On Mar 9, 4:48 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
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?

It might be one of those 'if you have to ask you can't afford it'
situations


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.

For sure


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

Yep, but it just seems to take forever! I also find it a damn pain to
hand-fly the sim, preferring to set the autopilot.. IRL I don't have
any issues hand-flying..

I just remembered something you might be surprised about.. Our
national airline purchased 16 or so Beech 1900D turboprop airliners a
year or two back. They ordered them WITHOUT autopilot! They have to
be hand flown the whole time. Rationale was apparently that it keeps
the pilots sharp by making them fly the whole time.. Hell, even the a/
c I fly has autopilot!!!!



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.


That's probably a fair call, but I have no direct experience either
way so I can't say

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.

Mee too!!


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.

It is a right royal pain in the ass!!! Anyway, you don't need
crossfeed for a single


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.

Might depend on the twin - the fuel systems are as varied as the
aircraft. And on things like Twin Comanches and Aztecs I believe the
fuel selectors are between the pilots seats on the floor where you
can't see them at night!!!


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).

It sure is! If I have any chance to fill er up I will.. But I always
have to keep an eye on weight - I fly out of some short runways and
weight is always a concern, especially on Pipers which aren't happy to
fly until they're good and ready...


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.


When you apply the flaps you need to push forward to counteract the
climb, if that's what it's trying to do. Some planes are worse than
others. If you bang flaps down on a 172 you better be ready to
push!!! And if you have lots of flap down and you try to do a go-
around you better have a strong set of arms on you, I understand
bigger Cessnas are even worse...

At the end of the day, even though there are big operational
differences between things like 172s and Archers with the flaps, once
you get used to what to expect it's fine.
I personally prefer Piper flaps, you don't get anywhere as big a
pitching moment when you dump the flaps as with 172s

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.

Damn good aircraft son!! When in flight it feels very stable and
solid. And once you trim it up you can sit back and watch the scenery
go past!
When you come from a 152 to an Archer it feels like Christmas every
time you go flying !!!


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?

If you raise the nose too fast in the flare you climb, then stall and
fall on your ass. So the idea is to raise the nose just quickly
enough to keep 'er level, and it will run out of airspeed and land
before you're anywhere near the banging the tail. On both 172's and
Cherokees this is true, but on our aero club's new Alphas there is so
much stuff hanging out below the tail you have to land very flat or be
guaranteed of 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.


Probably not, but you might want to chop the power to idle when you
flare, or it will probably float for miles!