a few roads, or you already have a pretty good idea of where you are,
or you cross-reference a road or railroad or similar feature with some more
distinctive feature.

Pete

[Allen[_1_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Skylune,
>
> You forgot: In the little planes - you fly!
>
> > In the little planes, you will waste at least $100K between the
training,
> > equipment, insurance, gas, etc.
>
> Care to back up those numbers (which are completely bogus)?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


He is including the tax you paid on your car to get to the airport, the tax
you paid on the gas you put in your car, the tax that went to build the road
to the airport, the tax to build the runway, the tax you paid to lengthen
the runway, the cost of your plane, the tax you paid on your plane, the cost
of your biennial, the cost of your medical, the cost of...........whoa, this
IS expensive :-)

Allen

[Jim Macklin]

yes
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
| Dave Stadt writes:
|
| > Not true. In most places not much has changed.
|
| Most places meaning where? Can I buy a plane for $30,000
and take it
| up for a spin from the nearest strip with no further
formalities?
|
| --
| Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:17:48 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> Most FBOs will gladly arrange to accommodate one-way flights (for a
>> price).
>
>Oh, ok. That price is probably going to be the price of a ferry pilot
>and the hobbs time for the return trip. Sort of like a charter, where
>you get to fly one leg.

That's one possibility. However it doesn't conform to the rental car
paradigm as expressed by the author to whom I was responding. In that
case, there would be the additional cost of a second ferry pilot and
aircraft, or airline ticket, per diem, travel time, ...

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt writes:
>
>> Not true. In most places not much has changed.
>
> Most places meaning where? Can I buy a plane for $30,000 and take it
> up for a spin from the nearest strip with no further formalities?

Absolutely. You can do it for $15,000 or even less.

[Jose[_1_]]

> That's one possibility. However it doesn't conform to the rental car
> paradigm as expressed by the author to whom I was responding.

Right. I don't know of any FBOs who can accomodate that paradigm, though I've heard of attempts to set such a thing up. I haven't looked lately, perhaps a chain like MillionAire or Signature might, if they rented planes.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> How much does it cost per hour?
>

Hey, you know that, you told us. Thousands of dollars, remember?

The actual figure is somewhere between 70 and 200 bucks for a single
engine four-seater.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Just install ANR windows.
>

So now you're showing your cluelessness in the next field? How would
ANR windows work, genius?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Can I buy a plane for $30,000 and take it
> up for a spin from the nearest strip with no further formalities?
>

Much less. 10k will buy you something halfway decent. And yes, you can
take-off from the nearest strip without formalities except having the
certificate. Oh, and you could do that in France, too. Maybe you'd pay
15k.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Piloting was available to practically
> anyone who wanted to try it.
>

You need to read a book or too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Allen,

> He is including the
>

You still wouldn't come nowhere near 100k. Don't fall for him. Let him
try and prove it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Marty Shapiro]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Margy Natalie writes:
>
>> You aren't getting it. If the FBO has a 2 hr. per day minimum and you
>> take the airplane for a week you are expected to put 14 hours flying
>> time on it. So, for example, if you want to take a week long jaunt you
>> can fly 4 hours the first day, 0 the second, 6 the third, 0 the fourth,
>> 0the fifth, 2 the sixth and two the seventh. The plane sits like the
>> rental car.
>>
>> You pay your 14 hours and you are good.
>
> How much does it cost per hour?
>

Depends on where you are and what you rent.

Near major cities, rental tends to be more expensive.

