Tweaking the throttle on approach

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.

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

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.

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. :-)

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.

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

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.

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 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...

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.