Maintaining altitude

[Mxsmanic]

Is it better (in a small GA aircraft) to maintain altitude using minor changes
in pitch and trim alone, or using both pitch/trim and throttle adjustments?
I'm asking just about maintaining altitude once there, not climbing or
descending to an altitude.

[More_Flaps]

On May 16, 4:59*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Is it better (in a small GA aircraft) to maintain altitude using minor changes
> in pitch and trim alone, or using both pitch/trim and throttle adjustments?
> I'm asking just about maintaining altitude once there, not climbing or
> descending to an altitude.

Define "better". Better yet hit pause.

Cheers

[Tina]

More flaps, don't you realize your e name is giving him the real
insider clue -- that flap extension and retraction is the superior
way?


On May 16, 6:27 am, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On May 16, 4:59 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Is it better (in a small GA aircraft) to maintain altitude using minor changes
> > in pitch and trim alone, or using both pitch/trim and throttle adjustments?
> > I'm asking just about maintaining altitude once there, not climbing or
> > descending to an altitude.
>
> Define "better". Better yet hit pause.
>
> Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On May 16, 10:35*pm, Tina > wrote:
> More flaps, don't you realize your e name is giving him the real
> insider clue -- that flap extension and retraction is the superior
> way?
>

Yep, second only to adjusting the landing gear and dumping ballast.
But tell me T, what are you in?

Cheers

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Is it better (in a small GA aircraft) to maintain altitude using minor changes
> in pitch and trim alone, or using both pitch/trim and throttle adjustments?
> I'm asking just about maintaining altitude once there, not climbing or
> descending to an altitude.

Generally speaking, you will establish level flight with pitch, adjust
the power, and trim the airplane. At this point level flight is
maintained by extremely subtle and ever constant "caressing" in pitch.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Paul kgyy]

On May 15, 11:59 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Is it better (in a small GA aircraft) to maintain altitude using minor changes
> in pitch and trim alone, or using both pitch/trim and throttle adjustments?
> I'm asking just about maintaining altitude once there, not climbing or
> descending to an altitude.

It depends how stable the airplane is. In my Arrow, I used occasional
trim adjustments once things settled down. However, in turbulence,
more active yoke intervention is required rather than constant trim
changes.

Best solution on long trips is an autopilot with altitude hold ... :-)

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Is it better (in a small GA aircraft) to maintain altitude using minor changes
> in pitch and trim alone, or using both pitch/trim and throttle adjustments?
> I'm asking just about maintaining altitude once there, not climbing or
> descending to an altitude.

Well, if you had actually read any of the books by experts you go on
about, you would know this.

Or had taken actual instruction, but I digress.

Once established in cruise and assuming power and trim have been properly
adjusted, you will in general have two factors that will cause the
altitude to change.

One is vertical wind, i.e. turbulance and thermals. This usually
requires yoke input.

The other is the airplane gets lighter as you burn off fuel. This is
what trim is for.

Theoretically the combination of temperature and pressure could cause
the engine output power to change requiring throttle and mixture
adjustments, but I don't see that happening in the typical C-172 class
flight.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Generally speaking, you will establish level flight with pitch, adjust
> the power, and trim the airplane. At this point level flight is
> maintained by extremely subtle and ever constant "caressing" in pitch.

How sensitive is the trim? I find myself wondering this as I adjust trim in
the sim. The sim seems a bit coarse, although I'm doing much better at
holding altitude in the C182 (which has no altitude hold for the autopilot)
than I was doing a week or two ago.

When I leave the runway, the aircraft (C182 or C172) seems to climb very
briskly with take-off trim set. After climbing a few hundred feet I find that
I must hold the stick forward and trim nose down significantly in order to get
the aircraft to level off a bit. This is with full throttle (and pitch all
the way forward, in the C182). I'm not sure if I should just continue
trimming to level flight with the throttle set forward, or back off on the
throttle substantially to maintain altitude. I also don't know if this brisk
climb behavior (with full tanks but just me and equal-weight ballast in the
right seat) is typical of the actual aircraft (I have had mixed replies to my
various inquiries).

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> One is vertical wind, i.e. turbulance and thermals.

