Flaps on take-off and landing

Ron,

The Cardinal will not fly at gusts of 30 knots - no matter whether the
flaps are down or not.

BULL****. 20G33 was good student solo weather in Colorado where I
learned. We regularly took the Cardinal RG's out in these conditions.


Misunderstanding. See Peter's post.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter,

It was my interpretation of Tom's post that the Cardinal will not fly
*prematurely* when taxiing in those wind conditions.


You got it. Thanks.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic,

It's an extremely complicated way of getting from place to place.


Oh yes, your sim is much better at that...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Roy Smith wrote:
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.

Retractable Cessna singles: 172RG, 177RG, 182RG, 210. Fixed
gear: 120, 140, 150, 152, 172, 177, 180, 182, 185, 190, 195, 205, 206,
207, 208.
The early 210 had struts, four seats, and 260 HP. The 205 was a
fixed-gear version of that airplane.

Dan

In article .com,
wrote:

Roy Smith wrote:
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.

Retractable Cessna singles: 172RG, 177RG, 182RG, 210. Fixed
gear: 120, 140, 150, 152, 172, 177, 180, 182, 185, 190, 195, 205, 206,
207, 208.
The early 210 had struts, four seats, and 260 HP. The 205 was a
fixed-gear version of that airplane.

Dan

OK, so maybe it was a 210. Whatever. The point is that he was used to the
levers being in the opposite places and had the location of the flap lever
programmed deep in some sub-conscious neural pathway.

I watched him reach out his hand to operate the flap lever, stop, hesitate,
and then suddenly move his hand to the gear lever and operate that instead.
I couldn't react fast enough to keep it from happening. The gear alarm
went off, the wheels stayed down, and I had a cow. I believe it is the
only time I've ever totally lost my cool with a student.

Moral of the story -- in a retract, get off the runway, come to a full
stop, and then clean up the airplane when you can devote your full
attention to the task at hand.

Tom Young writes:

Hm... Slow flight is accompanied by soft-feeling controls and less control
authority (i.e. you have to put in more input to get the aircraft to
respond, not less). By the same token, you have to put in more control to
stop the plane from rolling (or whatever) once started, so that might be
what is giving you that impression. Dunno.

That sounds like it. I just described it poorly. It feels mushy.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'envelope of safe maneuvering.' You
can't go as fast with flaps extended, because something might break, but you
can fly slower, because of the additional lift.

By envelope I mean the area of safety between two extremes, e.g., the
"coffin corner" of some aircraft represents a very tiny envelope,
since more than a slight movement in any direction may result in
irrecoverable instability.

I'll have to take your word for it -- I've never flown a big airplane, real
or simulated. In smaller airplanes where the propwash flows over the control
surfaces, your elevator and rudder are more responsive at higher RPMs.

I'm surprised that propwash would matter, since the airflow from the
prop should stay in roughly the same place no matter what the attitude
of the aircraft. That is, it would be like putting a big fan on a
sailboat to drive it forward.

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

Larry Dighera writes:

Remember, he's flyin' a sim.

You can still crash, which ends the flight. The big difference is
that you survive, and you immediately get a brand-new aircraft to
replace the broken one. Just one of many advantages to simulators.

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

Larry Dighera writes:

It was just a bit of information I offered. I was thinking you might
want to take avail yourself of the opportunity to discuss the product
he helped create and you enjoy so much.

He might keel over in shock, given the aspersions routinely cast upon
simulation in this group.

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

"Grumman-581" writes:

Oh, who? The original version or one of the more recent ones? I remember
somewhere around v1 there was this "feature" that if you went inverted and
"dove" towards the sky, you had a *very* good climb rate and speed... Great
"feature" during the dogfight scenario since you could thereby climb
considerably faster than all the other aircraft that were trying to shoot
you down...

It hasn't worked that way in a long time.

I remember when it was impossible to flare on landing. You landed
nose down, and as soon as the gear touched the runway, you were flat
and level. Today, however, it's just about identical to real life,
even down to the inherent bounce in the gear (or the airframe).

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

Thomas Borchert writes:

Oh yes, your sim is much better at that...

My sim doesn't go anywhere, but that's not the purpose of simulation.

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