Gentle take-offs at high speed

"Jim Macklin" writes:

In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a Baron
on the ground at 100 knots.

I'm sure that pushing the stick forward works well. If there were no
way to keep a Baron on the ground at 100 kts, then no Baron could ever
crash at a speed of more than 100 kts, since its intense desire to fly
would keep it from contacting the ground.

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

TxSrv writes:

Enjoy wasting your time. MSFS doesn't know ground effect.

Recent versions do simulate ground effect, as I recall. I'm not sure
of the details. I know that the aircraft I fly will hover for an
unusually long time just above the ground, which sounds an awful lot
like ground effect.

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

At light weight, the 90 thru E90 King Airs do pretty well on
take-off with an engine loss, but at gross they are
definetly under-powered. The F90 has 750 hp and is still a
handful on one engine. I really like the 300-350 King Air,
it will perform just like advertised. An engine failure
before V1 and you stop on the runway. Past V1 you have
performance to continue into the air and to a safe landing.
Having 1050 hp gearbox and a 1700 hp gas generator really
helps. At a light weight, climb rate on two engines is over
4,000 fpm, can't say how much, that is because the rate is
pegged. Didn't have a stopwatch running.
Took off solo one day at Wichita for a short trip south, had
only 2 hours fuel. Departed 1 R at Wichita (1330 MSL) and
did a chandelle on take-off to the right. Rolled out at
9,000 feet MSL still over the airport.


It was very gentle, except I did have to go back to the
baggage compartment after landing in Oklahoma to get my
chart bag, the steep deck angle made it fall down the aisle.



"karl gruber" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
| I sure hope you're talking about a "game" or PC sim
Baron.
| In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a
Baron
| on the ground at 100 knots. They want to fly. Fifty
years
| ago, the manual said you lifted off in 600 feet at 60
mph.
| That was well below Vmc and if an engine died, so did
you.
|
| I remember the day Beech sent out a new revision for our
King Air A90. All
| it did was remove the short field takeoff section. Just as
you suggest for
| the Baron.
|
| Karl
| "Curator" N185KG
|
|

I've actually had two PT6A-41s quit on me, both at cruise in a straight
KA200.

Both were non-events, but it certainly has changed the way I think of the
Pilatus PC-12, and what's that other single, TBM 700?

The failure rate for PT6s is unknown since the vast majority are on King
Airs and they simply fly home on one and get the fuel control unit
replaced...............which is the cause of 95% of the failures. So much so
that the singles have manual fuel control units and great big emergency pull
handles.

The other reason the King Air is so good on one engine is the nice big high
lift wing. It's not fast but is sure hauls the load, although I've seen our
350 at 305 Kts @ FL310

Karl
"Curator"


"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news
At light weight, the 90 thru E90 King Airs do pretty well on
take-off with an engine loss, but at gross they are
definetly under-powered. The F90 has 750 hp and is still a
handful on one engine. I really like the 300-350 King Air,
it will perform just like advertised. An engine failure
before V1 and you stop on the runway. Past V1 you have
performance to continue into the air and to a safe landing.
Having 1050 hp gearbox and a 1700 hp gas generator really
helps. At a light weight, climb rate on two engines is over
4,000 fpm, can't say how much, that is because the rate is
pegged. Didn't have a stopwatch running.
Took off solo one day at Wichita for a short trip south, had
only 2 hours fuel. Departed 1 R at Wichita (1330 MSL) and
did a chandelle on take-off to the right. Rolled out at
9,000 feet MSL still over the airport.


It was very gentle, except I did have to go back to the
baggage compartment after landing in Oklahoma to get my
chart bag, the steep deck angle made it fall down the aisle.