Are thermals strong enough to raise a small GA aircraft in the same way that
they raise gliders? That is, could a small GA powered aircraft remain aloft
indefinitely by riding thermals, or is it just not a good-enough glider?

[Jim Stewart]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> One is vertical wind, i.e. turbulance and thermals.
>
> Are thermals strong enough to raise a small GA aircraft in the same way that
> they raise gliders? That is, could a small GA powered aircraft remain aloft
> indefinitely by riding thermals, or is it just not a good-enough glider?

I've had a thermal lift me up 100 feet in a couple
of seconds. The thought of which should have you
running to the bathroom.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Generally speaking, you will establish level flight with pitch, adjust
>> the power, and trim the airplane. At this point level flight is
>> maintained by extremely subtle and ever constant "caressing" in pitch.
>
> How sensitive is the trim? I find myself wondering this as I adjust trim in
> the sim. The sim seems a bit coarse, although I'm doing much better at
> holding altitude in the C182 (which has no altitude hold for the autopilot)
> than I was doing a week or two ago.
>
> When I leave the runway, the aircraft (C182 or C172) seems to climb very
> briskly with take-off trim set. After climbing a few hundred feet I find that
> I must hold the stick forward and trim nose down significantly in order to get
> the aircraft to level off a bit. This is with full throttle (and pitch all
> the way forward, in the C182). I'm not sure if I should just continue
> trimming to level flight with the throttle set forward, or back off on the
> throttle substantially to maintain altitude. I also don't know if this brisk
> climb behavior (with full tanks but just me and equal-weight ballast in the
> right seat) is typical of the actual aircraft (I have had mixed replies to my
> various inquiries).

The trim setup in MSFS is sensitive as you have noted. Basically you can
compensate as you would in the actual airplane. If you note the trim
causing a bit of over rotation in pitch on takeoff, ease back a bit on
the takeoff trim setting.
In real airplanes, trim sensitivity can vary slightly from plane to
plane even in type. I've found that starting with the recommended
takeoff trim setting works initially. Then if I'm flying the same
airplane again, I'll "adjust" that setting a bit as the aircraft has
told me it needs through it's prior performance.

The sim in my opinion is very hard to trim out properly depending on the
stick sensitivity and how you have the wind set up.
Basically it's not written in stone, and of course you don't have
control pressure present on a joystick as you would in the real airplane
(even with force feedback which in my opinion is not accurate anyway) so
just remember to set up basically by leveling off, watching the nose
attitude carefully, HOLD a level flight nose attitude visually with the
yoke, and trim off until you get a stable altimeter hands off the
controller.

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > One is vertical wind, i.e. turbulance and thermals.

> Are thermals strong enough to raise a small GA aircraft in the same way that
> they raise gliders? That is, could a small GA powered aircraft remain aloft
> indefinitely by riding thermals, or is it just not a good-enough glider?

Vertical wind is vertical wind; everybody goes along for the ride.

Since powered aircraft with the engine off don't have the same glide ratio
as gliders, they will lose a lot more altitude between the thermals.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On May 17, 8:15 am, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > writes:
> > > One is vertical wind, i.e. turbulance and thermals.
> > Are thermals strong enough to raise a small GA aircraft in the same way that
> > they raise gliders? That is, could a small GA powered aircraft remain aloft
> > indefinitely by riding thermals, or is it just not a good-enough glider?
>
> Vertical wind is vertical wind; everybody goes along for the ride.
>
> Since powered aircraft with the engine off don't have the same glide ratio
> as gliders, they will lose a lot more altitude between the thermals.

And then there's wave :-)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Is it better (in a small GA aircraft) to maintain altitude using minor
> changes in pitch and trim alone, or using both pitch/trim and throttle
> adjustments? I'm asking just about maintaining altitude once there,
> not climbing or descending to an altitude.
>

Makes no idfference since you do not fly.

And never will.


Bertie

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Is it better (in a small GA aircraft) to maintain altitude using minor
> changes
> in pitch and trim alone, or using both pitch/trim and throttle
> adjustments?
> I'm asking just about maintaining altitude once there, not climbing or
> descending to an altitude.

I'm sorry you have reached your limit of questions for this week. Please
refrain from asking any more questions until May 19th at the earliest. Thank
you for your attention in this matter.

