Tweaking the throttle on approach

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

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.

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.

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.

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..

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 :-)

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??

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.

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
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:

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.