Flaps on take-off and landing

Margy Natalie writes:

Never had someone hit me in a plane, in the car is another story. We
fly VFR rather frequently and get where we are going and back.

A key difference is that if you had been hit in a plane, you wouldn't
be here to talk about it.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Margy Natalie writes:


Never had someone hit me in a plane, in the car is another story. We
fly VFR rather frequently and get where we are going and back.


A key difference is that if you had been hit in a plane, you wouldn't
be here to talk about it.

Not always, there have been cases of planes landing together after a
mid-air and many accidents happen on the ground also. I know a gentleman
who flew in WWII and tells a great story of his first mid-air where the
opponent removed half his wing. Listeners often ask how he managed to
get back to the field and he explains it was going just fine when he was
jumped again and had to dogfight with half a wing. He managed to get
back to base and flew for many, many years after.

Margy

Margy Natalie writes:

Not always, there have been cases of planes landing together after a
mid-air and many accidents happen on the ground also. I know a gentleman
who flew in WWII and tells a great story of his first mid-air where the
opponent removed half his wing. Listeners often ask how he managed to
get back to the field and he explains it was going just fine when he was
jumped again and had to dogfight with half a wing. He managed to get
back to base and flew for many, many years after.

In the old days, when planes were simple, slow, and relatively sturdy,
things were very different. When I read Lindbergh's account of his
New York-Paris flight and related stories, I was struck by how simple
aviation was in those days. No licenses, no navaids beyond a compass
or maybe a simple radio homing device, land anywhere it's flat, etc.
He used to fly by just looking down out the window, even in bad
weather. And his most famous flight was accomplished with a maritime
chart he found in a San Diego shop, a compass, and a watch.

Unfortunately, aviation is much more complicated, restrictive, and
expensive now, even for private pilots. Never mind about flying
something bigger than a tiny private plane.

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

I still prefer to look out a real window and follow rivers
and streams. Roads and railroads are to straight.



"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
| Margy Natalie writes:
|
| Not always, there have been cases of planes landing
together after a
| mid-air and many accidents happen on the ground also. I
know a gentleman
| who flew in WWII and tells a great story of his first
mid-air where the
| opponent removed half his wing. Listeners often ask how
he managed to
| get back to the field and he explains it was going just
fine when he was
| jumped again and had to dogfight with half a wing. He
managed to get
| back to base and flew for many, many years after.
|
| In the old days, when planes were simple, slow, and
relatively sturdy,
| things were very different. When I read Lindbergh's
account of his
| New York-Paris flight and related stories, I was struck by
how simple
| aviation was in those days. No licenses, no navaids
beyond a compass
| or maybe a simple radio homing device, land anywhere it's
flat, etc.
| He used to fly by just looking down out the window, even
in bad
| weather. And his most famous flight was accomplished with
a maritime
| chart he found in a San Diego shop, a compass, and a
watch.
|
| Unfortunately, aviation is much more complicated,
restrictive, and
| expensive now, even for private pilots. Never mind about
flying
| something bigger than a tiny private plane.
|
| --
| Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Macklin" writes:

I still prefer to look out a real window and follow rivers
and streams. Roads and railroads are to straight.

What's wrong with being straight?

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
"Jim Macklin" writes:

I still prefer to look out a real window and follow rivers
and streams. Roads and railroads are to straight.

What's wrong with being straight?

Not enough distinguishing features to make them useful landmarks.

Though, that said, they can still be quite useful if you are in an area with
only a few roads, or you already have a pretty good idea of where you are,
or you cross-reference a road or railroad or similar feature with some more
distinctive feature.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

"Jim Macklin" writes:


I still prefer to look out a real window and follow rivers
and streams. Roads and railroads are to straight.

What's wrong with being straight?


Not enough distinguishing features to make them useful landmarks.

Though, that said, they can still be quite useful if you are in an area with
only a few roads, or you already have a pretty good idea of where you are,
or you cross-reference a road or railroad or similar feature with some more
distinctive feature.

Pete


Gee, I was thinking following roads was too boring, just straight and
level. Following streams and creeks is much more fun. My primary
instructor took me out in a tail-dragger to "learn what a rudder is for"
by following rivers and creeks.

Margy

Peter Duniho writes:

Not enough distinguishing features to make them useful landmarks.

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.

Though, that said, they can still be quite useful if you are in an area with
only a few roads, or you already have a pretty good idea of where you are,
or you cross-reference a road or railroad or similar feature with some more
distinctive feature.

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?

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

Mxsmanic,

Unfortunately, aviation is much more complicated, restrictive, and
expensive now, even for private pilots


You couldn't be more wrong. Back then, flying airplanes was
unaffordable for the vast majority of the population. Not the case
today.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

You couldn't be more wrong. Back then, flying airplanes was
unaffordable for the vast majority of the population. Not the case
today.

I couldn't be more right. Flying airplanes was much more affordable
back then, as there was almost no overhead beyond the price of the
plane and some minimal maintenance. There were no licenses,
certificates, lessons, airport fees, regulations, terrorist hysteria,
etc., and fuel was cheap. Piloting was available to practically
anyone who wanted to try it. Flying real planes was similar to flying
hang gliders today. It was a hobby, mostly. Today it's a business,
mostly.

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