[terry]

On May 17, 3:45*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
> > Generally speaking, you will establish level flight with pitch, adjust
> > the power, and trim the airplane. At this point level flight is
> > maintained by extremely subtle and ever constant "caressing" in pitch.
>
> How sensitive is the trim? *I find myself wondering this as I adjust trim in
> the sim. *The sim seems a bit coarse, although I'm doing much better at
> holding altitude in the C182 (which has no altitude hold for the autopilot)
> than I was doing a week or two ago.
>
> When I leave the runway, the aircraft (C182 or C172) seems to climb very
> briskly with take-off trim set. *After climbing a few hundred feet I find that
> I must hold the stick forward and trim nose down significantly in order to get
> the aircraft to level off a bit. *This is with full throttle (and pitch all
> the way forward, in the C182). *I'm not sure if I should just continue
> trimming to level flight with the throttle set forward, or back off on the
> throttle substantially to maintain altitude. *I also don't know if this brisk
> climb behavior (with full tanks but just me and equal-weight ballast in the
> right seat) is typical of the actual aircraft (I have had mixed replies to my
> various inquiries).

I know you are supposed to use the stick to adjust to the correct
altitude and then trim but I must admit to cheating a bit and just
playing with the trim only until I get the altitude nailed. And I am
very curious about what you use for ballast in the right seat Mx? Are
you using one of those "Skyguy" co-pilot dummies with the uniform
that you get from the pilot shop? I used to have one myself but it
was a pain carrying it around , so now I just use an 80 kg block of
lead, since it was the densest object I could find. Do you know of
anything denser so it wont take up as much room in my flight bag?
Thanks
Terry
PPL Downunder

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> I know you are supposed to use the stick to adjust to the correct
> altitude and then trim but I must admit to cheating a bit and just
> playing with the trim only until I get the altitude nailed.

With the stick I have on the sim, I usually use the stick first to get close
to the right altitude, and then gradually adjust the trim. There is no
changing control pressure in the sim, so I adjust the trim, back off on the
stick a little bit, and watch the result. Little by little I can get it
trimmed out, but I suspect the process is a lot slower than it would be if I
had proportional pressure on the stick that I could directly trim off. I
suspect the real aircraft is easier to fly, at least in this respect.

> And I am very curious about what you use for ballast in the right seat Mx? Are
> you using one of those "Skyguy" co-pilot dummies with the uniform
> that you get from the pilot shop? I used to have one myself but it
> was a pain carrying it around , so now I just use an 80 kg block of
> lead, since it was the densest object I could find. Do you know of
> anything denser so it wont take up as much room in my flight bag?

Depleted uranium is almost twice as heavy as lead. Osmium is about 20%
heavier than DU, but it smells bad (and the smell is toxic).

I've considered this issue, and decided that my ballast is jugs of tap water,
because I can empty or fill jugs as required to adjust the ballast, and I can
move individual jugs about the cabin as required. I put ballast on the
opposite side of the cabin and behind me, in most cases, to center the CG and
move it back a little (when I'm flying alone).

[terry]

On May 18, 11:09*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > I *know you are supposed to use the stick to adjust to the correct
> > altitude and then trim but I must admit to cheating a bit and just
> > playing with the trim only until I get the altitude nailed.
>
> With the stick I have on the sim, I usually use the stick first to get close
> to the right altitude, and then gradually adjust the trim. *There is no
> changing control pressure in the sim, so I adjust the trim, back off on the
> stick a little bit, and watch the result. *Little by little I can get it
> trimmed out, but I suspect the process is a lot slower than it would be if I
> had proportional pressure on the stick that I could directly trim off. *I
> suspect the real aircraft is easier to fly, at least in this respect.
>
> > And I am very curious about what you use for ballast in the right seat Mx? *Are
> > you using one of those *"Skyguy" *co-pilot dummies with the uniform
> > that you get from the pilot shop? * *I used to have one myself but it
> > was a pain carrying it around , so now I just use an 80 kg block of
> > lead, since it was the densest object I could find. *Do you know *of
> > anything denser so it wont take up as much room in my flight bag?
>
> Depleted uranium is almost twice as heavy as lead. *Osmium is about 20%
> heavier than DU, but it smells bad (and the smell is toxic).
>
> I've considered this issue, and decided that my ballast is jugs of tap water,
> because I can empty or fill jugs as required to adjust the ballast, and I can
> move individual jugs about the cabin as required. *I put ballast on the
> opposite side of the cabin and behind me, in most cases, to center the CG and
> move it back a little (when I'm flying alone).