"karl gruber" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
| I sure hope you're talking about a "game" or PC sim
Baron.
| In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a
Baron
| on the ground at 100 knots. They want to fly. Fifty
years
| ago, the manual said you lifted off in 600 feet at 60
mph.
| That was well below Vmc and if an engine died, so did
you.
|
| I remember the day Beech sent out a new revision for our
King Air A90. All
| it did was remove the short field takeoff section. Just as
you suggest for
| the Baron.
|
| Karl
| "Curator" N185KG
|
|

So far, the only engine failure I've had on a King Air was
caused by a broken nacelle tank vent on an F90, discounting
a flameout due to no fuel on board even though the gauges
showed almost two hours fuel. But manual fuel control does
make sense and is a requirement on the singles, I think.

I do like the big tail surfaces, great control and VG range.



"karl gruber" wrote in message
...
| I've actually had two PT6A-41s quit on me, both at cruise
in a straight
| KA200.
|
| Both were non-events, but it certainly has changed the way
I think of the
| Pilatus PC-12, and what's that other single, TBM 700?
|
| The failure rate for PT6s is unknown since the vast
majority are on King
| Airs and they simply fly home on one and get the fuel
control unit
| replaced...............which is the cause of 95% of the
failures. So much so
| that the singles have manual fuel control units and great
big emergency pull
| handles.
|
| The other reason the King Air is so good on one engine is
the nice big high
| lift wing. It's not fast but is sure hauls the load,
although I've seen our
| 350 at 305 Kts @ FL310
|
| Karl
| "Curator"
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news | At light weight, the 90 thru E90 King Airs do pretty
well on
| take-off with an engine loss, but at gross they are
| definetly under-powered. The F90 has 750 hp and is
still a
| handful on one engine. I really like the 300-350 King
Air,
| it will perform just like advertised. An engine failure
| before V1 and you stop on the runway. Past V1 you have
| performance to continue into the air and to a safe
landing.
| Having 1050 hp gearbox and a 1700 hp gas generator
really
| helps. At a light weight, climb rate on two engines is
over
| 4,000 fpm, can't say how much, that is because the rate
is
| pegged. Didn't have a stopwatch running.
| Took off solo one day at Wichita for a short trip south,
had
| only 2 hours fuel. Departed 1 R at Wichita (1330 MSL)
and
| did a chandelle on take-off to the right. Rolled out at
| 9,000 feet MSL still over the airport.
|
|
| It was very gentle, except I did have to go back to the
| baggage compartment after landing in Oklahoma to get my
| chart bag, the steep deck angle made it fall down the
aisle.
|
|
|
| "karl gruber" wrote in
message
| ...
| |
| | "Jim Macklin"
wrote
| in message
| | ...
| | I sure hope you're talking about a "game" or PC sim
| Baron.
| | In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a
| Baron
| | on the ground at 100 knots. They want to fly.
Fifty
| years
| | ago, the manual said you lifted off in 600 feet at
60
| mph.
| | That was well below Vmc and if an engine died, so
did
| you.
| |
| | I remember the day Beech sent out a new revision for
our
| King Air A90. All
| | it did was remove the short field takeoff section.
Just as
| you suggest for
| | the Baron.
| |
| | Karl
| | "Curator" N185KG
| |
| |
|
|
|
|

Mxsmanic wrote:

Recent versions do simulate ground effect, as I recall. I'm not sure
of the details. I know that the aircraft I fly will hover for an
unusually long time just above the ground, which sounds an awful lot
like ground effect.

Airplanes don't hover, and "I recall" isn't proof of anything.
If ground effect is modeled, you can prove with flight testing
and reporting back the numbers. How would you know you're in
ground effect in MSFS? Why would the programmers waste valuable
CPU time doing something 99% of simmers don't understand?

F--

You believed the fuel gauges on a King Air? Ha Ha
Ha!...........What-a-Gotcha. They are so totally unreliable. Your engine
failure was weird, and written up in the airframe logs for the fix.

Best,
Karl Curator

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
So far, the only engine failure I've had on a King Air was
caused by a broken nacelle tank vent on an F90, discounting
a flameout due to no fuel on board even though the gauges
showed almost two hours fuel. But manual fuel control does
make sense and is a requirement on the singles, I think.

