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.