Good idea, you have got me thinking now, I could just use balloons,
which will weigh nothing and fit easily into my flight bag, then I can
fill them with water when I get to the airport. I'll check with the
flight school if its OK, they were not real happy about the lead block
anyway, they reckon it was wrecking the springs in the right seat.
Thanks
Terry

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Good idea, you have got me thinking now, I could just use balloons,
> which will weigh nothing and fit easily into my flight bag, then I can
> fill them with water when I get to the airport.

Balloons are more likely to rupture. Flexible containers of some kind with
sturdier construction might work, and indeed they might be better than jugs
because they'd be less likely to roll around; you could just set them on the
floor and secure them slightly in some way and they'd be much more likely to
stay put.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
>
>> Good idea, you have got me thinking now, I could just use balloons,
>> which will weigh nothing and fit easily into my flight bag, then I can
>> fill them with water when I get to the airport.
>
> Balloons are more likely to rupture. Flexible containers of some kind with
> sturdier construction might work, and indeed they might be better than jugs
> because they'd be less likely to roll around; you could just set them on the
> floor and secure them slightly in some way and they'd be much more likely to
> stay put.

Having a bunch of "slightly" secured containers ready to come loose the
moment you hit some serious turbulence is going to make your flying a
great deal more exciting than it really needs to be. Any ballast which is
not *well* secured is just asking for trouble in the form of flying
projectiles, jammed controls, and if you're using jugs of water, shorted
out electronics.

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

[More_Flaps]

On May 19, 1:09*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>
> Depleted uranium is almost twice as heavy as lead. *Osmium is about 20%
> heavier than DU, but it smells bad (and the smell is toxic).

Nope, 1 Kg of lead weighs the same as 1 Kg of anything else. The
density is depleted uranium is not twice that of lead either.

Hope this helps.
Cheers

[More_Flaps]

On May 19, 12:55*am, terry > wrote:
> On May 17, 3:45*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dudley Henriques writes:
> > > Generally speaking, you will establish level flight with pitch, adjust
> > > the power, and trim the airplane. At this point level flight is
> > > maintained by extremely subtle and ever constant "caressing" in pitch.
>
> > How sensitive is the trim? *I find myself wondering this as I adjust trim in
> > the sim. *The sim seems a bit coarse, although I'm doing much better at
> > holding altitude in the C182 (which has no altitude hold for the autopilot)
> > than I was doing a week or two ago.
>
> > When I leave the runway, the aircraft (C182 or C172) seems to climb very
> > briskly with take-off trim set. *After climbing a few hundred feet I find that
> > I must hold the stick forward and trim nose down significantly in order to get
> > the aircraft to level off a bit. *This is with full throttle (and pitch all
> > the way forward, in the C182). *I'm not sure if I should just continue
> > trimming to level flight with the throttle set forward, or back off on the
> > throttle substantially to maintain altitude. *I also don't know if this brisk
> > climb behavior (with full tanks but just me and equal-weight ballast in the
> > right seat) is typical of the actual aircraft (I have had mixed replies to my
> > various inquiries).
>
> I *know you are supposed to use the stick to adjust to the correct
> altitude and then trim but I must admit to cheating a bit and just
> playing with the trim only until I get the altitude nailed. *And I am
> very curious about what you use for ballast in the right seat Mx?

I thought we had already established he knows nothing about weight and
balance?

Cheers

[More_Flaps]

On May 19, 1:09*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>
> I've considered this issue, and decided that my ballast is jugs of tap water,
> because I can empty or fill jugs as required to adjust the ballast, and I can
> move individual jugs about the cabin as required. *I put ballast on the
> opposite side of the cabin and behind me, in most cases, to center the CG and
> move it back a little (when I'm flying alone).

