Tweaking the throttle on approach [Archive]

Mxsmanic

March 4th 07, 05:02 PM

writes:

> A typical approach in my Cherokee includes at least a few minor power
> adjustments after the main power reduction on downwind, abeam the
> numbers. They are not usually large, probably +/- 100 rpm. I usually
> attribute this to variable wind (speed and direction) between traffic
> pattern altitude and ground. Some days, the wind varies considerably
> on the way down, and larger, or more frequent power changes are
> needed. On those rare wind-free days (i.e., from the surface up to
> 1000 AGL), I can set power at 1500 rpm on downwind, apply flaps in my
> normal places in the pattern, and usually hit the runway nearly where
> I want without any power adjustments.

The Baron has a CS prop so I can't watch RPM. I guess I could look at
manifold pressure. However, I've been going mostly by sound to determine how
much power I have applied. What surprises me is that I can tell what changes
to make at all, given that there is no sensation in simulation. But I guess
after a while looking out the window gives me enough clues--as well as
checking instruments, but often I'll adjust power before I see a change in the
instruments.

In some videos I've seen there is constant change in the power setting.
Granted, a lot of these seem to have been on windy days or in mountain
settings.

In big iron I've learned the hard way not to constantly move the throttles
forward and back. I have to just move them a little and be patient. Small
aircraft respond immediately, which is nice (but it spoils you if you like to
fly both aircraft).

I've read about being in a stable configuration on approach and that this is a
Good Thing, but I'm not sure if that applies across the board for all aircraft
and approaches, or just for straight-in approaches, or what. I think it would
be quite a feat to be able to fly a pattern and land without hardly ever
touching the throttles, except perhaps on the kind of windless day that only
occurs in simulators. I can get the aircraft into a stable configuration on
approach if the weather is good and I'm coming straight in, but doing it while
flying a pattern seems unattainably difficult at times.

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

[email protected]

March 5th 07, 01:11 PM

On Mar 4, 12:02 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> The Baron has a CS prop so I can't watch RPM. I guess I could look at
> manifold pressure. However, I've been going mostly by sound to determine how
> much power I have applied.

I don't know what CS prop guys do, but in my fixed-pitch prop, I
always make my initial power reduction based on RPM, I set it to 1500
and then adjust from there, based on the resulting approach. I
suspect that with a CS prop, some initial RPM/Manifold Pressure
combination is selected.

I have found that flying a normal rectangular pattern in the sim is
significantly more difficult than in real flight. In the real plane,
I compare my actual position to my desired position by frequently
glancing at the desired touchdown point on the runway. I find this
very difficult to do in the sim, I think because of the difficultly in
getting realistic view of the runway from the various legs of the
pattern (?). However, once established on final approach, I think the
sim is quite good in reproducing the sight picture of the approach.
In a light plane, the standard technique is to hold airspeed constant
(usually by trimming to that speed), and then fine tune the flight
path angle with small power adjustments.

> But I guess
> after a while looking out the window gives me enough clues--as well as
> checking instruments, but often I'll adjust power before I see a change in the
> instruments.

In a normal approach, started from downwind in the traffic pattern,
once the initial power reduction is made, I make the rest of the
approach mostly without looking at the instruments, except for several
checks of airspeed. The descent to the runway is done visually.
Also, don't forget that in the real plane your attention will be
mostly devoted to looking for and avoiding other aircraft.

> I've read about being in a stable configuration on approach and that this is a
> Good Thing, but I'm not sure if that applies across the board for all aircraft
> and approaches, or just for straight-in approaches, or what. I think it would
> be quite a feat to be able to fly a pattern and land without hardly ever
> touching the throttles, except perhaps on the kind of windless day that only
> occurs in simulators. I can get the aircraft into a stable configuration on
> approach if the weather is good and I'm coming straight in, but doing it while
> flying a pattern seems unattainably difficult at times.

If you want to be realistic in the sim, then you should try to fly the
traffic pattern for most of your visual approaches. (This includes
instrument approaches to small airports in visual conditions; break
off the approach a few miles out and join the pattern normally.) I
agree about the difficulty of setting up a good approach from the
pattern in the sim. You need to find a set of zero-wind numbers that
works for your sim aircraft, e.g., power setting on downwind, initial
power reduction, time until you turn base, position where flaps are
applied, airspeed on final, etc. (Timing your turn to base may work
better for the sim than the real-life technique of waiting for 45
degrees from touchdown point). You may have to find them by trial and
error, but once you have them, they become your starting point for all
subsequent approaches; fly by those numbers, and then make adjustments
for wind, and other factors of the specific situation.

Mxsmanic

March 5th 07, 03:11 PM

writes:

> I have found that flying a normal rectangular pattern in the sim is
> significantly more difficult than in real flight. In the real plane,
> I compare my actual position to my desired position by frequently
> glancing at the desired touchdown point on the runway. I find this
> very difficult to do in the sim, I think because of the difficultly in
> getting realistic view of the runway from the various legs of the
> pattern (?).

I had tremendous trouble seeing the runway for a long time. Finally, when I
got a joystick with a twist axis, I eventually assigned the twist axis to the
pan function in MSFS, so that I can "look" in various directions by twisting
the throttle as I fly. It works pretty good, and I'm better now at patterns
than I used to be. I don't know how much of this modest improvement is due to
practice and how much is due to being able to "turn" my head, though.

> However, once established on final approach, I think the
> sim is quite good in reproducing the sight picture of the approach.
> In a light plane, the standard technique is to hold airspeed constant
> (usually by trimming to that speed), and then fine tune the flight
> path angle with small power adjustments.

Unfortunately I tend to be impatient in the sim and I'm often still not
aligned even as I cross the threshold, unless I planned to land at that
airport well ahead of time. I usually come in fast because I'm making rather
risky turns on the approach and I don't want to come too close to a stall.

In a stabilized approach, though, I'm better.

How do you trim to a speed? Especially when you are adjusting power?

> In a normal approach, started from downwind in the traffic pattern,
> once the initial power reduction is made, I make the rest of the
> approach mostly without looking at the instruments, except for several
> checks of airspeed. The descent to the runway is done visually.
> Also, don't forget that in the real plane your attention will be
> mostly devoted to looking for and avoiding other aircraft.

What airspeed do you choose for landing?

> If you want to be realistic in the sim, then you should try to fly the
> traffic pattern for most of your visual approaches. (This includes
> instrument approaches to small airports in visual conditions; break
> off the approach a few miles out and join the pattern normally.) I
> agree about the difficulty of setting up a good approach from the
> pattern in the sim. You need to find a set of zero-wind numbers that
> works for your sim aircraft, e.g., power setting on downwind, initial
> power reduction, time until you turn base, position where flaps are
> applied, airspeed on final, etc. (Timing your turn to base may work
> better for the sim than the real-life technique of waiting for 45
> degrees from touchdown point). You may have to find them by trial and
> error, but once you have them, they become your starting point for all
> subsequent approaches; fly by those numbers, and then make adjustments
> for wind, and other factors of the specific situation.

Hmm ... I had not thought of working out numbers that I could reuse. Each
approach has been trial and error but I haven't been noting anything. I guess
I'll have to write stuff down (or at least try to remember it). I do have a
few things memorized for the Baron, after hundreds of hours in it, but not as
much as I probably need or could use.

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

March 6th 07, 12:22 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Unfortunately I tend to be impatient in the sim and I'm often still not
> aligned even as I cross the threshold, unless I planned to land at that
> airport well ahead of time. I usually come in fast because I'm making rather
> risky turns on the approach and I don't want to come too close to a stall.

The benefit of your simulator is that it doesn't destroy the landing
gear on your sloppy landings and that is why it is nothing like real
life. It lets you get away with the most terrible landings... (It always
says excellent landing to me but that's not what my instructor ever says
-and he's right I'd give myself typically 5-8/10). Based on your
extolling the virtues of MSX I recently got the latest version and tried
it out with the aircraft I'm training on. Basically I'd have to say it
simulates a C172 very poorly and I'd say it's only use is for simulated
instrument flying. Even so, it's response does not mimic my aircraft
near the limits of the flight envelope -it behaves like a flying game
really. Red Bull flying race? What a pile!

Mark

chris[_1_]

March 6th 07, 01:16 AM

Hi, just a couple of notes:

> Unfortunately I tend to be impatient in the sim and I'm often still not
> aligned even as I cross the threshold, unless I planned to land at that
> airport well ahead of time. I usually come in fast because I'm making rather
> risky turns on the approach and I don't want to come too close to a stall.
>

A good landing starts with a good approach. If you don't get your
approach sorted out you are almost certain to stuff the landing up.

>
> What airspeed do you choose for landing?
>

A good airspeed for crossing the fence is VSo x 1.3. Find out what
your stall speed is, multiply by 1.3 and you have your speed at short
finals. You can add a bit for the early part of the approach, for a
172 you might use 70-80 kt on approach, reducing to 55 kt on short
finals. Whatever light aircraft you fly will be similar, can't speak
for the heavies though.. If you use much more than 80kt on approach
it can be difficult to get rid of the speed while still descending.

Stall speeds are affected by weight, so if you are heavy the 55kt will
become more like 66kt..

[email protected]

March 6th 07, 01:34 AM

On Mar 5, 10:11 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Unfortunately I tend to be impatient in the sim and I'm often still not
> aligned even as I cross the threshold, unless I planned to land at that
> airport well ahead of time. I usually come in fast because I'm making rather
> risky turns on the approach and I don't want to come too close to a stall.

If not aligned at the threshold in a real plane, you should go around.
You should strive to become aligned with the centerline soon after
turning onto final, and then hold it there. It can be done with
practice. Don't forget you'll need a crab angle to take care of
crosswind.

> How do you trim to a speed? Especially when you are adjusting power?

Don't try to do both at the same time. Hold power constant, and
adjust pitch with the yoke until you are at your desired airspeed,
then apply trim until you can release the yoke without the pitch
attitude (and therefore, airspeed) changing. Then with the airspeed
stabilized, adjust power to change the rate of descent, small changes
in power won't affect your airspeed.

>
> What airspeed do you choose for landing?

You need the proper speed for your aircraft. If it's not available in
the Pilot's Operating Handbook, then use an old rule of thumb, set the
airspeed equal to 1.3 times the aircraft's stall speed. Your aircraft
should be slowed to this speed by the time you turn final, and then
hold it precisely at that speed. The normal way to hold airspeed is
by trimming to that speed in pitch.

> Hmm ... I had not thought of working out numbers that I could reuse. Each
> approach has been trial and error but I haven't been noting anything. I guess
> I'll have to write stuff down (or at least try to remember it). I do have a
> few things memorized for the Baron, after hundreds of hours in it, but not as
> much as I probably need or could use.

You will not achieve consistent landings until you can fly a
stabilized approach. To do this, you need to discover the numbers for
your aircraft, and then use them. To find them, I suggest you conduct
some experiments in the sim. Set up your aircraft in level flight on
downwind, constant speed, gear down, at 1000 ft AGL, with a medium
power setting. When opposite the numbers, lower your flaps to their
first setting (or 10 deg) and reduce power until you stabilize at a
500 ft/min descent rate with the airspeed at 1.5 times stall speed.
Record the power setting and airspeed. Use those numbers for your
initial descent from the pattern. After 30 seconds, turn base and
lower flaps to the second setting and set pitch for airspeed = 1.4
times stall speed. Then turn final, lower flaps completely, and set
pitch for 1.3 times stall speed. Fly it like this until you hit the
ground. If you land long, then reduce power a little more next time.
If you land short, add a little power next time. Keep iterating until
you zero in on the right numbers.

Jim[_14_]

March 6th 07, 02:46 AM

On 5 Mar 2007 17:34:40 -0800, wrote:

>On Mar 5, 10:11 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Unfortunately I tend to be impatient in the sim and I'm often still not
>> aligned even as I cross the threshold, unless I planned to land at that
>> airport well ahead of time. I usually come in fast because I'm making rather
>> risky turns on the approach and I don't want to come too close to a stall.
>
>If not aligned at the threshold in a real plane, you should go around.
>You should strive to become aligned with the centerline soon after
>turning onto final, and then hold it there. It can be done with
>practice. Don't forget you'll need a crab angle to take care of
>crosswind.
>
>
>> How do you trim to a speed? Especially when you are adjusting power?
>
>Don't try to do both at the same time. Hold power constant, and
>adjust pitch with the yoke until you are at your desired airspeed,
>then apply trim until you can release the yoke without the pitch
>attitude (and therefore, airspeed) changing. Then with the airspeed
>stabilized, adjust power to change the rate of descent, small changes
>in power won't affect your airspeed.
>
>>
>> What airspeed do you choose for landing?
>
>You need the proper speed for your aircraft. If it's not available in
>the Pilot's Operating Handbook, then use an old rule of thumb, set the
>airspeed equal to 1.3 times the aircraft's stall speed. Your aircraft
>should be slowed to this speed by the time you turn final, and then
>hold it precisely at that speed. The normal way to hold airspeed is
>by trimming to that speed in pitch.
>
>
>> Hmm ... I had not thought of working out numbers that I could reuse. Each
>> approach has been trial and error but I haven't been noting anything. I guess
>> I'll have to write stuff down (or at least try to remember it). I do have a
>> few things memorized for the Baron, after hundreds of hours in it, but not as
>> much as I probably need or could use.
>
>You will not achieve consistent landings until you can fly a
>stabilized approach. To do this, you need to discover the numbers for
>your aircraft, and then use them. To find them, I suggest you conduct
>some experiments in the sim. Set up your aircraft in level flight on
>downwind, constant speed, gear down, at 1000 ft AGL, with a medium
>power setting. When opposite the numbers, lower your flaps to their
>first setting (or 10 deg) and reduce power until you stabilize at a
>500 ft/min descent rate with the airspeed at 1.5 times stall speed.
>Record the power setting and airspeed. Use those numbers for your
>initial descent from the pattern. After 30 seconds, turn base and
>lower flaps to the second setting and set pitch for airspeed = 1.4
>times stall speed. Then turn final, lower flaps completely, and set
>pitch for 1.3 times stall speed. Fly it like this until you hit the
>ground. If you land long, then reduce power a little more next time.
>If you land short, add a little power next time. Keep iterating until
>you zero in on the right numbers.
Excellent advice on all points. Only thing I would add is to use these
steps in basic trainer such as C172 until proficient, as in real life
you must crawl before you can walk. Flying a complex aircraft in
simulation is task intensive and frustrating. Flying the C172 will
allow you to master the fundamentals, then move on to more complex
aircraft. Also to compute the approach speed use the upper limit of
the white arc on the airspeed indicator as the number you use to
multiply by 1.3 to give your final approach speed. As you cross the
numbers cut the throttle and flare. Be careful not to float or balloon
in ground effect. If you do balloon add a bit of power to stabilize
and cut the throttle again and flare to landing. Hope this helps.
--

Jim in Houston

Nurse's creed: Fill what's empty, empty what's full,
and scratch where it itches!! RN does NOT mean Real Nerd!

Kev

March 6th 07, 03:09 AM

On Mar 5, 7:22 pm, DR > wrote:
> [...] Based on your
> extolling the virtues of MSX I recently got the latest version and tried
> it out with the aircraft I'm training on. Basically I'd have to say it
> simulates a C172 very poorly and I'd say it's only use is for simulated
> instrument flying. Even so, it's response does not mimic my aircraft
> near the limits of the flight envelope -it behaves like a flying game
> really. Red Bull flying race? What a pile!

A lot of people think FS2004 is better than the latest version,
because it needs less computer horsepower. MSFS is like the Star Trek
movies... every other one is a dog ;-) In any case, download the
RealAir C172, it acts better than the stock version:

http://www.realairsimulations.com/list_box.php?page=downloads

Luck! Kev

Mxsmanic

March 6th 07, 04:49 AM

chris writes:

> A good landing starts with a good approach. If you don't get your
> approach sorted out you are almost certain to stuff the landing up.

I know. I guess I'm just impatient. I wouldn't be that way in real life, but
in the sim it's often different, as one doesn't always have the time to fly
for a long period, and I like to practice take-offs and landings at tiny
airports as I encounter them.

> A good airspeed for crossing the fence is VSo x 1.3. Find out what
> your stall speed is, multiply by 1.3 and you have your speed at short
> finals. You can add a bit for the early part of the approach, for a
> 172 you might use 70-80 kt on approach, reducing to 55 kt on short
> finals.

Hmm ... well, I've been coming in at around 100 kts, which just happens to be
the full-flaps Vso plus 30%, as you suggest (in the Baron, Vso is 75 kts). So
I guess I haven't been going as fast as I thought. After reading what some
people suggest--that the aircraft should stall as it lands--I thought that
perhaps I was coming in too fast.

Usually I'll stay at right around 100 or so practically to touchdown. As I'm
gliding above the runway I'll reduce power and let the aircraft settle on its
own. It seems to be very smooth. The only disadvantage is that I need a
longer runway. But most runways are more than long enough for my small plane,
so there's no reason to rush down to the ground that I can see.

> Whatever light aircraft you fly will be similar, can't speak
> for the heavies though.. If you use much more than 80kt on approach
> it can be difficult to get rid of the speed while still descending.

I try to come in with a good rate of descent at 100. Then, when I'm close to
the runway and coming into ground effect, I stop the descent, which causes my
airspeed to drop rapidly. As that brings me down, I progressively flare until
the wheels touch.

In heavies it's easier to some extent because the FMC will tell you what speed
to make on the approach. And if you autoland, you just set the MCP for that
speed or slightly above (136 in a lightly loaded 747-400) and it comes out
fine. The main trap with heavies is that you can't change your configuration
at the last minute--you have to be aligned and stable in your approach quite a
distance out, because last minute tweaks can be difficult and dangerous.

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

Mxsmanic

March 6th 07, 04:56 AM

writes:

> If not aligned at the threshold in a real plane, you should go around.
> You should strive to become aligned with the centerline soon after
> turning onto final, and then hold it there. It can be done with
> practice. Don't forget you'll need a crab angle to take care of
> crosswind.

I'm pretty sure I've seen videos of real pilots (in small aircraft) turning to
align with the runway _after_ the threshold, but I suppose that just because
they do it doesn't make it a smart idea.

> Don't try to do both at the same time. Hold power constant, and
> adjust pitch with the yoke until you are at your desired airspeed,
> then apply trim until you can release the yoke without the pitch
> attitude (and therefore, airspeed) changing. Then with the airspeed
> stabilized, adjust power to change the rate of descent, small changes
> in power won't affect your airspeed.

OK

> You need the proper speed for your aircraft. If it's not available in
> the Pilot's Operating Handbook, then use an old rule of thumb, set the
> airspeed equal to 1.3 times the aircraft's stall speed. Your aircraft
> should be slowed to this speed by the time you turn final, and then
> hold it precisely at that speed. The normal way to hold airspeed is
> by trimming to that speed in pitch.

I'm usually close to 1.3 x Vso, probably just by luck. I'm usually
preoccupied with holding the glide path and I worry about speed a lot less
unless I'm too close to stall speed. My worst experiences on landing have
occurred because I was going too slow and stalled just above the runway, so
that has spooked me into keeping my speed up. But looking at my aircraft I
see that 100 kts is already just about 1.3 x Vso, so I guess I'm not going so
fast after all. I'm usually going 30-40 kts faster on the approach and only
slow to 100 just before crossing the threshold.

In extreme cases I've slipped forward down to the glide path, which works very
well for descending rapidly without going to fast, but my problem there is
getting myself straight and aligned while exiting the slip.

> You will not achieve consistent landings until you can fly a
> stabilized approach. To do this, you need to discover the numbers for
> your aircraft, and then use them. To find them, I suggest you conduct
> some experiments in the sim. Set up your aircraft in level flight on
> downwind, constant speed, gear down, at 1000 ft AGL, with a medium
> power setting. When opposite the numbers, lower your flaps to their
> first setting (or 10 deg) and reduce power until you stabilize at a
> 500 ft/min descent rate with the airspeed at 1.5 times stall speed.
> Record the power setting and airspeed. Use those numbers for your
> initial descent from the pattern. After 30 seconds, turn base and
> lower flaps to the second setting and set pitch for airspeed = 1.4
> times stall speed. Then turn final, lower flaps completely, and set
> pitch for 1.3 times stall speed. Fly it like this until you hit the
> ground. If you land long, then reduce power a little more next time.
> If you land short, add a little power next time. Keep iterating until
> you zero in on the right numbers.

OK, I'll try that: 1.5, then 1.4, then 1.3. I think I'm pretty close to that
now.

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

Mxsmanic

March 6th 07, 05:04 AM

DR writes:

> The benefit of your simulator is that it doesn't destroy the landing
> gear on your sloppy landings and that is why it is nothing like real
> life.

Actually it does. Sometimes the gear is destroyed (the extreme case),
sometimes it is just damaged, sometimes the damage is subtle and you find out
about it the hard way when it won't lock for the next landing.

> It lets you get away with the most terrible landings ...

Not if you are using the add-ons intended for serious simmers, with realism
cranked up. I even damaged a flap once and didn't find out about it until I
encountered a sharp rolling tendency aloft whenever I fully extended the flaps
(that one took a while to figure out, in part because I had trouble believing
that the sim had actually simulated partial damage--but it had).

