Flaps on take-off and landing

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Jose" wrote in message
m...

The term "solo stick time" comes to mind here :-))

If you're not any good, is that a dead stick landing?

Jose


Is it a rainy day where you are Jose? Its lousy here. My wife is convinced
that these "intellitecual exchanges" we get into on RAP only happen when
we're not flying and all of us are sitting around bored to tears. I'd be
interested in what Margy Natalie thinks about this :-)

I think you blew it thinking there was a solo requirement for sole
manipulator of the pilot in command. It's raining here too and I'm
supposed to be painting the study :-), but this is so much more fun!

Margy
Personally, since I'm retired and don't fly much any more , I think this
shoots all kinds of holes in my wife's theory. The truth is that pilots are
most likely and collectively natural born punsters. Maybe Shakespeare was
right!!!
:-))
Dudley Henriques

Ron Natalie writes:

Then why would you you have them? The FAA believes that FULL FLAPS
should always be used for landings (not one that I believe in).

Hmm ... so in theory I'm always supposed to land with full flaps?

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

I think you blew it thinking there was a solo requirement for sole manipulator of the pilot in command.

Maybe, but no matter how you handle it, if you can't get the motor
running, you have a dead stick landing. Of course, if there are no
paved runways around, you could end up tumbling in a haystack.

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

Chris W writes:

out of curiosity, when flying the simulators do you use any kind of head
tracking device?

I don't know if such devices are available for commodity simulators
like MSFS; there is no fundamental technical obstacle to employing
them, and perhaps someone out there is building them.

For more advanced simulators, head tracking can be used to selectively
enhance resolution on displays so as to provide extremely
high-resolution images without the need for hardware horsepower to
drive resolution in the entire visual field at once. Some simulators
use head tracking and virtual helmets or eyepieces to provide all
visual input, eliminating the need for screens.

I'd personally prefer a more conventional simulation because wearing a
special headset would be less like real life, althoug I suppose a good
virtual helmet or goggle set could probably do better than screens at
creating realistic visual input.

The main limiting factor is the cost of special hardware.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Natalie writes:


Depends on the aircraft. Some planes they are purely mechanical from
the flap handle in the cockpit.


I'm surprised that a small handle in the cockpit would provide enough
leverage to lower flaps.

Who said the handle is small? Some of these "handles" are 2 - 3 feet long.

Margy
Isn't there are a lot of aerodynamic
pressure to overcome against them (at least if they are lowered in
flight)?

In article ,
Dale wrote:

In article ,
Roy Smith wrote:



Think it can't happen? It does. I once had a student who owned a C-206
for umpty years and was learning the Bonanza. Flap and gear levers in
opposite positions on the two models. Damn, am I glad the squat switches
worked.

Interesting 206 that had a "gear lever". G

207? Whichever of that series had folding legs.

In article xXfOg.22647$SZ3.11479@dukeread04,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

And a Playboy magazine is safer than sex.

Yeah, but the staples in the centerfold can be painful.

Margy Natalie writes:

Who said the handle is small? Some of these "handles" are 2 - 3 feet long.

Where are they in the cockpit? I haven't seen many small cockpits; is
there a picture on the Net of one that has this kind of lever? It
sounds like it would be awkward to use in flight.

I go by what I've seen in the handful of pictures of cockpits that
I've encountered. Most of these are of jet aircraft, and the flap
lever is longer than most but hardly long enough to provide much
leverage.

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

"Margy Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Dudley Henriques wrote:
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...

Dudley Henriques wrote:

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:xXfOg.22647$SZ3.11479@dukeread04...


And a Playboy magazine is safer than sex.

Indeed; a good trait for any pilot is one that...shall we say....has the
situation "well in hand".
:-))
Dudley

What do you log if you are the sole manipulator of the pilot in
command?


The term "solo stick time" comes to mind here :-))
Dudley
Not necessarily ;-)

Margy

I think I see the point!!!
:-)))

Dudley

Every airplane with flaps has speed limits with flaps
extended. If there is a positive stop, they may have a
series of allowable speeds. The same sort of limits apply
to landing gear extension and operation with the gear
extended.

In some airplanes the gear is not to be extended at speeds
above a certain speed because the motor and linkage is not
strong enough, but once fully extended and lock down, the
airplane can be flown at a higher speed. Some airplanes can
have the gear extended at very high speed in an emergency,
but then the gear doors may be damaged and require
replacement or adjustment before the next flight.

Real airplanes and the simulators that exactly duplicate a
particular airplane are flown by the identical procedures.
Table-top PC "simulators" are more properly known as
training devices and they mimic some generic airplanes.

A real simulator costs more than the airplane it is
duplicating, a Beechjet or Boeing simulator can cost $8-10
million dollars or more. It is worthwhile because it
doesn't burn several thousand pounds of fuel per hour, can
be run nearly 24/7, rarely kills anyone and it is a safe
place to do things that can't be done safely in a real
airplane. Also, it allows the airplane to be out earning
revenue.

Even a PC based training device is very useful for learning
and practicing procedures, but you get what you pay for. A
King Air trainer with out full visual and motion still
allows learning all the systems and practicing the various
emergency and abnormal procedures.



"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
| Ron Natalie writes:
|
| Depends on the aircraft. Some planes they are purely
mechanical from
| the flap handle in the cockpit.
|
| I'm surprised that a small handle in the cockpit would
provide enough
| leverage to lower flaps. Isn't there are a lot of
aerodynamic
| pressure to overcome against them (at least if they are
lowered in
| flight)?
|
| I'm always surprised by how much is still mechanically
linked in
| aircraft. I'm not necessarily saying that's bad--simple
is reliable,
| generally speaking--but somehow I don't picture control
surfaces as
| something that one could easily move without assistance.
I suppose
| small planes are lighter than they appear, and just
because the wings
| look relatively big doesn't mean that they are heavy or
hard to move.
|
| My plane specs flaps up or 1/2 for takeoff (short field
takeoff done
| with 1/2). Landing can be done with any setting of
flaps.
|
| I've always been landing with flaps down completely, and
usually
| taking off with some flaps, as I had read that this was
necessary (and
| I had seen accident reports about pilots who crashed
because they took
| off without first lowering flaps). But from what you and
others here
| say it sounds like I have considerably more discretion in
whether or
| not I lower flaps for both operations.
|
| Are there good reasons to lower flaps in flight, outside
take-off and
| landing? I've thought that they would be useful for
increasing drag
| and lowering airspeed, but since they apparently cannot be
used at
| high speeds I guess this isn't a good idea. Sometimes if
one must
| descend rapidly just idling the throttle doesn't seem to
be enough to
| stay below hazardous speeds, and few aircraft seem to have
speed
| brakes.
|
| --
| Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.