Gentle take-offs at high speed

Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

That tends to prove it's not in MSFS, because there is a way,
using indications in the panel vs. height, to see if there. I
failed last night to see it. Maybe just be a lousy simmer. Dumb
MSFS doesn't even know air density. Why simulate density's
cousin near the ground?

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.

Why tie up the CPU at a time (landing) you least want that? And
the clueless simmer can't see it anyway. It's several complex
formulae, to be calculated a couple times/second at least, and a
function of whole bunch of things, some MSFS don't even know about.

F--

mike regish writes:

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.

Statistically, nearly half of all accidents occur during landing, so
it's logical to be more worried about landings. Take-offs are more
fun, so perhaps that also distracts pilots from the potential risks.

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

TxSrv writes:

That tends to prove it's not in MSFS, because there is a way,
using indications in the panel vs. height, to see if there. I
failed last night to see it.

What indications were you looking for?

Why tie up the CPU at a time (landing) you least want that?

Most of the CPU power used in simulation is used to generate visuals.
The amount required for all of the rest of the simulation is trivial
in comparison. Simulating ground effect is insignificantly trivial
from the standpoint of CPU power required.

And the clueless simmer can't see it anyway.

Perhaps, but many simmers are not clueless, and expect a simulation of
real life.

It's several complex formulae, to be calculated a couple times/second
at least ...

Modern CPUs can do that half a million times faster without breaking a
sweat.

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

mike regish writes:

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

Powered fixed-wing aircraft.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Statistically, nearly half of all accidents occur during landing,

The Nall Report indicates 30% of all accidents occur during landing, not
50%.

It also indicates that only 3% of all fatal accidents occur during landing.

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:40:15 +0000, Jim Logajan wrote:
The Nall Report indicates 30% of all accidents occur during landing, not
50%.

It also indicates that only 3% of all fatal accidents occur during
landing.

One could argue that nearly every fatal accident is related to the
landing... Unless the person died during a mid-air collision and it was
obvious that they were dead before they hit the ground, they died upon
coming in contact with the ground (i.e. 'landing')... sick-grin

There are 3 ways to die:
1. During ground operations (i.e. before the aircraft has left the ground)
2. During flight (i.e. mid-air collision)
3. Upon impact with the ground (i.e. 'landing')

The recent accident up in KT where the airliner departed from the wrong
(i.e. too short) runway was a landing accident since they hit the berm or
whatever at the end of the runway and became airborn... It's rather
unlikely that *this* killed anyone, but the subsequent 'landing'
definitely did...

Y'All,
To learn something that is basically incorrect presents TWO problems. If
this is the first way you learned to perform it will be your first selection
of options when under stress.

Secondly, the greatest single quality of knowing something that has
fundamental faults is that
unlearning such a fault is the most difficult part of you knowledge to
remove.

Learning to do something correctly FIRST is the most important part of all
performance.
Think on it,
Gene Whitt


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
"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.

MX -

One of the things I think your theory is fundamentally neglecting is
the fact that most light GA aircraft cruise at a substantially lower
deck-angle than they sit on their wheels - this means if you try to do
anything near cruise speed while still on the ground, you'll be driving
your nosewheel into the ground whether or not your actively holding the
bird on the ground with elevator down pressure.

Vr exists for a reason... I was trained with the general consensus on
this board - begin pullback at VR, get the plane off the ground in
ground effect (you can clearly 'feel' the wheels leave the ground), and
then release the back-pressure until the aircraft accellerates to Vy
(or Vx, as the case may be) in ground effect, before setting up in a Vy
attitude climb.

Its interesting though - While most pilot's I talk too (including my
instructor) swear by this technique, I haven't seen much 'formal'
mention of it in the literature... It strikes me as being a cross
between a traditional and 'soft-field' takeoff. The FAA pilot's manual
warns that "premature rotation" can lead to settling back down on the
runway, and suggests a 'proper' takeoff is simply to set the Aircraft
in Vy attitude initially and let it fly off the runway, but my
instructor has warned me against becoming dependent on that technique,
especially if I ever hope to fly out of high DA airports...

I guess this is one of those areas where I'm still actively learning a
great deal.

-Scott

On Nov 12, 8:04 pm, wrote:
Y'All,
To learn something that is basically incorrect presents TWO problems. If
this is the first way you learned to perform it will be your first selection
of options when under stress.

Secondly, the greatest single quality of knowing something that has
fundamental faults is that
unlearning such a fault is the most difficult part of you knowledge to
remove.

Learning to do something correctly FIRST is the most important part of all
performance.
Think on it,
Gene Whitt

"Mxsmanic" wrote in messagenews:93fcl21iie0d6cs8s2hir1euv9edosdfek@4ax .com...

"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.

I'm not thinking in terms of risk, but of finesse.

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
mike regish writes:

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.

Statistically, nearly half of all accidents occur during landing, so
it's logical to be more worried about landings. Take-offs are more
fun, so perhaps that also distracts pilots from the potential risks.

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

Well, son, those don't hover without a significant headwind.

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
mike regish writes:

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

Powered fixed-wing aircraft.

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