I do like the big tail surfaces, great control and VG range.



"karl gruber" wrote in message
...
| I've actually had two PT6A-41s quit on me, both at cruise
in a straight
| KA200.
|
| Both were non-events, but it certainly has changed the way
I think of the
| Pilatus PC-12, and what's that other single, TBM 700?
|
| The failure rate for PT6s is unknown since the vast
majority are on King
| Airs and they simply fly home on one and get the fuel
control unit
| replaced...............which is the cause of 95% of the
failures. So much so
| that the singles have manual fuel control units and great
big emergency pull
| handles.
|
| The other reason the King Air is so good on one engine is
the nice big high
| lift wing. It's not fast but is sure hauls the load,
although I've seen our
| 350 at 305 Kts @ FL310
|
| Karl
| "Curator"
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news | At light weight, the 90 thru E90 King Airs do pretty
well on
| take-off with an engine loss, but at gross they are
| definetly under-powered. The F90 has 750 hp and is
still a
| handful on one engine. I really like the 300-350 King
Air,
| it will perform just like advertised. An engine failure
| before V1 and you stop on the runway. Past V1 you have
| performance to continue into the air and to a safe
landing.
| Having 1050 hp gearbox and a 1700 hp gas generator
really
| helps. At a light weight, climb rate on two engines is
over
| 4,000 fpm, can't say how much, that is because the rate
is
| pegged. Didn't have a stopwatch running.
| Took off solo one day at Wichita for a short trip south,
had
| only 2 hours fuel. Departed 1 R at Wichita (1330 MSL)
and
| did a chandelle on take-off to the right. Rolled out at
| 9,000 feet MSL still over the airport.
|
|
| It was very gentle, except I did have to go back to the
| baggage compartment after landing in Oklahoma to get my
| chart bag, the steep deck angle made it fall down the
aisle.
|
|
|
| "karl gruber" wrote in
message
| ...
| |
| | "Jim Macklin"
wrote
| in message
| | ...
| | I sure hope you're talking about a "game" or PC sim
| Baron.
| | In the real world, there is no way in hell to keep a
| Baron
| | on the ground at 100 knots. They want to fly.
Fifty
| years
| | ago, the manual said you lifted off in 600 feet at
60
| mph.
| | That was well below Vmc and if an engine died, so
did
| you.
| |
| | I remember the day Beech sent out a new revision for
our
| King Air A90. All
| | it did was remove the short field takeoff section.
Just as
| you suggest for
| | the Baron.
| |
| | Karl
| | "Curator" N185KG
| |
| |
|
|
|
|

TxSrv writes:

If ground effect is modeled, you can prove with flight testing
and reporting back the numbers. How would you know you're in
ground effect in MSFS?

If you don't know the numbers, and you don't know how to determine
that you're in ground effect in the simulator, then you cannot know
whether it simulates ground effect or not, unless you've read the
code.

Why would the programmers waste valuable CPU time doing
something 99% of simmers don't understand?

Most of the simulation aspect of the product covers areas with which
many of the product's users are unfamiliar. That is the nature of
simulation. You don't leave something out just because a user might
not be aware of it--on the contrary, the idea is to simulate it,
anyway, so that he can discover it.

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

I always thought I was the only one who sweated takeoffs more than landings.
I consider a perfect takeoff (at least from smooth pavement) one in which
you don't know you've left the ground until you look down.

mike
"A Lieberma" wrote in message
. 18...
"P S" wrote in news:1163209397.165388.182990
@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Most of the posters have been flying for too long and they forgot
how takeoff feels for a non-pilot or a new pilot.

Not this pilot. I call it magic EVERYTIME the wheels leave terra firma.

Especially when the air is calmer then calm and the plane pretty much does
what it was designed to do so effortlessy as the ground falls away from
me....

Allen

Hover? What kind of wind? What kind of craft? Alien?

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
I know that the aircraft I fly will hover for an
unusually long time just above the ground, which sounds an awful lot
like ground effect.

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