Tweaking the throttle on approach

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.

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 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.