In the SF Bay area here are the web sites of two FBO's at PAO where
you can rent wet (fuel included):

http:\\www.shorelineflyingclub.com
http:\\www.wvfc.org

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Margy Natalie]

Allen wrote:
> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Dighera writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Personally, I chose to reside ten minutes from the airport, so the
>>>>drive is not too bad.
>>>
>>>
>>>A good solution if you have the option. But most people are
>>>constrained to live far from airports. The closest airport for me is
>>>about 12 miles away, as the crow (er, aircraft) flies.
>>>
>>>The ideal would be to live in one of those cool airparks where
>>>everyone has a driveway in front and a taxiway out back, but how many
>>>people can afford to do that?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Generally the air time used exceeds the minimum daily flight time the
>>>>FBO charges, so it's a non issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>But what about the time the aircraft is on the ground, away from its
>>>home base, over the course of the weekend?
>>
>>You aren't getting it. If the FBO has a 2 hr. per day minimum and you
>>take the airplane for a week you are expected to put 14 hours flying
>>time on it. So, for example, if you want to take a week long jaunt you
>>can fly 4 hours the first day, 0 the second, 6 the third, 0 the fourth,
>>0the fifth, 2 the sixth and two the seventh. The plane sits like the
>>rental car.
>>
>>You pay your 14 hours and you are good.
>>
>>Margy
>
>
> Or you fly two hours there, two hours back amd also pay for the 10 hours you
> did not fly. That reimburses the FBO for possible lost revenue while you
> have sole posession of the plane.
>
> Allen
>
>
But what fun is that? Do you know any pilot who can't make up a good
reason to go flying ;-)

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Margy Natalie writes:
>
>
>>You aren't getting it. If the FBO has a 2 hr. per day minimum and you
>>take the airplane for a week you are expected to put 14 hours flying
>>time on it. So, for example, if you want to take a week long jaunt you
>>can fly 4 hours the first day, 0 the second, 6 the third, 0 the fourth,
>>0the fifth, 2 the sixth and two the seventh. The plane sits like the
>>rental car.
>>
>>You pay your 14 hours and you are good.
>
>
> How much does it cost per hour?
>
Depends on the airplane.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Jim Macklin" > writes:
>>
>>
>>>I still prefer to look out a real window and follow rivers
>>>and streams. Roads and railroads are to straight.
>>
>>What's wrong with being straight?
>
>
> Not enough distinguishing features to make them useful landmarks.
>
> Though, that said, they can still be quite useful if you are in an area with
> only a few roads, or you already have a pretty good idea of where you are,
> or you cross-reference a road or railroad or similar feature with some more
> distinctive feature.
>
> Pete
>
>
Gee, I was thinking following roads was too boring, just straight and
level. Following streams and creeks is much more fun. My primary
instructor took me out in a tail-dragger to "learn what a rudder is for"
by following rivers and creeks.

Margy

[Jose[_1_]]

> How would
> ANR windows work, genius?

1: Install Windows.
2: The sound card crashes.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("B A R R Y" wrote)
>> I have read of many sim pilots actually drinking alcohol while they fly,
>> too.

> Count me as one. I damn near fell out of the chair after too many Sierra
> Nevada Pale Ales while flying MSFS.


Click on the "Fasten Seat Belt" switch, after your 4th SNPA, and that
wouldn't happen as often.


Montblack

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> So now you're showing your cluelessness in the next field?

No, I was being facetious. Some people don't pick up on it.

> How would ANR windows work, genius?

While technically possible, I don't think they'd be practical or
useful. It's much easier to build ANR headphones, just as it's easier
to wear shoes than it is to cover the ground with leather.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> The actual figure is somewhere between 70 and 200 bucks for a single
> engine four-seater.

That's very expensive. You'd be paying perhaps $800 or more just for
weekend transportation, and that's just with a tiny plane. Even if
the entire objective of the weekend is to provide an excuse to fly,
it's still expensive.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> In the SF Bay area here are the web sites of two FBO's at PAO where
> you can rent wet (fuel included):
>
> http:\\www.shorelineflyingclub.com
> http:\\www.wvfc.org

At Shoreline, the lowest rates are a hundred times higher than those
for a car (which you can rent by the day, not by the hour, for about
the same prices). Plus you have to factor in (or amortize) the $9000
cost of your license and all the overhead expenses.