> (It always
> says excellent landing to me but that's not what my instructor ever says
> -and he's right I'd give myself typically 5-8/10). Based on your
> extolling the virtues of MSX I recently got the latest version and tried
> it out with the aircraft I'm training on. Basically I'd have to say it
> simulates a C172 very poorly and I'd say it's only use is for simulated
> instrument flying. Even so, it's response does not mimic my aircraft
> near the limits of the flight envelope -it behaves like a flying game
> really. Red Bull flying race? What a pile!

Where do you put the realism settings?

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

Mxsmanic

March 6th 07, 05:15 AM

Jim writes:

> Excellent advice on all points. Only thing I would add is to use these
> steps in basic trainer such as C172 until proficient, as in real life
> you must crawl before you can walk. Flying a complex aircraft in
> simulation is task intensive and frustrating.

Does a Baron 58 count as complex? It seems easy to fly compared to the big
iron.

I fly mostly the Baron 58 as Dreamfleet's simulation is rigorously accurate,
so it behaves just like the real thing. The C172 seems too easy, so either
this is the world's easiest plane to fly in real life, or the sim is not as
accurate as it could be.

In real life, I'd want to fly the same thing I had flown in the sim, if I
could find a place that would give me instruction in a Baron (a new one, not
one of those WWII relics, but without the G1000 junk).

> Be careful not to float or balloon
> in ground effect. If you do balloon add a bit of power to stabilize
> and cut the throttle again and flare to landing. Hope this helps.

I do seem to glide excessively just before touchdown. I have a phobia about
expensive damage to the gear. I've hardly ever crashed in a way that would
injure me in real life, but I've had a fair number of landings in which the
gear was damaged (on one occasion I damaged flaps as well, not sure how).

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

chris[_1_]

March 6th 07, 08:35 PM

On Mar 6, 6:15 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim writes:
> > Excellent advice on all points. Only thing I would add is to use these
> > steps in basic trainer such as C172 until proficient, as in real life
> > you must crawl before you can walk. Flying a complex aircraft in
> > simulation is task intensive and frustrating.
>
> Does a Baron 58 count as complex? It seems easy to fly compared to the big
> iron.
>

It has retractable gear and variable pitch props, means it's complex.
Not to mention multi-engine.

> I fly mostly the Baron 58 as Dreamfleet's simulation is rigorously accurate,
> so it behaves just like the real thing. The C172 seems too easy, so either
> this is the world's easiest plane to fly in real life, or the sim is not as
> accurate as it could be.
>
> In real life, I'd want to fly the same thing I had flown in the sim, if I
> could find a place that would give me instruction in a Baron (a new one, not
> one of those WWII relics, but without the G1000 junk).

You would be very ill-advised to try and start your flight training in
a twin.
There's way too much stuff to cope with when you're trying to learn
how to take off, fly s+l and land..
Best to learn on something small, slow, forgiving, and you can move up
later. I found even going from a C152 to an Archer, I got way behind
the aircraft - too much happening too fast, and the Archer doesn't
have two engines, CSU's or retract. And the difference in cruise is
only 35kt or so, but enough to get me seriously behind the aircraft!!

>
> > Be careful not to float or balloon
> > in ground effect. If you do balloon add a bit of power to stabilize
> > and cut the throttle again and flare to landing. Hope this helps.
>
> I do seem to glide excessively just before touchdown. I have a phobia about
> expensive damage to the gear. I've hardly ever crashed in a way that would
> injure me in real life, but I've had a fair number of landings in which the
> gear was damaged (on one occasion I damaged flaps as well, not sure how).
>

If you are floating you are going too fast or trying to hold it off
too long. From reading your earlier post, you identified the VSo of
the Baron as 75. My research came up with 69-72 as stall speeds.
Which makes VSo x1.3 = 89-93kt. You probably don't want to be going
for a full stall landing in a twin, so come in at about 90kt, raise
the nose a bit to flare and let it settle onto the runway. Don't try
and hold it off, that's what a Cessna pilot should do, but probably
not a twin pilot. Just make sure your mains touch before your nose
wheel.
Mind you, I am not a twin pilot so that could all have been
rubbish. :-)

Ron Natalie

March 6th 07, 09:26 PM

chris wrote:

>
> It has retractable gear and variable pitch props, means it's complex.

And flaps...it has to have flaps.

> Not to mention multi-engine.

The number of engines doesn't matter. By the way a twin with two
HP wouldn't be HP either.

[email protected]

March 7th 07, 02:03 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
> > If not aligned at the threshold in a real plane, you should go around.
> > You should strive to become aligned with the centerline soon after
> > turning onto final, and then hold it there. It can be done with
> > practice. Don't forget you'll need a crab angle to take care of
> > crosswind.
>
> I'm pretty sure I've seen videos of real pilots (in small aircraft) turning to
> align with the runway _after_ the threshold, but I suppose that just because
> they do it doesn't make it a smart idea.

I may have misunderstood your earlier post about being misaligned when
crossing the threshold. I originally thought you meant that you were
not positioned over the centerline (bad), but maybe you meant that
your airplane's centerline was not parallel to the runway centerline.
If so, then that is not unusual, or bad, but you MUST align before
touchdown. (Use rudder to straighten out, and opposite aileron to
prevent lateral drift)

> In extreme cases I've slipped forward down to the glide path, which works very
> well for descending rapidly without going to fast, but my problem there is
> getting myself straight and aligned while exiting the slip.

Yes, straightening out after a slip seems to be harder in the sim than
in the real plane.

[email protected]

March 7th 07, 02:54 AM

On Mar 5, 11:56 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > If not aligned at the threshold in a real plane, you should go around.
> > You should strive to become aligned with the centerline soon after
> > turning onto final, and then hold it there. It can be done with
> > practice. Don't forget you'll need a crab angle to take care of
> > crosswind.
>
> I'm pretty sure I've seen videos of real pilots (in small aircraft) turning to
> align with the runway _after_ the threshold, but I suppose that just because
> they do it doesn't make it a smart idea.

When we speak of aligning with the runway, we mean that the _flight
path_ should be straight down the centerline.

This does not necessarily mean (and often doesn't) that the airplane
axis is aligned down its center. Most often you have some kind of
crosswind, and many pilots hold a crab angle (to maintain the flight
path) down almost to the ground, and then "kick it out" (straighten
out) just before touchdown. This is the turning you've seen.

Kev

Roger[_4_]

March 7th 07, 03:16 AM

On 5 Mar 2007 05:11:10 -0800, wrote:

>On Mar 4, 12:02 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> The Baron has a CS prop so I can't watch RPM. I guess I could look at
>> manifold pressure. However, I've been going mostly by sound to determine how
>> much power I have applied.
>
>I don't know what CS prop guys do, but in my fixed-pitch prop, I

Depends on how well you know your plane.

>always make my initial power reduction based on RPM, I set it to 1500
>and then adjust from there, based on the resulting approach. I
>suspect that with a CS prop, some initial RPM/Manifold Pressure
>combination is selected.

With the Deb my initial power reduction is made well before I'm turned
down wind. I leave the RPM alone at 2400. The idea is to get slowed to
somewhat less than 140 (which is the maximum gear down speed) when I
straighten out and down to about 110 as I pass the end of the runway
outbound. Depending on temperature and particularly density altitude
the power settings can change quite a bit. Note, with the gear up the
glide ratio is about twice that of a 172. With the gear down it's even
steeper than a Cherokee 180 although it and the Cherokee have almost
the same wing loading. With the gear down you can pretty much think
of it as a big, heavy Cherokee that burns a lot of gas and isn't
nearly as forgiving.

In a stabilized pattern, which I seldom fly, I aim for 110 abeam the
numbers outbound, 90 on base and 80 on final slowing to 80 minus 1 MPH
for each 100# under gross. I run *about* 10-15 degrees of flaps down
wind, 20 to 25 on base, and 25 to 30 on final going to the full 40
when either needed or the runway is made.

>
>I have found that flying a normal rectangular pattern in the sim is
>significantly more difficult than in real flight. In the real plane,
>I compare my actual position to my desired position by frequently
>glancing at the desired touchdown point on the runway. I find this
>very difficult to do in the sim, I think because of the difficultly in

The view in FSX is very realistic for the 172. OTOH you need a
state-of-the-art system to be able to run it. Development was started
before multi-core and multi-processors were even though of as becoming
popular. Hence it depends on raw horsepower to run things and gets by
with a fair to middlin graphics card. Not a cheap one, but you sure
don't need to go the big bucks for a top end DX-10 graphics card.
Anything much less than a top end machine will leave you CPU bound.
However even with SATA 3 drives it seems to take forever to load.

>getting realistic view of the runway from the various legs of the
>pattern (?). However, once established on final approach, I think the

I think this is the advantage FSX has over FS9. A flick of the "top
hat" gives you views that look pretty much normal.

>sim is quite good in reproducing the sight picture of the approach.
>In a light plane, the standard technique is to hold airspeed constant
>(usually by trimming to that speed), and then fine tune the flight
>path angle with small power adjustments.
>
>> But I guess
>> after a while looking out the window gives me enough clues--as well as
>> checking instruments, but often I'll adjust power before I see a change in the
>> instruments.

With the CS prop in the Deb I pretty much use the throttle to adjust
the aiming point and only reference the air speed to make sure it's
not drifting up or down.

The Deb takes a "light touch" on the controls so I set the trim and
then just sort of nudge it here and there.

Bumpy IFR in solid IMC it becomes a two finger control just nudging
the yoke

>
>In a normal approach, started from downwind in the traffic pattern,
>once the initial power reduction is made, I make the rest of the
>approach mostly without looking at the instruments, except for several
>checks of airspeed. The descent to the runway is done visually.
>Also, don't forget that in the real plane your attention will be
>mostly devoted to looking for and avoiding other aircraft.

Pretty much the same here whether IRL or sim.
>
>> I've read about being in a stable configuration on approach and that this is a
>> Good Thing, but I'm not sure if that applies across the board for all aircraft
>> and approaches, or just for straight-in approaches, or what. I think it would
>> be quite a feat to be able to fly a pattern and land without hardly ever
>> touching the throttles, except perhaps on the kind of windless day that only

I think I remember experiencing those a couple of times IRL.

>> occurs in simulators. I can get the aircraft into a stable configuration on
>> approach if the weather is good and I'm coming straight in, but doing it while
>> flying a pattern seems unattainably difficult at times.
>
And there in lies another difference between IRL and sim. If I were
flying into a big airport IRL I could pretty much set the power and
let it go, but the touch down point would vary over quite a distance.
As I normally fly into airports with 2500 to 3800 foot runways I don't
have that luxury so although I can fly a rectangular pattern and even
do each segment in the same place repeatedly It required adjustment of
power and flaps. Sometimes even a little slip is called for. <:-)) On
really windy days it may call for substantial power on final.

>If you want to be realistic in the sim, then you should try to fly the
>traffic pattern for most of your visual approaches. (This includes
>instrument approaches to small airports in visual conditions; break
>off the approach a few miles out and join the pattern normally.) I
>agree about the difficulty of setting up a good approach from the
>pattern in the sim. You need to find a set of zero-wind numbers that
>works for your sim aircraft, e.g., power setting on downwind, initial
>power reduction, time until you turn base, position where flaps are
>applied, airspeed on final, etc. (Timing your turn to base may work
>better for the sim than the real-life technique of waiting for 45
>degrees from touchdown point). You may have to find them by trial and
>error, but once you have them, they become your starting point for all
>subsequent approaches; fly by those numbers, and then make adjustments
>for wind, and other factors of the specific situation.

Learn this first with the 172, then work with the bigger stuff.

Once lined up with the end of the runway add about half flaps and come
back on the power. Watch the touchdown zone. (white strips just down
the runway). If they are getting higher in the windshield add enough
power to stop them from moving up. If they are moving down, then
reduce the power. If they are still moving down, go full flaps. If
they are still moving up you are either too high, too fast, or both.
If you aren't going to be able to land in the first third of the
runway go around and try again. A good guide are the VASI lights with
the top ones being red and the bottom being white although IRL a lot
of pilots don't like to come in that shallow.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

March 7th 07, 03:21 AM

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:26:52 -0500, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>chris wrote:
>
>>
>> It has retractable gear and variable pitch props, means it's complex.
>
>And flaps...it has to have flaps.
>
>
>> Not to mention multi-engine.
>
>The number of engines doesn't matter. By the way a twin with two
>HP wouldn't be HP either.
or 200 for that matter. Isn't is still "greater than 200"?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Jim[_14_]

March 7th 07, 05:01 AM

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 06:15:25 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Jim writes:
>
>> Excellent advice on all points. Only thing I would add is to use these
>> steps in basic trainer such as C172 until proficient, as in real life
>> you must crawl before you can walk. Flying a complex aircraft in
>> simulation is task intensive and frustrating.
>
>Does a Baron 58 count as complex? It seems easy to fly compared to the big
>iron.
>
Any plane with retractable gear and prop control is considered
complex.
>I fly mostly the Baron 58 as Dreamfleet's simulation is rigorously accurate,
>so it behaves just like the real thing. The C172 seems too easy, so either
>this is the world's easiest plane to fly in real life, or the sim is not as
>accurate as it could be.
>
The reason a C172 is used as a trainer in real life is because it is a
very easy and forgiving airplane to fly. It is a good plane for
landings because of the high wing. And because you don't have to worry
with the gear or prop control you can concentrate on the fundamentals
of a stabilized approach and then when mastered move on to more
complex aircraft. Maybe a single engine retractable. I don't remember
if the Baron 58 in a multi or single engine.
>In real life, I'd want to fly the same thing I had flown in the sim, if I
>could find a place that would give me instruction in a Baron (a new one, not
>one of those WWII relics, but without the G1000 junk).
>
>> Be careful not to float or balloon
>> in ground effect. If you do balloon add a bit of power to stabilize
>> and cut the throttle again and flare to landing. Hope this helps.
>
>I do seem to glide excessively just before touchdown. I have a phobia about
>expensive damage to the gear. I've hardly ever crashed in a way that would
>injure me in real life, but I've had a fair number of landings in which the
>gear was damaged (on one occasion I damaged flaps as well, not sure how).
The gear on the 172 is very resilient. I really think if you use the
172 to master the pitch / power part of the stabilized approach you
will do better in the Baron. I have flown a real 172 and find FS2004's
172 to be very realistic. Hope this helps.
--

Jim in Houston

Nurse's creed: Fill what's empty, empty what's full,
and scratch where it itches!! RN does NOT mean Real Nerd!

Mxsmanic

March 7th 07, 05:03 AM

chris writes:

> It has retractable gear and variable pitch props, means it's complex.
> Not to mention multi-engine.

The FAA seems to have a low threshold of complexity.

> You would be very ill-advised to try and start your flight training in
> a twin. There's way too much stuff to cope with when you're trying to learn
> how to take off, fly s+l and land..

I've heard of other people doing it, although it seems to be rare. If that's
the aircraft I wanted to fly, wouldn't it be more practical to just start with
it to begin with?

> Best to learn on something small, slow, forgiving, and you can move up
> later. I found even going from a C152 to an Archer, I got way behind
> the aircraft - too much happening too fast, and the Archer doesn't
> have two engines, CSU's or retract. And the difference in cruise is
> only 35kt or so, but enough to get me seriously behind the aircraft!!

What sorts of things were you losing track of in the Archer?

> If you are floating you are going too fast or trying to hold it off
> too long. From reading your earlier post, you identified the VSo of
> the Baron as 75.

That's the lower limit of the white band, which (IIRC) is the VSo with flaps
extended. I usually stay above Vmc (the first red line) on landing, and I
usually won't rotate until I'm above Vyse (the first blue line) at take-off.
The engine-out scenarios I've practiced are harrowing and I always like to be
going fast enough to deal with those. (I haven't practiced engine failure on
landing yet, however.)

> My research came up with 69-72 as stall speeds.
> Which makes VSo x1.3 = 89-93kt.

That's very often my speed at touchdown. I never try to stall into touchdown,
despite what I've read here. My theory is that being at stall speed gives you
no options, even if it's the slowest possible touchdown speed. In an
emergency, I want to be able to leave the runway again, but I'm not going
anywhere once I stall.

> You probably don't want to be going for a full stall landing in a twin,
> so come in at about 90kt, raise the nose a bit to flare and let it settle
> onto the runway.

That's what I do, more less. I descend until about ten feet or so then hold
the aircraft level and set throttles to idle (they are slightly above prior to
that). That causes the aircraft to settle downwards and as it does so I
flare. If my approach was stable and if it's not too windy I can barely feel
the wheels touch. If I've been crabbing for a crosswind this is also when I
straighten the aircraft out.

Why do you say a stall landing is inadvisable "in a twin"? Would it be
different for a single-engine plane?

> Don't try and hold it off, that's what a Cessna pilot should do, but
> probably not a twin pilot.

Here again, why the distinction between single and twin?

> Just make sure your mains touch before your nose wheel.

That's usually not a problem, although in landings that have collapsed gear,
sometimes the nose gear goes first. It seems that a hard landing in the Baron
tends to pitch the nose downward so that the nose gear hits even harder than
the main gear, and then it breaks. (Incidentally, MSFS doesn't count that as
a crash, but the aircraft is still unflyable afterwards.)

> Mind you, I am not a twin pilot so that could all have been
> rubbish.

I don't understand why 1 vs 2 engines is such a big deal.

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

Mxsmanic

March 7th 07, 05:05 AM

Ron Natalie writes:

> And flaps...it has to have flaps.

Don't small single-engine planes have flaps?

> The number of engines doesn't matter. By the way a twin with two
> HP wouldn't be HP either.

High-performance, complex ... when did the FAA set these standards? It must
have been when the Wright brothers were around if they are this low. To me,
an F-16 is high performance, not a Baron. And a Space Shuttle is complex (or,
arguably, a large jet airliner).

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

Mxsmanic

March 7th 07, 05:12 AM

writes:

> I may have misunderstood your earlier post about being misaligned when
> crossing the threshold. I originally thought you meant that you were
> not positioned over the centerline (bad), but maybe you meant that
> your airplane's centerline was not parallel to the runway centerline.

It can be one or both, depending on how uncoordinated I am that day.

I'm rarely on the centerline when I turn at the last minute, but there is
still time to line up, usually. But being absolutely on the centerline and
parallel to it is less common, especially if there is any kind of wind. I
can't feel a crosswind in the sim, of course, but I can "feel" (note quotation
marks) the aircraft drifting to one side or otherwise moving by looking out
the window or watching the instruments (in low visibility). I'm so-so at
correcting for that.

If MSFS is configured with 72 kt gusts at ground level, I just dial them down,
as I could never land with that wind in real life, anyway. (This is a known
problem on VATSIM, which for some reason will more than double the speed of
gusts if the wind is gusting.)

> If so, then that is not unusual, or bad, but you MUST align before
> touchdown. (Use rudder to straighten out, and opposite aileron to
> prevent lateral drift)

That's what I try to do. I try to use both rudder and aileron unless I'm
extremely close to the runway, as I've read that using rudder alone is a Bad
Thing.

> Yes, straightening out after a slip seems to be harder in the sim than
> in the real plane.

There is probably a smooth way to do it, but I haven't learned it yet. If I'm
a thousand feet off the ground it doesn't matter much, but very close to the
runway it makes me nervous. So I might slip down to the pattern altitude but
not beyond. I've seen people slip practically to touchdown, though.

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

Mxsmanic

March 7th 07, 05:15 AM

writes:

> When we speak of aligning with the runway, we mean that the _flight
> path_ should be straight down the centerline.
>
> This does not necessarily mean (and often doesn't) that the airplane
> axis is aligned down its center. Most often you have some kind of
> crosswind, and many pilots hold a crab angle (to maintain the flight
> path) down almost to the ground, and then "kick it out" (straighten
> out) just before touchdown. This is the turning you've seen.

Well, in this case, I'm talking about a pilot coming in to the runway at
almost a 90-degree angle, entering the runway _beyond_ the threshold, and then
turning sharply to align with it. I guess it's an option if the runway is
quite long and the aircraft is small and slow. It's extremely difficult in a
Baron and I would not attempt it in real life. It doesn't help that the times
I've tried it I've been descending as well. I end up overshooting at 140
knots and it's hard to get aligned and down before the runway runs out.

In a Piper Cub, it's easy (although I don't know how well the default Piper
Cub is modeled in MSFS--it seems _too_ easy to fly, so I'm suspicious).

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

Mxsmanic

March 7th 07, 05:23 AM

Roger writes:

> Learn this first with the 172, then work with the bigger stuff.

I don't know if I can trust the sim's default version of the 172. The add-ons
I use have a reputation for extreme accuracy, so I can be reasonably confident
that they do just what the real aircraft does, but I don't know about the 172.
If I can find a reputable add-on C172, maybe I'll get that sometime. That's
the main reason I don't fly the 172 much.

I do have an A36 Bonanza, also by Dreamfleet, but the EHSI isn't Reality XP
(Reality XP is known for its 100% accurate instruments), and the EHSI on the
Baron is. I guess the EHSI wouldn't matter so much for pattern work, though.

