Flaps on take-off and landing

You didn't read the information at the link to the California Vehicle
Code that I provided.

I didn't read it all, but I read the "speed trap prohibition" part, and then since it didn't say anything about what a speed trap was, I looked at the definitions area. It wasn't there.

Is this a speed trap for readers?

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

Larry Dighera writes:

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.

Part of the motivation for simulation is to approach reality. Without
that motivation, there's no reason for practicing flying in a
simulator, either, since even poor flying will not result in any
physical consequences.

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

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.

Skylune writes:

The sim is better than real life. I've done both. In the little planes,
when u need to urinate, you do it in your pants or into a container. As
for the other bodily functions, you just gotta hold it and hope that there
isn't alot of traffic ahead of you before its your turn to land. (And the
pilots wonder why more women don't want to deal with this).

The Air Force (in the U.S.) did a study on this and did find a way for
female fighter pilots to deal with it. It's not pretty for either
sex.

However, your points are well taken. These are some of the advantages
of simulation. While it is true that no simulation can perfectly
duplicate real life, it's possible to come very close--and at the same
time you can dispense with the parts of real life that don't
contribute to your enjoyment, such as flying around with a bursting
bladder.

In the little planes, you are oftentimes dealing with 1960s technology.
The little planes are either too hot or too cold. They can't get you
where you want to go unless you have an IFR license and a capable plane.
In the little planes, you have to worry about other marginally trained
pilots running into you (either on the ground, mid-air, or in the traffic
pattern).

Why wouldn't collisions be a worry for larger planes? I remember some
PSA pilots who regretted losing track of a small plane (and the small
plane had experienced pilots, too).

In the little planes, you will waste at least $100K between the training,
equipment, insurance, gas, etc.

This is one of the key reasons why I do not pursuit flight in real
life.

And, best of all, in the sim world you can fly into and out of Megis Field
to your heart's content!

I don't like Meigs Field. I find that I tend to fly around areas that
I've already seen from the air in real life, although sometimes I pick
places I've never been to before.

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

Larry Dighera writes:

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.

How do you get to and from the airports? And if you don't own your
own plane, how do you fly somewhere for the weekend? 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?

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

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.

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

Peter Duniho writes:

Anyway, that's a long way of saying I don't generally like to bring up my
involvement with MSFS. IMHO, the product released makes me look bad by
association.

Was there something specifically bad about FS 2000 that is no longer
present in FS 2002 or FS 2004? I've been playing with MSFS for almost
two decades but I don't recall what FS 2000 was like (or even having
it, although I must have had it at some point).

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

Jay B writes:

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

I'm not assuming. I priced it. I stopped when it exceeded my budget,
which it did almost immediately.

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

What kinds of flight? Just flying around the airfield? Cross-country
flights for real transportation? Flights of commercial jetliners?

I suppose if all you want is touch-and-go between two tiny airfields
for a few hours a month, it might not break the bank (at least not
some banks--it would bankrupt me). But if you want to use an aircraft
as a practical means of transportation, or if you're interested in
anything other than the tiniest tin can of an aircraft, big money
problems loom.

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

Not if you don't have enough money.

That's one reason why some people starve. It's not as though they
don't want to eat badly enough.

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

For some lucky pilots, yes. But someone who is interested in other
types of piloting may not find this worthwhile.

The piloting you describe might please someone whose primary purpose
in flying is to feel the sensations of being in the air. However,
someone who wants to use aircraft as practical transportation wouldn't
be happy. And someone who prefers sensations other than those of a
tiny private plane would also be unhappy.

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

Leonard Milcin Jr. writes:

Isn't it obvious?

If it were obvious, I wouldn't ask.

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

Peter Duniho writes:

Flaps enhance lift at the expense of drag. On a small airplane, large
complex flaps would not produce a significant enough reduction in drag
during cruise flight to justify the cost, complexity, and weight.

However, the larger and faster the airplane, the more there can be
accomplished by reducing drag significantly during cruise, especially
compared to the airfoil required to land such planes safely and within the
runways available to them (generally no longer than a couple of miles or
so).

You could land a 747 without flaps, but you'd use a LOT more pavement (maybe
double?), runway length that just isn't available. On the other hand, you
could design a 747 with an airfoil that allowed for shorter landings, but
cruise speed would suffer. The airplane is large enough and fast enough
that the extra expense and weight of flaps more than makes up for its cost
during cruise, while still allowing for reasonable landing performance.

Thanks. That makes sense.

Hopefully this one example has answered the general question of "why do
large airplanes have features not found on small airplanes?" You could
spend months asking that same question, using different features, and the
answer would always be the same: economics and usefulness.

You're saying that there really isn't any technical, aerodynamic
reason why a large aircraft would require extensive flaps while a
small aircraft would not? That is, the advantages and disadvantages
from a flying standpoint are the same in both cases?

I know there are economic considerations, but since small private
planes seem to handle quite differently from large planes I was
wondering if there are fundamental differences in the aerodynamics
that might be related to scale (physical dimensions). That is, would
a giant version of a small plane, three times as big but with
identical proportions and size-to-weight ratio, fly in the same way?

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