Are you not always alone when you play the MSFS game? What's this with
the water jugs in the "cabin" anyway?

Cheers

[Mxsmanic]

More_Flaps writes:

> Nope, 1 Kg of lead weighs the same as 1 Kg of anything else.

100 cc's of DU weighs 68% more than 100 cc's of lead.

> The density is depleted uranium is not twice that of lead either.

It is 68% greater.

[Mxsmanic]

More_Flaps writes:

> Are you not always alone when you play the MSFS game?

In the sim environment, I may or may not have passengers.

> What's this with the water jugs in the "cabin" anyway?

They assist with balancing the payload of the aircraft.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> More_Flaps writes:
>
>> The density is depleted uranium is not twice that of lead either.
>
> It is 68% greater.

So you agree with him? Last time I checked, an increase of 68% isn't
'twice'.

Andy

[Benjamin Dover]

terry > wrote in
:

> On May 17, 3:45*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>> > Generally speaking, you will establish level flight with pitch,
>> > adjust the power, and trim the airplane. At this point level flight
>> > is maintained by extremely subtle and ever constant "caressing" in
>> > pitch.
>>
>> How sensitive is the trim? *I find myself wondering this as I adjust
>> tri
> m in
>> the sim. *The sim seems a bit coarse, although I'm doing much better
>> at holding altitude in the C182 (which has no altitude hold for the
>> autopilot
> )
>> than I was doing a week or two ago.
>>
>> When I leave the runway, the aircraft (C182 or C172) seems to climb
>> very briskly with take-off trim set. *After climbing a few hundred
>> feet I fin
> d that
>> I must hold the stick forward and trim nose down significantly in
>> order to
> get
>> the aircraft to level off a bit. *This is with full throttle (and
>> pitch
> all
>> the way forward, in the C182). *I'm not sure if I should just
>> continue trimming to level flight with the throttle set forward, or
>> back off on the
>
>> throttle substantially to maintain altitude. *I also don't know if
>> this
> brisk
>> climb behavior (with full tanks but just me and equal-weight ballast
>> in th
> e
>> right seat) is typical of the actual aircraft (I have had mixed
>> replies to
> my
>> various inquiries).
>
> I know you are supposed to use the stick to adjust to the correct
> altitude and then trim but I must admit to cheating a bit and just
> playing with the trim only until I get the altitude nailed. And I am
> very curious about what you use for ballast in the right seat Mx? Are
> you using one of those "Skyguy" co-pilot dummies with the uniform
> that you get from the pilot shop? I used to have one myself but it
> was a pain carrying it around , so now I just use an 80 kg block of
> lead, since it was the densest object I could find. Do you know of
> anything denser so it wont take up as much room in my flight bag?
> Thanks
> Terry
> PPL Downunder
>
>
>

MX uses a blow-up sex doll.

[Benjamin Dover]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>> More_Flaps writes:
>>
>>> The density is depleted uranium is not twice that of lead either.
>>
>> It is 68% greater.
>
> So you agree with him? Last time I checked, an increase of 68% isn't
> 'twice'.
>
> Andy
>
>

Did you expect higher accuracy from MXSmoron?

[More_Flaps]

On May 19, 4:09*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> More_Flaps writes:
> > Nope, 1 Kg of *lead weighs the same as 1 Kg of anything else.
>
> 100 cc's of DU weighs 68% more than 100 cc's of lead.
>
Yes but that's not what you said.

> > The density is depleted uranium is not twice that of lead either.
>
> It is 68% greater.

That's better.

Cheers

[More_Flaps]

On May 19, 4:10*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> More_Flaps writes:
> > Are you not always alone when you play the MSFS game?
>
> In the sim environment, I may or may not have passengers.
>
> > What's this with the water jugs in the "cabin" anyway?
>
> They assist with balancing the payload of the aircraft.

You add water jugs to a 172 sim when you fly solo?
How and why do you think you need to?

Cheers

[Mxsmanic]

More_Flaps writes:

> You add water jugs to a 172 sim when you fly solo?
> How and why do you think you need to?

I'm heavy and sitting on the left side. I want to put equal weight on the
right side.

