Flaps on take-off and landing

Peter Duniho writes:

I lower the flaps for the preflight inspection so that I
can properly inspect the flap mechanisms, but then retract them after engine
start and before taxiing.

Doesn't flap movement require engine power?

IMHO, since you're not actually flying an airplane, I wouldn't worry about
it. Put the flaps down whenever you want.

The idea is to try to approach real life. Additionally, many things
are simulated. If adjusting flaps has a bad effect in real life,
there's a good chance that it has a bad effect in simulation as well.

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

Some airplanes use electric motors to move the flaps, some
use engine driven hydraulic pumps. Some use hand cranks and
some use a lever.

Most light aircraft use either a mechanical human powered
lever or crank or electric motors that will run on the
battery. Heavier airplanes, over 12,000 pounds often use
hydraulics. Sometimes the hydraulic pumps are electric
powered, but engine driven pumps are common.


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
| Peter Duniho writes:
|
| I lower the flaps for the preflight inspection so that I
| can properly inspect the flap mechanisms, but then
retract them after engine
| start and before taxiing.
|
| Doesn't flap movement require engine power?
|
| IMHO, since you're not actually flying an airplane, I
wouldn't worry about
| it. Put the flaps down whenever you want.
|
| The idea is to try to approach real life. Additionally,
many things
| are simulated. If adjusting flaps has a bad effect in
real life,
| there's a good chance that it has a bad effect in
simulation as well.
|
| --
| Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Peter Duniho writes:

I lower the flaps for the preflight inspection so that I
can properly inspect the flap mechanisms, but then retract them after engine
start and before taxiing.

Doesn't flap movement require engine power?

Depends on the aircraft. Some planes they are purely mechanical from
the flap handle in the cockpit. In others they are electric. On my
plane they are hydraulic, which is run from the engine if it is running
but has a backup "wobble pump" which I can use to retract them on the
ground if I forget to do so before shutdown.

My plane specs flaps up or 1/2 for takeoff (short field takeoff done
with 1/2). Landing can be done with any setting of flaps.

Ron Natalie writes:

Depends on the aircraft. Some planes they are purely mechanical from
the flap handle in the cockpit.

I'm surprised that a small handle in the cockpit would provide enough
leverage to lower flaps. Isn't there are a lot of aerodynamic
pressure to overcome against them (at least if they are lowered in
flight)?

I'm always surprised by how much is still mechanically linked in
aircraft. I'm not necessarily saying that's bad--simple is reliable,
generally speaking--but somehow I don't picture control surfaces as
something that one could easily move without assistance. I suppose
small planes are lighter than they appear, and just because the wings
look relatively big doesn't mean that they are heavy or hard to move.

My plane specs flaps up or 1/2 for takeoff (short field takeoff done
with 1/2). Landing can be done with any setting of flaps.

I've always been landing with flaps down completely, and usually
taking off with some flaps, as I had read that this was necessary (and
I had seen accident reports about pilots who crashed because they took
off without first lowering flaps). But from what you and others here
say it sounds like I have considerably more discretion in whether or
not I lower flaps for both operations.

Are there good reasons to lower flaps in flight, outside take-off and
landing? I've thought that they would be useful for increasing drag
and lowering airspeed, but since they apparently cannot be used at
high speeds I guess this isn't a good idea. Sometimes if one must
descend rapidly just idling the throttle doesn't seem to be enough to
stay below hazardous speeds, and few aircraft seem to have speed
brakes.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Natalie writes:


Depends on the aircraft. Some planes they are purely mechanical from
the flap handle in the cockpit.


I'm surprised that a small handle in the cockpit would provide enough
leverage to lower flaps.

Who said the handle is small? Some of these "handles" are 2 - 3 feet long.

Margy
Isn't there are a lot of aerodynamic
pressure to overcome against them (at least if they are lowered in
flight)?

Margy Natalie writes:

Who said the handle is small? Some of these "handles" are 2 - 3 feet long.

Where are they in the cockpit? I haven't seen many small cockpits; is
there a picture on the Net of one that has this kind of lever? It
sounds like it would be awkward to use in flight.

I go by what I've seen in the handful of pictures of cockpits that
I've encountered. Most of these are of jet aircraft, and the flap
lever is longer than most but hardly long enough to provide much
leverage.

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Margy Natalie writes:

Who said the handle is small? Some of these "handles" are 2 - 3 feet
long.

Where are they in the cockpit? I haven't seen many small cockpits; is
there a picture on the Net of one that has this kind of lever? It
sounds like it would be awkward to use in flight.

I go by what I've seen in the handful of pictures of cockpits that
I've encountered. Most of these are of jet aircraft, and the flap
lever is longer than most but hardly long enough to provide much
leverage.


In the StingSport LSA it's right where you would expect to find your
Toyota parking brake handle... in fact, it looks suspiciously like a
Toyota parking brake handle... grin

--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Mxsmanic wrote:
Margy Natalie writes:

Who said the handle is small? Some of these "handles" are 2 - 3 feet long.

