Flaps on take-off and landing

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:42:33 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

In smaller airplanes where the propwash flows over the control
surfaces, your elevator and rudder are more responsive at higher RPMs.

I'm surprised that propwash would matter, since the airflow from the
prop should stay in roughly the same place no matter what the attitude
of the aircraft.

Propwash matters for a number of reasons. The more slugs of air
deflected by the control surfaces, the more force they exert, ant thus
the more authority they provide in controlling the aircraft. Propwash
also reduces stalls (wing and elevator) by providing increased airflow
parallel to the aircraft's longitudinal axis.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:44:18 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

You can still crash, which ends the flight.

Right. But there is no need to take the aircraft to altitude when
practicing flying on the back side of the power curve. It would just
be a waste of time, as there are no physical consequences of crashing
a simulated aircraft.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:45:39 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

He might keel over in shock, given the aspersions routinely cast upon
simulation in this group.

You'll find he's no Milquetoast; he is able to conjure argumentative
points through intelligent analysis of the most obscure information.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:49:12 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

So it's like ground effect, right?

No. It's like increasing the angle of attack on a thicker wing
section which stalls at a lower speed.

Ground effect is completely different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect
The term Ground effect (or Wing In Ground effect) refers to the
increase in lift experienced by an aircraft as it approaches
within roughly 1/4 of a wingpspan's length of the ground or other
level surface (such as the sea)

http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/185905-1.html

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:_ipOg.22703$SZ3.21706@dukeread04...
The application of the rule has required a positive detent
to limit the flap position.



Could you elaborate on that, please?

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:14:48 -0400, "Skylune"
wrote in
outaviation.com:

(Better off buying a really nice BMW or
Audi or Porsche, which will get you where you want in less time, and where
you can pull over at a rest stop when you want).

Granted, one can pull over and stop with an automobile; it's a little
more difficult in a light aircraft, but nowhere near as confining as
being trapped on a boat in high seas. However, unless you relish
being trapped in the quagmire of congestion on today's freeways,
aircraft are a far superior means of transportation for trips longer
than fifty miles or so.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Well, I see two possibilities: I dislike it and waste my time with it,
or I like it and then feel disappointed to not be able to continue. I
rather expect the first result for an introductory flight, since there
isn't much you can do in an hour.

Dunno about that...

On my intro ride I did everything from preflight to flying the pattern
right down to short final (guided by a CFI of course.)

My first lesson was only .9 which included my 1st landing.

Both experiences were just about all I could take in an hour. Any more
and I might have exploded.

And conversely, even if you like it, you are limited to doing almost nothing more until you spend thousands of dollars and hours getting a license, at which point you'll need thousands more just to get a plane to fly.

How many times will people have to tell you you are wrong about your
assumptions?

Yes, there is a significant outlay up front but there are affordable
ways to fly IF YOU WANT TO.

It just isn't very cost-effective unless you have time and money to burn on it. These days I can hardly find spare time for simulation.

If you want to do something bad enough you find the time and a way to
make it so.

I don't know how people find time to fly (and indeed I know pilots who rarely ever fly for exactly the reasons I've given).

Not every flight has to be Lindberg crossing the Atlantic. Sometimes
just 45 minutes of going around the patch a few times is sufficient.

Jay B

Larry Dighera wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
The idea is to try to approach real life. Additionally, many things
are simulated. If adjusting flaps has a bad effect in real life,
there's a good chance that it has a bad effect in simulation as well.

Are you aware that you are discussing this with one of the programmers
who wrote MS Flight Simulator?

I cross-checked the names of the posters to this thread with the published
MS FS credits I could find and I still don't know who you're talking about
Larry. Unless Bruce Artwick is posting using a non-obvious handle? :-)

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
[...]
I'm surprised that propwash would matter, since the airflow from the
prop should stay in roughly the same place no matter what the attitude
of the aircraft.

In addition to what's already been written, it's not true that "the airflow
from the prop should stay in roughly the same place". Aircraft attitude
affects relative wind, which in turn affects where the airflow from the prop
goes. This is a significant effect. As well, aircraft attitude affects up-
and down-wash from aerodynamic surfaces which also affects where the airflow
from the prop goes.

Air moving back from the prop doesn't do so independently of all the other
air around the airplane. It mixes with, interacts with, is affected by, and
otherwise reacts to all the other air in response to everything else that is
going on.

That is, it would be like putting a big fan on a
sailboat to drive it forward.

Depends. If you put the big fan at the front of the sailboat and direct it
rearward, you can not only propel the sailboat, if you put a sail in the
flow you can redirect the flow to accomplish different things (though why
you'd bother on a sailboat, I don't know).

Likewise, in an airplane you can redirect thrust to provide aerodynamic
control. There is a very minimal reduction in the thrust (as the
redirection creates some drag, offsetting the thrust) while the control
surfaces get more air to work with. You are right to think that you don't
get something for nothing, but in this particular situation, the cost (in
drag) is insignificant compared to the improvement in control effectiveness
(from redirecting the prop thrust).

As an extreme example, consider the airshow pilot who can change the pitch
attitude of his tailwheel airplane on the ground by locking the brakes and
using engine power and elevator control to raise or lower the tail as he
desires. The fact that the engine and prop are attached to the airframe in
no way prevents the thrust from the prop from being used by the elevator to
effect a pitch change.

Pete

Mxsmanic wrote:

Sounds interesting, but at $180, it's well beyond my budget at the
moment.


You don't need the high end version the TrackIR Pro 3 is 120 and that is
all I have. It works great. Once you use it you will wonder why anyone
would bother flying or even driving any simulator with out it. I have
used MSFS back in the days of the 5Mhz 8088 computers on a green screen
monitor. In my opinion the head tracking is as big or bigger of an
improvement than how much graphics have improved since then. Before I
heard about and tried the head tracking equipment, I was totally bored
with flight simulators. Now it is a lot of fun and tons easier to make
smooth landings too. Not to mention being able to make turns in the
pattern at the right time and get lined up with the run way coming out
of the turn to final.


I'm confused. Exactly what does this device do?


I don't think I explained the difference between the 2 versions very
well. First think about all the ways you can move your head or
anything for that mater. There are 6 degrees of freedom. You can move
in x, y or z. That is 3 degrees of freedom. You can rotate about the x
y and Z axis. That is the other 3. The basic tracker assumes you only
have 2 degrees of freedom, rotation about the Z and Y axis. That is
with the Z axis being vertical and the Y axis going from left to right.
In aviation terminology this corresponds to yaw and pitch
respectively. Obviously even with the low end 2 axis version you can
still move your head in any way you want, but the device just senses the
movement of the little silver dot it is looking at, and assumes the
movement is caused by rotation about Z or Y and moves the game head in
that way.



--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com