Flaps on take-off and landing

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:58:00 GMT, B A R R Y
wrote:

Stefan wrote:
Margy Natalie schrieb:

Why would I want to ride in a Greyhound bus when I can drive my Audi?

Because you can relax and read a book instead of having to drive?

I'm guessing you live outside the US. G

Our "Greyhound" buses aren't on the same level as buses I've used in
other developed countries. Trust me, you'd choose the Audi.

Back seat of a DC-9. Sounds like a Greyhound, feels/vibrates like a
Greyhound, and smells(Kerosene) like a Greyhound. One seat farther
back is a private room which smells like a chemical out house but
cleaner.


The same can be said for most US trains.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:53:43 -0400, "mike regish"
wrote:

The Super Decathlon I flew for aerobatic lessons (a taildragger) has
excellent over the nose visibility on the ground...better than my tripacer.
I had a hard time levelling out at altitude because the view was almost too
good. I kept unconsciously trying to get the same sight picture I was used
to in my TP.

When I let Cherokee and 172 pilots fly the Deb we end up constantly
climbing. That is after we get rid of the PIO.:-))

mike

"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
True for tail draggers, but in a tricycle gear aircraft you have an
excellent view of the runway.



--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:33:17 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Marty Shapiro writes:

No more so than the hood of a car extends beyond the front window. You
can't see the ground immediately in front of you, but you can see the
ground in front of you.

How much of the runway can you see from the cockpit?

The instrument panel is only imposing when you are not a pilot.

Pilots must be extremely tall, then.

I've found that this is one of the things most of the sims get wrong.
To get the panel in they end up raising it higher than it would be
IRL. With the little Cessnas I find it to be raised considerably.

The Baron OTOH is pretty close to reality.


After a while, it is no more imposing than the "instrument
panel" in your car. Even when you are on an IFR flight, if the weather
conditions are VMC, you've got to look out of the window. You also have to
be able to see in front of you to taxi to the runway.

Just look to the side and follow the yellow line.

At the viewing angles I see for small craft (particular those that
don't sit level on the ground), it should be practically impossible to
see much of the runway.

As I mentioned in another post, when I land the Deb with no flaps
there is absolutely no forward visibility except up.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:57:15 -0400, Margy Natalie
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:
Peter Duniho writes:


Here is where I find myself agreeing with the people that say you make a LOT
of supposedly factual statements about flying that are based on faulty
information. That is, your believe that a computer simulation (and
Microsoft Flight Simulator in particular) is accurate enough for you to
actually know what you're talking about when it comes to flying.


It's not really based on Flight Simulator. It's based on a common
complaint I've heard from people who are contemplating a real pilot's
license.


Please, you do NOT know what you are talking about when it comes to
*flying*. Piloting a sim, I'm sure you know lots. But you consistently get
it wrong when you try to apply that experience to real flying. You would do
well to leave your assumptions behind, and restrict yourself to asking
questions.


You would do well to leave your personal attacks behind, and restrict
yourself to answering questions. There are plenty of people who
specialize in the former, and very few qualified to handle the latter.

I think you are being overly sensitive. Many of the things you say are
a "common complaint you've heard ..." are absolutely UNTRUE. I'm SHORT,
in a 172 I use a booster seat, but not in the Navion. I can see

You should see Joyce in the Deb. She can not reach the floor with her
feet and on top of that uses the booster seat so she can see over the
nose.
OTOH The Deb has fantastic visibility in the air although I'd guess
the Navion has better visibility.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Dave Doe writes:

Please define extremely expensive.

More expensive than a car.

Here in NZ, it costs a couple hundred to get a medical, and say $150/hr
to fly a plane ("wet" cost, ie you don't pay extra for fuel etc).

Last month I cleared $647.

Then you should spend your free time getting an education that would allow
you to qualify for a better job.


--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:33:57 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Thomas Borchert writes:

Listen, if you don't want to fly, so be it. But don't try to
rationalize it.

If you want to fly, so be it. But don't try to say that it's not
extremely expensive.

Although there some aspects of flying that are not inexpensive such as
earning the PPL, BUT flying, even a lot does not have to be expensive.
There are planes at our airport that probably cost no more to operate
than it does to drive a car. and you don't have to go to unltalights
to do it. Admittedly they are small and most are two passenger with
relatively small engines. OTOH some of them will move at close to a
150 to 160 MPH with ranges in the neighborhood of 500 miles and do it
while burning less than 4 gallons of car gas per hour.

There are many types of airplanes and many types of flying. The cost
of flying light planes easily spans more than $20 to $200 USD per
hour.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Larry,

The roads are congested with traffic, but consider, where would
metropolitan Parisians garage their automobiles?


Have you been there? The city is full of a) cars parked by the roadside
and b) parking garages.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Roger (K8RI) writes:

Wellll... At an operating cost that ranges from $11 to $24 per mile
puts the ball park operating cost per hour between $5,500 and $12,000
per hour under airline conditions which are probably going to be the
most efficient as they spend most of their time at altitude.

So a private owner of a large aircraft would be paying at least as
much to operate it, and probably much more?

That would an expensive way to travel. Then again, a private owner
could buy a BBJ, but I don't see how it could cost any less to operate
than the commercial versions of the same aircraft.

None of the big iron, that I know of, is single pilot certified.
So to fly one you are going to need to get type certified and take
recurrency training twice a year. On top of that the best you might do
would be to lease one complete with a pilot and copilot.

I was wondering about that in the aforementioned case of John
Travolta. He needs a copilot and engineer to fly his 707, doesn't he?

Based on what I can find, as an individual you might be able to come
up with a 737 for around $15,000 to $20,000 per hour if you are lucky.

I remember paying about $39 for flights from KPHX to KLAX in the
1980s, and if there are only 200 passengers on board, that works out
to $7800 in revenue for the flight, which respresents more than an
hour of operation. So that would be $22,500 or so of operational
costs for only $7800 in revenue. How did the airline make any money?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Dave Stadt writes:

Then you should spend your free time getting an education that would
allow
you to qualify for a better job.

I had one. But all the better jobs have moved to Bangalore and
Mumbai. And if your job doesn't actually require physically shaking
the customer's hand, you may find it going abroad soon, too.

I spent a month in Paris on business some years back and I fully understand
why jobs have left the country.


--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:31:49 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote in
:

Larry,

The roads are congested with traffic, but consider, where would
metropolitan Parisians garage their automobiles?


Have you been there?

A few times. Have you been there?

The city is full of a) cars parked by the roadside

It is very difficult to find on-street parking in metropolitan Paris;
many park on the sidewalks. While the streets are full of
automobiles, many are taxis, buses, and delivery trucks, not family
automobiles.

Also, consider the number of riders on public transport (Metro,
busses), they far outnumber those riding in automobiles.

Suffice it to say, automobile ownership in Paris (and France, and
indeed Europe) is no where near mandatory as it is in the US.

and b) parking garages.

Other than the parking structure at CDG, I don't recall seeing many
parking garages at all.