Also I figure it's better to get good in a small number of aircraft than
mediocre in a large number, since in real life I probably wouldn't be flying
20 different aircraft, but just two or three at most.

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

Tim

March 7th 07, 03:59 PM

Roger wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:26:52 -0500, Ron Natalie >
> wrote:
>
>
>>chris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It has retractable gear and variable pitch props, means it's complex.
>>
>>And flaps...it has to have flaps.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Not to mention multi-engine.
>>
>>The number of engines doesn't matter. By the way a twin with two
>>HP wouldn't be HP either.
>
> or 200 for that matter. Isn't is still "greater than 200"?
>
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

That is high performance - not complex.

Tim

March 7th 07, 04:00 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>
>>And flaps...it has to have flaps.
>
>
> Don't small single-engine planes have flaps?
>
>
>>The number of engines doesn't matter. By the way a twin with two
>>HP wouldn't be HP either.
>
>
> High-performance, complex ... when did the FAA set these standards? It must
> have been when the Wright brothers were around if they are this low. To me,
> an F-16 is high performance, not a Baron. And a Space Shuttle is complex (or,
> arguably, a large jet airliner).
>

That's because you have no idea what happens in the real world.
Compared with ms flight sim on a computer an ultralight is high
performance and complex...

Tony

March 7th 07, 04:38 PM

The kindly and greatly respected Uncle Al over on the sci.physics
newsgroup offered an observation as to the intrinsic worth of a
poster's contributions that I've taken the liberty paraphrase here,
regarding MX's observations re complex aircraft. Not only does he know
more than we do, he also knows more than the FAA!

Mx is an epiphany of chronic abusive trolling ignorant persona.

Mx is a snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick up Mx,
drive its beak into Mx's Lilliputian brain, and upon finding it rancid
set Mx loose to flutter briefly before spattering the ocean rocks
with the frothy pale pink shame of its
Ignoble blood. May Mx choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of his
own trite, foolish beliefs.

I cannot believe how incredibly ignorant Mx is. I mean rock-hard
ignorant. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury ignorant. Surface of
Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard ignorant.
Ignorant so ignorant that it goes way beyond the ignorant we know into
a whole different sensorium of ignorant. Mx is
trans-ignorant ignorant. Meta-ignorant. Ignorant so collapsed upon
itself that it is within its own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole
ignorant. Ignorant gotten so dense and massive that no intellect can
escape.

Singularity ignorant.

Mx emits more aviation ignorant/second than our entire galaxy
otherwise
emits ignorant/year. Quasar ignorant. Nothing else in the universe
can
be this ignorant. Mx is an oozingly putrescent primordial fragment
from the original Big Bang of Ignorant, a pure essence of ignorant so
uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics
that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric n-dimensional
backgroundless ignorant as we can imagine it. Mx is Planck ignorant,
a quantum foam of ignorant, a vacuum
decay of ignorant, a grand unified theory of ignorant.

Mx is the epiphany of ignorant.

On Mar 7, 12:05 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
> > And flaps...it has to have flaps.
>
> Don't small single-engine planes have flaps?
>
> > The number of engines doesn't matter. By the way a twin with two
> > HP wouldn't be HP either.
>
> High-performance, complex ... when did the FAA set these standards? It must
> have been when the Wright brothers were around if they are this low. To me,
> an F-16 is high performance, not a Baron. And a Space Shuttle is complex (or,
> arguably, a large jet airliner).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Pixel Dent

March 7th 07, 05:58 PM

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> chris writes:
>
> > It has retractable gear and variable pitch props, means it's complex.
> > Not to mention multi-engine.
>
> The FAA seems to have a low threshold of complexity.

Just consider it a term of art.

John Theune

March 7th 07, 07:45 PM

Tony wrote:
> The kindly and greatly respected Uncle Al over on the sci.physics
> newsgroup offered an observation as to the intrinsic worth of a
> poster's contributions that I've taken the liberty paraphrase here,
> regarding MX's observations re complex aircraft. Not only does he know
> more than we do, he also knows more than the FAA!
>
>
> Mx is an epiphany of chronic abusive trolling ignorant persona.
>
> Mx is a snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick up Mx,
> drive its beak into Mx's Lilliputian brain, and upon finding it rancid
> set Mx loose to flutter briefly before spattering the ocean rocks
> with the frothy pale pink shame of its
> Ignoble blood. May Mx choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of his
> own trite, foolish beliefs.
>
>
> I cannot believe how incredibly ignorant Mx is. I mean rock-hard
> ignorant. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury ignorant. Surface of
> Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
> acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard ignorant.
> Ignorant so ignorant that it goes way beyond the ignorant we know into
> a whole different sensorium of ignorant. Mx is
> trans-ignorant ignorant. Meta-ignorant. Ignorant so collapsed upon
> itself that it is within its own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole
> ignorant. Ignorant gotten so dense and massive that no intellect can
> escape.
>
> Singularity ignorant.
>
> Mx emits more aviation ignorant/second than our entire galaxy
> otherwise
> emits ignorant/year. Quasar ignorant. Nothing else in the universe
> can
> be this ignorant. Mx is an oozingly putrescent primordial fragment
> from the original Big Bang of Ignorant, a pure essence of ignorant so
> uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics
> that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric n-dimensional
> backgroundless ignorant as we can imagine it. Mx is Planck ignorant,
> a quantum foam of ignorant, a vacuum
> decay of ignorant, a grand unified theory of ignorant.
>
>
> Mx is the epiphany of ignorant.
>
>
>
> On Mar 7, 12:05 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Ron Natalie writes:
>>> And flaps...it has to have flaps.
>> Don't small single-engine planes have flaps?
>>
>>> The number of engines doesn't matter. By the way a twin with two
>>> HP wouldn't be HP either.
>> High-performance, complex ... when did the FAA set these standards? It must
>> have been when the Wright brothers were around if they are this low. To me,
>> an F-16 is high performance, not a Baron. And a Space Shuttle is complex (or,
>> arguably, a large jet airliner).
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
>
While I'm trying very hard to ignore anything related to MX, I'm very
glad to have read this one. You only left off one of my favorites,
dumber then a box of rocks.

Mxsmanic

March 7th 07, 09:07 PM

Tim writes:

> That's because you have no idea what happens in the real world.

Maybe I'm just smarter than a lot of pilots, if they call a Baron "complex" or
"high performance."

> Compared with ms flight sim on a computer an ultralight is high
> performance and complex...

Try it.

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

Mxsmanic

March 7th 07, 09:08 PM

Tony writes:

> Mx is the epiphany of ignorant.

This post reminds me of a short story by Harlan Ellison.

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

Mxsmanic

March 7th 07, 09:09 PM

Pixel Dent writes:

> Just consider it a term of art.

I've concluded that it's just another one of those arbitrary anachronisms that
seem to haunt the FAA.

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

Mxsmanic

March 7th 07, 09:11 PM

Jim writes:

> Any plane with retractable gear and prop control is considered
> complex.

Does adding an FMS change anything?

> The reason a C172 is used as a trainer in real life is because it is a
> very easy and forgiving airplane to fly. It is a good plane for
> landings because of the high wing. And because you don't have to worry
> with the gear or prop control you can concentrate on the fundamentals
> of a stabilized approach and then when mastered move on to more
> complex aircraft. Maybe a single engine retractable. I don't remember
> if the Baron 58 in a multi or single engine.

It has two engines.

It still surprises me that moving a lever to extend or retract gear makes an
aircraft complex. An autopilot or GPS is a lot more complex than a gear
lever.

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

chris[_1_]

March 7th 07, 09:20 PM

On Mar 7, 6:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > It has retractable gear and variable pitch props, means it's complex.
> > Not to mention multi-engine.
>
> The FAA seems to have a low threshold of complexity.

The term complex has little meaning where I live - if I transition to
say a Twin Comanche, I will need separate training on and ratings for
retractable gear, CSU and multi. Each has it's own ins and outs, as
I think I will find out shortly when I go for an Arrow rating - that
has retract and CSU.

> > You would be very ill-advised to try and start your flight training in
> > a twin. There's way too much stuff to cope with when you're trying to learn
> > how to take off, fly s+l and land..
>
> I've heard of other people doing it, although it seems to be rare. If that's
> the aircraft I wanted to fly, wouldn't it be more practical to just start with
> it to begin with?
>

I have heard of one person who did it, but I think for the majority of
people it would be hard to cope with all the stuff you need to deal
with to fly a twin,

> > Best to learn on something small, slow, forgiving, and you can move up
> > later. I found even going from a C152 to an Archer, I got way behind
> > the aircraft - too much happening too fast, and the Archer doesn't
> > have two engines, CSU's or retract. And the difference in cruise is
> > only 35kt or so, but enough to get me seriously behind the aircraft!!
>
> What sorts of things were you losing track of in the Archer?

What I found was that it felt substantially faster, it climbed a lot
quicker, and was harder to slow down. I also found the fuel
management to be extra complexity I didn't need..
For an average circuit in a 152, I would be waiting for it to get to
circuit altitude, had time to do my checks, and it slowed down quickly
with flap out. The archer, on the other hand, I found I had to turn
downwind, level out, pull the power back, and trim, all at the same
time, then pull the power right back or I would run over the guy in
front. Then when I put flap out it didn't slow down. Then you have
to somehow slow down and get down at the same time.

I have 150 hours of Archer time now, and am perfectly comfortable with
doing all of the above, but it was harrowing to begin with!!

>
> > If you are floating you are going too fast or trying to hold it off
> > too long. From reading your earlier post, you identified the VSo of
> > the Baron as 75.
>
> That's the lower limit of the white band, which (IIRC) is the VSo with flaps
> extended. I usually stay above Vmc (the first red line) on landing, and I
> usually won't rotate until I'm above Vyse (the first blue line) at take-off.
> The engine-out scenarios I've practiced are harrowing and I always like to be
> going fast enough to deal with those. (I haven't practiced engine failure on
> landing yet, however.)

I have no idea about that stuff, but if you're happy with it...

>
> > My research came up with 69-72 as stall speeds.
> > Which makes VSo x1.3 = 89-93kt.
>
> That's very often my speed at touchdown. I never try to stall into touchdown,
> despite what I've read here. My theory is that being at stall speed gives you
> no options, even if it's the slowest possible touchdown speed. In an
> emergency, I want to be able to leave the runway again, but I'm not going
> anywhere once I stall.
>

You really want the aircraft to be going slow enough to stop flying on
it's own. Remember if you want to leave the runway again you'll have
to put power on anyway.

> > You probably don't want to be going for a full stall landing in a twin,
> > so come in at about 90kt, raise the nose a bit to flare and let it settle
> > onto the runway.
>
> That's what I do, more less. I descend until about ten feet or so then hold
> the aircraft level and set throttles to idle (they are slightly above prior to
> that). That causes the aircraft to settle downwards and as it does so I
> flare. If my approach was stable and if it's not too windy I can barely feel
> the wheels touch. If I've been crabbing for a crosswind this is also when I
> straighten the aircraft out.

Sounds good to me..

>
> Why do you say a stall landing is inadvisable "in a twin"? Would it be
> different for a single-engine plane?

If I got this right (twin drivers please confirm or deny this), there
is a lot of weight up front with those engines hanging so far forward,
which makes holding the nose off a real bugger, and especially on
things like Twin Comanche's they tend to stop flying with a bit of a
bang, so you are best advised to just fly it into the runway...

>
> > Don't try and hold it off, that's what a Cessna pilot should do, but
> > probably not a twin pilot.
>
> Here again, why the distinction between single and twin?

I am a single engine pilot, please see above for my admittedly limited
understanding..

>
> > Just make sure your mains touch before your nose wheel.
>
> That's usually not a problem, although in landings that have collapsed gear,
> sometimes the nose gear goes first. It seems that a hard landing in the Baron
> tends to pitch the nose downward so that the nose gear hits even harder than
> the main gear, and then it breaks. (Incidentally, MSFS doesn't count that as
> a crash, but the aircraft is still unflyable afterwards.)

You really don't want to break gear off in sim or real life :-)

>
> > Mind you, I am not a twin pilot so that could all have been
> > rubbish.
>
> I don't understand why 1 vs 2 engines is such a big deal.

See above..

chris[_1_]

March 7th 07, 09:35 PM

> I have heard of one person who did it, but I think for the majority of
> people it would be hard to cope with all the stuff you need to deal
> with to fly a twin,
>

Oops.. I meant to say.. It would be hard to cope with all that stuff
while learning the basics of flying, like circuits, approaches,
landings...

Judging by what I experienced, the average student pilot would
probably find anything much more complicated than a 172 or Archer to
be just overwhelming. More things to remember = more things to
forget :-)

chris[_1_]

March 7th 07, 09:38 PM

>
> > > You would be very ill-advised to try and start your flight training in
> > > a twin. There's way too much stuff to cope with when you're trying to learn
> > > how to take off, fly s+l and land..
>
> > I've heard of other people doing it, although it seems to be rare. If that's
> > the aircraft I wanted to fly, wouldn't it be more practical to just start with
> > it to begin with?
>

I also forgot to mention that since vastly experienced pilots still
die from getting it wrong after an engine failure in a twin, how do
you think a newly solo student could deal with it??

Kev

March 7th 07, 09:52 PM

On Mar 7, 12:05 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
> > The number of engines doesn't matter. By the way a twin with two
> > HP wouldn't be HP either.
>
> High-performance, complex ... when did the FAA set these standards? It must
> have been when the Wright brothers were around if they are this low. To me,
> an F-16 is high performance, not a Baron. And a Space Shuttle is complex (or,
> arguably, a large jet airliner).

In real life, most of it makes sense.

For example, the high-performance part is related to how much plane
you can safely handle, although perhaps it should've been tied more to
top speed instead. Under, say 120kts, most pilots (even students) can
keep up with the airplane. But if you go faster, then you have to
think ahead much more, and that takes experience. Obviously yes,
this is true in spades for F-16s :)

There's also the extreme example of a prop airplane with a 1000HP
engine, that'll twist you like a corkscrew if you don't know what to
do.

The "complex" definition is another example of checking someone's
experience and knowledge, although perhaps it should've been broken
down separately into retractable and controllable-prop requirements.
But a lack of knowledge isn't necessarily dangerous.

Multi-engine, OTOH, really requires training to stay out of trouble.

Tailwheel endorsement is another example of license add-ons.

Kev

Tim

March 7th 07, 11:32 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>
>>That's because you have no idea what happens in the real world.
>
>
> Maybe I'm just smarter than a lot of pilots, if they call a Baron "complex" or
> "high performance."

Maybe. But I don't think that has anything to do with your delusions
about being able to fly a real Baron.

>
>
>>Compared with ms flight sim on a computer an ultralight is high
>>performance and complex...
>
>
> Try it.
>

I have. It is a nice game. I prefer the real thing though. They have
very little in common.

Tim

March 7th 07, 11:36 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim writes:
>
>
>>Any plane with retractable gear and prop control is considered
>>complex.
>
>
> Does adding an FMS change anything?
>
>
>>The reason a C172 is used as a trainer in real life is because it is a
>>very easy and forgiving airplane to fly. It is a good plane for
>>landings because of the high wing. And because you don't have to worry
>>with the gear or prop control you can concentrate on the fundamentals
>>of a stabilized approach and then when mastered move on to more
>>complex aircraft. Maybe a single engine retractable. I don't remember
>>if the Baron 58 in a multi or single engine.
>
>
> It has two engines.
>
> It still surprises me that moving a lever to extend or retract gear makes an
> aircraft complex.

That's not the definition of complex. Needs a CS prop as well as flaps.

> An autopilot or GPS is a lot more complex than a gear
> lever.
>

You would think that - because you equate flying with looking at
avionics. Apparently you can't "fly" without one. They are not needed
for real flying. They can be ignored. The prop, cowl flaps, flaps,
landing all are vital to proper flying in a complex plane.

Mxsmanic

March 8th 07, 07:23 AM

Tim writes:

> But I don't think that has anything to do with your delusions
> about being able to fly a real Baron.

Since it hasn't been tested, we don't know if it's a delusion or not.

> I have. It is a nice game. I prefer the real thing though. They have
> very little in common.

If so, you haven't configured your sim correctly.

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

Mxsmanic

March 8th 07, 07:52 AM

chris writes:

> I have heard of one person who did it, but I think for the majority of
> people it would be hard to cope with all the stuff you need to deal
> with to fly a twin,

But in my case I'd know all the procedures a lot better, since that's what I
fly mostly in simulation. It would just be a matter of putting them into
practice. However, from what little I've heard of this, training entirely in
a Baron would be extremely expensive, even if I could find a place to do it.
Then again, if I can afford $2 million to buy the airplane, I can afford to
train in one.

> What I found was that it felt substantially faster, it climbed a lot
> quicker, and was harder to slow down.

I've noticed when trying the C172 in the sim that it seems to do everything in
slow motion. There's more than enough time to correct mistakes. Assuming the
sim is accurate (I have my doubts for the default C172), it's incredibly easy
to fly.

I can see how someone could get used to that in real life and then be
surprised by a "complex" or "high performance" aircraft. But in that case, is
the latter really _harder_ to fly, or is it really just a problem because the
student has become so accustomed to a really _easy_ plane to fly?

In other words, if the student just starts on a complex aircraft to start
with, perhaps he'd have less trouble dealing with it.

> I also found the fuel management to be extra complexity I didn't need..

I still don't understand why fuel is an issue. Top off the tanks, leave the
fuel in its default configuration. If the fuel is in the yellow zone on
landing, make sure you top it off again before the next flight.

> For an average circuit in a 152, I would be waiting for it to get to
> circuit altitude, had time to do my checks, and it slowed down quickly
> with flap out. The archer, on the other hand, I found I had to turn
> downwind, level out, pull the power back, and trim, all at the same
> time, then pull the power right back or I would run over the guy in
> front. Then when I put flap out it didn't slow down. Then you have
> to somehow slow down and get down at the same time.

It sounds different from the Baron. The Baron slows when flaps are extended,
albeit not dramatically. When the gear comes down, it slows a lot more,
although you can't slow with that until you're below 140 KIAS (and apparently
it automatically prevents this).

But I'm not sure what you mean by slowing "quickly," so maybe in a C172 it
slows instantly, I don't know.

> I have no idea about that stuff, but if you're happy with it...

Is the Archer a twin? I don't know anything about it.

> You really want the aircraft to be going slow enough to stop flying on
> it's own.

I want it to fly until the wheels are on the runway. I try to land by
descending at the lowest possible speed _while still flying_. To stop
descending, I just add power. If I _stall_ on landing, I'm not flying, and
I'm not touching the runway, which makes me nervous. I suppose I could stall
eight inches above the runway, but that's tough to manage and I don't see the
advantage over just flying to touchdown.

> Remember if you want to leave the runway again you'll have
> to put power on anyway.

If you stall just above the runway, that may not be enough. It might just
drive you that much harder down into the runway.

> If I got this right (twin drivers please confirm or deny this), there
> is a lot of weight up front with those engines hanging so far forward,
> which makes holding the nose off a real bugger, and especially on
> things like Twin Comanche's they tend to stop flying with a bit of a
> bang, so you are best advised to just fly it into the runway...

The Baron does pitch down immediately when it stalls, if that's what you mean.
That's why I wouldn't want it to stall just above the runway. If an aircraft
stalls but keeps the same attitude, I suppose that might be different. But
even then, a stall means a rapid increase in rate of descent, which might not
be good so close to the ground (especially since it cannot be instantly
corrected, depending on one's definition of "instantly").

> You really don't want to break gear off in sim or real life :-)

In the sim it's a learning experience. In real life it's a crying experience.

Indeed, if I were a real pilot and I had just spent $2 million on a Baron, I
think I might be afraid to even fly it.

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

Mxsmanic

March 8th 07, 07:54 AM

chris writes:

> Judging by what I experienced, the average student pilot would
> probably find anything much more complicated than a 172 or Archer to
> be just overwhelming. More things to remember = more things to
> forget :-)

But following that logic, people who learn to drive with a manual transmission
should have more trouble than those who learn to drive with an automatic, and
yet that does not seem to be the case. They both seem to learn at about the
same speed.

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

Mxsmanic

March 8th 07, 07:57 AM

chris writes:

> I also forgot to mention that since vastly experienced pilots still
> die from getting it wrong after an engine failure in a twin, how do
> you think a newly solo student could deal with it??

From what some here have said, it sounds like a newly solo student might be
more familiar with engine-out procedures than the experienced pilot, since the
latter may not have reviewed the procedures since he got his license or
rating.

This is one of those scenarios that one cannot practically learn in real life,
anyway, because it's too dangerous. A full-motion sim is extremely useful for
this sort of thing. But most pilots don't have that, so there are probably
many who couldn't deal with an engine failure, irrespective of their other
experience.

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

Mxsmanic

March 8th 07, 08:06 AM

Tim writes:

> You would think that - because you equate flying with looking at
> avionics.

No, I think that because autopilots can have many different modes and
behaviors. Flaps and gear are more limited in their effects.

> Apparently you can't "fly" without one.

I can, but for non-trivial flights I usually use the autopilot for much of the
flight. Also, on instrument approaches when there are many things to do,
using the AP lightens the workload a bit.

> They are not needed for real flying. They can be ignored.