Where are they in the cockpit? I haven't seen many small cockpits; is
there a picture on the Net of one that has this kind of lever? It
sounds like it would be awkward to use in flight.

I go by what I've seen in the handful of pictures of cockpits that
I've encountered. Most of these are of jet aircraft, and the flap
lever is longer than most but hardly long enough to provide much
leverage.


The lever arm for the flap handle in our RV-6 is something like two feet
long. It works just like a parking brake, though the forces are higher
(20lb maybe, up to 30+ when going to full).

As for the other control surfaces--the stick is directly connected (via
pushrods) to the ailerons and elevator. Even in flight, it takes a
maximum of one finger and your thumb to move the control surface and
make the airplane respond. It's not twitchy--the controls are just
light and easy to manipulate.

In pretty much every jet aircraft I can think of, the flap handle just
manipulates some sort of rotary sensor or microswitch that tells the
flaps where to go.

Every airplane with flaps has speed limits with flaps
extended. If there is a positive stop, they may have a
series of allowable speeds. The same sort of limits apply
to landing gear extension and operation with the gear
extended.

In some airplanes the gear is not to be extended at speeds
above a certain speed because the motor and linkage is not
strong enough, but once fully extended and lock down, the
airplane can be flown at a higher speed. Some airplanes can
have the gear extended at very high speed in an emergency,
but then the gear doors may be damaged and require
replacement or adjustment before the next flight.

Real airplanes and the simulators that exactly duplicate a
particular airplane are flown by the identical procedures.
Table-top PC "simulators" are more properly known as
training devices and they mimic some generic airplanes.

A real simulator costs more than the airplane it is
duplicating, a Beechjet or Boeing simulator can cost $8-10
million dollars or more. It is worthwhile because it
doesn't burn several thousand pounds of fuel per hour, can
be run nearly 24/7, rarely kills anyone and it is a safe
place to do things that can't be done safely in a real
airplane. Also, it allows the airplane to be out earning
revenue.

Even a PC based training device is very useful for learning
and practicing procedures, but you get what you pay for. A
King Air trainer with out full visual and motion still
allows learning all the systems and practicing the various
emergency and abnormal procedures.



"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
| Ron Natalie writes:
|
| Depends on the aircraft. Some planes they are purely
mechanical from
| the flap handle in the cockpit.
|
| I'm surprised that a small handle in the cockpit would
provide enough
| leverage to lower flaps. Isn't there are a lot of
aerodynamic
| pressure to overcome against them (at least if they are
lowered in
| flight)?
|
| I'm always surprised by how much is still mechanically
linked in
| aircraft. I'm not necessarily saying that's bad--simple
is reliable,
| generally speaking--but somehow I don't picture control
surfaces as
| something that one could easily move without assistance.
I suppose
| small planes are lighter than they appear, and just
because the wings
| look relatively big doesn't mean that they are heavy or
hard to move.
|
| My plane specs flaps up or 1/2 for takeoff (short field
takeoff done
| with 1/2). Landing can be done with any setting of
flaps.
|
| I've always been landing with flaps down completely, and
usually
| taking off with some flaps, as I had read that this was
necessary (and
| I had seen accident reports about pilots who crashed
because they took
| off without first lowering flaps). But from what you and
others here
| say it sounds like I have considerably more discretion in
whether or
| not I lower flaps for both operations.
|
| Are there good reasons to lower flaps in flight, outside
take-off and
| landing? I've thought that they would be useful for
increasing drag
| and lowering airspeed, but since they apparently cannot be
used at
| high speeds I guess this isn't a good idea. Sometimes if
one must
| descend rapidly just idling the throttle doesn't seem to
be enough to
| stay below hazardous speeds, and few aircraft seem to have
speed
| brakes.
|
| --
| Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Macklin" writes:

A real simulator costs more than the airplane it is
duplicating, a Beechjet or Boeing simulator can cost $8-10
million dollars or more.

Are there full-motions simulators for specific GA aircraft, such as
the Baron 58 that I've mentioned? The aircraft apparently costs about
$1 million to purchase today, so I should think that someone would
have simulators somewhere, but I don't know if a full-motion simulator
would be economical. If one exists, it would be fun to fly it.

It is worthwhile because it
doesn't burn several thousand pounds of fuel per hour, can
be run nearly 24/7, rarely kills anyone and it is a safe
place to do things that can't be done safely in a real
airplane. Also, it allows the airplane to be out earning
revenue.

Very similar to the reasons for using a PC-based simulator. You get
many of the advantages and avoid many of the disadvantages of a real
aircraft.

Even a PC based training device is very useful for learning
and practicing procedures, but you get what you pay for. A
King Air trainer with out full visual and motion still
allows learning all the systems and practicing the various
emergency and abnormal procedures.

Are there specific simulator packages for specific aircraft that run
on a PC? I've only used MSFS, mainly because it has a very good
all-around blend of the kinds of features one might want in a
simulator, but I've heard that there are other programs that are very
good for specific purposes, such as very intensive IFR training or
very accurate flight models.

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