Tweaking the throttle on approach

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...

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 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 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.

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.