I'm not afraid to use an autopilot. Just because something isn't needed
doesn't mean that I feel compelled to prove that I can do without it. I use
all the available tools in the cockpit.

> The prop, cowl flaps, flaps, landing all are vital to proper
> flying in a complex plane.

They're an important _start_ to flying, yes. But later on it starts to
actually get complicated.

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

Thomas Borchert

March 8th 07, 08:22 AM

Tony,

> Mx is the epiphany of ignorant.
>

Yeah, sure. And you just provided another lengthy zero-content
contribution to another MX thread. Does that help?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

chris[_1_]

March 8th 07, 08:51 AM

On Mar 8, 8:54 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > Judging by what I experienced, the average student pilot would
> > probably find anything much more complicated than a 172 or Archer to
> > be just overwhelming. More things to remember = more things to
> > forget :-)
>
> But following that logic, people who learn to drive with a manual transmission
> should have more trouble than those who learn to drive with an automatic, and
> yet that does not seem to be the case. They both seem to learn at about the
> same speed.
>

I sort of meant that I remember having issues with trying to remember
everything while doing a circuit - I couldn't have coped with also
having to manipulate landing gear and prop controls, not to mention
multiple engines..

Mxsmanic

March 8th 07, 08:54 AM

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Yeah, sure. And you just provided another lengthy zero-content
> contribution to another MX thread. Does that help?

I'm looking at your post carefully, but I'm not seeing any content relevant to
the thread topic in yours, either.

The discussion currently revolves around approaches. Would you like to talk
about that?

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

chris[_1_]

March 8th 07, 09:44 AM

On Mar 8, 8:52 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > I have heard of one person who did it, but I think for the majority of
> > people it would be hard to cope with all the stuff you need to deal
> > with to fly a twin,
>
> But in my case I'd know all the procedures a lot better, since that's what I
> fly mostly in simulation. It would just be a matter of putting them into
> practice. However, from what little I've heard of this, training entirely in
> a Baron would be extremely expensive, even if I could find a place to do it.
> Then again, if I can afford $2 million to buy the airplane, I can afford to
> train in one.

>From what I have heard, you'd be doing a lot of assymetric flying,
when the evil instructor pulls the mixture on you repeatedly :-)

Just step down a bit from a Baron to a Duchess or a Twin Comanche and
if you were well off you could certainly afford to fly it. I believe
our Twin Comanche goes for about $350 an hour (about US$250/hr), as
opposed to a 172 at $180/hr (US$120)

>
> > What I found was that it felt substantially faster, it climbed a lot
> > quicker, and was harder to slow down.
>
> I've noticed when trying the C172 in the sim that it seems to do everything in
> slow motion. There's more than enough time to correct mistakes. Assuming the
> sim is accurate (I have my doubts for the default C172), it's incredibly easy
> to fly.
>

I don't understand what it is about sims, but I fly a lot on X-Plane
and it seems to just take forever to get anywhere.. I know the sim is
accurate, but it just seems when you fly the real thing it just feels
quicker!! I try to bear that in mind when I find 200kt slow in the sim
whereas I find 140kt in a real a/c exhilirating.

> I can see how someone could get used to that in real life and then be
> surprised by a "complex" or "high performance" aircraft. But in that case, is
> the latter really _harder_ to fly, or is it really just a problem because the
> student has become so accustomed to a really _easy_ plane to fly?
>
> In other words, if the student just starts on a complex aircraft to start
> with, perhaps he'd have less trouble dealing with it.
>

I wondered the same thing myself. I am thinking that it will take
longer to train on, because you are learning a lot more stuff than a
172 driver, but if you take the time to get your license then learn
the complex aircraft, maybe it would work out the same??

> > I also found the fuel management to be extra complexity I didn't need..
>
> I still don't understand why fuel is an issue. Top off the tanks, leave the
> fuel in its default configuration. If the fuel is in the yellow zone on
> landing, make sure you top it off again before the next flight.
>

Ahh, I can help with this one ( I am more certain about things I have
direct experience with )

On a high wing aircraft, the fuel system is gravity fed, and you have
a fuel selector with L / R / Both choices. Leave it on Both and
you're set.
Low wing aircraft (Cherokee specifically) do not have a Both option.
You have Left or Right, and it's up to the pilot to manage his fuel.
For instance, you start on least full tank, switch to fullest before
takeoff. Every 30 minutes, for instance, you need to switch tanks, or
risk a weight imbalance, or at worst, engine failure due to fuel
starvation.

To make it worse, other aircraft, like the Cherokee Six, have four or
more tanks. Take off on the wrong tank on then and you're dead.

And just another note - IRL you don't always just top the tanks up
before flying - weight is frequently an issue and it's not often I get
to fly with pax and full fuel

> > For an average circuit in a 152, I would be waiting for it to get to
> > circuit altitude, had time to do my checks, and it slowed down quickly
> > with flap out. The archer, on the other hand, I found I had to turn
> > downwind, level out, pull the power back, and trim, all at the same
> > time, then pull the power right back or I would run over the guy in
> > front. Then when I put flap out it didn't slow down. Then you have
> > to somehow slow down and get down at the same time.
>
> It sounds different from the Baron. The Baron slows when flaps are extended,
> albeit not dramatically. When the gear comes down, it slows a lot more,
> although you can't slow with that until you're below 140 KIAS (and apparently
> it automatically prevents this).
>
> But I'm not sure what you mean by slowing "quickly," so maybe in a C172 it
> slows instantly, I don't know.
>

Feels pretty damn quick when you have throttle closed and the 172
happens to have 40 degrees of flap! It then requires damn near full
power to remain on glideslope, but that's another story!

> > I have no idea about that stuff, but if you're happy with it...
>
> Is the Archer a twin? I don't know anything about it.

Nope.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Cherokee
Summary: Single engine, 180hp 4 cylinder, 4 seat, 125-130kt cruise,
40L / hour fuel burn, 660nm range.

>
> > You really want the aircraft to be going slow enough to stop flying on
> > it's own.
>
> I want it to fly until the wheels are on the runway. I try to land by
> descending at the lowest possible speed _while still flying_. To stop
> descending, I just add power. If I _stall_ on landing, I'm not flying, and
> I'm not touching the runway, which makes me nervous. I suppose I could stall
> eight inches above the runway, but that's tough to manage and I don't see the
> advantage over just flying to touchdown.
>

Disclaimer: I know sod all about twins. I am referring to light
singles, specifically 172s and the like
Right. So on landing in something like a 172, when you land, you
roundout, pull the throttle to idle, and flare by holding the aircraft
just off the runway until it stops flying and you have full back
stick. The slower you can get the better, makes it easier to stop,
less wear on brakes, allows use of shorter runways, etc.. With a
decent headwind you can be stopped in a couple hundred feet..
A full stall landing doesn't have to be unpleasant, either. Our
instructors always try and get students to hold full back stick on
landing..

Of course, something like an Archer likes to be landed a little
hotter, without having full back stick.

> > Remember if you want to leave the runway again you'll have
> > to put power on anyway.
>
> If you stall just above the runway, that may not be enough. It might just
> drive you that much harder down into the runway.

Once again, on a Cessna, unless you're miles above the runway then a
full stall landing is nothing to be worried about. That landing gear
takes a hell of a hard landing before you damage anything...

>
> > If I got this right (twin drivers please confirm or deny this), there
> > is a lot of weight up front with those engines hanging so far forward,
> > which makes holding the nose off a real bugger, and especially on
> > things like Twin Comanche's they tend to stop flying with a bit of a
> > bang, so you are best advised to just fly it into the runway...
>
> The Baron does pitch down immediately when it stalls, if that's what you mean.
> That's why I wouldn't want it to stall just above the runway. If an aircraft
> stalls but keeps the same attitude, I suppose that might be different. But
> even then, a stall means a rapid increase in rate of descent, which might not
> be good so close to the ground (especially since it cannot be instantly
> corrected, depending on one's definition of "instantly").

I heard that you run out of elevator authority if you get too slow but
that's only a guess...

>
> > You really don't want to break gear off in sim or real life :-)
>
> In the sim it's a learning experience. In real life it's a crying experience.
>
> Indeed, if I were a real pilot and I had just spent $2 million on a Baron, I
> think I might be afraid to even fly it.

hehe.. Same here!

Stefan

March 8th 07, 09:53 AM

chris schrieb:

> I sort of meant that I remember having issues with trying to remember
> everything while doing a circuit - I couldn't have coped with also
> having to manipulate landing gear and prop controls, not to mention
> multiple engines..

That's why an instructor is with you. If all you want is to fly twins,
then the only reason to not directly learn in a twin is financial. This
is a very strong reason, though.

Of course there can be other benefits in learning to fly in a basic
airplane, like learning to fly by the seat of your pants, learning to
cope with unimproved backcountry strips and the like, but it seems that
the vast majority of students don't learn that in a 172 either.

Frank Stutzman[_2_]

March 8th 07, 02:40 PM

In alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim Mxsmanic > wrote:
> practice. However, from what little I've heard of this, training entirely in
> a Baron would be extremely expensive, even if I could find a place to do it.
> Then again, if I can afford $2 million to buy the airplane, I can afford to
> train in one.

Don't be so sure of that.

Just for grins, call up you local friendly aviation insurnace broker and
ask what the premiums are for a brand new Baron for a pilot with zero
time in anything (and insurance companies for the don't care how much you
sit in front of MSFS. If you can get him to stop laughing and actually
give you a numberr, expect the policy to require you to essentially
hire a CFI for the first couple of hundred hours AFTER you have your
license.

Yes, you could go naked on the insurnace, but if thats the case you
might have to buy your own airport.

Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR (soon to be Boise, ID)

Tony

March 8th 07, 03:28 PM

Is it not true that the USAF sends its flying cadets at the Academy
off to general aviation flight schools for their PP license before
starting them in their own programs? These men and women are smart,
motivated, fit, grew up playing computer games all of their lives, and
are learning to fly in SEL aircraft.

And you, we are led to believe, are in your forties, not as fit,
probably with lesser reflexes, think doing it that way is perhaps too
easy? "Oh, I'd start in a Baron."

Ego, in pilots, is a killer. Way back when I paid attention to such
things the pilots who were MDs (circa 1970s) were over represented in
the crash statistics. In that era -- those would have been med school
graduates of the 50s and 60s, -- MDs seemed to be much more 'absolute'
in their decision making. I hate painting with such a broad brush, but
that was my impression at least.

The point I'm making is that ego driven pilots, and you seem to
present yourself as likely being in that group should you obtain a
license, tend to ruin perfectly good airplanes.

On Mar 8, 2:52 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > I have heard of one person who did it, but I think for the majority of
> > people it would be hard to cope with all the stuff you need to deal
> > with to fly a twin,
>
> But in my case I'd know all the procedures a lot better, since that's what I
> fly mostly in simulation. It would just be a matter of putting them into
> practice. However, from what little I've heard of this, training entirely in
> a Baron would be extremely expensive, even if I could find a place to do it.
> Then again, if I can afford $2 million to buy the airplane, I can afford to
> train in one.
>
> > What I found was that it felt substantially faster, it climbed a lot
> > quicker, and was harder to slow down.
>
> I've noticed when trying the C172 in the sim that it seems to do everything in
> slow motion. There's more than enough time to correct mistakes. Assuming the
> sim is accurate (I have my doubts for the default C172), it's incredibly easy
> to fly.
>
> I can see how someone could get used to that in real life and then be
> surprised by a "complex" or "high performance" aircraft. But in that case, is
> the latter really _harder_ to fly, or is it really just a problem because the
> student has become so accustomed to a really _easy_ plane to fly?
>
> In other words, if the student just starts on a complex aircraft to start
> with, perhaps he'd have less trouble dealing with it.
>
> > I also found the fuel management to be extra complexity I didn't need..
>
> I still don't understand why fuel is an issue. Top off the tanks, leave the
> fuel in its default configuration. If the fuel is in the yellow zone on
> landing, make sure you top it off again before the next flight.
>
> > For an average circuit in a 152, I would be waiting for it to get to
> > circuit altitude, had time to do my checks, and it slowed down quickly
> > with flap out. The archer, on the other hand, I found I had to turn
> > downwind, level out, pull the power back, and trim, all at the same
> > time, then pull the power right back or I would run over the guy in
> > front. Then when I put flap out it didn't slow down. Then you have
> > to somehow slow down and get down at the same time.
>
> It sounds different from the Baron. The Baron slows when flaps are extended,
> albeit not dramatically. When the gear comes down, it slows a lot more,
> although you can't slow with that until you're below 140 KIAS (and apparently
> it automatically prevents this).
>
> But I'm not sure what you mean by slowing "quickly," so maybe in a C172 it
> slows instantly, I don't know.
>
> > I have no idea about that stuff, but if you're happy with it...
>
> Is the Archer a twin? I don't know anything about it.
>
> > You really want the aircraft to be going slow enough to stop flying on
> > it's own.
>
> I want it to fly until the wheels are on the runway. I try to land by
> descending at the lowest possible speed _while still flying_. To stop
> descending, I just add power. If I _stall_ on landing, I'm not flying, and
> I'm not touching the runway, which makes me nervous. I suppose I could stall
> eight inches above the runway, but that's tough to manage and I don't see the
> advantage over just flying to touchdown.
>
> > Remember if you want to leave the runway again you'll have
> > to put power on anyway.
>
> If you stall just above the runway, that may not be enough. It might just
> drive you that much harder down into the runway.
>
> > If I got this right (twin drivers please confirm or deny this), there
> > is a lot of weight up front with those engines hanging so far forward,
> > which makes holding the nose off a real bugger, and especially on
> > things like Twin Comanche's they tend to stop flying with a bit of a
> > bang, so you are best advised to just fly it into the runway...
>
> The Baron does pitch down immediately when it stalls, if that's what you mean.
> That's why I wouldn't want it to stall just above the runway. If an aircraft
> stalls but keeps the same attitude, I suppose that might be different. But
> even then, a stall means a rapid increase in rate of descent, which might not
> be good so close to the ground (especially since it cannot be instantly
> corrected, depending on one's definition of "instantly").
>
> > You really don't want to break gear off in sim or real life :-)
>
> In the sim it's a learning experience. In real life it's a crying experience.
>
> Indeed, if I were a real pilot and I had just spent $2 million on a Baron, I
> think I might be afraid to even fly it.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gary[_2_]

March 8th 07, 03:38 PM

On Mar 8, 2:23 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tim writes:
> > But I don't think that has anything to do with your delusions
> > about being able to fly a real Baron.
>
> Since it hasn't been tested, we don't know if it's a delusion or not.
>
> > I have. It is a nice game. I prefer the real thing though. They have
> > very little in common.
>
> If so, you haven't configured your sim correctly.
>

Configure all you want. The Microsoft sim-game, played on a
stationary computer at ground level, has very little in common with a
real aircraft moving at altitude.

Mxsmanic

March 8th 07, 03:48 PM

chris writes:

> Just step down a bit from a Baron to a Duchess or a Twin Comanche and
> if you were well off you could certainly afford to fly it. I believe
> our Twin Comanche goes for about $350 an hour (about US$250/hr), as
> opposed to a 172 at $180/hr (US$120)

Even $120 is a lot. What do Barons cost per hour, I wonder?

> I don't understand what it is about sims, but I fly a lot on X-Plane
> and it seems to just take forever to get anywhere.. I know the sim is
> accurate, but it just seems when you fly the real thing it just feels
> quicker!! I try to bear that in mind when I find 200kt slow in the sim
> whereas I find 140kt in a real a/c exhilirating.

I'm sure it's just the additional cues one gets in real life. They all serve
to remind you that you are moving (relatively) quickly.

A flight in the sim takes the same time as its real-life counterpart, though.

> I wondered the same thing myself. I am thinking that it will take
> longer to train on, because you are learning a lot more stuff than a
> 172 driver, but if you take the time to get your license then learn
> the complex aircraft, maybe it would work out the same??

I think so. If you can learn all the complex and HP stuff _eventually_, then
that also means that you can learn it right up front. It might seem more
daunting at first than a simple aircraft, but the overall elapsed time to
become proficient in the complex aircraft would be the same in both
situations.

> On a high wing aircraft, the fuel system is gravity fed, and you have
> a fuel selector with L / R / Both choices. Leave it on Both and
> you're set.

Sounds good to me.

> Low wing aircraft (Cherokee specifically) do not have a Both option.
> You have Left or Right, and it's up to the pilot to manage his fuel.
> For instance, you start on least full tank, switch to fullest before
> takeoff. Every 30 minutes, for instance, you need to switch tanks, or
> risk a weight imbalance, or at worst, engine failure due to fuel
> starvation.

Wow ... sounds incredibly primitive. I guess crossfeeds and stuff like that
are still future science-fiction for small aircraft.

In a twin, though, you have one tank per engine, so you should be able to feed
the right engine with the right tank, and the left with the left tank.

I've gotten pretty low in the tanks in the Baron and I've never had to switch
tanks. The only time I've ever had to touch it was for engine failure, in
which case I obviously direct both tanks to the non-failing engine.

> And just another note - IRL you don't always just top the tanks up
> before flying - weight is frequently an issue and it's not often I get
> to fly with pax and full fuel

Point taken. But I have read that it's good practice to keep plenty of fuel
in the tanks when possible, not only to maximum your reserves but also to help
exclude condensation (I guess small aircraft haven't discovered airtight seals
yet, either).

> Feels pretty damn quick when you have throttle closed and the 172
> happens to have 40 degrees of flap! It then requires damn near full
> power to remain on glideslope, but that's another story!

Interesting. Full flaps on the Baron do create a lot of drag, but the
"approach" setting creates far less. It's a poor speedbrake--the gear works
better for that (but has a lower maximum speed). When I extend the flaps in
the Baron, I rise very noticeably, then I slow down significantly and I start
to lose altitude; with full flaps, there's a noticeable tendency to pitch
down, too. But I'm expecting all this so I adjust for it.

> Nope.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Cherokee
> Summary: Single engine, 180hp 4 cylinder, 4 seat, 125-130kt cruise,
> 40L / hour fuel burn, 660nm range.

Is it a good aircraft? I've heard stories about Pipers.

> Right. So on landing in something like a 172, when you land, you
> roundout, pull the throttle to idle, and flare by holding the aircraft
> just off the runway until it stops flying and you have full back
> stick. The slower you can get the better, makes it easier to stop,
> less wear on brakes, allows use of shorter runways, etc.. With a
> decent headwind you can be stopped in a couple hundred feet..
> A full stall landing doesn't have to be unpleasant, either. Our
> instructors always try and get students to hold full back stick on
> landing..

How far above the runway? And you don't stall or get a tail strike?

> Of course, something like an Archer likes to be landed a little
> hotter, without having full back stick.

In the Baron I don't think I've ever pulled the yoke all the way back. I stay
almost level until I'm very close indeed to the runway, then pull back on
power a bit and flare. No idle and no full back stick, though. I haven't
actually tried that, but from the way the Baron behaves my intuition tells me
it wouldn't be suitable.

> I heard that you run out of elevator authority if you get too slow but
> that's only a guess...

Possibly. I'm usually at least 10 kts above stall speed so I don't really
know (or maybe you are not talking about a Baron?).

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

Mxsmanic

March 8th 07, 03:50 PM

Frank Stutzman writes:

> Just for grins, call up you local friendly aviation insurnace broker and
> ask what the premiums are for a brand new Baron for a pilot with zero
> time in anything ...

Why do you need insurance?

> Yes, you could go naked on the insurnace, but if thats the case you
> might have to buy your own airport.

How often does that actually happen?

Remember, insurance companies turn a profit, which means that, overall, they
are charging you more for insurance than the risk actually justifies.
Sometimes it's more cost-effective to do without. And if you have enough
socked away to pay for repairs or even to buy a new aircraft, why bother to
insure it? Unless you can get really good premiums, that is.

I'm tired of insurance companies dictating to the rest of society.

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

Mxsmanic

March 8th 07, 03:53 PM

Tony writes:

> Is it not true that the USAF sends its flying cadets at the Academy
> off to general aviation flight schools for their PP license before
> starting them in their own programs? These men and women are smart,
> motivated, fit, grew up playing computer games all of their lives, and
> are learning to fly in SEL aircraft.
>
> And you, we are led to believe, are in your forties, not as fit,
> probably with lesser reflexes, think doing it that way is perhaps too
> easy? "Oh, I'd start in a Baron."

The USAF trains fighter pilots; the Baron is not a fighter aircraft. They
also train for very exceptional conditions that civilians don't encounter.

The Baron isn't certified for aerobatics, either. I don't see why flying it
nice and easy would be any insurmountable challenge.

> Ego, in pilots, is a killer. Way back when I paid attention to such
> things the pilots who were MDs (circa 1970s) were over represented in
> the crash statistics. In that era -- those would have been med school
> graduates of the 50s and 60s, -- MDs seemed to be much more 'absolute'
> in their decision making. I hate painting with such a broad brush, but
> that was my impression at least.

My guess would be that MDs simply lacked experience. Doctors are usually
pretty busy, and although they might well be able to afford lessons and a
license and even their own aircraft, actually racking up lots of hours would
be very difficult. So when they do go out flying, they're often rusty.

