Flaps on take-off and landing

The Super Decathlon I flew for aerobatic lessons (a taildragger) has
excellent over the nose visibility on the ground...better than my tripacer.
I had a hard time levelling out at altitude because the view was almost too
good. I kept unconsciously trying to get the same sight picture I was used
to in my TP.

mike

"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
True for tail draggers, but in a tricycle gear aircraft you have an
excellent view of the runway.



--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"mike regish" wrote in message
. ..
The Super Decathlon I flew for aerobatic lessons (a taildragger) has
excellent over the nose visibility on the ground...better than my
tripacer.
I had a hard time levelling out at altitude because the view was almost
too
good. I kept unconsciously trying to get the same sight picture I was used
to in my TP.

mike

Mike, in case you didn't know:

1) Billy sold the Decathlon and bought an Extra-200.

2) He got married last weekend.

Skylune wrote:

In the little planes, you will waste at least $100K between the training,
equipment, insurance, gas, etc.

Could you be more specific? If it costs, say, $10,000 to get PPL and
IFR rated, what do you spend the other $90,000 on?

Marc

On 2006-09-18, mike regish wrote:
The Super Decathlon I flew for aerobatic lessons (a taildragger) has
excellent over the nose visibility on the ground...better than my tripacer.

The Tripacer, however, is notable for having terrible over the nose
visibility. I have to sit on a booster cushion to get anything like
adequate forward visibility in a Tripacer! Same thing goes for the
Cherokee Six - with the slightly tail down attitude it has on the ground
and the unfeasably large conk, I get better forward visibility when
taxiing most taildraggers compared to taxiing a Cherokee Six.

The Decathalon is about normal for over the nose visibility in the air
and better than the average taildragger on the ground. (The Cessna 170
is the best taildragger for forward vis on the ground - better than most
nosewheel planes thanks to a high seating position)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Roger (K8RI) writes:

I love airplanes and we are on the centerline for the GPS 06 approach
to 3BS and about a mile and a half in from the FAF. Even when working
in the shop I still have to run outside to see what's going over.

I like to watch aircraft, too. I sorely miss the days when you could
go to the airport and walk up to the roof or observation deck to watch
planes take off and arrive. Nowadays, it seems you're a terrorist if
you manifest any interest in aircraft. I never understood what danger
there was in letting people watch. Even people who take pictures from
outside the airport are considered terrorists these days.

On landing I generally run 10 down wind.15 to 20 on base, and about 30
until the runway is made and then it's full flaps whether it's windy
of calm, gusty or steady. The only time I don't use full flaps is the
one or two landings I do every few weeks with no flaps.

Why do you do those landings without flaps?

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

Marty Shapiro writes:

No, you simply raise or lower the seat as appropriate.

Is it a power seat, or do you have to crank it manually, or do you
have to get off the seat to adjust it, or what?

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

Leonard Milcin Jr. writes:

Can you read? rec.aviation.piloting. That group is for people who find
pleasure or interest in piloting.

That doesn't mean that they have to pretend it's cheap.

You're obviously not piloting, and you're obviously not interested in
it as you're trying to convince everybody that what they're doing is
too expensive for them.

It's too expensive for me. I don't know if it's too expensive for
them. However, I do know that it's expensive.

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

mike regish writes:

Nothing unhealthy about it at all.

Positive G's can make you pass out. Negative G's can cause
hemorrhages and strokes.

And I, aswell as my kids, love the
sensation. That's actually what a lot of amusement park rides are all about.

I avoid the ones like that.

Plus, you can fly anywhere you want and never feel more than a small
fraction over 1 G.

Yes, and that's what I'd probably do. To me, accurate, steady, sedate
flight is more of a challenge than acrobatics.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
But they are more likely to lead somewhere, aren't they? If you know
that you're above Interstate X, you could just follow it to wherever X
leads.

Actually, if you spend any time paying attention to geography, you'll find
that human civilization very often develops in such a way that waterways
lead you "somewhere" just as easily as highways will.

It's all a matter of selecting your references to match your goals. But the
fact remains, in an urban or otherwise well-developed area, there are often
too many roads that look too similar to use them as a primary reference.
Conversely, there are unlikely to be more than handful of major waterways,
and they will usually be very distinctive.

Whether a given road or waterway goes along the route you intend to take
depends on your intended route and the road or waterway. But you can't make
any assumptions beforehand about whether it will or will not be possible.
Each situation is different.

How do you look out the window? It seems that the instrument panel is
pretty imposing in most aircraft, and often the nose of the plane
extends well beyond it, so it doesn't look like you'd be able to see
the ground straight ahead. Do you just glance out the side windows,
or what?

Here is where I find myself agreeing with the people that say you make a LOT
of supposedly factual statements about flying that are based on faulty
information. That is, your believe that a computer simulation (and
Microsoft Flight Simulator in particular) is accurate enough for you to
actually know what you're talking about when it comes to flying.

Please, you do NOT know what you are talking about when it comes to
*flying*. Piloting a sim, I'm sure you know lots. But you consistently get
it wrong when you try to apply that experience to real flying. You would do
well to leave your assumptions behind, and restrict yourself to asking
questions.

As far as the specific question goes: yes, visibility directly under the
nose of the airplane can be somewhat limited, depending on the airplane.
Some airplanes have completely transparent noses, allowing for excellent
visibility, and even some with more traditional construction can be built
with a nose that slopes enough to obscure very little. When you are aloft
at cruise altitude, you don't need to be right over a landmark to identify
it, and you can easily follow rivers, highways, or whatever using the view
through the front of the airplane.

One also does take advantage of the view out the side window. Obviously
when you are directly over a landmark, you cannot see it, but by flying to
one side you can verify your position accurately by looking out the side
window and noting the exact time at which you pass a particular point of
reference (note that this is necessarily only for tracking groundspeed and
confirming your position...it's not related to the question of following
landmarks looking out the front of the airplane).

Pete

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:16:04 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
:

visibility directly under the
nose of the airplane can be somewhat limited, depending on the airplane.

Of course, there is the possibility of "seeing" right through the
airframe with the Striker Helmet (near the end of the video):
http://www.exn.ca/dailyplanet/view.asp?date=8/18/2006#