It looks like an extremely costly hobby, and an even more costly form
of transportation. I'm not happy about that, but there's no denying
it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Margy Natalie writes:

> Depends on the airplane.

How about a 737-800?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> Not enough distinguishing features to make them useful landmarks.

But they are more likely to lead somewhere, aren't they? If you know
that you're above Interstate X, you could just follow it to wherever X
leads.

> Though, that said, they can still be quite useful if you are in an area with
> only a few roads, or you already have a pretty good idea of where you are,
> or you cross-reference a road or railroad or similar feature with some more
> distinctive feature.

How do you look out the window? It seems that the instrument panel is
pretty imposing in most aircraft, and often the nose of the plane
extends well beyond it, so it doesn't look like you'd be able to see
the ground straight ahead. Do you just glance out the side windows,
or what?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> You need to read a book or too.

That's what the books say. It was all before I was born.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> yes

I thought a license was necessary to fly in the U.S.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Stadt writes:

> Absolutely. You can do it for $15,000 or even less.

Do hang gliders count?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Much less. 10k will buy you something halfway decent.

We may have different standards of halfway decent.

> And yes, you can take-off from the nearest strip without
> formalities except having the certificate.

Ah yes ... the $15K certificate that requires perfect health.

> Oh, and you could do that in France, too. Maybe you'd pay
> 15k.

For the license alone, yes, according to what pilots here in France
have told me. In general, you can multiply U.S. prices by 2-3 or
more.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Allen writes:

> He is including the tax you paid on your car to get to the airport, the tax
> you paid on the gas you put in your car, the tax that went to build the road
> to the airport, the tax to build the runway, the tax you paid to lengthen
> the runway, the cost of your plane, the tax you paid on your plane, the cost
> of your biennial, the cost of your medical, the cost of...........whoa, this
> IS expensive :-)

Yes. Essentially all the costs you would not have if you didn't fly.
It all adds up.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> You still wouldn't come nowhere near 100k. Don't fall for him. Let him
> try and prove it.

You can come near that number even with a car. With an aircraft, it's
much easier.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> While technically possible
>

I'd really like a source or two for that statement.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> That's very expensive.
>

Compared to what?

First, 800$, assuming 100 $ per hour, would take you 900 kilometers in
four hours travel time. If that's your kind of weekend trip, I'm sure
you can afford it.

Also, there are four people aboard, so you're talking about 200 per
person for a trip from, say, Paris, to Barcelona, Florence, Prague or
Majorca. Still expensive? I didn't think so.

For argument's sake, let's assume I lived in Paris (I really live in
Hamburg, not that far). A typical weekend flying trip would take me to
London, the Channel Islands or the Loire valley. Trips of less than two
hours, all. Or 400 $, for the whole plane. Try getting to the Channel
Islands in two hours from Paris by any other mode of transportation,
for 100 $ per person, on your own schedule.

Expensive? Bah, humbug, I say.

Oh, and as Mastercard so eloquently shows us, price is not all that
matters in life.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> I'd really like a source or two for that statement.

Why do you need a source? If you know how ANR works, it's obvious
that it could be done with windows (although it's equally obvious that
it might not be worth doing).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Compared to what?

A car.

> First, 800$, assuming 100 $ per hour, would take you 900 kilometers in
> four hours travel time. If that's your kind of weekend trip, I'm sure
> you can afford it.

Often the destination is what's important, not the distance. And the
distance would be more like 640 km in a private plane, all things
considered. That's about enough to get from San Diego to Los Angeles
and back--hardly a great distance, at least by USA standards.

Who pays for the gas?

> Also, there are four people aboard, so you're talking about 200 per
> person for a trip from, say, Paris, to Barcelona, Florence, Prague or
> Majorca. Still expensive? I didn't think so.

Who said there would be four people aboard?

> For argument's sake, let's assume I lived in Paris (I really live in
> Hamburg, not that far). A typical weekend flying trip would take me to
> London, the Channel Islands or the Loire valley. Trips of less than two
> hours, all. Or 400 $, for the whole plane. Try getting to the Channel
> Islands in two hours from Paris by any other mode of transportation,
> for 100 $ per person, on your own schedule.