> The point I'm making is that ego driven pilots, and you seem to
> present yourself as likely being in that group should you obtain a
> license, tend to ruin perfectly good airplanes.

I have no ego, but I have no false modesty, either. I don't see learning to
fly as such a big deal. The biggest problem with flying is the draconian set
of regulations governing it, not the flying itself.

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

Tim

March 8th 07, 04:02 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>
>>But I don't think that has anything to do with your delusions
>>about being able to fly a real Baron.
>
>
> Since it hasn't been tested, we don't know if it's a delusion or not.
>
>
>>I have. It is a nice game. I prefer the real thing though. They have
>>very little in common.
>
>
> If so, you haven't configured your sim correctly.
>

I am pretty sure I am in a better position to judge this than you. I
have flown real airplanes. I own one. I have played MS flight sim. It
is fun to do instrument approaches with it - it is somewhat helpful in
keeping me practiced at the procedures. I KNOW which one is real, and
which one isn't. Apparently you mistake your computer world for the
real one. I, however, do not have that problem. It has nothing to do
with configuring my game. It has everything to do with you configuring
your mind.

Mxsmanic

March 8th 07, 04:09 PM

Gary writes:

> Configure all you want. The Microsoft sim-game, played on a
> stationary computer at ground level, has very little in common with a
> real aircraft moving at altitude.

As I've said, it sounds like you don't have your sim configured correctly.

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

Mxsmanic

March 8th 07, 04:11 PM

Tim writes:

> I have played MS flight sim. It is fun to do instrument approaches with
> it - it is somewhat helpful in keeping me practiced at the procedures.

Which aircraft do you simulate, what type of flight controls do you have, and
which add-ons do you have installed?

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

Frank Stutzman[_2_]

March 8th 07, 04:24 PM

In alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Why do you need insurance?

You don't. But if you don't have insurance you had better have very deep
pockets and/or a bevy of lawyers on hand (at least in the US).

>> Yes, you could go naked on the insurance, but if thats the case you
>> might have to buy your own airport.
>
> How often does that actually happen?

At every airport I have based my Bonanza, I have been required to show
some proof of liability insurance in order to rent or own either a
hangar or a tie-down. I guessing you wouldn't need to to that if you
owned the airport.

> Sometimes it's more cost-effective to do without. And if you have enough
> socked away to pay for repairs or even to buy a new aircraft, why bother to
> insure it? Unless you can get really good premiums, that is.

Its not the repair or replacement of the plane that is the issue. Its
the liability. Crash your plane into a playground full of children
and you will have lawyers suing you before you can even crawl out of
the wreckage. At least here in the US. I understand other country's
have different rules when it comes to liability.

> I'm tired of insurance companies dictating to the rest of society.

You and me both.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR (soon to be Boise, ID)

Tony

March 8th 07, 05:20 PM

If we are to believe the 'legend' around your persona, much of this is
moot. Fi you devoted your entire monthly income to flying you might
get two hours of dual in a light twin.

The 'reluctance' to experience real flight may be due to your
financial circumstances -- you can't afford it, and rather than simply
accept that reality it's much easier to rationalize that reality away.

On a minor point, getting a general aviation PP is the first step to
flying many different kinds of aircraft in the USAF. But what do they
know, they only have their real experience to go on. And, by the way,
the Baron is part of their fleet.

n
On Mar 8, 10:53 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tony writes:
> > Is it not true that the USAF sends its flying cadets at the Academy
> > off to general aviation flight schools for their PP license before
> > starting them in their own programs? These men and women are smart,
> > motivated, fit, grew up playing computer games all of their lives, and
> > are learning to fly in SEL aircraft.
>
> > And you, we are led to believe, are in your forties, not as fit,
> > probably allesser reflexes, think doing it that way is perhaps too
> > easy? "Oh, I'd start in a Baron."
>
> The USAF trains fighter pilots; the Baron is not a fighter aircraft. They
> also train for very exceptional conditions that civilians don't encounter.
>
> The Baron isn't certified for aerobatics, either. I don't see why flying it
> nice and easy would be any insurmountable challenge.
>
> > Ego, in pilots, is a killer. Way back when I paid attention to such
> > things the pilots who were MDs (circa 1970s) were over represented in
> > the crash statistics. In that era -- those would have been med school
> > graduates of the 50s and 60s, -- MDs seemed to be much more 'absolute'
> > in their decision making. I hate painting with such a broad brush, but
> > that was my impression at least.
>
> My guess would be that MDs simply lacked experience. Doctors are usually
> pretty busy, and although they might well be able to afford lessons and a
> license and even their own aircraft, actually racking up lots of hours would
> be very difficult. So when they do go out flying, they're often rusty.
>
> > The point I'm making is that ego driven pilots, and you seem to
> > present yourself as likely being in that group should you obtain a
> > license, tend to ruin perfectly good airplanes.
>
> I have no ego, but I have no false modesty, either. I don't see learning to
> fly as such a big deal. The biggest problem with flying is the draconian set
> of regulations governing it, not the flying itself.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Matt Barrow

March 8th 07, 05:29 PM

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> I have played MS flight sim.

Operative word here is "played".

Another PLONK

Mxsmanic

March 8th 07, 05:42 PM

Frank Stutzman writes:

> You don't. But if you don't have insurance you had better have very deep
> pockets and/or a bevy of lawyers on hand (at least in the US).

What kinds of things are people filing lawsuits for in general aviation?

> At every airport I have based my Bonanza, I have been required to show
> some proof of liability insurance in order to rent or own either a
> hangar or a tie-down.

What are the risks? I mean, what kinds of lawsuits are taking place over
there? How dangerous can a hangar or tie-down be, especially to anyone other
than the owner/renter?

> I guessing you wouldn't need to to that if you owned the airport.

I'm guessing that litigation in the U.S. long ago flew over a cliff and into a
bottomless pit. Doesn't anyone ever say "stop"?

> Its not the repair or replacement of the plane that is the issue. Its
> the liability. Crash your plane into a playground full of children
> and you will have lawyers suing you before you can even crawl out of
> the wreckage.

But how often does that really happen? How are the insurance companies
assessing risks and setting premiums? Usually if you crash at an airport, the
only one who suffers is you. I guess you could leave a dent in the concrete
or something.

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

Jim Stewart

March 8th 07, 06:04 PM

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>The USAF trains fighter pilots; the Baron is not a fighter aircraft.
>
>
> First, they train PILOTS.
> Then they train them to use an aircraft as a weapon.
>
>
>>I don't see learning to
>>fly as such a big deal.
>
>
> Nothing is a "big deal" if you don't actually have to do it.
> And, BTW, most of your posts claim that it is too much of
> a "big deal" for you to handle. By your own admission,
> you're afraid of flying, can't handle the physical sensations,
> couldn't afford ONE lesson, are prone to panic attacks, and
> are too fat to fit in most GA aircraft.
> If you can't handle just ONE requirement of a task.......
> You can't handle the task.

You left out "can't control your bowels and/or bladder
for the duration of a flight".

> Maybe you should stick to telling women that they don't know
> **** about breast feeding.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBRfBjApMoscYxZNI5AQGLAQP/cX5uaxWWCa8KbSDIT+q5G4B6OqN54X5N
> oHyJnz8tG8YfcmNwAReg4bm2dT1hm/6Qai44vKeA4TzJRGQQ1xj0FB03gZkRt295
> WNUbKjIlqi4jiCMcgQrzOfSUbEt3eDlMPQFkSWL7TXC1zlyf4K 5nd95PA+1a+WYI
> 8dfn7nhIqTY=
> =LSh4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

Tim

March 8th 07, 06:37 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>
>>I have played MS flight sim. It is fun to do instrument approaches with
>>it - it is somewhat helpful in keeping me practiced at the procedures.
>
>
> Which aircraft do you simulate, what type of flight controls do you have, and
> which add-ons do you have installed?
>

I own a grumman AA5A. It has a normal dual yoke control. It came with
the plane. I have modified the plane with a LoPresti cowl/nosebowl, and
I just had new leather seats installed. It has a JPI EDM 700 fuel flow
meter. I also have a garmin 295 hand held gps mounted to the plane.

For real flight training I get instruction in a Frasca training device.
I can log that time as simulated instrument time and count it toward
ratings or currency. I can't do the same for my games.

As an aside, I recently built a cockpit simulator for my 3 year old
nephew out of a carboard box. It has a REAL compass (not like MS flight
sim - which is fake) and it had a real AOPA sticker in it. I even put
on a propeller. As far as the FAA is concerned I can log time in that
as much/as well as I can log MS flight sim game time.

We can go round and round. You are engaging yourself in a game. You
try to convince people it is as good or better than the real thing. You
are never going to be able to convince anyone of that. You are
delusional.

Kev

March 8th 07, 07:54 PM

On Mar 7, 4:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim writes:
> > Any plane with retractable gear and prop control is considered
> > complex.
> [lots snipped]
>
> It still surprises me that moving a lever to extend or retract gear makes an
> aircraft complex. An autopilot or GPS is a lot more complex than a gear
> lever.

It's not just the gear. Complex = flaps + gear + controllable prop,
where of course it's the combination of gear + prop that's the truly
"complex" part. "Complex" is just a word, anyway, as someone else
pointed out. They could've called it anything, but the point is that
a pilot must get training before being allowed to fly such aircraft.

Which makes sense... I mean heck, sometimes I think that automobile
drivers should be certified for manual transmissions. I see way too
many drivers who are very scary to be behind, when starting on hills
with their new 5-speed ;-)

Kev

chris[_1_]

March 8th 07, 08:28 PM

On Mar 9, 4:48 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > Just step down a bit from a Baron to a Duchess or a Twin Comanche and
> > if you were well off you could certainly afford to fly it. I believe
> > our Twin Comanche goes for about $350 an hour (about US$250/hr), as
> > opposed to a 172 at $180/hr (US$120)
>
> Even $120 is a lot. What do Barons cost per hour, I wonder?

It might be one of those 'if you have to ask you can't afford it'
situations

>
> > I don't understand what it is about sims, but I fly a lot on X-Plane
> > and it seems to just take forever to get anywhere.. I know the sim is
> > accurate, but it just seems when you fly the real thing it just feels
> > quicker!! I try to bear that in mind when I find 200kt slow in the sim
> > whereas I find 140kt in a real a/c exhilirating.
>
> I'm sure it's just the additional cues one gets in real life. They all serve
> to remind you that you are moving (relatively) quickly.

For sure

>
> A flight in the sim takes the same time as its real-life counterpart, though.

Yep, but it just seems to take forever! I also find it a damn pain to
hand-fly the sim, preferring to set the autopilot.. IRL I don't have
any issues hand-flying..

I just remembered something you might be surprised about.. Our
national airline purchased 16 or so Beech 1900D turboprop airliners a
year or two back. They ordered them WITHOUT autopilot! They have to
be hand flown the whole time. Rationale was apparently that it keeps
the pilots sharp by making them fly the whole time.. Hell, even the a/
c I fly has autopilot!!!!

>
> > I wondered the same thing myself. I am thinking that it will take
> > longer to train on, because you are learning a lot more stuff than a
> > 172 driver, but if you take the time to get your license then learn
> > the complex aircraft, maybe it would work out the same??
>
> I think so. If you can learn all the complex and HP stuff _eventually_, then
> that also means that you can learn it right up front. It might seem more
> daunting at first than a simple aircraft, but the overall elapsed time to
> become proficient in the complex aircraft would be the same in both
> situations.
>

That's probably a fair call, but I have no direct experience either
way so I can't say

> > On a high wing aircraft, the fuel system is gravity fed, and you have
> > a fuel selector with L / R / Both choices. Leave it on Both and
> > you're set.
>
> Sounds good to me.

Mee too!!

>
> > Low wing aircraft (Cherokee specifically) do not have a Both option.
> > You have Left or Right, and it's up to the pilot to manage his fuel.
> > For instance, you start on least full tank, switch to fullest before
> > takeoff. Every 30 minutes, for instance, you need to switch tanks, or
> > risk a weight imbalance, or at worst, engine failure due to fuel
> > starvation.
>
> Wow ... sounds incredibly primitive. I guess crossfeeds and stuff like that
> are still future science-fiction for small aircraft.

It is a right royal pain in the ass!!! Anyway, you don't need
crossfeed for a single

>
> In a twin, though, you have one tank per engine, so you should be able to feed
> the right engine with the right tank, and the left with the left tank.

Might depend on the twin - the fuel systems are as varied as the
aircraft. And on things like Twin Comanches and Aztecs I believe the
fuel selectors are between the pilots seats on the floor where you
can't see them at night!!!

> > And just another note - IRL you don't always just top the tanks up
> > before flying - weight is frequently an issue and it's not often I get
> > to fly with pax and full fuel
>
> Point taken. But I have read that it's good practice to keep plenty of fuel
> in the tanks when possible, not only to maximum your reserves but also to help
> exclude condensation (I guess small aircraft haven't discovered airtight seals
> yet, either).

It sure is! If I have any chance to fill er up I will.. But I always
have to keep an eye on weight - I fly out of some short runways and
weight is always a concern, especially on Pipers which aren't happy to
fly until they're good and ready...

>
> > Feels pretty damn quick when you have throttle closed and the 172
> > happens to have 40 degrees of flap! It then requires damn near full
> > power to remain on glideslope, but that's another story!
>
> Interesting. Full flaps on the Baron do create a lot of drag, but the
> "approach" setting creates far less. It's a poor speedbrake--the gear works
> better for that (but has a lower maximum speed). When I extend the flaps in
> the Baron, I rise very noticeably, then I slow down significantly and I start
> to lose altitude; with full flaps, there's a noticeable tendency to pitch
> down, too. But I'm expecting all this so I adjust for it.
>

When you apply the flaps you need to push forward to counteract the
climb, if that's what it's trying to do. Some planes are worse than
others. If you bang flaps down on a 172 you better be ready to
push!!! And if you have lots of flap down and you try to do a go-
around you better have a strong set of arms on you, I understand
bigger Cessnas are even worse...

At the end of the day, even though there are big operational
differences between things like 172s and Archers with the flaps, once
you get used to what to expect it's fine.
I personally prefer Piper flaps, you don't get anywhere as big a
pitching moment when you dump the flaps as with 172s

> > Nope..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Cherokee
> > Summary: Single engine, 180hp 4 cylinder, 4 seat, 125-130kt cruise,
> > 40L / hour fuel burn, 660nm range.
>
> Is it a good aircraft? I've heard stories about Pipers.

Damn good aircraft son!! When in flight it feels very stable and
solid. And once you trim it up you can sit back and watch the scenery
go past!
When you come from a 152 to an Archer it feels like Christmas every
time you go flying !!!

>
> > Right. So on landing in something like a 172, when you land, you
> > roundout, pull the throttle to idle, and flare by holding the aircraft
> > just off the runway until it stops flying and you have full back
> > stick. The slower you can get the better, makes it easier to stop,
> > less wear on brakes, allows use of shorter runways, etc.. With a
> > decent headwind you can be stopped in a couple hundred feet..
> > A full stall landing doesn't have to be unpleasant, either. Our
> > instructors always try and get students to hold full back stick on
> > landing..
>
> How far above the runway? And you don't stall or get a tail strike?

If you raise the nose too fast in the flare you climb, then stall and
fall on your ass. So the idea is to raise the nose just quickly
enough to keep 'er level, and it will run out of airspeed and land
before you're anywhere near the banging the tail. On both 172's and
Cherokees this is true, but on our aero club's new Alphas there is so
much stuff hanging out below the tail you have to land very flat or be
guaranteed of a tail strike.

>
> > Of course, something like an Archer likes to be landed a little
> > hotter, without having full back stick.
>
> In the Baron I don't think I've ever pulled the yoke all the way back. I stay
> almost level until I'm very close indeed to the runway, then pull back on
> power a bit and flare. No idle and no full back stick, though. I haven't
> actually tried that, but from the way the Baron behaves my intuition tells me
> it wouldn't be suitable.
>

Probably not, but you might want to chop the power to idle when you
flare, or it will probably float for miles!

Gig 601XL Builder

March 8th 07, 08:51 PM

chris wrote:
> I just remembered something you might be surprised about.. Our
> national airline purchased 16 or so Beech 1900D turboprop airliners a
> year or two back. They ordered them WITHOUT autopilot! They have to
> be hand flown the whole time. Rationale was apparently that it keeps
> the pilots sharp by making them fly the whole time.. Hell, even the
> a/ c I fly has autopilot!!!!

In the late 70's and early 80's when I worked for Scheduled Skyways (Not as
a pilot) the Metroliners they flew didn't have autopilots. I asked the chief
pilot who had just been involved in buying another 2 or 3 planes why they
didn't have autopilots in them. His answer, "We're already paying for two
pilots why should we pay for a third?"

Alexey Goldin

March 8th 07, 10:31 PM

On Mar 8, 1:52 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I've noticed when trying the C172 in the sim that it seems to do everything in
> slow motion. There's more than enough time to correct mistakes. Assuming the
> sim is accurate (I have my doubts for the default C172), it's incredibly easy
> to fly.
>

When you watch martial arts movie or play one of those "martial arts
games", quite a lot blocks, punches and kicks look quite slow and
easy, easily repeatable. Try to repeat it in dark alley against three
blokes carrying broken bottles, bicycle chains and arbitrary sticks
without real practice or even while safely sparring with instructor
or another student and it suddenly looks very different.

chris[_1_]

March 8th 07, 10:40 PM

On Mar 9, 9:51 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> chris wrote:
> > I just remembered something you might be surprised about.. Our
> > national airline purchased 16 or so Beech 1900D turboprop airliners a
> > year or two back. They ordered them WITHOUT autopilot! They have to
> > be hand flown the whole time. Rationale was apparently that it keeps
> > the pilots sharp by making them fly the whole time.. Hell, even the
> > a/ c I fly has autopilot!!!!
>
> In the late 70's and early 80's when I worked for Scheduled Skyways (Not as
> a pilot) the Metroliners they flew didn't have autopilots. I asked the chief
> pilot who had just been involved in buying another 2 or 3 planes why they
> didn't have autopilots in them. His answer, "We're already paying for two
> pilots why should we pay for a third?"

Nice!

EridanMan

March 9th 07, 12:33 AM

> It still surprises me that moving a lever to extend or retract gear makes an
> aircraft complex. An autopilot or GPS is a lot more complex than a gear
> lever.

Its called 'pilot workload'.

In a real aircraft, you must:
-Fly the Plane
-Operate The Aircraft Systems
-Keep track of your current location
-Communicate with ATC
-Keep Watch for Traffic
-Plan your future track (or reference your flightplan), this includes
making absolutely sure you remain clear of all restricted airspace.

All in a reasonably loud, chaotic setting, with absolutely no option
to 'pause'...

Your sim covers 1 and 2 well... 3 and 6 ok (The various ways that
simulators try and 'trick you up' navigation wise are very poor
approximations of the real situations that come up... and restricted
airspace is a non-issue). and 4 and 5 are jokes (pressing an
'acknowledge' button gives you absolutely no sense of how critical it
is to keep constant track of ATC's dealings with the other aircraft
around you... whose transmitters are 1960s vacuum tube technology and
who all have different accents/ways of talking and traffic scanning on
a monitor is nearly impossible)...

So basically, in your little flight simulator, you are dealing with
MAYBE half of the 'real-world' pilot workload... AND you have a pause
when you get overwhelmed...

Aircraft Systems (but not avionix) dictate an aircraft's complexity
simply because those are the aspects of flying that the pilot cannot
time-shift, cannot get away from, and who knows what else he'll need
to be doing at the time. The complexity of an aircraft has nothing to
do with its 'mean' level of pilot involvement, its the potential
'worse-case' level of pilot involvement (low on fuel, landing in the
dark at an unknown towered airport, for example) that dictates it
because there simply is no option for the pilot workload to exceed his
capabilities at any point during the flight- the results would be
fatal.

Of course, you would know this if you had ever actually sat in a
cockpit, instead of trying to tell us that we're incompetent because
your little simulation (no matter how accurate it is at covering what
it does) simply does not take into account the full range of
experiences and requirements placed on a pilot...

But I guess its my problem now because I'm bothering to respond.

chris[_1_]

March 9th 07, 12:55 AM

On Mar 9, 1:33 pm, "EridanMan" > wrote:
> > It still surprises me that moving a lever to extend or retract gear makes an
> > aircraft complex. An autopilot or GPS is a lot more complex than a gear
> > lever.
>
> Its called 'pilot workload'.
>
> In a real aircraft, you must:
> -Fly the Plane
> -Operate The Aircraft Systems
> -Keep track of your current location
> -Communicate with ATC
> -Keep Watch for Traffic
> -Plan your future track (or reference your flightplan), this includes
> making absolutely sure you remain clear of all restricted airspace.
>
> All in a reasonably loud, chaotic setting, with absolutely no option
> to 'pause'...
>

I couldn't agree more!