[terry]

On May 19, 12:21*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > Good idea, you have got me thinking now, I could just use balloons,
> > which will weigh nothing and fit easily into my flight bag, then I can
> > fill them with water when I get to the airport.
>
> Balloons are more likely to rupture. *Flexible containers of some kind with
> sturdier construction might work, and indeed they might be better than jugs
> because they'd be less likely to roll around; you could just set them on the
> floor and secure them slightly in some way and they'd be much more likely to
> stay put.

Good point MX , another idea, I could get an inflatable copilot, like
in the Flying high movie, and fill this with water instead of air.
Then I could just buckle him in! and if I get thirsty I could
just.......no maybe not.... wonder if you can get girl inflatable
pilots?.
Terry

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Good point MX , another idea, I could get an inflatable copilot, like
> in the Flying high movie, and fill this with water instead of air.
> Then I could just buckle him in! and if I get thirsty I could
> just.......no maybe not.... wonder if you can get girl inflatable
> pilots?.

I don't see any clear advantage to humanoid ballast.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> Good point MX , another idea, I could get an inflatable copilot, like
>> in the Flying high movie, and fill this with water instead of air.
>> Then I could just buckle him in! and if I get thirsty I could
>> just.......no maybe not.... wonder if you can get girl inflatable
>> pilots?.
>
> I don't see any clear advantage to humanoid ballast.
>

That's because you aren't human, moron.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> More_Flaps writes:

> > You add water jugs to a 172 sim when you fly solo?
> > How and why do you think you need to?

> I'm heavy and sitting on the left side. I want to put equal weight on the
> right side.

And here I thought you had no sense of humor.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> More_Flaps writes:
>
>> > You add water jugs to a 172 sim when you fly solo?
>> > How and why do you think you need to?
>
>> I'm heavy and sitting on the left side. I want to put equal weight on the
>> right side.
>
> And here I thought you had no sense of humor.

I'll say. I literally had a tear come from my eye, that was so funny.

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

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps writes:
> >
> >> > You add water jugs to a 172 sim when you fly solo?
> >> > How and why do you think you need to?
> >
> >> I'm heavy and sitting on the left side. I want to put equal weight on the
> >> right side.
> >
> > And here I thought you had no sense of humor.

> I'll say. I literally had a tear come from my eye, that was so funny.

The sad part is that after I posted that it occured to me he is probably
serious.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Michael Ash > wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.student wrote:
>> > In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >> More_Flaps writes:
>> >
>> >> > You add water jugs to a 172 sim when you fly solo?
>> >> > How and why do you think you need to?
>> >
>> >> I'm heavy and sitting on the left side. I want to put equal weight on the
>> >> right side.
>> >
>> > And here I thought you had no sense of humor.
>
>> I'll say. I literally had a tear come from my eye, that was so funny.
>
> The sad part is that after I posted that it occured to me he is probably
> serious.

Definitely serious, that's what made it so funny.

MX, if you're still reading this and you want to know why this is so
funny, hit up youtube and look for "blanik skydiver" to see just how far
off center to the side a person's weight can get without screwing things
up.

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

[Tina]

Humanoids have several advantages:

1: They are self transporting and capable of strapping themselves in

2: If chosen correctly they are less likely to leak

3: If chosen correctly they are capable of cost sharing

4: They may be what some of us call "friends".

On a serious note, if weight and balance are not being compromised, an
empty seat is a lost opportunity to make a friend for general
aviation. In the entertainment business one 'papers the house' by
giving comps to mostly fill a venue, and we would do well to "paper
the airplane" when there's an opportunity to do so.



On May 18, 5:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > Good point MX , another idea, I could get an inflatable copilot, like
> > in the Flying high movie, and fill this with water instead of air.
> > Then I could just buckle him in! and if I get thirsty I could
> > just.......no maybe not.... wonder if you can get girl inflatable
> > pilots?.
>
> I don't see any clear advantage to humanoid ballast.

[More_Flaps]

On May 19, 8:09*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> More_Flaps writes:
> > You add water jugs to a 172 sim when you fly solo?
> > How and why do you think you need to?
>
> I'm heavy and sitting on the left side. *I want to put equal weight on the
> right side.

