![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hmmm...what a coincidence.
I am presently being taught VOR as a student pilot in AZ. My instructor told me that that will be the way I'll be taught to fly cross country. I do plan on getting my instrument rating so it will be very useful. Gary "Roy Smith" wrote in message ... I flew with somebody recently who just got their instrument rating a few months ago, in a GPS-equipped airplane. His GPS and BAI skills were fine, but when I suggested we fly one leg without the GPS, just using VORs and a chart for en-route navigation, he said he had never done that in training. He was taught that if the GPS should ever die, the fallback would be to use the #2 radio to request vectors. The only real use he had made of VORs was to fly a VOR approach (mostly partial-panel, because that's what the checkride required), never en-route. Is this really the way new instrument students are being taught these days? Is the VOR already dead in the classroom? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roy,
I found the VOR weakness along with numerous others when an SR-22 pilot came ro me after failing his instrument checkride. Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record. Gene Whitt |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article et, Gene Whitt wrote:
Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record. I've got no time in the SR-22, but I've talked to a few who have, and they agree with Michael's assesment: it's a complex airplane minus a few knobs (while my Arrow is a non-complex with a few extra knobs). I was flying into a busy airport this morning, and was asked to keep my speed up. I went down the glideslope at Vle and still made the first turnoff. You can't do that in a slipery bird. Morris |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I thought Arrows had retractable gear, constant speed props and flaps?
That is complex in my book. Jon Kraus PP-ASEL-IA '79 Mooney 201 Journeyman wrote: In article et, Gene Whitt wrote: Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record. I've got no time in the SR-22, but I've talked to a few who have, and they agree with Michael's assesment: it's a complex airplane minus a few knobs (while my Arrow is a non-complex with a few extra knobs). I was flying into a busy airport this morning, and was asked to keep my speed up. I went down the glideslope at Vle and still made the first turnoff. You can't do that in a slipery bird. Morris |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() In article , Jon Kraus wrote: I thought Arrows had retractable gear, constant speed props and flaps? That is complex in my book. It has all that, and fits the FAA definition of complex. But, since it's (relatively) slow and draggy, you don't have to fly it the same way you'd fly a higher performance bird. The SR-22 should be classed with the Mooneys and Bonanzas. The Arrow should be classed with the Skylanes and Cherokees. IOW, in the real world, what makes an airplane a handful to fly isn't the presence or absence of a couple of extra knobs. It's the need to be planning further out ahead of the plane. Morris |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:13:06 GMT, Jon Kraus
wrote: I thought Arrows had retractable gear, constant speed props and flaps? That is complex in my book. The Arrow is complex, but it is not high performance. (*over* 200 HP) It is also far, far slower than an SR-22. The 22 may have fixed gear, but it's a good 20 knots faster than many Bonanzas. The major hurtle is learning to think farther ahead. Jon Kraus PP-ASEL-IA '79 Mooney 201 Journeyman wrote: In article et, Gene Whitt wrote: Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record. I've got no time in the SR-22, but I've talked to a few who have, and they agree with Michael's assesment: it's a complex airplane minus a few knobs (while my Arrow is a non-complex with a few extra knobs). Your Arrow is a complex. I was flying into a busy airport this morning, and was asked to keep my speed up. I went down the glideslope at Vle and still made the first turnoff. You can't do that in a slipery bird. The Bo is slippery and a good short field bird and particularly the 33 series. Book figures have them landing shorter than a 172, or at least many of them. Then again the wing loading of the Bo is surprisingly light. My Deb is a tad lighter per sq ft than a Cherokee. The newer ones are a tad heavier, but still relatively light. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Morris |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Roger wrote:
Your Arrow is a complex. Sure, but is it any more complicated/difficult/challenging to fly than a fixed-gear Cherokee? Does a high-performance fixed-gear Skylane give you any more performance than a low-performance retract Arrow? Morris |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:20:36 -0500, Journeyman
wrote: In article , Roger wrote: Your Arrow is a complex. Sure, but is it any more complicated/difficult/challenging to fly than a fixed-gear Cherokee? Does a high-performance fixed-gear Skylane give you any more performance than a low-performance retract Arrow? Yes, it is a bit more challenging and complicated, but no more difficult. You have a constant speed prop and retractable gear which are more things to keep track of, but that is not the point. By definition it is a complex aircraft. OTOH High performance, which the Arrow is not, makes a really big difference with usually much faster, slipperier, and much less forgiving aircraft that require not only thinking much farther ahead, but learning the aircraft far better than say a 172 or Cherokee which are far more forgiving of mistakes. The Cherokees and Arrows are among the most forgiving aircraft out there. The SR-22 being even faster than a Bo, should not be thought of in terms normally reserved for "fixed gear" aircraft. It is a truly high performance aircraft. I would not call the SR22 any more complex than the Bo (if you neglect trying to program the GPS/MFD while en route). Besides, you don't have to worry about lowering the gear. I find the glass displays easy to fly, simpler to read, and even prefer them, to the regular instrument display, but it would take me hours to learn the GPS to the point where programming it in flight was instinctive. There are three things in transitioning to a much higher performance aircraft. Learn its limitations and the edges of the flight envelope well. Learn its systems, and develop a mind set that thinks in the terms of the speed at which you will be flying. Even the extra 20 plus knots from a Bo to the SR-22 takes a bit of conditioning. Going from 130 or 140 knots to 200 or better is a big step. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Morris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Plane Stopped in Midair | DM | Piloting | 53 | November 16th 04 10:08 PM |
"Radar sale to China stopped" | Mike | Military Aviation | 2 | May 28th 04 05:36 PM |
Teaching VORs / ADFs | BoDEAN | Piloting | 6 | January 7th 04 03:43 PM |
THE DAY THE 344TH STOPPED PATTON | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 56 | September 11th 03 08:28 AM |
looking for model aircraft for teaching ground school purposes | Sylvain | General Aviation | 3 | August 19th 03 01:35 AM |