I have been in situations where I desperately wished I could pause the
flight, one time it was because I was trying to work out where I was
over hostile and rugged terrain with no landmarks at all, while having
to fly around clouds, up valleys, not sure if my heading calculation
worked out when I had to divert was correct, which was worked out
using a map and protractor while flying through heavy turbulence,
trying to keep the wings level with my knees while working the heading
out, while dealing with an aircraft with absolutely no navaids and no
gps, a badly drifting DG, and no way to fly straight and level long
enough to reset it, flying over tiger country, and then I came to some
flat land I found I was just about right above an airfield I didn't
recognise that wasn't on the map, and having to scramble through my
map collection to find that I'd gone off the edge of my map and was
less than 1/4 mile from military airspace, all the while having to
look out for other aircraft, and fly my aircraft, the one with two
different wings that flies in circles unless you keep a heap of rudder
in the whole time...

Mxsmanic

March 9th 07, 03:18 AM

chris writes:

> Yep, but it just seems to take forever! I also find it a damn pain to
> hand-fly the sim, preferring to set the autopilot.. IRL I don't have
> any issues hand-flying..

Here again it may simply be an issue of sensations. In the sim you have
visuals and sound, and that's it. Depending on what part of real flying
appeals to you, this could make flights very boring.

I don't like to fly three-hour legs or anything like that in the sim. It gets
boring and there's not much to do. I don't know if I'd feel the same way in a
real aircraft. Then again, in a real aircraft, toilet breaks would probably
limit the length of legs more than anything else.

> I just remembered something you might be surprised about.. Our
> national airline purchased 16 or so Beech 1900D turboprop airliners a
> year or two back. They ordered them WITHOUT autopilot! They have to
> be hand flown the whole time. Rationale was apparently that it keeps
> the pilots sharp by making them fly the whole time.

I guess they forget their history easily. The whole motivation for autopilots
to begin with was to reduce pilot fatigue and improve alertness. Flying by
hand is very tiring. After a few hours of flying by hand, one becomes quite
tired, and less and less attentive. Mistakes are made, important information
is overlooked, and sometimes problems ensue.

Flying by hand can keep the pilot alert if there is variety to it. Few
fighter pilots would want to fly on autopilot most of the time (although
fighters often have autopilots, too). But if you are just flying in a
straight line for 300 miles at a time, your alertness is not enhanced by
constantly holding the yoke. That's true for aircraft, cars, motorcycles,
boats, bicycles, and everything else.

> It is a right royal pain in the ass!!! Anyway, you don't need
> crossfeed for a single

If you have to switch tanks in flight, there are clearly still improvements to
be made. Remember John Denver.

> Might depend on the twin - the fuel systems are as varied as the
> aircraft. And on things like Twin Comanches and Aztecs I believe the
> fuel selectors are between the pilots seats on the floor where you
> can't see them at night!!!

Perhaps so. I only know the arrangement in the Baron.

> It sure is! If I have any chance to fill er up I will.. But I always
> have to keep an eye on weight - I fly out of some short runways and
> weight is always a concern, especially on Pipers which aren't happy to
> fly until they're good and ready...

I thought Piper Cubs in particular had a reputation for flying almost
immediately. The simulated Cub does, but I don't know how accurate that is.

> When you apply the flaps you need to push forward to counteract the
> climb, if that's what it's trying to do. Some planes are worse than
> others. If you bang flaps down on a 172 you better be ready to
> push!!! And if you have lots of flap down and you try to do a go-
> around you better have a strong set of arms on you, I understand
> bigger Cessnas are even worse...

Because ... ?

> Probably not, but you might want to chop the power to idle when you
> flare, or it will probably float for miles!

True, but runways are often so long that I don't worry much about it. If I'm
landing on a truly short runway, I try to get down more quickly. It seems
that most runways are generously proportioned with respect to GA aircraft.

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

Mxsmanic

March 9th 07, 03:19 AM

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> In the late 70's and early 80's when I worked for Scheduled Skyways (Not as
> a pilot) the Metroliners they flew didn't have autopilots. I asked the chief
> pilot who had just been involved in buying another 2 or 3 planes why they
> didn't have autopilots in them. His answer, "We're already paying for two
> pilots why should we pay for a third?"

The third one doesn't get tired or make mistakes, and it uses less fuel.

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

Mxsmanic

March 9th 07, 03:20 AM

Alexey Goldin writes:

> When you watch martial arts movie or play one of those "martial arts
> games", quite a lot blocks, punches and kicks look quite slow and
> easy, easily repeatable. Try to repeat it in dark alley against three
> blokes carrying broken bottles, bicycle chains and arbitrary sticks
> without real practice or even while safely sparring with instructor
> or another student and it suddenly looks very different.

Martial arts are virtually useless in real street fights. But that isn't
relevant here. It's like saying that flying a Cessna in simulation isn't the
same as flying a fighter in real life, which is obviously true.

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

Mxsmanic

March 9th 07, 03:24 AM

Kev writes:

> Which makes sense... I mean heck, sometimes I think that automobile
> drivers should be certified for manual transmissions.

Some jurisdictions require this, but there seems to be little or no
enforcement. In my home State, as I recall, most people took the exam in an
automatic, and there was a box in which one could restrict them to automatics
only on the license, but this box was never used, leaving them able to drive
manual transmissions as well, even with zero experience.

But learning to drive with a manual transmission only takes a day. I suspect
that learning to move a gear lever or a flaps lever is comparable.

> I see way too many drivers who are very scary to be behind, when starting on hills
> with their new 5-speed ;-)

Yes, but much depends on how often you are in that situation.

I'm sure there are many exceptional situations in which the average pilot
would be hopelessly and dangerously at a loss, but if those situations don't
often arise, it probably won't ever be a problem.

It goes without saying that most pilots, like most drivers, will handle the
most common situations well, and will handle the exceptional situations
poorly. Having a license doesn't change this.

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

Mxsmanic

March 9th 07, 03:29 AM

EridanMan writes:

> Its called 'pilot workload'.
>
> In a real aircraft, you must:
> -Fly the Plane
> -Operate The Aircraft Systems
> -Keep track of your current location
> -Communicate with ATC
> -Keep Watch for Traffic
> -Plan your future track (or reference your flightplan), this includes
> making absolutely sure you remain clear of all restricted airspace.
>
> All in a reasonably loud, chaotic setting, with absolutely no option
> to 'pause'...

Sounds doable, with a bit of practice. I don't have much trouble with it in
the sim.

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

Mxsmanic

March 9th 07, 03:32 AM

chris writes:

> I have been in situations where I desperately wished I could pause the
> flight, one time it was because I was trying to work out where I was
> over hostile and rugged terrain with no landmarks at all, while having
> to fly around clouds, up valleys, not sure if my heading calculation
> worked out when I had to divert was correct, which was worked out
> using a map and protractor while flying through heavy turbulence,
> trying to keep the wings level with my knees while working the heading
> out, while dealing with an aircraft with absolutely no navaids and no
> gps, a badly drifting DG, and no way to fly straight and level long
> enough to reset it, flying over tiger country, and then I came to some
> flat land I found I was just about right above an airfield I didn't
> recognise that wasn't on the map, and having to scramble through my
> map collection to find that I'd gone off the edge of my map and was
> less than 1/4 mile from military airspace, all the while having to
> look out for other aircraft, and fly my aircraft, the one with two
> different wings that flies in circles unless you keep a heap of rudder
> in the whole time...

This is why God invented autopilots, copilots, and advanced instrumentation.

It sounds like you drifted into this situation by not anticipating and
planning beforehand. Necessary tasks that are deferred just tend to pile up,
and then they all have to be done at once.

There will always be some type of situation that is too complex to handle, no
matter how much training or practice you have. It is therefore necessary to
avoid such a situation. It traps even the best and most experienced of
pilots.

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

Mxsmanic

March 9th 07, 06:58 AM

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Your's flew you into the ground a couple of days ago.
> I'd call that a "mistake".

Pilot error.

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

Andy Hawkins

March 9th 07, 09:19 AM

Hi,

In article . com>,
> wrote:
> Which makes sense... I mean heck, sometimes I think that automobile
> drivers should be certified for manual transmissions. I see way too
> many drivers who are very scary to be behind, when starting on hills
> with their new 5-speed ;-)

In the UK, they are. You can either take your driving test in a manual or an
automatic. If you take it in a manual, you can drive either. If you take it
in an automatic, you can only drive automatics.

Andy

Jose

March 9th 07, 01:17 PM

> In the UK, they are. You can either take your driving test in a manual or an
> automatic. If you take it in a manual, you can drive either. If you take it
> in an automatic, you can only drive automatics.

In the US it's the reverse. If you take it (or took it when I did,
mumble years ago) in a manual, that's all you could drive. If you took
it in an automatic, you could drive both. Go figure.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Andy Hawkins

March 9th 07, 01:50 PM

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> In the US it's the reverse. If you take it (or took it when I did,
> mumble years ago) in a manual, that's all you could drive. If you took
> it in an automatic, you could drive both. Go figure.

???

So they reckon it's harder to drive an auto than a manual?

The mind boggles :)

Andy

Jose

March 9th 07, 02:03 PM

> So they reckon it's harder to drive an auto than a manual?

I reckon it has to do with using the otherwise occupied foot for the
brakes. But that's just a guess.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Gig 601XL Builder

March 9th 07, 04:33 PM

Jose wrote:
>> In the UK, they are. You can either take your driving test in a
>> manual or an automatic. If you take it in a manual, you can drive
>> either. If you take it in an automatic, you can only drive
>> automatics.
>
> In the US it's the reverse. If you take it (or took it when I did,
> mumble years ago) in a manual, that's all you could drive. If you
> took it in an automatic, you could drive both. Go figure.
>

The US is a very big place with several different state laws that change
from time to time. Unless you change the US to some more specific location
and maybe even specific date you are just plain wrong.

Mxsmanic

March 9th 07, 06:15 PM

Andy Hawkins writes:

> So they reckon it's harder to drive an auto than a manual?

A car with an automatic transmission is perhaps considered "complex."

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

Mxsmanic

March 9th 07, 06:16 PM

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> The US is a very big place with several different state laws that change
> from time to time. Unless you change the US to some more specific location
> and maybe even specific date you are just plain wrong.

Correction: Your rightness or wrongness is indeterminate.

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

Matt Barrow

March 9th 07, 09:36 PM

Jose wrote:
>> In the UK, they are. You can either take your driving test in a
>> manual or an automatic. If you take it in a manual, you can drive
>> either. If you take it in an automatic, you can only drive
>> automatics.
>
> In the US it's the reverse. If you take it (or took it when I did,
> mumble years ago) in a manual, that's all you could drive. If you
> took it in an automatic, you could drive both. Go figure.

Huh? That makes absolutely ZERO sense. (okay, it was gub'mint)

EridanMan

March 9th 07, 11:42 PM

> Sounds doable, with a bit of practice.

Of course its doable, we do it all the time.

> I don't have much trouble with it in the sim.

Utterly irrelevant statement... You mastery of an arbitrary task-load
designed to approximate a pilot's workload with a substantially
constrained interface says nothing.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

March 9th 07, 11:59 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> How far above the runway? And you don't stall or get a tail strike?
>
>> Of course, something like an Archer likes to be landed a little
>> hotter, without having full back stick.
>
> In the Baron I don't think I've ever pulled the yoke all the way back. I
> stay
> almost level until I'm very close indeed to the runway, then pull back on
> power a bit and flare. No idle and no full back stick, though. I haven't
> actually tried that, but from the way the Baron behaves my intuition tells
> me
> it wouldn't be suitable.
>
>> I heard that you run out of elevator authority if you get too slow but
>> that's only a guess...
>
> Possibly. I'm usually at least 10 kts above stall speed so I don't really
> know (or maybe you are not talking about a Baron?).
>

Too bad there isn't some kind of virtual flight instructor network for msfs.
You really could use it.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Mxsmanic

March 10th 07, 09:23 AM

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:

> Too bad there isn't some kind of virtual flight instructor network for msfs.
> You really could use it.

FSX supposedly supports copilots, but I'm not going to throw everything I have
with FS 2004 away just to get that.

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

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris)

March 10th 07, 02:39 PM

>
> As I've said, it sounds like you don't have your sim configured correctly.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

MX

I was going to ignore you but your stupidity really 'takes the
biscuit'.!!!!!!!!!!
There is NO WAY IN HELL you can compare using the sim, as Roger has
stated, to real life experiences.

Pc configured correctly or not the pc CANNOT generate the feeling of
fear and anxiety.
You WILL NOT die if you crash.
If you get lost in the dark or poor weather what is the worst that can
happen - 'You have crashed' - Wow I'm terrified now ;-(
You WILL NOT feel the forces of G force as you climb / descent.
You WILL NOT feel the motion of the aircraft rolling.
You WILL NOT become disorientated in a spin etc due to enginer
failure.

You WILL NOT learn to backdown you ignorant little man!!!!!!!!!!

Even motion simulators cannot generate all this as at the end of the
day you know YOU WILL NOT die in it. Same can be said for 'training
exercises' the special forces do to teach them what to do if captured
by the enemy. These 'exercises' will not kill them so the feeling of
fear wont be part of the equation and DOES NOT compare to the real
thing.

FS2004 is afterall a GAME, like it or lump it. When I use it I AM NOT
flying a plane.

Those that believe they are and are qualified to fly IRL need to seek
help or join the Mooneys.

Ibby

Don Burnette[_2_]

March 10th 07, 02:42 PM

"Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris)" > wrote
in message ups.com...
>
>>
>> As I've said, it sounds like you don't have your sim configured
>> correctly.
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> MX
< snip>

> FS2004 is afterall a GAME, like it or lump it. When I use it I AM NOT
> flying a plane.
>
> Those that believe they are and are qualified to fly IRL need to seek
> help or join the Mooneys.
>
> Ibby
>
>

It is amazing indeed, how some have trouble separating what is reality, to
what is not.

--
Don

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris)

March 10th 07, 02:46 PM

> But following that logic, people who learn to drive with a manual transmission
> should have more trouble than those who learn to drive with an automatic, and
> yet that does not seem to be the case. They both seem to learn at about the
> same speed.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In the UK if you learn to drive using a car with an automatic gear box
you ARE NOT PERMITTED to drive a manual geared car. You must take
lessons and an examination to do so.

Ibby

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris)

March 10th 07, 02:53 PM

On Mar 10, 2:42 pm, "Don Burnette" >
wrote:
> "Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris)" > wrote
> in oglegroups.com...
>
> >> As I've said, it sounds like you don't have your sim configured
> >> correctly.
>
> >> --
> >> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> > MX
>
> < snip>
>
> > FS2004 is afterall a GAME, like it or lump it. When I use it I AM NOT
> > flying a plane.
>
> > Those that believe they are and are qualified to fly IRL need to seek
> > help or join the Mooneys.
>
> > Ibby
>
> It is amazing indeed, how some have trouble separating what is reality, to
> what is not.
>
> --
> Don

If you look at MX's profile it would appear he is NEVER off the pc
judging by the amount of posts he makes to the most ludicrous of
groups that no doubt he is an 'expert' in including rape, women,
feminism, abortion, religion to name a few that his 16492 posts have
gone too.

This so called fantasy man needs to get a life

Ibby

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris)

March 10th 07, 03:01 PM

Whys that when, as you have stated already, there is no difference to
flying in the sim and that of real life.

Ibby

> Indeed, if I were a real pilot and I had just spent $2 million on a Baron, I
> think I might be afraid to even fly it.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Tony

March 10th 07, 03:04 PM

I am proud to be among the tribe of Mooney lovers --mine is an M20J
-- and resent you suggesting a guy who disturbs huge numbers of
electrons as he pretends to fly, join our ranks.

You had better go and get your tail put on correctly! Why, you might
even be among that group of pilots who have their wings in the wrong
place.

On Mar 10, 9:39 am, "Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris)"
> wrote:
> > As I've said, it sounds like you don't have your sim configured correctly.
>
> > --
> > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> MX
>
> I was going to ignore you but your stupidity really 'takes the
> biscuit'.!!!!!!!!!!
> There is NO WAY IN HELL you can compare using the sim, as Roger has
> stated, to real life experiences.
>
> Pc configured correctly or not the pc CANNOT generate the feeling of
> fear and anxiety.
> You WILL NOT die if you crash.
> If you get lost in the dark or poor weather what is the worst that can
> happen - 'You have crashed' - Wow I'm terrified now ;-(
> You WILL NOT feel the forces of G force as you climb / descent.
> You WILL NOT feel the motion of the aircraft rolling.
> You WILL NOT become disorientated in a spin etc due to enginer
> failure.
>
> You WILL NOT learn to backdown you ignorant little man!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Even motion simulators cannot generate all this as at the end of the
> day you know YOU WILL NOT die in it. Same can be said for 'training
> exercises' the special forces do to teach them what to do if captured
> by the enemy. These 'exercises' will not kill them so the feeling of
> fear wont be part of the equation and DOES NOT compare to the real
> thing.
>
> FS2004 is afterall a GAME, like it or lump it. When I use it I AM NOT
> flying a plane.
>
> Those that believe they are and are qualified to fly IRL need to seek
> help or join the Mooneys.
>
> Ibby

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris)

March 10th 07, 03:14 PM

> Why do you need insurance?
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

So if you crash into someone elses property who pays for that?

If you hit my car, damaged it or God forbit killed one of my
passengers how would I be compensated?
Will your little 'fund' payout?
You are BREAKING the law if you dont have any for a motorised
vehicle.
Insurance isn't just to protect your assets, they are for others too.

Ibby

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris)

March 10th 07, 03:20 PM

On Mar 10, 3:04 pm, "Tony" > wrote:
> I am proud to be among the tribe of Mooney lovers --mine is an M20J
> -- and resent you suggesting a guy who disturbs huge numbers of
> electrons as he pretends to fly, join our ranks.

Tony

Sorry Tony, I wasn't refering to the Mooney aircraft. Didn't even
cross my mind. I was refering to the Mooney religous cult in the
States that seemed to have a lot of questionable practices

Ibby

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris)

March 10th 07, 03:32 PM

> But learning to drive with a manual transmission only takes a day. I suspect
> that learning to move a gear lever or a flaps lever is comparable.

Do you drive MX???????? - or is this another fantasy

If so you should be aware that there is more to learning to drive than
just moving a stick and rotating that round thing in front of you.
There are rules to be learnt (well outside France), you have to learn
how to handle the car, your perception to the outside world in
relation to your speed, position etc on the road. When to speed up,
slow down. How to handle emergencies. Same goes for an aircraft.

Ibby

Mxsmanic

March 10th 07, 04:04 PM

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris) writes:

> Sorry Tony, I wasn't refering to the Mooney aircraft. Didn't even
> cross my mind. I was refering to the Mooney religous cult in the
> States that seemed to have a lot of questionable practices

That would be the Moonies.

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

Mxsmanic

March 10th 07, 04:05 PM

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris) writes:

> So if you crash into someone elses property who pays for that?

How much property does one normally crash into on a typical flight? How much
property is there to crash into on a runway or taxiway?

> If you hit my car, damaged it or God forbit killed one of my
> passengers how would I be compensated?

First, you need to get your car off the runway.

> Insurance isn't just to protect your assets, they are for others too.

Beyond a certain point, insurance is a protection racket.

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

Mxsmanic

March 10th 07, 04:06 PM

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris) writes:

> Do you drive MX????????

Yes.

> If so you should be aware that there is more to learning to drive than
> just moving a stick and rotating that round thing in front of you.

Nevertheless, I learned to drive a stick in a few hours.

> There are rules to be learnt (well outside France), you have to learn
> how to handle the car, your perception to the outside world in
> relation to your speed, position etc on the road. When to speed up,
> slow down. How to handle emergencies. Same goes for an aircraft.

Learning to drive was easy. If learning to fly is that easy, I'm reassured.

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

[email protected]

March 10th 07, 08:36 PM

On Mar 7, 12:12 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I'm rarely on the centerline when I turn at the last minute, but there is
> still time to line up, usually.

"turn at the last minute"? How long is your final approach leg? If
you're flying the traffic pattern, your ground track should be a
perfect rectangle with rounded corners, and in your Baron, your turn
from base to final should be completed about 3/4 mile out from the
threshold leaving you plenty of time to get stabilized on final. If
you turn substantially inside this point, you will have too little
time to stabilize your approach, and you should go around.

> I can't feel a crosswind in the sim, of course, but I can "feel" (note quotation
> marks) the aircraft drifting to one side or otherwise moving by looking out
> the window or watching the instruments (in low visibility). I'm so-so at
> correcting for that.

You can't feel a crosswind in a real plane either. It's the same as
in the sim, you just look forward out the window and check to see if
the ground is drifting by sideways, then correct for it by turning
slightly into the wind, so that you end up tracking exactly along the
runway's extended centerline.

> > If so, then that is not unusual, or bad, but you MUST align before
> > touchdown. (Use rudder to straighten out, and opposite aileron to
> > prevent lateral drift)
>
> That's what I try to do. I try to use both rudder and aileron unless I'm
> extremely close to the runway, as I've read that using rudder alone is a Bad
> Thing.

When landing with a crosswind, the combined effects of rudder and
opposite aileron are needed to cause the plane to both (1) track the
centerline and (2) align it's long axis with the centerline. You need
to maintain this configuration (i.e., a slip) all the way to touchdown
(and beyond).

Mxsmanic

March 10th 07, 08:44 PM

writes:

> "turn at the last minute"? How long is your final approach leg?

