Flaps on take-off and landing

I'm glad no one mentioned what goes on in the cockpit.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
I'm glad no one mentioned what goes on in the cockpit.


Someone just did :-))
DH

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.

Peter Duniho writes:

But if there is a bad effect in simulation as well, you live to tell about
it and you get a brand-spanking-new airplane to try it again. If "a bad
effect in simulation" is your concern, why not just try it in the simulation
and see what happens?

I like to occasionally verify that what happens in the sim is a
reflection of real life and not an artifact of the simulator.
Nowadays the basic flight models are generally error free, but some
details of behavior for specific aircraft are not necessarily exactly
correct.

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

Steve Foley writes:

Why?

You've stated you don't want to experience real flight, so what's the point?

Approaching real life and experiencing it are two different things.
Simulation offers many of the advantages of real flight (to the extent
that it simulates them) without most of the disadvantages.

This is common to all simulation systems, not just aviation
simulations. It's the reason why full-motion simulators are used to
train pilots, instead of real aircraft.

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

Larry Dighera writes:

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

No, but why would that make any difference?

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

Thomas Borchert writes:

Your problem (one of the many) seems to be that you think only flying
big jets is flying worth to be considered. You're wrong.

The question of what is worth flying is up to each individual to
decide for himself. Obviously people who are willing to fly tiny
planes feel that tiny planes are worth flying, but that viewpoint is
specific to themselves, and may not be shared by all.

One thing is relatively su people who really prefer to fly large
aircraft are pretty much out of luck, unless they are fabulously rich
or decide to devote their entire professional lives to flying large
aicraft. There are not many private pilots with an Airbus of their
own waiting for them at the airport.

I've heard that John Travolta owns a Boeing 707, but that is a bit
behind the times these days.

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

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

Skylune writes:

No. You are right. Too expensive, relatively risky, and VFR flying lacks
utility. VFR is a risky and completely unreliable means of
transportation.

It's an extremely complicated way of getting from place to place. It
does have the advantage of being fairly direct, although small planes
are so slow that this isn't necessarily a significant advantage for
long trips. But that advantage can be lost in the overhead of getting
to and from airports, and other activities. It's difficult to imagine
someone commuting to work in an aircraft under any but very specific
and special conditions.

You are smart sticking to the sim.

It's not a question of intelligence; it's a question of the right tool
for the right job. Simulation puts an emphasis on the enjoyable parts
and allows other things to be ignored, and it is thousands of times
cheaper and less time-consuming than real flight.

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

Margy Natalie writes:

Fast approach speed. At Dulles I would take the plane over the numbers
at cruise speed. You have lots of room to slow down as it's 4000' to
the first taxiway. If you learn to do it it's not that hard. If it's
REALLY windy you might want to opt for a no flap landing.

I will try that.

Take at least an intro flight in a real airplane. I think the enjoyment
will really beat any sim.

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. 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.

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.
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).

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