I can get to London much more quickly on the Eurostar, for less money.

Clearly, you'd have to have a lot of money and a desire to fly for the
sake of flying in order to do this.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Matt Whiting]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>
>>I'd really like a source or two for that statement.
>
>
> Why do you need a source? If you know how ANR works, it's obvious
> that it could be done with windows (although it's equally obvious that
> it might not be worth doing).

I know how ANR works and I think it is obvious that it could not be done
with windows.

Matt

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> You can come near that number even with a car.
>

A driver's license for 100k? Yeah, right.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

again, you're talking about stuff you have no clue about.

> We may have different standards of halfway decent.

You asked if you could buy and fly for 30k. You can. No mention about
what kind of plane.

> Ah yes ... the $15K certificate that requires perfect health.

You have been told about the prices and that they are much lower. If
you prefer to continue not believing the facts, you come across more
ridiculous. Your choice.

> > Oh, and you could do that in France, too. Maybe you'd pay
> > 15k.
>
> For the license alone, yes, according to what pilots here in France
> have told me.

More BS. The license in Europe is more expensive, however, it is not
15k. Yes, I fly in Germany.

> In general, you can multiply U.S. prices by 2-3 or
> more.

BS.

Listen, if you don't want to fly, so be it. But don't try to
rationalize it. It's your choice, period. No sorry excuses.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> A car.
>

Ok, propose a weekend trip with 900 km of driving one-way. You'd have
to really be into car driving.

> And the
> distance would be more like 640 km in a private plane, all things
> considered.

What things considered? Again, you have no idea what you are talking
about. I have done such trips many times. You?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> If you know how ANR works, it's obvious
> that it could be done with windows
>

Actually, if you know how it works, it's obvious it can't be done with
windows.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[mike regish]

Minus all those neat sustained G forces.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
I'd much prefer to spend it in certified full-motion
> simulators, which would give me essentially all the experience of real
> flight with zero risk and maximum flexibility and enjoyment.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[mike regish]

I think he meant that it won't leave the runway once it's down.

mike

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> The Cardinal will not fly at gusts of 30 knots - no matter whether the
>> flaps are down or not.
>>
> BULL****. 20G33 was good student solo weather in Colorado where I
> learned. We regularly took the Cardinal RG's out in these conditions.

[mike regish]

I actually found that pulling the Johnson bar to somewhere between the first
and second notch works best in my Tripacer. I gat an almost Harrier-like
takeoff. It's pretty neat. Full flaps are more drag than lift.

mike

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> This is actually not uncommon. In some planes it's a crapshoot as
> to whether flaps help the short field performance. The 172 for instance
> breaks ground quicker, but climbs slower to the 50' obstacle so it's
> a wash. If you've got one of the old johnson-bar manual flap version
> your optimal performance is to start the roll with the flaps up, drop
> them to 10 degrees to break ground and once you get to Vx raise them back
> up again.

[mike regish]

I've only heard of the "coffin corner" in reference to helicopter flight.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> By envelope I mean the area of safety between two extremes, e.g., the
> "coffin corner" of some aircraft represents a very tiny envelope,
> since more than a slight movement in any direction may result in
> irrecoverable instability.

[mike regish]

Trouble with this is that you now have to look at the screen out the corner
of your eye, since the monitor doesn't move. Multiple monitors would help.

mike

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message

> It lets you look out the side window of the sim aircraft by
> turning your head to the side. The device tracks your head
> motion to the side then slews the screen display to show the
> side view instead of the view straight out over the nose of
> the aircraft. In a real landing, you are often looking out
> the side to check your position relative to the runway. In
> a sim, it's harder to do that. You can hit a key to show a
> side view, but it doesn't feel as realistic as just turning
> your head.
>
> --
> Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
> return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.
>
> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)