When I'm in a rush, there isn't one. I approach the runway at an angle
(sometimes 90 degrees or more), and then turn to align with it as I pass over
it.

> If you're flying the traffic pattern, your ground track should be a
> perfect rectangle with rounded corners, and in your Baron, your turn
> from base to final should be completed about 3/4 mile out from the
> threshold leaving you plenty of time to get stabilized on final. If
> you turn substantially inside this point, you will have too little
> time to stabilize your approach, and you should go around.

In real life, I would. In the sim, it depends on what I'm trying to practice.
The sim gives you the luxury of short-circuiting anything that isn't directly
relevant to whatever exercise you've undertaken.

> You can't feel a crosswind in a real plane either. It's the same as
> in the sim, you just look forward out the window and check to see if
> the ground is drifting by sideways, then correct for it by turning
> slightly into the wind, so that you end up tracking exactly along the
> runway's extended centerline.

So much the better, then. I thought it was something you would feel in a real
aircraft. I suppose if it's steady you wouldn't notice it.

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

chris[_1_]

March 10th 07, 10:07 PM

On Mar 11, 9:44 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > If you're flying the traffic pattern, your ground track should be a
> > perfect rectangle with rounded corners, and in your Baron, your turn
> > from base to final should be completed about 3/4 mile out from the
> > threshold leaving you plenty of time to get stabilized on final. If
> > you turn substantially inside this point, you will have too little
> > time to stabilize your approach, and you should go around.
>
> In real life, I would. In the sim, it depends on what I'm trying to practice.
> The sim gives you the luxury of short-circuiting anything that isn't directly
> relevant to whatever exercise you've undertaken.

In real life, sometimes you get asked to do a 'short approach'. This
would be probably the closest to what you're doing in the sim, so if
you are looking to real life for validation of what you do in the sim,
then there you go..

I have done some wacky, crazy approaches when asked to do a short
approach, usually with healthy doses of sideslip..

>
> > You can't feel a crosswind in a real plane either. It's the same as
> > in the sim, you just look forward out the window and check to see if
> > the ground is drifting by sideways, then correct for it by turning
> > slightly into the wind, so that you end up tracking exactly along the
> > runway's extended centerline.
>
> So much the better, then. I thought it was something you would feel in a real
> aircraft. I suppose if it's steady you wouldn't notice it.
>

You don't feel it because the air and the ground are not connected..
You have to look at the drift and correct for it. Quite easy to do
in practise, easier than trying to explain it :-)

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris)

March 10th 07, 11:51 PM

>
> That would be the Moonies.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Thats what I said albeit spelt Mooneys - but meant the same thing

Ibby

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris)

March 10th 07, 11:55 PM

Perhaps true but it serves a purpose with the likes of serious or
fatal injuries.
Money makes the world go round so what better way to penalise worse
drivers and/or pilots by increasing their premiums for the higher risk
they pose to others.

Ibby

Ibby

>
> Beyond a certain point, insurance is a protection racket.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris)

March 11th 07, 12:00 AM

> Nevertheless, I learned to drive a stick in a few hours.
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gosh MX you ARE amazing. I have seen many drivers from Europe. Been
in a car with one driving and the quality of driving was absolutely
diabolical. He was looking out all the side windows etc, went past a
soccer pitch and he said 'i know that man' as he turned 180 degrees to
look out the rear window. Went round another bend and nearly took out
a lamp standard.

Perhaps he learnt to drive in a couple of hours too ;-((

Ibby

Mxsmanic

March 11th 07, 05:32 AM

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris) writes:

> Thats what I said albeit spelt Mooneys - but meant the same thing

That was my understanding. Some people may not have recognized the reference
with a different spelling, so I clarified.

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

Mxsmanic

March 11th 07, 05:34 AM

chris writes:

> In real life, sometimes you get asked to do a 'short approach'. This
> would be probably the closest to what you're doing in the sim, so if
> you are looking to real life for validation of what you do in the sim,
> then there you go..

I know I've seen real aircraft do it; I couldn't remember what it was called.

Ironically, I'd probably turn it down in real life, as I tend to be extremely
prudent.

> I have done some wacky, crazy approaches when asked to do a short
> approach, usually with healthy doses of sideslip..

You're braver than I am.

> You don't feel it because the air and the ground are not connected..

That makes sense. I guess there's no telltale squeal of tires.

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

Mxsmanic

March 11th 07, 05:37 AM

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris) writes:

> Gosh MX you ARE amazing.

Most Europeans know how to drive with a manual transmission, so it is routine
here. I know that it is considered a bit eccentric in the U.S.

Unfortunately, more and more cars are appearing with automatic transmissions,
even in Europe.

> I have seen many drivers from Europe. Been
> in a car with one driving and the quality of driving was absolutely
> diabolical.

There really isn't anything one can generally say about European drivers,
apart from their fondness for manual transmissions. Different standards from
one country to another, and different cultures, have a considerable effect on
driving competence and behavior.

> Perhaps he learnt to drive in a couple of hours too ;-((

Driving ability isn't necessarily linked to the number of hours of training.
Neither is piloting ability. Often it's just a matter of personality or
(sometimes) intelligence.

I've always been an extremely safe driver. I'm certain that I'd be equally
safe as a pilot. That's the type of personality I have.

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

Mxsmanic

March 11th 07, 05:50 AM

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris) writes:

> Perhaps true but it serves a purpose with the likes of serious or
> fatal injuries.

A better policy is to avoid serious or fatal injuries.

In the past I've worked for some companies that were self-insured. The
overall cost to them of paying for employee healthcare directly was far lower
than the cost of premiums paid to insurance companies. This was mainly
because the total premiums for insurance were vastly greater than the total
payouts, thanks to a handsome profit margin built into them.

This works best when you can spread risk over a large number of aircraft or
pilots. It also assumes that you will not be expected to make ridiculous
payouts as a result of litigation.

However, insurance companies encourage the above to some extent by regularly
settling with plaintiffs rather than going to trial. They just add the payout
to their premiums. Insurance companies don't care how many payouts they make,
as long as they preserve their margins. If that means forcing you to pay
$8000 a month for insurance (which you'll probably never need), that's your
tough luck, not theirs. They never lose money.

Indeed, the mere existence of insurance encourages huge damage awards in
litigation. People assume that others are insured, so they don't hesitate to
ask for large amounts of money. An insurance company can pay out $2 million;
an uninsured individual cannot, and there would be no point in suing the
latter.

> Money makes the world go round so what better way to penalise worse
> drivers and/or pilots by increasing their premiums for the higher risk
> they pose to others.

The whole idea of insurance is to spread the risk, such that everyone pays to
some extent for the payouts to a few. If you adjust premiums too much, the
net effect is to have no insurance at all: the low-risk people pay nothing,
the high-risk people pay exactly what they would pay if they had no insurance
to begin with.

Furthermore, penalizing poor pilots within reason might make sense, but in
today's litigation-crazy society, the penalties are ridiculous. And having
insurance doesn't make them go away, it just guarantees that you'll pay them
whether you are involved in litigation or not.

I guess you can just pay premiums without complaint, but they will only rise,
and one day you won't be able to pay them, and then you won't be able to fly,
either.

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

chris[_1_]

March 11th 07, 08:21 AM

On Mar 11, 6:37 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris) writes:
>
> > Gosh MX you ARE amazing.
>
> Most Europeans know how to drive with a manual transmission, so it is routine
> here. I know that it is considered a bit eccentric in the U.S.

Same here in NZ

>
> Unfortunately, more and more cars are appearing with automatic transmissions,
> even in Europe.

Ditto

chris[_1_]

March 11th 07, 08:23 AM

On Mar 11, 6:34 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
>
> > I have done some wacky, crazy approaches when asked to do a short
> > approach, usually with healthy doses of sideslip..
>
> You're braver than I am.
>

A short approach doesn't have to be crazy but some of us like it that
way :-)

> > You don't feel it because the air and the ground are not connected..
>
> That makes sense. I guess there's no telltale squeal of tires.

There is no tyre noise until you touch down, of course, and you need
to look out the window to establish how much you correction you need
to apply..

Mxsmanic

March 11th 07, 09:28 AM

chris writes:

> Same here in NZ

In a car, I prefer manual transmission because it gives me better control of
the vehicle; with an automatic, you aren't the one who decides how to control
the gear ratio or clutch.

I'm not sure what the parallel would be for aircraft. I don't think autopilot
is it--that's more like cruise control. Perhaps those various systems that
"help" pilots, such as interconnections between rudder and ailerons that force
coordinated turns.

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

chris[_1_]

March 11th 07, 10:22 AM

On Mar 11, 10:28 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > Same here in NZ
>
> In a car, I prefer manual transmission because it gives me better control of
> the vehicle; with an automatic, you aren't the one who decides how to control
> the gear ratio or clutch.
>

Currently I drive a V6 Camry sedan, which by NZ standards is a large
car, and I can't be bothered with changing gears myself.. However,
when I drove a turbo RX-7 I had it converted to manual because I like
the control..

Seems that in NZ since we get so many second hand Jap imports and most
of them are auto, most of the people now drive autos, very sad..

> I'm not sure what the parallel would be for aircraft. I don't think autopilot
> is it--that's more like cruise control. Perhaps those various systems that
> "help" pilots, such as interconnections between rudder and ailerons that force
> coordinated turns.
>

The Ercoupe had no rudder pedals at all, I believe..

Oh, and I tend to think of cruise control in cars as a sort of Auto
Throttle..

Andy Hawkins

March 11th 07, 11:29 AM

Hi,

In article . com>,
> wrote:
> The Ercoupe had no rudder pedals at all, I believe..

I'm a sim 'pilot' so apologies if this question appears obvious, but how do
you cope with a crosswind landing with no rudder control?

Andy

Newps

March 11th 07, 05:14 PM

Andy Hawkins wrote:

>
>>The Ercoupe had no rudder pedals at all, I believe..
>
>
> I'm a sim 'pilot' so apologies if this question appears obvious, but how do
> you cope with a crosswind landing with no rudder control?

You land in a crab and the plane will straighten out when it touches down.

Andy Hawkins

March 11th 07, 06:10 PM

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> You land in a crab and the plane will straighten out when it touches down.

How does this straightening out occur? Is rudder applied automatically, or
are you relyinn on the landing gear bringing the plane into line?

Cheers

Andy

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

March 11th 07, 06:27 PM

"Andy Hawkins" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>> You land in a crab and the plane will straighten out when it touches
>> down.
>
> How does this straightening out occur? Is rudder applied automatically, or
> are you relyinn on the landing gear bringing the plane into line?
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy

If you touch down just a bit sideways, the center of gravity, being ahead of
the main gear, will pull the aircraft in line (assuming nosewheel aircraft).
The mass tries to keep going, and the main gear create a drag force behind
and to one side of the Cg.

That's the advantage of the nosewheel. A tailwheel aircraft, on the other
hand, will want to turn around and roll backwards. Which is why you have to
pay attention when landing a taildragger.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Tony

March 11th 07, 06:35 PM

An aspect of an expedited approach because of following traffic being
overlooked is to carry more airspeed over the numbers, slow down and
touch down close to where you're going to leave the runway.

Too often guys is light GA airplanes will land a few hundred feet past
the numbers when the turn off is 2500 feet ahead of them. Fly to
within a thousand feet, land, and clear the active.

On Mar 11, 4:23 am, "chris" > wrote:
> On Mar 11, 6:34 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > chris writes:
>
> > > I have done some wacky, crazy approaches when asked to do a short
> > > approach, usually with healthy doses of sideslip..
>
> > You're braver than I am.
>
> A short approach doesn't have to be crazy but some of us like it that
> way :-)
>
> > > You don't feel it because the air and the ground are not connected..
>
> > That makes sense. I guess there's no telltale squeal of tires.
>
> There is no tyre noise until you touch down, of course, and you need
> to look out the window to establish how much you correction you need
> to apply..

Newps

March 11th 07, 10:16 PM

Andy Hawkins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>
>>You land in a crab and the plane will straighten out when it touches down.
>
>
> How does this straightening out occur?

Your flight path is down the runway, you are crabbed into the wind.
When you touch down the plane aligns itself with the direction of travel.

Is rudder applied automatically,

No.

or
> are you relyinn on the landing gear bringing the plane into line?

The gear is designed for side loads so it's not a problem.

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris)

March 11th 07, 11:13 PM

I used to be good at Grand Prix 3 but that didnt make me as good as
Michael Schumachur (sp?)
I used to be good at Call of Duty but that doesn't make me a marine
and capable of killing the enemy with all known forms of arsenal.
I used to be good at Tomb Raider but that didn't make me good at
wearing hotpants and swinging from vines whilst holding my artifacts
recently stolen from Egypt.
I used to be good at watching porn but that didn't make me Ron Jeremy

Like everything you do MX the only way people will believe that
comment is to PROVE it.
How can you continue to pretend that you can do this and you can do
that when the WHOLE WORLD can see you cannot because guess what - YOU
ARE NOT DOING IT!!!!!!!

Sitting on a pc 24/7, is not flying. It is not driving. It is not
REAL and until you get yourself into the left hand seat of an aircraft
you DO NOT know for sure how well YOU will do.

I'm certain that I'd be equally
> safe as a pilot. That's the type of personality I have.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Andy Hawkins

March 11th 07, 11:30 PM

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
>> are you relyinn on the landing gear bringing the plane into line?
>
> The gear is designed for side loads so it's not a problem.

Ah, ok. That's what I was wondering. Thanks for the info.

Andy

Ron Natalie

March 14th 07, 12:54 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> A flight in the sim takes the same time as its real-life counterpart, though.

Bull****. I don't have to preflight the simulator, or pull it from the
hangar, or preheat it, or get it started, or call for the fuel truck
or any of the hundred things that REAL pilots have to deal with with
flying REAL airplanes that you'll never experience in your pathetic
little fantasy world. Don't lecture real pilots (or those who are
attempting to become real pilots) from your distorted self-interested
masturbation.

> I think so. If you can learn all the complex and HP stuff _eventually_, then
> that also means that you can learn it right up front. It might seem more
> daunting at first than a simple aircraft, but the overall elapsed time to
> become proficient in the complex aircraft would be the same in both
> situations.

Again you have no clue. The some of the time will be longer as
you waste time initially being behind the complex aircraft which will
entail more instruction time than if you started simple and worked up.
After you get competence in the simple aircraft, adding the control of
the complex is trivial.
>
>> On a high wing aircraft, the fuel system is gravity fed, and you have
>> a fuel selector with L / R / Both choices. Leave it on Both and
>> you're set.
>
> Sounds good to me.

It shouldn't. If you bothered to study anything, the above isn't valid
for even Cessnas. Cessna recommends operating in LEFT or RIGHT at
high altitudes. I'm not going to go into the reasons because your
game doesn't vapor lock.

>
>> Low wing aircraft (Cherokee specifically) do not have a Both option.
>> You have Left or Right, and it's up to the pilot to manage his fuel.
>> For instance, you start on least full tank, switch to fullest before
>> takeoff. Every 30 minutes, for instance, you need to switch tanks, or
>> risk a weight imbalance, or at worst, engine failure due to fuel
>> starvation.
>
> Wow ... sounds incredibly primitive. I guess crossfeeds and stuff like that
> are still future science-fiction for small aircraft.

No more science fiction than your pathetic brain. My aircraft is a low
wing and has a both position on the fuel selector and tip tank
crossfeeds for a long time. But it adds weight, complexity and things
that may go wrong just as easily as forgetting to switch tanks.
>
> In a twin, though, you have one tank per engine, so you should be able to feed
> the right engine with the right tank, and the left with the left tank.

Again, your pathatic idealized world doesn't correspond to reality. Do
you think the fuel flow on each engine is identical? Do you think the
line guy filled both tanks to the same level?
>
> I've gotten pretty low in the tanks in the Baron and I've never had to switch
> tanks. The only time I've ever had to touch it was for engine failure, in
> which case I obviously direct both tanks to the non-failing engine.

You've never flown a baron. Stop lying. Real pilots who haven't caught
on to your bull**** and lies might be dangerously confused.

>
> Point taken. But I have read that it's good practice to keep plenty of fuel
> in the tanks when possible, not only to maximum your reserves but also to help
> exclude condensation (I guess small aircraft haven't discovered airtight seals
> yet, either).

Again your pathetic ignorance is showing. If you bothered to actually
study things rather than basing the entire world on what you can observe
of Microsoft's simplification of flight you'd know that:

1. The tanks can't be sealed. As fuel goes out, air must go in (either
that or you'll have to have fuel tanks like a playtex baby bottle with
a collapsing bladder.

2. Condensation rarely is the problem. The real problem is poorly
sealing fuel caps.

> Interesting. Full flaps on the Baron do create a lot of drag, but the
> "approach" setting creates far less. It's a poor speedbrake--the gear works
> better for that (but has a lower maximum speed). When I extend the flaps in
> the Baron, I rise very noticeably, then I slow down significantly and I start
> to lose altitude; with full flaps, there's a noticeable tendency to pitch
> down, too. But I'm expecting all this so I adjust for it.

Again, stop lying. You've never flown a Baron. You don't know how
they behave aerdodynamically.

>
> Is it a good aircraft? I've heard stories about Pipers.

Stories is all you've heard about anything.

> How far above the runway? And you don't stall or get a tail strike?

Neither. If you bothered to learn something about ground handling in
wind you'd know these things. It's the first thing that REAL pilots
do in an airplane.

>
> In the Baron I don't think I've ever pulled the yoke all the way back. I stay
> almost level until I'm very close indeed to the runway, then pull back on
> power a bit and flare. No idle and no full back stick, though. I haven't
> actually tried that, but from the way the Baron behaves my intuition tells me
> it wouldn't be suitable.

You've never flown a Baron, and you've never pulled a real yoke back.
>
>> I heard that you run out of elevator authority if you get too slow but
>> that's only a guess...
>
> Possibly. I'm usually at least 10 kts above stall speed so I don't really
> know (or maybe you are not talking about a Baron?).
>
Maybe he's talking about a real Baron and not your pathetic fantasy.
'

Mxsmanic

March 14th 07, 02:23 PM

Ron Natalie writes:

> Bull****. I don't have to preflight the simulator, or pull it from the
> hangar, or preheat it, or get it started, or call for the fuel truck
> or any of the hundred things that REAL pilots have to deal with with
> flying REAL airplanes that you'll never experience in your pathetic
> little fantasy world.

You can simulate any of those, if you wish. Most simmers stick to the actual
flying part, however, with perhaps some checklists prior to taxiing out.
Since a simulated aircraft only has problems if you want it to, you can set it
to be 100% reliable and eliminate the need for many preflight checks.

Obviously, these are some of the key advantages of simulation. You can never
skip the checks in real life.

> The some of the time will be longer as
> you waste time initially being behind the complex aircraft which will
> entail more instruction time than if you started simple and worked up.

That's not the way learning works. If you have the capacity to absorb complex
concepts, you can study everything up front. Essentially learning will be the
product of time and effort. You can learn a given amount using moderate
effort and long time, or using considerable effort and shorter time. The
result is the same. This applies to learning to fly just as it applies to
learning anything else.

> It shouldn't. If you bothered to study anything, the above isn't valid
> for even Cessnas. Cessna recommends operating in LEFT or RIGHT at
> high altitudes. I'm not going to go into the reasons because your
> game doesn't vapor lock.

I don't fly Cessnas, so it doesn't matter, although of course I'd be
interested in hearing the reasons. It seems like unnecessary complication.

> My aircraft is a low
> wing and has a both position on the fuel selector and tip tank
> crossfeeds for a long time. But it adds weight, complexity and things
> that may go wrong just as easily as forgetting to switch tanks.

I'd prefer a system that allows me to draw fuel symmetrically from tanks on
both sides of the aircraft. That way imbalance is one less thing that I'd
have to worry about.

> Again, your pathatic idealized world doesn't correspond to reality. Do
> you think the fuel flow on each engine is identical? Do you think the
> line guy filled both tanks to the same level?

It should be possible to closely approximate both. If there are significant
differences in fuel consumption, an inspection may be warranted. If the line
guy doesn't fill the tanks to the same level, make him come back and do so.

> You've never flown a baron. Stop lying. Real pilots who haven't caught
> on to your bull**** and lies might be dangerously confused.

If they haven't "caught on," then perhaps nothing of what I'm saying is wrong.

> 1. The tanks can't be sealed. As fuel goes out, air must go in (either
> that or you'll have to have fuel tanks like a playtex baby bottle with
> a collapsing bladder.

I believe that has already been done. Also, you can fill the empty space with
dry nitrogen, which helps (this may be expensive on a small aircraft).

> 2. Condensation rarely is the problem. The real problem is poorly
> sealing fuel caps.

You just said they couldn't be sealed, so how is this a problem?

> Again, stop lying. You've never flown a Baron. You don't know how
> they behave aerdodynamically.

Yes, I do. At least better than someone who has never flown one in real life
or in simulation.

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

Tony

March 14th 07, 03:04 PM

I would expect the intellegent disinterested reader to realise the
authority to be respected comparing sim and actual aviation are those
who have used both. Some of those have posted in the group.

