Mxsmanic wrote:

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

Bull****. I don't have to preflight the simulator, or pull it from the
hangar, or preheat it, or get it started, or call for the fuel truck
or any of the hundred things that REAL pilots have to deal with with
flying REAL airplanes that you'll never experience in your pathetic
little fantasy world. Don't lecture real pilots (or those who are
attempting to become real pilots) from your distorted self-interested
masturbation.

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.

Again you have no clue. The some of the time will be longer as
you waste time initially being behind the complex aircraft which will
entail more instruction time than if you started simple and worked up.
After you get competence in the simple aircraft, adding the control of
the complex is trivial.

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.

It shouldn't. If you bothered to study anything, the above isn't valid
for even Cessnas. Cessna recommends operating in LEFT or RIGHT at
high altitudes. I'm not going to go into the reasons because your
game doesn't vapor lock.


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.

No more science fiction than your pathetic brain. My aircraft is a low
wing and has a both position on the fuel selector and tip tank
crossfeeds for a long time. But it adds weight, complexity and things
that may go wrong just as easily as forgetting to switch tanks.

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.

Again, your pathatic idealized world doesn't correspond to reality. Do
you think the fuel flow on each engine is identical? Do you think the
line guy filled both tanks to the same level?

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.

You've never flown a baron. Stop lying. Real pilots who haven't caught
on to your bull**** and lies might be dangerously confused.


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).

Again your pathetic ignorance is showing. If you bothered to actually
study things rather than basing the entire world on what you can observe
of Microsoft's simplification of flight you'd know that:

1. The tanks can't be sealed. As fuel goes out, air must go in (either
that or you'll have to have fuel tanks like a playtex baby bottle with
a collapsing bladder.

2. Condensation rarely is the problem. The real problem is poorly
sealing fuel caps.

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.

Again, stop lying. You've never flown a Baron. You don't know how
they behave aerdodynamically.


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

Stories is all you've heard about anything.

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

Neither. If you bothered to learn something about ground handling in
wind you'd know these things. It's the first thing that REAL pilots
do in an airplane.


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.

You've never flown a Baron, and you've never pulled a real yoke back.

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?).

Maybe he's talking about a real Baron and not your pathetic fantasy.
'