chris writes:

Just step down a bit from a Baron to a Duchess or a Twin Comanche and
if you were well off you could certainly afford to fly it. I believe
our Twin Comanche goes for about $350 an hour (about US$250/hr), as
opposed to a 172 at $180/hr (US$120)

Even $120 is a lot. What do Barons cost per hour, I wonder?

I don't understand what it is about sims, but I fly a lot on X-Plane
and it seems to just take forever to get anywhere.. I know the sim is
accurate, but it just seems when you fly the real thing it just feels
quicker!! I try to bear that in mind when I find 200kt slow in the sim
whereas I find 140kt in a real a/c exhilirating.

I'm sure it's just the additional cues one gets in real life. They all serve
to remind you that you are moving (relatively) quickly.

A flight in the sim takes the same time as its real-life counterpart, though.

I wondered the same thing myself. I am thinking that it will take
longer to train on, because you are learning a lot more stuff than a
172 driver, but if you take the time to get your license then learn
the complex aircraft, maybe it would work out the same??

I think so. If you can learn all the complex and HP stuff _eventually_, then
that also means that you can learn it right up front. It might seem more
daunting at first than a simple aircraft, but the overall elapsed time to
become proficient in the complex aircraft would be the same in both
situations.

On a high wing aircraft, the fuel system is gravity fed, and you have
a fuel selector with L / R / Both choices. Leave it on Both and
you're set.

Sounds good to me.

Low wing aircraft (Cherokee specifically) do not have a Both option.
You have Left or Right, and it's up to the pilot to manage his fuel.
For instance, you start on least full tank, switch to fullest before
takeoff. Every 30 minutes, for instance, you need to switch tanks, or
risk a weight imbalance, or at worst, engine failure due to fuel
starvation.

Wow ... sounds incredibly primitive. I guess crossfeeds and stuff like that
are still future science-fiction for small aircraft.

In a twin, though, you have one tank per engine, so you should be able to feed
the right engine with the right tank, and the left with the left tank.

I've gotten pretty low in the tanks in the Baron and I've never had to switch
tanks. The only time I've ever had to touch it was for engine failure, in
which case I obviously direct both tanks to the non-failing engine.

And just another note - IRL you don't always just top the tanks up
before flying - weight is frequently an issue and it's not often I get
to fly with pax and full fuel

Point taken. But I have read that it's good practice to keep plenty of fuel
in the tanks when possible, not only to maximum your reserves but also to help
exclude condensation (I guess small aircraft haven't discovered airtight seals
yet, either).

Feels pretty damn quick when you have throttle closed and the 172
happens to have 40 degrees of flap! It then requires damn near full
power to remain on glideslope, but that's another story!

Interesting. Full flaps on the Baron do create a lot of drag, but the
"approach" setting creates far less. It's a poor speedbrake--the gear works
better for that (but has a lower maximum speed). When I extend the flaps in
the Baron, I rise very noticeably, then I slow down significantly and I start
to lose altitude; with full flaps, there's a noticeable tendency to pitch
down, too. But I'm expecting all this so I adjust for it.

Nope.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Cherokee
Summary: Single engine, 180hp 4 cylinder, 4 seat, 125-130kt cruise,
40L / hour fuel burn, 660nm range.

Is it a good aircraft? I've heard stories about Pipers.

Right. So on landing in something like a 172, when you land, you
roundout, pull the throttle to idle, and flare by holding the aircraft
just off the runway until it stops flying and you have full back
stick. The slower you can get the better, makes it easier to stop,
less wear on brakes, allows use of shorter runways, etc.. With a
decent headwind you can be stopped in a couple hundred feet..
A full stall landing doesn't have to be unpleasant, either. Our
instructors always try and get students to hold full back stick on
landing..

How far above the runway? And you don't stall or get a tail strike?

Of course, something like an Archer likes to be landed a little
hotter, without having full back stick.

In the Baron I don't think I've ever pulled the yoke all the way back. I stay
almost level until I'm very close indeed to the runway, then pull back on
power a bit and flare. No idle and no full back stick, though. I haven't
actually tried that, but from the way the Baron behaves my intuition tells me
it wouldn't be suitable.

I heard that you run out of elevator authority if you get too slow but
that's only a guess...

Possibly. I'm usually at least 10 kts above stall speed so I don't really
know (or maybe you are not talking about a Baron?).

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