Well if you are that massive I suggest you flop your right butt cheek
to the other side. Should level up that sim a treat and ease the
farting problem. Hope this helps.

Cheers

[More_Flaps]

On May 19, 9:11*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > Good point MX , another idea, I could get an inflatable copilot, like
> > in the *Flying high movie, and fill this with water instead of air.
> > Then I could just buckle him in! * and if I *get thirsty *I could
> > just.......no maybe not.... wonder if you can get girl inflatable
> > pilots?.
>
> I don't see any clear advantage to humanoid ballast.

Help scare off a potential simulated hijacker?

Cheers

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Anthony, in my real Baron, when detecting an updraft, I will immediately
begin a tight circle to stay in the updraft and simultaneously feather both
engines. This saves tremendously on the ever increasing cost of gas.

I can then glide to the next thermal, and am able to accomplish extensive
cross country trips of nearly a thousand miles on just a few gallons of gas.
It is one of the most economical ways of flying multiengine aircraft.

When necessary I can always do a re-start (see unfeathering accumulators).

[B A R R Y]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 16:41:06 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote:

>
>When necessary I can always do a re-start (see unfeathering accumulators).
>


Failing a restart, you can always eject!

[[email protected]]

On May 16, 9:15 am, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Is it better (in a small GA aircraft) to maintain altitude using minor changes
> > in pitch and trim alone, or using both pitch/trim and throttle adjustments?
> > I'm asking just about maintaining altitude once there, not climbing or
> > descending to an altitude.
>
> Well, if you had actually read any of the books by experts you go on
> about, you would know this.
>
> Or had taken actual instruction, but I digress.
>
> Once established in cruise and assuming power and trim have been properly
> adjusted, you will in general have two factors that will cause the
> altitude to change.
>
> One is vertical wind, i.e. turbulance and thermals. This usually
> requires yoke input.
>
> The other is the airplane gets lighter as you burn off fuel. This is
> what trim is for.
>
> Theoretically the combination of temperature and pressure could cause
> the engine output power to change requiring throttle and mixture
> adjustments, but I don't see that happening in the typical C-172 class
> flight.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I find that tiny power changes work better for maintaining
altitude than fooling with small trim changes. If the airplane is
climbing a bit, cranking in nose-down trim will increase speed and
upset the whole equilibrium somewhat. If one does this to descend back
to target altitude, the extra speed obtained will be a pain to deal
with as the airplane is retrimmed nose-up to stop the descent. Speed
will bleed off and the airplane will sink below altitude. Up and down
we go. Small---really small---power changes work better.

Dan

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:
> On May 16, 9:15 am, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >
> > > Is it better (in a small GA aircraft) to maintain altitude using minor changes
> > > in pitch and trim alone, or using both pitch/trim and throttle adjustments?
> > > I'm asking just about maintaining altitude once there, not climbing or
> > > descending to an altitude.
> >
> > Well, if you had actually read any of the books by experts you go on
> > about, you would know this.
> >
> > Or had taken actual instruction, but I digress.
> >
> > Once established in cruise and assuming power and trim have been properly
> > adjusted, you will in general have two factors that will cause the
> > altitude to change.
> >
> > One is vertical wind, i.e. turbulance and thermals. This usually
> > requires yoke input.
> >
> > The other is the airplane gets lighter as you burn off fuel. This is
> > what trim is for.
> >
> > Theoretically the combination of temperature and pressure could cause
> > the engine output power to change requiring throttle and mixture
> > adjustments, but I don't see that happening in the typical C-172 class
> > flight.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.

> I find that tiny power changes work better for maintaining
> altitude than fooling with small trim changes. If the airplane is
> climbing a bit, cranking in nose-down trim will increase speed and
> upset the whole equilibrium somewhat. If one does this to descend back
> to target altitude, the extra speed obtained will be a pain to deal
> with as the airplane is retrimmed nose-up to stop the descent. Speed
> will bleed off and the airplane will sink below altitude. Up and down
> we go. Small---really small---power changes work better.

I can see that if your throttle is capable of making tiny changes; mine
isn't.

I already replaced the mixture control with a vernier because I didn't
like the corseness of the old push-pull and one of these days I'm going
to do that to the throttle control.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.