Flaps on take-off and landing

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:39:15 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

Margy Natalie writes:

Never had someone hit me in a plane, in the car is another story. We
fly VFR rather frequently and get where we are going and back.

A key difference is that if you had been hit in a plane, you wouldn't
be here to talk about it.

On average, 50,000 die annually in US automobile accidents. How many
MAC occur annually, and how many result in death for their occupants?
The military just ejects or continues flying after impact. And the
recent airline/glider MAC left all safe.

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:53:53 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

Larry Dighera writes:

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

But if you are hopping over small obstacles near the runway, you're
probably very close to being within the distance influenced by ground
effect, aren't you?

That's a reasonable assumption, but I believe you'll find that the
technique described will work at altitude as well, so it's not
dependent on ground effect.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley writes:

What 'inherent bounce' is that?

If you hit the ground at just the right speed, you bounce. Hit it any
harder, and you crash. Hit it more softly, and you have a nice
landing.

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

Definitions of inherent on the Web:

a.. built-in: existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; "the
Ptolemaic system with its built-in concept of periodicity"; "a
constitutional inability to tell the truth"
b.. implicit in(p): in the nature of something though not readily
apparent; "shortcomings inherent in our approach"; "an underlying meaning"


A bounce in not inherent in a landing. It's a mistake.

The link I provided
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd17c3a1.htm shows a page that
has six references to speed traps.

Yes, you are right. I picked "40801 speed trap prohibition" then when I wanted the definition, went to the table of contents (displayed right on the 40801 page) as the most logical place to look, and figuring it would bring me back if that was the right spot.

I think you set it up as a speed trap for reading. Fortunately I only got a warning, not a ticket.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Can you rent planes in the same way you rent cars--complete with the option of
dropping the plane off at a different airport from the one where you
picked it up?

Arrangements can be made to do that, but why would one want to? For
extended stays?

I've never heard of such arrangements (except perhaps internally in a club, when another member comes along and uses it in the meanwhile). Where have you? I'd imagine insurance and checkout requirements would nix that.

The one exception I can think of is the FlexJet type operations, but that's hardly an FBO rental.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Chris W writes:


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.


But when you rotate your head in any direction, you turn your gaze
from the screen (unless you rotate your eyes to compensate). So how
do you see the updated display? The Track IR seems to be just a
tracking device, not a display device.

That is why it exaggerates your head movements. You rotate your head
just a little, and the game head rotates a long way. You never are
looking very far off the center of the monitor. For me the farthest I
rotate my head, is so my head is pointing to the edge of my monitor.
That way I don't need to move my eyes very far at all to keep them on
the center of the screen. It is amazingly natural. If you try it, you
will never go back to not using it. It really is that good.

--
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

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:53:20 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

I think you set it up as a speed trap for reading.

I included the link to the six references to speed trap, so that you
would see that they are not permitted in California, and the evidence
obtained from them nor any court that hears evidence obtained from
them is permitted.

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:55:21 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

Where have you?

Most FBOs will gladly arrange to accommodate one-way flights (for a
price).

Larry Dighera writes:

Personally, I chose to reside ten minutes from the airport, so the
drive is not too bad.

A good solution if you have the option. But most people are
constrained to live far from airports. The closest airport for me is
about 12 miles away, as the crow (er, aircraft) flies.

The ideal would be to live in one of those cool airparks where
everyone has a driveway in front and a taxiway out back, but how many
people can afford to do that?

Generally the air time used exceeds the minimum daily flight time the
FBO charges, so it's a non issue.

But what about the time the aircraft is on the ground, away from its
home base, over the course of the weekend?

Arrangements can be made to do that, but why would one want to? For
extended stays?

If you are actually using an aircraft as transportation, chances are
that you won't just be turning around and flying back once you arrive
at your destination. Chances are, in fact, that the aircraft will be
sitting at the destination airport for one or more days, just like a
rental car.

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

Margy Natalie writes:

Not always, there have been cases of planes landing together after a
mid-air and many accidents happen on the ground also. I know a gentleman
who flew in WWII and tells a great story of his first mid-air where the
opponent removed half his wing. Listeners often ask how he managed to
get back to the field and he explains it was going just fine when he was
jumped again and had to dogfight with half a wing. He managed to get
back to base and flew for many, many years after.

In the old days, when planes were simple, slow, and relatively sturdy,
things were very different. When I read Lindbergh's account of his
New York-Paris flight and related stories, I was struck by how simple
aviation was in those days. No licenses, no navaids beyond a compass
or maybe a simple radio homing device, land anywhere it's flat, etc.
He used to fly by just looking down out the window, even in bad
weather. And his most famous flight was accomplished with a maritime
chart he found in a San Diego shop, a compass, and a watch.

Unfortunately, aviation is much more complicated, restrictive, and
expensive now, even for private pilots. Never mind about flying
something bigger than a tiny private plane.

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