If one claims to be speak with authority about both without having
actual experience that same intellegent disinterested observer might
consider that poster to be not so intellegent (clearly not the case of
MX), or not living in the real world (that's an open question) or a
spammer.

On Mar 14, 10:23 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
> > Bull****. I don't have to preflight the simulator, or pull it from the
> > hangar, or preheat it, or get it started, or call for the fuel truck
> > or any of the hundred things that REAL pilots have to deal with with
> > flying REAL airplanes that you'll never experience in your pathetic
> > little fantasy world.
>
> You can simulate any of those, if you wish. Most simmers stick to the actual
> flying part, however, with perhaps some checklists prior to taxiing out.
> Since a simulated aircraft only has problems if you want it to, you can set it
> to be 100% reliable and eliminate the need for many preflight checks.
>
> Obviously, these are some of the key advantages of simulation. You can never
> skip the checks in real life.
>
> > The some of the time will be longer as
> > you waste time initially being behind the complex aircraft which will
> > entail more instruction time than if you started simple and worked up.
>
> That's not the way learning works. If you have the capacity to absorb complex
> concepts, you can study everything up front. Essentially learning will be the
> product of time and effort. You can learn a given amount using moderate
> effort and long time, or using considerable effort and shorter time. The
> result is the same. This applies to learning to fly just as it applies to
> learning anything else.
>
> > It shouldn't. If you bothered to study anything, the above isn't valid
> > for even Cessnas. Cessna recommends operating in LEFT or RIGHT at
> > high altitudes. I'm not going to go into the reasons because your
> > game doesn't vapor lock.
>
> I don't fly Cessnas, so it doesn't matter, although of course I'd be
> interested in hearing the reasons. It seems like unnecessary complication.
>
> > My aircraft is a low
> > wing and has a both position on the fuel selector and tip tank
> > crossfeeds for a long time. But it adds weight, complexity and things
> > that may go wrong just as easily as forgetting to switch tanks.
>
> I'd prefer a system that allows me to draw fuel symmetrically from tanks on
> both sides of the aircraft. That way imbalance is one less thing that I'd
> have to worry about.
>
> > Again, your pathatic idealized world doesn't correspond to reality. Do
> > you think the fuel flow on each engine is identical? Do you think the
> > line guy filled both tanks to the same level?
>
> It should be possible to closely approximate both. If there are significant
> differences in fuel consumption, an inspection may be warranted. If the line
> guy doesn't fill the tanks to the same level, make him come back and do so.
>
> > You've never flown a baron. Stop lying. Real pilots who haven't caught
> > on to your bull**** and lies might be dangerously confused.
>
> If they haven't "caught on," then perhaps nothing of what I'm saying is wrong.
>
> > 1. The tanks can't be sealed. As fuel goes out, air must go in (either
> > that or you'll have to have fuel tanks like a playtex baby bottle with
> > a collapsing bladder.
>
> I believe that has already been done. Also, you can fill the empty space with
> dry nitrogen, which helps (this may be expensive on a small aircraft).
>
> > 2. Condensation rarely is the problem. The real problem is poorly
> > sealing fuel caps.
>
> You just said they couldn't be sealed, so how is this a problem?
>
> > Again, stop lying. You've never flown a Baron. You don't know how
> > they behave aerdodynamically.
>
> Yes, I do. At least better than someone who has never flown one in real life
> or in simulation.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gary[_2_]

March 14th 07, 05:16 PM

On Mar 14, 10:23 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> That's not the way learning works. If you have the capacity to absorb complex
> concepts, you can study everything up front. Essentially learning will be the
> product of time and effort. You can learn a given amount using moderate
> effort and long time, or using considerable effort and shorter time. The
> result is the same. This applies to learning to fly just as it applies to
> learning anything else.

And you wonder why you're not making any money in your part-time
teaching gig...

That's not remotely close to the way real learning works. Everything
builds upon what has been learned before...I can't think of a single
example where 'studying everything up front' is a viable means to gain
understanding of complex concepts. The foundation has to be there
first. There are reasons why kids learn to read with books from Dr.
Seuss rather than Dr. Salk, why the first science class offered in
elementary school isn't quantum physics; why you can't go from junior
high straight to med school, why beginner ski lessons aren't taught on
double black diamond slopes... The list goes on and on...but since
you're going to reply without reading or understanding this post
anyway, I'll not waste the words.

March 14th 07, 08:33 PM

MX, I see the problem, you don't understand what the word flying means.
Here's the OED definition:

Flying: The action of guiding or piloting an aircraft or spacecraft, or
of travelling in one.

Hope this helps clarify your confusion. When a pilot talks about flying
they mean just what they say. You on the other hand are talking about
simulated flight which is not flying at all (since it does not involve
piloting a flying machine). Hence you cannot know what flying a baron
(or any other aircraft?) is really like. I accept you may know alot
about your MS game, but it only a poor simulation of reality.

Cheers Mark

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>
>>Again, stop lying. You've never flown a Baron. You don't know how
>>they behave aerdodynamically.
>
>
> Yes, I do. At least better than someone who has never flown one in real life
> or in simulation.
>

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

March 14th 07, 09:20 PM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
<...>
> You've never flown a baron. Stop lying. Real pilots who haven't caught
> on to your bull**** and lies might be dangerously confused.
<...>

We really aren't that stupid.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[email protected]

March 14th 07, 10:47 PM

On Mar 14, 10:23 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> I'd prefer a system that allows me to draw fuel symmetrically from tanks on
> both sides of the aircraft. That way imbalance is one less thing that I'd
> have to worry about.

In my plane, that imbalance is not an issue. I start by flying 30
minutes on one side, then switch to the other side for 60 minutes,
then back for another 60 minutes. 30 minutes of imbalance is about 5
gallons (30 lbs) and not noticeable to me. A bigger worry is not
remembering to change tanks and then running a tank dry at low
altitude, might be on the ground before figuring out what's wrong.

> > 2. Condensation rarely is the problem. The real problem is poorly
> > sealing fuel caps.
>
> You just said they couldn't be sealed, so how is this a problem?

I think he means rain being driven into the tank past poor seals on
the fuel caps. I see this occasionally on my plane. But I get very
little, if any, condensation. All tanks that I know of on small
planes have a vent somewhere to let air in, so that the fuel will come
out.

chris[_1_]

March 15th 07, 12:10 AM

On Mar 15, 11:47 am, wrote:
> On Mar 14, 10:23 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'd prefer a system that allows me to draw fuel symmetrically from tanks on
> > both sides of the aircraft. That way imbalance is one less thing that I'd
> > have to worry about.
>
> In my plane, that imbalance is not an issue. I start by flying 30
> minutes on one side, then switch to the other side for 60 minutes,
> then back for another 60 minutes. 30 minutes of imbalance is about 5
> gallons (30 lbs) and not noticeable to me. A bigger worry is not
> remembering to change tanks and then running a tank dry at low
> altitude, might be on the ground before figuring out what's wrong.
>

On my Garmin 96 there is a built in fuel timer - set it for however
many minutes you want between changes and it somehow knows when you're
flying and when you're not, and lets you know when a tank change is
due.

> > > 2. Condensation rarely is the problem. The real problem is poorly
> > > sealing fuel caps.
>
> > You just said they couldn't be sealed, so how is this a problem?
>
> I think he means rain being driven into the tank past poor seals on
> the fuel caps. I see this occasionally on my plane. But I get very
> little, if any, condensation. All tanks that I know of on small
> planes have a vent somewhere to let air in, so that the fuel will come
> out.

One of the club planes I fly must have a dodgy seal on one of the fuel
tank caps - I always seem to get a bubble of water when sampling from
one tank but never the other..

Mike Young

March 15th 07, 12:13 AM

"Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> first. There are reasons why kids learn to read with books from Dr.
> Seuss rather than Dr. Salk, why the first science class offered in
> elementary school isn't quantum physics; why you can't go from junior

That's not a bad place to leave it. Sims are not an unreasonable first step,
just as Sam I Am makes for a companionable reading primer. The skills and
decision making transfer directly. Some don't progress much beyond flipping
pages and looking at the primary color illustrations, but others have
returned in later life to study his use of anapestic tetrameter. You get out
of it what you put into it. It can be a little. It can be a lot.

Roger[_4_]

March 16th 07, 06:34 AM

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:54:41 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> A flight in the sim takes the same time as its real-life counterpart, though.
>
>Bull****. I don't have to preflight the simulator, or pull it from the
>hangar, or preheat it, or get it started, or call for the fuel truck
>or any of the hundred things that REAL pilots have to deal with with
>flying REAL airplanes that you'll never experience in your pathetic
>little fantasy world. Don't lecture real pilots (or those who are
>attempting to become real pilots) from your distorted self-interested
>masturbation.

You missed a rough run-up where you make the go-nogo decision, the
taxi back to the hangar, wait for the engine to cool enough to handle
the plugs which are almost impossible to get at, then spend the better
part of another hour cleaning the lead out of the plugs. (Did that
last week)
>
>> I think so. If you can learn all the complex and HP stuff _eventually_, then
>> that also means that you can learn it right up front. It might seem more
>> daunting at first than a simple aircraft, but the overall elapsed time to
>> become proficient in the complex aircraft would be the same in both
>> situations.
>
>Again you have no clue. The some of the time will be longer as
>you waste time initially being behind the complex aircraft which will
>entail more instruction time than if you started simple and worked up.
>After you get competence in the simple aircraft, adding the control of
>the complex is trivial.

It even confuses a pilot with many hundreds of hours in a 172 or
Cherokee. <:-)) Like many things it's easy once you've done it, or it
looks easy if you haven't.

>>
>>> On a high wing aircraft, the fuel system is gravity fed, and you have
>>> a fuel selector with L / R / Both choices. Leave it on Both and
>>> you're set.
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>
>It shouldn't. If you bothered to study anything, the above isn't valid
>for even Cessnas. Cessna recommends operating in LEFT or RIGHT at
>high altitudes. I'm not going to go into the reasons because your
>game doesn't vapor lock.
>
>>
>>> Low wing aircraft (Cherokee specifically) do not have a Both option.
>>> You have Left or Right, and it's up to the pilot to manage his fuel.
>>> For instance, you start on least full tank, switch to fullest before
>>> takeoff. Every 30 minutes, for instance, you need to switch tanks, or
>>> risk a weight imbalance, or at worst, engine failure due to fuel
>>> starvation.
>>
>> Wow ... sounds incredibly primitive. I guess crossfeeds and stuff like that
>> are still future science-fiction for small aircraft.

I wonder what he thinks of a plane where you have to pump gas from
front to back in flight to keep the CG where you want it?. Primitive?
<:-))

>
>No more science fiction than your pathetic brain. My aircraft is a low
>wing and has a both position on the fuel selector and tip tank
>crossfeeds for a long time. But it adds weight, complexity and things
>that may go wrong just as easily as forgetting to switch tanks.
>>
>> In a twin, though, you have one tank per engine, so you should be able to feed
>> the right engine with the right tank, and the left with the left tank.
>
>Again, your pathatic idealized world doesn't correspond to reality. Do
>you think the fuel flow on each engine is identical? Do you think the
>line guy filled both tanks to the same level?

And then look at all the tanks they have in a modern airliners.

>>
>> I've gotten pretty low in the tanks in the Baron and I've never had to switch
>> tanks. The only time I've ever had to touch it was for engine failure, in
>> which case I obviously direct both tanks to the non-failing engine.
>
>You've never flown a baron. Stop lying. Real pilots who haven't caught
>on to your bull**** and lies might be dangerously confused.

Or just dangerous.
>
>>
>> Point taken. But I have read that it's good practice to keep plenty of fuel
>> in the tanks when possible, not only to maximum your reserves but also to help
>> exclude condensation (I guess small aircraft haven't discovered airtight seals
>> yet, either).
>
>Again your pathetic ignorance is showing. If you bothered to actually
>study things rather than basing the entire world on what you can observe
>of Microsoft's simplification of flight you'd know that:
>
>1. The tanks can't be sealed. As fuel goes out, air must go in (either
>that or you'll have to have fuel tanks like a playtex baby bottle with
>a collapsing bladder.
>
>2. Condensation rarely is the problem. The real problem is poorly
>sealing fuel caps.

I took off one day when one of the "old" or maybe I should say *OLD* O
rings let go. Man, It looked like a contrail, but it was nothing
compared to the day when I did a short field TO and rotated abruptly
at the intersection of our two runways which is considerably higher
than the the rest of 18/38. The filler caps were getting tired on the
tip tanks and they both let go at the same instant. Those 15 gallon
tanks were *dry* after just going around and staying in tight. They
were probably dry by the time I turned cross wind.

>
>> Interesting. Full flaps on the Baron do create a lot of drag, but the
>> "approach" setting creates far less. It's a poor speedbrake--the gear works
>> better for that (but has a lower maximum speed). When I extend the flaps in
>> the Baron, I rise very noticeably, then I slow down significantly and I start
>> to lose altitude; with full flaps, there's a noticeable tendency to pitch
>> down, too. But I'm expecting all this so I adjust for it.
>
>Again, stop lying. You've never flown a Baron. You don't know how
>they behave aerdodynamically.
>
>>
>> Is it a good aircraft? I've heard stories about Pipers.
>
>Stories is all you've heard about anything.
>
>> How far above the runway? And you don't stall or get a tail strike?
>
>Neither. If you bothered to learn something about ground handling in
>wind you'd know these things. It's the first thing that REAL pilots
>do in an airplane.
>
>>
>> In the Baron I don't think I've ever pulled the yoke all the way back. I stay
>> almost level until I'm very close indeed to the runway, then pull back on
>> power a bit and flare. No idle and no full back stick, though. I haven't
>> actually tried that, but from the way the Baron behaves my intuition tells me
>> it wouldn't be suitable.
>
>You've never flown a Baron, and you've never pulled a real yoke back.
>>
>>> I heard that you run out of elevator authority if you get too slow but
>>> that's only a guess...
>>
>> Possibly. I'm usually at least 10 kts above stall speed so I don't really
>> know (or maybe you are not talking about a Baron?).
>>
>Maybe he's talking about a real Baron and not your pathetic fantasy.
>'
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Tony

March 16th 07, 07:09 AM

It's worth remembering that once basic aircraft control, navigation,
and communication are taught, most of the flight instruction one gets
for PP or IR is related to dealing with what I'll call adverse events.
We had been taught how to recognize instrument failure and what to do
about it, engine failure and what to do about it, pilot error and what
to do about it, getting into an unusual attitude and what to do about
it, what the airplane feels like and might do if we're close to an
edge (too low and too slow because the low level wind is much greater
than expected because it's a first gust on final comes to mind) -- the
list goes on and on. If one sets 'realism' to high in a sim, does one
get those kinds of failures as often as they might happen with a
general aviation aircraft? Does the weather go marginal, does ice grow
on the wings, vac pumps fail, those sort of things that most of us who
have been pilots for a few hundred hours have experienced?

Oh? you can get them in a sim if you program them in? Actual airplanes
do allow us to simulate emergencies, but in real life sometimes it's
not a simulation.

On Mar 16, 2:34 am, Roger > wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:54:41 -0400, Ron Natalie >
> wrote:
>
> >Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> >> A flight in the sim takes the same time as its real-life counterpart, though.
>
> >Bull****. I don't have to preflight the simulator, or pull it from the
> >hangar, or preheat it, or get it started, or call for the fuel truck
> >or any of the hundred things that REAL pilots have to deal with with
> >flying REAL airplanes that you'll never experience in your pathetic
> >little fantasy world. Don't lecture real pilots (or those who are
> >attempting to become real pilots) from your distorted self-interested
> >masturbation.
>
> You missed a rough run-up where you make the go-nogo decision, the
> taxi back to the hangar, wait for the engine to cool enough to handle
> the plugs which are almost impossible to get at, then spend the better
> part of another hour cleaning the lead out of the plugs. (Did that
> last week)
>
>
>
> >> I think so. If you can learn all the complex and HP stuff _eventually_, then
> >> that also means that you can learn it right up front. It might seem more
> >> daunting at first than a simple aircraft, but the overall elapsed time to
> >> become proficient in the complex aircraft would be the same in both
> >> situations.
>
> >Again you have no clue. The some of the time will be longer as
> >you waste time initially being behind the complex aircraft which will
> >entail more instruction time than if you started simple and worked up.
> >After you get competence in the simple aircraft, adding the control of
> >the complex is trivial.
>
> It even confuses a pilot with many hundreds of hours in a 172 or
> Cherokee. <:-)) Like many things it's easy once you've done it, or it
> looks easy if you haven't.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> On a high wing aircraft, the fuel system is gravity fed, and you have
> >>> a fuel selector with L / R / Both choices. Leave it on Both and
> >>> you're set.
>
> >> Sounds good to me.
>
> >It shouldn't. If you bothered to study anything, the above isn't valid
> >for even Cessnas. Cessna recommends operating in LEFT or RIGHT at
> >high altitudes. I'm not going to go into the reasons because your
> >game doesn't vapor lock.
>
> >>> Low wing aircraft (Cherokee specifically) do not have a Both option.
> >>> You have Left or Right, and it's up to the pilot to manage his fuel.
> >>> For instance, you start on least full tank, switch to fullest before
> >>> takeoff. Every 30 minutes, for instance, you need to switch tanks, or
> >>> risk a weight imbalance, or at worst, engine failure due to fuel
> >>> starvation.
>
> >> Wow ... sounds incredibly primitive. I guess crossfeeds and stuff like that
> >> are still future science-fiction for small aircraft.
>
> I wonder what he thinks of a plane where you have to pump gas from
> front to back in flight to keep the CG where you want it?. Primitive?
> <:-))
>
>
>
> >No more science fiction than your pathetic brain. My aircraft is a low
> >wing and has a both position on the fuel selector and tip tank
> >crossfeeds for a long time. But it adds weight, complexity and things
> >that may go wrong just as easily as forgetting to switch tanks.
>
> >> In a twin, though, you have one tank per engine, so you should be able to feed
> >> the right engine with the right tank, and the left with the left tank.
>
> >Again, your pathatic idealized world doesn't correspond to reality. Do
> >you think the fuel flow on each engine is identical? Do you think the
> >line guy filled both tanks to the same level?
>
> And then look at all the tanks they have in a modern airliners.
>
>
>
> >> I've gotten pretty low in the tanks in the Baron and I've never had to switch
> >> tanks. The only time I've ever had to touch it was for engine failure, in
> >> which case I obviously direct both tanks to the non-failing engine.
>
> >You've never flown a baron. Stop lying. Real pilots who haven't caught
> >on to your bull**** and lies might be dangerously confused.
>
> Or just dangerous.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Point taken. But I have read that it's good practice to keep plenty of fuel
> >> in the tanks when possible, not only to maximum your reserves but also to help
> >> exclude condensation (I guess small aircraft haven't discovered airtight seals
> >> yet, either).
>
> >Again your pathetic ignorance is showing. If you bothered to actually
> >study things rather than basing the entire world on what you can observe
> >of Microsoft's simplification of flight you'd know that:
>
> >1. The tanks can't be sealed. As fuel goes out, air must go in (either
> >that or you'll have to have fuel tanks like a playtex baby bottle with
> >a collapsing bladder.
>
> >2. Condensation rarely is the problem. The real problem is poorly
> >sealing fuel caps.
>
> I took off one day when one of the "old" or maybe I should say *OLD* O
> rings let go. Man, It looked like a contrail, but it was nothing
> compared to the day when I did a short field TO and rotated abruptly
> at the intersection of our two runways which is considerably higher
> than the the rest of 18/38. The filler caps were getting tired on the
> tip tanks and they both let go at the same instant. Those 15 gallon
> tanks were *dry* after just going around and staying in tight. They
> were probably dry by the time I turned cross wind.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Interesting. Full flaps on the Baron do create a lot of drag, but the
> >> "approach" setting creates far less. It's a poor speedbrake--the gear works
> >> better for that (but has a lower maximum speed). When I extend the flaps in
> >> the Baron, I rise very noticeably, then I slow down significantly and I start
> >> to lose altitude; with full flaps, there's a noticeable tendency to pitch
> >> down, too. But I'm expecting all this so I adjust for it.
>
> >Again, stop lying. You've never flown a Baron. You don't know how
> >they behave aerdodynamically.
>
> >> Is it a good aircraft? I've heard stories about Pipers.
>
> >Stories is all you've heard about anything.
>
> >> How far above the runway? And you don't stall or get a tail strike?
>
> >Neither. If you bothered to learn something about ground handling in
> >wind you'd know these things. It's the first thing that REAL pilots
> >do in an airplane.
>
> >> In the Baron I don't think I've ever pulled the yoke all the way back. I stay
> >> almost level until I'm very close indeed to the runway, then pull back on
> >> power a bit and flare. No idle and no full back stick, though. I haven't
> >> actually tried that, but from the way the Baron behaves my intuition tells me
> >> it wouldn't be suitable.
>
> >You've never flown a Baron, and you've never pulled a real yoke back.
>
> >>> I heard that you run out of elevator authority if you get too slow but
> >>> that's only a guess...
>
> >> Possibly. I'm usually at least 10 kts above stall speed so I don't really
> >> know (or maybe you are not talking about a Baron?).
>
> >Maybe he's talking about a real Baron and not your pathetic fantasy.
> >'
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -