Is it not true that the USAF sends its flying cadets at the Academy
off to general aviation flight schools for their PP license before
starting them in their own programs? These men and women are smart,
motivated, fit, grew up playing computer games all of their lives, and
are learning to fly in SEL aircraft.

And you, we are led to believe, are in your forties, not as fit,
probably with lesser reflexes, think doing it that way is perhaps too
easy? "Oh, I'd start in a Baron."

Ego, in pilots, is a killer. Way back when I paid attention to such
things the pilots who were MDs (circa 1970s) were over represented in
the crash statistics. In that era -- those would have been med school
graduates of the 50s and 60s, -- MDs seemed to be much more 'absolute'
in their decision making. I hate painting with such a broad brush, but
that was my impression at least.

The point I'm making is that ego driven pilots, and you seem to
present yourself as likely being in that group should you obtain a
license, tend to ruin perfectly good airplanes.







On Mar 8, 2:52 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
chris writes:
I have heard of one person who did it, but I think for the majority of
people it would be hard to cope with all the stuff you need to deal
with to fly a twin,

But in my case I'd know all the procedures a lot better, since that's what I
fly mostly in simulation. It would just be a matter of putting them into
practice. However, from what little I've heard of this, training entirely in
a Baron would be extremely expensive, even if I could find a place to do it.
Then again, if I can afford $2 million to buy the airplane, I can afford to
train in one.

What I found was that it felt substantially faster, it climbed a lot
quicker, and was harder to slow down.

I've noticed when trying the C172 in the sim that it seems to do everything in
slow motion. There's more than enough time to correct mistakes. Assuming the
sim is accurate (I have my doubts for the default C172), it's incredibly easy
to fly.

I can see how someone could get used to that in real life and then be
surprised by a "complex" or "high performance" aircraft. But in that case, is
the latter really _harder_ to fly, or is it really just a problem because the
student has become so accustomed to a really _easy_ plane to fly?

In other words, if the student just starts on a complex aircraft to start
with, perhaps he'd have less trouble dealing with it.

I also found the fuel management to be extra complexity I didn't need..

I still don't understand why fuel is an issue. Top off the tanks, leave the
fuel in its default configuration. If the fuel is in the yellow zone on
landing, make sure you top it off again before the next flight.

For an average circuit in a 152, I would be waiting for it to get to
circuit altitude, had time to do my checks, and it slowed down quickly
with flap out. The archer, on the other hand, I found I had to turn
downwind, level out, pull the power back, and trim, all at the same
time, then pull the power right back or I would run over the guy in
front. Then when I put flap out it didn't slow down. Then you have
to somehow slow down and get down at the same time.

It sounds different from the Baron. The Baron slows when flaps are extended,
albeit not dramatically. When the gear comes down, it slows a lot more,
although you can't slow with that until you're below 140 KIAS (and apparently
it automatically prevents this).

But I'm not sure what you mean by slowing "quickly," so maybe in a C172 it
slows instantly, I don't know.

I have no idea about that stuff, but if you're happy with it...

Is the Archer a twin? I don't know anything about it.

You really want the aircraft to be going slow enough to stop flying on
it's own.

I want it to fly until the wheels are on the runway. I try to land by
descending at the lowest possible speed _while still flying_. To stop
descending, I just add power. If I _stall_ on landing, I'm not flying, and
I'm not touching the runway, which makes me nervous. I suppose I could stall
eight inches above the runway, but that's tough to manage and I don't see the
advantage over just flying to touchdown.

Remember if you want to leave the runway again you'll have
to put power on anyway.

If you stall just above the runway, that may not be enough. It might just
drive you that much harder down into the runway.

If I got this right (twin drivers please confirm or deny this), there
is a lot of weight up front with those engines hanging so far forward,
which makes holding the nose off a real bugger, and especially on
things like Twin Comanche's they tend to stop flying with a bit of a
bang, so you are best advised to just fly it into the runway...

The Baron does pitch down immediately when it stalls, if that's what you mean.
That's why I wouldn't want it to stall just above the runway. If an aircraft
stalls but keeps the same attitude, I suppose that might be different. But
even then, a stall means a rapid increase in rate of descent, which might not
be good so close to the ground (especially since it cannot be instantly
corrected, depending on one's definition of "instantly").

You really don't want to break gear off in sim or real life :-)

In the sim it's a learning experience. In real life it's a crying experience.

Indeed, if I were a real pilot and I had just spent $2 million on a Baron, I
think I might be afraid to even fly it.

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